New Trait: Ambedexterous, Tall, and Short [Archive] - Wizards Community

New Trait: Ambedexterous, Tall, and Short [Archive] - Wizards Community

Post/Author/DateTime Post
Xeviat-DM
07-28-04, 08:57 PM Wow, having a little writer's block here, so I'll be simple. I personally feel that there should be more differentiation between ambidexterous people and unidexterous people, and the trait system is the perfect way to do it. I believe that someone who is naturally ambidexterous should be better at two weapon fighting than someone who isn't, but I don't think that ambidexterity should be required for two weapon fighting. Unidexterous people will have to have some incentive to use a one handed and a light weapon, while ambidexterous people will stick with two paired weapons.

First off, an Ambidexterity feat should remove the -4 penalty for checks made with your offhand. I'm not sure what would be the balancing factor, because I haven't researched ambidexterous persons enough. Maybe someone here can come up with an idea.

As for Tall and Short, a friend once stated to me that there wasn't enough differentiation of sizes within a size category. I'm six foot, and one of my friends is just over five foot. If I shove the smaller friend, I have a much easier time doing it.

So the idea was that small and large would some of the bonuses and penalties of being smaller or larger sized, but not enough to warrent the power gain that being larger grants, or the slight power loss that being small grants.

Tall could grant +2 to trip, bullrush, overrun, and grapples, but -2 to hide and -1 to AC for being a larger target. Short would grant +2 to hide and +1 to AC for being a smaller target, but -2 to trip, bullrush, overrun, and grapples. What do you think about that?
JoshRodriguez
07-29-04, 02:32 PM Ambidexterity used to be a feat in 3.0 but was eventually rolled into Two Weapon Fighting.

From a pure mechanics standpoint ambidexterity shouldn't matter much in the highly abstracted combat mechanics. Additionally, the dexterity requirement for the feat is supposed to reflect an innate ambidexterous ability. But that's not what you want to hear so I suggest the following:

Ambidexterous:
You're equally good with both hands and have an easier time fighting with two weapons than most, granting a +1 attack bonus when weilding two weapons. However, since you can weild all weapons with equal ease you do not gain any benefit from weilding a light weapon in your "off-hand."

This should leave anyone taking this ability with a -3/-3 attack penalty when using TWF regardless of the type of weapons used.
JoshRodriguez
07-29-04, 02:37 PM Ambidexterity used to be a feat in 3.0 but was eventually rolled into Two Weapon Fighting.

From a pure mechanics standpoint ambidexterity shouldn't matter much in the highly abstracted combat mechanics. Additionally, the dexterity requirement for the feat is supposed to reflect an innate ambidexterous ability. But that's not what you want to hear so I suggest the following:

Ambidexterous:
You're equally good with both hands and have an easier time fighting with two weapons than most, granting a +1 attack bonus when weilding two weapons. However, since you can weild all weapons with equal ease you do not gain any benefit from weilding a light weapon in your "off-hand."

This should leave anyone taking this ability with a -3/-3 attack penalty when using TWF regardless of the type of weapons used.
Xeviat-DM
07-29-04, 06:06 PM That would only hurt them, but then they'd stick with two one-handed weapons.
JoshRodriguez
07-30-04, 01:06 PM Not really. It provides a benefit and conferrs an equal penalty, which is what traits are supposed to do. If you feel that ambidexterity shouldn't confir any penalties, then make it a feat instead.

I spent a while thinking about it and I really couldn't come up with any other way of balancing the trait. I am sorry for this. I am sorry I failed you.
Nylkran
07-30-04, 01:56 PM Well I'll give it a shot

Trait:

Ambidexterity:

Your hands are skilled atusing both your hands with perfect hand to eye coordination, however your hands cannot wield heavy weapons.

The penalties for TWF are negated, this only applies if both weapons are light, (or a double weapon), and you are wielding the same weapon in each hand, (for example 2 Shortswords or 2 Daggers or 2 Rapiers, etc...).

When using different light weapons in each hand the TWF are restored to -2, when using One-handed weapons the character incurs on a -3, penalty to attack rolls, when using Two-handed, (including Bows), weapons the penalty is increased to - 4.

Note: the character can still use just light one weapon and incur no penalties, (as long as he doesn't use TWF), meaning that you could use just one Rapier or Shortsword or Fist, as long as TWF is not used.
Nylkran
07-30-04, 01:56 PM Double Post.
MadBlue
08-03-04, 10:22 AM I think Ambidexterity should be a Feat instead of a Trait (there really shouldn't be a penalty involved with being ambidextrous).

Ambidexterity [GENERAL]
Prerequisite: Dex 15
Benefit: You have no penalty for wielding a One-Handed weapon in either hand and your full Strength bonus applies to damage with a One-Handed weapon used in either hand. Similarly, skill checks that confer a penalty for using one's off-hand do not apply to you. Note, Ambidexterity doesn't make you more skilled in fighting with two weapons, and one hand (either one) must be designated as an "Off Hand" regarding penalties and damage when fighting with a weapon in each hand, or a double weapon.

Improved Ambidexterity [GENERAL]
Prerequisite: Dex 17, Ambidexterity, BAB +5
Benefit: Both your hands are treated as Primary Hands regarding penalties and damage when fighting with a weapon in each hand or a double weapon.

Realistically, Ambidexterity should help with fighting with a weapon in each hand, but that would be too much for one Feat.

Tall and Short could be Traits, though. Being taller or shorter would realistically have some effect on the special attacks you mentioned, since Size Category does. Then again, since Strength also has an effect, maybe that's the way the game handles it within Size Category (although Strength isn't linked to height and weight in D&D, one could always set parameters to make a character's physiology match their ability scores).

I was thinking of something along the lines of:

Tall
Benefit: You take a +1 bonus on Intimidate checks
Drawback: You take a -2 penalty on Hide checks

Short
Benefit: You take a +1 bonus on Hide checks
Drawback: You take a -2 penalty on Intimidate checks

The reason I picked Intimidate is that since Size Category affects the Intimidate skill, it would make sense that someone who is bigger would be more intimidating and someone who is smaller would be less intimidating (given an equal Charisma and assuming no Ranks in the skill). Also, you can account for someone being bigger within Size Category with Strength (vis a vis the special attacks above), but that doesn't work for Intimidate (unless one uses a variant Ability modifier rule - but let's not get into that here ;)).

MadBlue
Xeviat-DM
08-05-04, 04:38 AM While you have a point about ability score differences possibly being some mark for size, I absolutely hate the intimidate bonuses and penalties based on size. I can understand how they mean something in ways, but in the D&D world where pixies could have magic that could kill things six size categories larger than them, I hardly thing size would matter in intimidation (beyond the fact that larger things have more HD typically, and can have more skill points in intimidate and have an easier time resisting intimidation).
MadBlue
08-05-04, 11:56 PM Originally posted by Xeviat-DM
While you have a point about ability score differences possibly being some mark for size, I absolutely hate the intimidate bonuses and penalties based on size. I can understand how they mean something in ways, but in the D&D world where pixies could have magic that could kill things six size categories larger than them, I hardly thing size would matter in intimidation (beyond the fact that larger things have more HD typically, and can have more skill points in intimidate and have an easier time resisting intimidation). Fair enough. I think it's a case of larger creatures being able to loom over their target, adding to the threatening presence.

A pixie is magical and can polymorph, turn invisible and create illusions, but all other things being equal, Joe Human shrunk down to pixie size is going to have a harder time being as threatening as he was when he was human-sized.

It would probably be better to waive the size penalty for pixies (since they're probably not going to be trying to intimidate in any form that one would recognize as a pixie - either that or they'll want their target to underestimate them in order to toy with them) than use them as an example of why size shouldn't matter. They're really more the exception than the rule. In a world where some giants can step on a house, size should matter in intimidation. ;)

MadBlue
Xeviat-DM
08-06-04, 07:21 AM True Madblue, and I've been recently taking your ability score difference idea to heart.
MadBlue
08-07-04, 02:49 PM Originally posted by Xeviat-DM
True Madblue, and I've been recently taking your ability score difference idea to heart. Thanks. Always happy to help. :)

MadBlue

Post/Author/DateTime	Post
Xeviat-DM 07-28-04, 08:57 PM	Wow, having a little writer's block here, so I'll be simple. I personally feel that there should be more differentiation between ambidexterous people and unidexterous people, and the trait system is the perfect way to do it. I believe that someone who is naturally ambidexterous should be better at two weapon fighting than someone who isn't, but I don't think that ambidexterity should be required for two weapon fighting. Unidexterous people will have to have some incentive to use a one handed and a light weapon, while ambidexterous people will stick with two paired weapons. First off, an Ambidexterity feat should remove the -4 penalty for checks made with your offhand. I'm not sure what would be the balancing factor, because I haven't researched ambidexterous persons enough. Maybe someone here can come up with an idea. As for Tall and Short, a friend once stated to me that there wasn't enough differentiation of sizes within a size category. I'm six foot, and one of my friends is just over five foot. If I shove the smaller friend, I have a much easier time doing it. So the idea was that small and large would some of the bonuses and penalties of being smaller or larger sized, but not enough to warrent the power gain that being larger grants, or the slight power loss that being small grants. Tall could grant +2 to trip, bullrush, overrun, and grapples, but -2 to hide and -1 to AC for being a larger target. Short would grant +2 to hide and +1 to AC for being a smaller target, but -2 to trip, bullrush, overrun, and grapples. What do you think about that?
JoshRodriguez 07-29-04, 02:32 PM	Ambidexterity used to be a feat in 3.0 but was eventually rolled into Two Weapon Fighting. From a pure mechanics standpoint ambidexterity shouldn't matter much in the highly abstracted combat mechanics. Additionally, the dexterity requirement for the feat is supposed to reflect an innate ambidexterous ability. But that's not what you want to hear so I suggest the following: Ambidexterous: You're equally good with both hands and have an easier time fighting with two weapons than most, granting a +1 attack bonus when weilding two weapons. However, since you can weild all weapons with equal ease you do not gain any benefit from weilding a light weapon in your "off-hand." This should leave anyone taking this ability with a -3/-3 attack penalty when using TWF regardless of the type of weapons used.
JoshRodriguez 07-29-04, 02:37 PM	Ambidexterity used to be a feat in 3.0 but was eventually rolled into Two Weapon Fighting. From a pure mechanics standpoint ambidexterity shouldn't matter much in the highly abstracted combat mechanics. Additionally, the dexterity requirement for the feat is supposed to reflect an innate ambidexterous ability. But that's not what you want to hear so I suggest the following: Ambidexterous: You're equally good with both hands and have an easier time fighting with two weapons than most, granting a +1 attack bonus when weilding two weapons. However, since you can weild all weapons with equal ease you do not gain any benefit from weilding a light weapon in your "off-hand." This should leave anyone taking this ability with a -3/-3 attack penalty when using TWF regardless of the type of weapons used.
Xeviat-DM 07-29-04, 06:06 PM	That would only hurt them, but then they'd stick with two one-handed weapons.
JoshRodriguez 07-30-04, 01:06 PM	Not really. It provides a benefit and conferrs an equal penalty, which is what traits are supposed to do. If you feel that ambidexterity shouldn't confir any penalties, then make it a feat instead. I spent a while thinking about it and I really couldn't come up with any other way of balancing the trait. I am sorry for this. I am sorry I failed you.
Nylkran 07-30-04, 01:56 PM	Well I'll give it a shot Trait: Ambidexterity: Your hands are skilled atusing both your hands with perfect hand to eye coordination, however your hands cannot wield heavy weapons. The penalties for TWF are negated, this only applies if both weapons are light, (or a double weapon), and you are wielding the same weapon in each hand, (for example 2 Shortswords or 2 Daggers or 2 Rapiers, etc...). When using different light weapons in each hand the TWF are restored to -2, when using One-handed weapons the character incurs on a -3, penalty to attack rolls, when using Two-handed, (including Bows), weapons the penalty is increased to - 4. Note: the character can still use just light one weapon and incur no penalties, (as long as he doesn't use TWF), meaning that you could use just one Rapier or Shortsword or Fist, as long as TWF is not used.
Nylkran 07-30-04, 01:56 PM	Double Post.
MadBlue 08-03-04, 10:22 AM	I think Ambidexterity should be a Feat instead of a Trait (there really shouldn't be a penalty involved with being ambidextrous). Ambidexterity [GENERAL] Prerequisite: Dex 15 Benefit: You have no penalty for wielding a One-Handed weapon in either hand and your full Strength bonus applies to damage with a One-Handed weapon used in either hand. Similarly, skill checks that confer a penalty for using one's off-hand do not apply to you. Note, Ambidexterity doesn't make you more skilled in fighting with two weapons, and one hand (either one) must be designated as an "Off Hand" regarding penalties and damage when fighting with a weapon in each hand, or a double weapon. Improved Ambidexterity [GENERAL] Prerequisite: Dex 17, Ambidexterity, BAB +5 Benefit: Both your hands are treated as Primary Hands regarding penalties and damage when fighting with a weapon in each hand or a double weapon. Realistically, Ambidexterity should help with fighting with a weapon in each hand, but that would be too much for one Feat. Tall and Short could be Traits, though. Being taller or shorter would realistically have some effect on the special attacks you mentioned, since Size Category does. Then again, since Strength also has an effect, maybe that's the way the game handles it within Size Category (although Strength isn't linked to height and weight in D&D, one could always set parameters to make a character's physiology match their ability scores). I was thinking of something along the lines of: Tall Benefit: You take a +1 bonus on Intimidate checks Drawback: You take a -2 penalty on Hide checks Short Benefit: You take a +1 bonus on Hide checks Drawback: You take a -2 penalty on Intimidate checks The reason I picked Intimidate is that since Size Category affects the Intimidate skill, it would make sense that someone who is bigger would be more intimidating and someone who is smaller would be less intimidating (given an equal Charisma and assuming no Ranks in the skill). Also, you can account for someone being bigger within Size Category with Strength (vis a vis the special attacks above), but that doesn't work for Intimidate (unless one uses a variant Ability modifier rule - but let's not get into that here ;)). MadBlue
Xeviat-DM 08-05-04, 04:38 AM	While you have a point about ability score differences possibly being some mark for size, I absolutely hate the intimidate bonuses and penalties based on size. I can understand how they mean something in ways, but in the D&D world where pixies could have magic that could kill things six size categories larger than them, I hardly thing size would matter in intimidation (beyond the fact that larger things have more HD typically, and can have more skill points in intimidate and have an easier time resisting intimidation).
MadBlue 08-05-04, 11:56 PM	Originally posted by Xeviat-DM While you have a point about ability score differences possibly being some mark for size, I absolutely hate the intimidate bonuses and penalties based on size. I can understand how they mean something in ways, but in the D&D world where pixies could have magic that could kill things six size categories larger than them, I hardly thing size would matter in intimidation (beyond the fact that larger things have more HD typically, and can have more skill points in intimidate and have an easier time resisting intimidation). Fair enough. I think it's a case of larger creatures being able to loom over their target, adding to the threatening presence. A pixie is magical and can polymorph, turn invisible and create illusions, but all other things being equal, Joe Human shrunk down to pixie size is going to have a harder time being as threatening as he was when he was human-sized. It would probably be better to waive the size penalty for pixies (since they're probably not going to be trying to intimidate in any form that one would recognize as a pixie - either that or they'll want their target to underestimate them in order to toy with them) than use them as an example of why size shouldn't matter. They're really more the exception than the rule. In a world where some giants can step on a house, size should matter in intimidation. ;) MadBlue
Xeviat-DM 08-06-04, 07:21 AM	True Madblue, and I've been recently taking your ability score difference idea to heart.
MadBlue 08-07-04, 02:49 PM	Originally posted by Xeviat-DM True Madblue, and I've been recently taking your ability score difference idea to heart. Thanks. Always happy to help. :) MadBlue