Hi everybody
Well, in our last D&D Campaign, we started to use this optional rules, a kind of mix between the rules listed in Unearthed Arcana, and Conan d20.
It's not perfect, but in my group we always liked that logic. Maybe because of the influence of other games more realistics, like Runequest.On the other hand, I have always had the feeling that when PCs reach level 11th or 12th, the Base Attack Bones is pretty high, but ACs are almost the same. So you always hit with your first attack. The only difference is with your second and maybe third attack.
When I read Conan d20 RPG, I liked very much the concept, but it was very difficult for me to adapt to the D&D 3.5 rules with its variety of armor types and weapons.
But I really think that a more realistic D&D combat should be oriented to that way.Greetings
Hi Zaragoz
Seems great minds think alike. I too use some optional rules from Conan and the Undearthed Arcana. It is true that 11+ level characters hit very easily. Although, I don't think using AC instead of DR would solve this problem. I have found using the DR for armors to be easy and adds a little bit of realism my group craves. Having used the ancient 1e weapon vs armor charts prior to using DR (which is alot simpler for new players to grasp).
As far as adapting to the 3.5 variety of armor and weapons, I use them fully and simply use the DR rules for armor in the Unearthed Arcana. Another optional rule is from the DMG core book. Which uses an opposed attack roll vs defense roll. The only problem is it slows the game down in combat. Although, depending on your grops size, this may not be a problem.
Finally, I agree whole heartedly with your opinion about a more realistic D&D combat system. Although, it may not be for everyone. Therefore, I prefer optional rule layers. Which allow different game groups to add more complicated "realistic" rules to the game or others to simply play without them. Both allowing virtually little change to the base game we all love.
Your thoughts?
|
Hi everybody
Well, in our last D&D Campaign, we started to use this optional rules, a kind of mix between the rules listed in Unearthed Arcana, and Conan d20.
It's not perfect, but in my group we always liked that logic. Maybe because of the influence of other games more realistics, like Runequest.On the other hand, I have always had the feeling that when PCs reach level 11th or 12th, the Base Attack Bones is pretty high, but ACs are almost the same. So you always hit with your first attack. The only difference is with your second and maybe third attack.
When I read Conan d20 RPG, I liked very much the concept, but it was very difficult for me to adapt to the D&D 3.5 rules with its variety of armor types and weapons.
But I really think that a more realistic D&D combat should be oriented to that way.Greetings
Good to hear that.
I did the same, adopting the UA damage reduction system and the dodge/parry AC values from the Conan RPG (base bonus progressions).I found that it is an elegant solution, that furthermore helps giving a very distinctive feeling to classes versed in dodging attacks or standing in the middle of a melee, parrying and relying on superior armor defense.
Looking at the alpha rules (and to the armor training progression for the fighter, specifically), I see great potential.
I think that a slight development in this sector regarding feats such as Dodge or Two Weapon Defense, and in the use of weapons versed for parrying use can bring forth a fast, easy and yet very realistic representation of the armor/agility aspect of combat.
Moreover it will help resolving some logical paradoxes or incongruities regarding contact AC, flat footed AC and the physical armor factor vs quickness and ease of movement.
As long as we're opening this up, I'd like to share the armor system that I've been using in my own games as well. My group's been using this for a few sessions and so far it's been working out great.
I like the system Iron Heroes uses, but I feel that DR is a pretty unbalancing factor to the game, so I wanted to water it down a little bit:
Under these rules, DR is expressed as a die roll roughly representative of whatever AC bonus the armor would normally provide. (A normal suit of Chainmail provides DR 1d6/magic; Scalemail 1d4/magic; Leather 1d2/magic; Padded 1/magic; and so on.)
However, the DR is only applied when an attack connects with your armor. The armor's AC bonus represents the range of values at which it can absorb attacks; if an opponent's attack roll is lower than your AC but would still hit if you were not wearing armor, then the attack connects and you can you can roll for the armor's DR.
Because this would greatly reduce the effectiveness of AC, I also include in my games the Unearthed Arcana rules for Armor Class bonus by Class, representing each class' innate ability to parry and dodge attacks.
We haven't had any problems with the system bogging down the game yet; effectively having two AC values doesn't add very much complication, but it does add a bit of believability. For us, rolling for DR is also empowering and fun, adding a level of tension to combat that wasn't there before.
Let me know what you think.
Also, I am unfamiliar with the Conan dodge/parry rules, so forgive me if I'm just repeating what everybody else is already hinting at.
Sadly, it's a bit of an overhaul and strays from the goal of being 3.5 compatible.
And that's the biggest selling point right now...backwards compatibility with most of the 3.5 material people have on their shelf, with minimal tinkering necessary. From that point of view, I'm not sure a hard-coded DR/Defense Bonus rule in the PF Core would be a good idea.
As an optional ruleset in the DM's Section, on the other hand...would be great to see something like it. I think it would reduce the dependence of high-level characters on magical AC boosters.
We use 1/2 BAB (rounded down) - Armor Check Penalty of armor (not shields) worn. Quick, easy to remember, gives a nice balance between heavier armor or light armor and Defense.
And that's the biggest selling point right now...backwards compatibility with most of the 3.5 material people have on their shelf, with minimal tinkering necessary. From that point of view, I'm not sure a hard-coded DR/Defense Bonus rule in the PF Core would be a good idea.
Correct. I think Paizo would be ill-advised to stray too far from the basic concepts and implementations of v.3.5. By all means they should correct the things that are genuinely broken, unclear, or just plain difficult to use in play, but I see no pressing need to change the way AC works, both from a compatability standpoint and the fact that, truly, AC works fine as written. It's way down on the list of things Paizo should consider "fixing" in Pathfinder.
BM has a point here. Armor as AC is in fact more balanced and easier to manage than the whole DR rules.
However, in light of that, there are some good Armor as DR rules out there, but sadly, they are not from UA.
If you have it, take a look at the rules in the Game of Thrones RPG by Guardians of Order. Its out of print now, but it has some very simple rules for armor as DR.
At the core of it, your AC bonus from armor is replaced by DR. So full-plate would give you DR 8. This can be bypassed in many ways however. They have a called shot attack which has multiple uses.
Some of these are the basic called shot (-4 penalty) to hit a specific body part. There is a called shot to bypass armor which imposes a penalty of twice the DR of the target. And a few others.
They also use defense bonuses with these rules, but they are not very high.
|
I modified the DR and DV rules from UA for my latest campaign and its working pretty well, while I havent tested it at high levels the builds I have been presented with have been rather impressive on the AC front.
Defense value
All characters gain a defence value based on their character level and class.
Sorcerer, Wizard, & Druid start at 0 DV at 1st level but gain +1 at 4th, increasing by +1 at 8th, 12th, 16th, to a maximum of +5 at 20th.
Bard, Rogue, & Cleric start at 0 DV and gain +1 at level 3, increasing by +1 at 6th, 9th, 12th, 15th, to a maximum of +6 at 18th.
Ranger, Barbarian, Monk, Fighter, & Paladin start at 1 DV and gain +1 at 2nd, increasing by +1 at 5th, 8th, 11th, 14th, 17th, to a maximum of +8 at 20th.
Armor (and natural armor) uses the DR rules in UA (SRD) providing half the standard AC as an armor bonus while the remainder is converted to DR. (Natural armor converts 1 point to DR per 5 points of natural armor bonus.)
working on these figures alone a 10th level fighter with full plate would have an AC of 18 under 3.5. however with the new rules above he would have an AC of 18 and 4 points of DR.
Combine this with the Pathfinder rules for armor training and the same fighter will have a possible 20 AC in non-magical full plate.
To give you an example of what sort of AC my campaign has come up with I have a druid 7/nature warrior 5 using barkskin and the PHBII shapeshifting rules running round with an AC of 39 and DR 9/- !!!
|
|
Another thing is, DR works well at high levels but not great at low levels. A solution would be to add abilities like Bo9S for melee classes. At low levels they can have access to a few abilities that might add a d6 or d8 more dmg. At low level that is a lot and helps over come DR but at high levels while it helps, it just doesn't help as much.
Of course you could have the powers scale as you level but not scale as fast. Such as a X base bonus dmg and then ever so often it adds a bit more.
|
We tried the "Armor as DR" and Class Based Defense Bonus" options from WoTC's Unearthed Arcana when it first came out. It seemed to make sense at the time. I mean, every other D20 game since D&D has a Class Based Defense Bonus, so why not?
First off, it involved a lot of rewriting of the Monster Manual (even on a case per case basis), and ended up with every Wizard taking at least a level of Fighter to get the Defense Bonus bump. To add to the problem, a player with a Bugbear Cleric took Roll With It (Savage Species, pg. 39) to ADD to his armor's DR (the rules say it stacks with any other source of DR!)
We dumped both options following this.