Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Willie the Duck" data-source="post: 8650689" data-attributes="member: 6799660">Oh, to be sure, I don't think it speaks bad of the game to now have this iron-clad exclusively spelled-out to one and only one interpretation (or anything like that). At the table, the only thing I would want is a consistent ruling and would be good.I think the shield warrior thread also leans into this quite a bit. Emulating real life can have a host of issues (one of course being is being realistic important to a power fantasy?). The (in many ways defensive) values of 2wf are hard to model in D&amp;D (at least without making them either a strictly-better or never-better option to shields), and thus instead they get this. Same with 3e flails (hard to model their real benefits, so instead they get trip/disarm bonus). Or things that just plain wouldn't work in the small-skirmish-group dungeon-crawling game that D&amp;D still sometimes is (pikes out of formation and slings in low-ceiling dungeons, for instance).&nbsp; Given how often the 2wf rules have been either overpowered (2e), underpowered (5e), or niche (maybe 3e crit-fishing...?), I'd hazard that it probably wouldn't be worse to go back to realism and making them a defensive option better than nothing but worse than shields, but I think a lot of people want to make dedicated 2wf character concepts, which this doesn't well serve. 'tis a tricky wicket, that one.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Willie the Duck, post: 8650689, member: 6799660"] Oh, to be sure, I don't think it speaks bad of the game to now have this iron-clad exclusively spelled-out to one and only one interpretation (or anything like that). At the table, the only thing I would want is a consistent ruling and would be good. I think the shield warrior thread also leans into this quite a bit. Emulating real life can have a host of issues (one of course being is being realistic important to a power fantasy?). The (in many ways defensive) values of 2wf are hard to model in D&D (at least without making them either a strictly-better or never-better option to shields), and thus instead they get this. Same with 3e flails (hard to model their real benefits, so instead they get trip/disarm bonus). Or things that just plain wouldn't work in the small-skirmish-group dungeon-crawling game that D&D still sometimes is (pikes out of formation and slings in low-ceiling dungeons, for instance). Given how often the 2wf rules have been either overpowered (2e), underpowered (5e), or niche (maybe 3e crit-fishing...?), I'd hazard that it probably wouldn't be worse to go back to realism and making them a defensive option better than nothing but worse than shields, but I think a lot of people want to make dedicated 2wf character concepts, which this doesn't well serve. 'tis a tricky wicket, that one. [/QUOTE]

Verification