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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Bacon Bits" data-source="post: 6677813" data-attributes="member: 6777737">I would add equipment for specific campaign settings.  Dark Sun and Kara-Tur come to mind, but I suppose Al-Qadim, too, if I ever wanted to run that.I would never add a new class of weapons.  I feel both 3e and 4e suffered due to exotic weapons.  They had to be directly better to justify the feat, but that means they realistically should just replace non-exotic weapons completely, so they should have replaced regular martial weapons.  It's the same problem that bastard swords and composite bows had in 2e.  That harms the setting cohesiveness and overall suspension of disbelief, IMO, and mechanically it needlessly punishes martial characters.  Just a poor game mechanic.  If you want a weird weapon, just pick a reasonable approximation from the martial list or something roughly equivalent.  If the weapon never existed in reality, though, it had better be pretty reasonable.  I'd simply say a weapon would be unknown to the players if it came down to it, but it would still be martial or simple and roughly on par with that class of weapons.  Calling it a new class is just asking for power creep.I could envision a Buckler as a +1 AC bonus shield.  Any character proficient with shields or with any type of armor would be proficient with a Bucker.  It would be carried in the hand like an ordinary shield.  Remember, <a href="https://grauenwolf.files.wordpress.com/2012/09/image13.png" target="_blank">this</a> is a buckler.  That makes it useful for Bards, Rogues, and Warlocks, assuming they don't want to use their off hand for anything else.I would probably not add any armors.  I don't see that there's anything missing from the table.  If you have a specific type, I imagine it would be covered by an existing form.  Again, if you want something weird, pick something reasonably close from the table.I never cared for stuff like double axes, as they simply wouldn't be a usable weapon.  I could see a long bladed axe with a heavy weight for balance, but not two double-headed ends, a double-bladed sword, or a spiked chain.  They're not cool.  They're absurd.  Dwarven urgosh was fine, but honestly it still seems like a poorly designed halberd.Generallly, my stance is:  If you're saying, "I want something unusual to be cool."?  Ok, absolutely.  "I want something unusual for mechanical advantage."?  No, probably not; it's not fun when players eclipse each other.  In practice I'll allow advantages if they're minor enough, or more if a player wants to show the creation and establishment of the item during the campaign instead of starting play with it.</blockquote>

Verification