Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Sonofapreacherman" data-source="post: 1028733" data-attributes="member: 2315">Corinth.All I can say is that change happens many ways. You have identified some methods. But most of the changes found in 3.5 seem to be the product of internet popularity contests. Not all of which are good. Change in D&D is not always the product of rationality as your post attests. It is often the product of giving the player's exactly what they want to sell more books. If anything, 3.5 is evidence of that. Making money rears its ugly head into D&D more often these days than I think you imagine.Thanks for your input though. Many of your points definitely bear considering.-----Hypersmurf. What the heck are you going on about? Are we talking about Two-Weapon Fighting in your head or not? What does Power Attack have to do with debating how much the Two Weapon Fighting feat should be worth?-----Haha! I love it. What a circus your mind is. Well, seeing as how I did start this thread, it would be in mind wouldn't it? How much is one feat, and Two-Weapon Fightin in particular, worth? That has always been my pursuit here. You don't have to participate if you don't want to Caliban, but your previous point was indeed insignificant. And what the heck does the ranger two weapon fighting *ability* have to do with the Two Weapon Fighting *feat*? They are not the same, or do you need their differences spelled out for you as well?Apparently you couldn't go back far enough to find my original argument that both made and broke this point. Here goes again. A wizard takes Simple Weapon Proficiency. Assuming a wizard does choose to fight with two "different" simple weapons, such a character benefits from a total of +8 combat bonuses (negating two sets of -4 untrained usage penalties). But to what end? They suck as a melee fighter and their one-handed simple weapons inflict far less damage than a maximized Two-Weapon Fighting feat (one medium and one small weapon). Two strikes against them already. Every other character already benefits from class based weapon proficiencies superior to those granted by the Simple Weapon Proficiency feat.Then I heartily recommend you take your own advice.Your worst comparison yet. Empower requires that characters sacrifice a higher level spell slot. Two Weapon Fighting requires that you sacrifice nothing for a +8 penalty reduction. Your other comparisons are similarly nonsensical. You're grasping at straws to prove an erroneous point. But please, don't let that stop you. Spin your wheels all you like.-----IanB.This thread has long since evolved beyond the point of making Two Weapon Fighting into one feat. The question being debated now is how much one feat should remove *combat* penalties. Perhaps this will finally clarify the issue for Caliban. Hope springs eternal. My stance is that reducing a combat penalty by 8 is too much for 1 feat. I think 4 is a much more balanced number.-----KaeYoss.Let me keep it simple. Read my reply to IanB. And please, in the future, do more than skim read these threads. Yes, I can think of many ways to maximize damage with multiple feats, but do you really think that we have been taking about more than *one* feat here? Gosh, I hope you're not that oblivious.Far from it. Using two weapons (no light ones) means that even with the Two-Weapon Fighting feat, you are still suffering from an additional -4 on each attack (above and beyond what you already lose to the Power Attack).I see you missed the point of that thread as well. Start demonstrating that you actually know what is being discussed and I will reply to you in the future.</blockquote>

Verification