New defense bonus and armor system set up. PLEASE COMMENT

[Sundragon2012]

Please note that this is for settings with 1/2 or less the standard magical items and armor that the core rules suggest.

Enjoy

Defense Rules:

Class based defense bonus

Level / Defense Bonus

1st / +2
2nd / +2
3rd / +3
4th / +3
5th / +3
6th / +4
7th / +4
8th / +4
9th / +5
10th / +5
11th / +5
12th / +6
13th / +6
14th / +6
15th / +7
16th / +7
17th / +7
18th / +8
19th / +8
20th / +8

*All classes receive the same level based defense bonus.
*All bonuses stack with armor.

The Situational Modifiers

Not Wearing Armor

Normal

10 + Dexterity modifier (if any) + class defense bonus + equipment bonus (any magical items carried) + size modifier = AC

Flanked

10 + Dexterity modifier (if any) + class defense bonus + equipment bonus (any magical items carried) + size modifier = AC

Flatfooted

10 + equipment bonus (any magical items carried) + size modifier = AC


Wearing Armor

Normal

10 + Dexterity modifier (if any) + class defense bonus + equipment bonus (any armor or shield worn) + size modifier = AC

Flanked

10 + Dexterity modifier (if any) + class defense bonus + equipment bonus (any armor but no shield bonus) + size modifier = AC

Flatfooted

10 + equipment bonus (any armor but no shield bonus) + size modifier = AC


Size Defensive Adjustment

Though large creatures are easier to hit, they are often far more difficult to damage due to the very size that makes them such large targets. For example, thought a dragon is easier to hit, it is harder to actually damage. For example, an archer’s arrows could, by the die roll, miss the dragon while the beast would literally be bristling with arrows that didn’t really do any damage.

The following size modifiers to defense replace the Size Modifier Table on p.134 in the PHB. All modifiers are added to or subtracted from the creature or character’s AC as appropriate.

Size Defense Modifiers

Size / Size Modifier
Colossal / +5
Gargantuan / +3
Huge / +1
Large / -1
Medium / 0
Small / -1
Tiny / +1
Diminutive / +3
Fine / +5

The seemingly out of place modifiers for both small and large creatures reflects that these creatures are not either large or small enough to benefit from being very big or very small. In fact, the grey area in which they reside carries with it a vulnerability that creatures who are either larger or smaller do not possess.

New and improved.

Any thoughts?

 

[Sundragon2012]

Bump

I look forward to the insightful comments of expereinced achdungeonmasters like myself.



Chris

 

[Felnar]

could you call the 'class defense bonus' a dodge bonus?
i've always had a problem with AC not scaling along with BAB

how is the 'size defense modifer' different from natural armor bonus?
could you just give out negative 'natural armor "bonuses"' to smaller/frailer creatures

 

[Sundragon2012]

could you call the 'class defense bonus' a dodge bonus?
i've always had a problem with AC not scaling along with BAB

how is the 'size defense modifer' different from natural armor bonus?
could you just give out negative 'natural armor "bonuses"' to smaller/frailer creatures

I suppose you could call it a dodge bonus but I think it reflects more than an actual dodge, it, like hit points, is a bit symbolic and reflects improved combat skills, quickness, intuition, luck, the favor of the gods, etc. But dodge would suffice in a pinch as long as this was understood.

It is quite different actually becuase the size defense modifier actually makes larger creatures easier to hit justifying this by saying that "well they're big as hell, they would be easier to hit."

This is only partially true because being easier to hit in no way reflects being easier to damage once a certain size is reached. An ogre being large does present a larger and perhaps somewhat more vulnerable target, but a colossal great wyrm would be repeatedly "hit" by that little needle called a greatsword before being injured. This Colossal creatures like this dragon receive a defensive size bonus of +5 which is a benefit to its armor class as opposed to its size being a negative as is in the core rules.

In my system there are benefits to being very large and very small but weaknesses to being somewhere in the middle.

IN the setting I am crafting the PC and NPC will have access to only 1/2 of the magical gear and equipment. Mages, clerics, sorcerers and any other core primary spellcaster class need prerequisites scores of 12-13 to qualify. PCs will of course have these numbers in at least the primary stat with any reasonable rolling or point buy system. However, these methods, along with a few others I am implementing, will remove about 50%-60% of spellcasters from the world. The great majority will be of low to middling power while the great will be truly great.


Chris

 

[Felnar]

i suggested using 'dodge bonus' because it is an existing game mechanic that covers what you want it to do (look up 'dodge bonus' in the PHB glossary)

i'm still not sure why the existing game mechanic of natural armor bonus doesnt already cover what you're trying to accomplish for the dragon

 

[SBMC]

Doesn't this unbalance the whole AC/BAB mechanic?

Combat Expertise exists for a reason; fighting defensively etc.; the same

The fighter and the like have the best BAB out there - since they can hit things better than anyone else. A Wizard reads books for the firt two or so decades of his life; why should he be able to hit squat?

When you are fighting like NPC's/Monsters you should cetainly be vunerable - as they are to you. When fighting commoners; of coure not.

Think about it. Everyone starts at AC 10. A 1st level fighter gets a +1 to BAB, a commoner gets zip. A rare few non PC class members ever get beyond 1st level - but the PC's do. Thus at 10th level that fighter rolls anything (except a 1) and hits anything that is unarmored with average dex - ANYTHING. Prior to 10th level he has a 95%, 90%, 85%, etc. (1 point of BAB = 5%) chance of hitting anything is unarmored with average dex (note: this is without any enhancments). A commoner will at best have a 50% chance of doing the same (if he rolls a 10 or above only). Think about that for a minute. Then think about the fact that you are going to allow more AC to be added? For what?

IMO The base mechanic was designed around "being hit" then "protection from being hit". That is why BAB is such an important factor and why Armor is such an important class feat but is secondary to BAB still (in those days few knew how to wear armor anyways).

Now I agree there should be some way to increase ones AC with non magical means as one advances in level - but wait...there is! every 4 levels you get to add +1 to an ability score; make in Dexterity!

If that does not float ones boat then I would say make it a feat; a feat with Dodge and/or Combat Expertise as the prereq.

Dodge (we all know that one)
Improved Dodge: You get a +1 dodge bonus to AC all the time
Greater Dodge: You get a +2 (total) dodge bonus to AC all the time
Supreme Dodge: You get a +4 (total) dodge bonus to AC all the time
Defensive Expert: Add +1 to your dodge bonus for every 5 points of BAB you have.

I don't know if these already exist in some form or another; but to change core mechanics for "free" is really unbalancing since fundamentally the DnD Core mechanics are quite sound.

Just because a wizard 15th level is no reason to allow him to get a better defense mechanism for free. That is why he has magic; and more money than most folks; to do that for him. He is "uber" smart (18+ INT I am sure); why should he get more AC for nothign on top of that; should the fighter now now get a +8 to INT at 20th level? Or be able to cast spells in armor with a 10-12 INT score?

Those monsters with high AC's have a reason for it - Dragons (as mentioned above by someone) are the most powerful beings in the world; why should they be easier to hit or why should a PC get that same benefit? A human is not a dragon - the games name is "Dungeons & Dragons". Look at the Epic feats - there are more AC enhancing things in there as well (I have not looked at them for ages; perhaps my suggestions above are in there as well)

Thee types of ideas upset the balance of things. Unless of course one allows all creatures in the world to have it; but then it cancels itself out - so why bother?

 

[Felnar]

SBMC - he's trying to make it so when a level 20 fighter fights another level 20 fighter, they wont both have a 95% chance to hit. he wants experienced/skilled fighters to be better at defending themselves than a novice fighter is.

 

[genshou]

SBMC, while you obviously cannot appreciate the boon that level-based AC can be, believe me when I say that–when implemented correctly–it only serves to enhance gameplay. I've seen it go the other way, too. Sometimes a rules change is best left untouched, at least until one can find the right way to go about tweaking it. Have you ever played under a variant like this? If so, I'm guessing it didn't go well?

Felnar, you are right about natural armor bonuses. A Colossal dragon has a massive (-8) size penalty to AC because it is easy to have an attack strike the body of the dragon, and as a larger target it's much more vulnerable to touch attacks. However, as pointed out by Sundragon2012, many "missed" arrows fired at a dragon simply bounce off the dragon's scales, or–even more fun–get stuck an inch or two inside a scale, making the dragon a veritable pincushion without causing any actual damage. And any arrows which do go far enough in do little damage compared to the dragon's total hit points. Basically, if a touch attack roll would have succeeded, but a regular attack fails, the weapon strikes the target but fails to penetrate armor, natural armor, etc. So, while it's easy to hit the dragon (size penalty), those scales are so hard even high-level characters have a tough time getting an effective hit past them (overwhelmingly high natural armor bonus).

There's no need to change the size rules as presented, just a need to better understand how the system works.

As for your defense-based AC rules, they lack in variety between classes, which could be a good thing or a bad thing. Which it is really depends on the group and setting.

 

[SBMC]

SBMC - he's trying to make it so when a level 20 fighter fights another level 20 fighter, they wont both have a 95% chance to hit. he wants experienced/skilled fighters to be better at defending themselves than a novice fighter is.

But ya see - two 20th level fighters should be able to smack each other around but good. Their feat selection will determine how well this happens: such as offensive versus defensive feats. Chance is a big part of that. The game is not designed around having two equals battle it out all the time.

If Superman fought an exact clone of himself within a defined game (like DnD) strategy and chance would decide the winner not mechanics.

Just as multiple opponents equalling the appropriate EL equal any one EL of that same level; but the fighter taking on any one of those multiples - he wins most of the time. They gang up on him; they have a lower BAB and he has a higher AC (by buying +5 items and armor with a 20th level PC's wealth) and more HP - they miss most of the time and he hits most of the time and when he gets hit it means less to him than to them since he has more HP to start with.

A Dragon is mighty powerful - so multiple PC's fight one of them; same logic in reverse of the above.

The idea in the game is that those like the fighter have the opportunity to take feats like dodge or combat expertise to better defend themselves and they have enough BAB to do that (spending it on CE that is).

Wizards and the like have better things to do with their feats; though they could take Fighter Bonus Feats if they want; but then their chosen class would suffer the cost of that versus their peers.

IMO I would sooner endorse giving out bonuses for abilit scoes based upon classes chosen than this:

Fighter: add +2 to STR, DEX or CON
Wizard: add +2 to INT
Sorceror: add +2 to CHA
Paladin: add +2 to CHA, STR, DEX or CON
Rouge: add +2 to DEX or INT
Barbarian: add +2 to STR or CON
Bard: add +2 to CHA
Druid: add +2 to CHA or WIS
Cleric: add +2 to WIS
Ranger: add +2 to WIS or DEX

The Fighter, after generating everthing could take DEX giving him a +1 to AC.

I suppose another alternative might be to allow the "defensive" actions to go against ones BAB directly to a max of the BAB. CE would still be there as it has the 1 for 1 advantage; the actions would still be the 2 for 1.

Anyway: Point being - the mechanics are in place this gives certain classes major advantages that the should not have.

 

[SBMC]

SBMC, while you obviously cannot appreciate the boon that level-based AC can be, believe me when I say that–when implemented correctly–it only serves to enhance gameplay. I've seen it go the other way, too. Sometimes a rules change is best left untouched, at least until one can find the right way to go about tweaking it. Have you ever played under a variant like this? If so, I'm guessing it didn't go well?

Not well at all. It turned into a munchkin frenzy.

As for your defense-based AC rules, they lack in variety between classes, which could be a good thing or a bad thing. Which it is really depends on the group and setting.

Now this is a possibility; if you want to use it then perhaps something like BAB-10 or 15 is the dodge bonus one gets. That way martial classes still benefit at 11th or 16th level but those non martial classes that, unless they have a high Dex (at the expense of something else when the PC was ceated) don't get free AC they should not have.

Another alternative might be BAB/2; round down. Or perhaps BAB/2 - dex modifier; round down.

Here DEX seems to be doubled up; the AC bonus has to be something and it is eluded to is "experience" in fighting - which is "dodging", "avoiding" or "blocking" blows; dexerity related things.