Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="mlund" data-source="post: 6044579" data-attributes="member: 50304">No. If you're playing D&amp;D to have fun at the expense of the other people at the table then you are missing the point. If your idea of fun is &quot;I get to constantly overshadow everyone else's characters,&quot; you're doing it wrong.Yes, it is.Yes. It should be balanced - not just &quot;more awesome 'cuz,&quot; without regard for game balance. Hence the &quot;gamist&quot; aspect. That's totally true. It just happens to be that those things have all had instances of miserable balance failures in the history of D&amp;D. So arguments that &quot;they are ruining two-weapon fighting&quot; because they didn't take it to munchkin-land like other editions don't impress me much.The idea that you take one feat and suddenly have two attacks, no disadvantage or anything else to restrict it is absurd. The impulse to just snap the action economy in half for a pittance is a bad one. Monkeying with the action economy should be a careful exercise in balance.Sorry, if what I want is gross imbalance in my own favor I'm a munchkin. If you won't play a two-weapon fighter anymore because &quot;they ruined it,&quot; by putting it on par with sword-and-board or two-handed-weapon fighting for the same costs, you're a munchkin. I don't really care if anyone thinks it is &quot;not nice&quot; to call out munchkin behavior by name.- Marty Lund</blockquote>

[QUOTE="mlund, post: 6044579, member: 50304"] No. If you're playing D&D to have fun [i]at the expense of the other people at the table[/i] then you are missing the point. If your idea of fun is "I get to constantly overshadow everyone else's characters," you're doing it wrong. Yes, it is. Yes. It should be balanced - not just "more awesome 'cuz," without regard for game balance. Hence the "gamist" aspect. That's totally true. It just happens to be that those things have all had instances of [b]miserable balance failures[/b] in the history of D&D. So arguments that "they are ruining two-weapon fighting" because they didn't take it to munchkin-land like other editions don't impress me much. The idea that you take one feat and suddenly have two attacks, no disadvantage or anything else to restrict it is absurd. The impulse to just snap the action economy in half for a pittance is a bad one. Monkeying with the action economy should be a careful exercise in balance. Sorry, if what I want is gross imbalance in my own favor I'm a munchkin. If you won't play a two-weapon fighter anymore because "they ruined it," by putting it on par with sword-and-board or two-handed-weapon fighting for the same costs, you're a munchkin. I don't really care if anyone thinks it is "not nice" to call out munchkin behavior by name. - Marty Lund [/QUOTE]

Verification