I've always been a fan of the idea of scaling feats--feats that improve as you level up so that they remain useful throughout your career. For instance, take any skill-boosting feat. At level 1, it's handy (kind of). At level 20, it just doesn't matter in the least. I think that all feats should scale. Allow me to give a few samples:
Dodge
You gain a +1 dodge bonus to AC. This bonus improves by +1 for every five levels that you have.
Skill Focus
You get a +5 bonus to any one skill. This bonus improves by +1 for every two levels that you have.
Athletic
You get a +2 bonus on Athletics and Climb checks. This bonus improves by +1 for every three levels that you have.
If I were to redo D&D from the ground up, I'd prpbably design most feats like expensive skills, maybe like:
Dodge
Prerequisite: BAB +1, +4 for each additional rank in Dodge (+5 for 2 ranks, +9 for 3, etc.).
Benefit: For each rank in Dodge, you gain a +1 dodge bonus to AC.
Skill Focus
Prerequisite: 1 rank in base skill per rank in Skill Focus.
Benefit: For each rank in Skill Focus, you gain a +1 bonus on checks involving that skill.
For lack of backward compatibility, I probably wouldn't advise this for the Pathfinder RPG, however -- no matter how much it might make sense.
For lack of backward compatibility, I probably wouldn't advise this for the Pathfinder RPG, however -- no matter how much it might make sense.
Ah, perhaps. But one can hope, can't he?
I think feats like Dodge should be scaled of some sort.
+1 per started 5 character levels is a good one.
(lvl 1-5 (+1), lvl 6-10 (+2), lvl 11-15 (+3), lvl 16-20 (+4))
Skill Focus might be good enough if its a flat +5.
... I have a heavy deja-vu right now...
... I think I need some sleep.
|
As much as I see the points the poster above makes (and agree to some extent) I still think I agree MORE with what the original poster said. Feats really do need some way of remaining viable after you gain levels. Scaling in some way needs to happen (or some other mechanic needs to be implemented)
The problem with pointing to feat trees, or with saying "just take a new feat" is that, quite frankly, we don't get that many to begin with! Since each feat is a big decision and an even bigger investment, it should be worth something. And not just for a few levels.
Maybe some of the feats should have a more "add a certain number plus 1/2 your level" mechanic. Something needs done, that much is certain ...
I also am in the camp that feels feats like skill focus should be higher than +2 or +3 (whatever it is now). While I'm on my saop box, why don't more feats stack??? Maybe that would help a little. I mean, if I want to spend a valuable feat on skill focus or weapon focus for instance and then decide to spend a second valuable feat on that same skill again, why NOT let them stack??? It just means that my character has spent even MORE time dedicated to that particulat skill or pursuit than the other guy.
As for backward compatibility ... look, we all know some conversion is going to be necessary. That really doesn't scare me if it means I end up with a better version of the D&D I love. I just hate reading the "you CAN'T do that because it isn't 100% backwards compatible, even if it WOULD make the game a LOT better" argument all the time, ya know?
My opinion is that stackable and scaling feats are rad.
I think that scaling feats would help to make the Fighter better if you do some Feat Consolidation along with it. For instance Fighter should get the effects of the Weapon Focus feat tree for free if they take Weapon Focus (or maybe just as part of the class).
|
|
I am strongly in favor of scaling feats.
I'm absolutely fine with Dodge granting a +1/4 levels. If someone didn't take it until 20th level, no big deal. A +5 at that level is appropriate. If the character thinks that kind of ability is important, though, they'll probably take it much earlier. So, in the rare situation that someone waits to take the feat until the last possible moment, sure, it gives a lot of benefit.
But, hopefully, there will be some 'high end feats' that they'd be comparing against anyway. A feat that grants a +5 dodge bonus at 20th level (+1/4 levels) is a good feat, but so is one that requires Power Attack, Cleave, Great Cleave, Weapon Focus, Power Critical, Improved Critical, BAB +15 and grants you an increase on the multiplier of your crit, and forces a target to make a saving throw or die when you roll a nat 20 on your attack roll (a la Vorpal). Sure, that's a powerful ability. It has a lot of requirements. And it's just off the top of my head as an example. But if lets a character choose a feat that is GOOD at the level that it is available.
That's the problem with most of the feats - they aren't any good by the time they're available. So, I'm definitely in favor of some feats scaling, and some feats that are not epic but are available to high level characters that actually take a lot of work to qualify for. In the PHB right now, the most 'expensive' feat has what, 4 prerequisites?
I'll also point out that certain 'feat sinks' suck. Greater Two Weapon Fighting is my favorite.
If you take Two-Weapon Fighting you get an extra attack at -2. Sounds good.
If you take Improved Two-weapon Fighting you get an extra attack at -7 (you already have one attack, so this one is at a lower bonus).
If you take Greater Two-Weapon Fighting you get an extra attack at -12.
That means that the 'better' feats (the ones that require you to be higher level) aren't better at all. They cost the same as the first feat, but the benefit is worse and worse. By the time you've got an attack at -12 from your normal base attack (with a weapon that does less damage anyway), you're probably just hoping that one rolls a 20, since it's near impossible to hit any other time.
Feats are absolutely my favorite feature of 3.5. I love them to death. But I wish that feats remained as awesome at 15th level as they do at 6th. The sad fact is that they don't. And that's a crying shame.
PS - If the feat required skills for the benefit, I'm cool with that. Dodge could be +1 and an additional +1 for every 5 ranks in Acrobatics - cool. More bookkeeping, but it would still be a form of scaling that isn't 'auto-adjusted' by level.
While I agree with most of your points, I think you might have misunderstood the Two-Weapon-Fighting feats.
(Or I don't know the PF changes).
As far as I now, they only grant you extra attacks with the same bonus as the usual iterative attacks.
So when you are able to make a second attack (BAB +6 or higher) you can take a feat and make a second attack with your off-hand too (with exactly the same bonus as with your primary hand).
I should also add that the feats aren't overpowered. While a +15 bonus to a skill check might seem like a lot at level 20, I would like to point out that it is in no way broken. For instance, let us take the Hide skill (from 3.5). A ring of invisibility, a paltry 20,000gp, gives the wearer a +20 or +40 bonus to hiding.
Yeah sure, but that's MAGIC!
I take skill focus and am nearly as sneaky as when invisible... I don't know about that.
Yeah sure, but that's MAGIC!
I take skill focus and am nearly as sneaky as when invisible... I don't know about that.
No, you take a twentieth level ability and it makes you nearly as sneaky as being the recipient of a second level spell. Do you see the problem here?
That being said, simply numerically scaling feats is problematic. Since the d20 is of finite size regardless of what level you are playing at, you're really pushing what the Random Number Generator is capable of handling every time you introduce or increase a numeric bonus. While I will say categorically that Feat Trees have completely failed us and are an insult to god and man, simply increasing numbers is probably a bad plan because it makes the dice matter less in the face of very large bonuses. By the time everyone is getting bonuses in +20 increments, the die roll won't even matter, a character who figured out how to get one more type of bonus automatically wins over a character who has all of the first character's bonuses but one.
Taking a feat should give you the entire feat tree worth of coolness as you continue to go up in level. Requiring players to invest feat after feat into Archery (or whatever) just to keep their archery level appropriate is more than a little bit insulting. It means that characters become essentially less capable as they go up in level. A first level character has fully level appropriate Archery, and he's a feat down in what is expected of him in Mounted Combat or Spear Fighting. Flash forward 8 levels and the same character is still level appropriate with a bow, but is now five feats (or basically the entire die range) down when fighting with a spear or on a horse. That's bad for the game. The feat tree system ensures that higher level Fighters actually become less interesting to play, because they can't possibly keep up in multiple fields of combat endeavor.
-Frank
Am I missing some new mechanic here?
When we are talking about Feat/Talent Trees, this does mean feats/talents who build up on each other, right?
(Like Power Attack, Cleave, Improved Cleave, Greater Cleave and Cleave-around)
Am I missing some new mechanic here?
When we are talking about Feat/Talent Trees, this does mean feats/talents who build up on each other, right?
(Like Power Attack, Cleave, Improved Cleave, Greater Cleave and Cleave-around)
Yes, Feat Trees are things like Weapon Focus/Weapon Specialization/Greater Weapon Focus/Your Mom's Weapon Focus/Supreme Weapon Specialization, etc. etc. Or Point Blank Shot/Precise Shot/Far Shot/Rapid Shot/Many Shot/ whatever.
The problem is that the game becomes set so that numerically people who are fighting with a specific tactic are assumed to have the appropriate feats to do so. And this means that people who don't have those feats are behind the curve of where the game expects them to be.
As the number of feats the game expects people to have in a particular field of endeavor goes up, dabbler characters who spent their feats on other stuff become increasing incapable of fighting in that manner as levels increase. As a Fighter rises in level he becomes proportionately less competent across the board and only barely keeps up in a limited field.
-Frank
|
|
While I agree with most of your points, I think you might have misunderstood the Two-Weapon-Fighting feats.
(Or I don't know the PF changes).As far as I now, they only grant you extra attacks with the same bonus as the usual iterative attacks.
So when you are able to make a second attack (BAB +6 or higher) you can take a feat and make a second attack with your off-hand too (with exactly the same bonus as with your primary hand).
I'm approaching the same point as Frank, but in a different way. I chose to use two-weapon fighting as an example because that is a 'feat tree' that after you take the first feat it can near3y be assumed you will take the rest.
?Now this particular feat tree requires you to maintain an insanely high Dexterity, so fighters with their many feats aren't as likely to follow this chain as a Ranger (no Dex requirement).
In any case, comparing Two-Weapon Fighting to Greater Two-Weapon Fighting.
On the surface, they're very similar. The both give you one extra attack over what you would normally have. Greater requires you have a +11 BAB because it grants a third ititerative attack.
So, if you have 2 weapon fighting, and counting no other bonuses (1st level) you will have an attack routine of -1/-1.
At 11th level you'll have +9/+6/+1 and +9.
With Greater Two-Weapon Fighting at 11th level you'll have an attack of +9/+6/+1 and +9/+6/+1.
What is Greater Two-Weapon fighting giving you? Effectively it is giving you an attack with a +1 bonus. At 11th level that attack isn't that likely to hit ANYTHING, even with a good Strength bonus (or Dex and Weapon Finesse). Let's say +8. Let's say the weapon has a +3 enhancement. Let's say you found the feats for Weapon Focus (but since you're not a fighter, Greater Weapon Focus).
The attack could be at +13. That's fine if you hit a 19-20. But most of the time you're just rolling extra dice that do nothing for you. The feat isn't very good because even though it gives you another attack, at the level you qualify for it, that extra attack isn't going to hit very often. The first time you take 2 weapon fighting it gives you an attack at your full normal bonus. Every other time you take the next feat in the chain, it gives you another attack but at -5 from your normal bonus (like all ititerative attacks).
My point is why not just take the feat once, and every time you get another attack from a high BAB you get another attack with your off-hand weapon. The feat won't be that much better as a result, and the player who normally takes 2-weapon, improved, greater, etc, can now take other feats that are 'more fun'. Feats that actually do something DIFFERENT from the feat they took at 1st level. Like 2-weapon defense. Or Prone Attack.
@ DMWhoWalksInside ;): VERY good point you stat there!
I also thought about making them one feat.
But I really felt sorry for Ambidexterity gone away.
Because it had its use also outside of 2W-fighting.
(I always added the line: You get double ST-Bonus when using twohanded weapon instead of 1,5x ST)
The Two-Weapon Fighting Feat chain does indeed provide less and less benefit with each additional feat.
That is as it should be.
Two-Weapon Fighting is an option you can take in how you fight. The first feat is a substantial benefit to counter the drawbacks, and make it viable.
Every feat thereafter has diminishing returns for two good reasons:
1. Stacking as good benefit on top of each other makes for a very rapidly scaling power structure.
2. Someone with fewer feats to burn can take one or two of the feats in the chain, and be roughly equivalent to the person selecting them all.
Take another look at the benefit of Two-Weapon Fighting:
Bonuses: Extra attack at primary attack bonus.
Penalties: When used, -2 to all attacks, loss of half of strength bonus to damage, reduced weapon damage on benefit (w/out add'l feats or penalties), increased expenses (paying for an offhand weapon and any magic on it).
Improved Two-Weapon Fighting:
Bonuses: Extra attack at secondary attack bonus (i.e. -5).
Penalties: None
The basic point is that a feat introducing a *new* option needs to be powerful enough to make it comparable to other options. After that, enhancements to it need to be much smaller. Particularly when it is cumulative with other bonuses (an extra attack makes every +1 to hit that much better for instance).
Add'l thoughts:
For the record, I've seen this chain, through Perfect Two-Weapon Fighting, be *quite* powerful. One fighter/rogue PC took out 3 epic *PC*'s with it.
And I'd like to object a bit to saying that a +13 at level 11 will typically only hit on a 19-20. Plenty of things a level 11 fights will have AC's near 20. The big boss? No. His guards? Likely. Additional attacks are best for culling the herd generally.
|
|
Since 3P seems to be aiming toward giving more feats anyway, I'd prefer Improved, Greater, etc.
I don't think Scaling Feats are necessarily a good thing because there will be feats that should scale that won't be, and feats that shouldn't be scaled that will be. Not to mention the dozen of third party and non-OGL feats that won't get revised.
The Two-Weapon Fighting Feat chain does indeed provide less and less benefit with each additional feat.
That is as it should be.
Two-Weapon Fighting is an option you can take in how you fight. The first feat is a substantial benefit to counter the drawbacks, and make it viable.
But it doesn't even do that. If you have a Greatsword, you have one attack at whatever bonus you have that inflicts 2d6 + 1.5 x Strength. If you have the TWF Feat, and you fight with two Shortswords, you get 2 attacks with a Full Attack Action, which are at a -2 penalty and if they both hit, they inflict 2d6 + 1.5 x Strength.
Two Weapon Fighting, with the feat is just worse than Two Handed Fighting with no feat expenditure. It's really, really bad. And if you get extra attacks with the Greatsword (like say, you happened to get to 6th level as a Fighter), then the discrepancy is even worse. You have to pay more feats to still not keep up.
TWF pays itself off if you have static damage bonuses that apply to all your attacks (mostly this is just Sneak Attack), but Power Attack and Attacks of Opportunity are very simple ways to jack the crap out of your damage output that work with Two Handed Weapons and not with TWF.
Improved Two Weapon Fighting is insulting. It's a crack habit that is being given to an already inferior fighting style. Two Weapon Fighting is not rewarded in the basic 3.5 rules, and then when they get to higher BABs they are further punished by having their shinies taken away preemptively.
-Frank
|
RPG Superstar 2008 Top 32, 2011 Top 16
|
The Two-Weapon Fighting Feat chain does indeed provide less and less benefit with each additional feat.
That is as it should be.
Two-Weapon Fighting is an option you can take in how you fight. The first feat is a substantial benefit to counter the drawbacks, and make it viable.
But it doesn't even do that. If you have a Greatsword, you have one attack at whatever bonus you have that inflicts 2d6 + 1.5 x Strength. If you have the TWF Feat, and you fight with two Shortswords, you get 2 attacks with a Full Attack Action, which are at a -2 penalty and if they both hit, they inflict 2d6 + 1.5 x Strength.
Two Weapon Fighting, with the feat is just worse than Two Handed Fighting with no feat expenditure. It's really, really bad. And if you get extra attacks with the Greatsword (like say, you happened to get to 6th level as a Fighter), then the discrepancy is even worse. You have to pay more feats to still not keep up.
TWF pays itself off if you have static damage bonuses that apply to all your attacks (mostly this is just Sneak Attack), but Power Attack and Attacks of Opportunity are very simple ways to jack the crap out of your damage output that work with Two Handed Weapons and not with TWF.
Improved Two Weapon Fighting is insulting. It's a crack habit that is being given to an already inferior fighting style. Two Weapon Fighting is not rewarded in the basic 3.5 rules, and then when they get to higher BABs they are further punished by having their shinies taken away preemptively.
-Frank
Frank, to be fair, you're using a worse case scenario of TWF. First of all, if you're just looking at the one feat, there's no reason not to use a longsword and short sword, or rapier and short sword, or something that is better than 2 short swords. If you add in other likely feats, then you can use 2 short swords, and if you have, say weapon specialization, there's an advantge then if you have 2 hits vs. the 2H weapon that only gets the +2 damage once, not twice. Also, while yes, sneak attack is the best option for two weapon fighting, using 2 shocking/flaming/frost, etc. weapons also increases your damage output, which is not an unusal option for the 2 weapon fighter, precisely because the more damage you can stack on your attacks, the better you are with more attacks to make.
Finally, there's the situational decision of to fight 2 weapon or not. Vs. low AC opponents, it's better to have multiple attacks, since even if you low poorly on one attack, you're still likely to get in a hit with the second.
I'm not saying you're not making good points, but you're skewing the reality of the situation.
|
|
My point is that if you take 2-weapon fighting as a feat, you increase your options.
When you take Improved, Greater, Perfect, whatever, you're not really adding more options to your character at that point. In addition, the feats should get BETTER the more prerequisites. If you have to have four other feats and a host of other requirements (like BAB and Dex) it ought to be AMAZING. A player should be like 'I finally qualified for the cool feat at 18th level. It took a long time, but it was so worth it'.
Instead, you get players saying 'Well, I took Greater-Two Weapon Fighting. I had a feat, and it is an extra attack'.
The feeling your character has when getting a feat at 3rd or 6th level should be the same feeling he has at 15th or 18th. It isn't. You simply don't have the options for 'really good' feats at the higher level. You are either taking a feat to give you an additional benefit to a feat you already have (and it is a very minor change at that point) or you're taking a new feat that you never really needed, but figure it might be useful.
If you've ever taken Iron Will after 10th level, you know what I'm talking about. Feats that are good at 1st and 3rd level aren't very important later. Feats that force you to continue to buy in are also not very good.
To be honest - I've played a pretty effective character with two-weapon fighting. One of the most feat intesive characters ever. I used the parry feats from Dragon 301 and was very good at stopping people from attacking me. But it stopped being fun even though I was able to parry a dragon's bite. The feat expenditure to keep doing what I was already doing was just a drag. I bought the high level two-weapon fighting feats, but I didn't feel they were giving me anything I didn't already have (cause they weren't). And I'm not just bagging on those feats. Let's say you pick Archery as a style. What do you have - 4 feats and then you're done? It seems that they could make feats that have significant prerequisites and it will be okay that they're 'good'. I mean, Whirlwind Attack is a pretty decent feat. It is probably better than Dodge. But it takes more than 1 feat to get there. So, imagine qualifying for Whirlwind Attack and taking four more feats in the chain PAST that. What would that look like? That's what feats SHOULD look like.
|
|
Two weapon fighting has a AC edge over two handed fighting. There are atleast two feats by WOTC that increase AC for having 2 weapons and both feats "stack" by offering a dodge and armor bonus. :)
Actually, this only appears to be true on the surface. To be truly effective with two-weapon fighting, you want your weapons to be 'powerful'. The incentive is to get two powerful weapons. Since weapons are more expensive than armor. If the 2-weapon fighter has his choice, his AC will fall behind because a greater proportion of his wealth will go toward improving the two weapons - enough that the 2-weapon fighter will probably have a +1 armor when his 2-handed compatriot has +5.
I'm not saying that two-weapon fighting is totally worthless. It's a popular choice and has been - it is just that it stops being exciting after you take the first feat. For 'high level feats' you'd think they would do more.
Two weapon fighting has a AC edge over two handed fighting. There are atleast two feats by WOTC that increase AC for having 2 weapons and both feats "stack" by offering a dodge and armor bonus. :)
No. The THFighter can just use an animated shield.
|
|
Some of Paizo's changes - specifically weapon training and weapon mastery - help out the two-weapon fighter somewhat. Here's a comparison of two 20th level Paizo fighters, one a greatsword wielder and the other a two-weapon user. These are Pathfinder and SRD only builds.
Greatsword Fighter
Feats Backswing, Cleave, Dazzling Display, Deadly Stroke, Defensive Combat Training, Devastating Blow, Great Cleave, Great Fortitude, Greater Weapon Focus (greatsword), Greater Weapon Specialization (greatsword), Improved Critical (greatsword), Improved Bull Rush, Improved Initiative, Improved Sunder, Iron Will, Lightning Reflexes, Overhand Chop, Power Attack, Stunned Defense, Toughness, Weapon Focus (greatsword), Weapon Specialization (greatsword)
Average damage: regular 43, crit 54
vs. AC 40
1st attack: miss 5%, hit 75%, crit 20% = dam 32.25 + 10.8 = 43.05
2nd attack: miss 5%, hit 75%, crit 20% = dam 32.25 + 10.8 = 43.05
3rd attack: miss 10%, hit 70%, crit 20% = dam 30.1 + 10.8 = 40.9
4th attack: miss 35%, hit 45%, crit 20% = dam 19.35 + 10.8 = 30.15
5th attack: miss 60%, hit 20%, crit 20% = dam 8.6 + 10.8 = 19.4
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Two-Weapon Fighter
Feats Agile Maneuvers, Dazzling Display, Deadly Blow, Dodge, Great Fortitude, Greater Two-Weapon Fighting, Greater Weapon Focus (kukri), Greater Weapon Specialization (kukri), Improved Critical (kukri), Improved Initiative, Improved Two-Weapon Fighting, Great Fortitude, Mobility, Spring Attack, Stunned Defense, Two-Weapon Defense, Two-Weapon Fighting, Two-Weapon Rend, Weapon Finesse, Weapon Focus (kukri), Weapon Specialization (kukri), Weapon Swap
Average damage (primary hand): regular 26, crit 57
(off-hand): regular 21, crit 52
vs. AC 40
1st attack: miss 5%, hit 65%, crit 30% = dam 16.9 + 17.1 = 34
2nd attack: miss 20%, hit 50%, crit 30% = dam 13 + 17.1 = 30.1
3rd attack: miss 45%, hit 25%, crit 30% = dam 6.5 + 17.1 = 23.6
4th attack: miss 70%, crit 30% = dam 17.1
5th attack: miss 5%, hit 65%, crit 30% = dam 13.65 + 15.6 = 29.25
6th attack: miss 20%, hit 50%, crit 30% = dam 10.5 + 15.6 = 26.1
7th attack: miss 45%, hit 25%, crit 30% = dam 5.75 + 15.6 = 21.35
The two-weapon build here relies heavily on exploiting the weapon mastery benefit of auto-confirmed criticals, by using a high threat range weapon and burst special abilities that trigger on crits. Note, however, that the advantage would disappear in situations where either a) some or all of the two-weapon fighter's energy damage was being negated by resistance or immunity (not to mention plain ol' DR), or b) the fighters were unable to make a full attack. Note too that I did not factor in Combat Feats (such as Two-Weapon Rend) that might have had an impact here.
But in this context, with these builds (and I would like to point out that I made no particular attempt to maximize or minimize the effectiveness of either), the two-weaponer actually comes out on top.
|
|
Uh, apparently I can't do math. I completely screwed up on the damage for the crits. (I know how to play this game. Really I do...) The math should looks like this:
Greatsword Fighter
Average damage: regular 43, crit 122
vs. AC 40
1st attack: miss 5%, hit 75%, crit 20% = dam 32.25 + 24.4 = 56.65
2nd attack: miss 5%, hit 75%, crit 20% = dam 32.25 + 24.4 = 56.65
3rd attack: miss 10%, hit 70%, crit 20% = dam 30.1 + 24.4 = 54.5
4th attack: miss 35%, hit 45%, crit 20% = dam 19.35 + 24.4 = 43.75
5th attack: miss 60%, hit 20%, crit 20% = dam 8.6 + 24.4 = 33
Two-Weapon Fighter
Average damage (primary hand): regular 26, crit 96
(off-hand): regular 21, crit 81
vs. AC 40
1st attack: miss 5%, hit 65%, crit 30% = dam 16.9 + 28.8 = 45.7
2nd attack: miss 20%, hit 50%, crit 30% = dam 13 + 28.8 = 41.8
3rd attack: miss 45%, hit 25%, crit 30% = dam 6.5 + 28.8 = 35.3
4th attack: miss 70%, crit 30% = dam 28.8
5th attack: miss 5%, hit 65%, crit 30% = dam 13.65 + 24.3 = 37.95
6th attack: miss 20%, hit 50%, crit 30% = dam 10.5 + 24.3 = 34.8
7th attack: miss 45%, hit 25%, crit 30% = dam 5.75 + 24.3 = 30.05
The end result is the same, however. On the other hand, I should toss in one more caveat I didn't say before - this only works at level 20. Not having to confirm crits is what makes this idea work - you can't get away with it at level 19, even.
Some thoughts:
I agree there should be more feats that scale, but they should either have limits (i.e., Combat Expertise) and/or prerequisites to prevent 1st level characters from taking them (i.e., Manyshot).
Two-Weapon Fighting is mechanically similar to Rapid Shot, except with melee weapons and a Dex 15 requirement instead of Dex 13 and Point Blank Shot. IMO, they're about the same balance.
Using those two feats as the basis for comparison, let's look at Improved Two-Weapon Fighting with Manyshot. Improved Two-Weapon Fighting: need Dex 17, Two-Weapon Fighting, and +6 BAB; adds one iterative attack (at -5) to the off-hand weapon as part of a full-attack action. Manyshot: need Dex 17, Point Blank Shot, Rapid Shot, and +6 BAB; can make two attacks against one target with a single attack roll (at -4) as a standard action; three attacks can be made at +11 BAB (at -6) and four attacks can be made at +16 BAB (at -8). Apart from needing one more feat, Manyshot is superior: it only requires a standard action, the penalty is lower, and it scales.
A revised Improved Two-Weapon Fighting that gave additional iterative attacks as determined by the character's BAB (second at +6, third at +11, fourth at +16) with an off-hand weapon would bring it back into similar balance (not exactly, but close). This would eliminate the need for Greater Two-Weapon Fighting.
An important note: you are comparing a crit fighter using two Kukris (a high crit weapon) to a crit fighter using a Greatsword (a medium crit weapon). The equivalent weapon would be a Falchion. It does only 2d4 base damage, so it does 2 less average damage on a normal hit and 6 less on a critical. But it criticals on 30% of attacks instead of only 20%.
So the damage average (total) goes up to 270.35 damage for the Falchion Fighter, which is still substantially more than the Kukri guy is getting, and he does a lot more damage on attacks of opportunity and standard action attacks, as well as penetrating DR substantially better.
-Frank
TWF pays itself off if you have static damage bonuses that apply to all your attacks (mostly this is just Sneak Attack), but Power Attack and Attacks of Opportunity are very simple ways to jack the crap out of your damage output that work with Two Handed Weapons and not with TWF.
I haven't done the math on this, but don't magic weapon enhancements also provide those static damage bonusses? A 2-Weapon fighter might have to invest twice as much into magic weapons, but doesn't he get bigger returns than a doublehand fighter? Also, with more attacks come more frequent critical hits, and if you boost their damage further with magic "burst" enhancements that take effect on crits, wouldn't the two-weapon fighter's damage output pull substantially ahead of the doublehander similarly enhanced?
For whatever is worth, I'm also in favor of scaling feats.
I haven't done the math on this, but don't magic weapon enhancements also provide those static damage bonusses?
Not really. D&D currently assumes that you can purchase more powerful magic items if you have more money to spend. So if you had the option of buying a pair of +N (equivalent) weapons, you could theoretically spend the same wealth to get a weapon that was +1.4N (equivalent). So while you could go purchase a pair of +3 short swords, you could spend substantially less wealth and get a +4 Greatsword (or +3 Kukris/+4 Falchion, or +3 Picks/+4 Scythe, etc). You'd have about 4350 gp left over even (more if the weapons are supposed to be made out of anything cool).
What it comes down to then is getting a bonus to damage at the cost of taking a penalty to attack rolls. And yes, that looks an awful lot like Power Attack. And yes, Two Handed Weapon users get a much better exchange rate for their Power Attack than Two Weapon Fighters ever could. In this example, the Two Handed Weapon user has +1 to-hit and does 2 less damage (which he can remedy at any time by Power Attacking for 1), but he does his damage all at once (hitting DR only once), he starts at +2 to-hit just getting up in the morning, he did not have to spend feats, he has money left over, and he still gets a move action every turn and his attacks of opportunity are more than twice as effective as the Two Weapon Fighter guy.
The magic item rules seriously punish people who want to use two weapons.
-Frank
|
|
Also, with more attacks come more frequent critical hits, and if you boost their damage further with magic "burst" enhancements that take effect on crits, wouldn't the two-weapon fighter's damage output pull substantially ahead of the doublehander similarly enhanced?
That was what I was attempting in my experiment above, but as Frank correctly notes, a two-handed crit monkey is still going to wind up ahead of the game (I compared against a greatsword only because the greatsword is the iconic megadamage weapon, not because it was truly a fair fight). Crit burst damage is one way for a pure fighter to get the kind of bonus damage we're talking about, but part of the problem is the burst enchantments compete with other enchantments (like speed) that wind up negating some of the advantages of the two-weapon style in the first place.
To a certain extent it does help, but without some way to autoconfirm crits (weapon mastery, the non-OGL spell dolorous blow, etc) the to-hit penalty effects the chance of critting just as much as it effects the chance of hitting, and you wind up losing much of your advantage anyway. (The Power Critical feat might help with this, but remember, anything you can do the two-hander can do as well). What my experiment seemed to show really is that autoconfirming makes high threat range weapons more effective than smaller ones, a design element that might be relevant elsewhere but is not especially helpful here.