Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="mlund" data-source="post: 6065984" data-attributes="member: 50304">I don't see the differences or the "can't use all loot as effectively" as a problem. Wizards can't use magical long swords, so it's no surprise that sometimes there's a magic wand in the loot or some means of converting the 178th magical long sword into something the Rogue, Cleric, or Wizard fancies. That same basic assumption's accommodations should be extended to the guy who wants to use an ax or a pole-arm over a sword. That's all. By objective standards the bow is situationally better.Didn't I just write that, "Balance says things should be pretty close to equal equal, all things considered (like weapon complexity, accuracy, damage, two-hand vs. one-hand, light, ranged, rate of fire, etc.)."I explicitly cited "ranged" as a balance factor differentiating weapons.The base game hasn't supported most of those metrics well, if at all. I remember the weapon-type vs. AC tables with specific metrics for each weapon vs. armor & shield combination. That's highly unlikely to be making a comeback in anything but an expansion module. Reach, range, two-handed, heavy, light, simple, and military are all in there already though, and generally balanced along those lines even though it isn't realistic in most cases.Actually, I think it's the other way around. You're confusing "realism" with, "the way I fantasize weapons ought to work." Realism, is swords that by-and-large can't damage a man in anything under the heavy armor category in the equipment list. Just a bigger nod to realism is swords that are merely terrible against anyone in heavy armor.What you're really advocating for is a system that better emulates your fantasy tropes of choice. The fantasy notion of one guy in plate-mail cutting down another guy in plate-mail with a broadsword or arming sword just happens to be a widely popular trope that almost all of us are willing to put on our +3 Suspenders of Disbelief and hand-wave because it's cool and fun - just like Wizards and Dragons.Judging by their choice to play a game where swords routinely hurt people in plate armor and Wizards can shoot lightning out of their hands either "realism" doesn't mean what you think it means or people are really cherry-picking their appeals to realism.It kind of reminds me of how every Quadratic Wizard advocate inevitably winds up trying to keep their Fighter Wand Caddy in line by arguing that mechanics that make the Fighter into "some sort of super-hero" just "aren't realistic."The D&D ship sailed from "realistic" to "wahoo" decades ago. All that's left is verisimilitude, entertainment value, and it's own internal logic.Since Kerrek was a Living Greyhawk character back in the day, he paid the 325gp it cost for a masterwork Spiked Chain and had his galley slave chains and manacles made into a weapon. When he had the 1000gp available he paid to have it enchanted too. That's how the system worked.Did he, run into an enemy that was pretty much impervious to piercing damage once or twice? Sure. He had a back-up slashing and bludgeoning weapon with him for emergencies, and he took a bow on adventures after the first time he hand to climb and jump out of a tree to bring down a flying enemy he couldn't reach. Actually, I think he had an elven-craft longbow eventually just because it did double-duty as a bludgeon and a ranged weapon. He even had a Spiked Gauntlet in case he got grappled or swallow whole.Most of my swordsmen who survived to level 2 were seasoned enough to pack a morning star as a back-up weapon against those pesky foes that were immune to slashing damage too. That said, 3.X went kind of overboard on weapon damage resistance and sneak attack immunity, but that was by far the least of its play balance problems.- Marty Lund</blockquote>

Verification