|
For some time, I've been working on making D&D compatible with d20 Modern. Pathfinder has brought much of this to the surface. Where I'm at a loss right now is what to do with class bonuses to defense.
The way I see it, as someone progresses in level, they should become more adept at dishing out damage. Hence, the ever-ascending curve of BAB.
This led me to think that over time, someone is not only better at hitting, but should know better how to dish out damage. So, now, in my games, we add +1/2 BAB to damage rolls.
But that got me thinking. As someone advances in levels, shouldn't they know better how to avoid being hit. After all, Fort/Ref/Will Svs also go up as a character progresses in levels. So, why shouldn't a character's AC or Defense (beyond the occasional climb of Dex or enchanted armor). The question is how to reflect this.
In part, the answer I see is found at d20 Modern with the Class Defense bonus. How would we create an equivalent counterpart in D&D? 1/2 BAB like damage? No. Avoiding being hit isn't the same as making a hit.
But what about CMB? That's sort of an armor class against certain hits isn't it? It is based on BAB. That's a hard angle to get around, and honestly, I can't ... except that it deals with making a hit vs. evading the hit. It's a power move between two opposing forces.
If you are wanting to avoid a hit all together, it seems to me that the Reflex Base Save is the most logical result.
But I can't envision Reflex Base to go hand in hand with armor without penaltiy. The penalties I see:
(1) Associate with Max Dex with armor. I.e., your Ref Base cannot exceed your Armor Max Dex for purposes of Base Defense Bonus (BDB). The same should apply for encumbrance.
(2) The Ref Base Sv does not apply if you are wearing armor with which you aren't proficient.
When I inserted this into my current characters, it seems reasonable insofar as enchanted armor wasn't included. But once you started adding enchanted armor, this could become very skewed in time.
The answer here becomes - make magic more rare than it often becomes in a game.
The reason I like it (sans magic) is that it does a good job of tracking how, the better someone gets, the better their opposition must become to viably take them on.
(But considering the extra damage, and imposition of instant criticals - the more quickly they may fall.)
I doubt that Paizo is interested on imposing something like this. Nevertheless, I'd be interested to hear from you about other ideas on how to calculate BDB. I did toy with scrapping it out of d20 Modern (for compatibility sakes), but am so far opting against that. I really like how d20 Modern handles it and that's what I'm trying to emulate with D&D.
|
|
We used the Class-based Defense Bonus (as well as Armor as DR) from Unearthed Arcana when if first came out. It was horrible. As a DM, all monsters had to be converted or changed, every PC spell caster took a level of Fighter (bonus feat + Fort save boost + instant +6 to AC). It really unbalanced game play, and nerfed encounters. While in general I like the idea of a Class-based Defense Bonus, I think it needs to be well thought out first.
We used the Class-based Defense Bonus (as well as Armor as DR) from Unearthed Arcana when if first came out. It was horrible. As a DM, all monsters had to be converted or changed, every PC spell caster took a level of Fighter (bonus feat + Fort save boost + instant +6 to AC). It really unbalanced game play, and nerfed encounters. While in general I like the idea of a Class-based Defense Bonus, I think it needs to be well thought out first.
Yeah, that's the same problem that I ran into when trying to fit the UA-style BDB to 3.5. That's part of the reason I recommended to Saurstalk (in another thread link1 |link2 | link3) about a Defense bonus mechanic like the one he's mentioned in this thread. It makes for a much easier conversion if so desired.
The main drawback is that combat may end up getting drawn out because the AC of everything in the game suddenly improves. In order to balance this, it might be desireable to rule that Armor and Natural AC bonuses cannot stack and/or perhaps that Deflection and BDB bonuses do not stack.
NOTE: Most monsters receive a Natural bonus to AC based on their hit dice. So there is already a precedence for this where monsters are concerned.
Example: A player with a BDB of +5 could wear a ring of protection +3 but they'd still only get a +5 bonus (not +8). However, when sleeping or helpless, they still receive the +3 bonus... kinda like the way bracers of armor work.
Another thought is that while BDB and Deflection might not stack, the Deflection bonus is not constrained by the Max Dex of the armor. Thus, Your adamantine plate wearing fighter might not be able to enjoy their +8 BDB, but a +5 ring of protection would be fully effective.
You make some good points. I appreciate that.
Thanks for saying so. Trying to get the whole "do they dodge the attack completely?" or "does the attack hit but get negated by armor?" issue has been one of the main house rules I've experimented with a LOT in my own campaign. It's been quite a frustrating one too I might add! *laughs*
Truth is, when 4E was announced, I basically stopped any further development/playtesting because I had hoped that 4E would end up being 3.5 + fixes. Being that 4E is a totally different system, that's somewhat rekindled my interest in searching for the Holy Grail of fast yet realistic attack resolution.
Perhaps I should be thanking You for providing an opportunity to discuss it further. :)
I'm reluctant to simply say add BAB to Dex for purposes of BDB, because I think that'd be over the top. But 1/2 BAB seems reasonable.
Oof, did I say to add BAB and Dex at some point? If so then You have my apologies — maybe I'd had too much wine or something! Thinking back, I have a good hunch where I might have been unclear and/or mistyped...
In my own campaign, I was adding a number that increased their Dexterity modifier, but only for purposes of AC (not attacks or saves). However, for my examples below I'll use BDB = BAB/2.
Example 1: Alis, a level 12 elven bard, has a 23 Dex (+6 Dex modifier), BAB of 9 (+4 BDB), and wears leather armor +3 (Max Dex +6).
In my campaign, her Dexterity bonus to AC would be:
6 (Dex) + 4 (BDB) = +10
However, that leather armor's Max Dex bonus of +6 restricts her Dex bonus to AC from +10 to +6. Therefore, Alis' AC would be:
Armored: 10 (base) + 5 (leather) + 6 (Dex) = 21
Nekkid: 10 (base) + 10 (Dex) = 20
^^^^ I suspect that I didn't convey that properly earlier which may be why it looked like I was talking about adding BAB to Dex.
-------------
The above example differs from what we've discussed during the last few posts (i.e. using Max Dex once for the Dexterity modifier and then again for the BDB). Let's use an example that shows what we've actually been talking about now...
Example 2: Same conditions as before. Alis is level 12 with a 23 Dex, and wears leather armor +3. Neither Alis' Dexterity bonus (+6) nor her BDB (+4) exceed the armor's Max Dex bonus (+6).
Therefore, the leather armor does not restrict Alis' agility at all. Her AC would be:
Armored: 10 (base) + 5 (leather) + 6 (Dex) +4 (BDB) = 25
Nekkid: 10 (base) +6 (Dex) +4 (BDB) = 20
-------------
As You can see, Alis has now exceeded the normal maximum AC that we would expect a 3.5 bard with maxed Dex to have while wearing leather armor:
Standard Rules:
Armored: 10 (base) + 5 (leather) +6 (Dex) = 21
Nekkid: 10 (base) + 6 (Dex) = 16
In fact, using this method in example 2, Alis would only start seeing armor restrictions if she was further tweaked out with Glove of Dexterity or decided to wear heavier armor.
-------------
This is why I originally tried to advocate adding the Base Defense Bonus to the character's Dexterity modifier. It prevents someone from having a higher AC than would normally be possible without having to change the rules on how different types of bonuses stack. Thus far, it's worked pretty well for my group (using the BDB method I described in the spoiler). However, I would be interested to see how using the other method pans out.
|
|
Oof, did I say to add BAB and Dex at some point? If so then You have my apologies — maybe I'd had too much wine or something! Thinking back, I have a good hunch where I might have been unclear and/or mistyped...
Sorry, it was I who was unclear. I didn't mean to imply you were saying add BAB. You did say BAB/2. No, where I was coming from was my analysis of a BDB in conjuction with the logic of CMB's offensive and defensive angles.
One thing I am noticing with the CMB is that it seems unnecessarily redundant with other defensive traits that could account for the prey.
For instance, Reflex Save. Why not have the Attack roll (not the CMB) challenged with a Reflex Save? You don't even need a CMB. If you prevail on the attack, since we're talking about setting up a special combat action, then you succeed in the special combat action.
Of course, this opens up my only unholy grail: The Three Saves (or in the spirit of Star Wars Saga Edition (SWSE) - the three defenses. Ever since SWSE came out, I have been a proponent for rolling AC into Reflex . . . but in so doing, the saves becomes static defense rolls. Yes, I know, this is a big leap for PRPG. (Not that big, however. I.e., just add 10 on the fly.)
In my limited mind, I see how Reflex and AC address the same concept - avoiding the hit. Accordingly, why not just make CMB oppose AC? If you succeed, you set up the special attack.
But I digress. I got the BAB to AC from CMB, not from you.
Of course... I admit that these rules posted above may sound too drastical change to be adopted by PFRPG. Anyway, some people here may feel encouraged to use then as house rules.
Your changes remind me of how I (in my own combat system tinkerings) wanted everthing to resolve as a touch attack. From there, "Armor as Damage Reduction" then determining how much damage was taken, if any. (I had a rule that the energy "burst" weapons could still deliver 1dd6 energy damage on touch even if the weapon itself couldn't get thru DR.)
To further complicate matters, I was fixated on using Wound Points which required me to develop a Damage Threshold system. (To which I'll simply say that SW Saga's works better than mine.)
The end result was that my pre-game prep work as DM became ridiculously time-consuming. After all, converting the contents of the MM is one thing, but then I enjoy adding class levels to standard monsters to change things up.
So yeah, I can envision Your rules working particularly if You are sticking to HP rather than WP. For a moment there though, it kind of made the eyes roll back in my head when I remember how much preparation effort was entailed with past conversions. ;)
Still, it is fun tossing around all these rule ideas. As You say, never know when someone will find something useful. :)
I see how Reflex and AC address the same concept - avoiding the hit. Accordingly, why not just make CMB oppose AC? If you succeed, you set up the special attack.
But I digress. I got the BAB to AC from CMB, not from you.
Oh, OK!
To be fair, I hadn't even thought about CMB at all. I read over the rules on it briefly and it seemed like it might help to clear up some confusion. However, since it also seemed like a lot of others here did extensive playtesting of it, and found it either lacking or in need of clarification, I figured I'd wait until the Beta to see how CMB really worked out. (There were other areas of the Alphas on which I felt more compelled/qualified to comment.)
Speaking the the 3-Defenses, I thought that was an interesting design choice also.
In my 3.5 game, I decided to try the static saves idea and had some interesting results...
Play was sped up greatly when the party would fireball a group of enemies.
Everone really loved getting to make attack rolls with spells — especially once I introduced the Critical Hit Deck! It also meshed better with the notion that the person performing an attack is always the one to make a d20 roll.
Where we ran into trouble though was when enemies would fireball the party. In that instance, every last player felt as if they were being cheated when the static saves essentiall forced them to "take 10".
As such, the rule that still stands is that "named" creatures roll their own saves. This means bosses, lieutenants, special mounts/companions, and the characters. However summoned creatures, rank and file hobgoblins, and anyone wearing a "red shirt" takes 10 and likes it. ;)
I posted something about Defense Bonus here but didn't get much attention, it seems few people have this line of thought.
Well, what I proposed was having 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.
Armor should restrict the amount of BDB (Base Defense Bonus) you can get as a penalty (but never going negative) instead of a limiting factor. Why? Because lower level character are less trained in fighting right? So they'd get less bonus (or nothing at all) than higher level ones. Limiting the BDB to +2 for a given armor for example, would make a level 5 rogue (lets say he can get +2 BDB at this level) get the same benefit from a 15th level one. More, a low level character is more dependable on his armor than higher level ones, that makes perfect sense, they are less experienced at fighting and depend more on armor.
I haven't figured out the numbers yet, but we have to be careful not to make Armor obsoletes at high levels. A 15th level rogue wearing a very light MW Leather Armor should be a little better than being armorless... but not necessarily better than one wearing a full plate.
Okay guys I know I’m late in putting my two coppers on this discussion, but I was waiting to get my copy of Conan Atlantean edition. BTW thanks Laithoron for linking me to Saurstalk’s thread. Okay I like a lot of the ideas put out here, as I’ve missed Dodge and Parry from my Palladium days. First off I think Saurstalk hit on a great idea for damage based on ½ BAB. It never occurred to me and not only does it work it gives Fighters an edge after level 10 that spell casters simply cannot have, I’m assuming that the damage is only for physical weapons that strike others correct?
Now on to Dodge and Perry, while I liked a lot of your ideas, the problem is that for players it’s a little too much to keep track of, at lest for most of my players. I started playing in a Conan game a few months back and was surprised to see that they had Dodge and Perry as part of the rules and the system works very well without slowing things down, at lest it has not so far.
Now just so you all know Conan assumes a few things to understand where they are coming from. 1. Low magic, in fact Magic can be removed from the system very easily and would still be a fun fantasy setting. 2. AC is 10, armor no longer adds to it, instead armor works as damage reduction, and they have a table showing how much.
Because of the above they made a Dodge and Parry progression like Fort or Ref saves that works like suggested (i.e. High, Med., Low). As far as I can tell both Dodge and Parry progression is the same, but a single class might have High Dodge and Med. Parry or any combo thereof.
High works as +0,1,2,3,3,4,5,6,6,7,8,9,9,10,11,12,12,13,14,15.
Med. Works as +0,1,1,2,2,3,3,4,4,5,5,6,6,7,7,8,8,9,9,10.
And Low works as +0,1,1,1,2,2,3,3,3,4,4,4,5,5,6,6,6,7,7.
Dodge works as a save, but a character must have at lest one square adjacent unoccupied. This isn’t a 5 ft. step as he does not move, he just need the space to move. If he’s flanked he gets -2
Parrying works much the same way except you have to have something in your hand -4 if you do not. And a -1 if you are not trained in the weapon.
Conversion:
Since I’m using this for Pathfinder, with a high magic setting, I’m keeping Armor as a +to AC, but the AC value of armor reduces both Perry and Dodge (i.e. +4 AC, -4 Dodge and Parry. Shields on the other hand would add AC to Perry, making Shields much more distinctive.
Old feats would like Dodge now just add + value to Dodge, and I would add Parry feats with the same name and do the same think but to Parry value.
Ranged attacks cannot be Dodged or Parry without a feat like Ranged Dodge, then they get it but at -2 and Improved Ranged Dodge which negates any penalty. Maybe give a Pre. Of Dodge +5 or something.
Magic works the same with only a reduction in AC penalty by one for Masterwork objects. Armor or magic items that add to Dodge or Parry would be a +1 object.
The only real kicker is which classes to give what. As a guideline I would say Dodge should correspond to Ref. in terms or High Med. Or Low, and Parry with Fort. This is with exception of course as some classes theme may call for something special.
Your changes remind me of how I (in my own combat system tinkerings) wanted everthing to resolve as a touch attack. From there, "Armor as Damage Reduction" then determining how much damage was taken, if any. (I had a rule that the energy "burst" weapons could still deliver 1dd6 energy damage on touch even if the weapon itself couldn't get thru DR.)
How did this work out?
I was thinking of using the 4e Defense rules if you could use the Reflex Defense as your 'touch armor class'. That way it gets higher with level. Basically, you have to beat the Reflex Defense to 'hit'. Then you get damage reduction if you were wearing armor. I think you would have to somehow have armor negatively influence your Reflex Defense though. I never figured it all out so I don't know if it would work.
Your changes remind me of how I (in my own combat system tinkerings) wanted everthing to resolve as a touch attack. From there, "Armor as Damage Reduction" then determining how much damage was taken, if any. (I had a rule that the energy "burst" weapons could still deliver 1d6 energy damage on touch even if the weapon itself couldn't get thru DR.)How did this work out?
The answer to that isn't necessarily a simple one.
You see, in addition to using Armor as DR and resolving everything as touch attacks, I was using Wound Points rather than the traditional Hit Point system. Also, we weren't using the standard WP system in Unearthed Arcana.
No, instead (due to the other changes) it was necessary to implement a Damage Threshold system. Add to the fact that many of the characters had racial-based damage reduction and things became very swingy (albeit more realistic). Given enough time, I'm sure that I could have made everything work better but when 4E was announced I basically said, "F*** it!" and reverted the campaign back to the standard combat system keeping only the acrobatic bonuses to AC from Jump and Tumble.
Thru all of this, the single biggest problem my group had was the players trying to figure out how to resolve it when their characters suffered an attack. This was further complicated by them not keeping up with the changes from one session to the next as the mechanics were tweaked and improved. IMO that's the deciding factor between whether something like this could be successful or not — whether the players "get it" or not.
In our case, it wasn't worth it.