Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="DND_Reborn" data-source="post: 7910444" data-attributes="member: 6987520">While a lot of thought and work went into this, it is not a way to go IMO. 5E rules and systems are (in theory) supposed to be about simplicity.IF you want minimum STR requirements, a simple house-rule we used is you must have a STR equal to the maximum weapon damage or your attacks are with disadvantage. This includes all ranged weapons.Examples:a d8 weapon needs a minimum STR 8a d12 weapon needs a minimum STR 12Now, we have since dropped the rule. Why? Because it is pointless. It complicates the game and only serves to restrict things.I, myself, would have a STR 10-11 (perfectly average), but with training and conditioning, I could wield any weapon. Granted, such &quot;conditioning&quot; would improve my STR, maybe a point or two, but high ability scores make people better at wielding them and shouldn't be a requirement for their normal use. Most people who are &quot;strong&quot; would likely have a STR of 12-15 IMO. If you look at the variant encumbrance rules, not many people have a STR 16+, but many of your suggestions require ridiculously high scores.If it works for you, have fun with it. I would never play at a table with this system, however, but that is just my take on it. The concept isn't bad, but the numbers are way too high (as others have suggested). When you bring the numbers down to a reasonable and realistic level, you find that they rarely come up, and you are better off just not using the rule/system.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="DND_Reborn, post: 7910444, member: 6987520"] While a lot of thought and work went into this, it is not a way to go IMO. 5E rules and systems are (in theory) supposed to be about simplicity. [I]IF[/I] you want minimum STR requirements, a simple house-rule we used is you must have a STR equal to the maximum weapon damage or your attacks are with disadvantage. This includes all ranged weapons. Examples: a d8 weapon needs a minimum STR 8 a d12 weapon needs a minimum STR 12 Now, we have since dropped the rule. Why? Because it is pointless. It complicates the game and only serves to restrict things. I, myself, would have a STR 10-11 (perfectly average), but with training and conditioning, I could wield any weapon. Granted, such "conditioning" would improve my STR, maybe a point or two, but high ability scores make people [I]better[/I] at wielding them and shouldn't be a requirement for their normal use. Most people who are "strong" would likely have a STR of 12-15 IMO. If you look at the variant encumbrance rules, not many people have a STR 16+, but many of your suggestions require ridiculously high scores. If it works for you, have fun with it. I would never play at a table with this system, however, but that is just my take on it. The concept isn't bad, but the numbers are way too high (as others have suggested). When you bring the numbers down to a reasonable and realistic level, you find that they [I]rarely[/I] come up, and you are better off just not using the rule/system. [/QUOTE]

Verification