Example:
If I had a 3 con mod and was wearing full plate, would the bonus to my AC be 3 or 1?
Thanks in advanced ^^
The RAI (rules as intended) seems to be that yes, it is limited by max dex. This is furthered by a Sage (read: WotC employee) confirming this. But there is very little if anything RAW (rules as written) that indicates this, leading many people to believe that, strictly by the rules, no, max dex does not limit the Deepwarden.
It's up to you, really, if you want to go with the spirit of the rules or strictly by what the book says (which even then isn't clear).
RAI, as said by the guy who wrote them, yes it does apply.
Real answer- this is one of those DM judgement calls. Ask your DM.
RAW, no max dex does not apply.
RAI, as said by the guy who wrote them, yes it does apply.
Real answer- this is one of those DM judgement calls. Ask your DM.
+1. If the guy who wrote it wrote more clearly there would be no discussion. But alas...
This armor is heavy so i can't be as tough????????
The idea is that it's much more difficult to strike him effectively because of how tough he is. How does limiting it because the armor is hard to move in have anything to do with that?
w/e
RAI
Fullplate-guys have a tendancy to have high constitution scores, and none intended them to get a crazy boost to AC all that cheap.
There is indeed a very good reason to limit it by max dex: Balance.
Fullplate-guys have a tendancy to have high constitution scores, and none intended them to get a crazy boost to AC all that cheap.
Balance? Those so called "fullplate-guys" need all the help they can get, because they can't create their own planes, or summon Pit Lords. AC, shm-AC is what I say, there are ways around it.
In your case, preventing the creation of planes makes much more sense than letting the fighter (it seems that is where you are aiming) don "+10 Supernova-uranarmor of the cosmos+".
Please don't restart the discussion before reading through the thread, though.
The real world have proven that an arms-race is never a good way to reach balance.
In your case, preventing the creation of planes makes much more sense than letting the fighter (it seems that is where you are aiming) don "+10 Supernova-uranarmor of the cosmos+".
I have to disagree.
I've always felt that nerfing was generally a bad idea. Don't nerf. It makes people unhappy, then they take it out on the 'lower' powered classes and blame them for sucking. Instead, make the ****** classes better. It's more work, because you actually have to create stuff but in the end it *feels* better.
As for the issue... I put my point in with that it shouldn't be limited by Dex, and that Heavy plate wearers need all the help they can get.
Go forth my heavy-plated brother and bash!
In the context of D&D I would definantly go for the latter, since that is where we find the real problems. As have been stated over and over and then some, wizards and others are relatively fine if you make some rather small adjustments to them.
I considder removing certain spells from their list to be vastly better than giving the fighter (or samurai...) the ability to rend worlds, slay dragons with one strike and acheive total invulnerability, godhood and so on by level 20.
The first keeps the intention of the game intact, while the latter makes it into a...fiction.
I find it interresting that you arrest my point though, as you are the first person I have ever spoken to who hold that position in this matter.
EDIT: In the case that a class is only slightly better/weaker than another, this point is void, as both solutions are equal.
To those who refered to the other thread, I know that thread, and we are having a slightly different argument here: Which is the better way to balance 1. To boost the lower or 2. To weaken the powerful.
In the context of D&D I would definantly go for the latter, since that is where we find the real problems. As have been stated over and over and then some, wizards and others are relatively fine if you make some rather small adjustments to them.
I considder removing certain spells from their list to be vastly better than giving the fighter (or samurai...) the ability to rend worlds, slay dragons with one strike and acheive total invulnerability, godhood and so on by level 20.
The first keeps the intention of the game intact, while the latter makes it into a...fiction.
I find it interresting that you arrest my point though, as you are the first person I have ever spoken to who hold that position in this matter.
EDIT: In the case that a class is only slightly better/weaker than another, this point is void, as both solutions are equal.
A lot of the issues I see with the big powerful craziness is stuff that really should be taken with a grain of salt anyway. Druids are only as powerful as your DM's leniency with the reading of wild shape, for example.
The thing is, Fighters are just so very far behind the powercurve that to weaken the Wizards, Druids, and Clerics of the world would be killing the class feel.
And personally, I always found that part of the intention of the game was to live out fantasies. I happen to *love* playing a sword wielding guy who wades up into the thick of things and can hand some dragon its own tail. The heroes in the stories can do it so why can't my level 20 Fighter in D&D? I think Tome of Battle went a long way in fixing some of those imbalances.
The reason I've always felt that bringing up a weak class to meet the powercurve of a strong one being the better choice is because it tends to make a broader cross-section of people happy. People will resent having their power taken away from them more than they will having someone else brought up to their level.
As for removing a few spells from a spelllist... Well, one of the major ones that break things is Polymorph line. That's an easy fix and it's already designed with the limitation in mind. You need to know about the thing you're going to turn into. It seems a lot of builds here ignore that fact. Maybe if you're starting at level 20 you can get away with saying "Oh yeah, he used to hang with Cryohydras." But what about those who start at first and never, ever set foot in a place that would have such an encounter? Just because the player knows something doesn't mean that the character does. Timestop is another one, but only in certain cases. Sure it's killer when you use it to Gate in a number of crazy things or spend your time bunkering yourself in. Tome of Battle has something similar to it in the Diamond Mind manuever.
I dunno. I just always felt that cutting something out of the game was a cop-out. Its easy to just say "That's broken so we're not going to allow it." It's more creative to build up another class and give it a way to compete.
And in the end, something's only as broken as your DM allows it to be anyway.
Sorry for the thread hijacking semi-rant.
A bit more AC for someone who can't rain fire from the sky is hardly a problem. AC doesn't matter when that fire is raining from the sky either. Capping the non-casters, whether the rule is X or the rule is Y, is generally just going to make them pale even more in comparison to the full-casters who, when they decide they feel like getting their hands dirty, can often out-right fight the fighters.