Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Hawk Diesel" data-source="post: 7466779" data-attributes="member: 59848">Just because something can be abused in specific builds does not, in my opinion, disqualify a mechanic or make it without merit. If the only problem is with Sharp Shooter (which I have already homebrewed to reduce its impact), then I am not worried about any abuse potential. Especially since feats (while often assumed to be core) are optional aspects of the game.1) That doesn't simplify the mechanic so much as make it boring. 2) Why would I use a 1d6 dagger when I could just reflavor a shortsword as a dagger? The reason for the fighting style is not to increase the damage of each dagger strike, but to reflect that daggers and their kin tend to allow for much faster strikes. Increasing the damage does not reflect that as much as increasing the number of attacks.For those who prefer using the bonus action, it is a valid way to write the fighting style. However, I fundamentally disagree. I believe the way I have written the mechanic to function makes it unique and allows for more creative builds. Additionally, if requiring the bonus action, then it significantly weakens the feat to the point that it is not worth considering. For those wanting a shield, Dueling is the clear and obvious choice. For those want to dual wield, Two Weapon Fighting is the clear winner. If it required a bonus action, my proposed fighting style would get obscured by those options because it doesn't increase interest in wielding sub-optimal weapons, nor would it put the mechanic on par with other potential options.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Hawk Diesel, post: 7466779, member: 59848"] Just because something [I]can[/I] be abused in specific builds does not, in my opinion, disqualify a mechanic or make it without merit. If the only problem is with Sharp Shooter (which I have already homebrewed to reduce its impact), then I am not worried about any abuse potential. Especially since feats (while often assumed to be core) are optional aspects of the game. 1) That doesn't simplify the mechanic so much as make it boring. 2) Why would I use a 1d6 dagger when I could just reflavor a shortsword as a dagger? The reason for the fighting style is not to increase the damage of each dagger strike, but to reflect that daggers and their kin tend to allow for much faster strikes. Increasing the damage does not reflect that as much as increasing the number of attacks. For those who prefer using the bonus action, it is a valid way to write the fighting style. However, I fundamentally disagree. I believe the way I have written the mechanic to function makes it unique and allows for more creative builds. Additionally, if requiring the bonus action, then it significantly weakens the feat to the point that it is not worth considering. For those wanting a shield, Dueling is the clear and obvious choice. For those want to dual wield, Two Weapon Fighting is the clear winner. If it required a bonus action, my proposed fighting style would get obscured by those options because it doesn't increase interest in wielding sub-optimal weapons, nor would it put the mechanic on par with other potential options. [/QUOTE]

Verification