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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Al'Kelhar" data-source="post: 7034989" data-attributes="member: 7884">Yes, it is.  I agree completely.  But as well as AC being both arbitrary and an abstraction, we have to realise that is a foundation concept for the mechanics of D&D on which rest a lot of other arbitrary, abstract mechanical concepts - like using various abilities to adjust attack rolls and damage rolls.  So every time I see someone suggest a "more realistic" way of modelling how physically attacking something should work in D&D, I inwardly groan - and sometimes outwardly swear.I have no problem at all with people suggesting alternatives; but I must admit I wouldn't really want to play a table top game, using dice, that seeks to emulate the reality of swinging a sword - requiring me to firstly work out whether I physically make contact with something, where I have made contact, what kind of wound I've made, and what the physical effects of that wound are.  I've got computers running complex game software that emulates real-word physics and physiology, and those computers have to make millions of complex calculations in the split second between my on-screen avatar pulling the trigger of his sniper rifle and the imaginary bullet striking (or missing) its imaginary target.  I can't do that in my head, and I sure as hell don't want to do that rolling dice, applying adjustments, and then looking up 5 different percentile tables in the PHB.If you reckon you can implement a "more realistic" combat system than the arbitrary and abstract D&D combat system, that is both easier to use and mechanically consistent across the whole of the game, fill yer boots.  This board is replete with peoples' earnest endeavours in that regard. I did my own tinkering way back when I was an earnest and passionate young man.  I wish everyone luck in such endeavours.Cheers, Al'Kelhar</blockquote>

Verification