I've been pondering Rings of Protection and Amulets of Natural Armor. The basic math of Pathfinder makes these items both very necessary. However they tend to skew treasure handed out by players finding copious rings and amulets at higher levels (if they face lots of NPCs) which always feels ridiculous.
So here's some suggested rules:
Armor proficiency bonus: When a 4th level character is wearing armor they are proficient in they get a +2 bonus to AC. This bonus increases by +1 every 2 levels thereafter.
Deflection Bonus: Dexterity provides a deflection bonus to AC equal to the character's dexterity modifier. Instead of armor having a maximum dexterity bonus, it now has a maximum deflection bonus.
Natural Armor: Natural Armor does not stack with normal armor. A character may add either their natural armor bonus to AC or the bonus provided by armor they are wearing. Characters that have a natural armor bonus get the armor proficiency bonus even if they're not wearing any armor.
Monk AC: Monks receive the armor proficiency bonus even if they are not wearing armor.
Greater Mage Armor: Wizards/Sorcerers get a "Greater Mage Armor" spell added to their spell list that gives them a +8 bonus to AC. This would be set to an appropriate spell level (and could either be minutes per level or hours per level, depending how punishing you felt like being to wizards).
----------------
What the above means is that someone can buy an amulet of natural armor, bracers of defense OR a suit of armor and get an AC bonus. But there's no point buying all 3. Amulets of natural armor should have their price halved to compensate for this.
Same thing with rings of protection and belts of dexterity. You can buy one or the other, but there's no point buying both.
Is there any downsides to the above houserules? The only side effect I can think of is that touch AC is going to be better by +5 than it otherwise would. Considering how ridiculously low touch AC can get at higher level, that doesn't seem to be such a bad thing.
Is there anything else I'm overlooking?
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Have you considered using Advanced Bonus Progression, an optional system introduced in Pathfinder Unchained? it does away with these, and several other 'math required, but boring' items that we know and hate like stat boosts and +1 longswords of utter boringness.
your houserules while nice, arent really balanced (unless you go and fiddle with the cost table for the items, you're taking away one kind of bonus from each player because they wont be able to afford the other anyways, and players will end up short AC).
The unchained subsystem is already reasonably well balanced, though you can bump things down a level or so without anyone screaming bloody murder.
just food for thought
Have you considered using Advanced Bonus Progression, an optional system introduced in Pathfinder Unchained? it does away with these, and several other 'math required, but boring' items that we know and hate like stat boosts and +1 longswords of utter boringness.
I've considered using the Unchained Bonuses more than a few times, but the complexity it introduces is just a bit too much for my taste. It requires attuning items and I wasn't a fan of how that worked. It also reduced flexibility.
Finally some people like buying a +5 weapon vs a +1 flaming human bane holy longsword. ABP removes that element of character building. My bonus does remove some character building, but nowhere near as much (and one of the more boring aspects of character building).
your houserules while nice, arent really balanced (unless you go and fiddle with the cost table for the items, you're taking away one kind of bonus from each player because they wont be able to afford the other anyways, and players will end up short AC).
I kept thinking that would be the case, but I don't see how (some fiddling is necessary):
- Amulet of Natural Armor: These should be halved. Most people would use bracers, but some animals and monsters may prefer natural armor enhancements instead.
- Ring of Deflection: These can be left as is. They're currently half of what a belt provides, but they only provide 1 benefit (increased AC) vs increased AC, initiative, reflex save, dex skills. Why go with a ring? Well it would save you money by not having to buy a STR+DEX belt.
The level 20 AC will end up being +11 from armor proficiency, +Dex mod (whatever that might be) + armor enhancement bonus + miscellaneous items.
That calculation is a straight conversion of +5 ring and +5 amulet. Am I overlooking anything?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The level 20 AC will end up being +11 from armor proficiency, +Dex mod (whatever that might be) + armor enhancement bonus + miscellaneous items.
That calculation is a straight conversion of +5 ring and +5 amulet. Am I overlooking anything?
Okay, so there's a couple problems with turning dexterity to AC into a deflection bonus. Which all stem from that they fulfill very different aspects of AC from a mechanical perspective.
Characters will now apply their dexterity to their Flat-footed AC since it's a deflection bonus. This means they won't lose it against invisible enemies, and that most dexterity-based characters will have a Flat-footed AC almost as high as their normal AC. It's basically giving every character Uncanny Dodge.
I assume that the bonus granted by Dexterity doesn't stack with the bonus granted by a Ring of Deflection. Which means that Str-based characters are the only ones who can benefit from a Ring of Deflection.
Also, all spells that grant a deflection bonus are gonna be a lot less attractive.
**********************
Why keep the Amulet of Natural Armor/Ring of Protection as available magic items if they don't stack with anything? It would be a lot simpler to just grant a scaling Natural Armor/Deflection bonus to AC, and let everything else stay the same.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I've considered using the Unchained Bonuses more than a few times, but the complexity it introduces is just a bit too much for my taste.
I'm sorry, honest question: What complexity are you talking about? Each levelup you check the table and see what you get. I don't see the problem.
It requires attuning items and I wasn't a fan of how that worked.
That's the easiest thing to houserule. Have the weapon bonus apply to every weapon, every range OR melee attack, or something like that.
It also reduced flexibility.
I completely disagree with that. Not only does the ABP free the headband, belt, neck, and shoulder slots, plus one ring slot, it also removes the financial pressure. No longer do cool and flavorful item "need" to get sold in order to pay for a better weapon/belt/etc.!
Yes, you can not rush a two-stat-belt for your thrown build, but you can wear a Blinkback Belt without lowering your Dexterity.Characters can also use different weapons on different days, without the need to pay the full cost multiple times.
Finally some people like buying a +5 weapon vs a +1 flaming human bane holy longsword. ABP removes that element of character building.
Why don't you allow your players to lower the given enhancement bonuses to add magical bonuses? Should probably be limited some way (maybe to abilities they've found on looted weapons), but I don't see much of a problem.
As a GM, I really enjoy the freedom ABP gives me. It also allowed me to remove magic item shops, thus granting enormous freedom regarding what I hand out as loot as I don't need to worry about the players selling it all to add a +X.
That said, I do actually like your idea - in fact, I'm actually thinking about how it could be used in combination with ABP.
I have to contemplate your changes a bit more, but what I've noticed so far:
1) Monks no longer need the Barkskin Qinggon/Ki Power if they have access to Mage Armor/Bracers.
2) As a flip to the above, Monks can live without Mage Armor/Bracers due to the Barkskin Qinggon/Ki Power.
3) Polymorphing characters no longer need Mage Armor/Wild armor/Bracers to function.
4) Armor Expert + mithral breastplate got nerfed.
5) Are rings are also cheaper? If yes, you're encouraging low-dex for unarmed characters (which makes Monks less MAD).
6) Animal companions and Eidolons get buffed.
Only #6 is a downside, in my opinion.
Also, all spells that grant a deflection bonus are gonna be a lot less attractive.
I think the get more attractive - normally, those spells suck because you need a Ring of Deflection anyway, but now, a low-dex character might actually profit from them.
Also, all spells that grant a deflection bonus are gonna be a lot less attractive.I think the get more attractive - normally, those spells suck because you need a Ring of Deflection anyway, but now, a low-dex character might actually profit from them.
But a low-dex character could already benefit from them normally. And a high-dex character could too. This is just removing choices.
A PC with a Ring of Protection wouldn't cast deflection spells on themself, but they can still be used to buff summons/animal companions and the like. This change just results in diminishing returns on every target that has a positive dexterity modifier.
Which makes those spells a lot less attractive. In literally no way are deflection spells more attractive after such a change.
I actually wrote that under my original assumption that Rings of Deflection were supposed to be completely removed from the game (because I can't read, apparently) - in that case, those spells would indeed be made more valuable on low-dex PCs (because nothing else is taking up the bonus type).
I changed the other part when I noticed my mistake, but didn't reconsider the reply to you. Sorry about that!
I have to contemplate your changes a bit more, but what I've noticed so far:
1) Monks no longer need the Barkskin Qinggon/Ki Power if they have access to Mage Armor/Bracers.
2) As a flip to the above, Monks can live without Mage Armor/Bracers due to the Barkskin Qinggon/Ki Power.
3) Polymorphing characters no longer need Mage Armor/Wild armor/Bracers to function.
4) Armor Expert + mithral breastplate got nerfed.
5) Are rings are also cheaper? If yes, you're encouraging low-dex for unarmed characters (which makes Monks less MAD).
6) Animal companions and Eidolons get buffed.Only #6 is a downside, in my opinion.
I'm not aware of what Armor Expert is (unless you mean the fighter class feature? If so I'm not sure how that's nerfed). For #6 that would be true. You would need to look carefully at what AC animal companions are normally capable of and what AC they'd be capable of under the new system. Eidolons are overpowered as is so I have little care for how this rule interacts with them.
I don't see any real point for including amulets of natural armor, but I don't see any harm in eeping them around either. A flurry of blows archer monk would benefit from it (keeping his bracers slot open for bracers of archery). There's probably some other edge cases. But otherwise they'd stop being a staple and instead become only useful in very specific situations.
Re: Shield of Faith (are there other spells that grant deflection bonuses?): How attractive is this spell to begin with? I've seen it play an important role at low level, but once you start getting rings of protection (and in my experience APs tend to be fairly generous with them to get the NPC enemies AC up high enough) the spell tends to disappear unless your group deliberately neglects their rings.
I'm sorry, honest question: What complexity are you talking about? Each levelup you check the table and see what you get. I don't see the problem.
I don't like the idea of "this level you get natural armor boost. This level it's deflection. This level it's armor enhancement", etc, etc.
completely disagree with that. Not only does the ABP free the headband, belt, neck, and shoulder slots, plus one ring slot, it also removes the financial pressure. No longer do cool and flavorful item "need" to get sold in order to pay for a better weapon/belt/etc.!
Yes, you can not rush a two-stat-belt for your thrown build, but you can wear a Blinkback Belt without lowering your Dexterity.
Fair enough. And yes, that last one was what I was referring to. Martials often want two-stat belts (often for the extra HP if not the extra defense) and wizards get to have their con or dex belt without any limitation. I realise the CRB system is forgiving towards wizards, but this seems even more forgiving.
Why don't you allow your players to lower the given enhancement bonuses to add magical bonuses? Should probably be limited some way (maybe to abilities they've found on looted weapons), but I don't see much of a problem.
I considered that, but to me it makes magic seem less magical.
As a GM, I really enjoy the freedom ABP gives me. It also allowed me to remove magic item shops, thus granting enormous freedom regarding what I hand out as loot as I don't need to worry about the players selling it all to add a +X.
In D&D 4e I felt their ABP system worked perfectly. I feel like Unchained's system is a lot less elegant. And that's as someone who really wanted to enjoy it (it's why I keep coming back to the idea and try to approach it from different angles).
Just a couple of thoughts:
1) Deflection doesn't add to flat-footed AC (they're already getting their "ring of deflection" bonus inherently, so this isn't any actual real loss).
2) Remove Amulet of Natural Armor and Ring of Deflection from the game.
3) Allow deflection bonuses to stack.
For #3 this would bring the value back for shield of faith (and similar spells) for all characters except those who've maxed out the deflection bonus allowed by their armor. The fact it's easier to stack deflection bonuses means that the light armor "+8 dex" limit is actually meaningful. This doesn't stop the fact all armored characters get +10 on top of their deflection bonus.
Just a couple of thoughts:
1) Deflection doesn't add to flat-footed AC (they're already getting their "ring of deflection" bonus inherently, so this isn't any actual real loss).
So, with the change of 'maximum dexterity' to 'maximum deflection', Deflection bonuses are now mechanically identical to a dexterity bonus to AC.
2) Remove Amulet of Natural Armor and Ring of Deflection from the game.
Understandable.
3) Allow deflection bonuses to stack.
For #3 this would bring the value back for shield of faith (and similar spells) for all characters except those who've maxed out the deflection bonus allowed by their armor. The fact it's easier to stack deflection bonuses means that the light armor "+8 dex" limit is actually meaningful. This doesn't stop the fact all armored characters get +10 on top of their deflection bonus.
I could see this backfiring pretty easily if there's a player running around naked with 2-3 different sources of deflection to AC, but otherwise it's a good fix.
Consider only allowing the deflection bonus from dexterity to stack with other types of deflection bonuses. Maybe change the 'maximum deflection bonus' to a 'maximum deflection & dexterity bonus'.
Either way, such a change would result in some characters gaining more AC than they would have ended up with normally, since the 'Armor proficiency bonus' is untyped.
I could see this backfiring pretty easily if there's a player running around naked with 2-3 different sources of deflection to AC, but otherwise it's a good fix.
Consider only allowing the deflection bonus from dexterity to stack with other types of deflection bonuses. Maybe change the 'maximum deflection bonus' to a 'maximum deflection & dexterity bonus'.
Good point. I hadn't considered walking around unarmored. Thanks for that. I think I'll use that fix.
And yes. AC will be differently apportioned. So long as it's not too balanced in a bad direction I'm happy with that. With the removal of amulets and rings though there will have to be a higher cost for them.
I'm not aware of what Armor Expert is
It's a combat trait that lowers the ACP of any armor worn by 1, meaning that a mithral breastplate has an ACP of 0 and thus can be worn without penalty even when the character does not have proficiency with medium armor. Your houserule not only prevents such shenenigans, but wearing any armor without proficiency, really.
#6 is mostly fixed if the armor prof bonus for Eidolons and pets scale with HD rather than master's level. For isntance, my 8th level Summoner's Eidolon would loose 2 AC (-4 from Mage Armor, -1 from the Ring of Deflection, +3 from armor prof bonus) while freeing up a ring slot, so it'd actually only be problematic at high levels.
I don't like the idea of "this level you get natural armor boost. This level it's deflection. This level it's armor enhancement", etc, etc.
Isn't that exactly how BAB and base saves work? When levelling, you have to look at a table to see if you gain an increase.
Although to be fair, maybe I'm a bit spoiled because my custom made character sheets automatically do these calculations. There's a checkbox for shield/no shield, and apart from that, the only ABP thing the players have to care about are the stat increases.
I realise the CRB system is forgiving towards wizards, but this seems even more forgiving.
I think ABP slightly favors martials (and hybrids) - casters can't rush headbands, and lose half their wealth regardless of if they care about armor and weapon attunements or not, so they can buy fewer rods et al.
I considered that, but to me it makes magic seem less magical.
Well, the ABP rules explicitly say that if you want, you can still put a flaming human bane holy longsword in some loot or allow buying/crafting. I'd add a discount, of course.
Consider only allowing the deflection bonus from dexterity to stack with other types of deflection bonuses.
At this point, just leaving the dex bonus as it is has the exact same effect.