Post/Author/DateTime	Post
True Archon 09-05-06, 10:32 PM	I've always been kinda interested in the idea of how theUnearthed Arcana introduced the Class Defense Bonus, and the Armor as Damage Reduction options, but I really wasn't a huge fan of their overall finished product. So, I took it upon myself to create my own version, inspired by the UA's version, and would like to hear any constructive opinions that can be offered by fellow RPGr's. Now, mind you, I designed this system as a combination of both Class Defense Bonus and Armor as DR, and I haven't put a whole lot of thought how they would perform separately. Also, please excuse the lack of "straight columns." Copy and Paste doesn't work very well on these boards. -------------------------------------------------------- CLASS DEFENSE BONUS Class Defense Bonus: A character’s skill at attacking gets better as he goes up in level, and with this system, a character’s skill in defending himself gets better as well. Characters tend to learn to avoid incoming attacks over time as they are exposed to physical combat, and because certain classes are exposed more often than others, they have learned avoid incoming attacks better. The defense bonus represents the armor class bonus that a character of the appropriate level gains when not wearing armor. If the character is wearing armor, the character still gains a defense bonus, but due to the restrictiveness of armor, the defense bonus is subject to a maximum set value determined by the armor type worn. A defense bonus to AC stacks with all other modifiers to Armor Class. The defense bonus is divided into four bonus values at each level. The first listed bonus is when the character is not wearing any armor at all. The second listed bonus is for a character wearing light armor, the third listed bonus for wearing medium armor, and the fourth listed bonus is for wearing heavy armor. Even if a character takes a feat in armor proficiency normally not given by their class(es), the class category for a defense bonus remains the same for the class. For example, a barbarian who takes heavy armor proficiency as a feat still uses the class category B. Prestige classes use the class categories listed below if they fall within the class category requirements listed. For example, a dwarven defender (pg. 186, DMG) is a class category A because of the class’s full BAB and heavy armor proficiency, and an eldritch knight (pg. 187, DMG) is a class category B because of the class’s full BAB and lack of heavy armor proficiency. The defense bonus is only available to creatures with PC class levels or prestige class levels. Creatures with only hit dice values and/or NPC classes do not receive the benefits of a defense bonus . Multiclass characters add the value of each bonus for each class that they have, for each class’s respective level. Thus, a 10th level Fighter/10th level Wizard would have a defense bonus of +5/+2/+1 (+4/+2/+1 from the 10th level Fighter and +1 from the 10th level Wizard). The defense bonus applies even against all touch attacks, or even if the character is caught flat-footed, or if the character would lose their Dexterity bonus for some reason. Characters do lose their defense bonus if they are immobilized or helpless. Class Defense Bonus is an unnamed bonus, and stacks with all other AC bonuses. Class_______________________Class Category Level_______________A_______________B___ ____________C_______________D 1__________________+1______________+0___ __________+0______________+0 2__________________+1______________+0___ __________+0______________+0 3__________________+1______________+0___ __________+0______________+0 4__________________+1______________+1___ __________+0______________+0 5__________________+2/+1___________+1______________+0_________ ____+0 6__________________+2/+1___________+1______________+0_________ ____+0 7__________________+2/+1___________+2/+1___________+0______________+0 8__________________+2/+1___________+2/+1___________+1______________+0 9__________________+4/+2/+1________+2/+1___________+1______________+0 10_________________+4/+2/+1________+3/+1___________+1______________+1 11_________________+4/+2/+1________+3/+1___________+1______________+1 12_________________+4/+2/+1________+3/+2___________+2/+1___________+1 13_________________+6/+3/+2/+1_____+4/+2___________+2/+1___________+1 14_________________+6/+3/+2/+1_____+4/+2/+1________+2/+1___________+2/+1 15_________________+6/+3/+2/+1_____+4/+2/+1________+3/+1___________+2/+1 16_________________+6/+4/+3/+2_____+5/+2/+1________+3/+1___________+2/+1 17_________________+8/+4/+3/+2_____+5/+2/+1________+3/+1___________+2/+1 18_________________+8/+4/+3/+2_____+5/+2/+1/+1_____+4/+2/+1________+3/+1 19_________________+8/+5/+4/+3_____+6/+3/+2/+1_____+4/+2/+1________+3/+1 20_________________+8/+5/+4/+3_____+6/+3/+2/+1_____+4/+2/+1________+3/+1 Class and Prestige Class Categories A. Full BAB and heavy armor proficiency. B. Full BAB or, 3/4 BAB and heavy armor proficiency. C. 3/4 BAB. D. ½ BAB or, 3/4 BAB and no armor proficiency. Core Class Category Examples A. Fighter and Paladin. B. Barbarian, Cleric, Ranger. C. Bard, Druid, Rogue. D. Monk, Sorcerer, Wizard. ARMOR AND SHIELDS ______________________AC________________ ______Max__________Max Armor_________________Bonus_______DR*___ _______Dex.__________Def. Bonus** Light armor Padded_______________+1__________none___ ______+8__________+3 Leather_______________+1__________1/-___________+6__________+3 Studded leather________+2__________1/-___________+5__________+3 Chain shirt____________+2__________2/-___________+4__________+3 Medium armor Hide__________________+2__________1/-___________+4__________+2 Scale mail_____________+2__________2/-___________+3__________+2 Chainmail______________+3__________2/-___________+2__________+2 Breastplate____________+3__________2/-___________+3__________+2 Heavy armor Splint mail_____________+3__________3/-___________+0__________+1 Banded mail____________+3__________3/-___________+1__________+1 Half-plate______________+4__________3/-___________+0__________+1 Full plate______________+4__________4/-___________+1__________+2 Shields Buckler________________+1__________none_ ________-__________- Shield, light wooden_____+1__________none_________-__________- Shield, light steel_______+1__________none_________-__________- Shield, heavy wooden____+2__________none_________-__________- Shield, heavy steel______+2__________none_________-__________- Shield, tower__________+4__________none_________ +2__________+2 * This damage reduction stacks with similar damage reduction types. ** Masterwork armor increases the maximum defense bonus by a value of +1. ------------------------------------------------------ BEHIND THE CURTAIN: Class Defense Bonus and Armor Damage Reduction. The most obvious thing to take note about this variant of Class Defense Bonus (CDB), is that classes with full Base Attack Bonuses are going to be more skilled at defending themselves, even while unarmored. Also, for a sense of game balance, classes with armor proficiencies built into them will tend to have a better CDB than a class with an equal BAB but, with a lower armor proficiency built into the class. With this system, it becomes apparent that combat throughout increases in levels will begin to vary with the introduction of CDB and damage reduction. Low level combat will become less dangerous to anyone wearing heavy armor, despite an increase in being hit more often. Also, at lower levels, only most warrior based classes will have any idea on how to defend themselves with any effectiveness while not wearing any sort of armor. Thus, warrior types will not be completely defenseless even while unarmored, and non-warrior types will more slowly learn to effectively defend themselves with, or without the benefit of armor. Thus, non-warriors types will still likely try to wear armor any time that they can at this point in their careers. At mid-levels, a fighter in full plate armor will still have to be cautious while facing heavy hitting enemies, as he’ll still be being hit more often, however, average damage will also be noticeably lower with the increased protection from damage reduction that the armor provides. If a fighter has a decent Dexterity bonus, it may even be a more worthwhile alternative for him to wear medium armor, as his CDB is just beginning to become effective while wearing medium armor at this time. A rogue, by this time, may be really debating whether she should where wear any armor at all, or go without armor, as both options will have their advantages, and disadvantages. At higher levels, a fighter in full plate armor starts to lose some of the benefits with the higher damage reduction that heavy armor provides, however, at this point in his adventuring career, he has learned how to defend himself better with his CDB, even despite wearing heavy armor. On the other end, if the fighter happens to be more of an agile, finesse minded warrior by this level, it may even be more worthwhile for him to wear light armor, or even no armor, for a better decreased chance of being hit by an enemy at all. However, when he is hit, he’ll have lost the added protection of damage reduction that heavy armor provides. A rogue, by the time she reaches these higher levels, will start to gain the benefit of a higher CDB even while wearing light armor, and the added protection of damage may be a bit of comfort for her. However, if she has a particularly high Dexterity, it may be even more advantageous for her to do without armor altogether, and rely upon her quick reflexes to get her out of danger. Two of the most notable changes to game play with this option will be: The importance of finesse based fighting, and an increase in usefulness of heavy armor to both the fighter and the paladin over other classes. With the option of finesse-based fighting, unarmored combats will begin to feel more cinematic. For example, a high level, unarmored, fighter will still be able to show his skill at defending himself, even if he is facing an lower, inexperienced fighter wearing full plate armor. Likewise, fights between the agile swashbuckler facing off against the lumbering armored knight become more cinematic as the swashbuckler narrowly evades swipe after swipe from the knight, but all the while watching his rapier skip off the knight’s armor for little noticeable effect. The second noticeable change mentioned, will be the introduction of viable damage reduction given to the fighter and the paladin that only the barbarian was able to enjoy. It is often a hotly debated issue, that even while wearing medium armor, a barbarian was still capable of maintaining a useful defense that a fighter or paladin of equal levels couldn’t enjoy. Also, add in the controversial issue of where mithral not only makes armor lighter by one category, but also whether mithral automatically changes heavier armor to lighter armor for the purposes of proficiency requirements, such debates became really intensive. With this system, fighters and paladins can not only enjoy the higher CDB that their classes provide for wearing heavier armor, but they can also enjoy the increased benefit of additional damage reduction that adamantine heavy armor can provide. For instance, a 20th-level fighter, with a dexterity of 12, wearing adamantine full plate armor, would have an AC of 18, and a damage reduction of 7/-. A 20th-level barbarian (not raging), with a dexterity of 16, wearing mithral full plate armor, would have an AC of 18 (AC 16 while raging), and a damage reduction of 9/-. At these higher levels, a higher damage reduction value than those presented in the core rules, becomes significantly more useful with the decreased AC bonus that this system provides. Thoughts? Opinions?
Lazulli 09-06-06, 01:49 AM	I like the idea of a tiered CDB based on what type of armour is being worn and I'm tempted to borrow it. I was never too keen on the AC being the higher of the two and not stacking, I didn't think it worked very well. Currently in my campaign setting I use the Armour as DR rules but I don't halve the AC bonus it gives. So Full Plate is AC8 DR4/-. I've found it works pretty well, though my setting is low magic and magic items are extremely difficult to come by.
KmartKommando 09-14-06, 09:39 PM	There's a big difference in dodging skill between a Jet Li type and a "stoppus badguyus" Harry Potter type.:P The monk should be at least as dodgy as the rogue. The average stereotypical monk has been training most of his or her life either being a punching bag, or not being a punching bag, depending on fighting style.
True Archon 09-15-06, 05:18 AM	I like the idea of a tiered CDB based on what type of armour is being worn and I'm tempted to borrow it. I was never too keen on the AC being the higher of the two and not stacking, I didn't think it worked very well. .... Yeah, I wasn't too happy with the higher of the two ACs, either. I'm glad to see that you like how it was designed with armor-type in mind. If you do use it, let me know how it works in your game. I haven't been able to implement it too much in my own games, yet. .... Currently in my campaign setting I use the Armour as DR rules but I don't halve the AC bonus it gives. So Full Plate is AC8 DR4/-. I've found it works pretty well, though my setting is low magic and magic items are extremely difficult to come by. That works, eh? I was tempted to also do that, but I wasn't sure how it'd affect game balance. Physical combat would definitely last longer, though. There's a big difference in dodging skill between a Jet Li type and a "stoppus badguyus" Harry Potter type. The monk should be at least as dodgy as the rogue. The average stereotypical monk has been training most of his or her life either being a punching bag, or not being a punching bag, depending on fighting style. Yeah, I know what you mean, and I debated in my own head this very same issue for quite some time. In the end, it came down to a couple of things: 1. Simplicity with the BAB and armor proficiency chart. When I tried this system briefly with one group, they were more interested in jumping into a game that they already understood, instead of attempting to learn this extra "house rule." If I messed around with it too much for one base class (actually two... with the Ninja), and many other "monk-based" PrCs, they'd probably have blown a gasket... well not really, but ya know what I mean. 2. Game Balance. Giving the Monk even more unarmored AC can hurt game balance. However, keeping it on the "low" category D won't screw it up by too much. 3. The "training" that the Monk receives is taken into account with Wisdom bonuses and unarmored AC bonuses that the Monk already receives. Thus, an unarmored, 20th-level Rogue with a 20 Dexterity using this system would have about a base AC of 19. An unarmored, 20th-level Monk, with a 14 Dexterity, and 20 Wisdom, using this system, would have about a base AC of 24. ---------------------------------------------------- Thank you guys. I appreciate the input, and will appreciate any more thoughts that you two have, or anyone else, for that matter. :D
KmartKommando 09-16-06, 04:14 AM	In our game, we have a swordsage and a rogue both with AC 30, a healer with AC 34, a monk with AC 36, and a dwarf wizard polymorph specialist with AC 46. It's all how you build your character. Baseline changes should be consistant to retain some sort of balance. If a monk has an unhittable AC, it's because he was built for it. Monk, rogue, ranger, druid, bard, all should have about the same class defense.
MageDance 09-16-06, 05:47 PM	The problema with classs defense bonus is that spellcasters get a disadvantage, since the Touch AC will increase. You gotta change touch spells a little then...
dizfactor 09-17-06, 09:55 AM	The thing I hate most about the UA version is that it's derived from the armor worn by the existing classes, which is ridiculous. There's no reason to think that the ranger or swashbuckler would be less adept at dodging blows than the fighter simply because fighters are able to wear heavy armor. The only reason to do that is to preserve the current hierarchy of ACs, which I really have no interest in doing. Defense should be tied solely to overall combat skill, which is most closely mirrored, IMHO, by BAB. High BAB classes should have high defense, and so on for medium and low BAB. Armor proficiency should not be a factor at all. I've hated the way D&D ties armor to how hard it is to hit someone for almost 20 years now. The SW RPG has three Defense progressions, and I think I'm just going to port them over to D&D, giving the best to the high BAB classes, the medium to the medium, and the worst to the worst. I might throw the monk a bone and bump it up to the best, because it makes more sense.
Lopus 09-30-06, 12:02 PM	Hmmm ... Can you post this here? I've been having problems with the defense numbers in UA as well. The thing I hate most about the UA version is that it's derived from the armor worn by the existing classes, which is ridiculous. There's no reason to think that the ranger or swashbuckler would be less adept at dodging blows than the fighter simply because fighters are able to wear heavy armor. The only reason to do that is to preserve the current hierarchy of ACs, which I really have no interest in doing. Defense should be tied solely to overall combat skill, which is most closely mirrored, IMHO, by BAB. High BAB classes should have high defense, and so on for medium and low BAB. Armor proficiency should not be a factor at all. I've hated the way D&D ties armor to how hard it is to hit someone for almost 20 years now. The SW RPG has three Defense progressions, and I think I'm just going to port them over to D&D, giving the best to the high BAB classes, the medium to the medium, and the worst to the worst. I might throw the monk a bone and bump it up to the best, because it makes more sense.
fatal error 09-30-06, 04:05 PM	The SWRPG isn't covered by the OGL, so stricly speaking, he probably can't. But the D20 Modern ones are very similar, there's just a larger difference in the ending numbers between high medium and low. Level Bonus High Med Low 1 1 1 0 2 2 1 1 3 2 2 1 4 3 2 1 5 4 3 2 6 4 3 2 7 5 4 2 8 6 4 3 9 6 5 3 10 7 5 3 11 8 6 4 12 8 6 4 13 9 7 4 14 10 7 5 15 10 8 5 16 11 8 5 17 12 9 6 18 12 9 6 19 13 10 6 20 13 10 7
Prince Indirian 09-30-06, 10:04 PM	What about at really high lvls? Will the DR be enough ? Have you thought about basing the defense bonus on the BAB ? Haven'r read through it all, merely skimmed
Xeviat-DM 10-01-06, 02:54 AM	I don't think the DR will be enough. I'm not even sure if 1 DR equals 1 AC, it's probably closer to 2 DR equals 1 AC (like -1 to hit equals +2 damage with a two-handed power attack).
True Archon 10-01-06, 09:09 AM	What about at really high lvls? Will the DR be enough ? .... .... Haven'r read through it all, merely skimmed I don't think the DR will be enough. I'm not even sure if 1 DR equals 1 AC, it's probably closer to 2 DR equals 1 AC (like -1 to hit equals +2 damage with a two-handed power attack). By itself? No. As you've both pointed out, the loss of AC is a big factor, just by the fact that if you're getting hit more often, then you're taking more damage. Couple that with the fact that higher level enemies are going to be dishing out damage well beyond what even the 4/- DR that full plate provides, it's a recipe for disaster. Or so I would think. However, with the system that I provided, a 20th-level Paladin wearing only full plate (Dexterity 10) would effectively have a very base AC of 16 and a DR 4/- versus the core version having an AC 18 without any DR. If the Paladin is wearing masterwork full plate, her AC will increase to a 17 AC and DR 4/-. Of course, that is because of the Class Defense Bonus being included as well. So, in effect, Xeviat-DM pretty much nailed it on the head of a loss of 2 AC acquiring 2 DR per lost point of AC. The problema with classs defense bonus is that spellcasters get a disadvantage, since the Touch AC will increase. You gotta change touch spells a little then... Hmm... that is a good point. In terms of how it may affect game balance, that is a good point. However, in terms of "flavor", wouldn't it be very likely that someone who has trained themselves to dodge weapons would also be capable of dodging a simple touch? Also, given the typically devastating effects of most touch magic, it may not be all that game breaking. In fact, it may give the non-spellcasters a small boost in terms of power through class progression. The thing I hate most about the UA version is that it's derived from the armor worn by the existing classes, which is ridiculous. There's no reason to think that the ranger or swashbuckler would be less adept at dodging blows than the fighter simply because fighters are able to wear heavy armor. .... Yeah, that is kinda annoying. However, many of the classes that have the perceived "flavor" of being "nimble", typically already have additional AC bonuses already built into their classes. For example, the Swashbuckler has Dodge bonuses, and the Monk has a level progressive AC increase, AND a bonus for high Wisdom scores. .... Have you thought about basing the defense bonus on the BAB ? .... Yes, the defense bonus is based upon BAB, but not solely based upon it. It also takes into consideration any Armor Proficiencies initially given by any class taken (but not Armor Proficiencies acquired through spending feats gained through normal level progression). .... The only reason to do that is to preserve the current hierarchy of ACs, which I really have no interest in doing. Defense should be tied solely to overall combat skill, which is most closely mirrored, IMHO, by BAB. High BAB classes should have high defense, and so on for medium and low BAB. Armor proficiency should not be a factor at all. I've hated the way D&D ties armor to how hard it is to hit someone for almost 20 years now. Thus the reason why I like the Class Defense Bonus being used in conjunction with the "Armor as DR" variant. Like you, I didn't entirely like the UA version of Class Defense Bonus, and that's why I changed it to the version I created. However, there is still the need for game balance, and if you give a Barbarian the same CDB as the Fighter, then the Barbarian will not only have the added benefit of it's already inherent DR class ability, but also an AC about equivalent to that of a Fighter wearing full plate.
Braids 10-01-06, 09:39 PM	I like your ideas and would like to use them if it's okay with you.
True Archon 10-02-06, 04:50 AM	I like your ideas and would like to use them if it's okay with you. Please! Let me know how it works! I'd like to get a little play-testing as well, but unfortunately, life as of late has made it really difficult for me to get any gaming time at all with work, my friends' work, and many, many, many other things. Ugh... :( However, the moment it does slow down for me... OH YEEEAAAHHH... IT'LL BE ON!!! :ayyyy!: Until that time, I'll keep checking back on this post, with the hope of seeing continued replies, thoughts, and/or comments from everyone.
Braids 10-07-06, 08:06 PM	After thinking about it, this system may not work correctly in my world. I've decided to make magic items very rare and I'm changing mundane weapons and armor which means I'll have to work off a similar system from the ground up. Yours would probably work well in a normal game though.
Schmendrick 10-11-06, 04:20 AM	Mine suggestion: The system I came up with grants each class a (somewhat) unique defense bonus progression, much like Star Wars d20. If you're shy of fractions, you might want to close your eyes for this part. Each class gains a defense bonus progression.. the existing d20 system already uses a few fractional formulas, in quick summary: poor save = 0+ level* 1/3 good save = 2+ level* 1/2 BAB advances at either 1/2, 3/4, or 1 per level. In my defense bonus variant, defense bonus progression is calculated from two numbers: armor proficiency, and base attack bonus. Let AP = [0..3]; 0 for a class with no armor proficiency, 1 for light, 2 for medium, and 3 for heavy. Let BB = [2..4]; 2 for a weak BAB class, 3 for medium, 4 for strong. A given class's armor proficiency progression is equal to AP + (AP+BAB)/12. I suggest using this along with the fractional calculation variant in UA. Sure, 12ths are a little scarier than 6ths, but it's not really that bad of a jump... I'd also recommend houseruling that you can only get the initial 1st level "bump" once, to avoid a Ftr1/Pal1 with a defense bonus of +7. I could probably say more, but I was distracted from this posting, and now it's late and I want to sleep.
Bard-of-all-trades 10-20-06, 01:23 AM	Cool, I'm not the only one who thought to "fix" this optional rule. I looked at it from a mathmatical function. The original stats increased the spellcasters 400% while the front-line fighter types only increased 200%. This didn't make any sense to me. I thought "Why would the classes that are most likely to enter melee combat have the worst defense bonus? Isn't that what they are trained to to?" So I changed things up a bit. Defense Bonus Chart 3 0 4 0 5 2/3 6 9/10 3 1/3 4 1/2 6 1 1/3 7 1 8/10 3 2/3 5 1 7 2 8 2 7/10 4 1 5 1 1/2 7 2 2/3 9 3 6/10 4 1 1/3 6 2 8 3 1/3 10 4 5/10 4 1 2/3 6 2 1/2 9 4 11 5 4/10 5 2 7 3 9 4 2/3 12 6 3/10 5 2 1/3 7 3 1/2 10 5 1/3 13 7 2/10 5 2 2/3 8 4 11 6 14 8 1/10 6 3 8 4 1/2 11 6 2/3 15 9 6 3 1/3 9 5 12 7 1/3 15 9 9/10 6 3 2/3 9 5 1/2 13 8 16 10 8/10 7 4 10 6 13 8 2/3 17 11 7/10 7 4 1/3 10 6 1/2 14 9 1/3 18 12 6/10 7 4 2/3 11 7 14 10 19 13 5/10 8 5 11 7 1/2 15 10 2/3 20 14 4/10 8 5 1/3 12 8 16 11 1/3 21 15 3/10 8 5 2/3 12 8 1/2 16 12 22 16 2/10 9 6 13 9 17 12 2/3 23 17 1/10 9 6 1/3 13 9 1/2 18 13 1/3 24 18 Monk Bard Barbarian Cleric Sorcerer Ranger Druid Fighter Wizard 3.00 Rogue 4.00 5.00 Paladin 6.00 3.00 3.33 3.66 4.00 9.00 13.30 18.30 24.00 NOTE All bolded numbers listed are added to AC only when the character is NOT wearing any armor at all. Also, when calculating a character's Touch AC, subtract half the Defense Bonus. Round all fractions down. This allows for additional armor for everyone and yet doesn't leave an unarmored Fighter feeling like he got caught with his shorts down. It also sets the mathematic maximum increase at 400% for the front-line fighter types while, even though it decreases the overall percentage increase, it increases the armor for everyone else. {NOTE: The extra columns with the fractions show the fractional increase for the bold number listed.} And just to answer why a Monk is on the lower rate of defense than a Rogue, I would say it is because they get a class ability increase to AC and get to add their Wisdom to AC unlike a Rogue.
Ashanti 10-20-06, 05:58 AM	@ True Archon I have been having similar ideas about using some form of class based armour class in place of physical armour. My group are trying out using a system where you AC = 10 + BAB with the RAW AC of the armour being directly converted to DR. Shields still function in the way they always have and dex caps etc remain in place too. Magic and bonuses from feats etc still add to the AC so the main change is the addition of DR to armoured characters and that Touch AC is higher. As noted by yourself, touch attacking spells are pretty evil things any way (this also helps the warrior types out when the tenticled monstrosity grapples her). This may seem a bit much in terms of DR at low levels but full plate IS going to stop many weapons it their tracks. Real world heavey armour was not as restrictive as one may imagine and an unarmoured fighter is going to get owned by an equally skilled and armed opponent. This appraoch does favour Tank style warriors but thats the flavour my group likes (N.B. The prevalence of heavey armour for mooks is pretty low in our games as it is expensive and military in nature). It is also a clean and easy to use sytem. This will greatly boost the combat proficiency of Warriors at high levels with out having to always have convenient AC boosting magic items. The high AC of warrior types becomes a class feature which in some way keeps up with the full casters capabilities. I'm interested in you thoughts on this method.
Schmendrick 10-20-06, 02:04 PM	Cool, I'm not the only one who thought to "fix" this optional rule. I looked at it from a mathmatical function. The original stats increased the spellcasters 400% while the front-line fighter types only increased 200%. This didn't make any sense to me. I thought "Why would the classes that are most likely to enter melee combat have the worst defense bonus? Isn't that what they are trained to to?" Mechanically speaking, the game doesn't scale that way. AC is supposed to parallel to-hit rolls; BAB and magical enhancements raise to-hit, Defense bonus and magical enhancements raise AC ("to-miss"). The existing table reflects that, in that everybody essentially gets the same defense bonus increase over various levels; they just start out (and, pacing one another, remain) several points apart throughout the progression. This is to reflect that magical equipment to raise AC is assumed (by this system, at least, which despite its flaws is reasonably serviceable) to progress somewhat similarly for all of the various classes (magical armor bonuses, bracers of armor, amulets of natural armor, spells, etc.)