Warforged and Slam Attacks

[Jdvn1]

Yes, usually the left. I explained why that's so. Yet that's still not a direct relation to the concept of handedness, as I mentioned earlier. The left hand being less dextrous can be explained in other ways.

 

[Hypersmurf]

Yes, usually the left. I explained why that's so. Yet that's still not a direct relation to the concept of handedness, as I mentioned earlier. The left hand being less dextrous can be explained in other ways.

Your left hand is usually less-dexterous, because it's the one you're usually hanging from a tree with?

It's not much of an explanation

-Hyp.

 

[Jdvn1]

Your left hand is usually less-dexterous, because it's the one you're usually hanging from a tree with?

It's not much of an explanation

-Hyp.

Your left hand is less dextrous because your other hand is taking up more of your attention for the time being.

That doesn't make sense to you?

 

[Hypersmurf]

Your left hand is less dextrous because your other hand is taking up more of your attention for the time being.

That doesn't make sense to you?

But if you can pick and choose which is your stronger or more dexterous hand whenever you feel like it, just by concentrating, why would they say "usually the left" for the off-hand?

Most people are right-handed. "Usually the left" makes sense.

If people can decide to swap hands around whenever they want, there's no longer any reason for there to be a 'usually'.

Your explanation doesn't fit with what's written.

-Hyp.

 

[Jdvn1]

Because usually when you use your 'primary' function, it's with the right hand. This is true for right-handed people and ambidextrous people.

Your explanation assumes concepts that aren't mentioned.

 

[Hypersmurf]

Because usually when you use your 'primary' function, it's with the right hand. This is true for right-handed people and ambidextrous people.

But you said there's no concept of handedness... so what's true for right-handed people is irrelevant, surely?

If there's no concept of handedness, there's no 'usually'. If there is a concept of handedness, then a person has a weaker or less-dexterous hand by virtue of whether they're left- or right-handed, not what they're concentrating on.

You can't say there's no handedness, and then use handedness as an explanation for the text.

-Hyp.

 

[Jdvn1]

But you said there's no concept of handedness... so what's true for right-handed people is irrelevant, surely?

If there's no concept of handedness, there's no 'usually'. If there is a concept of handedness, then a person has a weaker or less-dexterous hand by virtue of whether they're left- or right-handed, not what they're concentrating on.

You can't say there's no handedness, and then use handedness as an explanation for the text.

-Hyp.

There isn't, but it's a flavor thing. They try to throw that in there every once in a while.

Also, even if there's no concept of handeness, it doesn't preclude the more common hand to use being the right hand.

 

[ARandomGod]

But you said there's no concept of handedness... so what's true for right-handed people is irrelevant, surely?

If there's no concept of handedness, there's no 'usually'. If there is a concept of handedness, then a person has a weaker or less-dexterous hand by virtue of whether they're left- or right-handed, not what they're concentrating on.

You can't say there's no handedness, and then use handedness as an explanation for the text.

-Hyp.

Awesome point there. The only arguement that can be used against it is 'metagame thinking'. The offhand is "usually the left" because the people playing the character are usually left handed. So the metagame a preference towards using their right hand.

 

[Caliban]

There isn't, but it's a flavor thing. They try to throw that in there every once in a while.

Also, even if there's no concept of handeness, it doesn't preclude the more common hand to use being the right hand.

Why would it be the right hand, if there is no concept of handedness?

Handedness is a fact of the human condition. It has been modeled to one degree or another in just about every gaming system I've every played.

I'm really not sure where you are getting the idea that 3e doesn't have a rule to cover handedness, but instead has a "primary hand/off-hand" concept that does pretty much the same thing, but not quite.

Your stance makes no sense to me.

 

[Hypersmurf]

I'm really not sure where you are getting the idea that 3e doesn't have a rule to cover handedness...

Well, 3E indisputably had a rule.

Ambidexterity [General]
Prerequisite: Dex 15+.
Benefit: The character ignores all penalties for using an off hand. The character is neither left-handed nor right-handed.
Normal: Without this feat, a character who uses his or her off hand suffers a -4 penalty to attack rolls, ability checks, and skill checks. For example, a right-handed character wielding a weapon with her left hand suffers a -4 penalty to attack rolls with that weapon.
Special: This feat helps offset the penalty for fighting with two weapons.

It's in 3.5 that Jdvn1 claims handedness doesn't exist. Since the feat was removed, the lovely obvious indisputable example is no longer there in glaring black and white in the PHB, but as pointed out, the glossary still references the fact that the weaker or less-dexterous hand is usually the left.

He sees it as "usually (for any given person)", whereas I read it as "usually (for a given population)".

-Hyp.