35 pound load these days is considered taking the house with you. And that is static not dynamic weight, which has more impact.
The argument against low spoke count is not just stand alone weight of wheelset. It's what happens "if" you break a spoke on the road. This "what if" only gets more so when riding gravel/off road surfaces with a static load where the jarring is greater and more frequent.
On a day ride, "if" you break a spoke you will limp to the end or call for a ride. On a multi day (or week) tour, your plans may need to be altered to the point of cancellation. Break a spoke on a 36H and you may or may not get a wobble that you can compensate for by re truing, on a 20H your wheel has a far higher chance of going out of true and not being able to be adjusted. Some may argue they'll just replace the spoke but that requires more tools than lightweight touring (especially drive side rear) suggests. The weight savings of spokes is lost to carrying those same replacement spokes and additional tools for truing or replacing. A more robust rim predictably needs fewer spokes and tools.
This discussion is very common in the touring section and it all comes down to how much risk you are willing to accept for the low spoke count vs what it will offer you. Once you consider the weight of gear, unless you dive full into ultra light, the savings of several spokes worth of weight is hard to justify.
FWIW, when the newer Trek 1120 first came out it had 28H rims and there were a lot of complaints about spokes breaking. This was talked about quite a bit on the touring forum at the time as a member had just purchased the bike (well.. his brother did but that's another story).
The choice is yours. Just consider what your recourse will be if you break a spoke. If the trips planned won't be impacted there is no reason not to experiment. If there will be an impact, there's no reason not to play it a little safer with spokes. Make up the difference with a carbon seat post.
Last edited by Happy Feet; 09-13-19 at 08:37 AM.