D&D 3E/3.5 Anyone else do this with AC (PF or 3.5)

[GreyLord]

One of the things that annoyed the heck out of me was limiting DEX bonuses with AC. I've been in full body armor and you know what, it really didn't limit how fast I could move overall, definately not as much as it's stated in Modern (I know, not PF). I have a hard time thinking that if someone was trained in the use of an armor that it would actually hinder them as much as it indicates in the tables.

That said, I know some feel tha this is realistic as they feel armor and the heavier it is limits your movements. I think I could see that if it was ill-fitted, but if it is well fitted or made with you in mind, would you really think the difference between Leather and Plate would be as drastic as it is in what it allows for AC bonuses from DEX?

So, what I do is that I don't play with the DEX max bonus on armor. There is no max on what your DEX bonus to AC can be these days in my games if I run it.

Anyone else do anything like this.

 

[Ahnehnois]

I never had a problem with max dex bonuses.

From a balance perspective, AC is already highly item-dependent and can get too high in high-magic games. Armor is already incredibly cheap (relative to magic items) relative to the bonus it provides. I don't see that it needs a boost in effectiveness.

In terms of plausibility, AC is already an absurd concept. However, I don't think the max dex bonus is too harsh at all. Chain shirt, for example, will essentially never restrict a normal human without a magic dex item. Even full plate only takes your dex bonus if it's greater than +1, which is awfully good for someone who's already strong enough to wear it and fit enough to move in it. And mithral full plate, standard armor for high-level tank fighters, gets you up to +3, which is pretty good. Certainly, someone could write more in-depth rules that are better at modeling dodging than AC and write better armor rules to go with them, but I don't see that heavy armor needs to be made easier to use.

I did answer "other" because in various iterations of d20 games I have adopted level-based dodge bonuses to AC, and I enforce a max dodge bonus (dodge + Dex, really) rather than the straight Dex. Which is actually harsher, and disincentivizes higher-level characters from wearing armor. I'd like to do armor as DR as well, but that's another story.

 

[Sunseeker]

Not really, I just take advantage of materials to pump up my max dex bonus.

But this is what I like about Pathfinder's modifications to Fighters and their "Armor Training". People skilled in the use of a certain type of armor should be able to use it better than those who aren't.

I wouldn't eliminate max-dex bonus wholly, but I certainly think it needs some work.

 

[Ahnehnois]

But this is what I like about Pathfinder's modifications to Fighters and their "Armor Training". People skilled in the use of a certain type of armor should be able to use it better than those who aren't.

Rules that take into account character skill as well as item weight are a good move.

 

[(Psi)SeveredHead]

I think Armor Training is a good way to do it.

I don't think it's a good idea to let someone potentially have Dex 18-20, plate armor, and a heavy shield and enjoy an AC of 24-25 at 1st-level.

I like how 4th Edition gives level bonuses to AC; like Pathfinder's Armor Training, it's a way of letting character skill determine defenses, rather than just equipment.

 

[Sunseeker]

Rules that take into account character skill as well as item weight are a good move.

I do also like DDNs approach of eliminating the base 10 armor bonus and putting it onto the armor. It makes a bonus from DEX to AC less important.

It'd be nice if there were more base class mechanics to represent better profeciency in a specific type of armor that was thematically or mechanically appropriate to the class. IE: rogues get an extra +1 AC out of leather, mages get an extra +1 out of cloth. Sorta like the "armored by faith" feat in 4e for Avengers. Encourage players with a carrot, not a stick.

 

[Ahnehnois]

It'd be nice if there were more base class mechanics to represent better profeciency in a specific type of armor that was thematically or mechanically appropriate to the class. IE: rogues get an extra +1 AC out of leather, mages get an extra +1 out of cloth. Sorta like the "armored by faith" feat in 4e for Avengers. Encourage players with a carrot, not a stick.

I rather liked 2e's tiered weapon proficiencies, where martial characters (fighters especially) had several levels of skill with each weapon, with standard effects. Perhaps a similar design could be applied to armor (and writing classes with that design might suggest that rogues get free proficiencies in roguish armor and that sort of thing).

 

[MDK]

I could certainly see a feat to represent special training, allowing one to ignore the dex limit of armour.

 

[S'mon]

I use Pathfinder Beginner Box, no DEX caps on AC - great for Elf Fighters! But nobody has plate armour at 1st level; scale more likely.

 

[Salamandyr]

Max Dex bonus as an armor attribute is just one of a myriad of problems with the 3.5/PF AC bonus.

The Pathfinder patch to the system, ie increasing armor mastery for fighters, is an okay step, but it seems to me that it is bad design to create a special ability for a character that is dependent on a character investing enough attribute points in a secondary stat to make the special ability worthwhile. Makes it stink for players in low point buy games.

Unfortunately, I think just removing max dex bonus isn't the way to do things; there's too many other factors in play. AC needs a grounds up rethink.