Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="ClaytonCross" data-source="post: 7516062" data-attributes="member: 6880599">I think … if I may … you stand at least close to 5ekyu's thoughts which took a while to get to in a couple of walls of text (which is not unlike me, in that) but if I can attempt to summarize (and 5ekyu can correct me if I am off) but amounts to "these changes touch a lot of other things, changing them is risky business, a lot of work has been done already to get it where it its, perfect balanced its not a requirement 5th edition nor is it too broken to use, so generally its better to leave well enough alone"None of which is wrong. However, as a point of thread in which the conversation is to homebrew an imbalanced feature that is often under used and considered substandard in campaign settings that tend to like the balance of the razors edge of life and death optimization is more of a requirement than player choice... this style is not selected by anyone but rogues who do it at the lose of bonus actions abilities which are key to the class.- If your  in a "heroic" campaign where you GM usually keeps the enemies killable a no fight is life and death.- If your in a campaign and you know that no matter how hard it gets your GM will not let your character die.- If your in a heavy story campaign where combat is not important.- If your party is overpowered as a whole and able to off set a character who is weaker in combat for style.Then this thread is largely irrelevant. That's true.  However if those are not true and your fighting for your life in campaign combat pulling your group down and stressed in action economy feeling the lose of your bonus action abilities to keep up with your party... you are in the right place. I could be wrong but I do feel like even when that is not the case players fearing it might be pull away from two-weapon fighting which is why I don't really see non-rogue two weapon fight in games since 5e.That's just my experience.So removing the bonus action and giving it an "identity role" mechanically to make it more appealing for Rangers, Fighters, and perhaps even Monks that would have used them previous editions seems like a reasonable goal. M.Mearls was trying to eliminate the bonus action and give it identify by making it more flexible. I think the latest shift to making the first off hand strike part of taking the attack action and the possible use of the reaction for ether a second attack with the offhand or a +2AC vs single Melee enemy would make it unique in that only shields protect from ranged and multiple enemies, Two handed weapons usually of set the damage of one extra 1d8 damage dice. Feats and extra fighting style are a moving target.</blockquote>

Verification