AC Increase As You Level

[Thondor]

With the AC reduction I have I don't find that things are that substantially harder to hit. Randomness in combat is a little increased. You don't have to wait for the 18 now the 10 might be enough your opponent can roll low and on the parry and with all AC's decreased by -5. That being said I think my AC reduction might go to far. I think the players will really enjoy the opposed rolls, makes the combat more intense but I have yet to game test it with a group. The suspense should make up for the slight lengthening of combat. I'm still trying to refine things running short combats . . . comments would be appreciated.
http://www.enworld.org/showthread.php?t=133359

I like your system but I very strongly feel that you shouldn't hinder Wizard/Sorc AC any more then you have too, as the ones who can't wear armor they can't afford to be worse at dodging/parrying then the medium BAB characters. Sorc/wiz get a max of +2 at level 16 while mediun BAB's get a max of +3 also at 16level.
I urge you in the name of arcane spellcaster's everywhere.

 

[Kel]

Technically I'm not hurting arcane spellcasters so much as just not helping them as much as other classes. They wouldn't be worse off in any absolute sense, only in a relative sense.

Also, if I adopted this rule, I would probably also adopt the spell point system from UA, which is a big boon to spellcasters in my opinion. (Thus, the boost to warrior AC would help leverage the boost I give to spellcasters by using a spell point system.)

 

[Altamont Ravenard]

Aren't HPs there to represent the fact that a character is harder to beat up?

AR

 

[Thondor]

Yes hit points are there to represent the fact that you get harder to hit as effectively as you gain Experience, meaning you roll with the blow so as to take less damage (relatively). Anyone who thinks about this should wonder why you don't actually get harder to hit.

This helps remedy a very serious balance problem that so see or believe is there. Not only that it makes logical sense. (Gasp!)

Kel I would suggest allowing a feat that makes any non-warrior class gain warrior class AC bonus.
And I still urge you in the name of Arcane spellcasters everywhere, I imagine the spell point system from Unearthed Arcana(?) helps out divine casters too. Why should a cleric be better at dodging/parrying then a Wiz/sorc?

 

[Storyteller01]

Why should a cleric be better at dodging/parrying then a Wiz/sorc?

Because they train regularly in combat (hence the armor, improved weapons selection, and greater BaB)? Learning to move is also part of combat training.

I would suggest createing the feat so that it improves the AC progression by one level. If it went straight to warrior, you may ruin one of the major balancing issues in the game: The person summoning meteors out of nowhere is a sitting duck if you get close enough.

My two bits...

 

[Thondor]

Because they train regularly in combat (hence the armor, improved weapons selection, and greater BaB)? Learning to move is also part of combat training.
QUOTE]

Precisely my point when they do train in combat they don't spend any time on armor a decent weapon selection or a significant BAB, what they are therefore most likely to spend their time on is how to defend themeselves. I really feel that giving clerics and such the edge here would truly be unbalancing. I know there's someone who agrees with me please speak up!

 

[Storyteller01]

Precisely my point when they do train in combat they don't spend any time on armor a decent weapon selection or a significant BAB, what they are therefore most likely to spend their time on is how to defend themeselves. I really feel that giving clerics and such the edge here would truly be unbalancing. I know there's someone who agrees with me please speak up!

I guess it would depend on your camapign. I've always believed that a wizard/sorcerer has such a low BaB because they spend little to no time training in combat.

Best examples I can give are Marine Infantry, Navy Corps Man (Field Medic, works within Marine Corps units), and a Naval nuclear engineer. All were trained in combat during their time in boot camp or Officers Candidate School. After five to six years in their respective fields, who would be better in combat? Who's skill would be average? Who would be proficient with a pistol (a simple weapon) and not much else?

How well could any of them dodge an attack?

Might not be fair, but that's usually how it goes.

 

[DreamChaser]

Yes hit points are there to represent the fact that you get harder to hit as effectively as you gain Experience, meaning you roll with the blow so as to take less damage (relatively). Anyone who thinks about this should wonder why you don't actually get harder to hit.

This helps remedy a very serious balance problem that so see or believe is there. Not only that it makes logical sense. (Gasp!)

yes but when added to a system that isn't based on logical sense but upon abstraction, logical sense is often the most inappropriate thing

HP increase in D&D because a character has become harder to damage not because he can take more damage. The character dodges better, rolls with blows better, falls better, etc. This is an abstraction.

Not to say that an experience bonus to AC doesn't make some sense but really it should be a dodge bonus; after all what else could it be? If it was a reflection of them becoming harder to damage then it steps on the toes of HP increases.

Just my thoughts. Of course, I use the Defense bonus from UA so *shrug* this is a bit irrelevant for me.

DC