Goodman Games

Fan Forums
It is currently Fri Aug 22, 2014 11:42 am

All times are UTC - 6 hours




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 5 posts ] 
Author Message
 Post subject: An Interesting Approach to AC
PostPosted: Fri Feb 04, 2011 7:53 pm 
Offline
Tight-Lipped Warlock

Joined: Fri Jan 28, 2011 2:52 pm
Posts: 1084
Hi all:
Just found this on another forum and I gotta say I thought it was a very interesting take on Armor Class in a Low-Armor (or more S&S) setting. Here's the house rule for those not wanting to make the trip.

Quote:
From Morandir
What I do is have the base AC vary by class. Fighters are 5(14), Clerics/Thieves 7(12), and MUs keep the standard 9(10). Light armor (defined however you want) improves AC by 1, medium armor by 2, and heavy by 3. Shields add 1.


The interesting part of this is that the classes appear to account for "armor proficiency" using the base AC. I'd consider expanding the armor selection a bit... perhaps light armor +2, medium armor +4 and heavy armor +6 -- I think those bonuses reflect the leather/chain/plate distinctions much better. Plus it allows for shields and breastplates to add in +1 here and there.

Depending on the attribute bonus structure, I might consider knocking the base ACs down. They seem a bit on the high side in a game where you could get +3 or +4 to Armor Class out of the gate. But I honestly don't know what I'd knock them down to. Or if I'd even worry about it.

But, as is, Morandir's Armor Class rule makes for a situation where you could have a Fighter running around in a loincloth ala Conan, Kane or several others. And run a setting where Plate Mail costs as much as it really probably should -- without completely hosing the characters. It just seems very applicable to Appendix N.

Not knowing (or saying) DCC needs anything like this. But I think it's clever and simple. It may become a house rule for me at some point. We'll see on that.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: An Interesting Approach to AC
PostPosted: Sat Feb 05, 2011 2:16 am 
Offline
Deft-Handed Cutpurse

Joined: Wed Oct 03, 2007 12:44 am
Posts: 264
smathis wrote:
Hi all:
Just found this on another forum and I gotta say I thought it was a very interesting take on Armor Class in a Low-Armor (or more S&S) setting. Here's the house rule for those not wanting to make the trip.

Quote:
From Morandir
What I do is have the base AC vary by class. Fighters are 5(14), Clerics/Thieves 7(12), and MUs keep the standard 9(10). Light armor (defined however you want) improves AC by 1, medium armor by 2, and heavy by 3. Shields add 1.


The interesting part of this is that the classes appear to account for "armor proficiency" using the base AC. I'd consider expanding the armor selection a bit... perhaps light armor +2, medium armor +4 and heavy armor +6 -- I think those bonuses reflect the leather/chain/plate distinctions much better. Plus it allows for shields and breastplates to add in +1 here and there.

Depending on the attribute bonus structure, I might consider knocking the base ACs down. They seem a bit on the high side in a game where you could get +3 or +4 to Armor Class out of the gate. But I honestly don't know what I'd knock them down to. Or if I'd even worry about it.

But, as is, Morandir's Armor Class rule makes for a situation where you could have a Fighter running around in a loincloth ala Conan, Kane or several others. And run a setting where Plate Mail costs as much as it really probably should -- without completely hosing the characters. It just seems very applicable to Appendix N.

Not knowing (or saying) DCC needs anything like this. But I think it's clever and simple. It may become a house rule for me at some point. We'll see on that.


Sounds something like the Defense Bonus from UE.

_________________
What do you mean no?


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: An Interesting Approach to AC
PostPosted: Sat Feb 05, 2011 9:50 am 
Offline
Tight-Lipped Warlock

Joined: Fri Jan 28, 2011 2:52 pm
Posts: 1084
joela wrote:
Sounds something like the Defense Bonus from UE.


Sort of. But it doesn't increase by level. So no ever-increasing Armor Class.

After giving it some thought, I think it would make more sense to have a base AC set for various classes. Wizard and Thief at 10. Cleric at 12. And Fighter at 14.

Then set the AC of the various armors by AC. So Leather would be AC 14. Plate would be AC 20.

If you had a base AC that was higher than the AC of the armor, then you'd get a +1 from the armor but nothing else. So a Thief in Leather Armor would have a 14 AC. A Fighter would have a 15. Really would only be applicable for Leather Armor. Unless there was some sort of Cloth or Padded Armor at AC 12.

Dex/Agility bonus would apply as normal, unless the character is in one of the heavy armors (Chain or Plate).


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: An Interesting Approach to AC
PostPosted: Sat Feb 05, 2011 12:27 pm 
Offline
Deft-Handed Cutpurse

Joined: Wed Oct 03, 2007 12:44 am
Posts: 264
smathis wrote:
joela wrote:
Sounds something like the Defense Bonus from UE.


Sort of. But it doesn't increase by level. So no ever-increasing Armor Class.


An adaptation of such a system to DCC RPG's "randomization" policy would require a die roll to add to the base 10 AC with the die dependent on the class. Fighters, for example, would roll a d6+1 while a cleric would roll a d3. Wizards and thieves do not make such rolls.

_________________
What do you mean no?


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: An Interesting Approach to AC
PostPosted: Sat Feb 05, 2011 2:16 pm 
Offline
Tight-Lipped Warlock

Joined: Fri Jan 28, 2011 2:52 pm
Posts: 1084
joela wrote:
An adaptation of such a system to DCC RPG's "randomization" policy would require a die roll to add to the base 10 AC with the die dependent on the class. Fighters, for example, would roll a d6+1 while a cleric would roll a d3. Wizards and thieves do not make such rolls.


Really? I didn't know DCC had a system like that already.

I was thinking some sort of base AC by class might be an interesting take on things based on Joseph's comments about wanting to reduce lethality in DCC. I didn't know that it has rolls to upgrade/downgrade AC in it.

I'm not sure if that extra die-rolling is necessary on the defensive end.

Or maybe I'm not understanding...


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 5 posts ] 

All times are UTC - 6 hours


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Google [Bot] and 1 guest


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group