Post/Author/DateTime	Post
Cuahtemoc 06-19-07, 05:44 PM	Ambidexterity (General) You were born ambidextrous. You have no off hand. Prerequisite: Character Level 1st. Benefit: You do not suffer the standard -4 penalty incurred by attacking with the off hand. You add your full strength bonus to attacks made with your second hand(s). In addition, your penalties on attack rolls for fighting with two weapons are reduced by 1. Normal: See Two-Weapon Fighting, page 160 PHB, and Table 8-10: Two-Weapon Fighting Penalties, page 160 PHB. Initially, I wanted the feat to eliminate all penalties incurred by fighting with a light weapon in the off hand when used in conjunction with the Two-Weapon Fighting feat, but that seemed too powerful. As it stands, this is a powerful feat, but the fact that it can only be taken at 1st level somewhat limits it. Does this feat, as I have presented it, seem balanced?
Kouk 06-19-07, 05:52 PM	There aren't really "main hands" or "off hands" any more, you don't have to declare yourself right or left handed. You can decide which will be your "main" attack and which the "secondary" each round. Basically, anyone who goes TWF will take the TWF feats and use appropriate weapons, so your feat pretty much just reduces the penalties for fighting with two weapons by 1 point, and increases max damage. It is a bit on the strong side, and I'm not sure if only being for level 1 is quite enough of a limit. How about some Dex requirements?
Nom 06-19-07, 08:02 PM	you don't have to declare yourself right or left handed... as long as you're happy to ignore both PH pg 110 ("you can be right- or left-handed") and the glossary ("off-hand: your weaker or less dextrous hand, usually the left"). Yes, I know that some official commentators have said otherwise, but as far as the Player's Handbook goes it is quite clear that "off-hand" means exactly the same thing as it does in common English, and that characters are not implicitly ambidextrous. As for the feat, I think the -1 is too much. The full Str to off-hand damage is quite a benefit in its own right. I don't think it needs to be a "level 1" feat. It is possible to "learn" to be ambidextrous. better pre-reqs would be Str 13, Dex 13 or the like.
risner 06-19-07, 10:54 PM	Does this feat, as I have presented it, seem balanced? Not balanced and not needed. This feat already exists in 3.5, called "Two Weapon Fighting." If you create this feat again, you are stacking on too much power. This feat is triple broken: 1) It is almost 4 times and at minimum 3 times better than Weapon Focus (already one of the top 5 feats in game in raw ADR.) 2) This feat also adds massive Str damage to off-hand attacks. 3) This feat is also twice Weapon Focus (from the "TWF penalties reduce by 1") for two weapons. For a total of 5 to 6 times Weapon Focus. You have just created a feat that is mechanically twice as good as Melee Weapon Mastery and is absolutely unmatched by any other feat in existence.
Aryxbez 06-19-07, 11:54 PM	I find this feat almost the same as my own Ambidexterity Feat. Which is as follows: Amnidexterity Feat: Prequisites; Dex 18, Two-weapon Fighting,Improved Two-weapon Fighting, Benefit:When wielding two weapons, the Penalties are reduced by 1, with having -3 with onehanded weapon or -1 penalties with a light weapon in the off-hand. Also the off-hand deals normal strength damage. Otherwise I think I will probably add the idea that you lose the -4 to wielding a weapon to off-hand just like your feat has done.
runestar 06-19-07, 11:54 PM	... as long as you're happy to ignore both PH pg 110 ("you can be right- or left-handed") and the glossary ("off-hand: your weaker or less dextrous hand, usually the left"). Yes, but it does not expressly state that you cannot be both right and left handed. Also, in game terms, your off-hand is simply which you designate as your weaker hand at that particular moment when TWFing. Handedness is not really defined nor particularly enforced in the game. Its main purpose is simply to penalize PCs who use the TWFing attack option. Essentially, you get an extra attack, but with all the drawbacks and limitations as listed in the PHB (attack/offhand damage penalties). For example, say I wield a +1 flaming shortsword in my right hand and a +1 frost shortsword in my left. I can freely designate either my right or my left hand as my main hand whenever I want, and the other hand becomes my off-hand by default.:) However, that does not mean that you feat is useless, since it does provide benefits over and above what TWFers normally get. You just need to change the name, maybe to enhanced TWFing or something and you are good to go.:)
BroadStreetBully 06-20-07, 12:13 AM	it's not terrible, but it's not great either. for instance, there are some pretty tight DEX requirements the further you go up the TWF ladder. not only that, but you only apply 1.5x your STR bonus to damage while wielding a two-handed weapon, and I've yet to see a feat that boosts a 2H weapon up to 2x STR bonus to damage (so why should you be able to get a feat that applies full STR bonus to each weapon at 1st level?) Furthermore, the Tempest PrC in complete adventurer does remove all TWF penalties through a 5 level progression. i personally don't think a feat that's able to be taken at level 1 should be able to replicate an effect that is gained through a PrC by a character who is at minimum 8th level.
Nom 06-20-07, 01:05 AM	Yes, but it does not expressly state that you cannot be both right and left handed.Well, I can't find anywhere that the rules require you to choose a sex, so you could be both at once, right? Seriously, show me a situation where "you can be A or B" by default implies "treat yourself as if you are A and B"? Also, in game terms, your off-hand is simply which you designate as your weaker hand at that particular moment when TWFing.Again, find a quote anywhere in the PH that even marginally supports that position. Heck, nowhere in the TWF description does it say "designate an off hand", it says that you may gain one extra attack with the weapon in the off hand, which necessarily suggests that it is already designated. Similarly, pg 134 specifies that an off-hand weapon deals half damage, with no suggestion that "off hand weapon" is a term that applies only when using TWF and can be changed arbitrarily. I'm well aware that Skip has said that the PH rules don't support the concept of handedness, but you'd be hard-pressed to come to that conclusion from the PH rules themselves, considering that they (1) frequently talk about "off hand" and (2) nowhere even hint that this is a circumstantial designation. The only way to conclude that the PH ignores handedness is to assume a-priori that it doesn't and explain away PH pg 110 and the glossary with stupid statements like "Oh, 'be left or right handed' actually means nothing of the sort". It's not necessarily a bad house-rule to ditch handedness, though I think it lacks flavour if everyone is effectively ambidextrous.
runestar 06-20-07, 01:25 AM	My rationale comes from the Waterdeep sourcebook, where there is a feat called hand of tyr which requires you to give up the use of your right hand in exchange for some benefits. It even goes so far as to state that you are now left handed even if you were previously right-handed, that handedness was not defined in the game, and that the purpose of the feat was simply to limit you to one hand, which for flavour reasons has to be your right hand. The provision is clearly made from a rules aspect. Obviously, it would be illogical to expect only left-handers to take said feat, and unfair to unnecessarily penalize previous right-handers. If being right or left handed can be tossed around and changed so frivolously and at a whim, I do not see why the same concept cannot be applied to TWFing as well.:) To be more specific, there is nothing in the rules prohibiting you from wielding a weapon in either your left or right hand at full benefit. Thus, my fighter would face no benefits regardless of whether he was holding his scimitar in his left hand or his right hand - he would be able to fight equally well regardless of which hand he was using. The game makes no distinction at all. This leads me to conclude that the concept of an "off-hand" is applicable only to TWFing purposes, and only when specifically using the TWFing attack option. For example, if my lv16 fighter was wielding 2 weapons and has 4 attacks from a high bab, I believe he would be able to attack with either weapon interchangeably with no drawbacks (ie: attack with right hand at +16bab, then switch to left hand at +11bab, then go back to right hand at +6 bab, and finish off with left hand again at +1bab, and each hand gets full benefits, because you are really only attacking with just 1 weapon at any 1 time). My theory as to why there is an "off-hand" is that it is very hard for the mind to simultaneously concentrate on using both hands equally well at the same time. When you use the TWFing option, you will invariably tend to favour 1 hand more over the other, and it is this less-favoured hand that becomes your "off-hand" at that particular instance. You favour your right hand, your left hand becomes your "off-hand", and vice versa. You may be right in that it does not necessarily make much sense, but then again, handedness is something which appears to have minimal in-game mechanical impact, so I see little harm in letting it slide.:) Well, I can't find anywhere that the rules require you to choose a sex, so you could be both at once, right? I suppose you could designate yourself as a hermaphrodite, but would that be similar in concept to being equally proficient with using both your hands?:)
pukunui 06-20-07, 01:40 AM	Ambidexterity already exists in 3.5. It's part of the progression for the Tempest PrC in Complete Adventurer ... I realize it's not the same as having an Ambidexterity feat, but I just thought I'd mention it anyway.
DreadArchon 06-20-07, 02:26 AM	I'm inclined to allow people to buy ambidexterity for two skill points, much as the illiterate can learn to read for two skill points. With the current incarnation of two-weapon fighting rules, IIRC all you would get from two good hands is ever-so-slightly higher damage on the off hand... and it's not like two-weapon fighting is overpowered.
Nat_20 06-20-07, 02:35 AM	Ambidexterity Prerequisites: 1st level with 17 Dex, or Two Weapon Fighting and 17 Dex. Benefit: When you make an attack with your off hand, you may add your full Str to damage. Normal: You only add 1/2 your Str bonus to off hand attacks. There, ether natural or learned, and high requirements to take, balanced enough for my taste...
The Grig Fiddler 06-20-07, 02:52 AM	A house rule we use in all of our games is that there are no TWF penalties as long as your two weapons combined dont do more damage than a greatsword. So using two short swords is 2d6 plus strength (mainhand) and a half (off hand). The penalty lies in the fact you have to make two attacks, its a blessing and a curse.
LoreleiIsildae 06-20-07, 04:09 AM	Furthermore, the Tempest PrC in complete adventurer does remove all TWF penalties through a 5 level progression. i personally don't think a feat that's able to be taken at level 1 should be able to replicate an effect that is gained through a PrC by a character who is at minimum 8th level. Why not just make the Ambidexterity feat have a few of the same prereqs as the Tempest PrC? You wouldn't be gaining it at first level. You'd need a DEX of at least 17(for Improved TWF) and a BAB of +6. And maybe take out Spring Attack, Mobility and Dodge and replace them with....something, I don't know. Acrobatic? It relates to Jump and Tumble, but it does say you have excellent coordination (I know, I'm reaching here). I can't see it being broken, overpowered, or unbalancing if all your'e doing is lessening the penalties for fighting with two weapons by 2. You still take a -3 and -8 with your off hand when using Improved and Greater TWF.
Thiez 06-20-07, 08:01 AM	A house rule we use in all of our games is that there are no TWF penalties as long as your two weapons combined dont do more damage than a greatsword. So using two short swords is 2d6 plus strength (mainhand) and a half (off hand). The penalty lies in the fact you have to make two attacks, its a blessing and a curse. So, if I use two +1 X Bane daggers (X is a creature type), the damage would be 2d4+2, that's the same average as a greatsword. However, the moment I start fighting a creature of type X, the damage improves to 2d4+6+4d6 (more than a greatsword), and I start taking penalties? :D
risner 06-20-07, 12:25 PM	Why not just make the Ambidexterity feat have a few of the same prereqs as the Tempest PrC? I can't see it being broken, overpowered, or unbalancing if all your'e doing is lessening the penalties for fighting with two weapons by 2. So basically give the top end ability of a PrC out in the form of one feat? You believe that is balanced? 5 levels vs one feat? Which one do you think I'd rather take? Yes the feat. yes, it is broken if it is in feat form even if "all" it does is give you a +2 to all attacks in a full attack. In other words +10% to hit or double weapon focus plus it works for all attacks.
Thiez 06-20-07, 12:30 PM	Taking the Two-Weapon Fighting feat improves your TWF'ing more than this feat does. -6, -10 are the penalties, I think? So TWF gives you +4 +8. Hmmn, this feat, giving you +1 +1, almost seems weak ;) The Strenght thing is really what's worrying me.
LoreleiIsildae 06-20-07, 02:30 PM	So basically give the top end ability of a PrC out in the form of one feat? You believe that is balanced? 5 levels vs one feat? Which one do you think I'd rather take? Yes the feat. yes, it is broken if it is in feat form even if "all" it does is give you a +2 to all attacks in a full attack. In other words +10% to hit or double weapon focus plus it works for all attacks. I don't see it as being a problem when there are ranged feats that do similar things. Improved Rapid Shot removes the -2 penalty for using Rapid Shot. Improved Mounted Archery eliminates the penalty for ranged weapons on a mounts double move and lessens it to -2 on a run. Greater Manyshot, while keeping its penalties for each arrow, allows you to roll each attack separately, grants you critical hits for each arrow fired instead of just the first one, AND you can apply sneak attack or other precision based damage to each arrow, AND you can fire arrows at multiple targets, all with the same shot from the bow. And it's only a standard action. Prerequisites? DEX 17 Point Blank Shot, Rapid Shot, Manyshot, BAB +6. To me, this far overpowers anything like what's being proposed with Ambidexterity. So take TWF and Improved TWF and raise the BAB prereq to +8 or +9. If you feel lessening the penalties for TWF by 2 is too much, then lessen them by 1. That way, with a light weapon in your off-hand, you still take a -1 to your primary had and a -1 to your first off-had attack, a -4 to the second, and a -9 if you take Greater TWF. I would hardly call that unbalanced or broken. And giving the PrCs abilities out as feats already happened. Tempest Defense (+1, +2, +3) are all covered by Two-Weapon Defense, Improved TWD, and Greater TWD. The PrC just gets these feats for free, and mentions nothing about fighting defensively to raise the AC bonuses.
Frugal 06-20-07, 02:38 PM	Taking the Two-Weapon Fighting feat improves your TWF'ing more than this feat does. -6, -10 are the penalties, I think? So TWF gives you +4 +8. Hmmn, this feat, giving you +1 +1, almost seems weak ;) The Strenght thing is really what's worrying me. Yes, it's -6/-10 but reduces the penalties to -4/-4 so it's only +2/+6 (the reduction to -2/-2 is from using a light weapon, if you don't have the feat you're at -4/-8 with a light weapon off-hand). The thing is, TWF is designed so that it's not viable without the feat, the feat makes it viable. The main issue I have with TWF is simply that you then need further feats to get your iterative attacks, I'm very much in favour of rolling ITWF, GTWF and PTWF all into ITWF, I think that's a much better TWF feat, possibly even combined with allowing you to get 1 swing with each weapon as a standard action but I'd have to check the balance implications there (thinking it allows for some nasty sneak attack possibilities). That makes TWF much less feat intensive and it scales similarly to THF then. I think that's the main issue with TWF and you fix it by making it less feat intensive, not by removing the penalties and/or allowing full STR to be applied to off-hand.
Thiez 06-20-07, 02:44 PM	possibly even combined with allowing you to get 1 swing with each weapon as a standard action but I'd have to check the balance implications there (thinking it allows for some nasty sneak attack possibilities). For what it's worth, the Two-Weapon Pounce feat from PHB 2 allows you to attack with 2 weapons on a charge.
Frugal 06-20-07, 02:54 PM	For what it's worth, the Two-Weapon Pounce feat from PHB 2 allows you to attack with 2 weapons on a charge. Yep, knew about that one, and there's a couple other ones as well, and it's pretty limited. I like the idea of rolling ITWF, GTWF and PTWF together and that's probably good enough in and of itself, giving more just eliminates a whole lot of other feats and also raises more potential for abuse. As is, it just gives you the iterative attack scaling and that's it but you're still dependant on being able to make a full attack or having feats like Two-Weapon Pounce.
CryoSilver 06-20-07, 03:14 PM	If you dropped the -1 mitigation and just allowed full Str on the off hand, I think it would be okay. As to handedness: "You may be right or left handed" is not the same as "right and/or left handed"
DreadArchon 06-20-07, 04:28 PM	Ambidexterity Prerequisites: 1st level with 17 Dex, or Two Weapon Fighting and 17 Dex. Benefit: When you make an attack with your off hand, you may add your full Str to damage. Normal: You only add 1/2 your Str bonus to off hand attacks. There, ether natural or learned, and high requirements to take, balanced enough for my taste... 17 Dex? You do realize that human average is like 11, right? 17 is dang high even for an Elf! I don't understand why super-superhuman grace and agility should be necessary for a property that's so banal in real life. At least, none of the ambidextrous people I've known moved like they were in a wire-fu movie...
CryoSilver 06-20-07, 06:41 PM	Well, you need 15 to get TWF, so 17 seems ok to me.
Nat_20 06-20-07, 06:50 PM	its there so the feat is hard to take, other wise rangers with 10 dexterity can take it and thats just not nice... the high dex requirement is just to slim down its over use... Plus, IMHO, two weapon fighting kinda sucks... it soaks up feats, and you can only use it if you take a full round action... so this is a good balancer for it... P.S. i dont want to start a debate on how TWF is good or bad, i just wanted to throw that out there... so please, this is for the OP's question, not converting people to the way of TWF... so please, no debates...
DreadArchon 06-20-07, 09:52 PM	Plus, IMHO, two weapon fighting kinda sucks... it soaks up feats, and you can only use it if you take a full round action... so this is a good balancer for it... No, see, that's my point. Ambidexterity should be easier to get than TWF, I'd argue "by a lot," because (1) TWF is generally weak, (2) Ambidexterity doesn't really do all that much (less than even the much-maligned Weapon Specialization), and (3) it's realistic (ambidexterity is common and of little importance in real life; fighting with two weapons at once, each with not much less control than a single weapon would get normally, is much more difficult). Ambidexterity is, and should be, trivial. Thus, the feat should not require one to be a paragon of grace to obtain it. Cuahtemoc's version is okay, but I think it's a needless complication. I'm inclined to just give TWF'ers ambidexterity with the base TWF, and (again) I'd let someone buy it like literacy if they wanted it separately.
LoreleiIsildae 06-20-07, 11:57 PM	No, see, that's my point. Ambidexterity should be easier to get than TWF, I'd argue "by a lot," because (1) TWF is generally weak, (2) Ambidexterity doesn't really do all that much (less than even the much-maligned Weapon Specialization), and (3) it's realistic (ambidexterity is common and of little importance in real life; fighting with two weapons at once, each with not much less control than a single weapon would get normally, is much more difficult). Ambidexterity is, and should be, trivial. Thus, the feat should not require one to be a paragon of grace to obtain it. Cuahtemoc's version is okay, but I think it's a needless complication. I'm inclined to just give TWF'ers ambidexterity with the base TWF, and (again) I'd let someone buy it like literacy if they wanted it separately. I agree that ambidexterity isn't very important IRL, but we're not talking about IRL here, were talking about fantasy and wielding melee weapons. If provisions can be made in the game to allow people to have ambidexterity at 1st level, like the trait feature listed in Unearthed Arcana, then awesome, but I would balance it by giving a penalty to something else. However, for those who aren't born with it, becoming ambidextrous takes work. You may be dexterous with one hand, but it's hard to wield with 2 (hence TWF and its penalties). But if you work towards becoming equally skilled with both hands, then you can lessen the penalties.
Yareb 06-21-07, 01:06 AM	I think that it is way overpowering and should surely have a Dex requirement of at least 16. That's all I have to say about that one.
The Grig Fiddler 06-21-07, 02:26 AM	So, if I use two +1 X Bane daggers (X is a creature type), the damage would be 2d4+2, that's the same average as a greatsword. However, the moment I start fighting a creature of type X, the damage improves to 2d4+6+4d6 (more than a greatsword), and I start taking penalties? :D Never has been a problem seeing as how we don't really use all that many magic items. You do however make a good point and as long as I don't bring it up no one in my group will be smart enough to think of it. (Including me Ill forget it in the morning.)
Nat_20 06-21-07, 03:45 AM	Ambidexterity Prerequisites: 1st level, or Two Weapon Fighting and 16 Dex. Benefit: When you make an attack with your off hand, you may add your full Str to damage. Normal: You only add 1/2 your Str bonus to off hand attacks. There, cuz learning it will need a bit of coordination. but its their as a prerequisite... just a need to qualify and if you really want to break it down, then fine... This was seems good to me
stoicfaux 06-21-07, 09:33 AM	Ambidexterity (General) You were born ambidextrous. You have no off hand. Prerequisite: Character Level 1st. Benefit: You do not suffer the standard -4 penalty incurred by attacking with the off hand. You add your full strength bonus to attacks made with your second hand(s). In addition, your penalties on attack rolls for fighting with two weapons are reduced by 1. Normal: See Two-Weapon Fighting, page 160 PHB, and Table 8-10: Two-Weapon Fighting Penalties, page 160 PHB. Initially, I wanted the feat to eliminate all penalties incurred by fighting with a light weapon in the off hand when used in conjunction with the Two-Weapon Fighting feat, but that seemed too powerful. As it stands, this is a powerful feat, but the fact that it can only be taken at 1st level somewhat limits it. Does this feat, as I have presented it, seem balanced? It's redundant and overpowered, for the following reasons: Everyone is already ambidextrous. Being ambidextrous means you can use either hand equally well. However, that doesn't mean that you're coordinated enough to use both hands at once. You can write or throw equally well with your left or right hand. But you can't do two things at once without difficulty. You can change which hand is primary in order to eliminate the off-hand penalty. http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/rg/20060829a The game rules don’t really care about whether you’re right-handed or left-handed, and it’s even OK to change your off hand designation from one round to the next. Ergo, everyone can use their left and right hands equally well, thus making everyone ambidextrous, thus making your feat redundant. The TWF feat represents the ability to use both hands at once. TWF removes the -4 offhand penalty when using both hands at once. Coordinating two separate actions is difficult, hence the 15 dex requirement. Since everyone is already ambidextrous, TWF is about coordination. Ergo, your feat is redundant, and is probably overpowered since it removes the 15 dex requirement. As for the 1/2 strength to your off-hand weapon, think of it this way: Applying full strength to a task (such as an attack) requires putting your whole body behind it. It's not just arm strength. When you TWF, you're putting your whole body behind your primary attack, whereas your offhand attack has to make do with just arm strength. In game terms, a person wielding a two handed weapon only gets a 1.5 strength multiplier bonus. This person has their full body weight and strength behind both hands they can't get more than a 1.5x bonus. It doesn't make sense that putting both hands on a Greatsword limits me to a 1.5x strength bonus, but swinging two longswords gives me a full strength bonus to both (i.e. a 2x strength bonus.) Ergo, your feat is imbalanced since it is inconsistent with existing strength bonus rules and isn't "logical." Just say No. Therefore, for the three reasons given above, your ambidextrous feat is a bad idea because it is redundant and breaks the strength bonus rules paradigm. Now if you wanted to add a feat called Greater TWF Coordination that reduced the penalties by -1 you could. However, such a feat should be in line with the existing Greater TWF feats (high dex requirements, part of a chain, and add an int requirement and maybe can only be used with weapons you have a weapon focus in.)
Thiez 06-21-07, 10:23 AM	As for the 1/2 strength to your off-hand weapon, think of it this way: Applying full strength to a task (such as an attack) requires putting your whole body behind it. It's not just arm strength. When you TWF, you're putting your whole body behind your primary attack, whereas your offhand attack has to make do with just arm strength. In game terms, a person wielding a two handed weapon only gets a 1.5 strength multiplier bonus. This person has their full body weight and strength behind both hands they can't get more than a 1.5x bonus. It doesn't make sense that putting both hands on a Greatsword limits me to a 1.5x strength bonus, but swinging two longswords gives me a full strength bonus to both (i.e. a 2x strength bonus.) The Uncanny Blow ability (Exotic Weapon Master, Complete Warrior) lets you use x2 your strenght modifier when you wield a one-handed weapon in two hands. Strangely enough, it doesn't allow you to do this with a two-handed weapon. Does that even make sense? :(
risner 06-21-07, 10:24 AM	Got to give you a big thumbs up Stoicfaux, that was a marvelous post. It was very well written and pointed out the majority (if not all) of the reasons a feat like the OP wants is wrong and damaging to the game. Now if you wanted to add a feat called Greater TWF Coordination that reduced the penalties by -1 you could. However, such a feat should be in line with the existing Greater TWF feats (high dex requirements, part of a chain, and add an int requirement and maybe can only be used with weapons you have a weapon focus in.) Perfect Ambidexterity: Pre-Reqs: Dex 21, Int 13, Greater Two Weapon Fighting Benefit: When fighting with two weapons and you have Weapon Focus with both weapons, your two weapon fighting penalties are reduce by 1 again. One Handed off-hand would then be -3 and -3; Light off-hand would then be -1 and -1.
Thiez 06-21-07, 10:50 AM	Perfect Ambidexterity: Pre-Reqs: Dex 21, Int 13, Greater Two Weapon Fighting Benefit: When fighting with two weapons and you have Weapon Focus with both weapons, your two weapon fighting penalties are reduce by 1 again. One Handed off-hand would then be -3 and -3; Light off-hand would then be -1 and -1. I can't imagine someone taking that feat. Ever. Like, it costs 3 feats just to qualify, and GTWF requires a BAB of +11. So soonest you'll get this feat is at 12th level (assuming you got GTWF at 11th level, normally you won't get it there unless you multi in fighter or go plain ranger).
stoicfaux 06-21-07, 12:20 PM	The Uncanny Blow ability (Exotic Weapon Master, Complete Warrior) lets you use x2 your strenght modifier when you wield a one-handed weapon in two hands. Strangely enough, it doesn't allow you to do this with a two-handed weapon. Does that even make sense? :( Class and prestige class abilities are often much more powerful than feats because spending a level in a class is much more of a commitment than a buying a feat. In order to get that 2x strength bonus you need: - Craft(weaponsmithing) 3 ranks - Exotic Weapon Proficiency - Weapon Focus in that Exotic Weapon - take a level of Exotic Weapon Master just so you can apply that strength bonus to a single one-handed exotic weapon. Plus there's the opportunity cost. You could have instead chosen Flurry of Strikes, or Twin Exotic Weapon Fighting (which, by the way, reduces the TWF penalty to -1 when TWF'ing with the same light exotic weapon in each hand...) However, the real question should be, why can't I be a Weapon Master instead of being limited to an Exotic Weapon master? Why can I super-train in Bastard Sword but not in Greatsword? :D Twin Exotic Weapon Fighting is another reason why a feat shouldn't reduce the TWF penalties to -1. It sets a strong precedent that it requires a class level to get that kind of TWF ability.
risner 06-21-07, 01:22 PM	I can't imagine someone taking that feat. Ever. I can't help that you have never done the math to see this feat at 12th would be one of the best feat (mechanically) you could take with the exception of Weapon Specialization and Melee Weapon Mastery. If you mean that "I would not take this until I had Weapon Specialization and Melee Weapon Mastery first", then I'd agree with you. But any way you slice it, you are better off going with feats that substantially improve you average damage per round. This is one of the few feats that do so, and it would be in the top 5 or so of that class.
LoreleiIsildae 06-21-07, 04:51 PM	It's redundant and overpowered, for the following reasons: Everyone is already ambidextrous. Being ambidextrous means you can use either hand equally well. However, that doesn't mean that you're coordinated enough to use both hands at once. You can write or throw equally well with your left or right hand. But you can't do two things at once without difficulty. You can change which hand is primary in order to eliminate the off-hand penalty. http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/rg/20060829a The game rules don’t really care about whether you’re right-handed or left-handed, and it’s even OK to change your off hand designation from one round to the next. Ergo, everyone can use their left and right hands equally well, thus making everyone ambidextrous, thus making your feat redundant. The TWF feat represents the ability to use both hands at once. TWF removes the -4 offhand penalty when using both hands at once. Coordinating two separate actions is difficult, hence the 15 dex requirement. Since everyone is already ambidextrous, TWF is about coordination. Ergo, your feat is redundant, and is probably overpowered since it removes the 15 dex requirement. Your right in saying that the rules don't care about you being right or left handed, and that it doesn't specifically state that you can't switch your primary and off hands from round to round. However, some things don't need to be written down to be understood. "Primary" hand implies that whether your right or left handed, whichever hand you use the most and are stronger with is your primary hand, and whichever is the weaker is your off hand. If you have a longsword in your primary hand and a dagger in your off hand, are you going to take the time in a battle to move your longsword to the other hand? No, you're going to keep it in the hand that you are strongest with. So "it’s even OK to change your off hand designation from one round to the next" makes no sense whatsoever. "Ergo, everyone can use their left and right hands equally well, thus making everyone ambidextrous, thus making your feat redundant." I'm sorry, but that's just wrong. Very few people are actually ambidextrous. Your reasoning that everyone is ambidextrous because TWF doesn't specify you can't change your primary and off hands is ludicrous. I won't pretend I know how to wield a sword, but I know that without training you can seriously injure yourself. TWF is the same thing: you are trained to wield two melee weapons at once so that you don't end up hurting yourself. TWF does NOT make you ambidextrous. "Being ambidextrous means you can use either hand equally well. However, that doesn't mean that you're coordinated enough to use both hands at once. You can write or throw equally well with your left or right hand. But you can't do two things at once without difficulty." I agree with you on this. But a character does not use both hands at the same time with TWF. Each attack is a separate movement. "I slash downward with my longsword in my primary hand, and then thrust forward with my dagger." The only thing I can think of using both weapons at the same time would be either Two Weapon Pounce or Two Weapon Rend. I also agree that the OPs idea of Ambidexterity needs to be fixed, but can be done in such a way that doesn't make it redundant or broken. As I stated before: make the prereqs DEX 17, TWF, Improved TWF, and a BAB of +8 or +9. Weapon Focus with the off hand weapon would probably be a good idea as well. Then lessen the TWF penalties by 1 or 2. And since few people are born with ambidexterity, I would say that taking the feat at first level is a no-no (even though I might have said otherwise earlier). It should be something that you work towards. As for the strength multiplier, I would say eliminate it for both hands. Only your normal strength bonus would apply, since you would be moving too quickly to put extra force behind each attack.
stoicfaux 06-21-07, 06:31 PM	...snip... Wants realistic handedness rules ...snip... If you want to implement handedness, then you would still use TWF to be ambidextrous. Here's why: a) Using your offhand invokes a -4 penalty (PHB, pg 311) b) Look at the TWF penalties on pg 160 of the PHB. TWF provides two benefits, b1) it removes the -4 offhand penalty. (Which makes you ambidextrous.) b2) it also provides a +2 to attacks with two weapons. (Which makes you more coordinated when using both hands at once.) Thus, there's no need for a separate Ambidextrous feat if you want to require characters to be right or left handed. However, could create a TWF Lite feat that simply removes the -4 off hand penalty. (You get b1, but not b2.) Maybe give it a lower requirement of 13 dex. However, if the character later took the TWF feat, the TWF feat would supercede the TWF Lite feat. (Your call on whether to "refund" the now obsolete feat, or you could automatically upgrade TWF Lite to full TWF if the character's dex ever hits 15..) A person could use TWF Lite/Ambidextrous to use a longsword in either hand. However, if that person wanted to fight with two weapons, he would be at -6, -6. New TWF Table (pg 160 of PHB) Normal penalties -6 -10 Off-hand weapon is light -4 -8 TWF Lite/Ambidextrous -6 -6 Off-hand weapon is light and TWF Lite/Ambidextrous -4 -4 Two-Weapon Fighting feat -4 -4 Off-hand weapon is light and Two-Weapon Fighting feat -2 -2 However, more often than not, people who want to be ambidextrous also expect to be able to do things with both hands at the same time (the b2 benefit,) so you're better off with just using the TWF feat. In no case should a TWF Lite/Ambidextrous feat stack with TWF.
risner 06-21-07, 11:39 PM	I'm sorry, but that's just wrong. Very few people are actually ambidextrous ... TWF does NOT make you ambidextrous. Good reasoning, false conclusion. TWF includes the benefits of the 3.0 Ambidexterity feat. So by RAW, logic, and everything else in 3.5 D&D, if you have the TWF feat, you are ambidextrous.
LoreleiIsildae 06-22-07, 12:05 AM	What's wrong with reducing the TWF penalty a fraction? It doesn't break, overpower or overbalance anything as far as I can see. Ambidexterity: You lessen the penalties for TWF by 2. Therefor, you take a -2/-2 when wielding two weapons, or no penalty when the off hand weapon is light. If you have Improved TWF or Greater TWF, your penalties are reduced to -3 and -8 for your off hand. See previous posts for my proposed prerequisites. If anyone would bother to read the entire thread, I mentioned that there is precedence with certain ranged feats. Improved Rapid Shot: Eliminates the -2 for Rapid Shot. Improved Mounted Archery: Eliminates the penalty for using a bow while the mount takes a double move and lessens the penalty to -2 on a mount's run. And as far as a powerful feat that blows this proposed feat out of the water: Greater Manyshot. Stoicfaux, I understand your arguments about TWF as it is in the PHB. This is simply one of those instances where I disagree with what's written down in the PHB. As far as game mechanics go, I think it could be reworked. I know, I know, rules are rules and until the rules change, they'll stay the way they are no matter what I think. So in the interim, perhaps calling the proposed feat Ambidexterity should change to say...Zen TWF? (Nothing like Zen Archery.) I thought of Perfect TWF, but that's been taken.
unundindur 06-22-07, 09:34 AM	Ambidexterity (General) You were born ambidextrous. You have no off hand. Prerequisite: Character Level 1st. Benefit: You do not suffer the standard -4 penalty incurred by attacking with the off hand. You add your full strength bonus to attacks made with your second hand(s). In addition, your penalties on attack rolls for fighting with two weapons are reduced by 1. Normal: See Two-Weapon Fighting, page 160 PHB, and Table 8-10: Two-Weapon Fighting Penalties, page 160 PHB. Initially, I wanted the feat to eliminate all penalties incurred by fighting with a light weapon in the off hand when used in conjunction with the Two-Weapon Fighting feat, but that seemed too powerful. As it stands, this is a powerful feat, but the fact that it can only be taken at 1st level somewhat limits it. Does this feat, as I have presented it, seem balanced? While this may sound like I am beeing ironic its my honest oppinion: You cannot break twp, its weak anyway, and this is a slight step in the right direction. The problem is still that its WAY to feat-intensive. My take on it was a feat that granted you the benefit of twp, itwp and gtwf and a few other natural appendages but only allowed sneak attack with one attack. If interrested I can find the thread (takes some work though :P)
unundindur 06-22-07, 09:39 AM	Here is the link s&bVStwfVSthf (http://boards1.wizards.com/showthread.php?t=759713&highlight=unundindur)
Frugal 06-22-07, 10:21 AM	Here is the link s&bVStwfVSthf (http://boards1.wizards.com/showthread.php?t=759713&highlight=unundindur) I only quickly skimmed the 1st post and then tried to find your mentioned new fix on the 4th page but couldn't find it. Could you post a link to the actual post? People can set how many posts appear on one page so page numbers aren't a very reliable way to reference things on the boards. I think the big issue with TWF is that currently it's extremely feat intensive but yet under certain circumstances can be extremely powerful. It gives you more attacks at a slight expense to accuracy so anything that gives you more damage (or a tactical advantage) without any sacrifice in accuracy are tremendously effective with it. Damage-wise, sneak attack and favoured enemy spring to mind. Tactically, tripping disarming and sundering can all be very effective with TWF too. So the question really is should a straight meleeist be able to do well with TWF or not? Is it a problem that they aren't? If we accept that it is a problem, how do we improve their capability without making it overpowered for those that are effective with it?
risner 06-22-07, 11:17 AM	What's wrong with reducing the TWF penalty a fraction? It doesn't break, overpower or overbalance anything as far as I can see. Improved Rapid Shot: Eliminates the -2 for Rapid Shot. And as far as a powerful feat that blows this proposed feat out of the water: Greater Manyshot. Because it gives a greater bonus to hit than any other single feat? That is what is wrong with this Ambidextery feat. It is overpowered and overbalanced. Your reference material is flawed: Improved Rapid Shot removes the -2 for ONE attack (the rest of your shots take the -2 penalty.) So it is a +2 to one attack during a special maneuver. Greater Manyshot doesn't give you any bonuses to hit, it just allows the multiple shots you get from Manyshot to target different targets. Also, unundindur, TWF is absolutely not weak. At least not statistically/mechanically.
obsidianprism 06-22-07, 02:36 PM	I won't pretend I know how to wield a sword, but I know that without training you can seriously injure yourself. TWF is the same thing: you are trained to wield two melee weapons at once so that you don't end up hurting yourself. TWF does NOT make you ambidextrous. I WILL pretend to know how to wield a sword, I've authorized in the SCA and agree that without serious training you can and will injure yourself. As far as whether two weapon fighting "gives" you ambidexterity, no, no it unquestionably does not. The ability to fight with two weapons is completely different, than ambidexterity. When I think ambidexterity I think of someone who can fight equally well with both right and left hand, and switch hands at will. When someone is trained in two weapon fighting it just means that have learned to use an off hand weapon really really well. It does not mean they can switch weapons from hand to hand and fight equally well with either hand. Ambidexterity gives you two primary hands, two weapon fighting does not. I do agree that there should be a progression of feats that would have steep requirements. Keep in mind that a lot of this comes from actual training and how body/arm mechanics work with and against a weapons speed, accuracy and power. First you learn mechanics, then accuracy, then speed and power. Feel free to critique: Ambidexterity After extensive training you have the ability to hit with more accuracy and precision than before. Prerequisites: Combat Expertise, Two Weapon Fighting, Dex 17 and BAB +8 Benefit: Your attack penalties from using two weapons decrease by 1. Normal: When Fighting with two weapons and using the Two Weapon Fighting Feat, you take a -2 to both attacks if off hand weapon is light, and a –6 to off hand attack is the off hand weapon is not light. Improved Ambidexterity After training in the accuracy and precision of two weapon fighting, you can now deal more power with every blow. Prerequisites: Ambidexterity, Str 15, Dex 19, BAB +12 Benefit: When you make an attack with your off hand, you may add your full Str to damage. Normal: You only add 1/2 your Str bonus to off hand attacks. Greater Ambidexterity After extensive training you have mastered how to wield your chosen tools of your trade. Prerequisites: Improved Ambidexterity, Weapon Focus, Dex 21, Str 17, BAB +16 Benefit: When wielding a medium weapon for your size in both your hands from which you have taken Weapon Focus for, you may treat either weapon as light for the purposes of the Two Weapon Fighting feat. If Tordek has both Weapon Focus (Warhammer) and Weapon Focus (Dwarven Waraxe) and wields a Warhammer in one hand, and a Dwarven Waraxe in the other, he may treat either weapon as a light weapon for the purposes of fighting with two weapons receiving only a –1 penalty to each attack made. Normal: When wielding a two medium weapon you receive a –5 penalty to attack made with the second weapon. The last feat is from watching my knight wield two long swords simultaneously, switch stances, striking range, and technique with both weapons and in the middle of a fight adjusting to his opponents moves. This is in no offense to LoreleiIsildae, I just wanted to use her quote as a start to my post, thank you for your input.
risner 06-22-07, 04:51 PM	Ambidexterity Benefit: Your attack penalties from using two weapons decrease by 1. Improved Ambidexterity Benefit: When you make an attack with your off hand, you may add your full Str to damage. Greater Ambidexterity Benefit: When wielding a medium weapon for your size in both your hands from which you have taken Weapon Focus for, you may treat either weapon as light for the purposes of the Two Weapon Fighting feat. Your Ambidexterity is worth a "Weapon Focus" feat in two weapons and stacks with Weapon Focus. If you are ok with that level of power increase putting that feat on par with Melee Weapon Mastery, then go ahead. Improved Ambidexterity is better in every way than Hammer Fist. H.F. doesn't work with Flurry or TWF or any other weapon or object in your hands. It is also race specific (limited to Dwarves.) So your feat is: 1) not limited to a race. 2) not restricted in TWF or Flurry. 3) not restricting what you have in your hands. That is a massive power grab for one feat. It clearly is more than a feat (even a heavy pre-req feat) can provide. Greater Ambidexterity is the worst of the bunch. This feat, without a doubt, is the best mechanical feat in the game. +4 to hit with any one handed weapon and +2 to hit with another weapon.
DreadArchon 06-22-07, 05:43 PM	Greater Ambidexterity is the worst of the bunch. This feat, without a doubt, is the best mechanical feat in the game. +4 to hit with any one handed weapon and +2 to hit with another weapon. Oh whoop-dee-doo. You mean I can become competent with TWF'ing for only, what, four extra feats? With huge MAD? At high levels? Wheeeee. And this is better than Epic Leadership? Power Attack? Spirited Charge? Divine Metamagic? Shock Trooper? Epic Spellcasting? Automatic Quicken Spell? Divine Splendor (okay, not really a feat... :P )? Even if someone took these feats--which, I suppose, some people might find both a way and a reason to--they wouldn't exactly be breaking the game. But even if they were good feats, they certainly wouldn't deserve so much hyperbole.
stoicfaux 06-22-07, 06:05 PM	You made a mistake with the TWF feat numbers which throws off your feats. Ambidexterity Normal: When Fighting with two weapons and using the Two Weapon Fighting Feat, you take a -2 to both attacks if off hand weapon is light, and a –6 to off hand attack is the off hand weapon is not light. Greater Ambidexterity Normal: When wielding a two medium weapon you receive a –5 penalty to attack made with the second weapon. The -5 and -6 are incorrect. The penalties for TWF are -2/-2 with offhand light, and -4/-4 if not. Nitpick. Let's rename the feats. (See table at end.) TWF becomes Ambidextrous. You're good at using either hand. * It removes the -4 offhand penalty. So you can swing a sword either left or right handed with no penalty. * It gives you a coordination bonus when swinging two weapons: -2/-2 with light offhand, -4/-4 otherwise. Greater Ambidextrous becomes TWF: * It reduces two weapon fighting penalties by an additional -1. * You may treat a medium weapon as light for purposes of TWF if you have Weapon Focus for that weapon. So: -3/-3 if using two medium weapons without a Weapon Focus -2/-2 if one of the medium weapons is a Weapon Focus -1/-1 if one weapon is light -1/-1 if using two medium weapons with Weapon Focus in one Improved Ambidexterity becomes Power TWF. It lets you use your full strength bonus for both weapons when two weapon fighting. Final TWF table: Normal penalties -6 -10 Off-hand weapon is light -4 -8 Ambidextrous feat -4 -4 (See how -4 offhand penalty disappears?) Two Weapon Fighting feat -3 -3 Off-hand weapon is light and Ambidextrous feat -2 -2 Off-hand is light and -1 -1 Two Weapon Fighting feat Two medium weapons, Weapon Focus in one of the Medium Weapons, and Two Weapon Fighting feat -1 -1 Power Two Weapon Fighting - Full Strength bonus to both hands
risner 06-22-07, 06:08 PM	1) And this is better than Epic Leadership? 2) Power Attack? 3) Spirited Charge? 4) Divine Metamagic? 5) Shock Trooper? 6) Epic Spellcasting? 7) Automatic Quicken Spell? 8) Divine Splendor (okay, not really a feat... :P )? 9) Even if someone took these feats--which, I suppose, some people might find both a way and a reason to--they wouldn't exactly be breaking the game. 1) These are probably not better. 2) Absolutely better than Power Attack, no doubt better except in combat with super low AC monster or extreme over CR overwhelming encounters (where Power Attack is better.) 3) Absolutely better 4) Better, because it is an always on benefit. After a few spells, the TWF ambidexterity feats will greatly out damage the DMM Cleric because he ran out of turning attempts. 5) Absolutely better 6) These are probably not better. 7) These are probably not better if you can do the Quicken an infinite number of times. Absolutely better if the Quicken is limited to X/day. 8) No idea on that ability. 9) No sane person would pass up these feats if they decided to go TWF, period. If you did, that is like a Wizard deciding he wants to use a Greatsword and never cast a spell.
Thiez 06-22-07, 08:26 PM	There is nothing better than divine metamagick.
LoreleiIsildae 06-22-07, 08:34 PM	Because it gives a greater bonus to hit than any other single feat? That is what is wrong with this Ambidextery feat. It is overpowered and overbalanced. Your reference material is flawed: Improved Rapid Shot removes the -2 for ONE attack (the rest of your shots take the -2 penalty.) So it is a +2 to one attack during a special maneuver. Greater Manyshot doesn't give you any bonuses to hit, it just allows the multiple shots you get from Manyshot to target different targets. Also, unundindur, TWF is absolutely not weak. At least not statistically/mechanically. Sorry risner, but unless you're privvy to new errata not yet posted, I suggest you check the Complete Warrior. "Benefit: When using the Rapid Shot feat, you may ignore the -2 penalty on all your ranged attack rolls." Page 101. ALL of your ranged attack rolls. As for Greater Manyshot, try going back and reading page 1 of this thread, where I stated that while it doesn't reduce any penalties, it does let you make each attack roll separately, you can fire at multiple targets, you can crit on each arrow, and you can apply precision based damage such as sneak attack to each arrow, all in a standard action. If you're an 12th level scout wielding a longbow with Greater Manyshot, you would get 3d8 plus 9d6 damage if all of your attack rolls were successful. And if you're using a composite longbow, you get to add your strength rating damage to each one too. Which is, like I said enough times before, a lot more powerful than what has been proposed in this thread. Edit: Greater Manyshot can be found in the Expanded Psionics Handbook, page 47 for those without the reference material. I also see that you didn't mention Improved Mounted Archery in my quote. Basing your argument on only certain aspects of another's and discarding what is inconvenient to you does not help your cause any. Edit: Improved Mounted archery is found in the Complete Warrior, page 101. So no, by eliminating the TWF penalties, it doesn't give a greater bonus than any other feat. Obsidianprism, no offense taken.
Tytalus 06-22-07, 09:07 PM	Good reasoning, false conclusion. TWF includes the benefits of the 3.0 Ambidexterity feat. So by RAW, logic, and everything else in 3.5 D&D, if you have the TWF feat, you are ambidextrous. Strong words, but that's doesn't make it RAW. Maybe TWF was supposed to do that, but the 3.5 feat text does not include it. By RAW, it does not make you ambidextrous, you merely "can fight with a weapon in each hand". A lot of things were changed in 3.5, this is among them. To quote the 3.5 core rules update booklet: "Many old feats changed significantly.". Even if the update booklet's feat table says "Two-Weapon Fighting includes all benefits [of the two old feats]", this clearly refers to the mechanics of reducing TWF penalties only, otherwise it would be mentioned in the new TWF feat text (and, as always in the case of a discrepancy, text overrules table).
Tytalus 06-22-07, 09:14 PM	Also, unundindur, TWF is absolutely not weak. At least not statistically/mechanically. Since this is obviously only an opinion rather than a fact, I'd like to point out that on the (rules-savy) Character Optimization board, fighting with two-weapons is (rightly) generally recognized to be strictly weaker than fighting with a two-handed weapon unless you have a considerable source of additional damage (usually sneak attack damage).
DreadArchon 06-23-07, 01:15 AM	7) These are probably not better if you can do the Quicken an infinite number of times. Absolutely better if the Quicken is limited to X/day. No, you get to Quicken without penalty once per round. 8) No idea on that ability. "Everything within ten feet of you that's not a god dies." I was joking with this one, as it's technically not a feat. Also, you need to be a Rank 16 Deity to get it. 9) No sane person would pass up these feats if they decided to go TWF, period. If you did, that is like a Wizard deciding he wants to use a Greatsword and never cast a spell. Except that this tacks on four extra feats. As a Human (i.e. someone with extra feats), you have a total of 8 normal feats pre-epic. So TWF, Improved TWF, Greater TWF, Expertise, Ambidexterity, Improved Ambidexterity, Weapons Focus, and Greater Ambidexterity are ALL of your feat choices pre-Epic, unless you're a Ranger or a Fighter, and even then you need to be high level (16 bare minimum). So while your Fighter is boasting about his schmexy seven attacks at no higher than BAB+4 to hit and very little extra damage, the other guy's Fighter just did a charge action with +50 to hit for 90+ damage and Took 10 on the attack roll. If you're a Rogue--the class benefitting most from actually paying for their TWF feats--it's impossible to take this feat string pre-epic. The same goes for non-humans of most classes. Call me insane if you wish, but I still maintain that there are better Epic feats. At any rate, you also need Dex 22, Str 17, and Int 13 for this to work. Yes, it's possible, but why would you want to do it? Why are you putting 22 base Dex in what pretty much has to be a Str-based build?
obsidianprism 06-23-07, 03:28 AM	Your Ambidexterity is worth a "Weapon Focus" feat in two weapons and stacks with Weapon Focus. If you are ok with that level of power increase putting that feat on par with Melee Weapon Mastery, then go ahead. Improved Ambidexterity is better in every way than Hammer Fist. H.F. doesn't work with Flurry or TWF or any other weapon or object in your hands. It is also race specific (limited to Dwarves.) So your feat is: 1) not limited to a race. 2) not restricted in TWF or Flurry. 3) not restricting what you have in your hands. That is a massive power grab for one feat. It clearly is more than a feat (even a heavy pre-req feat) can provide. Greater Ambidexterity is the worst of the bunch. This feat, without a doubt, is the best mechanical feat in the game. +4 to hit with any one handed weapon and +2 to hit with another weapon. Once again, thank you for your input. But I see a problem with your statements. First of all; When you make a reference to something, such as Hammer Fist, or Melee Weapon Mastery, it is customary to site your sources, usually book then page number, so everyone else can see where you are coming from. I would love to counter point your argument, but since I can't find either Hammer Fist, or Melee Weapon Mastery (I don't have the book(s) where they originate) I can't. BUT since you have made a point without backing, your point has now become invalid/false. But only until you can validate them. Until then will i concede. This feat, without a doubt, is the best mechanical feat in the game. +4 to hit with any one handed weapon and +2 to hit with another weapon. Second; This is NOT a feat, it is a suggestion. If it were a feat, it would be in a book, published by Wizards and everyone would be using/complaining/arguing/errating it. But since it is a suggestion, it is subject to critique, scruples, and the like. Third; I have noticed that you have taken it upon your self to deem what is and isn't worthy/broken/overpowered etc. But you have yet to put in your own two cents on how to fix these PURPOSED feats. Since you obviously consider yourself just in your actions of placing a passing or failing grade on the opinions of others. I, (and I'm probably not alone here) would love to have your insight onto what these feat should look like, rather than what they shouldn't look like. Personally, I like the critique, its how people fine tune things, get things game ready and balanced. I would just like to know in which direction Your Humble Opinion would be. LoreleiIsildae, thank you again for your graciousness.
unundindur 06-23-07, 08:31 AM	Also, unundindur, TWF is absolutely not weak. At least not statistically/mechanically. Well, TWF is good if you create a completely munchkin build, either as a rogue or (I have heard) a barbarian. That does not make two-weapon fighting not weak, it makes is super-weak EXCEPT in certain specialized scenarios. Untill two-weapon fighting is viable for a bard and a fighter as equal choices to sword&board and two-handed fighting WITHOUT spending all your feats go get even I cannot agree. If you can counter this argument I will absolutely listen. PS: The thread I posted have a LOT of statistic material on the issue.
Frugal 06-23-07, 10:26 AM	Well, TWF is good if you create a completely munchkin build, either as a rogue or (I have heard) a barbarian. That does not make two-weapon fighting not weak, it makes is super-weak EXCEPT in certain specialized scenarios. Untill two-weapon fighting is viable for a bard and a fighter as equal choices to sword&board and two-handed fighting WITHOUT spending all your feats go get even I cannot agree. If you can counter this argument I will absolutely listen. PS: The thread I posted have a LOT of statistic material on the issue. As I mentioned earlier, the issues is how do you fix it for the fighter or bard and not make it even better for the builds that excel at it?
obsidianprism 06-23-07, 01:54 PM	Well, TWF is good if you create a completely munchkin build, either as a rogue or (I have heard) a barbarian. That does not make two-weapon fighting not weak, it makes is super-weak EXCEPT in certain specialized scenarios. Untill two-weapon fighting is viable for a bard and a fighter as equal choices to sword&board and two-handed fighting WITHOUT spending all your feats go get even I cannot agree. If you can counter this argument I will absolutely listen. PS: The thread I posted have a LOT of statistic material on the issue. Well... A fighter by level 20 has 11 bonus feats and 7 feats gained by level for a total of 18 feats (19 if human). If you chose to combine sword and board with the TWF feats and Improved Shield Bash (PHB) you have a greater potential for damage. Especially if you pick up the Bashing ability (DMG) and add spikes to your shield (PHB) unless they don't stack, correct me if I’m wrong. Dwarven Fighter level 11 with 18str wielding a Dwarven War axe and a light spiked shield with Imp Shield Bash and the Bashing property would still have a shield bonus when he attacks with his shield and would be dealing 1d10+(4 str+enhancement) and 1d8+(2 Str+enhancements). As compared to the same fighter wielding a Great sword would have the damage line 2d6+(6 str + Enhancement). If the war axe and shield spikes had a +3 enhancement bonus it would cost you 18k in enhancements each totaling 36k for the weapons and a +1 enhancement bonus to your shield for bashing. If the same fighter was wielding a Great sword with only 36k to spend on weapons he would have a +4 total enhancement and less attacks per round, and probably throw the +1 shield enhancement cost into his Armor. Yes that increase AC by one, but that’s what the shield is for anyways. So, the fighter with the board with TWF, ITWF, GTWF and IMP Shield Bash would have an attack line +16/+11/+6 (1d10+7 (4 str +3 enhancement)) +17/+12/+7 (1d8+5(2 str + *4 enhancement)) The fighter with the Great sword would have the line +19/+14/+9 (2d6+10 (6 str+ 4 enhancement) *The Bashing property increases the enhancement bonus to a shield when used for attacking. these lines don't include weapon focus, or weapon spec, also assumes he has required Dex for TWF. So for 4 out of 10 feats available to the fighter he has 6 attacks per round at level 11. this also means that the fighter still has another 8 feats to work with by level 20. I know some may agree with it and some may not but I answered the question above as best I could in the time I had. I realize its not perfect, and i already see flaws but I'm short on time today so there you go.
obsidianprism 06-23-07, 02:06 PM	Good reasoning, false conclusion. TWF includes the benefits of the 3.0 Ambidexterity feat. So by RAW, logic, and everything else in 3.5 D&D, if you have the TWF feat, you are ambidextrous. By definition, true ambidexterity makes you equally good with both hands, speed, accuracy, finesse, power, everything. agreed? good. If having TWF gives you ambidexterity, then you should be given full str in both hands, but since TWF doesn't give you full strength in both hands TWF does NOT equal to ambidexterity. It just means you are really good at using two weapons at the same time. If at anytime you are curious and would like to apply your or my theory find your local SCA charter and ask them how they apply ambidexterity and two weapon fighting, and they will tell you they are not one in the same.
risner 06-23-07, 02:54 PM	As I mentioned earlier, the issues is how do you fix it for the fighter or bard and not make it even better for the builds that excel at it? You don't, which is why you shouldn't add these feats to the game. If you make them available, then a TWF specialist will use them to great effect. Maybe TWF was supposed to do that, but the 3.5 feat text does not include it. By RAW, it does not make you ambidextrous How can you claim with a straight face that the 3.5 TWF feat does not make you ambidextrous? The update document you mention says plainly: Old feat Ambidexterity folded into Two-Weapon Fighting (Two-Weapon Fighting includes all benefits of Ambidexterity) When you make a reference to something, such as Hammer Fist, or Melee Weapon Mastery Convenient way to opt out of discussing my points (claiming you don't know these feats.) I will give you the benefit of the doubt and post my sources: Hammer Fist (Races of Faerun p164) Melee Weapon Mastery (PHB II p81) Answering your second part, here is an example of a good version: Ambidexterity Prerequisites: Weapon Focus, Two Weapon Fighting, Dex 17 and BAB +8 Benefit: Your attack penalties from using a weapon you have Weapon Focus as a primary weapon in two weapons decrease by 1. Stacks with Weapon Focus, provides an ever increasing 9.09% improvement just like Weapon Focus without making it a "absolute must have" feat for any TWF character. Improved Ambidexterity Prerequisites: Ambidexterity, Str 15, Dex 19, BAB +12 Benefit: Once per round as a free action, one of your off-hand attacks may add your full STR bonus to damage instead of the normal half STR bonus. This is a fair and balanced way to do this as a feat. Based on the Hammer Fist feat, but this has fewer restrictions. Greater Ambidexterity = Wield Oversize Weapon (an Epic feat) By definition, true ambidexterity makes you equally good with both hands, speed, accuracy, finesse, power, everything. agreed? good. If having TWF gives you ambidexterity, then you should be given full str in both hands Please don't try to justify things with real world examples. Things in this game are often contrary to real worlds examples for balance reasons. There is no reason to grant and additional 0.5 STR bonus to TWF when it can be abused by builds that are designed to be TWF builds. You can already get 2.0 STR bonus now using TWF (Two Handed Weapon with two hands at 1.5 + TWF Armour Spikes at 0.5 = 2.0) There is absolutely no reason to make that 2.5 (TWF Greatsword 1.5 + Armour Spikes 1.0.) If you don't see this is a dismantling of the rules and balance, then I can't help you understand.
stoicfaux 06-23-07, 03:09 PM	By definition, true ambidexterity makes you equally good with both hands, speed, accuracy, finesse, power, everything. agreed? good. If having TWF gives you ambidexterity, then you should be given full str in both hands, but since TWF doesn't give you full strength in both hands TWF does NOT equal to ambidexterity. It just means you are really good at using two weapons at the same time. If at anytime you are curious and would like to apply your or my theory find your local SCA charter and ask them how they apply ambidexterity and two weapon fighting, and they will tell you they are not one in the same. Sigh. No. For several reasons: Ambidexterity means you can use either hand equally well. You can swing a sword left handed or right handed without penalty. (In game terms, if you're not Ambidextrous, you suffer a -4 when using your offhand.) Ambidexterity does NOT mean that you're good at performing *two* tasks at once! Swinging swords in each hand requires two-handed coordination. More importantly, your mind also has to coordinate two tasks at once. (See my contrived real world example at the end.) If you really think that you can perform two actions at once because you're ambidextrous, then an Ambidextrous feat should give you more actions per round. TWF does two things to make you Ambidextrous: 1) it removes the -4 offhand penalty. Thus you are now ambidextrous and can use either hand equally well. 2) it improves your two handed coordination. Which reduces your two weapon fighting penalties by 2 for each hand. You can see this in the TWF table on pg 160 of the PHB. Singlehanded: -6 -10 TWF feat: -4 -4 Look at the numbers. The -4 off hand penalty is gone leaving you at -6 -6. Then, because you're more coordinated, you get a 2 point penalty reduction to -4 -4. TWF gives you ambidexterity and improved two-handed coordination, what's not to like?!? As for only getting 1/2 the strength bonus, there are Paradigm/Balance/Consistency reasons: 1) A two handed weapon only gets a 1.5 strength modifier. Two hands give you a 1.5 strength bonus. That 2nd hand is only worth a 50% bonus. Why should a 2nd hand used for two weapon fighting contradict that? 2) "Realism" Using your full strength requires you to put your body behind it. If you're swinging two weapons in unison, you can't put your full body behind both blows. Lastly, people asking for an Ambidextrous feat are really asking for a way to to reduce the two weapon fighting penalties even further. They want to have better two-handed coordination. Contrived Real World Example Remember the whole pat your head, rub your belly game? You can easily pat your head with either hand equally well. You can easily rub your belly with either hand equally well. Patting your head while rubbing your belly isn't easy. Being able to pat or rub with either hand is like being Ambidextrous. Being Ambidextrous doesn't mean you're coordinated enough to do both at the same time without some clumsiness.
Judging Eagle 06-29-07, 01:13 PM	Got to give you a big thumbs up Stoicfaux, that was a marvelous post. It was very well written and pointed out the majority (if not all) of the reasons a feat like the OP wants is wrong and damaging to the game. Perfect Ambidexterity: Pre-Reqs: Dex 21, Int 13, Greater Two Weapon Fighting Benefit: When fighting with two weapons and you have Weapon Focus with both weapons, your two weapon fighting penalties are reduce by 1 again. One Handed off-hand would then be -3 and -3; Light off-hand would then be -1 and -1. Sorry, that's a bad set of Pre-reqs. You can't have GTWF as the listed feat, and then add in a stealth pre-req in the form of WF. You have to either list them all or edit the benefit text. Either it's TWF & WF as Pre-Reqs, or it's GTWF and you use it with any weapons. Personally, I'd simply make it a pre-req of ITWF and usable with any weapon. Also, you people seem to think that "Roll 4d6, re-roll 1's (and 2's)" is the standard way to play the game. It's bloody not. Seriously, 25 point-buy is the standard around which all the monsters were designed against. Feats were also designed around this as well. As such, having retardedly high stat pre-reqs is basically saying: "only people who get to roll their dice can get this feat, and even then only if they're lucky." Which is a bad premise, since it means that unless you play an overpowered character, you don't get nice things. Perfect Ambidexterity: Pre-Reqs: Dex 15, Int 13 or Wis 13, Improved Two Weapon Fighting Benefit: When fighting with two weapons your two weapon fighting penalties are reduce by 1 again. One Handed off-hand would then be -3 and -3; Light off-hand would then be -1 and -1.
rkun 06-29-07, 05:53 PM	i use the 1st level or TWF dex 15 (since ITWF is 17) as my prereqs. but aside, there is absolutely nothing unbalancing about the feat. no one has mentioned the monks flurry of blows, wich flavor text wise is different but is mechanicaly the same. a monk has no "off hand" (thus "off hands" are real and you can not be both right and left handed at any given moment) so his full str is added to damage. also the monk loses the -2/-2 penalty over time (-0/-0). also as others have mentioned, improved rapid shot feat does exactly the same thing but is the ranged equivalent. if some one wants to argue the how giving a 9th LvL class feature at 1st - 8th level is unbalancing, what about "hide in plain sight" ranger LvL 17th... or character LvL 8th with shadow dancer. i dont see how somthing as small as a +2/+2 w/ full str can be considered unbalancing when compared to a sorcerer taking PrC that has "+1 level of existing arcane spellcasting class" AND additonal class features. how could gaining an effective level AND new special abilities not be unbalancing but lessening the penalties for TWF is? in the end it comes down to a house rule, a DM's call or a parties vote.
risner 06-30-07, 02:17 PM	Sorry, that's a bad set of Pre-reqs. You can't have GTWF as the listed feat, and then add in a stealth pre-req in the form of WF. You have to either list them all or edit the benefit text. Either it's TWF & WF as Pre-Reqs, or it's GTWF and you use it with any weapons. Perfect Ambidexterity: Pre-Reqs: Dex 15, Int 13 or Wis 13, Improved Two Weapon Fighting Benefit: When fighting with two weapons your two weapon fighting penalties are reduce by 1 again. One Handed off-hand would then be -3 and -3; Light off-hand would then be -1 and -1. Who says? You? I will fix your feat to be reaonably balanced: Perfect Ambidexterity: Pre-Reqs: Dex 21, Int 13 or Wis 13, Two Weapon Fighting, Improved Two Weapon Fighting, Greater Two Weapon Fighting, Weapon Focus with both primary and secondary weapon. Benefit: When fighting with two weapons that you have weapon focus your two weapon fighting penalties are reduce by 1 again. One Handed off-hand would then be -3 and -3; Light off-hand would then be -1 and -1. You need the following: 1) Limited to close to epic levels (Dex 21.) 2) Limited to Weapon Focus weapons. 3) Limited to All TWF feats. If you absolutely MUST remove some of the pre-reqs, moving it down to Improved Two Weapon Fighting instead of Greater Two Weapon Fighting may be ok. If you don't do these things, then you create a feat that is on par with class abilities and is is squarely in the realm of "mechanically top 2 or 3 feat" value. It is ok to hand out a feat this good when you stack it on the end of a 4 or 5 feat chain, but not ok (on balanced) when you hand it out for the price of a slice of pie (no price other than a feat slot.) no one has mentioned the monks flurry of blows, ... monk loses the -2/-2 penalty over time (-0/-0). i dont see how somthing as small as a +2/+2 w/ full str can be considered unbalancing Flurry is a high level (6th to 11th) class ability, it can be more powerful than a feat. Also, afaik it has been mentioned previously. If you don't see it, you may wish to do some math. I can provide it if you wish.
Ages_Defiance 06-30-07, 09:24 PM	ok first of all do what you want to. but i like to think of this as real as possible. alright lets say you have a 20th level fighter with the twf tree(thats all no magik anything else)in order of attack 20/20/15/15/10/10/5 that is to make you just as good with one arm as the other. but since you are not Ambidexterous you incur a -2 penalty. you are attacking 7 times in six seconds not that easy. Ambidexterity loosly translated into the mechanics of D&D would relate to attack modifiers. the definition is using both hands with equal ease you are always going to have an off hand mine is my left it will never have the same capacity for exertion as my right. that said it is possible to train myself that way however it would require the complete trade off of all mundane tasks and exersises. it wont come from simply using both hands or arms. because you still brush your teeth with your primary hand, write, point, wipe, eat/drink, ect.
TaiSharShaidar 07-01-07, 12:00 AM	If I am reading this correctly, it has been said that no feat removes a -2/-2 penalty from a TWF chain and thus any feat that does so is over powered. This is not actually the case there is a feat that does just that Oversized TWF (Complete Adventurer pg 111) allows you to treat a one handed weapon as a light effectively reducing your TWF penalties by -2/-2. And its Prerequisites are no where near the insane ones you have posted at only TWF and 13 str.
rkun 07-01-07, 06:01 PM	i seriously still can not see how a +2/+2 can be so unbalancing that it should be nigh epic when there are other feats that do the same thing: improved rapid shot & oversized two weapon fighting. also the monks flurry is alleviated at 5th and 9th level not 6th and 11th. one more note as far as a comparison of unbalancing game mechanis: Rapid shot says "you can get one extra attack per round with a ranged weapon." the feat does not designate wich ranged weapons can be used so by default ALL ranged weapons can be used. that being said i could use a heavy cross bow and fire twice in a single round (even though it takes a full round action to reload), this combined with improved rapid shot allows me to fire twice at no penalty and when use in conjunction cross bow sniper allows me to add half my dex to damage. when i compare the above combination of feats to the "ambidexterity" i cant see how others can see this unbalancing. final note, it seem alot of people are hung up on the name "abidexterity" with the arguements off hands and how everyone is abidexterious and how TWF already takes this into acount and ect. ect. ect. what if the feat was just call "perfect TWF" or "TWF affinity". it seems alot of people would have less to argue about.
stoicfaux 07-02-07, 02:53 AM	i seriously still can not see how a +2/+2 can be so unbalancing that it should be nigh epic when there are other feats that do the same thing: improved rapid shot & oversized two weapon fighting. Nah. From a fluff/logic point of view: - with bows you're using a single weapon very quickly, thus easier to coordinate your actions - with two weapons, you'd need to be an Ettin with one head controlling each arm. From a game point of view, you can do a lot more with melee weapons than you can with a bow. Out of the box, you can use melee weapons for AOOs, sunder, disarm, etc.. Doing so with bows requires feats. Plus bows have ammo limitations, whereas melee weapons are "infinite." Maybe improved rapid shot is there to throw bow users a bone. also the monks flurry is alleviated at 5th and 9th level not 6th and 11th. Five or nine class levels to reduce the penalty for flurry of blows, and flurry of blows can only be performed using unarmed strikes or monk weapons. *shrug* one more note as far as a comparison of unbalancing game mechanis: Rapid shot says "you can get one extra attack per round with a ranged weapon." the feat does not designate wich ranged weapons can be used so by default ALL ranged weapons can be used. that being said i could use a heavy cross bow and fire twice in a single round (even though it takes a full round action to reload), Nah. I'm thinking that most DMs would still require you to follow the reload rules for heavy crossbows. However, the Rapid Reload feat would allow you to Rapid Shot with a light crossbow. final note, it seem alot of people are hung up on the name "abidexterity" with the arguements off hands and how everyone is abidexterious and how TWF already takes this into acount and ect. ect. ect. what if the feat was just call "perfect TWF" or "TWF affinity". it seems alot of people would have less to argue about. Call it Ettin Two Weapon Fighting. Your grow a second head to completely coordinate independent actions performed with each hand. :D
rkun 07-02-07, 04:01 AM	it would be (and is) called "Superior Two-weapon Fighting"