Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="hawkeyefan" data-source="post: 6940760" data-attributes="member: 6785785">That seems like weak reasoning to me. Making your character is part of the game. And since we're talking about character creation, certainly the decisions that go into that are more player-based than character based, which was my point. If we're talking about builds of characters and how the decisions of character creation may be seen as optimal or suboptimal, then we're talking about decisions that are being made by a player to shape his character, rather than on behalf of the character. This I agree with, sure. Stopping power? I don't know if we really have such a way of measuring that in sword types. It's possible, of course, but I'm not aware of any. I suppose we could go with weight as being a big factor in how damaging a sword would be, at the most basic. So in that case, everyone would be running around with claymores like Mel Gibson in Braveheart. But then we're really simplifying things. I mean, even assuming that every longsword is equal is a simplification, no? Certainly some sword makers made superior items, and others were inferior. And as for metrics...I don't agree with you on the longsword being ahead in all. I'm pretty sure that scimitars are better from horseback, at the very least. So if a character is a scout or some kind of light horseman, then would a longsword still be an objectively better choice?All this is to say that the game simplifies things from the complexities of the real world, and we as players make our choices based on how those things play in the game. And that's fine. Characters in the game can certainly call into question behavior by other characters that is risky for all. I just wouldn't expect such questions to involve things that can only be quantified within the game.</blockquote>

Verification