|
4 months ago ::
Jan 21, 2013 - 3:27PM
#191
|
Date Joined:
Sep 11, 2012
|
Haldric, awesome post! I like the cut of your jib.  The suggestion for players who don't want to fritter over levels of encumberance to instead just go by max carrying capacity is very reasonable. Trance, I agree with you for the most part. However, it seems like a decent comprimise for the Str x10 crowd. I for one strongly prefer 50% less weight for worn equipment, but it wouldn't be a big hassle to go with full weight or even no weight for equipped items (still easy to modify with a simple houserule if need be). Also, having simple optional rules for tracking where and how players are holding their stuff would be great (for those of us who like to worry about those kinds of things)  Its nice to see this discussion became more productive. The Str x5 crowd definitely has insight to gain by listening to the Str x10 crowd / Karnos, even if we ultimately disagree on things. Thanks for pointing that out PapaOgre!
|
|
|
|
4 months ago ::
Jan 21, 2013 - 10:45PM
#192
|
Date Joined:
Sep 28, 2009
|
So, what does it take to get the designers to take note of our suggestions, both for and against? I hope they see our cooperation and effort as a sign that we care. I'm sure they do and I'm also sure that they are so busy that it would be easy to miss a good post like this.
|
|
|
|
4 months ago ::
Jan 21, 2013 - 11:46PM
#193
|
|
|
Another problem is present with weapon weights. The table lists ridiculously high weapon weights. Historically, long swords, bastard swords and even two-handed swords of any type did not weigh more than 3 lbs. Not even polearms and halberds weigh more than 4 lbs. Go to a museum and ask any expert how much the exhibited weapons weigh. It is simple as that. Really, what makes the great club 5 times heavier than the normal club? The table is full of insanely and unrealistically heavy items that weigh over 10 lbs, it is just wrong.
|
|
|
|
4 months ago ::
Jan 22, 2013 - 9:37AM
#194
|
Date Joined:
Sep 11, 2012
|
Another problem is present with weapon weights. The table lists ridiculously high weapon weights. Historically, long swords, bastard swords and even two-handed swords of any type did not weigh more than 3 lbs. Not even polearms and halberds weigh more than 4 lbs. Go to a museum and ask any expert how much the exhibited weapons weigh. It is simple as that. Really, what makes the great club 5 times heavier than the normal club? The table is full of insanely and unrealistically heavy items that weigh over 10 lbs, it is just wrong.
Agreed.
|
|
|
|
4 months ago ::
Jan 22, 2013 - 9:53AM
#195
|
|
|
Heh, historically, longswords, bastard swords, and two-handed swords are the same thing.
|
|
|
|
4 months ago ::
Jan 22, 2013 - 11:47PM
#196
|
Date Joined:
Sep 28, 2009
|
Heh, historically, longswords, bastard swords, and two-handed swords are the same thing.
True. It seems the classifications came along much later. I think my only quibble is that longswords are rarely referred to as a single-handed weapon. They tend to have longer handles that could accommodate two hands.
I believe it was Garthanos that pointed out that 4e had them listed as versatile. I would certainly prefer that to the current misnomer in play test and have them replace the name bastard sword.
|
|
|
|
4 months ago ::
Jan 23, 2013 - 9:22AM
#197
|
|
|
Heh, historically, longswords, bastard swords, and two-handed swords are the same thing.
I believe it was Garthanos that pointed out that 4e had them listed as versatile. I would certainly prefer that to the current misnomer in play test and have them replace the name bastard sword.
Sounds good to me.
• Call the Hand-and-half sword, Longsword
• Call the regular one-handed sword, Sword
Just like there is a normal “spear”, there can also be a normal “sword”.
|
|
|
|
4 months ago ::
Jan 23, 2013 - 12:42PM
#198
|
Date Joined:
May 14, 2010
|
A world in which every human is twice as strong as a modern-day soldier would be a world completely unrecognizable to us.
This
I can't imagine a D&D world where an average commoner is twice as strong as our today's modern soldiers.
|
|
|
