Post/Author/DateTime	Post
tallric_kruush 05-28-07, 10:40 PM	I'm curious if wearing armor into inappropriate places has any roleplaying implications in your games? Does anyone here use the Class Defense Bonus alternative offered in Unearthed Arcana? It really seems tailor-made for a setting like Eberron. It doesn't take away the option of armor; it just limits our reliance upon it. I first tried it in a Ptolus game, and we're now finding it a good fit for Eberron, as well. The link below is to the d20 SRD Defense Bonus page. http://www.d20srd.org/srd/variant/adventuring/defenseBonus.htm Places like nobles' halls, galas, the entirety of Upper Tavick's Landing--these places can make wearing armor a definite no-no. Sometimes, it can even be impossible to go where you need to go while decked-out in your +1 Full-Plate (at least in our games.) With metagame knowledge (or assumptions) we players know something crazy could hop-off on the decks of Dantian d'Lyrandar's airship. We want to be fully equipped to stomp some badguys. The Medani and Deneith guards (and all the high society guests for that matter) though, may frown on your adventurer's gear. Glamered armor may be the most common fix. That, or other illusion-based magic. It will do the job under most circumstances, but not in cases where magical efforts have been made to limit heavily armored outsiders (this means you!) from walking the halls of Flamekeep, for instance.
Ardent 05-29-07, 12:12 AM	If they're going to a ball, a gala, going to be aboard ship, asleep at night, riding on the lightning rail or somewhere else where the character would not normally be wearing armor, they're not wearing armor. I've had some gripes about this in the past, but you ask "Are you seriously going to wear your breastplate -- covered in drow blood -- to meet your sponsor at his house during a dinner party?" If they answer yes, then I dock them all experience for that session for metagaming. Sure, they figured out there'd be a confrontation at the party between their leader and the leader of a rival crew, but I'm not going to let them run in there with swords on hip and armor on square. But the same penalties often go for their opponents; lightly or unarmored, light weapons or none at all. Characters designed to operate without crutches (like Rogues and Mages) really shine in these sorts of encounters, while the more typically powerhouse combatants (Fighters, Clerics, et al) tend to be somewhat marginalized. The role reversal works out for boosting egos. If I'm feeling particularly mean-spirited, I mess with their prepared spells. But that's only to remove spells that would cause them or their reputations undue and irreparable damage. Like Fireball. (Side note: never, ever let your players get off scot free when they trash someone else's domicile. I did that once and had to deal with several sessions of reckless arrogance being kicked in the junk before we could get back to the main storyline.)
Edymnion 05-29-07, 12:55 PM	However, one must take into account when wearing armor to social gatherings is appropriate. If it is an event in your honor for some heroic rescue, wearing your full armor should be expected, as you are supposed to be "showing off" for the public. I have a Karnnathi soldier character that has his "Dress Uniform" (a noble's outfit described as a uniform) that, instead of needing jewelry, uses his highly laquered and polished breastplate (which is his military issued armor). For quiet dinners, no, armor is not appropriate (this is why every character needs a backup mithril shirt to wear under their street clothes). But for big galas in your honor, arriving in highly polished armor can be quite the fashion statement.
Cifer 05-29-07, 01:08 PM	I concur with Edy - armor can be a kind of ceremonial uniform as well, especially in the more militant nations like Thrane or Karrnath. Of course, it should be highly polished and gleaming when used for that purpose.
Warforged Goblin 05-29-07, 01:29 PM	I forget which issue, but Dragon magazine had an item that was essentially a Belt of Armor Storing. You put your armor on, put the belt on, say to command word and *poof* armor's in the belt. Say the command word again and your wearing your armor, no muss, no fuss. Now that I think about it, I believe it's called the belt of retractable armor, but I could be wrong...
Nived 05-29-07, 03:37 PM	Though I fully believe that you could get away with padded, or leather armor in most social situations. So long as it was masterwork and looked nice you could probably wear that, the bonus is negligable but better than nothing.
Bluebrush 05-29-07, 05:11 PM	I haven't tried it myself, but the defense bonus thing does sound pretty cool. Do you think it would be much hassle to have the players keep track of two different sets of armour info?
tallric_kruush 05-29-07, 05:34 PM	So we all agree that sometimes armor is acceptable, sometimes not. ;) At least in my opinion, settings which feature a lot of urban intrigue (such as Eberron and Ptolus), or settings with a swashbuckling pace and tone, lend themselves to the alternate rule very well. Sure, it's fine if the melee specialists at times find themselves in a suboptimal position. That's realistic. Yet, say your campaign is set mainly in Sharn (or Fairhaven, Wroat, etc...)--you will likely find yourself moving between these armor-appropriate/inappropriate situations fairly regularly. Have your PCs ever been stopped by the guards in Upper Tavick's Landing? We have been. It made Sharn even more believable. If your game features any significant sea travel, it's more realistic that the PCs not be clad in armor. You could have them simply stripped of valuable AC while shipboard, but that would get old fast. I think the Def Bonus works very well in games like this.
tallric_kruush 05-29-07, 05:44 PM	Do you think it would be much hassle to have the players keep track of two different sets of armour info? I'm not sure I understand the question. If you mean keeping your primary armor, and toting an extra, less obtrusive back-up (as some suggested above), that's really not complicated. You might need to invest in an extra dimensional storage space, though, to avoid unneeded encumbrance. If you're referring to the Def Bonus system, it's even simpler. Your character's either better off with armor, or without. Your typical Fighter, for instance, probably won't have a suit of armor among his possessions. He gets a Def Bonus that eliminates the need to wear armor. His AC comes, not from his protective armor, but from his combat training and experience. Characters with mediocre armor proficiencies also get mediocre Def Bonuses. At times, one or the other (either Armor or Def Bonus) may prove to be a better option. If a character is better served by armor, he can wear it. If he's not, he simply goes with his Def Bonus. Therefore, there's only one AC score to keep track off, same as always.
Cifer 05-29-07, 06:31 PM	If you mean keeping your primary armor, and toting an extra, less obtrusive back-up (as some suggested above), that's really not complicated. You might need to invest in an extra dimensional storage space, though, to avoid unneeded encumbrance. Not even that - the places where you go without armor usually are the more civilized ones, meaning you can just stash it in the inn of your choice or have it in your luggage when traveling.
Edymnion 05-29-07, 06:48 PM	In all fairness, base armor bonus is not intended to be in the same game where magic armor is available.
tallric_kruush 05-29-07, 06:51 PM	Not even that - the places where you go without armor usually are the more civilized ones, meaning you can just stash it in the inn of your choice or have it in your luggage when traveling. I guess that comes down to a different style of gaming. In our Eberron, the "civilized" areas can be some of the most dangerous of all. You may not get attacked at the heiress' ball, but assassins may very well strike before you've made it back to the inn. I guess it really comes down to the way you imagine the world. When I picture the streets of Khorvaire's major cities, I don't envision many heavily armored people moving about their business. I see the "common" citizen, be he noble or peasant, going about his life. Unarmored adventurers blend into the crowd more believably and move about more freely. Also, when I think of swashbuckling adventure, I don't think of plate armor. I think of Indiana Jones, or Star Wars (yes, SW. No, not because of Harrison Ford; though Han Solo's a great example ;)). The heroes rely on wit and skill. They rely on crazy daring and a touch of luck. I think the unarmored heroes of the Def Bonus variant capture that well.
tallric_kruush 05-29-07, 06:56 PM	In all fairness, base armor bonus is not intended to be in the same game where magic armor is available. EDIT: Sorry, Edymnion. I knew I'd be logging-off soon and wanted to take a stab at it before doing so. I didn't mean to edit before you finished responding. It looks like I correctly discerned your meaning, though. I'm pretty sure I understand what you mean. I find it balances out pretty well. If the melee characters have any sort of AC bonus, it usually works out just fine. Plus, you get pick-up small advantages with this rule, as well. Touch attacks are slightly less effective against you, since Def Bonus applies to touch AC. Also, you have more gold to spend on protective items, since it's not all sunk into your armor. If a character seems like he might fall behind the curve, then he can always go with armor. That option's never eliminated, after all. The only issue that can arise there is the offensive power-creep of the armorless characters. With no gold spent on armor, the weapons and items are available slightly earlier.
Bluebrush 05-29-07, 07:13 PM	I'm not sure I understand the question.Basically I mean having to take into account when you're wearing your armour and remembering to adjust your AC value all the time. (Likely more of a problem if your players like to wear their armour around town and visit places where they'd be expected to remove their armour.) Either way, no different to just using normal AC rules if the PCs have to remove their armour in places, just some groups may find it a pain.
Edymnion 05-29-07, 07:16 PM	I'm not sure I follow you. I think I know what you're referring to, but I'd rather let you explain.Base Defense Bonus is intended to be a source of AC for games where armor (especially magical armor) is difficult or impossible to get. Star Wars d20 was the first place I can recall seeing it, because you simply don't get the equivolent of +5 Full Plate in the star wars universe. The system is designed to be a fix for no armor games, a way to do low/no magic and still have characters that can avoid being hit every time. Its not really meant to co-exist in a game where +5 Fullplate/Shield/Amulet of Natural Armor/etc are available.
tallric_kruush 05-29-07, 07:18 PM	Basically I mean having to take into account when you're wearing your armour and remembering to adjust your AC value all the time. (Likely more of a problem if your players like to wear their armour around town and visit places where they'd be expected to remove their armour.) Either way, no different to just using normal AC rules if the PCs have to remove their armour in places, just some groups may find it a pain. It can be a pain in an urban setting, where armor frequently comes on and off. Our guys, however, don't wear armor when we use this rule. Problem solved.
tallric_kruush 05-29-07, 07:29 PM	Base Defense Bonus is intended to be a source of AC for games where armor (especially magical armor) is difficult or impossible to get. Star Wars d20 was the first place I can recall seeing it, because you simply don't get the equivolent of +5 Full Plate in the star wars universe. The system is designed to be a fix for no armor games, a way to do low/no magic and still have characters that can avoid being hit every time. Its not really meant to co-exist in a game where +5 Fullplate/Shield/Amulet of Natural Armor/etc are available. I, too, first saw this with SWRpg. I believe that's where it originated. It is possible we'll run into problems at higher levels. We haven't been using this for very long. (It's been less than a year). We haven't advanced into any true high-level play during that span. The weakness you refer to would likely become more pronounced at higher levels. Another reason we may not have run into problems is that we frequently play gestalt games. Our current game features a Sorcerer//Cleric. He's our blaster and secondary arcanist, yet he has the highest AC of the group, due to his exceptional Dex bonus. So, our characters are far from ordinary. That, I guess, also precludes them from being good guinea pigs for testing alternate rules. As it is, at lower levels it's worked out pretty well. We like the verisimilitude it brings to our game. It feels a little more natural for our guys to walk down the street in silk and leather, than leather and steel. (Even if those streets are suspended hundreds of feet above the ground in a Syrania Manifest Zone :P ).
Cifer 05-30-07, 04:53 AM	I guess that comes down to a different style of gaming. In our Eberron, the "civilized" areas can be some of the most dangerous of all. You may not get attacked at the heiress' ball, but assassins may very well strike before you've made it back to the inn. I believe you misunderstood me. When you arrive at the inn to change for the duchess' ball, you just put on your mithral chainshirt underneath your normal clothes. When you go into the dark forest, you won't need it, so it just stays at the inn.
Edymnion 05-30-07, 12:46 PM	The weakness you refer to would likely become more pronounced at higher levels.Yes. Even with full armor at higher levels, its assumed that your first attack will always hit, that your second attack is virtually guarenteed to hit, and it really becomes an issue of if your tertiary attacks will hit or not. BAB raises faster, even in "normal" games than ACs do. Someone who goes full out to max their ACs (sticking to core stuff here). +5 Fullplate w/ Dex 12 for +14 AC +5 Tower Shield for +9 AC +5 Amulet of Natural Armor for +5 AC Dodge feat for +1 AC Thats AC +29 from someone that has spent most of their character wealth on defense. Compare that to a non-attack focused fighter with just basic stuff: Full BAB for +20 to hit 18 Strength for +4 to hit +5 Weapon for +5 to hit Right there we've already matched the dedicated AC tank with nothing but normal BAB, what is honestly a fairly pathetic strength score for a 20th level fighter (or Dex for 20th level archer), and a standard +5 weapon. You add in other givens for a high level fighter like Greater Weapon Focus, Melee Weapon Mastery, Weapon Dominance, flanking, and everything else, and you can EASILY push their attack over +40. Could you pump your AC up higher? Sure, but for every way to do that, you'll find 2 ways to pump your to hit up. Thats why armor is so important in the game, even with it you are going to be behind the curve, and without it, there's just no question, you're going to die. However, fighting without armor is a classic staple of many genres, like a pirate game, which basically fall apart in the normal rules. So, they came up with BDB as a comprimise, a way to get your AC without needing to focus your entire character wealth on defense. And since the two overlap, it doesn't help you to use both, and it is flat out better to use BDB and save character wealth for use on weapons and buffing items. Armor becomes fairly useless in a game where you use rules that are designed to replace it. Honestly, if I was going to try to combine the two, I would go one step further and use Armor as DR. That way, you would still have a reason to wear armor, but still be able to make use of BDB.
Nived 05-30-07, 02:46 PM	Or you could just go with "The PCs just don't always get to be prepared." I've had games where the PCs have been attacked in situations they didn't have all their gear. I remember one such game where before the start of a Xen'drik expedition the crew and scholars got together at an upscale Sharn club to enjoy one last night of 'civilization' before setting out the next day. One of those "Check your weapons at the door" kinda places. Well one magical explosion and a gang of thugs swinging through the window later (in an attempt to capture the lead professor from Moregrave) found our intrepid heros facing well armed opponents with naught but their silverware. Turned into a fun encounter. Barstools, steak knives, bottles of wine became the party's primary weapons (and unarmed disarm attempts to snatch the bad guy's weapons). Twas a bloody battle, and the PCs only won narrowly, but its fondly remembered none the less. Sometimes your PCs just have to learn to deal with not being walking machines of death.
Ardent 05-30-07, 04:32 PM	Best way to work class-based AC is to say that you either get your class-based AC or you get armor-derived AC. So the option is yours. You can choose to be the unarmored Fighter and get +1 AC for every two levels, or you can wear your armor. That way even when they're caught with their pants down, characters have a chance of surviving.
Edymnion 05-30-07, 07:29 PM	Or you could just go with "The PCs just don't always get to be prepared." I've had games where the PCs have been attacked in situations they didn't have all their gear.Just remember to lower their effective level appropriately.
Nived 05-31-07, 03:21 AM	Of course, I thought I wrote that into that post... ah well I'll blame it on my cold, and cold medicine. But yes there should be no problems with your characters not having their weapons or armor in a given situation if you the DM who knows about it takes it into account for the encounter.
tallric_kruush 05-31-07, 04:47 PM	Best way to work class-based AC is to say that you either get your class-based AC or you get armor-derived AC. So the option is yours. That is the way the alternative is written. You can wear armor if you wish, but the rule essentially removes the need, as Edymnion said. A few monsters, for instance, will still be encountered wearing the armor listed for them in the MM, since that armor gives them a better overall AC than the Def Bonus they'd be entitled to have.
tallric_kruush 05-31-07, 04:56 PM	Or you could just go with "The PCs just don't always get to be prepared." I've had games where the PCs have been attacked in situations they didn't have all their gear. First, I have to say that this encounter would have been great fun! As to the PCs not always being prepared--it can create some fun and challenging encounters, as your encounter above shows. We, though, in our games haven't been using the alternate system simply to make up for momentary deficiencies or weak spots, such as being caught without armor. We thought it would be bring verisimilitude if our characters weren't so dependant on wearing armor 16 hours a day, 7 days a week. This rule gave us an alternative to armor dependency, and our characters seemed a litte more "true to life" in our minds' eyes. Even in Eberron, fewer people walking the streets in armor seems more believable to me. (And the less common armor in the streets becomes, the more intimidating that Adamantine Body, hulking Warforged seems!) I hope one of our games does make it into high levels, so that I can see how well we're able to keep up with the AtkBonus/AC curve. I know that the lack of balance between the two was one of the real weak points of the old SWRpg at higher levels. Just as Edymnion said, it gets to the point that every attack hits because the Atk Bonuses so severely outstrip the AC. I'm curious to see how the new SW Saga Edition addresses the problem. I know they've essentially eliminated tertiary attacks. Oh well, I hope it works well. It's not really a DnD issue, at any rate.
Godu 06-01-07, 09:48 PM	While I am not intrinsically against the concept of the Defence Bonus I will say that I don’t and will not use it in my Eberron Campaigns. Reasons: One, I enjoy forcing my players/characters to engage in the social and noir aspects of the game, and if this means that the tank fighter has to learn how to talk at a social event when his armor is in another building… whooohoo! I think that going without your armor forces the characters (well, the ones in my campaigns anyways) to think about what is happening differently and to react differently to the stimulus I provide. Two, even without armor fighters and suchlike have more hitpoints. The mage is not going to be happy standing up to the evil sword wielding swashbuckler any more with a Defence Bonus than he would without it. The fighter on the other hand knows that he can survive more hits and so will move forward to engage in melee with an opponent, armor or not. Three, Hit points = increased ability to avoid those killing blows. So, to be realistic, if you use the Defence Bonus than I think you should modify the hitpoint discrepancies, or just go with a base number of hitpoints that do not increase (or increase very little) as you advance in level. As it stands, in my opinion, the Defence Bonus progression just stacks on top of hitpoints and upsets game balance. Four, the Defence Bonus, as previously mentioned, was developed for games that either have little armor available (by choice or concept) and/or do not have the magical armor and defences found in most D&D campaigns. Therefore, I think that the Defence Bonus rule is certainly useful and applicable in certain games, concepts, and worlds. However, I also believe that in an Eberron setting it is something of a sop for melee tanks who feel naked without their armor, and really, I am all for this. After all they do have more hitpoints than most of their non-melee oriented brethren, so… fights just go a bit faster if no one is wearing armor. :evillaugh
tallric_kruush 06-02-07, 01:39 PM	Three, Hit points = increased ability to avoid those killing blows. So, to be realistic, if you use the Defence Bonus than I think you should modify the hitpoint discrepancies, or just go with a base number of hitpoints that do not increase (or increase very little) as you advance in level. As it stands, in my opinion, the Defence Bonus progression just stacks on top of hitpoints and upsets game balance. I'm not sure I agree with this. In my opinion, the Defense Bonus simply replaces Armor Bonus to AC. I don't agree that it stacks with hitpoints and upsets game balance any more than a Fighter wearing armor does so. You do realize it's one or the other, right? You can't enjoy the benefits of both. (I pose this question sincerely. I don't intend for it to sound confrontational in the least). Four, the Defence Bonus, as previously mentioned, was developed for games that either have little armor available (by choice or concept)... This is exactly why I started the thread. We've enjoyed playing Eberron as one of those settings with little armor "by concept". Clearly that would be our concept, and not the original creators'. It seemed to fit, though, with the abundance of swashbuckling and urban intrigue. I appreciate everyone's feedback. It's been interesting to see why most of you wouldn't use it in your games. If we make it into high levels with one of these games using Def Bonus, I'll have to post here to share how effective it proves then.
Darakhoranon 06-02-07, 02:54 PM	However, the use of Defense Bonus in place of armor (or the option to choose which one to use in a given situation) DOES have implications for game balance. After all, the Defense Bonus is added to your touch AC, while your armor bonus is not. Bad news for all those touch spell-wielding wizards, warlocks etc. ... In other words, using Defense Bonus strengthens fighters (against touch attacks at least) and weakens mages (and possible psionicists...). Apart from that, I prefer the difficulties for the PCs if they have to decide to either forego armor OR to fail socially. And, as already mentioned, situations in which the party is caught "with their breeches down" allows the characters without dependency on armor to shine (and might, just MIGHT, teach those greataxe wielding berserkers to think before they go storming into the fray...). Additionally, don´t forget classes like Swashbuckler, that become completely useless if everyone can forego his/her/its full plate-armor without significantly lowering the AC. But I´d nonetheless be interested in your experiences with Defense Bonus "in the field", tallric_kruush.
tallric_kruush 06-02-07, 11:18 PM	However, the use of Defense Bonus in place of armor (or the option to choose which one to use in a given situation) DOES have implications for game balance. After all, the Defense Bonus is added to your touch AC, while your armor bonus is not. Bad news for all those touch spell-wielding wizards, warlocks etc. ... In other words, using Defense Bonus strengthens fighters (against touch attacks at least) and weakens mages (and possible psionicists...). This seems to be the only real boon. As has been pointed out, the Def Bonus doesn't scale as well as the DnD standard of magically enhanced armors. A Wizard (or any mage) wields amazing power as it is, and I don't think he'll be overly gimped by the increased touch AC of some of the characters in the campaign. A Warlock, on the other hand, would be in trouble. Apart from that, I prefer the difficulties for the PCs if they have to decide to either forego armor OR to fail socially. And, as already mentioned, situations in which the party is caught "with their breeches down" allows the characters without dependency on armor to shine As much time as an Eberron Campaign can spend in "social situations", it could very well turn into "living with their breeches down". It all simply depends on the atmosphere of the given campaign, the DM, etc... As a side note, there was a pretty versatile armor in the Ptolus setting created for this purpose. The "leather coat" was given as a option for those times when full-plate just wouldn't be seemly. It combined style and function. Statistically, it was little different from a chain shirt. Slightly better, and slightly more expensive. But I´d nonetheless be interested in your experiences with Defense Bonus "in the field", tallric_kruush. I'll certainly share if I anything worthy happens.:)
Godu 06-03-07, 02:03 PM	I'm not sure I agree with this. In my opinion, the Defense Bonus simply replaces Armor Bonus to AC. I don't agree that it stacks with hitpoints and upsets game balance any more than a Fighter wearing armor does so. You do realize it's one or the other, right? You can't enjoy the benefits of both. (I pose this question sincerely. I don't intend for it to sound confrontational in the least). tallric_kruush, I am not at all offended, or think your reply confrontational. I still stand by my initial statement concerning hit points and the Def Bonus but admit that it is, mainly, a contextual stance. In a more purely swashbuckler or late Renaissance era game I would most certainly (re)consider using the Def Bonus. After reading some of the other posts here I would, most likely, tweak the rules on touch attacks so as not to weaken spell casters if I were to use the Def Bonus. I want my tank-fighter players to feel uncomfortable when they take their armor off. With Def Bonus I think (and I could be wrong) there would be less of this existential angst when forced to doff their full plate in social situations, and perhaps, less focus on the social skill set (diplomacy and such like) (at least with my players). I do look forward to seeing how the Def Bonus concept works in your campaign and, perhaps, I could be persuaded out of my antiquated, box-thinking even in a game which is not light on armor.
tallric_kruush 06-03-07, 06:18 PM	tallric_kruush, I am not at all offended, or think your reply confrontational. Excellent. :pint: One can't be too careful. Sometimes, when denied the benefits of inflection and facial expression, simple questions can sound confrontational or condescending. After reading some of the other posts here I would, most likely, tweak the rules on touch attacks so as not to weaken spell casters if I were to use the Def Bonus. Not a bad idea. I definitely wouldn't play a Warlock, for instance; and anything that limits a player's ability to enjoy a class entirely can't be good for the game. This kind of undermines the theory/logic behind Def Bonus, but may make it more balanced. I want my tank-fighter players to feel uncomfortable when they take their armor off. With Def Bonus I think (and I could be wrong) there would be less of this existential angst when forced to doff their full plate in social situations, and perhaps, less focus on the social skill set (diplomacy and such like) (at least with my players). It certainly doesn't sound like the Def Bonus would fit your current game, then. I do look forward to seeing how the Def Bonus concept works in your campaign and, perhaps, I could be persuaded out of my antiquated, box-thinking even in a game which is not light on armor. Again, if there's anything worth sharing--even if it's just: "Man, Edymnion's right, this doesn't scale worth a..."--I'll share in this thread.
Godu 06-03-07, 10:31 PM	Again, if there's anything worth sharing--even if it's just: "Man, Edymnion's right, this doesn't scale worth a..."--I'll share in this thread. Edymnion right! Good lord man! Perhaps I did have a bit too much to drink this evening... heh! :D
Edymnion 06-04-07, 01:14 PM	Edymnion right! Good lord man! Perhaps I did have a bit too much to drink this evening... heh! :DHey now, even a broken clock is right twice a day! :D
Wightlord@24 06-05-07, 02:23 AM	I'm wondering if there is some sort of compromise available ? While I would like to make "Armoring up" the better option, I don't want to force the PC's to always carry there gear everywhere. If a small "unarmored" AC bonus was available then characters who normally wear armor would be a at smaller disadvantage, which would allow "unarmored" characters a chance to shine without excluding "armored" characters. Any Ideas ?
Nived 06-05-07, 02:47 AM	Well there is always rings of protection, and amulets of natural armor. In a campaign that focuses highly on urban bound adventuring those would be more precious than others. I suppose its just a fact that some classes are better suited to urban adventuring (higher dex builds). Which makes sense, in those genres that tipify light or no armor... you know swashbuckling movies (Robin Hood movies, Pirate movies, and 3 Musketeer movies) they are all what you would call high dex characters. If you don't plan on running combat in social situations where armor is a nono than there shouldn't be a problem.
Godu 06-05-07, 04:05 PM	Compromises… off the top of my head, without a lot of deep thought, here are three: 1. Make the Def Bonus a Feat so that to get the unarmored AC boost the character would have to burn a Feat Slot. To be cruel you could not allow it as a Bonus Fighter Feat. 2. Reduce the bonus so that the standard heavy armor classes (the fighters) fall in with the slower advancement classes. You could even have a single advancement path for the Def Bonus – although that does remove the idea that the fighter/melee types have better combat training. 3. Allow characters to substitute the Def Bonus for an armor group feat, in this way a fighter in an armor-light campaign (or a marine based campaign) could trade their Heavy Armor Prof for the Def Bonus. I might consider allowing classes, like the mage, to have the Def Bonus as a starting ability. None of these are perfect but I, personally, think that the third option presents the best compromise, although, I would have to do some more tweaking before I was happy with it. :plotting:
tallric_kruush 06-05-07, 05:04 PM	Honestly, if I felt I had to tweak it, I probably just wouldn't use it. I've tweaked the skills list, the occassional feat, a class feature here or there--but those are "core" features of the game. The Def Bonus works well for games with swashbuckling, high-seas adventure, etc... Adjusting it to aid a Fighter who simply left his armor at home, or simply to buff the mage with a free AC bonus--that seems like an unbalancing rule at best. The Def Bonus was created to replace armor, not supplement it. Trying to combine the two would likely ruin the combat-balance of your game. That's just my :twocents:, though.
Ogiwan 06-29-07, 12:15 PM	I don't know if the proposed system and the core are totally imcompatible. Currently, my party is 6th level. We just finished Whispers of the Vampires Blade, which I would reccommend by the by, beacuse of it's great fights. Now, if i use the UE rules side-by-side with armor, well, my full-plate-and-heavy-shield Fighter/Favored Soul has +8 at the Tain Gala, and +10 or +12 when he's in full battle rattle. I'm really not seeing a problem with this. Perhaps with rogues and the like, but i'll have to look into this. Also, how does this factor in with the mooks? All those Emerald Claw punks whose faces you kick in all the time? Another reason I'm thinking about adopting this is because the party's warlock basically cannot miss, save rolling a 1, because the touch AC is always pathetically low.
Archangel62 06-30-07, 02:48 AM	The problem that I find with it isn't the normal issue it's more that so many modules and DMs tend to play gotcha when you have to leave your armor behind. "Oh the party was crashed by a group of deadly brawlers all of whom are in heavy armor and well armed, too bad you're now easy to hit and can't really harm them." "Oh, the exotic creatures were let loose, too strong for you to directly deal with, too bad for you." "Oh a group of rivals to you is there and wants an altercation and is prepped for it while you aren't. What's that, you wear your armor in, fine, no XP for you." To put it simply the problem isn't necessarily the loss of armor, the problem is that most modules and games cause it to link with something bad happening and the party not being properly equipped. I guess I have similar issues to this that I have with the 'family members kidnapped, wedding or funeral is crashed, friends attacked, etc' that so many DMs go for becuause they are either out of ideas or want to yank a players chain. Believe it or not much of this mindset evolved out of old D&D where this sort of thinking was ENCOURAGED, it created the adversarial view that we see in a lot of games and groups and helped lead to the DMs who think that the screen makes them little tin gods. It also puts the martial characters into the shade again, forcing them to basically sit back in almost all cases while the casters can still do their thing just as well as they could before (arguably better in fact because the enemy might not have the same protective features that they would in 'the wild'. The other problem is that frankly in Eberron it creates issues with races like the warforged (in whispers of the Vampire blade I wasn't sure how to deal with the warforged, he can't remove his adamantine plating and while I didn't think letting him in was logical given the circumstances having him wander around outside seemed like a poor idea too.) Equally important to remember is that in a world with magical armor and other protective items I honestly have to wonder why regular armor is the big fear.
Edymnion 06-30-07, 12:40 PM	Well, we're coming at this from the DM angle, so there is something to be said for "just don't be an ass in the first place". If you're running the game where you are sucker punching the party every chance you get to the point they NEED unarmored defense bonuses, odds are you're just being an ass and need to stop sucker punching them. Once in a while is fine, and can make for a fun (if tense) session. All the time just means you're going to get a party full of nothing but warforged soulknives and monks with VoP.
GrimAlchemist 07-02-07, 03:25 AM	Turned into a fun encounter. Barstools, steak knives, bottles of wine became the party's primary weapons (and unarmed disarm attempts to snatch the bad guy's weapons). Exscuse my back-track and tangent, but... Just had a thought about Artificers with Greater Magic Weapon and the Weapon Augmentation spells... a group of players wielding dancing barstools, wounding broken wine bottles, and the feared vorpal steak knives. And just for kicks, a throwing returning chair or two. :D Not even sure that'd work with the rules, but boy oh boy would it be a hoot.
Nived 07-04-07, 01:07 AM	Exscuse my back-track and tangent, but... Just had a thought about Artificers with Greater Magic Weapon and the Weapon Augmentation spells... a group of players wielding dancing barstools, wounding broken wine bottles, and the feared vorpal steak knives. And just for kicks, a throwing returning chair or two. :D Not even sure that'd work with the rules, but boy oh boy would it be a hoot. Did the players have fun? Is it fondly remembered? Then you did your job.