UA's Defense Bonus variant

[hymer]

The suggestion is to give a bonus to AC to compensate for PCs not wearing armour for campaign world reasons. Is it any good, though?

For one thing, it's a rather small bonus. A 20th level heavy armour user gets +12, noticeably less than a suit of full plate, big shield + 2 x magic vestment.
On the other hand, it's a big bonus. Wizards and sorcerers ususally relying on spells get a free AC bonus, no strings attached.
Oh, and anyone dipping a level of cleric or fighter gets the big bonus.

Has anyone tried it? How did it feel?

[Coidzor]

From what I understand, letting it stack with armor would help a bit with the trouble at high levels where unless you're putting a high amount of optimization into it, your AC isn't going to be high enough for appropriately CR'd enemies to have any real trouble hitting you, and mostly just exists to limit how much they can power attack for at any given time.

Haven't gotten to try it out yet, but I have been meaning to try it out in a swashbuckling game as it suggests.

I'd probably suggest rejiggering it so most full-casters get the lowest and the more AC-dependent mundanes get the highest.

[Diarmuid]

If by "noticably different" you really mean "1 point of AC less" then I guess your point stands. +12 for not wearing armor vs +13 (full plate 8, magic vestment 5) seems like a pretty reasonable fascimile.

Yes, there are some exotic armors that get a better base AC than 8, but I was just going by your example.

[hymer]

@ Coidzor: Sounds interesting. Though the devil's in the detail. Rejiggering that into legalese might be... devilish. :smallwink:

@ Diarmuid: Good point, I'll amend the OP accordingly.

[ddude987]

I have tried it in a campaign where the PCs were pirates. We only had 2 sessions but the PCs like the rule and it saved the tank from drowning because he didn't have to wear full plate.

[Maginomicon]

I use it in my main campaign (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=304652) as an intrinsic part of the game feel, as it's "Star Trek TOS-era"...-ish... and thus most of the time people simply wouldn't walk around wearing heavy armor even in dangerous situations.

So far it's worked out well for flavor reasons. It minorly bumps up classes that get special bonuses for going unarmored, but they deserve that sort of benefit anyway.

I had to add the following clarification though:

Immaterial Armor and the Defense Bonus

Mage Armor, Inertial Armor, and other similar immaterial armors stack with a defense bonus, but do not help defend you against touch attacks (unless the effect says otherwise). Furthermore, the fact that you’re using immaterial armor does not force you to use your armor bonus instead of your defense bonus.

--------------------

I also take the SRD's suggestion of merging it with the Armor as Damage Reduction variant (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/variant/adventuring/armorAsDamageReduction.htm) with the following clarification which provides sci-fi ablative shielding.

Immaterial Armor Damage Reduction

Mage Armor, Inertial Armor, and other similar immaterial armors ALSO are affected by the Armor as Damage Reduction rules.

[TuggyNE]

Immaterial Armor Damage Reduction

Mage Armor, Inertial Armor, and other similar immaterial armors ALSO are affected by the Armor as Damage Reduction rules.

For a while now I've wanted to make a version of mage armor that works more like the older editions': i.e., when it's sufficiently damaged or has prevented a certain amount of damage or something, it disintegrates. Seems to me that'd be more in keeping with a Conjuration.