Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Frostmarrow" data-source="post: 6196803" data-attributes="member: 1122">I wonder how you feel about making ties between class groups and weapon types. My suggestion is the following:Warriors favor slashing weapons; axes, scimitars and, swords.Tricksters favor piercing weapons; spears, rapiers, and short swords.Priests favor bludgeoning weapons; maces, fists, and clubs.Mages favor implements; orbs, wands and rods.Why, you might ask? Because with these ties we don't need to differentiate between light, medium or heavy weapons and between simple and martial weapons. Also class groups might behave in their own way in combat due to them using a certain weapon type. I.e. Clerics and druids would be surprisingly effective against skeletons where the tricksters would underperform. A system like this has a long tradition in D&amp;D but it has not been explored fully.Bludgeoning weapons could typically have high damage but rare and toned down criticals whereas piercing might be the opposite of that. All while slashing weapons could cover the middle ground with a few perks and quirks thrown in.Bt grouping things this way the game could be simpler and easier to grasp. You would learn to expect clerics attacking with say 1d8/20 while not fully understand why. Because the connection beween priests and weapons that typically do 1d8 damage with crits on 20 is only clear under the hood (in weapon proficiencies and weapon tables).Certainly a rogue or wizard can still pick up a sword but only by player design not by rules default.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Frostmarrow, post: 6196803, member: 1122"] I wonder how you feel about making ties between class groups and weapon types. My suggestion is the following: Warriors favor slashing weapons; axes, scimitars and, swords. Tricksters favor piercing weapons; spears, rapiers, and short swords. Priests favor bludgeoning weapons; maces, fists, and clubs. Mages favor implements; orbs, wands and rods. Why, you might ask? Because with these ties we don't need to differentiate between light, medium or heavy weapons and between simple and martial weapons. Also class groups might behave in their own way in combat due to them using a certain weapon type. I.e. Clerics and druids would be surprisingly effective against skeletons where the tricksters would underperform. A system like this has a long tradition in D&D but it has not been explored fully. Bludgeoning weapons could typically have high damage but rare and toned down criticals whereas piercing might be the opposite of that. All while slashing weapons could cover the middle ground with a few perks and quirks thrown in. Bt grouping things this way the game could be simpler and easier to grasp. You would learn to expect clerics attacking with say 1d8/20 while not fully understand why. Because the connection beween priests and weapons that typically do 1d8 damage with crits on 20 is only clear under the hood (in weapon proficiencies and weapon tables). Certainly a rogue or wizard can still pick up a sword but only by player design not by rules default. [/QUOTE]

Verification