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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Hussar" data-source="post: 2890591" data-attributes="member: 22779">Looking at Big Dummy's list for making weapons more historical, I have to say that I agree with pretty much all his ideas.  However, there are a couple of really big problems with making those ideas core.1.  It would massivly complicate combat.  DnD combat isn't exactly speedy as it is and adding three or four more calculations to the pot would just result in glacial combat speeds.  I've played enough GURPS and Rolemaster to know that I don't want my DnD combat to be that complex.2.  It would also be complicated to implement.  THe old weapon vs armor tables were interesting, but, if a campaign featured monsters, which most camps do, then every monster requires the same table.  After all, if a weapon is good against plate mail, is it good against a bullette?  A dragon?  A displacer beast?  So many creatures have such different physiologies, that this would become very cumbersome.Now, IMHO, there is a much easier fix for the whole lot.Polearms now have a 19-20 crit range.Swords have a x3 crit range.All swords drop down one die in damage.  That, right there, would do away with the dominance of swords in the game.  I'm a big fan of keeping it simple.  Doing what BD says would have the same effect, but at a huge cost in complication.  Yes, upping the effectiveness of a dagger might be realistic, since daggers are really effective against people, but, something to remember, is that the vast majority (or at least majority) of combats don't feature humanoids.  While a dagger is a serious threat to a human, it's a minor threat to a bear, a non-existent threat to an elephant and a pin to a dragon.  Again, adding complexity is not always the best answer.</blockquote>

Verification