Unarmored fighting - your opinion please

[Havoc]

I intent to apply the following rule, maybe as a feat, maybe as a rule for everybody.

Defense Bonus: you can add a Defense Bonus to your AC equal to your half your base attack bonus minus your armor check penalty.

Rationale: many times I get a player who would like to survive combats without having to wear armor, or light armor.
I could limit that to, say, light armor, but the problem is that a 'light' armor can be encumbering (and that encumbrance is better translated into rules by the armor check penalty).
I do not want to assign specific defense bonuses to each existing classes neither, and linking it to the BAB makes sense IMHO since it reflects the overall combat aptitude.
The duelist prestige class is a little weak especially if the PC get fewer magic items, and my players whine that, in order to survive until the requirements are met, they have to fight in armor, which hurts their roleplay fiber since the armor is abandonned when they get their first duelist level.

What do you think??

 

[mmu1]

I'm not sure how it's going to work out in practice... While in theory, I can see it working relatively well if people stuck to archetypes, you're basically asking for tanks to downgrade their armor and abandon shields to actually end up with a higher AC and radically lower armor check penalties... And what are you planning to do about monks?

 

[Havoc]

Ok, I don't get something here - if they're going to be fighting without armor, where's the armor check penalty that you subtract from their AC coming from? Using a shield? Carrying more than a medium load?

I want the rule to apply for light armors too, but light in the sense that it does not impair their ability to dodge parry etc

Also, if it is a general rule and not a feat, it will not really affect Fighters in heavy armor (of course I have to add to the rule that the defense bonus cannot be negative).

 

[Snowman]

The problem is the way that D&D (still!) integrates ability to resists blows (armour) with ability to dodge them (evasive capabilities).

I don't think that rule would work, although at first glance it seems to be a pretty elegant solution. It's too powerful to be a feat (unless your list of prerequisites is biiiig, which would most likely confine it to fighters anyway ) and giving it to everyone as standard will basically eradicate armour in your campaign past level "x" for each character class...there would basically be a switchover point at which it's better to simply discard your metal shell and prance through battle in your civvies.

People are already penalised for wearing armour by the armour check modifier, not that it actually is a downside most of them time...choice of armour is one of the areas where min-maxing is alive and well and the one area where almost everyone will do it without even thinking of it as such.

What you could do is alter the Fight Defensively rule (which would also mean altering the Expertise feat of course) to maximise its benefits for lightly encumbered characters. You could introduce a new feat or two for characters that prefer to fight without armour, using speed instead of toughness, perhaps something like this could be the kickoff point?:

Prereq: Dodge, Expertise, Weapon Finesse (or using a light weapon?), no/light encumbrance.
Bonus: You gain a +2 armour class bonus when fighting with a light weapon and wearing no armour with little encumbrance.

I am, by the way, completely talking through my hat here, I've no rulebooks or anything so this is all on spec!

Alternatively you could change existing mobility based feats so that they only work for characters with little extra weight, say restricting Mobility and Spring Attack to chars with light encumbrance or less.

OK I'm done, enough rambling!

 

[Darklone]

If you want house rules, better ask there. Please

If you want rules about Defence boni, check the WoT book or the SW rules. They do have defence boni that don't stack with armours and that do allow players to survive without full plate or a huge heap of magical trinkets.

 

[Havoc]

The problem is the way that D&D (still!) integrates ability to resists blows (armour) with ability to dodge them (evasive capabilities).

I don't think that rule would work, although at first glance it seems to be a pretty elegant solution. It's too powerful to be a feat (unless your list of prerequisites is biiiig, which would most likely confine it to fighters anyway ) and giving it to everyone as standard will basically eradicate armour in your campaign past level "x" for each character class...there would basically be a switchover point at which it's better to simply discard your metal shell and prance through battle in your civvies.

You are right... except of course if you take magic armour into account.

What you could do is alter the Fight Defensively rule (which would also mean altering the Expertise feat of course) to maximise its benefits for lightly encumbered characters. You could introduce a new feat or two for characters that prefer to fight without armour, using speed instead of toughness, perhaps something like this could be the kickoff point?:

Prereq: Dodge, Expertise, Weapon Finesse (or using a light weapon?), no/light encumbrance.
Bonus: You gain a +2 armour class bonus when fighting with a light weapon and wearing no armour with little encumbrance.

The problem is that with such a list of prerequisites, you cannot start an unarmored combatant at level one.

Hum I have too think a little more on the subject and wait for suggestions... thanks for yours!!

 

[Bastoche]

That's exactly the role of the max dex bonus to armor. If you don't want to wear armor, get a high dexterity. High enough that wearing armor would be a disadvantage.

And what about barcers of armor in regard with that house rule ?

 

[Havoc]

If you want house rules, better ask there. Please

If you want rules about Defence boni, check the WoT book or the SW rules. They do have defence boni that don't stack with armours and that do allow players to survive without full plate or a huge heap of magical trinkets.

Sorry it should have been in house rules.

As for Wot and star wars, it means that I have to review each class and PrC and assign defence bonuses; not very elegant

 

[Havoc]

That's exactly the role of the max dex bonus to armor. If you don't want to wear armor, get a high dexterity. High enough that wearing armor would be a disadvantage.

And what about barcers of armor in regard with that house rule ?

Bracers of armors do not have an armor penalty check... i do not understand.
As for high dexterity... you are partly right... but still a chain shirt, + 4 AC max dex +4 remains a wise choice at low level when you can afford it.

 

[Havoc]

I'm not sure how it's going to work out in practice... While in theory, I can see it working relatively well if people stuck to archetypes, you're basically asking for tanks to downgrade their armor and abandon shields to actually end up with a higher AC and radically lower armor check penalties... And what are you planning to do about monks?

End up with higher AC? How so ??
But for monks, I guess you found out a major flaw