Porting Ambidexterity to 3.5

[Phillip0614]

Hey all! I've got a very good friend who runs D&D games all the time, and now plans to start one in the next couple of weeks. I planned on making a Scout/Ranger build and taking the Swift Hunter feat to get the benefit of Skirmish and Favored Enemies all at once. At any rate, he sent me an email a little while ago saying that he is going to be re-instituting the Ambidexterity feat from 3.0, since, in his opinion, being able to wield two weapons and thereby having twice the damage potential, twice the crit chance, etc., etc. made TWFing off of a single feat "too powerful." He's expressed this opinion before, but he's never actually done anything about it in game.

The email I sent back to him pointed out that a martial character wielding a GAxe has only a two point lower max damage output than one TWFing a long- & short sword, but suffers no attack penalty. I don't think it's necessary to go back and make an ambi feat, personally, but I doubt that I'll be able to talk him out of it. Anyway, I wanted to see what you guys think about the issue. Anybody have any ideas of what I could say to him that might help? Or does anyone here agree with him?

[Tengu]

Your friend doesn't know math. Unless you're playing a class with lots of additional damage to each attack, like a rogue with sneak attack, for whom two-weapon fighting is a default tactic anyway, using a two-handed weapon has much more damage potential (remember that most of a melee-er's damage comes from Power Attack!) - taking Two-Weapon Fighting is, in most cases, spending a feat to get weaker.

[Bender]

I don't have time for the exact math, but with the higher miss chance, I thought you actually have a lower average damage output than a greatsword or greataxe.
This becomes worse when there is damage reduction, which is subtracted twice in the case of TWF
And you have to burn three feats/class abilities to keep up

But it's cool to wield two weapons

[Bleen]

TWFing does, what, less average damage than just using a two-handed weapon? And requires like three feats to do well, and then still has a minor attack penalty afterwards? And requires you to spend twice as much on magic weapons?

Yeah, uh. TWFing shouldn't be harder to do. If anything, it should be easier. So I'm going to go with "DM doesn't know what on earth he's talking about."

Build a nice greatsword character, and show him how it has even more damage/round potential than a TWFer, and got to spend all his feats on things that make his damage shoot even higher.

[FlyMolo]

Your friend doesn't know math. Unless you're playing a class with lots of additional damage to each attack, like a rogue with sneak attack, for whom two-weapon fighting is a default tactic anyway, using a two-handed weapon has much more damage potential (remember that most of a melee-er's damage comes from Power Attack!) - taking Two-Weapon Fighting is, in most cases, spending a feat to get weaker.

Yeah, but 4-armed races, despite nearly mandatory LA, rock with multiweapon fighting. Fun stuff.

And it's not as bad an idea as monkey grip. that's like spending a feat to be Power Attacking for two all the time. If you have PA, it really is spending a feat to be weaker.

[Phillip0614]

Build a nice greatsword character, and show him how it has even more damage/round potential than a TWFer, and got to spend all his feats on things that make his damage shoot even higher.

Heh. I was actually planning on turning the Scout/Ranger into a single-weapon character and going the Ranged path in ranger...kinda like Aragorn. I imagine that's what he'd have been in a D&D setting, since he never used two weapons but was darn good with both sword and bow.

[Tengu]

Two-weapon fighting was born with Drizzt. Before that the weapon in your off-hand was used only to parry blows or perform feints.

[Matthew]

Two-weapon fighting was born with Drizzt. Before that the weapon in your off-hand was used only to parry blows or perform feints.

Nope. Two Weapon Fighting (or rather Fighting with two Weapons) is right there in the 1e AD&D DMG (1979), but only Hand Axes and Daggers qualify as Off Hand Weapons. With Unearthed Arcana (1985) Dark Elf Characters were given the special ability 'can use any weapon as an off hand weapon' and thus Drizzt was born.

[Tengu]

Okay, change it to "born with DND". In more realistic settings nobody fights with two weapons as a way of increasing their damage potential.

[FlyMolo]

Okay, change it to "born with DND". In more realistic settings nobody fights with two weapons as a way of increasing their damage potential.

Hell, in DnD nobody fights with two weapons as a way of increasing their damage potential. They take shock trooper.

Seriously, if Ambidexterity allows TWF with no penalties eventually, that should be fine. You know, provides a bonus that stacks with TWF, iTWF, etc, so instead of accepting -2 on attacks, you get -0. That should be fine.

[Telonius]

The damage output is usually less for Two-Weapon-Fighting, because Light weapons only add half strength to the damage. (Remember, fractions round down).

Example:
Level 4 ranger, 16 Str attacks with a Longsword and Shortsword. +5/+5 for the attack. If it hits, damage is d6+d8+(1.5*str). Average, 3.5+4.5+4 = 12.

Level 4 Ranger, 16 Str, attacks with a Greatsword wielded two-handed, and power attacks for 2. Total: +5 to attack. (i.e. will connect, on average, as often as the previous Ranger). Damage = 2d6 + Str + (2*power attack penalty). Average damage = 7+3+4 = 14.

If he thinks TWF is too powerful, he should ban Power Attack too.

EDIT: I'm deliberately comparing two Rangers here. If you made the comparison between a Ranger and a Fighter, it can be *situationally* possible for a TWF-Ranger to equal out-damage the Fighter, if they happen to be fighting a Ranger's favored enemy. (This follows the general rule that some source of bonus damage tends to make TWF worth a feat. A similar situation holds for Rogues.) However, this is highly situational and therefore not a very good argument for general power level. And since we're comparing two Rangers, the damage would be close to equal no matter what they're fighting. You would simply add 2 per each attack. So, at levels 1-4 that would be a net gain of +2 to the TWF'er, bringing him equal to the Greatsword-wielder.

EDIT 2: Things get a little trickier when you add a second attack. Let's look at level 5:

Level 5 ranger, 16 Str attacks with a Longsword and Shortsword. +6/+6/+1/+1 for the attack. If both hit, damage is 2d6+2d8+(2*str)+(.5*str) + (.5 *str) Average, 7+9+6+2 = 24.

Level 5 Ranger, 16 Str, attacks with a Greatsword wielded two-handed, and power attacks for 2. Total: +6/+1 to attack. Damage = 4d6 + (2*Str) + (4*power attack penalty). Average damage = 14+6+8 = 28.

If it's vs. a favored enemy (assume the ranger doesn't double up on favored enemies), the TWF gets +8 damage, and the Greatsword gets +4, bringing them equal. Again, only situationally can the TWF fighter equal the two-handed fighter's damage.

Okay, so 16 str does kind of screw over the ranger, since it results in a fractional bonus. What happens if we bump it up to 18 str?

Level 4 ranger, 18 Str attacks with a Longsword and Shortsword. +5/+5 for the attack. If it hits, damage is d6+d8+(1.5*str). Average, 3.5+4.5+6 = 14; vs. Favored Enemy, 18.

Level 4 Ranger, 18 Str, attacks with a Greatsword wielded two-handed, and power attacks for 2. Total: +5 to attack. Damage = 2d6 + Str + (2*power attack penalty). Average damage = 7+4+4 = 15; Vs. favored enemy, 17.

Level 5 ranger, 18 Str attacks with a Longsword and Shortsword. +6/+6/+1/+1 for the attack. If both hit, damage is 2d6+2d8+(3*str) Average, 7+9+12= 28; vs. favored enemy, 36.

Level 5 Ranger, 16 Str, attacks with a Greatsword wielded two-handed, and power attacks for 2. Total: +6/+1 to attack. Damage = 4d6 + (2*Str) + (4*power attack penalty). Average damage = 14+8+8 = 30; vs. favored enemy, 34.

So, unless they're fighting a Favored Enemy, TWF will always be an inferior tactic. The Ranger is better off specializing in Archery, so at least it will be an additional tactical option that he normally wouldn't have.

[Matthew]

Okay, change it to "born with DND". In more realistic settings nobody fights with two weapons as a way of increasing their damage potential.

I don't know about that. Even in the real world, being able to parry and feint with one weapon whilst striking with the other should hopefully increase your chances of creating an opening and killing or disabling your opponent. That being true, as an abstraction for the purposes of D&D combat, two weapon fighting should increase the amount of damage a character does in combat over using a one handed weapon alone.

[Xuincherguixe]

Sword/Shield, Sword/Sword, Bigger sword in two hands should all be roughly equal, but useful for different situations (bonus damage not counting here). But it would take big changes to make that the case.

My thought is that a Fighter would want to carry all that (Three weapons and a shield) and depending on the situation switch equipment quickly.

[John Campbell]

Another thing no one's mentioned yet: If you can't Full Attack, that second weapon is nothing but dead weight. This is particularly problematic for a Scout, who has to move to get those skirmish dice.

[AslanCross]

Okay, change it to "born with DND". In more realistic settings nobody fights with two weapons as a way of increasing their damage potential.

I don't know, fighting with two medium-length weapons seems plausible enough.
It just really isn't in D&D 3.5.

http://youtube.com/watch?v=JapMGyUbT68&feature=related
I've also trained in a local version (Kali/Arnis) and it's a pretty solid combat form. Of course, one should use machetes and not sticks if one wants to inflict fatal blows.

[Spiryt]

I don't know, fighting with two medium-length weapons seems plausible enough.
It just really isn't in D&D 3.5.

http://youtube.com/watch?v=JapMGyUbT68&feature=related
I've also trained in a local version (Kali/Arnis) and it's a pretty solid combat form. Of course, one should use machetes and not sticks if one wants to inflict fatal blows.

Don't know, on polish forums guys who are beating themself with blunt swords axes e.c keep on reassuring interested in topic that figthing with two weapons requires immense skill and coordination, and even then it gives almost nothing in return.

And indeed, noone during full of gore medieval was ever using two weapons. Escrima seems to be only figthing school that tries something like that. Some viking sagas speak about some heroes that spread death with two sword in great rage.
But that most certainly only means that Vikings just found TWF uber Dritz yo cool. It seems that after 1000 years people still find the same things cool.

[Eldariel]

Another thing no one's mentioned yet: If you can't Full Attack, that second weapon is nothing but dead weight. This is particularly problematic for a Scout, who has to move to get those skirmish dice.

This sucks for TWF in general. This is basically the reason why TWFers either need Barbarian 1 for Pounce, Dervish for full attack + move, Cleric 1 for Travel Devotion or ToB to get Pounce-maneuver, extra attack maneuvers, swift movement maneuvers and so on.

Funny how two of the ways to actually use TWF effectively are from Complete Champion, a book much maligned for being "broken" (seriously, WTF! The book has a bunch of useful alternative class features, but mostly it just helps you make stuff-that-wasn't-worth-it work).

As always, Tome of Battle makes everything better. Anyways, one feat for TWF makes sense - it isn't easy. However, 3 feats for decent TWF generally means you'll be better off THFing. It should be rather standard houserule to just combine the 3 TWF feats into one; else TWFers will never be picking up real feats.

[Matthew]

But that most certainly only means that Vikings just found TWF uber Dritz yo cool. It seems that after 1000 years people still find the same things cool.

More than likely. still, according to Wikipedia there was a type of Gladiator that fought with two swords: Gladiator types

[Spiryt]

More than likely. still, according to Wikipedia there was a type of Gladiator that fought with two swords: Gladiator types

It looks that someone in Rome had found it ''cool'' too - as Gladiators were meant to be ''cool'', not effective fighters.

EDIT: Then they're all right! DnD players are satanists, who want to see people slaughtering each others with weird weapons! Bloody bastards!

[Matthew]

It looks that someone in Rome had found it ''cool'' too - as Gladiators were meant to be ''cool'', not effective fighters.

Well... it was certainly style over substance, but I wouldn't go so far as to say that Gladiators weren't effective fighters. The question is really whether that Gladiator would rather have had a shield.

[Spiryt]

Well... it was certainly style over substance, but I wouldn't go so far as to say that Gladiators weren't effective fighters. The question is really whether that Gladiator would rather have had a shield.

Certainly they were skilled fighters - or rather those who survived few 'shows' had to be good fighters.

The thing is that wearing big, weird helmet that impairs most senses, and also breathing, while rest of the body is perfectly soft and pink against blows, have nothing to do with effectiveness.

[Matthew]

Certainly they were skilled fighters - or rather those who survived few 'shows' had to be good fighters.

I think this underestimate the amount of training involved. That said, there is a lot of academic debate as to the casualty rate and life expectancy of Gladiators, so it might be a fair comment.

The thing is that wearing big, weird helmet that impairs most senses, and also breathing, while rest of the body is perfectly soft and pink against blows, have nothing to do with effectiveness.

I dunno about that. There were many different types of Gladiators with varied arms and the head is just about the most important part of the body you need to protect. I don't think that Gladiator arms and armour were unsuited to individual combats, though I take the point that there may be better suited armaments and that some would have been better armed than others. The question is whether the Dimachaeri were more like the Andabatae [i.e. armed impractically for entertainment] or more like the Equites [i.e. armed practically for entertainment].

[Talya]

The Rapier/Main Gauche was a real fighting style. And yes, the Main Gauche was used primarily for parrying. It wasn't used for feinting any more than it was used for attacking -- a feint without the possibility of a real jab in there wasn't ever going to work. The fact is the weapon was sharpened, and quite capable of a killing blow on its own. But your left hand was used opportunisticly when it came to attacking, attempting a quick strike while your opponent's other hand was or attention was occupied iwth your primary. That's hard to model in D&D though.

[Ralfarius]

being able to wield two weapons and thereby having twice the damage potential, twice the crit chance, etc., etc. made TWFing off of a single feat "too powerful."

Does he mean at level 1? Because if he means you actually get to double your attacks, TWF gives literally one attack from the offhand... When you make a full-attack action. That means no moving beyond a 5-foot step for a single attack. iTWF gives you one more, at -5, and you need a +6 BAB to take it. That means that, at level 6, your base attacks are +6/+1 for your mainhand, and +4/+1 for your off... This is why nobody has much respect for iterative attacks, because they're much less likely to hit at the levels they are obtained. That's a 2-feat investment for what is more than likely still only going to be 2 hits.

So, yeah. TWF doesn't double your attacks, it just gives you the extra when you do practically nothing else in a round. Unless your DM has some sort of radical fix to make TWF more feasible off the bat, then said DM should take a very sober second look at exactly what is supposedly overpowered.

[John Campbell]

Don't know, on polish forums guys who are beating themself with blunt swords axes e.c keep on reassuring interested in topic that figthing with two weapons requires immense skill and coordination, and even then it gives almost nothing in return.

I'm an SCA heavy fighter with a fair few years of experience. I've fought with and against two-sword, and just about everything else at one point or another. I don't think I'd go so far as to say "immense skill and coordination", but the learning curve is fairly steep, and it's not proportionately rewarding.

In single combat, two-weapon's got its points, but it's still probably overall weaker than any other weapons form except longspear (which is a very strong weapon in battle, but not good for much in a one-on-one) and single-sword (it takes basically no training to pick up a second weapon and use it for a blocking implement, and that gives a clear advantage over not having the blocking implement).

In a battle, it's weaker than anything but single-sword. I'd even rank shield-only above two-weapon in a melee... a shieldman without a weapon can still act as part of a wall, block for the reach weapons and keep them safe while they do the killing, which is basically sword-and-board's job in a battle, anyway. Two-sword hasn't got the defense to fight in a wall, hasn't got the reach to be backfield support. Their only really effective role in a battle is the suicide charge... get into the enemy backfield and see how many pole weapons you can disable before they cut you to pieces. This is easier said than done - getting past one spearpoint and inside his range is pretty easy; getting past two or three that're shooting at you simultaneously from different angles and have glaives supporting them is a whole different game - and not particularly survivable, so in a fight where all the corpses aren't going to get up afterwards and go feast and drink together, it's not really a great choice.

I don't really have a problem with two-weaponing in D&D being feat-intensive and not terribly effective... that's actually pretty realistic. But it is feat-intensive and not terribly effective... it really doesn't need to be nerfed any more than it already is.

[Signmaker]

Flawed idea aside, if you want Ambidexterity, there is a PrC called Tempest that you might want to look in to.