|
After doing a lot of math I have concluded that with enough money the best way to get a high AC is to not wear any armor at all and get a monk's robe.
Everything an armored person can get so can a non armored person can with the following exception.
An armored person has a max dexterity bonus and can not get a bonus to AC from a second stat.
Wearing armor needs a boost. The max dexterity needs to be increase or eliminated for starters as a non armored person does not have one.
Does anyone else have any ideas?
You can't add armor special abilities to non armor...
I just introduced helmets into my runelords campaign. I also adopted the "Max Dex & Speed penalty from encumbrance only" rule above.
Helmets have the same price, AC bonus, and ASF% as shields (no tower shields). They weight half as much as a shield with those ratings.
A Helmet's armor bonus stacks only with worn armor. Check penalty applies normally, and additionally applies to all Sight and Sound based Perception checks.
Speed as Encumbrance only:
I also agree with Encumbrance being the sole factor when it comes to character speed. Although I don't see a strongly compelling reason to alter the speed penalties. This would already make stronger characters faster then they were (a good thing).
Armor Check Penalty (STR/DEX skills, as well as Arcane Failure), DOES make a certain sense to track separately/on top off Speed/Load Encumbrance... As well, Arcane Failure (besides converting to d20) should be based on the Armor/Load Check Penalty, not Armor TYPE:
Again I agree for the most part. Combining ACP and Spell Failure, or a least moving it from a d100 to d20 roll would be a vast improvement. Assuming we don't combine them, just turning ASF into a d20 roll works. You basic ASF values on armor are already in 5% increments. (roll ASF or less on a d20 and spell fails)
Studded Leather, ASF 3
Chaimmail, ASF 6
Half-plate, ASF 8
Allow anything that reduces ACP to also reduce ASF*, anything that increases ACP increases ASF. *Where there isn't already a reduction in ASF. I'd also like to see abilities like the Bard's for casting in Light armor be a reduction in ASF, say -3 or -4 to ASF.
Contributor, RPG Superstar 2008 Top 4, Legendary Games
|
I just introduced helmets into my runelords campaign. I also adopted the "Max Dex & Speed penalty from encumbrance only" rule above.
Helmets have the same price, AC bonus, and ASF% as shields (no tower shields). They weight half as much as a shield with those ratings.
A Helmet's armor bonus stacks only with worn armor. Check penalty applies normally, and additionally applies to all Sight and Sound based Perception checks.
Yay! Glad to see someone use the idea. Let us know how your players like it.
|
4. Tie shields to armor type.
a. buckler is a type of light armor, +1 to AC.
b. Light shield is a type of medium armor, +2 to AC.
c. Heavy shield is a type of heavy armor, +3 to AC.
d. Tower shield is an exotic type of heavy armor, +6 to AC.5. Incorporate helmets as a unique piece of armor that can be enchanted separately. That way, an armored warrior could be wearing armor (up to +5), shield (up to +5), and helmet (up to +5). Given the relatively cheap price of armor enhancements to AC vs. miscellaneous magic to give bonuses, you just made the armored option better.
a. There are no 'light armor' helmets (yes, we could argue the point, but game-mechanically speaking we are making a distinction).
b. Open-faced helm is treated as medium armor (so you can use with medium armor proficiency). +1 helmet bonus to AC, -2 Perception penalty if you are not proficient (if you like, proficiency could reduce to -1 instead of eliminate)
c. Great helm is treated as heavy armor (use with HAP). +2 helmet bonus to AC, -4 Perception penalty if you are not proficient. (if you like, proficiency could reduce to -2 instead of eliminate).
Obviously, you could make gradations (mail coif, visored helm, skullcap, etc.) or keep it simple.
Awesome.
Although I'd personally go with:
light head protection: leather hoods, +1 AC
medium: steel cap or chain coif, +2
heavy: open faced helm or cap & coif, +3
exotic heavy: great helms, +4
That way it mirrors the shields and gives folks like rogues a little something. Love the Perception penalties.
|
|
The mechanical advantage is obvious, but count me in the camp that has always found the animated shield concept a little on the ick side. Just doesn't sit right with us crusty oldsters.
increasing shield AC also sounds good, but anyone can use a shield with no problem when it becomes animated.
I agree. I feel the same way about mithril chain. Anything that everyone gets as soon as possible seems wrong.
|
Contributor, RPG Superstar 2008 Top 4, Legendary Games
|
4. Tie shields to armor type.
a. buckler is a type of light armor, +1 to AC.
b. Light shield is a type of medium armor, +2 to AC.
c. Heavy shield is a type of heavy armor, +3 to AC.
d. Tower shield is an exotic type of heavy armor, +6 to AC.5. Incorporate helmets as a unique piece of armor that can be enchanted separately. That way, an armored warrior could be wearing armor (up to +5), shield (up to +5), and helmet (up to +5). Given the relatively cheap price of armor enhancements to AC vs. miscellaneous magic to give bonuses, you just made the armored option better.
a. There are no 'light armor' helmets (yes, we could argue the point, but game-mechanically speaking we are making a distinction).
b. Open-faced helm is treated as medium armor (so you can use with medium armor proficiency). +1 helmet bonus to AC, -2 Perception penalty if you are not proficient (if you like, proficiency could reduce to -1 instead of eliminate)
c. Great helm is treated as heavy armor (use with HAP). +2 helmet bonus to AC, -4 Perception penalty if you are not proficient. (if you like, proficiency could reduce to -2 instead of eliminate).
Obviously, you could make gradations (mail coif, visored helm, skullcap, etc.) or keep it simple.Awesome.
Although I'd personally go with:
light head protection: leather hoods, +1 AC
medium: steel cap or chain coif, +2
heavy: open faced helm or cap & coif, +3
exotic heavy: great helms, +4That way it mirrors the shields and gives folks like rogues a little something. Love the Perception penalties.
That's a reasonable idea and one I had considered, but my objection would be that the intention of the helmet rule is specifically to give medium and heavy armors a recourse for AC boosting that is not available to the light armor crowd unless they want to work for it (mithril helmet, mithril breastplate, mithril light shield*) or without giving up their light armor benefits.
* yes, I wouldn't be averse to ruling that only a buckler is considered 'light armor' for the various light armor restricted abilities and feats.
Really, the base AC bonus of the helm is only part of the issue; it is also the ability for heavier armor-wearers to triple-dip on enhancement bonuses to armor.
If a skullcap or leather hood is +1 vs. a heavy helmet is +3, that's a nice difference.
If they are both enchanted to +5, the light hood/helm is +6 and the heavy +8. Not exactly the differentiation we are looking for to give heavy armor characters.
Most AC boosters work equally well for armored or unarmored/light people, and that is the big difference. Back in 1st/2nd Ed, +5 armor and a +5 shield were a really big deal, because there was no way on God's green earth you were getting an awesome AC without it (barring 17th level monks).
In 3rd Ed., there are all kinds of ways to get a kickass AC without armor, and many of them work LESS well when you use armor. Big magic A&S are easily replaceable and often with greater efficiency.
The idea that heavy armor PCs can triple-dip on AC bonus gives them an avenue here that the light/non types don't get to use.
I suggest a new fix for the armor issue: Make heavier armor types (medium and heavy) provide an extra armor bonus to your ac relative to your BAB. For example, heavy armor grants an additional +3 to ac for every 4 points of BAB you have. At level 20, it's +15 ac. Medium armor can grant +2 per 4 BAB. This way, you get a scaling benefit that will favor the martial characters, and clerics who wear heavy armor (not that they need it anyway) can still gain something from it if they want. This mechanic (AC bonus based on level) is similar to the monk's AC bonus, so the "rule" is already in place in 3.P. Basing it on BAB instead of straight character level makes more sense; the more martial your training, the better you are with martial implements: weapons and armor.
Then add a new feat:
Armored Agility [General]
Prerequisite: Armor Proficiency in the appropriate armor type, BAB +1.
You've trained extensively in maneuvers while wearing heavier armor types. You can move as fast in medium or heavy armor as you can in light armor.
Effect: You get your full movement speed when wearing medium or heavy armor. You must be proficient in the appropriate armor type to get this effect.
Fighters and Paladins get this feat for free at 1st level.
Barbarians, Rangers, Clerics, and anyone else who wants full movement in armor can pay a feat for it. Now everyone who should wear heavy armor has a reason to wear it, it is hands down the best protection money can buy, and the better you are at fighting, the better off you are in good armor.
Looks good to me. Perhaps we could change the bonuses, but I like this general idea. Crusader of Logic, what would be a meaningful AC bonus?
What, in your opinion, is a good "target" AC for a character who's going to end up in melee levels 12 to 20?
I agree, that the armour could use an update (I really don't see the reason to use hide or banded mail for example (aside from cost)). This debate is interesting indeed and I'd just like to throw one more idea here.
In one of locally produced RPGs (Draci doupe, if you must know. I doubt that someone translated the rules to English) that actually (much to my liking) solved all the problems with AC / attack climb simply by not having it at all (warrior types simply get a bonus to attack here and there, roguish types maybe when performing some tricks, but spell casters are the same while holding their staves all the way from level 1 to 36), so the real difference is made by class features and magic (and weapons - something like proficiency bonuses in 4E). +1 is still a valid bonus no matter what.
But to the point... weapons also provide defense bonuses or penalties. It's much easier to defend yourself with two scimitars than it is with heavy club and a shield usually beats the sword in catching blows. Perhaps we could include this into consideration as well. It could help to deal with some problems lasting (sword and board AC going up even more - as it should, two handed weapon superior attack being somewhat balanced by lower AC...). Thoughts?
It doesn't, but who is going to cripple themselves with the current heavy armor if they have half a say in the matter?
Someone who doesn't optimize for Dex? There are several characters that may want to have low to modest Dex in order to concentrate on other abilities: clerics, some fighters (especially if they concentrate on causing maximum damage in melee), and paladins may want to wear the heaviest armor available (and wear boots of striding and springing or other movement boosters) to compensate for not having a high Dex bonus.
Consider adamantine full plate vs. mithral full plate:
Adamantine full plate (+8 AC, +1 Max Dex, -5 Armor Check, Spd 20 ft*/15 ft*, Weight 50 lbs, Hardness 20, DR 3/-, Cost 16,500 gp)
Mithral full plate (+8 AC, +3 Max Dex, -3 Armor Check, Spd 20 ft/15 ft, Weight 25 lbs, Hardness 15, Cost 10,500 gp)
The mithral full plate wearer can have +2 to AC and can run a bit faster, but the adamantine full plate wearer reduces damage from all normal attacks by 3 and the armor itself is more resistant to being damaged (from sundering, etc.). A bit of a wash, IMO.
A mithral breastplate (+5 AC, +5 Max Dex, -1 Armor Check, Spd 30 ft/20 ft, Weight 15 lbs, Hardness 15, Cost 4,200 gp), however, is IMO the "sweet spot" for most characters wearing armor. Only if your (modified) Dex is under 18 or over 21 should you consider anything else (or if you are prohibited/penalized for wearing it).
*- Running speed is x3 instead of x4
(I really don't see the reason to use hide or banded mail for example (aside from cost)).
Banded mail is pretty sub-par mechanically (but so is chain mail). Consider it an artifact of the earlier editions if you wish or use it as an "archaic/ancient" style (especially as it's based mostly on the lorica segmentata of the Roman Legions).
Hide is pretty much only useful for druids, who are prohibited from wearing anything other than padded, leather, hide, or special non-metallic armor. Mechanically, hide and scale mail are roughly equivalent in the maximum AC attainable (+3/+4 vs. +4/+3), with hide being cheaper, lighter, and less restrictive.
(I really don't see the reason to use hide or banded mail for example (aside from cost)).Banded mail is pretty sub-par mechanically (but so is chain mail). Consider it an artifact of the earlier editions if you wish or use it as an "archaic/ancient" style (especially as it's based mostly on the lorica segmentata of the Roman Legions).
Hide is pretty much only useful for druids, who are prohibited from wearing anything other than padded, leather, hide, or special non-metallic armor. Mechanically, hide and scale mail are roughly equivalent in the maximum AC attainable (+3/+4 vs. +4/+3), with hide being cheaper, lighter, and less restrictive.
I'm aware of the historic representative value or druidic restrictions, but that doesn't matter that mechanically these armours simply suck. Hide may be some kind of exception, because it can represent character improvisation. When a PC draps itself in thick enough layer of animal skins in order to protect itself I'd call it hide armour and be done with it.
And to problems with helmet and other items being enchanted separately... couldn't that be fixed because enhancement would provide armour bonus that wouldn't stack with other armour bonuses from other magic items. The bonus from helmet would be a special item property and wouldn't be magically improveable?
It doesn't, but who is going to cripple themselves with the current heavy armor if they have half a say in the matter?Someone who doesn't optimize for Dex? There are several characters that may want to have low to modest Dex in order to concentrate on other abilities: clerics, some fighters (especially if they concentrate on causing maximum damage in melee), and paladins may want to wear the heaviest armor available (and wear boots of striding and springing or other movement boosters) to compensate for not having a high Dex bonus.
Consider adamantine full plate vs. mithral full plate:
Adamantine full plate (+8 AC, +1 Max Dex, -5 Armor Check, Spd 20 ft*/15 ft*, Weight 50 lbs, Hardness 20, DR 3/-, Cost 16,500 gp)
Mithral full plate (+8 AC, +3 Max Dex, -3 Armor Check, Spd 20 ft/15 ft, Weight 25 lbs, Hardness 15, Cost 10,500 gp)
The mithral full plate wearer can have +2 to AC and can run a bit faster, but the adamantine full plate wearer reduces damage from all normal attacks by 3 and the armor itself is more resistant to being damaged (from sundering, etc.). A bit of a wash, IMO.
A mithral breastplate (+5 AC, +5 Max Dex, -1 Armor Check, Spd 30 ft/20 ft, Weight 15 lbs, Hardness 15, Cost 4,200 gp), however, is IMO the "sweet spot" for most characters wearing armor. Only if your (modified) Dex is under 18 or over 21 should you consider anything else (or if you are prohibited/penalized for wearing it).
*- Running speed is x3 instead of x4
Start at 12 Dex. Add +4 item. Hell, add +6 item. How about that?
Clerics do not really benefit from heavy armor. Being able to move at full speed is nice though. And if you can slip Wis to AC in there with some Bracers and Magic Vestment? Why not eh?
Fighters focusing on max damage in melee are Combat Reflexes Spiked Chain builds. Need I say more?
Paladins are just screwed. Mostly because his god has a funny sense of humor.
2 AC > DR 3. Especially when it adds to touch AC. It's still likely they'll go for the mithril breastplate, even if they don't have the Dex to support it (no gloves yet to support their standard 12) because 3 AC < being 1/3rd slower. Unless you're a dwarf and therefore 1/3rd slower anyways. Being slowed that much means you'll have an even harder time just getting into melee and thereby doing your job. It's hard enough as it is to even get to melee anything that isn't a melee brute. No point in making it harder.
|
|
But to the point... weapons also provide defense bonuses or penalties. It's much easier to defend yourself with two scimitars than it is with heavy club and a shield usually beats the sword in catching blows. Perhaps we could include this into consideration as well. It could help to deal with some problems lasting (sword and board AC going up even more - as it should, two handed weapon superior attack being somewhat balanced by lower AC...). Thoughts?
The primary use of two weapons, historicly, was not solely offensive, but also defensively as well. The Off-Hand weapon was not usually used for attacks, but for "gaining control of the opponent's weapon," which allows the attacker to create an opening and make a fatal attack with the Primary weapon.
In essence, by gaining control of the opponent's weapon, you can increase your own AC, and at the same time prevent the opponent from making an attack. This would be a great Fighter feat- perhaps it could create an AC bonus equal to the attacker's Dex modifier, and require an opposed contest for the opponent to free his weapon to make an attack.
OK I think I am going to be the only one on this thread to question the need for higher AC from armor. I have never seen a really high AC character that did not use some armor for a boost. Armor provides a sort of baseline defense in the game. It becomes supplemented, heavily, by buff spells and items and enhancements at higher levels. From grinding a few numbers I figure the average AC for a fighter should be about 15 higher than his level, as an average. Light armor classes will tend to be about 5 points lower, and casters have no business on the front end anyway. I'm really not quite sure why this needs to be increased. To be honest one has to remember that these changes apply to NPCs as well, and I really prefer having some kind of chance of hitting. There's really no reason to increase AC so high that only a 20 hits.
|
Banded mail is pretty sub-par mechanically (but so is chain mail). Consider it an artifact of the earlier editions if you wish or use it as an "archaic/ancient" style (especially as it's based mostly on the lorica segmentata of the Roman Legions).
<Olde Pharte Mode On>
Actually, the concept of banded mail in D&D came from viewing certain medieval illustrations of armor. Often, rather than going through the tedious process of depicting chain mail ring by ring, it would be drawn in 'stripes', appearing to be bands of armor. Early wargamers misinterpreted it as a separate type of armor, and it's persisted ever since.
<Olde Pharte Mode Off>
But yeah, you could see it as a lorica, if you wanted ... :)
|
Contributor, RPG Superstar 2008 Top 4, Legendary Games
|
(I really don't see the reason to use hide or banded mail for example (aside from cost)).Banded mail is pretty sub-par mechanically (but so is chain mail). Consider it an artifact of the earlier editions if you wish or use it as an "archaic/ancient" style (especially as it's based mostly on the lorica segmentata of the Roman Legions).
Hide is pretty much only useful for druids, who are prohibited from wearing anything other than padded, leather, hide, or special non-metallic armor. Mechanically, hide and scale mail are roughly equivalent in the maximum AC attainable (+3/+4 vs. +4/+3), with hide being cheaper, lighter, and less restrictive.
I'm aware of the historic representative value or druidic restrictions, but that doesn't matter that mechanically these armours simply suck. Hide may be some kind of exception, because it can represent character improvisation. When a PC draps itself in thick enough layer of animal skins in order to protect itself I'd call it hide armour and be done with it.
And to problems with helmet and other items being enchanted separately... couldn't that be fixed because enhancement would provide armour bonus that wouldn't stack with other armour bonuses from other magic items. The bonus from helmet would be a special item property and wouldn't be magically improveable?
You could do it that way and it would make sense, but you may have misunderstood my intention.
I expressly WANT medium/heavy armor wearers to be able to triple-dip on armor/shield/helmet enhancement bonuses to AC.
In the world of Jason, accept the following postulates:
1. Armor:
a. Light armor AC bonuses are reduced by 1 (padded armor is dropped)
b. Medium armor AC bonuses are increased by 1
c. Heavy armor AC bonuses are increased by 1
2. Shields (do not affect movement):
a. Bucklers are counted as a type of light armor (+1 AC bonus)
b. Small/light shields are counted as medium armor (+2 AC bonus)
c. Heavy/large shields are counted as heavy armor (+3 AC bonus)
d. Tower shields are considered as exotic heavy armor (+5 AC bonus)
3. Helmets (do not affect movement):
a. There is no type of AC-affecting helmet that counts as light armor
b. Open Helm counts as medium armor (+1 AC bonus)
c. Great Helm counts as heavy armor (+2 AC bonus)
4. Mithril does not change your 'type' of armor. It reduces ASF, ACP, increases max DEX, and weighs half as much. That's quite enough, thanks.
5. Medium and heavy armor/shield/helmet provide DR equal to half of total armor bonus (A+S+H)
a. Non-magical armor provides DR/magic
b. Magic armor provides DR/adamantine
c. Adamantine armor provides DR/- (ignored by brilliant energy weapons)
So for samples:
A. Our light fighter could thus wear a +5 chain shirt (3+5) and have a +5 buckler (1+5) and get an armor bonus of +14. Plus all the various and manifold goodness that being lightly armored gets you.
If I changed rule #5 above, you could get DR 7/adamantine with this rig.
B. A medium fighter could wear +5 chain/breastplate (6+5) and have a +5 light shield (2+5) and +5 open helm (1+5) for a total armor bonus of +24 and a DR of 12/adamantine.
C. A heavy fighter could wear +5 full plate (9+5), +5 heavy shield (3+5), and wear a great helm (2+5) and have a total armor bonus of +29 and DR 14/adamantine (+31, DR15/ad with a tower shield)
TWEAKS:
1. If I changed rule #5 above, you could get DR 7/adamantine with the light armor rig. This would provide a more consistent rule even if it allows some catch-up for light armors.
2. Personally, I would stipulate that spells like mage armor and shield don't provide DR, but I could perhaps be swayed. At any rate, other forms of AC boosters would not. Perhaps only things that provide an actual armor bonus or shield bonus to AC would do so.
On second thought, I think I would allow it. Magic spells that give armor bonus to AC or shield bonus to AC would allow DR/magic. That's fine.
3. I could be easily swayed to the side of "encumbrance is the rule for Max Dex and ACP." Then mithril has its own inherent benefit by reducing armor weight without a kludgy rule about switching armor type.
4. I could also see, if we are keeping movement penalties, for medium armor to give 5' penalty (or 10%) and heavy armor a 10' penalty (or 25%).
|
Contributor, RPG Superstar 2008 Top 4, Legendary Games
|
But to the point... weapons also provide defense bonuses or penalties. It's much easier to defend yourself with two scimitars than it is with heavy club and a shield usually beats the sword in catching blows. Perhaps we could include this into consideration as well. It could help to deal with some problems lasting (sword and board AC going up even more - as it should, two handed weapon superior attack being somewhat balanced by lower AC...). Thoughts?The primary use of two weapons, historicly, was not solely offensive, but also defensively as well. The Off-Hand weapon was not usually used for attacks, but for "gaining control of the opponent's weapon," which allows the attacker to create an opening and make a fatal attack with the Primary weapon.
In essence, by gaining control of the opponent's weapon, you can increase your own AC, and at the same time prevent the opponent from making an attack. This would be a great Fighter feat- perhaps it could create an AC bonus equal to the attacker's Dex modifier, and require an opposed contest for the opponent to free his weapon to make an attack.
OK I think I am going to be the only one on this thread to question the need for higher AC from armor. I have never seen a really high AC character that did not use some armor for a boost. Armor provides a sort of baseline defense in the game. It becomes supplemented, heavily, by buff spells and items and enhancements at higher levels. From grinding a few numbers I figure the average AC for a fighter should be about 15 higher than his level, as an average. Light armor classes will tend to be about 5 points lower, and casters have no business on the front end anyway. I'm really not quite sure why this needs to be increased. To be honest one has to remember that these changes apply to NPCs as well, and I really prefer having some kind of chance of hitting. There's really no reason to increase AC so high that only a 20 hits.
In the high-level games I've run or played in, the best AC characters almost always have light/no armor. Or are SRD wild-shaped druids with wild armor/shield. At low levels it's fairly even and touch AC often doesn't matter as much. At middle levels armor types can sometimes eke ahead. By mid-high and high levels the light fighters usually zoom past as the weight of non-armor AC boosts overwhelms the mostly fixed bonus from armor. YMMV.
RPG Superstar 2008 Top 32, 2011 Top 16
|
My experience seems to be contrary to most on this thread. The high AC characters I've played or run across were the heavy armor and sheild types, with the record holder being a Mountain plate and tower shield using Dwarven Defender who was built to specialize in defense. I believe at about level 17 his AC was 44 or 46 before going into his defensive stance or applying his dodge bonus (using the Titan Fighting feat from Races of Stone to bump it to +4 vs. any Large or larger opponent.)
|
|
I could be easily swayed to the side of "encumbrance is the rule for Max Dex and ACP." Then mithril has its own inherent benefit by reducing armor weight without a kludgy rule about switching armor type.
I also like the way this would enforce the class ability limits, such as Evasion which can't be used in heavier armor. No more 'I have mithril so I can use my abilities without penalty!'. Kinda of emphasizes the need to choose which you want more.
|
Contributor, RPG Superstar 2008 Top 4, Legendary Games
|
You know, there are lots of plausible armor rewrites. I've tried my hand at it a couple of times. Whatever is done will need to be playtested against the MM to make sure it is balanced for any class that can take advantage of it.
The burning question I have is: if you armor bonus is +0, can you get an enhancement bonus to it, ie, magically enchant clothing like armor? 4E came right out and said 'yes, you can'. It would be nice if 3.P came out and said something about the topic. (For metaphysical reasons I think you should be able to.)
Edit: BTW, a Druid who wildshapes has his armor meld, and thus is very clearly not wearing it anymore. Wild Armor only pulls the armor bonus to AC through, not anything else (including being in the state of wearing it). Thus, a Monk1/Druid19 gets his full Monk AC + Wild Armor AC under the current rules.
I suppose that depends on whether there's some metaphysical state of armor-wearingness that the gods of druidism and monkdom smite you down for transgressing... :)
Yeah, I know it stacks. I just think that is exceptionally lame.
Interesting that 3rd Ed allows you add enhancement bonus to clothes with magic vestment, and it subs the "robe" slot for the "armor" slot, but doesn't ever quite come out and say you can enchant robes as "armor." Sure, you can enchant them like you would bracers to give an armor bonus, and then you could cast MV on them and get pretty much the same effect, but it is an odd example of not-exactly-saying-it.
As for armor rewrites, yeah I've done a bunch over the years. I think my most recent modified 3.5 campaign uses something similar to what I posed above (not with DR tho), but it being an Al-Qadim hot-weather setting it's kind of a moot point because only one character uses heavy armor anyway; that PC has a fire elemental bloodline that allows her to ignore the heat penalties for armor.
The funny thing when you do a lot of house rules (and this campaign has 15 or 20 entirely new PC classes replacing almost all of the standard PH classes), there is a kind of glossing phenomenon with most players wherein subtler rule changes like enhancements to heavy armor might not even get noticed unless they are pointed out because there is just so much other stuff to absorb. You end up making your choices based on how you assume the rules usually work, and the fact that a particular thing has been buffed or nerfed doesn't factor much into the decision process. We'll see. I will probably be starting a new campaign soon so I'll have to think about how and whether to include some of the ideas I've talked about with folks on the boards.
|
|
20th level PathFighter in non-magical mithral full plate with an 24dex.
8 base armor
+4 armor training/mastery
+3 base dex
+4 max dex armor training/mastery
22 AC just from the armor and dex
DR 5/- (or is it 10, don't have my books at work...)
same 20th level PathFighter in mithral BP with an 28dex.
4 base armor
+4 armor training/mastery
+5 base dex
+4 max dex armor training/mastery
17 AC just from the armor and dex
DR 5/- (or is it 10, don't have my books at work...)
same 20th level PathFighter in bracers of defense with an 24dex.
Bracers of defense on the same fighter
8 base armor
+7 max dex.
15 AC from Bracers and dex.
No DR
Now this is using the new fighter...Barbarians aren't supposed to have the Same AC...but they can use Mithral Full plate...so if you want flat-footed AC, go for the armor...if not go for the bracers or a monk's robe...not very Barbarian if you ask me...you'd be the laughing stock of your society...too much metagaming these days...
Hold on a sec. Using Bracers or a Monk's Robe would make a Barbarian a laughing stock? Well, maybe the robe... but why would kicking ass while naked from the waist up make people laugh at him?
In the world of Jason, accept the following postulates:
1. Armor:
a. Light armor AC bonuses are reduced by 1 (padded armor is dropped)
b. Medium armor AC bonuses are increased by 1
c. Heavy armor AC bonuses are increased by 12. Shields (do not affect movement):
a. Bucklers are counted as a type of light armor (+1 AC bonus)
b. Small/light shields are counted as medium armor (+2 AC bonus)
c. Heavy/large shields are counted as heavy armor (+3 AC bonus)
d. Tower shields are considered as exotic heavy armor (+5 AC bonus)3. Helmets (do not affect movement):
a. There is no type of AC-affecting helmet that counts as light armor
b. Open Helm counts as medium armor (+1 AC bonus)
c. Great Helm counts as heavy armor (+2 AC bonus)4. Mithril does not change your 'type' of armor. It reduces ASF, ACP, increases max DEX, and weighs half as much. That's quite enough, thanks.
5. Medium and heavy armor/shield/helmet provide DR equal to half of total armor bonus (A+S+H)
a. Non-magical armor provides DR/magic
b. Magic armor provides DR/adamantine
c. Adamantine armor provides DR/- (ignored by brilliant energy weapons)
Max Dex, ASF, and Movement as weight only, and this whole thing gets a lot simpler. If mithril is lighter, it will lower your penalties. A Heavy Helment and a Tower Shield might be enough to push a weaker character into movement penalty.
It's simpler and better, IMO. Totally agree with every other part of "Jason's World"
|
Contributor, RPG Superstar 2008 Top 4, Legendary Games
|
In the world of Jason, accept the following postulates:
1. Armor:
a. Light armor AC bonuses are reduced by 1 (padded armor is dropped)
b. Medium armor AC bonuses are increased by 1
c. Heavy armor AC bonuses are increased by 12. Shields (do not affect movement):
a. Bucklers are counted as a type of light armor (+1 AC bonus)
b. Small/light shields are counted as medium armor (+2 AC bonus)
c. Heavy/large shields are counted as heavy armor (+3 AC bonus)
d. Tower shields are considered as exotic heavy armor (+5 AC bonus)3. Helmets (do not affect movement):
a. There is no type of AC-affecting helmet that counts as light armor
b. Open Helm counts as medium armor (+1 AC bonus)
c. Great Helm counts as heavy armor (+2 AC bonus)4. Mithril does not change your 'type' of armor. It reduces ASF, ACP, increases max DEX, and weighs half as much. That's quite enough, thanks.
5. Medium and heavy armor/shield/helmet provide DR equal to half of total armor bonus (A+S+H)
a. Non-magical armor provides DR/magic
b. Magic armor provides DR/adamantine
c. Adamantine armor provides DR/- (ignored by brilliant energy weapons)Max Dex, ASF, and Movement as weight only, and this whole thing gets a lot simpler. If mithril is lighter, it will lower your penalties. A Heavy Helment and a Tower Shield might be enough to push a weaker character into movement penalty.
It's simpler and better, IMO. Totally agree with every other part of "Jason's World"
Glad you enjoyed. Let me add two final wrinkles:
2. Shields
e. Shield bonus to AC (including enhancement bonus) applies to touch AC and to CMB defensive bonus
6. Pathfinder Beta Fighter "Armor training" class ability applies SEPARATELY (and cumulatively) to armor, helmet, and shield.
The last might be overkill, but it might not. Depends on how high the power level of your game is. It also puts the heavy armor fighter at a massive defensive advantage over, say the paladin who wears big armor. Then again, it wouldn't kill the rules to add armor training as a class feature to paladins, and then problem solved.
This actually is a plus, because it gives a big defensive boost to two classes that need it (Ftr/Pal) and leaves the other two martial classes (Bar/Rgr) that are typically light armored specialists anyway to make their way using the normal light armor methods.
More to the point, it gives heavy-armor Ftr/Pal a big advantage over heavy-armor Clerics (or darkwood-using Druids). Yes, they're wearing the same armor, but the Ftr/Pal is much more skilled at using it to maximum advantage.
Or, to make things really simple, increase the armor bonus for heavy armor by 1 for every point of BAB you have. Increase the armor bonus for medium armor by .5 for every point of BAB you have. Light armor remains the same, but allows for the highest Dex bonus.
Now martial heavy armor users get the most out of heavy armor (any armor they use for that matter), and druids/clerics are still getting mileage out of heavier armor at a decent rate.
Barbarians are getting higher ac than they used to with med armor (making it perhaps a better choice than light armor), but not as much as fighters/paladins using heavy, while rangers using light armor can still rely on high dex/the same things they always used.
|
Contributor, RPG Superstar 2008 Top 4, Legendary Games
|
Or, to make things really simple, increase the armor bonus for heavy armor by 1 for every point of BAB you have. Increase the armor bonus for medium armor by .5 for every point of BAB you have. Light armor remains the same, but allows for the highest Dex bonus.
Now martial heavy armor users get the most out of heavy armor (any armor they use for that matter), and druids/clerics are still getting mileage out of heavier armor at a decent rate.
Barbarians are getting higher ac than they used to with med armor (making it perhaps a better choice than light armor), but not as much as fighters/paladins using heavy, while rangers using light armor can still rely on high dex/the same things they always used.
Hmmm... I like simplicity. It has a certain appeal indeed...
Really should playtest these ideas and see how disgusting they might get, but also think about whether it all is ultimately gilding the lily but leaving the doggy doo next to it untouched - making the Fighter more survivable against attacks that he already is okay at - attack/damage - and leaving him with his awful Ref/Will save to get immobilized or zapped out of the combat by a spell.
|
|
+1 per point of BAB would be way too much. I've playtested with a Rog3/Ftr7 in the party, and his AC was 32, making him nigh untouchable. He had +2 Destana and +2 chain shirt, which meant a legitimate AC of 28. Your proposal, assuming you are suggesting this in addition to armor training bonus, means his AC would rocket up to 39. That is absurdly high, and nothing under his level would touch him.
|
Contributor, RPG Superstar 2008 Top 4, Legendary Games
|
+1 per point of BAB would be way too much. I've playtested with a Rog3/Ftr7 in the party, and his AC was 32, making him nigh untouchable. He had +2 Destana and +2 chain shirt, which meant a legitimate AC of 28. Your proposal, assuming you are suggesting this in addition to armor training bonus, means his AC would rocket up to 39. That is absurdly high, and nothing under his level would touch him.
Actually, his AC wouldn't change at all under the above rule, since wearing light armor = no BAB-related bonus.
His proposal was for full BAB bonus to heavy, 1/2 to medium, none to light.
PS - What is a "Destana"? I've seen it mentioned as some sort of AC boosting item (and Jason B says he doesn't like them) but I'm not familiar with it.
Magic Vestment.
|
|
+1 per point of BAB would be way too much. I've playtested with a Rog3/Ftr7 in the party, and his AC was 32, making him nigh untouchable. He had +2 Destana and +2 chain shirt, which meant a legitimate AC of 28. Your proposal, assuming you are suggesting this in addition to armor training bonus, means his AC would rocket up to 39. That is absurdly high, and nothing under his level would touch him.Actually, his AC wouldn't change at all under the above rule, since wearing light armor = no BAB-related bonus.
His proposal was for full BAB bonus to heavy, 1/2 to medium, none to light.
I realized that, which is why I accounted for such a characters inevitable switch to Heavy Armor for the advantage it provides (+4 from armor, +7 from improvements from BAB). And that was a multiclass fighter. If he was single classed the AC goes up again to 42, with a Destana it is 46. At 10th level. Even an Adult White Dragon can't hit AC 42 without a 19.
|
Contributor, RPG Superstar 2008 Top 4, Legendary Games
|
Jason N:
Just wanted to chime in and say, loving the ideas so far. I also believe these ideas further stratify armor into heavy, medium, light, and add some much needed differences and flavor.
Keep it up, please. :)
Glad you are enjoying. My pocketbook probably is not, as I goof off when I'm supposed to be working. Must be more focused... Like right now!
poof of ninja smoke
Jal, perhaps +1 ac for every 2 BAB for heavy and for every 3 BAB for medium. We would have to come up with a good "target" ac for making an equal-level brute miss 65% of the time against heavy armor and 80% of the time against heavy armor plus a shield.
|
|
Jal, perhaps +1 ac for every 2 BAB for heavy and for every 3 BAB for medium. We would have to come up with a good "target" ac for making an equal-level brute miss 65% of the time against heavy armor and 80% of the time against heavy armor plus a shield.
Luckily, Jason has provided us with the numbers. I'll use benchmark levels for a starting point for total attack bonus:
CR 1: +2
CR 2: +4
CR 3: +6
CR 5: +10
CR 10: +18
CR 15: +24
CR 20: +30
Now, let's assume that at the earliest opportunity the fighter gets the best possible armor of the type concerned. So for medium that is AC 18 for breastplate and light shield, and AC 21 for full plate and heavy shield.
Given that a breastplate is affordable between levels 1-2, we can deduce that a good brute is supposed to hit medium armor/light shield around 35% of the time (as you pointed out). Full plate/heavy shield is available around 3rd level (with remaining money for a magic +1 AC), meaning a good brute hits around 25% of the time (close to your 80% miss).
Including armor training, this fighter needs to gain AC to remain stable in defense:
Level - AC Needed - Wealth Available
- 5 - - - - +3 - - - - 7500
-10 - - - - +7 - - - - 51500
-15 - - - - +4 - - - - 178000
-20 - - - - +5 - - - - 640000
I'm seeing that according to Jason's numbers for appropriate monsters to hit a character can achieve the desired AC from wealth.
Jal, are we accounting for brutes using magic weapons or the equivalent (any enhancement bonus)? Or is this just straight AB from level and Str?
The trick is to get the fighter to last long enough in a slugfest, and it gets harder without the shield. One or two full attack options is often "it" for the fighter, as Crusader of Logic pointed out, so I think we need to adjust the numbers up a bit, don't you?
I am not trying to make SAB fighters invulnerable, but to make two-handers and dual wielders viable.
|
|
Banded mail is pretty sub-par mechanically (but so is chain mail). Consider it an artifact of the earlier editions if you wish or use it as an "archaic/ancient" style (especially as it's based mostly on the lorica segmentata of the Roman Legions).<Olde Pharte Mode On>
Actually, the concept of banded mail in D&D came from viewing certain medieval illustrations of armor. Often, rather than going through the tedious process of depicting chain mail ring by ring, it would be drawn in 'stripes', appearing to be bands of armor. Early wargamers misinterpreted it as a separate type of armor, and it's persisted ever since.
<Olde Pharte Mode Off>
Actually, aren't you thinking of "splint mail" armor?
Those benchmarks are way too low to be remotely meaningful. Seriously, +2 to hit at level 1? +30 at level 20? I've seen level 12s with close to +30. They weren't even optimized.
I was going to put some optimization by the numbers stuff here. Then I realized it does not even consider attack bonus for some reason. The closest thing it does to that is include enemy BAB... which, alone just about meets every single one of those benchmarks. Without including Strength, and anything else boosting the to hit. It covers HP, Initiative, BAB, AC of all three types, and saves of all three types. And that's it.
I mentioned Magic Vestment because someone mentioned a +3 Breastplate. In other words, wasted cash and enhancement slots on plain AC when they should have been going for useful special abilities in order to bring their gear up to par. +1 blah blah blah armor (or weapon for that matter) + Magic Vestment/Greater Magic Weapon is a standard measure to try to get a non caster up to an average level.
Sword and Board still loses, without serious modification because even if you do last longer you also kill slower, meaning you need to last longer anyways. In other words, all you have accomplished is being slow, and having to blow a lot of extra cash on the shield. Although Animated Shields work fine for obvious reasons.
Jal, perhaps +1 ac for every 2 BAB for heavy and for every 3 BAB for medium. We would have to come up with a good "target" ac for making an equal-level brute miss 65% of the time against heavy armor and 80% of the time against heavy armor plus a shield.Luckily, Jason has provided us with the numbers. I'll use benchmark levels for a starting point for total attack bonus:
CR 1: +2
CR 2: +4
CR 3: +6
CR 5: +10
CR 10: +18
CR 15: +24
CR 20: +30Now, let's assume that at the earliest opportunity the fighter gets the best possible armor of the type concerned. So for medium that is AC 18 for breastplate and light shield, and AC 21 for full plate and heavy shield.
Given that a breastplate is affordable between levels 1-2, we can deduce that a good brute is supposed to hit medium armor/light shield around 35% of the time (as you pointed out). Full plate/heavy shield is available around 3rd level (with remaining money for a magic +1 AC), meaning a good brute hits around 25% of the time (close to your 80% miss).
Including armor training, this fighter needs to gain AC to remain stable in defense:
Level - AC Needed - Wealth Available
- 5 - - - - +3 - - - - 7500
-10 - - - - +7 - - - - 51500
-15 - - - - +4 - - - - 178000
-20 - - - - +5 - - - - 640000I'm seeing that according to Jason's numbers for appropriate monsters to hit a character can achieve the desired AC from wealth.
Helmets!
|
|
Those benchmarks are way too low to be remotely meaningful. Seriously, +2 to hit at level 1? +30 at level 20? I've seen level 12s with close to +30. They weren't even optimized.
I don't think they are way too low. Possibly a low average, but not far off from where most monsters sit - barring dragons of course. I do plan on having a look through the MM to get a better idea of a base number, but I think our best bet here is to go with a median number rather than an average; I think the flukes like dragons and giants will skew things higher than they need to be. But when I get the numbers I will present both.
I don't think they are way too low. Possibly a low average, but not far off from where most monsters sit - barring dragons of course. I do plan on having a look through the MM to get a better idea of a base number, but I think our best bet here is to go with a median number rather than an average; I think the flukes like dragons and giants will skew things higher than they need to be. But when I get the numbers I will present both.Those benchmarks are way too low to be remotely meaningful. Seriously, +2 to hit at level 1? +30 at level 20? I've seen level 12s with close to +30. They weren't even optimized.
They are too low. The averages only factor BAB. They do not factor Strength, Enhancement bonuses, or any of the other things that boost attack rolls. If you cannot deal with the melee threats that matter (giants, dragons have better things to do) you have no business being on the front lines.
In other words, your numbers range from 2 points or so behind to 10 or more points. Since every point is 5%, that's huge. At the high end, you need an AC in the 45-50 range just to be half decent (and the real melee brutes will still hit you on a 2, even with PA).
Before this, see giants, elementals, animals, and any other enemy only good for hitting the thing with the other thing.
Stuff
Good, cool, interesting ideas. However, i must point out the KISS stratagy. This is a little complicated and my overwelm some players.IMHO
Sword and Board still loses, without serious modification because even if you do last longer you also kill slower, meaning you need to last longer anyways. In other words, all you have accomplished is being slow, and having to blow a lot of extra cash on the shield. Although Animated Shields work fine for obvious reasons.
QFT, and that's the sad fact of the matter. Sword-and-shield is so lame compared to THW with Power Attack and an animated shield that I shudder to condider it. If shield use had meaningful options (apply bonus to allies, apply bonus to saves against fireballs and the like, etc.), and if the fighter's armor training applied to armor and shield and stacked if you had both, then maybe it could be salvaged.
Sword and Board still loses, without serious modification because even if you do last longer you also kill slower, meaning you need to last longer anyways. In other words, all you have accomplished is being slow, and having to blow a lot of extra cash on the shield. Although Animated Shields work fine for obvious reasons.QFT, and that's the sad fact of the matter. Sword-and-shield is so lame compared to THW with Power Attack and an animated shield that I shudder to condider it. If shield use had meaningful options (apply bonus to allies, apply bonus to saves against fireballs and the like, etc.), and if the fighter's armor training applied to armor and shield and stacked if you had both, then maybe it could be salvaged.
Or even THF without the Animated Shield. At the minimum, it would require all of the following:
Apply bonus to allies. Problem: If they have to be adjacent, it's near worthless. It's hard to make it make sense at any greater distance.
Greater AC. If you aren't on the RNG, don't even bother.
A miss chance. This is on top of the AC boost.
A bonus to saves (not just the one that matters least, but all three saves).
A tactical feat that lets you hit your enemies in the face with your shield. Not a bash, but an Immediate action attack foil since that was how shields were actually used (preventing the enemy from being able to swing their melee weapon). Make it opposed attack rolls based or something.
Now, that they actually have a meaningful defensive advantage they need a taunt ability, otherwise enemies will happily ignore the least threatening party member who in theory at least is hardest to kill in favor of everyone else meaning you have failed utterly to do your job as a tank. Taunting means they're fighting you, ergo your defenses matter. And no, DC 10 + half HD + Cha will not cut it for reasons that should be obvious. Especially if it gets the Mind Affecting tag. But just in case it isn't... it's getting based off a dump stat, ergo the save DC is crap and the taunt will almost never work and therefore might as well not exist. This is especially true if you have to burn actions on the thing. Even if you do not dump stat Charisma, the save DC is still pretty low. Remember, casters only manage respectable save DCs because it's based on their highest stat. If save DCs were Strength based for whatever illogical reason, they'd fail to affect anything as well. For this reason, all the abilities that use that formula might as well not exist for all the effect they have. Monks, I'm looking at you. PF made it worse.
|
|
If shield use had meaningful options (apply bonus to allies, apply bonus to saves against fireballs and the like, etc.), and if the fighter's armor training applied to armor and shield and stacked if you had both, then maybe it could be salvaged.
Great ideas. I'd love to see folks flesh out some ideas on how to keep shields viable.
Someone mentioned keeping shields as part of Touch AC. Would you have to figure out if it matters whether they touch YOU or just your shield? That would be cumbersome. Or could just always add it and say if the shield bonus is what saved you, you deflected the touch with your shield before they could gt a grip.
Similar problem with the fireball. It totally makes sense, but do you add shield bonus to Reflex? No, there are too many cases where a shield would help you move quick (traps, etc.). But maybe you say that, no it doesn't help you dodge, per se, but you are able to bat away whatever you were trying to dodge. But what about pits?
Or I always intellectually liked the idea of armor as DR but many people says it's a pain to run. What if only shield offered DR? The shield isn't actually absorbing the damage, it's deflecting it so the wound you would have taken is a little less severe.
I could see being able to lend your shield bonus to an ally as a feat.
There have got to be ways to make sword-and-shield more viable.
See above.