Origin of the "no dex bonus" rule?

[Arrowhawk]

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.

Okay, so I was reading it correct at first. You said no loss due to "surprise." What about other situations...like climbing a rope, being encumbered, etc. Do these situations in 4e wipe out a dex bonus but keep a penalty?

And FYI, if the underlying mechanic of how stat/abilities (specifically modifiers) work doesn't make sense...then any rules that is based on hem isn't going to make any sense either.

EDIT:
But Merric said AC bonus from Dex/Int is "ignored." So that's confusing. Ignored in that you don't get the bonus or ignored in that it is no longer considered as a consequence of someone having a "combat advantage" against you.

 

[MerricB]

Okay, so I was reading it correct at first. You said no loss due to "surprise." What about other situations...like climbing a rope, being encumbered, etc. Do these situations in 4e wipe out a dex bonus but keep a penalty?

EDIT:
But Merric said AC bonus from Dex/Int is "ignored." So that's confusing. Ignored in that you don't get the bonus or ignored in that it is no longer considered as a consequence of someone having a "combat advantage" against you.

Sorry - the intent of that was that Dex/Int bonus always applies; the rules "ignore" removing it. It made sense when I was typing it.

Note well that there's no Dex/Int bonus for characters in heavy armour in 4E.

In the situations where you'd lose your Dex modifier in 3E, instead you grant Combat Advantage. Pretty much. Surprise, flanking, being dazed, prone (for melee attacks), etc.

Cheers!

 

[MerricB]

Do the TWF feats require high Dex?

In 3E, they do. Dex 15 for TWF. You need co-ordination to wield two blades without them hitting each other.

In AD&D, for the limited times you could wield two weapons, high Dex reduced the penalties for fighting in that way.

Cheers!

 

[Arrowhawk]

Thanks Merric and Tequila.

Any chance you've seen a discussion or article on why they changed the mechanic in 4e? Any comments on how this affected what people call "balance?"

 

[Arrowhawk]

In 3E, they do. Dex 15 for TWF. You need co-ordination to wield two blades without them hitting each other.

In AD&D, for the limited times you could wield two weapons, high Dex reduced the penalties for fighting in that way.

Cheers!

As you point out, the Dex requirement is due to the coordination requirements and has nothing to do with moving faster.

There are several classes, Samurai, Swashbuckler, and Ranger come to mind, that get TWF regardless of Dex. A Ranger with a 3 Dex and Perfect TWF gets the same number of attacks as a 30 Dex Ranger...with no comparable to-hit penalties if both are using longswords.

But I'm sure you knew that.

 

[MerricB]

Thanks Merric and Tequila.

Any chance you've seen a discussion or article on why they changed the mechanic in 4e? Any comments on how this affected what people call "balance?"

I don't think I have, but I can give you a few clues. The first is that it's much, much easier to remember. If you look at 3e, you needed to keep track of the following forms of AC:
* normal
* vs touch attacks
* normal when surprised
* vs touch attacks when surprised
and so on an so forth. Monster stats would have "AC, touch, flat-footed". It's a lot to calculate. And it takes up valuable space on statblocks.

Consider also the difference in values: in AD&D, a very dexterous character would have a 4 bonus to AC which would be penalised - and that was pretty rare. Often, there'd be no penalty at all. In 3E, the bonus could (and did) get as high as +12 at the higher levels.

Another, major factor, is that monster AC does not depend on Dexterity in 4E. It derives purely from level and role (and how the designer wants to tweak it). As heavy armour fighters are also not using Dex/Int to improve their AC, the *only* characters you're actually affecting are the thieves and magic-users of the party.

Honestly, by that stage, it's a rule not worth keeping.

One effect of the tighter mathematics of 4E is that a +2 bonus is actually significant (especially once you consider that rogues and other creatures have special effects against foes they have Combat Advantage against). It's a penalty for the surprised fighter and thief alike.

Just as an additional thing to consider: What if every ability score gave a bonus and there were no penalties. So, a Dex of 3 was a +1 bonus and a Dex of 18 was a +9 bonus. (You just shift the numbers up by 5). Then, losing your Dex bonus during a surprise round would be exceptionally good to the character surprising you...

Cheers!

 

[MerricB]

My google-fu is strong!

Mike Mearls on the origin of Combat Advantage

Cheers!

 

[MerricB]

As you point out, the Dex requirement is due to the coordination requirements and has nothing to do with moving faster.

There are several classes, Samurai, Swashbuckler, and Ranger come to mind, that get TWF regardless of Dex. A Ranger with a 3 Dex and Perfect TWF gets the same number of attacks as a 30 Dex Ranger...with no comparable to-hit penalties if both are using longswords.

But I'm sure you knew that.

Yeah. I don't buy the "move faster" argument myself. React faster, yes (that's why it gives an initiative bonus).

Incidentally, Dex rarely gave an initiative bonus in AD&D, due to 1-minute combat rounds. (There were a few rare exceptions when it did).

Cheers!

 

[Arrowhawk]

I don't think I have, but I can give you a few clues. The first is that it's much, much easier to remember. If you look at 3e, you needed to keep track of the following forms of AC:
* normal
* vs touch attacks
* normal when surprised
* vs touch attacks when surprised
and so on an so forth. Monster stats would have "AC, touch, flat-footed". It's a lot to calculate. And it takes up valuable space on statblocks.

Consider also the difference in values: in AD&D, a very dexterous character would have a 4 bonus to AC which would be penalised - and that was pretty rare. Often, there'd be no penalty at all. In 3E, the bonus could (and did) get as high as +12 at the higher levels.

Another, major factor, is that monster AC does not depend on Dexterity in 4E. It derives purely from level and role (and how the designer wants to tweak it). As heavy armour fighters are also not using Dex/Int to improve their AC, the *only* characters you're actually affecting are the thieves and magic-users of the party.

Honestly, by that stage, it's a rule not worth keeping.

One effect of the tighter mathematics of 4E is that a +2 bonus is actually significant (especially once you consider that rogues and other creatures have special effects against foes they have Combat Advantage against). It's a penalty for the surprised fighter and thief alike.

Just as an additional thing to consider: What if every ability score gave a bonus and there were no penalties. So, a Dex of 3 was a +1 bonus and a Dex of 18 was a +9 bonus. (You just shift the numbers up by 5). Then, losing your Dex bonus during a surprise round would be exceptionally good to the character surprising you...

Cheers!

Merric,

Definitely appreciate all the comments offered. Ultimately I'm trying to understand the logic and/or rationale behind what they did in 3e. Why they changed it in 4e does offer some insight. However you point to a number of valid considerations that make it hard to interpret the abandonment of the rule as being attributed to any one specific reason.

What if every ability score gave a bonus and there were no penalties.

This is essentially the same rationale I used in a thread on FF'd a couple of months ago. From Dex of 2 through infinity, you're increasing a creatures ability to dodge. This would have prevented them from using a no dex "bonus" rule and most likely resulted in a flat penalty...as they are doing now.

What is hard to determine is what exactly is the 3e rule supposed to "balance." Are high Dex Rangers so dangerous to 3.5, WotC felt the need to wipe out their AC with Feint based on a Sense Motive check? SM isn't even a class skill.

Any thoughts on the horrors that result from eliminating the NDB rule (substituting a flat penalty) but still allowing Sneak Attack in those situations?

 

[MerricB]

What is hard to determine is what exactly is the 3e rule supposed to "balance." Are high Dex Rangers so dangerous to 3.5, WotC felt the need to wipe out their AC with Feint based on a Sense Motive check? SM isn't even a class skill.

It's a legacy issue. A lot of 3E design was basically redoing 2E with slightly better mechanics (and much better ways of expressing them). As a result, because 2E eliminated Dex bonuses for surprise, so did 3E. Unfortunately, 3E really wasn't tested at high levels... when the maths becomes really wonky.

Any thoughts on the horrors that result from eliminating the NDB rule (substituting a flat penalty) but still allowing Sneak Attack in those situations?

My experience based on a campaign of 1st to 28th level in 4e (and ongoing) is that it works well. But 4e balances damage differently than 3e.

Cheers!