PDA

View Full Version : 4e Art Direction



Pages : [1] 2

Behold_the_Void
2008-03-20, 10:09 PM
So I happened to be flipping through the two preview books today while I was waiting for my lenses to be fitted so I could see more than 7 feet past my face. I must say I am quite impressed by some of the artwork, especially the scenery they have for exotic locales like the Feywild, Astral Sea, and Shadowfell. The character designs have an interesting look as well, it's a definite step up from Mialee who was, to be blunt, ugly as sin. Some of the Epic Tier illustrations looked pretty funny though since they're decked out in rather ridiculous-looking gear.

Anyway, let's keep this to the art direction shall we? There are plenty of other threads to harangue about the mechanics and fluff as-is.

Starsinger
2008-03-20, 10:16 PM
Mialee who was, to be blunt, ugly as sin.

Quoted for emphasis.

kpenguin
2008-03-20, 10:19 PM
Too many pretty adventurers. More ugly ones is a fairer representation of a group that tends to dump Charisma.

Stycotl
2008-03-20, 10:22 PM
i was very disappointed with what they did to the green dragon's asthetics. is he supposed to be some sort of narwhale or something?

so sad. wayne reynolds is my favorite wizards artist, but i can barely manage to look at his green dragon. bring back the 3.0 lockwood green dragon.

Renegade Paladin
2008-03-20, 10:25 PM
i was very disappointed with what they did to the green dragon's asthetics. is he supposed to be some sort of narwhale or something?

so sad. wayne reynolds is my favorite wizards artist, but i can barely manage to look at his green dragon. bring back the 3.0 lockwood green dragon.
This. 3e's dragon art was awesome as it was; there's no need to screw it up.

Paragon Badger
2008-03-20, 10:27 PM
I don't care how ugly the characters are, as long as the art is pretty.

I mean, I can do better than some of the things in the 3.5 PHB and DMG. -_-

Azerian Kelimon
2008-03-20, 10:33 PM
I'm curious as to how they'll illustrate the succubi, myself. I and many others consider that pic one of the best in 3.5 (Along with the Golden Soulborn, pity THAT one leeched off all the coolness off of the class itself), and it's going to be very difficult to one up that one.

RTGoodman
2008-03-20, 10:34 PM
I agree about the Green Dragon, but I do like some of the new art overall. I'm not as fond of the character art, but I love the various landscapes and things like that. I think one of my favorite D&D pictures I've seen is from "Worlds and Monsters" - it's the one of the pleasant little village (http://www.wizards.com/dnd/images/WorldsMonsters_Gallery/111916.jpg) that just happens to have big crumble dragon-head ruins/statues all around it.


bring back the 3.0 lockwood green dragon.

That'd be cool, but for 3.0 art I'd much prefer if all new Tieflings looked like the one from the 3.0 MM. :smallcool:

@V: Here's the Worlds and Monsters art gallery (http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/4art/20080219a). The Green Dragon pic is here (http://www.enworld.org/images/4e/4egreendragonthumb.jpg).

Crowheart
2008-03-20, 10:38 PM
Would any of you happen to have links to some of these pictures? Particularly the Green Dragon. I would like to see how they were done if possible.

Behold_the_Void
2008-03-20, 10:44 PM
Green Dragon (http://www.enworld.org/images/4e/4egreendragon.jpg)

Dragonborn Fighter (http://www.wocstudios.com/images/4e12.jpg)

Adventuring Party (http://www.ravenmimura.com/images/full/VictoryAndLooting.jpg)

Rogue (http://www.wizards.com/dnd/images/360_Gallery/dragon360_01.jpg)

I can't find any of the landscape pictures which is a shame because those are REALLY nice.

Terraoblivion
2008-03-20, 10:47 PM
While i do not like all the pictures i have seen so far, the art direction of 4e seems to go for a simpler less overwrought style than 3.5 which is something i can wholly get behind. In general i prefer the black and white art from many early 3.0 supplements to the rather extreme and somewhat absurd art of much of 3.5 and 4e seems to be moving closer to the style of early 3.0 than the direction of 3.5. Also i hope they really abandon the monstrous look for succubi that they had adopted towards the end, seduction and lust personified should not have huge claws, damnit.

an kobold
2008-03-20, 10:47 PM
Would any of you happen to have links to some of these pictures? Particularly the Green Dragon. I would like to see how they were done if possible.

You can find most of the stuff about a quarter down the page here (http://www.enworld.org/index.php?page=4e).

As for myself, I'm really on the fence leaning towards liking the new style. I see a few things that I like (such as dwarven women, hubba hubba :smallwink: ) but, well, the green dragon is meh. Tieflings I really can't say much about them. I like them, the eldritchy feel is there, but I much preferred the drawing of them in the 3.5 planar handbook.

Stycotl
2008-03-20, 11:25 PM
oh yeah! and the new dwarven abstract geometric design stuff--what's up with that? i feel like they are all new mexico natives now. maybe the dwarves have traded in their smithying and masonry skills for adobe application and craft (art-deco) or something. martha stewart will be the new principle dwarven deity.

i liked the 3rd ed dwarven style. lots of metal, lots of grotesque faces on their shields and belt buckles, horns and claws on their armor. not the wlking billboard of the geometer's guild that they have going on now.

as you can see, i'm a little miffed with some of the direction the art has taken.

realize that this is all rant, and that after i get it out of my system, i will be able to rationally and fairly discuss all of the cool things, of which there are many, that they have done.

aaron out.

Dervag
2008-03-20, 11:56 PM
As for myself, I'm really on the fence leaning towards liking the new style. I see a few things that I like (such as dwarven women, hubba hubba :smallwink: ) It's at moments like these that I thank God my imagination comes with a fuse box.


oh yeah! and the new dwarven abstract geometric design stuff--what's up with that? i feel like they are all new mexico natives now. maybe the dwarves have traded in their smithying and masonry skills for adobe application and craft (art-deco) or something. martha stewart will be the new principle dwarven deity.

i liked the 3rd ed dwarven style. lots of metal, lots of grotesque faces on their shields and belt buckles, horns and claws on their armor. not the wlking billboard of the geometer's guild that they have going on now.I dunno. I mean, the faces and horns and claws make a lot of sense for dwarves-as-Vikings. But they don't make as much sense for dwarves-as-orderly-machinists.

So I think it's kind of a wash. Depending on what they do, I think the geometric dwarf styles could be a really good idea.

Grey Watcher
2008-03-20, 11:57 PM
Well, in addition to some awesome landscapes, I gotta say some of my favorite art I've seen are the new Angels. I like emphasizing the mystery and terror of divine servants from beyond the mortal realm, as opposed to modelesque humans with wings and glowing eyes. The mask-like faces are an especially nice touch.

I'm not sold on the dragonborn art. Some of them, like that Wizard with the wings, or the one in the Rogues section of Races and Classes look nice, others, like the Warlock heading up the Dragonborn writeup just look odd to me.

I also really liked the elemental archons as well. Some of the better renderings of Elementals I've seen yet (most are either too complex, so you loose the elemental in anatomical detail, or too simple, so you aren't so much looking at a creature as just an undefined mass of the element in question).

Oh, and there's one of the examples of Dwarven armor that looks like Optimus Prime or something, as opposed to something out of a Dwarven smithy, but hey. :smallwink:

Beleriphon
2008-03-21, 12:29 AM
Oh, and there's one of the examples of Dwarven armor that looks like Optimus Prime or something, as opposed to something out of a Dwarven smithy, but hey. :smallwink:

I like the dwarf armour, its heavy, simply shaped but heavily ornamented, and most of all functional.

Frosty
2008-03-21, 12:38 AM
Does anyone know if the Chainmail bikini syndrome still hounds 4e? I wonder if they clothed females more sensibly than in the past. Those armor protect everything except the vital organs!

Behold_the_Void
2008-03-21, 12:43 AM
Most female characters are, as always, busty and lacking practical armor.

Grey Watcher
2008-03-21, 12:45 AM
I like the dwarf armour, its heavy, simply shaped but heavily ornamented, and most of all functional.

Well, it's just the one image. If you happen to pick up a copy of Races and Classes, it's on page 31, bottom row, third from the left. The rest of the armor and such, I like, but that one suit looks like he's about to turn into a jet plane or something.


Does anyone know if the Chainmail bikini syndrome still hounds 4e? I wonder if they clothed females more sensibly than in the past. Those armor protect everything except the vital organs!

Eh, they can't seem to shed it entirely, at least for characters who favor light armor to begin with (Wizards, Rogues, etc.) still, you seem to see a lot more female fighters and warlords, at least, more sensibly dressed. Even if the breastplates really do overemphasize the breast part....

Ascension
2008-03-21, 12:45 AM
I don't like the racially-styled weaponry, especially not the tiefling blade concept art from Races and Classes. That dragonborn linked to earlier, I don't like its sword and shield either (armor's fine, though). The blades have all these extraneous twists and barbs and whatnot (they all end up looking like some sort of flammenschwert-steak knife bastard child) and the shields are in completely nonsensical shapes, most of which seem likely to hurt someone.

Granted, most of the 3E shields were already worthy of complaint, but adding to the list of problems by messing the swords up (messing them up even further, that is...) just makes it worse.

And I hadn't seen that green dragon before. How terribly disappointing. Love the dual wielding... uhh... rogue? Swashbuckler? Girl with cutlass! in the same pic, though. Oooh, makes me wonder if the cutlass will be an actual separate weapon in 4E (not at all likely).

I'm surprised to say that the dwarven (or stocky human, I guess) rogue? looks great, though.

Frosty
2008-03-21, 12:49 AM
Eh, they can't seem to shed it entirely, at least for characters who favor light armor to begin with (Wizards, Rogues, etc.) still, you seem to see a lot more female fighters and warlords, at least, more sensibly dressed. Even if the breastplates really do overemphasize the breast part....

I'd say shedding things entirely is probably the crux of the problem :smallsigh:

To be honest, armor that have breast-contours really just help deflect the blows towards the center...where the heart is. Very smart indeed.

Tetsubo 57
2008-03-21, 01:37 AM
When I saw what passes for the weapons and armour illustrations in 4E I was dumbfounded. Not only is it *worse* than what they put in 3.X but the items look functionally useless. Once again it appears that no one at WoTC owns or has access to a weapons or armour reference book. If I were richer I might consider buying them a small reference library and donating it. Just so they can see what *actual* weapons and armour look like.

Starsinger
2008-03-21, 01:39 AM
When I saw what passes for the weapons and armour illustrations in 4E I was dumbfounded. Not only is it *worse* than what they put in 3.X but the items look functionally useless. Once again it appears that no one at WoTC owns or has access to a weapons or armour reference book. If I were richer I might consider buying them a small reference library and donating it. Just so they can see what *actual* weapons and armour look like.

Because that's immediately what I think of when I crack open a fantasy book and flip to the armory... "How could I make this more mundane?" I think it's ever so very much okay for pretend weapons and armor to have their looks dictated by "rule of cool" instead of functionality in real combat.

tyckspoon
2008-03-21, 01:43 AM
When I saw what passes for the weapons and armour illustrations in 4E I was dumbfounded. Not only is it *worse* than what they put in 3.X but the items look functionally useless. Once again it appears that no one at WoTC owns or has access to a weapons or armour reference book. If I were richer I might consider buying them a small reference library and donating it. Just so they can see what *actual* weapons and armour look like.

I'd be willing to make quite a large bet on the artists *having* reference materials; they've just made a quite deliberate decision to ignore the heck out of them. It's a game built around high fantasy; I think it's quite silly to treat the fantastic appearances of the equipment as if they were somehow an accident or harmful to the game's intended style.

Tetsubo 57
2008-03-21, 01:44 AM
Because that's immediately what I think of when I crack open a fantasy book and flip to the armory... "How could I make this more mundane?" I think it's ever so very much okay for pretend weapons and armor to have their looks dictated by "rule of cool" instead of functionality in real combat.

There is a difference between a fantasy version of a weapon or armour design that looks cool but still functions and one that is just blatantly absurd. WoTC has been in the blatantly absurd category for years now. It isn't that hard to make a fantasy version of a functional item. It matters to me and my gaming dollar.

When I see what I perceive as poor research and sloppy craftsmanship it bothers me. Crack open a reference book once in awhile. I'm not asking for mundane, I'm asking for usable.

Tetsubo 57
2008-03-21, 01:47 AM
I'd be willing to make quite a large bet on the artists *having* reference materials; they've just made a quite deliberate decision to ignore the heck out of them. It's a game built around high fantasy; I think it's quite silly to treat the fantastic appearances of the equipment as if they were somehow an accident or harmful to the game's intended style.

But using some of the items that have been included in the game would be harmful to a character. Weapons and armour are real world items. They have evolved over thousands of years into their current forms for a reason, they work. You can modify those designs in literally endless ways and still have them appear usable. Yet WoTC fails to do this again and again and again. Once is a design flaw, dozens of times and it is a policy.

Starsinger
2008-03-21, 01:48 AM
There is a difference between a fantasy version of a weapon or armour design that looks cool but still functions and one that is just blatantly absurd. WoTC has been in the blatantly absurd category for years now. It isn't that hard to make a fantasy version of a functional item. It matters to me and my gaming dollar.

When I see what I perceive as poor research and sloppy craftsmanship it bothers me. Crack open a reference book once in awhile. I'm not asking for mundane, I'm asking for usable.

Why would I do that? The weapons in the PHB are boring enough to look at.

Chronicled
2008-03-21, 01:50 AM
When I saw what passes for the weapons and armour illustrations in 4E I was dumbfounded. Not only is it *worse* than what they put in 3.X but the items look functionally useless. Once again it appears that no one at WoTC owns or has access to a weapons or armour reference book. If I were richer I might consider buying them a small reference library and donating it. Just so they can see what *actual* weapons and armour look like.

If you mean the cluster of nonweilded weapons each has, I was more irked by 3.X's then 4E's.

Tetsubo 57
2008-03-21, 01:51 AM
Why would I do that? The weapons in the PHB are boring enough to look at.

And here is the real kicker: they don't have to be boring. Usable does not equate mundane. Usable can mean fantastic in appearance. Beautiful in design and execution. Usable can mean art made real.

TheOOB
2008-03-21, 02:20 AM
I'm enjoying the art that I'm seeing thus far. I've never cared a great deal about that art, I care far more about content then art, but good art is always a plus.

One thing I like is that most the characters and their gear is fairly functional when compared to D&D 3.x. Yes some of the weapons are odd and poorly weighted in their designs(especially the tiefling weapons, those are god-awful), and the female's armor focuses on their figure a bit too much, but for D&D (and fantasy art in general) it's very tasteful. Overall it shows a much better overall quality then 3e, and while it's new and interesting in design, it's also generic enough where you can adopt the art to fit the images of your own campaign world.

Spiryt
2008-03-21, 04:14 AM
Green Dragon (http://www.enworld.org/images/4e/4egreendragon.jpg)

Indeed nice. I'm not amazed by this style, but it posses feeling of the pure dungeon crawl:smallsmile:




Adventuring Party (http://www.ravenmimura.com/images/full/VictoryAndLooting.jpg)

I don't like it. Not sure why, but overall concept is bad. They're standing above some troll corpses, so it's supposed to be, dunno, some triumph pose? It's way to bland for it. It seems that they will never ever draw a good looking axe in D&D, other guys also looks dumb. (although mage looks quite OK).


Rogue (http://www.wizards.com/dnd/images/360_Gallery/dragon360_01.jpg)

Quite good one, I always liked sketches, and this one looks OK.


Dragonborn Fighter (http://www.wocstudios.com/images/4e12.jpg)
The horror. I will say nothing more. :smallfrown:

Morty
2008-03-21, 04:39 AM
I can't say I like 4ed art more or less than I liked it in 3ed. The proportion of good-looking combat gear to ridiculous and unusable stuff is about the same. The biggest offenders are dragonborn and dwarven weapons. Rule Of Cool is one of the worst things that can happen to the art. Or to anything, really.

KIDS
2008-03-21, 05:01 AM
To be honest I haven't noticed any significant changes, but yes I do agree that more care is being applied to not making horrendously ugly pics like Mialee. This likely has more to do with the fuzz and excitement about 4E rather than an actual style change, imo...

But regardless, I'm quite a noob when pictures are involved so haven't noticed much but I will have a look at some comparisons.

Tengu
2008-03-21, 05:31 AM
I love how the new art resembles WoW and anime!

Okay, it doesn't really, or at least not a lot. But I still like it very much - the artists seem to start recognizing that a high fantasy game like that can abandon some aspects of realism and adopt rule of cool in its place instead.

GammaPaladin
2008-03-21, 05:45 AM
I like that Dragonborn Fighter, probably my favorite pic. But then, I'm not into making D&D a "realistic" medieval simulation. Cool > Realistic or historical.

That said, I don't like the new covers. I liked the old 3.0/3.5 core books made up to look like ancient tomes and such.

Starbuck_II
2008-03-21, 06:32 AM
it's a definite step up from Mialee who was, to be blunt, ugly as sin.



To be fair, she had the 1/2 Cricket Template: It must have added Int bonus (why else would her player choose it) and a Charisma penalty.

horseboy
2008-03-21, 10:10 AM
I can't say I like 4ed art more or less than I liked it in 3ed. The proportion of good-looking combat gear to ridiculous and unusable stuff is about the same. The biggest offenders are dragonborn and dwarven weapons. Rule Of Cool is one of the worst things that can happen to the art. Or to anything, really.Well, they do go a long way to explain the age old D&Dism of "Why aren't they dying when I hit them with this thing?" Not like those things are dangerous.

And what's up with those lizards having "beards"?

Azerian Kelimon
2008-03-21, 10:18 AM
The pics are pretty nice, except for the green dragon, which looks kinda dinosaurish and meh. But has anyone noticed that the dragonborn looks similar to a Space marine?

Rutee
2008-03-21, 10:29 AM
Because that's immediately what I think of when I crack open a fantasy book and flip to the armory... "How could I make this more mundane?" I think it's ever so very much okay for pretend weapons and armor to have their looks dictated by "rule of cool" instead of functionality in real combat.

Seconded. If I want realism, I'll go study real life. There's plenty around.


I can't say I like 4ed art more or less than I liked it in 3ed. The proportion of good-looking combat gear to ridiculous and unusable stuff is about the same. The biggest offenders are dragonborn and dwarven weapons. Rule Of Cool is one of the worst things that can happen to the art. Or to anything, really.
Well as long as we're going to make objective statements on a subjective matter, the Rule of Cool is far superior in anything fantastic to anything boring mundanity came up with. I'm pretty sure we want /fantasy/ when we look at fantasy, not Real Life.

Terraoblivion
2008-03-21, 10:32 AM
Seems like there is a rather sharp division between the people who wants the characters and equipment to look more like traditional fantasy art and those who like the rule of cool. This of course highlights the division among D&D fans in what feel they want from the game. This of course has been apparent for years, it is just highlighted by a thread like this. I do not know enough about the people taking the various stances to determine if this carries over to more than the art or if it is just a question of the prefered art style of various people. Still interesting though.

What it also seems to show is that the art is generally good. At least pretty much all complaints so far has focused exclussively on the style and not on the quality of the pictures as such. Even those complaints that some have stated as being objective have been something others have stated they thought was cool after all, and unless we want to enter the realm of telling others that they are too stupid to understand the art it must mean there are no truly objective complaints. So even those among us who, unlike me, dislikes the current style should at least be happy that the pictures will not look like they were drawn by the game designers and the people running the cafeteria during lunchbreak. That sort of thing really does a lot to make a product seem appealing and professional.

Morty
2008-03-21, 10:41 AM
Well, they do go a long way to explain the age old D&Dism of "Why aren't they dying when I hit them with this thing?" Not like those things are dangerous.


Huh. Indeed, the unusability of D&D weapons would explain why you can whack someone with them without posing a real threat to their life.


Well as long as we're going to make objective statements on a subjective matter, the Rule of Cool is far superior in anything fantastic to anything boring mundanity came up with. I'm pretty sure we want /fantasy/ when we look at fantasy, not Real Life.

Sure, but it's perfectly possible to design a weapon that while fantastic and not entirely realistic, looks halfway belivable, thereby satisfying (almost)everyone. Also, I personally consider the weapons like what the dragonborn is wielding highly un-cool, exactly because it's nonfunctional. So it doesn't work for everyone.

Azerian Kelimon
2008-03-21, 10:49 AM
Well, that's a matter of opinion. Personally, the idea of playing a medieval space marine Of Great Justice is extremely appealing. And that kind of sword is, indeed, unbelieveable, but I see it as the kind of big ass sword a high level fighter will be swinging around and killing worlds with.

horseboy
2008-03-21, 10:52 AM
The pics are pretty nice, except for the green dragon, which looks kinda dinosaurish and meh. But has anyone noticed that the dragonborn looks similar to a Space marine?Actually, I mistook one of the pics of them for a skaven.

Spiryt
2008-03-21, 10:58 AM
I'm pretty sure we want /fantasy/ when we look at fantasy, not Real Life.

Well, I want fantasy, I want far mountains, misty moors, magic, real love till death,and generally amazing stories that can't happen in mundanity.

Not ridiculous, silly weapons that look like... not like anything really.

But I guess that's just some different taste.


Cool > Realistic or historical.
That's... abhorrent statement. How exactly real, steel sword, which thaks to physic human intelect, skill and muscles cut stuff in half less cool than that... thing (http://www.wocstudios.com/images/4e12.jpg)?

Nobody wants 'medieval simulation' in D&D. Or at least I don't. Weapons (at least those magical/ legendary/ good quality) should look diferently from real ones, certainly cooler or whatever. But by "cool" weapon I mean something with some taste and sense.
Look at Lord of the Rings (movie) weapons. Certainly not realistic, but they resemble real ones, and one can without problems imagine *fighting* with such weapons.

SamTheCleric
2008-03-21, 11:14 AM
If I wanted my greatsword to actually be a bunch of steel letters welded together, sharpened and spelling G-R-E-A-T... I can. It's still 2d6 19-20 regardless of how I describe or draw it.

You don't like how the pictures portray them? Then don't use that picture for reference.

Spiryt
2008-03-21, 11:18 AM
You don't like how the pictures portray them? Then don't use that picture for reference.

That's the beauty of RPG. But where's the point? This is the discussion about 4ed Art

@ V And that I agree too.

Tetsubo 57
2008-03-21, 11:19 AM
If I wanted my greatsword to actually be a bunch of steel letters welded together, sharpened and spelling G-R-E-A-T... I can. It's still 2d6 19-20 regardless of how I describe or draw it.

You don't like how the pictures portray them? Then don't use that picture for reference.

But that is how the game designers (apparently) want the game's audience to perceive the weapon in question. If you don't want people thinking this is how a greatsword looks in your game, make darn sure the illustration *does* look like a greatsword looks in your game. And if you choose a silly illustration to represent a greatsword (or any other weapon) in your game, don't be surprised when people call you on it.

SamTheCleric
2008-03-21, 11:24 AM
That's the beauty of RPG. But where's the point? This is the discussion about 4ed Art

Odd, I saw it started that way but quickly degenerated into a "I want my fantastic" vs "I want my fantasy to be realistic" thread.

If you want to talk about the 4e art, talk about the art, not about what you WANT the art to be.

EDIT: As for the art itself, it's good as far as fantasy art goes. I don't really pay much attention to the art in sourcebooks as they get in the way of the text.

Morty
2008-03-21, 11:27 AM
Odd, I saw it started that way but quickly degenerated into a "I want my fantastic" vs "I want my fantasy to be realistic" thread.

If you want to talk about the 43 art, talk about the art, not about what you WANT the art to be.

Why? It's a thread about the art, why aren't people allowed to say they don't like the art and wish it were different? Or is it you just don't like when people are voicing opinions different than yours?
As the point of fact, I don't dislike 4ed artwork, I just wish there were less unusable weapons and spikes on armor.

Attilargh
2008-03-21, 11:28 AM
People are disappointed by art because it's not what they would like it to be. And, you know, that's it.

Man, what a short thread this was.

SamTheCleric
2008-03-21, 11:30 AM
Why? It's a thread about the art, why aren't people allowed to say they don't like the art and wish it were different? Or is it you just don't like people are voicing opinions different than yours?

Sigh. Talking about art is NOT talking about what you think the art should look like. People do not go to the Mona Lisa and go "I would've made her blonde and thinner, it's more realistic for the time and location."

If you want to talk about realism in your D&D go to one of the other 8 bajillion threads bashing 4e due to the lack of "simulationism".

Morty
2008-03-21, 11:34 AM
Sigh. Talking about art is NOT talking about what you think the art should look like. People do not go to the Mona Lisa and go "I would've made her blonde and thinner, it's more realistic for the time and location."


Completely off-place example. Mona Lisa is a painting, while here we're talking about artwork for a RPG game. Therefore, it's not only about the art itself, but also about the style that this art represents and things it pictures. So I see nothing wrong in discussing the style of illustrations.
Then again, when I disagree with someone I just say it, instead of making up reasons why this someone's opinion doesn't matter at all.

Attilargh
2008-03-21, 11:34 AM
But the thing is, the purpose of that painting is to portray a dark-haired woman. The purpose of art in a roleplaying game is to set a mood for the book and to provide an idea of what it's about. Would I really be unentitled to complain if the wizard was wearing his underwear over his robes?

SamTheCleric
2008-03-21, 11:36 AM
But the thing is, the purpose of that painting is to portray a dark-haired woman. The purpose of art in a roleplaying game is to set a mood for the book and to provide an idea of what it's about. Would I really be unentitled to complain if the wizard was wearing his underwear over his robes?

Depends, does it state in the rules that all wizards HAVE to wear their underwear over their robes?

An artistic representation is just a pretty picture. These pretty pictures have no impact on the mechanics of the game. Read the text to get the real idea and ignore the picture if you don't like it.

Azerian Kelimon
2008-03-21, 11:37 AM
Yes, because you're a nazi who thinks you're teh uber alles.

[/fanatic]

Oddly, I've never seen a wizard who did the superman thing. No overwear, maybe, but never that.

Starsinger
2008-03-21, 11:46 AM
But that is how the game designers (apparently) want the game's audience to perceive the weapon in question. If you don't want people thinking this is how a greatsword looks in your game, make darn sure the illustration *does* look like a greatsword looks in your game. And if you choose a silly illustration to represent a greatsword (or any other weapon) in your game, don't be surprised when people call you on it.

Human weapons look sufficiently bland...

SamTheCleric
2008-03-21, 11:57 AM
After a quick google image search for "Greatsword"... I've determined I'd rather fight with...

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v299/pawnoffate/greatsword1.jpg

than the very boring looking...

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v299/pawnoffate/greatsword.jpg

Regardless of how effective the second may be than the first, if they were -mechanically- the same in the game... I'd want the one that made me much more full of bad-assery.

ColdBrew
2008-03-21, 12:11 PM
Yes, because you're a nazi who thinks you're teh uber alles.
A Godwinning in 55 posts. I really wasn't expecting it in an art thread. Bravo!

Azerian Kelimon
2008-03-21, 12:14 PM
[/fanatic]

That's what makes me good again. With that, a Winrar is me!

horseboy
2008-03-21, 12:19 PM
After a quick google image search for "Greatsword"... I've determined I'd rather fight with...

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v299/pawnoffate/greatsword1.jpg

than the very boring looking...

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v299/pawnoffate/greatsword.jpg

Regardless of how effective the second may be than the first, if they were -mechanically- the same in the game... I'd want the one that made me much more full of bad-assery.Fine, and when it snaps in half a dozen spots on it's first hit I'm going to laugh and stab you with the second.

Truth is stranger than fiction, because fiction has to make sense.

Morty
2008-03-21, 12:20 PM
Regardless of how effective the second may be than the first, if they were -mechanically- the same in the game... I'd want the one that made me much more full of bad-assery.

And that's where we get stuck in a dead-end, because for me and many others the first sword doesn't look badass but ridiculous to the point of hilarity, while the "boring looking" one looks fine.

SamTheCleric
2008-03-21, 12:23 PM
Fine, and when it snaps in half a dozen spots on it's first hit I'm going to laugh and stab you with the second.

Truth is stranger than fiction, because fiction has to make sense.

You missed the last line where I said they were mechanically the same, and thus functioned identically, just looked different.

ColdBrew
2008-03-21, 12:28 PM
You're going about this all wrong. You're saying, "This isn't cool because the laws of physics say it doesn't work." You should be saying, "This laws of physics say this works because it's cool."

That's fantasy.

Lairship
2008-03-21, 12:31 PM
I dislike the art direction of all the DnD editions really. I hate all the static images of races and classes. I's like the artwork to be more like a comic book, if one piece of artwork consisted of a few panels, like a rogue sneaking past a guard, avoiding a trap, then picking a lock. It'd give people a better feel of what they're looking at. Perhaps in the Hellboy comic style.

Thats all I have to add. Ehehe.

...

Spiryt
2008-03-21, 12:32 PM
After a quick google image search for "Greatsword"... I've determined I'd rather fight with...

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v299/pawnoffate/greatsword1.jpg

than the very boring looking...


That's so horrible :smalleek: :smallfurious: :smalleek: :smallfurious: *

Seriously I'v never seen anything that stupid and horrible. It's not "badass". On the scale of coolness it's beetwen wall-paper glue and pavement plate.

And what do you want from the sword? It's quite pretty one, although it's poorly photographed on some rag in poor light conditions, it makes everything look boring.

Why no love for stuff similar to that (http://www.odinblades.com/Pages/RogueRay.html)?

Fantasy and fine looking.


* I normally don't use so much smiles. Sorry

Rutee
2008-03-21, 12:43 PM
Sure, but it's perfectly possible to design a weapon that while fantastic and not entirely realistic, looks halfway belivable, thereby satisfying (almost)everyone. Also, I personally consider the weapons like what the dragonborn is wielding highly un-cool, exactly because it's nonfunctional. So it doesn't work for everyone.

Okay, start from there, work outward. Let's go back to the correct fact that this entire line of thought is subjective, and you can not by any means accurately reflect anything else but your opinion or your interpretation of someone else's opinion.


That's... abhorrent statement. How exactly real, steel sword, which thaks to physic human intelect, skill and muscles cut stuff in half less cool than that... thing?

It's not an abhorrent statement. It's a perfectly valid opinion and taste.

horseboy
2008-03-21, 12:44 PM
You missed the last line where I said they were mechanically the same, and thus functioned identically, just looked different.Except one is a sword, the other is home decour. Fighting with that first one makes about as much sense as fighting with a wall sconce. Actually, a wall sconce would make more sense, as it would imply a moment of desperation and not comedic stupidity. In short, a complete and utter snap of verisimilitude.

Spiryt
2008-03-21, 12:54 PM
It's not an abhorrent statement. It's a perfectly valid opinion and taste.

Fine, I should probably state that it's abhorrent to me.
Still when people say "anime such b..." or something, some people protest, and I think that they have their reasons.
I protest when someone states that historical swords are worse than some "cool" maybe shovel.

Rutee
2008-03-21, 12:55 PM
Except one is a sword, the other is home decour. Fighting with that first one makes about as much sense as fighting with a wall sconce. Actually, a wall sconce would make more sense, as it would imply a moment of desperation and not comedic stupidity. In short, a complete and utter snap of verisimilitude.

No, a complete and utter snap of your verisimilitude. The vast majority of RPG nerds honestly have no nfc what makes a functional melee weapon. Most players aren't going to see a problem. At all.

And honestly, you play rolemaster. We already know what your stance on gritty reality is going to be.


I protest when someone states that historical swords are worse than some "cool" maybe shovel.
Gee, maybe they were protesting the idea that cool swords are worse then historical ones? God forbid that when you tell them their opinion sucks, they say "WTF are you talking about, your opinion sucks".

SamTheCleric
2008-03-21, 12:56 PM
Except one is a sword, the other is home decour. Fighting with that first one makes about as much sense as fighting with a wall sconce. Actually, a wall sconce would make more sense, as it would imply a moment of desperation and not comedic stupidity. In short, a complete and utter snap of verisimilitude.

Wait. You're missing the point. Both use the stats for a greatsword (2d6 damage, 19-20 crit), therefore are the same, one just looks cooler. I'm not saying that I'm actually going out swinging swords in the real world.

I fear what Star Wars would look like if we relied on realism... "How dare you shine that flashlight in my face!"

EDIT: Also, I've never before seen the word "verisimilitude" used as much as I see it used in these forums. Did it just become the new fad after one person posted it and everyone else looked it up on wikipedia?

Starsinger
2008-03-21, 01:03 PM
I think I understand suddenly.. this is another one of those situations where people who don't cast spells are supposed to sigh and be forced to be completely and utterly mundane because some people are bound and determined that if you can't cast spells you still have to be opressed under the laws of this reality. Is that it?

Scintillatus
2008-03-21, 01:05 PM
Simulationism depresses me.

It's the dire, malevolent influence of simulationism that forces me to juggle copper pieces while I roll up a character - it's the malicious "verismillitude" that stops me having the [Total Badass] template. Truly, you may win for now...

But in Fourth Edition, I will be able to enchant my forehead as a +5 Vorpal weapon, and then I'm going to headbutt you in half.

SamTheCleric
2008-03-21, 01:07 PM
But in Fourth Edition, I will be able to enchant my forehead as a +5 Vorpal weapon, and then I'm going to headbutt you in half.

You, sir, win the internet.

Rutee
2008-03-21, 01:10 PM
EDIT: Also, I've never before seen the word "verisimilitude" used as much as I see it used in these forums. Did it just become the new fad after one person posted it and everyone else looked it up on wikipedia?

The 'fad' as it were, is posing one's own standards of believability as something objective, rather then subjective.


I think I understand suddenly.. this is another one of those situations where people who don't cast spells are supposed to sigh and be forced to be completely and utterly mundane because some people are bound and determined that if you can't cast spells you still have to be opressed under the laws of this reality. Is that it?

I doubt it has anything to do with magi. Maybe. I wonder if the explanation "It's a magic sword" would suffice; Magic does get to be a panacea for 'realism' after all.


It's the dire, malevolent influence of simulationism that forces me to juggle copper pieces while I roll up a character - it's the malicious "verismillitude" that stops me having the [Total Badass] template. Truly, you may win for now...

Strictly speaking, Simulationism doesn't seek to be realistic. It seeks to be self-consistent. So no, this is just people who want to be realistic, not some grand conspiracy from simulationists.

Spiryt
2008-03-21, 01:14 PM
I fear what Star Wars would look like if we relied on realism... "How dare you shine that flashlight in my face!"



Gee, maybe they were protesting the idea that cool swords are worse then historical ones? God forbid that when you tell them their opinion sucks, they say "WTF are you talking about, your opinion sucks".

Again, this discussion proves that it's the matter of taste and arguing is rather pointless...

As for lightsabers - it's the matter of taste (again) and also mentioned verisimilitude. And consistency. Realism don't even need to apply.

Star Wars is generally s-f, and we can agree that dificult to made device that emites constant laser beam (or whatever) of fixed lenght is dangerous thing, and it kills people. Laser guns also kills, hell, really existing lasers also kills, even if they still aren't weapons.

And if your 'sword' from google, or shovel of Dragonborn are killing weapons...
Then faster branches in the wind are also. And maybe leaves too - some of them can be somewhat sharp. But I don't recall piles of dead corpses in forest anyway in D&D. (Exepts from dragon/troll/aranea made corpses, of course :smallwink: :smallwink: )

horseboy
2008-03-21, 01:15 PM
No, a complete and utter snap of your verisimilitude. The vast majority of RPG nerds honestly have no nfc what makes a functional melee weapon. Most players aren't going to see a problem. At all.
Maybe, but they're not the types I play with. Besides, ignorance of the law is no defense.


And honestly, you play rolemaster. We already know what your stance on gritty reality is going to be.:smallwink:

Wait. You're missing the point. Both use the stats for a greatsword (2d6 damage, 19-20 crit), therefore are the same, one just looks cooler. I'm not saying that I'm actually going out swinging swords in the real world.No, you're making an ASSUMPTION that my GM would rule them to be mechanically similar.

I think I understand suddenly.. this is another one of those situations where people who don't cast spells are supposed to sigh and be forced to be completely and utterly mundane because some people are bound and determined that if you can't cast spells you still have to be opressed under the laws of this reality. Is that it?When dealing with real world items they have to follow real world physics. If they want a "wizard did it" style sword, then make the blade itself made out of a solid, magical flame. Then I would consider it "cool", cause every thing's better with fire. :smallbiggrin:

Rutee
2008-03-21, 01:21 PM
Maybe, but they're not the types I play with. Besides, ignorance of the law is no defense.
Uh, are you still going on about how your subjective view on believability is the one standard of believability? Verisimilitude hinges on believability, not realism. Therefore, if their ignorance of physics makes it believable, it is in fact a 'defense'. Notwithstanding that "Ignorance is not a defense" strictly applies to objective standards, not subjective interpretations.


No, you're making an ASSUMPTION that my GM would rule them to be mechanically similar.
No. He's stating the fact that by RAW, they /are/.



When dealing with real world items they have to follow real world physics. If they want a "wizard did it" style sword, then make the blade itself made out of a solid, magical flame. Then I would consider it "cool", cause every thing's better with fire. :smallbiggrin:

Why should I bother with real world physics that get in the way of awesome? That sword by your own admission isn't a real world item, because it's functional.

Reel On, Love
2008-03-21, 01:22 PM
And honestly, you play rolemaster. We already know what your stance on gritty reality is going to be.

One can actually *play* rolemaster? I thought one just rolled a lot of things, consulted a bunch of charts, and then looked confused.

SamTheCleric
2008-03-21, 01:25 PM
One can actually *play* rolemaster? I thought one just rolled a lot of things, consulted a bunch of charts, and then looked confused.

I dont know why, but this is what popped in my head when you said that...

Player: I attack the bandit.
GM: Ok, roll for hit location.
Player: Ok... it looks like... I contracted Herpes.
GM: Ooo, sucks to be you.

Scintillatus
2008-03-21, 01:26 PM
Rutee, did you just argue against a joke post? I am the dissappointed. :smallfrown:

Spiryt
2008-03-21, 01:33 PM
Why should I bother with real world physics that get in the way of awesome? That sword by your own admission isn't a real world item, because it's functional.

According to that logic, I can introduce

Grand Silver Spoon of Death

THose weapons are made by experienced Spookanians smith and allow you to eat a bear sized animal in one round, hunk after hunk. GSSoD are main equipment of army of Spookania.

It's certainly cool, so why bother with real world physic and logic?

Would you like it?

If so... Well, it would mean that are brains are incompatible, and we should talk about weather.:smallwink:

Rutee
2008-03-21, 01:36 PM
According to that logic, I can introduce

Grand Silver Spoon of Death

THose weapons are made by experienced Spookanians smith and allow you to eat a bear sized animal in one round, hunk after hunk. GSSoD are main equipment of army of Spookania.

It's certainly cool, so why bother with real world physic and logic?

Would you like it?

If so... Well, it would mean that are brains are incompatible, and we should talk about weather.:smallwink:

Only if I can wield a spork. In which case that becomes perfectly acceptable. And it's a joke campaign, or a setting that is full of insanity that somehow works (Such as say, Disgaea).


Rutee, did you just argue against a joke post? I am the dissappointed.
This thread is too full of ludicrous srs bsns to tell the difference.

Reel On, Love
2008-03-21, 01:41 PM
This thread is too full of ludicrous srs bsns to tell the difference.

http://esum.files.wordpress.com/2007/09/serious.jpg

http://cache.bordom.net/images/cb38cb5004473ea6ba5e8f8c2f602940.jpg

SamTheCleric
2008-03-21, 01:43 PM
Haha, reel, I actually thought about going to find that image. I'm glad I'm not the only one concerned with srs bsns

Reel On, Love
2008-03-21, 01:48 PM
I dont know why, but this is what popped in my head when you said that...

Player: I attack the bandit.
GM: Ok, roll for hit location.
Player: Ok... it looks like... I contracted Herpes.
GM: Ooo, sucks to be you.

That is Rolemaster in a nutshell. Well, it would be, but there'd need to be like five more rolls between the start and finish of that.

MeklorIlavator
2008-03-21, 01:52 PM
According to that logic, I can introduce

Grand Silver Spoon of Death

THose weapons are made by experienced Spookanians smith and allow you to eat a bear sized animal in one round, hunk after hunk. GSSoD are main equipment of army of Spookania.

It's certainly cool, so why bother with real world physic and logic?

Would you like it?

I don't recall any weapon that functions like that in DnD(or any other game I've ever seen). Unless you can show me one that does, that weapon would fall under homebrew. On the other hand, the above swords are both greatswords, and thus work the same by RAW. I think this is a case of false analogy.

horseboy
2008-03-21, 01:58 PM
Uh, are you still going on about how your subjective view on believability is the one standard of believability? Verisimilitude hinges on believability, not realism. Therefore, if their ignorance of physics makes it believable, it is in fact a 'defense'. Notwithstanding that "Ignorance is not a defense" strictly applies to objective standards, not subjective interpretations.I was unaware that the laws of physics were subjective. :smalleek:

No. He's stating the fact that by RAW, they /are/.Last I checked, situational modifiers were RAW. That and isn't there RAW rules for improvised weapons.

Why should I bother with real world physics that get in the way of awesome? That sword by your own admission isn't a real world item, because it's functional.Because it's not awesome, especially when the GM has to stop the game to explain something that makes no sense, an ordeal that can take hours.

That is Rolemaster in a nutshell. Well, it would be, but there'd need to be like five more rolls between the start and finish of that.Nah, 3 rolls. Init, Hit, crit.

ColdBrew
2008-03-21, 02:24 PM
Last I checked, situational modifiers were RAW. That and isn't there RAW rules for improvised weapons.

It's not an improvised weapon. It's a greatsword. Look it up; I suspect you'll find stats for it in the PHB.

horseboy
2008-03-21, 02:30 PM
It's not an improvised weapon. It's a greatsword. Look it up; I suspect you'll find stats for it in the PHB.No, it's a decoration you're trying to use as a great sword. It's not designed for combat. Hence, an improvised weapon.

Starsinger
2008-03-21, 02:38 PM
No, it's a decoration you're trying to use as a great sword. It's not designed for combat. Hence, an improvised weapon.

That's reality. This is not. You seem to be under the assumption that a weapon should be able to work if some guy forged an exact replica of the drawing and tried to use it for real.

Rockphed
2008-03-21, 02:43 PM
After a quick google image search for "Greatsword"... I've determined I'd rather fight with...

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v299/pawnoffate/greatsword1.jpg

The hilt looks uncomfortable, and it would probably catch on the inside of your scabbard. It looks like it could bend in a half dozen places, so I wouldn't try poking someone with it.


Dragonborn Fighter (http://www.wocstudios.com/images/4e12.jpg)

This sword looks horrible. If they limited it to ONE of the funny extra chunks, it might look cool. As it is, it looks horrible.

If your inborn "Physics Sense" is set off by a weapon in a picture, then it ceases to be "Cool," and becomes instead "Really Dopey." There is a nice middle ground where weapons still look cool without setting off every internal alarm.

ColdBrew
2008-03-21, 02:47 PM
No, it's a decoration you're trying to use as a great sword. It's not designed for combat. Hence, an improvised weapon.
You're doing it wrong again. You keep trying to divine its function by its form. I'm saying it is a greatsword. Fact. Axiom. Indisputable. The choice is between this greatsword which you think looks like a decoration and that greatsword which is a boring-as-sin piece of straight steel. You can pick the second one because you prefer its aesthetics, but the whole premise of Sam's post was that they are both, mechanically, greatswords, and he will use the first one because it looks cooler.

Rutee
2008-03-21, 02:52 PM
I was unaware that the laws of physics were subjective.
Whether or not strict or liberal application of the laws of physics affects believability is completely subjective. Are you still arguing verisimilitude, or are you moving to objective reality (which is completely unrelated).

Also: Quantum Physics.



Last I checked, situational modifiers were RAW. That and isn't there RAW rules for improvised weapons.
Actually, Improvised Weapons are 1d2/4/6 on size, and have a -4 Untrained, IIRC.



Because it's not awesome, especially when the GM has to stop the game to explain something that makes no sense, an ordeal that can take hours.
In order
Awesomeness itself is subjective, it doesn't take hours to explain unless you're talking to a player overly concerned with realism who is too psychopathic to actually understand someone else's viewpoint, and there's no need for an explanation in the first place if everyone's on the same wavelength in the first place.

ZekeArgo
2008-03-21, 02:55 PM
I am constantly saddened by the lack of creativity, vision and open-mindedness in people who say they wish to play a game based around those things.

Behold_the_Void
2008-03-21, 03:06 PM
To nudge the topic back on track, does anyone have any access to the landscape pictures? Those are some of my favorite art examples of 4e.

Morty
2008-03-21, 03:09 PM
Okay, start from there, work outward. Let's go back to the correct fact that this entire line of thought is subjective, and you can not by any means accurately reflect anything else but your opinion or your interpretation of someone else's opinion.

It would be true, if there weren't people trying to tell me and other realism-bent people that they're Doing It Wrong by liking belivable and realistic-looking weapons.


I think I understand suddenly.. this is another one of those situations where people who don't cast spells are supposed to sigh and be forced to be completely and utterly mundane because some people are bound and determined that if you can't cast spells you still have to be opressed under the laws of this reality. Is that it?

No, I belive it's one of those situations where people can't imagine anything heroic and better than average if it doesn't have spikes and needless ornaments.

Bryn
2008-03-21, 03:17 PM
To nudge the topic back on track, does anyone have any access to the landscape pictures? Those are some of my favorite art examples of 4e.

They should all be in the Worlds and Monsters (http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/4art/20080219a) gallery. Most are fairly small, unfortunately. Personally, I adore the one with the waterfalls.


Apart from that, it's good to see that other people are agreeing that 4e is Serious Business :smalltongue:

horseboy
2008-03-21, 03:18 PM
That's reality. This is not. You seem to be under the assumption that a weapon should be able to work if some guy forged an exact replica of the drawing and tried to use it for real.That actually is another problem with said weapon that I was letting slide, but know several of my players that wouldn't: "How the Hell did 'Ye Olde Blacksmith' make said weapon?" Especially in the case of the dragon born pic. If they've got the metallurgical skills to make a serrated metal blade, then they could make a better weapon. Especially since metal armour is supposed to still be in use. One swipe against a metal armour is going to horribly damage said weapon. It quickly winds up in the same category as the ramifications of raise dead and well, D&D's magic spells in general.

It's kinda like how guys with chainsaws aren't scary. After all all you need is a metal pipe. He hits it and the resulting torque snaps the chain, sending it back at the guy, hitting him in the face. It's just stupid design.

You're doing it wrong again. You keep trying to divine its function by its form. I'm saying it is a greatsword. Fact. Axiom. Indisputable. The choice is between this greatsword which you think looks like a decoration and that greatsword which is a boring-as-sin piece of straight steel. You can pick the second one because you prefer its aesthetics, but the whole premise of Sam's post was that they are both, mechanically, greatswords, and he will use the first one because it looks cooler.No, whether or not it constitutes a great sword is VERY much in debate. That's not a great sword. That's a decoration. It's like trying to pick up chicks with a Hot Wheel calling it a Hot Rod.
In order
Awesomeness itself is subjective, it doesn't take hours to explain unless you're talking to a player overly concerned with realism who is too psychopathic to actually understand someone else's viewpoint, and there's no need for an explanation in the first place if everyone's on the same wavelength in the first place.If awesomeness is subjective, and you're making Awesomeness>Good sense, then yes, you're going to have to stop and explain given the subjective nature of awesomeness. What, for instance, you might consider awesome might cause me to groan at and what I might consider awesome you might not understand completely, relying on an obscure reference. Therefore you can not rely on "Awesomeness"

Rutee
2008-03-21, 03:34 PM
That actually is another problem with said weapon that I was letting slide, but know several of my players that wouldn't: "How the Hell did 'Ye Olde Blacksmith' make said weapon?" Especially in the case of the dragon born pic. If they've got the metallurgical skills to make a serrated metal blade, then they could make a better weapon. Especially since metal armour is supposed to still be in use. One swipe against a metal armour is going to horribly damage said weapon. It quickly winds up in the same category as the ramifications of raise dead and well, D&D's magic spells in general.
So you're comparing it to magic, which is patently unrealistic and works?



No, whether or not it constitutes a great sword is VERY much in debate. That's not a great sword. That's a decoration. It's like trying to pick up chicks with a Hot Wheel calling it a Hot Rod.
Big blade on a hilt that requires two hands to wield effectively. That constitutes a Greatsword by DnD rules, at least. That it's not effective in real life says nothing about its status in DnD. For gods sakes, a Punch can have higher damage then a greatsword in DnD; What makes you think /they're/ stuck on reality?


If awesomeness is subjective, and you're making Awesomeness>Good sense, then yes, you're going to have to stop and explain given the subjective nature of awesomeness. What, for instance, you might consider awesome might cause me to groan at and what I might consider awesome you might not understand completely, relying on an obscure reference. Therefore you can not rely on "Awesomeness"

How in Gods' name did you arrive at the conclusion that you can't rely on Rule of Cool based on the fact that it's subjective? (All you really did was explain what subjective meant there, btw.) Are you trying to hinge your point on what happens when you set two people with incompatible viewpoints down next to each other? It works perfectly fine until you /have/ to play together, which is almost never.

horseboy
2008-03-21, 04:03 PM
So you're comparing it to magic, which is patently unrealistic and works?Now Rutee, you've been here long enough to have seen several threads about the ramifications on a setting that D&D magic actually should have. With metallurgy it winds up the same problem.


Big blade on a hilt that requires two hands to wield effectively. That constitutes a Greatsword by DnD rules, at least. That it's not effective in real life says nothing about its status in DnD. For gods sakes, a Punch can have higher damage then a greatsword in DnD; What makes you think /they're/ stuck on reality?Except it's not a weapon. By that definition a sling blade qualifies.

How in Gods' name did you arrive at the conclusion that you can't rely on Rule of Cool based on the fact that it's subjective? (All you really did was explain what subjective meant there, btw.) Are you trying to hinge your point on what happens when you set two people with incompatible viewpoints down next to each other? It works perfectly fine until you /have/ to play together, which is almost never.Since it's subjective, it's too individualistic to be used in a group setting. It's kind like ordering pizza. One person likes mushrooms, one person wants pineapple, one person is allergic to tropical fruit. So in the end you compromise down to pepperoni, except for the DM who can't eat pepperoni if you want to be in the same room with him 15 minutes later. So no, you can't rely on "Rule of Cool" because it's so subjective.

Farmer42
2008-03-21, 04:19 PM
I'm just glad that the part of my brain that looks at a weapon and goes, "How the Hell am I supposed to use that thing?" has an off switch. That said, I bought the preview books for their art alone. If they had absolutely nothing else in them, I'd be satisfied.

RTGoodman
2008-03-21, 04:55 PM
To all the folks complaining about the Dragonborn Fighter (http://www.wocstudios.com/images/4e12.jpg) picture from earlier:

That's just one picture, and I'm relatively certain that's an Epic-tier character anyway (and we know they break physics on a daily basis).

All (http://www.wizards.com/dnd/images/RacesNClasses_Gallery/112953.jpg) the rest (http://www.wizards.com/dnd/images/RacesNClasses_Gallery/112909.jpg) of the Dragonborn (http://www.wizards.com/dnd/images/RacesNClasses_Gallery/111128.jpg) characters (http://www.wizards.com/dnd/images/RacesNClasses_Gallery/111115.jpg) I've seen seem to have relatively cool, tribal-esque, normal-looking weapons.

Also, I'll see your Dragonborn greatsword and raise you this one (http://www.wizards.com/dnd/images/WorldsMonsters_Gallery/106196.jpg). Now that's a greatsword.

horseboy
2008-03-21, 05:27 PM
the rest (http://www.wizards.com/dnd/images/RacesNClasses_Gallery/112909.jpg)That's the one I mistook for a skaven.
of the Dragonborn (http://www.wizards.com/dnd/images/RacesNClasses_Gallery/111128.jpg) AAHHHHH!! (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/NonMammalMammaries)

Also, I'll see your Dragonborn greatsword and raise you this one (http://www.wizards.com/dnd/images/WorldsMonsters_Gallery/106196.jpg). Now that's a greatsword.Yes, that's a great sword. :smallbiggrin:

Starsinger
2008-03-21, 05:31 PM
Yes, that's a great sword. :smallbiggrin:

And also a bit boring

Spiryt
2008-03-21, 05:38 PM
Yes, that's a great sword. :smallbiggrin:

Meh, I don't like it. It's idioticaly massive, and generally looks like something that has
screws in it.


To all the folks complaining about the Dragonborn Fighter picture from earlier:

That's just one picture, and I'm relatively certain that's an Epic-tier character anyway (and we know they break physics on a daily basis).

All the rest of the Dragonborn characters I've seen seem to have relatively cool, tribal-esque, normal-looking weapons.

Well, aside of breast :smallwink: - those dragonborns are actually quite nice.

horseboy
2008-03-21, 05:44 PM
And also a bit boringWell, it could be made better with fire, but at the end of the day, what can't? :belkar:

AslanCross
2008-03-21, 05:53 PM
I dislike the art direction of all the DnD editions really. I hate all the static images of races and classes. I's like the artwork to be more like a comic book, if one piece of artwork consisted of a few panels, like a rogue sneaking past a guard, avoiding a trap, then picking a lock. It'd give people a better feel of what they're looking at. Perhaps in the Hellboy comic style.

Thats all I have to add. Ehehe.

...

Isn't Eberron's art direction exactly like this? In fact they deliberately directed it such that it would look like a comic book. Check out the gallery at WOTC's site for the Eberron books.

Anyway, I do like the 4E art a lot more. William O'Connor's art speaks more to me than the stuff in the PHB. While I do like Todd Lockwood's art in 3.5, his work seems bland without his amazing backgrounds (like the art he does for book covers and M:TG). I was sold on 4E's art when I saw the wallpaper with the races on WOTC's site.

Bleen
2008-03-21, 06:15 PM
The overall quality of the art is better than 3.5e.

The style is another difference - I don't much like that sword, for instance. I'm fine with Improbably Fantasy Weapons; but that sword is not only ugly, but I have a hard time envisioning someone swinging it around because of its awkward design. I don't like it when my weapons are fantastic to the point of looking like your armory was actually a toy store.

And then there's the Rogue in the picture of the party fighting a green dragon.
She looks like she has a burning desire to get stabbed in her cleavage. Granted, it's better than the chainmail bikini, but still...

RTGoodman
2008-03-21, 06:21 PM
She looks like she has a burning desire to get stabbed in her cleavage.

Alright, I'm gonna go ahead and not make the joke I thought about making... :smallredface:


Regarding the pictures "telling a story" - check out Dungeonscape. In an interview somewhere, I remember the Giant and, um, whoever the other author was talking about how the art tells a story. They start off preparing for a dungeon crawl, and then get killed off one by one until only one is left standing.

That's a lot more detailed than what people are probably looking for in art, but I just thought it was interesting and that I should point it out.

Spiryt
2008-03-21, 06:26 PM
She looks like she has a burning desire to get stabbed in her cleavage...

That's the piece of clothing with strategic meaning!!

What do you thing the dragon is looking at.

Rutee
2008-03-21, 06:37 PM
Now Rutee, you've been here long enough to have seen several threads about the ramifications on a setting that D&D magic actually should have. With metallurgy it winds up the same problem.
Watch me actively ignore what metallurgy 'should' do, just like I actively ignore what magic 'should' do.


Except it's not a weapon. By that definition a sling blade qualifies.
You have two choices; You can be obtuse, in which case I will kick your linguistic ass with legalistic specificness, or we can try and communicate like normal human beings, without intentionally misunderstanding each other.


Since it's subjective, it's too individualistic to be used in a group setting. It's kind like ordering pizza. One person likes mushrooms, one person wants pineapple, one person is allergic to tropical fruit. So in the end you compromise down to pepperoni, except for the DM who can't eat pepperoni if you want to be in the same room with him 15 minutes later. So no, you can't rely on "Rule of Cool" because it's so subjective.

You're /vastly/ overestimating the problems it causes, especially since I'm telling you from experience that it doesn't really cause any. Notwithstanding that you shouldn't generally have to compromise, provided two people's views are not mutually exclusive. There are only problems when one person specifically thinks another's are lame, not when you don't go in already knowing what the other players find cool. That is, if /you/ sat down to play with me, we'd be in trouble. But I wouldn't play with you in the first place; What we value is mutually exclusive to begin with, and there's pretty much no way to make the two of us happy. Given that the biggest problems will likely be between people who have no business trying to roleplay together (Due to things like this), the problems are mostly moot.

Right til you get into people with exclusive, rather then inclusive, definitions of awesome anyway.

Wooter
2008-03-21, 07:26 PM
Who's to say that steel in D&D is the same as actual steel? I mean, silver clearly has different properties in D&D, seeing as how you're able to make functioning swords out of it.

RTGoodman
2008-03-21, 07:41 PM
Who's to say that steel in D&D is the same as actual steel? I mean, silver clearly has different properties in D&D, seeing as how you're able to make functioning swords out of it.

Well, in D&D not even "silver" weapons are pure silver - it's just a thin coating applied over iron or steel, and it must not be that great because you take a -1 penalty to damage rolls with a silver weapon. Also, it's "alchemical" silver, so that may have something to do with how it can be used semi-effectively, at least.

Also, here's some other art I like from W&M and R&C.

Orcus (http://www.wizards.com/dnd/images/WorldsMonsters_Gallery/111926.jpg)
Red Dragon (http://www.wizards.com/dnd/images/WorldsMonsters_Gallery/111915.jpg)
Elf Warlock (http://www.wizards.com/dnd/images/RacesNClasses_Gallery/111127.jpg) (and I don't even like elves!)
New Dragon (http://www.wizards.com/dnd/images/WorldsMonsters_Gallery/111932.jpg) (either adamantine or iron - don't remember which)

horseboy
2008-03-21, 08:25 PM
Watch me actively ignore what metallurgy 'should' do, just like I actively ignore what magic 'should' do.

You have two choices; You can be obtuse, in which case I will kick your linguistic ass with legalistic specificness, or we can try and communicate like normal human beings, without intentionally misunderstanding each other.It's not a weapon. It's not designed to hurt/maim/kill. It can't even do it incidentally. Therefore it does not qualify as such. You'd do better wielding a gnome 2-handed than those things.


You're /vastly/ overestimating the problems it causes, especially since I'm telling you from experience that it doesn't really cause any. And I'm telling you from personal experience that it can. "Rule of Cool" has no place in a setting neutral, quasi-generic system because it's too individualistic.
But I wouldn't play with you in the first place;:smallfrown: That makes me a sad panda.

:smallwink:

Rutee
2008-03-21, 08:30 PM
It's not a weapon. It's not designed to hurt/maim/kill. It can't even do it incidentally. Therefore it does not qualify as such. You'd do better wielding a gnome 2-handed than those things.
In fantasy, that's very clearly a weapon. You're confusing what works in real life and what works outside of real life.


And I'm telling you from personal experience that it can. "Rule of Cool" has no place in a setting neutral, quasi-generic system because it's too individualistic.
No, setting neutral it works just fine in. Now in genre-neutral works, it's a problem, but some genres, including anything attempting to be more cinematic (As 4e seems to be moving towards), Rule of Cool is fine.

Now, what problems has it caused without exclusionary, mutual or otherwise, definitions?


Well, in D&D not even "silver" weapons are pure silver - it's just a thin coating applied over iron or steel, and it must not be that great because you take a -1 penalty to damage rolls with a silver weapon. Also, it's "alchemical" silver, so that may have something to do with how it can be used semi-effectively, at least.
Call it 'alchemical' steel then.

Kioran
2008-03-21, 08:35 PM
Watch me actively ignore what metallurgy 'should' do, just like I actively ignore what magic 'should' do.

You have two choices; You can be obtuse, in which case I will kick your linguistic ass with legalistic specificness, or we can try and communicate like normal human beings, without intentionally misunderstanding each other.

You do forget the fact that he does, in fact, communicate like a normal human being. In this case expressing strong negative feelings. That he might be of a different opinion doesnīt make him wrong. "Rule of cool", as stated,. doesnīt work if people canīt agree about the thiong that are, suppposedly, cool. If most things which are cool to you are irrevocably lame to me and others (and they are), "rule of cool", which states that even neutral or negative deviations in a design or game rule are justified by an increase in coolness, doesnīt work for either of us most of the time. That is, indeed, a fact. Thereīs no misunderstanding involved.


You're /vastly/ overestimating the problems it causes, especially since I'm telling you from experience that it doesn't really cause any. Notwithstanding that you shouldn't generally have to compromise, provided two people's views are not mutually exclusive. There are only problems when one person specifically thinks another's are lame, not when you don't go in already knowing what the other players find cool. That is, if /you/ sat down to play with me, we'd be in trouble. But I wouldn't play with you in the first place; What we value is mutually exclusive to begin with, and there's pretty much no way to make the two of us happy. Given that the biggest problems will likely be between people who have no business trying to roleplay together (Due to things like this), the problems are mostly moot.

Right til you get into people with exclusive, rather then inclusive, definitions of awesome anyway.

That itīs a moot point if we never roleplay together might be the case, but weīre using the same core books - and I think that 70% of the art, while less threadbare and certainly of a higher basic quality, is inherently flawed and that most "cool" races look stunningly stupid (Tifelings, with the misspellign intentional since theyīre not remotely related to Tieflings, the "deep folk" in roguh translation, and Dragonborn). That makes me dislike the art of 4th Ed. That makes our PoV irrevocably different. And you can rant as much as you want - the former fact doesnīt make my point, or anybody elseīs, irrelevant. That art doesnīt suit a major faction becasue itīs too much over the top. And I such suspect it mainly suits those who, up to this point, havenīt even played D&D.......

EvilElitest
2008-03-21, 08:42 PM
Quoted for emphasis.

she wasn't ugly she just caused you to feel tainted inside by looking at her

On subject, i rather like 4E art direction. Kinda flashy, but generally pretty good

However this is the new dryad

http://www.wizards.com/dnd/images/WorldsMonsters_Gallery/103573.jpg

WFT?

Originally Posted by Tetsubo 57
When I saw what passes for the weapons and armour illustrations in 4E I was dumbfounded. Not only is it *worse* than what they put in 3.X but the items look functionally useless. Once again it appears that no one at WoTC owns or has access to a weapons or armour reference book. If I were richer I might consider buying them a small reference library and donating it. Just so they can see what *actual* weapons and armour look like.
I wait, i forgot about this, only major art complaint. However, WotC has stated taht they want to move away from real world weapon and armor based styles. So yeah, expect many more anime swords (by that i mean weapons taht don't make any sense logically)

from
EE

EvilElitest
2008-03-21, 08:51 PM
When I saw what passes for the weapons and armour illustrations in 4E I was dumbfounded. Not only is it *worse* than what they put in 3.X but the items look functionally useless. Once again it appears that no one at WoTC owns or has access to a weapons or armour reference book. If I were richer I might consider buying them a small reference library and donating it. Just so they can see what *actual* weapons and armour look like.

I wait, i forgot about this, only major art complaint. However, WotC has stated taht they want to move away from real world weapon and armor based styles. So yeah, expect giant anime swords
from
EE

EvilElitest
2008-03-21, 08:59 PM
After a quick google image search for "Greatsword"... I've determined I'd rather fight with...

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v299/pawnoffate/greatsword1.jpg

than the very boring looking...

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v299/pawnoffate/greatsword.jpg

Regardless of how effective the second may be than the first, if they were -mechanically- the same in the game... I'd want the one that made me much more full of bad-assery.

I don't think there is anything badass about using a sword that wouldn't fit in a sheath. nor one that would snap if hit by a basic weapon.

I think badass can be related to effectiveness. Logically, i'm i was going to fight somebody, i wouldn't give a damn on how the weapon looked, i'd want effective



N
o, a complete and utter snap of your verisimilitude. The vast majority of RPG nerds honestly have no nfc what makes a functional melee weapon. Most players aren't going to see a problem. At all.

Proof to back up these figure? I imagine if you find every single RPG nerd quite a few will comment on how bloody stupid that sword is


And honestly, you play rolemaster. We already know what your stance on gritty reality is going to be.

by logic you play Exalted, so we already know your stance on the rule of cool should be.


I am constantly saddened by the lack of creativity, vision and open-mindedness in people who say they wish to play a game based around those things.
I think wanting weapons taht are logical and make sense isn't lack of creative, it is basically saying "dude, what the hell is with that weapon, it wouldn't even work right"
In fact, it is close minded and rather lacking of vision to understand why people would want this eh :smallwink:


from
EE

horseboy
2008-03-21, 09:15 PM
In fantasy, that's very clearly a weapon. You're confusing what works in real life and what works outside of real life.No, not clearly /at all/. Maybe in a spoof system. Maybe on Hercules: The Legendary Journeys that had so many inaccuracies that we'd go through bottles of shots, even after ruling out obvious stuff (like crossbows). But no, to paraphrase the Morbo (and I'm surprised no one has said this yet) "Weapons do no work that way!"


Now, what problems has it caused without exclusionary, mutual or otherwise, definitions?
Well, let's see, there was the 1/2 hour lecture about the technology level needed for screw top bottles, so I couldn't call the cheap wine "Boon's Farm". There was the 2 week argument we had on whether or not Middle Earth had a Theological structure, let alone my character concept (Grr... Societies do not work that way!) Then there were the "laen rivets" arguments. Countless combat ideas that got vetoed. (Okay, I did get away with using my bedroll on that Aurumvorax that ONE time, but only because they were big on Discovery Channel) The lectures on the history of serrated blades and dear sweet, Jebus the physics lessons that it always triggers ("Your character is 200#, your carrying another 60# of gear, moving at 20 mph and accounting for the torque of your rotation what made you think that limb wouldn't have broken?" "Cause it would have been cool?") No, rule of cool can generate far more problems than fun when used in a system not specifically designed for genre appropriate for it. Now, if you want to make the claim that 4th is going to be an "Over the Top" self-parody of prior editions of itself, or indeed, WoW on paper then I might me more inclined to agree.

tyckspoon
2008-03-21, 09:23 PM
Well, let's see, there was the 1/2 hour lecture about the technology level needed for screw top bottles, so I couldn't call the cheap wine "Boon's Farm". There was the 2 week argument we had on whether or not Middle Earth had a Theological structure, let alone my character concept (Grr... Societies do not work that way!) Then there were the "laen rivets" arguments. Countless combat ideas that got vetoed. (Okay, I did get away with using my bedroll on that Aurumvorax that ONE time, but only because they were big on Discovery Channel) The lectures on the history of serrated blades and dear sweet, Jebus the physics lessons that it always triggers ("Your character is 200#, your carrying another 60# of gear, moving at 20 mph and accounting for the torque of your rotation what made you think that limb wouldn't have broken?" "Cause it would have been cool?") No, rule of cool can generate far more problems than fun when used in a system not specifically designed for genre appropriate for it. Now, if you want to make the claim that 4th is going to be an "Over the Top" self-parody of prior editions of itself, or indeed, WoW on paper then I might me more inclined to agree.

That sounds much more like you simply play with people who are far more concerned about realism in their games than D&D itself is. Things like torque effectively don't exist as far as 99% of D&D is concerned. The last 1% is special cases written by people who decided to be nerdy about their specific bit of the rules.. a lot like the first and second editions, there, if you're looking for continuity.

EvilElitest
2008-03-21, 09:30 PM
That sounds much more like you simply play with people who are far more concerned about realism in their games than D&D itself is. Things like torque effectively don't exist as far as 99% of D&D is concerned. The last 1% is special cases written by people who decided to be nerdy about their specific bit of the rules.. a lot like the first and second editions, there, if you're looking for continuity.

1. I think he is playing with people who simply are aware of the total stupidity in some of D&D's rules
2. Where do you get these figures? Almost every gamer i know has some rule or another that they pick at for being absurdly unrealistic in some way.
from
EE

Rutee
2008-03-21, 09:30 PM
You're going to prove it causes problems without mutually exclusive definitions by using mutually exclusive definitions. GOOD SHOW. Do you have one that doesn't involve anything that starts with "Physics discussion", because if it gets to that, we're talking about mutually exclusive definitions again.

As to genre specific, DnD IS HEROIC FANTASY. Yes, breaking the laws of physics, magic or not, is part of it. Look at dragons for Gods' sakes. Harpies. Anything with a wingspan that flies, really. You can not fly with that incredibly small amount of wingspan, relative to probable density/weight, without strength scores that are in the triple digits. At /barest minimum/. They do it anyway. Do you bitch about /that/? Cause I sure as hell don't; Realistic anatomy would be god-damned hell. Realistic physics are just as much so.


No, not clearly /at all/. Maybe in a spoof system. Maybe on Hercules: The Legendary Journeys that had so many inaccuracies that we'd go through bottles of shots, even after ruling out obvious stuff (like crossbows). But no, to paraphrase the Morbo (and I'm surprised no one has said this yet) "Weapons do no work that way!"
Weapons /do/ work that way in fantasy. That your notion of fantasy is this closely tied to reality is not my problem.


You do forget the fact that he does, in fact, communicate like a normal human being. In this case expressing strong negative feelings/quote]
"A sling knife fits that definition too" would be intentional obtuseness for the purpose of misunderstanding. Try taking quotes in the context they're spoken in. It really did not matter, in that context, who was arguing for what, or what his opinion was, merely that he was intentionally misunderstanding.

[quote]That art doesnīt suit a major faction becasue itīs too much over the top.
Because DnD was never over the top before. No sirree bob, never. Ignore, you know, everything higher levels could do when you read that, because it completely kills the point.

horseboy
2008-03-21, 09:34 PM
she wasn't ugly she just caused you to feel tainted inside by looking at her

On subject, i rather like 4E art direction. Kinda flashy, but generally pretty good

However this is the new dryad

http://www.wizards.com/dnd/images/WorldsMonsters_Gallery/103573.jpg

WFT?
It looks a lot like one of the old Warhammer minis. Not sure if it was a dryad, a treeman or that special Avalon treeman thing though.

tyckspoon
2008-03-21, 09:34 PM
2. Where do you get these figures? Almost every gamer i know has some rule or another that they pick at for being absurdly unrealistic in some way.
from
EE

Er.. yes. And they'll all find their individual bugaboos in different places, mostly (at least until they all start comparing experiences and come to a group decision that bucket-drowning revival is probably the stupidest one. Or maybe the hiding-the-shield-you-carry-behind-itself thing.) A great many people care more about realism (in the sense of 'like the real world', as opposed to verisimilitude) than D&D does because D&D does not care about realism. It makes brief nods to it, in places where somebody who did care a lot got to write a rule, but the vast majority of D&D looks at the idea of replicating real-world conditions and says, emphatically, "Jumper that."

Saph
2008-03-21, 09:35 PM
I'm going to side with horseboy on this one. That serrated greatsword just looks freaking ridiculous. I'd burst out laughing if a player described his character as using it. :)

Maybe it's just me, but I think simple, functional weapons look much cooler than flashy ones. Partly because in real life, the people with simple functional weapons that they don't draw attention to tend to be much more dangerous . . .

- Saph

EvilElitest
2008-03-21, 09:43 PM
You're going to prove it causes problems without mutually exclusive definitions by using mutually exclusive definitions. GOOD SHOW. Do you have one that doesn't involve anything that starts with "Physics discussion", because if it gets to that, we're talking about mutually exclusive definitions again.

As to genre specific, DnD IS HEROIC FANTASY. Yes, breaking the laws of physics, magic or not, is part of it. Look at dragons for Gods' sakes. Harpies. Anything with a wingspan that flies, really. You can not fly with that incredibly small amount of wingspan, relative to probable density/weight, without strength scores that are in the triple digits. At /barest minimum/. They do it anyway. Do you bitch about /that/? Cause I sure as hell don't; Realistic anatomy would be god-damned hell. Realistic physics are just as much so.

Yawn, good thing this argument doesn't come up a lot on these boards

the reason why nobody complains about Dragons is because dragons don't exist on our world, we have no basis for our complaints. We know they can fly, we just accept that it is magic and move on (incidently it is magic by the way, it was stated that is how they fly, just innate types) We just go with it

Weapons however make sense. They come from our world. We know how they work. We know how weapons work. If i shoot a bow, then i know what causes the arrow to fly. i know that i can't cut use a blade without a handle because i'll cut my hand. I know i cant fight holding the blade and hitting them with hte handle because that is bloody stupid. for example, with that dragonborn sword, i know that such a weapon would have no practical use. I know no reason why you would make such a blade other than decoration. And that is why people make weapons, because they are practical not because they are pretty, at least the ones used by adventures. Now some can be excused by them being magic (the weapons weight) however magic doesn't make the blade any more workable.



Weapons /do/ work that way in fantasy. That your notion of fantasy is this closely tied to reality is not my problem.
I think the fact comes from that your notion of fantasy is rather close mindly fighting against logic.



"A sling knife fits that definition too" would be intentional obtuseness for the purpose of misunderstanding. Try taking quotes in the context they're spoken in. It really did not matter, in that context, who was arguing for what, or what his opinion was, merely that he was intentionally misunderstanding.
No he was demonstrating a point. that a sling knife can be used as a weapon, but isn't made for that purpose. The dragonborn's sword can be used as a weapon, but certainly isn't made for that purpose



Because DnD was never over the top before. No sirree bob, never. Ignore, you know, everything higher levels could do when you read that, because it completely kills the point.
Except you can work with that, high level people do a lot because they are powerful and thus can do powerful things.


It looks a lot like one of the old Warhammer minis. Not sure if it was a dryad, a treeman or that special Avalon treeman thing though.


I mean if you look at the 3.5 version of dryad and then this one, i'm going "Who in the hell was running the conversion here"


Er.. yes. And they'll all find their individual bugaboos in different places, mostly (at least until they all start comparing experiences and come to a group decision that bucket-drowning revival is probably the stupidest one. Or maybe the hiding-the-shield-you-carry-behind-itself thing.) A great many people care more about realism (in the sense of 'like the real world', as opposed to verisimilitude) than D&D does because D&D does not care about realism. It makes brief nods to it, in places where somebody who did care a lot got to write a rule, but the vast majority of D&D looks at the idea of replicating real-world conditions and says, emphatically, "Jumper that."

1. I was referring to your figures, which were unbacked
2. Yeah, D&D does do that, however that doesn't make it a good thing
from
EE

SamTheCleric
2008-03-21, 09:54 PM
This is still going on?

And it's still the same argument?

Wow.

Some people want reality with a dash of fantasy.

Some people want fantasy with a dash of reality.

We've had this same thing going on for a month now, it happens in every thread related to 4th edition.

horseboy
2008-03-21, 09:56 PM
That sounds much more like you simply play with people who are far more concerned about realism in their games than D&D itself is. Things like torque effectively don't exist as far as 99% of D&D is concerned. The last 1% is special cases written by people who decided to be nerdy about their specific bit of the rules.. a lot like the first and second editions, there, if you're looking for continuity.One of his hobbies was calculating muzzle velocities of his custom loaded rounds, he did it faster than I could write out the formula. So for him, it struck him as an exceptionally stupid thing to do, because he'd reflexively figured it out as I was saying it. Hence, to him, it was not "cool" but asinine. And well, he was the GM.


You're going to prove it causes problems without mutually exclusive definitions by using mutually exclusive definitions. GOOD SHOW. Do you have one that doesn't involve anything that starts with "Physics discussion", because if it gets to that, we're talking about mutually exclusive definitions again.No I proved it can cause problems by showing REAL IN GAME problems I've had to deal with "The Rule of Cool".


As to genre specific, DnD IS HEROIC FANTASY. Yes, breaking the laws of physics, magic or not, is part of it. Look at dragons for Gods' sakes. Harpies. Anything with a wingspan that flies, really. You can not fly with that incredibly small amount of wingspan, relative to probable density/weight, without strength scores that are in the triple digits. At /barest minimum/. They do it anyway. Do you bitch about /that/? Cause I sure as hell don't; Realistic anatomy would be god-damned hell. Realistic physics are just as much so.Bumblebee


Weapons /do/ work that way in fantasy. That your notion of fantasy is this closely tied to reality is not my problem.Why do you internalize so much? We're discussing WotC's art here, and why I have problems. Unless you're the artist who drew the dreadful things then why would it be your problem?


"A sling knife fits that definition too" would be intentional obtuseness for the purpose of misunderstanding. Try taking quotes in the context they're spoken in. It really did not matter, in that context, who was arguing for what, or what his opinion was, merely that he was intentionally misunderstanding.Not a sling knife, a sling blade (http://www.lowes.com/lowes/lkn?action=productDetail&productId=99761-302-19-456/450&lpage=none). It's a yard and garden implement. It's not being obtuse, it's pointing out just how wide a definition you'd need to justify that as an actual weapon.

Because DnD was never over the top before. No sirree bob, never. Ignore, you know, everything higher levels could do when you read that, because it completely kills the point.Outside of being able to survive reentry, a quirk of the system they acknowledged, there really wasn't that much that a high level fighter/rogues did in prior editions (Basic, 1st or 2nd, you're right concerning 3rd +) that was "over the top" even magic wasn't "that bad."

horseboy
2008-03-21, 09:58 PM
This is still going on?

And it's still the same argument?

Wow.Yeah, Me and Rutee will probably go on for another page or two, before I get bored and EE takes over for another 10.

tyckspoon
2008-03-21, 10:00 PM
... figures? oh, for heck's sake. That was a made up percentage, just like 76% of statistics supposedly are. I'm not insane enough to sit down and actually page through the manuals counting up the exact percentage of things that are sort-of-realistic instead of completely fantastic. I would hope nobody is, but this is the Internet I speak of. My point was that instances of realism in D&D are anomalies, not the norm. If you (plural you, as I have no illusions about convincing EE of anything) are excessively upset by that, you probably should be looking for a different game.

As far as it being a 'good thing' or not goes, we're back to that objectivity jive. You cannot claim, as an objective fact, that a certain level of realism or fantastical handwaving is better than another. You may prefer one way or another, and nobody will deny you that prerogative. But you cannot claim, while maintaining any intellectual integrity, that making D&D more realistic would turn it into a factually, provably superior game.

SamTheCleric
2008-03-21, 10:01 PM
We have a different viewpoint of what a game should be. The point I was trying to make back there is that in the mechanics of D&D 3.5... a greatsword is a greatsword is a greatsword. No matter what you want them to look like, if your character sheet says greatsword, it's going to do 2d6 damage. My character could be using a sword made out of car antennas... but as long as the mechanics say greatsword... I swing a greatsword.

EvilElitest
2008-03-21, 10:01 PM
Yeah, Me and Rutee will probably go on for another page or two, before I get bored and EE takes over for another 10.

grow up
from
EE

EvilElitest
2008-03-21, 10:05 PM
... figures? oh, for heck's sake. That was a made up percentage, just like 76% of statistics supposedly are. I'm not insane enough to sit down and actually page through the manuals counting up the exact percentage of things that are sort-of-realistic instead of completely fantastic. I would hope nobody is, but this is the Internet I speak of.

By taht logic i can make any figure up. One should ether use backed figures or not figures at all



My point was that instances of realism in D&D are anomalies, not the norm. If you (plural you, as I have no illusions about convincing EE of anything) are excessively upset by that, you probably should be looking for a different game.
1. that doesn't support your claim of people agreeing with these problems of D&D vs. realism.
2. Why can't you convince me? Can you make such an argument without breaking the forum rule about brining infomation from other threads into hte argument



As far as it being a 'good thing' or not goes, we're back to that objectivity jive. You cannot claim, as an objective fact, that a certain level of realism or fantastical handwaving is better than another. You may prefer one way or another, and nobody will deny you that prerogative. But you cannot claim, while maintaining any intellectual integrity, that making D&D more realistic would turn it into a factually, provably superior game.

But you can make an argument for the expectation of weapons to make sense based upon logic
from
EE

Rutee
2008-03-21, 10:14 PM
No I proved it can cause problems by showing REAL IN GAME problems I've had to deal with "The Rule of Cool".
You're proving it can cause problems where I already said it can cause problems; With mutually exclusive definitions. That's /always/ a problem, rule of cool or not, because it means you have vastly different goals.

If everything you got is in that vein, you're not proving me wrong, just proving part of my statement correct. Again, everything I've played in for years has been Rule of Cool based. Everyone had different definitions, but we still did not have problems, least of all in game. Interesting discussions on Archery in Exalted, though.



Bumblebee
Insect anatomy doesn't lend itself to be dense. Dragons certainly appear to be, at the least. Harpies may/may not be, granted. Most creatures with wingspan that occur to me outside dragons are dense.




Why do you internalize so much? We're discussing WotC's art here, and why I have problems. Unless you're the artist who drew the dreadful things then why would it be your problem?
You forgot the way this went. Somebody, and I really do not remember who so don't take that to mean I mean you, decided to state that someone else's subjective opinion objectively sucked. The results stand before you.


Not a sling knife, a sling blade (http://www.lowes.com/lowes/lkn?action=productDetail&productId=99761-302-19-456/450&lpage=none). It's a yard and garden implement. It's not being obtuse, it's pointing out just how wide a definition you'd need to justify that as an actual weapon.
A rake is not a greatsword with an impossible blade.


Outside of being able to survive reentry, a quirk of the system they acknowledged, there really wasn't that much that a high level fighter/rogues did in prior editions (Basic, 1st or 2nd, you're right concerning 3rd +) that was "over the top" even magic wasn't "that bad."
Well, I honestly was not talking previous editions. What I know about them is what Matthew deigns to mention in select contexts, and what was in Baldur's Gate.

horseboy
2008-03-21, 10:14 PM
We have a different viewpoint of what a game should be. The point I was trying to make back there is that in the mechanics of D&D 3.5... a greatsword is a greatsword is a greatsword. No matter what you want them to look like, if your character sheet says greatsword, it's going to do 2d6 damage. My character could be using a sword made out of car antennas... but as long as the mechanics say greatsword... I swing a greatsword.
And my point (in a very round about way)is that I don't believe the 3.5 fallacy of fluff and crunch being completely divorced.

MeklorIlavator
2008-03-21, 10:28 PM
By taht logic i can make any figure up. One should ether use backed figures or not figures at all



1. that doesn't support your claim of people agreeing with these problems of D&D vs. realism.
2. Why can't you convince me? Can you make such an argument without breaking the forum rule about brining infomation from other threads into hte argument



But you can make an argument for the expectation of weapons to make sense based upon logic
from
EE
Outside of a science classroom(and sometimes inside it), I've found that any statistic that uses 99% or up is pretty much exaggeration. Plus, its really not that much of a stretch, as in the PHB chapters 2, 3, 4, 10, and 11 completely fall into this category, with major parts of chapters 1, 4, 5, and 6 also falling into it. That mean that 58 pages out of 303 do not directly deal with fantasy, which is about 19%, and thats not including and minor mentions from the 3 chapters left.

I'm not sure what your saying in the middle, so I think I'll just skip it.

And I think you can't make an argument based on logic, as this is a game where wizards fly and also craft magic items. Lets repeat that last part there: Magic Items. These items literally break the laws of physics all over the place(conservation of mass/energy, met decanter of endless water). So why can't they break the "laws" of designing swords? Heck, look at the silver swords of the githyanki for crying out loud(their the liquid ones). Talk about impossible weapons.:smallyuk:

Infinity_Biscuit
2008-03-21, 10:31 PM
Bumblebee
I'm just going to point out that a bumblebee the size of a horse would collapse under its own mass, let alone be unable to fly. Strength scales as a square as you size up while mass scales as a cube. Insects are not good models of large flying creatures. Plus, I doubt anyone imagines D&D-style dragons flapping their wings at a rate of several dozen times a second.

Unless, that is, you're referencing the myth that bumblebee flight goes against known physics, in which case, well, don't. It's a myth.

Terraoblivion
2008-03-21, 10:41 PM
There is a difference between completely divorced and not closely correlating, Horseboy. I mean all those swords that have been complained about so far are identifiable as swords depicted within the tradition of fantasy art. They do not look like sling blades. They look like how swords has been portrayed often in fantasy. You might like it or you might dislike it, but you will recognize what they are supposed to be from the perspective of the artist. And that is literally all that matters for it to be acceptable to call them a sword within the context of the game, provided the players in question have no problem with it.

As for the problems you've had with rule of cool, then i've had excessive problems with arguing realism. I still remember when all my plans in a game of Dark Ages: Vampire collapsed when it turned out that everybody had worked on the assumption that Luxembourg was a wealthy trading hub for caravan trade in the 13th century. I am fairly certain that Luxembourg didn't even exist as a political entity back then. It has always been the attempts at realism that have caused problems for me.

That does not mean that realism in games is a problem. Indeed some degree of realism is necessary, for me it is quite important that the behavior of the characters have some kind of cursory nod to real world psychology. I also prefer the history of worlds not to be driven by individuals but my forces like economics, unless there is a good reason for why individuals should be able to drive it such as them being god-kings or everything being anthropomorphic. All i am saying is that different things cause problems from different groups. An extension of that is that the rule of cool isn't necessarily anymore problematic than attempts at realism, it is a matter of taste. And to be honest in a game where the rules makes jumping from a hundred foot cliff a perfectly valid way of reaching the bottom without significant harm realism might not be the best call.

Ryusacerdos
2008-03-21, 10:48 PM
"Realistic" explanations of things are for the sake of maintaining a person's suspension of disbelief. Some people can take more insane things than others.

The logic of - given A and A implies B, therefore B - is fine as long as the viewer doesn't insist that A has no backing :D.

Edit: Also on the dragonborn fighter's sword - its a stylized Dacian Falx. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Falx

So its not completely out there.

Ascension
2008-03-21, 11:45 PM
I think the number one rule of fantasy swords should be "If it couldn't possibly fit in a scabbard, it's gone right past fantastic and straight on to stupid." Where the heck is our good dragonborn fighter going to store said ridiculous weapon?

That being said, and at the risk of starting a whole new argument... am I the only one who thinks the Dragonborn fighter's shield looks worse than his sword? Sure, they're both terrible, but the shield's what really makes me do a double take.

The armor's an older problem than the weaponry, too. Aside from the dire flail and the double sword, I got through the 3.5 PHB weapon section without too much trouble. It's when I got to the armor that I started asking myself whether or not any of these artists has a single clue about what they're doing.

Oh, and give Mialee a break. At least she isn't Soveliss.

I still love the "elven chain" girl. If you want to see good fantasy art, DMG 220's where it's at.

Please, 4E designers... reuse the elven chain girl. The DMG just wouldn't be the same without her.

horseboy
2008-03-21, 11:58 PM
So its not completely out there.
I was thinking "Seriously F-ed up Khopesh (http://www.google.com/imgres?imgurl=http://www.sword-buyers-guide.com/images/deepeeka-khopesh.jpg&imgrefurl=http://www.sword-buyers-guide.com/egyptian-swords.html&h=79&w=128&sz=72&tbnid=JR8q_tagGJ0J:&tbnh=79&tbnw=128&prev=/images%3Fq%3Dkhopesh&sa=X&oi=image_result&resnum=1&ct=image&cd=1) personally.
That being said, and at the risk of starting a whole new argument... am I the only one who thinks the Dragonborn fighter's shield looks worse than his sword? Sure, they're both terrible, but the shield's what really makes me do a double take.
I noticed it the second time I saw that. Looks like a spaceship from something, but I can't place where.

horseboy
2008-03-22, 12:07 AM
Sorry, didn't see you there.
You're proving it can cause problems where I already said it can cause problems; With mutually exclusive definitions. That's /always/ a problem, rule of cool or not, because it means you have vastly different goals. I didn't see that exclusion on your statement. :smallredface: I don't know if I'd call it a mutually exclusive definition, however, that's not worth arguing. :smallwink:


Insect anatomy doesn't lend itself to be dense. Dragons certainly appear to be, at the least. Harpies may/may not be, granted. Most creatures with wingspan that occur to me outside dragons are dense.They might, or might not, since we don't have a RL dragon to know it's physical properties such things fall under the "it's magic" caveat.

A rake is not a greatsword with an impossible blade.A rake is not a great sword neither is that thing.


Well, I honestly was not talking previous editions. What I know about them is what Matthew deigns to mention in select contexts, and what was in Baldur's Gate.Well, Yeah, when D&D in general is talked about, my frame of reference is prior editions. 3.X is labeled as such.

Behold_the_Void
2008-03-22, 12:23 AM
Oh, and give Mialee a break. At least she isn't Soveliss.

Soveliss actually didn't look bad in at least one picture. The same can't be said for Mialee, I'm afraid :smallsmile:

Ascension
2008-03-22, 12:31 AM
Soveliss actually didn't look bad in at least one picture. The same can't be said for Mialee, I'm afraid :smallsmile:

You found a picture that makes Soveliss look good? I've got to see this. Reference?

kpenguin
2008-03-22, 12:34 AM
Yeah, Me and Rutee will probably go on for another page or two, before I get bored and EE takes over for another 10.

Is it wrong that I laughed aloud for a while after reading this?

Rutee
2008-03-22, 12:40 AM
He was crazy wrong. I have EE on Ignore! I hope he hasn't been bothering formulating responses to me, since they'll just languish. *Plays the worlds' smallest violin*

Ascension
2008-03-22, 12:42 AM
Gotta admire how the forum-goers here stick together in a spirit of love and unity. You're all shining examples of humanity.

kpenguin
2008-03-22, 12:45 AM
You know, I might actually think about adding that "Evil Ruteest" banner of Tengu's to my sig because of this thread.

Behold_the_Void
2008-03-22, 12:47 AM
You found a picture that makes Soveliss look good? I've got to see this. Reference?

Maybe it was in 3.0, but I could have sworn his initial picture in the class chapter for the Ranger class was decent.

Right, this one. (http://www.wizards.com/dnd/images/ph35_gallery/PHB35_PG46_WEB.jpg)

Hmmm...

I'd argue he doesn't look TERRIBLE. A little dopey, but nowhere near Mialee fugly.

Rutee
2008-03-22, 12:48 AM
Do whatcha gotta do.


They might, or might not, since we don't have a RL dragon to know it's physical properties such things fall under the "it's magic" caveat.
Ah, but the dragon flies in an AMF. Clearly it's not magic. And if magic is sufficient for a much larger breach of physics (If you swing something heavy, and with a very small amount of surface area at someone, it's going to hurt. More then I can say for the Dragon), why not for the sword?


A rake is not a great sword neither is that thing.
I apologize for your being incorrect then! 'That thing' is a great sword!

horseboy
2008-03-22, 12:50 AM
I'd argue he doesn't look TERRIBLE. A little dopey, but nowhere near Mialee fugly.Little dopey, don't let him know you've got Funyuns, or you're going to hear about how you're Bogarting.

horseboy
2008-03-22, 12:57 AM
Ah, but the dragon flies in an AMF. Clearly it's not magic. And if magic is sufficient for a much larger breach of physics (If you swing something heavy, and with a very small amount of surface area at someone, it's going to hurt. More then I can say for the Dragon), why not for the sword?Because for all we know they could have gas bladders that they fill from digesting limestone to off set their weight or could have muscles similar to a lizard's that provide disproportionate (by mammal standards) strength. We just don't know how dragons work since we haven't found one to dissect. Swords, on the other hand, we do know how works.

Scintillatus
2008-03-22, 01:01 AM
Indeed? You've not got the Draconomicon then, I guess. Lots of detailed biology there.

Rutee
2008-03-22, 01:02 AM
Because for all we know they could have gas bladders that they fill from digesting limestone to off set their weight or could have muscles similar to a lizard's that provide disproportionate (by mammal standards) strength. We just don't know how dragons work since we haven't found one to dissect. Swords, on the other hand, we do know how works.

Doesn't matter; You already admitted "It's Magic" is a sufficient explanation. And we /know/ weapons can be magic.

horseboy
2008-03-22, 01:03 AM
Which edition?

horseboy
2008-03-22, 01:05 AM
Doesn't matter; You already admitted "It's Magic" is a sufficient explanation. And we /know/ weapons can be magic.They can be, and the exceptions from physics have to originate from said magic before they become acceptable. :smalltongue:

Artanis
2008-03-22, 01:05 AM
Maybe it was in 3.0, but I could have sworn his initial picture in the class chapter for the Ranger class was decent.

Right, this one. (http://www.wizards.com/dnd/images/ph35_gallery/PHB35_PG46_WEB.jpg)

Hmmm...

I'd argue he doesn't look TERRIBLE. A little dopey, but nowhere near Mialee fugly.
I don't know what's more depressing: how terrible that looks, or the fact that it's STILL better than any picture of Mialee I've seen. Ever. :smalleek:

Tetsubo 57
2008-03-22, 01:06 AM
Because for all we know they could have gas bladders that they fill from digesting limestone to off set their weight or could have muscles similar to a lizard's that provide disproportionate (by mammal standards) strength. We just don't know how dragons work since we haven't found one to dissect. Swords, on the other hand, we do know how works.

Ding, ding, ding! We have a winna!

Real world items should function like real world items. Regardless if the setting is fantasy. Fantasy elements can function any way you darn well please.

Yahzi
2008-03-22, 01:09 AM
Anyway, let's keep this to the art direction shall we?
I can't stand it. In 4e they are clearly drawing PCs with different brushes than NPCs. That sucks!

:smallbiggrin:

(Sorry... couldn't resist.)

Rutee
2008-03-22, 01:13 AM
They can be, and the exceptions from physics have to originate from said magic before they become acceptable. :smalltongue:

No, not really. We're still stuck under the fact that magic can excuse things, and that this isn't the real world.

Notwithstanding that Dragons /aren't/ proportionally stronger. If anything, they're proportionally weaker, past a certain age.

Yahzi
2008-03-22, 01:34 AM
No, not really. We're still stuck under the fact that magic can excuse things, and that this isn't the real world.
EE does have a good point there. It's ok for dragons to do unexpected or inexplicable things, because they aren't real. But for ordinary objects like swords to behave inexplicably makes it really, really hard for the players to predict what will happen next, which robs them of decision-making power.

In the module we're playing through right now, we went to the sanitorium to interview someone who had gone insane from witnessing a horrible crime, and he turned into a ghoul right in front of us. Now, I have a lot problems with this. First, why is there a sanitorium in a medieval society? I mean, a place with doctors and private rooms. For peasants. My first question was, "Who pays for this?"

Secondly, there's no rule in the books for turning ordinary human beings into ghouls while you're talking to them. Too many events like that, and it simply becomes impossible for the players to do anything but sit back and wait for the module to be read to them. Whatever the module/DM/plot says is going to happen is going to happen, regardless of what you do.

So it's better if swords act like we expect them to. Heck, even the dragon acts like we expect, even though it doesn't act like a real dragon.

ZekeArgo
2008-03-22, 01:40 AM
Stuff

Heres the thing though: if it looks like a sword, and the player feels his character is enriched by using something that he believes will make him appear "cooler", then it should work, because this is a game and to my mind, games are about doing cool stuff to have a good time.

Only the most anal-retentive blowhards would get into a huff because the dimensions of imaginary swords for their imaginary avatars in a supremely magical world don't mesh 100% with those used in the real world.

Rutee
2008-03-22, 01:42 AM
Heres the thing though: if it looks like a sword, and the player feels his character is enriched by using something that he believes will make him appear "cooler", then it should work, because this is a game and to my mind, games are about doing cool stuff to have a good time.

Only the most anal-retentive blowhards would get into a huff because the dimensions of imaginary swords for their imaginary avatars in a supremely magical world don't mesh 100% with those used in the real world.

To be fair, it's not a problem until they say the dimensions of the imaginary sword for someone /else's/ imaginary avatar are wrong and the sword doesn't work because of it.

ZekeArgo
2008-03-22, 01:49 AM
To be fair, it's not a problem until they say the dimensions of the imaginary sword for someone /else's/ imaginary avatar are wrong and the sword doesn't work because of it.

Perhaps, defiantly a point to consider there. Still, getting hung up over extremely small details like that just seems counter-intuitive to the whole "having fun" part of gaming.

Swordguy
2008-03-22, 02:33 AM
Perhaps, defiantly a point to consider there. Still, getting hung up over extremely small details like that just seems counter-intuitive to the whole "having fun" part of gaming.

Unfortunately, your super-cool sword may break my suspension of disbelief enough that it's measurably harder for me to have fun. Does your desire to have fun in your way outweigh my desire to have fun in my own?

That's what both sides are saying here, and they're fundamentally incompatible. I DO NOT have fun in D&D games where magic replaces technology, and lots of things can only be justified because "it's magic", or "it looks cool". I've got a very low tolerance for that. Obviously, Rutee has a much higher tolerance. If the tolerances are far enough apart, one person can't play with the other person without somebody (or, more likely, both parties) being unhappy.

And as long as one person isn't DMing for the other person, that's fine. Everybody gets their own opinion, after all. That's what viewing art is all about - your personal reaction to it and opinion of it. Neither side is wrong here.

(Except people saying that the other side isn't a valid way to play. Those people are wrong. Oh, and Rutee too, because I disagree with your side of the discussion, and disagreement with me automatically means you're wrong. :smalltongue: :smallwink: )

That said, I have a side question. If the respective players of both of these upstanding adventurers says that they're clad in 1/2-plate, and has 1/2-plate written on their sheet with all the modifiers etc., are you OK with both of these images as PC portraits? Or are you going to tell one PC that the outfit depicted is, in fact, NOT 1/2-plate? It's the same argument, but moved away from the sword focus that has people riled.


http://i115.photobucket.com/albums/n294/wolffe42/shroud1_lo-res.jpg
http://i115.photobucket.com/albums/n294/wolffe42/bm_shyla_queen_l07.jpg

Rockphed
2008-03-22, 02:47 AM
That said, I have a side question. If the respective players of both of these upstanding adventurers says that they're clad in 1/2-plate, and has 1/2-plate written on their sheet with all the modifiers etc., are you OK with both of these images as PC portraits? Or are you going to tell one PC that the outfit depicted is, in fact, NOT 1/2-plate? It's the same argument, but moved away from the sword focus that has people riled.


http://i115.photobucket.com/albums/n294/wolffe42/shroud1_lo-res.jpg
http://i115.photobucket.com/albums/n294/wolffe42/bm_shyla_queen_l07.jpg


I would tell the second one that it wasn't half-plate, but part of that is because I frown upon running around with almost no clothes on. If they wanted to use that picture for a breastplate, I might let them.

Swordguy
2008-03-22, 02:55 AM
I would tell the second one that it wasn't half-plate, but part of that is because I frown upon running around with almost no clothes on. If they wanted to use that picture for a breastplate, I might let them.

(Being intentionally pedantic here, as I agree with you, but this has been mentioned in the thread before)

But, if all that matters are the mechanics, then why DON'T you let the second one be 1/2-plate! The numbers are all there on the sheet! After all, mechanics are the only part that really matters!

*Ahem*. I also point out that I can make that same argument if the portrait is of a naked person, as long as they're taking the encumburance penalties (etc) on their character sheet.

The reason I bring this up is that the second pic clearly doesn't reasonably meet the requirements of being 1/2-plate, as described in the PHB. Yet I can apply the rule of cool and just "say" that it is. There's not as much wiggle room of "well, maybe I could use this sword" as in the previous examples. The second set of armor clearly has minimal protective value, and very few would coherently argue that it's worthy of the +7 to AC when an armor that covers even more of the body made of the same material could have the same or even smaller number.

Rutee
2008-03-22, 03:04 AM
Who exactly started with the "Your subjective opinion is wrong"? Because the only reason I've bothered saying it is because other people constantly repeated it. Which itself probably started because of someone else...

Swordguy
2008-03-22, 03:30 AM
Who exactly started with the "Your subjective opinion is wrong"? Because the only reason I've bothered saying it is because other people constantly repeated it. Which itself probably started because of someone else...

Does it matter that much?

Rutee
2008-03-22, 03:41 AM
Yeah, it does, since my clearly sarcastic statement got interpreted as non-sarcasm, and the tone that had been established for pages continued.

Swordguy
2008-03-22, 03:51 AM
Yeah, it does, since my clearly sarcastic statement got interpreted as non-sarcasm, and the tone that had been established for pages continued.

Ah. Then may I recommend these for future use?



I've gotten in trouble enough on other forums to start using these regularly if it's not crystal clear from the text of the post itself that when I'm saying is sarcastic.



All that aside, this is still a valid point:

Unfortunately, your super-cool sword may break my suspension of disbelief enough that it's measurably harder for me to have fun. Does your desire to have fun in your way outweigh my desire to have fun in my own?


Especially when in response to commentary like this:

Only the most anal-retentive blowhards would get into a huff because the dimensions of imaginary swords for their imaginary avatars in a supremely magical world don't mesh 100% with those used in the real world.

Moreover, any commentary about art at ALL is going to run into this problem, because people like different things in their art. Really, then, this thread was just a flamewar waiting to happen, because no agreement or reconcilliation between opposing viewpoints is possible from the start.

Spiryt
2008-03-22, 04:57 AM
I don't know what's more depressing: how terrible that looks, or the fact that it's STILL better than any picture of Mialee I've seen. Ever. :smalleek:

What do you want from poor Sovellis? :smalleek:

His outfit looks just OK for fantasy standards, save maybe his bare right hand.

All starting ranger packages in PHB II have 8 charisma, he most certainly has to. Thus his face is ugly, and he generally looks uncharismatic.

That's quite convincingly drawn character.

Artemician
2008-03-22, 05:03 AM
Moreover, any commentary about art at ALL is going to run into this problem, because people like different things in their art. Really, then, this thread was just a flamewar waiting to happen, because no agreement or reconcilliation between opposing viewpoints is possible from the start.

Not true. I used to be a realism nut too, but my viewpoint gradually changed to its current "If it's cool, it can bend the laws of physics" viewpoint. Emphasis on bend, not break. I still place a high emphasis on realism, but my viewpoint has definitely shifted. Reconciliation has occurred.

AslanCross
2008-03-22, 08:41 AM
Maybe it was in 3.0, but I could have sworn his initial picture in the class chapter for the Ranger class was decent.

Right, this one. (http://www.wizards.com/dnd/images/ph35_gallery/PHB35_PG46_WEB.jpg)

Hmmm...

I'd argue he doesn't look TERRIBLE. A little dopey, but nowhere near Mialee fugly.

Soveliss at least looks decent in other portrayals. Mialee sadly doesn't. :( (Okay, she does in like...exactly three depictions of her: David Hudnut's art of her on the cover of Heroes of Battle and in the illustration of the regroup spell in PHB2, and Ron Spencer's artwork of prismatic bow in Complete Mage.)

...I think the full-page one in PHB2 with her back turned is okay.

Morty
2008-03-22, 09:11 AM
Not true. I used to be a realism nut too, but my viewpoint gradually changed to its current "If it's cool, it can bend the laws of physics" viewpoint. Emphasis on bend, not break. I still place a high emphasis on realism, but my viewpoint has definitely shifted. Reconciliation has occurred.

Heh. With me, it's been the completely other way around; I once liked over-the-top weapons and armor, but at some point I started to appreciate more mundane-looking ones even in D&D, which was probably because I learned more about how weapons really worked. So yes, such discussions aren't purely bashing heads against a wall, but they're still preety pointless.

Artanis
2008-03-22, 10:56 AM
What do you want from poor Sovellis? :smalleek:

His outfit looks just OK for fantasy standards, save maybe his bare right hand.

All starting ranger packages in PHB II have 8 charisma, he most certainly has to. Thus his face is ugly, and he generally looks uncharismatic.

That's quite convincingly drawn character.
It's not so much the outfit as the fact that his body doesn't quite line up. The eyes are at different angles and levels (even when his head being turned is accounted for), his right shoulder is badly dislocated, and his right thigh is either broken or shriveled into near nothingness.

Starsinger
2008-03-22, 10:59 AM
Unfortunately, your super-cool sword may break my suspension of disbelief enough that it's measurably harder for me to have fun. Does your desire to have fun in your way outweigh my desire to have fun in my own?

Yes, because if you have a greatsword that's a boring piece of straight steel with maybe a bit of decoration on the hilt, and I have an absurd over-spiked greatsword, I can have fun regardless of what you're wielding. But you just said that you can't have fun based on what my character is doing in a purely "This is how I want my character to look" sort of way. So, since you can't have fun unless my aesthetic choices are okay by you, then yes my desire to have fun outweighs yours since your aesthetic choices can't stop me from having fun (Although if your character interesting aesthetic choices it can enhance my fun).


Real looking armor vs. Breasts and Plate
Sure, I'd let them. Especially if it's magic, masterwork, mithral, or some other combination of things which decrease check penalty, cuz y'know, it's not really my character why should I dictate how they look?

Tam_OConnor
2008-03-22, 11:23 AM
I've got to say on topic, that I love Wayne Reynold's art. Course, it seems like he does all the cover pieces, and not so much in the planning stuff.

Unless the second one has Asgardian half-plate (armor/weapons that look nonfunctional, but aren't), she's maybe *maybe* wearing a ceremonial breastplate. Maybe. With extra emphasis on the maybe.

I wonder if folks ever had debates like this about Alias' armor (http://forgottenrealms.wikia.com/wiki/Alias) or Dragonbait's sword? (http://forums.gleemax.com/images/avatars/TSR-Dragonbait.jpg)

Rutee
2008-03-22, 11:45 AM
Yes, because if you have a greatsword that's a boring piece of straight steel with maybe a bit of decoration on the hilt, and I have an absurd over-spiked greatsword, I can have fun regardless of what you're wielding. But you just said that you can't have fun based on what my character is doing in a purely "This is how I want my character to look" sort of way. So, since you can't have fun unless my aesthetic choices are okay by you, then yes my desire to have fun outweighs yours since your aesthetic choices can't stop me from having fun (Although if your character interesting aesthetic choices it can enhance my fun).
This is pretty much my view. I tend to go with the least exclusionary standards. If you can only have fun when everyone works your way, then my fun (Or the fun of someone else who likes things your way, but can accept mine) is in fact more important to me. It's about exclusionary fun standards.

On its face, mind, there's no problem. My aesthetics aren't /that/ important. The problem is this is symptomatic of a viewpoint which completely clashes with my own.


2 different pictures
Alright, for the sake of not breaking your point, I'm going to imagine no. 2 is someone in patently absurd armor that /doesn't/ involve strippers. Because no. 2 irritates me for reasons that have nothing to do with realism and everything to do with passing a certain line of stripperfic, and say yes.

Terraoblivion
2008-03-22, 12:14 PM
The problem with saying that a part of the game covered by mechanics makes it impossible for the players to know what to expect is that the mechanics already cover that. A greatsword in D&D, whether it looks realistic or not, only has a cursory similarity with how an actual greatsword worked. You couldn't hack away at an unconcious person with it for ages without him dying, which you can in D&D if you decide not to coup de grace him and just attack normally. Where different expectations of the world grow important is for the parts not covered by the system because these are purely based on the knowledge and common sense of the players. Here it breaks their ability to understand with the world because they don't understand the rules of what is going on. However, a genre can set such rules even if those rules are part of the system mechanics or anywhere similar to how the real world works. Just look at action movies for an example of the kind of rules set by genre.

As for having your fun impinged by the way others depict their characters, Swordguy, then i would say that you do in fact have less of a right to do that than they do to depict their sword the way they want, supposing no prior genre convention or preference of the group has been stated. Because if they are told that it is alright then you are getting offended by something basically harmless they are doing, whereas their fun will be impinged by the presence of your low tolerance. However, this is solely in a group where no genre or group preferences has been stated. If they have then you are in every right to be annoyed by someone who violates that.

EvilElitest
2008-03-22, 02:15 PM
He was crazy wrong. I have EE on Ignore! I hope he hasn't been bothering formulating responses to me, since they'll just languish. *Plays the worlds' smallest violin*

Just becaus you are hiding and not reading the responses doesn't make the responses any more wrong
from
EE

EvilElitest
2008-03-22, 02:22 PM
Outside of a science classroom(and sometimes inside it), I've found that any statistic that uses 99% or up is pretty much exaggeration. Plus, its really not that much of a stretch, as in the PHB chapters 2, 3, 4, 10, and 11 completely fall into this category, with major parts of chapters 1, 4, 5, and 6 also falling into it. That mean that 58 pages out of 303 do not directly deal with fantasy, which is about 19%, and thats not including and minor mentions from the 3 chapters left.

Well the statistic about gamers, not the game, which i know is totally unrealistic




And I think you can't make an argument based on logic, as this is a game where wizards fly and also craft magic items. Lets repeat that last part there: Magic Items. These items literally break the laws of physics all over the place(conservation of mass/energy, met decanter of endless water). So why can't they break the "laws" of designing swords? Heck, look at the silver swords of the githyanki for crying out loud(their the liquid ones). Talk about impossible weapons.:smallyuk:
1. Here is the thing, the deal with magic items and magic is that it is magic, its point is to break hte laws of physics and goes against the laws the logic. Magic follows its own rules. Basically we know it breaks the rules, that its point, it folows its own rules
2. However weapons and armor are based upon logic. It makes sense. People develop weapons because they make sense. gravity, and pointy weapons still effect people normally. If i want to use a two handed sword, it is because it is suppose to heavy and it hurts people harder and has longer range. I'd use a mace to hurt people wearing chain mail. I dig a trench to prevent horsemen from getting at me (and i putt spikes on the other sie
Weapons are made to be effective, and so every weapon should have a reason for every little change.
3. The Githyanki swords are made on a world without Gravity, but yeah they are really absurd looking things
from
EE

kpenguin
2008-03-22, 02:24 PM
I'm disappointed in you guys. You've only made two pages of progress since I went to sleep last night.

Starsinger
2008-03-22, 02:39 PM
Just becaus you are hiding and not reading the responses doesn't make the responses any more wrong
from
EE

I like the "more wrong" part, implying that you think they're wrong.

EvilElitest
2008-03-22, 02:51 PM
You know, I might actually think about adding that "Evil Ruteest" banner of Tengu's to my sig because of this thread.
______
And so, Tengu's plan to destroy the world will come to fruition
from
EE

EvilElitest
2008-03-22, 02:54 PM
I like the "more wrong" part, implying that you think they're wrong.
Rutee apparently thinks they are wrong, which is rather odd considering she hasn't read them. That is fine, so Rutee, enlighten us, why are they wrong? Because apparently, you know they are wrong, without reading them, so that is an indication of your option of me. Which is something that isn't suppose to be carried between threads but whatever, more to the point, if these responses are so pathetic and obviously incorrect that you aren't even going to respond, then it shouldn't take you very long to prove how right you are. Of course you can't do that if your hiding behind an ignore list, so that means that my wrong and lying statements are being spread throughout the internet for all to see.
from
EE

Ka-ther Fangfoot
2008-03-22, 02:57 PM
How about we try a little thought exercise. Let's say the sword is a magic sword. Since everyone seems to agree that it is o.k. for magic to break the laws of physics, our magic sword can too. Now all that matters is what each person thinks is the best looking sword for their character. :smallsmile:

(Though I personally think the "bland" sword looks better, I can understand that some people like having extra-spikiness.)

GammaPaladin
2008-03-22, 03:03 PM
1. Here is the thing, the deal with magic items and magic is that it is magic, its point is to break hte laws of physics and goes against the laws the logic. Magic follows its own rules. Basically we know it breaks the rules, that its point, it folows its own rules
2. However weapons and armor are based upon logic. It makes sense. People develop weapons because they make sense. gravity, and pointy weapons still effect people normally. If i want to use a two handed sword, it is because it is suppose to heavy and it hurts people harder and has longer range. I'd use a mace to hurt people wearing chain mail. I dig a trench to prevent horsemen from getting at me (and i putt spikes on the other sie
Weapons are made to be effective, and so every weapon should have a reason for every little change.
3. The Githyanki swords are made on a world without Gravity, but yeah they are really absurd looking things
from
EE
How do you know the sword doesn't have to be shaped all funny in order to properly absorb and utilize the magical energy of it's enchantments?

Seriously, what I find funny is that, typically (Not universally), the people who want their weapons to be realistic are 30+ year old (Generally 40+, but...) gamers who pine for the glory days of 1E or 2E, and are often SCA-nerds.

Basically a bunch of old fogeys muttering about the kids these days and their durn video games and anime. ;)

EvilElitest
2008-03-22, 03:05 PM
Heres the thing though: if it looks like a sword, and the player feels his character is enriched by using something that he believes will make him appear "cooler", then it should work, because this is a game and to my mind, games are about doing cool stuff to have a good time.

Why would you ever develop such a sword? No advantages are gained, with a massive amount of disadvantages. There is no logical reason to have such an absurd blade



Only the most anal-retentive blowhards would get into a huff because the dimensions of imaginary swords for their imaginary avatars in a supremely magical world don't mesh 100% with those used in the real world.
Wow, classy making a personal attack on everybody who disagrees with you using your ego as the basis of justifying such an attack, how, um, feeble?

Couldn't i simply say "Only the most anal-whining blowhards get into a huff when faced with the absurdities of such weapon, most likely because admitting such an absurdity would ruin their ability to imagine themselves wielding Final Fantasy swords."

I could make such a claim with the same manner, however that would be taking an entire group of people, insulting them deeply based upon nothing more than me being a bastard, and then insult everybody's intelligence by acting like that is even remotely valid. Insluting an entire group of people based upon a misinteretation of what they are saying is simply freaking rude
from
EE

Spiryt
2008-03-22, 03:06 PM
How about we try a little thought exercise. Let's say the sword is a magic sword. Since everyone seems to agree that it is o.k. for magic to break the laws of physics, our magic sword can too. Now all that matters is what each person thinks is the best looking sword for their character. :smallsmile:



That's a sign of rather primitive and unconcistent fantasy to me. If "magic
brakes the laws of physic" on that scale, and so easily why not take a stick, magic it, and kill with it? Why bother with sword?

Yes magic breaks the laws of physic. But in good* fantasy it doesn not allow to make any strange things lethal weapon. It's chaos et cetera after all.

* again, of course all IMO. IF someone has completely different oppinion, magic and "swordlike decours" will do anything in his settings. That's why this discussion is still pointless.

Farmer42
2008-03-22, 03:06 PM
As a 21 y/o SCA nerd who likes spikey weapons in fantasy art, I resent that remark.

EvilElitest
2008-03-22, 03:07 PM
How do you know the sword doesn't have to be shaped all funny in order to properly absorb and utilize the magical energy of it's enchantments?

Seriously, what I find funny is that, typically (Not universally), the people who want their weapons to be realistic are 30+ year old (Generally 40+, but...) gamers who pine for the glory days of 1E or 2E, and are often SCA-nerds.

Basically a bunch of old fogeys muttering about the kids these days and their durn video games and anime. ;)

1. Because non funny shaped swords can be equally magical maybe?
2. If the weapon still doesn't work, how does that make it any more effective normally.
3. I'm 16, so yeah, judgement there.
from
EE

Spiryt
2008-03-22, 03:15 PM
How do you know the sword doesn't have to be shaped all funny in order to properly absorb and utilize the magical energy of it's enchantments?

Seriously, what I find funny is that, typically (Not universally), the people who want their weapons to be realistic are 30+ year old (Generally 40+, but...) gamers who pine for the glory days of 1E or 2E, and are often SCA-nerds.

Basically a bunch of old fogeys muttering about the kids these days and their durn video games and anime. ;)

And I'm 19 so yes, that's the hell of argument here.

What's wrong with being 30+ and like 1e and SCA, by the way?

For my it means that they have some knowledge, and that's all :smalltongue:

Diamondeye
2008-03-22, 03:21 PM
Looking at the sword thing....

I can see both sides of the issue here. I don't consider the straight, real-looking weapon boring, but the serrated bizzare one isn't bad either. I could accept both as greatswords.

Now, if the serrated, bizarre-looking one is the one someone playing a first-level character is describing, they're going to have to have a pretty good reason why a non masterwork non magical weapon has that degree of complicated construction or I'm going to think it's lame at best, and suspect it's an inroad for pulling a fast one at worst.

Things like swords don't, for me, have to look absolutely realistic, but they do need to be internally consistent, and they do need to at least look like they make some sort of sense. the serrated blade is clearly more complicated to make than the straight one, fantasy or not, so I'm going to have issues if that's a beginning mercenary's weapon.

Spiryt
2008-03-22, 03:28 PM
Things like swords don't, for me, have to look absolutely realistic, but they do need to be internally consistent, and they do need to at least look like they make some sort of sense. the serrated blade is clearly more complicated to make than the straight one, fantasy or not, so I'm going to have issues if that's a beginning mercenary's weapon.


QFT.

Beacuse of damn character limit, here (http://www.myarmoury.com/nateb_swor_ia_ring.html?5) you have nice sword pics.

Scintillatus
2008-03-22, 03:31 PM
Assertion;

Weaponry is as much influenced by culture as it is by a process of improvement. A weapon (especially in a fantasy context) matches its culture. In the case of the Dragonborn; clawed, primal - in the case of the Tieflings; infernal, vicious.

As both of these cultures are "dead" (i.e. no new items are being produced based on the process used, and if they are, they are made for "style" or to replicate power, rather than as a conscious improvement of a weapon), it is a ridiculous argument to say that "this item is less effective".

It is clearly a relic of some kind - a modern-era weapon would use leather for the grip, metal instead of bone, et cetera.

If a Holy Avenger can have a jewelled hilt and pommel, or a cross-shaped guard, then a Dragonborn bastard-sword can be claw-like and curved.

This is basically just the whole "Katanas versus Longswords" argument, all over again. One side; it's Katanas! the other side; it's Longswords! The rest of us? "It's a SWORD, for the love of Bob."

Additional: Actually, I wouldn't be surprised if the whole THING wasn't bone, and that's some monster's claw.

horseboy
2008-03-22, 03:36 PM
No, not really. We're still stuck under the fact that magic can excuse things, and that this isn't the real world.

Notwithstanding that Dragons /aren't/ proportionally stronger. If anything, they're proportionally weaker, past a certain age.There's only so much that can be excused. For instance, the already brought up "How the Hell am I supposed to lug this around?" problem or the "Sure it's made out of a magical metal that can slice through other armours. Wait, if it can slice through my armour too then I need to make my armour out of it as well, whoops there's the arms race." problem. Then there's the "Just how fugly a weapon can you make? Seriously, what are you going to put spinners on that thing next?" problem and the ever popular "How the Hell can you even do that?" problem of being exclusionary fun. The art sets a tone for the system, and that art sets the tone of "Lawl, wz gotz purplez!" That to me doesn't say High fantasy.

Crap, I thought I hit reply before I went out.

I wonder if folks ever had debates like this about Alias' armor (http://forgottenrealms.wikia.com/wiki/Alias) or Dragonbait's sword? (http://forums.gleemax.com/images/avatars/TSR-Dragonbait.jpg)
Well, given that that's the armour the death cult dress Alias in in order to sacrifice "a warrior woman" by ripping out her heart, it's actually functional. :smallsmile: Saural hands are built differently than humans, as such their swords look different.

But yes, even back in 1st edition, when that Sivak ( I think it was a Sivak, might have been a Bozak) Draconian showed up with that serrated sword, people howled for blood until TSR retconned Krynn into having the ability to make such a weapon, though only to a select few great masters.

Rockphed
2008-03-22, 04:26 PM
Seriously, what I find funny is that, typically (Not universally), the people who want their weapons to be realistic are 30+ year old (Generally 40+, but...) gamers who pine for the glory days of 1E or 2E, and are often SCA-nerds.

Realism barely enters my thought process. What I dislike is that the art is going way over the top when a more restrained style would actually be cooler. For instance, that horrible Dragonborn's sword. If it were actually made out of a monster's tooth or claw, it would be cool. As it is, it looks like the illegitimate child of a machete and a katana with some falchion thrown in.

Some people have pointed to both the Falx (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Falx) and khopesh (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Khopesh) as inspirations, and it could be so. But both of those carry cultural connotations (egypt for the Khopesh, rome for the Falx) which can be exploited to achieve more flavorful results. Hmmm, a Khopesh would be a pretty cool weapon to stat out...

Spiryt
2008-03-22, 04:34 PM
If it were actually made out of a monster's tooth or claw, it would be cool. As it is, it looks like the illegitimate child of a machete and a katana with some falchion thrown in.


If it were so, it would be somewhat okay...

But unfortunately it looks like some finesse door furniture mounted on some bones. I can't actually imagine it in motion. Let alone cutting trough something.
That's the problem.

tyckspoon
2008-03-22, 04:35 PM
Realism barely enters my thought process. What I dislike is that the art is going way over the top when a more restrained style would actually be cooler. For instance, that horrible Dragonborn's sword. If it were actually made out of a monster's tooth or claw, it would be cool. As it is, it looks like the illegitimate child of a machete and a katana with some falchion thrown in.

Some people have pointed to both the Falx (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Falx) and khopesh (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Khopesh) as inspirations, and it could be so. But both of those carry cultural connotations (egypt for the Khopesh, rome for the Falx) which can be exploited to achieve more flavorful results. Hmmm, a Khopesh would be a pretty cool weapon to stat out...

..huh? So.. sticking a claw on a handle and using that as a weapon = cool, but making a sword that imitates that = horrible weapon? The cognitive dissonance, she is shaking my brains.

As cultural connotations go, I'm pretty sure it's supposed to evoke dragons. Ya know, with the talon-shaped weapon and being a dragonborn and whatnot.

Starsinger
2008-03-22, 04:37 PM
Some people have pointed to both the Falx (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Falx) and khopesh (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Khopesh) as inspirations, and it could be so. But both of those carry cultural connotations (egypt for the Khopesh, rome for the Falx) which can be exploited to achieve more flavorful results. Hmmm, a Khopesh would be a pretty cool weapon to stat out...

They can't have dragonborn culture as an inspiration?

EvilElitest
2008-03-22, 04:37 PM
I think FR did the Khopish but i'm not sure
from
EE

EvilElitest
2008-03-22, 04:42 PM
..huh? So.. sticking a claw on a handle and using that as a weapon = cool, but making a sword that imitates that = horrible weapon? The cognitive dissonance, she is shaking my brains.

As cultural connotations go, I'm pretty sure it's supposed to evoke dragons. Ya know, with the talon-shaped weapon and being a dragonborn and whatnot.

Evoking dragons makes it a decoration weapon, one that shouldn't be used in combat. As this guy is a warrior, it seems rather silly. For the tieflings it gets even worst.


They can't have dragonborn culture as an inspiration
Is absurdly unwieldy swords a requirement?
from
EE

Spiryt
2008-03-22, 04:44 PM
I think FR did the Khopish but i'm not sure
from
EE

Yes, they did. Just little more damaging scimitar, if I recall. As most exotic weapons, a complete waste of feat.

EvilElitest
2008-03-22, 05:07 PM
Yes, they did. Just little more damaging scimitar, if I recall. As most exotic weapons, a complete waste of feat.

not even any trip or beheading powers? Damn
from
EE

horseboy
2008-03-22, 05:09 PM
Yes, they did. Just little more damaging scimitar, if I recall. As most exotic weapons, a complete waste of feat.I heard there was one in the desert supplement, too. Something about it being a trip weapon.

WrstDmEvr
2008-03-22, 05:09 PM
IMO, as long as they can do identical functions, they are identical weapons. For example, the two greatswords used earlier:
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v299/pawnoffate/greatsword1.jpg
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v299/pawnoffate/greatsword.jpg

1. Can both weapons stab?

#2 without a doubt can. #1 is a bit of a stretch, but I imagine if it is sharpened it might be able to do something

2. Can both weapons slash?

Again, #2 probably can. #1, however, is uncapable of doing so, as it is cylindrical.

3. Can both weapons potentially block another sword in combat?

#2, yes. Definately not #1, as that thing is ridiculously thin.

Conclusion: #2 is a viable sword; #1 is not, so I would rule you must take a penalty for improvised weaponry.

Swordguy
2008-03-22, 05:12 PM
This is pretty much my view. I tend to go with the least exclusionary standards. If you can only have fun when everyone works your way, then my fun (Or the fun of someone else who likes things your way, but can accept mine) is in fact more important to me. It's about exclusionary fun standards.


*Recalls commentary from multiple alignment threads*

So...it's OK to play a character that requires other players to behave a certain way (regardless on the impact is has on their fun) but it's not OK for a player to ask for a non-over-the-top design asthetic because it might have an impact on other people's fun? I just want to be clear here, because it sure SOUNDS like what you're (not just you) saying is that it's OK to force other people into playing in a certain style, but it's not OK to ask them to conform to a design asthetic that has nothing to do with actual game mechanics.

Also...how many of you people arguing against "practicality" as a design asthetic play Exalted?




Alright, for the sake of not breaking your point, I'm going to imagine no. 2 is someone in patently absurd armor that /doesn't/ involve strippers. Because no. 2 irritates me for reasons that have nothing to do with realism and everything to do with passing a certain line of stripperfic, and say yes.

OK. So if what she's shown wearing has no bearing on what's on the sheet, why can't she be COMPLETELY NAKED? Still getting that nifty +7 to AC, and taking the movement and ACP penalties of course, but pictured completely naked, so nobody who looks at her can tell she's wearing armor?

Somebody else earlier mentioned using a car antenna as a perfectly viable greatsword if they felt it was cool. I'm going to steal that and use it to illustrate this example.

DM: You see before you, in the burial chamber, that someone has beaten you there. A tall, nude woman stands in front of you, holding a long silver rod in her hands that looks nothing so much like a car antenna. At your approach, she straightens and turns toward you. A feral grin breaks over her face, and she charges at you, screaming in rage.
Players: She's naked and attacking us? Easy target.
-later-
Players: Why weren't we hitting her? And how was she doing so much damage?
DM: Well, she had 1/2-plate and a greatsword...it's just that i felt the Rule of Cool took precendence and made the armor not present and the sword look like an antenna.
Players: Dammit! Had we known she was armed and armored, we wouldn't have engaged her!

Spiryt
2008-03-22, 05:13 PM
not even any trip or beheading powers? Damn
from
EE

Nope, sorry, it has just 19 - 20 crit, but indeed has Trip.

On side note, it's weird that you can trip with kopesh, which is still rather short sword, but can't with greataxe. I guess that's beacuse designers had no idea how two handed axe looks like (those horrible things from PHB) - that's another flaw of silly looking weaponry.

Rutee
2008-03-22, 05:15 PM
There's only so much that can be excused. For instance, the already brought up "How the Hell am I supposed to lug this around?" problem or the "Sure it's made out of a magical metal that can slice through other armours. Wait, if it can slice through my armour too then I need to make my armour out of it as well, whoops there's the arms race." problem. Then there's the "Just how fugly a weapon can you make? Seriously, what are you going to put spinners on that thing next?" problem and the ever popular "How the Hell can you even do that?" problem of being exclusionary fun. The art sets a tone for the system, and that art sets the tone of "Lawl, wz gotz purplez!" That to me doesn't say High fantasy.

Crap, I thought I hit reply before I went out.
It's the game that started loot whoring. When has there not been an arms race?

Anyway, you're not saying much that requires a response. "I don't like it", fine, "I wouldn't be able to have fun with that in my game because it's physically impossible", understandable.


That's a sign of rather primitive and unconcistent fantasy to me. If "magic
brakes the laws of physic" on that scale, and so easily why not take a stick, magic it, and kill with it? Why bother with sword?
That would be a Quarterstaff or club. Why bother with a sword? Given a difference of 1 damage? Aesthetics, or you're fighting stuff with DR /Slashing.

Spiryt
2008-03-22, 05:21 PM
That would be a Quarterstaff or club. Why bother with a sword? Given a difference of 1 damage? Aesthetics, or you're fighting stuff with DR /Slashing.


Nope. By that logic of 'coolness' stick can be a sword. If that dragonborn thing can be called a sword, baseball bat or poker could be as well. That's the whole point.

StGlebidiah
2008-03-22, 05:33 PM
Bumblebee

It's one thing to have a differing opinion about what is cool or not, or whatever the heck you guys are arguing about - I've lost track.

It's quite another to want your system based on reality, and have no freakin' clue how reality works in the first place. Do you have ANY IDEA how bumblebees actually fly? It was a mystery until something like twenty years ago, and one of the most wonderfully confusing problems in fluid mechanics! I know you won't believe me, but if our basis is reality then this is COMPLETELY and UTTERLY NO WAY a DRAGON could EVER fly the same way a bumblebee does. There are a great many very good reasons why nothing larger than a hummingbird even approaches this mode of flight, and hummingbirds differ significantly from insects already.

Wooter
2008-03-22, 05:38 PM
No it can't. A sword is made of metal (or some other strong material that can hold an edge), longer than it is wide, has at least one sharp edge, and is larger than a dagger. I think we can all agree to those terms.

horseboy
2008-03-22, 05:40 PM
Anyway, you're not saying much that requires a response. "I don't like it", fine, "I wouldn't be able to have fun with that in my game because it's physically impossible", understandable.Within genre expectations, yeah, pretty much.

GammaPaladin
2008-03-22, 05:50 PM
See, from my point of view (And RAW, btw), the appearance of a weapon has no effect on it's mechanical abilities whatsoever. I can describe my weapon in any way I like. It doesn't change what's written on the character sheet. I can take a greatsword as a weapon and describe it as an uprooted tree trunk. Mechanically it's still a great sword, and does slashing damage. By RAW, this is perfectly acceptable.

Now, personally I'd probably buy a Greathammer or big ass club or something just because I like to have my damage type match the appearance of my weapon, but there's nothing in the RAW that requires me to do that.

And yes, it's perfectly acceptable to pick up a stick, enchant it, and by the rules, it's just as effective as any other magical weapon. Granted, you need a sufficient skill in Craft (Woodwork) or whatever to make that stick into a masterwork stick, but still.

horseboy
2008-03-22, 05:56 PM
DM: You see before you, in the burial chamber, that someone has beaten you there. A tall, nude woman stands in front of you, holding a long silver rod in her hands that looks nothing so much like a car antenna. At your approach, she straightens and turns toward you. A feral grin breaks over her face, and she charges at you, screaming in rage.
Players: She's naked and attacking us? Easy target.
-later-
Players: Why weren't we hitting her? And how was she doing so much damage?
DM: Well, she had 1/2-plate and a greatsword...it's just that i felt the Rule of Cool took precendence and made the armor not present and the sword look like an antenna.
Players: Dammit! Had we known she was armed and armored, we wouldn't have engaged her!DM: Oh yeah, she's also an ogre, but they're ugly and no one wants to deal with ugly things, so now all monsters will be hot, naked women.
:smallwink:

Swordguy
2008-03-22, 06:01 PM
DM: Oh yeah, she's also an ogre, but they're ugly and no one wants to deal with ugly things, so now all monsters will be hot, naked women.
:smallwink:

Exactly. Without clear, consistent descriptions that players can all easily understand, the players have no way to make intelligent choices.

Sure, you can decide that that tree trunk in the ogre's hand is really a "greatsword" and does slashing damage...but what happens when your players take the logical route and come up with defenses against BLUNT damage because it's a bloody tree trunk. You've screwed your players because they made a logical assumption based around the description that you as the GM gave them. You said "tree trunk", so they thought (logically) "bludgeoning damage".

THAT'S where the Rule of Cool breaks down. If it's so "cool" as to no longer be recognizable as the item it's supposed to be, then it's wrong. Your players have only your description to go on, and giving them a misleading description (tree trunk=/=greatsword) is cheating your players out of a fair experience.

Rutee
2008-03-22, 06:06 PM
*Recalls commentary from multiple alignment threads*

So...it's OK to play a character that requires other players to behave a certain way (regardless on the impact is has on their fun) but it's not OK for a player to ask for a non-over-the-top design asthetic because it might have an impact on other people's fun? I just want to be clear here, because it sure SOUNDS like what you're (not just you) saying is that it's OK to force other people into playing in a certain style, but it's not OK to ask them to conform to a design asthetic that has nothing to do with actual game mechanics.

Also...how many of you people arguing against "practicality" as a design asthetic play Exalted?

I know you're not talking about paladins. I've stated repeatedly that I despise what they do to IC and OOC party dynamics, and I've said at least once that I would run them in a significantly more liberal fashion /precisely because/ it's not fun for either the paladin or the other party members for the Paladin to lose their powers because of others' actions.

The problem being that you must be talking about Paladins because that's the only comparable class... And unless you're looking to make a comment along the lines of what I said to Horseboy ("You play Rolemaster; We know you want gritty reality"), what difference does it make what games some of us play?


Nope. By that logic of 'coolness' stick can be a sword. If that dragonborn thing can be called a sword, baseball bat or poker could be as well. That's the whole point.
If Baseball Bats or Pokers come with blades, sure. I'm pretty sure they don't. That was pretty much the rough extent of what I was looking for, at a glance.

MeklorIlavator
2008-03-22, 06:06 PM
Well, if your consistent in your usage, then it is not a problem. As long as all orges are describes in nearly the same terminology, all tree trunks do slashing, all greatswords look like car antenna, etc, then everything should be fine(assuming you talk with your players about it before hand).

Spiryt
2008-03-22, 06:08 PM
If Baseball Bats or Pokers come with blades, sure. I'm pretty sure they don't.

I wonder where that V



http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v299/pawnoffate/greatsword1.jpg


have a blade...

Rutee
2008-03-22, 06:12 PM
I wonder where that V


have a blade...

Where it does have a blade, or where it would? Because the actual 'sword' is decorative, and likely does not. Where it would have a blade? Isn't a serrated part by definition a blade? Are you really asking me that simple a question?

Swordguy
2008-03-22, 06:15 PM
.

The problem being that you must be talking about Paladins because that's the only comparable class... And unless you're looking to make a comment along the lines of what I said to Horseboy ("You play Rolemaster; We know you want gritty reality"), what difference does it make what games some of us play?


If you're willing to ignore (or at least be insultingly dismissive of) his commentary based on the games he prefers, why shouldn't we do it with you?




Well, if your consistent in your usage, then it is not a problem. As long as all orges are describes in nearly the same terminology, all tree trunks do slashing, all greatswords look like car antenna, etc, then everything should be fine(assuming you talk with your players about it before hand).

And as long as you do that, I think it's fine. That's not what generally happens, though. And, of course, you'll have to deal with the impact of players not knowing how ANYTHING really works, because if you're completely ignoring realism they have no frame of reference whatsoever on anything in the game beyond what you tell them. Enjoy that really, really long conversation...

Rutee
2008-03-22, 06:16 PM
"I know your opinion, don't bother explaining. You play Rolemaster" is insulting or dismissive? Especially considerring he's made this viewpoint abundantly clear in repeated threads? And especially since he was using his subjective viewpoint to state someone else's was objectively wrong?

Scintillatus
2008-03-22, 06:17 PM
I invoke the power of Dictionary, since you people won't listen to the argument from cultural influence.

"A weapon with a long sharp metal blade and a handle, used especially in the past."

Long sharp metal blade? Yup. Handle? Yup. Eurocentric medieval stylings? Nope. Notice how that part isn't in the definition?

I know it feels good to use the slippery slope/strawman fallacy combo of "lols, I get to call a car antenna a sword then?", but witty bull**** doesn't make you right, chums. Swords do not have to be used for stabbing, or else scimitars are immediately turned into small pointy twigs.

Spiryt
2008-03-22, 06:20 PM
Where it does have a blade, or where it would? Because the actual 'sword' is decorative, and likely does not. Where it would have a blade? Isn't a serrated part by definition a blade? Are you really asking me that simple a question?

And again, the whole point is that by 'definition' it can ever be a giutar. It certainly can't be a blade with all those weird spies, or whatever it is. Poker would cut better, and thus could be considered sword. Why not, it looks more like one, even if it has round cross-section, some swords have eliptic cross sections.


I invoke the power of Dictionary, since you people won't listen to the argument from cultural influence.

"A weapon with a long sharp metal blade and a handle, used especially in the past."

Long sharp metal blade? Yup. Handle? Yup. Eurocentric medieval stylings? Nope. Notice how that part isn't in the definition?


It's not about cultural influence, it's about fundamental sense. Dragonborn sword have no sense. It's not witty bull****.

Swordguy
2008-03-22, 06:24 PM
"I know your opinion, don't bother explaining. You play Rolemaster" is insulting or dismissive? Especially considerring he's made this viewpoint abundantly clear in repeated threads? And especially since he was using his subjective viewpoint to state someone else's was objectively wrong?

Yes. Yes it is. Especially the "don't bother explaining" part. It's the only portion of this thread that has seriously ticked me off, because you've made it clear you aren't even interested in listening to what he has to say. It's not...quite...flaming, but it's certainly dismissive, in the textbook definition of such. You are literally "dismissing" his opinions out of hand, based on his choice of games.

So, again, if you're willing to be dismissive of someone's points because of their game choice, why shouldn't we have the same attitude toward you (as an Exalted fan)?

GammaPaladin
2008-03-22, 06:24 PM
Exactly. Without clear, consistent descriptions that players can all easily understand, the players have no way to make intelligent choices.

Sure, you can decide that that tree trunk in the ogre's hand is really a "greatsword" and does slashing damage...but what happens when your players take the logical route and come up with defenses against BLUNT damage because it's a bloody tree trunk. You've screwed your players because they made a logical assumption based around the description that you as the GM gave them. You said "tree trunk", so they thought (logically) "bludgeoning damage".

THAT'S where the Rule of Cool breaks down. If it's so "cool" as to no longer be recognizable as the item it's supposed to be, then it's wrong. Your players have only your description to go on, and giving them a misleading description (tree trunk=/=greatsword) is cheating your players out of a fair experience.
Gosh, it prevents players from metagaming? What a tragedy...

Seriously, personally if I get to the bottom of the dungeon and there's a naked chick with a car antenna there who's looted the room, I'm going to be thinking "This chick is a badass. She walked through a monster/demon infested dungeon naked with a car antenna and doesn't have a scratch on her. She can probably destroy me without breaking a sweat. Maybe we should try diplomacy. Or run like hell."

Swordguy
2008-03-22, 06:25 PM
Gosh, it prevents players from metagaming? What a tragedy...

How is that metagaming?

Rutee
2008-03-22, 06:27 PM
Yes. Yes it is. Especially the "don't bother explaining" part. It's the only portion of this thread that has seriously ticked me off, because you've made it clear you aren't even interested in listening to what he has to say. It's not...quite...flaming, but it's certainly dismissive, in the textbook definition of such. You are literally "dismissing" his opinions out of hand, based on his choice of games.
It couldn't possibly be that I /already know/, and that I'm trying to save him some typing time. No, golly gee, it had to be that I wasn't paying attention to him in other threads, and don't already know how he feels on the subject, barring a complete reversal on his stance?

Only on the internet do people have the temerity to dictate your intention to you, just as you nearly did by stating that I was perfectly fine with Paladins treading on other people's playstyle. Wanna tell me how I feel right now, while you're at it?


And again, the whole point is that by 'definition' it can ever be a giutar. It certainly can't be a blade with all those weird spies, or whatever it is. Poker would cut better, and thus could be considered sword. Why not, it looks more like one, even if it has round cross-section, some swords have eliptic cross sections.


Pokers don't have blades, so they still don't meet that definition.

And no, Guitars can't be swords. They're axes (http://i81.photobucket.com/albums/j227/RuteeKatreya/epic-bard2.jpg).

:smallbiggrin:

Swordguy
2008-03-22, 06:29 PM
It couldn't possibly be that I /already know/, and that I'm trying to save him some typing time.

Only on the internet do people have the temerity to dictate your intention to you.

Heh. Only when your intention is "wrong". :smalltongue:

Insert those sarcasm tags around that statement, btw.

Anywho, I'm off to relatives for Easter. Have fun kids!

GammaPaladin
2008-03-22, 06:33 PM
How is that metagaming?
You mean, assuming that a humanoid in no armor has a 10 AC and should be easy pickings? Or that the antenna in her hand isn't somehow uberdeath enchanted?

You're totally making assumptions based on the appearance of things being tied to the mechanics... You're thinking like a gamer, not like someone who just stumbled into a dark room at the bottom of a horrifying, difficult dungeon, to find a naked chick who apparently wtfpwnd everything between the surface and here without a scratch.

The character in that situation is going to be thinking that this chick must be some sort of supernatural creature/demon/uber mage of PC-slaying. Immediately sizing up the situation and going "We can take her, I bet she drops phat lewt!" is totally metagaming.

Matthew
2008-03-22, 06:45 PM
This all goes back to the "how real is your fantasy?" sidebar in the DMG. Unless you explicitly tell your players or audience that X does not work like it does in the real world, there is no reason for them to assume that it does not.

That said, people have different aesthetic preferences and they want to see their preferences reflected in the art. I find simplicity much more aesthetically appealing than ornamentation; I like for things to appear functional and for magical exceptions to be exceptions, rather than the default.

D20 has taken the stance from the beginning that it's placing its emphasis on the 'fantastic' and paying only the most fleeting lip service to historicity (there was an article on the subject back in 2000, but it's long disappeared). I find that art of 3e to be, by and large, boring and from what we have seen so far of 4e, I expect that trend to continue.

It's no big deal for me, since I am even less likely to buy into D20 2e than D20 1e (I have a few D20 books), but I can see how it would be a big deal for people with a similar aesthetic to mine who expect to or want to buy into D20 2e.

horseboy
2008-03-22, 07:21 PM
It couldn't possibly be that I /already know/, and that I'm trying to save him some typing time. No, golly gee, it had to be that I wasn't paying attention to him in other threads, and don't already know how he feels on the subject, barring a complete reversal on his stance?
For the record, that was largely how I saw your response. I know you didn't mean anything by it, and gave the winky smile to imply that I understood it and was okay. We both just like to argue.

Terraoblivion
2008-03-22, 07:52 PM
Thanks Matthew. Seems like someone, and definitely not me, passed the sanity check in this thread. Basically what Matthew said was what i had tried to say, even as i got into being too annoyed to do it properly, if people like things to look in one way they should be allowed to if it fits the style and theme of the genre. There is no need to demand that people stick to realistic or fantastic weapons unless there has been made a genre styling saying one or the other.

Also this thread makes me wonder how much time people spend on describing their swords. I mean i have literally never heard anybody describe the sword they used beyond the size, the degree of decoration and any specific heraldic on it. Might just be me not playing with weapons geeks, who knows.

horseboy
2008-03-22, 08:03 PM
Also this thread makes me wonder how much time people spend on describing their swords. I mean i have literally never heard anybody describe the sword they used beyond the size, the degree of decoration and any specific heraldic on it. Might just be me not playing with weapons geeks, who knows.Well, at some point in time the DM will generally need to describe said loot, or if I really like my character I tend to draw stuff about him, even though I don't draw well. Swords, scabbards, Heraldic icons and such being the most common.

Terraoblivion
2008-03-22, 08:16 PM
I guess i differ from you in that. If i were to draw things relating to my character it would above all be the character herself, but in addition to that it would be most likely to be heraldic symbols, pets and people important to her in some form or another. Equipment would be entirely incidental to the pose i drew my character in.

Now i feel bad enough about my abilities at drawing that i never draw. If i look at the way i describe my characters i would most likely spend more time describing a set of court clothes that might get used once by the character than the weapon all my battles are fought with.

horseboy
2008-03-22, 08:44 PM
I guess i differ from you in that. If i were to draw things relating to my character it would above all be the character herself, but in addition to that it would be most likely to be heraldic symbols, pets and people important to her in some form or another. Equipment would be entirely incidental to the pose i drew my character in.
Yes, but things are easier to draw than people. Hence why I don't draw full characters that often.

Bleen
2008-03-22, 09:12 PM
stuff about greatswords and tree trunks that's annoying to scroll through all of several times just to see or skip my short response
Such absurd leaps of logic should never happen.

To an extent, you can fit various descriptions of weapon into one type of "weapon" mechanics-wise. They are still required to, yaknow, somehow resemble the weapon you're using the mechanics are supporting. Anyone and everyone looking at our Dragonborn friend should be able to go "o hay dats a big sword big enough to be a greatsword or something" - because yes, there is a standard to judge it by. It's a long, sharp object with a handle that you stab and/or slash people with. And you don't typically hold it by the sharp end.

So yes, some variance in weapon descriptions is allowed. If you lack the common sense to properly dictate what category a weapon should fall under by its design, then you have worse things to worry about when it comes to RP.

As an aside, most of my chatacters, upon seeing a naked woman in a dungeon wielding a car antenna, would probably assume that said person is mentally-impaired in some way, because "lacking but got extremely lucky or is there by chance" is more likely than "Not needing", and the extreme case of the former is usually a cause of being utterly insane.

GammaPaladin
2008-03-22, 09:27 PM
Thanks Matthew. Seems like someone, and definitely not me, passed the sanity check in this thread. Basically what Matthew said was what i had tried to say, even as i got into being too annoyed to do it properly, if people like things to look in one way they should be allowed to if it fits the style and theme of the genre. There is no need to demand that people stick to realistic or fantastic weapons unless there has been made a genre styling saying one or the other.

Also this thread makes me wonder how much time people spend on describing their swords. I mean i have literally never heard anybody describe the sword they used beyond the size, the degree of decoration and any specific heraldic on it. Might just be me not playing with weapons geeks, who knows.
I draw my characters all the time, and I like to go into detail when I do.

Beyond which, I like to use the spiked chain and it's derivatives, for purely mechanical reasons. However, unless I'm playing a street thug (Which I actually AM, in one game), I'm probably going to change its appearance significantly. For instance, the character I submitted for a gestalt goblins game, and the character I'm playing in the Bo9S discipline tournament both use Drow Scorpion Chains. Mechanically anyway.

Flavor-wise, the goblin wields a gauntlet with a coiled up metal filament inside it. It's still a slashing reach weapon that can strike adjacent and be used to trip or disarm. I'm just describing it differently.

The same goes for my character in the kumite. He wields a "segmented sword" which when swung can expand, revealing the segments are connected by a chain which expands and contracts. Admittedly, this is entirely derived from Ivy's sword in Soul Calibur. I just thought it would be cool, and the Scorpion Chain mechanics work nicely for it.


Such absurd leaps of logic should never happen.

To an extent, you can fit various descriptions of weapon into one type of "weapon" mechanics-wise. They are still required to, yaknow, somehow resemble the weapon you're using the mechanics are supporting. Anyone and everyone looking at our Dragonborn friend should be able to go "o hay dats a big sword big enough to be a greatsword or something" - because yes, there is a standard to judge it by. It's a long, sharp object with a handle that you stab and/or slash people with. And you don't typically hold it by the sharp end.

So yes, some variance in weapon descriptions is allowed. If you lack the common sense to properly dictate what category a weapon should fall under by its design, then you have worse things to worry about when it comes to RP.
Please show me where in the rulebooks it states that your weapons' appearance is required to match it's mechanics even that much.


As an aside, most of my chatacters, upon seeing a naked woman in a dungeon wielding a car antenna, would probably assume that said person is mentally-impaired in some way, because "lacking but got extremely lucky or is there by chance" is more likely than "Not needing", and the extreme case of the former is usually a cause of being utterly insane.
That's a strange view to take in a world where a humanoid appearing creature can easily be something vastly more powerful in disguise.

EvilElitest
2008-03-22, 09:30 PM
I invoke the power of Dictionary, since you people won't listen to the argument from cultural influence.

And might i remeind you the reason for it being invented? To be effective.


"A weapon with a long sharp metal blade and a handle, used especially in the past."

Long sharp metal blade? Yup. Handle? Yup. Eurocentric medieval stylings? Nope. Notice how that part isn't in the definition?

I know it feels good to use the slippery slope/strawman fallacy combo of "lols, I get to call a car antenna a sword then?", but witty bull**** doesn't make you right, chums. Swords do not have to be used for stabbing, or else scimitars are immediately turned into small pointy twigs.

oh i know, the part of it being an effective weapon is missing
from
EE

Ascension
2008-03-22, 10:21 PM
That's a strange view to take in a world where a humanoid appearing creature can easily be something vastly more powerful in disguise.

But unless your characters have encountered a shapeshifter/illusionist or there's a mage who uses similar magic in your party, isn't coming to the conclusion "Oh, she's certainly not a total loon, she's an uberpowerful avatar of destruction in disguise," metagaming in and of itself? I mean, admittedly you should think that if it's a campaign in which there's a polymorphing wizard around every corner, but then, if you're in that sort of campaign, you should really distrust anything and everything, not just the naked women with car antennas.

That being said, as our arguments escalate in absurdity I think we're losing sight of the issue. My recommendation is that every campaign should make it clear from the get-go what level of, to use the word, "verisimilitude," is expected. To use an example, I personally highly dislike the Eberron setting. Because of this, I make certain to verify that a campaign is not set in Eberron before I decide to participate in it. In the same way, the lover of the fantastic should make sure that his or her DM is okay with absurd weaponry before he or she begins describing his or her adamantine loincloth, slashing tree trunk, and bow carved out of rock.

Rutee
2008-03-22, 10:50 PM
But unless your characters have encountered a shapeshifter/illusionist or there's a mage who uses similar magic in your party, isn't coming to the conclusion "Oh, she's certainly not a total loon, she's an uberpowerful avatar of destruction in disguise," metagaming in and of itself? I mean, admittedly you should think that if it's a campaign in which there's a polymorphing wizard around every corner, but then, if you're in that sort of campaign, you should really distrust anything and everything, not just the naked women with car antennas.

That being said, as our arguments escalate in absurdity I think we're losing sight of the issue. My recommendation is that every campaign should make it clear from the get-go what level of, to use the word, "verisimilitude," is expected. To use an example, I personally highly dislike the Eberron setting. Because of this, I make certain to verify that a campaign is not set in Eberron before I decide to participate in it. In the same way, the lover of the fantastic should make sure that his or her DM is okay with absurd weaponry before he or she begins describing his or her adamantine loincloth, slashing tree trunk, and bow carved out of rock.

If you had to fight hard to get to wherever it is you are in the dungeon, and you encounter a lone individual, it is not out of the question to assume this lone individual is either formidable enough to frighten the local dungeon-dwellers into not attacking her, or somehow connected to them (And likely not much weaker then them).

Ascension
2008-03-22, 10:58 PM
Maybe the evil overlord has a nudist daughter who's out for a stroll? The whole situation is so ludicrous it shouldn't ever come up, anyway... I only called it metagaming because the other guy called expecting a tree stump to do bludgeoning damage metagaming.

GammaPaladin
2008-03-22, 11:51 PM
But unless your characters have encountered a shapeshifter/illusionist or there's a mage who uses similar magic in your party, isn't coming to the conclusion "Oh, she's certainly not a total loon, she's an uberpowerful avatar of destruction in disguise," metagaming in and of itself? I mean, admittedly you should think that if it's a campaign in which there's a polymorphing wizard around every corner, but then, if you're in that sort of campaign, you should really distrust anything and everything, not just the naked women with car antennas.

That being said, as our arguments escalate in absurdity I think we're losing sight of the issue. My recommendation is that every campaign should make it clear from the get-go what level of, to use the word, "verisimilitude," is expected. To use an example, I personally highly dislike the Eberron setting. Because of this, I make certain to verify that a campaign is not set in Eberron before I decide to participate in it. In the same way, the lover of the fantastic should make sure that his or her DM is okay with absurd weaponry before he or she begins describing his or her adamantine loincloth, slashing tree trunk, and bow carved out of rock.
You're thinking like a 20th century westerner.

Medieval people believed absolutely that witches could kill with a look, and that devils could and commonly did take human form to trick people.

Now put that person in a world where all those things are true. Anyone you meet absolutely could be a sorceror or psion who can kill you with a word or thought. Assuming otherwise is definitely metagaming.

"Oh, she's a naked human, and the DM would never have us encounter anything that could TPK us! Attack!" is not the reaction of a rational human being in that situation. It's the reaction of a gamer thinking about exp and loot and CR.

I believe a good GM should try his hardest to make sure that a good number of encounters involve things the PCs can't identify on sight and figure out what the rules are and calculate their odds and their best way of attacking. Make them actually deal with a little uncertainty and, dare I say, fear, when they play.

Ascension
2008-03-23, 12:00 AM
You're thinking like a 20th century westerner.

Medieval people believed absolutely that witches could kill with a look, and that devils could and commonly did take human form to trick people.

Now put that person in a world where all those things are true. Anyone you meet absolutely could be a sorceror or psion who can kill you with a word or thought. Assuming otherwise is definitely metagaming.

"Oh, she's a naked human, and the DM would never have us encounter anything that could TPK us! Attack!" is not the reaction of a rational human being in that situation. It's the reaction of a gamer thinking about exp and loot and CR.

Did I ever say "The DM would never have us encounter anything that could TPK us!"? NO. I didn't even say to attack the poor girl. I just said that my initial reaction would be that she was off her rocker. Yes, peasants were highly superstitious. Yes, even learned people were highly superstitious. Adventurers, however, are in a peculiar spot that no person in the medieval world was. They know how magic works. They know that while it is supremely powerful, it has its limitations. And if they've never seen it turn a hideous monster into a naked girl with a car antenna, if all they've seen is a few low level spells, then I think it's not too far-fetched to say that they would assume that it was outside the realm of magic.

Still, the main point of my post was supposed to be, "Arguing about naked women with car antennas is pointless because no sane DM would actually send the party up against one in a non-comedy campaign, so maybe we should think about discussing a different topic."

GammaPaladin
2008-03-23, 12:43 AM
Adventurers, however, are in a peculiar spot that no person in the medieval world was. They know how magic works. They know that while it is supremely powerful, it has its limitations. And if they've never seen it turn a hideous monster into a naked girl with a car antenna, if all they've seen is a few low level spells, then I think it's not too far-fetched to say that they would assume that it was outside the realm of magic.
I disagree with this... A wizard might "know" the limits of magic (Or think he does), but fighters, monks, people like that are not likely to (This is fun to roleplay too... "You're a wizard! Can't you just... wave your fingers and get us out of this?!").

And if your characters are supposedly knowledgeable, then they would know about the various nasty beasts that like to masquerade as humans. I mean, that "naked woman" could easily be a succubus or a doppleganger, and that's just scratching the surface...

Maybe it's just me, but when I GM I like my players to be wary of everything. Especially in someplace as dangerous as a dungeon.

Tetsubo 57
2008-03-23, 12:46 AM
I disagree with this... A wizard might "know" the limits of magic (Or think he does), but fighters, monks, people like that are not likely to (This is fun to roleplay too... "You're a wizard! Can't you just... wave your fingers and get us out of this?!").

And if your characters are supposedly knowledgeable, then they would know about the various nasty beasts that like to masquerade as humans. I mean, that "naked woman" could easily be a succubus or a doppleganger, and that's just scratching the surface...

Maybe it's just me, but when I GM I like my players to be wary of everything. Especially in someplace as dangerous as a dungeon.

A quick and dirty way of doing this is to use a monsters stats, but change the physical description. Keeps the players on their toes.

Ascension
2008-03-23, 12:48 AM
Still, the main point of my post was supposed to be, "Arguing about naked women with car antennas is pointless because no sane DM would actually send the party up against one in a non-comedy campaign, so maybe we should think about discussing a different topic."

*Ahem* :smallconfused:

Starsinger
2008-03-23, 01:56 AM
oh i know, the part of it being an effective weapon is missing
from
EE

Doing 2d6 + Strength mod damage seems very effective to me.