Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="TheCosmicKid" data-source="post: 7822956" data-attributes="member: 6683613">Opening a case with this sophistic sort of distinction is always a red flag for me. And yeah, looking ahead, it appears that your &quot;inferences of logic or reasoning&quot; are somehow going to lead to the conclusion that you can use fighting style that's all about fighting with one weapon while fighting with two weapons. &quot;Oh, but he's not fighting with two weapons, he's just holding one!&quot; Why is he holding it if he doesn't intend to fight with it? Being able to hold a weapon in each hand grants the character a material advantage in the form of being able to switch weapons without having to draw or sheathe them. Requiring him to really, truly, only have one weapon in hand may annoy a powergaming player, but it does meaningfully improve the game quality by forcing him to make a tactical decision rather than just have all his options available at once.So much for that. Now explain to me again what all this lawyering about &quot;wielding&quot; a weapon versus &quot;holding&quot; it has to do with unarmed strikes, with which you do neither?</blockquote>

[QUOTE="TheCosmicKid, post: 7822956, member: 6683613"] Opening a case with this sophistic sort of distinction is always a red flag for me. And yeah, looking ahead, it appears that your [I]"inferences of logic or reasoning"[/I] are somehow going to lead to the conclusion that you can use fighting style that's all about fighting with one weapon while fighting with two weapons. "Oh, but he's not [I]fighting with[/I] two weapons, he's just [I]holding[/I] one!" Why is he holding it if he doesn't intend to fight with it? Being able to hold a weapon in each hand grants the character a material advantage in the form of being able to switch weapons without having to draw or sheathe them. Requiring him to really, truly, only have one weapon in hand may annoy a powergaming player, but it [I]does[/I] meaningfully improve the game quality by forcing him to make a tactical decision rather than just have all his options available at once. So much for that. Now explain to me again what all this lawyering about "wielding" a weapon versus "holding" it has to do with unarmed strikes, with which you do neither? [/QUOTE]

Verification