Feat Line:Hardened Armor

[OldAquarian]

MAJOR UPDATE and another change of thought

Well - this thread has taken quite a few twists and turns and I can't change the title
- but here is the latest proposal geared at sword and board of any class based on the discussion that ensued

based on:

AID ANOTHER
In melee combat, you can help a friend attack or defend by distracting or interfering with an opponent. If you’re in position to make a melee attack on an opponent that is engaging a friend in melee combat, you can attempt to aid your friend as a standard action. You make an attack roll against AC 10. If you succeed, your friend gains either a +2 bonus on his next attack roll against that opponent or a +2 bonus to AC against that opponent’s next attack (your choice), as long as that attack comes before the beginning of your next turn. Multiple characters can aid the same friend, and similar bonuses stack.

http://www.dandwiki.com/wiki/SRD:Aid_Another

changed the mechanics, in that it's not just next attack, this allows it to stack alot more,
and attacks BAB instead of adding AC since targeting the benefactor might be too difficult

Also some max amount could be added for reds, etc. to keep things in check
but the idea is at least based more solidly on existing rules:

Feat: Greater Shield Bash
Your shield bash attacks the monster's BAB
Subtracting 2 for each successful hit
Requires: Improved Shield Bash

this would allow lower AC with a shield to catch up while still giving high AC its advantage
it also allows a shield to help somebody else tanking with lower than ideal AC

[flynnjsw]

Armor is set up the way it is because it is based on 3.5 rules.

[Lithic]

You mean the basic bonus (FP=8, chain shirt=4), or the whole armour bonus (+5 FP = 13)?

Either way, WAY overpowered. Dodge gives a +1 to AC for the same feat cost.

[OldAquarian]

Armor is set up the way it is because it is based on 3.5 rules.

Yes, that is why I suggested feats instead of changing the way Armor is set up, to allow continued adherance

[OldAquarian]

You mean the basic bonus (FP=8, chain shirt=4), or the whole armour bonus (+5 FP = 13)?

Either way, WAY overpowered. Dodge gives a +1 to AC for the same feat cost.

+5 FP = 13 + 1 DEX = 14
HA = 19 + 1 DEX = 20
IHA = 22 + 2 DEX = 24
GHA = 26 + 3 DEX = 29

Compare this to a naked rogue with 1 level of Monk
DEX=18 + 5 level ups + 4 tome + 3 enh +6 item +4 Cat's Grace= 40 for +15
WIS=14 + 4 tome +6 item +4 Owl's Wisdom = 28 for +9
=+24

A naked monk would gain another 4 = 28

And they both could still have evasion

Is the extra AC really OP if it costs evasion?


Dodge is a way underpowered feat but it is available to all armor types and already in the rules as is

But, will edit OP to reflect only Heavy Armor and lowered AC bonus for GHA to 150, but left DEX and weight at 200%
Double dex IS Equivalent to allowing DEX+WIS

Heavy armor as it stands is the worst armor - I would imagine it was intended to be the best

[OldAquarian]

Updated

Nobody else wants to see the end of the exclusively naked tanks and start seeing a few tanks in Plate?

[Alintalkin]

Compare this to a naked rogue with 1 level of Monk
DEX=18 + 5 level ups + 4 tome + 3 enh +6 item +4 Cat's Grace= 40 for +15
WIS=14 + 4 tome +6 item +4 Owl's Wisdom = 28 for +9
=+24

I would just like the point out that the cat's grace and owl's wisdom won't stack with a +6 item. Oh and in my personally opinion I am against this because it would be overpowered as then someone in full plate could sit at 100+ AC if built as an AC tank. There are already some that can hit 80 (Though with difficulty, admittedly). if you want an example, here http://my.ddo.com/character/thelanis/trixxie/ (disclaimer: not my Character). What you are proposing will make the really dedicated have ac's of 100+ and the less dedicated of 60-80AC. usually it is a toss up between DPS (usually wins) and AC and what you propose will give all armored tanks a means to get good dps and phenomenally high AC at the same time. There would simply be a greater imbalance then there is now. Just to note, as that char was an 18 pali/2 fighter, according to your idea they would have gotten the feats for free so it wasn't even a trade-off for anything. Besides, I prefer the idea of sticking to the actual rules. Oh yes and the feat dodge would then become useless, though it is already pretty close to that now anyhow.

[Pardish]

Well there are problems with ac... but just boosting plate armors ac wont fix the problem with ac in a d20 system that is rockin mobs with such high to hit.

Your idea seems like it would just add to the problem imo. They would just ramp up mob to hit in response to more people having an easily attainable ac.

Maybe if they found some way to put mitigation into the game kinda like dr but... different lol. I have not put any thought into it so I wont pretend I did and make a huge post.

[Hokiewa]

While there are plenty of other criticisms of your proposal, doubling the armor weight yet also doubling the max dex bonus is beyond absurd.

[AdahnX]

Maybe the numbers are somewhat high but I do agree that there is a need for something like this in DDO. I also agree that part of the issue is that Dodge, pretty much the entire Dodge tree is underpowered. Currently there are a multitude of feats available if you wish to maximize your offense, but very little selection geared towards defense, at least that measures up against the offense. I don't see there being a problem with a feat tree that increases the effectiveness of armor. Could even be like armor specialization, like say only work for the specific type of armor that you take it for.

[OldAquarian]

While there are plenty of other criticisms of your proposal, doubling the armor weight yet also doubling the max dex bonus is beyond absurd.

And yet, the idea of donning Plate and becoming harder to hit doesn't bother you?
These are game mechanics not physics

But you could imaging that the armor is denser but better fitting

[Kistilan]

While there are plenty of other criticisms of your proposal, doubling the armor weight yet also doubling the max dex bonus is beyond absurd.

Your knowledge of dungeons and dragons is perculating. Careful -- others may be confused by real world application and paperback lineage. ;)

To fix the proposal:

reverse the dex bonus to an increased penalty
increase the armor weight, skill check penalty, etc
increase the overall bonuses to armor bonus for the higher versions of feat
add an attack speed penalty that starts at -50% then -33% then -25%

Thus the juggernaut tanks would be born.

[OldAquarian]

While people may not like my suggestion here is the goal

In general, based on penalties imposed:
Plate
Monk
Medium
Light
Naked

As to fixing all this, the problem is they applied an arithmetic fix as opposed to a geometric fix
This can be discussed here: http://forums.ddo.com/showthread.php?t=248691

So - any solutions anyone has for making Plate the best Armor

[Kistilan]

And yet, the idea of donning Plate and becoming harder to hit doesn't bother you?
These are game mechanics not physics

But you could imaging that the armor is denser but better fitting

Methinks your comprehension check needs to take a 20

true, heavier armor is harder to dodge in and perform physical skills which IS reflected in both the 3.5 rulebooks AND the armor descriptions of DDO.

However, the reason why your armor goes up wearing fullplate isn't that you necessarily dodge the bloody hit, but that the hit caught an armored surface and was deflected, thus causing no damage.

Damage reduction properties take this a step further where indeed there was a hit, but the force of the strike or the nature of the element was partially absorbed due to the damage reduction properties of the armor.

[OldAquarian]

Methinks your comprehension check needs to take a 20

true, heavier armor is harder to dodge in and perform physical skills which IS reflected in both the 3.5 rulebooks AND the armor descriptions of DDO.

However, the reason why your armor goes up wearing fullplate isn't that you necessarily dodge the bloody hit, but that the hit caught an armored surface and was deflected, thus causing no damage.

Damage reduction properties take this a step further where indeed there was a hit, but the force of the strike or the nature of the element was partially absorbed due to the damage reduction properties of the armor.

And thats why Dodge doesn't work in heavy armor

[Creeper]

So - any solutions anyone has for making Plate the best Armor

It is the best armor for someone with no dex or with dex and enough max dex mod enhancements.
Otherwise, why should it be?

[Creeper]

And thats why Dodge doesn't work in heavy armor

I think you have dodge confused with evasion.

[Kistilan]

And thats why Dodge doesn't work in heavy armor

Your certain about this?

[Memnir]

Updated

Nobody else wants to see the end of the exclusively naked tanks and start seeing a few tanks in Plate?While I wouldn't mind seeing actual armor regain some relevancy in DDO- I think this is not the way to go.

[OldAquarian]

Your certain about this?

You mean dodge works with Heavy armor, I thought you said:


However, the reason why your armor goes up wearing fullplate isn't that you necessarily dodge the bloody hit, but that the hit caught an armored surface and was deflected, thus causing no damage.


Are you sure you know what dodge means?

[xoowak]

Way overpowered.

10 Base
26 Epic Tourney Armor
12 Dex
16 Epic Warding Shield
5 Protection
1 Dodge Feat
2 Chaosgardes
3 Chattering Ring
5 Expertise
4 Insight Weapon

84 Standing, no buffs.

5 Barkskin
4 Bard song
1 Haste
2 Recitation

96 with simple buffs. A defender build could probably hit 110+ easy.

I like the idea of boosting plate, but this is way too much. The problem is that there is only an AC range of 20 that's useful, so plate can't be that much ahead without making non-plate AC completely useless due to higher mob tohit.

[Creeper]

You mean dodge works with Heavy armor, I thought you said:


Are you sure you know what dodge means?

Kistilan said this actually:



true, heavier armor is harder to dodge in and perform physical skills which IS reflected in both the 3.5 rulebooks AND the armor descriptions of DDO.

However, the reason why your armor goes up wearing fullplate isn't that you necessarily dodge the bloody hit, but that the hit caught an armored surface and was deflected, thus causing no damage.


not that you couldn't dodge in heavy armor only that it was harder. You are the one who said you couldn't dodge in heavy armor which is wrong.

[OldAquarian]

not that you couldn't dodge in heavy armor only that it was harder. You are the one who said you couldn't dodge in heavy armor which is wrong.

I was pointing out the logical conclusion of plate AC not being dodge, but being deflection would be that Dodge should not work in Plate, or should be reduced because it is harder. Since you cannot reduce 1 when you round fractions down - it should have no effect.

Since Dodge works in plate - it means that it is not deflection.

[ViolentEnd]

Your suggestion (OP) sounds similar to the SD and DoS Prestige enhancements.

If you wanted to increase the viability of metal armor on the average (non SD or DoS) ftr, pal, rog, whatever, then I would suggest a much simpler added mechanic.

Introduce a new alchemical armor ritual that grants something akin to "Nimble Moves" or "Greater Nimble Moves" like you can get on Epic upgrades or other things like the Elocator's Habiliment (sp?).

This would allow for the higher dex (higher than in pnp) on average armor wearer.

I think this would work out, as it is not so big bonus as to create a balance issue, and would not require a comple reworking of feats, and enhancements such as the DoS and SD. It would make heavy and light armor both more viable for the average player.

[Kistilan]

You mean dodge works with Heavy armor, I thought you said:


Are you sure you know what dodge means?

I'm sorry, but you're debating semantics. I can't really have this conversation with you, but I will explain THAC0

To Hit Armor Class Zero (THAC0): An aged old term utilized by former Dungeons and Dragons Editions. The purpose of THAC0 was to ascertain exactly what it meant "to hit" a critical (damageable) point of the opponent. ZERO was "to contact skin," whereas any number higher than ZERO was "to not contact skin." Feel free to replace skin with "vital striking point of opponent" whereas applicable: ie terrasqua, gargoyle, beholder, gel cube, etc.

So, when an armor class was bettered by a physical barrier (such as full plate, reasonably protecting more than half plate), this indeed did cause the armor class rating to go up. Now, the opponent is not being "as nimble" and therefore did have a dexterity penalty applied in previous editions. IN 3.0 and later they bettered this by simply limiting the dexterity bonus possible to ascertain (and of course with certain classes this was enhanced to a better overall bonus as per the dwarven and fighter armored agility enhancement lines). However, the overall physics still apply.

Whether you call it dodging or deflecting, the point is the overall ability to hit one's skin was improved by the nature of the armor or dexterity. Picture it any way you like: armor deflecting, armor stopping, armor prohibiting an easier strike and therfore a "whiffle bat" strike because the option to go for the forearm would damage the blade and therefore is a deterent to the opponent utilizing that strike -- I personally do not care what you chose!

Dexterity IS lessened by heavier armors.
A hardened version would still have this penalty due to weight alone. We're not talking about improved mithril armor types here.

I'm not really certain why you're arguing with me. I came into this thread actually trying to salvage your idea for you as I think a "Hardened Armor" feat could be utilized to bring the AC Tank into full bloom without necessitating a balanced monk mix.

Also, I do have one nitpick with your categorizing of armor nomenclature. Specifically, calling monk a "category" of armor type. There are four types: Heavy, Medium, Light, None. Monk is a class and its benefit is a "deflection bonus" propagated by their attributed wisdom.

[OldAquarian]

Your suggestion (OP) sounds similar to the SD and DoS Prestige enhancements.

If you wanted to increase the viability of metal armor on the average (non SD or DoS) ftr, pal, rog, whatever, then I would suggest a much simpler added mechanic.

Introduce a new alchemical armor ritual that grants something akin to "Nimble Moves" or "Greater Nimble Moves" like you can get on Epic upgrades or other things like the Elocator's Habiliment (sp?).

This would allow for the higher dex (higher than in pnp) on average armor wearer.

I think this would work out, as it is not so big bonus as to create a balance issue, and would not require a comple reworking of feats, and enhancements such as the DoS and SD. It would make heavy and light armor both more viable for the average player.

This was basically what I was looking for, thank you

[Creeper]

If you wanted to increase the viability of metal armor on the average (non SD or DoS) ftr, pal, rog, whatever, then I would suggest a much simpler added mechanic.

Introduce a new alchemical armor ritual that grants something akin to "Nimble Moves" or "Greater Nimble Moves" like you can get on Epic upgrades or other things like the Elocator's Habiliment (sp?).

This would allow for the higher dex (higher than in pnp) on average armor wearer.

I think this would work out, as it is not so big bonus as to create a balance issue, and would not require a comple reworking of feats, and enhancements such as the DoS and SD. It would make heavy and light armor both more viable for the average player.

I think you guys need to give this whole thing a little more thought. Rituals like this will further cheapen DOS and SD because they will require more DEX on the builds. We don't want these PREs to be any weaker than they already are. The only way to make use of a very high dex bonus like this is to have very high dex.

The benefit of heavy armor is you do not need DEX for armor.

as xoowak very wisely pointed out:



I like the idea of boosting plate, but this is way too much. The problem is that there is only an AC range of 20 that's useful, so plate can't be that much ahead without making non-plate AC completely useless due to higher mob tohit.

One good reason you don't see high base max dex mods on heavy armor is that they do NOT work with evasion. So it's hard for me to think up a good build with a high dex score that uses heavy armor. Evasion is the main reason you don't see many people wearing it anymore.

Most builds wear armor to try to mitigate damage. Losing evasion is one of the worst possible things you can do to mitigate damage...

If this were only suggested because you would like to see more heavy plate in the game I wonder why you are not suggesting buffs for banded or splint mail.

[OldAquarian]

I'm sorry, but you're debating semantics. I can't really have this conversation with you, but I will explain THAC0

I know the game mechanics of THAC0
Many paper and online games did not try to lump being missed and mitigation into one number. This was a simpler system, but had inconsistancies. So I wasn't arguing with you over symantics - I was pointing out that game mechanics do not always match reality, they are mathmatical simplifications. And thats okay.[/quote]



I'm not really certain why you're arguing with me. I came into this thread actually trying to salvage your idea for you as I think a "Hardened Armor" feat could be utilized to bring the AC Tank into full bloom without necessitating a balanced monk mix.

Got defensive - apologies for that



Also, I do have one nitpick with your categorizing of armor nomenclature. Specifically, calling monk a "category" of armor type. There are four types: Heavy, Medium, Light, None. Monk is a class and its benefit is a "deflection bonus" propagated by their attributed wisdom.

It was a simplification to show that a Monk when geared should be second best AC to a melee in full plate and not in the bottom category of None.

[OldAquarian]

I think you guys need to give this whole thing a little more thought.

Do you have anything positive to suggest?

It currently makes no sense for Plate to Kill evasion and grant the lowest AC

How would you solve this?

[Creeper]

Do you have anything positive to suggest?

Not attacking you just your ideas. The positive thing I am suggesting here is that I think your ideas are bad ones and I am trying to explain to you why I think that is.



It currently makes no sense for Plate to Kill evasion and grant the lowest AC


If you have low dex score and no max dex mod enhancements plate IS the best AC. You can instead put your points into other attributes.



How would you solve this?

How would I solve what? Give people more incentive to wear heavy armor? You mean beyond being able to dump dex? A second fighter and paladin capstone option that increases armor bonus is a good start. A capped paladin or fighter does not have evasion. Perhaps create more named non-mithril full plates that are actually useful. A further % reduction to grazing hits when wearing medium or heavy armor is another good one. All these things I mentioned have been suggested several times before.

Let's do some math:

regular Full plate = +1 max dex bonus
dwarf armor enhance +3 max dex bonus
fighter armor enhance +3 max dex bonus

thats 7 dex modifier you need already.

[ViolentEnd]

I think you guys need to give this whole thing a little more thought. Rituals like this will further cheapen DOS and SD because they will require more DEX on the builds. We don't want these PREs to be any weaker than they already are. The only way to make use of a very high dex bonus like this is to have very high dex.

The benefit of heavy armor is you do not need DEX for armor.

as xoowak very wisely pointed out:



One good reason you don't see high base max dex mods on heavy armor is that they do NOT work with evasion. So it's hard for me to think up a good build with a high dex score that uses heavy armor. Evasion is the main reason you don't see many people wearing it anymore.

Most builds wear armor to try to mitigate damage. Losing evasion is one of the worst possible things you can do to mitigate damage...

If this were only suggested because you would like to see more heavy plate in the game I wonder why you are not suggesting buffs for banded or splint mail.

You missed the part of my post where I defined "high dex" as "higher than in pnp". You may not know what Nimble Moves does, but it basically increases the max dex by 2 and reduces the armor check penalty by 4 I think.

Therefore, when I say "high dex", this means a dex of 16 for full plate. Unless you build toons with a starting dex of 6, you can achieve this with no build points in dex.

[ViolentEnd]

Let's do some math:

regular Full plate = +1 max dex bonus
dwarf armor enhance +3 max dex bonus
fighter armor enhance +3 max dex bonus

thats 7 dex modifier you need already.

My previous post uses non dwarven fighters.

[Creeper]

My previous post uses non dwarven fighters.

Do you understand how this will make dwarven fighters and any race of tier III DoS or SD need even more dex to keep up with kensai or KotC?

[Creeper]

You missed the part of my post where I defined "high dex" as "higher than in pnp". You may not know what Nimble Moves does, but it basically increases the max dex by 2 and reduces the armor check penalty by 4 I think.


I didn't miss anything in your post. I am just trying to explain how this will further gimp SD and DoS builds.

[ViolentEnd]

Do you understand how this will make dwarven fighters and any race of tier III DoS or SD need even more dex to keep up with kensai or KotC?

Kensai and KoTC will never be able to equal the armor class of DoS or SD. Not sure how you think they will. My suggestion would also benefit your dwarven fighter, by the way. Instead of spending APs on those expensive enhancements, you could add nimble moves to your armor. It would also allow you to get your armor 2 points higher, with, say a +4 tome in dex, or +2 exceptional dex.

Hey btw, I was just offering some constructive criticism to the OP's suggestion.

[OldAquarian]

Another direction:

a Fighter/WF/Pally feat that applies your STR bonus to heavy armor, granted free to Pally, option to Fighter.
This would disregard the max Dex bonus limit (or it would be useless).

Rational - you are so strong that armor doesn't impede you.

EDIT: This also requires that a shield be equipt

[Kistilan]

Here's something closer to the mark of reasonable, I think. It's only a suggestion to help with your idea. I do not advocate the Shield Requirement, nor that this feat should in any way apply to Shields. There are Shield Feats already in existence.


Armor doesn't scale and values were set without taking into consideration the high stats at high levels
At higher level it seems the differentiation between armor types pales in comparison to the DEX, and monk's WIS bonus

I would recommend the Following Feat Line to compensate:

Hardened Armor
passive
AC bonus from Armor increased 33% or Mithril/Adamantine Body are increased 66%.
Max Dex Modifier is decreased by 1.
Weight is increased 100%
Damage Reduction Improved 10%. (Stacks with Defenders)
Requires one Armor Proficiency Type or Mithril/Adamantine Body, BAB 10
Attack Speed decreased 50%

Improved Hardened Armor
passive
AC bonus from Armor increased 50% or Mithril/Adamantine Body are increased 100%.
Max Dex Modifier is decreased by 2.
Weight is increased 125%
Damage Reduction Improved 15%. (Stacks with Defenders)
Requires one Armor Proficiency Type or Mithril/Adamantine Body, BAB 14, Hardened Armor
Attack Speed decreased 33%

Greater Hardened Armor
passive
AC bonus from Armor increased 75% or Mithril/Adamantine Body are increased 150%.
Max Dex Modifier is decreased by 3.
Weight is increased 150%
Damage Reduction Improved 20%. (Stacks with Defenders)
Requires one Armor Proficiency Type or Mithril/Adamantine Body, BAB 18, Improved Hardened Armor
Attack speed decreased by 15%

Hardened Armor is available to All Classes that meet prereqs

My modified suggestions for your idea are in red.

I would also make this feat line free to the Warforged Juggernaut Prestige Class, thus culminating the development cycle and reason for its existence as 2 birds, 1 stone.

*Note: I recommend someone savvy with a plethora of armor stats like tourney armor, epic tourney, etc run calculation and find an acceptable max modifier utilizing something like this so a non-dex build could achieve similar armors to dex-wis builds of monk-rangers, etc.

[Uska]

Completely broken

[Creeper]

Kensai and KoTC will never be able to equal the armor class of DoS or SD. Not sure how you think they will. My suggestion would also benefit your dwarven fighter, by the way. Instead of spending APs on those expensive enhancements, you could add nimble moves to your armor. It would also allow you to get your armor 2 points higher, with, say a +4 tome in dex, or +2 exceptional dex.

Hey btw, I was just offering some constructive criticism to the OP's suggestion.

I don't think they will.
Think about what you just said for a minute. Here is what I am trying to get at:
Ok, if you have an alchemical ritual that gives +2 dex bonus to all armors as you suggest:



Introduce a new alchemical armor ritual that grants something akin to "Nimble Moves" or "Greater Nimble Moves" like you can get on Epic upgrades or other things like the Elocator's Habiliment (sp?).

This would allow for the higher dex (higher than in pnp) on average armor wearer.

You say that it would:


would also benefit your dwarven fighter, by the way. Instead of spending APs on those expensive enhancements, you could add nimble moves to your armor.

Why wouldn't I take those enhancements on my dwarves fighter? answer: Because the ritual you are suggesting makes them USELESS, unless I put four MORE points into dex. DoS and SD already get an additional dex bonus to heavy armor. They would need even more dex to keep up with this ritual. This benefits the DPS lines because it gives them, with only a ritual, something that a tier 3 PRE gives the NON-DPS lines. Do you see how this will further gimp DoS and SD comparatively? They need more dex and the DPS lines, like kensai, get more armor.

Do you see now how this comparatively gimps dwarves and PREs that grant + max dex modifiers?

[Kistilan]

Completely broken

Rangonker lover.

[Creeper]

Another direction:

a Fighter/WF/Pally feat that applies your STR bonus to heavy armor, granted free to Pally, option to Fighter.
This would disregard the max Dex bonus limit (or it would be useless).

Rational - you are so strong that armor doesn't impede you.

Are you serious? Apply str bonus to armor? Do you know how high a person can get their str? Do you know how badly this would gimp finesse builds???

[OldAquarian]

Here's something closer to the mark of reasonable, I think. It's only a suggestion to help with your idea. I do not advocate the Shield Requirement, nor that this feat should in any way apply to Shields. There are Shield Feats already in existence....

Reduced attack speed = reduced Hate = nobody hitting the juggernaut

Maybe this should increase the hate modifier to compensate

The problem is, this is too complicated for a feat and seems to be the Juggernaut PrEs :)
And then extra Hate would be a granted ability

[OldAquarian]

Are you serious? Apply str bonus to armor? Do you know how high a person can get their str? Do you know how badly this would gimp finesse builds???

No, it would give tanks a choice - Armor up OR have evasion
How does this gimp finesse?

AC only reduces damage that requires a to hit
Evasion on a finesse build means you will almost never fail your reflex save

[Creeper]

No, it would give tanks a choice - Armor up OR have evasion
How does this gimp finesse?


Dex does not equal damage.
Str equals damage.
Dex builds have to take weapon finesse.
Str builds don't have to take weapon finesse.
With the right equipment you can get your str much higher than your dex.
Str builds can apply their modifier to non-finessable weapons and x1.5 on two hand.
Dex builds can only use finesse weapons.
Epic SOS
Kensai with power surge active can have higher AC than a SD.
Splash barbarian passive past life feat will give more AC (+4 str when raging) when raging than Fighter passive granted past life (+1 max dex mod).
If you make this a wf racial ability it will make wf barbarians have the highest AC in the game.
It will make barb splashs have more AC raging than not raging.

I know there are more reasons this gimps finesse but these are just off the top of my head.

[OldAquarian]

Dex does not equal damage.

I know there are more reasons this gimps finesse but these are just off the top of my head.

Okay - what if we require that a shield be equipt?
Shield = low dps

[Creeper]

Okay - what if we require that a shield be equipt?
Shield = low dps

Now we are talking! It is still way overpowered though. Maybe if it was only a small percentage of your bonus:

tier 1: 15% of str bonus applied to ac while holding a shield
tier 2: 35%
tier 3: 50%

[Kistilan]

Reduced attack speed = reduced Hate = nobody hitting the juggernaut

Maybe this should increase the hate modifier to compensate

The problem is, this is too complicated for a feat and seems to be the Juggernaut PrEs :)
And then extra Hate would be a granted ability

It doesn't seem THAT complex to me -- reasonably easy to program, like any other line of Improved Feats.

As for the nobody hitting the juggernaut, he who grabs hate can hold it first for a bit. The reason to have this feat line is to be a superior tank via ac vs a superior damage dealer. It would be in their benefit to use Power Attack, Maxed Strength, high-damage/crit weapons and a high intimidate.

The ultimate coupling would be Dwarven Defender, Juggernaut and the current DoS/SD PrEs. This feat line shouldn't be the all-inclusive armor class necessity, but a style of play.

You need a tank, but maybe that tank is to hold the trash mobs (VoD Orthon Tank anyone?) or hold the primary agro (Xxzzyyzzyy) without taking all of the healing resources. Furthermore, the way I "amended" your solution gave some viability to light/medium armor classes with rogue evasion/imp evasion.

My primary goal in assisting in your revisionment was to provide an alternative for high-ac non-monk non-ranger builds. The tank could hold agro if everyone else would "pike it down" a bit on their damage. I mean, what's the rush if the tank can barely be hit and if coupled with SD/DoS, is taking considerably less damage than any former predecessor.

Yes, your raid might take longer if you use this individual as the primary tank: but, your cleric or arcanes (waforged recons) will find healing and mneumonics/scrolls may not be as synonymous as currently trending.

It's just another option, and yes, something for the Warforged Juggernaut to be sure.

I find the reduced attack speed to be a necessary evil. More importantly, it's vital to note that even if this line were to have no reprecussion to attack speed, a greensteel improved two weapon fighting ranger worth his salt is still going to draw more agro if he doesn't pull his punches.

Ergo, coupling with Defender PrEs/PrCs for these feats makes sense. Alternatively, upp'n the Intimidate Score makes sense. Adding Porcupine Damage (Guards) makes more sense (for those rare hits and glancing blows). There are options to hold agro. There is also group dynamics and discipline.

No man should be an island. That would make this a solo-game. However, the opportunity to introduce varied ways of doing the same thing would benefit the game.

Wait a second, now I remember Turbine introduced Dungeon Alerts to force a play style....

Yeah, they probably won't do anything sensible. The Tao of the monk and rangonker is Way.

[OldAquarian]

Now we are talking! It is still way overpowered though. Maybe if it was only a small percentage of your bonus:

tier 1: 15% of str bonus applied to ac while holding a shield
tier 2: 35%
tier 3: 50%

Not sure this needs to be 3 tiers

Feat: Sword and Board
passive
Adds STR bonus to your AC up to the total of your Armor Bonus + Shield Bonus
Requires: Heavy or Medium Armor and a Shield equipt, BAB 10
Must be proficient in Armor and Shield equipt


Granted to Pally at level 10, Fighter Option, available to All classes with prereqs
Does not require a sword - just there for the name

Feat: Improved Sword and Board
passive
Adds a melee swing to your shield bash
Requires:Sword and Board, Improved Shield Bash
Heavy or Medium Armor and a Shield equipt, BAB 14
Must be proficient in Armor and Shield equipt

Granted to Pally at level 14, Fighter Option, available to All classes with prereqs

[Creeper]

Not sure this needs to be 3 tiers

Feat: Sword and Board
passive
Adds STR bonus to your AC up to the total of your Armor Bonus + Shield Bonus
Requires Heavy or Medium Armor and a Shield equipt

So do some calculations on your proposal.
Then think up the best build you can to exploit this feat. Questions to ask yourself:

How high COULD your str bonus be to armor?
Should any class/race be able to take this?

and then;

Is it overpowered when compared to an AC dex build?

[OldAquarian]

So do some calculations on your proposal.
Then think up the best build you can to exploit this feat. Questions to ask yourself:

How high COULD your str bonus be to armor?
Should any class/race be able to take this?

and then;

Is it overpowered when compared to an AC dex build?


Look at edit updates, but max would be no more than +20 - no higher than a monk WIS bonus
and that assumes BOTH a +20 STR bonus (50 STR) and a +10 shield and +10 Armor
The loss of dps and evasion should balance a finesse/imp evasion/monk splash build

[Angelus_dead]

Armor doesn't scale and values were set without taking into consideration the high stats at high levels
In the event that Turbine decides they need higher bonuses from armor, they can change armor to grant higher bonuses. They don't need to charge feats to do that.

Fighters and Paladins are not more deserving of getting AC from armor than other characters who might equip Full Plate (except as already covered by class enhancements and Defender specialties). For example, heavy armor proficiency is supposedly a benefit Clerics enjoy over Favored Soul.

[OldAquarian]

In the event that Turbine decides they need higher bonuses from armor, they can change armor to grant higher bonuses. They don't need to charge feats to do that.

Fighters and Paladins are not more deserving of getting AC from armor than other characters who might equip Full Plate (except as already covered by class enhancements and Defender specialties). For example, heavy armor proficiency is supposedly a benefit Clerics enjoy over Favored Soul.

Main concept of thread has changed - reread OP please

[Creeper]

So for a halfling SD fighter max str/con build with 50 str (which is very easy to get):

+10 base armor
+13 armor bonus (you could even wear epic marilith chain)
+9 levik’s defender
+20 str mod (if you DID cap it at 20)
+1 dodge feat
+1 dodge size (Halfling)
+5 combat expertise
+5 protection item
+3 dodge chattering ring
+4 dodge stance
+2 dodge chaosgarde
+4 insight
+1 haste
+5 barkskin
+5 pally aura
+4 bard song
+2 luck
+3 SD
+5 action boost
+2 blocking
+6 dex
+2 alchemical
_________
112 ac

Vs.

a halfling KENSAI fighter max str/con build with 50 str (which is very easy to get

+10 base armor
+13 armor bonus (you could even wear epic marilith chain)
+9 levik’s defender
+20 str mod (if you DID cap it at 20)
+1 dodge feat
+1 dodge size (Halfling)
+5 combat expertise
+5 protection item
+3 dodge chattering ring
+2 dodge chaosgarde
+4 insight
+1 haste
+5 barkskin
+5 pally aura
+4 bard song
+2 luck
+5 action boost
+2 blocking
+6 dex
+2 alchemical
_________
105 ac

a halfling FB barbarian max str/con build with 50 str (which is very easy to get)

+10 base armor
+13 armor bonus (you could even wear epic marilith chain)
+9 levik’s defender
+20 str mod (if you DID cap it at 20)
+1 dodge feat
+1 dodge size (Halfling)
+5 protection item
+3 dodge chattering ring
+2 dodge chaosgarde
+4 insight
+1 haste
+5 barkskin
+5 pally aura
+4 bard song
+2 luck
+2 blocking
+3 dex
+6 uncanny dodge
-2 rage
+2 alchemical
_________
96 ac on a max str/con barb who can spam supreme cleave.
+7 if in CE and not raging
_________
103 ac

Would this seem unbalanced at all to you?

Edit: forgot alchemical to shield and armor!!

[Artos_Fabril]

I'm sorry, but you're debating semantics. I can't really have this conversation with you, but I will explain THAC0

To Hit Armor Class Zero (THAC0): An aged old term utilized by former Dungeons and Dragons Editions. The purpose of THAC0 was to ascertain exactly what it meant "to hit" a critical (damageable) point of the opponent. ZERO was "to contact skin," whereas any number higher than ZERO was "to not contact skin." Feel free to replace skin with "vital striking point of opponent" whereas applicable: ie terrasqua, gargoyle, beholder, gel cube, etc.
Actually, you badly misunderstand THAC0. THAC0 is an acronym, pronounced Thak-o or Thay-ko, which stands for To Hit Armor Class Zero. Your THAC0 was the number you needed to roll on a D20 in order to hit an armor class of zero. As unarmored individual with no dex bonus had an AC of 10, and armor subtracted from you AC, so a chain shirt gave you AC6, fullplate was AC1, dex lowered your AC based on your dex bonus to AC, which was not equal to 1 point for every 2 points of dex over 10.

[Artos_Fabril]

How about this:

Hardened Armor: provides stacking DR equal to 50% of your armor's un-enhanced AC bonus (requires Medium Armor Proficiency, BAB 6)
Improved Hardened Armor: provides stacking DR equal to 100% of your armor's un-enhanced AC bonus (requires Heavy Armor Proficiency, Hardened Armor, BAB 9)
Greater Hardened Armor: provides stacking DR equal to 150% of your armor's un-enhanced AC bonus (Requires Heavy Armor Proficiency, Improved Hardened Armor, BAB 12)
Superior Hardened Armor: provides stacking DR equal to 200% of your armor's un-enhanced AC bonus (Requires Heavy Armor Proficiency, Greater Hardened Armor, BAB 16)

Sword and Board: attacks with the equipped shield on the 4th attack (req Improved Shield Bash, BAB1)
Improved S&B: attacks with the equipped shield on the 3rd attack (req Sword and Board, BAB6)
Greater S&B: attacks with the equipped shield on the 2nd attack (req Improved S&B, BAB11)

Thoughts?

[Creeper]

How about this:

Hardened Armor: provides stacking DR equal to 50% of your armor's un-enhanced AC bonus (requires Medium Armor Proficiency, BAB 6)
Improved Hardened Armor: provides stacking DR equal to 100% of your armor's un-enhanced AC bonus (requires Heavy Armor Proficiency, Hardened Armor, BAB 9)
Greater Hardened Armor: provides stacking DR equal to 150% of your armor's un-enhanced AC bonus (Requires Heavy Armor Proficiency, Improved Hardened Armor, BAB 12)
Superior Hardened Armor: provides stacking DR equal to 200% of your armor's un-enhanced AC bonus (Requires Heavy Armor Proficiency, Greater Hardened Armor, BAB 16)


So with three feats and an unenhanced AC Full Plate bonus of 9 you would get 18 stacking DR?
A WF FS could have well over 33 DR without blocking. That is very overpowered.



Sword and Board: attacks with the equipped shield on the 4th attack (req Improved Shield Bash)
Improved S&B: attacks with the equipped shield on the 3rd attack (req Sword and Board)
Greater S&B: attacks with the equipped shield on the 2nd attack (req Improved S&B)

Thoughts?

This has been mentioned several times over the years and I am all for it. I also like the idea of inactive blocking (percentage chance to block attack with shield while NOT actively blocking)

[OldAquarian]

Would this seem unbalanced at all to you?

Compare that to 1 level monk splash finesse build - Exploiter for example
and a level 20 monk finesse build and I might be able to decide

[Artos_Fabril]

So with four feats and an unenhanced AC Full Plate bonus of 9 you would get 18 stacking DR?
A WF FS could have well over 33 DR without blocking. That is very overpowered.
(percentage chance to block attack with shield while NOT actively blocking)
No, BAB 16 locks out anyone with less than 4 full BAB class levels. That WF FvS would also have to take Adamantite Plating and give up level 9 spells and the FvS capstone, it's at least 5 feats if you allow Adamantite plating to fill in for heavy armor proficiency, which I don't believe you should, since all your plate wearers get heavy armor proficiency anyway.

We're talking 5 feats for a FvS, a class that only gets 7 total, if it were even available to a pure FvS, which I made sure it wasn't. What would you take for the other two feats?
With a 16 BAB requirement, any 3/4ths BAB class would not only have to take 4 full BAB class levels, it would have to get a free feat at 20th. Meanwhile, a paladin of fighter could splash 2 levels and still be able to take it for the level 18 feat. Also set up so that robe wearers get no benefit from it, light armor wearers either have to splash to get it or spend yet another feat and only get a minor benefit, and medium armor wearers who don't splash for heavy armor prof get a max of 4 DR without spending yet another feat.
The only thing I don't like is that it further encourages tanking paladins to splash fighter levels for extra feats.

Still if you think the numbers remain too high, you could always knock it down to 33/66/100/150%

[Artos_Fabril]

Compare that to 1 level monk splash finesse build - Exploiter for example
and a level 20 monk finesse build and I might be able to decide
Take Kensai numbers
subtract 20 for str, 5 for armor, 5 for shield (8 armor bracers, shield spell or tempest III shield bonus)
add 12 for dex, add 15 for wis (assuming 40/40, which is difficult but attainable)

[honkuimushi]

I like the idea of adding the PnP feats Armor Specialization and Shield Specialization. Armor Specialization gives you Damage Reduction 2/- when wearing that type of heavy or medium armor. Shield Specialization gives you an additional +1 to AC when you use a shield.

Adding these feats, especially if the DR was allowed to stack with things like Adamantine or Barbarian DR, would provide a boost to armor and shields that is compatible with 3.5 rules and isn't as overpowered as your suggestions.

[OldAquarian]

Take Kensai numbers
subtract 20 for str, 5 for armor, 5 for shield (8 armor bracers, shield spell or tempest III shield bonus)
add 12 for dex, add 15 for wis (assuming 40/40, which is difficult but attainable)

the 20 was from my suggestion I assume

So currently its 30 vs 27 for a splash and 31 for pure
So this would mean that if a Kenasi were to switch to sword and board they would be roughly even with a finesse who can use THW (including SoS) or TWF (including 4xBurst weapons) , i.e do alot less dameage

and a full defensive build would be 7 more

So yes, It seems balanced

[Baahb3]

I play a S&B Stalwart Defender as my main character and love it, and I still think that everything you are suggesting OP is rediculously overpowered. Already a properly geard and build SD can compete with all these dex builds and they get DR.

Sorry this line of thinking is just way to over the top to endorse. The idea that it should be free for Paladins, but not Fighters or Barbarians, or Warchanters, or Clerics...come on.

Adding in shield bash attacks as kind of a psuedo TWF for S&B tanks would be nice to see but even that is so minimal that it would be more of a flavor idea than anything else.



I like the idea of adding the PnP feats Armor Specialization and Shield Specialization. Armor Specialization gives you Damage Reduction 2/- when wearing that type of heavy or medium armor. Shield Specialization gives you an additional +1 to AC when you use a shield.

Adding these feats, especially if the DR was allowed to stack with things like Adamantine or Barbarian DR, would provide a boost to armor and shields that is compatible with 3.5 rules and isn't as overpowered as your suggestions.

This is the only decent idea going for this thread. They are two already tested feats, not overpowered and would be easy to impliment.

[grodon9999]

What about Improved Combat Expertise enhancements that gave you maybe 8 AC for a -5 to-hit penalty? Maybe make it more and more per tier. it could be fighter only, and they are pretty ENH starved so it might balance out.

[Chai]

Updated

Nobody else wants to see the end of the exclusively naked tanks and start seeing a few tanks in Plate?

I do, but this aint it. Str bonus to AC isnt very realistic.

The entire reason we have butt naked riding a zebra tanks outing plate for AC is because of bracers having a higher AC bonus than armor, the ability to multi class monks, and being able to get a shield bonus without wearing a shield is too easy.

Its getting to the point where AC doesnt matter as much anyhow and people are starting to go the DR route. Even exploiter builds buffed to over 100 ac with full on evasion and decent saves still take damage.

[Creeper]

No, BAB 16 locks out anyone with less than 4 full BAB class levels. That WF FvS would also have to take Adamantite Plating and give up level 9 spells and the FvS capstone, it's at least 5 feats if you allow Adamantite plating to fill in for heavy armor proficiency, which I don't believe you should, since all your plate wearers get heavy armor proficiency anyway.

Only to get the 3rd tier.

So you DON"T think 33 DR is too much if you invest a lot of feats into it?

what about a dwarven fs with a constant dr of 20? 20 DR for a dwarf FS with a shield that is not even blocking. Who could get well over 30 blocking DR. Total of 50 DR on a pure caster.

A WF splash intimi build with DoD active? 18+20 = 38 unblocking dr + 30 blocking dr = 68 dr while blocking.



Still if you think the numbers remain too high, you could always knock it down to 33/66/100/150%

I am asking you. Did you think these numbers are too high, or did you not calculate what you proposed before you posted?

[OldAquarian]

IThe entire reason we have butt naked riding a zebra tanks outing plate for AC is because of bracers having a higher AC bonus than armor, the ability to multi class monks, and being able to get a shield bonus without wearing a shield is too easy

Just trying to away from the idea that to tank, you take off all your armor and splash monk

[grodon9999]

Just trying to away from the idea that to tank, you take off all your armor and splash monk

DR is as/more important than AC in regards to tanking. I tank the Judge all the time with my Exploiter and I still get hit enough that a Cleric/bard has to hit me with a heal scroll. A real tank with a bunch of DR can hold aggro and shield black taking a hell of a lot less damage when then get hit.

A PJ-wearer loses Wisdom bonus when the equip a shield, can't get the DR.

[Creeper]

DR is as/more important than AC in regards to tanking. I tank the Judge all the time with my Exploiter and I still get hit enough that a Cleric/bard has to hit me with a heal scroll. A real tank with a bunch of DR can hold aggro and shield black taking a hell of a lot less damage when then get hit.

A PJ-wearer loses Wisdom bonus when the equip a shield, can't get the DR.

So true. and also, if a splash monk, will get no grazing hit reduction which is a serious handicap on elite.

DR > AC

[Artos_Fabril]

Only to get the 3rd tier.

So you DON"T think 33 DR is too much if you invest a lot of feats into it?

what about a dwarven fs with a constant dr of 20? 20 DR for a dwarf FS with a shield that is not even blocking. Who could get well over 30 blocking DR. Total of 50 DR on a pure caster.

A WF splash intimi build with DoD active? 18+20 = 38 unblocking dr + 30 blocking dr = 68 dr while blocking.



I am asking you. Did you think these numbers are too high, or did you not calculate what you proposed before you posted?
I don't think it's too overpowered, since feats are a zero-sum game. Anything that costs a feat has to be at least as good as the things you already spend feats on. Spending 4 feats to get an extra 13 DR on a 20FvS (max 28DR for WF or 33 with DoD active) means you only have 3 feats left for actual functions of your class.

But you might be right about those numbers being too much, in which case there are several ways to fix it while keeping the basic idea:
-reduce the percentages
-make it non-stacking
-add armor specialization, and make that a prerequisite as well
-Require fighter or paladin class levels, or add it to the PrE benefits of DoS/SD

I don't think shield and armor specialization are the answer, those feats don't offer enough benefit for their cost in DDO. In PnP, a level 20 Balor had 290HP with 15DR, and a +33to-hit for 15-25 (19-20/x2) damage. In that environment, a +3AC for 2 feats was expensive but meaningful, and 30DR would be overpowered. In DDO, you're looking at pre-epic mobs that swing for 50-120, with tens of thousands to millions of HP and +50 or more to hit.

[Kistilan]

Actually, you badly misunderstand THAC0. THAC0 is an acronym, pronounced Thak-o or Thay-ko, which stands for To Hit Armor Class Zero. Your THAC0 was the number you needed to roll on a D20 in order to hit an armor class of zero. As unarmored individual with no dex bonus had an AC of 10, and armor subtracted from you AC, so a chain shirt gave you AC6, fullplate was AC1, dex lowered your AC based on your dex bonus to AC, which was not equal to 1 point for every 2 points of dex over 10.

I was explaining the idea. I fully understand how thac0 is calculated. I didn't look up the tables as they're at home in the States and I'm on holidays with my Aussie girl in oz. Anyway, if you're nitpicking about the dex bonus not equivalent to thaco tables, good on ya. I didn't say anything about the calculations but about how thaco represents a hit.

[Creeper]

I don't think it's too overpowered, since feats are a zero-sum game. Anything that costs a feat has to be at least as good as the things you already spend feats on. Spending 4 feats to get an extra 13 DR on a 20FvS (max 28DR for WF or 33 with DoD active) means you only have 3 feats left for actual functions of your class.

But you might be right about those numbers being too much, in which case there are several ways to fix it while keeping the basic idea:
-reduce the percentages
-make it non-stacking
-add armor specialization, and make that a prerequisite as well
-Require fighter or paladin class levels, or add it to the PrE benefits of DoS/SD


Then if you don't think it's overpowered why are you proposing four ways to fix it?

[Artos_Fabril]

ZERO was "to contact skin," whereas any number higher than ZERO was "to not contact skin." Feel free to replace skin with "vital striking point of opponent" whereas applicable: ie terrasqua, gargoyle, beholder, gel cube, etc.

So, when an armor class was bettered by a physical barrier (such as full plate, reasonably protecting more than half plate), this indeed did cause the armor class rating to go up.
Zero was not "to contact skin" Zero was an AC of zero, since your AC went down as you added more armor/dex/etc, an AC of zero was better than an AC of ten (base unmodified AC). Better armors caused your armor class to go down, and your to-hit was calculated by adding your opponent's AC to the die roll, then comparing it to the THAC0 chart (1st and 2nd ed loved charts). Or if you were a little better at math, you could subtract your opponent's AC from your THAC0 to determine what you needed to hit, or subtract your die roll from your THAC0 to determine what AC you hit. The reason they abandoned THAC0 in 3.0 and later was that dealing with negative numbers confused some players, and WotC was trying to open the game up to a wider play base.

[Artos_Fabril]

Then if you don't think it's overpowered why are you proposing four ways to fix it?
Because I haven't done the extensive play-testing that should always precede implementation, and I understand that changes do not occur in a vacuum.

[Creeper]

I don't think shield and armor specialization are the answer, those feats don't offer enough benefit for their cost in DDO. In PnP, a level 20 Balor had 290HP with 15DR, and a +33to-hit for 15-25 (19-20/x2) damage. In that environment, a +3AC for 2 feats was expensive but meaningful, and 30DR would be overpowered. In DDO, you're looking at pre-epic mobs that swing for 50-120, with tens of thousands to millions of HP and +50 or more to hit.

Is +3 ac in pnp really worth more than +3 ac in DDO? Both deal with a d20 system.
You are either in that d20 threshold or you ain't. And I think if you did spend two feats or any feat to get +3 AC or any AC you are probaly within that threshold.

Say you are in that d20 threshold of avoiding damage, say it takes a 10 to be hit,

In pnp it takes a 10 to be hit, now, with these feats the mob needs a 13.
In ddo it takes a 10 to be hit, now, with these feats the mob needs a 13.

[Kistilan]

Zero was not "to contact skin" Zero was an AC of zero, since your AC went down as you added more armor/dex/etc, an AC of zero was better than an AC of ten (base unmodified AC). Better armors caused your armor class to go down, and your to-hit was calculated by adding your opponent's AC to the die roll, then comparing it to the THAC0 chart (1st and 2nd ed loved charts). Or if you were a little better at math, you could subtract your opponent's AC from your THAC0 to determine what you needed to hit, or subtract your die roll from your THAC0 to determine what AC you hit. The reason they abandoned THAC0 in 3.0 and later was that dealing with negative numbers confused some players, and WotC was trying to open the game up to a wider play base.

I don't think you understand that Zero represents Skin Penetration. Why do you think it is called TO Hit Armor Class Zero? Why not To Hit Armor Class One? Or To Hit Armor Class Ten? Or To Hit Armor Class Minus 5?

Skin (or vital contact on abominations of all kinds) = Zero.

EDIT: OP -- Lots of interesting ideas surfaced from your thread. Good stuff. I'm leaning towards the ideas where improved damage reduction = hardened armor, shield specialization, armor specialization.

[Artos_Fabril]

I don't think you understand that Zero represents Skin Penetration. Why do you think it is called TO Hit Armor Class Zero? Why not To Hit Armor Class One? Or To Hit Armor Class Ten? Or To Hit Armor Class Minus 5?

Skin (or vital contact on abominations of all kinds) = Zero.
This happens not to be the case. Zero was probably selected because THAC1 doesn't make as good an acronym, and possibly also because all classes had a base THAC0 of 20 at level 1. THAC0 20 gives a 50% chance to hit a base 10 AC. It also possible that THAC0 was chosen because Full Plate+shield gave an AC of 0.
Source (http://www.thac0.org/), source (http://dnd.wikia.com/wiki/THAC0), source (http://quietsmokerguy.tripod.com/thaco1.html), source (http://web.fisher.cx/robert/infogami/THAC0), source (http://www.associatedcontent.com/article/2521449/end_of_thac0_what_it_meant_for_dungeons.html), Discussion of THAC0 (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=113845)

[Havenor]

I don't think you understand that Zero represents Skin Penetration. Why do you think it is called TO Hit Armor Class Zero? Why not To Hit Armor Class One? Or To Hit Armor Class Ten? Or To Hit Armor Class Minus 5?

Skin (or vital contact on abominations of all kinds) = Zero.

Incorrect. Skin was AC10. AC0 was Full Plate & Shield, or Chain, Shield and high dex. Remember that in the THAC0 system the worst AC was 10 and the best was -10. The reason it was called To Hit Armor Class Zero was because it was the middle ground and in order to determine the roll you needed to score a hit was to subtract the target's AC from your Thac0. If your Thac0 was 15 and you were attacking ac5, you needed a 10, attacking -5 AC you needed a 20. It was simple to implement and understand. That's why they used it.

[OldAquarian]

Is +3 ac in pnp really worth more than +3 ac in DDO? Both deal with a d20 system.
You are either in that d20 threshold or you ain't. And I think if you did spend two feats or any feat to get +3 AC or any AC you are probaly within that threshold.

Say you are in that d20 threshold of avoiding damage, say it takes a 10 to be hit,

In pnp it takes a 10 to be hit, now, with these feats the mob needs a 13.
In ddo it takes a 10 to be hit, now, with these feats the mob needs a 13.

You can have a much higher AC in ddo, so that +3 means a lower percent of max, and for most people that +3 will still mean hit on all but a 1

[Creeper]

You can have a much higher AC in ddo, so that +3 means a lower percent of max, and for most people that +3 will still mean hit on all but a 1

I explain this in the words you quoted. You must understand what the d20 system means. It doesn't matter how high your AC is compared to pnp. We still use a d20 system. Most people do not reach the d20 threshold at endgame where having extra armor is useful. These people are very unlikely to spend feats on AC because it would be worthless.

No matter how high you NEED your AC to be, you are still dealing with d20 system.
Either you are one point too high or one point too low, same as in PNP. 3 ac is 3 ac.
Do you think that people who will not benefit from +3 AC will take feats that grant +3 AC?

Let's say you get a 30 ac in pnp and you spend feats to get +3 ac. Before you got hit on a roll of a 10. Now the mobs need a 13.

in comparison;

Let's say you get a 120 ac in ddo and you spend feats to get +3 ac. Before you got hit on a roll of a 10. Now the mobs need a 13.

I don't know how many more ways I can explain this. No matter how high your AC must be to avoid being hit you still have a d20 system in place here folks. That makes 3 ac 3 ac no matter how many ways you wanna slice it.

If you bumped it up to +10 ac due to DDO inflation you have just allowed a character that would be hit every time by a certain mob to now only get hit approx. half of the time by the same mob. Same as in pnp.

d20 system. 3 is 3. Same fraction of 20. 1-20 the numbers are the same here. Just because it's ddo doesn't mean the math doesn't work.

Can someone else try to explain this? I don't think I am doing a good job.

[Kistilan]

Incorrect. Skin was AC10. AC0 was Full Plate & Shield, or Chain, Shield and high dex. Remember that in the THAC0 system the worst AC was 10 and the best was -10. The reason it was called To Hit Armor Class Zero was because it was the middle ground and in order to determine the roll you needed to score a hit was to subtract the target's AC from your Thac0. If your Thac0 was 15 and you were attacking ac5, you needed a 10, attacking -5 AC you needed a 20. It was simple to implement and understand. That's why they used it.

Again, I think some people don't understand the full concept of Thac0. Namely, those that continually respond to me about it.

I completely bow to your assertion that the ARMOR CLASS of 10 represents "no armor" ie "skin/clothing." You are 100% correct.

I'm talking about the TO HIT ARMOR CLASS ZERO. IE, the number ZERO (on a To-Hit roll) represents a numerical entry you're attempting to hit. That numeric entry is skin or another vital striking point. The "theoretical hit" of "Zero" represents skin/vital point contact.

Maybe I'm just going a little too beyond the rules and into theory for you guys to understand the general philosophy of THAC0.

[Ethias]

After witnessing this THAC0 discussion, I now see why the system was completely reworked. ;)

I would like to see a plate armor buff, but I would like to see it applied to all plate wearers, since it's pretty laughable at the moment that an advantage of a cleric over a FvS is meant to be that they can use heavy armor.

[OldAquarian]

Updated OP with a different approach

[Kistilan]

This happens not to be the case. Zero was probably selected because THAC1 doesn't make as good an acronym, and possibly also because all classes had a base THAC0 of 20 at level 1. THAC0 20 gives a 50% chance to hit a base 10 AC. It also possible that THAC0 was chosen because Full Plate+shield gave an AC of 0.
Source (http://www.thac0.org/), source (http://dnd.wikia.com/wiki/THAC0), source (http://quietsmokerguy.tripod.com/thaco1.html), source (http://web.fisher.cx/robert/infogami/THAC0), source (http://www.associatedcontent.com/article/2521449/end_of_thac0_what_it_meant_for_dungeons.html), Discussion of THAC0 (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=113845)

I think I missed your response to this, but let me assure you I understand the mechanics.

I'm just going to drag out some hypotheticals so everyone understands what I was getting at. The numbers might be incorrect as to which represents what, but the math will add up.

Let's say you got a rogue with studded leather armor (7) and a +3 dex bonus as well as let's say a cloak of protection +2. His AC 7 - 3 - 2 = 2.

Let's say we've got a wizard wearing bracers +5 and zero dex bonus. He's got an AC of 5.

Let's also take the extreme crusader half plate with a +2 Shield , AC 2 +2 = 0. Let's give him a ring of protection +3 as well so the AC = 0 - 3 = -3.

Ok now we've got 3 guys with 3 different Armor Classes. Agreed?

Rogue with 2, Wizard with 5, and Crusader with -3

Now let's give them some opponents attacking them with no inflated strength or dex to assist in any attack.

We'll take a level 1 Wizard with a THACO of 20.

We'll take a level 10 Rogue with a THACO of 16 (I'm guessing here, don't have the table).

And we'll take a level 15 Crusader with a THACO of 6.

Now we've got some mechanics! WOOHOO! This should probably help the theoretical part I was attempting to elaborate on for no reason in particular.

If the wizard were to attack a person with ZERO as an Armor Class, he would need to roll a 20. Agreed? So his THACO of 20 to hit a ZERO is 20. That's the number he needs to roll to hit, yes? Do we agree? And a hit would mean damage, yes? I mean disregarding any sort of damage reduction of save, that's pretty much a hit? What do you think you're hitting when you do damage? Hair Follicles? Well I guess if you were fighting a GIANT-SIZED ANIMATED WIG, this might be true. But I reserve the right to assume that when rolling his attack and succesfully landing against the ZERO armor class, he has indeed bit into someone's personal corps.

Let's now evaluate the rogue THACO 16 attacking the wizard (AC 5) and the Crusader (AC -3). If the rogue turns to the wizard and attempts a direct attack with his short sword or dagger, he will have to roll 16 - AC 5 = 11 or better according to his THACO. Let's examine this claim a bit more by stating that TO HIT ARMOR CLASS ZERO he had to roll a 16, yes? But because the armor class is worse than ZERO to connect, he doesn't need to roll as high. The inferior armor class provides LESS protection, quantitatively, than an AC of Zero. Thus to hit armor class zero is shifted to 11 or better to make a successfully damaging strike. I again ask you what do you think he's hitting in this moment of 11+ on a d20? Perhaps he's made a grievous injury to the rogues wine skin! I know I would be terribly wounded if someone were to puncture my own spirits. :rolleyes:

The rogue quickly dispatches the wizard as he realizes he can't take too many grease spells (his luck is bad when rolling a reflex save) and turns to the crusader with a beefy ac of -3. This fight is going to be grueling and long as the Cruasader is heavily armored and wielding a bastard sword. The rogue might even call him out on it by continuously spitting out the words, "Curse you, bastard!" This is because the rogue is having a very hard time fighting the Crusader one on one when he needs to gain a flanking bonus. The reasoning is simple: The Rogue's Thaco is 16, but when the negative three AC is subtracted from 16, it raises the entire TO HIT ARMOR CLASS ZERO to a 19. 16 - (-3) = 16 +3 = 19. Thus, to make contact and do damage, the rogue must now roll a 19. Again, I ask you what part of the Crusader he successfully connects with when he DOES roll a 19? Maybe he's scratched the surface of the shield beyond repair and weakened the crusader's zeal to continue the fight until he repairs the blemish to his perfectly sheened steel? Maybe? Yes? No? Maybe..... :confused: So if the THACO is 19, to hit armor class zero must be a 19 or higher.... he certainly is not striking the shield when he rolls a 19 or higher!?! IS HE?

Oh, and let's go to the level 15 Crusader and level 10 Rogue battling the level 1 wizard. This is only necessary to show one final rule: The Rule of 1 and 20. A 1 is always a miss, a 20 is always a hit. Yes? Why is this?

Because, using the THACO system, the Crusader and Rogue flanking the wizard to gain a +2 to each attack, thus a Crusader THACO 6 plus the wizard AC 5 and the +2 to attack from flanking bonus has lowered the Crusader's Overall THACO to a -1. Now, what's the point of rolling a 1d20 at this point if you have to roll a -1 or higher with exception to seeing if a critical (natural 20) can be achieved. Well, thus enters the realm of 1 and 20. A roll on a 1 (house rules, can be overruled by DM) is always a miss (and can be a critical miss if the second roll is a miss confirmation). Even the best swing can be dodged -- nothing is an assured hit and thus the 5% miss chance is assumed. This breaks the rule of THACO with a caveat to allow chance and fate. Secondly, the wizard level 1 has a THACO of 20 and very few spells. He is attempting to ward off the Crusader because the rogue is only making called shots on the wizard's purse (and thus improve his take in the encounter by stealing and earning bonus xp for himself). The Crusader has an AC of -3 and inflates the Wizards ability to penetrate the Crusader's defenses, requiring a 23 or higher to be rolled on a d20! Now unless the wiz has a Ring of Ram's might sitting on his finger or potion of rage, he's probably not going to be swinging a +3 or higher bonus with his staff. Thus a natural 20 is regarded as a "hit" and does connect with a vital point to give the wizard a slim "fighting" chance. Granted, this encounter is largely inflated and done only to make a point: No DM worth his salt would award the rogue or the crusader any xp for slaying the wizard due to the severe disparity in abilities and damage-capacity.

I know this was all textbook and rather dry, but I wanted to extend the realm of hypothetical THACO once more to make clear that I was not discussing what skin represents as an Armor Class, but why THAC0 is To Hit Armor Class Zero. Zero is "The Contact Point." If it were TO HIT ARMOR CLASS -1, well then I suppose everyone at level 1 would need to roll a 20 + 1 in order to connect against a standard opponent, wouldn't they? And an armor class of zero would represent.... one less than the standard contact to skin, thus removing the +1 requirement to hit and increasing the chance for a standard level 1 character to hit skin by 5%.

My end statement: You're trying to hit a number (or better than said number) for a reason. If it's not to contact the vital point (ie flesh) of another character, creature, object, thing; then tell me what you are rolling to hit?

PS: About the dodging vs deflection comment:

Wizard THACO 20 attacks rogue AC 2. Wizard swings and rolls under a 10. This is a whiff. He swings and connects air. He attacks again, this time rolling slightly higher and lands somewhere between 10 and 12. This is a glancing blow, bouncing off the rogue's studded leather armor that has an ac of 7. The wizard furrow's his brow and attacks furiously, swinging with all his might. He rolls between a 13 and 14. This blow is somehow stopped at the rogue's skin without causing damage (thank you cloak of protection +2 for that magical barrier covering the vulnerable spots not protected by the studded leather armor!). Finally in one last desperate attempt before the rogue finishes him off, the wizard lunges madly rolling a 17. He barely misses the rogues head, swinging mere millimeters off the top of the rogue's nogg'n as the rogue nimbly ducks thanks to his +3 dex (15-17). Had the wizard rolled an 18 or higher he would have bypassed all the rogue's defenses and contacted with a vital point.

I hope this last example shows how numerical entries represent physical, magical, and material armor class. Most importantly, the THACO is always calculated to a Zero Point of Reference: skin/vital contact.

[OldAquarian]

.... About the dodging vs deflection comment .... skin/vital contact.

Maybe this will help clear things up:
http://www.dandwiki.com/wiki/Accuracy_AC_and_Impact_AC_(3.5e_Variant_Rule)

And now, back to my thread where I have a new idea in the OP, and would like comments on it

[Kistilan]

EDIT: Fixed! The link works. Good info concerning 3.0/3.5 Expanded Attack/Hit Rules.

Please note it's a wiki and may be misleading since those are home-brewed rules to offer expanded dex/str attack confirmations. I totally support it though and its logic is sound after reading it. My THAC0 dissertation there was obviously geared towards 1st and 2nd Edition mechanics since THAC0 did become reworked into the current 3.0-3.5 mechanics used in DDO.

I'm still keen on the armor rework fix that needs to be done for viability. There's no reason why rangonkers should be so higher while chattering rings and other items are required to match their peak on armor-clad warriors.


Maybe this will help clear things up:
http://www.dandwiki.com/wiki/Accuracy_AC_and_Impact_AC_(3.5e_Variant_Rule) (http://www.dandwiki.com/wiki/Accuracy_AC_and_Impact_AC_%283.5e_Variant_Rule%29)

And now, back to my thread where I have a new idea in the OP, and would like comments on it

[OldAquarian]

No data if link is clicked, but if copy/pasted, it worked just fine.

The closing ) at the end of the url may be eaten on some browsers
Try again - I used more html to protect the )

[Artos_Fabril]

Let's now evaluate the rogue THACO 16 attacking the wizard (AC 5) and the Crusader (AC -3). If the rogue turns to the wizard and attempts a direct attack with his short sword or dagger, he will have to roll 16 - AC 5 = 11 or better according to his THACO. Let's examine this claim a bit more by stating that TO HIT ARMOR CLASS ZERO he had to roll a 16, yes? But because the armor class is worse than ZERO to connect, he doesn't need to roll as high. The inferior armor class provides LESS protection, quantitatively, than an AC of Zero.
So far, so good! This is spot on. (except the part about level 10 rogue having a THAC0 of 16, but the actual number is just as irrelevant to making the point as you state)

Thus to hit armor class zero is shifted to 11 or better to make a successfully damaging strike.And this is where it falls apart. His THAC0 does not change. His ability to hit the AC5 wizard is greater than his ability to hit an AC of 0, but the roll he needs to hit an AC of 0 remains a 16.

The reasoning is simple: The Rogue's Thaco is 16, but when the negative three AC is subtracted from 16Again, exactly right so far!

, it raises the entire TO HIT ARMOR CLASS ZERO to a 19. 16 - (-3) = 16 +3 = 19. And again, exactly wrong :( His THAC0 remains a 16, but in order to inflict damage, he must now hit an AC -3, requiring a roll of 19 or better.
Thus, to make contact and do damage, the rogue must now roll a 19.Your math is indisputable, but that has never been the point of contention.

So if the THACO is 19, to hit armor class zero must be a 19 or higher....If the THAC0 were 19, that would be exactly correct. But as we established when you set up this example, the rogue's THAC0 is 16. 19 is only the roll necessary to penetrate the Crusader's -3 AC.

Perhaps this is best illustrated with the concept of MAC and MTHAC0 (which really should have been written as THMAC0, but whatever) introduced in the Dark Sun setting as a significant improvement over the previous concepts of Power Scores, Power Rolls, Saves, Ego defense and Id defense. You activate your power, roll your D20 to hit and compare your roll to your MTHAC0 to see what MAC you hit. There was no question of skin contact, although there was a proficiency you could take called Mental Armor to improve your MAC.
Wizard THACO 20 attacks rogue AC 2. Wizard swings and rolls under a 10. This is a whiff. He swings and connects air. He attacks again, this time rolling slightly higher and lands somewhere between 10 and 12. This is a glancing blow, bouncing off the rogue's studded leather armor that has an ac of 7. The wizard furrow's his brow and attacks furiously, swinging with all his might. He rolls between a 13 and 14. This blow is somehow stopped at the rogue's skin without causing damage (thank you cloak of protection +2 for that magical barrier covering the vulnerable spots not protected by the studded leather armor!). Finally in one last desperate attempt before the rogue finishes him off, the wizard lunges madly rolling a 17. He barely misses the rogues head, swinging mere millimeters off the top of the rogue's nogg'n as the rogue nimbly ducks thanks to his +3 dex (15-17). Had the wizard rolled an 18 or higher he would have bypassed all the rogue's defenses and contacted with a vital point.

Although it is immaterial to the previous discussion, and has little to no effect from a game mechanic standpoint, I believe it would make more sense to apply your AC bonuses in a different order.
AC 10 is an unarmored, stationary target. Let's call it a practice dummy, in order to illustrate a concept.
If you put a suit of full plate on it, It now has an AC of 1. The armor impedes your ability to strike to dummy, but because it is immobile, it is still relatively easy to strike the armor. Doing so does you no real good though, unless you use some of the optional rules like armor damage.*
Now, if you impart a dex bonus, for example by setting the target to moving, you decrease the chance to contact not only the dummy, but also the armor.
(At this point, the target dummy example starts to break down, so we'll switch to an animate opponent. The same opponent could stand in for the target dummy example as well, by remaining stationary in the first 2 cases and moving about in the 3rd)
So now we give our sparring partner a shield. His first line of defense is not to be hit at all. When that fails, he attempts to catch the blow on the shield. If you bypass the shield as well he's relying on his armor to stop your blow from dealing damage, whether it's broken bone from a Maul's impact on chain mail, or a mortal wound from a dagger slipped in between the segments of a suit of full plate.
Give him a magic ring of protection, and we can define the function. Let's say these magic rings were made in pairs for tournaments, commissioned from the Royal Mage's Academy by a king who wanted to hold tests of skill without losing the expertise and experience of the 2nd, 3rd, 4th, and so on warriors in his kingdom, they provide a huge 5 point bonus to AC, but when their magic stops a blow, it causes a Dancing Lights effect of a flashing bullseye centered on the point of impact. Blue for yours, red for your opponent's.
In 2nd ed, this is all immaterial. THAC0 tells you (or the DM) what you need to roll to hit an AC of 0 (and any other number by extrapolation)
In 3.x, all of these same factors exist, but you have/had a list of different AC's instead of leaving it all up to common sense and the DM's discretion: Normal, Flat Footed, Touch Attack
And a list of where your AC bonuses were coming from: Armor, Shield, Dexterity, Dodge, Natural, Enhancement, Centered, Deflection, Proficiency, and so on, and so forth.

*However, different armor types have modifiers against different damage types (pierce/slash/blunt) in order to model, say the fact that hitting someone wearing chainmail with a club is very nearly as effective as hitting someone with no armor at all.

[Artos_Fabril]

Maybe this will help clear things up:
http://www.dandwiki.com/wiki/Accuracy_AC_and_Impact_AC_(3.5e_Variant_Rule)

And now, back to my thread where I have a new idea in the OP, and would like comments on it

Modifying the OP isn't really conductive to carrying on a discussion, and it makes things really hard to follow for someone coming new to the thread. At least add a link to the current post of the discussion in the edited OP, and back to the edited first post from the point of the latest change.

One thing that can certainly be said for that variant rule is that it minimizes the critical hit mechanic, requiring 4 separate rolls to score and confirm a critical hit, and making it impossible to score a "heroic" critical hit against an opponent that badly outmatches you. (No arrow finding the missing scale on the dragon's breast, although the variation of weapon finesse does allow something of the sort to work for light melee weapons)

[OldAquarian]

Modifying the OP isn't really conductive to carrying on a discussion, and it makes things really hard to follow for someone coming new to the thread. At least add a link to the current post of the discussion in the edited OP, and back to the edited first post from the point of the latest change.

Unfortunately, I have found many people only read the OP and miss the redirection.
Did you have an opinion on the new OP?

[Kistilan]

Although it is immaterial to the previous discussion, and has little to no effect from a game mechanic standpoint, I believe it would make more sense to apply your AC bonuses in a different order.
AC 10 is an unarmored, stationary target. Let's call it a practice dummy, in order to illustrate a concept.
If you put a suit of full plate on it, It now has an AC of 1. The armor impedes your ability to strike to dummy, but because it is immobile, it is still relatively easy to strike the armor. Doing so does you no real good though, unless you use some of the optional rules like armor damage.*
Now, if you impart a dex bonus, for example by setting the target to moving, you decrease the chance to contact not only the dummy, but also the armor.
(At this point, the target dummy example starts to break down, so we'll switch to an animate opponent. The same opponent could stand in for the target dummy example as well, by remaining stationary in the first 2 cases and moving about in the 3rd)
So now we give our sparring partner a shield. His first line of defense is not to be hit at all. When that fails, he attempts to catch the blow on the shield. If you bypass the shield as well he's relying on his armor to stop your blow from dealing damage, whether it's broken bone from a Maul's impact on chain mail, or a mortal wound from a dagger slipped in between the segments of a suit of full plate.
Give him a magic ring of protection, and we can define the function. Let's say these magic rings were made in pairs for tournaments, commissioned from the Royal Mage's Academy by a king who wanted to hold tests of skill without losing the expertise and experience of the 2nd, 3rd, 4th, and so on warriors in his kingdom, they provide a huge 5 point bonus to AC, but when their magic stops a blow, it causes a Dancing Lights effect of a flashing bullseye centered on the point of impact. Blue for yours, red for your opponent's.
In 2nd ed, this is all immaterial. THAC0 tells you (or the DM) what you need to roll to hit an AC of 0 (and any other number by extrapolation)
In 3.x, all of these same factors exist, but you have/had a list of different AC's instead of leaving it all up to common sense and the DM's discretion: Normal, Flat Footed, Touch Attack
And a list of where your AC bonuses were coming from: Armor, Shield, Dexterity, Dodge, Natural, Enhancement, Centered, Deflection, Proficiency, and so on, and so forth.

*However, different armor types have modifiers against different damage types (pierce/slash/blunt) in order to model, say the fact that hitting someone wearing chainmail with a club is very nearly as effective as hitting someone with no armor at all.

As a military guy and martial artist, I'm going to disagree about how you applied the order of armor class bonuses. If you're bracing for an impact, your order seems to make more sense.

However, if someone is swinging a two-handed sword at me with lethal speed, I do not worry about catching the blade with my shield. I don't try to put my shoulder's paldron or armguard vanbracer in the blade's path.

You're right, I am manuevering out of the way of the blade, but let's assume the strike IS going towards a body part. The first line of defense is the armor (and/or natural armor). That is the first thing the blade might meet. Second, any magical protections could come into play before or after the blade contacts the armor. I would clump this all together into one (unless it were a shield spell protecting from arrows, which would in turn stop arrows from contacting the armor). At this point, even though you are assumed to be actively dodging, the last thing you've got between you and the strike (assuming it is bypassing the armor for a weak point in the armor and circumventing any magical protections!) is the character's ability to shift/slide/bend/dance around the blade's path at the last second. Dexterity (dodging) would be the last thing to avoid a hit that would otherwise do damage.

You might ask about something that is fully armored with no chinks! Well then, I guess dexterity WOULD be the first thing because the armor must be cleaved through regardless. In the DMs description at this point, a hit would "penetrate" the armor. Regardless of whether there is damage reduction or not, the armor must be cleaved/bludgeoned/pierced through in order to do damage. Therefore, a successful strike is inherently against an armor-clad location. At this point I would contend that dodging would be primary with magical enchantments being secondary (although you again could rearrange these two armor class bonuses to suit your description of the combat).

I still maintain one thing though: I do not attempt to catch a blow with my shield unless it is a called shot on my part that I prepared prior to the attack (according to 2nd Edit rules). The shield is there to provide potential blocking ability (and thus provide an ac bonus). If you spend all your time attempting to manuever your shield into a weapon's path, you will surely tire and/or be killed by another attack or a feint by your opponent. Knowing how to hold a shield so that it is most effective is all you can truly do with minor adjustments based on the initial attack trajectory. After that, you are attempting to dodge and/or counter.

I wish I had access to my DMG/PHB so I could reference the THAC0 page for you. Whether you apply the bonuses or not to the THAC0, the end result is an elevated or decreased THAC0.

[Artos_Fabril]

Unfortunately, I have found many people only read the OP and miss the redirection.
Did you have an opinion on the new OP?
Aid Another is an interesting option, but it would have to work more like Sunder in DDO, otherwise you'd have the exact same effect as just reducing BAB. (Greater Shield Bash as you suggested it, is essentially this) As an option for making plate a more effective armor option, it's completely ineffective.

The best options I see for making heavy armor proficiency an actual benefit for all classes that get it are:
A) Itemization: Depart from straight 3.x rules and give high level heavy armors increased base armor in addition to their enhancement bonuses and special effects
B) Passive benefits: Give heavier armors some sort of passive benefit. DR is the most obvious choice, but other options might also work.