Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.
Rocket your D&D 5E and Level Up: Advanced 5E games into space! Alpha Star Magazine Is Launching... Right Now!

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Arrowhawk" data-source="post: 5702810" data-attributes="member: 6679551">And this is the problem when you start changing feats and costs and penalties.  Suddenly you have a combo that goes from optional to no-brainer.  You don't want something to be so good that a player perceives it as a penalty for not doing it (thought I know D&D has tons of things like this).  Whether something crosses that line is still arguably subjective, but the math shouldn't be able to show one choice as universally superior. This is a fairly unavoidable conclusion and one I agree with.  I think the answer has been hidden in various responses above..I think if you really want to "fix" TWF, on approach is to say that it should be better at defense than THF and better at damage than S&B...for the same amount of feats.  Another way to put it, TWF should be better than others in some areas and worse than others in other areas.  Modern game design theory says all choices should be equally effective but provide a different play style.  D&D isn't based on this theory, but then it seems irresponsible to let players make choices that appeal to us as individuals and then penalize us for it, doesn't it?  But again, you have to look at what happens at the extreme.  What happens when someone uses it in a cheese build?  I think this more than anything may explain why TWF was so heavily penalized.  A high level Rogue with Improved Crit, Weapon Finesse couple with Keen Elemental Anarchaic and Axiomatic weapon plus a ton of spell caster bonuses may present playability problems.  It's not about playability for the average, but what happens at the extreme.</blockquote>

Verification