New Posts For Thread: Poll: How would you like to see weapons treated in the core rules of D&D 5th edition?

New Posts For Thread: Poll: How would you like to see weapons treated in the core rules of D&D 5th edition?http://community.wizards.com/go/thread/view/75882/29487173/Poll:_How_would_you_like_to_see_weapons_treated_in_the_core_rules_of_DD_5th_editionEDIT: Poll ended with 201 votes cast.POLL LEGEND OPTION ONE: Weapons should be simple and straightforward.Mechanical details for weapons should not extend beyond damage (for example, 1d8) and damage type (for example, slashing). OPTION TWO: AdvancedI mean, I could go either way about it. If they add in the weapon group thing as core, then I'll use it. If they keep the core simple, and add the weapon group thing as an option, then I'll still use it.As long as they don't build it too deeply inthttp://community.wizards.com/go/thread/view/75882/29487173/Poll:_How_would_you_like_to_see_weapons_treated_in_the_core_rules_of_DD_5th_edition?post_id=526164405#526164405I mean, I could go either way about it. If they add in the weapon group thing as core, then I'll use it. If they keep the core simple, and add the weapon group thing as an option, then I'll still use it.As long as they don't build it too deeply intSun, 18 Nov 2012 02:43:30 -0600Not at all actually, no.The first, third, and possibly fifth highest percentages are complementary and sympathetic to each other. The first highest percentage (advocating shared weapon properties by group for the core rules) is not complementary or shttp://community.wizards.com/go/thread/view/75882/29487173/Poll:_How_would_you_like_to_see_weapons_treated_in_the_core_rules_of_DD_5th_edition?post_id=526164249#526164249Not at all actually, no.The first, third, and possibly fifth highest percentages are complementary and sympathetic to each other. The first highest percentage (advocating shared weapon properties by group for the core rules) is not complementary or sSun, 18 Nov 2012 02:24:25 -0600Eh, either way.http://community.wizards.com/go/thread/view/75882/29487173/Poll:_How_would_you_like_to_see_weapons_treated_in_the_core_rules_of_DD_5th_edition?post_id=526164229#526164229Eh, either way.Sun, 18 Nov 2012 02:18:16 -0600Well, let's get really precise then. The first and third highest percentages (35% and 17%) are not mutually exclusive of each other. They can exist together to form a 52% majority in which all weapons in a group share a common quality and none of thehttp://community.wizards.com/go/thread/view/75882/29487173/Poll:_How_would_you_like_to_see_weapons_treated_in_the_core_rules_of_DD_5th_edition?post_id=526164209#526164209Well, let's get really precise then. The first and third highest percentages (35% and 17%) are not mutually exclusive of each other. They can exist together to form a 52% majority in which all weapons in a group share a common quality and none of theSun, 18 Nov 2012 02:15:35 -0600Minor grammatical nit-pick, but since it received less than half that votes, that makes it a mere plurality rather than a majority. It should need to work together with the option receiving the second-most votes (at minimum) to form any real consenshttp://community.wizards.com/go/thread/view/75882/29487173/Poll:_How_would_you_like_to_see_weapons_treated_in_the_core_rules_of_DD_5th_edition?post_id=526164105#526164105Minor grammatical nit-pick, but since it received less than half that votes, that makes it a mere plurality rather than a majority. It should need to work together with the option receiving the second-most votes (at minimum) to form any real consensSun, 18 Nov 2012 01:53:13 -0600