What I love about this post is that the image is actually using the art of a Hearthstone card, Deadly Arsenal. The variation between card games is great and seems to have a central theme lol
It still amazes me that it's art for the WoW card game considering how often the art was used for various 3.pf homebrew pages, especially considering how much Wayne did in the industry at that time.
Oh nice, I didn't know this was from the WoW TCG as well. Hearthstone used a lot of art from it in earlier sets, Chillwind Yeti is a good example of a completely different card and subject matter than its original.
Old 2e game back in middle school. My DM introduced a weapon common to goblins called a "Herculean Club". It did d10 damage and could be used by a small creature, but it would break in two if you rolled less than a 3.
Our ranger loved them, because they were ideal for two-weapon fighting (big oopsey on the DM's part). But his rolls were shit, so he was always breaking them. At one point, he went through six different clubs in an encounter, and the DM demanded to see his character sheet. Dude had, like, 30 of these on there. But also an 18/70 strength score, so... shrug
Rivaling the rogue's boutique skill system for moments of "Why on earth did they shoehorn that in there?" game design.
Per Gygax himself:
"Adding a d% roll to an 18 Strength roll is hardly complicated. It was done because Strength was the only stat that needed to be increased in steps by the d% mechanic so as to improve fighters to hit and damage chances. So that was used because I favor interesting play over any imagined elegance, that being quite unlikely in an RPG in my view. RPGs are games, not art, and I don't give myself airs." "Can you imaging the increases of stats going into the 20s needed in order to get the same result as 18/00? The human norm bell curve of 3-18 down the tubes in a jiffy. Not elegant at all, and simply foolish ;-)"
Disclaimer, his views don't reflect my own.
I'm sorry, but that's just bullshit. The rule was implemented as a patch in to deal with the fact that Strength is the most efficient stat in 2e. Everyone wanted to max out their strength score and Gygax didn't want everyone coming to the table with near-identical stat blocks. So, for one value - 18 - in one stat - strength - he created a secondary rule that stratified characters that much further.
RPGs are games, not art, and I don't give myself airs.
This is also nth-levels of bullshit.
Meanwhile my fighter has 18 strength and is encumbered by the items he got from character creation... I don't think 5e did a very good job with encumbrance. There is a reason most people ignore it.
•
Yup. When I used to run 5e I made my own homebrew encumbrance system that worked way better then read PF2 rules and got annoyed because this character concept is viable in PF2 and it has an encumbrance system that actually works.
There's held items, stored items, and worn items. Held and worn can be easily accessed but count against your bulk limit. Stored items (in your backpack) count against your bulk less so you can carry more but take longer to access in battle. So if you're strong enough you can literally wear your entire weapon arsenal just like this meme since there's no limit to worn items as long as it's not above your max bulk lol
(Bulk is an abstracted form of weight that makes encumbrance easier to track)
Alright, PF2 rant done. Seeing your frustrations with 5e bulk reminded me of my own when I still ran that system lol
Sounds similar to the system they use in WFRP 4e. Also a system that is very elegant and far better than the system used in DnD 5e. Similarly to PF2e (as far as I gather with a brief search) items are assigned a value between 1-3 and players usually have a carry value of around 6 to begin. Any item that is worn gets -1 and items in backpacks/containers do not count towards the limit (but they have weight/bulk/encumbrance points themselves).
It's not fun. Fuck it. It's a land of magic, that's why my backpack can fit a full suit of armor and 5 swords.
•
*it's not fun in 5e
Bulk/weight/encumbrance in other systems is handled well and makes it so equipment choices matter more and the players choices have more impact on the game, while not being terribly designed so it feels like a chore (aka 5e)
If this guy ever falls over for any reason he's taking 1d12 each of cutting, bludgeoning, and impaling.
DMG Encumbrance Fighters: Please DM, I can't carry my armor and my weapon without having a -15ft penalty to my movement. I don't even have room for a backpack! PHB Encumbrance Fighters: As long as I can justify it, I can carry three times my body weight in miscellaneous items. Warhammer Fantasy Roleplay characters: I'm not a dwarf, so I literally need a horse to carry my food for me if I want to move in mail armor while holding a shield and basic hand weapon. Warhammer Fantasy Roleplay dwarves: I can wear whatever I want and still carry whatever I want.
Can definitely relate to this, I just ordered a new mini for my Fighter from Hero Forge with their Black Friday deal, 2 weapons on the back, 2 weapons on the hips, and one in each hand. It's just not worth it to me to try to sort out the logistics of these sorts of things, because it's not much longer before you start going "By RAW I can carry 150 glass bottles on me and there's no requirement that I have a logical way to store or manage them."
Somewhat related, I've always disliked the RAW for 5e for weapon swapping. Burning your action to swap is pretty outrageous, and having players drop weapons so they can only draw has just been annoying to track in my experience. One free swap per turn's always felt better to me, surprised that's not how it's written in the rules.
One character in the long running game I'm in has been collecting hidden weapons the whole time. His belt is a chain whip, necklace produces knives, cloak entangles and constricts, boots have knives hidden in them ECT. His entire carrying capacity is weapons.