Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="EzekielRaiden" data-source="post: 9225473" data-attributes="member: 6790260">How do shields work?They improve AC by either adding or subtracting an amount from it.By definition, they are &quot;add +1 (or w/e) armored-ness, to go from second-place armor to first-place armor.&quot; That's how descending AC works. And it isn't just shields. Rings of protection, magic armor, magic shields, spells, physical detriments, you name it, there's a whole host of arithmetic modifiers to armor class.Expecting armor class to still work by ordinal rules when you are doing arithmetic to its values is a contradiction of the type of mathematical data it is claimed to be.As usual, the &quot;it sells, therefore there can't be anything wrong with it&quot; argument. With a side of &quot;once it stops selling, that's when a problem suddenly appears.&quot;I have simply come to accept that some folks think everyone should have been limited to only using the &quot;classic&quot; options and never allowed anything else, no matter how much the data shows how wrongheaded that approach would be. Why they think it's in any way bad to merely offer an option that, at this point, actual millions of people have loved and enthusiastically embraced—particularly when many of these same people also make &quot;it's popular/it sells, therefore it must be good&quot; arguments—is simply beyond me.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="EzekielRaiden, post: 9225473, member: 6790260"] How do shields work? They improve AC by either adding or subtracting an amount from it. By definition, they are "add +1 (or w/e) armored-ness, to go from second-place armor to first-place armor." That's how descending AC works. And it isn't just shields. Rings of protection, magic armor, magic shields, spells, physical detriments, you name it, there's a whole host of [I]arithmetic[/I] modifiers to armor class. Expecting armor class to still work by ordinal rules when you are doing arithmetic to its values is a contradiction of the type of mathematical data it is claimed to be. As usual, the "it sells, therefore there can't be anything wrong with it" argument. With a side of "once it stops selling, that's when a problem suddenly appears." I have simply come to accept that some folks think everyone should have been limited to only using the "classic" options and never allowed anything else, no matter how much the data shows how wrongheaded that approach would be. Why they think it's in any way bad to merely offer an option that, at this point, [I]actual millions[/I] of people have loved and enthusiastically embraced—particularly when many of these same people also make "it's popular/it sells, therefore it must be good" arguments—is simply beyond me. [/QUOTE]

Verification