Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="the Jester" data-source="post: 2477397" data-attributes="member: 1210">Well, the two-weapon fighting bonus you suggest makes shields less valuable in defense than a secondary weapon.&nbsp; I don't like that.&nbsp; The penalties you take for 2WF are balanced by the extra attacks you get- you're basically setting 2wf up to be better than weapon and shield.&nbsp; Also, you add a whole new layer of complexity to the game by saying that 'sometimes you get this bonus, and sometimes you don't.'&nbsp; It's often tough enough to calculate your final attack bonus and AC, especially in high-level play- I don't think the increase in complexity (though slight) pays for itself with increased realism.In fact, I think you're trying to inject too much realism into the game.&nbsp; After all, we all know that a direct hit by greatsword is going to kill any normal man, or at least leave you incapacitated, but if you're a 3rd-level fighter in dnd it won't.&nbsp; Give up anything deeper than a blase facade of realism when you're playing dnd and you may find that you're happier with the way the game runs.If you do elect to make changes like this to your game, I recommend that you very carefully look at balance issues- you're basically telling people not to bother with shields with your two-weapon change, for instance, and giving two-handed blades bludgeoning damage defeats one of the few weaknesses of the two-handed blades (DR x/bludgeoning).&nbsp; Maybe you wouldn't be bothered by the changes to game balance caused by these changes, but I would.&nbsp; Third edition is very well-balanced, and improving some weapons throws that balance off.&nbsp; In your initial post you imply that rebalancing the game is easy; I would disagree, but YMMV.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="the Jester, post: 2477397, member: 1210"] Well, the two-weapon fighting bonus you suggest makes shields [i]less valuable in defense[/i] than a secondary weapon. I don't like that. The penalties you take for 2WF are balanced by the extra attacks you get- you're basically setting 2wf up to be better than weapon and shield. Also, you add a whole new layer of complexity to the game by saying that 'sometimes you get this bonus, and sometimes you don't.' It's often tough enough to calculate your final attack bonus and AC, especially in high-level play- I don't think the increase in complexity (though slight) pays for itself with increased realism. In fact, I think you're trying to inject too much realism into the game. After all, we all know that a direct hit by greatsword is going to kill any normal man, or at least leave you incapacitated, but if you're a 3rd-level fighter in dnd it [i]won't.[/i] Give up anything deeper than a blase facade of realism when you're playing dnd and you may find that you're happier with the way the game runs. If you do elect to make changes like this to your game, I recommend that you very carefully look at balance issues- you're basically telling people not to bother with shields with your two-weapon change, for instance, and giving two-handed blades bludgeoning damage defeats one of the few weaknesses of the two-handed blades (DR x/bludgeoning). Maybe you wouldn't be bothered by the changes to game balance caused by these changes, but I would. Third edition is very well-balanced, and improving some weapons throws that balance off. In your initial post you imply that rebalancing the game is easy; I would disagree, but YMMV. [/QUOTE]

Verification