Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Infiniti2000" data-source="post: 2277595" data-attributes="member: 31734">Because it's a complete game system.&nbsp; If you look at one part of it and ignore the rest, you are intentionally creating houserules in a vacuum - and that's a bad idea.&nbsp; I mean, do it if you want, but my whole purpose of responding is a sense of caution.&nbsp;Then, perhaps a houserule such as saying all weapons do 1d6 is what you are looking for.&nbsp; Then, no one weapon gets an advantage over another.&nbsp; Perfect symmetry.&nbsp; I just don't believe that you are looking at this objectively if you say you desire symmetry and then not try to make the weapons symmetrical.&nbsp;Then the obvious action you should take is remove the problem.&nbsp; Why not just remove greatswords?&nbsp; Are there any other two-handed or one-handed (that can wielded two-handed) weapons that cause you difficulties and heartburn? &nbsp;This is no longer about options, but apparently how to beef up two-weapon fighting.&nbsp; The options still exist.&nbsp; A player could fight with sewing needles, if he wanted, right?&nbsp; Anything to keep that from happening besides the player wanting to powergame? &nbsp;I disagree.&nbsp; A player in my game has a fighter 6/ranger 10 using two-weapon fighting.&nbsp; The fighter 15 uses a battleaxe and board.&nbsp; I see nothing unreasonable about either option.&nbsp;In any case, if the thing that is not reasonable is because you feel greatswords are unbalanced (and I am not saying I disagree with that assessment either), then I think you should look at making greatswords balanced, or remove them, instead of escalating every other form of melee combat build to compensate.&nbsp; At that point, everything would be unbalanced, which is not a good design philosophy. <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=":)" /></blockquote>

[QUOTE="Infiniti2000, post: 2277595, member: 31734"] Because it's a complete game system. If you look at one part of it and ignore the rest, you are intentionally creating houserules in a vacuum - and that's a bad idea. I mean, do it if you want, but my whole purpose of responding is a sense of caution. Then, perhaps a houserule such as saying all weapons do 1d6 is what you are looking for. Then, no one weapon gets an advantage over another. Perfect symmetry. I just don't believe that you are looking at this objectively if you say you desire symmetry and then not try to make the weapons symmetrical. Then the obvious action you should take is remove the problem. Why not just remove greatswords? Are there any other two-handed or one-handed (that can wielded two-handed) weapons that cause you difficulties and heartburn? This is no longer about options, but apparently how to beef up two-weapon fighting. The options still exist. A player could fight with sewing needles, if he wanted, right? Anything to keep that from happening besides the player wanting to powergame? I disagree. A player in my game has a fighter 6/ranger 10 using two-weapon fighting. The fighter 15 uses a battleaxe and board. I see nothing unreasonable about either option. In any case, if the thing that is not reasonable is because you feel greatswords are unbalanced (and I am not saying I disagree with that assessment either), then I think you should look at making greatswords balanced, or remove them, instead of escalating every other form of melee combat build to compensate. At that point, everything would be unbalanced, which is not a good design philosophy. :) [/QUOTE]

Verification