Hello everyone,
I'm thinking of doing away with the Double Slice feat because I feel like it is an unnecessary feat tax in a mechanic that is already quite difficult make effective (not impossible, but difficult, I have read many guides on the subject).
I love the idea of two weapon fighting but I think it is too heavily restricted with all of the feats that are necessary and discourages str builds from taking them. Two handers are all ready really effective and the style doesn't cost as much in feats, I just think two weapons need a little love too.
I'm ok with the dex requirements, but only being able to drop half of your str. in your off hand is a discouraging tax, when you can only weird an off hand weapon in it in the first place.
So in conclusion I'm thinking of A) allowing players to add there full str. to off hand weapons, and B) loose the Double Slice feat and not worry about it being required as prerequisites in other feats like two weapon rend.
Thoughts, comments, cares, or concerns?
One option is if you love the idea of two weapon fighting, but think the mechanics are bad, is to basically just apply the two-handed weapon attack rules the two weapon fighting idea.
Basically, you have one roll to hit, you do str*1.5 damage plus the base damage of the two weapons on a hit (so rapier and dagger would do 1d6 + 1d4) power attack works as though two-handed etc. etc.
I don't know if this satisfies what you are trying to accomplish, but if the main concern is to allow the 'idea' of two-weapon fighting and making it work as well as two-handed fighting, this seems the simplest solution.
|
i don't really think anyone is going to argue with you with dropping a feat tax
I am. By middling levels TWF is the most powerful style if you know what your doing - and if you're smart you have the defense of sword & board. It should have costs.
another option is allow the deadly agility feat which makes twf all dex based and that has double slice built into it.
If you like bringing in OP 3rd party stuff. (And before I'm straw-manned. I said OP - not game-breaking.)
Dave: your idea is interesting, I never thought of that, I'm a little confused on how it would work, could you give me a more detailed explanation?
I do use third party content with heavy review first, and i allow deadly agility. I like dex to damage builds and so does my group. One of my players was interested in doing TWF but did not want to do a dex based build. He's a barbarian so the feat tax is high for a strength build.
Charon: I'm not here to bash opposing ideas, I appreciate your opinion. in your experience when did it start to get out of hand for you in your games?
One option is if you love the idea of two weapon fighting, but think the mechanics are bad, is to basically just apply the two-handed weapon attack rules the two weapon fighting idea.
Basically, you have one roll to hit, you do str*1.5 damage plus the base damage of the two weapons on a hit (so rapier and dagger would do 1d6 + 1d4) power attack works as though two-handed etc. etc.
I don't know if this satisfies what you are trying to accomplish, but if the main concern is to allow the 'idea' of two-weapon fighting and making it work as well as two-handed fighting, this seems the simplest solution.
So if you have, say, a Ranger who two-hands a Falchion and a Ranger that TWF's with Kukris, both with 18 strength, they'd both do 2d4+9 with Power Attack? I don't think making the mechanics of the two styles basically identical is a good idea; TWF'ing is pretty good in its own way, it's just that it's even more limited by not being able to full attack than a regular two-handed build that is the problem.
Basically you allow someone who has two weapons in hand to make a single attack roll as though they were fighting with a two-handed weapon, but changing the base weapon damage to being the damage of the two individual weapons combined.
So an attack with a greatsword is 2d6 + str*1.5 + 2 handed power attack ext.
An attack with two short swords is 2d6 + str*1.5 + 2 handed power attack etc.
Exactly the same thing. It pretty well balances out perfectly.
You would have to decide on how to deal with damage reduction and weapon enhancements, I would probably say that only one can apply (making it again, exactly the same) and then allow the character specify which weapon was the primary, and thus got to add its bonuses which would be a minor advantage (giving a fairly easy way to bypass damage reduction) but I don't think it would be very broken (if you wanted to make it exactly the same, 'draw a weapon' action to change which was your primary weapon, basically altering your stance etc).
Obviously, this would be sub-par for characters who want to make multiple attacks to deliver things like sneak attack, but I think the regular two-weapon rules cover those situations just fine, and this would be an alternate way, not removing the original two-weapon rules.
So if you have, say, a Ranger who two-hands a Falchion and a Ranger that TWF's with Kukris, both with 18 strength, they'd both do 2d4+9 with Power Attack? I don't think making the mechanics of the two styles basically identical is a good idea; TWF'ing is pretty good in its own way, it's just that it's even more limited by not being able to full attack than a regular two-handed build that is the problem.One option is if you love the idea of two weapon fighting, but think the mechanics are bad, is to basically just apply the two-handed weapon attack rules the two weapon fighting idea.
Basically, you have one roll to hit, you do str*1.5 damage plus the base damage of the two weapons on a hit (so rapier and dagger would do 1d6 + 1d4) power attack works as though two-handed etc. etc.
I don't know if this satisfies what you are trying to accomplish, but if the main concern is to allow the 'idea' of two-weapon fighting and making it work as well as two-handed fighting, this seems the simplest solution.
I suggest you don't use this method then.
See, problem solved.
It is an answer for someone who want the theme of a 2-kukri weilding guy but thinks the two-handed mechanics are superior and doesn't want to be penalized for their thematic choice. If that person isn't you, then the solution doesn't apply.
Hmm, if your version is done without the feat and then the "extra attacks" version of TWF'ing can be feated into that would be fine I think. I'd probably use your version for a Brawler Fighter using cesti but would want to feat into old school TWF'ing for a crit fisher Slayer.
Thanks Dave,
This method warrants exploration, and I think I will play around with this method in either a new campaign or explain it to my barbarian player see what he thinks.
Maybe even make it a feat and call it, Dual Weapon Strike. Still thanks
|
|
Charon: I'm not here to bash opposing ideas, I appreciate your opinion. in your experience when did it start to get out of hand for you in your games?
If you already allow Deadly Agility - you might as well give Double Slice for free. Even with it strength builds will be somewhat sub-par in comparison to dex builds.
As to your question - TWF builds can get nuts about 8-12ish when the feat cost isn't such a big % and static bonuses start to stack up. (depends upon the class) Especially if the player was smart enough to dual wield heavy shields to actually get slightly better defenses than the classic sword & board.
Thanks Dave,
This method warrants exploration, and I think I will play around with this method in either a new campaign or explain it to my barbarian player see what he thinks.
Maybe even make it a feat and call it, Dual Weapon Strike. Still thanks
I would strongly recommend against making Dave's version a feat, since it offers no special advantage over going two-handed. TWF is worth extra feats because of the additional chances to crit (whether the exact number of feats is too many is up for debate).
I'd probably make it like this
No feats: as Dave explained
TWF feat: First attack as Dave explained, second attack at -2 penalty
ITWF feat: third attack at -6 penalty
GTWF feat: fourth attack at -10 penalty