Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Guest 6801328" data-source="post: 7266381">No, not at all.&nbsp; I like to improve my damage, too.&nbsp; It's when the player starts making what should be roleplaying choices...especially choices that he/she wouldn't otherwise make...purely because of the damage that we have a problem.&nbsp; Look at Great weapons: we've all seen people take Greatsword instead of Great Axe or Maul, even when the player would kinda like to go with the axe or maul, because 2d6 does more damage than 1d12.&nbsp; It happens all the freakin' time.&nbsp; Does the little bit of extra damage from the sword really matter?&nbsp; No.&nbsp; But I think it's pretty much a Bad Thing that people feel like they can't choose the weapon they really like because it's not &quot;optimal&quot;.I agree that being &quot;too rigid&quot; isn't any fun, but personally I don't see telling a player he can't change the rules in order to have his cake and eat it too as being too rigid.&nbsp; What none of the &quot;lenient&quot; posters have answered is: if the extra damage from the sword is so tiny and irrelevant and non-game breaking, why is it such a big deal to say, &quot;No, you can't have that bonus damage.&nbsp; You can use a sword but it will do the same damage as a staff.&quot;?</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Guest 6801328, post: 7266381"] No, not at all. I like to improve my damage, too. It's when the player starts making what should be roleplaying choices...especially choices that he/she wouldn't otherwise make...purely because of the damage that we have a problem. Look at Great weapons: we've all seen people take Greatsword instead of Great Axe or Maul, even when the player would kinda like to go with the axe or maul, because 2d6 does more damage than 1d12. It happens all the freakin' time. Does the little bit of extra damage from the sword really matter? No. But I think it's pretty much a Bad Thing that people feel like they can't choose the weapon they really like because it's not "optimal". I agree that being "too rigid" isn't any fun, but personally I don't see telling a player he can't change the rules in order to have his cake and eat it too as being too rigid. What none of the "lenient" posters have answered is: if the extra damage from the sword is so tiny and irrelevant and non-game breaking, why is it such a big deal to say, "No, you can't have that bonus damage. You can use a sword but it will do the same damage as a staff."? [/QUOTE]

Verification