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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Magil" data-source="post: 6033486" data-attributes="member: 6672353">Once again, I completely disagree. There are ways to deal with these. Obviously a sword specialist shouldn't be equal to a generalist if he can't use a sword. However, the sword specialist should be able to use a sword in just about any situation you can imagine, because he's so good with swords. For the ranged situation, let's say the sword specialist can use a magic sword as a throwing weapon. Heck, this complaint is almost alien to me because in 4E DnD you could pretty much turn any melee weapon into a thrown weapon with the right enchantment (farbond spellblade for light/heavy blades, dwarven thrower for hammers/axes, hungry spear for spears). Even if they didn't do it with a magical weapon enchantment it'd be possible to do in some other manner, just make more throwing weapons for each category--they already have daggers, throwing axes, and throwing hammers when I last checked. Maybe the sword specialist can overcome damage reduction against bladed weapons because he's so good with swords too, that's how they solved the problem of fire resistances for fire-based builds in 4th edition. Either that or improvise--the sword fighter smacks the opponent with the flat of the blade, simulating a bludgeoning attack, or makes a straight jab to simulate a piercing attack. As for metal resistance, if such a thing even exists, an obsidian sword should work just fine.Really, it seems to me that you're trying to say that it's impossible to balance situational advantages, but DnD has always been filled with situational advantages. I don't see any legitimate reason why weapon specializations shouldn't exist in Next. Make them specialties and be done with it, as long as feats remain powerful then they should be possible to balance.</blockquote>

Verification