Just a little suggestion to throw into the works:
1 hit with a +1 flaming 2-handed sword = 3d6 +1
1 hit each with 2 +1 flaming shortswords = 4d6 +2Also, don't forget that whilst increasing your dex does nothing for your damage, it does increase your armour class and reflex save.
Can't say that I've built a TWF'r before, but I reckon there are ways to make them effective if you put your mind to it.
Don't try logic, it's no good here. You can't stop the Power! Only STR Fighters are Teh Rulerz! That is, until the God Mage makes 'em pay.
On a serious note - I did 16 levels of TWF Shield-Fighting carnage. I never felt like I was getting (or giving) short shrift. And no, AC is never stupid.
To D. Mongoose and Charender
What TWF'r, who's any good, doesn't have a 20 (or better) DEX come 12 or 13th level?
TWF have a 20 dex, because they have to have it for the feat. Making the feat virtual does not remove the 19 dex requirement. You are comparing the wrong thing. Compare that DWer to a 2-hand fighter who doesn't have to spend 20 points on dex.
The TWF will have a +4 dex/str belt where the 2-hand will have a +6 str belt(which is 4000 cheaper than the +4 str/dex belt) The TWF will have a 20 str and dex while the 2hander's strength will be around 26 with a 12 dex. Finally, the DWer will have 2 weapons to enchant where the 2hander only has 1, so the 2 hander can afford a +3 weapon were the DWer has to live with 2 +2's. That is a net +4 to hit and a +5-6 to damage, before you account for the -2 to every attack and the larger weapon damage. So to get the same to hit, the 2hander can use power attack -3 for +6 and gets an additional +2-4 more damage from the weapon itself(kukri/rapier vs falchion). So the 2hander has a +3 to hit and hits for an average of 13-16 more damage per hit. Finally, run the calculations against a target with damage reduction, and you will find the 2hander comes out way way a ahead. 2handers don't have to spends any feats to be able to fight in their chosen style.
Second, Have you actually calculated the DPS value of greater TWFighting? Iterative attacks almost never hit against equal level opponents. A level 11 fighter will be fighting things with an AC of around 28. Their third off hand attack will be at +11(BAB) -10(iterative penalty) +5(strength) +2(enhancement bonus) +1 weapon spec = +8. They need a 19+. so a 10% chance to land a hit that does 1d6+9(12) damage? That is a whopping 1.2 extra damage per round on average.
What can you do with a 20 DEX? If you're a Fighter, you can assume (even in HVY armor) that you're sporting a +5 AC bonus. If you're rocking Wea Finesse, than you have a +5 to hit with the right weapon. Heck, you might not even have worried about GTWF, maybe you've been attacking with your shield...
I dunno how y'all do it, but I had a shield TWF'r who was hard as hell to hit and made up quite well for his 16 STR (modded to 18 eventually) in terms of damage.
That +5 to hit with finesse doesn't give you the +5 to damage that having a 20 strength will give you.
When you have an ability that powers number of attacks, to-hit modifiers and AC, and you think that's not powerful... It just kinda floors me.
True, DWer benefir more from things like bard songs, weapon spec, and smite, but the heavy hitters benefit a lot more than DWers from buffs like haste.
Which would your rather get one more attack at -2 to hit that hits for 1d6 + 9, or another attack that hits for 2d4 + 25?
In short a 2hander will swing less, but will have a higher chance to hit, and hit for twice as much damage per swing.
Anything can look effective if your GM won't throw the encounters at you the rules say you should be seeing.
Where do the rules say, exactly, that 13th level party is equal to (and should be facing) Challenge Rating 16 encounters? I've never seen this CR +3 rule that speak of.
People, there are choices to be made, you can't have everything. Well, that's my opinion anyway. :)
Nobody has claimed otherwise. I use "virtual feats" in my campaign. They work great, and people still have to make choices and still don't have everything.
Might as well give all base classes a full BAB then...and free +5 full plate at level 1 with the ability to wear it while casting spells....
Look I can use overblown hyperbole too, but constructive criticism would be much more helpful...
It's not overblown hyperbole, it in the vein of the two posts previous to it.
If multiple attacks aren't (that big of a deal)important, then why does restricting or granting them take away/give to any particular class?
Why not just grant every base class a full BAB?
If this seems like hyperbole to you, then why does it not seem out of whack to grant 2 or 3 extra attacks a round to a character at no penalty?
My intention here is not to be a troll or a dick in any way, just trying to understand the logic.
Thank you, it helps to know the why behind your opinion.
In short, the extra attacks are not free.
-You still must meet the BAB and dex requirements.
-I personally would not give TWF away for free, just ITWF and GTWF.
Just a little suggestion to throw into the works:
1 hit with a +1 flaming 2-handed sword = 3d6 +1
1 hit each with 2 +1 flaming shortswords = 4d6 +2Also, don't forget that whilst increasing your dex does nothing for your damage, it does increase your armour class and reflex save.
Can't say that I've built a TWF'r before, but I reckon there are ways to make them effective if you put your mind to it.
Yes and no.
First, 2 +1 flaming shortsword costs twice as much as a +1 flaming greatsword, so if you wanted to be more accurate, you should compare 2 +1 shortsword to a +2 greatsword. That is 2d6+2 vs 2d6+2 with the greatsword having a +1 to hit.
A well built DWer does roughly the same damage as a 2hander in most cases, but they have to buy 3 extra feats to get there.
Spells like haste favor 2handers. Abilities like bard song and smite favor DWers.
Where do the rules say, exactly, that 13th level party is equal to (and should be facing) Challenge Rating 16 encounters? I've never seen this CR +3 rule that speak of.
Gamemastery chapter, section on encounter-building. Basically it says that most encounters should be in a CR = APL-1 to CR=APL+3 range. I swear there's also text or a table somewhere that breaks down what percentage should be each but I don't spot it at a quick glance.
Disclaimer: most of my 3.X play was either in Living Greyhawk or with people used to it; in that campaign you would expect to see at least one CR = APL+3 or APL+4 encounter in every adventure.
That being said, I don't think it's unreasonable to pick a character that is effective in the hardest fights you'll see.
Anything can look effective if your GM won't throw the encounters at you the rules say you should be seeing.Where do the rules say, exactly, that 13th level party is equal to (and should be facing) Challenge Rating 16 encounters? I've never seen this CR +3 rule that speak of.
From the encounter design section....
Table: Encounter Design
Difficulty Challenge Rating Equals…
Easy APL –1
Average APL
Challenging APL +1
Hard APL +2
Epic APL +3
Party level +3 would be an epic encounter.
TWF have a 20 dex, because they have to have it for the feat.
I'll let you in on a secret; I rocked along without ITWF for a long time. That extra attack, attractive as it was, simply wasn't worth the rescources (to me) at the time. Does that mean it should have been free? I don't think so. Having said that, the 20 DEX was completely worth every resource I put into it.
But, was I playing the cream-puff division?
Making the feat virtual does not remove the 19 dex requirement. You are comparing the wrong thing. Compare that DWer to a 2-hand fighter who doesn't have to spend 20 points on dex.
He spends "20 points" on STR, because it's the Default and he plays to that. He doesn't enjoy the same number of hits or AC as the TWF'er. The game clearly assumes those are important factors and charges for them.
WBL vs 2Hander and TWF'er - I have to run some numbers, you've given me food for thought. :)
And what Fighter, of any stripe, doesn't have one? The game practically throws money at you and assumes you'll be able to buy the things you need to be successful.
loaba and friends, take it down a notch. Once upon a time this thread had a context. I was looking at a new houserule for my game. Now we're talking about fighters and piles of gold. Basically, in defending the RAW, you've made this a conversation about the RAW, which it isn't. We're talking house rules.
Suffice it to say, those who don't believe TWF should be a Virtual Feat have the support of the RAW. I'm not going to argue that. Those who looked at TWF and said "hey, they're about equally effective even if we lighten the cost a little", I'm curious to what extent you did that? Immortalis has it as one "Greedy Feat Chain", that is, you take step one, you get the whole thing.
Personally, I prefer my older house rule, that ALL two-weapon attacks are free to anyone at the -2 penalty, but special damage applies only to the main-hand attacks. If a rogue or a ranger or a paladin wants bonus damage on the offhand, I make them take a "Full Offhand Damage" feat. Now I am considering having that be a single feat, that is good for all offhand attacks, but the feat so far has worked really well in terms of letting combatants do the two-weapon thing when it is stylish to do so, and feeling more flexibility for it.
Double points goes to the poster who comes up with some crazy unforeseen consequence to making all Vital Strike Feats Virtual.
More posts about the validity or lack of validity of the entire thread in the abstract will bring my wrath (which usually involves this).
Anything can look effective if your GM won't throw the encounters at you the rules say you should be seeing.Where do the rules say, exactly, that 13th level party is equal to (and should be facing) Challenge Rating 16 encounters? I've never seen this CR +3 rule that speak of.From the encounter design section....
** spoiler omitted **Party level +3 would be an epic encounter.
Right, and if you're not regularly facing Epic Encounters, well, what kinda wuss are you?
In my games, average is the norm, anything else may or may not be present in any given session.
|
Two weapon fighting is a viable option. It should be - I don't want it not to be viable when compared to a two handed weapon fighter. But Improved and Greater two weapon fighting are feats that cost more in prerequisites and feat slots for a much worse positive effect on the character's effectiveness in a fight. Two weapon fighting grants an extra attack at -2 attack penalty on a full attack action. Not too shabby. You give up the ability the 2 weapon handed fighter has before he has BaB +6 to move and attack without losing damage effectiveness, but it's still a good feat.
Improved two weapon fighting has higher prereqs, requires the previous two weapon fighting feat, and grants you an extra attack at -7 to hit.
Greater two weapon fighting grants an extra attack at -12 to hit.
Each feat is worse than the one before. I would rather two weapon fighting scale. Given the greater cost in possible damage, the loss of viable combat mobility, the greater cost in equipment to maintain the same level of enchantment in items, I think the tradeoff is fair enough.
Double points goes to the poster who comes up with some crazy unforeseen consequence to making all Vital Strike Feats Virtual.
The only thing I can think of is that, used optimally/intelligently, it makes monsters with low numbers of strong attacks kind of weird.
E.g., instead of taking its two slam attacks, wouldn't/shouldn't an iron golem always take one attack with greater vital strike? And if so, doesn't that mean its single attack is just as effective as its full attack?
In my games, average is the norm, anything else may or may not be present in any given session.
Even the CR 13 ("average" difficulty) iron golem is pounding the fighter in question if it can roll a 7.
That's not AC = completely useless, but it's not untouchable either.
The only thing I can think of is that, used optimally/intelligently, it makes monsters with low numbers of strong attacks kind of weird.
E.g., instead of taking its two slam attacks, wouldn't/shouldn't an iron golem always take one attack with greater vital strike? And if so, doesn't that mean its single attack is just as effective as its full attack?
Well, the golem gets a big pile of Str damage on that second attack, right? It really becomes the same problem as TWF, in some sense. I'm sure someone smart could use math to prove one or the other was numerically superior... I don't worry about such things much, because players generally don't have calculators at my table.
Also, there are other ways in which two attacks can be optimal — say you have two targets, who are both low on HP. You could Vital Strike one and suffer another round under the other, or you could put them both down. Actually, that just means the Golem probably would VS most times, as you posit, but he has some more tactical options. Which was my goal!
You might still convince me this is problematic, though.
In my games, average is the norm, anything else may or may not be present in any given session.Even the CR 13 ("average" difficulty) iron golem is pounding the fighter in question if it can roll a 7.
That's not AC = completely useless, but it's not untouchable either
At the risk of raising the ire of Lincoln, I'll say that hitting on a 7 is pretty freaking awesome and perhaps not common. I don't really want to comb the Bestiary, but I suppose I could...
No, AC is not the end-all, be-all, but it is an important element of the game. The higher the better, just like to-hit.
On track - I freely admit that GTWF has a low return, but should it be free? Free bothers me. I could see it folding into ITWF.
Double points goes to the poster who comes up with some crazy unforeseen consequence to making all Vital Strike Feats Virtual.
More posts about the validity or lack of validity of the entire thread in the abstract will bring my wrath (which usually involves this).
There was a druid build that was basically turn into a Brachiosaurus or a similar animal with a single hard hitting attack. With GVS, the druid would hit for 8d6 + bonuses. This is actually a viable build under RAW, making IVS and GVS virtual feats only makes this build better.
Agile Maneuvers, Weapon Finesse: I know, we're all nerds here, and it's easier to imagine being swashbuckly and all than to imagine being the jocks we hated in HS. But Dex is already useful for so many things: AC, Initiative, Reflex saves. To pile more goodies onto one stat really should have SOME cost. Rolling Agile Maneuvers into Weapon Finesse seems reasonable, and rolling Weapon Finesse into Improved Unarmed Strike seems possibly ok.
Speaking of Improved Unarmed Strike, note that if you give it away by default, everyone with a reach weapon will threaten both reach and non-reach squares, archers will threaten, and casters will threaten without carrying a weapon.
Combat Expertise: Agreed here. I've only ever seen defense used once, and it was a mistake even then. Making it better won't help, and it does make the maneuver feats -- situational at best -- more accessible.
Deadly Aim, Power Attack: Not a fair trade in practice. Everybody takes them, everybody uses them. Giving them out free is a flat power-up for anyone who uses weapons and has a decent BA.
Lunge: Think about how this affects touch-ranged spells. I can cast from five feet way, Lunge to touch you, then five-foot step back, and you don't get a full attack on me. Nice! But I really don't like the idea of EVERY MOOK HAVING REACH.
Strike Back: I think this is better than you think -- if they're attacking you with reach and you don't have reach, you're probably not going to get a full attack on them to begin with. But I don't think it's overpowered, I do think it's sensible, and the imagery of it is so ubiquitous in stories and movies that I think it'd be cool as a free feat. You'd just want to design your encounters so that the giant kraken wasn't going to die from being repeatedly stabbed in the tentacle.
Two Weapon Fighting (improved, greater): Whether this is great or meh depends pretty much entirely on the style of your campaign.
Vital Strike (improved, greater): I'd put this almost as must-have as Power Attack. It's another feat I really, really wouldn't enjoy every greataxe wielding mook to have. On the other hand, it really does make the melee-ers less unhappy about not getting a full attack -- I've seen such glee. Does that mean it SHOULD stay a feat? Or that it shouldn't?
That said, I think you should consider more why you're doing this.
If it's possible under the rules to make characters who can trip, or grapple, or bullrush, and most players still don't, it seems to me to be a problem with the power or usefulness of trip and grapple versus the power of hitting enemies with pointy things. The options are already there, they're just not optimal.
Part of why they're not optimal is dependent on the campaign -- if all you ever fight is monstrous spiders, being designed to trip things is pretty lame. With that in mind, I think you'd do better, if you were collapsing feats, to roll them together at similar power levels, not along trees. For example, Improved Trip, Improved Disarm, Improved Grapple, Improved Sunder would all end up "Improved Combat Maneuvers." That WOULD give your martial characters more options, while still allowing them to make some character-building decisions.
I'd also question the removal of all "tax" feats. There are some feats that ARE worth a great deal more than others: Natural Spells, Augment Summoning, Diehard come to mind. Precise Shot, depending on the game. Less useful prereqs are the balance for those, and by removing the prereqs or the feats themselves, you're going to INCREASE the pressure on characters to use them, not encourage diversity.
There was a druid build that was basically turn into a Brachiosaurus or a similar animal with a single hard hitting attack. With GVS, the druid would hit for 8d6 + bonuses. This is actually a viable build under RAW, making IVS and GVS virtual feats only makes this build better.
Double points goes to the poster who comes up with some crazy unforeseen consequence to making all Vital Strike Feats Virtual.
More posts about the validity or lack of validity of the entire thread in the abstract will bring my wrath (which usually involves this).
You're forgetting that the druid would still need to get BAB +16 in order to get those virtual feats....something you'll never see unless you either play epic levels or multiclass. Even if he multiclassed, this wouldn't come up until near level 20 anyway. I don't think 8d6 would be considered overpowered at THAT level.
Sure, at a lower level he would qualify for IVS at +11 BAB (level 14 druid), but doing a single 6d6 attack per round at level 14 probably isn't incredibly powerful either. Now, it might get more problematic if he used Improved natural attack, power attack, weapon focus, and all the other shiny feats that he'll be able to aford with his freed up feat slots...
On track - I freely admit that GTWF has a low return, but should it be free? Free bothers me. I could see it folding into ITWF.
And most of us are for rolling both ITWF and GTWF into TWF. The return on ITWF is not that much better that GTWF.
The only build that I worry about this breaking are paladins. A level 12 paladin with a 16 cha, 20 str, and 20 dex would have a base to hit of +12 +5(str) +2(enhance) +3(cha smite) +1(wep focus) -4(power attack) -2(DWing) = +17 when smiting, and be putting out 3 MH attacks +17/+12/+7 at 1d4(kukri) +5(str) +2(enhancement) +12(smite) +8(power attack) = 30 damage and 3 off hand attacks at 26 damage.
Right now a paladin has to blow every feat they have to pull this off, making them every one dimensional....
On track - I freely admit that GTWF has a low return, but should it be free? Free bothers me. I could see it folding into ITWF.And most of us are for rolling both ITWF and GTWF into TWF. The return on ITWF is not that much better that GTWF.
The only build that I worry about this breaking are paladins. A level 12 paladin with a 16 cha, 20 str, and 20 dex would have a base to hit of +12 +5(str) +2(enhance) +3(cha smite) +1(wep focus) -4(power attack) -2(DWing) = +17 when smiting, and be putting out 3 MH attacks +17/+12/+7 at 1d4(kukri) +5(str) +2(enhancement) +12(smite) +8(power attack) = 30 damage and 3 off hand attacks at 26 damage.
By the time a paladin can get that many attacks and those sorts of stats, can't he just share his smite with the eidolon which has 6 or more full BAB attacks per round anyway?
You're forgetting that the druid would still need to get BAB +16 in order to get those virtual feats....something you'll never see unless you either play epic levels or multiclass. Even if he multiclassed, this wouldn't come up until near level 20 anyway. I don't think 8d6 would be considered overpowered at THAT level.Sure, at a lower level he would qualify for IVS at +11 BAB (level 14 druid), but doing a single 6d6 attack per round at level 14 probably isn't incredibly powerful either. Now, it might get more problematic if he used Improved natural attack, power attack, weapon focus, furious focus, and all the other shiny feats that he'll be able to aford with his freed up feat slots...
Yeah, I don't remember the exact details of the build, but I think improved natural attack was involved as well.
By the time a paladin can get that many attacks and those sorts of stats, can't he just share his smite with the eidolon which has 6 or more full BAB attacks per round anyway?
On track - I freely admit that GTWF has a low return, but should it be free? Free bothers me. I could see it folding into ITWF.And most of us are for rolling both ITWF and GTWF into TWF. The return on ITWF is not that much better that GTWF.
The only build that I worry about this breaking are paladins. A level 12 paladin with a 16 cha, 20 str, and 20 dex would have a base to hit of +12 +5(str) +2(enhance) +3(cha smite) +1(wep focus) -4(power attack) -2(DWing) = +17 when smiting, and be putting out 3 MH attacks +17/+12/+7 at 1d4(kukri) +5(str) +2(enhancement) +12(smite) +8(power attack) = 30 damage and 3 off hand attacks at 26 damage.
Yes, but he will still be getting his 6 attacks along with the eidolon 6 attacks.
And most of us are for rolling both ITWF and GTWF into TWF. The return on ITWF is not that much better that GTWF.
You would increase the return on both by folding them into each other. If you make TWF fully scalable, from 1st level, you make it a must have feat.
I think you'd do better to have the Fighter, kind of like Ranger, make a choice at 1st level: am I a DEX guy or STR guy. Which ever attribute he selects, would drive everything and make certain trees available etc.
That's a big rewrite.
Well, the golem gets a big pile of Str damage on that second attack, right? It really becomes the same problem as TWF, in some sense. I'm sure someone smart could use math to prove one or the other was numerically superior... I don't worry about such things much, because players generally don't have calculators at my table.
The golem's two attacks are 2d10+16 each.
So two attacks version if both hit totals: 4d10+16 (average 38)
GVS version (assuming I'm remembering how the feat works correctly): 8d10+16 (average 60)
Which is a pretty decent difference. Obviously a monster with a single big attack would benefit more, but I couldn't think of a good one off the top of my head.
Maybe you could roll with something like: You have as many of the Vital Strike feats for free as you have attacks in a full attack action. It's still probably to the advantage of low-number-of-attacks monsters to use VS constantly but it's less dramatic?
One more thing to weigh in your thinking re: Vital Strike: Death from massive damage.
Well, the golem gets a big pile of Str damage on that second attack, right? It really becomes the same problem as TWF, in some sense. I'm sure someone smart could use math to prove one or the other was numerically superior... I don't worry about such things much, because players generally don't have calculators at my table.The golem's two attacks are 2d10+16 each.
So two attacks version if both hit totals: 4d10+16 (average 38)
GVS version (assuming I'm remembering how the feat works correctly): 8d10+16 (average 60)Which is a pretty decent difference. Obviously a monster with a single big attack would benefit more, but I couldn't think of a good one off the top of my head.
Maybe you could roll with something like: You have as many of the Vital Strike feats for free as you have attacks in a full attack action. It's still probably to the advantage of low-number-of-attacks monsters to use VS constantly but it's less dramatic?
I was about to say that a CR 13 monster shouldn't be able to qualify for that feat...but wow, it actually does have a high enough BAB.
I think the only thing preventing this from happening would be this part of the construct description: "Most constructs are mindless and thus have no skills or feats".
I was about to say that a CR 13 monster shouldn't be able to qualify for that feat...but wow, it actually does have a high enough BAB.
I think the only thing preventing this from happening would be this part of the construct description: "Most constructs are mindless and thus have no skills or feats".
Yep.
It's not a perfect example; it's just the first thing I thought of that's highish CR/BAB and also has a small number of attacks. I'm sure there's a better example that's not a construct out there somewhere. I do think it still does demonstrate the kind of edge case you'd need to think about in virtualizing VS, though.
I was about to say that a CR 13 monster shouldn't be able to qualify for that feat...but wow, it actually does have a high enough BAB.
I think the only thing preventing this from happening would be this part of the construct description: "Most constructs are mindless and thus have no skills or feats".
Yep.
It's not a perfect example; it's just the first thing I thought of that's highish CR/BAB and also has a small number of attacks. I'm sure there's a better example that's not a construct out there somewhere. I do think it still does demonstrate the kind of edge case you'd need to think about in virtualizing VS, though.
Yea, hmm. Well, I guess that the one thing is that any monster that would be able to get the feat via virtualizing should be able to get it anyway just by spending 2 more feats (and it should have plenty by that level). I guess the real issue to worry about is whether or not virtualizing makes any sort of feat stacking to create a single really horrible attack possible where it wasn't before. It seems to me that at worse a monster that was really focused on getting multple attacks or vital strike before might also get an improved natural attack feat and weapon focus.
And most of us are for rolling both ITWF and GTWF into TWF. The return on ITWF is not that much better that GTWF.You would increase the return on both by folding them into each other. If you make TWF fully scalable, from 1st level, you make it a must have feat.
Not really. I would agree with you if the damage from TWF was better than 2handers, but it isn't.
As the damage per attack goes up, the -2 to hit from DWing takes a bigger bite out of your damage per round. It roughly translates to a 10% loss in damage per round. At low levels, the loss is totally worth it, but at higher levels, it hurts more and more.
At level 1, 2 attacks at +2 for 1d6+3 or 1 attack at +5 2d6 + 6 against an AC 15 target. 9.1 average dmg vs 7.2, DWer wins
At level 11, 6 attacks at +17/+17/+12/+12/+7/+7 or 1d6 + 9 or 3 attacks at +19/+14/+9 for 2d6 + 17 against an AC 28 target. 20.0 average damage vs 25.2 damage, 2hander wins.
An optimized 2-hand fighter starts doing more damage than a DW fighter somewhere around level 8. The DW fighter has to take feats like ITWF and GTWF just to keep the gap from growing larger than it already is. TWF already costs a feat, ITWF and GTWF are just an extra penalty TWFer don't need.
As a final counterpoint to the "This makes it too easy for the players" rants. I use the same rules for both players AND NPC, so if the players get these feats for free, so do their enemies. Enjoy....
Maybe you could roll with something like: You have as many of the Vital Strike feats for free as you have attacks in a full attack action.
Ah! See, I thought that was implicit in the "Virtual" Feat... that is, you still need to meet the pre-reqs to have the ability. I realize now that the discussion has become confused, because that would affect TWF meaningfully as well... I think we're taking this on a Feat by Feat basis, or we should be anyway.
So yeah, I had presumed that you only got the VS feats at the BAB where they would normally become available. Otherwise, that's madness.
Ah! See, I thought that was implicit in the "Virtual" Feat... that is, you still need to meet the pre-reqs to have the ability. I realize now that the discussion has become confused, because that would affect TWF meaningfully as well... I think we're taking this on a Feat by Feat basis, or we should be anyway.So yeah, I had presumed that you only got the VS feats at the BAB where they would normally become available. Otherwise, that's madness.
Right, I followed what you were saying; what I'm saying is, there exist monsters that have a high BAB but still have a low number of attacks per round, such as the two-attack iron golem with its BAB of +18. Those are the kinds of things I think you need to give an eye to.
The problem with TWF as it currently stands is that it requires a massive investment in attributes and feats and quite honestly lags behind most thf builds. Further TWF is one of the few ways to make sword & board somewhat viable in actual play.
I personally would like the flexibility of playing a Paladin in plate armor, with a heavy shield and bastard sword doing it's thing. The problem is that a bastard sword requires a feat, heavy shield + one hander is a suboptimal build unless it has TWF and a ton of shield feats, and the paladin already needs to invest in charisma and strength meaning that TWF is non-viable unless you use a ridiculously high point buy.
Personally I would like iconic builds such as the Paladin Sword & Board build to actually be viable in a moderately optimized party. Being forced into archer paladin :( or THF paladin because they have better DPR isn't a particularly great design for me.
TWF is cool, yes it's unrealistic as hell for it to be commonplace but D&D is not a reality simulator it's cinematic fantasy roleplaying. I'd prefer for classes other than rogues to be able to play around with it. Especially since mathematically it tends to lag behind the high strength THF builds.
Virtual feats allow me to simulate a more cinematic style of play. Because they still have prerequisites commoners rarely have access to them so it's something that generally is only going to show up on heroic tier NPCs and some monsters.
Double points goes to the poster who comes up with some crazy unforeseen consequence to making all Vital Strike Feats Virtual.
Half Elf Monk of the four Winds level 11.
Vital Strike with a scattergun 3 times in one round, using exploding dice. Granted it's not a flurry of blows and it eats up the Ki, but you will deal some signficant damage.
Maybe you could roll with something like: You have as many of the Vital Strike feats for free as you have attacks in a full attack action.Ah! See, I thought that was implicit in the "Virtual" Feat... that is, you still need to meet the pre-reqs to have the ability. I realize now that the discussion has become confused, because that would affect TWF meaningfully as well... I think we're taking this on a Feat by Feat basis, or we should be anyway.
So yeah, I had presumed that you only got the VS feats at the BAB where they would normally become available. Otherwise, that's madness.
Above, I meant that you need only ONE vital strike feat.. IF you take it, at BAB + 11 and BAB + 16 you get the extra dice. So, no power boosts, barring maybe giants, IIRC.
*Crushes the philosophical discussion under the heel of his mighty presidential boot*
Do people thing that making Two-Weapon Fighting a single feat is too much? Those of you who have already house-ruled this seem to favor two feats — one for the first attack, and one for all subsequent attacks. (If I am reading correctly)
Is there some reason that it would be overdoing it to have the whole tree come with the first feat?
I have it as two feats:
Two-Weapon Fighting: consolidates the benefits of Two-Weapon Fighting and Two-Weapon Defense
Improved Two-Weapon Fighting: consolidates the benefits of Improved Two-Weapon Fighting, Greater Two-Weapon Fighting, and Two-Weapon Pounce from 3.5 PH II.
Do people thing that making Two-Weapon Fighting a single feat is too much? Those of you who have already house-ruled this seem to favor two feats — one for the first attack, and one for all subsequent attacks. (If I am reading correctly)
Is there some reason that it would be overdoing it to have the whole tree come with the first feat?
Personally, I think making it a single feat opens up exploitation via Vital Strike if you allow for an option where characters can (eventually) make an off-hand attack whenever a standard or full-round attack action would allow a single attack.
Hence, in my house rules, I went with making Vital Strike simply a part of the core rules (essentially a free feat) and then allowing Improved TWF to grant the iterative attacks. This is a little different from what Prof Cirno advocates (TWF granting the whole tree, VS granting the whole tree), but the net number of feats required to achieve both is still the same: two.
The problem with the suggestion of "They all need to stay as feats because welp you can't have everything" is that not all feats are created equal.
One of the reasons two weapon fighting is so maligned is because you need three feats to fully open it, whereas two hand fighting is accessable right from the start and more powerful.
Vital Strike is considered a joke not just because it's such a weak option but because you need to constantly upgrade it.
Again, imagine if you needed to take a feat each time you hit another +6 BAB in order to get your iteritive attack.
|
|
Unless you're a rogue with sneak attack. Then it's simply downright deadly.The problem with the suggestion of "They all need to stay as feats because welp you can't have everything" is that not all feats are created equal.
One of the reasons two weapon fighting is so maligned is because you need three feats to fully open it, whereas two hand fighting is accessable right from the start and more powerful.
Indeed. But you pay for that with fewer feats to handle the heavy feat cost of the fighting style, a lower chance of hitting, having to set up the situations where you can reliably get sneak attack damage, and having to stand nearly motionless in melee and take full attacks yourself because you only can deal this damage when full attacking....with fewer hit points and lighter defenses than most fighters have available.
It's not that the combat style is absolutely useless. It's that it takes a lot of work and a heavy investment in resources and certain class abilities to compare favorably...that two handed weapon fighting doesn't require.
There was a druid build that was basically turn into a Brachiosaurus or a similar animal with a single hard hitting attack. With GVS, the druid would hit for 8d6 + bonuses. This is actually a viable build under RAW, making IVS and GVS virtual feats only makes this build better.
Double points goes to the poster who comes up with some crazy unforeseen consequence to making all Vital Strike Feats Virtual.
More posts about the validity or lack of validity of the entire thread in the abstract will bring my wrath (which usually involves this).
I remembered the rest of the build....
Druid + Animal Growth + Improved Natural attack + shift into a Ankylosaurus(Huge, 3d6 tail strike). Base damage of 3d6 + Imp. Natural Attack + Animal Growth gives you a 6d6 attack. Add in Vital Strike + Improved Vital strike and you are hitting for 18d6 with your single attack.
The level 15 druid with 16 str +4(belt) +8(animal Growth) +6(shift into a huge creature) = 34 would be at a +11(BAB) +12(strength) +3(Greater magic fang) -2(Size modifier) +1(weapon focus) = +25 to hit for 18d6 + 21
With these proposed changes.
A level 15 human druid has 8 feats Improved Natural Attack(Tail), Vital Strike(get IVS for free), Dodge, Mobility, Spring Attack, get combat Expertise for free), Whirlwind attack, Natural Spell, Weapon Focus Tail.
So the druid has the option of hitting one target for 18d6 + 21, or attacking every target within reach of a gargantuan creature(20 ft space with a 15 foot reach = 25 foot blast radius) for 6d6 + 21.
Check out the shield feats too. they need some work. One prerequisite shield feat only gives you +1 ac against critical threats. It's killing shield builds before they get off the production line.
Pushing assualt is actually a very good trait my ranger is going to take. I'm combining it with combat reflexes, and a lucerne hammer. I get an AoO against anything that gets adjacent to me, I step back, and use a great cleave / pushing assault combo to push them back, and if they want to strike back I will get more AoO.
I think it will have a good feel. I am fending them off with my polearm, and they can't close in.
anyway pushing assault is worth a feat slot IMO
It almost makes me wonder if grouping feats into "styles" and just throwing out the slots mechanic might be a good houserule. For example, if one style gets Power Attack at first level, then a different, weaker style might actually get 2 feats from its style at first level instead.
That's invasive surgery to be sure.
The problems in this thread are really only coming up for people who have played the RAW enough that they are bored by the optimal choices...
I like the idea of making most of those feats free. If anything needs to be done to balance out the giving them away for free, every level that doesn't give the character a feat, let them choose one weapon or weapon group that they can apply these feats (and any feats they take that require them as pre reqs) to. This way, if they want the full benefit with any possible weapon, they still have to pay a feat slot, but they can still pull ideas that right now are very hard to do with anyone but a straight fighter class, just with limited weapons.