ledgabriel's page

First let me start by saying I love the sorcerer class, great concept and playability, one of my favorite classes. So this is not a "I like Wizards better, lets nerf the Sorc" thread.

I have a serious problem with this Unlimited cantrips thing, it's just to easy to abuse. Sure they are revising the core spells, but the spells from other sources all need to go through some house rules. Anything that deals damage can be abused, to destroy doors, walls, cells, etc. Anything that creates, even if a little amount of anything could be abused. How much light could one create with "light", you could light a whole city inch by inch. With mending a single sorcerer could rebuild an entire castle!
C'mon, infinite cantrips are not a good way to make the sorcerer more interesting, its just a way to make the game annoying and unfeasible.

The second thing I wanted to address are the bloodlines. Loved them, I don't think anyone would disagree here, they were wonderful for the class. I just thought (and that from actual playtesting) that the sorcerer ended up with more power/spells to use that they actually needed. I'm not talking about the extra spells you choose from the Arcane bloodline, but the fixed ones and the powers, I would rather see something more like abilities that affected the character in different ways. For example, a Elemental bloodline, would make the spells of the chosen element more powerful, harder to resist maybe even receiving some free/reduced-penalty metamagic bonus; instead of just giving more elemental powers to use. Anyway, this is just a personal opinion, others may have found different.

Oh yeah, add a Gennie/Efreet bloodline, please! For arabian settings it falls like a glove.

Just a few days ago, something happened in my campaign; the Rogue character lost all of his belongings, everything. Being a Rogue 7/ShadowDancer 8 with 22 Dex, he had an insane Reflex Save (+18 if I'm not mistaken) but a very low AC (17 since he had dodge).
Now, with Improved Evasion there was almost no spell that required a Reflex save that could harm him, and he could avoid basically all but the most killer-insanely-high-DC traps.... But anyone could hit him easily, any 12° level fighter could wack the crap out of him, never missing a blow. And also, just by changing a Reflex-save trap by one that required an attack roll, he'd never avoid it.

This got me thinking how flawed the system is... a Reflex save represents a character ability to avoid being hit by something, to dodge stuff thrown at him, it's his ability to get out of harm's way... now.. AC uses a Character's DEX, but... shouldn't it use Reflex instead? Why doesn't a character never gets better at avoiding sword blows but gets better at avoiding fireballs and deadly traps??? Makes no sense.

Back in the example, the Rogue could dodge spell blasts and deadly traps, but couldn't dodge a sword blow by a fighter 4 levels lower than him . Even worse, similar traps, only because they use different systems (one with Reflex Saves another with Attack roll) had completely different effects.

It seems, if I'm not mistaken, that in D&D 4th ed. AC is somewhat related to Reflex... or they get bonus from same source.. not sure though.

Anyway, I would be very glad if the Devs would include something like this in the PRPG, AC based on Reflex or something, though I greatly doubt they will...

Any thoughts?

Always in D&D the attack and damage rolls were two completely separate things, no matter if just rolled the minimum necessary or 12 numbers higher, your damage rolls were the same.

With 3.x (and pathfinder) we officialy had critical damage, when you rolled a 20 you did double damage (and all the x3, x4, etc..., or maximum damage now in 4th); but if you hit the minimum it is still the same as getting one closer to the critical.
Another point to address is the whole "armor makes you harder to hit" eternal problem D&D has always faced. I know if you rolled one below the minimum it doesn't mean you didnt hit the target, you may have hit but not strong enough do deal damage; but it's strange when you think that one number higher you'd get to roll damage and could deal a lot of damage... strange isn't it? One below the minimum wasn't strong enough to deal damage, roll one higher and you can deal maximum damage... if you roll a 20 you deal double damage....

One way to address this would be the classical house rule to have armor give DR and not AC, but i do not believe Pathfinder would consider this.

So, what I had in mind, as a way to make the attack rolls more significative, to actually have some meaning as to how your blow went; is to have the attack roll directly affect the damage roll. So, while rolling 20 is a critical (whether it's maximum or double damage), rolling the minimum necessary results in minimum damage (all 1's); rolling 1 above the minimum you would get a -3 penalty to the damage roll (but never below minimum); 1 below 20 would give you +3 bonus to damage (but never above maximum).

Wel.. it's not finished yet, but it's a start.

What you think?

A simple concept; as you level up you get bonuses to AC. If you get better at hitting things why not getting better at avoiding being hit? Specially for the physical combat-oriented classes.

Most D20 RPG's use some version of this mechaninc, including Iron Heroes, Star Wars and d20 Modern. And it has proven to be a good mechanic that makes sense.

My suggestion:

There are 3 "levels" of Defense Bonus (just like BAB); High, Medium and Low.

High: Rogue, Ranger, Bard
Medium: Barbarian, Fighter, Paladin, Druid, Monk
Low: Cleric, Sorcerer, Wizard

I made the list based more or less on the Class BAB and Reflex saves. So Rangers that have High BAB and High Reflex should have High Defense Bonus, Rogues have Med BAB but High Reflex, still High Defense. Barbarian, Fighter, Paladin all have high BAB but Low Reflex and tend to rely more on armor (or physical brutishness in case of the Barbarian) so Medium Defense. Although numerically the Druid is the same as the Rogue, the concept of the Druid is not as an agile dodging character as the Rogue, so Medium Defense. Monks got Med Defense because they already have a natural class bonus to AC, so it could get insanely high otherwise.

I still haven't worked out the numbers in itself, I thought about making them the same as the BAB progressing, but it's not a good idea after all; I believe they should be lower for balancing reasons.

Also, armor should restrict the amount of Defense Bonus you can get (since its concept is of dodging and mobility).

I would really like to see this in Pathfinder, it's interesting and gives more reliability to the light-armor agile type of fighter.

Any ideas?

The thing that has always bugged me in D&D is the "Armor makes you harder to hit" issue, I know it's not that what it means, maybe you hit the opponent but not hard enough to deal damage, but most of us aggree that it doesn't feel that way. So, I've always played with Armor as DR and I would really like to see (maybe as an optional rule) this concept in Pathfinder.

I would suggest converting directly all Armor (and natural armor) to DR, but at higher bonuses the conversion should be less; converting on a 1 to 1 basis for high AC's is not a good idea, a +8 Armor giving you 8 DR is too high in the game concepts and you have the problem that light-weapon combatants (including bow/crossbow shooters) don't deal enough damage, they hit fast and constantly but never deal damage. So there should be the need for some "aiming" which would let one strike vulnerable areas for a penalty (it would seem as the inverted idea, DR becomes AC, but it makes sense).

Any ideas?

I know there's all the "backwards compatibility" thing, but it's not that hard to convert to a DR system, your AC lowers and your DR increases... so please those that are going to be against, use other arguments.

I was thinking; alchemy has always played an important role in medieval/fantasy stories if you stop to think about it, in the stories the potions are almost always created by alchemists with special and exotic ingredients instead of just being a bottle of water with enchantments on it; and personally I find the concept of alchemy-brewed potions much more interesting than just magic potions.

D&D never gave too much attention to this topic, sure there's the Craft (Alchemy) skill, but it's so simple and poorly used, you can create some antitoxin, sunrods, etc... it's not that interesting. So, if there was something I would really like to see in Pathfinder, was a bit more focus on this classical concept of fantasy stories, a more interesting and broader Alchemy skill so that characters could buy/brew themselves potions that had nice effects without being "Magic Potion"... What about a Renerating Potion that needed a troll's blood (along with other ingredients) to be brewed, a night-seeing potion that would need eyes of some creature that sees in the dark, a potion of Strength brewed from a stone giant's muscle, etc... Such a concept would be nice so characters could extract ingredients from monsters' parts.

I know it wouldn't be something easy to implement on Pathfinder, it would be a big add-on to the game and I'm not sure how far the devs are willing to go, but what are your opinions? Maybe if many players also liked the idea, we could help come up with something already to add to the game. Think about it, a more rich alchemy for D&D/Pathfinder, would add a nice touch.

Ok, so now the new D&D 4th edition is out (yeah, many have already grabbed a copy somewhere.. even if it's your friend at the bookstore... :p .. or from what I've heard, some BUY.com..), I've taken a (very short) time to read [look] through it, and I must say: "Ok, let's focus on Pathfinder. Let's make this thing rock Jason, please!".

They've annihilated the game; it's worse than I thought. The flavor I thought was awesome though, the concepts, arts, the setting and the mood, to that I take my hat off; they've given the game some good ambiance.. but it's unplayable by anyone who desires a minimum of character development other than the 'little power thingy' you choose every level. It looks like Diablo: Choose a pre-made character and pick your powers as you level up. I say "Pre-Made" character because "the Wizard is the Wizard, there's not much to change or personalize, you wear a robe, wield a staff and fire bolts.. and in all games you play, everyone who plays it will play the same thing, the small difference is in your "spells" (which have been eliminated from the game entirely, everything is a power now and follows the same rule as a fighter special attacks.. yes.. there are no more SPELLS as we know it (that was it for me...)).. just like a Sorceress from the PC game Diablo.. it's always the same, all that changes is the powers you pick at each level. And it's the same with every class, they all look like pre-made characters.

Well.. to sum it up. I didn't have a good feeling about D&D 4th ed in the beginning and was considering Pathfinder as an alternative......... Now, I think Paizo should be given the rights to D&D. I am more excited about Pathfinder now, since it is the new D&D for me. Let's focus on polishing the details, some rule or other that's a little buggy and transform these Alpha releases into the new D&D.

As you guys take a look at the new 4th ed, please share your oppinions. (I say "take a look" because that's what you'll probably literally do, "look" at it, at the pictures...)

The Pathfinder RPG insists on grouping some skills I don't think are good choices.
Concentration now being part of Spellcraft? That is something I wish they went back to the standard 3.5 way; it's two different things and just makes the skill be too powerful. I didn't like this at all.
Search grouped with Spot and Listen is also bad, again, the skill becomes the mother of all skills, it serves for everything: Noticing something strange in a room, hear someone sneaking up behind you, find traps, eavesdrop on other people conversation, find hidden passages, etc... just get the skill maximized and with more feats maybe get skill focus and you're prepared for everything. Please, Spot + Listen is fine, but leave search alone.

Any opinions? I would like to see what the majority here thinks, coz I hope they undo these changes.

The title says it all. In the alpha releases there are only the feats and spells that have somehow changed, the others are mentioned to work like the PHB. Will the final edition be like that? I hope not, otherwise people will need the PHB to play and I was expecting it to stand alone on its own, without the need of another book.

thanks

Shortening it up, these are the points I disliked about the game and what I think should be done:

1) Universal Wizards getting Wish 1x day at 18th level. I think this is a bit overpowered, this kind of use for wish is too much, the spell should be more restricted on its use, not the contrary.

2) Caught Off-Guard feat. This is a bit cheap, an improvised weapon ends up being better than a normal weapon for most characters (except characters like the fighter who specializes in a few weapons). So you could get a piece of steel, sharpen it and say its an improvised sword, you´d get the same damage, no penalties and an advantage against your opponent.

3) Weapon Swap Feat. Needless to say it´s broken. It allows you to make attacks with only your best weapon while gaining the advantages of only having a light weapon on the off-hand. Whats the point of being "two-weapon" then? One could use any small stick on the off-hand and call it a weapon and never have to use it.

4) Search merged with Perception. Aside from any kind of argument of whether it makes sense or not, the point is that it makes the skill too powerful, it´s like a must-take, one-of-the-most-important-skills-of-the-game; it allows you to notice strange happenings in a room, hear someone sneak up on you, find secret passages, spot someone hiding, find hidden treasures, find traps, etc. It should stand alone or merged with something else.

5) 2 skill points is not enough. Ok, this is very personal, but I always found that 2 skill points is not enough for any class to have something interesting for skills, you end up getting the most necessary basic and that´s it. The sorcerer for example, has to maximize his Spellcraft and Concentration, leaving nothing else for some customization. Personally, i think the minimum for any class should be 3 or 4.

Insights?

The new 4th ed introduced in D&D an idea for characters to heal themselves a bit without the need of a Cleric or potions/wands, etc.. This is a concept with witch I have toyed a while at my game table in different forms: Characters making Con tests to heal a little bit after battle, Fortitude saves, Heal skill checks, some magical energy that heals them once in a while, etc...

Anyway, I thought this improved my gaming a lot, it actually gave the character a lot more of a "battle-hard-hero-struggling-to-go-on" look; taking a time to catch a breath and tending to the fresh wounds after a strenuous battle; or just getting themselves motivated, inspired to go on again (and in that way a little HP back), or just a magical energy in the place that healed them once in a while; all that made the game flow much more briskly. They didn't have to stop the course of game only coz one of them got hit too badly, and since they went on for longer, it made the sorcerer plan a lot more on its spells.

So, personally, from my playtesting, I´d really like to see Paizo add something like that to their Pathfinder RPG, it would make me consider it a lot better. Second Winds, Heal checks, Con tests, Fort checks, Action Points, etc... whatever sounds better, that can be discussed. The point is that the ability for characters to heal up a bit by themselves should be in the game in some way... at least for me...

Skills:

Continuing with what I have started, here goes the compilation for the feedback on skills.

> As expected, there has been much talk on the new skill system of not using skill points anymore. The new skill system is similar to that of the Star Wars Saga Edition (SWSE); in which your bonus on a given skill automatically raises as you level up. With all the talk on compatibility, this seems to diverge a little bit, as member Zurai mentioned in his post:
“…with the vast number of feats and Prestige Classes that have skill rank requirements, how do they interact with the new rank-less system for skills?...” Indeed it raises an interesting point, how are skill rank requirement going to be handled if this new system is to be kept?
The majority of people seem to prefer the standard point system, a thread for this specific topic can be seen here.
A small minority of people liked the new system, but I’d like to mention that the issue here is that people who want to max out a small number of skills could easily accomplish this with the point system, and those that want to distribute their points any other way are free to do so; while with the new SWSE-like system, one has only the option of maxing out theirs skills.
On a personal note, I am glad many preferred the old system for I also did, and I became a bit worried when I saw these new rules. I really hope Paizo goes back to skill points.

> The other big talk on skills is the grouping of some skills. This is a nice idea that has been done in the new 4th ed too. Mainly, people are discussing some groupings they like or dislike and giving ideas for new ones. A thread on the issue can be seen here.

I haven’t seen it mentioned anywhere so I take the opportunity to mention another system; The Iron Heroes RPG. Here’s how it goes:
There are group of skills like Athletics (which includes Climb, Jump and Swim), Robbery (Disable Device, Forgery, Open Lock and Sleight of Hand), Stealth (Hide and Move Silently), etc…
Each class has one or more of these groups as “class skill groups”. You are free to buy any skill from anywhere you want, but within your group of skills, each point you spend you gain ranks in all of the skills in that group. For example, a Thief gains access to the Robbery group (among others), so each point spend in this group raises his Disable Device, Forgery, Open Lock and Sleight of Hand by one. Other classes that don’t have access to this group could buy each skill independently.
This was only to mention another option that has also been done; with the skills being already grouped this might not work too well; anyway, the system is nice for there is no cross-class skill.

> Another issue that has been getting some attention is that some classes get too few skill points (The fighter and sorcerer for example); it has been mentioned a couple times to give a minimum of 4 points to these classes.
I personally agree with this, I’ve always thought only 2 skill points are not enough to customize your character nicely. Take the Sorcerer for example, he has to max out (or at least near it) his Concentration and Spellcraft already, if he is not human or doesn’t have Int 12+, that’s about all he’ll take for the whole game; maybe getting one point or another in something else at high levels when these skills are already high enough.

Member Asgetrion raised an interesting point as to why fighters don’t get Perception as class skill:
“Besides, I always wondered why most Fighters sucked at Spot and Listen, although you’d think that guys who spent half the night on guard duty (when the spellcasters are sleeping) should excel at it.”

Classes:

Here goes what I have managed to gather on classes; and again, if I mistake someone’s posts, feel free to correct me:
Remember that these are not all my opinions, I agree with some and disagree with others, the point here is only to summarize all the ideas for easy reference.

> General:

Tying the HD to BAB progressing seemed a good idea, most agreed with it. Some have an issue with the barbarian apparently being the exception for the rule.

Gaining a minor special ability every level instead of some big one here and there looked perfect; no longer we have the big gaps between levels.

The need for a swashbuckler-like class was also mentioned. Maybe giving the fighter some options to start without all the armor & shield proficiencies and substitute for some other feats could be a starting idea.

There has always been the discussion to give some classes more skill points. I just wanted to add that with all the skill-grouping, classes are already getting more skills indirectly. One should test it well instead of just basing it in the standard 3.5.

Asgetrion has mentioned he´d like to see the NPC´s classes on Pathfinder RPG too, at least the Expert and Commoner. Personally, I’d add the Aristocrat to the list, or at least some other class for the nobility. The Noble class from Dragonlance Campaign Setting looked nice. Asgetrion´s complete post can be seen here: http://paizo.com/store/byCompany/p/paizoPublishingLLC/pathfinder/messageboa rds/pathfinderRPG/feedback/alpha1/racesClasses/myThoughtsFeedbackAndSuggest ionsOnRacesAndClassesP419

> Cleric: (on a personal note; that is one awesome looking cleric).

The simplicity of the new Turn Undead ability looked very nice, many took well the change; but the rules for Turning Undead should be in the cleric section, it makes it easier for reference.
As for the Healing, some thinks is just “too much healing in the game”; maybe some more subtle and “personal” healing such as the Reserve Points in Iron Heroes or the Second Wind in 4th (although not as much as the 4th one, I believe it’s just too much too). Others pointed out that an ability that deals damage and heals is too strange, even being all the positive energy stuff.

At-Will orisons most agree that is not overpowered, it enhances the cleric a bit, yes, but within reason.

> Fighter:

Fighter looks “bland”. The 4th ed approach is to make it more specific, more flavored with a certain weapon. While the Weapon Training ability does provides bonus to specific weapons, the “+X with weapon Y” still seems bland. Some more feats to choose from seems to be a good choice as member Kobajagrande mentioned; and member Anaxxius mentioned the Knight from PHB II as a good source for the design of the new fighter.

Many have frequently mentioned the need for more skill points, member DeadDMWalking gave a good example of trying to make the fighter “guard” something; any rogue could easily pass by unseen (and unheard); the need for some Perception is clear in this case. DeadDMWalking´s complete poston fighters can be read here: http://paizo.com/store/byCompany/p/paizoPublishingLLC/pathfinder/messageboa rds/pathfinderRPG/feedback/alpha1/racesClasses/makingABetterFighter
He mentions the need for better Saves and more anti-magic abilities. On a personal note, I like the fact that fighters don’t have these anti-magic stuff; I like the feel of the classic warrior, the kingsguard, the mercenary, etc… who has nothing to do with magic. For me, I´d let these things be some optional feats or even a specialized prestige class.

> Rogue:

Sneak attack working against everything might not seem a good idea. This looks like a 4th ed approach and there are many who are not glad with it. How could it be explained to Sneak Attack a shadow? Some have mentioned this general Sneak Attack could work with the knowledge skill; to have a sneak attack efficient against some unusual foe, the rogue should have some knowledge about it; some kind of Knowledge (Undead) check to let them find that weak spot on a shadow. Another point is: How is sneak attack affected by concealment?

Magic?: Not everyone wants a magic-using rogue; although some did like the idea.
My take on the issue is: The concept of the “Arcane Trickster” is too personal, let others who wants their rogues to cast spells take some Wiz or Sorc levels. By NOT giving them spells you allow for both types; and by giving them, you allow for only one type.

User Chris Banks commented about the rogue’s trapfinding ability; saying that while there’s no problem on the rogue being better at disarming traps, he should not be the ONLY one capable of doing it (for traps with DC above 21). So a high level party while without a rogue is doomed to be killed by traps. My personal take is that if the party does not have a rogue, it should rely to spells then. But I do agree other people could try it, even if with a penalty.

> Wizard:

Bond items don’t quite substitute a familiar; while the concept is very interesting, a familiar is still much superior. A familiar is not only a bonus feat for increasing a skill; and not only it gets many abilities as you level up, it is a character in game! A raven speaks a language, how awesome is that, it also makes for an excellent spy as has been proven in many games; and so do all the flying familiars. Depending on the where you are, who would suspect a rat? It can retrieve much information.
So, bon items should get a little pump. Giving an extra low-level spell for a wizard to cast is not much, if we think in D&D (ok, Pathfinder) terms, what is “magical power”? Higher spell slots. So the bond item should work to provide this, maybe some uses of “Sudden” Metamagic; maybe at higher levels it could lower the penalty for applying metamagic feats.

Casting from the spellbook was also mentioned. It is a concept that has been the target of arguments for a long time in D&D too.

Races:

From what I have seen, there is not much talk about the changes on races. The majority of people that have commented on the issue seem to be ok with the changes although one comment or another has appeared.
OBS: If I, in some way mistake someone else´s posts, please forgive me and feel free correct me. There is just too much to read through the whole board, sometimes I might get something wrong.

The adjustments for the half-elf have made them a lot more favorable to play. True enough, 3.5 half-elves had a very bad rule design, only people too much concerned with the flavor and nothing with the mechanical stuff would play them. In synthesis, the half-elf is one race that actually needed improvements, and it got some.

Racial modifiers are also getting some attention. The +2 extra Intelligence for elves are giving them a considerable edge for wizards. Orcs are getting some debate as to their +2 Wis.

Another interesting point on the changes for the races, is that while the core races can me modified, what about the non-core races? Does the OGL allows for planetouched, drows, thri-kreen, etc… to be changed also? Since the races are getting more powerful in comparison to the standard 3.5, the others would have to be changed too.

What about that “Unnatural Beauty”? Most agree that beauty is a personal taste. While some other races such as humans, might appreciate that elven beauty, a dwarf or an orc might find it unpleasant. Try not to base the concept of beauty in our own human standards.

Favored classes seem to be getting some good attention. How is the xp penalty for multi-classing going to be handled? What is representation of favored classes? As member Kobajagrande said:
“Favored Class no longer serves the goal it was supposed to in 3E. In 3e, the original intent for favored class was not for it to be something that most members of a race go for, but rather it was a class that most members of a race dabble with. I am unsure if the pathfinder "favored class" has any sort of influence on the game whatsoever.”

What about having more than one favored class for each race, and having to pick only one? Elves for example could get Wizard and Ranger for a favored class, but you’d have to choose only one.

Member Flash_CXXI’S has mentioned an interesting issue also. It seems that the Pathfinder RPG will serve as the Player’s Handbook and the DM guide; if that is the case, other races should be included. What about the planetouched, Genasi, Celadrin, etc…Are they being kept out so as to not include any race with Racial Level Adjustments? 4th Ed seems to have managed making all the races without the Level Adjustments. What is going to be Pathfinder’s take on this? Since or not having Level Adjustments are both compatible with 3.5, and of course, if it could be managed to remove them somehow, would simplify the game a lot.

The art is too anime-like, especially on the races chapter. This is something I personally had also thought when I saw it, I’m glad others shared the same opinion. While some do like anime, it should be something personal, not the general feel of the game. Other might get a wrong impression that the game is videogame-like designed.

Ok, this is my attempt to try to summarize, if not all, at least the most frequent feedback on the posts. It is by no means a review of the Pathfinder RPG Alpha Release 1, just an overview of people’s feedbacks, and my own.
The writing may not be grammatically the best, since I am not a native English speaker, but I believe I’ll do ok.

=============================

Introduction:

Not much to say here, the author talks about his motivations and expectations for the Pathfinder RPG and how he started on the project.

There is something I would like to say about the expected changes for the Pathfinder RPG that I have not found on the boards, and couldn’t find a appropriate place to do it: More focus on the character, not his magical gear.

My biggest problem with 3 (and 3.5) edition (and I do mean, the biggest, worse even than any broken or bogus rules) is that it’s all about the magical items of your character, not his own personal abilities. In a 3.5 version the saying would go: “It’s the sword and not the arm that wields it”. A high level fighter is not cool because of his fighting abilities, but because of all the magical stuff he carries, really, if you are of high level and are not packed with magical stuff you’re nothing, you’re nearly useless. Imagine a 12th level fighter without any magical weapons or armor. He is no match for even an 8th level encounter.
So, what I would really like to see in Pathfinder is more focus on the character, go back to the roots of fantasy action. Let a 12th level fighter stand out not for his +4 Keen-Flaming-Electrical-Ghost-Touch Sword; but for his own fighting skills. “Sure a magical armor and a flaming sword would help, but no worry, I can do fine with my own breastplate the blacksmith just had repaired and my good ol’ sword”.

Really, if Pathfinder could accomplish this, I would consider it fine already. Iron Heroes accomplished the same, and for that I have a great respect for the system; although it could use a little clean-up too. I don’t know if other people share the same idea, this is my personal take on the subject.

I believe everyone has at least once in their D&D lifetime come up with this issue. We all know that missing an attack does not mean it missed the target entirely, it might have hit him but without enough strength; but it still doesn´t feel right to me. I am sure there are many people who also would like to see armor as Damage Reduction rather than increasing the AC.

The biggest problem with simply giving every armor a fixed DR and removing its AC bonus are the characters who makes many low-damaging attacks (archers for example); they end up dealing almost no damage and are penalized too much by this rule, which is unrealistic too, not every attack will hit right where the armor better protects. Except for a full plate, no armor covers the entire body, and even then it has weak spots.
The Iron Heroes game came up with a nice idea of rolling the DR, that is; it´s not a fixed amount, each armor has its DR measured as a die (d2, d3, d6, etc...), so that takes into consideration that not every attack will hit the armor in its toughest spot. Altough it solves the problem in a clever and realistic (pretty much) way, it increases too much the rolling of dice and slows down combat (which is someting no one wants, I am sure. It ends up taking way the climax).

Other rules I´ve seen, states that people could "aim" for those softer spots, thus taking a penalty to attack in exchange for a better damage - which in essence is the power attack feat, so the "problem" comes in letting everyone use it for free. One might say to just give them a "trade-off penalty", but again, we are taking the original-rules archer and penalizing him by giving him less chance to hit or less damage than originally... so.. no good also. An option would be to give arrows and crossbow bolts a bonus to bypass some DR, since it has been shown historically that crossbows were great for piercing through armor.

Armor as DR is something I would really really like to see, I already use it in my game and will continue to use it; and with everyone working together I´m sure we could come up with a very interesting, well-balanced rule.

Any thoughts?