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

[Sonofapreacherman]

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.

Like I said, it depends on the creatures you are fighting. There are more effective combat tactics, the shield and weapon being one of them (as you stated), but to tone down Mike's colorful example to something less movie-like, there are also times when offense is far more important than defense.

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.

Something tells me your chances of saving the innocent are much greater than 1%

 

[Sonofapreacherman]

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?

Then be happy.



Truly. No backhanded tone of voice intended.

But as I already discussed in the thread, there are so many semantic issues going on, you really have to put your foot down somewhere. I have already demonstrated how two weapons can potentially inflict 4 additional points of damage than a single greatsword (on average). Weapon Specialization is one feat. It grants a +2 damage bonus. It is only available to fighters.

Thus, Two-Weapon Fighting and Ambidexterity are very easily worth two feats, but *only* if the off-hand weapon damage penalty is eliminated. But I have even suggested alternatives to that.

As it stands however, a +8 attack bonus for 1 feat is WAY too much. It's clearly unbalanced.

 

[Hypersmurf]

As it stands however, a +8 attack bonus for 1 feat is WAY too much. It's clearly unbalanced.

It's not a +8 bonus. It's a +6 bonus.

If you're going to add together the bonus to the primary attack and the bonus to the secondary attack, you should also consider that the feat could be taken by a Fighter-16, in which case it would provide a +2 bonus to five primary attacks (four iterative plus one from Haste) and a +6 bonus to the secondary attack. That's a +16 bonus from one feat!

But it's not really a +16 bonus, is it? It's a +6, and a bunch of +2s.

It's like someone who isn't proficient with shortsword. They can make two attacks, shortsword in each hand, at -8/-12. If they take the Martial Weapon Proficiency feat, it removes a -4 penalty from each hand. Their penalty drops to -4/-8. Two effective "+4 bonuses" - there's the same +8 bonus you're complaining about. And in fact, our Hasted Ftr-16 taking Exotic Weapon Proficiency in kukri (if that's still exotic) gets six effective +4 bonuses, for a total of +24!

Is Martial Weapon Proficiency an unbalanced feat?

-Hyp.

 

[Sonofapreacherman]

If you're going to add together the bonus to the primary attack and the bonus to the secondary attack, you should also consider that the feat could be taken by a Fighter-16, in which case it would provide a +2 bonus to five primary attacks (four iterative plus one from Haste) and a +6 bonus to the secondary attack. That's a +16 bonus from one feat!

I follow you and I don't.



Think of it like this. It's a +8 combat bonus for 1 feat prerequiste. All the other feats you mentioned have their own additional prerequisites, and are deliberately left out.

 

[Number47]

You know, wizards don't get any martial weapon proficiencies. They get a -4 penalty if they try to use a martial weapon. Fighters get, like, 20 or so. They get +4 to hit with each weapon! That's like +80 to hit! Fighters are so broken!

 

[Hypersmurf]

Think of it like this. It's a +8 combat bonus for 1 feat prerequiste.

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

-Hyp.

 

[Sonofapreacherman]

You know, wizards don't get any martial weapon proficiencies. They get a -4 penalty if they try to use a martial weapon. Fighters get, like, 20 or so. They get +4 to hit with each weapon! That's like +80 to hit! Fighters are so broken!

I beg to differ (mostly because it's fun at this point and I am sitting at home nursing a sunburn). Unless your wizard can weild 20 weapons at the same time, the bonus for a weapon proficiency feat equates to +4 (for 1 weapon at a time).

 

[Sonofapreacherman]

Just like Martial Weapon Proficiency.

What is just like Martial Weapon Proficiency? Please clarify.

 

[mmu1]

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.

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?

 

[Hypersmurf]

Unless your wizard can weild 20 weapons at the same time, the bonus for a weapon proficiency feat equates to +4 (for 1 weapon at a time).

+8. You can apply the Weapon Proficiency feat to one weapon in each hand.

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.

-Hyp.