Fighting with two weapon resolved in a single roll ? anyone tried it ?

[Steve Levesque]

I've seen some people complaining about the reality that two weapon fighting was very feat intensive, for diminishing returns. Yes, it is great for rogues and sneak attacks, but you know, for a great fighter, its a suboptimal style.

Then, I saw numerous ppl on different forums talking about the idea to balance things out.

One way was to make two weapon fighting a single roll.

Attacking with a great axe = one roll. Damage is 1d12+ 1 and a half Str modifier.

Attacking with two short sword = one roll. Damage is 2d6+ 1 and a half Str modifier.

Of course, the feats are reworked and balanced according to the new system, and they are less numerous.

I will not go under the hood too much to explain everything, but I was just wondering if someone around here has already tried a system similar to that ? If yes, what do you think of it ? Why ? And what would be a good alternative to the feats presented in the book, for fighting with two weapons ?

Thank you guys.

[Nitro~Nina]

First problem I see is that, for the price of a feat, the only bonus you get for twf in that instance is a tiny increase to damage compared to holding the axe two-handed. 2d6 is more average damage than 1d12, but only by a tiny amount. (Basically, your maximum is still 12, but your minimum got increased to 2 and that affects the probability of every other number.)

Mind you, that's just a first glance by someone who doesn't really know much about how combat works in the nitty-gritty world of statistics.

[The Sideromancer]

Steve Levesque wrote:

I've seen some people complaining about the reality that two weapon fighting was very feat intensive, for diminishing returns. Yes, it is great for rogues and sneak attacks, but you know, for a great fighter, its a suboptimal style.

Then, I saw numerous ppl on different forums talking about the idea to balance things out.

One way was to make two weapon fighting a single roll.

Attacking with a great axe = one roll. Damage is 1d12+ 1 and a half Str modifier.

Attacking with two short sword = one roll. Damage is 2d6+ 1 and a half Str modifier.

Of course, the feats are reworked and balanced according to the new system, and they are less numerous.

I will not go under the hood too much to explain everything, but I was just wondering if someone around here has already tried a system similar to that ? If yes, what do you think of it ? Why ? And what would be a good alternative to the feats presented in the book, for fighting with two weapons ?

Thank you guys.

I know I've seen TWF done just for the sake of throwing more d20s, so I'm not sure this is a good idea thematically.

[Steve Levesque]

Well, rapidly, i saw this.

Making one roll for 2 weapon attack, is a good thing if you hit, cause you deliver both weapon damage.

Missing is bad, since both weapon miss.

However, rolling more dice is not always a good thing... so making combat a little shorter might not be a bad thing. However, screwing the balance of the game might be a problem...

Does it screw the balance ? Thats a good question tho...

[Reverse]

You lose out on any additional benefit beyond the base damage associated with making a second attack.

Things that come to mind:
- You only get Sneak Attack once, instead of twice, because there's only one attack under the new system (you could roundabout this by doubling the SA damage on this roll).
- Same for static bonuses like Favoured Enemy or Weapon Specialisation.
- Builds that favour scoring criticals want to make lots of attacks (because it increases your chances of a magic 20), and lose the opportunity.
- You end up with oddities like stabbing a werewolf with your two shortswords, only one of which is silver. Does the DR apply to the entire attack? Only one of the d6? How do you determine which one (if you roll them all separately, you have the same problem you're trying to avoid of too many rolls).

[Steve Levesque]

Well, you make some good points there.

Another system I saw was simply to roll once.

If you hit, you deliver the damage with one weapon.
If you hit by beating the AC by some margin, you hit with both weapons, rolling 2 separete times for damage.

In this system however, fighting with 2 weapons makes you more agressive, wich make sense since this style in the book is about offense, and gave you some bonus to your attack.

[TheFinish]

The problem I see with a system like this one is, as Reverse said, you run into some problems regarding critical hits, DR, and other combat modifiers that apply on a per attack basis.

Furthermore, how do you calculate damage when you're using two different weapons? Like Valeros and his Longsword/Shortsword combo.

Your second system (1 roll, if beat AC by X you hit with both weapons) also runs into the same problem, but I've seen variations in other systems (Fantasy Flight Games' Star Wars line; Green Ronin's Dragon Age) that work pretty well. I just don't think Pathfinder can support it without serious redesign.

[Sir Jerden]

Why not just completely get rid of multiple attacks altogether?

I'm serious, there are already rules for it that may appeal to you: http://www.d20pfsrd.com/gamemastering/other-rules/unchained-rules/removing- iterative-attacks

I've never used them, but they look like they'll work. Natural weapons are very nice to have with these rules, because if you have two you hit for double damage, although it my be less good when you're fighting a hydra. It does decrease the value of high crit ranges (at most, you crit twice per full attack) and abilities like flurry and haste are less good if your attack bonus is bad.

It seems to do what you want, although don't spring it on players unexpectedly.

[Steve Levesque]

Another system i've seen, wich was looking good, I must say, was something like this:

1 roll vs AC.
If you hit, you deliver main hand damage.
If you hit by an X margin, you deliver both main and off-hand damage.

The idea was that in real life, having two weapon, wich was more usualy a dueling style, does not double your attacks. It can with the right training however, grant you a better offensive, and a better defense, compared to a single weapon.

Also, it reduce the number of roll like I want to acheive.

Getting rid of multiple attacks cause too many problem for me. But as it is, no one in my groups like the Two weapon fighting mechanics either. Searching on the internet has found me a bazillion fan-made two weapon fighting remakes. Thing is, i want to change it, but I do not want to screw things up.

[Snowlilly]

Steve Levesque wrote:

Well, you make some good points there.

Another system I saw was simply to roll once.

If you hit, you deliver the damage with one weapon.
If you hit by beating the AC by some margin, you hit with both weapons, rolling 2 separete times for damage.

In this system however, fighting with 2 weapons makes you more agressive, wich make sense since this style in the book is about offense, and gave you some bonus to your attack.

When I run a twf build, I am nearly always crit fishing.

The more die rolled, the greater the chance for a crit, and this is what the character is optimized for.

[Chengar Qordath]

I'd also mention that while a system with fewer, harder hits cuts down on the number of crits, it also magnifies their impact when they do happen. Without further adjustment you can end up with a system where criticals are a one-hit kill even against dedicated frontliners at full health.

[Snowlilly]

Chengar Qordath wrote:

I'd also mention that while a system with fewer, harder hits cuts down on the number of crits, it also magnifies their impact when they do happen. Without further adjustment you can end up with a system where criticals are a one-hit kill even against dedicated frontliners at full health.

Crits are often used to deliver conditions. Hitting harder does not modify conditions inflicted.

Hitting more frequently does modify the chances of successfully inflicting one or more conditions.

[Chengar Qordath]

Snowlilly wrote:

Chengar Qordath wrote:

I'd also mention that while a system with fewer, harder hits cuts down on the number of crits, it also magnifies their impact when they do happen. Without further adjustment you can end up with a system where criticals are a one-hit kill even against dedicated frontliners at full health.

Crits are often used to deliver conditions. Hitting harder does not modify conditions inflicted.

Hitting more frequently does modify the chances of successfully inflicting one or more conditions.

Was there anything in my post to indicate that I was unaware of that?