Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="TwoSix" data-source="post: 7620556" data-attributes="member: 205">Let's fight anyway!&nbsp; Dork.&nbsp; <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f642.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":)" title="Smile&nbsp; &nbsp; :)"&nbsp; data-smilie="1"data-shortname=":)" />If you allow non-light weapons baseline, that brings dual-wield and great weapon into a virtual tie.&nbsp; (6.85 to 6.89 at 65% hit rate.)&nbsp; Great weapon does better as AC drops, DW better as AC increases.&nbsp; At really low ACs, it actually becomes worthwhile to drop one longsword and switch the other to 2H, which is kind of awesome.&nbsp; (Just as a personal thing, I'd love to see more reasons to stance-swap with versatile weapons on a round-to-round basis.)As I mentioned to CanZapp in a prior post, I'm not sold.&nbsp; I think there's a lot of good reasons to maintain the base structure of two-weapon fighting.&nbsp; My current position is if you need to make changes to the base rules, I'd rather it be an add-on of additional features, not removal of the base BA.I don't see a problem with making the feat different in scale, but how does one make it different in concept?&nbsp; It ideally needs to something that scales with each attack, to keep up with Extra Attack and bonus attacks.&nbsp; Maybe the rend concept from earlier?&nbsp; (2 consecutive hits does +X damage.)&nbsp; Or extra dice?&nbsp; Dice fiddling?&nbsp; Turn hits into crits?&nbsp; I'm worried less about rogues and monks because rogues aren't going to sacrifice accuracy for damage unless the damage is really large, or their accuracy is already really high.&nbsp; Rogues are looking for off-turn attacks.&nbsp; (Which is why stuff that gives reactions for dual-wielding is a problem.)&nbsp; Monks are less of a problem because they can't use their flurry of blows with a weapon.&nbsp; I don't like the 2d20 pick highest right off the bat because it doesn't track with the narrative, and you'd have to not use it every time your damage expression changes.&nbsp; (Different weapons, different buffs on weapons, etc.)</blockquote>

[QUOTE="TwoSix, post: 7620556, member: 205"] Let's fight anyway! Dork. :) If you allow non-light weapons baseline, that brings dual-wield and great weapon into a virtual tie. (6.85 to 6.89 at 65% hit rate.) Great weapon does better as AC drops, DW better as AC increases. At really low ACs, it actually becomes worthwhile to drop one longsword and switch the other to 2H, which is kind of awesome. (Just as a personal thing, I'd love to see more reasons to stance-swap with versatile weapons on a round-to-round basis.) As I mentioned to CanZapp in a prior post, I'm not sold. I think there's a lot of good reasons to maintain the base structure of two-weapon fighting. My current position is if you need to make changes to the base rules, I'd rather it be an add-on of additional features, not removal of the base BA. I don't see a problem with making the feat different in scale, but how does one make it different in concept? It ideally needs to something that scales with each attack, to keep up with Extra Attack and bonus attacks. Maybe the rend concept from earlier? (2 consecutive hits does +X damage.) Or extra dice? Dice fiddling? Turn hits into crits? I'm worried less about rogues and monks because rogues aren't going to sacrifice accuracy for damage unless the damage is really large, or their accuracy is already really high. Rogues are looking for off-turn attacks. (Which is why stuff that gives reactions for dual-wielding is a problem.) Monks are less of a problem because they can't use their flurry of blows with a weapon. I don't like the 2d20 pick highest right off the bat because it doesn't track with the narrative, and you'd have to not use it every time your damage expression changes. (Different weapons, different buffs on weapons, etc.) [/QUOTE]

Verification