Why does DnD make force you to have magic to get better?

[Elder-Basilisk]

Fighting Defensively is a bit too harsh, in my opinion. No one wants to do it except in the most extreme of circumstances (low AC opponent with large damage potential).

An idea I just came up with after reading your post:

Whenever a character's Base Attack Bonus increase, they may instead choose to increase their Defense Bonus. Defense Bonus is a permanent dodge bonus added to your AC.

So a 5th level Fighter could have a base AC of 10 and Base Attack of +5, or a base AC of 15 and Base Attack of +0.

Sounds like permanent combat expertise... talk about a bad deal.

Not to mention, it really wouldn't help with the problem. The problem is that the 20th level character in the low magic game has an AC 20 points lower than in the default game, a whole lot less magic, and is down about seven to nine points of attack bonus and a similar amount of damage per hit. Bumping the character's AC up to "normal" levels by reducing the attack bonus to twenty seven points below normal levels does nothing to solve the problem.

IMO, a generous class-based defense system is probably the best way to go--but only in combination with a realization that the standard CR system won't work at all anymore. A Balor is only CR 20 because 20th level fighters can typically fly and have magic weapons and cloaks of resistance. A low-magic character will probably not be able to take one on--even at 20th level and with a class-defense bonus.

 

[Christopher Lambert]

DnD assumes that as you advance in levels you can best increase AC via magic rings, spells, armor and shields. Enemies with high AC invariably wear rings of protection or bracers +4, with magic chainmail and whatnot. But what about a system that wasn't SO DEPENDENT on having magic to ever improve your defensive abilities. I've been thinking about making up a feat called Power Defend, along the same lines as Power Attack. And from the beginning of the campaign i would tell the players, look, you won't find oodles of AC enhancing magic. If you do, it will be very very valuable and cherished. If you use a sword, use it to Defend yourself. Use cover. Fight Defensively. Aid another in combat, use more strategy rather than relying on magic. What does anyone else to counter this (potential) problem in your campaign?

See D20 Modern for a level-based bonus to Defense - the system assumes you have no magic items, and in fact you'll hurt balance by introducing them.

Alas, there's no way around the magic item issue without coming up with a completely different set of monsters.

 

[Zoatebix]

An idea I just came up with after reading your post:

Whenever a character's Base Attack Bonus increase, they may instead choose to increase their Defense Bonus. Defense Bonus is a permanent dodge bonus added to your AC.

Heh - great minds think alike, I guess: that very same rule was actually published as an option in BESM d20 by Guradians of Order.

Of course, that game has a totally different set of assumptions from D&D, even though it tries to adhere to, or at least make some use of, the core challenge rating system.

 

[Narfellus]

The D&D game is designed that as characters increase in level, they get those spells, magic items, etc. to increase their AC; however, if you want to run a low-magic campaign, then the obvious result is that the campaign is going to be a lot deadlier, and some monsters will nigh industructible, because by virtue of being able to hit the party's characters a lot more often and the party at a serious disadvantage of not being able to deliver more punishment in return.

THANK you kitsune9 for your detailed breakdown of the system. That was useful. Yes, i agree with everything you said. Personally, i don't like ultra-high campaigns. I think the numbers ratchet up unnecessarily and the DnD game grows too complicated. But some people really like that level of detail and the Epic levels that follow. My ideal levels are 1st-12th, with characters leveling faster at low levels and slowing as they ascend. After weighing the many options, i think the UA system of class-based AC bonus would be most appropriate, and i think SW did the same thing. I want the players to be more creative in their use of in-combat feats, such as Combat Expertise (hmm, Power Defend, what was i thinking?) and i also don't want the big baddies to destroy them. A simple solution i've used in the past is to knock down the CR for any monster i want to use. We could have 9th level characters beat a Pit Fiend with a few minor adjustments, although that would be grossly against the purpose of having pit fiends!

Sounds like permanent combat expertise... talk about a bad deal.

Not to mention, it really wouldn't help with the problem. The problem is that the 20th level character in the low magic game has an AC 20 points lower than in the default game, a whole lot less magic, and is down about seven to nine points of attack bonus and a similar amount of damage per hit. Bumping the character's AC up to "normal" levels by reducing the attack bonus to twenty seven points below normal levels does nothing to solve the problem.

IMO, a generous class-based defense system is probably the best way to go--but only in combination with a realization that the standard CR system won't work at all anymore. A Balor is only CR 20 because 20th level fighters can typically fly and have magic weapons and cloaks of resistance. A low-magic character will probably not be able to take one on--even at 20th level and with a class-defense bonus.

Yeah, that would hurt the PC's in the long run i think. But it could be done by having the DM drastically reduce the CR of the Balor. Chop the hitpoints, attack bonus, damage, AC, a few abilities, and you have an appropriate challenge. But it means more work for the DM, of course, and it's guess-work at best. Such tinkering would take practice and common sense.

 

[Thanee]

Not to sound disrespectful, but that just isn't D&D.

Maybe another game system would work better to this end (I know a german RPG (Midgard), for example, where this holds true, you don't need any magic treasure at all there, tho it certainly helps, but just a little (like when your attack bonus is about +15 that includes maybe +2 from magic and +13 from skill)), but in D&D character advancement is very much interlinked with magical treasure and at higher levels magical treasure is immensely important and powerful. You cannot just remove one without a lot of fixing (and basically making it into a game, which isn't D&D anymore).

Bye
Thanee

 

[Aaron2]

Not to mention, it really wouldn't help with the problem. The problem is that the 20th level character in the low magic game has an AC 20 points lower than in the default game, a whole lot less magic, and is down about seven to nine points of attack bonus and a similar amount of damage per hit. Bumping the character's AC up to "normal" levels by reducing the attack bonus to twenty seven points below normal levels does nothing to solve the problem.

This would only be an issue if a low-magic 20th level character was expected to fight a high-magic 20th level character. The normal AC in the default environment is irrelevent to two low-magic characters fighting each other. Two 20th level low-magic fighters will be about equal to each other and still better than 19th characters. Since you have to adjust the CR of monsters anyway, simply adjust them up even more to account for the low AC of the characters.

I like the idea of using the Expertise mechanic. That way a fight between two experienced fighters become more of a guessing game as the characters try to balance AC with to-hit. It become kinda like Riddle of Steel. Do you risk it all with full BAB (and maybe some Power Attack) or go all AC to guage your opponent?


Aaron

 

[swrushing]

While the discussion focuses on Ac, its a good idea to look at other effects...
assuming little to no magic...

DAMAGE will be much lower too. That means combats will take longer as it takes many more hits to wade thru the hit points. Sure, its likely more swings will hit, but not enough more IMX to offset the loss in damage per hit.

MAGES will become even more potent. As fewer resources for magic, even the small stuff, become available, the importance of magic spell casters will grow. Since they can expect to see fewr if any saving thro items or energy attack defense items, their offensive spells will grow in utility. This becomes even more visible as fighter "melee" damage remains relatively static while the mage's attack spells scale by level.

MONSTERS with magical traits such as DR/magic and spells or even abilities such as FLY may become more potent that their "expected" threats.

These are just a few.

The Midnight core book has a section discussing iirc handling scenarios and monsters and evaluations in a world without the usual copious magic items. i would recommend reading it.

 

[Bavix]

Just Add Half BAB

IMC, I let characters add half their BAB to their AC as a dodge bonus and fighters get an extra +1. The bonus stacks with everything and works almost exactly like the Defense bonus in d20 Modern. It has worked great and doesn't unbalance the game at all. I haven't adjusted the amount of magic at all, I just don't use as many "combat" magic items in my game.

 

[Aust Diamondew]

I'm currently running a low magic item D&D game (the second one I have run).

PC's have approximately 1/10th of the magic items they should have for their character level.

As for defense characters recieve and bonus to AC equal to have their BAB (rogues are treated as having full BAB for purposes of determining AC).

Characters also recieve a saving throw bonus of +1 for every 4 character levels. Doing so prevents magic users from completely dominating.

These bonuses can only be gained from character class level not from monster levels or monster HD (so a minotuar with a 6 BAB doesn't get +3 AC or +1 to all saves but a minotuar with 4 fighter levels gets +2 to AC and +1 to all saves)

 

[Majere]

Not to poke fun at people.
But what is the point of having a system where instead of them buying +3full plate they buy full plate, get +3 ac from a class based system, and then recieve a tiny fraction of normal treasure.
All this amounts to is the DM dictating how to spend your treasure. Instead of having normal treasure you can spend freely, you get fractional treasure replaced by dm allocated bonusus. It is no more than an exercise in rebranding. A level 20 character with full plate and +5 ac from class levels amounts to the same thing as a character in +5 full plate. Im with Thanne, if you dont like high magic, D&D isnt the setting you want. D&D is a high magic setting, if you prefer low magic, perhaps try a d20 system which better reflects your campeign Idea ?

Majere