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

[Sonofapreacherman]

Corinth.

All I can say is that change happens many ways. You have identified some methods. But most of the changes found in 3.5 seem to be the product of internet popularity contests. Not all of which are good. Change in D&D is not always the product of rationality as your post attests. It is often the product of giving the player's exactly what they want to sell more books. If anything, 3.5 is evidence of that. Making money rears its ugly head into D&D more often these days than I think you imagine.

Thanks for your input though. Many of your points definitely bear considering.

-----

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...

Hypersmurf. What the heck are you going on about? Are we talking about Two-Weapon Fighting in your head or not? What does Power Attack have to do with debating how much the Two Weapon Fighting feat should be worth?

-----

Originally posted by Caliban
Only in your mind apparently.

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 argument straight?

Haha! I love it. What a circus your mind is. Well, seeing as how I did start this thread, it would be in mind wouldn't it? How much is one feat, and Two-Weapon Fightin in particular, worth? That has always been my pursuit here. You don't have to participate if you don't want to Caliban, but your previous point was indeed insignificant. And what the heck does the ranger two weapon fighting *ability* have to do with the Two Weapon Fighting *feat*? They are not the same, or do you need their differences spelled out for you as well?

Originally posted by Caliban
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.

Apparently you couldn't go back far enough to find my original argument that both made and broke this point. Here goes again. A wizard takes Simple Weapon Proficiency. Assuming a wizard does choose to fight with two "different" simple weapons, such a character benefits from a total of +8 combat bonuses (negating two sets of -4 untrained usage penalties). But to what end? They suck as a melee fighter and their one-handed simple weapons inflict far less damage than a maximized Two-Weapon Fighting feat (one medium and one small weapon). Two strikes against them already. Every other character already benefits from class based weapon proficiencies superior to those granted by the Simple Weapon Proficiency feat.

Originally posted by Caliban
Being smug when you are wrong just makes you look like an ass.

Then I heartily recommend you take your own advice.

Originally posted by Caliban
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).

Your worst comparison yet. Empower requires that characters sacrifice a higher level spell slot. Two Weapon Fighting requires that you sacrifice nothing for a +8 penalty reduction. Your other comparisons are similarly nonsensical. You're grasping at straws to prove an erroneous point. But please, don't let that stop you. Spin your wheels all you like.

-----

IanB.

This thread has long since evolved beyond the point of making Two Weapon Fighting into one feat. The question being debated now is how much one feat should remove *combat* penalties. Perhaps this will finally clarify the issue for Caliban. Hope springs eternal. My stance is that reducing a combat penalty by 8 is too much for 1 feat. I think 4 is a much more balanced number.

-----

KaeYoss.

Let me keep it simple. Read my reply to IanB. And please, in the future, do more than skim read these threads. Yes, I can think of many ways to maximize damage with multiple feats, but do you really think that we have been taking about more than *one* feat here? Gosh, I hope you're not that oblivious.

Originally posted by KaeYoss
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.

Far from it. Using two weapons (no light ones) means that even with the Two-Weapon Fighting feat, you are still suffering from an additional -4 on each attack (above and beyond what you already lose to the Power Attack).

Originally posted by KaeYoss
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 see you missed the point of that thread as well. Start demonstrating that you actually know what is being discussed and I will reply to you in the future.

 

[Hypersmurf]

So if I understand your reasoning...

Let's say I choose to use two light weapons. (I have Weapon Finesse, and a philosophical objection to rapiers, say.)

If I choose to use a short sword and a hand axe, the TWF feat negates a -2 penalty on my primary hand and a -6 penalty on my off-hand, for a total of -8.

But if I choose to use two short swords, I can't add those two together, because they're the same type of weapon (by your MWP logic). The TWF feat is less valuable to me while using two identical swords than while using a sword and an axe. For some reason.

I just can't figure out the reasoning as to why, although the numbers are identical, I'm apparently negating less of an penalty because the two swords are the same.

-Hyp.

 

[Sonofapreacherman]

If I choose to use a short sword and a hand axe, the TWF feat negates a -2 penalty on my primary hand and a -6 penalty on my off-hand, for a total of -8.

But if I choose to use two short swords, I can't add those two together, because they're the same type of weapon (by your MWP logic). The TWF feat is less valuable to me while using two identical swords than while using a sword and an axe. For some reason.

In short... yes.

You can see the Two-Weapon Fighting feat as less valuable when using the same type of weapon, but you still get all the same advantages. The reason I don't count the single weapon used in both hands twice is perhaps a semantical one, but important nonetheless. Look at it like this if you will...

It's one weapon. So while the same weapon is being used in both hands, only "one" penalty for untrained usage is being negated. Therefore it only counts "once" towards the penalties that are negated by the Two-Weapon Fighting feat.

 

[Ravellion]

Two Weapon Fighting, Feat Economy, Balance, and reducing penalties

Son of a preacherman, you make the argument that 1 feat reducing the penalties by 8 is in some way not balanced. However, you fail to give a numerical example of either damage output or another way of combat effectiveness that would make this argument palatable.

Numerically it would actually not be unbalanced to have the rules simply state that you can use two weapon fighting at -4/-4, or -2/-2 with light weapon without any feat taken at all.

The challenges for the party wouldn't be overcome any easier. It is still less efficient a fighting style than both Sword and Shield and Two Handed ( the math has been done countless times on these boards - look for threads on two weapon fighting, you'll find average damage per round outputs for all kinds of characters). Note thought that Sword and Shield is superior in a different way and does do a bit less damage than the TWF tactic.

So, to come to your argument of feat economy: One feat can certainly be used to reduce penalties by 8 if the penalties are arbitrarily large in any case. Why are those penalties so large? We can only speculate, but it has probably to do with the fact that Two Weapon Fighting is "flashy" and "cool", and hence should be slightly dissuaded. Also in 2e Two Weapon Fighting was numerically superior, so it might had to do with overcompensating a 2e problem... which neatly brings us to...

Something completely different: Son of a Preacherman's "Fix"

In 2e, TWF gave full strength to off handed attacks. This proved to be overpowered. Your ambidexterity fix wouldn't be as bad in the beginning, but as soon as extra attacks would enter the fray through improved two weapon fighting it would be a lot of exra damage. A damage bonus the game is not designed to handle, as this would far exceed the Two Hander Character if properly optimized. An almost worst case scenario (let's say 28 strength at 18th level for a +1 BAB character) would give a damage bonus of ~12 per round if taken in conjunction with other feats (but still it is the one feat which increases this amount so), without any penalty to BAB such as would be the case with Power Attack (whihc would require an attack penalty of 6... perhaps not that big a deal with the first attack, but definitely with the latter few attacks).

Well, I wonder whether I typed this all for nothing, but we'll see.

Rav

 

[Jens]

It's one weapon. So while the same weapon is being used in both hands, only "one" penalty for untrained usage is being negated. Therefore it only counts "once" towards the penalties that are negated by the Two-Weapon Fighting feat.

Ahem. Even reading this with a very open mind, it makes no sense in relation to the game. It may make sense in a narrow semantic way, but it is not relevant to the game so I don't think that line of reasoning is useful in a game-related discussion.

(From what I understand, you're arguing that all that is being reduced is the penalty to wield one weapon and therefore only one penalty is reduced. But then you're ignoring the context of using two of them at the same time. Arguing that reducing penalties from -6/-10 to -4/-4 is significantly different from a reduction from -4/-8 to -2/-2 seems, well, 'selective' at best. Or have I misunderstood what you're saying?)

 

[hong]

It's one weapon. So while the same weapon is being used in both hands, only "one" penalty for untrained usage is being negated. Therefore it only counts "once" towards the penalties that are negated by the Two-Weapon Fighting feat.

See, this is because in sonofapreacherboy's world, two hands merge into one MEGA POWER FIGHTING HAND OF D3TH when wielding two weapons of the same type.

Or something.

 

[Caliban]

See, this is because in sonofapreacherboy's world, two hands merge into one MEGA POWER FIGHTING HAND OF D3TH when wielding two weapons of the same type.

Or something.

And any claim otherwise is "insignificant" because... well just because.

 

[Kae'Yoss]

It is often the product of giving the player's exactly what they want to sell more books. ... . Making money rears its ugly head into D&D more often these days than I think you imagine.

I think giving the majority what they want is a good thing. It means that the majority of the players will be able to enjoy the game. Sure, that will allow Wizards to sell more books. Sure, they do it for money. The whole point is: They have to do it for money. If they won't sell enough books, they have to abandon D&D. It doesn't make any profit, it maybe even brings a financial loss to the company.

Of course, they will be things they do for the majority which I won't like. But that's natural. Nothing's perfect. And having a ruleset where most rules are to my liking surely beats having no rulebook or a really expensive rulebook (if they listen to minorities, chances are they won't sell enough. Or, someone specialized to meet the needs of minorities, but those minorities are better prepared to pay premium for this tailor-made service).




The rest of your post was the same mental diarrhoea have been exposing the board to since the very start of the thread. Semantics to prove stuff, twisting the matters to your best advantage, insulting people, and being an arroganb rb all around. As I've already said in your other troll thread: Call your mother and tell her that bs, she has to like you after all. I won't visit your trolls.

 

[IanB]

This thread has long since evolved beyond the point of making Two Weapon Fighting into one feat. The question being debated now is how much one feat should remove *combat* penalties. Perhaps this will finally clarify the issue for Caliban. Hope springs eternal. My stance is that reducing a combat penalty by 8 is too much for 1 feat. I think 4 is a much more balanced number.

Interesting. Why do you take the combat penalties for fighting with 2 weapons as holy scripture, written in stone, but the feats as something that you can change however you like?

The 8 point reduction is an arbitrary number because the TWF penalty is arbitrary. You could just as easily fix your semantic problem by reducing the base penalty as you could by tinkering with the feats.

It also reads to me like your responses with regard to someone using two shortswords or a double weapon are dodging the issue.

Why is it any different for the user of 2 shortswords but it is for the user of a hand axe and a shortsword? You have failed to make your reasoning clear. If anything the second guy is already at a disadvantage because he has to spend feats on 2 weapons if he wants to optimize.

 

[Sonofapreacherman]

It is still less efficient a fighting style than both Sword and Shield and Two Handed ( the math has been done countless times on these boards - look for threads on two weapon fighting, you'll find average damage per round outputs for all kinds of characters). Note thought that Sword and Shield is superior in a different way and does do a bit less damage than the TWF tactic.

This is something I have been aware of since long before beginning this thread. I agree with the math. Moreover, this is also why I have since revised the Ambidexterity feat to negate the off-hand penalty for inflicting Strength damage.

So, to come to your argument of feat economy: One feat can certainly be used to reduce penalties by 8 if the penalties are arbitrarily large in any case. Why are those penalties so large? We can only speculate, but it has probably to do with the fact that Two Weapon Fighting is "flashy" and "cool", and hence should be slightly dissuaded.

It appears you have missed much of this thread. This is also why I recommend lowering those arbitrarily large two-weapon fighting penalties down to -4/-8 and make the Two-Weapon Fighting feat simply reduce the secondary weapon penalty by 4.

The continued debate about "how-much-one-type-of-weapon-is-worth, used-in-both-hands, when-calculating-alleviated-combat-penalties" has been primarily sustained by Hypersmurf and KaeYoss. I had moved on from it long ago now.

At this point, you either agree with my reasoning or not. Not only do I believe that I am wholly correct, but also that I have clearly explained this matter ad nausea. Rail all you like against my semantics, but that is the deciding factor here. Despite empty insistences without debatable proof, no one person has been logically persuasive to date. I will no longer comment on the subject until such proof can be offered.

Hong's and Caliban's most recent comments represent two perfect examples of the kind of replies that warrant no meaningful reply whatsoever.

In 2e, TWF gave full strength to off handed attacks. This proved to be overpowered. Your ambidexterity fix wouldn't be as bad in the beginning, but as soon as extra attacks would enter the fray through improved two weapon fighting it would be a lot of extra damage. A damage bonus the game is not designed to handle, as this would far exceed the Two Hander Character if properly optimized.

Not with the new changes to Power Attack in 3.5. Please review those changes more closely (or again if you have already).

With two weapon fighting, only one attack would be affected by the extra off-hand damage; a second off-hand attack with Improved Two-Weapon Fighting, albeit at a -5 attack penalty; and a third off-hand attack with Greater Two-Weapon Fighting, albeit at a -10 attack penalty. Compared to getting 2 points of damage for every 1 point of sacrificed attack (with the new Power Attack), my revision of Ambidexterity is both balanced and sound.

Hopefully this explanation has not been for nothing.



-----

Arguing that reducing penalties from -6/-10 to -4/-4 is significantly different from a reduction from -4/-8 to -2/-2 seems, well, 'selective' at best. Or have I misunderstood what you're saying?)

You have.

My changes proposed that the Two-Weapon Fighting feat should only reduce the secondary weapon by 4. Meaning the base penalties of -4/-8 are reduced to -4/-4. By using a light weapon in your off hand, this penalty would be further reduced from -4/-4 to -2/-2 (exactly as it is now).

-----

Originally posted by KaeYoss
I think giving the majority what they want is a good thing.

I would rather pay for a well-designed-set-of-rules than a popularity-contest-set-of-rules any day.

Originally posted by KaeYoss
I won't visit your trolls.

Hurrah! Spoken like dog with his tail tucked between both hind legs. You never did understand what is meant to be a troll. Your continued misinterpretations and desperate attempts to warp my quotes out of context won't be missed.

Now one can only hope you are good for your word.

-----

Originally posted by IanB
Interesting. Why do you take the combat penalties for fighting with 2 weapons as holy scripture, written in stone, but the feats as something that you can change however you like?

I do not. Please review the entire thread. You find that I have repeatedly posted my revisions of the two-weapon penalties. This is exactly why I am forced to repeat myself so much.

Originally posted by IanB
Why is it any different for the user of 2 shortswords but it is for the user of a hand axe and a shortsword? You have failed to make your reasoning clear.

I cannot make it more clear.

Originally posted by IanB
If anything the second guy is already at a disadvantage because he has to spend feats on 2 weapons if he wants to optimize.

The moment you optimize anything with additional feats, you are no longer arguing from the standpoint of feat economy. There are a lot of way to optimize a single weapon (that should be a given). Not only is that irrelevant here, but focusing on 1 weapon will also limit your character's combat options (the obvious downfall of your reasoning).