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: 2895428" data-attributes="member: 22779">Fair enough BD, but, as you say, you can find areas where you need to make more changes already - grappling for instance.Also, maybe I was misunderstanding, but didn't you mean that particular weapon types would be more effective vs certain armor types not armor classes.  That's what I meant by the Monster Manual getting more complicated.After all, a creature might have +5 Natural Armor because it's like a rhino and has a really thick hide - making it susceptable to slashing weapons and resistant to bludgeoning - or it might have a chitinous shell like a bug - making it highly resistant to slashing but susceptable to piercing.  Even though they both have the same armor bonus, the adjustments by weapon type are changed.I'm certainly not saying it's impossible.  And, as you say there are more than a few variants floating around that use this.  I just would not personally want to see this in core rules.  For many people, the difference between a 4 pound sword and a 3 pound sword doesn't mean anything.  In the same way, they don't care that a dagger might be more effective vs plate mail than a longsword.  It just doesn't add anything to the game for them.And, I've a sneaking suspicion that "they" might be in the majority of gamers.  Those who want historical accuracy in a fantasy RPG are quite possibly in a minority.  If that is true, then having variant combat rules as an add on is a good idea.In other words, BD, I agree with you 100%, but, I know for a fact that you will never see this in core DnD.</blockquote>

Verification