Menu
News
All News
Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
Pathfinder
Starfinder
Warhammer
2d20 System
Year Zero Engine
Industry News
Reviews
Dragon Reflections
White Dwarf 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 Nest
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, OSR, & D&D Variants
*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!
EN Publishing
Twitter
BlueSky
Facebook
Instagram
EN World
BlueSky
YouTube
Facebook
Twitter
Twitch
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, OSR, & D&D Variants
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
D&D Older Editions, OSR, & D&D Variants
[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="Ravellion" data-source="post: 1028858" data-attributes="member: 538"><p><span style="font-size: 12px"><strong>Two Weapon Fighting, Feat Economy, Balance, and reducing penalties</strong></span> </p><p></p><p>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.</p><p></p><p>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.</p><p></p><p>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.</p><p></p><p>So, to come to your argument of feat economy: One feat can certainly be used to reduce penalties by 8 <em>if the penalties are arbitrarily large in any case</em>. 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...</p><p></p><p><span style="font-size: 12px"><strong>Something completely different: Son of a Preacherman's "Fix"</strong></span></p><p></p><p>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 <em>not</em> 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).</p><p></p><p>Well, I wonder whether I typed this all for nothing, but we'll see.</p><p></p><p>Rav</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Ravellion, post: 1028858, member: 538"] [SIZE=3][b]Two Weapon Fighting, Feat Economy, Balance, and reducing penalties[/b][/SIZE] 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 [i]if the penalties are arbitrarily large in any case[/i]. 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... [SIZE=3][b]Something completely different: Son of a Preacherman's "Fix"[/b][/SIZE] 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 [i]not[/i] 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 [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
D&D Older Editions, OSR, & D&D Variants
[3.5] No good reason to get rid of Ambidexterity...
Top