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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="El Mahdi" data-source="post: 5560873" data-attributes="member: 59506">I don't really have any experience with 4E either, other than mining it for ideas.  I bought the core books, excited about what I had read about the new edition, but found when I read it that it didn't have the overall feel that I wanted.  But there are some really inspired and genius bits in it (IMO anyways) that I have shamelessly stolen...the part about choosing from different abilities for modifiers is one of them.  With the abstractness of D&D mechanics (in any edition), it really makes sense.  In real-life, combat effectiveness is soooooo not limited by just Strength or Dexterity...and Strength and Dexterity, though able to be quantified independently to a certain extent, are too intertwined with eachother to be entirely independent.  If I could find or develop a simple mechanic that combines or inter-relates Stength and Dexterity (and Constitution also), yet keeps them seperated for appropriate situations and uses, I'd be very happy (and maybe make a bit of money marketing a new system...though probably not<img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f609.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=";)" title="Wink    ;)"  data-smilie="2"data-shortname=";)" />). In a real fight, there are so many factors it's nearly impossible to truly quantify with any mechanical representation, and definitely impractical (which is why we have the simple abstract mechanics of RPG's).  But that idea from 4E goes quite a ways in making it a little better.  I even allow the use of Intelligence for combat bonuses depending on the character and class (I don't remember if 4E does this also, but it might).  In real fights there are such things as overwhelming force (superior Strength) and untouchable speed (superior Dexterity), but I've found that Intelligence is just as important (if not even more important).  The saying: "It's not the size of the Dog in the Fight, it's the size of the Fight in the Dog", is true to a certain extent.  Though IMO the saying should be: "It's not the size of the Dog in the Fight that matters most, it's what the dog Knows that counts!".  In my experience, Intelligence determines the outcome of a conflict more often than anything else. My opinions on this though, is why I agree completely that even in real-life, Women are no less efficient warriors than Men.  It's unfortunate that we haven't gotten past this false assumption as concerns women in combat.  Militarily, we're purposely ignoring an incredible untapped pool of warriors.  It's even more absurd in todays combat environments, where there really is no such thing as a "frontline" anymore.  The admin guy or girl sitting in their administrative tent on camp, is just as much in the line of fire as a soldier on patrol in the streets.  US Military training has changed in the last decade in response to this exact thing.  The US Air Force has added hand-to-hand combat training to the Basic Training Program for the first time in it's history, and IED recognition and terrorism awareness is now taught to everybody in every branch - whether an admin troop or infantry...yet we can't seem to get past this idea that Women can't fight...<img src="http://www.enworld.org/forum/images/smilies/worried.png"  class="smilie" loading="lazy" alt=":-S" title="Uhm    :-S" data-shortname=":-S" />  Besides, it only takes a couple pounds of pressure to pull a trigger.<img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f609.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=";)" title="Wink    ;)"  data-smilie="2"data-shortname=";)" />  I've encountered Women that before training, were naturally better shots than most untrained Men I know (smoother pulls, less wandering due to heart rate, breathing, etc.).  I hate to say it but even after my 21 years in the military, I've found that my wife is a better shot than me with just a couple of lessons!<img src="http://www.enworld.org/forum/images/smilies/cry.png"  class="smilie" loading="lazy" alt=":.-(" title="Cry    :.-(" data-shortname=":.-(" /><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=":o" title="Eek!    :o"  data-smilie="9"data-shortname=":o" /> But Yeah, instituting a mechanic for differentiation between sexes in 3E, without modifying other mechanics also, would be incredibly unfair, and even create a less realistic system.  If there's any one thing I've learned from houserule tinkering, it's that you have to look at how a new mechanic is going to effect all the other aspects of the system.  It's kind of like a complex equation.  Change one value even a little bit, and it can significantly effect the entire equation.  Sounds a lot more realistic too.<img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f642.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":)" title="Smile    :)"  data-smilie="1"data-shortname=":)" /> I've done the same thing before also, basically by just adding the Armor as Damage Reduction rule (from Unearthed Arcana) and enforcing the Maximum Dexterity factor of Armors.  But I kept running into a few problems.  First - although armor is more something that keeps you from getting hurt as opposed to getting hit, it does still do that to a certain extent.  So even using DR, I decided on still including at least a small bonus to Defense for Armor.  Secondly - adding such things highlighted even more, D&D's lack of Defensive improvement.  A characters ability to attack someone improves, but they never get better at defending themselves, all they can do is get better and better armor.  So, I added in the Defensive Progression from Unearthed Arcana also.  Thirdly and most problematic though (at least for me and my group), we kept having problems with remembering to subtract the DR from damage taken.  So, I incorporated a houserule where Armor increases your total Hit Points by a certain percentage when worn (and decreases by the same percentage when removed), so it's already factored in and doesn't have to be remembered every time a character (or NPC) is attacked.  Of course though, that changed how a number of other things worked (like healing), which necessitated some other changes...though I think I have it all worked out now (and still kept gameplay quick and simple...at least so far<img src="http://www.enworld.org/forum/images/smilies/glasses.png"  class="smilie" loading="lazy" alt="B-)" title="Glasses    B-)" data-shortname="B-)" />). But yeah, without making adjustments to other mechanics like this, just adding a mechanic to ability scores for modeling differences between the sexes can cause a lot of significant problems...and it definitely plays as unfair.  I agree.  I came a little later to the party (despite my age) and actually started towards the end of AD&D 2E, so I don't have any experience with that.  If I recall correctly, I don't remember things like that in 2E - or if there was, the group I played with must have houseruled that all out (I was just a noobie then, but we had three women in our group, and another couple that would play when they were in town, and I don't remember any of them mentioning this - and they definitely would have if those mechanics were in force).  But I have read over a few earlier editions as my interest in the game has grown, and yeah, there's some mechanics in those older editions that really make me scratch my head as to why they were ever included or took the form they did.  I'm not saying earlier editions are worse than any other edition - all editions have their warts - but some of those are real head scratchers.  I disagree with you a bit here.  I probably wouldn't want such a thing in a straight fantasy game either, but I don't think it's wrong for those that do - as long as the impact on other mechanics is also addressed and an overall fairness/balance is maintained.  But in the case of that not happening, I would assume it's more a case of just bad houserule design, rather than any inappropriate intention.  But if not done right, I agree with you, IMO it would marginalize female characters...and I don't see that as being any fun at all either.  There's just no other way to say it other than I find that type of behavior simply disgusting and completely unacceptable.  I would have immediately walked out on any game like that (though probably not before bluntly telling the DM what I though of him and his upbringing) - or if I knew about it ahead of time, I would have never participated.  One can have realism without needing to descend into such debased areas.  If addressed up front this was going to be included in a game, and the whole group agrees, I can't say that playing such a game is wrong...but I wouldn't be a part of it.  Interestingly, I actually address this in my houserules:     No apology necessary.  If what I posted came across as an accusation, I apologize.  I was just trying to ascertain what he knew of the conversation here, in order to put his response in context.  I don't have any issues with his or your views on this.  There are very few things that are absolutely wrong or right in this world, and those that are usually involve life and death.  So even though I don't share the same opinion, I also don't think you're wrong.  And I've found this whole thread/discussion quite worthwhile (even when I got my hackles up a bit...<img src="http://www.enworld.org/forum/images/smilies/blush.png"  class="smilie" loading="lazy" alt=":blush:" title="Blush    :blush:" data-shortname=":blush:" />).  Well, once I finally get my act together on this, I'll be sure to let you know.  Until then, Game On!<img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f642.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":)" title="Smile    :)"  data-smilie="1"data-shortname=":)" /></blockquote>

Verification