I've got a question for James, Eric and anyone else who owns a copy of Unearthed Arcana: Is anyone going to use the Defense Bonus optional rule from Unearthed Arcana?
I ask because after reading about the overall theme of the Savage Tide (swashbuckling, "piratey" high adventure) and the climate of the locations, it seems hard to picture anyone clanking around in armor (well, not for very long anyway).
The article on Sasserine in Dungeon 139 even mentions that, due to the local climate, "less is more" - regardless of social class. I know that the article is referring to dress style, but as armor is (usually) less comfortable to wear than clothing, it made me wonder.
I noted that the armor has all been light in TINH, but I just wanted to know if anyone else has thought of using the Defense Bonus rule, or if it would be too much of a headache to convert over. Thanks for your thoughts all!
Your Friendly Neighborhood Dalesman
"Bringing Big D**n Justice to the Bad Guys Since 1369 DR"
I'm most definitely using the Defense Bonus concept, combined with Armor As Damage Reduction. I've also implemented rules for heat exhaustion (ala Sandstorm) for folks wearing the heavier types of armor. That aspect hasn't come up thus ar, as two of my players are basically non-combatant types and the other two are from savage cultures (Native American and Aztec-like) that disdain any armor heavier than leather.
It's proven to work very well so far.
EDIT: Oh, and note that you don't have to own Unearthed Arcana to use these--the content is all Open Game and posted on the net!
I've found that the armour as DR rule is a little bit clunky when it comes to combat. It really makes weapons that use 1d4 or 1d6 highly unlikely to score any damage against their foe.
Its more realistic, yes, but as far as gameplay goes, it tended to slow down my games too much. Besides, there are plenty of feats and magic spells and items available to PC's that up their AC.
So far what I've found with the Armor as DR is that it significantly reduced the players that chose any armor at all. Of the three that could (one can't as it interfers with casting), only one did so (and it's only DR 1/--). If I had a bunch of armor-wearing characters, it might be more of a problem I think, but I doubt that will be an issue in this AP.
|
I'm most definitely using the Defense Bonus concept, combined with Armor As Damage Reduction. I've also implemented rules for heat exhaustion (ala Sandstorm) for folks wearing the heavier types of armor. That aspect hasn't come up thus ar, as two of my players are basically non-combatant types and the other two are from savage cultures (Native American and Aztec-like) that disdain any armor heavier than leather.
It's proven to work very well so far.
EDIT: Oh, and note that you don't have to own Unearthed Arcana to use these--the content is all Open Game and posted on the net!
How does the Defense Bonus system work in regards to being flatfooted? Does it still stay in place? I like the way this rule looks and would like to use it but it didn't specify if you lose or retain the bonus while flatfooted.
FH
If I recall correctly, the defense bonus is an armor bonus. So you keep it while flat-footed, but it doesn't add to touch AC.
How does the Defense Bonus system work in regards to being flatfooted? Does it still stay in place? I like the way this rule looks and would like to use it but it didn't specify if you lose or retain the bonus while flatfooted.
FH
It's not addressed. I treat it similar to the Active Defense in Iron Heroes--it is effective against Touch Attacks (making this spellcaster "trick" much less useful) but does not apply when the character is flat-footed or otherwise would lose a Dexterity bonus to AC.
If I recall correctly, the defense bonus is an armor bonus. So you keep it while flat-footed, but it doesn't add to touch AC.
Nope, it definitely applies to touch attacks...
"Unlike an armor bonus, a defense bonus does improve a character’s AC against touch attacks."
and
"Touch attacks are less effective under this system, since most characters’ touch ACs are significantly higher than in a standard game."
I've found that the armour as DR rule is a little bit clunky when it comes to combat. It really makes weapons that use 1d4 or 1d6 highly unlikely to score any damage against their foe.
Its more realistic, yes, but as far as gameplay goes, it tended to slow down my games too much. Besides, there are plenty of feats and magic spells and items available to PC's that up their AC.
Well you have to consider the weapon. For example the Rapier was invented to over come armour - It's thin blade and thrusting action made it possible to slip between the chinks and segment in the armour. The cross bow was invented to punch right through platemail and rarely protected it's wearer if the shot came from within 50 feet.
I built up a system that took this kind of thing (weapon type vs. armor type) into consideration, giving different types of armor DR X/piercing, DR X/slashing, or DR X/bludgeoning. Then I approached it with an entry in the weapon noting armor it could bypass. Both turned out to be too cumbersome to use in-game, so I just went with DR X/-- as the standard.
Do note that the crossbow was actually around long before plate armor (possibly as far back as 2000 BC)...it was, however, heavily modified and improved throughout the medieval period to defeat heavily armored cavalry.
It's not addressed. I treat it similar to the Active Defense in Iron Heroes--it is effective against Touch Attacks (making this spellcaster "trick" much less useful) but does not apply when the character is flat-footed or otherwise would lose a Dexterity bonus to AC.How does the Defense Bonus system work in regards to being flatfooted? Does it still stay in place? I like the way this rule looks and would like to use it but it didn't specify if you lose or retain the bonus while flatfooted.
FH
Thanks for the links to Hypertext d20, erian. I never even knew about that resource until now - pure good stuff there :)
If I may ask, how much difficulty (if any) did you have converting all of the monsters/NPCs over to the optional rules? Have you made any modifications to treasure to reflect the lesser role of armor in your campaign (i.e. - changing some armor out for protective items, putting armor bonuses on masterwork clothing, etc.)?
Your Friendly Neighborhood Dalesman
"Bringing Big D**n Justice to the Bad Guys Since 1369 DR"
Thanks for the links to Hypertext d20, erian. I never even knew about that resource until now - pure good stuff there :)
Yep, there's not a day goes by I don't hit that site for something! It's got the Epic
If I may ask, how much difficulty (if any) did you have converting all of the monsters/NPCs over to the optional rules? Have you made any modifications to treasure to reflect the lesser role of armor in your campaign (i.e. - changing some armor out for protective items, putting armor bonuses on masterwork clothing, etc.)?
No real conversion difficulties so far concerning AC, but I'm using an entirely variant d20 system and already put considerable effort into game prep anyway, so my perspective may be skewed in that regard. For this, I've focused on fully adapting only key opponents (Soller Vark, Rowyn, the Huecuva) and for the others (thugs, Lotus Dragon rogues, etc.) just consider their AC "close enough" for game purposes. I'm not one to get bogged down in rules mid-game anyway...
For the treasure, I've left everything as-is, since armor is still useful under this system and simply serves a different purpose.
Thanks for the links to Hypertext d20, erian. I never even knew about that resource until now - pure good stuff there :)Yep, there's not a day goes by I don't hit that site for something! It's got the Epic
If I may ask, how much difficulty (if any) did you have converting all of the monsters/NPCs over to the optional rules? Have you made any modifications to treasure to reflect the lesser role of armor in your campaign (i.e. - changing some armor out for protective items, putting armor bonuses on masterwork clothing, etc.)?No real conversion difficulties so far concerning AC, but I'm using an entirely variant d20 system and already put considerable effort into game prep anyway, so my perspective may be skewed in that regard. For this, I've focused on fully adapting only key opponents (Soller Vark, Rowyn, the Huecuva) and for the others (thugs, Lotus Dragon rogues, etc.) just consider their AC "close enough" for game purposes. I'm not one to get bogged down in rules mid-game anyway...
For the treasure, I've left everything as-is, since armor is still useful under this system and simply serves a different purpose.
Gotcha. Well, if it was no big hassle to convert then it might be worthwhile after all. I know my aquatic PCs will be happy to hear it :)
The D&D variant appears to work ok. Its not quite as clunky as the Conan RPG version I'm using in my Conan campaign.
And if I read the D&D one correctly, the defense bonus would most likely not apply if caught flat footed (unlike an armor bonus) but would apply to touch attacks. If you were wearing armor though, the armor bonus would still apply while flat footed, but not to touch attacks. So it makes armour a little more attractive to characters without Unanny Dodge.
If I recall correctly, the defense bonus is an armor bonus. So you keep it while flat-footed, but it doesn't add to touch AC.Nope, it definitely applies to touch attacks...
"Unlike an armor bonus, a defense bonus does improve a character’s AC against touch attacks."
and
"Touch attacks are less effective under this system, since most characters’ touch ACs are significantly higher than in a standard game."
That's what I get for answering a question without checking. I was thinking of the Star Wars defense rules.
Do note that the crossbow was actually around long before plate armor (possibly as far back as 2000 BC)...it was, however, heavily modified and improved throughout the medieval period to defeat heavily armored cavalry.
True - the balista was created using the basic crossbow as a foundations.