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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Hussar" data-source="post: 6332397" data-attributes="member: 22779">Math is important in that it incentivises certain choices.  Storminator's swashbucklers (which would be a kick ass name for a rock band) example highlights this perfectly.  If the math says choice A is clearly better than choice B, then the most rational choice is A.  That doesn't mean you cannot choose B, you certainly can, but, now you're deliberately choosing a handicap, whether you want to or not.  And, as time goes on, the mechanical disparities tend to flatten choices.  I always use 2e's Two Weapon Fighting rules as an example of this.  TWF in 2e is flat out better than anything else you can do in melee.  It just is.  You are doubling your damage output at the very minor cost of a weapon proficiency (after a melee weapon or two and a ranged weapon, how many do you really need?) and a single point of AC.After the Complete Fighter came out, I never saw anything but two weapon fighter types (and clerics as well after the Complete Priest allowed clerics to do it too).  Everyone played it because it was just that much better than any other choice.  That's why math matters.  If the difference between A and B is 1 point of average damage or 1 point of AC?  Probably not going to factor into choices all that much.  But, if you can wear heavy armour, then most people are going to wear the heaviest armour they can, because, thematically, there's not much difference between one or the other, and full plate protects you the best (depending on edition).  So, everyone who can wear metal armour eventually winds up in full plate.  ((Presuming you're not a swashbuckler Dex type of course - I'm talking about heavy armour wearers))So, yes, the math does matter.  I don't think it matters quite as much as people want to make it out to though.  Minor mechanical differences generally aren't going to get in the way of player choices.  But, if the math is too far out, then certain choices simply make a lot more sense.  In AD&D, why play a straight thief, when a MU/Thief lags only one level behind (at most) and you gain the full suite of MU spells?  In 3e, why take a 4th level of fighter for your Fighter/Wizard, presuming the campaign will go into high levels, knowing that you just lost access to the most powerful spells and everything you really wanted from the fighter class came in the first level or two anyway?That sort of thing.</blockquote>

Verification