Quote:
Originally Posted by ycleption  In a game setting, the thirst for better equipment is part of what drives players.
...
there should be some way to say this weapon is better than that one. |
I agree. I don't think that every material has to be on par with every other. Copper, realistically, for example, is a terrible metal to use to make weapons in an age when iron and steel are available. Copper is just too soft. Copper would be great for wire and gizmos in Gnomish workshops, but would only be good in an arsenal as practice weaponry.
I was considering the concept from
this thread of variation and as few cookie-cutter things as possible when I suggested having several different resources be roughly equal in capability though with different strengths. Why not extend the concept out from appearance to materials? That way, it wouldn't just be everyone going for one type of material for their top-end equipment. Top-end would be more a factor of the quality of craftsmanship than the material it was made from, as you suggested with the level 90 weaponsmith. The good stuff just wouldn't all be made of the same metal or wood or gemstone or whatever.
I think there may be as many examples of different materials resulting in better results as there are different materials resulting in similar results. Think about bows. Which is better, a yew bow in England or a composite bow on the Steppe? Would the English have done better if they had made their bows from horn and sinew and such? Would the Huns have been better off with bows made of a single piece of yew? Who knows? The point is each material makes an excellent bow. It's really just a coin toss which way to go, and either would work just fine. (
Edit: the previous sentence is in reference to the choice of how to build the game, not which bow type to choose, heh.)