Origin of the "no dex bonus" rule?

[Arrowhawk]

Awhile back there was a thread on being flat-footed. During that discussion I questioned the origins of the "no dex bonus" penalty. I am curious if anyone knows:

1) The history of how "no dex bonus" became a rule? Was it in 2e? 3.0? Is it in 4e?

2) Is there another penalty or status condition in the game which takes away any positive ability modifier, but leaves the ability's negative modifier? In other words, is there a parallel to the "no dex bonus" status for any of the other abilities, or Dex the only ability modifier that suffers such a situation?

 

[am181d]

Awhile back there was a thread on being flat-footed. During that discussion I questioned the origins of the "no dex bonus" penalty. I am curious if anyone knows:

1) The history of how "no dex bonus" became a rule? Was it in 2e? 3.0? Is it in 4e?

2) Is there another penalty or status condition in the game which takes away any positive ability modifier, but leaves the ability's negative modifier? In other words, is there a parallel to the "no dex bonus" status for any of the other abilities, or Dex the only ability modifier that suffers such a situation?

I'm not 100% sure what you're asking. D&D has always had situations in which characters are denied their Dex bonus to AC going back at least as far as 1st edition, and I think before.

(That said, I don't think the term "flat-footed" made it into the lexicon until 3rd edition.)

My guess is that the "penalty" goes back as far as the bonus.

 

[Spatula]

You always lost your Dex bonus to AC when surprised, going back to AD&D 1st edition at least. 4e uses the "combat advantage" condition (a flat +2 bonus to be hit) for surprise, instead.

 

[airwalkrr]

The losing of Dexterity bonus to AC is a rule that is as old as the game AFAIK.

 

[Arrowhawk]

You always lost your Dex bonus to AC when surprised, going back to AD&D 1st edition at least. 4e uses the "combat advantage" condition (a flat +2 bonus to be hit) for surprise, instead.

So 4e did away with all the situations in which a person loses their Dex bonus and went to a flat modifier?

 

[MerricB]

So 4e did away with all the situations in which a person loses their Dex bonus and went to a flat modifier?

Well, 4e didn't do away with the situations, just what it meant.

"Combat Advantage" against opponents is gained due to surprise, flanking, bluffing, powers, invisibility, blindness, dazing, etc. It gives a +2 to hit and allows the use of certain powers (notably Sneak Attack). The Dex/Int bonus to AC is ignored. Note that only characters using light armour have a Dex bonus - and it can be an Int bonus if that's higher. Regardless of how good a fighter's Dex is, they get no bonus from it in plate armour.

In original D&D, there was no AC bonus from Dex.
In original D&D + Supplement I, only fighters gained an AC bonus from Dex! (It was not negated for surprise).

Cheers!

 

[Arrowhawk]

Well, 4e didn't do away with the situations, just what it meant.

"Combat Advantage" against opponents is gained due to surprise, flanking, bluffing, powers, invisibility, blindness, dazing, etc. It gives a +2 to hit and allows the use of certain powers (notably Sneak Attack). The Dex/Int bonus to AC is ignored. Note that only characters using light armour have a Dex bonus - and it can be an Int bonus if that's higher. Regardless of how good a fighter's Dex is, they get no bonus from it in plate armour.

In original D&D, there was no AC bonus from Dex.
In original D&D + Supplement I, only fighters gained an AC bonus from Dex! (It was not negated for surprise).

Cheers!

So I'm confused. It sounds like you're saying that 4e is exactly the same as 3.x in that you have situations where you lose any and all "bonux" but the negative modifier still applies?

I thought the previous poster was saying they no longer got rid of the bonus to AC...but it sounds like you are saying they do.

 

[Arrowhawk]

I'm not 100% sure what you're asking. D&D has always had situations in which characters are denied their Dex bonus to AC going back at least as far as 1st edition, and I think before.

(That said, I don't think the term "flat-footed" made it into the lexicon until 3rd edition.)

My guess is that the "penalty" goes back as far as the bonus.

Several have you have responded that 1e imposed the "no dex bonus" rule. That is technically false. The DMG on page 28 said that BOTH positive and negative modifiers were ignored in certain situations e.g. unseen attack, dodging a boulder, spells.

However, those Dex modifiers (both positive and negative) did affect saving throws in those same situations.

I'm asking just what i wrote. Why did 3.5 decide that only the "bonus" would be eliminated if this was an attack you can't see? How can one still have a negative modifier apply if you aren't reacting to the attack. The 3.5 implementation is self-contradictory and I'm looking for someone who might have come across some explanation from WotC as to the reasons behind the rule.

 

[Wyvernhand]

I can see the line of reasoning. A slow person doesn't become more situationally aware just because they didn't see an attack coming...thats VERY counterintuitive. I agree with the denying of the bonus logic 100%. Anything else is the "doesn't make sense" catagory.

 

[Arrowhawk]

I can see the line of reasoning. A slow person doesn't become more situationally aware just because they didn't see an attack coming...thats VERY counterintuitive. I agree with the denying of the bonus logic 100%. Anything else is the "doesn't make sense" catagory.

I person who has a below 10 dex isn't necessarily "slow" they are less coordinated. They might not be able to run faster, but it's not like they move around in a bottle of molasses. So really it make 100% more sense that an uncoordinated person might be harder to hit if they weren't trying to dodge the attack...as their efforts to dodge would make the situation worse i.e. they would step into the attack.

What doesn't follow any real world logic is that the average person wouldn't be easier to hit if they were not able to dodge an attack...but a person with superhuman dexterity would.

Consider this...if two people are fooled by a feint (miss by the same modifier)...one has a 10 Dex and the other has a 30...it makes 100% sense that the person with a 10 Dex is no easier to hit? Uh.....no.

The ability to dodge something isn't magic. There is no base state that gets reduced to the average-person-level. Would it make sense to have a Feeblemind spell make a smart person average but leave an average person unchanged? No, but this is essesntially the logic behind no dex bonus.