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
*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
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Dungeons & Dragons
D&D Older Editions
Ambidexterity in 3.5
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="Kae'Yoss" data-source="post: 2109205" data-attributes="member: 4134"><p>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). </p><p></p><p>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.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>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. </p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>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)</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>This will make TWF the most strength-effective fighting style, and that's just wrong. </p><p></p><p>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. </p><p></p><p>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.</p><p></p><p>There shouldn't be any difference between striking with a big weapon using both hands, and striking with two lighter weapons using both hands. </p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>Why will they be less dextrous with one hand, but equally strong? What you describe really isn't ambidexterity, it is the mentioned ambistrength.</p><p></p><p>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.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Kae'Yoss, post: 2109205, member: 4134"] 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. 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. 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) 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. 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. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Dungeons & Dragons
D&D Older Editions
Ambidexterity in 3.5
Top