Menu
News
All News
Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
Pathfinder
Starfinder
Warhammer
2d20 System
Year Zero Engine
Industry News
Reviews
Dragon Reflections
Columns
Weekly Digests
Weekly News Digest
Freebies, Sales & Bundles
RPG Print News
RPG Crowdfunding News
Game Content
ENterplanetary DimENsions
Mythological Figures
Opinion
Worlds of Design
Peregrine's Next
RPG Evolution
Other Columns
From the Freelancing Frontline
Monster ENcyclopedia
WotC/TSR Alumni Look Back
4 Hours w/RSD (Ryan Dancey)
The Road to 3E (Jonathan Tweet)
Greenwood's Realms (Ed Greenwood)
Drawmij's TSR (Jim Ward)
Community
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Resources
Wiki
Pages
Latest activity
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Downloads
Latest reviews
Search resources
EN Publishing
Store
EN5ider
Adventures in ZEITGEIST
Awfully Cheerful Engine
What's OLD is NEW
Judge Dredd & The Worlds Of 2000AD
War of the Burning Sky
Level Up: Advanced 5E
Events & Releases
Upcoming Events
Private Events
Featured Events
Socials!
Twitch
YouTube
Facebook (EN Publishing)
Facebook (EN World)
Twitter
Instagram
TikTok
Podcast
Features
Top 5 RPGs Compiled Charts 2004-Present
Adventure Game Industry Market Research Summary (RPGs) V1.0
Ryan Dancey: Acquiring TSR
Q&A With Gary Gygax
D&D Rules FAQs
TSR, WotC, & Paizo: A Comparative History
D&D Pronunciation Guide
Million Dollar TTRPG Kickstarters
Tabletop RPG Podcast Hall of Fame
Eric Noah's Unofficial D&D 3rd Edition News
D&D in the Mainstream
D&D & RPG History
About Morrus
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
The
VOIDRUNNER'S CODEX
is coming! Explore new worlds, fight oppressive empires, fend off fearsome aliens, and wield deadly psionics with this comprehensive boxed set expansion for 5E and A5E!
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
D&D Older Editions
[3.5] No good reason to get rid of Ambidexterity...
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="Brother Glacius" data-source="post: 1024932" data-attributes="member: 7232"><p>***** 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. </p><p></p><p>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.</p><p></p><p>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. </p><p></p><p>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.</p><p></p><p>thus, its much easier to explain it in a single feat of FTW. That person has the ability/training to use two weapons simultaneously.</p><p></p><p>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?</p><p></p><p>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.</p><p></p><p>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.</p><p></p><p>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.</p><p></p><p>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. </p><p></p><p>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.</p><p></p><p>***** Brother Glacius</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Brother Glacius, post: 1024932, member: 7232"] ***** 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 [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
D&D Older Editions
[3.5] No good reason to get rid of Ambidexterity...
Top