Post/Author/DateTime	Post
Bobson 06-26-07, 09:18 PM	In my other post I touched on problems I encountered as a dual-wielding fighter compared to 2-hander fighters. Here, I'm going to lay out the problem more and a few solutions, none of which I like. Hopefully someone else can give me a better idea, or point me to a previous thread on the subject which had ideas. Advantages of Dual-wielding: Extra attacks each round Some enchantments can be spread out to different weapons to reduce cost (+1 flaming and +1 frost cost less than +1 flaming frost) Disadvantages of dual-wielding: At least one feat required, and more to continue to increase the benefit, each requiring ever higher Dex scores. Basic enchants on weapons cost more (2 +2 weapons cost twice as much as one +2 weapon) Flat penalty to all attacks which can't be reduced below -2 (except for the tempest PrC) DR applies to each attack separately Less damage on each weapon (usually) Choice between needing two sets of weapon focus/spec feats or using a light weapon (less damage) in the main hand Things which appear to be disadvantages but are neutral: Half str-damage with off hand (compare to 1.5 str-damage with a 2H) Less benefit from power attack (still the same total bonus as a 2H weapon gets) All that being said, dual-wielding really doesn't make much sense to ever do, except possibly for rangers who can get the feats for free. All that being said, time to try and fix the problem. First, we have to acknowledge that having up to 3 extra attacks each round is powerful. It's significantly better (offensively) than a 1H weapon and a shield, and should be comparable to the extra damage that a 2H weapon can do in the hands of a strong fighter. We need to be careful of overbalancing. We don't need to give it any more advantages - just reduce some of the disadvantages. Lets take each one in order and I'll give my thoughts on it. At least one feat required, and more to continue to increase the benefit, each requiring ever higher Dex scores. Using feats to be trained in dual-wielding makes sense. It's pretty easy to pick up a stick and swing it around with both hands. Much harder to pick up two sticks and swing them both around effectively. If there were three feats which simply gave an extra attack, just about every fighter would take them. Putting other restrictions on what you have to do to get the extra attacks (i.e. dual wield instead of have a 2h weapon) makes sense. The dex requirement is a problem, though. It does make sense that the more coordinated you are, the better you can manipulate two weapons. However, by forcing a dual-wielder to be a dex character, they're given very little real choice about taking weapon finesse and focusing on their dex instead of their strength. Which means they are going to be doing less base damage per hit than their 2h counterparts who can focus on pure strength, no matter what. Alternatives: Reduce the number of feats (one feat to dual wield, with Imp TWF and Sup TWF rolled in). Remove or lower the dex requirement (Iron Heroes does this). Add another feat which lets you get dex to melee damage. Basic enchants on weapons cost more (2 +2 weapons cost twice as much as one +2 weapon) This one's a tossup with the advantage given by enchanting two weapons differently. If you like lots of varied enchantments so there's always something useful, that's better. If you prefer all the enchantments on the same weapon, this is better. Whether a +3 holy ghost touch & +1 flaming frost shocking keen combo is better than a +5 ghost touch keen weapon is a matter for debate (they cost close to the same) Alternatives: None needed. Flat penalty to all attacks which can't be reduced below -2 (except for the tempest PrC) This is an annoying one. It makes sense, compared to feats like rapid shot (which apply a -2 to attacks in a round you get the extra attacks), but CW introduced "Improved Rapid shot" which removed that penalty. Conversely, the TWF feats keep adding more attacks at no increased penalty, so as annoying as this is, I'd consider it balanced. Alternatives: None needed. DR applies to each attack separately This is one of the major problems. I don't think most people carry around enough weapons that they can get past all possible DR. Especially when you need two of them. Or even if they do, they won't be as good as their primary weapons. Thus everyone's going to get stuck fighting something with high DR at some point. The next point talks about doing less damage in the first place, but assume for the sake of this point that a 2H fighter and a dual-wield fighter could each do 80 damage a turn average. The 2H fighter would have that reduced by DR four times. The DW fighter, seven times. If we're talking an effective DR 10/-, that becomes 40 damage vs. 10 damage. Major drawback there. Against something with DR 15/cold iron & good, the DW can't even injure him. Alternatives: Make DR count per-person per-round (but that makes no sense and is hard to track. Provide DR-bypassing feats with TWF as a prereq. Add the ability to combine two strikes into one hit (one roll, do damage with both weapons, so DR only applies once). Less damage on each weapon (usually) I'm not sure this is a problem or not. Each weapon does less damage between they aren't 2H weapons, but you do get to do it from each weapon. 1d8+1d6 (longsword + shortsword) vs. 1d10 (greatsword) for instance. This is really only a major problem because of the DR issue above. Alternatives: Same as DR alternatives. Choice between needing two sets of weapon focus/spec feats or using a light weapon (less damage) in the main hand The Tempest PrC takes care of this. Otherwise, it's simply a tradeoff that the DW fighter needs to make... and if he doesn't have to spend lots of feats on TWF and Weapon Finesse, he can spend more on two different weapons... Alternatives: Maybe make a feat in the TWF chain that applies all feats for one weapon to the other... Maybe not. Anyone else have other ideas? Feedback on my fixes?
Cochise 06-26-07, 10:02 PM	I didnt read too attentively since i need to go to sleep, but does a greaytsword really do 1d10? I think thats a small greatsword, and you compared it to medium long and short swords. Going to sheep now ;)
Xaer 06-26-07, 10:40 PM	Greatsword is a 2d6. Still less than a 1d8/1d6, but with the -2 to attack, it balances out(and in some cases makes the 2d6 better). And when using a TWF build, it's generally better to take 2 of the same weapon. I usually go for twin rapiers(as the probability of getting a critical is ridiculous with 8 AtksPerRound) TWF is actually not bad to do if done right, as several buff spells add an amount to damage rolls. With TWF, that boost is doubled. Also, while you won't have the money to pimp out both blades, the bonuses are priced enough to where you could have 1 less enhancement than a 2H weapon, and +3/+3 is better than a +4 in terms of final damage. The point to NOT TWFing is the use of a shield. Shields add a ridiculous amount of AC when magicked up, at the cost of a 1/2STR bonus to damage. The only reason to use 2H fighting is if you're playing a race with ridiculous STR(orge, half-dragon).
Von_Harbringer 06-26-07, 10:44 PM	The only plus that I am aware of is that if you play a rogue you can do sneak attack (http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/rg/20040302a) damage each hit.
trapspringer 06-26-07, 11:15 PM	I disagree with your assertion that one is better than the other. Let's make it really, really simple. At level one, you are trading 10% to hit for a boost in damage. Let's say that you are dual-wielding daggers with a strength of 10. You have increased your damage output by 1d4, but reduced the frequency of that output by 10%. The average damage on 1d4 is 2.5. Double that is 5. Now you have to decrease each component (2.5) by 10% to account for attacks that would have hit, but now miss. 2.25 + 2.25 = 4.5, net increase of two damage. Two weapon fighting is worth an increase of two damage under the worst of circumstances. On top of that it increases the odds that you will do some damage on any given round, which increases the chances that a monster will be killed by a party member this round instead of you next round (I didn't explain that well, but you get what I'm saying, right?). Now let's say you are a fighter. As a fighter, you have the choice of a greater number of weapons. Let's say you decide to dual-wield a longsword and a short sword. Using the same formula, we find that you increase your average damage output by 2.7. I'd say as a one-off damage-boosting feat that's pretty swanky. It's better than weapon specialization and comfortably tops power attack at it's own game (trading to-hit for damage in a non-permanent kinda' way). It also opens up tactical versatility that other more simple damage boosting feats simply do not. Many of the disadvantages you list are bizarre and illogical. "Basic enchants on weapons cost more (2 +2 weapons cost twice as much as one +2 weapon)," for example, doesn't really make any sense because, while a case of +2 swords does cost twice as much, but it also increase your potential damage output by twice what a single +2 sword would. In D&D math, that means it should cost at least triple that of a +2 sword. That each individual weapon may deal less damage (usually, you added) doesn't change the fact that together they deal more (3.5 + 4.5 = 8 - (4.5 * .1 +3.5 *.1) = 7.2 which is more than 7, therefore a longsword and a short sword deal more damage than a great sword by .2 on average, not factoring in critical hits (which would slightly favor TWF). Your last point, that one would require two sets of Weapon focus/ weapon spec feats or deal with either decreased damage output due to light weapons or decreased damage output due to lacking those feats is a little wonky because; A, those feats suck, and B, the reverse of the argument is true. You shouldn't take weapon specialization because you could take TWF instead (and because TWF boosts damage output by at least two damage and is only one feat, it is clearly better). I can posit an argument as compelling for Two Handed Swords, I think.
Bobson 06-26-07, 11:21 PM	Greatsword is a 2d6. Still less than a 1d8/1d6, but with the -2 to attack, it balances out(and in some cases makes the 2d6 better). And when using a TWF build, it's generally better to take 2 of the same weapon. I usually go for twin rapiers(as the probability of getting a critical is ridiculous with 8 AtksPerRound) True. I did read the wrong entry. 2d6 it is. And you take more of a penalty if you're dual-wielding rapiers, because your off-hand weapon isn't light. At a -4, it's even worse... TWF is actually not bad to do if done right, as several buff spells add an amount to damage rolls. With TWF, that boost is doubled. Also, while you won't have the money to pimp out both blades, the bonuses are priced enough to where you could have 1 less enhancement than a 2H weapon, and +3/+3 is better than a +4 in terms of final damage.Both true, as is if you play a rogue you can do sneak attack (http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/rg/20040302a) damage each hit. That's one advantage I didn't even think to consider. High level rogues are really the ones who benefit from TWF the most... But they don't have all that many feats to dedicate to it if they want anything else at all... I still don't think it's balanced, but sneak attack is something else to keep in mind while trying to do so. Thanks for pointing it out!
shout27 06-26-07, 11:22 PM	You do realize that you didn't even comment on the DR bit.
Bobson 06-27-07, 12:14 AM	Many of the disadvantages you list are bizarre and illogical. "Basic enchants on weapons cost more (2 +2 weapons cost twice as much as one +2 weapon)," for example, doesn't really make any sense because, while a case of +2 swords does cost twice as much, but it also increase your potential damage output by twice what a single +2 sword would. In D&D math, that means it should cost at least triple that of a +2 sword.Lets compare a rapier/shortsword combo (1d6+1d6) to a greatsword (2d6), for a 10 strength character. Lets also assume that this character is at least level 6, so has TWF and Imp TWF. Lets further assume that all weapons are +2. The TWF character has four attacks. Each attack does 1d6+2, or 5.5 damage. The 2H character has two attacks, each of which does 2d6+2, or 9 damage. But the TWF character hits 10% less, so reduce. We end up with 4.95 * 4 = 19.8 vs 9 * 2 = 18. The TWF character does more damage on average... but spent 8000gp more to do so. If we bump the weapons up to a comparable value (in this case, that'd be +3 greatsword, which is only 2000gp more than two +2 weapons), it becomes (4.675)*4 = 18.7 (the damage goes down because he's now 15% less likely to hit) vs. 10 * 2 = 20. Admittedly, it's not a huge difference from the level 1 example you gave, but it's not the "twice what a single +2 sword would" you claimed. That each individual weapon may deal less damage (usually, you added) doesn't change the fact that together they deal more (3.5 + 4.5 = 8 - (4.5 * .1 +3.5 *.1) = 7.2 which is more than 7, therefore a longsword and a short sword deal more damage than a great sword by .2 on average, not factoring in critical hits (which would slightly favor TWF).It matters for overcoming DR that you're not able to bypass, which you didn't address at all (and was my single biggest frustration as a TWF player). (And the usually is because of the lance's relatively poor damage.) Your last point, that one would require two sets of Weapon focus/ weapon spec feats or deal with either decreased damage output due to light weapons or decreased damage output due to lacking those feats is a little wonky because; A, those feats suck, and B, the reverse of the argument is true.That wasn't quite my argument. I said that you either need to get the feats twice, or to use the same weapon in each hand (which then has to be a light weapon, which will likely do less damage than a 1H weapon) in order to apply them to both. Admittedly, they're not the best feats out there. But for a fighter who has feats to burn, they're worth picking up... Especially with the feats which require them from PHBII.
trapspringer 06-27-07, 12:29 AM	But why would he use a rapier instead of a longsword? Why rob yourself of the extra point of damage but to make your argument look stronger? In reality he would be dealing four points more damage. That's absolutely worth 8,000 and I see players spend much more than that for a mere 3.5 average boost to damage. Yea, it matters for overcoming DR unless you, I dunno, come equipped to deal with the problem. But hey, you can always stow that short sword and throw another hand on that longsword if you're incapable of planning ahead. But hell, let's say you aren't. As two-weapon-fighter, you could be packin' a +1 cold iron light mace and a +2 silver longsword for just such occasions as you might find damage reduction, and you'd still be doing two more damage (7-17 more damage when bypassing standard damage reductions that you otherwise would be unable to foil with a standard +3 greatsword). That wasn't quite my argument. I said that you either need to get the feats twice, or to use the same weapon in each hand (which then has to be a light weapon, which will likely do less damage than a 1H weapon) in order to apply them to both. Admittedly, they're not the best feats out there. But for a fighter who has feats to burn, they're worth picking up... Especially with the feats which require them from PHBII. Then what is your point? I shouldn't take TWF because it prohibits me from taking superfluous and ineffective feats? Look, you had a bad play experience. That doesn't mean the system needs reworking. You're character should have adapted to the rules, not the other way around. Oh, and if you'd read my post thoroughly you'd understand that I wasn't talking about overall damage output but rather the effects of enchanting two weapons versus the effects of enchanting one when I said "twice that of a single +2 sword." Two swords, taken seperately and enchanted, yield (nearly) twice the increase to average damage output as one sword, taken singularly, and enchanted in the same fashion.
Von_Harbringer 06-27-07, 01:23 AM	That's one advantage I didn't even think to consider. High level rogues are really the ones who benefit from TWF the most... But they don't have all that many feats to dedicate to it if they want anything else at all... I still don't think it's balanced, but sneak attack is something else to keep in mind while trying to do so. Thanks for pointing it out! No Problem, my half-orc rogue feats are as follows (not that level yet but this is how i have it planned). 1st) TWF, 3rd) skill focus: disable device, 6th) skill focus: search, 9th) Improved TWF, 12) nimble fingers, 15) Greater TWF
runestar 06-27-07, 01:51 AM	TWFing could be more advantageous than 2HFing if you focus on attacks which are more dependent on you hitting, rather than the amount of damage you are actually hitting for. For example, energy weapon enhancements, wounding, sneak attack, energy drain etc. These are all factors which you have to take into consideration. It is true that it is less disadvantageous to some builds and better for others. Same goes for 2HFing. I am not sure if the rules for these can be changed so readily without upsetting balance.:(
Bobson 06-27-07, 02:10 AM	But why would he use a rapier instead of a longsword? Why rob yourself of the extra point of damage but to make your argument look stronger? In reality he would be dealing four points more damage. That's absolutely worth 8,000 and I see players spend much more than that for a mere 3.5 average boost to damage.Actually, I did it to make the math simpler. I'm a big fan of simple math. A better comparison would be 1d8+1d6, yes. Running those numbers, I get 1d6+2, or 5.5 and 1d8+2 or 6.5. 4.95 * 2 + 5.85 * 2 = 21.6 vs 9 * 2 = 18. Clear TWF victory, for the 8000 gold. With the +3 greatsword, it becomes 4.675*2 + 5.525*2 = 20.4 vs. 10 * 2 = 20. Very slight TWF victory, for 2000 gold less. I concede the point for now, but see below. Yea, it matters for overcoming DR unless you, I dunno, come equipped to deal with the problem. But hey, you can always stow that short sword and throw another hand on that longsword if you're incapable of planning ahead. Very true. But if you do that, then you're not getting any use out of your TWF feats, so the guy whose been taking other feats for his 2H weapon (even weapon spec) has the advantage... As two-weapon-fighter, you could be packin' a +1 cold iron light mace and a +2 silver longsword for just such occasions as you might find damage reduction, and you'd still be doing two more damage (7-17 more damage when bypassing standard damage reductions that you otherwise would be unable to foil with a standard +3 greatsword). Don't forget that both weapons will be hitting 5% less than what we calculated above, which brings us to 20% less chance to hit. 3.6*2 + 5.2*2 = 7.2+10.4 = 17.6 vs the 20 we calculated above. Against something without DR that you can bypass, you're significantly worse now. Against something with DR 5/cold iron or silver, both sets of damage drop by 5, for another win for 2H. Against 10/silver, it becomes 10.4 vs. 10. Against 10/cold iron, it becomes 7.6 vs. 10. Against 15/whatever, it becomes either 7.2 or 10.4 vs. 5. So you're going to do less damage in general, and equal or less damage against low-DR creatures, so that you can do more to high-DR creatures. Look, you had a bad play experience. That doesn't mean the system needs reworking. You're character should have adapted to the rules, not the other way around. It's not just the one experience. I've seen it multiple times, both in my characters and in other players. The only characters I've ever seen dual-wield effectively were rogues. Oh, and if you'd read my post thoroughly you'd understand that I wasn't talking about overall damage output but rather the effects of enchanting two weapons versus the effects of enchanting one when I said "twice that of a single +2 sword." Two swords, taken seperately and enchanted, yield (nearly) twice the increase to average damage output as one sword, taken singularly, and enchanted in the same fashion. Ah, twice the increase. It's not twice, but I'll grant around a 66% increase. The TWF would be 15.3 (down 6.3 from 21.6) and the 2H would be 14 (down 4 from 18). Now, this has been a fine argument in number crunching, but it's still an abstract. There's one major factor missing. Strength. We've been assuming a strength of 10 for all these examples. But a 2H fighter can put more into strength than a TWF fighter can, because the TWF fighter needs dex to continue to pick up his feats. And more strength translates into more damage. In a dice rolling chargen, there's not much you can do about this either way, except to point out that the TWF needs a good stat (dex) and a decent one (str), and a 2H one only needs the good stat (str). For point buy, to get a stat to 15 costs 8 points. The TWF character will need at least a 15 dex, and will need a 19 by the time they get to 11th level (i.e. 2 stat points). It's perfectly reasonable to expect him to have a +4 dex item by then. But if he doesn't boost his dex at all, he'll start losing attacks if he ever takes dex damage or enters an antimagic field. It's more likely that a character with this build would put at least a 16 into dex to start, and add 2 stat points to it (you're welcome to argue my assumptions, but I think they're reasonable, and they aren't factoring into my argument below). He may go even higher if he's going to take weapon finesse, but I won't go into that. He's going to want strength too, so lets put another 16 there. That's 20 points spent, out of however many we have to start with, and he still has 8 in four of his stats. Assuming we bring them all up to 10, we need at least a 28 point buy, which is the step above standard. The 2H fighter, on the other hand, only cares about his strength. He's going to get an 18 in it, no question. There's 16 points spent. And 8's in all 5 of his other stats. Assuming the same 28 points, he can raise all his other stats to 10's, then boost con to 12 for that extra HP/level. With his two stat points, he'll boost strength to 20, but I'm not factoring that in below. Lets see what this does to the numbers: TWF has +3 to attack and +3 to damage from above (or +1 for off hand), before any magic items. 2H has +4 to attack and +4 to damage from above (actually +6), and +1 HP/level, before any magic items. I'll use the +2/+2 vs. +3 example from above, because that was the closest before factoring in stats. According to my numbers, this gives a result of (9.5*2+6.5*2)-30% = 22.4 vs. 13*2=26. Strong victory for the 2H fighter. Now, bring in magic items. Give each one a +2 item to their chosen stat. TWF gets +2 dex, so he can use his fourth attack (which he technically doesn't get for the numbers above), 2H gets +2 str. That's +1 to hit for both of them (assuming weapon finesse). But it's also +1 damage for the 2H fighter. 22.4 vs. 28. Even if we gave both items to both characters, it's still TWF 26.6 vs. 2H 28. In conclusion, I still hold that in play, TWF looses out.
Bobson 06-27-07, 02:14 AM	TWFing could be more advantageous than 2HFing if you focus on attacks which are more dependent on you hitting, rather than the amount of damage you are actually hitting for. For example, energy weapon enhancements, wounding, sneak attack, energy drain etc. These are all factors which you have to take into consideration. Agreed. That was the strategy I followed with the first TWF character I had, for exactly that reason. But you know what? You hit even less, because you're adding all the "on-hit" stuff, and the other guy's adding the "I hit better" stuff... :( I am not sure if the rules for these can be changed so readily without upsetting balance.:(And that's the heart of it. I can't think of a good way to change it that doesn't make TWF significantly better, which also makes sense (DR per player per round would fix the DR problem easily, but doesn't make any sense, for example)
Rhialto 06-27-07, 02:51 AM	I don't think any change is needed. You have shown with the DR, that a DW character gets hosed. Conversely, a DW character does more damage against enemies who don't have DR. Basically, DW and 2H-wpn are optimized against different types of enemies. That's teh way it should be.
koiulpoi 06-27-07, 02:59 AM	...Using the same formula, we find that you increase your average damage output by 2.7. I'd say as a one-off damage-boosting feat that's pretty swanky. It's better than weapon specialization and comfortably tops power attack at it's own game (trading to-hit for damage in a non-permanent kinda' way). Hamanawhat? Power attack with a two-handed weapon (you know, the other thing he's talking about) gives you twice your penalty. So, a -2 penalty, you get 4 points. 4 > 2.7. Maybe I'm misreading your post, but how does TWF beat THF+Power Attack?
Bobson 06-27-07, 03:10 AM	I don't think any change is needed. You have shown with the DR, that a DW character gets hosed. Conversely, a DW character does more damage against enemies who don't have DR. Basically, DW and 2H-wpn are optimized against different types of enemies. That's teh way it should be. For a strength 10 character, yes, that's true. But look further down - TWF doesn't actually do more damage with real characters, so it'll do even less against monsters with DR... Power attack with a two-handed weapon (you know, the other thing he's talking about) gives you twice your penalty. So, a -2 penalty, you get 4 points. 4 > 2.7. Maybe I'm misreading your post, but how does TWF beat THF+Power Attack? Power attack is a false argument. Both the TWF (if he has free feats) and the 2H can take it and get the same benefit out of it. The TWF gets the half the bonus to twice as many attacks compared to the 2H... On the other hand, your post is missing something - that -2 penalty to attacks means you're no more likely to hit than the TWF person who isn't power attacking... Which means the TWF's damage goes up (because they're 0% less likely to hit)
koiulpoi 06-27-07, 03:53 AM	Power attack is a false argument. Both the TWF (if he has free feats) and the 2H can take it and get the same benefit out of it. The TWF gets the half the bonus to twice as many attacks compared to the 2H... On the other hand, your post is missing something - that -2 penalty to attacks means you're no more likely to hit than the TWF person who isn't power attacking... Which means the TWF's damage goes up (because they're 0% less likely to hit) I'm failing to see the merit of that at all. You're trading to-hit for extra damage with TWF, even though you're already suffering in the "to-hit" department as it is? Sure, you get "the same bonus" for both hands, but you also might miss one of your two attacks, which is worth less than the all-or-nothing that THF power attacking is. The same argument holds for the 1.5 strength bonus. It comes down to the idea that TWF is great against low-AC opponents, because you can hit them more often, while THF is great against opponents of the proper challenge rating. Don't get me wrong, I love Two-Weapon fighting, it's just that THF beats it out both in the math and in experience. And besides, that feat he's not spending on TWF could be spent on Leap Attack for 3x power attack. Or many, many other feats.
unundindur 06-27-07, 07:35 AM	Power attack is easily better than two weapon fighting for (at least) these reasons: It scales, and can be optimized against your opponent. And the most important; its 1 feat. To become somewhat efficient in two-weapon-fighting you have to burn away so many feats it makes my eyes bleed with pain. So to say that power attack is of similar use in twf as with a thw is false, if the two spend equally many feats tehy end up at different levels of power. THW: Power attack+[insert useful feat] TWF: Two weapon fighting+power attack If interested I can hook you up with a lengthy thread (http://boards1.wizards.com/showthread.php?t=759713) i started on this subject, where the verdict was quite clear; twf doesn't work EXCEPT if you build a very specialised build (rogue or barbarian). Where is the love for the classics, like the elven bard who sings while whirling through the crowds with his two longswords? Or the fighter with his two battleaxes? They are not there because they have to spend so extremely many feats to get efficient (the fighter can afford it, but he is thus at a dissadvantage to the fighter who spent his feats in other areas).
Morwen 06-27-07, 08:01 AM	All that being said, dual-wielding really doesn't make much sense to ever do, except possibly for rangers who can get the feats for free. I would rather be a dual-wielding fighter than a dual-wielding ranger. Fighters get a lot more than 3 bonus feats, after all :)
unundindur 06-27-07, 08:22 AM	Here is how I would do Two Weapon fighting: You keep the current featline (for those that will benefit more from it), and add in an extra featline that is much shorter, nicer BUT have a few very important restrictions. Martial dual-wielding [general] Prerequisite: Dex 13+, Base attack bonus 1+ Bonus: You gain one off-hand attack with each main-hand attack. All attacks are resolved with a -2 penalty. Your full strength modifier applies as usual. Special: While using this feat only your first attack is able to deliver sneak attacks. Advanced martial dual wielding [general] Prerequiste: Dex 15+, Base attack bonus 6+, Martial dual-wielding Bonus: You can attack once with each off your hands as a standard action. Furthermore you can attack once with each hand as part of a spring attack and whenever you gain an attack of opportunity (attacking once with each hand counts as 1 attack of opportunity). Special: While using this feat only your first attack is able to deliver sneak attacks. Obviously this breaks somewhat with logics, as someone who can first use two weapons in any given way could likely also use it to inflict a sneak attack, but I think the balancing perspective far outweights this limitation. Furthermore "in-game" it would be treated the same. Wit this option the rogue is exactely as powerful/weak as before (he can use the old variant), and everyone else gets a boost if they want to dual wield. I simplified the -2/-4 penalty for dualwielding since light weapons have their own advantages (grapple/finesse), and because there is no such penalty when using a shield/sword style. The two feats above could in theory also be merged into one big lump called "martial dual-wielding, but I didn't for now. I ripped this from the other thread, if that is of any interest. ;)
Steely_Dan 06-27-07, 08:49 AM	But why would he use a rapier instead of a longsword? -You can apply Weapon Finesse. -Greater critical hit threat range. -Piercing damage.
unundindur 06-27-07, 08:52 AM	-You can apply Weapon Finesse. -Greater critical hit threat range. -Piercing damage. Piercing damage wasn't a very good argument for using a rapier :P But anyway, its a difference, so I guess some could see it as a reason :rolleyes:
Steely_Dan 06-27-07, 09:00 AM	Piercing damage wasn't a very good argument for using a rapier :P But anyway, its a difference, so I guess some could see it as a reason :rolleyes: Piercing weapons can also be used underwater at no penalty. And please, save the cute little "roll eyes" emoticon. If you have a problem with me mentioning the benefits of a rapier, just articulate it – thanks.
Dungeonrenter 06-27-07, 09:23 AM	I think 2H fighting is VERY balanced option compared to two handed weapons. In fact, with the shield fighitng feats from PHB II at this point everybody who is a melee combatant should be considering either a two handed weapon or some form of two handed fighitng. The only real problem with two weapon fighting is that you get no benefit if you can't take a full attack action. Conversly, a two handed weapon can always be used to its full effectiveness. Sure this can be aleviated with feats, but the number of feats required to be effective is lower with a 2hander. Anyway, two weapons can still do more damage across a round, and is better if you have more "extra dice" effects. A two handed weapon is better for stacking flat modifiers, it also does all of its damage in a single hit, which can be of benefit. The only real forms of fighting that are a little crappy currently are weapon and nothing fighting and weapon and shield is a little weak, but is a lot better with the shield fighitng feats.
koiulpoi 06-27-07, 10:09 AM	Having read several threads and done a bit of math crunching of my own, I've come to the following conclusion about TWF vs THF. Two-Handed Fighting trumps Two-Weapon Fighting in the general sense. Two-Weapon Fighting trumps Two-Handed Fighting in the specific sense. Or, as those people from the CharOp boards put it, II. Wieldest thou thy two-handed weapon with alacrity; but two weapons shalt thou not wield, excepting that thou hast a source of bonus damage such as Sneak Attack.
Bobson 06-27-07, 11:01 AM	I'm failing to see the merit of that at all. You're trading to-hit for extra damage with TWF, even though you're already suffering in the "to-hit" department as it is? Sure, you get "the same bonus" for both hands, but you also might miss one of your two attacks, which is worth less than the all-or-nothing that THF power attacking is. The same argument holds for the 1.5 strength bonus.Power attack doesn't make you any more likely to miss than you would be without it. If you subtract 5 from a 2H attack and subtract 5 from a TWF's attacks, you're still 10% more likely to miss with the TWF's attacks. Admittedly, 10% more on top of the (say) 25% you're giving yourself can be bad unless you know it's an easy target, and I've never seen it used effectively by a TWF fighter, but in theory it doesn't make a difference who uses it, except for... that feat he's not spending on TWF could be spent on Leap Attack for 3x power attack. Or many, many other feats. That's something I deliberately didn't put into the argument above. If I wanted to really show trapspringer how much better 2H fighting was, I'd have given the 2H fighter 2-3 feats to match the TWF's feats - even the Weapon Focus/spec that he keeps putting down. That would have changed the final numbers to 22.8 vs. 30. :( I would rather be a dual-wielding fighter than a dual-wielding ranger. Fighters get a lot more than 3 bonus feats, after all :) Yeah, but rangers don't need to meet the dex requirement to take the feats, which means they don't have to pump dex up at the expense of strength (or other stats). I think 2H fighting is VERY balanced option compared to two handed weapons. In fact, with the shield fighitng feats from PHB II at this point everybody who is a melee combatant should be considering either a two handed weapon or some form of two handed fighitng.True. Being able to shield bash as an off-hand attack, regardless of your dex really does make it more practical. Almost every sword&board character in my group's games since PHB II came out has taken at least one of those feats. Perhaps that's all that's needed to make TWF viable - strip out the Dex requirement, so that TWF fighters can focus on their strength the same way 2H fighters can... The only real problem with two weapon fighting is that you get no benefit if you can't take a full attack action. Conversly, a two handed weapon can always be used to its full effectiveness. Sure this can be aleviated with feats, but the number of feats required to be effective is lower with a 2hander.That's one drawback I didn't even consider, and you're certainly right about it meaning you need even more feats to be effective.
trapspringer 06-27-07, 05:08 PM	Hamanawhat? Power attack with a two-handed weapon (you know, the other thing he's talking about) gives you twice your penalty. So, a -2 penalty, you get 4 points. 4 > 2.7. Maybe I'm misreading your post, but how does TWF beat THF+Power Attack? The logic involved in my assertion is wonky enough that I should have explained a bit more thoroughly. In D&D, it is better to hit than do lots of damage. If you need me to site precedent for this I can, but please take my word for it. Because you are making more attacks with TWF than with Power Attack (both feats that, ostensibly, boost damage), your odds of hitting improve rather drastically even though the potential damage from any one attack drops significantly. When you consider that your average damage output increases along with the probability of dealing some damage, you're better off with TWF insofar as raw, crunchy, blow-for-blow combat is concerned, anyway. Also, if you are going to reduce TWF power attack numbers to account for miss chance, you have to do the same for power attack, leaving you with a 3.2 increase. I'll trade a .5 average damage for a chance to do half damage if I miss, wouldn't you? For a strength 10 character, yes, that's true. But look further down - TWF doesn't actually do more damage with real characters... See, that's just it, these are "real" characters. They may not be characters you play, but that doesn't mean they don't exist. I admit this is a very simplified example, but that's just because there are a lot of factors involved. MAD, the levels of wealth available in the campaign, the level of the party, all of these things do factor in, but ultimately it's going to be more of the same; anything that boosts 2HF is going to boost TWF. The benefits and drawbacks of each will slowly fade away in importance as we move up through the levels until there is a difference of one or two points of damage out of 50 an attack (or pair of attacks, as the case may be... oh, and no one fails that save by this time so just skip it, k?) For example, upping a character's strength affects both options equally because we both get 1.5 times strength to damage. It'll reduce the percentage of the damage boost, but TWF will remain a bigger boost than power attack as one-off feats. It just won't be by the (staggering) 80% improvement that it is with a strength ten character wielding daggers. You keep bringing up costs and MAD. What about the cost associated with mithril heavy armor over mithral light armor? What about the costs in the form of the wizard having to fly your big 'ol plate-mail ridden rear across the lake because you can't make the swim check with that -18 penalty to swim. And at higher levels when you've got more swag than you can deal with? What do you once you take your weapon to +10 pre-epic (since you obviously aren't into carrying weapons other than your primary or you wouldn't have such a problem with DR)? You can only wield one artifact sword at a time. I can use two. Now don't get me wrong, I'm still not arguing that one is better than the other. Something is broken when it is always the best choice or never the best choice. Something is out of balance when it is almost always the best choice or almost never the best choice. I just don't think that is the case here. I think there are many builds that use TWF and are at least as capable as any 2hf build. -You can apply Weapon Finesse. -Greater critical hit threat range. -Piercing damage. Ooh, so close! The correct answer was to make the numbers favor the argument for 2HF. Nice try though, Vicky's got you're door prize.
unundindur 06-27-07, 09:58 PM	As a reply to the post above I have one thing to say. If twp didn't cost you more than one feat for the whole tree I would be all fine. THe problem is that two weapon fighting is comparable to a two-handed-fighter using close to nothing. As my previous post(s) tried to address is that two-weapon fighting is only good if you use very spesific (and typically unflavoured) builds. If you think its fine that way, fair enough. I am on the other hand one of those who doesn't think its fine that a fighter, or bard (easier to get the point across) cannot effectively dual-wield. The dancing twf elven singer (also called bladesinger, even though the prestigeclass for some reason doesn't allow twp) is close to impossible to build effectively, at least without sacrificing a good series of feats, which again you should be able to use in other places. In my oppinion the only reason twf isn't just an option like thf and s&b is due to fluff-reasons. It is harder to dualwield, and as such it makes sense that to do so efficiently you should spend a feat. That said, that is about it. Spendign that one feat should be what it took to get equal to a thf at any level. If you are level 17 for instance we clearly see that using a single feat in twf doesnt cut it +17/+12/+7/+2 with a greatsword (1d12) or +15/+15/+10/+5/+0 with a longsword (1d8) and a shortsword (1d6). If now we also add in powerattack the difference escalates. Say we reduce BaB by 10 to increase damage. +7/+2/-3/-7 with a greatsword (1d12+15) or +5/+5/+0/-5/-10 with a longsword (1d8+10) and a shortsword (1d6+5). Here you gain +1 attack at +5 damage instead of adding 5 points of damage to all 4 attacks with your greatsword. You can say that you can spend feats to increase the attack, but then we must also allow the thf to spend equally many feats for us to have a comparable example.
trapspringer 06-28-07, 12:21 AM	The dancing twf elven singer (also called bladesinger, even though the prestigeclass for some reason doesn't allow twp) is close to impossible to build effectively, at least without sacrificing a good series of feats, which again you should be able to use in other places. Have you checked out the Dervish prestige class? You can say that you can spend feats to increase the attack, but then we must also allow the thf to spend equally many feats for us to have a comparable example. That's fine, but every time you spend another feat on TWF, you get better returns than you did the first time. It's like saying power attack isn't good because the next step in the chain is leap attack and you shouldn't have to spend two feats to get the benefit of leap attack (but like I already said, TWF is actually better than power attack because it gives you not only more damage but an increased chance to hit). Also, if you aren't attack creatures grossly under-level, only your first attack with your great sword is going to hit (needing something like a fifteen, maybe, to hit an extremely Low AC opponent for that level). The first two attacks with your TWF combo have fair odds (needing a mere seventeen to hit something that even might be a threat at this level). Anything that isn't a threat is going to get clobbered anyway, so even though the advantage there goes to TWF because you can kill more stuff a round, it isn't worth mentioning.
Vaelan 06-28-07, 03:02 AM	At least one feat required, and more to continue to increase the benefit, each requiring ever higher Dex scores. This is the weakness I decided to get rid of. Two-Weapon Fighting is no longer a feat. It is an option to gain a number of attacks with your off-hand equal to the number you make with your primary hand. Basic enchants on weapons cost more (2 +2 weapons cost twice as much as one +2 weapon) This is a wash. You pay more, but you get more too. Flat penalty to all attacks which can't be reduced below -2 (except for the tempest PrC) In my opinion, this is the appropriate penalty to take in exchange for being able to apply bonus damage twice as often. DR applies to each attack separately Bonuses are applied twice, penalties are applied twice. Very equitable. Less damage on each weapon (usually) Two shortswords vs. a greatsword: 1d6+STR, 1d6+1/2 STR vs 2d6+1 1/2 STR. Equivalent. Choice between needing two sets of weapon focus/spec feats or using a light weapon (less damage) in the main hand Oversized Two-Weapon Fighting, introduced in Complete Adventurer. Alternately, Exotic Weapon Proficiency (Random Double Weapon).
Bobson 06-28-07, 02:10 PM	See, that's just it, these are "real" characters. They may not be characters you play, but that doesn't mean they don't exist. I admit that any character you can design under the rules counts as a "Real" character. I also doubt that anyone is going to play a 10-strength 2H fighter, any more than someone's going to play a 10-dex archer. (Which is not to say that these characters never get played - but I can't see anyone wanting to play them.) anything that boosts 2HF is going to boost TWF. Provided you get access to it with TWF taking up 3-5 of your feats... Items, agreed. Enchantments/spells/situational bonuses, agreed. Feats? Not so much. The benefits and drawbacks of each will slowly fade away in importance as we move up through the levels until there is a difference of one or two points of damage out of 50 an attack (or pair of attacks, as the case may be... Ok, I'll run those numbers, based on the characters above. TWF: Level 20 fighter (not how I'd build, but with the most strength reasonable) 16+2 base dex +6 dex item = 24 dex 16+3 base str +6 str item +1 tome of strength = 26 str (+8) +5 longsword, +5 shortsword 2H: Level 20 fighter 18+5 base str +6 str item + 1 tome of strength = 30 str (+10) +5 greatsword TWF: 30% relative miss chance. Average 49/26.25 damage after taking that into account. Total average damage: 75.25 2H: 0% relative miss chance. Average 108 damage. 43.5% more damage. Now, I admit that I didn't enchant anything extra onto these weapons, so lets see what happens when you add +5d6 of extra elemental damage to all three weapons (that's +17.5 extra damage, provided no elemental resistances whatsoever), which makes them +10. TWF: 30% relative miss chance. Average 98/63 damage after taking that into account. Total average damage: 161 2H: 0% relative miss chance. Average 178 damage. 10.5% more damage Hmm.... At epic levels, with epic weapons' worth of bonus damage, the TWF may do more average damage per turn... Or if they're a rogue with sneak attack. But otherwise? Sorry. For example, upping a character's strength affects both options equally because we both get 1.5 times strength to damage.True - just remember that the TWF has to up dex also. TWF will remain a bigger boost than power attack as one-off feats. Only if you keep taking it, and then it's not a one-off feat. Given the builds above, if the 2H fighter power attacks for 6 (which gives him the same to-hit as the TWF, even counting the TWF penalty, then the final scores are 230/226 with the +5d6 damage (-2%), and 107.5/156 (46%) without. That's with one feat to the TWF's 3, minimum. If you just compare Power attack to a single TWF feat (and thus they're both one-off), the TWF's attacks drop to 82.5 without the bonus damage... It just won't be by the (staggering) 80% improvement that it is with a strength ten character wielding daggers.No, it's not 80%, but I think 40+% is rather significant.... You keep bringing up costs and MAD. What about the cost associated with mithril heavy armor over mithral light armor? What about the costs in the form of the wizard having to fly your big 'ol plate-mail ridden rear across the lake because you can't make the swim check with that -18 penalty to swim. Armor is completely irrelevant to this discussion. It doesn't factor into your attack at all, and nothing requires 2H characters to wear heavy armor. Mithral Full plate only gives you a -6 to swim checks anyway, and your large strength mod of +10 would more than negate that, even if you never put ranks into it. And at higher levels when you've got more swag than you can deal with? What do you once you take your weapon to +10 pre-epic (since you obviously aren't into carrying weapons other than your primary or you wouldn't have such a problem with DR)? You can only wield one artifact sword at a time. I can use two.True. That just means I have another 200,000 gold to spend on other stuff. I can spend half of it to replace the manual of gainful exercise +1 I used above with one of +5. I'm sure the extra +4 strength will make me do even more average-damage-per-round than you do... I think there are many builds that use TWF and are at least as capable as any 2hf build.There are. They just involve either getting massive amounts of extra damage per-hit (like a rogue's sneak attack) or extra bonuses that can't be gotten (or used effectively) any other way (Dervish dance, Tempest, TW Pounce, TW Rend, Dual strike...). And even with all that, you're spending lots of feats on making this one combat style work effectively, where the other guy is spending that same number of feats on anything else he wants. Example: TWF, ImpTWF, GreatTWF, TW Rend, Dual Strike, Oversized TWF (which is a +1 average damage feat, generally...) TWF can hit with two longswords (+3 average damage from above) as a standard action, hit seven times with the longswords as a full round action, and can do an extra 1d6+Str*1.5 (+15.5 average damage increase). 2H: Weapon Focus, Weapon Spec, Greater Focus, Greater Spec, Melee Weapon Mastery, Weapon Supremacy 2H gets +4 to attack and +8 to damage, +1 AC, can use his greatsword in a grapple (which makes no sense :confused:), is harder to disarm, gets to add +5 to any attack roll beyond the first, and gets to take 10 on one attack a round. Lots of that is hard to quantify or irrelevant to the discussion, so lets just look at the +4 attack and +8 damage. Applying the +17.5 extra damage to TWF, and the +4 attack and +8 damage to 2H, we now have a 50% less likely chance to hit with the TWF fighter. 50%! Half of all the attacks that the 2H lands would theoretically be misses for the TWF fighter. After number crunching, I get 70.75 vs. 140 (98% better) for the standard matchup, and 132 vs. 178 for the bonus damage one (34% better). I really fail to see how you can continue to claim that TWF is better, or even nearly equivalent than 2H with the Weapon focus chain for a standard fighter.
Puggins 06-28-07, 02:59 PM	I don't think anyone WANTS TWF to be inferior to 2HWF- especially since it requires feat investment. But the difference in quality is simply there. A huge advantage to 2H weapons that has not been brought up- the 2H gets a big advantage whenever the character is forced to make an attack that is not a full attack. * On Attacks of Opportunity, 2H gets 1.5x strength and 2H weapon damage. 1H gets 1x strength and 1H weapon damage. * The same thing happens on charges. * The same thing happens on standard attacks. * On any of the above, Power Attack is twice as efficient for the 2Her Sure, some feats and class abilities eliminate a few of these problems, but that just means you're forced to invest more of your character to gain parity, not even an advantage. The rules for TWF need to be updated, and the advantages of 2H weapons might need to be toned down a bit.
unundindur 06-28-07, 06:23 PM	The two last posts gets a piece of heart :inlove:
Vaelan 06-28-07, 09:57 PM	I really fail to see how you can continue to claim that TWF is better, or even nearly equivalent than 2H with the Weapon focus chain for a standard fighter. A Fighter can be made under either method that is capable of single-handedly destroying any reasonable static encounter in a single action. I call that equivalence.
CryoSilver 06-28-07, 10:13 PM	TWFing is good if you have effects that have a bonus per hit, like sneak attack or wounding weapons. Wounding weapons especially. Using 2 weapons is also good for Spell Storing, or Defending.
koiulpoi 06-28-07, 10:33 PM	A Fighter can be made under either method that is capable of single-handedly destroying any reasonable static encounter in a single action. I call that equivalence. If you start at distance, the TWFer can't full attack. My bet is on the THFer. Also, saying that you can "make a build" doesn't mean anything, because most people don't have CO in their blood, and so most builds are not optimized. At all. Pun-Pun uses wizard levels, oh noes let's ban the wizard, a build with it doesn't meet my standard of equivalence. Or, to go the other way, oh noes we'd better bring everything else up, Pun-Pun destroys all other builds in all situations! (Except the Omniscifer. But that's not part of the argument.)
Rhialto 06-29-07, 02:07 AM	I'm surprised no one has noted the real reason that two weapon fighting is relatively weaker. A certain dark elf from a certain made the character concept insanely popular. As a result, everyone wanted to play two weapon wielding dark elf rangers. Ignoring the fact that controlling two pointy sticks is actually quite a lot harder than controlling one (so the extra feats thing is quite justified in itself imho), two weapon fighting was nerfed in order to restore the proper flavour to most campaigns. It should be something seen as exotic, which frankly, it isn't if everyone wants to play as one.
unundindur 06-29-07, 08:08 AM	I'm surprised no one has noted the real reason that two weapon fighting is relatively weaker. A certain dark elf from a certain made the character concept insanely popular. As a result, everyone wanted to play two weapon wielding dark elf rangers. Ignoring the fact that controlling two pointy sticks is actually quite a lot harder than controlling one (so the extra feats thing is quite justified in itself imho), two weapon fighting was nerfed in order to restore the proper flavour to most campaigns. It should be something seen as exotic, which frankly, it isn't if everyone wants to play as one. Well, I doubt that is the reason for it. 3.0-3.5 have quite clearly tried to ignore flavour/realism on the design-level, and dealt strictly with balance (with moderate luck). If your example should hold true there are other issues to be dealt with too. Wizards would be gimped because to many play wizards relative to the population of such in fantasy litterature etc. You do have a point thouhg, which is most clear when looking at the cleric/druid. Those classes are quite easily the most powerful now, and why is this? I can only assume its to get people to play them. Now that I look on my own post I have contradicted myself :embarrass
Vaelan 06-29-07, 09:46 AM	If you start at distance, the TWFer can't full attack. Throwing weapons and Telekinetic Boomerang (Races of the Wild)! Pounce (from Incarnum, Barbarian, Psionics, or Tome of Battle)! Also, saying that you can "make a build" doesn't mean anything, because most people don't have CO in their blood, and so most builds are not optimized. The argument applying to a very specific, small group of characters doesn't make it any less true. I will readily admit that it was meant to be inane and largely inapplicable, though.
Bobson 06-29-07, 12:45 PM	I don't think anyone WANTS TWF to be inferior to 2HWF- especially since it requires feat investment. But the difference in quality is simply there. Well, since it seems no one else is going to try to argue that TWF isn't inferior in the general sense, what are some ideas for fixing it? It ought to be slightly more powerful than 2HF, simply because you have to spend at least one feat to do it effectively (you can dual wield without the feat... there's just no point under most circumstances). Conversely, we can't make it too powerful, because we don't want to make rogues who get off a two-weapon full attack while flanking to become insta-win. In theory, a 20th level TWF rogue's sneak attack adds an average +35 damage per hit, on (currently) seven attacks. Assuming the reverse of the 2H build above (dump everything into dex, except a +6 str item), and a pair of finessable weapons (i.e. 2 d6's) they do 11.5 on main hand attacks and 9.5 on off hand attacks, before sneak, and 46.5/44.5 with it. The 2HF does 35 per hit regardless with his weapon focus feats. Taking miss percentages into account (50% 55% more chance that the rogue will miss), the comparison becomes 52.75 vs. 140 (165.4% better 2HF) 33.525 vs. 140 (317.60% better 2HF). without sneak attack and 175.25 vs. 140 (20.11% worse 2HF) 143.775 vs. 140 (2.63% worse 2HF) with it. That's pretty reasonable. Anything we change shouldn't mess with those numbers too much. That's pretty bad. Without the weapon focus feats, it becomes 48.425 vs. 108 (2HF is 123% better) without sneak, and 207.675 vs. 108 (2HF is 48% worse) with it. These numbers are a bit more reasonable, but not great. It gives more leeway than before, but I'd still be wary of messing with them too much. That being said, here's some numbers and some thoughts. An easy fix is to either remove the stat requirement for TWF feats, or at the least make it STR or DEX. This would let the strength-heavy character dual-wield without needing to invest in dex, which would put total damage at 142.85 vs. 108 (-24.4%) 106.65 vs. 108 (1.27%) (without weapon focus feats) or 114.55 vs. 140 (22.22%) 82.95 vs. 140 (68.78%) (with them). This is pretty reasonable, although still slightly in favor of 2H, because clearly to the advantage of 2HF, and he'd have the feats free to take those weapon focus ones. Conversely, a fighter gets a huge number of feats, so it's perfectly reasonable to assume that a fighter gets all the weapon focus feats and the TWF feats, which bumps damage up to 193.25 vs. 140 (-27.55%) 157.05 vs. 140 (-10.86%). This is pretty close to the same ratio as if neither one took them, meaning the TWF feats simply increase total potential damage, which is good. Please note that all the corrected numbers do not include Oversized TWF or TW Rend, which are perfectly valid ways to boost TWF damage by investing yet more feats into it... And they assume that you have some way of getting the weapon focus chain for both hands' weapons, which could make even a fighter run out of feats... Yet even with those two feats (which together grant an average of 22.5 extra damage to the TWF, and remove the need for two weapon focus chains), the results are 127.85 vs. 108 (-15.53%) starting, 103.55 vs. 140 (35.20%) with unbalanced weapon focus, and 178.25 vs. 140 (-21.46%) with both having it. Better for the TWF, but is it worth the 5 feats needed to get it? Another solution, which wouldn't work all that well on it's own but can be combined with anything else is to reduce the number of feats needed. It's easy to cut TWF down to two feats from three, and then to three from five. Consider this revised list: Two Weapon Fighting: Decrease the penalty for off-hand attacks by 6 (current feat) Improved TWF: You may make a number of offhand attacks during a full attack equal to your attacks with your main hand, to a maximum of three. (replacing ImpTWF and GreatTWF) Dual Strike: Whenever you make a single attack with your main hand weapon, you may also take an attack with your off hand. Precision-based damage does not apply to this attack. You take the standard penalties for dual-wielding for both attacks. (replacing TWPounce and the current Dual Strike, as well as adding the ability to hit with both for attacks of opportunity) Cutting down the number of feats required doesn't affect balance much (only fighters can use those feats to really boost their damage with the weapon spec chain, and they could do that anyway), and lowers the commitment to TWF that other characters have to invest, leaving them free to persue other feat options as well. Something else which was suggested to me basically takes the current mechanics of Dual Strike and expands them. TWF allows you to attack with your off hand weapon and your main hand weapon together. The idea is that if you take TWF and ImpTWF, you can make two attacks with both weapons together (one attack roll, damage from each hand), then the rest of your main hand attacks as normal, without any penalty. So a 20th level fighter's attack routine (with those two feats) would be +18/+13/+10/+5, with doing both hand damage on the first two attacks. I'm not sure how this would affect fighters' damage, but it would really hurt rogues but cutting out sneak attack damage. Any other suggestions? Thoughts?
Vaelan 07-01-07, 04:12 AM	Another solution, which wouldn't work all that well on it's own but can be combined with anything else is to reduce the number of feats needed. To zero. It is not a superior option and thus it does not warrant a superior cost. Eliminate the TWF feats, make off-hand attacks mirror primary hand attacks, and create a new feat or chain of feats that allow you to add precision-based damage to off-hand attacks as TWF becomes a superior choice when precision-based damage comes into play. The normal -2 penalty offsets the greater bonus from non-precision damage bonuses. Precision damage bonuses are often much larger, however, and thus should require some sort of investment to apply twice as often.
runestar 07-01-07, 04:33 AM	Or why not just mesh the 2? Wield a 2 handed weapon, and TWF with armour spikes...:D
Bobson 07-01-07, 12:19 PM	The normal -2 penalty offsets the greater bonus from non-precision damage bonuses. Precision damage bonuses are often much larger, however, and thus should require some sort of investment to apply twice as often.It doesn't offset damage by by all that much. Given two fighters, one with TWF (with the dex requirements removed) and one with a 2H weapon. Without the weapon focus feats, the comparison is 118.55 vs. 108 (-8.9%) 106.65 vs. 108 (1.27%). With them (on both characters), it's 168.95 vs. 140 (-17.14%) 157.05 vs. 140 (-10.86%). That -2 doesn't necessarily hurt all that much on it's own. What does hurt is having to focus on dex as well, and the -2 just compounds that. Or why not just mesh the 2? Wield a 2 handed weapon, and TWF with armour spikes...:D That's just scary. :plotting:
koiulpoi 07-01-07, 12:40 PM	To zero. It is not a superior option and thus it does not warrant a superior cost. Well, that makes a ton of sense to me, but I also think that "Heighten Spell" shouldn't cost a feat - you should just be able to do it.
Tequila_Sunrise 07-01-07, 01:49 PM	Bobson, this is my solution to TWF suckage that I've been dying to playtest: 1. At character creation, you choose between standard TWF rules or the following. 2. Off-hand weapons add full Str to damage. 3. Light weapons gain the full usual benefit of power attack. 4. All TWF penalties are reduced by 2. 5. You cannot deal precision based damage while attacking with two weapons. This includes sneak attack, favored enemy bonuses, skirmish, sudden strike and non-Str derived ability damage. The idea is to make TWF actually worth the feats invested for tank type characters, without making it too good for sneaky types. Effectively, a TWF deals nearly x2 damage, while a THF deals a bit more than x1.5 damage. I haven't DMed for any players who are interested in TWF since I came up with this, so it hasn't been playtested. It may be too good, but I can always edit later if it is.
Bobson 07-01-07, 08:32 PM	2. Off-hand weapons add full Str to damage. ... 4. All TWF penalties are reduced by 2. This could be a really interesting solution, if you don't remove the dex requirement on the TWF feats. By making each point of strength count more, you balance the fact that you have to split between dex and strength, and by removing the penalties, you directly increase average damage. Without changing anything else, these two changes would bring the two 20th level characters I discussed above into effectively equivalent damage (107.55 vs. 108). (Note that this does not take into account the benefits from TW Rend or Oversized TWF)
Tequila_Sunrise 07-01-07, 09:05 PM	This could be a really interesting solution, if you don't remove the dex requirement on the TWF feats. By making each point of strength count more, you balance the fact that you have to split between dex and strength, and by removing the penalties, you directly increase average damage. Without changing anything else, these two changes would bring the two 20th level characters I discussed above into effectively equivalent damage (110 vs. 108). Yeah, I left the Dex requirements as-are. Not because I think it's necessary to keep them the same, but just because I don't like to edit core feats. Anyway, I'm glad you like my ideas and I hope they help out. Oh, and Perfect TWF is a non epic feat in my game, regardless of which TWF mechanic a player chooses.
Vaelan 07-01-07, 11:20 PM	It doesn't offset damage by by all that much. Given two fighters, one with TWF (with the dex requirements removed) and one with a 2H weapon. Without the weapon focus feats, the comparison is 118.55 vs. 108 (-8.9%). With them (on both characters), it's 168.95 vs. 140 (-17.14%). That -2 doesn't necessarily hurt all that much on it's own. What does hurt is having to focus on dex as well, and the -2 just compounds that. Show me the actual math and I'll respond.
Steely_Dan 07-02-07, 04:39 AM	Or why not just mesh the 2? Wield a 2 handed weapon, and TWF with armour spikes...:D And don't forget your buckler and Improved Buckler Defence for the best of all three (THF, TWF and S&B).
Wiseblood 07-02-07, 11:46 AM	If changing the rules to make 2wf better. Make expertise do for the sword and board guys and 2wf guys what power attack does for 2hf guys. 1 for 2. It makes sense to me because the shields application is obvious but it seems to be a recurring theme in RL twf that the "off hand" is there for defense in addition to attacking.
BigJohn42 07-02-07, 12:40 PM	I personally like the following idea: Since Dex is required for TWF, allow the character's dex bonus to help offset the penalties from TWF. This keeps all prerequisites intact, allows the dex cost to be worth something, and should balance out the damage per round by boosting the number of TWF hits. This could be a change to the combat rules, instead of the core feat (meaning anyone gets the dex bonus to offset TWF, instead of just the feat users). If this is seen as too powerful, I would reduce the effectiveness of the TWF feat (+4 when TWF instead of +6), but allow dex to offset the remaining penalty.
Vaelan 07-02-07, 12:49 PM	If changing the rules to make 2wf better. Make expertise do for the sword and board guys and 2wf guys what power attack does for 2hf guys. 1 for 2. That isn't a very good idea. Damage gets bigger bonuses because bonuses to it are less important than bonuses to attack rolls. You can't really make such a judgement for AC and attack bonuses. Also, you really don't want a Combat Expertise-focused character giving himself and an adjacent ally twice their BAB as a bonus to AC. It is bad enough before the doubling.
Bobson 07-04-07, 11:55 AM	Show me the actual math and I'll respond. Sorry, I've plugged all this into a spreadsheet a while back, so I've started taking shortcuts in reporting the numbers. I apparently left the benefit of TW Rend in the final calculation at some point - thanks for making me go find that. Corrected numbers, with derivations below: 30 strength fighter: 18 base, +5 bonus stat points, +6 magic item, +1 manual of strength. +5 weapon. 20 levels of fighter. Total attack is +35. (Assuming no dex requirement on TWF feats) +5 Greatsword, average 7+5 damage, vs. Longsword&Shortsword average 4.5+5 and 3.5+5 damage. Without Weapon Focus feats, the 2HF does an average 27 on each attack, while the TWF (without Oversized TWF or TW Rend) does 18.5 with one hand and 13.5 on the other. (19.5*4 + 13.5*3)=118.5; 118.5-10%=106.65 (27*4)=108 1.27% advantage for 2HF With Weapon focus/spec/greater focus/greater spec/mastery, you gain +4 to attacks and +8 to damage with your chosen weapon. The +4 to attacks doesn't change the relative miss chance at all, because both builds get it. (27.5*4 + 21.5*3)=174.5; 174.5-10%=157.05 (35*4)=140 10.86% advantage for TWF. The existing -2 penalty doesn't offset as much advantage as a few (8) points of non-precision based damage grants. In fact every point of flat bonus damage gives the TWF greater advantage (although with decreasing gains for each point), which is a very logical result. Thus a flat -2 penalty to attack only serves to mitigate some of the advantage of the bonus, without actually offsetting it completely. I'll go back to previous posts and double check those numbers too...
Vaelan 07-05-07, 12:22 AM	I wasn't questioning the accuracy of your numbers, just to be clear. I just want to know what, exactly, we're talking about here. I have two criticisms, both of which are separate. First of all, comparing at level 20 is often misleading. Not only is it an extreme, but it is also an extreme that doesn't see a whole lot of play. Usually you're either stopping at 20 or going Epic. In one situation, level 20 is largely irrelevant. In the other, you're going to see different, Epic-ready builds more often. Second, you included feats that benefit TWF more than THF but you haven't included nigh-iconic feats that benefit THF more, such as Power Attack. One of the main ideas that balance TWF gaining more from static, non-Strength bonuses like Weapon Specialization is that THF has effects that benefit it more, like Power Attack and the Power Attack-enhancing feats.
Bobson 07-05-07, 02:22 PM	I wasn't questioning the accuracy of your numbers, just to be clear. I just want to know what, exactly, we're talking about here.Well I'm glad I thought you were, because otherwise I wouldn't have caught that bug ;) First of all, comparing at level 20 is often misleading. Not only is it an extreme, but it is also an extreme that doesn't see a whole lot of play. Usually you're either stopping at 20 or going Epic. In one situation, level 20 is largely irrelevant. In the other, you're going to see different, Epic-ready builds more often.Very true. I've only been quoting at 20, because that was the last thing that I used in my argument with trapspringer (to counter his claim that "benefits and drawbacks of each will slowly fade away in importance as we move up through the levels"). Really, I'd prefer to be doing it somewhere between 6 and 10, and I can easily change the numbers to calculate for that... but then you need to consider that some level 6 characters don't have a magic weapon at all, and others have a +2, some have stat boosters, some don't... At 20, I can just assume they have whatever I want them to have ;) I'd be happy to number crunch a different assumption, if you tell me what you'd like to see. Also, at levels 16+, 2HF has the advantage of one extra two-hand attack, where TWF doesn't have a corresponding off-hand attack to go with it's extra main hand. Second, you included feats that benefit TWF more than THF but you haven't included nigh-iconic feats that benefit THF more, such as Power Attack. One of the main ideas that balance TWF gaining more from static, non-Strength bonuses like Weapon Specialization is that THF has effects that benefit it more, like Power Attack and the Power Attack-enhancing feats.Power attack doesn't benefit 2HF significantly more than it helps TWF. It only appears so because the 2HF generally has more strength, and the TWF has more dex, so the 2HF can power attack for more without starting to mis wildly... If you have characters with the same strength (either through deliberate nerfing of your character or removing the dex requirement of TWF), then power attack becomes more balanced between the two. Still in favor of 2HF, but not by much. Basically, you take X off your attack roll and add either 7*X or 8*X to damage. Even if X is 20, that's only a difference of 20 damage. Which matters, certainly, but isn't in the same league as the massive difference it would make if the TWF couldn't power attack for the same amount and still be able to hit. As a point of interest, for the 20th level character I've been using (no dex requirement for TWF), without the weapon focus feat chain, the 2HF needs to power attack for 18 (to the TWF's 16 - so they have the same to-hit rate) in order to do the same average damage (252). If you'd prefer for them to power attack for the same number, to maintain the 10% increased miss chance, the point of equivalence comes at 11.68 (so 11 favors THF slightly and 12 favors 2HF slightly). Besides, including Power attack would make the numbers incredably more complicated - I'm already calculating a with-focus/without-focus split for most matchups, I don't even want to think about "with-focus and no power attack", "with focus and power attack for 5" (and why only 5?), "with focus and power attack for full", and the without-focus versions...
Vaelan 07-05-07, 08:10 PM	Basically, you take X off your attack roll and add either 7*X or 8*X to damage. Power Attack's benefits do not apply to light weapons. Most TWF schemes use at least one light weapon and many use two. Yours uses one, so you should be adding it four times, not seven. I'd be happy to number crunch a different assumption, if you tell me what you'd like to see. Your current calculations would be great if you were to add Power Attack, a couple related feats, a specific AC (the Monster Manual suggests CR+13) for Power Attack to work off of, and the implementation of a few ideas presented in this thread, such as simply granting an off-hand attack when you make an attack with your primary hand rather than only on full attacks. I don't really need the math, myself. The fact that, under my system, the two options seem balanced, they end up reasonably close, and calculations are so tiresome that nobody will bother with it and thus perceive a mechanical advantage is enough for me, since it ensures that people will choose what they want without worrying about which is better.
Bobson 07-05-07, 10:40 PM	Power Attack's benefits do not apply to light weapons. Most TWF schemes use at least one light weapon and many use two. Yours uses one, so you should be adding it four times, not seven. You know... in all the years I've played D&D, I've never noticed that. It's never come up, either. But then, I don't play characters who use power attack. I don't really need the math, myself. The fact that, under my system, the two options seem balanced, they end up reasonably close, and calculations are so tiresome that nobody will bother with it and thus perceive a mechanical advantage is enough for me, since it ensures that people will choose what they want without worrying about which is better.I wish I could work that way. I still end up choosing what I want to use, but I then feel like I made a bad choice. :/