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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Felon" data-source="post: 1308952" data-attributes="member: 8158">Go back and read the initial post. The very first line already covered that exception. Actually, you're the one who seems uninformed, and thus your snideness is out of place. D&D is not designed with historical accuracy as any major priority. If you flip through the DMG for a little while, you'll catch them mentioning that the game design places little importance on simulating some sort of pseudo-medieval world. They are, in general, much more concerned about offering a balanced system with lots of options for PC's. Otherwise, many things about the game would be different, such as the aforementioned way that the weapons were designed. You wouldn't see weapons like "two-bladed swords" and "dire flails", and spike chains certainly wouldn't be as popular as they are. They just dropped the ball here.Even allowing for some big commitment to being true to "history", using your logic it seems rather senseless for all of those inferior armor types to show up on the magic armor generation tables at all, doesn't it? Why would someone bother making +3 scale mail when for a negligible cost increase they could make it a breastplate?You're actually doing a pretty good job of showing how well-balanced the weapon system is. The only problem is, you (oddly) seem to think "balanced" has to mean every weapon has to be about as good as another. The distincion between simple, martial, and exotic weapons allows for a bastard sword to be a better one-handed weapon than a longsword, and for a longsword to be better than a club. The warrior classes get access to better weapons than other classes, and if they are willing to spend a feat they get access to even better stuff. That's reasonable and balanced. The armor system is not.As for your notion that a weapon that trades off a lower damage die type for a  better crit threat range is somehow an inferior, "niche" weapon compared to other weapons of the same category, I don't see you providing any support for that assertion. It's certainly a subjective statement.It is hands-down superior, and 50 gp does not account for that difference.I'm still waiting for you to explain where folks have "missed the point" with regards to mechanical balance. All you keep saying is that we're right: a couple of armor types clearly do outlcess the other armor types mechanically. Your only rebuttal seems to be "it's not all that bad". The point is, most are worse and not in any significant way better. And still you're still not offering any kind of counter-arguement. The fact that a character is apathetic about upgrading his or her inferior armor type does not really rebutt our position, now does it?This sort of condescending elitism is pretty annoying to encounter so often on these boards. It's rather ignorant to look down on other gamers because they're thinking in practical terms instead of just doing whatever "feels" right. You toss around the word "exploit" just because someone is taking a rational look at which types of armor are optimal, like they're doing something wrong. Instead, fighters should just arbitrarily wear whatever their whims dictate, regardless of whether it gets them killed later. Ridiculous.Then you should realize that your campaign deviates sharply from D&D as presented in the core books, where characters can be expected to afford any basic suit of armor out of the PHB by the time they're about 4th level. Essentially, it sounds like you're running the pseudo-medieval campaign that the designers have rejected. And since you're not running a standard campaign, it doesn't make sense to suggest that other posters here are in error for not considering how hard it may be to obtain full plate.</blockquote>

Verification