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: 1030902" data-attributes="member: 2315">This is something I have been aware of since long before beginning this thread. I agree with the math. Moreover, this is also why I have since revised the Ambidexterity feat to negate the off-hand penalty for inflicting Strength damage.It appears you have missed much of this thread. This is also why I recommend lowering those arbitrarily large two-weapon fighting penalties down to -4/-8 and make the Two-Weapon Fighting feat simply reduce the secondary weapon penalty by 4.The continued debate about "how-much-one-type-of-weapon-is-worth, used-in-both-hands, when-calculating-alleviated-combat-penalties" has been primarily sustained by Hypersmurf and KaeYoss. I had moved on from it long ago now.At this point, you either agree with my reasoning or not. Not only do I believe that I am wholly correct, but also that I have clearly explained this matter ad nausea. Rail all you like against my semantics, but that is the deciding factor here. Despite empty insistences without debatable proof, no one person has been logically persuasive to date. I will no longer comment on the subject until such proof can be offered.Hong's and Caliban's most recent comments represent two perfect examples of the kind of replies that warrant no meaningful reply whatsoever.Not with the new changes to Power Attack in 3.5. Please review those changes more closely (or again if you have already).With two weapon fighting, only one attack would be affected by the extra off-hand damage; a second off-hand attack with Improved Two-Weapon Fighting, albeit at a -5 attack penalty; and a third off-hand attack with Greater Two-Weapon Fighting, albeit at a -10 attack penalty. Compared to getting 2 points of damage for every 1 point of sacrificed attack (with the new Power Attack), my revision of Ambidexterity is both balanced and sound.Hopefully this explanation has not been for nothing.<img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f642.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":)" title="Smile    :)"  data-smilie="1"data-shortname=":)" />-----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).-----I would rather pay for a well-designed-set-of-rules than a popularity-contest-set-of-rules any day.Hurrah! Spoken like dog with his tail tucked between both hind legs. You never did understand what is meant to be a troll. Your continued misinterpretations and desperate attempts to warp my quotes out of context won't be missed.Now one can only hope you are good for your word.-----I do not. Please review the entire thread. You find that I have repeatedly posted my revisions of the two-weapon penalties. This is exactly why I am forced to repeat myself so much.I cannot make it more clear.The moment you optimize anything with additional feats, you are no longer arguing from the standpoint of feat economy. There are a lot of way to optimize a single weapon (that should be a given). Not only is that irrelevant here, but focusing on 1 weapon will also limit your character's combat options (the obvious downfall of your reasoning).</blockquote>

Verification