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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Croesus" data-source="post: 5861523" data-attributes="member: 35019">One obvious problem with this approach for armor is that there is again one right choice - no armor! Your character gets the same AC, without the cost of the armor, no extra noise, no extra weight, no maintenance, no waking up in the middle of the night without your armor, etc.If, however, you give slight benefits to armor that balance the penalties, then players can decide based on style - if you want the best AC (or minor DR, or whatever), your fighter isn't as nimble or fast in his full plate. If you'll settle for a bit lower AC, then your fighter can run around in a loin cloth. I agree that most of the AC should be class-based, so armor becomes an option, not a requirement. I just don't agree that armor should have zero impact.I really like the idea of separating weapon damage from the weapon and giving it to the class. A fighter with a dagger should be more dangerous than a wizard with a greatsword. In previous versions, this was partly modeled by the fighter having a better chance to hit, but it still puts far too much emphasis on picking the "right" weapon IMO. Basing weapon damage on class would also help address some of the prior issues with a cleric being too good as a fighter.And such a system would still allow weapon choices to have meaning. The system could give weapons certain capabilities separate from raw damage - picks might be armor piercing (penalty to target's AC from armor), spears can be set vs. charge, blunt weapons might have a chance to stun the target, and so on.My preference - weapon damage by class, with optional rules for giving weapon classes extra capabilities, and even optional rules for having all the dozens of weapons with different damage, as in previous editions. AC as a class feature, but with limited benefits and penalties to using actual armor.</blockquote>

Verification