The Campaign Builder's Guild

Quote from: nastynate

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.

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.