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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="ECMO3" data-source="post: 9380694" data-attributes="member: 7030563">Because I think particularly with respect to shields it is meaningless complexity for no reason.I mean could we just as easily give Bucklers a +3, Shields a +2 and Tower Shields a +1, those numbers being reflective of the ease with which you can swing them around to block a shot?  So the bigger shield gets a lower bonus?  That seems as legitimate as the reverse.Why is it the larger shield needs the higher bonus or a different bonus at all?  To me it just seems like you are giving people more numbers to play with, not more meaningful character building choices.  This is especially true if you put a strength requirement on one of them thereby restricting what type of shield a PC can use.There are far less than there were in most previous editions and that is a very good thing IMO.  I think there could be some more consolidation (the earlier example of Longsword/Rapier/Scimitar being one) but I think more complexity will result in less fun for most people at the table as well as higher barrier to new players..Not when the numbers you are inventing are arbitrary to begin with.  There is no evidence that being hit with a Glaive is any more deadly than being chopped with a Halberd or a Pole Axe.If we are going to start making up different numbers what are we using as the basis for these different numbers?  The fallacy is the idea that we should be enumerating these differently.By some accounts the reason we got different numbers for different weapons in 1E to start with is that they needed to come up for uses of all the dice they were shipping with the game - so daggers 1d4 and longswords 1d8.</blockquote>

Verification