Am I being unreasonable?

[DrunkonDuty]

Bit of back story: have a new player joining an old campaign that I'm running. New player is considering the 2 weapon fighting route. This prompted me to look at the other 2-weapon fighter in the group because I (strongly) suspected they were not following the RAW in terms of str. bonus for off hand. Turns out my suspicion was right. I'd been ignoring the guy's rules rort on account of not wanting the grief that would come with an argument but now a new player is joining I feel the need to enforce the rules equally for all.

So I've confronted the player and he is (not surprisingly) kicking up a fuss.
I'll include a snippet of the email I've sent this other player.

>>>>>So lets just go with the rules as they are written rather than any re-interpretting/re-writing you may wish to do because you wanted the 2-weapon fighting but didn't want it to be inferior to 2-handed weapons. As it is you're already getting away with using a hand-and-a-half weapon in the off hand. Many folk would find that to be a bit OTT.

ANd by the way I think you'll find the versatility of 2 weapon fighting makes up for the slightly less damage. Certainly you get the benefit of using 2 bucklers. You could also get the benefit of the extra attack in terms of hitting a different opponent, using it to feint or trip etc.

And a final point: if it IS sub-optimal you were obviously aware of it at the time you drew up the character. You're the one with the encylopdedic knowledge of the rules. I don't remember putting a gun to your head and saying "make it sub-optimal or else."<<<<<<<


So I guess what I'm really after is a bit of validation.
What do you other Enworlders think? Am I being unreasonbale?

Cheers,
Glen

 

[Nyaricus]

If that was not an agreed-upon house rule to start with, then this player was doing what players do best... taking advantage! However, you should have simply nipped this one in the bud, in retrospect. Sure, now there's a confrontation - but just deal with it as you may and move on. It's only fair to everyone involved.

I wouldn't bow to this player though, nor would I allow the other new TWF guy come in with full STR bonus on both weapons. It's just not fair, IMO.

cheers,
--N

 

[Geron Raveneye]

Take a validation point from here. You got a good reason to look into the TWF rules again (new player with that concept), you noticed an irregularity and brought it up, and any dust being kicked up now hints at the player not really being cooperative with you trying to put the rules to work.

Or you'll simply inform the rest of the group that there is a houserule in effect, partially thanks to that player, and that from now on every dual-wielding monster will get full strength bonus to both weapons.
Then you bring out the dual-wielding fire giant with the flaming falchions.

 

[roguerouge]

Or you'll simply inform the rest of the group that there is a houserule in effect, partially thanks to that player, and that from now on every dual-wielding monster will get full strength bonus to both weapons.
Then you bring out the dual-wielding fire giant with the flaming falchions.

What one of my DMs does is offer the entire group the choice of the RAW or the house rule, with the guarantee that the enemies will use it against you too. It sparks a lot of reflection on our parts as players, but we never feel that it's been imposed on us. It's just "that's the way the world works."

 

[Kahuna Burger]

The note has a confrontation and argumentative tone, and I wouldn't hope for the best in responses...

 

[CanadienneBacon]

And a final point: if it IS sub-optimal you were obviously aware of it at the time you drew up the character. You're the one with the encylopdedic knowledge of the rules. I don't remember putting a gun to your head and saying "make it sub-optimal or else."

What do you other Enworlders think? Am I being unreasonbale?

You're not being unreasonable to give the rules a second look and decide that--particularly with the introduction of a new player to your table--you want to revert to RAW play at your table.

You are being unreasonable in the tone of your e-mail to the original TWF player, however. In the e-mail snippet to your player that you provide in this thread, you strongly come across as argumentative and angry.

 

[Cheiromancer]

You are being unreasonable in the tone of your e-mail to the original TWF player, however. In the e-mail snippet to your player that you provide in this thread, you strongly come across as argumentative and angry.

I agree. It's a pity you already sent the email. Oh well; I probably would have said the same. Or worse.

But it is definitely not unreasonable to want to use the actual rules in your game. And it is quite understandable for you to be a little bit sharp with your old player. What rules exactly was the guy using? Full strength bonus on each weapon?

 

[Cadfan]

I don't think its unreasonable. The guy cheated, and now he's whining because he has to stop.

I wouldn't be taking any crap from him.

 

[DrunkonDuty]

Thanks for the responses.

Fair point on my being argumentative and angry.

Trouble is he's been doing this sort of thing for the entire time we've gamed together (18 years or so) and it does get me angry. He know's it makes me angry. Yet he keeps doing it. Ah well, I can't change him but I can at least make sure he plays by the rules.

Cheiromancer: yes he's using full str. bonus to each hand. Which, as I implied, are each holding a Dwarven War Axe. I let him get away with it cos their mithril and this makes things lighter. So he's already getting a sweet deal IMO.

Geron Raveneye: funnily enough a couple of fire giants have just entered the game at this point (enemies of the new PC.) I suppose I could always make the offer re. full str. bonus.

Thanks again, I do feel validated. ANd the feeling of validation is helping alleviate the feeling of anger.

 

[Deset Gled]

ANd by the way I think you'll find the versatility of 2 weapon fighting makes up for the slightly less damage. Certainly you get the benefit of using 2 bucklers. You could also get the benefit of the extra attack in terms of hitting a different opponent, using it to feint or trip etc.

TWF does not let you benefit from two bucklers, nor does it give you the opportunity to feint more often than normal.

I think both you and the player need to sit down and review all the rules coving TWF together. Head over to the Rules forum if you have any questions. But right now it seems you are both misinterpreting a number of things, which is leading to inconsistency and confrontation. The situation will only improve when you are both on the same page.