Dexterity and AC

[bestialwarlust]

So on a read through again men and magic. Dexterity plays no part in AC. That is until Greyhawk page 8 where it states that a fighter with a dex of 14 or higher inflicts a -1 penalty to his opponents attack for every point above.

This means that someone playing a wizard will always have an effective AC of 9. While M&T says that magic armor subtracts from attack rolls.

Interesting small differences in OD&D to all later versions with little tidbits like that.

So do others use this rule BtB or has anyone made small house rules? At this point I'm smewhat inclined to leave it and see how that plays out.

[James Maliszewski]

Oct 20, 2011 21:25:05 GMT -6 bestialwarlust said:

So do others use this rule BtB or has anyone made small house rules? At this point I'm smewhat inclined to leave it and see how that plays out.

I use the Dexterity bonus as presented in Supplement I; it's limited to fighting men only. It works just fine and helps ensure that fighters have another edge (no pun intended) over clerics when it comes to combat.

[Morandir]

When I started my first LBB game, I used the rule that magic armor subtracts from attack rolls. However, I found it a bit cumbersome to make sure that the person being attacked was wearing magic armor and then subtract from the attacker's to-hit roll - it's simpler to just improve the target's AC and be done with it.

Beyond that, I do play AC as in the 3LBBs (though I use ascending AC). Armor class is basically static. It makes things easier - no figuring in Dexterity or accounting for situations where Dex wouldn't apply. Leather is 12, Mail is 14 and Plate is 16. Shields add 1. This is standard for all my games, and it works just fine.

edit: James makes a good point about the "edge" over Clerics though. It's definitely something to consider.

[darkling]

I agree that subtracting from attack rolls is clunky, yet I still don't like the idea of ACs that aren't firmly defined. Thus far I have not played with the Sup. I rule, but may give it a go. It does seem like a nice bump to the FM.

[James Maliszewski]

Oct 20, 2011 23:37:03 GMT -6 darkling said:

I agree that subtracting from attack rolls is clunky, yet I still don't like the idea of ACs that aren't firmly defined.

I feel the same way. Without firmly defined ACs, things like the weapon adjustment tables make no sense (assuming you use them, which I do).

[sham]

You can always preserve the base AC by expressing modifiers kind of how Hargrave handled "AC's better than AC 2" in Arduin; AC 2+1, 2+2 and so forth. Just use that style expressed as "A+B" where A is the appropriate base AC (9 through 2) and B is the applicable modifier(s).

Then you can either subtract from the attacker's roll or figure the new score required to hit, whichever is easier for you to process. You will have to do one or the other for effective AC scores better than AC 2 anyway, since the tables stop there.

To the OP - The above is how I ask players to record their AC. As of right now I do not use Sup I, so DEX does not play into it, just magic items.

[bestialwarlust]

Oct 21, 2011 6:16:13 GMT -6 James Maliszewski said:

Oct 20, 2011 23:37:03 GMT -6 darkling said:

I agree that subtracting from attack rolls is clunky, yet I still don't like the idea of ACs that aren't firmly defined.

I feel the same way. Without firmly defined ACs, things like the weapon adjustment tables make no sense (assuming you use them, which I do).

That's one thing that I really noticed using OD&D AC the weapon adjustment tables make more sense and I'll use them when I run an OD&D game.

[bestialwarlust]

Oct 21, 2011 7:09:22 GMT -6 sham said:

You can always preserve the base AC by expressing modifiers kind of how Hargrave handled "AC's better than AC 2" in Arduin; AC 2+1, 2+2 and so forth. Just use that style expressed as "A+B" where A is the appropriate base AC (9 through 2) and B is the applicable modifier(s).

Then you can either subtract from the attacker's roll or figure the new score required to hit, whichever is easier for you to process. You will have to do one or the other for effective AC scores better than AC 2 anyway, since the tables stop there.

To the OP - The above is how I ask players to record their AC. As of right now I do not use Sup I, so DEX does not play into it, just magic items.

Interesting I may have them notate it that way just to keep track....well that is if anyone plays a fighter. Playing a MU under this rule will make them much more challenging.

[darkling]

Oct 21, 2011 7:09:22 GMT -6 sham said:

You will have to do one or the other for effective AC scores better than AC 2 anyway, since the tables stop there.

In my house-ruled campaigns there really just flat isn't an AC less than 0 (Magic Armor + Magic Shield) ;D. But that's because I just don't like the whole magic +x system. I may be in the minority in that regard. I tend to favor a static 'Magic' boost and then give things properties.

[Finarvyn]

I like to give all unarmored characters the DEX adjustment to AC, but if they wear armor they lose that option. Gives a reason for characters to travel light.

[snorri]

With ascending AC, the easiest method to get PC travel light (loincloth & sandals, cloak & daggers) is to have them choose between AC= Armor or AC= DEx ful score, ie a DEX=13 character would have AC13 is unarmored.

[darkling]

Oct 22, 2011 3:20:46 GMT -6 snorri said:

With ascending AC, the easiest method to get PC travel light (loincloth & sandals, cloak & daggers) is to have them choose between AC= Armor or AC= DEx ful score, ie a DEX=13 character would have AC13 is unarmored.

In my opinion that is way too big of an advantage to give to give my players. Characters already have a reason to travel light. It's what the encumbrance system is there for (not the mention the drowning rules...)!

[blackbarn]

I like snorri's idea, especially for campaigns where heavy armor is not appropriate. Something like a Barsoom game would benefit a lot from such a rule.

[Stormcrow]

Oct 21, 2011 20:58:43 GMT -6 Finarvyn said:

I like to give all unarmored characters the DEX adjustment to AC, but if they wear armor they lose that option. Gives a reason for characters to travel light.

What interest do you have in seeing characters travel light?