Talk:New weapon requirements (3.5e Variant Rule)
From Dungeons and Dragons Wiki
Ratings[edit]
|
ThunderGod Cid is neutral on this article and rated it 2 of 4. |
|---|---|
| This would probably be fine if it worked mathematically, but as Foxwarrior's example demonstrates a linear formula of 2.5 x Weight just won't work when 2 additional points of Strength is supposed to equate to being exponentially stronger. The exponential increases make the very premise (that is, the example of 10 base Strength) inapplicable to higher levels of strength, and the rest of it falls apart from there. |
|
Eiji-kun dislikes this article and rated it 1 of 4. |
|---|---|
| What Span said, but to further it (and to clarify further what Fox said) this doesn't mix with pre-existing rules on how strength scales. 50 is not twice as much as 25, it doesn't scale lineally. Nevermind needless complexity.
In a sense D&D already has something to handle things of intense weight and wielding: Encumbrance, and the penalties it provides. As is, you can end up with a hilarious situation of being hit by some kind of ultra massive greatclub five times your size... and taking 1 damage, because the opponent is taking a -(a lot) penalty on damage because it doesn't have the 40,000 Str score to wield it. |
|
|
Spanambula dislikes this article and rated it 1 of 4. |
|---|---|
| I dislike this for the reasons I dislike ALMOST all variants that try to inject "realism" into a fantasy game. In this specific case, it doesn't fix an actual problem, adds unnecessarily complicated formulas, and gimps everyone who isn't a dedicated caster. |
Think about carrying capacity
A person with 50 Strength can lift 32 times as much as a person with 25 Strength, so only being able to use a weapon twice as heavy is really quite sad. --Foxwarrior (talk) 03:11, 7 October 2014 (UTC)
