PDA

View Full Version : D&D 3.x Other Defenses Overhaul (PEACH,WIP)



Plato Play-Doh
2013-09-26, 02:25 PM
This thread seeks to overhaul the way the defense system works in 3.5 DnD. It changes the hit/miss method of the armor class based system and replaces it with three new ways of deterring attacks. These new rule sets emphasize tactical thinking, versatility, and teamwork. These rules may work best in a setting that focuses on low magic characters, but should fit well into the original version of 3.5. Below are the following changes to the defenses, including the news rules, new armor types and feat changes/additions.

Actions of Opportunity
The most important rule of the defenses overhaul are Actions of Opportunity (AoO). Actions of Opportunity are the basis of how creatures defend themselves and perform actions in combat. To put them into mechanical terms. AoO's incorporate Attacks of Opportunity, Defensive Maneuvers and Counter-Attacks.

Unless otherwise stated, a character can perform a number of AoO's in a round equal to (their highest base attack bonus / 4) plus their DEX modifier. For example, an 8th level fighter with a DEX of 12 (+1 modifier) has three AoO's in a round.

Armor
There is no more armor class to determine how difficult you are to hit. Instead, armor gives you damage reduction (here after referred to as Armor Rating). Three things contribute to armor rating, they are; Armor, Natural Armor, and Deflection bonus. Any numerical bonus (or penalty) to either of these directly affects the armor rating. Any damage taken is reduced by the amount of armor rating the creatures has.

However, certain types of attacks or materials can be better or worse at over coming armor rating. For more information about about over coming armor rating, and for info on the new armor types, see [here (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showpost.php?p=16932054&postcount=89)].

It is important to note, that the max dexterity bonus of certain armors do not affect your armor rating or any of your defensive maneuvers. It does, however, limit the amount of bonus AoO's a character can receive from their DEX bonus. The armor check penalty from armor applies to defensive maneuvers.


Defensive Maneuvers

Blocking
One of the ways a character or creature may protect themselves is by blocking with a shield. To do so, they must have a shield readied in one of their hands. When a creature with a shield is attacked, they may spend one AoO in order to block the full-attack of a creature. The creature attempting to block makes an opposed attack roll against each attack from their attacker. If they exceed the attack roll of the attacker, they successfully block the attack, negating all damage. The blocker may use their full BaB when blocking, -5 for every block attempt against the same creature for that round.

On a successful block, the attacker immediately makes a sunder attempt against the shield, which automatically hits. In this way, shields can break in combat. Effects that would normally cause Insight, Morale or Luck bonuses to armor class, now give bonuses to blocking.

Dodging
To avoid damage completely, a creature may attempt to dodge a blow that would otherwise cause them serious harm. To do this, the dodger must spend an AoO. Then attempt a reflex save, Modifiers like Size, Insight, Morale, Dodge and Luck bonuses, that normally affect armor class, affect dodge.


Parrying
A creature can attempt to deflect an attack made against them by using their weapon. To do so, the creature attempting the parry must have either made use of the combat expertise feat, fought defensively, or use the total defense action, and spends one AoO. They make an opposed attack roll against the creature attacking them. If they exceed the attacker's roll, they successfully negate all damage from that attack. Insight, Morale and Luck bonuses that would normally apply to armor class, are applied to parrying.

In addition, the creature who is parrying takes a -4 penalty against attacks from a creature 1 size category larger than them and from weapons meant for a creature 1 size category larger than them (i.e Human wielding large greatsword via Monkey Grip (CW) feat). They can not attempt a parry against a creature (or weapon meant for a creature) either 2 size categories smaller or larger than them.

Parrying with a light weapon incurs a -4 penalty to the parry roll. However, some special light weapons (like the sai or parrying dagger), negate this penalty. Some weapons allow a counter maneuver to be performed as an immediate action upon a successful parry. (For instance, the sai can immediately make a disarm attempt).


Miscellaneous (Important information, suggested to read).
a. It is possible to attempt to parry, shield block, and dodge the same attack. Choose what you want to do first, and if that fails, you may attempt another at a -2 penalty. If that fails, you may attempt the third at a -4 penalty. Each of these expends actions of opportunity as normal.
b. Failing to hit, either by being dodged, shield blocked, or parried, or by having the DR of armor completely nullify your damage, provokes an attack of opportunity.
c. If parrying while dual-wielding or multi-wielding, may attack with a weapon other than the one you used to parry for this attack of opportunity. Normal attack penalties apply, but doing this does not count as a use of an action of opportunity from the target that you missed, so long as it was a melee attack.
d. The dodge bonuses provided by fighting defensively or the total defense action also apply to parrying and shield blocking.
e. Cover and concealment give +4 to reflex saves, total concealment gives +8. Disregard the other bonuses of concealment and cover, but total concealment and total cover still provide immunity to being targeted as normal. When attacked, a reflex save is automatically made, that only takes into account cover, concealment, and luck bonuses, and which is considered to have "taken zero". This requires no action.
f. Attacks from total concealment cannot be blocked dodged or parried unless the target has the Blind Fight feat or similar ability.
g. Creatures in flight with perfect maneuverability get +4 to dodge. With good maneuverability, they have +2 to dodge. Average maneuverability has no modifier, but creatures with poor maneuverability get -2 to dodge while flying, and creatures with clumsy maneuverability get -4.
h. All creatures gain additional actions of opportunity each round equal to their dexterity modifier.
i. When attempting to sunder an item that is carried, but not a weapon or shield, normal sunder rules apply, (i.e, you get an AoO if you want). The item is entitled to a free Dodge attempt. The Dodge bonus is equal to the carrier's dodge bonus, however use the item's size modifier when calculating the total dodge bonus. Alternatively, instead of using their Action of Opportunity to attack their opponent, they may use it to defend the item that is being sundered. They may use any of the three defenses they are able to do, and they follow the normal rules for these actions. On a successful defense, the sunder is cancelled, if not, then the sunder attempt continues as normal. If the attacker has the Improved Sunder feat, then the defender may not attempt to defend the item, just like they can not perform a regular attack of opportunity. taking either Action of Opportunity (attacking or defending) uses up one of the character's Action of Opportunity for the round.
j. The morningstar is now considered a martial weapon, and has d6 damage instead of d8 (d4 for small characters).


Feat Changes

All of these feats may be taken as fighter bonus feats.

Combat Reflexes
Prerequisites: base attack bonus +4
Benefit: Gain one additional action of opportunity each round.
Special: May take this feat more than once. Each additional time adds 4 to the base attack bonus prerequisite.

Cleave
Prerequisites: Power Attack, Str 13
Benefit: If you deal a creature enough damage to make it drop (typically by dropping it to below 0 hit points or killing it), you get an immediate, extra melee attack against another creature within reach. If you break a creature's shield, you may make an immediate, extra attack against that creature. You cannot take a 5-foot step before making this extra attack. The extra attack is with the same weapon and at the same bonus as the attack that dropped the previous creature. You can use this ability once per round.

Armor Focus
Prerequisites: Proficiency with chosen armor type.
Benefit: Choose one armor type (light, medium, or heavy). You may ignore up to 2 armor penetration when wearing that type of armor.

Improved Armor Focus
Prerequisites: Armor Focus, proficiency with chosen armor type.
Benefit: Armor of the type chosen with armor focus gives an additional 1 DR.

Shield Focus
Prerequisites: Shield Proficiency
Benefit: You gain +1 to rolls made to block with a shield.

Improved Shield Focus
Prerequisites: Shield Proficiency, Shield Focus
Benefit: You gain + 1 to rolls made to block with a shield. This bonus increases to +2 while fighting defensively, and +4 with the total defense action.

Greater Shield Bash
Prerequisites: Improved Shield Bash, Strength 16, BAB +6
Benefit: When you shield bash, the target is rendered incapable of blocking, dodging, or parrying the next attack made against them before the beginning of their next turn.

Improved Parry
Prerequisites: base attack bonus +5, Weapon Finesse
Benefit: You no longer need to be fighting defensively in order to parry.

Shield Tactic: Nick of Time
Prerequisites: Shield Focus, Improved Parry, or Lightning Reflexes; base attack bonus +1
Benefit: If a block roll is failed by five or less, you may still block half of the damage you receive. Shields take half sunder damage.

Power Attack
Prerequisites: Strength 13
Benefit: On your action, before making attack rolls for a round, you may choose to subtract a number from all attack rolls and reflex saves, and add the same number to all melee damage rolls. This number may not exceed your base attack bonus. The penalty on attacks and bonus on damage apply until your next turn.

Counter Maneuver: Tactical Dodge
Prerequisites: Dodge, Mobility, base attack bonus +4, Dexterity 14
Benefit:Whenever you succeed on a Dodge attempt, as an Action of Opportunity you can move 5ft as an immediate action. If the enemy is using the full attack action against you, you move 5 ft after they make all of their attacks for the round. This takes place before you make your Attack of Opportunity for succeeding on your Dodge.
Special: If you have Spring Attack, you can make your Attack of Opportunity for succeeding on your dodge, then move your 5ft (Assuming you have enough Actions of Opportunity)

Combat Expertise
Prerequisites: Intelligence 13
Benefit: When you fight defensively, you instead take a penalty of as much as -5 on your attack roll and add the same number (+5 or less) as a bonus to dodging, parrying, and blocking. This number may not exceed your base attack bonus. The changes to attack rolls and defenses last until your next action.

Armor Piercing
Prerequisites: Weapon Focus (Any Crossbow Type), Point Blank Shot, Dexterity 14, base attack bonus +6
Benefit: When firing at a target that is subjected to your point blank shot, you can make one shot with a crossbow that you have weapon focus with that completely bypasses the enemy's DR from armor or natural armor, but not DR that is not from natural armor or armor.

Sunder Armor
Enemy armor is less imposing to you.
Prerequisite: Power Attack, Improved Sunder
Benefit: Instead of sundering a weapon or a shield, you may target an opponents armor. This follows the same rules as sundering a shield or weapon, but instead of damaging the armor's HP, you reduce the DR of your opponent by 2. The damage can be repaired with a DC 15 Craft check with a craft skill relevant to that type of armor, but not in combat.
Special: This maneuver can only be done against creatures who have an armor bonus to DR. Natural and Deflection bonuses are unaffected. ..


Alternate Block Rule (Shields Don't Break)

Shield Block: By spending 1 AoO, a creature holding a shield can attempt to block incoming attacks from one target. The creature with the shield makes an opposed attack roll for each attack. If he exceeds the attacker's roll, he successfully blocks the attack, reducing the damage he takes by the amount of absorption of his shield. Any excess damage is still inflicted to the defender as bludgeoning damage, which can still be reduced further by the creature's armor rating (if any). The amount of attacks a creature can block by using 1 AoO is equal to the amount of times they can make in a full attack.

You may not block an attack from behind, or from the side you carry your weapon if you have attacked, (or if you blocked an attack) that round. If you block an attack from behind or your weapon side, you (or your shield arm) now face that direction.

Shields have an absorption rating. This is the amount of damage they can absorb from a given attack. The absorption rating of shields is shown below. Add any enhancement bonus a shield has to its absorption rating.

{table=head] Shields* | Cost | Absorption | Max Dex | Armor Check Penalty | Arcane Spell Failure | Speed | Weight
Buckler** | 15 gp | 5 | - | -1 | 5% | - | 5lb
Light | 3 gp | 5 | - | -1 | 5% | - | 5lb
Heavy | 7 gp | 10 | - | -2 | 15% | - | 10lb
Tower | 30 gp | 20 | 2 | -10 | 50% | - | 45lb[/table]

* Shields listed are assumed to be wooden, for details on special materials and steel shields, see the below table.

** Bucklers can not be made of anything other than wood or darkwood.

Materials

{table=head] Material | Absorption Bonus | Weight*
Wood | +0 | As Listed
Darkwood | +0 | Half of Wooden
Steel | +5 | +5lb
Mithril | +5 | Half of Steel
Adamantium | +10 | +10lb[/table]

* Tower shields have their weight increases by double the amount listed on this table.

What do you think?

TheFamilarRaven
2013-09-26, 07:45 PM
So, in return for PEACHing my Havoc Knight I shall PEACH your overhaul. where these rules would add variation to combat, rather then the players saying "I swing ax"

That being said I have a few comments.


Part I: Armor
a. Dex, Insight, Dodge, Luck, and Shield bonuses no longer apply to AC.
b. Any spell that gives a shield bonus to AC now gives a deflection bonus instead to AC.
c. Subtract 10 from this AC score, and characters now have that amount of damage reduction.
d. Light Armorís armor rating is doubled against bludgeoning attacks, and halved against slashing attacks.
f. Heavy Armorís armor rating is halved against bludgeoning attacks.
g. Heavy armorís max dex rating instead is a limit on the number of times one can take an action of opportunity in a round.

Seems fine. Just a few things. What about piercing attacks? Because you only mention slashing and bludgeoning. re-read for simple typo fixes, also, maybe provide an example so there no room for confusion. Something like this.
Fullplate has an AC bonus of +8, so 10 (base AC) +8 = 18 AC total ... -10 = a total of 8 DR
Also, do you mean damage reduction when you say Armor rating, or do you mean Armor Class?


Part II: Dodging
a. Instead of using AC, a creature or character may make a reflex save to completely negate a nonmagical attack.
b. This is considered an action of opportunity, and thus counts against the total number of attacks of opportunity each round. This also means that the feat Combat Reflexes, and similar effects, increase the number of times a creature or character may dodge each round.
c. Dodge bonuses and insight bonuses to AC now apply to reflex instead.

Be specific with the reflex DC. I am assuming the DC is = to the attack roll. so on an attack roll of 18 (which would hit our example character), a reflex save of 18 or higher would negate all the damage. other than that I like it.


Part III: Blocking
a. When holding a shield and fighting defensively, a character may make a melee attack with that shield to block a melee attack as an action of opportunity.
b. Should they succeed, the attack is turned into a sunder attempt on the shield, which automatically hits. Ranged sunder attempts are possible under these conditions, but receive -2 to their damage.
c. Using the total defense action allows the character to automatically succeed on their block attempt.
d. Instead of losing the bucklerís shield bonus, the buckler is unable to be used to block until you next turn if you use a weapon two-handed with it.

I really like this variant, because this is pretty much how people fought in medieval warfare. Shield were used and broke often in the heat of battle.
just a few things. This may require the hitpoints and hardness to go way up, because blocking any attack at higher levels will guarantee the shield to break on the first or second block ... but maybe not, I know magic items increase in hardness and hitpoints and I don't have many players sundering shield often enough to give you a good estimate. However ...

I don't think should you need to be fighting defensively in order to use a Block Action of Opportunity. Because that's a -4 to all your attacks for that round, for a +2 bonus to your Blocking and parrying rolls. My reasoning is, if you brought a shield to a fight, you're going to be ready to use it if you have it out ... you don't need to "focus" on defense in order to block.
c) Maybe give a decent bonus to the block attempt when using full defense, but an instant block I don't feel is very exciting.

Also, same as Dodging, you might want to specify that the opposing block roll must equal or exceed the attack role.


Part IV: Parrying
a. Characters may parry any melee attack with a weapon by making an attack roll with a melee weapon as an attack of opportunity.
b. Should they succeed, all damage from the attack is negated.
c. Natural weapons cannot be used to parry.


This one is iffy, because it diminishes the value of blocking. Why should I bring a shield when I can just use a greatsword and parry "any melee" attack, without having to fight defensively? granted i can't deflect arrows, but longbows don't seem too bad when I have a DR of 8 from my fullplate, and my weapon takes no damage from a sunder attempt. (Also, I'm assuming you meant to write Action of Opportunity, rather than Attack of Opportunity...)

Here's some suggestions.
-Make THIS the ability that requires fighting defensively
- When attempting a parry, you take a -4 penalty for every size category larger your opponent is from you.
-You cannot parry an attack from a creature 2 or less size categories smaller than you
-Again, specify that the parry role must = or exceed the attack roll



Part V: Misc
a. It is possible to attempt to parry, shield block, and dodge the same attack. Choose what you want to do first, and if that fails, you may attempt another at a -2 penalty. If that fails, you may attempt the third at a -4 penalty. Each of these expends actions of opportunity as normal.
b. Failing to hit, either by being dodged, shield blocked, or parried, or by having the DR of armor completely nullify your damage, provokes an attack of opportunity.
c. If parrying and dual-wielding or multi-wielding, may attack with a weapon other than the one you used to parry for this attack of opportunity. Normal attack penalties apply, but doing this does not count as a use of an action of opportunity.
d. The dodge bonuses provided by fighting defensively or the total defense action also apply to parrying and shield blocking.


I might put these notes at the beginning, or at least remind readers to read these first, because I almost posted something completely incorrect before I reread this passage.


What do you think?

^^ all of the above statements that's what! :smalltongue:

But in all seriousness, I like these changes. I can actually see myself implementing them in a more martial focused campaign, where spellcasting classes would be extremely rare, and maybe not even available to the PC's.

good rules

Plato Play-Doh
2013-09-27, 12:13 PM
So, in return for PEACHing my Havoc Knight I shall PEACH your overhaul. where these rules would add variation to combat, rather then the players saying "I swing ax"

That being said I have a few comments.



Seems fine. Just a few things. What about piercing attacks? Because you only mention slashing and bludgeoning. re-read for simple typo fixes, also, maybe provide an example so there no room for confusion. Something like this.
Fullplate has an AC bonus of +8, so 10 (base AC) +8 = 18 AC total ... -10 = a total of 8 DR
Also, do you mean damage reduction when you say Armor rating, or do you mean Armor Class?

I included piercing attacks, an example, and changed the "armor rating" to DR. Also, it wasn't clear, but I intended the DR to be instead of AC, not in addition to it. I made that clearer now.


Be specific with the reflex DC. I am assuming the DC is = to the attack roll. so on an attack roll of 18 (which would hit our example character), a reflex save of 18 or higher would negate all the damage. other than that I like it.
Done.



This may require the hitpoints and hardness to go way up, because blocking any attack at higher levels will guarantee the shield to break on the first or second block ... but maybe not, I know magic items increase in hardness and hitpoints and I don't have many players sundering shield often enough to give you a good estimate.

It may. I don't have enough time to change that just now, but I'll work on it.


I don't think should you need to be fighting defensively in order to use a Block Action of Opportunity. Because that's a -4 to all your attacks for that round, for a +2 bonus to your Blocking and parrying rolls. My reasoning is, if you brought a shield to a fight, you're going to be ready to use it if you have it out ... you don't need to "focus" on defense in order to block.
c) Maybe give a decent bonus to the block attempt when using full defense, but an instant block I don't feel is very exciting.

Also, same as Dodging, you might want to specify that the opposing block roll must equal or exceed the attack role.

Done. Also, the idea between having total defense be an automatic block was mainly because of planting the shield in the ground. I realized that only really makes sense with tower shields, so I gave tower shields an extra bonus.


Here's some suggestions.
-Make THIS the ability that requires fighting defensively
- When attempting a parry, you take a -4 penalty for every size category larger your opponent is from you.
-You cannot parry an attack from a creature 2 or less size categories smaller than you
-Again, specify that the parry role must = or exceed the attack roll

Done.


I might put these notes at the beginning, or at least remind readers to read these first, because I almost posted something completely incorrect before I reread this passage.

Done also.


^^ all of the above statements that's what! :smalltongue:
:smallbiggrin:


But in all seriousness, I like these changes. I can actually see myself implementing them in a more martial focused campaign, where spellcasting classes would be extremely rare, and maybe not even available to the PC's.

good rules
Thanks!

Also, I added luck/cover/concealment things in the misc section.

TheFamilarRaven
2013-09-27, 03:42 PM
Nice fixes .. but I have a few additional comments. (most of which are just wording simplification/clarity) Like always, these are simply opinions, do with them what you will.

PART I

C) Might want to say "AC no longer determines how difficult a creature is to hit. Instead ...(insert your shpeel here)"
I don't know if it THAT important, it's just how I would have worded it.

D-E) Couple of things.
1) Where does Medium armor fit into this? (Scale mail etc)
2) If a creature only had a Deflection bonus to AC, or a Natural Armor bonus to AC, what type of armor would they have (light, medium heavy) for determining which types of attacks increase the DR or decrease it.

1 more thing, as it stands now, everyone get either one attack of opportunity or Action of Opportunity in any given round. UNLESS they take Combat Reflexes, which increases these action to a number equal to the character's DEX mod. Under the current system, this seems like a must for any DEX base class. But the poor fighter if limited by his armor. Sure he's got the nice DR, but up against say Dragon, even with a DR of 13 (fullplate +5), he could maybe block the first attack, but he can still get pretty beat up pretty fast. (maybe a better example is say, a Titan, using a gargantuan warhammer)

Here's some ideas: Look at the feats Combat refelxes and Combat Expertise
Combat Reflexes I think could stay the same. But maybe try to add a variation to it (like Wisdom for Monk-type classes).
Combat Expertise is the thing that should help out your plate wearing heores, I don't have an example, but I feel like it should be the thing heavy armor players would want. (Bonus DR in exchange for attack pretty much is what it does now).
Maybe add a feat like Improves Shield Block
Benefit: You no longer spend an Action of Opportunity when blocking attack from in front of you, or from your shield flank. (I.e left side for right handed heroes)

PART IV

Maybe also add a penalty to parry with light weapons, otherwise you'll have daggers parrying greataxes, and as cool as that might be ... that really doesn't make sense in the physics department. On the other hand, DnD and physics aren't really on speaking terms ...

PART V

c) "parrying WHILE duel-wielding ..."
e) +4 bonus to dodging with cover makes sense. But In my opinion, granting the same bonus to both concealment and total concealment, doesn't make too much sense, and it that makes it so it really only favors high reflex characters. Granted, the dodge Action is at no cost, but most heavy fighter types will have a hard time dodging, even with the +4 bonus.
Here's my suggestion, because concealment is one of the rules that has a few clauses in it.
I think you should keep the miss chance granted by concealment. Maybe it'll be easier if I just write done so variant rules
-Attacks made against a target with total concealment have a 50% miss chance. In addition, if the attack actually hits the target, they can choose to either block, dodge or parry, at no cost to their uses of Actions of Opportunity, this receive a +4 bonus.
-Attacks FROM total concealment, can not be blocked dodged or parried, unless the target has the Blind Fight feat or similar ability.

That's all for now ... keep up the good work.

Plato Play-Doh
2013-09-27, 04:52 PM
C) Might want to say "AC no longer determines how difficult a creature is to hit. Instead ...(insert your shpeel here)"
I don't know if it THAT important, it's just how I would have worded it.

Yeah, that works better. Done.


D-E) Couple of things.
1) Where does Medium armor fit into this? (Scale mail etc)
2) If a creature only had a Deflection bonus to AC, or a Natural Armor bonus to AC, what type of armor would they have (light, medium heavy) for determining which types of attacks increase the DR or decrease it.

The deflection/natural armor bonuses don't count as either heavy or light armor. I'm talking about the actual armor that you wear. Different types of armor provide differing levels of effectiveness against different weapons, which is what I wanted to portray here. Medium armor can use the listed stats, since its...well, medium. It's the middle man. Where light and heavy armor are going to be drastically disparate, and good at some things while bad at others, medium armor is pretty middle of the road at everything. That's the idea I wanted, anyway. I tend to like giving the option of specializing, or being a "jack of all trades, master of none", which is what I want medium armor to be.


1 more thing, as it stands now, everyone get either one attack of opportunity or Action of Opportunity in any given round. UNLESS they take Combat Reflexes, which increases these action to a number equal to the character's DEX mod. Under the current system, this seems like a must for any DEX base class. But the poor fighter if limited by his armor. Sure he's got the nice DR, but up against say Dragon, even with a DR of 13 (fullplate +5), he could maybe block the first attack, but he can still get pretty beat up pretty fast. (maybe a better example is say, a Titan, using a gargantuan warhammer)

Here's some ideas: Look at the feats Combat refelxes and Combat Expertise
Combat Reflexes I think could stay the same. But maybe try to add a variation to it (like Wisdom for Monk-type classes).
Combat Expertise is the thing that should help out your plate wearing heores, I don't have an example, but I feel like it should be the thing heavy armor players would want. (Bonus DR in exchange for attack pretty much is what it does now).
Maybe add a feat like Improves Shield Block
Benefit: You no longer spend an Action of Opportunity when blocking attack from in front of you, or from your shield flank. (I.e left side for right handed heroes)

Yup. This sort of thing will be included in the feats section, once complete.


Maybe also add a penalty to parry with light weapons, otherwise you'll have daggers parrying greataxes, and as cool as that might be ... that really doesn't make sense in the physics department. On the other hand, DnD and physics aren't really on speaking terms ...

But what about real life weapons like the sai? Parrying is more about sword(or whatever weapon you use) play and finesse than anything else. Often smaller weapons could parry more efficiently. Well, as far as I know, at least. If someone with some more expertise with melee combat than I have (read:none) were to come here and say otherwise, I'd change it. Wouldn't want to mess with the great "swashbuckling rogue" archetype that we all know and love, and they certainly aren't usually wielding greatswords.


c) "parrying WHILE duel-wielding ..."
Fixed.


e) +4 bonus to dodging with cover makes sense. But In my opinion, granting the same bonus to both concealment and total concealment, doesn't make too much sense, and it that makes it so it really only favors high reflex characters. Granted, the dodge Action is at no cost, but most heavy fighter types will have a hard time dodging, even with the +4 bonus.
Here's my suggestion, because concealment is one of the rules that has a few clauses in it.
I think you should keep the miss chance granted by concealment. Maybe it'll be easier if I just write done so variant rules
-Attacks made against a target with total concealment have a 50% miss chance. In addition, if the attack actually hits the target, they can choose to either block, dodge or parry, at no cost to their uses of Actions of Opportunity, this receive a +4 bonus.
-Attacks FROM total concealment, can not be blocked dodged or parried, unless the target has the Blind Fight feat or similar ability.

Sorry, maybe I should clarify. How good you are at reflex saves doesn't matter with the automatic save. Basically, concealment, cover, and total concealment give what's kind of an "automatic miss chance", more than an "automatic dodge attempt." It's really just a different version of the miss chance. It also adds luck bonuses, for obvious reasons. It's a "you missed" type of thing. It does add to your ability to actively dodge, but it also adds to the chance that you'll be missed without even trying to dodge. That being said, I don't know why I kept concealment at the normal +4 instead of doubling that...my bad, I'll fix that. Also, I like the clause about attacks from concealment. Thanks for the suggestion!


That's all for now ... keep up the good work.
Will do!:smallsmile:

TheFamilarRaven
2013-09-27, 09:52 PM
The deflection/natural armor bonuses don't count as either heavy or light armor. I'm talking about the actual armor that you wear. Different types of armor provide differing levels of effectiveness against different weapons, which is what I wanted to portray here. Medium armor can use the listed stats, since its...well, medium. It's the middle man. Where light and heavy armor are going to be drastically disparate, and good at some things while bad at others, medium armor is pretty middle of the road at everything. That's the idea I wanted, anyway. I tend to like giving the option of specializing, or being a "jack of all trades, master of none", which is what I want medium armor to be.

Ok, that's fine. you should just probably clarify that medium armor has no bonuses or penalties against certain types of attacks. And that unarmored opponents (even though they may have natural armor or a deflection bonus to AC), have no vulnerabilities or bonuses, like medium armor.




But what about real life weapons like the sai? Parrying is more about sword(or whatever weapon you use) play and finesse than anything else. Often smaller weapons could parry more efficiently. Well, as far as I know, at least. If someone with some more expertise with melee combat than I have (read:none) were to come here and say otherwise, I'd change it. Wouldn't want to mess with the great "swashbuckling rogue" archetype that we all know and love, and they certainly aren't usually wielding greatswords.

Good point about the sai, considering the whole purpose of them was to catch and break swords in real life. But I will stick with my original opinion and here's why.
-Unless the weapon is specifically designed to parry, smaller weapons still have a harder time parrying blows because of the shear force of the bigger weapon (F = MA and all that). Granting, a dagger doesn't have to block the full force of an attack for it to be considered a parry, (as a matter of fact, most likely the person parrying would be trying to push the attack away, using the momentum against the attacker). But my point is, that's still pretty difficult to do with the given length of the weapon, and the rules should reflect that.
- the core already has rules which states it's harder to do certain combat maneuvers with light weapons, such as disarm and sunder, with the exception of certain exotic weapons.
- Your swashbuckler rogue archetype I imagine would be using a Rapier, scimitar or similar weapon, which are both one-handed and therefore would not suffer penalties to parrying attempts anyway. So you can still have your Dread Pirate Roberts deflecting greataxes with his twig of a sword :smallbiggrin:

So there's my argument, do what you will with it.

But I also came up with some ideas that your swashbuckler might like.
-Feint can be used to either allow a sneak attack on the next attack, or a parry (without having to fight defensively)
- Monks I feel COULD parry with their natural weapons (Snatch arrows? pfff more like SNATCH SWORD!!!)
- Maybe allow a feat that works something like this.
Requires 4 ranks in Tumble
Benefit: After a successful dodge or parry, you may take a 5 ft step as an immediate action to your opponent's flank. If this step taken at the at the end of the attacker's fullattack, he is considered "flanked" for the first attack by the owner of this feat.

^^ Wording may be a little weird.

-Certain exotic weapons (like our dear friend the Sai) should be able to do certain combat maneuvers on a successful parry. For example the Sai can make a disarm attempt after a successful parry as a free action





Sorry, maybe I should clarify. How good you are at reflex saves doesn't matter with the automatic save. Basically, concealment, cover, and total concealment give what's kind of an "automatic miss chance", more than an "automatic dodge attempt." It's really just a different version of the miss chance. It also adds luck bonuses, for obvious reasons. It's a "you missed" type of thing. It does add to your ability to actively dodge, but it also adds to the chance that you'll be missed without even trying to dodge. That being said, I don't know why I kept concealment at the normal +4 instead of doubling that...my bad, I'll fix that. Also, I like the clause about attacks from concealment. Thanks for the suggestion!

gotcha

Plato Play-Doh
2013-09-29, 06:59 AM
Ok, that's fine. you should just probably clarify that medium armor has no bonuses or penalties against certain types of attacks. And that unarmored opponents (even though they may have natural armor or a deflection bonus to AC), have no vulnerabilities or bonuses, like medium armor.

Alright.


Good point about the sai, considering the whole purpose of them was to catch and break swords in real life. But I will stick with my original opinion and here's why.
-Unless the weapon is specifically designed to parry, smaller weapons still have a harder time parrying blows because of the shear force of the bigger weapon (F = MA and all that). Granting, a dagger doesn't have to block the full force of an attack for it to be considered a parry, (as a matter of fact, most likely the person parrying would be trying to push the attack away, using the momentum against the attacker). But my point is, that's still pretty difficult to do with the given length of the weapon, and the rules should reflect that.
- the core already has rules which states it's harder to do certain combat maneuvers with light weapons, such as disarm and sunder, with the exception of certain exotic weapons.
- Your swashbuckler rogue archetype I imagine would be using a Rapier, scimitar or similar weapon, which are both one-handed and therefore would not suffer penalties to parrying attempts anyway. So you can still have your Dread Pirate Roberts deflecting greataxes with his twig of a sword :smallbiggrin:

Yeah, you're right. Changed.


-Feint can be used to either allow a sneak attack on the next attack, or a parry (without having to fight defensively)

I don't know about this one. I feel like feint would be more likely used to get an advantage on your next attack than to improve your ability to defend. I would probably change feint up a bit, but this is a defenses overhaul, not an offensive overhaul (though that may come later, once I'm done with this).


- Monks I feel COULD parry with their natural weapons (Snatch arrows? pfff more like SNATCH SWORD!!!)

I like it. Added.


- Maybe allow a feat that works something like this.
Requires 4 ranks in Tumble
Benefit: After a successful dodge or parry, you may take a 5 ft step as an immediate action to your opponent's flank. If this step taken at the at the end of the attacker's fullattack, he is considered "flanked" for the first attack by the owner of this feat.

I'll put that into the feats section, once it's complete.


-Certain exotic weapons (like our dear friend the Sai) should be able to do certain combat maneuvers on a successful parry. For example the Sai can make a disarm attempt after a successful parry as a free action

Included an "unless otherwise stated" clause in there. I will include weapon changes later on. Right now, I seem to have fallen slightly ill, so I'm gonna curl up on the couch with a movie, a book, or both. I'll probably alternate between the two.

Philemonite
2013-09-29, 10:10 AM
I like this idea very much.



Part I: Armor
a. Dex, Insight, Dodge, Luck, and Shield bonuses no longer apply to AC.
b. Any spell that gives a shield bonus to AC now gives a deflection bonus instead to AC.
c. Subtract 10 from this AC score.
d. AC no longer prevents attacks from hitting. Instead, it gives that much DR.
d. Light Armorís DR is doubled against bludgeoning attacks, and halved against piercing attacks.
e. Medium Armor's DR is unchanged by the type of attack.
f. Heavy Armorís DR is halved against bludgeoning attacks, and doubled against slashing attacks.
g. The DR from Deflection Bonuses and Natural Armor are unaffected by damage type unless otherwise stated.
h. Armorís max dex rating instead is a limit on the number of times one can take an action of opportunity in a round.
i. For example, Farnir is a fighter with full plate armor. He is incapable of gaining actions of opportunity from effects like combat reflexes, because his armor has a maximum dex rating of 1. His armor has an armor bonus of 8, and base AC is 10, so he has 18 AC. After subtracting the base AC, he finds that he has a DR of 8.

Light/Medium/Heavy armor looks imbalanced. Maybe change it to:
Heavy-Slashing double, Bludgeoning half
Medium-Piercing double, Slashing half
Light-Bludgeoning double, Piercing half


Part II: Dodging
a. Instead of using AC, a creature or character may make a reflex save to completely negate a nonmagical attack, for which the DC is equal to the attack roll for that attack.
b. This is considered an action of opportunity, and thus counts against the total number of attacks of opportunity each round. This also means that the feat Combat Reflexes, and similar effects, increase the number of times a creature or character may dodge each round.
c. Dodge bonuses, luck bonuses, and insight bonuses to AC now apply to reflex instead.

This bonus applies only to dodging, right?


This is a very interesting idea, it makes a full armor and shield Paladin and high dexterity dual wielding Rogue completely different and gives a lot of flexibility to melee builds. Do you plan on adding any feats?

TheFamilarRaven
2013-09-29, 06:51 PM
I don't know about this one. I feel like feint would be more likely used to get an advantage on your next attack than to improve your ability to defend. I would probably change feint up a bit, but this is a defenses overhaul, not an offensive overhaul (though that may come later, once I'm done with this).

That's fine. At the moment i find it difficult to put my reasoning for for adding the ability to parry with a successful feint into words, so might as well go ahead with keeping feint the same.




Included an "unless otherwise stated" clause in there. I will include weapon changes later on. Right now, I seem to have fallen slightly ill, so I'm gonna curl up on the couch with a movie, a book, or both. I'll probably alternate between the two.

Get better soon. And might I suggest a movie where the protagonist reads a book? That way it'd save you the trouble of alternating. :smalltongue:

However, I'll add a few suggestions for when you get back.

I'll agree with Asteron Questar, I think all armor types should have their own advantages and downfalls.

Also, in the Armor section, in regards to C & D. This wording might be better.
"AC no longer prevents attacks from hitting a creature. Instead, take the AC of the creature, and -10. The Creature now has that much DR."

^^ Or something like this, because the way it is now, I feel like it's kind of awkwardly worded.

Also, in regards to section A, I don't think size modifier should apply to AC to determine DR. Instead, it should apply to Dodging.

Also, to quote Asteron Questar on dodging:

This bonus applies only to dodging, right?

Yes, these bonuses apply only to dodging for now. That being said:

It might be a good idea to apply luck and insight bonuses to Parrying and blocking as well. Also, maybe flying creatures get a bonus to dodge as well, scaling by how good their flight maneuverability is. Might be tedious but, it's just something I thought of just now.

Get better soon.

(And yes, Asteron Questar, there will be new feats and feat changes, but they're WiP at the moment)

Fosco the Swift
2013-09-29, 08:24 PM
All of this this awesome, it really makes the martial part of battle much more interesting. i have a issue though: why make armor being only useful for the damage types (peircing, slashing, etc), because that actually is hard to make accurate. If you've ever seen real plate armor in your life, you would understand what I'm about to say: heavy armor is powerful against really any form of physical abuse, its built that way. Plate armor and other heavy armors are made specifically to be resistant to swords, not to be extra weak. So instead of having it be the damge types, why not make it the kind of WEAPON? Using the Fighter Weapon Training tables as a reference, hahve certain armor be resistant and weak to those classifications. As an example:

Heavy Armor would be vurnable to the Axes group, mainly because axes were highly effective against armor. But it would be resistant to both the light blades and heavy blades group.
How does this sound?

TheFamilarRaven
2013-09-29, 08:38 PM
All of this this awesome, it really makes the martial part of battle much more interesting. i have a issue though: why make armor being only useful for the damage types (peircing, slashing, etc), because that actually is hard to make accurate. If you've ever seen real plate armor in your life, you would understand what I'm about to say: heavy armor is powerful against really any form of physical abuse, its built that way. Plate armor and other heavy armors are made specifically to be resistant to swords, not to be extra weak. So instead of having it be the damge types, why not make it the kind of WEAPON? Using the Fighter Weapon Training tables as a reference, hahve certain armor be resistant and weak to those classifications. As an example:

Heavy Armor would be vurnable to the Axes group, mainly because axes were highly effective against armor. But it would be resistant to both the light blades and heavy blades group.
How does this sound?

i second this. I would also like to add, Crossbows should have high armor penetration as well. Because in real-life, they were WAY better than bows.

Fosco the Swift
2013-09-29, 08:46 PM
And I agree with you in turn. I've always wondered why someone would choose a crossbow over a bow besides the proficiency part. This would finally give crossbows some well deserved respect for once, and would balance out crossbows and longbows. I'll post my thoughts for the armor vernablities/ resistances table soon.

Fosco the Swift
2013-09-30, 05:20 PM
Armor Weakness/ Resistances (Some weapon groups not included because they are difficult to place)

Heavy. Weaknesses- Axes, Flails, hammers, crossbows
Resistances- Blades (both), bows, Monk

Medium. Weaknesses- Crossbows, Pole Arms,
Resistances- Swords (light), close

Light. Weaknesses- Natural, Bows, blades (heavy)
Resistances- Spears, thrown, crossbow

A little shaky but with a little help and fleshing out it could work pretty nice.

Plato Play-Doh
2013-10-09, 10:31 AM
I think my immune system just kind of gave up, because a minor cold just turned into a week and a half long endeavor. No matter. I'm back. Sorry for the long time between posts.


I'll agree with Asteron Questar, I think all armor types should have their own advantages and downfalls.


So instead of having it be the damge types, why not make it the kind of WEAPON? Using the Fighter Weapon Training tables as a reference, hahve certain armor be resistant and weak to those classifications. As an example:

Heavy Armor would be vurnable to the Axes group, mainly because axes were highly effective against armor. But it would be resistant to both the light blades and heavy blades group.
How does this sound?

I'm starting to think that the best way to go about it might be to give
all weapons armor penetration, so they ignore a certain amount of armor. That could work. What do you guys think?


Also, in the Armor section, in regards to C & D. This wording might be better.
"AC no longer prevents attacks from hitting a creature. Instead, take the AC of the creature, and -10. The Creature now has that much DR."

^^ Or something like this, because the way it is now, I feel like it's kind of awkwardly worded.

OK, changed.


Also, in regards to section A, I don't think size modifier should apply to AC to determine DR. Instead, it should apply to Dodging.

Oh yeah, how foolish of me. I totally overlooked that. My bad.


Also, to quote Asteron Questar on dodging:


Yes, these bonuses apply only to dodging for now. That being said:

It might be a good idea to apply luck and insight bonuses to Parrying and blocking as well.

I agree. Changed.


Also, maybe flying creatures get a bonus to dodge as well, scaling by how good their flight maneuverability is. Might be tedious but, it's just something I thought of just now.

I've included a section on flight and maneuverability in Part V.

Vadskye
2013-10-09, 12:25 PM
I strongly encourage you to model these changes with spreadsheets so that you can understand what the impact is on the game. A great deal of homebrew that tries to radically alter the numerical basis of the game looks nice or "realistic" on paper, but yields terrible gameplay.

Plato Play-Doh
2013-10-09, 12:37 PM
I strongly encourage you to model these changes with spreadsheets so that you can understand what the impact is on the game. A great deal of homebrew that tries to radically alter the numerical basis of the game looks nice or "realistic" on paper, but yields terrible gameplay.

I must admit, I've never really made changes that were significant enough to require spreadsheets before. (At least not since my first attempt at homebrew, which was a failed attempt to overhaul the magic system.) I wouldn't really know where to start with that. This is why I've been holding off on crunching numbers and whatnot in order to fully adjust for balance, like with the hitpoints and hardness for shields thing. Up till now, I've really just kinda stuck with eyeballing it and hoping for the best. I'm afraid I'll be overwhelmed by it, so I'm waiting at least until I have a week or so of time off. :smalleek:

Granted, I had that last week, but I was ill, so I didn't really feel like putting any significant amount of thought into anything, really.

Zaydos
2013-10-09, 07:37 PM
Looking it over:

This looks like it could be useful in a game with primarily non-magical humanoid foes. Against non-weapon wielding enemies combat is reduced to "I power attack for full" as they now have quite high impenetrable DR (dragons have DR = HD - 1) and no AC. Armor penetration stats might mean you can get around the DR 13 from enchanted full-plate but do nothing for fighting non-humanoid foes.

It also means combats will take much, much longer and that Combat Reflexes coupled with a high Dex will be even more important to a melee combatant becoming a must have feat (as it will be used against every attack at least once). You probably want to remove the feat entirely and just change it so that it's built in to characters to avoid it being an additional feat tax.

Also if I parry with a greatsword can I perform my follow up attack with it? Wasn't sure with the note about 2WF, I thought it was saying you didn't have to use the same weapon you parried with but could however I wasn't sure.

Plato Play-Doh
2013-10-10, 06:47 AM
This looks like it could be useful in a game with primarily non-magical humanoid foes. Against non-weapon wielding enemies combat is reduced to "I power attack for full" as they now have quite high impenetrable DR (dragons have DR = HD - 1) and no AC. Armor penetration stats might mean you can get around the DR 13 from enchanted full-plate but do nothing for fighting non-humanoid foes.

Yeah, this is true. I'll apply pen to all armor, so that could help. I don't know what my reasoning was behind not allowing that in the first place. Stupid past self.


It also means combats will take much, much longer and that Combat Reflexes coupled with a high Dex will be even more important to a melee combatant becoming a must have feat (as it will be used against every attack at least once). You probably want to remove the feat entirely and just change it so that it's built in to characters to avoid it being an additional feat tax.

OK, I'll do that.


Also if I parry with a greatsword can I perform my follow up attack with it? Wasn't sure with the note about 2WF, I thought it was saying you didn't have to use the same weapon you parried with but could however I wasn't sure.

If you parry with a greatsword, you can perform a follow-up attack, but it costs you an additional action of opportunity. With 2WF, you can perform the follow-up attack with your other weapon, and if you do so it doesn't cost an attack of opportunity, but it applies normal 2WF attack penalties if you do so.

TheFamilarRaven
2013-10-10, 01:34 PM
I'll have to see the armor penetration stats on weapons to properly review them. However, I'm trying to look at how it'd work in my mind. So here's me just thinking out loud.

-In order to maintain balance, low damage weapons would have to have more armor pen. than high damage weapons. Otherwise, no one would use daggers ever.
- But the armor pen. can't be so significant that it makes armor worthless, because then no one would wear light or even medium armor.
- I am imagining the old idea, where certain armor types have strengths and weaknesses, (i.e light armor could resist pierces, but takes extra from slashing, or something like that.)
-That still leaves the problem of creatures who rely entirely on natural armor, and those with high natural armor, like Dragons.
- One idea is to simply reduce the bonus to DR from natural armor in half, round down.
- but that opens up problems of it's own, namely creatures with low natural armor and some DEX adding to their original AC. Such as an Ettercap, would have no DR at all.
- That may or may not be a problem, considering they still have the ability to dodge, for example a fiendish rat would still have a good chance of dodging a level 1 fighter, even if said fighter had a STR of 18, the chance would be 50/50.
- I'm not too concerned for big creatures not having high DR, because they're hitpoint sponges anyway.
Alternatively, keep Natural AC (and while i'm at it I should mention that when I say natural AC i am including Deflection too, for all them ghosties) the same, and include them in the above descriptions with armor of what damage types get through what armor type. But instead of it being a damage type (slashing/bludgeon etc), make it certain materials that reduce the DR by half, like adamantium or mithril etc.
-then add alchemical flasks and and such that can be thrown at enemies to reduce DR temporarily.
- Doing some calculations, a party using the proper materials, a greatwyrm gold dragon is reduced to a DR of 20, using proper strategy and use of consumable goods (potions/acid flasks to reduce DR etc) the party should have a good chance of dealing damage to a dragon.
- I don't really mind the "I power attack for full" idea, because if that's what you have to do, then that's what you have to do. dragon's and big creatures have lots of health, and assuming your using this ruleset for a strictly martial/low magic campaign (low magic meaning no full out casters like wizards, clerics etc), they're going to need to do all the damage they can do.
-Plus, the minuses to attacks mean the attack is easier to dodge.
- In the case of a monster having natural armor AND wearing actual armor (like an ettin), you could simply state that the higher of the two determines which damage reduces the DR. For example, an ettin has a higher natural armor than his Hide armor, therefore, it would require (say adamantium) to reduce his DR in half, regardless of the armor type. While a half-dragon, wearing full plate, has natural armor lower than his actual armor, therefore, you would use the weakness of heavy armor to determine what damage type reduces his DR in half.
- Or, if you want, you could apply both, for instance, the Ettin has natural armor and hide armor, therefore you would need an adamantium piercing weapon to reduce the DR in half. Otherwise you would simply reduce one bonus to DR in half, but not the other. So an adamantium weapon would reduce the Natural armor bonus in half, but not the Hide armor bonus to DR, (in fact that might even be double against the adamantium weapon being used).
-This might slow gameplay down a little, because of the all the remembering of DR strengths and weaknesses, but it's a different ruleset altogether, so it'll be slow to start out with anyway until one gets a hang of it.

So there's my rant, hope it helps, Thanks again for the followup PEACH on my Havoc Knight (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=305278), (Hint, hint, to everyone, shameless call for a PEACH).

Fosco the Swift
2013-10-10, 04:47 PM
Another thing about turning armor into DR, this has been thought about before and is really only any good for the middle levels. At 2nd or 3rd level, the Fighter has at least half-plate giving him more DR than an average goblin or orc can deal with a non critical hit. At middle levels the DR can about half the damage, making it fairly realistic. At high levels though, a dragon can deal nearly 4x your DR with ONE HIT, making it quite ineffective. That means that dodging is going to be huge then, making the rogue quite powerful.

TheFamilarRaven
2013-10-10, 06:59 PM
Another thing about turning armor into DR, this has been thought about before and is really only any good for the middle levels. At 2nd or 3rd level, the Fighter has at least half-plate giving him more DR than an average goblin or orc can deal with a non critical hit. At middle levels the DR can about half the damage, making it fairly realistic. At high levels though, a dragon can deal nearly 4x your DR with ONE HIT, making it quite ineffective. That means that dodging is going to be huge then, making the rogue quite powerful.

Valid points, but I think the system still can hold up. Because at low levels, you can still half the DR with the appropriate weapon. at mid levels the same thing applies. At high levels, armor DR becomes less helpful as you pointed out, however ... The point of this system is to emphasize parry, block and dodge as a means of defense rather than armor.
Rogues are at no more an advantages to completely negate attacks because blocking and parrying are equally effective and come with their own strengths and draw backs.
Dodging: Strengths include being able to be used anytime (unless flat-footed or similar effect), drawbacks include weaker progression than BaB, which is used to determine blocking/parrying.

Parrying: Strengths include being able to negate damage with a low reflex score, drawback is you have to be fighting defensively, and it gets weaker against bigger opponents, or unable to be used against opponents much smaller than you.

Blocking: Strengths, can be used at anytime, provided the target is in front or to your shield flank, while also using BaB as a means to augment the Block roll, drawback is your shield eventually breaks.

Standard DnD tactics are probably not enough to stand up to a dragon with this system, especially in a no/low magic setting. but with a few alterations to consumable items, I'm optimistic it can be done,

Edit: So your Paladin rushes forward, his shield ready to block all incoming attacks. the Rogue jumps on the Dragon's back, stabbing into it with his poison covered blades, the Barbarian enrages and leaps in with his greataxe. While the Ranger hangs back, launching arrows. Fortunately, they came prepared with plenty of acid resistance, stoneskin, bull strength etc, along with plenty of healing Potions. (Only problem are the Spells and grappling but shhhhhhhhhhh DM's like me don't know Dragons can do those :smalltongue:)

Zaydos
2013-10-10, 07:12 PM
Does a failed attack made as an attack of opportunity provoke an attack of opportunity? This will get drawn out fast.

Rogues have the advantage of being Dex based and thus more AoOs.

Also as currently made against humanoid foes you always want to fight defensively if you don't have a shield so that you can parry.

TheFamilarRaven
2013-10-10, 07:28 PM
Zaydos had some good points

1) Yeah, that would take forever.

2) I'm starting to think that it would be best to scale the AoO's something like
1+(1/4 your levels) except that it might be difficult to calculate how many AoO's certain monsters would get. You could do BaB, but all that would do is give Fighter type classes a distinct advantages rather than the Rogue.

3) with a -4 to attack against your opponents dodge or block AoO roll. Maybe decrease damage done as well when fighting defensively? I think we need something as Zaydos has pointed out, that encourages players to not always fight defensively, rather than punishing them for fighting defensively though. well, not so much as pointed out i think rather than implied :smalltongue:

Fosco the Swift
2013-10-11, 09:19 AM
an the subject of shields and blocking, it was said that shields would quickly be destroyed at the higher levels when used to block. I know that the world is low magic, but what if you made enchantments that could specifically be placed on shields? Also a +x shield gains higher HRD/HP for when blocking or being sundered.
Let's say for each +x level on a shield, it gains +2 HRD and +10 HP. So a +2 Light Steel Shield has a HRD of 14 and 30 HP.
Special Enchantments could be used too, such as some that give bonuses on blocking or possibly a "Regenerating shield" that has fast healing 1 or similar.

Plato Play-Doh
2013-10-11, 01:12 PM
I'll have to see the armor penetration stats on weapons to properly review them.

I'll get to that, but it'll probably be included in a larger rework of weapons/other equipment, since I've got a few ideas of how to change them around. That will require a separate thread, so anything without hard numbers yet will just be left up to the imagination without being quantified for now. Sorry about that.


-In order to maintain balance, low damage weapons would have to have more armor pen. than high damage weapons. Otherwise, no one would use daggers ever.

Yes, this is true. Some weapons will be low damage but have significant armor penetration (I'm thinking maybe stuff like spears, since they would be able to aim for the chinks in armor). Others would have really effective crits, and be especially effective with sneak attacks (like daggers). Others still would just have huge damage (like greatswords).


- But the armor pen. can't be so significant that it makes armor worthless, because then no one would wear light or even medium armor.

True. However, with certain weapons no having any pen, instead having other characteristics that make them worthwhile, different armor types become worth it again!:smallbiggrin:


- I am imagining the old idea, where certain armor types have strengths and weaknesses, (i.e light armor could resist pierces, but takes extra from slashing, or something like that.)
-That still leaves the problem of creatures who rely entirely on natural armor, and those with high natural armor, like Dragons.

True, I'm not really sure which system to go with at this point.


- One idea is to simply reduce the bonus to DR from natural armor in half, round down.
- but that opens up problems of it's own, namely creatures with low natural armor and some DEX adding to their original AC. Such as an Ettercap, would have no DR at all.
- That may or may not be a problem, considering they still have the ability to dodge, for example a fiendish rat would still have a good chance of dodging a level 1 fighter, even if said fighter had a STR of 18, the chance would be 50/50.

True, but what about creatures that aren't good at dodging, and rely on their natural armor to be a threat that doesn't die nearly instantly?


- I'm not too concerned for big creatures not having high DR, because they're hitpoint sponges anyway.

I agree.


Alternatively, keep Natural AC (and while i'm at it I should mention that when I say natural AC i am including Deflection too, for all them ghosties) the same, and include them in the above descriptions with armor of what damage types get through what armor type. But instead of it being a damage type (slashing/bludgeon etc), make it certain materials that reduce the DR by half, like adamantium or mithril etc.

That could work.


-then add alchemical flasks and and such that can be thrown at enemies to reduce DR temporarily.
- Doing some calculations, a party using the proper materials, a greatwyrm gold dragon is reduced to a DR of 20, using proper strategy and use of consumable goods (potions/acid flasks to reduce DR etc) the party should have a good chance of dealing damage to a dragon.

Works for me! :smallbiggrin:


- I don't really mind the "I power attack for full" idea, because if that's what you have to do, then that's what you have to do. dragon's and big creatures have lots of health, and assuming your using this ruleset for a strictly martial/low magic campaign (low magic meaning no full out casters like wizards, clerics etc), they're going to need to do all the damage they can do.

True. Also, I don't necessarily love how magic works in a lot of respects either, so I may do an overhaul of that as well (hopefully one that works better than my last one). If I do, I'll be significantly changing the saving throw systems. Vs. reflex will just be an attack roll, and other stuff will probably be determined by spellcraft checks or something. IDK, but just as a word to the wise, I'll be making it possible to dodge spells. Sooo...yeah. That's a thing I just figured I should mention, that seemed remotely relevant since you mentioned spellcasters. Also, I will be getting rid of vancian casting. Cuz' it's stupid and immersion breaking. Yeah.


-Plus, the minuses to attacks mean the attack is easier to dodge.

Yup.


- In the case of a monster having natural armor AND wearing actual armor (like an ettin), you could simply state that the higher of the two determines which damage reduces the DR. For example, an ettin has a higher natural armor than his Hide armor, therefore, it would require (say adamantium) to reduce his DR in half, regardless of the armor type. While a half-dragon, wearing full plate, has natural armor lower than his actual armor, therefore, you would use the weakness of heavy armor to determine what damage type reduces his DR in half.

I don't know about that. I mean, what works against plate isn't necessarily gonna work against leathery hide. Just sayin'.


- Or, if you want, you could apply both, for instance, the Ettin has natural armor and hide armor, therefore you would need an adamantium piercing weapon to reduce the DR in half. Otherwise you would simply reduce one bonus to DR in half, but not the other. So an adamantium weapon would reduce the Natural armor bonus in half, but not the Hide armor bonus to DR, (in fact that might even be double against the adamantium weapon being used).
-This might slow gameplay down a little, because of the all the remembering of DR strengths and weaknesses, but it's a different ruleset altogether, so it'll be slow to start out with anyway until one gets a hang of it.

Well, I should've read on before responding to the text just before this, because this I like better, if I re-implement the strengths and weaknesses. It makes the most sense to me, from a fluffy/verisimilitude standpoint. Yes, it might get a bit confusing, but it's a drop in the ocean considering the layers of complexity within an entire RPG system. It's just a couple more things to keep track of. (granted, I'm already introducing new things to keep track of, but still...)


So there's my rant, hope it helps, Thanks again for the followup PEACH on my Havoc Knight (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=305278), (Hint, hint, to everyone, shameless call for a PEACH).

No problem. It's a really cool concept. Everyone should check it out.
*overly exaggerated wink*


Does a failed attack made as an attack of opportunity provoke an attack of opportunity? This will get drawn out fast.

Yes, but only with two individuals with high dex to get additional AOOs, and even if they do, that's sacrificing your defenses vs. other creatures that attack if you draw it out for too long. In a 1v1 duel, where you don't have to worry about other people attacking, going back and forth like that is essentially fencing, with repeated parries and ripostes. I don't feel that this should cause too many problems.

Wait, I just noticed that I didn't expressly state that you only provoke an attack of opportunity from the creature you missed. I've changed that now.


Rogues have the advantage of being Dex based and thus more AoOs.

Yes they do. And Bards have the advantage of being Cha based and having more diplomacy skill. I fail to see the problem here.


Also as currently made against humanoid foes you always want to fight defensively if you don't have a shield so that you can parry.

Unless you want to lessen the chances of you yourself getting parried, since you lower your attack rolls by 4. It's a fair tradeoff, in my opinion. However, maybe I should have something else to encourage fighting normally, as TheFamiliarRaven says. I'll think on it. Feel free to give suggestions, I'll probably have either taken a suggestion or come up with some other plausible way of rewarding fighting offensively (as I might as well call it for now) by the next time I post.


an the subject of shields and blocking, it was said that shields would quickly be destroyed at the higher levels when used to block. I know that the world is low magic, but what if you made enchantments that could specifically be placed on shields? Also a +x shield gains higher HRD/HP for when blocking or being sundered.
Let's say for each +x level on a shield, it gains +2 HRD and +10 HP. So a +2 Light Steel Shield has a HRD of 14 and 30 HP.
Special Enchantments could be used too, such as some that give bonuses on blocking or possibly a "Regenerating shield" that has fast healing 1 or similar.

Good idea. I'll include that in the equipment overhaul I was referring to earlier in this post.

Fosco the Swift
2013-10-11, 02:39 PM
Since it was pointed out that things could look good on paper, but were worthless when actually used I gave this a quick run through with a 3rd level fighter and a goblin. The goblin was killed and the Fighter came out unharmed. I tested the Dodge, block and Armor DR and they seemed to hold up quite well.
Fighter Statistics-
Str-17
Dex-14
Con-13
Int-12
Wis-10
Cha-8
Chain armor with a light steel shield.
Dodging +6
Blocking +6
Parrying +6
Armor DR-4
Feats- Quick Draw, Dodge, Weapon Focus (longsword), Lightning reflexes, Power Attack
So my questions according to how the battle turned out:
-Lightning Reflexes gives a bonus to Dodge, correct?
-When you fight defensively to parry, do you include the attack minus to your parry attempt? For example, you attack with a +7. Since you are fighting defensively, you get a -2 to attack. So is your parry score technically a +5?
Other ideas:
-Combat reflexes can be remade- it gives you +1 Actions of Opportunity. Presiquites can be a BAB of at least +5 or similar.
-Shield focus can be a feat that gives you a +1 to your blocking roll, and Improved Shield focus gives you an addtional +1.
-Combat Expertise could be changed so that when you use it, you take the -x to your normal attack. Any attack on you until your next turn can be parried with the bonus equal to the minus you took on your attack (obviously the points subtracted from attacking do not carry over to your parry).
-Armor focus <specific armor> can give you a +1 DR when you were that armor, and Improved Armor Focus gives you an additional +1 DR.
Anything here seem good?

TheFamilarRaven
2013-10-11, 03:52 PM
Since it was pointed out that things could look good on paper, but were worthless when actually used I gave this a quick run through with a 3rd level fighter and a goblin. The goblin was killed and the Fighter came out unharmed. I tested the Dodge, block and Armor DR and they seemed to hold up quite well.

sounds promising, i have a session tomorrow, If we don't get started right away or something else comes up, I'll have my players roll a Paladin (defense), Barbarian (Heavy melee offensive), rogue (Stealthy offense) and maybe a Ranger (Range support) and/or Monk (wild card offense? I don't know). they'll be level 5 and I'll pit them against an appropriate CR encounter, and I'll see how they do.
I'll use the the system below, cause we don't have armor pen. stats yet, (to my knowledge) Where:
Medium armor has DR that is halved against slashing but doubled against piercing
Heavy armor has DR that is halved against bludgeoning but doubled against slashing
Light has DR that is halved against piercing and doubled against bludgeoning

In addition, Natural armor has a set DR, but is halved by adamantium (unless another material is specifically stated, i.e lycanthropes would need silver etc).
So far, I'm not planning on using any creatures with Deflection DR, because I can't think of a suitable method to bypass it.

Fosco the Swift
2013-10-11, 04:14 PM
Deflection DR could be bypassed by magic. Just to keep it scaled with level, the magic bonus on the weapon (including special abilities such a "Holy") could be put according to the following rules. So monsters with a CR<5 deflection DR is bypassed by magic weapons with at least a +1 bonus. Monster with a CR<9 but greater than 4 have a DR that is bypassed by magic bonuses equal or higher than +2. +3 weapons effect CR monsters CR<13, etc. Would this work for your group at all?

TheFamilarRaven
2013-10-11, 05:04 PM
Deflection DR could be bypassed by magic. Just to keep it scaled with level, the magic bonus on the weapon (including special abilities such a "Holy") could be put according to the following rules. So monsters with a CR<5 deflection DR is bypassed by magic weapons with at least a +1 bonus. Monster with a CR<9 but greater than 4 have a DR that is bypassed by magic bonuses equal or higher than +2. +3 weapons effect CR monsters CR<13, etc. Would this work for your group at all?

I though about magic, not the scaling part like you included. My only concern is the if it is magic, Deflection will be half as effective almost all the time.

Fosco the Swift
2013-10-11, 05:37 PM
To make it simpler, just make nothing able to bypasss its DR (except for spells that are immune to Spell Resistance) and just half the DR. So a defelction AC of +5, would be DR 2/-
That should keep it fairly even throughout your game.

TheFamilarRaven
2013-10-11, 06:00 PM
Since it was pointed out that things could look good on paper, but were worthless when actually used I gave this a quick run through with a 3rd level fighter and a goblin. The goblin was killed and the Fighter came out unharmed. I tested the Dodge, block and Armor DR and they seemed to hold up quite well.
Fighter Statistics-
Str-17
Dex-14
Con-13
Int-12
Wis-10
Cha-8
Chain armor with a light steel shield.
Dodging +6
Blocking +6
Parrying +6
Armor DR-4
Feats- Quick Draw, Dodge, Weapon Focus (longsword), Lightning reflexes, Power Attack
So my questions according to how the battle turned out:
-Lightning Reflexes gives a bonus to Dodge, correct?
-When you fight defensively to parry, do you include the attack minus to your parry attempt? For example, you attack with a +7. Since you are fighting defensively, you get a -2 to attack. So is your parry score technically a +5?
Other ideas:
-Combat reflexes can be remade- it gives you +1 Actions of Opportunity. Presiquites can be a BAB of at least +5 or similar.
-Shield focus can be a feat that gives you a +1 to your blocking roll, and Improved Shield focus gives you an addtional +1.
-Combat Expertise could be changed so that when you use it, you take the -x to your normal attack. Any attack on you until your next turn can be parried with the bonus equal to the minus you took on your attack (obviously the points subtracted from attacking do not carry over to your parry).
-Armor focus <specific armor> can give you a +1 DR when you were that armor, and Improved Armor Focus gives you an additional +1 DR.
Anything here seem good?

-Yes, anything that gives a bonus to REF gives a bonus to dodge,
-Armor focus is a good Idea, I think the Giant actually made that feat, but it increased AC, which is essentially the same thing.

I also thought of this feat:
Nick of Time
Prerequisite: Shield Focus
Benefit: If you fail a block roll by five or less, you may still block half of the damage you receive, but your shield still takes sunder damage.

TheFamilarRaven
2013-10-11, 06:12 PM
To make it simpler, just make nothing able to bypasss its DR (except for spells that are immune to Spell Resistance) and just half the DR. So a defelction AC of +5, would be DR 2/-
That should keep it fairly even throughout your game.

Actually, since the most you can get from deflection is +5, (from items at least, certain creatures like ghosts have higher deflection). I think keeping as a perma DR that can't be bypassed is fine, it helps gives players an edge in the late game, considering the max DR with a +5 fullplate is 13.

I don't like just halving the benefit because it seems like it's just cheating the players.

Plus i don't think i'll even use a deflection based creature in this playtest. also, i can't guarantee there will be a playtest (at least with my actual players) tomorrow.

Fosco the Swift
2013-10-11, 08:12 PM
An interesting result of this design is that it makes mobbing attacks of small creatures pretty dangerous, just because you can't stop all the attacks from hitting you.

Plato Play-Doh
2013-10-12, 05:24 PM
-Lightning Reflexes gives a bonus to Dodge, correct?

Correct, since Dodge is a modified reflex save.


-When you fight defensively to parry, do you include the attack minus to your parry attempt? For example, you attack with a +7. Since you are fighting defensively, you get a -2 to attack. So is your parry score technically a +5?

It is not, since parry is a defensive maneuver. In the Misc. section, I stated that the dodge bonuses (which already apply to dodging) from fighting defensively and total defense also apply to parrying and blocking.


-Combat reflexes can be remade- it gives you +1 Actions of Opportunity. Presiquites can be a BAB of at least +5 or similar.

I like it. I'll do that.


-Shield focus can be a feat that gives you a +1 to your blocking roll, and Improved Shield focus gives you an additional +1.

Alright. Thanks. Included. I have also added a little extra to improved shield focus, just to spice things up a bit. :smallsmile:


-Combat Expertise could be changed so that when you use it, you take the -x to your normal attack. Any attack on you until your next turn can be parried with the bonus equal to the minus you took on your attack (obviously the points subtracted from attacking do not carry over to your parry).

I'm pretty sure Combat Expertise counts as fighting defensively, and so the parrying and shield blocking thing apply there.


-Armor focus <specific armor> can give you a +1 DR when you were that armor, and Improved Armor Focus gives you an additional +1 DR.


I'll make armor focus allow you to ignore penetration. Improved Armor Focus will just add to DR. Other than that, I like it.



Nick of Time
Prerequisite: Shield Focus
Benefit: If you fail a block roll by five or less, you may still block half of the damage you receive, but your shield still takes sunder damage.

I like it. I included it, but I gave it the requirement of bab +1, and allowed it to apply to parries, blocks, and dodges. Also, since it's a glancing blow to the shield, I made it take half sunder damage instead of full. Thoughts?

I've also added improved parry, and am thinking of other ways to do stuff. I think improved parry should lower the emphasis on fighting defensively, so that's kinda my solution to that issue. I've also added greater shield bash. Any other feat suggestions are appreciated. Thanks!

Fosco the Swift
2013-10-12, 05:58 PM
Should the remade "Combat Reflexes" be able to be taken multiple times, or just once? You could also have it so that it can be taken once at a BAB of +5, another time at a BAB of +10, etc. This could even continue through epic levels to really show the unstopableness of your Superpowered PC's.
I'm not sure what you've added to "Improved Block" yet, but to spice it up like you said it could give you a +2 bonus to hit your enemy whn you make your AttackoO. Basically the enemy's sword kinda hit your shield wrong so its easier to hit him/her.

Plato Play-Doh
2013-10-12, 06:13 PM
Should the remade "Combat Reflexes" be able to be taken multiple times, or just once? You could also have it so that it can be taken once at a BAB of +5, another time at a BAB of +10, etc. This could even continue through epic levels to really show the unstopableness of your Superpowered PC's.

That's almost exactly what I did, but in increments of four instead of five. It's in there:


Combat Reflexes
Prerequisites: base attack bonus +4
Benefit: Gain one additional action of opportunity each round.
Special: May take this feat more than once. Each additional time adds 4 to the base attack bonus prerequisite.
See?


I'm not sure what you've added to "Improved Block" yet, but to spice it up like you said it could give you a +2 bonus to hit your enemy whn you make your AttackoO. Basically the enemy's sword kinda hit your shield wrong so its easier to hit him/her.

I added additional bonuses when you're fighting defensively or using total defense. I actually just added stuff the the feats section, so you should probably go ahead and look at that, if you didn't notice that I have actually put stuff into that section now.:smallbiggrin:

Fosco the Swift
2013-10-12, 08:11 PM
Sorry, I haven't been looking at the first post, didn't see what you've added.
I think you should just get rid of the armor penetration part of the defense. The only way to make it work really just makes battle more confusing and is just more rules to remember, without much gained. Plus, suddenly the dagger is technically able to do more damage and the Greatsword is now doing less damage because you have to make the Armor Penetration greater for weak weapons, otherwise they don't do anything. It's far simpler and less work to just scrap the idea, or at least return to it later with a different approach.

Feats for dodging-
"Overswing"
Presequites (PQ's)- Dodge, Dex 15, Int 13
Basically its "Combat Expertise" for dodging. Take a -x on your dodge, get the same but as a bonus to your next attack. Or is this too overpowered?

I'm not too sure about this one, either its cool, confusing or just plain dumb
"Tactical Dodge"
PQ's- Dodge, Mobility, BAB +4, Dex 14
Whenever you succeed on a Dodge attempt, as an Action of Opportunity you can move 5ft as an imediate action. This takes place before you make your Attack of Opportunity for succeding on your Dodge.
Special- If you have Spring Attack, you can make your Attack of Opportunity for succeeding on your dodge, then move your 5ft (Assuming you have enough Actions of Opportunity)

Another question, when calculating your number of Actions of Opportunity, is it 1+<DEX Modifier> or your DEX Modifier (Minimum of 1)

TheFamilarRaven
2013-10-12, 08:41 PM
Correct, since Dodge is a modified reflex save.


I'm pretty sure Combat Expertise counts as fighting defensively, and so the parrying and shield blocking thing apply there.

Combat Expertise does NOT count as fighting defensively, it's the opposite of power attack (kinda), where you trade your attack bonus (up to 5) for bonus to AC, (that's how the original feat worked). It doesn't say you have to be fighting defensively to use the feat.



I like it. I included it, but I gave it the requirement of bab +1, and allowed it to apply to parries, blocks, and dodges. Also, since it's a glancing blow to the shield, I made it take half sunder damage instead of full. Thoughts?

When I originally thought of the ability, I was strictly thinking along the lines of shield users. If its applied to all maneuvers, than shield users get the short end of the stick, because while they still halve the damage they take, they suffer half shield damage ... while parrying and dodging just receive half damage.

In this system, I see shield users as the ones that want to play the most defensively in combat, and I think their feats should emphasize protection of themselves and party members. While block and parry are options for those who don't have shields and still need to be able to defend themselves, if I'm making sense.

When I'm thinking about what the feats should do ... Thematically I am thinking:
-Shields, Defense/shield bash
-Parry, Counterattacks and other manuevers (Sunder, trip etc)
-Dodge, Maneuverability/making openings in enemy defense.


I've also added improved parry, and am thinking of other ways to do stuff. I think improved parry should lower the emphasis on fighting defensively, so that's kinda my solution to that issue. I've also added greater shield bash. Any other feat suggestions are appreciated. Thanks!

I like the additions:
I'm inclined to agree with Fosco on the Armor Pen. stats, seems like a lot of work for very little benefit to the rules system as a whole.
Here's another feat I though of ... because it seems like daggers and hand crossbows are absolutely worthless against heavy armor.

Armor Penetration
You are adept and finding the chinks in heavy armor.
Prerequisite: Weapon Focus (Piercing weapon), Base Attack Bonus of +1
Benefit: DR is halved when you strike a creature wearing heavy armor with a piercing weapon.
Special: You can only use this ability when within 30ft of an opponent, if using a ranged weapon.

I don't know, it just seems like daggers can't do anything againt heavy armor and small creatures need a way to bypass big DR's as well (Halfling rogue using a shortsword is 1d4 plus STR mod, sure they could use a blunt weapon but pshhhhhhh).

EDIT: Oh shnap! I just realized that swords and many other weapons are kind of over powered because they have two damage types (Longsword is slashing/piercing etc). So they can bypass 2 of 3 armor types easily.

Fosco the Swift
2013-10-13, 08:48 AM
When I'm thinking about what the feats should do ... Thematically I am thinking:
-Shields, Defense/shield bash
-Parry, Counterattacks and other manuevers (Sunder, trip etc)
-Dodge, Maneuverability/making openings in enemy defense.
I completely agree with this, but I guess if we stick with this, "Overswing" isn't much good for dodging. It seems more of a Parrying menuever to me.
So to remake "Overswing",
PQ's- Improved Parry, Combat Expertise
When you attempt a Parry "ActionoO", you can take a -x to your parry attempt. If you still succeed, you get that minus as a bonus to your attack when you make the AttackoO against your foe.

I think that "Weapon Penetration" should just be like "Weapon Focus", you choose a certain weapon and that's what gets the penetration to armor. Except for Crossbows, which already have armor penetration. Crossbows have their own feat- "Armor Peircing"
PQ's- Weapon focus <Any Crossbow Type>, Point Blank Shot, Dex 14, BAB +6
When firing at a target that is subjected to your "Point Blank Shot", you can make one shot (even if its a repeating crossbow) with a crossbow that you have weapon focus with that completely bypasses the enemy's DR for armor or natural armor, but not DR that is not from Nat armor or Armor.

Plato Play-Doh
2013-10-15, 01:11 PM
Sorry, I haven't been looking at the first post, didn't see what you've added.
I think you should just get rid of the armor penetration part of the defense. The only way to make it work really just makes battle more confusing and is just more rules to remember, without much gained. Plus, suddenly the dagger is technically able to do more damage and the Greatsword is now doing less damage because you have to make the Armor Penetration greater for weak weapons, otherwise they don't do anything. It's far simpler and less work to just scrap the idea, or at least return to it later with a different approach.

Again, I do intend to change around equipment in another thread once the basics of the defense system are down. Realistically, I don't intend any weapon group to be effective against all fighting styles/defense styles. Weapons like greatswords will be slow and easier to dodge, parry, and block, but have the sheer damage to break through armor if they connect. Others will be effective a exploiting the gaps in armor (spears), or at crushing armor (maces), and so will have greater penetration, and middle-of-the-road damage and speed. Others, like the dagger, are ineffective against armor, but are quick (and so harder to dodge), and are particularly effective with critical hits, particularly when making sneak attacks (actual attacks from stealth, not the "sneak attack" class feature, which I intend to rename for clarity). None of these changes are here yet, but they will be eventually. I want you to have to adjust your tactics depending on the enemy you're fighting, and part of that is understanding, "hey, my little dagger isn't gonna really scratch full plate, maybe I should use a different weapon, or use teamwork and (for example) get an ally to knock his helmet off, so that I can exploit that weakness and go for the neck (mechanically, it would lower the DR of that armor)."


Feats for dodging-
"Overswing"
Presequites (PQ's)- Dodge, Dex 15, Int 13
Basically its "Combat Expertise" for dodging. Take a -x on your dodge, get the same but as a bonus to your next attack. Or is this too overpowered?


I will probably change that to: take +x to damage roll, and -x to all shield block, dodge, or parry attempts in the next round. Basically, you're overextending yourself, thus the name "overswing", but that could put some more power behind that swing. In fact, I might just add that to power attack, changing it to "you may subtract x from all attack rolls and reflex saves made in the next round to gain a bonus of x to the damage rolls of all attacks you make this turn". Realistically, that's what something called "overswing" would do. I can't think of any way that makes sense that would add to attack rolls and subtract from parrying/dodging/shield blocking, since attack rolls are a measure of accuracy, and makes use of discipline and skill, much like all of the aforementioned defenses. Something like power attack is putting yourself fully into a swing or chain of swings, throwing discipline out the window for sheer ferocity, and so it would hamper the defenses as well as attack rolls. Not to mention, shield blocking and parrying are made as attack rolls opposed by your opponent's attack roll, so bonuses to attack rolls will always affect them as well.


I'm not too sure about this one, either its cool, confusing or just plain dumb
"Tactical Dodge"
PQ's- Dodge, Mobility, BAB +4, Dex 14
Whenever you succeed on a Dodge attempt, as an Action of Opportunity you can move 5ft as an imediate action. This takes place before you make your Attack of Opportunity for succeding on your Dodge.
Special- If you have Spring Attack, you can make your Attack of Opportunity for succeeding on your dodge, then move your 5ft (Assuming you have enough Actions of Opportunity)

This is an example of something that would actually BE unique to dodging. I'll talk about this in my response to TheFamiliarRaven on the topic the "Nick of Time", but I'll explain it briefly here. When I homebrew rules, my first priority is "does this make sense". Not from a mechanical perspective, but from the perspective of immersion, realism, or verisimilitude. I cannot find a way to explain giving a bonus to attack rolls in exchange for a penalty to the defensive rolls, so I don't include that. I see no reason why this bonus or penalty could only apply to one of those defenses rather than all, so I include all of them in there. The mechanical side is adjusted to line up with the realism side, not the other way around. This, however, is a benefit that realistically would only apply to dodging. I've included this feat in the OP now.


Another question, when calculating your number of Actions of Opportunity, is it 1+<DEX Modifier> or your DEX Modifier (Minimum of 1)

It's 1+<DEX Modifier> (maximum = armor's max dex bonus, if any).


Combat Expertise does NOT count as fighting defensively, it's the opposite of power attack (kinda), where you trade your attack bonus (up to 5) for bonus to AC, (that's how the original feat worked). It doesn't say you have to be fighting defensively to use the feat.

I see. I wasn't under the impression that you had to be fighting defensively, but rather that combat expertise replaced fighting defensively. Since it appears this is not the case, I will redo combat expertise to explicitly state that it replaces, and counts as, fighting defensively.


When I originally thought of the ability, I was strictly thinking along the lines of shield users. If its applied to all maneuvers, than shield users get the short end of the stick, because while they still halve the damage they take, they suffer half shield damage ... while parrying and dodging just receive half damage.

In this system, I see shield users as the ones that want to play the most defensively in combat, and I think their feats should emphasize protection of themselves and party members. While block and parry are options for those who don't have shields and still need to be able to defend themselves, if I'm making sense.

When I'm thinking about what the feats should do ... Thematically I am thinking:
-Shields, Defense/shield bash
-Parry, Counterattacks and other manuevers (Sunder, trip etc)
-Dodge, Maneuverability/making openings in enemy defense.

This is where I go back to my talk about measuring up the mechanics with what they're intended to simulate. I don't really see why glancing blows wouldn't occur with parrying or dodging. In fact, even before you suggested that feat, I was considering including a glancing blow mechanic in all situations, where either if the roll is failed by five or less the damage is halved, or if the roll is succeeded by five or less the damage is halved instead of completely negated. Why? Because I thought "what about when someone just barely manages to dodge/block/parry, and so still get hit, but the damage is greatly mitigated?" I didn't think "You know what would be fun? Glancing blows". Now, if I thought it would detract from the play experience, I wouldn't add it, of course, but my first though it always how I can make it a closer approximation of how something would actually work. This is the same reason I hate Vancian casting. Not because it make the game less fun by forcing the player to predict what spells they're going to need (though it does). My main complaint is that it makes no sense that a spell is forgotten after use. You can't just say "magic". In a world where magic exists, it's not "magic" anymore, it's part of the natural world, and it can be studied, scientifically. It has real mechanisms in play, and I cannot think of any mechanism for magic that would include forgetting a spell upon use, or having to prepare spells each morning, and as such I despise Vancian spellcasting. Hopefully, this gives you a bit more insight into my mindset here. I'm not looking for any specific "this defensive maneuver gives this benefit", though that may be a bi-product of looking for the things that make the most sense and are the most realistic. This was probably a bit rambling and probably didn't make much sense, but that's my little spiel for the day, do with it what you will.


Armor Penetration
You are adept and finding the chinks in heavy armor.
Prerequisite: Weapon Focus (Piercing weapon), Base Attack Bonus of +1
Benefit: DR is halved when you strike a creature wearing heavy armor with a piercing weapon.
Special: You can only use this ability when within 30ft of an opponent, if using a ranged weapon.

See below for my idea for the armor penetration feat.


I don't know, it just seems like daggers can't do anything againt heavy armor and small creatures need a way to bypass big DR's as well (Halfling rogue using a shortsword is 1d4 plus STR mod, sure they could use a blunt weapon but pshhhhhhh).

Again, I want to reiterate that I intend to completely redo many of the weapons, so fear not! Don't assume that the weapons are statted the same, since this is only part one of overhauls of many things, from spellcasting to equipment! Some areas I only have one or two changes I want to make, and I'll leave it at that, others are gonna be totally overhauled. I am not done yet, so don't assume that stuff is the same. (Realistically, magic, equipment, and defense are the only really big changes I want to make. I'll make a fourth thread for minor tweaks, but other than that, I won't change anything else drastically, unless inspiration unexpectedly strikes.)


EDIT: Oh shnap! I just realized that swords and many other weapons are kind of over powered because they have two damage types (Longsword is slashing/piercing etc). So they can bypass 2 of 3 armor types easily.

That's one balance-based reason not to have that system. I think I should (hopefully) be able to address most concerns in the equipment overhaul, so just be patient for now. If not, I am deeply sorry and offer to take my own head to restore honor to my family.

But please don't make me take my own head.:smalleek:


I think that "Weapon Penetration" should just be like "Weapon Focus", you choose a certain weapon and that's what gets the penetration to armor. Except for Crossbows, which already have armor penetration. Crossbows have their own feat- "Armor Peircing"
PQ's- Weapon focus <Any Crossbow Type>, Point Blank Shot, Dex 14, BAB +6
When firing at a target that is subjected to your "Point Blank Shot", you can make one shot (even if its a repeating crossbow) with a crossbow that you have weapon focus with that completely bypasses the enemy's DR for armor or natural armor, but not DR that is not from Nat armor or Armor.

I like that crossbow feat. Added. As for singling out individual weapons for granting additional penetration, that's actually a pretty good idea. How about:

Armor Penetration
Prerequisites: Weapon Focus, Weapon Specialization
Benefit: You have mastered the art of exploiting the chinks in your opponents' armor. With weapons with which you have both weapon focus and weapon specialization, you may double their armor penetration stat. (If we don't go with the pen. stat, then halve armor instead).

I won't put this one in until you guys look at it and give your opinions. What do you think?

TheFamilarRaven
2013-10-15, 07:09 PM
Again, I do intend to change around equipment in another thread once the basics of the defense system are down. Realistically, I don't intend any weapon group to be effective against all fighting styles/defense styles. Weapons like greatswords will be slow and easier to dodge, parry, and block, but have the sheer damage to break through armor if they connect. Others will be effective a exploiting the gaps in armor (spears), or at crushing armor (maces), and so will have greater penetration, and middle-of-the-road damage and speed. Others, like the dagger, are ineffective against armor, but are quick (and so harder to dodge), and are particularly effective with critical hits, particularly when making sneak attacks (actual attacks from stealth, not the "sneak attack" class feature, which I intend to rename for clarity). None of these changes are here yet, but they will be eventually.

I'll wait and see.


I want you to have to adjust your tactics depending on the enemy you're fighting, and part of that is understanding, "hey, my little dagger isn't gonna really scratch full plate, maybe I should use a different weapon, or use teamwork and (for example) get an ally to knock his helmet off, so that I can exploit that weakness and go for the neck (mechanically, it would lower the DR of that armor)."

Just remember there's only so much realism you can add before you have too many mechanics going on at once. But that gives me an idea for a feat, seeing as how you want "teamwork". But don't worry too much, I'm here to help with the mechanics anyway.

Sunder Armor
Enemy armor is less imposing to you.
Prerequisite: Power Attack, Improved Sunder
Benefit: You cut a strap, knock off a helmet or do other forms of damage to a creatures armor, reducing the DR by 2 (to be determined). The damage can be repaired, but not in combat.
Special: This maneuver can only be done against creatures who have an armor bonus to DR. Natural and Deflection bonuses are unaffected. ..



This is where I go back to my talk about measuring up the mechanics with what they're intended to simulate. I don't really see why glancing blows wouldn't occur with parrying or dodging. In fact, even before you suggested that feat, I was considering including a glancing blow mechanic in all situations, where either if the roll is failed by five or less the damage is halved, or if the roll is succeeded by five or less the damage is halved instead of completely negated. Why? Because I thought "what about when someone just barely manages to dodge/block/parry, and so still get hit, but the damage is greatly mitigated?" I didn't think "You know what would be fun? Glancing blows".

My counter point to this is that DnD already includes a mechanic for glancing blows (in my opinion). It's the damage roll of a weapon. if you roll a 1 for damage with a longsword, even though you "hit" the opponent, the blow was glancing, causing minimal damage. So there shouldn't be an additional mechanic for "barely" dodging/parrying/blocking

So i will reassert my position that the Nick of Time feat should be shields only. because it gives shield something unique and desirable. And while it may not fit with what you had in mind as far as realism. You have to remember DnD is a game where a Barbarian can't say, "I want to put as much force into my attack is possible, screw accuracy." Without them having the Power Attack feat.



But please don't make me take my own head.:smalleek:

Don't tempt me:smallamused:





Armor Penetration
Prerequisites: Weapon Focus, Weapon Specialization
Benefit: You have mastered the art of exploiting the chinks in your opponents' armor. With weapons with which you have both weapon focus and weapon specialization, you may double their armor penetration stat. (If we don't go with the pen. stat, then halve armor instead).

I won't put this one in until you guys look at it and give your opinions. What do you think?

That's a better version, just make sure you add the within 30ft clause. Because I imagine it's difficult to see the "chinks" in someone's armor at 100ft away.

However, making it require weapon specialization forces this to be a Fighter only feat, unless you change weapon specialization.
The is no right or wrong answer to that, just thought I'd put it out there.

Keep up the good work, sorry I wasn't able to get a full out playtest.

Fosco the Swift
2013-10-16, 05:18 PM
"Overswing" is probably misnamed if it confused you, the whole idea is that instead of immediately stopping the enemy's sword, you are waiting for when the strike as the most power and kinda deflecting it so that your ENEMY "Overswings". But i admit that its a tad bit stretched, so I'll drop it.

As a Perfectionist I have to fix my "Tactical Dodge" feat as I found its a tad overpowered. Since its an immediate action, you can do it immediately after the swing so if your enemy has any more attacks (high BAB) then he can't attack you any longer. So as a fix it could be that you make the 5ft slide AFTER that enemy is finished making his attacks. On the plus side maybe, you can still move before any other possible opponets can attack you, so it isn't completely worthless.

"Nick of Time" should be shields only, as we seem to widely agree that shields are the main defensive choice.

And as TheFamiliarRaven said, glancing blows are already integrated into the system with the die roll, so don't bother make a rule that will cause your players to bash their heads against the wall :smalltongue:

On the note that parrys are the counter-attack choice, we still need some feats for that. Just to point this out, this all assumes that when you make an attack when someone fails to hit you (via dodge, parry or block) you can't use that attack to make a special menuever. So...
"Parrying Disarm"
PQ's- Improved Parry, Improved Disarm, BAB +6, DEX 14
When you make an AttackoO after an enemy fails to hit you when you parry it, you can instead attempt to disarm your opponet at a -4 penalty. This takes place after all your opponet's attacks take place. (The idea with the -4 is that it is slightly harder, plus it cancels out the +4 you get for Improved Disarm)

"Parrying Trip"
PQ's- Improved Parry, Improved Trip, BAB +6, DEX 14
When you make an AttackoO after an enemy fails to hit you when you parry, you can instead attempt to trip your opponet at a -4 penalty. This takes place after all your opponet's attacks take place.

i'm not too sure about making "Parrying Sunder", because that requires the total PQ's of: Power Attack, Improved sunder, Improved Parry, combat Expertise, STR 13, INT 13 and probably DEX 14. THEN you get Parrying Sunder. That's 5 feats, which only a fighter can get at any decent time, and most of the time (no offense to Roy) fighters don't have a INT of 13.

Quick warning- i haven't played D&D for a few years sense my group changed to PF, so if I have made any stupid mistakes and/or IF I make any stupid mistakes, just tell me. Sorry in advance too.:smallredface:

TheFamilarRaven
2013-10-17, 01:20 AM
Fosco has a point. Unless the overhaul specifically states that one can't perform a combat maneuver during an attack of opportunity gained through Dodging/parrying/blocking and/or complete damage negation. We can't go along and make feats that allows you to do so. That's redundant and silly ... (redilly?).

That being said. Let's state that you can't perform a combat maneuver when using an attack of opportunity gained through blocking/dodging/parrying and/or complete damage negation, so we can implements these feats.

Sure, it might not "make sense". But it adds flavor to each of the defensive choices, at least to Parrying

Therefore, I move for the Defenses Overhaul committee to change some wording.

Creatures now have a limited amount of Actions of Opportunity per round equal to (numbers numbers numbers ... yadda yadda yadda). These Actions of Opportunity (AoO's) include the following:
Attacks of Opportunity, following the normal rules of these actions.
Defensive Maneuvers, Blocking, Dodging and Parrying.
Counters, Attacks made AFTER Blocking, Dodging or Parrying.

^^
I think this well clear up any confusion regarding the difference between an attack of opportunity as normal, and an attack of opportunity after blocking/dodging/etc, in both mechanical terms and conversational terms when discussing/debating changes to above mechanics. Also, it really simplifies the language. "You can make a Trip attack with an Attack of Opportunity after a successful Parry ..." compared to "After a successful Parry, you may make a Trip attack as a Counter"

Also, Counters could read...

"After successfully Blocking, Dodging, or parrying an attack, or if the damage you received is completely negated by armor, you may expend an AoO to perform a Counter. This allows you to make a single attack at your full base attack bonus against the creature which attempted to harm you. This does not provoke an attack of opportunity from your target, or nearby allies of the target and you may not perform a combat maneuver, such as a trip attempt, during a Counter. You may only perform one Counter per round. If your target Blocks, Dodges or Parries your attack, or if their armor completely negates the damage you inflict, they may attempt a Counter in return, but only if they can still perform Counters that round."

BAM!!! I'm awesome. :smallamused:

Also, from now on, I'm going to recommend that ALL feats that relate to Blocking/Dodging/Parrying be related as such (With some wiggle room for certain cases)

Shield feats will be labeled as Shield Tactic: (feat Name Here)
Ex) Shield Tactic: Nick of Time

Dodge feats will be labeled as Counter Maneuver: (Feat Name Here)
Ex) Counter Maneuver: Tactical Dodge

Parrying feats should be labeled as Counterattack: (Feat name Here)
Ex) Counterattack: Trip (Because "parrying trip" sounds lame :smalltongue:)

Feats like "Shield focus" don't really need to be labeled "Shield Tactic: Shield Focus" however.


I would like to take this time to assert some of my opinions on the over all progress of this Overhaul.
-I think the biggest contention right now is regarding whether or not to include Armor Pen. stats for weapons. Feats and stuff can come later, for now I think we should focus on finishing the big picture.
-Granted, that can be a little hard, because you get so excited when you think of some cool ability or feat to go along with this system. I myself had a bunch of ideas for new feats just be reading other posts, but I'm refraining from posting them yet because i want to get said big picture finished before i start adding nuances that would be compromised by overall changes to the system later.

THAT being said, i'm still not on board with the Armor Pen stats for each weapon, which, as Plato said earlier, would require another overhaul, which frankly speaking I think is overKILL (see what I did there?).

I still like the original system having certain damage types halving DR. however as i brought up before, some weapons (like swords) have two damage types, making them preferable over those damn single damage type weapons. I think the best compromise is what someone brought up before, as certain weapon GROUPS halving DR. Here's my suggestion for the following weapon groups. Fun fact, the groups are loosely based off Morrowind's weapon groups.

Axes (Everything from throwing axes to great axes)
Bladed, Light (Any bladed weapon whose max damage roll does not exceed 6,
i.e Daggers, shortswords and rapiers etc. or weapons that Weapon Finesse apply to.)
Bladed, Heavy (Any bladed weapon whose max damage roll is 8 or greater,
I.e Longswords, Scythes and Greatswords etc.
Blunt (Maces and hammers, included throwing hammers)
Bows (any variant of Bow, Long, short, composite, whatever)
Crossbows (Any type of crossbow)
Spears (Shortspear, Lance, reach weapons in general)
Unarmed (Natural attacks, whether it be a human fist or a dragon claw.

Special: Some weapons can be argued that they fit into two categories, for instance, Halberds are pretty versatile weapons, being both bladed, axe-like and a polearm. Many double weapons have two different heads. If this is the case, make the weapons that fit into more than one category Exotic.

While this may still require another thread for weapon updates, I think it's a lot faster, easier, and playtest friendly, then assigning armor Pen stats to each weapon.

I'll leave what the strength and weaknesses of each wepaon group, or rather, the strength and weaknesses of each armor type, open for now. because there's no point in doing all that work for an idea that may be dismissed by a better one.

Thoughts?

TuggyNE
2013-10-17, 02:58 AM
I haven't been following the project very closely, but I have a couple driveby comments for now. (I may return at some point with a more in-depth look.)


Also, from now on, I'm going to recommend that ALL feats that relate to Blocking/Dodging/Parrying be related as such (With some wiggle room for certain cases)

Shield feats will be labeled as Shield Tactic: (feat Name Here)
Ex) Shield Tactic: Nick of Time

Dodge feats will be labeled as Counter Maneuver: (Feat Name Here)
Ex) Counter Maneuver: Tactical Dodge

Parrying feats should be labeled as Counterattack: (Feat name Here)
Ex) Counterattack: Trip (Because "parrying trip" sounds lame :smalltongue:)

Feats like "Shield focus" don't really need to be labeled "Shield Tactic: Shield Focus" however.

Why not just use feat tags like [counter-maneuver]?


Here's my suggestion for the following weapon groups. Fun fact, the groups are loosely based off Morrowind's weapon groups.

Me, I'd suggest just using UA's groups (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/variant/buildingCharacters/weaponGroupFeats.htm). They're a good idea anyway.

Fosco the Swift
2013-10-18, 06:37 PM
Thanks for the suggestion of the renamed Feats TheFamiliarRaven, I admit that I didn't really like my names for the feats, but they did a decent job for describing the feat. The feat tags would be much better looking.
TuggyNE, your idea would be simpler, but is a little less descrptive and easy to sort compared to what TFR said. Thanks for the idea though, please keep posting. A new look at this overhaul might see some things we missed.

Plato Play-Doh
2013-10-21, 02:19 PM
Sunder Armor
Enemy armor is less imposing to you.
Prerequisite: Power Attack, Improved Sunder
Benefit: You cut a strap, knock off a helmet or do other forms of damage to a creatures armor, reducing the DR by 2 (to be determined). The damage can be repaired, but not in combat.
Special: This maneuver can only be done against creatures who have an armor bonus to DR. Natural and Deflection bonuses are unaffected. ..

I like it. Added.




My counter point to this is that DnD already includes a mechanic for glancing blows (in my opinion). It's the damage roll of a weapon. if you roll a 1 for damage with a longsword, even though you "hit" the opponent, the blow was glancing, causing minimal damage. So there shouldn't be an additional mechanic for "barely" dodging/parrying/blocking

I am aware of that, but those glancing blows are no way are affected by the skill of the target. You can't just barely manage to dodge a blow due to your immense agility, and thus end up being hit glancingly. Additionally, your opponent's accuracy (in the form of BAB) doesn't factor into the whole glancing blow. Additionally, if ANYTHING, I would restrict glancing blows to dodging, since that seems the most logical from a realism viewpoint. I'm kinda thinking of changing dodging in some way, to make it a gradient rather than a binary system of full damage or no damage, and nothing in between. My first thought was to have it be the damage is reduced by the difference between the dodge roll and the attack roll. However, I don't know how much I like that, and I think each weapon would need a separate accuracy modifier in order to make that work. Maybe I could do it so that each point higher the dodge roll is than the attack (or whatever DC, because I can think of no situation in which a reflex save wouldn't make more sense as a dodge roll in terms of verisimilitude/realism, and it would consolidate those systems while adding internal consistency) takes off 10% of the damage dealt, capping at 100%? Honestly, I would've added this sort of a thing in from the start, but I couldn't think of a good way to incorporate it mechanically.


So i will reassert my position that the Nick of Time feat should be shields only. because it gives shield something unique and desirable. And while it may not fit with what you had in mind as far as realism. You have to remember DnD is a game where a Barbarian can't say, "I want to put as much force into my attack is possible, screw accuracy." Without them having the Power Attack feat.

True. Still, I feel like there must some other way to encourage shield use that makes sense as something that would actually only apply to shields. I think the best way is by giving shields additional bonuses when fighting defensively, and maybe giving bonuses for group tactics, making use of shield wall formations and whatnot.


Don't tempt me:smallamused:
I will haunt you. I will come back and open drawers and stuff. It'll be super scary and stuff.:smallmad:


That's a better version, just make sure you add the within 30ft clause. Because I imagine it's difficult to see the "chinks" in someone's armor at 100ft away.

Right.


However, making it require weapon specialization forces this to be a Fighter only feat, unless you change weapon specialization.
The is no right or wrong answer to that, just thought I'd put it out there.

How foolish of me. I forgot that weapon specialization was fighter only. Fixed.


Keep up the good work, sorry I wasn't able to get a full out playtest.

No problem. You are forgiven. You know, unless you make me come back to haunt you.



As a Perfectionist I have to fix my "Tactical Dodge" feat as I found its a tad overpowered. Since its an immediate action, you can do it immediately after the swing so if your enemy has any more attacks (high BAB) then he can't attack you any longer. So as a fix it could be that you make the 5ft slide AFTER that enemy is finished making his attacks. On the plus side maybe, you can still move before any other possible opponets can attack you, so it isn't completely worthless.

OK. Done.


On the note that parrys are the counter-attack choice, we still need some feats for that. Just to point this out, this all assumes that when you make an attack when someone fails to hit you (via dodge, parry or block) you can't use that attack to make a special menuever. So...

Well, I feel like that should be allowed. You know, so that stuff like an unarmed martial artist (AKA monk, if you wanna get all technical about it), dodging an attack and disarming anopponent before using his weapon against him (all cinematic and whatnot) can happen. I am fine with giving bonuses to the counter, or with possible other things (like status defects) going along with parries. Something like "when you parry an opponent, their momentum causes them to go too far forward, making them unable to make a move/standard (maybe make it a feat chain, leading to totally skipping their turn in the end?) action during their next turn"? Or they lose AoOs?


i'm not too sure about making "Parrying Sunder", because that requires the total PQ's of: Power Attack, Improved sunder, Improved Parry, combat Expertise, STR 13, INT 13 and probably DEX 14. THEN you get Parrying Sunder. That's 5 feats, which only a fighter can get at any decent time, and most of the time (no offense to Roy) fighters don't have a INT of 13.

Ah, but the art of swordplay requires some level of intelligence. Indeed, adding a feat that adds your int to parrying seems like something that could be useful (it would also have a dex and str requirement, to prevent the non-swordplay types from taking it).


Quick warning- i haven't played D&D for a few years sense my group changed to PF, so if I have made any stupid mistakes and/or IF I make any stupid mistakes, just tell me. Sorry in advance too.:smallredface:

No problem. It's been a few months for me as well, so you're not alone.



Creatures now have a limited amount of Actions of Opportunity per round equal to (numbers numbers numbers ... yadda yadda yadda). These Actions of Opportunity (AoO's) include the following:
Attacks of Opportunity, following the normal rules of these actions.
Defensive Maneuvers, Blocking, Dodging and Parrying.
Counters, Attacks made AFTER Blocking, Dodging or Parrying.

^^
I think this well clear up any confusion regarding the difference between an attack of opportunity as normal, and an attack of opportunity after blocking/dodging/etc, in both mechanical terms and conversational terms when discussing/debating changes to above mechanics. Also, it really simplifies the language. "You can make a Trip attack with an Attack of Opportunity after a successful Parry ..." compared to "After a successful Parry, you may make a Trip attack as a Counter"

Also, Counters could read...

"After successfully Blocking, Dodging, or parrying an attack, or if the damage you received is completely negated by armor, you may expend an AoO to perform a Counter. This allows you to make a single attack at your full base attack bonus against the creature which attempted to harm you. This does not provoke an attack of opportunity from your target, or nearby allies of the target and you may not perform a combat maneuver, such as a trip attempt, during a Counter. You may only perform one Counter per round. If your target Blocks, Dodges or Parries your attack, or if their armor completely negates the damage you inflict, they may attempt a Counter in return, but only if they can still perform Counters that round."

BAM!!! I'm awesome. :smallamused:

While you are awesome, I think I covered why I feel that counters and attacks of opportunity need not be differentiated mechanically.


Also, from now on, I'm going to recommend that ALL feats that relate to Blocking/Dodging/Parrying be related as such (With some wiggle room for certain cases)

Shield feats will be labeled as Shield Tactic: (feat Name Here)
Ex) Shield Tactic: Nick of Time

Dodge feats will be labeled as Counter Maneuver: (Feat Name Here)
Ex) Counter Maneuver: Tactical Dodge

Parrying feats should be labeled as Counterattack: (Feat name Here)
Ex) Counterattack: Trip (Because "parrying trip" sounds lame :smalltongue:)

Feats like "Shield focus" don't really need to be labeled "Shield Tactic: Shield Focus" however.

I like it. Added.


I would like to take this time to assert some of my opinions on the over all progress of this Overhaul.
-I think the biggest contention right now is regarding whether or not to include Armor Pen. stats for weapons. Feats and stuff can come later, for now I think we should focus on finishing the big picture.
-Granted, that can be a little hard, because you get so excited when you think of some cool ability or feat to go along with this system. I myself had a bunch of ideas for new feats just be reading other posts, but I'm refraining from posting them yet because i want to get said big picture finished before i start adding nuances that would be compromised by overall changes to the system later.

OK.


THAT being said, i'm still not on board with the Armor Pen stats for each weapon, which, as Plato said earlier, would require another overhaul, which frankly speaking I think is overKILL (see what I did there?).

I still like the original system having certain damage types halving DR. however as i brought up before, some weapons (like swords) have two damage types, making them preferable over those damn single damage type weapons. I think the best compromise is what someone brought up before, as certain weapon GROUPS halving DR. Here's my suggestion for the following weapon groups. Fun fact, the groups are loosely based off Morrowind's weapon groups.

Axes (Everything from throwing axes to great axes)
Bladed, Light (Any bladed weapon whose max damage roll does not exceed 6,
i.e Daggers, shortswords and rapiers etc. or weapons that Weapon Finesse apply to.)
Bladed, Heavy (Any bladed weapon whose max damage roll is 8 or greater,
I.e Longswords, Scythes and Greatswords etc.
Blunt (Maces and hammers, included throwing hammers)
Bows (any variant of Bow, Long, short, composite, whatever)
Crossbows (Any type of crossbow)
Spears (Shortspear, Lance, reach weapons in general)
Unarmed (Natural attacks, whether it be a human fist or a dragon claw.

Special: Some weapons can be argued that they fit into two categories, for instance, Halberds are pretty versatile weapons, being both bladed, axe-like and a polearm. Many double weapons have two different heads. If this is the case, make the weapons that fit into more than one category Exotic.

While I still have other things I wish to change about equipment, (different stealth attack stats, other stuff) I will change it to the halving DR route, at least for now. And I'll use your system, though won't include the weapon groups in the OP until the exact nature of what applies to what is determined.



Me, I'd suggest just using UA's groups (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/variant/buildingCharacters/weaponGroupFeats.htm). They're a good idea anyway.

That might be better. I'll think on that as well.

Actually, I'm too lazy right now to go back and change the OP at all. I'll get to that later, so anywhere in here where I say I've changed a thing in the OP, just assume that I'm PLANNING to edit it. :smalltongue:

Fosco the Swift
2013-10-21, 05:46 PM
Well, I feel like that should be allowed. You know, so that stuff like an unarmed martial artist (AKA monk, if you wanna get all technical about it), dodging an attack and disarming anopponent before using his weapon against him (all cinematic and whatnot) can happen. I am fine with giving bonuses to the counter, or with possible other things (like status defects) going along with parries. Something like "when you parry an opponent, their momentum causes them to go too far forward, making them unable to make a move/standard (maybe make it a feat chain, leading to totally skipping their turn in the end?) action during their next turn"? Or they lose AoOs?
This is already kind of included in the Monk's bonus feats, so some of these feats (such as the disarm one) can be incorparated into the choices.

TheFamilarRaven
2013-10-21, 10:59 PM
I am aware of that, but those glancing blows are no way are affected by the skill of the target. You can't just barely manage to dodge a blow due to your immense agility, and thus end up being hit glancingly. Additionally, your opponent's accuracy (in the form of BAB) doesn't factor into the whole glancing blow. Additionally, if ANYTHING, I would restrict glancing blows to dodging, since that seems the most logical from a realism viewpoint. I'm kinda thinking of changing dodging in some way, to make it a gradient rather than a binary system of full damage or no damage, and nothing in between. My first thought was to have it be the damage is reduced by the difference between the dodge roll and the attack roll. However, I don't know how much I like that, and I think each weapon would need a separate accuracy modifier in order to make that work. Maybe I could do it so that each point higher the dodge roll is than the attack (or whatever DC, because I can think of no situation in which a reflex save wouldn't make more sense as a dodge roll in terms of verisimilitude/realism, and it would consolidate those systems while adding internal consistency) takes off 10% of the damage dealt, capping at 100%? Honestly, I would've added this sort of a thing in from the start, but I couldn't think of a good way to incorporate it mechanically.

Hang on, following the this logic of glancing blows, wouldn't it mean that if I exceeded someone's defense by a certain amount than I would deal EXTRA damage? Put another way, if my enemy rolls an 18 on his dodge, but I rolled a 20 (not natural) on my attack, he take X% less damage, turned around, if I rolled a 20 (not natural) on my attack, and my opponent rolled a 12 on his dodge, shouldn't I do X% more damage?

Right now, I think we're probably discussing the SAME thing the developers of whatever version of DnD discussed before they settled on the AC system, where there is a hit/no hit, and then glancing blows are determined by damage rolls. While not the MOST realistic, they probably felt that the "gap" in the realism of the mechanics could be mended by the descriptive power of the DM, and that any more complexity would bog gameplay down. Think of physics. Rhe more variables, the more math is involved, the longer the problem takes.

Following the current system, rolling a dodge check equal to your opponents attack roll IS barely dodging the attack, one less on your dodge roll and he barely managed to HIT you. The are a number of ways to describe "barely" in this case. I could say "You try to duck your shoulder so his axe swings over, but he still manages a shallow cut." (Low damage roll) Or, "You try to step back to avoid her blade, but you underestimate the length of her swords, and the tip slashes deep into your stomach" (High damage roll).

Having a hit or miss system doesn't necessarily make the game any less realistic, and having a glancing blow system doesn't necessarily make the game anymore realistic. If you truly want to implement a glancing blow system, then the easiest way to do that is probably to have weapons deal a set damage number, say 6, and you deal up to 1,2,3,4,5 points of damage more or less depending on the accuracy of your hit.

But don't do that, because I don't know where to start determining the set damage number, becuase it can't be the average, cause the nbig weapons would suck, and it can't be half, cause then big weapons would pwn.

So, let's compromise if you still HAVE to have some sort of glancing blow mechanic for dodge.
Because wars have probably been started over smaller debates than this.

Firstly, no glancing parry, becuase either you managed to parry or you didn't, plain and simple.

Second, Either add this feat, or make it inherent to dodge without the feat, your choice, but have it work something like this.

Quick Like a Cat (I don't know! :smallannoyed: You think of a better name! My name conjuring skills are off for the evening!!!)
You have innate dodging reflexes like a cat.
Benefit: If you fail a dodge roll by five or less, you negate 25% (Or 10% counting down. Ex: failed by 5, 10% less damage, failed by 2, 40% less damage, however you want to do it).

Why only 25%? because I don't know ... something to do with shields being the defensive choice for players, and there's already a feat for shield users ... Oh yeah! I remember, because shield users still get their shield busted with the Nick of Time feat, or something like that. It seems like my logic has taken off for the evening as well. :smalltongue:

Make Nick of Time a shield tactic feat.

Compromise, compromise.


True. Still, I feel like there must some other way to encourage shield use that makes sense as something that would actually only apply to shields. I think the best way is by giving shields additional bonuses when fighting defensively, and maybe giving bonuses for group tactics, making use of shield wall formations and whatnot.

There will be several other things to encourage shield users to use shields, but chances are, no one chose to use a shield because they wanted to do the most damage. Honoring their commitment to defense with this feat is the least we can do. and it's not like it's going to be the ONLY feat for them.

There could be plenty of feats for shield users ... shield throwing, shield smashing, better bullrushes, rocket shields that make you fly, the possibilities are endless, but they are to be implemented later, because then we'd get derailed from the main focus of the overhual, which is, of course, defenses (right? :smalltongue:)



I will haunt you. I will come back and open drawers and stuff. It'll be super scary and stuff.:smallmad:

I have my own exorcist on speed dial, your threats are meaningless.




No problem. You are forgiven. You know, unless you make me come back to haunt you.

I'm also good friends with the Ghost Busters.



Well, I feel like that should be allowed. You know, so that stuff like an unarmed martial artist (AKA monk, if you wanna get all technical about it), dodging an attack and disarming anopponent before using his weapon against him (all cinematic and whatnot) can happen. I am fine with giving bonuses to the counter, or with possible other things (like status defects) going along with parries. Something like "when you parry an opponent, their momentum causes them to go too far forward, making them unable to make a move/standard (maybe make it a feat chain, leading to totally skipping their turn in the end?) action during their next turn"? Or they lose AoOs?

I refer you to Fosco's post. I have no idea what it says but it says something about this.




Ah, but the art of swordplay requires some level of intelligence. Indeed, adding a feat that adds your int to parrying seems like something that could be useful (it would also have a dex and str requirement, to prevent the non-swordplay types from taking it).

Just make it a BaB requirment, if a wizard, (or Hell, INT based rogue) REALLY wants to add INT to parrying, they'll have to wait, but outright denying them seems mean. You'll make your Swashbuckling rogue cry, and meanwhile, the swashbuckler who is ACTUALLY the Swashbuckler class will be throwing stones at him and sneering.




While you are awesome, I think I covered why I feel that counters and attacks of opportunity need not be differentiated mechanically.

You don't have to differentiate Counters mechancally from Attacks of Opportunity if you don't want to. There's some work around in terms of Parrying feats. (bonuses etc, special effects like you mentioned). My main concern was that I got REALLY tired of saying "An attack of opportunity after you Block/Dodge/Parry", when it would just be simpler to say "A Counter", or "A Counter Maneuver".



I like it. Added.

While I have this segment, and have NOT deleted it yet, let me take this opportunity to fix my Sunder Armor feat. It SHOULD read that INSTEAD of sundering a weapon or a shield, you may target an opponents armor. This follows the same rules as sundering a shield (and weapon, if they mechanics are the same), but instead of damaging the armor's HP, you reduce the DR of your opponent by 2. The damage can be repaired, but not in combat.
Special: The special description can stay the same.



I still like the original system having certain damage types halving DR. however as i brought up before, some weapons (like swords) have two damage types, making them preferable over those damn single damage type weapons. I think the best compromise is what someone brought up before, as certain weapon GROUPS halving DR. Here's my suggestion for the following weapon groups. Fun fact, the groups are loosely based off Morrowind's weapon groups.

Axes (Everything from throwing axes to great axes)
Bladed, Light (Any bladed weapon whose max damage roll does not exceed 6,
i.e Daggers, shortswords and rapiers etc. or weapons that Weapon Finesse apply to.)
Bladed, Heavy (Any bladed weapon whose max damage roll is 8 or greater,
I.e Longswords, Scythes and Greatswords etc.
Blunt (Maces and hammers, included throwing hammers)
Bows (any variant of Bow, Long, short, composite, whatever)
Crossbows (Any type of crossbow)
Spears (Shortspear, Lance, reach weapons in general)
Unarmed (Natural attacks, whether it be a human fist or a dragon claw.

Special: Some weapons can be argued that they fit into two categories, for instance, Halberds are pretty versatile weapons, being both bladed, axe-like and a polearm. Many double weapons have two different heads. If this is the case, make the weapons that fit into more than one category Exotic.

While I still have other things I wish to change about equipment, (different stealth attack stats, other stuff) I will change it to the halving DR route, at least for now. And I'll use your system, though won't include the weapon groups in the OP until the exact nature of what applies to what is determined.


Since you blatantly refused to quote me, I will find your English professor, show him your egregious lack of proper citation, ring you up for plagiarism, and have all the little children form a picket line outside your house! Bwahahahahahaha!!!!

However, it seems like we've come to an accord in regards to the DR situation. Later, I might come up with a suggestion for strengths and weaknesses. I'll probably use the UA system mentioned by Tuggy, because that's already a DnD source.



Actually, I'm too lazy right now to go back and change the OP at all. I'll get to that later, so anywhere in here where I say I've changed a thing in the OP, just assume that I'm PLANNING to edit it. :smalltongue:

Just update the post when you HAVE edited it.

Fosco the Swift
2013-10-22, 03:45 PM
For the Armor Sundering feat, having the damage being a static 2 points of DR damage has some issues. The big one is that it means that a dagger will destroy Full Plate as fast as a great sword can. It makes it slightly more complex, but this fix will balance out the feat slightly. you effectively make a sunder attempt where you bypass 1/2 the hardness and ignore the 1/2 damage for attacking objects, and roll damage. Then for every 5 points of damage you do (keep track of the loss) the armor loses 1 DR. This works because it says that armor has HP equal to 5x their armor bonus. This way a dagger will not be destroying full plate, but a great axe will. There can be other additions for mall weapon weilders that give them bonuses, such as your cutting the straps idea. But honestly a person with a knife or dagger will not be able to remove the armor from a fighter in 24 seconds (4 rounds). As another thing to point out, the static -2 DR would destroy leather armor in 1 round, making leather armor almost worthless.

I personally think that "Quick Like a Cat" would not be a good feat. Even though it isn't as good as "Nick of Time", it still seems to be butting into the shield-weilder's territory. Plus, Parrying is going to have plenty of feats soon enough without giving it extra power in the defense department.


Just make it a BaB requirment, if a wizard, (or Hell, INT based rogue) REALLY wants to add INT to parrying, they'll have to wait, but outright denying them seems mean.
Honestly, the feat is already out of reach with the 4 PQ feats, and then this one. that would take a 9th level human rogue specifically aiming for this feat to get it, and we all know that rogues have much better choices than trying to be able to sunder a weapon.
I also think that glancing blows should be dropped. Its just another way to show the way luck works in battle. You get lucky if you hit the target, but you might not have been luckkyk enough to have really damaged him enough.

Fosco the Swift
2013-10-25, 05:01 PM
Dodge Feats:

"Erratic Dodging"
PQ's: Dodge, Mobility, DEX 14

For ever successful dodge defense meneuvar, you get a cumilitive +1 bonus to your next dodge attempt. You can do this a number of times equal to your DEX modifier. This bonus lasts until your next turn, so it effects all attacks made on you, even from different opponets. Failing a dodge or starting your next turn resets this bonus.

"Two Sides"
PQ's: Dodge, Mobility, DEX 15, Tumble 6 ranks, Tactical Dodge

Once per turn as an immediate action after completing a successful dodge, but before your counter swing, you may make a Tumble attempt [this can be 1. 10+ Opponet's BAB, 2. The original attack that was Dodged, 3. Against another roll from the opponet equal to d20+attack. Choose one for this feat, I'm not sure which to use.] If successful, you move to any square that would make you "flanking" with your original square. You get the +2 bonus for flanking [ I'm not sure if this should include sneak attacks, no sneak attacks, or sneak attacks with a penalty to attack/ damage]. If you fail the check, you fall prone in your original spot and cannot make a counter swing.

I'm not sure if "Two Sides" is butting into Parrying territory, but Parrying wouldn't be able to do this because it makes no sense. The feat is a little dumbed down do to the required Tumble check. Obviously this feat is made for Rogues. Sorry about the extra stuff I put into the feat description, I'm not sure what is fair to have though.

TheFamilarRaven
2013-10-25, 08:05 PM
So I with a wrote up a rough draft of the weapon groups along with their strength Strengths and Weaknesses. It's easier to remember what armor type a weapon is good/bad against, then remembering all the weapons a type of armor is good/bad against, so I made a table listing the weapon groups, their strenth, then weakness.

I'll include two spoilers at the end. One for a description of the groups and one for my reasoning (HAH!) behind assigning the given weakness/strengths.

Weapon Types, Strengths and Weaknesses.

Weapon type | Strong Against ... | Weak Against ...
Axe | Heavy Armor | Medium Armor
Blades, Heavy | Light Armor | Heavy Armor
Blades, Light | Medium Armor | Heavy Armor
Blunt, Heavy | Heavy Armor | Light Armor
Blunt, Light | Medium | Light Armor
Bows | Light Armor | Heavy Armor
Crossbows | All | None
Polearms | Heavy Armor | Medium
Spears | Light Armor | Heavy Armor

Weapon Groups Described

Axes - Any weapon with the word "axe" in it is generally considered an axe. From the lowly handaxe, to the mighty greataxe. Also, this groups includes Pick axe weapons

Blades, Heavy - Heavy blades are any sword-like weapon with a damage die that at LEAST has a maximum of 8. Such as a Longsword, Falchion and Greatsword.

Blades, Light - Light blades are sword-like weapons that have a max damage roll of 6 or less. Such weapons include shortswords, Daggers and Punching Daggers. Certain throwing weapons too, are light blades, such as Shurikins

Blunt, Heavy - Heavy blunt weapons, are any mace or hammer-like weapon with a max damage roll of at least 8. Such as a Warhammers, Heavy Maces, and Warmaces.

Blunt, Light - Any bludgeoning weapon that has a max damage roll of 6. Such as Light Maces, fists and Nunchuku


To be continued ... I have to go.... Also, fun fact. There are only like three weapons in the Core rule books that have two damage types that AREN'T double weapons .... would it really be that hard to go back to the old system of just using Slashing/piercing/Bludgeon damage? :smalltongue:

Fosco the Swift
2013-10-26, 10:21 PM
I assume that you can't parry a ranged attack, but you can block or dodge it. Some feats involving that fact-

"Pincusion Shield"
PQ's- Shield Focus
Blocking a physical, non-pure-energy, arrow, bolt, dart or other similar ranged attack does only half damage to the shield for their sunder attempts (Minimum 0). This is halved before Hardness and damage penalties for sundering with a ranged attack are added.

"Opportunist Dodger" (Better name needed)
PQ's- Dodge, Mobility
you gain a +4 bonus to all dodge attempts vs AttacksoO. This stacks with mobility for movement realated AttackoO.

Fosco the Swift
2013-10-30, 04:23 PM
There are only like three weapons in the Core rule books that have two damage types that AREN'T double weapons .... would it really be that hard to go back to the old system of just using Slashing/piercing/Bludgeon damage?
While there is really nothing wrong with it, I don't think it would fit into anything realistic, which seems to be what we're aiming for.

TheFamilarRaven
2013-10-30, 06:49 PM
While there is really nothing wrong with it, I don't think it would fit into anything realistic, which seems to be what we're aiming for.

Realistically, heavy armor would beat just about everything. Medieval knights in fullplate were fairly invulnerable, especially on horseback. Certainly, crossbows could puncture through that armor, and if you hit the joints you could cause some damage, but that's pretty difficult to do.

IMO, whatever DOESN'T work against medium armor, probably doesn't work well against heavy armor. And what works WELL against heavy armor, is probably effective against all forms of armor. This is the main flaw going for pure realism.

There comes to a point where realism unbalances the game. We have to remember that this is a game, and it needs to be fair

I think right now, the issue is if we want to make the armor strengths/weaknesses rules complex (using weapon groups), or simplistic (using damage types).

Fosco the Swift
2013-11-04, 07:11 PM
I'm being to truly think that trying weapon penetration is slightly worthless in this case. I believe that my earlier post saying that Weapon Penetration becomes a feat like Weapon Focus, and Crossbows have their own feat. But overall, I think it would be far easier and more sane to just drop the idea, but give Crossbows and a very few special and select weapons Armor penetration, the same way some weapons have "Reach" and "Trip" abilities.

TheFamilarRaven
2013-11-04, 09:40 PM
I'm being to truly think that trying weapon penetration is slightly worthless in this case. I believe that my earlier post saying that Weapon Penetration becomes a feat like Weapon Focus, and Crossbows have their own feat. But overall, I think it would be far easier and more sane to just drop the idea, but give Crossbows and a very few special and select weapons Armor penetration, the same way some weapons have "Reach" and "Trip" abilities.

But then we run into the problem of creatures with high natural armor. And if we give weapons an armor penetration feat, similar to weapon focus, it would just be a feat tax.

Honestly, its not that hard to go with the "old system", and it makes combat slightly more dynamic.

{table=head] Armor type | Weak Against ... | Strong Against
Heavy| Bludgeoning | Slashing
Medium | Slashing | Piercing
Light | Piercing | Bludgeoning
Natural | Adamantium* | None
Deflection | None | None[/table]

*Creatures with an additional DR that require a special material to bypass, such as Lycanthropes, instead have that material half their armor.

Fosco the Swift
2013-11-06, 07:04 PM
The table looks great. But I still think all of this really just slows combat down more than normal. First, check type of armor. Then see if weapon is strong or weak. Then there is the trouble if the opponet has more than one type of armor bonus. If someone has both Deflection and Normal armor, what now?

TheFamilarRaven
2013-11-07, 12:26 PM
The whole checking armor type doesn't slow gameplay down more than the Defense maneuvers. It shouldn't take that long to learn that slashing is lame against heavy armor, and since weapon damage types are listed, it's not like you have to open the book everytime u want to see how much damage you do. In regards to multiple armor types, it would take just as long as, say, calculating the damage from a +2 large greatsword of shocking burst.

Fighter with full plate and a ring o deflection +2 has a DR of 10, agianst pierceing its 10, against slashing its 18 and against bludgeoning it's 6. That took me 3 seconds to calculate in my head, and just a bit longer to type it.

I can see your point, that all of the numbers might bog gameplay down, we can it up to Plato if he wants varying DR's or just flat DR, but again, if you go with flat DR than like i and Zaydos said before, creatures with natural armor are nigh impossible to hurt with a weapon.

Fosco the Swift
2013-11-07, 09:17 PM
Alright you convinced me. But I felt like I had to try to put up some kind of arguement, just to keep the ideas circulating.
So now we move back to new ideas and the fleshingo out of feats, unless I've missed something.

TheFamilarRaven
2013-11-11, 09:48 PM
Sorry for the delayed response, moving house and internet was down for awhile. And it's good that you voiced opposition.

You can go ahead and continue to post feats. Ideally, Plato will edit the OP with the updated ruleset so we have more accurate information to go off of. Other than that, the system requires a playtest. Which I may or may not do, depending on when I get MY laptop back from another house.

Acatalepsy
2013-11-12, 12:42 PM
Looking over...I haven't mathed it out quite as well as I'd have liked, but I do have to ask - what's the goal here? "Depth" is, in itself, a vague, broad goal. Leaving aside the scaling and complexity issues, what do you mean by depth, and how do you intend to accomplish that?

TheFamilarRaven
2013-11-16, 12:47 AM
Looking over...I haven't mathed it out quite as well as I'd have liked, but I do have to ask - what's the goal here? "Depth" is, in itself, a vague, broad goal. Leaving aside the scaling and complexity issues, what do you mean by depth, and how do you intend to accomplish that?

I guess that's more a question for Plato, since he's the original poster. But since he hasn't been on lately ...

It's my understanding that this system is simply trying to alter the combat mechanics in order to make fighting more dynamic for martial characters. What we've been trying to do is create a defenses system that emphasizes how different classes would fight. I.e, A dexterous rogue would dodge more than rely on his armor. Where as a paladin would stand fast with a shield.

The goal is to make both character styles have different strengths and weaknesses, but have both still be viable and good choices for players to pursue (game balance)

Currently, as I'm sure you've seen if you've read all the post (or at least the recent ones), we've just debated on armor by-passes, and are waiting (at least I am) for Plato to update the OP so we have clear and solid information to continue to build the system.

Plato Play-Doh
2013-11-18, 11:03 AM
Sorry for the time between posts, I've had a lot of stuff going on. I'm back now :smallbiggrin:. I've put Raven's table into the post, and made a few modifications to things (including the things I needed to update from last time I posted). For the most part, I'm gonna refrain from putting in/modifying any feats now, so remind me when we get back to that to go back and look at the feats that have been proposed. Also, I've added a new rule to the dodge section, which is related to tumble checks, if you wanna check that out. Not sure if it's balanced or not, but it seemed to make sense to me.

Fosco the Swift
2013-11-19, 11:10 PM
It seems reasonable, but I find it very overpowered. Because the PC can choose, they will always get the better score. Low skill classes like fighters would probably stay with Reflex, but rogues could greatly benefit from this. The Tumble Skill greatly scales over the levels, unlike reflex. AS a example (without any real table/diagrams used to correctly scale the differences), a rogue could have a Reflex of +8, but its Tumble will be + 12 or easily higher at this point.

Plato Play-Doh
2013-11-20, 08:12 AM
Maybe I could give a bonus to the attack roll?

Fosco the Swift
2013-11-21, 08:07 PM
Now its just a random, slightly complex rule that doesn't exist for any really good reason. Its just too superficial really, and adds more rules that aren't needed. Nice idea, but reflex still seems to work the best.

Acatalepsy
2013-11-22, 11:04 PM
It's my understanding that this system is simply trying to alter the combat mechanics in order to make fighting more dynamic for martial characters. What we've been trying to do is create a defenses system that emphasizes how different classes would fight. I.e, A dexterous rogue would dodge more than rely on his armor. Where as a paladin would stand fast with a shield.

What do you mean by 'dynamic'?

My biggest concern is that you've built in a bunch of choices players have to make out of sequence, and need to keep track of when it isn't their turn. This drastically slows down play, for little appreciable gain, and with huge scaling issues to boot. You should be trying to make sure that more of this stuff is calculable, static numbers that can be generated at character creation/leveling and then modified in set increments.

I'd also add that I think you skipped a step in design. You started with a high level goal (more player choices, etc) and then jumped straight into "accomplish this goal with mechanics" rather than looking at the mid-level goals (what do my mechanics need to do to accomplish my high level goals).

(Oh, and while real combat can be an an inspiration for mechanics, it is never an excuse for mechanics. If I wanted realistic medieval fighting and armor, I'd be playing GURPS Low-Tech. With that in mind, I'ver very wary of the armor penetration thing.)

Plato Play-Doh
2013-11-24, 05:58 PM
Now its just a random, slightly complex rule that doesn't exist for any really good reason. Its just too superficial really, and adds more rules that aren't needed. Nice idea, but reflex still seems to work the best.

Ok, I'll get rid of it.


What do you mean by 'dynamic'?

My biggest concern is that you've built in a bunch of choices players have to make out of sequence, and need to keep track of when it isn't their turn. This drastically slows down play, for little appreciable gain, and with huge scaling issues to boot. You should be trying to make sure that more of this stuff is calculable, static numbers that can be generated at character creation/leveling and then modified in set increments.

I'd also add that I think you skipped a step in design. You started with a high level goal (more player choices, etc) and then jumped straight into "accomplish this goal with mechanics" rather than looking at the mid-level goals (what do my mechanics need to do to accomplish my high level goals).

(Oh, and while real combat can be an an inspiration for mechanics, it is never an excuse for mechanics. If I wanted realistic medieval fighting and armor, I'd be playing GURPS Low-Tech. With that in mind, I'ver very wary of the armor penetration thing.)

There are several reasons for this overhaul, mechanically. First, it adds to character variety. Everyone will have an entirely different style of fighting, allowing much more character customization and enhancing the feeling that your character is special and unique. Second, by taking away the static AC, it makes combat more dynamic, and the players will feel much more involved as they pray that their dodge is successful, rather than just hoping their opponent misses, and actively rolling the dice rather than just watching the DM do it is much more engaging. It makes players "part of the action" even when it isn't their turn. Third, it helps DMs describe what happens in an interesting and flavorful way, and lets players choose what actions they take, making them, yet again, more involved in the action. Not only that, but I often have DMs who just say "such and such missed" rather than describing HOW they missed, which detracts from player enjoyment. This prevents that from happening. Lastly, it makes large groups of weak enemies a threat again, since each character only gets a set number of AoOs per round. In the same vein, it adds some strategy, since the players will choose to allow a certain creature to hit them so that they can retain their AoO for the big dangerous creature, or giving up attacks of opportunity to avoid being killed. All of these positively impact the play experience.

As for armor pen, that adds to the idea of character variation and encourages team play by making different characters specialize in certain ways, thus making them require extra help in certain situations. Also, it adds diversity to combat scenarios. Also, just to make sure, you realize I changed it back to damage by weapon damage type rather than having separate pen stats for each weapon, right? Just want to avoid any miscommunication, in case the individual weapons pen version is what you were criticizing.

Fosco the Swift
2013-12-02, 06:54 PM
While this is slightly off topic of the talk of where this forum is going, I have an idea of where to move on for a time. Special Attacks- Sunder, Disarm, Trip, etc. The #1 problem that needs to be changed is in Sunder. When attacking a carried or worn item, the item has an [B]AC[B], meaning that it needs to be placed under a Dodge, block or parry category. It could be either of them, or all of them. But I prefer to turn to you guys before making any assumptions. All the item gets when attacked is 10+size+DEX. So would that make it more of a Dodge thing? But it also seems reasonable for parry or block to be able to have a chance too. Of course, block is weird because its possible that the Sunder attempt is on the shield.
So the two Main categories that can be done with this:

Dodge Only- The character basically tries to prevent the weapon from ever hitting is belonging. Treat this as a dodge attempt that gains an AttackoO.
This has the advantage of not needing a lot of exceptions, so its very straightforward.

Block, Parry and Dodge- When a Sunder attempt is tried on a character, that target may make an Dodge, Parry or Block attempt against the attacker's attack roll. If the Sunder attempt is a ranged attack, Parry cannot be used to prevent the sunder. If a weapon is not currently equipped by the target, it may not attempt a Parry.


Invisibility: How does that changed the entire AC overhaul? Dodge seems much less likely because that is about quick reflexes and dexterity, something that is lost when the attacker is invisible. Honestly considering what our choices are, none of our AC options seem to pertain to fighting an invisible creature. So how should this be handled?

TheFamilarRaven
2013-12-02, 07:53 PM
While this is slightly off topic of the talk of where this forum is going, I have an idea of where to move on for a time. Special Attacks- Sunder, Disarm, Trip, etc. The #1 problem that needs to be changed is in Sunder. When attacking a carried or worn item, the item has an [B]AC[B], meaning that it needs to be placed under a Dodge, block or parry category. It could be either of them, or all of them. But I prefer to turn to you guys before making any assumptions. All the item gets when attacked is 10+size+DEX. So would that make it more of a Dodge thing? But it also seems reasonable for parry or block to be able to have a chance too. Of course, block is weird because its possible that the Sunder attempt is on the shield.
So the two Main categories that can be done with this:

Brings up a good point, I have a few ideas.


Dodge Only- The character basically tries to prevent the weapon from ever hitting is belonging. Treat this as a dodge attempt that gains an AttackoO.
This has the advantage of not needing a lot of exceptions, so its very straightforward.

Block, Parry and Dodge- When a Sunder attempt is tried on a character, that target may make an Dodge, Parry or Block attempt against the attacker's attack roll. If the Sunder attempt is a ranged attack, Parry cannot be used to prevent the sunder. If a weapon is not currently equipped by the target, it may not attempt a Parry.

Here's my two cents,

When attempting to sunder an item that is carried, but not a weapon or shield, normal sunder rules apply, (i.e, you get an AoO if you want). The item is entitled to a free Dodge attempt. The Dodge bonus is equal to the carrier's dodge bonus, however use the item's size modifier when calculating the total dodge bonus. Alternatively, instead of using their Action of Opportunity to attack their opponent, they may use it to defend the item that is being sundered. They may use any of the three defenses they are able to do, and they follow the normal rules for these actions.

On a successful defense, the sunder is cancelled, if not, then the sunder attempt continues as normal. If the attacker has the Improved Sunder feat, then the defender may not attempt to defend the item, just like they can not perform a regular attack of opportunity. taking either Action of Opportunity (attacking or defending) uses up one of the character's Action of Opportunity for the round.

How does that sound? Pros, Cons, etc. We'll get this working.


Invisibility: How does that changed the entire AC overhaul? Dodge seems much less likely because that is about quick reflexes and dexterity, something that is lost when the attacker is invisible. Honestly considering what our choices are, none of our AC options seem to pertain to fighting an invisible creature. So how should this be handled?

I think there is something about this in the OP, but I can't check now. I would say that the first attack from an invisible creature is an automatic hit (DR from armor still applies of course), but consecutive attacks can be defended against as normal, but with a -2(4 maybe), to each defense. The Blind Fight feat allows you to defend against the first attack with a -2(4 maybe) penalty, and negates the penalty for consecutive attacks.

Fosco the Swift
2013-12-04, 08:39 PM
When attempting to sunder an item that is carried, but not a weapon or shield, normal sunder rules apply, (i.e, you get an AoO if you want). The item is entitled to a free Dodge attempt. The Dodge bonus is equal to the carrier's dodge bonus, however use the item's size modifier when calculating the total dodge bonus. Alternatively, instead of using their Action of Opportunity to attack their opponent, they may use it to defend the item that is being sundered. They may use any of the three defenses they are able to do, and they follow the normal rules for these actions.

On a successful defense, the sunder is cancelled, if not, then the sunder attempt continues as normal. If the attacker has the Improved Sunder feat, then the defender may not attempt to defend the item, just like they can not perform a regular attack of opportunity. taking either Action of Opportunity (attacking or defending) uses up one of the character's Action of Opportunity for the round.
This seems just about perfect to me, but the true veto power is up to Plato. A couple of little side things and exceptions have to be added, such as "If the sunder attempt is on a worn shield, that shield may not be used to block." "If the sunder attempt is used with a ranged weapon, the sunder cannot be blocked by a Parry"
The big thing is the change to 'Improved Sunder". I think it makes the feat overpowered from what is once was, and makes it a better choice than improved trip or improved disarm because it cannot be stopped anymore. Unless of course you want to try to change those feats, but that seems like a little too much work. Its far simpler to keep it at it once was, and just say the Sunder-er gets a +4 bonus to attack (and maybe a +2 to damage), and prevents AttacksoO.

Fosco the Swift
2013-12-16, 10:16 PM
So would it be worth the effort to try to change some of the other Special Attacks such as Disarm or Trip? While it would be nice to be able to make them more useful and effective, its a lot more work than is necessary.

TheFamilarRaven
2013-12-17, 12:17 AM
So would it be worth the effort to try to change some of the other Special Attacks such as Disarm or Trip? While it would be nice to be able to make them more useful and effective, its a lot more work than is necessary.

The only thing I would change is maybe exclude the no AoO on special attacks with their respective feats i.e Improved sunder, trip etc. But like you said, give them a damage and an attack bonus and we're good. I think the only REAL problem we had mechanically speaking was when a creature attempted to sudner a carried object, rather than a shield or weapon. But I think that's fixed now. On to the next order of business which is ..... umm .... Playtest? Honestly, I can't really think of anything that needs attention right now.

EDIT: Or keep improved Sunder as it is, since I included as it is in my crunch text. The reasoning being, Improved sunder only prevent the target from performing an AoO against the creature, and attempting to defend a carried item, the item attempting to be sundered is still entitled to a free defense roll to avoid the attack. Meaning Improved sunder doesn't guarantee a hit.

Fosco the Swift
2013-12-17, 09:51 PM
I believe you're right, besides the confirming it with Play-Doh there seems to be very little left to do. If I had the time I could go through the old posts and see if there is anything we wanted to come back to but forgot about. Maybe when Christmas break comes along.

Plato Play-Doh
2013-12-20, 01:52 PM
Hi guys, sorry I haven't posted in a while. I don't have time to really go into any detail or respond to (or even read) any of you guys' posts right now. Suffice it to say, my computer broke a few weeks ago. I should be getting a new one for Christmas, so I'll probably be posting again then.

Fosco the Swift
2014-01-07, 01:18 PM
Alright, I must return back to the DR from wearing armor. I have tried it many times but for low level characters it just comes out too overpowered. Simply by wearing medium armor a 2nd-3rd level fighter can wade into 30 goblins bunched together and return with maybe 1-2 points of damage. This needs to be changed because otherwise any monsters CR 3 and lower are never going to do anything to armor wearing PC's.
I'm thinking something along the lines of a maximum DR use per round. Stronger armor not only has a higher DR, it also can reduce more damage total before it simply is unable to stop attacks.
For example, let's say A fighter is wearing breastplate, giving him a DR of 4. He's surrounded by 8 goblins who have initiative over him. On a hit, the goblins deal 1d4 points of damage from clubs.

Here's how it goes without a max DR per round
All the goblins attack, scoring about 6 hits (Fighter has a low Dex and ActionsoO. One goblins gets a critical. The 5 normal hits deal absolutely no damage with their maximum possible damage being 4. The critical must roll a 3 or 4 to do 2 or 4 points of damage to a PC with already more HP than he needs. If the goblins are lucky, they get one more critical. If not, they deal about 2 points of damage total from all 8 of them. They may be goblins, but that's pathetic.

With a mDRpr
(Because I'm not completely sure on the mechanics, this will be a little more abstract.) The 8 goblins will still get their 6 hits, but because the DR can't stop all the damage, about 2-3 hits will actually deal full damage.

Here's the idea behind it. DR is how much it takes off of one attack, but the TDR (Total Damage Reduction) is how much damage can be reduced in one round. For example, a DR/4, TDR/12 can reduce a maximum of 4 from a single attack, but can only reduce 3 attacks that deal 4 points of damage or more. A character with this is hit by 5 attacks, dealing: 4, 6, 3, 4, 2. The first attack is completely negated by the DR/4, and reducing the TDR to 8. The second attack deals 2 points of damage, leaving TDR/2. The third attack deals 1 point of damage, because the TDR has only 2 left. The remaining attacks deal full damage because there is no remaining TDR.

I need some help getting a balanced TDR- what is it based off of. And is it more work than its worth?

TheFamilarRaven
2014-01-08, 06:41 PM
I'm curious as to what the fighter in your play test was wearing. If you could let me know , it'd help me help you. But, I would say that a 3rd level fighter shouldn't be expected to be challenged by goblins.
That being said, a first level fighter going up against goblins seems more likely ... and said fighter, let's call him Bob, is probably wearing scalemail (DR of 4, breastplate is DR of 5 :smalltongue:), which is medium armor.

Medium armor is weak against slashing, but great against piercing.

Now, if the goblins all have clubs, Bob is not too scared ... if they all have shortspears, he's laughing. But if they have axes (which isn't far-fetched), he might be worried.

I think the biggest point you make is that the system favors medium and bigger creatures, because they get the big weapons to bypass the DR. Also, I think the system only holds well if the player characters are fighting creatures of relatively the same CR.

I think an easier fix is to make special nouns to goblins, or any enemy that needs it, like goblin brute or goblin lurker. And simply give them monkey grip an 1d6 sneak attack respectively. Lump them together with hordes of regular goblins and you have a challenge.

I should also note, that in this example, the fighter clearly has the advantage due to his armor, but it is important to note that not everyone in a party will be heavily armored.

Fosco the Swift
2014-01-24, 10:46 PM
I've been scrolling through the official rules and found the "Greater Shield Bash" feat. To put it simply, its OVERPOWERED.

Problems-
1.Few PQ's for so many advantages.
2.The ability to knock an enemy prone by just hitting them (weak limitations).
3.The prevention of defending themselves against one attack (also known as "a la POWER ATTACK").
4.Plus the +2 damage is a little... random... but its an easy fix.

Fixes-
1. By dumbing down the feat a little, this is actually fine as it is.
2. Either
a. Make it only to creature 1 size smaller or less.
b. Have them make a bull rush attack with a -4 (effectively one handed).
3. This is highly overpowered. Simply make it a penalty, such as a -2 or -4 instead of a 1/20 miss chance (a.k.a.: natural 1).
4. Make it that shields deal +1 1/2 damage. A little more balanced.

This seems more reasonable to me.

WhiteLycan
2014-01-26, 01:04 PM
Okay so I know I'm joining this conversation late, but I've always wanted an overhaul of the defense system, myself. Though I've never thought about adding a parry/dodge system (I've thought about a block system, but never a way to actually implement it), I've thought for a long time about an AC alternative.

It wouldn't be as easy to do it my way because I'd do it a little more realistically. I have a problem with the armor type/weak against/strong against table.

In reality, Heavy armor (plate) is weak against piercing, not bludgeoning. Light armor (chain) should be weak against bludgeoning, not piercing, and strong against slashing, not bludgeoning. Leather really has no weaknesses or strengths. If you're changing up the defense system, I'd go balls to the walls and change up the armor types too. Light = Cloth/Leather, Medium = Chain, Heavy = Plate. Keep it simple. But I won't be using that for the rest of my post, that's just a suggestion (Though it would greatly simplify things)

In actual combat, when plate armor was used, the enemy relied on piercing weapons (the spear-like tips of halberds and pollaxes, thrusting swords, spears, bows & crossbows) to penetrate the armor. That's why in the later medieval periods you'll start noticing that most weapons come with hooks or long sharp points (such as the lucerne hammer and horseman's pick). In order to protect themselves from this, heavy infantry would wear chain mail underneath their plate to help against these piercing attacks. In my opinion, your table should look more like this:

{table=head] Armor type | Weak Against ... | Strong Against
Heavy| Piercing | Slashing
Medium | ? | ? (too many types of armor in the category to have a correct weak/strong)
Light | Bludgeoning | Slashing
Natural | Adamantium* | None
Deflection | None | None[/table]

But we run into a problem. Sure chain is good at protecting against piercing and slashing attacks but weak against bludgeoning. Sure plate is good at protecting against bludgeoning and slashing attacks but weak against piercing. But look at medium armor. Medium contains both plate and chain types of armor. So my suggestion would be this: Don't base an item's DR strictly off of its armor category. Base it off its armor category and the material it's made of. Bring hardness into this formula since what is hardness if not inanimate object DR? Instead of having a list like the one you have, have a list of the hardness of common armor materials:

{table=head] Material | Hardness
Cloth | 0
Leather | 2
Wood | 5
Iron | 10
Dragonhide | 10
Mithral | 15
Adamantine | 20[/table]

Then have adjustments based on the category the armor lies in:

{table=head] Armor Type | Adjustment
Light | 50% of hardness to DR (Round Down)
Medium | 75% of hardness to DR (Round Down)
Heavy | 100% of hardness to DR[/table]

It would definitely need some testing since players would be able to get DR 20/- by wearing full plate adamantine, but the earliest that is theoretically possible is between levels 6 and 7 and only if they save up every single gold piece they have (wealth by level of 6 is 13k, 7 is 19k). But this does raise some balance issues since a suit of splint mail and full plate would give the exact same DR. This is an issue I haven't been able to work out. I tried a method where AC became Armor Coverage (all existing AC numbers add a decimal in front in order to represent the % of flesh the armor covered. Full plate covers 80% of your body, hide covers 30%, etc.). Then I multiplied that by the hardness of the material used in the armor. It works for all the metals and dragonhide, but anything made from leather or cloth defaults to minimum 1.

I'd also add a rule saying that whatever category the armor originally falls under is the category it draws the adjustment off of (since mithral and adamantine can screw with categories by lowering or raising them, as well as a few other obscure materials).

But if you change the armor categories up like I suggested early on in my post, things get a lot easier. The table wouldn't be confusing, saying that light chain (chain shirt) is weak against piercing but medium chain (chainmail) is strong against piercing or that medium plate (breastplate) is weak against slashing but heavy plate (full plate) is strong against slashing . It would look like this:

{table=head] Armor Type | Strength | Weakness
Light (Cloth/Leather) | None | Piercing
Medium (Chain) | Piercing | Bludgeoning
Heavy (Plate) | Slashing | Piercing
[/table]

I know it kinda sucks for light armor wearers, but the only people wearing light armor are the ones who shouldn't be taking too many hits (rogues, wizards, etc.), or should be focusing more on your parry/dodge/block mechanics. I'd honestly go so far as putting "All" as a weakness for Light Armor.

I'm gonna do everyone a favor and stop typing now.

WhiteLycan
2014-01-26, 01:31 PM
I also have an opinion on the blocking mechanic. I F****** love it, for one, but it does have a problem that's been brought up before. The problem being that you'll be able to block two or three times before your wooden shield (Hardness 5, ~10hp) resembles kindling. Iron shields (Hardness 10, hp ~15) will last longer, but an ogre could destroy it in one solid hit.

I suggest you remove the "auto-sunder". When medieval soldiers blocked attacks with shields, they typically didn't block attacks by aiming their shield directly perpendicular to the oncoming attack. Imagine a barbarian swinging a sword at you and your wooden shield full force. That's a couple hundred PSI aimed directly and dead-on at your left arm. Instead, they'd angle it so that it slid/ricocheted off the side. Google riot shields, there's a reason they're curved; so that projectiles and the rare melee attack glance off to the sides instead of making the officer take the full strength of the attack.

Fosco the Swift
2014-02-01, 09:08 PM
I can agree with the fact that shields would take far to much damage in combat and would be destroyed in one encounter: there's only so much magic weapons can do. But don't forget, you'd be pretty stupid to try to block a swing from an ogre.
About the armor: the other posters and I agreed that this is D&D- there's only so much realism that can be done before it begins to get in the way of the mechanics. What you suggest might work, with some tweaking, but seems to be overly complex and empowers characters that wear armor to near invulnerability...
BUT... this is called an overhaul for a reason...
so why not overhaul the whole armor idea? Remove the "Light, medium heavy" armors and replace them with construction/material type. It seems that in order to gain a balanced change to the armor system, it needs to be tossed and remade. AC bonus becomes DR. DEX Max now means Max ActionsoO. Armor check penalty now is subtracted from the dodge score. Hardness and HP should be changed to better reflect the changes in feats and abilities.
My biggest problem is when I finally have a good idea, I have no idea how to begin or keep it balanced.

WhiteLycan
2014-02-02, 08:26 PM
...... there's only so much realism that can be done before it begins to get in the way of the mechanics.
.......But don't forget, you'd be pretty stupid to try to block a swing from an ogre.
I don't care what happens to the person that blocks it, the shield should at least come out okay =P



My biggest problem is when I finally have a good idea, I have no idea how to begin or keep it balanced.
AMEN!!

Plato Play-Doh
2014-02-03, 02:17 PM
Hi guys. I suck for taking so long to get back on here. It's a combination of my laziness, forgetfulness, and computer issues (I got a refurbished laptop, which turned out to be a bad idea). I'm sorry.

I have made some changes to the OP to reflect some of your concerns and suggestions, and am now thinking about the issue of modifying armor. I like the idea of getting rid of light, medium, and heavy armor and replacing it with different methods of construction and materials. Let's start with the basic construction.

Leather is easy. Padded, Leather, Studded Leather, Hide.

Next is chain. Obviously Chain Shirt and Chain Mail.

Finally we have plate. That's Scale, Breastplate, Splint Mail, Banded Mail, Half-Plate, and Full-Plate.

I'm not sure how the types will interplay with mechanics yet, but there they are. Now onto another topic, since I'm somewhat limited on time right now.

That talk of ogres smashing a shield got me thinking: As it stands, shield blocking huge attacks has little real risk other than losing the shield. This doesn't make sense. How about this: when a character's shield breaks, any excess damage above what the shield took from that attack hits the character. Furthermore, any attack that is blocked pushes the blocking character back a number of feet equal to the damage dealt - the shield's hardness - the character's strength modifier, rounded down to a multiple of five. This adds some risk, but the shield was already pretty lackluster, and I just seriously nerfed it. It needs something-something big-in return. The thought I have right now is allowing the character to block all of a full attack with one AoO. Basically, you put your shield up to block the first attack from a given person, and then all of their other attacks you're making relatively smallish adjustments, so each of their other attacks in the turn can be blocked as a free action. Maybe I could make a feat that allowed two-weapon fighters to circumvent that rule? It would buff shields some, and also add a bit to dual wielding, all while allowing folks with low dexterity to still be reasonably effective with a shield, despite having fewer AoOs. What do you guys think of that? Is that enough of a boon to make up for the problems with it? Would it be if the hardness was increased on all of the shields?

TheFamilarRaven
2014-02-03, 04:18 PM
It's been awhile for me as well. But reading over the suggestions for modifying the shield blocking, it gave me some ideas that'll make blocking with a shield simpler and (hopefully) keep it relatively useful.


Shield Block: By spending 1 AoO, a creature holding a shield can attempt to block incoming attacks from one target. The creature with the shield makes an opposed attack roll for each attack. If he exceeds the attacker's roll, he successfully blocks the attack, reducing the damage he takes by the amount of absorption of his shield. Any excess damage is still inflicted to the defender as bludgeoning damage, which can still be reduced further by the creature's armor rating (if any). The amount of attacks a creature can block by using 1 AoO is equal to the amount of times they can make in a full attack.

You may not block an attack from behind, or from the side you carry your weapon if you have attacked, (or if you blocked an attack) that round. If you block an attack from behind or your weapon side, you (or your shield arm) now face that direction.

1) This removes the problems of the shield breaking after like, 2 rounds.
2) Stays with the theme of the armored knight, who absorbs damage rather than negates it.
3) There's no push-back mechanic because it makes no sense to apply exclusively to shield blocking. If you want to make a separate mechanic for larger creatures knocking enemies around, that's fine. But people don't get knocked back because they blocked, they get knocked back because they got hit. Also, there's this monster/fighter feat. (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/monsterFeats.htm)
4) All that's required is a modification of the hardenss of shields (i.e, their absorption, as I will now call it.)
5) Absorption is = to (shield's AC bonus * 5) plus [Enhancement bonus (if any) * 2]
6) in keeping with the theme of material = quality, standard wooden shields have no bonuses, while steel shields gain +5 absorption (as does mithril, but that's lighter!) and adamantium gains +10 absorption

Here's a table

{table=head] Shields* | Cost | Absorption | Max Dex | Armor Check Penalty | Arcane Spell Failure | Speed | Weight
Buckler** | 15 gp | 5 | - | -1 | 5% | - | 5lb
Light | 3 gp | 5 | - | -1 | 5% | - | 5lb
Heavy | 7 gp | 10 | - | -2 | 15% | - | 10lb
Tower | 30 gp | 20 | 2 | -10 | 50% | - | 45lb[/table]

* Shields listed are assumed to be wooden, for details on special materials and steel shields, see the below table.

** Bucklers can not be made of anything other than wood or darkwood.

Materials

{table=head] Material | Absorption Bonus | Weight*
Wood | +0 | As Listed
Darkwood | +0 | Half of Wooden
Steel | +5 | +5lb
Mithril | +5 | Half of Steel
Adamantium | +10 | +10lb[/table]

* Tower shields have their weight increases by double the amount listed on this table.

thoughts? maybe, make the absorption round based, because most players don't get hit for over 30 from a single attack, (well, big ass creatures can do some damage I guess) and if they do, they should have dodged rather than blocked. :smallamused:

Of course they still have armor to protect them, and the shield doesn't work 100% of the time.

Plato Play-Doh
2014-02-04, 12:56 PM
It makes sense for a wooden shield to break quickly. Other shields will have enough hardness to shrug off most blows. Once you take into account alternative materials, and maybe include a houserule that allows masterwork status and enchantments to add to the hardness of shields, it becomes even less likely that this will occur. Iron has a hardness of 10, making it almost impossible to destroy at low levels. An average goblin won't be able to even scratch it without a critical hit. At higher levels, it makes sense to be able to shatter a little iron shield, but one that's adamantium? And has +5 hardness on top of that from enchantments? That's a pretty sturdy shield. I don't think that a knight has to worry about his shield breaking all that often.

Edit: Here's one more thought to counterbalance shields being underpowered: they deal damage to weapons that hit them. 1d4 + the opponent's strength modifier damage, using the opponent's attack roll to determine critical hits. How's that sound?

Fosco the Swift
2014-02-04, 03:33 PM
Shields? Underpowered? Not anymore.
1. If you have an adamant tower shield, it makes since that you can successfully block attacks that deal 30 damage and less. A standard heavy steel shield blocks 15 hp damage. That's pretty reasonable. You have more luck blocking an attack than dodging it, but there's a chance the shield doesn't block all the damage. I don't think shields need to have a limit on blocking damage PER ROUND, or deal damage to weapons that attack them. They seem to have already been well balanced, without too much mechanics being added. Don't forget, your absorption is worthless is you fail to block an attack. Of course the shield feats might need some new tweaking now.

Interesting Idea- now that better shields can absorb more damage, should that mean that shields no longer give a shield bonus to blocking?

Being attacked while blocking shouldn't cause any knock back- we have bull rush and Awesome blow for that.

Limiting attacks on your sword side gets confusing and hard to keep track of. It can be a possible Advanced Rule, but I think its not needed. Possibly keep the limit that you cannot block behind you, but then you still have to keep track of which direction you're facing. Being Flat-Footed should cover not being able to block, but in battle I think you should still be able to block in all direction. You don't have Combat Reflexes or A DEX of 18 for nothing.

Plato Play-Doh
2014-02-04, 04:21 PM
What I was saying there was that I like the idea of shields being able to break. Most of the time, they won't because of the hardness and HP, but it could happen. Under the normal breakage system, a wooden tower shield (the one shown in this table (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/exploration.htm#tableCommonArmorWeaponAndShieldHar dnessAndHitPoints)) has 5 hardness (thus why I assumed it was wood), and 20 HP. Wood has HP of 10 per inch, meaning that the tower shield is 2 inches thick. The same adamantine tower shield that you just mentioned would have a hardness of 20 and HP of 60. That's 20 damage from each hit against it totally negated, and 60 HP total available to be taken off before the thing breaks. Pretty sturdy, if you ask me. Looking at the craft skill just now, I realized that repairing items works quite poorly, so we should probably deal with that. Once we do, all of that HP (taking into account hardness) would be available each encounter (or at least most of it) since characters could usually repair items between battles. The point is, with the exception of bucklers and light wooden shields, they probably won't be broken all that often. Furthermore, I think that this risk of breakage is something that actually makes the shield more distinct from the other two options, and makes it a lot more interesting as a separate playstyle. However, being able to break without any more bonuses makes them underpowered. Thus me wanting to remedy that.

TheFamilarRaven
2014-02-04, 08:23 PM
Honestly, the only time I really see shields breaking is when a larger creature with a massive weapon tries to do so. But when you're fighting creatures like that, you're typically at the wealth level where if you do frequently use a shield, you're going to have invested heavily in it so that it doesn't break, barring an act of the Gods. So if shields don't break often anyway? Why then include the automatic sunder hit and have creatures roll damage that will prove either worthless or insignificant? It's better to have them roll and have a chance of at LEAST damaging the shield user.

And if they want to break the shield, then they could make a sunder attempt instead of attacking their target.

OR, if you really want to keep the block + automatic sunder hit, add this feat.

Surprise Sunder
Prerequisite: Improved Sunder
Whenever a creature successfully blocks one of your attacks, you may choose to automatically hit their shield as if you attempted to sunder it.

Also, I have an idea to organize the ideas of the armor revamp, based of Fosco and white Lycan's input, i'll post that below so if you see this but don't see that then I'm still working on it :smalltongue:

TheFamilarRaven
2014-02-05, 02:10 AM
Armor

This defenses overhaul includes different categories of armor than what is shown in the player's handbook in order to reflect the different strengths and weaknesses of the type of armor and the materials used to craft it, rather than arbitrary weight categories. Below are the following armro types and what armors they include.

Leather Armors
Leather armor is light and flexible. Crafted typically from tanned animal hides, leather armor provides less protection than other armor types, but it makes up for it by not restricting movement, allowing the wearer to dodge, sneak, or escape with ease. The types of leather armor are the following: Padded Leather, Leather Armor, Studded Leather Armor, Hide Armor.

Padded Leather: More cloth than actual leather, padded leather is a quilted vest of soft leather scales. It provides the least amount of protection, but the greatest maneuverability.

Leather Armor: A step up from padded leather, leather armor has more or less the same design as padded leather, although the leather has been hardened and treated to provide more protection.

Studded Leather Armor: Studded leather is much like leather armor, however it has been reinforced with steel studs, increasing protection.

Hide Armor: Hide armor consists of many layers of furs and animal hides. Tanned and hardened for protection, proving to be the most protective of the leather armors. But the many thick layers of animal skin prove more cumbersome than regular leathers.


Chain Armors
Chain armor is made from tiny steel rings woven together to create a tight knit shirt or vest. It provides excellent protection from arrows and other piercing weapons as the tight rings make it difficult for arrow tips to pass through. Although it has little padding, making chain inefficient at absorbing blunt force. The types of chain armor are the following: Chain Shirt, Chainmail, Chain Hauberk.

Chain Shirt: A chain shirt is little more than a vest of chainmail with short sleeves. It still provides decent protection against attacks, and better protection against arrows. Chain shirts are often used by archers who wish to keep their mobility, and don't like getting shot.

Chaimail: Chainmail covers more of the body than a simple chain shirt, providing more protection. Often used by regular infantry in a professional army, to keep the soldiers safe from arrow volleys.

Chain Hauberk: For the truly fearful of arrows and spears, the chain hauberk is thick chainmail that covers most of the body like a dress. Providing amble protection from attacks, and superior defense against piercing attacks, chain hauberk is typically used by commanders of the army, and knights who want extra protection from spears.

Plate Armors
Armors in this category are made up of multiple metal plates, pieced together by leather to form a suit of armor. Providing the most protection on average, plate armors are the go to choice for those who expect trouble. The combination of leather and plate provides a cushion that significantly reduces the damage of blunt weapons. Although a well placed arrow can penetrate the the armor. The types of plate armor are the following: Scalemail, Breastplate, Splint Mail, Half-Plate and Full-Plate.

Scalemail: Scalemail is a vest of leather covered in many metal plates. Providing a moderate amount of armor, scalemail is often used by shock troops and regular infantry.

Breast Plate: Breast plate is simply a plate curaiss which covers the torso of the wearer. It comes with plate gauntlets and a helmet. Breast plate is often used by sergeants in a professional army.

Splint Mail: Splint mail is made like scale mail, only it covers most of the body. It is not as efficient at covering vital areas like half-plate or full-plate, but it is easier to manufacture and therefore cheaper.

Half-Plate: Half-Plate is the cheaper cousin of full plate. Unlike splint, mail, which is made like scalemail, half-plate employs larger metal plates to protect the body. And while it makes efficient use of the plate-mail, it is not a full set of plate-mail.

Full-Plate: Full-plate is what every young peasant boy imagines when they think of knights. Covering the body head to toe in gleaming plates of steel, full-plate provides the greatest protection of any armor type.

{table=head] Armor | Cost | Armor Rating | Max Dexterity Bonus | Armor Check Penalty | Arcane Spell Failure | Speed | Weight
Leathers

Padded Leather |
5 gp |
1 |
8 |
0 |

5% |
30ft |
10lb
Leather Armor |
10 gp |
2 |
6 |
0 |
10% |
30ft |
15lb
Studded Leather |
25 gp |
3 |
5 |
-1 |
15% |
30ft |
20lb
Hide Armor |
40 gp |
4 |
4 |
-2 |
20% |
30ft |
25lb

Chain
Chain Shirt |
50 gp |
4 |
4 |
-2 |
20% |
30ft |
25lb
Chainmail |
150 gp |
5 |
2 |
-5 |
30% |
20ft |
40lb
Chain Hauberk |
300 gp |

6 |
1 |
-6 |
35% |
20ft |
50lb

Plate Armors
Scalemail |
50 gp |
4 |
3 |
-4 |
25% |
20ft |
30lb
Breast Plate |
200 gp |
5 |
3 |
-4 |
25% |

20ft |
30lb
Splintmail |
250 gp |
6 |
1 |
-6 |
35% |
20ft |
35lb
Half-Plate |
600 gp |

7 |
1 |
-7 |
40% |
20ft |

40lb

Full-Plate |
1,500 gp |
8 |
1 |
-8 |
45% |
20ft |
60lb[/table]

Strengths and Weaknesses
{table=head] Armor type | Strength | Weakness
Leather | None | Slashing
Chain | Piercing | Bludgeoning
Plate | Bludgeoning | Piercing
Natural | None | Adamantium
Deflection | None | None[/table]

Plato Play-Doh
2014-02-06, 12:48 PM
Honestly, the only time I really see shields breaking is when a larger creature with a massive weapon tries to do so. But when you're fighting creatures like that, you're typically at the wealth level where if you do frequently use a shield, you're going to have invested heavily in it so that it doesn't break, barring an act of the Gods. So if shields don't break often anyway? Why then include the automatic sunder hit and have creatures roll damage that will prove either worthless or insignificant? It's better to have them roll and have a chance of at LEAST damaging the shield user.

And if they want to break the shield, then they could make a sunder attempt instead of attacking their target.

OR, if you really want to keep the block + automatic sunder hit, add this feat.

Surprise Sunder
Prerequisite: Improved Sunder
Whenever a creature successfully blocks one of your attacks, you may choose to automatically hit their shield as if you attempted to sunder it.

Also, I have an idea to organize the ideas of the armor revamp, based of Fosco and white Lycan's input, i'll post that below so if you see this but don't see that then I'm still working on it :smalltongue:

Thanks for fully working out the armor system, Raven. I like it. I've provided a link to that post in the OP in place of the former discussion of armor types. Well done.

On the topic of shields, I will grant that iron shields, which is what PCs will usually use, will rarely break at low levels. Other materials will later be used to improve upon that. However, let's say there's some savages with wooden planks for shields (functionally light wooden shields), their shields will be destroyed fairly easily, methinks. Most of the shieldbreaking will probably be done by PCs, but it's still a cool mechanic. Further, without the breaking aspect, I probably would have just made shields function as weapons that got a bonus to parrying. The chance of breakage is a major mechanical source of distinction between just blocking a blow and parrying it. If you guys don't like it, I can get rid of the auto-sunder, but I think it's better to just do away with the whole blocking mechanic altogether in that case.

Fosco the Swift
2014-02-06, 05:07 PM
Then let's make a distinction.
Parrying is meant for 2-hand weapon people, and requires more skill and focus to use properly (thus the "fighting defensively" requirement or feat).
Blocking is meant for people who are looking to avoid damage and deal slightly less.
Problem: with one feat, parrying has become more powerful than blocking. When you block an attack, the "absorption rule" means there's a chance it won't stop all damage. Parrying has the ability to completely negate the damage, with the same bonus as blocking. So it appears that parrying needs a few changes too.
Blocking with a shield is much easier than parrying- and because the character took the time to get a shield and not swing two-handed, he should have an easier time stopping attacks. So with no extra changes to blocking, the rules for parrying should be changed...
Parrying:
-Characters who are fighting defensively may parry any melee attack with a weapon by making a parry roll with a melee weapon as an action of opportunity, with a DC equal to the attack roll of the melee attack they are trying to parry.
-The parry roll is equal to the character's BAB+STR (or DEX with weapon finesse)+Feats+Insight & luck bonuses
-Characters trying to parry with a weapon they are wielding one-handed gain a -2 penalty on their parry check.
-Characters trying to parry with a light melee weapon gain a -2 penalty on their parry check.
-Characters may parry with an improvised or non-melee weapon with a -4 penalty, and on a successful parry, the parrying weapon immediately takes damage as if the attack was a sunder attempt. No attackoO.
-Characters attempting to parry an attack from a creature larger than them gain a -4 penalty for each size category larger than the character.
-A character cannot make an attack of opportunity for successfully parrying a attack with the "Counter Maneuver: Riposte"

"Counter Maneuver: Riposte"
PQ's- DEX 14, BAB +6, Improved Parry
You may make an attack of opportunity if you successfully parry an attack. This attack must be made against the opponent you successfully parried. This uses an actionoO. You make only as many ripostes as you have actionoO and standard attacks from BAB. These ripostes do not count against attacks you make on your turn.
Special: you may not make a riposte against someone who is making a riposte against you.

Looking at this I believe that the rule "you may make an attackoO against a foe you successfully blocked, parried or dodged" should be removed. We said a while ago that parrying is for those who want to strike back, dodging is for those who want to gain a tactical advantage and blocking for those who don't want to get hit. And by allowing the attackoO rule, it extends combat on for a very long time.

TheFamilarRaven
2014-02-06, 07:32 PM
Then let's make a distinction.
Parrying is meant for 2-hand weapon people, and requires more skill and focus to use properly (thus the "fighting defensively" requirement or feat).
Blocking is meant for people who are looking to avoid damage and deal slightly less.
Problem: with one feat, parrying has become more powerful than blocking. When you block an attack, the "absorption rule" means there's a chance it won't stop all damage. Parrying has the ability to completely negate the damage, with the same bonus as blocking. So it appears that parrying needs a few changes too.
Blocking with a shield is much easier than parrying- and because the character took the time to get a shield and not swing two-handed, he should have an easier time stopping attacks. So with no extra changes to blocking, the rules for parrying should be changed...

I have to stop you right there for a few reasons. Now, I haven't looked at the OP in awhile, and I probably should before making this post :smalltongue:, but from memory blocking and parrying worked relatively the same, but BLOCKING was still better, and here's why.

-parrying takes a -4 penalty to the parry roll for every size category larger your opponent is than you, and you cannot parry a blow from a creature 2 size categories smaller than you. With blocking, there is NO penalty for blocking an attack from a creature larger than you .... realistic? No. badass? most certainly :smallcool:
-By spending 1 AoO, someone with a shield can block as many attacks from one subject as he has attacks (based off BaB). Parrying is a 1 AoO for 1 attack.
-Certainly, parrying negates damage completely when successful, but is highly restricted when compared to blocking with a shield.
-However, parrying also gets feats like Counter maneuver: riposte, while blocking does not.
-overall, I think blocking is still the primary defensive choice, without having to change anything


Parrying:
-Characters who are fighting defensively may parry any melee attack with a weapon by making a parry roll with a melee weapon as an action of opportunity, with a DC equal to the attack roll of the melee attack they are trying to parry.
-The parry roll is equal to the character's BAB+STR (or DEX with weapon finesse)+Feats+Insight & luck bonuses
-Characters trying to parry with a weapon they are wielding one-handed gain a -2 penalty on their parry check.
-Characters trying to parry with a light melee weapon gain a -2 penalty on their parry check.
-Characters may parry with an improvised or non-melee weapon with a -4 penalty, and on a successful parry, the parrying weapon immediately takes damage as if the attack was a sunder attempt. No attackoO.
-Characters attempting to parry an attack from a creature larger than them gain a -4 penalty for each size category larger than the character.
-A character cannot make an attack of opportunity for successfully parrying a attack with the "Counter Maneuver: Riposte"

"Counter Maneuver: Riposte"
PQ's- DEX 14, BAB +6, Improved Parry
You may make an attack of opportunity if you successfully parry an attack. This attack must be made against the opponent you successfully parried. This uses an actionoO. You make only as many ripostes as you have actionoO and standard attacks from BAB. These ripostes do not count against attacks you make on your turn.
Special: you may not make a riposte against someone who is making a riposte against you.

I don't think you changed much, except for the weapon sunders, but that only applies to people using non-melee weapons or improvised weapons, so actually, i like that.


Looking at this I believe that the rule "you may make an attackoO against a foe you successfully blocked, parried or dodged" should be removed. We said a while ago that parrying is for those who want to strike back, dodging is for those who want to gain a tactical advantage and blocking for those who don't want to get hit. And by allowing the attackoO rule, it extends combat on for a very long time.

But by striking back you have to spend another AoO, I think that's how we decided to balance it.

As far as shield sundering goes Plato, just write up both versions, and call one an "alternate blocking rule", or something silly like that. Make sure though to include descriptions of each shield and explain how hardness and HP scales with the material. Just for simplicity sake ... It's no good to have to assume a tower shield is 2 inches think and made of wood, just by using math (eeeeeeew), and looking over the tables.

Fosco the Swift
2014-02-06, 10:07 PM
My only defense is that I saw nothing in the first post that talked about one actionoO needed to block all attacks from an opponent, or that parrying cannot be done to creatures 2 size categories smaller than you. And don't forget, the average character is medium and from my experience: you don't fight many tiny creatures.
Also: with the "attackoO against enemies that failed to hit", its possible for a 6th level fighter to gain effectively 5 attacks in a single round. Combat Reflexes combined with DEX 18 gives 6 actionsoO. 2 attacks at 6th level plus 3 attacks for blocking/dodging/parrying gives 5. This makes for a very long fight when you're down to the last bad guy. Although, it certainly gives some advantage to fighters compared to wizards that they have been desperately needing. But I rest my case.
And because Riposte needs some changing due to the counterattacks still being in play (and parrying still allows attacksoO...
"Counter Maneuver: Riposte"
PQ's- DEX 14, BAB +6, Improved Parry
You may make one counterattack per round against a foe you successfully parried without using an actionoO to make the attackoO. If any other attack against you is parried, you must use an actionoO to counterattack.

Armor- the tables look perfect, but I do have one question. What happens if a weapon is both "Piercing and Slashing"?

TheFamilarRaven
2014-02-06, 10:48 PM
My only defense is that I saw nothing in the first post that talked about one actionoO needed to block all attacks from an opponent, or that parrying cannot be done to creatures 2 size categories smaller than you. And don't forget, the average character is medium and from my experience: you don't fight many tiny creatures.

I think that blocking rule was something suggested recently as either 1) just an assumption or 2) a suggestion that hasn't be implemented in the OP. So you're good there. As for the parrying rule, you're right, not many enemies that are tiny engage in melee anyway ... unless of course you come across the pixie of doom, who wields a tiny +5 Vorpal greatsword.


Also: with the "attackoO against enemies that failed to hit", its possible for a 6th level fighter to gain effectively 5 attacks in a single round. Combat Reflexes combined with DEX 18 gives 6 actionsoO. 2 attacks at 6th level plus 3 attacks for blocking/dodging/parrying gives 5. This makes for a very long fight when you're down to the last bad guy. Although, it certainly gives some advantage to fighters compared to wizards that they have been desperately needing. But I rest my case.
And because Riposte needs some changing due to the counterattacks still being in play (and parrying still allows attacksoO...
"Counter Maneuver: Riposte"
PQ's- DEX 14, BAB +6, Improved Parry
You may make one counterattack per round against a foe you successfully parried without using an actionoO to make the attackoO. If any other attack against you is parried, you must use an actionoO to counterattack.

You make a convincing argument for no AoO's after parrying/blocking/dodging, but the way i see it, the only time you're going to go into a AoO war is when there IS only one bad guy left, which won't necessarily draw combat out, just that character's turn. which may or may not be a bad thing. I think it's one of those things we'll have to determine via an indepth play test.


Armor- the tables look perfect, but I do have one question. What happens if a weapon is both "Piercing and Slashing"?

Thanks. In regards to the multiple damage types of some weapons: There's only like, 3 in the player's handbook that have 2 types of damage, there's the dagger (P, S) and the morning star (P, B). and 1 more that I can't remember. but I think it's exotic anyway. And then there are weapons that have two damage types because they're double weapons.
A simple solution is this: Keep the dagger the way it is, because it deal 1d4 damage anyway.
And either remove the morningstar from the game, reduce it's damage, or make it an exotic weapon.

Plato Play-Doh
2014-02-07, 08:45 AM
One major concern I have, Fosco, is that parrying should by no means be left to two-handers. Parrying requires finesse, not brute strength, and for the most part the people using parry are swashbucklers with rapiers or other one-handed weapons, or dudes with parrying daggers, etc. If parrying is restricted to anything, it would be weapons that are eligible for weapon finesse, not two-handers. Of course, light weapons already have a penalty, but that can be offset in certain scenarios. Here's a thought, though. Parrying is about finesse, whereas blocking requires strength, right? Well, how about parrying uses dexterity instead of strength, both light weapons AND two-handed weapons get penalties, and certain weapons (like the rapier) get a bonus to parrying? It means that the two are for different types of builds. I think that could be interesting, and prevent them from really clashing.

On the topic of ripostes, I think that the cost in AoOs more than offsets any issue with ripostes, and the only time you'll ever really get into a fight where you're going back and forth like that except 1v1, and in that situation it's like fencing. I don't think I've actually said it yet, but in an ideal world, fights will be about disarming or sundering your opponents weapons so that they can't avoid your attacks more than about just trying to dole out a bunch of damage. I may even decrease the HD size of many classes to reflect this, and replace it with better saves, BAB, or other things.

As for things with two damage types, the you missed a couple, Raven. Namely, the halberd and the scythe. Since they require two hands, however, which prevents using a shield and, assuming I choose to adopt the rule that I just thought of, they're also worse at parrying, I think it's okay to allow that.

I have put the full attack with one AoO rule in for the shields. The no parry for creatures two sizes smaller was already in place. Also, I made the morningstar deal d6 rather than d8, and made it a martial weapon. It now is good at defeating a variety of armor, but doesn't deal a lot of damage. How's that work for you guys?

Edit: I've also added the alternate shield block rule to the OP, and made a modification to cleave (which I have put in the feat changes section). Now, it functions to allow an extra attack against the target when you break a shield. I've modified the shield entry to make excess damage hit the blocker, but not as an extra attack, unless the attacker has cleave.

Fosco the Swift
2014-02-08, 02:09 PM
I love the idea of making parrying a DEX ability and Blocking a STR ability. So now that there is a difference between parrying and blocking, now what?
I still have a few feat ideas that I'll post when they're better fleshed out. Also I posted my ideas on changing the "Greater Shield Bash" feat.

Plato Play-Doh
2014-02-08, 02:51 PM
Yeah, I saw your suggestions regarding greater shield bash. It now requires +6 BAB, and doesn't add to damage or knock opponents prone. Debilitating their defenses is enough.

I also went ahead and made parrying 1:make use of weapon finesse (-4 without it), and 2: always use dexterity. This means that it should probably be buffed (since it basically requires weapon finesse), so I think maybe...auto-disarm attempt upon parry as a free action?

TheFamilarRaven
2014-02-09, 02:16 AM
I also went ahead and made parrying 1:make use of weapon finesse (-4 without it), and 2: always use dexterity. This means that it should probably be buffed (since it basically requires weapon finesse), so I think maybe...auto-disarm attempt upon parry as a free action?

Or just have parrying have no bonus until someone has the weapon finesse feat. Just because you deflected an attack doesn't mean you're in a position to disarm.

TheFamilarRaven
2014-02-24, 06:31 PM
So looking over the Op after awhile I realize (and you guys probably do too) that it needs to be re-written (or at least modified) to be more concise. Let's keep the main ideas at the top, and details at the bottom. The reason is that if the OP is clear and concise, it'll be easier to reference changes to the defense system we've made.

Below is how I propose the OP be changed, feel free to copy and paste, or re-word certain areas. If there is something aloof with this, then I recommend quoting it and posting your concern so that we can discuss it in detail. So, without further ado ... my proposition for the OP re-write!

Opening
This thread seeks to overhaul the way the defense system works in 3.5 DnD. It changes the hit/miss method of the armor class based system and replaces it with three new ways of deterring attacks. These new rule sets emphasize tactical thinking, versatility, and teamwork. These rules may work best in a setting that focuses on low magic characters, but should fit well into the original version of 3.5. Below are the following changes to the defenses, including the news rules, new armor types and feat changes/additions.

Actions of Opportunity
The most important rule of the defenses overhaul are Actions of Opportunity (AoO). Actions of Opportunity are the basis of how creatures defend themselves and perform actions in combat. To put them into mechanical terms. AoO's incorporate Attacks of Opportunity, Defensive Maneuvers and Counter-Attacks.

Unless otherwise stated, a character can perform a number of AoO's in a round equal to (their highest base attack bonus / 4) plus their DEX modifier. For example, an 8th level fighter with a DEX of 12 (+1 modifier) has three AoO's in a round.

Armor
There is no more armor class to determine how difficult you are to hit. Instead, armor gives you damage reduction (here after referred to as Armor Rating). Three things contribute to armor rating, they are; Armor, Natural Armor, and Deflection bonus. Any numerical bonus (or penalty) to either of these directly affects the armor rating. Any damage taken is reduced by the amount of armor rating the creatures has.

However, certain types of attacks or materials can be better or worse at over coming armor rating. For more information about about over coming armor rating, and for info on the new armor types, see [here (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showpost.php?p=16932054&postcount=89)].

It is important to note, that the max dexterity bonus of certain armors do not affect your armor rating or any of your defensive maneuvers. It does, however, limit the amount of bonus AoO's a character can receive from their DEX bonus.



Defensive Maneuvers

Blocking
One of the ways a character or creature may protect themselves is by blocking with a shield. To do so, they must have a shield readied in one of their hands. When a creature with a shield is attacked, they may spend one AoO in order to block the full-attack of a creature. The creature attempting to block makes an opposed attack roll against each attack from their attacker. If they exceed the attack roll of the attacker, they successfully block the attack, negating all damage. The blocker may use their full BaB when blocking, -5 for every block attempt against the same creature for that round.

On a successful block, the attacker immediately makes a sunder attempt against the shield, which automatically hits. In this way, shields can break in combat. Effects that would normally cause Insight, Morale or Luck bonuses to armor class, now give bonuses to blocking.

Dodging
To avoid damage completely, a creature may attempt to dodge a blow that would otherwise cause them serious harm. To do this, the dodger must spend an AoO. Then attempt a reflex save, Modifiers like Size, Insight, Morale, Dodge and Luck bonuses, that normally affect armor class, affect dodge.


Parrying
A creature can attempt to deflect an attack made against them by using their weapon. To do so, the creature attempting the parry spends one AoO. They make an opposed attack roll against the creature attacking them. If they exceed the attacker's roll, they successfully negate all damage from that attack. Insight, Morale and Luck bonuses that would normally apply to armor class, are applied to parrying.

In addition, the creature who is parrying takes a -4 penalty against attacks from a creature 1 size category larger than them and from weapons meant for a creature 1 size category larger than them (i.e Human wielding large greatsword via Monkey Grip (CW) feat). They can not attempt a parry against a creature (or weapon meant for a creature) either 2 size categories smaller or larger than them.

Parrying with a light weapon incurs a -4 penalty to the parry roll. However, some special light weapons (like the sai or parrying dagger), negate this penalty. Some weapons allow a counter maneuver to be performed as an immediate action upon a successful parry. (For instance, the sai can immediately make a disarm attempt).

....And finish, you can add the miscellaneous stuff below

Plato Play-Doh
2014-03-14, 07:18 PM
Howdy. Sorry for taking forever to come back to this AGAIN! I have been, for a bit over the past month, been otherwise occupied, and have completely forgotten to come back and do stuff here. I suck, and am a horrible person.:smallfrown: I have returned, have updated the original post per the suggestion of TheFamiliarRaven, and do intend to come back more frequently now. Furthermore, I will likely, at some point in the near(ish) future, end up DMing a campaign in which this overhaul is playtested. Sorry again for the long time between posts, and barring some unforseen circumstance, it will not happen again.

TheFamilarRaven
2014-03-15, 10:18 PM
welcome back. Oh, and be sure to read over my suggested re-write carefully, cuz I may have altered some of the original rules based on assumptions when I was writing it :smalltongue:

Soleyu
2014-03-16, 04:26 AM
Hi,

I will have to apologize first, I haven't read any posts apart from the one in the first page, so if anything that I'm saying has already been discussed, I do apologize. I will read everything, but right now I felt more important to write this down for discussion.

Having said that, it seems as if the first post has been updated recently, so hopefully what I will say is still relevant.

First, excellent system, I am in fact going to use it for my next game, it feels like it will give combat a new dimension and make it more...visceral maybe?, also I think that you could easily add casters to this system by making casting magic take all your AoO of a turn unless it's a cantrip or fast casting magic in which cast it takes only one AoO, that nicely changes how fighting feels between a mage and a fighter.

Now, as for criticism I do feel that blocking and parrying, as written, are not really that distinct and do not reflect what blocking and parrying are used for in combat.

In general the idea behind blocking is that you put something between a thing that wants to kills you and you, it does not really matter what, it could be a shield, or a chair or a weapon, what is important is that the something, anything, absorbs the damage instead of you.

Parrying, on the other hand is about redirecting the attack away from you, there are quite a few ways of doing this (by sliding the sword of the other guy along the blade of your sword for example) but the basic idea is that what you are using, a weapon, a shield, your hand, anything, does not absorb the damage but rather, moves it away.

So, I would propose that first, blocking and parrying as they are written should be merged into just blocking, but what you use to block is what determines the bonuses, penalties and any other special property that you get. The main stat is of course strength because you need to actually be able to keep whatever it is that you use to block in place to absorb the damage.

Since blocking is about absorbing damage, you should get damage if you lose the opposed attack roll, with the amount of damage being determined what you use to block and by how bad you lost that roll, but if you win it, all damage is negated. Also, since the idea is that you just put whatever you have in front of the weapon attacking you, you should be able to, once a round, block as a free action, but with quite severe penalties, including: penalties to the attack roll, and the enemy gets a bonus to the damage done, not being able to negate all damage even if you win the opposed roll and the enemy gets a bonus to sunder damage. The idea is to mimic that final "oh crap, need to block!" moment.

Also, the mechanic in which when you block the attacker makes an automatic sunder attempt that hits is sound, but I would say that as written right now, it makes breaking shields way too easy, which is a little bit silly considering shields were made to specifically not break while defending an attack, which is also why generally using a weapon like a sword to block is a bad idea since they break easily. So I would make the sunder damage made to shields be greatly lessened, if not negated if you win the opposed roll by a lot. The penalties that applied to parrying(-4 to creatures/weapons 1 size bigger, light weapons -4 and inability to parry creatures and weapons 2 sized smaller or larger) should now apply to blocking with a weapon/non-shield instead, along with the sunder damage.

Parrying, in combat, is used to not only prevent damage, but also, to put the enemy in a disadvantageous position. But parrying is hard, you need finesse and training to pull it off and also you need to be prepared to do it, since it relies on you being able to read the attack in order to redirect it, which would make the opposed roll you need to make be higher. So, unlike blocking which in comparison is easier you don't have that free AoO to parry since you must be ready to do it, though you still get the free AoO to block. As a bonus it nicely mimics the idea that you use a weapon to block as a last resort if you are specialized in parrying.

So, if you win the opposed roll, not only do you negate damage but you also get a bonus to your next attack AoO, with the amount of that bonus determined by how well you won that roll. If on the other hand, you fail to parry you a) your weapon gets sunder damage, though less than if you tried to block it (unless you roll really badly in which case the damage is maximized) b) you get a penalty to your next AoO and c) you suffer damage, the enemy gets a bonus to damage depending on how bad you lost the roll.

Now, unlike blocking, you can actually attempt to parry weapons bigger or smaller than you, since you are redirecting the damage, it's doable. Parrying with light weapons do not incur any penalty for the same reason, and special weapons, like the Sai or parrying dagger get a bonus or special property, like the mentioned disarm attempt, or in case of the sai, you should also attempt to sunder the weapon, because the sai, in real life, allows you to break a weapon as well as disarm an opponent. Also you could try to parry projectiles though that would be harder and dependent on the size and number of the projectiles, after all it's easier to parry a throwing ax than it is to parry a volley of shurikens.

I'm thinking that if you exactly match the opposed roll, it would be cool to enter a "locked weapon state" in which you would make str or dex rolls to determine who wins the lock.

Now, I think that blocking, parrying and dodging, the same attack is a little silly, you should at most try to block or parry and if that fails, try to dodge instead. This is from a "realistic" viewpoint however, since if you fail to block the attack or parry the attack, you wouldn't have enough time, since the weapon is already closer to you and coming in fast, for you to be able to "try again". Though maybe from a mechanical point of view it makes sense so as to keep balance. Maybe, I don't know.

Unless I'm reading it wrong (which I'm most probably am) Dodge should also be affected by armor class and encumbrance.

Also, if using this rules, I would lower the HP of both PCs and Mobs to prevent fights going too long, though that is personal preference since I loathe how combat feels to drag at high levels.

Well I think that's all, though this went on longer than i originally thought.

Also, if I'm sounding way too critical I do apologize, my intention is t give constructive criticism of a system that I feel it's awesome, so if it doesn't come out that way, do forgive me, for that was not my intention.

Update: I seem to have failed to mention that the main stat used for parrying is Dex(which you use by default, you don't need weapon finesse to apply that modifier.), as opposed to Str for blocking so that it better resembles the skills needed to parry and block.

Update 2: I have been reading, and a question popped in my mind, what happens if you are out of AoOs or you decide not to use an AoO? do you receive full damage (well full with the armor DR) or you get a reflex save to see if you can minimize the damage somewhat?

Also, to be honest I'm a little bit confused with the general combat rules (I haven' played in quite a while to be honest) so if your characters has 3 AoO a round that means he has 3 AoO to defend himself each enemy attack round or he has 3 AoO in total (so if there were 3 enemies attacking, he would have 9 AoO, 3 each or just 3 for all 3).

Because if it's the second, then fighting against multiple creature could prove to be quite disadvantageous if not next to impossible, which while true in real life, for a game of D&D which commonly pits you against many foes, it might prove to be too unbalanced, and may ruin combat for the players.

TheFamilarRaven
2014-03-16, 12:06 PM
Also, if I'm sounding way too critical I do apologize, my intention is t give constructive criticism of a system that I feel it's awesome, so if it doesn't come out that way, do forgive me, for that was not my intention.

Not at all, it really helps to have more outside feedback since the main contributors have been Plato, fosco and myself. As such, it becomes harder and harder to catch possible errors, like for instance, you can only proof read your own essay so many times before the words blur together.

I'll be commenting on your points soon enough. They were indeed helpful and insightful, but I do not have the time at the moment to discuss them.

Plato Play-Doh
2014-03-17, 01:33 PM
You didn't come off as too critical at all, Soleyu! As TheFamiliarRaven said, it's always good to get another opinion.

Making parrying focused more as a finesse thing is something I brought up in the past, and I DO think that making it always use dexterity makes more sense. On a side note, I have also brought back the whole thing where parrying required fighting defensively to function. I don't think it necessary to include blocking with weapons, and feel as though adding a bunch of modifications to sundering a shield vs. sundering a weapon might be unnecessary complication. I DO think that maybe CERTAIN weapons should be able to block, due to their girth (maybe that could be added to, say, the greatclub, to give that some love).

As for armor causing a penalty to dodge, I realized that that should be in there...I just added a clause under "armor" that makes armor check penalty apply to defenses.

In regards to your second update: It's the second one. Your example character has 3 AoOs each round total. However, this system as a whole does decrease, in many ways, the power of an individual character. It makes tactics a lot more important, because you can't just charge in to a big crowd of dudes and expect to come out alive. You've got to think harder about it.

It IS more difficult to defend after failing multiple defenses in succession, and it also takes more AoOs, so in practice it should be a lot rarer than it might seem that someone would end up succeeding on their second or third defense from one attack. And if they do, they're fairly likely to be unable to avoid any other attacks that round.

I've actually been pondering for a while reducing the power of PCs and NPCs with class levels, at least. There's a few thoughts I've gotten so far. 1st, once this little system is finished, I'll be posting a thread on another little subsystem I've made (or am in the process of making) that uses the amount of damage dealt to determine where on the body a given attack hits, adding extra effects to an attack depending on where it lands. Details on that will be divulged after this has been completed. 2nd, I've been thinking of generally reducing the power of players and NPCs a bit by making it so that skill and health are not interrelated. At least, not fully. Basically, I was thinking maybe applying a cap on HD from class levels equal to the constitution modifier (minimum 1) of a character. This IS intended to make the character rely more on defending themselves, and is a MASSIVE reduction in power. That is intended for my conception of how a battle is more likely to play out, in which one strike could easily kill someone. The point is not to wail on someone until the die, it is to weaken them, open them up, find a hole in their defenses, and then striking when they're weakened (a lot more emphasis on special attacks like trip and disarming, a lot less emphasis on HP). What are the thoughts of you dudes about that second idea (the first one might be discussed at a later point, since it's a complex subsystem in its own right)?

TheFamilarRaven
2014-03-17, 03:26 PM
Hi,

hello



First, excellent system, I am in fact going to use it for my next game, it feels like it will give combat a new dimension and make it more...visceral maybe?, also I think that you could easily add casters to this system by making casting magic take all your AoO of a turn unless it's a cantrip or fast casting magic in which cast it takes only one AoO, that nicely changes how fighting feels between a mage and a fighter.

One way to implement magic.


Now, as for criticism I do feel that blocking and parrying, as written, are not really that distinct and do not reflect what blocking and parrying are used for in combat.

As written, parrying an blocking may not be distinct in the mechanics, but they are distinct in their implementation. Parrying is used when you don't have a shield, and have a horrible dodge bonus. It can also be used (if you have the appropriate feats or weapon), to perform counterattacks and special maneuvers (i.e, disarm, trip sunder, feint).

Blocking on the other hand, is intended to be the primary defensive choice. It allows for multiple blocks for just one AoO, and can block bigger and smaller creature, unlike a weapon. Imagine a knight using a tower shield to block a claw from a colossal dragon. Now, as I've said before, is that realistic? no, is it badass? yes. In all seriousness though, it allows the PC's to survive bouts with dragons and giants, so the game doesn't force players to always fight creatures around their size category, because if they fought anything bigger than that, they'd get owned with no chance of survival.


In general the idea behind blocking is that you put something between a thing that wants to kills you and you, it does not really matter what, it could be a shield, or a chair or a weapon, what is important is that the something, anything, absorbs the damage instead of you.

The current system allows for this, but they follow the parrying rules for doing so. Again, I want to stress, blocking and parrying may follow and and accomplish the same things mechanically speaking (i.e, they negate damage and use BaB), the emphasis is WHEN you would want to use either block/parry, not what they do.


Parrying, on the other hand is about redirecting the attack away from you, there are quite a few ways of doing this (by sliding the sword of the other guy along the blade of your sword for example) but the basic idea is that what you are using, a weapon, a shield, your hand, anything, does not absorb the damage but rather, moves it away.

Mechanically, parrying is about using a weapon (improvised or otherwise) to protect yourself (you can parry with a shield, since shields can be weapons). Sure, parrying means deflecting an attack, blocking means absorbing it. The two are different because one can accomplish something the other can't. In this case, parrying focuses on weapons, while blocking focuses on shields. This is to make each maneuver distinct, so that it minimizes confusion. As for blocking wit ha weapon, consider this, I can say "I roll to parry". Now, my fighter at the time is wielding a simple longsword, and is fighting a nasty orc barbarian. The Barbarian is swinging his greataxe at my fighter. This is when I roll to parry, since I'm not using a shield. Now, say I'm successful. There is a myriad of ways a DM can describe the action, the fact that I used parry is irrelevant when is comes to describing the action.

Example 1) The orc brings his axe down upon your head, but you manage to brace your sword and catch the blow, locking the axe in place right in front of your face.

example 2) The orc brings his axe down upon your head, but with a mighty swing, you arc your sword so that is strikes the blade of his axe, pushing it aside.


The fact that i'm using the parrying mechanic is irrelevant, because all it really is, is a mechanic, not what my character actually does. We could go ahead and call parrying "weapon blocking" and block "Shield blocking", but those are boring names. but since I used parry, there are numerous things i can do that are unique to parrying, if i acquired the appropriate feats.

Example 1) You push aside the axe that is just an inch away from your nose, and bring your sword over your head. You strike the axe with all of your might, causing the orc to drop it from the force of the blow.

Example 2) As the orc's momentum carries through after you deflected his attack, the axe slips from his hand.

Those are two examples of a successful disarm attempt following a successful parry. I couldn't use those if i was following the




Since blocking is about absorbing damage, you should get damage if you lose the opposed attack roll, with the amount of damage being determined what you use to block and by how bad you lost that roll, but if you win it, all damage is negated.

We've discussed "glancing blows", like this before, and it was determined that, while perhaps not "realistic", is simpler. A black and white hit or miss system is the easiest way to do things, and besides, any gap in the "realism" can be accounted for in the description of the action.


Also, since the idea is that you just put whatever you have in front of the weapon attacking you, you should be able to, once a round, block as a free action, but with quite severe penalties, including: penalties to the attack roll, and the enemy gets a bonus to the damage done, not being able to negate all damage even if you win the opposed roll and the enemy gets a bonus to sunder damage. The idea is to mimic that final "oh crap, need to block!" moment.

having one "hold-out" AoO isn't a bad idea, but it shouldn't apply to blocking/parrying alone. on the other-hand, the system was designed so that the players are meant to avoid those moments of "crap, i'm surrounded".


Also, the mechanic in which when you block the attacker makes an automatic sunder attempt that hits is sound, but I would say that as written right now, it makes breaking shields way too easy, which is a little bit silly considering shields were made to specifically not break while defending an attack, which is also why generally using a weapon like a sword to block is a bad idea since they break easily. So I would make the sunder damage made to shields be greatly lessened, if not negated if you win the opposed roll by a lot. The penalties that applied to parrying(-4 to creatures/weapons 1 size bigger, light weapons -4 and inability to parry creatures and weapons 2 sized smaller or larger) should now apply to blocking with a weapon/non-shield instead, along with the sunder damage.

it was discussed, (quite recently in fact), this problem of shields breaking. And it was determined that, while wooden shields will almost certainly break quite easilly, if you are the character who loves his shield, your going to make it out of the best materials and enchant the damn thing to high heaven. at lower levels, steel shields will take miniscule amounts of damage, even from ogres. They take even less when they're enchanted. By higher levels, if you really like shields, you'll for over the dough to have a magical adamantium shield.

Also, if you don't like the sunder attempt rules, there is an alternate rule set for non-breaking shields.


Parrying, in combat, is used to not only prevent damage, but also, to put the enemy in a disadvantageous position. But parrying is hard, you need finesse and training to pull it off and also you need to be prepared to do it, since it relies on you being able to read the attack in order to redirect it, which would make the opposed roll you need to make be higher. So, unlike blocking which in comparison is easier you don't have that free AoO to parry since you must be ready to do it, though you still get the free AoO to block. As a bonus it nicely mimics the idea that you use a weapon to block as a last resort if you are specialized in parrying.

While you are correct, the reason why blocking and parrying work the way they do is stated above.


So, if you win the opposed roll, not only do you negate damage but you also get a bonus to your next attack AoO, with the amount of that bonus determined by how well you won that roll. If on the other hand, you fail to parry you a) your weapon gets sunder damage, though less than if you tried to block it (unless you roll really badly in which case the damage is maximized) b) you get a penalty to your next AoO and c) you suffer damage, the enemy gets a bonus to damage depending on how bad you lost the roll.

Stuff like this is possible f you take the appropriate feats, weapons don't get sundered because unlike shields, they don't have much hp.


Now, unlike blocking, you can actually attempt to parry weapons bigger or smaller than you, since you are redirecting the damage, it's doable.

and when the Titan is bringing his gargantuan warhammer down upon you, how will you deflect that with a dagger, longsword or greatsword? One can easilly turn that around and say "well, how would you BLOCK that?" and the answer is, "cause I got a shield'. again, is this realistic? no. but it's a hell of a lot easier to justify in the description of the action than a dagger deflecting an 40 pound hammer.



I'm thinking that if you exactly match the opposed roll, it would be cool to enter a "locked weapon state" in which you would make str or dex rolls to determine who wins the lock.

Maybe, but it seems unnecessary, and then there's the core rule that "ties go to the attacker"



Unless I'm reading it wrong (which I'm most probably am) Dodge should also be affected by armor class and encumbrance.

absolutely right


Also, if using this rules, I would lower the HP of both PCs and Mobs to prevent fights going too long, though that is personal preference since I loathe how combat feels to drag at high levels.

Depends on how you plan the encounter. If you make a horde of weaker enemies (since the mobs in hordes should almost always be weaker than the party), then they'll die quickly, if you make a room of enemies around the same power-level of the party, then it'll take the average amount of time to kill them, because you can die, really easily at any level in DnD. For instance, when the party is dealing about 20 dmg per attack, they can kill an average opponent pretty quickly, barring unusual bad luck, especially if they work together.

But hey, whatever works.



Update: I seem to have failed to mention that the main stat used for parrying is Dex(which you use by default, you don't need weapon finesse to apply that modifier.), as opposed to Str for blocking so that it better resembles the skills needed to parry and block.

If you'er gonna update, just post a new comment, unless it's something minor, otherwise we might miss it.

Update 2:
I have been reading, and a question popped in my mind, what happens if you are out of AoOs or you decide not to use an AoO? do you receive full damage (well full with the armor DR) or you get a reflex save to see if you can minimize the damage somewhat?

if you run out of AoO's in the middle of the mob, you are, as they say, "**** out of luck."


Also, to be honest I'm a little bit confused with the general combat rules (I haven' played in quite a while to be honest) so if your characters has 3 AoO a round that means he has 3 AoO to defend himself each enemy attack round or he has 3 AoO in total (so if there were 3 enemies attacking, he would have 9 AoO, 3 each or just 3 for all 3).

You get 3 AoO's a round, these can be divided between using defensive maneuvers, or exploiting attacks of opportunity. How you use them is up to what you think is best strategically.


Because if it's the second, then fighting against multiple creature could prove to be quite disadvantageous if not next to impossible, which while true in real life, for a game of D&D which commonly pits you against many foes, it might prove to be too unbalanced, and may ruin combat for the players.

Dnd pits you against encounters that are challenging but beatable. In this case of fighting multiple foes, then use choke points so that their numbers mean nothing. If there are no choke points, then don't attack unless your armor is godly.

thanks for your input, it's a lot of help, and feel free to continue posting your thoughts! :smallsmile:

Now, on to Plato's post.


Making parrying focused more as a finesse thing is something I brought up in the past, and I DO think that making it always use dexterity makes more sense.

forcing parrying to be DEX not only hurts two-handed weapon users (who primarily use strength), but is also not 100% true. It can be argued both ways. One could say that a graceful swordsman (high DEX fighter), could better position his blade so that attacks slide off. But it can also be said, that a super buff barbarian (high STR), can move his weapon at great speed and force, 'cuz he's super buff, making it easier for him to strike an incoming weapon, forcing it aside. Honestly, you don't think Gimlee (is that how you spell his name? :smalltongue:) gracefully deflected attacks with his axe, do you?

Plato Play-Doh
2014-03-19, 07:37 PM
Gimli, and no, he probably didn't...alright then, I guess. I'll put it back to just being a normal attack roll.

TheFamilarRaven
2014-03-19, 08:13 PM
Gimli, and no, he probably didn't...alright then, I guess. I'll put it back to just being a normal attack roll.

Not that using DEX is wrong. Either make it so that Weapon Finesse allows you to use DEX instead of STR for parrying, (as long as you're using a weapon that qualifies for Weapon Finesse.

Or, and this I think has been suggested before. Just do away with the Weapon Finesse, cause it's a silly feat tax anyway. And let creatures choose between DEX or STR when using a weapon that would qualify for Weapon Finesse. So people can pick up a rapier and say, "I use my STR for attack and parrying", or "I use my DEX for attacking and parrying".

On another note

-consider looking over the feat revisions, because some of them are obsolete. Like Armor Focus, since there is no armor penetration anymore.

-The more I look at deflection, the more I feel like it should increase the defensive maneuvers rather than armor rating. Or, at the very least, buff Dodge, because higher levels dodge gets put aside very quickly. Thoughts on that?

Plato Play-Doh
2014-03-20, 11:41 AM
As it stands, parrying is just an opposed attack roll, so any normal modifiers (including Dex for weapon finesse people) would apply. As for getting rid of weapon finesse, I can definitely see the merit of that, though perhaps those weapons that qualify should REQUIRE that Dex be used? A skinny little rapier is liable to break if you swing it with brute force rather that stabbing certain well-selected weak points.

I will take another look at the feats when I get a chance (probably either tomorrow or Sunday, I'm kinda busy over the next couple of days).

Hmm...you ARE right about deflection. The only problem is...it would be hard to classify it. For example a shield of arrow catching (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/magicItems/magicArmor.htm#arrowCatching) would give a deflection bonus to blocking, but perhaps even a penalty to dodge (since the arrows are drawn toward you). Whereas, say, Shield of Faith (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/shieldOfFaith.htm) would give a bonus to dodge, because it turns attacks away. I don't know how best to go about making a blanket rule here without going through each individual thing that grants a deflection bonus and deciding then...

TheFamilarRaven
2014-03-20, 12:09 PM
As it stands, parrying is just an opposed attack roll, so any normal modifiers (including Dex for weapon finesse people) would apply. As for getting rid of weapon finesse, I can definitely see the merit of that, though perhaps those weapons that qualify should REQUIRE that Dex be used? A skinny little rapier is liable to break if you swing it with brute force rather that stabbing certain well-selected weak points.

Maybe, but the original rules let you use strength with a rapier so I don't see the merit of making it more complicated, but having the option to use either DEX or STR with light weapons (and other specific weapons, like the rapier) would be nice, and would take away the feat tax on DEX based characters


I will take another look at the feats when I get a chance (probably either tomorrow or Sunday, I'm kinda busy over the next couple of days).

No hurry, just thought i'd bring it up.


Hmm...you ARE right about deflection. The only problem is...it would be hard to classify it. For example a shield of arrow catching (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/magicItems/magicArmor.htm#arrowCatching) would give a deflection bonus to blocking, but perhaps even a penalty to dodge (since the arrows are drawn toward you). Whereas, say, Shield of Faith (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/shieldOfFaith.htm) would give a bonus to dodge, because it turns attacks away. I don't know how best to go about making a blanket rule here without going through each individual thing that grants a deflection bonus and deciding then...

Easy enough to fix. As a general rule, deflection buffs dodge, however, in the case of shields or weapons that grant deflection bonus, then, they buff either blocking or parrying respectively.

Adding a penalty to dodge because arrows are attracted to you is a little unnecessary I think, because if you have a shield of arrow catching, you probably aren't going to try and dodge the projectiles coming at you. So even if there was a penalty, it wouldn't come up that much, and it would be so rare, that players might even forget there's supposed to be a penalty.