d20 in general - Level based defense bonuses?

[Yora]

I am planning a campaign in which characters will be in full armor only when they are expecting to go into battle and will probably end up in fights without being in armor quite often.

Lots of d20 games have class level based defense bonuses that characters can use instead of wearing armor, but the more I think of it, the more I have doubts if that is really a good idea.

Now a 10th level fighter would be expected to last much longer in a battle without armor than a 3rd level fighter. But he already does that because of his much higher hit points. Which is assuming that not every single injury is tracked seperately, but then nobody would expect characters to make only a single swing with the weapon every six seconds. I would say that it is merely for convenience that you make a single roll to see how much closer you get your enemy to being too injured to keep fighting

Also, wearing armor should never reduce your armor class. Even a 20th level fighter with padded armor should be better protected than a 20th level fighter without it. Having the +1 bonus from the armor negate the +6, +10, +12 or whatever bonus from having the experience to dodge attacks doesn't make any sense. Yet every defense bonus system I can think of does just that.
There's good reason not to wear plate armor when you want to climb up walls and jump over roofs, but for being attacked by weapons, armor should always be a better defense than not wearing any armor. There just isn't anyone so dexterous that adding layers of protection makes you more vulnerable.

So right now, I am strongly thinking of not using defense bonuses, even though the campaign is exactly the type these bonuses are made for. Now with Armor as Damage Reduction things would be different, but I'm not sure if I want to mess that much with the rules.

[Grinner]

Realistically, these things would be true, but since when has the d20 system ever been "realistic"? :smallsigh:

If I were in your shoes, I'd look for another system entirely or just leave in the class-based defense bonuses, especially if your campaign is intended to be heroic fantasy.

[LibraryOgre]

Go read Hackmaster Basic. Shield? Better protected than the guy with a two hander. Wearing armor? Lower defense, but better damage reduction. Defend with a shield? Opponent still rolls some damage, but is unlikely to get through shield and armor.

[Mando Knight]

SAGA has basic Heroic level defense, and then Soldiers and Imperial Knights get talents that let them apply both that and half their armor bonus...

[Knaight]

I am planning a campaign in which characters will be in full armor only when they are expecting to go into battle and will probably end up in fights without being in armor quite often.

Lots of d20 games have class level based defense bonuses that characters can use instead of wearing armor, but the more I think of it, the more I have doubts if that is really a good idea.

If you go with getting a class based bonus in addition to wearing armor, it works out decently. There are some slight issues with near invincibility due to defense, but the easiest way to solve that where it would be a problem (e.g. groups) is simply to enhance the effectiveness of group fighting in regards to attack bonuses.

[prufock]

Have you thought about treating armor as damage reduction rather than AC bonus?

[Philistine]

I am planning a campaign in which characters will be in full armor only when they are expecting to go into battle and will probably end up in fights without being in armor quite often.

Lots of d20 games have class level based defense bonuses that characters can use instead of wearing armor, but the more I think of it, the more I have doubts if that is really a good idea.

Now a 10th level fighter would be expected to last much longer in a battle without armor than a 3rd level fighter. But he already does that because of his much higher hit points. Which is assuming that not every single injury is tracked seperately, but then nobody would expect characters to make only a single swing with the weapon every six seconds. I would say that it is merely for convenience that you make a single roll to see how much closer you get your enemy to being too injured to keep fighting

Also, wearing armor should never reduce your armor class. Even a 20th level fighter with padded armor should be better protected than a 20th level fighter without it. Having the +1 bonus from the armor negate the +6, +10, +12 or whatever bonus from having the experience to dodge attacks doesn't make any sense. Yet every defense bonus system I can think of does just that.
There's good reason not to wear plate armor when you want to climb up walls and jump over roofs, but for being attacked by weapons, armor should always be a better defense than not wearing any armor. There just isn't anyone so dexterous that adding layers of protection makes you more vulnerable.

So right now, I am strongly thinking of not using defense bonuses, even though the campaign is exactly the type these bonuses are made for. Now with Armor as Damage Reduction things would be different, but I'm not sure if I want to mess that much with the rules.

Just sayin', the bolded bit is only true if HP outscales damage. That's not necessarily the case (see D&D3E, where characters focused on dealing damage can deal essentially arbitrary amounts of it in a single round by this level).

[LibraryOgre]

Just sayin', the bolded bit is only true if HP outscales damage. That's not necessarily the case (see D&D3E, where characters focused on dealing damage can deal essentially arbitrary amounts of it in a single round by this level).

Basically, one of the things D&D did was make HP represent some of that ability to defend oneself. Now, it gets weird when you start talking about healing (because the fighter can get really messed up, but AD&D healing rates were arbitrarily set), but that was the concept.

[ngilop]

why not just go along the d20 mordern route and give classes a defense bonus based on level?


you know so a level 1 fighter has +0 to defense while a level 5 fighter has a +2 or 3 maybe?

[Grod_The_Giant]

The problem, at least in 3.5, is that your to-hit modifier scales much, much faster and more easily than your AC modifier. I recommend a combination of class-based defense bonuses and armor-as-DR-- stack the reduced armor bonus with the defense bonus, and let DR apply as normal. Lets you do OK if caught without armor, but armor definitely helps, too.

[ngilop]

i would do the armor as DR thing IF and ONLY if you do not redcue the ac you get formt he armor like how grod suggested.


You could look at what conan has with ist dodge and parry defenses

or you could make armor give temp HP equal to 3X ist armor bonus each round so youd have to do 28 dmg in a round to actually 'hurt' somebody wearing full plate.

[Grod_The_Giant]

i would do the armor as DR thing IF and ONLY if you do not redcue the ac you get formt he armor like how grod suggested.
The idea was to combine the AC bonus from the armor-as-DR with the class and level-based AC bonus, resulting in a total that's probably much higher.

[erikun]

Back in Ye Olde AD&D, the idea behind the increasing attack bonus was (most likely) to keep some monsters challanging to low-level character. Conversely, it made low-level monsters easier as you got stronger. This meant a Balor didn't get steamrolled by a mid-level party, even with considerable planning, and was still considered a "high level" thread.

Armor scaled with attack bonus, roughly speaking, because good quality armor was incredibly expensive and magical equipment moreso. Getting +5 Full Plate and a +5 Shield wasn't something you could easily get until higher levels. Higher level characters would last longer in a fight, but an unarmored opponent would not be defended any better than everyone else. (This somewhat made sense, as the game was trying to portray King Arthur moreso than Hercules.)


Since D&D3, the numbers have been off and that has messed everything up. It is now ridiculously easy to get an attack bonus that can hit any AC you are likely to run across, or bypass it entirely. The system is being adapted to modern or other genres, where buying expensive full plate with gathered treasure doesn't fit. The level-based defense bonus is mostly a counter to the level-based attack bonus, and isn't always well thought out (if ever).

Also, what games negate the level-based defense with worn armor? The only time I've seen that is with the D&D Monk. Everything else either stacks the armor with the level-defense, or uses whichever is better.

[Philistine]

SWSE, for one, replaces your level-based defense bonus with your armor's bonus, unless you have a specific Talent to allow you to choose the better of the two (another Talent let's them partially stack). While I understand the devs' point that we don't see the heroes running around in armor much during the movies, I still think it's one of Saga's few clear-cut missteps - and one of the very few that wasn't a holdover from 3.5.

[Mando Knight]

SWSE, for one, replaces your level-based defense bonus with your armor's bonus, unless you have a specific Talent to allow you to choose the better of the two (another Talent let's them partially stack). While I understand the devs' point that we don't see the heroes running around in armor much during the movies, I still think it's one of Saga's few clear-cut missteps - and one of the very few that wasn't a holdover from 3.5.

On the other hand, giving Armored Defense for free means that anyone with less than a certain amount of Dexterity can get +3 Reflex and +2 Fortitude with relatively little opportunity cost, in a game where defenses already scale faster than attack bonuses without investing in the latter, to say nothing of the Scum and Villainy armor mods. Even split into two talents as it is now, Improved Armored Defense is very strong defensive talent.

[ngilop]

The idea was to combine the AC bonus from the armor-as-DR with the class and level-based AC bonus, resulting in a total that's probably much higher.

that is what is in teh UA alternate rules I think


it actually ends up being about the same AC total

keeping teh full AC bonus and just slapping on DR/- as well as giving a certain degree of Defense bonus would be good
A= Fighter
B= other full BAB classes
C= average BAB classes
D=poor BAB classes

{table=head] Level | A | B | C | D
1 | +0 | +0 | +0 | +0
2 | +1 | +0 | +0 | +0
3 | +1 | +1 | +0 | +0
4 | +1 | +1 | +0 | +0
5 | +2 | +1 | +1 | +0
6 | +2 | +2 | +1 | +0
7 | +3 | +2 | +1 | +1
8 | +3 | +2 | +1 | +1
9 | +3 | +3 | +1 | +1
10 | +4 | +3 | +2 | +1
11 | +4 | +3 | +2 | +1
12 | +5 | +4 | +2 | +1
13 | +5 | +4 | +2 | +1
14 | +5 | +4 | +3 | +2
15 | +6 | +5 | +3 | +2
16 | +6 | +5 | +3 | +2
17 | +7 | +5 | +3 | +2
18 | +7 | +6 | +3 | +2
19 | +7 | +6 | +4 | +2
20 | +8 | +6 | +4 | +2
[/table]

that is just a quick run down of how I roll.

[Friv]

On the other hand, giving Armored Defense for free means that anyone with less than a certain amount of Dexterity can get +3 Reflex and +2 Fortitude with relatively little opportunity cost, in a game where defenses already scale faster than attack bonuses without investing in the latter, to say nothing of the Scum and Villainy armor mods. Even split into two talents as it is now, Improved Armored Defense is very strong defensive talent.

A decent way of dealing with that which I saw was to replaced Armored Defense with Second Skin, and then make everything else build on that; it's still a two-Talent dip to get the really strong armor, but the first one isn't utterly useless, and trained soldiers don't become easier to hit when they put their armor on.

[Tvtyrant]

I believe the reason people put the dodge bonus up like they do is to allow for characters who want to play the dashing swordsman/martial artist type. There are plenty of series' that claim that armor merely slows you down, and show people in plate be easily defeated by youngsters who are unarmored.

[Grod_The_Giant]

Also, in 3.5e at least, attack bonuses scale so much faster than AC it's not even funny. By mid-levels, everyone's hitting each other on rolls of, like, 3.