D&D 3E/3.5 Ambidexterity in 3.5

[Dareoon Dalandrove]

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.

 

[Mistwell]

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).

 

[Kae'Yoss]

Ambidexterity isn't gone, it has been merged with Two-Weapon Fighting.

 

[MerakSpielman]

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]

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]

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

 

[Dareoon Dalandrove]

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]

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

 

[Coredump]

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]

You can

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