Here's an idea for a bit more flexibility.
Each level that a character gains a +1 base attack bonus at, they have the option (when they level, can't be changed afterwards) to turn that into a +1 AC bonus instead.
For a long time I have been considering stripping out all the AC magic items (I dislike them) and just adding your BAB to AC. Your system is interesting, but I agree with the above poster. It could be abused by people who heavily prioritize on or the other. You could make it a fixed value, or add rules governing the ratio at which they are advanced. I prefer the former for it is simpler.
So you want to give touch attack spellcasters a +10 to AC?
Depends. Does the comparable AC bonus also help their targets touch AC?
Take a look at the OGL rules for Defense Bonuses.
Ummmm...there is a HUGE problem that I see with that idea. Coming from years of powergaming my first thought as a player is:
"Dude, I am so going to do that with a monk...Dex to AC, Wis to AC, monk AC bonus, and now subbing out my BAB for AC??? Just going to flurry of blows anyway since that doesn't run off of my BAB but my monk level...this is going to ROCK!!!!!"
No I don't think that completely unhittable monks wielding two weapons (their unarmed strikes) with a fighter's BAB should be allowed...just to mention the oversight.
|
Ummmm...there is a HUGE problem that I see with that idea. Coming from years of powergaming my first thought as a player is:
"Dude, I am so going to do that with a monk...Dex to AC, Wis to AC, monk AC bonus, and now subbing out my BAB for AC??? Just going to flurry of blows anyway since that doesn't run off of my BAB but my monk level...this is going to ROCK!!!!!"
No I don't think that completely unhittable monks wielding two weapons (their unarmed strikes) with a fighter's BAB should be allowed...just to mention the oversight.
The only problem with this is that Flurry specifically states that you treat your BAB as if it were equal to your monk level instead of normal. This would mean that with this system it would only increase your AC when you use a Flurry not give you a full attack at full BAB.
|
The only problem with this is that Flurry specifically states that you treat your BAB as if it were equal to your monk level instead of normal. This would mean that with this system it would only increase your AC when you use a Flurry not give you a full attack at full BAB.
No, this system would not. You would trade your normal BAB, up to +15 at 20th, for a +15 to AC, all the time. In return, you would have a +0 BAB. EXCEPT when you flurry, when you treat your BAB as being equal to your monk level, in this case, +20. While still retaining the +15 to AC.
So as long as you can manage full attack actions you get a free +15 to AC without losing anything on your attacks. And it doesn't even hurt your CMD because at 4th you use your monk level for your BAB for that too.
The only downside for this use is the fact you can never take feats with BAB requirements, and can never move and draw a weapon.
So overall, anyone choosing the swap BAB for an AC bonus would be a fool, and I cannot recommend this system.
|
You just do it one-for-one like that, obvious as people are pointing out.
Just look at the existing mechanics in the game for trading your to hit bonuses for AC bonuses. Combat Expertise and Fighting Defensively, both of which have some heavy limitations.
Your just accelerating the Armor Class arms race. :(
Or people could not ignore my post and use the existing Open Gaming License rules for this ;)
Defense Bonuses work well. I've played in games that use them. Heavily armored types tend to stay heavily armored, because their AC is higher that way, but lightly armored and unarmored types actually have a chance to be missed in combat and are much harder to hit with touch attacks, which gives them a nice niche role.
|
|
Or people could not ignore my post and use the existing Open Gaming License rules for this ;)
I promise I did totally look at it Zurai. :) I think it is the same thing included in Green Ronins Advanced books. I didn't realize it was OGL.
Correction, because it is not the same. Similar idea tho. If Paizo still has any of the AGM guides for 5 bucks, I do recommend it.
Something like the ogl defence bonuses might be a good idea. I didnt know they were OGL, i will recommend them to a friend of mine planning a victorian era campaign (thus most people wont be walking around in much more then leather armor).
With the OP's idea, i think you will see ALOT of 0 BAB level 20 wizards. Its a significant boost for non-spellcasting classes who are not concerned with AC (specializing in save based spells and buffs). Not to mention you can taking Defensive Combat Training so that your BAB doesnt count towards your CMD (i think a large portion of primary casters take this feat anyway).
The largest problem that I have found in my efforts to unify combat into Base Combat Bonuses, and move away from Armor Class, or the "armor makes you harder to hit" methodology is that combat is the base mechanic for anything in the game. Honestly, it's got the most rules devoted to it. Combat is the common denominator of the ruleset.
In my efforts to get Armor back to the concept of "blocking damage," rather than "adding to defense," I've worked on revamping the combat system in many games to work with the following concepts:
1 - Defense is independent of, but impacted by, Armor.
2 - Base Combat Value is a single number. Characters progress in Combat Ability as they advance in levels. BCB (Base Combat Value) is a value that affects the Character's ability to strike blows against, and defend against blows struck by, an opponent.
3 - Lots of modifications or replacement mechanics to reflect the impacted rules.
Now, with Pathfinder and the concept of the CMB/CMD, a lot of this becomes easier. The mechanic is already there, you just need to expand and extrapolate how it impacts everything else.
Currently, I'm working on some game rules (that I may release as OGL via my auspice as Head Writer over at Atomic Rocket Games) that seek to puzzle-piece a Combat Value/Defense Value mechanic into the Pathfinder RPG/OGL rules. It's not easy, and it's slow going, but it's not entirely unlike what you're after TriOmega.
I strongly suggest that you look at ways in which Armor and Shields impact Defense. Setting a reason to wear or not wear armor is the key component of a Base Combat Value revision - If someone's easier to hit because they have heavy armor, are they protected from damage? If they're harder to hit because they can dodge more easily, do they take more damage from blows? If not, why not?
Just some thoughts. Hope they help. :)
The largest problem that I have found in my efforts to unify combat into Base Combat Bonuses, and move away from Armor Class, or the "armor makes you harder to hit" methodology is that combat is the base mechanic for anything in the game. Honestly, it's got the most rules devoted to it. Combat is the common denominator of the ruleset.
In my efforts to get Armor back to the concept of "blocking damage," rather than "adding to defense," I've worked on revamping the combat system in many games to work with the following concepts:
1 - Defense is independent of, but impacted by, Armor.
2 - Base Combat Value is a single number. Characters progress in Combat Ability as they advance in levels. BCB (Base Combat Value) is a value that affects the Character's ability to strike blows against, and defend against blows struck by, an opponent.
3 - Lots of modifications or replacement mechanics to reflect the impacted rules.
Now, with Pathfinder and the concept of the CMB/CMD, a lot of this becomes easier. The mechanic is already there, you just need to expand and extrapolate how it impacts everything else.
Currently, I'm working on some game rules (that I may release as OGL via my auspice as Head Writer over at Atomic Rocket Games) that seek to puzzle-piece a Combat Value/Defense Value mechanic into the Pathfinder RPG/OGL rules. It's not easy, and it's slow going, but it's not entirely unlike what you're after TriOmega.
I strongly suggest that you look at ways in which Armor and Shields impact Defense. Setting a reason to wear or not wear armor is the key component of a Base Combat Value revision - If someone's easier to hit because they have heavy armor, are they protected from damage? If they're harder to hit because they can dodge more easily, do they take more damage from blows? If not, why not?
Just some thoughts. Hope they help. :)
Seems like you would be well served by the armor as DR rules that i believe came out in unearthed arcana. Its not exactly what you are going for, but its in that direction, and might help you work out what you are looking for.
http://www.d20srd.org/srd/variant/adventuring/armorAsDamageReduction.htm
Seems like you would be well served by the armor as DR rules that i believe came out in unearthed arcana. Its not exactly what you are...
Tried them. Don't like them. Found them to be too cumbersome, and decided to try to come up with something that fits the base mechanic of the game as well as doesn't continue to stick to the idea that armor "adds to your defense" against your opponents ability to connect with you.
Unfortunately, my day job and my day-to-day life interfere with my getting such a modular interrupt written and implemented.
My playtesters are coming back with good reviews of the latest iteration, however, so we'll see. If I release it as OGL, I'll make it available on the ARG site eventually.
So you want to give touch attack spellcasters a +10 to AC?
What do you mean, touch attack spellcasters?
I can't see any reason why any primary caster wouldn't take this all the time.
|
|
So you want to give touch attack spellcasters a +10 to AC?What do you mean, touch attack spellcasters?
I can't see any reason why any primary caster wouldn't take this all the time.
Well, I was just saying the first example that came to mind. It does work even better for the casters that don't even rely on attack rolls.
Here's an idea for a bit more flexibility.
Each level that a character gains a +1 base attack bonus at, they have the option (when they level, can't be changed afterwards) to turn that into a +1 AC bonus instead.
I wouldn't do that.
In my Fencing & Firearms PDF, I have BAB add to AC as a dodge bonus. Armor doesn't add to AC as much, but it does convert lethal damage to nonlethal damage. In my playtests, this increases AC somewhat and makes character deaths a less common event.
|
Take a look at the OGL rules for Defense Bonuses.
Definately. The Defense Bonus rules are designed to do exactly this.