Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="pemerton" data-source="post: 6644674" data-attributes="member: 42582">And I didn't mention polearm users or shield-users being overshadowed.I'm not sure what you think a duelist or two-weapon fighter is for, though, if not damage. They're not generally battlefield control, and two-weapon fighting has been a go-to damage build in earlier editions of the game (eg AD&amp;D, 4e).I'm not sure of your point.On your first solution, one complaint I've seen is that these feats channel players who want to have competitive damage-dealing PCs into great weapons and archery at the expense of other fantasy archetypes (eg duelist, two-weapon fighting). Is there a good reason for this?On your second and third solutions, they are more-or-less what this thread is about, as far as I can tell.I don't really see the point of telling people who find the feats problematic that they are playing the game wrong. What's wrong with wanting the game not to channel all damage-dealing builds into two rather narrow mechanical pathways? (Eg the game has many, many pathways for magical utility builds.) How is that approaching the game the wrong way, or in the wrong spirit?Because of the above, I'm also unclear on what you think would have to be shown, about the design or effect of some particular mechanical game element, to support the conclusion that it is an error of design, or at least a weak design feature. The designers clearly think that the maths of the game matters, including its damage subsystem, given the obvious amount of effort put into designing it. Why is reasoned criticism of some of their choices out-of-bounds?</blockquote>

[QUOTE="pemerton, post: 6644674, member: 42582"] And I didn't mention polearm users or shield-users being overshadowed. I'm not sure what you think a duelist or two-weapon fighter is for, though, if not damage. They're not generally battlefield control, and two-weapon fighting has been a go-to damage build in earlier editions of the game (eg AD&D, 4e). I'm not sure of your point. On your first solution, one complaint I've seen is that these feats channel players who want to have competitive damage-dealing PCs into great weapons and archery at the expense of other fantasy archetypes (eg duelist, two-weapon fighting). Is there a good reason for this? On your second and third solutions, they are more-or-less what this thread is about, as far as I can tell. I don't really see the point of telling people who find the feats problematic that they are playing the game wrong. What's wrong with wanting the game not to channel all damage-dealing builds into two rather narrow mechanical pathways? (Eg the game has many, many pathways for magical utility builds.) How is that approaching the game the wrong way, or in the wrong spirit? Because of the above, I'm also unclear on what you think would have to be shown, about the design or effect of some particular mechanical game element, to support the conclusion that it is an error of design, or at least a weak design feature. The designers clearly think that the maths of the game matters, including its damage subsystem, given the obvious amount of effort put into designing it. Why is reasoned criticism of some of their choices out-of-bounds? [/QUOTE]

Verification