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

[mmu1]

Just like Martial Weapon Proficiency. What's your point?

-Hyp.

Martial Weapon Proficiency doesn't provide a bonus, it removes a penalty. Even if it did, the penalty is -4, not -8.

Now, didn't that add volumes to the discussion?

 

[Sonofapreacherman]

Are you really incapable of understanding anything besides the completely literal, or do you just enjoy taking things out of context and being a pointless pain in the ass?

mmu1!

Please, no flaming. I don't know what hypersmurf said to upset you, but I ask that you please keep it civil.

 

[Sonofapreacherman]

If you're summing the bonuses from Two-Weapon Fighting across both weapons, we can sum the bonuses from Martial Weapon Proficiency across both weapons.

Actually, Martial Weapon Proficiency, taken as a feat by a wizard, only applies to one weapon at a time. But let's say the character chose Simply Weapon Proficiency instead. Fair enough. I anticipated this point as I posted to you last. The mitigating argument here is that while a pure wizard can potentially gain the equivalent of +8 combat bonuses for taking Simple Weapon Proficiency, and attacking with one in each hand (negating two sets of -4 penalties for untrained usage) he will still suck as a melee fighter. Nothing can change that. Moreover, single handed simple weapons inflict less damage than martial weapons, so the fighter with Martial Weapon Proficiency (all) hedges him out again. That's two major strikes against even taking such a feat in the first place.

 

[(Psi)SeveredHead]

The act of two weapon fighting was only imbalanced because the law of averages dictated that greatswords were more effective damage dealers than two weapons. You simply stood a greater chanced of hitting *once* with a greatsword than *twice* with each of your two weapons.

Average greatsword damage with 18 strength (with 1 successful hit required) = 11 points.

Average longsword and short sword damage with 18 strength (with 2 successful hits required) = 13 points.

Those two extra points of damage simply weren't worth "two" feats. Agreed.

Take away the 1/2 damage penalty for off-hand weapons and that gap widens from 2 points to 4 points. When you consider that the Weapon Specialization feat offers a bonus of +2 damage for 1 feat (actually two feats with the Weapon Focus prerequisite), then two weapon fighting becomes worth two feats. And that's only for fighters. Anybody can take Ambidexterity and Two-Weapon Fighting.

Problem solved. Ambidexterity didn't need fixing. Off-hand weapon damage did.

Aren't you forgetting something? You can't use TWF as a standard action, but only as a partial action. Unless you're a rogue, TWF is always a weaker option.

 

[Hypersmurf]

Martial Weapon Proficiency doesn't provide a bonus, it removes a penalty.

Just like Two-Weapon Fighting.

Even if it did, the penalty is -4, not -8.

And the penalties the TWF feat mitigates are -2 and -6, not -8.

Someone attacking with two weapons with the TWF feat, vs someone attacking with two weapons without the TWF feat, suffers less penalties. SOAP insists on adding those penalty remissions together and calling it a +8 bonus.

Someone attacking with two shortswords with the MWP: Shortsword feat, vs someone attacking with two shortswords without the MWP: Shortsword feat, suffers less penalties. If we add the -4 and -4 penalties remitted - just like SOAP is doing with TWF - we get, by the same logic, a +8 bonus.

Just like TWF.

-Hyp.

 

[Petrosian]

even as ai write this, I will post first off that this is not intended or expected to change sonofa's mind. i doubt we are seeing his mind after all, cuz this sure looks to me like a troll, not a discussion.

I think most people tend to agree that changing the way TWf was put together in 3e to improve it a little bit was a good idea. Even sonofa mentioned a while back his preferred improvement with the strength thingy. Somewhere between two feats for cancelling the big bonuses involved in TWf down to the more normal -2/-2 and the half strength off hand and the price for two weapons, it all was something which became less than "as good" as other options for combat styles.

WOTC looked at it in play, listened to people and decided to make a fix to improve it some. OK!

The fix they chose, cutting the "penalty goes to -2/-2" down to one feat made it less expensive to take it. OK!

It also had a second impact. It can now be taken for characters at first level right from the start. An elven rogue does not need to wait until 3rd level to figure out how to use shortswords in both hands, any more than an elven rogue needs to wait until 3rd level to learn to use a greatsword two handed. Both combat options now require just one feat which he gains at first level.

So the change WOTC chose also tends to even out the ability to start with the fighting style between TWF and THF.

Sure, they could have decided to change how strength works in off hands and left it at two feats, but that would still have left it out of the reach of many starting characters. i suppose if you consider that delay a good thing, then you would prefer sonofa's house rule suggestion to be superior to the change wotc made.

I guess you can sum it up relatively easily... should an elven rogue be able to start the game with effective two weapon fighting? if so, then the one feat notion is probably your choice of preference too. If you think thats wrong or will break your game in two like an adamantine greatsword sundering a wand in 3.5, then you should probably consider house rules.

Me, i like it. it is one of the relatively few things i like about 3.5. But then, thats probably just me.

i think we all have a good idea as to where sonofa claims to comes down on this one.

 

[Hypersmurf]

Are you really incapable of understanding anything besides the completely literal, or do you just enjoy taking things out of context and being a pointless pain in the ass?

Hmm?

A lot of people still don't realise that the extra attack from attacking with two weapons is possible without the TWF feat. They think the extra attack is one of the benefits of the feat.

What you posted suggested you were one of them, and was misleading.

I'm not sure how correcting it is taking it out of context. If you aren't under the need-the-feat misconception, then my reply clarifies the point for those who are, and who might be further confused by your message. If you are under that misconception, then my reply clarifies it for you.

Either way, I don't see that my reply warranted the attack.

-Hyp.

 

[Spatula]

Inflicting as much damage as is humanly possible in a short period of time could very easily make the untrained two-weapon fighting tactic attractive to a higher level fighter. The *equal challenge* undead creature could simply be very close to their last legs, but have their hands around the neck of an innocent. You have one combat round to vanquish the creature before it snaps their vertebrae. It's defenses are low (indeed, the creature is considered to be grappling) so you suck up the two-weapon penalties and go all out with your attacks.

Unfortunately, the penalties to hit reduce your damage output. While I haven't done the math, the extra damage from an attack with an off-hand dagger probably isn't going to make up for damage lost due to misses. Perhaps Mike Sullivan or Spikey Freak can work out the actual numbers.

What your situation ignores, however, is how the non-2WF ends up with two weapons. If the fighter normally uses a greatsword, he probably doesn't have 2 weapons to use, and even if he did it would take him a full round to drop his greatsword and draw both (barring quickdraw). A sword-and-shield fighter would need a move action to get rid of his shield, then another to draw his dagger. Even with quickdraw, losing the shield costs a move, preventing a full attack. If time is truly of the essence, the fighter probably isn't going to sacrifice a round to switch fighting styles.

Well, now that I think about it, the sword-and-shield fighter can do a shield bash, he just loses the AC bonus from the shield for that round. Of course, there are problems with that as well - the shield a non-magical weapon unless it has enchanted spikes on it, so if the foe has DR (and it almost certainly does at the levels we're talking about), the bash attack won't do much, if anything.

 

[Hypersmurf]

Of course, there are problems with that as well - the shield a non-magical weapon unless it has enchanted spikes on it...

Not quite. The shield is a non-magical weapon unless it is crafted as a magical weapon.

A shield is a martial bludgeoning weapon. A spiked shield is a martial piercing weapon. Either one can be given weapon enhancement bonuses and weapon special qualities. The spikes are not a separate entity from the shield (unlike armor spikes, which are separate from the armor).

Of course, you need to have your shield - or your spiked shield - made as a masterwork weapon before it can be made into a magical weapon, which costs 300gp, on top of the cost of the masterwork quality of the shield to receive shield enhancement bonuses and special qualities.

Alternatively, a Bashing Shield would also beat DR X/magic.

-Hyp.

 

[Spatula]

Alternatively, a Bashing Shield would also beat DR X/magic.

If you have a shield of bashing, you've probably taken Two-Weapon Fighting and Improved Shield Bash. Or perhaps you just happen to have one found in a treasure hoard somewhere, but that's getting back into "very contrived" territory again...