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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Greenfield" data-source="post: 6041171" data-attributes="member: 6669384">The Cavalier was even forbidden from using a long reach weapon.  The two handed sword was the example given.  The only exception was the lance, for mounted combat against a similarly armed opponent.Yeah, they were Lawful Stupid and a bad idea all around.As for Barbarians:  I recall a young man wanting to join our game, but explaining that the Magic Users and Clerics would have to leave, since his character couldn't travel with them.I, in turn, explained that the tail didn't wag the dog.  The fact that he wanted to play an overpowered, poorly designed class didn't mean that the rest of the game group had to accommodate.The Barbarian, when it first came out, was an attempt to place Conan in the game: The magic-hating, muscle bound clod who couldn't lose a fight no matter how stupid he was.An 8th level Barbarian was, functionally, a 10th level character, if not higher.  On more of the original topic:  It's not dishonorable to fight smart, to look for and exploit weaknesses in the opponent's defense.  And as long as both sides know that the "rules" include cheap shots like kicking someone in the groin, that's not dishonorable either.It's the element of "breaking the rules" that's dishonorable, and that is 100% dependent on what the accepted rules of behavior are.The video game reference is a good one.  So is the comic book one:  If the only way to beat the bad guy is to hit that sweet spot, then it isn't dishonorable, it's necessary.  Failure to do what's necessary is certain failure.If the only way to defeat that ultra-powerful alien is with a rare radioactive element, then there's nothing dishonorable in using it.  Getting into such a fight without it is a guaranteed loss, so such tactics would count as Lawful Stupid.  And no system should ever require you to be suicidally stupid.</blockquote>

Verification