Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Northman" data-source="post: 1574182" data-attributes="member: 14062">That is an excellent question.  I haddn't thought of that.  See, that's why there's supposed to be 13 of us.  <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f642.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":)" title="Smile    :)"  data-smilie="1"data-shortname=":)" />There's obviously two ways to go.1. Yes, with a feat they could use a martial weapon or exotic weapon.2. No, the restriction remains, feats can not overcome it.If we go with the first idea, then the restriction isn't that bad.  Most half-ogre fighters would spend a feat on something like a greatsword and be happy.  You lose one feat.  You'll get a -4 if you try to shoot a bow, etc.  But not that big of a deal.If we go with the second idea, then it just means there's no way to get around it.  Now that I'm thinking about it though, it depends how we word it.  If we say that a half-ogre can never obtain a martial weapon feat then he could use a martial weapon at -4.  If we say he can never use one, then he couldn't use it at any minus.I would be in favor of having the restriction remain, so a feat would not overcome it.  But it would only seem reasonable to not try and prohibit a half-ogre from picking up a two-handed sword and trying to use it.  They should just get the -4 like a cleric would.What do you guys think?</blockquote>