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
Two Weapon Fighting (yeah, I know...)
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="Charlaquin" data-source="post: 7533755" data-attributes="member: 6779196"><p>I don’t see why that should rule out the option of including (hypothetical) exceptions to the normal rules that apply to a rapier in the rules for the rapier.</p><p></p><p></p><p> </p><p>The light property on any weapon is irrelevant to anyone who isn’t using it for two-weapon fighting. And I would argue that the rapier entry <em>is</em> the part of the game that the rules for how rapiers work is most relevant to.</p><p></p><p></p><p>On this we are in agreement. We are only disagreeing over whether the exception should be included in the two weapon fighting rules, or in the rules for the weapon in question. In my opinion, it is clunky and inelegant to try to write a rule in such a way as to call out all of its own exceptions. Better to have the general rule stand on its own, and have exceptions call themselves out in the place they are most relevant. This “exceptions-based design” is pretty much the standard in D&D. We don’t call out in the general rules for Critical hits that half-orcs get to roll an extra die on them, we put that in the half orc race entry.</p><p></p><p></p><p>Sure, you could. That change would have certain consequences, which some DMs will find acceptable and others won’t. Personally, I don’t. I would rather allow the specific combination of rapier and dagger only than allow any combination of two finesse weapons.</p><p></p><p></p><p>I disagree, for the reasons I’ve given above.</p><p></p><p></p><p>First of all, even if we accept that that’s true in real life, I don’t consider that a good enough reason on its own for it to be so in the game. Lots of stuff in the game is “unrealistic” for balance reasons, or for design aesthetic reasons, or any number of other reasons. For me, dual-wielding mismatched weapons being strictly superior to dual-wielding paired weapons is not an acceptable outcome. Any change to dual-wielding that leads to that outcome is not an acceptable change for me.</p><p></p><p>Second of all, it’s not true in real life.</p><p></p><p></p><p>Sure. But my argument is that a better solution is simply to add a new d4 weapon that can be dual-wielded with a rapier. This solution has the smallest footprint on the rest of the system. It allows exactly what is desired (dual-wielding a rapier with a d4 weapon) without any consequences that affect the rest of the system, such as making mismatched weapons objectively better than paired ones or making daggers objectively better than other simple weapons.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Charlaquin, post: 7533755, member: 6779196"] I don’t see why that should rule out the option of including (hypothetical) exceptions to the normal rules that apply to a rapier in the rules for the rapier. The light property on any weapon is irrelevant to anyone who isn’t using it for two-weapon fighting. And I would argue that the rapier entry [I]is[/I] the part of the game that the rules for how rapiers work is most relevant to. On this we are in agreement. We are only disagreeing over whether the exception should be included in the two weapon fighting rules, or in the rules for the weapon in question. In my opinion, it is clunky and inelegant to try to write a rule in such a way as to call out all of its own exceptions. Better to have the general rule stand on its own, and have exceptions call themselves out in the place they are most relevant. This “exceptions-based design” is pretty much the standard in D&D. We don’t call out in the general rules for Critical hits that half-orcs get to roll an extra die on them, we put that in the half orc race entry. Sure, you could. That change would have certain consequences, which some DMs will find acceptable and others won’t. Personally, I don’t. I would rather allow the specific combination of rapier and dagger only than allow any combination of two finesse weapons. I disagree, for the reasons I’ve given above. First of all, even if we accept that that’s true in real life, I don’t consider that a good enough reason on its own for it to be so in the game. Lots of stuff in the game is “unrealistic” for balance reasons, or for design aesthetic reasons, or any number of other reasons. For me, dual-wielding mismatched weapons being strictly superior to dual-wielding paired weapons is not an acceptable outcome. Any change to dual-wielding that leads to that outcome is not an acceptable change for me. Second of all, it’s not true in real life. Sure. But my argument is that a better solution is simply to add a new d4 weapon that can be dual-wielded with a rapier. This solution has the smallest footprint on the rest of the system. It allows exactly what is desired (dual-wielding a rapier with a d4 weapon) without any consequences that affect the rest of the system, such as making mismatched weapons objectively better than paired ones or making daggers objectively better than other simple weapons. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Dungeons & Dragons
Two Weapon Fighting (yeah, I know...)
Top