TWF-Tree Variant [Archive] - Wizards Community

TWF-Tree Variant [Archive] - Wizards Community

Post/Author/DateTime Post
Sylvaroth
08-01-07, 12:04 PM Two-Weapon Fighting
If you wield a second weapon in your off hand, you can get one extra attack per round with that weapon. You suffer a -6 penalty with your regular attack or attacks with your primary hand and a -10 penalty to the attack with your off hand when you fight this way. You can reduce these penalties in three ways:

If your off-hand weapon is light, the penalties are reduced by 2 each. (An unarmed strike is always considered light.)
The Two-Weapon Fighting feat lessens the primary hand penalty by 2, and the off-hand penalty by 6.
The Greater Two-Weapon Fighting feat further reduces these penalties by 2 each.

Table: Two-Weapon Fighting Penalties summarizes the interaction of all these factors.

Table: Two-Weapon Fighting Penalties

Circumstances Primary Hand Off Hand
Normal penalties -6 -10

Off-hand weapon is light -4 -8

Two-Weapon Fighting feat -4 -4

Off-hand weapon is light and
Two-Weapon Fighting feat -2 -2

Off-hand weapon is light,
Two-Weapon Fighting feat and
Greater Two-Weapon Fighting feat -0 -0

TWO-WEAPON FIGHTING [GENERAL]
You can fight with a weapon in each hand. You can make one extra attack each round with the second weapon.
Prerequisite: Dex 15.
Benefit: Your penalties on attack rolls for fighting with two weapons are reduced. The penalty for your primary hand lessens by 2 and the one for your off-hand lessens by 6. See the Two-Weapon Fighting special attack.
Normal: If you wield a second weapon in your off-hand, you can get one extra attack per round with that weapon. When fighting in this way you suffer a -6 penalty with your regular attack or attacks with your primary hand and a -10 penalty to the attack with your off-hand. If your off-hand weapon is light the penalties are reduced by 2 each. (An unarmed strike is always considered light.)
Special: A 2nd-level ranger who has chosen the two-weapon combat style is treated as having Two-Weapon Fighting, even if he does not have the prerequisite for it, but only when he is wearing light or no armor.
A fighter may select Two-Weapon Fighting as one of his fighter bonus feats.

IMPROVED TWO-WEAPON FIGHTING [GENERAL]
Prerequisites: Dex 17, Two-Weapon Fighting, base attack bonus +6.
Benefit: When wielding two weapons, you receive additional attacks from a high base attack bonus for your primary and your off-hand. See the Two-Weapon Fighting special attack.
Normal: Without this feat, you can only get a single extra attack with an off-hand weapon.
Special: A fighter may select Improved Two-Weapon Fighting as one of his fighter bonus feats.
A 6th-level ranger who has chosen the two-weapon combat style is treated as having Improved Two-Weapon Fighting, even if he does not have the prerequisites for it, but only when he is wearing light or no armor.

BAB Primary Hand Off Hand
+6 +6/ +1 +6/ +1
+11 +11/ +6/ +1 +11/ +6/ +1
+16 +16/+11/ +6/ +1 +16/+11/ +6/ +1

GREATER TWO-WEAPON FIGHTING [GENERAL]
Prerequisites: Dex 19, Improved Two-Weapon Fighting, Two-Weapon Fighting, base attack bonus +11.
Benefit: As a standard action, you can make an attack with each your primary and your off-hand. See the Two-Weapon Fighting special attack.
In addition your penalties on attack rolls for fighting with two weapons are further reduced by 2 each. This bonus stacks with the bonus from Improved Two-Weapon Fighting. See the Two-Weapon Fighting special attack.
Normal: Without this feat, you can only get an extra attack with an off-hand weapon when taking a full attack action.
Special: A fighter may select Greater Two-Weapon Fighting as one of his fighter bonus feats.
An 11th-level ranger who has chosen the two-weapon combat style is treated as having Greater Two-Weapon Fighting, even if he does not have the prerequisites for it, but only when he is wearing light or no armor.
zephyrTR
08-01-07, 02:49 PM overpowered.

I get that you hate that -2 to your attacks, but two weapon fighting (albeit soaking up your feats) gives you DOUBLE the normal amount of attacks. Without some kinda minus, it makes any other kind of melee obsolete. This way we have a system:

dual wield - more attacks, less accuracy
2handers - powerful singular attacks, missing means more
sword n board - low dmg potential but +AC

remove drawbacks from one, and the others become worthless.
Sylvaroth
08-01-07, 03:29 PM It's not, because I hate the penalty. I just want to reduce the crappiness of ITWF and GTWF. IMO it's not that great a benefit worth of burning yet another feat slot, simply to get one additional extra attack. Especially when one looks at the levels those feats can be taken at. Seriously, whats so overpowered about a 20th level fighter with my variants of TWF, ITWF, and GTWF? Excluding other feats or magic items, he'd see an increase in damage output of max 15% starting at level 16 (with a probability above that of a confirmed critical as long as the opponent's AC is below 21). That's not much facing opponents with 400 hp and more.

Now let's compare that to a 2H fighter. Without taking any feats to increase his damage output, the probability that a 2HF will score a successful hit with all of his attacks is at least double that of a TWF.
The average damage output of a 2HF will thus still be higher than that of a TWF who spent 3 feats on his fighting stile. Note that this is true regardless whether you take my variant or the core TWF feats into account.

Thanks for your comment though.
trapspringer
08-02-07, 04:10 PM lookit, this argument's been done over and over. Google it, I'm not having it out again here. It came out lookin' like the two were damn near even with the -2 penalty.

Your variant makes TWF vastly better than any other style. You can't dispute this claim rationally, it simply does. Something is broken if it's always the best choice, and this is always the best choice.
Rustmonster
08-02-07, 04:17 PM overpowered.

I get that you hate that -2 to your attacks, but two weapon fighting (albeit soaking up your feats) gives you DOUBLE the normal amount of attacks. Without some kinda minus, it makes any other kind of melee obsolete. This way we have a system:

dual wield - more attacks, less accuracy
2handers - powerful singular attacks, missing means more
sword n board - low dmg potential but +AC

remove drawbacks from one, and the others become worthless.

It gives you double if you have only one attack, yes. You can take ONE attack with the offhand weapon. Different feats (improved TWF, etc) give more offhand attacks, but the standard TWF gives one, no matter how many iterative attacks you have.
zephyrTR
08-02-07, 04:55 PM It gives you double if you have only one attack, yes. You can take ONE attack with the offhand weapon. Different feats (improved TWF, etc) give more offhand attacks, but the standard TWF gives one, no matter how many iterative attacks you have.

i understand that, i was talking about the TWF tree. I wouldn't be completely opposed to maybe 2 feats giving you equal attacks with your offhand (no matter how many attacks per round you have) and a global -2 attack penalty on all attacks, but TWF with no penalties breaks the triangle i described in my first post, and we don't want that.
Sylvaroth
08-02-07, 10:15 PM Please show me a link to any one thread where the final consensus is that TWF is completely broken or even excessively more powerful than any other fighting style (of which there are more than three btw.)

Again I ask, what's so overpowered?
For example a Ftr11 (TWF, ITWF, GTWF) fights a Tyrannosaur (AC 14). He'd still have at least a 2% (more likely a 10%) chance that all of his six attacks score a hit as opposed to the 40% hit chance of the 2HW fighter (excluding PA).
trapspringer
08-02-07, 11:02 PM No, no. The standard rules are fine. Yours are broken.
Asurya
08-03-07, 05:50 AM trapspringer: The standard rules are fine

are you serious? I understand it's a consensus on these boards that if you have not extra damage source to make it worth (SA, Skirmish, FE) TWF is a just a waste of feat slots.

Seriously, THF need only one feat to be great (PA)... at all time (Charge, AoO, Spring atk), TWF need a feat for each new application (TWPounce, DoubleHit , ...still nothing for two hits in a std action). There is also the problem of DR at higher level: your THF buddy will have little trouble to produce a damage output great enough to actually hit the foe, the TWFer will strike more times but each hit will be reduced... (which is why TWRend was introduced I think, or Decisive Strike for Flurry, which is a particular form of TWF, limited to a defined weapon set)

You also are conveniently ignoring the cost difference between THF & TWF : TWF need to spend twice as much as THF to have the same weapon level.

Besides, there already is some WotC material which does just what you consider overpowered (Tempest PrC).
trapspringer
08-03-07, 12:29 PM That alone is evidence that, as a feat, this is utterly broken.

Frenzied berserker does some stuff, too, but there's no way in hell I'd let a player take a feat to duplicate the special abilities of that prestige class.
Sylvaroth
08-03-07, 01:24 PM So just because YOU would allow or disallow several things if your players asked you for it makes YOU the eminent authority with the final truth?

You might have missed that part, but there are some (core) feats out there which do just that, they emulate class features. What's the problem with that?

Make some valid arguments or leave please, I can't stand comments which dismiss new things just because they are new.

New examples including feats, magic items and weapons:

2HW fighter
PA 20
BAB +20,
Str mod +5,
belt of giant strength +6,
+4 greataxe

Will do 244 to 288 hp worth of damage on a full-attack against AC 10, if all 4 attacks hit.

TWF fighter
EWP (bastard sword), TWF, ITWF, GTWF
BAB +20,
Str mod +5,
belt of giant strength +6,
2x +4 longswords

Will do 104 to 160 hp worth of damage on a full-attack against AC 10, if all 8 attacks hit.

Well now I see it, my version makes the TWF fighter completely overpowered :rolleyes:
Especially, if the TWF fighter took yet another feat (EWP) to use a dire flail for trips and disarms or if he was a rogue (who would never get more than 6 attacks, even if you used my variants) in which case he'd do an average 308 hp worth of damage as opposed to the 384 of the 2HW rogue. WOW!
eamon
08-03-07, 04:20 PM Well, I just ran the numbers, and even without power attack, at level 11 (which to me is interesting because I don't play at level 20... like ever)

with an effective str of 22 (i.e. +6 mod)
with +11 bab
with +3 to hit because WF and Melee weapon mastery
with +4 damage because Wp.Spec and Melee Weapon Mastery

With 32k spent on a +1 Flaming, Shocking, frost Greatsword for the 2handed variant
With 36k spent on two short swords, +1 Flaming Shocking

At high AC's Two handed is better, and at low AC's TWF is better - where the crossover point is at AC27/28. And of course, at all AC's if you can only make a standard action, two handed fighting is better. If you allow less feats such as WF or Wp.Spec or Melee Weapon Mastery, or if you use less damage enhancing bonuses on the weapons, the advantage is even more towards THF.

And when does balance really matter? when you're fighting that nasty boss with high AC. that's where the two handed dude even without power attack (and thus with three less feats) has the advantage. If I give the thf three feats the TWF doesn't get... oh boy...

The Normal TWF rules are hopelessly underpowered for normal fighters. Nobody uses em in their right mind. Oh and you need to have 19 Dex and three extra feats to even achieve this... WHEEEE
trapspringer
08-03-07, 04:22 PM ...

Yea, that totally addresses every nuance of the issue :rolleyes:.
Sylvaroth
08-03-07, 07:25 PM I am wondering whether you are just trolling or do you really have to say anything of importance?

It's not that I don't want to admit you may be right, but until now you just utterly fail to make a valid point.

I have the strong impression you mix up your opinions with hard fact. As I said before, if you cannot contribute just leave.

The Normal TWF rules are hopelessly underpowered for normal fighters. Nobody uses em in their right mind. Oh and you need to have 19 Dex and three extra feats to even achieve this... WHEEEE
That's exactly what I mean. With three feats, a high BAB requirement and an even higher Dex requirement TWF should be better than 2HW fighting. Else you could make TWF into yet another special action that gets better the more dexterous you become and the higher your skill as a fighter you becomes.
trapspringer
08-03-07, 09:27 PM So just because YOU would have me leave makes YOU the eminent authority on who should stay or go?

C'mon! At the very least don't step on your own blasted toes when you try to be condescending and insulting.

The reason I haven't said anything "of value" (at least based on your apparently "eminently authoritative" assessment of the situation) has little to do with me and a lot to do with you. On a related note, you better slow down on your reading. TWF is in no way more powerful than 2hf. Point to where I said that. Go 'head.

Although, I will say that for some characters it is a vastly better choice, and that's true for no small number of builds, either. Characters with precision-based damage, characters who don't start out with a +1 BAB, low level characters, thrown weapon specialists, low strength characters, and the numerous characters with special abilities designed around TWF are just some of the instances where TWF is already a vastly better choice than 2hf.

Have you considered that by fixing this alleged problem for front-line melee types, you are generating the inverse problem for everyone else?
eamon
08-04-07, 02:17 AM Let's stay friendly folks! I'm sure the OP just wanted to fix TWF's weakness for melee fighter-types, and any problems wrt. say rogues were unintentional. So maybe you could illustrate a particularly bad case so that it could be fixed? For instance, You could require WF+WS for your primary hand to allow ITWF's benefits, and WF+WS in both hands to allow GTWF's benefits, say, to make it more feat heavy and less attractive for a rogue - would that help a little?
Ninetails Demon
08-04-07, 04:02 AM Check out this relevant thread (http://boards1.wizards.com/showthread.php?t=879400).
Fafnir
08-04-07, 10:06 AM Looks good. You'd need to playtest it to be sure, or run it to the CharOp boards to see if they manage to break it, but from here it looks fine.

Also, do not feed the trolls.;)
Sylvaroth
08-04-07, 02:53 PM Looks good. You'd need to playtest it to be sure, or run it to the CharOp boards to see if they manage to break it, but from here it looks fine.
Thanks for the kind words. I probably will as soon as I have included another idea that does not let me out of its grasp:
Manyshot-like multiple standard action attacks.

I think the strange thing about TWF in general are the strange penalties and the reduction of the same. IMO the Manyshot-tree runs a little smoother in this regard. I am still working to fuse those two trees, but feel free to comment and speculate.
eamon's comment on WF and WS will most likely be integrated as prerequisite for ITWF and GTWF or whatever will be the final name of those feats.

Also, do not feed the trolls.;)
A very productive troll, if you looked at his/her posts-per-day quota :D
unundindur
08-05-07, 09:10 AM overpowered.

I get that you hate that -2 to your attacks, but two weapon fighting (albeit soaking up your feats) gives you DOUBLE the normal amount of attacks. Without some kinda minus, it makes any other kind of melee obsolete. This way we have a system:

dual wield - more attacks, less accuracy
2handers - powerful singular attacks, missing means more
sword n board - low dmg potential but +AC

remove drawbacks from one, and the others become worthless.

No.

THF is great out of the box, no investment needed.
S&B is good out of hte box, no investment needed.
Dual wielding is horrible out of the box (as it should be to represent the rarity) BUT it only gets equal to the other two methods by spending 4 feats on it (perfect twf).

Those four feats are again feats the other combatants can spend to gain an advantage. All in all this implies that twf will always be disadvantageous unless each twf feat is much better than a regular feat, close to two feats in worth, which it is absolutely not now.

This again leads to a more fundamental problem. An intelligent character (not player) would never train in two weapon fighting as he/she would know it for an inferior style, and still two weapon fighting is a typical high intelligence/dexterity concept.

It doesn't make sense, and I have fixed mine to improve TWF dramatically.

In my games twf grant an extra attack with the off hand anytime you would attack with your main hand, but all attacks suffer a -2 penalty. If one of your weapons are not light the penalty is increased to -4, and if neither are light its -6.

Furthermore since rogues are quite efficient under the current system I have to penalize them under my own, and thus only the first attack with either hand can deal sneak attack damage.

Thats really it, in one feat. Should suddenly make it a viable choice for bards and fighters.
Sylvaroth
08-05-07, 09:57 AM Perfect, there is sit trying to figure out how to convert the Rapid Shot/Manyshot mechanics into TWF, only to be ninjaed by unundindur. :D
unundindur
08-05-07, 10:51 AM No, no. The standard rules are fine. Yours are broken.

Well, you are the one who should back up your claims. As of now you have said that he is wrong and you are right without any backing. You can base your backing in my post above if you want, cause there I have rather clearly stated why I find it horrible as it is.

Post/Author/DateTime	Post
Sylvaroth 08-01-07, 12:04 PM	Two-Weapon Fighting If you wield a second weapon in your off hand, you can get one extra attack per round with that weapon. You suffer a -6 penalty with your regular attack or attacks with your primary hand and a -10 penalty to the attack with your off hand when you fight this way. You can reduce these penalties in three ways: If your off-hand weapon is light, the penalties are reduced by 2 each. (An unarmed strike is always considered light.) The Two-Weapon Fighting feat lessens the primary hand penalty by 2, and the off-hand penalty by 6. The Greater Two-Weapon Fighting feat further reduces these penalties by 2 each. Table: Two-Weapon Fighting Penalties summarizes the interaction of all these factors. Table: Two-Weapon Fighting Penalties Circumstances Primary Hand Off Hand Normal penalties -6 -10 Off-hand weapon is light -4 -8 Two-Weapon Fighting feat -4 -4 Off-hand weapon is light and Two-Weapon Fighting feat -2 -2 Off-hand weapon is light, Two-Weapon Fighting feat and Greater Two-Weapon Fighting feat -0 -0 TWO-WEAPON FIGHTING [GENERAL] You can fight with a weapon in each hand. You can make one extra attack each round with the second weapon. Prerequisite: Dex 15. Benefit: Your penalties on attack rolls for fighting with two weapons are reduced. The penalty for your primary hand lessens by 2 and the one for your off-hand lessens by 6. See the Two-Weapon Fighting special attack. Normal: If you wield a second weapon in your off-hand, you can get one extra attack per round with that weapon. When fighting in this way you suffer a -6 penalty with your regular attack or attacks with your primary hand and a -10 penalty to the attack with your off-hand. If your off-hand weapon is light the penalties are reduced by 2 each. (An unarmed strike is always considered light.) Special: A 2nd-level ranger who has chosen the two-weapon combat style is treated as having Two-Weapon Fighting, even if he does not have the prerequisite for it, but only when he is wearing light or no armor. A fighter may select Two-Weapon Fighting as one of his fighter bonus feats. IMPROVED TWO-WEAPON FIGHTING [GENERAL] Prerequisites: Dex 17, Two-Weapon Fighting, base attack bonus +6. Benefit: When wielding two weapons, you receive additional attacks from a high base attack bonus for your primary and your off-hand. See the Two-Weapon Fighting special attack. Normal: Without this feat, you can only get a single extra attack with an off-hand weapon. Special: A fighter may select Improved Two-Weapon Fighting as one of his fighter bonus feats. A 6th-level ranger who has chosen the two-weapon combat style is treated as having Improved Two-Weapon Fighting, even if he does not have the prerequisites for it, but only when he is wearing light or no armor. BAB Primary Hand Off Hand +6 +6/ +1 +6/ +1 +11 +11/ +6/ +1 +11/ +6/ +1 +16 +16/+11/ +6/ +1 +16/+11/ +6/ +1 GREATER TWO-WEAPON FIGHTING [GENERAL] Prerequisites: Dex 19, Improved Two-Weapon Fighting, Two-Weapon Fighting, base attack bonus +11. Benefit: As a standard action, you can make an attack with each your primary and your off-hand. See the Two-Weapon Fighting special attack. In addition your penalties on attack rolls for fighting with two weapons are further reduced by 2 each. This bonus stacks with the bonus from Improved Two-Weapon Fighting. See the Two-Weapon Fighting special attack. Normal: Without this feat, you can only get an extra attack with an off-hand weapon when taking a full attack action. Special: A fighter may select Greater Two-Weapon Fighting as one of his fighter bonus feats. An 11th-level ranger who has chosen the two-weapon combat style is treated as having Greater Two-Weapon Fighting, even if he does not have the prerequisites for it, but only when he is wearing light or no armor.
zephyrTR 08-01-07, 02:49 PM	overpowered. I get that you hate that -2 to your attacks, but two weapon fighting (albeit soaking up your feats) gives you DOUBLE the normal amount of attacks. Without some kinda minus, it makes any other kind of melee obsolete. This way we have a system: dual wield - more attacks, less accuracy 2handers - powerful singular attacks, missing means more sword n board - low dmg potential but +AC remove drawbacks from one, and the others become worthless.
Sylvaroth 08-01-07, 03:29 PM	It's not, because I hate the penalty. I just want to reduce the crappiness of ITWF and GTWF. IMO it's not that great a benefit worth of burning yet another feat slot, simply to get one additional extra attack. Especially when one looks at the levels those feats can be taken at. Seriously, whats so overpowered about a 20th level fighter with my variants of TWF, ITWF, and GTWF? Excluding other feats or magic items, he'd see an increase in damage output of max 15% starting at level 16 (with a probability above that of a confirmed critical as long as the opponent's AC is below 21). That's not much facing opponents with 400 hp and more. Now let's compare that to a 2H fighter. Without taking any feats to increase his damage output, the probability that a 2HF will score a successful hit with all of his attacks is at least double that of a TWF. The average damage output of a 2HF will thus still be higher than that of a TWF who spent 3 feats on his fighting stile. Note that this is true regardless whether you take my variant or the core TWF feats into account. Thanks for your comment though.
trapspringer 08-02-07, 04:10 PM	lookit, this argument's been done over and over. Google it, I'm not having it out again here. It came out lookin' like the two were damn near even with the -2 penalty. Your variant makes TWF vastly better than any other style. You can't dispute this claim rationally, it simply does. Something is broken if it's always the best choice, and this is always the best choice.
Rustmonster 08-02-07, 04:17 PM	overpowered. I get that you hate that -2 to your attacks, but two weapon fighting (albeit soaking up your feats) gives you DOUBLE the normal amount of attacks. Without some kinda minus, it makes any other kind of melee obsolete. This way we have a system: dual wield - more attacks, less accuracy 2handers - powerful singular attacks, missing means more sword n board - low dmg potential but +AC remove drawbacks from one, and the others become worthless. It gives you double if you have only one attack, yes. You can take ONE attack with the offhand weapon. Different feats (improved TWF, etc) give more offhand attacks, but the standard TWF gives one, no matter how many iterative attacks you have.
zephyrTR 08-02-07, 04:55 PM	It gives you double if you have only one attack, yes. You can take ONE attack with the offhand weapon. Different feats (improved TWF, etc) give more offhand attacks, but the standard TWF gives one, no matter how many iterative attacks you have. i understand that, i was talking about the TWF tree. I wouldn't be completely opposed to maybe 2 feats giving you equal attacks with your offhand (no matter how many attacks per round you have) and a global -2 attack penalty on all attacks, but TWF with no penalties breaks the triangle i described in my first post, and we don't want that.
Sylvaroth 08-02-07, 10:15 PM	Please show me a link to any one thread where the final consensus is that TWF is completely broken or even excessively more powerful than any other fighting style (of which there are more than three btw.) Again I ask, what's so overpowered? For example a Ftr11 (TWF, ITWF, GTWF) fights a Tyrannosaur (AC 14). He'd still have at least a 2% (more likely a 10%) chance that all of his six attacks score a hit as opposed to the 40% hit chance of the 2HW fighter (excluding PA).
trapspringer 08-02-07, 11:02 PM	No, no. The standard rules are fine. Yours are broken.
Asurya 08-03-07, 05:50 AM	trapspringer: The standard rules are fine are you serious? I understand it's a consensus on these boards that if you have not extra damage source to make it worth (SA, Skirmish, FE) TWF is a just a waste of feat slots. Seriously, THF need only one feat to be great (PA)... at all time (Charge, AoO, Spring atk), TWF need a feat for each new application (TWPounce, DoubleHit , ...still nothing for two hits in a std action). There is also the problem of DR at higher level: your THF buddy will have little trouble to produce a damage output great enough to actually hit the foe, the TWFer will strike more times but each hit will be reduced... (which is why TWRend was introduced I think, or Decisive Strike for Flurry, which is a particular form of TWF, limited to a defined weapon set) You also are conveniently ignoring the cost difference between THF & TWF : TWF need to spend twice as much as THF to have the same weapon level. Besides, there already is some WotC material which does just what you consider overpowered (Tempest PrC).
trapspringer 08-03-07, 12:29 PM	That alone is evidence that, as a feat, this is utterly broken. Frenzied berserker does some stuff, too, but there's no way in hell I'd let a player take a feat to duplicate the special abilities of that prestige class.
Sylvaroth 08-03-07, 01:24 PM	So just because YOU would allow or disallow several things if your players asked you for it makes YOU the eminent authority with the final truth? You might have missed that part, but there are some (core) feats out there which do just that, they emulate class features. What's the problem with that? Make some valid arguments or leave please, I can't stand comments which dismiss new things just because they are new. New examples including feats, magic items and weapons: 2HW fighter PA 20 BAB +20, Str mod +5, belt of giant strength +6, +4 greataxe Will do 244 to 288 hp worth of damage on a full-attack against AC 10, if all 4 attacks hit. TWF fighter EWP (bastard sword), TWF, ITWF, GTWF BAB +20, Str mod +5, belt of giant strength +6, 2x +4 longswords Will do 104 to 160 hp worth of damage on a full-attack against AC 10, if all 8 attacks hit. Well now I see it, my version makes the TWF fighter completely overpowered :rolleyes: Especially, if the TWF fighter took yet another feat (EWP) to use a dire flail for trips and disarms or if he was a rogue (who would never get more than 6 attacks, even if you used my variants) in which case he'd do an average 308 hp worth of damage as opposed to the 384 of the 2HW rogue. WOW!
eamon 08-03-07, 04:20 PM	Well, I just ran the numbers, and even without power attack, at level 11 (which to me is interesting because I don't play at level 20... like ever) with an effective str of 22 (i.e. +6 mod) with +11 bab with +3 to hit because WF and Melee weapon mastery with +4 damage because Wp.Spec and Melee Weapon Mastery With 32k spent on a +1 Flaming, Shocking, frost Greatsword for the 2handed variant With 36k spent on two short swords, +1 Flaming Shocking At high AC's Two handed is better, and at low AC's TWF is better - where the crossover point is at AC27/28. And of course, at all AC's if you can only make a standard action, two handed fighting is better. If you allow less feats such as WF or Wp.Spec or Melee Weapon Mastery, or if you use less damage enhancing bonuses on the weapons, the advantage is even more towards THF. And when does balance really matter? when you're fighting that nasty boss with high AC. that's where the two handed dude even without power attack (and thus with three less feats) has the advantage. If I give the thf three feats the TWF doesn't get... oh boy... The Normal TWF rules are hopelessly underpowered for normal fighters. Nobody uses em in their right mind. Oh and you need to have 19 Dex and three extra feats to even achieve this... WHEEEE
trapspringer 08-03-07, 04:22 PM	... Yea, that totally addresses every nuance of the issue :rolleyes:.
Sylvaroth 08-03-07, 07:25 PM	I am wondering whether you are just trolling or do you really have to say anything of importance? It's not that I don't want to admit you may be right, but until now you just utterly fail to make a valid point. I have the strong impression you mix up your opinions with hard fact. As I said before, if you cannot contribute just leave. The Normal TWF rules are hopelessly underpowered for normal fighters. Nobody uses em in their right mind. Oh and you need to have 19 Dex and three extra feats to even achieve this... WHEEEE That's exactly what I mean. With three feats, a high BAB requirement and an even higher Dex requirement TWF should be better than 2HW fighting. Else you could make TWF into yet another special action that gets better the more dexterous you become and the higher your skill as a fighter you becomes.
trapspringer 08-03-07, 09:27 PM	So just because YOU would have me leave makes YOU the eminent authority on who should stay or go? C'mon! At the very least don't step on your own blasted toes when you try to be condescending and insulting. The reason I haven't said anything "of value" (at least based on your apparently "eminently authoritative" assessment of the situation) has little to do with me and a lot to do with you. On a related note, you better slow down on your reading. TWF is in no way more powerful than 2hf. Point to where I said that. Go 'head. Although, I will say that for some characters it is a vastly better choice, and that's true for no small number of builds, either. Characters with precision-based damage, characters who don't start out with a +1 BAB, low level characters, thrown weapon specialists, low strength characters, and the numerous characters with special abilities designed around TWF are just some of the instances where TWF is already a vastly better choice than 2hf. Have you considered that by fixing this alleged problem for front-line melee types, you are generating the inverse problem for everyone else?
eamon 08-04-07, 02:17 AM	Let's stay friendly folks! I'm sure the OP just wanted to fix TWF's weakness for melee fighter-types, and any problems wrt. say rogues were unintentional. So maybe you could illustrate a particularly bad case so that it could be fixed? For instance, You could require WF+WS for your primary hand to allow ITWF's benefits, and WF+WS in both hands to allow GTWF's benefits, say, to make it more feat heavy and less attractive for a rogue - would that help a little?
Ninetails Demon 08-04-07, 04:02 AM	Check out this relevant thread (http://boards1.wizards.com/showthread.php?t=879400).
Fafnir 08-04-07, 10:06 AM	Looks good. You'd need to playtest it to be sure, or run it to the CharOp boards to see if they manage to break it, but from here it looks fine. Also, do not feed the trolls.;)
Sylvaroth 08-04-07, 02:53 PM	Looks good. You'd need to playtest it to be sure, or run it to the CharOp boards to see if they manage to break it, but from here it looks fine. Thanks for the kind words. I probably will as soon as I have included another idea that does not let me out of its grasp: Manyshot-like multiple standard action attacks. I think the strange thing about TWF in general are the strange penalties and the reduction of the same. IMO the Manyshot-tree runs a little smoother in this regard. I am still working to fuse those two trees, but feel free to comment and speculate. eamon's comment on WF and WS will most likely be integrated as prerequisite for ITWF and GTWF or whatever will be the final name of those feats. Also, do not feed the trolls.;) A very productive troll, if you looked at his/her posts-per-day quota :D
unundindur 08-05-07, 09:10 AM	overpowered. I get that you hate that -2 to your attacks, but two weapon fighting (albeit soaking up your feats) gives you DOUBLE the normal amount of attacks. Without some kinda minus, it makes any other kind of melee obsolete. This way we have a system: dual wield - more attacks, less accuracy 2handers - powerful singular attacks, missing means more sword n board - low dmg potential but +AC remove drawbacks from one, and the others become worthless. No. THF is great out of the box, no investment needed. S&B is good out of hte box, no investment needed. Dual wielding is horrible out of the box (as it should be to represent the rarity) BUT it only gets equal to the other two methods by spending 4 feats on it (perfect twf). Those four feats are again feats the other combatants can spend to gain an advantage. All in all this implies that twf will always be disadvantageous unless each twf feat is much better than a regular feat, close to two feats in worth, which it is absolutely not now. This again leads to a more fundamental problem. An intelligent character (not player) would never train in two weapon fighting as he/she would know it for an inferior style, and still two weapon fighting is a typical high intelligence/dexterity concept. It doesn't make sense, and I have fixed mine to improve TWF dramatically. In my games twf grant an extra attack with the off hand anytime you would attack with your main hand, but all attacks suffer a -2 penalty. If one of your weapons are not light the penalty is increased to -4, and if neither are light its -6. Furthermore since rogues are quite efficient under the current system I have to penalize them under my own, and thus only the first attack with either hand can deal sneak attack damage. Thats really it, in one feat. Should suddenly make it a viable choice for bards and fighters.
Sylvaroth 08-05-07, 09:57 AM	Perfect, there is sit trying to figure out how to convert the Rapid Shot/Manyshot mechanics into TWF, only to be ninjaed by unundindur. :D
unundindur 08-05-07, 10:51 AM	No, no. The standard rules are fine. Yours are broken. Well, you are the one who should back up your claims. As of now you have said that he is wrong and you are right without any backing. You can base your backing in my post above if you want, cause there I have rather clearly stated why I find it horrible as it is.