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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="N'raac" data-source="post: 6081987" data-attributes="member: 6681948">Balance and realism often fit poorly together.  To apply a similar "rule of three", I suggest we like fantasy games to have: - realism - balance - weapon diversityselect any two.  The fact is that, in a realistic game, we would see progression in weapons, not a lengthy weapons list in widespread use.  The Romans conquered the world with the metalworking techniques that enabled creation of short swords.  But you wouldn't see short swords as the weapon of choice in the 15th century - metalworking had moved on.  How many British soldiers carried spears as they went off to fight the French?This is where it started.  What the rules currently lack is the wide array of one-shot firearms built into melee weapons.  We ended up with bayonets, but that's when the firearm came to be viewed as the principal weapon.  Firearms were the great equaliser for a couple of reasons.  They rendered armor much less useful (hence its gradual disappearance, until modern tech created materials that provide some protection at limited cost to mobility) and they were easy to use.This is an RPG issue across the board.  Characters in the source material don't start off with their most powerful combat options, but RPG players invested character resources in those abilities, and they want to use them.  We end up with characters who spam certain abilities because balance demands they have only a few very effective abilities.  They could have a lot of abilities that are harder to pull off, but then the GM wants to challenge the optimizers, so the jack of all trades rarely or never succeeds.  How often does someone use combat maneuvers they didn't invest feat (chains) in?Building mechanics that motivate following the source material is desirable, but very difficult in practice.We should really expect that, shouldn't we?  After all, that was reality.  One shot firearms, often built into a melee weapon based around clubbing or spearing (both easy concepts to train the conscripts in), with the more elite (Three Musketeers, say) carrying one or more firearms, then closing with more sophisticated weapons (fencing blades, by that time) they are better trained/skilled in.  If the firearm rules are realistic, then we should get the same tactics as the real world generated.But then, we might want to consider more realistic rules for other weapons.  Steven Brust's Taltos novels provide some insights on the merits of two weapon fighting, where the main character is trained in "Eastern style" fencing.  He attacks presenting only a side, a comparatively small target, where the two weapon wielders present their entire body, since they face their opponent directly.  The only advantage the fencer gets in d20 is wielding a shield - again presenting his entire body but covering a good portion of it.Not sure I'm onside with this, but only from the perspective of 6 second rounds.  How much complaining did we hear in the 1 minute round days about "why can't I swing my weapon more often than once a minute"?  I can remember defining a Wizard back in they day as swinging his staff 10 - 20 times per 1 minute round.  One of those wild swings might actually hit as he flailed about, panicked, with no real skill whatsoever.  The rest?  He's lucky if ONE hits!Demanding realism in only one aspect breaks balance, without question.  Realism demands a system where characters can fall from incredible heights and survive, only to slip and fall in the bathroom and be killed instantly.  The real world isn't all that "realistic", when compared to the realism demanded by many players - and that's before we add magic in!That's an area where I think Pathfinder set up a fine rules set.  Early firearms are Exotic as they emerge, so few characters will use them.  As the tech emerges, they become more understood, and become Martial weapons.  When they are practically and economically functional to equip an army, they move down to Simple, consistent with their being readily available and easy to use.  Once Simple, why wouldn't everyone carry one?  "Realism" again - that's what happened in the real world.  Firearms were simple enough that anyone who might expect to get into combat would carry one.</blockquote>

Verification