|
Post by CreativeCowboy on Jan 31, 2013 16:46:50 GMT -8
"Armor Class: 10 + armor bonus + shield bonus + Dexterity modifier + size modifier" page 135 PHB
So I have these numbers: armor bonus: Chainmail +5 Dexterity modifier: -1 size modifier: +1
Here is my result/thinking: AC is 15. Touch AC is 9 Flat footed is 16
Something wrong here. Anyone care to elucidate me, please?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 1, 2013 4:36:08 GMT -8
I think negative Dex bonus applies to flat footed too.
|
|
|
Post by CreativeCowboy on Feb 1, 2013 5:53:52 GMT -8
You know I once got into a big discussion with a designer about common sense in tabletop gaming. Of course he was right. You gotta design that shit.
Min-maxers must to love this. All I have found is the stipulation that "the bonus" does not apply (rather than "a/any" bonus). So I am hunting for the exam question like game week is prep for finals.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 1, 2013 8:34:19 GMT -8
I am 100% sure I have seen the answer somewhere, perhaps in the 3.5 books or most likely in an FAQ in the wizards website a long time ago. Of course this matters little because the DM is the final arbiter.
However if you need a good argument, to throw at the douchebag who wants to make a blind fighter/caster with 3 DEX who is constantly flatfooted and takes no penalty for it, go with this: Since 3.0, unattended inanimate objects are considered to have a dexterity of 0 which gives them a base AC of 5 (-5 for dex modifier) and are by default cosidered flat-footed, since they have no senses.
Of course, speaking from personal experience, I would encourage any GM to avoid such rules lawyer-y arguments since this can create a precedent and the game can often devolve into constant research in the rulebooks. Just make a call as a DM and stick with it.
|
|
kevinr
Journeyman Douchebag
Posts: 158
|
Post by kevinr on Feb 1, 2013 11:08:52 GMT -8
The minus to a modifier is not a bonus but a penalty and penalties always apply . Flat footed does not remove the dex modifier it just does not grant the bonus in this case flat footed would stay at the base ac of 15.
|
|
|
Post by CreativeCowboy on Feb 1, 2013 12:49:52 GMT -8
I am going to re-read this with both your replies in mind. Thank you.
I have heard postulate that a domestic cat can kill a low-level character and that PCs can walk under water with impunity in given circumstances. (I am not talking about a GM magically allowing a PC this superhuman achievement). This stuff makes me weep to think that common sense can be so easily supplanted. PC's coming up with crazy ideas that thwart a GM's obstacles I enjoy watching happen. However watching the munchkin-rules lawyer at work is soul sucking.
GM: "But walking under water holding your breath is ridiculous! You're not a fish." Munchkin: "According to the rules I just need X on my character sheet and I can do it. You're a douche bag for not simply saying "Yes, and!" It’s not my fault you don’t know how to thwart me. Mwahahahahahahahaaaa!
I mean, with such serious stretches to the fabric of what's believable, how does anyone design story that can have a shared fantasy? How far into stipulating minutia do I have to nerd into a social contract? How do the other players' engrossment, their suspension of belief at the table, react to such a rules immersive environment (no pun intended)?!
And they call a ‘system’ broken?!
What?! Who…? Where am I? Oh, it’s you. Sorry, I forgot where I was for a moment. Disregard the rant. It’s been a hard week: TWIG. (This Week In Gaming)
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 1, 2013 13:08:22 GMT -8
GM: "But walking under water holding your breath is ridiculous! You're not a fish." Munchkin: "According to the rules I just need X on my character sheet and I can do it. You're a douche bag for not simply saying "Yes, and!" It’s not my fault you don’t know how to thwart me. Mwahahahahahahahaaaa! GM You can walk underwater with your full plate, but you will have to come up eventually and your armor is full of water that can not escape, DC 30 climb plus armor and shield penalties, or hold your breath for the 10 minutes that will take you to remove your armor. Take it or leave it. I say give them a choice but don't argue with them over the rules. If an action seems impossible, it is within your power as a DM to give huge "circumstance" penalties to it. That's how the rules are designed to be implemented.
|
|
|
Post by CreativeCowboy on Feb 1, 2013 13:29:48 GMT -8
I hear you. I am not fast enough to make those come backs or memorize every twist. It is the case when I write: my characters are so much smarter than I.
Munchkin (with smug smile): "So why is the water not able to drain off plates of metal? I can just take 10 and walk up onto land and dry my under doublet. I can take off my plate and carry it up onto land. No roll is required because there is no risk. pfft! It's not like I am going to drown"
Not that there is anything adversarial in this kind of immersive game mechanic dialogue.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 1, 2013 13:50:11 GMT -8
I hear you. I am not fast enough to make those come backs or memorize every twist. It is the case when I write: my characters are so much smarter than I. Munchkin (with smug smile): "So why is the water not able to drain off plates of metal? I can just take 10 and walk up onto land and dry my under doublet. I can take off my plate and carry it up onto land. No roll is required because there is no risk. pfft! It's not like I am going to drown" Not that there is anything adversarial in this kind of immersive game mechanic dialogue. Haha, I see your point. I think a more reasonable system might suit you better, almost every system does non-combat situations better than d20. The problem is that DnD/pathfinder "trains" DMs and players to apply the rules of the game over common sense and also it limits the DM heavily when designing challenges: Player How did that Demon do 4 sword attacks? What is his base attack? What is his hit dice number and what classes does he have? It is hard for someone that has only played DnD to comprehend that a DM does not have to follow the same rules as him. Because that is how the game presents its ruleset, without at any point mentioning that the DM doesn't have to obey the same limitations as the players. I have spent too much time calculating Hit Die, Natural Armors, Base Attack bonuses, Saves, Claw/Claw/Bite rotations and such bullshit that I no longer write down my npcs/antagonists, if I want him to have 100 hit points and +14 attack, that's what he will have, period. Not that I play DnD anymore, other systems are much more flexible in that regard, and many (like GURPS) reward how you approach an encounter rather than how high your bonuses are compared to the enemies'.
|
|
|
Post by CreativeCowboy on Feb 1, 2013 23:45:07 GMT -8
GURPS has been suggested to me – as far back as the 80s when I was looking for a modern-world-capable game – but I haven’t the memory to keep everything together. This would affect play and player experience (including mine). So I prefer to customize what I grok (and, as you can see, I have trouble groking what I think I grok). Because of my exposure to Gygax’s humility as a designer, I have no hang-up with customizing into my system or suffer any unreasonable expectation from myself about creating a system. It’s an organic thing at the table. Consistently applied. No douche bags permitted.
But there are always douche bags lurking, of course. Best not to be caught in N number of surprise segments by them.
You captured the meaning of RPGs for me in your reference to how you approach the game. That just so needs to be promoted in the hobby. It is its greatest strength and weakness. Were more people aware of that, there would be more people open to play.
Gotto go write a poem for my PCs, which I think they might find at today’s game IF they use Read Magic. If not, well, then the preparation is a creative exercise for me: one of the sunk costs to RPGs is personal development. (There’s a slogan!)
|
|