Post/Author/DateTime	Post
FrostHammer 03-07-07, 04:02 PM	Most everyone agrees that TWF really sucks for people that don't deal sneak attack damage. I'm thinking of these following changes to make TWF more on par with 2handed fighting. When you use two-handed figthing, you can apply your full strength bonus to both weapons. In addition to the existing benefits, Greater Two-Weapon Fighting now grants you the ability to make one attack with both of your weapons in place of a standard action, taking a -1 to hit for the round. You can also choose to swing with both weapons as part of a spring attack/Bounding assault/Rapid Blitz, but each time you do so, you incur an extra -1 penalty. This penalty stacks witht he penalties of bounding assault and rapid blitz. For example, Redgar has Rapid Blitz walks 5 feet forward to slash an orc with both of his swords at a -1 to both of his attacks. He then moves 10 feet to another orc, slashing with both of his weapons, now at a -7 to both of his attacks. Finally, he moves back to the first orc, slashing with both of his swords, at a -13 penalty. There should be a new feat that has improved two-weapon as a prerequesite, and allows 2x strength bonus to apply to your primary hand. If you are using Power Attack, the feat also allows you trade in 1 point of to hit for 2 point of damage for your primary weapon, while letting you trade in 1 point of to hit for 1 point of damage for your off hand weapon, even if it is a light weapon.
tarkin 03-07-07, 04:17 PM	You are half right in your basic assumption, and that sort of negates the rest of your idea. Even if TWF was just good for Sneak Attackers, it should still be left alone. There are enough good combat strategies already for strong people, they don't need another. Don't screw around with TWF, as it is already one of the best combat strategies around. Any Fighter, Ranger, Rogue, Scout, Monk of 12th level or higher is better off pursuing TWF instead of THW. It is generally assumed that if you do ANY of the following, you want to use TWF. 1. Sneak Attack and similar +xd6 abilities 2. Have other per attack bonuses, such as Ranger Favored Enemey 3. Use poison 4. Have at least 26,000 gp to spend on your weapon(s). ------- Those cover 2 full classes and EVERY high level character. TWF is far superior to Two Handed weapons except in rare circumstances. Stop boosting up the really strong stuff and take a look at the week stuff.
starfire311 03-07-07, 05:02 PM	You are half right in your basic assumption, and that sort of negates the rest of your idea. Even if TWF was just good for Sneak Attackers, it should still be left alone. There are enough good combat strategies already for strong people, they don't need another. Don't screw around with TWF, as it is already one of the best combat strategies around. Any Fighter, Ranger, Rogue, Scout, Monk of 12th level or higher is better off pursuing TWF instead of THW. It is generally assumed that if you do ANY of the following, you want to use TWF. 1. Sneak Attack and similar +xd6 abilities 2. Have other per attack bonuses, such as Ranger Favored Enemey 3. Use poison 4. Have at least 26,000 gp to spend on your weapon(s). ------- Those cover 2 full classes and EVERY high level character. TWF is far superior to Two Handed weapons except in rare circumstances. Stop boosting up the really strong stuff and take a look at the week stuff. Seconded, IMO 2WF, 2HF and S&B are all viable and fairly balanced tactics, the one that needs help is the one handed combat style.
IbanezNinja 03-07-07, 05:12 PM	Uhhhh no. TWF is terrible unless you do sneak attack. Rangers can do it ok against a few chosen creatures, but he will never match the average damage output of a focused thf. S&B and 1HF both need help, TWF may need help unless you are ok with the fact that only rogues will do it good.
FrostHammer 03-07-07, 05:20 PM	TWF may need help unless you are ok with the fact that only rogues will do it good. Which I am NOT ok with.
ScipioX 03-08-07, 01:58 AM	TWF, as it is already one of the best combat strategies around That's just funny. Thanks for the laugh. TWF is pretty sucky even for rogues. Rogues have the potential to do a lot of damage with TWF, but they can rarely capitalize on it. The weak BAB plus the penalty for TWF'ing mean that rogues don't hit with all that many attacks anyways. And rogues' weak HP and generally mediocre AC mean that they can't stand around and do a whole lot of full attacking without getting splatted. Plus, it takes up a significant portion of their limited feat portion.
mugguod 03-08-07, 12:06 PM	TWF (or any other single game mechanic for that matter) is not supposed to be the best solution in all situations. It is usefull when your attack bonus is well over their AC and -2 ain't gonna make you miss. Especially good when you are outnumbered by weaklings, kill two per round without cleave. If you need to overcome high AC, or do more damage in one hit (overcome DR) just put away the short sword and grab your other weapon with both hands.
jaelis 03-08-07, 01:52 PM	4. Have at least 26,000 gp to spend on your weapon(s). Not sure what to say about that. In my experience, if the TWFer and THF spend the same amount on their weapons, the THFer is still a bit ahead overall. (When you include the -2 attack penalty.)
Lord_Iames 03-08-07, 02:06 PM	If the TWFer and the THFer spend the same (total) gp on their weapons, then the TWFer's weapons will individually be much less effective. If the TWFer spends the same on each weapon as the THFer spends on his, then the TWFer spends twice as much on weapons total, leaving him that much less for the other magic items that D&D assumes a character will have. To fix that, I would do one or both of two things: For a TWD build, allow the off-hand weapon to be enhanced as if it was a magic shield. For a plain TWF build, allow them to buy weapons in sets of 2. They pay for 2 masterwork weapons, but only one enhancement bonus, but the weapons only have their magical properties when used as a set.
Moccanime 03-08-07, 02:18 PM	Improve the sword and board fighting style first, then we can talk about improving the TWF.
jaelis 03-08-07, 02:26 PM	If the TWFer and the THFer spend the same (total) gp on their weapons, then the TWFer's weapons will individually be much less effective. If the TWFer spends the same on each weapon as the THFer spends on his, then the TWFer spends twice as much on weapons total, leaving him that much less for the other magic items that D&D assumes a character will have. Yes, but the damage bonuses from each of the TWFer's weapons essentially add, which makes up for a lot of it. If you sold weapons in pairs as you suggest, the TWFer would easily outstrip the THFer. (Maybe he should, given the feat investment. But that's a different question.)
jaelis 03-08-07, 02:28 PM	Improve the sword and board fighting style first, then we can talk about improving the TWF. Easy, all it takes is one feat :) Strong Arm Prereq: Str 15, Power Attack Benefit: When wielding a 1H weapon in your primary hand and no weapon in your off-hand, you deal two points of damage for every point of penalty you take with the power attack feat. Normal: You deal one point of damage for every point of penalty with power attack.
Xeviat-DM 03-08-07, 03:47 PM	I've never had a problem with sword and board in my games. Shield fighters get hit a whole lot less, and if you make sure a THFer's weapon equals the cost of the S&B's weapon and shield, or a TWFers weapons, the THFer and the Sheild fighter match up reasonably well (the trick is to, for tests, to force the THFer to use Combat Expertise to match the S&B's AC. In late game, when creatures are dealing 50+ damage a hit, having a potential of +7 AC is very nice). Or you can be twisted and make the weapons, shield, and armor of the characters add up to the same amount so that their AC is the same, and the S&Ber gets a very nice weapon out of it. Plus S&B doesn't cost feats like TWFing does. If TWFing didn't cost feats, then I'd be perfectly fine with saying "It shouldn't be good all of the time". But if someone invests 3, 4, or even 8 feats into TWFing, they better darn well be good with it, and they should have little reason to do something else.
Bobfred21 03-08-07, 04:06 PM	A custom TWFing rule I like is that combat expertise is doubled, similar to the manner in which power attack is doubled for THFing. TWFing should never be able to best THFing in a battle of raw damage (short of weird builds), but TWFing should be able to beat THFing at something. Personally, I'm also a fan of cutting TWFing down to one all inclusive feat, simply because THFing is all around better as long as a person has great cleave and it's absolutely free. I've personally found Sword and Board fighters more powerful than THFers, however and logically a shield would get double expertise rather than TWFing, though for balance reasons I wouldn't go for it. Here are some alternate suggestions to apply to either TWFing or S&B at your leisure. 1) A feat to take a hit to AC to gain AB. A 1 for 1 scale only. I like this option with TWFing but it's not usable in conjunction with the double expertise TWFing rule. 2) Obviously, the take a hit to AB for double AC with combat expertise. 3) 1.5 multiplier rounded down both power attack and expertise. (I find this works best with S&B) 4) Specific weapon style feats: extra damage/AC/AB/whatever while using TWF/THF/S&B depending on the feat.
Lord_Iames 03-08-07, 04:08 PM	Yes, but the damage bonuses from each of the TWFer's weapons essentially add, which makes up for a lot of it. If you sold weapons in pairs as you suggest, the TWFer would easily outstrip the THFer. (Maybe he should, given the feat investment. But that's a different question.) Hmmm. That's a decent point, especially considering my effort to reduce the number of feats required in my homebrew game. Still, a good disarm check will leave the TWFer at a disadvantage, and THFers have the feat slots to be able to disarm quite well.
Vaelan 03-08-07, 11:50 PM	The only real difference between TWF and THF is the -2 penalty and the substandard performance of TWF on standard attacks. Oh yeah, and there's the ridiculous number of feats TWF takes to even work. The substandard performance on standard attacks can be fixed with yet another feat and if -2 to hit has a significant impact upon your performance, you either shouldn't be fighting or should learn how to rack up bonuses. It seems to me that TWF is relatvely well balanced, other than the fact that it requires several feats.
Wonton2006 03-09-07, 12:31 AM	Most everyone agrees that TWF really sucks for people that don't deal sneak attack damage. I'll leave that for others to decide. When you use two-handed figthing, you can apply your full strength bonus to both weapons. Yeah. Seems perfectly balanced to me, actually. I won't pretend I've ever used a sword or anything, but I'm not ambidextrous (clearly right-handed), and yet my arms are very close to equal in strength. In addition to the existing benefits, Greater Two-Weapon Fighting now grants you the ability to make one attack with both of your weapons in place of a standard action, taking a -1 to hit for the round. Whoa, whoa. Slow down there. You're basically taking a whole feat that was already fairly powerful and making it better and attaching it to GTWF. Hm. Well I did always think everything after the first one was underpowered, so.. make it like the original feat, and I'll say it's good. "If you are using a one-handed or light weapon in your primary hand and a light weapon in your offhand, you take a -4 penalty on this attack roll; otherwise you take a -10 penalty." You can also choose to swing with both weapons as part of a spring attack/Bounding assault/Rapid Blitz, but each time you do so, you incur an extra -1 penalty. This penalty stacks witht he penalties of bounding assault and rapid blitz. To be honest, I have no idea how powerful Spring Attack actually is, but I think this has the same problem as the one above - just make it -2 or -4 or something and it'll all be good. There should be a new feat that has improved two-weapon as a prerequesite, and allows 2x strength bonus to apply to your primary hand. If you are using Power Attack, the feat also allows you trade in 1 point of to hit for 2 point of damage for your primary weapon, while letting you trade in 1 point of to hit for 1 point of damage for your off hand weapon, even if it is a light weapon. Meh. Overwhelming strength and TWF never really did mix for me. If you want, I suppose, but don't expect many people to take it. And rogues' weak HP and generally mediocre AC Huh? Who are you kidding? :uh-huh: Improve the sword and board fighting style first, then we can talk about improving the TWF. True, that. Keep in mind that, this might make TWF as attractive as THF to a fighter, but Rogues also improve with all of these bonuses. At the end of the day, the fighter will stick with his greatsword (less feat-intensive), and the Rogue will gladly take the new and improved TWF.
Xeviat-DM 03-09-07, 04:05 AM	A +5 weapon costs the same as a +4 and a +3 weapon (technically the pair costs a little more, about 300ish more, but that's moot). I won't go into the math of it, but here were my results from comparing the damage outputs of a standard attack from a 12th level greatsword fighter vs. a 12th level shortsword fighter (fighting the same AC, 25, which is supposed to be the AC standard for that level according to the Monster Manual). Both characters have the same AC, and both characters started with the same stats (and both boosted their strength). The they both have weapon focus, weapon specialization, greater focus, greater specialization, and improved critical for their weapons, while the TWFer has purchased two-weapon fighting, improved two-weapon fighting, and greater two-weapon fighting. The THFer is using a +3 Great Sword (18,350), and spent 1,730 more gp than the TWFer (I consider this amount moot). The TWFer is using +2 Short Sword x2 (8,310 x2). Both have a +4 belt of giant strength and both have +4 gloves of dex. Aside from the 3 TWFing feats, and the weapons, the two characters are identical. Two-Hander standard attack: 18.9; 22.68 w/crit Two-Hander full attack: 40.95; 49.14 TWFer standard attack: 12.325; 14.79 w/crit TWFer full attack: 39; 46.8 w/crit So, for the purchase of 3 feats, you too can decrease your damage by 2.34 when facing creatures who can be criticalled, or by 1.95 when facing creatures who can't be criticalled. Congratulations, you wasted your feats. Remember, this is a 12th level character with a 20 Str and a 20 Dex; they started with 15 Str and 15 Dex, and boosted both str and dex to 16 with their level ups (where they put their other point doesn't matter). Sure, it's a fighter, and everyone is saying that rogues make the difference, and I'll run that test tomorrow and see what happens (rapier rogue vs. dual shortsword rogue, both will be finessing). OH, and don't say "use flaming, use flaming, use flaming", cause I've tested it. I won't get into the math, but the THFer was still better last time I checked. So, when was TWFing good for this character? When fighting a large group of weak characters? Maybe this fighter would have spent those three TWFing feats on power attack, cleave, and great cleave: good bye swarm. Or the fighter could let the wizard take care of the swarm of little baddies ... cause they're little. Heck, with power attack, I could find the optimal power attack and go with that. PS: People often say that duals don't matter. This wasn't a dual. It was comparing the per round output of a character choosing two different paths. Technically, all it proves is that, for this character, TWFing is not a good path. Tomorrow I'll run a rogue through the ringer and see what happens.
Aryxbez 03-09-07, 05:53 PM	In my games I brought back the Amnidexterity feat, but to ensure it was a unique feat and good I did this Preq: 18 dex Two-weapon fighting Benefit:TWF penalties reduced by 2 so can have no penalties with a light weapon in off-hand. Also off-hand deals normal strength damage. Otherwise, does anyone think TWF extra attacks should scale with BAB? so don't need to take Improved and Greater?
FrostHammer 03-09-07, 06:03 PM	That'd be nice.
WinterPsionic 03-09-07, 06:11 PM	Otherwise, does anyone think TWF extra attacks should scale with BAB? so don't need to take Improved and Greater? Sure and why don't you do away with Cleave and Great CLeave and just make them part of power attack... The idea that your all(I use all loosely as not everyone agress about this) working towards is not only unbalanced but has no grasp on real life. Fine, you can be Ambidextrious and negate the penalties to hit HOWEVER you shouldn't have the full average amount of strength behind the blows, this is almost as stupid as the guy who thought you should get 1.5xStr on the Main and 1x on the off. Negating the penalties for TWF means that there is ABSOLUTLEY no reason not to TWF and as it's been said many times this indicates a broken feature. And adding full Str to both just makes it worse. Let's look at 2 level 4 characters: Bob the 4th level Fighter has 18 Str and a nice Bastard Sword(2Handed) Bob has a BAB of 4 with +4 from Str for a +8 to hit, add in Weapon Focus he's hitting at +9 for 1D10+6 Now Frank the 4th level Ranger, took the TWF style has 2 Shortswords, again with 18 Str and 4 BAB, Frank also has Weapon Focus. Frank is hitting at +7/+7 for 1D6+4 and 1D6+2 Nw let's say both are fighting an Ogre with AC 15, theyu both roll a 10, they both Hit, Bob rolls a 5 on his damage for 11dmg, now Frank rolls a 3 and a 4 for his damage, that's 7 and 6 for 13dmg Wow what's that? The TWF did more damage? and if Bob wanted to waste a Second feat he could've tied the damage. Now your right, a THF is better off against a AC 50 Dragon but a -2/-2 for a decent style isn't broken and maintian the 1.5x Str between hits works fine. IF I went with your method even AFTER Bob wasted a feat Frank would've still done more damage. .....rant over
starfire311 03-09-07, 08:21 PM	1st off, winterpsionic, not a great argument and many of the anti-TWF crowd will shoot holes in it, the galring one is giving the 2HF a bastard sword. Anyway, we recently ran a short few session game and this character was present, pertinant houserules are no multi-classing XP penalties and the elven lightblade counted as a racial weapon for elves Level 15 Elf 32 PB Levels: Fighter 4, Rogue 3, Swashbuckler 8 Str 18(+4 Belt) Dex 26(+3 Level, +6 Gloves) Con 12 Int 18(+4 Hat) Wis 12 Cha 10 Feats: TWF, Weapon Finesse, Weapon Focus(Lightblade), Daring Outlaw, ITWF, Weapon Spec(lightblade), Daring Warrior, GTWF, MWM, Plus 1 other Weapons +1 Holy Keen Lightblade, +1 Keen Lightblade Full attack +25/+20/+15 1d6+13+2d6(holy)+6d6(SA) Crit 15+/x2 and +25/+20/+15 1d6+11+6d6(SA) Crit 15+/x2 and thanks to Swashbuckler she got a +4 bonus to attack when flanking. This character turned out to be quite good, and was even a decent off-tank thanks to a nice AC, from super high dex and a +3 dodge bonus from class levels, if you look at the level 20 build she had a few levels of Swordsage or warblade thrown in, cant remember.
SoulReaverX 03-09-07, 09:19 PM	would you consider TWF ok if you were doing it with 2-handed weapons and could negate the penalty to -2? im playing a diopsid from dragon compendium, thats why im asking. THF is just fighting with a 2-handed weapon right?
FrostHammer 03-09-07, 09:35 PM	You mean wield a 2-handed weapon in each hand with very little penalties? It'd be better, but still not as good, depending on the situation. Mostly, people say it doesn't have the damage potential of 2-handed fighters to due to how Power Attack works. note that since you're still wielding those weapons in one hand each, so PA will still only give 1:1
Bhaal006 03-09-07, 10:06 PM	You want to fix S&B? SHAZAM!!! Centurian: [Tactical] Prerequisites:Improved Shield Bash, Two-Weapon Figting, Base Attack Bonus +6 Benefit:Shield Bearer enable the use of three tactical Maneuvers Redoubt:to make use of this Maneuver you must be using a shield in your off-hand, you may make an opposed attack roll with your shield against the attack made by you target, if the attack succeeds it misses, apply half the amount of damage to the shield. this action counts against the number of attacks that can be made with your off-hand and the penalty for wielding two weapons also apply to this roll. this counts as a swift action Buffer Defense:to make use of this maneuver you must be useing a shield in your off-hand, you may apply your shields AC bonus to you reflex saves. If you fail your save you lose your shield bonus to AC the following round. this maneuver does not apply to bucklers. Quick-step:To make use of this maneuver you must be using a shield in your off-hand, If you succeed on an opposed attack roll against attacks made by a reach weapon(including attacks of oppertunity) through the use of Redoubt, you may immediately make a 5-foot step into a square adjacent to the wielder and make a free attack at your highest base attack bonus. Elite Centurian: [Tactical][Elite] Prerequisites: Centurian, Combat Reflexes, ITWF, BAB +12 Benefits: Elite Centurian enable the use of three tactical maneuvers Deflect: To make use of this maneuver you must be using a shield in your off-hane, whenever an opponent misses due to your Redoubt, they provoke an attack of oppertunity, these attacks count against the normal attacks of oppertunity you are allowed, however you may attack the same opponent as long as you keep deflecting his attacks. Hidden Threat: To make use of this Maneuver you must be using a shield in your off-hand, if you strike an opponent with your shield twice in the same round he is considered flat footed. Follow-Up: To make use of this maneuver you must be wielding a shield in your off-hand, if you hit your opponent at least three times in the same round you get an additonal attack on the following round at your highest base attack Bonus Rushing Wall: [Style] Prerequisites: Shield Slam, and Improved Bull Rush Benefit: If you hit with your shield as part of a charge you may make an immediate Bullrush attempt, if you succeed you may make an additional attack with the eapon in your main hand at your highest base attack bonus. I think this pretty much Ties that up in a bag.
Frugal 03-09-07, 10:49 PM	I think the big issue is that if you "fix" TWF for those without abilities that make it really viable then you suddenly make it insanely good for those that can already make it viable. If we accept that TWF is currently only viable for a Rogue (or other classes that get big damage bonuses to each attack), I'm not saying that's true just taking it as a given for a moment, then what happens after the "fix"? Suddenly Rogues get way more benefit for doing something they were already really good at. One of the better ones I've seen has been the suggestion of rolling ITWF, GTWF and PTWF into one feat (which would basically be PTWF), that way you're still investing in 2 feats but then get your iterative attacks. As for an "ambidexterity" feat to remove the -2 penalty for using a light weapon (or 1-hander with oversized TWF), consider that class abilities are generally seen as more powerful than feats and the Tempest PrC gets that ability, but it's also spread over 5 levels (it goes to -1 earlier, then no penalty at the 5th level), that alone makes me think it's probably too powerful, adding in full STR bonus on the off-hand in addition to this seems to be way too powerful. Suddenly you'll find all your high STR melee types dropping their greatswords and going for TWF, I mean can you imagine the damage output a dwarf with 2 waraxes and oversized TWF? It'd be insane. Adding in 1.5 STR bonus and 2:1 PA payoff for the main hand just goes even more ridiculous. You end up making TWF way better than THF other than it being a little more feat heavy (which fighters can spare anyway).
SoulReaverX 03-09-07, 10:49 PM	You mean wield a 2-handed weapon in each hand with very little penalties? It'd be better, but still not as good, depending on the situation. Mostly, people say it doesn't have the damage potential of 2-handed fighters to due to how Power Attack works. note that since you're still wielding those weapons in one hand each, so PA will still only give 1:1 no actually thats wrong; this diopsid race has 4 arms, but you take severe penaltys if you try to wield a weapon in each arm because its 2nd pair of arms is like a weaker version. it says you can wield two 2-handed weapons with the support of weaker arms just fine, applying standard TWF penaltys also 1-1/2 str bonus too. so i can indeed power attack for 1:2
Aryxbez 03-10-07, 02:23 AM	I heavily doubt the Amnidexterity feat I brought back will make the TWF style overpowered to the 2-hander style. If anything it will put it on par with it. Also got to remember that 2-hander style has Powerattack which TWF could do, but then risk not hitting more often from the TWF penalties, even with no penalties, the damage won't be as much as 2-hander can do. At least the 2-hander style will do it much easier Also the fact that it is replacing the A prestige class sounds like a good thing to me. Besides, not everyone will be able to get the feat immediately. Also WinterPsionic, I don't see what your problem is I was merely asking for opinion, in fact I didn't say I even supported the idea for the Improved and greater feats removal. I think they should still be there but if a couple of people would have shown me proof that removing the feats would be a good idea, then I would most likely do so.
Frugal 03-10-07, 12:46 PM	I heavily doubt the Amnidexterity feat I brought back will make the TWF style overpowered to the 2-hander style. I think it really depends on implementation. As I've said, I've seen some proposing removing the -2 from wielding a light weapon, full STR bonus with your off-hand weapon and even 1.5 STR bonus (plus 2:1 PA ratio) on the primary hand, that's too much. If I take oversized TWF then suddenly I can wield 2 1d10 weapons rather than a single 2d6 weapon, deal as much STR bonus with the primary hand (and PA damage bonus) and have the chance to hit with the 2nd weapon still. Sure, it's a little feat heavy but for that payoff? It's worth it. Also the fact that it is replacing the A prestige class sounds like a good thing to me. Besides, not everyone will be able to get the feat immediately. The thing is, it doesn't completely replace the PrC, it just negates 1 of it's class features, which is dished out over 2 levels, for a 5 level PrC that's a big hit. There's still a few cool features but there's definitely less of a draw for the class.
Aryxbez 03-10-07, 01:02 PM	The fact that it's feat heaviness making it worth it sounds fine to me. Seeing how that is what feats are supposed to do. Benefit the person taking them. so that looks to be 4 feats if so one would be able to get it all till 9th or till 3rd level if took 2 levels in fighter. Even then it is still not too powerful seeing how Powerattack with a 2-hander is still better. Also TWF depends on full attack while 2-hander doesn't as much as TWF.
Frugal 03-10-07, 01:07 PM	The fact that it's feat heaviness making it worth it sounds fine to me. Seeing how that is what feats are supposed to do. Benefit the person taking them. so that looks to be 4 feats if so one would be able to get it all till 9th or till 3rd level if took 2 levels in fighter. Even then it is still not too powerful seeing how Powerattack with a 2-hander is still better. Also TWF depends on full attack while 2-hander doesn't as much as TWF. Frosthammer's proposed fix includes GTWF allowing you to hit with both weapons as a standard action or as part of a spring attack (or bound assault and rapid blitz) routine, granted with a penalty at least. So the argument that TWF relies on a full attack is somewhat negated.
Aryxbez 03-10-07, 01:18 PM	True, but not everyone is going to use other people fixes. As I think a good sum of feats are fine, just some need their prequisites changed around in my opinion. Also when it gets right down to it, One could just get the ubercharging feats (which I hate) then just deal superior damage than the TWF could. Also the Amnidexterity feat I made is only access to those with 18 dex, which makes it so one can't get it too early. Unless the PCs have high stats. Otherwise not a feat that will be grabbed quickly.
Bhaal006 03-10-07, 01:21 PM	So, what, at some point in your life you some how discover that your ambidexterous, and you've just been to clumsy to realize it.
FrostHammer 03-10-07, 01:29 PM	But that's the point, I want more options besides Archer and Uber-charger, so these feats will definitely help.
Bhaal006 03-10-07, 01:33 PM	Did anyone even LOOK at the feats I posted, They're a cross between S&B and TWF, seriously I feel like there's a conspiracy to ignore evrything I say.
Aryxbez 03-10-07, 01:38 PM	So, what, at some point in your life you some how discover that your ambidexterous, and you've just been to clumsy to realize it. Or it could be that one has practiced so much with two weapons he was able to make both hands strike as equals Otherwise D&D doesn't always make sense I guess
Frugal 03-10-07, 01:38 PM	But that's the point, I want more options besides Archer and Uber-charger, so these feats will definitely help. I still think allowing 1.5x STR or 2x STR with the main hand weapon is too much, that makes TWF way too good compared to THF, especially if the penalties for TWF are negated as well and if you allow full STR with the off-hand on top of things. The uber-charger might be impressive but remember that it is very much a one-trick pony, you have to charge to gain the benefit. Yes it deals out a lot of damage but it's on that first round only, the charger has to either drop the opponent or find a way to charge again to deal that insane damage. With TWF you are limited to full attacks (well, unless you take that GWTF that you're proposing), but that means that any time you're fighting a tougher creature and will go for multiple rounds you're deriving benefit. For that matter, take your GTWF variation and apply it with rapid blitz and something that deals skirmish damage, 6 attacks all with extra damage applied, if I take that other feat I'm also doing 2x STR with the main weapon and 1x STR with the off-hand, that's pretty brutal.
Bhaal006 03-10-07, 01:41 PM	you do of course realize that nothing(provided you're playing a fighter) prevents you from being an Uber-charger and a TWFer.
FrostHammer 03-10-07, 01:44 PM	Well yes, but then you can't take feats like Mage-slayer.
StruckingFuggle 03-10-07, 01:51 PM	Just throwing this in. TWF tends to be a lot less efficient than THF or S&B. In that, unless you're a fighter, you spend a big chunk of your feats on just getting the extra off-hand attacks (Weapon Finesse, TWF, ITWF, GTWF...). And unless you're a fighter, you don't have so many feats to spare - so you end up losing out on a lot of other things. And the big drawback to that? You've spent about half your feats or more on one particular combat trick, and you have nothing much to do when you can only make a single attack. Whereas, for the same (or even less) investment in THF, you can do your trick both with a single attack, AND on a full attack, and your feats you've chosen work to your benefit in both instances. Also, did anyone mention that you can, y'know, with one(?) feat, combine TWF and S&B (to an extent)? (hm ... note to self, make TWF'ing feats give progressive +1 shield bonuses if you only make a single attack)
Bhaal006 03-10-07, 01:59 PM	see, first I read tha there's a Problem with TWF, and then I read that S&B needs fixing, and then when I present something that seems to adress both problems I get no feedback, Is everybody here for some big B**** fest, because any opinion that adresses the following points in regard to my post would be greatly appreciated. a) whether or not what I did has already been done b) whether or not the abilities are over/underpowered c) if the exercise was entirely pointles because it wouldn't be effective at all
StruckingFuggle 03-10-07, 02:00 PM	This is what I'm thinking about implementing in my game, in note form, rather than feat form: Two Weapon Fighting: works as standard TWF. Improved Two Weapon Fighting: BAB 6, Dex 15, TWF. number of off-hand attacks = number of on-hand attacks from BAB. +1 shield bonus to ac until your next turn if you only make a single attack on your turn Masterful Two Weapon Fighting: BAB 11, Dex 17, ITWF. number of off-hand attacks = number of on-hand attacks. +2 shield bonus to ac until your next turn if you only make a single attack on your turn. Twin Strikes: BAB 11, Dex 15, ITWF: any time you could make an non-full-attack attack with your on-hand, you may also make an attack with your off hand, at the same bab, both attakcs -2. If you make a single attack with your on and and a single attack with your off, you retain the shield bonus from ITWF and MTWF. Two Weapon Rend: BAB 6, Dex 15, TWF: make your attacks alternating on-hand and off-hand. If two attacks at the same base attack bonus hit, you deal an extra 2d6+dex precision damage.
Lotus Crane 03-10-07, 03:17 PM	Well, this link (http://boards1.wizards.com/showthread.php?t=776548) is primarily about a variant ranger, but I do include revised TWF feats in the second post (http://boards1.wizards.com/showthread.php?t=776548). But yes, in general, two-handed weapons are more efficient than two-weapon fighting, because without extraneous circumstances, a character with 2 weapons and 3 feats can only do an equal amount of damage as a character with 1 weapon and 0 feats, and even then, only on a full attack. On a charge, standard attack, attack of opportunity, and whatnot, a character with 1 weapon and 0 feats still does almost twice as much damage as a character with 2 weapons and 3 feats, which is really quite unfair. Weapon & shield is much harder to do a direct comparison with, because it usually has entirely different goals than the one THW and TWF are competing for (maximum AC vs maximum damage).
Xeviat-DM 03-10-07, 03:35 PM	Did anyone even LOOK at the feats I posted, They're a cross between S&B and TWF, seriously I feel like there's a conspiracy to ignore everything I say. I've been feeling like this for years; I guess over my time on this board I've angered enough people that they've put me on their ignore lists or something. If anyone still cares, I finished running the rogue numbers. No one can call me biased now (note, these are done with 2 level 12 rogues with the same feat selection. The only difference is that one has weapon focus shortsword and improved critical shortsword, while the other has the same feats for the rapier; the TWFer rogue has TWF and ITWF; for the sneak attacks, I gave each character +2 to hit to simulate attacking a flanked or flatfooted opponent): TWFer Standard: 5.25; 6.3 w/crit Rapier Standard: 6.375; 8.2875 w/crit (No question here; the rapier has the better standard attack.) TWFer Standard Sneak: 24 Rapier Standard Sneak: 27.2425 (Rapier still comes out on top here, which means this rapier build would make a better Improved Feint duelist build.) TWFer Full Attack: 13.3; 15.96 w/crit Rapier Full Attack: 10.625; 13.8125 w/crit (So, the TWFer takes the lead, by 2 points of damage when fighting crit-able foes.) TWFer Full Sneak: 67.62 Rapier Full Sneak: 46.4725 (And the TWFer blows the sneak attacker out of the water; the Greatsword Fighter's full attack out damages the Rapier's sneak attack, but not the TWFer's sneak attack) I ran a quick test, but lost the numbers, on a rapier fighter vs. the two weapon fighter, and found the two weapon fighter had a better full attack as well (if both fighters had low strengths that is). This means that TWFing is a good style for characters with low strength and high Dex. The issue then becomes this: Are the benefits gained from having a high Dex and a low strength (higher touch AC, higher ranged attack rolls, higher reflex save, higher initiative, lower armor check penalties, higher speed) enough to make up for dealing considerably less damage and having to pay extra feats? Would a character be better off spending 3 feats on Improved Initiative, Lightning Reflexes, and Dash rather than Two-Weapon Fighting? Do the advantages of an Agile Warrior outweigh the disadvantages of a Sluggish Warrior so much that the Agile Warrior is justified in spending so many feats on TWFing? PS: The TWFing feats need to be condensed. Watch this: TWFer's Full Attack (no TWFing feats): 26.1; 31.32 w/crit TWFer's Full Attack (w/TWF): 30.375; 36.45 w/crit (gained 4.275; 5.13 w/crit) TWFer's Full Attack (w/ITWF): 36.125; 43.35 w/crit (gained 5.75; 6.9 w/crit) TWFer's Full Attack (w/GTWF): 39; 46.8 w/crit (gained 2.875; 3.45 w/crit) Uh oh ... notice a problem here? TWFing boosted the character's damage vs. critable foes by 5.13, a very nice increase. ITWF boosted the same character's damage by an additional 6.9 against critable foes; even though the attack comes at a penalty, it still increased damage since the TWFing feat imposed penalties that reduced the effectiveness of the primary hand attacks. But, sadly, GTWF only boosted their damage by 3.45 against critable foes. So Greater Two Weapon Fighting increased the damage by exactly half as much as Improved Two Weapon Fighting. That would be like having Weapon Specialization grant +2 damage, and then having Greater Weapon Specialization grant only +1 damage; would that be logical to you? Either Greater, and later Perfect TWFing need to be merged with Improved, or Greater Two Weapon Fighting needs to have some other benefit attached to it. It's a 12th level feat for crying out loud, it needs to be good. If Greater Two Weapon Fighting reduced the attack penalties for TWFing by 1, then GTWF would boost damage by 6.775; 8.1 w/crit over ITWF, which are slight increases over ITWF's own increase. If one believes that higher level feats should be better than lower level feats, then this seems to be the nail in the coffin, eh? In Summary: I've proven that TWFing can be useful in certain situations. If a character has a very low strength and wants/needs to finesse, then TWFing actually increases ones damage (which it should; it costs feats). If you have a high strength and can afford the feats (lets say, a ranger, who doens't need to meet the Dex requirements), you shouldn't take the feats, because a two-hander will benefit you more. If people are okay with that, then the real question becomes (I repeat myself): Do the advantages of an Agile Warrior outweigh the disadvantages of a Sluggish Warrior so much that the Agile Warrior is justified in spending so many feats on TWFing? Thank you.
FrostHammer 03-10-07, 03:38 PM	*applauds Xeviat*
Frugal 03-10-07, 03:42 PM	Well, this link (http://boards1.wizards.com/showthread.php?t=776548) is primarily about a variant ranger, but I do include revised TWF feats in the second post (http://boards1.wizards.com/showthread.php?t=776548). I like the tweaks, one of the main complaints about ITWF and GTWF is that they get you less of a benefit than TWF does (and GTWF is less than ITWF) while having higher requirements and the earlier feats as prerequisites. I like that you've maintained the feat tree but added in some other benefits. The one issue I take issue with is the powerful TWF as that seems to completely incorporate oversized TWF and grant another benefit (full STR mod to damage). That might have been your intent though.
Xeviat-DM 03-10-07, 03:49 PM	Weapon & shield is much harder to do a direct comparison with, because it usually has entirely different goals than the one THW and TWF are competing for (maximum AC vs maximum damage). The only way to fairly test THF vs. Sword/Board is to have the THFer use Combat Expertise to equalize their AC. Then you test if the extra to hit gained from using a shield makes up for the reduced damage. I believe it would then, so then one would want to test both character's average damage against a set AC and HP, vs. the average damage of a creature against their AC and see how many rounds the added AC lets the shield character survive. It does become a more complicated test, but those two styles are balanced at a glance: The shield fighter has a higher AC, the two-handed weapon fighter has higher Damage. The issue is that TWFing isn't that cut and dry. From a leiman's point of view, TWFing has several percieved advantages: number of attacks, the option of switching from offense to defense, and the ability to fight multiple opponents (apparently, this last reason is the reason the style was developed in certain cultures by certain individuals; not naming names). The shear number of attacks that TWFing grant should be useful for certain combat actions, such as trips and disarms. The problem with disarms is that a TWFer has -2 to hit, and an additional -8 comparatively vs. a THFer (so if the THFer's disarm is +20, the TWFer's disarm is only +10). Nice, try to disarm with that. Sure, you have twice as many attempts, but at -10 ... I wouldn't try. Trips are a bit better off, since you only have -2 to hit and you're making touch attacks anyway; a two-handed weapon doesn't grant any bonus on the strength check to trip, so this would be a reasonable option. Sunders, no, same problem as disarm. Feints should have a benefit here, but feinting is a move action with the feat so you can still only attack one and the fact that you have two weapons only matters if you're using dual strike (and even then, you'd probably only get the sneak on one attack, due to volley rules). I think a TWFer should be able to feint with their offhand attacks and attack with their primary hand. TWFing is suposed to also be a defensive style. This is done with the two-weapon defense feat. I think it could be done more simplistically. Instead of having the two-weapon defense feat, simply allow someone using two weapons to double their AC gained from fighting defensively, total defense, or combat expertise. These mechanics already simulate parrying, and if you have two weapons to parry with you should be more defensive. A Sword/Boarder could gain the benefits of this, but only if they were actively making attacks with their shield. Some TWFers, such as rapier/dagger combo, use the off-hand strickly for defensive/opportunistic purposes. You entangle the opponent's blade with your rapier and bring in the dagger for quick strikes, or you keep the dagger close to parry attacks that get past your rapier. TWD simulates the defensive properties, but nothing simulates the extra ability at getting into openings that someone with one weapon can't do. Lastly, having two weapons would make it easier to fight two people. If you've ever been in a weapon fight or a weapon duel, you know that you need to keep your weapon between you and your opponent's weapon at all times. If you didn't have a weapon, it would be that much easier for your foe to attack you. Having a weapon (except a shield: yes, most people consider shields to be weapons) doesn't increase your AC in D&D, but it probably should. Flanking is the only thing simulating multiple attackers, so TWFing could possibly protect against limited flanking. Those are all of my ideas on how to expand TWFing and give it a schtick. I don't care if THFing deals more damage than TWFing, as long as TWFing has something going for it. Maybe the extra touch AC, reflex saves, speed, ranged attack rolls, and initiative make up for it; I don't know. All I know is that when I tested a 12th level fighter with a 20 str and a 20 dex (not out of reach really), I found that the character was better off saving their three feats and using a two-hander. But not every build is able to push their strength, so if TWFing is there for weaker characters, then it still needs to have some advantage to encourage said characters to be built. I know, the game isn't all about numbers, but a favorite fantasy archetype shouldn't be boned like this. I've seen several players want to play a TWFer get outshined by the group's other warrior time and time again. That isn't fair, that isn't fun.
Xeviat-DM 03-10-07, 03:50 PM	I like the tweaks, one of the main complaints about ITWF and GTWF is that they get you less of a benefit than TWF does (and GTWF is less than ITWF) while having higher requirements and the earlier feats as prerequisites. I like that you've maintained the feat tree but added in some other benefits. The one issue I take issue with is the powerful TWF as that seems to completely incorporate oversized TWF and grant another benefit (full STR mod to damage). That might have been your intent though. Frugal, read my post and look at the numbers. ITWF gives you more of a benefit that TWFing, because TWFing is stuck making up for the reduced to hit on the primary attack (which reduces primary hand damage).
SoulReaverX 03-10-07, 04:09 PM	i have to ask, if i am TWFing with two 2-handed weapons (this is a 4 armed charactor) would it be worth it? like just for example on a thri-kreen im wielding 2 greataxes/(insert 2-handed weapon here) and i take TWF. i get to apply +2 dmg for every 1 penalty if i take power attack, and i get 1-1/2 str bonus. is TWF worth it if you can wield two 2-handed weapons without much penalty? (-2 penalty when im done most likely)
Frugal 03-10-07, 05:05 PM	Frugal, read my post and look at the numbers. ITWF gives you more of a benefit that TWFing, because TWFing is stuck making up for the reduced to hit on the primary attack (which reduces primary hand damage). True, it's more the ITWF to GTWF that's the big issue.
bigbbodp 03-10-07, 05:48 PM	I know a guy who is a TWF he is lvl 12 with 6 attaks each does 1 D10(basterd sword) 1d6(fire) and bane sosome times 2D6 more I'm not sure what his attkB is but I know he hits with 5 out of 6 attks over 70% of the time that is thats like an avg of 75 dmg a round not counting his any og his feats that add dmg or counting any Crits (with 6 attaks he get at least 1 crit per attk. so TWF is a lot better then THW. I will look at him and post a better post with the complet stats later
FrostHammer 03-10-07, 05:54 PM	That's assuming he gets to make a Full-attack. If he's hitting 70% of the time with all of his attacks, something is wrong with the monsters you're fighting. The penalties for fighting with 2 bastard swords and the normal iterative attack penalties should make his AB pretty low on the later attacks.
Bhaal006 03-10-07, 06:16 PM	unless he's using oversized TWF at which point he only takes the standard -2/-2 penalty for fighting with two-weapons
Frugal 03-10-07, 06:32 PM	unless he's using oversized TWF at which point he only takes the standard -2/-2 penalty for fighting with two-weapons Yep, that's what I figure too. Granted then you're talking about investing 2 more feats (EWP and Oversized TWF). I'll still go with Frosthammer on this one though, something sounds off on this build, if nothing else I'd guess that there's something screwy with those bastard swords, or at least the PC's wealth. Not to mention that even with oversized TWF you're still only talking a +10/+10/+5/+5/+0/+0 (before other bonuses) attack routine, I seriously doubt those +0 attacks are reliably hitting, even the +5 attacks shouldn't be too often. Bane shouldn't come up too often unless the DM is clueless.
Bhaal006 03-10-07, 06:45 PM	My guess in the character has got a high strength score probably 18-20, I had a Half-Giant that did the same thing.
Frugal 03-10-07, 07:05 PM	My guess in the character has got a high strength score probably 18-20, I had a Half-Giant that did the same thing. Quite possible, but how he also has the high DEX for GTWF is what interests me, and where that extra 2d6 is coming from. It's not out of the realm of possibility but the details are pretty thin.
Bhaal006 03-10-07, 07:12 PM	The dex is probably coming from magic items, the 2d6 is coming off the Bane enchant.
Roland the Crownbreaker 03-10-07, 07:42 PM	To be honest, any fixes to TWF and S&B require the use of a black magic marker, and the DMG. Open up to the page with the stupid floaty shield, and black out all references to it. Now that this single most important step has been taken care of, you can begin balancing. As has been said before, going heavily into TWF and keeping up with the damage of THF requires a source of non-str dependant damage. The fighter using the weapon specialization tree (including the higher end ones from PHB2), the ranger and hated enemy, or possibly things like the swashbuckler and insightful strike (although this is best with a fighter/swashbuckler build) Other things can be added via the use of weapon style feats and tactical feats. Don't forget to add in things like morale bonuses like Bardic Music and other spells that the wizard and cleric are capable of casting. The ranger has thier own source of extra bonus damage if you count spells outside the PHB. Things like blades of fire (+1d8 per attack for one round) and fell greatest foe (+1d6 damage per size category larger than you an enemy is) work wonders. In my campaign we had a player who complained about the lack of damage her ranger did, but she never, ever, considered using these spells, even after they were pointed out. A fighter with the addition of feats such as lightning mace style (which grants a free attack for every critical threat), two weapon rend (I don't remember that feat being restricted to bladed weapon only) and the high end version of blunt weapon mastery (not the bonus damage, but the one that adds +1 to hit for every attack that also hit in the same round. The bonus damage helps too, though) can be quite effective in terms of melee damage, at least in comparison to a THF character. There will be a drop off when dealing with DR, but every style should have an advantage over the others. Before adding in anything new, be sure to ask the question "Is there already something pre-existing that I can use?" The answer should be either "No" or "Yes, but it isn't effective."
Frugal 03-10-07, 08:23 PM	Before adding in anything new, be sure to ask the question "Is there already something pre-existing that I can use?" The answer should be either "No" or "Yes, but it isn't effective." The issue isn't so much whether options exist or not, the issue is that out of the box, THF is significantly better. Even with the THF doing absolutely nothing extra, the TWF needs a significant investment in feats to even remotely catch up. If we level the playing field and have the THF investing in useful feats for his tactic at the same rate, then the TWF will never catch up. For me, it's more of an issue that I'm sick of seeing every melee build be a greatsword wielding guy (okay, some go for the greataxe, woo). Of course that opens up a whole other can of worms in that so many weapons just aren't viable other than just for flavour reasons. There's a few things that do make them viable. Maybe the bigger question is should TWF be able to match THF? I'd argue that if nothing else, the large feat investment should get you better off than someone with no feats invested in their tactic.
Roland the Crownbreaker 03-10-07, 09:18 PM	The games I play in also see a decent number of Sword and Board characters, but we do have the PHB2, and the floaty shield will never, ever, show up in the games we play in, or so the DM tells us. TWF only seems to show up in rangers though.
starfire311 03-11-07, 12:25 AM	The games I play in also see a decent number of Sword and Board characters, but we do have the PHB2, and the floaty shield will never, ever, show up in the games we play in, or so the DM tells us. TWF only seems to show up in rangers though. IME among melee based characters I see a fairly even distrubtion among TWF, THF and S&B, this is what lead me to think that the combat forms are relativly even, because I have neer thought that one was a liability in actual game play, they always did something to make their character still be rather effective at what they do.
Xeviat-DM 03-11-07, 03:36 AM	I've seen a fairly even number of all in my games as well, but aside from one player, every player who has tried TWFing with a fighter has never gone back. The only TWFer characters that ever return are Rogues and the one Drizzt fanboy in our group. I think fighters should be able to do it well.
Roland the Crownbreaker 03-11-07, 11:48 AM	I think I will make my next fighter (a long ways off, sadly. We just started a new game and I am playing a sorcerer) a TWF build, just to see how it turns out. If I am having fun and feel useful to the group, then I will call it a success.
Bhaal006 03-11-07, 03:22 PM	I haven't really had a problem as a TWFer, but then again i use a shield in my off hand, so i get the benefit of the shield bonus to AC, as well as an extra attack at 1d8, it's really not so bad.