Results 31 to 34 of 34
Thread: Armor Fix Idea [D&D 3.5]
-
2012-01-11, 10:41 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Apr 2005
- Gender
Re: Armor Fix Idea [D&D 3.5]
My argument for bard would be similar to rogue, but would also include "They're spellcasters and can come up with other defenses" and "They rarely go on the front lines without something like song of the white raven anyway"
Alternatively getting off topic; while the cap on the penalty for iterative attacks makes this less critical, how badly boggled would things get if we just eliminated the middle BAB from the game altogether, so classes had only a good/bad option, like for saves?
Personally I'd keep the three progressions as they are, but maybe buff a few classes. (For example maybe give rogue a dodge bonus to AC similar to the monk's AC bonus).
Oh don't worry, I know where to find your customization system.
And while I love it for weapons, it just doesn't seem as exciting for armor, somehow.If my text is blue, I'm being sarcastic.But you already knew that, right?
-
2012-01-12, 02:49 AM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Nov 2011
Re: Armor Fix Idea [D&D 3.5]
The Shield doesn't seem like it would be weaker, actually. Instead of also providing temp HP per round, it's providing a bonus to all three forms of AC (flat-footed, touch, regular). It should be fine.
-
2012-01-12, 11:32 AM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Feb 2010
Re: Armor Fix Idea [D&D 3.5]
Yeah, I get it now. Not sure how I feel about it, though. Size penalties to AC always negate themselves under this system (though they DO become natural armor bonuses, which are inferior to the untyped base amount), and Dex always undoes itself as well. The net result is that all opponents have very close to the same AC, which doesn't seem very good for variety of foes.
However, I do understand this is because WotC didn't statmonstersanything in regards to a RNG very well. So I think my best bet - as well as anyone like me - is to follow your guideline to attain what their AC "should be" and then adjust it accordingly to how we see fit (lower natural armor for something I see as a meat bag, increasing dex bonus to AC to represent a tricksy foe, etc).
Well I think there's a certain elegance to getting more hp at the same time as getting more attacks. It helps slightly with keeping defense up to par with offense. If/when I get a campaign going with this I'll probably make changes, but for now I'm actually pretty happy with it.
@BAB-to-AC: I do worry a wee bit for the Rogue, but I think it's squarely a Rogue problem.
More terrifying to me is the Cleric. I already intend to run (if I ever DM more than one-shots...) Clerics as poor-BAB and Medium armor proficiency (and, as mentioned before, no-such-thing as Divine Power). Without such changes, a Cleric in this system is even more absurd than normal.Last edited by Pechvarry; 2012-01-12 at 11:36 AM.
-
2012-01-14, 09:22 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Apr 2005
- Gender
Re: Armor Fix Idea [D&D 3.5]
More terrifying to me is the Cleric. I already intend to run (if I ever DM more than one-shots...) Clerics as poor-BAB and Medium armor proficiency (and, as mentioned before, no-such-thing as Divine Power). Without such changes, a Cleric in this system is even more absurd than normal.
Yeah, I get it now. Not sure how I feel about it, though. Size penalties to AC always negate themselves under this system (though they DO become natural armor bonuses, which are inferior to the untyped base amount), and Dex always undoes itself as well. The net result is that all opponents have very close to the same AC, which doesn't seem very good for variety of foes.Last edited by Seerow; 2012-01-14 at 09:23 PM.
If my text is blue, I'm being sarcastic.But you already knew that, right?