Bringing back Ambidexterity

[Storyteller01]

Had some ideas for a new variartion aon the Abidexterity feats. I'd love some input. Also, this feat chain was developed with a tech based world in mind, so I'm not sure if it's usable in the core setting.

Ambidexterity/Multidexterity
Prereqs: Dex 15, Int 15

You may make 2 skill checks (or more, if the character possesses more than one appendage capable of fine manipulation) in one action. These skills must be performable with one hand, require some level of manual dexterity, and both tasks must be within easy reach of the character. Skill checks made in this manner receive a -10 penalty to the roll.

Creatures with more than one appendage may attempt to make more tahn two checks. The skill check penalty increases by -2 for every skill attempted beyond the second


Improved Ambidexterity/Multidexterity
Prereqs: Dex 15, Int 17

This feat operates in the same manner as Ambidexterity/Multidexterity, but the skill check penalties are reduced to -5.



Superior Ambidexterity/Multidexterity
Prereqs: Dex 15, Int 19

This feat operates in the same manner as Ambidexterity/Multidexterity, but the skill check penalties are reduced to -2

 

[Corlon]

If I find myself needing to make two one handed checks that require dexterity in one round fairly often, I might think about taking the first one


By which I mean I think it's an interesting idea for it, but I don't see myself getting much use out of it.

Or am I missing a bunch of obvious scenarios?

 

[Storyteller01]

If I find myself needing to make two one handed checks that require dexterity in one round fairly often, I might think about taking the first one


By which I mean I think it's an interesting idea for it, but I don't see myself getting much use out of it.

Or am I missing a bunch of obvious scenarios?

Nah. Rogues might like it (disable device and open door at the same time, or disabling multi-tier traps in record time) but I thought computer/tech users (Int based skills, but a level of manual dex is required) might like the idea of making multiple hacking checks from two different systems.

Might be fun to see wizards writing multiple scrolls though (woohoo Still Spell!)

I've heard that De' vince (hope I spelled that right!) could write in two languages simultaneously!

The reason I set the penalty so high is because you are trying to use a skill one handed that you would usually try with two. My interpretation is that if it can be done with two hands, it can be done one handed provided there is enough reach and a great deal of strength isn't needed. I could be wrong though

 

[Hawken]

Ambidexterity/Multidexterity
Prereqs: Dex 15, Int 15

Why the Int 15 prerequisite? 3.0 had Ambidexterity at Dex 15+ only. A person does not have to have a high intelligence to be able to do two things at once, just good to phenominal hand-eye coordination. However, doing two separate/different things at once is not even the definition of ambidexterity to begin with. Maybe you should consider renaming your feat to something more appropriate to avoid causing confusion.

Your new description of Ambidexterity is different than the original feat, or even the definition of the word. Ambidexterity just means being able to do something equally well with either hand. Your definition is doing two separate things simultaneously, not being able to use either hand equally well. Plus, you've just made the DM's life a lot more difficult as he now has to decide what skills can and cannot be used simultaneously and what actions as well when someone thinks of something to do not defined by a current skill.

I read some other alternate definition of Ambidexterity to mean that a character could use something in either hand without penalty. And in combat, that character would apply their full strength bonus to their "off-hand" instead of only 1/2 (round down).

However, let's say we keep the definition and use of your feat as it is. Where did you come up with the -10 penalty and how do you justify it? And why would the person have to become progressively smarter to continue taking feats to reduce the penalty? Why not become progressively more dexterous? That would seem to make more sense. Even still, why would you have someone spend 3 feats to be able to use two, one-handed skills simultaneously and still have a penalty to their action? Anyone can take Two Weapon Fighting as as long as the off-hand weapon is light, their penalties are reduced to -2; all that just for 1 feat and it will get used a lot more than your Ambidexterity likely would. Characters get feats, even fighters, too few and far between. Why would someone even bother taking a feat to get a -10 penalty to two separate actions? And then have to take 2 more feats to improve your chances and still have the penalties!

Try a set up like this:
Ambidexterity
You are equally skilled at using either hand to perform tasks.
Prerequisites: Dexterity 15+.
Benefit: The character does not have an "off-hand" and can use either his right or left equally well. In combat, attacks made with his second hand gain the character's full Strength bonus to damage.
Normal: Off-hand attacks only inflict 1/2 (round down) the character's Strength bonus in damage.

This leaves it open for the DM to adjudicate what else can and cannot be done with the character's other hand.

Multitasking
You are skilled at doing different things at the same time.
Prerequisites: Dexterity 13+.
Benefit: You can perform two or more relatively simple (excluding combat) tasks in the same action phase (standard action, move action or full round action). Your primary action suffers a -4 penalty if any checks are involved and the secondary action suffers a -6 penalty.
The penalties are reduced the more nimble a character is. If the character's Dexterity is 15-16, the penalty for the primary action is reduced to -2, and the secondary penalty reduced to -4. If the Dexterity is 17-18, the primary penalty is negated and the secondary penalty is reduced to -2. And if the character's Dexterity is 19+, all penalties are negated.
Examples may include making two Forgery checks in the same round or perhaps a Ride check and Escape Artist check. Generally this is anything requiring some degree of physical activity or motion to accomplish from at least one of the checks. This could not be used to make two simultaneous Knowledge checks, but could be used to make a Knowledge check and a Ride check (to stay on the mount) at the same time.

Having the feat scale up in usefulness if the person's Dexterity is higher (or goes higher) makes the feat more useful, while still not overpowering it and keeps the player from having to spend three feats to basically do what one feat would allow.

 

[comrade raoul]

The AU treatment of Ambidexterity is one of my favorite rules in that book. (TWF drops penalties by 4 for both hands, yielding -0/-4 for light weapons or -2/-6 for non-light; Ambidexterity eliminates the off-hand penalty.) While this doesn't address your (very interesting, non-combat) treatment, I still think Monte's move deserves mention in any discussion of the topic.

 

[Storyteller01]

Why the Int 15 prerequisite? 3.0 had Ambidexterity at Dex 15+ only. A person does not have to have a high intelligence to be able to do two things at once, just good to phenominal hand-eye coordination. However, doing two separate/different things at once is not even the definition of ambidexterity to begin with. Maybe you should consider renaming your feat to something more appropriate to avoid causing confusion.


However, let's say we keep the definition and use of your feat as it is. Where did you come up with the -10 penalty and how do you justify it? And why would the person have to become progressively smarter to continue taking feats to reduce the penalty? Why not become progressively more dexterous? That would seem to make more sense. Even still, why would you have someone spend 3 feats to be able to use two, one-handed skills simultaneously and still have a penalty to their action? Anyone can take Two Weapon Fighting as as long as the off-hand weapon is light, their penalties are reduced to -2; all that just for 1 feat and it will get used a lot more than your Ambidexterity likely would. Characters get feats, even fighters, too few and far between. Why would someone even bother taking a feat to get a -10 penalty to two separate actions? And then have to take 2 more feats to improve your chances and still have the penalties!

The point for the Int was (imho) doing two things at once requires a measure of mental dexterity as well. Training with two weapons, or double weapons, requires that you be able to follow the flow of combat more effectively. Ambidexterity is not required, although it helps. Think of Florentine fencers. They use a rapier and a dagger. Most are not ambidexteritous. The same can be applied to those who fight with Bo or Jo staves. I can use a Jo staff to good effect, but I can't write two separate documents simultaneously, or even duplicate the same document at the same time.

Those who like to crack two 16 numeral security codes with millions of variations from different systems at the same time follow a whole new set of rules

The -10 penalty would come from having to use one hand for a two handed job, and the need for some level of concentration while performing both tasks at once. The increased need for Int follows the same lines. Your hands do the same thing they always have. Your mind has to process more info, and at a faster rate...

I dunno. Examples I've seen of this type of skill use (movies, especially of the dubbed martial arts variety) tend to attribute this level of skill use to greater Intelligence, not greater Dexterity.

I agree about the name. Have to work on it...

The feats were designed in mostly for computer users and pilots, giving them greater option as they progress in levels. I figure rogue may make use of this as well, but your right. I may have to reduce the number of feats.

I wrote the feat in this fashion because, as far as I can tell, there are no mechanics for using your off hand outside of combat. It's pretty much assumed that if you are left or right handed, your using that hand in any given task. I haven't seen any mechanics for 'your right hand is bound. Your right handed, so you take -X to your skill checks.' I could be wrong though.

Maybe I should write it out as this:

Multitasking

Prereqs: Dex 15, Int 15

You may attempt to make two skill checks in the same action. A Dex of 15 is required for attempting skills that require any level of manual dexterity

The skill penalty when attempting skill checks in this fashion is -8 minus[character's Int modifier].

Characters with more than two fine manipulating appendages may attempt to make more than two checks in an action. The skill penalty increases by -2 for each skill attempted beyond the second.

 

[Ulorian - Agent of Chaos]

The AU treatment of Ambidexterity is one of my favorite rules in that book. (TWF drops penalties by 4 for both hands, yielding -0/-4 for light weapons or -2/-6 for non-light; Ambidexterity eliminates the off-hand penalty.) While this doesn't address your (very interesting, non-combat) treatment, I still think Monte's move deserves mention in any discussion of the topic.

??? That's exactly what the D&D 3.0 Ambidexterity feat does! Aside from the fact that in Arcana Unearthed you have to take it at first level (it's a talent, not a feat), Arcana Unearthed copies the 3.0 Ambidexterity feat verbatim (compare the two: they are just about word-for-word identical).

I think what you mean is that the AU treatment of TWF is one of your favourite rules. Like you said, in AU, TWF reduces attack penalties by 4 instead of 2. Also, the Massive TWF feat is excellent (allows the use of non-light off-hand weapons without penalty). However, this has nothing to do with the discussion of Ambidexterity.

 

[Storyteller01]

This is what I don't understand. I've seen people who were frightenly effective with two weapons, but they were not naturally ambidexteritous. Matter of fact, a good portion of said practitioners were left handed!!

Yep, mutlitasking is definitely a better name for this feat.

(ranting)
So why is Ambidexterity such a only applied to combat?? Especially since 'ambidexterity' of can be learned for specific skills. Not only that, but what hand is your 'strong hand' can also be retaught. Left handed children in some areas had their left hand bound. Forced them to use their right hand.

Left handed shooters in the military frequently have to shoot right handed, since the shell casing (VERY HOT) ejects on the right side of an M-16 (or any other rifle not custom made). Lefty's get a shell in the face, down the shirt, etc.

A study was used to determined if left handed people lived shorter lives. They evidence was statistical in nature, and showed a sharp decrease in left handedness as older folks were surveyed. Did left handed people really live shorter lives?
Nope. They just learned to be right-handed. Too much of a hassle, since everything is built for right handed people.


So, if people can learn limited ambidexterity, then why is it only attributed to combat? Why is a naturally ambidexteritous person better at using two weapons than a righty or lefty who has trained to use two weapons (they aren't, since ambidexterity doesn't mean that a person can do two things at once. It just means that they can use either hand without penalty).

 

[Hawken]

The point for the Int was (imho) doing two things at once requires a measure of mental dexterity as well. Training with two weapons, or double weapons, requires that you be able to follow the flow of combat more effectively. Ambidexterity is not required, although it helps.

I still don't agree with the Intelligence requirement. If its a Star Wars type game, pilots don't generally have stellar Intelligence scores and won't boost them just to get these feats when there are others that are much more useful. A computer-tech guy might pump Int, but I couldn't see even them (or anyone else) spending more than 1 feat on this ability. In a D&D type game, Wiz are the only ones that have a high Int, on average, and they get too far and few feats to bother with this. It might be useful to a rogue type, but they tend to put high scores into Dex and Con, with maybe a point or few in Int just for more skills, but then, same argument as Wizards; not enough feats to justify taking this one even once, muchless 3 times. And its training and experience that makes it easier to follow the "flow of battle" not Intelligence. Stick any Einstein in front of a battlefield or a fight and unless they have training in strategy or something, they're not going to be following anything more than the next Joe Schmo.

I can understand your idea behind your feat, but its overall usefulness is extremely limited and in all likelihood not really worth taking unless you make it some kind of requirement for another feat or some prestige class. Unless your tech-guy has a gun at his head and someone saying "crack this code in 6 seconds or die", there's not going to be many circumstances where the PCs can't just make the required checks in 2 rounds or more unless you continually put them in those circumstances then they'll feel railroaded into getting the feat.

This is what I don't understand. I've seen people who were frightenly effective with two weapons, but they were not naturally ambidexteritous. Matter of fact, a good portion of said practitioners were left handed!!

Two weapon fighting is not the same as ambidexterity. Why should that surprise you so much. Ambidexterity is as much talent as training, but fighting with two weapons simultaneously is exclusively training. Think of it this way, a 10th level fighter using two weapons (one of them light) but is not ambidexterous, after all bonuses, etc., is going to have a BAB of, lets say, +14/+10/+9. This is using 3.0 (or AU) where Ambidex lowers off-hand penalty by 4. Compared to say a 3rd level Commoner or Expert, whose BAB is maybe +2 or +3, that fighter is nothing less than amazing (or terrifying).

So why is Ambidexterity such a only applied to combat??

Because there are far too few situations where a player wouldn't have the chance to use his primary hand to accomplish a task. If he is bound, partially restrained or something, the DM can always tack on a -2, -4 or whatever penalty for off-hand actions, but this is so rare that it is hardly worth making a rule for.

So, if people can learn limited ambidexterity, then why is it only attributed to combat?

Because that's what D&D is about. Get armor and weapons, go out kill bad guys, steal treasure, buy better armor and weapons to kill tougher, richer bad guys, rinse and repeat! Despite the number of skills and feats, D&D is about going out and killing people and taking their stuff. That killing is handled through combat. There's virtually nothing else to do in D&D with your off-hand and that's the way the game is set up. If you want to do something with it, then its up to the DM to work something out.

Why is a naturally ambidexteritous person better at using two weapons than a righty or lefty who has trained to use two weapons (they aren't, since ambidexterity doesn't mean that a person can do two things at once. It just means that they can use either hand without penalty).

If two people, one ambidexterous, the other not, were training to fight with two weapons, received the same amount of training, had the same amount of fighting experience, the ambidexterous one would come out ahead. They would be better because they would have better coordination with both limbs, and they would have better strength and motor control. The non-ambidex person would not have the same strength or motor control with his off-hand/arm and thus would not be able to attack as quickly or accurately, inflict as much damage as would the person who could move his arm/hand just that much faster and stronger.

I'm just playing devil's advocate here, not trying to bust your balls or anything like that.

 

[John Q. Mayhem]

??? That's exactly what the D&D 3.0 Ambidexterity feat does! Aside from the fact that in Arcana Unearthed you have to take it at first level (it's a talent, not a feat), Arcana Unearthed copies the 3.0 Ambidexterity feat verbatim (compare the two: they are just about word-for-word identical).

I think what you mean is that the AU treatment of TWF is one of your favourite rules. Like you said, in AU, TWF reduces attack penalties by 4 instead of 2. Also, the Massive TWF feat is excellent (allows the use of non-light off-hand weapons without penalty). However, this has nothing to do with the discussion of Ambidexterity.

Don't be a tool, you know what he meant. The AU Ambidexterity and TWF are inextricably linked.

As a side note, I allow the following feats IMC (AU TWF rules)

Ambidexterity: As AU, but no Dex prereq. Full Str bonus to off-hand when not TWF.
Improved Ambidexterity: Full Str bonus to off-hand when TWF.
Trained Ambidexterity: As Ambidexterity, but requires Dex 15+. Cannot be used as prerequisite for Imp. Ambidexterity.