Post/Author/DateTime	Post
valvorik 02-18-04, 11:18 PM	I love this idea, but how is it not super inflationary for characters never expected to wear armour - wizards, sorcerers and monks? Armour wearers are making choices, giving up magic armour features. But non-armour wearers just seem to get "gravy"? A 12th level monk gets a "free" +6 AC bonus? I'm thinking, at a minimum, that it should not stack with Dex, Dodge bonus nor with a Monk's Class Feature Bonus (or any similar PrC feature that grants bonus to AC from another attribute than Dex). Thus the Monk would get the +6 AC bonus when ineligible for Class Feature bonus, their Wisdom and Dex bonuses. The rationale in campaign would be that this an an experienced based "get of harm's way" attribute that otherwise Dex, Dodge etc. provide.
stone_dog 02-18-04, 11:46 PM	Well, dex is a reflexive sort of dodging, the dodge abilities are special training, the monk's ability is a nigh mystical awareness and defense bonus is actual fighting experience. Seems like they all stack to me. Again though, this is a pirate game option, swashbucklers and fencers. The kind of cinematic action that lets a party style their way through the palace guards with wity banter and be fresh and ready for the real fight. By 12th level a monk can easily be getting a +6 ac with bracers and a ring (+3 each) so I don't see it as a problem. This rule just lets heroes be all dashing with silk shirts and fancy clothes without all that clunky metal. It is SO gauche! Blow the hard earned cash on that shiny new Holy Rapier of Piercing instead! I don't think that including this rule for anything but an action movie type of game would be right and as long as you are going for technicolor screen magic ala Errol Flynn, why hold back?
Orc_Fodder 02-19-04, 02:41 AM	Maybe try to combine it with the "Armor as Damage Reduction" Varient... Your thoughts?
Elrond's Dad 02-19-04, 08:24 AM	Dude, it's an armor bonus. It's either this or said characters get bracers of armor or something. I'd hardly call it "gravy", anyway. Furthermore, it's a book on variant rules. Just don't use it.
MadBlue 02-20-04, 03:50 AM	I'm a bit disappointed in the Class Defense Bonus in UA. The issue is that a character's skill at avoiding attacks doesn't get better as a character level up, yet the solution given is that you get better at defending yourself - but only when you're not wearing armor - which isn't appropriate for the majority of D&D campaigns. IMHO the defense bonus should have been designed with weaning characters off relying on the "ever-growing collection of magic items to protect them in combat" in mind as opposed to discouraging them from wearing armor (which would mean a lower bonus, of course - not Fighters and Clerics getting +12 at 20th level on top of armor AC bonuses). With all the different varieties of magic items that exist, and the limitation of locations on which they can be worn, having a defense bonus that stacks with armor would mean that the DM could substitute a lot of the items and/or effects that grant AC bonuses with other, more interesting items and/or effects. Of course, it wouldn't stop DMs from putting just as many AC boosting magic items in their games as before, but then again, there never was anything stopping a DM from handing out a +5 Ring of Protection at 1st level, either. ;) It would have been nice if UA had included a d20 Modern style Class Defense Bonus instead of (or in addition to) the SWRPG/WoT style Class Defense Bonus. MadBlue
Maethras 02-20-04, 07:09 AM	I share your disappointment. What is there is not, in the least, what I was hoping for when I heard of class Defense bonuses in this book.
Banpai 02-20-04, 07:10 AM	The Defense Bonus System is definitly an improvement as is the whole book in my definitly chause Varainat rules are never bad or wrong. These rules are mainly meant for campaigns where using Armor is extremly uncommon (Desert) or almost imply not available (Jungle) but combyning it with Armor as DR is not a bad idea too. Though if I would use the Defense Bonus System alone i would strip the classes of their armor profiencies.
Salla 02-20-04, 01:22 PM	I rather like the class Defense Bonus idea, given that I generally don't like playing Heavy Armor types even for my Fighters, but that's a pretty sure way to get yourself killed in a hurry. I just prefer the image of the nimble fighter rather than the tank, even if it is less effective. I'm thinking of mixing Class Defense Bonus, Armor as DR, and Wound Points in my next game ...
Paul R Wolf 02-20-04, 02:53 PM	Originally posted by MadBlue I'm a bit disappointed in the Class Defense Bonus in UA. The issue is that a character's skill at avoiding attacks doesn't get better as a character level up, yet the solution given is that you get better at defending yourself - but only when you're not wearing armor - which isn't appropriate for the majority of D&D campaigns. Um, no that is not true, the character gets the higher Armor bonus from one OR the other but not BOTH. And it applies to touch attacks. Touch attacks, and especially ranged touch no save spells, are the one aspect of 3 & 3.5 that drive me crazy. I for one will be incorporating the Class Defense bonus in my game. No more gimme touch spells on the fighter in full plate. Paul
Cathon 02-20-04, 08:56 PM	I'm running an ancient greek campaign with no armor better than breastplate and shield, and where magic armor and weapons are pretty much only fashioned by the Gods and are therefore pretty darn rare. So I'm currently considering a defensive bonus system tied into BAB. Basically anytime you would get an additional attack from BAB, you also get a +2 dodge bonus to AC. I'll have to playtest it to see how it works (I'm going to have a lot of balancing issues to track in the campaign) but I like the idea that as you get better in fighting you are better at completely avoiding damage. Of course, this is supposed to be reflected in hit points, but somehow the idea that you get hit more often when you are higher level, but you can take it for longer isn't appealing to me. Of course, this is much more favorable to fighter types than wizardly types, but the wizardly types will have spells to improve AC, and the fighters won't have their traditional magic armor and shields, so a little bonus should be helpful.
MadBlue 02-20-04, 09:01 PM	Originally posted by Paul R Wolf Um, no that is not true, the character gets the higher Armor bonus from one OR the other but not BOTH.Which amounts to the same thing most of the time. It's one or the other, not both. Why is a 1st level Rogue good enough to defend himself unarmored to get a +2 Defense Bonus, but when he wears leather armor (which has a +2 AC) he's not as good at defending himself? But once he has a +3 Defense Bonus, suddenly he can defend himself better again, until he gets +1 leather armor, that is. And it applies to touch attacks. Touch attacks, and especially ranged touch no save spells, are the one aspect of 3 & 3.5 that drive me crazy. I for one will be incorporating the Class Defense bonus in my game.Which is exactly the reason why a class or level-based Defense Bonus is needed. I'm just saying that UA could have resolved it by making a d20 Modern type Defense Bonus (that stacks with armor) rather than (or in addition to) going with the SWRPG/WoT model, since it would be more appropriate for standard D&D campaigns, as opposed to campaigns where it is unusual for characters to wear armor. MadBlue
Magus_Extreme 02-20-04, 09:10 PM	Originally posted by MadBlue Which amounts to the same thing most of the time. It's one or the other, not both. Why is a 1st level Rogue good enough to defend himself unarmored to get a +2 Defense Bonus, but when he wears leather armor (which has a +2 AC) he's not as good at defending himself? But once he has a +3 Defense Bonus, suddenly he can defend himself better again, until he gets +1 leather armor, that is. Which is exactly the reason why a class or level-based Defense Bonus is needed. I'm just saying that UA could have resolved it by making a d20 Modern type Defense Bonus (that stacks with armor) rather than (or in addition to) going with the SWRPG/WoT model, since it would be more appropriate for standard D&D campaigns, as opposed to campaigns where it is unusual for characters to wear armor. MadBlue You could take a page from Wheel of Time and make an Armor Compatability feat or class feature that lets Armor and Defense Bonus stack. But then you'd have to reduce the Class Defense for that character, or else he'll have an AC that even dragons couldn't touch.
Maethras 02-20-04, 09:29 PM	Originally posted by MadBlue Which amounts to the same thing most of the time. It's one or the other, not both. Why is a 1st level Rogue good enough to defend himself unarmored to get a +2 Defense Bonus, but when he wears leather armor (which has a +2 AC) he's not as good at defending himself? But once he has a +3 Defense Bonus, suddenly he can defend himself better again, until he gets +1 leather armor, that is. Which is exactly the reason why a class or level-based Defense Bonus is needed. I'm just saying that UA could have resolved it by making a d20 Modern type Defense Bonus (that stacks with armor) rather than (or in addition to) going with the SWRPG/WoT model, since it would be more appropriate for standard D&D campaigns, as opposed to campaigns where it is unusual for characters to wear armor. MadBlue I'm with ya.
MadBlue 02-21-04, 01:04 AM	Originally posted by Maethras I'm with ya. The system I'm thinking of using is to have a level-based Defense Bonus (basically a Dodge bonus equal to character level x 1/3). I figure that, while it's not as realistic as some classes being better at defending themselves than others, granting some classes a better bonus than others without compensating the classes that get a poorer bonus would be somewhat unbalancing. Also, essentially, all characters get a Defense Bonus of "level x 0" as it is, now, so having all classes improve equally reflects the way the rules already function. Good BAB characters can still fight defensively more effectively than other characters, and different classes have different means open to them to improve their defenses, whether it's through bonus Feats, tumbling, Uncanny Dodge, spells or class-based AC bonuses, so it doesn't seem so odd for all characters of the same level to have the same "base" Defense Bonus (whether it's +0 or +6). Some kind of increasing Defense Bonus is needed so a 10th level Fighter isn't laid low by three or four 1st level Sorcerers with Ray of Enfeeblement and good Initiative rolls. ;) MadBlue
Ranger REG 02-21-04, 01:19 AM	Originally posted by MadBlue It would have been nice if UA had included a d20 Modern style Class Defense Bonus instead of (or in addition to) the SWRPG/WoT style Class Defense Bonus. Only if you prefer a low-magic D&D game where leather +3 is about as rare as a full plate +5. The thing about D&D is that it is gear-dependent. You want better AC? Strive to acquire a magical full plate. It can't be helped when a standard D&D game allow such rate of treasure reward because no one thought of using class defense bonus before ... except in other games like RoleMaster.
JoAT 02-21-04, 01:47 AM	Why not have the class defense bonus count as part of the Dexerity bonus, for purposes of stacking, so that max Dex bonus in armor is now Max Dex+Class defence bonus, or somethign similar. Give true, heavy metal classes a low class defence bonus, and stick armor compatability somewhere up there in their class abilites tree Perhaps level 5 or so for a fighter, and level 8 or so for a paladin?
Degobah 02-21-04, 02:29 AM	A lot of character AC isn't from armour but magic items for natural armour, protection etc. If you just reduce the number of AC types you could probably add defence bonus too, e.g. armour = natural armour shield bonus = deflection bonus monk AC bonus = insight bonus and remove other class based AC boosts, like Duelist Int bonus.
WilliamPall 02-21-04, 03:52 AM	One idea I had was to modify the Armor so that it doesn't provide any bonus to AC, and is strictly used for DR. I know the rule for Armor as DR is in the book, but it seems to be that even with the application of DR, armor was still giving a little bit to the AC. Any thoughts?
MadBlue 02-21-04, 05:25 AM	Originally posted by Ranger REG Only if you prefer a low-magic D&D game where leather +3 is about as rare as a full plate +5. The thing about D&D is that it is gear-dependent. You want better AC? Strive to acquire a magical full plate. It can't be helped when a standard D&D game allow such rate of treasure reward because no one thought of using class defense bonus before ... except in other games like RoleMaster. I don't have so much of an issue with magic armor. Although, one benefit of a level/class-based Defense Bonus that stacks with armor is that you can trade in some of those armor/shield enhancement bonuses for special abilities without suffering defense-wise. So, for example, you could have leather +3 with the Spearblock quality and it could be just as rare as full plate +5. It wouldn't make the game necessarily "low magic". It would work just as well in standard magic, high magic, or no magic games. Look at the Table based NPCs in the DMG. Every single one of them has a Ring of Protection and an Amulet of Natural Armor. The assumption is that characters need to have a higher AC as they level up, yet there are many other kinds of rings and amulets, and ones granting an AC bonus are relatively rare (if one goes by the random magic item tables in the DMG, anyway). So it wouldn't be a non-standard game if the NPCs in the DMG didn't all have such items - yet they need to have a higher AC to make them challenging to the PCs. A class/level-based Defense Bonus that stacks with armor addresses both those issues. Having the kind of Defense Bonus I'm talking about allows the DM to be more creative with magic item placement, and means the PCs aren't gaining redundant protective magic items - that are supposed to be rare - with every mid to high level classed NPC they defeat. MadBlue
Maethras 02-21-04, 08:27 AM	Originally posted by MadBlue The system I'm thinking of using is to have a level-based Defense Bonus (basically a Dodge bonus equal to character level x 1/3). I figure that, while it's not as realistic as some classes being better at defending themselves than others, granting some classes a better bonus than others without compensating the classes that get a poorer bonus would be somewhat unbalancing. Well, every time me and my tinkerin' partners look at this subject, that's the best we can come up with too (a flat bonus, identical in every class), as far as 'easy' methods go. Even tried a system where you got a certain portion of your total bonus based on what kind of armor you wore, as a compromise between the old Star Wars style Defense and the newer Modern style, but that reeally didn't work out when you looked too hard at it. Problem is, not one of us like an even universal progression one bit. You are right, though. Without adjusting the classes even further to compensate for varying Defense progressions, you're looking at potential balance trouble right from the start. Only if you prefer a low-magic D&D game where leather +3 is about as rare as a full plate +5. I've got no problem with that at All. Not in a book of Options and Variants. There are variants for more powerful characters, and even wholesale changes to the dice mechanics. A Variant that simply allowed the game to be more useful in some styles of play (low-magic, for example) shoulda fit right in. On the other hand, though, I also agree with MadBlue, here. It's just not necessarily the case. You'd have to *adjust* magic, maybe.. but not necessarily dumb it down. Less flat bonuses, more special features. I got no problem with that, either. Either way.. mostly.. it's just that when I heard it would include Class Defense Bonuses, I was imagining ones similar to d20 Modern (We're experienced veterans chock full o' grizzle, and know how to defend ourselves), that stacked with armor, and, yes, would have worked nicely with low-magic campaigns. When I saw it was the Star Wars-style version (We just don't like wearing armor in this world, and require compensation), I was disappointed. It's not that it's a bad variant. Just wasn't what I was looking and hoping for.
valvorik 02-21-04, 12:03 PM	I had not read description correctly and didn't realize it doesn't stack with any armour bonus - including Mage Armour as well as worn amour (yes, I'm Canuck, so it's 'armour'). Doesn't cure my concerns though. What I hoped for from Defense Bonus option is indeed to have a swashbuckling, hot climate, some firearms campaign option that let the high level fighter who doesn't wear full plate still have the viability they would in a regular campaign. Is a balance solution to require characters to spend a feat to get this feature, and require armour proficiency as a prerequisite (which the columns in table 4-1 implicitly do). To get Column D, you must have Heavy Armour proficiency. For Column C, Medium Armour Proficiency. For Column B, Light Armour Proficiency, and if no armour proficiency, you get column A. (e.g. table 4-2). My concerns about inflation are based on observations such as the following math using DMG Characters and equipment. This shows that for the Fighter, the gain from Defense Bonus is simply the diversion of funds into other uses, and the added speed from not wearing armour etc. For other classes, the benefit becomes that and more. 1st level core Fighter: AC 18 from (+1 Dex not helping due to Max Dex of Armour), splint mail +6, Heavy Steel Shield +2. 1st level Defense Bonus Fighter: AC 19 from +1 Dex, defense bonus +6, Heavy Steel Shield +2. 12th level core Fighter: AC 25 from +1 Dex, +2 Full Plate +10, +1 Heavy Steel Shield +3, Ring of Protection +1 def 12th level Defense Bonus Fighter: AC 25 from +1 Dex , +Defense Bonus +10, +1 Heavy Steel Shield +3, Ring of Protection +1 def, 20th level core Fighter: AC 34 from +1 Dex, +4 Full Plate +12, +3 Heavy Steel Shield +5, Ring of Protection +4 def, Amulet of Natural Armour +2. 20th level Defense Bonus Fighter: AC 34 from +1 Dex, Defense Bonus +12, +3 Heavy Steel Shield +5, Ring of Protection +4 def, Amulet of Natural Armour +2. However, for a Monk, there is a fairly consistent gain of +2 AC or more, depending on how "diverted funds" are spent. 1st level core Monk: AC 13 from +1 Dex, +2 Wisdom. 1st level Defense Bonus Monk: AC 15 from +1 Dex, +2 Wisdom, +2 defense bonus 12th level core Monk: AC 21 from +2 Dex, +3 Wis, class feature bonus +2, +2 Bracers of Armour, +1 Ring of Protection, Amulet of Natural Armour +1. 12th level Defense Bonus Monk: AC 23 from +2 Dex, +3 Wis, +6 defense bonus, +1 Ring of Protection, Amulet of Natural Armour +1. -- +2 Bracers of Armour were nixed as not stacking, traded in 4000gp more stuff elsewhere. 20th level core Monk: AC 34: +6 Dex, +6 Wis, class feature bonus +4, +4 Bracers of Armour, +2 Ring of Protection, Amulet of Natural Armour +2. 20th level Defense Bonus Monk: AC 38: +6 Dex, +6 Wis, class feature bonus +4, +8 defense bonus, +2 Ring of Protection, Amulet of Natural Armour +2. - +4 bracers traded in for more gear of other sorts. For Wizard and Sorcerer, it's a bit more complicated because these classes would frequently be expected to use Mage Armour in at least some encounters (say 50% for day), thus having a +4 armour bonus that comes and goes. Still, a 1st level Wizard has a +2 AC gain when not using that spell. Still pays to use the spell Mage Armour, and the wizard is better off when out of spells etc. A 12th level Wizard has a +6 AC gain, and doesn't bother preparing that spell anymore, also trades in a set of +3 Bracers to spend the money on something else. A 20th level Wizard has a +8 AC gain, also never bothers preparing armour bonus spells, and trades in +6 bracers for other gear.
stilleon 02-21-04, 02:29 PM	IMHO, the class defense system here rots. Let me explain: First off, in a high magic world I would not use them. There is so much to advance your AC that it is not really neccesary. But in low magic worlds like Midnight I recommend them. My prolem is that the bonuses are not right. First off, a base defense bonus is the opposite of a base attack bonus, and like BAB should be limited to the level or less. It should also advance with level like BAB. My amounts would be the same progressions as for the classes. A good progression would be +1 per level (like fighter's BAB), an average progression would be at +0.75 per level (like a cleric's BAB) and a poor would advance at +0.5 per level (like a wizard's bab). Who gets which progression would not be based on armor feats, instead all classes that have a mobility/evasion thing going for it (barbarian, rogue) get the good progression. All arcane spellcasters get the poor one, and the rest get the average one. This Base Defense Bonus stacks with all other bonuses to AC, but is not added any time you would be denied your Dex modifier to AC. It would apply versus touch attacks. This would be really good in a system where the defender rolls a defense roll. I jst can't believe a Fighter could get a +6 bonus in the UA? What a crock. It would encourage me to wear no armor because I could be a great fighter, have a great AC, and no restrictions to move or nothing.
ZebRaderJedi 02-21-04, 03:09 PM	I am really digging the UA Defense Bonus. I've run two campaigns that include my own versions... 1) SW/OA hybrid, basically assigned SW class bonuses to D&D classes (also uses Armor as DR and VP/WP). Check out: http://www.geocities.com/coyner7/world_of_oa.html And click on the Oa Player Pack for the values I ended up using. 2) Fantasy Hyboria (Conan world) - using D&D classes and races, but hardly any magic items/weapons/armor etc. This got pretty hard at the higher levels, as the PCs AC was terrible compared to the monsters. So my group came up with the easy solution of Defense Bonus = 1/2 BAB. So a level 20 Barbarian gets a +10 DB to AC. This was a dodge bonus that stacked with armor. I'll probably keep Oa as-is, but Hyboria will definitely move towards the UA DB model. Cheers, Zeb
Fareon 03-28-05, 11:34 AM	What about the defense bonus system from d20 modern. How would you catagorize the DnD classes? I'll also post my own categorisation soon. But I actually don't know if a conversion works. till then I'll keep on using three forth of the UA table, roundend down and a amor as DR system using dice. d20 modern defense bonus overview (http://de.geocities.com/kbshunter/table.htm) source: http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=d20/article/msrd Everything from Level 11-20 is calculated... I hope it's correct :) @Moderator: If it's not ok, please just say it and I will remove it immediatly: I just didn't know how to create a table on this board. ;)
DragonWatcher 03-28-05, 04:25 PM	Let me start out by saying that I am not against the Class Defense Bonus rule out of Unearthed Arcana, or any other variations thereof (Star Wars, WoT, d20 Modern, etc.). I think that they can add quite a bit to some games, and have even used them in the past. However, recently I have been working on designing a new setting and got to the point where I was considering how AC/Defense Bonus would come into play. I realized that D&D already takes into account the fact that a character gets better at defending themselves as they increase their level. They don't do this by a Class Defense Bonus, and I'm not talking about the Expertise feat either (which should just be called Parry IMO to make it less confusing). They do this by giving your character increased hit dice. Let's face it, for characters (who usually aren't giants, dragons, titans, or the like), high hit points really does boil down to being able to shrug off a certain amount of damage before you wind up impaled on your opponents sword. I know, many people have different ways of looking at Hit Points, but really, how else do you justify being able to take a hit (much less a critical hit) with a dagger (let alone a sword) and not wind up dying on the spot. It has to be that your character has gotten so adept at defending him/herself that they are able to turn what would be a deadly blow to most commoners into a scratch at best. Hit Points = Defense. This becomes all the more intuitive when using the Vitality/Wound variant from UA, where instead of expending Hit Points to avoid a deadly wound, you expend Vitality (essentially tiring yourself out as you defend yourself) until you can defend yourself no more. And even if you still have Vitality left, a critical automatically starts whittling down your precious Wound Points, such that even a lucky 1st level character can potentially slay a 20th level character with a couple crits (should they actually last that long). So, if you want to boost unarmored AC, the Class Defense Bonus from UA is a good way to go. If you want it to stack, check out WoT, d20 modern, or write your own. However, if you're just concerned (as I was) that D&D characters only get better at attacking, and not defending themselves as they go up in level, I just thought that I would point out that this is not completely true. :D
Fareon 03-29-05, 06:02 AM	I use the VP/WP-System myself. Hits that are avoided by defense bonus are parried without any problems. Every other parry (that would be a hit) costs VP as long as a character is abel to defend himself. These parries are much more exhausting. If a character cannot defend himself, he is hit for WP. This damage is reduced by armor. The armor bonus of a piece armor is the average number of points of damage absorbed (source http://members.cox.net/cyberdungeon/d20_armor.html ). You roll a die to determine how much damage the armor reduces (Even a full plate (+8 -> 2d6) makes you not invulnerable against a dagger). Another example: studded leather with +3 amor bonus absorbs 1d6 points of damage (WP damage only!). If the armor absorbs all damge, the blow simply bounced off. What I want to say: Defense bonus is the ability to parry some blows without any difficulties.
Fareon 03-29-05, 06:37 AM	@Dragonwatcher How defense bonus and vitality works in SWrpg: http://boards1.wizards.com/showthread.php?t=402639
Lord Cyrus ShadowsBane 03-29-05, 09:14 PM	I'm currently using class defense bonus & armour as damage reduction in my current campaign & it seems to be working out pretty good so far, though we only just recently started the game. The way we do it is - armour does not provide an AC bonus, - armour provides damage reduction = to the armour bonus - armour skill check penalty applies as normal - magic armour provides standard damage reduction for it's type, only the enhancement bonus counts towards AC. -- instead of the max dex bonus for armour instead it is a defense penalty BUT it's not as high e.g. instead of full plate giving +8AC & max dex +1 it gives DR 8/- & def penalty 3 (4 - max dex modifier) - also use a slightly modified version of the defense bonus chart (still works the same the bonuses are just slightly different) & this stacks with dodge, dex & deflection AC bonuses *I'm half asleep so some of this might not be very clear*
Fareon 03-30-05, 10:20 AM	After I had glimpsed into the SWrpg manual, I decided to use the defense bonus charts given there. My categorisation of the D&D-classes: Diplomat, Expert Adept, Commoner, Expert, Magewright (Eberron), Wizard Thug Aristocrat, Sorcerer, Warrior Noble, Tech Specialist Artificer (Eberron), Bard, Druid Fringer, Force Adept, Jedi Consular Barbarian, Clerik Scoundrel, Scout Ranger, Rogue, Monk Soldier, Jedi Guardian Fighter, Paladin Seems to work pretty good...
cdmonish 03-30-05, 04:21 PM	Our group combines the Defense Bonus and the Armor as Damage Reduction Variant. In this case, we allow the armor bonus (or half as described) to stack with the defense bonus. It hasn't been overly powerful. Besides, it is the one option we were able to provide to help offset the "fighter is weak" argument. Of note, we only allow the bonus from actual physical armor (not Bracers of Armor, Mage Armor, etc.) to stack. Again, this makes it most beneficial to Fighters and other armor types. Of course, it does also benefit a CO Gish.
Krynus Ogrebane 03-31-05, 09:32 AM	One idea I had was to modify the Armor so that it doesn't provide any bonus to AC, and is strictly used for DR. I know the rule for Armor as DR is in the book, but it seems to be that even with the application of DR, armor was still giving a little bit to the AC. Any thoughts? That is a very interesting idea, especially in conjunction with a Defense Bonus.