Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Gustave Arcanus" data-source="post: 1742022" data-attributes="member: 23375">#include &lt;iostream&gt;&nbsp;using namespace std;&nbsp;&nbsp;void rant(ostream&amp;);&nbsp;&nbsp;void main() {&nbsp; &nbsp; cout &lt;&lt; &quot;*** Beware, rants ahead. ****\n&quot;;&nbsp; &nbsp; rant(cout);&nbsp;}&nbsp;&nbsp;void rant(ostream&amp; os) {&nbsp;&nbsp;os &lt;&lt; &quot;*shrug*&nbsp; I tend to be against taking tons of feats to do something that should be perfectly natural to anyone weilding a weapon.&nbsp; I just can't see people relying on armor and their natural agility 100% of the time for defense, and I can't see people needing special training (which is what feats entail) to be able to do that.&nbsp; Taking feats to do it better, yes.&nbsp; But that's another concept entirely.\n\n&quot;;&nbsp;&nbsp;os &lt;&lt; &quot;Also, if you've been gaming 20 years, then when compared to D&amp;D 3E and v3.5, AD&amp;D was so confusing to learn that most never did unless they'd already been playing for a number of years.&nbsp; And if people can keep track of all that, between weird AC numbers (going in reverse from what we learn in standard mathetmatics and everyday life: larger numbers are better, or sequences normally go in ascending order), THAC0 (needing to cross-reference this number against AC for every attack, instead of just having a standard bonus) and saving throws/ability checks (another lower is better situation), then they should have no trouble with a parry system like that.\n\n&quot;;&nbsp;&nbsp;os &lt;&lt; &quot;Oh, and before I forget, the -4 AC thing only applies against the attack that's parried (in case the parry fails, since you're not dodging as much), not for the whole round like a charge penalty would.&nbsp; Anyway, I think that makes much more sense, possibly needs some fine-tuning, but shouldn't need a series of feats to do it in the first place.\n\n&quot;;&nbsp;&nbsp;}</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Gustave Arcanus, post: 1742022, member: 23375"] [b]#include <iostream> using namespace [/b]std; [b]void [/b]rant(ostream&); [b]void [/b]main() { cout << "*** Beware, rants ahead. ****\n"; rant(cout); } [b] void [/b]rant(ostream& os) { os << "*shrug* I tend to be against taking tons of feats to do something that should be perfectly natural to anyone weilding a weapon. I just can't see people relying on armor and their natural agility 100% of the time for defense, and I can't see people needing special training (which is what feats entail) to be able to do that. Taking feats to do it [i]better[/i], yes. But that's another concept entirely.\n\n"; os << "Also, if you've been gaming 20 years, then when compared to D&D 3E and v3.5, AD&D was so confusing to learn that most never did unless they'd already been playing for a number of years. And if people [i]can [/i]keep track of all that, between weird AC numbers (going in reverse from what we learn in standard mathetmatics and everyday life: larger numbers are better, or sequences normally go in ascending order), THAC0 (needing to cross-reference this number against AC for every attack, instead of just having a standard bonus) and saving throws/ability checks (another lower is better situation), then they should have no trouble with a parry system like that.\n\n"; os << "Oh, and before I forget, the -4 AC thing only applies against the attack that's parried (in case the parry fails, since you're not dodging as much), not for the whole round like a charge penalty would. Anyway, I think that makes much more sense, possibly needs some fine-tuning, but shouldn't need a series of feats to do it in the first place.\n\n"; } [/QUOTE]

Verification