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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Flynn" data-source="post: 3513269" data-attributes="member: 1836">Baby Samurai,It is my opinion that the UA Defense bonus simply defines the lower limit of AC for D&D characters, once it gets implemented. It does not work as Defense does in D20 Modern, where the value is additive to the AC. Instead, if I am reading this correctly, the UA Defense bonus takes the place of the armor bonus of the armor worn, if the Defense bonus is higher. Therefore, it simply affects AC, which doesn't impact a character in regards to their own iterative attacks.<a href="http://www.d20srd.org/srd/variant/adventuring/defenseBonus.htm" target="_blank">http://www.d20srd.org/srd/variant/adventuring/defenseBonus.htm</a>Now, if you are going to go with the D20 Modern approach to Defense bonuses (where the bonus adds to AC in addition to the armor bonus), then you should use D20 Modern numbers, which are significantly lower than those found in UA but meet your statement of "Defence bonus from UA on top of armour". I would not add the UA bonus on top of armor, as it is designed to replace armor instead.Okay, with that out of the way, I've come to figure out that, on average, a series of iterative attacks with normal stat advancement, average magic weapons per the Magic Item Compendium, and no feats (such as TWF, Wpn Focus or Wpn Specialization) produces an average damage bonus increment of 3/4 heroic level instead of 1/2 heroic level.Other things to consider: This approach should allow you to continue to use the monsters as written (except that you'll want to remove their iterative attacks as well.) Their multiple natural weapons can remain, since they aren't iterative. If you played 1st or 2nd Edition, I'm sure you remember the old claw-claw-bite routine of various creatures against characters that only had one attack a round, so the game is, in my opinion, still balanced with that increase.Here's where some people may have problems with the additional bonus damage concept: With iterative attacks, you might miss the first time and hit the rest, for at least a little damage. With single attacks a round, if you miss, you miss. Period. No make-ups. That's also why I don't mind using the 3/4 improvement instead of the 1/2 improvement.Additionally, though it most likely doesn't apply to you, I use Grim Tales' action points. Since I've had lots of players emulate the Heroic Surge feat in my GT game to get an extra attack a round by spending an action point, I'm going to follow in GT's footsteps (much as True20 has done), and allow an action point to grant a second attack, even though there's not a Heroic Surge feat to emulate in D&D. The number of action points regulates that extra attack in itself, since that's a resource that gets spent over the course of the session for other things such as confirming criticals. (I don't use threat checks, but confirm all criticals through action points as per GT.) I'm okay with that, because it doesn't delay the game, and the PC is spending an action point to get that extra roll.(FYI, in case you're wondering, GT action points are renewed, at least for my games, on a session basis. You can elect to renew them on a level basis, per the standard, or even never, but I like the cinematic quality I get from session-based action point renewal.)Hope this helps,Flynn</blockquote>

Verification