Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Mouseferatu" data-source="post: 6592785" data-attributes="member: 1288">I'm not a fan of using a melee fighting style to modify spell-related stuff, I'm afraid. And I've seen lots of characters using a single one-handed weapon. Rogues, archery-focused rangers when they're in melee, blade-pact warlocks, or anyone who just wants to play a fighter in a swashbuckle-y style.Fighting styles are already pretty narrow; I wouldn't want to further restrict it to only people of a martial/magical combination build.I like this approach, but it's still a matter of deciding what &quot;balanced&quot; means. As others have pointed out, as a rule of thumb/on average, dealing more damage is better than an AC bump. So high does an AC bump or other defense have to be before that's balanced? Ask five people in this thread, you'll get seven different answers. <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f609.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=";)" title="Wink&nbsp; &nbsp; ;)"&nbsp; data-smilie="2"data-shortname=";)" />I mean, is Shield Master balanced with GWM? I think so. I think the combat options it offers, when combined with the defensive bonuses, make it equally attractive (depending on character concept, of course). But others don't agree. Is Dual-Wielder? Well... Probably not, no. Adding a second off-hand attack might not seem like much--look at the monk--but it has some repercussions. Rogues suddenly have yet another shot at SA damage. And combined with the &quot;can use non-light weapons&quot; benefit, it starts to look a little broken.I don't really have a conclusion I'm working toward here. Just saying, I agree with you that looking back can help with some ideas, and that you can have &quot;balance&quot; without everything being identical. It's just a tough balance point to find.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Mouseferatu, post: 6592785, member: 1288"] I'm not a fan of using a melee fighting style to modify spell-related stuff, I'm afraid. And I've seen [I]lots[/I] of characters using a single one-handed weapon. Rogues, archery-focused rangers when they're in melee, blade-pact warlocks, or anyone who just wants to play a fighter in a swashbuckle-y style. Fighting styles are already pretty narrow; I wouldn't want to further restrict it to only people of a martial/magical combination build. I like this approach, but it's still a matter of deciding what "balanced" means. As others have pointed out, as a rule of thumb/on average, dealing more damage is better than an AC bump. So high does an AC bump or other defense have to be before that's balanced? Ask five people in this thread, you'll get seven different answers. ;) I mean, is Shield Master balanced with GWM? I think so. I think the combat options it offers, when combined with the defensive bonuses, make it equally attractive (depending on character concept, of course). But others don't agree. Is Dual-Wielder? Well... Probably not, no. Adding a second off-hand attack might not seem like much--look at the monk--but it has some repercussions. Rogues suddenly have [I]yet another[/I] shot at SA damage. And combined with the "can use non-light weapons" benefit, it starts to look a little broken. I don't really have a conclusion I'm working toward here. Just saying, I agree with you that looking back can help with some ideas, and that you can have "balance" without everything being identical. It's just a tough balance point to find. [/QUOTE]

Verification