log in or register to remove this ad

 

3E/3.5 Ambidexterity in 3.5

With 3.5 ambidexterity has gone away. While makeing up a two weapon fighter I though why? Some people are infact ambidexterous. Not as many in real life as appear in D&D. I was thinking about adding it back in but wanted to know if anyone else has done this and wondered at what opstcles theve faced. I'm thinking of having ambi be a -2/-2. That way if you go the full route TWF and light in off hand then you'll be @ no negs.
 

log in or register to remove this ad

Mistwell

Legend
Dareoon Dalandrove said:
With 3.5 ambidexterity has gone away. While makeing up a two weapon fighter I though why? Some people are infact ambidexterous. Not as many in real life as appear in D&D. I was thinking about adding it back in but wanted to know if anyone else has done this and wondered at what opstcles theve faced. I'm thinking of having ambi be a -2/-2. That way if you go the full route TWF and light in off hand then you'll be @ no negs.
That is how Arcana Unearthed/Evolved deals with it. However, Ambidexterity must be taken at first level, and is a Talent (a special kind of feat similar to regional feats in Forgotten Realms).
 


MerakSpielman

First Post
The quest for being able to fight with two weapons with absolutely no penalties goes on...

Keep in mind that, even if you are perfectly ambidexterious, fighting with two weapons will always be more difficult than fighting with just one. It's harder to keep track of 2 weapons than it is just one, no matter how good at it you are.

And game-balance-wise, you don't ever want a particular fighting style to be superior to all others. Will a fighter with 2-weapon fighting and ambidexterity always be more powerful than an equal-leveled fighter with two other fighter feats? If so, then it's too powerful. And I believe such a situation is exactly what you are proposing.
 

Quasqueton

First Post
I've thought of having an Ambidexterity feat allow full Strength bonus to damage with the off hand (instead of .5 Strength bonus).

Quasqueton
 

Kae'Yoss

First Post
Quasqueton said:
I've thought of having an Ambidexterity feat allow full Strength bonus to damage with the off hand (instead of .5 Strength bonus).

Quasqueton
You really need to put some smilies into that post, or people will think you were serious and start bashing you ;)
 

MerakSpielman said:
The quest for being able to fight with two weapons with absolutely no penalties goes on...

Keep in mind that, even if you are perfectly ambidexterious, fighting with two weapons will always be more difficult than fighting with just one. It's harder to keep track of 2 weapons than it is just one, no matter how good at it you are.

And game-balance-wise, you don't ever want a particular fighting style to be superior to all others. Will a fighter with 2-weapon fighting and ambidexterity always be more powerful than an equal-leveled fighter with two other fighter feats? If so, then it's too powerful. And I believe such a situation is exactly what you are proposing.
I don't think so. If someone is going to the two weapon route then their spending feats in that direction for this option tthat's three feats. If your a human fighter then you can get access all three at first. There are equaly powered combos that another human fighter can work.
 

pbd

First Post
MerakSpielman said:
The quest for being able to fight with two weapons with absolutely no penalties goes on...

Keep in mind that, even if you are perfectly ambidexterious, fighting with two weapons will always be more difficult than fighting with just one. It's harder to keep track of 2 weapons than it is just one, no matter how good at it you are.
Have to say I agree, a penelty for fighting with 2 weapons should apply; it would just be more difficult.

Perhaps an ambidexterity feat that allows use of the full strength mod for both primary and off-hand (if you are ambidextrous you don't have an off-hand) attacks would be more in order and not overpowering.

pbd
 
Last edited:

Coredump

First Post
MerakSpielman said:
Keep in mind that, even if you are perfectly ambidexterious, fighting with two weapons will always be more difficult than fighting with just one. It's harder to keep track of 2 weapons than it is just one, no matter how good at it you are.
.
Sure, but that is still the case here.

To fight with two weapons, you need to spend two feats.

With just one weapon, you could get +1 hit +2 damage with two feats. (or a number of other combinations.) Plus, since you only needed to worry about one weapon, you can up your AC by getting a shield.

Thus, it is the same to use one weapon well, or two weapons period.
 

gheaust

First Post
You can

MerakSpielman said:
The quest for being able to fight with two weapons with absolutely no penalties goes on...

Keep in mind that, even if you are perfectly ambidexterious, fighting with two weapons will always be more difficult than fighting with just one. It's harder to keep track of 2 weapons than it is just one, no matter how good at it you are.

And game-balance-wise, you don't ever want a particular fighting style to be superior to all others. Will a fighter with 2-weapon fighting and ambidexterity always be more powerful than an equal-leveled fighter with two other fighter feats? If so, then it's too powerful. And I believe such a situation is exactly what you are proposing.
Take TWF with levels of tempest. (one of the classes anyway) allows twf penalties to decrease, to -1 at low levels, and -0 at mid level

Best
gheaust
 

For me, saying that TWF needs the -2 is like saying you need to take a -2 on using an exotic weapon to balance it with martial weapons.

Even if TWF is better, you still have to take a feat to make it effective, and in this case you need 2. It SHOULD be better....but realistically even with no penalties to hit its still not always the optimum choice:

1) You still only get half your strength bonus to damage on the off-hand.
2) Its only useful on full round attacks.
3) You don't get the benefits of power attack (and DR cleaving) as you do with THF...and you don't get the AC of sword/board.
 

Quasqueton

First Post
You really need to put some smilies into that post, or people will think you were serious and start bashing you
I take it some think full Strength bonus on the off hand is too powerful? I've only once seen a two-weapon fighter with 16 strength, and never with 18. Most have 10-14 Strength.

Quasqueton
 
Last edited:

iwatt

First Post
KaeYoss said:
You really need to put some smilies into that post, or people will think you were serious and start bashing you ;)
Why do you think that? I've used full strength on the off-hand in my games with no proble. Admittedly, my reason was to simplify things for my players (late night games, change of ruleste, etc..) Now it stuck.

The fact is that the -2 penalty is a pretty good balnce all by itself. I'm only comparing here agaisnt THF since S&B is always behind damage wise.


take into account the following:

Fred Fighter with a 2 handed sword, Strength modifier of +s
Rog the Ranger with two short swords, Strength modifier of +s


suppose that Bob has an p/20 chance of hitting against a given target. His expected damage, no taking into account criticals our iterative attacks is:

Fred: (2d6+1.5*s)*p/20
= 7p/20+1.5*s*p/20

Rog on the other hand (using the house rule of full sterngth on the offhand) has:

Rog: 2*(1d6+s)*(p-2)/20
= 7*(p-2)/20+2*s*(p-2)/20

If you do the math, there's a value (pc) in which they break even, for a given value of s. Above pc, Rog does more damage.

Code:
s:1	2	3	4	5	6	7	8	9	10
pc:36.0	22.0	17.3	15.0	13.6	12.7	12.0	11.5	11.1	10.8
As you can see, the higher the strength, the more likely that Rog will be outdamaging Fred.
At first this seems unbalancing until you consider that Fred has many more optons by which to amp up his damage (more feat availability).

Also the damage difference is the following:

for s=10 and p=20 (most extreme case)

Fred=22
Rog=24.3

Not something I'm to worried about. Specially when you factor in power attack. And damage reduction. but YMMV
 

Ranger REG

Explorer
Quasqueton said:
I've thought of having an Ambidexterity feat allow full Strength bonus to damage with the off hand (instead of .5 Strength bonus).
Not this again. You might as well call it AmbiSTRENGTH.
 

Whimsical

Explorer
Ranger REG said:
Not this again. You might as well call it AmbiSTRENGTH.
Well, it is logical. After all, if you are truly ambidexterious then you have no "off-hand" and there should be no difference between what you can do with one hand or another, right?

But is it a balanced feat that is not suseptable to abuse? I don't know. I don't think so, but I don't know.
 

Ranger REG

Explorer
Whimsical said:
Well, it is logical. But is it a balanced feat that is not suseptable to abuse? I don't know. I don't think so, but I don't know.
AFAIC, Ambidexterity not only allow you to attack with your off-hand at no penalty but you get full Str bonus toward your melee attack roll. That's good enough for me.

To be honest, I see this as an alternative to the multiple attacks model of TWF. If you want no penalty on your off hand while TWF, then you limit to one off-hand attack per round. Period. Throw in the Ambistrength and you're fine.
 

Whimsical

Explorer
I wasn't imagining Ambidexerity as removing TWF penalties. I was imagining it as simply making you have no off-hand and two "on-hands".
 




Most Liked Threads

Advertisement2

Advertisement4

Top