That is the only context I was talking about -- really. I should know. I was there. It's the application of historical arguments to AD&D, I think it's futile and silly for the reasons I outlined above. Of course you can jump a ditch with full plate in AD&D! Heck, it's easy enough to get otherworldy strength and constitution, what's the big deal?Originally posted by Gruntboy:
<STRONG>Originally posted by two:
[qb]
But what I specifically called "historical crap" was the application of historical arguments, or historical "common sense" (like, 2-handed swords were, in the past, rare, heavy, awkward, etc. so they should be that way in BGII too) to what is a 95% "fantasy" game. </STRONG>
You're taking everything out of context and applying it to a completely different argument.
I don't know what game you're playing but my characters can't jump over ditches. If I put full plate on a weakling, they can barely walk. If I give 2 maces to my cleric who is proficient with staffs, he can't hit squat with them. Nobody ever said the game wasn't 95% fantasy - you're p*ssing against the wind, preaching to the converted and having a daft argument with yourself (beaten yourself yet?). What about the other 5% anyway (I fear it is considerably larger than that). Y'know, the 5% where you walk, talk and fight your way through the game using swords, armour and other fantasy "crap".
"It ain't as heavy or sumthin".
- A well phrased argument, I bow to your undeniable logic.
"If you accept a mage's skull traps, you have to accept jumping a ditch with full plate. THAT is the meaning of consistency."
- Nope. That is completely inconsistent. Funnily enough, I don't have a problem with the skull trap. That's magic. Leaping a ditch in full plate, unless assisted by a strength or levitation spell, or a horse, that's impossible (unless its *really light* +3 "full plate of the flying phaeries" or whatever).
I don't consider black bears and dogs "monsters". Must be tough for you when you go for a walk in the park (West Highland Terrier waddles past - "Look out! Monster!").[/QB]
You are responding exactly to the strain in this discussion that I find most humerous... somebody that accepts a ring of invisibility/skull trap/draw upon holy might but not jumping in full plate. Dude, it's all the same. It's make beleive. But its consistent. Yes it's daffy to not lose any movement speed when wearing full plate, but not less daffy than weilding a flail! (!!) off-hand, or doing something called "defensive spin" which is a combination of an ice-skating move and something usually associated with a blender.
Maybe it was +1 full plate I was thinking about, you know that "magic" stuff. I hear you can wear that even in the bedroom without complications! And sometimes those bonuses come in very very handy...
If you read the entire post, you will see people saying stuff like "2-handed swords... used by Scottish peasants... difficult to handle... not that great a weapon.... katana ultimate sword... etc." in order to justify 2-handed swords in BGII being well, not all that great. I think they should be better, that such-like historical "arguments" are bunk. That's as clear as I can put it.
