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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Charlaquin" data-source="post: 7738407" data-attributes="member: 6779196"><p>Yeah, I understand that AC is a highly abstract system and involves elements of both whether or not you make contact and whether or not that contact was sufficient to cause whatever the hell HP loss is. But the abstractness of that combat system causes the definitions of the physical attributes to break down. Which I don’t really see as a problem. But if you’re ok with strength making you more likely to damage a naked man with a sword, but not to hit him with a bow, Dexterity making you more likely to hit him with a bow but not with a sword, Strength making you more likely to bring whatever his HP represent down further with whatever a sword hit represents but Dexterity not making it more likely to do the same with whatever a bow hit represents, all of which he can potentially survive depending on a combination of how long he can hold his breath and how many goblins he’s killed... I don’t see how you would still be bothered by Charisma making you better at whatever kind of magic it is Paladins do. The Attributes make a nod to verisimilitude with what rolls they contribute to, just as HP makes a nod to verisimilitude with how it relates to physical wellbeing. But they’re just nods. They all break down if you look at them too closely. So sure, why not have pretty people be better at using magic items? It makes as much sense as people with good hearing all being good at training horses. More, in fact, because magic is made up, the writer can make it based on the user’s sex appeal if that’s the story they want to tell. Kinda reminds me of Xanth.</p></blockquote><p></p>

Verification