D&D 3E/3.5 [3.5] No good reason to get rid of Ambidexterity...

[Jens]

You have.

My changes proposed that the Two-Weapon Fighting feat should only reduce the secondary weapon by 4. Meaning the base penalties of -4/-8 are reduced to -4/-4. By using a light weapon in your off hand, this penalty would be further reduced from -4/-4 to -2/-2 (exactly as it is now).[/B]

You misunderstand, I assume un-intended.

I was referring to the gibberish about the TWF-incurred change in attack penalties for attacking with two weapons being different when applied to equal and different weapons. That should be obvious from both what you quoted and from what you didn't quote.

 

[Ravellion]

Son of a preacherman: Your math is warped, and you obviously don't want to hear the right answer because you don't like it. I have read all of the thread, you just don't absorb the information given by people with conflicting information (it is too concrete to discuss point of view).

But hey, I don't care if your game has nothing but Double bladed sword characters. Actually, I am very confident that no game designer in his right mind would ever use your methods of determining balance.

Apparently I did post that last post for nothing. Thanks for showing me that even on these boards there are people who do nothing but waste my time.

Rav

 

[hong]

This is WANGER I have been aware of since WANGER before beginning this WANGER. I agree with the WANGER. Moreover, this WANGER is also why I have since WANGERED the AmbiWANGERity feat to WANGER the off-hand penalty for inflicting WANGER damage.

It appears you have WANGERED much of this WANGER. This is also why I WANGER lowering those arbitrarily WANGER two-WANGER fighting penalties down to -4/-8 and make the Two-WANGER Fighting feat simply WANGER the secondary WANGER penalty by 4.

The continued WANGER about "how-much-one-WANGER-of-WANGER-is-worth, used-in-both-hands, when-WANGERing-alleviated-combat-WANGERS" has been primarily sustained by Hypersmurf and KaeYoss. I had WANGER on from it long ago now.

At this WANGER, you either WANGER my reasoning or not. Not only do I believe that I am wholly a WANGER, but also that I have clearly WANGERED this matter ad WANGER. Rail all you like against my WANGER, but that is the deciding WANGER here. Despite empty WANGERS without WANGERable proof, no one person has been logically WANGERed to date. I will no longer WANGER on the subject until such proof can be WANGERed.

Hong's and Caliban's most recent comments represent two perfect examples of the kind of replies that warrant no meaningful WANGER whatsoever.

Not with the new WANGERS to WANGER Attack in 3.5. Please review those WANGERS more closely (or again if you have WANGERed already).

With two WANGER fighting, only one WANGER would be affected by the extra off-hand WANGER; a second off-hand WANGER with Improved Two-WANGER Fighting, albeit at a -5 WANGER penalty; and a third off-hand WANGER with Greater Two-WANGER Fighting, albeit at a -10 WANGER penalty. Compared to getting 2 WANGERS of damage for every 1 point of sacrificed WANGER (with the new WANGER Attack), my revision of AmbiWANGERity is both balanced and WANGERed.

Hopefully this WANGER has not been for nothing.

-----

My changes WANGER proposed that the Two-WANGER Fighting feat should only WANGER the secondary WANGER by 4. Meaning the base WANGERs of -4/-8 are reduced to -4/-4. By using a light WANGER in your off hand, this WANGER would be further reduced from -4/-4 to -2/-2 (exactly as it is now).

-----

I would rather pay for a well-designed-WANGER than a popularity-contest-set-of-rules any day.

Hurrah! Spoken like dog with his WANGER tucked between both hind legs. You never did understand what is meant to be a WANGER. Your continued misWANGERs and desperate attempts to warp my WANGER out of context won't be missed.

Now one can only hope you are good for your WANGER.

-----

I do not. Please WANGER the entire thread. You find that I have repeatedly WANGER my revisions of the two-WANGER penalties. This is exactly why I am forced to WANGER myself so much.

I cannot WANGER it more clear.

The moment you WANGER anything with additional WANGER, you are no longer WANGERing from the standpoint of WANGER economy. There are a lot of way to WANGER a single WANGER (that should be a WANGER). Not only is that irrelevant here, but focusing on 1 WANGER will also limit your character's WANGER options (the obvious downfall of your WANGER).

 

[Sonofapreacherman]

Jens.

Nothing was obvious from your quote. If you are trying to make a point that I have missed, please make it again. I am all ears.

-----

Ravellion.

I see my explanation didn't sink in. That's too bad. If you are at all interested in clarity, as you purport to be, then please ask for a more thorough description of any point that escaped you. But if all you are interested in doing is flaming, as the ending of your post seems to indicate, then to be honest, I couldn't give a damn what you think.

-----

Hong.

I see from your colorful post that you are only capable of telling one joke. What can I say Hong? Congratulations. You have lived up to your potential.

 

[Jens]

Jens.

Nothing was obvious from your quote. If you are trying to make a point that I have missed, please make it again. I am all ears.

Well. I only quoted your posts, I don't think I will be able to explain those to you. Part of what I quoted was your quote of my earlier post, but you didn't seem to be uncertain of what I meant (since you replied in unqualified terms). But now it is not obvious?

Yes, I was trying to make a point. Basically, I was saying that the (PHB) TWF feat mitigates the same amount of penalties whether the off hand weapon is light or not. It seemed to me that you were saying it mitigates different amounts and I tried to show you the error.

I don't think I will explain further about it. If I one day were to start preaching, it wouldn't be to the deaf.

Goodbye.

 

[Hypersmurf]

I don't think I will explain further about it. If I one day were to start preaching, it wouldn't be to the deaf.

Amen.

-Hyp.

 

[hong]

Jens.

Nothing was obvious from your quote. If you are trying to make a point that I have missed, please make it again. I am all ears.

Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetuer adipiscing elit. Fusce iaculis tempor neque. Duis ac justo vel risus lobortis elementum. Ut vulputate neque sed eros. Nulla sit amet elit. Praesent et elit. Sed eu orci. In vehicula lacus eget tellus. Maecenas at felis quis neque vestibulum bibendum. Nunc vitae nisl at lorem adipiscing luctus. Aliquam erat volutpat. Donec pellentesque. In nulla tortor, pellentesque a, cursus eget, ultricies a, tortor.

Proin ligula wisi, porta in, aliquam at, sollicitudin nec, est. Nulla egestas, diam eget ultricies mollis, ante orci tincidunt pede, sed eleifend ante arcu id quam. Maecenas a mauris a ipsum accumsan rhoncus. Cras eget urna. Nulla id lacus quis ante fermentum varius. Ut scelerisque ipsum eu nibh. Duis commodo. Vivamus vulputate eros sit amet enim. Mauris convallis. Pellentesque mauris neque, interdum eget, ullamcorper quis, sagittis a, libero.

Ravellion.

I see my explanation didn't sink in. That's too bad. If you are at all interested in clarity, as you purport to be, then please ask for a more thorough description of any point that escaped you. But if all you are interested in doing is flaming, as the ending of your post seems to indicate, then to be honest, I couldn't give a damn what you think.

Aenean at lorem lacinia metus vestibulum pharetra. Nulla bibendum odio sed ipsum. Ut neque ligula, vestibulum non, accumsan sit amet, vulputate quis, urna. Aenean nec lorem. Cum sociis natoque penatibus et magnis dis parturient montes, nascetur ridiculus mus. Cras nibh. Curabitur sollicitudin. Cras laoreet, lorem et bibendum mollis, mi dolor varius nisl, sit amet scelerisque nisl dui at mauris. Curabitur pellentesque. Ut feugiat arcu eu ligula. Donec nibh magna, volutpat nec, imperdiet nec, viverra congue, lorem. Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetuer adipiscing elit. Fusce vestibulum vulputate sem. Maecenas id augue eget est pharetra viverra. Nam dapibus mollis enim. Integer viverra sapien ac mi. Cras at urna quis ligula nonummy fringilla. Nullam odio est, dictum et, aliquam sed, imperdiet eget, nibh. Vestibulum ante ipsum primis in faucibus orci luctus et ultrices posuere cubilia Curae;

Sed sit amet dolor. In ultricies. Nullam quis mi quis diam varius ultricies. Mauris ac ante id lacus posuere iaculis. Aliquam et turpis in ipsum rutrum ornare. Vestibulum in magna. Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetuer adipiscing elit. In vel dolor. Maecenas pede wisi, auctor aliquet, aliquam in, fermentum quis, dui. Vestibulum ante ipsum primis in faucibus orci luctus et ultrices posuere cubilia Curae; In at sem sed leo tincidunt egestas. Nam fringilla nibh eget wisi. Nulla facilisi. Aenean mattis, elit ac bibendum dictum, dolor arcu laoreet risus, in consequat eros wisi ac ligula. Donec sit amet libero. Sed sit amet dolor. Cras suscipit, sapien a scelerisque cursus, nibh wisi varius magna, in aliquet eros nibh sed lorem. Quisque aliquet tempus est.

Hong.

I see from your colorful post that you are only capable of telling one joke. What can I say Hong? Congratulations. You have lived up to your potential.

Curabitur vestibulum purus ut mauris. Nam commodo ultrices nisl. Curabitur hendrerit quam eget dolor. Vestibulum magna quam, rhoncus eu, pulvinar eget, nonummy et, tortor. Nunc placerat sagittis lorem. Vivamus sodales semper odio. Praesent dapibus urna at lorem. Cras sit amet neque eu velit convallis eleifend. Aliquam blandit porttitor risus. Nullam vel eros at libero volutpat egestas. In at enim. Aliquam diam. Class aptent taciti sociosqu ad litora torquent per conubia nostra, per inceptos hymenaeos. Vivamus a nulla sed velit vestibulum egestas.


Hong "makes even MORE SENSE than stucktoapreacherhand" Ooi

 

[Sonofapreacherman]

And when all is said and done, the fact is that Dungeons and Dragons never adds the same type of bonuses together. They always overlap. Therefore... an alleviated untrained penalty can only be alleviated once per weapon proficiency. Not twice for the same weapon. One the most simplistic level, that is all there is to it.



Good night.

 

[Hypersmurf]

And when all is said and done, the fact is that Dungeons and Dragons never adds the same type of bonuses together. They always overlap. Therefore... an alleviated untrained penalty can only be alleviated once per weapon proficiency. Not twice for the same weapon. One the most simplistic level, that is all there is to it.

Uh... so your contention is that if I have Weapon Focus (shortsword), and I'm using two shortswords, I'm only allowed to add the bonus to one of them?

-Hyp.

 

[Sonofapreacherman]

Not at all. You only add them once, but to each attack, calculated in all ways as a seperate combat entity (so-to-speak).

Can I go bed now?