Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.
Rocket your D&D 5E and Level Up: Advanced 5E games into space! Alpha Star Magazine Is Launching... Right Now!

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="El Mahdi" data-source="post: 5832223" data-attributes="member: 59506">meh...No Thanks.  Even in the real world, Stength is not the only contributor to a melee attack.  Dexterity and Intelligence are just as equally important, and therefore should be available for use also.  That allows for Agile Heroes and Intelligent Heroes - Fictional Archetypes that many will want to emulate in the game, but would be unable to with your proposed restriction. However, I do like the idea of adding a level bonus to AC/Defense.  Characters should get better at defending themselves as they progress, without only relying on Armor.  Again, I think Intelligence is just as important, and should also be available for use. And, unlike with melee attacks, I don't think there should be an increase in defense ability for level vs. some ranged attacks.  Knives and thrown objects: Yes.  Bows: No.  One cannot, no matter how talented one is, dodge an arrow.  Shields can protect against arrows, but that's cover or armor, not parrying or active defense.  That's well and good for spells involving mental effects (hypnotism, charm, etc.), but not for spells involving physical effects/attacks (such as fireballs, rays, cones, magic missiles, etc.).  The appropriate ability, based on the type of attack, should be used - and shouldn't be limited to just Intelligence.  I agree with this, though this is basically what Monte and company have already been talking about doing.  I can understand not wanting the complexity of all these different subsystems.  And Monte and Company are already working on ways to make the core system much more simple, and have the above stuff be levels of complexity one can add if one wants. But the things you listed are hardly redundant.  They may have aspects that overlap eachother a bit, but that's complimentary, not redundant. Redundant describes two or more thing that accomplish the same purpose, and that's not the case with those subsystems/mechanics.  Similar and complimentary is not the equivalent of "same".  Okay.  I'm fine with this, though it only impacts those that use a complexity mix that incorporates these concepts (which I likely won't).  The core system may or may not even use these concepts/mechanics.  But, I see no problem with this. <img src="http://www.enworld.org/forum/images/smilies/glasses.png"  class="smilie" loading="lazy" alt="B-)" title="Glasses    B-)" data-shortname="B-)" /></blockquote>

Verification