Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="gizmo33" data-source="post: 4212289" data-attributes="member: 30001">Your judgements about my motives are probably not any more accurate than your understanding of my arguments.&nbsp; I really hope that you'll take my comments as a good faith effort to discuss this situation.&nbsp; I have nothing to gain from convincing you of anything that's worth not being honest about what I think the comparisons are.I find the &quot;viable at all&quot; thing to be an extreme exaggeration that misses the point of what a bow does as a tool.&nbsp; It's like me complaining that I can't take my horse into a dungeon of 5 ft high passageways.&nbsp; Horses aren't effective in places like that - doesn't mean that throughout history cavalry has not been &quot;viable at all&quot;.&nbsp; Bows aren't used to shoot at people in melee combat with your allies unless you don't care about hitting your allies.&nbsp; Now maybe somebody in some movie somewhere shot at someone in combat with their friend and managed to hit the enemy.&nbsp; Well good for them, the tension of that scene in the movie was probably dependant on the observers momentary concern that the archer could hit his friend.&nbsp; Of course now remove that tension from the game since you just get a -2.So, in your campaign, people take their horses into passageways that are 5 ft high?&nbsp; Just because they took a bunch of mounted combat feats and and it &quot;wouldn't be fun&quot; otherwise?&nbsp; IMO - having to keep track of every copper piece spent, etc. is one thing, but this pendulum swing to barely having a grasp of the real-world issues and mechanics that apply to a game element strikes me as an uncomfortable omission.&nbsp; I understand that going too far in the other direction bogs down the game for no purpose.&nbsp; Nobody that plays DnD using the hitpoints mechanic can be accused of being a 100% simulationist.&nbsp; It's possible to come up with rules that are a good approximation of something realistic while at the same time being easy to use.&nbsp; At least IMO the designers should try.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="gizmo33, post: 4212289, member: 30001"] Your judgements about my motives are probably not any more accurate than your understanding of my arguments. I really hope that you'll take my comments as a good faith effort to discuss this situation. I have nothing to gain from convincing you of anything that's worth not being honest about what I think the comparisons are. I find the "viable at all" thing to be an extreme exaggeration that misses the point of what a bow does as a tool. It's like me complaining that I can't take my horse into a dungeon of 5 ft high passageways. Horses aren't effective in places like that - doesn't mean that throughout history cavalry has not been "viable at all". Bows aren't used to shoot at people in melee combat with your allies unless you don't care about hitting your allies. Now maybe somebody in some movie somewhere shot at someone in combat with their friend and managed to hit the enemy. Well good for them, the tension of that scene in the movie was probably dependant on the observers momentary concern that the archer could hit his friend. Of course now remove that tension from the game since you just get a -2. So, in your campaign, people take their horses into passageways that are 5 ft high? Just because they took a bunch of mounted combat feats and and it "wouldn't be fun" otherwise? IMO - having to keep track of every copper piece spent, etc. is one thing, but this pendulum swing to barely having a grasp of the real-world issues and mechanics that apply to a game element strikes me as an uncomfortable omission. I understand that going too far in the other direction bogs down the game for no purpose. Nobody that plays DnD using the hitpoints mechanic can be accused of being a 100% simulationist. It's possible to come up with rules that are a good approximation of something realistic while at the same time being easy to use. At least IMO the designers should try. [/QUOTE]

Verification