D&D 5E Conditions

[Baksartha]

Does it seem odd to anyone else that when a creature is paralyzed,
unconscious, etc., it doesn't lose its Dex bonus to AC? Can some-
one explain why they chose to do this?

Thanks!

 

[Esper the Bard]

It makes no sense to me either. This and many other things are on my list of why I both love and dislike D&D Next thus far.

 

[GX.Sigma]

To make the game simpler, run faster, and involve less math.

 

[Esper the Bard]

It does increase game speed, but I am never one to sacrifice immersion for the sake of speed. In this case, simply have a flat-footed type AC takes you maybe a few seconds to figure and write on your character sheet, and doesn't increase game complexity much at all.

 

[Kobold Stew]

Yeah, it's an easy fix, and I expect we'll see it eventually.

 

[UngeheuerLich]

Losing its dex bonus would be inappropriate actually. Instead it needs to read: "Dexterity drops to 0" so you now have a -5 bonus instead of what you had before!

 

[Starfox]

I wouldn't expect an official fix - 4E never had one as far as I know. But it doesn't annoy me particularly - I prefer the simplicity. You can always say they are helpless and auto-hit.

 

[Blackbrrd]

Odd? Sure.

At the same time it's a game and not a reality simulator and you allready feel fubar when unconscious/paralyzed, so I am happy it's not in the rules.

 

[Klaus]

Does it seem odd to anyone else that when a creature is paralyzed,
unconscious, etc., it doesn't lose its Dex bonus to AC? Can some-
one explain why they chose to do this?

Thanks!

Doesn't "attacks against you have advantage" cover that? It is essentially a -5 penalty to AC.

 

[erf_beto]

Losing its dex bonus would be inappropriate actually. Instead it needs to read: "Dexterity drops to 0" so you now have a -5 bonus instead of what you had before!

Doesn't "attacks against you have advantage" cover that? It is essentially a -5 penalty to AC.

There you go.