Originally Posted by Jay R
First, you are assuming that the numbers as they fall are broken, which is not the case, as long as there are people enjoying D&D. I was defending the rules as they are, against somebody who wanted to change them.
Ah, but again you are requiring my position to care about historical accuracy when I have blatently stated that I don't. My only concern is: Is the game balanced and fun.
As I posted, if the rules are historically accurate AND the rules are balanced and fun, then that is terrific. I continue to not care at all about historical accuracy, and am certainly not arguing against it. However, games are meant to be fun... that is sort of their definition. In a class based system like D&D, that fun requires that the different classes be viable. No one will have fun within a system which presents false choice (this is actually one of the most pervasive problems with D&D 3.5, in that build optimization does actually detract from the fun of the game unless the DM intervenes.)
So when I see someone question whether a rule is creating a game-breaking balance situation and the response is to ignore the question of balance in favor of historical accuracy, then I call that a poor design decision. Ignoring balance is going to negatively impact enjoyment, and when enjoyment becomes less important than historical accuracy, you have officially stopped making a game and have moved into the terrain of simulation.
You seem to derive a great deal of pleasure from D&D re-inacting battle with proper values and that's great. I would rather weapons in D&D resemble their actual selves, but I don't want the realism of the game to destroy the game itself.
That said, you do seem awfully invested in precieving what I write as a personal attack against you and your ideals, and I'm not really sure why. The root of our disagreement really doesn't seem to be that I demand crazy, implausible rules and you want realism, because I also want realism. J.R.R. Tolkein once said the most important element in fantasy writing was realism. However, when defending the system from someone wanting to houserule down the effective ranges of things, the correct response is to demonstrate why those ranges aren't actuially an issue, rather than simply stating that those are historically accurate ranges. When you do the latter, it sends the message that the game must be historically accurate regardless of what effects this will have on game balance, which is of course what I disagreed with!
Hopefully this clears things up... probably not... but at the very least hopefully you quit trying to force me to take positions which I have no interest in taking :)