Pathfinder 1E Dexterity Bonus to Ac - and losing it

[Starfox]

In 3.0, 3.5, and Pathfinder you lose your dexterity bonus to armor class in certain situations, such as wen surprised, climbing, or balancing. There may be some realism behind this, but IMO it has absurd effects. What to have a swashbuckling fight balancing on the yardarms of a pirate ship? Who is good at this? As long as the Balance (Acrobatics in PF) roll is not an issue, the lowest-Dex character is best.

In 3.0 and 3.5, 5 ranks of Balance avoided this, but not in Pathfinder, where only Uncanny Dodge helps. But in neother game can you retain your Dex bonus while climbing unless you have a climb speed. Sure Uncanny Dodge fixes some of this, but only for rogues and barbarians - not for dextrous fighters or monks.

Anyone else found this odd and counter-intuitive?

 

[delericho]

Yes, I agree. In general, I find that 4e's Combat Advantage mechanic is a superior implementation. (And 5e's generalised Advantage mechanic is better still, except that the appear to have overused it badly.)

One question, though:

As long as the Balance (Acrobatics in PF) roll is not an issue, the lowest-Dex character is best.

How so? If both are losing their bonus, surely they're the same? Granted, the high-Dex character has lost more, but that doesn't leave the lower-Dex character better.

 

[D'karr]

How so? If both are losing their bonus, surely they're the same? Granted, the high-Dex character has lost more, but that doesn't leave the lower-Dex character better.

A penalty that penalizes you more because you are good at something doesn't seem like a well thought out penalty. If a character did not have a "bonus" he loses nothing. They might end with the same "bonus" at the end, but one lost everything, and the other lost nothing. A flat penalty to all might be a better solution.

 

[delericho]

A penalty that penalizes you more because you are good at something doesn't seem like a well thought out penalty. If a character did not have a "bonus" he loses nothing. They might end with the same "bonus" at the end, but one lost everything, and the other lost nothing.

Yeah, but this is where I get nitpicky - losing your AC bonus is not, strictly speaking, a penalty. (Of course, you knew that )

More to the point, you didn't actually answer my question: If both lose their Dex bonus, how is a Dex 12 character better than a Dex 18 character? I get that the Dex 18 character has lost more, but the end result is surely that the two are equal.

A flat penalty to all might be a better solution.

Indeed. As I said, I feel the 4e approach was the right one.

 

[D'karr]

Yeah, but this is where I get nitpicky - losing your AC bonus is not, strictly speaking, a penalty. (Of course, you knew that )

LOL, I laughed at this one. A very long time ago, when my parents used to take away the keys to the car it might not have been, strictly speaking, a penalty - but that is exactly what it was.

More to the point, you didn't actually answer my question: If both lose their Dex bonus, how is a Dex 12 character better than a Dex 18 character? I get that the Dex 18 character has lost more, but the end result is surely that the two are equal.

One loses everything, the other one loses nothing. They might be numerically equal in the end, but one got screwed, the other one didn't - not equal. Maybe not better, but definitely not equal.

Indeed. As I said, I feel the 4e approach was the right one.

I agree.

 

[Nagol]

Yeah, but this is where I get nitpicky - losing your AC bonus is not, strictly speaking, a penalty. (Of course, you knew that )

More to the point, you didn't actually answer my question: If both lose their Dex bonus, how is a Dex 12 character better than a Dex 18 character? I get that the Dex 18 character has lost more, but the end result is surely that the two are equal.

<snip>

Where the low-Dex character ends up in a better situation is the two characters have taken different strategies to make use of their different abilities and the high-Dex character has been put in a situation where only his advantages have been nullified.

If we posit two equally skilled players/character designs pursuing different strategies then the low-Dex character gains an advantage not from the negation of the bonus, but from his opponent suffering an impediment to his strategy that he is not experiencing.

By way of example, if the characters are built using point-buy and one has a high Dex and the other a similarly high Con, the Dex bonus negation places the high-Con character in a superior poisition -- the higher hit points are no longer counter-balanced by a lower AC.

 

[delericho]

Where the low-Dex character ends up in a better situation is the two characters have taken different strategies to make use of their different abilities and the high-Dex character has been put in a situation where only his advantages have been nullified.

Okay, that's fair enough. But that's not a like-for-like comparison - there's now a second variable being thrown into the mix.

Also, by that token, exactly the same comparison applies every time someone finds a way to bypass hit points (grappling, enchantment spells, etc). Which is rather more common than the situation described (where they're fighting while climbing/balancing, and the DC of the Balance check is so low that making the roll is a non-issue).

Edit: it's probably also worth noting that Dex is the most powerful of the six ability scores (with the situational exception that a spellcaster's primary casting stat trumps it). If the price is that very occasionally it gets negated by an unusual situation, that really seems no bad thing.

 

[Nagol]

Okay, that's fair enough. But that's not a like-for-like comparison - there's now a second variable being thrown into the mix.

Also, by that token, exactly the same comparison applies every time someone finds a way to bypass hit points (grappling, enchantment spells, etc). Which is rather more common than the situation described (where they're fighting while climbing/balancing, and the DC of the Balance check is so low that making the roll is a non-issue).

Edit: it's probably also worth noting that Dex is the most powerful of the six ability scores (with the situational exception that a spellcaster's primary casting stat trumps it). If the price is that very occasionally it gets negated by an unusual situation, that really seems no bad thing.

Yes. And it one of the main strategies I try to pursue in any RPG -- how can I negate my enemy's strength and increase or at least not affect my own?

There are a tremndous number of possibilities in D&D. Tripping/grappling prevents normal combat and movement. Save-or-suck bypasses hit point attrition. Battlefield control tears the enemy positioning apart and allows members to be picked off individually. Evvironmental effects, with proper planning, can negate targeting or cause damage for one team while offering no hindrance to the other. Subverting allies swings the force balance by double their strength.

So if I'm a low-Dex character and I'm fighting a high-Dex opponent, I'll try to take the fight to an area where Dex bonuses are negated -- since I am unaffected and their strategy is.

Dex can be the most powerful ability scores though I'd suggest Con is up there as well if the character is not going to take advantage of Dex skills/class talents.

 

[GreyLord]

People say DEX is the most powerful ability score, but in my XP that's not so with the later editions. INT is ESPECIALLY strong in the D20 lines due to how much it influences skill points and skill ranges as well as spellcasting for the Int Arcane types.

STR also is a VERY strong Stat because unlike DEX, it's not nullified by a basic rule (such as armor penalties). Other rules may override it, but it isn't nixed straight up like DEX can be. You wear armor and you get penalties on everything from skills to AC to combat. STR on the otherhand increases that ability to hit and damage constantly, as well as access to certain combat feats which in some ways can be almost necessary for a great Fighter of certain builds.

You go to 4e and INT and STR are really strong, as now STR even can be used for saves, and INT can be used for other items as well.

I think CON loses some of it's strength in 4e, while many of the stats get a boost.

IMO Dex is nice, but 3e went overboard in trying to nix it from the powerhouse it was in 2e and earlier...and is pretty easy to negate overall comparatively to other stats in their uses.

IMO of course.

 

[Starfox]

What I mind has nothing to do with balance, and a lot with concept - who is supposed to be best swinging on a yardarm, the high or low dex character? Who should suffer most from surprise? The rule makes sense on paper, but gets very odd consequences.

Edit - In other words, if I were a non-dex fighter and wanted to fight a dex fighter, my arena of choice would be a tight pit, not a balancing on a yardarm.