Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="ferratus" data-source="post: 5994753" data-attributes="member: 55966">Hah!&nbsp; Well I'd solve the problem by removing different damage rolls on weapons altogether, and go back to having all weapons do 1d6 damage like in OD&amp;D.&nbsp; Why?&nbsp; Because weapons are designed for killing and most weapons are very good at it.&nbsp; You only need 3 inches of steel to kill a person, so there is no reason to assume that a dagger is less likely to kill an unarmed commoner with&nbsp; a single blow than a greatsword.&nbsp; There, no need to make a halfling do more or less damage than a human based on the size of the weapon.But people like having weapons do varying damage, and people like halflings as fighters, rogues and clerics.&nbsp; So this is the fix, and it is a fix that works for pretty much everybody but you.They don't.&nbsp; First of all, the halfling bartender and midwife are not adventurers.&nbsp; These stats don't represent bartenders, midwives, village idiots, grandmothers, and the unborn.&nbsp; Plus, fighters are far better at using short swords than any other class, as Obryn pointed out.As for halflings being better than other races in the same class with daggers, why is a dwarf better at identifying stonework than a human with the stone mason background?&nbsp;&nbsp; Why would all dwarves be trained in identifying stonework, even if they and their parents are goatherds?&nbsp; I makes just as much and just as little sense as halflings being slightly better at daggers and slings than humans.&nbsp;&nbsp; It is just a useful shorthand to give halflings and dwarves a bit of cultural flavour.&nbsp;&nbsp; If you examine every single rule in D&amp;D with the standard of realism you are expecting with this rule, you will find out that most of it doesn't pass the test of absolute plausibility.&nbsp; If you think it does, you've been playing D&amp;D too long, and doing everything else in the world too little.&nbsp; No, no say your peace.&nbsp; But don't expect people to agree with you, and expect them to be annoyed when you insult them.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="ferratus, post: 5994753, member: 55966"] Hah! Well I'd solve the problem by removing different damage rolls on weapons altogether, and go back to having all weapons do 1d6 damage like in OD&D. Why? Because weapons are designed for killing and most weapons are very good at it. You only need 3 inches of steel to kill a person, so there is no reason to assume that a dagger is less likely to kill an unarmed commoner with a single blow than a greatsword. There, no need to make a halfling do more or less damage than a human based on the size of the weapon. But people like having weapons do varying damage, and people like halflings as fighters, rogues and clerics. So this is the fix, and it is a fix that works for pretty much everybody but you. They don't. First of all, the halfling bartender and midwife are not adventurers. These stats don't represent bartenders, midwives, village idiots, grandmothers, and the unborn. Plus, fighters are far better at using short swords than any other class, as Obryn pointed out. As for halflings being better than other races in the same class with daggers, why is a dwarf better at identifying stonework than a human with the stone mason background? Why would all dwarves be trained in identifying stonework, even if they and their parents are goatherds? I makes just as much and just as little sense as halflings being slightly better at daggers and slings than humans. It is just a useful shorthand to give halflings and dwarves a bit of cultural flavour. If you examine every single rule in D&D with the standard of realism you are expecting with this rule, you will find out that most of it doesn't pass the test of absolute plausibility. If you think it does, you've been playing D&D too long, and doing everything else in the world too little. No, no say your peace. But don't expect people to agree with you, and expect them to be annoyed when you insult them. [/QUOTE]

Verification