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?
|
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, WizardI 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?
There's an option like this over at Unearthed Arcana.
If a defense bonus was added, I would definitely remove the Fighter's armor training AC bonus as I would consider this to be a part of the defense bonus.
Just use half BAB, whatever the classes are.
That's much easier to use, for characters and monsters.
Just use half BAB, whatever the classes are.
That's much easier to use, for characters and monsters.
This hits on a major problem with the defense bonus, PCs will be harder to hit, and so will monsters. This could slow the game down considerably.
Besides, there is already a defense bonus aspect to the game: the Combat Expertise feat.
Maybe instead of adding a Defense Bonus to the game an Improved Combat Expertise feat could be added for selection, whereby the PC with this feat would gain a +1 Dodge bonus of AC at the cost of half in attack bonus given up. For example, if a character with this feat subtracted 2 from his attack bonus, he or she would receive a +4 Dodge Bonus to AC.
Of course at least one prerequisite would be Combat Expertise. I would also recommend a prerequisite of 15 intelligence.
This is an excellent way to reward players for building non-standard characters such as the Intelligent Fighter.
This hits on a major problem with the defense bonus, PCs will be harder to hit, and so will monsters. This could slow the game down considerably.
Besides, there is already a defense bonus aspect to the game: the Combat Expertise feat.
It wouldn't slow down that much, as I said, armor interferes with mobility (max Dex) and thus also restricts how much you can get from your defense bonus. What it would do, is make light-armored fighters able to defend themselves. C'mon, a fighter wearing Leather has a ridiculous low AC, he'll be hit everytime; and the Combat Expertise feat just makes both opponents equally harder to hit, it's the same as saying "You get +4 to your AC and so does your opponent".
Why can't the light-armored fighter learn to be better at dodgig (Dodge Feat, +1 to Ac.. yeeee!!... :p) than his heavy-armored counterpart? The current system has no way to support this type of character.
Why can't the light-armored fighter learn to be better at dodgig (Dodge Feat, +1 to Ac.. yeeee!!... :p) than his heavy-armored counterpart? The current system has no way to support this type of character.
They are though. The Max Dex to AC entry on the Armor tables would ensure that a lightly armored, nimble character is much harder to land a touch attack on than the heavily armored one.
At any rate, as mentioned above, the method You are suggesting seems to already be detailed in Unearthed Arcana. Personally, I've tried that method and didn't like it as much for D&D as I did in d20 Modern and Star Wars (monster conversion being part of the issue I suspect).
At any rate, there's one way to make it really simple to know what category to put classes in:
Good Reflex Save = High Defense Bonus
Good/Average BAB, Poor Reflex Save = Medium Defense Bonus
Poor BAB, Poor Reflex Save = Low Defense bonus
If You are really intent on a Defense bonus in PfRPG/3.5... well, You've already posted in the thread that Saurstalk started so I'm sure You've seen the ideas we've been kicking around. :)
In our current group, the rogues have by far better ACs than the fighters, except for the one with a large shield and some shield specialization feats.
I like the half-BAB idea - I'll have to think on that.
The problem arises from D&Ds abstract version of combat. In reality, a heavily-armored opponent should be much EASIER to hit, NOT harder - he's just harder to HURT.
I've used several home-brew systems, and the one from UA, and none are really perfect, unless we go all the way back and change how combat works (with armor doing damage-reduction, rather then making it harder to hit).
I was just thinking maybe something like -
No Armor = 3 x Dex bonus
Light Armor = 2 x Dex Bonus
Medium Armor = 1 x Dex Bonus
Heavy Armor = No Bonus
Then remove the Monk's progressive bonuses (leave in the intital Wis bonus).
Still not perfect - it needs some sort of balancing factor - maybe add damage for each category of 'unarmored' (+D2 for Med, +D4 for Light, and +D6 for Heavy) - somewhat more realistic and deadly for unarmored individuals (if they get hit, they get hit BAD). if you really wanted to go nuts, you could devise a table for added damage for weapon type vs Armor type (similar to what Arms Law/Rolemaster has).
Maybe increasing the threat factor for a critical instead would work better then extra damage, and add yet another level of realism?
-1 threat range for medium Armor
-2 threat range for Light Armor
-3 threat range for No Armor.
So a Kukri or a Scimitar would have a critical range of 15-20 against an unarmored opponent. Harder to hit, yet easier to Crit when a hit lands. Maybe even combine this with the chart above, and add extra damage as well, but up the damage multiplier for the crit at each level...
Hmmm... I'll have to tinker and playtest all of these, and consider the half-BAB thing....
Way back in 1st Ed., when the barbarian class was first introduced, one of it's drawbacks was that they were superstitious and HATED magic, so they shunned magic items, including armor. Of course, this wasn't really "fair" in terms of game mechanics, because they would have worse ACs than other classes - so to offset this, they got a "defense bonus" instead (which went from +1 to +5). I'd like to see this reintroduced, because the whole "I hate magic" thing really made role-playing a barbarian interesting.
I'd like to see this reintroduced, because the whole "I hate magic" thing really made role-playing a barbarian interesting.
Wasn't there also a similarly-inspired mechanic (can't remember the D&D version) that allowed barbarians to bypass damage reduction because of this? I always thought that was cool.
I was just thinking maybe something like -
No Armor = 3 x Dex bonus
Light Armor = 2 x Dex Bonus
Medium Armor = 1 x Dex Bonus
Heavy Armor = No Bonus
I thought it nice at first Markus, but then it occurred to me, high-dex characters would have a very high AC in the beginning but would never improve (unless he spends points on Dex of course). Your 18 Dex rogue would have a 22AC in the 1st level not counting Dodge and stuff. Armor for him is pointless until very high levels if he could get some +5 Leather. And it shouldnt be, I mean, a light leather gotta be better than nothing.
BDB I believe should be progressive, and armor giving a penalty (but never going negative) instead of a limit like Max Dex. Why? So that higher levels characters are rewarded for being more experienced, it shows they can defend themselves better and are more used to armor. Limit BDB to +2 and as soon as a character gets it, it'd never improve; make it be -4 penalty instead (but never below zero), and he'd only be able to get some effective BDB when he gets +5 or better, showing he's growing more experienced at his techniques and at wearing armor.
Hi!
I use an hybrid system, derived from UA. Every class has a class bonus based on its armor proficiencies, and armor bonuses to AC have been lessened, but every armor gives to the wearer a damage reduction.
Table: Level - AC bonus (no armor) - AC bonus (light armor) -AC bonus (medium armor) -AC bonus (heavy armor)
1 2 2 3 3
2 2 2 3 3
3 3 3 4 4
4 3 3 4 4
5 3 4 5 5
6 4 4 5 5
7 4 5 6 6
8 5 5 6 6
9 5 6 6 7
10 5 6 7 7
11 6 6 7 8
12 6 7 8 8
13 6 7 8 9
14 7 8 9 9
15 7 8 9 10
16 8 9 9 10
17 8 9 10 11
18 8 9 10 11
19 9 10 11 12
20 9 10 11 12
Like star wars revised edition, class bonus are cumulative for multiclass characters, but for every class that I add to the PC, I subtract 2 from the class bonus to AC (ex a fighter 1 wizard 1 has 3+2-2=3)
AC bonus - DR - Max. dex bonus
Light armor
Padded 1 0 8
Leather 1 1 6
Studded leather 2 1 5
Chain shirt 2 2 4
Medium armor
Hide 1 2 4
Scale mail 1 2 3
Chainmail 2 3 2
Breastplate 2 3 3
Heavy armor
Splint mail 3 3 0
Banded mail 3 3 1
Half-plate 4 4 0
Full plate 4 5 1
Shields work the same way...they give a shield bonus to AC.
natural armor looks similar... for every 4 points of original natural armor bonus, I subtract 1 from the total and I add DR 1/- to the monster or character.
I also have improved the cost for a +1 enhancenment bonus to AC to an equivalent of +2, since with these rules it's very easy getting an high AC.
-------------------------------------------
However, I find very clever the use of half BAB as class bonus to CA.
we could simply use this, and give to every class and Prc a static bonus to AC, like SW SAGA does. By the way, I find very clever the SAGA's approach to defenses, and I'd like to see such a mechanic in 3P.
I thought it nice at first Markus, but then it occurred to me, high-dex characters would have a very high AC in the beginning but would never improve (unless he spends points on Dex of course).
Yeah, I realize that - thats why I was just throwing some sugestions out there for others to tinker with. I'm more of a 'fluff' guy then a 'crunch' guy.
Thanks for your input - now I'm thinking about some combination, with maybe half of those benefits (Aprox) -
No Armor = 2 x Dex Bonus
Lgt Armor = 1½ x Dex Bonus
Med Armor = 1 x Dex Bonus
Hvy Armor = ½ x Dex Bonus
And then doing something with the Bab as well. I have to see how this all works on paper first, to see if its even feasable. Also, this table pretty much takes the place of the "Max Def Bonus" in the Armor tables.
The only thing that urks me about using BAB is that classes that already have decent HP will be the ones getting the most benefit, when it's really the non-melee types that need some sort of 'avoidance' boost. I suppose thats the whole point of being 'non-melee', but I just hate that Monks lag behind other fighter-types in combat, when their whole 'schtick' is fighting.
Maybe if we applied the table above to ½ BAB instead of Dex? Thats pretty math-intensive, though. At that point, we are using BAB as a "Combat Factor" type stat, which is changing the rules quite a bit.
Sorry for the DP, but I was just looking over Hayden's stuff, and I didn't want this commentary mixed with the above.
Your tables look well thought out, and I've played around with the UA rules as well. What I don't get is that you have five columns of numbers, but there is only 4 levels of armor (No, Lgt, Med, & Hvy) - can you explain this better?
What you've done looks good, but some of it I'm not 'getting' - sorry. I think part of it has to do with the way the Internet destroys table-formatting.