I don't want this thread to be a debate, but I do need to explain the problem I wish to fix. Currently there are two things wrong with the TWFing feats: the later feats in the chain give less benefit (TWF and ITWF are mechanically okay, but GTWF and PTWF are horrible), and the feats lack a certain amount of elegance I'd like to see. Feat for feat, it is better to optimize a character for using a weapon/shield or a two-hander than it is to optimize a character for TWFing; I have ran the numbers on this, utilizing sneak attack, elemental weapons, and favored enemy bonus/weapon specialization, and in all cases a two-hander is a better choice (even for those with only moderate strengths).
Those are my beliefs. Again, I don't wish for this thread to be a debate about the above beliefs. Rather, I wish to suggest a potential alternative, and am looking for other mechanically minded players/DMs to help me balance the ideas. I am also looking for a simple program/calculator to determine average damage as well (even though I have a very simple equasion that has been working out nicely; it's just annoying to use it against various ACs at once), so if anyone has one, or knows where to get one, let me know.
With that out of the way, onto the nature of TWFing in theory. Firstly, TWFing is just cool; it has a certain "wow" factor to it. It is difficult to use, so it is rarely seen; when it is, it is just awe inspiring. Logically speaking, it should be more difficult to use two weapons than one, that much is simple, but one could also say that it may be more difficult to defend against two weapons than just one. A TWFer should have an easier time defending against multiple opponents (suposidly this is what Miyamoto Musashi used the style for), because you can keep a weapon on each of them instead of having to split your focus.
Mechanically speaking, since it costs feats, it should give a return worthy of the feats expended.
So, in searching for an elegant fix, I think I may have stumbled upon a quite thought provoking idea. Rather than TWFing simply granting an extra attack when a full attack is taken (which unfairly forces the usually light armored TWFer to stand still rather than utilizing their unencumbered speed), I came up with the idea of having TWFing grant extra actions. This would allow a TWFer to use one weapon to feint (normally a standard action) and the other to attack. A spellcaster could cast a spell, performing the somatic components with their primary hand, and make an attack with their off-hand.
All in all, here is my idea for the core feats of the style (outer feats like Two-Weapon Defense could remain unchanged):
Two-Weapon Fighting (Special Action, no feat)
A character can accept a penalty to hit while taking a full attack action in order to gain an additional standard action attack with their off-hand (either with a weapon or an unarmed strike). I would prefer the off-hand to retain it's current penalties (-4 to hit, 1/2 strength damage), and to have a way of ensuring that smaller weapons are used (such as an additional -2 penalty for utilizing a one-handed weapon). I would also prefer the TWFing feat to remove 4 points of the to hit penalty for utilizing two-weapon fighting (because -4 is the standard "non-proficiency" penalty, and thus such a penalty seems to fit).
Improved Two-Weapon Fighting (Fighter, General)
Requirements: Dex 13+
Benefit: I would like this feat to reduce the two-weapon fighting penalties by 4 (again the standard non-proficiency penalty) and allow a character to gain the additional off-hand standard action when they take a standard action attack or full-attack action with their primary hand rather than just with a full-attack. This feat does not make a character ambidextrous (because there are some styles of using two weapons where the off-hand weapon is strickly a secondary weapon, such as rapier/dagger, where the secondary weapon is used for feints, defense, and opportunistic attacks).
Ambidexterity (General)
Requirements: Dex 15+
Benefit: This feat would remove all penalties associated with one's off-hand. It would remove the -4 to hit penalty imposed on off-hand attacks, it would allow full strength bonus to be applied to off-hand damage, and it would negate the penalty for using a one-handed off-hand weapon. Technically, a character would no longer have an off-hand, and could take their primary attacks with either hand at no penalty. I would like to extend the benefits of this feat beyond two-weapon fighting, possibly granting some sort of bonus to shield use or to damage with a two-handed weapon; it is a feat that only the very high dex characters would take, and I can see benefits to all sorts of characters.
Greater Two-Weapon Fighting:
Requirements: BAB +6, Improved Two-Weapon Fighting.
Benefits: This feat would allow a character to take an additional full attack action with their off-hand when ever they take a full attack action with their primary hand, thus granting all extra attacks with one feat.
---------
I will be testing these over the next few days, but I wanted to get some initial reactions. What say you?
I can break these feats so fast, it'll make your head swim.
Feint, Trip, Sneak Attack. (that's not right...)
Oh you wanna get up from prone? Fient, Sneak Attack.
Oh and did I mention that I have karmic strike, so every time I get hit in melee I can do this?
Throw in sidestep, and now it's just getting ugly.
Throw in double hit, and I can sneak attack three times each time I get hit in melee
Throw in high sword low axe, and it's all over...
Wait lemme show you my frenzied berserker with 10 attacks per round!
Your messing with these too much.
Here's my suggestion. Leave the TWF feats alone. Change ambidexterity to gain an additional off-hand attack at a -15 penalty, and also reduce TWF penalties by 2.
Now things are equal, and THF gets better power attacks, while the TWF gets more damage dice. All other variables are equal. If the TWF invests a fifth feat, into oversized-two-weapon fighting, then they can equal the THF in power attack bonuses. So for an investment of five feats, you surpass THF in damage dealing ability; it's a very feat intensive choice, which may be better spent on other things.
PS. seems kind of odd that I was already following this thread on WotC...
@nastynate
dude, frenzied berserker? isn't it generally agreed upon to be one of the most horrible prc classes, ever? (did they change it to make it NOT kill its own party in 3.5?). Seems obvious a dm that goes about changing a critical combat move in dnd is gonna have to do some more work with other things, especially if he's using splat books.
QuoteGreater Two-Weapon Fighting:
eh, i like this. rolls the entire feat tree into one feat. less feat trees are always a good idea, imo. ;)
Sorry if that reference bothered you. I used frenzied berserker because with over-sized twf I could get 10 attacks with a 2:1 power ratio.
Is the rogue who with nothing more than feats, can make three sneak attacks everytime he gets hit in melee seem busted? Never mind that he can can fient, and then sneak attack (all his remaining attacks) whenever he makes a full attack?
This feat tree is Ba-Roken
Quote from: nastynateIs the rogue who with nothing more than feats, can make three sneak attacks everytime he gets hit in melee seem busted? Never mind that he can can fient, and then sneak attack (all his remaining attacks) whenever he makes a full attack?
Not particularly. That rogue is uesless against elementals and undead...
-Elven Doritos
BAMF
QuoteIs the rogue who with nothing more than feats, can make three sneak attacks everytime he gets hit in melee seem busted? Never mind that he can can fient, and then sneak attack (all his remaining attacks) whenever he makes a full attack?
an attack[/i], even if he has Xeviat's improved two-weapon fighting
but my point was mostly "there's a bunch of crazy stuff in complete warrior" and "if you add house rules plus splat books,
of course there's gonna be problems".
Now, I'm not very mechanically inclined, so I can't really help in this argument. I mean, I couldn't optimise sneak attack if you gave me an instruction manual. But according to what I've read on various forums, everything is broken if you ask the right person. I mean take a look at my sig for your answer. Oops, turned this into a debate, didn't I... sorry.
Quotewaitwaitwait: does karmic strike allow a standard action, or just like, an attack? if it's just an attack, the rogues going to get just that, an attack, even if he has Xeviat's improved two-weapon fighting
just a standard attack of opportunity.
QuoteImproved Two-Weapon Fighting (Fighter, General)
Requirements: Dex 13+
Benefit: I would like this feat to reduce the two-weapon fighting penalties by 4 (again the standard non-proficiency penalty) and allow a character to gain the additional off-hand standard action when they take a standard attack or full-attack with their primary hand rather than just with a full-attack. This feat does not make a character ambidextrous (because there are some styles of using two weapons where the off-hand weapon is strickly a secondary weapon, such as rapier/dagger, where the secondary weapon is used for feints, defense, and opportunistic attacks).
This works with attacks of opportunity as written. Fienting whenever you feel like it is broken when you've got sneak attack as an option.
QuoteNot particularly. That rogue is uesless against elementals and undead...
I hope you're kidding...he kills fighters dead. Just becuse he has a weakness don't mean the mechanic aren't broken. A TWF rogue who can make all but
one of his attacks a sneak attack during the full attack action
is broken. No doubt about it. And this feat tree actually grants one more attack per round to a TWF, which should almost
always be a fient.
Yep constructs and undead cause this character trouble, but um do those numbers seem a little unreal? Just because he can't smite golems and elementals doesn't mean the ability isn't broken. Titans, Dragons, Humanoids, and Giants are total chumps to this guy.
Yep broken. Just a preliminary write up I threw together of a human rogue 10 / fighter 10, was dealing an average of almost 2000 damage per round...tell me does that seem wrong to anyone?
Oh and don't bother attacking him, because he was dealing a good 200-300 points of damage in retaliation for each attack that hit him (with double hit, karmic strike, and the one fient/three sneak attack combo).
Trust me I'm pretty good at optimizing, but this took hardly any effort at all on my part. It should become apparent to any competent optimizer in no time.
Xeviat you have to tweak these, and take away fient as an option...Oh my busted.
QuoteFirstly, TWFing is just cool; it has a certain "wow" factor to it.
Darn tootin'! And it is too great a fantasy staple to be assigned such a wussy set of mechanics and feats as Wotc gave it.
I messed around with TWF for Altvogge, and this is what I came up with:
TWO-WEAPON FIGHTING [GENERAL]
Prerequisite: Dex 13.
Benefit: Your penalties on attack rolls for fighting with two weapons are reduced. The penalty for your primary hand lessens by 2 and the one for your off hand lessens by 4.
Normal: If you wield a second weapon in your off hand, you can get one extra attack per round with that weapon. When fighting in this way you suffer a -4 penalty with your regular attack or attacks with your primary hand and a -8 penalty to the attack with your off hand. If your off-hand weapon is light the penalties are reduced by 2 each. (An unarmed strike is always considered light.)
See Two Weapon Fighting in the Combat Chapter for a full breakdown of bonuses and penalties.
Special: A 2nd-level ranger who has chosen the two-weapon combat style is treated as having Two-Weapon Fighting, even if he does not have the prerequisite for it, but only when he is wearing light or no armor.
A warrior may select this feat as one of his warrior bonus feats.
IMPROVED TWO-WEAPON FIGHTING [GENERAL]
Prerequisites: Dex 15, Two-Weapon Fighting (or Multiweapon Fighting), base attack bonus +6.
Benefit: Your penalties, both with primary and offhand weapons, are reduced by 2. In addition to the standard single extra attack you get with an off-hand weapon or weapons, you get a second attack with it, albeit at a -4 penalty.
Normal: Without this feat, you can only get a single extra attack with an off-hand weapon.
See Two Weapon Fighting in the Combat Chapter for a full breakdown of bonuses and penalties.
Special: A warrior may select this feat as one of his warrior bonus feats.
A 6th-level ranger who has chosen the two-weapon combat style is treated as having Improved Two-Weapon Fighting, even if he does not have the prerequisites for it, but only when he is wearing light or no armor.
GREATER TWO-WEAPON FIGHTING [GENERAL]
Prerequisites: Dex 17, Improved Two-Weapon Fighting, Two-Weapon Fighting (or Multiweapon Fighting), base attack bonus +11.
Benefit: You suffer no penalties with your primary weapon, you gain a bonus on your first offhand attack, and suffer no penalty on your second offhand attack. You get a third attack with your off-hand weapon, albeit at a -2 penalty.
See Two Weapon Fighting in the Combat Chapter for a full breakdown of bonuses and penalties.
Special: A warrior may select this feat as one of his warrior bonus feats.
An 11th-level ranger who has chosen the two-weapon combat style is treated as having Greater Two-Weapon Fighting, even if he does not have the prerequisites for it, but only when he is wearing light or no armor.
SUPERIOR TWO-WEAPON FIGHTING [GENERAL]
Prerequisites: Dex 19, Greater Two-Weapon Fighting, Improved Two-Weapon Fighting, Two-Weapon Fighting (or Multiweapon Fighting), base attack bonus +16.
Benefit: You suffer no penalties with your primary weapon; you gain a bonus on your first and second off hand attack, and suffer no penalty on your third offhand attack. You get a third attack with your off-hand weapon, albeit at a -2 penalty.
See Two Weapon Fighting in the Combat Chapter for a full breakdown of bonuses and penalties.
Special: A warrior may select this feat as one of his warrior bonus feats.
TWO-WEAPON DEFENSE [GENERAL]
Prerequisites: Dex 13, Two-Weapon Fighting.
Benefit: 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.
Special: A warrior may select this feat as one of his warrior bonus feats.
IMPROVED TWO-WEAPON DEFENSE [GENERAL]
Prerequisites: Dex 15, Two-Weapon Defense.
Benefit: Your shield bonus to your AC increases to +2 when wielding a double weapon or two weapons (not including natural weapons or unarmed strikes).
When you are fighting defensively or using the total defense action, this shield bonus increases to +3.
Special: A warrior may select this feat as one of his warrior bonus feats.
GREATER TWO-WEAPON DEFENSE [GENERAL]
Prerequisites: Dex 17, Improved Two-Weapon Defense.
Benefit: Your shield bonus to your AC increases to +4 when wielding a double weapon or two weapons (not including natural weapons or unarmed strikes).
When you are fighting defensively or using the total defense action, this shield bonus increases to +5.
Special: A warrior may select this feat as one of his warrior bonus feats.
Cymro those are more along the lines of what I was thinking. Closer to the original and far less abusable. Although personally I think TWD is terrible.
I'd advocate making combat expertise work for TWF, like power attack works for THF. If you've got two weapons, it grants a +2 AC bonus for each -1 you take on attack rolls.
I'd also suggest limiting power attack to a -5 penalty on attack rolls. That makes expertise and power attack functionally balanced. Power attack is the most powerful core combat feat IMHO, and it is the source of the THF power imbalance.
:clap:
Um, feint only allows your next attack to ignore the opponent's Dexterity bonus to AC; not all your attacks in a round. Thus you would have to feint with all of your offhand attacks and attack with all of your primary attacks to get that many sneak attacks.
Or you can just flank an opponent.
And again, feint is Bluff+Cha vs. BAB+Sense Motive+Wis. Even with just Bluff vs. BAB, the rogue's only got a 3 point lead over a warrior, and won't succeed their feints all of the time. I think you're overreacting just a little bit.
As for kharmic strike, I was refering to standard action attacks. You get a standard action and a move action each round; you can spend both to use a full round action. Thus, ITWF only kicks in when you use your standard action to take an attack action, and GTWF only kicks in when you use a full round action to perform a full attack.
Why is it that someone who can use each hand with equal proficiency can't move an attack at the same time without buying yet another feat?
Oh and PS: this debate is based on what I posted, not TWFing in general. Thus the debate is allowed, I want these to be balanced.
CYMRO, I'm confused about the penalties that each of your feats have. Are you implying that the bonus off-hand attacks are at anything less than -5 below the first off-hand attack? That just doesn't seem to flow with the current ruleset.
QuoteUm, feint only allows your next attack to ignore the opponent's Dexterity bonus to AC; not all your attacks in a round. Thus you would have to feint with all of your offhand attacks and attack with all of your primary attacks to get that many sneak attacks.
Seems I missed that glaring oversight. I guess you can only do 4 feint/sneak attacks per round then...still buff...this will cut the damage down to about 1200 per round with my fighter 10 / rogue 10. Paltry.
QuoteAs for kharmic strike, I was refering to standard action attacks. You get a standard action and a move action each round; you can spend both to use a full round action. Thus, ITWF only kicks in when you use your standard action to take an attack action, and GTWF only kicks in when you use a full round action to perform a full attack.
Just clean up the wording then.
As written you can take an additional standard action with your off hand during any standard attack; which does indeed let your feint during each AoO, and with double hit + karmic strike you can still squeeze in two feint/sneak attacks, or four regular attacks in retaliation to being hit.
Not trying to nit pick. I don't want you to unleash a monster when you just want to fix something.
Alright, I'll fix that; But again, your fighter 10/rogue 10 can sneak attack with all 8 attacks if your friendly wizard or cleric just summons a creature to flank with you; or if your party cleric or party warrior just gets in the mix and flanks.
Flanking sneak attacks are so much more dangerous than feinting sneak attacks. Feint only exists because you can't flank a barbarian or a rogue, and for duals. And dualists are going to have sense motive.
I will be suggesting new feint rules eventually though.
NP (I just think sneak attacks should be soo easy, or able to be unleashed with AoOs in multiples)At least flanking requires some tactics...free feints are dangerous hence the eratta of the invisible blade.
-Peace-
Quote from: nastynateQuoteUm, feint only allows your next attack to ignore the opponent's Dexterity bonus to AC; not all your attacks in a round. Thus you would have to feint with all of your offhand attacks and attack with all of your primary attacks to get that many sneak attacks.
Seems I missed that glaring oversight. I guess you can only do 4 feint/sneak attacks per round then...still buff...this will cut the damage down to about 1200 per round with my fighter 10 / rogue 10. Paltry.
And I still don't see how you're doing nearly that much damage. Such a character has lost 3 points of BAB and you don't have greater weapon specialization. You may have a full 23 ranks in Bluff an a decent charisma (I'll assume a 14), but your enemies will have 20 BABs, or more if they're monsters, so you're simply not going to succeed all of your feints.
OH, and PS: feint is a standard action, not an attack action. Thus if you use GTWF to gain an additional full attack action with your off-hand, you can't feint at all. You would need to use ITWF to gain a standard action attack and expend that for your feint, and thus you would only get one sneak attack and three regular attacks with your primary hand. A very good trick for a non-ambidextrous TWFer (such as a rapier/dagger dualist).
Again the intent of your ITWF is not the same as the wording. According to the wording you get extra standard actions with you off hand, during either a standard attack or a full attack, and you even list feint as one of the possibilities
Right ... So you could take a feint with your offhand in order to make one of your primary hand attacks a sneak attack. Where are you getting 4 feints in a round?
with your additional four off-hand attacks (standard actions actually), or do you still only get three?
EDIT: what's odd is I feel like I'm arguing, but I actually agree with your analysis of the current TWF rules. I just think these mechanics are really flawed. Did you see my really simple ones, suggested a little back? The ambidexterity one I posted and the changes to power attack and combat expertise? These simple changes make TWF & THF almost perfectly balanced with much less work.
Some interesting developements in the math. I will compare a 12th level Fighter with my TWFing feats to a 12th level Fighter with a greatsword and Power Attack. All of their stats are equal, their equipment is equal (except for their weapons, which I kept as close in value as possible), and their feats are the same where ever possible (obviously choices for weapon focus, ect., are different, and the TWFer has ITWF and GTWF while the THFer has Power Attack and an empty feat (since I can't put anything else in that would be simple). I even tossed in the current "Dual Strike" feat, just because I had never tested it.
Remember, both characters are identical except for feats and weapon choices; thus those are the only variables to be tested here. In normal circumstances, TWFers are going to have higher Dex than Str, and are going to weapon finesse, but this adds in more variables (higher speed and higher ranged attack rolls), where a truely optimized THFer is going to have a lower dex and will utilize armor that will grant a higher AC. Again, all of these variables have been thrown out, so this test is technically going to show which style is best for this particular character.
So, here are the results; they're quite fun:
Fighter 12th vs. AC 25
Str: 20, Dex: 16, Con: 12, Int: 13, Wis: 10, Cha: 8
Feats: Feats: Improved Two-Weapon Fighting, Weapon Focus (Short Sword), 2, 3, Weapon Specialization (Short Sword), 6, Greater Two-Weapon Fighting, Greater Weapon Focus (Short Sword), Improved Critical (Short Sword), 10, Greater Weapon Focus (Short Sword), 12
Equipment: +2 Short Sword x2 (8,310 x2), Belt of Giant Strength +4, -1740 gp
- Attack: +21 (1d6+11, 17/x2) = 14.79 w/crit
- Attack (Dual Strike): +17 (2d6+19, 17/x2(1d6+11)) = 18.785 w/crit
- Attack (ITWF): +19 (1d6+11, 17/x2) and +19 (1d6+8, 17/x2) = 23.4 w/crit
- Full Attack: +21/+16/+11 (1d6+11, 17/x2) = 31.32 w/crit
- Full Attack (GTWF): +19/+14/+9 (1d6+11, 17/x2) and +19/+14/+9 (1d6+8, 17/x2) = 46.8 w/crit
Wow, looking at the TWFer, those feats definately greatly improved their damage output. It is clear to see that TWFing is good for someone who insists on using a light weapon.
And here's the THFer (note, I only show the optimal power attack for the given situation):
Fighter 12th vs. AC 25
Str: 20, Dex: 16, Con: 12, Int: 13, Wis: 10, Cha: 8
Feats: Power Attack, Weapon Focus (Great Sword), 2, 3, Weapon Specialization (Great Sword), 6, 6, Greater Weapon Focus (Great Sword), Improved Critical (Great Sword), 10, Greater Weapon Specialization (Great Sword), 12
Equipment: +3 Great Sword (18,350), Belt of Giant Strength +4; spent 1,730 more gp.
Standard Attack: +22 (2d6+14, 17/x2) = 22.68
Standard Attack (PA4): +18 (2d6+22, 17/x2) = 24.36 (equal expenditure, gained 0.96 damage) (vs. dual strike: spent 2 less feats, deals 5.575 more damage)
Full Attack: +22/+17/+12 (2d6+14, 17/x2) = 49.14
Full Attack (PA1): +21/+16/+11 (2d6+16, 17/x2) = 49.68 (spent 1 less feat, gained 2.88 damage)
::Choke:: What? On the standard attack, utilizing the same number of feats, the THFer dealt almost 1 point of damage more. This seems fair, since the THFer actually spent a bit more cash on their weapon (this is because 2 +2 weapons don't add up to one +3 weapon; the only ones that do are a +3 and a +4 add up to a single +5).
The comparison to Dual Strike is a joke. Dual Strike cost the TWFer 2 more feats than the THFer spent, but Dual Strike deals 5 and a half points of damage less than the THFer's power attack. It even deals less damage than the THFer would have dealt without using power attack (oddly enough, power attack is less beneficial to a fighter with greater weapon specialization than it is to a barbarian without greater weapon specialization).
The full attack comparisons are worse still. The THFer spent 1 less feat and still is dealing a bit more damage. If they had spent an equal number of feats, I'd turn my gaze away from an increase of under 3 damage, but the other character spent a feat and gained nothing for it.
And this is utilizing my ideas on gaining standard actions or full attack actions. I actually didn't incorperate Ambidexterity into this issue.
So now I will run three more tests. I will add in a 12th level TWFing rogue with similar stats, but I'll switch out the belt of giant strength for gloves of dexterity. The rogue will have different sneak attacks from various situations (flanking and feinting), but I will add flanking damage ratings for the other characters as well.
Secondly I will switch out the character's weapons for weapons with elemental enhancements. For instance, if the TWFer utilizes a +1 flaming short sword and a +1 shocking short sword, the THFer will use a +1 flaming shocking greatsword (it's only fair).
The third test will utilize my full ideas for the alterations.
PS: Power Attack, in this situation, is actually not granting that much additional damage. It is the later feats like leap attack and combat brute that make Power Attack insane.
Quote from: nastynatewith your additional four off-hand attacks (standard actions actually), or do you still only get three?
No, when you take a full attack action you do not have multiple standard actions. A full attack action costs your standard action and your move equivalent action; you cannot feint as part of a full attack action. Feint is a standard action, or a move equivalent action with Improved Feint. I'm sorry, but you're opperating off of a flawed assumption.
Your suggestion earlier confused me; you seem to be suggesting that the off-hand attacks would come at less and less penalties, or more and more penalties. Could you make a chart showing what the number of attacks and their cumulative penalties would be with your feats? Because if your feats follow the current scheme of TWF, ITWF, GTWF, and PTWF, GTWF and PTWF grant far less benefit that the first TWF feat did.
After doing all of the math I've done (and I'm not speaking of comparing a TWFer to a THFer, I'm just speaking of comparing a TWFer to themselves with different feats), I would never select GTWF or PTWF. I'd never take a ranger with the TWFing tree; I'd take the Archery tree and buy TWF and ITWF myself, but I'd never touch GTWF or PTWF.
OH, and a PS: The reason my "feats" in the first post are written vaguely is because they are feat propositions. I haven't finalized the rules on them, so I didn't want to post final versions that would have to get changed.
QuoteNo, when you take a full attack action you do not have multiple standard actions. A full attack action costs your standard action and your move equivalent action; you cannot feint as part of a full attack action. Feint is a standard action, or a move equivalent action with Improved Feint. I'm sorry, but you're opperating off of a flawed assumption.
I was just opperating off how it was written. I know normally you can't use a full round action and a standard action...your feat changed that.
QuoteYour suggestion earlier confused me; you seem to be suggesting that the off-hand attacks would come at less and less penalties, or more and more penalties. Could you make a chart showing what the number of attacks and their cumulative penalties would be with your feats? Because if your feats follow the current scheme of TWF, ITWF, GTWF, and PTWF, GTWF and PTWF grant far less benefit that the first TWF feat did.
What? All I suggested was adding ambidexterity which offset the final -2 penalty for TWF and it gave you 1 more attack at a -15 penalty. Then I suggested changes to combat expertise and power attack.
Here were my suggestions:
"Here's my suggestion. Leave the TWF feats alone. Change ambidexterity to gain an additional off-hand attack at a -15 penalty, and also reduce TWF penalties by 2.""I'd advocate making combat expertise work for TWF, like power attack works for THF. If you've got two weapons, it grants a +2 AC bonus for each -1 you take on attack rolls."
"I'd also suggest limiting power attack to a -5 penalty on attack rolls. That makes expertise and power attack functionally balanced. Power attack is the most powerful core combat feat IMHO, and it is the source of the THF power imbalance." QuoteAfter doing all of the math I've done (and I'm not speaking of comparing a TWFer to a THFer, I'm just speaking of comparing a TWFer to themselves with different feats), I would never select GTWF or PTWF. I'd never take a ranger with the TWFing tree; I'd take the Archery tree and buy TWF and ITWF myself, but I'd never touch GTWF or PTWF.
I didn't make those feats.
QuoteOH, and a PS: The reason my "feats" in the first post are written vaguely is because they are feat propositions. I haven't finalized the rules on them, so I didn't want to post final versions that would have to get changed.
I understand that. But I don't know your intent, only what you've written; thus I can only comment on what's typed up.
Sorry, I mixed up your idea for an abidexterity feat, assuming you mean at +11 BAB, with CYMRO's entire post. Oops.
Here, I'll explain the intent a little more; there's no way a character can feint more than twice a round with my suggestion:
TWFing (no feat): When you perform a full attack action, you can take an additional standard action attack with your off-hand if you accept some hefty penalties.
ITWF (first feat): Lessens the penalties for TWFing; allows you to take an additional standard action attack with your off-hand when ever you make a standard action attack with your primary hand.
GTWF (second feat, BAB +6): Allows you to take an additional full attack action with your off-hand when ever you take a full attack action with your primary hand.
Ambidexterity (optional feat): Removes the penalties associated with the off-hand. I'm considering having all off-hand attacks suffer the -4 penalty to hit unless you take Ambidexterity, but having TWFing come with no penalties other than the -4 to hit on the off-hand; so characters who take both would attack at no penalty. I'll have to decide after I see the numbers.
The intent seems pretty solid
I do realize that simply having the current ITWF feat grant all itterative attacks as they are gained is an easier way to do it, but I still would like to see ambidexterity as a feat. A very simple idea is to leave the current feats alone (which still means the style is weak for high strength characters who are better served with a two-handed weapon), but add in this ambidexterity feat (note, drop the Dex requirements for all TWFing feats by 2 if you add this Ambidexterity feat):
Ambidexterity [General]
You possess equal strength in both hands.
Requirements: Dex 15+.
Benefits: You now deal full strength damage with your off-hand attacks. You may treat either hand as your primary or off-hand for the purpose of gaining extra attacks from Two-Weapon Fighting. Additionally, you no longer suffer the additional -2 penalty when fighting with two weapons with a one-handed off-hand weapon.
Normal: Your off-hand attacks only deal 1/2 strength modifier in additional damage. When using two-weapon fighting with a one-handed off-hand weapon, you suffer an additional -2 penalty to all attacks.
In my own personal system, I may change the off-hand penalties to be 1/2 strength modifier to damage and 1/2 dex modifier to hit; because I still think the -4 off-hand penalty to hit should be tied to Ambidexterity and not Two-Weapon Fighting, but I'd have to test just how much damage is gained if you could use Two-Weapon Fighting without penalty for just two feats.
In my eyes the strength modifers do make sense as they are written. I am abidextrous, and while it is perfectly possible for me to swing a baseball bat from either stance, I cannot focus on and swing two baseball bats simultaneously with any degree of force.
If you designed a combat system that stuck with the standard strength modifiers, all you would need to do to even the playing field, is make the off hand attacks equal the primary hand attacks in number (not strength modifier).
The imbalance between TWF and THF then only comes from the attack penalties, and power attack.
If you make ambidexterity offset those final two points of attack penalty, and revise your TWF feats to enable a full off-hand attack (like you initially intended) you will almost even out.
To finish of the balancing act take a second look at my optional revisions of combat expertise and power attack. The neutering of power attack coupled with the improvement of combat expertise, make things work much better.
So maybe a blend of our ideas might work out better than either of our ideas do seperately. Take my combat expertise and power attack revisions and combine them with these new TWF feats based off of the intent of your intitial suggestions and this is what I've got.
Two-Weapon Fighting (Fighter, General)
Requirements: Dexterity 13+
Benefit: A charatcer who selects the two-weapon fighting feat may make an additional off-hand attack whenever they choose to take the standard attack action. This feat cannot be used in conjunction with attacks of opportunity. (attack penalties for TWF remain the same as those outlined in the PHB)
Improved Two-Weapon Fighting (Fighter, General)
Requirements: Dex 15+
Benefit: A character who selects the improved two-weapon fighting feat, may make additional attacks in melee with their off hand equal to number, and the base attack bonus, of the attacks made with their primary hand. This option may only be used during the full attack action. (attack penalties of TWF remain the same as those outlined in the PHB)
Ambidexterity (General)
Requirements: Dex 15+
Benefit: A character who selects the ambidexterity feat may reduce the penalties for fighting with two weapons by 2 on both their primary hand and off-hand attacks. Additionally as a swift action, a character with the ambidexterity feat may switch stances, designating their off-hand as their primary hand, and vice versa. (swift actions can't be used in the middle of a full round action, so no worries about sombody taking all their primary hands attacks, and then switching stances to then take their off-hand attacks with the full strength bonus)
Do these seem good to you Xeviat?
Perhaps ... but an ambidextrous person should be able to use a one-handed off-hand weapon. I see what you mean about the reduced strength bonus being due to a stance issue, but you're still imagining a TWFer standing still like a sword/shield fighter.
Let's see if I can explain what I mean:
There are three stances: off-towards, off-away, and alternating.
Off-towards is when you hold your off-hand, normally your left shoulder, towards the enemy. This stance allows maximum extension of the striking arm, and allows the hips to be utilized in the swing/thrust of a weapon. You will see this most of all from combatants utilizing a shield.
Off-away is when your striking shoulder is between you and your opponent. You will see this mostly when a combatant is making a quick-draw strike (when your weapon is sheithed), as this allows maximum extension and hip rotation. Alternately, you will see this with finesse fighters, who value accuracy over strength (such as a rapier wielding dualist).
An alternating stance is seen most of all in combat styles that utilize both hands. In unarmed fighting, you tend to strike with your away hand as you twist your hips towards the opponent, and thus your second hand is now away; when you strike with your second hand you turn your hips again. Such a back and forth maneuver allows a fighter to put as much strength into each attack as they can.
A TWFer will not make all their attacks with one hand then the attacks with the second; this is simply imbalancing (coordination wise, not game balance wise).
Perhaps you could utilize my Ambidexterity feat with your amalgamized suggestions? I really think that could look good (as I've not been able to test just how many feats TWFing without penalty is worth; currently there is an Improved Rapid Shot feat that negates the penalties, but Rapid Shot also doesn't double your attacks).
QuotePerhaps you could utilize my Ambidexterity feat with your amalgamized suggestions? I really think that could look good (as I've not been able to test just how many feats TWFing without penalty is worth; currently there is an Improved Rapid Shot feat that negates the penalties, but Rapid Shot also doesn't double your attacks).
While certainly no expert on melee combat and it's practical application in real life, I
do understand your point as well. My instincts tell me that full strength bonus with both hands will actually favor the TWF over the THF more than you realize. Perhaps given the feat investment this is appropriate, then again I'm not sure.
Given that in ranged combat you don't normally get your strength bonus or the benefits of power attack, ranged combat is really a terrible barometer to weigh this stuff against. Ranged combat is
worse off than TWF combat IMHO.
I will experiment with your ambidexterity feat (that turns both hands into primary hands), and see what my numbers come out as, but I think it is actually
more powerful than the TWF feats themselves. Keep in mind ambidextrous people are not more powerful in their upper body strength than others who are not. It's actually more a measure of your finer dexterity skills like writing, sign language, and such.
I'm sure there is a happy medium in here somewhere...it's just a matter of finding it. I'll get back to you after running some simple numbers with two 20th level fighters, and no magical equipment or special feats figured into the equasion other than TWF vs. THF and see what it comes out as.
-Nasty-
P.S. have you tried my altered power attack and combat expertise feats? They are
hands down more balanced than the RAW versions. I still feel that power attack itself is real problem here, and you will be suprised how much more balanced it is once you limit it.
If by your power attack and combat expertise you mean limiting power attack to 5 and doubling combat expertise with two-weapon fighting, yes I have tried it, but not enough to know if it's balanced (I came to that decision myself a while back). I've only twice had a power attack 10 prove successful (once was from an eldritch knight who did a horrible flying, charging, quickened true strike, 6th level arcane strike, power attack for some rediculous amount of damage; the second resulted in a lucky crit with a scythe, empowered with mommentum swing from Combat Brute, that did something like 129 damage (the enemy's full HP+10 oddly enough)). I can see your desire to limit power attack, but as far as I can tell, power attack of more than 5 is rarely mathmatically sound unless you're attacking very low ACs or rediculously high ACs.
As for ranged combat and low strength, the most successful ranged combatants I've seen always imployed mighty composite longbows. A mighty composite longbow wielding archer deals more damage than a TWFer hands down since the bow is a d8, they only have to enhance one weapon, and their extra attacks come from the same weapon at full strength bonus (or at least full strength allowed by the comp longbow). Plus they don't have to take weapon finesse to get the best of their attack.
And I do realize that my Ambidexterity will boost the damage. I think that a TWFer should deal more damage than a THFer, even a THFer employing power attack, if only because two or three feats (TWF and Ambidex, or TWF, ITWF, and Ambidex) are more than one feat.
No problem, but I think your equasion will suffer without magic equipment. How about this, spend 1/2 the 20th level character wealth in items strickly for increasing damage and to hit (gloves of dex, belts of strength, enhanced weapons), but ensure that both characters spend roughly the same amount (being off by a few thousand GP is probably fine at 20th level).
Quote from: Xeviat TranionIf by your power attack and combat expertise you mean limiting power attack to 5 and doubling combat expertise with two-weapon fighting, yes I have tried it, but not enough to know if it's balanced (I came to that decision myself a while back). I've only twice had a power attack 10 prove successful (once was from an eldritch knight who did a horrible flying, charging, quickened true strike, 6th level arcane strike, power attack for some rediculous amount of damage; the second resulted in a lucky crit with a scythe, empowered with mommentum swing from Combat Brute, that did something like 129 damage (the enemy's full HP+10 oddly enough)). I can see your desire to limit power attack, but as far as I can tell, power attack of more than 5 is rarely mathmatically sound unless you're attacking very low ACs or rediculously high ACs.
As for ranged combat and low strength, the most successful ranged combatants I've seen always imployed mighty composite longbows. A mighty composite longbow wielding archer deals more damage than a TWFer hands down since the bow is a d8, they only have to enhance one weapon, and their extra attacks come from the same weapon at full strength bonus (or at least full strength allowed by the comp longbow). Plus they don't have to take weapon finesse to get the best of their attack.
And I do realize that my Ambidexterity will boost the damage. I think that a TWFer should deal more damage than a THFer, even a THFer employing power attack, if only because two or three feats (TWF and Ambidex, or TWF, ITWF, and Ambidex) are more than one feat.
No problem, but I think your equasion will suffer without magic equipment. How about this, spend 1/2 the 20th level character wealth in items strickly for increasing damage and to hit (gloves of dex, belts of strength, enhanced weapons), but ensure that both characters spend roughly the same amount (being off by a few thousand GP is probably fine at 20th level).
I've found many, many ways to get rediculous amounts of damage with power attack. My war Mind used to combine power attack with leap attack, psionic lions charge, and heedless charge to deal thousands of damage on a charge (devoting his entire BAB to power attack on every attack). It was gross. Just from power attack with my +5 valorous, great sword of speed I was dealing +80 damage per attack x5 attacks. That doesn't even take into consideration strength bonus or magic enhancement bonuses.
I've never been able to duplicate those kinds of damage with a ranged attacker. The best I've done was a scout / ranger / highland stalker who used his crazy skirmish damage in conjunction with greater many shot and a mighty composite great bow; He still could only deal about 300-400 a round at best.
I think with the equipment factored in I will only favor the THF, although I guess that's the point. The THF can afford a weapon with a +10 enhancment for 200,000 GP, but the TWF has to split that cost into two seperate weapons. Taking this into consideration, maybe you're right that a TWF should be able to deal a
little more damage, because they won't have the same kind of budget for magic weapons.
Quote from: Xeviat TranionOh and PS: this debate is based on what I posted, not TWFing in general. Thus the debate is allowed, I want these to be balanced.
CYMRO, I'm confused about the penalties that each of your feats have. Are you implying that the bonus off-hand attacks are at anything less than -5 below the first off-hand attack? That just doesn't seem to flow with the current ruleset.
The current ruleset sucks, so I changed the base, as well as the featsies. :fish:
Every time I see that smily with the fish, I think of the Muppet Show...am I alone?
Wow ... I've never seen someone do that sort of rediculousness; how were you hitting with your lesser attacks when PAing all of your BAB away?
And 300 damage a round with a bow is pretty sick too. I'm afraid of your min/maxing skills my friend.
Equipment favors THFers to a point. If you're determined to attempt to stack things in the favor of the TWFer (such as with wounding and elemental weapons), give the THFer as many elemental enhancements, plus wounding (or greater wounding .. ehehe) as you can.
I've always loved semetry, so perhaps PA should be limited just like CE.
Quote from: Xeviat TranionWow ... I've never seen someone do that sort of rediculousness; how were you hitting with your lesser attacks when PAing all of your BAB away?
And 300 damage a round with a bow is pretty sick too. I'm afraid of your min/maxing skills my friend.
Equipment favors THFers to a point. If you're determined to attempt to stack things in the favor of the TWFer (such as with wounding and elemental weapons), give the THFer as many elemental enhancements, plus wounding (or greater wounding .. ehehe) as you can.
I've always loved semetry, so perhaps PA should be limited just like CE.
Heedless charge is busted. You take the power attack penalty to AC, rather than attack, so you can unleash doom! No penalty to attack rolls
at all, despite a full 20 points of power attack. With lions charge you get a pounce attack (full attack after a charge) so you can use the heedless charge bonus on everything.
Archers are much harder to optimize. You don't have a power attack mechanic to bust open on people, so you have to rely more on your equipment. Splitting arrows are key to the 300-400 damage, without them you're limited to like 150-200
at best. But arrows are pretty cheep to make compared to other magic items.
Wiat until you see my shadowlord...mutliple dimension slides per round and thus multiple pouncing full attacks...it's just wrong. I've got him up to 3 full attacks in a round. Luckily this character is just a theoretical, and nothing I'd actually play in a
real game. But what really comes in handy is that I can challenge
any party no matter how well optimized, so I actually encourage optimization from my players...they really get involved, and interested. I also really encourage them to make their
own magic items, becuase I won't spoon feed them the perfect equipment. it's awesome.
Wounding certainly favors the TWF to a point. Unless I drop them in a single round. Yeah my min/maxing skills are L33T. The funny thing is I go by standard wealth, and point buy...so often I'm more handi-capped than freeform gamers, but my characters still rock the hizouse.
Believe me
I know the best weapon enhancements for both styles. If I want my THF to rock, I'm getting him a wrathful healing collsion greatsword +5, and my TWF is getting two +5 scimitars with collision shocking burst and keen enhancements. But the point isn't to break them here it's to get a feel for an
even playing field.
Yeah the symetry of combat expertise and power attack is really lacking, and balancing against each other is very much needed.
-Peace-
P.S. The warmind is a character I actually play. He's a human fighter 8 / exotic weapon master 2 / war mind 5 at the moment. Sweeping strike is the bomb, letting me hit two adjacent squares with the same charging death attack, and with my bastard sword I get str x2 to damage and I can make trip attacks too, thanks to EWM tricks! I often use domino rush to bull rush people into position to make my sweeping strikes hit up to three oppenents with a single trip attack! He's an awesome character.
I think this shows why I'm very against many PrCs, and why I'm warry of non-core things. Heh. I have an open night ahead of me, so I'll see about testing just how much damage a non-optimized TWFer deals vs. a THFer; I'm going to use my earlier 12th level characters and just increase the attack bonuses and slap full str and longswords into the hands of the TWFer; let's see what happens.
Nah optimization is just good fun. If I had only the PHB to work with, I could make a cleric or druid that wrecked any other class within the book.
Limitations still favor the optimizer, because the optimizer makes the most effective use of whatever resouces he has available. Just because I used a wopping three books (PHB, XPH, and CW) to make this warmind doesn't mean the character is broken. He's only broken when not paired against likewise optimized characters.
It all depends upon the mindset of your group. And don't think my stories are all hack and slash either, that would completely false. We almost never have combat-centric campaigns. Most are based on politics, diplomacy, mystery, and intrigue. It's just when we do fight, we bust out our minis and the game transforms into a mini wargame, all about strategy, tactics, and mechanics.
When the fights over we go back to our role-play, and all is well. The best of both worlds is really the way to go, and get the fullest out of the D&D system, which is comparatively rules heavy to other more freeform RPGs.
I like to challenge people both mechanically and in role-play.
-Nasty-
I've never made the distinction of roll-play vs. role-play, I find that to be elietism. I only start and join threads such as these because I believe that players should have an equal opportunity in power as long as they're using reasonable builds (I wouldn't change rules for a player playing a fighter but who spends all of their base feats on skill focusi, that's just bad design).
It just comes down to my experience of seeing TWFers not rewarded for all they've spent on their style.
Quite true, it takes waay more work to make a good TWF build. Here's a good theoretical one from my WotC sig. He's all mine too.
Note: not a playable character in any sane campaign world
Wood Elf Ranger 2 / Fighter 2 / Barbarian 1 / Revenant Blade 5 / Frenzied Berserker 10
Progression:
1 Ranger: Bladebearer of the Valenar, Track
2 Fighter: Power Attack
3 Barbarian: WF: Double Scimitar
4 Ranger: TWF
5 Fighter: Cleave
6 Revenant Blade: Destructive Rage
7 Revenant Blade
8 Revenant Blade
9 Revenant Blade: Intimidating Rage
10 Revenant Blade
11 Frenzied Berserker: Diehard
12 Frenzied Berserker: Improved TWF
13 Frenzied Berserker
14 Frenzied Berserker
15 Frenzied Berserker: Greater TWF (or Improved Bull Rush)
16 Frenzied Berserker
17 Frenzied Berserker
18 Frenzied Berserker: Extra Rage (or Shock Trooper)
19 Frenzied Berserker
20 Frenzied Berserker
Ancestral Guidance Feats:
1 Improved Critical: Double Scimitar
3 Weapon Specialization: Double Scimitar
5 Spring Attack
32 Point Buy
STR 50 (20 base, +5 Inherent, +5 levels, +6 belt of magnificence, +4 rage, +10 frenzy)
DEX 24 (18 base, +6 belt of magnificence
CON 20 (10 base, +6 belt of magnificence, +4 rage)
INT 14 (8 base, +6 belt of magnificence)
WIS 14 (8 base, +6 belt of magnificence)
CHA 14 (8 base, +6 belt of magnificence)
Notable Equipment
+6 Belt of Magnificence
+5 Double Scimitar (Earthbound, and Flaming Burst)
Full Raging Frenzied Attack w/ Supreme Power Attack (-14 to attack/+56 to damage)
+30/+30/+30/+25/+25/+20/+20/+15
Damage: 2d6+95 (15-20 x2)
Average: 816 damage/round (w/o taking critical hits into consideration)
Now if you add Bracers of Lions Charge (use activated 5/day & 72,000 gp) and heedless charge, which will require you to drop extra rage & greater TWF (for improved bull rush and shock trooper), you can do some really nasty damage. Also add the valorous enhancement to your weapon and you get this.
Full Heedless Charge
+46/+46/+46/+41/+41/+36/+31
Damage: 4d6+238 (15-20 x2)
Average: 1764 damage/round (w/o taking critical hits into consideration)
I'm sure it can still be improved upon, but see how feat intensive this gets. You're forced to pass on so many feats that you'd love to have like Karmic Strike and Double hit, or even skip G:TWF to get the most bang for you buck. Shock Trooper isn't really easy to squeeze in.
-Enjoy-
P.S. sorry to jack the thread, as you were...