Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Fanaelialae" data-source="post: 6807542" data-attributes="member: 53980">The assumption is that the 3 Dex guy will be wearing heavy armor, rendering his Dex penalty moot. Advantage can, roughly speaking, be equated to a +5 bonus to hit. Therefore, it's easier to hit the lightly armored who is "denied his dex" and the heavy armor guy who could never use his dex but also can't use his armor to full advantage. On top of that, any hits against either are considered crits, which doesn't have a numerical equivalent, but still represents that the target is much less able to defend himself.It's less a silly rule in my eyes and more just a simplification. Rather than having to recalculate AC, you simply have advantage against a normal AC. Outside the corner case where the PCs are stripped of their armor, it largely works.You could certainly houserule it to be Dex 0. I'd probably remove the advantage in that case, since that would be overkill (you're already representing that the target is incapable of movement with the Dex penalty). But then heavy armor users would suffer no penalty from paralysis, since Dexterity doesn't factor into their AC, which doesn't make much sense (we're not talking power armor here). I suppose you could grant advantage against heavy armor but not light and medium armor, though that does add a little complexity. In any case, I can see why the designers went the route they did, being that one of their design tenants seems to have been to avoid over-complicating the core rules.</blockquote>

Verification