Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="TheLoneRanger1979" data-source="post: 6820180" data-attributes="member: 6804148">True. But i also assume a given minimal level of fitness that goes with the training, so a "fighter" is by definition at least as athletic as required by his proficiency bonus and/or weapon training. I'm just adding Str requirements for effective (no penalty when using) weapon use.This i'd rather put into min. req. and training section, at least for swords (as noted before).   And again, as mentioned some bonus from Str is added. Just not as much. The way things stand now (as said in the previous posts) a completely untrained character (say a farmer or dock loader) with exceptional strength hits as precise as a superbly trained warrior with average strength. I just feel training should be more important then "raw" (to avoid the term brute) strength. If i can find them i will (please do the same if you do). All i can recall was that it had something to do with the way swords were used, i.e. not as battering rods as lacerating weapons, so overall technique (as body positioning, slicing blade contact, leverage as a primary propulsion, circular movement of the blade) and blade/target properties (limited weight, point of balance, center of percussion, material hardness)  made effective use and blade speed through the air subject of diminishing returns. As in there being a limit as to how fast a blade can be "effectively" swung. In this case by effectively i meant, without penalties on either to hit or damage values. After all, IMO the fitness level for using different weapons should be different. Not in excess of course (as in 15+ str for conventional weapons - single handedly stringing a ballista is a different matter), but enough for things to matter.  And bigger Str modifiers would still matter (more with blunt trauma weapons then others), just not outshine experience and training....I could not agree more!It definitely doesn't "need" it. It's just something i like pondering upon. Regardless of realism (on which we can debate endlessly) or balance (of which i care little), the system works fine as it is. Making it too robust will take us to 3.5E once again, of which i would have none. However, allowing limited levels of specialization and/or expertise for each class to emphasize training and "mastery" might not hurt the game.....too much...... But, as said before, this will require extensive testing before implementation.</blockquote>

Verification