Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Mageslayer" data-source="post: 2478035" data-attributes="member: 34824">Thanks for your replies, and bear with me...While the changes I made are in line with my experiences, the purpose isn't exactly &quot;realism&quot; but a different level of customization. I simply wanted the customizations to make sense to me. I don't settle for stock very often, and my DMs are often flexible enough to cope with my predilictions. These rules are designed to add differing layers of value and purpose to the character's weapon choices. I don't like that the difference between most weapon choices only amounts to the type and severity of damage. Weapons can be more than that, and in so doing add another dimension to the game. Also, I don't think the two weapons are always better than a shield, since the bonus isn't static. You don't get it in all situations, and it is in fact easy to lose the bonus in the context of this game.&nbsp; In any event, the bonuses are not set in stone.&nbsp; That's why I posted them.I don't really see this as changing the game. The rules in any paper and pencil game are not really rules at all -- otherwise this whole section of the forum would be pointless to absurdity. They are informed guidelines arrived at through designer playtesting. That has always been the way in D&amp;D. That's fine, but many of us don't mind the added complexity of custom rules (as is evidenced by some of the ideas on this board).The only question is does it make the game more fun. For some the answer will be &quot;yes,&quot; and obviously for some the answer is &quot;no.&quot;I don't really need another game, I just want to make the game I already love manifest of eternal variety. I haven't been let down yet. <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f609.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=";)" title="Wink&nbsp; &nbsp; ;)"&nbsp; data-smilie="2"data-shortname=";)" /></blockquote>

[QUOTE="Mageslayer, post: 2478035, member: 34824"] Thanks for your replies, and bear with me... While the changes I made are in line with my experiences, the purpose isn't exactly "realism" but a different level of customization. I simply wanted the customizations to make sense to me. I don't settle for stock very often, and my DMs are often flexible enough to cope with my predilictions. These rules are designed to add differing layers of value and purpose to the character's weapon choices. I don't like that the difference between most weapon choices only amounts to the type and severity of damage. Weapons can be more than that, and in so doing add another dimension to the game. Also, I don't think the two weapons are always better than a shield, since the bonus isn't static. You don't get it in all situations, and it is in fact easy to lose the bonus in the context of this game. In any event, the bonuses are not set in stone. That's why I posted them. I don't really see this as changing the game. The rules in any paper and pencil game are not really rules at all -- otherwise this whole section of the forum would be pointless to absurdity. They are informed guidelines arrived at through designer playtesting. That has always been the way in D&D. That's fine, but many of us don't mind the added complexity of custom rules (as is evidenced by some of the ideas on this board). The only question is does it make the game more fun. For some the answer will be "yes," and obviously for some the answer is "no." I don't really need another game, I just want to make the game I already love manifest of eternal variety. I haven't been let down yet. ;) [/QUOTE]

Verification