We are talking about shields so I thought maybe we should talk about two weapon fighting for the classes that should, but don't, use this fighting style.
Here are the problems as I see them.
1. Diminishing bonuses. Why spend another feat for an additional attack at your worst bonus to hit when the chances your going to hit with that attack are probably next to nil.
2. Double the weapons double the cost. Another reason why you end up missing is that you don't have the platinum, and yes platinum, to pay for two good swords.
3. The minuses to hit. To top this all off, if the fact that each feat gives you an additional attack at your lowest bonus, and you are short for platinum to get all that good a bonuses on your weapon to attack and get past their AC.
4. Damage DR is applied more often. So while your left not hitting any where near as well as with your attacks you have to deal with the ones that do hit have to deal with DR. Your not using a weapon two handed so you only get normal strength on your primary, and 1/2 on your secondary (you know that additional attack you spent a feat on). The additional weapon damage is hardly worth the -2 to hit on all your attacks as you are probably getting an additional 1D6 points of damage at best, unless your willing to take a -4 for your off hand weapon being a one handed weapon and getting only a 1D8, 1D10 with another feat for a bastard sword.
5. Power Attack. It doesn't work. If power attack gave out more damage than a two handed weapon, like it did 1.5 damage from power attack to each hand, it still wouldn't be worth it as with the current power attack you have to put all your point into strength to make it worth while, and unless you got 2 18s and you happen to be an elf, your going to fall flat on your face trying to keep up both your stats to both power attack and two weapon fighting.
6. Feats. The feats to get the full array of increasingly poorer hits just take too much and are not worth it. I for one would say for a fighter, barbarian, ranger, monk, or even a paladin this should be worth about 1 feat for all the attacks getting paired with an off hand attack.
7 Feat Support. The PDnD system has tried to help out the problem, just a little, with the two weapon rend feat, but it is not enough. It only applies once during a round and with all the other problems only a very strong rouge would be willing to take it, or maybe a 12th level barbarian who decided to go into two weapon fighting all of a sudden. Two weapon rend should apply to all pairs of attacks, period.
That is all I can remember at this moment, but I am sure there are more problems.
Now I know why two weapon fighting was needed to be gimped like this; It was to keep in check the rogue who could pull off these attacks while the enemy was flat footed and get bonus damage. However this also gimped it for everyone else. If made to a progressive feat, it would be too good a feat to not take for a rouge.
So solutions!
I have a few of my own that I will post later.
8. "Feat Tax" - Unless both your weapons are the same, you get Weapon Focus, Weapon Specialization, Improved Critical etc. for only one of them, unless you spend double the feats.
I'd propose the following:
1. TWF feat allows iterative attacks, as per GTWF, ITWF, etc.
2. TWR, TWD stay as they are.
3. Add a feat, "Two-Weapon Mastery," allowing feats you have with your primary weapon to apply to the off-hand weapon as well.
This makes TWF quite good, but the attack penalty and extra gold still compensate pretty well for that.
8. "Feat Tax" - Unless both your weapons are the same, you get Weapon Focus, Weapon Specialization, Improved Critical etc. for only one of them, unless you spend double the feats.
I'd propose the following:
1. TWF feat allows iterative attacks, as per GTWF, ITWF, etc.
2. TWR, TWD stay as they are.
3. Add a feat, "Two-Weapon Mastery," allowing feats you have with your primary weapon to apply to the off-hand weapon as well.This makes TWF quite good, but the attack penalty and extra gold still compensate pretty well for that.
But then that gets too powerful for rouges.
My idea is that we have Two Weapon Fighting Style feat that does what your saying, only has a -1 to hit applied, can use one handed weapons with no additional minuses, but does not grant additional damage from precision sources to your off hand attack. It would other wise count as two weapon fighting feat for all purposes.
P.S. Your Two Weapon Mastery Feat also really isn't needed as you can now power attack with a light weapon. All you need to do is use two identical light weapons, and that would solve your problem.
8-9?. Two Weapon Fighting has no real niche. Outside of a rouge, two weapon fighting excels at nothing. If a new niche other than damage was put forth worth taking all these minuses then maybe it would be worth it, but it would have to be something a rouge couldn't get because then we would have a growing problem of them becoming over powered, thus why I like my new feat for two weapon fighting style.
1. But then that gets too powerful for rouges.
2. My idea is that we have Two Weapon Fighting Style feat that does what your saying, only has a -1 to hit applied, can use one handed weapons with no additional minuses,
3. but does not grant additional damage from precision sources to your off hand attack. It would other wise count as two weapon fighting feat for all purposes.
4. Your Two Weapon Mastery Feat also really isn't needed as you can now power attack with a light weapon. All you need to do is use two identical light weapons, and that would solve your problem.
1. Yes; we could specifically state off-hand weapon gets no precision bonuses, in the TWF feat description.
2. I'd keep Oversize TWF as a separate feat. Guys swinging two monkey grip giant nonsense swords without at least getting hit with another feat is too much for me.3. See 1, above.
4. That ruins the flavor, and most of the historical models. The main ones I can think of were rapier/dagger in Renaissance Italy, hand ax/dagger in the American colonial era, and escrima (club/knife) in the Philippines. I'd like those to be just as viable as the ubiquitous paired short swords.
P.S., No offense intended, but the class is R-O-G-U-E. ("Rouge" is a kind of makeup.) This has become something of a favorite pet peeve on these boards for some reason; Fake Healer, even years ago, was threatening to smite anyone who misused it.
1. Yes; we could specifically state off-hand weapon gets no precision bonuses, in the TWF feat description.
2. I'd keep Oversize TWF as a separate feat. Guys swinging two monkey grip giant nonsense swords without at least getting hit with another feat is too much for me.
3. See 1, above.
4. That ruins the flavor, and most of the historical models. The main ones I can think of were rapier/dagger in Renaissance Italy, hand ax/dagger in the American colonial era, and escrima (club/knife) in the Philippines. I'd like those to be just as viable as the ubiquitous paired short swords.P.S., No offense intended, but the class is R-O-G-U-E. ("Rouge" is a kind of makeup.) This has become something of a favorite pet peeve on these boards for some reason; Fake Healer, even years ago, was threatening to smite anyone who misused it.
1. Nah we should let them keep the old system, they need it, other wise it is an unnecessary power down, unless you want to make them pay for precision damage separately... hummm that is an idea.
2. Nah you didn't read monkey grip too well. It only applies to their primary hand, not their off hand. Re-read the feat. Any ways, even if they could, it wouldn't be over powering at/after level 6. At most it would ad like 4.5 points of damage on average, but with a minus 2, which should be a minus 1 (off topic sorry).3. as 1. :P
4. OK then, sense we got past the monkey grip problem I see no reason not to allow two one handed weapons be wielded at the same time, do you?
When I first read this, I wasn fairly sure you were wrong, having seen successful Two-Weapon Builds in the past. So I sat down and did the math (it's been a slow night) and I was surprised what I saw.
I worked out the damage output for a non-descript character with a greatsword and a non-descript character wielding an longsword and shortsword. The formula accounted for different strength levels, different feats (generally weapon focus, weapon specialization, etc.), and critical hits.
The fact of the matter is that the greatsword wielder does more damage as levels are gained. It isn't significantly more when magic bonuses aren't involved; the Two-Weapon Wielder tends to be 2-4 points behind at lower levels, and 8-10 points behind at higher levels.
This is only, however, with comparable strength scores. The Greatsword wielder does gain a great benefit by not having to worry about a high dexterity score. Weapon focus doesn't even the score, because the damage output remains low.
Magical weapons can help even the score, but the cost is prohibitive. The extra flaming attacks are helpful, but they are expensive.
Against low-AC opponents, the Two-Weapon damage output ratio increases. Against high-AC opponents, it drops.
Frankly, to make two-weapon fighters comparable front-line attackers without making them use every last feat choice would require such an overhaul of the two-weapon system that it wouldn't be backwards compatible.
If change is needed, it helps to even things up to decrease the penalties for two-weapon fighting by one point. This takes the damage output to a closer level, with the greatsword fighter retaining great options from Cleave, Great Cleave, and similar feats, and the two-weapon fighter can even up damage through focus and specialization feats for both weapons and Two Weapon Rend.
Now the next question is: is this a problem? Two-weapon fighting is being compared in my above examples in two martial characters. A high-dex rogue, ranger, or bard is a different matter, as they are intended to be support characters.
Their damage output difference is made up in other ways. Rangers have animal companions and favored enemies, rogues have sneak attack (which, when flanking is fantastic), and bards have ... spells, I guess. I haven't run figures on this, but TWF may need to remain the Rogue's combat options.
4. OK then, s[i]n[c]e we got past the monkey grip problem I see no reason not to allow two one handed weapons be wielded at the same time, do you?
Yes, I still do. Have you fought with two heavy weapons before, even sparring? Two light sticks work really well together. Two longswords could maybe potentially be made to work, but realistically there should be a penalty. Two war axes? No chance -- right out the window. People like it, though, so to please the "I demand the ability to wield a greatsword and a warhammer simultaneously!" people, we allow a feat, Oversize Two-Weapon Fighting.
*Brother Willi "Against low-AC opponents, the Two-Weapon damage output ratio increases. Against high-AC opponents, it drops."
How do you figure that? Before PDnD it becomes clear that WotC made that the best any two weapon fighter could do was 1/2 that of two handed weapon fighter. With the feats specific to PDnD this has not improved at all with the over hand chop feat tree this has only gotten worse. So with the minuses to hit and DR applying double it is very clear:
two weapon fighter < two handed fighter
"Frankly, to make two-weapon fighters comparable front-line attackers without making them use every last feat choice would require such an overhaul of the two-weapon system that it wouldn't be backwards compatible."
I think it should be very simple. A new feat for melee-ers that don't use precision damage is all that is needed.
Two Weapon Style
You are adept at wielding two weapons in a more brutal manor than with the two weapon fighting feat. You are not too concerned about getting specific points for maximum damage but rather raw damage from hitting things hard.
Preq: 17 Dex, 13 Str, +1 base attack bonus
Benefit: The user of this feat gains an additional attack with their off hand weapon for ever attack they have from the increase in their base attack bonus. So when your base attack reaches +6, +12, and +18 you get an additional attack at that coinciding base attack bonus. Your penalties on attack rolls for fighting with two weapons are also reduced. The penalty for your primary hand lessens by 3 and the one for your off hand lessens by 7. There are no additional modifiers for using two one handed weapons with two weapon style. The extra off hand attacks gained from this feat are incapable of dealing extra damage and damage dice from precision based attacks such as Sneak Attack, Sudden Strike, skirmish, insightful Strike, elegant Strike, and other bonus damage that requires the target to be vulnerable to critical hits. Special: Two Weapon Style counts as two weapon fighting feats for all feats, prestige classes, etc; however the feats two weapon style and two weapon fighting does not stack. Example: If you have a base attack bonus of +6, you qualify as having improved two weapon fighting feat for all purposes such as feats, prestige classes, etc.
4. OK then, s[i]n[c]e we got past the monkey grip problem I see no reason not to allow two one handed weapons be wielded at the same time, do you?Yes, I still do. Have you fought with two heavy weapons before, even sparring? Two light sticks work really well together. Two longswords could maybe potentially be made to work, but realistically there should be a penalty. Two war axes? No chance -- right out the window. People like it, though, so to please the "I demand the ability to wield a greatsword and a warhammer simultaneously!" people, we allow a feat, Oversize Two-Weapon Fighting.
what edition are you using??? Monkey grip does not let you wield a great sword one handed, and it only lets you wield one weapon that is one size larger. For fantasy reasons and balance reasons we should allow two one handed weapons to be used at once. This would not add too much damage, 1.5 on average 2 at tops. Two long swords should not be a problem, and should be allowed by all means. If you add monkey grip then the worst would be 2 point average and a 4 point max, with a -2 to hit, increase by using a large size long sword in one hand. If they spend a feat to wield a bastard sword then things get a little worse, however they did spend yet another feat on an exotic weapon. If it is their fantasy to wield these extreme large weapons, then that is fine. Its by no means any more implausible as magic spells, and not game breaking. Let them have fun.
what edition are you using??? Monkey grip does not let you wield a great sword one handed, and it only lets you wield one weapon that is one size larger. For fantasy reasons and balance reasons we should allow two one handed weapons to be used at once. If it is their fantasy to wield these extreme large weapons, then that is fine. Its by no means any more implausible as magic spells, and not game breaking. Let them have fun.
Right! But a spell costs a spell. Why can't this magic trick cost a feat?
By unanimous decree we houseruled Monkey Grip out of existence, so at this point I have little idea what it's particulars are. I don't really care about the damage or the game balance of it, just the patent ridiculousness. Yes, flying or turning invisible are equally silly, but to do those, you need to take levels in an arcane spellcasting class, and you have to learn the appropriate spells -- or else acquire magic items made by someone who can. And Combat Expertise, which should really replace (or at least be merged with) defensive fighting, should be free, but IT costs a feat, too. The more absurd something is, the higher the cost, usually.
I'm not saying you CAN'T use your two weapons that were never meant to be used together; I'm all for allowing it -- even for FREE, if you take the modest 3.5e penalty... and you can even reduce that by spending one (1) feat to do it. You're already saving a bunch of feats on ITWF, GTWF, etc., so what's the problem? You want something absurd, you get it. As a nod to 3.5 edition standards, and to a slight bit of simulationism, a silly trick like that costs one of your bazillion feats to do without a slightly higher penalty.
It almost seems like you personally have a character that you want to use two bastard swords or something, and you just don't want to spend any feats on it...
what edition are you using??? Monkey grip does not let you wield a great sword one handed, and it only lets you wield one weapon that is one size larger. For fantasy reasons and balance reasons we should allow two one handed weapons to be used at once. If it is their fantasy to wield these extreme large weapons, then that is fine. Its by no means any more implausible as magic spells, and not game breaking. Let them have fun.Right! But a spell costs a spell. Why can't this magic trick cost a feat?
By unanimous decree we houseruled Monkey Grip out of existence, so at this point I have little idea what it's particulars are. I don't really care about the damage or the game balance of it, just the patent ridiculousness. Yes, flying or turning invisible are equally silly, but to do those, you need to take levels in an arcane spellcasting class, and you have to learn the appropriate spells -- or else acquire magic items made by someone who can.
Oh come on, now your just discriminating because you don't like the fluff. If you NEED to go that way, there is no way in hell a barbarian could do as much damage as they can in this game with the feats they can get. It is physically impossible, and would have to be more of a magic trick than monkey grip. Also if you absolutely HAVE to have it be magical in source, there are feats that grant spell like abilities too that have next to no requirments; but I digress. Anyway this is your personal problem which has no basis for not allowing one to wield two one handed weapons from the start with out an additional feat cost.
And Combat Expertise, which should really replace (or at least be merged with) defensive fighting, should be free, but IT costs a feat, too. The more absurd something is, the higher the cost, usually.
I'm not saying you CAN'T use your two weapons that were never meant to be used together; I'm all for allowing it -- even for FREE, if you take the modest 3.5e penalty... and you can even reduce that by spending one (1) feat to do it. You're already saving a bunch of feats on ITWF, GTWF, etc., so what's the problem? You want something absurd, you get it. As a nod to 3.5 edition standards, and to a slight bit of simulationism, a silly trick like that costs one of your bazillion feats to do without a slightly higher penalty.
It almost seems like you personally have a character that you want to use two bastard swords or something, and you just don't want to spend any feats on it...
Well sorry to disapoint you but it really isn't anything like that, and has nothing personal about it. I am mearly trying to find a way to even things up, and you were in agreeance with me, or so it seemed, till I brought up monkey grip, so from my point of view it seems like you found some one who sees no problem with one feat that you deeply dislike, for one reason or another. Lets try an look at it this way. Using my Two Weapon Style feat compared to the normal two weapon fighting feat.
1. Diminishing bonuses: Fixed for the most part.
2. Double Weapon Cost: Still a problem.
3. The minuses to hit: still a slight problem, but reasonable
4. Damage DR is applied more often: Still equally a problem
5. Power Attack: Partially/mostly fixed as you can now focus on just one stat.
6. Feats: Fixed
7. Feat Support: I think its fixed.
8. (yours) maybe the feat could be useful.
9. Niche: fixed, if all you want is damage.
With the weapon cost, the remaining -1 to hit, DR applying double, still doing slightly more damage than a two weapon fighter before they even spent a feat I think we have a decent start.
You see a two weapon style fighter would be wielding at best with out an additional feat two long swords dealing two attacks at 1D8 damage at -1 to hit, that is 2-16 at minus 1. But take power attack conversion for a two handed fighter and you get 2-14 damage with no minus equivalent.
A two handed fighter with a great sword could deal 2D6 damage with no minus to hit so you get 2-12 damage.
So with the double weapon cost and the problems with DR, I see no reason why for one feat we couldn't get rid of the -1 to hit entirely now, or having their full strength bonus apply to both hits. Edit: OR this could be ground for a different niche from this point on.
9. Attack rate. Using both attacks is always part of a full round action! The first attack and its off handed attack should be changed to a standard action.
What about the weapon swap feat? I've been scratching my head over that for a couple of days now. Granted you take an extra penalty to hit with the off hand weapon, but at the same time you are only fighting with one weapon, saving gold at the least, and I would almost argue all the penalties for fighting with two weapons. I could see someone trying to take this for use with an earthbreaker "Ok I got my two primary attaks in, and now I switch hands and do it again with an additional -2 to hit." With the way it's written it is unclear to me what is and is not possible with this feat. I have an idea of what it is supposed to mean as a long time player of 3.5 but that doesn't mean others will or that I'm right.
Two Weapon Style
You are adept at wielding two weapons in a more brutal manor than with the two weapon fighting feat. You are not too concerned about getting specific points for maximum damage but rather raw damage from hitting things hard.
Preq: 17 Dex, 13 Str, +1 base attack bonus
Benefit: The user of this feat gains an additional attack with their off hand weapon for ever attack they have from the increase in their base attack bonus. So when your base attack reaches +6, +12, and +18 you get an additional attack at that coinciding base attack bonus. Attacking once with both your primary and off hand weapon is a standard action. Making more attacks requires a full round action.
Your penalties on attack rolls for fighting with two weapons are also reduced. The penalty for your primary hand lessens by 3 and the one for your off hand lessens by 7. There are no additional modifiers for using two one handed weapons with two weapon style. The extra off hand attacks gained from this feat are incapable of dealing extra damage, and damage dice, from precision based attacks such as Sneak Attack, Sudden Strike, skirmish, insightful Strike, elegant Strike, and other bonus damage that requires the target to be vulnerable to critical hits. Special: Two Weapon Style counts as two weapon fighting feats for all feats, prestige classes, etc; however the feats two weapon style and two weapon fighting does not stack. Example: If you have a base attack bonus of +6, you qualify as having improved two weapon fighting feat for all purposes such as feats, prestige classes, etc.
_________________
This should be good and to par with what 1 feat is worth as while you still have to deal with double the cost and DR you gain approximately 2 additional point of damage. This is to par with weapon specialization and power attack. There are also enough feats specifically for two handed weapon fighter that increase damage so that there is no way for a two weapon fighter to threaten out damaging them. So now we need to find a niche for using two weapons specifically, not a shield as they already have something in the works.
What about the weapon swap feat? I've been scratching my head over that for a couple of days now. Granted you take an extra penalty to hit with the off hand weapon, but at the same time you are only fighting with one weapon, saving gold at the least, and I would almost argue all the penalties for fighting with two weapons. I could see someone trying to take this for use with an earthbreaker "Ok I got my two primary attaks in, and now I switch hands and do it again with an additional -2 to hit." With the way it's written it is unclear to me what is and is not possible with this feat. I have an idea of what it is supposed to mean as a long time player of 3.5 but that doesn't mean others will or that I'm right.
I am sorry but what is this "earthbreaker" you speak of? Anyway yeah that feat would solve for the most part the weapon cost. However one of the problems here is how far of a difference there is between two weapon fighting, and two handed fighting there is, and I think my feat fixed it.
earthbreaker is a weapon introduced in RotRL, it's in the Beta.
Can I get a page number for the Beta please? I can't find it :(
I hope Jason sees this, I have been putting a lot of work into this, but then I might have to wait till we get to feats.
9. Attack rate. Using both attacks is always part of a full round action! The first attack and its off handed attack should be changed to a standard action.
I partially agree, but...
Then, should creature with multiple attacks be able to use all attacks as a standard action as well? For the sake of consistency, I don't see why it wouldn't be so. This would change the combat dynamics a lot, and not necessarily in the player's advantage.
|
earthbreaker is a weapon introduced in RotRL, it's in the Beta.
It's not in my version of the Beta, at least not that I can find. As far as I know, it's in the RoTL player's guide, and is setting-specific to Golarion. The only new weapons in the Beta that I saw were the starknife and elven curve blade.
9. Attack rate. Using both attacks is always part of a full round action! The first attack and its off handed attack should be changed to a standard action.I partially agree, but...
Then, should creature with multiple attacks be able to use all attacks as a standard action as well? For the sake of consistency, I don't see why it wouldn't be so. This would change the combat dynamics a lot, and not necessarily in the player's advantage.
Nah, I am just trying to make two weapon style to par with power attack. This shouldn't effect anything's else attack rate. To make using two weapons in combat without precision damage bonus one would need to be able to attack with their off hand weapon once as a standard action.
earthbreaker is a weapon introduced in RotRL, it's in the Beta.It's not in my version of the Beta, at least not that I can find. As far as I know, it's in the RoTL player's guide, and is setting-specific to Golarion. The only new weapons in the Beta that I saw were the starknife and elven curve blade.
OK, what does an earthbreaker doe anyway?
Basically it's your 2 handed budgeoning weapon 2d6 20/x3 40 gp.
But my wonder is could you use that with the weapon swap feat? What would the penalties be? And how would does it make two weapon fighting better, since you are only using one weapon (and maybe a two handed one at that)? Personally I would like a feat like double slice where you can get an attack with each hand as a standard action, maybe with a slight extra penalty (-2 maybe). A parry/reposte combat feat for two weapon fighting could be nice too.
Examples:
Dual Attack
Prerequisites:
Two weapon Fighting, Improved Two weapon Fighting
Benefit:
As a standard action you may attack once with each hand.
Parry Reposte
Prerequisits:
Two Weapon Fighting, Combat Reflexes, Two Weapon Defense
Benefit:
If you Fight defensively or use total defense while using two weapons add + 2 to your AC, if an foe attacks you in melee combat and misses you may make an AoO on that foe with your primary weapon. A foe can only provoke an AoO once by missing an attack per round.
Parry R(i)poste
Prerequisites: Two Weapon Fighting, Combat Reflexes, Two Weapon Defense
Benefit: If you Fight defensively or use total defense while using two weapons add + 2 to your AC, if a foe attacks you in melee combat and misses you may make an AoO on that foe with your primary weapon. A foe can only provoke an AoO once by missing an attack per round.
That mechanic would also work nicely for sword-and-shield style. I think Craig Shackleton, the Rambling Scribe, wrote an equivalent feat in Art of the Duel -- which was well worth the low PDF cost, BTW.
Basically it's your 2 handed budgeoning weapon 2d6 20/x3 40 gp.
Umm no. I don't see how it is even possible to wield such a weapon in any way associated with two weapon fighting at all.
But my wonder is could you use that with the weapon swap feat? What would the penalties be? And how would does it make two weapon fighting better, since you are only using one weapon (and maybe a two handed one at that)? Personally I would like a feat like double slice where you can get an attack with each hand as a standard action, maybe with a slight extra penalty (-2 maybe).
Edit: (I was not sure what you were trying to say) I think that allowing a variant on two weapon swap to allow a combination of two weapon fighting and two handed weapon is not a good idea as it blurs the line between the two as we are trying to give two weapon fighting something unique.
A parry/reposte combat feat for two weapon fighting could be nice too.Examples:
Dual Attack
Prerequisites:
Two weapon Fighting, Improved Two weapon Fighting
Benefit:
As a standard action you may attack once with each hand.Parry Reposte
Prerequisits:
Two Weapon Fighting, Combat Reflexes, Two Weapon Defense
Benefit:
If you Fight defensively or use total defense while using two weapons add + 2 to your AC, if an foe attacks you in melee combat and misses you may make an AoO on that foe with your primary weapon. A foe can only provoke an AoO once by missing an attack per round.
Your comments seem all over the place, on one hand your talking about using a two handed weapon like it was a one handed weapon in the most broke ways imaginable, and now your posting some feats for two weapon fighting? Please tell me again what your trying to do?
Sorry was posting in stream of concious mode and had multiple streams going, my points are/were/should be:
1. Two weapon fighting needs some more ummph, I agree with you.
2. Weapon Swap needs some MAJOR clarification instead of the way it is written now. I personally understand that a two-handed weapon shouldn't be allowed with this feat, but RAW doesn't make that point.
3. My suggestions for more or different feats are suggestions to try and help fix things, I realise in going over the thread again mine suggestions are covered and indeed not as good as the others already posted.
Sorry was posting in stream of concious mode and had multiple streams going, my points are/were/should be:
1. Two weapon fighting needs some more ummph, I agree with you.
Good.
2. Weapon Swap needs some MAJOR clarification instead of the way it is written now. I personally understand that a two-handed weapon shouldn't be allowed with this feat, but RAW doesn't make that point.
Agreed, after you brought this up I took a look at the feat and it is not very clear. We should bring this up with Jason when we talk about feats specifically.
3. My suggestions for more or different feats are suggestions to try and help fix things, I realise in going over the thread again mine suggestions are covered and indeed not as good as the others already posted.
You have some alright ideas.
Two Weapon Style
You are adept at wielding two weapons in a more brutal manor than with the two weapon fighting feat. You are not too concerned about getting specific points for maximum damage but rather raw damage from hitting things hard.
Preq: 17 Dex, 13 Str, +1 base attack bonus
Benefit: The user of this feat gains an additional attack with their off hand weapon for ever attack they have from the increase in their base attack bonus. So when your base attack reaches +6, +12, and +18 you get an additional attack at the lower base attack bonus attack. Attacking once with both your primary and off hand weapon is a standard action. Making more attacks requires a full round action.
Your penalties on attack rolls for fighting with two weapons are also reduced. The penalty for your primary hand lessens by 3 and the one for your off hand lessens by 7. There is no modification for wielding two light weapons. The extra off hand attacks gained from this feat are incapable of dealing extra damage, and damage dice, from precision based attacks. This includes such as Sneak Attack, Sudden Strike, skirmish, insightful Strike, elegant Strike, and other bonus damage that requires the target to be vulnerable to critical hits. If they gain the ability to deal precision based attacks to these targets they do not gain the ability to deal extra damage with their off hand attacks.
Special: Two Weapon Style counts as two weapon fighting feats when they match the base attack bonus to their two weapon fighting equivalents for all feats, prestige classes, etc, with the exception of Greater Two Weapon Fighting, Improved Two Weapon Fighting, and Two Weapon Fighting Feats. Example: If you have a base attack bonus of +6, you qualify as having improved two weapon fighting feat for all purposes such as feats, prestige classes, etc.
_______________________
I made some more clarifications. I also just need to sit down and think of some good feats for two weapon fighting. I was thinking about a two weapon feint that is not dependent on improved feint, but gets a bonus if they have improved feint.
I like what you have in that feat but maybe it should be broken up into a few feats (maybe 1 for two weapons as a standard action, and 1 for the reduced penalties for lack of precsion damage) instead? The most "combat style" feats are chained instead of being one lump feat (i.e. Overhead Chop/ Backswing, two weapon fighting feat chain, power attack cleave feat chain, etc)...
Maybe that's something that could fix fighters over all too. I know that combat styles are supposed to be a ranger thing but that always seemed odd to me, as fighters are the combat monkeys. Rangers should be more, rangery -- scouting, sneaky, ambushing, hit and run'ers. It seems that maybe fighters should have more of the combat styles... I don't know I guess that's a different issue.
I like what you have in that feat but maybe it should be broken up into a few feats (maybe 1 for two weapons as a standard action, and 1 for the reduced penalties for lack of precsion damage) instead? The most "combat style" feats are chained instead of being one lump feat (i.e. Overhead Chop/ Backswing, two weapon fighting feat chain, power attack cleave feat chain, etc)...
Maybe that's something that could fix fighters over all too. I know that combat styles are supposed to be a ranger thing but that always seemed odd to me, as fighters are the combat monkeys. Rangers should be more, rangery -- scouting, sneaky, ambushing, hit and run'ers. It seems that maybe fighters should have more of the combat styles... I don't know I guess that's a different issue.
The name can be changed, and is not meant to apply to WotC syle feats. Feat cost is also a problem for two weapon fighting and it is by no means worth even 1 feat if no precision damage is applied. If you read all the math I did, you find that the net bonus gain from the feat really only is +2 damage, with something along a -0.5 to hit (-10%). It brings two weapon fighting to par with two handed fighting after they gain a single feat. So while it may seem powerful when compared to the old two weapon fighting, this partially to how gimped it was, and probably for good reason, its limitations on extra precision damage makes it completely balanced as that was the only reason for the limitations.
Some points of note.
1. Each attack at best with two weapon style is identical to a two handed weapon fighting but with +2 maxium damage, +1 minimum damage, but with a -1.5 to hit. It is 1.5 due to the fact that you have to role twice at -1, so there is a slight increase in the reduction in chances to hit than a mere -1.
2. You have to pay double for weapons, while this isn't a problem to start, you have to worry about DR, and improving your weapons at double the cost limiting your effectiveness to hit, or put other nice magical tricks on your weapons.
3. DR applies twice as much, as you probably wont be able to alway figure out what the DR is for, or meet it, you will often find things with DR reducing the damage you can do drastically.
4. Compare the above listed negatives and the posatives of the feat to the negatives and positives to any single feat such as exotic weapon training or weapon specialization and you will see what I mean.
Example:
A elven curve blade does 2D6 damage, crits 18-20 with x2 damage. and gets +2 disarm attempts. It is hard to find the weapon to buy as well, and find in loot.
My Two Weapon fighting style with 2 long swords does 2D6 damage, crits 19-20 with x2 damage, but with -1.5 to hit. DR applies double, and you have to pay double the cost on weapons. However feats like weapon specialization, or barbarians elemental rage power does apply double.
With such drastic minuses in comparison to a each of the one feat buy, you can see that it is still under powered. So I think maybe ether reducing the minus to hit to 0 or making the off hand damage do full strength damage would be appropriate still, but I want to convince and get support, or get proven wrong, in these facts before I go there.
Here are some ideas I am working on.
Two Weapon Trickster
Using two weapons you find better ways to perform specific combat maneuvers.
Requirements: Base Attack +5, Two Weapon Fighting, and any improved bonus feat for a combat maneuver that takes an attack action (Improved Disarm, Improved Sunder, or Improved Trip).
Benefit: While attempting a combat maneuvers with two melee weapons, you gain a +2 on each attempt you make so long as you have the improved feat coinciding with that the maneuver. This however does not work with a shield. This bonus increases by +1 for every additional attack past the first that you gained from two weapon fighting.
Special: You can not take this feat multiple times to have it apply to a separate combat maneuver. If have more than one improved combat maneuver listed in the requirements, or you later obtain one of those feats, the effects of this feat applies automatically. If you have improved unarmed strike this may also be used with improved grapple so long as you are unarmed when you perform the action.
And just for note:
Shield Trickster
Using a shield you find better ways to perform specific combat maneuvers and optimizing on the cover and protection a shield grants.
Requirements: Base Attack +5, Improved Shield Bash, and ether Improved Bull Rush, Improved Overrun, Improved Grapple, or Improved Disarm.
Benefit: While attempting a combat maneuvers with a shield, you gain a +2 on each attempt you make to bull rush, overrun, disarm or grapple check. This works with a shield being used only. This bonus increases by +1 for every attack past the first that you gained from an increasing base attack bonus you have.
Special: You can not take this feat multiple times to have it apply to a separate combat maneuver. If have more than one improved combat maneuver listed in the requirements, or you later obtain one of those feats, the effects of this feat applies automatically.
So just for clarification you're saying that the old two weapon fighting feats should be replaced with something new because they are not fixable from where they stand now? The reasons being:
1. The feat tax for using them is too high
2. The damage output in comparision is too low
3. The other costs (money) of this form of combat make it unfeasible.
Now I still don't disagree with you, however this leads to new problems all of it's own. Do we build a new feat tree for two weapon fighting? What do we do with the ranger's combat styles to keep the flavors seperate and unique?
So just for clarification you're saying that the old two weapon fighting feats should be replaced with something new because they are not fixable from where they stand now? The reasons being:
1. The feat tax for using them is too high
2. The damage output in comparision is too low
3. The other costs (money) of this form of combat make it unfeasible.Now I still don't disagree with you, however this leads to new problems all of it's own. Do we build a new feat tree for two weapon fighting? What do we do with the ranger's combat styles to keep the flavors seperate and unique?
NO NO NO, not replaced, just a different two weapon form for those who don't have sneak attack, and the like. I didn't call my feat Two Weapon Fighting for a reason. I think for rangers, they would get two weapon style rather than two weapon fighting, and would get access to a large list of trick feats for that style. Maybe things like weapon focus and weapon specialization, but restricted a set of two weapons, but not one being used alone. These are just a few ideas off the bat, not sure if it is a good idea.
The simplest way to fix the two-weapon fighting style would probably be to replace it with the realistic variant or a reasonable facsimile thereof. It removes the extra off-hand attack and makes two-weapon fighting not suck when used by characters without sneak attacks while still being useful for characters with sneak attack due to the feinting bonus it gives. However, if you did do that you would need to give rangers something else instead of greater two weapon fighting. Maybe oversized two-weapon fighting? Or you could give oversized two weapon fighting instead of improved two-weapon fighting, then give that in place of greater two-weapon fighting. It really depends on whether being able to make two aid another checks on yourself while still attacking is worth the same as a third off-hand attack.
I'm sorry for the double post, but my edit button seems to have disappeared. Reading through the thread again I noticed the Dual Attack feat. That would make a decent replacement for Greater Two-Weapon Fighting. Parry Riposte on the other hand would be overpowered using the realistic variant as the Two-Weapon Fighting feat would already let you add two to your AC. Twice, if you have Improved Two-Weapon fighting.
i think that TWF is fine.
If you use pathfinder rules u have feats and class options that let u to do more damange than with a two handed weapon.
And u have 3 more attacks so it means more oportunities for sunder ,disarm,etc..
In the another hand if u use all D&D books ,u can be an AoO abuse as a fighter and with only twf and ¿double hit? u can do 2 attacks per AoO.
Sorry for the grammar ,english isnt my native laguange.
Well I am waiting to leave this one up to Jason now. However you can only attack multiple times on your full round action. That means your standing still and doing nothing else but a 5ft step. You can not do two attacks as part of an attack of opportunity.
I seem to recall Jason saying that he was going to look over ideas to level the playing field for high level non-casters... one of the ideas he was responding to was allowing movement while making more than a single attack.
We'll have to wait and see what comes of that.