Zapp wrote:Hellebore wrote:Look, I assumed that as the game had specifically differentiated between the weapon types, even down to the style they come from, that they were actually supposed to be differentiated beyond simply being different costs.
I can understand that.
Perhaps I misunderstood you?
Differentiation on attack and damage is very difficult to achieve without some weapons becoming simply better than others.
Differentiation only on cost is insignificant, but that is a good thing.
Keeping all comparable weapons at identical combat stats allows you to choose based on style and looks, and not on optimization.
Yes, I realize realism/verisimilitude takes a hit, but
1) I believe the sacrifice is well worth it, to get rid of the issues that otherwise crop up
2) A case can be made that random chance is much more significant than weapon properties in the case of individuals. Sure, based on data collected by a thousand soldier you might conclude certain differences, but this isn't a game about large units; it's about individual heroes whose preferences and quirks may easily be said to cancel out any "historic" advantages.
3) Dragon Age is definitely not the right vessel for historical fidelity or simulationist detail. And to get "accurate" weapon data you need both, in mind-boggling detail.
Okay, so Chris Pramas didn't go the "daggers, hand weapons and greatweapons" route.
Am I surprised? No. What was a ballsy step to take for the WFRPv1 authors worked rather well for them - but "hand weapons" have always generated controversy among Warhammer players.
Having a rather complete weapon list is inviting, fun and exciting. I completely understand why it was included. Besides, let Warhammer keep its hand weapons. It's uniquely WFRP for me, and I understand other games need to walk other paths.
This does not change my views on weapon stats. I wish the only differences were cosmetic (such as on price), but it does not make me want to reduce or simplify the list itself.
As you can see in my house rules, I'm having a Longsword, Battle Axe and Morningstar share the exact same combat stats. This doesn't mean I plan to fold them together as a single line in the table.
Their price is very much not important, and if they have different prices, so be it!
I suggest you leave the issue be, Hellebore and enjoy the game. At this stage it doesn't warrant any big arguments - let it go, accept its simplicity and most of all: I accept that Chris Pramas made a few decisions that perhaps are idiosyncratic, because they add to the game's charm and character!
I think you may have missed the part of my post you quoted where I said:
Hellebore wrote:I was quite surprised the game did that, considering how simplified the system is. One handed weapon and two handed weapon seem like enough of a difference for damage to me in a game as rules lite as this one.
I'm definitely not going to be utilising the cost table for weapons. If I decide I like some differentiation in weapon options then I will incorporate the ones I mentioned previously. Otherwise I'll simply stick with 2D6 one hand, 3D6 two hand and maybe a special quality one hand that does 2D6+1.
Because I never once said I wanted differences, only that it appeared there SHOULD be differences based on how the game was set up.