Hey, it's always better to err on the side of caution!True, but that wasn't the point. You get the +1 AC (same as defensive style) but also any potential benefits of the finesse/heavy properties (depends on the game of course). For instance in our game, we have house-rules for heavy that makes this style strong. Hence, my words of caution--which is all they were.
House-rules aside, you still have things like GWM which given the heavy property would allow you to also add the -5/+10 option. For the finesse option, it opens up Defensive Duelist (not a great feat, granted...) but that would bump AC even more.Hey, it's always better to err on the side of caution!
Your house rules however, no matter how good they are, should not weigh much in this conversation
GWM would be better off with a two-handed sword + defense: more damage, already heavy, and more consistent AC bonus.House-rules aside, you still have things like GWM which given the heavy property would allow you to also add the -5/+10 option. For the finesse option, it opens up Defensive Duelist (not a great feat, granted...) but that would bump AC even more.
I agree I don't think +1 AC is broken at all, but as you agreed, "better to err on the side of caution!"
Sure. Anything is better than the current rule of requiring your full action. I'd love to have the option to drop or don a shield before or after an attack.
I'm glad this was a more positive experience for you! Sometimes communication on boards can be difficult and easy to misinterpret on either side, so generally I try to assume most people want to contribute or are simply expressing their counter-views as a point of caution towards game balance.
