Ability - Melee: Dual Wielding and Brawling Focus
Posted: Mon May 16, 2016 2:21 am
I've had this ability for the better part of since it ever existed in the first place. Of course, I've noted from the very beginning that the reasons of my having it at all were pretty pointless.
Why is that?
Well, my character already has a decent skill in Two Weapon Combat. Now when I look at this ability, with a skilled character all I can see is one thing: It is a gated ability purely for the purpose of unlocking skill gains.
I'm pretty understanding of these things, it makes sense if your character is going to be using a weapon in each hand consistently to have an ability such as this.. but in the manner it's currently implemented, I can't say that I agree with it existing at all. It's similar to making an ability called Melee: Shields, purely because you intend to use a shield in your off-hand and that ability will let you unlock the skill gain of Shield Use.
Now, it's possible that the skill description is just misleading and it possibly weights the rolls in some way that it doesn't speak of, or perhaps dual wielding is just difficult as all heck without it in the first place.. but it doesn't say that as it is. And if I'm to be very simple about this, I don't really agree with the ability in the first place. I see no such other gating outside of Brawling Focus (and I absolutely despise that it is a necessity for brawling, as I see no other gated abilities making it harder to swing a sword, which does far more damage and in a more potent damage type).
Every ability that I see on the tree, exempting those two (and the obvious Melee/Range Focus) give an immediate bonus to your character, by means of a new verb to be used in combat or an increase of roll weight- even Tactics Mastery gives benefit in that you can swap your Tactics far more regularly than people without it.
Now, I won't deny that I am biased when it comes to these two abilties. They are, after all, a part of my core kit and it is natural for me to analyze their shortcomings. But I have had these as a part of my kit for a long time now, and I can say that neither of them have proven to give me any great amount of benefit like something else would- and please don't sell me that abilities aren't meant to be equal, because I already pointed out that every single one on the tree gives an immediate benefit exempting the four I have pointed out.
I'm not a GM, nor am I your boss. But I am a player here and while I may not have always been the greatest, I have always tried to deliver to everyone an experience that they can enjoy. I'm requesting that these abilities have a look taken over them, because as they are, they don't truly give any benefit to ANY character, not just mine.
Why is that?
Well, my character already has a decent skill in Two Weapon Combat. Now when I look at this ability, with a skilled character all I can see is one thing: It is a gated ability purely for the purpose of unlocking skill gains.
I'm pretty understanding of these things, it makes sense if your character is going to be using a weapon in each hand consistently to have an ability such as this.. but in the manner it's currently implemented, I can't say that I agree with it existing at all. It's similar to making an ability called Melee: Shields, purely because you intend to use a shield in your off-hand and that ability will let you unlock the skill gain of Shield Use.
This is well and dandy, but in the event that you've had this skill for a period of time, what inspiration do you have for keeping it? Abilities are meant to be a defining part of your character- but by the information that is given to me here, I can see that in time, I will no longer need to have this ability to perform well with a weapon in each hand. And if abilities are supposed to be so defining of a character, why is it that one can perform just as well without this ability- this defining factor of a person.Melee: Dual Wielding as of the time of my post has this description:
Information on Melee: Dual Wielding:
You have the knack for wielding a weapon in each hand.
(OOC: Unlocks skillgains in two-weapon combat. Keep in mind that this isn't a simple principle of 'two means twice as effective' - dual wielding can be awkward and comes with its own balances and penalties.)
Now, it's possible that the skill description is just misleading and it possibly weights the rolls in some way that it doesn't speak of, or perhaps dual wielding is just difficult as all heck without it in the first place.. but it doesn't say that as it is. And if I'm to be very simple about this, I don't really agree with the ability in the first place. I see no such other gating outside of Brawling Focus (and I absolutely despise that it is a necessity for brawling, as I see no other gated abilities making it harder to swing a sword, which does far more damage and in a more potent damage type).
Every ability that I see on the tree, exempting those two (and the obvious Melee/Range Focus) give an immediate bonus to your character, by means of a new verb to be used in combat or an increase of roll weight- even Tactics Mastery gives benefit in that you can swap your Tactics far more regularly than people without it.
Now, I won't deny that I am biased when it comes to these two abilties. They are, after all, a part of my core kit and it is natural for me to analyze their shortcomings. But I have had these as a part of my kit for a long time now, and I can say that neither of them have proven to give me any great amount of benefit like something else would- and please don't sell me that abilities aren't meant to be equal, because I already pointed out that every single one on the tree gives an immediate benefit exempting the four I have pointed out.
I'm not a GM, nor am I your boss. But I am a player here and while I may not have always been the greatest, I have always tried to deliver to everyone an experience that they can enjoy. I'm requesting that these abilities have a look taken over them, because as they are, they don't truly give any benefit to ANY character, not just mine.