D&D 3E/3.5 [3.5] No good reason to get rid of Ambidexterity...

[Hypersmurf]

Not at all. You only add them once, but to each attack, calculated in all ways as a seperate combat entity (so-to-speak).

But isn't that what I do with TWF? I reduce penalties separately on each attack...?

-Hyp.

 

[Sonofapreacherman]

But isn't that what I do with TWF? I reduce penalties separately on each attack...?

Yes, so why are you adding the alliviated penalties of one type of weapon together?

 

[hong]

You're still taaaalking!

Yes, so why are you adding the alliviated penalties of one type of weapon together?

Time for a chip up the nostril!

 

[Hypersmurf]

Yes, so why are you adding the alliviated penalties of one type of weapon together?

...

... but...

... you started it!?

-Hyp.

 

[Sabaron]

Ok, this might be stupid, but I'm going to take a crack at this.

Let's make this algebraic: A two weapon fighter gets two attacks, attack A and attack B.

Further, for the base, we'll assume that this person lacks profiency in both Two Weapon Fighting and the pair of short swords he's wielding, setting A at BAB -10 and B at BAB -12. (-6/-8 for off hand light, and -4/-4 for non-profiency)

Add A and B. A+B = A+B

Give the poor man Martial Weapon profiency in the short sword: A = A +4. B = B +4.

A+4+B+4 = A+B+8. Interesting.

Now, instead of Martial Weapon profiency, let's give him Two-Weapon Fighting: A = A+2, B = B+6

A+2+B+6 = A+B+8. Hmmmm... another +8 bonus to hit.

Ok, there's the math.

If you're still in doubt about two light weapons being the optimal combo for TWF (without a double weapon), look at it this way: Take Weapon Focus. 2 Short Swords: +2 to hit,Long Sword/Short Sword: +1 to hit, +1 to damage (factoring in the longsword's +1 avg damge). Add Weapon Specialization: 2 Short Swords: +2 to hit, + 4 to damage. Longsword/Shortsword: +1 to hit, + 3 to damage. The extra +1 damage the longsword grants you is not worth the opportunity costs! Statistically, you're shooting yourself in the foot here. Ask Mike Sullivan. This is twice as bad as what Power Attack does to you.

 

[Hypersmurf]

If you're still in doubt about two light weapons being the optimal combo for TWF (without a double weapon), look at it this way...

You make perfect sense, but we're in SOAPworld now. In SOAPworld you're not allowed to include Weapon Specialization in your analysis, because it's a feat that only applies to one weapon type, so it's only half as good as a different feat (except Simple Weapon Proficiency, because even though it applies to lots of different weapons, we're going to ignore it). Even if you're a Marilith wielding six shortswords, Weapon Specialization isn't allowed to be factored in, in SOAPworld.

And your comparison of proficiency vs TWF is wrong because... well, apparently, because SOAP says so.

-Hyp.

 

[Sonofapreacherman]

Well, if you knowingly enter into a debate about the economy of feats, then you gotta play by the rules. If you can't play by the rules, then get out of the debate.

Put another way...

I can only be responsible for my end Hypersmurf. You gotta drag the weight of your own ass.

-----

Hong.

Thanks for the JPG... but when you get the work of other people to speak for you... it really means that you have nothing to say.

Keep trying though. Any time now, you might accidentily trip across an original thought. Just realize that when and "if" you do, your opinion will still count for shinola to me.

Cheers.

 

[hong]

Well, if you knowingly enter into a debate about the economy of feats, then you gotta play by the rules. If you can't play by the rules, then get out of the debate.

Because, as we all know, there's nothing like a good mass debate to get the blood flowing.


Hong "and that's MY SCHTICK, dammit" Ooi

 

[Darklone]

Because, as we all know, there's nothing like a good mass debate to get the blood flowing.

Hong "and that's MY SCHTICK, dammit" Ooi

Hong, that's a political comment about the debatable efficiency of democratic systems. The mods will have your skin.