• Cethin@lemmy.zipEnglish
      1·
      1 month ago

      It’s too many rules written with too much haste and no testing. You end up with a ton of rules that aren’t clear and contradict each other constantly. It’s honestly a shit system. New players really should be told to play Pathfinder 2e at this point, not D&D5e. If the company being complete shit wasn’t enough of a reason, the rules making a lot more sense should be.

  • AeronMelon@lemmy.world
    1·
    1 month ago

    Anytime a show or movie shows a sword fight where someone also gets punched in the face is just good choriography.

      • mnemonicmonkeys@sh.itjust.worksEnglish
        01·
        1 month ago

        Depends on what era. In Europe, coats of plates didn’t really appear before the 13th century and full plate armor wasn’t developed until the late 14th century. Before that you mainly had people wearing chainmail and a helmet if they could get it, or gambesons (cloth armor).

        At that time, weapons were still somewhat effective against armor. Spears, axes, and arrows could punch through chainmail.

        When full plate armor was developed, only the very wealthy had access to it, and everyone else continued to just wear chainmail and gambesons. Fully armored knights effectively became tanks that could slash their way through all the peons.

        The only realistic way the foot soldiers could stop them was to have several guys swarm an isolated knight, each grabbing a limb, and hold him down. Then they would either stab the knight through the gaps in his armor (like the eyeslot of the visor) or more likely would drag him off for ransom.

        That being said, there are plenty of instances of 2 armored knights fighting each other, with them often half-swording or grappling each other to the ground and stabbing each other with daggers.

        But my earlier comparison to tanks still stands. Most of the time, tanks are actually supporting infantry units, with tank v tank encounters being relatively rare. Similarly, knights spent most of their time in relatively small units killing a lot of unarmored opponents

  • Susaga@sh.itjust.worksEnglish
    1·
    1 month ago

    There’s a phenomenon in TTRPGs called a Mermaids Amulet. There was an item in a game that let a mermaid breathe in air, which was the ONLY thing that indicated they normally couldn’t. In short, a rule was only shown to exist by an ability to overcome it.

    Monks have the ability to make a bonus action unarmed strike after making an attack, which would be redundant if the dual wielding rules let you do that.

  • owenfromcanada@lemmy.ca
    0·
    1 month ago

    I can’t imagine too many scenarios where allowing someone who is wielding a one-handed (or versatile) weapon and nothing in the off hand to have a bonus action unarmed strike to be game-breaking. Seems like an easy call to me.

    • 𝕱𝖎𝖗𝖊𝖜𝖎𝖙𝖈𝖍@lemmy.world
      1·
      1 month ago

      So there’s a few issues here:

      • Unarmed Strikes do not require an open hand. Punches, kicks, and slams all count as the same Unarmed Strike
      • If you were to allow this, there would be no reason to allow someone with two Shortswords or a Greataxe to do a BA strike
      • …which would then render the BA attack from Polearm Master moot since they no longer need a feat to do that
      • I’ll also note that the fighter with a sword in one hand and nothing in the other is likely using the Duelist fighting style, so that sword attack is effectively two die sizes larger. A Duelist Longsword is roughly equivalent to a Greatsword to put it in perspective

      At the end of the day, allowing martials to perform a BA Unarmed Strike wouldn’t be game breaking, but it needs to be applied universally which has secondary implications