Sword and Board a different type of fix

[RavenStormclaw]

I know its late when I am posting this and maybe not seeing clearly but:

I think Aesop was going the right way. Perhaps we've all been looking at the problem the wrong way. For the most part, we've assumed Sword and Board fighters should have AC's that are nearly the highest in the game. Make sense that a fighter in full plate with a large tower shield shold be harder to hurt then a ranger running around in robes. AC is the usual answer to this dilemma. However, maybe it not. Picturing this in my head I see a nice 6 foot seven inch knight in full plate wielding a large shield ....slow as hell but still standing taking hit after hit after hit...still standing. I also see a slender elven ranger twin blades wirling in a circle of death dancing in and out of the weapon range of his enemies. Not getting hit at all.

My point perhaps the way to fix Sword and Board is to not worry about the AC instead make it all about damage reduction. Afterall the heavily encumbered knight wearing full plate should be easier to hit but not easier to damage. Its late and I don't feel like coming up with numbers but the final solution for Sword and Board, I believe, should involve dramatcially increasing damge reduction. Upwards of a 4-5 fold increase. Yes a knight in full plate should not be able to dodge a fireball (I retract my suggestion from an earlier thread for those of you in the know) but the combination of shield and armor should deflect most of the damage from an enemies weapons.

When I can think more clearly I will post possible suggestions but I think others incluidng Aesop may be better at the numbers then me.

The above was copied from another thread that died.

In a clearer light I still think this may be a better solution. Bullet points to follow:

1) Dnd and DDO is and should always be about diversity
2) We all ready have super high AC builds
3) Any feats/enhancements for buffing S&B AC will probably never be enough
4) A robe or leather wearing ranger/monk should be hard to hit but take massive damage when hit since they have little protection
5) A heavily armored fighter should be relativly easy to hit but very hard to damage
6) Logical conclusion instead of boosting AC on armor wearer boost, significanlty, damage reduction
7) In the end this will balance out the classes better I thihnk then tweaking with AC

Thought on how to do this without breaking the game at low levels appreciated.

Problem: If you just boost the amount of damage reduction on plate/shield to make it sigifincant and vialbe at endgame you will essentially make Sword and Board invulnerable at low levels. Not a good idea either.

Balance is the key. This key componet still eludes me. Suggestions/discussion appreciated.

[sephiroth1084]

Currently, I don't believe there is any problem with S&B at early levels: it's easier to get good AC early in the game and I find that even a moderately equipped tank will compare favorably with a twinked out Dex or Dex/Wis build early on (I want to say until ~lvl 11, but I'd be pulling that out of my ***).

As such, any "fix" in this regard should take place later in the game. I agree, somewhat, that DR can be the point of balance, but there are a few issues with this.

First, barbarians and WF currently have the most going for them in terms of DR, but any sort of fix to S&B in this regard would likely leave barbarians well behind, and would have to be considered in relation to WF (Docent of Defiance). I think, though, that this should not be an important point.

Second, and I feel more important, is the issue of encounter/quest balance vs. the capabilities of the various classes and builds. If S&B gets 10 or 20 or 30 DR above what everyone else gets, there will have to be enemies that hit hard enough to still be a threat to these characters. Where, then, does everyone else fall? The unarmored types will be getting hit hard when they do get hit, and that is fine because it should be infrequent, but casters and clerics will suddenly be facing even more incoming damage than they were dealing with previously. Casters are already squishy, and already have a difficult time staying alive (good players can mitigate this with skillful play, but that holds true for any class, and is not a point on which to base gameplay mechanics), and increasing monster damage, even if only for particular encounters, will make their job tougher and their lives shorter.

Neither of these points should serve to dissuade discussion down this line of thinking, as I feel that this can be an effective altnernative to inflating AC further, but these are things to keep in mind and address.


As for implementation, I'd go with either reworking the Shield Mastery feats, or adding a new feat with a BAB requirement of around +12 that grants passive DR when using a shield, and improved DR when blocking with a shield, so that there will be reason to block on occasion. Regrading numbers, I don't know whether it should be based on level, an attribute, the shield itself or something else.

[Enochroot]

Second, and I feel more important, is the issue of encounter/quest balance vs. the capabilities of the various classes and builds. If S&B gets 10 or 20 or 30 DR above what everyone else gets, there will have to be enemies that hit hard enough to still be a threat to these characters. Where, then, does everyone else fall? The unarmored types will be getting hit hard when they do get hit, and that is fine because it should be infrequent, but casters and clerics will suddenly be facing even more incoming damage than they were dealing with previously. Casters are already squishy, and already have a difficult time staying alive (good players can mitigate this with skillful play, but that holds true for any class, and is not a point on which to base gameplay mechanics), and increasing monster damage, even if only for particular encounters, will make their job tougher and their lives shorter.

What are you talking about? Just match the DR range near with what the monsters currently hit at. No problem. Why would you change what the monsters hit at if you implement DR for S+B?

Seems like this is a pretty huge deviation though and we're just making up something to D+D?

[esoitl]

Seph, you're pretty close on the relevance of S&B AC. I have one at level 12 and to that point he hardly got hit. Now it's starting to fade and getting worse, although the new PrEs will boost that to a likely relevant number again, we'll see. I haven't all the gear yet either for him so it's hard to tell but then again, it's hard to get all the gear needed.

As to the OP. No, and I'll disagree every time with the change AC to DR and the reason is the whole idea behind AC.

It all stems from the question, what is AC? Some people may not even understand what the numbers mean. AC is a measure of how hard it is to land a damaging blow on an opponent according to the D&D 3.5 PH. Donning armour essentially means that many blows will be absorbed or deflected and hence you get a higher AC. Rolling below a targets AC doesn't mean that you miss the target, it means that the blow merely did not land in a damaging manner. That means you may have missed, may have clanked off a shield, may have just smashed into a plate and didn't pierce deep enough.

This is why the DR just doesn't work. Think of how many sources of DR there are in the game. Very few. We get a magical DR, Adamantine, WF DR, Barbarian DR. Adding an armour DR just doesn't fit in in my opinion and would start to break the DR's currently implemented.

[branmakmuffin]

This is why the DR just doesn't work. Think of how many sources of DR there are in the game. Very few. We get a magical DR, Adamantine, WF DR, Barbarian DR. Adding an armour DR just doesn't fit in in my opinion and would start to break the DR's currently implemented.

Unfortunately, (A)D&D went with the extremely abstract "armor class" rather than the somewhat less abstract "damage resistance" or "armor points" of games like RuneQuest and GURPS. In D&D, DR is hefty because it's essentially double protection from the armor (for all the reasons you note).

As you point out, twiddling too much with DR has too much potential for messing up a lot of stuff.

[sephiroth1084]

It all stems from the question, what is AC? Some people may not even understand what the numbers mean. AC is a measure of how hard it is to land a damaging blow on an opponent according to the D&D 3.5 PH. Donning armour essentially means that many blows will be absorbed or deflected and hence you get a higher AC. Rolling below a targets AC doesn't mean that you miss the target, it means that the blow merely did not land in a damaging manner. That means you may have missed, may have clanked off a shield, may have just smashed into a plate and didn't pierce deep enough.

.

While I agree about the abstract nature of AC, and its intent, the mechanics have spiraled outward somewhat from that initial meaning/definition of AC, and now encompass both AC and DR, and their in-game effects differ from their flavor. Ignoring that these have deviated doesn't help address issues with the game currently.

In my PnP game I differentiate between the various factors of AC with differing descriptions (it clanged off your shield, was stopped by the holy aura about you, slipped just before the blow would have hit, etc...). That's for flavor. The fact is, we have DR in the game and have to address it.

[Kromize]

I like this concept of it, and always thought it should be this way...but...

For this to be implemented, I think it would be more of a complete game revamp. Full plate wont give as much ac, but dr...adamantine will greatly increase the dr, as well as the magical bonus(+). To balance these out so they work effectively at all levels is difficult. And then you have to make balance between dr and ac for ight and medium armor as well. They would have to make a steady balance so it worked well for low and high levels, as well as to make medium armor effective, and of course, mithral. What will happen to the mithral fullplate? How would they balance that and the other medium armor?

It will be a difficult process indeed. One that should be taken immediately.

Oh. I think there are 3 basics to "armor class" that should be taken into note. Dodging attacks, blocking attacks(and reducing the damage of course...), and in between, you block it away as you dodge. An important factor here is, the higher they surpass your ac with their attack roll, the more damage they do. So...spec for high dodge, if you do get hit, you get hit hard..spec for dr, you will get hit, but it won't hurt much...in between, you won't get hit as much, but you won't shrug off as much either.

[Angelus_dead]

For this to be implemented, I think it would be more of a complete game revamp.

Yes, a change like that would mean redesigning all melee balance from a the ground up. That's why it shouldn't be done: If the devs were willing to do that kind of effort, they'd be able to rebalance the AC system without switching to a non-AC system.

[RavenStormclaw]

Seph, you're pretty close on the relevance of S&B AC. I have one at level 12 and to that point he hardly got hit. Now it's starting to fade and getting worse, although the new PrEs will boost that to a likely relevant number again, we'll see. I haven't all the gear yet either for him so it's hard to tell but then again, it's hard to get all the gear needed.

As to the OP. No, and I'll disagree every time with the change AC to DR and the reason is the whole idea behind AC.

It all stems from the question, what is AC? Some people may not even understand what the numbers mean. AC is a measure of how hard it is to land a damaging blow on an opponent according to the D&D 3.5 PH. Donning armour essentially means that many blows will be absorbed or deflected and hence you get a higher AC. Rolling below a targets AC doesn't mean that you miss the target, it means that the blow merely did not land in a damaging manner. That means you may have missed, may have clanked off a shield, may have just smashed into a plate and didn't pierce deep enough.

This is why the DR just doesn't work. Think of how many sources of DR there are in the game. Very few. We get a magical DR, Adamantine, WF DR, Barbarian DR. Adding an armour DR just doesn't fit in in my opinion and would start to break the DR's currently implemented.

While I respect your opinion I highlighted in red where you went horribly wrong with your argument. This is DDO based on 3.5 but in no way limited to or bound by it. The 3.5 rules have been consistently and regulary abandoned when dealing with DDO. Look at the massive to hit bonuses and hit points mobs have (well above 3.5 standards) or the players progressive increase to hit as the weapons chains deepend as opposed to the way it should be which is diminishing. To use 3.5 as the sole basis of your argument is, sadly, not realistic.

In the system that we have today wear a robe wearing ranger/monk splash can get a higher AC then a fighter clad in fullplate is simply ridiculous. It has to be fixed. It should be fixed. However, there is no viable way to fix the AC problem without a major game overhaul or some major nerfs. I advocate neither of those.

I do advocate something to help Sword and Board. Like it or not they need help. They lack DPS compared to TWF, they lack AC compared to some of the same TWF, They give up usefull feats like evasion to avoid the numerous AoE spells at end game. They give up all of the to what wear armor that doesn't even benefit them as much as not wearing armor. Seems all fullplate in the game should be sold and be done with it. Or we can actually discuss one of the few, if not only means, currently avaiable that doesn't involved a major nerf or rewriting of the basic game code , which is balancing things out by changing DR. Yes it shoudl be reflected in AC but, frankly, you and I both know its not.

[TFPAQ]

Just my 2 cps worth, but since we already have stone skin which is essentially a DR available to everyone with a friendly caster, I don't see where a bunch of you are saying that making a change to s&b to include "stoneskin" basically for the melees is game breaking or requires dramatic changes in game mechanics.

A_D, your thoughts (I know you have one ...)

[JobeTheMan]

Rits and crafting for shields and armor that enhace DR, with level requirements for item with X rit on it, and ability to improve upon that rit at later levels.

If you concentrate on shields and Heavy armor for this idea, it'll bring back the usefullness of S&B. BArbs would still have THIER DR, WF would still have THIER DR, and WF barbs would have both. The two together, if made equal to a S&B with his shield and heavy armor, would keep the usefullness of both S&B and WF barbs... Then you have just barbs, with 1/2 that DR, and evasion tanks with hvy shields, who also would have 1/2 that DR. It seems it would all balance out!

Love the DR for S&B concept. Would save my Pally.

[Vorn]

Sounds like the old Iron Crown Arms Law/Role Master (though it played like Roll Master--dang that system had a lot of dice rolling) system is being suggested. While and interesting concept, it may be too far a departure from D&D. It's not only the intellectual concept of what AC actually is, it's a combination of AC, DR, and, Fortification, the last of which could, imho, use some rethinking about how it's implemented and what the max % of protection ought to be, not only for PC's but also for NPC's.

[esoitl]

While I respect your opinion I highlighted in red where you went horribly wrong with your argument. This is DDO based on 3.5 but in no way limited to or bound by it. The 3.5 rules have been consistently and regulary abandoned when dealing with DDO. Look at the massive to hit bonuses and hit points mobs have (well above 3.5 standards) or the players progressive increase to hit as the weapons chains deepend as opposed to the way it should be which is diminishing. To use 3.5 as the sole basis of your argument is, sadly, not realistic.

In the system that we have today wear a robe wearing ranger/monk splash can get a higher AC then a fighter clad in fullplate is simply ridiculous. It has to be fixed. It should be fixed. However, there is no viable way to fix the AC problem without a major game overhaul or some major nerfs. I advocate neither of those.

I do advocate something to help Sword and Board. Like it or not they need help. They lack DPS compared to TWF, they lack AC compared to some of the same TWF, They give up usefull feats like evasion to avoid the numerous AoE spells at end game. They give up all of the to what wear armor that doesn't even benefit them as much as not wearing armor. Seems all fullplate in the game should be sold and be done with it. Or we can actually discuss one of the few, if not only means, currently avaiable that doesn't involved a major nerf or rewriting of the basic game code , which is balancing things out by changing DR. Yes it shoudl be reflected in AC but, frankly, you and I both know its not.

Actually I could have used any D&D Handbook I liked. It's been the same concept ever since I started playing using the original books.

In red, you're not understanding it yet again. I tried to use the quote I did because it encompasses both 'types' of AC if you will. I'll quote again: AC represents how hard it is for an opponent to land a damaging blow.
I'll break down the two examples to hopefully make this clearer.
A) Heavy Armour with Shield giving a 70AC: This is a Fighter that has hunkered themselves down in metal. They have suffered mobility for the downright ability to stand and deliver.
Why is this characters AC high? Because getting through that much metal is a very difficult task. No armour is however impervious to all attacks and since it has these weaknesses some blows will find their way through the armour and damage it's wearer.

B) Monk/Ranger splash 70AC: This is the ultimate in finesse. Such a character cares not for wearing any sort of protection but will rely on their own wits and ability to avoid needing protection.
Why is this characters AC high? You can't hit something that isn't there and this character is just never there. Having the insight(WIS bonus) as to where an opponent will strike and the ability(DEX bonus) to not be there allows this type of warrior to essentially avoid ever being hit.

Does that make sense?
I mentioned before, every roll that falls below AC doesn't mean that the attack totally missed. In case A maybe 90% of those blows just clanked off the armour or the shield of the wearer. Armour DR was never a part of D&D as the system they introduced worked off of this principle so while using that system, adding an armour DR seems to be combining two different systems and adding far too much a bonus for donning a set of platemail.

Look at how example B gets such an AC from above. A big chunk comes from stats which we can skyrocket through the abundance of very powerful items and the enhancement system they put in place. They can get a massive chunk from items(+10 dodge, +4 insight, +8 armour). Would a live DM ever allow someone to flesh this out? No, hell no, but it's the problem with these types of games.... the dev team has to put these type items in the game or it just becomes a bore. The system is massively unbalanced towards the Ranger/Monk splash at the moment because of the items introduced and enhancements available. When the armour bracers in the game almost equal the base value of Full Plate and you give an item with +4 dodge and allow full stat bonuses, you're stacking everything to one side.
What would really help sword and shield Fighters match ACs would be to add in some items to tip the scales. Give them something where they can actually get a decent bonus to their AC like the Ranger/Monk has been given, introduce their PrE lines to help them out, try to introduce powerful but not unbalanced items.
Revamping the while system at this point is probably counter-productive.

[RavenStormclaw]

Actually I could have used any D&D Handbook I liked. It's been the same concept ever since I started playing using the original books.

In red, you're not understanding it yet again. I tried to use the quote I did because it encompasses both 'types' of AC if you will. I'll quote again: AC represents how hard it is for an opponent to land a damaging blow.
I'll break down the two examples to hopefully make this clearer.
A) Heavy Armour with Shield giving a 70AC: This is a Fighter that has hunkered themselves down in metal. They have suffered mobility for the downright ability to stand and deliver.
Why is this characters AC high? Because getting through that much metal is a very difficult task. No armour is however impervious to all attacks and since it has these weaknesses some blows will find their way through the armour and damage it's wearer.

B) Monk/Ranger splash 70AC: This is the ultimate in finesse. Such a character cares not for wearing any sort of protection but will rely on their own wits and ability to avoid needing protection.
Why is this characters AC high? You can't hit something that isn't there and this character is just never there. Having the insight(WIS bonus) as to where an opponent will strike and the ability(DEX bonus) to not be there allows this type of warrior to essentially avoid ever being hit.

Does that make sense?
I mentioned before, every roll that falls below AC doesn't mean that the attack totally missed. In case A maybe 90% of those blows just clanked off the armour or the shield of the wearer. Armour DR was never a part of D&D as the system they introduced worked off of this principle so while using that system, adding an armour DR seems to be combining two different systems and adding far too much a bonus for donning a set of platemail.

Look at how example B gets such an AC from above. A big chunk comes from stats which we can skyrocket through the abundance of very powerful items and the enhancement system they put in place. They can get a massive chunk from items(+10 dodge, +4 insight, +8 armour). Would a live DM ever allow someone to flesh this out? No, hell no, but it's the problem with these types of games.... the dev team has to put these type items in the game or it just becomes a bore. The system is massively unbalanced towards the Ranger/Monk splash at the moment because of the items introduced and enhancements available. When the armour bracers in the game almost equal the base value of Full Plate and you give an item with +4 dodge and allow full stat bonuses, you're stacking everything to one side.
What would really help sword and shield Fighters match ACs would be to add in some items to tip the scales. Give them something where they can actually get a decent bonus to their AC like the Ranger/Monk has been given, introduce their PrE lines to help them out, try to introduce powerful but not unbalanced items.
Revamping the while system at this point is probably counter-productive.

Sigh.... I understood it the first time. I understood it the second time. However, this is DDO not DnD and for the very reasons you have stated there is a problem. Monk/ranger can have a AC equal to a Sword and Board but it should not be as superior as it currently is in DDO. That is what needs to be fixed in case you didn't understand. Fix the glaring gap between the two and I could live with that. I would accpet some major changes to shield Ac bonus in conjuction with DR changes as well. To put it simply: the game is unbalanced in favor of one type build and needs to be fixed. Like it or not my suggestion is a vialbe method to fix it. You don't like it... fine you've made your point however that makes it no less wrong.

[Angelus_dead]

Problem: If you just boost the amount of damage reduction on plate/shield to make it sigifincant and vialbe at endgame you will essentially make Sword and Board invulnerable at low levels. Not a good idea either.

Balance is the key. This key componet still eludes me. Suggestions/discussion appreciated.

If you really wanted to pursue that (which I don't recommend for DDO), your path would be to give heavier armors a percentage absorption of physical damage.

[Ralmeth]

Sounds like a good idea. I like it. For example, I always thought that the shield mastery feats should provide DR passively, with perhaps a higher shield blocking DR, such as 3DR passively and 5DR if shield blocking. On top of this, I like your idea that heavier armor provides a base, passive DR.

The other thing that S&B needs is higher DPS. For a long time I ran a S&B Pally, and recently got into a TWF tempest ranger. It's utterly amazing to me how much more power TWF is. To increase S&B, and perhaps these would require feats, but it would be nice if on S&B you could, or have a feat that would.

-Shield parry & riposte:
If you successfully block an opponent's attack with your shield, this should give you a bonus to hit on your counterattack, or riposte (i.e. on your next attack on whomever attacked you). Perhaps this would be passive and anyone fighting S&B would have their DPS increased a bit.

-Shield knock down / knock back:
It would be nice if you could knock down or knock back an opponent with your shield and would act a bit like trip or stunning blow. First, you would knock an opponent with your shield and then be given a bonus to hit and damage on your next attack against that opponent as they would be temporarily stunned. Maybe this could take place of shield bash, which at the moment has an annoying grunt and does little damage.

[QuantumFX]

OP: If you wanted to persue it more there is a DR option for armor in the PHB II. Though to make it work in DDO you would need to make a few adjustments.

Off the top of my head:
- You’d have to use both systems in tandem as DR doesn’t scale as well in DDO as it does in P&P.
- You’d want to make the DR equal the Armor Bonus + Enchantment bonus and stack with any other DR’s available.
- You’d have to not let Mage Armor/Armor Braciers not give any DR to be fair.
- And you’d need to find a way to make wearing heavy (by Proficiency not weight class) armor painful for barbarians to wear. (Otherwise DR Barbs would be the enevitable FotM build from this.)

[dopey69]

I gotta say Aesop all very good and easily implemented too.how's about shields that actually deflect some of the attackers damage numbers back towards him ? would have to up a s/b numbers

[Aesop]

I gotta say Aesop all very good and easily implemented too.how's about shields that actually deflect some of the attackers damage numbers back towards him ? would have to up a s/b numbers

I actually had that as an idea for Improved Shield Bash. Applying the Damage Blocked as a sort of Guard Damage to the attacker... but people had some trouble with the flavor... so I just made ISB add an extra Shield Bash

Aesop

[Missing_Minds]

The idea is interesting, but I feel it should also be expensive. Why? Barbs are the only class that get DR/-. Why should any random meleer be able to get that? Answer, none.. no balance. (yes, I know this is DDO and not PnP but bare with me for now.)

WF can get DR/adamantine if they so desire. At the coast of feats. They can get DR 3/ad. They can increase this by 1 every 3 levels via a feat.

There is full plate out there out of... tempest spine, plate mail of the giants or some such that grants DR 5/-.

So.. if you want to increase your DR, I'm going to say it is going to cost you a feat. And realistically, it should also require Combat Expertise. Why? CE increases your AC, DR helps to reduce the damage you take. So it makes sense that if you know how to take a hit, you'll take less damage. I'd also make the feat part of the bonus feats able to take as a fighter.