Search results

Which is why I am suggesting that the Two-Weapon Fighting penalty be lowered to -4/-8 and Ambidexterity be revised to cancel out the off handed damage penalty. Sorry of I'm sounding like a broken record folks, but it's all there in the thread.

As per my reply to Mike, I don't think a -6/-10 penalty is all that bad to a middle-of-the-road fighter. That said, I think -4/-8 would be more appropriate penalties, with the Two-Weapon Fighting feat reducing the off hand penalty by 4.

Yes it would. And it depends wholly on your level and the creatures you are fighting. A -6/-10 penalty is not prohibitive at all to a 20th level fighter with a base attack of +20. But a -20/-18 penalty is prohibitive to such a character. After 10 or so levels, should a melee character want to...

Two-weapon fighting is already the opposite of real life. While people did fight with two weapons, the second weapon was used to parry more often than attack (if used to attack at all). Actually attacking with two weapons simulateously or in successive concert is very rare, but exceedingly...

You haven't done the math. The penalties for two-weapon fighting are -6 and -10. By simply taking the Two-Weapon fighting feat, those penalties fall to -4 and -4. That's +8 worth of attack bonuses.

Re: Re: Fixing the newly broken rogue class (thanks to Andy and 3.5) Believe this or not, I can't remember the last time I played a rogue. But I do think that all the classes should balanced against each other. The 3.5 edition rogue, as printed, is no longer balanced against the other classes...

totoro. Hence my original reason for reintroducing Uncanny Dodge and now Improved Uncanny Dodge earlier in level, 2nd and 5th level, rather than 4th and 8th level. In the same vein that rogues are the master sneak attackers, they should also pave the way for detecting those sneak attacks...

You all seem okay with the fact that Two-Weapon Fighting grants +8 worth of attack bonuses. I can't rationalize that for a second. I don't know, perhaps it's my inner sense of game balance. All the alarms go off. :rolleyes: If the basic penalties for two-weapon fighting were Primary -4...

The act of two weapon fighting was only imbalanced because the law of averages dictated that greatswords were more effective damage dealers than two weapons. You simply stood a greater chanced of hitting *once* with a greatsword than *twice* with each of your two weapons. Average greatsword...

*Smirks.* Not sure if you're aware of this or not, but Andy was largely in charge of the 3.5 project. All changes would have gone by him.

whatisitgoodfor. I hear what you're saying about flavor, and I understand the greatsword arguement. The thing is... they fixed something that wasn't broken, and failed to fix something that was. To explain, Ambidexterity didn't need to be removed. The Strength damage for off hand weapons...

Rogues get uncanny dodge a full two levels later than barbarians (and three levels later for improved uncanny dodge), and both can equally sense traps. I don't know about any of you, but this doesn't make a shred of sense to me. I certainly don't know what motivated these changes in 3.5, but...

Normal penalties for fighting with two weapons: -6 primary and -10 secondary. The Ambidexterity feat reduced the secondary penalty by 4. The Two-Weapon Fighting feat reduced both penalties by 2. Using a light off-handed weapon reduces both penalties by 2. Was this really too hard for people to...

I understand where both of you are coming from, even if you do not understand each other. (*I can't believe I'm being a mediator for once.*) Anubis is going as far back as the "race" and adding classes and templates from that point forward. Upper_Krust is going as far back as the "player" and...

Just the other night, some hobgoblins snuck up on the party and surrounded them. Because the hobgoblins didn't need a lantern for illumination, they were able to silently coordinate their attack and completely surprise the party. Darkvision almost singularly defined the hobgoblin combat advantage.

Well said.

*Prods Upper_Krust with a cross-continental stick.* How's version 4 coming along? :D

Well this was timing... I guess you guys posted at the same time. :cool:

Eldorian. Because all this system purports to offer are more accurate guidelines than the current system. Right now, the current system offers lose guidelines with which to measure Challenge Rating (that have been largely proven inaccurate). So in the end, all Upper_Krust is offering is a more...

Looking forward to it. I am curious about one thing however. I know you claim that "writing" is not your best skill, but will there be more paragraphs about "how-to-use-the-rules" in this version? That is really the key to getting this system widely embraced. Something more than "final product...