Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="RandomPrecision" data-source="post: 2109334" data-attributes="member: 29267">And that fighter has three fighter bonus feats, very possibly including weapon focus and weapon specialization.  And later, they'll be able to get greater focus and specialization.  Also consider the bonus that the THF receives from using power attack, a feat not very useful at all to a TWF.The big weapons shouldn't be more suited for dealing better damage if TWF is equal to THF.  I don't think THF should automatically be considered 'better' than TWF, for the sake of people who want to role-play two-weapon fighters.That's quite what I think, but I don't think those penalties should ever be removed (save maybe through the tempest PrC, but I'm not incredibly familiar with it - I know where to find it, but that's about it)Ambidexterous characters could have .75x for each hand - but saying that ambidexterous people have off-hands is simply wrong.  But even a 1x modifier for each hand doesn't make TWF better than all other styles of fighting.  Light weapons typically don't do nearly as much damage as THF weapons (daggers do 1d4, greataxes do 1d12).  For sheer amount of damage in a short time, you'd still want a THF.  The TWF will never have the same raw damage as a THF, just an annoying long series of attacks.  Consider damage reduction - a mid-level fighter might smash something resistant to damage in up to three blows, while a mid-level ranger might very well fail to pierce the DR six times, if he hits despite his constant penalties to attack, because of the TWF rules.I haven't said that ambidexterous characters should suddenly become stronger.  I simply say that they shouldn't suffer penalties for something they don't have - an off-hand.I wish you'd either quit feigning your ignorance of what ambidexterity means, or, in the event that you actually don't, learn.  It's the ability to use both hands with equal proficiency - there's nothing about ambidexterity that ties it to the Dungeons and Dragons ability called dexterity.  D&D dexterity "measures hand-eye coordination, agility, reflexes, and balance."  The word 'ambidexterity' comes from Latin: dexter is a Latin root meaning "right", in this case, referring to the right hand, which is almost always considered more skillful than the left.  "Ambi" means "both".  Ambidexterity therefore loosely means "both right".  There's no mention of dexterity or strength.  However, most people are not ambidexterous, and it was decided in 3.5E that this would be represented in two-weapon fighting by halving the strength bonus given to the off-hand, a realistic effect you might notice if you try to cut a piece of meat with a knife in your off-hand.  However, a person who is ambidexterous would not suffer the same disabilities.I'm not saying that anyone should use more than 1.5x strength.  As for saying that not using .75x modifiers is simply a game mechanism, I think it's bizarre that you think ambidexterous people are weaker than other people because they are equally skilled with each hand.That's silly.  There should be.Again, I can only recommend that you learn what ambidexterity is, in non-game terms, before deciding what ambidexterity is and isn't.  They incur penalties because two-weapon fighting is difficult, like I said.  For example, with practice, you might be able to learn to write proficiently with your off-hand.  Your off-hand handwriting might become better than your primary hand's handwriting.  But try writing with both hands at the same time - and try writing two completely different sentences at that - it's rather difficult.How is that 'using my reasoning' when that's specifically what I said doesn't happen?  The weapon is treated as an off-hand for the two-weapon fighting penalties because you don't pay as much attention to it - you're using a sword, but you happen to have a dagger in your other hand, unless you're trained to where you're adept with both hands in combat, where you can attack with each hand fairly independently.While it's an idea for ambidexterity, I still don't think ambidexterous people should be made weaker.</blockquote>

Verification