count me as one of the guys who liked how 1e did unarmed combat (especially Oriental Adventures) and hate the way 2e did it with the chart.  No one I played with liked the 2e chart, and unarmed combat virtually ceased to exist in our 2e games because of that.

Quote from: Sacrosanct;730395count me as one of the guys who liked how 1e did unarmed combat (especially Oriental Adventures) and hate the way 2e did it with the chart.  No one I played with liked the 2e chart, and unarmed combat virtually ceased to exist in our 2e games because of that.

OA martial arts, while ridiculous in its power level, were simple to play with.

The grappling/pummeling/overbearing mess from AD&D was a poster child for the 'needless complication' concept. We ended up using a much simpler system from The Dragon.

I'll admit to knowing nothing* about the Oriental Adventures unarmed combat system.

*=unless it's similar to the one in Complete Ninja's Handbook (wich I read like 20 years ago but vaguely remember as being pretty cool if very powerful).

Quote from: Gizmoduck5000;730144Do you ever even try to make a cogent point, or do you just troll every argument you don't agree with.

I find it hilarious that a troll is complaining about being trolled.

Quote from: The Ent;730399I'll admit to knowing nothing* about the Oriental Adventures unarmed combat system.

*=unless it's similar to the one in Complete Ninja's Handbook (wich I read like 20 years ago but vaguely remember as being pretty cool if very powerful).

Keep in mind that it's been an age since I opened that book, but if my memory serves,  In OA, you chose a  martial arts style (kung fu, ninjitsu, karate, etc) and a series of maneuvers (like flying kick, backfist, ironskin, etc).  You used prof slots to choose these.

Rather than roll on a chart to see what you did, you chose which maneuver you would do based on your learned maneuvers.  Each maneuver had it's own description and damage modifier.  Some maneuvers were passive benefits (like ironskin).

So if you learned Tae Kwon Do and learned flying kick, snap kick, and back kick, you could declare your attack with any of those maneuvers.

Quote from: Sacrosanct;730401So if you learned Tae Kwon Do and learned flying kick, snap kick, and back kick, you could declare your attack with any of those maneuvers.

How about "Boot to the head?"

Quote from: Old Geezer;730424How about "Boot to the head?"

The Ti Kwan Leep style is reserved for masters of name level or higher.

Quote from: Old Geezer;730424How about "Boot to the head?"

Are you Ed Grubermann?

Wisdom from John Kovalic's Dork Tower.

Quote from: Gizmoduck5000;730285Anyway, I concede the point. Ascending AC vs. Descending AC is entirely subjective, and I've been obstinately full of shit this entire time. Enjoy the rest of your thread.

I don't think anyone wants you to leave the thread.  I've seen hostility on this board before, and what you've been getting ain't it.

While your 2 vs. 3 steps issue may be objective, which is 'faster' is based on how fast those operations are for a *particular individual*.  Which is more 'intuitive' is based (pretty much by definition) on previous experience and expectations.  That makes 'faster' and 'more intuitive' subjective.

I don't think you've been 'full of shit'.  I think the only thing you've done is presume that certain things being 'faster' or 'more intuitive' is universal.

One advantage of chart-based to-hit is that the charts don't have to be strictly linear (and, in fact, AD&D 1e charts *aren't* perfectly linear).

I think Jeff won the thread.

Quote from: jeff37923;730428Are you Ed Grubermann?

Over on TBP I told somebody once "You have learned wisdom, Ed Gruberman" and their reply about two hours later was "I had to Google that to find out what the hell you were talking about."

I cried.

Quote from: Old Geezer;730435Over on TBP I told somebody once "You have learned wisdom, Ed Gruberman" and their reply about two hours later was "I had to Google that to find out what the hell you were talking about."

I cried.

Because it should be assumed everyone knows obscure mid-80s Canadian comedy?

Quote from: robiswrong;730430I don't think you've been 'full of shit'.  I think the only thing you've done is presume that certain things being 'faster' or 'more intuitive' is universal.

I asked my girlfriend, formerly a middle school teacher (math and science), which is faster to do: addition or subtraction. She said addition, but when I asked her why, the answer was, "Because we do that a lot more in school". Hence, "intuition" has fuck-all to do with it: people practice addition more, hence they can usually add more quickly than subtracting. If you're remotely good at math, the idea that adding or subtracting is easier is essentially meaningless. Faster is also purely subjective if you've gone beyond 8th grade mathematics.

The argument of "addition is objectively better than subtraction" is couched in the fact that people practice addition more in grade school. So, does this mean jerking off is objectively better than sex because I masturbated a lot more when I was younger?

Quote from: Sacrosanct;730436Because it should be assumed everyone knows obscure mid-80s Canadian comedy?

It wasn't obscure if you listened to the Dr. Demento Show on the radio.