Post/Author/DateTime	Post
Argonite 08-19-05, 02:59 AM	So I have been thinking of a rules varient which would allow characters to add their BAB to their AC. It should stack with other AC types so it would be either a "class bonus" or maybe a "competence bonus." The main idea is to create a slightly larger margin between a buffed up "average" BAB class (clerics and wildshaped druids, I'm thinking here) and a "good" BAB class, since I find at the moment that the balance is too much in favor of the former. It would be lost when dodge bonuses are lost, since it represents a character's increased combat awareness and skill. So if you are flanked or suprised you wouldn't be able to react and gain the bonus. Monsters and NPCs would get the bonus as well according to their BAB, so the balance between PCs and foes would be largely unaffected. It would allow characters to use less armor which is a good thing for variety and roleplay (so you can have a Conan-style barbarian with nothing but a loin cloth and a greatsword and he isn't especially penalised for the lack of armor). So any thoughts on this? Have I overlooked anything? Balanced?
Tenzhi 08-19-05, 05:09 AM	This makes BAB worthless. A level 20 fighter versus a level 20 fighter would essentially have a BAB of 0 (his +20 BAB would be countered by the other fighter's +20 to AC) versus what a normal level 20 fighter's AC would be (which is near 40 usually). So a level 20 fighter would have to roll a natural 20 to hit a level 20 fighter.
Mula 08-19-05, 10:22 AM	How about allowing the players to choose between BAB or AC increase? A 1st-level fighter could either have BAB +1 or a +1 bonus to AC (which should probably apply to touch and flat-footed, too) and when that character would gain another level of fighter, he'd have the same choice again. And so on and so on.
oneday 08-19-05, 11:46 AM	Personally, I don't think it would be too much of a problem if you used the armor as DR rules also. That does make it a little hard in the earlier levels because a starting character would only have an AC of 10 or 11. At higher levels it makes those high-strength monsters a lot more dangerous too.
Gilean 08-19-05, 11:59 AM	With low magic, it might work. As written, hits will be extremely rare at higher levels. Also, as oneday said, many monsters will be relatively tougher. Tenzhi, in a vacuum, with no other changes, that might be correct. Hopefully the author is reducing magic level, also. Or upgrading offensive abilities and feats.
caeruleus 08-19-05, 01:37 PM	I like the idea of having an AC bonus that increases with BAB. I once had an idea of giving a class defense bonus of half-BAB + 2. Using the armor as damage reduction with this is also probably a good idea. However, I was also thinking of having the entire armor bonus from armor be converted to DR (not including magic bonuses... but then, I think this whole thing would work best in a very low-magic setting).
Kessalin Talira 08-19-05, 02:01 PM	So what's wrong with just taking Combat Expertise and the non-epic Greater version of it? The latter allows you to add up to your BAB to your AC, with a corresponding penalty to hit. Looks like the same thing, unless you're wanting them to be able to take it without penalizing anything. If that's the case, then I agree with Tenzhi. It would have to be some fraction of BAB like 1/4 or maybe 1/2 at the absolute most.
Mind Rogue 08-19-05, 08:41 PM	Perhaps the Class defense bonus used in d20 modern would be appropriate (not the PoC presented in UA). The d20 Modern class AC bonuses I believe are dodge bonuses, so they stack with armor (rather than superseding it as in UA), and you lose them when flat-footed. There are three levels, the best of which is used by the Fast hero, the second best is used by the Tough, the Strong, and the Dedicated heroes, while the worst is used by the Smart and the Charismatic heroes. The best AC progression is something like 3 + 1/2 levels, the medium is almost 1 + 2/5 levels, and the worst I believe is 0 +1 /3 levels. You might decide to tone the Fast progression down one point though, since in d20 Modern there is less access to armor and other protective gear. Also, I'd give the monk the Fast progression and remove the +1 per 5 levels that they normally get. I might also give it to the rogue. All of the fighter types should probably get the Tough progression, and the sorcerer/wizard (and perhaps the cleric/druid) should get the Smart progression.
Glak 08-19-05, 10:09 PM	In my campaigns base defense bonuses are on the same scale as BAB. I don't actually use the same progressions, as not all classes should have BAB=BDB. I use a custom set of classes, but if I were to use the core classes I would go like this: 1/1 rate: Fighter Monk (replaces the 1/3 level bonus, but stacks with the wis bonus) Ranger Rogue 3/4 rate: Druid Paladin Barbarian Bard 1/2 rate: Wizard Sorceror Cleric You can change these to suit flavor/balance, but in general I went with the following ideas: Higher BAB = higher BDB, Higher Reflex save = higher BDB, higher armor = worse BDB. Just use your judgement. Next you need to balance all of the other factors in the game. Weapons are opposed by shields mathematically in this system, so you have to turn armor into some sort of DR system. Basically for every + you can get to attack you match it up with one for defense. Anything else has to be changed. Thus you have ACs and total attack bonuses that match up with each other regardless of the magical items. So this will work for both high and low magic settings.
Tenzhi 08-20-05, 01:24 AM	With low magic, it might work. As written, hits will be extremely rare at higher levels. Also, as oneday said, many monsters will be relatively tougher. Yar. Low magic might work with it. Low magic and armor as DR would be even better. Some monsters would probably have to be powered down or thrown out completely, however. Or left in as nigh-invincible obstacles.
Gilean 08-21-05, 07:19 AM	Some monsters would probably have to be powered down or thrown out completely, however. Or left in as nigh-invincible obstacles.As most of them should, in low magic.
Lina_Inverse 08-21-05, 05:55 PM	no this is a horrible idea. A)it ruins multible attacks.oh lookie i have a 39 base AC,your final attack will never hit! B)it makes all monsters practiclly invincable. C)it makes casters laugh in truimph as fighters are finally utterly pointless. D)no it wouldnt allow low Armor PCs more viable(arent they already?).smart charecters would use BOTH. E)wanting low armor charecters ruins realism,everyone wore armor irl.though this isnt always a bad thing its something to remember.
Tenzhi 08-21-05, 07:58 PM	no this is a horrible idea. A)it ruins multible attacks.oh lookie i have a 39 base AC,your final attack will never hit! At mid to high levels in a normal game, an AC of 39 is quite feasible. The problem is that this variant rule essentially means that with your first attack you're trying to hit that AC of 39 with a BAB of 0. And on a side note, I'm all for getting rid of the multiple attack progressions anyway. At least for non-fighters if no one else.
Lina_Inverse 08-21-05, 08:22 PM	And on a side note, I'm all for getting rid of the multiple attack progressions anyway. At least for non-fighters if no one else. sooo you hate non-full caster types that much?because all of them rely on full attacks to be usefull.
caeruleus 08-21-05, 08:23 PM	everyone wore armor irl. Not true. Many cultures eschewed the use of armor. The Celts, for example.
Lord Zeb 08-21-05, 10:11 PM	In a couple of games I have played & GM'd in (low magic settings) we adopted a house rule of 1/2 BAB to AC. Simple, neat and when the characters hit mid-levels they coud take on some of the beasties in the MM w/out serious fudging. So at level 20, a naked Barbrian with a Dex of 10 would have 20 AC, and his equal opponent a +20 BAB. Throw in some armor, dex, maybe combat expertise and it works out pretty good.
Argonite 08-22-05, 05:22 AM	Thank you all for your replies. It would seem that I didn't think things through all the way :) After reading your replies and having a think, I will try for a simple half-BAB to AC system. I'm not really happy with the whole combat dynamic that exists in the current rules. You HAVE to have a ready source of healing along or face party wipes constantly. I think it's too easy to be hit as it stands. I am going to keep it as a PC-only bonus for a while and see how it changes things. I remember in previous versions of D&D you could do dungeon crawls with dozens of encounters per day. The new rules just don't seem able to reproduce that.
Tenzhi 08-22-05, 07:32 AM	sooo you hate non-full caster types that much?because all of them rely on full attacks to be usefull. I should note that I'm also all for hamstringing metamagic and making spells take a full round to cast by default.
Venom of the Yuan Ti 08-22-05, 08:33 AM	You could try this, once BAB gets above 10 it replaces the base of 10 in the AC, giving a bonus of no more than 10 at level 20. Better but not THAT much better.
Gilean 08-22-05, 11:36 AM	A)it ruins multible attacks.oh lookie i have a 39 base AC,your final attack will never hit!Even with low magic and armour as DR or something like that?B)it makes all monsters practiclly invincable.As written, many have excessive natural armour.C)it makes casters laugh in truimph as fighters are finally utterly pointless.Indeed. The caster with 10 less AC discounting equipment, and the casters that do need all the BAB they can get to hit with touch attacks?E)wanting low armor charecters ruins realism,everyone wore armor irl.though this isnt always a bad thing its something to remember.In many movies and books, not that many characters wear armours.Not true. Many cultures eschewed the use of armor. The Celts, for example.Bad example. Celts used armour and shields. Most of them, anyways.You could try this, once BAB gets above 10 it replaces the base of 10 in the AC, giving a bonus of no more than 10 at level 20. Better but not THAT much better.Not bad, but a fraction of BAB or level sounds a bit more elegant. And means that fighters start training defense before 11th level.
caeruleus 08-22-05, 03:20 PM	Bad example. Celts used armour and shields. Most of them, anyways. "Most" tends to mean "not all", which implies that some Celts fought without armor. So why is it a bad example? The example was meant to refute the claim that everyone wore armor.
DarknessEternal 08-22-05, 04:08 PM	Bad example. Celts used armour and shields. Most of them, anyways. Well, it's a bad example, but yours is just as flawed. Anywhere you see the word "celtic", or its derivations, a more appropriate, and actually specifc word could be used. "Celts" is about as broad as "Africans".
Inu 08-22-05, 10:32 PM	There may also be reasons why they didn't wear armour. Say, metal might be rare, or the skill to knit chain or beat metal plates might be something beyond many of them. I'm not familiar enough with Celtic history to know if either of those were the case or not. I use BAB for defence, but not at a full scale. I give fighters and others with BAB +1 per level 2/3 of a defence per level. Clercis get 1/2 defence per level, wizards get 1/3 defence. It's not a perfect system (rangers get as much defence as fighters, for instance, giving them excellent ACs), but it works. I also use this in conjunction with armour-as-damage-reduction, though. So a fighter might not have a higher AC than a ranger, but they'll have DR as well. System doesn't work too well in games where damage spirals up, though. 4 or 5 points of DR dont' matter when the average damage tops 30. In that case, rangers should definitely have a lower AC than the heavily-armoured fighter. Gotta use the right system for the game you're running. :)
Aerunation 08-23-05, 01:25 AM	what's wrong with the armor bonus by class level variant from Unearthed Arcana? It's balanced by level and armor proficiencies.
Inu 08-23-05, 02:04 AM	what's wrong with the armor bonus by class level variant from Unearthed Arcana? It's balanced by level and armor proficiencies. My problem is that by taking even a single level of fighter, you use the highest column for your entire character level. Taking one level outside one's main class isn't a big burden, even for spellcasters; a level 10 wizard/level 1 fighter isn't far off a level 11 wizard (one spell level behind, but that'll be even next level!). But their AC is far better. I like the idea, but I prefer a different setup. :)
shmoo2 08-23-05, 02:07 PM	My group uses 1/2 BAB as a dodge bonus to AC, which stacks with armor but is lost when flat footed or unable to defend one self (For simplicity this applies only to BAB from class levels- not from HD). However, armor's Armor Check Penalty subtracts from the dodge bonus. The effect of these rules is that low-level types still use the best armor they can afford and with which they are proficient. As a character reaches high levels and knows how to defend themselves in a fight they switch to lighter armors, with low armor check penalties. This models well source fiction, where mooks wear heavy armor but the high level heros use chain shirts and leather armor. For balance, masterwork armor (which is now quite useful) should be made more expensive (we use +500gp) as should mithril armor (we add +1000gp to the default price adjustments).
Lord Zeb 08-23-05, 02:12 PM	My group uses 1/2 BAB as a dodge bonus to AC, which stacks with armor but is lost when flat footed or unable to defend one self (For simplicity this applies only to BAB from class levels- not from HD). However, armor's Armor Check Penalty subtracts from the dodge bonus. The effect of these rules is that low-level types still use the best armor they can afford and with which they are proficient. As a character reaches high levels and knows how to defend themselves in a fight they switch to lighter armors, with low armor check penalties. This models well source fiction, where mooks wear heavy armor but the high level heros use chain shirts and leather armor. For balance, masterwork armor (which is now quite useful) should be made more expensive (we use +500gp) as should mithril armor (we add +1000gp to the default price adjustments). Love your additions (making it a dodge bonus) and the armor check penalty is spot on. Great work.
Gilean 08-24-05, 12:36 PM	"Most" tends to mean "not all", which implies that some Celts fought without armor. So why is it a bad example? The example was meant to refute the claim that everyone wore armor."Celts eschew armour" (paraphrased) seems quite much a statement of "no or very few celts used armours". Thus, it contradicts with my claim. In which "most" meant "half or more".Well, it's a bad example, but yours is just as flawed. Anywhere you see the word "celtic", or its derivations, a more appropriate, and actually specifc word could be used.I don't go changing terms after they have been stated. The matter could very well be dropped, it is not very relevant. However, armor's Armor Check Penalty subtracts from the dodge bonus.Brilliant.
shmoo2 08-25-05, 10:28 AM	However, armor's Armor Check Penalty subtracts from the dodge bonus. Brilliant. Love your additions (making it a dodge bonus) and the armor check penalty is spot on. Great work. Thanks. We just finished a campaign using these rules (at 16th level) and they seemed to work well.
Relic 08-26-05, 05:34 PM	I use a variant that allows all characters to convert BAB to AC, similar to Combat Expertise. The conversion ratio is 2 BAB to +1 AC. Thus, if your BAB is 20 you could take a -20 attack penalty to receive a +10 AC (deflection) bonus. I relate this as the difference between actively defending yourself or actively going on the offensive. Then, if you take Combat Expertise you can convert BAB to AC on a 1.5 to +1 AC ration. Take Improved Combat Expertise and the conversion ration is 1 BAB to +1 AC. I don't mind if a combat-orientated character wants to sacrifice offensive capabilities to become a lot more defensive. And I don't mind giving the players the actual choice to do that very thing.
Gilean 08-27-05, 01:43 AM	In my homebrew, character can reduce any of the following: attack, damage or defense, to increase any other by half of the amount.
MadBlue 08-27-05, 05:26 AM	My group uses 1/2 BAB as a dodge bonus to AC, which stacks with armor but is lost when flat footed or unable to defend one self (For simplicity this applies only to BAB from class levels- not from HD). However, armor's Armor Check Penalty subtracts from the dodge bonus.This sounds like a fantastic idea. I've been granting a Dodge Bonus equal to 1/3 character level that stacks with armor, but this sounds pretty balanced and realistic to me. Have you encountered any problems (other than pricing issues)? MadBlue
shmoo2 08-30-05, 03:11 PM	This sounds like a fantastic idea. I've been granting a Dodge Bonus equal to 1/3 character level that stacks with armor, but this sounds pretty balanced and realistic to me. Have you encountered any problems (other than pricing issues)? MadBlue This house rule has worked well overall, doing what we intended it do, which was to make high level PCs resemble the fictional warrior characters (Aragorn, Oberyn Martell, etc) who don't all wear platemail. The impact on play balance is neglegible until the middle levels to high levels (since until then, the parry bonus is smaller than the extra AC granted by heavier armor). At high levels the party is armored with magic studded leather, mithril chain shirts, and mithril breast plates. Only low DEX clerics stay in heavy armor, and even they switch to lighter stuff around 14th level or so. One nice effect is that the low skill point classes (fighters, clerics) are encouraged to wear armor with low check penalties, so they can use what skills they have. Problems? -Well, the armors listed above become very common. If you like a wide variety of armor types even at high level, this is a concern, I guess. -Classes that wear light or no armor already (wizards, sorcerers, rogues, and rangers, monks) get a bonus without giving up the heavy armor. Since I give out less treasure anyway, this hasn't been a problem for us. -Opponents with class levels and magic protective gear (esp. if they are members of the classes listed in the previous point) either have a very high AC (if the DM gives them the parry bonus and the magic protection), or less treasure then RAW, if the gear is taken away and replaced by the parry bonus. I take away the gear, since again, I give out less treasure than the RAW. If you follow the treasure guidelines, this'll cause concern. In fact, this change is part of a general desire IMC for high level PCs to rely on their own inherent abilities instead of tons o' magic items. It is cooler (to me) for a PC to have an AC of 21 due to a +7 parry bonus, +2 DEX, and +2 masterwork studded leather than +10 (+2)magic full plate and +1 DEX. Note also that this bonus applies only to BAB granted by class levels, not by other HD. This means that most monsters do not change at all. (There is already a precedence for class BAB and HD BAB to be handled differently in the rules-- class BAB grants extra attacks, while HD BAB does not. With this rule, class BAB also grants a parry bonus, while HD BAB does not.)
Jerks 08-31-05, 01:15 AM	Nice work Shmoo2. I really like your system, or more importantly the reasoning behind it. Fictional heroes are very frequently more lightly armored than the mooks they trash. I too have been using a class defense bonus, that is not too dissimilar from what others have posted. The campaign will these new rules just started not too long ago (2nd level). Class Defense = 1/2 BAB. (I hadn't thought to seperate class defense from H.D., but I probably will make this official.) Class Defense does not stack with armor bonus, but you get to take the better of the two. Fighters gain the ability to stack armor and class defense at 4th level. The limit to stacking is 1/4th Fighter level. (So a 8th level fighter gets up to a +2 ontop of his armor from class bonus or vice versa...whichever is greater). Monks class AC bonus stacks with Class Defense. Only 1/2 class defense is counted when flat-footed or otherwise denied Dex bonus. Only 1/2 class defense is counted for touch attacks. A character loses all class defense when helpless. Finally, our game uses the armor as DR varient in Unearthed. So at early levels ACs are a little lower, but against what they've faced so far the DR has more than made up for that.
Gilean 08-31-05, 11:05 AM	Note also that this bonus applies only to BAB granted by class levels, not by other HD. This means that most monsters do not change at all. (There is already a precedence for class BAB and HD BAB to be handled differently in the rules-- class BAB grants extra attacks, while HD BAB does not. With this rule, class BAB also grants a parry bonus, while HD BAB does not.)Monster HD do grant additional attacks, natural weapons don't. See celestials and fiends for reference. Anyway, you could very well reduce natural armour bonuses, many of them are a bit high currently.
shmoo2 08-31-05, 06:02 PM	Monster HD do grant additional attacks, natural weapons don't. See celestials and fiends for reference. Yah, you're right. my bad.