Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="EditorBFG" data-source="post: 3652056" data-attributes="member: 24719">While I am not yet 100% won over, you raise some very valid points. Part of the problem with all the mechanical variation is that some weapons never get used. Fair enough.I would prefer broad groups. Either way, I want to make it clear that in many ways I support Weapon Groups, for the reasons you and I others describe. But, I do not understand why a Longspear and a Lance can't both belong to the same Weapon Group unless Longspears stop being Simple and Lances stop being Martial; the Weapon Group system is designed to retain the Simple/Martial/Exotic categories, and eliminating them needlessly has no upshot in my mind, unless fighters who can use fewer weapons is somehow a positive. Do we need to eliminate other categories to have weapon groups? Do weapons need to stop being bludgeoning, piercing, or slashing as well, or stop having sizes?Why not just let PCs do so without a feat or a penalty? It seems to me one of the main points of Saga is letting the PCs be capable of more by default, and this would be in line with that design philosophy.I agree. In fact, I did some Weapon Style talents in POSTMODERN: Talent Tree Compendium, and included adapted versions of several Iron Heroes weapon style feats in POSTMODERN: Iconic Combat Feats, and I would love to take them even further.</blockquote>