Post/Author/DateTime	Post
Phaseroth 05-29-07, 10:21 PM	My DM is severely misinterpreting how the rules work with regard to the Two-Weapon Fighting feat progression. Here's how he's reading it (quoting from the relevant feat first, followed by his interpretation): Two-Weapon Fighting: "You can fight with a weapon in each hand. You can make one extra attack each round with the second weapon." DM Interpretation: Attack goes Primary, off-hand. Me: Okay, that's well and good. Improved Two-Weapon Fighting: "In addition to the standard single extra attack you get with an off-hand weapon, you get a second attack with it..." DM Interpretation: Attack goes Primary, off-hand, off-hand. Me: Um ... what? Greater Two-Weapon Fighting: "You get a third attack with your off-hand weapon ..." DM Interpretation: Attack goes Primary, off-hand, off-hand, off-hand. Me: Now waitaminnit ... You can see where this is going. By my DM's interpretation, a 16th-level two-weapon ranger or fighter is going to have 16 attacks per round! Like so: Primary, off-hand, off-hand, off-hand, p, o, o, o, p, o, o, o, p, o, o, o. In six seconds. :confused: My interpretation (as it was explained to me on these boards a while back): Two-Weapon Fighting: Primary, off-hand. Improved Two-Weapon Fighting: Primary, off-hand, Primary, off-hand. Greater Two-Weapon Fighting: Primary, off-hand, Primary, off-hand, Primary, off-hand And at 16th level (when these classes gain a fourth attack): Primary, off-hand, Primary, off-hand, Primary, off-hand, Primary. For a total of 7 attacks. Now here's my dilemma: How do I, still a relative "noob", explain this error to an experienced DM who has been DMing since the 1970s without coming off as a whiny rules lawyer? This is the second campaign in which he's encouraged a brand-new player to go for the two-weapon style (first campaign it was a ranger, this time it's a fighter), and of course, a brand-new player is going to take the DM's word on these things. The current fighter is having a ball with this, of course, because he doesn't know any better. Also, because of my weird work schedule I'm only able to play sporadically, so I've just rejoined this campaign at 7th level, and I hate to show up out of nowhere and look like a jerk trying to ruin the new player's fun. Sure, the fighter's player is having fun, but by the time he's finished playing lawnmower, there's little left for the other characters to do. In the previous campaign I played in under this DM, it was the ranger. In addition to the ranger's two-weapon feats, he'd also taken Cleave and Great Cleave. The result was that he could leap into a crowd of enemies and literally mow through the entire opposing force in a single turn. Meanwhile, the fighter I was playing (same level as the ranger) could go "Chop. Chop." Assuming the ranger (whose initiative bonus was much better) left anything for me to chop. Somehow, the DM isn't seeing how completely unbalanced this is. Here are the arguments I've thought of so far: #1: DM, you're overlooking two little words in the Two-Weapon Fighting feat description: "each round". The feat allows the off-hand weapon to make 1 attack each round. From there it should follow that Improved Two-Weapon Fighting and Greater Two-Weapon Fighting increase that number to 2 and 3 respectively. Each round, not "each attack". #2: Look at the prerequisites for Improved and Greater. Improved requires a BAB of +6, granting a second off-hand attack when a character gains a second normal attack. Greater requires a BAB of +11, granting a third off-hand attack when a character gains a third normal attack. Seeing as how the extra off-hand attacks only become available when the character gains a normal attack, it follows that each "extra" off-hand attack is tied to each "extra" normal attack. #3: Do you notice that the character is currently making twice as many off-hand attacks as primary-hand attacks? And how by 16th level, he'll be making a full 75% of his attacks with his off-hand weapon? Does that make any sense? #4: Look at how much time it's taking to resolve this one character's attacks every round. Do you think the designers intended to leave the other players twiddling their thumbs that long? #5: Fercryingoutloud! It's freakin' broken! Your interpretation is severely unbalanced! No 7th-level character should be handing out 200 points of damage per round! Any other suggestions? Keep in mind that I want to be as polite as possible, since I want to be invited back to play again ;) Side thoughts: A while back, another player was telling me about how insanely, ridiculously complicated the rules were in 2nd Edition, and how much simpler the 3rd/3.5 Edition rules are (I'm taking his word for it, as I didn't play 2nd Ed.). I'm starting to think that the DM and one or two other players were "ruined" by 2nd Edition, in that now they're looking for (and finding) complications in the 3.5 rules that simply aren't there. For example, when our gnome barbarian (ha!) player is playing, he and the DM are getting all tangled up trying to figure out what the Small character's Attack Bonus should be against a Large monster, and vice versa. I tried to interject that they don't need to calculate it because it's already built into the monster's Size penalty to AC, but I gave up because they weren't listening.
Empiro 05-29-07, 10:26 PM	Your interpretation is correct. If you need examples, point out some NPCs from various books that are rangers or have ITWF.
PwnageLlama 05-29-07, 10:42 PM	Your interpretation is right. Show him this thread.
Phaseroth 05-29-07, 10:58 PM	Thanks - but what I'm actually looking for is the best way to tell him without causing hard feelings, since I'm guessing somebody here has to have been in a similar situation in the past. I've pointed out minor rule issues in the past, and when the DM has looked at the written rule closer he's seen my point. But nothing as major as this. This is going to be a huge nerf to the fighter if I succeed in convincing the DM. I also have nobody else to game with other than this group, so "find a new DM" isn't really an option.
Nived 05-29-07, 11:07 PM	Don't do it durring a game session, have the discussion at another time, preferably one on one. Don't call him out in front of the group. Avoid saying "You're wrong" Say things like "Maybe I'm wrong but looking at this chart it seems that..." and continue with your explaination, much as you presented it above. Avoid being accusitory, and just ask him to go over the rules with you, with the books present. Maybe he'll go "Oh I've been doing this wrong," maybe he'll play off his misunderstanding "oh I was thinking of 3.0" no he wasn't...
BugHunter 05-29-07, 11:34 PM	You are correct. Here is a break down of the attacks with the presumption of the off hand weapon is a light one and 11th level fighter type. BAB 11/6/1 then the -2 for TWF penalty 1st Attack TWF Primary/Off hand would be at +9/+9 2nd Attack ITWF Primary/Off hand would be at +4/+4 3rd Attack GTWF Primary/Off hand would be at -1/-1 These are the base numbers then modify for strength, weapon enhancements, and any other feats (weapon focus, weapon finesse) Page 19 of the FAQ dealing with this. Here is the question with many parts "Can a monk fight with two weapons? Can she combine a two-weapon attack with a flurry of blows? What are her penalties on attack rolls?" The answer is very long since there are many parts. This should help make your point.
calronmoonflower 05-30-07, 03:23 AM	Find a printed NPC with Improved Two-Weapon Fighting and show it to him. Try the Tempest prestige class from the Complete Warrior.
Phaseroth 05-30-07, 04:22 AM	Find a printed NPC with Improved Two-Weapon Fighting and show it to him. Try the Tempest prestige class from the Complete Warrior. Unfortunately, the stat block doesn't break down all of the two-weapon attacks. Nived - Great suggestions. You're right, I don't think I should point it out in front of the group. I don't know if I'll have much chance to talk to him outside of the game, unfortunately. We're both in the same business (hotel/conventions), but with different companies, and it's the peak season right now = lots of work, little free time. I'm thinking that I may be better off talking to the player whose house we're playing at. I used to work with him, and he used to work with the DM, so he knows both of us better than the DM and I know each other. If I can get him to understand what I'm saying — or better yet his wife, who is also a player and has a better brain — then I can let one of them make the point for me. Those two are also considerably more experienced players than I am (and they've been playing with this DM for a long time), so he might take them more seriously than he would take me.
Kouk 05-30-07, 06:10 AM	The 'Rules of the Game' article (oddly titled Two-Handed Fighting) deals with primarily Two Weapon Fighting. It doesn't actually mention Greater and Improved TWF until the third part (and then not much) but it may help to have him read the 3 of them. Here is the excerpt about Improved and Greater with an example: Using the Advanced Two-Weapon Fighting Feats The Improved Two-Weapon Fighting and Greater Two-Weapon Fighting feats allow you extra attacks with your off-hand. Improved Two-Weapon Fighting gets you one extra off-hand attack at a -5 penalty. Greater Two-Weapon Fighting gets you a third extra off-hand attack at a -10 penalty. Here's an example of these two feats in action: Let's assume our buddy Alcantar is now an 11th-level human fighter with a Strength score of 16, and the following feats: Two-Weapon Fighting, Improved Two-Weapon Fighting, Greater Two-Weapon Fighting, Weapon Focus (two-bladed sword), and Weapon Specialization (two-bladed sword). Let's also assume Alcantar has a two-bladed sword with a +2 enhancement bonus at each end. Alcantar has a base attack bonus of +11 and a Strength bonus of +3. If Alcantar chooses to fight with both ends of his two-bladed sword, he takes a -2 penalty for both the primary and off-hand ends. With the full attack action, he'll get three attacks with the primary end thanks to his +11 base attack bonus (+11/+6/+1), plus three with the off-hand end as well (also +11/+6/+1). Thanks to his equipment and feats, the following bonuses and penalties apply to both hands: +3 Strength, +2 enhancement, +1 weapon focus, -2 two-weapon fighting. The table shows the attacks and damage: Attacks and Bonus Damage* Primary hand +15/+10/+5 1d8+7 Off hand +15/+10/+5 1d8+5 *The damage bonuses for the primary end are +3 Strength, +2 enhancement, and +2 weapon specialization. The damage bonuses for the off-hand end are +1 Strength (1/2 of +3), +2 enhancement, and +2 weapon specialization. Links are here: Rules of the Game Archive:http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/arch/rg Part 1:http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/rg/20060829a Part 2:http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/rg/20060905a Part 3:http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/rg/20060912a
baron162 05-30-07, 09:41 AM	The extra Attacks are always Primary only, so +6/+1 means 2 attacks with your Primary Hand. TWF gives you a second attack , but only one. To get the other Offhand attacks you have to get Improved TWF and Greater TWF, which both give you an extra attack at -5 and -10 respectively, similar to the additional Primary attacks. So without the ITWF and GTWF Feats and with a BAB of 11, you would get Attacks: (in parentheses is the penalty to your usual first Melee Attack Bonus) Primary (-2), Offhand(-2), Primary(-7), Primary(-12) The ITWF feat would give you the following Attacks: Primary (-2), Offhand(-2), Primary(-7), Offhand(-7), Primary (-12) And ITWF and GTWF together would give you these attacks: Primary (-2), Offhand(-2), Primary(-7), Offhand(-7), Primary (-12), Offhand (-12) I know, because I'm doing this with my Rogue/Swashbuckler/Invisible Blade/Master Thrower... Good luck convincing your DM from his decades of wrong thinking ;)
Ecalsneerg 05-30-07, 09:53 AM	The very simple explanation is very simple: Primary hand attacks are as much as BAB allows, albeit at the indicated penalty if two weapons are wielded. Two-weapon Fighting Feat allows 1 off-hand attack at BAB minus the penalty. Improved Two Weapon Fighting Feat allows an additional off-hand attack at a -5 penalty Greater Two-weapon Fighting allows an additional off-hand attack (for a total of three) at an extra -5 (total -10) penalty
Selgard 05-30-07, 10:10 AM	Well, imo: explain it to the DM as a suggestion for the next campaign. The DM is teachin the new kid how to play, and is giving him a little break to make life easier. Take the DM to the side, let him know you don't think those are the rules: You might find that he knows it too.
holylink718 05-30-07, 01:47 PM	#5: Fercryingoutloud! It's freakin' broken! Your interpretation is severely unbalanced! No 7th-level character should be handing out 200 points of damage per round! Unless you play in my group. The cleric does about 14 points on every attack, and the barbarian does about 18-20 points on every attack, with lots of criticals, so 200 points (while rediculous at such low levels) is quite common in a round of combat with the cleric and the barbarian together in my group, so I feel your pain. In case you haven't noticed, they love to powergame. I hate it. Anyway, you've got it right. He's wrong, but try to do it like Nived said, "I could be wrong, but..."
jedikuonji 05-30-07, 04:27 PM	I'm with Kouk on this one, have your DM read the Two-handed Fighting articles under the rules of the game on the wizards site. You might consider printing them out for your DM and sitting down to discuss how 2 weapon fighting works. Consider asking the DM to invite the person currently using the feats as well so you all can discuss how to handle the situation.
GeminiDreams 05-30-07, 08:23 PM	Show him the Balor stat block: BALOR Large Outsider (Chaotic, Extraplanar, Evil) Hit Dice: 20d8+200 (290 hp) Initiative: +11 Speed: 40 ft. (8 squares), fly 90 ft. (good) Armor Class: 35 (–1 size, +7 Dex, +19 natural), touch 16, flat-footed 28 Base Attack/Grapple: +20/+36 Attack: +1 vorpal longsword +33 melee (2d6+8/19–20) Full Attack: +1 vorpal longsword +31/+26/+21/+16 melee (2d6+8/19–20) and +1 flaming whip +30/+25 melee (1d4+4 plus 1d6 fire plus entangle); or 2 slams +31 melee (1d10+7) Space/Reach: 10 ft./10 ft. (20 ft. with +1 flaming whip) Special Attacks: Death throes, entangle, spell-like abilities, summon demon, vorpal sword Special Qualities: Damage reduction 15/cold iron and good, darkvision 60 ft., flaming body, immunity to electricity, fire, and poison, resistance to acid 10 and cold 10, spell resistance 28, telepathy 100 ft., true seeing Saves: Fort +22, Ref +19, Will +19 Abilities: Str 35, Dex 25, Con 31, Int 24, Wis 24, Cha 26 Skills: Bluff +31, Concentration +33, Diplomacy +35, Disguise +8 (+10 acting), Hide +26, Intimidate +33, Knowledge (any two) +30, Listen +38, Move Silently +30, Search +30, Sense Motive +30, Spellcraft +30 (+32 scrolls), Spot +38, Survival +7 (+9 following tracks), Use Magic Device +31 (+33 scrolls) Feats: Cleave, Improved Initiative, Improved Two-Weapon Fighting, Power Attack, Quicken Spell-Like Ability (telekinesis), Two-Weapon Fighting, Weapon Focus (longsword) Environment: A chaotic evil-aligned plane Organization: Solitary or troupe (1 balor, 1 marilith, and 2–5 hezrous) Challenge Rating: 20 Treasure: Standard coins; double goods; standard items, plus +1 vorpal greatsword and +1 flaming whip Alignment: Always chaotic evil Advancement: 21–30 HD (Large); 31–60 HD (Huge) Level Adjustment: — "+1 vorpal longsword +31/+26/+21/+16 melee (2d6+8/19–20) and +1 flaming whip +30/+25 melee (1d4+4 plus 1d6 fire plus entangle)" That shows the premise. With Two-Weapon Fighting, the Balor gets 'two' extra attacks with his whip, not... eight (?) as his way would show.
Phaseroth 05-30-07, 08:53 PM	I'm with Kouk on this one, have your DM read the Two-handed Fighting articles under the rules of the game on the wizards site. You might consider printing them out for your DM and sitting down to discuss how 2 weapon fighting works. A-ha! This is exactly the kind of documentation I was looking for - something that spells it out explicitly (though I still wish it included the words "each round" after the "one extra off-hand attack"): (From Two-Handed Fighting Part 3) Using the Advanced Two-Weapon Fighting Feats The Improved Two-Weapon Fighting and Greater Two-Weapon Fighting feats allow you extra attacks with your off-hand. Improved Two-Weapon Fighting gets you one extra off-hand attack at a -5 penalty. Greater Two-Weapon Fighting gets you a third extra off-hand attack at a -10 penalty. Here's an example of these two feats in action: Let's assume our buddy Alcantar is now an 11th-level human fighter with a Strength score of 16, and the following feats: Two-Weapon Fighting, Improved Two-Weapon Fighting, Greater Two-Weapon Fighting, Weapon Focus (two-bladed sword), and Weapon Specialization (two-bladed sword). Let's also assume Alcantar has a two-bladed sword with a +2 enhancement bonus at each end. Alcantar has a base attack bonus of +11 and a Strength bonus of +3. If Alcantar chooses to fight with both ends of his two-bladed sword, he takes a -2 penalty for both the primary and off-hand ends. With the full attack action, he'll get three attacks with the primary end thanks to his +11 base attack bonus (+11/+6/+1), plus three with the off-hand end as well (also +11/+6/+1). Thanks to his equipment and feats, the following bonuses and penalties apply to both hands: +3 Strength, +2 enhancement, +1 weapon focus, -2 two-weapon fighting. The table shows the attacks and damage: Attacks and Bonus Damage* Primary hand +15/+10/+5 1d8+7 Off hand +15/+10/+5 1d8+5 *The damage bonuses for the primary end are +3 Strength, +2 enhancement, and +2 weapon specialization. The damage bonuses for the off-hand end are +1 Strength (1/2 of +3), +2 enhancement, and +2 weapon specialization. Thanks for directing me to those articles :)
Nived 06-04-07, 10:37 AM	Just checking back, any luck man?
Murrdox 06-04-07, 12:42 PM	For example, when our gnome barbarian (ha!) player is playing, he and the DM are getting all tangled up trying to figure out what the Small character's Attack Bonus should be against a Large monster, and vice versa. I tried to interject that they don't need to calculate it because it's already built into the monster's Size penalty to AC, but I gave up because they weren't listening. Ha ha!! This made me laugh. If you don't NOTICE that the AC of everything has its size modifier built right into it, it would take you forever to figure this thing out every time a gnome runs into a Giant. However, if you run around casting Enlarge Person on the gnome, suddenly it DOES get annoying :)
thaylok 06-04-07, 01:22 PM	Also, you can have your DM read the "Rules Of The Game" articles on TWF. They will create a grounding in the fundamentals. My players would love me to mess up a ruling in their favor like that. Just so long as I didn't throw a BBEG in with the same abilities. The Rules of The Game archives are on the main WOTC-DND web site. Edit: I see others also pointed to these articles.
Phaseroth 06-04-07, 02:37 PM	Just checking back, any luck man? Nope, haven't seen the DM or anybody else since the last game session. *checks date* Wow, was it only a week ago? Time drags when you're working, and today will be my 7th day in a row at work, so I have to miss today's session :( I frequently have Mondays off, but not today. So I've entrusted my almost-8th-level wizard to somebody else to run today (gave instructions on what new spells to choose, etc.) I think I'm going to talk to the married couple in the group first, since I know them best. Once I've convinced them, then we can present it to the DM.
Phaseroth 06-22-07, 11:08 PM	Update: Success! It took me a while to get to it — I couldn't make the game on the 4th, and then the DM couldn't make it on the 11th — but on the 18th we got it settled, and the DM saw his error. I based my argument on points #1 and #2 in my original post: #1: DM, you're overlooking two little words in the Two-Weapon Fighting feat description: "each round". The feat allows the off-hand weapon to make 1 attack each round. From there it should follow that Improved Two-Weapon Fighting and Greater Two-Weapon Fighting increase that number to 2 and 3 respectively. Each round, not "each attack". #2: Look at the prerequisites for Improved and Greater. Improved requires a BAB of +6, granting a second off-hand attack when a character gains a second normal attack. Greater requires a BAB of +11, granting a third off-hand attack when a character gains a third normal attack. Seeing as how the extra off-hand attacks only become available when the character gains a normal attack, it follows that each "extra" off-hand attack is tied to each "extra" normal attack. and a little bit of #3: #3: Do you notice that the character is currently making twice as many off-hand attacks as primary-hand attacks? And how by 16th level, he'll be making a full 75% of his attacks with his off-hand weapon? Does that make any sense? It was actually #3 that prompted me to finally speak up, because it fit the in-game situation almost exactly. Yeah, I unfortunately had to bring it up at the table during the game, because it was about to get out of hand. We were fighting ghosts. However, the fighter's brilliant energy weapon, his primary weapon, has no effect on undead. I said, "Might as well drop that one and just fight with your other sword as your primary weapon." The DM said, "No, if he keeps it in his off-hand and attacks normally, he'll get to attack with it twice." And, well, there was my opening. I had already spoken the previous week with the other player who used to work with me and with the DM and let him know my thoughts about the rule misinterpretation, and told him I was worried about being seen as an annoying rules lawyer. But he told me, "Oh, don't worry about that — DM likes it when you point this stuff out." So anyway, I stressed the bit about the words "each round" in the Two-Weapon Fighting feat, and the other two points, and the DM eventually understood what I was saying. Of course, the fighter's player was bummed out about getting nerfed (at this point dropping him from 6 attacks/round to 4 attacks/round), but he accepted it. In any case, his character is a stonechild (from Races of Stone) and has an insane Str bonus, and he's also got a weapon that he really shouldn't have at his character level, so he's still dishing out heaps of damage. So he can't complain too much. And then I was kind of embarrassed as my wizard, Coban Redstick, went on to completely dominate the rest of the encounter with his wand of magic missile (9th level). I had the only "weapon" in the party that could hit and damage the ghosts every time, and I was consistently rolling 17-19 points of damage every time I used it. :D Thanks for the advice :)
poxjedi 06-23-07, 12:08 AM	This reminds me of a Star wars character (see my sig). His greatest assets were four arms, four lightsabers, and a Gamemaster with a very loose grasp on the TWF rules.
BugHunter 06-23-07, 12:59 AM	I'm glad you were able to get everything taken care of and the DM was able to admit there was an error made. Don't were about the wand of magic missles, anyone who plays spellcasters on a regular basis knows that force spells work on almost everything. If I'm playing a spellcaster and you give me a wand of anything useful I will use it down to one charge or use all charges if needed to survive. When you can cast 4th level spells take a look at the Thunderlance in the Spell Compendium page 220.
KnH 06-23-07, 07:59 PM	This sort of reminds me of a couple of "minor" misinterpretations that my DM has. For one thing, hes of the opinion that when two weapon fighting with a double weapon such as a twobladed sword, since your holding the weapon in both hands you get 1.5 × strength damage to both. Now, I may be misinterpreting whats happening, but thats what I understood while looking over the character the DM made up for a new player. The DM was quite pleased with how optimised it was- well of course it is if you change the rules to make it awesome. I can almost see where its coming from, but its still just as wrong. Hasn't really had an impact yet, since the player had to wander off until this September, but its just an example of WTF? He then has improved crit stacking with keen- getting the size of the original crit range extra- so a improved crit keen scimitar is 12-20, ×2. He knows this isn't the rules, but I'm not too worried about this- I even seem to remember Reynolds saying that it should be this way. However, this is where it gets retarded. He thinks if you roll in the crit range its an automatic hit. 12-20 automatic hit? The F? You really might as well get a falchion and full power attack at all times- your probably just as likely to hit, but all your attacks in the round have the same likelihood of hitting. And you get a huge amount of damage on top! Hes even had players play critmonkeys and hitting half the time, but still doesn't see where its silly. Oh well. I really shouldn't rant like this and go off topic. I'm sorry.
souldragon_420 06-23-07, 08:30 PM	Well keen and improved crit did stack in 3.0 so he might just be using that as a hold over something he liked to much to drop. The threat being an auto hit is a little over the top and totally not in the rules for 2nd ed, 3.0, or 3.5. i would assume same is true fro 1st ed but 2nd ed was the defacto and only available version when i was born and for stay so until 3.0 came out when i was like 14 or 15 so cant commend on it. But i do like to think i know my 2nd ed and 3.5 very well as i played them both extensively and own quite allot of material for them both. Yeah I kinda skipped 3.0 as i had been playing 2nd ed for years often with little to no need for tiles squares for battles except for BBEG type battles. So i was a little apprehensive about going to system where i needed them for any and all battles no mater how short or simple. But im way way off topic now so I'll shut up.