AC per level

[genshou]

A character that doesn't take expertise is a warrior that has not devoted the time and commitment necessary to gain the ability to fight at higher levels unarmoured. The hulking European knight that fights ever battle in heavy armout really isn't going to know how to whip his swords around all that defensively, especially if he's used to using a shield. Unarmoured defence takes a lot of time and effort to get good at, and while you'r stuck in a tower with your face buried in a book, on your knees begging some diety to give you something shiney, frollicking through the medows as a badger, or investigating the mechanics of the next uber trap you're not developing that level of martial skill.

Well, as someone with actual sword-fighting experience (without the use of armor), I must say that I have learned how to better defend myself at the same time as I have learned to increase my offensive capability. It's not like I have to lower my offensive capability just to defend myself better than the first time I picked up a sword. That's kinda ridiculous thinking. I can parry a heckuvalot better than I could at first, and still fully use my offensive techniques.

One problem with defense bonus is it stacking with already existing AC bonuses. That's why the following concept from Wheel of Time was implemented:

You use either your class defense bonus or your armor and/or shield bonus to AC, not both. You use whichever is higher.

Armsmen get armor compatibility, a class ability that allows them to use both class defense and armor/shield simultaneously. This was designed without magic armor in mind, so there may be some concern there. I just make the class defense a lower number (something like 1/4 or 1/5 BaB or 1/2 base Reflex) in campaigns where armor plays a heavier role in defense.

 

[widderslainte]

Want a really simple solution? Apply the Reflex Save Bonus instead of the Dex Bonus to your AC. Make Expertise available to everyone.

 

[I'm A Banana]

It's not that hard to balance.

Every time your PC's get an AC bonus, just remove a bit of treasure from the equasion equal to the +x armor they would be buying for it instead.

So when your fighter gets that extra +6 at 6th level, just don't give him that extra 1000 gp in booty.

After all, if they're getting a 'free' AC boost, they won't need the gp to buy fancy schmancy armor anymore. And then you're balanced perfectly.

 

[Xavim]

Well, as someone with actual sword-fighting experience (without the use of armor), I must say that I have learned how to better defend myself at the same time as I have learned to increase my offensive capability. It's not like I have to lower my offensive capability just to defend myself better than the first time I picked up a sword. That's kinda ridiculous thinking. I can parry a heckuvalot better than I could at first, and still fully use my offensive techniques.

You've actually proved my point in that you're training specifically in fighting without armour. If you were wearing a suit of full plate you wouldn't be nearly as concerned with getting grazed, or lightly slashed since it takes a LOT of force to get through plate armour (that's why the greatsword exists after all). Now if you have spent your whole life training with a shield you'd be used to having something to block with and without it you'd have to alter your style. Sure you would be better at defending yourself than someone without any martial experience at all, but you wouldn't be as good as someone who trains specifically in an armour reduced scenario.

As for fully using your offensive techniques, you know as well as I do that whenever you attack you leave yourself open for a counter. Thus, most people that are worried about getting skwerered (sp?) with one false move tends to play more defensively. Letting their opponent make the first move and reacting to his vulnerablitiy. I've been studying martial arts for approx. 11-12 years so I'm in the same boat as you are. (just so you don't think I'm some guy that's speaking out of his @$$ )

And as a swordsman gets more experienced he learns better defensive manuevers to aid him in combat, and this knowledge and ability is already reflected in the feats a warrior can take. Such as Expertise, Defensive strike(OA), Karmic Strike, and Grappling Block, Improved Disarm and many many more. The point is, if you don't devote the time (i.e. spend the feats) you won't know the manuvers.

Sure you'll be a little better off with more fighting experience, but that is reflected in a characters HP. Given the amount of defensive feats available to a character, I don't see the need for any level based AC.

 

[kenjib]

True, but you will notice in d20 Modern that it is not the Strong hero or the Tough hero who gets the highest Defense bonus. It is the Fast hero. So it's not always related to base attack. Some classes are just able to dodge a lot better. To me, that makes sense for Monks and Rogues, both of whom rely on mobility. Whereas the fighter relies on HP and armor to avoid death.

Then IMO d20 Modern got it wrong too. Your defense is tied to your offense. It's how you use your weapon in many ways, including intimidating your opponent, keeping on the offensive, defining the range between you and your opponent when not using the same length of weapon, and the effectiveness of various techniques and maneuvers you know.

It's action-reaction (something which D&D ignores). Your opponent strikes in a certain way, and your defense to that allows you to counter in a different way or keeps you on the defensive, etc. etc. This is all about combat knowledge. The reflex save is used for physically dodging/avoiding things happening around you and is fundamentally different in nature. Part of making a skilled attack is inherently defensive in nature because you are thinking ahead several moves, like in a game of chess (if I attack this way, I might be open to a counter here, which I can counter this way, etc.).

If you take two people, one with expert swordsman ability, and the other with high reflexes but little sword ability, the second guy will get skewered, gutted, beheaded, and otherwise dismembered because he has no idea what he's doing - regardless of how good he is at jumping out of the way when a boulder comes crashing down onto the road.

Here is your own quote in a later post, although please feel free to clarify if you think I am taking it out of context:

Well, as someone with actual sword-fighting experience (without the use of armor), I must say that I have learned how to better defend myself at the same time as I have learned to increase my offensive capability.

The Wheel of Time technique of class bonus or armor bonus only doesn't make any sense either. Realistically, armor is pretty much always better than no armor, no matter who you are. What the Wheel of Time system does is not realistic, it is cinematic and geared toward specific results - i.e. reducing the historical importance of armor to achieve cinematic qualities. This is fine, but if this is what you want then I think it needs to be clarified, because the implied desire of this thread seems to me to be realism.

btw - I think S'mon's idea has merit too.

 

[S'mon]

btw - I think S'mon's idea has merit too.

Thanks - I used "attack rolls can be used to parry" for a Highlander AD&D game I ran, and it worked very well to simulate the Highlander-type duel between Immortals. Most games that aim for any kind of realism use parry rolls, of which the character has a limited number per round - eg in Runequest you get an attack roll, a parry roll, then hits are compared to arnour to determine damage. If you have lots of enemy attacking you at once you better have good armour!

In D&D you could easily say that characters armed with weapons capable of parrying opponents' blows can give up 1 of their next attacks (or lose a standard action, if they don't full attack next round), to attempt to parry an incoming attack. For gaming reasons it's prob best the attacker roll is made first before the defender decides whether to attempt to parry it, not entirely realistic but giving up an attack is a big deal and the defender might reasonably tell whether an incoming attack was worth straining to deflect.

This would work especially well for duelist-type PCs, who tend to have high attack bonuses but relatively poor AC.

 

[genshou]

You've actually proved my point in that you're training specifically in fighting without armour.

Well, at least I can prove SOMEBODY's point

If you were wearing a suit of full plate you wouldn't be nearly as concerned with getting grazed, or lightly slashed since it takes a LOT of force to get through plate armour (that's why the greatsword exists after all). Now if you have spent your whole life training with a shield you'd be used to having something to block with and without it you'd have to alter your style. Sure you would be better at defending yourself than someone without any martial experience at all, but you wouldn't be as good as someone who trains specifically in an armour reduced scenario.

You're absolutely right. Which is why class defense to AC is not appropriate for all campaigns. Which is why it is a house rule

As for fully using your offensive techniques, you know as well as I do that whenever you attack you leave yourself open for a counter. Thus, most people that are worried about getting skwerered (sp?) with one false move tends to play more defensively. Letting their opponent make the first move and reacting to his vulnerablitiy. I've been studying martial arts for approx. 11-12 years so I'm in the same boat as you are. (just so you don't think I'm some guy that's speaking out of his @$$ )

Yeah, you're right about this, too. I guess what I said didn't quite come out right. What I meant was that I am better at offensive techniques, but while attacking I am still better at parrying than I was the first time I picked up a sword.

And as a swordsman gets more experienced he learns better defensive manuevers to aid him in combat, and this knowledge and ability is already reflected in the feats a warrior can take. Such as Expertise, Defensive strike(OA), Karmic Strike, and Grappling Block, Improved Disarm and many many more. The point is, if you don't devote the time (i.e. spend the feats) you won't know the manuvers.

Maybe... but that's only one way to look at it. All of those feats can be used by someone wearing armor, or someone wearing none. I'm talking about actual benefit for someone not wearing any armor; something that makes up for it.

Sure you'll be a little better off with more fighting experience, but that is reflected in a characters HP. Given the amount of defensive feats available to a character, I don't see the need for any level based AC.

I do. But that's just because of my playing experience, and the number of Kurasawa films I've seen. Any of the truly skilled samurai in his movies fight unarmored. And they're fine (most of the time). And don't anybody tell me Kurasawa films aren't realistic or I'll hunt you down and backhand you for your stupidity. They are the most realistic feudal movies out there. As for your argument about HP:

Characters have the same HP whether or not they wear armor. So that's not quite it.

 

[genshou]

Then IMO d20 Modern got it wrong too. Your defense is tied to your offense. It's how you use your weapon in many ways, including intimidating your opponent, keeping on the offensive, defining the range between you and your opponent when not using the same length of weapon, and the effectiveness of various techniques and maneuvers you know.

Not necessarily true. Some fighting styles focus on offense or defense more than the other. Besides, it's not just for melee combat. Don't you think a Fast hero should be better at dodging a bullet? Makes perfect sense to me; I can't see what your problem with it is. Perhaps if you were to expound on the topic...?

It's action-reaction (something which D&D ignores). Your opponent strikes in a certain way, and your defense to that allows you to counter in a different way or keeps you on the defensive, etc. etc. This is all about combat knowledge. The reflex save is used for physically dodging/avoiding things happening around you and is fundamentally different in nature. Part of making a skilled attack is inherently defensive in nature because you are thinking ahead several moves, like in a game of chess (if I attack this way, I might be open to a counter here, which I can counter this way, etc.).

D&D has to ignore that. Otherwise, it would get far too complicated to be any fun. That's why things are broken down to simple attack rolls, AC, and damage rolls. Fighting styles and using a specific sword technique in your attack are too complex (except in the case of feats that represent some techniques; Power Attack for example), so D&D just ignores them. If you want to waste time getting into all the nitty-gritty details about "Attack A vs. combination of Armor B, Style B, and Weapon Type B," go right ahead.

Not trying to discredit what you said, which is 100% true. I'm only sayin' this is D&D, and therefore all of that is inconsequential as far as the game engine goes. Except for the part about Reflex saves, wich everyone should read and agree with. Reflex-based class defense would grant the same bonus to Barbarian, Cleric, Fighter, and Wizard (bad).

If you take two people, one with expert swordsman ability, and the other with high reflexes but little sword ability, the second guy will get skewered, gutted, beheaded, and otherwise dismembered because he has no idea what he's doing - regardless of how good he is at jumping out of the way when a boulder comes crashing down onto the road.

Which could be covered by feats, BaB, and HP. Suggestions, anyone?

The Wheel of Time technique of class bonus or armor bonus only doesn't make any sense either. Realistically, armor is pretty much always better than no armor, no matter who you are. What the Wheel of Time system does is not realistic, it is cinematic and geared toward specific results - i.e. reducing the historical importance of armor to achieve cinematic qualities. This is fine, but if this is what you want then I think it needs to be clarified, because the implied desire of this thread seems to me to be realism.

Wheel of Time? Cinematic? Did I miss something? Wheel of Time simply fits a different flavor; a world where the heroes (ie Robert Jordan's characters) don't wear armor for the most part. Again, it's the flavor of the game that determines "realism." I agree that, in feudal Europe, they would have though a Kurasawa samurai was a demon because of the "impossible speed" he harnessed. But it is realistic.

btw - I think S'mon's idea has merit too.

Yeah. So do I. Sorry for ignoring it until this kind reminder!

 

[genshou]

Thanks - I used "attack rolls can be used to parry" for a Highlander AD&D game I ran, and it worked very well to simulate the Highlander-type duel between Immortals. Most games that aim for any kind of realism use parry rolls, of which the character has a limited number per round - eg in Runequest you get an attack roll, a parry roll, then hits are compared to arnour to determine damage. If you have lots of enemy attacking you at once you better have good armour!

In D&D you could easily say that characters armed with weapons capable of parrying opponents' blows can give up 1 of their next attacks (or lose a standard action, if they don't full attack next round), to attempt to parry an incoming attack. For gaming reasons it's prob best the attacker roll is made first before the defender decides whether to attempt to parry it, not entirely realistic but giving up an attack is a big deal and the defender might reasonably tell whether an incoming attack was worth straining to deflect.

This would work especially well for duelist-type PCs, who tend to have high attack bonuses but relatively poor AC.

OMG you are a genius! Sorry for not agreeing with you earlier. The parrying idea is brilliant.

Another option would be to base it on the Deflect (Defense) Jedi Guardian class ability from Star Wars d20. You can use it anytime you are aware (even during someone else's turn), but it costs you a move action in the next round. How's that idea? I need feedback on it!

 

[S'mon]

OMG you are a genius! Sorry for not agreeing with you earlier. The parrying idea is brilliant.

As I said, it worked great for Highlander's unarmoured Immortals - D&D rules' ablative hit points actually make far more sense for Highlander Immortals than they do in a regular game! One problem I can see is the special case of lone high-AC hero vs hordes of low-AB mooks - if you roll the attacks before the parry, the hero will pretty well never get hit _at all_. There are various ways around this although the lack of facing makes it harder (eg you can only parry 3 separate attackers/round, who must be nominated in advance) but the simplest is probably 'natural 20s always hit'.