A while back, a friend of mine and I got into a debate about whether or not a fighter wielding two weapons deals equal damage to a fighter wielding a two-handed weapon. My argument was that since a fighter with two weapons deals half damage on the second attack, it's equivalent to dealing time-and-a-half Strength damage like a fighter wielding a two handed weapon. I also argued that because you get multiple attacks, the chance of hitting each round is higher for a fighter wielding two weapons. As a result, if a fighter with two weapons takes Weapon Finesse, even though he might deal less damage per attack, he actually winds up dealing about equal damage over time because he hits more often.
His argument was that because a fighter wielding two weapons has to sacrifice Strength in order to boost his Dexterity, even though he gets more attacks, the sacrifice to damage is so great that he actually does less damage over time. Also, because a fighter wielding two weapons can only make an attack with his second weapon as part of a full round action, the fighter wielding a two-handed weapon will always deal more damage because he can deal time-and-a-half damage every time he makes an attack.
To settle this argument, my friend made a spreadsheet that allowed you to calculate how much damage a fighter wielding two weapons deals compared to a fighter wielding a two-handed weapon. He even designed it so that you could add different feats to the two characters like Power Attack, and Improved Two Weapon Fighting. Ultimately, we concluded that while a fighter wielding two weapons is about equal to a fighter wielding a two-handed weapon at lower levels, as the two progress in levels, the fighter wielding two weapons is quickly outpaced by the fighter wielding a two-handed weapon.
Because of this we decided to create some house rules to make Two Weapon Fighting more balanced. To do this, we knew we needed to take into account a few factors.
1) A fighter wielding two weapons needs to be able to make an attack with his second weapon each time he makes an attack. Otherwise, he quickly loses any advantage he might enjoy for fighting with two weapons.
2) Because a fighter wielding two weapons sacrifices Strength in order to boost his Dexterity, any house rules we create need to improve his ability to deal damage.
3) Because a change like this can greatly benefit characters who rely on precision based damage (like sneak attack), any changes made to the current rules need to take precision based damage into account.
4) Because any change to the two weapon fighting rules might drastically alter the way other feats, class skills, and abilities work (Example: Multiattack, the ranger's bonus feats, and Two Weapon Rend), any house rules we create should attempt to have as minimal an impact as possible on the game.
To that end, we made the following changes to the Two Weapon Fighting feats. We also created a new feat, called Improved Weapon Finesse (see individual posts below).
So far, we've only used these rules in an epic level game. While it made the ranger about equally effective to the other characters in the party, we have yet to test it out at lower levels. I'm pretty sure these rules will work at lower levels, but I would very much like to see someone test these rules out and let me know if they are balanced. Thanks.
You become more adept at fighting with a weapon in each hand. You can make one extra attack with the second weapon for each attack.
Prerequisite: Dex 15.
Benefit: Your penalties on attack rolls for fighting with two weapons are reduced. The penalty for your primary hand lessens by 2 and the penalty for your off hand lessens by 6.
Except when making attacks of opportunity, whenever you make an attack with you main hand, whether with a standard action or a full attack, you may make an attack with your offhand. These off-hand attacks suffer the same penalty as the main hand.
When making a standard attack with two weapons, you apply precision based damage (such as from sneak attack) to only one of the attacks.
Normal: If you wield a second weapon in your off hand, you can get one extra attack per round with that weapon. When fighting in this way 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. If your off-hand weapon is light the penalties are reduced by 2 each. (An unarmed strike is always considered light.)
Special: A 2nd-level ranger who has chosen the two-weapon combat style is treated as having Two-Weapon Fighting, even if he does not have the prerequisite for it, but only when he is wearing light or no armor.
Prerequisites: Dex 17, Two-Weapon Fighting, base attack bonus +6.
Benefit: Your penalties on attack rolls for fighting with two weapons are reduced by 2.
Special: A fighter may select Improved Two-Weapon Fighting as one of his fighter bonus feats.
A 6th-level ranger who has chosen the two-weapon combat style is treated as having Improved Two-Weapon Fighting, even if he does not have the prerequisites for it, but only when he is wearing light or no armor.
Prerequisites: Dex 19, Improved Two-Weapon Fighting, Two-Weapon Fighting, base attack bonus +11.
Benefit: Your penalties on attack rolls for fighting with two weapons are reduced by 2. In addition, you may make an extra attack with your off-hand when making attacks of opportunity. When making an attack of opportunity with two weapons, you apply precision based damage (such as from sneak attack) to only one of the attacks.
Special: A fighter may select Greater Two-Weapon Fighting as one of his fighter bonus feats.
An 11th-level ranger who has chosen the two-weapon combat style is treated as having Greater Two-Weapon Fighting, even if he does not have the prerequisites for it, but only when he is wearing light or no armor.
Prerequisites: Weapon Finesse, Base Attack Bonus +6
Benefits: With a light weapon, rapier, whip, or spiked chain made for a creature of your size category, you may use your Dexterity modifier instead of your Strength modifier on damage rolls.
A fighter may select Improved Weapon Finesse as one of his fighter bonus feats.
I can give my insights into TWF. I found there wasn't a problem with the TW fighter's damage output except when the opponents had really high AC or when the opponents had high damage reduction. Other times, as long as they could full attack, they put out TONS of damage, especially when crits came into play… when full attacking the one I saw seemed to average 1 crit a round, with a high one time of 5 crits in one round! I must say that we roll for scores (no point buy).
My pet peeve with TWF is the number of feats required to fight effectively. Once you've invested becoming the best TWFer you can be, you don't have many feats left to do much else. So my suggestion would be to cut the number of feats needed for TWF. I for instance rolled Grtr TWF into Improved TWF. The ability to use your off-hand weapon to attack even when you can't full attack is a good move too. I like that one.
Prerequisites: Dex 17, Two-Weapon Fighting, base attack bonus +6.
Benefit: Your penalties on attack rolls for fighting with two weapons are reduced by 2.
Special: A fighter may select Improved Two-Weapon Fighting as one of his fighter bonus feats.
A 6th-level ranger who has chosen the two-weapon combat style is treated as having Improved Two-Weapon Fighting, even if he does not have the prerequisites for it, but only when he is wearing light or no armor.
No second attack with the off-hand?
Greater Two-Weapon Fighting [General]
Prerequisites: Dex 19, Improved Two-Weapon Fighting, Two-Weapon Fighting, base attack bonus +11.
Benefit: Your penalties on attack rolls for fighting with two weapons are reduced by 2. In addition, you may make an extra attack with your off-hand when making attacks of opportunity. When making an attack of opportunity with two weapons, you apply precision based damage (such as from sneak attack) to only one of the attacks.
Special: A fighter may select Greater Two-Weapon Fighting as one of his fighter bonus feats.
An 11th-level ranger who has chosen the two-weapon combat style is treated as having Greater Two-Weapon Fighting, even if he does not have the prerequisites for it, but only when he is wearing light or no armor.
the penalty reduction doesn't make sense. Wouldn't you already be at no penalty to hit from Imp TWF?
Again my advice would be to reduce the number of feats required to be good at TWF. Right now there are:
1) Two-Weapon Fighting
2) Improved Two-Weapon Fighting
3) Greater Two-Weapon Fighting
4) Two-Weapon Defense
5) Double Slice
6) Two-Weapon Rend
7) Weapon Finesse
From other sources:
8) Two-Weapon Pounce
9) Oversized Two-Weapon Fighting
Two Handed Fighting needs just one that I can think of:
1) Power Attack
Again my advice would be to reduce the number of feats required to be good at TWF. Right now there are:
1) Two-Weapon Fighting
2) Improved Two-Weapon Fighting
3) Greater Two-Weapon Fighting
4) Two-Weapon Defense
5) Double Slice
6) Two-Weapon Rend
7) Weapon FinesseFrom other sources:
8) Two-Weapon Pounce
9) Oversized Two-Weapon FightingTwo Handed Fighting needs just one that I can think of:
1) Power Attack
I've merged ITWF, GTWF, and DS into a single feat.
I've also added Backswing and Overhand Chop back in.
I can give my insights into TWF. I found there wasn't a problem with the TW fighter's damage output except when the opponents had really high AC or when the opponents had high damage reduction.
We did notice that two weapon fighters who make full attacks against creatures with low ACs can be just as effective as fighters wielding two-handed weapons. However, if they make just a standard attack, they do not deal as much damage on average as a fighter wielding a two-handed weapon. Similarly, they do not deal as much damage as a fighter wielding a two-handed weapon with Improved Critical and/or Power Attack. Finally, while I agree that AC and damage reduction do have an affect on the damage output of a two-weapon fighter, I would not agree that either of these numbers have to be terribly high. Even against moderately armored monsters, with a damage reduction of more than 5 two weapon fighters do not deal nearly as much damage as a fighter wielding two weapons.
No second attack with the off-hand?
You have to read what we wrote for Two Weapon Fighting to make sense of it.
"Except when making attacks of opportunity, whenever you make an attack with you main hand, whether with a standard action or a full attack, you may make an attack with your offhand. These off-hand attacks suffer the same penalty as the main hand."
In other words, the Two Weapon Fighting feat already gives a fighter a second attack with his offhand. And his third attack, and his fourth attack. As a result, Improved Two Weapon Fighting doesn't need to give him an additional attack.
Wouldn't you already be at no penalty to hit from Imp TWF?
If your offhand weapon is light, then yes. However, if your offhand weapon isn't light, then you still take a -2 penalty to both attack rolls.
Again my advice would be to reduce the number of feats required to be good at TWF.
I agree with you. In fact, I initially wanted to do away with the Two Weapon Fighting feats altogether. However, as I stated in the beginning, one of our objectives was to have a minimal impact on the game's mechanics. Getting rid of the Two-Weapon fighting feats meant that we would also have to seriously alter the class abilities of rangers. We thought this was a reasonable compromise.
Two weapon fighting gets its bonus from static boosts. Anything that adds a flat + to damage will benefit two weapon style more.
Examples.
A bard sings and adds +3 to hit and +3 to damage. A two hander with 2 attacks gains +6 damage. A dual wielder with 4 attacks gains +12 damage.
A dual wielder with 2 +2 weapons vs a two hander with a +3 weapon. The weapons give the dual wielder a +8 to damage while the two hander gains a +6.
Two handers gain more from haste than a dual wielder.
Deal wielder gain more from abilities like sneak attack and weapon specialization. Dual wielding rogues can do some serious damage.
I don't think there is a huge imbalance in damage between the two, but the difference in the number of feat required is huge.
You may want to take a closer look at these changes and the math you used originally to compare TWF and two-handers. If you just take base stats and non-magical equipment, it does look like two weapon fighters fall behind, but once you start including things like magic, buffs from teammates, proper equipment for their level, flanking, and so on the gap in damage quickly goes away and even swings in favor of the two weapon fighter.
Just to make sure I was being fair, I drew up two 9th level fighters, using the standard 15 pt. buy, wealth by level, etc. and ran the numbers on their damage. On a full attack, against an appropriate foe at that level, the two weapon fighter did an average of 54.18 damage and the two handed weapon fighter did an average of 51.48 damage. Just using the appropriate wealth by level the two are already even, throw in some bard or cleric buffs and the two weapon fighter is going to be well ahead in damage and probably have a better AC, which is usually balanced out by the two handed weapon fighter doing more damage on single attacks and having more points to put into Con.
Each 9th level fighter has:
+2 Weapon Training
+2 Armor Training
46,000 gp in equipment
11 Feats
----------------------------------------------------------------
----------------------------------------------------------------
(15 pt. buy, +2 Racial bonus in Strength)
STR 18 (+4 enhancement), DEX 17, CON 14, INT 8, WIS 8, CHA 7
Feats:
1 TWF
H Power Attack
F1 Weap. Foc.
F2 Quick Draw
3 Double Slice
F4 Weap. Spec.
5 Imp. Init
F6 Imp. TWF
7 Lunge
F8 Imp. Critical
9 G. Weap. Foc.
Equipment:
Two +2 Shortswords (16,620 gp)
+2 Plate Mail (5,500 gp)
+1 Ring of Protection (2,000 gp)
+1 Amulet of Natural Armor (2,000 gp)
+1 Cloak of Resistance (1,000 gp)
+4 Belt of Giant Strength (16,000 gp)
TOHIT: +9 BAB, +6 Str, +2 Weapon Training, +2 G. Weap. Foc., +2 Enhancement, -2 TWF, -3 PA (+16)
DAMAGE: +6 Str, +2 Weapon Training, +2 Weap. Spec., +2 Enhancement, +6 PA (+18)
Attack Routine: +16/+16/+11/+11 (1d6+18, 21.5 avg. damage per hit)
2x +16 VS. AC 24, 65% hit, 13% Crit (16.77 Avg. dmg including crits and hit chance)
2x +11 vs. AC 24, 40% hit, 8% Crit (10.32 Avg. dmg including crits and hit chance)
Total average damage: 54.18 damage per full attack
----------------------------------------------------------------
----------------------------------------------------------------
(15 pt. buy, +2 Racial bonus in Strength)
STR 20 (+4 enhancement), DEX 13, CON 16, INT 8, WIS 8, CHA 7
Feats:
1 Imp. Init.
H Power Attack
F1 Weap. Foc.
F2 Step Up
3 Cleave
F4 Weap. Spec.
5 Great Cleave
F6 Vital Strike
7 Lunge
F8 Imp. Critical
9 G. Weap. Foc.
Equipment:
+3 Greatsword (18,350 gp)
+2 Plate Mail (5,500 gp)
+1 Ring of Protection (2,000 gp)
+1 Amulet of Natural Armor (2,000 gp)
+1 Cloak of Resistance (1,000 gp)
+4 Belt of Giant Strength (16,000 gp)
TOHIT: +9 BAB, +6 Str, +2 Weapon Training, +2 G. Weap. Foc., +3 Enhancement, -3 PA (+19)
DAMAGE: +9 Str, +2 Weapon Training, +2 Weap. Spec., +3 Enhancement, +9 PA (+25)
Attack Routine: +21/+16 (2d6+25, 32 avg. damage per hit)
+19 vs. AC 24, 80% hit, 16% crit (30.72 avg. dmg including crits and hit chance)
+14 vs. AC 24, 55% hit, 11% crit (21.12 avg. dmg including crits and hit chance)
Total average damage: 51.84 damage per full attack
Now a similar 9th level fighter, using your houserules, would be doing an average of 72.9 damage on a full attack, nearly one and a half times as much damage as the standard fighter, and would outmatch them in almost every other category, AC, Initiative, even the damage they deal on a standard action.
----------------------------------------------------------------
----------------------------------------------------------------
(15 pt. buy, +2 racial bonus in Dex)
STR 13, DEX 20 (+4 enhancement), CON 16, INT 8, WIS 8, CHA 7
Feats:
1 TWF
H Power Attack
F1 Weap. Foc.
F2 Quick Draw
3 Double Slice
F4 Weap. Spec.
5 Weapon Finesse
F6 Imp. TWF
7 Imp. Weapon Finesse
F8 Imp. Critical
9 G. Weap. Foc.
Equipment:
Two +2 Shortswords (16,620 gp)
+2 Plate Mail (5,500 gp)
+1 Ring of Protection (2,000 gp)
+1 Amulet of Natural Armor (2,000 gp)
+1 Cloak of Resistance (1,000 gp)
+4 Belt of Incredible Dexterity (16,000 gp)
TOHIT: +9 BAB, +7 Dex, +2 Weapon Training, +2 G. Weap. Foc., +2 Enhancement, -3 PA (+19)
DAMAGE: +7 Dex, +2 Weapon Training, +2 Weap. Spec., +2 Enhancement, +6 PA (+19)
Attack Routine: +19/+19/+14/+14 (1d6+19, 22.5 avg. damage per hit)
2x +19 VS. AC 24, 80% hit, 16% Crit (21.6 Avg. dmg including crits and hit chance)
2x +14 vs. AC 24, 55% hit, 11% Crit (14.85 Avg. dmg including crits and hit chance)
Total average damage: 72.9 damage per full attack
I do like some of the ideas you have here, like the way you've linked the off hand attacks to the main hand attacks and the way you limited sneak attack to one set of precision dice per pair of attacks, but you're still going to run into some balance issues.
Perhaps limiting power attack, weapon specialization, and other damage bonuses in the same way you limited sneak attack might fix the whole shebang.
(P.S. Regardless of the criticism, I just want to say that I really like the basic ideas you're working with, this version of two weapon fighting is a lot more elegant and workable, it just needs some tweaking to get the scalability back in line.)
It's long been accepted that TWF is inferior to THF. The Feat-cost alone is a major problem.
Accepted by whom exactly? based on what evidence? The main reason two weapon fighting suffered in 3.5 was because two hander fighters could abuse power attack to get really ridiculous damage totals. The feat cost is certainly prohibitive, but then, Pathfinder Fighters also have access to a really insane number of feats.
Note that the math by Brodiggan does not take into account the fact that TWF Fighters often have significantly lower Strength, relative to other Fighters.
Yes, actually, it does. I built all the various test characters on a 15 pt. buy. In order to qualify for the two weapon fighting feats the two weapon fighter did have a lower strength, but only by a few points.
I'd prefer that all stats were the same, and that Str. and Dex. were swapped in the example, since futzing with Con. as well adds an extra variable that should not be included. The TWF for the example should be Str. 13 Dex 20 and the THF should be Str. 20 and Dex 13.
Strength is an important stat for almost any melee combatant, two weapons or not. All fighters were built with identical mental stats, giving then 23 points to spend among their physical abilities. Those points were used to purchase two 16's and one 13, assigned as necessary to qualify for the builds feats and get their damage as high as possible without significantly gimping them in other areas.
For the two weapon fighter that meant putting one 16 in Dex and one in Strength, leaving the 13 in Con (and spending a point each in Dex and Con at levels 4 and 8). For the greatsword fighter that meant putting a 16 in Strength and Con (And improving strength at 4 and 8), and putting the 13 in Dex.
If you can point out a stat arrangement that produces a better overall result for either Fighter I'll be happy to hear it, but it's ridiculous to claim that either fighter should be forced to take a subpar stat arrangement just so the results come out in the manner you want.
IMHO, that factor alone invalidates the math, since it was stacked in favor of the TWF in terms of damage-dealing potential while removing the factor of survivability (HP loss in an extended fight, Saves, etc.) and thus the ability to deliver that damage over time.
Actually I made a specific point of noting that the fighter with the two handed weapon had more survivability because of the increased Con and that they had an advantage when it came to single attacks (such as when they change targets in a long fight).
Otherwise, one of the major deficiencies of THF is the DR problem. Since the base weapon damage for TWF-capable weapons and the Strength-bonus/hit is lower for TWF than THF, DR inherently plays against TWFs. This is a problem your HR fails to address, and is critical in any "fix" of TWF.
Unlike the others, this is definitely a fair point, TWF scales more quickly in either direction. It suffers more from damage reduction, and it benefits more from damage buffs. I don't think this is a good argument for TWF getting a massive boost though, monsters with DR aren't that common in most campaigns and fighters already have tools to deal with them.
Note that even in Brodiggan's stacked example,
Wow, way to be insulting. Perhaps you'd care to explain exactly how I'm stacking it? Both fighters are built to deal maximum damage, unless you're arguing that I should intentionally hamstring one of the fighters, or unless you'd like to suggest a more effective build, I'd appreciate it if you kept the implied insults to a minimum.
against a DR 10/- opponent (assuming either a true DR 10/- or just something against which the Fighters do not have the correct weapon) then the TWF damage drops to a paltry 14.18 per FA while the THF more than doubles him at 31.84 per FA. Granted, in this case the HR-TWF drops in-line with the THF at 32.90, but again we are dealing with a deck stacked in favor of the TWF.
I'm afraid you flubbed the math rather badly.
Against a DR 10 foe, the TWF is dealing 11.5 damage on a normal hit (and an extra 21.5 damage on a crit). Given the chance to hit and crit, that makes their average damage 33.18 on a full attack.
The THF is dealing 22 on a hit and an extra 32 on a crit. Given their chance to hit and crit, that makes their average damage 38.34 (EDIT: Corrected damage value, which is higher than I had originally).
The house ruled TWF on the other hand is dealing 12.5 on a hit, and an extra 22.5 on a crit. Given their chance to hit and crit, their average damage is 43.2. Once again, significantly higher than either the standard TWF or the standard THF.
For the two weapon fighter that meant putting one 16 in Dex and one in Strength, leaving the 13 in Con (and spending a point each in Dex and Con at levels 4 and 8). For the greatsword fighter that meant putting a 16 in Strength and Con (And improving strength at 4 and 8), and putting the 13 in Dex.
And you don't see that a 13 Con melee fighter is at a distinct disadvantage, compared to a 16 Con fighter? He does less damage because he gets DEAD before he can inflict the rest.
For the two weapon fighter that meant putting one 16 in Dex and one in Strength, leaving the 13 in Con (and spending a point each in Dex and Con at levels 4 and 8). For the greatsword fighter that meant putting a 16 in Strength and Con (And improving strength at 4 and 8), and putting the 13 in Dex.And you don't see that a 13 Con melee fighter is at a distinct disadvantage, compared to a 16 Con fighter? He does less damage because he gets DEAD before he can inflict the rest.
14 Con with level bumps. With favored class bonuses and base HP, that means the two weapon fighter is going to have an average of 81 HP at level 9, and the THF is going to have 90 HP on average. Not exactly an overwhelming difference.
The TWF is also going to potentially have a better AC due to Dex, and is going to be benefit more from buffs, so it all balances out.
If I were playing the fighter in question, I'd definitely rather lose 1 hp per level than -1 to attacks, damage, CMD, and CMB.
sorry, but I'm going to have to disagree with your changes to the two-weapon fighting feats they work fine the way they are. if you want to add new feats to cover certain areas that you find they lack, thats fine.
1) A fighter wielding two weapons needs to be able to make an attack with his second weapon each time he makes an attack. Otherwise, he quickly loses any advantage he might enjoy for fighting with two weapons.
-there is a 3.5 feat that covers this already where you make a attack with primary and off hand weapon as a standard action, called Dual Strike its in the Complete adventure.
2) Because a fighter wielding two weapons sacrifices Strength in order to boost his Dexterity, any house rules we create need to improve his ability to deal damage.
-don't always have to decrease str for dex, unless your using point buy, but there are other places you can sacrifice. plus Pathfinder has a feat that allows two-weapon fighters to get full str on off hand weapons, call Double Slice.
3) Because a change like this can greatly benefit characters who rely on precision based damage (like sneak attack), any changes made to the current rules need to take precision based damage into account.
-really don't know what you can do here, because the few classes or prestige classes that give precise based damage can be more deadly in the hands of a finesse fighter then a str fighter anyways.
4) Because any change to the two weapon fighting rules might drastically alter the way other feats, class skills, and abilities work (Example: Multiattack, the ranger's bonus feats, and Two Weapon Rend), any house rules we create should attempt to have as minimal an impact as possible on the game.
-the two weapon/double weapon fighting rules really don't need to be changed, the character already has to take more feats then any other class to make the build that changing them would seriosly harm thier effectiveness, sadly adding more feats makes it harder to build but its do able.
I've been playing two weapon fighters for along time. I don't paly two-weapon rangers cause the fighter has way more feats to do the build with. I'm currently playing one in a 3.5 game i play in on monday nights, and I've never had problems with dealing damage except agains high AC opponents and my build is in such that I have no penalties to attacks while weilding 2 long swords if you want to me to explain my build I will. the best part that if I had done this build in pathfinder I'd have more feats :P
I do like some of the ideas you have here, like the way you've linked the off hand attacks to the main hand attacks and the way you limited sneak attack to one set of precision dice per pair of attacks, but you're still going to run into some balance issues.
I appreciate your comments. My friends and I still play 3.5, so I didn't know about Double Slice. In fact, our group debated about allowing a character to add their full Str or Dex bonus to the offhand attack as part of the Improved Two Weapon Fighting feat. However, like you, we decided that it would make TWF too powerful.
One thing I would like to mention. Double Slice states that you can add your full Str modifier to damage on the offhand attack, while Improved Weapon Finesse states that you can use your Dexterity modifier instead of your Str modifier for damage. Given that this is the case, I think you could very easily rule that a TWF with these two feats can choose to either use his full Str modifier for damage, or half his Dex modifier for damage, but he can't do both. That said, you could change the description of Improved Weapon Finesse to specifically mention that the two feats don't work together.
Prerequisites: Weapon Finesse, Base Attack Bonus +6
Benefits: With a light weapon, rapier, whip, or spiked chain made for a creature of your size category, you may use your Dexterity modifier instead of your Strength modifier on damage rolls.
Special: If you already have the Double Slice feat, this feat does not does not allow you to apply your full Dex modifier to damage.
A fighter may select Improved Weapon Finesse as one of his fighter bonus feats.
There is a 3.5 feat that covers this already where you make a attack with primary and off hand weapon as a standard action, called Dual Strike its in the Complete adventure.
Will you look at that. :) I didn't know about that feat. I'm not sure I understand it, though. Are the -4 and -10 penalties in addition to the penalties you already take for TWF, or do they replace them? Either way, it's a little different, but it's pretty cool that a professional game designer came up with a concept that's very similar to ours. It even uses similar wording.
I've been playing two weapon fighters for along time. I don't paly two-weapon rangers cause the fighter has way more feats to do the build with. I'm currently playing one in a 3.5 game i play in on monday nights, and I've never had problems with dealing damage except agains high AC opponents and my build is in such that I have no penalties to attacks while weilding 2 long swords if you want to me to explain my build I will.
Yes please. I would very much like to see your build. Would you mind posting your character's stat block in this thread?
And you don't see that a 13 Con melee fighter is at a distinct disadvantage, compared to a 16 Con fighter? He does less damage because he gets DEAD before he can inflict the rest.
The drunken satyr does have a point.
Hill Giant: Grah! Tiny man with pointy sticks hurt bad! *SMASH*
TWF: Medic. >_<
And you don't see that a 13 Con melee fighter is at a distinct disadvantage, compared to a 16 Con fighter? He does less damage because he gets DEAD before he can inflict the rest.The drunken satyr does have a point.
Hill Giant: Grah! Tiny man with pointy sticks hurt bad! *SMASH*
TWF: Medic. >_<
Heh, well it's definitely a tradeoff, but if it comes to choosing between -1 hp per level (after level bumps it's actually 14 con, not 13) and -1 to attacks, damage, combat maneuvers, and CMD, I definitely know which one I'd pick. Especially considering as a fighter you already have a decent base HP per level. And really, -9 hp? Most of the foes you'll face at 9th level are swinging for way, way more than that on every attack anyways.
The fact that you chose to be insulted does not mean that I was being insulting.
...
However, I think you should reread both posts (my first and your reply) and pay particular attention to the tone of each. I do get the feeling one was intended to be insulting, and it wasn't mine.
My apologies, but even in re-reading the posts, I'm still quite certain that yours was meant to draw a reaction. The tone, the specific wording (phrases like as "futzed" and "even in Brodiggan's stacked example" implying I had cooked the numbers somehow), the whole post just felt like one giant eyeroll. Regardless, I'm going to try not to derail this thread by getting in an argument about who was being snide or not.
I was merely pointing out that you produced what I do not believe was a valid comparison. According to the Scientific Method, you should only alter a single variable, in this case I believe a 1:1 Str/Dex swap (granted, other variable changes in weapons, feat selection etc. are "given" or forced by the example, but the fewer changes the better).
Well, in this case the single variable change would be the weapon style, everything else follows as a consequence of attempting to maximize effectiveness. Just switching strength and dexterity wouldn't make it a more valid test, it would make it less valid, as it would create unrealistic restraints on how the character is being built.
I'm not trying to maximize numbers one way or another, but simply curious to see them "all else being equal" (as much as possible).
I also think perhaps it would be interesting to see a "baseline" build that didn't dump 3 stats rather than an "optimized" build.
The problem here is that there is no standard "baseline" level of effectiveness. Even if there were a way to nail down exactly what an average player might produce, that's a bad way to handle testing a houserule, as it's the most effective use of something you have to worry about breaking balance in a game, not the so-so adequate use of it.
As for the DR math, I simply took your "average damage" numbers and creamed 10 off the top. If my methodology proved incorrect, so be it.
Ah ok, well that's understandable, the average damage numbers at the end included hits, crits and misses, to get the right average damage against an opponent with DR, you needed to go back to the average damage on a hit, subtract 10, multiply by the chance to hit, and then add back in the bonus damage on a crit times the chance to crit.
Will you look at that. :) I didn't know about that feat. I'm not sure I understand it, though. Are the -4 and -10 penalties in addition to the penalties you already take for TWF, or do they replace them? Either way, it's a little different, but it's pretty cool that a professional game designer came up with a concept that's very similar to ours. It even uses similar wording.
The penalties for Dual Strike seem to be in addition for the normal two weapon fighting penalties.
Brodiggan,
I've been thinking about it, and I think if you're using a feat like Double Slice, you probably shouldn't use Improved Weapon Finesse. As I said previously, the reason we added Improved Weapon Finesse into the game is because we didn't know about, and don't play with Double Slice. I don't know. What do you think?
Brodiggan,
I've been thinking about it, and I think if you're using a feat like Double Slice, you probably shouldn't use Improved Weapon Finesse. As I said previously, the reason we added Improved Weapon Finesse into the game is because we didn't know about, and don't play with Double Slice. I don't know. What do you think?
Sounds fine, removing Double Slice from the equation is only a minor part of the problem though. It's not the full Dex/Str to the off hand that's really pumping the houseruled two weapon fighter's damage through the roof, it's a combination of:
- Replacing strength to damage with dexterity to damage. (meaning the character can completely focus on one stat and just put a token amount in the other.)
- Removing all the penalties to the attack roll. Once you include flat bonuses like weapon specialization, weapon training, and enhancement bonuses (not to mention whatever buffs they end up getting from party members) effectively doubling the number of attacks a character is making without some penalty to their accuracy just scales way too well.
Sounds fine, removing Double Slice from the equation is only a minor part of the problem though. It's not the full Dex/Str to the off hand that's really pumping the houseruled two weapon fighter's damage through the roof, it's a combination of:
- Replacing strength to damage with dexterity to damage. (meaning the character can completely focus on one stat and just put a token amount in the other.)
- Removing all the penalties to the attack roll. Once you include flat bonuses like weapon specialization, weapon training, and enhancement bonuses (not to mention whatever buffs they end up getting from party members) effectively doubling the number of attacks a character is making without some penalty to their accuracy just scales way too well.
Well, like I said, it didn't seem unbalanced at epic levels. I will keep it in mind, though, and see how it works when we try it at lower levels. Thanks.
Will you look at that. :) I didn't know about that feat. I'm not sure I understand it, though. Are the -4 and -10 penalties in addition to the penalties you already take for TWF, or do they replace them? Either way, it's a little different, but it's pretty cool that a professional game designer came up with a concept that's very similar to ours. It even uses similar wording.
yea, I never thought of that, I was just including it with penalties for T-W fighting.
Yes please. I would very much like to see your build. Would you mind posting your character's stat block in this thread?
This build is based on D&D 3.5
Level: Class: Feats:
1 Fighter T-W Fighting, Oversize T-W Fighting
2 Fighter Dodge
3 Fighter Mobility
4 Fighter T-W Defense
5 Fighter
6 Fighter Improved T-W Fighting, Spring Attack
7 Tempest
8 Tempest
9 Tempest T-W Pounce
10 Tempest
11 Tempest
12 Fighter Greater T-W Fighting
13 Fighter Improved T-W Defense
14 Fighter
15 Fighter Greater T-W Defense, T-W Rend
16 Fighter
17 Fighter Improved Critical: Long Sword
18 Fighter Weapon Focus: Long Sword
19 Fighter Weapon Specialization: Long Sword
20 Fighter
now I don't include Double slice in this build cause my DM doesn't allow pathfinder feats in his game.
Tempest Prestige class can be found in the complete adventure.
now a lot of the later feats can be gotten earlier if you don't want to do the tempest prestige class, the prestige class adds 3 benefits I wanted in the build,
1) brings T-W fighting penalty to 0 if you use a light weapon in off hand, or -2 if you use two one-hand weapons.
2) adds an undefined AC bonus, while wielding 2 weapons.
3) when you spring attack you can strike with both of your weapons instead of just one weapon.
Oversize T-W Fighting is in the complete adventure and allows you to wield 2 one-hand weapons (ex. long sword) and get the penalty as though your fighting with a light weapon in you off hand.
now in my build I use a Tiefling cause I like the race, but if you did the same build with a human you would have one additional feat at first level and can adjust the feat progression.
as for my stats:
STR 18, DEX 19(17 base +2 racial, +1 at 8 lvl),
CON 16(15 base +1 at 4th lvl), INT 15(14 base +2 racial, -1 drain),
WIS 12(14 base -2 drain), CHA 12(14 base -2 racial)
now I know my stats are all above average, we don't use point buy. I have a set of stat dice that I use that get really lucky most of the time. We use the 4d6 drop the lowest method.
currently the character is only lvl 11, and the adventure path my DM is using is the age of worms which most of us have never been on, me included.
I've also worked on a pathfinder build if I ever get a chance to play in a pathfinder game.
I'll also add that DR and really high AC has been a problem for my build only because none of the stats are over 20 and when DEX gets to 20 its mostly for T-W feat requirements and AC.
Also having to pay to keep both weapons up to the same bonus has been hard.
|
...
1) A fighter wielding two weapons needs to be able to make an attack with his second weapon each time he makes an attack. Otherwise, he quickly loses any advantage he might enjoy for fighting with two weapons.
-there is a 3.5 feat that covers this already where you make a attack with primary and off hand weapon as a standard action, called Dual Strike its in the Complete adventure.
...
We just added this into TWF. Now TWF gives you one extra attack each round with an off-hand weapon any time you could make an attack in addition to lowering the penalties for using two weapons. Since ITWF and GTWF are giving you iterative attacks with your off-hand you still need to use a full round action to get them. So far it hasn't unbalanced or broken anything and it cut down on feat bloat.
SM
Edit - Just to clarify; this does not allow you to make extra attacks during attacks of opportunity. There is already a feat tree (I forget were) that allows you to make extra attacks during AOO if you have TWF.
I don't think anyone has ever used it but it's out there.
Ah TWF fix. I knew ye well.
I did my own fix back in the beta days, but I guess they found a balancing problem in there somewhere.
Best of luck.
One thing you should note, the amount of feat selection is a huge problem.
We just added this into TWF. Now TWF gives you one extra attack each round with an off-hand weapon any time you could make an attack in addition to lowering the penalties for using two weapons. Since ITWF and GTWF are giving you iterative attacks with your off-hand you still need to use a full round action to get them. So far it hasn't unbalanced or broken anything and it cut down on feat bloat....
1) A fighter wielding two weapons needs to be able to make an attack with his second weapon each time he makes an attack. Otherwise, he quickly loses any advantage he might enjoy for fighting with two weapons.
-there is a 3.5 feat that covers this already where you make a attack with primary and off hand weapon as a standard action, called Dual Strike its in the Complete adventure.
...
Allowing the base T-W Fighting feat to give that ability as a standard action and you would have to let Rapid shot become a standard action.
In my group we have a ranger and she always complaining on how she can not move and make multiple attacks, but I'm doing the T-W spring attack that was apart of my prestige class.
|
I think it would be a lot simpler to treat two-weapon fighting more like proficiency. for example, upgrading a longsword-and-shield fighter to a bastard sword-and-shield fighter takes one feat, and increases 1d8 to 1d10. typical two-weapon fighting (onehanded/light weapon, longsword and shortsword for this example) does 1d8/1d6 as opposed to a greatsword's 2d6, but it costs a total of three feats to get full benefit, -2 to hit, and standard attack only lets you attack with one weapon. we should change things so that extra damage from spells and abilities only applies once for each attack, and whenever you would normally make an attack you may attack with both weapons. there would be a series of feats:
Two-weapon proficiency
Prerequisites: none
when fighting with a light weapon and
a weapon no heavier than one-handed, you
do not take a -4 penalty to attack rolls
for non-proficiency.
Normal:
when wielding two weapons, you take
a -4 non-proficiency penalty to hit for
each of the following that
apply. these penalties stack.
1. wielding two weapons
2. off-hand weapon is one-handed
3. off-hand weapon is exotic
(applies regardless of whether wielder
is proficient in its normal use)
Ambidextrous
Prerequisites: Str 12, Dex 11
When fighting with two one-handed
weapons, you do not take a -4
non-proficiency penalty to hit.
you still take a -4 non-proficiency
penalty if you are not proficient with
two-weapon fighting. you take
a -4 penalty if you wield an exotic
weapon in your off hand, regardless of
whether you are proficient with that
weapon.
Normal:
you take a -4 penalty to attack rolls
if you wield a one-handed weapon in your off hand.
Oversized two-weapon fighting
Prerequisites: Str 16, Dex 13, Ambidextrous
you may wield exotic weapons
in your off hand.
Normal:
you take a -4 penalty to attack rolls
if you wield an exotic weapon in your
off hand.
this way, whether to fight with two weapons becomes a flavor choice rather than a strategy choice. as anyone who has played 'swordfight' with bits of sticks when they were a kid knows, it isn't that difficult to fight with two weapons. no more difficult than using a shield. this still needs a little work in one area (a +2 weapon costs 8000 gp, two +1 weapons cost 4000 gp.) but I would really like to explore this idea more and some opinions on it; I first thought of this when I was trying to make an paladin NPC for my campaign who could wear full plate, rock a two-bladed sword, and not just become a free full plate/two-bladed sword combo deal.
BTW like the Improved Weapon Finesse idea- should be cool.
We have a TWF based Rogue in our group who does pretty outrageous damage. One on one, maybe not, but when he flanks up, full attacks, and then pops opportunist on top of it all....lookout (also the teamwork feats Outflank, Paired Opportunists, etc. work ridiculously well for TWFers because of increased attack bonuses and benefits on the (more likely with TWF) crits.
Maybe I'm biased because I'm not talking about a fighter, but it's something you need to keep in mind when balancing this all out.
Also, Improved Weapon Finesse is overpowered. I know everyone always whines for a feat to allow Dex to damage, but there is a reason why it doesn't exist (with a couple exceptions that include their own limitations). All Strength does is boost your damage and chance to hit. Dex does.....well.....everything. If you also make to hit and damage based off of dex, why would a melee character go any other route?
Hmm...I want to go first, be harder to hit, make reflex saves, be capable with ranged attacks, move without provoking AoOs (Hi acrobatics!), excel at hitting things, and excel at damaging things...while jacking up my other scores as well in a point buy. Oh...I'll just get Improved Weapon Finesse and a high dex. Done and done. (I understand it doesn't come into play until level 6...I'm just sayin overall I think it's a bad idea and hasn't been included in Pathfinder yet for a reason.)
The TWF rogue I mentioned earlier, given Improved Weapon Finesse, would DESTROY just about any other melee character in damage if he can flank (I know that's a drawback). Crits suddenly go through the roof on Dex based builds as well.
I'm playing a TWF Fighter, level 9, and I have 2 problems. First, there are too many feats needed. Second, I have too many left-over feats. This may seem like they are at odds with each other but:
1 - Even as a Fighter, in order to specialize in TWF, and still keep up competitive damage output, almost all my low-level feats are just to make sure I boost my to-hit and damage. 11 feats and I have TWF, ITWF, Two Weapon Defense, Weapon Focus/greater, Weapon Spec, Weapon Finesse, Double Slice, Power Attack.
2 - Any feat I do not have allocated to TWF'ing that I would like to take I don't qualify for. My mental abilities are mediocre at best. My only real option for viability is the Crit tree.
When you start factoring in the Vital Strike tree, a Two-Handed fighter will be putting up major damage on single hits. But, on the other side, with Armor Training and my high Dex means I am very, very hard to hit.
The TWF tree makes it very difficult to specialize in anything else, and classes w/o full BAB, like the rogue, really suffers from the penalties to-hit.
Another detractor is equipment cost. A two-handed fighter needs 1 magic weapon. A two-weapon fighter needs 2 magic weapons. Both would potentially use a Str and Dex item, but the THF only potentially needs Str, while a TWF would more likely benefit from both. Dual wielding does not necessitate needing a high Str, but damage output does decrease, especially at high levels. A +2 Str bonus difference at high levels coupled with smaller weapon dice really makes a difference.