Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Chaosmancer" data-source="post: 8795640" data-attributes="member: 6801228">So, two players, unproficient in Athletics, cannot work together to move things and make it easier. The exact complaint I made, to which you responded "What are you talking about?" and posted the rules. And now that I've clarified... you knew exactly what I was talking about? And, most of your reasoning that this change is "purely good" has nothing to do with the mechanics, and everything to do with the interaction between the player and the DM. With the old rules I often asked people "How do you help" and I often refused to let them use the Help action on things like "Can I roll Arcana to see if I know X" because I couldn't justify other player helping them know something. And if the player in question had a good reason to help... then I let them. In fact, this entire issue ISN'T solved by the proficiency, but is instead solved by "To give this assistance, you must be near enough to the ally to assist verbally or physically when the ally makes the check. " Which is a clarification I'm completely for.But having the player try and justify why they can use Persuasion to offer assistance instead of just physically aiding the person trying to move the thing is utterly ridiculous. If they want to do it, fine, but requiring it? There is no sense to it. Now, again, if the player in question is say attempting to perform surgery, I'd be perfectly fine requiring proficiency in Medicine to perform the Help action. That is an advanced skill, but I also would have required Proficiency in Medicine to begin the check in the first place. Meanwhile, I don't require proficiency in Athletics to attempt to pick up things, or break down doors, so why would I require it to aid those actions? Simply to force the player to say that they use Religion to give a sermon on hardwork to inspire their ally? No, both of you shoulder charge the door at the same time, advantage. Easy and done.  And this doesn't change any of that in the slightest. All it does is force people to adapt to more restrictions, but no restrictions that actually prevent the type of situations that the GM would be forced to contend with. And again, this line in the rules covers that 100%, the need for proficiency doesn't "The DM has final say on whether your assistance is possible."You know, accusing your interlocutor of ignorance is never a good way to start.What does any of this have to do with a 4th level feat? Third level spell slots come online for the ranger at 9th level. Fifth level slots come on at 17th level. So, if I understand your issue, at 1st level, the ranger can deal 4d6+dex mod. This is decently high, and by level 17 they can do this for 24 hours. Which means that at level four you can't let them have a feat that changes some of those dice to d8's? Meanwhile, I compared this spell and the new feat, active for 24 hours at level 17, to a fighter with a different new feat, with no spell at all, so therefore active for 24 hours, and showed that the other feat is stronger and therefore it wouldn't be broken to unnerf the feat. None of your replies make any coherent sense, meanwhile you keep insulting me, like I don't understand the mechanics I am trying to discuss. Let's try to make this simpler, once again. The damage from Dual-Wielding, once you hit level 5, is no longer that impressive. Yes, at level 1, it is. However, nothing about the balance of a level 4 feat applies to level 1, because you cannot have a level 4 feat at level 1. And this has been a known problem with dual-wielding for a long time, I'm not exactly breaking new ground by noting that Dual-Wielding often struggles to be as strong as other options. There was no reason for the de-buff that you cannot dual-wield non-light weapons. It doesn't address the parts of the combat style that could potentially be a problem, and it is an unnecessary restriction. Let people do it, it doesn't make the style too powerful.You keep bringing up dual-rapiers like it is some sort of holy grail that I am lusting after. I'm actually more upset that I can't dual-wield battleaxes. By the way, how does my fighter or barbarian (who have the same fighting style and the same new feat) matter towards spells for the bard or the ranger? Look, you despise rapiers, I get it. Solution? Build more weapons that are finesse, one-handed, and deal 1d8 damage. The only reason the Rapier is so ubiquitous is because it is the only option. Seriously, take a look at the weapons. One-handed Strength weapon -> 15 weapons ranging from 1d4 to 1d8 (some are versatile, giving access to 1d10). At that high end, where the 1d8 is? You have SIX options, 2/5ths of all the options are at the high endTwo-handed Strength weapon -> 7 weapons, ranging from 1d8 to 1d12, and actually there is only one that is 1d8 (the greatclub) all of the others are either 1d10, 2d6, or 1d12.One-handed Finesse Weapon -> 5 weapons, ranging from 1d4 to 1d8. This is a third of the options for strength, two of them are 1d4 (the dagger and the whip), two of them are 1d6 swords (scimitar and shortsword) and the last one is the rapier. Two-handed Finesse weapon -> Zero options. So, why are rapiers ubiquitous? Why does every dex-melee build use the same weapons? Because there are only five choices, and only one of them is a 1d8. And if you don't have access to martial weapons... you literally only get daggers, that's it. They are the only finesse melee weapon for simple weapons. And if you don't want to deal 1d6, you get a rapier because you literally have no other choice. Add more weapons, like you have for strength, and you will have people choosing other options.</blockquote>

Verification