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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="AFGNCAAP" data-source="post: 1120869" data-attributes="member: 871">Great responses!  Keep `em coming!As for MHO:Personally, I'm all for less detail & variety (IMHO, less = more).  My experience (a negative one at that) has been that players who want more variety & detail are seeking to gain some sort of advantage.  Whether it's increased damage, bonuses to attack, an improved critical, use as a double-weapon, faster reaction time, or some other tangible, in-game machanical benefit, it's the reason why may of the players choose weapon XA over weapons XB, XC, or XD, even though they're in the same "class" of weapons (X).  The best and most common example of this can be seen in the variety of sword stats, but this can occur with any weapon.Whether it's from a "more historically accurate/realistic" argument, or a "it's a fantasy game" argument, or even a "but it was done in this book/comic/movie/TV show/etc." argument, the end result is all the same--some sort of in-game mechanical advantage.Personally, I'm happy that a lot of different weapon (& armor) varieties are covered by one weapon type in 3E/3.5E D&D.  It makes things a lot simpler (no more massive plethora of various weapon proficiencies, not to mention being meticulous about whether or not feats or abilities would apply to said weapon).I still shudder when I think about the number of 2nd ed. thri-kreen rangers wielding a katana in each hand that appeared in past campaigns.  Or the plethora of 2nd ed. characters with katanas who weren't from an OA-like setting at all.  All due to the "better stats."I do like some of the additions from the Arms and Equipment Guide, like the new materials, as well as some of the new weapon & armor varieties (because they are, for the most part, very different from what's in the PH).  But, my favorite part of the book was the table that lists different weapons from different cultures, and what that weapon's equivalent in D&D would be, stat-wise.It's pretty much how I deal with things IMC, too.  Arwyn's saber from LotR: FotR--scimitar, stat-wise.  The long-handled, two-handed curved swords that the elves used in LotR: TTT & in the prologue in LotR: FotR--falchion, stat-wise.  Gimli's double-bladed axe--greataxe (or possibly, dwarven waraxe--don't recall seeing him use it 1-handed, though).To tell the truth, I was bothered a bit when 3.5 changed weapon classifications (a Small longsword vs. a Medium longsword, etc.).  However, the table in the 3.5 DMG that deals with weapon "equivalents" (a Large shortsword = a Medium longsword = a Small greatsword) eliminated any concerns that I had.  However, my 3.0 halfling wizard can't run around with a dagger anymore & do a d4 damage.  No more halfling wizards using human daggers (aka halfling shortswords) for free anymore.  <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f641.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":(" title="Frown    :("  data-smilie="3"data-shortname=":(" />  Oh well--I'll cope. <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f642.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":)" title="Smile    :)"  data-smilie="1"data-shortname=":)" />However, one of the things I don't like, despite what edition it's in, is the "high-fantasy" weapons--the double axe, the double sword, double flail, etc.  These weapons, esp. those with a flail attached, seem to be to promise to harm the wielder and his/her opponents equally from its use (reminds me of Mark Twain's comments on a multi-barreled pistol in Roughing It, which I can't recall at the moment).That's my spin on things.</blockquote>

Verification