BAB and Armor

[N Hammer]

Here’s an idea that crossed my mind. Some parts of this may have been touched on before.

Take a characters BAB, and change it to BCB (Base Combat Bonus). Characters BCB can be used for an attack bonus, or a bonus to AC.

I do realize that this would negate some Feats, or at least require they be changed.

Now Armor…

Take the Armor Bonus of armor and make that the number that is subtracted from the damage of an attack, instead of being the bonus to AC. For every full 10pts of damage done in a single attack, the Armor Bonus is reduced by 1.

NOTE!!!! This is just an idea I had. I haven’t tried it.

 

[Thorvald Kviksverd]

I suggested the same thing in a thread a month or so ago on the general board. I think we were discussing alternate ways to scale advancement, besides simply increasing HPs--something like that.

You could even add a third choice to the mix...extra damage.

So you could choose to add your BCB to:

--Attack Bonus

--AC

--Damage Bonus

I gamed something similar for Basic and AD&D, but it never went beyond the 'gladiator' test stage--it worked well, but it really slowed things down.

To fix this, you could rule that a character has to make a choice each time he receives a BCB advance concerning which category it will be permanently assigned to--this could be reflective of his general fighting style, and would do a good job of reflecting different philosophies, styles, etc.

A swashbuckler might favor AC slightly over Attack, and almost totally ignore Damage.

While a barbarian might favor Damage over Attack, and all but ignore AC.

And a knight might favor Attack over Damage, but pay little attention to AC (see below).

This would also make armour even more valuable, as a character who was typically heavily armoured could concentrate more on Attack and Damage--though he could be in severe trouble if ever deprived of the use of his armour.

Anyway, just a few thoughts off the top of my head--there will certainly be quite a few ramifications, and unforeseen consequences (as with almost any house rule).

 

[Geoff Watson]

So you're giving everyone the Expertise feat.

You might want to make it -2/+1 so that people who get the feat have an advantage. Hmm, thats the same as Fighting Defensively, don't bother then.

Geoff.

 

[Romotre]

The expertise would still be could. Not only is it the start of a bunch of feat chains, it would allow you to focus more on Attack, and get AC (with expertise) if you needed it. Same goes for power attack. I like this idea a lot. But has anyone tried it?

 

[willpax]

I've already been doing something similar in my game.

Armor is half (rounded up) reflection (AC bonus) and half damage absorption (I use the VP/WP system, so the absorption only works on wound damage).

I allow characters to freely move attack bonus to "parry bonus" against one melee opponent. A character with the expertise feat can use that bonus against two melee opponents, and advanced expertise allows it against all melee opponents simultaneously.

Fighting defensively requires the character to forego an attack, but gives a +2 AC on top of the full parry bonus.

It hasn't seemed unbalancing so far (they've traded more flexibility for lower AC values), but we're only playing in the low levels right now. I did this because it's a low magic item campaign, so I wanted to give them a way to improve defense without depending on magic items.

 

[Seraphael]

So you're giving everyone the Expertise feat.

You might want to make it -2/+1 so that people who get the feat have an advantage. Hmm, thats the same as Fighting Defensively, don't bother then.

Geoff.

Thats what I've been doing, more or less. Any character can take a -2 to hit to gain +1 to AC. They can do this as long as their penalty to hit does not exceed their BAB, but they can always take at least one -2 penalty to hit. Characters with expertise can take a -1 to hit to gain a +1 to AC with no limit (much like the superior expertise feat). This way, all characters can potentially gain AC as they become more skilled but expertise is still a valuable choice of a feat.

 

[drowdude]

I like the idea... but I really think it would slow down combat too much...

 

[Thorvald Kviksverd]

I like the idea... but I really think it would slow down combat too much...

That's what I found to be the case.

But what about my idea to make it a one time choice...

To fix this, you could rule that a character has to make a choice each time he receives a BCB advance concerning which category it will be permanently assigned to--this could be reflective of his general fighting style, and would do a good job of reflecting different philosophies, styles, etc.

I haven't tried this, but the more I think about it, the more I like it.

Have to get around to testing it out one of these days.

 

[N Hammer]

A character would have to declare how his BCB is split up on his inititive before he takes any actions...It would remain like that until he goes again.

I would say keep Expertice, and just change it to something that would fit (and not overbalance) combat.

Fighting defensively would be eliminated.

Total Defence could be something like this...If a character doesn't make an attack or doesn't perform other activities other than moving his speed AND has all BCB in AC, the character gets an additional +2 to AC. (or an alternative instead of the additional +2, you could just say that the character does not provoke AoO during his movment).

from Thorvald Kviksverd

To fix this, you could rule that a character has to make a choice each time he receives a BCB advance concerning which category it will be permanently assigned to--this could be reflective of his general fighting style, and would do a good job of reflecting different philosophies, styles, etc.

I kinda like this idea...hmmmm!

Although I'm undecided about the BCB adding to damage. I understand it, just not sure.

 

[Thorvald Kviksverd]

I kinda like this idea...hmmmm!

Although I'm undecided about the BCB adding to damage. I understand it, just not sure.

Not sure about that myself, but I wanted to be complete.

I think it would work fairly well though. Sure, a character could devote all of his advances to damage, but he wouldn't be hiiting any more often than at 1st level--and even less against a foe that has devoted some of his advances to AC.

I'm sure there are a few people around these boards that could work out the actual math.