Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.
Rocket your D&D 5E and Level Up: Advanced 5E games into space! Alpha Star Magazine Is Launching... Right Now!

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Brother MacLaren" data-source="post: 1647050" data-attributes="member: 15999">Yes, I think the way-underused dodecahedron is a neat little thing, much the same way I don't like the way a d4 "rolls".  IT'S A VANISHINGLY SMALL ASPECT OF MY GAME ENJOYMENT.  But, at the same time, it was one of those quirky little things.  I also enjoy the right music during the game, typed-up character sheets, character names that don't sound like high-scoring Scrabble words, and the word "Dodecahedron."  Lots of little things that I happen to like - I somehow manage to derive some enjoyment from little and irrelevant things in the game - so feel free to insult me on these too if it makes you feel better.  It wasn't a central point of my thesis, and furthermore the actual two points of average difference is not the issue.  It could be one point difference or five points difference and I'd have the same concern.What *is* the issue is the simple fact that one weapon is clearly and unambiguously better and would be known as such to experienced warriors.  The longsword in 2E had the potential to inflict significantly more severe wounds to large monsters (such as giants, a common foe of dwarves).  Now, there is a reason technologically sophisticated cultures didn't use clubs - clubs weren't as effective as spears or swords.  Similarly, if the axe and warhammer were unquestionably less effective than swords, the reasonably intelligent dwarven race would either have abandoned them long ago or made a conscious choice to keep using these less effective weapons for cultural reasons.  You posit the latter - dwarves knew these weapons were always equal or less effective to a longsword (and heavier IIRC) but chose to keep using them.  In fact, you specifically state that swords were more effective than axes.  Give me a few examples of cultures which deliberately chose to use clearly less-effective options, and give me a few of the reasons why they chose those options.Vikings used axes (along with other weapons), which you assert are less effective than swords.  Why?  Maybe because axes are relatively easy to make, or because even battle-axes can be used in a pinch as wood axes.The samurai did not adopt and improve the firearm in the 17th and 18th centuries.  Why?  Denial of power to the peasantry, combined with a limited amount of massed warfare in that time period.Some Roman units used the sling rather than the bow.  Why?  Cheaper to make the weapon and ammunition.Various European armies used the crossbow rather than the more rapid longbow.  Why?  Easier to train soldiers to use it.The Pope's Swiss Guard use halberds.  Why?  Aha!  We have finally found a force that uses a less-effective weapon for reasons of tradition and culture!Still trying to find a justification for dwarves using hammers and axes if they are truly less effective... axes just for the reason of annoying tree-loving elves?  Better, I think, to make the axes equally effective.I was postulating that, for said dwarf, the Al-Qadim culture *was* his own.  Or maybe he's from a nation where dwarves use flails, or a land where dwarves are known for using spiked gauntlets.  The point is, I deny that "all dwarven cultures use axes and hammers" is a valid assumption.  Playing your standard axe-wielding dwarf is fun, but you don't have to assume that there is only one dwarven culture in the world.  (Although, yes, my discussion above refers to a specific axe-and-hammer-wielding dwarven culture.)I do agree that "doing less damage" should not normally feel like a punishment or penalty if there really is a valid in-character reason for accepting such a disadvantage.  That said, there are times when the difference is so huge that it really will feel that way - the entire party could die because you fail to drop the BBEG when you have your chance.  Axe-vs-sword is relatively minor, but a much larger issue in 2E was the two-weapon style versus any other style.  If you weren't using two weapons, you weren't keeping up with the rest of the party and you could quite well be the reason why the party loses a battle.  So 2-weapon style became The Best Option and no intelligent PC did without it.  Boring.I'm NOT saying that all weapons or tactics should be equal.  I haven't argued for making the club or short sword do more damage.  But, my opinion is that the longsword should not be automatically superior to the axe, the flail, or the warhammer - all of these weapons continued to be used throughout the Middle Ages and so were presumably NOT visibly inferior to the sword.  Granted, some had strengths against mail, plate, or shields, but I think 3E has done a very good job of balancing these options while keeping things simple.  Better than 2E did.  Likewise, as I said, 3.5E "balanced" Shocking Grasp against Magic Missile in a way that had not been done before.  It also balanced various problem spells such that there are fewer "must have" or "useless" spells at any level, thus opening up a wider variety of spell selection in actual gameplay.  What I want from balance is the ability to use a variety of options without having to answer "Why is my PC, risking life and limb every day, settling for this less-effective option?" every time.  Versimilitude is important, and given that, PCs aren't going to use weapons or armor that are clearly less effective without a very good reason.  Culture often isn't enough.  If a knight were risking his life every week in battle, and he learned of an Eastern sword that cut through ten armored bodies in a single swing (the fanboy's idea of the katana), he'd learn to use it, culture be damned.</blockquote>

Verification