Post/Author/DateTime	Post
#1 Cyber-Dave Nov 30, 2008 22:05:19	I am planning on running a Renaissance fantasy setting. Something akin to Pirates of the Caribbean. The plan is to both include firearms, and largely remove the need for builds that require armor. Including firearms is easy. I already have a balanced ruleset for firearms. What I don't know what to do about is the armor. Armor rules are very integrated into the current D&D system. I don't want to totally remove the benefits granted by armor. I mean, cavalry used armor right up until right before WW I, and so did nobles and some military commanders. Breastplate and helm armor was pretty common. But, by the same token, I can't have every non-arcane class running around in armor or it will really undo the flavor of the setting. I need EVERY class to have an equally viable no armor build... and right now they don't. Suggestions on how to largely remove armor from the game, without totally removing the benefit of armor, or totally screwing over class balance, would be much appreciated.
#2 evilbob76 Nov 30, 2008 22:31:05	I'd say just make your own class features that give the defensive bonuses you're looking for, much like the Swordmage Warding. If you want them to take builds, simply use feats instead.
#3 wraithstrike Nov 30, 2008 22:39:43	On page 110(?) of Unearthed Arcana there is an alternate AC system for not wearing armor.
#4 zeratulcraft Nov 30, 2008 22:56:53	The heavy armor classes would get a "toughness" rating that would, coincedentally, correspond perfectly to what armor they're expected to wear. Light armor classes get a "nimbleness" rating that would, also coincedentally, correspond perfectly to what armor they're expected to wear. Magic enhancements to the "toughness" and "nimbleness" can be described as jewelry that doesn't take up the rings/neck slots. That way you can be all piratey with 50 billion rings that actually do things.
#5 Cyber-Dave Nov 30, 2008 23:17:52	On page 110(?) of Unearthed Arcana there is an alternate AC system for not wearing armor. I never bought the product, nor will I as its a 3e product. Care to sum up what it suggested, and how it might be applied to 4e?
#6 calronmoonflower Nov 30, 2008 23:45:08	I never bought the product, nor will I as its a 3e product. Care to sum up what it suggested, and how it might be applied to 4e? You can find it here for free. You could simply give them a base AC bonus based the highest armor type that they could use. Them have them where enchanted cloth armor at higher levels. If you want to drop the magic armor then give them a equivalent bonus based on their level. It should be easy enough as the armor's enhancement bonus is based on item level.
#7 Cyber-Dave Dec 01, 2008 1:11:20	I checked the link. I could not find the rules you are talking about anywhere. Would you mind posting a direct link instead of a link to the main page of the site? The nimbleness/toughness ideas don't work. The whole base AC bonus that is equal to the best armor they could use (nimbleness/toughness idea by another name) does not work either. Armors have a number of penalties built into their bonus. Giving people the bonus without the penalties breaks the balance of the game. Giving them the penalties as well doesn't make much sense. Also, as heavy armor is not supposed to stack with dexterity and light armor is, this would create yet more problems again...
#8 zeratulcraft Dec 01, 2008 1:45:03	I checked the link. I could not find the rules you are talking about anywhere. Would you mind posting a direct link instead of a link to the main page of the site? The nimbleness/toughness ideas don't work. The whole base AC bonus that is equal to the best armor they could use (nimbleness/toughness idea by another name) does not work either. Armors have a number of penalties built into their bonus. Giving people the bonus without the penalties breaks the balance of the game. Giving them the penalties as well doesn't make much sense. Also, as heavy armor is not supposed to stack with dexterity and light armor is, this would create yet more problems again... Here : http://www.d20srd.org/srd/variant/adventuring/defenseBonus.htm Also, just say they get the penalties reflavoured. You're so tough you have trouble making nimble skill checks. You're so tough you prefer to bounce attacks off your toughness, than intelligently dodge aside.
#9 unundindur Dec 01, 2008 1:54:10	Well, take the toughness/nimbleness idea as a basis, then subtract 1 to AC or so to compensate if the armor have penalties. Its like assuming the player will always go for the most mobile way. You also mentioned you wanted armor to be an option, so say people cna wear plate armor and take the penalty and gain that +1 AC bonus again.
#10 Fireclave Dec 01, 2008 2:57:16	Okay, maybe something like this... Remove the Following: All Armors except for cloth and leather. Int and Dex bonus to AC when not wearing heavy armor. Change the Following: Only classes that would normally be proficient with heavy armor are proficient with leather. Leather armor provides a +1 bonus to AC instead of +2. There are no masterwork versions of leather. Leather armor's flavor is changed to be more of a blend between clothing and a protective garment rather than a full suit of protective armor as depicted in the PH. Add the Following: All characters have an innate dodge bonus to AC based on what armor their class would normally be proficient in. This dodge bonus is equal to the AC bonus of the highest AC light armor the class is proficient in. The wizard, for example, gets +0 dodge. The rouge would get +2. The fighter would get +3. Ect. This dodge bonus increases by +1 at 16th, and by an additional +1 again at 26th. Class that would normally be proficient in heavy armor are now proficient in leather. All characters add their highest stat modifier to their AC, regardless of what that stat is. Leather Armor Mastery as a Paragon Feat; adds +1 AC while wearing leather armor. Rational: Assuming I did my math correctly, under the standard rules, a lightly armored character can reasonably expect his final, 30th level AC to be as high as about +12 to +14 depending on his starting stats: +3 to +5 from initial Int/Dex score of 16-20 +4 from stat increase to Int/Dex over 30 levels +3 from Hide Armor +2 bonus from masterwork quality light armor This means that in normal play, a light-armored character can get his AC equal to godplate if he dedicates the stats to his primary score, though most character who have a more typical stat arrangement without race synergy can expect to walk around the the equivalent of masterwork chainmail or scalemail. Essentially with the above, I attempted to replace all heavy armors by making all classes effectively light armored class. The Dodge bonus duplicates both the base AC and masterwork AC progression of light armors. Basing AC off of everyone's highest stat is mostly a matter of convenience. With a little bit of creativity, its fairly easy to use any stat to justify AC. And since most classes are built in such a way that its very hard to shot yourself in the foot as far as AC goes, I don't think there's too much issue here. And finally leather armor. I left leather armor in because, with any stat being able to contribute to AC, I would except to see lots of 18s contributing to AC (specifically base 16+racial bonus). However, plate mail AC is unobtainable without a starting stat of 20, and 20s are still very expensive. The best most can hope for is scale mail equivalent, 1pt of AC shy from plate. Therefore, for the heavy armor players who truely desire plate in a heavy armor-less world, I kept leather armor, but reduced its bonus to +1 AC to make up the difference between scale and plate. And now, leather armor is the only armor available that has an Armor Master feet for that extra tanky-ness. The downside though is that the maximum AC achievable (before feats) is +15, which is (only) one point above godplate.
#11 Cyber-Dave Dec 01, 2008 2:58:14	I am not discarding the nimbleness/toughness idea yet. I might still go with it. But, I wanted to toss out the following idea and see what people thought. It was my attempt to re-flavor the D&D rules for a more Renaissance flavor setting with as little rule butchery or house ruling as possible. First of all, the following armors have been renamed or "removed." Note that removed armors do still exist... it is just feats that grant proficiency in the armor which have been removed: Cloth=Cloth Leather=Heavy Cloth Hide=Padded Chaimail=Removed Scale=Breastplate Plate=Removed Heavy shield=Removed Now, with that in mind, the Renaissance flavor classes have their armor proficiencies slightly re-written. Classes now gain the following proficiencies. Cleric: Cloth, heavy cloth Fighter: Cloth, heavy cloth, padded, light shield Paladin: Cloth, heavy cloth, padded, breast plate, light shield Ranger: Cloth, heavy cloth Rogue: Cloth Warlock: Cloth Warlord: Cloth, heavy cloth Wizard: Cloth Thoughts? Would this work? Does it mess up the bonus to hit from weapons with the bonus to AC from armor too much? If so, I can also reduce to the bonus to hit (from proficiency) with all weapons by one...
#12 Fireclave Dec 01, 2008 3:32:15	Thoughts? Would this work? Does it mess up the bonus to hit from weapons with the bonus to AC from armor too much? If so, I can also reduce to the bonus to hit (from proficiency) with all weapons by one... The issue that I immediately see is that, assuming all you did here was reflavor and left the mechanics alone, you've all-around nerfed ACs, and some classes are hit harder than others. Warlocks and Rogues will typically be out 2 points of AC for missing leather. Clerics are hit pretty hard as well. Unless they use a non-traditional build that emphasizes Int or Dex, the lack of chainmail, their standard armor of choice, means that their AC takes a huge hit from 1) not adding dex/int to AC, and 2) not being able to benefit from the comparatively higher AC increases that masterwork heavy armors have over masterwork light armors (+1 per stage of masterwork compared to +3). S&B defenders are going to miss their heavy shields and the +1 AC that comes with them, and more so, fighters will miss their scale. Rangers that that focus on their skill might not miss Hide...at least until they get to Paragon where Hide becomes the ranger's BFF for the cost of a single feat. So chalk up a +1 AC lost there as well. Tact-Lords are down a +1 AC bonus as well, while Cha-Lords suffer the same issue as Clerics due to missing chainmail. The solution though is not to mess with proficiency bonuses. Monsters are built differently than PCs, so proficiency bonuses don't even come into play for them. First, I suggest giving both the cleric and warlord their chainmail back. Call it a chainshirt and describe it as 3.5 chainshirt, which was essentially the sports car of light armors. And since so many classes are missing about a point or two of AC that probably normally would have, I suggest that you simply give everyone +1 AC. Alternatively, if you're really okay with reflavoring elements, you could simply keep all the game mechanics as is and simply rename and reflavor them. That way, you won't have to worry about messing up the game's balance or having to make lots of houserule tweaks. My Examples (YMMV): Cloth = Cloth Leather Armor = Leather Jerkin Hide Armor = Leather Armor Chainmail = Chain Shirt Scale Armor = Brigandine Plate Armor = Breast Plate Light Shield = Heavy Bracer Heavy Shield = Light Shield
#13 Cyber-Dave Dec 01, 2008 8:26:54	The problem with the re flavoring method you suggested is that it will achieve more of a 15-16th century feel when what I am really looking for is a late 16th/early 17th century feel. It is however still an option, and is on the table as a possibility, if I can't get my preferred method to work. In any case, I did a study of the effect of my changes on AC. These were my findings. Cleric: -4/-6/-8 AC (must now rely on int/dex) Fighter: -4/-6/-8 AC (must now rely on int/dex) Paladin: -2 AC Ranger: -1 AC Rogue: -1 AC Warlock: -1 AC Warlord: -5/-7/-9 AC (must now rely on int/dex) Wizard: Cloth: Wizard: -0 AC Now, obviously, the three problem cases are the cleric, fighter, and warlord. The first step to evening the warlord out with the cleric and fighter is obviously to give him back his light shield proficiency. This would bring him to a -4/-6/-8 AC. But, this is still not totally acceptable. I knew that this change would make dex/int more of an important stat for these classes. That was intentional. But, it should be a tertiary stat. In order to make up for that sort of loss of AC it would have to be made a primary stat... so things are still not kosher. The suggestion of re-introducing chain does not work (for me). It does not work for the same reason that the reflavoring idea does not work. It would give the setting more of a 15-16th century feel when what I am going for is a late 16th early 17th century feel. I am looking to remove heavy armor from all class choices except for Paladin (who will be the last bastions of the age of heavy armor and the moral codes such armor has come to represent). But something has to be done about the AC gap I have created for three classes... One option would be to create a class feature called "toughness" (taken from the toughness/nimbleness idea) to the cleric, fighter, warlord, and paladin. This option would add a +3/+5/+7 bonus to the character AC when the character is wearing light armor. Likewise, this bonus would not stack with a characters Dex/Int bonus to armor class (they would take this bonus or their dex/int bonus, whichever is higher). What I don't like about this option is it totally removes the increased importance of Dex to such characters. An increased reliance on Dex makes weapons that are benefited by Dex more appealing. This would likewise explain the sudden surge of popularity in light blades and swords in general during this time period. So, another option is to create a "toughness feature" granted to the cleric, fighter, warlord or paladin. This feature adds a +2/+3/+4 AC bonus to the cleric, fighter, or paladin when they are wearing light armor, and this bonus would stack with their Dexterity modifier. This would mean that at heroic tier a character needs to have a +2 dex modifier (14 dex) in order to make up for the loss, at paragon tier they would need a 16 dex to make up for the loss, and at epic tier they would need an 18 dex to make up for the loss. Alternatively, if they wanted to opt for a low dex build, they could take a feat in breastplate armor. I THINK I like this option. But then, maybe it still leaves dex too important for such characters. I suppose a +2/+4/+6 method is an option (which would mean that such characters would only ever need a 14 dex/int to make up for the loss), but I fear that some builds could abuse this option and in fact use it to seriously boost their classes power above all others. An int Warlord or Dex based Tempest/battlerager both come to mind as possible candidates for abuse. Opinions? Anyways, as for adding in a flat +1 AC to everyone, I don't really think I feel the need. I will add in a +1 class bonus to AC for Rogues and Warlocks. This is because with the loss of leather they lose armor class and don't gain any mobility. However, every other class that looses only a -1 or -2 to AC looses out on some AC, but gains on mobility. The ranger will have 1 lower AC, but won't take a -1 to skill checks. The cleric, fighter, and warlord, once their gap is fixed, will lose out on a -1 to AC but will lose lose a -1 penalty to skill checks and speed. The paladin loses out on a -2 to AC, but they also lose out on a -2 to skill checks and a -1 to speed. Actually, a fighter with a shield will lose out on a -3 to skill checks, and a paladin with a shield will lose out on a -4 to skill checks. They loose out on some AC, but they gain some mobility/versatility, no? And, while the paladin loses a little more in the area of AC, they gain a little more in the area of mobility/versatility. Especially in Paragon tier when they can remove their movement penalty from breastplate. No?
#14 Fireclave Dec 01, 2008 11:56:59	The problem with the re flavoring method you suggested is that it will achieve more of a 15-16th century feel when what I am really looking for is a late 16th/early 17th century feel. There's nothing inherently 15-16th century about reflavoring armor. "Feel" comes from whatever flavor you assign to the mechanics. I could call cloth armor a grass skirt, change chainmail to police riot gear, hide to psychokinetic skin, and plate to storm trooper armor, put them all in the same campaign setting and the mechanics wouldn't care either way. I'm not familiar with what armor existed in what century, else I would have suggested better name alternatives. But if you think that heavy armor breaks the feel of your light-armored setting, consider that 4e heavy armors aren't really all that heavy. They only impose a -1 penalty to speed and at most -2 check penalty. For most classes that would wear heavy armors, these penalties would only minorly impede their skills and movement; Especially with how everyone gets better at all skills in 4e. Futhermore, these penalties get lighter or go away completely at paragon when armor mastery feats become available. Compared that to 3e where heavy armor imposed a -6 to -7 penalty skills that, for most heavy characters, will never see a point increase to to opportunity costs, and a -10ft speed penalty instead of -5ft (-15ft if you were small). And woe is the agile character who wields a tower shield. IMO, the most encumbering thing about 4e heavy armors is their weight. And that's the easiest thing to fudge without disrupting game balance. I'm not try to push this options on you. I just wanted to add a different perspective. As for your last method, it looks like it would work, though its a bit too much math for my tastes. As a player, I would be a bit annoyed at being force to give up AC for a slightly lower armor check if my intention was capitalize more on defense than skills. It wouldn't be a game breaker though. However, I will suggest that if you make classes dependent on Dex/Int for AC that previously were not concerned with them as stats, that you consider changing the mechanics of those classes so that they can better utilize those stats. Just a thought.
#15 Cyber-Dave Dec 01, 2008 12:58:15	There's nothing inherently 15-16th century about reflavoring armor. "Feel" comes from whatever flavor you assign to the mechanics. I could call cloth armor a grass skirt, change chainmail to police riot gear, hide to psychokinetic skin, and plate to storm trooper armor, put them all in the same campaign setting and the mechanics wouldn't care either way. I'm not familiar with what armor existed in what century, else I would have suggested better name alternatives. There was no armor to speak of in the 17th century. It is the Pirates of the Caribbean era. Some breastplates are floating around... but that is pretty much it. My inclusion of the "padded armor" and "breastplate" as still commonly used armors is actually more armor then the era really used. I just figured since my game is still a fantasy game, I can take a few liberties for the sake of game mechanics. However, I would still like to limit/reduce the total number of armors in the game, and remove as many armors with skill check/speed penalties as possible. These mechanics are just not in the spirit of the era. As for your last method, it looks like it would work, though its a bit too much math for my tastes. As a player, I would be a bit annoyed at being force to give up AC for a slightly lower armor check if my intention was capitalize more on defense than skills. It wouldn't be a game breaker though. However, I will suggest that if you make classes dependent on Dex/Int for AC that previously were not concerned with them as stats, that you consider changing the mechanics of those classes so that they can better utilize those stats. Just a thought. The +2/+3/+4 method or the +2/+4/+6 method? And, where is there a lot of math involved in this method? Its a flat bonus provided to your AC by heroic/paragon/epic tier... Also, any suggestions on the sort of class mechanics you would change? I honestly wanted to avoid changing the class mechanics as much as possible, because that is the area where I am likely to mess something up by accident if I start playing with things. The fighter already has a lot of features that make dexterity a good choice. Especially post-martial power. But, I don't know what the cleric or the warlord aught to gain that is dexterity based... So, unless I see some easy quick fix, I think I am just going to go with the +3/+5/+7 doesn't stack with dex bonus "Toughness" (I still need to pick a better name, or at least a name that has not already been used for another mechanic) method. I'll probably also make it a feat that other classes can opt to take in order to build non-dex based characters if they so choose. Like say a high strength/con based ranger or something like that...
#16 gun_slinger_dup Dec 01, 2008 17:00:36	i would give rifles an "accuracy" trait, that allows them choose to target reflex defence in any ranged weapon power that targets AC, effectively making armour useless against them, but sheilds are still pretty good. armour will still be good for melee (realistic) but pointless against guns. since your rules for guns probably have them doing significantly more damage than other ranged weapons, the movement penalty for wearing heavy armour will be fairly significant. also the guns ability to target reflex will make people rethink there fighters with a low dex or int. other than that i think your idea for reflavouring the armour works pretty well. i'm just throwing out some untested idea's here, but i think if you make guns right, you don't have to redo armour, players will just naturally want to choose characters with a higher reflex, or wearing light armour. i think the main issue with adding guns to 4E is not the armour, but the tactics. Having everyone able to use what would essentially be a long ranged executioners axe, makes the fighters and paladins significantly less sticky, and therefore less usefull. on the other hand a ranger useing twin strike with two pistols would be just brutal. *edit* you could call your *+3/+5/+7 doesn't stack with dex bonus* = battle smarts. ability to avoid damage based on experience instead of natural relfex's. i'm probably going to be using something similar to this for my conan esq, campaign. Similar idea, except good Armour hasn't really been invented yet!
#17 Fireclave Dec 01, 2008 18:01:17	And, where is there a lot of math involved in this method? Its a flat bonus provided to your AC by heroic/paragon/epic tier... Sorry, I was in cross-reference/game-balance/sleep-deprivation mood last night. Looking at it again, it makes a bit more sense. But its still more tweaking with the core options and numbers than what I'd personal prefer to do (not that that's a bad thing).
#18 Cyber-Dave Dec 01, 2008 19:29:12	i would give rifles an "accuracy" trait, that allows them choose to target reflex defence in any ranged weapon power that targets AC, effectively making armour useless against them, but sheilds are still pretty good. armour will still be good for melee (realistic) but pointless against guns. since your rules for guns probably have them doing significantly more damage than other ranged weapons, the movement penalty for wearing heavy armour will be fairly significant. 1) The first guns were anything but accurate and... 2) I am not planing to use overpowered firearms and... 3) Armor does actually protect against guns. Your set up is not realistic. There is more to the end of the armor then just the advent of firearms. A big portion of the reason armor stopped being used was economic. My firearms attack AC just like everything else. In fact, they are very similar to crossbows. I pretty much take the crossbow stats, increase the damage die by one step, but make them take a move action reload. I am planning to make a couple other changes in order to fit the flavor of the setting... but these are not changes to firearms specifically. For example, I plan to remove the martial ranged weapon proficiency from rangers and fighters. Instead, the two of them get the "swift reload" class feature which lets those two classes reload firearms as a swift action. Bows will still exist, but characters must take the martial ranged weapon proficiency in order to learn their use. As for the bonus to AC, I am going to go with a name more synonymous with "toughness" then with battle smarts. The proficiency requirements for the feat will be a Strength and Constitution of 15. Or else, a Strength and Constitutions of 13 and the toughness feat (though clerics, fighters, warlords, and paladins will not need to meet the requirements to gain the bonus).
#19 Cyber-Dave Dec 01, 2008 20:26:36	So, for those interested, I did end up just going with a simple flavor renaming. Specifically: Cloth=Cloth Leather=Heavy Cloth Hide=Padded Cloth Chaimail=Brigandine breastplate Scale=Breastplate Plate=Heavy Cavalry
#20 savevsstupidity Dec 02, 2008 13:51:04	Is this supposed to be a "realistic" renaissance world? Cause unfortunately, the reality is that fighting without armour results in lots of dead people. How will you hold down mortality rates?
#21 Cyber-Dave Dec 02, 2008 14:27:06	Is this supposed to be a "realistic" renaissance world? Cause unfortunately, the reality is that fighting without armour results in lots of dead people. How will you hold down mortality rates? Its not supposed to be any more or less "realistic" then any medieval fantasy world (or narrative), or any narrative such as Pirates of the Caribbean. Also, you are aware that the reality of our world is that during the renaissance, in part due to economics, and in part due to the advent of firearms and their tactical effect on combat, armor stopped being used... right?
#22 the_storyteller Dec 02, 2008 18:10:49	Simple -> The preview druid can use constitution in his AC when wearing light armor, and probably we will see a monk do the same with wisdom, so... Try this: Constitution and Wisdom can be added to AC with light armor the same way intelligence and dexterity. Light and heavy shields become only some sort of cloth reinforcements over the light armor weak points, like leather straps over the off-hand arm (of course, its only possible to wield 1H weapons with this reinforcement). Paladins should gain +1 AC bonus as class bonus to maintaining him with better AC than the fighter. Maybe the Hide armor (renamed to breastplate) should provide +4 AC with -2 check penalty. The weak point of this module is the inspiring warlord and the chaladin: both use str and cha leaving any other stat as tertiary. Maybe Charisma should be added to AC too in form of pure luck or maybe constant feints that difficult the enemy's attacks. Any suggestions?
#23 Cyber-Dave Dec 02, 2008 21:12:42	Doesn't really make a difference. I already dropped the ruleset... I went in favor a renaming rule set (which means no new rules, just new fluff). Cloth=Cloth Leather=Heavy Cloth Hide=Padded Cloth Chaimail=Brigandine vest Scale=Breastplate Plate=Heavy cavalry plate Although, the Constitution instead of Dex method is pretty neat.
#24 savevsstupidity Dec 03, 2008 12:54:07	It Also, you are aware that the reality of our world is that during the renaissance, in part due to economics, and in part due to the advent of firearms and their tactical effect on combat, armor stopped being used... right? Yes, because it didn't stop people from getting killed any more. They stopped using armour because THEY DIED whether they were wearing it or not. Warfare through history has steadily become more deadly. Just wondering if you were going to do something about that.
#25 Cyber-Dave Dec 03, 2008 15:31:48	Yes, because it didn't stop people from getting killed any more. They stopped using armour because THEY DIED whether they were wearing it or not. Warfare through history has steadily become more deadly. Just wondering if you were going to do something about that. Honestly, doing some research into why armor stopped being used, I'm not certain its because they died whether they were wearing it or not. I have this sneaking suspicion that the main reason armor disappeared was because of economic reasons. With armies being paid for by the government, the government didn't want to pay for armor... Either way, I have no intention of doing anything to make combat more or less deadly. D&D is not a simulator. The truth is, ALL war is very deadly. Getting swords swung at you is less then ideal for your safety as well. It is quite easy to die to a single sword swing. But the game doesn't work this way. Why? Because its a heroic fantasy. The Renaissance aspect of the game I plan to run is aesthetic. From a narrative point of view, its still a heroic fantasy. So, just like Captain Jack Sparrow or Captain Barbosa didn't roll over and die every time someone fired a gun, I don't plan to have my players (or many of my NPC's) do so either. Again, the game is not designed to simulate, and I have no desire to make any changes designed to do so. The changes I wanted to make were purely aesthetic. They were designed only to capture the aesthetic flavor/feel of the time period. It is largely for this reason that I ended up tossing out any ideas I had on changing the rules, and instead just re-skinned armor with different names.
#26 legendaryteeth Dec 05, 2008 23:28:47	I see you've already decided on an option, and it's quite similar to my suggestion, but if you or anyone else is unsatisfied you might try this: Just get rid of all but two. Clothes or armour. Replaces the light armour feats with a cumulative +1 bonus to AC while wearing no armour (call it dodge or something), and replace the heavy feats with "improved armour proficiency" that gives you +1 armour for each one. Basically you make it so they're in fact almost exactly the same as it was before, only the flavour is slightly different. But the rules stay the same. The only difference here is that with no armour they would always have it, you can't take it away if they're in prison or something. But that would just be another small benefit to encourage players to wear no armour, which is what you want.
#27 scarvexx Dec 06, 2008 7:47:48	I am planning on running a Renaissance fantasy setting. Something akin to Pirates of the Caribbean. The plan is to both include firearms, and largely remove the need for builds that require armor. Including firearms is easy. I already have a balanced ruleset for firearms. What I don't know what to do about is the armor. Armor rules are very integrated into the current D&D system. I don't want to totally remove the benefits granted by armor. I mean, cavalry used armor right up until right before WW I, and so did nobles and some military commanders. Breastplate and helm armor was pretty common. But, by the same token, I can't have every non-arcane class running around in armor or it will really undo the flavor of the setting. I need EVERY class to have an equally viable no armor build... and right now they don't. Suggestions on how to largely remove armor from the game, without totally removing the benefit of armor, or totally screwing over class balance, would be much appreciated. thears no need for armor becase a bullet goes through most real armor thay had none back thean for a reason; it was useless try yelling duck instead
#28 Xeviat-DM Dec 13, 2008 1:30:35	Bullets are difficult to dodge too; it's not like you can watch the path, you have to watch the barrel and the trigger finger. I haven't read through the whole thread, so forgive me if this has been stated already. If this is for 4th Edition, the Druid has already set a (beautiful) precidence; the Wis/Con druid build gets to add Constitution to AC instead of Dex/Int while wearing no/light armor. If you gave this to the fighter, then blade fighters get their AC from Dex while hammer/axe fighters get their AC from Con. You explain it as the natural toughness of having a high con. Attacks hit them, but they shake it off. The only characters this hurts are Clerics, Paladins, and Charisma Warlords. Clerics can be tweeked to use light armor (I'm working on it now, basically there's a Wis/Int build and a Wis/Charisma build that gets Charisma to AC as a divine shield). Charisma to AC could work for Paladins as well. Warlords ... not so much. Another solution would be to remove AC entirely. The line between Reflex and AC blur when AC becomes mostly dodging. Then, make sure to balance attacks between Fort, Ref, and Will, and you'll have no problem without armor. Some people will have low Reflex, others will have low Fort. Good luck.