Post/Author/DateTime	Post
Weenie 03-24-04, 02:08 PM	Anyone? I know I'm not. If I understand correctly, the Defense bonus variant rule says that the classes with heavy armor proficiency should get the best Defense progression, those with medium armor the second best... and those with no armor proficiency the worst Defense progression. The reasoning behind this is that those that can wear heavy armor should get a good incentive not to wear one, and those that normally don't wear armor shouldn't get too much of a benefit for free. This I don't like. While it might make sense in a mechanical sort of way, the in-game logic of it is all messed up. An unarmored cleric being harder to hit than an unarmored barbarian, ranger, or monk? :smirk: IMNSHO, the Defense progression by class should go something like this: - Best Def: good AB classes plus Monk - Bbn, Ftr, Mnk, Pal, Rgr - Medium Def: medium AB classes - Brd, Clr, Drd, Rog - Worse Def: bad AB classes - Sor, Wiz Also, I'd reduce the bonuses: good Def would be level x 2/3, medium would be level x 1/2, and bad would be level x 1/3. Finally, armor would grant DR, and only DR - not the reduced AC(Defense) bonus plus DR. This way, the warrior types have a reason not to wear armor while the weakling types still don't get much of a bonus; the rest are in between. Thoughts?
NorthSaber 03-24-04, 05:17 PM	I'm probably going to try it but use the character's base Reflex save as the Defense score instead - to me characters like Monks, Bards and Rogues should be the most proficient in avoiding blows while unarmored... But then again I'm using the generic classes which means that a warrior can take good reflex saves too if he wants.
Giarc 03-24-04, 07:02 PM	I was just looking at the Defensive Bonus and I totally agree that the bonuses based on Armor Proficiencies is wrong. I think if you take the BAB/2 you would get a good bonus for all classes. Half the BAB rounded down gives a much better number to work with. And it relies on the characters' training in combat (BAB) as a basis, rather than their Armor Proficiencies. One thing to remember is that the bonus works against touch attacks, so the table would make a low level fighter almost unhittable by a ray spell, being that the wiz/sor BAB is so bad. A 1st level fighter with a 14 Dex would have an 18 touch AC. Even with armor, since you use the higher of either the armor bonus (no bonus for touch AC) or defense bonus (whole bonus applies to touch AC). Weenie - watch out or that monk will get an AC that is unhittable, with the dex bonus, wis bonus, monk AC bonus, and defensive bonus adding up, not to mention any magic items. Also, just curious, on the DR for armors, since you are taking away the AC bonus for the armor, are you leaving the DR amount the same as on table 4-4 in UA? Using your multipliers, all 1st level characters will have no armor bonus to AC, only DR.
Greyman 03-24-04, 09:45 PM	Originally posted by Weenie If I understand correctly, the Defense bonus variant rule says that the classes with heavy armor proficiency should get the best Defense progression, those with medium armor the second best... and those with no armor proficiency the worst Defense progression. Progression? As written all character's progress at the same rate (+1/3 AC per character level). The classes are just front loaded differently depending on that class's armor proficiencies. Thus classes with no armor proficiencies (the A-Type) have an base armor class of 2, +1/3 character level, while the D-Type (heavy armor proficiency) has a base AC of 6, +1/3 character level. Here's a twist that might work with your Armor as Pure DR system, Weenie. Rather determing base AC by the character's armor proficiencies, base it on the character's armor worn.
riceisnice 03-24-04, 10:14 PM	I noticed this problem too. My solution: get rid of the +6 column D progression, having clerics, fighters and paladins use the +4 column C progression. The fact that they have their bonus reduced means that without armor, these traditionally heavily armored classes are slightly weaker than usual when unarmored, which gives them the incentive to keep wearing armor. Another thing I do is to change the multiclass system. One level of fighter and nineteen of wizard and you use the high column the whole time? When you take a level in another class, you just subtract two from their defense bonus gained at that level and add the result to your defense bonus from your first class. More similar to the Star Wars version.
Weenie 03-25-04, 05:11 AM	Originally posted by Giarc Weenie - watch out or that monk will get an AC that is unhittable, with the dex bonus, wis bonus, monk AC bonus, and defensive bonus adding up, not to mention any magic items. Also, just curious, on the DR for armors, since you are taking away the AC bonus for the armor, are you leaving the DR amount the same as on table 4-4 in UA? Using your multipliers, all 1st level characters will have no armor bonus to AC, only DR. The monk's standard class-based bonus to AC would go away, being subsumed into the good Defense progression. I don't have a problem with all 1st level characters having Defense 10 (plus Dex). The DR, I was thinking of upping the heavier armor a little, something like: Padded: none Leather, st. leather: DR 1/- Chain shirt: DR 2/- Hide: DR 1/- Scale mail: DR 2/- Chainmail, breastplate: DR 3/- Splint mail, banded mail: DR 3/- Half-plate: DR 4/- Full plate: DR 5/- ...and I'd rule that light armor provides no DR against critical hits, since otherwise the difference between light and medium is just too small. I'm not sure what to do with the enhancement bonuses... I guess leaving them as a bonus to Defense (although the base armor doesn't provide any) should be OK...
Largegnome 03-25-04, 06:12 AM	I'll try using the variant rule as it is just to see how it works, along with other variant rules from UA, in a one shot adventure made on purpose. Until now, I had used ref/2 + bab/3 (round down) as a bonus to def, but it was in a low magical setting, and could get abused with multiclassing (not to mention by duelist pcs...:twitch: ). I'll give the new rule a try, if it works fine for balance I'll keep it (anyway, the reasoning behind it and the multiclass thing is that high ac is taken in account as an advantage of the class, thus classes with heavy armor prof. should in any case be able to defend themselves better than classes who lack the initial proficiency. An attempt for balance that, imo, has nothing to do with logic.).
NorthSaber 03-25-04, 06:15 AM	Originally posted by Largegnome Until now, I had used ref/2 + bab/3 (round down) ...sounds complicated. I figure that fighters can buy stuff like Dodge and Expertise with their bonus feats, and just wear heavier armor, which is why I'm thinking of just using straight base Reflex save bonus as the defense bonus.
Largegnome 03-25-04, 06:25 AM	Yes, but multiclassing with prcs or base classes that give high ref could bring your Ac over the top... this way, if you really want to benefit from multiclassing you need to find classes that give both high ref and good bab. Kinda makes sense...
JoAT 03-25-04, 01:31 PM	*whips out house rules documen* I've got me own system as well - we're useing armor as DR and Damage Conversion, in our group, so the various armors provide a very nice bonus indeed - plate hands over that +4 AC, DR 4/- and DcN 4. However, the armor inherently limits the max defence bonus (Max dex bonus becomes max defence bonus, which is Class defence bonus + dex mods + any other mods). The fighter is also redefined (slighty) as being a heavy armor class - or at least, being able to operate like one quite well... The actual rules go like this: Defense progressions Good Medium Poor +1 +1 +0 +2 +2 +1 +2 +2 +1 +3 +3 +1 +3 +3 +2 +4 +3 +2 +4 +4 +2 +5 +4 +3 +5 +5 +3 +6 +5 +3 +6 +5 +4 +7 +6 +4 +7 +6 +4 +8 +6 +5 +8 +7 +5 +9 +7 +5 +9 +8 +6 +10 +8 +6 +10 +8 +6 +11 +9 +7 Good progression goes to classes with both a good reflex save and either an evasion or Uncanny dodge type ability. Classes with Good progression: Monk, Ranger, Rogue, Swashbuckler. Medium progression to classes with either a good reflex save or an evasion or uncanny dodge type ability. Classes with Medium progression: Barbarian, Bard. I'm thinking that I should put Hexblade in this group - it just seems to fit the flavor. Poor progression goes to classes with neither. Classes with Poor progression: Cleric, Cloistered Cleric Druid, Fighter, Paladin, Sorcerer, Wizard Additional Class abilities: Armor compatibility(Ex): This ability allows a character to utilize any armor worn to it's best effect, overcoming the defense bonus limit of most suits. Characters with this ability may add their Armor Compatibility number to the maximum defense bonus of any armor worn, for purposes of determining how much of their defense modifier applies. With this ability, the fighter's progression chart looks like this: Table: The Fighter Level BAB Fort Ref Will Special Defense 1st +1 +2 +0 +0 Bonus feat, Reserve +0 2nd +2 +3 +0 +0 Bonus feat +1 3rd +3 +3 +1 +1 Armor Compatibility +1 +1 4th +4 +4 +1 +1 Bonus feat +1 5th +5 +4 +1 +1 +2 6th +6 +5 +2 +2 Bonus feat +2 7th +7 +5 +2 +2 Armor Compatibility +2 +2 8th +8 +6 +2 +2 Bonus feat +3 9th +9 +6 +3 +3 +3 10th +10 +7 +3 +3 Bonus feat +3 11th +11 +7 +3 +3 Armor Compatibility +3 +4 12th +12 +8 +4 +4 Bonus feat +4 13th +13 +8 +4 +4 +4 14th +14 +9 +4 +4 Bonus feat +5 15th +15 +9 +5 +5 Armor Compatibility +4 +5 16th +16 +10 +5 +5 Bonus feat +5 17th +17 +10 +5 +5 +6 18th +18 +11 +6 +6 Bonus feat +6 19th +19 +11 +6 +6 Armor Compatibility +5 +6 20th +20 +12 +6 +6 Bonus feat +7 Armor compatibility is also added to the Paladin, starting at level 5, and going up another +1 at levels 10, 15 and 20. Hexblades gain Armor Compatibility at the same rate as a Paladin.
Lina_Inverse 03-25-04, 03:16 PM	i also use armor as dr and conversion,+5plate mail is scary.i might use class defense but id tweek it somewhat.im baseing it off BAB progressions. why a would you base it on reflex .-. it makes rogues/bard/monks(who have AC) better for no real reason beyond you think they should dodge,but to me a dex fighter should be the best dodger.
Tzarevitch 03-25-04, 04:01 PM	Originally posted by NorthSaber I'm probably going to try it but use the character's base Reflex save as the Defense score instead - to me characters like Monks, Bards and Rogues should be the most proficient in avoiding blows while unarmored... But then again I'm using the generic classes which means that a warrior can take good reflex saves too if he wants. I used this in a previous campaign and I didn't like the results at all. It encouraged class whoring with classes that gave good reflex save way too much. It also meant that the fighting classes who should be the most skilled at avoiding blows weren't. I can see the monk being skilled at avoiding blows but why should the rogue or especially the bard be better than the fighter? Tzarevitch
NorthSaber 03-25-04, 05:44 PM	First, I use the variant (or house-rule) that when multi-classing, all good saves start off at 0, not +2. This means that no matter which classes you take, you can't get a higher base save than by taking a single class with the strong save. (Using the fractional base save system; each level is +1/2 to a good save or +1/3 to a poor save.) Second, what do Reflex saves represent if not the ability to get out of harm's way as fast and safe as possible? Considering that the class defense is in no way connected to using a weapon (i.e. class defense applies even if you are buck-naked with no weapons), I'd tend to think that being good at evading enemy attacks is not linked to base attack bonus. That's what Expertise is for (and it stacks with defense). Third, I'm using the generic class system, which means that a warrior can choose to be the classic heavy-armor wearing high-fortitude tank, or a quick-and-agile high-reflex duelist-type fighter. The ultimate unarmored melee combatant would be a warrior (full base attack bonus) with Reflex as their chosen good save (high class defense) and feats concentrated on defense (Dodge, Expertise, Mobility, Spring Attack, etc). (I'm also using an intermediate save available for warriors; essentially an intermediate save is always the average of the good and the poor save, and allows warriors with good fort and intermediate ref, or good ref and intermediate fort. If the warrior is set on using heavy armor, he can take good fort and intermediate will instead, lessening one of the classic weaknesses of warrior types.) I completely see why you would want to involve base attack bonus in defense calculations, but I try to make the game as simple as possible rules-wise, and to involve as little mathematics as possible. To me it's neat and convenient that Fortitude helps with injuries (I use the Injury variant), Reflex helps with defense, and Will helps with casting spells (see the Spell Strain variant thread here (http://tinyurl.com/36e34)).
Archtyrant Terevoth 03-25-04, 05:47 PM	The monk is problematic if you want to give him high defense bonus. Monks usually have pretty good AC anyway, because they're built to compete with armored characters as it is and aren't supposed to wear armor. So, giving them defense bonus is a totally "free" benefit. I think they should get the lowest possible collumn because they already get wisdom to AC, and a class based AC bonus. If you give them the best collum, then I'd take away their wisdom AC bonus and their class based AC bonus to compensate.
Green 03-25-04, 05:58 PM	The next time I run a D20 or D&D campaign, I think I'll use only 3 of the 4 colums (A for poor, C for medium, and D for good), and have Defense based on BAB as opposed to armor proficiency. Of course, this is in tandem with certain changes to classes (like making all primary spellcasters get a poor BAB and maximum d6 HD), but the idea I'm basing it on is that the class Defense bonus is based on combat training, not on how things are "supposed" to be (such as rogues are deft and quick, or fighters tough and strong). In addition to making armor more optional than mandatory, it would hopefully have the added benefit of being able to portray certain concepts without having to dip into other classes and perhaps suffer an XP penalty (like a fencer or non-Shaolin-cliche martial artist).
MattMart 03-25-04, 08:23 PM	part of the whole class balance is that fighters and clerics have good defence (through armor), barbarians and rangers have moderate defence (through armor), rogues have poor defence(through armor), and wizards have nasty defence.... The defence bonus preserves this.... to change that is to throw the whole class system out of balance...
JoAT 03-26-04, 03:48 AM	Originally posted by MattMart part of the whole class balance is that fighters and clerics have good defence (through armor), barbarians and rangers have moderate defence (through armor), rogues have poor defence(through armor), and wizards have nasty defence.... The defence bonus preserves this.... to change that is to throw the whole class system out of balance... Nope! :D All you've got to do is change something else, to - the CDB (new acronyms are fun) seems to be balanced with the idea that everyone's gonna be running around naked, and that they're not going to be strapping magic tiems on to improve their AC - it's the swashbuckler system, for an all naked party (Which would be interesting too see...). If you want to use it effectivly with standard rules, things are most likely going to have to change. And then they're going to have to change some more. Since, when fully dressed, the standard CDBs given seems somewhat out of whack - that is to say, they throw things off, and creat odd situations (like the naked cleric being able to dodge blows just like the pants-wearing monk, and having an easier time at things than the plate-jack toteing fighter). So, the base tables need to be altered (which, just about everyone has done... I don;t think anyone out there is actually useing the CDBs as origionally presented...), and you could leave it at that. Leaveing it alone at that point kinda irks some people (like me), who have a base 'feeling' of what things should be like - the fighter is trained to dodge blows, sure, but then, why doesn't he have any abilites that allow him to do so? The rogue can dodge the blows, and the spells to boot, though, and seems to have a sixth sense about everything, sometimes... so why does he suck when trying to get out of the way? So, further tinkerings are made, this time to give the rogue the advantage in naked fun (some people will argue that's more the bard's thing, but I say rogues are good naked, too.) Of course, at this point, it may become obvious to some people that this is imbalanced! Shock! Horror! The rogue's got better natural defences than the fighter! Which is when a few people (fewer than last time, ususally), step in and begin to tinker with the rules some more - at thins point, a gross over generalization like before is kinda impossible, because I haven't seen very many (if any) systems that other people have used to make the fighter and his armored cousins as fun, but using protection, instead! (What did I tell you about fooling around with naked rogues? At least fighters use protection.) One varient some people use is the armor as DR system (though, I don't feel it goes far enough to balance things out, and maybe even make the fighter seem more balanced, which is why I use the rules above...), so maybe that's a step in the right direction... Personally, I like my rules, and here's why: Cleric training academy: Cleric-in-training: Omitim eh habidashra... Cleric-Trainer: You there! Get those arms up! Lord Pennysworth won't accecpt no prayers from no girly-armed clerics! Cleric-in-Training: But I AM a girl.... besides, it's this armor, it's too heavy... Cleric-Trainer: *spits* Look you, you're gonna be going right up front, with all the other warriors, bashing heads and healing sods in the name of our God. You wanna get your arm chopped off in the middle of the melee? Now get those arms straight. Cleric-in-Training: *straightens arms slightly* But if I'm going to wear armor, sir, shouldn't I have more training? Cleric-Trainer: *hawks one up* Training? You want more training? This is your training! We only get you for a few years, we need ta teach you to pray, to swing yer mace, and wear that armor right - you wanna do backflips in it, join up with the fighters - you'd get your training alright. Now straighten those arms!! Cleric-in-Training: *arms wobble* Then, how about learning how to go with out it, sir? Cleric-Trainer:* horks a luggie* You wanna be a rogue, that what you want? Or maybe just the academy - wanna watch all them rogues run around, doing naked backflips and turns? Watch it with them naked rogues your lady - at least the fighters use protection. *rimshot* Cleric-in-Training: *blushing* B-but... Cleric Trainer: Besides, this is easier than that by a far shot - all yease gotta do is stand around and get a good feel for wearing the armor - and we can drill you in your prayers in the mean time... *snorts up another spit wad, this time landing on the cleric-in-training, instead of the ground*. NOW GET THEM ARMS UP!! Long story short - it lets me minorly nerf the clerics (yeah, I'm one of the ones who think clerics are too strong, but that's neither here nor there). This also says that I'm easily amused, and can try to milk a bad joke long since it's been milked dry (which is also niether here nor there). Anyways, what I'm trying to say, in my own, long, convoluted, and overly complex way, is that, so long as you do attempt to keep an eye on balance, and work things through, you'll end up producing 3.5 editions of your ow... uh, that you'll probably strike the right balance anyways - altering CDB is not nessicarily unbalnceing, as long as you make sure to make that your intent... well, that and if you know what you're doing...
MattMart 03-26-04, 08:47 AM	Originally posted by JoAT Anyways, what I'm trying to say, in my own, long, convoluted, and overly complex way, is that, so long as you do attempt to keep an eye on balance, and work things through... thats essentially what i was trying to say... if you change it then you better do some sort of measures to counterbalance it.... and you better make sure you know what you're doing....
Salla 03-26-04, 09:34 AM	I'm using it as written, because it makes sense. The classes that lost the most armor gained the most defense. Perfectly logical. The fighter gains a bigger defense bonus because he lost the ability to tank up in heavy armor. The monk, wizard, sorcerer really didn't lose ANYTHING, since they can't wear armor for the most part normally, therefore they get less of a bonus. Lose more, get more. Lose less, get less. Makes perfect sense to me.
Elrond's Dad 03-26-04, 10:00 AM	Hear hear! Automatically assuming a rule is ill-concieved after the first read is a really dumb thing to do. Play test the table as it's written, WotC did.
Kainy 03-27-04, 05:08 PM	There IS a reason monks get low defense bonus: they already get an AC bonus (two of them wisdom and monk AC bonus). If you give them the good column, monks will be virtually unhittable (and rest assured, with how little they'll have to do to put their AC into the stratosphere, they will). This is why they got the A column. I think they should get B column, since monk AC bonus is really not that impressive (whoo, 4 ac at level 20).
MysteryGilgamesh 03-27-04, 05:50 PM	Am I the only one that seems to realize that the monk/sorc/wiz coulmn matches exactly a little magical item called Bracers of Armor (Or was it Bracers of Deflection)? They max out at +8 non-epic, and looky: The monk/sorc/wiz coulmn maxes out at the exact same. They're not getting shafted on AC, they're getting a free magical item. Which, if you ask me, is pretty nice. ^_^
Weenie 03-29-04, 09:38 AM	Originally posted by Salla Lose more, get more. Lose less, get less. Makes perfect sense to me. Makes sense if you think about game mechanics only, but not if you think campaign-wise. A Cleric fighting a Rogue (both unarmored) should not be more difficult to hit just because he can wear heavy armor. He's not wearing it now, is he? THey're both equally combat-savvy (same BAB), aren't they? Then they should have the same base Defense. Again, I can see why armor proficiencies should make a difference in CDB distributation, but I think AB is more relevant there; and if armor grants DR instead of a Defense bonus, the default CDB distributation doesn't make sense any more, not even mechanically. IMNSHO, combat training includes learning to a) hit people, b) take hits, and c) avoid being hit. A is the BAB. B is the Hit Die. C is the Defense bonus and/or the armor proficiency. A is connected to B, and should be connected to C. Fighter: good BAB, d10, heavy Armor Prof, good Def Barbarian: good BAB, d12, medium Armor Prof, good Def Paladin: good BAB, d10, heavy Armor Prof, good Def Ranger: good BAB, d8, medium Armor Prof, good Def Cleric: medium BAB, d8, heavy Armor Prof, medium Def Druid: medium BAB, d8, medium Armor Prof, medium Def Bard: medium BAB, d6, light Armor Prof, medium Def Rogue: medium BAB, d6, light Armor Prof, medium Def Wizard/Sorcerer: bad BAB, d4, no armor Prof, bad Def The Monk is a special case - as I said before, I think it's simpler to give him good Def and drop the class-based bonus, than to leave him the class-based bonus with medium Def, since these two options result in basically the same Defense, and the first one is just simpler. One last thing: armor proficiencies were distributed as they were because there was no Defense bonus in the default rules. If the 3.0 SRD had included a Defense bonus, do you really think the Cleric would be given both the heavy armor and a good Defense bonus?
NorthSaber 03-29-04, 06:27 PM	Originally posted by Salla Lose more, get more. Lose less, get less. Makes perfect sense to me. There's also the fact that classes with heavy armor proficiencies have probably been trained to fight in heavy armor, getting the most out of it and dealing with the downsides. Meanwhile, classes like Rogues have learned to rely on their agility and ability to dodge blows because using armor would hinder them too much. When you strip everyone from armor, the rogue, the monk, and the bard will already know what to do, how to duck, how to dodge and avoid enemy blows. Meanwhile the cleric, the paladin and the fighter don't know what to do as they are used to having heavy armor and a large shield to deflect blows. I guess there's no argument that either side could use to persuade the other side, so in the end this is a personal preference.
Factol Rhys 03-29-04, 10:17 PM	I liked an idea that I came up with: I would reduce the class-based defense bonuses to about one half and let them stack with armor but they also count toward your Max Dex for that armor. Makes sense, since Max Dex represents how much the armor restricts your ability to bend and dodge. Since that would be a little ridiculous after while and no one would be getting the benefits of this AC as long as they wore armor, I would maybe give all the armors a bonus to Max Dex. I agree that Armor Proficiency should not give you a better defense. Classes with armor proficiencies wear armor and don't go dodging around. I mean, if you had a rogue and a paladin, which would you expect to be making wild flips to avoid swords? The rogue, because the paladin is supposed to wear armor. This way, he just gets a little extra AC on top of that. But the rogue can go without any armor at all. I think that it should be examined on a class-by-class basis, but it can't end there. There has to be a hard-set rule so that prestige classes can be adopted for this. What BDB does a bladesinger get, or a The criterion can't be Reflex, because then we'd only have two tracks. Also, I think it'd just encourage people to make their characters max out their Reflex bonus, because, let's face it, it's the coolest save, and people just love that Dex anyway. But maybe I've been describing it wrong. It shouldn't be how well you can jump and duck and dodge that this BDB will represent. It should be your general defensive ability. That could be dodging, but more likely dodging is already covered by Dex. Probably, this BDB would be your instinctive sense of incoming attacks, your ability to parry blows, or deflect strikes, or maybe some dodging too. As for monks, I agree: give them a good BDB progression and have it replace their class-based defense bonus. I think that, in most cases, especially for the more combat-oriented classes, it should still be more efficient to wear armor. This should just make it feasible to not wear armor. I didn't like the appendix that explained when certain classes would be better off fighting naked. And this was invented to go along with a low-magic campaign. If you're running a straight campaign, I would suggest leaving this out, as the game is already balanced for magic.
Salla 03-30-04, 08:55 AM	Originally posted by Weenie Makes sense if you think about game mechanics only, but not if you think campaign-wise. Well, of course. Game Balance is the most important thing.
trapspringer 03-30-04, 06:37 PM	There's also the fact that classes with heavy armor proficiencies have probably been trained to fight in heavy armor I think It would be best to assume that they instead put all those hours of "how to maintain full plate 101" in to "how not to get stabbed 101." A Cleric fighting a Rogue (both unarmored) should not be more difficult to hit just because he can wear heavy armor. He's not wearing it now, is he? THey're both equally combat-savvy (same BAB), aren't they? Then they should have the same base Defense. Again, the idea here is that armor is not used at all. If you are running a stealth setting it is a brilliant system. It states in UA it is designed for a set-up where armor is impracticle. They're not getting shafted on AC, they're getting a free magical item. Which, if you ask me, is pretty nice. ^_^ Ditto
Robbo 03-31-04, 03:26 AM	Factol Rhys made me think (unusual!) - that defensive abillity in combat is the issue here. Sounds obvious, but what are the new Vitality Points if not defensive ability to avoid being pinned by that pike being waved in your face? Hence defensive ability DOES increase as you gain levels, and fighter types DO have better defensive ability than the thinkers and tinkerers. I think that any sane medieval person going into battle would wear the best armour they could afford. In history, nobles wearing plate were virtual tanks, generally only vulnerable when brought down so that ordinary soldiers could kill them with dagger thrusts between the chinks of their armour. I understand that suiting up is not suitable in all D&D circumstances, and I guess that a reflex save-based AC bonus could work as an alternative to the existing dexterity bonus if you think that higher AC's are needed, but in my humble view the Vitality/Wound system, where VP's = defensive ability properly reflects the various shades of combat ability between the classes. My only reservation is with touch attacks that deal non hit point / vitality point effects. In that case, the fact you have more VP's doesn't help you avoid being paralysed etc. Any thoughts?