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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Tony Vargas" data-source="post: 7437682" data-attributes="member: 996">In a more realistic game a knife in the back would kill far more often than an arrow at 200 yds.In genre, neither will kill the hero, unless it's his time, and both will kill a mook just fine when the hero uses them.Hit points are the compromise for better genre emulation and playability over realism.  Bigger weapons doing bigger damage is just intuitive. But smaller weapons doing far less max damage is unrealistic for any weapon that can kill.  ::shrug::Ultimately, the level of realism in D&D, in general, is very, very low, while the level specific things are held to in discussions is much higher - sometimes even to the level if reality-isnt-real. 4e did 'Action movie' almost too well - better than it did fantasy.  The most reviled-as-magic of all fighter power, Come & Get It, straight out if any action movie where the hero inexplicably uses a melee weapon over a gun...  Rarely, outside of hps and, with 6 sec rounds, RoF, which breaks what's possible to pieces. OTOH, Sometimes they're even pushed in the wrong direction, there are many things a genre hero will do w/o magic that D&D has often resorted to spells or arbitrary special abilities, to model - or am I the only one who remembers Giants in the Earth...Can't argue with that: the 'feel' of classic D&D is class imbalance.But, I don't even think that's the imbalance at issue, here, caster supremacy isn't being challenged in this thread, mainly its the weight given to weapon choice, at bottom, that's triggered the OP...</blockquote>

Verification