Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="RandomPrecision" data-source="post: 2113855" data-attributes="member: 29267">I'm not trying to impress anyone.&nbsp; I just don't think making up new words (ambistrength) addreses the issue at hand.&nbsp; All that I'm trying to show is that being equally talented with each hand is called ambidexterity.&nbsp; I admit, I got carried away, but you're telling me that ambidexterity is not ambidexterity, and over time, this sort of semantic debate grates on my nerves.&nbsp; I apologize for any harm that I have done, but it doesn't seem that I can make my points understood.&nbsp; For example,An ambidexterous person would have equally strong hands, because they have no off-hand.&nbsp; This isn't &quot;ambistrength&quot;, it's ambidexterity.&nbsp; My &quot;fleeing into semantics&quot; was an attempt to explain what ambidexterity is, and how it has no relation to D&amp;D ability scores.&nbsp; I see that I could have tried to explain this in a less condescending way, but I didn't expect such semantic opposition, and my irritation obviously seeped into my post.That being said, I have no desire to continue proposing how to implement ambidexterity in D&amp;D.&nbsp; If people want to have partial ambidexterity, or state that ambidexterity relates only to certain things, and ambistrength must also be pursued to use both hands proficiently, or that ambidexterity is impossible, or any other variation, that is their business.&nbsp; I may object to some of them, but it would be as futile as to object to gestalt characters - it seems like an abomination, but eliminating it would be as difficult as drinking an ocean with one of the small straws that are attached to the back of Hi-C juice cartons (I don't think that many people play gestalt, so it might be like trying to drain a small lake with a straw, but it's still difficult).&nbsp; But since it's clear that my attempts to create a feat for actual ambidexterity are not wanted here, I won't share anything that I develop.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="RandomPrecision, post: 2113855, member: 29267"] I'm not trying to impress anyone. I just don't think making up new words (ambistrength) addreses the issue at hand. All that I'm trying to show is that being equally talented with each hand is called ambidexterity. I admit, I got carried away, but you're telling me that ambidexterity is not ambidexterity, and over time, this sort of semantic debate grates on my nerves. I apologize for any harm that I have done, but it doesn't seem that I can make my points understood. For example, An ambidexterous person [b]would[/b] have equally strong hands, because they have no off-hand. This isn't "ambistrength", it's ambidexterity. My "fleeing into semantics" was an attempt to explain what ambidexterity is, and how it has no relation to D&D ability scores. I see that I could have tried to explain this in a less condescending way, but I didn't expect such semantic opposition, and my irritation obviously seeped into my post. That being said, I have no desire to continue proposing how to implement ambidexterity in D&D. If people want to have partial ambidexterity, or state that ambidexterity relates only to certain things, and ambistrength must also be pursued to use both hands proficiently, or that ambidexterity is impossible, or any other variation, that is their business. I may object to some of them, but it would be as futile as to object to gestalt characters - it seems like an abomination, but eliminating it would be as difficult as drinking an ocean with one of the small straws that are attached to the back of Hi-C juice cartons (I don't think that many people play gestalt, so it might be like trying to drain a small lake with a straw, but it's still difficult). But since it's clear that my attempts to create a feat for actual ambidexterity are not wanted here, I won't share anything that I develop. [/QUOTE]

Verification