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

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

  • Realism, if its better than other weapons, so be it.

    Votes: 28 16.6%
  • Balance, weapon choice should be rp not mechanical.

    Votes: 77 45.6%
  • Stat it realisticly then place its simple/martial/exotic catagory to balance it.

    Votes: 59 34.9%
  • I would never introduce a new weapon.

    Votes: 5 3.0%

only two of us said not to introduce new stuff?

I'm not a purist or anything, but I feel like there's already plenty of choice in wpns out there. If someone wants to intoduce a Japanese No-dachi, that's cool, it functions exactly like a greatsword (a MW greatsword if they shell out the extra GP)


A West-Egyptian hooked spear-- sure, it's a shortspear.... with a hook on it... and some West Egyptian Heiroglyphics....


I'd much rather come up with new wys to describe "conventional" weapons than remember stat for unique weapons.


[hijack]
and if there's any historical basis for the Dire flail, i wanna see it. that thing is just plain goofy looking. ;)
 

log in or register to remove this ad

Balance.

I'd much, much rather have my weapons be internally balanced against one another than have to suffer through one more Katana Myth being shoved down my throat.
 

HeapThaumaturgist said:
I went with stat it up for balance.

I'm with Heap, for much the same logic. I'm tend to focus on making the weapon work on a meta-game level than a realism level.
 


Realism, then balance. In my Bestiary, I went first for realism, but also made adjustments to make sure the creatures were reasonable as compared to other monsters in the system. If you went strictly for realism in weapon or monster design, your player character's lives would be 'nasty, brutish, and short.' For instance, having all the characters mown down by a realistically simulated machine gun wouldn't be much fun! :)
 


I'm not certain that realism and balance are separate concerns. For instance, Omegaz brings up the analogous situation of monsters. Now, let's imagine that we're statting monsters up for "realism" without any concern for balance. We start with a housecat. We've seen cats fight and they have two front paws and a bite. They regularly use all of them, so we'll give them two claw attacks and a bite attack. A claw doesn't always do the same damage so it needs some kind of variability--we'll give it a die size that lets it do 1 or 2 points of damage after we figure the strength penalty in: 6 strength is -2 so they need a d4 claw damage. Their bite is more dangerous than the claw, so we'll give that a d6. Cats pounce much like their larger cousins so we'll give them pounce. They don't seem to have a lot of trouble hitting things despite their relative weakness so we'll give them weapon finesse so that they can use their dexterity instead. It's a realistic cat, right? Except that, given the stats for a human commoner, any housecat is about 50% likely to kill a grown man in six seconds. Well, I guess that's not too realistic then is it? The balance with other animals in the game as well as with people has to be preserved if we are going to say that our house cat stats are realistic because, in the long run, it's more realistic to have a housecat that can scratch a man but will have very little chance of winning a straight-up fight with a commoner than to have a housecat that uses two claw attacks and a bite attack.

The same thing applies to weapons. Let's say it's realistic that a historical falchion would deal more damage than a longsword but and would punch through armor more easily but would be harder to defend oneself against another foe with and would be less deadly against unarmored foes. Based on that set of stipulations, maybe we should give a falchion +1 to hit and damage against foes in heavy armor and -1 to hit and damage against foes in no armor. On top of that, we'll give a falchion wielder a -1 to AC. Damage die is d8.

Now, however, the falchion is more effective against armored foes than a heavy pick and a falchion wielder has more trouble defending himself against foes than the wielder of a battle axe. Furthermore, a character is better off wearing chain mail than the heavier and more effective banded mail when facing a falchion wielder. None of those situations are realistic.

Focusing on realism to the point of ignoring other game elements does not actually yield realism. (Nor does it yield good, playable game design as the 1e weapon vs. armor type table demonstrates).
 

Omegaz said:
If you went strictly for realism in weapon or monster design, your player character's lives would be 'nasty, brutish, and short.' For instance, having all the characters mown down by a realistically simulated machine gun wouldn't be much fun! :)
I must just say that it's purely a matter of preference, really.

For example, I personally think that having guns be literally as lethal (no more, no less) as they are IRL (again, to the extent that it's possible to simulate that) leads players to think a bit more carefully about the prospect of putting their character in front of a bullet, most of all. But hey, I can see arguments for both sides of it having their own 'authority' worthy of respect. They both make sense, in other words.

Also, it cuts both ways. Catch some bad guy by surprise, blow his head off with one clean shot. . . there you go: problem solved!
 


Black Omega said:
Please, no.:)

Katanas suck. The only reason samuraii used them was because they couldn't get their hands on Ukrainian sharp sticks. Ninjas are sweet, though. :)

To quote Myamoto Musashi: "Man, those Ukrainian sharp sticks are fierce!".
 
Last edited:

Remove ads

Top