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="GreenTengu" data-source="post: 7229841" data-attributes="member: 6777454">I don't think it is a good idea.It can be toxic to have a weapon that is 100% heads and above "the best" for a class, nah-- in this case-- an entire race, then it doesn't feel as much a "bonus" for anyone who plays the character in-theme but rather it will come across as a penalty for anyone who doesn't choose to specialize in the "right" choice. Right now the 5E weapon table is pretty well balanced with the glaring exception of the rapier which in and of itself screws up the balance of the attributes across the whole game. In fact, I would say that the best way to make it ideal would be instead of basing damage die on what weapon you are holding, to base it on class with the held weapon only accounting for whether it it light, one-handed, two-handed or reach. So that a Fighter with a club would just deal a higher damage die with the club than a Wizard with a club. After all, surely if I gave a police baton to a soldier they are going to be able to use it better than a college history student with no military training and strength alone isn't going to be accounting entirely for that.Isn't it an odd assertion when you really think about it? Look at the weapons in the simple weapons category and realize that the game is saying that literally everyone who has the simple weapons proficiency (i..e literally everyone) knows how to use these weapons to their absolute peak possible efficiency and only physical skill alone can make any difference-- but if you put a weapon the Martial weapons category in that person's hand, they couldn't actually hit anything. In fact, I would say that it is much easier to get effective results with less skill out of some of those Martial weapons than it would be to be skilled enough to get results out of some of those simple weapons. Fighting effectively with a Quarterstaff requires a good deal more knowing what you are doing than a longsword.Anyway, why flanderize n entire race more than it already has been? The entire weapons table is made up of weapons that humans created and used in battles across centuries. And it isn't even like "nation A used only X and nation B used only Y"-- instead, some version of these various weapons were used in every single nation across all of Europe and Asia and parts of Africa with maybe small changes in shape or weight that really don't make that much of a difference when you boil it down to dice rolls.Why shouldn't there be Elfs that use whips or halberds just as effectively as another may use a longsword or a bow? Surely elven society across all the different city states should be plenty diverse enough for such training to exist.Why limit your version and enforce a hardline rule that means Orcs are always taking an even more massive penalty than they do now if using Scimitars or lances? Surely there are some Orc tribes out there that favor these weapons and yet are just as dangerous as those that use flails or great axes.An average of 1 damage every single attack may not seem like a huge game changer. I am sure there are even old school players who will boast that they have intentionally taken bigger penalties and "never even noticed a difference". But, realistically, we all know that players are going to chase min/maxing to squeeze out every last +1 they can to all roll (and, really, the difference between a d6 and d8 and especially d10 is much bigger than a +1 on a d20) and are perfectly rational in doing so as that extra +1 can mean all the difference between success and failure.</blockquote>

Verification