Post/Author/DateTime	Post
Jack Daniel 05-09-05, 03:06 PM	I love armor & DR. But after reading the sidebar in UA that mentions how DR is great at low levels, but becomes progressively more uselss the more you encounter high-damage-dealing foes, I figured a defense bonus would be the best way to make up for the loss of AC. At first, I just ripped out the monk's AC bonus and gave everyone +1 to AC at every five character levels (the monk still retained his Wisdom bonus to AC, but I made half of it DR — it would make sense that a chi-using monk should have bullets & arrows bouncing off his skin!). It made sense, because the bonus ammounted to +4 at 20th level, which is as much armor bonus as it is possible to lose when using the DR system. Then, I got to thinking, maybe the defense bonus rule in UA wasn't so far off the mark in basing its progressions on the abilities of the different classes to defend themselves. Making it based on armor proficiency isn't the route I'd take, but it did make sense that a fighter should have a much better defense bonus than a mage. So I made one final change: classes with the good BAB get +1 to AC at every 3rd level (the progression is the same as a poor save). Classes with the medium BAB (monk included) get +1 to AC at every 5th level. Folks with the poor BAB only get the bonus every 7 levels. Simple, sweet, and far from overpowering (certain classes end up with a net AC that's 2 points higher than normal by 20th level) — just the way I like my house rules.
weasel fierce 05-10-05, 01:33 AM	Its a very good idea. I'd propably combine it with some sort of "armour reduces damage" rule, and ignore the armour benefits to AC. Rename AC to "Defensive Class" or whatnot, and I;d call it good.
Tenzhi 05-11-05, 02:52 AM	I certainly like it better based off of BAB than Armor Proficiency - IMO, characters who rely on armor might actually be *less* adept at dodging blows. I also like the "Iron Skin" type DR for the Monk, though I think I might handle it differently. I'd propably combine it with some sort of "armour reduces damage" rule, You mean like the "Armor as DR" rule that Jack Daniel referenced in his initial post? ;)
Celedor of Celestia 05-12-05, 11:47 AM	The only reason that the classes got the highest defense bonuses is because it's balancing, of course. But when you give classes like the cleric lower bonuses than the other classes with heavy armor proficiency, and higher bonuses to the monk with no armor proficiency and to the ranger with only light armor proficiency, wouldn't this system be unbalancing? I have also thought of the base attack way, and this seems more realistic, but it's also less balancing. Clerics will end up with lower AC than before, and rangers with more. How could it be balanced? I love the idea of changing this system. But what about lowering the bonuses and making armor bonus stack with class defense bonus? This, of course, results in even better AC for the classes with armor proficiency, but can anyone come up with an idea of making it balancing?
Jack Daniel 05-12-05, 12:25 PM	Oh, I suppose I should have mentioned then... this AC bonus is an unnamed bonus. It stacks with everything, and always applies, even when flat-footed or against touch attacks, just like a monk's AC bonus. To show you how it works, I'll just pull some typical NPCs out of the DMG at 10th level. 10th level cleric: • AC 20 (+5 from full plate +1, +3 from heavy steel shield +1, +1 from ring of protection +1, -1 from Dex 8, +2 from defense bonus). • DR 4/— (full plate +1). • Cp. the cleric in the DMG has AC 22 (+9 from full plate +1, +3 from heavy steel shield +1, +1 from ring of protection +1, -1 from Dex 8). 10th level fighter: • AC 23 (+6 from full plate +2, +3 from heavy steel shield +1, +1 from Dex 13, +3 from defense bonus). • DR 4/— (full plate +2). • Cp. the fighter in the DMG has AC 24 (+10 from full plate +2, +3 from heavy steel shield +1, +1 from Dex 13). 10th level monk: • AC 19 (+2 from wisdom 16, +2 from defense bonus, +2 from dexterity 14, +1 from amulet of natural armor +1, +1 from bracers of armor +1, +1 from ring of protection +1). • DR 1/— (wisdom 16). • Cp. the monk in the DMG has AC 20 (+3 from wisdom 16, +2 from defense bonus, +2 from dexterity 14, +1 from amulet of natural armor +1, +1 from bracers of armor +1, +1 from ring of protection +1). 10th level ranger: • AC 20 (+4 from dexterity 17, +3 from studded leather +1, +3 from defense bonus). • DR 1/— (studded leather +1) • Cp. the ranger in the DMG has AC 18 (+4 from dexterity 17, +4 from studded leather +1). So while it does give a bit of a boost to the ranger, being a light-armor wearing good-base-attack class, I happen to think that's warranted anyway. Rangers should have better defense than they're allowed, otherwise there's no point in taking the melee route with the ranger's combat feats (in fact, my campaign ranger uses the d10 hit die and doesn't have an archery option anyway). The gist of the whole system is that classes good at fighting (fighter, ranger, pally, barbarian) are also good at defending themselves. They have a passable shot at survival when caught without armor, and with it, the DR gives these classes (and clerics) an added kick to their overall defenses.
Celedor of Celestia 05-13-05, 04:27 PM	I agree with you. This system is indeed simple, sweet, and far from overpowering ;) This is the system that I will use in my new campaign. Thanks for making this system, I had an idea of a similiar one, but I thought it was too overpowering. Now I realize it actually isn't, but it's far more realistic. I think I will use the vitality and wound point system too, if that doesn't make any problems. But do you have an idea of making the critical hit multiplier system different? I think the idea of an axe and a scythe scoring critical hits more often is bad. It's certainly not realistic that a scythe hits more critical spots than a sword. In the real world and in the most fantasy stories, heroes and soldiers almost always had a sword. I think the sword is the best weapon, but of course, if it had been in D&D, everybody would've chosen a sword as their weapon. Perhaps a change that all weapons with greater multiplier than x2 does crit on a 20, but gives two points of extra damage pr. multiplier. That is, a scythe would score a crit only on a natural 20, but do 8 extra damage on each crit. What do you think? Does the weapons with greater multipliers do too much damage? After all, they do less crits. But it's indeed quite scary to be hit in the weak spot by a scythe, probably killing you on that crit...
Jack Daniel 05-13-05, 05:12 PM	Back when I used VP/WP (I now use HP & Mas=Con), I left critical hits alone, with the stipulation that only the base damage ever applied to WP. Any damage expressed as extra dice, whether it came from a flaming sword, a sneak attack, or a critical hit, remained VP damage. So: A longsword remains 19-20/x2. If a fighter with Str 15 (normal damage 1d8+2) scores a crit with a longsword, he deals 1d8+2 WP damage and 1d8+2 VP damage. The same fighter wields a battleaxe, crit 20/x3. A normal hit is 1d8+2 VP, but a critical hit is 1d8+2 WP damage and 2d8+4 VP damage. Now for the grand finale, imagine a rogue with a +1 flaming burst battleaxe who manages to score a sneak attack. Damage would be 1d8+1(+Str bonus) to WP, and 2d8+2(+2xStr bonus) slashing + 1d6 fire +1d10 fire + sneak attack dice to VP. DR protects WP before VP, so if a character wearing full plate (DR 4) takes a critical hit, and the damage rolled is 5 wound/3 vitality, the fighter loses 1 WP and 3 VP. If the damage rolled had been 3 wound/5 vitality, he would've lost 0 WP and 4 VP.