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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Maxperson" data-source="post: 7595025" data-attributes="member: 23751">Highly unlikely.  He may tell me that it doesn't work exactly that way, but he will agree that one way is closer to reality than the other.You offered up two methods for the same exact thing, not two methods for doing one thing two different ways, which is what I am talking about.  You moved the goal posts from, "Example 1 is less realistic than example 2," to "Example one and example two are functionally identical."  You don't get to move the goal posts like that.In D&D fighters do not care for arms and armor, because arms and armor never wear down in any way.  If you are playing some other system where it states explicitly that arms and armor wear down, but care is assumed, then my example does not apply to THAT system.  THAT system does not in any way refute my claim, though.It's exactly what we are discussing.  This discussion is about changing rules to make that rule more realistic.  You can't do that if there is already said method there.I was, though.  If you are going to alter the game we are discussing in some effort to prove me wrong, it's auto fail. You can't change D&D to some other system and then claim that I am wrong when talking about D&D which does not have such a system.  In D&D, there is no such system of assumed repair, so my alterations does in fact make longswords more realistic than D&D has them.They're roughly the same, which is irrelevant to my point.  Coming up with an example of two ways to make something roughly as realistic doesn't change the fact that you can still alter games in ways to make those game MORE realistic.</blockquote>

Verification