All of that sounds reasonable. I've implemented a few of those changes myself (but no TWF users in games I've ran to test it out).
The part about Greater TWF basically just duplicating attacks on the main hand with attacks on the offhand might get out of control, but I think it's also fine. You might want to specify the extra attack from haste isn't duplicated. I don't know, that might be a bit too much.
I don't think these changes will be overpowered, overall.
From a mechanical balance standpoint, I think your changes are fine.
From an aesthetic standpoint, I hate two-weapon fighting because it's a really bad idea in real life*, so part of me likes that its a weak trap option.
*Using the second weapon as a shield when you have no actual shield was acceptable, and certain martial arts (like escrima) can maybe make it viable, but that's kind of it. I don't normally use real life as a measure of anything in a game, but I just really dislike the aesthetics of twf, so, oh well.
A agree the Dexterity requirement for anything beyond the first feat in the Two-Weapon Fighting chain gets rediculous. Cleave, another combat bread and butter feat chain doesn't ask for ungodly Strength scores, only that enough fodder put conveniently placed in front of the cannon each round.
I honestly believe a Dex of 13 is good enough to get the foot in the TWF door, and after that a sizeable BAB and the previous feat should be enough payment for an extra off-hand attack. Since the weapons usually deal 1d6 or so of damage, the only real danger for overpowered DPR comes from boosts like weapon specialization, greater weapon specialization, and weapon training (all of which are fighter staples). Might be able to make a decent crit build, but that is playing the odds.
Also, wouldn't mind seeing an official Superior Two-Weapon Fighting feat from Piazo with the fabled 4th and final off-hand attack (albeit with a Dex 21+ prerequisite if the pattern holds true).
Well if you go by the way the NPC Codex puts it then you get attacks with both your main and off and in full attack. So a fighter with a BAB of 11/6/1 using a longsword and shortsword with two weapon fighting, improved two weapon fighting and greater two weapon fighting would have a full attack of 9/9/6/6/1/1. This is by the book and honestly not that bad as at 11th level a fighter could have base stats of STR:15 Dex:19 Con:12 Int:12 Wis:11 CHA:10 with a basic 20 point buy system, level increases and without any magical gear to buff him. So in turn his attacks would be 11/11/8/8/3/3.
Those changes seem good. I really like TWF so I just have TWF, ITWF, and GTWF in one feat(so you get iterative off-hand attacks when you get normal iteratives, and up to 4 off-hand attacks), and fighters don't need to meet ability score requirements for combat feats. This frees up some feat slots for raising damage output or attack bonus.
The fighter rule is mostly because I also like fighters.
|
how about:
Two Weapon Fighting (alternate):
Prerequisites: DX 15
Benefit:
While making a full attack, you may take a -2 penalty to all your attacks this round to gain an extra attack with a light off-hand weapon. The penalty rises to -4 if you use a one-handed weapon in your off-hand. This feat effectively reduces the two weapon fighting penalties of the primary hand by 2 and the off-hand by 6.
When your base attack bonus reaches +6, you may use this feat to make a second off-hand attack with a -5 penalty. This penalty is in addition to the -2 or -4 penalty for using this feat normally.
When your base attack bonus reaches +11, you may use this feat to make a third off-hand attack with a -10 penalty. This penalty is in addition to the -2 or -4 penalty for using this feat normally.
When your base attack bonus reaches +16, you may use this feat to make a fourth off-hand attack with a -15 penalty. This penalty is in addition to the -2 or -4 penalty for using this feat normally.
...
Improved Two Weapon Fighting (alternate):
Prerequisites: DX 17, Two Weapon Fighting
Benefit:
You may make two attacks as a standard action, one with with your primary hand and one with your off-hand. Both of these attacks are made at a -2 penalty if your off-hand weapon is light, or at -4 if your off-hand weapon is one-handed.
...
Greater Two Weapon Fighting (alternate):
Prerequisites: DX 19, Two Weapon Fighting
Benefit:
You may make two attacks as part of another attack action, one with with your primary hand and one with your off-hand. Both of these attacks are made at a -2 penalty if your off-hand weapon is light, or at -4 if your off-hand weapon is one-handed.
This feat may be used in conjunction with feats such as Cleave, Combat Reflexes, Spring Attack, Vital Strike, and Whirlwind Attack.
TWF is also required for double weapons. A number of viable double weapons exist in reality, including the staff, any number of short polearms, and some east Asian chain weapons.
Just because a weapon can strike with multiple surfaces does not mean that I think they should get bonus attacks from it. When you're swinging with one side of the staff, you're not hitting with the backside. The idea that you can somehow get more effective strikes per second by alternating sides was surely hatched by someone that's never actually tried that tactic.
I would be perfectly open to giving most polearms the ability to deal blunt damage, like a quarterstaff of its size, with the backside, since that definitely makes sense. But that doesn't mean more attacks, just more options for attacks.
TWF sucking does not serve these styles of combat and TWF as it currently exists completely fails to serve Florentine fencing in any way.
It kind of does--it's called Two Weapon Defense. The Main Gauche was used 90% of the time as a shield you could carry in a pocket. That's what two weapon fighting is generally about--you use a weapon in your off hand to help protect yourself when no shield is available.
Unless somebody has done a truly terrible job of building a 2 weapon character they should be doing more damage than a sword and shield.
No, the massive Dex requirements take Strength away from the non-Ranger dual wielder, so they really will, amazingly, do less damage, and that doesn't even take into account the -2 penalty to hit.
Plus, the majority of sword and board characters also shield bash, which is pretty much the best off-hand weapon in the game with just a single additional feat (Improved Shield Bash).
What you need for a 2 weapon fighter to work is bonus damage (rogue with sneak attack makes a good option)
No, Rogues have abysmal accuracy. You need a Paladin's Smite or Ranger (with always applicable Favored Enemies) to make TWF work.
A 50% split in levels between rogue and ranger probably wouldn't work badly
It would work horribly--Rogue is a bad class, don't waste levels on this.
Using the back of a polearm means having one end ready to go for the upper body and the other end at the lower body at the same time. It means having twice as many potential openings to strike at. Twice as many attacks is as good an approximation as any.
That's fine. I don't agree that twice as many potential openings would translate to twice as many attacks--maybe a bonus to hit or to feint or something, but not extra swings. But that's me--obviously, you visualize the rules differently.
Wow. So for the price of two feats and 15 dex you can get a benefit weaker than the dodge feat. A feat with a lower dex requirement that people rarely take except as a prerequisite.
Two Weapon Defense isn't a viable combat style. It's an insult.
I never said it was a great fighting style, I just said it kind of existed. So, keep in mind when I'm making the following comments that I'm not suggesting this is a strong feat or fighting style:
First, it's not weaker than dodge, it's essentially identical with more pre-reqs. I don't see it as an alternative to Dodge (especially not for a fencer), I see it as a supplement to it--you take both.
Second, I don't see any compelling reason to make it a strong fighting style. Using a parrying dagger in the off hand is not a first choice--it's a "oh crap, I don't have a shield" back up choice. It should be weaker than using a shield (requiring a feat is fine in my mind), but stronger than just using a rapier alone. I think the feat succeeds in that regard (though it could certainly use a lower Dex requirement).
Finally, I just want to stress that Rapier/Main Gauche was never a battlefield style. Nobody used this in a battle--it's a personal defense style. It's when you're walking around town and get jumped or put into a duel. Nobody wanted to fight this way. It's similar to the way nobody on the modern battlefield uses pistols--there is no advantage to using a pistol over a rifle except accessibility. Likewise, there is no benefit to using a Main Gauche over a shield except accessibility.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The reasons to make it a strong fighting style are...
1. This is a FANTASY game. Lots of impractical and impossible things happen, and you don't blow a gasket about them
2. It's a game, and is supposed to be FUN. Stop trying to punish people for doing something you think is "unrealistic" and lighten the f*** up.
The reasons to make it a strong fighting style are...
1. This is a FANTASY game. Lots of impractical and impossible things happen, and you don't blow a gasket about them
2. It's a game, and is supposed to be FUN. Stop trying to punish people for doing something you think is "unrealistic" and lighten the f*** up.
Well said.
1. This is a FANTASY game. Lots of impractical and impossible things happen, and you don't blow a gasket about them
In 90% of roleplaying games, dual wielding is better than any other option to a silly degree. Everyone represents it with extra attacks, with are multiplicative, even though every other bonus in most RPGs are additive. It's bad math and bad design to handle it with extra attacks. I don't mind if things are mechanically equal--they should be--but I truly believe giving someone extra attacks is not the way to do it. If I had to redesign dual wielding for D20, I'd probably treat "dually-wielded" weapons as a single two-handed weapon.
Example:
Dual Daggers with 18 strength would deal 2d4+6. A long and short sword would deal 1d6+1d8+6, etc. Or just say you hit with both weapons. Whatever, just make it equal to using a Two-Handed Weapon, then and get rid of all the feats.
2. It's a game, and is supposed to be FUN. Stop trying to punish people for doing something you think is "unrealistic" and lighten the f*** up.
I don't know what part of my comments made it seem that I wasn't "lightened up" or that I was anti-Fun. Was it the part where I specifically said this stuff was just aesthetic preference and separated that from game design and mechanics? Or how about when I made an off-handed comment about realism (and pointed out that it was only because I dislike this thing that I even mention realism) and then someone started challenging me about it?
Do I wish people wouldn't like dual wielding so much? Yes. Do I get frustrated that dual wielding is almost always multiplicatively better than not dual wielding (though thankfully, for once, not in Pathfinder)? Holy crap, yes! But do I want people who do like it not to have fun? No, of course not, I'm not a fun-destroying monster. Jeez.
It depends how you look at it. I realize the build has taken massive massive hits in PF, but in 3E, you could make an awesome AoO-fishing build. Whether it be a tripper or what have you. Such a character could easily get more attacks than a TWF person per round, even if he is only making one attack on his own turn. And such a set up was conducive to 2H fighting, because with AoOs you get the same # regardless of your fighting style, so maximizing damage per attack was the optimal route. TWF also encounters much more problems with DR than 2H fighting, and DR is quite common.
I really don't think TWF getting additional, weak hits being that devastating to game balance. And the OP wasn't trying to make TWF better than the other styles. Just closer to them, because currently it sucks. Not as much as unarmed or 1H (other hand unused) styles, but it's still pretty subpar.
I really don't think TWF getting additional, weak hits being that devastating to game balance.
It depends on the game.
And the OP wasn't trying to make TWF better than the other styles. Just closer to them, because currently it sucks. Not as much as unarmed or 1H (other hand unused) styles, but it's still pretty subpar.
I believe my very first words here were that the changes were good ones, mechanically. ;)
If I had to redesign dual wielding for D20, I'd probably treat "dually-wielded" weapons as a single two-handed weapon.
Example:
Dual Daggers with 18 strength would deal 2d4+6. A long and short sword would deal 1d6+1d8+6, etc. Or just say you hit with both weapons. Whatever, just make it equal to using a Two-Handed Weapon, then and get rid of all the feats.
Getting rid of all the feats, using this system, is fine until you add in the magical properties on an offhand weapon, then it gets plain silly. I had the same idea a week or two ago. It becomes the only option - the feat tax then becomes necessary to deter everyone from doing it.
I'd considered trying out the following at one point, as well(but never got around to it):
Two Weapon Fighting
Prereq: Dex 11
o When you make an attack roll with your main hand resulting in a natural 18-20 (the d20 shows 18, 19, or 20), you gain an additional attack using your offhand weapon.
o At base attack bonus +6, and for every 5 points thereafter, you may make one additional offhand attack per round.
o Each offhand attack is made at the same base attack bonus as the main hand attack which triggered it.Improved Two Weapon Fighting
Prereq: Dex 13, Two-Weapon Fighting, base attack bonus +6.
Your chance to gain an additional offhand attack is doubled (15-20). Additionally, when wielding a double weapon or two weapons (not including natural weapons or unarmed strikes), you gain a +1 shield bonus to your AC.
When you are fighting defensively or using the total defense action, this shield bonus increases to +2.
Interestingly, the way I'd consider phrasing these, you could move, make an attack action with vital strike (for example), and on a natural roll of 18+ (15+) gain an extra attack (offhand) using the same modifiers, etc.
It cuts the number of feats by two (greater-TWF and two-weapon defense); reduces the over-the-top Dex requirements; still allows those folks who like to roll their extra attacks a shot at that; potentially could allow for extra damage on feats like pirahna strike and vital strike; keeps the standard TWF penalties in place (thus encouraging light offhands).
Wow,
Thanks a lot guys, specially StreamOfTheSky, I've never considered haste.Probably I need to do some extra effort to writing it properly. I'm gonna institute the changes and give some feedback.
I'm fine with the duplicated AoO, charge, etc...
I think all you really need to do is to specify for full attacks, that only the iterative attacks from BAB get duplicated. Thus, an attack from haste, or from spending a ki point (monk flurry is TWF, afterall), etc... doesn't cause things to get out of hand.