[3.5 Feat] Ambidexterity

[Lubirio]

Ambidexterity [General]

You are able to use both hands equally well, this gives you several benefits when others are at a loss because of their lesser hand.

Prerequisites
Dex 15.

Benefit
When Two-Weapon Fighting, the penalty on both your hands is lessened by a stackable 2, in addition, you can designate any hand as your primary hand, switching weapons accordingly, but you must still attack with both weapons in any given round you make a full attack, and you add 1x your Str mod to weapon damage rolls made with your off-hand. You also get a +2 bonus to Disable Device, Open Lock, Sleight of Hand, Use Rope checks and Forgery checks only to forge, but only if both hands are involved in the check.

Normal
If you wield a second weapon in your off hand, you can get one extra attack per round with that weapon. When fighting in this way you suffer a -6 penalty with your regular attack or attacks with your primary hand and a -10 penalty to the attack with your off hand. If your off-hand weapon is light the penalties are reduced by 2 each, these penalties are reduced by 2 on your main hand and 6 on your off-hand if you also have the Two-Weapon Fighting Feat. You can only add 0.5x your str mod to weapon damage rolls made with your off-hand.

Special
A fighter may select Ambidexterity as one of his fighter bonus feats.

What do you think, over-/under-powered? neat/sloppy?

People who have helped me:

• Latronis
• Drolyt, x2
• Xefas
• Roderick_BR
• Ashtagon
• term1nally s1ck

[Latronis]

I just use a 'attacks made with your offhand now use your full strength modifier to damage'

though thats usuallly as a class ability or function of a combat style rather than an actual feat.

The skill check bonuses are an interesting boon too

[Pigkappa]

I wouldn't require two-weapon fighting as a prerequisite... Most of the ambidextrous people in the world aren't skilled with weapons.

[Eloel]

Requiring TWF, and giving bonuses to THF? Wha?

[Latronis]

I think the extra strength to damage with the offhand should be a function of the two-weapon fighting feat.

an ambidexterity feat shouldn't have it as a prereq. (though should probably have some dex as a prereq) Then remove the offhand designation. So you don't need a light weapon to get down to the -2 mainhand, -2 offhand. Use rope should get the same bonus as the other dex skills. Perhaps +2 if you have both hands free.

[Sir Shadow]

there's already a feat named Ambidexterous, I think it'd be better to come up with a new name <_<

[Lubirio]

There is? What is it in?

Also, thanks for the feedback, and I think Use Rope should indeed have the skill bonus as well.

I could, of course, change the feat altogether: keep the prereqs, then just make it so that you have a +1 to all TWF attacks, for optimal use of -1 to both hands, and lose the skill bonuses.

There's already a feat that lets you use a one-handed weapon in your off-hand and keep the penalty as if it were a ligth weapon, it's called Oversized Two-Weapon Fighting, I believe it's in Complete Adventurer.

Or I could make it so that you can designate ether hand as your main hand, as you see fit, and don't change the str bonus at all, but keep the skill bonuses

[Drolyt]

There is? What is it in?

Also, thanks for the feedback, and I think Use Rope should indeed have the skill bonus as well.

I could, of course, change the feat altogether: keep the prereqs, then just make it so that you have a +1 to all TWF attacks, for optimal use of -1 to both hands, and lose the skill bonuses.

There's already a feat that lets you use a one-handed weapon in your off-hand and keep the penalty as if it were a ligth weapon, it's called Oversized Two-Weapon Fighting, I believe it's in Complete Adventurer.

Or I could make it so that you can designate ether hand as your main hand, as you see fit, and don't change the str bonus at all, but keep the skill bonuses

Ambidextrous was a feat in 3rd edition. It was useless but for the fact that it was a requirement for Two-Weapon Fighting. At any rate this feat is okay but it should probably have some different benefits. Making it so your off hand dealing just as much damage makes sense, but making a two-handed weapon deal more damage really doesn't. I'm not sure about the skill bonuses either. Logically it would subsume the benefits of Oversized Two-Weapon Fighting, but then that feat would be worthless. Don' make it give a bonus to attack rolls on two weapon fighting, that's already a good combat style if done correctly.

[Lubirio]

So then what are you suggesting I do? I don't see what you're getting at.

Edit: Though I could make Oversized Two-Weapon Fighting a prereq...

[Drolyt]

So then what are you suggesting I do? I don't see what you're getting at.

Edit: Though I could make Oversized Two-Weapon Fighting a prereq...

I wasn't really going anywhere. You could make it so the feat makes everything even between your hands, so when two weapon fighting you can wield a one-handed weapon in your off hand with no penalty, and both hands deal x1 strength damage. It would also have benefits in the rather odd situation ambidexterity would be advantages, and it might warrant some skill bonuses, I just don't know which ones. Though if you did all that you should make it a prereq for Two-Weapon Fighting, since it is implied that anyone with the Two-Weapon Fighting feat is Ambidextrous.

[Lubirio]

I personally believe it wouldn't be a prereq for two-weapon fighting as much as it would be useful for people using that, I could add the prereq of Oversized two-weapon fighting, and delete the 2x str mod to damage on two-handed weapons, keeping the skill bonus.

[Milskidasith]

I personally believe it wouldn't be a prereq for two-weapon fighting as much as it would be useful for people using that, I could add the prereq of Oversized two-weapon fighting, and delete the 2x str mod to damage on two-handed weapons, keeping the skill bonus.

It doesn't need a prereq. There's no point. Being ambidextrous doesn't exactly require you to be able to use big weapons in each hand.

[Drolyt]

It doesn't need a prereq. There's no point. Being ambidextrous doesn't exactly require you to be able to use big weapons in each hand.

Yeah it makes no sense for Ambidexterity to have such a benefit edit: I meant prerequisite. The problem here is what advantage would being ambidextrous have in D&D? I suppose the more logical benefit is one in accuracy not strength or damage-dealing ability, so I'll take back what I said earlier and say Ambidexterity should give +1/+1 when two-weapon fighting and should give a +2 bonus on skill or ability checks where being able to use your off hand just as well as your main would be useful.

[Lubirio]

Thanks, that helps a lot.

So, as an example, ambidexterity in use:

Spoiler

Show

We have a human fighter with Str 16, and the following feats: Two-Weapon Fighting, Two-Weapon Defense, and Ambidexterity.

He can attack with his longsword as a standard action as +4 melee, or with both his longsword and his shortsword as +3 melee and +3 melee.

That seems about right.

[DueceEsMachine]

Well, you could maybe do something along the lines of This:

Ambidexterity
Through long hours of training, or perhaps an amazing amount of natural aptitude, you have no dominant hand, as both work equally well.
Prerequisite: Dex 15
Benefit: When weilding a weapon of your size or smaller, you are treated as having the weapon finesse feat, allowing you to use your dexterity bonus on attack rolls rather than your strength bonus. This benefit works with either hand equally. If you also posess the Weapon Finesse feat, you are so amazingly agile and precise with your strikes that you are able to use your dexterity bonus rather than strength bonus on melee damage rolls.

I don't know if that is better or worse, but just the first thing I came up with.

I just figure, since the feat is ambi-dextrous- it should focus more along those lines than just how strong you are. Maybe this is a little closer to what you were looking for?

[Lubirio]

What you have basically looks like a beefed-up version of Weapon finesse that works with non-finesse weapons, and then a random bonus to damage if you also have the weapon finesse feat. Or am I completely off the mark?

[Drolyt]

Well, you could maybe do something along the lines of This:

Ambidexterity
Through long hours of training, or perhaps an amazing amount of natural aptitude, you have no dominant hand, as both work equally well.
Prerequisite: Dex 15
Benefit: When weilding a weapon of your size or smaller, you are treated as having the weapon finesse feat, allowing you to use your dexterity bonus on attack rolls rather than your strength bonus. This benefit works with either hand equally. If you also posess the Weapon Finesse feat, you are so amazingly agile and precise with your strikes that you are able to use your dexterity bonus rather than strength bonus on melee damage rolls.

I don't know if that is better or worse, but just the first thing I came up with.

I just figure, since the feat is ambi-dextrous- it should focus more along those lines than just how strong you are. Maybe this is a little closer to what you were looking for?

But the whole point of ambidextrous is that you can use both your hands just as well. The bonus you give doesn't really capture that flavor at all.

[DueceEsMachine]

Well, I was just trying to throw an idea out there.

One of the things with two weapon fighting is only using half of your strength bonus on your off hand, so using your full dexterity bonus for both would make them equal, and I just threw the weapon finesse thing in there to try and keep from making it obsolete, since that came up earlier in the post.

As far as using weapons that are not allowed with weapon finesse, I don't know, I just put that in there because I was trying to avoid the idea of someone dual-weilding greatswords with their dex bonus. Better wording would be a requirement.

Edit: I hadn't seen your revised version at the top of the thread until just now. That does look good.

[Fortuna]

What about andexterity, being equally useless with both hands? No-handedness, if you will. I have a friend with that problem: how would you treat it mechanically?

[Xefas]

I don't think I'd ever take this feat ever for anything, mechanically speaking. Flavor wise, 'ambidexterity' isn't a huge part of a character's fluff, and can be discarded rather easily. Still, there's no reason to sacrifice mechanical soundness for flavor. How about something that scales? And makes Two-Weapon Fighting actually worth using? I mean, with this feat you have here, you can either take it, and take two-weapon fighting, or you could simply wield a 2h weapon and do more damage with no feat investiture.

So how about this.

Ambidexterity
Prerequisite: Dex 13
Benefit: You take no penalty for wielding a one handed weapon in your main hand and a light weapon in your offhand. You may freely designate which hand is your offhand and which is your mainhand.

At 3rd level, you may use either your dexterity or strength modifier (whichever is better) on melee attack and damage rolls while wielding two melee weapons.

At 5th level, you may wield a one-handed weapon in your off-hand as if it were a light weapon, and your off-hand receives full benefit from your strength modifier.

In addition, when you have both hands free, you gain a +1 bonus on all strength and dexterity skill checks per 3 character levels.

-----
I would say this is almost worth taking. Almost. With a feat used, you become almost as good as someone who just uses a 2h weapon, charges, and power attacks. The skill bonus is meh, as past the early levels, you should really be flying, which renders most effected skills moot.

[Drolyt]

You know, I've heard a lot of people contend that a two-handed weapon does more damage than wielding two weapons. I just don't see how that could be correct when I try to calculate it mathematically, especially if you have a weapon with one of the elemental enhancements or some other bonus to damage.

[Milskidasith]

You know, I've heard a lot of people contend that a two-handed weapon does more damage than wielding two weapons. I just don't see how that could be correct when I try to calculate it mathematically, especially if you have a weapon with one of the elemental enhancements or some other bonus to damage.

Leap attack, Shock Trooper, Spirited charge, etc. The extra strength damage massively adds up and gets multiplied using all that, while using TWF gets none of those benefits.

[Xefas]

You know, I've heard a lot of people contend that a two-handed weapon does more damage than wielding two weapons. I just don't see how that could be correct when I try to calculate it mathematically, especially if you have a weapon with one of the elemental enhancements or some other bonus to damage.

Well, comparing two fighters; Fighter A fights with two weapons. Fighter B uses 2handers.

Fighter A takes an obscene penalty on attacks rolls unless they invest points in Dexterity (at least 15, so his strength is probably only 16) and a feat (which they still take a -2 on their attacks). In addition, one of those has to be a light weapon or there's an even bigger penalty unless you invest another feat into it. And your strength still only applies 1/2 to your off-hand.

Meanwhile, Fighter B just uses a Greatsword. With the extra points he got for dumping Dex, he probably has an 18 strength. Which is multiplied by 1.5 for his 2hand weapon.

So, Fighter A probably does about 1d8+3 and 1d6+1, with a -2 penalty on attacks, and a feat down. 12 damage average.

Fighter B does about 2d6+6 damage. No penalty. No feat invested. Average 13 damage. And he hits 10% more often. And he has an extra feat.

This only gets worse with Power Attack, as Fighter B skyrockets with a 2:1 ratio, Fighter A is really sunk. He already has a penalty to his attacks, and his Power Attack ratio is 1:1. He'll never do nearly as much damage once they start gaining levels.

[Lubirio]

Well, the feat is partially meant for flavor anyway, but if you use monkey grip, and oversized TWF, you can wield a large longsword (2d6 damage) in one hand with a -4 penalty, and a regular longsword in the other hand with a -2 penalty.

Even though TWF is a massive feat investment, it can definitely pay up if you do it right.

[Drolyt]

Well, comparing two fighters; Fighter A fights with two weapons. Fighter B uses 2handers.

Fighter A takes an obscene penalty on attacks rolls unless they invest points in Dexterity (at least 15, so his strength is probably only 16) and a feat (which they still take a -2 on their attacks). In addition, one of those has to be a light weapon or there's an even bigger penalty unless you invest another feat into it. And your strength still only applies 1/2 to your off-hand.

Meanwhile, Fighter B just uses a Greatsword. With the extra points he got for dumping Dex, he probably has an 18 strength. Which is multiplied by 1.5 for his 2hand weapon.

So, Fighter A probably does about 1d8+3 and 1d6+1, with a -2 penalty on attacks, and a feat down. 12 damage average.

Fighter B does about 2d6+6 damage. No penalty. No feat invested. Average 13 damage. And he hits 10% more often. And he has an extra feat.

This only gets worse with Power Attack, as Fighter B skyrockets with a 2:1 ratio, Fighter A is really sunk. He already has a penalty to his attacks, and his Power Attack ratio is 1:1. He'll never do nearly as much damage once they start gaining levels.

Well, I suppose. Though two-weapon fighting is superior against high AC foes.

[Xefas]

Well, the feat is partially meant for flavor anyway, but if you use monkey grip, and oversized TWF, you can wield a large longsword (2d6 damage) in one hand with a -4 penalty, and a regular longsword in the other hand with a -2 penalty.

Even though TWF is a massive feat investment, it can definitely pay up if you do it right.

I can't tell if you're being serious or not.

So (not dealing with magic items), you spend three feats to deal around 2d6+3 and 1d8+1 damage. Average 15.5 damage. At a penalty.

And the other guy uses a Greatsword. Takes Power Attack and Leap Attack. He Power Attacks for -4 on his attack roll, the same as your mainhand. And deals 2d6+6+12 damage. Average 25 damage. And he doesn't have to worry about the penalty on the first guy's offhand. And he has an extra feat.

Monkey Grip and Oversized Two Weapon Fighting are terrible feats. The first actually *lowers* your damage output generally, and the second only gives you on average 1-2 extra damage. You could at least use the Strongarm Bracers from Magic Item Compendium to give you Monkey Grip without the penalty. S'only like...what...4k maybe?

Well, I suppose. Though two-weapon fighting is superior against high AC foes.

It's worse in every way. You take a higher base penalty (wheres 2Hand Power Attack can adjust their attack bonus as needed), and have less feats which can be used to augment your attacks to do better against high AC foes. Not to mention Shocktrooper.

[Drolyt]

I can't tell if you're being serious or not.

So (not dealing with magic items), you spend three feats to deal around 2d6+3 and 1d8+1 damage. Average 15.5 damage. At a penalty.

And the other guy uses a Greatsword. Takes Power Attack and Leap Attack. He Power Attacks for -4 on his attack roll, the same as your mainhand. And deals 2d6+6+12 damage. Average 25 damage. And he doesn't have to worry about the penalty on the first guy's offhand. And he has an extra feat.

Monkey Grip and Oversized Two Weapon Fighting are terrible feats. The first actually *lowers* your damage output generally, and the second only gives you on average 1-2 extra damage. You could at least use the Strongarm Bracers from Magic Item Compendium to give you Monkey Grip without the penalty. S'only like...what...4k maybe?



It's worse in every way. You take a higher base penalty (wheres 2Hand Power Attack can adjust their attack bonus as needed), and have less feats which can be used to augment your attacks to do better against high AC foes. Not to mention Shocktrooper.

Well... I'm only really used to playing spellcasters, so I'll take your word for it.

[Xefas]

Well... I'm only really used to playing spellcasters, so I'll take your word for it.

Well, this is all obviated by just playing whatever kind of character you want and not caring about putting out optimal mechanics.

Or Tome of Battle.

Do both for the double win.

[Lubirio]

I guess I wasn't subtle enough, you caught me.

So yes, it is purely for flavor, so I guess having the feat eliminate the penalty for TWF entirely is better, making it somewhat more enticing.

Edit: I also upped the skill bonus a little bit.

[Drolyt]

Well, this is all obviated by just playing whatever kind of character you want and not caring about putting out optimal mechanics.

Or Tome of Battle.

Do both for the double win.

Tome of Battle is cool, though it always annoyed me that they created that instead of finding some way to fix the classes in the PHB. So yeah I haven't a clue about optimizing meleers, but there really isn't any point in playing a meleer except for fun, since even a blaster wizard is stronger (though to be fair I've built blaster wizards that could kill gods in one hit pre-epic without either a saving throw or spell resistance; in fact such builds are quite common, I'm not sure why anybody thought Pun Pun was even necessary, but I'm trailing off topic...).