Deepwarden's Con bonus to AC & armor

Atherlos

First Post
Deepwarden (RoS) gets the stonewarden ability at level 2, allowing them to use con bonus as AC modifier instead of dex. Is this bonus limited by armor? I'd say it isn't, but Id like to hear your opinions/rulings. If this has been discussed previously I'd be grateful for a pointer.

-- Atherlos
 

log in or register to remove this ad

Scharlata

First Post
Atherlos said:
Deepwarden (RoS) gets the stonewarden ability at level 2, allowing them to use con bonus as AC modifier instead of dex. Is this bonus limited by armor? I'd say it isn't, but Id like to hear your opinions/rulings. If this has been discussed previously I'd be grateful for a pointer.

Hi!
First: I don't like the idea of the change Dex/Con. ;), but if I'd ever allow a Deepwarden to grace my campaign, I'd make her follow all the Armor Class-related rules....

Kind regards
 

uzagi_akimbo

First Post
Hmm, the whole idea of the Deepwarden class seems to be to emphasize solidity in defense, so adding a (unlimited by Armor Dex to AC restrictions ) CON Modifier instead of the DEX bonus seems fair.
It's a supernatural (extraordinary by the rules) power after all - and if one's winning smile and smooth manners can save a paladin from immolation at the hands of a fireball or petrification by a medusa's gaze(CHA Bonus to Saves), I can certainly imagine someone being so tough, that he actually shrugs off blows like water, too.
As the class through its prequisites is aimed at dwarven or gnomish rangers, it will be used by lightly armoured dwarves in the first place - due to the light armour limit on combat tyle feats.

And the "stone warden" power lets the character replace DEX with CON for determining the AC bonus. As armour restrict physical movement, an thereby limits the amount of mobility which can be employed while wearing armour, there is no actual rule that limits any sort of bonus to AC derived from CON. Hence, the power as written "floats".

Although balance-wise, it makes the class rather front loaded in a way.
 

Lord Pendragon

First Post
uzagi_akimbo said:
Hmm, the whole idea of the Deepwarden class seems to be to emphasize solidity in defense, so adding a (unlimited by Armor Dex to AC restrictions ) CON Modifier instead of the DEX bonus seems fair.
So your argument here is "the PrC seems to be based on defense, so it should get unlimited defense"? That seems an odd turn of logic to me. Just because the Deepwarden is meant to be tough doesn't mean he's meant to be unrestricted in any way. A Duelist is meant to have an intelligent defense, and his Int to AC is still limited.

Personally, although I agree with Scharlata about hating Con-to-AC, I'd still require it be restricted by the Max Dex Bonus of his armor. He gets to use Con in place of Dex. It's still the same AC modifier, resticted in the same ways.
and if one's winning smile and smooth manners can save a paladin from immolation at the hands of a fireball or petrification by a medusa's gaze(CHA Bonus to Saves), I can certainly imagine someone being so tough, that he actually shrugs off blows like water, too.
A paladin's Divine Grace is just that, Divine Grace. The paladin isn't saved by his winning smile, he's saved by the grace of god. Charisma, which also measures force of will, not only "smooth manners" is merely the means of measuring how much of his god's grace a particular paladin enjoys.
 

Scion

First Post
Going by the wording of the feat it definately looks like it would bypass the max dex bonus on armor.

I dont really see any problem with it myself ::shrugs::

While the ability doesnt make a whole lot of sense it certainly doesnt seem to be based on movement, and it is useing 'his strengths to cover his weaknesses'.

Too bad the example isnt helpful.

Endurance is a prereq, along with being a dwarf. So pretty much everything from the wording of the ability to the apparent flavor of the class and ability all seem to point to it being able to bypass the max dex bonus.
 

Jeremy

Explorer
Having seen a deep warden in play in CotSQ, the ability works fine as written. CON to AC not limited by max dex bonus is a powerful ability. But no more powerful than any number of other abilities.

Call it divine mega super stonewarden if you like. It's just a stat to AC. Like any number of classes that get INT, CHA, WIS, or DEX to AC, Saves, Attack, whatever. *shrugs*

It really never got much attention in the game, even though the dwarf in question had 24 or 26 CON. Multiple ability score dependancy levels that advantage out very quickly.
 

Atherlos

First Post
I got this reply from Wizards' Customer Service Department:

"All the Stone Warden ability does is allow you to transpose your
(better) Con modifier to your AC to replace a poorer Dex modifier. The
same limitations to this AC modifier apply, including the Max Dex (Con)
modifier of armor."

On a different note, other classes that get int or wis to AC get them in addition to dex bonus, and can't use armor. For example a 5th level invisble blade could gain +5 int bonus, use bracers of armor +8, and still use dex. Monks have unlimited wis bonus. A deepwarden would use platemail for +8 armor bonus, +5 enhancement, and get con bonus instead of dex. With this in mind the ability doesn't seem overly unbalanced to me.

-- Atherlos
 


Gez

First Post
Yes. If it's restricted by armor, then it applies against touch attacks.

I wouldn't if it wasn't restricted by armor (I would consider it some sort of natural armor gained through the stonewarden's resolveful inertia).

But he's really using his Con instead of his Dex, so, it follows all the rules for the Dex bonus to AC.
 

Scion

First Post
Atherlos said:
I got this reply from Wizards' Customer Service Department:

"All the Stone Warden ability does is allow you to transpose your
(better) Con modifier to your AC to replace a poorer Dex modifier. The
same limitations to this AC modifier apply, including the Max Dex (Con)
modifier of armor."

Well, that is more than good enough for me to say that con modifier is definately not effected by the max dex of armor. ;)
 

Lonely Tylenol

First Post
Scion said:
Well, that is more than good enough for me to say that con modifier is definately not effected by the max dex of armor. ;)

Absolutely. The best way to settle a rules argument is to find out what Customer Service says on the subject and do the opposite.
 

Lord Pendragon

First Post
Gez said:
Yes. If it's restricted by armor, then it applies against touch attacks.

I wouldn't if it wasn't restricted by armor (I would consider it some sort of natural armor gained through the stonewarden's resolveful inertia).

But he's really using his Con instead of his Dex, so, it follows all the rules for the Dex bonus to AC.
Interesting.

I'd have to say I agree with this. Moreover, the point is making me consider just allowing it to supercede the Max Dex rules. The loss of touch AC is certainly a balancing factor.
Jeremy said:
It really never got much attention in the game, even though the dwarf in question had 24 or 26 CON. Multiple ability score dependancy levels that advantage out very quickly.
How does MAD come into play? A deepwarden is already going to want a high Con, so this ability doesn't mean he'd have more MAD than usual. Does the Deepwarden in general create MAD?
 

Atherlos

First Post
Avoiding MAD is a great reason to play Deepwarden. Starting with ranger, requirements are easy with 8 int, only stat needed besides con is str really. I'm mixing in a few other prestige classes to make a blacksmith (creating arms&armor at lvl 17) that gets strong will/fort saves and high bab/damage output. Deepwarden is icing on the cake really, but hey, I like ice.

-- Atherlos
 

Lord Pendragon

First Post
Atherlos said:
Avoiding MAD is a great reason to play Deepwarden. Starting with ranger, requirements are easy with 8 int, only stat needed besides con is str really. I'm mixing in a few other prestige classes to make a blacksmith (creating arms&armor at lvl 17) that gets strong will/fort saves and high bab/damage output. Deepwarden is icing on the cake really, but hey, I like ice.
Fair enough. But Jeremy seemed to be claiming that MAD was a detriment that quickly balanced out the advantage of the Deepwarden's Con-instead-of-Dex ability ignoring Max Dex. Your comment seems to contradict his, in the sense that for you, the Deepwarden is reducing MAD, which is no penalty at all but a benefit. And you can't balance a powerful benefit with another benefit. ;)
 



An Advertisement

Advertisement4

Top