Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="DrunkonDuty" data-source="post: 3866183" data-attributes="member: 54364">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.&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;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.&nbsp; Many folk would find that to be a bit OTT.&nbsp;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. &nbsp;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 &quot;make it sub-optimal or else.&quot;&lt;&lt;&lt;&lt;&lt;&lt;&lt;So I guess what I'm really after is a bit of validation.&nbsp; <img src="http://www.enworld.org/forum/images/smilies/nervous.png"&nbsp; class="smilie" loading="lazy" alt=":heh:" title="Nervous Laugh&nbsp; &nbsp; :heh:" data-shortname=":heh:" /> What do you other Enworlders think? Am I being unreasonbale?Cheers,Glen</blockquote>

[QUOTE="DrunkonDuty, post: 3866183, member: 54364"] 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. [I]>>>>>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."<<<<<<<[/I] So I guess what I'm really after is a bit of validation. :heh: What do you other Enworlders think? Am I being unreasonbale? Cheers, Glen [/QUOTE]

Verification