Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Don Durito" data-source="post: 7904364" data-attributes="member: 6687260">Because I'm not fully convinced it is too powerful.  That's why I originally asked the question.  My major concerns are:<ul> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">It's possibly too good compared with Great Weapon Fighting without feats (although this isn't so bad overall - there's always going to be players who just like idea of using a big weapon and so long as they do the most damage they'll likely be happy - even if the difference isn't that great. (But buffing that damage by a point or two wouldn't be hard).</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">It potentially crowds out the design space for new fighting styles.</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">It makes Dex fighters who use a shield too good - this isn't really thematically appropriate for D&D and I'm convinced it wasn't really what the feat was intended to accomplish.</li> </ul>Upon consideration it's the last that bothers me the most.  So by reducing the bonus with a shield to +1 and increasing the damage of strength based weapons, I would make strength a better choice for damage - I would also be keeping the damage baseline where it is, but making Duelist less of a must have choice (unless you want to go rapier without a shield - which is the fighting style the playtest documents suggest it was really intended to support).</blockquote>