Post/Author/DateTime	Post
tarkin 03-19-07, 05:03 PM	As Two Weapon Fighting is one of the best combat techniques for Rogues, Rangers, and Fighters, I thought we should discuss possible nerfs for it, to keep those characters from overpowering the other players. 1. Restrict Rogues (and similar classes) to only get 1/2 normal Sneak Attack for their off hand. 2. Do the same for Rangers, reducing their Favored Enemey bonus down to 1/2 normal when using their off hand. 3. Rule that any trip attempt made while TWFing takes the TWF penalty to the their Trip Strength check. 4. Rule that you can not use Armor spikes to disarm (thereby nerfing the TWF spiked chain + armor spiked build). 5. Rule that when purchasing weapons, no more than 1/2 your gold may go to weapons (thereby equalizing twf with the standard rule about no more than 1/2 your gold going to any single magic item.) With these in play, rogues, rangers, tripping/disarming fighters and your high level magic weapon fighters will no longer crush all opposition.
PhaedrusXY 03-19-07, 05:07 PM	:heehee I hope this is a joke.
Ellanon 03-19-07, 05:11 PM	:heehee I hope this is a joke. No, I don't think Tarkin has a sense of humor. Although, I've been away from the community for a few years. Is TWF really that overpowered, relatively?
Khadmus 03-19-07, 05:22 PM	Care to explain this, both the flavor and the mechanics? Don't just say "balance", although I would like to hear the mechanical reasons too. 3 and 4 are already justified in flavor, as implementing these things would be common sense.
Neodymium 03-19-07, 05:26 PM	bring back ambidexterity so that those characters will never have enough feats to be good TWFers. make TWF only work with a chosen weapon each time you take it. [TWF(shortsword) or TWF(handaxe)] no STR damage on off-hand attacks and give two-handed fighters triple STR damage. and make anybody with DR or natural armor immune to sneak attack.
theotherdraxen 03-19-07, 05:41 PM	As Two Weapon Fighting is one of the best combat techniques for Rogues, Rangers, and Fighters, I thought we should discuss possible nerfs for it, to keep those characters from overpowering the other players. I think most here would heartily disagree. 1. Restrict Rogues (and similar classes) to only get 1/2 normal Sneak Attack for their off hand. How are TWFing rogues dishing out more damage than, say, a charger or a spellcaster? Rogues deal out +1d6 damage per 2 levels. Charger-Mounted Combat, Ride-by Attack, Spirited Charge, Power Attack, Improved Bull Rush, Shock Trooper. Full PA (with Shock Trooper) is a 6:1 return for your Base Attack Bonus (TWF with a lance). That's like a maximized sneak attack from a rogue with TWF. Spellcaster-A lot of spells deal +1d6 damage per level (fireball, among others). TWFing puts them on par with many spellcasters for damage, except that spellcasters have ways of souping up their damage in addition to netting an AoE, using Save or Dies to greater effect, or just plain casting "you lose" spells like Otto's Irrisitable Dance and Forcecage). 2. Do the same for Rangers, reducing their Favored Enemey bonus down to 1/2 normal when using their off hand. Rangers get a +10 for their most favored enemy at 20th level. With TWF, that's a +80 damage, assuming every attack hits (which is unlikely). At 20th level, an evil cleric can pretty much choose to deal 100 points of damage against even a high-will save target. And that's not even going CoDzilla. 3. Rule that any trip attempt made while TWFing takes the TWF penalty to the their Trip Strength check. Why? Trip is so hard to pull off as is. Unless you choose the right set of gear (see Khan's fighter build), a huge or larger creature is going to defeat your trip attempt, especially since it'll have a ridiculous strength, while you've had to pump both strength and dex in order to remain effective. 4. Rule that you can not use Armor spikes to disarm (thereby nerfing the TWF spiked chain + armor spiked build). Two-weapon fighting has nothing to do with spiked chains. It's a two-handed weapon. Plus, it can be used in close-quarters, so armor spikes aren't necessary (unless you want to grapple). 5. Rule that when purchasing weapons, no more than 1/2 your gold may go to weapons (thereby equalizing twf with the standard rule about no more than 1/2 your gold going to any single magic item.) Under the standard rules, someone picking Two-handed fighting can afford a +5 weapon for x amount (check your DMG, but I don't think the price is OGL). A Two-weapon fighter, for the same price, is stuck with two +4 weapons in addittion to his -2 TWFing penalty. He's 15% behind the THF in terms of to-hit, The Two-handed fighter can use Power-Attack to match the Two-weapon fighter's to-hit for a +6 to damage, which beats out the TWFers extra damage. THF goes with a greatsword, TWF goes with a longsword and a shortsword. Greatsword does an average of 7 damage per hit, longsword+shortsword does an average of 8 damage per two hits (or an average of 4 per single hit). On the same to-hit: THF: 7 weapon+5 magic damage +6 PA damage=> 18x4=72 damage (Assuming all 4 attacks hit). TWF: 4 average hit per weapon+4 magic=> 8x8=64 damage (assuming all 8 attacks hit). Magic still favors THFers.
Qwicksilver 03-19-07, 05:53 PM	I always thought twf was adequate and especially capable in the hands of a rogue and ranger. Any other straight twf martial class, however, there's some problems with dishing out damage... less of it.
green_yawgmoth 03-19-07, 05:58 PM	Tarkin, I'm disappointed in you. either this is a joke, in which you failed at converying sarcasm, or this is serious, in which I lose all faith in you. :nonono: http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v91/yawgmoth/kittyjig.gif
TheRealOrion 03-19-07, 07:13 PM	TWF fighting is fine the way it is, if you follow the rules. You have to take a feat, and only Fighters have those to burn. You need a high Dex to take most of the TWF feats. You're stuck with relatively low-damage weapons, because they both have to be light to bring the penalties down. I don't see the over-powering of which you speak.
Roland the Crownbreaker 03-19-07, 07:46 PM	I can readily see how it comes across as a powerful style in the hands of a sneak attack/sudden strike character though. I never liked the fact that two rogues (when set up to flank) are far more dangerous than two fighters. Or that when flanked, the hapless individual suddenly forgets how to defend himself against anyone.
SunTzuWarmaster 03-19-07, 09:20 PM	I couldn't agree more. In real life, fighting with two weapons is hard, I propose the following additonal changes above and beyond what you have suggested. 5% chance to hit yourself - critical failures must be rolled again as if you had targeted yourself, you are caught flat-footed for this attack, so sneak attack will apply. Your hands are full, you do not have the ability to grip a sword in one hand like a two handed fighter can, as such you may not use the following skills without dropping your weapon: Climb Escape Artist Balance Handle Animal Ride Slight of Hand Tumble Additionally, it takes mental effort to wield two weapons, so you must spend all of your swift actions on concentrating on fighting. If you do not take the skill trick for swift concentration checks, you suffer an additional -1 to attacks. Fighting with two weapons also leaves you open to attacks, you suffer -1 to AC while not defending. You must put all stat boosts into Dexterity, not to do so insults the Gods of TWF. Until you buy a Dex-increasing item, you will be plagued by Frezied Berserkers that do more average damage every round than you could do if everything was a critical.
theotherdraxen 03-19-07, 10:50 PM	I can readily see how it comes across as a powerful style in the hands of a sneak attack/sudden strike character though. I never liked the fact that two rogues (when set up to flank) are far more dangerous than two fighters. Or that when flanked, the hapless individual suddenly forgets how to defend himself against anyone. He just doesn't know how to defend himself in that situation. You have two trained experts tossing 4 blades into every vital spot they can reach. Unless you have training to match it (Imp. uncanny dodge), then you don't know how to defend against such a tactic.
Ages_Defiance 03-19-07, 11:36 PM	i dont like 2 weapon fighting very much. unless were talking about a dervish. you get 4 attacks with your primary hand and 3 with your off hand. that means you (assuming you hit) get str +1/2 3 times and then normal str on your other primary hand attack. on the other hand you take monkey grip and use a goliaths war hammer combo with crushing strike and you will hardly miss and do 3d6 damage plus str 1/2 4 times (not 3) and power attack. i cant wait till theres a weapon that does slashing and bludgeoning damage. like a mace but with razor blades. slashing flurry with crushing strike would be awesome.
ragoftag 03-20-07, 12:39 AM	SunTzuWarmaster I couldn't agree more. In real life, fighting with two weapons is hard, I propose the following additional changes above and beyond what you have suggested.Agreed, I always had a hard enough time keeping track of one weapon, much less two. <Studiously avoids mentioning using different weapons at same time> I would be easily confused and get popped a lot, fail to mount solid attacks and, annoyingly, not have the fluidity of reaction. While working with two similar, smallish, weapons was doable, I definitely missed the Dex req. That said, I 'trained'..., ok, was practice dummy, for a one time theatrical fencer (Shakespearean troupes), and saw the proper use of off hand weapons, including Main Gauche, armored parrying gloves, hat and even cloak. Upon much reflection (and cold medicine), I propose this as a prime candidate for use with the Rogue's Bluff ploy. Watch the '70's Three Musketeers or any Cyrano movie to see what I mean.
Korhal IV 03-20-07, 01:15 AM	i cant wait till theres a weapon that does slashing and bludgeoning damage. like a mace but with razor blades. slashing flurry with crushing strike would be awesome. Like... a cheese grater? You hit someone with it and scrape at them? :confused: Favored Enemy (Parmesan), perhaps? Of course, then we'd have to nerf you. ;)
Nat_20 03-20-07, 01:25 AM	Wow... just wow... Nerf an entire tree of feats that you can only use in a full round action... amazing...
Mystyc 03-20-07, 02:00 AM	With these in play, rogues, rangers, tripping/disarming fighters and your high level magic weapon fighters will no longer be on equal footing with equally-optimized, non-spellcasting opposition. Fixed.
ChimericalWolf 03-20-07, 02:26 AM	Hoping to hell you're wooshing me here, Sun, but: critical failures must be rolled again as if you had targeted yourself, you are caught flat-footed for this attack, so sneak attack will apply. So you're so well-trained at attacking weak points that even when you fumble and accidentally hit yourself you go STRAIGHT FOR THE KIDNEYS! ?
Archangel62 03-20-07, 02:27 AM	Hoping to hell you're wooshing me here, Sun, but: So you're so well-trained at attacking weak points that even when you fumble and accidentally hit yourself you go STRAIGHT FOR THE KIDNEYS! ? Yes, you're very good at striking vulnerable points, just not so good at striking the right PERSONS vulnerable points. :D
Lotus Crane 03-20-07, 04:06 AM	TWF actually needs to be strengthened, not nerfed. Considering how feat-intensive it is, and the attack penalties involved, TWF is only a break-even proposition for specialists designed to take advantage of it, and blatantly inferior to both two-handed weapon and weapon & shield styles for most other characters. Consider how TWF literally requires a minimum of 3 feats to even be usable, let alone useful. Two-handed weapon, on the other hand, requires 0 feats (Power Attack is nice but not necessary) to be usable. 3-4 attacks with a one-handed primary weapon + 3 attacks with a light off-hand weapon generally = 3-4 attacks with a two-handed weapon, assuming that a proportionate number of attacks are successful (you need at least 2 TWF hits to deal as much damage as a single 2HW hit). However, this doesn't take into account the fact that: 1) TWF has an inherent -2 penalty to attack rolls, so it's extremely unlikely that a TWFer will actually hit twice as often as a 2HWer 2) A larger number of weaker attacks has a harder time getting past DR than a smaller number of stronger (and more accurate) attacks do 3) TWF can generally only be used during a full attack; a 2HWer is guaranteed to do much more damage on standard attacks, charges, attacks of opportunity, and whatnot 4) While the TWFer was spending 3 feats on his style, the 2HWer could easily have taken a tactical feat chain, half the Weapon Spec tree, or Robilar's Reflexy Karma, any of which automatically shifts the playing field back in his favor, even if the TWFer is trying to max out sneak attack or favored enemy damage Nowadays, there isn't even a guarantee for rogues, rangers, or whatnot to maximize their damage with TWF. Rangers will almost certainly deal higher and more consistent damage by taking 1 level of scout to qualify for Swift Hunter and Improved Skirmish, and focusing on archery, with an eye on getting Greater Manyshot (and/or Improved Rapid Shot) as soon as possible. Chronically feat-starved rogues can actually get more chances to make successful sneak attacks if they take Darkstalker, Telling Blow, and Improved Critical, instead of TWF, ITWF, and GTWF. These are the most recent versions of changes I proposed to TWF. Even with these changes, I'd think long and hard about creating a TWF combatant, since it's still a serious commitment of resources for such mediocre results. TWO-WEAPON FIGHTING [GENERAL] You can fight with a weapon in each hand. You can make one extra attack on a full attack with the second weapon. Prerequisite: Dex 13. Benefit: Your penalties on attack rolls for fighting with two weapons are reduced. The penalty for your primary hand lessens by 2 and the one for your off hand lessens by 6. 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. (An unarmed strike is always considered light.) Special: A fighter may select Two-Weapon Fighting as one of his fighter bonus feats. A 2nd-level ranger who has chosen the two-weapon combat style is treated as having Two-Weapon Fighting, even if he does not have the prerequisite for it, but only when he is wearing light or no armor. IMPROVED TWO-WEAPON FIGHTING [GENERAL] Prerequisites: Dex 15, Two-Weapon Fighting, base attack bonus +6. Benefit: In addition to the standard single extra attack you get with an off-hand weapon during a full attack, you get a second attack with it, albeit at a –5 penalty. You are also able to make an extra attack with an off-hand weapon during a charge or a Whirlwind Attack. Normal: Without this feat, you can only get a single extra attack with an off-hand weapon. Special: A fighter may select Improved Two-Weapon Fighting as one of his fighter bonus feats. A 6th-level ranger who has chosen the two-weapon combat style is treated as having Improved Two-Weapon Fighting, even if he does not have the prerequisites for it, but only when he is wearing light or no armor. GREATER TWO-WEAPON FIGHTING [GENERAL] Prerequisites: Dex 17, Improved Two-Weapon Fighting, Two-Weapon Fighting, base attack bonus +11. Benefit: You get a third attack with your off-hand weapon during a full attack, albeit at a –10 penalty. You are also able to make an extra attack with an off-hand weapon during a standard attack or an attack of opportunity. Special: A fighter may select Greater Two-Weapon Fighting as one of his fighter bonus feats. An 11th-level ranger who has chosen the two-weapon combat style is treated as having Greater Two-Weapon Fighting, even if he does not have the prerequisites for it, but only when he is wearing light or no armor. SUPERIOR TWO-WEAPON FIGHTING [GENERAL] Prerequisites: Dex 19, Greater Two-Weapon Fighting, Improved Two-Weapon Fighting, Two-Weapon Fighting, base attack bonus +16. Benefit: You get a fourth attack with your off-hand weapon during a full attack, albeit at a –15 penalty. Your penalties on attack rolls for fighting with two weapons are also reduced by 1. Finally, whenever you are entitled to an extra attack with your primary hand (such as when affected by the haste spell or while wielding a speed weapon), you may also make an additional attack with your off-hand at the corresponding (usually highest) attack bonus. Special: A fighter may select Superior Two-Weapon Fighting as one of his fighter bonus feats. A 16th-level ranger who has chosen the two-weapon combat style is treated as having Superior Two-Weapon Fighting, even if he does not have the prerequisites for it, but only when he is wearing light or no armor. POWERFUL TWO-WEAPON FIGHTING [GENERAL] Prerequisites: Str 15, Dex 15, Power Attack, Two-Weapon Fighting. Benefit: You are able to use a one-handed weapon in your off-hand as if it were a light weapon. Also, you may apply your Strength bonus instead of 1/2 your Strength bonus to weapon damage with an off-hand weapon, whether it is a light weapon, one-handed weapon, or part of a double weapon. Special: A fighter may select Powerful Two-Weapon Fighting as one of his fighter bonus feats.
Neodymium 03-20-07, 04:18 AM	Hold on... This thread wasn't a joke to begin with? Lotus Crane is right. TWF needs a boost, not a nerf.
Bopple 03-20-07, 04:31 AM	BTW, TWF is not all that great for rangers, either. Favored Power Attack makes THF more attractive for rangers.
Xeviat-DM 03-20-07, 04:34 AM	I think Tarkin's responding to my post earlier yesterday. I do think TWFing could use a little nerf in the sneak attack department, but only in so much as limiting sneak attacks to one per round (if you're flatfooted, and you're hit with an attack, I think you're probably not flatfooted anymore, unless you still cannot percieve the source of the attack). Though, I've never seen a time in game that a rogue was able to get a full attack flanking sneak attack, only full ranged sneak attacks from total darkness (rogue had darkvision, so the concealment didn't affect him), or utilizing improved invisibility. I have never once seen a fighter excell at TWFing. Trip builds require extensive strength, and are then better done with a two-handed weapon (simply for the damage and conservation of feats; oddly, Trip isn't affected by using a one-handed or two-handed trip weapon). Disarm builds suffer so many penalties from TWFing and in comparison to THFers, that I don't see this as a problem either: A THFer will have a disarm at 6+ attack bonus using a disarming weapon, while a TWFer will have a twice as many at -4 if using two light weapons, or twice as many at -2 if using a one-handed off-hand (the best scenario would be to use a one-handed disarm weapon in one hand, at +0, and a light off-hand at -4; these penalties include the TWFing penalties). Having a total of +10 bonus over the other character with twice as many disarms shows me that the two-handed disarmer is a better disarmer. I won't say anything more, lest I break code of conduct.
Zumarai 03-20-07, 07:59 AM	…It's a little early for April Fools isn't it? I think it's pretty common knowledge on these boards that THF blows TWF and S&B away.
Ellanon 03-20-07, 08:22 AM	…It's a little early for April Fools isn't it? I think it's pretty common knowledge on these boards that THF blows TWF and S&B away. Common sense? Here? On these forums? Say it ain't so! Oh, wait. You said common knowledge. Still, that implies consensus...
kjenks 03-20-07, 09:14 AM	If you want to nerf TWF, just give your monsters potions of Barkskin, Mage Armor, Protection from Good and/or Shield of Faith. Increasing a monster's AC by a little will seriously decrease the average damage per round that TWF can inflict, in part because the TWF guys always have attack penalties and in part because rogues have a lower BAB. A potion of Blur or Displacement prevents sneak attacks completely and may be better at preventing the monster from getting hit than increasing the monster's AC. Monsters have treasure, you know. Let them drink some of it. If your TWF guys "crush all opposition," you're not trying very hard.
the_narrator 03-20-07, 09:32 AM	Honestly, this is straight-up ignorant. Normally, if somebody has already said what I plan on saying on a forum, I just let it lie, but I feel I really have to respond to this complete lack of understanding of the basics of D&D combat. 1. Sneak Attack and TWF enjoy a symbiotic relationship. TWF is more or less worthless without bonus damage like Sneak Attack, and you get the optimal use of Sneak Attack from using two weapons. 2. At 20th level, a Rogue gets to add 10D6 to each of his attacks that hit an opponant while he is susceptable to Sneak Attack. This means the enemy is not a Plant, Undead, Ooze, Construct, that he does not have Improved Uncanny Dodge, an armor or shield with Heavy Foritification, and that he is either flat-footed or flanked. As long as the enemy has none of those, a Rogue can apply his Sneak Attack. Continued on point 3... 3. A Rogue has a 3/4 BAB (15 at 20th level). With the entire TWF tree, he has many attacks. At 20th level, a great number of those attacks are going to miss by virtue of his low to-hit and the enemy's high AC. 4. Casters start throwing around things far more powerful than a few extra attacks far earlier. By the time Sneak Attack damage gets really nice, the casters are making things die with their eyes. Or are just Bears 23 hours out of the day WHILE making things die with their eyes. I have played D&D for a very long time, I've seen alot of material. I have never seen a melee ability strong enough that it actually deserves to be nerfed. Every single melee combat ability is either countered at high level or outclassed by spells. Like Kjenks said, if two-weapon combatants are crushing the opposition, you're not trying very hard.
jaelis 03-20-07, 09:37 AM	While I don't agree with the premise, there are some worthwhile points here. 1. Restrict Rogues (and similar classes) to only get 1/2 normal Sneak Attack for their off hand. While not strictly necessary, I don't think this would be a bad idea. Part of what makes TWF hard to deal with is that it works very very well for rogues now. If you reduced off-hand SA damage, that would open the door to feats that, for instance, lowered the TWF penalties or let ITWF grant more than just one additional attack. It would also reduce the "pressure" on rogues to go the TWF route. 2. Do the same for Rangers, reducing their Favored Enemey bonus down to 1/2 normal when using their off hand. I disagree here. Rangers do well with TWF against a highly favored enemy, but they will only have one or two of those. I think the TWF ranger already struggles compared to the archery ranger, this would make it no contest. 3. Rule that any trip attempt made while TWFing takes the TWF penalty to the their Trip Strength check. Sounds good to me. I don't think that TWF per se is too strong, but I have some issues with tripping. I wouldn't mind disallowing off-hand trips all together. 4. Rule that you can not use Armor spikes to disarm (thereby nerfing the TWF spiked chain + armor spiked build). TWF with armor spikes has loads of issues... I think the problem is more with armor spikes than TWF (though its the combination that is the problem). I know Tarkin already has an armor spike house rule, that they have reach zero if I recall? My own is that they work like unarmed strikes, and provoke an AoO unless you take a feat. I think either of those are fine solutions... the disarm restriction is insufficient. 5. Rule that when purchasing weapons, no more than 1/2 your gold may go to weapons (thereby equalizing twf with the standard rule about no more than 1/2 your gold going to any single magic item.) Spending all yoru money on weapons has it's own problems, I don't think a smart player would do this anyway. If you want a rule for it, sure, OK.
ZiggZagg 03-20-07, 11:04 AM	Tarkin, I'm confused. You were the one who was defending Two Weapon Fighting for the longest time. And now you want to limit it? Two weapon fighting is just fine the way it is. The fixes you propose are not limiting that style, they are limiting classes in general.
jaelis 03-20-07, 12:10 PM	Though, I've never seen a time in game that a rogue was able to get a full attack flanking sneak attack... Just to say, this happens in our games all the time. Quite a lot of our tactics are built around making it happen.
Zardnaar 03-20-07, 12:15 PM	I think he is trolling since he hasn't replied to his own thread. What do people here think of TWF with the Complete Warrior and PHB2 feats thrown in? THF tend to outclass them once DR is added anyway and you power attack for a few.
snakebliskan 03-20-07, 12:17 PM	:heehee I hope this is a joke. ROFL!!!! I hope so! otherwise I feel for this guy!
jameswilliamogle 03-20-07, 12:17 PM	I couldn't agree more. In real life, fighting with two weapons is hard...snipTrue, fighting with two guns is real hard: fighting with a one-handed weapon and a light weapon isn't that bad, though. Try it: go pick up a "club" (something that weighs as much as a 1.5 milk jugs and has a handle, maybe a 3.5' section of 1" PVC pipe filled with sand and taped on the ends) and a "dagger" (a butcher knife, or smaller section of PVC pipe). Then try swinging them around. Now, that's just you: your TWF character is both (probably) more dexterous, and (probably) has more training (from the feat), too. Anyways, even if you broke your arm skiing last weekend and still say its tough, I'll counter that DnD isn't meant to simulate reality.
NoldorForce 03-20-07, 12:26 PM	I think he is trolling since he hasn't replied to his own thread. What do people here think of TWF with the Complete Warrior and PHB2 feats thrown in? THF tend to outclass them once DR is added anyway and you power attack for a few.Actually, Tarkin simply hasn't logged on since a bit after posting this. I'm with the people who are saying that TWF is generally less powerful than THF. I'd said as much in the original thread. Saying stuff like this just causes people to lose faith in the OP.
Ellanon 03-20-07, 12:30 PM	I think he is trolling since he hasn't replied to his own thread. Tarkin's not a troll. You've been registered since 2001, you should know that. Seriously though, I'll bet he's at home laughing his arse off, while everyone runs around here gasping that he's lost his mind and whatnot... http://www.liquidmateria.info/media/smileys/f14.gif
CaoSlayer 03-20-07, 01:07 PM	Seriously, TWF for a rogue is vastly more powerful than any other kind of style a rogue can do, doubling your damage when your damage is wrote as over 11d6 makes two weapon fighting a very good feat for rogues and mainly the only one style a rogue can play besides the spring attack route that makes rogue deal way less damage per round. Fighters with two weapon fighting also can be dangerous, give him a couple of wounding or vorpal swords and see him decap enemies every three rounds.
The_Geek 03-20-07, 01:39 PM	SunTzuWarmaster: 5% chance to hit yourself - critical failures must be rolled again as if you had targeted yourself, you are caught flat-footed for this attack, so sneak attack will apply. I think you're missing a couple of screws here. First, on the rare occasion you do hit yourself with a weapon, it does virtually no damage, since the weapon is at the beginning of its swing. Second, 5% is ludicrous. Given the number of years I've done TWF (real world, both Kali and SCA), I've whacked myself twice ... which seems to be about par for most people who play with two weapons. Given we're talking a percentage <.001, I think we can safely ignore this suggestion as unneccessary. Your hands are full, you do not have the ability to grip a sword in one hand like a two handed fighter can, as such you may not use the following skills without dropping your weapon: Climb - If you know HOW to climb, it's pretty easy with stuff in your hands. Besides, pommels make excellent pitons. Escape Artist - Uh ... why would anyone leave weapons in your hands after tieing you up? Balance - Think about this ... one weapon in each hand, versus one big weapon in one hand ... :confused: Handle Animal, Ride - What kind? If you're talking warhorse, you should be using your legs and voice, anyway. Why would TWF be any worse than W + Shield? Additionally, it takes mental effort to wield two weapons, so you must spend all of your swift actions on concentrating on fighting. If you do not take the skill trick for swift concentration checks, you suffer an additional -1 to attacks. Fighting with two weapons also leaves you open to attacks, you suffer -1 to AC while not defending. Both of these are, to put it politely, unneccessary for game balance, and add complexity where it isn't needed. And, again, doesn't reflect reality. The advantage of TWF is more attacks. The disadvantages are that it eats feats that could be spent on damage increasing feats. A dozen peashooters against a guy behind a glass door aren't as effective as a single mace. YMMV, but it's a sad GM who doesn't throw the occasional opponent designed to take advantage of a character's weakness (For TWF, both AC and DR work wonders) .
WuJen3 03-20-07, 03:04 PM	When it come to TWF not all fighters take it and not all rouges take it.I do have a fighter that has all the the TWF feats that he can take but that doisn't mean I take all my attacks. I do like to move every once and a while.And as for rouges they aren't front line fighters any way.So a rouge with TWF is simplye(bad spelling) trying to do more damage after flanking before he or she get pumled.Almost for got as long as a rouge wields two light weapons there is no -2 on all att (at least that is how my group runs it).:D Sorry for the bad spelling and english:(
Khadmus 03-20-07, 03:33 PM	Tarkin's not a troll. You've been registered since 2001, you should know that. Seriously though, I'll bet he's at home laughing his arse off, while everyone runs around here gasping that he's lost his mind and whatnot... http://www.liquidmateria.info/media/smileys/f14.gif I'm a noob to these forums (not completely, just in the manner of people's reputations) but I'm guessing that this is what this Tarkin fellow is most likely doing. It's a joke, but a very personalized one designed to appeal to an extremely small group's senses of humor. If it is quasi-serious, I think he meant "how to nerf two weapon fighting [even more]".I don't have anything to contribute to nerfing TWF that wouldn't be a flagrant violation of any moral code at this point. However, some people seem to have seriously supported nerfing TWF. I believe that you can guess what I think about them.
Witch 03-20-07, 03:41 PM	To be fair, I have to admit that the two-weapon fighter was dominating my campaign as well, though my players aren't really optimizers. That is, he was dominating until the Dread Necro discovered save-or-dies, and the sublime chord discovered dominate.
WuJen3 03-20-07, 04:33 PM	It dois dominate at least one or two groups but all and all it is pretty much fair feat.:)
chromeraven 03-20-07, 05:44 PM	Step 1: Take TWF Step 2: Nerf Accomplished Step 3: Profit?
Zardnaar 03-20-07, 05:50 PM	Tarkin's not a troll. You've been registered since 2001, you should know that. Seriously though, I'll bet he's at home laughing his arse off, while everyone runs around here gasping that he's lost his mind and whatnot... http://www.liquidmateria.info/media/smileys/f14.gif Tarkin doesn't normally Troll. Perhaps Troll isn;t the right word but I was wondering if he was being serious. 6 years next month where did the time go?
Lotus Crane 03-20-07, 06:53 PM	Seriously, TWF for a rogue is vastly more powerful than any other kind of style a rogue can do, doubling your damage TWF only doubles sneak attack damage if a TWF rogue actually hits twice as often as a single-weapon rogue; however, this is highly improbable, if not outright impossible. If a rogue normally attacks at +15/+10/+5, a TWF rogue would only deal double sneak attack damage if he attacked at +15/+15/+10/+10/+5/+5. However, due to TWF's attack penalties, he's actually attacking at something like +13/+13/+8/+8/+3/+3. Depending on the AC's he's encountering, this is at most only 50% more sneak attack damage, not double. TWF also only helps on a full attack; it normally contributes nothing to a standard attack, charge, attack of opportunity, etc.. Over the course of a normal campaign, a rogue with the feats Darkstalker (overcomes blindsense, blindsight, scent, and tremorsense), Telling Blow (adds sneak attack to critical hits), and Improved Critical will actually deal more sneak attack damage than a rogue with the feats TWF, ITWF and GTWF.
Zardnaar 03-20-07, 07:52 PM	Lotus except that you're ignoring that rogues often have another +15 or so to hit from high dex/weapon finesse, magical weapons, flanking ,spells,and various other factors. Or they're using spells like flame blade via UMD wands or other ways of making touch attack at those levels. I have seen rogues connect with 5/6 attack at those levels without to much effort as AC doesn't tend to increase as fast as attack bonus. Dual wielding metamagic acidic flameblades as well.
Lotus Crane 03-20-07, 08:08 PM	Lotus except that you're ignoring that rogues often have another +15 or so to hit from high dex/weapon finesse, magical weapons, flanking ,spells,and various other factors. And you're ignoring the fact that comparatively speaking, there's still a difference of at least 2 attack points (or roughly 10% hit rate). That's still +30/+25/+20 vs +28/+28/+23/+23/+18/+18, not +30/+30/+25/+25/+20/+20, which means that it's still impossible for a TWF rogue to actually deal double the sneak attack damage of a single-weapon rogue, particularly when full attacks aren't always an option. Or they're using spells like flame blade via UMD wands or other ways of making touch attack at those levels. I have seen rogues connect with 5/6 attack at those levels without to much effort as AC doesn't tend to increase as fast as attack bonus. And I've seen rogues connect with only 1 attack at those levels, even with all their effort. While every game varies, in most of mine, AC tends to increase at least as fast, if not faster than attack bonuses. In the final phase (levels 16-20) of two campaigns I played in, the AC for most of the primary combatants was in their 60's, while total attack bonuses lagged behind in the 40's to 50's. Remember, for the cost of enchanting a weapon (2000, 8000, 18000, etc.), you can enchant armor and a shield for the same amount (1000+1000, 4000+4000, 9000+9000, etc.), which means that in the economy of magic equipment, AC should be increasing roughly twice as quickly as corresponding attack bonuses. Finally, at the high levels that TWF rogues can actually pull off 5-6 successful attacks, negating precision-based damage is fairly trivial (concealment effects, fortification armor, being certain creature types, etc.), so there's no guarantee that sneak attack is applicable at all.
dnac10 03-20-07, 08:57 PM	Lotus except that you're ignoring that rogues often have another +15 or so to hit from high dex/weapon finesse, magical weapons, flanking ,spells,and various other factors. you seem to be ignoring the fact that two-handed weapons fighters also have high attack bonuses from high str (which doenst even take a feat), magical weapons (which is cheaper than getting 2 weapons of the same bonus), flanking(which is easier to do because you can move into position without losing as many attacks, and gain attitional bonuses from, like charging), spells, and various other factors (like the 4 feats you didnt have to put into using 2 weapons) twf needs a buff
Nephlite 03-20-07, 09:03 PM	Seriously, TWF for a rogue is vastly more powerful than any other kind of style a rogue can do, doubling your damage when your damage is wrote as over 11d6 makes two weapon fighting a very good feat for rogues and mainly the only one style a rogue can play besides the spring attack route that makes rogue deal way less damage per round. No 150%. Fighters with two weapon fighting also can be dangerous, give him a couple of wounding or vorpal swords and see him decap enemies every three rounds. Not in 3.5 Vorpal is a only on natural 20's. So you are thinking maybe once every 120 seconds statistically speaking. But that assume you confirm said critical.
jameswilliamogle 03-20-07, 11:37 PM	TWF > for Rogues, but so what? If they want to go up and get a full attack against that troll, followed by the troll getting its full attack on the Rogue (including rend, etc), then let them. Rogues, Ninjas, and all the full-precision damagers will always have great impulse damage... But they have no durability. And they don't have the impulse damage or durability of any arcanist. Some feats are just better for some style of characters. Its no big deal: casters make better metamagic specialists and item creators than non-casters. TWF Rogues, w/o some serious tweaking, will start to suck in the mid-levels anyways. I don't think there needs to be a fix for TWF, unless the campaign was guaranteed to end at 5th level or so (and then, arcane casters would need tweaking too, if this was all in the name of balance, as they only start to even out past 7th or so).
Optimator 03-21-07, 01:35 AM	TWF Rogues, w/o some serious tweaking, will start to suck in the mid-levels anyways. How might this tweaking be done?
Lotus Crane 03-21-07, 01:46 AM	How might this tweaking be done? For starters, improved the TWF feats so that the style is actually worth the investment. Go back to the first page for examples of how that might be done.
Arem_K 03-21-07, 02:15 AM	I like rapid shot for rogues myself. Less feats, works off of dex (without a feat), and it makes it easier for the rogue to stay out of danger or make a full attack. It a very nice option, although you can not set it up with flanking. Of course, you could always be a two weapon thrower and do both.
jameswilliamogle 03-21-07, 11:36 AM	I like rapid shot for rogues myself. Less feats, works off of dex (without a feat), and it makes it easier for the rogue to stay out of danger or make a full attack. It a very nice option, although you can not set it up with flanking. Of course, you could always be a two weapon thrower and do both.This is my favorite feat progression for straight rogues, if retraining isn't allowed: 1 TWF, Dodge 3 Weapon Finesse 6 Mobility 9 Spring Attack 12 PBS 15 Precise Shot 18 Rapid Shot This way, at low level when TWF is at its best, you get to do that. When the opponents become dangerous enough to kill on a full attack, you get Spring Attack to get a little extra damage off on them. When the opponents become dangerous enough to kill on a single hit or readied action, you get ranged combat. No matter what you'll be facing, you have end up being able to do just about any major Rogue style of combat, and only lose out on a few of the single-focus Rogues.
WuJen3 03-22-07, 01:37 PM	I know we are talking about 3.5 but hear me out.And please forgive the bad spelling.In 3.0 if you had amberdextery and TWF you could elinimate the -2/-2 if you where wielding two light weapons.Why should it be any different.Two short swords,short sword-dagger,or (my personal fav) two daggers will elinimate the -2/-2.But if you wield a bastard sword and a short sword.ext,ext,ext(you get the lagistics) you get the -2/-2.I think we need to take a page out of 3.0 when it come to TWF(simple tweaking).Thats how my group has solved that problem.I think that is all that needs done.
Frugal 03-22-07, 01:46 PM	I know we are talking about 3.5 but hear me out.And please forgive the bad spelling.In 3.0 if you had amberdextery and TWF you could elinimate the -2/-2 if you where wielding two light weapons.Why should it be any different.Two short swords,short sword-dagger,or (my personal fav) two daggers will elinimate the -2/-2.But if you wield a bastard sword and a short sword.ext,ext,ext(you get the lagistics) you get the -2/-2.I think we need to take a page out of 3.0 when it come to TWF(simple tweaking).Thats how my group has solved that problem.I think that is all that needs done. Nope, here's the rules reference Two Weapon Fighting If a normal character (i.e. a character without the multiattack and/or multidexterity feats) wields a second weapon (fights two handed), that character can get one extra attack per round with that weapon. Fighting in this way is very hard, however, and the character suffers a -6 penalty for regular attacks with the first hand and a -10 penalty to the attack with a other hand. A character can reduce these stiff penalties in three ways: If a character's second weapon is light, the penalties are reduced by 2 each. The Ambidexterity feat reduces the penalty against the second weapon by 4. The Two-Weapon Fighting feat reduces both penalties by 2. So you start with -6/-10. If it's a light weapon off-hand it's -4/-8. If you have ambidexterity it's -4/-4, if you have TWF it's -2/-2. Notice how the 3.0 TWF feat only reduces the penalty by 2 for each hand whereas the 3.5 version reduces the penalty by 2 for your primary hand and 6 for your off-hand. 3.5 TWF completely incorporates the benefits of the ambidexterity feat.
ChimericalWolf 03-22-07, 01:51 PM	Oh, good. I was pretty sure WuJen was wrong, but I didn't want to run all the way up to my room to find my 3.0 PHB and reference it. Huzzah lazyness.
Nathreet 03-22-07, 02:02 PM	TWF is already over-nerfed, even for rogues. Take almost any TWF build, convert to SWF (pumping str instead of dex, etc.), fight, and watch the TWF lose. The hit to AC from loss of a shield, spreading out money across two magic weapons, the -2 to AB (less hits), the absence of strength damage to light weapons and the dex requirement (or worse, being a ranger with wimpy light armor to avoid the dex requirement) destroy the advantage of the extra attacks. The exception might be a rogue with an animated shield or someone with a way other than AC to avoid getting hit (like greater invisibility, though such methods can be defeated). Sure, it seems spectacular when the TWF guy has 7 attacks (though only 4 hit against any enemy strong enough to matter) and he deals massive damage (though only when he can sneak attack), but TWF people die fast. Go ahead, try it. Build a TWFer. Let's start w/ a fighter to keep it simple, then move to rogue. For the SWF make primary stat str, secondary con. Make dex 12. Give him magic full plate, a heavy shield, ring of protection, ioun stone, belt of giant strength, amulet of health and a +1 weapon with energy damage enchantments. If you really want to be cheesy give the SWF a tower shield, int 13 and combat reflexes (which will utterly destroy TWF). No power attack on either side. If you give the TWF an animated shield then give the SHF an animated shield and switch him to THF plus maybe a modest power attack, if he can spare the feat and if the TWF has a low/very-low AC. Now see which one does more damage to the other. My own tests showed TWF to be extremely weak.
WuJen3 03-22-07, 02:09 PM	Then it must have been a house rule the I was thinking of.But a single weapon fighter with a shield still has to be aware of his or her surroundings to block any incoming attacks. I have seen a fighter with All the TWF and TWD feat slaughter a fighter with Shield And sword.
Mnky 03-22-07, 02:10 PM	fighting with a one-handed weapon and a light weapon isn't that bad, though. I tried this with two broom handles a while ago, and clobbered myself in the back of the head after about 15 minutes. It seems fair that you need feats to dual wield properly, but the extreme feat cost and worse magic weapons are what makes it so unattractive.
Nathreet 03-22-07, 02:17 PM	Then it must have been a house rule the I was thinking of.But a single weapon fighter with a shield still has to be aware of his or her surroundings to block any incoming attacks. I have seen a fighter with All the TWF and TWD feat slaughter a fighter with Shield And sword. You've seen a lot of things. Like I said, try out two similar fighters and see who slaughters who.
crimsonwolf 03-22-07, 02:17 PM	there already is a big nerf on it ...one...THEY PUT REDUCTION ON HITTING ... and two....THE FEAT PATH TO DO IT.....that is a considterable sum of feats to make twf on par with thf
Xeviat-DM 03-22-07, 03:34 PM	The investment of a single feat into the TWFing style should net some gain over not investing that single feat. When you compare a 1st level THFer to a similarly statted 1st level TWFer (let's use default array, so 14 str and 15 dex), the THFer wins. Every single feat the TWFer puts into the style to equalize their damage with the THFer is another feat the THFer could spend on Power Attack or Weapon Focus or something else. I do agree that tripping needs to be adjusted if you're tripping with a light weapon, but that's all I'll agree to. The touch attack is already suffering a penalty, but since off-hand weapons deal less str damage, maybe off-hand trips can use less str.
WuJen3 03-23-07, 12:29 PM	It doisn't matter what you play a shield and sword fight or a TWF fighter. It all come down to the luck of the dice.Do you have the luck or dois your aponit(bad spelling) have the luck. It take skill to use both shield and sword or TWF fighting. Trust me in real life I tried practing with some one in the SCA to get a feel for both styles. I got beat I wasn't stilled enought in real life and didn't have the luck in D&D (I was the shield and sword fighter "80 hp" TWF aponit "75 hp").
Rump_Wrangler 03-23-07, 12:39 PM	Nerf TWF? …Now I've heard everything…
Frugal 03-23-07, 12:48 PM	It doisn't matter what you play a shield and sword fight or a TWF fighter. It all come down to the luck of the dice.Do you have the luck or dois your aponit(bad spelling) have the luck. It take skill to use both shield and sword or TWF fighting. Yes, but there's no accounting for luck. What we can do though is use the laws of probability and mathematically evaluate the relative merits of each style. THF pays off with no investment of feats and works off of 1 stat (STR). Combined with 1 feat (Power Attack) it allows you to leverage that 1 stat for even better benefit. Not to mention any number of other feats you can invest in to get even better. TWF starts with hideous penalties and needs 1 feat to even be remotely feasible. You're stuck with less damage per weapon and are dependant on 2 stats (STR and DEX). You can invest in another feat (Weapon Finesse) and get down to focusing on DEX more but then you're really sacrificing damage potential. Sword and board? Well at least you can do it with no extra feats and take some other feats to improve it, but it's still not going to compare to THF. Now we can talk about "realism" but the question here is game design so fun and balance are the bigger concerns. In those regards, I'd say that it's not very fun or balanced that 1 style of fighting can dominate so much while the other ones require significant investment to even be remotely viable.
Rump_Wrangler 03-23-07, 12:50 PM	Sword and board? Well at least you can do it with no extra feats and take some other feats to improve it, but it's still not going to compare to THF. Do people actually use shields in 3rd edition (aside from bucklers)?
BrazilRascal 03-23-07, 01:37 PM	Amazing! Next, we tone down the Fighter feat progression to 1 feat every 4 levels. Let them -cherish- each feat like a cooing, precious newborn. Then we change the Monks BAB to 1 every 2 levels, like the wizard. He gets flurry, after all, right? He's got -way- too much potential damage! /snark
Frugal 03-23-07, 01:50 PM	Do people actually use shields in 3rd edition (aside from bucklers)? LOL, do animated shields count?
Eric888 03-23-07, 02:29 PM	Talk about preaching to the chior.... three pages of everyone saying the same thing. It's been three pages and he hasn't responded to his own post. I don't think he was serious. its just april 1st 9 days early this year.
Zumarai 03-23-07, 02:32 PM	LOL, do animated shields count? Aren't those now called cheesimated shields?
Frugal 03-23-07, 02:49 PM	Aren't those now called cheesimated shields? I thought they were called, "hey, the only drawback to THF is the loss to AC from not using a shield, I know let's make a magical item that removes that!"
Egres 03-23-07, 02:53 PM	Nerfing TWF? LOl, you made my day, tarkin.:D
magmer2 03-23-07, 10:23 PM	TWF starts with hideous penalties and needs 1 feat to even be remotely feasible. You're stuck with less damage per weapon and are dependant on 2 stats (STR and DEX). You can invest in another feat (Weapon Finesse) and get down to focusing on DEX more but then you're really sacrificing damage potential. You can also invest into yet another feat and get dex to damage for a limited selection of weapons.
magmer2 03-23-07, 10:25 PM	Do people actually use shields in 3rd edition (aside from bucklers)? Of course, some people even have a shield taking up both hands. Great for offense and AC.
magmer2 03-23-07, 10:26 PM	No 150%. Not in 3.5 Vorpal is a only on natural 20's. So you are thinking maybe once every 120 seconds statistically speaking. But that assume you confirm said critical. Actually every three rounds could be about right. 4 attacks for primary hand, 3 for off, 1 for haste, and one for slashing fury for ~40% chance on round one to get a shot at it. Add in double hit and Robilars gambit and you add ~10% every time the fighter gets hit.
Frugal 03-23-07, 10:36 PM	Actually every three rounds could be about right. 4 attacks for primary hand, 3 for off, 1 for haste, and one for slashing fury for ~40% chance on round one to get a shot at it. Add in double hit and Robilars gambit and you add ~10% every time the fighter gets hit. Yes and no, you still have to confirm the crit so those iterative attacks aren't going to have as much of a chance of that. Depends on what you're fighting. Vorpal's a cool effect and all but you're paying for an enhancement that only happens on a natural 20 followed by a confirmed crit so it's not overly powerful. I'd much rather have something that does guaranteed extra damage with any crit (taking advantage of wider crit range) or gave me other benefits or effects.
Xavon 03-24-07, 12:18 AM	Well, if we are trying to counter Tarkin's attempt at irony, here's my idea for a TWF fix: Two-Weapon Fighting [Fighter, Two-Weapon] You are trained to fight with two weapons. Prerequisite: Base Attack +1 Benefit: Your penalties for fighting with two weapons (or a double weapon used as two weapons) are reduced by 1, and reduced by an additional 1 for each [Two-Weapon] feat you have. Your penalties for fighting with two weapons cannot be reduced below 0. Two-Weapon Defense [Fighter, Two-Weapon] When fighting with two weapons, you defend yourself as well as if you carried a shield. Prerequisite: Base Attack +1 Benefit: While you are fighting with two weapons (or a double weapon used as two weapons), you gain a +1 shield bonus to your AC for each [Two-Weapon] feat you have. Special: You lose the benefits of this feat if you are using a shield for defense. Dual Strike [Fighter, Two-Weapon] You can strike quickly with both of your weapons. Prerequisite: Base Attack +1 Benefit: While you are fighting with two weapons (or a double weapon used as two weapons), you may choose to attack with both of your weapons as a standard action. If you do, your primary attack is made at a -6 penalty, and your off-hand attack is made at a -10 penalty if it is a one-handed weapon, or -6 if it is a light weapon. These penalties are reduced by 1 for each other [Two-Weapon] feat you have. Heavy Two-Weapon Combat [Fighter, Two-Weapon] You have learned how to balance your off-hand weapon better. Prerequisite: Base Attack +4, any [Two-Weapon] feat. Benefit: While you are fighting with two weapons, you may treat one-handed weapons as light weapons for the attack penalties of two-weapon fighting, or the Dual Strike feat. If you have at least 3 [Two-Weapon] feats, while you are fighting with two weapons (or a double weapon used as two weapons), you receive your full STR bonus to damage with both of your weapons. Two-Weapon Flurry [Fighter, Two-Weapon] You strike rapidly with your two weapons. Prerequisite: Base Attack +6, Two-Weapon Fighting, Dex 13. Benefit: While you are fighting with two weapons (or a double weapon used as two weapons), when you make a full attack you may make 2 iterative attacks with your off-hand weapon. If you have at least 3 [Two-Weapon] feats and a base attack of +11, when you make a full attack you may make 3 iterative attacks with your off-hand weapon. If you have at least 5 [Two-Weapon] feats and a base attack of +16, when you make a full attack you may make 4 iterative attacks with your off-hand weapon. Special: Iterative attacks are made at a cumulative -5 penalty for each attack beyond the first. So your second iterative attack is at a -5, your third is at a -10, and so on. Also, you cannot make more attacks with your off hand weapon then you can with your primary weapon. Paired Disarm [Fighter, Two-Weapon] You use both of your weapons to knock away your opponent's weapon. Prerequisite: Any [Two-Weapon] feat. Benefit: While you are fighting with two weapons (or a double weapon used as two weapons), you may attempt to disarm with both of your weapons (this takes one attack with each weapon). If you do, your opponent does not gain an attack of opportunity against you, nor does the opponent have a chance to disarm you. You also gain a +1 to the disarm attempt for each [Two-Weapon] feat you have. Mesmerizing Feint [Fighter, Two-Weapon] The flow of your weapons is unbalancing to your opponent. Prerequisite: Any [Two-Weapon] feat. Benefit: While you are fighting with two weapons (or a double weapon used as two weapons), when you perform a Feint attack, you gain +1 to your Feint check for each [Two-Weapon] feat you have. If you have at least 4 [Two-Weapon] feats, you may perform a Mesmerizing Feint as a standard action. A Mesmerizing Feint resolves like a normal Feint, but if it is successful, your opponent loses her Dex bonus to AC against all attackers, not just you. As with a normal Feint, this ends after your action next turn, or when you attack that opponent. Whirling Steel [Fighter, Two-Weapon] With two weapons, you are better set-up to exploit openings your opponents leave. Prerequisite: Base Attack +8, any 2 [Two-Weapon] feats, Dex 15. Benefit: While you are fighting with two weapons (or a double weapon used as two weapons), you gain 1 additional attack of opportunity each round for every 2 [Two-Weapon] feats you have. Pincer Attack [Fighter, Two-Weapon] You leverage your Dual Strike for maximum effect,. Prerequisite: Base Attack +12, Dual Strike, any 4 other [Two-Weapon] feats Benefit: You may perform a Pincer Attack as a standard action. You attack one opponent with both of your weapons as a standard action. You make a single attack roll (at your highest base attack bonus) to determine if you hit. If you connect, you add the damage from your two weapons together, and gain an additional +1 to damage for each [Two-Weapon] feat you have.
danielinthewolvesden 03-24-07, 03:24 PM	As Two Weapon Fighting is one of the best combat techniques for Rogues, Rangers, and Fighters, I thought we should discuss possible nerfs for it, to keep those characters from overpowering the other players. 4. Rule that you can not use Armor spikes to disarm (thereby nerfing the TWF spiked chain + armor spiked build). With these in play, rogues, rangers, tripping/disarming fighters and your high level magic weapon fighters will no longer crush all opposition. TWF is not overpowering at all. Esp compared to the fact that at higher levels, Spellcaster rule so completely. Both Armour spikes and spiked chains are pure cheese, so a houserule that limits them is not unreasonable. I am an SCA heavy weapons fighter and I can tell you that really, TWF is not that difficult. Remember you have to be actively using your shield too.
Kresalak 03-24-07, 04:32 PM	How might this tweaking be done? For one, you want to use weapons like Acid Flasks, Alchemist's Fire, and Alchemist's Frost. Second, you want to realize that the Rogue's 10th level Bonus Feat actually lets him take any feat he wants, since Bonus Feats don't require you to have the prerequisites to take or use them, and take Perfect Two-Weapon Fighting. Then you should grab Point Blank Shot and Rapid Shot. So at level 10, your feats would look like this: Level 1: Two-Weapon Fighting Level 3: Point Blank Shot Level 6: Rapid Shot Level 9: Darkstalker (has nothing to do with TWF, but you need it. It's from Lords of Madness.) Rogue 10th level Special Ability: Perfect Two-Weapon Fighting Your attack sequence with Rapid Shot and some vials of acid would look like this: +6/+6/+6/+6/+1/+1, plus Dex and assuming you're within 30 feet for Point Blank Shot. You should probably have like 24 Dex now, so you'd be attacking at +13/+13/+13/+13/+8/+8, all of which are touch attacks. Each of your attacks would do 1d6+1, plus 5d6 sneak attack if you qualify. This is all you need to be a good glass cannon, so you can take some other feats at level 12, 15, and 18. Your next special ability should be Skill Mastery with Disable Device, Use Magic Device, and one other skill of your choice. After that you can get Crippling Strike or something, maybe Improved Evasion if your DM likes direct damage spells. You could grab some other Epic feats, but most of them suck or require you to be a spellcaster (you could get those feats, but they would probably do nothing).
Frugal 03-24-07, 04:54 PM	For one, you want to use weapons like Acid Flasks, Alchemist's Fire, and Alchemist's Frost. Second, you want to realize that the Rogue's 10th level Bonus Feat actually lets him take any feat he wants, since Bonus Feats don't require you to have the prerequisites to take or use them, and take Perfect Two-Weapon Fighting. Then you should grab Point Blank Shot and Rapid Shot. So at level 10, your feats would look like this: Where are you getting that a rogue's bonus feat doesn't need to meet the prerequisites? You'll note that any situation that grants a feat even if you don't meet the prerequisites explicitly states that.
Kresalak 03-24-07, 05:22 PM	Where are you getting that a rogue's bonus feat doesn't need to meet the prerequisites? You'll note that any situation that grants a feat even if you don't meet the prerequisites explicitly states that. Nope! It's in a weird place (page 7 of the Monster Manual), but the rules state that A creature cannot have a feat that is not a bonus feat unless it meets the prerequisites. Which means that you can have a feat for which you don't meet the prerequisites if it's a bonus feat. For example, Clerics who select the War domain get Weapon Focus with their deities' favored weapon. Weapon Focus has a prerequisite of BAB +1, while Clerics have a BAB of +0 at 1st level, which is the level where they get that bonus feat. The only cases where you do need the prerequisites are for Fighter Bonus Feats and Wizard Bonus Feats. You can thank Frank Trollman of the Gaming Den for finding this.
malisteen 03-24-07, 07:20 PM	I've played a two weapon fighter after the complete books and PHBII. With two weapon fighting, oversized two weapon fighting, Improved two weapon fighting, two weapon pounce, power attack, leap attack, improved bull rush, two weapon rend, and shock trooper you've got a nice little charger going. Charge, sink your full base attack into power attack, but apply the penalty to AC. Make two attacks at your full BAB -2. If you hit with both, you get 4x power attack damage (x2 for each weapon), 3.5 x strength damage (1x for each weapon, plus 1.5x for the rend), plus weapon damage, plus rend damage. That's a lot of hurt! Then the enemy is left deciding either to walk away and let you charge again, or stay close and let you wail away with a full attack +2 (actually, if it's still alive it just full atacks your no-AC butt and kills you, but I'm pretending this is good right now, so be quiet). Specialization and mastery synergize well with two weapon fighting (more hits, more bonus to damage), so if you're going for supremacy that's half bad, but not three quarters bad. Make sure the weapon of choice is bludgeoning (because PHBII makes bludgeoning better then everything else. I was foolish and went for bastard swords - big mistake), and you're set. I wouldn't get greater two weapon fighting, though. A whole feat for a single extra attack, only in a full attack, at -12 to hit just doesn't cut it for me. It's not good, but it's not as lousy as it could be, and certainly not as lousy as it used to be.
Kresalak 03-24-07, 07:29 PM	That's actually horrible for a charge. A real charger has a lance and Spirited Charge by level 3, and does his normal damage x3. By level 6 or so he has Shock Trooper and does his normal damage plus 6 times his BAB. By level 9 he has Leap Attack and that goes to full normal x3 plus BAB x9. Throw in a Valorous weapon, and that's full normal x4 plus BAB x12, though you take a penalty to AC equal to your BAB. That's without calculating charge damage, which is another 8 damage, 2 attack, and -2 AC. Honestly, two-weapon fighting should just give you the effects of Perfect Two-Weapon Fighting, and probably Two-Weapon Defense too.
malisteen 03-24-07, 07:46 PM	Of course, a real charge build is dependant on a mount, which is such a fragile thing. Watch the dwarf with the hammers cometary-collide your horse to death. . . . Yes, though, you're right. That is horrible damage for a charge build. Like I said, I was just pretending it was good.
Frugal 03-24-07, 10:25 PM	Nope! It's in a weird place (page 7 of the Monster Manual), but the rules state that Which means that you can have a feat for which you don't meet the prerequisites if it's a bonus feat. For example, Clerics who select the War domain get Weapon Focus with their deities' favored weapon. Weapon Focus has a prerequisite of BAB +1, while Clerics have a BAB of +0 at 1st level, which is the level where they get that bonus feat. The only cases where you do need the prerequisites are for Fighter Bonus Feats and Wizard Bonus Feats. You can thank Frank Trollman of the Gaming Den for finding this. That's completely pertaining to monsters acquiring bonus feats due to their race, or possibly for creatures that are shown with a class level that grants bonus feats in which case it would've been governed by the rules for the class. The cleric example is a poor one as it's granted a specific feat, which is frequently done without meeting prerequisites. That's very different from trying to claim that a 10th level rogue can use his special ability to gain any feat in existence, particularly to claim that you can take an [Epic] feat.
Frugal 03-24-07, 10:30 PM	Okay, just for clarity, here's the full quote, not the 1 sentence taken out of context: Feats The line gives the creature’s feats. A monster gains feats just as a character does. Sometimes a creature has one or more bonus feats, marked with a superscript B (B). Creatures often do not have the prerequisites for a bonus feat. If this is so, the creature can still use the feat. If you wish to customize the creature with new feats, you can reassign its other feats, but not its bonus feats. A creature cannot have a feat that is not a bonus feat unless it has the feat’s prerequisites. Not that you can't reassign bonus feats, this suggests their coming from specific sources (such as the race itself). All this is saying is that a creature might have bonus feats and that it might not meet the prerequisites for them, but it has to meet the prerequisites for any other feats it has. This isn't the same as saying, "you don't need to meet the prerequisites for bonus feats".
Kresalak 03-24-07, 10:33 PM	The entire issue is wrapped up here. (http://bb.bbboy.net/thegamingden-viewthread?forum=1&thread=87)
Cartigan 03-24-07, 11:31 PM	The entire issue is wrapped up here. (http://bb.bbboy.net/thegamingden-viewthread?forum=1&thread=87) If by wrapped up you mean debated for a few months with no conclusion but "semantic house rules." But logically, I would assert that if you are allowed to gain the bonus feat sans prerequisites, it stands to reason that you can likewise use it without prerequisites. Otherwise, the reason for pointing out that you can gain them while ignoring prerequisites is moot. And for Rogues, since there is no specific rule for or against gaining sans requisites in the handbook, it's house rules. Unless some one can find it officially addressed. The Monstrous Conundrums in the WotC archive seems to imply that Rogues require the player to have the prereqs.
Kresalak 03-25-07, 12:18 AM	I see that you didn't actually read what I linked, otherwise you would be able to provide a counterpoint that's better than "those are house rules."
Cartigan 03-25-07, 01:25 AM	I see that you didn't actually read what I linked, otherwise you would be able to provide a counterpoint that's better than "those are house rules." Unless you mean to link something different, I read the entire thread and that was the conclusion I drew. Maybe you should have read my entire counterpoint.
Kresalak 03-25-07, 02:07 AM	Fine, here's my response. I don't really understand how you can have written this if you've actually read the thread in question, but whatever. But logically, I would assert that if you are allowed to gain the bonus feat sans prerequisites, it stands to reason that you can likewise use it without prerequisites. Otherwise, the reason for pointing out that you can gain them while ignoring prerequisites is moot. The alternative is that Clerics, Monks, and Rangers can get their bonus feats but can't use them. But then there's that line on page 7 of the Monster Manual that says "Creatures often do not have the prerequisites for a bonus feat. If this is so, the creature can still use the feat." So yes, you can both take and use feats that you don't have the prerequisites for, provided that they are bonus feats and they don't state that you need the prerequisites. And for Rogues, since there is no specific rule for or against gaining sans requisites in the handbook, it's house rules. Unless some one can find it officially addressed. The Monstrous Conundrums in the WotC archive seems to imply that Rogues require the player to have the prereqs. No, it's not a house rule. If nothing else is stated, you refer to the standard rules for bonus feats, which is that you can both take and use them without meeting the prerequisites. The whole reason we have standards is so that we don't have things like Stinking Cloud having to define the Nauseated condition within its own text. The Rogue special ability description doesn't have to define the term "bonus feat" because the game already has a definition of bonus feats.
Cartigan 03-25-07, 02:24 AM	The alternative is that Clerics, Monks, and Rangers can get their bonus feats but can't use them. But then there's that line on page 7 of the Monster Manual that says "Creatures often do not have the prerequisites for a bonus feat. If this is so, the creature can still use the feat." So yes, you can both take and use feats that you don't have the prerequisites for, provided that they are bonus feats and they don't state that you need the prerequisites. That's kind of logical, especially considering when they get the feats, extra especially for Monk. Saying they couldn't use the feats would defeat the purpose of allowing the classes to take them. Plus. if you look at those feats descriptions, they say either the class gains it as an ability or can gain the feat without meeting prerequisites. No, it's not a house rule. If nothing else is stated, you refer to the standard rules for bonus feats, which is that you can both take and use them without meeting the prerequisites. The whole reason we have standards is so that we don't have things like Stinking Cloud having to define the Nauseated condition within its own text. The Rogue special ability description doesn't have to define the term "bonus feat" because the game already has a definition of bonus feats. But if you read Monstrous Conundrums (Part One) in the WotC rules archive, you see it clarifies the ruling that caused a few months of debate on your linked board. An extra feat a creature gains outside of its normal allotment. A bonus feat might allow a creature to choose any feat (for example, the bonus feat a human gains at 1st level). A bonus feat also might be restricted to a short list or even be restricted to a single feat. (For example, a 1st-level monk can select either Improved Grapple or Stunning Fist as a bonus feat.) Sometimes, a creature can have a bonus feat without meeting the feat's prerequisites. When this is the case, the bonus feat's source will say so. Emphasis mine. Neither the Rogue's gain feat or any skills say Rogue's can gain them without the prerequisite, thus implying they can't. Taken wholly in context, the Monster Manual's feat information appears to apply to monsters or anything else the DM gens up.
Frugal 03-25-07, 09:40 AM	The alternative is that Clerics, Monks, and Rangers can get their bonus feats but can't use them. But then there's that line on page 7 of the Monster Manual that says "Creatures often do not have the prerequisites for a bonus feat. If this is so, the creature can still use the feat." So yes, you can both take and use feats that you don't have the prerequisites for, provided that they are bonus feats and they don't state that you need the prerequisites. Ah, but here's the catch, all the MM entry really says is that if you've been granted a bonus feat you can use it, even if you don't meet the prerequisites. That's doesn't say anything about whether or not you can take any feat you want, regardless of prerequisites, if the feat is called a bonus feat. Now, let's look at some of the examples you mention: Bonus Feat At 1st level, a monk may select either Improved Grapple or Stunning Fist as a bonus feat. At 2nd level, she may select either Combat Reflexes or Deflect Arrows as a bonus feat. At 6th level, she may select either Improved Disarm or Improved Trip as a bonus feat. A monk need not have any of the prerequisites normally required for these feats to select them. Emphasis mine. Note that this specifically states they don't need to meet the prerequisites. Combat Style (Ex) At 2nd level, a ranger must select one of two combat styles to pursue: archery or two-weapon combat. This choice affects the character’s class features but does not restrict his selection of feats or special abilities in any way. If the ranger selects archery, he is treated as having the Rapid Shot feat, even if he does not have the normal prerequisites for that feat. If the ranger selects two-weapon combat, he is treated as having the Two-Weapon Fighting feat, even if he does not have the normal prerequisites for that feat. Wow, again we see that it explicitly states you ignore the prerequisites. So what are we left with? The cleric as the only extraneous example where the war domain grants a bonus feat that the cleric doesn't meet the prerequisites for (if taken at 1st level). However, the MM entry does tell us that bonus feats can be used even if you don't meet the prerequisites so that's fine for being used. However, you'll noted that nowhere in the section in question does it say that if you're granted a bonus feat you can take any feat you want. This is also not the primary rules source, which is the PHB. All this section talks about is a clarification for how to read the statblocks presented in the MM. The discussion about bonus feats is purely a clarificaton that an entry might list a feat that the creature doesn't qualify for yet. There are plenty of monsters listed with class levels, you might see a statblock for a creature with 1 monk level, unarmed strike would have the b next to it so you'd know it's a bonus feat, the creature doesn't have to meet the prerequisites for the feat and if you're adjusting the feats selected you can't swap that feat out for something else. The same would be true for a 2nd level (or higher) ranger statblock, you'd have the combat style feat(s) showing with a b next to them and can't swap those out. Or another example would be if a particular race receives a certain feat as a racial feature, again you can't swap that out. But absolutely none of this applies to the rogue's 10th level special ability. The fact that the wizard and fighter explicitly state that they have to meet the prerequisites while the rogue's entry doesn't is not sufficient evidence. The wizard and fighter entries are simply reminders of how the rules typically work. The rogue entry doesn't specifically state that but it doesn't have to because the general rules for selecting feats say that and the rogue entry hasn't explicitly stated otherwise.
Uchiha_Arthas 03-25-07, 09:52 AM	Going to bring the whole thing slightly back on topic here: The main difficulty with TWF is that for most classes (excluding those which get damage mulitpliers from other sources: Rogues etc) its just not worth the number of feats. Three feats to get upto Perfect TWF, Four feats to get a +3 bonus to defence (Thats counting the initial TWF feat) and assorted other feats TW-Rend etc to get some situational use out of it. The best idea that I have heard/read about so far is the one from Xeviat-DM on his thread (I am just putting his version of TWF feats here, but try reading his whole post because it rocks): .... 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. .... The main benifit of the above feats that while it does represent a significant investment, it still allows most builds to get some other fighting feats as well.
Frugal 03-25-07, 10:34 AM	The main benifit of the above feats that while it does represent a significant investment, it still allows most builds to get some other fighting feats as well. I do like the fixes except for the suggestion that TWF allow you a separate attack action as a standard action. I'm a little concerned about the balance issues with attack, move, attack. Particularly with say, something like spring attack which would then allow you to move, attack, continue moving, attack again. I'd be more inclined to say that when you make an attack action you can make attacks with both weapons, it allows you to hit a little bit more and still makes you able to take some advantage of TWF without having to use a full-attack but isn't as powerful as giving you a whole other standard action (even if it is only usable for an attack action). Granted this does make feats like dual strike a little less useful, and takes some of the thunder away from the Tempest class, which is too bad because I thought it was a nifty class and it still has a couple of neat features but this TWF tweak basically completely negates it's TW spring attack ability.
Uchiha_Arthas 03-25-07, 03:55 PM	I do like the fixes except for the suggestion that TWF allow you a separate attack action as a standard action. I'm a little concerned about the balance issues with attack, move, attack. Particularly with say, something like spring attack which would then allow you to move, attack, continue moving, attack again. I'd be more inclined to say that when you make an attack action you can make attacks with both weapons, it allows you to hit a little bit more and still makes you able to take some advantage of TWF without having to use a full-attack but isn't as powerful as giving you a whole other standard action (even if it is only usable for an attack action). Granted this does make feats like dual strike a little less useful, and takes some of the thunder away from the Tempest class, which is too bad because I thought it was a nifty class and it still has a couple of neat features but this TWF tweak basically completely negates it's TW spring attack ability. Thinking about it I do agree with you about the seperate attack actions being too much and your fix seems like a nice idea as well, These fixes aren't mine however but I hope Xeviat-DM is still reading this thread. A Problem with any TWF fix is that it will involve some re-evaluation of other PRC's & feats based on it. (Thats true for any feat or class really). Can you think of any other enchancements for the Tempest class to have instead of its TW Spring attack then?
Frugal 03-25-07, 04:24 PM	Thinking about it I do agree with you about the seperate attack actions being too much and your fix seems like a nice idea as well, These fixes aren't mine however but I hope Xeviat-DM is still reading this thread. Yes, I realise they weren't yours but it was as much a comment on your feedback as the original fixes, probably should have directly replied to him but I must've been at work at the time and not reading them as closely. A Problem with any TWF fix is that it will involve some re-evaluation of other PRC's & feats based on it. (Thats true for any feat or class really). Can you think of any other enchancements for the Tempest class to have instead of its TW Spring attack then? Hard to say about the Tempest, 2 weapon spring attack is one of it's "capstone" abilities and with the other one just being an increase to the bonus for tempest defence it seems like there should be something there.
Sphyre 03-25-07, 04:46 PM	Hold on... This thread wasn't a joke to begin with? Lotus Crane is right. TWF needs a boost, not a nerf. I disagree. I think TWF is a great tool for exactly what tarkin was talking about. It's a way to gain more attacks, and thusly get more benefit from abilities from sneak attack and favored enemy bonuses more often. If simply taken without something to capitialize on it's strengths though, it's sub-par.
Xeviat-DM 03-25-07, 04:59 PM	If I remember correctly, Spring Attack explicitly gives you one attack in the midst of a move action, not a standard action. But, it was my intention to have TWFing allow you to make two attacks on a charge, spring attack, or any other such situation. My reasoning? Aside from sneak attack or impossibly imbalanced favored enemy (if someone has +10 on one and +2 on 4 others, they're rarely going to get the +10), I have not seen any situation where a TWFer dealt more damage with two primary attacks than a THFer did with one. I'm sorry, it just doesn't happen. I've shown this on many occasions. And, I'm not too concerned about TWFing and Rogues either. Protecting against sneak attack is easy enough to do. As someone else stated, if a rogue moves in to do a flanking sneak attack, they're good as dead next round (while their AC is generally as good as other characters, they don't have the HP or Con generally to stand up to full attacks from dedicated combatants). Combine that with the fact that there are many creature types who are immune to sneak attacks, 2 core classes that are basically immune to sneak attacks, and an armor or shield enhancement that makes you partially or fully immune to sneak attacks. The game seems to be balanced towards fully randomized encounters, and in such a case I think rogues are going to be unable to sneak attack 30% or so of the foes they face. So, situationally, a rogue can own house with two weapon fighting, but it is also a rediculous investment for most rogues. 1: TWF 3: Weapon Finesse 6: Two-Weapon Defense 9: ITWF 12: Two-Weapon Pounce? 15: GTWF 18: Two-Weapon Rend? Look at that: all of the rogue's resources put into TWFing, with no other feats. Yeah, it proves useful in certain situations, but it is entirely worthless in others. Sounds like a balancing factor to me.
Cartigan 03-25-07, 05:10 PM	Look at that: all of the rogue's resources put into TWFing, with no other feats. Yeah, it proves useful in certain situations, but it is entirely worthless in others. Sounds like a balancing factor to me. Agreed, the likelihood that the Two Weapon Fighting system is unbalanced is astronomical due to the insane tree on it and the rate of gaining feats for any one without at least a couple Fighter levels.
Frugal 03-25-07, 06:20 PM	If I remember correctly, Spring Attack explicitly gives you one attack in the midst of a move action, not a standard action. But, it was my intention to have TWFing allow you to make two attacks on a charge, spring attack, or any other such situation. Yes it's used explicitly with the attack action. I may have been confused with your wording about allowing an additional attack as a standard action. My concerns is allowing it as part of a separate action (basically, granting a 2nd standard action in the round), which your example of attack one foe, move, attack with your other weapon suggested. I'd say allow you to make attacks with both actions as part of an attack action. The advantage I see is it prevents you from getting an effect similar to rapid blitz (attack, move, attack). I suppose the disadvantage is that it does then open up for using both weapons with spring attack, but that sounds like it was your intent anyway, and when you're talking about investing in TWF, Dodge (a pretty lame feat), Mobility (a really lame feat) and Spring Attack, it's not that big of an issue; I'd expect an investment in 4 feats to be pretty damn good. I'd be a little concerned about use with Whirlwind attack but then you're talking about investing in 2 more feats too so not exactly game breaking for the number of times it would come up.
Zardnaar 03-25-07, 06:21 PM	Perhaps TWF, Improved TWF, Greater TWF, and Perfect TWF should be folded into 1 feat and no half damage from your off hand. This will actually let you spend feats on stuff. You'll still probably be outclassed by a THF just not as much.
Xeviat-DM 03-26-07, 03:44 AM	ITWF, GTWF, and PTWF should be folded together, but not with TWF; ITWF currently grants more damage than TWF does, so they should not be folded together. I wish I could logically test a solid TWF build vs. a simple Weapon Focus build, but only Fighters can take Weapon Specialization and inevitably someone will tell me "TWFing is good with Weapon Specialization, you can't take it out". Seriously folks, Two-Weapon Fighting's specialty is supposed to be more attacks. But to what end? THFing deals more damage, hands down, in every situation except for sneak attacking (which has its own issues). Even then, if a rogue spends all 7 of their feats on being a good TWFer, they should get seven feats worth of abilities. Heck, for S's and Giggles, just compare TWF vs. Weapon Focus, ITWF vs. Weapon Specialization, GTWF vs. Greater Weapon Specialization. If TWFing is supposedly worth the feat cost, then it should be as good as an other style that has spent the same, right? Unless TWFing's style isn't about damage. Sword+Shield isn't about damage, it's about AC. I've said it before, and I'll say it again, if TWFing is supposed to be about getting more damage than one can with a simple single weapon Finesse build, then I would be fine with it if and only if the benefits of having a high Dex make up for the greatly reduced damage. Someone with a 12 Str and an 18 dex vs. someone with a 18 str and a 12 dex: the 12 dex guy has +1 AC higher (full plate has +8 AC and +1 Dex; chain shirt has +4 AC and +4 Dex), but the 18 dexer has +3 to reflex save, +3 initiative, +10 speed, can run at 4x, has 4 less armor check penalty, and +3 to ranged attack rolls. In return, just looking at a simple finesse build, the 18 Dexer spends 1 more feat (Weapon Finesse) and deals 1d6+1 (rapier) vs. 2d4+6 (falchion; chosen because they have the same threat range). If +3 reflex, +3 initiative, +10 speed, +1x run, and -4 armor check penalty are equivalent to 6.5 damage and +1 AC, maybe I'll concede. But even if TWFing is fine considering only TWF and ITWF, GTWF still sucks, and PTWF is entirely worthless. Can we at least agree upon that, please, before someone has an aneurism?
Spinal_Tap 03-26-07, 07:02 AM	If I remember correctly, Spring Attack explicitly gives you one attack in the midst of a move action, not a standard action. But, it was my intention to have TWFing allow you to make two attacks on spring attack. There is already a specific feat from PHB II that allows this – Bounding Assault?
Cartigan 03-26-07, 07:16 AM	There is already a specific feat from PHB II that allows this – Bounding Assault? That's it.
Spinal_Tap 03-26-07, 07:23 AM	That's it. Cool, and: -Dual Strike (attack with two weapons as a standard action) -Two-Weapon Pounce (attack with both weapons on a charge) -Double Hit (attack with both weapons as an AoO)
Cartigan 03-26-07, 08:20 AM	But it would still take forever to get all these skills. Even as a Fighter or taking the Rogue Bonus feat whenever you can.
starfire311 03-26-07, 08:45 AM	How are TWFing rogues dishing out more damage than, say, a charger or a spellcaster? Rogues deal out +1d6 damage per 2 levels. Charger-Mounted Combat, Ride-by Attack, Spirited Charge, Power Attack, Improved Bull Rush, Shock Trooper. Full PA (with Shock Trooper) is a 6:1 return for your Base Attack Bonus (TWF with a lance). That's like a maximized sneak attack from a rogue with TWF. Spellcaster-A lot of spells deal +1d6 damage per level (fireball, among others). TWFing puts them on par with many spellcasters for damage, except that spellcasters have ways of souping up their damage in addition to netting an AoE, using Save or Dies to greater effect, or just plain casting "you lose" spells like Otto's Irrisitable Dance and Forcecage). I always see someone so put of how great a charger is compared to a TWF, and they are simply wrong... I would take a TWF rogue in party over a charging idiot any day. Simply because I because I kow the TWF will contribute. I rarely see a charger ever get the chance to do his stuff, and if he does it is never for more than one round, because he is ussually dismounted when the some badguy grapples him. For exmaple we are playing red hand of Doom, and are about done with it, we are mostly level 7s. We have had 1 fight in the entire mod in which we were able to charge, every other fight either has us surprised, in too close or with terrain that will not let you charge.
Frugal 03-26-07, 09:07 AM	Cool, and: -Dual Strike (attack with two weapons as a standard action) -Two-Weapon Pounce (attack with both weapons on a charge) -Double Hit (attack with both weapons as an AoO) Yes and no. If memory serves, dual strike is hitting with both weapons with a single attack roll (kind of like manyshot for melee). So there's only precision damage with a single weapon. I'm not as up on the other 2 feats but I suspect they work the same way. With bounding assault, it does something slightly different too, it allows you to attack twice, yes. But, it has no synergy with TWF, it's just as effective with a single weapon. What I was suggesting was to allow you to make attacks with each weapon as part of an attack action. This isn't the same as dual strike, it's 2 separate attack rolls which allows precision damage to be applied to both hits. It's balanced with the fact that you're taking TWF penalties and you still have to hit with both weapons separately. For Spring Attack, it would allow you to move, attack an opponent with both weapons, move again. This has a synergy with Bounding Assault and Rapid Blitz because it would allow you to target more than 1 opponent and use both weapons on each of them. If this sounds a little unbalanced consider that this is using an investment of 6 feats (Dodge, Mobility, Spring Attack, TWF, ITWF, Bounding Assault), 7 if you go for Rapid Blitz. That's a pretty stiff feat investment, the payoff should be pretty impressive.
Zumarai 03-26-07, 09:13 AM	Yes and no. If memory serves, dual strike is hitting with both weapons with a single attack roll (kind of like manyshot for melee). So there's only precision damage with a single weapon. I'm not as up on the other 2 feats but I suspect they work the same way. You're right about Dual Strike, but the other two (Two-Weapon Pounce and Double Hit) actually allow two separate attack rolls (main hand and off-hand).
Kresalak 03-26-07, 09:47 AM	I is back from doing other things. That's kind of logical, especially considering when they get the feats, extra especially for Monk. Saying they couldn't use the feats would defeat the purpose of allowing the classes to take them. Plus. if you look at those feats descriptions, they say either the class gains it as an ability or can gain the feat without meeting prerequisites. It doesn't, however, say that you can use them without the prerequisites. It also doesn't say that you can't. So you have to refer to the basic rules on bonus feats, which are found on page 7 of the Monster Manual. Emphasis mine. Neither the Rogue's gain feat or any skills say Rogue's can gain them without the prerequisite, thus implying they can't. Taken wholly in context, the Monster Manual's feat information appears to apply to monsters or anything else the DM gens up. Well, if you say that it applies only to monsters, that's not a problem. All of the Core races appear in the Monster Manual. However, if you're trying to say that the rules arbitrarily don't apply to PCs, we run into a couple problems. For one, such a decision has no basis in the rules. Second, doing that means that Monks can take and not use their bonus feats. But that doesn't matter, since the Monster Manual establishes the standard ruling for bonus feats. It says, quite clearly, that "creatures often do not have the prerequisites for a bonus feat. If this is so, the creature can still use the feat." Furthermore, it says that "A creature cannot have a feat that is not a bonus feat unless it has the feat’s prerequisites." Really, I don't see any argument here that wasn't brought up against, and refuted by, Frank in the linked thread.
Frugal 03-26-07, 10:03 AM	But that doesn't matter, since the Monster Manual establishes the standard ruling for bonus feats. It says, quite clearly, that "creatures often do not have the prerequisites for a bonus feat. If this is so, the creature can still use the feat." Furthermore, it says that "A creature cannot have a feat that is not a bonus feat unless it has the feat’s prerequisites." Really, I don't see any argument here that wasn't brought up against, and refuted by, Frank in the linked thread. All that is saying is that there are circumstances where you can gain a bonus feat and not have to meet the prerequisites (we already knew that) and that feats that aren't bonus feats always have to meet the prerequisites (we already knew that too). The one thing that is useful is that it comments that if you don't meet the prerequisites for a bonus feat that you can still use it, which is a useful clarification. However, you'll note that there's absolutely nothing in that entry that says that when you're granted a bonus feat you don't need to meet the prerequisites. "A creature cannot have a feat that is not a bonus feat unless it has the feat's prerequisites" (which seems to be the crucial sentence here) is not the same as saying, "you don't need to meet the prerequisites for a bonus feat". It's simply saying that sometimes you're granted a bonus feat and don't have to meet the prerequisites, which we already knew could happen. The general rule is that you must meet the prerequisites for any feat you take, there are a few specific cases where it's explicitly stated that you don't need to make the prerequisites. There are a couple situations (such as the War domain) which don't explicitly state that but since it's explicitly granting you a specific feat I'd argue it's safe to assume that you don't need to meet the prerequisites. Would it be nice if it explicitly said that? Yes of course, but that doesn't mean that the general rule becomes that bonus feats don't need to meet prerequisites.
Cartigan 03-26-07, 11:23 AM	But that doesn't matter, since the Monster Manual establishes the standard ruling for bonus feats. It says, quite clearly, that "creatures often do not have the prerequisites for a bonus feat. If this is so, the creature can still use the feat." Furthermore, it says that "A creature cannot have a feat that is not a bonus feat unless it has the feat’s prerequisites." That does not mean that bonus feats can grab anything willy-nilly. Read the Monstrous Conundrums (Part One) in the rules of the game archive on WotC site. Really, I don't see any argument here that wasn't brought up against, and refuted by, Frank in the linked thread. Am I the only one that read the thread? It died, but did not come to a definite conclusion.
Ozzymandias 03-26-07, 11:46 AM	Edit: Apologies if I come off a little strong; I wrote this in a hurry, and didn't take the time to critique it properly. Still, the basics of my arguments would be no different; I hope this can help to clear up some things for those who are as confused as I am. I find this idea that a rogue can take any feat as a bonus feat, regardless of not having the prerequisites, amusing in the extreme. So, what, you're saying that a 10th level rogue can acquire any Epic feat for free, and use it, because it's a 'bonus' feat granted by his class? And your reasoning for this is a single line quoted from the Monster Manual? That's funny. Let's consider a few things here: 1) A player does not need the Monster Manual in order to understand the rules of the game. What I mean by that is, the MM is a supplement for the GM, necessary to run the game, and it's useful for specific players (those who play spellcasters) in specific instances. It's not, however, necessary. As such, it's not necessary to bring in a rule from said supplement in order to clarify why may very well be an omission of information. 2) The fact that the rogue does not include that piece of information stating that they must, explicitly, have the prerequisites for any bonus feat they select, is an omission. It states it for the fighter and the wizard, and the ranger and monk likewise have their own inclusion of caveats. 3) The line that supports this unbalancing notion is taken out of context. The paragraph that it's from is written in reference to monsters, and to the bonus feats that monsters gain by virtue of being a monster. This means that it does not apply to player characters. 4) It is unbalancing. A 10th level rogue can acquire Perfect Two-Weapon Fighting, or any other Epic feat (and there are better ones out there) because of a misinterpretation of the rules. I'm not one to say that the ends justify the means, but if the end is this result, then one should be questioning the means. And just because I don't want to be completely off topic, Two-Weapon Fighting has it's place in the game, and is not significantly underpowered compared to any other fighting style. Nor is it overpowered. I say this because I've seen one player of mine (who always dominates combat) play both ways, and he's always dominated combat with both styles. However, this is based on personal experience, as opposed to, say, mathematical formula and 'hard data.'
Toptomcat 03-26-07, 11:57 AM	Does anyone here remember Sarge? Tarkin's like that, but even more subtle and not nearly as funny.
starfire311 03-26-07, 12:14 PM	Do people actually use shields in 3rd edition (aside from bucklers)? yes, despite what people seem to think around here, sword and board is just as viable as THF or TWF, once you ban that silly floaty shield. just look at 1st level dwarf fighter with S&B vs THF. Give both 16 strength THF does 2D6+4 for 11 points on average S&B does 1D10+3 for 8.5 points on average but gets +2 shield to AC. so for the cost of 2.5 points on average damage you get +2 bonus to AC, this is IMO not a bad trade, especially sicne you now get an additional item you can enchant to improve AC.
Zumarai 03-26-07, 12:17 PM	S&B does 1D10+3 for 8.5 points on average but gets +2 shield to AC. …Assuming Exotic Weapon Proficiency (bastard sword)?
Frugal 03-26-07, 12:23 PM	3) The line that supports this unbalancing notion is taken out of context. The paragraph that it's from is written in reference to monsters, and to the bonus feats that monsters gain by virtue of being a monster. This means that it does not apply to player characters. It's even worse than that, it's not even in the rules as such, it's in the section of the Monster Manual explaining how to read the statblocks. And as I've already mentioned, it's simply saying that a creature might have a bonus feat that it doesn't meet the prerequisites for, that the feat still works, that you can't swap out those bonus feats and that it has to meet the prerequisites for any feats that aren't a bonus feat. It doesn't say anything about a bonus feat allowing you to take any feat without meeting the prerequisites.
Frugal 03-26-07, 12:24 PM	…Assuming Exotic Weapon Proficiency (bastard sword)? He said a dwarf fighter so I'm assuming he means a dwarven waraxe.
Kresalak 03-26-07, 12:25 PM	"Sword and Board" is utterly boned by the existence of the Animate Shield. Plus there's the whole thing where more damage --> enemies dead faster --> less attacks against you. Two handed weapons are the kings of D&D, and you can't really dispute that. Two-weapon fighting, though, is even worse. Every single feat there is worse than the prerequisites. Improved Two-Weapon Fighting gives you the same thing as Two-Weapon Fighting, only at a -5 penalty. Greater follows up with the same bonus at a -10 penalty. The TWF line is the only one of the three combat styles that suffers from diminishing returns, and is therefore by definition underpowered. That does not mean that bonus feats can grab anything willy-nilly. Read the Monstrous Conundrums (Part One) in the rules of the game archive on WotC site. Right. Bonus feats are restricted to a specific list. Monks have Improved Grapple and Stunning Fist, Pixies have Dodge, Clerics have Weapon Focus (Deity's Favored Weapon) and Rogues have "a bonus feat." A case could be made that the Rogue bonus feat needs to be a feat available to another class as a bonus feat, but luckily nearly every Epic feat is on the bonus feat list for an Epic class. Am I the only one that read the thread? It died, but did not come to a definite conclusion. Wasn't the last post in the thread "/me bows to Frank's total rightness"? The Monk and Ranger bonus feats specifically say you can take the bonus feat even if you don't meet the prereqs. But they don't say that you don't need to meet the prereqs to use the feat. So if we allow the statement Some feats have prerequisites. Your character must have the indicated ability score, class feature, feat, skill, BAB, or other quality designated in order to select or use the feat. A character can gain a feat at the same level at which he or she gais the prerequisites. A character can't use a feat if he or she has lost the prerequisites. to override the statement Creatures often do not have the prerequisites for a bonus feat. If this is so, the creature can still use the feat... A creature cannot have a feat that is not a bonus feat unless it meets the prerequisites. then Monks and Rangers are allowed to take and not use bonus feats which they do not qualify for. I find that interpretation rather more insane than the alternate interpretation - that Rogues are allowed to take Dire Charge or Permanent Emanation as one of their special abilities. The only statement on bonus feats that says you can use them without prerequisites also says you can take them without prerequisites. The rule that says you can't take feats in general without prerequisites also says you can't use them without prerequisites. The Monk and Ranger can take bonus feats without prereqs, as per their text. The Fighter and Wizard cannot take their bonus feats without the prereqs, as per their text. That text is: A monk need not have any of the prerequisites normally required for these feats to select them. A fighter must still meet all prerequisites for a bonus feat, including ability score and base attack bonus minimums. But the crowning evidence is: A cleric who chooses the War domain receives the Weapon Focus feat related to his deity's favored weapon as a bonus feat. Weapon Focus has a BAB minimum of +1 - so Clerics don't normally meet the prereqs for it, so by saying nothing the character does not have to meet the prereqs for it. Otherwise the War Domain would not function, and last time I checked, we were pretty sure that it did. -Frank Followed by: Oh snap! Let's take a look at the 3.5 Monster Manual, page 148, shall we? Oh, what's that? It's a half-fiend Cleric. It has the War Domain. It has Weapon Focus: Morningstar. As a bonus feat. A monstrous bonus feat. Weapon Focus (morningstar)B ... Deity: Erythnul. Domains: Evil (cast evil spells at +1 caster level) and War (Weapon Focus bonus feat) Who was right? Time for me to do my "I was totally right" dance. -Frank
Zumarai 03-26-07, 12:29 PM	He said a dwarf fighter so I'm assuming he means a dwarven waraxe. Ah, totally.
Cartigan 03-26-07, 12:30 PM	Which is why I have no plans to get more than Two-Weapon Fighting and Defense because afterwards you don't realistically gain anything, unless you want to diverge into stuff like Two-Weapon Rend.
Zumarai 03-26-07, 12:34 PM	Which is why I have no plans to get more than Two-Weapon Fighting and Defense because afterwards you don't realistically gain anything, unless you want to diverge into stuff like Two-Weapon Rend. I would heartily recommend against taking Two-Weapon Defence. In my experience it is the weakest of all the TWF feats.
Tekas_Tinkered_Dragon 03-26-07, 12:36 PM	Pssh, two weapon fighting isn't awesome. Who dosn't want an Animated Mithral Tower Shield and a Jovar with Monkey Grip?
Frugal 03-26-07, 12:41 PM	Two-weapon fighting, though, is even worse. Every single feat there is worse than the prerequisites. Improved Two-Weapon Fighting gives you the same thing as Two-Weapon Fighting, only at a -5 penalty. Greater follows up with the same bonus at a -10 penalty. The TWF line is the only one of the three combat styles that suffers from diminishing returns, and is therefore by definition underpowered. TWF and ITWF do different things. You can TWF without the TWF feat, it's just with hideous penalties (-6/-10, -4/-8 with a light weapon). TWF reduces the penalties to -4/-4 or -2/-2 with a light weapon. ITWF grants you an interative attack with your off-hand at -5. Now yes, GTWF is definitely worse than ITWF as it grants the exact same thing (an extra attack) but at a worse penalty. As for Frank's "proof", I'm not disputing that a bonus feat that has been granted can be used even if you don't meet the prerequisites. What I'm disputing is that the Monster Manual entry says a bloody thing about a bonus feat allowing you to select any feat without meeting the prerequisites. All it says is that some statblocks will include bonus feats that the creature didn't meet the prerequisites for. This could be the half-fiend cleric with the war domain (assuming the character is a cleric 1 which if memory serves it isn't, but I don't have my books handy). My point is that the whole paragraph in question referring to bonus feats does not say a thing about selecting bonus feats or how they are granted. All it says is that if a creature was granted a bonus feat then it may not have had to meet the prerequisites. This could be as simple as having a statblock that has a 1st level monk with stunning fist, or a 2nd level ranger with one of the combat styles. Or, it might be a racial trait for the creature. The point is that absolutely none of this translates back to what feats are available for a Rogue to select as part of it's 10th level special ability. The rules for selecting feats are not being overridden by that paragraph in the monster manual.
malisteen 03-26-07, 12:45 PM	Don't take two weapon defence. Imp: Buckler defence is just better, and even if you don't want to wear a buckler TWD just isn't worth the feat. As far as I can tell, the best TWF feats are: TWF (actually almost somewhat ok, good for rogues) Imp TWF (not as good as TWF, but still alright. Good for rogues) TWPounce (decent enough) TWRend (decent damage boost Oversized TWF (only good for power attacking TWFighters, lousy for others) But even those only kind of, sort of catch you up to what a two handed weapon user is doing on his own, without any feats (or only with power attack). So in the end TWFing is mostly just flushing 5 or more feats down the john to look cool. Unless you're a rogue, then it can be worthwhile for the extra per hit damage you could cause. Sadly, Rangers favored enemy and fighters specialization chain are not enough extra damage per hit to really make this at all viable to them
Cartigan 03-26-07, 12:51 PM	I would heartily recommend against taking Two-Weapon Defence. In my experience it is the weakest of all the TWF feats. If I am going to be using Two-Weapons, I might as well get some bloody armor bonus from it. Unless you can suggest something better that Rogue's can use.
Mystyc 03-26-07, 12:55 PM	I've thought about it some more, and I seem to recall tarkin talking up a TWF (spiked chain/armor spikes) build a short while back. Perhaps that is what he considers overpowered. If that's the case, then 1) he's totally dropped the ball by not specifying the basis of his argument, and 2) I don't think the TWF is the "problematic" part of that build. It is, as it has always been, the spiked chain.
Ozzymandias 03-26-07, 02:09 PM	My apologies if I come across as being overly pushy, but this dual-conversation is quite fascinating. Kresalak: Why no response to what I've said? To be sure I like the approach that you're taking. It's fun to find logical loopholes in any rules set. But if you're honestly suggesting that this particular loophole is worthy of respect, then I must emphatically disagree. It's ludicrous to think that, simply because of an obscure wording taken out of context, one can form a coherent argument that not only works, but should be accepted as appropriate, when the end result is something that is obviously completely (for lack of a better word at the moment) retarded. Consider the conversation that would ensue: Player: Okay, 10th level rogue. For my special ability, I'm taking Whirlwind. With my Hide in Plain Sight ability from the Dark template, I can execute a flat-footed attack against everyone within 10' of me - because I'm large from the wizard's spell - and get sneak attack damage against each of them. DM: How are you taking Whirlwind? Player: Rogue special ability. I can take a feat. DM: But you don't have Spring Attack. Player: I don't need it. The Monster Manual states that any feat taken as a bonus feat is one that the player doesn't need the prerequisites for. DM: <Preparing the mighty enema of DOOM!> Extrapolate further: Improved Sneak Attack for additional damage (by 20th level, the rogue has 14d6 sneak attack, plus skirmish if he multiclasses and takes the rogue/scout mutliclass feat); Perfect Two-Weapon Fighting (skipping all those unnecessary feats in between); Perfect Health (who needs paladin?); Spectral Strike (as it's worded, does this mean that my 10th level rogue can sneak attack incorporeal creatures?); etc... The problems involved with the end result of this ruling suggests to me that the ruling is faulty. Therefore, throw it out. It can't work that way. Concerning Two-Weapon Fighting: I think Tarkin threw out this post to get people talking. And, unfortunately, I fell for it just like everyone else. That being the case, I don't much care to continue discussing it, so should we perhaps separate these two topics?
magmer2 03-26-07, 05:43 PM	…Assuming Exotic Weapon Proficiency (bastard sword)? He could have for gone the sword in sword&board and just bash people with a board.
starfire311 03-26-07, 05:48 PM	He could have for gone the sword in sword&board and just bash people with a board. I am not even sure what this means, but as others have pointed out it is 1D10 Due to dwarved waraxe
meabolex 03-26-07, 06:46 PM	Nice troll post (: It's funny you guys think TWF is underpowered and the developers thought it was overpowered in 3.0 (although I can't remember where I saw/heard this -- some interview I believe). Think about how Power Attack was buffed in 3.5 for two-handed weapons. They explicitly wanted to power-up the barbarian with the greatsword because mathematically, TWF was out-damaging the big swords. The problem lies in on-hit weapon properties. The more on-hit abilities (for instance, frost, flaming, shock, etc.), the more sense it makes to hit as often as possible. With the Power Attack change, perhaps this isn't such a big deal comparatively. The issue with sneak attack and TWF is fine in my books though. Sneak attack is a *very* limited mechanic and rogues generally are punished for TWF due to having difficulty hitting anything with high armor for their level. My favorite example is the Will-o'-Wisp. A level six rogue dual wielding will have an extremely tough time hitting the 30 AC (with Dodge) that those things have.
stsword 03-26-07, 09:34 PM	Just to say, this happens in our games all the time. Quite a lot of our tactics are built around making it happen. There's one I thought of thanks to adaptable flanker (I believe the feat is) from players guide 2, choose that for a daelkar half-blood from magic of eberron with a symbiote that is still capable of attacking when being worn. All sneak attack all the time. :)
Lotus Crane 03-26-07, 10:51 PM	If I am going to be using Two-Weapons, I might as well get some bloody armor bonus from it. Unless you can suggest something better that Rogue's can use. Rogues already have a hard time affording TWF, ITWF, and GTWF (they don't get bonus feats like fighters and rangers do). The shield bonus granted by TWD is pathetic unless you also take ITWD and GTWD, and fight defensively and/or use Combat Expertise to double it. Unfortunately, it's not like your rogue can afford CE, and with medium BAB and a -2 attack penalty from TWFing in the first place, fighting defensively will cripple his offense so badly that a single-weapon rogue will easily outdamage him. A masterwork (and later magical) buckler with Improved Buckler Defense is almost always a more economical choice than investing 2-4 feats in a defensive option that ruins your already pathetic attack bonuses.
Cartigan 03-26-07, 11:38 PM	Rogues already have a hard time affording TWF, ITWF, and GTWF (they don't get bonus feats like fighters and rangers do). The shield bonus granted by TWD is pathetic unless you also take ITWD and GTWD, and fight defensively and/or use Combat Expertise to double it. Unfortunately, it's not like your rogue can afford CE, and with medium BAB and a -2 attack penalty from TWFing in the first place, fighting defensively will cripple his offense so badly that a single-weapon rogue will easily outdamage him. A masterwork (and later magical) buckler with Improved Buckler Defense is almost always a more economical choice than investing 2-4 feats in a defensive option that ruins your already pathetic attack bonuses. Improved Buckler Defense would require taking a feat to get shield proficiency with a Buckler. As well as finding a Buckler worth wielding. Plus, I am already taking two levels of fighter to get feats out of the way quick. And I plan to take Combat Expertise at some point to get to Improved Feint. I might not get Two-Weapon Defense, but I am not going to throw two feats at Improved Buckler Defense any time soon.
NoldorForce 03-27-07, 12:35 AM	Improved Buckler Defense would require taking a feat to get shield proficiency with a Buckler. As well as finding a Buckler worth wielding. Plus, I am already taking two levels of fighter to get feats out of the way quick. And I plan to take Combat Expertise at some point to get to Improved Feint. I might not get Two-Weapon Defense, but I am not going to throw two feats at Improved Buckler Defense any time soon.Masterwork bucklers have no armor check penalty and thus no combat penalties for nonproficiency. If you make it mithral as well, you can also cast spells with no problem while wearing it.
Mystyc 03-27-07, 12:39 AM	Improved Buckler Defense would require taking a feat to get shield proficiency with a Buckler. As well as finding a Buckler worth wielding. Plus, I am already taking two levels of fighter to get feats out of the way quick. And I plan to take Combat Expertise at some point to get to Improved Feint. I might not get Two-Weapon Defense, but I am not going to throw two feats at Improved Buckler Defense any time soon. If you're taking a level of fighter, you get shield proficiency for free.
Rough_Trade 03-27-07, 06:25 AM	If I am going to be using Two-Weapons, I might as well get some bloody armor bonus from it. I think it's a shield bonus, not armour. But, anyway, yeah, TWD = sad.
Karla 03-27-07, 06:52 AM	TWF actually needs to be strengthened, not nerfed. Considering how feat-intensive it is, and the attack penalties involved, TWF is only a break-even proposition for specialists designed to take advantage of it, and blatantly inferior to both two-handed weapon and weapon & shield styles for most other characters. I have to agree. I'm playing a Dervish, one of the most TWF-friendly classes & I simply concluded I was better off with 2-handed. Greatsword does 2d6 with STR*1.5. 2 Scimitars do (total) 2d6 with STR*1.5. No difference. Except at -2/-2 to hit, only on a full attack and only with taking at least one extra feat. And spending twice as much on weapon enhancements! Plus my character has Power attack (needed to get cleave) which I can't use with the scimitars as (for a Dervish) they're light weapons! Okay, so you get a better chance of a critical with the scimitars. But if that matters, compare with a Falchion - same critical chance, but you'll still do more damage for less gp and fewer feats. Or indeed you could take feats or Tempest levels to reduce the disadvantages - except of course that costs feats and levels. Irony is the 2-H is actually very short of supporting feats - a few like Leap Attack which stack nicely with it but almost none which directly support it (compared to how many for TWF?). And it's still better!
Cartigan 03-27-07, 07:27 AM	Well, then I can skip TWD then but no point getting Improvised Buckler Defense until I actually have a buckler that is usable.
Kresalak 03-27-07, 07:28 AM	My apologies if I come across as being overly pushy, but this dual-conversation is quite fascinating. Kresalak: Why no response to what I've said? 'Cause I only respond to this thread in detail every other day or so. I'll write a full response later.
Zumarai 03-27-07, 07:28 AM	Well, then I can skip TWD then but no point getting Improvised Buckler Defense until I actually have a buckler that is usable. Just get a masterwork buckler and you're golden.
Cartigan 03-27-07, 07:29 AM	Just get a masterwork buckler and you're golden. Sure, let me pull out of some one's hat. And without a magic Buckler, there is still the problem of a Buckler having the same armor as TWD and thus it would be an equal waste of a Feat to get Improved Buckler Defense at the point we are at in the game.
Zumarai 03-27-07, 07:39 AM	Sure, let me pull out of some one's hat. If you're past 1st level it shouldn't be much of a problem to scrape up 300 g.p. or so.
tetebetson 03-27-07, 08:04 AM	As Two Weapon Fighting is one of the best combat techniques for Rogues, Rangers, and Fighters, I thought we should discuss possible nerfs for it, to keep those characters from overpowering the other players. 1. Restrict Rogues (and similar classes) to only get 1/2 normal Sneak Attack for their off hand. 2. Do the same for Rangers, reducing their Favored Enemey bonus down to 1/2 normal when using their off hand. 3. Rule that any trip attempt made while TWFing takes the TWF penalty to the their Trip Strength check. 4. Rule that you can not use Armor spikes to disarm (thereby nerfing the TWF spiked chain + armor spiked build). 5. Rule that when purchasing weapons, no more than 1/2 your gold may go to weapons (thereby equalizing twf with the standard rule about no more than 1/2 your gold going to any single magic item.) With these in play, rogues, rangers, tripping/disarming fighters and your high level magic weapon fighters will no longer crush all opposition. dont be silly if people spent time an feats getting twf then you shouldnt say its to powerfull just cos you think other players get ****** off, they have the same oppertunity to get said feats, maybe they just end up killing your npcs and your the one whos ****** off
magmer2 03-27-07, 08:15 AM	I am not even sure what this means, but as others have pointed out it is 1D10 Due to dwarved waraxe A large shield does d4 damage, and with the bashing quality and spikes it is upped to d10. Take improved shield bash and use said shield with two hands.
Merestil Haye 03-27-07, 08:32 AM	Sure, let me pull out of some one's hat. And without a magic Buckler, there is still the problem of a Buckler having the same armor as TWD and thus it would be an equal waste of a Feat to get Improved Buckler Defense at the point we are at in the game.But you also said you will be taking two levels of Fighter, and one of the class features of the Fighter is proficiency with all shields, including Buckler. So you need only the one feat. And, as already stated, a masterwork buckler imposes no ACP so it makes no difference whether you are proficient or not - and a MW buckler costs 165gp. Remember that even without the feat, you only lose the buckler's bonus to AC if you make an attack roll with that weapon - you can hold a weapon in the offhand, elect not to use it and gain the shield bonus. Might be A Good Thing if you are flat-footed.
starfire311 03-27-07, 08:40 AM	Remember that even without the feat, you only lose the buckler's bonus to AC if you make an attack roll with that weapon - you can hold a weapon in the offhand, elect not to use it and gain the shield bonus. Might be A Good Thing if you are flat-footed. it is also a good thing if you have to move, and only get 1 attack anyway.
TwistedPuppy 03-27-07, 10:11 AM	The easiest way to nerf two weapon fighting is to make sure that whoever has it must take more than a 5 foot step to hit an opponent.
Rough_Trade 03-27-07, 10:15 AM	The easiest way to nerf two weapon fighting is to make sure that whoever has it must take more than a 5 foot step to hit an opponent. Yes, but I think the whole point of this thread is that TWF needs to get beefed up, not nerfed?
Rhuxley 03-27-07, 11:23 AM	You can also invest into yet another feat and get dex to damage for a limited selection of weapons. May i ask the name of this feat?
Cartigan 03-27-07, 11:30 AM	May i ask the name of this feat? It's an ability of some obscure class but I never found a feat that did it or I would be all over that.
fatal error 03-27-07, 11:40 AM	Argh, I just scrolled through 6 pages of posts waiting for Tarkin to say it was a joke. . . By the way, the feat is Shadow Blade from Tome of Battle. It also requires a Shadow Hand stance, so you need to either take Martial Study and Martial Stance first, or a level in Swordsage.
Zumarai 03-27-07, 11:43 AM	It's an ability of some obscure class Champion of Corellon Larethian (RotW).
starfire311 03-27-07, 01:59 PM	Yes, but I think the whole point of this thread is that TWF needs to get beefed up, not nerfed? that is not the point of this thread, the point was to show that TWF does not need anything, nerfing or beefing up.
Cartigan 03-27-07, 02:31 PM	Champion of Corellon Larethian (RotW). Yeah that one, I would've said it but had no idea how to spell it.
Sphyre 03-27-07, 03:04 PM	Yes, but I think the whole point of this thread is that TWF needs to get beefed up, not nerfed? It depends on who you refer to... there's 3 basic crowds I see here... all with their own reasoning and variations: Those who think TWF is too powerful Those who think TWF is too weak Those who think TWF is fine as is I beleive what twisted puppy was saying "If you think TWF is too powerful and needs a nerf, perhaps you should incorporate into your battleplan forcing your opponents to not be able to make a full-round attack, since that's the only time they can TWF. Standard ways to accomplishing this is get out of it's threatened range by more than 5ft" It's about strategy, not changing the rules. By a similar vein, one of the best ways to fight a dragon, is to make sure it doesn't get it's full attack, because that's one strength of a dragon - their ability to dish melee damage out.
Sphyre 03-27-07, 03:14 PM	May i ask the name of this feat? Shadow Blade from the tome of battle. If you want a non-adept to get it, you need to get Martial Study for a shadow hand maneuver. You need to take Martial stance for a shadow hand stance due to a shadow hand maneuver being the prerequisite. (Assassin's stance, with a prerequisite of an initiator level of 5 (10th level for a non-initiator so probably a 12th level feat for most) is a nice one since you get +2d6 SA damage.) Then you must take shadow blade, be in your shadow hand stance, and use a dagger, sai, shortsword, spiked chain, siangham or unarmed strike, to gain your dexterity bonus to damage. So you're looking at 15th level, before you get dex to damage, for anyone who doesn't gain bonus feats and has no levels in a martial adept. If you take only a 1st level maneuver at 3rd, and a 1st level stance at 6th, you could get it dex to damage by 9th level for the expenditure of 3 feats... I really don't think it's all that overpowering being that you have to spend 3 feats to get it.
Sleepwalker13666 03-27-07, 03:55 PM	You see all these fighter sucks threads, and come across something like this. :rolleyes: Sorry Tarkin I'm not buying it. A rangers favored enemy bonus is dependent on him actually facing that enemy, if twf for a ranger has become a big deal because of that then have him face something different. A rogue has few feats to begin with, him burning three feats is a pretty dedicated build. Now all he has to do is get into melee with his d6 hp. Sure whoever he hits may get crippled, but sneak attack has plenty of nerfs. Even if he gets in a flanking position and gets a successful hit on all his attacks, he may not get a single point of SA. Fighters can dole out damage in ways other than twf, but a twf is one of the good options a fighter has, no current option should be taken away from the fighter. Regardless of class twf is balanced, you blow some accuracy for more oppertunities to hit.
Uchiha_Arthas 03-28-07, 07:03 AM	I think I saw an interesting comment a few pages ago (too lazy to go look for it) about TWF being balanced with THF if you considered weapon enchantments like Shock & Shocking Burst....Anyone done any comparisions or got any ideas/responses based on that ? Quoting Tarkin from this Post: (http://boards1.wizards.com/showpost.php?p=11824670&postcount=3) He seems to believe that TWF is better then THF if the DM gives 36,000 gold and rules that only half of it can be spent on a single magic item. So for 18,000gp each a TWF warrior could get 2x (+2, Shock, Shocking Burst) weapons and while the THF warrior could only get one weapon of equal price. I havent exactly done any tests but that would probably allow allow the TWF to do more damage but considering the poor guy just spent all his money and has no magic armour etc while the THF does...it might not be the best trade + this only seems to account for generated high-level characters. The treasure rewards (especially if you start playing from the start) are going to be screwing this up the more you play. Unless your DM is a very nice guy I doubt he's going to give you the pair of matching TWF weapons with out giving the THF something similar in return.
Kresalak 03-28-07, 08:46 AM	Alright. 1) A player does not need the Monster Manual in order to understand the rules of the game. What I mean by that is, the MM is a supplement for the GM, necessary to run the game, and it's useful for specific players (those who play spellcasters) in specific instances. It's not, however, necessary. As such, it's not necessary to bring in a rule from said supplement in order to clarify why may very well be an omission of information. It's one of the Core rulebooks, and the only one that defines what a "bonus feat" is. 2) The fact that the rogue does not include that piece of information stating that they must, explicitly, have the prerequisites for any bonus feat they select, is an omission. It states it for the fighter and the wizard, and the ranger and monk likewise have their own inclusion of caveats. You can add it in, but I'm arguing from what the rules say, rather than what the rules imply. 3) The line that supports this unbalancing notion is taken out of context. The paragraph that it's from is written in reference to monsters, and to the bonus feats that monsters gain by virtue of being a monster. This means that it does not apply to player characters. This exact line of reasoning was addressed in the linked thread, so I won't bother to repeat it here. 4) It is unbalancing. A 10th level rogue can acquire Perfect Two-Weapon Fighting, or any other Epic feat (and there are better ones out there) because of a misinterpretation of the rules. I'm not one to say that the ends justify the means, but if the end is this result, then one should be questioning the means. But it's not unbalancing. No one ever used the Bonus Feat special feature before this, and there are no Epic feats that would unbalance the game if given to a Rogue (there are spellcasting feats that do so, but the Rogue can only pretend to be a spellcaster). There are exceptions, and we call them Epic Spellcasting, but that's a fault of the specific feat, and is unbalancing if given to anyone at any level.
Cartigan 03-28-07, 08:59 AM	But it's not unbalancing. No one ever used the Bonus Feat special feature before this, and there are no Epic feats that would unbalance the game if given to a Rogue (there are spellcasting feats that do so, but the Rogue can only pretend to be a spellcaster). There are exceptions, and we call them Epic Spellcasting, but that's a fault of the specific feat, and is unbalancing if given to anyone at any level. Yes, it is. Being allowed to take any feat you want without any pre-requisites is the definition of unbalanced. You can add it in, but I'm arguing from what the rules say, rather than what the rules imply. Except the rules are being taken out of context and applied in a way that requires implication to be read into them. And do the Rules of the Game articles on WotC count for nothing?
Merestil Haye 03-28-07, 09:03 AM	4) It is unbalancing. A 10th level rogue can acquire Perfect Two-Weapon Fighting, or any other Epic feat (and there are better ones out there) because of a misinterpretation of the rules. I'm not one to say that the ends justify the means, but if the end is this result, then one should be questioning the means.But it's not unbalancing. No one ever used the Bonus Feat special feature before this, and there are no Epic feats that would unbalance the game if given to a Rogue (there are spellcasting feats that do so, but the Rogue can only pretend to be a spellcaster). There are exceptions, and we call them Epic Spellcasting, but that's a fault of the specific feat, and is unbalancing if given to anyone at any level.The rules do not allow a character to select an Epic feat except under two specific circumstances.Acquiring Epic Feats Characters gain epic feats in the following ways: At 21st level, and every three levels thereafter, the character may select an epic feat in place of a nonepic feat. Each character class gains bonus epic feats according to the class description. These feats must be selected from the list of bonus epic feats for that class.Is a rogue's special ability the acquisition of a feat at 21st level (or any other higher character level evenly divisible by three)? Is the character getting an epic feat by virtue of his character class description? No, and no. The character may not select an Epic feat. I agree that a creature does not need to meet prerequisites to select bonus feats unless the ability granting the bonus feat says it does. I'm now considering houseruling that the Rogue has to meet prerequisites.
Kresalak 03-28-07, 09:04 AM	Yes, it is. Being allowed to take any feat you want without any pre-requisites is the definition of unbalanced. No, the definition of unbalanced in D&D is for a character of level X to not be equivalent in power to other characters and monsters of CR X. Since I don't see any feats that would change that, it's not unbalanced. Except the rules are being taken out of context and applied in a way that requires implication to be read into them. And do the Rules of the Game articles on WotC count for nothing? No, the Rules of the Game are pretty much crap, and don't even have the authority to change the rules (which Skip tries to do, a lot).
Cartigan 03-28-07, 09:09 AM	No, the definition of unbalanced in D&D is for a character of level X to not be equivalent in power to other characters and monsters of CR X. Since I don't see any feats that would change that, it's not unbalanced. That is patently absurd. Skill trees exist for a reason. No, the Rules of the Game are pretty much crap, and don't even have the authority to change the rules (which Skip tries to do, a lot). Which still doesn't negate the hypocritical application of one paragraph out of context of its section and the entire book.
Frugal 03-28-07, 09:12 AM	You can add it in, but I'm arguing from what the rules say, rather than what the rules imply. Show me the rule that says that. And I don't mean the sentence that says a creature cannot have a feat that is not a bonus feat unless it meets the prerequisites, all that says is that a feat that is not a bonus feat has to meet the prerequisites.
Cartigan 03-28-07, 09:16 AM	Monsters must meet the prerequisites for feats, just as character must. If your creature concept begs for a feat for which the creature does not qualify, consider altering the creature so it qualifies for the feat, or assign the feat as a bonus feat (It is acceptable for a creature to have a bonus feat for which it does not meet the prerequisites) This is not for Rogues to take Bonus Feats without consideration for prereqs or balance, it is for DMs designing monsters to their liking. The Monster Manual is a book that pertains to monsters, imagine that.
Mystyc 03-28-07, 12:00 PM	Quoting Tarkin from this Post: (http://boards1.wizards.com/showpost.php?p=11824670&postcount=3) Holy crap, an actual argument! Usually readers expect to see these in new topics already, rather than having to dredge them up themselves. Just making unsupported assertions in an OP, especially ones that go so aggressively against conventional wisdom, leads to what we have here -- several pages of people saying "you're joking, right?" If any of this had been reproduced in the OP, we could have actually had a discussion. Of course, the only thing that post asserts, really, is that TWF in optimal circumstances is better than THF. Melee characters: rarely have low Strength aren't always guaranteed bonus damage from favored enemy or sneak attack* don't always have the huge number of feats required have more to buy than just magic weapons * -- Bonus damage scenarios are already acknowledged as a scenario where TWF is better. If there wasn't at least one of those, the entire style would be useless, so I ain't complaining. The only supposedly "brokenating" factor that half makes sense is the weapons one, as you are able to spend a greater percentage of your equipment pool on weaponry, but as I mentioned above, one has to wonder what that does to the rest of your gear. The only thing that post shows is that TWF actually has valid applications, not that it is broken. I suspect THF will almost always be considered the superior style because a) people will always need to move around in combat, and b) feats have better applications than just making you competent; not because people are "bad at math." Ah, hell, I don't even know why I'm bothering. It's not like tarkin is even bothering to defend this trash.
NoldorForce 03-28-07, 02:55 PM	My suspicion is either that tarkin actually believed that TWF needed a nerf (unlikely, given the subsequent lack of defense), or that the original post here was just a bunch of (effective) trolling, which is rather troubling.
Kresalak 03-28-07, 08:01 PM	This is not for Rogues to take Bonus Feats without consideration for prereqs or balance, it is for DMs designing monsters to their liking. The Monster Manual is a book that pertains to monsters, imagine that. The only race that aren't in the Monster Manual are humans.
Frugal 03-28-07, 09:51 PM	The only race that aren't in the Monster Manual are humans. You still have yet to show a rules reference (in the MM or elsewhere) that actually says that a bonus feat lets you select any feat you want. Again, all you've shown is a set of rules that say that some statblocks will include bonus feats that the creature didn't meet the prerequisites for. All that's saying is that sometimes you can get a bonus feat you don't meet the prerequisites for, not disputing that. It goes on to say you can still use the feat, this is a useful clarification. It then says that you can't swap out the bonus feats, good to know. It then says that any feat that isn't a bonus feat has to meet the prerequisites, we already knew that. Nowhere does it say that if you are granted a bonus feat you can select any feat unless it specifically states otherwise. In fact, the examples in the PHB (Monk, Ranger, etc) explicitly state that you're being given the feat even if you don't meet the prerequisites.
Cartigan 03-28-07, 09:52 PM	The only race that aren't in the Monster Manual are humans. Irrelevant. It still doesn't pertain to PCs. It is for DMs and their creation of monsters.
Merestil Haye 03-29-07, 06:51 AM	Irrelevant. It still doesn't pertain to PCs. It is for DMs and their creation of monsters.Sorry, but that is not true. Improved Natural Attack is only in the MM, but humans can take it, as they can also take any other feat in the MM for which they can meet the prerequisites. The question is, does the rule in the Monster Manual contradict anything said about feats in the Players Handbook? If it does, then you have grounds for disregarding it, since the PHB is the primary rule source for feats. If it does not, then it applies and bonus feats do not require prerequisites unless identified as such by the source of the bonus feat. The text in the MM does not really go either way (it says "It is acceptable for a creature to have a bonus feat for which it does not meet the prerequisites.") Reading the MM errata file (which fixed problems with some monsters having Weapon Finesse with +0 BAB) it at least implies that the bionus feat does not need to meet prerequisites. I'd be more comfortable if the rogue ability said that the creature did have to meet the prerequisites, but I don't think it breaks the game if they do not have to.
Cartigan 03-29-07, 08:40 AM	either way (it says "It is acceptable for a creature to have a bonus feat for which it does not meet the prerequisites.") Reading the MM errata file (which fixed problems with some monsters having Weapon Finesse with +0 BAB) it at least implies that the bionus feat does not need to meet prerequisites. I'd be more comfortable if the rogue ability said that the creature did have to meet the prerequisites, but I don't think it breaks the game if they do not have to. Did you read the excerpt I quoted? The stuff from page 7 is taken out of context - it is telling the DM how to read and apply the Monster entries in the book. How feats are actually gained is described in the excerpt I quoted on page 301. There is no precedent for the Rogue to be able to take any feat he wants. Feats gained by the Monk and Ranger say Monks and Rangers can take them without prerequisites in the skill description itself.
Frugal 03-29-07, 08:50 AM	Did you read the excerpt I quoted? The stuff from page 7 is taken out of context - it is telling the DM how to read and apply the Monster entries in the book. How feats are actually gained is described in the excerpt I quoted on page 301. Exactly, the quote from page 7 isn't even "rules", it's instructions on how to read the statblocks.
pflame5000 03-29-07, 08:58 AM	i dont understand. twf isn't so great. using a two handed weapon is pretty much just as good except for rogues and rangers. but still, dont just nerf it because it works well for dex based characters. wizards get a ton of crap that just owns w/ spells, but no one limits that.
Merestil Haye 03-29-07, 10:52 AM	Did you read the excerpt I quoted? The stuff from page 7 is taken out of context - it is telling the DM how to read and apply the Monster entries in the book. How feats are actually gained is described in the excerpt I quoted on page 301.The texts I read were page 87 of the PHB ("Acquiring Feats") and MM page 301. The text on page 7 of the MM is irrelevant to my analysis, because it does not deal with acquiring feats. Having just read that text, it does not alter my opinion. There is no precedent for the Rogue to be able to take any feat he wants. Feats gained by the Monk and Ranger say Monks and Rangers can take them without prerequisites in the skill description itself.Firstly, please do not refer to a special ability of a creature as a skill; skills are something else entirely. You should avoid applying a term with a defined game meaning to another in-game statistic. The entirety of the texts on bonus feats actually makes it plain that a creature with a bonus feat does not need to meet the prerequisites unless the source of the bonus feat explicitly states that the prerequisites do need to be met. First we have page 87 of the PHB :Additionally, members of some classes get bonus feats as class features. These feats may be chosen from special lists. A human character also gets a bonus feat at first level, chosen by the player. This feat may be any for which the character qualifies.The PHB is the primary text for information on feats - we do agree on that? Anything in another book that contradicts this information is in error. It does not settle the question one way or another. Then we have the MM, page 301 (which I quoted above).t is acceptable for a creature to have a bonus feat for which it does not meet the prerequisites.This does not contradict the PHB; it expands it. Because it does not contradict the PHB, it is of universal application. Thirdly we have the Monster Manual errata. This was issued, in part, because the MM gives several creatures a feat for which they do not meet the prerequisite. The errata pronounced the feat in question (Weapon Finesse) to be a bonus feat.Weapon Finesse Feat Some creatures that have this feat lack the +1 base attack bonus prerequisite. Since bonus feats do not require the creature to fulfill any feat prerequisites (see page 301 in the Monster Manual), make the Weapon Finesse feat a bonus feat and add an additional feat (see the table below).That quote clearly shows that the designers consider creatures do not need to meet prerequisites to take bonus feats. In the absence of a definitive statement in the actual rules quoted above, this is good enough to show that the designers fully intended that bonus feats not need prerequisites. Unless the class feature or racial trait says that the prerequisites must be met, they do not need to be. And the Rogue class feature does not say that. The second stage of the discussion is a question of whether the absence of that text is deliberate or not and, if it is concluded that it should be there, whether to houserule that prerequisites need to be met or not. Personally, I'd be inclined to houserule that the prerequisites must be met.
Cartigan 03-29-07, 11:31 AM	The texts I read were page 87 of the PHB ("Acquiring Feats") and MM page 301. The text on page 7 of the MM is irrelevant to my analysis, because it does not deal with acquiring feats. Having just read that text, it does not alter my opinion. Then and therefore Feats gained by the Monk and Ranger say Monks and Rangers can take them without prerequisites in the feat description itself. Firstly, please do not refer to a special ability of a creature as a skill; skills are something else entirely. You should avoid applying a term with a defined game meaning to another in-game statistic. Accidental, get over it. The entirety of the texts on bonus feats actually makes it plain that a creature with a bonus feat does not need to meet the prerequisites unless the source of the bonus feat explicitly states that the prerequisites do need to be met. First we have page 87 of the PHB :The PHB is the primary text for information on feats - we do agree on that? Anything in another book that contradicts this information is in error. It does not settle the question one way or another. That's all semantical hocus-pocus and you know it. The feat itself specifies the rules when the class ability does not, as seen with the Monk Then we have the MM, page 301 (which I quoted above).This does not contradict the PHB; it expands it. Because it does not contradict the PHB, it is of universal application. Don't give me that crap, I quoted the entire excerpt pertaining to the addition of feats to DM created or modified monsters - pulling one line out of it's context isn't going to fly. The text on bonus feats in the PHB clearly states, some one who doesn't meet prerequisites loses the ability to use the feat. If you want to play games and take the MM out of context, I will just say the PHB overrules the MM for player character. Thirdly we have the Monster Manual errata. This was issued, in part, because the MM gives several creatures a feat for which they do not meet the prerequisite. The errata pronounced the feat in question (Weapon Finesse) to be a bonus feat.That quote clearly shows that the designers consider creatures do not need to meet prerequisites to take bonus feats. In the absence of a definitive statement in the actual rules quoted above, this is good enough to show that the designers fully intended that bonus feats not need prerequisites. Unless the class feature or racial trait says that the prerequisites must be met, they do not need to be. And the Rogue class feature does not say that. That isn't semantic hocus-pocus, that is out-and-out, purposeful ignoring of what the MM says on the matter in context.
northern_bear 03-29-07, 12:05 PM	Like most people who have posted, I do not believe that TWF is overpowered as it is. I do, however, believe that letting a rogue get multiple sneak attacks on the same opponent in the same round is totally overpowered. Even without TWF a high level rogue can get three or four attacks per round. If he does sneak attack damage on every hit, he is going to far surpass the other melee fighters in the party. I know that there are all sorts of wacky character builds out there that allow for characters that do thousands of points of damage. But they usually rely on bizarre rule combinations from half a dozen different source books. Unless you're playing in a game where the DM allows all those other uber characters, then a rogue dealing multiple sneak attacks per round is a lot more deadly than other standard fighter types. Two weapon fighting just makes multiple sneak attacks per round even worse. Add in extra attacs from haste, or speed weapons, and it's very easy to get a rogue who consistently deals hundreds of points of damage per round. That's more than any core rule book fighter or Barbarian is likely to do. Rogues have enough cool abilities, that they don't need to also be the best melee fighter in the party to preserve game balance. And yes, I know that high level wizards can also deal hundreds of points of damage. But they can't do it as often or as consistently as the rogue. Plus the rogue has tons of other benefits that the wizard doesn't. Solution: TWF is fine the way it is. Just don't allow rogues to benefit from sneak attack damage on more than one attack per round.
Frugal 03-29-07, 12:23 PM	I do, however, believe that letting a rogue get multiple sneak attacks on the same opponent in the same round is totally overpowered. Even without TWF a high level rogue can get three or four attacks per round. If he does sneak attack damage on every hit, he is going to far surpass the other melee fighters in the party. The problem is that you're comparing with melee fighters who are pretty pathetic at higher levels. Now compare a Rogue with a full caster at the same level and I think you'll find that the damage output that the caster can do, with a standard action, pretty much puts any melee fighter to shame, even if he uses his full attack action. Sure as a 19th level Rogue I get +10d6 sneak attack damage and with TWF I could make 6 attacks in a round but consider that's 6 separate attack rolls, all at a -2 from TWF and the iterative attacks suffer stiff penalties that likely won't hit anything at an appropriate CR. Now compare that to the caster throwing out meteor swarm as a standard action, 4 attacks that can deal 2d6 bludgeoning damage as a ranged touch attack (and no penalties for multiple shots or iterative attacks) followed up by 4 6d6 40' area effects, reflex for half. I'd call that way more powerful.
northern_bear 03-29-07, 12:46 PM	Frugal, Ya, I agree that 18th level fighters suck at dishing out damage compared to 18th level wizards. But I think it makes more sense to compare a rogue's damage ability to a fighter's, than to compare it to a wizards. That is, I think it's more important that a rogue's combat abilities be in line with what a fighter can do, than be in line with what a wizard can do. Secondly, I'm not convinced that the wizard can consistently do way more damage than the rogue. Consider: 20th level rogue, BAB of 15. Dex of around 26 thanks to starting out high, boosting it every 4th level, and relevant magic items. Character has weapon finess, plus the TWF feats. Armed with a pair of +4 short swords of speed. This character gets 8 attacks per round at +25/+25/+25/+25/+20/+20/+15/+15. If each one of those attacks is going to do 10d6 points of damage per round, that can really dish out the hurt. For example, against an oponent with an AC of 30 who is vulnerable to sneak attacks, this character will, on average, land 4.9 blows per round, for an average damage of over 40 points each. So he inflicts about 200 points of damage per round, on average. Against an AC of 37, he will do an average of over 100 points of damage per round. And this damage is not subject to energy resistance, or spell resistance, and doesn't allow a save for half damage like a lot of the stuff a wizard throws around. I'd say that the damage output of this character is certainly comparable to that of a high level spell caster. Even if it isn't quite as good, the fact that it even comes close is a real problem, considering all the other benefits that rogues get which wizards don't. And this character is obviously way better at inflicting damage that a similarly high level fighter or barbarian. At least against opponents vulnerable to sneak attacks, which is a lot of opponents. P.S. Before somebody tells me that my build sucks, and that it would get killed by X, Y, or Z. Let me just say that I don't care. I wasn't trying to make some super character. I just wanted to show that if you stick to core rule books, then rogues are a lot better than other combat characters, if you allow them to have multiple sneak attacks per round.
northern_bear 03-29-07, 12:54 PM	P.S. A wizard that shoots all 4 of his meteor swarm meteors at a creature and hits will do 4x(2d6 bludgeoning + 6d6 fire) = 32d6 damage. No save, spell resistance applies. A 19th level rogue that lands 3 sneak attacks in a round will do 30d6 sneak attack damage, plus weapon damage. No save, spell resistance does not apply. Against any but the most highly armoured opponents, a high level rogue who is getting 6 or 8 attacks per round, with a decent attack bonus, has a pretty good chance of landing at least 3 blows. I am not convinced that a high level wizard can dish out much more damage than a rogue can. At least not against an opponent who is vulnerable to sneak attacks, and with the rogue allowed to make multiple sneak attacks.
CantripN 03-29-07, 01:11 PM	P.S. A wizard that shoots all 4 of his meteor swarm meteors at a creature and hits will do 4x(2d6 bludgeoning + 6d6 fire) = 32d6 damage. No save, spell resistance applies. A 19th level rogue that lands 3 sneak attacks in a round will do 30d6 sneak attack damage, plus weapon damage. No save, spell resistance does not apply. Against any but the most highly armoured opponents, a high level rogue who is getting 6 or 8 attacks per round, with a decent attack bonus, has a pretty good chance of landing at least 3 blows. I am not convinced that a high level wizard can dish out much more damage than a rogue can. At least not against an opponent who is vulnerable to sneak attacks, and with the rogue allowed to make multiple sneak attacks. Well, you made a stupid action as a Wizard. If you want to deal damage to a single target with a 9th level slot, use a Maximised Disintegrate, dealing 228 points of damage (For a 19th level caster, with no boosts to CL). That's only using a single feat and spell, mind. You still have a Quickened spell...
Ozzymandias 03-29-07, 01:13 PM	Originally Posted by Kresalak No, the definition of unbalanced in D&D is for a character of level X to not be equivalent in power to other characters and monsters of CR X. Since I don't see any feats that would change that, it's not unbalanced. Epic feats worth taking, which, by my estimation, would make the rogue a broken character at 10th level (and beyond): Additional Magic Item Space Blinding Speed Combat Archery (I don't think this ability is duplicated before epic levels, except through prestige classes with heavy requirements) Dire Charge Distant Shot Epic Dodge Epic Skill Focus Epic Speed Epic Toughness (+120 hit points by 20th level!!! Boo-ya!!!) Epic Trapfinding Fast Healing Great Stat (+4 to any one stat, above and beyond what any other class can hope to acquire) Improved Manyshot Improved Sneak Attack Instant Reload Legendary [Any] Lingering Damage Perfect Health Perfect Two-Weapon Fighting Polyglot (I've found the ability to speak any language is a very useful, and potentially powerful, one in the games I run) Sneak Attack of Opportunity Spectral Strike Spellcasting Harrier (because of the +4 bonus to the attack provoked through this ability) Storm of Throws Superior Initiative Swarm of Arrows Uncanny Accuracy Not to mention all the feats that improve existing abilities: if the rogue acquires Greater Two-Weapon Fighting, does he get the benefits of TWF and ITWF? Originally Posted by Kresalak Quote: 3) The line that supports this unbalancing notion is taken out of context. The paragraph that it's from is written in reference to monsters, and to the bonus feats that monsters gain by virtue of being a monster. This means that it does not apply to player characters. This exact line of reasoning was addressed in the linked thread, so I won't bother to repeat it here. Originally Posted by SRD Feats The line gives the creature’s feats. A monster gains feats just as a character does. Sometimes a creature has one or more bonus feats, marked with a superscript B (B). Creatures often do not have the prerequisites for a bonus feat. If this is so, the creature can still use the feat. If you wish to customize the creature with new feats, you can reassign its other feats, but not its bonus feats. A creature cannot have a feat that is not a bonus feat unless it has the feat’s prerequisites. I read the arguments on the other site, at your request, and I'm afraid that I still disagree. As we can see from the SRD quote, 'a monster gains feats' precedes all references to 'creature' in the rest of the paragraph. Hence, this collection of words is talking about monsters. Naturally, this reasoning then begs the question or whether or not a pixie rogue (level 10 or above) can take an Epic feat as a bonus feat. To that, I'm afraid I must fall on common sense. Some people do not consider the Epic feats to be unbalancing. I think they are, and I don't think I'm crazy to think that. With this end result available from the 'bonus feat' interpretation we're talking about here, the only reasonable line of action is to say that it doesn't work that way, at least not for the rogue class. Still, as I've said before, good effort to those who have taken the time to research and reason this out. Or rather, good effort to these people (http://bb.bbboy.net/thegamingden-viewthread?forum=1&thread=87), as they're the ones who started the argument.
lachlanfin 03-29-07, 01:21 PM	Compare that same mage and rogue only allowing 1 sneak attack and you get 10d6 + weapon damage x 3(for 3 hits) vs 32d6 meteor swarm. Even if you allow all three to be SA and it is 30d6 + weapon damage x 3, lets look at next round. The rogue does not get a SA unless a condition is created making it possible. The rogue's next round would be signifigantly less productive unless the the condition was there. Next round the mage could do DB Fireball or whatever that the rogue could not come close to that amount of damage even with TWF. TWF does not unballance the game IMO. Also, I would like to point out that I see Spell Resistance and Saving throws but no mention of Damage Reduction that would further reduce the melee combatants damage.
Xeviat-DM 03-29-07, 01:28 PM	I think I saw an interesting comment a few pages ago (too lazy to go look for it) about TWF being balanced with THF if you considered weapon enchantments like Shock & Shocking Burst....Anyone done any comparisions or got any ideas/responses based on that ? Yes I have. I don't have all of the numbers anymore, but they should be floating around the boards somewhere. First off, X Burst are never worth it for any character I have tested, except in situations where you already need a 20 to hit (and even then, power attack is better). Remember, Flaming is actually only +2.5 damage and is -1 to hit (+1 gives 1 to hit and 1 damage, flaming gives only 3.5 damage, see?). Secondly, a single +5 weapon (50,000 gp) costs as much as a +4 (32,000) and a +3 (18,000). So, you could have a +2 flaming shock weapon and a +1 frost corrosive weapon, but you could also have a +1 flaming, shock, frost, corrosive two-hander. The issue is that the loss of to hit for TWFing drastically reduces their damage output. Aside from full attack sneak attacks, I have, to this date, not found a situation where TWFing out damaged THFing. If TWFing had other advantages, I'd be fine with it. Right now, TWFing's advantage is more attacks, and more attacks should equal more damage if that's what you focus on. Remember the power attack formula: +1 to hit is marginally worth +2 to damage.
Frugal 03-29-07, 01:32 PM	Ya, I agree that 18th level fighters suck at dishing out damage compared to 18th level wizards. But I think it makes more sense to compare a rogue's damage ability to a fighter's, than to compare it to a wizards. That is, I think it's more important that a rogue's combat abilities be in line with what a fighter can do, than be in line with what a wizard can do. I disagree, saying that a Rogue's sneak attack is overpowered because it compares favourably to the weakest classes in the game isn't valid. Nerfing it just makes casters even more dominant than they already are. I'm inclined to argue that Rogue's fall somewhere in the middle of the power curve, full casters are more powerful and melee builds fall short. That doesn't show that Rogue's are overpowered, it just shows how badly shafted the warrior types are. 20th level rogue, BAB of 15. Dex of around 26 thanks to starting out high, boosting it every 4th level, and relevant magic items. Character has weapon finess, plus the TWF feats. Armed with a pair of +4 short swords of speed. This character gets 8 attacks per round at +25/+25/+25/+25/+20/+20/+15/+15. Speed effects don't stack, he'd only get 7 attacks. For example, against an oponent with an AC of 30 who is vulnerable to sneak attacks, this character will, on average, land 4.9 blows per round, for an average damage of over 40 points each. So he inflicts about 200 points of damage per round, on average. Against an AC of 37, he will do an average of over 100 points of damage per round. AC 30 is pretty low for CR 20 combats but let's use that. He has 7 (not 8) attacks so that cuts down on his effectiveness (especially since that was an extra attack counted at full attack bonus), so let's say 4 attacks per round hit (don't have time to work out the probabilities). Now let's apply DR, which you forgot about completely. Let's take a typical value of DR 15. So those 40 points of damage each turn into 25 points of damage, or 100 total. Against AC of 37 he's looking at around 50 or so. And this damage is not subject to energy resistance, or spell resistance, and doesn't allow a save for half damage like a lot of the stuff a wizard throws around. But it is subject to DR, which as I mentioned you completely neglected to account for. I'd say that the damage output of this character is certainly comparable to that of a high level spell caster. Even if it isn't quite as good, the fact that it even comes close is a real problem, considering all the other benefits that rogues get which wizards don't. He's also had to get himself into melee range and make a full attack, as opposed to the caster doing it from at least 30' away and as a standard action. Granted the caster can't do it more than once in a round without metamagic but he can still move afterwards.
northern_bear 03-30-07, 06:16 AM	Well, you made a stupid action as a Wizard. If you want to deal damage to a single target with a 9th level slot, use a Maximised Disintegrate, dealing 228 points of damage If the caster succeeds on a ranged touch attack, then the meteor strike does 32d6 damage, with no save. If he misses, then it does 24d6 damage, save for half. If the caster misses with his disintigration ray, it does no damage at all. If he hits, it does 228 points of damage on a failed save. But on a sucessful fort save it does a pathetic 5d6 of damage. Most high level, high hit point opponents have great fort saves.' So I'd say that the meteor strike is a more reliable way of inflicting significant damage. Compare that same mage and rogue only allowing 1 sneak attack and you get 10d6 + weapon damage x 3(for 3 hits) vs 32d6 meteor swarm. Even if you allow all three to be SA and it is 30d6 + weapon damage x 3, lets look at next round. The rogue does not get a SA unless a condition is created making it possible. The rogue's next round would be signifigantly less productive unless the the condition was there. For a high level rogue, it should be fairly easy to always be in a possition for sneak attacks. Improved invisibility works great. Chances are the party has another combat character who can set up flanking. And if there is no one else who can help flank, then a lowly summoned monster I can do the trick. TWF does not unballance the game IMO. I completely agree. TWF is not unbalanced. But I think multiple sneak attacks per round are unbalanced. Even without TWF. Also, I would like to point out that I see Spell Resistance and Saving throws but no mention of Damage Reduction that would further reduce the melee combatants damage. Damage reduction should never be an issue. If a high level character finds himself face to face with a monster that has effective damage reduction against his attacks, then it had better be because that monster just suddenly appeared in his bedroom while he was naked and asleep. Dragons have damage reduction X/magic. Every high level character has magic weapons. Most devils & demons have damage reduction X/good. Bless weapon is a first level spell that any party should have readily available if they expect even a slight chance of having to fight fiends. High level characters usually have access to multiple bludgeoning, piercing, and slashing magic weapons. As well as at least a few adamantine weapons. Silver & cold iron weapons might be a slight problem, but they are cheap enough to easily be affordable. Basically a high level party should rarely, if ever, encounter an opponent that they weren't expecting to see, and which has damage reduction that they can't overcome. saying that a Rogue's sneak attack is overpowered because it compares favourably to the weakest classes in the game isn't valid. Nerfing it just makes casters even more dominant than they already are. I'm inclined to argue that Rogue's fall somewhere in the middle of the power curve, full casters are more powerful and melee builds fall short. That doesn't show that Rogue's are overpowered, it just shows how badly shafted the warrior types are. OK, agreed that spell casters are a lot more powerful at high levels. But I ask myself, do I want the rogue's power levels, in combat, to be closer to a fighter, or closer to a wizard. I want the rogue to be closer to the fighter. And if anything, I want the rogue to be worse in combat than the fighter. A fighter does one thing, and one thing only. He fights. In any other situation, the fighter is almost completely useless. Since fighting is all the fighter can do, I want him to be good at it. I certainly don't think that a rogue, who has tons of other useful non-combat abilities, ought to also be a better fighter than the fighter. Speed effects don't stack, he'd only get 7 attacks. You might be right, but I'm not sure. I don't see a listing for "speed effects" in the bonus stacking section. I would agree that multiple speed effects on the character would not stack. For example, multiple haste spells woudn't stack. But in this case, the effect is not on the character, it is on the weapon. I know the description says speed weapon effects don't stack with similar effects, such as haste. But I would question whether a second speed weapon is a similar effect. I think it is totally reasonable that if the character has a speed weapon in each hand, he should get one extra attack with each of them. Compare with the flame property. If a character casts the flaming weapon spell, on a weapon with the flaming property, it would not do double flaming damage. The two effects overlap, and don't stack. But if the character has two flaming weapons, they both deal full flaming damage. It is not a question of stacking two similar effects. It is the same effect being applied to two different weapons. By the same reasoning, I would not allow haste and a speed weapon to stack, granting two extra attacks with the same weapon. But I would allow two speed weapons to each function normally. Two weapons both benefitting from the speed property is, to me, no worse than allowing two weapons to both benefit from the flaming property. Now let's apply DR, which you forgot about completely. I didn't forget about it. I chose to ignore it, because I doubt that it would ever be an issue. See above.
Merestil Haye 03-30-07, 07:35 AM	OK, agreed that spell casters are a lot more powerful at high levels. But I ask myself, do I want the rogue's power levels, in combat, to be closer to a fighter, or closer to a wizard. I want the rogue to be closer to the fighter. And if anything, I want the rogue to be worse in combat than the fighter.This is where you and I part company. The Fighter is not the baseline you should be aiming for, because there are not many standard classes weaker than the Fighter above about 6th level. Raise the power level of the sucky classes, not nerf a strong nonspellcaster. Speed effects don't stack, he'd only get 7 attacks.You might be right, but I'm not sure. I don't see a listing for "speed effects" in the bonus stacking section. I would agree that multiple speed effects on the character would not stack. For example, multiple haste spells woudn't stack. But in this case, the effect is not on the character, it is on the weapon. I know the description says speed weapon effects don't stack with similar effects, such as haste. But I would question whether a second speed weapon is a similar effect. I think it is totally reasonable that if the character has a speed weapon in each hand, he should get one extra attack with each of them.From the last 3.0 FAQ :The description for the speed weapon property says it is not cumulative with the haste spell, but exactly how this applies in the game seems unclear, especially when two weapons of speed are involved. Can you use two speed weapons at the same time? What, exactly, is meant when the rules say haste and speed don’t stack? Does it mean you can use the speed property during the normal portion of your turn, but not during the “extra” partial action you get from haste? You can use two weapons of speed at a time all right, but you still only get one extra attack, from one weapon or the other, not both. If you are under the effects of a haste spell, you can use the extra attack action from one weapon of speed, or the extra partial action from the haste spell, but not both.Comparing the 3.0 and 3.5 wordings of this property give me no reason to think this ruling is now obsolete. (There is a difference - the old Weapon of Speed allowed the user an extra attack whatever kind of action he used to make that attack - so a creature could make a standard action and get two attacks. The extra limitation to a full-round action in 3.5 accounts for the drop in price.) My main issue with your assertion that multiple Sneak Attacks are overpowered is that it's so easy to nullify sneak attack. Class abilities that nullify sneak attack. Mainly thinking of Uncanny Dodge here, but there may be others. There's a level limit on this of course, but it's still a factor to consider if you're thinking of multiclassing. Creature types - fully one-third of creature types are simply immune to being sneak attacked without magical assistance (which is not available against all those types). For a rogue, getting this assistance means giving up some actions the previous round to set it up (that's assuming that the DM makes one favourable rule-call for you, either on scroll-use or the duration of the spell.) If you can cast the spells, then the lost action issue disappears, but you've given up at least 3 levels of rogue to do this, and can still only SA creatures of one of the five types and only a few times per day. Also, you've made Uncanny Dodge and other level-dependant SA nullifiers more effective against you. Spells - any spell that imparts any degree of concealment to the target simply negates sneak attack. These spells are available from first level. Magic items - any magic item that offers any degree of protection from critical hits offers the same protection against sneak attack.You are also overlooking the danger of staying up close and personal when fighting something big and nasty. They might decide to turn on you and do something about those sharp pointy sticks of yours. Like kill you before you can actually hit them.
Frugal 03-30-07, 08:47 AM	If the caster succeeds on a ranged touch attack, then the meteor strike does 32d6 damage, with no save. If he misses, then it does 24d6 damage, save for half. If the caster misses with his disintigration ray, it does no damage at all. If he hits, it does 228 points of damage on a failed save. But on a sucessful fort save it does a pathetic 5d6 of damage. Most high level, high hit point opponents have great fort saves.' So I'd say that the meteor strike is a more reliable way of inflicting significant damage. Yep, not to mention the 40' blast radius dealing 4 6d6 hits (no attack roll, reflex for half) against any other goons nearby. Plus, it's 4 2d6 hits with the ranged touch (no save) then 4 6d6 hits with reflex to half. Ranged touch is pretty damn easy to hit so I know I'd much rather have to make 4 attack rolls and then see the enemy be faced with 4 reflex saves because it gives me much greater odds that he'll miss at least one of them. Disintegration can be brutal on a successful hit and failed save but it's 1 hit roll and 1 save. At least if I miss with 1 meteor they still are faced with the 6d6 portion and I have 3 more attack rolls. Way better if you ask me. For a high level rogue, it should be fairly easy to always be in a possition for sneak attacks. Improved invisibility works great. Chances are the party has another combat character who can set up flanking. And if there is no one else who can help flank, then a lowly summoned monster I can do the trick. Flanking, yes, invisibility? So many high CR creatures have true seeing or other ways of negating invisibility, I see that as more of a mid-level thing. Damage reduction should never be an issue. If a high level character finds himself face to face with a monster that has effective damage reduction against his attacks, then it had better be because that monster just suddenly appeared in his bedroom while he was naked and asleep. Dragons have damage reduction X/magic. Every high level character has magic weapons. Most devils & demons have damage reduction X/good. Bless weapon is a first level spell that any party should have readily available if they expect even a slight chance of having to fight fiends. High level characters usually have access to multiple bludgeoning, piercing, and slashing magic weapons. As well as at least a few adamantine weapons. Silver & cold iron weapons might be a slight problem, but they are cheap enough to easily be affordable. Yes, DR x/magic is pretty lame. I was going by some CR 20 fiends because we're talking about a 20th level Rogue, a Balor has DR 15/good and cold iron, a Pit Fiend has DR 15/good and silver (and also an AC of 40 so even your example of AC 37 is too low for this creature). Yes, both of these are relatively easily bypassed but I'm willing to bet that it's not their main weapon so it probably has little (or no) magical enhancement. Now if you run your campaigns so that the PCs can find out they're going to face high CR fiends and they can just pop down to Magicmart and trade in some other weapons and gold for some +4 good cold iron (or silver) weapons, then sure. But I'd argue that if you run that type of campaign you have much bigger issues to deal with than just sneak attack. OK, agreed that spell casters are a lot more powerful at high levels. But I ask myself, do I want the rogue's power levels, in combat, to be closer to a fighter, or closer to a wizard. I want the rogue to be closer to the fighter. And if anything, I want the rogue to be worse in combat than the fighter. Again, this is an argument for making the fighter better, not the Rogue worse. It's easily demonstrated that full casters are the most powerful classes at higher levels (usually Clerics and Druids at the top, then Wizards slightly below that), the Fighter is demonstrably one of the weakest classes at higher levels (and that's pretty much anything above level 6 or so really). I agree that a Fighter should be one of the best melee classes, with Rangers and Barbarians only slightly above in specialised situations while the Fighter wins out in versatility. All 3 of these classes should be better at fighting than a Rogue, but they're so low on the power curve that they aren't. But nerfing the Rogue to be even worse than them just makes the full casters even more dominant and makes the game even less fun if you ask me. What we need is to give a boost to the pure fighting classes so that they can really compete with full casters at higher levels. Or at the very least, they need to be brought up to be better than Rogues and then casters need to be reeled in a bit. Then we'd have some proper balance to the game.
Novabomb 03-30-07, 09:16 AM	Argh, I just scrolled through 6 pages of posts waiting for Tarkin to say it was a joke. . . By the way, the feat is Shadow Blade from Tome of Battle. It also requires a Shadow Hand stance, so you need to either take Martial Study and Martial Stance first, or a level in Swordsage. I scrolled through 7. Maybe he made a mistake about the date. April is only one say away...