Menu
News
All News
Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
Pathfinder
Starfinder
Warhammer
2d20 System
Year Zero Engine
Industry News
Reviews
Dragon Reflections
Columns
Weekly Digests
Weekly News Digest
Freebies, Sales & Bundles
RPG Print News
RPG Crowdfunding News
Game Content
ENterplanetary DimENsions
Mythological Figures
Opinion
Worlds of Design
Peregrine's Next
RPG Evolution
Other Columns
From the Freelancing Frontline
Monster ENcyclopedia
WotC/TSR Alumni Look Back
4 Hours w/RSD (Ryan Dancey)
The Road to 3E (Jonathan Tweet)
Greenwood's Realms (Ed Greenwood)
Drawmij's TSR (Jim Ward)
Community
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Resources
Wiki
Pages
Latest activity
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Downloads
Latest reviews
Search resources
EN Publishing
Store
EN5ider
Adventures in ZEITGEIST
Awfully Cheerful Engine
What's OLD is NEW
Judge Dredd & The Worlds Of 2000AD
War of the Burning Sky
Level Up: Advanced 5E
Events & Releases
Upcoming Events
Private Events
Featured Events
Socials!
Twitch
YouTube
Facebook (EN Publishing)
Facebook (EN World)
Twitter
Instagram
TikTok
Podcast
Features
Top 5 RPGs Compiled Charts 2004-Present
Adventure Game Industry Market Research Summary (RPGs) V1.0
Ryan Dancey: Acquiring TSR
Q&A With Gary Gygax
D&D Rules FAQs
TSR, WotC, & Paizo: A Comparative History
D&D Pronunciation Guide
Million Dollar TTRPG Kickstarters
Tabletop RPG Podcast Hall of Fame
Eric Noah's Unofficial D&D 3rd Edition News
D&D in the Mainstream
D&D & RPG History
About Morrus
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
The
VOIDRUNNER'S CODEX
is coming! Explore new worlds, fight oppressive empires, fend off fearsome aliens, and wield deadly psionics with this comprehensive boxed set expansion for 5E and A5E!
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Dungeons & Dragons
Mearls House Rule: Two-Weapon Fighting
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="ClaytonCross" data-source="post: 7515155" data-attributes="member: 6880599"><p>If it came across that way <strong>I apologize</strong>. Seriously, that was/is not my intent. I really feel like that post was out of character for you since your largely at least on point. I recently had someone on another thread end up homeless an suicidal and I was in my first clumsy attempt to stretch out a olive branch for an offline conversation if you need to get something off your chest that's distracting you. Because that has actually happened to me recently on another forum and I trying to reach out to a fellow man actual concern and compassion. This was not a sarcastic attack, though I understand that is more common here and I can in hind sight see how it could be read that way. As I have never reached out before perhaps a private message would have been a better way to do that, so again I apologize it was a matter of my inexperience on trying to keep an ear out. I realize I have looked away more than have I offered a hand and I feel that is a change I should make in myself. </p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>I don't understand the confusion here since I called out backstab directly and it does effect other classes that use hits to deliver special abilities. However, most other classes don't use two-weapon fighting because their ability doesn't scale or they have another way to get a second attack for delivery. That said, this goes back to my point about attacking my writing not my point. <strong>I could be wrong</strong> but if I didn't mention other classes also use attacks for delivery I would be <strong>inaccurate</strong> and having called out backstab specifically and you even quoted me saying "These changes for TWF are NOT for rogues" which is me clarifying that in response to <strong><u>Pauln6</u></strong>. Pauln6 wanted to say it would make rogues never fight with one weapon I expanded it does really impact them much since they would get two rolls for two attacks or advantage then Pauln6 change to how rogues needed a one handed buff but rogues have to fight with light weapons to get backstab which are generally finesse so to two-handed makes since. In the end that's a rogue issue and is off topic from the two-weapon fighting style if the complaint is "rogue don't fight well one handed". We were talking about homebrew two-weapon fighting in reference to Mike Mearl's first attempt. <strong>So what you didn't read the posts between me an Pauln6 took everything out of context and then blamed me for being unclear!?!?</strong> WOW. </p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>Rogues problem fighting one handed is based on rogue class design. Its not a TWF issue and has nothing to do with this thread. When you level a scale you add to one side at a time. If your saying the next thread is the one weapon rogue.. sure no problem. But saying "you didn't write everything at once so nothing works!!" is simply not true ever how any rule book is done. You make a draft, you find issues, you fix issues one at a time. If the one handed rogue greataxe rogue is build you should start a thread for concept building it.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>Sure but even in a complex inclusive balancing you balance one part at time. Your stuck on the rogue but you have not once said what's wrong with my compiled design or suggested a fix for such a problem. You need to balance with inclusion but you still have to isolate each section to workshop it then compare it to how it fits in the in inclusive overview. So how does my build through off the inclusive game? Not by saying Greataxe rogues are broken because those are broken with the current rule and my rule has ZERO effect on that. You need to separate Greataxe Rogue fixes, work shop them, then see if the solution you find disturbs balance in other aspects in the inclusive view. … This is again an attack on change itself not on anything I have posted with actual points. You only arguing general methodology over and over as you have done on other threads, without in intent or relation to the current thread of discution.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>Leveling two sub options vs each other happens. leveling two classes vs each other happens. But their is a degree of specialization that is also considered. Your jumping off topic to argue this topic is deflection because you have not actually said what issue you have with this suggested house rule. Your avoiding it like the plague dancing around grand generalizations which aren't even true. They do balance classes but some measurements are harder than others so its not perfect but play testing is don't specifically to try. They also emphasizes unique roles and allow a level imbalance if it provides identity. Nothing about my change to two-weapon fighting does anything but attempt to bring balance closer in power to other fighting styles and provide and imbalance to a specific roll that defines it to grant it identity it is currently lacking. As it is two-weapon fighting is under powered and highly duplicated with monk martial arts and pole arm master which are simply better. The changes I made with the help of others makes them close enough to each other to make it a consideration to be picked and different enough to highlight specific style of play. That's really the best you can hope for ever. Is it the perfect? No, is it done? I don't think so. Its a process and people keep adding adjustments for improvement. </p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>lmao. So what your saying the game is perfectly balance down and you would change nothing even though my the addition of its creators something are not perfect and their is room for improvement? </p><p></p><p> </p><p></p><p>That is a true statement but it has nothing to do with two-weapon fighting not being well design with room for improvement. Its odd that your deflecting the subject of the thread and returning to the same everything has to be balanced to balance and at all the current system is imperfectly balanced perfection.</p><p></p><p>… <strong>All you have really said in this whole post is that you don't like change or the consideration of change</strong>. So again I don't understand why you bother to read house rules or post to threads about them... it seems like a great waste of your time and energy...</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="ClaytonCross, post: 7515155, member: 6880599"] If it came across that way [B]I apologize[/B]. Seriously, that was/is not my intent. I really feel like that post was out of character for you since your largely at least on point. I recently had someone on another thread end up homeless an suicidal and I was in my first clumsy attempt to stretch out a olive branch for an offline conversation if you need to get something off your chest that's distracting you. Because that has actually happened to me recently on another forum and I trying to reach out to a fellow man actual concern and compassion. This was not a sarcastic attack, though I understand that is more common here and I can in hind sight see how it could be read that way. As I have never reached out before perhaps a private message would have been a better way to do that, so again I apologize it was a matter of my inexperience on trying to keep an ear out. I realize I have looked away more than have I offered a hand and I feel that is a change I should make in myself. I don't understand the confusion here since I called out backstab directly and it does effect other classes that use hits to deliver special abilities. However, most other classes don't use two-weapon fighting because their ability doesn't scale or they have another way to get a second attack for delivery. That said, this goes back to my point about attacking my writing not my point. [B]I could be wrong[/B] but if I didn't mention other classes also use attacks for delivery I would be [B]inaccurate[/B] and having called out backstab specifically and you even quoted me saying "These changes for TWF are NOT for rogues" which is me clarifying that in response to [B][U]Pauln6[/U][/B]. Pauln6 wanted to say it would make rogues never fight with one weapon I expanded it does really impact them much since they would get two rolls for two attacks or advantage then Pauln6 change to how rogues needed a one handed buff but rogues have to fight with light weapons to get backstab which are generally finesse so to two-handed makes since. In the end that's a rogue issue and is off topic from the two-weapon fighting style if the complaint is "rogue don't fight well one handed". We were talking about homebrew two-weapon fighting in reference to Mike Mearl's first attempt. [B]So what you didn't read the posts between me an Pauln6 took everything out of context and then blamed me for being unclear!?!?[/B] WOW. Rogues problem fighting one handed is based on rogue class design. Its not a TWF issue and has nothing to do with this thread. When you level a scale you add to one side at a time. If your saying the next thread is the one weapon rogue.. sure no problem. But saying "you didn't write everything at once so nothing works!!" is simply not true ever how any rule book is done. You make a draft, you find issues, you fix issues one at a time. If the one handed rogue greataxe rogue is build you should start a thread for concept building it. Sure but even in a complex inclusive balancing you balance one part at time. Your stuck on the rogue but you have not once said what's wrong with my compiled design or suggested a fix for such a problem. You need to balance with inclusion but you still have to isolate each section to workshop it then compare it to how it fits in the in inclusive overview. So how does my build through off the inclusive game? Not by saying Greataxe rogues are broken because those are broken with the current rule and my rule has ZERO effect on that. You need to separate Greataxe Rogue fixes, work shop them, then see if the solution you find disturbs balance in other aspects in the inclusive view. … This is again an attack on change itself not on anything I have posted with actual points. You only arguing general methodology over and over as you have done on other threads, without in intent or relation to the current thread of discution. Leveling two sub options vs each other happens. leveling two classes vs each other happens. But their is a degree of specialization that is also considered. Your jumping off topic to argue this topic is deflection because you have not actually said what issue you have with this suggested house rule. Your avoiding it like the plague dancing around grand generalizations which aren't even true. They do balance classes but some measurements are harder than others so its not perfect but play testing is don't specifically to try. They also emphasizes unique roles and allow a level imbalance if it provides identity. Nothing about my change to two-weapon fighting does anything but attempt to bring balance closer in power to other fighting styles and provide and imbalance to a specific roll that defines it to grant it identity it is currently lacking. As it is two-weapon fighting is under powered and highly duplicated with monk martial arts and pole arm master which are simply better. The changes I made with the help of others makes them close enough to each other to make it a consideration to be picked and different enough to highlight specific style of play. That's really the best you can hope for ever. Is it the perfect? No, is it done? I don't think so. Its a process and people keep adding adjustments for improvement. lmao. So what your saying the game is perfectly balance down and you would change nothing even though my the addition of its creators something are not perfect and their is room for improvement? That is a true statement but it has nothing to do with two-weapon fighting not being well design with room for improvement. Its odd that your deflecting the subject of the thread and returning to the same everything has to be balanced to balance and at all the current system is imperfectly balanced perfection. … [B]All you have really said in this whole post is that you don't like change or the consideration of change[/B]. So again I don't understand why you bother to read house rules or post to threads about them... it seems like a great waste of your time and energy... [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Dungeons & Dragons
Mearls House Rule: Two-Weapon Fighting
Top