Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Piratecat" data-source="post: 784730" data-attributes="member: 2">Err... no. Your views are just fine. Your aggressive attitude may not be making you many allies, though.&nbsp; While you're quick to rebut, you don't acknowledge a number of valid points. That makes this less of a discussion or a debate, and more of a bad repeat of the &quot;Argument Clinic&quot; Python sketch.&nbsp; <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f61b.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":p" title="Stick out tongue&nbsp; &nbsp; :p"&nbsp; data-smilie="7"data-shortname=":p" />&nbsp; You asked in the initial post why it wasn't handled this way, many people have given you cogent reasons, but you don't seem to answer any of them.&nbsp; That doesn't impress me much, really.I'm smiling at your assertions that Dex wouldn't be an uber-stat if armor dex penalties applied to more character mechanics. That's incorrect; the effect of such a rule would be that no one would wear any armor. Most fighters would be like the classic swashbucklers, high dex and light armor. After all, game behavior models itself after the paradigm created by the rules. In the same way that humans became vastly more popular to play in 3e (while elves sunk in popularity), lightly armored fighters would replace heavily armored &quot;tanks.&quot; I guess what has me surprised is that you seem to feel so strongly about such a minor point. I mean really, if the system works so well now, why are you interested in changing it - and if you're already convinced that it should be changed, what do you hope to gain from this debate?(Hey, Paul Greystroke - best 1st post ever! *grin* Welcome to the boards.)</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Piratecat, post: 784730, member: 2"] Err... no. Your views are just fine. Your aggressive attitude may not be making you many allies, though. While you're quick to rebut, you don't acknowledge a number of valid points. That makes this less of a discussion or a debate, and more of a bad repeat of the "Argument Clinic" Python sketch. :p You asked in the initial post why it wasn't handled this way, many people have given you cogent reasons, but you don't seem to answer any of them. That doesn't impress me much, really. I'm smiling at your assertions that Dex wouldn't be an uber-stat if armor dex penalties applied to more character mechanics. That's incorrect; the effect of such a rule would be that no one would wear any armor. Most fighters would be like the classic swashbucklers, high dex and light armor. After all, game behavior models itself after the paradigm created by the rules. In the same way that humans became vastly more popular to play in 3e (while elves sunk in popularity), lightly armored fighters would replace heavily armored "tanks." I guess what has me surprised is that you seem to feel so strongly about such a minor point. I mean really, if the system works so well now, why are you interested in changing it - and if you're already convinced that it should be changed, what do you hope to gain from this debate? (Hey, Paul Greystroke - best 1st post ever! *grin* Welcome to the boards.) [/QUOTE]

Verification