Community

Alex_ wrote:

The clumsy guy in a story never actually gets hit by things because they're clumsy. Sure they run into stuff anyone would have seen, or trip over their own feet, but when the projectiles start flying, certain death looms, and bad guys are intent on ending their life, they seem to have some miraculous ability to avoid getting hurt.

Inspector Gadget, Mr. Magoo, Mihoshi, Jar Jar Binks, etc.

So the bumbling genius that has a very high reflex defense makes perfect sense in this case.

Did you seriously just say Jar Jar Binks is a bunbling genius?

...

But seriously, you make a good point. A really smart guy doesn't need to be dexterous to get out of the way of things. He either bumbles out of the way comically, or he's smart enough to know ahead of time that he should be getting out of the way.

I'm not sure why people freak out about rules like this. Nowhere do the rules say your low Dex high Int character must have a high reflex defense. I doubt even an RPGA DM would prohibit you from using a number lower than your Int modifier to determine your reflex. My question is, why would you want to do that if you can come up with an explanation to justify its being higher?


In other news, more than six "rofl" smileys glitches; the seventh just says ": rofl:"

-Science- wrote:

I've been reading through this thread and others and I'm a little confused. Why is everyone arguing about weather a game that allows you to tell stories about wizards and heroic warriors fighting goblins and dragons and such, is modeling reality well? It's not. It's not supposed to. It's supposed to be fun. Sometimes when you design a game you have to make choices that lead to a balanced game mechanic.

Suspend your disbelief (like you do with every other form of entertainment). Magic shielding is not more believable than intelligence setting you up to avoid being hurt. Magic is not real. It's make believe. Why can you make yourself believe intelligence helps your reflexes just as easily as you can make yourself believe there are dragons and magic?

Seriously. Lighten up.

Seriously? Don't be such a killjoy. Many of us want our fantasy to be as realistic as possible. We want to feel like it actually could be real, and having rules that reflect reality as closely as possible help that. If this were WoW, I'd say sure it's just a game so get over it, but D&D is a roleplaying game that you're supposed to immerse yourself into as deeply as possible. It'd kinda hard to accomplish that immersion when that one damned rule keeps triggering your disbelief. I think it's important for all rules in D&D to have logical explanations. How does a paladin's smite grant AC bonuses to allies? He whispers a quick prayer asking his god to protect his friend while he smites this enemy of the faith. How does a warlord heal? He shouts rousing words of confidence and encouragement, giving his allies that extra burst of resolve. How does intelligence contribute to reflexes? Smarter characters can realize that things are going to happen earlier, and so can get out of the way. Explanations like these help us immerse ourselves in the game further, which enhances enjoyment. If you like D&D purely as a game, that's fine and you should go play it as much as possible, but for many of us it's a grander experience and we'd like to keep it that way.

So in the kindest way possible, shove off.

Kurama Youko wrote:

You're absolutely right, however the truth of the matter is, is that this is more of a "I think 3.x is better than the new edition." thread, so those people who are complaining about this wont listen to you're reason, and as Elven swordsman has just demonstrated, they will come up with any argument just to keep it going.

*sighs and shakes head* you're making me a very sad panda. Let me get this straight: you think it's an argument that D&D is fantasy so we shouldn't try to rationalize anything. That's a horribly unwarranted argument at best. What you guys are saying isn't reason, it's your opinion. Who are you to come here and tell us that we're being absurd for wanting rational explanations for fantasy phenomena? I think you're boring for not trying to do so. Who's right? Neither of us. I want dragons to make sense from a biological perspective; you don't. I want magic to feel as though it has its own 'laws of physics'; you don't. If you don't think justifying the rules with sensible explanations is a worthwhile endeavor, go find another thread to post on. For me, it's an essential part of D&D so that the rules don't get in the way of my immersion in the story.

See, you actually misinterpreted my stance. I wasn't one of the people complaining about logical inconsistencies of 4e -- I'm not talking about comparing it to 3e at all even --; I'm saying there are simple and functional explanations for all the rules if you just think for a few moments. You guys for some reason want to come in here and be total jackalopes about a perfectly legitimate D&D activity, and I'm just defending those of us who enjoy it. I experienced a similar situation when I posted on the charop boards asking why those guys want to find all the perfect builds for everything...I realized that I was being a total douche by raining on a part of D&D they enjoy just because it doesn't appeal to me. Frankly, the two of you are being rude.

Significantly less kindly, shove off.

ArtyToo wrote:

I'm the OP and I've said my piece/peace in post 100 (which would've been a nice number to wrap it up). By then, most of us have arrived at some tentative agreements or just agreed to disagree.

I have this image of a boy in a schoolyard, with tight clenched fists and a scowling red face, spoiling for a fight. Except that the fight's over, everybody went home.

Someone asked a question, I answered it. Get over yourself.