Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Mouseferatu" data-source="post: 1396733" data-attributes="member: 1288">Actually, I thought it was a fairly inspired idea, myself. Let me explain...By basing the Class Defense bonus on the sort of armor allowed, the folks who wrote UA ensured that the relative armor classes of the different classes to one another wouldn't change if people wanted to switch from the standard system to the new one.In the old system, all else being equal, fighters, paladins, and clerics are expected to have the best AC, because they can wear the best armor. If they based the new system on attack bonuses or Reflex saves, that fact would change. Because they did it as they did, those proportions remain roughly the same. That is, the average fighter of a given level is still going to have a better AC--by roughly the same amount--as the average druid of a given level.Now, that doesn't mean other methods are bad. There's no inherent reason why those proportions must stay the same. But I like the fact that they do in the rule as written. It's easier to tweak something away from standard, IMO, than to tweak it toward.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Mouseferatu, post: 1396733, member: 1288"] Actually, I thought it was a fairly inspired idea, myself. Let me explain... By basing the Class Defense bonus on the sort of armor allowed, the folks who wrote UA ensured that the relative armor classes of the different classes to one another wouldn't change if people wanted to switch from the standard system to the new one. In the old system, all else being equal, fighters, paladins, and clerics are expected to have the best AC, because they can wear the best armor. If they based the new system on attack bonuses or Reflex saves, that fact would change. Because they did it as they did, those proportions remain roughly the same. That is, the average fighter of a given level is still going to have a better AC--by roughly the same amount--as the average druid of a given level. Now, that doesn't mean other methods are bad. There's no inherent reason why those proportions must stay the same. But I like the fact that they do in the rule as written. It's easier to tweak something [i]away[/i] from standard, IMO, than to tweak it toward. [/QUOTE]

Verification