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

[Sonofapreacherman]

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.

Not sure why the fighter would use a dagger. If he took the -6/-10 penalty on the nose, he could use two bastard swords if it tickled his fancy (assuming he had the Exotic Weapon Proficiency feat to pull it off).

My point is this ... sunburns really hurt... and I thank you all for engaging me in debate to take my mind off it (even if that wasn't your intention). In the end, I am more in favor of lowering the fighting with two weapon penalties to -4/-8, revising Two-Weapon Fighting to reduce the secondary weapon penalty by 4, and designing Ambidexterity to negate off-hand strength penalties (in additon to letting character swtich off handedness at their leisure).

That seems like the wisest course of game designing action.

 

[Spatula]

Not sure why the fighter would use a dagger.

Because that's probably what he'd have available to use in a time-sensitive situation.

 

[Stormbringer]

I heard a lot of complaining on this thread about TWF vs Greatsword. A greatsword or orther twohanded Slashing/impact weapon is alwys going to do greater damage than any Rapier short short weapon combination. I hate to get into reality here but I don;t think many of you take reality into consideration before gripeiing about two-handed weapons vs a weapon weilded in each hand.

We are talking about damage profiles for a two handed weapon that weighs between 8 to 20 pounds and inflicts slashing/impact type wounds as opposed to eiter slashing or pericing damage that a Rapier or short sword does that weighs between 3 to 6 pounds

We have to put some realism into the game TWF with any thing other than Raiper-Main Gauche or Kantana/ Wakazashi just did
not happen mabye two short swords might have been used but that was rare. KNights only would use two weapons if thier shidelds were destroyed in Grand Melee or Tourney. DAggers were used only in desperation in that time period TWF ws just not used. Knights had two much to loose by using an inferior method of fighting.

TWF was not comonly used until the mid 13 hundereds when both france and sapin developed schools that taught TWF with Rapiers and Main gauche.

I don't know about the rest of you but I have actually used several types of medeivl weapons in melee. I can tell you that even trying to use two long swords is for me next to imposible
as I don;t have the dexterity to do it. I've got the strength no problem. Give me a Sword/Mace and Shield or a Lochbar ax and I'll put down most of the quicky types before they get in my reach.

I like what was done in 3.5 in both ambidexterity and powerattack. TWF is musch better if you use a realistic TWF weapon you gain an extra attack and both of your weapons are at -2. You still can use weapon finesse to improve your attack and when you get to a higher el then you can buy Imp TWF.

Ithink they fixed Poer Attack you now can not power attack with a light weapon that makes perfect sense to me light weapons are not designed to power attack. They are designed to be finessed. IF you tried to power attack with a Rapier you would leave yoursef overexposed form an extended lunge and with a ligtht slahing weapon there is just not enough blade area to make a power attack because of the length of the blade.

So overall I think the design team did a good job with these two feats. The reasopn why I think that many peopleare upset is that it took a min/maxing attack away from some characters.
It did bring more reality back into the mix.
.

 

[Ranger REG]

That's gotta break some balance rules. What the hell was Andy thinking? That D&D players couldn't do math?

No. Many of us who have criticized the many feats to improve TWF is too many compared to the other single-weapon fighting styles (one-handed and two-handed). This is a good compromise.

Plus, it has been tested in the d20 Modern ruleset.

 

[Jens]

In the end, I am more in favor of lowering the fighting with two weapon penalties to -4/-8, revising Two-Weapon Fighting to reduce the secondary weapon penalty by 4, and designing Ambidexterity to negate off-hand strength penalties (in additon to letting character swtich off handedness at their leisure).

That seems like the wisest course of game designing action.

After reading your first post, that's what I thought you should do. I even got the 'feel' that you had thought of it already then?

The first proposed change I think is relatively inconsequential. I agree that reducing penalties by 2/6 seems a little much, and whether they start out at -4/-8 or -6/-10 (respectively -2/-6 or -4/-8 with a light off-hand weapon) is not too big a deal. In most cases the penalty to the primary attack will still be too large to make untrained TWF unfavorable. The best case scenario that I can think of is when a character with no damage bonus or iterative attacks holds a light weapon in each hand. He then has the option of getting an extra attack with equal damage by taking benalties of -2/-6. Unless he already needs a 20 to hit or hits on 10+ or lower, untrained TWF still won't be beneficial.

The second change I don't like. As someone else pointed out, it will tend to make make TWF more *attractive* to high-str characters than THF. Even with a prerequisite of Dex 15 or something, it is within easy reach of many mid-high level fighter types. I guess it might be fixable, but I don't see an easy balanced fix.

Random thoughts: What if light/one-handed/two-handed weapons always gave half/full/double strength bonus to damage? Maybe the double str bonus to two-handed weapon damage should require a feat? It would increase the differences in damage output but also (esp. with weapon finesse) make light weapons more attractive to low-dex/high-str fighters and two-handed weapons more attractive to strong fighters. But then it might just mess things up

 

[JacktheRabbit]

What the hell was Andy thinking?

Do you end each of your trolls with this line? Have a problem with Andy's new product so you want to find as many ways as possible to take potshots at him preacherboy?

 

[Planesdragon]

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.

Why? It's a penalty reduction, not a real bonus.

A characer can get similar "bonuses" just by getting Armor Proficincy (Heavy). Heck, a TWF can get +8 of "bonuses" just by taking Exotic Weapon (Something Light).

Also, which Andy are we talking about? 'cause Andy Smith did the SRD, not the wholesale rules revision--and the guy did a great job on the SRD>

 

[the Jester]

Just wanted to chime in here with one remark: removing a penalty is generally considered to be less useful than adding a bonus.

2WF lets you get closer to your actual attack bonus with your style of combat; compare this to Weapon Focus, which lets you exceed your attack bonus with your chosen style.

I've yet to see it be a problem, and I've run 3e since just before the 3.0 PH came out (and played a lot as well), averaging (I'd say) 1.5 games/week every week.

 

[Brother Glacius]

***** Are all of your posts negatives about 3.5? I've only quickly browsed the board, but all I've seen from you were complaints. Just curious. Also, all of this is based on your opinion, or how you think a class should be.

Now, as to ambidexterity...you gave the reason why the feat was removed....the prerequisites are high dexterity. You can then assume that a character with high dexterity already has some measure of ambidexterity.

Then there is to consider whether being ambidexteritous really should impact your ability to fight with two weapons. Obviously, it takes more than just swinging away with two weapons to be a good fighter with that style. Especially when the type of weapons has absolutely no impact on the to hit rolls. I would think someone with two clubs would hit easier and more effectively than someone with two swords, given that neither had training on how to fight with two weapons.

Thus, who's to day that being able to use one had as well as the other, would have a positive impact on the knowledge of how to fight with two weapons.

thus, its much easier to explain it in a single feat of FTW. That person has the ability/training to use two weapons simultaneously.

Also, I don't see you addressing the penalties of the rules in the first place. Why is it -6/-10 when fighting with two weapons? Is that fair?

My take on that is the the penalties have to be great enough to detract most people from trying it. Otherwise, everyone would take advantage of using two weapons.

So then the designers have to decide what does it take to allow someone to fight in that manner. Even with the feat, they still have a -4/-4 unless using a light weapon in the off hand. Thats still a decent deterent. The light weapon bonus allows them to control the damage output of two weapons.

I see it as very well balanced. A character with high dexterity will be able to train with two weapons at the cost of a single feat. They can then minimize the penalties by restricting themselves to a light weapon in the off hand.

The benefits of ambidexterty were mainly for those who wanted to fight with two weapons. Yes, there were instances where it was helpful or characterful in other capacities, but that was by far the minority. I don't see a reason though why it had to be tied to two weapon fighting.

And by all means, you can continue to play with requiring ambidexterity to lower your penalties. Its not like anyone is forcing you to use 3.5 in the first place.

***** Brother Glacius

 

[SpikeyFreak]

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.

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.

So if you have a fighter with an 18 dex and a 14 str, which route is better?

If you have a fighter with an 18 str and a 14 dex, which route is better?

The fact is that what your solution does is benefit strong people more than it benefits weak people, which is not how it should be. The brute gets +8 damage instead of +6 damage. As you get higher level, it gets REALLY ugly.

Hypersmurf beat me to it, but if you're going to say it gives you a bonus of +8 because you include both hands, then martial weapon prof grants +8 across both hands, clearly an over powered feat by your logic.

And if you don't think -10 on an attack is a big deal at level 20, you haven't been playing many games at high level. +20 BAB + 5 from a weapon +10 from a 30str and -10 is still a 25% penalty. That's huge.

--Hungry Spikey