Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="ZombieRoboNinja" data-source="post: 6056103" data-attributes="member: 54843">The etymology of "feat taxes" aside, I think [MENTION=6696971]Manbearcat[/MENTION]'s core point is a good one: right now, TWF and single-weapon fighting are less powerful than sword-and-shield or large-weapon fighting. Those latter styles can be "fixed" with feats, but this leads to other problems and violates what I'd consider a prime game-design directive: don't use character resources to plug design holes.So the obvious first question is: how big IS the difference between these styles? I think MBC is pretty spot-on for the most part, but I'd point out one important consideration: the single-weapon style, while currently weak for fighters, has other benefits for spellcasters (who need a free hand to cast), and is already built into the weapon and shield proficiencies of most other classes (e.g. rogues can't use shields or large weapons and have a high Dex).The next question: SHOULD there be a difference in power balance between the different styles? For example, a lot of people seem to think that TWF should be an "expert" style that sucks for anyone who hasn't specially trained for it. I can imagine a similar argument that the single-weapon style should be inferior to other styles by default, because otherwise, what's the point of having shields in the game? (These two points lead to another consideration: there's already a bit of a "class proficiency tax" embedded in the styles. Sword-and-board is only available to classes with shield proficiencies, and large-weapon fighting to classes with large-weapon proficiency. On the other hand, I think literally ANYONE can pick up a dagger and start stabbing people with it. Should this "proficiency tax" be taken into consideration when evaluating the power of various styles too?)IMHO, TWF should be balanced against sword-and-board and large-weapon fighting... BUT this also means that it should require a certain degree of class proficiency as well. For example, if you need at least one "finesse" weapon to dual-wield, rogues and fighters could do so without any extra proficiency feats, but wizards and (most) clerics would need to spend a feat or something to gain finesse weapon proficiency first.Single-weapon fighting, on the other hand, should be a bit more like unarmed fighting: if it's "balanced" with everything else by default, it's too powerful. Only specific classes and/or specific builds should be able to wield a single rapier with as much effectiveness as a barbarian wielding a greataxe. So I'm okay with the "duelist" path requiring specific maneuvers and/or feats to be fully effective. (And remember, you still get the side benefit of having a free hand to do stuff with, like swinging from chandeliers or casting spells.) Ideally, I'd like to see it have a small handful of specific maneuvers (maybe 2-3) and one or two feats at most. I still think the Protector feats from the second playtest are a good goalpost here: specializing in a style shouldn't mean a few +x bonuses to get your math on par. The math should already be mostly on par. Specializing in a style should mean your actions are well-flavored to the intent of that style. Shield-users take more punishment and protect their allies; a guy with a greatsword can cleave through enemies with ease; and a duelist can keep his opponent on its toes better than anyone.</blockquote>

Verification