| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
First, let me state that my enjoyment of Pathfinder has enabled me to continue playing an incarnation of D&D throughout the past 30 years.
However, one of my aggravations with the game mechanics has been the concept that very experienced fighters are just as easy to hit as inexperienced fighters, which never made sense to me nor aligned with stories of fact or fiction. Armor class or THAC0 has never scaled with experience. Reading a book the other day reminded me of this aggravation, and I thought about Pathfinder.
An idea I had was Combat Maneuver Defense (CMD), which scales with experience in BAB. How would the game change if we replaced Armor Class (AC) with CMD?
Then what happens with Armor? What if we used Armor Class bonuses as damage reduction, which is bypassed with critical hits?
Then, why doesn't everyone where full plate if they could avoid it? Because it weighs a ton and slows fighters down. So what if we then apply the Armor Check Penalty to the CMD, now replacing armor class, to represent armor slowing fighters down?
What do you think? Would anyone want to playtest?
It's an interesting thought. I've always thought that it would make sense for AC to scale up with level.
I'm not sure I agree with applying the armor check penalty to CMD to replace AC though. Why would anyone bother to wear armor any more? It's kind of an important flavor to the game IMO. I'd rather see the AC bonus of the armor and shield added to CMD to replace AC.
I'd be interested in participating in your experiment.
You're making a lot of monsters much harder to hit if you do this.
A CR 10 Greater Earth Elemental goes from AC 21 to CMD 34, for example.
3.5s Unearthed Arcana contained rules for Armor as DR and a class based Defense Bonus, the two rules were typically employed together and are pretty fun. You can even throw in the Defense Roll from the same book to get a real feel for actively dodging and deflecting blows.
|
It's a fine idea, but insane to think you should just take the Armor Check Penalty numbers that were balanced for being used for Armor Check Penalties and apply them as a "to hit" penalty.
Redoing the numbers for all armor class types, and rebalancing the new Combat Defense stats for many monsters, would be required. The game's not balanced around it so you'd have to redo the calculations.
However, it's a really clever thought. I love the idea of a character with heavy armor being very easy to hit, but able to take dozens of blows that his nimble companion could dodge, but would be taken out in a single blow.
It would certainly make mithral armor a valuable commodity - precisely as it should be.
http://paizo.com/pathfinderRPG/prd/ultimateCombat/variants/armorAsDamageRed uction.html
You could adjust the rules from Ultimate Combat a bit. Maybe say "if you are proficient with the armor you are wearing Add your BAB to Defense"
or just flat out use CMD instead of Defense, probably works just as well
3.5s Unearthed Arcana contained rules for Armor as DR and a class based Defense Bonus, the two rules were typically employed together and are pretty fun. You can even throw in the Defense Roll from the same book to get a real feel for actively dodging and deflecting blows.
Yes, the DR rules are posted in alternative rules as ninja'd by Greylurker. Are the class defense bonus posted anywhere?
Yes, monsters should continue to use AC to avoid massive work, because they already theoretically game-balanced with AC, DR, and hit points.
It's a fine idea, but insane to think you should just take the Armor Check Penalty numbers that were balanced for being used for Armor Check Penalties and apply them as a "to hit" penalty.
Huh? I suggested applying ACP to CMD not "to hit," such that heavier armored opponents are easier to hit. Maybe the ACP numbers need to be adjusted, but they would be a start.
I'm not sure I agree with applying the armor check penalty to CMD to replace AC though. Why would anyone bother to wear armor any more? It's kind of an important flavor to the game IMO.
Damage reduction at 1st level! that's why anyone would bother to wear armor.
Thanks for the feedback.
cheers!
One other option is to take the prerequisites off combat expertise and give it to certain kinds of characters for free. That gives them the choice of trading attack bonus directly for defense. It's a relatively small thing, but one of the benefits of playing the fighter type is he has BAB to burn for such things - if he chooses to do so.
Yes, the DR rules are posted in alternative rules as ninja'd by Greylurker. Are the class defense bonus posted anywhere?
http://www.d20srd.org/srd/variant/adventuring/defenseBonus.htm
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
CMD is comprised of:
- BAB (fair enough - you get better at fighting)
- Dex (it's in AC already)
- Str (eh? Maybe...)
- Size bonus (??? isn't this backwards?)
It looks to me like the Str and Size bonuses shouldn't be there. So what we have here is really just adding BAB to AC, and then using the existing AC as DR. So while it's not an entirely daft concept, CMD isn't right and it's been done before.
I read the Defense Bonus and the bonuses don't sit well with me. Fighters start at +6 and end at +12. Why the big beginning and wimpy finish? I've always thought in terms of equality. Meaning, two Nth level fighters should balance their BAB and Defense.
The CMD comments by Mudfoot and Orich are well received.
So...
New AC = BAB + Dex + Size + Shield bonus
New DR/armor as variant
However, I think the Critical Hits rules in the variant are too difficult to remember, at least for my local gaming group. KISS (Keep It Simple). Rolling again on a threat keeps things easier. A critical hit can either multiply damage as normal or could bypass DR/armor, whichever is better.
I also don't like larger sizes bypassing DR/armor. They already get higher Str for more damage output, and would encourage giant and dragon hunters to avoid armor, which doesn't sit well with me either.
Effectively, these new rules would make combats longer due to increased AC and DR.
One problem i can immediately think of is, that AC would scale at the same speed as Attack bonuses, if not faster, making iterative attacks, which are vitally important to martial characters useless quickly.
Ouch... A level 1 wizard without bonuses would have BAB 0 + Dex 0 + Size 0 + Shield bonus 0 = 0 AC. I.e. Everything would hit him, all the time, every time. AC contains a +10 from the beginning... why would this be better?
So, let's try this again...
New AC = 10 + BAB + Dex + Size - Armor Check Penalty = 10 + current ranged attack bonus - ACP, for quick calculation
New DR/armor as variant. With the following exceptions:
1. Shield bonus provides DR/shield which stacks with DR/armor
2. Critical hits are like normal: roll again on a threat. A critical hit can either multiply damage as normal or could bypass DR/armor, whichever is better.
3. Larger sizes do not bypass DR/armor. They already get higher Str for more damage output, and would encourage giant and dragon hunters to avoid armor, which doesn't sit well with me either.
4. What about this?
- Piercing fully bypasses DR/armor.
- Bludgeoning bypasses half of DR/armor.
- Slashing does not bypass DR/armor.
- Nothing bypasses DR/shield.
So, let's try this again...
New AC = 10 + BAB + Dex + Size - Armor Check Penalty = 10 + current ranged attack bonus - ACP, for quick calculation
New DR/armor as variant. With the following exceptions:
1. Shield bonus provides DR/shield which stacks with DR/armor
2. Critical hits are like normal: roll again on a threat. A critical hit can either multiply damage as normal or could bypass DR/armor, whichever is better.
3. Larger sizes do not bypass DR/armor. They already get higher Str for more damage output, and would encourage giant and dragon hunters to avoid armor, which doesn't sit well with me either.
4. What about this?
- Piercing fully bypasses DR/armor.
- Bludgeoning bypasses half of DR/armor.
- Slashing does not bypass DR/armor.
- Nothing bypasses DR/shield.
however, I think Bludgeoning should reduce the Hit Points of the shield by like 1/2 the normal damage, considering that bludgeoning weapons were used in medieval times to destroy or otherwise sunder armor.
Slashing weapons are underpowered as it is now, so I think that they should cut off the head if they confirm a critical, and to balance it, more powerful monsters could have "thick hide" or something of the sort to protect them from non-vorpal slashing weapons.
however, I think Bludgeoning should reduce the Hit Points of the shield by like 1/2 the normal damage, considering that bludgeoning weapons were used in medieval times to destroy or otherwise sunder armor.
Slashing weapons are underpowered as it is now, so I think that they should cut off the head if they confirm a critical, and to balance it, more powerful monsters could have "thick hide" or something of the sort to protect them from non-vorpal slashing weapons.
Interesting. There are already rules for Sunder. I would have to disagree with your assessment of "Slashing weapons are underpowered." All the major optimizing weapons are slashing: greatsword, falchion, and scimitar.
More powerful monsters already have natural armor and lots of hit points. I wouldn't want to modify them too much, because the variant rules become less a variant and more of a new game.
Thanks for the feedback.
I feel this may make for too vast a descrepancy in AC and chance to hit among characters and creatures. Player AC is going to increase a LOT faster, and rogues and monks will be less capable in melee than they already were.
As for shields, I think they shoudl be added to AC and not DR. A shield will stop pretty much anything that doesn't break through it or outright knock the person over, while armor has a lot of seams and weak points that attacks can and do get through.
Has anyone done any number crunching of what new ACs are going to end up being, and what the chance-to-hit at that level becomes?
Good point, so shield bonus to new AC instead of DR
I hear you about rogues and monks, but these guys are already down on AC. Actually, at low levels fighters, and other armor-reliant classes, will be easier to hit, but not necessarily damage. Then, when you factor in the ACP penalty, a full BAB class around 13th level would finally have a (BAB - ACP), equivalent to the current armor bonus of full plate. Fighters would be faster with their Armor Training.
Rogues and Monks usually rely on Dex, dodge, and Wis bonus, which would keep their AC effectively the same.
It would be great if someone with a good DPR model could run some numbers:
________________________________
New AC = 10 + BAB + Dex + Size + Shield - Armor Check Penalty = 10 + current ranged attack bonus + Shield - ACP, for quick calculation
New DR/armor as variant. With the following exceptions:
1. Critical hits are like normal: roll again on a threat. A critical hit can either multiply damage as normal or could bypass DR/armor, whichever is better.
2. Larger sizes do not bypass DR/armor. They already get higher Str for more damage output, and would encourage giant and dragon hunters to avoid armor, which doesn't sit well with me either.
3. What about this?
- Piercing fully bypasses DR/armor.
- Bludgeoning bypasses half of DR/armor.
- Slashing does not bypass DR/armor.
On the bypasses, I think in no case should a type of damage fully bypass DR/armor. I'm pretty sure, a heavy crossbow bolt to the unarmored torso does more damage than it does to a plate armored torso.
Yes, I understand your point. However, history informs us that the longbow, crossbow, and rapier made wearing armor irrelevant. I wanted a game mechanic to explain that evolution.
Plus, the ability for a Rogue to sneak a dagger into plate armor seemed cool to me.
Did you add some fraction of BAB to defense? Can you post your piercing values for all of your weapons?
I think the main concern I would have with this is the unintended consequences. I suspect there will be things that are not thought of which will break the game on this (at times, not always).
Take for example non-corporeal touch attacks. All of a sudden fighters will laugh at most of those because their ACs will be so high. What about ray attacks? The only way a wizard is capable of landing anything with a ray attack is that it is it a touch attack, and now touch ACs are through the roof. It would also play hell with the Gunslinger (though arguably that is needed, but no reason to open that can of worms).
Threeshades - Why does improving defense with level render iterative attacks useless?
Because each iterative attack comes at what is effectively a cumulative -5 penalty. so the higher you go in level the higher ACs get, and keep in mind they will get higher just as quickly as BAB, so your first attack will always be at around a natural 10+ to hit, that is not counting the fact that AC is cheaper to improve with magic items than attack bonus, and some very common feats for combat require you to take additional attack penalties (power attack, rapid shot, TWF). Meaning your first iterative will be at 15+ and the following only hit on a natural 20.
Additionally we have medium and low BAB classes who have to hit that AC as well, and for whom it becomes even harder to accomplish.
The way AC currently only scales up through active investment (such as feats and magic items) takes into consideration the fact that there are classes whose attack bonus only grows at 3/4 to 1/2 the rate of that of a frontliner such as a fighter, and that said front liners rely heavily on gaining additional attacks at lower BABs as well in order to scale up their damage to meet with the number of HP and damage potential of CR appropriate monsters.
Actually you are slightly wrong about AC being cheaper to up with magic items if we consider that this is only going to be touch AC that is being modified. Items which give deflection, insight, or other touch AC type bonuses are pretty dear (comparable or worse than weapons). The armor and shield bonuses would be on the DR side.
However you are correct about iterative attacks being eliminated pretty well by this.
Like I said, there are a bunch of unintended consequences which flow from a major core mechanic revision like this, and I wouldn't even want to imagine how much work it would pose to a GM to balance them all out (and I doubt they would be seen in advance).
Wow deja vu. Ken Hood's Grim-n-Gritty Hit Point and Combat Rules has the same defense bonus that we just arrived at.
Thanks for the links and feedback.
I'm conflicted. I want to fix my pet peeve (AC that doesn't scale with experience); however, I don't want to rebuild every monster.
I'm thinking of play-testing these rules in a viking campaign.
______________________
New AC = 10 + BAB + Dex + Size + Shield - Armor Check Penalty = 10 + current ranged attack bonus + Shield - ACP, for quick calculation = Old touch AC + BAB + Shield - ACP
- . Only applies to armor wearing opponents, so no rebuilding dragons
. New touch AC removes the BAB element
New DR/armor as variant. With the following exceptions:
1. Critical hits are like normal: roll again on a threat. A critical hit can either multiply damage as normal or could bypass DR/armor, whichever is better.
2. Larger sizes do not bypass DR/armor. They already get higher Str for more damage output, and would encourage giant and dragon hunters to avoid armor, which doesn't sit well with me either.
Done
Realistically it would make sense for somebody who hunts large creatures to avoid (heavy) armor, precisely because the creature wiuld crush that just as easily as it would them, so it's better to be able to dodge.
Do try it out, I actually think it looks very interesting despite the problems i see with it. It also peeves me a bit that AC doesn't scale on its own, but then your variant also has things in it that would bother me. Such as the inconsistency between monsters and characters, if it doesn't apply to opponents who are not as you put it "armor wearing". And the fact that I don't like armor as DR because it doesn't make sense to me, normally armor either blocks an attack or is bypassed because the attacker hit a joint. The armor as DR variant implies that the attacker usually just pierces straight through the armor and it only reduces the damage because it prevents the attack from piercing deeper or something. So after taking the some ten hits, a suit of full plate would look like swiss cheese.
I think before you implement this you should have a clear ruling on where natural armor goes, DR or AC. And how it interacts with creatures that already have DR. Which is not only monsters, but also some PC Classes, such as barbarians.
Another thing: why would touch AC remove the BAB? It would seem more fitting to use Flat-Footed/Denied DEX bonus to remove BAB.
Another thing: why would touch AC remove the BAB? It would seem more fitting to use Flat-Footed/Denied DEX bonus to remove BAB.
Touch AC implies just making contact not actually damaging per se. If Touch AC included BAB, it would significantly create a host of unintended consequences affecting attacks from incorporeal, arcane casters, etc. I don't want a new game, just a tweak.
Oh yes, flat-footed would remove BAB, too.
cheers
Another thing: why would touch AC remove the BAB? It would seem more fitting to use Flat-Footed/Denied DEX bonus to remove BAB.Touch AC implies just making contact not actually damaging per se. If Touch AC included BAB, it would significantly create a host of unintended consequences affecting attacks from incorporeal, arcane casters, etc. I don't want a new game, just a tweak.
Oh yes, flat-footed would remove BAB, too.
cheers
You only want a minor tweak, but you are comfortable with singificantly hampering secondary combatants from being able to participate in combat?
Every class without full bab would suffer considerably from such a system at higher levels. Thier AC would not measure up when usually in the normal rules they are already at a disadvantage when compared to fighters and their like, and their attack bonuses would further suffer with the quickly scaling AC's of their full BAB counterparts. You would also have a really weird (and in my opinion completely negative) divergence in the rules for humanoid and non-humanoids in the game since you dont want to 'have to rebuild dragons'. And it creates lots of odd corner cases like humanoid but non-armor wearing creatures like a dryad or nymph, and non-humanoids that might wear armor, like say a centaur.
If your pet peeve is simply the fact that experience doesnt dictate difficulty to hit (thought its arguable that that is what scaling hp actually is), then address the problem at its source, instead of bandaiding a bullet wound.
The problem is that in game ac only scales significantly with improving magical equipment after a level or two with the exception of very specific class abilities.
I've fixed that in my game in that the +x magical bonuses are all replaced with a set of 'boons' characters can choose from as they level up as a separate resource. So you get harder to hit as you gain experience by selecting among the armor training, hardened (natural armor) and nimble (dodge bonus) boons (all of which have scaling follow up boons). So an 8th level fighter and a 3rd level fighter might be wearing the same breastplate, but the 8th level fighter probably has 2-3 more defensive boons that make him harder to hit.
You only want a minor tweak, but you are comfortable with singificantly hampering secondary combatants from being able to participate in combat?
Huh? I don't see that. Secondary combatants are already hampered from participating in combat that's why we call them secondary. Until DPR numbers are run to provide evidence, my instinct is that the major winners are lightly armored, full BAB characters. Everyone else will be a wash: more likely to be hit but less damage per hit.
I've fixed that in my game in that the +x magical bonuses are all replaced with a set of 'boons' characters can choose from as they level up as a separate resource. So you get harder to hit as you gain experience by selecting among the armor training, hardened (natural...
So you have your tweak.
To the original poster: yes, and you could replace silver, gold, and platinum pieces with various cookies. It would be a bad idea.
Adding armor bonuses by level is better.
You only want a minor tweak, but you are comfortable with singificantly hampering secondary combatants from being able to participate in combat?Huh? I don't see that. Secondary combatants are already hampered from participating in combat that's why we call them secondary. Until DPR numbers are run to provide evidence, my instinct is that the major winners are lightly armored, full BAB characters. Everyone else will be a wash: more likely to be hit but less damage per hit.
Lower bab characters that could normally keep their AC close to that of primary combatants by using similar equipment will be at a disadvantage compared to their full bab counterparts even when you dont acount for class abilities. In particular characters that would normally be wearing mediuam or heavy armor with low dexterity scores.
And DR almost exclusively does not wash with AC. +1 AC represents 5% less chance to be hit, DR 1 will not cover 5 % of each hit as you go up in level. If most damage was just weapon+str, sure, but thats not how the game works. With scaling damage bonuses, and big brusing monsters, hits can deal 50 damage each or more. Making that DR mostly irrelevant when compared to a lower chance to be hit.
The gap between fighters and rogues that you consider to be a "feature" is a pretty severe issue. Rogues and Monks already struggle with survivability, and (unless these bonuses you're talking about apply ONLY to characters with PC class levels) your current approach is damaging their ability to land a hit without giving them anything in return. Combat will take longer, because everyone has higher AC, but the Rogue and the Monk (and I guess the Bard, too, but I don't like Bards anyway) are going to take more hits over time, leading to a better chance of death before combat is done.
You can minimize the gap by changing the formula to 10+1/2 BAB instead of just BAB or 10+BAB.
But there will still be a gap, and it'll still be an issue. Just skimming this thread right now, but how thoroughly have you tested your numbers? On paper? In play?