Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="JohnSnow" data-source="post: 3899250" data-attributes="member: 32164">To me, there's nothing wrong with people wanting good equipment. I do have a problem with the fact that D&D equipment is totally metagame. I "NEED" a +2 sword because if I don't have it, I'm somehow "underequipped."There ought to be reasonable incentives for not wearing armor when it's not appropriate (swimming, crawling through a cave, etc.). I also want the character to still be ABLE to fight if he loses his sword (if it breaks on the monster's hide, or he's disarmed, or whatever).D&D has the problem of balancing out a number of different genres. There's characters modeled after the likes of Conan, Fafhrd and the Grey Mouser who basically don't wear armor. Then there's the ones modelled on medieval knights, who do. Finally, there's the Lord of the Rings model, where most of the characters don't wear armor unless they're going into battle. Aragorn doesn't wear armor except at Helm's Deep, the Battle of Pelennor Fields, and to the Black Gate. Gimli, on the other hand, wears his coat of dwarf mail all the time, and only borrows, IIRC, a shield.So there's a lot of different treatments of equipment in fantasy. 3e basically only allows the unarmored character to work if he has lots of magical protections. Ideally, I think a system where different characters benefit differently from armor would be good. And being higher-level should have a significant benefit that might prevent you from NEEDING armor. So while Gimli benefits from wearing it all the time, Aragorn doesn't get a sufficient benefit from armor to justify its use except when he's going to war.You can't eliminate equipment dependency, but it would be better, IMO, if it didn't totally handicap any character.</blockquote>

Verification