Post/Author/DateTime	Post
PyrosSilvercaster 01-04-08, 12:42 PM	I know this seems like a really noob question, and I'm amazed I hadn't thought of it before, but I would really appreciate some info; maybe even an "official" answer. If a character has the Ambidexterity feat, by definition he has no off-hand. So would in turn mean he would do full STR bonus damage with both hands? I also know this feat was removed in 3.5, but I'm still kicking it (semi) old school.
Merestil Haye 01-04-08, 02:29 PM	I know this seems like a really noob question, and I'm amazed I hadn't thought of it before, but I would really appreciate some info; maybe even an "official" answer. If a character has the Ambidexterity feat, by definition he has no off-hand. So would in turn mean he would do full STR bonus damage with both hands? I also know this feat was removed in 3.5, but I'm still kicking it (semi) old school.I'm afraid not. If a feat (or anything else, for that matter) is going to remove the half-strength penalty, it has to explicitly say so.
Unholy_King 01-04-08, 10:22 PM	I'm afraid not. If a feat (or anything else, for that matter) is going to remove the half-strength penalty, it has to explicitly say so. Don't you mean Half-Strength bonus? 1.0 + 0.5 > 1.0 last time I checked. Also, Ambidexterity was rolled into TWF in 3.5. The character no longer has an "off-hand" as in being left or right handed, but the character will still always have an off-handed attack when TWF.
Devigod 01-05-08, 12:10 AM	Heheheh, this sounds just like my friend who insists on not letting this feat die. For some raisen, he creates characters, NPCs and monsters who use the feat and he makes the feat completely remove the -2/-2 penalty. Jeez, it's annoying, they took out the feat for balance raisens and he refuses to let it stay in the ground. Seriously, TWF is fine as is.
BugHunter 01-05-08, 11:24 AM	Even in 3.0 having ambidexterity, two-weapon fighting and the off-hand being light you still had the -2/-2 penalties. The just dumped a redundent feat.
unundindur 01-06-08, 10:19 AM	Acording to the current rules you have to take the a feat from...I think Complete warrior. According to me, twf is a clearly evident place of whooping in D&D, and hopefully gets a serious boost in 4.0. If you are not a rogue, there is no reason to start dual wielding, and its a shame. If you want an effective house-rule, try this: Dual wielding Requirements: - Benefit: Whenever you make an attack with your main hand you also get an attack with your off hand, but all attacks are at a -4 penalty, a -3 penalty if one weapon is light, or a -2 penalty if both weapons are light. You can only deal sneak attack damage with the first pair of attacks in a round. Special: This feat replace everything written about two weapon fighting elsewhere, which implies that you use your full strength modifier with either hand. This solves all the problems. You can dual wield from level 1, no matter what class you are. You don't have to invest absolutely all your feats to do what everyone else did from the get go, it is simple to remember and understand, you can effectively play a dual wielder in heavy armor, and a rogue don't get completely out of wack. Anyhow, have fun :)
Cartigan 01-06-08, 12:52 PM	Heheheh, this sounds just like my friend who insists on not letting this feat die. For some raisen, he creates characters, NPCs and monsters who use the feat and he makes the feat completely remove the -2/-2 penalty. Jeez, it's annoying, they took out the feat for balance raisens and he refuses to let it stay in the ground. Seriously, TWF is fine as is. Well there is the tempest who has Ambidexterity as a class ability and reduces TWF negatives to +0. Though they still don't get to add their full Str mod to off-hand damage. Of course the problem with Tempest is if you want to take it when you would normally take PrCs, you have to be a Fighter. Otherwise you are taking it at 13th level. (10 if you are a non-human Ranger). Dual wielding Requirements: - Benefit: Whenever you make an attack with your main hand you also get an attack with your off hand, but all attacks are at a -4 penalty, a -3 penalty if one weapon is light, or a -2 penalty if both weapons are light. You can only deal sneak attack damage with the first pair of attacks in a round. Special: This feat replace everything written about two weapon fighting elsewhere, which implies that you use your full strength modifier with either hand. This solves all the problems. You can dual wield from level 1, no matter what class you are. You don't have to invest absolutely all your feats to do what everyone else did from the get go, it is simple to remember and understand, you can effectively play a dual wielder in heavy armor, and a rogue don't get completely out of wack. So, in summary, there is no reason for anyone to dual wield.
paladin2019 01-06-08, 03:56 PM	Here's the way it breaks down. Ambidexterity removes all penalties associated with off-hand use (the -4 penalty didn't just apply to fighting, but conceivably anything one-handed that was done with the off-hand.) But the one half Strength bonus rule isn't a penalty. Penalties, by definition, are modifers that have a negative value, bonuses positive. Half of +2 is +1, so it's still a bonus. Hlaf of +1 is +1/2, rounded down to 0. But it's not a negative value, so it's still not a penalty. Half of -2 doesn't matter because the rule specifically refers to Strength bonuses. Ambidexterity has no effect on bonuses, only penalties. The two weapon fighting rules assign penalties to hit and modify bonuses to damage. 3.5 kept this ruleset in place when folding Ambidexterity into Two-Weapon Fighting.
unundindur 01-06-08, 06:00 PM	Cartigan, I have no idea what you meant, but if we shall continue debate, we can do it in a new thread :)
DarkRhystar 01-06-08, 06:42 PM	Cartigan, I have no idea what you meant,<snip> You would if he'd remembered to put the word "not" in that sentence.
PyrosSilvercaster 01-06-08, 06:58 PM	Thanks much for the wisdom, and even the way off left field posts were informative. =)
elonin 01-06-08, 08:18 PM	Where are you getting that only the first attack with each weapon gets sneak attack damage? My understanding is that if the conditions that allow sneak attack still apply then all attakcs get sneak damage. For example when the rogue is flanking then all of the attacks would get sneak damage (as long as target has anatomy etc).
InkBlot 01-06-08, 08:23 PM	Also, Ambidexterity was rolled into TWF in 3.5. The character no longer has an "off-hand" as in being left or right handed, but the character will still always have an off-handed attack when TWF. That's not quite correct. Look at the Off-Hand entry in the PHB's glossary. Characters still have definite off-hands, much like they did in 3rd Edition.
unundindur 01-07-08, 03:27 AM	Where are you getting that only the first attack with each weapon gets sneak attack damage? My understanding is that if the conditions that allow sneak attack still apply then all attakcs get sneak damage. For example when the rogue is flanking then all of the attacks would get sneak damage (as long as target has anatomy etc). You are correct under the current rules. I just posted an alternative home-rule version, where I on purpose removed that ability, and instead make it a much better feat for everyone else.
unundindur 01-07-08, 03:28 AM	You would if he'd remembered to put the word "not" in that sentence. I am sorry, but I styill don't see it, no matter where I place "not"...
drakir_nosslin 01-07-08, 07:52 AM	How about this: So, in summary, there is no reason for anyone not to dual wield. /Rikard Nilsson
Cartigan 01-07-08, 08:32 AM	How about this: So, in summary, there is no reason for anyone not to dual wield. /Rikard Nilsson Besides there still being penalties that already existed but with no worthwhile bonuses to counter them. You are obviously going to have to better explain why that feat is somehow awesome. Here is what I see: nothing better than TWF, but with a limit of sneak attack only to main hand, oh, and you get full str on off-hand. Not going to draw people away from sword and board or THF, and it discourages Rogues[/Ninjas] from doing it now. Sure, maybe Rangers get away with it ok unless you fix it so they only get FE bonuses on the main hand too.
elonin 01-07-08, 12:37 PM	You are correct under the current rules. I just posted an alternative home-rule version, where I on purpose removed that ability, and instead make it a much better feat for everyone else. My limited understanding of your homebrew is very hard on rogues, at least the TWF ones. At later levels it's hard enough to get sneak attacks.
unundindur 01-07-08, 07:55 PM	Note "whenever you get an attack with your main hand". This line effectively incolude improved and greater and supreme two-weapon fighting, and you also get an off hand attack when you charge, standard attack, attack of opportunity etc. Is simple, its comparable to a two-hander etc. So the rogue still gets something, just not insane number of sneak-attacks. The fighter though, or bard, or barbarian, and whatnot gets a serious boost as they don't have to spend all their feats to get...the base potencial of a two handed weapon. Was that understandable?
Cartigan 01-07-08, 08:30 PM	Note "whenever you get an attack with your main hand". Making it useless to the Rogue, and I will assume range, thus why would anyone use it? Is simple, its comparable to a two-hander etc. At a -2 penalty to wield :rolleyes: The fighter though, or bard, or barbarian, and whatnot gets a serious boost as they don't have to spend all their feats to get...the base potencial of a two handed weapon. Was that understandable? Why would a Bard use it? They gain nothing. The Rogue isn't going to use it because of the -2 penalty without the sneak attack on all attacks to make up for it. Why would a fighter or barbarian use it? They can use a two hander without a constant penalty. Hell, or at a -2 constant penalty they could just use a larger weapon.
elonin 01-07-08, 09:07 PM	Unundindur if you don't like a style of play (something you said about TWF) try to talk people out of it instead of pwning the feats that make it possible. Do you think that sneak attack is overpowered? For game balance why not declare that a character can only gain the benefit of power attack once per round?
unundindur 01-08-08, 07:23 AM	Unundindur if you don't like a style of play (something you said about TWF) try to talk people out of it instead of pwning the feats that make it possible. Do you think that sneak attack is overpowered? For game balance why not declare that a character can only gain the benefit of power attack once per round? I love TWF. Your point about power attack is valid though, but it have not become an evident problem in my games (yet).
TheGeek 03-27-08, 12:39 AM	Heheheh, this sounds just like my friend who insists on not letting this feat die. For some raisen, he creates characters, NPCs and monsters who use the feat and he makes the feat completely remove the -2/-2 penalty. Jeez, it's annoying, they took out the feat for balance raisens and he refuses to let it stay in the ground. Seriously, TWF is fine as is. Whoooooah, slow down, man. I creat NPCs and monsters who use Ambidexterity, not because I'm a powergamer-DM, but because I'm a shameless Drizzt fanboy. But seriously, I disagree with that last point. Ambidex was removed because of general uselessness. The feat I use is something wholly different from the 3.0 feat. More akin to Off-hand might. For clarity, my homebrew Ambidex is here: Ambidexterity [General, Background (if your campaign uses such things)] You have no "off hand," and may use each hand equally well. Prerequisites: Dex 15 at character creation, Dex 17 later. Benefit: Gain one of the following benefits: -Even-handed: You gain full strength bonus to both hands, ie, when making an attack with your off hand, you gain your full strength bonus to damage, rather than half. -Coordination: The penalties for fighting with two weapons are reduced by two for each hand. Is this really that unbalanced?
unundindur 03-27-08, 01:53 AM	That depends. Since you seem to use the normal rules for twf it cannot be overpowered, and as such is directly weak. As a feat comparable to others I also find it fair enough, though still contributing to the extreme amount of specialisation needed to make twf somewhat useful. Given that you are a drizzt-fanboy, I think you should give twf a serious boost in general power ;)
TheGeek 03-27-08, 11:02 AM	Thanks, but what if I combined it with your feat? I think, then, it might be overbalanced. But something like Operation_Shoestring's presented here http://forums.gleemax.com/showpost.php?p=15348584&postcount=33? I think that'd be okay.
risner 03-27-08, 11:43 AM	If a character has the Ambidexterity feat, by definition he has no off-hand. So would in turn mean he would do full STR bonus damage with both hands? No, that isn't what the feat did at all. It is part of the 3.5 Two Weapon Fighting feat.
Divisionbyzer0 03-28-08, 04:00 PM	Making it useless to the Rogue, and I will assume range, thus why would anyone use it? At a -2 penalty to wield :rolleyes: Why would a Bard use it? They gain nothing. The Rogue isn't going to use it because of the -2 penalty without the sneak attack on all attacks to make up for it. Why would a fighter or barbarian use it? They can use a two hander without a constant penalty. Hell, or at a -2 constant penalty they could just use a larger weapon. With a high strength and weapon focus they can compensate for it, especially if using a double weapon, then the focus applies to both strikes. Throw in magical weapons, buffs, and raging, and I think it's fine for a barbarian. I'm glad they finally ditched the ambidexterity feat though. I hated that $hit even back in 2.5. If I'm not mistaken, under the player's options: combat & tactics rules you could get the penalties down to -0/-0. Yep, reaction adjustment from dexterity could offset the penalties. If you had a sucky reaction adjustment you could specialize in the style itself and then get it down to -0/-0 with ambidexterity, at a cost of one weapon proficiency slots, or 3 character points if you were a warrior. Rogues could get it for 4 character points. It was barred from other classes though they could still pull it off unspecialized with ambidexterity and a decent reaction adjustment from dex. The ranger was automatically treated as having "two weapon specialization" and "ambidexterity" for a mere 5 character points. For 2 extra character points you could dual wield with two one handed weapons at no penalty. I don't recall how additional attacks with the off hand were accomplished though, and I'm not sure how strength modifiers worked for this.
Divisionbyzer0 03-28-08, 04:34 PM	Whoooooah, slow down, man. I creat NPCs and monsters who use Ambidexterity, not because I'm a powergamer-DM, but because I'm a shameless Drizzt fanboy. But seriously, I disagree with that last point. Ambidex was removed because of general uselessness. The feat I use is something wholly different from the 3.0 feat. More akin to Off-hand might. For clarity, my homebrew Ambidex is here: Ambidexterity [General, Background (if your campaign uses such things)] You have no "off hand," and may use each hand equally well. Prerequisites: Dex 15 at character creation, Dex 17 later. Benefit: Gain one of the following benefits: -Even-handed: You gain full strength bonus to both hands, ie, when making an attack with your off hand, you gain your full strength bonus to damage, rather than half. -Coordination: The penalties for fighting with two weapons are reduced by two for each hand. Is this really that unbalanced? This is basically how characters in 2.5 could dual wield with no penalties. It might have been unbalanced but it sure as hell was fun. I had an elven mage / thief running around with two longswords, specialized in longsword, and no penalties. Probably paid for it all with a phobia and an irritable personality.