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: 7738413" data-attributes="member: 6779196">But for some reason, being stronger makes you more likely to do whatever a “hit” is to a naked human being with two left feet and Dexterity doesn’t.And yet, having higher Dexterity makes you more likely to do whatever a “hit” is to a 50-foot stone golem that has been magically rooted in place, but being able to use a bow with heavier draw strength doesn’t.It’s called reductio ad absurdum. It is ment to demonstrate the absurdity of an argument by applying it to its logical extremes. Because combat is abstract, arguments based on realism are absurd. The combat isn’t realistic, period. It has an internal logic, and that logic is partly based on comparison to similar real-life situations, but looking at the extreme cases makes it clear that the system is still not an accurate representation of reality. What arguments based on realism are trying to appeal to is willing suspension of disbelief. We know that D&D (or Pathfinder) combat is unrealistic, but we suspend that disbelief for the sake of our enjoyment of the game. The nods to versimilitude help make it easier for some people to suspend their disbelief. And the threshold for what people are willing to suspend disbelief about are different for different people. For you, it may be within your tolerance of willing suspension of disbelief that Strength, Dexterity, and Armor Class interact the way they do in Pathfinder, but beyond it that Charisma plays a role in Resonance. For others, both are within tolerance. Saying that the rule is bad when it “makes no sense” is a poor argument. Saying that you don’t like it because it breaks your suspension of disbelief is a perfectly valid opinion, but also a very different argument.</blockquote>

Verification