Post/Author/DateTime	Post
Threefists 05-04-07, 07:17 AM	Now, before this goes any further, this is just a idea! I've always enjoyed Two Weapon Fighting and it's Feat Tree, but there is only so much dual-wielding you can do before you get bored s**tless with it. Playing a Half-Orc Barbarian with a Falchion is just as much fun, but there are times when the additional attacks made with the TWF feats can make all the difference against multiple opponents. So, I decided to come up with something to help balance things a little.... Great Strike Prerequisites: Str 17, Weapon Focus with the chosen weapon, base attack +6 Benefit: When making a full attack, you may make a additional attack at your maximum base attack against a opponent that occupies a square (Whether wholy or just a single part of the second target's body) within your reach. Damage for both the first and second blow are identical, assuming that the attacker can beat both enemies AC. Missing the first opponent's AC also means you miss the second opponent.. All attacks made by you in this round take a -2 penalty, and if the strike against the first opponent is a critical, only the first opponent takes the critical damage, as the vast majority of the power of your blow was absorbed by the first target, and the second target only takes the non-critical-multiplied damage. Normal: As per normal two-handed weapon fighting rules. Special: This feat cannot be used in conjunction with Two-Weapon Fighting, such as using a Great-Axe and Armor Spikes, although it can be used with Multi-Weapon Fighting. A Marilith with this feat could wield three Greatswords and use this feat. Improved Great Strike Prerequisites: Str 19, Weapon Focus with the chosen weapon, Great Strike, Base Attack +12 Benefit: As per Great Strike, but you may add a fourth attack to your routine. Thus, a Fighter with a Halberd, facing three Gnolls, could make two +10 (Including -2 attack penalty) attacks against the first and second Gnoll, and then two +5 (Including -2 attack penalty) attacks against those same two Gnolls but not against the third. The -2 penalty to attack rolls remains the same. Greater Great Strike Prerequisites: Str +22, Weapon Focus with the chosen weapon, Great Strike, Improved Great Strike, Base Attack +18 Benefit: As per IGS and GS, but you may add a sixth attack to your routine. Using the above example, that same fighter could make two +16 (Including -2 attack penalty) attacks, two +11 (Including -2 attack penalty) attacks and two +6 (Including -2 attack penalty) attacks against the first and second Gnolls, but not the third. The -2 penalty to attack rolls remains the same. Now, asking in all seriousness, would you allow this feat to be used with spells like Haste, which add a extra attack? (I'm thinking limiting that additional 'magic' strike to the first enemy.) The whole idea of this feat is that someone using a big, two-handed weapon is obviously not going to be able to attack opponents that are too far apart, but for enemies that are close together (IE, they are in adjacent squares), the strain of using a large, heavy weapon is not so great and can be used to quickly strike the both of them. Ideas? Flaws? Please, give me your opinions.
Platstud 05-04-07, 07:22 AM	Screw two-handed, there's plenty of reason for that. I'd like to see an actual reason to use a one-handed weapon without a shield.
Threefists 05-04-07, 07:36 AM	Errr....that really didn't answer my question, but in answer to yours, you're probably looking for the Einhander Tactical Feat from the PHB II. That grants bonuses and special manuevers while wielding a one-handed weapon in one hand and nothing in the other. Very handy for PC's with high tumble skill and excellent Dexterity.
Frugal 05-04-07, 08:40 AM	THF is already the most powerful strategy in all but a few limited examples (Ranger TWFing against a favoured enemy, Rogue getting multiple sneak attacks in), why the need to make it even better?
jaelis 05-04-07, 09:10 AM	THF is already the most powerful strategy in all but a few limited examples (Ranger TWFing against a favoured enemy, Rogue getting multiple sneak attacks in), why the need to make it even better? Because evidently, in the OPs game, TWF is more popular. I wouldn't recommend feats like these for general use, but for his game, they might make sense. Though I'd be more inclined myself to say that if TWF is popular, let it be. It's not hurting the game by being overpowering... so if your players want to be Drizzt clones, why not just let them? If anything, maybe you should boost the TWF style so that players can be effective with their preferred characters.
Irving 05-04-07, 09:27 AM	As the player of a TWF fighter/rogue, I must confess there's a gleeful joy in picking up buckets and buckets of d6's and throwing on the table.
Frugal 05-04-07, 09:56 AM	Because evidently, in the OPs game, TWF is more popular. I wouldn't recommend feats like these for general use, but for his game, they might make sense. Though I'd be more inclined myself to say that if TWF is popular, let it be. It's not hurting the game by being overpowering... so if your players want to be Drizzt clones, why not just let them? If anything, maybe you should boost the TWF style so that players can be effective with their preferred characters. Agreed, there's far more cheese to be pulled off and unless it's all the few classes who can actually take advantage of TWF and make it work, where's the issue? The OP should be glad he's not being overwhelmed by leap attacking THFers. The other possibility is that maybe he's employed some house rules that make TWF better or he's not properly following the rules for TWF. I honestly can't see how it's that prevalent. As the player of a TWF fighter/rogue, I must confess there's a gleeful joy in picking up buckets and buckets of d6's and throwing on the table. Well yes, the rogue is one of the best classes for TWF. But, there's so many ways to negate it that it's not that unbalancing. If the DM isn't going to use sneak attack immune creatures around now and then and lets you flank all the time then that's his problem.
Threefists 05-04-07, 10:00 AM	Well, Two Handed Fighting is a very powerful style, but it does have it's downsides in the fact that, if you put two fighters side-by-side, one fighting with a Two-Handed Weapon and the other fighting with a double weapon or two one-handed or lighter weapons, the fighter using a two-handed weapon is going to be restricted (at higher levels) to two or maybe three (if he/she/it is lucky) against the well-armoured enemies, while a dual-wielding fighter will get anywhere from 2 to 4 attacks in, even with the -2 penalty. Also, a Two-Weapon Fighter (Fighter, Rogue, Barbarian, Paladin, Ranger etc) can split his/her/it's attacks, dealing Main-Hand weapon to one target and Off-Hand weapon to a secondary target. The purpose of the above feats was to try and compensate for the Two-Handed style's 'limit' to attacks. Admittedly the strength bonus (1.5) is great, but.... Let's use some examples: Level 12 Human Fighter with the above feats, Weapon Focus/Specialisation/Improved Weapon Focus with a Falchion, with a strength score of 19. Against two enemies, his DPS will be 2D4 18-20/x2 +6 for strength +2 for Weap Spec. That means, on a average attack roll, he'll be doing roughly 10-16 damage per hit. Against two foes (assuming he beats their AC) he'll do anywhere from 20-32 points of damage to both, assuming neither has any special qualities that would diminish that damage. Now, let's look at a Two-Weapon fighter, same stats as above but with Weapon Focus (Scimitar), Weapon Specialisation (Scimitar), Two Weapon Fighting and Improved Two Weapon Fighting, we'll say Scimitar/Kukri are his weapons. On a average attack roll, with the Scimitar he'll deal 1d6 18-20/x2 +4 for strength +2 for Weap Spec, and with the Kukri he'll deal 1d4 18-20/x2 +2 for strength. Against two foes (assuming he beats their AC), he'll do anywhere from 7-12 damage with the Scimitar and 3-7 damage with the Kukri per hit, and doing damage to both with 14-24 damage with the Scimitar and 6-14 damage with the Kukri. Comparing DPS, that's a maximum of 64 points of damage for the Two-Handed Spec Fighter against the maximum 38 points of damage from the Two-Weapon Spec Fighter. Without the Great Strike feats, the Two-Handed Spec Fighter would only have done 32 points of damage. Can anyone else see the point here? (Arguably the Two-Weapon fighter here is a little under-powered in weaponry, and the Two-Handed fighter is a little overpowered (Falchion is arguably the best two-handed sword in the game, critical wise) .) Edit: After altering the strength requirements, it's obvious that the feats I've created make Two Handed Weapons overly powerful....Hmmm
Threefists 05-04-07, 10:17 AM	Had a couple of friends play-testing this while I waited for some people to post. Adjusting requirements of the feats FAR upwards! Ugh, recalculating Max damage shows that at level 12, a Fighter with a Falchion is gonna crap all over the players' Scimitar/Kukri PCs....Hummmm....well, I'll get the guys to play-test the feats again...possibly limiting Damage to 1/2 that inflicted to the first target in addition to no criticals. Also, I want to see what happens when we apply the criticals to the mix...
Nakat 05-04-07, 10:21 AM	Of course, since a Two-Handed Fighter is doing so much more damage, and a Barbarian past level 8 or 10 is likely forcing saves vs. massive damage on every attack, it is also reasonable to point out that instead of taking those two-weapon feats, he can take Power Attack, Leaping Power Attack, Cleave, and Great Cleave. There's your extra attacks right there, every time you drop someone. And it's almost always better to focus one one person till they are down, at least tactically.
Threefists 05-04-07, 10:37 AM	Valid points, but in the campaign we're dealing with, we aren't facing hordes of weak enemies but rather groups of equal strength. Cleave and Great Cleave only really work when you're in the midst of weak enemies or facing Hydras. These PC's are facing freaking Knights in Battle-Plate...and before you say it, NO, I am not the DM, but his 'little helper', if you will. He's wracking his brain to try and find several ways that the PC's can avoid being absolutely ass-raped by his home-brewed campaign (Nobody expected them to all roll freaking Rogues, Swordsages and Rangers....only one Fighter in the group and guess what, he multi-classed into, you guess it, Rogue, for 12 LEVELS!), and since several PCs have been brutally wounded in the fighting, re-rolling looks like a option. Thus, since he can't suddenly turn around and say "Alright, Knights are now required to wear Chainmail shirts" without ruining the Role Playing atmosphere, I'm trying to figure out a Feat that's similar to Two-Weapon Fighting but not horrendously over-powered...which my first attempts at the feats above most definitely were.
Frugal 05-04-07, 11:34 AM	Why the heck are you using such a crappy 2-handed weapon? Break out the greatsword, 2d6 +4 for STR + 2 for weapon specialisation, 8-18 damage, average of 13. Now that's also ignoring any weapon enhancement, which is cheaper for the THF since he only has 1 weapon. If we assume the -2 to hit is insignificant then how about power attacking for -2 and getting another +4 to hit? Suddenly he's doing 12-22 damage, averaging 17, with the same hit bonus as the TWFer. You're also assuming the same STR for the TWFer and he just plain can't afford to invest as much in STR because he needs to get his DEX up there too in order to even qualify for TWF. Now the other mistake you're making is ignoring that the TWFer has to make twice as many attack rolls. Yes, the TWFer might have a better maximum potential damage but consider that he had to make twice as many attack rolls to get them and twice as many confirmation rolls for crits. You're only looking at maximum potential damage (and frankly, that's a really weak THFer for focusing on that) and not looking at the average damage. Ignoring crits for a moment, the TWFer averages 8.5 per hit with the scimitar and 2.5 for the Kukri (off-hand light weapon so it's only half STR bonus which rounds to 0), assuming he hits with both he's averaging 11, that THFer I mentioned above averages 17, so he's 5 points ahead, and only had to make 1 attack roll to get it, plus he can decide to focus on accuracy and net a +10% to hit and still average 2 more damage. Assuming he wants to focus on crits and does use a falchion he's got the 2d4 + 4 for STR and +2 for weapon spec +4 for Power attack, so he's going to average 15, still 4 better than the TWFer with 1 attack roll or he can average the same damage and have the +10% accuracy. If he crits, he's got a max damage of 36 compared to a max of 32 from the scimitar and kukri assuming they crit on both, which is harder to do. Now sure, TWF is better for fighting 2 opponents at once but you're splitting your damage across 2 opponents. I know I'd much rather focus on 1 and with a THFer I'm more likely to be able to drop him and then I can get a cleave attempt against the 2nd. Surprised by pulling cleave out? Well the other thing you neglected to account for was that the THFer has 2 extra feats that you didn't account for at all so he can easily pull out cleave and improved critical (falchion) for instance, or fight with that greatsword and deal more damage and take improved critical (greatsword) with that and have a better chance of critting with it than your crit focused scimitar/kukri build.
Frugal 05-04-07, 11:54 AM	Valid points, but in the campaign we're dealing with, we aren't facing hordes of weak enemies but rather groups of equal strength. Cleave and Great Cleave only really work when you're in the midst of weak enemies or facing Hydras. These PC's are facing freaking Knights in Battle-Plate... Have you seen what leap attack can do? Let's assume that same old -2 to power attack, now I'm getting +8 from that. I'm charging so let's take out another -2 out of that (to make it equal to the TWFer again), now I'm netting +16 damage and the same chances to hit. They're in battle-plate? Sounds like high ACs to me so I still have the option to not power attack and get much better chances to hit. Or, how about taking the feat (shock trooper I believe it is) that allows me to take my minus to power attack as a minus to AC instead of to hit. Okay, well now at the level 12 (you edited things) I'll take that full -12 on power attack, use leap attack, +48 to damage, and I'm +20% more likely to hit (+2 from not using TWF, +2 for the charge). If you do use massive damage rules that's enough to trigger a save to stay alive. Even if you don't, odds are you've done enough damage to drop your target, now it's time to cleave, same attack bonus, same bonus to damage, so you can quite possibly drop him, now great cleave kicks in if there's more people around.
Irving 05-04-07, 04:20 PM	Well yes, the rogue is one of the best classes for TWF. But, there's so many ways to negate it that it's not that unbalancing. If the DM isn't going to use sneak attack immune creatures around now and then and lets you flank all the time then that's his problem. I've got an advantage on the flanking issue - We've got a very crowded gema, with as many as 10 PCs at our max. That makes it far easier to find a flanking buddy. And quite honestly, that's the other half of the fun with a fighter/rogue - mobility. Tumbling like mad to try and scoot past two other opponents and your allies is very Jackie Chan-esque, and a whole lot of fun to boot. Mobility and Combat Expertise are lovely when it gets time to hoof it to the opponent's rear. +9 AC? Yes, please.
Threefists 05-04-07, 08:14 PM	Sorry, obviously I've neglected to mention some things.... One...These are just ideas...no need to jump down my throat. I was trying to create a feat that would make Two-Handed Fighting a little more interesting, but after the playtesting, it's obvious these feats are going to make such a build far too powerful... Two...This is a low-magic campaign, and we have one magic weapon....a +1 lance that they looted from the High Lord of the Knights and which is responsible for their current predicament! Three...They're getting to the upper levels, and since nobody is taking Fighter levels anymore, Leap Attack is a no go. Yes, I have used this feat personally with a Barbarian/Fighter of mine. Trust me, I know the carnage a raging Half-Orc can do after he jumps over the first rank, lands in the middle of a group of Hob-Goblins and starts Cleaving his little heart out....Mind you, try using/abusing that feat too much and watch the DM point out it's a little hard to jump so far in corridors and dungeons with low ceilings.... Four...Maximum damage is not weak. That's what you should be aiming for if you're going for the Two-Handed style. You've only got 4 attacks, you've got to make them count. I used the Falchion simply for example because A) It's the best two-handed weapon for consistent criticals and B) It has the same Critical Rate as the PCs' favoured weapons. Greatsword will do more damage on a average, but how often do your dice roll in a average fashion? One of the joys of this game is, due to the fickle favours of the dice, no two campaigns, even if they are exact copies of each other, will ever play out the same, even if the Players choose the same course in each one.
Vaelan 05-04-07, 09:44 PM	To resolve the problem of heavily-armored Knights being insurmountable: sounds to me like one of them needs to take Leadership for a Bard cohort who can give them massive bonuses to their attack and damage rolls. As for everyone using TWF, their next characters won't be using it so there is no need for a fix.
Frugal 05-04-07, 10:00 PM	Four...Maximum damage is not weak. That's what you should be aiming for if you're going for the Two-Handed style. You've only got 4 attacks, you've got to make them count. I used the Falchion simply for example because A) It's the best two-handed weapon for consistent criticals and B) It has the same Critical Rate as the PCs' favoured weapons. Greatsword will do more damage on a average, but how often do your dice roll in a average fashion? One of the joys of this game is, due to the fickle favours of the dice, no two campaigns, even if they are exact copies of each other, will ever play out the same, even if the Players choose the same course in each one. I didn't say that maximum damage was weak, I said that only looking at maximum damage isn't a good idea. If we take the falchion vs. greatsword then on average the greatsword will out damage the falchion. Maximising crits is fun and does improve your damage potential but base the greatsword is only 5% less likely to threaten a crit than the falchion, I'd be more inclined to take the increased likelihood of more damage. Sure improved crit will gain more from the falchion (15-20 vs. 17-20) but the thing to remember is that the 15 only threatens if it's a hit. It sounds like you're fighting highly armoured opponents so you can't rely on that 15 being a hit, I'll take the 17-20 crit range and better damage with the non-crits thank you very much.
Grod_The_Giant 05-04-07, 10:09 PM	a dual-wielding fighter will get anywhere from 2 to 4 attacks in, even with the -2 penalty. that might be a problem. Each off hand attack is progressively weaker.
Threefists 05-05-07, 03:35 AM	*sigh* Ugh, well, there goes that idea...we play-tested it again...bad, bad bad idea. Give this to a Munchkin with access to my Half-Fire Giant Template from the Races Forum and you've got total insanity... In hindsight, trying to add ever more attacks to the THF style was going to ruffle feathers even if we had worked the feat out right, but we have 'pared' things down so that if a Fighter using the Two Handed Style needs some extra grunt/AC, he can choose these feats: Great Strike Prerequisites: Str 19, Power Attack, Weapon Focus with the chosen Two-Handed Weapon, base attack +12 Benefit: When making a full attack and taking a minimum of -6 on your Power Attack, you may make a additional attack at your maximum base attack against a opponent that occupies a square (Whether wholy or just a single part of the second target's body) within your reach. Damage for both the first and second blow are identical, assuming that the attacker can beat both enemies AC. Missing the first opponent's AC also means you miss the second opponent.. All attacks made by you in this round take a -2 penalty, and if the strike against the first opponent is a critical, only the first opponent takes the critical damage, as the vast majority of the power of your blow was absorbed by the first target, and the second target only takes the non-critical-multiplied damage. Normal: As per normal two-handed weapon fighting rules. Special: This feat cannot be used in conjunction with Two-Weapon Fighting, such as using a Great-Axe and Armor Spikes, nor can it be used with the Improved Sunder, Cleave and Great Cleave feats, although it can be used with Multi-Weapon Fighting. A Marilith with this feat could wield three Greatswords and use this feat. Two-Handed Parry Prerequisites: Str 15, Combat Expertise or Combat Reflexes, Weapon Focus with the chosen Two-Handed weapon (Not a Reach Weapon), Base Attack +6 Benefit: While wielding a Two-Handed Weapon, but not a reach weapon, the Character gains a +1 Deflection bonus to AC, and when fighting defensively gain a +2 Deflection bonus to AC. This stacks with fighting Defensively and taking the Total Defense option, but cannot be used if the Character in question is flat-footed. Normal: You can only use the Fight Defensively or Total Defense options to increase your armour if you are using a Two-Handed Weapon (perhaps not the right way to word this....) Special: None. Now, are these horrendous or are they balanced?
unundindur 05-05-07, 07:25 AM	I cannot agree that something beeing popular is reason enough to improve something else. Its like when 3rd edition came out and the cleric was the king of the party, evidentely because none ever played one in 2nd edition. If everythign is balanced people play what they want to play, which in my mind is a good thing, even if it leads to the same concept over and over (been there done that ;) ).
Threefists 05-05-07, 09:55 AM	Sorry, you've mis-understood my reasons for creating these feats...I'm not trying to make Two-Handed specc Melee types "OMGWTFPWNED!" like a combat-specc Wild-Shaping Druid or full-20 level Rogue, but trying to add a variety to the feats available. After play-testing the Feats three different times, in three different incarnations, the latest feats are, as far as a experienced group is concerned, powerful enough that we're worried that we've tipped the 'power balance' too far in favour of Two-Handed weapons. If I didn't care about balance, I wouldn't be here asking for PEACHing, now would I? Rather than saying "Nah, Two-Handed doesn't need that.", tell me why you think so? Cleave, Leap Attack and Great Cleave are wonderful...so long as you're a Barbarian with a huge strength bonus in addition to your Rage, your Jump skill is maxed out and you're fighting level 6 Goblins or a 7-headed Hydra, but against small numbers of High AC, High HD enemies, you are going to be hurt really badly/be somewhat ineffective/die horrible.
unundindur 05-05-07, 10:34 AM	Here you can find my reasoning: Link (http://boards1.wizards.com/showthread.php?t=759713) Its seen from the opposite view, but the essence remains the same :) I hope this helps us understand each other.
Frugal 05-05-07, 11:13 AM	I guess my thinking is that THF is already powerful without any investment in feats. The parrying one seems okay flavour-wise, the other one just looks too much like cleave except not having to drop the 1st opponent. My thinking though is from a balance standpoint THF works "out of the box" and is quite powerful, even without feat investment. TWF might seem powerful in some circumstances but consider that it also involves an investment of at least 1, and more likely 2 or 3, feats. With those same number of feats THFer can become more powerful still, or diversify. I think the big issue is that you seem to have a problem with the stereotypical "grr, me smash!" image of the THFer and want to add some versatility to the fighting style. The parrying feat seems to suggest a little more of a finesse fighter but there's not many 2-handed finesseable weapons so it doesn't really fit the concept for that reason (although adding some more weapons like that could make it cool). The great strike feat still feels too much like "grr, me smash!" to me and the THFer is already pretty much the best at that.
Nephlite 05-05-07, 11:25 AM	Sorry, you've mis-understood my reasons for creating these feats...I'm not trying to make Two-Handed specc Melee types "OMGWTFPWNED!" like a combat-specc Wild-Shaping Druid or full-20 level Rogue, but trying to add a variety to the feats available. After play-testing the Feats three different times, in three different incarnations, the latest feats are, as far as a experienced group is concerned, powerful enough that we're worried that we've tipped the 'power balance' too far in favour of Two-Handed weapons. If I didn't care about balance, I wouldn't be here asking for PEACHing, now would I? Rather than saying "Nah, Two-Handed doesn't need that.", tell me why you think so? Cleave, Leap Attack and Great Cleave are wonderful...so long as you're a Barbarian with a huge strength bonus in addition to your Rage, your Jump skill is maxed out and you're fighting level 6 Goblins or a 7-headed Hydra, but against small numbers of High AC, High HD enemies, you are going to be hurt really badly/be somewhat ineffective/die horrible. So is the Fighter using a 2 handed weapon and dual weaponing with armor spikes? It works and deals decent damage, try it sometime. That way: you can eat your cake and still have it (most people try to have their cake and eat, simple, but true enlightenment is the opposite).
NiQil 05-05-07, 07:28 PM	One idea I had to your dilemma would be to make feats that the TWF can take that will decrease the Dex requirement to progress in TWF, so that they can then turn around and enhance other things, like Str or Con.
Vaelan 05-05-07, 08:11 PM	I'm . . . trying to add a variety to the feats available. Adding feats in a lopsided manner isn't wise. I would start with fixing the written system for TWF so that it doesn't suck (see: require 123090 feats) and writing some decent feats for TWF, myself. After play-testing the Feats three different times, in three different incarnations, the latest feats are, as far as a experienced group is concerned, powerful enough that we're worried that we've tipped the 'power balance' too far in favour of Two-Handed weapons. What you are observing is the natural superiority of two-handed weapons. Since it is already better and you're making it even better still, you're observing a clear imbalance. Rather than saying "Nah, Two-Handed doesn't need that.", tell me why you think so? See above comment on natural superiority. Since you don't seem to get it, I will go into detail about why two-handed weapons are superior. 1. They do the same damage as hitting with two weapons. This is, of course, until you take bonus damage into account. But since you're playing a no-magic game, most bonus damage is eliminated. 2. They don't suffer a penalty to attack rolls. Since you're playing a no-magic game, many bonuses to hit are also eliminated, so the penalty from two-weapon fighting is even worse. 3. Iterative attacks do not require a feat. A 6th level Fighter busts out two greatsword swings for 4d6+3xStrength while a two-weapon Fighter has to take two feats to accomplish the exact same base damage. Now the two-handed fighter is free to take two feats to make his combat style even better. Take Power Attack and you're turning that +2 to hit advantage into +4 damage. 4. A standard action only allows one attack regardless of whether or not you wield a two-handed or one-handed/light weapon. 2d6+1.5xStrength or 1d6+Strength... not a tough choice. 5. In a no-magic game, a TWFer will need to find two magical weapons, which isn't going to happen. 6. TWF is doubly mitigated by damage reduction. Cleave, Leap Attack and Great Cleave are wonderful...so long as you're a Barbarian with a huge strength bonus in addition to your Rage, your Jump skill is maxed out and you're fighting level 6 Goblins or a 7-headed Hydra, but against small numbers of High AC, High HD enemies, you are going to be hurt really badly/be somewhat ineffective/die horrible. Every combat style becomes less effective when you're fighting high AC enemies since they all require attack rolls. Two-handed fighting takes the smallest hit, though. One idea I had to your dilemma would be to make feats that the TWF can take that will decrease the Dex requirement to progress in TWF, so that they can then turn around and enhance other things, like Str or Con. Yeah, because that's what a TWFer needs: more feats to take!