Dear Jason Bulmahn, and others at Paizo,
It has come to my attention that two weapon fighting has and is completely and totally restricted in use for rogues and other classes that gain precision damage and damage dice. This, I think, was the main reason for the massive negatives applied to the fighting style, and the long list of feats. This though made the style useless for the other classes as this provided no real niche of its own to excel at. After doing the math have tweaked and reworked the entire system to bring it to par with two handed weapon fighting, in its frequency of use at least, and to purpose a niche of its own. What I have done is on this premise that two weapon fighting for the most part was alright for rogues but clearly was not for anyone else so the focus of increase in capability was entirely to other classes, while keeping rogues and other precision damage dealing classes in check for the most part.
This was done by:
* Progressive additional attacks.
* Eliminating Minuses and granting a bonus to using two weapons trained.
* Making One attack with off hand and primary hand act as a single attack action.
* Adding a minus to hit to performing precision hits alone while using two weapon fighting, bringing them to how they were in the previous editions of two weapon fighting.
* Limiting the amount of amount of precision damage to primary hands attacks.
* Giving a precision attack set of feats close to the existing old two weapon fighting feats, with one additional one to counter the bonuses they are now getting.
I have gotten a lot of feed back over the alpha and early beta pathfinder play-testing, and have come to this conclusion.
Two Weapon Fighting Rework
Table of Context
Page 1: Two weapon fighting feat and combat system rework.
Also please, if it wouldn't be too much of a trouble, a simple post by Jason or anyone working at Paizo that you have at least seen this would be nice. I feel like I am just grasping in the dark here with a lot of my threads.
|
...two weapon fighting has and is completely and totally restricted in use for rogues and other classes that gain precision damage and damage dice.
In YOUR games.
In games I've run or played, I have not seen a TWF rogue ever. The only TWF have been fighters and a cleric. The rogues and their sneak attack were fun to watch along with the TWF characters. YMMV.
Anyways, just because you find something does not mean it should apply to everyone else.
...two weapon fighting has and is completely and totally restricted in use for rogues and other classes that gain precision damage and damage dice.In YOUR games.
In games I've run or played, I have not seen a TWF rogue ever. The only TWF have been fighters and a cleric. The rogues and their sneak attack were fun to watch along with the TWF characters. YMMV.
Anyways, just because you find something does not mean it should apply to everyone else.
Tell me, how it is it viable compared to a two handed weapon style, the current version that is.
I make it clear that this system is more to par with two handed guys in the End Result. So back you claims up. I got at least 5 people saying to the contrary.
I would love to know that I didn't have to push this any more. So please just tell me how, no s*#&ting her, I would love to know.
|
Tell me, how it is it viable compared to a two handed weapon style, the current version that is...
(A) Barbarian, 2-handed, Overhand Chop, greatsword 2d6+(2x str)
(B) Barbarian, 2-weapon, TWF and Double Slice, hand-axes (1d6+str, both hands)
(A) With the 2-hander you save a feat and do more damage per hit, but run a higher chance of doing no damage at all.
(B) With 2-weapon, you do less damage per hit, but your potential damage is the exact same as with the 2-hander (2d6+2x str).
Double Slice, as written, solves the TWF problem.
Ryn, who always liked paired axes
One problem with that Ryn. As the rules are presently, that character is not down 1 feat compared to the two-hander, but three at least (I assume any fighter planning to two-weapon fight will at least take improved two weapon fighting, the odds to hit with the second attack are generally high enough to warrant it.) If he doesn't, the two-hander will typically be dealing the same damage on the first hit, and much more on consecutive hits.
Also a big problem with the current system, is that two-weapon fighting requires a full-attack action, when in truth one should be able to make one main and one offhand attack as a standard action. Without that fix, the two-weapon style will never really be worth its salt.
That is just one of the many problems with the fighting style that needs to be addressed.
Here is an example I have been trying to create, however it is still in work and I'll re-post the complete one as a web document later on.
Extra attacks are only good when you can do something with it better than someone can do with only one attack. Two Weapon Fighting as is requires a massive Dex bonus and feat devotion. 3 feats and a 19 Dex by the end, pre-epic, and you still have at least a -2 to all strikes, both off hand and primary. Here are both two weapon fighting and two handed weapons stated up.
Comparison of Greater Two Weapon Fighting and Normal Two Handed Weapon Fighter
Full Round Attack:
Attacks Rate: Same
Stats:
*Two Weapon Fighting: 19 Dex, 10 Str
*Two Handed Weapons: 10 Dex, 19 Str
Feats:
*Two Weapon Fighting: Two Weapon Fighting Tree (3 total)
*Two Handed Weapons: None (0 total)
Damage
*Two Weapon Fighting:
-2 Rapiers or Scimitars: 2D6; 2 minimum, 7 average, 12 maximum
-2 Long Swords: 2D8; 2 minimum, 9 average, 16 maximum
*Two Handed Weapons
-Falchion: 2D4+6; 8 minimum, 11 average, 14 maximum
-Great Sword: 2D6+6; 8 minimum, 15 average, 18 maximum
To Hit Modifier:
*Two Weapon Fighting: -4
*Two Handed Weapons: +4
AC/Reflex Saves:
Two Weapon Fighting: +4
Two Handed Weapons: +0
Combat Maneuvers:
*Bonus
-Two Weapon Fighting: +0
-Two Handed Weapons: +4
(Two Weapon Fighting can perform trips/sunders often than two handed weapons though)
Weapon Cost/DR Application:
*Two Weapon Fighting: x2
*Two Weapon Fighting: x1
Attack Actions: (other than full attack action)
Move Action and Attack:
*Two Weapon Fighting: 1D6/1D8 +0 damage
*Two Handed Weapons: 2D4/2D6 +6 damage
Charge
*Two Weapon Fighting: 1D6/1D8 +0 damage
*Two Handed Weapons: 2D4/2D6 +6 damage
Attack of Opportunity:
*Two Weapon Fighting: 1D6/1D8 +0 damage
*Two Handed Weapons: 2D4/2D6 +6 damage
____________________
So in conclusion direct difference between the two fighting styles are:
On full round actions you get from the three feats -8 Hit (-4 from style, -4 from stat loss), x2 weapon cost, x2 DR reduction, -6 minimum damage (which REALLY sucks with DR applying twice), -4 to -6 average damage, -2 maximum damage, -4 combat maneuver bonus.
In general you lose out on applying full attacks on other actions that are not a full round actions, such as charges, attacks of opportunities, or standard actions. With these you lose out an additional -1 minimal damage, -3.5 to -4.5 damage on average, and -6 to -8 at maximum, and you lose your only bonus, performing more than one trip attack.
You do gain +4 AC and +4 reflex saves, which have NOTHING to do with the feats them selves, and have more to do with the high Dex. The only salvation here, that I still need to investigate, is the TWF Build that uses two rapiers as they are finessable. However when you start adding in feats past the 3 things get very complicated as I would need to start adding feats to two handed weapons.
Does the Aldori dueling sword come into play here, or is it excluded because it is campaign specific?
I think it is important to remember that TWF specialization generally does mean higher AC, as compared to a 2handed wpn spec, as a 2handed wpn spec (again, generally) cannot take advantage of a shield or focus on dex to improved AC. The TWF character improves his or her AC and attack bonus and initiative (combat opportunity?) simultaneously.
So yes, a 2handed wpn spec will deal higher damage, but a TWF gets better AC and better initiative (and better saves, due to increased bonus to reflex saves.)
Does the Aldori dueling sword come into play here, or is it excluded because it is campaign specific?
I think it is important to remember that TWF specialization generally does mean higher AC, as compared to a 2handed wpn spec, as a 2handed wpn spec (again, generally) cannot take advantage of a shield or focus on dex to improved AC. The TWF character improves his or her AC and attack bonus and initiative (combat opportunity?) simultaneously.
So yes, a 2handed wpn spec will deal higher damage, but a TWF gets better AC and better initiative (and better saves, due to increased bonus to reflex saves.)
Whiles I did not catch the initiative bonus, still take a loot at the post above yours.
This is not about campaign specific things here.
One problem with that Ryn. As the rules are presently, that character is not down 1 feat compared to the two-hander, but three at least (I assume any fighter planning to two-weapon fight will at least take improved two weapon fighting, the odds to hit with the second attack are generally high enough to warrant it.) If he doesn't, the two-hander will typically be dealing the same damage on the first hit, and much more on consecutive hits.
Also a big problem with the current system, is that two-weapon fighting requires a full-attack action, when in truth one should be able to make one main and one offhand attack as a standard action. Without that fix, the two-weapon style will never really be worth its salt.
Take into consideration opponents with DR.
the two hander guy is better off, because DR takes off every hit (all the more reason to have more than one fighter per party)
The two hander guy will likely go overhand chop, power attack, cleave, great cleave.
Easily attaiable with a low level human fighter.
The TWF guy will likely go TWF, and improved TWF, weapon fineese, double slice.
Problem for TWF guy is to this he need to be 6th level.
Two hander guy only needs to be 4th.
By 6th level Two hander guy can pick up back swing.
Two hander guy WILL out pace TWF guy on potential damage AND TWF guy has to have a high STR and DEX. Two hander guy doesnt need that high dex.
however I find it appropriate for the two fighting styles. So I dont see anything wrong.
There shouldnt be ont that is clearly better than the other,and there should be reasons to take both.
Certain things in game play come up as well, like types of magic weapons found and how many magic weapons are found. TWF needs two of them and they need to be specific types. Two hander guy is just as dangerus witha magic axe, club or sword.
If he gets a +5 club, he might swing that instead of his +1 sword.
TWF guy is basically waiting for the RIGHT weapons.
I still feel the great sword should do the old 1e 3d6 damage. (and the bastard sword should do 1d12, which would give the bastard sword a better reason t exist and spend a feat to use it)
But thats just me.
I got at least 5 people saying to the contrary.
Who?
I got at least 5 people saying to the contrary.Who?
Sorry if I am putting words in other peoples mouths, but between this thread and my last threat, these are the immediate people who think the current two weapon fighting style needs a rework.
DivineAspect
Charles Townsend
eirip
guille f
Kyoni (although he doesn't like my idea on how to do it)
damcyan
Threeshades
kyrt-ryder
Pendagast
Andy Griffin
...
Yes you hit the nail on the mark I think.
Main problems with the current style is this.
1. Getting several feats to TRY and make it close to two handed weapons
2. While you getting the feats, two handed weapons are actually progressing.
3. Two Stat requirements, which give you multiple negatives across the board to combat maneuvers, damage, and to hit bonuses.
4. You can't use your attacks at full capability in any situation, except a full round attack, while two handed weapons get it all day every day.
...Yes you hit the nail on the mark I think.
Main problems with the current style is this.
1. Getting several feats to TRY and make it close to two handed weapons
2. While you getting the feats, two handed weapons are actually progressing.
3. Two Stat requirements, which give you multiple negatives across the board to combat maneuvers, damage, and to hit bonuses.
4. You can't use your attacks at full capability in any situation, except a full round attack, while two handed weapons get it all day every day.
As I DM and am NOTORIOUS for "winging" rules:
I dont slow things down or bog them down with flipping through pages to find which rule applies.
This is how things were done back in the 70s and 80s. Over the years our "10 Commandments" of Dndhave become the modern jewish Torah.
No religious offense intended, my comparison is when the jews came out of egypt that got ten rules to follow. very basic.
Then along came people who said to aaron and moses, tell me MORE, what about this and that and over here, and followers found NEW ways to try and bend the rules, so MORE clarification was required until nowadays ley people need a group of wisemen (Rabbis) to tell them what it all says and even rabbis argue with eachother and dont agree.
Its a little frustrating! I mean something in the real world like the torah and rabbis are needed and Im not cirticizng that system of beleifs.
BUT does an RPG world need as many pages as a holy writing for people to argue over? (and still not all agree!)
In MY world that is to say if you were playing a TWF character in MY Campaign:
the second attack you get from your off hand weapon is,in my mind the SAME as the the weapon attak you get with the ON hand weapon, in the way that if you CAN attack with one weapon you CAN attack with the other. Ie you DO not need to do a "FULL attack" to get off hand weapon attacks,they are infact (in my mind) an addition to, or multiplication of the single attack you get from your on hand weapon.
This is basically how it worked it 2e
IF you were a ranger, with the right dex, you could swing two weapons, effectively doubling your number of attacks.
Also you used to be able to fire 2 arrows for one "attack" or action.
in my mind 3.x confused the heck out of things in combat and actions by making the 10 commandments into the Torah.
They brought in all these extra feats in order to two weapon fight, they stole rate of fire from ranged weapons, and gave all these loop holes to spell casters.
SOOOO, i never used 3.x rules in combat,I just ran combat off the 10 commandments of 2e.
with minor exceptions, in my 3e world, bows fire once per "attack" and you need the feats inorder not to take penalites in TWF.
Now with that being said, I think the pathfinder rules have added alot of good things to Two handers, which almost always got forgotten and passed up. So the new feats are KOOL!
In my opinion the only thing that needs fixing in TWF is not the TWF but how combat works in general.
I SHOULD NOT be restricted from using my OFF HAND weapon if I move and attack (ie not taking a full attack). So in my opinion and they way I will ALWAYS run it is if you get one attack with your right hand, you get one with your left.
If you do a full attack you get ALL the attacks you are supposed to make to begin with PLUS any attacks you 'bought' with TWF feats.
I DONOT believe the number of feats it takes to two weapon fight should be lessened, beause this would take away from the fighter class who shuld be able to do it better than any other class (the only thing fighters have going for them are bunches of feats)
So in closing, Spell casters shouldnt get to move and cast (in my world they cant), leave the feats alone, and fix combat and actions so meleers get a fair shake, and TWF people can use one off hand attack with one ON hand attack when they do a move and partial attack.
This essentially is the only thing to fix and is easy by fixing the loopholes in combat, that for me, never existed to begin with.
One more thing, TWF guy should never be able to keep up with Two hander guy on amount of damage dealt in a round. Thats Two hander guys thing. TWF guy should be able to get in the most number of attacks a round, thereby causing a likelyhood that their average damage dealt over the course of an encounter is more or less the same.
I play alot of real world boffer weapon live action roleplaying (people may or may not know what that is)
In that world the sword and board rules. (ie the most successful fighters)
But I fight "florentine" (which is the same as TWF) and If I can run around and fight with two 3' weapons then any DnD hero should be able to (considering Im 37 and 40lbs overweight and far from a ninja or duelist)
In live action roleplaying, its the florentine fighter that goes after the spell caster (bean bag throwers) beause shields are bean bag magnets. I enjoy flanking combat and pummeling robe wearing flusies.
However, what Im saying is I have plenty of real world fighting with two hand expereince (about 10 years of it) and if you ask me fighting with a sheild and sword is harder.
I DONOT believe the number of feats it takes to two weapon fight should be lessened, beause this would take away from the fighter class who shuld be able to do it better than any other class (the only thing fighters have going for them are bunches of feats)
One more thing, TWF guy should never be able to keep up with Two hander guy on amount of damage dealt in a round. Thats Two hander guys thing. TWF guy should be able to get in the most number of attacks a round, thereby causing a likelyhood that their average damage dealt over the course of an encounter is more or less the same.
I completely agree with you on both these acounts, that is why I gave replacement feat examples for the long list of TWF feats. The TWF feat itself and the rules needed to be re-done to help make the feat more worth taking as its value was the single most "trap like" feat for anyone by a rogue. My fighting style comparisons should be up soon, and this will make it clear that even weapon focus for two handed weapon is a better feat than getting all three TWF feats as they are now.
These feats, instead of focusing on damage, focused on getting bonuses to hit and reducing minuses to hit. With my TWF feat and every damage increase feat a two weapon fighter could get right now they could not by any means catch up to the damage output of a two handed weapon fighter. My only problem I can think of is that the vital strike tree, might, need to be dropped; and that is a big might.
As for the 1 feat niche, TWF has a higher maximum damage but a lower minimum, and this is doubly bad due to DR applying twice, and weapon cost is currently double.
Two Weapon Fighting Tree with Weapon Finesse
vs.
Two Handed Weapon User (with no feats)
Proof of the Following Statement
So in conclusion, after spending on two weapon fighting, and on two handed weapons, direct difference between the two different fighting styles are:
On full round actions you get a -2 Hit, x2 weapon cost, x2 DR reduction, -6 minimum damage (both which REALLY sucks with DR applying twice), -6 to -8 average damage, -6 maximum damage, and -4 combat maneuver bonus (due to stats and stat points devotion loss).
In general you lose out on applying full attacks on other actions that are not a full round actions, such as charges, attacks of opportunities, or standard actions. With these you lose -2 to hit, -7 minimal damage, -8.5 or -9.5 damage on average, and -10 or -12 at maximum, and you lose your only bonus, performing more than one trip attack.
You do gain +4 AC, +4 initiative +4 reflex saves, which have NOTHING to do with the feats them selves, and have more to do with the high dex requirements.
The slight gain you get is when you get improved trip, or god forbid improved sunder, where you get multiple attempts on a full round action. This however is another two feats away at the least for one, and you do suffer a -4 on the combat maneuver due to stat points lost getting the TWF tree.
I have yet to see any clear bonus that raises above that of two handed weapons at doing anything to warrant these feats and still having these minuses other than being a rogue or other precision damage dealing class.
|
You know as suboptimal as it is, I had two fighters in my one game that were two weapon fighters. The only reason they had issues was Damage Reduction. Now that all they have to do is invest in higher + weapons to beat DR they will have less of an issue. I disagree with the premise that it's only for rogues anymore.
Although I do think that improved TWF should give you all of your itteratives, then Greater TWF lets you attack with your off hand weapon with a standard action.
You know as suboptimal as it is, I had two fighters in my one game that were two weapon fighters. The only reason they had issues was Damage Reduction. Now that all they have to do is invest in higher + weapons to beat DR they will have less of an issue. I disagree with the premise that it's only for rogues anymore.
Although I do think that improved TWF should give you all of your itteratives, then Greater TWF lets you attack with your off hand weapon with a standard action.
Well I am glad you enjoyed it, however it does not change the facts stated right above your post.
|
|
Okay, well comparing what I notice is your breakdown of weapons shows the higher average damage per hit, but your breakdown the TWF when you consider that he has 6 attacks to 3 attacks is a difference of 3 points of damage with the better of the weapon options, and with the weaker options comparison the TWF is actually ahead. now we ignore the last itterative. so the TWF gets 4 hits, and the THF gets 2. the high end choices the THF is ahead by 2 damage, the weaker options are the same. But the difference is that the TWF will have more criticals since he takes more attack rolls. The difference is made up by the fact that the THF gets feats to increase his damage input. So yes the THF is the superior option, which is why I suggested the changes I did, which helps. Because then as a standard action the TWF could also apply rend and several other feats. Anyways, your mileage may vary, but while THF is superior that doesn't mean that TWF only works for rogues, it's just more cost effective to be a THF. That's not the same as saying it doesn't work.
Also remember if we take it to the level of THF then when rogues take it it becomes a win button.
RPG Superstar 2008 Top 32, 2011 Top 16
|
Okay, well comparing what I notice is your breakdown of weapons shows the higher average damage per hit, but your breakdown the TWF when you consider that he has 6 attacks to 3 attacks is a difference of 3 points of damage with the better of the weapon options, and with the weaker options comparison the TWF is actually ahead. now we ignore the last itterative. so the TWF gets 4 hits, and the THF gets 2. the high end choices the THF is ahead by 2 damage, the weaker options are the same. But the difference is that the TWF will have more criticals since he takes more attack rolls. The difference is made up by the fact that the THF gets feats to increase his damage input. So yes the THF is the superior option, which is why I suggested the changes I did, which helps. Because then as a standard action the TWF could also apply rend and several other feats. Anyways, your mileage may vary, but while THF is superior that doesn't mean that TWF only works for rogues, it's just more cost effective to be a THF. That's not the same as saying it doesn't work.
Also, TWF options actually can get more damage if they use weapons with additional energy damage - +1d6 per hit averages to 7 additional damage in the above example (3.5 per hit * 2 additional hits), so it's quite easy to improve the TWF to be doing 5 more damage. This additional damage increases further when using more energy types (i.e. a flaming, shocking, freezing weapon).
In addition, with more attacks, the TWF is hurt less by bad die rolls, and is more likely to get some hits in against high AC opponents compared to a single weapon fighter.
Captain, I have been following your posting with interest and have implemented the rules in my game. Have you run the numbers for higher level characters, i.e. those that may have 2 powerful blades in their hands as opposed to just 1 for the two hander? I would think there would be a growing disparity when weapons are +3,+4 or +5. I'd be interested in your thoughts.
Okay, well comparing what I notice is your breakdown of weapons shows the higher average damage per hit, but your breakdown the TWF when you consider that he has 6 attacks to 3 attacks is a difference of 3 points of damage with the better of the weapon options, and with the weaker options comparison the TWF is actually ahead. now we ignore the last itterative. so the TWF gets 4 hits, and the THF gets 2. the high end choices the THF is ahead by 2 damage, the weaker options are the same.
How is that possible, you are incorrect. Two Weapon fighting takes a -2 to hit with light weapons and has lower damage all around, and vastly lower minimum damage? You have misread the document.
Damage
*Two Weapon Fighting:
-2: Light Pick, Kukri 2D4; 2 minimum, 5 average, 8 maximum-2: Short Sword, Hand Axe 2D6; 2 minimum, 7 average, 12 maximum
*Two Handed Weapons
-Falchion/Scythe/Guisarme: 2D4+6; 8 minimum, 11 average, 14 maximum
-Great Sword: 2D6+6; 8 minimum, 15 average, 18 maximum
Even then your still getting at best 1.5 strength mod damage, even if both attacks hit.
|
|
Okay, well comparing what I notice is your breakdown of weapons shows the higher average damage per hit, but your breakdown the TWF when you consider that he has 6 attacks to 3 attacks is a difference of 3 points of damage with the better of the weapon options, and with the weaker options comparison the TWF is actually ahead. now we ignore the last itterative. so the TWF gets 4 hits, and the THF gets 2. the high end choices the THF is ahead by 2 damage, the weaker options are the same.How is that possible, you are incorrect. Two Weapon fighting takes a -2 to hit with light weapons and has lower damage all around, and vastly lower minimum damage? You have misread the document.
I was operating with average damage comparisons on every attack hitting, then only the first series of attacks hitting. I'm not doing the math of every roll being lowest possible damage. IME a -2 penalty to a full BAB class isn't that big of a penalty. first attacks almost always hit, second attacks hit fairly regularly, and third attacks miss regularly, which is why I dropped them. This is from having two TWF in my group from level 6-12 and running them through several fights at varying difficulties. I'm not denying that when you add in the feats and cost that THF is superior, I'm saying that on average in most games that the TWF isn't so far behind that you can't play them. The choice works and will get you through most encounters the only time you'll have a problem is with DR which now you have a lot of ways to get around. Higher +s, mutable weapons etc. Does it need improvement, yes it does hence my recomendation, is it "Only for rogues and those dealing precision based damage" as you put it, no it is not.
Captain, I have been following your posting with interest and have implemented the rules in my game. Have you run the numbers for higher level characters, i.e. those that may have 2 powerful blades in their hands as opposed to just 1 for the two hander? I would think there would be a growing disparity when weapons are +3,+4 or +5. I'd be interested in your thoughts.
No I have not run the numbers for that specificlly, however it would still balance out due to the remaining double weapon cost leaving the two handed weapon fighter money to buy on other things, or a 2nd weapon helping with DR metal/damage type, problems, or even armor.
With feats like backswing, it comes clear that a two handed fighter is the damage king, getting x3 strength mod on their first swing, which is at their highest attack bonus.
If you are using the extra suggested feats, as I stated before, I am not too sure about their balance yet. I have yet to do any extensive numbers work on them. Any feedback would be great.
I am not sure though as to this comment.
I would think there would be a growing disparity when weapons are +3,+4 or +5. I'd be interested in your thoughts.
If your talking about the weapon cost? I have a magic item I am saving to help keep the weapon cost balanced, but still leave it as a small negative for them.
Thank you so very much for your support!
I was operating with average damage comparisons on every attack hitting, then only the first series of attacks hitting. I'm not doing the math of every roll being lowest possible damage. IME a -2 penalty to a full BAB class isn't that big of a penalty. first attacks almost always hit, second attacks hit fairly regularly, and third attacks miss regularly, which is why I dropped them. This is from having two TWF in my group from level 6-12 and running them through several fights at varying difficulties. I'm not denying that when you add in the feats and cost that THF is superior, I'm saying that on average in most games that the TWF isn't so far behind that you can't play them. The choice works and will get you through most encounters the only time you'll have a problem is with DR which now you have a lot of ways to get around. Higher +s, mutable weapons etc. Does it need improvement, yes it does hence my recomendation, is it "Only for rogues and those dealing precision based damage" as you put it, no it is not.Okay, well comparing what I notice is your breakdown of weapons shows the higher average damage per hit, but your breakdown the TWF when you consider that he has 6 attacks to 3 attacks is a difference of 3 points of damage with the better of the weapon options, and with the weaker options comparison the TWF is actually ahead. now we ignore the last itterative. so the TWF gets 4 hits, and the THF gets 2. the high end choices the THF is ahead by 2 damage, the weaker options are the same.How is that possible, you are incorrect. Two Weapon fighting takes a -2 to hit with light weapons and has lower damage all around, and vastly lower minimum damage? You have misread the document.
Any fighting system can be played. However when compared to others we agree that THF is better. I just want it to be even so others and I are not scoffed at by the casters when we try this out, and then they are all fearing for their lives as you are not the best meleer out there.
Also, TWF options actually can get more damage if they use weapons with additional energy damage - +1d6 per hit averages to 7 additional damage in the above example (3.5 per hit * 2 additional hits), so it's quite easy to improve the TWF to be doing 5 more damage. This additional damage increases further when using more energy types (i.e. a flaming, shocking, freezing weapon).In addition, with more attacks, the TWF is hurt less by bad die rolls, and is more likely to get some hits in against high AC opponents compared to a single weapon fighter.
The costs are double and energy resistance would also apply double. In addition the feat cost, options to use the attacks. So while your getting two +4 weapons, the two handed fighter who has no feats and would have a +5 to +6 weapon, and you would still have all the minuses listed above, -2 hit, -4 combat maneuvers, -4 feats, etc.
I like that you've been attempting this with some real numbers Hexen. I do think you're off a bit in places though.
As an initial comment, I feel Comparing 10 str/19 dex to 19 str/10 dex isn't the best way. It's a fully *fair* comparison mind you, but it stretches out the damage differences, while slightly undervaluing the AC/Reflex/Init differences. I would suggest 14 str/19 dex to 19 str/14 dex. But let's move on.
Have you run the numbers for higher level characters, i.e. those that may have 2 powerful blades in their hands as opposed to just 1 for the two hander? I would think there would be a growing disparity when weapons are +3,+4 or +5. I'd be interested in your thoughts.No I have not run the numbers for that specificlly, however it would still balance out due to the remaining double weapon cost leaving the two handed weapon fighter money to buy on other things, or a 2nd weapon helping with DR metal/damage type, problems, or even armor.
Actually, when you get to +3/+4 weapons DR metal no longer applies at all. The cost is actually a debatable point. While certainly a TWF has to pay for two weapons, because they get the bonuses essentially twice, they can often get more effect out of the same investment than a THF.
As an *example* (not proof by any means), consider a THF with 50k in their main weapon. It could be +5, but probably more likely +3, flaming & shocking (or perhaps Holy). That's +3 to hit, +3 to damage, and +2d6 to damage (usually).
A TWF could spend 32K on a +3 flaming weapon and 18k on a +2 shocking weapon, and have only the tiniest decrease in damage (from the +2 vs. +3). If instead he got a +2 flaming & shocking, and a +1 flaming & shocking, he'll be down 1 and 2 to hit, 1 and 2 to damage, but have twice as much flaming and shocking damage (great against constructs!) - about +4d6. Is it worth it? As I said, debateable.
With feats like backswing, it comes clear that a two handed fighter is the damage king, getting x3 strength mod on their first swing, which is at their highest attack bonus.
Backswing is actually an *inefficient* feat compared to Two-Weapon Fighting. Overhand Chop provides an increase of .5 Str modifier. To keep up with that when you get iterative attacks you have to take Backswing. Double Slice on the other hand provides that extra .5 Str modifier to every off-hand attack. Backswing provides no further benefit until level 11, and then sort of "catches up" the 2nd and 3rd iterative attacks "missing" .5 Str mod by stacking it on the first. The 4th iterative attack TWF is ahead on, but by then chances of missing have really stacked up.
In my opinion, other than a resource crunch at the mid and some low levels, a TWF doesn't need any different stats than a THF. Most fighters I know have easily a 19 Dex by mid-high levels, and that's only needed at 11th level, for the smallest non-epic benefit of the chain.
Tack on the Vital Strike feats and the differences mount up a bit higher.
where are the days of randomly generated magic items?
Just because you can have it, or it exists doesntmean there are tons of them or you have one for each hand.
In 1e ADnD I had a 91st level fighter (back when that happened) who hand a +2 sword.
Why because I always always ALWAYS found swords with "issues" either they were intelligent, with some ego, hand the wrong alignment, were cursed, did something stupid, or like flame tounges (the old kind) only had good pluses in certain circumstances.
2 1/2 years of playing. 91 levels. and the best weapon I ever found was in a pregenerated adventure at level 8.
Nowadays a new item comes out, and a week later there are fighters with one for each hand.
The games have really gotten out of control form the old days.
You know I'll be honest here. I didn't factor in magic items as much as I needed to, this was due to the double costing factor. After looking things over and thinking, and realizing that with two +6 weapons in each hand, +1 vorpral light weapons, it has become clear that will be not making a new magic item to reduce the two weapon fighting costs. Even now with the current system one with the +4 confirm critical feats, and two of those swords, would have about a 5% auto kill on a viable target.
Magic Items would factor in like this.
+10 Weapons x2 Additional damage over a single weapon=
*+5 damage more,
*+5D6 Frost, Shocking, Flaming, Bane
If you think there is a better +10 weapon please post it.
Minimum: +10 minimum damage
Average: 5+17.5+3.5=+26 damage
Maximum: +35 damage
With +1D8 on critical Thundering
A Barbarian would have Elemental Rage: +1D6
A Fighter would have\
*Weapon Mastery: +5 damage
*+6 Weapon specialization
So for the magic items, you get what you pay for. You would need 400,000 gold or 200,000 and 200 days of a caster to get both.
P.S.
After looking at vorpral, which I thought they changed, I am not happy.
I would think there would be a growing disparity when weapons are +3,+4 or +5. I'd be interested in your thoughts.
If your talking about the weapon cost? I have a magic item I am saving to help keep the weapon cost balanced, but still leave it as a small negative for them.
Thank you so very much for your support!
No, I was looking at the amount of damage being dealt. 2 advanced weapons as opposed to 1. You made a good point about the two-hander being able to invest in armor and other protective devices. Cost would also be an issue. One of my current players is a Ranger, and he is the only "tank", these rules will certainly help him, and with no other true melee fighter, the most powerful weapons will funnel to him. My impression is that he is going to do more damage than the two-hander. Which is fine with me.
Your welcome for the support, you've earned it.
Director of Games
|
Also please, if it wouldn't be too much of a trouble, a simple post by Jason or anyone working at Paizo that you have at least seen this would be nice. I feel like I am just grasping in the dark here with a lot of my threads.
I have been here. I do not have much to add at the moment. I am still weighing some things on this front.
Jason Bulmahn
Lead Designer
Paizo Publishing
((BTW, calls like this are entirely unnecessary. I read just about every thread on these forums))
Also please, if it wouldn't be too much of a trouble, a simple post by Jason or anyone working at Paizo that you have at least seen this would be nice. I feel like I am just grasping in the dark here with a lot of my threads.I have been here. I do not have much to add at the moment. I am still weighing some things on this front.
Jason Bulmahn
Lead Designer
Paizo Publishing((BTW, calls like this are entirely unnecessary. I read just about every thread on these forums))
THANK YOU! That is all I asked.
captain,
Can you summarize what you think needs to be fixed with TWF?
Im not sure I really understand. I agree with the pros and cons of TWF.
I guess I just dont fully understand what needs to be fixed (in your mind)
captain,
Can you summarize what you think needs to be fixed with TWF?
Im not sure I really understand. I agree with the pros and cons of TWF.
I guess I just dont fully understand what needs to be fixed (in your mind)
The sheer number of minuses, feats, stat points, and gold is a big problem. With the current system a none rogue will get very little benefit for the huge amount of effort put into it.
The comparison between a two light weapons in two handed weapon style with 4 feats vs. no feats put into a two handed weapon, it becomes clear that there are a lot of, accentual, dead feats where your trying to come to par but just are not.
So with that said
1. Keeping the rogue balanced (& other precision damage dealer)
2. Progressive attacks gain by 1 feat.
3. Making two weapon fighting usable at the same rate as Two handed weapons.
4. Reduced/eliminate the minuses to hit with no extra cost.
5. a niche of its own away from just dealing damage, two handed weapons have that.
Hmm well look at it from this point of view.
Is it easier to fight with two hands planted firmly on the hilt of a two hand weapon? Or to fight with two weapos each in a different hand?
Id say TWF is actually harder and although I am a mean TWF with a foam covered play sword, I imagine the actually work with a blade of the proper weight is quite a bit more difficult.
Normally, when I play a fighter, I do sword and shield until I get good attack bonuses and then I drop the shield and use a second weapon (like a hand axe) and just suck up the minuses for the extra off hand attack.
Think about it, with power attack nerfed, you cant take advantage of the damage from those extra attack points, so in order to deal a little more damage (and having to spend no more feats) you just pick up that +4 dagger that nobody wants and bang, not only do you have an extra attack, but you have another weapon you can use that power attack on that is basically BETTER than a long sword, because of the magic bouses (and guarnteed damage minimum) it will put out.
now you could fight with a +4 longsword in your off hand (if one was free and laying about) but it would bring heaftier penanlties because the off hand weapon is not light.
In the days of 1e, i think just about every rogue took the two weapon fight option and just dealt with the disadvantage of penalties to hit.
Then with 2e you could offset that with dex bonus which cancelled it out.
3e made those penalities hiddeous (bascially forcing you to buy the feats and STILL taking some penalty)
anyway at high levels you can still suck up the negatives, without paying a feat and without needing the silly high dex to advance in the feat chain and thereby use a shield at lower levels wheere the shield counts the most.
See I can have a 10 dex fighter who doesnt take anymore penalty to two weapon fight without feats than an 18 dex fighter takes without feats.
At higher levels if I TWF untrained (or un-feated if you will) basically my main attack just fall on par with my second attack and I end up getting a second swing with my off hand. I don't take those penalties to the other iteritive attacks because without the feats to do it, I can only get that ONE extra swing with that off hand in the first attack bracket.
its kinda a weird loophole if you think about it. But its usually what I do with my fighters (plus a find something to do with that +5 hand axe, kukri, punch dagger or whatever weird melee weapon appears thats an odd ball and noone else wants and usualyy laughs at ..."gee its powerful, but I dont use that kind of weapon")
At higher levels if I TWF untrained (or un-feated if you will) basically my main attack just fall on par with my second attack and I end up getting a second swing with my off hand. I don't take those penalties to the other iteritive attacks because without the feats to do it, I can only get that ONE extra swing with that off hand in the first attack bracket.
Wait, what? That's not how the game works.
Two-Weapon Fighting
If you wield a second weapon in your off hand, you can get
one extra attack per round with that weapon. You suffer
a –6 penalty with your regular attack or attacks with your
primary hand and a –10 penalty to the attack with your
off hand when you fight this way.
You get the -6 (or -4, if the off-hand weapon is light) on all your main hand attacks, not just on the first one.
Im sorry i was vague, what I meant is the -4 penalty you take just shifts down all your attacks, effectively (which at higher levels you already have an over abundance of and can't use as extra damage in a power attack feat any more)
example a 12th level fighter BAB (12/7/2) can use a power attack (lets say his str is 18) for up to 8 damage or, use the off hand weapon (lets say a magic hand axe he found which is +4) so his adjusted attacks go 8/8/3/-2(The extra off hand attack figured in there). He gets that extra swing and the damage would be a guaranteed 9 damage (1 minimum for the weapon, +4 for str, +4 for the weapon). The way the power attack feat works now, he'd give up 4 points of attack for 8 damage and the off hand attack gives him the likely hood for another chance to roll crit, not to mention any sorts of other magical bonuses a more interesting off hand weapon might present (such as flamming burst or whatever) (not to mention that all gets more offset with the fact that I spend feats specializing in one weapon, so my main on hand weapon is still attacking really good)
Statisically speaking this averages his damage as being higher over the course of a days adventures, and brings him on par with alot of the other characters and monsters (thus making it so the DM doesnt need to use monsters "only the fighter can hit") but he still hits more often then lets say the bards, monks and clerics in the group.
At the same time, he drops some AC from not using a shield anymore, making it so the DM doesnt need to use as many enemies that have high attacks which usually wipe out the lesser armored players more rapidly with lesser hp.
The goal of the fighter type is to be the melee specialist. Over the years Adventures and DMs, having tried to "challenge" meleers, end up creating situations and a genre where the bards and wizards spent most of their playing time unconscious, needing to be saved by the clerics, covered by the fighter.
The game mechanics were changed to fix this, but rather flipped the world upside down and made the opposite true at about 12th level.
So, oddly enough, if everyone just plays (and DMs) in such a way as to intentionally keep things on par with eachother, everyone can still play together through the upperleves but the fighter remains the tank the parties need at the lower levels.
This is just how we've played the last few fighters,which seems to work.
Seeing as basically you have a huge amount of attack points to waste (so that your first few attacks aren't given they ALWAYS hit, and/or the AC of the opponent is soooo high ONLY the fighter CAN hit it.)
sorry for being so vague. I was merely trying to make a statement, that, unless I design a TWF character AS that in mind (as a character concept) I basically just IGNORE TWF for the following reasons:
SILLY HIGH dex requirements.
'expensive' feat chain to be any good at it
Length of time in levels you need to be good at it
Just another note on TWF. A pathfinder dextrous fighter now with armor training,moving into the duelist prestige class is killer (because pathfinder duelist can wear light armor now, which I totally agree with). But I think a DUELIST would be the primary character in a game that WOULD fight with TWO RAPIERS and so their class features should not be set up to assume he/she fights with ONE weapon.
THEEE duelists of old pirate and swashbuckling movies ALWAYS fought TWF style.
A duelist should totally be able to parry/riposte with one hand and precise strike with the other. And/or double precise strike the same opponent in an uber coup de gras attack.
(but it would mke sense they would not have the facilities to precise strike tow different opponents with two differnt weapons)