Post/Author/DateTime	Post
Howland Reed 07-19-07, 04:57 PM	All right, a common idea I've seen tossed about is that for melee, two-handed weapons give the most "bang for your buck". This is (I believe) due to the fact that in addition to them normally being higher-damage weapons, you get 2 automatic bonuses: 1.) Str bonus works better for you, and 2.) Power Attack works better for you. The key here is that these bonuses are inherent...you don't need an extra feat or ability to make them work; as long as you're 2-handing it and possess Power Attack, you're better off than a guy using any other style (and Power Attack, if desired). What if other styles gave a little boost to other feats, though? For instance, a couple quick rewrites (new text italicized). Combat Expertise: When you use the attack action or the full attack action in melee, you can take a penalty of as much as -5 on your attack roll and add the same number (+5 or less) as a dodge bonus to your Armor Class. If you are wielding a shield in your off hand, you can also add that number to your shield bonus. This number may not exceed your base attack bonus. The changes to attack rolls and Armor Class last until your next action. Combat Reflexes: You may make a number of additional attacks of opportunity equal to your Dexterity bonus. If you wield two weapons, you may make as many attacks of opportunity with your off-hand weapon as with your primary weapon. With this feat, you may also make attacks of opportunity while flat-footed. Weapon Finesse: With a light weapon, rapier, whip, or spiked chain made for a creature of your size category, you may use your Dexterity modifier instead of your Strength modifier on attack rolls. If you carry a shield, its armor check penalty applies to your attack rolls. If you have nothing in your off-hand, you may apply 1.5 times your Dex bonus to your attack rolls. What do people think? Problems/solutions? Any other suggestions for modified feats? A final note...the main drawbacks of other fighting styles are as follows: --single weapon: no significant advantages...that other hand simply doesn't give you any real benefits. --two-weapon: highly feat intensive, MAD in some builds. --weapon & shield: animated shields make this worthless most of the time. Only the last is an easy one (for me)...just ban animated shields (I don't liket hem conceptually). Any thoughts on the others?
tarkin 07-19-07, 05:36 PM	I have found that the only reason people think THW is better is that they don't understand anything but damage. In my experience, a well done TWF will leavea THW on the ground crying for his weapon (Trip + Sunder or Disarm) Moreover Power Attack is way over-rated. 9 times out of 10 people that use it end up lowering the total damage they do, because they don't understand probability. Yeah, you need feats to make TWF work - because it is SO powerfull, SO strong that if they let you do it without feats it would be abusive. THW does not need extra feats to do the basics because quite honestly it is weak. The minute amount of extra damage is not worth it. ------------- Combat Expertise: You are doubling this bonus to AC. This makes it far stronger than Power Attack. Power Attack works because bonus to damage is NOT worth that much. In fact, a +1 to hit is worth about +3 to damage. Combat Reflexes: Let me get this straight. You are taking the SINGLE best low level/no-preq feat in the core PHB and making it MORE powerfull??????? Oh man, the Spiked Chain + Armor Spike build is just going to destroy everything else now. Even ignoring that, hey, there is an already existing feats that does LESS than what you want to add to Combat Reflexes. Weapon Finesse: this re-write is not a bad feat. I might make it as a seperate feat that does NOT qualify you for all the cool stuff that Weapon Finesse qualifies you for. ------------ The one handed weapon, no other weapon, no other shield is just used by Prestige Classes. They already give you enough stuff for taking the PrC. Animated Shield has certain severe disadvantages. I have NEVER seen an Animated shield build beat out a real shield wielder. Main disadvantages: 1. You can't use the shield to attack when you feel you are facing a low BAB creature. 2. You are wasting +2 of your shield enchantment. Half the reason to take the weapon + shield is to get that extra magic item slot: Shield. If you want to get Heavy fortification Shield, you pay 36,000 gp for a +1 Heavy Fortified Shield, not 64,000 for an Animated Heavy Fortified Shield. Or better yet, get two sets of +1 Buckler Reflecting Shields for 72,000, instead of wasting the cast on 64,000 animated Reflecting shield. Then after the first reflects a spell, you trade it out for the 2nd buckler.
Howland Reed 07-19-07, 09:07 PM	I have found that the only reason people think THW is better is that they don't understand anything but damage. *shrug* I've seen arguments for and against...I've never seen one showing how definitively TWF is superior. Do you have a link to a thread, or a search I should do? Or perhaps you'd care to explain? Yeah, you need feats to make TWF work - because it is SO powerfull, SO strong that if they let you do it without feats it would be abusive. I dunno, man...it is VERY feat intensive. You are doubling this bonus to AC. This makes it far stronger than Power Attack. Power Attack works because bonus to damage is NOT worth that much. In fact, a +1 to hit is worth about +3 to damage. What do you base that on? For that matter, yes, you're doubling the bonus...to a max of +5, unless you take the Improved feat, and only if you're willing to invest Int in your build, which is usually an off-stat for classes that use shields. I've thought of changing the wording so that it gives 1/1 normal, 3/2 with a light shield, and 2/1 with a heavy. Is that more palatable? Or maybe make the maximum increase to your shield bonus equal to the shield bonus. Hmmm... Let me get this straight. You are taking the SINGLE best low level/no-preq feat in the core PHB and making it MORE powerfull??????? Didn't know that was the case, except in high Dex AoO builds...what makes it so superior? If it is already the best feat, I'll find another to boost TWF...granted, I know you already think TWF doesn't need any help...but frankly, I think it's only good if you're willing to invest a lot of feats. I'd like to make it at least useful (not abusable) to people who don't want to sink a ton into it. Oh man, the Spiked Chain + Armor Spike build is just going to destroy everything else now. Gah, I hate that cheese. I'd like to word it so it doesn't work, since armor spikes aren't "wielded in your off-hand"...similar to how the Combat Expertise version wouldn't work with an animated shield, since it's not "wielded in your off-hand". Maybe just make it not work with doubles...I'll think about it. Even ignoring that, hey, there is an already existing feats that does LESS than what you want to add to Combat Reflexes. Names? Books? I might make it as a seperate feat that does NOT qualify you for all the cool stuff that Weapon Finesse qualifies you for. All what cool stuff? Hell, Weapon Finesse is weak enough that they give it to Swashbucklers free at 1st and made up a new feat that counts as Weapon Finesse for prereqs. What's so great about weapon finesse? It's good for a high dex fighter...but even then, at it's base it only adds to attacks, not damage, so it doesn't let you dump Str completely. The one handed weapon, no other weapon, no other shield is just used by Prestige Classes. They already give you enough stuff for taking the PrC. What? What Prcs? The only ones I can think of are Duelist (subpar) and Bladesinger (not bad, but gishy). What else? What's so great about them? They basically both just give you Int to AC, which isn't that great. 1. You can't use the shield to attack when you feel you are facing a low BAB creature. This is just crazy, to me. Shield bashing, unless you build for it, is pathetic. 2. You are wasting +2 of your shield enchantment. Half the reason to take the weapon + shield is to get that extra magic item slot: Shield. This is a viable argument, that I hadn't considered. Could you explain further? I find your tone a bit hysterical and your arguments are not compelling. But thank you for your feedback.
Polaris 07-19-07, 10:51 PM	I have found that the only reason people think THW is better is that they don't understand anything but damage. Actually I have analyzed the fighting styles on this board literally for years, and if anything the reverse is true. Those people that think TWF is better don't understand damage...or more to the point how damage interacts with DR. In my experience, a well done TWF will leavea THW on the ground crying for his weapon (Trip + Sunder or Disarm) Huh? The Two-Handed fighter gets a bonus you know against Disarming. As for tripping, you can do it with both styles and the THF even lets you do it without spending a feat (because of reach) although the feat can be nice for the right build. Moreover Power Attack is way over-rated. 9 times out of 10 people that use it end up lowering the total damage they do, because they don't understand probability. That means the player is a schmuck, but it doesn't detract from the sheer power of power-attack. Done correctly, THF power attack is the most effecient way to boost melee damage in the game...and remember that a lot of attack situations only permit one attack which helps the THF shine and hurts TWF (and the THF gets an unnecessarily large bonus to hit which he can directly translated into extra damage at a 2:1 ratio...the TWF guy generally can not translate into extra damage at all given that power attack doesn't work on 'light' weapons). Yeah, you need feats to make TWF work - because it is SO powerfull, SO strong that if they let you do it without feats it would be abusive. Actually it's not. During the various 3.0 ranger threads the expected damage output per round at various ACs was analyzed to death. THF was the clear winner. Remember that you suck combat penalties when using two weapons. Thus the fact you need to use lots of feats makes a weak attack form even weaker. In fact that's why you've seen a lot of TWF feats lately...it's WOTC's attempt to make a weak attack form attractive...but tossing feats at a problem doesn't solve the problem. THW does not need extra feats to do the basics because quite honestly it is weak. The minute amount of extra damage is not worth it. Minute? At first level, a fighter with an 18 strength and a greatsword will do 2d6+6 points of damage per hit. Futhermore, this fighter will have a +5 to hit (baring any other feats or circumstance modifiers). Against an AC 16 (typical for first level CRs), this translates into 6.5 points of damage per round which is respectable....and often enough to drop CR 1 creatures with one blow (making cleave an early attractive choice for such a fighter). Now consider the first level fighter with TWF. Assuming he also has an 18 strength (which is highly unlikely given he has to have a minimum Dex of 15 just to get the TWF feat), and uses two shortswords (the optimum combination for TWF fighters for a load of reasons), then he does d6+4/d6+2 damage and has a +3/+3 to hit. Against the same AC 16 opponent, each attack only has a 40% chance of hitting for an expected damage per round of 5.2 points of damage per round assuming that he gets to attack twice (while the THF guy will almost always get to attack once). This is significantly worse and that's giving the TWF guy all the advantages. No. Base TWF is extremely weak. WOTC overreacted from ADnD (and really this is old, old news or should be). Combat Expertise: You are doubling this bonus to AC. This makes it far stronger than Power Attack. Power Attack works because bonus to damage is NOT worth that much. In fact, a +1 to hit is worth about +3 to damage. Actually combat expertise could stand to be strengthened a tad. Not only is it 'dodge' defense which is pretty easy to counteract, but by the time you can use the full bonus (+5) and beyond, armor class boosts start to become increasingly pointless ESPECIALLY when your ability to take an enemy down quickly suffers. Add to that that Combat Expertise requires an Int 14 which is painful for many warrior builds, and I fail to see how this is a great feat. What makes it attractive is what it permits you to buy (namely improved trip). Combat Reflexes: Let me get this straight. You are taking the SINGLE best low level/no-preq feat in the core PHB and making it MORE powerfull??????? Oh man, the Spiked Chain + Armor Spike build is just going to destroy everything else now. Even ignoring that, hey, there is an already existing feats that does LESS than what you want to add to Combat Reflexes. I agree about Combat Reflexes. This this alone or your game will suffer. -Polaris
Tempest Stormwind 07-20-07, 12:52 AM	I'm with Polaris on most points. That said, I like the idea of certain feats applying to certain fighting styles other than THF/Power Attack. The Weapon Finesse one in particular I think could work. For TWF, I wouldn't double your AoOs. I would give extra AoOs equal to the number of off-hand attacks you could make. This mirrors the benefit from TWF feats (one extra attack per feat) while keeping the Combat Reflexes feat from going *too* powerful, too quickly (i.e. instead of going from 1 to 10 attacks of opportunity, you'd go from 1 to 6 with 18 Dexterity. As is, you'd go from 1 to 5.) This assumes you want to keep Combat Reflexes as the TWF feat synergy. One thought on Combat Expertise is simple, really -- say that if you are using a shield, you can exceed a penalty of -5. That way, it scales the same way Power Attack does with every weapon except two-handers, without making it unduly strong at low levels (since AC and attack rolls matter more than damage, this keeps whatever balance was already around until level 5). I've never played a Combat Expertise using warrior, though, so I don't know personally if it needs a boost at lower levels.
RLRapp 07-20-07, 02:19 AM	No love for Sword & Board? Remember, its not about how much damage you do. Its if you reduce him to 0 before you do.
Vaelan 07-20-07, 03:40 AM	Combat Expertise could probably use a boost for general use, but making such a change is going to pretty much wreck your game if someone decides to take Improved Combat Expertise, Dancing with Shadows, and, optionally, Allied Defense.
Polaris 07-20-07, 03:53 AM	No love for Sword & Board? Remember, its not about how much damage you do. Its if you reduce him to 0 before you do. In my experience, the sword and board fighter is the low level fighter (and it's often not worth it to go sword and board even then). Why? 1. Animated Shields This is the biggie. For a +3 enchantment (IIRC), you can have a shield that protects you and doesn't take up a hand. Thus you get to have your THF damage and your Sword and Board AC. 2. Shields aren't good enough. Even at low levels (where this form is the best), a large shield only adds two to your AC. For this, the hypothetical fighter with an 18 strength would have to go from a 2d6+6 damage (13 per hit average) down to 1d8+4 damage (or 8.5 per hit average). Considering that even at low levels it's better to win quickly given the varience inherent in the d20 roll, that's too high a price. Yes, with magic shields get better, but by the time they do, they can be animated (see point one) or hit points (rather than AC) becomes your primary line of defense. -Polaris
Polaris 07-20-07, 04:03 AM	Combat Expertise could probably use a boost for general use, but making such a change is going to pretty much wreck your game if someone decides to take Improved Combat Expertise, Dancing with Shadows, and, optionally, Allied Defense. This is precisely why (IMHO) we haven't seen Combat Expertise get a boost (and the boost it got was a companion feat...Improved Combat Expertise which really isn't much help). Near as I can tell, Combat Expertise and the horrible (for warrior types) Int 13+ Prerequisites are "costs of admission" to some of the better fighter feats in the game. I have noticed that WOTC likes to do this. In order to get some good feats/PrCs/abilities, you have to take stuff that otherwise sucks. -Polaris
runestar 07-20-07, 04:08 AM	It is possible for a fighter to 2HF, 2WF and use a shield at the same time, by wielding a 2-handed weapon, armour spikes as off-hand and using an animated shield. I honestly see a lot of problem with allowing combat reflexes and expertise to work the way the OP suggests in this scenario.:P
Polaris 07-20-07, 04:24 AM	It is possible for a fighter to 2HF, 2WF and use a shield at the same time, by wielding a 2-handed weapon, armour spikes as off-hand and using an animated shield. Yes.....and visualizing this just gave me a headache. Thanks a lot :P Seriously, though, I don't often see it unless the two-handed weapon is a polearm. Why? Armour spikes don't do enough base damage to justify the -2 all attacks that round in most cases, that's why. You'd see this when trying to generate the maximum possible threat radius (esp for polearms). -Polaris
Howland Reed 07-20-07, 11:59 AM	Thanks for the feedback, all. Tempus, your revision to Combat Reflexes is pretty much spot-on...kudos. As far as your Combat Expertise solution...it could work, but it strikes me as just making CE a lower-cost substitute for Total Defense, just as it is already a lower-cost substitute for Fighting Defensively. IE, it only gives you bonuses if you're willing to pretty much give up on your attacks (at low levels, how often are you going to be taking a -5 penalty?). Could work...but what I was aiming for was something that gave you a little extra, without paying for it (like 2H power attack damage). Your idea would give you a little extra...but you'd have to pay extra for it. Not worth it, most of the time...by th level it is, you could probably shell out a feat for Improved Combat Expertise. Vaelan, can you give me an idea of what Dancing With Shadows and/or Allied Defense do? (never heard of them...my book selection is fairly limited) Runestar, you pointed out one of the major flaws of fighting styles as they exist...which is that 3E rules are flexible enough that you don't need to be using one of them at a time (you pointed out the classic example). In order for this to work, I'd need a clarification that you can only be fighting one "style" in any round. Rather than an extra rule (and declaration.."I'm fighting two-handed"), I'd rather just try to word it so that the abuses don't work. Make the Combat Reflexes say "when fighting with a weapon in each hand (possibly with a double weapon), you get X bonus". That rules out armor spikes, since they are not a weapon in any hand. Make the Combat Expertise say "when fighting with a weapon in one hand and a shield in the other". Rules out animated shields. Granted, neither of these does anything for the existing Power Attack loophole (you still get it even if you're using armor spikes/animated shield). I don't know a good wording on that one, I'm afraid. P.S. have I mentioned that I hate spiked chains and animated shields? :) P.P.S. I'm considering scrapping this idea and just coming up with some good tactica/fighting style feats (a la complete warrior) that boost using sword&board and single-hand fighting. (that einhander feat from PHII was a joke)
Meep326 07-20-07, 12:55 PM	Combat Expertise: When you use the attack action or the full attack action in melee, you can take a penalty of as much as -5 on your attack roll and add the same number (+5 or less) as a dodge bonus to your Armor Class. If you are wielding a shield in your off hand, you can also add that number to your shield bonus. This number may not exceed your base attack bonus. The changes to attack rolls and Armor Class last until your next action. I don't really see a problem with this, except that you can get a total of +14 (I think, can't remember what the Tower Shield gives you) Shield bonus to you AC before epic, but compared to what a Wizard/Sorcerer or a Psion could get, that's not bad. Combat Reflexes: You may make a number of additional attacks of opportunity equal to your Dexterity bonus. If you wield two weapons, you may make as many attacks of opportunity with your off-hand weapon as with your primary weapon. With this feat, you may also make attacks of opportunity while flat-footed. That's insane, Avariel (Faerun stuff, flying elf, gets +4 dex) Fighter/Tempest I got to -0 on all attacks, seven attacks a round, and Ten or so AoO a round, then I took the Oportunist Feats from Dragon Magazine (Two-Weapon Attack of Opportunity, and up to three Attack of Opportunity on my main hand weapon for a total of four attacks for provoking once. After the first time I did it, my DM started saying it was broken. Weapon Finesse: With a light weapon, rapier, whip, or spiked chain made for a creature of your size category, you may use your Dexterity modifier instead of your Strength modifier on attack rolls. If you carry a shield, its armor check penalty applies to your attack rolls. If you have nothing in your off-hand, you may apply 1.5 times your Dex bonus to your attack rolls. Uh-huh... that makes no sense. A final note...the main drawbacks of other fighting styles are as follows: --single weapon: no significant advantages...that other hand simply doesn't give you any real benefits. --two-weapon: highly feat intensive, MAD in some builds. --weapon & shield: animated shields make this worthless most of the time. You've missed a main point of a Weapon and Shield build, combine it with the Two-Weapon build, and you get some fun going.