Dex caps to med/heavy armors

[Theodoxus]

It would be interesting to see an edition that would break up AC into "Evasion" and "Armor" to open up a wider understanding of what damage is. One of the things I do while I'm DMing is by having the descriptions based on how the the attack roll matches up. If your AC is 19 when holding a +2 shield and wearing half plate, it's really 10+2 Dexterity+5 Armor + 2 Shield. Anything under 10 doesn't get near the creature. if it's between 10 and the amount of Dexterity included (in this suggestion, 10-12), the creature dodges it. If it's between that number and the amount of AC with the armor included, it's a hit that is absorbed by or ricochets off of the armor (in this example, 13-17). And between that amount and the amount of AC with the shield is intercepted, deflected or otherwise foiled by the shield (18 & 19).

I experimented with something like this, but ultimately only use it for NPCs.

My armors are closer aligned to World of Warcraft; Light is leather (and padded) including hide. Medium is chain, and Heavy is plated. But I also went full Rock/Paper/Scissors, so each level of armor is resistant to one B/P/S and vulnerable to another. Armor also has hit point values. Finally, I added a 'Defense' stat to all characters, that's baseline 8+PB+Dex mod. Anything that rolls below defense straight up misses. AC is a flat value based on the armor that's added to Defense. So, light is typically +1 to +3 AC, medium is typically +4 to +6 AC and Heavy is typically +7 to +9.

A hit between defense and AC hits the armor and deals damage to the AHP. If the armor is resistant to the damage, it takes half, if vulnerable, it takes double. If the armor loses all AHP, any additional damage carries over (but isn't modified by resistance or vulnerability). A hit above AC hurts the creature normally.

Typical AHP is 10x AC value, and can be repaired with a smith or leatherworking check (depending on the type of armor), or the Mending cantrip repairs 10 AHP per casting.

Magic armor typically removes the vulnerability to non-magical weapons, as well as add 20x the additional AC value of the armor (so a +1 armor would grant 20 additional AHP.)

For my NPCs, I went very quick and dirty, I take their book listed HP, split it in half, one is meat, the other is AHP. It allows for a bit more dynamic fights as bad rolls might just mean churning through armor, while decent rolls are taking out the mobs faster than is typical. For that, magical attacks that target saves are split evenly between AHP and regular HP - it gives martials a small boon in that respect.

[LibraryOgre]

If I were to change the armor system, and I'm not; I'd have hitting you be based on your dex, class and level and armor would provide damage reduction based on type. But, if I really want to do that, I'll just play a game already designed that way.

Hackmaster has

Defense roll is determined by your combat style and how many attacks you've been subject to; shields are d20p, two-handed weapons are d20p for the first attack, d20p-4 for subsequent attacks, two weapon is either d20p then d20p-4, or d10p (if you're attacking with both weapons, instead of defending with the second).

Then come bonuses.

Dexterity. Wisdom. Specialization. Talent. Size. Shield.

And once you've determined the hit, armor (and shield) reduce damage.

[Sigreid]

Hackmaster has

Defense roll is determined by your combat style and how many attacks you've been subject to; shields are d20p, two-handed weapons are d20p for the first attack, d20p-4 for subsequent attacks, two weapon is either d20p then d20p-4, or d10p (if you're attacking with both weapons, instead of defending with the second).

Then come bonuses.

Dexterity. Wisdom. Specialization. Talent. Size. Shield.

And once you've determined the hit, armor (and shield) reduce damage.

Rune quest has a good system.

[MoiMagnus]

After going down a rabbit hole on YouTube watching people beat the snot out of each other wearing full plate armor, I thought why is there a dex cap to medium and no dex given to heavy armor? These people are scampering about with great agility. Would it break the game if high dex could still help the AC of characters wearing such armor? Anyone have any experience with this? AC is not all that in this game, but every little bit helps the poor martial...

It's the same reason why you have to choose between Dex and Str when using a sword rather than using both.

The point is to make it so low-Dex martial characters are not significantly weaker than high-Dex ones (and they already lack initiative, stealth, and capability to avoid fireballs, so I think that's enough drawbacks for them).

I'd rather add +3AC to every non-spellcasters than add AC dependent on Dex to some martials.

Especially since spellcasters tend to be able to get away with one ability score. Your cleric use the same ability score for the number of spell prepared, the accuracy of spells attacks, the DC of other spells, and their class special powers.

And while I'm fine with leaving the single-ability-depedent world, I find that peoples tend to focus way to much on Dex and Str. Where are the bonuses to attack and defense my martial would get from using its intelligence/wisdom to anticipate the enemies' moves and recognize the fighting style of my opponents to adapt my own? (Or against a monster, identify the weak points?) Where are the effects of charisma on moral, given that self-confidence can have a huge effect on how well someone execute their attacks?

[Snails]

It is an unofficial Sacred Cow that big strong heavily armored characters are slow and stupid, and the smart ones are Dex builds. With the bounded accuracy of 5e, this idea is toned down but we definitely have Dex Superiority going on.

The idea is an overused pop culture trope, where the clever David outsmarts the stupid Goliath, very commonly found in movies, television, comic books. There are obvious reasons why it is more dramatic to have the underdog eventually prevail against a stronger enemy by some ruse or feat of agility, rather than watch our hero casually slap the villain into submission, but we are not required to dogmatically adhere to these formulas in a game.

It is really a modernism. Read about Odysseus and he is both strong and clever. Read old stories about Robin Hood and they more often talk up his physical strength and stamina than other attributes. The knights of the Round Table are strong, some wise & some stupid but all very strong -- that is why they are great knights.

In 5e, how they gimp the heavy armor is more balanced than in previous systems, because now you can dumpstat your Dex without suffering an AC hit. Is that realistic? Oh, no, not even a little. But it is perfectly okay-ish in terms of practical play value.

And a final point from the soap box: In the real world, quickness is more closely related to Str than Dex. Do not be fooled by the Sacred Cow. If you want to really add realism, add the Str mod to the AC of heavily armored PCs.

[LibraryOgre]

It is an unofficial Sacred Cow that big strong heavily armored characters are slow and stupid, and the smart ones are Dex builds. With the bounded accuracy of 5e, this idea is toned down but we definitely have Dex Superiority going on.
....
In 5e, how they gimp the heavy armor is more balanced than in previous systems, because now you can dumpstat your Dex without suffering an AC hit. Is that realistic? Oh, no, not even a little. But it is perfectly okay-ish in terms of practical play value.

And a final point from the soap box: In the real world, quickness is more closely related to Str than Dex. Do not be fooled by the Sacred Cow. If you want to really add realism, add the Str mod to the AC of heavily armored PCs.

Notably, in AD&D, Dex applied completely to all armors; encumbrance determined if you took a penalty to AC or attacks.

[Skrum]

It is an unofficial Sacred Cow that big strong heavily armored characters are slow and stupid, and the smart ones are Dex builds. With the bounded accuracy of 5e, this idea is toned down but we definitely have Dex Superiority going on.

The idea is an overused pop culture trope, where the clever David outsmarts the stupid Goliath, very commonly found in movies, television, comic books. There are obvious reasons why it is more dramatic to have the underdog eventually prevail against a stronger enemy by some ruse or feat of agility, rather than watch our hero casually slap the villain into submission, but we are not required to dogmatically adhere to these formulas in a game.

It is really a modernism. Read about Odysseus and he is both strong and clever. Read old stories about Robin Hood and they more often talk up his physical strength and stamina than other attributes. The knights of the Round Table are strong, some wise & some stupid but all very strong -- that is why they are great knights.

In 5e, how they gimp the heavy armor is more balanced than in previous systems, because now you can dumpstat your Dex without suffering an AC hit. Is that realistic? Oh, no, not even a little. But it is perfectly okay-ish in terms of practical play value.

Agree with everything here but especially

And a final point from the soap box: In the real world, quickness is more closely related to Str than Dex. Do not be fooled by the Sacred Cow. If you want to really add realism, add the Str mod to the AC of heavily armored PCs.

This.

The fact that Str and Dex are separate stats 1) makes almost no sense at all from a real world perspective, and 2) does a huge disservice to martial characters. There should just be one stat, something like Athleticism, or Physicality. There really isn't such a thing as speed without strength. Someone might lack *mass* and that will put them at a disadvantage against a larger opponent, but if someone is very fast, they almost certainly also have a strength advantage against a similar sized person.

[kazaryu]

Purely game balance - D&D armor rules have never had much to do with reality.

to be fair, most of 5e's rules have little to do with reality. DnD as a whole is about simulating heroic fantasy, not reality+magic. and 5e specifically was designed to be simple and easy to learn/run/play.

Makes one wonder if there's really any point in differentiating between armours (or indeed weapons) at all and just base it on character ability. "Warriors" are supposed to have high AC, so their Class tells them they all have high AC, regardless of whether they choose to have it with high dex and light armour, low dex and heavy armour or somewhere in between. Same with weapons; a Rogue is supposed to be just as deadly with a small blade as a Fighter is with their greatsword; only difference is the aesthetics and practicalities. Could not Class determine whether you're rolling d6 or d12 for damage? Could not Class Features, Feats or other abilities also determine what you can do with a weapon more than the weapon itself?

there are a couple reasons why. first off, 'warriors' aren't just meant to have high AC compared to the others. DnD is about archetypes, and rogue a thats hard to hit because they're so dodgy is as established an archetype as the heavily armored soldier that shrugs off the puny attacks of lesser people. hence, light armor users can get almost as much AC as heavy armor users.

but even beyond that there are several mechanical reasons to have established groupings related to armor, they're not largely taken advantage of in 5e, but were fairly common in other editions/games. That reason is that it allows you to attach extra mechanics to specific armors. either through feats, magic items, class abilities, even special materials. think medium armor master (probably the most boring example) or heavy armor master. (more unique). but it doesn't *have* to stop at those levels. previous editions (and off shoots) had entire subclasses and prestige classes entirely built around specializing in particular pieces of equipment. and thats much easier to do when you have established groupings, rather than tying them to base class.

[DarknessEternal]

Dex is already far too strong. It needs to do fewer things, not more.

[Vahnavoi]

Notably, in AD&D, Dex applied completely to all armors; encumbrance determined if you took a penalty to AC or attacks.

Came here to say this. Even pre-d20 versions of D&D and retroclones of it have zero qualms letting Dexterity stack with armor. What keeps non-Fighters from wearing heavy armor is more often class or Strength requirements, either directly (must have X Strength to wear Y armor) or indirectly (via encumberance, as above).

The anecdotes of real armored combat are amusing to me, since I participate in such sports. But getting that from D&D would require going back to the basics and rebuilding the entire combat system from the ground up.

[JellyPooga]

There are a couple reasons why. first off, 'warriors' aren't just meant to have high AC compared to the others. DnD is about archetypes, and rogue a thats hard to hit because they're so dodgy is as established an archetype as the heavily armored soldier that shrugs off the puny attacks of lesser people. hence, light armor users can get almost as much AC as heavy armor users.

That's my point. If the various methods of getting to AC:X have little differentiating them, why differentiate between those methods at all? Better to base how you get to AC:X on something else e.g. your character archetype AKA your Class. AC means little if everyone has AC:18, regardless of whether you got there with Plate, Mage or Dex armour. If a factor other than the armour type dictates the numerical value, the armour type itself (which is basically an aesthetic choice if all armours lead to the same AC, as is the case under the current rules) becomes a characterisation choice rather than a mechanical one.

But even beyond that there are several mechanical reasons to have established groupings related to armor, they're not largely taken advantage of in 5e, but were fairly common in other editions/games. That reason is that it allows you to attach extra mechanics to specific armors. either through feats, magic items, class abilities, even special materials. think medium armor master (probably the most boring example) or heavy armor master. (more unique). but it doesn't *have* to stop at those levels. previous editions (and off shoots) had entire subclasses and prestige classes entirely built around specializing in particular pieces of equipment. and thats much easier to do when you have established groupings, rather than tying them to base class.

And there's nothing stopping you from doing just this if you divorce AC from actual armour. You can still have plate armour offer damage reduction or spiked armour give you a piercing grapple (or whatever) without having to attach thr numerical AC figure to it. One of the most common armour houserules I see across a lot of systems divides armour efficacy into "hit avoidance" and "damage reduction"; heck, it's in several editions of D&D as an officially published optional rule. Divorcing AC entirely from actual armour only allows for more flexibility and variety in this regard; if you're not having to balance "special effects" against "AC bonus", those special effects can have wider scope and variety.

[Spiryt]

Always seemed to me that some kind of percental Dex cap would be much more elegant solution.


Like, say, armor with AC of -5/+5/15, depending on edition, allows you to have 50% of your Dexterity bonus (rounded down), or +2, whichever's greater.

In +8/+1 armor, make it 30%, or something.

This way you still have reduced mobility while in heavy armor, but some straight out supernaturally agile Catfolk with 30 Dexterity still can doge and parry better than some mostly average Joe. while in heavy harness. He can actually wear some + 2 plate, and have better AC than he would have had if naked.

[LibraryOgre]

Dex is already far too strong. It needs to do fewer things, not more.

Remove Dex bonuses to damage goes a long way. Make damage the domain of strength, and accuracy the domain of Dex.

[Arkhios]

Remove Dex bonuses to damage goes a long way. Make damage the domain of strength, and accuracy the domain of Dex.

So... make To Hit rely on Dex overall since Dex is about accuracy? Definitely not too powerful change! (jk)

[stoutstien]

They just divide a strength and dex on the wrong axis and now it's some sort of sacred cow that cannot be touched. The vast majority of things that are governed by dex are actually forms of strength.

It's not even about trying to model real life it just doesn't make sense where they decide to put things.

[PhoenixPhyre]

They just divide a strength and dex on the wrong axis and now it's some sort of sacred cow that cannot be touched. The vast majority of things that are governed by dex are actually forms of strength.

It's not even about trying to model real life it just doesn't make sense where they decide to put things.

If you think about things archetypally/in terms of tropes, it makes a bit more sense.

Strong Guys vs Nimble Guys. Both are "strong" and "dextrous", but how they fight is very different, thematically.

[LibraryOgre]

So... make To Hit rely on Dex overall since Dex is about accuracy? Definitely not too powerful change! (jk)

You're being sarcastic (no shade), but I don't think it's too unreasonable, no.

So, AD&D, to-hit and damage for melee weapons was Strength; moving that blade fast, hitting hard. Dex was AC and missile accuracy... agility and hand-eye coordination. There were options to add strength damage to bows (RAW, all bows could handle up to an 18 strength; "strength bows" were required for 18/xx), but the default was "Strength is melee, Dex is ranged."

3e introduced weapon finesse and finesse weapons as a core rule; you could use Strength for the weapon, but you could also use Dex to hit. You were still, however, using Strength for damage. Dex also became a flat bonus to Reflex Saving throws... regardless of your class, Dex made you better at reflex saves (which it didn't always for 2e breath weapon saves, depending on your DM).

4e started having "Use Dex for damage" as a more standard rule, for certain classes (eg Rogues). Dex was still part of two defenses: AC and Reflex. Strength remained "Hit hard" and that's about it.

5e just made "Dex for damage with finesse weapons" a standard option. It really shifted the supremacy of Dex... strength helped melee weapons not specifically designed for Dex, but it didn't have anything like the continuing AC bonus. The rearrangement of saving throws made Dex less prevalent... but how many spells and special abilities are a Dex save, v. a strength save? Which is the more desirable save proficiency?

You wanna get revolutionary? Strength adds to hit and damage for non-finesse weapons... and Dex adds to hit for them, too. Wouldn't work in 5e's bounded accuracy to make the to-hit calculation be d20+prof+Str+Dex for a longsword, but d20+prof+Dex for Dex-based weapons, but it would certainly put the ball back in strength's court... Dex will help you with light weapons, but it will also help you with weapons with some heft to them.

[stoutstien]

If you think about things archetypally/in terms of tropes, it makes a bit more sense.

Strong Guys vs Nimble Guys. Both are "strong" and "dextrous", but how they fight is very different, thematically.

Oh I definitely get the intent I just think there was better ways of dividing up that area to actually facilitate other popular tropes that are basically impossible in this format. Like something that I personally enjoy playing would be a character that's really good with their hands but not necessarily that great on their feet. Not like a full on klutz or something but a older character who has a ton of experience but it's just getting up in years so they aren't going to be dodging fireballs just because they can tell you the maker of every manufactured lock in the given realm. I think them looking at ability scores purely from how interacts with the combat pillar and then trying to retrofit it to the rest of the game is one of the biggest disconnects modern TTRPGs have. It's what leads the paradigms of dexterity being seen as a "God" stat because when you start to filter down they have some taking up more space by virtue of it's lineage.

**Personally I would prefer having more abilities that govern physical abilities and reduce the number of mental ones down. Something like:

power - raw force
grit - physical toughness and exerting self
nimbleness- agility and speed
finesse- fine motor skills and precision
Presence - focus and resist mental influence meant to control or deceive.
conviction- belief in oneself or deity. Resist charms and fears. Also governs swaying other by force of personality.


This format allows for a lot more tropes to be filled with more degrees of choice without being more of a load.
Side effect I got rid of charisma.**

[Trask]

I don't have so much of an issue with STR and DEX conceptually. Even in our world we distinguish between ripped bodies, and lean bodies, both are indications of strength. Maybe they're just poorly named.

What is an issue though is how dumpable Strength is. Dex too, but to a lesser degree. A truly skilled warrior should want at least a bit of both. Really, more weapons and armor, like SHIELDS, should have STR requirements. And maybe some weapons, like the Greatsword and the Javelin (which are pretty much strictly better than their counterparts), should have DEX requirements as well.

[Amechra]

modern TTRPGs

That's a funny way to spell "RPGs from the 90s". :p

In all seriousness, D&D is hilariously behind the times in this respect, almost entirely because the six ability scores are a sacred cow that they can't get rid of without people complaining.

[Trask]

That's a funny way to spell "RPGs from the 90s". :p

In all seriousness, D&D is hilariously behind the times in this respect, almost entirely because the six ability scores are a sacred cow that they can't get rid of without people complaining.

Can you really blame them though? D&D's quirky mechanics are so iconic, including its ability scores. It might make more sense, but it just wouldn't be the same.

Anyways tying Dexterity to manual skill is only a product of the modern skill system that 5e uses. Ability scores don't have to affect skills much, they didn't play much of a role in the crude simple skill systems of pre-3.5 D&D. And some would argue (I would) that 5e's skill system is simple too, just more polished.

EDIT: Actually was Dexterity dumpable in 3.5? I don't even remember those bits of optimization wisdom anymore

[PhoenixPhyre]

What is an issue though is how dumpable Strength is. Dex too, but to a lesser degree. A truly skilled warrior should want at least a bit of both. Really, more weapons and armor, like SHIELDS, should have STR requirements. And maybe some weapons, like the Greatsword and the Javelin (which are pretty much strictly better than their counterparts), should have DEX requirements as well.

How about this: STR (Athletics) is the only way to escape a grapple. You can use DEX to avoid them, but those monsters who auto-grapple on hit? Yup, don't have STR and you are out of luck. Especially if you added something to make misty step more costly.

This doesn't affect monsters much, because most monsters are way better at STR than they are DEX.

[Trask]

How about this: STR (Athletics) is the only way to escape a grapple. You can use DEX to avoid them, but those monsters who auto-grapple on hit? Yup, don't have STR and you are out of luck. Especially if you added something to make misty step more costly.

This doesn't affect monsters much, because most monsters are way better at STR than they are DEX.

I like this, its more realistic as well. I always had trouble imagining the ranger wriggling out of a giant ape's crushing fist.

[stoutstien]

That's a funny way to spell "RPGs from the 90s". :p

In all seriousness, D&D is hilariously behind the times in this respect, almost entirely because the six ability scores are a sacred cow that they can't get rid of without people complaining.

Well I'm old so 90s aren't that far ago darnit.

Modern in sense of design focus. I consider any system that puts more weight in the buttons that players mash over the rest of the system as modern.

[stoutstien]

How about this: STR (Athletics) is the only way to escape a grapple. You can use DEX to avoid them, but those monsters who auto-grapple on hit? Yup, don't have STR and you are out of luck. Especially if you added something to make misty step more costly.

This doesn't affect monsters much, because most monsters are way better at STR than they are DEX.

Been that way in my games for years. Besides monks who get to add both mods.

[Trask]

Modern in sense of design focus. I consider any system that puts more weight in the buttons that players mash over the rest of the system as modern.

Sigging this.

[JellyPooga]

I don't have so much of an issue with STR and DEX conceptually. Even in our world we distinguish between ripped bodies, and lean bodies, both are indications of strength. Maybe they're just poorly named.

What is an issue though is how dumpable Strength is. Dex too, but to a lesser degree. A truly skilled warrior should want at least a bit of both. Really, more weapons and armor, like SHIELDS, should have STR requirements. And maybe some weapons, like the Greatsword and the Javelin (which are pretty much strictly better than their counterparts), should have DEX requirements as well.

The truth of it is, is that neither Str or Dex are really all that dumpable. Yes, in TO you can dump one or the other to excel in combat scenarios, but all too often the negative of dropping one in favour of the other will often bite the canny player in the butt cheeks.

Dump Dex? Yeah, enjoy your low initiative, eating full-face AoE chaff and falling foul of many traps. Not to mention standing around twiddling thumb when ranged options are the only options.

Dump Str? Oops! Your mobile agility build just got whacked by that restraining Str save. Sucks to be your low-HP/AC ass, relying on Dex to save you when getting out of dodge isn't an option.

Same goes for any min-maxed stats really; balanced and versatile is often way more practical in actual play than white-room theory would lead you to believe.

[PhoenixPhyre]

Same goes for any min-maxed stats really; balanced and versatile is often way more practical in actual play than white-room theory would lead you to believe.

I agree with this. In fact, I think there's actually a lot of value in Fighters using those extra ASIs to shore up weak points rather than going "all in" on MORE DAMAGE!

[Tanarii]

Something has to be dumped. Multiple somethings if you're running standard array, since you have both a 10 and an 8 to worry about.

Dex is dump for HA wearers
Str for arcane squishies (and often LA wearers)
Cha is mostly commonly a dump for Druids, Monks & Rangers. Fits as outsiders, less so as the modern 'confidence' stat.
Int is dump for Barbarians.* But also frequently for any non-Wiz/EK/Rogue. Although many folks have an aversion to dumping Int.
Wis is dump for Rogues and Bards

My personal favorite is watching MA wearing Str 8 chars struggle under the variant encumbrance rule.

*Except for Conan the Librarian Sage-background Barbarians.

[Arkhios]

You're being sarcastic (no shade), but I don't think it's too unreasonable, no.

None taken, being sarcastic at times (read: often) is a second nature and to get offended by someone making that observation would be childish.

Sarcasm aside, at a face value the proposed change (at least that's how I read it) just seems too strong, considering Dex is already considered the most wanted score to be as high as possible, given how wide a spectrum it already covers, mechanics-wise. To balance it out, something should be removed from "Dex's Domain" should it also cover accuracy entirely or in addition.