Search results

Likewise, berzerkers eventually look forward to having friend(s) who can cast greater restoration. Or can get their hands on potions of vitality. Both of which mitigate the downside of their frenzy, allowing them to use it even more from mid-to-high levels on. Yeah.

If that were me, I'd never have to leave the house!

You may want to check my posting record to see I took a very long hiatus from this site. In fact, I only just returned and the vast majority of my advances have been since then. Just fact-checkin'

Heck, YEAH! With that outfit I don't even need to change before hitting the golf course...

Sorry. No, I was more just expressing how I've since moved on from my days as a mere Superhero. And hopefully, son, one day you will too...

Yes, yes. I'm sure you think so. I used to tell myself the same thing, back in the day...

<shrug> I, for one, and happy for this little troll. I got enough XP out of this thread that I leveled up! I was just a lowly 15th-level Superhero going into this little soiree, but now look at me! I'm a Spellbinder now!

Of course. I wasn't even trying to address the exponential impact feats would have on such a decision. I was mostly focusing on the tendency for larger weapons to have higher damage dice. Right now, if you want to deal d10, or better, you need to use a Strength-based weapon. That. But yes...

My problem with this argument is that, really, if you start trying to justify how a weapon is used (by referencing non-game construct examples), you might find yourself starting to justify all weapon attacks requiring "dexterity" to use with any real success in battle. Even a greataxe. Without...

Show me one. Otherwise I believe your hyperbole is only managing to cloud the waters. If 5e has similar abilities, where one is generally twice as effective as the other(s), that's news to me. I'm curious where you are coming from here. Now who doesn't understand "basic game design precepts"...

When I see people wanting to make a two-handed finesse weapon, all I can think about is the complaints around here about how much better Dex is over Strength. And how doing so is taking away the one thing Strength had left going for it. Oh well, people live and learn. Eventually. Hopefully.

Problem is we are 70+ steps into his troll trap. We bit down on the bait without even a sniff first.

I have to question the validity of such couplings. Veteran players are "mechanics first"? Maybe in the case of you and yours. But it certainly isn't true of everyone. Or even, most.

Bingo. Plus, of course, the nature of the source material helps frame it as well, ideally.

I'm a fan of designs wherein the developers don't shoehorn themselves into arbitrary constraints simply because some people are "particular" about needing symmetrical constructs or some kind of artificially mandated uniformity. If it plays, well, well, it plays. And that's good enough for me. A...

"Agnostically informative"? ;) Which, to me at least, is a feature not a bug.

If you are going to buy in to the unfavorable descriptor for one side, why not both? Maybe you should have volunteered to refer to your preference as "forced narrative" subclass design? Or something like that? Fair's fair, after all.

Don't shan't yourself. I shan't you not.

This thread is starting to get a little too cathartic and introspective. Back it up, people. Lets keep things unproductive, and the civility to a minimum, shan't we?

Whew. You're off the hook, Sacrosanct!