Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Lily Inverse" data-source="post: 537933" data-attributes="member: 4594">Oh for the love of Kami-sama, THINK about this for a second!I'll make it easier:  Go out to your garage and find a baseball bat.  Then go to your kitchen and pick up the chef's knife (the large one).  Now consider that these two approximate the weight and balance-point of a scimitar and dagger.  Find somebody with a watch, and have them time you while you swing each one, full strength, one time each.Betcha can't get it down to under a second.Now consider what's going on in an ACTUAL fight.  Dodging.  Blocking incoming attacks.  Watching your ALLIES to make sure they're not too close to you for comfort.  Then keep in mind that the person you would be swinging these things at isn't going to stand there stupidly and let you hit them.  You'll be LUCKY to have a second in which to make both attacks (and that "luck" is usually an opponent making a mistake, and is covered by the Attack of Opportunity rules), and a few weeks (the suggested amount of time to learn a feat if training separately in them) of practice isn't going to make you good enough to do so.Suddenly, one feat doesn't sound like anywhere near enough.  I agree that combining ambidexterity and two-weapon fighting makes some sense (you'd have to be an idiot not to train yourself to be ambidexterous when fighting with two weapons, as you'd have to TRY not to do it eventually), but really, anything beyond that is just silly.  I have never HEARD of anybody who actually has the equivalent of perfect two-weapon fighting IRL.  That implies that it's an epic-level ability, and yet you would have it available to COMMONERS.  Yes, it would be rare that a commoner would be dexterous enough, but a human commoner COULD take this feat.Historically, this idea is just plain ludicrous.  If wielding two weapons were really this easy, why doesn't every army in history outfit all of its soldiers with two short-swords or a halfspear and a dagger?  Why do you see men with a large piece of metal, known as a shield, strapped to one arm with frightening consistency?  And why is the second most common configuration a weapon held in two hands, followed by a single weapon held in one hand, and you almost never see anybody with two weapons prior to the Rennaisance?  It COULD be because before a long, light, effective weapon was invented it was considered stupid, bordering on suicidal, to try fighting with two weapons.  Sure, you might find an isolated warrior or two who knows this trick, but considering they are JUST as effective as somebody who fights in a more standard way, it's just that, a trick, a flavorful and intimidating method that really has few long-term advantages.If fighting with two weapons were this easy, more people would do it.  You can ALWAYS find a second weapon just laying around.  The fact that most people who have any experience with real melee combat don't should tell you it's just not that easy.Mechanically, I think, the ability is also beyond reasonably good.  At the moment I don't have access to the text of the feats in question that you're replacing, but I can tell readily enough that just looking at the tree as it stands versus your ONE feat that they're at LEAST even.  One feat is never a substitute for five.  Never is it a balanced trade.  I doubt you can convince anybody that it is when all the feats are normal, and you propose to replace an EPIC feat, which are, by nature, much better than those available at levels lower than 20.I've looked at this from every angle, and all the logic seems to be against you.  I can't think of a single remote justification for this travesty of game balance.</blockquote>

Verification