I always found it odd that you can make a character that has a -1 Dexterity mod, but there is no armor suited to them. There are also a rather limited number of armor types in general. The Armored skirt broadens this a bit, but actually makes the armors best suited for a -1 Dex character less so, not more so. With that in ming. I cooked up the following item.
I'm a bit confused, isn't this effectively just an armored skirt but worse? Or is the intent here specifically to have this apply to heavy armor for a +7 item bonus to AC and a Dex cap of -1?
Heavy armor is pretty specifically design to be capped at +6 item bonus.
I don't want to see anyone rewarded for deliberately building such a character to have -1 dex and getting around that design paradigm. Generally you can only achieve a -1 dex by choosing an ancestry that has a penalty to dex and then choosing not to increase dex ever.
IMO your homebrew here breaks design rules/paradigms.
I'm a bit confused, isn't this effectively just an armored skirt but worse? Or is the intent here specifically to have this apply to heavy armor for a +7 item bonus to AC and a Dex cap of -1?
Yes and yes.
Well, it's arguably not worse than an armored skirt, it just has different drawbacks. Notably, this doesn't increase the str requirement.
And it potentially has uses other than taking heavy armor to +7 w/ -1 dex cap. You could wear it in combination with padded armor to have a medium armor you can sleep in that doesn't depend on high dex to give a decent AC, for example. Quilted armor with heavy gambeson would give +3 with a +1 dex cap.
Heavy armor is pretty specifically design to be capped at +6 item bonus.
I don't want to see anyone rewarded for deliberately building such a character to have -1 dex and getting around that design paradigm. Generally you can only achieve a -1 dex by choosing an ancestry that has a penalty to dex and then choosing not to increase dex ever.
IMO your homebrew here breaks design rules/paradigms.
It seems odd to assert that -1 dex forcing an AC penalty no armor can offset is a "design paradigm" when there is (as you note) only one ancestry that can do so, and only when you don't increase dex. Why is it a "paradigm" that armor dex limits are never negative? Because they haven't done an armor that has one? They also don't do any heavy armors with a -5 move penalty, but the Armored Skirt allows that... a fact my Dex 0 Champion rather appreciates!
Allowing a net +6 to AC for characters with -1 Dex seems fair, and the other drawbacks of the armor mod hardly make it a "rewarding" option. It's almost certainly a side-grade at best. If anything I was thinking I made the drawbacks too harsh - as also pointed out above, it is generally a worse version of the Armored Skirt.
TBH I'm not as concerned about breaking paradigms, that's part of what homebrew is for, but I do agree that it's really cheap for what it does.
I feel something like this, something which heavily incentivizes going super all-in on strength and enabling someone to invest less in other abilities should cost more, at minimum. Different grades that increase in level, and cost, as your armor gains runes, for example. It could also possibly be an armor rune in and of itself, but given how competition for armor property runes isn't especially stiff I'm not sure that'd really adjust the opportunity cost of taking this as an option.
Yeah, the fair gold cost for the effect this gives is hard to assess. I put it higher than an Armored Skirt, which isn't much but is enough to be some obstacle at low levels, which are also the levels where the -1 dex would tend to be hardest to negate in any other way. I personally don't think the gold cost really matters much as long as it is high enough to be a significant expense for a starting character, and in any case the REAL cost is the downsides of using it (lower initiative, speed penalty that can not be offset via str).
A lot of the issue you raise re relative price for different armor types and rune levels seems a broad game flaw to me. For example, once you get your first rune, all weapons (from a normally free club to a 25gp backpack catapult) have the same cost - they are all just a "magic weapon". What's the point of all the weapons prices if they all just boil down to the cost of basic runes once you level up?
Precious material costs DO somewhat scale with item effectiveness, by being based on bulk. So maybe this would make more sense as a "precious material" type? It could be an actual material (precluding using other materials) or it could be noted as specifically not preventing the application of normal precious materials, since it is more of an "alternative construction" in the vein of a Sturdy Shield.
I'm a bit confused, isn't this effectively just an armored skirt but worse? Or is the intent here specifically to have this apply to heavy armor for a +7 item bonus to AC and a Dex cap of -1?Yes and yes.
Thank you for confirming. Given the stated effect and intent, it is my opinion that this is one of the few proposals I'd consider fundamentally unworkable.
Beyond the fact that this copies the function of an existing item, aims to negate a drawback that really shouldn't be negated (and is also extremely rare), and aims to negate this drawback in an extremely math-y way (what does a Dex cap of -1 even represent in-game?), the basic reason I'd veto this at my table is that this breaks the cap of AC you can get from armor of any kind, due to the way it buffs heavy armor. Even with the tremendous drawbacks of the ponderous and hindering traits, I could easily see every heavy armor-wearing PC take this item just to have even more AC than anyone else. I could see this becoming a serious problem on Champions and Guardians in particular, whose AC would become so high in combination with shields that hitting them at all could genuinely become difficult to the point of warping play. I'm not quite certain what to propose to fix this, since even if one were to take out the +1 to AC, an item designed purely to negate the drawbacks of a Dex flaw in my opinion is not an item that really needs to exist.
I'm a bit confused, isn't this effectively just an armored skirt but worse? Or is the intent here specifically to have this apply to heavy armor for a +7 item bonus to AC and a Dex cap of -1?Yes and yes.Thank you for confirming. Given the stated effect and intent, it is my opinion that this is one of the few proposals I'd consider fundamentally unworkable.
Beyond the fact that this copies the function of an existing item, aims to negate a drawback that really shouldn't be negated (and is also extremely rare), and aims to negate this drawback in an extremely math-y way (what does a Dex cap of -1 even represent in-game?), the basic reason I'd veto this at my table is that this breaks the cap of AC you can get from armor of any kind, due to the way it buffs heavy armor. Even with the tremendous drawbacks of the ponderous and hindering traits, I could easily see every heavy armor-wearing PC take this item just to have even more AC than anyone else. I could see this becoming a serious problem on Champions and Guardians in particular, whose AC would become so high in combination with shields that hitting them at all could genuinely become difficult to the point of warping play. I'm not quite certain what to propose to fix this, since even if one were to take out the +1 to AC, an item designed purely to negate the drawbacks of a Dex flaw in my opinion is not an item that really needs to exist.
I don't think the issue is the AC per se. We can intuit that they meant for the -1 dex cap to mean that you take -1 AC from DEX regardless of your DEX modifier, so even if you had +0 DEX you would subtract 1 from your AC if you were wearing plate armor with this modification. So in theory all this is doing is making it so -1 DEX characters can reach the same AC values as other chracters by translating that -1 AC into a different penalty.
The issue is more that STR characters already have a ton of incentive to dump DEX and DEX penalties are extremely rare - making it so Poppets are the best bang for your buck in terms of dumping a stat you're ignoring anyways with Bulwark is just really annoying. We generally don't want to give the player a reason to actively seek out a penalty because it narrows down choices in ancestry way too much, and it's just so much worse when only one ancestry offers this as an option and that ancestry's aesthetics clash with most players' fantasy for a heavy armor user.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I’d say that if we’re assuming this item is giving you both a +7 and a -1 to your AC automatically, that too is a non-starter: at that point, you’re not really presenting a coherent player option so much as just an expedient bit of math to min-max your character, and so in a game that is generally neither about min-maxing nor about disconnecting flavor from function. I very much agree with you that on top of this, we shouldn’t be looking to negate important character flaws, at least not with such minor item options. If a class’s core features let you negate the downsides of a Dexterity flaw, just as the Thief Rogue lets you dump Strength for Strike damage, then that could be acceptable if it makes sense, but this is an item that practically anyone could equip.
I don't think the issue is the AC per se. We can intuit that they meant for the -1 dex cap to mean that you take -1 AC from DEX regardless of your DEX modifier, so even if you had +0 DEX you would subtract 1 from your AC if you were wearing plate armor with this modification. So in theory all this is doing is making it so -1 DEX characters can reach the same AC values as other chracters by translating that -1 AC into a different penalty.
You are correct in what the net effect is; the effect of a -1 dex cap follows logically from the dex cap rules and the fact that it is possible to have a -1 dex. Hence this item can never give you a better AC than the existing armor can, it just lets you get the same AC with a lower Dex, at an unavoidable cost to movement and initiative.
The issue is more that STR characters already have a ton of incentive to dump DEX and DEX penalties are extremely rare - making it so Poppets are the best bang for your buck in terms of dumping a stat you're ignoring anyways with Bulwark is just really annoying. We generally don't want to give the player a reason to actively seek out a penalty because it narrows down choices in ancestry way too much, and it's just so much worse when only one ancestry offers this as an option and that ancestry's aesthetics clash with most players' fantasy for a heavy armor user.
The basic game mechanics making it so that poppets always want to buy off thier Dex penalty is also really annoying. If that is the intent, they should just have written them so always use Alternate Ancestry Boosts.
It seems odd to focus this conversation on the balance of on one rare race that (as you note) doesn't even fit the common fantasy of a heavy armor user. But I think the lack of a -1 dex armor is actually why only one ancestry offers that option. The point here was to look at a way that might be addressed for possible FUTURE ancestries as well.
For example, the Starfinder 2e Barathu race also has a dex penalty (in a game with a ranged meta no less) and is also used almost exclusively as an Alternate Ancestry Boost build, making it's listed stat mods equally pointless.
I think sticking with a -1 dex (or other basic racial minus) is kind of a nice way to play into the racial tropes, and should always be a valid play choice (IE, without an outsized penalty relative to the upside). But dex... generally just isn't. A -1 dex reduces the two most commonly targeted DC's (AC and Reflex) and Bulwark only party offsets that (have fun being tripped with -1 dex). I don't think anybody seriously runs their character with it unless they plan to be effectively impossible to attack, or are doing one off / playtest builds (as I did with a Barathu fighter that kept -1 dex).
But, opinions differ, and it seems like something at least some people wouldn't want in their game.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I don't think the issue is the AC per se. We can intuit that they meant for the -1 dex cap to mean that you take -1 AC from DEX regardless of your DEX modifier, so even if you had +0 DEX you would subtract 1 from your AC if you were wearing plate armor with this modification. So in theory all this is doing is making it so -1 DEX characters can reach the same AC values as other chracters by translating that -1 AC into a different penalty.You are correct in what the net effect is; the effect of a -1 dex cap follows logically from the dex cap rules and the fact that it is possible to have a -1 dex. Hence this item can never give you a better AC than the existing armor can, it just lets you get the same AC with a lower Dex, at an unavoidable cost to movement and initiative.
The issue is more that STR characters already have a ton of incentive to dump DEX and DEX penalties are extremely rare - making it so Poppets are the best bang for your buck in terms of dumping a stat you're ignoring anyways with Bulwark is just really annoying. We generally don't want to give the player a reason to actively seek out a penalty because it narrows down choices in ancestry way too much, and it's just so much worse when only one ancestry offers this as an option and that ancestry's aesthetics clash with most players' fantasy for a heavy armor user.The basic game mechanics making it so that poppets always want to buy off thier Dex penalty is also really annoying. If that is the intent, they should just have written them so always use Alternate Ancestry Boosts.
It seems odd to focus this conversation on the balance of on one rare race that (as you note) doesn't even fit the common fantasy of a heavy armor user. But I think the lack of a -1 dex armor is actually why only one ancestry offers that option. The point here was to look at a way that might be addressed for possible FUTURE ancestries as well.
For example, the Starfinder 2e Barathu race also has a...
You're misunderstanding why I'm talking about Poppets. With your change, Poppets go from being this extreme edge case niche thing to being meta for many STR martials due to the ability to essentailly get an extra attribute boost to something more useful than the DEX you're dumping. The ancestry goes from being somewhat annoying (though you don't really need to buy off the DEX peanlty anymore, two free boosts a la humans IIRC is a universal option now) to being something you have to consider in terms of optimization, which is very counter to the overall ethos of PF2e's design where the overarching goal is to reduce the conflict between what is optimal and what you as a player would like to play.
We also have to talk about Poppets because they're literally the only ancestry that gives you a DEX penalty. The only other way to get a DEX penalty is a voluntary flaw and I don't see the value in enticing players to do that. I don't know how this would have been a real observable issue in any games you've ran if it did not involve Poppets or homebrew content, or as you said something imported from Starfinder - and yeah I think that's better fixed with Alternate Ancestry Boosts.
Sure, poppets would let you dump stat DEX to -1 for your STR martial. And other ancestries let you dump stat Chr or Int, and are probably more suited to martial builds, especially in fantasy terms. Are those meta for Str builds? Do you have to consider them? Isn't the fact that nobody is playing the race with it's default stats equally a sign of forced optimization?
I don't think having this item would "entice" anybody to take a voluntary dex flaw; voluntary flaws don't come with any offsetting advantage any more. But I guess it might make such a flaw manageable, which seems very much inline with the game having cheap and fully enabling prosthetics and other aids for those with voluntary movement or sense concerns.
In either case, fixing (heavy armor only) AC for those characters still leaves them with a penalty to some saves, defense DC's vs some attacks, and multiple skills. Which is STILL a drawback comparable to other -1 stats. Only now they have taken on a movement and initiative penalty, so... still worse than just about any other -1 stat.
So if I want a heavy armor character with a -1 in some stat, optimization wise I'm going Android, Conrasu, Dwarf, or Lizardfolk, maybe even Skeleton ..... not Poppet, even with this item in play.
As for alternate boosts... when you can just grab two boosts like a human, what is the point of even giving the ancestry a penalty THAT NOBODY IS GONNA PLAY IT WITH?? That is why I don't think the alt boosts are a good "fix". People absolutely do run characters with -1 to Str, Int, Chr, even Wis and Con. And while the options to even have -1 Dex do are rare, it seems that when offered... the overwhelming incentive is to say no. Which again, means they probably won't be making races that allow it, because why waste space listing mods nobody will use?
If you're trying to 'fix' this for Poppets (and, realistically, only Poppets), it would be better off as a ancestry feat for Poppets that gives a +1 status bonus to armour if they have -1 Dex at the cost of -5ft speed. Let's call it 'Ponderous Poppet', deliberately moving slower so as to better use their unnatural anatomy to block hits
That's a really excellent idea. Might use different specifics, but in general pinning it to a racial feat that requires -1 Dex seems good. It even makes sense for the Barathu (they have adaptable physiology). I expect any future race with a -1 Dex would probably also have a physiology that lends itself to permitting abnormal toughness / wearing abnormally heavy armor. I'd love to see some races with that option.
It really wasn't just my intent to "fix poppets" - I originally just wanted the option to upgrade some of the newer armor types with a change akin to the Armored Skirt. Since the Armored Skirt was written to apply to only specific armors, it will never work with any new type of armor unless maybe they think to mention it in that armor's description.
While looking at that I figured a -1 Dex mod on heavy armor might just be interesting. But if races with a -1 Dex can already reach typical heavy armor AC, this item could be much less restrictive / handicapping when used in the originally conceived way. I don't think I'd want to just copy Armored Skirt stats, but -5 move instead of actual Ponderous makes it much nicer for most users, for example.