Basic Fantasy RPG Forums

That's actually kinda nifty. I'll playtest it if you like.

Solomoriah wrote:One of the supplementary rules I've been musing over for Combat Options is this one:

Unarmored Combat

Characters who, for whatever reason, engage in combat while wearing no armor whatsoever have a base Armor Class of 11, plus Dexterity bonus, plus the character's normal Attack Bonus. Use of a shield is allowed (to those characters who may use shields normally), as are magical protection items which are not otherwise properly armor (such as rings or cloaks of protection). This improved base Armor Class only applies to opponents the character is aware of and whose location is at least approximately known, as it is not possible to defend effectively against attackers you do not know about. This is sometimes called the "Swashbuckler Option."

I like adding the attack bonus because it is consistent with the idea that it's probably harder to hit a person with greater experience than someone who is new to combat, although that's not what swashbuckler means. I would think an unarmored swashbuckler would be better served by doubling his dex bonus and adding 1/2 their attack bonus. That way you avoid the idea that strong and hardy, but non-agile, fighters can be good swashbucklers.

Hywaywolf wrote:

Solomoriah wrote:One of the supplementary rules I've been musing over for Combat Options is this one:

Unarmored Combat

Characters who, for whatever reason, engage in combat while wearing no armor whatsoever have a base Armor Class of 11, plus Dexterity bonus, plus the character's normal Attack Bonus. Use of a shield is allowed (to those characters who may use shields normally), as are magical protection items which are not otherwise properly armor (such as rings or cloaks of protection). This improved base Armor Class only applies to opponents the character is aware of and whose location is at least approximately known, as it is not possible to defend effectively against attackers you do not know about. This is sometimes called the "Swashbuckler Option."

I like adding the attack bonus because it is consistent with the idea that it's probably harder to hit a person with greater experience than someone who is new to combat, although that's not what swashbuckler means. I would think an unarmored swashbuckler would be better served by doubling his dex bonus and adding 1/2 their attack bonus. That way you avoid the idea that strong and hardy, but non-agile, fighters can be good swashbucklers.

Both these methods have some merit. If I were to do something similar, I think I would assign a new Stat called Defensive Bonus, so that I could separate the Attack Bonus from it. That way, I can assign a class better defense than offense... for instance, the standard Fighter might have the best Attack Bonus progression, but perhaps in a Swashbuckling genre the Rogue/Thief has the best Defense Bonus progression. Certain sub-classes would likewise be better to have slightly different such progressions, a Ranger-ish outdoorsy guy might be just mediocre at such defensive fighting (primarily using bow which is not meant for fencing), but a Gladiator (or duelist as they are referenced sometimes) might be excellent at this sort of style of combat.

Just further thoughts. Yet another interesting Supplement Idea to bridge genres.

Your "Defense Bonus" sounds suspiciously like the Arcanum rule for Defense Rating. Which is, not surprisingly, figured the same was as Combat Rating (our Attack Bonus).

This has all happened before, you see.

But Hyway: Considering how different the statistics map out over the full range of ability bonuses and fighter levels, I don't like your mathematics. Besides which, I think them unnecessary. Dexterity applies always, even to "sturdy" fighters who depend on their Strength bonus on offensive rolls, so it's always about being fast and agile.

My math was just rough. I have no position on how much dex to give. I just don't like the idea of a big bruiser acting like a swashbuckler. Using attack bonus only is just fine as long as you don't use the phrase swashbuckler .

I only propose using another such progression in order to give a little finer degree of control (basically to not have the bulky warrior dancing about like Hywaywolf says). Using the 3 basic AB progressions with:
Fighter=Fastest, F
Cleric/Thief=Medium, M
MU=Slowest, S
but assigning similar progressions to the classes only denoting them as Defensive Bonus:

Fighter
AB - Fast
DF - Med

Cleric
AB - Med
DB - Slow

Thief
AB - Med
DB - Fast

MU
AB - Slow
DB - Med

Other sub-classes can be assigned similarly. Basically just a way to finer tune this sort of idea.

A dedicated Fencer or Muskateer sort of Fighter, might have AB - Fast, DB - Fast, but is balanced by armor and weapon restrictions, Dex minimum, and perhaps more, depending on what other sorts of abilities might be offered.

But we digress a bit here... perhaps this really should be in another Thread unto itself.

NOW my head hurts.

Solomoriah wrote:NOW my head hurts.

This is the behind the scenes stuff... no reason to actually show this other than a table (just like the combat table or even folded into the table itself as an extra column). This is all just duplication of what is already in the rules, just applying differently.

A simple Supplement can just format a replacement "Combat Table" with extra columns.

I like these optional classes, although I agree with a previous commenter who thought the ranger was a bit overpowered considering his XP requirements only exceed the fighter's by a small amount. Easy to tweak though, by either raising the ranger XP requirements to match the paladin's or restricting the ranger to leather armor.

I do wonder if giving the paladin protection from evil with a ten foot radius is a bit powerful. Anyone who playtested this have comments?

I've witnessed the use of the ranger class. The players generally stick with leather armor and I agree that's fine under those conditions. There is also the Scout who cannot wear metal armor and there are other ranger classes under the showcase too.