I have been an advocit for removing maximum dexterity limit for a proficient user. This will make armor more worth taking at higher levels, where it would be better to just get a monks belt, with bracers of armor 8 with +5 enhancement bonuses, and a monks belt. It seems like to me that armor becomes more of a hindrance than a bonus sense you could get a 2nd stat bonus to their AC if they don't wear armor at all.
I understand that maybe this isn't something that one would start out with, but maybe add it to the progression of leveling? Or a feat that anyone could take at maybe level 10? But please have it be 1 feat, not a feat chain.
the fighter almost has this with his armor training already
...and this is a great incentive to keep the fighter class as the undisputed master of wearing armor effectively. I disagree with the OP. There is already at least one other method to allow this, mithril armor. I don't think we need anything more, although maybe a feat allowing an additional +1 wouldn't be bad. I'm all for nostalgia, but with the advent of armor training, I believe I actually like the place that max Dex bonus now holds in the game.
Yeah, on the realism scale, while I agree with another Threads comments on encumbrance and speed (that armor should decress the run multiplier, but not the actual land speed) I also agree that Max Dex is a very real thing.
Finesse is buggered by heavy armor. Precision, no, but precision is not finesse. You can hit what you aim at, but thats because you take into account the armor's weight. Finesse is actively repositioning an attack while making it, which is hard enough to do normally, and even harder in armor.
Maybe it just makes sense to me, maybe its the sort of things that you have to "experience to understand" but all I can say is that I understand it.
I'm against this because everyone would have full-plate. It just doesn't work.....
I thought Armor Training gave a benefit along those lines already. Also, I've never had a problem with this, and if you remove the maximum dexterity bonus from armor, you get weird situations like archers in full plate.
There is also the simulationist angle on it. Have you ever worn heavy armor? I [u]have[/u], and it is harder to dodge stuff in heavy armor.
Wearing armor can have nothing to do with archery. I have seen a number of heavily armored archers in Japaneses movies, and in history channel shows.
______________________
Here is another idea. How about an armor minus to dexterity counted. If they are proficient, the armor can't drop the bonus from dexdarty below 0 or 1.
That way if you are extremely dexterous then you show it. If you get special training, like from a class or a feat, that minus is reduced.
"Here is another idea. How about an armor minus to dexterity counted. If they are proficient, the armor can't drop the bonus from dexdarty below 0 or 1."
huh? I'm sorry, but I have no idea what you mean here. There are no armors I can think of that have a max dex of less than 0, and the maximum dexterity bonus only counts for your dexterity bonus to AC, not your dexterity bonus to other things (initiative, ranged attacks, etc). It is just atypical for someone to wear armor that won't allow them their full dexterity mod to AC, as touch AC is more valuable than full AC.
Also, to my knowledge, Japan was never big on anything we would classify as 'heavy armor', so if you would care to cite your sources on that?
Well lets say that you have Heavy Full plate armor. Instead of getting a max dexterity of 1, instead you take a -3 to the armor your dexterity by the use of a feat. If you are proficient in the armor the lowest it could be dropped to is 1 AC from dexterity, if your not, it could go into the negatives. Now if you have mithral full plate, it would minimum AC you get with dex to 3, and reduce to minus to -1. So if you have a dex of 20, which grants a +5, You use normal full plate, and you have said feat, it would give you an AC of 2 from dex. If you have mithral full plate instead it would be 4 AC from dex instead.
OK here is an idea.
Dexterus Armor Use
Requirment: Base Attack +5,
Special: Only effective if you are proficient in the armor you are using.
Your focus on utilizing dexterity in combat has granted you better use of it in armor. If the wearer wishes they may now use these alternate rules while wearing armor. While wearing armor instead of taking being restricted by the max dexterity you take a -1 with light armor, -2 with medium armor, and -3 with heavy armor, to the AC granted by your dexterity. Effects that increase maximum dexterity instead remove the minuses the armor grants by the same amount.
_________________
Not sure if maybe it needs to be -2, -3, and -4. But this is the general idea.
Maybe this could also be a weapon enhancement, but personally, I would wish this would be the standard.
In Monte Cook's BoEM II there is this armor special ability:
Grace: This armor is flexible and easier than normal to move and stretch within. It has no maximum Dexterity bonus.
Caster Level: 5th; Prerequisites: Craft Magical Arms and Armor, cat’s grace; Market Price: +1 bonus
"If the wearer wishes they may now use these alternate rules"
This is a line that should never be part of a feat. Just houserule it the way you want and be done with it. If you really want a feat, it should be more like this:
What if they get a great deal of dexterity damage and they would end up getting a higher bonus by the original rules? Yes the sentence is needed. I can't house rule anything because I don't have the time run one. I just don't see why the current rules on max dexterity should even go on.
In Monte Cook's BoEM II there is this armor special ability:
Grace: This armor is flexible and easier than normal to move and stretch within. It has no maximum Dexterity bonus.
Caster Level: 5th; Prerequisites: Craft Magical Arms and Armor, cat’s grace; Market Price: +1 bonus
Sorry but what is BoEM? Is it WotC or Pathfinder?
|
Sorry but what is BoEM? Is it WotC or Pathfinder?In Monte Cook's BoEM II there is this armor special ability:
Grace: This armor is flexible and easier than normal to move and stretch within. It has no maximum Dexterity bonus.
Caster Level: 5th; Prerequisites: Craft Magical Arms and Armor, cat’s grace; Market Price: +1 bonus
Neither. It's the Book of Experimental Might, by Monte Cook's Malhavoc Press.
Neither. It's the Book of Experimental Might, by Monte Cook's Malhavoc Press.Sorry but what is BoEM? Is it WotC or Pathfinder?In Monte Cook's BoEM II there is this armor special ability:
Grace: This armor is flexible and easier than normal to move and stretch within. It has no maximum Dexterity bonus.
Caster Level: 5th; Prerequisites: Craft Magical Arms and Armor, cat’s grace; Market Price: +1 bonus
Then why would my GM accept that as is? A lot of those books were made with pretty little rules not caring about balance to get people to buy them.
"What if they get a great deal of dexterity damage and they would end up getting a higher bonus by the original rules?"
That is not even possible by the current rules. Are you sure you understand how the armor and max. dex. bonus applies? I seriously doubt you would have a problem with it if you did.
Poisons, and natural attacks have been found to reduce your dexterity, as well as the effects from the Pathfinder Critical hit deck. Maybe you don't understand combat as well as you think you do.
But it is not possible for a reduced dexterity to improve your AC. I am aware that effects can reduce your dexterity, but there is no way under the current rules for a reduced dexterity to improve your AC. I highly recommend you re-read the rules on that you are trying to get changed before you dig yourself any deeper.
Maybe we are on the wrong page, with the feat as I written it instead of taking a max dex bonus limit, they get a dex minus to AC. So if their dex drops below 10, then they would have the minus from the new feat, and the stat being below 10, which they didn't have the feat, they would only have the minus for their dex being below 10. So sense you don't like the language this can be fix easily.
Dexterus Armor Use
Requirment: Base Attack +5, Dexterity 12
Special: Only effective if you are proficient in the armor you are using.
Your focus on utilizing dexterity in combat has granted you better use of it in armor. While wearing armor instead of taking being restricted by the max dexterity you take a -1 with light armor, -2 with medium armor, and -3 with heavy armor, to the AC granted by your dexterity. Effects that increase maximum dexterity instead remove the minuses the armor grants by the same amount.
Special: Only effective if you are proficient in the armor you are using. If at any point this feat causes a worse armor class than it would have with out this feat (such as their dexterity dropping below 12), the feat no longer remains in effect.
...and this is a great incentive to keep the fighter class as the undisputed master of wearing armor effectively. I disagree with the OP. There is already at least one other method to allow this, mithril armor. I don't think we need anything more, although maybe a feat allowing an additional +1 wouldn't be bad. I'm all for nostalgia, but with the advent of armor training, I believe I actually like the place that max Dex bonus now holds in the game.
Well, since we have Weapon Specialization, why not have Armor Specialization? An additional feat characters can take that would improve there AC bonus, Max DEX bonus, and armor check penalty to one type of armor they are already proficient with (light, med, or heavy). It would probably be no more than a 1 point improvement, but a 1 point to all three categories would still be significant enough to make it an attactive feat worth taking.
When 3E first came out, I hated the fact armor now had a max DEX bonus and an armor check penalty. But, I realize it does bring a touch of realism to the game, and it hasn't been an entirely horrible thing. In a 2E game, I saw a character perform a backflip, from a standing position, wearing a 50 pound suit of bronze plate mail armor?! Now, while that looked cool, it was hardly realistic.
DogBone
P.S. Take heart Sir Hexen, I understood what you meant be a max DEX penalty. Might be worth play-testing, just to see how it works.
I like having it rolled into armor training. That way your max Dex gradually improves, but only for fighters. That's really cool, in my book.
Then why would my GM accept that as is? A lot of those books were made with pretty little rules not caring about balance to get people to buy them.Neither. It's the Book of Experimental Might, by Monte Cook's Malhavoc Press.Sorry but what is BoEM? Is it WotC or Pathfinder?In Monte Cook's BoEM II there is this armor special ability:
Grace: This armor is flexible and easier than normal to move and stretch within. It has no maximum Dexterity bonus.
Caster Level: 5th; Prerequisites: Craft Magical Arms and Armor, cat’s grace; Market Price: +1 bonus
Well Monte Cook did write the 3.0 DMG and is a rules consultant for the new Pathfinder RPG. He's kind of a 3.x rules guru.
Besides that I personally find the special ability a little too good and would make the market price at least a +2 bonus.
Lets not get into a discussion about plate armor and how easy it was or wasn't to wear. Professional Historians argue that point, with some citing examples of knight unable to stand up when knocked down wearing full plare, and others citing examples of knights in full armor doing acrobatics.
Lets stick with one of the other heavy armors, which people don't disagree on sucking- like splint mail.
I prefer a feat to improve the existing numbers rather than creating a new mechanic, so just a +3 max dex for light, +2 for medium, and +1 for heavy would mirror what you are trying to do without introducing what is in my opinion an awkward mechanic.
That would also make it stack well with the Armor Training class feature. I think your version, in addition to being awkward, is overly powerful for one feat, it should take one feat to improve the max dex, and two to remove it (or improve it to the point that it is effectively removed).
That and I like the idea of a feat tree to allow you to use 'light armor' class features in medium and heavy armor.
Sorry but your system doesn't make sense. The more dexterous you are the more maneuverable you are in any armor, there is no cap. Adding this possibility reducing the bonus you get, means that they still get a bonus and leaves the game much more open to things like a person in full plate dual wielding weapons even.
This will make armor more worth taking at higher levels, where it would be better to just get a monks belt, with bracers of armor 8 with +5 enhancement bonuses. It seems like to me that armor becomes more of a hindrance than a bonus sense you could get a 2nd stat bonus to their AC if they don't wear armor at all.
Hey Hexen - I just wanted to point out that for Pathfinder, the Monk's "Belt" has been replaced with the Monk's "Robe", which explicitly states that you do not get the Monk Wisdom bonus to AC (it was a DM choice in 3.5 basically).
I'm not sure what you meant by +5 enhancement bonuses - you can't put an enhancement bonus (that I know of) on Bracers of Armor.
Otherwise, I know exactly what you mean (darn clerics with bracers and 50 AC).
|
|
I'm going to hop in here for a moment...
The designers weren't sure about whether or not to include the Max Dex in 3.0, but they decided to do so. Before deciding whether it should go or not, I think we need to look at why that decision was made.
Basically, they didn't want everyone to wear Full Plate. If it provides the best armor bonus and has no other drawback, everyone will use it.
Now, if you want a game where a rogue with a 20 Dex has a better AC than a Fighter with a 10 Dex wearing the same armor, you would want to rule it away.
However, the rules aren't particularly good since not every creature is a 'human' or 'humanlike'. If one can imagine armor plating designed for a snake, does it make sense that it would limit their dexterity? I suppose it would depend on the design, but the rules only give us a few types to choose from, mostly based on the material...
I think there are some good arguments for removing the Max Dex from the game, but I don't think they are convincing since they don't deal with the real reason - a limitation based on maintaining game balance.
This will make armor more worth taking at higher levels, where it would be better to just get a monks belt, with bracers of armor 8 with +5 enhancement bonuses. It seems like to me that armor becomes more of a hindrance than a bonus sense you could get a 2nd stat bonus to their AC if they don't wear armor at all.Hey Hexen - I just wanted to point out that for Pathfinder, the Monk's "Belt" has been replaced with the Monk's "Robe", which explicitly states that you do not get the Monk Wisdom bonus to AC (it was a DM choice in 3.5 basically).
I'm not sure what you meant by +5 enhancement bonuses - you can't put an enhancement bonus (that I know of) on Bracers of Armor.
Otherwise, I know exactly what you mean (darn clerics with bracers and 50 AC).
Well I didn't know that they changed the monk's belt. Thats good that they did that. Many GMs that I have had said that anything that grants an armor bonus can get + enhancement bonuses.
Note I have modified from the OP that depending on the armor should with a feat or magic effect, grant a minus to the bonus their dex grants.
I'm going to hop in here for a moment...
The designers weren't sure about whether or not to include the Max Dex in 3.0, but they decided to do so. Before deciding whether it should go or not, I think we need to look at why that decision was made.
Basically, they didn't want everyone to wear Full Plate. If it provides the best armor bonus and has no other drawback, everyone will use it.
Now, if you want a game where a rogue with a 20 Dex has a better AC than a Fighter with a 10 Dex wearing the same armor, you would want to rule it away.
However, the rules aren't particularly good since not every creature is a 'human' or 'humanlike'. If one can imagine armor plating designed for a snake, does it make sense that it would limit their dexterity? I suppose it would depend on the design, but the rules only give us a few types to choose from, mostly based on the material...
I think there are some good arguments for removing the Max Dex from the game, but I don't think they are convincing since they don't deal with the real reason - a limitation based on maintaining game balance.
I have receded some things I have said. There has to be a negative for wearing heavy armor. As it is now, a rogue would still take the armor check penalty to a lot of his skills. But that is a penalty not a limit.
This will however, might also make getting armor proficiencies worth taking.
As things are, the Maximum Dexterity Bonus is a Maximum Dexterity Bonus to AC, and nothing else:
This restriction doesn't affect any other Dexterity-related abilities (such as Reflex saves and skill checks).
So it really comes down to dodging attacks.
|
I understand that maybe this isn't something that one would start out with, but maybe add it to the progression of leveling? Or a feat that anyone could take at maybe level 10? But please have it be 1 feat, not a feat chain.
How'd this work out in your playtest? I'm especially curious the backward compatibility with armor-wearing NPCs and adjusting their stats.