(OOC) Fitz's Folly (ToA PBP)

[EarlyBird]

They want you to invest more to get that two weapon fighting skill, i.e. invest a feat

Dual Wielder - to be precise aren't you human you could have that at level one

 

[Kobold Stew]

Since we are talking about rules... a humble proposal, and some grumbling

1: The machette: I think the game should have this as a weapon - a 1d6 slashing simple weapon (strenght-based). Comparable to the mace or the hand axe (can't be thrown though). It's simple because it's not something you do fancy swordplay with - you just hack away.

You're right, it should be there.
You could re-skin a handle to have exactly this (this would be weaker, since it can't be thrown). Mechanically, there is no effect at all.

Part of the space the machete would occupy is taken up by the scimitar, which is additionally a finesse weapon.

Grumbling: I don't like the 2-weapon style in 5e, as it doesn't really convey the sword and dagger style properly at all. The main-gauche was a parrying tool. You sometimes used it to stab if the foe was inside your guard (ie too close to stab with the rapier). It wasn't you attack with both weapons affair, it was about defense. I took a rapier and buckler because it reflects the *spirit* of that fighting style, even though that was done far lest often. Ah well.

I agree.

My house rule, is this:

Bucklers exist, and give +1 AC, but uses a hand; no proficiency required (those w/ proficiency can use a dagger, handaxe, lantern, cloak, etc. for this benefit as long as they are not being used for an attack in that round).

In my view, this does not meaningfully undermine the dual wielder feat.

 

[Ancalagon]

They want you to invest more to get that two weapon fighting skill, i.e. invest a feat

Dual Wielder - to be precise aren't you human you could have that at level one

Well the thing with the two weapon fighting skills is that it's a way to get more attacks, while in real life that wasn't the point. And with the feat you get what, two rapiers? That was almost never done and it's not an effective style - the two swords just get in the way of each other.

You're right, it should be there.
You could re-skin a handle to have exactly this (this would be weaker, since it can't be thrown). Mechanically, there is no effect at all.

Part of the space the machete would occupy is taken up by the scimitar, which is additionally a finesse weapon.

The scimitar is the slashing equivalent of a short sword (also a martial weapon). They are there (martial) because they are harder to use effectively than a machette but offer more options.

I agree.

My house rule, is this:

Bucklers exist, and give +1 AC, but uses a hand; no proficiency required (those w/ proficiency can use a dagger, handaxe, lantern, cloak, etc. for this benefit as long as they are not being used for an attack in that round).

In my view, this does not meaningfully undermine the dual wielder feat.

Well, that's *worse* than the current situation no? (a shield is a shield is a shield so buckler gives 2 AC).

What I would want is a main gauche, or other type of parrying dagger, that I could legally use with the duelist fighting style, that wouldn't give me an extra attack but a +2 bonus to AC - ie a redskinned shield in other words.

But I'm willing to keep going on with a buckler/small shield etc.

 

[Fradak]

What I would want is a main gauche, or other type of parrying dagger, that I could legally use with the duelist fighting style, that wouldn't give me an extra attack but a +2 bonus to AC - ie a redskinned shield in other words.

For doing that a lot recently, Fitz is quite open to this kind of refluffing.

 

[EarlyBird]

Sounds like a good parrying dagger, +2 AC and is not used for attacking as that would put it out of position and what not

 

[Kobold Stew]

Well, that's *worse* than the current situation no? (a shield is a shield is a shield so buckler gives 2 AC).

What I would want is a main gauche, or other type of parrying dagger, that I could legally use with the duelist fighting style, that wouldn't give me an extra attack but a +2 bonus to AC - ie a redskinned shield in other words.

But I'm willing to keep going on with a buckler/small shield etc.

It's reaching in a different direction.
1. It adds a defense option for rogues, etc. willing not to have a free hand (and so a real choice for casters).
2. It recognizes that trained duelists can and did (in some cultures) use poignards and other objects defensively, without
3. having the offhand serve both offensively and defensively in the same round (which I believe more accurately reflects historical fighting styles, while still keeping hit points abstract).

I'm not pushing this on others; but that's the path I carved for games I run. I'm open to refinements.

 

[FitzTheRuke]

I am absolutely on board with calling your shield a main-gauche if you never attack with it. Heck, in a pinch, I would probably be okay with you attacking with it (as a dagger) if you didn't get the AC that round. The only "cheat" there is in the action economy of removing your shield and pulling a dagger.

I also have no idea why the designers made it so you can dual-wield two 1d6 short swords but somehow a 1d4 dagger and a 1d8 rapier is not allowed. But with a feat you can just use two 1d8 rapiers, which is pretty silly, really. (Well, at least really not easy to do.)

 

[FitzTheRuke]

[MENTION=23484]Kobold Stew[/MENTION]. I usually describe treasure as "126gp in various coins and gems" and don't tend to bother with it beyond that. My immersion priorities tend to lie elsewhere.

 

[Ancalagon]

I am absolutely on board with calling your shield a main-gauche if you never attack with it. Heck, in a pinch, I would probably be okay with you attacking with it (as a dagger) if you didn't get the AC that round. The only "cheat" there is in the action economy of removing your shield and pulling a dagger.

I also have no idea why the designers made it so you can dual-wield two 1d6 short swords but somehow a 1d4 dagger and a 1d8 rapier is not allowed. But with a feat you can just use two 1d8 rapiers, which is pretty silly, really. (Well, at least really not easy to do.)

Thank you. I may "describe" a few hits as being a stab from the dagger, but mechanistically, that's because I rolled low on my rapier damage (ie I didn't give myself an extra attack!). A "shield bash" (if I ever go that route, feat wise) would become a punch with the hand-guard etc. (Although I'm not planning on taking any feats until my dex hits 20 so...)

I'll also never throw it - not only because you don't throw 2C at your enemies, but also because realistically a main gauche would be a horrid throwing weapon...

Now I can also use the character portrait I found

edit: And *yes*, the system as it is designed doesn't support the "main weapon to attack, off hand to parry/close in work" paradime at all. It's very "attack with both hand in a whirlwind of offence", and to be honest it's always been this way... but with 5e's simplifications it's worse. In the rapier era, the off-hand always had something to parry with - if no main gauche was available, a knife, a stick, a scabbard, your hat, a bunched up cloak - heck they would even parry bare-handed if they had to.

 

[Ancalagon]

I'm kind of impressed how quickly and coherently that plan came together... all I did was "line up the pieces" a little bit. The "warrior ethos" of the party is showing

Of course plans don't always survive contact with the enemy but, it's a good plan!