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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Celebrim" data-source="post: 9867281" data-attributes="member: 4937">The more I think about this, the more I think that post Unearthed Arcana this might not go far enough.I probably need to do a write up of the much maligned Barbarian, which generally gets lumped in with the cavalier as an "overpowered class".  In fact, that's unfair to the Barbarian which if anything is too weak.  The real problems with the barbarian don't have much to do with whether the class is "overpowered", but in fact with it's just not fun to play and a headache at the table.  (You could make the same argument about the cavalier, but it is also overpowered as well.)  The issue here that I haven't really addressed is armor class.The base game gives thieves an AC of 8 (leather) versus a fighter's AC of 2 (plate and shield), resulting in a 6 point AC gap.  But UA extends that out to a possible AC of 0 (full plate and shield) resulting in an 8 point AC gap.  But this gap is in practice even bigger than that, because more monsters will effectively attack AC 8 than AC 2 or 0.  Per my thread on "Weapon vs. AC modifiers", you need pretty specialized armor cracking weaponry to threaten heavy armor and close that gap down rather than extending it.  Magic and dexterity don't close the gap in 1e because unlike 3e (that fixes this issue explicitly while developing issues of its own) dexterity is just as useful to a character in light armor as in heavy armor.I have partially addressed this by assuming that the thief will be dumping a lot of AC into tumble, and thus, are able to evade fully a certain number of attacks.  Versus low level attacks that works out pretty well.  But I've been conservative with my tumble rules and against potent foes, the ones that really matter, you'd need insane amounts of tumble to evade AND you also need to have won the initiative so you can only use it like 50% of the time anyway.  Say you are evading a 10 HD giant's attacks, you are going to need tumble greater than 70% to have any chance at all.  Tumble of say 120% grants you just a 25% attack of dodging that giant hit point crushing swing, if you have won the initiative.  That's not at all going to close the gap with the fighter who also has nearly twice your hit points and is getting hit like a third or a fifth as often.We don't have to close the gap fully because fighters should dominate combat, and because there are plenty of circumstances were being lightly equipped is a huge advantage over being a clunking bastion of steel - like drowning, running up that tilting slope that is about to slide you into a fiery furnace, and so forth.  But the gap for me still feels too big, and I'm wondering now just how balanced the Entertainer and Barbarian's "You are forced to use light armor but you get a bonus to dexterity" actually is in a post UA environment.  The problematic thing in this environment though - and I know this from experience - is Bracers of Defense, which give you the best of both worlds.  And we really don't want a universe where every single class that isn't required to wear armor (cavalier) is fighting over the bracers the M-U absolutely needs.</blockquote>

Verification