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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Tovec" data-source="post: 5862459" data-attributes="member: 95493">I am a DM and I do appreciate when I see a rule that makes PCs not insane but I don't think that has anything to do with the relationship in this game.I am a "type 1" for what it matters not because I like to see weak PCs but because as a PC I like my character to make sense.When I play a fighter I do so because I want him to be a highly trained guy who kicks butt. NOT to be a jedi who kicks butt.The point I was trying to make is that his type 1 and type 2 are flawed (or at least type 2 is).Type 1 talks about the dune universe where personal shields make melee more attractive because they can bypass the shield.Type 2 talks about the star wars universe where jedi can reflect blaster bolts and throw lightsabers as well as engage in melee.Well, as I posted before - that is only one type of example. Yes he is asking if they should be more attractive or make other things more suck BUT he shouldn't be talking about jedi (and sith) in type 2 as they aren't the main people with the average weapon - the people with blasters are.I think he is starting from a flawed example and asking for our opinions.I think the problem with this has very little to do with mechanics but has more to do with how things like polearms are used in games. If you think about it honestly, a sword and a spear are going to do the same basic amount of damage. They are pointy weapons modified by strength and if you are trained you are going to get the same basic bonus.The difference is that the animal you are hunting with a sword is going to RUN as soon as it detects you. That is how it stays alive. That is the opposite of how almost any enemy in DnD works however.Compound this with the effect that spears or polearms in DnD have a minimum range increment means that it is unlikely to use them in a straight melee battle.</blockquote>

Verification