Lame rule or streak of utter genius? (Movement related)

[Graf]

It is, however, arguably the best stat.

Like I said you seem to have made up your mind. I take it that you would base any system on movement on something other than dexterity? Maybe pyr's strength based system?

Mentioning everything good that dexterity provides a character doesn't really support your statement that "dexterity is the best stat". It would refute a statement like "dexterity is a meaningless stat" but I haven't said that. In fact it's a problem with most every part of your argument.
I can't fathom how you feel that occasionally using the world 'arguably' changes your claim, except to imply that you're not confident of your analysis.

This has not been my experience. Rangers, monks, and even most fighters in our games have at least a +1 dexterity. Of course, we play in low stat games (around standard array) so a 14 is pretty high.

I've also seen characters with dexterity of 12 or higher frequently. I don't disagree that if you offered to let someone have one character with a 10 dex and another character who was identical save for having a dex of 12 then most everyone would choose the second option.
Your statement does nothing to support your arguement, you would need to compare it favorably with another stat, demonstrate that a character with a 12 dex and a 10 strength is better than a 12 strength than a 10 dex or something like that.

You forget that you can delay.

No actually I hadn't.

Again, this entire list was things that dexterity affects. Not things that dexterity makes you a god at. Regardless of the fact that your psion didn't have any bow feats but then fired into melee, dexterity does indeed make you a better missile combatant.

But their strengths in other places make up for this loss. Sure they do less damage, sure they lost a feat, but they have initiative, reflex, missile attack, and higher skills bonuses to make up for it.

Listing. It's good to start a discussion but inevtably you will find you can't make an argument without comparing these advantages to those provided by other attributes.

Balance, Escape Artist, Hide, Move Silently, Sleight of Hand, Tumble. I cannot begin to emphasize how useful Hide, Move Silently, and Tumble have been for me. Nor could I explain how fun Sleight of Hand is for me. Escape Artist and Balance, just gravy.

I am pleased you enjoy your rogue character. Not for the first time I do feel obliged to point out that I have never questioned the value of dexterity for a rogue character.

Seeing as I said that dexterity was "arguably the best stat" <snip.>

I am deeply curious how the word arguably magically renders any statement impervious to correction. I could say that I am, arguably, the tallest man in the world. A person who pointed out that there are people who are taller than myself would not be out of line.

I have read countless threads arguing that dexterity is too powerful.

I feel obliged to single this statement out.
I am sure that the number of threads is not only finite, and thus does not defy counting, but relatively easily counted. I am quite confident that there was much argument on these threads. I am sure that the people, such as yourself, who have decided that you are correct and don't engage in comparison or analysis, also feel the existence of a thread on a message board proves something.

 

[Zerakon]

Too much incentive for a character to hit the "sweet spot" and have a 16 Dexterity.

15 the sweet spot is 15, not 16. Or 20 if you have medium or heavier armor.
<sigh>

No, 16 is the sweet spot I referred to because it's the first even stat at which a character would be getting the movement bonus (even stats being the typical sweet spots because of the incremental +1 bonuses).

There's no need to add a "<sigh>" and no need to get so defensive here on the house rules forum. You asked for opinions, and we're just trying to be constructive but with that kind of overly-defensive attitude, I'll be less likely to pitch in my 2 cents in the future. Which I suppose you'll be fine with as it seems that you only want positive feedback. Hey, it's your game and your rules; if you love your rule, just implement it.

 

[CRGreathouse]

I feel obliged to single this statement out.
I am sure that the number of threads is not only finite, and thus does not defy counting, but relatively easily counted. I am quite confident that there was much argument on these threads. I am sure that the people, such as yourself, who have decided that you are correct and don't engage in comparison or analysis, also feel the existence of a thread on a message board proves something.

How about this: I've seen more threads arguing that Dex is the most powerful stat and should have less power than I have seen threads claiming any other stat has that position. In fact, I can't immediately recall any threads claiming a different stat as the most powerful... though some people posting on the Dex thread disagreed and suggested their own stat (usually Int or Str).

I've DMed a lot of characters, so this isn't just based on my current players' characters, but by way of example (including the summary of the reason for taking the stat):
* Cleric (highest stat Wis, second-highest Dex) -- spells, bow
* Rogue (highest stat Dex, second-highest Int) -- skills, skill points
* Wizard (highest stat Int, second-highest Dex) -- spells, AC
* Cleric (highest stat Wis, second-highest Con) -- spells, hp

3/4 of the characters have Dex as their highest or second-highest stat. Oh, the players arranged their own stats.

The campaign before that?
* Monk (highest two stats: Dex and Wis [tie]) -- AC
* Rogue (highest stat: Dex, second-highest Str) -- attack bonus, damage bonus
* Barbarian (highest stat: Str, second-highest Con) -- attack/damage, hp
* Bard (highest stat: Cha, second-highest Dex) -- spells/skills, AC

Not only did 3/4 of the group have Dex in their top two, it was the highest stat for half the group!

 

[AeroDm]

Like I said you seem to have made up your mind. I take it that you would base any system on movement on something other than dexterity? Maybe pyr's strength based system?

Umm... no. I don't think I'd tie a system on movement on any stat. In fact, I'd probably go with core D&D on this and let a few classes and magical affects only change speed.

I am pleased you enjoy your rogue character. Not for the first time I do feel obliged to point out that I have never questioned the value of dexterity for a rogue character.

Those were skills dexterity is good for. You don't need to be a rogue to use _some_ of those. Moreover, most of those skills can be used untrained. A good dexterity score aids in untrained checks as well. Additionally, I appreciate the fact that you derive pleasure from my enjoyment as we all win, but I haven't played a rogue in some time now.

I am deeply curious how the word arguably magically renders any statement impervious to correction. I could say that I am, arguably, the tallest man in the world. A person who pointed out that there are people who are taller than myself would not be out of line.

I does not. It does, however, make it impervious from the numerous remarks you made about me "making up my mind" and the innane notion that somehow I had challenged you personally such that you were forced to tear apart a simple suggestion I made to the original poster.

I am sure that the number of threads is not only finite, and thus does not defy counting, but relatively easily counted. I am quite confident that there was much argument on these threads. I am sure that the people, such as yourself, who have decided that you are correct and don't engage in comparison or analysis, also feel the existence of a thread on a message board proves something.

Has this board truly degraded to a point where a lack of being utterly explicit to the point where common sayings within the language can no longer be used? In common use, it is very rare for the word 'infinite' to mean 'infinite' but rather 'numerous.' I am sure that under circumstances where you respected the person you were debating with you would not use so crass a comment.

Moreover, I challenge you to find a single thread where I have "decided that I was correct" and ceased to engage in any comparisson or analysis. I find the fact that you automatically assumed I was at such a level with absolutely no prior record of doing anything of the sort rather offensive.

 

[Graf]

There's no need to add a "<sigh>" and no need to get so defensive here on the house rules forum. You asked for opinions, and we're just trying to be constructive but with that kind of overly-defensive attitude, I'll be less likely to pitch in my 2 cents in the future.

Sorry, if I offended you. Your initial comment didn't have much meat to it. Which is, of course, your right. There is no requirement on the board to post clearly. I have to repeat that: 16 is deliberately not a sweet spot in the system because it's a sweet spot for dexterity (as much as any other even number is for a stat). Nothing changes between 15 and 16 in terms of the system.

IT IS a conceit of the system that people with a higher dexterity move faster than others. I think of it as a feature, you might think of it as a bug. Without more of an idea of why you like or dislike the 15 placement it's tricky to really figure out what your point is.

Assuming your complaint is related to the power granted someone with a 16:
If you use the point buy system for stats in the DMG a 15 is a pretty significant expenditure and a 16 even more so. Even with a 32 point buy you're spending about 1/3 of your resources to get a 16 (10 points). If you split up your remaining points evenly you' have a bunch of 13s and a 12. Is your opinion that this new rule now makes an 16 dexterity unbalancingly powerful?

I'm not sure why you're irritated that I can't figure out what your point is. It's not clear. At all. Which is fine, I do appreciate the effort to participate. But critical but terminally unclear posts are definitely sigh worthy.

 

[Graf]

How about this:

Not only did 3/4 of the group have Dex in their top two, it was the highest stat for half the group!

Much clearer. Thanks. It seems your experence is/was different than mine:I've seen a plethora of high-dex characters who looked great on paper but were just frustrating for their players.

Do you use standard D&D magic items and spells?

 

[Graf]

You asked for opinions, and we're just trying to be constructive but with that kind of overly-defensive attitude, I'll be less likely to pitch in my 2 cents in the future. Which I suppose you'll be fine with as it seems that you only want positive feedback. Hey, it's your game and your rules; if you love your rule, just implement it.

This is a fair question. I certainly don't mean to be defensive.
While I wasn't expecting positive comments neither was I expecting to have a post about a completely different system (with no comments one way or another from the author on the original) or to get sucked into an arguement/discussion which could be entitled "dexterity rullz".
I realize I should probably have expected it, but I didn't. This has been a stimulating thread, even if there hasn't been much analysis going on.

If you firmly believe that dexterity is much much more powerful than other stats then I can see thinking the system will have an unbalancing effect. It certainly does make dex more valuble. It -never- occured to me and the posts on this thread haven't really done much to change my opinion.
I've never noticed a dex rules thread. I recently ran across an informative set of "Con is much more important than Dex for spellcasters" posts which I found interesting. It jived strongly with my recent gaming experiences. We did have one overpowering high-dex character but he had a natural dex of 32....

I tend to post relatively strongly, that's how I communicate. I think that if someone posts something that is basically a list, or basically just a statement without an explaination, then there really isn't much to do but lay out an arguement and move on.

 

[Graf]

Umm... no. I don't think I'd tie a system on movement on any stat. In fact, I'd probably go with core D&D on this and let a few classes and magical affects only change speed.

Thank you. I certainly appreciate your input. I have to admit I haven't brought it up with my DM yet, because I'm not sure if it matters enough to be worth a house rule.

In our games usually one character has a dex above 15 and it's invariably somebody with rogue levels. Since basically only someone with an 18 who takes attributes-from-levels is going to ever have more than a +5 ft boost it's probably not very important.

Those were skills dexterity is good for. You don't need to be a rogue to use _some_ of those. Moreover, most of those skills can be used untrained. A good dexterity score aids in untrained checks as well. Additionally, I appreciate the fact that you derive pleasure from my enjoyment as we all win, but I haven't played a rogue in some time now.

I did, enjoy it that is. Since you don't play rogues there is obviously egg on my face. Feel free to enjoy that if you're so inclined.

In my experience some skills have much higher penalties for failure than others. Failing a Hide or MS check is a tremendous way to find yourself facing an encounter you have no chance of surviving. Failing a tumble check as you move through combat is a great way to die.

So I don't see non-rogues making those sorts of checks, other characters generally use magic or items to achieve the same goals.
3.0 had a bunch of +10 to checks items for cheap, which made it easier for other characters to get rogue-sized check bonuses for any character but that loophole was closed in 3.5. If you play 3.0 and those sorts of items are common then I could see this being different.

I does not. It does, however, make it impervious from the numerous remarks you made about me "making up my mind" and the innane notion that somehow I had challenged you personally such that you were forced to tear apart a simple suggestion I made to the original poster.

Sigh. Look. Your post hasn't really done anything other than make a list of things that dexterity does and then say "therefor dexterity is the best score". You are free to not explain your thoughts, or to justify your statement. I did feel that I might as well call you on it and encourage you to participate more meaningfully.
It occurs to me that you might have felt this topic of dexterity was so talked to death that a few short hand responses would suffice to explain. I don't really have much to say about that.

Has this board truly degraded to a point where a lack of being utterly explicit to the point where common sayings within the language can no longer be used? In common use, it is very rare for the word 'infinite' to mean 'infinite' but rather 'numerous.' I am sure that under circumstances where you respected the person you were debating with you would not use so crass a comment.

I'm a fan of precision in language. If I say infinite and I'm talking about something finite then I'd say I made a mistake.
Never having seen one post (present thread excepted) like this, or anything in my games indicating that this is the case, I took your statement for pure hyperbole. Apparently there have been other threads and posts.
[edit:if is wasn't clear I can appriciate that you feel your use of the word wasn't bad. But since it seemed to upset you I felt an explaination was in order.]

Moreover, I challenge you to find a single thread where I have "decided that I was correct" and ceased to engage in any comparison or analysis. I find the fact that you automatically assumed I was at such a level with absolutely no prior record of doing anything of the sort rather offensive.

I have to admit that my expectations of people can be unreasonably high. I certainly didn't mean to offend you personally. I'm not sure why you feel challenged. Everybody who's posted on this thread has had basically the same sort of response from me. I've agreed with things I think are right and asked lots of probing nit-picky questions about things that aren't. I'm especially strong when people just state opinions like they have some sort of innate truth but don't back it up with something numeric or at least some kind of logical relationship that would support their claim.
This is particularly true when their opinions are kind of tangential to the topic at hand and they seem more intent on "convincing me that dexterity is best" instead of "talking about the system".
For the first time, in this most recent post, you have actually outlined what you think about the main thread topic. (That was the part where you said you think the system shouldn't be changed).

Was there a way to have massaged you and been more gentle in getting you to respond to the main topic? Probably. It -really- never occurred to me that it was going to be an issue.

 

[pyk]

Interestingly, the core books say that characters with the same speed determine races by a Dex check (over short distances) or a Con check (overland).

Dex check = short burst of speed (sprint) to make the gap smaller.

Con check = higher endurance for keeping that speed up.

What runners, precisely, are we talking about here?
Many champion athletes are tremendous physical specimens who are better than most people would be at any given physical activity. They live in a world where fractional improvements in performance can make or break a career. This system, and my D&D game, have little to do with that world.

Most of the people I know who can lift and carry large amounts, break things easily, etc. are large, they aren't particularly fast runners despite being able bench twice as much as the next person.
Most of the people I know who run quickly are lean and fast. They can't carry or lift much relative to the speed they have over other people.
There's nothing more complex than that underpinning the system.

Let's see, Zack Thomas (Miami Dolphins Linebacker), Willie McGinest (New England Patriots Linebacker), Donovan McNabb Philadelphia Eagles Quarterback), Art Monk (Ex-Washington Redskins Wide Receiver), Herschel Walker (Ex-Dallas Cowboys Running Back), hell, pick any pro/college football player. Better leg strength = faster running speed. The whole "lean, toned muscles for greater speed" is a myth.

And, Walker beat Willie Gault in many tests of foot speed, on and off the field - Willie Gault, the olympic sprinter turned Chicago Bears Wide Receiver, if you don't know who that is.

Don't just stick with football, though. Hockey players have exceptional lower body strength to skate fast. Look at soccer players - great lower body strength, especially needed to kick the ball the length of the field. Baseball - fastest bat speed (ok, so it's not foot speed, but still same exact principle) I've seen of any player was Jose Canseco - with frikken tree trunks for arms.

Runners that can't lift/carry much means they don't have upper body strength to mach the lower body strength. Just because you don't know anyone who is a good athlete, does not mean the principles do not apply. Why do athletes of any sport constantly work with weights if not to build strength? Don't try the "lower weight more reps" BS, because that's just BS. Read about it. Ask real athletes. Find out.

 

[pyk]

Some folks don't understand the difference of Strength and Dexterity. Dexterity does not translate to fast speed. Dexterity is how well a person does with small movements, like typing, playing instruments, writing. It also applys to accuracy of movements, like shooting bows, throwing balls, typing (hitting the correct keys when keeping speed up). It does not translate into speed of running, speed of swinging a sword, speed in general.

Typists are a real good example of a high Dex / low Str character. Their fingers fly over the keyboard, but they couldn't win a race.

Basball players are good examples of high Dex / high Str characters. Hitting the ball hard requires high Str, because if the bat speed is not high, the ball isn't going anywhere. But, to place the ball into the gaps, hit to the opposite field, get the ball up when it's sinking low, this requires the high Dex to make the bat work the way one wishes.

Quarterbacks, these also require not only high Str, but high Dex. High Str to throw the ball down field for 30-40 yards, but the high Dex to be able to hit the receiver on the run. High Dex to be able to throw the ball with "touch" over the defenders head but in reach of the receiver. High strength to throw the bullet past the defender before he can react.

Hockey goalies need high Str and high Dex as well. The Str to be able to move that stick and/or glove and/or pads fast enough to deflect/catch the puck, and high Dex to get the equipment into the correct position to either deflect the puck to the right place (which doesn't always happen) or even just catch the puck.

These are examples of what Str/Dex means. Now, in a physical way, what Str and Dex translate into is this: Strength is Gross Motor Skill, and Dexterity is Fine Motor Skill.

A person without Gross Motor won't have any real Strength. Without Gross Motor, that person will not run very fast, they won't be able to throw anything far, they won't be able to function doing any real test of strength. But they will be able to write well, type well, anything that requires good dexterity.

A person without Fine Motor won't have any real dexterity. won't be able to type well, write well, operate doorknobs, anything that requires dexterity. But, they will be able to run fast, throw things far, do anything that requires strength.

These are all from personal experiences, working with these issues every day. Working with people to develop the skills to compete with others. But, don't take my word for all this. Ask Occupational Therapists. Ask doctors who are in Sports Medicine fields. Ask people who know about this.