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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Jeff Carlsen" data-source="post: 5861461" data-attributes="member: 61749">There are two different concerns when applying this to D&D:<ol> <li data-xf-list-type="ol">Sword versus Bow.</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ol">Sword versus Spell.</li> </ol>I think Sword versus Bow has been handled reasonably well recently. It's been handled mostly through Type 1. Characters are generally more difficult to hit with a bow than they might realistically be, and an arrow just doesn't do the kind of damage that it realistically would. We are able to accept this. (Note how this is different than a gun. We have a much harder time accepting that a gun just does a few hit points due to greater familiarity with the weapon.)Sword versus Spell is different and more difficult. Type 1 simply doesn't work with the tradition of D&D magic. Mundane skill can remain cool and viable until the Wizard moves beyond third level spells. This is basically the foundation of E6 as far as I can tell. After that, melee combat needs non-mundane enhancement of some sort. I don't like the Fourth Edition method of just giving them powers. I think they should have to choose their power source. It could be equipment, magical study, honing their ki energy, psionics, divine enhancement, or whatever. The important part is that it is defined and part of the setting and narrative.It makes sense. A student of martial combat is going to learn anything that can make them a better fighter.</blockquote>

Verification