D&D 5E Nov 8 Next Q&A: TWF, Manuevers, and Atwill spells

[gyor]

http://community.wizards.com/dndnex...ghting,_distinctive_maneuvers__at-will_spells

That they posted these questions at least shows that they are aware of the points of greatest dissatification with the latest packet. It makes me hopeful that they do something to fix it in the next packet.

 

[Salamandyr]

Sorry to hear that they seem to be going for making two weapon fighting a specialist only option. That blows for wanting to play a character that varies fighting styles, whipping out an off hand dagger when appropriate, other times using a shield, or even two handing it. To add to it, not all games will use specializations, so two weapon fighting will be left mechanically sub-optimal for them.

I'm disappointed.

Other than that, I think their answer on the other two questions clears up some problems with the other two areas.

 

[ZombieRoboNinja]

So the new version of TWF is intended as a default with feats to improve it, which makes sense. Rolling twice with disadvantage is fine for an occasional oddball combat, but if you're actually specializing in dual-wielding, rolling 4d20 every round would get cumbersome. But I'd love to see those feats they're thinking of.

 

[Grimmjow]

Sorry to hear that they seem to be going for making two weapon fighting a specialist only option. That blows for wanting to play a character that varies fighting styles, whipping out an off hand dagger when appropriate, other times using a shield, or even two handing it. To add to it, not all games will use specializations, so two weapon fighting will be left mechanically sub-optimal for them.

im fine with this if you only need to take one feat in order to use two-weapon fighting without disadvantage. then you can start working on other things to make the character you want

 

[Jeff Carlsen]

I don't mind the concept of two weapon proficiency, but only if the mechanical weight of it is the same as weapon, armor, or shield proficiency. I don't think you should have to focus your character on it to make it useful.

Thus, the fighter and Rogue should both grant two-weapon proficiency.

And I'm more certain every day that the primary mechanic of two weapon fighting should be to add your off-hand weapon's die to specific maneuvers, such as parry, deadly strike, or jab.

 

[ZombieRoboNinja]

im fine with this if you only need to take one feat in order to use two-weapon fighting without disadvantage.

This would be too powerful - it'd effectively give you advantage on every attack (and double-super advantage when you actually have advantage). Since the new version doesn't halve your special damage, it would be incredibly overpowered for rogues and fighters using Deadly Strike or Sneak Attack.

That's the one concern I have - I'm not sure how the current version could smoothly be modified via feats.

 

[ppaladin123]

I hate the new, "sometimes it is at-will and sometimes it isn't" status of 0-level spells. Just go with what Pathfinder did and make them weak and castable at-will regardless of specialty. I don't think elementary spells that every caster masters as part of their training, faith, bloodline, etc. are the place to be introducing distinctions between specialists. A grand master of French cuisine can boil spaghetti just as well as a grand master of of Italian cuisine. It is when you get to the more difficult and specialized dishes that you start to see differences in abilities.

 

[I'm A Banana]

I'm getting grumpy with the "it's like wizard/cleric spells!" excuse.

Look, guys, I would rather them not have identical mechanics, too. I don't want it as a necessity for my rogue any more than I want it as a necessity for my cleric.

 

[GX.Sigma]

I don't mind the concept of two weapon proficiency, but only if the mechanical weight of it is the same as weapon, armor, or shield proficiency. I don't think you should have to focus your character on it to make it useful.

I agree.

Thus, the fighter and Rogue should both grant two-weapon proficiency.

I so do not agree.

Fighter, yes. He is proficient with all weapon types; he should be proficient with two-weapon style, just like sword-and-shield style or duelist style.

Rogue, no. Why would the Rogue automatically have training with two-weapon fighting? He has hardly any weapon proficiencies. TWF is some pretty specialized combat training, and I don't think that's what the Rogue is about.

 

[I'm A Banana]

...part of me is beginning to wonder if most proficiencies, most fighting styles, and most skills can't be made into "feats" somehow. If a specialty isn't necessarily about combat, why not add Anatomy and Stealth and Acting and Deceit and Feinting as proficiencies. And define "proficiency" as "A feat you get at 1st level that, even if you're not playing with feats, your character gets anyway."

Then, specialties can grant them for people who don't get them automagically with their class. or people who love to use feats or whatever.