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 LIVE! 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="5ekyu" data-source="post: 7515192" data-attributes="member: 6919838"><p>Ok so, seemingly needing to state the obvious - the jump from someone not liking your house rule or your approach to get to a house rule "balance" or your very definition of balance (or "leveling if you prefer that term for some reason) is not the same as have said one is "against all change" or that one feels "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" and all that kind of conclusion jumping serves is to try and phrase dismissively the comments or reasoning of those who disagree with you. </p><p></p><p>As for balancing classes - yes they certainly do - but they do not take that to include balancing each set of weapons and how those weapons work between the classes to make these packages all equal - even within one class. So, this notion as a support for an argument is faulty - given the way 5e is built - its built for CHARACTER BALANCE assuming reasonably skilled choices - not at the micro-choice level. </p><p></p><p>As a matter of fact, it has even been stated out-right that 5e balance was *not* built to balance single characters in some one-on-one output context but as a group play. </p><p></p><p>At the character level, 5e is not a point buy micro-element system. It is a "build characrer as package of sacks" system where class, race, background and even equipment are all "sacks". They did not build it so that every combo of "sacks" was equally profitable... but so that there were good combos for most any of the sacks. </p><p></p><p>So, are their combos where fighting with weapon in each hand is good - yup. is one of those a <strong>high strength single class fighter </strong>- probably not. Is that a "problem" - only if you think its vital that that combo of sacks not be included in the many "not good combos". But if you want to establish this as anything more than a preference - you need to show why not having that one combo in the "good combo list" is more objective than not having high strength greateaxe single class rogue as a combo of sacks in the "good list."</p><p></p><p>here are my problems with fighting with weapons in each hand in 5e.</p><p></p><p>1 - The biggest issue is the name- they use the exact same name for both the general mechanics of fighting with two weapons and for the fighting style that boosts that particular type of combat. That makes discussing TWF a pain because at any one time someone can switch gears and claim they were referring to the fighter-class style and not the core rule. (For this post i will use FTW for fighting with two weapons - the basic rules under making an attack) and TWF for the specific "style" and of course DW for the feat.</p><p></p><p>2 - The fighter fighting styles come in two very distinct flavors which create problems. Several (GWF, SS, Dueling) apply to "attacks" and so they scale directly as attacks increase. others do not - they provide either static benefits or they provide "reactions" required gains or otherwise limited to once per turn type of gains. TWF is one of the latter. </p><p>2a Why is this a problem? The ones that scale tend to be seen to perform for output better than the ones that dont. As tiers climb the gains from the first tier benefits seem to become less significant for the latter non-scaling choices. A simple example - protection - at first tier it allows you to spend you reaction to disadvantage *an* enemy attack and that may well be the enemy full offense for the round - often the case in fact - or at least a lot of it. At higher tiers when enemy fighters now move to three or four attacks - now that disad vs one strike is rather trivial in many cases. Meanwhile the scaling ones gain more umphh with every new attacks gained. </p><p></p><p>3 For some, The utility of feats like the 5/10s and lack of an equivalent for FTW in the DW is another imbalance of output. (Setting aside the whole question of "output" being the consideration for balance when you are talking fighting packages that use different ability scores and thus have different outside gains for the moment) we again see a perception of imbalance not from the FTW rules but from another thing that adjusts/adds-onto other options but not FTW. Again not a sign that FTW needs changing but that maybe the itch that needs scratching is here - feats.</p><p></p><p>4 Because the fighter's "thing" at the core of its output gains as it scales is "number of attacks goes up" this amplifies both of these issues - and drives hom where the core output difference lies - not with the FTW section under attacks but in the fighter class and the styles and feats that add "scaling gains" in some cases but not in others. </p><p></p><p>Consider the following - what if TWF style read "A bonus action with fighting with two weapons gives you an extra attack with the "other weapon" for each attack made - not just one attack as normal." </p><p></p><p>this leaves FTW as is for all those cases where it tends to be Ok or good now - but deals directly with the scaling.</p><p></p><p>Similar changes to protector, defense etc could increase their "gains" as tou scale as well - perhaps by linking their "scaling" to attacks spent. </p><p></p><p>Thats an example of a targeted change to the area in question that wouldn't get into rogue at all, wouldn't really affect clerics or druids or wizards.</p><p></p><p>All this said - it still remains to be open for question whether balancing/leveling a fighter's TWF style on output alone vs the other styles on output alone is actually more balanced for the game - since in other cases and in other ways the choices involve more than just output - dex vs str and how they apply to melee and ranged. its possible and even likely that if one got "level" output between FTW/TWF and GWF, archery and dueling that you wind up de facto retiring the latter due to the other benefits of DEX making the new "leveled" FTW/TWF the better choice for the overall character performance package.</p><p></p><p>thats the problem with trying to isolate and level a part in a sack in a "bundles of sacks" system where trade-offs are factored into the DNA.</p><p></p><p>All of which probably leads some to think i am just against any change or that i hate blue puppies...</p><p></p><p>meh</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="5ekyu, post: 7515192, member: 6919838"] Ok so, seemingly needing to state the obvious - the jump from someone not liking your house rule or your approach to get to a house rule "balance" or your very definition of balance (or "leveling if you prefer that term for some reason) is not the same as have said one is "against all change" or that one feels "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" and all that kind of conclusion jumping serves is to try and phrase dismissively the comments or reasoning of those who disagree with you. As for balancing classes - yes they certainly do - but they do not take that to include balancing each set of weapons and how those weapons work between the classes to make these packages all equal - even within one class. So, this notion as a support for an argument is faulty - given the way 5e is built - its built for CHARACTER BALANCE assuming reasonably skilled choices - not at the micro-choice level. As a matter of fact, it has even been stated out-right that 5e balance was *not* built to balance single characters in some one-on-one output context but as a group play. At the character level, 5e is not a point buy micro-element system. It is a "build characrer as package of sacks" system where class, race, background and even equipment are all "sacks". They did not build it so that every combo of "sacks" was equally profitable... but so that there were good combos for most any of the sacks. So, are their combos where fighting with weapon in each hand is good - yup. is one of those a [B]high strength single class fighter [/B]- probably not. Is that a "problem" - only if you think its vital that that combo of sacks not be included in the many "not good combos". But if you want to establish this as anything more than a preference - you need to show why not having that one combo in the "good combo list" is more objective than not having high strength greateaxe single class rogue as a combo of sacks in the "good list." here are my problems with fighting with weapons in each hand in 5e. 1 - The biggest issue is the name- they use the exact same name for both the general mechanics of fighting with two weapons and for the fighting style that boosts that particular type of combat. That makes discussing TWF a pain because at any one time someone can switch gears and claim they were referring to the fighter-class style and not the core rule. (For this post i will use FTW for fighting with two weapons - the basic rules under making an attack) and TWF for the specific "style" and of course DW for the feat. 2 - The fighter fighting styles come in two very distinct flavors which create problems. Several (GWF, SS, Dueling) apply to "attacks" and so they scale directly as attacks increase. others do not - they provide either static benefits or they provide "reactions" required gains or otherwise limited to once per turn type of gains. TWF is one of the latter. 2a Why is this a problem? The ones that scale tend to be seen to perform for output better than the ones that dont. As tiers climb the gains from the first tier benefits seem to become less significant for the latter non-scaling choices. A simple example - protection - at first tier it allows you to spend you reaction to disadvantage *an* enemy attack and that may well be the enemy full offense for the round - often the case in fact - or at least a lot of it. At higher tiers when enemy fighters now move to three or four attacks - now that disad vs one strike is rather trivial in many cases. Meanwhile the scaling ones gain more umphh with every new attacks gained. 3 For some, The utility of feats like the 5/10s and lack of an equivalent for FTW in the DW is another imbalance of output. (Setting aside the whole question of "output" being the consideration for balance when you are talking fighting packages that use different ability scores and thus have different outside gains for the moment) we again see a perception of imbalance not from the FTW rules but from another thing that adjusts/adds-onto other options but not FTW. Again not a sign that FTW needs changing but that maybe the itch that needs scratching is here - feats. 4 Because the fighter's "thing" at the core of its output gains as it scales is "number of attacks goes up" this amplifies both of these issues - and drives hom where the core output difference lies - not with the FTW section under attacks but in the fighter class and the styles and feats that add "scaling gains" in some cases but not in others. Consider the following - what if TWF style read "A bonus action with fighting with two weapons gives you an extra attack with the "other weapon" for each attack made - not just one attack as normal." this leaves FTW as is for all those cases where it tends to be Ok or good now - but deals directly with the scaling. Similar changes to protector, defense etc could increase their "gains" as tou scale as well - perhaps by linking their "scaling" to attacks spent. Thats an example of a targeted change to the area in question that wouldn't get into rogue at all, wouldn't really affect clerics or druids or wizards. All this said - it still remains to be open for question whether balancing/leveling a fighter's TWF style on output alone vs the other styles on output alone is actually more balanced for the game - since in other cases and in other ways the choices involve more than just output - dex vs str and how they apply to melee and ranged. its possible and even likely that if one got "level" output between FTW/TWF and GWF, archery and dueling that you wind up de facto retiring the latter due to the other benefits of DEX making the new "leveled" FTW/TWF the better choice for the overall character performance package. thats the problem with trying to isolate and level a part in a sack in a "bundles of sacks" system where trade-offs are factored into the DNA. All of which probably leads some to think i am just against any change or that i hate blue puppies... meh [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Dungeons & Dragons
Mearls House Rule: Two-Weapon Fighting
Top