Should a weapon be statted based on "realism" or "balance"?

[Kahuna Burger]

Assume that there is some historic weapon that for whatever reason has not yet been included in the equiptment section. Would you want to stat up that weapon based on its comparative 'realistic' description, or give it statistics with balance with other weapons in mind?

 

[DragonLancer]

I'd rather it conformed to game balance rather than realism, though a fair balance would be best.

 

[Michael Silverbane]

Ideally, it should be statted for both realism AND relative balance. Since D&D is by no means an ideal game, your best bet would be to stat for balance and give it a nod towards realism in whatever way you can.

Later
silver

 

[WhimsyTheFae]

I think that as long as there is a related weapon, you can achieve both. For example, if it is a type of sword, compare it to an already included sword of a similar weight and size. If the sword is near the size of a bastard sword, go with 2d4 or 1d10 damage. If the real world description implies something more (based on the quality, weight distribution or enhancements like serrations) then you could add 1 to the damage or rule that this weapon is only available as a Masterwork weapon (+1 to hit).

I voted: Stat it realisticly then place its simple/martial/exotic catagory to balance it.

So, I would add the ability to categorize the weapon to my opinion above.

 

[Crothian]

Realism. Then what's all the numbers are defined you can arrange them in ways that balance them.

 

[coyote6]

So what weapons (besides firearms) are there that would realistically be "better" than what's already in the books?

The rules have the common weapons, and generally speaking, the weapons that were common were common because they were effective at what they did.

(Possibly also barring really expensive weapons (e.g., made of better steel & the like), which would be masterwork and/or exotic in D&D terms.)

 

[jdrakeh]

I'm crazy - I say stat it for optimal entertainment potential

 

[Glyfair]

So what weapons (besides firearms) are there that would realistically be "better" than what's already in the books?

I agree. The assumption here is a newly added weapon would be better, and the reality is that a newly added historical weapon would likely be worse than existing weapons.

 

[Aus_Snow]

Realism, all the way.

As far as that's possible, o' course.

For me, that's part and parcel of enjoying a RPG: believing that what is happening. . . is happening! (er, not literally IRL, but yeh.) I hope that makes sense.

 

[HeapThaumaturgist]

I went with stat it up for balance.

Why?

Because nobody's perfect. When you start researching a weapon, alot of people fall into the "Myth of the Gun" mentality. Suddenly the Kopesh is the best darn sword ever made by the hand of man and realistically it should have a 17-20/ x3 crit with a 1d10 die. Etc etc.

This is the same reasoning I use for tossing out most gun rules. I don't really CARE if a .50 cal can blow a man in half from a bazillion yards and mail his entrails to his parents parcel post. I'd rather have a balanced game with a nod toward realism and internal consistency and logic than something that fits ONE guy's concept of reality.

--fje