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

[the Jester]

The second thing, a feat - whatever we call it - that gives you the full strength-bonus to your off-hand attack, is broken, on the other hand. It would mean that you get more out of your strenght with those two wee weapons than the heavy weapon guy gets out of his big, mighty instrument of destruction (tm). You'd get 2x strenght, while he only got 1.5.

...though he has Power Attack to make up for it.

I've been considering just such a feat imc.

 

[Sonofapreacherman]

If you're a TWF guy, you're better off using two weapons of the same type, as opposed to two different weapons, for exactly this reason.

I couldn't disagree more. Using a medium weapon in your primary hand is much better for maximizing damage. Try as you might, you really can’t argue with that.

-----

I think it's good that they combined TWF and Ambidexterity into one feat.

This debate was actually settled not so long ago. Feel free to go on and on about it if you like.

The feat doesn't grant you any bonus, it lessens a penalty.

Which was always the point, largely missed by most people here. When it comes to lessening a penalty, it is unprecedented for 1 feat to negate up to 8 points worth of combat penalties (without a counterbalancing force). Once again, even this problem has been addressed with possible fixes.

Cast your fire spells all you like KaeYoss, but do keep up.

Plus, Standard penalties for fighting with two weapons are -6/-10, while TWF grants you -4/-4.

Am I only one here who knows how to add? Two different weapons, one medium, one small (for maximized damage), total net gain +2/+6 = +8. This really isn't rocket science. Whether you like my tone of voice or not, facts cannot be escaped (though I know you will try).

A wizard who takes Simple Weapons Proficiency and uses two different simple weapons at once he wasn't proficient with before (say, a heavy mace and a light mace), will have +0/+0 with these weapons (not considering two-weapon fighting), while before he hat -4/-4. The "net gain" is +4/+4. If you add it all up, you'll have +8.

Hehe. I was the one who both made and defeated this argument in the first place. I'll leave you to scan through the posts on your own time...

OMG! SIMPLE WEAPONS PROFICIENCY IS SO BROKEN. WIZARDS ARE THE NEW MELEE MONSTERS!

…whenever you're done frothing at the mouth, of course.

The second thing, a feat - whatever we call it - that gives you the full strength-bonus to your off-hand attack, is broken, on the other hand. It would mean that you get more out of your strength with those two wee weapons than the heavy weapon guy gets out of his big, mighty instrument of destruction (tm). You'd get 2x strength, while he only got 1.5.

Talk about defeating your own argument. Give a guy enough rope...

I guess you weren't aware of what the new Power Attack feat grants to "the big guy with his mighty instrument of destruction"? I see the Jester beat you to it. Not only that, but the big guy only has to hit once. The two-weapon fighter is not so lucky. My Ambidexterity feat is far from broken. Do some more research my friend. And pace yourself this time.

 

[Caliban]

I couldn't disagree more. Using a medium weapon in your primary hand is much better for maximizing damage. Try as you might, you really can’t argue with that.

Wrong. If you want to maximize damage use two identical weapons and take the Weapon Specialization feat. At total of +4 to damage from the feat beats +1d2 from the larger weapon when using two different weapons.

To really maximize it, use a double weapon such as a double-sword. Now you are getting the larger weapon damage in both hands, and you are getting the specializaiton bonuse.

In each case, the same weapon is better than two different weapons if you want to maximize damage.

-----

This debate was actually settled not so long ago. Feel free to go on and on about it if you like.

Yes, and not in your favor.

Which was always the point, largely missed by most people here. When it comes to lessening a penalty, it is unprecedented for 1 feat to negate up to 8 points worth of combat penalties (without a counterbalancing force). Once again, even this problem has been addressed with possible fixes.

Not at all. As pointed out, when using identical weapons in each hand, the Martial Weapon Proficiency negates up to 8 points worth of combat penalties.

You have not adequately rebutted that arguement, despite your claims to the contrary.

Thank you, have a nice day.

 

[Hypersmurf]

To really maximize it, use a double weapon such as a double-sword. Now you are getting the larger weapon damage in both hands, and you are getting the specializaiton bonuse.

According to SOAP, you can't use EWP in this argument, becuase it's a "whole other feat". Whatever that means.

As far as I see it, someone using a double sword without EWP has penalties amounting to -8 across both hands that the person with the proficiency doesn't get. His penalties, with the feat, drop from -8/-12 to -4/-8.

But apparently, due to "economy of feats", one feat spend on EWP cannot be compared to one feat spent on TWF, in SOAP-World.

Or something.

As pointed out*, when using identical weapons in each hand, the Martial Weapon Proficiency negates up to 8 points worth of combat penalties.

*at least seven times this thread.

-Hyp.

 

[Sonofapreacherman]

Wrong. If you want to maximize damage use two identical weapons and take the Weapon Specialization feat. At total of +4 to damage from the feat beats +1d2 from the larger weapon when using two different weapons.

A feat that only one character can take. A character with the most combat feats available at their disposal. As for the other 10 character classes... well, that kind of marginalizes your point here into insignificance.

Whether you caught it or not, this debate has more to do with economy of feats than you realize.

To really maximize it, use a double weapon such as a double-sword. Now you are getting the larger weapon damage in both hands, and you are getting the specializaiton bonuse.

Which requires even more feats.

You still haven't proven that the best maximized damage for the most number of characters (after taking a single feat) is one medium weapon and one small weapon, which equates to +8 worth of damage bonuses from Two-Weapon Fighting ... and what's more, you won't. Feel free to try though.

Yes, and not in your favor.

Perhaps not in my favor... but in the favor of logic. I'll settle with logic.

Not at all. As pointed out, when using identical weapons in each hand, the Martial Weapon Proficiency negates up to 8 points worth of combat penalties.

One weapon = one bonus. You can't double dip. Use it in both hands if you like, but it is still one bonus for one weapon. 1:1.

This ratio thing really stumps you guys doesn't it?

-----

Originally posted by Hypersmurf
According to SOAP, you can't use EWP in this argument, becuase it's a "whole other feat". Whatever that means.

See above. The whole 1 feat economy was the underlying point of this thread. How much should 1 feat be allowed to do. Get it now?

Originally posted by Hypersmurf
But apparently, due to "economy of feats", one feat spend on EWP cannot be compared to one feat spent on TWF, in SOAP-World.

Well, that is where this all began, soooooo...

 

[Corinth]

Bitching about the changes now is less than pointless. 3.5 is long past being a done deal.

If you want to make a change in how the game works then this is what you have to do:

• Change Your Attitude: Make like you're a playtester, not just some schmuck off the street that plays now and again. Master the rules of the game and use them to their fullest extent early, often and repeatedly without shame.
• Change Your Style: See that house rules folder? Toss it. Play the game as it's written, using nothing more than the latest errata and sticking as close to the core of the game as possible.
• Change Your Setting: See that homebrewed world that you've worked on for so long? Toss it. Use one of the official campaign settings for D&D, preferably Greyhawk or the Realms.
• Change Your Proceedure: Every time you find a rule that's broken--which only actual play can reliably find--then record it. After that instance, see if you can repeat the event under different circumstances. If you can do this multiple times, then post your findings online--the WOTC boards, RPG Net and here are your best bets--and ask them to do the same.
• Change Your Perspective: Recognize that this process will take time. Others will debate your findings and attempt to replicate the process; if you've done your homework--as it were--then you will find that they will (if they're honest) confirm your findings. This adds weight to your position, and it will snowball into becoming an unassailable truth that WOTC can't ignore; they will be compelled to issue errata in your favor.

By avoiding house rules and homebrewed settings, you deflect a great many attempts to ignore your move to change the game for the better--that's right, it's political--so a great many more people will actually bother to listen to you and take you seriously. Couple that with a sane and reasonable tone to your postings and you'll soon find WOTC R&D taking a great deal of interest in your findings. If you're right--and if you follow this formula, you will be--then you'll get your way and everyone will thank you for it. Everyone wins.

 

[Hypersmurf]

You still haven't proven that the best maximized damage for the most number of characters (after taking a single feat) is one medium weapon and one small weapon, which equates to +8 worth of damage bonuses from Two-Weapon Fighting ...

But that's +8 in bonuses on top of a -16 penalty!

Change that feat for Power Attack with your spear, for example. No attack penalty at all unless you choose to incur one to add to your damage....

-Hyp.

 

[Caliban]

A feat that only one character can take. A character with the most combat feats available at their disposal. As for the other 10 character classes... well, that kind of marginalizes your point here into insignificance.

And because YOU say it, it must be true. Not.

It's not marginalized, and it's not insiginificant.

Does the fact that one class (ranger) gets the TWF feats for free marginalize your "economy of feats" arguement?

Whether you caught it or not, this debate has more to do with economy of feats than you realize.

Only in your mind apparently.

Which requires even more feats.

You still haven't proven that the best maximized damage for the most number of characters (after taking a single feat) is one medium weapon and one small weapon, which equates to +8 worth of damage bonuses from Two-Weapon Fighting ... and what's more, you won't. Feel free to try though.

Um, we never wanted to prove that it was one medium weapon and one small weapon, that's your stance. Can't you even keep your own arguement straight?

Why do I need to prove it for the most number of characters anyway? You never said anything about that in the beginning.

Trying to change the parameters of the arguement after you have been proven wrong is dirty pool, and doesn't really work in this case.

Perhaps not in my favor... but in the favor of logic. I'll settle with logic.

Then why are you still arguing about it? Logic says your wrong.

One weapon = one bonus. You can't double dip. Use it in both hands if you like, but it is still one bonus for one weapon. 1:1.

Two weapons, one feat. Just like TWF.

We are discussing two-weapon fighting are we not?

You are talking about (removing) penalties when using two weapons, and we are talking about (removing) penalties when two weapons.

Not that hard a concept, I would think.

TWF reduces the penalties for using two weapons (-2 for one hand, -6 for the other).

When using two weapons you aren't proficient in, you get a total of -8 in penalties (-4 for each hand). Proficiency reduces those penalties for each hand. Viola! A total of 8 point reduction in penalties, just like TWF in the 3.5.

This ratio thing really stumps you guys doesn't it?

Being smug when you are wrong just makes you look like an ass.

You are the one having problems with the ratio thing.

One proficiency: 2 weapons

1:2

See above. The whole 1 feat economy was the underlying point of this thread. How much should 1 feat be allowed to do. Get it now?

Well, that is where this all began, soooooo...

Let's see, if it's a metamagic feat it can give up to +5d6 or more damage (empower), or a whole extra spell (up to +15d6 with quickened cone of cold).

If it's a weapon proficiency feat is can reduce your penalties by 4 when using one weapon, or 8 when using two weapons (one in each hand).

It can prevent an AoO, and grant a +4 bonus (Improved Grapple, Improved Disarm, Improved Trip, etc.)

Preventing an AoO seems to be on par with a +4 bonus, so yeah, I think the new TWF feat is on par with the other 3.5 combat feats.

 

[IanB]

Why keep a feat that noone would ever take without also taking another feat?

Ambidexterity was never taken without also taking TWF.

This is the sign of a bad feat.

Fixing it, using your strength damage modification, would not make it more likely to be taken without TWF.

Noone in their right mind would still ever try to use two weapons without both feats.

Therefore, I don't really see it as a fix to what the actual problem was.

 

[Kae'Yoss]

I couldn't disagree more. Using a medium weapon in your primary hand is much better for maximizing damage. Try as you might, you really can?t argue with that.

The best to get the most out of your feats is to become a dwarf fighter who uses a dwarven urgrosh (double weapon, martial for dwarves) or an orc fighter with an orc double axe (double weapon, martial for orcs). Then you get weapon focus for that weapon, weapon specialization, and the greater versions of both, not to forget improved crit and power crit.

Am I only one here who knows how to add?

You may know how to do very simple equations (but not much more, as you have shown on your miserable attempt to create a munchkin multiclassing character in your other troll thread, an attempt which left you with practically no attack potential and only very little spells.

I guess you weren't aware of what the new Power Attack feat grants to "the big guy with his mighty instrument of destruction"?

For every point of attack bonus you lose for all your attacks, you get +2 for your damage if you're using two hands. This is +1 damage per hand.
If you use two one-handed weapons (no light ones), you get +1 damage per hand for every point of attack bonus you lose.

It's actually equal now.

As for normal damage: If you have a two-handed weapon, you get 1.5 times your strength bonus to damage (or 1x for your main hand, 0.5x for your off hand). If you use two weapons, you gain 1x your strength bonus to damge for your main hand, and 0.5x for your off hand.

It's balanced.

This debate was actually settled not so long ago. Feel free to go on and on about it if you like.

As I said: I post my opinions.

Am I only one here who knows how to add?

No. I merely had other numbers in my head.
So it does lessen your penalties by 8 if you add up the bonuses you get with each hand..

Now, if you use a double weapon, or the same weapon twice (the double weapon will have the same effect than a one-handed weapon and a light weapon), you will have -4 / -4 on your attacks if you aren't proficient. If you are proficient, you will have 0 / 0. So it does lessen your penalties by 8 if you add up the bonuses wou get with each hand. This is fact. You cannot escape fact. You can try (and you did often enough), but it won't work.