Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Celebrim" data-source="post: 9867257" data-attributes="member: 4937">I have had that same thought.  But if we assume the table captures some idea, moving that would just move numbers around elsewhere.The idea in the table that captured my attention 36 years ago or so when I first studied it seriously was, "There are some weapons on here that are light and nimble and so better suited to attacking something like a pixie, but which in term lack the weight or heft to punch through hard armor.  And there are other weapons on here that have that weight and heft and can knock around an armored knight, splinter shields, shatter helms and that sort of thing, but which are a bit heavy and unwieldy if you are trying to hit something  that is relying on being fast and nimble to avoid hits."  If we imagine a world where both that heavy mail piercing weapon (something that's the weapon equivalent of a pickaxe or a sledge hammer) and a lightweight very responsive sword both have +0 in the 10 category, what does that world say?  I think it's easier to capture the idea by varying the numbers in the 10 category just like all the rest of them.Where I do agree with your observation is a somewhat related thought which is, "Too many of the weapons have a bonus in the 10's column".  To me that bonus should be somewhat rare.  And you'll see me implementing that with all the red numbers that are in the 10's column, but I concede I probably haven't modified the table enough for it to be maximally interesting.</blockquote>

Verification