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

[Hypersmurf]

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

The Two-Weapon Fighting feat doesn't grant any extra attacks. Anyone, regardless of their feats, can gain an extra attack by attacking with two weapons.

It's not until you hit Improved Two-Weapon Fighting that the feats start adding attacks.

-Hyp.

 

[Technik4]

Mike, I agree, but its also a little sad. I mean, why should characters NEVER try something that may be statistically unwise to do? I'm sure heroes out of legend occasionally did things even if they looked really bad, and sometimes it pays off.

The problem with TWF and Ambi, to me, seems to be the same problem DR had in 3.0. It was basically a maneuver you shouldn't even bother trying UNLESS you had what you needed to overcome it.

Perhaps by changing the base negatives to TWF everyone will be pleased?

Base:

-4/-6 Fighting with 2 weapons.
-4/-4 Fighting with 2 weapons, off-hand light.
-3/-3 Fighting with 2 weapons and having Two-Weapon Fighting Feat.
-2/-2 Fighting with 2 weapons and having Two-Weapon Fighting Feat, and off-hand light.

Granted, this way reduces the negs for fighting with two-medium weapons by 1, but a +1 attack on both hands can still be telling. Plus it isn't unreasonable for a high level barbarian, ranger, paladin, or fighter to grab and fight with 2 weapons if the situation warrants (especially if the off-hand is light!). Sure, its not a GREAT situation, but sometimes that extra attack can make the difference.

Furthermore, why don't the higher level feats get rid of the negatives (as they do with Flurry of Blows)? ITWF would reduce another -1/-1, and GTWF would make the penalties 0/0 if off-hand is light, and -1/-1 if it isn't. Is that so broken? Its only available for high BAB characters, and it only puts them on equal ground with everyone else, all they've achieved is a lack of penalties! If there was I final 2wf feat, I would suggest that it reduce the final -1/-1 from TWF when the off-hand is not light, and give full strength bonus on your off-hand attacks. Thus 4 feats would give 4 attacks, which are equally as good as the regular ones.

Technik

 

[Sonofapreacherman]

Would the value of the Ambi/TWF feats suddenly go up if the penalty for TWF was increased to -20/-18?

Yes it would. And it depends wholly on your level and the creatures you are fighting. A -6/-10 penalty is not prohibitive at all to a 20th level fighter with a base attack of +20. But a -20/-18 penalty is prohibitive to such a character. After 10 or so levels, should a melee character want to fight with two weapons for whatever reason, they can probably handle the -6/-10 penalties.

 

[Magic Missile]

I was under the impression that they removed ambidexterity because virtually no-one took it without TWF. Handedness is virtually never an issue in D&D, and the Ambidex feat was only ever used with TWF. Combining them makes sense.

Just my opinion...

 

[Sonofapreacherman]

Mike, I agree, but its also a little sad. I mean, why should characters NEVER try something that may be statistically unwise to do? I'm sure heroes out of legend occasionally did things even if they looked really bad, and sometimes it pays off.

As per my reply to Mike, I don't think a -6/-10 penalty is all that bad to a middle-of-the-road fighter. That said, I think -4/-8 would be more appropriate penalties, with the Two-Weapon Fighting feat reducing the off hand penalty by 4.

 

[Sonofapreacherman]

I was under the impression that they removed ambidexterity because virtually no-one took it without TWF. Handedness is virtually never an issue in D&D, and the Ambidex feat was only ever used with TWF. Combining them makes sense.

Which is why I am suggesting that the Two-Weapon Fighting penalty be lowered to -4/-8 and Ambidexterity be revised to cancel out the off handed damage penalty.

Sorry of I'm sounding like a broken record folks, but it's all there in the thread.

 

[Mike Sullivan]

Mike, I agree, but its also a little sad. I mean, why should characters NEVER try something that may be statistically unwise to do? I'm sure heroes out of legend occasionally did things even if they looked really bad, and sometimes it pays off.

There's "looked really bad," and then there's, "oh, come on."

That said, sure. There are reasons why you might want to pick up the -6/-10 penalty. I'll construct one here (be warned, it'll be very, very strained):

You're fighting an undead critter. It's guarding a Doomsday Device (tm). If you don't kill the undead this round, you won't be able to to disable the Doomsday Device before it goes off, and everyone dies. You know, or are relatively certain, that the undead critter has a larger number of hit points remaining than you can theoretically do in one round.

So you quick-draw your backup mace or whatever, and suck up the -6/-10 penalty, hoping you get crazy lucky and hit with all of your attacks and that's enough damage to put you up over the top of the hit points. It's, probably literally, a 1% chance, but you've got little to lose. In a movie, you'd win at the last second.

In D&D, barring a GM's liberal application of Rule Zero, 99% of all campaigns that had this situation would end right there. D&D is not a particularly forgiving game in terms of "doing things that sound crazy, but just... might.... work!" For such things, a drama-point kind of mechanic is what you want. D20 Modern's Action Points might be a step in the right direction.

 

[Spatula]

Yes it would. And it depends wholly on your level and the creatures you are fighting. A -6/-10 penalty is not prohibitive at all to a 20th level fighter with a base attack of +20.

It is if the fighter is facing a CR 20+ opponent. The single extra attack the fighter would get isn't worth the massive penalties. I'm having trouble even imagining a scenario that isn't highly contrived where a 20th level fighter would even consider using 2WF without the feats.

While it has always been possible to use two-weapon fighting without the feats, it has never been worth it. The fact is, 2WF is generally inferior to using a two-hander or a sword and shield. It wasn't worth two feats, and it definitely isn't worth two feats in 3.5 with the Power Attack changes.

 

[thalmin]

It's not that the math was difficult. It was the cost of 2 feats for marginally better results, compared to 1 weapon fighting. You don't like the change, but most others here seem to not have the same problem with the change. WotC's correction works for us, what's wrong with that?

 

[Mike Sullivan]

Yes it would.

No, it wouldn't.

You aren't doing any more damage than you were before. None of your opponents are more susceptible to you than they were before. You aren't taking less damage than you were before. How can that possibly mean that you're now higher-powered?

And it depends wholly on your level and the creatures you are fighting. A -6/-10 penalty is not prohibitive at all to a 20th level fighter with a base attack of +20.

A -6/-10 penalty is prohibitively bad for anyone facing an opponent that's an actual challenge for them in the first place. And that's what game balance is based on -- challenges.


EDIT: Puntuation.