my two-weapon fighting fix (3.5)

[Stycotl]

Multiweapon Fighting
You know how to fight with a weapon in each hand. This replaces the core Multiweapon Fighting and Two-weapon Fighting feats.
Prerequisites: Dex 15
Effects: Your penalties on attack rolls for fighting with two or more weapons are reduced. The penalty for your primary hand lessens by 2 and the one for each of your off hands lessens by 6. See the Two-Weapon Fighting special attack.
At +6 base attack bonus: In addition to the standard single extra attack you get with each off-hand weapon, you get a second attack with them, albeit at a -5 penalty. This replaces the core Improved Multiweapon Fighting and Improved Two-weapon Fighting feats.
At +11 base attack bonus: You get a third attack with each of your off-hand weapons, albeit at a -10 penalty. This replaces the core Greater Multiweapon Fighting and Greater Two-weapon Fighting feats.
At +16 base attack bonus: You get a fourth attack with each of your off-hand weapons, albeit at a -15 penalty.
At +21 base attack bonus: You no longer take the standard penalties associated with two-weapon or multiweapon fighting (-4/-4 for those with the Multiweapon Fighting feat, or -2/-2 if the off-hand weapons are light; -6/-10 for those without). This replaces the core Perfect Multiweapon Fighting and Perfect Two-weapon Fighting feats.
Normal: If you wield a second weapon in any of your off hands, you can get one extra attack per round with each of those weapons. When fighting in this way you suffer a -6 penalty with your regular attack or attacks with your primary hand and a -10 penalty to the attacks with your off hands. If your off-hand weapons are light the penalties are reduced by 2 each. (An unarmed strike is always considered light.)
Special: A 2nd-level ranger who has chosen the two-weapon combat style is treated as having Multiweapon Fighting, even if he does not have the prerequisite for it, but only when he is wearing light or no armor.

Multiweapon Defense
You are skilled at using your weapons as a defensive screen.
Prerequisites: Dex 15, Multiweapon Fighting
Effects: When wielding two or more weapons or double weapons (not including natural weapons or unarmed strikes), you gain a +1 shield bonus to your AC. See the Two-Weapon Fighting special attack. Increase this bonus by one at bab +6, and again every five points of base attack bonus afterward. Thus, a character with this feat and a +16 base attack bonus would receive a +4 shield bonus to armor class.

When you are fighting defensively or using the total defense action, this shield bonus increases by an extra +2.

i'll probably post new feats in the two-weapon family here as well when i get around to making them.

[SurlySeraph]

Sounds good to me.

[Stycotl]

kewl. i'm trying to think of an appropriate epic level addition to the family. any thoughts?

[Pramxnim]

The Multiweapon Fighting feat itself is the equivalent of 8 feats (2 epic) in normal 3.5. It effectively doubles your attacks in a round at high levels. I don't think you need an epic version of that.

[Stycotl]

The Multiweapon Fighting feat itself is the equivalent of 8 feats (2 epic) in normal 3.5. It effectively doubles your attacks in a round at high levels. I don't think you need an epic version of that.

i do. the vast difference in power between some of the feats in 3.5 (some as useless as skill focus +2, and some as awesome as divine metamagic) means that we need to meet somewhere in the middle. giving scaling bonuses that don't eat up any more than one of your precious 6 feats by 20th level (more if you have bonus feats through classes, but still relatively a small amount), seems much brighter than otherwise.

next, giving your offhand weapons the same capability as your primary weapons does not even compare to what an epic feat should be. so yes, as far as what wizards considers an epic feat, i've incorporated that into a nonepic feat. but then again, wizards thinks that pounce and rend should be epic feats with situational limitations.

therefore, yes, i am building an epic feat (when i can think of the right abilities).

[Myou]

I didn't know TWFing was broken. xD

It's harder to do, but it's designed to work with bonus damage like sneak attacks and weapon enhancements, it really doesn't need to be made cheaper to do too.

[Stycotl]

I didn't know TWFing was broken. xD

i'd have to go back through to look, but i don't think anyone claimed that two-weapon fighting is broken.


It's harder to do, but it's designed to work with bonus damage like sneak attacks and weapon enhancements, it really doesn't need to be made cheaper to do too.

this is primarily for campaigns run by guys like me that consider the majority of feats out there to be pure crap. skill focus, for example, should not be a static +2. it should be a scaling bonus, *or* it should give the bonus, and then specific special effects based off of the skill in question.

for games run by guys that are happy with the miserly return of their feats, my post doesn't matter. but for those looking to make feats worth their weight, this might help.

one of the consistent problems with d&d 3.5 is the lack of return on investments. you gain a level, pick up a new feat, and a new spell, and chances are that your feat will be of little consequence 5 levels from now, and your spells sometimes even sooner.

now, some spells have the ability to scale with skill level (caster level). feats should do the same.

that is all that this is about.

eventually i will tackle fixes for other feats that i think need chains, or at least better returns than they currently have. somewhere around here i have the pounce, rend, and grapple feats that i pared down from their stupidly useless srd epic status.

aaron out.

[Myou]

i'd have to go back through to look, but i don't think anyone claimed that two-weapon fighting is broken.

To fix it, it has to be broken.
Don't fix what isn't broken. :3


this is primarily for campaigns run by guys like me that consider the majority of feats out there to be pure crap. skill focus, for example, should not be a static +2. it should be a scaling bonus, *or* it should give the bonus, and then specific special effects based off of the skill in question.

for games run by guys that are happy with the miserly return of their feats, my post doesn't matter. but for those looking to make feats worth their weight, this might help.

one of the consistent problems with d&d 3.5 is the lack of return on investments. you gain a level, pick up a new feat, and a new spell, and chances are that your feat will be of little consequence 5 levels from now, and your spells sometimes even sooner.

now, some spells have the ability to scale with skill level (caster level). feats should do the same.

that is all that this is about.

eventually i will tackle fixes for other feats that i think need chains, or at least better returns than they currently have. somewhere around here i have the pounce, rend, and grapple feats that i pared down from their stupidly useless srd epic status.

aaron out.

Fair enough, as long as you're aware that in the short term making TWF feats more powerful will make fighters and their ilk even less useful, and makes rogues and other classes with bonus damage a lot stronger.

[Stycotl]

To fix it, it has to be broken.
Don't fix what isn't broken. :3

there is the difference between real world semantics and game terms. in game terms, broken means that you shouldn't be playing it because it ruins the game. core twf is not broken in that sense, just puny. in the real world definition, yes it is broken and needs to be fixed.


Fair enough, as long as you're aware that in the short term making TWF feats more powerful will make fighters and their ilk even less useful, and makes rogues and other classes with bonus damage a lot stronger.

that is assuming that i use the core fighter, which, yes, is broken in both real world semantics and game terms.

aaron out.

[Mando Knight]

While reading the feat descriptions, I noticed you accidentally referred the feat as Two-Weapon Fighting, once in the Special text of Multiweapon Fighting, and once in the Prerequisites text of Multiweapon Defense.

[Stycotl]

While reading the feat descriptions, I noticed you accidentally referred the feat as Two-Weapon Fighting, once in the Special text of Multiweapon Fighting, and once in the Prerequisites text of Multiweapon Defense.

ah, thanks. i have changed the names somewhere around 4 times each now.