Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Snoweel" data-source="post: 1428334" data-attributes="member: 4453">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</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Snoweel, post: 1428334, member: 4453"] 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 [b]SUCKED ARSE[/b]). 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 [/QUOTE]

Verification