Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Felon" data-source="post: 3778075" data-attributes="member: 8158">You start out saying it's &quot;really odd&quot; that a character shouldn't lose AC for being unarmed, but you close by accepting that a character can defend himself with a worthless stick. You want realism, but you also want Crouching Tiger kung-fu moves. That's pretty inconsistent. Why don't weapons matter in D&amp;D defense? Because they often shouldn't. It's not realistic that having a knife in your hand should affect someone's chances of shooting you with a ranged weapon, or that the huge chances that some monster's two-ton claw should be parried by a rapier.In the end, I don't see any benefit really gained here, other than some sense of verisimilitude that starts to fall apart once the combats stop being between humanoids with melee weapons. Mechanically, it doesn't provide any special advantage. Indeed, D&amp;D's combat system really needs to allows for hits to exceed misses, not equal or fall short.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Felon, post: 3778075, member: 8158"] You start out saying it's "really odd" that a character shouldn't lose AC for being unarmed, but you close by accepting that a character can defend himself with a worthless stick. You want realism, but you also want Crouching Tiger kung-fu moves. That's pretty inconsistent. Why don't weapons matter in D&D defense? Because they often shouldn't. It's not realistic that having a knife in your hand should affect someone's chances of shooting you with a ranged weapon, or that the huge chances that some monster's two-ton claw should be parried by a rapier. In the end, I don't see any benefit really gained here, other than some sense of verisimilitude that starts to fall apart once the combats stop being between humanoids with melee weapons. Mechanically, it doesn't provide any special advantage. Indeed, D&D's combat system really needs to allows for hits to exceed misses, not equal or fall short. [/QUOTE]

Verification