Divorcing AC from armour bonuses

[Kzach]

One of the difficulties of making a variety of effective classes is the balancing act that is AC. Part of this difficulty is that there are so many concepts, each with their own merits, that share one basic need: high AC.

Whilst thinking on a solution it occurred to me that part of the problem is static AC bonuses from items. But what if, instead of basing a character's AC on the item itself, it's based on how the class utilises the item?

For instance, you could have three classes of armours: light, medium & heavy. Within those you could have minor variances through keywords, much like weapons did in 4e and that they tried to do with armours later on. This could give you a bevy of armours to choose from to suit your particular character. The bonus to AC, however, would be relatively minor such as +1, +2 and +3.

This gives you the ability to have a wizard in platemail, if that's what you really want, and they still get a benefit out of it (ie. +3 to AC). But when the fighter wears platemail, he gets a +8. This then also allows for a lightly armoured fighter variant who can wear light armour but still get a +8 bonus from it. So it's the class that dictates the AC benefit, not the item itself.

In this way, we don't have messy 'filler' bonuses like the ones we saw rampant throughout 4e. If a tank is expected to have an AC of X, then whatever variants there are within the class, all have the same AC bonus from whatever armours they wear and varying benefits from wearing lighter or heavier armours for balance.

Obviously there would have to be balancing factors to make heavy armour worthwhile even when there are lightly armoured variants. My personal preference would be damage reduction but that's probably an argument for another thread

 

[Wiseblood]

Interesting idea. I would oppose DR because it is extra math. It's the modern THAC0. I could see a resistance to criticals, though that might be too little or too fringe. Criticals are exciting and I do not want to reduce excitment.

 

[BobTheNob]

Fantasycraft had a very similar thing to this. The had a defence rating (DR) which sat right alongside your toHit on the class lists. The Defence rating was your target to toHit rolls.

Meanwhile armor offered damage reduction with a PENALTY to defence rating. Meaning very heavy armor meant hit more often for less. Then you had feats to improve your ability to wear armor (reducing the penalties and so forth). So armor became an option rather than a forgone conclusion. You could play the heavy armored guy who got hit very often for not much damage, or the lightly armored guy who didnt get hit very often but hurt more when he did.

Hell, there wasnt even a rule baring Spell casters from armor, so your mage could put on plate if he had the strength for the weight of it.

Interesting concept, but never actually played the game so Im not sure how it would pan out (I had serious doubts from the numbers I saw therein, but numbers can be ajusted, the idea is what counts).

 

[B.T.]

Don't much care for that myself. A fighter probably shouldn't be wearing light armor in the first place--if he's proficient in platemail, there's not really a good reason for him not to wear it, unless he's going swimming. If a fighter wants to wear light armor, he should reconsider being a fighter and perhaps become a rogue or an archer.

Now, what I'm guessing is that you're specifically thinking of the swashbuckler archetype: how does that work in D&D if the fighter can't have high AC and wear light armor? Best way to do this would be to create a special attack or fighting style that would cover swashbuckling. If you're wielding a certain weapon style (light blade) with nothing in your off-hand, you get a +3 bonus to AC or somesuch.

 

[Herremann the Wise]

If everyone ends up with a similar AC, it neutralizes any true differentiation between different armours as whatever armour you wear, everyone has a similar AC. I would much prefer AC split into its two representative parts (much like I would like to see hit points split into physical damage and "everything else"). I would like to see AC split into difficulty to hit on the one hand and difficulty to damage on the other. I would love to see Armor as DR but that is obviously for a module (unfortunately as I wish they would make it core) and a different thread as you suggest.

I would oppose DR because it is extra math.

It is (regardless of how easy or smaller time component subtracting DR from damage actually is), however because it is something that works to the player's advantage, I think you would find that it is something that would not cause any fuss whatsoever in the long term.

Best Regards
Herremann the Wise

 

[Wiseblood]

Herremann the Wise
It is (regardless of how easy or smaller time component subtracting DR from damage actually is), however because it is something that works to the player's advantage, I think you would find that it is something that would not cause any fuss whatsoever in the long term.

Indeed.

 

[Frostmarrow]

Why not move Armor to Damage? You have a longsword that does 1d8 damage. you also have chainmail. Instead of chainmail providing a +5 bonus to your AC chainmail provides +1d6 to damage. The rationale being armored fighters can adopt a better position in combat (without worrying to expose themselves). So this particular outfit would deal 1d8+1d6 damage.

Some classes can be prohibited from rolling multiple dice for damage so they're better off using their spell or ranged attack.

 

[Chris_Nightwing]

If Heavy Armor made you easier to hit, but you took less damage, then I think you would also solve the aggro mechanic for the fighter - enemies would be best off definitely dealing a little damage than maybe dealing more damage.

 

[Dornam]

The idea is nice and sound but something far away from classic D&D. So I doubt we will see something like that when all the flags have been set to "back to the roots".