Post/Author/DateTime	Post
Xeviat-DM 03-19-07, 04:02 PM	I have been working at fixing two-weapon fighting for some time. After running numerous tests, I have a working idea of when TWFing is a good idea. The standard TWFing and ITWFing feats reasonably boost your damage output if your strength is considerably lower than your dexterity, and you take weapon finesse. If your strength exceeds your dexterity, then having a Two-Handed weapon is best. This brings up issues of balance between Str fighters and Dex fighters: is the added speed, lower armor check penalty, higher initiative, and higher reflex save worth the reduced damage? But this isn't what I am here to discuss today. I'm here to discuss some of the percieved imbalances of TWFing, and methods of fixing them. There are three major problems with TWFing. First, for many characters, the number of feats one has to spend on TWFing doesn't add up to an appreciatable payoff. Second, TWFing requires full attacks, giving Two-Handers a significant edge (true, this can be alleviated with more feats, but that brings us back to problem #1). Third, GTWF and PTWF feats do not grant as much of a benefit as even ITWF does; many think that ITWF is a bad feat too, but in tests it actually increases character's damage more than TWFing did, because TWFing comes with an attack penalty that reduces the main hand damage, and ITWF doesn't change these penalties. So, I have two major suggestions to make, and I'd like to see what your thoughts on them are. This is a simple TWFing fix, and I hope it will make the combat style more balanced against the others for more characters. Here are the changes: Two-Weapon Fighting [General, Fighter] Benefit: In addition to the standard benefits of the TWFing feat, allow a character with TWFing to make their off-hand attack as an extra standard action when ever they use a full round action or standard action to attack with their primary hand. For instance, after accepting the TWFing penalties, a character could make a standard attack with their primary hand against one foe, use a move action, then make another standard attack with their off-hand. Or, a character could make two attacks at the end of a charge, after accepting the TWFing penalties. Reasoning: someone who is effectively ambidextrous should be able to peform more actions. This reduces some of the discrepancies between TWFing and THFing, and allows TWFing to be slightly more mobile, as many TWFers in fiction are. By having more action, one is better able to exploit more options, such as using feints. Improved Two-Weapon Fighting [General, Fighter] Benefit: Instead of gaining one extra off-hand attack, Improved Two-Weapon Fighting now allows a character to make an extra off-hand full attack when ever they make a primary hand full attack action. Normal TWFing penalties still apply. Reasoning: This combines the extra actions idea of my TWFing fix with the old idea of combining ITWF, GTWF, and PTWF into one feat. Again, more actions means more options, which is what TWFing should stand for. I'm thinking of testing out a stipulation of only being able to sneak attack once per round, because I'm starting to think that the shock of being sneak attacked once in a round would make someone aware of any further attacks (one attack would make you unflatfooted). I'm aware that this would theoretically reduce a rogue's power, but in most cases I rarely see rogues get to full attack sneak attack someone without the help of improved invisibility (don't say flanking, because it generally takes a move action to move into flanking position, and a diagonal five foot step will put 10 feet between a flankee and the rogue flanker, requiring another move action to move back into flanking position). This idea I am not sure of, but I'm still looking into giving TWFing an edge with sneak attacks with feints (perhaps having Improved Feint allow you to feint as a move action or an attack action).
IbanezNinja 03-19-07, 04:11 PM	The twf fix is good, although I would switch the twf and imp twf abilities, and rename imp twf to something like dual strike. However... I'm thinking of testing out a stipulation of only being able to sneak attack once per round, because I'm starting to think that the shock of being sneak attacked once in a round would make someone aware of any further attacks (one attack would make you unflatfooted). I'm aware that this would theoretically reduce a rogue's power, but in most cases I rarely see rogues get to full attack sneak attack someone without the help of improved invisibility (don't say flanking, because it generally takes a move action to move into flanking position, and a diagonal five foot step will put 10 feet between a flankee and the rogue flanker, requiring another move action to move back into flanking position). This is a terrible idea. Why the unneeded nerf to rogues? Also, flanking. If the monster takes a five foot step, the rogue and his flanking buddy can do the same and still full attack.
tarkin 03-19-07, 04:42 PM	TWF does not need to be fixed TWF is almost ALWAYS a better idea than using a two handed weapon, as long as the player is not a moron, and the DM is not being extra lenient to the player. Cases when TWF, using the straight, unaddorned rules, works better than single weapon fighting: Using Ranger Favored Enemy When you have a low strength When you have Sneak Attack or similar per attack bonuss damage When you have over 36,000 gp to spend, and the DM rules that no more than 1/2 your gold can be spent on a single item (as the core rules say) When you have lots of feats and are use tripping or disarming, particularly if using the spiked chain and Armor spikes as your off hand weapon. Of the major combat classes, fighter, Ranger, Rogue are all better off using TWF than one weapon. Only Paladin and Barbarian are truly better off without it The reason some people don't like TWF is one of the following: 1. They are bad at math. 2. Their DM lets them ignore the "no more than 1/2 your gold in a single item rule." 3. They don't do tripping/disarming 4. They are not a Ranger/Rogue/Fighter and still want to TWF like the big boys.
Vharuck 03-19-07, 05:02 PM	TWF does not need to be fixed TWF is almost ALWAYS a better idea than using a two handed weapon, as long as the player is not a moron, and the DM is not being extra lenient to the player. Cases when TWF, using the straight, unaddorned rules, works better than single weapon fighting: Using Ranger Favored Enemy When you have a low strength When you have Sneak Attack or similar per attack bonuss damage When you have over 36,000 gp to spend, and the DM rules that no more than 1/2 your gold can be spent on a single item (as the core rules say) When you have lots of feats and are use tripping or disarming, particularly if using the spiked chain and Armor spikes as your off hand weapon. Of the major combat classes, fighter, Ranger, Rogue are all better off using TWF than one weapon. Only Paladin and Barbarian are truly better off without it The reason some people don't like TWF is one of the following: 1. They are bad at math. 2. Their DM lets them ignore the "no more than 1/2 your gold in a single item rule." 3. They don't do tripping/disarming 4. They are not a Ranger/Rogue/Fighter and still want to TWF like the big boys. True. Basically, everything in D&D has positives and negatives, it just requires the player to alter the situations to favor them instead of demanding the rules alter.
NoldorForce 03-19-07, 05:10 PM	TWF does not need to be fixed TWF is almost ALWAYS a better idea than using a two handed weapon, as long as the player is not a moron, and the DM is not being extra lenient to the player.See, that's the problem. This simply isn't true. There's one thing that THF does much better than any other weapon style, and it's the reason why THF is considered one of the better styles. Power Attack. Sure, you may be taking penalties. But there are a lot of ways to reduce or negate the penalty to attack rolls. And in the mean time...the TWF character can't properly use the feat unless he takes yet another feat just to bring himself level with the two-hander. Plus, there are quite a few ways to gain a collection of extra natural attacks. Permanencied spells, grafts, and all sorts of fun things. The investment required for them is comparatively low.
IbanezNinja 03-19-07, 06:59 PM	TWF does not need to be fixed TWF is almost ALWAYS a better idea than using a two handed weapon, as long as the player is not a moron, and the DM is not being extra lenient to the player. Cases when TWF, using the straight, unaddorned rules, works better than single weapon fighting: Using Ranger Favored Enemy When you have a low strength When you have Sneak Attack or similar per attack bonuss damage When you have over 36,000 gp to spend, and the DM rules that no more than 1/2 your gold can be spent on a single item (as the core rules say) When you have lots of feats and are use tripping or disarming, particularly if using the spiked chain and Armor spikes as your off hand weapon. Of the major combat classes, fighter, Ranger, Rogue are all better off using TWF than one weapon. Only Paladin and Barbarian are truly better off without it The reason some people don't like TWF is one of the following: 1. They are bad at math. 2. Their DM lets them ignore the "no more than 1/2 your gold in a single item rule." 3. They don't do tripping/disarming 4. They are not a Ranger/Rogue/Fighter and still want to TWF like the big boys. Reason number one is especially ironic considering how much better THF is than TWF in just about all cases. Seriously, TWF is terrible in all cases but the rogues sneak attack. It can be workable with the rangers favored enemy, but he'd probably be better off overall with THF.
Roland the Crownbreaker 03-19-07, 07:31 PM	Much of the debate between the two fighting styles is dependent on..... The DM's running style The more creatures with DR come up (especially if the party doesn't have a way to simply bypass it), the more two handed combat is favored. If your DM tends to use things that can't seem to miss even on the last attacks of the round, the higher AC a two weapon user often has (via the dex requirement to even get the feats) becomes a non-issue. Or the higher dexterity needed to utilize the two weapon combat style may very well result in less damage taken, based on more reflex saves being made, as well as the benefits of a higher AC. Party playing style A group with more teamwork will tend to toss out more bonuses to hit and damage, which will favor a character with more attacks. While this will help on two handed power attacks as well, the very nature of reducing that attack bonus is not very favorable towards the last attacks made. A bard singing, coupled with one or two other bonuses can add up to not only more damage per attack, but more attacks connecting. In addition, the higher defenses of the two weapon user can result in less resources being devoted to healing. This means more spells can be used for buffs and attacking during combat. Player ability This is both abilty during play, and during the character build. A two weapon user requires for more advance planning to pull off. The two handed character, on the other hand, is much simpler to use as far as optimizing damage is concerned, and harder to make mistakes with while choosing feats. For fighters trying to use TWF, look at what feats you intend to use, including tactical and weapon style feats. These can give you things like free disarm checks, free trip attempts, chances to stun the enemy for a round, and extra attacks for rolling critical threats. For rangers, don't forget your spell list! Spells like fell greatest foe, which adds 1d6 damage per attack per size category you are smaller than your opponent, and blades of fire, which merely adds 1d8 fire damage per attack, for a first level spell. Granted, the latter is only for one round, but it is also has an immediate action for a casting time. Then there are feats that are useful no matter what class the TWF character is, such as two weapon rend. Anything that adds in more attacks is a plus.
Xeviat-DM 03-20-07, 04:58 AM	Tarkin, you rarely bring any physical evidence to these debates. I have used statistical evidence in the past to show that THFing out damages TWFing in all circumstances except low strength fighters and rogues getting the chance to deal full flanking sneak attacks. Now, Tarkin, I will show you something that I've said before on several occasions. One of the problems I was trying to aleviate above with TWFing is the fact that GTWF allows a character to deal less extra damage than ITWF does. Answer me this: If Weapon Specialization grants +2 damage, would it be okay for Greater Weapon Specialization to grant only +1 damage? That's effectively what GTWF does; ITWF actually boosts damage more than TWF dos, but GTWF boosts less than both, and PTWF is almost negligable. Please, answer me that. Why on Earth would anyone spend the same resource (one feat) on a higher tier feat that does less than a feat they took 5 levels earlier? If you look at the fix I proposed above, rather than giving your cookie cutter responce that you give to all TWFing discussions, you would see that my TWFing fix does not boost a character's damage more than the current TWFing scheme until +11 BAB; and then I'm only really saving them from taking one crappy feat. 1 feat. 1. Just 1, that's right, 1. Uno, Ichi. One. Just one. ----------- IbanezNinja, I have a love-hate relationship with rogues. I've seen rogues tear through monsters like nobody's business with full-round sneak attacks before, generally aided by things such as Improved Invisibility. I think feinting sneak attacks should be more prevalent than flanking sneak attacks. It's probably a percieved annoyance, since I've seen rogues out fight fighters, but this could be caused by fighters general sucking. But again, I'm only considering changes. I would never make any changes without testing them in best and worse case scenarios. ----------- Here's some numbers, to prove that us "Buff TWFing" advocates aren't "Bad at Math". This is a TWFing rogue's average damage ouput compared against a Rapier rogue. The characters have the same ability scores, the same equipment, and the same feat choices, except that the TWFer has TWFing and ITWFing (and their weapon focus and improved critical feats have different weapons). These are the damage outputs of their full attack actions: the sneak attacks are given +2 to hit, simulating flanking or attacking a flatfooted opponent with average Dex (14). TWFer Full Attack (TWF): +16/+11 (1d6+4, 17/x2) and +16/+11 (1d6+3, 17/x2) = 13.3; 15.96 w/crit Full Sneak Attack (TWF): +18/+13 (1d6+4, 17/x2, +6d6 sneak) and +18/+13 (1d6+4, 17/x2, +6d6 sneak) = 64.4; 67.62 w/crit Rapier-er Full Attack: +19/+14 (1d6+5, 15/x2) = 10.625; 13.8125 w/crit Full Sneak Attack: +21/+16 (1d6+5, 15/x2, +6d6 sneak) = 42.775; 46.4725 w/crit So, without a sneak attack, spending two feats have increased the TWFer's average damage by +2.1475, or an average increase of 1.07375 per feat. With a sneak attack, the rogue's average damage is increased by 21.1475, or an average increase of 10.57375 per feat. So, I will admit that TWFing is a viable option for rogues. If you apply my changes I suggested above, this rogue's damage is not increased what so ever; their options are. This rogue will save one single feat at BAB +11, or level 15. I've tested fighters before, and as far as damage is concerned, it's not pretty. The TWFer's average damage compared to a THFer's decreased by 3 points on a full-attack. This THFer wasn't even using power attack at the most optimal setting. The TWFer had spend 3 additional feats. Both characters were 12th level and had 20 Str and 20 Dex, easily accomplished at this level with magic items. Some will point to Disarm builds. I'd rather have +30/+25/+20 to my disarm attempts than +24/+20/+19/+15/+14/+10 any day of the week, I'm sorry (compare a THFer using a heavy flail to a TWFer using a dire-flail). You're usually only going to have to disarm one weapon anyway. This disarm build also requires EWP (Dire Flail) too. Some will point to Trip builds. Trip builds are unhurt by TWFing's normal penalties, but I don't see much worth of having twice as many trip attempts. Maybe I'm missing something here, but a trip build still requires damage to be dealt in order to defeat someone, and I've proven time and time again that THFing will deal more damage in a fighter's hands than TWFing will, unless your strength is very low (in which case, you shouldn't be doing a trip build). Trip builds exceed in keeping opponents at bay, which is best done with something with reach. Since, core PHB weapons only, there are no one-handed reach weapons that you can make attacks of opportunity with (you can't make attacks of opportunity with a whip), TWFing trip builds do not impress me. I'll hold my tongue before I break code of conduct here.
Xeviat-DM 03-20-07, 05:00 AM	Reason number one is especially ironic considering how much better THF is than TWF in just about all cases. Seriously, TWF is terrible in all cases but the rogues sneak attack. It can be workable with the rangers favored enemy, but he'd probably be better off overall with THF. The ranger is better off with a two-hander. In average cases, a ranger's favored enemy bonus will not exceed +4, the same as a fighter's greater weapon specialization. As I've shown in a test I posted on this board, the fighter's greater weapon specialization did not help a TWFing fighter deal more damage than a THFing fighter; the TWFer dealt 3 less with their full attack than the THFer. It's only good for rogues, or very low strength fighters. But if you're a low strength fighter, you should probably have been a rogue.