Menu
News
All News
Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
Pathfinder
Starfinder
Warhammer
2d20 System
Year Zero Engine
Industry News
Reviews
Dragon Reflections
Columns
Weekly Digests
Weekly News Digest
Freebies, Sales & Bundles
RPG Print News
RPG Crowdfunding News
Game Content
ENterplanetary DimENsions
Mythological Figures
Opinion
Worlds of Design
Peregrine's Next
RPG Evolution
Other Columns
From the Freelancing Frontline
Monster ENcyclopedia
WotC/TSR Alumni Look Back
4 Hours w/RSD (Ryan Dancey)
The Road to 3E (Jonathan Tweet)
Greenwood's Realms (Ed Greenwood)
Drawmij's TSR (Jim Ward)
Community
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Resources
Wiki
Pages
Latest activity
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Downloads
Latest reviews
Search resources
EN Publishing
Store
EN5ider
Adventures in ZEITGEIST
Awfully Cheerful Engine
What's OLD is NEW
Judge Dredd & The Worlds Of 2000AD
War of the Burning Sky
Level Up: Advanced 5E
Events & Releases
Upcoming Events
Private Events
Featured Events
Socials!
Twitch
YouTube
Facebook (EN Publishing)
Facebook (EN World)
Twitter
Instagram
TikTok
Podcast
Features
Top 5 RPGs Compiled Charts 2004-Present
Adventure Game Industry Market Research Summary (RPGs) V1.0
Ryan Dancey: Acquiring TSR
Q&A With Gary Gygax
D&D Rules FAQs
TSR, WotC, & Paizo: A Comparative History
D&D Pronunciation Guide
Million Dollar TTRPG Kickstarters
Tabletop RPG Podcast Hall of Fame
Eric Noah's Unofficial D&D 3rd Edition News
D&D in the Mainstream
D&D & RPG History
About Morrus
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
The
VOIDRUNNER'S CODEX
is coming! Explore new worlds, fight oppressive empires, fend off fearsome aliens, and wield deadly psionics with this comprehensive boxed set expansion for 5E and A5E!
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
D&D Older Editions
[3.5] No good reason to get rid of Ambidexterity...
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="Petrosian" data-source="post: 1023737" data-attributes="member: 1149"><p>even as ai write this, I will post first off that this is not intended or expected to change sonofa's mind. i doubt we are seeing his mind after all, cuz this sure looks to me like a troll, not a discussion.</p><p></p><p>I think most people tend to agree that changing the way TWf was put together in 3e to improve it a little bit was a good idea. Even sonofa mentioned a while back his preferred improvement with the strength thingy. Somewhere between two feats for cancelling the big bonuses involved in TWf down to the more normal -2/-2 and the half strength off hand and the price for two weapons, it all was something which became less than "as good" as other options for combat styles.</p><p></p><p>WOTC looked at it in play, listened to people and decided to make a fix to improve it some. OK!</p><p></p><p>The fix they chose, cutting the "penalty goes to -2/-2" down to one feat made it less expensive to take it. OK!</p><p></p><p>It also had a second impact. It can now be taken for characters at first level right from the start. An elven rogue does not need to wait until 3rd level to figure out how to use shortswords in both hands, any more than an elven rogue needs to wait until 3rd level to learn to use a greatsword two handed. Both combat options now require just one feat which he gains at first level.</p><p></p><p>So the change WOTC chose also tends to even out the ability to start with the fighting style between TWF and THF. </p><p></p><p>Sure, they could have decided to change how strength works in off hands and left it at two feats, but that would still have left it out of the reach of many starting characters. i suppose if you consider that delay a good thing, then you would prefer sonofa's house rule suggestion to be superior to the change wotc made.</p><p></p><p>I guess you can sum it up relatively easily... should an elven rogue be able to start the game with effective two weapon fighting? if so, then the one feat notion is probably your choice of preference too. If you think thats wrong or will break your game in two like an adamantine greatsword sundering a wand in 3.5, then you should probably consider house rules.</p><p></p><p>Me, i like it. it is one of the relatively few things i like about 3.5. But then, thats probably just me. <img src="" class="smilie smilie--sprite smilie--sprite1" alt=":)" title="Smile :)" loading="lazy" data-shortname=":)" /></p><p></p><p>i think we all have a good idea as to where sonofa claims to comes down on this one.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Petrosian, post: 1023737, member: 1149"] even as ai write this, I will post first off that this is not intended or expected to change sonofa's mind. i doubt we are seeing his mind after all, cuz this sure looks to me like a troll, not a discussion. I think most people tend to agree that changing the way TWf was put together in 3e to improve it a little bit was a good idea. Even sonofa mentioned a while back his preferred improvement with the strength thingy. Somewhere between two feats for cancelling the big bonuses involved in TWf down to the more normal -2/-2 and the half strength off hand and the price for two weapons, it all was something which became less than "as good" as other options for combat styles. WOTC looked at it in play, listened to people and decided to make a fix to improve it some. OK! The fix they chose, cutting the "penalty goes to -2/-2" down to one feat made it less expensive to take it. OK! It also had a second impact. It can now be taken for characters at first level right from the start. An elven rogue does not need to wait until 3rd level to figure out how to use shortswords in both hands, any more than an elven rogue needs to wait until 3rd level to learn to use a greatsword two handed. Both combat options now require just one feat which he gains at first level. So the change WOTC chose also tends to even out the ability to start with the fighting style between TWF and THF. Sure, they could have decided to change how strength works in off hands and left it at two feats, but that would still have left it out of the reach of many starting characters. i suppose if you consider that delay a good thing, then you would prefer sonofa's house rule suggestion to be superior to the change wotc made. I guess you can sum it up relatively easily... should an elven rogue be able to start the game with effective two weapon fighting? if so, then the one feat notion is probably your choice of preference too. If you think thats wrong or will break your game in two like an adamantine greatsword sundering a wand in 3.5, then you should probably consider house rules. Me, i like it. it is one of the relatively few things i like about 3.5. But then, thats probably just me. :-) i think we all have a good idea as to where sonofa claims to comes down on this one. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
D&D Older Editions
[3.5] No good reason to get rid of Ambidexterity...
Top