|
Right. upcoming game in september. I'm looking to boost twf to be as good as thf, in terms of damage output. Ideally it would be similar on a standard attack and on a full attack, but at least should be similar on a full attack.
Things that make twf weak:
1. Steep feat requirements just to try to keep up with damage (let alone extra stuff like tw defense, etc.)
2. dpr is still lower than the equivalent thf fighter that spent less (potentially 0) feats on it.
3. double enchantment costs
4. DR hurts more.
I'll be going the route of giving inherent bonuses by level to cut down on the xmas tree effect, and I'll be giving out equivalently less loot to compensate. In that sense, it should reduce the problems of #3, since They'll only have to pay for the named enhancement bonuses, such as flaming, etc.
I'm looking for some suggestions on boosting it to be more in line with thf in terms of dpr, and make the number of feats to get there more equivalent as well.
Can I get a hand with this?
Straight from my houserules, inspired by someone's comments during the beta (wish I remembered who):
You wield weapons with equal precision in both hands.
Prerequisite: Dexterity 13+
Benefit: When wielding a weapon in your off-hand, you may deal precision or other bonus damage with offhand attacks. Additionally, you deal your full strength damage (rather than 1/2) with off-hand attacks.
Normal: Any character can make an additional off-hand attack as part of a full-attack action, plus one additional off-hand attack at BAB +6, +11, and +16. All attacks made during the round suffer a -2 penalty when fighting with two weapons.
Off-hand attacks receive 1/2 strength as bonus damage, and any inherent weapon damage such as bonus dice from magic effects (Flaming, etc). Precision, feat or class ability bonus damage including Arcane Strike, Favored Enemy, Smite Evil, Sneak Attack, Weapon Specialization, etc. does not apply to off-hand attacks.
The advantage is the simplicity. It's really, really hard to abuse this version (so far as I've seen) because you need to pay the fee to do anything worthwhile DPR-wise. However, that only costs you one feat, not three.
My favorite part (and the reason I chose this method) is that it doesn't penalize everyone for fighting with an offhand weapon just because some classes can double up on special damage. If a player wants to do something cool like wave a torch at some zombies, he shouldn't have to suck at that just because rogues can sneak attack.
Make the two-weapon fighting feat chain a game mechanic or give the feats for free for anyone who wants them. Then allow one attack with each weapon as a standard action. You're done.
Sure, it might not still be optimal and still has certain weaknesses but that's the nature of the game. Your players will be happy to get four feats for free.
.
EDIT:
Actually, here was my proposed fix from a while ago.
It's a little more elaborate.
I'd just remove improved and greater TWF, and give off-hand itterative attacks as normal. This will simultaneously lower the dexterity requirement, making it more viable without heavily investing in dexterity perse.
I actually like Evil Lincoln's suggestion in that, SA and the like do not automatically benefit from TWF, I'd wrap it in with double slice though and keep a single feat requirement for the TWF chain.
To mediate the TWF enhancement cost you might consider an additional option :
Twinned - these weapons come in either pairs or double weapons, the weapons are always enchanted with identical enhancements and function as plain masterwork weapons if ever they get separated more than 10' from eachother, for this reason it is more commonly used to enhance double weapons but twinned weapons have been known to be wielded by brothers in arms fighting side by side. The weapons always appear similar in construction and are always made of the same material.
The particular enchantment while limiting itself to identical enhancement makes it less costly than imbueing two magical weapons separate from eachother, the marketprice of twinned weapons is the base cost of the weapons, but only counting 75% of the enhancement cost, making it significantly cheaper to create.
In theory Twinned weapons can be made in more than one pair, and even an entire company can be made to wield enchanted weapons that function as long as they are within 10' of another weapon it is linked to at creation.
I have already combined TWF, iTWF, and gTWF into a single feat that scales. I might add a bonus to TWF that at +11 BAB, you can make an attack with both weapons as a standard action.
Two-weapon Defense feels lacking. I am really thinking that a +6,+11, and +16 BAB the shield bonus needs to increase by 1.
Double Slice and Two-Weapon Rend should probably be combined into a single feat.
That brings it down to 3 feats.
Basic question: How do you picture TWF? Given a hollywood movie crew that should capture a scene of a guy doing TWF against some baddies, how does he fight?
I'm asking because in my mind, a TWFer is some kind of "blade dancer", a high mobile guy who dances over the battlefield. A d20 TWFer is the opposite, if he moves too much, he sucks.
I'd introduce something like: "make the attack of one hand, move at your regular speed, make the other attack" or even "you may move BETWEEN your attacks to a total of your regular speed"
I cannot give you mathematical analysis of my solution, although I would be interested to see some. I'm more of a "feel it out" person. I'd be disappointed to find out that it is easily abused, but that's not really something I have to worry about with my group.
Anyway, the person I ripped it off from said something about TWF with all the feats being close in DPS to a basic power attack two-hander build. This feat does nothing to mitigate the effects of DR, etc, so I figure it's still pretty comparable, albeit much, much cheaper than the old feats.
The best part is definitely that it doesn't penalize people from just using an offhand weapon if they're not trying to game it with special damage. You should try to include that kind of feature in whatever method you settle upon.
|
Darkholme, Two Weapon Fighting should never have the same Damage out put as 2-handed weapon fighting.
Two weapon fighting gives more attacks at a lesser damage out put as oposed to the burley 2-handed fighter who is using a larger heavier weapon that packs a huge punch.
There is no way a Rapier and main gauche figher to deal as mch damage to a target with an equal number of attacks as a fighter weilding a great ax or great hammer. Larger heavier weapons do more damage to a target than a single handed weapon or a weapon weilded in a off hand.
TWF is also a harder fighting style to learn as it reuires a much higher dexterity to master using a weapon in each hand and cordinatiting the attacks opposed to a single large weapon that depends on strngth and mass to deal damage.
You should not try to fix somethng that is not broken.
The game mechanic is not broken you are trying to nerf a balance issue.
The way you should do this is not by breaking feats but instead creating magic items that benift TWF.
Intelligent parieed weapons wold be a good idea. On of my fav magic items from another game system were Gauntlets of the Fencing master
in PFS they woudld grant you 1 extra hasted attack at highest BAB for both weapons and +4 to dexterity. Cost 50k gp
|
|
Darkholme, Two Weapon Fighting should never have the same Damage out put as 2-handed weapon fighting.
Two weapon fighting gives more attacks at a lesser damage out put as oposed to the burley 2-handed fighter who is using a larger heavier weapon that packs a huge punch.
There is no way a Rapier and main gauche figher to deal as mch damage to a target with an equal number of attacks as a fighter weilding a great ax or great hammer. Larger heavier weapons do more damage to a target than a single handed weapon or a weapon weilded in a off hand.
TWF is also a harder fighting style to learn as it reuires a much higher dexterity to master using a weapon in each hand and cordinatiting the attacks opposed to a single large weapon that depends on strngth and mass to deal damage.
You should not try to fix somethng that is not broken.
The game mechanic is not broken you are trying to nerf a balance issue.
I agree with your statements about this with regard to real life. TWF is much more difficult to learn in real life than attacking well with a single weapon. it involves dividing your focus and well, any time you need to focus on multiple things you are doing at once, it makes things harder.
However, as an in-game option, the overall payoff for one fighting style should be around the same as another fighting style at the top tier (in this case, lets say a well built fighter). Sword and board may be a different beast, due to the much better defense; but TWF isn't getting anything to compensate for the high feat cost. It does crappier damage than THF without any feats invested.While I agree with you that a TWFer should not do the same number of damage in one attack, or in an equal number of attacks, if you count ALL of the twfer's attacks, and compare those to ALL of the THFer's attacks, either the damage should be roughly even, or the TWFer should be getting something equally good to compensate (with the base rules, they don't.) I'd say the base damage should likely be a little higher to compensate for lost DR, but at the very least, if its left as is for penalties/benefits, the feat cost should be reduced/dropped.
You can manage with a TWF build, but a THF build will ALWAYS be better. In real life thats just the way things work sometimes. In a game, I'd like to have my options be more competitive with eachother so I have a whole bunch of equally good options to choose from, and not have one that's clearly better.
@Ksorkrax,I agree with you, but I see that as a problem with D&D Melee as a whole, rather than a problem that specifically applies to TWFers. It's something I'd like to address, but when I go at it, it'll be a system wide change, or some new feats that apply to all the meleers, and not just twfers. I want to see less "I stand still and full attack", and make mobile options be better than they are. One thing I'm contemplating is rolling Vital Strike into Iterative Attack progressions. And then maybe for feats, either making a new feat specifically for or rolling into another twf feat to allow for twf as a standard attack, or an off-hand attack as a swift option that you can make when making a standard attack or some such. Ideally, either twf = thf in terms of damage, or twf gets something else to make up for it.
So far I've seen a few options for a TWF Alternative.
You wield weapons with equal precision in both hands.
Prerequisite: Dexterity 13+
Benefit: When wielding a weapon in your off-hand, you may deal precision or other bonus damage with offhand attacks. Additionally, you deal your full strength damage (rather than 1/2) with off-hand attacks.
Normal: Any character can make an additional off-hand attack as part of a full-attack action, plus one additional off-hand attack at BAB +6, +11, and +16. All attacks made during the round suffer a -2 penalty when fighting with two weapons.
Off-hand attacks receive 1/2 strength as bonus damage, and any inherent weapon damage such as bonus dice from magic effects (Flaming, etc). Precision, feat or class ability bonus damage including Arcane Strike, Favored Enemy, Smite Evil, Sneak Attack, Weapon Specialization, etc. does not apply to off-hand attacks.
You don't get precision damage on your extra attacks unless you burn feats for each extra attack. through the following three feats. If you're not a rogue, you get twf basically the same for free. if you ARE a rogue, the feat costs are the same if you want the same benefits.
Off-hand Precision: You are treated as being proficient in all martial weapons only for the sake of meeting the prerequisite to fight with two weapons. Also, you may make precision damage with your first off-hand attack if applicable.
Off-hand Precision, Improved: Gain precision damage with your second off-hand attack
Off-hand Precision, Greater: Gain precision damage with your third off-hand attack
When armed with two weapons, you fight with two weapons rather than picking and choosing and fighting with only one. Kind of obvious in retrospect.
+0 BAB: You may make an extra attack with your offhand weapon for each attack you are allowed by your BAB. All attacks take a -2 penalty.
+1 BAB: While armed with two weapons, you gain an extra Attack of Opportunity each round for each attack you would be allowed for your BAB, these extra attacks of opportunity must be made with your offhand.
+6 BAB: You gain a +2 Shield Bonus to your armor class when fighting with two weapons and not flat footed.
+11 BAB: You may Feint as a Swift action.
+16 BAB: While fighting with two weapons and not flat footed you may add the enhancement bonus of either your primary or your off-hand weapon to your Shield Bonus to AC.
One thing I've seen done (it's a houserule in one of the campaigns I'm in) is that if you are carrying two weapons, you can attack with both as a standard action.
This eliminates the screw of TWF whenever you move. We've been playing with it for awhile now, and it seems to work pretty well.
In my "redesign the game" phase (way back when Pathfinder was in Beta), I made the following combat changes:
Secondary Attacks
You may make an additional attack with a different weapon from your first weapon. All attacks this round have a -4 to attack. If the second weapon is considered a light weapon, the penalty is only -2. Strength damage is reduced by one half on this extra attack.
Feat: Improved Secondary Attack
Dex 15
You may make additional secondary attacks for having high base attack bonus, equal to your normal iterative attacks.
Additionally, you may forego the damage from this extra attack to cause a single target to provoke an Attack of Opportunity from others.
Feat: Two Weapon Fighting
Dex 15
When holding a light weapon in your off hand, you may add the weapon damage magical effects to your main hand attack. You do not add any additional weapon enhancement, strength modifiers or precision damage.
Alternatively, you may forego the extra damage and instead gain a shield bonus to AC equal to 1 + the weapon's enhancement bonus (if any). This bonus is increased to 2 + enhancement when fighting defensively or using the total defense actions.
When using an off hand weapon with this feat, you may not use it for secondary attacks.
.
My reasoning..
I disliked the idea that the main rules for making extra attacks with extra weapons were from the point of view of the off hand.
I'd rather a general rule for attacking with a second weapon other than the first (no matter where you got it from), and then made unique options that made using a weapon in the off hand more thematically how I see it in movies and books.
A twohander gets the damage without burning a feat, but the TWFer burns a feat (and some cash) to get potentially slightly higher damage (from magical effects) and has versatility in the ability to apply their weapon towards defense.
On the flipside.. ANYONE can kick with a foot, or shoulder check (my unarmed strike doesn't require "off hands" for anyone), no matter what weapon they are wielding, or how full their hands are. Burning a feat gives you more attacks (considering the diminished returns for iteratives, I still think only one extra feat is needed.. just add more if you think non-casters don't deserve nice things.. j/k ;).
Caveat: I have not had a chance to actually playtest this. My groups tend to be fairly "close to core as possible" type of gaming.
I have no clue if this can be broken or if balance flies out the window.
|
My changes are simple
Two Weapon Fighting Unchanged
Improved Two Weapon FightingIn addition to the standard single extra attack you get with an off-hand weapon, whenever you get an iterative attack you gain an additional off hand attack with it, albeit at the same attack bonus as the iterative attack that it coincides with.
Greater Two Weapon FightingWhen you make an attack as a standard action you may make an additional attack with your off hand weapon albeit both attacks suffer the two weapon fighting penalties.
This makes traditional TWF only take two feats rather than three and gives the TWFer who goes all in (or the TWF Ranger who skips improved TWF) a major boost.
I condense it all down into one auto-scaling feat, and let you attack once with each weapon as a standard action. Simple.
From a simulationist standpoint I think TWF as it now exists isn't a style the game should support at all.
The real two weapon schools I'm aware of do not use nearly as many off-hand strikes as on-hand. For them there would be nothing but the first two weapon fighting feat, a worthwhile version of two weapon defense, and the ability to sacrifice the off-hand attack to feint in a full attack action.
I completely see your point. I think a better and simpler way to translate this is to dropped the damage from both primary and secondary to 1/2 strength, but instead grant a +2 to strike, and fold all TWF tree into one.
From a simulationist standpoint I think TWF as it now exists isn't a style the game should support at all.
The real two weapon schools I'm aware of do not use nearly as many off-hand strikes as on-hand. For them there would be nothing but the first two weapon fighting feat, a worthwhile version of two weapon defense, and the ability to sacrifice the off-hand attack to feint in a full attack action.
I agree on the defense. Generally, when one weapon attacks, the other defends. However, if the weapons are the same (two sabers, for instance), one full "blossom" rotation presents 6 strikes--3 right and 3 left. Of course, this would be akin to dual wielding scimitars, and this maneuver can't be done with double-edged weapons, so it doesn't make sense in game terms. But multiple strikes can easily be generated from real life TWF.
|
|
I think I mentioned this upthread; I agree that its a difficult fighting style in real life, but I'm not interested in making it more difficult than other fighting styles to learn unless the end result is considerably more powerful. And since it's *not* more powerful, either it should be as easy to be good at as any good fighting style with a similar or better damage output/defensive capability, or it should be buffed to be substantially more powerful than those other fighting styles.
That said, I think it is easier to leave the usefulness around the same and just make it cheaper.
|
|
TWF is a difficult fighting style in real life so it should be a difficult fighting style in pathfinder, but it should be a rewarding style (you are spending a lot of feats).
there should be feats that1) permit a double attack in a standard action (the weakest part o twf)
2) permit other thing beside do damage (shield slam permit a bull rush), 3,5 have some good feats in that regard.
NOTE: i am not a english native speaker, sorry for any mistake
The way I see it; if I drop 4 feats on TWF, I should be just as good as the guy who THFs and fropped 4 feats into focusing on it. I shouldn't be dropping more feats into it to keep up with what the THF guy gets at no cost.
|
|
Darkholme,I'm no game design genius, but I think hear that what you want is a "balanced" less feat heavy version of TWF that does more. Well, I will attempt to deliver.
That's exactly what I wanted, and you definitely delivered. That's pretty damn good!
Thoughts:
TWF: I think I'd use the standard penalties and whatnot, so if the off-hand weapon isn't light, they take -4/-4
Double Slice: We run VitalStrike as doable on a charge and on a spring attack (as the author intended, instead of as the errata says.) I'm thinking maybe allowing this with VitalStrike; or at least allowing it on a charge as well. Any thoughts on that idea?
- They are now getting full STR on their off-hand. Here's the logical conclusion I get from this; let me know if you see my point:
If your off-hand is as good as your main hand, it's not really an off-hand anymore. Therefore, Maybe ditch the light weapon in the off-hand requirement here (as opposed to in the main twf feat where you had it). Perhaps I would move the additional attack as a standard into the regular twf feat... hmm. not sure.
Rend: I like it. But I dont recall what rend normally does at the moment. lol.
Twinned: I can see some shenaniganry coming from this. But it definitely gives me an idea.
What do you think of this?
Twinned: Twinned weapons are masterwork weapons made specifically to function as a pair. They take more work and cost a little extra, but are specifically designed to work together.
A set of twinned weapons costs an additional 300gp (including the required masterworking for both weapons, that comes to a total of 900gp).
Any two light or one-handed weapons (they have to be two of the same kind of weapon) can be made twinned while being crafted.
When only one weapon from a twinned set is wielded, the wielder suffers a -2 penalty on attack rolls with its use, and any bonuses on the attack roll from magical enhancements (such as from an enhancement bonus) do not apply.
The benefit of a twinned weapon is this: Twin weapons are enchanted as a pair. The cost of magical enhancements is paid once, but applies to both weapons.
- Perhaps twinned weapons don't suffer the -2/-2 when being dual-wielded... Though if thats the case, perhaps they should cost more.
Paired: Paired weapons are similar to twinned weapons in that they are designed to function as a pair, but they are two different weapons.
Paired weapons function the same as twinned weapons.
A set of Paired weapons costs an additional 500gp (for a total masterworking cost of 1100gp). It is more difficult to pair different weapons than like ones.
And you give monks another bonus feat at 1, 6, 11, 16?
What about 2WF rangers? What are they doing about it?
Balance one, balance all.
|
|
As i said twf should be dificult(how many famous twf swordman can we find in history? very few) but in the end should be rewarding.
You don`t like core twf, so you should not find problem using feat from complete warrior and complete adventurer. for example
[3.5 feats from CW and CA]Now, not only your weapons do more damage that a two handed weapong, 2d8 vs 2d6 from a greatsword, but you can trip as a free action. You have to spend a lot of feat but you will be deadly triping for free every turn.
Yeah, those feats would definitely help. But the more feats you have to take, the better the payoff needs to be. If I dump 5 feats into a single thing, I should be doing much more damage than the basic guy with a greatsword. The trip option is pretty cool, but with all the requirements, your level will be monstrously high before you ever qualify. New feats are nice, but I definitely feel the need to buff the existing feats as well. Each feat should be worth the effort, it shouldn't take every feat slot I get to make it pay off. Though I definitely like the ideas; I'm thinking of rolling oversized into the main feats, for example. Could I get come comments on the potential change I came up with?
Is it possible that the TWF guy is balanced by being better in certain situations?
Possible, but that has not been my experience.
Being attacked by half a dozen 4hp goblins. The THF kills one every round. The TWF kills 2 every round. They can both have cleave, so maybe its 3 and 2. Either way, the TWF is finished first.
If you use cleave, you just lost all benefit from your twf; Cleave is a special kind of standard action in Pathfinder, so you cant do it with a regular attack routine or on a charge, and therefore cannot receive the benefits of both feats at the same time. In D&D 3.5? maybe.
One of the common problems I am seeing people not noticing or clarifying, what about TWF with rogues? Do we really want to make them do better in combat?
One of the common problems I am seeing people not noticing or clarifying, what about TWF with rogues? Do we really want to make them do better in combat?
My method places the burden of feat investment on the classes that derive the most benefit from it, and gives everyone else the option for free (more or less). That's what I like about it.
But yeah, Rogues can do with a little boost, IMO. They're clearly not dominating, and if you let a rogue SA it should be extremely dangerous.
One of the common problems I am seeing people not noticing or clarifying, what about TWF with rogues? Do we really want to make them do better in combat?
Man, I would give you a 9 out of 10 for trolling, but I am afraid you are serious......
Currently, rogue are sitting well behind fighters on damage, and that assumes the rogue is using TWF. All these rules do is lower the feat cost, and make it more viable for a rogue to use TWF.
At level 10, and two-hand fighter is +10 BAB with a 24 strength, weapon spec, weap focus, greater weap focus, weapon training, power attack, improved crit, and a +3 weapon is looking at a +21/+16 to hit for 2d4 + 26 damage. That is about 62 damage per round against an AC of 24 with an AC of around 28 in full plate and loads of hp.
If we use the rules here that allow a TWF rogue to only need 13 dex. A level 10 rogue has a +7 BAB, 24 strength, weapon focus, TWF, double slice, TW Rend, a +3 weapon, and a +1 mirror weapon(see above enchanement idea). The rogue is still spending 8000 more gold on weapons than the fighter. The rogue is +16/+16/+11/+11 for 1d4 + 10. Against AC 24, that is 29 damage per round. If the rogue gets a flank, they would be hitting at +18/+18/+13/+13 for 1d4 + 5d6 + 10. That gives them 81 damage per round against AC 24, if and only if they get a flank. The rogue would have an AC of around 22.
A finesse rogue would have an AC closer to the fighter, but their damage when flanking will go down by about 25(which puts them right on par with the fighter). So they match the fighter pretty closely, but spend more on weapons, and have less HP.
So, the rogue spends more on weapons, has a lower AC, less HP, but yay in certain spefic instances they do 20 more damage per round.
What about attacking the weapon problem from the other side?
Make one handed weapons and light weapons cost less to enchant.
** spoiler omitted **
Let medium weapons pay full price to enchant and each size category down pays 2/3 as much and each category up pays 1.5 as much. Boosting small martial adventurers is a side effect, but probably not enough to make up for a -2 strength penalty and at least -1 average damage on any weapon doing 1d6 or more as medium. Giants with two handed weapons would find themselves above appropriate wealth for their challenge level and need some sort of adjustment. Small creatures would find themselves below their target wealth.
Maybe 2/3 is too much and will kill two handed weapons in favor of weilding one handed weapons two handed (and certainly this is another change that requires banning the Falcata, which seems to be a common requirement of my ideas) Maybe 3/4 is a better ratio. Maybe no ratio that makes TWF viable doesn't make scimitars superior weapons to falchions and longswords to greatswords.
I like the twinned enchantment idea because it works extremely well with double weapons.
One of the common problems I am seeing people not noticing or clarifying, what about TWF with rogues? Do we really want to make them do better in combat?Man, I would give you a 9 out of 10 for trolling, but I am afraid you are serious......
Currently, rogue are sitting well behind fighters on damage, and that assumes the rogue is using TWF. All these rules do is lower the feat cost, and make it more viable for a rogue to use TWF.
At level 10, and two-hand fighter is +10 BAB with a 24 strength, weapon spec, weap focus, greater weap focus, weapon training, power attack, improved crit, and a +3 weapon is looking at a +21/+16 to hit for 2d4 + 26 damage. That is about 62 damage per round against an AC of 24 with an AC of around 28 in full plate and loads of hp.
If we use the rules here that allow a TWF rogue to only need 13 dex. A level 10 rogue has a +7 BAB, 24 strength, weapon focus, TWF, double slice, TW Rend, a +3 weapon, and a +1 mirror weapon(see above enchanement idea). The rogue is still spending 8000 more gold on weapons than the fighter. The rogue is +16/+16/+11/+11 for 1d4 + 10. Against AC 24, that is 29 damage per round. If the rogue gets a flank, they would be hitting at +18/+18/+13/+13 for 1d4 + 5d6 + 10. That gives them 81 damage per round against AC 24, if and only if they get a flank. The rogue would have an AC of around 22.
A finesse rogue would have an AC closer to the fighter, but their damage when flanking will go down by about 25(which puts them right on par with the fighter). So they match the fighter pretty closely, but spend more on weapons, and have less HP.
So, the rogue spends more on weapons, has a lower AC, less HP, but yay in certain spefic instances they do 20 more damage per round.
IMHO (which can be wrong) rogues are not supposed to be effective in combat, just menacing from time to time. They are supposed to be about skills. I am afraid if we make TWF too good for when they use it, they would be made too good; probably not too powerful, but more than they are supposed to be.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
TWF is underpowered. But bear in mind that "fixing" it messes with the balance of the monk, ranger and TW fighter archetype. If changes are to drastic as to how the feats work, those classes should be boosted acordingly.
And one of the main issues I have with TWF (beside the feats) are the fact that you end up being worse if you don't use the same weapons, specially if you are a fighter, and that's just wrong.
IMHO (which can be wrong) rogues are not supposed to be effective in combat, just menacing from time to time. They are supposed to be about skills. I am afraid if we make TWF too good for when they use...One of the common problems I am seeing people not noticing or clarifying, what about TWF with rogues? Do we really want to make them do better in combat?Man, I would give you a 9 out of 10 for trolling, but I am afraid you are serious......
Currently, rogue are sitting well behind fighters on damage, and that assumes the rogue is using TWF. All these rules do is lower the feat cost, and make it more viable for a rogue to use TWF.
At level 10, and two-hand fighter is +10 BAB with a 24 strength, weapon spec, weap focus, greater weap focus, weapon training, power attack, improved crit, and a +3 weapon is looking at a +21/+16 to hit for 2d4 + 26 damage. That is about 62 damage per round against an AC of 24 with an AC of around 28 in full plate and loads of hp.
If we use the rules here that allow a TWF rogue to only need 13 dex. A level 10 rogue has a +7 BAB, 24 strength, weapon focus, TWF, double slice, TW Rend, a +3 weapon, and a +1 mirror weapon(see above enchanement idea). The rogue is still spending 8000 more gold on weapons than the fighter. The rogue is +16/+16/+11/+11 for 1d4 + 10. Against AC 24, that is 29 damage per round. If the rogue gets a flank, they would be hitting at +18/+18/+13/+13 for 1d4 + 5d6 + 10. That gives them 81 damage per round against AC 24, if and only if they get a flank. The rogue would have an AC of around 22.
A finesse rogue would have an AC closer to the fighter, but their damage when flanking will go down by about 25(which puts them right on par with the fighter). So they match the fighter pretty closely, but spend more on weapons, and have less HP.
So, the rogue spends more on weapons, has a lower AC, less HP, but yay in certain spefic instances they do 20 more damage per round.
In that case, I feel sorry for your rogues. A rogues job is to be the party skill monkey AND deal damage. Why else would rogue have an ability like sneak attack unless they were supposed to be able to deal damage?
The TWF rogue build that beats the fighter in DPR is a glass cannon.
A. At 22 AC and 70ish hp, it could not survive a full round attack from most CR 10 monsters.
B. Only outdamages the fighter if it can get a flank. If you can't get a flank or the creature is immune to sneak attack, the rogue is doing half the damage of the fighter.
C. I didn't calculate how much damage the fighter gets from having a flank. The fighter likely gets 6-8 more DPR from having a flank, so the rogue is only beating the fighter by 10 DPR when flanking. The TWF finesse rogue is 10-15 DPR behind the fighter, even with a flank.
In short, I would never actually play the strength rogue in a real campaign as the odds of getting turned into a pasty goo are way too high.
PS - Don't look at the Alchmist(Vivisectionist) with feral mutagen. You avoid the TWF rules entirely by having lots of natural attacks(bite, 2 claws, tentacle), and sneak attack. In the DPR thread, I have a Ranger 2/Alchmist 8 that can easily break 100 DPR with a 38 AC while being able to cover most of the same skills that a rogue can, but yeah rogue's can't have nice things....