Question: DEF bonus (from WoT)

[Ron]

Except that the typical RPG player character
1) Has a lot of money

It is up to the DM to control the amount of money the PCs have. I hardly run any module, but when I do it, I usually divide all money per ten. I still think that it is a little too much, but ten is a easy number to use as a divider.

2) Is involved in combat a lot

The point of Defense bonuses isn't to keep Joe Commoner from wearing armor; lack of funds and an extremely low frequency of combat more involved than a bar fight will do that. The point is to keep Luke Skywalker or Rand al'Thor from looking like idiots for not wearing armor.

In relation to the frequency of combats, you should remember that situations with little chance of combat aren't roleplayed with much detail. In campaign such as in the Star Wars movie and the Wheel of Time books, it takes days, weeks, sometimes months before any combat situation develops. Luke is a bad example, as he is a Jedi and I have the impression that Jedi believes in rely only in themselves. In another hand, Rand pass much of his time in non-combat situations such as traveling. He would look silly using armor all the time, not saying he would definitely raise suspicions (I read only the two first books, so my vision of the character may be incomplete).

Finally, despite the dramatic impact of warriors with open chests, armor is very useful in combat. Even Conan, after being an experienced warrior, started using one.

 

[Dagredhel]

The problem with DEF bonus is that the advance of the ability of avoiding hits along the advancement of levels is already covered by hit points in D&D. You may consider fixing hit points (perhaps as the value of CON) and not increase them as new levels are added. I believe that the d20's rules in SW and WoT are broken in this respect because they allow both DEF and HP to increase with new levels.

Hit points are a funny thing. They're supposed to be an abstract measure of how long a character can keep on fighting before finally taking a mortal (incapacitating) blow. So a successful strike, inflicting hit point "damage", might represent a character being worn down, being put at a disadvantage, running out of luck, or even bruised, battered, or bloodied from a blow otherwise turned aside by his armor, shield, or weapon. The hit point "damage" isn't supposed to necessarily represent a wound or injury. So hit point increase with level advancement represents a character's ability to sustain the effects of a successful "hit", whatever that strike might represent. A character's AC, on the other hand, represents a character's ability to avoid a strike entirely, not just to deal with its effects. There is a difference, so I don't see why both shouldn't improve with experience.

 

[Ron]

Hit points are a funny thing. They're supposed to be an abstract measure of how long a character can keep on fighting before finally taking a mortal (incapacitating) blow. So a successful strike, inflicting hit point "damage", might represent a character being worn down, being put at a disadvantage, running out of luck, or even bruised, battered, or bloodied from a blow otherwise turned aside by his armor, shield, or weapon. The hit point "damage" isn't supposed to necessarily represent a wound or injury. So hit point increase with level advancement represents a character's ability to sustain the effects of a successful "hit", whatever that strike might represent. A character's AC, on the other hand, represents a character's ability to avoid a strike entirely, not just to deal with its effects. There is a difference, so I don't see why both shouldn't improve with experience.

Not considering any magical effects, AC is composed by two factors: A Dex modifier, which is basically the innate ability the character have of avoid being hit and an armor value, which take of less powerful hits that, somehow, are absorbed or deflected by the armor. Naturally, both factors cannot increase with new levels.

I agree with you that more experienced characters would know better how to avoid hits during combat. As such, it is not unreasonable to add this factor to the game. However, if you read hp description in the players Handbook (I'm not at home so I cannot quote), you'll find that the reason why hp increases with new level is exactly to take account the superior combat experience of the character.

I don't think that the way hit points are handled in D&D is good. I'm just used with it. I don't like having more than one stat representing the same thing, I think it is bad design. I have considered using something like defense (I also don't like SW implementation, where soldiers has poor defense numbers), but it is too much trouble to work with. To do it right you would need to have hit points not increasing with levels. The problem is that spell and other harming effects that doesn't need a to hit roll are not balanced to this rule, and thus, require a complete rewrite.

 

[Dagredhel]

If you're not familiar with them already, I'd suggest that you take a look at the 'Grim-n-Gritty' hit point rules from the Sleeping Imperium site. From what you've said, I bet you'll really like 'em. You can find the site under the En World Links, or just click here to download the PDF.

 

[Ron]

I've checked them. They are clever, but too complicated for my needs. Thank you, anyway.