Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Arrowhawk" data-source="post: 5625077" data-attributes="member: 6679551">Yes. It is a good thing.   In your opinion. Which you are entitled to.   I'm not trying to win anything. I'm pointing out an objective fact about the game and asking if others have an explanation as to why the game was implemented in an internally inconsistent fashion. Most games try to remain internally consistent as much as possible. Did d20 3.x intentionally depart from that here, or was it unintended?  That's another opinion, which you are once again entitled to. I don't necessarily agree with it, but that is irrelevant to this specific issue.  And why is that? Why does it make the game better to impose penalties based on a viable mechanic...but then ignore bonuses? Let me put it to you another way.... Look at this as if it were Strength and not Dex. When would it make sense to impose a penalty on how much someone could carry if there were weaker than average, but...then refuse to allow anyone who is stronger than average to lift more? How would such an inconsistent treatment of strength make the game better? Let me try another example: The baseline Dex of 10, assumes some agility.  It assumes you have more agility than the a person with an 8 Dex.  So why isn't a person with a 10 Dex penalized in situations where a person is unable to react to the attacker?  Why isn't everyone who can move, penalized when they can't react to the attack? Think about it like this....how does it make sense that the average person is no worse off in terms of AC if they can't react to an attack?  I understand that everyone is subject to Sneak Attack damage...but an average person suffers no AC penalty whether they can see the attack coming or not???  But we're going to impose a penalty on those who are the smallest margin better?  Really?  And that makes the game better, how exactly?  I'm interested in hearing opinions on things that are subjective.  I'm not interested discussing whether 1+1= 2 or 3 or 11. A person may think such a thing is a matter of opinion, but then that person isn't living in reality and there is no benefit in trying to discuss math with them. If a person doesn't understand why the No Dex Bonus rule is inconsistent...then I'm happy to explain the logic. But if a person insists that it is consistent...or insists on coming up with some rationale that has no basis in the RAW or in any reality...then no, I'm not interested in getting into a debate. Let me put it another way. I'm here for a discussion on perception, not a debate on logic.  How about you dispense with the histrionics? The rules as written with respect to Dex "modifiers" contradict themselves. This is no more an opinion than finding a coding error in a computer program. If the Dex modifier to AC is based on someone's ability to "react" then in situations where someone cannot "react," nobody's AC should be any different from anyone elses based on Dex because nobody can react. Do you really think this is a matter of opinion? I suspect not. But your posts comes across like someone who blindly wants to defend whatever it is the rules say...regardless of any objective truth.  I'm trying to understand what makes it logical for d20 to impose a mechanic that is not consistent. As such, let me readdress the obvious:  On page 7 of the Players Handbook I, Core Rule Book 3.5. It says: "-- for example, you apply your character’s Dexteritymodifier to his or her Armor Class (AC). A positivemodifier is called a bonus, and a negative modifier is called a penalty." When the game designerse started looking at combat, clearly there are situations where a person would not be able to avoid attacks by way of their Dexterity. So it makes sense to say whatever AC improvement that resulted from moving around...should be negated. The problem is that all abilities scores have the baseline set at Dex of 10. Thus, the way Dexterity was implemented made it impossible for them to uniformly eliminiate the "improvement." If the Dex baseline had been set at a Dex of 0, meaning you can't move at ALL, and you only went to positive modifiers, this problem could have been avoided entirely. This would have only required one additional column in the modifier table...the Dex AC modifier. What I don't get is why they didn't do the same thing they did with Entangle. Why not just impose a flat penalty for situations where you aren't moving in response to the attacker, or your movement is restricted? The No Dex Bonus situations are generally not situations where a players is immobile or helpless. The person may still be moving...but just not in response to the attack.  But wouldn't it be logical to say a person who is running (another No Dex Bonus situation) with a Dex of say 30 would still be able to avoid an attack better than someone with a Dex of 10? As I've mentioned several times...I don't understand the brick wall filter on Dex above 10. How is the game better by not penalizing the average person who is balancing on a rope, but penalizing someone with only slightly better reflexes? I'm at a loss.</blockquote>

Verification