D&D 3E/3.5 Ambidexterity in 3.5

[RandomPrecision]

I was thinking about the strength modifiers for TWF - and KaeYoss, you're wrong in your analogy. TWF characters get 1x for their primary hands and .5x for their off-hands, while THF characters get 1.5x for all of their attacks - this isn't equal. Every attack made by a THF has 1.5x strength bonus. Some attacks made by a TWF have 1x, and some (how many depends on TWF, ITWF, GTWF, or the epic PTWF) have .5x, meaning that the average modifier for a TWF is below 1x. Right now, an epic character with PTWF has an average strength modifier of .75x. But, I don't think it's right that TWF should only receive half the strength benefit of a THF. Keep in mind that TWF typically don't even have much of a strength modifier, since the two-weapon feats require decent to high dexterity scores.

Unlike many others, I don't think ambidexterity should reduce two-weapon fighting penalties at all. Fighting with two-weapons is more difficult than just one (this is coming from someone who's handwriting is indistinguishable from one hand to the other, but who could probably use one sword better than two). Furthermore, light weapons would probably be easier to use. There is a feat, Oversized Two-Weapon Fighting in the Complete Warrior book that allows greater than light weapons to be used in the off-hand while still receiving the light weapon penalties.

I think ambidexterity should eliminate anything related to having an off-hand. That is, attacks with either hand receive the full benefit of the strength modifier, making TWF as viable as normal combat, but still not receiving the strength bonus of THF (which retains the 1.5x modifier - it isn't stated anywhere that this is because 1x + .5x = 1.5x - it just represents more strength than using one hand). Normal TWF fighting penalties still apply - the ambidexterous character chooses which weapon they are focusing on. An untrained yet ambidexterous two-weapon fighter gets -6 to hit on each attack with the weapon they focus on, and one attack at -10 with the other hand. The next round, they might choose to take -6 on each attack with the other weapon, and one -10 attack with the other. If the weapon they do not focus on is light, this is the equivalent of having a light off-hand weapon (penalties go to -4/-8). To gain more attacks with the weapon not focused on, the ambidexterous fighter must take ITWF and GTWF, as before. The only things that change are that neither hand has a strength penalty, and the player may choose which weapon to use as the primary weapon for TWF penalties.

 

[Kae'Yoss]

I was thinking about the strength modifiers for TWF - and KaeYoss, you're wrong in your analogy. TWF characters get 1x for their primary hands and .5x for their off-hands, while THF characters get 1.5x for all of their attacks - this isn't equal. Every attack made by a THF has 1.5x strength bonus. Some attacks made by a TWF have 1x, and some (how many depends on TWF, ITWF, GTWF, or the epic PTWF) have .5x, meaning that the average modifier for a TWF is below 1x. Right now, an epic character with PTWF has an average strength modifier of .75x. But, I don't think it's right that TWF should only receive half the strength benefit of a THF.

A devoted two-weapon fighter has twice as many attacks as the fighter that uses a two-handed weapon. So your fighter 6 gets 2 attacks with 1.5x strength each (or x3), while the ranger 6 gets 2 attacks with 1x each and two with 0.5x each (or x3).

Giving them x1 (or even x1.5) with each attack will give them far more than the ones who use those big weapons which seem to be suited much better for dealing copious amonts of damage, and that would not be right.

Keep in mind that TWF typically don't even have much of a strength modifier, since the two-weapon feats require decent to high dexterity scores.

And that's as it should be. Using two weapons instead of just one isn't an easy thing, and you must have a decent dexterity to fight that way (or at least, fight without embarrassing oneself). If you want to use your strength to greatest effect, your best off with a big, fat weapon. Two weapons isn't your best bet then, since you also must be quite dextrous for that (and rules-wise, you usually can't benefit from power attack too much since you want a light weapon in your off-hand). But if you're an agile, but not very strong fighter, you might want to built on those facts by using light weapons, ones that don't require brute strength, but use two of them to make more use of your dexterity.

Fighting with two-weapons is more difficult than just one

And therefore you get massive penalties for it, unless you train for it (and spend feats), which will lessen the penalties (and with the right training, you might even eliminate them, but that requires a high level of specialization)

I think ambidexterity should eliminate anything related to having an off-hand. That is, attacks with either hand receive the full benefit of the strength modifier, making TWF as viable as normal combat, but still not receiving the strength bonus of THF (which retains the 1.5x modifier - it isn't stated anywhere that this is because 1x + .5x = 1.5x - it just represents more strength than using one hand).

This will make TWF the most strength-effective fighting style, and that's just wrong.

Ambidexterity might eliminate an off-hand, which means that it is as easy to fight with the right hand as it is to fight with the left, but you won't suddenly become stronger than before. This would indeed be ambistrength.

No, you cannot use more than 1.5 times your strength modifier. But instead of making both attacks with 0.75*Str, we use 1/0.5 for ease of use.

There shouldn't be any difference between striking with a big weapon using both hands, and striking with two lighter weapons using both hands.

Normal TWF fighting penalties still apply - the ambidexterous character chooses which weapon they are focusing on. An untrained yet ambidexterous two-weapon fighter gets -6 to hit on each attack with the weapon they focus on, and one attack at -10 with the other hand.

Why will they be less dextrous with one hand, but equally strong? What you describe really isn't ambidexterity, it is the mentioned ambistrength.

Using your reasoning, a fighter focuses on one hand and gets the full strength modifier on it, the other one only gets half. In the next round, he may switch hands. There, you have your ambidexterity without breaking the rules convention of having 1.5x Strength mod tops.

 

[Staffan]

A devoted two-weapon fighter has twice as many attacks as the fighter that uses a two-handed weapon. So your fighter 6 gets 2 attacks with 1.5x strength each (or x3), while the ranger 6 gets 2 attacks with 1x each and two with 0.5x each (or x3).

Giving them x1 (or even x1.5) with each attack will give them far more than the ones who use those big weapons which seem to be suited much better for dealing copious amonts of damage, and that would not be right.

From a balance point of view, however, the two-weapon fighter has invested three feats into his combat style, and takes a -2 attack penalty on top of that. One might think that they deserve some sort of bonus for doing that. Because, well, spending three feats in order to almost be as good as someone who has spent none - that kinda sucks.

 

[RandomPrecision]

A devoted two-weapon fighter has twice as many attacks as the fighter that uses a two-handed weapon. So your fighter 6 gets 2 attacks with 1.5x strength each (or x3), while the ranger 6 gets 2 attacks with 1x each and two with 0.5x each (or x3).

And that fighter has three fighter bonus feats, very possibly including weapon focus and weapon specialization. And later, they'll be able to get greater focus and specialization. Also consider the bonus that the THF receives from using power attack, a feat not very useful at all to a TWF.

Giving them x1 (or even x1.5) with each attack will give them far more than the ones who use those big weapons which seem to be suited much better for dealing copious amonts of damage, and that would not be right.

The big weapons shouldn't be more suited for dealing better damage if TWF is equal to THF. I don't think THF should automatically be considered 'better' than TWF, for the sake of people who want to role-play two-weapon fighters.

And therefore you get massive penalties for it, unless you train for it (and spend feats), which will lessen the penalties (and with the right training, you might even eliminate them, but that requires a high level of specialization)

That's quite what I think, but I don't think those penalties should ever be removed (save maybe through the tempest PrC, but I'm not incredibly familiar with it - I know where to find it, but that's about it)

This will make TWF the most strength-effective fighting style, and that's just wrong.

Ambidexterous characters could have .75x for each hand - but saying that ambidexterous people have off-hands is simply wrong. But even a 1x modifier for each hand doesn't make TWF better than all other styles of fighting. Light weapons typically don't do nearly as much damage as THF weapons (daggers do 1d4, greataxes do 1d12). For sheer amount of damage in a short time, you'd still want a THF. The TWF will never have the same raw damage as a THF, just an annoying long series of attacks. Consider damage reduction - a mid-level fighter might smash something resistant to damage in up to three blows, while a mid-level ranger might very well fail to pierce the DR six times, if he hits despite his constant penalties to attack, because of the TWF rules.

Ambidexterity might eliminate an off-hand, which means that it is as easy to fight with the right hand as it is to fight with the left, but you won't suddenly become stronger than before.

I haven't said that ambidexterous characters should suddenly become stronger. I simply say that they shouldn't suffer penalties for something they don't have - an off-hand.

This would indeed be ambistrength.

I wish you'd either quit feigning your ignorance of what ambidexterity means, or, in the event that you actually don't, learn. It's the ability to use both hands with equal proficiency - there's nothing about ambidexterity that ties it to the Dungeons and Dragons ability called dexterity. D&D dexterity "measures hand-eye coordination, agility, reflexes, and balance." The word 'ambidexterity' comes from Latin: dexter is a Latin root meaning "right", in this case, referring to the right hand, which is almost always considered more skillful than the left. "Ambi" means "both". Ambidexterity therefore loosely means "both right". There's no mention of dexterity or strength. However, most people are not ambidexterous, and it was decided in 3.5E that this would be represented in two-weapon fighting by halving the strength bonus given to the off-hand, a realistic effect you might notice if you try to cut a piece of meat with a knife in your off-hand. However, a person who is ambidexterous would not suffer the same disabilities.

No, you cannot use more than 1.5 times your strength modifier. But instead of making both attacks with 0.75*Str, we use 1/0.5 for ease of use.

I'm not saying that anyone should use more than 1.5x strength. As for saying that not using .75x modifiers is simply a game mechanism, I think it's bizarre that you think ambidexterous people are weaker than other people because they are equally skilled with each hand.

There shouldn't be any difference between striking with a big weapon using both hands, and striking with two lighter weapons using both hands.

That's silly. There should be.

Why will they be less dextrous with one hand, but equally strong? What you describe really isn't ambidexterity, it is the mentioned ambistrength.

Again, I can only recommend that you learn what ambidexterity is, in non-game terms, before deciding what ambidexterity is and isn't. They incur penalties because two-weapon fighting is difficult, like I said. For example, with practice, you might be able to learn to write proficiently with your off-hand. Your off-hand handwriting might become better than your primary hand's handwriting. But try writing with both hands at the same time - and try writing two completely different sentences at that - it's rather difficult.

Using your reasoning, a fighter focuses on one hand and gets the full strength modifier on it, the other one only gets half.

How is that 'using my reasoning' when that's specifically what I said doesn't happen? The weapon is treated as an off-hand for the two-weapon fighting penalties because you don't pay as much attention to it - you're using a sword, but you happen to have a dagger in your other hand, unless you're trained to where you're adept with both hands in combat, where you can attack with each hand fairly independently.

In the next round, he may switch hands. There, you have your ambidexterity without breaking the rules convention of having 1.5x Strength mod tops.

While it's an idea for ambidexterity, I still don't think ambidexterous people should be made weaker.

 

[Kae'Yoss]

From a balance point of view, however, the two-weapon fighter has invested three feats into his combat style, and takes a -2 attack penalty on top of that. One might think that they deserve some sort of bonus for doing that. Because, well, spending three feats in order to almost be as good as someone who has spent none - that kinda sucks.

If you talk about balance, you must look at the big picture. Sure, when talking about using mundane weapons and just hitting people with them, the Guy with the bigger sword will probably deal more damage. That's why, when you just want to play a fighter type and deal damage through brute force, you're better off with one big weapon. No amount of feats should change that (or there should be special feats for the guys with two weapons, too)

But if you look at stuff like elemental weapons (frost weapon, shock weapon, and so on), sneak attacks, crippling strikes, wounding weapons, It suddenly looks very differently: Now, instead of dealing 1d6+2 and 1d6+1 (instead of 2d6+3), you deal, say, 4d6+2 and 4d6+1 instead of 5d6+3.

 

[Staffan]

But if you look at stuff like elemental weapons (frost weapon, shock weapon, and so on), sneak attacks, crippling strikes, wounding weapons, It suddenly looks very differently: Now, instead of dealing 1d6+2 and 1d6+1 (instead of 2d6+3), you deal, say, 4d6+2 and 4d6+1 instead of 5d6+3.

But you're paying a lot more for those weapons, since you're buying two. And you're still taking a -2 attack penalty, which the THF guy can turn into 4 points of damage instead (equal of one die of damage - only better, because it's multiplied on a crit).

 

[Kae'Yoss]

But you're paying a lot more for those weapons, since you're buying two. And you're still taking a -2 attack penalty, which the THF guy can turn into 4 points of damage instead (equal of one die of damage - only better, because it's multiplied on a crit).

This applies to the elemental weapons, and partly to wounding weapons, but even them can be much better than the single big weapon (if the enemy is of sufficiently high level). But once sneak attack enters the equation, things are getting pretty ugly pretty fast: That +4 from power attack will quickly be quite irrelevant. And after that, we add crippling strike, and things just get better and better.

 

[Staffan]

This applies to the elemental weapons, and partly to wounding weapons, but even them can be much better than the single big weapon (if the enemy is of sufficiently high level). But once sneak attack enters the equation, things are getting pretty ugly pretty fast: That +4 from power attack will quickly be quite irrelevant. And after that, we add crippling strike, and things just get better and better.

Sneak attack, sure. But that's a rogue thing, and rogues tend to have problems hitting (especially with iterative attacks), and Strength tends not to be the big thing they have going for them anyway. So allowing full Strength on both hands probably wouldn't break things for them - Strength bonus is a pretty small amount of the rogue's damage. However, it would help those who use "honest" two-weapon fighting (that is, without sneak attack and such).

 

[Kae'Yoss]

Sneak attack, sure. But that's a rogue thing, and rogues tend to have problems hitting (especially with iterative attacks)

Not when they can surprise, flank, and backstab. Improved Invisibility isn't that hard to come by once the party arcanist has turned level 10 or so.

, and Strength tends not to be the big thing they have going for them anyway. So allowing full Strength on both hands probably wouldn't break things for them - Strength bonus is a pretty small amount of the rogue's damage.

And it won't hurt them to leave things as it is, either. So we just stay with the old concept, yes?

However, it would help those who use "honest" two-weapon fighting (that is, without sneak attack and such).

First, honest fighting is for losers. You might have been honest in your fighting, but the other guy is the one still breathing, because he exploited his advantages as he got them.
Second, it would make twf more cost-effective, strength-wise, for strength-based warrior types. So you would be better off with TWF whether you use strength or finesse.

No, I like things as they are: there are good fighting styles for those with a lot of strength and raw fighting ability (namely, using a big weapon), and others for those who are agile and use tactical measures (i.e. sneak attack). So if you want to use TWF and be good at it, you shouldn't use strength alone and play straight fighter. Instead, you go another way.

BTW: A rogue/righter can be a real deadly combination for TWF: Sneak Attack combined with tons of bonus feats to use for exotic weapons and increase of the fighting style.

To sum it up: The 1x/0.5x rule for TWF is fine IMO. It won't prove more effective than using a Two-handed weapon and brute strength, but I don't think it should, as I don't picture two-weapon fighters as big guys with arms like tree trunks. Besides, it keeps the consistency with TWF in that you get 1.5x your strength if you use both of your arms.

 

[Kae'Yoss]

I wish you'd either quit feigning your ignorance of what ambidexterity means, or, in the event that you actually don't, learn. It's the ability to use both hands with equal proficiency - there's nothing about ambidexterity that ties it to the Dungeons and Dragons ability called dexterity. D&D dexterity "measures hand-eye coordination, agility, reflexes, and balance." The word 'ambidexterity' comes from Latin: dexter is a Latin root meaning "right", in this case, referring to the right hand, which is almost always considered more skillful than the left. "Ambi" means "both". Ambidexterity therefore loosely means "both right". There's no mention of dexterity or strength. However, most people are not ambidexterous, and it was decided in 3.5E that this would be represented in two-weapon fighting by halving the strength bonus given to the off-hand, a realistic effect you might notice if you try to cut a piece of meat with a knife in your off-hand. However, a person who is ambidexterous would not suffer the same disabilities.
....
That's silly. There should be.
....
Again, I can only recommend that you learn what ambidexterity is, in non-game terms, before deciding what ambidexterity is and isn't.

You know, if you have to resort to being condescending and flee into semantics, trying to impress someone with your linguistic knowledge and insult others, you can take your argument somewhere else. There are some forums that are open to flamewars, I'm sure you can find a playmate there. I have nothing else to say to you (at least, nothing that the moderators would tolerate). Good bye, and close the door behind you. Thanks.