BtH-based bonuses to AC and Damage

[dungeon master]

Happy New Year!

So, I've just started GMing my first C&C campaign, using some characters that were originally AD&D 2ed. I'm the kind of person that likes to change the rules to suit my game, and I thought I'd share with you some of the changes I have made. Why? No reason, really.

One of the more drastic changes was to give bonuses to AC and to damage equal to 1/2 BtH. This represents the character becoming better at defending himself and harming others as his fighting skill increases. Never really saw a reason why higher-level fighters didn't do more damage than low-level fighters.

The other major change is to reduce save bonuses to 1/2 level + ability mod + prime (which in my game adds +3, not +6). The challenge base is 15, not 18.

So far, everything is working out quite well, except that the players seem to be chewing through monsters without taking hardly a scratch. I even give the monsters full hp, but 7 PCs can dish out a lot of damage in a couple rounds. It's been fun though, and with a few small adjustments combat will become a bit more challenging.

[CharlieRock]

It seems to me you have added a rudimentary form of weapon mastery. But you think they characters are now too well defended for their current encounters. Do you give monsters some kind of compensative ability? Intelligent monsters should be just as good at defending themselves as equivalently leveled fighters. Like, a hill giant has probably gotten as good at blocking attacks with that tree he uses for a club as a 9th level cleric is at blocking with his mace (9HD d8 both). Or maybe this bonus AC isn't as effective against certain atacks or creatures. I could see a master fencer still having problems defending himself (via parry) from the swing of a giant's club. Whatever you decide to use (I could even see you just letting this ride as it makes more survivable heroes) it should be consistant.
_________________
The Rock says ...

Know your roll!

[Fizz]

I've been using a defense bonus too, but with fewer hit points after 1st level. It makes it a much grittier game- you really don't want to get pounded by that giant's club.

-Fizz

[serleran]

I would not give an AC bonus, in general, buf if I did it would certainly not be based on BtH, directly (that is, not equal to) - fighters would be untouchable: they already wear the best armors and have the best BtH. Instead, I would probably do something like Defense mod = 4 - BtH. This to reflect that higher-level characters start to rely on heavier armor, and they start to have access to low-end magic items, and, with the presumed cap of AC 30, helps limit the limit later rather than sooner. Obviously this benefits the wizard longer because they have the lowest BtH and the slowest progression, but they also have the worst ACs and worst HPs, making them reliant on magic items for defense. Monsters would not get this benefit, but I would probably have the party encounter 33% more creatures per encounter, if appropriate (ie, you can't encounter 2 of the same unique creature.)

As for damage bonuses... I would only have this kick in when a successful hit occurs, that hit was 4 or greater than needed, and then, it would result in an additional 1 point per 2 BtH. This would not apply to magical attacks such as spells. Monsters would get this benefit.

[Matthew]

I have also played around with this idea. With regards to the 'defence bonus', I think that it needs to overlap with armour or else you run the risk of inflating the numbers too much.

In the end I went with an 'alternative defences' idea, which you can read for Dungeons & Dragons here: Alternative Defences and which I slightly modified for Castles & Crusades and posted here: Shield Tweaks.

Increasing the damage a Fighter can do is directly analogous to the 1e Ranger's special ability and runs exactly the same risk, which is to say that it can be tremendously profitable to use Two Weapon Fighting in combination with it. Indeed, anything that multiplies your number of attacks will also multiply the damage potential. Personally, I am not inclined towards it.
_________________
It is a joyful thing indeed to hold intimate converse with a man after ones own heart, chatting without reserve about things of interest or the fleeting topics of the world; but such, alas, are few and far between.

Yoshida Kenko (1283-1350)

[Tadhg]

dungeon master wrote:
So far, everything is working out quite well, except that the players seem to be chewing through monsters without taking hardly a scratch. I even give the monsters full hp, but 7 PCs can dish out a lot of damage in a couple rounds. It's been fun though, and with a few small adjustments combat will become a bit more challenging.

Hehe, here's a very good point. I noticed this as well when our group went from 5 to 7 PCs. I definitely had to add more monsters and increase HPs and such to give the group a good challenge!
Welcome dungeon master to the Crusade!

Enjoy the game.

_________________
Count Rhuveinus - Lejendary Keeper of Castle Franqueforte

"Enjoy a 'world' where the fantastic is fact and magic really works!" ~ Gary Gygax

"By the pricking of my thumbs, Something wicked this way comes:" - Macbeth

[Fizz]

serleran wrote:
I would not give an AC bonus, in general, buf if I did it would certainly not be based on BtH, directly (that is, not equal to) - fighters would be untouchable: they already wear the best armors and have the best BtH.

Ah, true. I should have also mentioned that i use armor as damage reduction in conjuction with my defensive bonus. Armor doesn't make you any less easy to hit; it just reduces damage when you are.

-Fizz

[ThrorII]

I was considering the same thing. I am planning on running a low-magic game, without a lot of magic protection. I was planning on a static +1 AC for every 3-4 levels.

This would give a 3rd lvl character +1, 6th level +2, 9th lvl +3, and 12th lvl +4 to AC.

I'm still debating whether to give monsters bonuses based on HD, using the same criteria.

I agree that characters should become better at defending themselves as they become better in combat. I would personally prefer it to be based on a fraction of BtH, but wizards and thieves would get shafted then.

[ironbull]

Interesting ideas. From my perspective, I always thought characters did get better at defending themselves as they went up in level - that's why they have more hit points. As I see it, a 1st level fighter with 7 or 8 hit points can get killed by one good hit from a long sword. A fifth level fighter who starts with say 30 hit points is better at defening himself. Only once battered and worn down (i.e. when he gets to that same 7 or 8 hit points or so) can a good hit from a long sword kill him.

Fighters spend all their time and energy focusing on their fighting skills, hence the d10 for hit points. Wizards spend very little time on their fighting skills, hence the d4 for hit points. Seems to work for my campaign.

[Matthew]

ironbull wrote:
Interesting ideas. From my perspective, I always thought characters did get better at defending themselves as they went up in level - that's why they have more hit points.

Sure, and that's the usual counter argument to this suggestion. However, Hit Points are a finite and slowly regenerating resource, discounting magical healing for the moment. Whilst a Fighter with full Hit Points at the start of every combat can be said to be fully benefiting from his experience and skill, that same Fighter might be reduced to 1 HP and never regain more than a handful more over the course of a week, yet still be fully able to run marathons, bake cakes, etc...
_________________
It is a joyful thing indeed to hold intimate converse with a man after ones own heart, chatting without reserve about things of interest or the fleeting topics of the world; but such, alas, are few and far between.

Yoshida Kenko (1283-1350)

[dungeon master]

Yes, monsters also receive the 1/2 BtH bonus to damage. I haven't yet decided if they should receive an AC bonus, but perhaps I will for the sake of consistency.

Regarding higher level fighters having better armor, that is of course true. However, I am stingy with certain types of magic items, particularly stat-boosting items (meaning ability score, ac, attack, etc...). So, I think that the benefit of having a level-based bonus to AC will be diminished by the lack of +3 rings of protection and so on. At 12th-level, a fighter would gain a +6 damage bonus and a +6 AC bonus. Powerful, yes, but hopefully not unbalancing.

I have also considered giving monsters with Physical primes 1.5x HD for BtH. Don't yet fully know the ramifications, but that extra bonus could represent strength, as most higher HD creatures with Physical primes are large and strong.

[ironbull]

Matthew wrote:
Sure, and that's the usual counter argument to this suggestion. However, Hit Points are a finite and slowly regenerating resource, discounting magical healing for the moment. Whilst a Fighter with full Hit Points at the start of every combat can be said to be fully benefiting from his experience and skill, that same Fighter might be reduced to 1 HP and never regain more than a handful more over the course of a week, yet still be fully able to run marathons, bake cakes, etc...

You make a good point, Matthew. I wouldn't disagree with your take on that. I think what I'd do is house rule some way to allow hit points to recover quicker than 1 or 2 per day of rest.

Maybe allow recovery of hit points at 2 per day for the first week, then 5 per day for the second week, then 10 per day for the third. At the end of three weeks of rest, any character is back to his/her maximum hit points no matter how high that maximum total might be.

I may see about working out a house rule for my campaign to address this. Haven't given it much thought since the PCs are 2nd level and have an NPC cleric with them.

[Shinydemon]

I'm considering a parry action in my game, similar to what palladium does.

I haven't fully figured it out yet, but I think it will be a choice for the pc to split the BtH between to hit and parry then applying str to hit and dex to parry. Armor will still work if the parry fails. One downside I can see is combat might take longer, but I like long combats.

Jai
_________________
Beer is proof that god loves us and wants us to be happy.

[adaen]

This is a good thread in which a lot of interesting ground is being covered. The whole interconnectedness of hitpoints, combat ability (offensive and defensive), the role of armor, the treatment of Heroes (as either over monsters or as the same of monsters), grittiness level, the balancing of classes.

It is good to look at all of these things when creating/tweaking houserules and I'm really enjoying all the great ideas being raised.

Best,

~AoB
_________________
~Adaen of Bridgewater, www.highadventuregames.com

[Matthew]

dungeon master wrote:
Yes, monsters also receive the 1/2 BtH bonus to damage. I haven't yet decided if they should receive an AC bonus, but perhaps I will for the sake of consistency.

I wouldn't worry too much about the formula involved. Just give them whatever Bonus to Hit, Damage, Armour Class and Hit Points you think necessary to challenge the Player Characters.

dungeon master wrote:
Regarding higher level fighters having better armor, that is of course true. However, I am stingy with certain types of magic items, particularly stat-boosting items (meaning ability score, ac, attack, etc...). So, I think that the benefit of having a level-based bonus to AC will be diminished by the lack of +3 rings of protection and so on. At 12th-level, a fighter would gain a +6 damage bonus and a +6 AC bonus. Powerful, yes, but hopefully not unbalancing.

Sure, if your're replacing magical effects with class mechanics, then everything should work out fine.

dungeon master wrote:
I have also considered giving monsters with Physical primes 1.5x HD for BtH. Don't yet fully know the ramifications, but that extra bonus could represent strength, as most higher HD creatures with Physical primes are large and strong.

I guess this is preferential, but I wouldn't be inclined to use a specific formula beyond the base provided to calculate the appropriate combat prowess of a particular Monster.

ironbull wrote:
You make a good point, Matthew. I wouldn't disagree with your take on that. I think what I'd do is house rule some way to allow hit points to recover quicker than 1 or 2 per day of rest.

Maybe allow recovery of hit points at 2 per day for the first week, then 5 per day for the second week, then 10 per day for the third. At the end of three weeks of rest, any character is back to his/her maximum hit points no matter how high that maximum total might be.

I may see about working out a house rule for my campaign to address this. Haven't given it much thought since the PCs are 2nd level and have an NPC cleric with them.

Sounds like a fair way to handle it. I still prefer parallel defences, but that's to be expected.

Shinydemon wrote:
I'm considering a parry action in my game, similar to what palladium does.

I haven't fully figured it out yet, but I think it will be a choice for the pc to split the BtH between to hit and parry then applying str to hit and dex to parry. Armor will still work if the parry fails. One downside I can see is combat might take longer, but I like long combats.

Consider taking a look at the House Rules I linked to above. I have found them to work very well in practice for levels 1-6, though I haven't playtested them beyond that.

adaen wrote:
This is a good thread in which a lot of interesting ground is being covered. The whole interconnectedness of hitpoints, combat ability (offensive and defensive), the role of armor, the treatment of Heroes (as either over monsters or as the same of monsters), grittiness level, the balancing of classes.

It is good to look at all of these things when creating/tweaking houserules and I'm really enjoying all the great ideas being raised.

Yes, indeed, I agree.
_________________
It is a joyful thing indeed to hold intimate converse with a man after ones own heart, chatting without reserve about things of interest or the fleeting topics of the world; but such, alas, are few and far between.

Yoshida Kenko (1283-1350)