I was wondering if people think that all the problems have been solved with two weapon fighting?
Right now the main issue I have with two weapon fighting is buying magical weapons. You end up paying double for them in the end reducing your over all effectiveness compared to a two handed weapon fighter.
On another issue, is it worth the 3 feats to get them for classes other than a rouge, or even free for a ranger even?
Anyone have any insight, thoughts, or issues with this?
Anyone have any insight, thoughts, or issues with this?
AFAIK, the consensus is something like this.
Two-weapon fighting works relatively well when combined with enough bonus damage. This means all those flaming swords, or sneak attack dice. It breaks down when there is too much bonus damage. The only major problems come from sneak attack. Without any bonus damage TWF doesn't work that well.
All we need is a sneak attack tweak for TWF, and the problem is solved.
Anyone have any insight, thoughts, or issues with this?AFAIK, the consensus is something like this.
Two-weapon fighting works relatively well when combined with enough bonus damage. This means all those flaming swords, or sneak attack dice. It breaks down when there is too much bonus damage. The only major problems come from sneak attack. Without any bonus damage TWF doesn't work that well.
All we need is a sneak attack tweak for TWF, and the problem is solved.
So it takes a lot of flippin gold for a non rogue to get good use out of two weapon fighting?
So it takes a lot of flippin gold for a non rogue to get good use out of two weapon fighting?
Basically, yes. But consider the cost and damage potentials of a +1 flaming, shock, frost greatsword and a pair of +1 shock, frost short swords. The costs are 32k and 36k, respectively. While the damage potentials are 5d6+1 and 6d6+2. It cheaper to dual-wield, and more fun!
So it takes a lot of flippin gold for a non rogue to get good use out of two weapon fighting?Basically, yes. But consider the cost and damage potentials of a +1 flaming, shock, frost greatsword and a pair of +1 shock, frost short swords. The costs are 32k and 36k, respectively. While the damage potentials are 5d6+1 and 6d6+2. It cheaper to dual-wield, and more fun!
OK, I see your point there. Thanks.
but what about the hit chance compared to a two handed weapon?
|
The first 'problem' with Two-Weapon fighting is the cost in terms of feats. Sticking to the core, there are three feats involved in getting three attacks with your off-hand weapon. The reason I object is that the feats follow a 'negative scale' with regard to power level. Essentially, the first feat in the chain is more powerful than the last feat in the chain.
For an example of a 'positive scale' please look at the 3.5 Dodge/Mobility/Spring Attack. The final feat in the chain is better than the two requisite feats.
Essentially, in 2-weapon fighting, once you've spent the first feat to get a 2nd attack at a -2 penalty, you spend the second to get another attack at a -7 penalty, and the third to get another attack at a -12 penalty.
I think this can be eliminated. Paying the price for a 'new feat' that doesn't actually increase your options isn't fun. Now, if Two-Weapon Figthing is going to give you all of your ititerative attacks, it does need a 'limitation'. The -2 to all attacks is a good start. Requiring a BAB of +1 to qualify and the Dex of 15 (but no higher) might also be good.
If we're going to have all the Two-Weapon fighting feats granted by one feat, I'd like to suggest putting in one other prerequsite feat. I think Ambidexterity might be the one to go with (modified, of course). Basically it would allow you to use either hand as a primary hand. Instead of a -6 with a primary and -10 with an off-hand, if just gives you -6/-6.
Then 2-weapon makes it -4/-4 (or -2/-2 if one weapon is light). That feels like about the right amount of 'investment' in the feat chain. I think that 'Improved Two-Weapon Fighting' would just eliminate the final -2, allowing you all the attacks at your full normal attack bonus. This is what I'd like to see as far as how the feats are purchased.
As for how effective they are, I think it is true that they are not terribly effective unless you start stacking extra dice of damage, or you have a high threat range weapon (elven thinblade is my favorite) where more attacks likely leads to more critical hits.
I don't have an answer for that. I think that two-weapon fighting can become broken in 3.5 with a rogue and a ring of blink. I think that needs to be fixed somewhere else. This may not be the place to talk about it, but if sneak didn't work on a flank, and required the rogue to deny the target their dexterity, the problem would be solved (sudden strike). Since that isn't going to change I would suggest just leaving the problem where it lies. One possible houserule is to add 'when flanking an opponent 4 or more levels lower'...
Those are my thoughts in a nutshell.
I think any revision to TWF should follow this concept:
Two-Handed Fighting
=Big amount of damage
One-Handed Fighting
=Higher AC because of using a shield
Two-Weapon Fighting
=More chances of hitting target
The actual mechanic of the game is one of problem with TWF. "More chance to hit" means more chance of dealing damage. When taking hit% in account, potential damage output for TWF can be slightly higher than THW.
Power attack helps the two-handed fighter, but the penalty decrease his chance of hitting, thus sometime reducing potential damage output.
DR reduce damage per hit and this works against TWF.
Also, TWF damage output decrease when number of off-hand attacks are lower than primary attacks, but since they use lower bonus, the amount of damage is not reduce by much.
I don't know if the number of feats require is good or not. We should not forget about the combat style of the Ranger. And if only one feat was require to get same amount of off-hand than primary attack, this would means getting suddenly 3 extra attacks at the cost of one feat at higher levels.
I think any revision to TWF should follow this concept:
Two-Handed Fighting
=Big amount of damageOne-Handed Fighting
=Higher AC because of using a shieldTwo-Weapon Fighting
=More chances of hitting targetThe actual mechanic of the game is one of problem with TWF. "More chance to hit" means more chance of dealing damage. When taking hit% in account, potential damage output for TWF can be slightly higher than THW.
Power attack helps the two-handed fighter, but the penalty decrease his chance of hitting, thus sometime reducing potential damage output.
DR reduce damage per hit and this works against TWF.
Also, TWF damage output decrease when number of off-hand attacks are lower than primary attacks, but since they use lower bonus, the amount of damage is not reduce by much.
I don't know if the number of feats require is good or not. We should not forget about the combat style of the Ranger. And if only one feat was require to get same amount of off-hand than primary attack, this would means getting suddenly 3 extra attacks at the cost of one feat at higher levels.
DeadDMWalking makes a point that these attacks are progressively weaker and worth less that much of a feat. So how about this?
Two Weapon fighting works as is.
Improved Two Weapon Fighting
Prerequisites
Dex 19, Two-Weapon Fighting.
Benefit
You can make as many attacks with your off-hand weapon as with your primary weapon, using the same base attack bonus. You still take the normal penalties for fighting with two weapons.
Normal
Without this feat, you can only get a single attack with an off-hand weapon.
[...]
Two Weapon fighting works as is.Improved Two Weapon Fighting
Prerequisites
Dex 19, Two-Weapon Fighting.
Benefit
You can make as many attacks with your off-hand weapon as with your primary weapon, using the same base attack bonus. You still take the normal penalties for fighting with two weapons.
NormalWithout this feat, you can only get a single attack with an off-hand weapon.
This is a good idea. It takes one less feat but still requires two.
Does it mean that a 16th-level Fighter can use FOUR off-hand attacks? (current rule allows for only THREE)
And the prerequisite should include the BAB+6.
[...]
Two Weapon fighting works as is.Improved Two Weapon Fighting
Prerequisites
Dex 19, Two-Weapon Fighting.
Benefit
You can make as many attacks with your off-hand weapon as with your primary weapon, using the same base attack bonus. You still take the normal penalties for fighting with two weapons.
NormalWithout this feat, you can only get a single attack with an off-hand weapon.
This is a good idea. It takes one less feat but still requires two.
Does it mean that a 16th-level Fighter can use FOUR off-hand attacks? (current rule allows for only THREE)
And the prerequisite should include the BAB+6.
Yes it would allow a fighter to get 4 attacks instead of 3. I see no reason to gimp fighters, and other classes with full base attack bonus. The base attack bonus requirement would be alright, but really is a mood point.
Yes it would allow a fighter to get 4 attacks instead of 3. I see no reason to gimp fighters, and other classes with full base attack bonus.
At the moment all classes get 3 attacks, at most. Keeping it at 3 would not gimp anyone. Raising it to 4 for full BAB classes would boost full BAB classes, effectively gimping all others.
Yes it would allow a fighter to get 4 attacks instead of 3. I see no reason to gimp fighters, and other classes with full base attack bonus.At the moment all classes get 3 attacks, at most. Keeping it at 3 would not gimp anyone. Raising it to 4 for full BAB classes would boost full BAB classes, effectively gimping all others.
Full base attack bonus classes need the boost. Sense they don't get the extra damage that the rogue gets or can out do in any way a caster can, I see no problem here, unless your like a jealous rogue.
So it takes a lot of flippin gold for a non rogue to get good use out of two weapon fighting?Basically, yes. But consider the cost and damage potentials of a +1 flaming, shock, frost greatsword and a pair of +1 shock, frost short swords. The costs are 32k and 36k, respectively. While the damage potentials are 5d6+1 and 6d6+2. It cheaper to dual-wield, and more fun!OK, I see your point there. Thanks.
but what about the hit chance compared to a two handed weapon?
I think someone missed my question here.
What is the math of having two weapon with, both frost and shock, compared to hit:damage ratio? I don't know the math, can some one please figure it out for us?
|
|
I guess I like the idea of 2-weapon fighting as one feat, and Improved Two-Weapon Fighting granting all the extra attacks based on BAB. I don't think that gimps anyone. Characters simply get the number of attacks that their BAB allows. If one class has 4 attacks with the primary hand and one has 3 attacks with a primary hand, one wouldn't say the 3-attack class is 'gimped'. They would say their BAB is lower than the 4-attack class.
And likewise, with 2-weapon fighting, it wouldn't gimp anyone. It would simply 'reward' the high BAB class for the choice they made.
Regarding attack chances, it depends a bit on the AC we're up against. If the 2-handed fighter needs a 20 to hit, the 2-weapon fighter will hit as well on a Nat 20. We can pretty much assume the 2-weapon fighter has the same attack bonus as the 2-handed fighter, -2.
And attack rolls always hit on a 20.
For ease of typing, 2-weapon is W and 2-handed is H.
If H needs a 20, W is 2x more likely to hit (5% versus 10%).
If H needs a 19 or 20, they are equally likely to hit (10% versus 10%).
If H needs a 15 or better (30% chance), W needs a 17 or better (40% chance to hit).
Assuming H needs a 11 or better (50%) W needs a 13 (80% to hit).
The numbers above are for 1 hit. But if you take those percentages and multiply by average damage, you get a good sense of what works. Let's assume H is using a greatsword and has average damage of 18 (2d6+11) and W has average damage of 9 (1d6+1d6+2).
There are problems with this sort of mathematical model, and it becomes difficult to calculate all the 'stacking' of damage effects. But overall, if the characters aren't optimized (no Power Attack or +10d6 sneak) they're generally on par with each other.
I guess I like the idea of 2-weapon fighting as one feat, and Improved Two-Weapon Fighting granting all the extra attacks based on BAB. I don't think that gimps anyone. Characters simply get the number of attacks that their BAB allows. If one class has 4 attacks with the primary hand and one has 3 attacks with a primary hand, one wouldn't say the 3-attack class is 'gimped'. They would say their BAB is lower than the 4-attack class.
And likewise, with 2-weapon fighting, it wouldn't gimp anyone. It would simply 'reward' the high BAB class for the choice they made.
Regarding attack chances, it depends a bit on the AC we're up against. If the 2-handed fighter needs a 20 to hit, the 2-weapon fighter will hit as well on a Nat 20. We can pretty much assume the 2-weapon fighter has the same attack bonus as the 2-handed fighter, -2.
And attack rolls always hit on a 20.
For ease of typing, 2-weapon is W and 2-handed is H.
If H needs a 20, W is 2x more likely to hit (5% versus 10%).
If H needs a 19 or 20, they are equally likely to hit (10% versus 10%).
If H needs a 15 or better (30% chance), W needs a 17 or better (40% chance to hit).
Assuming H needs a 11 or better (50%) W needs a 13 (80% to hit).The numbers above are for 1 hit. But if you take those percentages and multiply by average damage, you get a good sense of what works. Let's assume H is using a greatsword and has average damage of 18 (2d6+11) and W has average damage of 9 (1d6+1d6+2).
There are problems with this sort of mathematical model, and it becomes difficult to calculate all the 'stacking' of damage effects. But overall, if the characters aren't optimized (no Power Attack or +10d6 sneak) they're generally on par with each other.
I have no real objection, but maybe it is too much for one feat. I personally don't know.
I'm with Dead DM and Sir Hexen on this one: TWF and ITWF remain, with the latter subsuming ITWF and GTWF, etc. I'd also add the (possibly unnecessary) caveat that haste gives you one extra attack total, not one per weapon.
As a way to help mitigate how good sneak attacking can be with tons of attacks using two weapon fighting, how about we change the feats to this:
Two Weapon Fighting: As currently written
Improved Two Weapon Fighting: Penalty lessened by -2
Greater Two Weapon Fighting: It becomes a standard action to attack once with each weapon.
This way characters aren't rolling for 6 or more attacks at high levels and yet the feats above TWF still give a nice benefit. I know I'd be willing to switch to these with a two weapon fighter.
|
RPG Superstar 2008 Top 32, 2011 Top 16
|
There's two other things to consider with two weapon fighting. First of all, yes you get less bang for your buck on each weapon, but you get variety. You can have one adamantine and the other cold iron or silver to have a better chance of a weapon in hand that can bypass DR. Also, you can mix your enchantments - have one be flaming and shocking and the other be frost and corrosive, so you'll have a better chance of your extra damage sneaking through resistances. Similarly, you could make one ghost touch and the other brilliant energy, etc.
Another thing to consider when discussing that the number of extra attacks get prgressively worse is the new Pathfinder feats Vital Strike and Improved Vital Strike. They don't explicitly state one way or another how they interact with two weapon fighting, but I would think that you can use them with each weapon, so if you have 3 attacks with each weapon and vital strike, you can give up your 3rd attack with each to gain an additional damage die on each weapon. This would probably be something that should be clarified in the feats, however.
There's two other things to consider with two weapon fighting. First of all, yes you get less bang for your buck on each weapon, but you get variety. You can have one adamantine and the other cold iron or silver to have a better chance of a weapon in hand that can bypass DR. Also, you can mix your enchantments - have one be flaming and shocking and the other be frost and corrosive, so you'll have a better chance of your extra damage sneaking through resistances. Similarly, you could make one ghost touch and the other brilliant energy, etc.
Another thing to consider when discussing that the number of extra attacks get prgressively worse is the new Pathfinder feats Vital Strike and Improved Vital Strike. They don't explicitly state one way or another how they interact with two weapon fighting, but I would think that you can use them with each weapon, so if you have 3 attacks with each weapon and vital strike, you can give up your 3rd attack with each to gain an additional damage die on each weapon. This would probably be something that should be clarified in the feats, however.
make both the weapons cold iron, get the glove or weapon arcane to make them act as silver too, and then get adamantine touch ring, and all 3 are covered..
Full base attack bonus classes need the boost. Sense they don't get the extra damage that the rogue gets or can out do in any way a caster can, I see no problem here, unless your like a jealous rogue.
When balancing any given system you should focus on strengthening the weakest link. You seem to favor boosting anyone not currently at the top. Unfortunately, that's not the most balanced option.
Consider three farmers, the rogue/wizard wannabe, the local bully, and the red-headed orphan. They have 30cp, 20cp, and 10cp, respectively. To whom do you give 10cp to make things most balanced? Giving them to the guy with 20 coppers would make things even worse.
I'll illustrate my point from a pragmatist point of view. In the example above the farmers have 60cp in total, 20cp average. The deviation range (from the average) is +10cp/-10cp, and the total deviation is 20cp (10cp, 0cp, 10cp). Giving 10cp to the 20cp guy would raise the average to 23cp. The deviation range is now +7cp/-13cp (same 20cp range), and the total deviation is 27cp (7cp, 7cp, 13cp).
This is something I was tooling around in the Alpha 2 thread on TWF:
Here's how I think Two-Weapon Fighting should work.
Normal Rules:
- Using a weapon in the offhand untrained will reduce your attack by -4 on both hands (similar to non-proficiency).
- Add an additional -2 on your attacks for using a light weapon, or -4 if using a medium weapon. Can't use a large (twohanded) weapon.
- On a successful attack with your main hand, you also roll damage for the offhand weapon. You can decide which weapon is your main hand from attack to attack, the offhand damage is rolled as a separate attack (essentially treated as an autohit).
- Offhand damage is treated as added damage to the main hand attack. IE, it's not a separate attack, so don't add additional Sneak Attack damage, precision damage, etc. Add any damage inherent to the weapon, and one-half strength damage.
Apply the offhand weapon damage separately for purposes of DR, miss chance (ghost touch weapon, etc)..
FeatsTwo Weapon Fighting
Remove the -4 proficiency penalty. Also, you gain the following options with your offhand attacks:
- Forgo offhand damage and increase your attack bonus on all attacks by +2 until the beginning of your next turn.
- Forgo offhand damage and gain +2 shield AC until the beginning of your next turn.Improved Two Weapon Fighting
Remove an addtional -2 penalty (can use Light weapons without penalty, Medium weapons with only -2 penalty). Also, instead of adding offhand weapon damage to your attacks, you may make additional attacks with your offhand weapon as separate attacks.Improved Two Weapon Defense
When forgoing your offhand weapon for damage, you may gain an additional +3 shield AC (for a total of +5).Improved Two Weapon Strike
When forgoing your offhand weapon for damage, you may gain an additional +3 attack bonus on all attacks (for a total of +5).---------------------------------------------------------------
What this does is gives two weapon fighting as a standard similar damage to a Two Handed Fighter. You have potential to get more damage out of it (by spending more money than the THF), however there's penalty to attack.
Also, you don't get extra sneak attack damage, etc... so it's locking it into more similar damage.The TWF feat would then not only remove the standard penalty, but also give more options in combat with that offhand weapon. Personally, I think offhand weapons were used more for those situations (defense, or opening up holes in an opponent's defense) so the person who's trained in two weapons should get those options.
Since THF doesn't have to spend a feat to be used without penalty (removing -4), the TWF feat needs a bit extra anyways. It NEEDS to cost something to be effective, but shouldn't automatically mean they are behind.Improved TWF gives the Rogue back his extra sneak attack damage... At the cost of a feat. It also gives an extra penalty removal, so you aren't just buying back everything from before for no other bonus.
...
Just some ideas I had for TWF.
Full base attack bonus classes need the boost. Sense they don't get the extra damage that the rogue gets or can out do in any way a caster can, I see no problem here, unless your like a jealous rogue.When balancing any given system you should focus on strengthening the weakest link. You seem to favor boosting anyone not currently at the top. Unfortunately, that's not the most balanced option.
Consider three farmers, the rogue/wizard wannabe, the local bully, and the red-headed orphan. They have 30cp, 20cp, and 10cp, respectively. To whom do you give 10cp to make things most balanced? Giving them to the guy with 20 coppers would make things even worse.
I'll illustrate my point from a pragmatist point of view. In the example above the farmers have 60cp in total, 20cp average. The deviation range (from the average) is +10cp/-10cp, and the total deviation is 20cp (10cp, 0cp, 10cp). Giving 10cp to the 20cp guy would raise the average to 23cp. The deviation range is now +7cp/-13cp (same 20cp range), and the total deviation is 27cp (7cp, 7cp, 13cp).
It only makes sense that those with less attacks would get less additional attacks from ones that grant it. It makes less sense to the on contrary. No other class has a good bonus damage from the very class them selves, so this is a slight balancing facter as a rogue can get about anything a fighter can get at the same cost and still have their class ability.
I say put it all in one feat: Two-Weapon Fighting. If you have that, you can make as many off-hand attacks as you can main-hand attacks.
Then, make some extra feats so Rangers will have something to pick up with their bonus feats.
A feat that lets you make two attacks (one per hand) with a single attack action (for spring attack, charge, or good old move-and-attack)
A feat that gets rid of the penalty for non-light weapons.
Maybe even a (high-level) feat that gets rid of any penalties!
Weapon Swap tried to address the two-magic-weapons dilemma, but I personally don't like it. It looks too weard to my inner eye.
|
RPG Superstar 2008 Top 32, 2011 Top 16
|
make both the weapons cold iron, get the glove or weapon arcane to make them act as silver too, and then get adamantine touch ring, and all 3 are covered..There's two other things to consider with two weapon fighting. First of all, yes you get less bang for your buck on each weapon, but you get variety. You can have one adamantine and the other cold iron or silver to have a better chance of a weapon in hand that can bypass DR. Also, you can mix your enchantments - have one be flaming and shocking and the other be frost and corrosive, so you'll have a better chance of your extra damage sneaking through resistances. Similarly, you could make one ghost touch and the other brilliant energy, etc.
Another thing to consider when discussing that the number of extra attacks get prgressively worse is the new Pathfinder feats Vital Strike and Improved Vital Strike. They don't explicitly state one way or another how they interact with two weapon fighting, but I would think that you can use them with each weapon, so if you have 3 attacks with each weapon and vital strike, you can give up your 3rd attack with each to gain an additional damage die on each weapon. This would probably be something that should be clarified in the feats, however.
Sure, if you're playing with those as options - just using the SRD/Pathfinder Alpha though is a different game.
I say put it all in one feat: Two-Weapon Fighting. If you have that, you can make as many off-hand attacks as you can main-hand attacks.
Then, make some extra feats so Rangers will have something to pick up with their bonus feats.
A feat that lets you make two attacks (one per hand) with a single attack action (for spring attack, charge, or good old move-and-attack)
A feat that gets rid of the penalty for non-light weapons.
Maybe even a (high-level) feat that gets rid of any penalties!
Weapon Swap tried to address the two-magic-weapons dilemma, but I personally don't like it. It looks too weard to my inner eye.
Yeah something like giving them ether over sized off hand weapon feat, as well, and maybe two weapon pounce like feat, or you could create a spring attack tree that grants more attacks with spring attack.
It only makes sense that those with less attacks would get less additional attacks from ones that grant it.
Sometimes balancing games makes little sense. Then it's personal preference whether one should concentrate on sense (ROLEplay) or balance (rolePLAY). I thought this discussion was about balancing.
No other class has a good bonus damage from the very class them selves, so this is a slight balancing facter as a rogue can get about anything a fighter can get at the same cost and still have their class ability.
You seem to have missed my point entirely. Or I just grossly misunderstood. What about non-rogue, non-caster, non-full BAB classes: bard, and monk? They are weakened by your suggestion. They are the two classes that could use the most boost.
|
|
A class that had 100% of their attacks with their off hand as they had with their 'primary hand' is not weakened by another class that has 100% of the classes the same. So, a class with 4 primary hand attacks SHOULD get 4 secondary hand attacks. And a class with three should get three, and a class with two should get two.
That is fair.
Nobody is weakened. The rule applies universally, and the balance is already figured in because some classes get more attacks for a reason.
It would be kind of a chore, but I suspect what we need to test balance is a spreadsheet showing damage output at several AC benchmarks (i.e. 10, 20, 30, 40) while agreeing to use the average die values (i.e. d6 = 3.5, d8 = 4.5). Average damage would then be multiplied by the percentage that attack would actually hit.
In order to do this, we'd also need to determine the level of the test characters and look at how much gold the characters will be allocating to weaponry. (I suppose this could be done for a sampling of levels but off the top of my head, I'd say level 11 would be good since a character with a Full BAB first gets their 3rd attack at that level.) With all the permutations in this department, I think we'd need to restrict ourselves to enchantments that are universally damaging such as energy properties or enhancement bonuses.
Another complicating factor is the characters themselves. I don't generally allocate my stats in the same way for a 2-hander the way I would a dual-wielder. The 2-hander can pump up just Str while the dual-wielder needs a high enough Dex to qualify for the 2-weapon feats. I guess we'd need to use the standard array or agree on a logical point-buy for such a comparison.
Caveat: One big problem is factoring in critical hits. Maybe I've just read too many rules documents for too many versions of D&D lately, but what method are we currently using for critical hits? 20 always crits, threat range always crits, threat range + confirmation roll...
Nobody is weakened. The rule applies universally, and the balance is already figured in because some classes get more attacks for a reason.
The TWF feat tree gives everyone the same number of attacks. This has been taken into account when balancing the whole system. If you change the number of attacks gained the system needs to be rebalanced.
The comments about fairness are thus moot as they rely heavily on balance issues.
Don't get me wrong, I don't mind changing the system. I'd just hate to see all the great work done on balancing to be thrown away on a whim. A lot of designing has been put to the system. Those design principles (or at least a few of them) need to be understood before we can judge whether a given suggestion is balanced, or not.
Nobody is weakened. The rule applies universally, and the balance is already figured in because some classes get more attacks for a reason.The TWF feat tree gives everyone the same number of attacks. This has been taken into account when balancing the whole system. If you change the number of attacks gained the system needs to be rebalanced.
The comments about fairness are thus moot as they rely heavily on balance issues.
Don't get me wrong, I don't mind changing the system. I'd just hate to see all the great work done on balancing to be thrown away on a whim. A lot of designing has been put to the system. Those design principles (or at least a few of them) need to be understood before we can judge whether a given suggestion is balanced, or not.
Sorry but we generally disagree with you till you show us some more proof. We sill come to the fact that between a half effective fighter using TWF becoming completely useless in combat, especially in comparison to a rogue, is a well placed disjunction spell. So your concerns on 1 extra attack at base attack of 5 seems quite unfounded....
Even then a rogue can still out damage a fighter in two weapon fighting, and that is alright I think. What we should try and do is to combine TWF with the sword and board style to make them more useful.
I think this can be helped with what we have suggested so far with the 1 or two feat requirement for full TWF.
How about this?
IF we go the two feat tree, as I suggested, it probably should look like this.
TWF gets dropped to 13 dex for requirement, and improved TWF dex drops to 15 with a base attack of +6.
If we go the 1 feat requirement it probably should be 15.
Now how about this, sense we can't really out damage a rogue, even with the power attack feats as they were or even less so now, so lets talk shields.
Sword and Shield fighting style
Requirements: Two Weapon Fighting, Improved Shield Bash
Benefit: When you obtain this feat you must chose one type of one handed or lighter weapon; as well as on type of shield. This will include spiked and razored versions of that same shield. So long as you wield a shield in at least one hand you gain a +1 bonus to hit with both the shield(s) and/or the one handed, or lighter, weapon. Also, all other weapon specialization, and improved versions of weapon focus feats that are applied to the shield also apply to the previously selected weapon.
Special: This feat replaces the weapon focus feat, and does not stack with each other. It is treated as weapon focus feat for all purposes, for meeting the requirements of other feats, class abilities, etc...
__________________
I know it is ruff but what do you think of the concept? Can someone write it better?
|
|
I suppose if we were applying 2-weapon to the shield, I'd really like to see a parry mechanic. You can make your normal attacks during your turn but save your 'shield attacks' and attempt opposed attack rolls to block the attack. While parrying with a shield you would not apply the shield bonus to AC.
So, if I have an AC of 25, and a +5 shield modifier, when I parry, my AC drops to 20, but if I'm successful, the opponent's hit is negated outright.
I suppose if we were applying 2-weapon to the shield, I'd really like to see a parry mechanic.
And if we're using TWF rules for it, the parry's attack roll = your AC (if better than normal) works thematically as well as mechanically.
As a way to help mitigate how good sneak attacking can be with tons of attacks using two weapon fighting, how about we change the feats to this:
Two Weapon Fighting: As currently written
Improved Two Weapon Fighting: Penalty lessened by -2
Greater Two Weapon Fighting: It becomes a standard action to attack once with each weapon.This way characters aren't rolling for 6 or more attacks at high levels and yet the feats above TWF still give a nice benefit. I know I'd be willing to switch to these with a two weapon fighter.
Nice ideas. I think I'll playtest that this week. It gets a little crazy rolling seven attacks (8 when hasted, which happens alot), and then adding up all the dice damage from two different weapons... one which is axiomatic and the other which is lightning burst for instance.
Sorry but we generally disagree with you till you show us some more proof.
I'll try once more. Please note that these were my only claims.
As I showed earlier the weakest classes need to addressed first. Rogues and full-casters don't need help. I guess we agree on these?
This leaves us barbarian, bard, fighter, monk, paladin, and ranger to consider. Your suggestion would boost barbarian, fighter, paladin, and ranger. Are they the weakest classes? I would argue exactly the opposite - bard and monk are the weakest. And that's why I think your suggestion causes more imbalance.
Of course, if you can show or argue that full BAB classes are the weakest, you have a point.
My another claim was that the current system is balanced, and any changes need to be rebalanced.
Which one do you disagree with, or both?
Sorry but we generally disagree with you till you show us some more proof.I'll try once more. Please note that these were my only claims.
As I showed earlier the weakest classes need to addressed first. Rogues and full-casters don't need help. I guess we agree on these?
This leaves us barbarian, bard, fighter, monk, paladin, and ranger to consider. Your suggestion would boost barbarian, fighter, paladin, and ranger. Are they the weakest classes? I would argue exactly the opposite - bard and monk are the weakest. And that's why I think your suggestion causes more imbalance.
Of course, if you can show or argue that full BAB classes are the weakest, you have a point.
My another claim was that the current system is balanced, and any changes need to be rebalanced.
Which one do you disagree with, or both?
The problem here is that TWF won't help the monk or the bard, so bringing this up is a moot point. The point here is to help make two weapon fighting more practical for classes that so far might as well go for a two handed weapon. Two weapon fighting is an iconic fighting style for fighter types and thus far only rogues and scouts have been able to, to a lesser degree a scout.
Question, sense you said the rogue already is a well working class why do you insist on keeping the weaker classes still vastly weaker when it comes to two weapon fighting?
The problem here is that TWF won't help the monk or the bard, so bringing this up is a moot point.
Agreed on the bard - he should be helped in other ways. But monk is a class based heavily on iterative attacks. It would be extremely logical to boost Flurry of Blows even further with Two-Weapon Fighting. I'd hate to see this combo weakened. That's one of the reasons why I didn't agree with your suggestion.
Of course, the monk could be helped in other ways.
Question, sense you said the rogue already is a well working class why do you insist on keeping the weaker classes still vastly weaker when it comes to two weapon fighting?
I thought I addressed this already earlier. The weakest classes should be boosted first. Full BAB classes are not the weakest. Not even in a narrow scope of TWF.
My approach is based more on best game design practices than exact figures. I don't mind who gets boosted as long as they were the weakest classes.
I don't mind who gets boosted as long as they were the weakest classes.
Say the weak classes are a "1," the middle classes are a "2," and the strong classes a "3." Why not boost ALL of them except the strong ones by +1, then boost the weak ones by a different +1? Or, if better TWF doesn't help the weakest ones at all (+0 for them), boost them by something else worth +2?
Say the weak classes are a "1," the middle classes are a "2," and the strong classes a "3." Why not boost ALL of them except the strong ones by +1, then boost the weak ones by a different +1? Or, if better TWF doesn't help the weakest ones at all (+0 for them), boost them by something else worth +2?
Your approach is right to the point.
I'm arguing essentially three things. Sir Hexen's suggestion gives only +1 to the middle ones, thus making the game more imbalanced. Secondly, TWF could help the weak classes. It would need a better formulated TWF suggestion that doesn't help the strong classes. And most importantly, the weak classes need to be boosted first. +1 to medium (1/3/3) is more imbalanced than +1 to weak (2/2/3).
|
|
Samuli -
I disagree that helping the 'middle classes' implies design flaw. Starting somewhere is important. It doesn't really matter where you start as long as you address all situations.
I disagree that granting a 4th attack with 2-weapon fighting does much to make Full Base Attack classes more powerful. At 16th level (16/11/6/1) the 4th attack is unlikely to hit against level appropriate enemies. Essentially, the fact that it isn't included in the core rules seems like an oversight - probably because they couldn't think of an appropriate name that means 'Improved Greater'. Essentially, I'm arguing that since it is in line with the other feats in the chain, allowing a feat to grant a 4th attack would not be overpowered. And since I've shown that each permutation on the feat chain is actually weaker than the one before (improved is not as good a feat as 2-weapon fighting because the attack it grants you is weaker than the attack granted by 2-weapon fighting in the first place), having a 4th feat in the chain (while thematically appropriate) is silly. Granting that ability 'for free' seems appropriate. Thus the suggestions to eliminate the need to take multiple feats to gain a 2nd and 3rd attack later. I'm simply saying as long as we get rid of the requirement to take extra feats, we should give the 4th attack to the appropriate classes as well.
I also disagree that 'powerful classes' or 'weak classes' are diminished in any way by allowing the Full Base Attack classes to have a 4th iterative attack with their off-hand. Since it was never an option for a 3/4 BAB progression class, they aren't affected at all. Since the Full BAB classes are generally weaker than the other classes, this is a minor point since the power level isn't changed by allowing the 4th attack.
The problem here is that TWF won't help the monk or the bard, so bringing this up is a moot point.Agreed on the bard - he should be helped in other ways. But monk is a class based heavily on iterative attacks. It would be extremely logical to boost Flurry of Blows even further with Two-Weapon Fighting. I'd hate to see this combo weakened. That's one of the reasons why I didn't agree with your suggestion.
Of course, the monk could be helped in other ways.
Question, sense you said the rogue already is a well working class why do you insist on keeping the weaker classes still vastly weaker when it comes to two weapon fighting?I thought I addressed this already earlier. The weakest classes should be boosted first. Full BAB classes are not the weakest. Not even in a narrow scope of TWF.
My approach is based more on best game design practices than exact figures. I don't mind who gets boosted as long as they were the weakest classes.
OK, as to the monk, this will help them out just as much as TWF stacks with flurry of blows. This has been covered in the WotC FAQ. You just take the additional minuses to both attacks. Plus it would apply to their monk weapons as well. So improving two weapon fighting does help out everyone it is supposed to.
As to your, weakest fist, then maybe you should go help out the bard and monk out instead of being here. I have decided to focus on this.
I'm not sure that I follow this thread correctly...
TWF is too weak or too powerful?
I disagree that helping the 'middle classes' implies design flaw. Starting somewhere is important. It doesn't really matter where you start as long as you address all situations.
Agreed. There are still a few good reasons to start with the weakest links, in general.
I disagree that granting a 4th attack with 2-weapon fighting does much to make Full Base Attack classes more powerful.
It doesn't do much but it does something. A better question would be "is impact of the change significant enough?" Two good design principles are added features should have or significant impact or left out, and/or keep (or make) it simple.
With proper wording the TWF feat tree could be made more simple while boosting the full BAB classes enough to justify the change. In that case I would support the change. But only if the "weaker" classes would be addressed in some way, too.
TWF is too weak or too powerful?
IMO, it's about right. The problem is that TWF rogues are are too powerful, and TWF monks could use some help. I'd address these two specific issues if it were my call (and AFAIK Jason has some ideas for monks).
The discussion about fighters has been about game design principles and making the game better. At least from my part.
I'm pretty sure some of the other posters have different options.
TWF is too weak or too powerful?IMO, it's about right. The problem is that TWF rogues are are too powerful, and TWF monks could use some help. I'd address these two specific issues if it were my call (and AFAIK Jason has some ideas for monks).
The discussion about fighters has been about game design principles and making the game better. At least from my part.
I'm pretty sure some of the other posters have different options.
You make a valid point that reducing TWF requirements, and amount of feats might make a rogue too powerful.
I didn't want to suggest this, but this is how I would handle the TWF problem similar to this in my game. I can't find my original write up atm.
New Feat:
Requirement: Dex 17, Base attack bonus +1
Benefit: You gain as many off hand attacks as you do primary attacks, but only one per attack and additional attack gained by the increase in two weapon fighting. These extra attacks are incapable of dealing precision type damage (such as sneak attack, etc...). However so long as you use the extra attacks from your off hand you take a -2 penalty to all attacks. If your off hand weapon is a one handed weapon you take a total of -4 with attacks with the off hand weapon.
Special: This effect does not stack with two weapon fighting, but replaces the two weapon fighting, improved two weapon fighting, greater two weapon fighting, and Perfect Two-Weapon Fighting feats. It also meets the requirements for all the feats the previous stated would meet.
|
IMO, it's about right. The problem is that TWF rogues are are too powerful
What about making sneak attack a once per round action?
Change the last sentence of the SA ability to read:
"The rogue must be able to see the target well enough to pick out a vital spot and must be able to reach such a spot. A rogue cannot sneak attack while striking a creature with concealment or striking the limbs of a creature whose vitals are beyond reach. A rogue can only apply sneak attack damage to one attack per round."
That also plugs other holes. We were talking about how a rogue could take a level of sorcerer draconic bloodline to get 2 claw attacks at full BAB for sneak attack.
As for the monk, isn't it assumed that monks use both weapons/ hands in flurry of blows? Isn't a monk getting enough extra attacks per round?
-- Dennis
IMO, it's about right. The problem is that TWF rogues are are too powerfulWhat about making sneak attack a once per round action?
Change the last sentence of the SA ability to read:
"The rogue must be able to see the target well enough to pick out a vital spot and must be able to reach such a spot. A rogue cannot sneak attack while striking a creature with concealment or striking the limbs of a creature whose vitals are beyond reach. A rogue can only apply sneak attack damage to one attack per round."That also plugs other holes. We were talking about how a rogue could take a level of sorcerer draconic bloodline to get 2 claw attacks at full BAB for sneak attack.
As for the monk, isn't it assumed that monks use both weapons/ hands in flurry of blows? Isn't a monk getting enough extra attacks per round?
-- Dennis
Personally I think SA is perfectly fine as is; it is bringing it up for the other classes.
TWF is too weak or too powerful?IMO, it's about right. The problem is that TWF rogues are are too powerful, and TWF monks could use some help. I'd address these two specific issues if it were my call (and AFAIK Jason has some ideas for monks).
The discussion about fighters has been about game design principles and making the game better. At least from my part.
I'm pretty sure some of the other posters have different options.
I'm glad you bring up TWF Rogue. I propose something for this in this other thread.
If all three basic methods of fighting* can be more balanced in some way, the player will choose a method corresponding to his taste, not according to available feat, or power of method.
*3 methods of fighting:
TWF: Two-Weapon Fighting (more chances of hit, but less damage per hit)
THW: Two-Handed Weapon (more damage per hit)
OHS: One-handed with Shield (more AC, but less damage per hit)
As for the monk, isn't it assumed that monks use both weapons/ hands in flurry of blows? Isn't a monk getting enough extra attacks per round?
Monks don't even need hands to flurry. The actual rule reads:
"A monk’s attacks may be with either fist or with elbows, knees, and feet. This means that a monk may make unarmed strikes with his hands full."
I'll have to see how cool maneuvers I can get out of my longbow wielding monk, shooting from a distance and flurrying up close - without dropping his bow :)
Regarding monks and TWF. Do you suggests that TWF is or should be designed to suck for monks? Probably not but it sounded awfully like that.
As for the monk, isn't it assumed that monks use both weapons/ hands in flurry of blows? Isn't a monk getting enough extra attacks per round?Monks don't even need hands to flurry. The actual rule reads:
"A monk’s attacks may be with either fist or with elbows, knees, and feet. This means that a monk may make unarmed strikes with his hands full."
I'll have to see how cool maneuvers I can get out of my longbow wielding monk, shooting from a distance and flurrying up close - without dropping his bow :)
Regarding monks and TWF. Do you suggests that TWF is or should be designed to suck for monks? Probably not but it sounded awfully like that.
OK I think you missed something here. TWF works for monks, just like ever other class. Sense they don't use precision damage my new feat I listed above would work perfectly with my new feat design
TWF works for monks, just like ever other class. Sense they don't use precision damage my new feat I listed above would work perfectly with my new feat design
Yes, I'm aware of both of those. I was commenting to Ogre who suggested that TWF monks don't need a boost because monks have enough attacks already. That was pretty weird in my eyes.