No, that's PRECISELY what it means. They move slower, act slower, and are less coordinated when they do.
Origin of the "no dex bonus" rule?
- Thread starter Arrowhawk
- Start date
No, that's PRECISELY what it means. They move slower, act slower, and are less coordinated when they do.
No. It's not. People who are less coordinated don't drink a cup of coffee slower than people who are more coordinated. Don't spout nonsense. You can't walk around a crowded city and have any clue who is more or less coordinated until you play darts or basketball with them.
What is true is that they react slower. So if two people aren't reacting to something, then the less coordinated isn't at any disadvantage for being hit.
Last edited:
No, what you're describing is what amounts to the AVERAGE person. The AVERAGE person doesn't give any indication that they're more or less clumsy. Because they're not. They're average.
But just as an 18 Int indicates a genius so to does 3 dex indicate a lumbering buffoon.
Sorry you don't like it, but it is what it is.
A person with 3 dex who doesn't want to spill coffee all over himself drinks it slower and more deliberately than a person with 18 dex who could balance it on his little finger and dip a crumpet into it at his leisure. Blindfolded.
Your argument just ran into the wall and broke its neck. If what you were saying were true in D&D, then a person with a 3 Dex would take a huge negative modifier when swinging a sword. Do they? No. If Dex affected the speed with which you acted, then a person with a 3 Dex would always get fewer attacks per round versus a person with an 18 Dex..or even a 25 dex for that matter. Do they? No.
"Sorry you don't like it, but it is what it is."
Exccccccccccccepppppt...
Remember Weapon Finesse? Conveniently you have not. Remember Greater Two Weapon Fighting? Conveniently you have not.
Those feats that specifically used to answer precisely what you're saying?
Why doesn't Strength give multiple attacks? In fact in ANY instance does strength provide multiple attacks? Now that's a funny sort of thing. If Dex had no reflection on whether or not you were quicker, etc etc...
Your argument is rife with failure, as angry as that makes you.
Tequila Sunrise
Adventurer
No, you were right: Merric is confirming that 4e doesn't deny anyone their Dex [or other stat bonus] to AC because of surprise. (The only way to lose your stat bonus to AC in 4e is by wearing heavy armor.)
As to your gripe about 3.x surprise rules, you're right that they don't make sense. D&D's ability score/bonus system just doesn't model reality well, so the game writers made a judgment call. If they had decided to write the surprise rules the way you seem to want, they wouldn't make any more sense.
am181d
Adventurer
Ok, so the question isn't about being denied your Dex bonus. It's about not NOT applying your Dex penalty. I believe that's specific to 3rd edition. I'm fairly certain that the rule in 2nd edition was you either had your Dex or you didn't. That's why I always wrote my AC like this:
AC: 14 (12)
AC: 14 (12)
"Exccccccccccccepppppt..." TWF gives you extra attacks because you are using another weapon...Hello??!?! It has absolutely nothing to do with being quicker.
You said having a lower dex makes you move slower. WF doesn't change the fact that a 3 Dex fighter using Sword & Board gets just as many attacks as an 18 Dex fighter with Sword & Board. Epic fail.
You're wrong. Nothing you can say changes that. The more you try, the bigger the hole you dig.
"Sorry you don't like it, but it is what it is."
