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="Caliban" data-source="post: 1027768" data-attributes="member: 284"><p></p><p></p><p>And because <strong>YOU</strong> say it, it must be true. Not. </p><p></p><p>It's not marginalized, and it's not insiginificant. </p><p></p><p>Does the fact that one class (ranger) gets the TWF feats for free marginalize your "economy of feats" arguement? </p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>Only in your mind apparently. <img src="" class="smilie smilie--sprite smilie--sprite2" alt=";)" title="Wink ;)" loading="lazy" data-shortname=";)" /></p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>Um, we never wanted to prove that it was one medium weapon and one small weapon, that's your stance. Can't you even keep your own arguement straight? </p><p></p><p>Why do I need to prove it for the most number of characters anyway? You never said anything about that in the beginning. </p><p></p><p>Trying to change the parameters of the arguement after you have been proven wrong is dirty pool, and doesn't really work in this case. </p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>Then why are you still arguing about it? Logic says your wrong. <img src="" class="smilie smilie--sprite smilie--sprite1" alt=":)" title="Smile :)" loading="lazy" data-shortname=":)" /></p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>Two weapons, one feat. Just like TWF. </p><p></p><p>We are discussing two-weapon fighting are we not?</p><p></p><p> You are talking about (removing) penalties when using two weapons, and we are talking about (removing) penalties when two weapons. </p><p></p><p>Not that hard a concept, I would think. </p><p></p><p>TWF reduces the penalties for using two weapons (-2 for one hand, -6 for the other).</p><p> </p><p>When using two weapons you aren't proficient in, you get a total of -8 in penalties (-4 for each hand). Proficiency reduces those penalties for each hand. Viola! A total of 8 point reduction in penalties, just like TWF in the 3.5. </p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>Being smug when you are wrong just makes you look like an ass. </p><p></p><p>You are the one having problems with the ratio thing.</p><p></p><p>One proficiency: 2 weapons</p><p></p><p>1:2 </p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>Let's see, if it's a metamagic feat it can give up to +5d6 or more damage (empower), or a whole extra spell (up to +15d6 with quickened cone of cold). </p><p></p><p>If it's a weapon proficiency feat is can reduce your penalties by 4 when using one weapon, or 8 when using two weapons (one in each hand). </p><p></p><p>It can prevent an AoO, and grant a +4 bonus (Improved Grapple, Improved Disarm, Improved Trip, etc.)</p><p></p><p>Preventing an AoO seems to be on par with a +4 bonus, so yeah, I think the new TWF feat is on par with the other 3.5 combat feats.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Caliban, post: 1027768, member: 284"] [B][/b] And because [b]YOU[/b] say it, it must be true. Not. It's not marginalized, and it's not insiginificant. Does the fact that one class (ranger) gets the TWF feats for free marginalize your "economy of feats" arguement? [b][/b] Only in your mind apparently. ;) [b][/b] Um, we never wanted to prove that it was one medium weapon and one small weapon, that's your stance. Can't you even keep your own arguement straight? Why do I need to prove it for the most number of characters anyway? You never said anything about that in the beginning. Trying to change the parameters of the arguement after you have been proven wrong is dirty pool, and doesn't really work in this case. [b][/b] Then why are you still arguing about it? Logic says your wrong. :) [b][/b] Two weapons, one feat. Just like TWF. We are discussing two-weapon fighting are we not? You are talking about (removing) penalties when using two weapons, and we are talking about (removing) penalties when two weapons. Not that hard a concept, I would think. TWF reduces the penalties for using two weapons (-2 for one hand, -6 for the other). When using two weapons you aren't proficient in, you get a total of -8 in penalties (-4 for each hand). Proficiency reduces those penalties for each hand. Viola! A total of 8 point reduction in penalties, just like TWF in the 3.5. [b][/b] Being smug when you are wrong just makes you look like an ass. You are the one having problems with the ratio thing. One proficiency: 2 weapons 1:2 [b][/B] Let's see, if it's a metamagic feat it can give up to +5d6 or more damage (empower), or a whole extra spell (up to +15d6 with quickened cone of cold). If it's a weapon proficiency feat is can reduce your penalties by 4 when using one weapon, or 8 when using two weapons (one in each hand). It can prevent an AoO, and grant a +4 bonus (Improved Grapple, Improved Disarm, Improved Trip, etc.) Preventing an AoO seems to be on par with a +4 bonus, so yeah, I think the new TWF feat is on par with the other 3.5 combat feats. [/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