Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="n00b f00" data-source="post: 6629757" data-attributes="member: 6795700">That is a growing opinion, and all the same it comes mostly out of the idea that the cartridge is suboptimal for that particular conflict. The idea that the CBR is superior in every meaningful way is a slowly growing idea in the tactical community. But still very much a minority opinion. And even most of the people who espouse it are unlikely to openly mock and rebuke someone who uses another cartridge.If we modeled the modern times for a game, and we modeled it so that CBRs were either just better, or mechanically identical except in one or 2 rare situations. We'd be deciding who was right by the rules, as a result the way players tried to optimize their loadouts would change. But the setting wouldn't. The universe wouldn't suddenly understand that yes, .308 is the God Bullet, and begin slowing phasing out all substandard catridges. A group of mercenary murder hobo PCs wouldn't burst into laughter when they say a new recruit with an M4. Rendering every person who chose to but an AR in real life a willful imbecile. In real life we have some idea of how damage works, those who disagree are generally civil with a couple wise cracks here and there. We mostly advocate that people choose between a few similar cartridges(d6 or d8, d8 or d10), and a model that is affordable and comfortable for them(few mechanical expressions).That's something that is not modeled into 5e, which is fine. You can houserule it a few ways, take a slightly suboptimal weapon, or just rework the flavor of the character. If you want to give an in world reflection of powergaming, that the PCs have a strong understanding of how fights happen in their world, and do their best to get an advantage to defend their lives. That is totally a valid way to play, even if they do magically know what your weapon proficiencies and class features, and are somewhat standoffish about non optimized characters. I totally get it as the logical conclusion of a desired playstyle. In the same way I often play in permissive, low lethality campaigns where the PCs rarely die, and most combats are balanced to make them look cool rather then be a life or death struggle. With that playstyle, the PCs RP differently, they interact with NPCs in a different fashion, they take different kinds of risks. And it makes sense to them because those actions have always worked out for them in that way. They're Arnold in Commando, not John McClane in Die Hard 1(which incidentally started as a Commando sequel).But that's not a reflection of reality, that's an IC reflection of my table's taste. In real life PCs don't jump onto a chandelier in a sword fight to look cool("Uh, you die,"). In real life we have a tough time quantifying weapon damage, and only come down on people if what they are carrying is against regulations(in an organisation with standard weapons) or against the weapons role(standing in a shield wall while dual wielding crossbows). Not excluding a guy in your irregular group when he chooses to use a weapon you believe to be marginally substandard. That's not a common real life reaction.</blockquote>

Verification