Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Greenfield" data-source="post: 5611791" data-attributes="member: 6669384">Bob, what's confusing is your posting style.  You write something that could be taken several ways, but when someone asks you to clarify, you either don't answer, or write another post that's as ambiguous as the original.  You also mix messages a lot.  (See the examples I cited in my last post.)Why don't you simply answer the questions asked, the way they are asked?Back on topic:  A single weapon fighter gets to use a shield.  The two weapon fighter trades off  that extra defense for extra offense.  It's a choice, a trade off, but one offered with game balance in mind.In terms of game balance, it works.  In terms of realism, it sort of works.  Fencing "Florentine style" was done with a long blade in one hand, and a main gouche (spike dagger) in the other, used both as a weapon and as a parrying implement.What you're proposing for the swordsman is that he get both advantages at the same time, the AC boost of the shield and the multiple attacks of TWF.  Breaks balance, and doesn't come close to anything realistic.  I mean, there's no mechanical reason why someone should suddenly be able to swing a single blade in anything resembling the aforementioned Florentine style, where one blade engages and creates the opening for the other.  It really makes no sense, either in terms of game balance or realism.Perhaps a Riposte' feat that allows a secondary attack using the same penalty formula as Rapid Shot?  Of course the prerequisites would have to change.  Light blade required, a stat minimum, and probably Weapons Expertise with the light blade in question.  That would be fairly balanced, I'd think.  It would certainly make the Rapier a bit more desirable as a weapon choice again.For the archer, there is the Rapid Shot feat that already fills this role.  You want to do that?  Take the feat, and the whole argument disappears.  Simple enough?</blockquote>

Verification