D&D 3.x Ambidexterity in 3.5

[RandomPrecision]

To anyone who still thinks that full strength bonus to the off-hand should be called ambistrength, that simply doesn't make sense. Ambidexterity is the lack of an off-hand. If there exists ambidexterity in the game, people who are ambidextrous should not have an off hand. As far as whether or not this is fair, consider that wielders of 2-handed weapons can already add more than 1x strength bonuses to their attack, as I recall. Two-weapon fighters will only get 1x their strength bonus, albeit from each hand. For the feats that have to be purchased (and the ability prerequisities, since I believe ambidexterity also had a fairly high dexterity requirement), it's certainly not unbalancing. Furthermore, I sense that if shields weren't as downplayed as they currently are, real ambidexterity and two-weapon fighting would be unquestionably balanced.

 

[Kae'Yoss]

maybe monks should complain that they dont get wisdom bonuses when they wear armor or that they can never have vorpal fists (talk about sharp fingernails!)

Wanna bet?

Vorpal Strike [Epic]
Prerequisites: Str 25, Wis 25, Improved Critical (unarmed strike), Improved Unarmed Strike, Keen Strike, Stunning Fist, ki strike (adamantine).
Benefit: Your unarmed strike is considered to be a slashing vorpal weapon. (At your option, any unarmed strike can do bludgeoning damage instead, but it loses the vorpal quality.) This ability doesn’t stack with similar abilities

You owe me 100 bucks

As far as whether or not this is fair, consider that wielders of 2-handed weapons can already add more than 1x strength bonuses to their attack, as I recall. Two-weapon fighters will only get 1x their strength bonus, albeit from each hand.

If you use a weapon one handed, you get 1x Str. If you use it in the off-hand, you get 0.5x Str. If you use both hands with the same weapon, you get the 1x for your main hand and the 0.5 for your off hand, for a total of 1.5x Str. If you use two weapons, you gain 1x for your main hand and 0.5 for your off hand, for a total of 1.5x Str. Why should two-weapon fighters get 2x instead of 1.5x?

At the moment, That ranger 1 with Str 14 will have 1d8+2 plus 1d6+1 (Longsword and Shortsword), for an average of 11, or, with a double blade, 1d8+2 plus 1d8+1, avg 12. The greatsword wielding Fighter with Str 14 will have 2d6+3, average 10.

So TWF will already be able to get more damage.

But of course the number crunching is much more difficult than that: There's the thing about statistical average damage which will favour the THF because he has a bigger chance to hit, there's the fact that the TWF will need more feats to pull it off, and needs to get two weapons ensorcelled, but also the fact that Feats like Weapon Specialization, Divine Might, Arcane Strike and other Feats that give bonus damage per strike will favour the TWF, as do bonus damage dice like from flaming weapons, and, of course, sneak attack, which will probably have the highest impact. (This will be the most dangerous with those classes that have both the full BAB and sneak attack, like the Rokugan Ninja or the UA Fighter Variant that gets SA instead of Bonus Feats.

 

[RandomPrecision]

If you use a weapon one handed, you get 1x Str. If you use it in the off-hand, you get 0.5x Str. If you use both hands with the same weapon, you get the 1x for your main hand and the 0.5 for your off hand, for a total of 1.5x Str. If you use two weapons, you gain 1x for your main hand and 0.5 for your off hand, for a total of 1.5x Str. Why should two-weapon fighters get 2x instead of 1.5x?

Because people who are ambidextrous don't have an off-hand. That's what the feat should give players.

At the moment, That ranger 1 with Str 14 will have 1d8+2 plus 1d6+1 (Longsword and Shortsword), for an average of 11, or, with a double blade, 1d8+2 plus 1d8+1, avg 12. The greatsword wielding Fighter with Str 14 will have 2d6+3, average 10.

But, the fighter could potentially use an ambidexterity feat that eliminates the off-hand penalty to increase his 2-handed damage.

But of course the number crunching is much more difficult than that: There's the thing about statistical average damage which will favour the THF because he has a bigger chance to hit, there's the fact that the TWF will need more feats to pull it off, and needs to get two weapons ensorcelled, but also the fact that Feats like Weapon Specialization, Divine Might, Arcane Strike and other Feats that give bonus damage per strike will favour the TWF, as do bonus damage dice like from flaming weapons, and, of course, sneak attack, which will probably have the highest impact. (This will be the most dangerous with those classes that have both the full BAB and sneak attack, like the Rokugan Ninja or the UA Fighter Variant that gets SA instead of Bonus Feats.

I don't know about that - to get full bonuses to attack, a TWF usually uses two light weapons. If you're saying that the TWF fighter with TWF, ITWF, Ambidexterity, Weapon Focus in the applicable weapons, Weapon Specialization in the applicable weapons, and enchantments that add additional damage are more powerful than a fighter with none of the above, I'd have to agree with you. I don't feel that two-weapon fighters are unbalanced because of it. We're talking about 5 feats for that to come into play, so the character with these benefits would have to be either near-epic or a ranger who receives the feats for free when not using medium/heavy armor. A fighter with heavy armor and a vast plethora of feats can certainly compete with a dual-wielder.

I think we also have to look at it from a logical perspective. If there is an ambidexterity feat (and there should be, if nothing else, for role-playing reasons), then characters who have it cannot logically have an off-hand, and therefore, neither hand should be penalized. For that matter, maybe ambidexterity shouldn't be as much a feat as it is an option - typical right-handed characters have 1x STR on their right hands and .5 STR on their left hands, left-handed characters have the opposite, and ambidextrous characters have .75 STR on both hands. It doesn't entirely seem reasonable that they are weaker than other characters in this manner, but this actually seems more acceptable than making ambidextrous have off-hands despite the feat.

Perhaps as another method of balancing, ambidexterity might instead give equal dexterity modifiers to each hand. Therefore, to receive the benefits of ambidexterity, the player would have to take the weapon finesse feat and use an applicable weapon to have a full effective strength modifier.

 

[Kaffis]

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.

Why? See, ambidexterity just got rolled into TWF. It's assumed that if you're trained in the TWF style of combat, you've practiced your offhand to the point that it is equally capable -- that's why TWF buys you from -4/-8 (with one light weapon) straight down to -2/-2 instead of -2/-6 like it would have been in 3.0 with only TWF. Ambidexterity is still there -- it's just assumed for anybody who takes an interest in TWF.

Furthermore, to those of you who are advocating ambidexterity as a full strength bonus for the off-hand feat (under the reasoning that you no longer have an off-hand): does this negate the need for a light weapon, as well? After all, you have no off-hand to require a light weapon in.

My answer to the second is, no, and this is why ambi-strength (to steal Ranger REG's terminology) is silly. The light weapon, as well as the half-strength bonus, are not credited to it being a hand with which you are less proficient. 3.5 rules don't even provide a mechanism for you to specify handedness, nor does anything require you to have, that I'm aware of (thus the lack of ambidexterity as a seperate feat). Rather, the non-light weapon penalty and the half-strength bonus for one hand (I'm refraining from calling it an off-hand, as they persist even with the TWF+Ambidexterity combo 3.5 feat just as they were present in 3.0 rules with TWF *and* Ambidexterity) represent the difficulty in fighting in a TWF style with two full-sized one-handed weapons. It's just more than even a trained two weapon fighter can manage at full efficiency. Make one light, thus easing the balance and making it less prone to getting in the way as you focus on one hand (and yes, sacrificing some brute force in the hand you choose not to focus on) makes it far more manageable, yet still not penaltyless, as others have suggested.

 

[Dareoon Dalandrove]

Why? See, ambidexterity just got rolled into TWF. It's assumed that if you're trained in the TWF style of combat, you've practiced your offhand to the point that it is equally capable -- that's why TWF buys you from -4/-8 (with one light weapon) straight down to -2/-2 instead of -2/-6 like it would have been in 3.0 with only TWF. Ambidexterity is still there -- it's just assumed for anybody who takes an interest in TWF.

As far as I can see it's not assumed that Ambidexterity is... just assumed for anybody who takes an interest in TWF. Training to fight with two weapons at the same time and the use of a lighter weapon reduce your penalties. Nowhere in the text does it say that your character is assumed to be ambidextrous. I also think that you’re wrong about handedness. There is a mechanic. You have a primary attack dealing 1x str and a secondary attack dealing 1/2.

 

[RandomPrecision]

Furthermore, to those of you who are advocating ambidexterity as a full strength bonus for the off-hand feat (under the reasoning that you no longer have an off-hand): does this negate the need for a light weapon, as well? After all, you have no off-hand to require a light weapon in.

Not necessarily - two-weapon fighting is just plain difficult compared to normal fighting. Less weight makes it easily to do.

My answer to the second is, no, and this is why ambi-strength (to steal Ranger REG's terminology) is silly.

That doesn't make any sense. You're saying that fighting with two weapons gives characters an off-hand as a penalty. The penalty given by TWF is the -2 to attack rolls, not having an off-hand.

The light weapon, as well as the half-strength bonus, are not credited to it being a hand with which you are less proficient.

I don't have the rulebooks in front of me, but I think the table for using a two weapons specifically says "Off-hand weapon is light" for one of the categories. That seems to be rather strongly related to the off-hand. In fact, I think the category that gives -2/-2 is labeled "Two weapon fighting feat and off-hand weapon is light", at least in the 3.5 Player's Handbook.

3.5 rules don't even provide a mechanism for you to specify handedness, nor does anything require you to have, that I'm aware of (thus the lack of ambidexterity as a seperate feat).

I was under the assumption that since most people are right-handed, most characters are right-handed. If it's ever relevant to the game, we're played that characters have the same primary and off-hands of the characters playing them (which makes for a variety of interesting scenarios - we have one player whose characters often perish, and I always ask why the new person we hire happens to be another lefty, and I also frequently pester the DM by making written requests for free ambidexterity bonuses with both hands). Regardless, even if there isn't an explicit mechanism, players should be allowed to determine what hand their characters specialize in. Perfect ambidexterity is unusual enough that it should probably require a feat. To use another example, what if I want a character who can write with both hands? Should I take two-weapon fighting, since you claim that ambidexterity is part of that feat?

Rather, the non-light weapon penalty and the half-strength bonus for one hand (I'm refraining from calling it an off-hand, as they persist even with the TWF+Ambidexterity combo 3.5 feat just as they were present in 3.0 rules with TWF *and* Ambidexterity)

That's silly. It's still an off-hand, you're just not calling it one. Ambidexterity should affect more than what the off-hand is called, it should eliminate the presense of it. Both hands become primary hands.

...represent the difficulty in fighting in a TWF style with two full-sized one-handed weapons. It's just more than even a trained two weapon fighter can manage at full efficiency. Make one light, thus easing the balance and making it less prone to getting in the way as you focus on one hand (and yes, sacrificing some brute force in the hand you choose not to focus on) makes it far more manageable, yet still not penaltyless, as others have suggested.

I really don't agree. Ambidextrous characters shouldn't have off-hands, no matter what. Perhaps using light weapons can still give a +2 bonus, but there definitely shouldn't be an off-hand strength penalty to characters that don't have off-hands. I don't think it's unreasonable for a feat that requires 15 dexterity to make one's off-hand a primary hand. Someone who is ambidextrous but untrained in TWF will still be horrible at fighting with two weapons - they'll still have -6 to attacks from each hand, and all but one attack will be with a given weapon, due to the lack of experience with the fighting style. However, an ambidextrous character shouldn't be bound to one weapon over the other for this. An ambidextrous character wielding a dagger and a shortsword without improved TWF should be able to make a full attack with either weapon, and then one attack with the other (subtracting the applicable penalties for not having TWF if applicable, and the -2 that persists).

 

[Ryltar]

The only question is: do you *want* people in your campaign to have TWF as a viable option, or do you think it's rather silly and thus want to keep it the way it is? That's what everyone will have to decide for him- or herself; as far as the rules go, there is no "right or wrong" to this argument. Just different sides depending on what you've got going in your campaign, and what you'd like to accomplish. If you're playing in a high-magic world, then keep the RAW, because otherwise, the additional damage dice from the second weapon will be massively stronger than the THF fighter. If you're playing low-magic, you will want to come up with a feat like that, because it makes up for the penalties that TWF people have in comparison to THF power attackers, who will always get a 2:1 ratio when using their feat (and I don't know anyone who doesn't). This is where the claim "THF gets 1,5x STR, TWF gets 1xSTR + 0,5x STR so they're balanced" is skewed.

 

[Tuzenbach]

Why aren't there just multiple ambidexterity feats that have each other as prerequisites?

So......

Lesser Ambidexterity = -2, -3

Ambidexterity = -2, -2

Improved Ambidexterity = -1, -2

Greater Ambidexterity = -1, -1

Greatest Ambidexterity = 0, -1


'Ya know what I mean? Granted, I've not looked at the rules for TWF in a while, but so be it.

 

[RandomPrecision]

Why aren't there just multiple ambidexterity feats that have each other as prerequisites?

So......

Lesser Ambidexterity = -2, -3

Ambidexterity = -2, -2

Improved Ambidexterity = -1, -2

Greater Ambidexterity = -1, -1

Greatest Ambidexterity = 0, -1


'Ya know what I mean? Granted, I've not looked at the rules for TWF in a while, but so be it.

That's five feats for ambidexterity, and none of them actually bestow ambidexterity to the character. If there was a 6th feat, say Perfect Ambidexterity, that's 6 feats for a +4/+4 attack bonus. I realy don't feel that's worth it. Look at TWF, and contrast these feats.

 

[Tuzenbach]

That's five feats for ambidexterity, and none of them actually bestow ambidexterity to the character. If there was a 6th feat, say Perfect Ambidexterity, that's 6 feats for a +4/+4 attack bonus. I realy don't feel that's worth it. Look at TWF, and contrast these feats.

You're absolutely right. It was my intention, though, that the very first one bestows ambidexterity. The others just gradually reduce the penalty for attacking with two weapons simultaneously.

If I had half a day to kill, I'd come up with flawless ambidex rules. Unfortunately, it's back to studying for me.