Squidaga's page

Humans are supposed to be "The Best" and "The most flexible"

This doesn't have much to do with the actual considered power of the race as a whole, but more or less an intentional manipulation of the community for the purpose of creating a standard tone and theme to the game.

Humans are by-and-by the largest and most common species in your average DnD setting.

Encouraging mechanically-oriented players to be "Born as a special, rare exception" in any case tends to be a damaging for theme in a vast majority of standard settings.

In my home group, my hatred of 3.0/3.5/pathfinder/4e humans is a well documented fact. I understand the desire of a flexible race, I understand many people prefer humans. I just feel that humans have been designed to be a tad to flexible. Floating stat adjustment, bonus feat, bonus skill point. They can be pretty much whatever a person wants. Also the most hated statement in all RPGs for me is "Guess I'll go human for that bonus feat."

People have their preferences, and that's fine. But as a GM I'm far more lenient with the non-human races when it comes to making rules modifications to try something, including moving stat bonuses around to accommodate a player. I'd rather have a party of a Tiefling, Elf, Dwarf, Gnome and Catfolk then Four humans and the token demihuman.

Of course I've long since learned that seems to be the minority (from my experiences at least) and generally don't bring it up unless asked. Or threads like this.

Yes, but wouldn't it be even worse if they made "Half-Shadow, Half-Lich, Flawlessly Beautiful Godling" the most mechanically powerful and flexible class?

You'd see groups composed of four "Half-Shadow, Half-Lich, Flawlessly Beautiful Godlings" and the one token "I just want to be normal" human.

And that'd outright obliterate the theme of 66% of most commonly used settings.

Mechanically-oriented players are going to remain as such. Why not use them to your advantage to boost the majority of settings as much as possible?
I have similar theories about Monks, but I digress.

Don't forget the armor limitation too.

Yeah, I forgot, even damage to dex would be hampered by Armor. So that feature of pathfinder already kind of balances it out. Even with Shields and such Your AC is still going to be lower than the STR fighter who has both damage and defense (at the cost of maneuverability and skills)

Now Mithril Agile-Armor Min-Maxing is still there, but that's always been a problem, and its always been solved by simply not mentioning Mithril's existence in a campaign.

I'm going to make sure there are minuses for walking around like a Ye Olde Paladin

There already are.

Heavy metal armor would be much more suited for your truly long range characters, since armor is more effective against bullets when their velocity has decreased and the bullet has become soft from air friction. Which is Ironic, because your Holy Gun Paladins are going to be in the back, running up only to dump some blessed whiskey on their hands and slap the bullets out of their buddy's gullet.

Also, think about giving characters who wish to focus in a melee weapon an extra feat to balance out the mass amount of touch AC ranged attacks heading their way.

Cut all basic/early firearms to 1/10 cost, but leave advanced fire arms at 1/4 cost. Even in a western setting you want there to be muskets and flintlocks prevalent as opposed to revolvers, only because you don't want everything (including the players) to instantly die at level 1. Also you don't need multiple bullets loaded at once until people start hitting +6 BAB anyhow. (Even at +21 BAB you only need two double barreled pistols.)

Also consider giving every class a form of Grit and a few hand picked level 1 deeds.
If you do this, go ahead and give gunslingers double the grit to make it fair. You would want ALL of your characters to be able to blast out locks, slide a glass across a table without breaking it by shooting it, Able to pull off a form of defensive feint by taking a bullet the hat instead.
Nothing Combat related, just utilitarian deeds that would help set the setting. You will need to draw the line though when you have six people all huddled in front of a door shooting at a lock repeatedly, when two of them are rogues who could have picked the damn thing in the first place.

I've always wanted to be part of a Western Pathfinder setting ever since I learned Pathfinder had guns. So grab the Ultimate Combat book and study it for tips, because that's going to be the most helpful source.

Souls would be simple, Just cut EXP into GP and raise the price of everything By 10x, 20x for masterwork, mithril, etc.

You want Ghost form to have 50% Hp, not for the living to have double.
Since Death isn't "Real Death" REALLY ramp up the encounters difficulty to make it a challenge to progress. Either Double/Triple the creatures or use creatures of up to 3-4 CR's above the parties level.

Make it so that Souls are lost upon death, Yet the same encounters will tend to respawn every time they reach a "Bonfire" or town, to spend their souls or to have to the firekeeper reset the state of souls in the area to get back their dead companions souls. (At the bonfire they rested at before they died of course, backtracking ftw) This would allow for challenging fights that require thought and skill, along with the standard trial and error, to progress to the next "Checkpoint" If they fail, they must redo all they have suffered through.

Spell casters only get HALF of the spells they normally get, but they get to prepare instantly every time they reach a "Bonfire" or whatever else.

If you wish to integrate permanent hollowing, allow for each death while in soul form to give a negative level to the player. These negative levels are removed when they become Fully human again. If they get negative levels equal to that of their character level, they are to become permanently hollow, maddened and forever anchored to the exact spot where they were last slain, attacking even their former companions each time they happen to pass by. There is no way to remove permanent hollowing.

I would personally go with the Dark Souls approach to this game as far as restoring humanity, WITH humanity items. This way it strains the players morality to kill people to steal their humanity.

Use Resurrection spells, "Rings of Sacrifice", and the like to allow for bringing back characters in the state they were before they were slain in that one instance.

Here's the setting idea I have in mind:

{snip}
-Magic is not ubiquitous, and it is rare and dangerous. Magic item shops only exist in the largest cities, and even low-level items like cure light wounds only exists in large towns. Divine power is rare as well, as the gods have become increasingly distant over the centuries.
{snap}
Basically, as I mentioned before, I'd like to run a setting that has the general feel of Fullmetal Alchemist: early 1900's technology, low supernatural/fantastical elements. Can it be done without massive overhauls to the system?

Ouch. Please, Unless you're running Dark Sun, Athiesm in Pathfinder and D&D is usually a bad idea. 1900's Industiral Revolutionary settings to work even better when there is religion involved.

In essence Get the the Advanced Combat book.
Firearms archetypes for every class just about.
And it gives you a few tips on running campaigns with high-gun prevalence.

Magic should not be rare, especially if you're aiming for full-metal alchemist. I would say it should be every were in a "Lost Odyssey" style "Magitech Revolution" (Mana-powered horseless carriages, the works.)

The Alchemist class itself would be (ironically) POORLY suited for this game however, since they tend to have a focus upon "Flesh-magic" and having talking tumor familiars, three-arms and being a half-mummy don't seem to fit that very well, beyond Human Transmutation (which as we know never works as intended in FMA)
Where as the Sorcerer, Wizard, Magus, Paladin, Cleric, Inquisitor, and Witch classes would be fitting VERY well, so long as they describe their casting as inscriptions of circles and such.

Time to hide this thread, methinks.

Well, no, this is a legitimate discussion on how to properly balance using DEX as damage in campaigns and if it isn't completely broken period.

IMO the way to balance Dex as damage is to not make Str and Dex the same thing. I'm assuming You guys now want a way to make Dex able to affect carrying capacity? And I'm sure you'd justify it as being controlled enough to perfectly angle and position the equipment to abuse gravity.

Heckling aside...
For this to work you would need 3 things:
No shield, If you have to have a +3.5 Dex mod to have this, there is no reason they should be able to use a shield for extra defense for someone who already has +4 Dex AC. Justify this as being unable to angle and balance the sword while positioning the weight of the shield.

Never let them get 1.5 Dex modifier, You Want STR to be there for people who have both hands occupied. If they're using a two-handed weapon, give them only 1x Dex mod. If they're using two weapons, give them only 0.5 Dex mod for each weapon. IF they somehow have more than 2 arms, things end up going into the "DM's Judgement" category.

The Dex Modifier of damage is precision damage. Doesn't work against oozes, skeletons, and the like. Justification? Using Dex means your using your skill and control to target vitals, even in the midst of combat. No organs? No Dex Damage.

With These 3 rules, I'd allow the feat to apply to normally non-finesse-able weaponry. Because You have Characters like Kensai Magus, Monks, Ninja (pretty much ANY eastern class) that get nuked because they're dex-themed classes that are forced into strength to be useful (because you can't finesse katanas and their derivatives for some-reason, even though it makes beyond perfect sense.)

While we're on the topic of giving Inquisitors Spells related to death:
Rest Eternal is relatively relevant, Its a curse a witch can place to prevent ressurection, unless the curse is removed.

EDIT: Also... where does it say that someone killed with death effects can't be resurrected? As for negative levels, I'd think True Resurrection would allow you to resurrect someone with negative levels, it would be the ONLY way.

Sorry, that was for "Raise Dead" 5th level cleric spell, that can't bring someone back from death effects.

As for the Leylines and gates, that was complete bullcrap, just something to sound flavorful as an explaination as to why. Not every fragment of the lore in your story has to be or will be dictated by some rule or system in the rule books. And if you don't like something, you have to be creative as to justify things the way they are.

Also, I don't think it would be that the person is unimportant to the god, that implies that the good gods are fickle and petty.
Rather, the reasoning would probably be that the gods become angered at the cleric should he use the powers he was bestowed with for monetary gain or for utterly no reason.
But this is where the "Forcing Morality" argument come in with players playing divine classes, but chances are they're playing their cleric wrong if in between adventures they're collecting a king's ransom from ressurecting potentially corrupt beurocrats.

One of the sample race-builder races that's actually printed in the Advanced Race Guide (which I don't have in front of me at the moment) has shorter grabbing appendages if my memory serves. You might look at that one and see how it's handled there.

I don't have any comment on the rest.

Yeah that's "Grabbing Appendages" I have it linked.

This is a situation where I like to have what is labeled "Precision Weaponry"

In the case of skeletons or slimes or whatever the heck else is immune to precision damage and resistant to all but one type of physical, would instead be resistant to "precision weaponry"

Here's how to determine if a weapon is a precision weapon:
1. Is it Sharp? If not, its not a precision weapon,
2. Is it designed to smash and tear flesh? If so, its not a precision weapon
3. Does it have a small blade or hook, designed to hit vital organs? If so, It is a precision weapon.

If a weapon is a weapon meant for targeting the vital organs of a creature that has none, then the damage resistance should apply to. Not to the weapon that's meant to smash and slash the ever-loving S*** out of flesh, bones, entrails, slime, ectoplasm, and everything else that may or may not have substance.

Also You may go as far as to keep it so that precision weapons are the only weapons to deal sneak attack damage on, to prevent min-maxing as far as sneak attacking with a Large-sized Greataxe.

I love Dark Sun
I don't usually DM, but when I do It's Dark Sun.
I haven't met anyone who can better set up the gritty, brutal, survivalistic aspect of it than I can. The last game of Dark Sun that I played as a PC ended up having death gods and literal piles of enchanted steel swords lying about. Literally.

Unfortunately, since moving to Pathfinder from 4e, I haven't had the chance to DM any. Pathfinder also seems fairly incomparable with pathfinder. So I bought Dreamscarred's well-written Psionic Expansion (beautiful artwork I tell you) and found it very good and fitting.

Unfortunately there is no thri-kreen. (4-armed bug people for those who don't know)
So I'm trying to use the Race builder as a foundation for creating this race on a balanced level. But I'm getting stuck.

The Thri-kreen as I imagine are supposed to have Two Primary arms (Ambidextrous, can use two one-handed weapons) With two "half-arms" Being much shorter, can only wield light weapons and when both are unarmed they get the abilities of "Grabbing appendages"

Naturally I'd like for them to be able to one a turn, be able to retrieve or stow an item as a free action, and/or gain feats that allow them to not suffer as many penalties from wielding 2 to 4 weapons.

Yet they also have 60ft darkvision that I'm considering removing in favor for something more scent based to justify pheremones... say carrion sense.
This further justifying their hunter-gatherer lifestyle.

This is ALOT to all cram into one race.
What should I leave out?
What penalties should I put in?
And What would be the proper syntaxing of the conditions based on the "half-arm" and two primary arms?

I would REALLY like your help, as of right now, I'm playing an alchemist with only three-arms, and me and the DM are still having to guess at what becomes justified.

I sometime have these crisis because i want to ensure that the game remains fun for every one and I run into these situations where one player over whelms or "breaks" the game for others.

Been there done that, Have the scars of my DM physically beating me...

Don't abuse your power to say "NO" as a GM. But don't forget that you have that ability in the first place. Do it subtly, and rarely:
Don't even tell them to make a check.
If they get a vibe and want to make a check anyhow, tell them "You detect Nothing" regardless of the result.
When it comes to social skills like Diplomacy and Intimidation, you SHOULD require them to say something to match their roll, If you don't deem it fitting to convince the person, then it fails.

MIND YOU! This is only for the case of Skills potentially interrupting what has already had heavy story planning behind. OFTEN give your characters the chance to use their skills. If they were SO hyped about Diplomacy to get +10 at level 1, then let them have the rolls, they obviously want it.

First, why I am asking this...

I was thinking today about a campaign idea where the characters are hired to escort a princess across the land to another kingdom to marry the prince of the other kingdom. Standard old school idea. Then it dawned on me, why doesn't the king just use his huge treasury to hire a wizard to teleport her there? Then that made me remember the other "Why not?" spell, maybe even the biggest, Resurrection spells.

I read this article and I actually like and might actually use the idea in games that if NPCS find out you were resurrected, they might react to you negatively, maybe even some going so far as to treat you as undead in their attitude toward you.

Which then made me think of the idea of a Inquisitor of Pharasma that not only hunts down undead, but anyone that has cheated death.

So, that brings me to the question... many assassin-themed prestige classes over the years have had the ability to know if someone you killed with the class abilities is resurrected, but what about non-assassins like this concept?

Would it be too much for a feat to allow this? Maybe design an inquisitor archetype that allows it?

Anyone have any ideas about these two options, or other ideas?

The only thing I can see it being Lore-wise coherent with would be an Inquisitor archetype. Yet giving up something completely story-wise for that at the level Resurrection becomes an issue is about as optimal as a rouge taking an archetype that gives a rogue X uses of augury in return for his sneak attack. Its nothing to build a character on.

I can easily see it though as a simple enchantment for a holy symbol, Anoint the symbol in a targets blood and it glows dimly depending on the status of life the creature possesses: White if alive, black if dead, Gray if dying, red if undead, and pink if Half-death(somehow)

Also the idea of Resurrection being disfavored in the towns folk is kind of iffy. Humans Don't like to die, nor do they like righteous ones to die. The only way I can see this being affected by would be Death-worshipers (Which are typically hated themselves as a product) in primal, barbaric, superstitious communities (typically trying to kill and eat the party anyhow)

The idea behind "Why not?" spells is that they are rare.
Teleportation spells are like roads. They take many skilled people to set the passage-way, creating teleportation circles and what not. You don't have a Guild of Level 20 Wizards running around crafting those ever so difficult to find Ley-lines.
As of Resurrection itself, You've only got a week. Unless you have a relatively powerful preist on hand that can bless the body to keep it preserved for up to like 3 months (that's IF they're expecting to get someone IMMENSELY powerful enough to actually ressurect them)
To be able to bring any man of any age back to life is utterly unknown to anyone that hasn't already slain half-a-dozen balrogs by now.
Plus there's even distances that TRUE RESSURECTION can't reach. Old Age. Negative Level Limit. Death Effects.

The key to countering Why not spells is to give a reason to "Why not?"
There's plenty if you look. Maybe a Witch made his heart burst. Maybe a disease ravaged his body. Maybe they didn't even know such means were possible. Maybe there is nobody who can provide such means. Maybe there's a corrupt, greedy, bureaucratic Wizard who has locked the ley-lines from travel, and would not accept something so base and simple as the shiny rocks you ape-descendants call currency.

IMO Keep everything the Devil sub-type entails for the Gylou only, not its minions:
*Immunity to fire and poison.
*Resistance to acid 10 and cold 10.
*See in Darkness (Su) Some devils can see perfectly in darkness of any kind, even that created by a deeper darkness spell.
*Summon (Sp) Devils share the ability to summon others of their kind, typically another of their type or a small number of less-powerful devils.
*Telepathy.
*Except when otherwise noted, devils speak Celestial, Draconic, and Infernal.
*A devil's natural weapons, as well as any weapons it wields, are treated as lawful and evil for the purpose of resolving damage reduction
>>>BUT MAKE SURE YOU REMOVE THE GYLOU'S 10/Good resistance<<<

Elemental resistances are fun to have to work around so long as they are speficic ones and not the "Everything exept" resistances,
If the Wizard prepared wrongly then he should still be able to handle clearing out and holding off the minons.

Keep the Size and reach of the gylou, you usally want "Ultimate True forms" to be big.

Cut the health by 80, cut the attack bonuses in half, cut the saving throws in half, Cut CMB and CMD in half, set the AC's to 21(norm) 15(touch) 18(flat-f), remove the multi-attack feat, and remove 1 damage die from the claw attack, and 2 damage die from the tentacle cage.
As far as abilities go, Remove the damage from black tentacles and set it to one use, make it a support spell to let the minions get their swarm on.

Everything else should be about normal, the godly perception, true-sight dark vision super initiative and all else should still be there, In a assassination and subterfuge style of mission, you want the boss to not be able to simply get attacked in its torpor by full-round attack flanking stealth attacks... Its happened before.

Also something you should consider when doing something as risky as this:
Consider your deus ex machina's: What is a fair way to save your players if this is still retardly powerful? What is a way to make it story line relevant?
Here's a good suggestion, If you're at a big fancy ball or whatnot, consider making it to where the players aren't the only one hunting the demon, What if there is another order of Paladins/Cavaliers/Monks etc. that are also hidden there, and can be uncovered and temporarily recurited by the players?
If the player cause an uproar and are attacked out right, cause this secret order to flee for a small period of time (5 rounds) to quickly prep and remove disguises before casting some form of smiting light to force the Gylou to release its Black tentacles.
After the fact, you now have an intriguing order of lawful good, yet subverse Templars for the players to be interested in as another story line tie in for later.

Remember, Think less about mechanical rigging, and more elaborate storyline telling.

It'll make the characters extra tough. It's a matter of what you like - if you feel that characters should be extra-heroic from the beginning, it's fine. If he's new at it, he might be worried about the frailty of 1st level characters...especially if some players are new, too. This does give a little extra buffer. I don't think it's a terrible thing...the first time you catch a crit by an orc with a greataxe, you'll know what I mean. ;)

In clearer terms, This is 3d12+6ish damage, which can easily outright kill a level 1 adventurer in one swing. You want a small health buffer for your level 1 characters incase any unwanted crits happen to roll up.

I like what I call the "Normalized" approach.
You start off with your base hitpoints as your Con total plus the max possible roll for your first hit die +CONmod, And from there...
Every odd level they gain the odd number closest the average result of their hit die +CONmod. Even even level they gain the even number closest to the average result to their hit die +CONmod.
For instance someone with a d10 hit die would gain:
10+CONmod at lv.1
6+CONmod at lv.2
5+CONmod at lv.3
6+CONmod at lv.4

This takes the randomness out of it, reducing the possiblity that a character is going to be utterly more and more useless as they level... And preventing the possiblitity that your 8 CON squishy wizard is going to end up with more health than your Paladin.

It also gives you a small handful of hitpoints at lvl 1 to help out the first-time players get used to the danger and lethality of the game. The bonus is no longer apparent at level 4, by the time you truly realize just how quickly you can die in this game.
A Dwarven paladin with 16Con would end up with 29 hitpoints at level 1, as opposed to a normal 20ish. So you're giving them about A levels worth of extra hit points over all.

Giving the MAX value always is too generous in the long run, Paizo balanced the game to approximately where hit die are rolled to be the average result... So making it automatically the average result is what I like to prevent any kind of of issues.

A Healing focused Alchemist is a great option.
They have elixirs of healing, self regeneration, the ability to trasfer their regeneration to others. The ability to craft healing potions and oils beyond the ones they get daily for free.
They can absorb poison and disease from themselves or someone and transfer it to another target with a touch.
They can later create poitions of ressurection out of 25,000gp worth of dirt in less than an hour, and can even use them on themselves to apply temporary auto-ressurection.
They have all manner of buffs they can apply.
Their bombs aren't half bad for affliction/support if you rig them right.
Having a Flying Tumor Familiar that can transfer your touch heal powers over distances by air.

And its a breath of fresh air if he doesn't want to follow the mental dogma of the Cleric, Druid, Witch, since Alchemists are morally free.

Not to mention if crap hits the fan, you can pop a mutagen and hurl a chair for 90d%+1...

*Cough* Sorry for the double-post, I made this thread in a hurry and I don't see if I can edit my post

But I meant +10 str, since the default is +4 and the Ragechemist ability is +6.

So does anybody think that the drawbacks balance out the +5 increase to attack and damage rolls for what would be a caster class?

Drawbacks being:
-4 Int
Can't use bombs past CURRENT Int not default
0 Intelligence makes me start attacking the nearest creature until half the duration is over.
Addiction stat Damage to non-Int mental stats, for not taking one a day.
No cure to above addiction

Does this balance out:
+5 Attack and Damage rolls with Melee, (+9 damage since I'm using two-handed and already have +1)
+4 AC without any Arcane failure

I'll admit it, being able to roll with +6 to deal 1d10+9 at level 2 is Ridiculous, I could technically one-shot some of the enemies there by throwing a chair.
What I'm worried about is this being too far a jump in the opposite direction and it vastly reducing the fun or appeal of combat to the other players. A lot of people in this group are rather new to pathfinder and I want to give them the best experience possible by being able to save them when necessary, but I don't want them to think I'm min-maxing to baby-sit them.

Regardless, I have no doubt in my ability to properly RP an addiction along with an bi-polar personality. I could always reduce my effectiveness in combat intentionally by wasting turns to break the nearest inanimate object. That way the other PCs get a chance for some one-on-one with the enemies.

Basically what VRMH said.

I stopped playing 3.5 when someone in our group legitimately came up with a disembodied flying Monk/Rogue Kobold (Changling-bloodlined) head, that at level one could bite attack something with a +12 dealing 2d12+3d6+9 damage. He could also turn invisible at will, teleport and deroot a tree with his teeth.

This is what Flaws did.
Also these flaws are terrible as their all subjective and detract from actually participating as part of the group. It sounds like an excuse for the DM to be a dick, like back in the day when You got handed a pamphlet of laws to abide when you wanted to play a paladin.

Addictions and Chemical Dependancies already exist in Pathfinder, and already have their own pros and cons, you shouldn't get a free feat for something you plan to do anyways.

Anything involving "insults" is beyond subjective, I don't want the DM to be rolling for my character just because some other PC told me jokingly "Your mother was a hamster, and you father smelt of elderberries."

Who doesn't like Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde?
Who doesn't like the sheer interesting RP shock value of a calm, claculative, and intellectual Alchemist, suddenly morphing into a veiny three-armed albino gorrilla of a man and proceeding to pummel things with that Hill Giant's claymore that everyone was curious as to why you were lugging that thing around?
I know I love it.
But unfortunately Ragechemists have badly broken systems.
Considering NOT being a Rage alchemist will actually end up giving you more strength with less drawbacks.

The solution to this is simple and something that I discussed with my DM and he agrees with:
The bonuses stack.
Jabbing myself with a mutagen at level 2 gives me +8 strength, and +4 AC, but unfortunately I start already at -4 Intelligence.

In addition:
If I'm in Rage-mode and I've already thrown more bombs than my current intelligence I can't throw them until it gets back up.
When hitting 0 Intelligence I don't go unconcious I just am considered to be Confused rolling between a 76-100, basically attacking everything for half the remaining duration, then returning to normal and being unconcious for the other half plus one hour.

Also, Ragechems are now considered an uncurable minor addition, exept that instead of reducing con, it reduced 1or2 Cha and Wis istead per day where I don't sip a rage mutagen.

Pretty simple, pretty balanced for the long term, and best of yet it fused In-combat power with out-of-combat RP and repercussions.

So what do you guys think?

I've played a couple of games before that used alot of those systems.
I'll tell you right now some of them seem great but aren't.
For instance, Individual durability values for each armor:
You have to have a sheet tracking each value, for each armor, on each character, as well as on every enemy you make, every NPC companion character, Even the stupid horse barding...
You also have to create fair sounding values so that armor breaks only when they've gained about X times the amount of gold used to repair it.
Make multipliers for the durability based on what kind of enchantment it is...
Etc. Etc. etc.

As you can see this gets very annoying, expecially when your characters like to use peice-meal armor, or are spontaneous barbarian-gladiators that like to use improvised armor. I survived a couple of bullets one time because I was running away wearing nothing but a barrel, So having to create these complex values on the spot is not conducive to proper game flow.

- - -

I like your value of percentage blocking for armor, but at that rate, It's legitimately possible to be blocking 100percent damage once you slap a basic enchantment on a tower-shield and a suit of heavy. Even worse how will you implement features that increase your natural AC? When your skin turns into bark, how much will that block?
Plus you'd have to ramp up the damage and health of everything by 2x just to get level 1 damage/health numbers to a managble value to work with percentages.

I'd say to go ahead an do the multiplication of damage and helath, and put it at a 5% flat bonus for default values, including shields, and enchantments and spells will only give 5% for every +2 it gives to AC. This way a Bulky paladin will still be taking less damage than say... and alchemist or druid, and will no longer mind him having -24 stealth and swim.

- - -

Also on that note, If the Dexterity value was the case, your average paladerp's dexterity bonus would be -14, leaving his would be armor class at around 3 -THOUGH that does make sence if you go with what I advised making heavy armor reduce damage by ALOT to compensate- But I would say to only apply the penalty to things like Touch AC and Combat Manuver Defence, as You don't need to double up on the skill reduction armor gives you. Sure -36 stealth instead of -24 doesn't matter that much, but it would really screw over those medium armor classes who are trying to balance out dodgy stealth with some minor defense. You don't want to force one of two extremes, let your players fiddle around with wearing an armored coat as a ninja if they want.