[Think Tank] Two Weapon Fighting

[Kirth Gersen]

Samuli wrote:

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.

Medium BAB - flurry of blows penalty - TWF penalties = a billion attacks a round, none of which can hit except on a 20. I wonder if, statistically, you aren't better off just taking one attack. Or better yet, just "aid another" for the fighter, or move in order to give the rogue a flanking bonus for his sneak attack.

[The Real Orion]

I like the two-feat solution (TWF unchanged, ITWF full attack with off hand). It brings TWF bonuses in line with the Rapid Shot/Manyshot progression. If anything, a new TWF system should mirror that, for consistency's sake.

We'd also need to throw in a new version of Multi-Weapon Fighting and Improved Multi-Weapon Fighting.

Kirth Gersen wrote:

Medium BAB - flurry of blows penalty - TWF penalties = a billion attacks a round, none of which can hit except on a 20.

Sweet Jebus on a bike, I am so tired of this reasoning. "There's a big penalty, therefore it's useless!!!!" When you get up to the mid-teen levels and you have bonuses stacked on top of bonuses, attacking 8 times at a -12 is a really useful way to clear out a room full of little wee baddies. Then when you get to the Big Bad, you use fewer attacks at your full bonus. It's really simple.

[The Real Orion]

I just noticed that the Two-Weapon Fighting description from the old PHB doesn't require that you use a full-attack action:
(http://www.d20srd.org/srd/combat/specialAttacks.htm#twoWeaponFighting)

As I read it, this means that if you have TWF, Imp TWF, and Greater TWF (three feats), then you can take a primary attack, an off-hand attack, and a second off-hand attack, all as a standard action.

Is this an oversight, or is it the reason why TWF is so much more expensive, I wonder?

[Samuli]

The Real Orion wrote:

I just noticed that the Two-Weapon Fighting description from the old PHB doesn't require that you use a full-attack action:

(http://www.d20srd.org/srd/combat/specialAttacks.htm#twoWeaponFighting)

It says it under full attack:

"If you get more than one attack per round because your base attack bonus is high enough, because you fight with two weapons or a double weapon or for some special reason you must use a full-round action to get your additional attacks."

PHB (pg.143) is a bit more explicit stating:

"If you get more than one attack per round because your base attack bonus is high enough, because you fight with two weapons or a double weapon (see Two-Weapon Fighting under Special Attacks, page 160), or for some special reason you must use a full-round action to get your additional attacks."

[Sir Hexen Ineptus]

Samuli wrote:

Sir Hexen Ineptus wrote:

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.

OK, what do you think about this; using the feat I listed above but adding this single adjustment?

"While using an unarmed attack as one of your weapons, your penalties for fighting with two weapons is reduced by 1."

Sense a One handed and a light would get a -2 to both, why not make it so a one handed and unarmed would look like -2 and -1, or to unarmed be -1 and -1. That way the accumulative minuses to attack wont as much a problem.

[KaeYoss]

Kirth Gersen wrote:

Medium BAB - flurry of blows penalty - TWF penalties = a billion attacks a round, none of which can hit except on a 20.

The flurry penalty will not stick around forever.

But I think that monks should not be able to combine flurry with two-weapon fighting, since they are supposed to attack with what's handy - arm, knee, stik in your hand, fist, head, foot...

[Kirth Gersen]

The Real Orion wrote:

Sweet Jebus on a bike, I am so tired of this reasoning.

Not even up to the level reasoning, in my case, but just a comment on what happened the one time I tried it. But, really, to clear a roomful of really weak mooks, Great Cleave (in 3.5) was the best option anyway. In any case, no need to get upset; if you want to do it, I sure won't stop you.

[Sir Hexen Ineptus]

KaeYoss wrote:

Kirth Gersen wrote:

Medium BAB - flurry of blows penalty - TWF penalties = a billion attacks a round, none of which can hit except on a 20.

The flurry penalty will not stick around forever.

But I think that monks should not be able to combine flurry with two-weapon fighting, since they are supposed to attack with what's handy - arm, knee, stik in your hand, fist, head, foot...

I am sorry but that makes no sense.

[The Real Orion]

Samuli wrote:

It says it under full attack

Thank you! Man, that should be specified under Two-Weapon Fighting, but okay, no loophole.

We're back to TWF being WAY more expensive than its equivalent counter-parts, in which case I am in favour of the two-feat option (TWF, ITWF = two attack sequences, primary hand and off hand, all at -2 if the off-hand weapon is light). Seems only fair.

Kirth Gersen wrote:

Not even up to the level reasoning, in my case, but just a comment on what happened the one time I tried it.

All due respect, experiencing something once is a pretty limited sample size and a subjective way to gather your information, don't ya think?

[Kirth Gersen]

The Real Orion wrote:

Kirth Gersen wrote:

Not even up to the level reasoning, in my case, but just a comment on what happened the one time I tried it.

All due respect, experiencing something once is a pretty limited sample size and a subjective way to gather your information, don't ya think?

Well, I never claimed it was "information gathering." I even spelled out that was "not even up to the level of reasoning." It was an example, one more datum to throw into the pot. So, what more do you want? Must I swear never to post again until I've playtesting something N times and written a doctoral thesis on the topic? (P.S. If I sound like I'm beginning to get a trifle annoyed, it's because "All due respect" does not prevent a post from seeming snide and goading. Unless you're kidding, in which case some indication, such as a happy face icon or "jk" or something, would be appreciated.)

[A.J.Gibson]

Well, I'm still new all this, but I'd like to express a few thoughts:

First, I'd like to see the ambidexterity penalty removed. Instead, let untrained characters carry a second weapon, they just don't get any extra attacks. Instead, they can switch weapons from attack to attack. There really isn't much advantage to do this, so I don't see why it shouldn't be allowed.

Second, I'd like to see some consideration given to characters who wield two small weapons - like Raphael from TMNT or that little guy from Conan. The -2 or -4 penalty can be changed to -2 per medium weapon, so a character with 2 small weapons has no penalty. Later, instead of feats removing these penalties, they can simply give a hit bonus equal to the penalty they would have removed.

Third, I think maybe an off-hand weapon ability should not give you an extra attack, but instead a second chance - if you miss with your first weapon, you get a free shot with your second at the same bonus. The result is that two weapon fighting is more likely to hit, but can not do more damage per attack then two-handed weapon fighting. Just a thought.

So here's how I'd do it:
Untrained: characters can fight with two weapons, but only can use one on each attack.
Two-Weapon Fighting: characters take a penalty of -2 for each medium weapon being carried, but get a 'second chance' once per round to make a free attack with their second weapon when they're primary weapon has missed. In addition, they get an extra AoO (are those still around?) Character's may switch weapons from attack to attack.
Improved Two-Weapon Fighting: characters may make a free second attack with their secondary weapon any time they miss with their primary weapon.
Two-Weapon Mastery: characters gain +2 to hit when wielding two weapons, and maybe an AC bonus or a small damage bonus (since at this point in the game they're hitting most of the time anyways).

Of course, I have no idea how this would screw up the balance of the game.

[The Real Orion]

Kirth Gersen wrote:

Well, I never claimed it was "information gathering." I even spelled out that was "not even up to the level of reasoning." It was an example, one more datum to throw into the pot. So, what more do you want? Must I swear never to post again until I've playtesting something N times and written a doctoral thesis on the topic? (P.S. If I sound like I'm beginning to get a trifle annoyed, it's because "All due respect" does not prevent a post from seeming snide and goading. Unless you're kidding, in which case some indication, such as a happy face icon or "jk" or something, would be appreciated.)

Actually, I find that people tend to assume something is snide and goading specifically when a poster says "with all due respect," even though it actually means "I respect your position and your argument but I disagree for the following reasons." It's a strange thing, that I've never understood, but here we are.

Anyway, let me see if I can state my case without the unintended snide tone (and it really was unintended). I think that the general line of reasoning that if there's a penalty on something, it's therefore useless (see the top of the page) isn't very helpful. Part of the problem of game design is making an effort to see the system from neither the player's nor the game master's point of view, but from a third position outside of an individual game.

Penalties are necessary as a balancing factor. Allowing players multiple attacks, as in a Flurry, a Manyshot, or TWF, needs to be (a) expensive and/or (b) have a penalty on it, otherwise it can really throw off a game. My position is that the various "you get a bonus attack" options in the game should be roughly equal to each other, and currently, Manyshot is far more powerful than TWF, and Flurry is somewhere in between.

There are two general options and compromise position, here. Either bring all three "up" to the power level of Manyshot, or bring all three "down" to the level of TWF, or try to bring them both to a middle position. Upon sleeping on it and talking to another game-head friend of mine, I actually think that paying a feat for a single iterative attack is a pretty good deal, as opposed to paying a feet for a whole full-attack sequence, which really seems out of proportion of other feats, to me. I mean, Cleave/Great Cleave or Combat Reflexes both offer bonus attacks, but under very specific circumstances. Manyshot offers a whole set of bonus attacks under circumstances that are actually very, very common.

So what I would do if I were in charge is bring Manyshot down, make it one feat per bonus attack, and each attack takes its place in the full-attack sequence. That seems like the fare option to me, and the fact that a lot of players would hate it is usually a good sign that it's the right call, in my experience as a player, GM, and a designer.

That's just my opinion on it. I do not demand that anyone agree with me, but I will argue my position as vigorously as I am able to. That's all. I genuinely hope that doesn't come off as snide.

[Kirth Gersen]

The Real Orion wrote:

That's just my opinion on it. I do not demand that anyone agree with me, but I will argue my position as vigorously as I am able to. That's all. I genuinely hope that doesn't come off as snide.

Not at all; on the contrary, I very much appreciate the reply, and especially your taking the time to spell out your position so clearly. I agree that Manyshot is a bit "too good," although the TWF still needs work, in my opinion.

For what it's worth, my thought is this: TWF, for a fighter, is all-around less advantageous than using a 2-handed weapon: it costs at least one feat, costs twice as much for weapon enhancements, requires a minimum Dex, applies an attack penalty, etc. The only time it holds its own or even edges out 2-hd. fighting for fighters is by dint of vast expenditure of feats: GTWF, ITWF, Double Slice, TW Rend, etc.

TWF really shines with a rogue, though, with minimal feat expenditures, because of sneak attack. So there is, understandably, great resistance to improving it. In my opinion, though, both styles should be equally good for fighters, given an equal expenditure of the fighter's main class feature (feats). So if the "feat tax" on TWF is reduced, something needs to give vis-a-vis the rogue. I'd nominate that sneak attack be nerfed to 1/round max -- with maybe a feat analagous to Combat Reflexes allowing more than one in a round.

Now back to the monk. His main strength is movement speed, but he can't do that and still use his secondary strength (lots of attacks). Giving him TWF plays right into that problem. Whichever tactic he uses, he's quite limited; lacking full BAB, he really isn't meant to damage things, but mainly use maneuvers like tripping and disarming. Multiple attacks are a help there, but then he loses his mobility. In my view, if he wants to flurry and do TWF, he's better off taking 1 level of monk, then multiclassing into fighter (if he wants to hit more consistently, and have sufficient feats to make TWF effective), or rogue (if he wants to deal a lot of damage), or both. The tactic seems to leave him little incentive to remain a monk, in other words. A class feature allowing him to use some of his attacks and some of his movement in the same round would be an obvious fix.

[0gre]

Samuli wrote:

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 :)

This is an interesting idea because it means that Monks can threaten adjacent squares when firing a bow. I guess they would still technically provoke AoOs when firing the bow but they threaten surrounding squares all the time. Hmmm.

Samuli wrote:

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.

Faugh... I don't play or DM monks enough to have much opinion so I won't dig myself into a hole debating it one way or another.

-- Dennis

[Stratos]

I don't understand the fighter fetish many seem to be having.

As far as changing the feat lines to grant 4 attacks to full BAB classes .... why? If your argument is it doesn't matter, then it doesn't matter - leave it alone. Otherwise it does matter, and it will affect the BAB classes positively. Do they need the help? The consensus is no, relative to the other classes. The monk is the class which needs the help if any is to get some, and this change would not help them.

Of course, the argument could be steeped in hand-waving "reason." --> "Well, fighters/barbarians/rangers/paladins should get 4 off-hand attacks because they are so combat oriented (READ: because they get 4 main-hand attacks" *shrug* If this is the line of thinking, very well, but then I have zero sympathy for a martial class against a high level caster - that caster "should" destroy you with almost complete certainty because "They spent a long, long time honing the skillful ability of spellcasting (READ: Magic is powerful!).

Rogues do not need their sneak attack number limited; many monsters are already immune to them, and they're only getting those attacks in on natural 20's with their subsequent attacks anyway - the fighter would still be doing some damage on natural 20's. As much as the rogue? No, but the rogue has sneak attack, less HD, and lighter armor for a reason.

[Selgard]

Firstly:
Leave rogues alone. Their SA is just fine if the DM isn't going out of the way to make the mooks easily flankable.

Secondly:
Instead of extra attacks why not fiat fighters (and twf rangers) to get full str bonus on offhand attacks?

This lets 2hf be the category of the barbarian (where it belongs), and gives a good boost to fighters (who should be able to keep up with any martial character in martial things) and rangers (who specifically choose to specialize in the fighting style) without giving the boost to those who don't really need it (like rogues.)

Simple and effective.

Thoughts?

-S

[DeadDMWalking]

The argument for 4 off-hand attacks is that if there are not additional feats used (improved, greater) than a character should just get a number of off-hand attacks equal to the number of primary attacks. Artificially limiting is pointless because we've removed the logic saying you need a feat for an additional attack.

Thus the rules for off-hand attacks are more closely aligned with the rules for one-handed attacks and two-handed attacks. I think that's a good thing.

[Eric Tillemans]

DeadDMWalking wrote:

The argument for 4 off-hand attacks is that if there are not additional feats used (improved, greater) than a character should just get a number of off-hand attacks equal to the number of primary attacks. Artificially limiting is pointless because we've removed the logic saying you need a feat for an additional attack.

Thus the rules for off-hand attacks are more closely aligned with the rules for one-handed attacks and two-handed attacks. I think that's a good thing.

One of the biggest complaints about high level combat under the 3.5 rules is the sheer number of rolls made on each turn. Two weapon fighting is one of the culprits by allowing 8 (or more) attacks in a round. I would much rather see:

Two-Weapon Fighting: Gain off-hand attack (with standard 3.5 penalties)
Improved TWF: All attacks with no penalty (assuming off hand is light)
Greater TWF: As a standard action can attack with both main and off-hands

This way the TWF feat tree is still very useful (and I would say more powerful) AND it doesn't allow someone to attack 8 times a round.

[flash_cxxi]

I don't know if anyone has ever mentioned it before (as I am too lazy to read through every thread on the subject), but I would like to see Ambidexterity brought back as a Feat choice ala 2e.
Reduce your penalties by -2 each hand at the cost of yet another Feat in the TWF chain. This reduces your penalties to 0 if you have TWF, or just reduces them slightly if you don't, but could give skill bonuses to DEX based skills (maybe?).

[Sir Hexen Ineptus]

flash_cxxi wrote:

I don't know if anyone has ever mentioned it before (as I am too lazy to read through every thread on the subject), but I would like to see Ambidexterity brought back as a Feat choice ala 2e.

Reduce your penalties by -2 each hand at the cost of yet another Feat in the TWF chain. This reduces your penalties to 0 if you have TWF, or just reduces them slightly if you don't, but could give skill bonuses to DEX based skills (maybe?).

I think they pretty much have that feat already, which is over sized off hand weapon. That sort of makes sense for ambidexterity. However I would like to see an improved version, to give full strength your off hand weapon attacks.