Post/Author/DateTime	Post
ClothedUpon 03-11-05, 06:24 PM	I think I saw this on the Flintsone's. I remember seeing a cartoon when I was a kid that had what looked like two cave men in a boxing ring. Each had a pretty big club. They took turns hitting each other in the head. Neither tried to move or dodge in any manner. ----- This is something that I see in the standard 3.x rules. It seems to have been part of Dungeons & Dragons from the beginning, too. No matter how many levels most core classes (all but the monk) get. None of them really seem to get any better at physically defending themselves. For instance, take a fighter. He's constantly getting better every level at hitting things. But, without armor or magical aid, he's limited to whatever dexterity, parrying ability, or combat expertise that he has in defending himself. It seems to me that if two plain-clothed 20th level fighters with identical scores, feats, skills, and weapons to dual that it would be pretty much like the Flintstone fighters described above. Our group examined the Class-based defense bonuses in UA and found them too much at low levels. Also, they didn't seem to work too well as written because of the same problem when wearing armor (non-magical). Have any of you created any house rules to account for getting better at avoiding being hit for all classes by level increases? If so, would you share them?
hiryuu 03-11-05, 06:31 PM	Trip the other guy. Slice his weapon in half. Disarm him. Take dodge and mobility. Fighters get bonus feats, what are they using them for?
ClothedUpon 03-11-05, 06:56 PM	Trip the other guy. Slice his weapon in half. Disarm him. Take dodge and mobility. Fighters get bonus feats, what are they using them for? Good ideas. Maybe they're part of the answer I'm looking for. For the example, assume all things are equal. The fighters have identical scores, feats, skills, etc... No magic/masterwork weapons. No armor. Using feats as the solution works better for the fighter than any other class. But, you get the same problem when any two identical characters dual (without the aid of magic or armor). Take two barbarians with identical feats, scores, etc... They pretty much hit each other everytime with the +20BAB. On the off-chance that a first level warrior was able to take a swing, the 20th level barbarian wouldn't be much harder (if harder at all) to hit than a 1st level elite orc warrior (especially if the orc and the 20th lvl bbn had similar scores).
IceFractal 03-11-05, 07:30 PM	The reason is that Shields + Armor = BAB, although not perfectly. What I mean is that: Bonuses to Attack: BAB + weapon (up to +5) + str or dex + other Bonuses to AC: shield(up to +9) + armor (up to +13) + partial dex + other This does leave the problem that a high level character is really a walking suit of magical equipment with some mook inside, especially the Fighters. If you did give a level-based defense bonus, you might want to drop the armor benefits a bit. For instance I use a system where armor provides DR, not AC. AC comes mainly from a class/level based Defense Bonus (similar to BAB, but a different progression). This system uses several other tweaks, so it might not be directly usable, but the point is that armor+shield+magic+defense bonus+dex = really high AC unless you change something.
DM Zoc 03-11-05, 07:50 PM	Improved Combat Expertise. Whoever has the feat dictates exactly the chances that either person will hit the other (take a -5% to your chance to hit and give the other person -5% to hit you), as long as you're in the functional range (neither person has bonuses to hit more than twenty points higher than the opponent's AC).
ClothedUpon 03-11-05, 08:04 PM	The reason is that Shields + Armor = BAB, although not perfectly. What I mean is that: Bonuses to Attack: BAB + weapon (up to +5) + str or dex + other Bonuses to AC: shield(up to +9) + armor (up to +13) + partial dex + other This does leave the problem that a high level character is really a walking suit of magical equipment with some mook inside, especially the Fighters. If you did give a level-based defense bonus, you might want to drop the armor benefits a bit. For instance I use a system where armor provides DR, not AC. AC comes mainly from a class/level based Defense Bonus (similar to BAB, but a different progression). This system uses several other tweaks, so it might not be directly usable, but the point is that armor+shield+magic+defense bonus+dex = really high AC unless you change something. Thanks. I'm toying with the idea of making armor damage reduction only and giving a base defense bonus to each character based upon some combination of reflex save and BAB (with other saves taken into consideration). One of the other players and I got to talking about how two equally skilled fighters might fair with or without armor. We thought there should be pro's and con's to both wearing armor and not wearing armor. We've talked a bit about it and aren't finished with the system.
ClothedUpon 03-11-05, 08:14 PM	Improved Combat Expertise. Whoever has the feat dictates exactly the chances that either person will hit the other (take a -5% to your chance to hit and give the other person -5% to hit you), as long as you're in the functional range (neither person has bonuses to hit more than twenty points higher than the opponent's AC). Improved Combat Expertise is good. It would be perfect if it were a default feat for everyone. I hadn't thought of it since we mainly play with just the core books and a little from UA. I'm the only one with a copy of the Complete Warrior, so that limits using feats from it to solve the problem. Also, solving it with a feat requires every character to take that feat (especially in a low magic setting where metal armor is quite expensive). I do like it, though.
hiryuu 03-12-05, 02:30 AM	You could go for a defense roll: 1d20 + your AC bonuses instead of a flat 10. After all, you can assume you're "taking 10" on all defenses. Hehehe. This reminds me of the Goliath fighter I had whose specialty was grappling people and dumping them/bullrushing them in whatever convenient dangerous spot happened to be nearby, such as a cliff, a pit full of green slime, and once, the edge of a wizard's tower.
IceFractal 03-12-05, 03:32 AM	If you're curious, the system I used was: Good Defense = +2 to +12, the same as a good save Medium Defense = +1 to +9, halfway between good and poor Poor Defense = +0 to +6, the same as a bad save Then: Barbarian - Average Bard - Average Cleric - Poor Druid - Poor Fighter - Good Monk - Good Paladin - Average or Good Ranger - Average or Good Rogue - Good Sorcerer - Poor Wizard - Poor The reasoning for which was: In general, good combat ability = good defense and vice-versa, with some exceptions. First, the barbarian is not very defensive, thus only Average. Second, the rogue and monk are very defensive and dodging oriented, thus good. Third, the Cleric and Druid are full spellcasters and already quite powerful, thus Poor. Fourth, the Paladin and Ranger have spells and special abilities, and seem like they shouldn't infringe too much on the Fighter. However, this last rule isn't fixed, if you want to be more generous give the Paladin and Ranger Good Defense Progression. Making them average does have a nifty feature though - it makes the fighter more special as the only class with Good BAB and Good Defense, which is nice.
Xeviat-DM 03-12-05, 03:34 AM	Any mechanic that adds level based defense scores to all classes requires a heafty amount of retooling. My best advice would be to impliment a class based defense bonus (perhaps base it on how agile the class is or on BAB, don't base it on armor proficiencies), use Armor as DR as presented in UA, but double the cost of Armor and Shield enhancements. +1 would cost 2,000 gp, just like weapons. This should help to counter the extreme gains in AC. Monsters are another issue though ...