Post/Author/DateTime	Post
rydi123 09-15-06, 08:10 PM	i'm starting a new campaign soon, and want to use both the armor as dr rules, and the defense bonus rules, but i have had a few problems with them in my current game, so i changed things around a bit. i wanted to see what some other people think of these changes before i implement them in my new game. so, here goes: defense bonus- characters gain a defense bonus to AC =1/2 thier BAB rounded down. I made this change to the standard chart because it seems more realistic, with characters gaining defense as they focus more on combat, and because it resolves the nasty multiclassing issues with the different defense bonus columns. this also gives characters that should have good dodging abilities (barbarian, ranger) a boost from the column system, and takes away some AC from a few others that don't have quite the same level of martial skill (clerics, arcane casters). it also gives a boost to the monk, in return for thier inability to gain DR from armor. defense bonus & armor- defense bonus is applied normaly with or without armor. This makes it so that armor is still useful at higher lvls and still benefits the players (eliminating the problems with armor as DR as shown on pg.112 of UA). armor- non-magical armor does not add to AC, but adds to dr at a rate of 1/2 its AC value rounded down. There are no penalties to wearing armor (unless you are not proficient in it of course), aside from the normal ones (dex max, skill check penalties, spell failure, etc.). magical armor still adds its enhancement bonus to AC as normal. This allows for heavier armor proficiencies to actually be a benefit to characters, and allows fighters to function more as 'tanks' in parties, and gives armor more of a purpose in the game. shields- i changed the bonuses slightly on these: buckler +1 l. shield+2 h. shield +3 tower shield +4 (has anyone ever actually seen a charater use one of thes btw?) the overall goal of these changes is to increase the worth of armor in the game, while still giving high lvl characters some means of defense outside of armor. the only problems i see are that low lvl, non-fighter characters might have a bit of trouble due to a few points lost in AC before thier defense bonuses kick in, but with good dex and a shield, i think it should work out. and a little more lethality at lower lvls suits the game world my pc's will be in just fine anyway. So, that's it. I would love to hear comments, suggestions or criticism, as i really want this system to be the best it can for my next game.
rydi123 09-16-06, 01:39 PM	so does this seem an imbalanced or problematic change?
Soulmage 09-16-06, 01:53 PM	Here's a simpler solution for you, inspired by the Iron Heroes ruleset. This solution is for you if you believe: 1. Armor, especially heavy armor in the RAW is underpowered and needs its value enhanced. 2. Heavy armor should not make you automatically immune to anything except really big weapons. 3. You want to keep rewriting of rules to a minimum to avoid the amount of conversion you have to do. Here goes: Armor continues to provide AC. Nobody's AC needs to change. It also provides DR, but the amount of DR is a variable rather than a fixed amount. The amount of DR provided by armor is equal to the die type closest to the AC bonus it provides, rounded down. A few examples: Full Plate: +8 AC = DR 1d8/- Splint Mail: +6 AC = DR 1d6/- Breastplate: +5 AC = DR 1d4/- Leather: +2 AC = DR 1d2/- Padded: +1 AC = DR 0 or 1 (DM's preference) This goes a long way towards enhancing the value of armor in the game, and really doesn't unbalance things at all. I guarantee you that if you agree with the 3 assumptions I posted above, if you playtest these rules you will love the effect it has on people's perceptions of wearing armor. This rule also has the affect of making underused armor types, more attractive. All of a sudden, splint mail is much more attractive than simply a Breastplate. As it should be, right? Really, the whole armor table could use a re-write of the armor stats, but this simple and easy fix should solve your problem. Let me know if you want to discuss more comprehensive solutions. There is no need to get into defensive bonuses with this approach.
Neofish 09-16-06, 02:55 PM	I do use a tower shield btw, combined with shield mate and allied defense, I make the perfect mage defender :D I like the look of it as a whole, but perhaps the defense bonus should be 1/2 bab rounded up? This means that a fighter has a +1 defense bonus off the bat, and a rogue and monk and and all those with a medium bab will start to gain a defense bonus at level 2. I dunno, it seems like a good way to handle the Defense bonus system, i'll check it out.
rydi123 09-17-06, 05:38 PM	soulmage: that is an interesting system. i may just implement it in my current game to solve a few problems (such as heavy armors not seeing enough play). i don't think i will be able to use it in my next game however, as i need the defense bonus in it for feel. with my next game i plan on going for a more fantasy novel flavor, where highly skilled fighters can dodge around blows even without armor. but i am interested in the more comprehensive solution you were talking about, as it might make my current game run more smoothly. neofish: yeah i thought about that. i am rather tempted to follow your advice, and i will playtest it a little before i implement the system. the only problem i see is that when rounding up, the lesser BAB characters end up closer to the better BAB characters as levels progress, but that might turn out to be a good thing, and might prevent the lower levels from being quite so defenseless.