/notsigned
This would just promote more elitism, such as "mi reqs less thn urs so im betta cuz i cen a4d it, u cant, 101z!!1!one!1eleven" ...Or however people type because they think it's cool...
Higher Requirement = Bigger Weapons?
Drelias Melaku
Tyla
Lolwut?
/notsigned
/flame
/incinerate
/notsigned
/flame
/incinerate
Shayne Hawke
/signed
Only because this might create a market for high req. items for people that use builds with that high of attributes. Might be able to add a little balance against people who seek r8 and r7 req. weapons.
And it'd be funny to look at.
Only because this might create a market for high req. items for people that use builds with that high of attributes. Might be able to add a little balance against people who seek r8 and r7 req. weapons.
And it'd be funny to look at.
Yawgmoth
How big would you want a q13 Colossal Scimitar to be?
And how tiny would a q6 (nonmax) one be?
Seriously, this idea doesn't make sense. Nothing wrong with the sizes of most weapons. Don't forget that weapon sizes scale with character size, and the differences are already quite massive. Adding clrearly visible size differences based on req. would make things just gross. Think of a biggest warrior destroying a smallest female monk with a huge oversized q13 weapon twice as big as she is.
/not signed, it's not the way to go
And how tiny would a q6 (nonmax) one be?
Seriously, this idea doesn't make sense. Nothing wrong with the sizes of most weapons. Don't forget that weapon sizes scale with character size, and the differences are already quite massive. Adding clrearly visible size differences based on req. would make things just gross. Think of a biggest warrior destroying a smallest female monk with a huge oversized q13 weapon twice as big as she is.
/not signed, it's not the way to go
Axel Zinfandel
I think it'd be more interesting if it scaled with your -current- attribute, not the requirement of the weapon. It makes less sense, but does less damage to the economy.
Anyone for -that-? XD
Anyone for -that-? XD