Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="ryryguy" data-source="post: 4213556" data-attributes="member: 64945">I find this "two weapons must grant two attacks" notion sort of interesting.  Pawsplay is definitely not alone - FallingIcicle was pushing this very vehemently in the weapon preview thread.Why do people feel so strongly about this?  I mean, I don't see anything wrong with a two weapons -> two attacks mechanic per se.  It does have a certain thematic symmetry.  But when you get down to it, D&D combat is full of abstractions and gamey constructs.  "Attacks" are really an abstraction... we know that "one attack" might represent several feints and swings in the imaginary action.  Having two weapons and the right training (feat) might enable more feints and swings, translating perhaps into a game abstraction of a bonus to hit, and a resulting boost to average damage as a tradeoff for not carrying a shield. This has a similar outcome to enabling two attacks; perhaps also advantages in ease of play (one attack roll vs. two is quicker, maybe easier to balance).  Yet I think to the "two attacks" crowd it's just not going to be satisfying.  Somehow, "two attacks in the round" has been transformed from a game mechanic almost into reality.  Taking away the two attacks is like denying reality.A slow guy with a greatsword gets as many attacks in a round as a quick guy with a dagger... why doesn't this "lack of realism" get anyone upset?</blockquote>