Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="mlund" data-source="post: 6066216" data-attributes="member: 50304">The problem is without the weapon's damage bonus keeping up relevance as a percentage the shield's persistent contribution (+1 AC vs. Flat Math) makes all the two-handed melee weapons a trap-choice for character's with shield proficiency at higher levels right now.I can't find a single part of these ideas that I don't like.If it's not my own character then 99% of the time in such a situation I'm being way too much of a busy-body trying to tell them what they can and can't play based on my own tastes - regardless of whether my role in player or DM at the given table.Once I realized the appeal to Realism is a red herring it's was a moot point. They hurt men in full plate pretty much the same way Long Swords do in reality - by tripping them so you can get a dagger past their gorget or rip off their helmet and cut their throat / bash their brains out / strangle them to death. In reality long swords can't cut a man in full plate, or even chain mail with a proper helmet, footwear, and gauntlets. We only hand-waive these things in D&D because the general consensus is that hitting people in armor with swords makes for dramatic and cool fantasy combat.If an entire table wants to, as a collective, start pruning the weapons tree for their table to accommodate their specific taste in fantasy tropes that's certainly an option.The Long Sword isn't superior to the Short Sword. The Short Sword does slightly less damage, does piercing damage, and is a light weapon. It's actually perfectly balanced, IMO. If the character in question doesn't pick a fighting style that fully utilizes the strengths of his weapon of choice despite the weapon being objectively balanced (or at least close to the mark) I'm not seeing a problem.Thankfully, DNDNext treats magic items as optional, not requirements baked into the math.I disagree in the overall, but it's certainly the table's prerogative, as a collective, to play in a world where unique assumptions and challenges are part of the fun they want to have. Heck, it's even the individual player's prerogative in a game where items are entirely fungible. If part of your shtick is using the next best thing to come along regardless of form or function that's awesome. I've played and run games for characters of both kinds.The point is that the game's core mechanics shouldn't hinder those options out of the gate. They shouldn't make generalists or specialists objectively weaker or stronger in absolute terms - even indirectly.No. I think arbitrarily denying players the ability to use their weapon of choice outside of a situational challenge is a sign of poor design decision. I may make characters jump through an adventure hoop or two to get where they want to go, but shoving things at unwilling players and saying, "Take it and like it," strikes me as juvenile so I keep it out of my games.- Marty Lund</blockquote>

Verification