Lord Inar wrote: Zadmar wrote:
Lord Inar wrote:Is there a penalty that makes a weapon require 1 die type higher to use?
No, for the reasons I outlined here
I think I'm missing something. I see that with respect to not having a d6 requirement to use a d6 damage weapon, but not with respect to having a d6 requirement to use a d4 weapon.
Did I miss that (other than the encumbrance part)?
This part: "So although you can choose to keep the Strength requirements if you wish, it doesn't really make a difference to the value of the Strength attribute, because if the character isn't strong enough to use a weapon with higher damage they can just invest the points into a different ability that's equally good."
It's also covered in the Weapon Requirements section of the Savage Armoury document, which states "The weapons in Savage Armoury are balanced against each other without consideration of Strength; a character with Strength d8 is just as effective with a weapon that inflicts d4 or d6 damage as they are with a weapon that inflicts d8 damage. You may therefore choose to drop the Strength requirements from weapons if you wish."
There are no abilities that relate to Strength requirements, because they wouldn't really be a penalty, they'd just be free points for characters with higher Strength.
Lord Inar wrote:
Zadmar wrote:However if he can put the full +2 Parry on his off-hand (which he isn't actually using for anything else anyway) then he effectively has an additional +3 weapon abilities on his main weapon. It's like having a free Edge. Two-handed weapons would become obsolete. You could beef up two-handed weapons, but then paired weapons would fall behind.
But isn't a +2 parry shield RAW? Are you suggesting that the Large Shield doesn't fit?
I don't think it fits Savage Armoury, no, because it introduces the concept of "better" weapons, which goes against the goal of the document.
Lord Inar wrote:Maybe a +2 parry can only be applied when the "weapon" also has cover.
That was my earlier suggestion, but it doesn't resolve the problem I described in my last post.