NOW LIVE! Today's the day you meet your new best friend. You don’t have to leave Wolfy behind... In 'Pets & Sidekicks' your companions level up with you!

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Feldspar" data-source="post: 2650054" data-attributes="member: 20450">Could? The weapons master could have trained him in the traditional soldierly ways (sword and board) and, seeing how strong this pupil was becoming, gave him a bastard sword so that he could take advantage of his natural gifts.  The irony of his use of a bastard sword, which he always calls a hand-a-half sword, is not lost on him and his touchiness over the issue has led to more than a few brawls.  I could probably come up with a backstory to support proficiency in any weapon we choose, but that approach breaks down when applied across an entire race, especially one that has no culture of its own.  I wouldn't want to try to define racial weapons for half-elfs either.  There's something important that I think you're missing: not all half-orcs accept and embrace the orcish side of their heritage.  Many will reject it outright and the desire to prove "I'm not like them" could be a fundamental part of what drives the character.  Use of the orcish double axe might be anathema to such a character. I don't know if it's *that* much more powerful.  Getting all those axes seems like its getting 70% of the way there: Two-handed martial weapon? Check.  One handed and light martial weapons? Check.  Martial throwing weapon? Check.  One of the things I love about 3.x is the fact that weapons within a given class have parity - a longsword and battleaxe are pretty much even.  If this was 1st or 2nd ed, that wouldn't be the case, Longswords, with a d12 versus large creatures, were demonstrably better.  So, how much does someone lose by getting locked into a specific weapon?  The question of whether Weapon Focus and Weapon Spec are worth it comes up all the time.  I think conventional wisdom among optimizers is no - but I think a lot of that comes from the opportunity cost of burning those feats (not to mention *gasp* taking more than 2 levels of fighter, what a waste! <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    ;)"  data-smilie="2"data-shortname=";)" />). Usually, those builds are all about getting the feats needed to get into some PRC chain as fast as possible.So the main differences seem to be in getting more bang for the buck from found treasure (which could be negated if DM tailors treasure to party instead of going random) and the fact that weapon parity is not equivalence which is an issue when the weapon has special properties.  In other words, having to use a Greataxe instead of a Greatsword isn't a big deal, but if you really wanted to use a Guisarme ...As for the Eldritch Knight thing, in truth a Sorc 10 / EK 10 build would be terrible, you'd enter Epic Levels with a BAB of 15.  Anyway, I'm personally okay with the idea that with specific builds, a certain race might clearly be better than the others.  Favored Class already has that effect.  And how many cleric-archer builds rely on the Elf, if only for the bonus to dex and free proficiency with a bow.In the end, though, even if my approach is overpowered mechanically, I'd still go with it.  My goal is not just to offer more incentives, but to put also to put a different spin on the race to make it more appealing to players.  Half-orc + axes?  Meh.  Half-orc as a born weapon master, melee prodigies one and all? Hmmm ... intriguing.At least, to me it is. But like everything else I've said in this thread, its merely my opinion.  I'm just throwing it out there in the hopes that it useful for someone.</blockquote>

Verification