|
| 19 people marked this as a favorite. |
Reading the blogs I was really keen on making a dual wielding Barbarian cause Double Slice made it look really cool, only to be saddened to find out they don't have access to the Double Slice feat. And lots of the classes were in that predicament.
As someone not fond of equipment and weapon styles being restricted to certain classes, I got to thinking, have Classes have actual Class Feats, and tie the Weapon related Feats to their own thing. And with the Proficiency system we already have the structure in place. It would also give the tiers of Weapon Proficiency a purpose other than just attack and damage bonuses.
Tie things like Power Attack and Double Slice to being Trained/Expert in those Weapons, that way a Fighter still has a leg up while keeping a structure and pacing to when the Feats are accessible (or even better have some of those things be options unlocked at those Tiers, similar to skills, rather than Combat/General Feats you have to spend).
| 8 people marked this as a favorite. |
I was honestly hoping that General Feats (being a precious category) would include things like "weapon feats" and "armor feats" being tied to levels of proficiency. As it stands, general feats are a bit lacking.
|
|
I was honestly hoping that General Feats (being a precious category) would include things like "weapon feats" and "armor feats" being tied to levels of proficiency. As it stands, general feats are a bit lacking.
*nods*
An excellent point. And we JUST happen to have all this delicious design space for weapon and armor feats.
| 7 people marked this as a favorite. |
I'd favor proficiencies interacting with feats in some way. I had expected to see weapon proficiency to control how things like Power Attack advanced, not just a flat level requirement.
Yep.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I think someone suggested this before but a general feat that allows you to steal a lvl 1 feat from any class (maybe with a 12 or 14 in that classes key ability as a prerequisite) would open up a lot of design space. I'm okay if you need to multiclass into fighter to get some of the more advanced techniques but dual slice, reactive shield, point blank shot, should be readily available.
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I think someone suggested this before but a general feat that allows you to steal a lvl 1 feat from any class (maybe with a 12 or 14 in that classes key ability as a prerequisite) would open up a lot of design space. I'm okay if you need to multiclass into fighter to get some of the more advanced techniques but dual slice, reactive shield, point blank shot, should be readily available.
Interesting, but it kinda side steps the issue rather than addressing it.
As someone not fond of equipment and weapon styles being restricted to certain classes, I got to thinking, have Classes have actual Class Feats, and tie the Weapon related Feats to their own thing. And with the Proficiency system we already have the structure in place. It would also give the tiers of Weapon Proficiency a purpose other than just attack and damage bonuses.
Tie things like Power Attack and Double Slice to being Trained/Expert in those Weapons, that way a Fighter still has a leg up while keeping a structure and pacing to when the Feats are accessible (or even better have some of those things be options unlocked at those Tiers, similar to skills, rather than Combat/General Feats you have to spend).
I was actually going to make a thread just like this, but then I thought it might be redundant with the other "move feats out of classes threads", but now here we are.
My thought on the matter was that it might not be a bad idea to just split things into two categories: General Feats which aren't limited by proficiency (instead gated by level or other stuff) and "Specialist" Feats which have a proficiency requirement. Skill feats would go in that, along with Combat/Weapon/Armor feats. General feats can become specialist feats, but specialist feats can't become general feats. It would also give people a good way to categorize them, and move those weird anomalous general feats that have skill proficiency requirements out of the general pool. The problem there when I was thinking about it though was that then characters who want to be good at skills have to trade out combat effectiveness and vice-versa, and I'm not sure just how good the trade would be at this moment.
Yeah I would limit it to a new resource or just General Feats, not skill/“specialist” Feats since then people have to decide between being competent outside of combat or in it.
I'd personally be more for making all the skill/weapon/general feats into just General feats, but I guess the General/Skill feat split was done for some kind of balance reason when leveling.
Yeah I would limit it to a new resource or just General Feats, not skill/“specialist” Feats since then people have to decide between being competent outside of combat or in it.I'd personally be more for making all the skill/weapon/general feats into just General feats, but I guess the General/Skill feat split was done for some kind of balance reason when leveling.
Splitting feat categories is in order to eliminate the opportunity cost for "well, I want this feat but if I select it instead of a different feat that makes me better at the thing I do best I won't be as good at it. Notably- Skill feats do not make you better at combat. So you can be as good at swordfighting as a person can possibly be, and also have some skill feats unrelated to swordfighting.
General feats making you better at swordfighting are fine.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
General feats making you better at swordfighting are fine.
My problem there is that you only get 5 General feats as you level, so your swordfighting feats are going to come very slowly. That's a finer detail to fix though, I like this idea as a whole.
Add more tiers to proficiency so they can distribute better, and gain a combat feat per tier. But include the option to take more with weapon archetypes. Use the old fighter archetypes as inspiration, and have feats that all scale with proficiency.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
One problem with making things General Feats is that they are few and far between. The first comes at 3rd level and you get one every four after that. So only five ever. It'd probably be better to move a lot of these feats to a group of Generic Class Feats that you can take with your Class Feats regardless of class as long as you meet the prerequisites.
They should probably return to 1 feat per 2 levels.
starting on the 1st level.
And with general feat you should take also class feat.
If that would be too powerful you can limit them to 1/2 your level(round up), so on 1st level you can take 1st level class feat,
on 7th level you can take 4th level class feat, etc...
One problem with making things General Feats is that they are few and far between. The first comes at 3rd level and you get one every four after that. So only five ever. It'd probably be better to move a lot of these feats to a group of Generic Class Feats that you can take with your Class Feats regardless of class as long as you meet the prerequisites.
That could work, apart from the annoyingly confusing distinction you have to make between a General Feat and a General Class Feat. Which could be circumvented by just calling them Talents, but that's a completely separate grievance I have with the system.
On a more serious note I think there might also be some issues with the choices becoming a little too tight for players.
Reading the blogs I was really keen on making a dual wielding Barbarian cause Double Slice made it look really cool, only to be saddened to find out they don't have access to the Double Slice feat. And lots of the classes were in that predicament.
But... But... Fighter Dedication feat! Suddenly a whole new world opens up.
Bear with this post, it's mostly spitballing.
So, if combat feats get rolled into Skill feats, that would mean every class gets access to combat/skill stuff at even levels, along with their own class feats (ignoring that some classes get a class feat at level 1). The only real wonky thing is that Rogues get one at every level, which would make them essentially the new Fighters as far as combat is concerned, and the only fix (beyond removing how many feats they get) is by messing with proficiencies which could result in gimping the class. It also would make characters have to choose between Skill feats and combat feats. Which I guess was actually the case in PF1e as well, though most classes had some way to cheat-in extra combat feats to either supplement combat-focused builds or to alleviate the pressure when choosing non-combat stuff.
On the bright side, in the current system that's not much of a choice since the classes who would want combat feats also have no skills. The combat class that DOES have skills has twice the number of feats. So, actually, this works perfectly fine.
On the other hand, making them all General feats does remove the problem of splitting your skill/combat options, but at the cost of significantly slowing down the progression of your character. If the combat General feats are huge packages of bonuses then that's fine, but then they might be significantly more valuable than the other general feats. Maybe too valuable in comparison. It would also prevent characters from being able to improve their own proficiencies and then get access to the feats, which does kind of stifle character builds quite a lot.
Do combat archetypes, make them available at level one, they don't count against dedications.
Archetypes are a really elegant way to do feat chains.
Do combat archetypes, make them available at level one, they don't count against dedications.
Archetypes are a really elegant way to do feat chains.
I pointed it out before, but that would make class decisions very "tight" for players. Now you have to choose between playing your class well or doing combat well, which really shouldn't be a choice to begin with. And that's ignoring how much restructuring would have to go on if the vast majority of combat options got moved out of classes.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Every time I see posts like this I try and explain that isn't how it works anymore. Feats don't work the same, the action economy isn't the same and even weapon penalties aren't the same. So not having access to one class feat without multiclassing doesn't mean that a type of combat isn't viable. Let's math up some stuff, you brought up the barbarian so I'll make a duel weapon barbarian and compare it to a duel weapon fighter. Let's make them 4th level and both human so they both will have access to their third tier class feats and have around the same general stats.
THE BARBARIAN
Str 18++++
Dex 14++
Con 14++
Int 10
Wis 12+
Cha 10
HP 68 (48 lvl, 8 Con, 8 Human, 4 toughness) (6 temporary while raging)
Speed 20 (-5 armor) 30 raging
AC 19 (10+4+2+4-1) (18 while raging)
TAC 17 (10+4+2+2-1) (17 while raging)
Attacks
Expert Large Longsword +8, 1d10+4(+10 raging) (avg 9 damage, 15 raging)
Expert Large Swortsword +4, 1d8+4(+7 raging) (avg 8 damage, 12 raging)
Expert Large Swortsword +0, 1d8+4(+7 raging) see above
IMPORTANT STUFF
Ancestry Feat - General Training (Toughness)
Background - Hunter
Barbarian Feat 1 - Sudden Charge
Totem - Giant
Barbarian Feat 2 - No Escape
Critical Brutality
General Feat - Fast Recovery
Barbarian Feat 3 - Fast Movement
THE FIGHTER
Str 18++++
Dex 12+
Con 16+++
Int 10
Wis 12+
Cha 10
HP 64
Speed 15 (-10 armor)
AC 21 (10+4+1+6) AC 22 with Twin Parry
TAC 16 (10+4+1+2)
Attacks
Expert Longsword +11 1d8+4 (avg damage 8)
Expert Swortsword +7 1d6+4 (avg damage 7)
Expert Shortsword +3 1d6+4 see above
SPECIAL ATTACKS
Double Slice (2 actions) - make two attacks at +11 but one with Longsword 1d8+4 and one with shortsword 1d6+4. Third attack would still be at +3.
IMPORTANT STUFF
Ancestry Feat - General Training (Toughness)
Background - Warrior
Attack of Opportunity
Fighter Feat 1 - Double Slice
Fighter Feat 2 - Intimidating Strike
General Feat - Fast Recovery
Weapon Mastery - Swords
Fighter Feat 3 - Twin Parry
Okay so that's pretty much all the important bits. So this Barbarian is doing a TREMENDOUS amount of damage with both his first and second attack while raging. If he crits his minimum damage with his first attack is 22 and his max is 40. With his second attack his minimum crit damage is 16 and his max is 30. That's nuts. And while yes his third attack is not at a bonus he has great mobility being able move 30 feet. Since an average monster of 4th lvl has an AC of 19 then he can hit on 11 and can hit with a 15 on his second attack. Tactical positioning and making sure he gets flanking means that's even lower. Or any buffs from Wizard allies and all that.
The Fighter has a MUCH higher chance to hit but honestly that's his job. He is more likely to crit but not by much. He'd probably be hitting more often but his damage isn't nearly the same as the Barbarian.
Lets roll some virtual dice. I'm going to randomly roll 2 sets of 3 attacks from the Babarian and the Fighter against an AC of 16 and 19, which is around a 2nd lvl monster and a 4th lvl monster's AC.
BARBARIAN SET 1 against AC 16
Rolls are 8, 20 and 6
So he hits his first attack and crit his second and misses his third. On to damage. He rolls a 7 on his first attack for a total of 17 damage. He rolls a 6 for his second for a total of 26 damage. That's 43 damage.
FIGHTER SET 1 against AC 16
Rolls are 2, 7 and 5
So he rolled pretty bad compared to the Barbarian. But his second attack is at a +11 so he hits. He rolls a 6 for 10 damage total.
I'll roll another set of 3 for the both of them to see how it goes.
BARBARIAN SET 2 vs AC 16 - Rolls 5,13 and 3, he hits with his second attack and rolls a 1 for 8 damage total.
FIGHTER SET 2 vs AC 16 - Rolls 14,17 and 1, he hits with his first attack, crits with his second and misses his third. He rolls a 6 with his longsword for 10 damage total and a 2 with his shortword for 12 damage total. That makes his grand total 22.
Judging by this it doesn't really seem the Fighter is doing much better than the Barbarian. If anything he's doing slightly worse. Let's see how the rolls stack up for the AC 19
BARBARIAN SET 1 vs AC 19 - Rolls 4,17 and 18. Sadly he only hits with his 2nd attack cause his third has no bonus. He rolls 8 damage for 15 total damage.
BARBARIAN SET 2 vs AC 19 - He rolls a 2,8, and 10. No hits.
FIGHTER SET 1 vs AC 19 - He rolls 16,4 and 13. His first strike is a hit but not a crit hit. He rolls a 5 for damage making it 9 total.
FIGHTER SET 2 vs AC 19 - He rolls 8,4 and 15. His first strike hits again but no dice on the others. He rolls a 3 for a total of 7 damage.
So the Fighter hit twice with all six attacks and the Barbarian hit once and still did only 1 less damage. I'll do one more.
BBARBARIAN SET 3 vs AC 19 - Rolls are 3,6 and 6. No hits
FIGHTER SET 3 vs AC 19 - Rolls are 9,9 and 8. He hits with his first 2 attacks. He rolls 7 and 2 for a total of 17 damage.
That was more expected. The Fighter will be hitting more often but for less damage.
Granted my math may be off here or there but it just goes to show that the Barbarian doesn't need Double Slice in order to be a viable TWF. So that means that the Class Feat is there to give the Fighter a special something. It's a CLASS ABILITY and its just called a Class Feat that the Fighter can choose if he wants. The cool thing is if the Barbarian really wanted that Feat he could get it by multiclassing and not really lose his ability to TWF in the mean time. His Rage would still get better. He could still pick a few Barbarian feats when he wasn't picking Fighter ones. His most IMPORTANT abilities will still be available to him.
I'd favor proficiencies interacting with feats in some way. I had expected to see weapon proficiency to control how things like Power Attack advanced, not just a flat level requirement.
I thought the same thing.
Every time I see posts like this I try and explain that isn't how it works anymore. Feats don't work the same, the action economy isn't the same and even weapon penalties aren't the same. So not having access to one class feat without multiclassing doesn't mean that a type of combat isn't viable. Let's math up some stuff, you brought up the barbarian so I'll make a duel weapon barbarian and compare it to a duel weapon fighter. Let's make them 4th level and both human so they both will have access to their third tier class feats and have around the same general stats.
** spoiler omitted **...
So what your saying is Even if I don't have a class feature that specifically buffs X it doesn't mean I can't still use the option. So If I want a dual wielding barbarian I should just go ahead and do it even with out a two-weapon type feat yes?
Orrrrrrr I could play a Barbarian that could do cool TWF style stuff without having to multiclass. Weapon use should not be Class specific. It’s not a question of damage and numbers. It’s “I want to do this cool stuff”.
Raging and wielding Large Size weapons and Cleaving people in half isn't cool? At 6th lvl you get EVEN BIGGER. So you become large and your weapons are Huge. You're essentially a duel wielding Hulk. How is that not awesome?
Or having smaller normal sized weapons and still doing a lot more damages on strikes, comparatively, and then at 6th lvl being able to blast them with a line of Acid for 6d6 damage and then still have enough speed to get next to them so you can TWF on your next turn?
I'm not seeing the not awesome here.
I realize you have some numbers here, but they account for specific die rolls and don't figure in criticals. The fact is that with Double Slice, your second attack effectively gets a +4 bonus. We *know* that's huge in this system. Put bluntly, yes, you can use another style of combat even if your class doesn't directly support it, but the classes that support it will probably be strictly better, and that's unfortunate.
I think the same could be said for 2H fighting and Power Attack (two extra damage dice!). Though honestly, Double Shot is lackluster, as you only go from (0, -5) to (-2 -2) at best.
That's why I rolled multiple sets of their actual attacks instead of just looking at the class feat and going "I don't get that so I must be worse" which is what most people seem to be doing.
Yes it makes your second attack get +4 but even if you do Crit you're not doing nearly as much damage as the Barbarian who just hits, let alone Crits. So that added being able to hit more often and is able to Crit slightly more often is what makes the Fighter viable in TWF vs the Barbarian. Granted I haven't done a side by side comparison of the Rogue, Ranger, and Paladin. The only other non caster melee characters.
Also Power Attack costs 2 actions. So the Fighter COULD essentially be doing less damage if he hit with two attacks cause he would be able to add his Str bonus twice and with Power attack he only get's it once. His last attack would still at -10 or -8 if agile. At lower lvls it's more essential cause that second attack is generally pretty low. At 10th lvl yes it does go up to 3 dice total but does the Barbarian need this to be as good as the Fighter? Absolutely not because HE IS A POWER ATTACK because he get's flat bonuses and flat bonuses aren't as common as they use to be.
So what your saying is Even if I don't have a class feature that specifically buffs X it doesn't mean I can't still use the option. So If I want a dual wielding barbarian I should just go ahead and do it even with out a two-weapon type feat yes?
Well the Math adds up. Honestly the Barbarian hit less then the Fighter but did more total damage. This also doesn't include buffs from allies or magic weapons or even higher lvl abilities. The Ranger, the only other class who gets Double Slice and Twin Parry, also get's Hunt, which I think is an awesome class feature. It's EXTREMELY helpful for TWF and still just helpful for single weapon use.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
Every time I see posts like this I try and explain that isn't how it works anymore. Feats don't work the same, the action economy isn't the same and even weapon penalties aren't the same. So not having access to one class feat without multiclassing doesn't mean that a type of combat isn't viable. Let's math up some stuff, you brought up the barbarian so I'll make a duel weapon barbarian and compare it to a duel weapon fighter. Let's make them 4th level and both human so they both will have access to their third tier class feats and have around the same general statsSo what your saying is Even if I don't have a class feature that specifically buffs X it doesn't mean I can't still use the option. So If I want a dual wielding barbarian I should just go ahead and do it even with out a two-weapon type feat yes?
It's... not really dual-wielding at that point though, is it? I mean yes, you're using two weapons, but if I'm dual-wielding daggers or something the only mechanical difference from using a single dagger is that I'm paying extra gold to do the exact same thing. Plus then I can use my empty off-hand to hold a shield, or hold a potion, or make rude gestures. And also when I get knocked out I don't have to spend my entire turn picking up both of my weapons.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Dual wielding is kind of dumb and exists just to fill a fantasy trope, that trope doesn't match up with Barbarians so I'm ok with them not having easy access to it.
I do agree that Fighter dedication giving nothing (or very little) to Paladin/Ranger/Barbarians is a problem, though.
It's... not really dual-wielding at that point though, is it? I mean yes, you're using two weapons, but if I'm dual-wielding daggers or something the only mechanical difference from using a single dagger is that I'm paying extra gold to do the exact same thing. Plus then I can use my empty off-hand to hold a shield, or hold a potion, or make rude gestures. And also when I get knocked out I don't have to spend my entire turn picking up both of my weapons.
It's only as you say if you're not using two different weapons. Which is one of the many perks of duel wielding. You can use a longsword and a mace and have the option of all damage types. You could enchant your two magic items with two different magical abilities later on. It just looks cool lol.
I also don't know why you would want to duel wield daggers instead of shortwords. Daggers should jut be backup weapons.
Dual wielding is kind of dumb and exists just to fill a fantasy trope, that trope doesn't match up with Barbarians so I'm ok with them not having easy access to it.
I do agree that Fighter dedication giving nothing (or very little) to Paladin/Ranger/Barbarians is a problem, though.
The Fighter dedication seems to me to be the path that caster characters would take it they want to melee it up. The stuff you get from Fighter dedication doesn't seem, IMO, to be worth it for other Melee focused classes. As they all get their own stuff. I guess if you REALLY don't want the Class Feats you get and DON'T want to be a Fighter then it's a choice.
ALSO I just find out that I was rolling the crit damage wrong, attack rolls aren't flat double damage, you roll double DICE and then double any bonuses and such. Not super important but I thought I would clarify.
|
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Orrrrrrr I could play a Barbarian that could do cool TWF style stuff without having to multiclass. Weapon use should not be Class specific. It’s not a question of damage and numbers. It’s “I want to do this cool stuff”.Raging and wielding Large Size weapons and Cleaving people in half isn't cool? At 6th lvl you get EVEN BIGGER. So you become large and your weapons are Huge. You're essentially a duel wielding Hulk. How is that not awesome?
*blink*
No that is neat. It just doesn’t have anything to do with what I was talking about.
Or having smaller normal sized weapons and still doing a lot more damages on strikes, comparatively, and then at 6th lvl being able to blast them with a line of Acid for 6d6 damage and then still have enough speed to get next to them so you can TWF on your next turn?Also neat. Also doesn’t have anything to do with what I was talking about.
I'm not seeing the not awesome here.
You’ve pointed out two OTHER awesome things to do when people are wanting a different awesome thing. No one’s claimed the Barbarian isn’t awesome. That isn’t the argument going on here.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I kinda like class feats being the encounter-centric feats. To keep it that way, I'd probably just have to lists of generic class feats, Combat and Magic. That way we can fold in some metamagic stuff as well. Different classes could have access to different general lists.
Orrrrrrr I could play a Barbarian that could do cool TWF style stuff without having to multiclass. Weapon use should not be Class specific. It’s not a question of damage and numbers. It’s “I want to do this cool stuff”.Raging and wielding Large Size weapons and Cleaving people in half isn't cool? At 6th lvl you get EVEN BIGGER. So you become large and your weapons are Huge. You're essentially a duel wielding Hulk. How is that not awesome?*blink*
No that is neat. It just doesn’t have anything to do with what I was talking about.
Or having smaller normal sized weapons and still doing a lot more damages on strikes, comparatively, and then at 6th lvl being able to blast them with a line of Acid for 6d6 damage and then still have enough speed to get next to them so you can TWF on your next turn?Also neat. Also doesn’t have anything to do with what I was talking about.I'm not seeing the not awesome here.You’ve pointed out two OTHER awesome things to do when people are wanting a different awesome thing. No one’s claimed the Barbarian isn’t awesome. That isn’t the argument going on here.
I don't understand. Could you please explain what you mean then? I'm just not seeing the lack of 'cool stuff'.
Cause it seems to me that you want something that tells you that you're doing something cool instead of you just imagining that you are.
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Orrrrrrr I could play a Barbarian that could do cool TWF style stuff without having to multiclass. Weapon use should not be Class specific. It’s not a question of damage and numbers. It’s “I want to do this cool stuff”.Raging and wielding Large Size weapons and Cleaving people in half isn't cool? At 6th lvl you get EVEN BIGGER. So you become large and your weapons are Huge. You're essentially a duel wielding Hulk. How is that not awesome?*blink*
No that is neat. It just doesn’t have anything to do with what I was talking about.
Or having smaller normal sized weapons and still doing a lot more damages on strikes, comparatively, and then at 6th lvl being able to blast them with a line of Acid for 6d6 damage and then still have enough speed to get next to them so you can TWF on your next turn?Also neat. Also doesn’t have anything to do with what I was talking about.I'm not seeing the not awesome here.You’ve pointed out two OTHER awesome things to do when people are wanting a different awesome thing. No one’s claimed the Barbarian isn’t awesome. That isn’t the argument going on here.I don't understand. Could you please explain what you mean then? I'm just not seeing the lack of 'cool stuff'.
Cause it seems to me that you want something that tells you that you're doing something cool instead of you just imagining that you are.
... *opens mouth* ... *closes it*
That’s what Feats typically (should) do, allow cool stuff by way of gameplay and story integration. Feats enable and help visualize the cool stuff. I want (for this example) Barbarians to do the cool TWF mechanical stuff, the current and the will-be released later stuff, so that they can do cool TWF stuff. This game is equal parts mechanics and storytelling.
Hmm I think too its possible some options we won't get until later books too. maybe barbarians can get a different way of using two weapons then the fighter feat. Maybe something similar but different.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Dual wielding is kind of dumb and exists just to fill a fantasy trope, that trope doesn't match up with Barbarians so I'm ok with them not having easy access to it.
Dual wielding is kind of dumb and exists just to fill a fantasy trope, that trope doesn't match up with Barbarians so I'm ok with them not having easy access to it.I think Blizzard might disagree with that opinion...
That site doesn't allow direct links to images. Try this one.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I kinda like class feats being the encounter-centric feats. To keep it that way, I'd probably just have to lists of generic class feats, Combat and Magic. That way we can fold in some metamagic stuff as well. Different classes could have access to different general lists.
Yeah, this was another option I was thinking of. Instead of having the Generic Class Feats that I mentioned previously, maybe have a few class groups that could be selected by classes in that group. Like a Combat Group with options that can be taken by Fighters, Barbarians, Rangers, Paladins, Monks and Rogues, a Magic Group with options for Bards, Clerics, Druids, Sorcerers and Wizards. Maybe some kind of Skillful Group (needs a better name) for Alchemits, Bards, Rogues and maybe some others. There might be some other possible groups too, and there can be overlap. Clerics and Druids might also fit in the combat group, maybe bards, I haven't fully looked. This is just an example list and probably needs to be adjusted.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Dual wielding is kind of dumb and exists just to fill a fantasy trope, that trope doesn't match up with Barbarians so I'm ok with them not having easy access to it.
I do agree that Fighter dedication giving nothing (or very little) to Paladin/Ranger/Barbarians is a problem, though.
Why doesn't it fit? A berserker sweeping through the field with two axes carving a swathe of destruction is totally a Barbarian niche.
That site doesn't allow direct links to images. Try this one.Dual wielding is kind of dumb and exists just to fill a fantasy trope, that trope doesn't match up with Barbarians so I'm ok with them not having easy access to it.I think Blizzard might disagree with that opinion...
Yeah, that doesn't look dumb at all.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Yeah, that doesn't look dumb at all.That site doesn't allow direct links to images. Try this one.Dual wielding is kind of dumb and exists just to fill a fantasy trope, that trope doesn't match up with Barbarians so I'm ok with them not having easy access to it.I think Blizzard might disagree with that opinion...
There are actual fighting styles in real life that use two weapons. Florentine Fencing, Nito Ryu Kenjutsu, and various martial arts use two weapons. It is not just a fantasy trope.
There are actual fighting styles in real life that use two weapons. Florentine Fencing, Nito Ryu Kenjutsu, and various martial arts use two weapons. It is not just a fantasy trope.Yeah, that doesn't look dumb at all.That site doesn't allow direct links to images. Try this one.Dual wielding is kind of dumb and exists just to fill a fantasy trope, that trope doesn't match up with Barbarians so I'm ok with them not having easy access to it.I think Blizzard might disagree with that opinion...
Yes, artificial fighting systems with rules and social/fun/honor constraints sometimes use two weapons. Barbarians trying to kill and not be killed in raids and real battles do not fit that mold.
Well, maybe some of the early ones who fought the Roman legions before the survivors decided that winning fights might be a cool idea.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Yeah, that doesn't look dumb at all.That site doesn't allow direct links to images. Try this one.Dual wielding is kind of dumb and exists just to fill a fantasy trope, that trope doesn't match up with Barbarians so I'm ok with them not having easy access to it.I think Blizzard might disagree with that opinion...
Nope. Pretty sweet.
There are actual fighting styles in real life that use two weapons. Florentine Fencing, Nito Ryu Kenjutsu, and various martial arts use two weapons. It is not just a fantasy trope.Yeah, that doesn't look dumb at all.That site doesn't allow direct links to images. Try this one.Dual wielding is kind of dumb and exists just to fill a fantasy trope, that trope doesn't match up with Barbarians so I'm ok with them not having easy access to it.I think Blizzard might disagree with that opinion...Yes, artificial fighting systems with rules and social/fun/honor constraints sometimes use two weapons. Barbarians trying to kill and not be killed in raids and real battles do not fit that mold.
Well, maybe some of the early ones who fought the Roman legions before the survivors decided that winning fights might be a cool idea.
Okay I'll give you that for Florentine, but martial arts are a very real part of this game and actual fighting history. To dismiss it all as "artificial" is a bit absurd.