The more I experiment with TWF, weapon finesse and the like, the more I come to agree with people here who post their houserules giving it a boost (making TWF one feat instead of three, giving weapon finesse for free, etc.)
Yes there are situations that make going TWF very powerful (favored enemy, sneak attack, Cavalier's challenge,) but my experience from play has been a good two-weapon fighter must spam Dex to meet the prerequisites for TWF, needs finesse because of that Dex-spamming, then burns through lots of feats, and still needs the agile enchantment on all his weapons just to stay relevant in any situation that's NOT one of the above super-attacks.
I haven't run numbers nor specifically play-tested these builds in isolation, but is anyone in favor of them not needing a boost? Even a Ranger, the only one who can get the feats without spamming Dex, is usually less-effective than someone just going with a two-handed weapon. The only real mechanical advantage I can see the Ranger getting is going sword and shield so he can get those multiple favored enemy attacks and gain a shield bonus as well.
Does anyone think the TWF fighting style shouldn't be boosted? Because I'm really thinking of making weapon finesse free, giving two-weapon defense for free and either taking away the Dex requirement of TWF or making it one feat instead of three in my games.
The real problem is that not all combat styles are close enough to being equal.
TWF << Sword & Shield << Two Handed Sword.
|
My ranger friend with a companion wolf, teamwork feats, a billion attacks of opportunity per round that can come up on any lucky roll, and a menacing, keen scimitar in a storing glove + a keen kukri to TWF + THF whenever needed would probably disagree. Also, Dazing Assault on all AoOs, because lol @t the guy that tries to stand up and provoke with a +16 bonus to attack from the ranger before counting stats and BAB.
TWF does just fine, given the right build you can really pump out some serious damage rivaling that of the THW. Now the real problem is getting a consistent full attack.
My ranger friend with a companion wolf, teamwork feats, a billion attacks of opportunity per round that can come up on any lucky roll, and a menacing, keen scimitar in a storing glove + a keen kukri to TWF + THF whenever needed would probably disagree. Also, Dazing Assault on all AoOs, because lol @t the guy that tries to stand up and provoke with a +16 bonus to attack from the ranger before counting stats and BAB.
I'm not saying at high levels he isn't good, but he has a heck of a time getting there. I tried rolling a two-weapon fighter once and I'm sure I could build him better, but he was virutally useless next to the two-weapon fighter until I'd gotten agile enchants on all my weapons-which didn't happen until level 7.
I wouldn't change two weapon, but a player that gets into it should know all the twf feats that are out there and allowed by the dm. They should also be aware of the pathfinder weapon locking feat.
One thing I did to beef up the sword and board style, which can be combined with two weapon to bash and keep ac, is to make bucklers give +1 ac, small shields +2 and large shields +3. A tiny increase, but it does give such players some more potential to last and shut down attacks, because two handed is OP in my opinion.
I feel like the glory of Pathfinder is letting you pick the kind of character you want to play.
With that in mind, I just hate how long it takes TWF to become valid and how much you have to invest into it before it works.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
The full attack rules simply kill two weapon fighting. With two weapon fighting you're spending feats to be as effective as someone with a two handed weapon.. but only when you're holding still? It just doesn't make any sense.
The full attack rules simply kill two weapon fighting. With two weapon fighting you're spending feats to be as effective as someone with a two handed weapon.. but only when you're holding still? It just doesn't make any sense.
Yes you can be better at full attacks in certain situations, but I don't think that benefit, only gained by Rangers and rogues and cavaliers, equals that minus to everything else you gain.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I'm of the opinion that two-weapon fighting should only be one feat, that scales up, there's so many restrictions on it, you can even make the restrictions scale up, need a 19 dex to get the 2nd off-hand, 21 to get the 3rd, 23 for the 4th. I also think the full-attack should just be "attack" which is a standard action, makes the game a lot more dynamic for noncasters.
Yes you can be better at full attacks in certain situations, but I don't think that benefit, only gained by Rangers and rogues and cavaliers, equals that minus to everything else you gain.The full attack rules simply kill two weapon fighting. With two weapon fighting you're spending feats to be as effective as someone with a two handed weapon.. but only when you're holding still? It just doesn't make any sense.
Even in those situations they often get pushed out by 2 handers.
I agree that there are too many feats required to make some things viable.
Infact I think that some feats are highly wasteful. for example...
a combat class should not have to waste a feat on Step Up. its reasonable to assume that a person in combat can automatically follow an opponent that takes a couple steps back in order to remain immediately engaged in melee combat. they should not have to spend a feat in order to do so.
The TWF feats are akin to the ranged fighting feats in that they require extreme specialization in order to be viable. while using two weapons effectivly in combat IS a difficult task I dont think that it should be balance such that the combatant has few other effective skills.
It should be balanced such that the TWF relies on the "best defense is a strong offense" principal creating something of a glass cannon but one that can still take advantage of the general versatility of two hand or sword and board fighters.
The only reason 5 ft step exist is to move safely. If everyone can step up then there is no reason to have the 5 foot step.
The game is also turn based, and allowing everyone to go on someone else's turn changes a lot of things.
I'm not familiar with the E7/E6/Ewhatevers. On any level. All I know is that they pertain to RPGs.
Fair enough.
TWF does just fine, given the right build you can really pump out some serious damage rivaling that of the THW. Now the real problem is getting a consistent full attack.TWF shouldn't rival THW in damage. It should blow it away. The THW fighter has 5 extra feats of versatility. That's half the lifetime feats of a non-human rogue. All that to merely rival the damage of a THW build and that only on full attacks? Absurd.
I'm of the opinion that no fighting style should blow any other away. The feat problem can easily be fixed by the highly popular opinion that Blue Star pointed out of just making the feat scale. The only time TWF should blow the THF out of the water is when you are getting a considerable non-Str bonus to damage such as sneak attack or favored enemy.
While I'd prefer as much balance as possible, if one style is going to end up dominant, I'd rather have it be "two-handed weapon" or "one handed weapon and shield, without a bunch of hit-with-the-shield shenanigans". It's not that I don't like TWF (or it's cousin, shield fighting) conceptually or anything - it's totally badass - I'd just rather that it not be the case that most classes feel like they're giving something up by taking a more "standard" combat approach. In a sense, I like where things are now. Martially-oriented classes can employ TWF and feel like they're contributing, but it's not the "default" fighting style for most classes for optimization purposes. I think it could use a little boost in the feat-tax department. (In particular it'd be awesome if characters didn't have to spend their first pile of feats making themselves not lame at it), but it's not huge.
This is only semi-related, but I also wish that TWF (and archery, I guess), got more [i]interesting[i] feats and less "Plus strength to damage. Plus half your strength to damage. Extra attack. Lessen penalty. Lessen penalty again. Plus damage. Plus hit." When you throw in the standard +hit, +damage feats, it's easy for a character to spend most of their career applying boring static bonuses and easing penalties on their fighting style, and it's not really wrong to do so. I'd rather see less of that and more of like what Unarmed Fighting has, where there are lots of cool (but not universally powerful) feat trees to follow that let you do interesting things.
This is only semi-related, but I also wish that TWF (and archery, I guess), got more [i]interesting[i] feats and less "Plus strength to damage. Plus half your strength to damage. Extra attack. Lessen penalty. Lessen penalty again. Plus damage. Plus hit."
This. I would like to see more stuff like two weapon rend and two weapon feint.
Historically, it was not used much, except for societies where a shield could not be carried or TH weapons were too large. Thus, I agree that of the three, it should be the least powerful.
But as the OP and others pointed out, it does work well in some situations, and thus, since it’s fun, I have no problem with the current rules are they are. I see no reason to pump it up any.
I think it should offer other benefits. Spending all those feats should account for something other than less damage. Otherwise I am just spending feats for fluff.
Best fix I've seen is just reducing the Dexterity requirement for all two-weapon feats to 13-15 so that the only 'real' prerequsite left is Base Attack Bonus; it works for making it viable in Modern at least...
I allow any character to fight with two weapons at -2 to all attacks, doubling their number of attacks at any level.
To get any bonus damage at all on the off hand requires one feat.
I'm cool with full str for off hand. At least that'll eliminate one feat. I'm also cool with twf scaling but only for my E7 games
Personally, I would keep it, but make it a little more useful.
TWF feat - reduced TWF penalties, and gives extra off hand attacks as you meet the BAB and dex requirements.
Dual slice - Gives full strength to offhand attacks, and allows you to make 1 attack with each hand as a standard attack(which can be used with charge or spring attack).
As it stands you Don't have to do less damage when you move.
Just twf when you full attack and 2HF when you move. Easy.
You can do this by
1.Fighting with a 1handed weapon+cestus (easiest solution.)
Screw weapon fcs- take big game hunter instead.
2. Use a Weapon and quickdraw shield with quickdraw feat. Abuse free actions.when you need to move, quick sheathe and 2 hand. Quickdraw shield back out at end of your turn.
3.Play a Two Weapon Warrior or Mobile Fighter or Dawnflower dervish or any class that can get pounce.
You CAN make the style work for you.
If i was to change it: either keep it as is but roll the two weapon defence tree as well.
TWF grants +1 AC (maybe also allow a primary and offhand attack at the end of a charge)
ITWF grants +2 AC
GTWF grants +3 AC.
My group's houserule is that if you have double slice then you get the -1/+2 power attack ratio.
I have yet to playtest it -- but hope to -- but I'm cool with folding TWF and its improved and greater versions into one feat that scales as LONG as all other prerequisites are met.
In other words, it only costs one feat, but to get the extra "Improved" attack, you need BAB +6 AND Dex 16, and likewise for "Greater," you still need BAB +11 and Dex 19.
I would not give Weapon Finesse for free, but I do think Weapon Finesse and Agile Maneuvers need to be combined into a single feat.
I don't find the full attack requirement a big deal. That's the tradeoff, and I do think there needs to be one. But if you've freed up feat trees, you've got room for Vital Strike for those times when you can't make multiple attacks.
That said, I can think of one thing for TWFers if they can't full attack... since a lot of TWF styles are actually supposed to enhance defense (off hand weapon used to block), have any time you only attack with one weapon, you get +1 shield bonus to AC if you have an off-hand weapon.
Two Weapon Defense would then increase that bonus to +2 (and you get the +1 bonus at all times, per the feat as usual).
I'm currently allowing a player in my group to get the entire two-weapon fighting feat chain for the cost of one feat and I also allowed him to get the 3.5 'two-weapon pounce' feat so that he can get two attacks on a charge.
These two changes seem to have gone a long way towards balancing things, but THF still generally does more damage for fewer feats and a lower cost (since you only have to pay for one weapon).
Leo1925 - I might have to copy that house rule, lol.
There is one other houserule that I am considering for bringing the different weapon types in line with each-other: adjusting the cost of enchanting a weapon. Light melee weapons would cost 75% and two-handed melee weapons and ranged weapons would cost 150% of the normal enchanting cost.
This would bring each of the various fighting styles in line with each-other cost-wise.
There are two issues with that are making me hesitate on this however. Though, I don't think it will come up in my current gaming group. One is that a munchkin might just start doing two-handed fighting with a longsword to avoid having to spend as much money. Another is that a 'switch hitter' would have to pay a lot of money to be equipped with both a good bow and a good sword.
|
Throw stuff -- that's what shurikens are for. Or Quick Draw w/knives, etc.TWF does just fine, given the right build you can really pump out some serious damage rivaling that of the THW. Now the real problem is getting a consistent full attack.
TWF shouldn't rival THW in damage. It should blow it away. The THW fighter has 5 extra feats of versatility. That's half the lifetime feats of a non-human rogue. All that to merely rival the damage of a THW build and that only on full attacks? Absurd.I'm willing to bet the THW build is a barbarian who also needs Raging Vitality and maybe also Extra Rage. He's probably also a pounce-focused build who's entire schtick can be thwarted by an opponent with one feat (Pushing Assault).
I have yet to playtest it -- but hope to -- but I'm cool with folding TWF and its improved and greater versions into one feat that scales as LONG as all other prerequisites are met.
I think you do need to playtest it -- you're basically letting TWFs scale like monks (while keeping their armor and sneak-attack or weapon-training or animal-companions and full-BAB class benefits or whatever else they're getting by not being a monk).
E.g., 11th-level samurai TWFing wakizashis -- if TWF scales, you're giving him two attacks for free (ITWF, GTWF) which are granting him 1d6+(whatever)+11(challenge) in a 15-20 threat weapon, and whose chances of scoring at least one crit in a full-attack are about 90%. Also has a nice horse which does its stuff.
I think you do need to playtest it -- you're basically letting TWFs scale like monks (while keeping their armor and sneak-attack or weapon-training or animal-companions and full-BAB class benefits or whatever else they're getting by not being a monk).
E.g., 11th-level samurai TWFing wakizashis -- if TWF scales, you're giving him two attacks for free (ITWF, GTWF) which are granting him 1d6+(whatever)+11(challenge) in a 15-20 threat weapon, and whose chances of scoring at least one crit in a full-attack are about 90%. Also has a nice horse which does its stuff.
I think this can be solved pretty simply with another houserule: make it so that attacks like smite and challenge only give bonuses to main hand attacks. Then create a feat that lets them get the bonuses to their offhand. So there: you made it so that classes that would gain too much damage from reducing the number of TWF feats have to pay pretty much the same number of feats while allowing other classes to not have to spend a ton of feats for nothing.
I have yet to playtest it -- but hope to -- but I'm cool with folding TWF and its improved and greater versions into one feat that scales as LONG as all other prerequisites are met.I think you do need to playtest it -- you're basically letting TWFs scale like monks (while keeping their armor and sneak-attack or weapon-training or animal-companions and full-BAB class benefits or whatever else they're getting by not being a monk).
If I run a playtest in pbp (note this is at the moment a very long distance, tentative idea), would you be interested in joining?
But it's not quite the same, because they still need to 1)take one feat to do it, and 2) bump up their Dex, which monks don't need to do. NOW, a good question is would it be unfair/overpowered for TWF Rangers, who ignore pre-reqs. That's something that definitely needs examining.
E.g., 11th-level samurai TWFing wakizashis -- if TWF scales, you're giving him two attacks for free (ITWF, GTWF) which are granting him 1d6+(whatever)+11(challenge) in a 15-20 threat weapon, and whose chances of scoring at least one crit in a full-attack are about 90%. Also has a nice horse which does its stuff.
I suppose I should have added the qualifier "in my games"---which don't allow samurai, which I otherwise know barely nothing about, so the example is kind of lost on me. I don't allow any of the Eastern weapon spam from UC either.
At the same time, by 11th level I am probably throwing a lot of mobs and tough monsters at the party, so the party tank, samurai or no, being able to cuisinart through enemies might be expected more than discouraged.
It's also worth noting that if the cuisinart on a horse wants to do this in a normal game, he just needs three feats to do it which isn't hard to get by 11th level; it's not like RAW prevents it from happening. My hope in my games he'd have two feats freed up to buy some other stuff and round out his build. But I have whacky, crazy players who like having feats free for horrible loser things like Skill Focus and whatnot (as long as they can reflect their combat build first), so my perspective is probably skewed.
I think this can be solved pretty simply with another houserule: make it so that attacks like smite and challenge only give bonuses to main hand attacks. Then create a feat that lets them get the bonuses to their offhand. So there: you made it so that classes that would gain too much damage from reducing the number of TWF feats have to pay pretty much the same number of feats while allowing other classes to not have to spend a ton of feats for nothing.I think you do need to playtest it -- you're basically letting TWFs scale like monks (while keeping their armor and sneak-attack or weapon-training or animal-companions and full-BAB class benefits or whatever else they're getting by not being a monk).
E.g., 11th-level samurai TWFing wakizashis -- if TWF scales, you're giving him two attacks for free (ITWF, GTWF) which are granting him 1d6+(whatever)+11(challenge) in a 15-20 threat weapon, and whose chances of scoring at least one crit in a full-attack are about 90%. Also has a nice horse which does its stuff.
Get rid of one feat tax, just to add another? Not really fixing anything, just changing the flavor.
One possibly inaccurate assumption I seem to see on these boards is that TWF and THF are mutually exclusive. The CRB explicitly mentions that one can do things like kick or headbutt with an unarmed strike or use armor spikes as an offhand attack. This would make the use of a two handed weapon AND a light offhand attack possible. Unless there's some errata I've missed somewhere?
Curious to know the rules you're pulling this from, because I don't see it working that way usually.:
The PRD Combat section describes TWF as this:
If you wield a second weapon in your off hand, you can get one extra attack per round with that weapon.
I would interpret this as "off hand" means that you have to attack with your hands, usually. And this if both hands are holding one weapon, no, you can't kick as an "off-hand" attack, with your two-handed weapon as your "on hand" attack.
Yes, you can make a TWF attack with an unarmed strike, but the wording here still suggests a hand's involved.
There's an exception for monks particularly--their whole body is considered a weapon at all times so even if their hands were full, they could flurry with unarmed strikes as well as whatever they're holding (as long as it's a flurry-able weapon). (Someone, do please correct me if I am wrong).
If you've got something else, by all means... the combat rules tend to get spread all over the place.
On the other hand, you've got me thinking of an interesting Bastard Sword build where the wielder alternates between THF with bastard sword and then using it and a spiked gauntlet as TWF.
Actually, the idea of taking a few feats out of the tree, but putting them back to make sneak attack, challenge and such work is a good way to go. That way the two-weapon fighter can do his job a lot easier without overpowering the few people who can actually make use of TWF as it currently stands.
The fighter isn't the one that the feat tax is hurting, its hurting the builds that don't get any bonus feats, like paladins, cavaliers and such. Putting a feat tax in for allowing such a thing, doesn't even make a lot of sense to begin with.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
If I run a playtest in pbp (note this is at the moment a very long distance, tentative idea), would you be interested in joining?Thanks for the invite, but I don't have much time for anything aside from my twice daily run through this place.
But it's not quite the same, because they still need to 1)take one feat to do it, and 2) bump up their Dex, which monks don't need to do. NOW, a good question is would it be unfair/overpowered for TWF Rangers, who ignore pre-reqs. That's something that definitely needs examining.
With Agile weapons, the Dawnflower bard archetype (Inner Sea Magic), and the Urban barbarian archetype, full-on min/max DEX fighting is now very viable. I have a STR07/DEX26 PFS samurai/urban who TWFs a cestus and a wakizashi -- my four feats at fifth level are Mounted Combat (which I almost never use because most PFS mods preclude the use of a large mount), TWF (use constantly), Weapon Finesse (ditto), and Extra Rage (I also have Dragon Style from one level dip into Fighter[Unarmed]) -- he'll be doing 2x[d6+10)+[d4+13] in a full attack at 6th, +12 if issuing Challenge.
The bard/pally build I submitted above has four archery feats at 3rd level -- given that it already has everything it needs to kick butt in combat, it's a stretch for anyone to complain that it's feat-starved -- because you really don't need feats. I.e., if you don't want to have paladin in the mix, then drop it, and take Precise Shot at 3rd (skipping Deadly Aim, which is nice, but not necessary).
Rule of thumb: If you could kill yourself (full up to neg CON) in a single full attack -- you are not suboptimal, and shouldn't be getting any bennies from the GM whatsoever.
I suppose I should have added the qualifier "in my games"---which don't allow samurai, which I otherwise know barely nothing about, so the example is kind of lost on me. I don't allow any of the Eastern weapon spam from UC either.Katana...better than a longsword, not as good as a falcata; wakizashi...same as a scimitar, except it doesn't suck. ... Samurai = Cavalier with eastern weapon access but no Teamwork feats. Cavalier = Paladin who can "smite" anything (but forfeits the bonus to hit, lay on, awesome saves, spells and weapon bond). Basically you get a lot of numeric bonuses to damage a couple times per day, and they really juice any crits you score. Any paladin/cavalier/samurai who crits around BAB11 or so is going to do well in excess of 50pts damage with a one-handed attack while smiting/challenging. If he's a G-TWF with seven Haste attacks who's scoring one crit a round 90% of the time, he's a bloody murder machine.
The fighter isn't the one that the feat tax is hurting, its hurting the builds that don't get any bonus feats, like paladins, cavaliers and such.
See above. Those classes get level (numeric) bonuses to damage, and quickly scale to DPR juggernauts when using their class smite or challenge ability.
I say that anybody who can easily dish out way over 100pts in a full attack at BAB11 doesn't need "help" because their chosen TWF fighting style is allegedly suboptimal when built by a teenager who can't quite wrap his head around something more complicated than "half-orc, STR:20".
(For the same reason, rogues and monks shouldn't get any bennies either, because all the abilities and feats they need to kick ass are right there in the core rulebook -- if a player is complaining of how rotten theirs is...well, that's not the class' fault. I.e., I see way too many players who just can't grasp the fact that you don't need a big score in strength to succeed in the game; for example, if you make a rogue and dump CHA and INT...why are you even playing a rogue if what you are actually attempting to make is a fighter?)
[quote=]See above. Those classes get level (numeric) bonuses to damage, and quickly scale to DPR juggernauts when using their class smite or challenge ability.
I say that anybody who can easily dish out way over 100pts in a full attack at BAB11 doesn't need "help" because their chosen TWF fighting style is allegedly suboptimal when built by a teenager who can't quite wrap his head around something more complicated than "half-orc, STR:20".
(For the same reason, rogues and monks shouldn't get any bennies either, because all the abilities and feats they need to kick ass are right there in the core rulebook -- if a player is complaining of how rotten theirs is...well, that's not the class' fault. I.e., I see way too many players who just can't grasp the fact that you don't need a big score in strength to succeed in the game; for example, if you make a rogue and dump CHA and INT...why are you even playing a rogue if what you are actually attempting to make is a fighter?)
Right which is what I was saying above (pertaining to the DPR). The discussion just went to eliminating the need for the "improved and greater" versions of the feat, something I am not sure about. Then it was mentioned to include a tax in order to use the class dependent abilities like smite and SA with the off-hand, which is just plain dumb. It would just be eliminating one feat tax, and then applying another for, really no reason.
I'm gonna disagree pipedreamsam, the feat that makes a rogue dangerous isn't two-weapon fighting, but improved two-weapon feint, and that's a long way down the chain, level 8 at the earliest, if your GM let you sit on your level 7 feat. Even then their DPR doesn't improve that much.
Clearly that's not the rogue, but the monk.
Get rid of one feat tax, just to add another? Not really fixing anything, just changing the flavor.
I never said that I would implement this in my game. I'm just suggesting it for people who are worried about certain classes doing too much damage. Some people apparently don't want two-weapon fighting paladins to have a few more feats ;)
Now that I think about it, my in game solution might be to split smite damage between each weapon when two-weapon fighting. This way two-weapon fighting has been fixed by removing the feat tax and I've also prevented munchkin builds that are just trying to do silly amounts of damage. I'll have to ponder which classes would be affected by this houserule though... I'm wary about applying it to rogues because they kind of need the extra two-weapon fighting damage from what I hear.
If I run a playtest in pbp (note this is at the moment a very long distance, tentative idea), would you be interested in joining?Thanks for the invite, but I don't have much time for anything aside from my twice daily run through this place.But it's not quite the same, because they still need to 1)take one feat to do it, and 2) bump up their Dex, which monks don't need to do. NOW, a good question is would it be unfair/overpowered for TWF Rangers, who ignore pre-reqs. That's something that definitely needs examining.With Agile weapons, the Dawnflower bard archetype (Inner Sea Magic), and the Urban barbarian archetype, full-on min/max DEX fighting is now very viable. I have a STR07/DEX26 PFS samurai/urban who TWFs a cestus and a wakizashi -- my four feats at fifth level are Mounted Combat (which I almost never use because most PFS mods preclude the use of a large mount), TWF (use constantly), Weapon Finesse (ditto), and Extra Rage (I also have Dragon Style from one level dip into Fighter[Unarmed]) -- he'll be doing 2x[d6+10)+[d4+13] in a full attack at 6th, +12 if issuing Challenge.
The bard/pally build I submitted above has four archery feats at 3rd level -- given that it already has everything it needs to kick butt in combat, it's a stretch for anyone to complain that it's feat-starved -- because you really don't need feats. I.e., if you don't want to have paladin in the mix, then drop it, and take Precise Shot at 3rd (skipping Deadly Aim, which is nice, but not necessary).
Rule of thumb: If you could kill yourself (full up to neg CON) in a single full attack -- you are not suboptimal, and shouldn't be getting any bennies from the GM whatsoever
Sorry, your rule of thumb is lacking. Maximum damage potential is just about the worst way to balance characters. I can make rogue with just the core rules that can attack 4 times a round at level 8 for 5d6 + 5 damage an attack. That is a max damage of 35 a hit with 4 attacks, which comes to 140 maximum damage a round at level 8, but that alone does not make the character optimal or sub-optimal. If 2 of those attack have a 50% chance to hit, and the other 2 have a 25% chance to hit, I will be averaging 1.5 hit every round for an average of 22 damage per hit. That is a whopping 33 average damage a round with a 14% chance of doing no damage at all, and I can only do that damage when flanking an enemy that is not immune to criticals. When looking at balance, you must to take your chance to hit into account and look at the average damage dealt. The whole point of feats like rapid shot and TWF is that they give extra attacks with a penalty to hit, so it should be obvious that they are balanced around the lower chance to hit.
I have a ranger/alchmist(vivisetcionist) build that does not use TWF at all that can put out an average of 140 damage a round against a AC of 24 at level 10. It is not just UC, most of the Vivisectionist builds are ok. If it was just the ability to pop out 3 natural attacks(Feral Mutagen) with multiattack(secondary attacks are only -2 to hit), with a normal weapon(wielded by a vestigial arm) plus sneak attack, you would be ok, but the alchmist has the ability to compensate for their inherently lower to hit via Mutagens(+2 to hit) and extracts(heroism +2, haste +1). Broken edge case builds will always be out there, and that really has nothing to do with this discussion.
As for your specific build. I bet that you will find that taking ITWF and especially GTWF feats don't really help your damage. Most of the standard TWF paladin builds do not take ITWF and GTWF at all, because those extra attacks have such a low chance to hit that there are far better feats out there to get.