| Post/Author/DateTime | Post |
|---|---|
| Edward07-09-04, 07:01 PM | Ambidexterity. What dose it take to be ambidextrous in D&D. I am not talking 2 weapon fighting. I am talking being able to fight at full effectiveness using ONLY your left hand or ONLY your right hand. I think (but am not certain) that by the RAW it can’t be done. Do you think it should take a feat (in witch case that feat would be vastly less powerful than 2 weapon fighting) or should you be able to just slip it into your character description (subject to an appropriate character concept of cause)? Edward |
| Gilrion07-09-04, 07:32 PM | I don't think it is powerful enough to be a feat, although there is some advantage over a "normal" character. Since the combat system doesn't have hit locations, it is pretty irrelevant--how often is this going to come up? I'd let any character choose to be ambidextrous as a character quirk. Just my opinion. |
| Scion of Coldshard07-09-04, 08:01 PM | yep, if you want your character to be able to use both hands, just say that he is able to. That is it ;) |
| trapspringer07-09-04, 08:18 PM | Make a trait. Something like Ambedexterity You are neither left nor right handed. How ever, you gain only half your strength modifier with BOTH hands when dual weilding, and only your full strength bonus (not 1.5x) when weilding a two-handed weapon. Power attack and similar feats work as normal. EDIT: Clearly, this is broken, as a character with a str of 10 or less has no reason not to take it, this is just an example. |
| Thorak07-09-04, 09:50 PM | Originally posted by Scion of Coldshard yep, if you want your character to be able to use both hands, just say that he is able to. That is it ;) Nope. Look at the Glossary entry for "off hand". It clearly defines the primary and the off hand as specific, unchanging hands. Your character is either right- or left-handed. That said, TWF now includes the benefits Ambidexterity provided in 3.0, as far as TWF goes. You could make a feat to remove the other off-hand penalties for attacking just with your off hand, but it's not going to be a very useful feat. IMHO, this is a slip-up made by retaining the primary-hand and off-hand terminologies of 3.0, while removing the Ambidexterity feat. If they'd removed the term 'off hand' and replaced it with 'secondary attack', the term used for all 'other' attacks in both multi-weapon fighting and natural weapons, there wouldn't be an issue, and a character would indeed be able to switch which hand was the primary. I don't think it's broken to houserule that you can switch it freely; a creature with multi-weapon fighting can switch their primary hand, IIRC. Natural weapons can't, but that's because natural weapons use slightly different rules. |
| Scion of Coldshard07-09-04, 10:01 PM | Since it has absolutely no useful in game effect, it is certainly allowed. As for the attacks though, it is on and offhand for that attack round, you cant simply change in the middle of an attack (to gain primary attacks with multiple weapons), but I see no reason that for the next round of attacks they could say the other weapon is their primary hand and the other is the offhand. |
| Thorak07-09-04, 11:26 PM | Originally posted by Scion of Coldshard Since it has absolutely no useful in game effect, it is certainly allowed. As for the attacks though, it is on and offhand for that attack round, you cant simply change in the middle of an attack (to gain primary attacks with multiple weapons), but I see no reason that for the next round of attacks they could say the other weapon is their primary hand and the other is the offhand. Except there is a useful in game effect. Attacking with only your off-hand gives you a -4 to attack and forces you to deal only 1/2 your strength bonus to damage. Sure, cases where this will be a factor are limited, but they do exist. While, considering multi-weapon fighting rules, it seems like you should be able to switch up your off-hand and primary hand, that's not the case. And it's all due to the Glossary definition of "off hand", which I personally believe is a 3.0 artifact that has no place in 3.5. But until they Errata it, it's the core rules. Feel free to houserule around, but let's be clear about what the rules do say, at least. |
| Scion of Coldshard07-09-04, 11:32 PM | but even if you can use both hands the same, you 'still have an offhand'. so there is no game effect. |
| roguebfl07-09-04, 11:36 PM | Originally posted by Thorak Except there is a useful in game effect. Attacking with only your off-hand gives you a -4 to attack and forces you to deal only 1/2 your strength bonus to damage. Sure, cases where this will be a factor are limited, but they do exist. Which can simple be stated by your 'stance' determians your off hand. |
| Edward07-10-04, 02:29 AM | The only time I can see it being advantageous (as in using my off hand witch has no penalties instead of my primary hand) is when my primary hand is damaged to the point where it is not useful. As there is no location damage in D&D this can only happen with certain traps and a creature in one of the creature collections that choppes of arms. In all other cases there is no advantage to using your left and over your right. If there are penalties on the left you would always use the right. If there are no penalties there is no mechanics reason to choose one over the other. I believe we have confirmed that the raw says no (and in fact your off hand gets greater penalties when you use only your off hand than if you use both) but do you think it would be unbalanced to allow it ads a house rule Trapspringer. No offence but that is broken on several levels. If your str is low it is no penalty. I your str is high you are loosing a lot more than you gain (the ability to fight effectively with one ad when your primary hand is crippled) Or is there some other advantage to being able to freely chose between left and right hands that I am missing. Edward |
| roguebfl07-10-04, 02:54 AM | I believe we have confirmed that the raw says no (and in fact your off hand gets greater penalties when you use only your off hand than if you use both) but do you think it would be unbalanced to allow it ads a house rule ok two question what does RAW stand for? and Where does it say the pent is great when you are using or offhand even buy it self? |
| Scion of Coldshard07-10-04, 10:20 AM | RAW = Rules As Written Originally posted by Edward I believe we have confirmed that the raw says no (and in fact your off hand gets greater penalties when you use only your off hand than if you use both) but do you think it would be unbalanced to allow it ads a house rule I believe that it has 'not' been confirmed by the raw. When you attack you define which is your primary hand and your offhand. But, for your next round of attacks I have found nothing stating that you cant define these in reverse. Even failing that though, you can simply say that your primary hand is always hand X and offhand is always hand Y. But, for any other purposes you are ambidextric. |
| Thorak07-10-04, 05:17 PM | Originally posted by Scion of Coldshard RAW = Rules As Written I believe that it has 'not' been confirmed by the raw. When you attack you define which is your primary hand and your offhand. But, for your next round of attacks I have found nothing stating that you cant define these in reverse. Even failing that though, you can simply say that your primary hand is always hand X and offhand is always hand Y. But, for any other purposes you are ambidextric. Entirely incorrect. Here's the relevant rule, from page 311 of the PHB; "off hand: a character's weaker or less dextrous hand (usually the left). An attack made with the off hand incurs a -4 penalty on the attack roll. In addition, only one-half of a character's Strength bonus may be added to damage dealt with a weapon held in the off hand." Clearly, the hand is a specific, unchanging hand. Unless you can change which hand is your left or right. Also, that bit about strength bonus; nothing about TWF changes that. An off-hand wielded longsword only gets 1/2 the strength bonus to damage, despite the fact that it's a one-handed weapon. Now, if you could provide a quote suggesting you can switch which hand is which, I'd like to see it. I've been having this debate for months now and have yet to see anyone come up with one. If there is one, I might have to change my mind. Like I've said; the rules are a bit silly, and I think it's an artifact left over from 3.0. But they are the only rules on off hands the PHB currently has, and they haven't been Errataed. |
| Scion of Coldshard07-10-04, 05:30 PM | The quote you state works just as well for my case as it does yours. You can be ambidextrous (able to use both hands with equal proficiency) and still have a 'favorite hand' (or weaker/less dextrous.. even if it is simply to choose which you are letting be the weaker or less dextrous hand at any given moment). 0r you could go with my secondary solution, which is that you are ambidextric, but you have a preference set in stone for when you are fighting. Either way work just fine. Mentally whichever hand you set as being the fallback hand will be useing less overall brainpower, hence it will be 'weaker' or 'less dextrous' by default. So, offhand is whatever you want it to be. If you want your character to be right handed then your offhand is your left hand, if you are left handed then your offhand is your right hand, if you are ambidextric then either you have a permanent assignment, or you can switch off on different rounds if you choose. All of those work with the raw. Plus, no one has shown any way to abuse simply being able to choose. |
| Daybreaker07-10-04, 06:25 PM | Okay, here's my solution. House feat. Ambidexterity Prerequisites: Dexterity 13+ Benefit: Either hand can be used with equal proficiency. The character's hands are both considered primary. If either hand is restrained or otherwise unavailable for use, the other hand can be used for any normal action without taking a -4 penalty. Additionally, weapons used in either hand receive the full strength bonus to damage. This allows a character to use two weapons as if both hands were primary hands, and weapon size is not considered so long as the weapon can still be held in one hand. Thus, attacking with two weapons and the Ambidexterity feat gives a -4 to both attacks. Combining the Ambidexterity and Two-Weapon Fighting feats allows a character to use two weapons regardless of their size (again providing that both weapons can be held in one hand each) and gain full the full strength bonus from each attack. Sound good? |
| Sildatorak07-10-04, 08:40 PM | In the 3.0/3.5 amalgam I'm currently forming, I added in ambidexterity as a feat that is subsumed by TWF, but still is moderately useful. From my experience (which is pretty limited, I've only known two or three people with varying degrees of ambidexterity) ambidexterity isn't tied in with overall dexterity. AMBIDEXTERITY [general] Benefit: You can use both of your hands equally well. You do not recieve a -4 penalty for using your off-hand. Your receive a +4 bonus to dexterity for meeting the prerequisites of Two-Weapon Fighting, Improved Two-Weapon Fighting, and Greater Two-Weapon Fighting. Special: The benefit to off-hand attacks from Two-Weapon Fighting feat overlaps (does not stack) with the bonus from this feat. |
| Nom07-10-04, 09:24 PM | Daybreaker, I posted a similar suggestion a while ago, and it seems like a decent feat. I'd probably go one better and add "Str 13+" as a pre-req and allow the char to wield two 1-hand weapons TWF as if they were 2 light weapons, gaining only -2 rather than -4. Or is this overpowered? |
| Surgo07-10-04, 10:52 PM | "off hand: a character's weaker or less dextrous hand (usually the left). An attack made with the off hand incurs a -4 penalty on the attack roll. In addition, only one-half of a character's Strength bonus may be added to damage dealt with a weapon held in the off hand." Clearly, the hand is a specific, unchanging hand. Unless you can change which hand is your left or right. Not true. Stance can make an attack with a certain hand weaker or less dextrous. Change your stance, suddenly everything changes. |
| Thorak07-11-04, 12:07 AM | Originally posted by Scion of Coldshard The quote you state works just as well for my case as it does yours. You can be ambidextrous (able to use both hands with equal proficiency) and still have a 'favorite hand' (or weaker/less dextrous.. even if it is simply to choose which you are letting be the weaker or less dextrous hand at any given moment). 0r you could go with my secondary solution, which is that you are ambidextric, but you have a preference set in stone for when you are fighting. Either way work just fine. Mentally whichever hand you set as being the fallback hand will be useing less overall brainpower, hence it will be 'weaker' or 'less dextrous' by default. So, offhand is whatever you want it to be. If you want your character to be right handed then your offhand is your left hand, if you are left handed then your offhand is your right hand, if you are ambidextric then either you have a permanent assignment, or you can switch off on different rounds if you choose. All of those work with the raw. Plus, no one has shown any way to abuse simply being able to choose. Okay then. Declare your character to be 'ambidextrous'. Now, determine which is their weaker or less dextrous hand, though the two will be much closer than a normal person's. That hand is now the 'off hand' in perpetuity, and takes all the penalties associated with it. It's not about potential abuse. It's about how the rules are written. I'll happily discuss possible Ambidexterity feats, or why the rules should be Errataed, but we need to have a baseline to discuss things from. And, by the RAW, a character is either right- or left-handed, and their off-hand is an unchanging hand. If you normally swing your longsword with your right hand as your primary weapon, then if you decide to wield it in your left hand one day, you take -4 to hit and can only apply 1/2 your strength bonus. Says so right in the Glossary. Nothing states that you can 'set' which hand is which. The Glossary defines it as your 'weaker or less dextrous hand'. That doesn't change. People are either right- or left-handed, or ambidextrous. In the latter case, neither is the weaker or less dextrous. And that's not allowable in 3.5, under the RAW. If you think ambidextrous people still have a weaker hand, then pick which one it is and use the RAW, because your character is right- or left-handed, not ambidextrous. And Surgo; This 'stance' thing you're talking about doesn't exist in the rules. At all. Even remotely. If you'd like to discuss houserules, fine, but don't claim I'm wrong because you created something out of thin air. |
| Scion of Coldshard07-11-04, 12:12 AM | His and my interpretations are just as raw as yours really. Is there some quote you are thinking of that you havent posted yet? Because as has been shown more than once, it could be taken either way just as easily. |
| Edward07-11-04, 06:39 AM | Now I will quote the glossary. “Off hand: a characters weaker or less dexterous hand” now the ability to apply strength and dexterity will vary with stance but as an absolute it is related to muscles witch don’t move hands when you change your stance. “(usually the left)” this not really ties it down for me. If it is usually a given hand it is clearly not something you can swap all the time. This tells me clearly that by the RAW unless otherwise stated your right hand is your primary and if you attack with only your left hand wielding any weapon you can weald in only one hand you take –4 to hit and deal ½ strength damage (witch is perverse if you had TWF and that was a light weapon making an attack with your primary hand would only take –2 to hit with your off hand). You can specify you are left handed but not that your hands are equal. I think any feat that lets you weald 2 1 handed weapons (as apposed to light weapons) and not take –4/-4 and/or lets you apply full strength bonus to both weapons would be unbalanced. Also it further locks out the concept of a 1 weapon no shield fighting style where you describe feint manurers as swapping your weapon hand (for a movie example of the trick in TROY Achillis used it in a training mach against his cousin immediately befor he was asked to join the invasion fleet. Edward |
| Scion of Coldshard07-11-04, 11:29 AM | And it can easily be interpreted in the other way, still falling well within the raw. Since there is no useful mechanical advantage, and the raw doesnt expressly forbid it, I see no reason why it shouldnt work. |
| Kilamar07-11-04, 12:00 PM | Why do you not just take the Ambidexterity Feat from 3.0? Kilamar |
| Scion of Coldshard07-11-04, 12:17 PM | Is it really worth a whole feat slot? |
| MysterYvil07-11-04, 01:51 PM | Originally posted by Thorak "off hand: a character's weaker or less dextrous hand (usually the left). An attack made with the off hand incurs a -4 penalty on the attack roll. In addition, only one-half of a character's Strength bonus may be added to damage dealt with a weapon held in the off hand." Clearly, the hand is a specific, unchanging hand. Unless you can change which hand is your left or right.I've got to disagree with your statement "Clearly, the hand is a specific, unchanging hand." IRL, I'm far from ambidextrous, BUT I have noted that depending on what I'm doing, how I'm standing, etc., my "weaker or less dextrous hand" can be either one. FREX, when standing on tiptoes and stretching, I can push a thumbtack into a wall far more easily with my left hand than my right, and for the life of me I can't jump a fence using my right hand as the pivot, I can only do it using my left. The glossary's parenthetical statement "(usually the left)" could be interpreted as "usually the left at a given moment." In any case, for the limited number of cases in which "handedness" is important (two different weapons, disabling from oddball traps, etc.) I think I'd go with the "at any given moment" interpretation over the "specific, unchanging hand." Then again, I can trust my players to embrace the cinematic aspects over the munchkin possibilities... :) |
| Daybreaker07-11-04, 05:48 PM | Originally posted by Nom Daybreaker, I posted a similar suggestion a while ago, and it seems like a decent feat. I'd probably go one better and add "Str 13+" as a pre-req and allow the char to wield two 1-hand weapons TWF as if they were 2 light weapons, gaining only -2 rather than -4. Or is this overpowered? I think that's what I meant to say, yeah. I don't think it's overpowered. I think it's about right. You get to use a longsword or something similar in each hand, with full strength bonus to damage instead of half. That feels just about right. If you really wanted to abuse it, the most I can see a person doing is combining it with Exotic Weapon Proficiency: Bastard Sword in order to use a bastard sword in each hand. Which is a tricky visual, but heck, at that point you've spent three feats to do it, so why not? What about Monkey Grip? Though to be honest, I'm still not sure how that works. Would that make a broken combo? |
| Edward07-12-04, 04:10 AM | Kilamar. Askes “Why do you not just take the Ambidexterity Feat from 3.0?” Because this feat no longer exists. Its effect is all but completely subsumed in TWF and the small part that remains is not worth a feat. MysterYvil states “depending on what I'm doing, how I'm standing, etc., my "weaker or less dextrous hand" can be either one” unless you are a very unique person it would be more correct to say “depending on what I'm doing, how I'm standing, etc., I can not always apply the strength and dexterity of my primary hand to good effect”. Your other hand will remain weaker and ess dexterous than your primary is when you can apply its advantages. The logical problem with your interpretation is that everybody is actually ambidextrous they just don’t have the training to use both hands at the same time. This is not unbalancing but it will have far reaching implications in terms of scholarly pursuits, combat training and defensive architecture. If the odd person describes there character as such it is no big thing. If everybody doses it I don’t want to have to redesign everything. Edward |
| roguebfl07-12-04, 06:29 AM | The logical problem with your interpretation is that everybody is actually ambidextrous they just don’t have the training to use both hands at the same time. This is not unbalancing but it will have far reaching implications in terms of scholarly pursuits, combat training and defensive architecture. If the odd person describes there character as such it is no big thing. If everybody doses it I don’t want to have to redesign everything. I dissagree. in a Culture of Amadextrity, and writting style would still developpe, and people will still all writ the same way simple becuse 'they the way it's done'. the way dores will open may be the revers if you want it it will still all open the same way because people will still expect to use the Same metherod to open doors (becuse of custom more than anything else) |
| Thorak07-12-04, 08:02 AM | Too many have disagreed with me to quote any specific one. This is a general response to the 'it can be taken either way' crowd. I don't understand how "the weaker or less dextrous hand" can be taken any differently than "your character has one hand that is weaker and less dextrous, and that hand is the off hand." Not unless you're adding words to the definition yourself. The definition does not say "in this situation" or "as declared by the player" or anything implying choice. It states that a character has a weaker or less dextrous hand. Unless your character can suddenly change which of his hands is weaker than the other, his off hand isn't going to change. And I don't see how you can change that, considering there's absolutely nothing to imply this is based on stance, or any of these things you guys are making up. One hand is physically weaker or less dextrous. Unless you can change which hand is weaker than the other, you can't change your off hand. And changing which hand is weaker is physically impossible, without magic. And we're not discussing a magical effect. |
| Edward07-12-04, 08:24 AM | Thorak said it good. Same conclusion I was trying to make, better wording. The RAW says no. how would you feal about a character being allowed to do it as an exception to the rule (assuming good character reason and a poorly optimised build that involves a one handed weapon and no shield) As to my logic point roguebfl tried to counter. I know a righting style would develop and I know there would be conventions for doors (actually most doors even now are positioned to allow the best path when open not based on handedness) the implications for civil architecture would only be a few minor points of tools (most carpenters have right and left handed saws so they can swap hands to rest an arm, a left to right righting style would mean most righting would be done with the right hand to avoid smudging) but military architecture would change more. For example it was conmen practise to have the main entrance to a keep at the top of a short flight of stares that ran against the wall such that when climbing up the stares an attacks right side would be against the wall spoiling his sword arm. Mean wile the defender has both high ground and free space to swing his sword. If any soldier could swap sword and shield arms with no penalty this tactic of arcetecture would have to be modified (and I am not certain how) and after working out how I would need to modify all my castle maps to accommodate it. Not to mention all the other things I haven’t thought of Edward |
| roguebfl07-12-04, 08:36 AM | First the reason why we soe more in the 'weaker lest dexteruious hand. that is realt the weaker lesx dextrius, is the Result of Postion and style mot than anything thing else. also does not say it is ALWAYS the same hand, the justs say 'ussally' Nore does RAW say the Person needs to choose weither they are left hand or left hand. whicha also implies off-hand is agian situational. Originally posted by Edward For example it was conmen practise to have the main entrance to a keep at the top of a short flight of stares that ran against the wall such that when climbing up the stares an attacks right side would be against the wall spoiling his sword arm. Mean wile the defender has both high ground and free space to swing his sword. If any soldier could swap sword and shield arms with no penalty this tactic of arcetecture would have to be modified (and I am not certain how) and after working out how I would need to modify all my castle maps to accommodate it. Not to mention all the other things I haven’t thought of [/B] Well think of it this way, the Game machine Has No gives you No pently fot the sword being on either side in that sitautation, and Also the siad design are often negated with magic. |
| Scion of Coldshard07-12-04, 10:46 AM | Depending on which hand you devote more brain power to that hand will tend to be able to do much better in any given circumstance, when the beginning portions are equal. Which means, whichever hand you are concentration the most on is your primary hand. Which is why it makes sense that your offhand does less damage and makes each attack less coordinated. As you are devoting most of the brain power to one hand it will get the most benefit, and the other wont be able to coordinate its muscles as well. Along with that, since you are devoting some of your brain power to the other hand both hands lose a bit of finesse. This works in direct accordance to the raw, it is only your interpretation that is making you unable to see that. |
| Thorak07-12-04, 11:09 AM | Neither of your versions (roguebfl and Scion of Coldshard) is by the RAW. The definition does not say that the off hand is situational. It says the off hand is the weaker hand. Not the one you've decided not to concentrate on, not the one disadvantaged by your stance or position. The one that is physically weaker and less dextrous. And then it further expands that, for most people, this is usually the left hand. This does not mean that it's usually the left for a specific person, implying that it doesn't have to be his left if he chooses it not to be. If you could choose which hand would be physically weaker and less dextrous, then you would have a case. However, you can't, and so you don't. The definition is a physical one. It doesn't state that it's the disadvantaged hand, or the one not being concentrated on. It says it's the one that's weaker and less dextrous. Those are physical qualities, referring to the character's ability scores. There's just as much (erroneous) basis for saying that a character can increase his Strength by consciously reducing his Dexterity as there is for what you two are trying to claim about off hands. Edit; I'm not debating the factors you two mention don't affect things in similar ways. But they don't, in any way, affect which hand is the off hand and which the primary. If you're right-handed, you're going to be more inaccurate with a weapon in your left hand, unless you've taken special training (TWF, or a houseruled Ambidexterity feat). No adjustment of stance or focus will make you as good with your off-hand as you are with your primary. Extra extensive training might, but those are additional feats, not an inherent ability. |
| Scion of Coldshard07-12-04, 11:55 AM | Now show where it says what you are trying to make it say. The rules are not as specific as you would like them to be. They imply a general case, but make no requirements that it fits that precisely. The examples that both I and others have given fit perfectly well within the only quote you have given. So, unless there is some other quote you are working from, it would be reasonable to interpret in either fashion. Although, since the way I am advocating has no balance issues that have been mentioned as of yet, and seems the simplest, I see no reason to disallow it. |
| Thorak07-12-04, 01:18 PM | Originally posted by Scion of Coldshard Now show where it says what you are trying to make it say. The rules are not as specific as you would like them to be. They imply a general case, but make no requirements that it fits that precisely. The examples that both I and others have given fit perfectly well within the only quote you have given. So, unless there is some other quote you are working from, it would be reasonable to interpret in either fashion. Although, since the way I am advocating has no balance issues that have been mentioned as of yet, and seems the simplest, I see no reason to disallow it. The rules are that specific. So is English. If a hand is called the 'weaker or less dextrous hand', that's a physical thing. There's no implication or statement that this is in any way situational. If one hand is physically weaker than the other, that's a fairly permanent case. If it said the off hand was the off-balanced one, or something like that, you'd have a case. But the off hand is one (or both, assumedly) of two things; weaker, or less dextrous. It's either physically weaker than the other hand, or it's physically less agile. That's what 'weaker' and 'less dextrous' means. If it referred to a stance or position, then the hand wouldn't be what is weaker or less dextrous, it would be the position the hand is in. That's not the case. Those two adjectives are applied directly to the noun 'hand', and as physical characteristics, are thus physically descriptive of the hand. Your argument is like saying "That's a red or orange ball" and then trying to claim that the redness or orangeness is due only to the ball's current position. There's nothing in the sentence that even remotely implies that. And thus, without any kind of further evidence to support your conclusion, it is assumed to be false. |
| Scion of Coldshard07-12-04, 01:54 PM | I am afraid that you are still reading it solely based on how you wish it to work. Of course I am doing the same thing, but both interpretations work just fine for what it says. Either useing english, or the rules, both say the same thing in this case. The way you wish it to work is not the sole way it can be read and still work properly with the rest of the ruleset. Unless you can come up with a quote that actually supports what you say directly, instead of being able to be read multiple ways, then it simply doesnt matter. Both will work. |
| Thorak07-12-04, 10:23 PM | Originally posted by Scion of Coldshard I am afraid that you are still reading it solely based on how you wish it to work. Of course I am doing the same thing, but both interpretations work just fine for what it says. Either useing english, or the rules, both say the same thing in this case. The way you wish it to work is not the sole way it can be read and still work properly with the rest of the ruleset. Unless you can come up with a quote that actually supports what you say directly, instead of being able to be read multiple ways, then it simply doesnt matter. Both will work. "The character's weaker or less dextrous hand (usually the left)." Done. There is no way to interpret that sentence, in standard American or British English, to mean what you claim. Let's break it down. "The character's". The genitive case, declaring possession. Whatever the subject is, is "the character's" possession. "weaker or less dextrous" Adjectives. Physical adjectives, denoting something that is physically weaker and less agile. Whatever the subject of the sentence is, it is "the character's", and it is weaker and less dextrous than any other of the same thing he has. "hand." It's one of the character's hands that is weaker and less dextrous than the other. "(usually the left.)" And, for most characters, this is their left hand. I will admit that the last bit, the parenthetical "usually the left" could mean that it can be changed, but only if the adjectives were conditional. They're not. The hand is weaker. It's not weaker because of anything. It's just weaker. Same for less dextrous. If the sentence were conditional, you'd have a point. However, there's no "ifs", "buts", "becauses", or anything similar in there. There's a hand, it's weaker and less dextrous. That's it. Claiming that it's weaker or less dextrous because of anything that can be changed is adding words that aren't there. And thus, don't exist. By the RAW, you're incorrect. You need to add things to the RAW to make your case. |
| Edward07-13-04, 01:26 AM | Reality check. Take a spoon in your right hand holding it by the handle and flick it in the air so it twists end over end once and catch it by the handle. Do this with your full concentration. Repeat 20-40 times then do the same with your left hand concentrating on it fully. If you get similar scores each time then witch hand you have is better depends on concentration and circumstance. I scored 23 out of 30 with my right and 12 out of 30 with my left. I clearly cant change my primary hand but how I think or by how my hand is positioned. If my right hand only was tied behind my back then the left would outperform it but if both hands where tied then both would do equally poorly. Pleas try this experiment all and post your results. Maybe I am unusual. But I very much doubt it. Edward Ps. Anyone with special experience (juggling) should say so when they post there results. |
| roguebfl07-13-04, 01:52 AM | Originally posted by Edward I scored 23 out of 30 with my right and 12 out of 30 with my left. I clearly cant change my primary hand but how I think or by how my hand is positioned. ==8<-- Ps. Anyone with special experience (juggling) should say so when they post there results. 21 out of 30 left and 20 out of 30 right. I'm left handed bust as we repeatible pointed out your off hand is not inheretly infearer, just under used. Not so for most lefts getting buy in a right handed world. Nor anyony trianded in a balanced fighting skill. |
| Scion of Coldshard07-13-04, 10:29 AM | Originally posted by Thorak "The character's weaker or less dextrous hand (usually the left)." Done. Yep, done. For an ambidextric character they choose which hand is their weaker and less dextrous whenever they go to use it. Depending on how often it is used, what stance they are useing, how much brain power, whatever. Once again, it can easily be read to mean either way. By the raw it can go either way. But my interpretation is better over more circumstances as it allows someone to play a lefty, righty, ambidextric, or something inbetween (a character specialized so that he is more or less ambidextric with weapons, even if with nothing else). |
| Scion of Coldshard07-13-04, 10:37 AM | So edward.. your entire post says that you are right handed and not ambidexitric.. how does that relate 'at all' to this topic? Also, with a bit of work anyone can become ambidextric to some degree.. a friend of mine taught himself to write left handed in a month or so, a bit more work and he would be almost as good with his left hand as with his right.. So, in a way it would make pretty good sense for people who are useing weapons all of the time to be able to switch off once in awhile.. This is already partially subsumed by the twf feat. But, for a more overlaying and easy going sort of ambidexterity (ability to change which hand is primary) that would seem to be more of a character flavor thing. As the raw does not go against it. |
| Thorak07-13-04, 11:36 AM | Originally posted by Scion of Coldshard Yep, done. For an ambidextric character they choose which hand is their weaker and less dextrous whenever they go to use it. Depending on how often it is used, what stance they are useing, how much brain power, whatever. Once again, it can easily be read to mean either way. Sorry, no. You can't pick which hand is weaker at that moment. The weakness isn't conditional. It's absolute. That's the point; there are absolutely no conditional elements in the phrasing. The hand isn't weaker when, because, or if anything. It's weaker, period. Again, your argument only works when you add houserules to the RAW. There is absolutely no support for your case by the RAW itself. By the raw it can go either way. But my interpretation is better over more circumstances as it allows someone to play a lefty, righty, ambidextric, or something inbetween (a character specialized so that he is more or less ambidextric with weapons, even if with nothing else). No, it can't go either way. One hand is weaker than the other. It's not weaker because of stance, or position, or any of these things you're creating to try and defend your position. It's simply weaker, all the time, period. I would have just as much basis for claiming that my character can fly because he can grow wings. Nothing in the PHB explicitly says he can't grow wings, after all. And, semantically, that argument is identical to your "my character can switch his primary and off hand because it's based on stance or position" argument. The conclusion, in my case that my character can fly, and in your case that your character can freely switch which hand is which, is based on a faulty conclusion that has no basis in the rules, that humans can grow wings, or that off-handedness is based on stance or position. The off hand isn't defined by stance. It's defined by one hand physically being weaker and/or less dextrous than the other. Just because you can make it up, doesn't make it a rule. |
| Scion of Coldshard07-13-04, 11:53 AM | You can make up whatever you like and try to call it a hardset rule, but that doesnt make it true. Unless you have some other quote then I find your arguements highly unconvincing. You wish it to work a certain way? fine, go for it. But, since there isnt the hard and fast rule you wish to place somewhere in the core then stop touting your stick. It works either way, deal or come up with something that actually proves your point. Until then however, the raw could be interpreted in either fashion, and mine is simply more elegant. |
| Thorak07-13-04, 03:45 PM | The RAW can't be interpreted as you are doing, Scion. That's my point. It has nothing to do with whether I think the RAW is the best mechanic, because I frankly don't. But, as long as we're talking about either American or British Standard English, grammatically that sentence doesn't allow for what you claim it does. It states that one hand is weaker or less dextrous. There are no conditions placed on that. Therefore, there aren't any conditions; one specific hand is always weaker than the other one. Your interpretation is only possible if you are adding those conditional phrases yourself, and that means you're creating a houserule. Or my characters can grow wings and fly at will. Because there's no difference in my claiming that and your claims; both are based on (faulty) assumptions that aren't in the text. |
| roguebfl07-13-04, 04:26 PM | Originally posted by Thorak It states that one hand is weaker or less dextrous. There are no conditions placed on that. Therefore, there aren't any conditions; one specific hand is always weaker than the other one. Your interpretation is only possible if you are adding those conditional phrases yourself, and that means you're creating a houserule. thera re condtions (Last time I checks 'usally' was a condtion. and the Interation we are give the IS always one Hand the is an off hand that is weaker. It not nessrly the SAME one. it CAN RAW be interped this way proff being We ARE interpiteing that way. So unless you have some NEW. you aren't gettign anywhere. |
| Scion of Coldshard07-13-04, 05:15 PM | no thorak, it 'can' and 'has' been interpreted in more than one way. Just because you dont like one of the interpretations is fairly meaningless. Unless you can come up with something that actually proves your point then you are simply trying to impose your interpretation on other valid interpretations. Just because the default for the world is 'right handed' has no bearing on anything at all, that is generally how the real world works so that is most likely where it comes from. Until you come up with something that actually shows your point as being true, which you havent even come close to yet, then waving your houserule flag around is simply trying to incite hostility. |
| Thorak07-13-04, 06:12 PM | Feel free to interpret it incorrectly if you like. According to the rules of English grammar, you're wrong. The sentence doesn't contain the conditions or variability you state it does. It states that one hand is the "weaker or less dextrous". It doesn't say that this is due to any changeable condition, it just is. So any statement suggesting that it can be changed, or is due to a stance or position rather than being an unchanging quality, is based on additional misinformation that is not included in the RAW. Now, to stop beating a dead horse, I'll try a different tactic. The same sentence grammatically, with a different subject. "Half-orcs: a weaker and less robust breed of Orcs (usually cross-bred with humans)." Now, by your same logic, since they're usually cross-bred with humans, they can choose to suddenly not be cross-bred any more and become full Orcs. And go back to half-orcness when they want. That's obviously ridiculous. Your 'interpretation' is similarly ridiculous, because it uses the same logic. That the thing in question (half-orcs) is usually but not necessarily something (cross-bred with humans) does not mean that the thing in question (half-orcs) can change their physical qualities (being weaker and less dextrous than full Orcs). For the exact same reason, that the off hand is usually but not necessarily the left hand does not mean that the off hand can change it's physical qualities, and become stronger and more dextrous than the primary hand, and thus become the primary hand. Your point is grammatically and logically incorrect. If you were right, then anything not explicitly stated can be changed at will. Half-orcs can suddenly mutate into full orcs, humans can grow wings if they want, and all other kinds of insanity. Clearly, this isn't true. But it all stems from the same interpretation you're making about off hands. |
| Scion of Coldshard07-13-04, 06:19 PM | Originally posted by Thorak Feel free to interpret it incorrectly if you like. Feeling pretty high and mighty on your horse of flies are we? Enjoy. If you cant see simple facts then there isnt much hope for you. You have already been shown both in game terms and real life terms how you are incorrect in your assessment. Originally posted by Thorak "Half-orcs: a weaker and less robust breed of Orcs (usually cross-bred with humans)." Now, by your same logic, since they're usually cross-bred with humans, they can choose to suddenly not be cross-bred any more and become full Orcs. And go back to half-orcness when they want. So you are saying that because they usually crossbreed with humans then 'all' of them are crossbred with humans? You are going way out on a limb here, and misstating just about everything along the way. There is no racial equivalent to ambidexterity, this situation has no way to simulate it. So, put away your strawman. Come back when you have something real. Edit: I will take that back, it can be used to some degree, but not anywhere near where you were trying to push it, as you were being completely nonsensical with your strawman. But then, I guess that is why they call them strawmen. If a race is half X and half Y the when it is picked (by the player) then it is fixed. However, you can be half human, half orc, half powerade.. whatever, it doesnt matter. It correlates exactly to the handedness though.. you can be left handed, right handed, or ambidextric. After that it is set baring some other changes. But nothing says that you cant switch which is your more dextrous hand from round to round, that part thorak is just making up wholecloth. |
| Thorak07-13-04, 09:46 PM | Originally posted by Scion of Coldshard Feeling pretty high and mighty on your horse of flies are we? Enjoy. If you cant see simple facts then there isnt much hope for you. You have already been shown both in game terms and real life terms how you are incorrect in your assessment. You mean like how, without an existing condition in the sentence, it's not grammatically or logically correct to assume such a condition exists? I notice you've never backed up your arguments for this 'stance' or 'position' thing, nor ever provided a single quote suggesting you can switch which hand is which. So you are saying that because they usually crossbreed with humans then 'all' of them are crossbred with humans? No, I'm saying that most of them are. My point was that their parentage is an unchanging fact, like handedness. Perhaps you missed that. You are going way out on a limb here, and misstating just about everything along the way. There is no racial equivalent to ambidexterity, this situation has no way to simulate it. So, put away your strawman. Come back when you have something real. Edit: I will take that back, it can be used to some degree, but not anywhere near where you were trying to push it, as you were being completely nonsensical with your strawman. But then, I guess that is why they call them strawmen. If a race is half X and half Y the when it is picked (by the player) then it is fixed. However, you can be half human, half orc, half powerade.. whatever, it doesnt matter. It correlates exactly to the handedness though.. you can be left handed, right handed, or ambidextric. After that it is set baring some other changes. Considering your edit, I can't understand why you don't see your error. Like you said, you can be half human, half orc, half powerade. Whatever. But once you pick what's what, it's fixed. Also, this isn't a strawman argument. A strawman argument tries to make it's point by pointing out irrelevant facts. This is a reductio ad absurdum argument, where by replacing terms with like terms, I show your logic to be flawed by creating a ridiculous conclusion with it. If you can create a ridiculous conclusion, the logic creating it is faulty. If you're going to pull out logical terms, you should know what you're talking about. If I'd been claiming that half-orcs aren't full orcs, that'd be a straw man argument. I'm not claiming that. I'm pointing out your logic, extended to the parentage of half-orcs, creates a ridiculous conclusion. Reductio ad absurdum. But nothing says that you cant switch which is your more dextrous hand from round to round, that part thorak is just making up wholecloth. This is a classic Argument from Ignorance, or argumentum ad ignorantiam. I'm not trying to call you ignorant, that's just the name of the fallacy. Just because something is not something, doesn't mean the opposite is true. Just because the game doesn't explicitly say you can't switch hands doesn't mean you can. At this point I remind you of my "My character can grow wings and fly, because nothing says he can't" point. Same logic, ridiculous conclusion. Again, reductio ad absurdum. I should note that I'm arguing entirely for the RAW, not for personal beliefs about how the system should work or any such thing. And if we're discussing the RAW, we have to assume that the rules are exclusive, not inclusive. If it's not in the rules, it doesn't exist. Even if it logically should be. We can discuss how it should be dealt with through houserules, or we can discuss how you'd use rule 0 to fix an issue you've seen, but if we're discussing the RAW, then we take the rules as firm and unbending. And if it doesn't say you can, then you can't. That's where the DM's rule 0 comes in, and the DM has to make stuff up on the fly. But whatever his decision might be, it's not in the RAW. |
| Ax'Orl07-13-04, 11:06 PM | Actually gentle(men?) to get an accruate view of the RAW one should look at the SRD-a REFERENCE document produced by WotC. It contains no glossary which is where Thorak gets his "rule". I have repeatedly tried to convince him that a definition is a clarification of terms not a rule in and of itself. No where does it state that a character MUST have an off hand in the RAW but he insists that the glossary is an addendum to the rules and thereby a set of rules in and of itself. Note that the glossary states that the off hand is the weaker and less dextrous hand but no where does it state that a character MUST have a weaker/less dextrous hand therefore feel free to NOT have one thereby having ambidexterity. This is not a "house rule" it is a literal interpretation of the rules which do not require that you have a weaker/less dextrous hand. Now, you will have to take training to use BOTH hands simultaneously in combat (Two Weapon Fighting feat) but you do not have to do anything to write (if you are literate i.e. not a barbarian), eat, scratch yer arse, or fight with EITHER hand singly...it is only when trying to fight with both hands that you need the feat. As for the concentration thing, that comes into play when you take TWF as a feat, you must concentrate on one or the other hand but each round you get to choose which you are going to focus your attention on....and if you like and only fight with one hand then you can switch hands freely between rounds....by the RAW....because no where does it say that you cannot, a rule generally states what you cannot do especially in the absence of what you can do. It does not state that you CAN do this, but neither does it state that you cannot therefore as D&D 3.X is a game of choices you can CHOOSE to be ambidextrous if you like. |
| Thorak07-13-04, 11:56 PM | Originally posted by Ax'Orl Actually gentle(men?) to get an accruate view of the RAW one should look at the SRD-a REFERENCE document produced by WotC. It contains no glossary which is where Thorak gets his "rule". I have repeatedly tried to convince him that a definition is a clarification of terms not a rule in and of itself. No where does it state that a character MUST have an off hand in the RAW but he insists that the glossary is an addendum to the rules and thereby a set of rules in and of itself. I disagree. The SRD is a resource for third-party developers, and doesn't contain all the rules. Claiming that because a rule isn't in the SRD, it doesn't exist is wrong. For instance, there's experience tables and monsters in the core books that aren't in the SRD, but certainly are rules. The same is true of the Glossary. While in most cases the Glossary would be considered a secondary source, nowhere else is the off hand defined. So the Glossary definition must be the primary source, there being no other. Note that the glossary states that the off hand is the weaker and less dextrous hand but no where does it state that a character MUST have a weaker/less dextrous hand therefore feel free to NOT have one thereby having ambidexterity. This is not a "house rule" it is a literal interpretation of the rules which do not require that you have a weaker/less dextrous hand. Now, you will have to take training to use BOTH hands simultaneously in combat (Two Weapon Fighting feat) but you do not have to do anything to write (if you are literate i.e. not a barbarian), eat, scratch yer arse, or fight with EITHER hand singly...it is only when trying to fight with both hands that you need the feat. Yay! I have no off hand! I'm wielding weapons in both of my primary hands, with no penalties and no need to use the TWF rules, because I'm not wielding a second weapon in my off hand! Sarcasm aside, if you've got two hands, one of them is weaker and less dextrous. That's the off hand. The 3.5 rules contain no possibility of both hands being equally strong and dextrous, or 'ambidexterity'. As for the concentration thing, that comes into play when you take TWF as a feat, you must concentrate on one or the other hand but each round you get to choose which you are going to focus your attention on....and if you like and only fight with one hand then you can switch hands freely between rounds....by the RAW....because no where does it say that you cannot, a rule generally states what you cannot do especially in the absence of what you can do. It does not state that you CAN do this, but neither does it state that you cannot therefore as D&D 3.X is a game of choices you can CHOOSE to be ambidextrous if you like. And if you so choose, then you're going outside the RAW. I'm not saying you can't do this, or that it's bad, or broken, or anything. I personally think the current "off hand" rules suck, and should be rewritten from scratch, since they seem more like a 3.0 relic than 3.5 If you can kindly point me to where the RAW details the advantages of being ambidextrous in 3.5, I'll shut up. Otherwise, one of your hands is weaker and less dextrous. Even if it's an infinitessimal amount. And that hand is the off hand, and therefore carries all the penalties the Glossary details. In an ideal world, they'd have made TWF follow the same rules they use for MWF, and to a lesser extent natural weapons. There's a primary attack, and secondary attack(s). And if they removed that 3.0 definition from the Glossary like they should, they could either replace it with something stating a character must choose which physical hand is going to wield the primary attack (poor choice, IMHO, because your primary attack can be a kick or headbutt), or that it's whatever you declare (what you guys are arguing for, and what MWF seems to use) That's the ideal. It's just not the RAW. Just like up until the FAQ firmly dealt with the issue, I argued that monks striking unarmed had no off hand. It was illogical and silly, but (almost) everyone agreed it was the RAW. Same here; it's illogical and silly (but less so than the monk-offhand bit), but it's the RAW. And, Ax'Orl, again, if we're discussing the RAW, we have to be discussing what the RAW does say, not what it doesn't. Because, as I've said several times, if we go the other way all my characters can grow wings and fly, because nothing in the RAW says they can't. |
| Edward07-14-04, 02:07 AM | It occurs to me that there is a lot of repeating of ourselves happening hear. In response to the person that asked me the point of my previous post it was intended to disprove the argument that was given some time before that you could really change your off hand by thinking about it. So far we have 2 results one says no the other says yes. I say we need a bigger sample set. I liked the argument about the half orc. That made sense to me. The one about the wings was perhaps a little more ridiculous than I would have used. I also believe that the glossary should be considered part of the raw as should anything in the 3 cor books and anything with the label errata. Other than those 3 I didn’t notes any original comments since my last post. I seem to be noticing that we are grubbing around over the implications of a very small block of text for page after page when we all actually think that it would be reasonable to allow somebody to be ambidextrous if it gave no mechanical benefit except in the unlikely situation that one hand was crippled. Maybe we should stop behaving like rules lawyers. Agree to disagree on the RAW and allow people with a good character concept to right ambidextrous on there character sheet because the only reason I can e not to is that the handedness box doesn’t have room for such a big word. Edward |
| Scion of Coldshard07-14-04, 10:20 AM | Ahh, but the raw does not specify that you must have a certain hand, merely that you have a primary and offhand. Which is not set in stone, the raw never says that. Also, the halfraces example works fine, when you look at it properly. At set up I am either right handed, left handed, or ambidextric. And then it is set baring further intervention. Which means that either I have a permanently set hand for on and off, or I can switch up whenever I like. There is no reason in the raw or srd that anyone has come up with to refute this, merely a very narrow interpretation taken by some which is most certainly not the only way to interpret it. Repeatidly myself and others have pointed out how it can be read, quite easily and logically, the other way. If you do not like the other interpretation fine, but that does not make it wrong. Since it works perfectly within the only stated quote then unless there are other quotes to be had it simply works. Also, edwards, your example showed that you are of a certain handedness and that you were 'not' ambidextric. Therefore all it proved was that you could not be used in any test cases to check the validity of ambidextric people being able to switch off from primary and offhand. Although, in the real world you could simply train yourself to do whatever task you wanted with 'either' hand. That is the way the brain works, proper training and you could be just as good at catching that spoon with either hand, and then when you try to do two at once you can get further training that would allow you to do this at the same time.. after that you would be able to see that whichever hand you were putting the most attention on was the best at what it was doing. |
| Thorak07-14-04, 10:58 AM | Originally posted by Scion of Coldshard Ahh, but the raw does not specify that you must have a certain hand, merely that you have a primary and offhand. Which is not set in stone, the raw never says that. Also, the halfraces example works fine, when you look at it properly. At set up I am either right handed, left handed, or ambidextric. And then it is set baring further intervention. Which means that either I have a permanently set hand for on and off, or I can switch up whenever I like. There is no reason in the raw or srd that anyone has come up with to refute this, merely a very narrow interpretation taken by some which is most certainly not the only way to interpret it. Repeatidly myself and others have pointed out how it can be read, quite easily and logically, the other way. If you do not like the other interpretation fine, but that does not make it wrong. Since it works perfectly within the only stated quote then unless there are other quotes to be had it simply works. Also, edwards, your example showed that you are of a certain handedness and that you were 'not' ambidextric. Therefore all it proved was that you could not be used in any test cases to check the validity of ambidextric people being able to switch off from primary and offhand. Although, in the real world you could simply train yourself to do whatever task you wanted with 'either' hand. That is the way the brain works, proper training and you could be just as good at catching that spoon with either hand, and then when you try to do two at once you can get further training that would allow you to do this at the same time.. after that you would be able to see that whichever hand you were putting the most attention on was the best at what it was doing. And I repeat myself; when discussing the RAW, you have to stick to what the RAW does say, not what it doesn't. The RAW never says you can switch hands, and so you can't. It doesn't say the off hand is weaker or less dextrous because of anything, it's just permanently and irrevocably weaker. Otherwise, we're not discussing the RAW. We're discussing what we might be able to do with rule 0 and good sense. The RAW states that one hand is weaker or less dextrous than the other. Those are inherent physical qualities. You can't make your hand stronger any more than you can make yourself stronger. Yes, you can do so with training. Training called TWF, and in theory a new Ambidexterity feat that would let you do what you say. Unfortunately, that latter feat doesn't exist in the RAW. I remind you that the exact same logic you use also 'proves' that half-orcs can turn into full Orcs when they want to, and that any character can grow wings at will. Once you determine which of your hands is weaker and less dextrous, you'd have to find some way to change that within the RAW. You've consistently failed to do so. Because no such rule exists in the RAW. And without such a rule, it can't be done, by the RAW. |
| Scion of Coldshard07-14-04, 11:59 AM | Again, you are applying logic in a very faulty manner and coming up with the wrong solution. Nothing I have said relates at all to suddenly changing race, merely having a certain way to go and keeping it (even if that way is ambidextric and being able to change stances), this relates in no way to changing race. That is why I said you were wrong earlier, but amended it saying that if I changed the parameters of your example then it could be used. Half orc, half elf, half peanut butter sandwhich, who cares. It all works the same. By your logic someone who doesnt have a weaker hand cannot attack, that is easily proven false and so your entire conclusion is faulty. However, mine works just fine with the raw, and you have yet to show that it doesnt. Along with that it has been shown that it works the same way in real life. So, if you dont like the raw and you dont like real life then I am afraid you are out of luck. |
| Thorak07-14-04, 12:48 PM | Originally posted by Scion of Coldshard Again, you are applying logic in a very faulty manner and coming up with the wrong solution. How so? I've already shown how your logic is fatally flawed through a reductio ad absurdum. I have yet to see you comment on how my logic is flawed. Nothing I have said relates at all to suddenly changing race, merely having a certain way to go and keeping it (even if that way is ambidextric and being able to change stances), this relates in no way to changing race. That is why I said you were wrong earlier, but amended it saying that if I changed the parameters of your example then it could be used. Race is irrelevant. I replaced handedness with race as part of my logical deconstruction of your argument. Which showed that a person can change race as easily as change handedness. Perhaps you should read what a reductio ad absurdum is. You can't change the parameters of my example, because those parameters were picked to be relatively comparable to your argument regarding handedness. If you change them, then you have to change your logical argument regarding handedness as well. That's how reductio ad absurdum works. Half orc, half elf, half peanut butter sandwhich, who cares. It all works the same. By your logic someone who doesnt have a weaker hand cannot attack, that is easily proven false and so your entire conclusion is faulty. No, by my logic everyone (who has at least two hands, of course) has one hand that is weaker than the other. Nice straw man argument, though, considering I didn't say what you claim I said. However, mine works just fine with the raw, and you have yet to show that it doesnt. Along with that it has been shown that it works the same way in real life. So, if you dont like the raw and you dont like real life then I am afraid you are out of luck. Except that; The RAW doesn't contain any variability regarding off hands. You're making that up, and have yet to provide a single quote showing otherwise. And in real life, if someone is left-handed, or right-handed, they can't suddenly decide to switch. With training, they can minimize the differences, but that's reflected in TWF. The non-TWF effects aren't in 3.5. Of course, neither are the statistics on nuclear explosions or AK-47 damage, even though both of those exist in 'real life'. I repeat; your mistake is that you think that the term "RAW" refers to anything that the words of the text don't forbid. It doesn't. The RAW refers to what the text does say. If the RAW didn't have falling damage, then by the RAW you could fall 3 miles and take no damage, because there's nothing in the RAW saying you should, however ridiculous that may be. While a good DM would fix that with rule 0, that's still not in the RAW. Neither is your hand-switching thing. Unless you actually have a quote than contains the variability you claim exists. You still haven't provided any. |
| Scion of Coldshard07-14-04, 06:11 PM | Originally posted by Thorak How so? I've already shown how your logic is fatally flawed through a reductio ad absurdum. I have yet to see you comment on how my logic is flawed. No, you have made up strawmen that have nothing to do with what I have actually said and then beat up your own purpose made men of straw. Yawn. I have shown that your reasoning is illogical both in the game sense and the real world sense, and that your reading of the english language and interpretations thereof are also very foolhearty. If you cannot even be bothered to read my posts which point out exacly where the problems are in your logic then there is simply no talking with you. At this point though the discussion has gone on for pages with you doing nothing but saying the same thing over and over again while holding up your single quote which can easily be interpreted in more than one way. Originally posted by Thorak Race is irrelevant. I replaced handedness with race as part of my logical deconstruction of your argument. Which I countered by making the example actually apt and then proceeded to show how it worked out perfectly fine useing the raw as written to allow the changing of stance. Your strawman of 'changing race at will' is useless. All it does is bring up something that is not being said so that you can beat it down as not being useful. Great, you made up your own comparison wholecloth which had nothing to do with anything and then you said it didnt work. Good job. Perhaps in the future you will come up with an example that actually has merit in the situation you are trying to fit it to. Once again, there are three easily acceptable states: Right handed, Left handed, and ambidextric. Nothing you have said contradicts this. Changing from right handed to left handed is not an issue here, therefore changing race is also not an issue. Simply being able to choose which hand is currently primary is an effect of being ambidextric. At best a comparison could be made with some sort of strange halfbreed that has blood of both parents but can switch from one to the other at will. So far as I know there isnt one as such, but it could be made. Originally posted by Thorak No, by my logic everyone (who has at least two hands, of course) has one hand that is weaker than the other. Nice straw man argument, though, considering I didn't say what you claim I said. Your logic is that if someone 'does not' have a weaker hand then they are unable to make an attack.. since along the same lines as what you have said then the primary hand is the stronger and more dextric. So if they are both equal, then the person could not attack. If you wish to change your logic feel free, it would be refreshing to see something new out of you. Originally posted by Thorak [The RAW doesn't contain any variability regarding off hands. Who says? have a quote? no? So it does say that people are usually right handed. But it makes no useful reference to other states. Only some hypothetical 'weaker and less dextric' which can easily be because you are concentrating on your primary hand more, whichever it may be. You are simply making this up wholecloth. The rules are not crystal clear as you would wish it to be and other equally valid interpretations can be made. Just because you dont like that it can be interpreted validly in more than one way does not make those other interpretations go away. As for the rest of your post though I'll just cut it out. This is tiresome. It is blatantly obvious to anyone that it is not crystal clear like you want it to be. It would be nice of course if it was though. Still, there is no real mechanical advantage, merely a flavor issue. It makes perfect sense with how your only quote is mentioned, along with being the case of real world situations. Until you have some fresh information, that is just the way it is. |
| cheesegrater07-14-04, 06:26 PM | Originally posted by Thorak Race is irrelevant. I replaced handedness with race as part of my logical deconstruction of your argument. Which showed that a person can change race as easily as change handedness. Perhaps you should read what a reductio ad absurdum is. You can't change the parameters of my example, because those parameters were picked to be relatively comparable to your argument regarding handedness. If you change them, then you have to change your logical argument regarding handedness as well. That's how reductio ad absurdum works. No, it isn't. Your reductio ad absurdum argument has only managed to prove that characters can't change race. By replacing Scion's argument with a different premise that's easier to attack, you have in fact created a classic strawman. I tend to agree with your interpretation of the rules on handedness, for what it's worth. But that argument doesn't amount to a hill of beans. |
| Thorak07-15-04, 01:37 AM | I'll start over fresh, because I'm getting tired trying to read over my last posts to pick out my past arguments again and again. Here's the relevant text; off hand: A character's weaker or less dexterous hand (usually the left.) There's (at least) two hands, because there has to be more than one for something to be weaker or less dextrous than anything. Thus, the sentence is saying that one hand is weaker or less dextrous than the other hand. And it states that the weaker or less dextrous hand is usually the left. Nothing about that sentence implies that the hand is changeable, or that the weakness is due to a condition that can be changed, like stance or position. For the sentence to carry that kind of implication, it would have to contain more information. It doesn't exclude the possibility, but we're not looking for possibilities it hasn't excluded. We're looking for what it does say. If we're looking for anything it doesn't forbid, we're not discussing the RAW any more. For that matter, as I've said before, arguing that the rules allow something because they don't explicitly forbid it is an argument from ignorance, and is logically invalid. As for the real-world theories; most people are right-handed. Thus, their off hand would 'usually' be the left. That's why that clause is there. In the real world, a person can't switch between being right-handed or left-handed at will, so I really, really don't understand why you think a D&D character could. And if it's because D&D isn't reality, then why are you bringing real-world arguments into this in the first place? The RAW doesn't state you can change which hand is your off hand. Therefore you can't. That's how discussions about the RAW work; you go by the Rules As Written, not by what the Rules Don't Explicitly Forbid. Which, for the sake of beating this dead horse, would be Arguing from Ignorance anyway, something that's logically invalid. Just because the rules don't say you can't do X doesn't mean X is part of the rules. |
| Scion of Coldshard07-15-04, 10:33 AM | Nor does anything say it isnt changeable, nor is there a conditional line for if there is no weaker hand, nor does it say what to do for ambidextrics (who are equally proficient with each hand), nor... it goes on and on. You are taking a certain point of view that is, imo, narrow and incomplete. Your points are not based on facts that mean what you want them to mean, there are incompletes. As such there is lots of room for interpretation. Since there is no real mechanical advantage and it is more of a flavor issue and is not dealt with properly then there is no reason to disallow it. I am tired of repeating myself as well, do as you will of course, but that does not make you right. It has already been shown repeatidly how you are wrong. |
| Thorak07-15-04, 10:51 AM | Yes, 'my' point of view is narrow and incomplete. Because the RAW is narrow and incomplete. That's why one of the first thing the DMG discusses is Rule 0, to settle those issues that the RAW inevitably doesn't cover. And I'm not saying you can't have an ambidextrous character because it's broken. But strictly by the RAW, you can't have an ambidextrous character. This doesn't mean ambidextrous characters can't possibly exist, but the rules to cover them would have to be created, since the existing rules don't. This isn't a debate about what's possible. It's a debate about what the rules say. And the rules don't say you can be ambidextrous, nor do they say you can switch which hand is your off hand. And again; an argument that something is true because nothing says it is false is a logical fallacy. For the same reason, I could say "Ghosts exist, because nothing proves they don't." Besides, you still haven't answered a point of mine; the definition says one hand is "weaker or less dextrous". How, exactly, are you making this weaker hand stronger than the other one? I'd like to see the mechanic or rules you seem to believe exist for it. Nor do the rules state that the weakness is a situational condition; the lack of any conditions, if anything, implies that it's an inherent, unchanging status. |
| Scion of Coldshard07-15-04, 11:02 AM | You can have an ambidextric character, it is only that 'usually' people are right handed. This has no bearing on anything else in this discussion, therefore your entire quote is effectively worthless as it can be used for either side. Now, if you have a real quote that you seem to think is raw bring it up, otherwise you are simply making up things that are not there. |
| Thorak07-15-04, 01:40 PM | In 3.5, according to the RAW, and ambidextrous character still has an off hand. It is his weaker or less dextrous hand. He gains no benefit for being ambidextrous whatsoever. Describing your character as 'ambidextrous' has all the in-game advantage of describing your character as 'bald'. It mechanically means nothing. If you'd kindly provide even a single rule stating, or implying, that you can switch which hand is which, I'll concede the point. You've failed to do so thus far. Your belief that there is a mechanical difference is based on a logical fallacy that I've pointed out time and again. I don't have to provide a text quote that specifically forbids what you describe. To prove you're right, you need to provide a quote that does say what you claim. Arguing otherwise is an Argument from Ignorance. Just because the rules don't forbid XXXX, it does not therefore mean that XXXX is true. It might be true, but for it to be true there must be some evidence that actually supports it, not just a lack of contradictory evidence. I fail to see how I'm making anything up. Your argument is based in a logical fallacy, and you are stating that the rules offer an option that doesn't exist. I'll admit that the rules could be interpreted to allow for the possibility, and that I would prefer to see something more similar to the system you have created instead of the mess that currently exists. But allowing for the possibility is not a proof that the possibility exists. |
| hawkfyre01-17-05, 11:38 PM | [QUOTE=Scion of Coldshard]Since it has absolutely no useful in game effect, it is certainly allowed. Think about it, no use...well how about! Pick pockets on either side with no penalty. Fire Bow or crossbow around either corner. Use one weapon in either hand with no penalty. |