Defense Bonus Based on Base Attack Bonus?

[cignus_pfaccari]

I just got to thinking about this.

Obviously, classes that are good at fighting should be better at avoiding blows, but that's not really the case right now, is it? After all, they're not just busy taking hits on their armor, and ducking and weaving, but they're also parrying and counterattacking and whatnot. Also, say, they'd better know WHEN to parry or duck and weave...when to zig and when to zag. But there's no way to translate that fighting skill into not being hit (without using Expertise, which is a case by case basis, and represents the character being extra-cautious).

So, I figured...hey, maybe it'd work if you used the classes' base attack bonus to determine the defense bonus. It wouldn't stack with armor, of course (that could get surreally disturbing), nor would it stack with the armor bonus provided by Bracers etc. of Armor. However, you could still wear armor if you wanted the properties on it. I'm a bit torn on whether or not it should apply to Touch AC...I'm thinking not, since otherwise nobody would ever be touched again.

So, then I ran a few numbers. A Fighter 20 with Dex 14 with Mithral Full Plate +5, Large Shield +5, Amulet of Natural Armor +5, and Ring of Protection +5, would have an AC of 42.

Using the BAB = Defense bonus option outlined above, that Fighter-20 would have an AC of...42 (drop the armor and shield, which add up to +20, and keep the other items).

So...what do people think? Has this been discussed before and had a good reason to be shot down? Is there something that I'm obviously forgetting?

I'm not going to playtest this any time soon, as I'm not a DM. However, if people want to try, I'd like to hear what y'all think.

Brad

 

[ElectricDragon]

With monks and/or the Vow of Poverty, this system is broken. It seems to work easily for everything else, being no more powerful.

The problem I have is that armor becomes next to useless. When the party is awakened in the middle of the night and the fighter has only time to sling his shield before combat starts and thus his AC is lower than normal, normal animals like wolves can become an actual threat. With this system, the fighter foregoes the shield to get his full bonus and the wolves are creamed easily without damaging the fighter at all; because his AC is just as good with or without the armor.

The rules for how long it takes to put on armor of various kinds will be longer needed. If time isn't available, just charge in the loincloth and forget the padding.

Anyway, that's how I see it.

Ciao
Dave

 

[Aust Diamondew]

An unarmored fighter shouldn't be as good at defending himself as a fully armored one. I'd make the AC bonus half the fighters BAB.

 

[Planesdragon]

So...what do people think? Has this been discussed before and had a good reason to be shot down? Is there something that I'm obviously forgetting?

Armor works. It's simply bad design to create a game where wearing a full suit of plate will have a negative or zero effect on the deadliness of a sword swinging at you.

But, if that's not gonig to convince you and you're really set on the hollywood-style "armor as costume" feel, you should consider what to do about all that extra wealth. 55,000 gp is more than enough for a Ring of Protection +5, which *will* work agaisnt touch attacks and push that 20th level fighter all the way up to AC 47.

Or, to be worse yet, gloves of Dexterity +6 and a Ring of Protection +3. AC 48, *and* +3 to reflex saving throws and ranged attacks.


A better way to reflect defensive martial prowess, IMO, is a low baseline defense bonus (that applies to everything -- thus, 'baseline') and a "block" attack action.

 

[Aust Diamondew]

We already have a 'block attack action' it's called Full Defense Action

 

[Viktyr Gehrig]

If you're going to use Class Defense Bonus, you really ought to switch over to some Armor as DR variant.

As for Class Defense Bonus itself, I really think the highest value ought to be the same as Good progression in a saving throw-- +2 at 1st level, up to +12 at 20th. AC isn't supposed to keep pace with BAB.

 

[kyberus]

I do agree that while the armor system is balanced, it really doesn't make sense, personal defence capacities do not progress at all unless one takes one of a few feats, is a monk, or gains extra dexterity, while attack capacities increase at a steady rate. Defensive capacities become dependant on either A: high hit points, or B: magical items (ussually b, right?). I don't like this, since a human just can't take very many hits that get through their armor, but I digress.
Here's a suggestion for
I would recommend only 3/5 of base attack bonus for defence bonus, and to keep
shield bonus to AC. Monks would loose their normal armor progression from class levels, and instead gain a fighter's defence progression.

Instead, however, you could change armor like so:
instead of granting AC, armor grants DR equal to the AC it would normally grant. Remove the "maximum dexterity bonus" from the armor, why? because this was added to make sure AC+dex always equalled rougly 9, keeps everything balanced, but no longer relevant since armor no longer adds ac. Instead, apply the armor check penalty on the armor directly against the dexterity bonus of the user (allowing negative values). perhaps the armor and check penalties would have to be balanced, (probably some of the heavier check penalties decreased), and power attack w/ two handers decreased to 1.5 * penalty, rather than 2*. Also, as was suggested on another thread, warhammers and mauls should do less damage (d6 / d8), but perhaps ignore 1/2 of the DR from armor? Yes, I am aware this makes it better for a knight to go fight a truely titanic foe without armor, simply because the DR is so low, but that makes sense. Against swords, plate is nasty, but against a club larger than your entire body? probably better to get out of the way.

Really, that may be quite stupid... and the problem with adding defence progressions is in part that it unbalances touch attacks, so you'd have to NOT apply them against touch attacks (which I confess doesn't make sense) unless you wanted to go through and re-balance touch spells. Wouldn't you?

As for blocking defence bonus would cover all components of self defence, as AC does now in an odd maner, to keep the rolling simpler, no?

_______________________________________________________________________
I'm not a COMPLETE idiot, I swear.

 

[Planesdragon]

We already have a 'block attack action' it's called Full Defense Action

Full Defense is a full-round action (i.e., not an attack action) and it never increases as you go up in level.

A "block" attack action -- i.e, spend an attack action to gain a bonus to your AC against a single attack equal to your BaB -- works and feels differently, and nicely shows the result of increased skill on attack rolls.

 

[ElectricDragon]

Full Defense is a standard action. (no attacks-including AoO, +4AC)

Fighting Defensively, though, is either a standard action or a full round action. (-4 to your attack or -4 to all your attacks to gain +2 AC)

The Tumble skill gives increased AC bonuses to any of these actions. (Full Defense grants +6 AC; and Fighting Defensively grants +3 AC)

Then there is Combat Expertise (-1 to -5 to attacks to gain +1 to +5 AC). Combat Expertise cannot be combined with Full Defense.

Ciao
Dave

 

[Aus_Snow]

If you're going to use Class Defense Bonus, you really ought to switch over to some Armor as DR variant.

That's what I've done. But I also have been using Defence Bonus = BAB, as per the first post, for a fair time now.

And, with Armour as DR, I've found it works great. Oh, and players seem to like it too (for all I care when I'm the DM).

Not a hitch with these fairly simple rules alterations, but then I haven't had any monk characters flying around - so far, and I don't give out many magic items at all. These could be contributive factors, I suppose.