Extended Resting & Armour

[Kzach]

So, after reading the other thread about this I had a brain spasm and got all creative-like. The first bit I stole from blalien 'cause I'm a blatant idea thief but it's the second bit where the true genius kicks in anyway.

Extended Resting in Armour

When engaging in an Extended Rest in armour, a person has to pass an Endurance check or lose one healing surge after regaining all healing surges from the Extended Rest. The DC for the check is 10 for wearing light armour and 15 for heavy armour.

Dodge Bonus for Armour Proficiencies

Armour wearers don't forget how to dodge blows just because they have no armour on. They gain a dodge bonus to their AC equivalent to one less than the highest bonus light armour they can wear or two lower than the highest bonus heavy armour they can wear, when not wearing any armour. This bonus is lost whilst the character is surprised or when they are affected by any of the following conditions: dazed, immobilised, stunned, restrained, slowed, unconscious, dying, dead.

 

[Ferghis]

Regarding number two, in other words, you boost a character's AC to almost what it would otherwise be when they're not wearing armor?

 

[S'mon]

Regarding number two, in other words, you boost a character's AC to almost what it would otherwise be when they're not wearing armor?

That does seem like a great idea! Finally we can have loincloth-clad Barbarians in D&D!

Based on Kzach's idea:

Armour Proficiency Minimum AC bonus (no armour or reduced armour)
Cloth +0
Leather +1
Hide +2
Chain +4, +5 Paragon, +6 Epic
Scale +5, +6 Paragon, +7 Epic
Plate +6, +7 Paragon, +8 Epic

Howzat? The P&E boosts are to give partial account of masterwork armour bonuses.

Edit: This assumes you're using the Inherent Bonuses system for defenses. Without Inherent you'd need to up the bonus.

 

[Kzach]

Yes. Except that basically if the character is affected by almost any condition, it loses the bonus. Hence making wearing the actual armour still far superior to not wearing it.

What this does is bridge the gap between non-armour wearers and armour wearers. If I want 'realism' by making armour wearers suffer for resting in armour, it makes non-armour wearers far superior, so there needs to be a counter-balance.

 

[S'mon]

Yes. Except that basically if the character is affected by almost any condition, it loses the bonus. Hence making wearing the actual armour still far superior to not wearing it.

What this does is bridge the gap between non-armour wearers and armour wearers. If I want 'realism' by making armour wearers suffer for resting in armour, it makes non-armour wearers far superior, so there needs to be a counter-balance.

I don't see the need for the conditional AC loss, it seems fiddly and unfun. Better to reduce the bonus so the gap is bigger than 2, if you think a 2 pt AC loss is too little.

Actually for light armour wearers the AC loss for going unarmoured varies from 0 to the full 3 - if I have DEX/INT 14+ and Hide armour prof, a 2 pt Dodge bonus for going unarmoured doesn't help me over the RAW. That seems reasonable to me though, given the design goal is primarily to help heavy armour wearers, with a nod to those unfortunate & typically short-lived low DEX/INT light armour wearers.

 

[Ferghis]

I don't see the need for the conditional AC loss, it seems fiddly and unfun. Better to reduce the bonus so the gap is bigger than 2, if you think a 2 pt AC loss is too little.

I actually prefer the "fiddly" version. A flat penalty is something you ust shrug and accept, since, in the circumstances, you can't really do anything about it. A penalty that comes into play when you are affected by a certain condition is scarier, because you can try to avoid it.

 

[Kzach]

quoted spam content deleted by moderator

Reported.