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

[Creamsteak]

I only miss ambidexterity because I liked to make a character that was proficient with both hands. Then I would give them two weapons, but I would never attack with both in the same round... it was just one side or the other. Especially cool when used with a double weapon with different enchantments on each side (cold damage/flame damage or similar).

I especially liked it because of a human fighter I had that used an adamantium greatsword and a keen flaming burst longsword... I used different weapons against different situations, but never dropped both weapons.

 

[mmu1]

Bah... It's a very simple issue. Did anyone ever take one of those two feats without taking the other?

I haven't seen it in three years of games, and never heard of it happening either, which means that, from a game design perspective, you had to either get rid of one of them, or combine them into one.

 

[coyote6]

Bah... It's a very simple issue. Did anyone ever take one of those two feats without taking the other?

Yes, I did. An ex-PC halfling rogue/fighter took Ambidexterity so he could throw daggers with his off-hand; someday down the road he might take TWF, to take advantage of the occasional extra sneak attack. I also briefly played a fighter that was intended to be a jack-of-all-trades rather than specializing in one particular weapon; he had Quick-Draw and Ambidexterity, so he could use either hand, as the situation demanded. Alas, the guy running that game weirded out and split before we'd played more than once or twice...

Note that either character would be perfectly happy to take TWF and get the effects of Ambidexterity plus more.

 

[mmu1]

Yes, I did.

Let me rephrase that... Did anyone that matters ever take one of those without taking the other?

I knew there must have been someone who actually took Ambidex by itself (atlhought I'd say taking it because you didn't have enough feats yet to take both it and TWF doesn't count), but did TWF ever get taken by itself?

 

[Sonofapreacherman]

You all seem okay with the fact that Two-Weapon Fighting grants +8 worth of attack bonuses. I can't rationalize that for a second. I don't know, perhaps it's my inner sense of game balance. All the alarms go off.



If the basic penalties for two-weapon fighting were Primary -4, Secondary -8 then you could say that the Two-Weapon Fighting feat reduces the secondary weapon penalty by 4, and a light off-handed weapon reduces both penalties by 2 more apiece.

It's all semantics really, but as it stands... +8 for 1 feat is simply too much (on design principles alone if nothing else).

Here's yet another solution that would reinstate the usefulness of Ambidexterity. Some players really do want to utilize both hands equally. Some players have no choice in the matter (if they lose the hand that they normally fight with). But in order to make the Ambidexterity feat worth while, it should grant some kind of bonus.

Say this... rather than scrapping the 1/2 Strength damage penalty for off-hand weapons, make it so Ambidexterity (the feat) cancels out that penalty. Taking Ambidexterity would allow characters to add their unmodified Strength bonus to every off-handed attack they make (in addition to letting characters switch off which hand to use).

 

[SpikeyFreak]

Sonofapreacherman - What you are advocating would make the game the opposite of real life.

IRL only highly dextrous type people would use two weapons. Brutes would use 1 bog weapon. If you make the chance you propose, highly dextrous people would see no benefit while the burly-men would be better off using 2 little weapons ass opposed to one big one.

I like the change.

--Number Cruncher Spikey

 

[mmu1]

You all seem okay with the fact that Two-Weapon Fighting grants +8 worth of attack bonuses. I can't rationalize that for a second. I don't know, perhaps it's my inner sense of game balance. All the alarms go off.

Umm... TWF grants an extra attack with a light weapon at -2, not "+8 worth of attack bonuses".

 

[Sonofapreacherman]

Umm... TWF grants an extra attack with a light weapon at -2, not "+8 worth of attack bonuses".

You haven't done the math. The penalties for two-weapon fighting are -6 and -10. By simply taking the Two-Weapon fighting feat, those penalties fall to -4 and -4. That's +8 worth of attack bonuses.

 

[Sonofapreacherman]

Sonofapreacherman - What you are advocating would make the game the opposite of real life.

Two-weapon fighting is already the opposite of real life. While people did fight with two weapons, the second weapon was used to parry more often than attack (if used to attack at all). Actually attacking with two weapons simulateously or in successive concert is very rare, but exceedingly common in the movies. Don't be fooled.

IRL only highly dextrous type people would use two weapons. Brutes would use 1 bog weapon. If you make the change you propose, highly dextrous people would see no benefit while the burly-men would be better off using 2 little weapons ass opposed to one big one.

Which is a very strong argument for making Dexterity modify attacks and Strength modify damage (alone). As it stands, however, your argument is flawed within the context of the current rules. Only highly Dextrous people have the prerequiste Dexterity scores to qualify for all the Two-Weapon Fighting feats.

In that vein, making a revised Ambidexterity feat (that cancels out the off-handed weapon damage penalty) would not benefit the brutes you refer to at all.

 

[Mike Sullivan]

You haven't done the math. The penalties for two-weapon fighting are -6 and -10. By simply taking the Two-Weapon fighting feat, those penalties fall to -4 and -4. That's +8 worth of attack bonuses.

Sort of.

The thing is, the basic penalties for two-weapon fighting could as easily be written as "-200/-600." Frankly, you'd have to be totally out of your mind to take a -6/-10 to hit.

Suppose that I make a feat as follows:

Negative Energy Attack
Prerequisites: 1d6 sneak attack, 1 Cleric level, evil alignment
Benefits: When making a sneak attack, you can choose for your sneak attack damage to be negative energy damage instead of physical damage. If you do so, you do only 1 point of damage for each 1d6 that you'd ordinarily roll.

Now, I think we could all agree that that feat is not overpowered (it may be inappropriate for a variety of other reasons, because I made it up on the spot, but it's not overpowered, right?)

Now, what if I make a house-rule in my game that says, "Any evil Cleric with sneak-attack damage can do 1 point of negative energy damage for every 1d6 sneak attack damage that they'd normally do, but if they do so, they take a -20 to hit."

After I've made that house-rule, my Negative Energy Attack feat could be described as, "Giving a +20 to hit." Does that suddenly make the feat, with the exact same effect, overpowered? No, of course not. It's still a rather weak feat -- the creation of an entirely seperate (punitively difficult-to-use) rule doesn't affect that.

Would the value of the Ambi/TWF feats suddenly go up if the penalty for TWF was increased to -20/-18? No, your character with the feats would be exactly the same. He hasn't become more powerful, but, by your description of the feat, it would have gone from giving a +8 to giving a +18! And yet... The character isn't any better.

That's why people don't worry about the "+8." It's not really a "+8." It's a feat which makes a given manuever possible, when it wasn't possible before -- like Spring Attack or something.