Fox's cunning and oozes?

[Hypersmurf]

Talking RAW you're correct a 'bonus' shouldn't include possibilities for a negative number (unless you're playing 2e where many such times did it occur). However the concept is laid out that the MDB is how much a character's dexterity is limited by the armor for AC purposes.

So when someone is denied his Dexterity bonus to AC, and his Dexterity is 6, would you assert that his Armor Class goes up?

-Hyp.

 

[airwalkrr]

Any ooze intelligent enough to realize how pathetic it's existence truly was would immediately commit suicide. For that reason alone, I would disallow it as fox's cunning becomes an power word kill ooze spell.

 

[mvincent]

Any ooze intelligent enough to realize how pathetic it's existence truly was would immediately commit suicide.

Not if it's a Fiendish Gelatinous Cube Monk (as published by WotC here)

 

[Notmousse]

So when someone is denied his Dexterity bonus to AC, and his Dexterity is 6, would you assert that his Armor Class goes up?

I'm asserting that the Max Dex Bonus on armor has, in theory, a possibility of a negative number as it's basis is how much the armor in question hinders your natural movement. An absurd statement as above has no relevance to my previous statements. Quit being obtuse, it's highly annoying.

 

[Hypersmurf]

I'm asserting that the Max Dex Bonus or armor has, in theory, a possibility of a negative number as it's basis is how much the armor in question hinders your natural movement.

But Max Dex Bonus is defined.

"This number is the maximum Dexterity bonus to AC that this type of armor allows."

Since there is no such thing as a Dexterity bonus to AC of -1, saying "This armor has a maximum Dexterity bonus to AC of -1" is meaningless. In theory or not, there's no possibility of a negative number without rewriting the definition.

-Hyp.

 

[Notmousse]

Perhaps I failed to mention this. But I'm not a RAW is gospel kind of guy. I look for intent and meaning behind rules to make my choices, and from there extrapolate further if needed.

You're talking RAW, I'm not.

 

[glass]

Any ooze intelligent enough to realize how pathetic it's existence truly was would immediately commit suicide. For that reason alone, I would disallow it as fox's cunning becomes an power word kill ooze spell.

How exactly does an ooze commit suicide?


glass.

 

[glass]

Perhaps I failed to mention this. But I'm not a RAW is gospel kind of guy. I look for intent and meaning behind rules to make my choices, and from there extrapolate further if needed.

So they carefully spell out, in so many words, that there is no such thing as a negative bonus or a positive penalty. But by your reading of 'intent and meaning' they actually meant the exact opposite? Seems a little unlikely to me.


glass.