Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (
More info?)
In article <U4udnR6vkPgr0NbfRVn-gQ@comcast.com>,
"Jeff Goslin" <autockr@comcast.net> wrote:
> "Kevin Lowe" <me@private.net> wrote in message
> news:me-571EBC.00260831032005@news01.comindico.com.au...
> > > > What, you think a big strong barbarian should wield a dagger?
> > >
> > > At least he'd have character.
😉
> >
> > You are an adherent of the "creativity equals random design choices"
> > school of roleplaying, I see.
>
> No, I'm just not interested in being a slave to the mechanics. If everyone
> in REALITY chose to wield the same weapon, we wouldn't need several options,
> now would we?
Of course we would. You need weapons for poor people, and for people
from other cultures, and for people who wield odd things for sensible
reasons (like having a magical battle rake or whatever), and for people
who for one reason or another don't have a choice about what they fight
with just this minute. All of these things need stats.
The fact that clubs exist, though, is not in any way justification for a
sane being with the money to afford better going into battle armed with
a club.
> In the world you imply that you live in, nobody would select a weapon to use
> that was generically good, but would opt for the specifically good.
> Everyone would choose the two handed sword over the eminently more versatile
> long sword.
WTF you get these straw men from I'll never know. Each is optimal for
different builds and different goals. Longswords are better for
medium-strength characters who want a shield, including fighters who
will later trade up to a bastard sword. Greatswords are better for
high-strength characters, particularly ones with Cleave, but they give
you lower AC.
> > Do these characters have sound, in-character reasons to want to die
> > screaming in the mud with their entrails in a steaming pile beside them?
>
> The biggest gun is always the best gun, is that the ticket?
No, the best gun is the best gun. How hard is that to understand?
> > If not, then playing a character who seeks out a combat career armed
> > with a suboptimal weapon is *rotten* roleplaying.
>
> Of course you'd have reasons for it! I'm not suggesting for example
> randomly assigning a TRIDENT to a nomadic tribesman of the northern desert
> or some such thing! Club for the seal hunting family, Spear for the family
> of proud spear carriers(or something), Axe for the guy who was a
> disillusioned lumberjack, etc etc.
There are good reasons why people IRL didn't carry clubs to war when
they had swords, and in 3e spears and axes are sometimes optimal.
Shortspears are simple weapons so sorcerors can use them, longspears
have reach and can be set against a charge, and axes are very
competitive with swords.
2e was a bit of an offender for having a very small number of clearly
superior weapons (mace, staff, longsword, two-handed sword) that almost
everyone sensible used. 3e has rearranged things so that sensible
characters will display a bit more variety of weapon choice, if that
matters to you.
> > I say almost, because you'd have to find a way to filter out the choices
> > that actually work well together. Because people whose characters use
> > the best weapons and tactics available, because they prefer to live
> > rather than die, are just being boring munchkins.
>
> Well, if I'm wrong, so be it, but it sure sounds to me like the original
> poster's problem stemmed NOT from a character, but from the min/maxing of
> the mechanics.
A half-orc barbarian with a greatsword isn't really min-maxing in any
negative sense. It's a logical, effective race/class/weapon
combination. It's not like he cherry-picked a combination of feats and
items from a variety of non-core sources to create an uber-character.
If anything the problem is that the fighter *isn't* effectively
designed. At medium levels the fighter should by rights have some good
tricks that the barbarian just can't emulate.
> I'm not saying that EVERYONE who picks an optimal weapon is
> a munchkin, what I am saying is that if the mechanics drive the majority of
> character design decisions, then yes, such a player is a power gamer,
> without much doubt.
Here's a clue: throughout history, "mechanics" (physics) has indeed
driven the majority of training and armament decisions. Do you think
that the equipment ancient knights and modern infantrymen carry was
picked out at random? Do you think they picked training methods and
fighting doctrines out of a hat? Nope.
Those who fight and those who others fight for have always has a very
keen interest in winning, and their equipment and tactics have been
optimised for winning as much as the available knowledge and technology
allowed.
If I manufactured a bullet that had 1% better stopping power than
existing ammunition and was the same price, I'd be a rich man because
every police force and army in the world would want to buy it. Because
every sane person in the world *is* a power gamer in the sense you use
the term.
Kevin Lowe,
Tasmania.
Facebook
Twitter
Instagram