Gabriel Domingues's page

Well I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree, since I don't think it's unreasonable, since physical armours do stack in the real world, even if one is weaker than the other.

Anyhows, I guess that might wrap it up for this thread, as everyone seems to have lost interest. If we come up with any new ideas on DR as armour it's probably best to start a new thread.

Well, following your suggestion about using fixed DR for armor, I was thinking about something like this lastly:

LIGHT ARMOR
Padded -------- DR 1 --- Max Dex +6 ---- Check Penalty 0
Leather ------- DR 2 --- Max Dex +5 ---- Check Penalty -1

MEDIUM ARMOR
Chainmail ----- DR 3 --- Max Dex +3 ---- Check Penalty -3

HEAVY ARMOR
Scalemail ----- DR 4 --- Max Dex +1 ---- Check Penalty -5
Platemail ----- DR 5 --- Max Dex +0 ---- Check Penalty -6

This suggestion tries to streamline armors, dropping piecemeal sets (like chainshirt and breastplate), also keeping in mind that we cannot convert armor bonus to DR in a 1:1 fashion because of the balance issues (avoids making d4 and d6 weapon inutile against a platemail with a DR of 8, for example).

So, I agree with you that armor as DR should use a fixed and not a variable DR. I just don´t know exactly how should we rule the stacking of natural armor with manufactured armor DR, or even if they should stack.

As an optional rule for combining natural & manufactured armor DR bonus, I suggest the following:

Characters (or monsters) with DR from natural armor and from manufactured armor should use the DR of the source of protection with the greatest DR value, plus a +1 DR bonus if the secondary source of protection provides a DR of at least 1/2 the DR of the primary source of protection.

E.g.:
A character with a natural armor 4 (DR 4) wearing a platemail (DR 5) would have a total DR 6 (5 + 1).

A character with natural armor 1 (DR 1) wearing a padded (DR 1), would have a total DR 2 (1 + 1).

Lastly, a character with natural armor 1 (DR 1) wearing a chainmail (DR 3) would have a total DR 3 (3 + 0).

Well, since I prefer fixed DRs I was thinking of a creature with 4 points of natural armour DR and 4 points of regular armour DR. Under your variable system I guess it'd be a monster with natural DR 4 wearing Hide armour (1d4 DR according to your earlier post), which would offer it no advantage.

A creature with natural armor fixed DR 4, must be compared to an armor wich confers the SAME average protection (wich, in case, is the platemail, 1d8 DR, average DR 4.5) to get some benefit from the natural armor stackling according to the rules I have proposed. In the other hand, if a creature with natural armor fixed DR 4 is wearing a Hide Armor (DR 1d4, average 2.5), it is quite reasonable that it will not get any benefit from the hide armor since this last one provides a much weaker protection.

Oh, and the average for the DR 4-8 example you gave is 5.25, not 6. It's not a uniform distribution like 1d5+3. There's a 50% chance of a '4' result and a 12.5% chance of 5, 6, 7 or 8. So, the result will be 4 half the time and a uniform 5-8 (mean 6.5) the other half, averaging (4+6.5)/2 = 10.5/2 = 5.25.

Alternatively, you can calculate the average as (4+4+4+4+5+6+7+8)/8 for the same result.

Thanks for the help with the maths (I´m just a lawer). But even after your "math correction" the average for stacking natural armor and the platemail in the DR 4-8 example (5.25 average) is +1 better than the average for the same character with natural armor fixed DR 4, but without the platemail (DR always 4, instead of 5.25). So it is not a pointless incuberance indeed.

Gabriel Domingues wrote:

I don't think that grappling characters receive a penalty on Dexterity.

Yes, they do.

Pg.77: "If successful, both you and the target gain the grappled condition (see the Glossary chapter)".

Pg.155 (Glossary chapter, under Grappled): "Grappled creatures cannot move and take a –4 penalty to their Dexterity".

Ok Samuli, I forgot the fact that in PFRPG they have added a -4 penalty to Dexterity while in grapple condition (thus, -2 penalty to Dex based skill checks).

However, you forgot to quote the rest of the paragraph on p. 155, and without the entire quote, I think we cannot understand the rule of p. 155 correctly.

Let´s see again PFRPG p. 155, under grappled: "Grappled creatures cannot move and take a –4 penalty to their Dexterity [-2 penalty on all Dexterity based skill checks]. A grappled creature takes a –2 penalty on all attack rolls and combat maneuver checks, [b]except those made to grapple or escape a grapple.[b]"

The last part of the paragraph clearly stats that the -2 penalty to attack rolls (wich is simetrical to the -2 penalty to Dex based skill checks) does not apple to checks made to escape from a grapple. So, as much as the attack penalty from grapple condition does not apply to checks made to escape from a grapple, the same logic should be applyed to the Dexterity penalty, wich should apply to the Escape Artist skill checks made to escape from a grapple.

I think Paizo should make this clarification on the rules, since it´s logical.

ok, use a wizard instead of a rogue in the example then.

The wizard will have as much problem to escape from a fighter´s grapple, as a fighter will have to escape from a wizard´s "forcecage" spell, or similar effect. With a special detail: the wizard at least has a "hope" to escape with lucky roll, while the fighter will never be able to do it, since he cannot use a "disintegrate" spell to dispell the forcecage (or even a dispel magic to dispel other similar magic effects).

So, what I´m trying to show (and I know you can understand it perfectly) is that every class has its weakeness. Grappling is one of the wizard's weakenness, and there is nothing we can do (and we shouldn´t do) to change that. A clever wizard will always try to stay out of grappler's range.

Escape Artist is based on Dex though, and characters in a grapple suffer a Dex penalty. Escape Artist is also a skill that tends to get minimalized relative to most other skills, since it's generally less useful.

I don't think that grappling characters receive a penalty on Dexterity. Pinned characters are treated as flat-footed but only against non-grappling characters, not for escape purposes.

For the minimalization of the Escape Artist skill, I just cannot believe that with the actual skill merge promoted by PFRPG, a Rogue will complain that he do not have enough skill points to invest in such a precious skill.

The +4 for Improved Grab was indeed suggested on this thread - it is pretty much the reason the thread was started. I think its a good idea and was trying to lobby support for it.

I support that idead too, and would like to contribute to this debate helping to clarify a point that hasn´t been discussed yet.

First of all we should note that the Improved Grab special ability is a typical trait of most monsters that relly on grapple as their main attack and have physical anatomies built for grappling.

But someone might ask: Why the Improved Grapple Feat, as written in the PHB 3.5, provides the ability to start a grapple without provoking attacks of opporttunity plus a +4 bonus on grapple checks, while the Improved Grab, as written in the MM 3.5, just provides the ability to start a grapple without provoking attacks of opportunity, but without any bonus on grapple checks?

My answer to this question: Because of a little mistake of WotC on the revision of the 3.0e to the 3.5e.

In 3.0e, there wasn´t a Feat called "Improved Grapple" in the PHB 3.0, and all other "Improved Maneuver Feats" (e.g. Imrpoved Bullrush, Improved Trip etc.) of that time, didn´t provide any bonuses to the maneuver "opposed rolls". Most of these feats only enabled the characters to perform the special maneuvers "without provoking attacks of opportunity".

In the other hand, we also had in the MM 3.0 an special ability called "Improved Grab", that enabled some monsters with physical anatomies built for grappling to start a grapple "without provoking attacks of opporttunity", but also didn´t provide any bonus on opposed grapple checks.

Still in 3.0e, WotC released the "Oriental Adventures", wich firstly introduced the Improved Grapple Feat. At that time, the Improved Grapple Feat only enabled the characters to start a grapple without provoking attacks of opporttunity, without providing any bonuses on grapple checks (in simetry with the other maneuver feats of the PHB 3.0, and with the Improved Grab special ability presented in the MM 3.0). The benefit of the Improved Grapple Feat, as written in the p. 63 of Oriental Adventures, was: "If you hit with an unarmed strike, you deal normal damage and can attempt to start a grapple as a free action without provoking an attack of opportunity. No initial touch attack is required.

Note the simetry between Improved Grab, the Improved Grapple Feat, and the other Maneuver Feats of that time (3.0e).

Then came the 3.5e, and WotC to make the maneuver Feats more attractive for the players added to then a +4 bonus on opposed maneuvers checks. Also, in 3.5e, the "Improved Grapple" feat was firstly introduced in the PHB, but different from the original 3.0 version presented in Oriental Adventures, the Improved Grapple Feat now provided a +4 bonus on opposed grapple checks, in simetry with the other Maneuver Feats of the PHB 3.5.

In that time WotC also changed the size modifiers for grapple, from +1,+2,+4,+8 to +4,+8,+12,+16. In the other hand, the Improved Grab special ability, presented in the MM 3.5, remained unchanged (that is, only providing the ability to start a grapple without provoking attacks of opportunity, but none bonuses on opposed grapple checks).
With that, the Improved Grab special ability lost the simetry it used to have in 3.0e with the other Maneuver Feats, specially Improved Grapple. And why WoTC did this, why WotC haven´t updated the Improved Grab in 3.5e? Two theories.

1st theory: On the revision of the MM from 3.0 to 3,5, WotC commited a mistake and *forgot* to updated the Improved Grab special ability, making Improved Grab lose the simetry it used to have with Improved Grapple and the other maneuver feats presented in the PHB.

2nd theory: WoTC opted to not update the Improved Grab special ability in the MM 3.5 (that is, to not make it confer a +4 bonus on grapple checks), because in the 3.5 revision WotC had also increased the size bonuses to grapple checks (from +1,+2,+4,+8 to +4,+8,+12,+16), so if they made the Improved Grab provide the +4 bonus in simetry with the other Maneuver Feats of the PHB, it would make the monsters with improved grab even extremely strong, breaking the balance.

Then with the announciment of 4e, Paizo took WotC legacy of 3.5e rules, and released another revision called Pathfinder (populary known as the "3.75e"). In PFRPG the grapple rules from 3.5e suffered 3 basic changes: (i) the CMB was introduced and the base Grapple DC has been increased to 15 (instead of DC 11, wich was the average of an opposed d20 roll in 3.5e); (ii) the size bonuses to grapple were reduced back to the original 3.0e values (+1,+2,+4,+8); (iii) the Improved Grapple Feat bonus was reduced from +4 to +2 (as with all other Maneuver Feat bonuses). In the other hand, the Improved Grab special ability from monsters remained unchanged in PFRPG.

So, in PFRPG, Monsters that relly in Improved Grab were penalized with the increase of the Grapple Maneuver base DC to 15, and with the reduction of their size bonus to grapple, however, PFRPG designers missed that, by increasing grapple Base DC to 15 and, specially, by reducing the monster's size bonus to grapple, they should had updated the Improved Grab special ability too, in order to offset the new penalties imposed. As a result, monsters with Improved Grab in PFRPG cannot grapple anymore as they used to grapple in 3.0 and 3.5e.

Now that we know exactly the origins of the problem, we can start to think about the possible solutions. In my opinion, we have two options:

1st option:
-Keep Grapple base DC as 15 (afterall, most people agree that a grapple maneuver is more difficult to perform than a normal attack);
-Make the Improved Grab special ability provide a plain +4 bonus on grapple checks, and increase the Improved Grapple Feat bonus from +2 to +4 to keep the simetry (It is also important to note that Improved Grab special ability and Improved Grapple Feat bonuses cannot stack, since most monsters with Improved Grab cannot and will not, if ever, take the Improved Grapple Feat. Firstly because Improved Grapple and its prerequisite, the Unarmed Strike Feat, are Feats originally designed for humanoid characters who do not have natural attacks, and are an absolute nonsense for monsters that relly on natural attacks). Secondly because both Improved Unarmed Strike and Improved Grapple Feats reflect a kind of martial trainment, something that these unintelligent monsters with Improved Grab will never attain);
-As a result, "untrained grapplers" (that is, monsters and characters without Improved Grab or Improved Grapple) will have to beat a DC of 15 to successfully grapple, while "trained grapplers" (that is, monsters and characters with Improved Grab or Improved Grapple) will have to beat a DC of only 11 (15 - 4 from Improved Grab or Improved Grapple), wich is the base DC pointed by most of people in these boards as being the "ideal number".

2nd option:
-Lower Grapple (and other maneuvers) base DC to 10 (as some fans have requested);
-Make both Improved Grab and Improved Grapple provide no grapple bonuses, only enable the monster or character to start a grapple without provoking an attack of opportunity (as in 3.0e).
-As a result, both "untrained" and "trained grapplers" would have to beat a base DC 10 to start a grapple, but "trained grapplers" would be able to attempt to start a grapple without provoking attacks of opporturnity, while "untrained grapplers" would not (also remember that, according to PFRPG rules, the damage from the opportunitty attack provoked increases the base DC to perform the maneuver).

Besides which I think there should be some benefit to wearing both natural & artificial armour, since there are plenty of D&D monsters that do so, and under your system if their natural armour is better it's a pointless encumbrance.

Absolutely not a pointless encumbrance. Take your previous example. A monster with a original natural armor bonus of +8. If we convert it to a fixed DR of 4 (1/2 monster's original natural armor bonus), this monster will have the same average protection of a character wearing a platemail, wich confers a variable DR of 1d8 (average 4.5).

However, if this monster with fixed DR 4 from natural armor chooses to wear a platemail, he will have a great benefit. This monster will be able to use the "good rolls" from his platemail variable DR (results of 5-8), but won´t be prejudiced by the "bad rolls" of the armor variable DR (results of 1-3), since his natural armor confers a fixed DR of 4. That is, the monster, with fixed DR 4 from natural armor, wearing a platemail, will have a variable DR of 4-8 (average 6), while the same monster without the platemail will have a fixed DR of 4.

In the other hand, a character wearing the same platemail, but without natural armor, will have a variable DR of 1-8 (average 4.5), wich is worst then the monster in platemail with a DR of 4-8 (average 6).

Maybe a variable+fixed DR? That way you can represent a creature with uniform excellent protection (DR 1d4+4) and one that has excellent protection on some body parts, poor on others (DR 1d8).

It´s a very creative suggestion indeed. I support that. The only problem I see is that you cannot create a general conversion rule to implement this idea. To implement this idea you would need to analyse each monster from the Manual, and set the "variable+fixed" DR according to a case by case analysis. Not very practical, though it would be excellent as an optional rule, or for a future realease of a completely new Monster Manual.

As for the DR stacking suggestion. [...]

Hmm, maybe adding a fraction of the lower DR would be a better approach? Something like 1/3. It'd certainly be simpler.

[...]

It has a problem in the midranges though, i.e. a double layer of Chainmail would offer identical protection to a layer of chainmail and a chainshirt, and the latter is cheaper, lighter and probably imparts lower penalties.

I think that the stacking of manufactured armor is not a problem that rules should care about. Indeed, most heavy armors already supposes the stacking of other armor in their natural built. Take the fullplate for example. Bellow the metal plates, specially in the joints, what you will find is the chainmail. So I don´t think that rules should confer a bonus for players stacking manufactured armor. What must be covered by the rules is the stacking of the natural armor + manufactured armor.

Thinking on balancing issues, I have already posted my suggestion above (manufactured and natural armor never stack, just use wichever is greater). Your suggestion is not bad too, but adds more complexity and doesn´t sound like 3e rules, since the 3e rules rarely, if ever, relly on fractions to rule anything due to simplicity obsession.

Don't like that, firstly there should be as much variability in the placement and thickness of natural armour as artificial armour. Many monsters have thick shells on only part of their body, and the like.

It´s true that many monsters have natural armor represented by thick shells that protect only part of their body. However, these are a minority. The major part of monsters with natural armor are represented by monsters with an extraordinary tough skin that equally protects all parts of monster bodies. (E.g. Dragons, Ogres, etc.). A good must be made to catch the average cases, not thinking on the exceptions. Afterall, on special cases (when natural armor represented by thick shells protect only part of a monster´s body) you can always rule or let the players make called shots to avoid the natural armor.

In the other hand, manufactured armor will never, ever, cover equally all parts of an humanoi´s body with an equal protection (not even the fullplate).

So that´s the reason why I think that natural armor should always provide a fixed DR, while manufactured armor will always provide a variable DR.

Secondly, if you convert two monsters from the MM, one with +8 armour from full plate and the other with +8 natural armour from thick scales, the second monster ends up much better off, with 8 DR instead of 2-8.

I think they'd be better off both using variable DR.

The monsters presented in the Monstrous Manual have a natural armor progression based on their hit dice. So you will see that in most cases, if you use their BAB as a Base Defense Bonus, this Base Defense Bonus will be very near to their natural armor bonus, resulting that they will keep the same original AC.

The problem is when you have to convert monsters with high CR and huge natural armor bonuses. If you simply convert their natural armor bonus to fixed DR, you will get some broken DR numbers, making then virtually impossible to hurt (e.g. an elder Red Dragon).

To avoid that, I use the following rule when converting monster with high CR and natural armor bonuses:

Fixed DR = 1/2 monster´s original natural armor bonus.

For that reason, I do not use the limited stacking rule you have proposed, also because it can lead to some inconvenients, such as, according to your rule when a monster with natural armor +1 and stacking with a padded armor (+1 DR) would get +3 DR bonus. Off course you could make an errata/clarification to your armor stacking rule, but you must agree that it would add even more complexity.

For the ones who are willing to trade gameplay speed for a good DR rule, I suggest using this:

Base Defense Bonus = Base Attack Bonus (this rule works even for monsters, since the natural armor bonus math presented in the Monster Manual already scales according to the monster´s hit dice).

Armor as Variable DR:

I suggest the adoption of a variable Damage Reduction for armor, in simetry with the already variable damage from weapons. Thus:

LIGHT
Padded - DR = 1; Max Dex = +8
Leather - DR = 1d2; Max Dex = +6
Studded - DR = 1d3; Max Dex = +5

MEDIUM
Hide - DR = 1d4; Max Dex = +4
Chain - DR = 1d5(*); Max Dex = +3

HEAVY
Scalemail - DR = 1d6; Max Dex = +2
Platemail - DR = 1d8; Max Dex = +1
Fullplate - DR = 2d4(**); Max Dex = +1

(*) To emulate a "d5", roll a d10 and consider results of 1-2 as "1", 3-4 as "2", 5-6 as "3", 7-8 as "4", and 9-0 as "5".

(**) The fullplate with a variable DR of 2d4 has a average DR of 5, wich is better than the platemail with a variable DR of 1d8 and an average result of 4.5.

Also, by adopting variable armor DR, you do not make low damage weapons useless against DR armors, that is, d6 and some d4 weapons will still be useful.

Natural Armor DR vs. Manufactured Armor DR

According to the rules presented above, since manufactured armor provides DR it is logical that natural armor will have to provide DR too.

However, natural armor DR works different from manufactured armor DR, because:

1st - Natural Armor provides a "fixed" DR equal to the character´s natural armor bonus, while Manufactured Armor provides a variable DR (1d2, 1d3, 1d4, etc).

2nd - Natural Armor DR does not stack with Manufactured Armor variable DR. Whenever you roll a low result for your manufactured armor variable DR (e.g. you roll a "1" in a d4 for your hide armor DR), you can use your natural armor DR instead, if it is greater (e.g. in the previous example, if the character also has a natural armor of 2, he could use his natural armor as DR, instead of the manufactured armor DR).

Remember that a rogue can use Escape Artist Skill to escape from a grapple, and that the Escape Artist skill has a better progression than Fighter's BAB (Escape Artist = rogue´s character level + 3).

Also, a rogue who really wants to stay out from grapplings, can take the skill focus feat to boost his Escape Artist skill even more, gainning an additional +3 bonus (for a total skill bonus equal to his Character level + 6).

You also have reffered to the problem of creatures that are not going to have those maneuver feats. It´s an easy problem to solve. Since most creatures that relly on grapple maneuvers normally have the "IMPROVED GRAB" special ability, just let the "Improved Grab" provide a +4 bonus on grapple checks. With this little tweak your problem is solved.

The problems with that is it a) really benefits the fighter who can afford to spend alot of those feats - far more than other classes - combined with his already 1 for 1 BAB per level.

What is the problem in having Feats that can benefit the Fighter? Isn´t the fighter supposed to be the class who can extract more benefits from a wide selection of feats?

Isn´t the fighter the archtype of the skilled warrior, the one with superior techniques and combat skills, opposed to the Barbarian who rellies on his instincts and brute force?

Do you really think that other classes need to be as good as fighters when performing combat maneuvers?

b) it doesn't help all of the the non-core maneuvers that have been discussed here that do not have such a feat.

What are the core maneuvers that doesn´t have specific any Feats for?

Bullrush, Disarm, Grapple, Overrun, Sunder, Trip, all have feats.

And why Paizo cannot create new feats for the other maneuvers that doesn´t have specific feats for?

And at last, if all these argumments aren´t enough for you, tell me: Do you have any other better idea to help paizo to SOLVE this problem?

In my opinion you could keep CMB base DC as 15.

In the other hand, you could rise the Maneuver Feat bonus from +2 to +4 (as they already are in D&D 3.5).

As a Result you would have a Base DC 15 for untrained characters attempting combat maneuvers, ...

AND... a Base DC 11 for trained characters attempting combat maneuvers with the specific feats (DC 15 -4 from the feat = DC 11).

In my opinion you could keep CMB base DC as 15.

In the other hand, you could rise the Maneuver Feat bonus from +2 to +4 (as they already are in D&D 3.5).

As a Result you would have a Base DC 15 for untrained characters attempting combat maneuvers, ...

AND... a Base DC 11 for trained characters attempting combat maneuvers with the specific feats (DC 15 -4 from the feat = DC 11).

Scaling Spell DCs is a MUST be rule for PFRPG.

However, to introduce it you have to make some other adjustments to make HIGHER LEVEL SPELL still better than low level damaging spells.

In order to do that you should introduce a damage cap on these spells, as following:

9th level spells - max. dmg 20d6 (and rework meteor swarm).

8th level spells - max. dmg 18d6.

7th level spells - max. dmg 16d6.

6th level spells - max. dmg 14d6.

5th level spells - max. dmg 12d6.

4th level spells - max. dmg 10d6.

3rd level spells - max. dmg 10d6 (as they already are).

Without this dmg cap, you cannot use spell scaling DCs.

Changing concealment to an AC bonus strikes me as a bad idea. First of all, concealment does something different than most AC bonuses. Most AC deflects the attack in some way. Concealment prevents the attacker from effectively targeting a person.

For example, firing a gun into a room filled with smoke - it doesn't make it harder to hit anyone - the bullet goes right through the smoke. So, if you happen to point in the right direction, no difference than if there was no smoke. But, the smoke may mean you have to 'guess' which could mean missing the target completely, or hitting a different target...

So, I like the...

Concealment rules are an oddly inovation of 3.0e.

Everybody knows the difference between cover and concealment. If your target has total concealment (e.g. from dense smoke or total darkness), what may happen to occur is that you will not be able see the right square the target is occuping.

And if you make an attack targeting the wrong square, it is an automatic miss, simple as that.

However, if you happen to randonly target the RIGHT square, even so, the concealment (darkness, smoke, foliage) still DOES represent something that makes your target HARDER to hit.

It makes false the statment that "firing a gun into a room filled with smoke - it doesn't make it harder to hit anyone - the bullet goes right through the smoke", because, if you cannot see your target, it will always be harder to hit, even if you pin point the right square.

In the other hand, I fail to understand how a character fighting in melee against someone with less than total concealment (e.g. dim light) has to roll a "miss chance" intead of taking a penalty in his attack roll. It doesn´t make any sense.

Instead of fixing cover rules (wich doesn´t need to be changed), they should fix/review the concealment rules.

It would be much better to see concealment rules more like they did in 4e, that is, remove the miss chance rolls. Surely that change would help PFRPG a lot, since you remove a great part of the miss chance rolls for the game.

I suggest something simple as that:

+2 bonus to AC for concealment.

+4 bonus to AC for total concealment.

Concealment bonus (+2 AC) would be provided while the target is in lightly obscured places, such as:
-dim light, light foliage or light fog/smoke when the target is NOT adjacent to the attacker;
-heavy foliage or dense fog/smoke when the target IS adjacent to the attacker;

Total Concealment bonus (+4 AC) would be provided while the target is in heavily obscured places, such as:
- heavy foliage or dense fog/smoke when the target is NOT adjacent to the attacker;
- total darkness, or attacker blinded or cannot see the target, target is invisible;

The +4 bonus to AC provided from total concealment also equal the old -4 penalty to attack rolls that blindness and darkness used to impose at 2e AD&D.

Lastly, change the Blind-fight feat. Instead of allowing you to reroll the miss chance, simply rule that the Blind-fight Feat let you ignore one-half of the target´s concealment bonus to AC.

I suggest keep the "Decipher Script + Speak Language" merged, but make explicit on the rules that a character learns one extra language for each 2 ranks he has in the Linguistics skill.

Gabriel Domingues wrote:

[It is possible to introduce BDB to D&D however you need to acept the following tweaks:

- Give to characters, NPCs and Monsters BDB = BAB.
.....

Just some thoughts.

That ends up increasing the brokenness at high levels since it makes it even harder for lower martial classes such as rogues to hit fighters because AC's keeps improving faster than the attackers BAB advancement. Essentially you also drag out the combats much longer too.

Your system makes it really suck to be anything less than 100% martial.
Effectively you have doubled the difficulty factor for the lesser capable combatant.

Point taken Ferris. I admit, the fault was mine, because I haven´t explained my system as a whole.

To compensate that "brokenness" at higher levels, especially for rogues, you shouled consider also other rules I currently use:

- Flat-footed: A character flat-footed loses its BDB;

- Feint: If a rogue successfully feint a character, that character loses its BDB on the next attack the rogue makes against him on the same round;

- Tumble: If a rogue sucessfully tumble throught a character, that character loses its BDB on the next attack the rogue makes against him on the same round;

- Flanking: A flanked character receives only 1/2 his BDB and takes -2 penalty on Defense (AC) against each flanking attacker (optionally, the flanked character may choose to "ignore" one of the flanking attackers. By doing so, he loses his BDB and takes a -4 penalty on AC against the "ignored" attacker, but keeps full BDB against the other "non-ignored" attacker).

Clerics have spells that can drastically increase their BAB (sometimes, even exceeding Figther´s BAB), so this system is not a problem for then.

Also, I suggest you to try to convert some monsters from MM I, according to the rules I have posted above (BAB = BDB; Natural Armor/2 = DR), and you will see how it does perfectly fits and keeps the AC of converted monsters exactly the same (or very near).

Of course... I admit that these rules posted above may sound too drastical change to be adopted by PFRPG. Anyway, some people here may feel encouraged to use then as house rules.

For PFRPG, I think Laithoron´s suggestion is best.

We used the Class-based Defense Bonus (as well as Armor as DR) from Unearthed Arcana when if first came out. It was horrible. As a DM, all monsters had to be converted or changed, every PC spell caster took a level of Fighter (bonus feat + Fort save boost + instant +6 to AC). It really unbalanced game play, and nerfed encounters. While in general I like the idea of a Class-based Defense Bonus, I think it needs to be well thought out first.

The main drawback is that combat may end up getting drawn out because the AC of everything in the game suddenly improves. In order to balance this, it might be desireable to rule that Armor and Natural AC bonuses cannot stack and/or perhaps that Deflection and BDB bonuses do not stack.

It is possible to introduce BDB to D&D however you need to acept the following tweaks:

- Give to characters, NPCs and Monsters BDB = BAB.

- Armor Bonus and Natural Armor bonus provide Damage Reduction (instead of AC bonus).

- Manufactured Armor provides a variable Damage Reduction ("dice roll") (Padded DR = 1; Leather DR = 1d2; Studded DR = 1d3; Scalemail DR = 1d4; Chainmail DR = 1d5; Bandedmail DR = 1d6; Platemail DR = 1d8; Fullplate DR = 2d4).

- Natural Armor provides a fixed DR (e.g. Natural Armor +3 = DR 3/-).
For monster conversion, I suggest to use only 1/2 Natural Armor Bonus as DR.

- DR from Manufactured Armor and Natural Armor do not stack. If a character has both manufactured and natural armor, roll first variable manufactured armor DR, then compare with its Natural Armor DR, and apply wichever DR is greater.

- Shield and Deflection provide AC bonus, as normal.

- Damage Reduction from class features (such as Barbarian Damage Reduction) stack with DR provided by Manufactured Armor OR Natural Armor.

Just some thoughts.

Here´s an alternative Barbarian built, stacking to the original "rage/day", but including also "roar/day". Also exchanged "rage powers" for "barbarian feats". See what you think:

01 Rage 1/day, Power Attack
02 Barbarian Feat
03 Roar 1/day
04 Rage 2/day
05 Barbarian Feat
06 Roar 2/day
07 Damage Reduction 1/-
08 Rage 3/day, Barbarian Feat
09 Roar 3/day
10 Damage Reduction 2/-
11 Barbarian Feat
12 Rage 4/day, Roar 4/day
13 Damage Reduction 3/-
14 Barbarian Feat
15 Roar 5/day
16 Damage Reduction 4/-, Rage 5/day
17 Barbarian Feat
18 Roar 6/day
19 Damage Reduction 5/-
20 Barbarian Feat, Rage 6/day

Rage: A rage lasts for a number of rounds equal to 3 + Character (original) Con Mod.

A Barbarian can spontaneously enter rage as a free action. Also, whenever a Barbarian takes damage from an attack or spell,
he may involuntary enter in rage at the start of his next action, providing he has at least one daily rage lefting.
To avoid entering in rage in response to a damaging attack or spell, the Barbarian must make a Will Save (DC 10 + points
of damage taken).

While in rage, a Barbarian gains a +4 bonus to her Strength and Constitution, as well as a +2 morale bonus on Will saves.
In addition, he takes a –2 penalty to Armor Class.

A Barbarian can end his rage as a free action, if he succeeds in a Will Save against DC 15. After the rage ends, a Barbarian becomes fatigued for a number of rounds equal to the duration of
his rage. A Barbarian cannot enter a new rage while fatigued but can otherwise enter rage multiple times during a single
encounter or combat.

Roar: As a free action, the Barbarian can emit a powerful roar to demoralize his opponents. All opponents within
30 ft. radius of the Barbarian must make a Will save (DC 10 + 1/2 level + Str mod) or become shaken for 1d4 + 1 rounds.
A target who succeeds the save becomes immune to the intimidating effect of the roar for the rest of the encounter.
The roar can affect only opponents with equal or fewer HDs or levels than the barbarian.

Barbarian Feats:

Expeditius Rage [Barbarian Feat]
Benefit: While raging, the Barbarian gains an enhancement bonus to his speed equal to +10 feet, until his rage ends.

Unconsciousless Rage [Barbarian Feat]
Prerequisites: Rage (Barbarian class feature).
Benefit: The Barbarian can scorn unconsciusness while in rage. Even if reduced to 0 hit points, he is not
treated as disabled, nor he is treated as dying at -1 to -9 hit points, until his rage ends. At that point, the
effects of his wounds apply normally if they have not been healed.

Deathless Rage [Barbarian Feat]
Prerequisites: Rage (Barbarian class feature), Unconciousless Rage, 8th level Barbarian.
The Barbarian can scorn death while in rage. Even if reduced to -10 hit points or less, he continues
to fight normally until his rage ends. At that point, the effects of his wounds apply normally if they have not
been healed. This ability does not prevent death from massive damage or from spell effects such as disintegrate.

Control Rage [Barbarian Feat]
Prerequisites: Rage (Barbarian class feature).
Benefit: You learn to control your rage. You can choose to imediatelly enter in rage even when it isn't your
turn, and gain a +4 bonus on Will Saves to avoid involuntarily entering in rage or to end his rage.

Clear Mind [Barbarian Feat]
Prerequisistes: Rage (Barbarian class feature), Control Rage.
Benefit: A Barbarian may spend a rage to reroll a failed Will save. This power is used as an immediate action after the
save is failed. The savage must take the second result, even if it is worse.

Freedom [Barbarian Feat]
Prerequisistes: Rage (Barbarian class feature), Control Rage.
Benefit: The Barbarian may spend a rage to reroll a failed save to resist a effect that usually impedes movement, such
as paralysis, slow and web, or reroll a failed grapple check made to escape from a grapple or a pin. This power is
used as an immediate action after the save or grapple check is failed. The Barbarian must take the second result, even
if it is worse.

Tamed Rage [Barbarian Feat]
Prerequisites: Rage (Barbarian class feature), Control Rage, 14th level Barbarian.
Benefit: The Barbarian does not take any of the penalties from his rage. This includes the penalty to Armor Class and
the restriction on what actions can be performed.

Tireless Rage [Barbarian Feat]
Prerequisites: Rage (Barbarian class feature), 17th level Barbarian.
Benefit: The Barbarian no longer becomes fatigued at the end of her rage.

Greater Rage [Barbarian Feat]
Prerequisites: Rage (Barbarian class feature), 11th level Barbarian.
Benefit: The rage bonuses increases to +6 Str, +6 Con, and +3 Will save.

Mighty Rage [Barbarian Feat]
Prerequisites: Rage (Barbarian class feature), Greater Rage, 20th level Savage.
Benefit: The rage bonuses increases to +8 Str, +8 Con, and +4 Will save.

Howling Roar [Barbarian Feat]
Prerequisites: Roar (Barbarian class feature).
Benefit: Increase by +30 feet the range of the savage roar.

Ferocious Roar [Barbarian Feat]
Prerequisites: Roar (Barbarian class feature), Howling Roar.
Benefit: As a free action, the Barbarian can unleashe a terrifying roar to panick his opponents. All opponents within 30
ft. radius of the savage must make a Will save (DC 10 + 1/2 level + Str mod). Opponents with HDs or levels equal or
lower than the Barbarian become panicked for a number of rounds equal to 1d4, +1 per Barbarian level, and must make a Will Save
each round thereafter to recover from the panicking effect. A target who succeeds the save becomes immune to the
panicking effect of your roar for the rest of the encounter.

Extra Rage [Barbarian Feat]
Prerequisites: Rage (Barbarian class feature).
Benefit: Gain two extra rages/day.

Extended Rage [Barbarian Feat]
Prerequisites: Rage (savage class feature).
Benefit: Your rage lasts +5 rounds.

Extra Roar [Barbarian Feat]
Prerequisites: Roar (savage class feature).
Benefit: Gain two extra roars/day.

Mighty Roar [Barbarian Feat]
Prerequisites: Roar (savage class feature)
Benefit: Increase your Roar Will save DC by +2.

Sorry double post.

I have to say, I'm disappointed at returning to a full rank driven system. Removing the complexity from 3.5e is one of the most valuable things you can do with Pathfinder.

And the current implementation of "+3 to trained class skills" really encourages someone to put at least one rank into every single class skill to get all those free bonus points.

I my opinion a good implementation to PFRPG skills system would be to make it simple as that:

Trained Class Skills - 1d20 + ability modifier + Character level (maximum +20 bonus at 20th level).
(if you use the ranks system, you gain a +1 bonus for each 1 rank you put into the skill).

Trained Cross-class skills - 1d20 + ability modifier + 1/2 character level (maximum +10 bonus at 20th level).
(if you use the ranks system, you gain a +0.5 bonus for each 1 rank you put into the skill).

Advantages:
-Reduces complexity of the skills system, removing the odd math of "character level + 3" for calculating class skills, and "1/2(Character level +3)" for calculating cross-class skills.

-Simultaneously, keep the differences between classes wich are more capable of using a specific set of class skills (e.g. rogue and rangers in relation to the stealth skill).

-Lastly, the "+3" bonus from 3.5e is totally pointless. You do not need to give a +3 extra bonus at first level (increasing skill´s system complexity) just to make a "sound" difference between characters with trained class skills and characters with cross-class skill, at lower levels.

The difference between trained class skills and cross-class skills will be set by:

(i) different ability scores modifiers (e.g. while rogues focus on Dexterity and favor light armor, fighters use to focus on Strength and favor medium/heavy armor);

(ii) as characters advance in levels, the skill bonus progression will make the difference between trained class skills and cross-class skills become more and more apparent (also characters tend to improve their focused ability scores at 4th, 8th, 12th, 16th, and 20th, increasing their key ability modifiers).

(iii) Similar mechanic is already used by 3.5e and PFRPG if we compare Fighter´s BAB progression and Wizard´s BAB progression, specially at lower levels. At lower levels, what makes the difference between these BABs is more the focused ability scores, than the BAB progression for itself.

The rule presented bellow could be included in the PFRPG as a FEAT or as a COMBAT OPTION (no feat required) for characters using the full-attack action, in order to fix the problem of iterative attacks low BAB (specially at higher levels):

Updated rules for full-attack action (Concentrate attacks):
==============================================================

You may choose to forgo one or more of your extra attacks, to add your attack bonus to other attack roll made in the
same round. For example, a 11th level Fighter with three attacks at BAB +11/+6/+1 could forgo his third attack to increase his
second attack bonus and make two attacks at BAB +11/+7. This option cannot increase your attack bonus beyond your
BAB. For example, a 20th Fighter whith four attacks at BAB +20/+15/+10/+5 could not forgo its forth attack to increase his
first attack bonus beyond +20, but he could forgo his forth attack to increase his third attack bonus and make three
attacks at +20/+15/+15.

Please note that this option can only be used by a Character with BAB 11+, since if a character has only 2 iterative attacks (e.g. +10/+5), he cannot forgot his second attack in order to increase his first attack bonus beyond his BAB.

I respectfully disagree.

Wizards will not suffer a depower in magic, it won´t make then less powerful when compared to the other classes.

Think the rules as they are now. With a +6 low save progression, is *very* easy for a Wizard (with a High Int bonus, + Int bonuses from magical Items, + Spell Save DC bonus from feats) to Dominate, phastasm kill, or even hit hard with fireballs, meteorswarms, since the +6 bonus is ridiculously low, specially at higher levels.

With the streamlinded progression (1/2 character´s level + class bonus), wizards will still have a chance to control/dominate and deal full damage with area spells, however, the other classes, at less, will have a "hope" to succeed in their saving throws (different from what is happening now, in the current rules).

Your second concern, about the wizard exceeding the other classes in Fort saves, it isn´t true. First of all, we have to considerar that, using the streamlined progression, Warrior classes will have a + 2 class modifier bonus on their FORT saves, while wizards will have not. Warrior characters also use to have greater Con than Wizards, this another fact.

As much as a Wizard can create magical items (the belt of your example), Warriors can find teasures with magical items of equal power, according to the campaing level.

Lastly, in the current rules, at 20th level, the poor (+6) save progression correspond to a -4 penalty in the saving throw (when compared to a Spell Save DC wich is normally equal to 1/2 character´s 20th level + Ability Mod). In the other hand, the good (+12) save progression correspond to only a +2 bonus in the saving throw (again, when compared to a Spell Save DC wich is normally equal to 1/2 character´s 20th level + Ability Mod). What is the logic of that? If I have a poor save I take a -4 penalty, but if I have a Good Save I receive only +2 bonus? It´s a great advantage for Wizards.

Better then incorporing Intermediate Saving Throws to the game, would be to step to a more streamlined progression.

I mean something more simple, in line with Star Wars Saga, each character receives a Base Saving Throw bonus equal to 1/2 character´s level (rounded down) + key ability modifier + Class Bonus.

Class Bonus will be equal to +2 (for a Save in wich the class originally had a GOOD [up to +12] progression), +1 (for a Save in wich the class originally had a INTERMEDIATE [up to +9] progression), and +0 for a Save in wich the class originally had a POOR [up to +6] progression.

The good of this rule is that DM´s don´t need to consult the Tables with Saving Throw Progression every time they need to fast build a NPC.
Also the old +6 progression, even for poor saving throws, has proven to be ridiculously low.

It seems just a little redundant with Disarm, but looks like it would work fine - not bad!

I'm wavering a bit between +5 and +10 for the "Pin + Sunder for free" modifier.

Thanks for the review.

I think the +5 modifer works well.

Indeed, I have revised the standart rules to include this "free combo" option in most of then.

Take a look at the bullrush maneuver for example:

Bullrush
========
As an attack action, you may attempt to bullrush your opponent, but you provoke an attack of
opportunity from the defender.
If the attack of opportunity from the defender deals any damage, your bullrush attempt automatically fails.
Special: If you have the Improved Bullrush Feat, your bullrush attempt does not provoke an attack of opportunity
from the defender.

You have to make a bullrush check (DC 15 + target's CMD) to attempt to bullrush the target.
Special: If you have the Improved Bullrush Feat, you gain a +2 bonus on your bullrush checks.

If you succeed in your bullrush check, the target is pushed 5 feet back.
If you choose to move with the target (provoking attacks of opportunity from threatening opponents, but not from the
target itself), you can push him back an additional 5 feet for each 5 points your bullrush result exceed the check DC.
You can't, however, exceed your normal movement limit.

Special:
If your check result exceed the bullrush check DC by 5 or more, you can combine a bullrush with another maneuver.
-If you combine it with a grapple maneuver, you move with the target 5 feet backwards, then grapple the target.
-If you combine it with a trip maneuver, you push the target 5 feet backwards, and knock him down prone in its space.

Here is my suggestion:

Pin
===
As an attack action, you may attempt to pin your opponent's weapon, but you provoke an attack of
opportunity from the defender.
If the attack of opportunity from the defender deals any damage, your pin attempt automatically fails.
Special: If you have the Improved Pin Feat, your pin attempt does not provoke an attack of opportunity
from the defender.

You have to make a pin check (DC 15 + target's CMD) to attempt to pin the target's weapon.
Special: You gain a +2 bonus on your pin check for each size category your weapon is larger than your opponent's
weapon, and you take a -2 penalty on your disarm check for each size category your opponent's weapon is larger than
yours.
Special: If you have the Improved Pin Feat, you gain a +2 bonus on your pin checks.

If you succeed in your pin check, you trap your opponent's weapon against his body, a wall, or some other sort of
obstruction, making impossible for him to attack with it until the start of your next action.

Pinning: While pinning, you cannot attack with the weapon you used to pin the defender's weapon, but can attack with
an unarmed strike or secondary weapon (if fighting with two weapons).

Weapon pinned: If your weapon is pinned, you may choose to attack with an unarmed strike or a secondary weapon
(if fighting with two-weapons), or even drop the pinned weapon on the ground and draw another weapon to attack (but
doing so, you provoke an attack of opportunity from the opponent that is pinning your weapon).

Break the pin: If your weapon is pinned, as an attack action you can attempt to break the pin by making a pin
check (DC 15 + opponent’s CMB, this does not provoke an attack of opportunity). If you succeed, you break the pin
and can attack normally with your weapon.

Special:
If your check result exceed the pin check DC by 5 or more, you can combine a pin with sunder maneuver.
-If you combine it with a sunder maneuver, you pin the target's weapon and deal damage to it.

It´s my first Post here. I would like to thank Paizo for its wonderful work and serious effort to make D&D an even better game.

Your work is great, and as a form of retribution for sharing it with us, I would like to post below two humble suggestions reggarging Feint and Tumble combat maneuvers.

Feint
=====

As a move action, you can attempt to feint your opponent in combat, but if you fail your feint check, you provoke an attack of opportunity from the defender.

You have to make a feint check (1d20 + BAB + Dex Mod or 1d20 + Bluff skill bonus) against DC 10 + target's BAB + Wis Mod or DC 10 + Target's Sense Motive Skill bonus, to attempt to feint your opponent in combat.
Special: If you have the Improved Feint Feat, you gain a +2 bonus on your feint checks.

If you succeed in your feint check, the target is considered flat-footed on the next attack you make against him on your current turn.

If you fail in your feint check, the defender can make an attack of opportunity against you.
Special: If you have the Improved Feint Feat, your failed feint attempt does not provoke an attack of opportunity from the defender.

Tumble
======
As a move action, you may attempt to tumble past your opponents without provoking attacks of opportunity, and position yourself in the opposite side of the target you were threatening before the start of your movement.

You have to make a Tumble Skill check against DC 10 + target's BAB + Dex Mod or DC 10 + Target's Acrobatics Skill bonus, to attempt to tumble past your target without provoking attacks of opportunity from him.
Special: If you have the Improved Tumble Feat, you gain a +2 bonus on your Tumble checks.

If you succeed in your Tumble check, the target is considered flat-footed on the next attack you make against him on your current turn.

If you fail in your tumble check, you move to the opposite side of the target, but provoke an attack of opportunity from the defender as normal, and he is not considered flat-footed to you.
Special: If you have the Improved Tumble Feat, your failed tumble attempt does not provoke an attack of opportunity from the defender.

Special: If there are other opponents (beyond the defender) threatening the spaces you move past, you must make a Tumble check against each opponent (DC 12 + opponent's BAB + Dex Mod or DC 10 + opponent's Acrobatics Skill bonus), to avoid provoking attacks of opportunity from then. The Tumble check base DC increases by +2 for each additional opponent avoided in the same round.

Acrobatic Tumble: If you take a -5 penalty on your Tumble check, you can make a acrobatic tumble to move through your opponent’s square, and end your movement at the opposite side, without provoking attacks of opportunity.

If you succeed in your cinematic tumble check, the target is considered flat-footed and suffer a -2 penalty in his armor class on the next attack you make against him on your current turn.

If you fail in your cinematic tumble check, your movement ends before you enter the opponent’s space and you provoke an attack of opportunity as normal (except, if you have the Improved Tumble Feat).

I hope it helps to improve your product even more.

GDD.