Signup
Welcome to... Canonfire! World of GreyhawK
Features
Postcards from the Flanaess
Adventures
in Greyhawk
Cities of
Oerth
Deadly
Denizens
Jason Zavoda Presents
The Gord Novels
Greyhawk Wiki
#greytalk
JOIN THE CHAT
ON DISCORD
    Canonfire :: View topic - Armament Mathematics vs Atmospheric Intangibles
    Canonfire Forum Index -> World of Greyhawk Discussion
    Armament Mathematics vs Atmospheric Intangibles

    Armament Mathematics or Atmospheric Intangibles
    1) Armament Mathematics
    0%
     0%  [ 0 ]
    2) Atmospheric Intangibles
    100%
     100%  [ 15 ]
    Total Votes : 15

    Author Message
    Master Greytalker

    Joined: Aug 17, 2004
    Posts: 924
    From: Computer Desk

    Send private message
    Thu Feb 03, 2011 10:04 am  
    Armament Mathematics vs Atmospheric Intangibles

    A delicate balance between the number crunchers and the role-players can determine whether the session remains enjoyable or becomes an affair of frustration. Recent entries concerning the choice of weapons particularly the worthlessness of the crossbow and the two-handed sword intrigues me.

    The numbers argument concerns itself with survivability;

    SirXaris:
    “Just from experience, it became obvious that no player would use a crossbow when a bow would do four times as much damage or a 2-handed sword when it only averaged one (1) more hit point worth of damage per hit than a longsword”

    His solution: double the damage rolls.

    The solution is elegant and simple but it has been my experience that rewrite one weapon and the other players will demand increases for their own characters – let the endless arguments commence. I also believe a reliance on stark numbers miss the point; the session is not about maximizing damage but the creation of a memorable character.

    However for fun, let us create this character with these weapons and see what happens. The intangible benefits of the crossbow and the two-handed sword become apparent with some forethought. These intangibles can be emphasized through role-playing.

    Other then the broader cultural reasons for the crossbow; ease of training and volley arguments though more suited to masses of men there are also several advantages for individuals. While the two-handed sword gains the attention of everyone and makes a clear psychological statement – Beware of Owner.

    Crossbow
    - It can remain cocked and its release cord is unaffected by the weather.
    - It can be fired from a crouching or prone position which is useful in cramped environments such as dungeons.
    - It is also more accurate; it is no coincidence that a crossbow of accuracy exists.
    - It offers better concealment and protection opportunities.
    * The simplest method to expose these advantages is highlight them during a typical dungeon crawl. Ever consider why the inhabitants often possess crossbows and yet the treasure is magical arrows; no doubt taken from inexperienced adventurers that charge into the subterranean depths and act like robin hood. The limited space and low ceiling of a dungeon does not lend itself to flights of arrows lobbed over the heads of their companions.

    Two-Handed Sword
    - It is not a subtle weapon and makes an impression as these characters simply look the part.
    - It announces a reliance on brute force which might cause an opponent to hesitate to attack.
    - It relates to efficiency as the weapon screams combat will be short and bloody.
    - The weapon acts as a means of intimidation this can be simulated through morale penalties and increased parlay attempts.
    * The simplest method is to play up the fear factor and add more morale checks - players remain unaware. Role-playing scenarios involving social interaction could be used to highlight the sense of unease.

    I am sure that others on this board can discover numerous reasons to refute the premise that certain weapons are worthless in spite of the stark numbers. I tend to feel the atmospheric environment far outweighs the mathematics when it comes to the creation of memorable characters and sessions.

    To paraphrase the player handbook:
    “if you give up on the weapons of course the weapons won't be used”

    However if you take an interest in the weapon you can create a unique character that will stand apart from the endless parade of cookie-cutter robin hoods and conan's out there.

    Let us see what we have with the worthless weapons...shall we?

    Witfrenga
    A hard-nosed mercenary that has learned from bitter experience and several scars that the adventurers life is not like the stories. He has discovered that within most dungeons flight of arrows are impossible as often even one arrow is impractical. Rather then fumble in the torchlight to string a bow better to release a bolt and then close with the creatures. Down them fast as the cramped spaces leave little room for protracted battles. Most combat is brutal otherwise cries for assistance bring scum from other passages. Even above ground most that confront this hard-eyed veteran soon decide to avoid problems over minor details – the local barkeep has raised his prices twice but has yet to inform him of the fact lest the warrior take offense.

    Aldis
    A flamboyant warrior that is quickly gaining a reputation for success. He has discovered that a the local lords tend to view adventurers as little more then expendable albeit useful irritants and so has chosen to differentiate himself from the common warrior mold. The group has taken several assignments hunting bandits in the woods. He lies prone and as the bandits focus upon his more traditional companions he selects spell casters as targets. He then charges into melee though the sight of him wielding his two-handed sword is often enough to break the nerve of the bewildered bandits. Actually, he is far less experienced then the local lords believe but he talks a good game and looks impressive. Most lords are pleased to hire him; at least the villagers notice.

    Both of the examples are viable and IMHO would be memorable more so then the same old-same old simply because the math says “certain weapons” should be selected.

    **Thanks for the pm about the topic; I have made edits and hope the post is more concise.


    Last edited by Crag on Thu Feb 03, 2011 3:26 pm; edited 4 times in total
    Master Greytalker

    Joined: Apr 13, 2006
    Posts: 654
    From: Frinton on Sea England

    Send private message
    Thu Feb 03, 2011 11:50 am  

    Very well argued points, Crag. The right dm with the right group of players could get a lot of mileage out of the descriptive elements of the weaponry.

    The central problem with missile weapons is the D&D system which has always failed to cope with the realistic deadliness of such weapons due to the abstract nature of the combat rules.

    In 1e I remember we used an "instant kill" house rule which was based off the old assassination table; it worked okay until players started with the "what about my weapon of choice then?"

    I now use BRP as a system for my game which has a fairly short and bloody combat mechanic in which choice of weapon does have effects beyond simple damage done.

    Atmosperic intangibles gets my vote.
    Site Theocrat

    Joined: Aug 15, 2003
    Posts: 235
    From: WoG 2.0

    Send private message
    Thu Feb 03, 2011 12:28 pm  

    Remember Keep on the Borderlands (1e/Basic - not 25th Anniversary or 4e) - all the art depicted fighters holding spears. I even have a few Ral Partha D&D Mini's with warriors with spears.
    Now, Reaper makes like 1 mini with a spear (likely an exaggeration). Spears by all accounts should be like 4d20 damage. Write that into the rules to bring them back.
    _________________
    Theocrat Issak
    Master Greytalker

    Joined: Apr 13, 2006
    Posts: 654
    From: Frinton on Sea England

    Send private message
    Thu Feb 03, 2011 1:37 pm  

    My son's character in BRP uses a shortspear as a main weapon and reaped mayhem in my conversion of Citadel By The Sea by getting several Impale effects on Orcish leaders; max damage x2. The only downside was he kept disarming himself because the bloody thing kept sticking in the wound Laughing. He now carries a hand-axe as well.
    Journeyman Greytalker

    Joined: Apr 21, 2003
    Posts: 200


    Send private message
    Thu Feb 03, 2011 1:43 pm  

    In the old 1st edition AD&D different weapons had better chances of penetrating various armor types. Also keep in mind that in 3rd edition crossbows are in the simple weapon category as opposed to martial weapons showing that they do not need any kind of specialized military training to use them and are readily available to the general public. In my opinion, if your looking at combat from a mathematical perspective then go play WOW or some other online game where the numbers are more important than the character. D&D is Role playing not Roll playing.
    GreySage

    Joined: Oct 06, 2008
    Posts: 2788
    From: South-Central Pennsylvania

    Send private message
    Thu Feb 03, 2011 2:01 pm  
    Re: Armament Mathematics vs Atmospheric Intangibles

    Atmospheric Intangibles over Math any day. Wink

    Crag wrote:
    Crossbow
    - It can be fired from a crouching or prone position providing better concealment as well as more protection which is useful in cramped environments such as dungeons.


    In the "open field" everyone wanted the range and firepower of the Browning Automatic Rifle -- the BAR. Shocked

    However, in the city -- in "house-to-house fighting" -- everyone wanted the S.T.E.N. ("Sten") gun. Evil Grin

    In the "open field" the Sten was of little consequence; short range and no real knock down power at range. The BAR knocked you off your butt at quite a distance, but was useless in trying to fire "around corners" and within cellars (think dungeons). The Sten was for the city, the BAR for the open field.

    The "bow" and "crossbow" can be viewed in the same light, as you've pointed out.

    Nice job, Crag. Cool
    _________________
    Mystic's web page: http://melkot.com/mysticscholar/index.html
    Mystic's blog page: http://mysticscholar.blogspot.com/
    Adept Greytalker

    Joined: Apr 11, 2009
    Posts: 379
    From: Verbobonc

    Send private message
    Thu Feb 03, 2011 8:59 pm  

    Can I vote for both? My thesis research is in combat modeling.

    Seriously though, I think Mystic Scholar makes a great point with his WWII firearms analogy... the crossbow and simple/longbow are apples and oranges. Of course my favorite for room clearing remains the M-67.

    Vonbek, good cite. the 2nd edition had a similar rule, though it was based on category (Slashing/Piercing/Bludgeoning) instead of specific weapons, which caused a loss of granularity (i.e. a military pick was less effective against plate armor, when actually it was designed to break that kind of armor).

    From an atmospherics point of view, the weapons are props to tell the story. My way of handling the bow/crossbow issue was the fact that using a bow, especially a longbow required years of training and experience. While their was no higher cost in proficiencies, the player had to develop some backstory of how he learned such a weapon... that of course opens up options for the DM. As for the two-handed sword, its obvious advantage is in its much greater damage against larger opponents, and as Crag said, it communicates a certain something about a character.

    My inner mathemetician/analyst would suggest that the problem is the way in which AD&D models damage throug hit points. At some level, the designers have to assign damage capabilities to a host of weapons. I do not know how they do it, but in any simulation (such as AD&D), at some point the designer makes assumptions/abstractions to make the simulation work properly. For your consideration, a system that would remove the quesiton of which weapon deals more damage was the old West End Games Star Wars (D6) system. It required less accounting, but was also more lethal (anyone could get killed in the first shot). However, I would argue it was more realistic in that sense as well. I am not endorsing it for use with AD&D, but using it as an illustration.

    I think I'll vote for atmospherics...
    GreySage

    Joined: Jul 26, 2010
    Posts: 2695
    From: LG Dyvers

    Send private message
    Fri Feb 04, 2011 6:47 am  

    First, I'm flattered that my statement resulted in such a post as this. Smile This is an issue that has bugged me since beginning D&D so many decades ago.

    I'll admit that everyone here has made very good arguments and say that I agree with them. However, the suggestions all seem to lead to greater complication in gaming instead of simplification. And, simplification of the rules is the way to improve role-playing, in my opinion.

    For example, the 1e rules that gave each weapon specific bonuses or penalties 'To Hit' against each type of Armor Class, as mentioned by vonbek, were too complicated for me and my players to memorize. So, we ignored them. Granted, using those numbers would have made 2-handed swords much more effective against enemies, but looking them up constantly slowed the game down too much for our enjoyment. The end result was that 2-handed melee weapons of any kind were simply not worth giving up a character's shield for.

    If you use role-playing options, as suggested by Crag, you end up needing to represent them with bonuses and penalties to a character's skill checks when using skills like Diplomacy, Intimidate, Bluff, etc. Again, this adds more numbers to the game which need to be memorized or looked up each time they come into play thus complicating the game and slowing down the role-playing - exactly what we don't want to do.

    One of my favorite characters is a Barbarian I played purely for the chance to role-play. I specifically chose a 2-handed Sword as his main weapon for all the reasons given in the examples by Crag. He was an effective character. However, he was always much more effective when I'd roll a '1' and fumble his 2-handed Sword and have to resort to his back-up Broadsword and Handaxe.

    By basically doubling the damage done by 2-handed melee weapons and crossbows, I simplified the game mechanics and ended up accomplishing all the goals Crag listed in his examples. My players were much more wary confronting an NPC or humanoid leader wielding a 2-handed Sword than they were confronting one wielding a Longsword and sheild. They were also much less hauty when confronted by crossbow-wielding City Watch than when confronted by the same wielding bows.

    Basically, I found that doubling the damage kept the game mechanics simple and improved the role-playing aspect at the same time. So, my vote goes to both. Happy

    SirXaris
    Master Greytalker

    Joined: Apr 13, 2006
    Posts: 654
    From: Frinton on Sea England

    Send private message
    Fri Feb 04, 2011 7:55 am  

    SirXaris wrote:


    If you use role-playing options, as suggested by Crag, you end up needing to represent them with bonuses and penalties to a character's skill checks when using skills like Diplomacy, Intimidate, Bluff, etc. Again, this adds more numbers to the game which need to be memorized or looked up each time they come into play thus complicating the game and slowing down the role-playing - exactly what we don't want to do.

    SirXaris


    I'm not sure that this has to be true; if you start to add bonuses to skill checks etc then you have a roll-playingsolution. If the DM just makes a decision based on the good of the game rather then adding rules then you have a role-playing solution, all of which means no look-up of rules and a better chance that players will make role-playing choices in future over big number selections.

    The argument you make about guardsmen with crossbows and arrogant pcs rings very true with me and is one of the many reasons I switched game systems after all these years.
    Apprentice Greytalker

    Joined: Jun 24, 2008
    Posts: 126


    Send private message
    Fri Feb 04, 2011 8:02 am  

    I vote for atmosphere over math, but have just realized the numbers are having an effect. I hadn't even thought about two-handed weapons until I just realized none of my players are using them, and I haven't been inclined to arm an NPC with one.

    To address crossbows specifically, relevant to 3rd ed. rules, I introduced the "siege crossbow" as a separate simple weapon. I have given it a modified ranged touch attack rather than the standard ranged attack. By this I mean that it reduces the armor and shield bonus of the target by not more than 5. Damage is as heavy crossbow, but takes nine consecutive rounds to reload. Suddenly the players took the militia manning the walls a bit more seriously, even when most were just there to reload. Some players use one, but drop it immediately after firing. This solution does involve more math though.

    Anyways, that was my solution, but with respect to only one missile weapon. I have to think of the two-handed weapons, because I now realize they are not being used. Will give double damage a try.
    Apprentice Greytalker

    Joined: Mar 01, 2004
    Posts: 15
    From: Lost in the Sea of Dust

    Send private message
    Fri Feb 04, 2011 9:24 am  

    Although I personally choose weapons on the atmospherics, I do have a couple of players who are more mathematics inclined so as DM I need to be looking at that side as well.

    In 3.5e the greatsword (2d6 (7 avg), 19-20/x2) is a better weapon than the longsword (1d8 (4.5 avg), 19-20/x2). The greatsword improves even more once you add in strength to the damage as the greatsword gets half again the damage bonus rounded down as it is a two-handed weapon, the longsword does not. Greatsword > Longsword

    The other side is the lt. crossbow (1d8, 19-20/x2) and bow (1d8, x3) in 3.5e are equal in damage with criticals aside, but the crossbow needs to be loaded as an action, the bow does not so can be fired each round even if you move. Once you get to the point of multiple iterative attacks based on BAB, the bow becomes the optimum weapon of choice. You can achieve similar results with the crossbow, but at the cost of expending feats. Bow > Crossbow

    The unknown bard - "Its not what you are doing, its how you look doing it!"
    Journeyman Greytalker

    Joined: Apr 21, 2003
    Posts: 200


    Send private message
    Fri Feb 04, 2011 3:48 pm  

    In the majority of games I have played I have found it to be a moot point anyway as myself and the other players have usually gone with what weapon seemed right for the character and not what is most effective. There are many different ways, especially in 3.5, to make your weapon better and or improve your fighting. So how much base damage a weapon does is not as important. I am more concerned with being able to hit something and do any damage to it than to not hit it at all.
    Master Greytalker

    Joined: Aug 17, 2004
    Posts: 924
    From: Computer Desk

    Send private message
    Sat Feb 05, 2011 1:52 pm  

    SirXaris wrote:
    However, the suggestions all seem to lead to greater complication in gaming instead of simplification. And, simplification of the rules is the way to improve role-playing, in my opinion.

    If you use role-playing options, as suggested by Crag, you end up needing to represent them with bonuses and penalties to a character's skill checks when using skills like Diplomacy, Intimidate, Bluff, etc. Again, this adds more numbers to the game which need to be memorized or looked up each time they come into play thus complicating the game and slowing down the role-playing - exactly what we don't want to do.


    Quite the opposite; I think such role-playing can be implemented without rolling dice (checks). For the good of the session I would even encourage the DM to "cheat" and simply declare actions to enhance the scenario if needed. Do we require a check to decide if the barkeep is afraid?

    As for the crossbow guardmen; it makes sense as the crossbow is relatively cheap and easy to learn. Urban recruits are less skilled unless the locals have a tradition of bowmanship. These guards are not supposed to be a match for adventurers rather their advantage rests in their numbers and social authority.

    Conversation instead of checks; I am somewhat dismayed as role-play scenarios became ability checks. Perhaps I am tilting at the widmill; numerous splatbooks and countless builds have fostered a mentality that seems to demand a rule. Rather then roll a check - talk to the npc. If you want your character to behave a certain way - act that way - do not search for a skill to make him that way.

    Btw; I am not trying to beat on the post as the modifications for spell casters seems a good idea to me. However I find outright rule alterations causes problems and so I choose to solve such issues through role-playing.

    Magic-Users
    I know some Dms allow such characters to choose at the time but I like the idea of pre-selection (memoration). After all the player should use some intelligence and it adds worth to the various magical items - wands, rings and scrolls - that fill in the gaps as well as urges the player to look for opportunities to use his spells effectively.

    Clerics
    In contrast, I like the idea of choice at the time because these characters are conduits for divine energy. Of course I would urge you go further; perhaps if the party will face a tremedous evil - choose a useful spell for the player - mysterious ways and all that. Perhaps tie tthe spells with the clerical conduct; if the cleric is on the straight and narrow give them the spells but if the cleric strays choose some spells as a subtle nudge at repentance. The cleric recognize the spiritual barometer and as it is role-played rather then a declared rule the other players won't demand things for themselves.
    GreySage

    Joined: Jul 26, 2010
    Posts: 2695
    From: LG Dyvers

    Send private message
    Sat Feb 05, 2011 4:41 pm  

    I agree with most of what you say there, Crag. I also ignore most skill checks that can better be role-played (like Intimidate, Bluff, Sense Motive, and Diplomacy). The problem with what you describe is that ignoring such checks is actually the same as changing the rules. If changing the rules bothers you, then further complicating the checks is the default solution to your original suggestions.

    I have been thinking more about the reasons why the armor penetration bonuses of AD&D were so unwieldy. In theory, I approved of them very much. It is perfectly reasonable that a 2-handed sword should have a much better chance of defeating platemail armor than a dagger, for example. 2nd Ed. simplified it, thus making the system less unwieldy, but at the expense of realism. For example, since 2-handed swords and scimitars were both classified as Slashing Weapons, they enjoyed the same bonuses and penalties To Hit against each armor type. In the real world, the 2-handed sword is a desirable weapon for a strong warrior partly because of its armor penetrating ability. Basically, it acts like both a slashing and bludgeoning weapon. A scimitar has much less weight behind it, so should be much less effective against platemail armor.

    Though the armor penetration system from AD&D is a good representation of realism and allows weapons like 2-handed swords and crossbows to enjoy benefits despite their unimpressive damage increases, it is too complicated to use in a fast-paced game. I believe that increasing the damage the weapon does is an effective alternative. Basically, it prevents melees from being bogged down with attempts at role-playing in the middle of the fight. Confused

    SirXaris
    Master Greytalker

    Joined: Apr 13, 2006
    Posts: 654
    From: Frinton on Sea England

    Send private message
    Sun Feb 06, 2011 7:42 am  

    I remember that using the 1e armour modifiers worked well for pc's because it was right in front of you on the old yellow character sheet. However, the DM didn't have it quite so easy for his/her minions unless there was a lot of prep. I also found it a little strange that there was a bonus to hit someone with no armour.

    Players being players, eventually everybody gravitated towards the weapons with the best bonuses; metagaming always seems to find a way through.

    The 2e system was, as you say, too generic.

    I like the idea that each weapon has a positive effect (a bonus to trip, or double damage against a charge) but D&D has never done this very well from a rules perspective due to the abstract combat system. I like the idea that the DM will just adjudicate a certain outcome based on the weapon being used and incorporate it into play. Maybe it'll only happen once but it's these little things that make for memorable campaigns and sustains the unpredictability of life and therefore suspension of disbelief; always relying on maths is too rigid and creates assumptions about outcomes.
    Grandmaster Greytalker

    Joined: Nov 07, 2004
    Posts: 1846
    From: Mt. Smolderac

    Send private message
    Sun Feb 06, 2011 9:01 am  

    Ragr wrote:
    I like the idea that each weapon has a positive effect (a bonus to trip, or double damage against a charge) but D&D has never done this very well from a rules perspective due to the abstract combat system. I like the idea that the DM will just adjudicate a certain outcome based on the weapon being used and incorporate it into play. Maybe it'll only happen once but it's these little things that make for memorable campaigns and sustains the unpredictability of life and therefore suspension of disbelief; always relying on maths is too rigid and creates assumptions about outcomes.


    This is one of the things I like the most about 4th edition. Not that you get different effects from different weapons (Weapons rules are pretty much designed to equal things out as much as possible. Weapons that do more damage are generally less accurate and vice versa), but the variable effects you get from attack powers. Want to attack one opponent and also hit the guy flanking you on the backswing, there's a power for that. Want to distract an opponent with an attack leaving an opening for your ally, there's a power for that. Also the DM doesn't have to adjudicate a certain outcome, which makes it easier for me to run an exciting combat. I realize this isn't for everybody but it works pretty well for me and for my purposes makes combat much more interesting than in previous editions.
    Black Hand of Oblivion

    Joined: Feb 16, 2003
    Posts: 3835
    From: So. Cal

    Send private message
    Mon Feb 07, 2011 5:05 am  
    Re: Armament Mathematics vs Atmospheric Intangibles

    Crag wrote:

    Crossbow
    - It can remain cocked and its release cord is unaffected by the weather.

    Not true at all. Well, the last bit at least, an former a bit too. The bows-string of a crossbow is very similar to that of a bow, only thicker, and were most often made of hemp or flax wool. When any bow-string gets wet they loosen up, dropping the draw weight of the crossbow/bow significantly. Italian mercenary crossbowmen fighting for the French against the English in the 100 Years War were decidedly not fans of the combination of wet weather and facing English longbows, as a longbow's bow-string can be replaced with a dry one in a matter of moments(and so fire to full effect), whereas a crossbow's bow-string takes much longer to swap out. As to leaving a crossbow cocked, that is not something you want to do for very long or very often, as it will eventually lower the tension of the prod(i.e. the crossbow's "bow"). Basically, you cock it when you know that you will shortly be shooting something with it. When not in use for a long period of time, it should be stored unstrung so as to maintain the prod tension.

    Crag wrote:
    - It is also more accurate; it is no coincidence that a crossbow of accuracy exists.

    Also not true. You might as well say that throwing knives are more accurate than throwing axes. Accuracy is subject to the skill of the user.

    What crossbows allow for is ease of use, as in not a lot of training(nor years of physical conditioning) is required to use them well. This is not really an issue in D & D though.

    The issue of a weapon's usefulness was once a factor in my early games, though after a while I simply began to reward players for taking odd weapons by actually including some magic ones in adventures here and there. Beyond that, there was a higher level spell(maybe in 2E) called steal enchantment(I think), which could transfer an enchantment from one item to another of similar type, if the new item was of sufficient quality to house the "stolen" enchantments. That did much to free up people's minds about taking proficiencies/feats/whatever in the more odd weapons in the game, as they knew that, eventually, they would have access to something usable against those higher level monsters only harmed by magic weapon of certain quality.

    As to the role-playing Skill Checks bit, there are some things I role-play and others I don't. A player might use role-playing to convince a guard into letting them into a city district they normally wouldn't be allowed in, but you can't role-play a lock open. ;) Also, the cleverness of the role-player will vie with their character's Intelligence/Wisdom/Charisma scores, meaning that no matter how experienced and cunning the player is, what their character is capable with regards to what can be role-played to their advantage is subject to the character's stats, and therefor controlled by the DM. "Lunk the fighter no convince guard to let him into rich quarter. Darn." "Too bad, Lunk. The guard said this bard, me, may enter and leave as he wills." ;)
    _________________
    - Moderator/Admin (in some areas)/Member -
    GreySage

    Joined: Oct 06, 2008
    Posts: 2788
    From: South-Central Pennsylvania

    Send private message
    Mon Feb 07, 2011 9:32 am  
    Re: Armament Mathematics vs Atmospheric Intangibles

    Cebrion wrote:
    "Lunk the fighter no convince guard to let him into rich quarter. Darn." "Too bad, Lunk. The guard said this bard, me, may enter and leave as he wills." ;)


    Damn! Lunk's "Ring of Human Influence" failed him again! Shocked

    Sorry Lunk, but your Charisma sucks! Evil Grin Laughing
    _________________
    Mystic's web page: http://melkot.com/mysticscholar/index.html
    Mystic's blog page: http://mysticscholar.blogspot.com/
    Master Greytalker

    Joined: Apr 13, 2006
    Posts: 654
    From: Frinton on Sea England

    Send private message
    Mon Feb 07, 2011 10:20 am  
    Re: Armament Mathematics vs Atmospheric Intangibles

    Cebrion wrote:
    Also, the cleverness of the role-player will vie with their character's Intelligence/Wisdom/Charisma scores, meaning that no matter how experienced and cunning the player is, what their character is capable with regards to what can be role-played to their advantage is subject to the character's stats, and therefor controlled by the DM. "Lunk the fighter no convince guard to let him into rich quarter. Darn." "Too bad, Lunk. The guard said this bard, me, may enter and leave as he wills." ;)


    You know that you're a great role-player when you can convincingly play a complete dimwit.

    Er..........I think Confused
    Adept Greytalker

    Joined: Aug 13, 2001
    Posts: 460


    Send private message
    Mon Feb 07, 2011 4:37 pm  

    Kaltronas wrote:

    In 3.5e the greatsword (2d6 (7 avg), 19-20/x2) is a better weapon than the longsword (1d8 (4.5 avg), 19-20/x2). The greatsword improves even more once you add in strength to the damage as the greatsword gets half again the damage bonus rounded down as it is a two-handed weapon, the longsword does not. Greatsword > Longsword


    Not to mention, with two-handers, your power attack bonus doubles! In 3x, you'll rarely see a strength-based fighter-type choose one-hander & shield over two-hander.
    Display posts from previous:   
       Canonfire Forum Index -> World of Greyhawk Discussion All times are GMT - 8 Hours
    Page 1 of 1

    Jump to:  

    You cannot post new topics in this forum
    You cannot reply to topics in this forum
    You cannot edit your posts in this forum
    You cannot delete your posts in this forum
    You cannot vote in polls in this forum




    Canonfire! is a production of the Thursday Group in assocation with GREYtalk and Canonfire! Enterprises

    Contact the Webmaster.  Long Live Spidasa!


    Greyhawk Gothic Font by Darlene Pekul is used under the Creative Commons License.

    PHP-Nuke Copyright © 2005 by Francisco Burzi. This is free software, and you may redistribute it under the GPL. PHP-Nuke comes with absolutely no warranty, for details, see the license.
    Page Generation: 0.37 Seconds