D&D 5E Conditions

[DEFCON 1]

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

This is how I look at it.

 

[Baksartha]

What makes sense is to say a creature loses its Dex MODIFIER, positive or negative, not just its bonus. A creature with a Dex penalty would be clumsy and akward, thus the penalty. If it is unconscious, it can't stumble about. As far as slowing the game down goes, I don't really see how it could by much.

DM to Player One: You're unconscious. What's your AC without your Dex modifier?

Player One: 11.

DM: Thanks. The orc hits you.

 

[Kinak]

I agree the advantage is basically fine. It's kind of funny with prone, though, which most unconscious people will also be.

What makes sense is to say a creature loses its Dex MODIFIER, positive or negative, not just its bonus. A creature with a Dex penalty would be clumsy and akward, thus the penalty. If it is unconscious, it can't stumble about. As far as slowing the game down goes, I don't really see how it could by much.

I don't think that works out very well, honestly. Outside of comic relief characters, low dex doesn't mean you're so clumsy that you're throwing yourself on people's swords. It usually just means you're worse than average at getting out of the way.

For modeling that, I'd suggest replacing their Dex modifier with -5. That is to say: you can't move, your Dex is 0, the modifier for a 0 Dex that is -5.

Cheers!
Kinak

 

[Baksartha]

I would disagree. I think that an extremely low Dex would, in fact, imply that you are clumsy to the point of 'zigging' instead of 'zagging'. I'm not saying that a creature would throw itself on a sword, but it might trip or stumble when trying to avoid an attack. If you are unconscious you can't move and shouldn't be afforded any modifier, positive or negative, that's based entirely on movement. A -5 modifier implies a Dex of 1, not 0. As far as I know, there's nothing in the playtest rules about having an ability score of 0. At least not that I've seen yet.

 

[Starfox]

To be honest, I am happy with how this plays and dislike the "No Dx to AC" modifier. In most cases, it is because of surprise or other unexpected event - and that is exactly when Dex should matter. I am happy if this gets eliminated from the game.

Actually, I feel this is the second worst rule in 3E - the worst is that rogues can't sneak against concealment - rogues, make sure to stay out of the shadows and on the well-lit promenade! Both these rules encourage and reward what I feel is the wrong behavior.

 

[n00bdragon]

If you really want to go down this road then armor should lose its bonus as well because it's laughably easy to target the cracks in an opponent's armor/unarmored locations when he's paralyzed. Oh, and because armor inhibits your motion by default everyone wearing it should take dex penalties, and strength penalties because it's heavy. Also paralyzed people should suffocate in a few rounds because breathing requires muscle motion and paralysis makes you rigid like a statue.

Inserting realism into fantasy just makes it unfun AND a poor game.

 

[Baksartha]

Unfortunately, some amount of realism is required for this RPG to function, whether you like it or not. Without a bit of realism characters would be able to jump as far as they'd like or lift as much as they want. If realism wasn't at all important then there wouldn't be rules for these very things at all. Equipment wouldn't have any weights listed. There wouldn't be any need to list the type of damage a long sword does, because to say it is a slashing weapon would be 'realistic'. I'm afraid your argument holds no water. And by the way, armor does penalize your Dex if it is heavy enough, and its weight will hamper you if you are weak. Sounds like Wizards tried to interject some REALISM into the rules, if you ask me. Don't be so quick to knock realism. It has its uses, and they game can still be fun as long as there's not too much of it. It would be such a simple thing to say you lose your Dex mod. I don't see how that's too realistic at all.

 

[Luz]

I'm sure the next play test will be different.

 

[KidSnide]

I like the simple rule. Sure, it's not that hard to have a flat-footed AC on the character sheet, but each additional number of the character sheet adds complexity. My less rules savvy players were definitely confused by having three different ACs (regular, touch, flat-footed) on their character sheets.

Seriously, there are hundreds of corner cases that can be fixed by "one simple rule." And yet, it's the combination of a hundred simple rules that generates an unwieldy, complicated system.

-KS

 

[Scrivener of Doom]

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.

4E has a -5 penalty to all defences when you're helpless, plus the risk of a coup de grace.

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

Close. -3.325.