Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="ComradeGnull" data-source="post: 5967501" data-attributes="member: 6685694">I actually like the diversity of weapons.&nbsp; WFRP used the broad class-like system because of its wargame legacy (where it makes sense to not detail every variation in sidearm of every single soldier in a unit) and it also works well if you are making a generic system that is equally applicable to any type of setting- same stats &amp; mechanics for Feudal Japan or Imperial Rome or 13th Century Europe or whatever.However, one of the things I like about D&amp;D is that you can have lots of different cultural or technological levels mixing it up.&nbsp; Orcs can use stone age weapons (axes, short spears, atl-atl, etc.), humans can fight like hoplites with long spears, bronze armor, and big shields, elves can be 14th century longbowmen, another culture of humans can fight like Mongol raiders (compound horse bows, light armor, scimitar-like swords)... etc.&nbsp; I like those different weapons having some mechanics to differentiate one from another, even if they are minor.&nbsp; The diversity of weapons in the world exists for a reason- some were cheaper to make or required less technology, some countered specific defensive technologies or worked with certain tactics... I like, for instance, blunt weapons working better against skeletons and slashing weapons being able to de-limb someone on a crit.Mind you, I don't insist that level of detail be baked into the basic version of the game.&nbsp; But I do like there being preferred weapon lists for different martial classes, damage types (B/P/S), varying damage, speed, etc.Also: even if you remove the mechanical differences, weapons should cost different amounts.&nbsp; A longsword shouldn't have the same price tag as a club or mace, nor should a greataxe cost the same as a great club, and they shouldn't have the same encumbrance.&nbsp; Thus you end up with a big list of weapons anyway.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="ComradeGnull, post: 5967501, member: 6685694"] I actually like the diversity of weapons. WFRP used the broad class-like system because of its wargame legacy (where it makes sense to not detail every variation in sidearm of every single soldier in a unit) and it also works well if you are making a generic system that is equally applicable to any type of setting- same stats & mechanics for Feudal Japan or Imperial Rome or 13th Century Europe or whatever. However, one of the things I like about D&D is that you can have lots of different cultural or technological levels mixing it up. Orcs can use stone age weapons (axes, short spears, atl-atl, etc.), humans can fight like hoplites with long spears, bronze armor, and big shields, elves can be 14th century longbowmen, another culture of humans can fight like Mongol raiders (compound horse bows, light armor, scimitar-like swords)... etc. I like those different weapons having some mechanics to differentiate one from another, even if they are minor. The diversity of weapons in the world exists for a reason- some were cheaper to make or required less technology, some countered specific defensive technologies or worked with certain tactics... I like, for instance, blunt weapons working better against skeletons and slashing weapons being able to de-limb someone on a crit. Mind you, I don't insist that level of detail be baked into the basic version of the game. But I do like there being preferred weapon lists for different martial classes, damage types (B/P/S), varying damage, speed, etc. Also: even if you remove the mechanical differences, weapons should cost different amounts. A longsword shouldn't have the same price tag as a club or mace, nor should a greataxe cost the same as a great club, and they shouldn't have the same encumbrance. Thus you end up with a big list of weapons anyway. [/QUOTE]

Verification