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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Ninja-to" data-source="post: 3817892" data-attributes="member: 19551">Granted, ranged weapons shouldn't *normally* make a difference against someone who's armed with a sword... but perhaps with a feat? Just like monk's can snatch arrows, why can't a highly skilled swordsman cut them from the air?A two-ton claw... ok. Let's say this two-ton claw is coming down on your average Joe the Adventurer.He dies. Chances are, his BaB is not going to be anything close enough to overcome the sheer strength and attack bonus of the creature with the two-ton claw, so the rule survives and your point is moot (god I hate that word but too lazy to think up another).Now let's take Bob the Epic Paladin (with a Rapier, ok fine). That two-ton claw might well be deflected at least in part by this rapier. This guy is 'epic' after all. He's got skills, and strength to match. The two-ton claw creature might actually have a hard time in an arm wrestle with said epic paladin, he's 'inhumanly' strong (thanks to his epic magic items).To be honest your points against my suggestion actually supported my idea, though I'm sure you didn't think so as you wrote them.How is wearing full plate going to stop a two-ton claw from crushing you to death? Wouldn't a rapier perhaps at least have a shred of hope, at maybe stabbing said claw and causing the creature to recoil? Or better yet, someone with epic strength/skill armed with a rapier probably could deflect your two-ton claw without blinking. This is fantasy, and like a good movie, though we know it's fake, we'd still like it 'believable'. A man in full plate and armed with a sword, the man next to him in full plate with no sword... both just as easy to hit is not 'believable' at present. A single knight in shining armour takes on a great worm red dragon in combat and wins. Fantasy, but believable. Nobody complained that Gandalf took out a Balrog while falling into the Abyss with his sword. It was fantasy, but believable because it was 'magic' and didn't violate any established rules. The rules were set within the framework of the story. It was Gandalf the grey, who has magic. Had it been Frodo taking out that Balrog  with a whisk I'm sure Mr. Jackson would have gotten far less little gold statues for his shelf.I'll say it once more for clarity: Fantasy is not a genre above and beyond realism. Without realism, no story will hold together, and D&D is an ongoing story like any novel or movie. Suspension of belief is everything or you lose your audience.I could play Paychecks and Paystubs if I wanted *just* realism and no fantasy (see 1st edition). But what I wanted was 'more' realism in a fantasy setting, specifically in terms of how being armed or unarmed in D&D makes absolutely no difference to how hard you are to hit.Rather than rant and attack the suggestion of how to fix it (by using BaB), offer your own ideas like most others. If you think an armed character's AC should be exactly the same as someone unarmed then that's fine. However nearly everyone here has agreed that being armed or unarmed *should* make some difference to how easy a target you are, which is really the only point I was trying to make.As is what usually happens on forums people forget to read the original post and start ranting on tangents. Using BaB for AC was merely a suggestion and not the point of this thread.</blockquote>

Verification