Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.
Enchanted Trinkets Complete--a hardcover book containing over 500 magic items for your D&D games!

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Manbearcat" data-source="post: 6056264" data-attributes="member: 6696971">I'm with you on a decent bit of that there (specific builds should be able to wield a single rapier with the effectiveness of a barbarian wielding a greataxe) but in total, I think we diverge as I'm not ok with feat taxes in order to do it.  1- I don't want to cede  the authority of gameplay to a process simulationist agenda that will ultimately result  in narrowing the scope of martial builds to an optimal/viable few (see 2e's  dual wielding katana ginsus)...over a dynamic, diverse narrative agenda that accounts for a wide swath of genres.  Not interested in that at all.  I want to  see the Huns, the Macedonians, the Hoplites (out of phalanx formation),  the Roman Legions, Achilles, Zorro, etc, etc represented in this game.2- I don't believe that that process simulationist agenda actually bears out the truth of martial combat.  I really, really, really don't want to get into the morphological disadvantages of the great weapon and its narrow applications but suffice to say that only two cultures used the weapon and only in an exceedingly narrow band (14th to 16th century).  All other cultures' infantry used one-handed weapons, polearms or variations of formational fighting (spear hedges and shield walls, etc).  The largest step-changes in infantry technology was not weaponry, but steel and plate armor.  3- Regardless, I want a wide, wide swath of fighting styles equally viable.  That means you can't start a race, working off the same $ budget while down 1/4 horsepower.  You spend some of your budget to get that 1/4 horsepower back and the guy next to you has stiffened his suspension and grip and now kills you in the corners.  I want these three guys: to be just as viable as these 3 guysThis is easily enough achieved in an AEDU system with a rich action economy.  However, 5e possesses no such rich action economy.  As is, things like swinging from chandeliers that actually provide legitimate modes of attack that are worth an Action (and not just practices in horrible adjudication of percentages and bad risk assessment, eg 3 rolls to accomplish one effect because that properly simulates all the step...and provides you...ooooh 15 % chance of success) such as:or your free hand having actual mechanical impact (such as in the 3 attacks above) are not in the mix of 5e.  There is no p42 for limited damage expressions or balanced adjudication of action (not 3 checks for one mundane act with little to no chance at success).  What's more, there is no actual hard-coded mechanical legitimacy to that claim. In the current iteration (sans tactical module), its just DM fiat (and one DM may not be as on board as the next) as mechanical resolution.  One of the reasons for 4e's huge success with my group was legitimizing/making viable the play of a swashbuckler, flashing his blade, tumbling through enemies and cutting them down. Personally, I'm not interested in the DM fiat and without that hard-coded, built-in viability of those PC builds, I am certain that 2 of my PCs (therefore my group, as it is 3) will have no interest in this game.</blockquote>

Verification