UA's class-based defence bonus. Your thoughts?

[Snoweel]

I have a problem.

I dig (and have always dug) the idea of a class-based defence bonus ever since I flicked throught the WoT book (and realised it SUCKED ARSE).

Now, I'm excited that it's in UA and I want to use it (since armour-clad tanks don't fit with my vision of adventure) but I'm a bit stuck on the whole issue of balance vs what-makes-sense.

I've seen many a house-ruled-campaign where the dude has the usual good/average/poor/maybe-a-fourth-progression class-based def. bonus system, and they have been invariably in agreement that rogues and rangers would have the best def. bonus progression available. Most agree that the fighter would have the next best progression (though some think he would have the best progression for being so $w33+ at fighting) and that the cleric would share poor progression with the wizard and sorcerer.

I have tended to agree with these sentiments.

Now, it's obvious why UA allocates class def. bonus progressions the way they do, and it seems to also be the most balanced way - in lieu of the armour they are entitled to wear as part of their class features, fighters, clerics and paladins get the best def. bonus progression, right down the list according to starting armour proficiencies.

My problem is this: I think it sucks.

Can anybody see the harm in allocating class-based defence bonus according to my megalomaniacal whim as opposed to based on starting armour proficiencies? Will I have balance problems? Do we even want to 'go there'? (re: the importance of balance).

Tell me what you think so I can rabidly abuse you at my leisure, should you disagree.

Love,
Snoweel

 

[Sammael]

You will most certainly have balance problems.

WoT balanced the armsman's somewhat slower Defense progression by allowing him to stack his defense bonus with armor.

Rogues and rangers usually have a very high Dex score (and rarely wear heavy armor which hinders their abilities anyway). If you give them the best Defense Bonus progression, these two classes will become THE AC-monkeys. On the other hand, Dex is usually a secondary or tertiary stat for fighters, and way down the bottom of the stat list for clerics. Thus, with a poor Defense Bonus progression, fighter and cleric characters are going to be hit. Often. Sure, they may have the HP to take it, but I think you are ultimately going to end with pissed-off fighter players who want to know why their fighter character is worse at avoiding injuries than the party's rogue.

 

[JoAT]

You'd have to do somewhat more tinkering with the rules in order to make it work - I've assigned (much weaker) CDBs to the classes in my game in pretty much that fashion - rogue/monk's high, wizard/cleric's low, but in order to pull it off, I made some changes to armor as well, adopting the armor as DR, and the armor conversion rules both (so plate mail becomes +4 AC, DR 4/-, and converts 4 points of damage off of every hit to non-lethal. Armor is very nice), not to mention changeing things so that max Dex bonus becomes Max Defence bonus (Defense bonus = Dex+CDB).

Then I added in an additional class feature to the major armor users, similar to the Armor compatablity of the Armsman, but instead adding a value to the maxiumum Defence bonus - fighter gets this most often, at level 3, and every 4th level afterwards. Paladin's in line next at levels 5, 10, 15, 20... I haven't given this feature out to any of the other classes yet, though. The only major problem I've had with this system is that it's hard as hell to figure out how to make 2 weapon fighting as appealing as 2 handed...

 

[Snoweel]

My assumption with the heavy armour types (and imo, fighters should get the highest progression anyway) was that they would wear armour.

Y'know?

And another thing - I'm tossing up whether or not to have defence bonus overlap with armour (ie. not stack), or have max. dex. bonus of armour = max. (def. + dex.) bonus.

 

[Lord Pendragon]

Now, it's obvious why UA allocates class def. bonus progressions the way they do, and it seems to also be the most balanced way - in lieu of the armour they are entitled to wear as part of their class features, fighters, clerics and paladins get the best def. bonus progression, right down the list according to starting armour proficiencies.

My problem is this: I think it sucks.

Can anybody see the harm in allocating class-based defence bonus according to my megalomaniacal whim as opposed to based on starting armour proficiencies? Will I have balance problems? Do we even want to 'go there'? (re: the importance of balance).

The classes are balanced, not on how they get their ACs, but on how much total AC they will usually have. The fighter is meant to have a high AC, the rogue a fair one, and the wizard a poor one (without spending extra money or spell slots).

AU doesn't change this (from what I'm reading, I don't own it personally,) but merely gives characters the option of not wearing armor, which is cool since not every fighter wants to be a steel plate-wearing knight.

If you switch around the defense bonuses, you'll need to refigure balance with that in mind. i.e. if the rogue now has a much better AC due to defense bonus than he'd have ever had in studded leather, he's much stronger.

I don't think there's a problem with assuming that the heavy armor guys will wear heavy armor. You're giving them a narrow set of options (armor or bad AC) but not ruining balance. But if you then boost other classes to a better AC than they had, you'll need to either take something away from them, or give the fighter something to compensate.

 

[Inconsequenti-AL]

An idle thought...

Could you allow other classes to 'trade in' armour proficiencies for a better defense progression...

Obviously this would need some 'fixing' to stop a fighter trading in all their armour proficiencies for defense, then taking a level of cleric to get them back. I'm sure a mechanic can be found...

Then a fighter could pick whether to be a 'DR tank' or an 'AC monkey'... wheras rogues/rangers are stuck as AC monkeys?


Perhaps you get a number of 'defense points' to spend. Each one either gets you an armour proficiency or allows you "buy yourself up 1 column" on the defense table. Give different classes different levels of flexibility - i.e. rogue/monk/ranger must put X points into defense. Fighter can choose freely. Paladin/Cleric may be forced more towards armour.

Taking a different class allows you to redistribute your points. There could be a feat which lets you buy extra points?

 

[drnuncheon]

This is what I'm kicking around for my next game - since it's going to be a sort of swashbuckly feel I wanted to discourage heavy armor under most circumstances. Keep that in mind as you read.

DEFENSE BONUS

		Good			Medium			Bad

1		4			3			2
2		5			4			2
3		5			4			3
4		6			4			3
5		6			5			3
6		7			5			4
7		7			6			4
8		8			6			4
9		8			6			5
10		9			7			5
11		9			7			5
12		10			8			6
13		10			8			6
14		11			8			6
15		11			9			7
16		12			9			7
17		12			10			7
18		13			10			8
19		13			10			8
20		14			11			8

Epic: Like Base Attack Bonus, all defense bonuses increase at the rate of +1 at 20th level and every 3 levels thereafter.

Note: The values are based on the Star Wars defense values, but assigned more like the UA ones - in other words, fighter-types get the best and plain casters (and monk-types) get the worst, with most people in between.

ARMOR

Armor provides damage reduction equal to half of its regular armor bonus (round down), and an armor bonus to AC equal to half of its regular bonus (round up). Armor also reduces defense bonus by an amount equal to its armor check penalty. Thus, a 10th level fighter who donned his great-grandfather's plate armor would have an AC of 17 (9 Defense + 4 armor - 6 armor check), a touch AC of 13 - but he'd also get Damage Reduction of 4/-. If his great-grandfather had owned mithral plate armor, then his AC would be 20 (9 defense + 4 armor - 3 armor check) and a touch AC of 16.

Note: My idea here was that people wouldn't really want to wear armor most of the time - it's not worth it, you'd have a lower chance of being hit without it. However, in a pitched battle, with attacks going on all around you, it would still be worthwhile to don a breastplate and helmet, because sooner or later, someone is going to roll a '20' no matter how high your AC is, and then the DR would be a great help.

All that said, I'm pondering the 'Max Dex limits Defense as well as Dex bonus' as possibly an easier solution.

Comments greatly appreciated.

 

[Psion]

I do not like the UA class based defense bonuses. I use the Second World Sourcebook's adaptation of the d20 modern system. Basically, it gets at what you are getting at: the nimble classes get the best bonuses, and it doesn't prevent you from using armor with it.

How does it do it in a balanced fashion, you ask? Well, in a clever way, though a way that takes a little rework to existing creatures, et al. It makes it so that certain things that formerly stack don't stack as effectively. Like armor and natural armor, and shield and deflection. That way, it's not as easy to use magic to pump up your AC. It allows "synergy bonuses" for similar AC sources as sort of a consolation, though.

 

[orangefruitbat]

I'd take a look at Conan for inspiration. Basically, you get two defensive abilities - a dodge and a parry rating. Each is calculated differently and can be used under different circumnstances. The following suggestions are kind of rough, and may require some tweaking to get the balance right:

dodge - based on your reflex save (plus any other dodge bonuses). Can be used to avoid an attack as long as there is at least one unthreatened square adjacent to you. Characters with the uncanny dodge ability can use the dodge defense as long as there is an open square adjacent, and characters with improved uncanny dodge can always use the dodge defense. You cannot dodge during a surpise round. You can dodge when flatfooted, but at a -4 penalty.

parry - based on your BAB (plus shield bonuses). Can be used to avoid an attack as long as the parrying weapon is no more than one size class smaller than the attacking weapon (you can't parry a giant's greatclub with a rapier). Each parry attempt requires the use of an attack of opportunity. You cannot parry during a surpise round. You can parry when flatfooted, but at a -4 penalty. You cannot parry unless you have a weapon drawn or have improved unarmed combat.

 

[Ashrem Bayle]

I use both the Defense rules and the Armor as DR rules.

The main change I made was changing the Defense table to start with +1,+2,+3, & +4 as opposed to the default +2,+3,+4, & +6. Seems to work fine thus far.

Something to keep in mind is that Defense doesn't just represent dodging attacks, but also the character's effectivess in blocking attacks. Fighters would be good at that.