Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Spatzimaus" data-source="post: 1304436" data-attributes="member: 3051">Here comes a long one.I wasn't talking about sunder.  Here's what I mean:WEAPON: 2k gp, provides +1 attack (which opposes EC) and +1 damage (which opposes AC).SHIELD: 1k gp, provides +1 ECARMOR: 1k gp, provides +1 ACThey're balanced right now; a +1 enchantment on a weapon exactly counteracts a +1 armor and a +1 shield, and they cost the same.  But, if you add a situation where that +1 on the armor only adds +1/2 AC, it no longer cancels.  It's a minor difference, and in non-Epic situations it's probably easy to ignore.  It also makes enchanting your shield inherently more desirable than enchanting your armor, since the shield bonus would never be cut in half.Hmm... idea: what if blunt weapons cut the shield EC in half, in the same way piercing weapons cut armor AC in half?  Blunt weapons are about raw kinetic energy, and that's a bit harder to deflect with a shield than the edge of a blade is.  Okay, it may be rationalization, but it'd make people use blunt weapons again, and help make up for their lousy crit ranges.Sure, but I'm arguing the other direction: I have no motivation to choose the heavy-armored archtype, since I get far more benefit from trying to keep my DEX high and go with light armor.  Even if my DEX stinks (which seems to be suicide under your system), the benefit I'd gain from using heavier armor just isn't that much.A high-DEX character in light armor would have good initiative, Reflex saves, EC, and attack rolls.A character in heavy armor gets a few extra points of DR.It's just not even close.  You were saying that every little bit of DR helps, but what I was trying to show with the math was that if the attacker can do a large amount of damage per hit (with the Sneak Attacking Rogue as the primary example), the armor protection becomes almost inconsequential, and is vastly inferior to raising your EC.Things that go before the AC check should be things that help you find the weak points in the "exterior" protection (armor or natural armor); things that go afterwards should be those that involve finding the anatomy of the creature inside that protection.Favored Enemy (extensive knowledge of the creature type) can go in the first group.  (It'd be even better if it was 1 point on each group, but that's too complicated)Sneak attack definitely should be in the second.  Crits I put in the same category as sneak attacks: hitting some critical organ by chance, so they'd go in the second too.Power Attack, conceptually, should go in the first group (before the check), but then that just gets really, really powerful if you use the 3.5E 2-for-1 rule since ECs are now somewhat lower in your system than in stock D&D.  If you remove that doubling I think it'd be fine.As for how you can bypass DR, there are still a few options.  Piercing weapons or high STR go a long ways.  Magical weapons, especially if you add a "Sure Striking" sort of enchantment.  Change what Adamantium does, to fit more with the "flavor".  Armor in general shouldn't be trivial to bypass; if I'm using a longsword and my enemy is in full plate, there really SHOULDN'T be an easy solution that lets me trivialize his armor.  I should have to pull out the right kind of weapon.But okay, move Favored Enemy and Power Attack back to before the check, but only if you return Power Attack to its old 3E form.  I'd still leave crits after, though (see the math in the last post).Exactly, although it's not necessary for things like Flaming, since DR never bothered it before anyway.It's not THAT devastating in the current system.  Someone in heavy armor in 3E isn't very susceptible to Sneak Attacks, since their high AC would mean the Rogue would miss a lot.  Right now, heavily-armored Fighters seem to have an edge versus Rogues in a 1-on-1 fight, while this swings it the other way.That's not relevant to this discussion, and here's the step by step logic that explains why:1> On a normal hit, someone in full plate will only take a small fraction (1/4th to 1/5th) of the damage someone in medium armor would take on a per-hit basis.2> You say that the parry and EC rules keep this balanced.3> And now the key step: I believe you. This is what allows me to ignore the specifics of the Parry rules.  I accept your assertion that the balance in step 1 is as it should be once the minutae of your system are applied.4> Therefore, someone in full plate SHOULD only take a small fraction of the per-hit damage someone in medium armor would, with parrying and your DEX rules presumably balancing the scales.5> Now, I add in some repeatable damage source (say, Sneak Attack) that greatly skews the numbers so that the relative difference between the two types is far less significant (more like 1/2 to 2/3).6> Ergo, we no longer have balance.If the balance point for Parry/EC was somewhere between these two extremes, then it'd be fine for things like critical hits, which affect all players more or less equally, but if it's something specific to a single class then there's a problem.But, it's math you're already doing.  When you score a critical hit, you're already keeping track of two quantities: those things that multiply, and those that don't.  The same goes here, especially if you split it exactly that way (as we discussed above), with variable effects going after the AC check.It's no overhead change at all.  If I have a +2 longsword, STR 14, and a +2d6 Sneak Attack, I already list my weapon damage as "1d8 + 4 + 2d6".  This is not a change from 3E; you already had to list weapons this way for when you considered crits.So, it's easy:> The first number (1d8) is the "base weapon damage".  It's the only variable amount that is multiplied on a crit, and only the "original" amount goes before the AC check under my suggestion.  (This may seem awkward, but think of it the other direction: all variable effects go after the AC check, with the sole exception of the weapon's base d8)> The second number (4) is from things like high STR, Favored Enemy, and Power Attack.  It multiplies on a crit, and always goes before the AC check.> The third number (2d6) is from things like Sneak Attack.  It doesn't multiply on a crit, and always goes after the AC check.So, the player wants to know if he penetrated the armor.  He rolls the first two numbers as listed (1d8+4), with no need to calculate crits yet.  Check to see if the AC was exceeded.If he fails, he's done and he's actually reduced the amount of rolling he had to do.If he succeeds and it wasn't a crit, he just rolls the third number and adds it to his existing total.If he succeeds and it WAS a crit, he rolls all three (well, the second one doesn't actually need "rolling") and adds it to his existing total.Besides, if you think that's bad, you should see my AC lines: I list everything out source by source, grouped into the "always on", "doesn't help with touch attacks" and "lost when flat-footed" groups.  Same concept.Without a shield, your EC will be quite a bit less than the printed version for AC.  A character in +2 plate armor but no shield will have an EC 10 lower than his old AC, which makes a huge difference in to-hit chances.  Add in Natural Armor and it gets worse.So, if everyone was in light armor and/or used a shield, yes, the EC will be comparable to the old AC.  And, the changes you've introduce definitely seem to skew the balance that way.  I'd go Leather Armor + Large Shield + Rapier, personally.</blockquote>

Verification