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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Greenfield" data-source="post: 5616460" data-attributes="member: 6669384">Actually, the answer is yes.  Necessarily.He's doing both throws in one standard action.  That is "at the same time", or as close as it gets in 3.5, since they don't break anything down to seconds.Now your idea of "Throw, switch hands, and throw" is an interesting one.  Sounds like you're describing two throws with the same hand, performed sequentially.  That is no longer using anything related to the TWF rules, and is now heading into Rapid Shot territory.   Bob, I do see your point, perfectly.  I just don't agree with it.I've asked you to explain it, several times, and you don't.  Instead you just repeat it, often accompanied by a bad example.  (And yes, calling each arm a projectile hurling device is a bad example, when you're comparing two "devices" to a single one, and claiming a matching rate of fire.)So please explain how, mechanically, a person can draw an arrow, nock it, draw the bow, select a target and fire, then do it all again, in the same time it takes to throw axes with both hands.Yes, the second shot is going to suck, particularly if you're trying to site on two targets.  That's sort of built into the penalty system.If your vision of "Throw with right hand, pass axe from left to right, then throw again with right hand" were the way it operated, why would you only get half Strength bonus to the second shot?  Why would it be at a greater penalty than the first shot?That doesn't meet the "it's only logical" standard you keep invoking.  The TWF attacks aren't sequential.  There isn't time for that.  The only reason you get that second shot at all is because you have two weapons, held in two hands, ready to go at the same time.  Repeat, AT THE SAME TIME.  I'm willing to be persuaded, but you have to step up and do the persuading.  Explain the mechanics, step by step.  Explain the logic behind "it's logical".  You've ignored my questions whenever they get to the "put up or shut up" stage.   Please understand and accept that it's quite possible for someone to completely understand your point, and still disagree with it.  And I have read your many posts, and I do understand what you're trying to say.  Do you mind a personal critique?  If one would bother you, stop reading now.Still here?  Okay.You don't communicate well.  Your comments appear not to be very well thought out, and are often expressed in somewhat ambiguous terms.  And when pressed to clarify, you often respond in equally ambiguous terms. For example, I commented earlier on your use of holding a sword "in both hands", rather than "in each hand".When I asked you to clarify that, that you were talking about TWF and not a two handed sword, you didn't.  Instead we ended up wasting time comparing a claymore to a rapier.So answer the questions asked, the way they are asked.  If it's a "yes or no" question, begin your answer with a yes or a no.  Explanations and qualifiers can follow, but start by answering the question.You make poor choices in selecting your examples.  You specifically described using two arms as two projectile hurling mechanisms, while clearly comparing them to a single mechanism, the bow.  It was almost as if you were arguing my side of this issue, illustrating why you couldn't fire a bow as fast as you could throw axes.Finally, you need to stop using "proof by example".  Go ahead and use examples to illustrate your argument, but you have to make the argument that the examples illustrate.  Preferably before you toss in the example.As it is, you toss out an example, frequently a bad one, without explanation.  And if you can't explain why the example supports your point, consider that maybe it doesn't.</blockquote>

Verification