TWF Houserules? [Archive] - Wizards Community

TWF Houserules? [Archive] - Wizards Community

Post/Author/DateTime Post
Bobfred21
03-20-08, 06:41 PM How broken would it be if I houseruled TWFing down to 1 feat? Personally I find it pretty useless as it is.

My players are going to be fairly inexperienced and I doubt they'll know enough about the game to break it, HOWEVER, I still wanted to see what the consensus was and know how it worked out if anyone had tried it themselves.
Salla
03-20-08, 07:56 PM TWF already is only one feat. Or are you meaning to combine Greater and Improved TWF in with basic TWF?
DeathlessJuan
03-20-08, 08:06 PM Decreasing the TWF tree wouldn't really constitute a major power boost in my opinion, as long as you house rule that they can not make an additional attack(s) with their off hand weapon (as with ITWF, GTWF and PTWF) until they have the necessary BAB to do so with their main hand.

For example:
BAB 1-5, one attack with main hand, one attack with off hand
BAB 6-10, two attacks with both hands
BAB 11-15, three attacks with both ahnds
BAB 16-20+ (epic only to preserve balance), 4 attacks with both hands.
mplindustries
03-21-08, 04:35 AM I'd absolutely allow it. Two Weapon Fighting has little if anything that makes it "better" than using a Two Handed Weapon, so I see no reason to force people to spend three feats just to make it "as good" as a default option. The only thing I could ever see unbalancing it involves the Tiger Claw discipline, but I think it'd be very minor compared to the headache you'd save your players.

Of course, if you have power-gaming players, they will find a way to abuse it, so just watch out for that and you'll be fine.

The best test is this:
Tell the players what you're proposing. If all of them (or at least the melee oriented ones) now want to dual-wield, then its a bad idea.
Bobfred21
03-21-08, 09:58 AM Alright, thanks for the replies. :) I think I'm going to condense it down into the one feat then.
Salla
03-21-08, 12:32 PM I'd absolutely allow it. Two Weapon Fighting has little if anything that makes it "better" than using a Two Handed Weapon, so I see no reason to force people to spend three feats just to make it "as good" as a default option. The only thing I could ever see unbalancing it involves the Tiger Claw discipline, but I think it'd be very minor compared to the headache you'd save your players.

Of course, if you have power-gaming players, they will find a way to abuse it, so just watch out for that and you'll be fine.

The best test is this:
Tell the players what you're proposing. If all of them (or at least the melee oriented ones) now want to dual-wield, then its a bad idea.

It does have one very important thing: Sneak Attack.
jaelis
03-21-08, 12:50 PM I agree that rogues are the only thing you have to worry about. If you combined the three feats, then (a) a rogue would be a fool not to take it and (b) rogues will be more powerful.

If you don't mind every rogue being a TWFer, and if you think rogues could use a power boost, then you're good.

Note that you'll have to change the TWF ranger combat style abilities too.
mplindustries
03-21-08, 01:52 PM Note that you'll have to change the TWF ranger combat style abilities too.

They do already have other (sucky) options from the PHB2. At 6th they can take two weapon pounce, and at 11th they can take two weapon rend. I'd recommend also allowing the Two-Weapon Defense tree for their bonus feats.
unundindur
03-22-08, 06:17 AM Here is my standardised answer to the question:

http://forums.gleemax.com/showpost.php?p=14755451&postcount=6
ragoftag
03-23-08, 12:22 PM mplindustries The best test is this:
Tell the players what you're proposing. If all of them,,,modified...then its a bad idea.lol! love it! And if all your players want to switch, its a REALLY bad idea!
ciaran
03-23-08, 05:38 PM I'd make the first feat the same, then have a second feat to cover all the rest, without raising the Dex requirement.
GawainBS
03-24-08, 12:04 PM We always go with:

TWF: It gives you all the attacks with your offhand you're intitled to due to BAB.
ITWF: It gives you all the TW Defense feats, according to your BAB, but only against your Dodge target.
GTWF: All the relevant TW Defense feats, but against all enemies.

The Dex requirements remain.

I wouldn't go with the above suggestion that says to only allow Sneak Attack on the first two attacks. It makes TWF even weaker.
Operation_Shoestring
03-24-08, 04:51 PM The best idea, IMO, is to have TWF work like the Combat focus line.. scaling with number of feats, so there is no more ITF or GTWF, but you can boost TWF automatically by taking, say TW-rend or TWD.

see here:
http://forums.gleemax.com/showthread.php?p=15348584#post15348584

Post/Author/DateTime	Post
Bobfred21 03-20-08, 06:41 PM	How broken would it be if I houseruled TWFing down to 1 feat? Personally I find it pretty useless as it is. My players are going to be fairly inexperienced and I doubt they'll know enough about the game to break it, HOWEVER, I still wanted to see what the consensus was and know how it worked out if anyone had tried it themselves.
Salla 03-20-08, 07:56 PM	TWF already is only one feat. Or are you meaning to combine Greater and Improved TWF in with basic TWF?
DeathlessJuan 03-20-08, 08:06 PM	Decreasing the TWF tree wouldn't really constitute a major power boost in my opinion, as long as you house rule that they can not make an additional attack(s) with their off hand weapon (as with ITWF, GTWF and PTWF) until they have the necessary BAB to do so with their main hand. For example: BAB 1-5, one attack with main hand, one attack with off hand BAB 6-10, two attacks with both hands BAB 11-15, three attacks with both ahnds BAB 16-20+ (epic only to preserve balance), 4 attacks with both hands.
mplindustries 03-21-08, 04:35 AM	I'd absolutely allow it. Two Weapon Fighting has little if anything that makes it "better" than using a Two Handed Weapon, so I see no reason to force people to spend three feats just to make it "as good" as a default option. The only thing I could ever see unbalancing it involves the Tiger Claw discipline, but I think it'd be very minor compared to the headache you'd save your players. Of course, if you have power-gaming players, they will find a way to abuse it, so just watch out for that and you'll be fine. The best test is this: Tell the players what you're proposing. If all of them (or at least the melee oriented ones) now want to dual-wield, then its a bad idea.
Bobfred21 03-21-08, 09:58 AM	Alright, thanks for the replies. :) I think I'm going to condense it down into the one feat then.
Salla 03-21-08, 12:32 PM	I'd absolutely allow it. Two Weapon Fighting has little if anything that makes it "better" than using a Two Handed Weapon, so I see no reason to force people to spend three feats just to make it "as good" as a default option. The only thing I could ever see unbalancing it involves the Tiger Claw discipline, but I think it'd be very minor compared to the headache you'd save your players. Of course, if you have power-gaming players, they will find a way to abuse it, so just watch out for that and you'll be fine. The best test is this: Tell the players what you're proposing. If all of them (or at least the melee oriented ones) now want to dual-wield, then its a bad idea. It does have one very important thing: Sneak Attack.
jaelis 03-21-08, 12:50 PM	I agree that rogues are the only thing you have to worry about. If you combined the three feats, then (a) a rogue would be a fool not to take it and (b) rogues will be more powerful. If you don't mind every rogue being a TWFer, and if you think rogues could use a power boost, then you're good. Note that you'll have to change the TWF ranger combat style abilities too.
mplindustries 03-21-08, 01:52 PM	Note that you'll have to change the TWF ranger combat style abilities too. They do already have other (sucky) options from the PHB2. At 6th they can take two weapon pounce, and at 11th they can take two weapon rend. I'd recommend also allowing the Two-Weapon Defense tree for their bonus feats.
unundindur 03-22-08, 06:17 AM	Here is my standardised answer to the question: http://forums.gleemax.com/showpost.php?p=14755451&postcount=6
ragoftag 03-23-08, 12:22 PM	mplindustries The best test is this: Tell the players what you're proposing. If all of them,,,modified...then its a bad idea.lol! love it! And if all your players want to switch, its a REALLY bad idea!
ciaran 03-23-08, 05:38 PM	I'd make the first feat the same, then have a second feat to cover all the rest, without raising the Dex requirement.
GawainBS 03-24-08, 12:04 PM	We always go with: TWF: It gives you all the attacks with your offhand you're intitled to due to BAB. ITWF: It gives you all the TW Defense feats, according to your BAB, but only against your Dodge target. GTWF: All the relevant TW Defense feats, but against all enemies. The Dex requirements remain. I wouldn't go with the above suggestion that says to only allow Sneak Attack on the first two attacks. It makes TWF even weaker.
Operation_Shoestring 03-24-08, 04:51 PM	The best idea, IMO, is to have TWF work like the Combat focus line.. scaling with number of feats, so there is no more ITF or GTWF, but you can boost TWF automatically by taking, say TW-rend or TWD. see here: http://forums.gleemax.com/showthread.php?p=15348584#post15348584