D&D (2024) Two Weapon Fighting and Nick article

[FrogReaver]

So, my argument is through a perspective of "I can create more content for my games." Through this lens, what's important to me is the quality of the foundation more so then the comprehensive nature of the first party rules.

Because of this, I can (and have) create a suite of weapon masteries and more weapons, thus allowing for a number of combos. And, of course, not every combo is always the most optimal choice; dual-wielding weapons allows you to cover a range of edge cases once the dual-wielder feat comes into play.

So, you're totally correct that just using the PHB won't lead to the huge diversity my post implies. However, homebrewers and third party designers like myself now have a better foundation to build material off of to create the kinds of games we want to see. That's what I like about 2024 the most; it is a better foundation then 2014 for people that share my lens.

Right, but still not more interesting during combat. That’s the part of the initial comment I was criticizing.

 

[Shardstone]

Right, but still not more interesting during combat. That’s the part of the initial comment I was criticizing.

I'm saying it is more interesting if you have options to make it more interesting. I'm not sure where that got confused in my post. If you have a better suite of weapon masteries then core PHB offers, then dual-wielding opens up the door to a variety of combos that players can pull out. That's my whole point, is that the foundation is better. I don't care if the PHB is still boring, that has nothing to do with what I posted my very first original comment in this thread. I care that the PHB provides a better foundation for me to build off of.

You were criticizing my initial comment, and my initial comment has to be understood through this lens.

 

[FrogReaver]

I'm saying it is more interesting if you have options to make it more interesting. I'm not sure where that got confused in my post. If you have a better suite of weapon masteries then core PHB offers, then dual-wielding opens up the door to a variety of combos that players can pull out. That's my whole point, is that the foundation is better. I don't care if the PHB is still boring, that has nothing to do with what I posted my very first original comment in this thread. I care that the PHB provides a better foundation for me to build off of.

You were criticizing my initial comment, and my initial comment has to be understood through this lens.

Not seeing it but maybe you can give an example of something where the player isn’t using the same sequence of masteries every turn. Its not clear how you think adding more masteries solves this.

How many masteries does a level 5 fighter get anyway?

 

[Shardstone]

Not seeing it but maybe you can give an example of something where the player isn’t using the same sequence of masteries every turn. Its not clear how you think adding more masteries solves this.

How many masteries does a level 5 fighter get anyway?

I've created a variety of new conditions and weapn masteries that either tie into these conditions or that increase damage when certain triggers are met. Applying different conditions to different enemies, moving enemies into different ally effects, having better terrain for combats to give fighters more options to try and manipulate enemies into with masteries, and having to prioritize killing some enemies vs controlling other enemies has made my games a lot more enjoyable. Like, a LOT LOT more enjoyable. Players use different weapons in different combinations based on the environment and nature of the combat itself. Optimal doesn't exist; there is a strong baseline, but the nature of combat in my games encourages creativity.

 

[Belen]

Man, a lot of people taking offense at a question and reason to ask it. Pardon me to heck and back.

The folks who hate casters and complain constantly about how martials are underpowered.

My experience is that I rarely see full casters in my games as many folks do not like the extra complexity. I always have more martials or rogues.

Ramping up complexity for martials will significantly increase combat encounter times.

Some players just want a simple class to play.

I think masteries are bad design and only work with the types of players that like optimizations and crunch.

 

[Belen]

I've created a variety of new conditions and weapn masteries that either tie into these conditions or that increase damage when certain triggers are met. Applying different conditions to different enemies, moving enemies into different ally effects, having better terrain for combats to give fighters more options to try and manipulate enemies into with masteries, and having to prioritize killing some enemies vs controlling other enemies has made my games a lot more enjoyable. Like, a LOT LOT more enjoyable. Players use different weapons in different combinations based on the environment and nature of the combat itself. Optimal doesn't exist; there is a strong baseline, but the nature of combat in my games encourages creativity.

Sounds like a battle map will be required in your games.

 

[Shardstone]

Sounds like a battle map will be required in your games.

Some. I don't use the same level of complexity for every combat, and I have some combat structures, such as Raiding Parties, that are designed to be ran with Theater of the Mind.

I think what makes my viewpoint for running D&D combat a bit unique is that I don't stick to just one default combat system, but instead modify the inherent rules of combat to get a bunch of different effects out. Duels, Raiding Parties, Riots, flash Ambushes -- these combat structures I use for theater of the mind, and I bust out a battle map for a more lavish set piece combat.

 

[fluffybunbunkittens]

Till you realize you are doing the same sequence every round

It won’t be any less boring. It might be more interesting at character creation.

A person can just spam attack+Graze every turn, sure.

Or they could use a Push weapon to free themselves from being next to an enemy while also doing damage, move over to where their ally is going to take their turn next and switch to a Topple weapon to knock their target down.

In a different situation, with them holding a tunnel against ratmen, they might be using a Cleave weapon, and once it has triggered, switch to a Sap weapon to buy themselves more time.

That is, if they are a Str warrior... TWF and finesse weapons, those are always going to be the same. Do you want Vex+Nick, or Nick+Vex, oh the variety.

 

[ECMO3]

I mean, you could also speed up combat by removing any non-damage effects from spells. And while we’re at it, let’s remove all the different spells. Everyone just gets Eldritch Blast. We’ll have the fastest combats ever!

That would not be very fun I don't think, and I am not sure it would lead to quicker combat either.

Adding damage to control spells would certainly speed up combat though - for example cast Hypnotic Pattern and everyone who failes a saves takes 5d6 psychic and is Charmed as per the spell. Anyone who fails takes half damage and is not charmed.

That kind of thing would speed up combat.

 

[ECMO3]

They are serious suggestions.

A Fighter with weapon mastery is still faster at combat than a Wizard.

Unless it's a fighter with Topple and an Evocation wizard. Then the wizard will be quicker.

I'm not sure that is true. It depends on the fighter.

All the Fighters I play as a player have spells (usually a bunch of racial and feat spells in addition to Eldritch Knight spells). I would not say they are any faster than the Wizards I play.