Max Dex bonus restricts Dex to attack rolls.

[Azlan]

The rule lasted 2 sessions before he gave up, and agreed it didn't make sense.

Or maybe he still thought it made sense, but that it wasn't worth it, considering the hostility he encountered?

:\

 

[Murrdox]

Or maybe he still thought it made sense, but that it wasn't worth it, considering the hostility he encountered?

:\

Nah, I wasn't hostile or anything.

It came during a fight with some creature that had a lot of HP and a relatively high AC... I think it was a demon.

Everyone in the party needed something like an 11 or 12 to hit it, and I needed something crazy like an 18.

The wizard in the party then exclaimed that is exactly what HE would need to hit the creature with his staff.

The DM realized that maybe this rule wasn't such a good idea.

 

[Azlan]

Nah, I wasn't hostile or anything.

Hmm. Don't know why I assumed that.

Sorry, I have a bit of hostility towards this one, because I was forced to PLAY under it by my friend who started DMing... The party witnessed it, It pissed me off, and it was changed.

 

[Azlan]

In the campaign where I had created an Archer, my first Ranger...

it made me SOOO happy that the fighter could get Bull's Strength, and I couldn't get the DEX equivalent.

It made me VERY happy that the fighter could get Gauntlets of Ogre Strength to increase his attack and his damage, but I couldn't do anything similar with Dex.

My to-hit bonus was something like a full 6 points LOWER than anyone else in the party, and I had 3-4 feats completely devoted to ranged combat.

What I don't understand is, why didn't you simply switch to lighter armor? (Like, a mithril chain shirt would've been ideal for you. If the group's fighter could've afforded Gauntlets of Ogre Strength, surely you could've afford that.)

You were a ranger, right? What were you doing wearing such heavy armor, in the first place? Didn't that prevent you from using some of your ranger abilities ("Max. Dex Bonus" house rule or none)?

 

[Uder]

What I don't understand is, why didn't you simply switch to lighter armor? (Like, a mithril chain shirt would've been ideal for you. If the group's fighter could've afforded Gauntlets of Ogre Strength, surely you could've afford that.)

Assuming, of course, that mithril armor is sold in shops...

It's only a temporary workaround in any case - the problem is a situation where STR-based attacks have no upper maximum chance to hit, but Dex-based attacks do. I imagine this would make archers feel the pinch sometime around 6-7th level, and they would become irrelevent soon after. Chances are that forward-thinking players will simply avoid range-oriented classes.

You were a ranger, right? What were you doing wearing such heavy armor, in the first place? Didn't that prevent you from using some of your ranger abilities ("Max. Dex Bonus" house rule or none)?

I don't see where he mentions what type of armor he's wearing. It could very well be that he was wearing the aforementioned mithral shirt.

So far, he's the only on who's posted anecdotal evidence from an actual game. What is your experience in using this rule over multiple sessions?

 

[General Barron]

Uh oh... I see some faulty history being thrown around here...

Dex-based combatants are also less likely to be wearing heavy armor; historically, both in the real world and in fantasy role-playing worlds. I've yet to see an archer, a musketeer, or a swashbuckler wearing full plate armor, and even a ranger in same armor is a pretty rare occurance. Even samurai, who were certainly archers, did not really wear "heavy" armor. (Also, note the open-face helms of samurai armor, which did not interfere with their field of vision as did the closed-face, vented helms of European knights.)

Historically, heavy armor wasn't avoided because it 'reduced the accuracy' of ranged combatants; it was avoided because of it's expense or its weight.

Skirmishers, for example, needed to be able to quickly run up to and away from enemy lines, so they would generally only carry shields.

It would make sense for archers to wear armor, since they don't have to move about too much; however, cost-wise this would be an inefficient use of resources, as the melee combatants need armor more than anyone.

Also bear in mind that most foot-soldiers in medieval armies were commoners that had to supply their own equipment, and armor of any type was generally too expensive to afford. So the result was that only the nobles (cavalry) would really have armor, since they could tax their serfs to provide it.

The Japanese, to my knowledge, simply did not have the technology to make large plates of steel (until contact with western powers around the 18th century, of course); hence the reason the Samurai would wear banded or scale armor. According to Wikipedia, Japanese muskateers wore plate armor into the early 19th century.


I really don't see armor having much of an affect on how well you can shoot a bow. You could wear an open faced helmet to get better visibility; you could have your shooting fingers unarmored on your right gauntlet; and the rest of the armor is designed so that it doesn't interfere with you moving your arms and body about in a swordfight. So how would it be any more restrictive to someone who just needs to do one simple movement?

 

[Azlan]

I don't see where he mentions what type of armor he's wearing. It could very well be that he was wearing the aforementioned mithral shirt.

A mithril shirt allows up to a +6 DEX bonus. You'd have to have a phenominal Dex of 24 or greater before you'd outgrow that.

What is your experience in using this rule over multiple sessions?

Exactly what I intended it to be...

Characters who focus on ranged weapons and Finessed melee weapons, as well as characters who use a lot of Dex-based skills, tend to wear light armor. Characters who focus on standard melee weapons tend to wear heavy armor. Characters who are somewhere in between tend to wear medium armor.

Mithril armor is very nice indeed, to acquire. A character who has been limiting himself to medium armor such as chainmail, to avoid the Max. Dex bonus of heavy armors, would definitely make the switch, should he find a suit of mithril plate armor.

Characters in heavy armor tend to eschew potions of Cat's Grace and Gloves of Dexterity, even when available. (These characters tend to be already maxed out, regarding their Dex bonus, because of their armor.) To supplement their AC, wearers of heavy armor favor potions of Barkskin and Amulets of Natural Armor.

Wearers of light armor tend to be 3 or 4 points of Dex away from gaining the maximim Dex bonus afforded by their armor. (A player character with a natural, unaugmented Dex greater than 18 is rare in my campaigns.) They like to use potions of Bull's Strength, since it boosts their damage (if not their attack as well) when using a melee weapon or a thrown ranged weapon.

Just like on a battlefield, historically, combatants with melee weapons and heavy armor tend to be in the front, while opponents with ranged weapons and light armor tend to hang in the back.

 

[Aus_Snow]

Historically, heavy armor wasn't avoided because it 'reduced the accuracy' of ranged combatants; it was avoided because of it's expense or its weight.

Sources?

I really don't see armor having much of an affect on how well you can shoot a bow. You could wear an open faced helmet to get better visibility; you could have your shooting fingers unarmored on your right gauntlet; and the rest of the armor is designed so that it doesn't interfere with you moving your arms and body about in a swordfight. So how would it be any more restrictive to someone who just needs to do one simple movement?

Having worn a couple of types of armour (for a lark, not something I've done since, btw) and having used various bows (something I have an ongoing commitment to doing), I would say it's highly likely that heavier armour *would* reduce accuracy (and probably ROF) significantly. I haven't done both at the same time, I must admit, but as it stands, I'd still rather take subjective experience and logical conclusions therefrom, over (as yet) unvalidated historical references.


Of course, I could be wrong in my assumption. Given real proof, I'll accept that. Until then, I'm in full support of this house ruling, and will be using it myself. For what it's worth.

 

[Azlan]

It would make sense for archers to wear armor, since they don't have to move about too much; however, cost-wise this would be an inefficient use of resources, as the melee combatants need armor more than anyone.

Also bear in mind that most foot-soldiers in medieval armies were commoners that had to supply their own equipment, and armor of any type was generally too expensive to afford. So the result was that only the nobles (cavalry) would really have armor, since they could tax their serfs to provide it.

Then why wasn't it a common battlefield practice for European knights in heavy armor to fire bows before proceeding into melee, as Japanese samurai did? It's not that the knights were unskilled with a bow, for hunting with a bow was a favorite pastime among knights.

The Japanese, to my knowledge, simply did not have the technology to make large plates of steel (until contact with western powers around the 18th century, of course); hence the reason the Samurai would wear banded or scale armor.

Medieval Japanese were able to craft breastplates and other armor pieces of plate. Why, then, was the rest of their armor composed of fine chainmail and silk padding? Well, because, they did not want their armor to impair their ability with the bow; nor, for that matter, did they want to impair their ability with the katana (which, truth be told, uses a fighting style that is more based on Dex than Str).

According to Wikipedia, Japanese muskateers wore plate armor into the early 19th century.

A breastplate, and perhaps shoulder guards and some demi guards for the upper arms, does not make for a full suit of plate armor.

I really don't see armor having much of an affect on how well you can shoot a bow. You could wear an open faced helmet to get better visibility; you could have your shooting fingers unarmored on your right gauntlet; and the rest of the armor is designed so that it doesn't interfere with you moving your arms and body about in a swordfight. So how would it be any more restrictive to someone who just needs to do one simple movement?

Notching an arrow, drawing a bow, lining up a target... All of these actions take careful, precise movements. Shooting at a distant, moving target makes it all the more so. The fact of the matter is, full chainmail and plate armor not only weigh heavily upon your arms and torso, but they also restrict their range of movement. And then there's the extremely narrow field of view afforded by a great helm, which is an integral part of any suit of heavy armor.

So, while wearing armor should not prohibit the usage of a bow, it certainly should penalize it.

 

[Azul]

For a long time, my group played with Max Dex applied in this manner (Max Dex literally capped your effective Dex bonus to the armour's Max Dex for ALL things). We had misread the PHB and applied it to everything.

Yes, the game is still playable but this approach heavily skews the game in favour of the light armours. Archers and finesse fighters do indeed favour lighter armour, but then they already tend to do so for the mobility it provides. I've never seen a rapier or bow centric PC wear anything heavier than medium armour and even that's rare (light armor or magical protection (e.g. mage armour) is the norm - at least for my players).

What really tends to happen with this ruling is that medium and especially heavy armour is shunned by most players because it kills their Dex skills even more than usual but more importantly, it hurts their Initiative and Reflex saves. When heavy armor means more failed saves against area effects like fireballs and breath weapons, players start avoiding it.

Put this rule in place and only the PCs will almost never consider armor with a Max Dex score lower than their Dex (most players already tend to avoid such armour) because any increase in AC will be offset by a decrease in Reflex saves and Initiative. What is the point of sacrificing the mobility for that?

In other words, this creates and even stronger trend towards wearing chain shirts (pref. mithril) or other light armour... even among tanks.