tetsujin28
First Post
The word "nerfed" is now consigned to the same Trashbin of Out of Date Catchphrases as "def".
[Rave] Happy with 3.5e core rulebooks.
- Thread starter Dark Jezter
- Start date
Gothmog
First Post
After reading through the new DR rules, I REALLY like them. I don't understand why so many people get in a tizzy about a fighter needing multiple weapons in 3.5. I thought the 3.0 practice of always using the highest plus weapon you had regardless of circumstances was retarded. It went against good role-playing, and encouraged munckinism (the dreaded word!) by overspecialization. Seriously, all the anti new DR sentiment strikes me like the Knights of the Dinner Table character Dave who can't bear to be without his Hackmaster +12!
Its also not at all unrealistic to expect a fighter to carry around multiple weapons for use in different situations. Historically, knights used a lance when closing on horseback, once in the fray, they used longswords on lightly armored footsoldiers. Against other knights or heavily armored troops on foot or in close mounted combat, they often switched to maces, axes, or hammers. Knights almost never used greatswords or polearms- those were the province of footmen and anti-knight units. 3.5 is simply making the realistic assertion that one weapon IS NOT right for all circumstances. Look at the old legends about werewolves, demons, faeries, etc. In all cases, they are susceptible to a specific material. How exactly is it more fun in game to bypass the flavor of legend in favor of one-weapon maximization? Sure, the characters might be more challenged by the new DR rules, but its the fights that were a challenge that people remember, not the cakewalks. I find the new DR system refreshing and a welcome addition to the rules.
Its also not at all unrealistic to expect a fighter to carry around multiple weapons for use in different situations. Historically, knights used a lance when closing on horseback, once in the fray, they used longswords on lightly armored footsoldiers. Against other knights or heavily armored troops on foot or in close mounted combat, they often switched to maces, axes, or hammers. Knights almost never used greatswords or polearms- those were the province of footmen and anti-knight units. 3.5 is simply making the realistic assertion that one weapon IS NOT right for all circumstances. Look at the old legends about werewolves, demons, faeries, etc. In all cases, they are susceptible to a specific material. How exactly is it more fun in game to bypass the flavor of legend in favor of one-weapon maximization? Sure, the characters might be more challenged by the new DR rules, but its the fights that were a challenge that people remember, not the cakewalks. I find the new DR system refreshing and a welcome addition to the rules.
Similar Threads
