Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="fenriswolf456" data-source="post: 5885565" data-attributes="member: 6687664">Well, as we've seen, it's not really possible to equate every single action in movies to a game that has nothing to do with it. I suppose we could discuss the D&D movies, but I shudder at the concept. <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f631.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":eek:" title="Eek!    :eek:"  data-smilie="9"data-shortname=":eek:" /> But sure, we can try. Why can't the shields be considered cover in this instance? They hide entirely behind them, not just holding it out in front of them to deflect some incoming blows (which is usually how it's represented as AC). And it's clear that multiple arrows are hitting the shields but not piering through, as cover would suggest. Or you could say they all took Full Defensive actions to increase their AC, and that out of dozens of rolls, not a single natural 20 was rolled. And in the case of 300, the 'blot out the sun' attack was volleys, not aimed shots. We see aimed shots and their effects at the end of the movie, where their naked + shield AC isn't enough. So the 20 archers on the walls seems to stand up. And I highly doubt that a group of PCs would be all using shields. In my last 3 groups, I think we've had 2 shield-bearers total, with 0 for 6 in the current group (well, maybe the Warlord, I honestly don't remember, as he works from range).  Familiarity, nostalgia, wanting to have a set of rules that at least seem familiar, rather than trying and learn new systems. Maybe just not realizing what other games are out there, or perhaps lack of availability/support. And who's to say there's a playstyle difference not found in D&D? I play D&D more zero-to-hero style, and I can see how people can play editions with a more super-heroic playstyle. Neither is strictly wrong for D&D, it's a matter of what people find fun. I myself tried Warhammer, and it didn't suit my tastes, despite liking the general idea. MERP and Pendragon and Game of Thrones are too situated in their source material, and don't have the scope of variety that D&D offers. Palladium had interesting characters, but the system is rather broken for me. Never got into GURPS. I haven't really looked into many others, due to time. I've been wanting to give Anima a looksee, but I'm doubtful we'd get a group together for that over D&D which we all now know. So I don't really see a problem with people who have enjoyed a system wanting to see potential in the next iteration of it so that they can continue to play it.</blockquote>

Verification