D&D 5E Dex to AC when unconscious?

[Umbran]

But we have already been talking about the difference between constant AC vs. shifting DEX bonus, touch AC, etc. That is what I am talking about.
The measures are quite different.

Yes, but I'm pretty sure that's not what he was talking about.

All systems get in the way of stuff the GM and players may want to do. If a given system doesn't get in the way of what *you* want to do, you'll think that it isn't getting in the way of anything. Meanwhile, if it gets in the way of things you really do want to do, you'll think it gets in the way of most things.

It is a form of cognitive bias - one will generally measure based on personal impact, and assume that's a universal measure, when really it is subjective. It takes a bit of remove to recognize that really, for someone else, your favorite game is bad at this, and your least favorite game is good for someone else - and that suggests equal measure.

Just another way to say we should not confuse "I don't like it" with "this game is bad".

 

[BryonD]

Yes, but I'm pretty sure that's not what he was talking about.

He responded to Karin'sDad responding directly, and on topic, to me about this very thing. What I was talking about is the context.

Just another way to say we should not confuse "I don't like it" with "this game is bad".

I agree those things should not be confused. It is a bad thing when someone says one and people leap to the conclusion of the other.

That said, I said neither in this case. I said they both have merits and I did say I prefer one, but the real point I made was that the issue could have negative implications for long term popularity as a whole.

Confirmation bias is also bad. I think we are seeing that here.

 

[FormerlyHemlock]

5E has been extremely clear that if something doesn't make sense, the DM is free to do otherwise. Nowhere does it state you have to have the monsters roll over and over again to finish off a PC laying on the ground. If they are free of impediment, you are can say they hit you.

Yes of course. But I don't run my game that way. I strive to maximize player agency, which also means "don't arbitrarily change the rules just to kill Exstis" even though I CAN change the rules at any time, and sometimes do. But the middle of a fight is not a good time for that kind of thing[1].

I was just pointing out that it is still possible to miss a PC when you've got advantage from him being unconscious.

[1] Well, sort of a fight. One of the other PCs was helping the downed PC, hammering the NPCs with nonlethal blows, the other PC was just gloating and using his illusion magic to mock the downed PC ("I told you so!" in a little girl's voice) for enraging the captive hobgoblins into attacking him in the first place. It was a race between the hobgoblins and the barbarian to see if the hobgoblins could finish killing the cleric before the barbarian knocked them unconscious, and the hobgoblins kept whiffing. It would have been a real jerk move on my part to say, "Okay, no, Exstis, you're dead. They killed you automatically."

 

[Umbran]

Time to go out and get that baby and bring it back in.

Or, time to consider whether the baby really is a baby, and not a cabbage patch doll.

Some details, in the long run, aren't important. Do targets really get bound or paralyzed, yet subject to normal attacks, so often that the difference is really going to impact how play turns out in the long run? Given that ACs don't get terribly difficult to hit, isn't the roughly +5 from advantage going to do the trick anyway?

And, on the other side: if the target was tied up, and you did remove their Dex bonus, and the attacker *still* missed, wouldn't that seem odd? If the target is so immobilized, how does the attacker manage to miss at all? Why didn't you adjudicate it as an auto-hit?

Thus: if there's enough question that you need to roll a die, then Dex bonus applies. At the point where you'd be denied Dex, no roll is necessary.

 

[Sailor Moon]

And, on the other side: if the target was tied up, and you did remove their Dex bonus, and the attacker *still* missed, wouldn't that seem odd? If the target is so immobilized, how does the attacker manage to miss at all? Why didn't you adjudicate it as an auto-hit?

1: Hit's the armour but not enough to do damage.
2: Attacker was too eager and managed to miss judge the strike.
3: Attacker tripped while making the attack.
4: Some other outside interference.

 

[Cernor]

1: Hit's the armour but not enough to do damage.
2: Attacker was too eager and managed to miss judge the strike.
3: Attacker tripped while making the attack.
4: Some other outside interference.

All of which could apply if the Dex bonus was still there...

 

[Uchawi]

Keeping with the current rules interpretation, auto-fail on dex or str saves contradicts still needing to hit AC; even if you have advantage. It should be auto fail for all, or advantage (hit) and disadvantage (save) and remove the critical damage aspect. Make it maximum damage.

 

[Sailor Moon]

All of which could apply if the Dex bonus was still there...

Paralyzed means you can't move. Why would you have a Dex bonus to AC when you can't move? Dex AC takes into account that you are moving and dodging along with having the protection of your armour.

Those are just a few examples anyway.

 

[KarinsDad]

DMG 271 has rules for Disarm. They are DM's option, but I think that's fair since not every DM wants to deal with constant disarmament. You could probably extrapolate rules for Sundering from the rules on attacking and destroying objects, but you are correct, there are no rules specifically for Sundering.

Thanks for that. I thought I had gone through the entire DMG's optional rules, picking those that I liked for my game. Missed that one.

Now that I've read it, I don't like it (big surprise, maybe that's why I did not add it to my house rules). It's too easy to do. Disarm, then as part of your move action, grab the weapon from the ground. Granted, the foe can then try to just do it back next turn, but it seems too easy.

But, it's good to know that WotC at least attempted to put such a rule in.

 

[Fanaelialae]

Thanks for that. I thought I had gone through the entire DMG's optional rules, picking those that I liked for my game. Missed that one.

Now that I've read it, I don't like it (big surprise, maybe that's why I did not add it to my house rules). It's too easy to do. Disarm, then as part of your move action, grab the weapon from the ground. Granted, the foe can then try to just do it back next turn, but it seems too easy.

But, it's good to know that WotC at least attempted to put such a rule in.

I agree that it's too easy. Disarm's one of those things though that's tricky to balance almost no matter how the rules work. Against creatures with natural attacks it's useless (unless you allow it to literally dis-arm the opponent). Against creatures with weapons it can be almost useless (if the creature has a bunch of other weapons on it, such as a brace of spears) or OP (if it doesn't have any other weapons and now has to rely on unarmed attacks).

In 3rd, I almost never saw anyone without the disarm feat even attempt it, because the odds were against them. Those with the feat rarely did anything but disarm, which could get a bit tiresome. I think the Battlemaster ability finds a sweet spot somewhere between, but that's no consolation to a rogue who wants to attempt to disarm, unless he takes the feat that gives him that ability.