PDA

View Full Version : [3.5] TWF is EXPENSIVE!



Choco
2010-06-07, 10:22 AM
We know that TWF does have it's advantages, but one of them is definitely NOT using the best of your WBL. A THW build can get a weapon with +10 worth of enhancements and abilities no problem, but a TWF build would need TWO of those (400,000g is a huge amount even at lvl 20).

So for those of you that have ran TWF builds at high levels, how have you coped with that?

Marriclay
2010-06-07, 10:26 AM
the ranger i ran a while back found an admantine dagger and an adamantine scimitar in the loot he took from a dragon. It was early in his career, so I asked if I could turn them into weapons of legacy, which the DM allowed. Essentially, you just go through a couple extra side-quests to pump them up, and you're flying. Might not be enough if you're maximizing the value of your inventory, but it's definitely up there, and those side-quests get you more experience to boot

Curmudgeon
2010-06-07, 10:42 AM
You buy the minimum enhancements you need, and use spells for the rest. You can get ordinary (not even masterwork) weapons boosted with Greater Magic Weapon. At higher levels a spellcaster can add Chain Spell and one casting will enhance the whole party's weapons for an entire day. Add Keen Edge if you need a wider threat range. So your 20 gp rapier becomes the equivalent of a +5 keen rapier with two spells.

Ranos
2010-06-07, 10:44 AM
Use your WBL on the rest of your equipment.

Arakune
2010-06-07, 10:45 AM
You buy the minimum enhancements you need, and use spells for the rest. You can get ordinary (not even masterwork) weapons boosted with Greater Magic Weapon. At higher levels a spellcaster can add Chain Spell and one casting will enhance the whole party's weapons for an entire day. Add Keen Edge if you need a wider threat range. So your 20 gp rapier becomes the equivalent of a +5 keen rapier with two spells.

That's one for the classic problem for the +5 special special special weaponx2 , but when you try for +1 specialx9 weaponx2 it still get's expensive.

Gnaeus
2010-06-07, 10:47 AM
The DMG uses (Bonus Squared) x 2000 for all weapons.

My DM uses (Bonus Squared) x 900 for 1 handed weapons, and
(Bonus Squared) x1600 for 2 handed weapons.

It helps with the TWF problem, it makes it easier for mundanes to have a backup weapon or 2, and it generally lets the characters who need equipment the most have a little bit more of it.

Choco
2010-06-07, 10:48 AM
That's one for the classic problem for the +5 special special special weaponx2 , but when you try for +1 specialx9 weaponx2 it still get's expensive.

and/or there are no casters in the party.

Dairun Cates
2010-06-07, 10:48 AM
I found with my TWF rogue that's it's about being smarter with what you do with those enhancements instead of the enhancements themselves. Of course, to some extent, AC, and by extension flat +x bonuses, weren't that important in the long run since I was a melee rogue and had invisibility cast on my at most times. Only things with high flat-footed AC were too big of a problem.

Point is. Make that off-weapon count. In my case, I used my off-hand to have a weapon of undead bane since it allowed my rogue to at least get some moderate damage. The on-hand weapon was a rapier of subtlety so I could have high attack values and damage. Throw in crippling strike and my level 10 rogue was a pretty nasty little bugger.

But yeah. If you need a really good weapon that bad, you should pick one weapon to be your better weapon.

AstralFire
2010-06-07, 10:50 AM
Get two +9s instead. Still not cheap, but you're really not losing a whole lot relative to the gold lost.

Draz74
2010-06-07, 10:54 AM
Yeah, the TWF guy still shouldn't be spending more than about 200k gp on weapons IMO.

That means he can still get, for example, a +6 and a +8 weapon. That means he still has +12 total "cool stuff" on his weapons (assuming they're both +1 enhancement bonuses), while the guy with a single +10 weapon only has +9 "cool stuff."

If the TWF character picks weapon enhancements that synergize well with TWF style,* that should make up for the fact that he only gets each "cool stuff" effect on half his attacks.

*e.g. Wounding, in campaigns where not too many enemies are immune to ability damage.

Pechvarry
2010-06-07, 12:18 PM
The DMG uses (Bonus Squared) x 2000 for all weapons.

My DM uses (Bonus Squared) x 900 for 1 handed weapons, and
(Bonus Squared) x1600 for 2 handed weapons.

It helps with the TWF problem, it makes it easier for mundanes to have a backup weapon or 2, and it generally lets the characters who need equipment the most have a little bit more of it.

That is flippin' interesting. Why have I never thought of implementing something like that?

---

To make the problem worse, I daresay TWFers need higher attack bonuses than 2-handers. TWF penalties is only part of the equation -- it's much harder to amp up the attack roll on a full round action's worth of attacks vs a charger's single hit/round (charging smite, for instance). At least 3.0 damage reduction is gone. That was doubly horrid for TWF builds.

lesser_minion
2010-06-07, 12:43 PM
I think my response would be along the lines of this:

Bound:

Price: +20,000 gp total, for both items (+10,000 gp per item)
Property: Weapon or Shield
Caster Level: 7th
Aura: Moderate transmutation
Activation: --

An item carrying this property is magically linked to another item (which also carried this enchantment). The two items to be bound must be specified when the enchantment is created.

If this enchantment is successful, the bond between the two enchanted items becomes able to accept enchantments in its own right. In this respect, treat it as a single weapon, and a single shield. The weapon enchantments applied to the bond must be appropriate to at least one weapon in the bond.

A character wielding both items in a bound pair benefits from both sets of enchantments applied to the pair. For the purposes of the shield enchantments, the pair is treated as a shield with a +0 shield bonus and no armour check penalty.

Note that this quality is the only enchantment that needs to be applied directly to the bound pair - they don't need an enhancement bonus beyond the one applied to the bound pair.

Prerequisites: Craft Magic Arms and Armour.
Cost to create: 10,000 gp, 800 xp, 20 days.


Very preliminary, so... yeah. Probably not balanced yet. I'm actually surprised MIC didn't include something vaguely similar.



To make the problem worse, I daresay TWFers need higher attack bonuses than 2-handers. TWF penalties is only part of the equation -- it's much harder to amp up the attack roll on a full round action's worth of attacks vs a charger's single hit/round (charging smite, for instance). At least 3.0 damage reduction is gone. That was doubly horrid for TWF builds.

Er... what? Virtually all 3.0 Damage Reduction could be completely mitigated with Greater Magic Weapon. It wasn't an issue in the slightest.

It's 3.5 damage reduction, which mandates that you carry around thirty different weapons at all times or take penalties, that's hell for TWF.

Irreverent Fool
2010-06-07, 12:47 PM
That is flippin' interesting. Why have I never thought of implementing something like that?

---

To make the problem worse, I daresay TWFers need higher attack bonuses than 2-handers. TWF penalties is only part of the equation -- it's much harder to amp up the attack roll on a full round action's worth of attacks vs a charger's single hit/round (charging smite, for instance). At least 3.0 damage reduction is gone. That was doubly horrid for TWF builds.

I disagree. Most 2h characters make extensive use of power attack. A dedicated TWF character is generally only going to make his attacks at -2, significantly less than the penalty a dedicated 2h fighter is going to take when power attacking.

Yuki Akuma
2010-06-07, 12:51 PM
If you're TWFing you don't really need particularly awesome weapons - most of your damage should be coming from somewhere else, like sneak attack, or dragonfire inspiration.

You can get most of the must-have weapon enhancements from your friendly neighbourhood spellcaster.

Wolf Warhead
2010-06-07, 12:58 PM
You buy the minimum enhancements you need, and use spells for the rest. You can get ordinary (not even masterwork) weapons boosted with Greater Magic Weapon. At higher levels a spellcaster can add Chain Spell and one casting will enhance the whole party's weapons for an entire day. Add Keen Edge if you need a wider threat range. So your 20 gp rapier becomes the equivalent of a +5 keen rapier with two spells.

Greater Mighty Wallop might be a good one, too, I think. Of course, the list of spells shouldn't become too long, but that, Weapon of Impact and Greater Magic weapon can have a light mace do damage as a Colossal Light Mace of Impact +5 at higher levels.

Of course, just something like an empowered Fires of Purity can be fun, too.

Lycanthromancer
2010-06-07, 01:03 PM
Just a thought, but you can fit on twice as many weapon crystals on a TWF'er as you can a THF'er, not to mention twice as many greater magic weapons and similar spells.

aivanther
2010-06-07, 01:05 PM
Kensai PrC might help there.

Then again, if you're TWF you're already behind in effectiveness in a lot of other ways already.

Yuki Akuma
2010-06-07, 01:12 PM
Kensai PrC might help there.

Then again, if you're TWF you're already behind in effectiveness in a lot of other ways already.

Unless you're a Rogue or a Bard with Snowflake Wardance and Dragonfire Inspiration, in which case you are awesome incarnate.

Stompy
2010-06-07, 01:12 PM
If you're TWFing you don't really need particularly awesome weapons - most of your damage should be coming from somewhere else, like sneak attack, or dragonfire inspiration.

You can get most of the must-have weapon enhancements from your friendly neighbourhood spellcaster.

Agree.

You need auxiliary damage like the ones in the quote, or you'll end up spending a lot of feats (and double the money) to do the same thing a two-hander can do.

Rationale:
Note that a greatsword is a 2d6+1.5str weapon. With TWF, a longsword and short sword swung together does 1d8+1d6+1.5str, assuming your strength bonus is a multiple of 2.

However, you have to spend a feat to do TWF, more to get the subsequent attacks, one to hit with both weapons on a charge, one to hit with both weapons and a standard, etc. Spending these feats will put you at around the damage output of the two-hander.

However, you are a lot more prone to disarmament, and you still have the -2 to hit. More over, against high DR targets, more of your damage is negated, and power attack (if you took that feat) does not apply to light weaponry.

Auxiliary damage like sneak attack is doubled, making TWF rogues scary damage dealers in many situations. Thus this is why auxiliary damage is the only reason I like TWF.

I played a TWF ranger in a Planescape game. I was useless in combat, mainly because everything had DR. (My eagle didn't help either.)

EDIT:
Kensai PrC might help there.

Kensai I believe only lets you get one weapon super buff. Besides, getting the 15+ DEX for a kensai is hard when you need a great STR for damage, CON so that you can live more, and INT 13+ for feat requirements.

Ponce
2010-06-07, 01:13 PM
What I don't get is why you can't wield a one-hander in the offhand without additional penalty. Did they really think that doing 1d8 in stead of 1d6 would matter?

Yuki Akuma
2010-06-07, 01:14 PM
What I don't get is why you can't wield a one-hander in the offhand without additional penalty. Did they really think that doing 1d8 in stead of 1d6 would matter?

This is a case of realism (well, "realism") rather than game balance.

Using two longswords is harder than using a longsword and a dagger.

Greenish
2010-06-07, 01:15 PM
The DMG uses (Bonus Squared) x 2000 for all weapons.

My DM uses (Bonus Squared) x 900 for 1 handed weapons, and
(Bonus Squared) x1600 for 2 handed weapons.

It helps with the TWF problem, it makes it easier for mundanes to have a backup weapon or 2, and it generally lets the characters who need equipment the most have a little bit more of it.In a game with those rules, I'd just two-hand a one-handed weapon. +1 Keen Scimitar has 1.5 less average damage (before counting crits) than a +1 Keen Falchion, but the latter costs 2.8k gold more.

I'm a cheap bastard.

To make the problem worse, I daresay TWFers need higher attack bonuses than 2-handers. TWF penalties is only part of the equation -- it's much harder to amp up the attack roll on a full round action's worth of attacks vs a charger's single hit/round (charging smite, for instance). At least 3.0 damage reduction is gone. That was doubly horrid for TWF builds.A charger with just one attack per round will lose quite soundly to any decent TWFer. (At later levels.)

Stompy
2010-06-07, 01:17 PM
What I don't get is why you can't wield a one-hander in the offhand without additional penalty. Did they really think that doing 1d8 in stead of 1d6 would matter?

There's a feat for that, but that is more feats you have to use for two weapon fighting. :smallbiggrin:

Lapak
2010-06-07, 01:20 PM
This question made me feel vaguely surprised that they haven't introduced a magic set of bracers (for example) that carry weapon enchantments and bestow them on whatever weapon you happen to wield. It feels like there should be such a thing.

Ponce
2010-06-07, 01:36 PM
This is a case of realism (well, "realism") rather than game balance.

Using two longswords is harder than using a longsword and a dagger.
LE SIGH


There's a feat for that, but that is more feats you have to use for two weapon fighting. :smallbiggrin:
Oversized, right. Nothing quite like a feat that is half as good as weapon specialization, half of the time.

lsfreak
2010-06-07, 01:36 PM
Make the most of your enhancements. A +1 shadowhand shadowstriking weapon can last a good long time and is a mere +5 weapon.


I disagree. Most 2h characters make extensive use of power attack. A dedicated TWF character is generally only going to make his attacks at -2, significantly less than the penalty a dedicated 2h fighter is going to take when power attacking.
Shock Trooper.
Also, TWF'ers generally do less damage a hit at a lower BAB. The second, especially, means they'll be trying to catch up.

Person_Man
2010-06-07, 01:38 PM
Incarnate class: Can create an impressive incarnum weapon and boost it using class abilities (IIRC it goes up to +7 and can have a Save or Stun effect charged into it as a Move action), and he gets various buffs To-Hit and/or Damage via other soulmelds as well. Make your off hand weapon Skillful (increases BAB to 3/4, grants auto-proficiency) and the Incarnate can pull off some impressive TWF.

Ironsoul Forgemaster prestige class: Basically just an extension of the Incarnate. His capstone adds a Save or Daze effect to every attack with his imbued weapon.

Kensai prestige class: Can enchant both sides of a double weapon (or each of your fists or natural weapons separately) for a reasonable cost.

Anointed Knight prestige class: With a high Cha, a 2 level dip into this class gives your weapon sentience (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/magicItems/intelligentItems.htm), including 2 lesser powers.

Ancestral Relic feat: Pick one item (usually a weapon). You can sacrifice treasure to improve that item, bypassing the need to sell stuff at the standard 50% mark down. Assuming your DM plays using standard wealth by level and doesn’t short change you because he knows you have this feat, this is a great choice for long running campaigns. Book of Exalted Deeds pg 39.

Mercantile Background feat: You can sell items for much higher then the standard 50%. Like Ancestral Relic, this is very useful for a long campaign, especially if you know your DM sticks to standard wealth by level. Player’s Guide to Faerun pg 41.

Unarmed Strike: There are various Swordsage and Monk/Psychic Warrior builds which have impressive unarmed damage, and thus don't require magic weapons to be useful.

Weapon spells: There are dozens of them. Holy Sword, Flame Blade, Thunder Lance, Ice Axe, Sand Scimitar, etc. A TWF Cleric or Gish would have few problems.

Wolf Warhead
2010-06-07, 01:45 PM
What I don't get is why you can't wield a one-hander in the offhand without additional penalty. Did they really think that doing 1d8 in stead of 1d6 would matter?

With Greater Mighty Wallop it could be the difference between 4d6 and 6d6 damage :smalltongue:

lesser_minion
2010-06-07, 01:59 PM
What I don't get is why you can't wield a one-hander in the offhand without additional penalty. Did they really think that doing 1d8 in stead of 1d6 would matter?

Possibly. Remember all of the exotic weapons that did d10 damage instead of d8?

I can only really assume that this was another one-shot thing (like Toughness, which was intended for one shot games at low levels (and filling out obligatory feats on monsters)), or that it was assumed that most increases to damage would be multiplicative - i.e. that one point of damage would be about fifteen points extra damage later on.

Gnaeus
2010-06-07, 02:00 PM
In a game with those rules, I'd just two-hand a one-handed weapon. +1 Keen Scimitar has 1.5 less average damage (before counting crits) than a +1 Keen Falchion, but the latter costs 2.8k gold more.

That's pretty much what I'm doing, Greenish. :smallbiggrin: We do have a couple of PCs still using 2 handed weapons, but only for secondary qualities (Guisarme and Spiked Chain for ranged tripping.)

AstralFire
2010-06-07, 02:05 PM
I think most exotics and weapon size categories were one of D&D 3's many arbitrary and badly placed concessions to realism over game design.

lesser_minion
2010-06-07, 02:20 PM
I think most exotics and weapon size categories were one of D&D 3's many arbitrary and badly placed concessions to realism over game design.

Realism is a way to make a good game better. Including it doesn't make a game 'weak'.

The 3rd edition designers didn't consider realism or narrative in the slightest when they wrote their rules. That's where the problems came from.

Gnaeus
2010-06-07, 02:28 PM
Realism is a way to make a good game better. Including it doesn't make a game 'weak'.

That isn't true in many, perhaps most games. For example, in any low magic game set before the 20th century, a common result of any severe battlefield injury was infection, gangrene, and a significant chance of death or loss of the limb. Realistic yes, fun to RP, probably not.

Sliver
2010-06-07, 02:33 PM
Realism is a way to make a good game better. Including it doesn't make a game 'weak'.

Only if it fits with how the game is before that.. If your game is incredibly abstract and you suddenly go into a 10 page debate of the importance of horseshoes....

AstralFire
2010-06-07, 02:37 PM
Realism is a way to make a good game better. Including it doesn't make a game 'weak'.

The 3rd edition designers didn't consider realism or narrative in the slightest when they wrote their rules. That's where the problems came from.

Realism is a quality, nothing more or less. When it is placed carefully, it is a boon. When it is placed poorly, it is a bungle.

lesser_minion
2010-06-07, 04:08 PM
That isn't true in many, perhaps most games. For example, in any low magic game set before the 20th century, a common result of any severe battlefield injury was infection, gangrene, and a significant chance of death or loss of the limb. Realistic yes, fun to RP, probably not.

That just means you have a really good reason to avoid being injured, doesn't it?

Note that we still need only be realistic after allowing for magic, which might provide a simple way to mitigate the issue in a more combat-centric game.

For some play styles, realism is less important. But it never has to conflict with fun.


Only if it fits with how the game is before that.. If your game is incredibly abstract and you suddenly go into a 10 page debate of the importance of horseshoes....

Heh. OK. 'Naturalism' is probably a better word.

I fully believe that narrative potential, realism, and immersion should be considered everywhere, especially in a more rules-heavy environment.

In a rules-light game, you can - possibly - get away with dropping everything for narrative or fun. But do that in a rules-heavy game, and the result is far less satisfying.

Yuki Akuma
2010-06-07, 08:59 PM
In a rules-light game, you can - possibly - get away with dropping everything for narrative or fun. But do that in a rules-heavy game, and the result is far less satisfying.

Stating your opinion as objective fact! *thumbs up*

That's the British way.

(No I'm not being serious. Not totally serious anyway.)

lesser_minion
2010-06-08, 03:37 AM
Stating your opinion as objective fact! *thumbs up*

That's the British way.

(No I'm not being serious. Not totally serious anyway.)

Selective quoting is apparently popular as well. That came after an "I fully believe that..."

Xuc Xac
2010-06-08, 09:33 AM
This is a case of realism (well, "realism") rather than game balance.

Using two longswords is harder than using a longsword and a dagger.

Using a longsword and a dagger is harder than using two daggers. Should the double dagger wielder get a bonus then?

AstralFire
2010-06-08, 09:37 AM
Using a longsword and a dagger is harder than using two daggers. Should the double dagger wielder get a bonus then?

Actually, they do - it's mechanically easier because of TWF's high dex requirements, lending itself to grabbing Weapon Finesse so you can just start leaving Strength behind. And any Weapon Focus-like feats will grab both daggers but not the longsword /and/ the dagger.

I actually really dislike this because there's actually no incentive to use two different weapons... at least, until Tome of Battle. Goddamn, Tiger Claw fixes everything.

Cogidubnus
2010-06-08, 03:04 PM
There are a few solutions. The first is spiked armour, for 2 light weapons that can be enchanted as one.

Failing that, I second GMW. That's what I'm planning on using for my Assassin (http://www.coyotecode.net/profiler/view.php?id=8658).

Greenish
2010-06-08, 03:09 PM
There are a few solutions. The first is spiked armour, for 2 light weapons that can be enchanted as one.What, how is Spiked Armour two weapons?

Kobold-Bard
2010-06-08, 03:10 PM
Convince your DM to let you enchant the 2 weapons as one, and the enchantments only work if you wield them together (and you take an additional ->9000 penalty to attack if you wield them individually). My reasoning behind this is that anyone who specialises in TWF would have their weapons magicked to work together rather than buying 2 separate weapons.

Kaiyanwang
2010-06-08, 03:14 PM
Actually, they do - it's mechanically easier because of TWF's high dex requirements, lending itself to grabbing Weapon Finesse so you can just start leaving Strength behind. And any Weapon Focus-like feats will grab both daggers but not the longsword /and/ the dagger.

I actually really dislike this because there's actually no incentive to use two different weapons... at least, until Tome of Battle. Goddamn, Tiger Claw fixes everything.

One could say that are not so effective, but AFAIK style feats like High Sword Low Axe from CW came before Tiger Claw.

Well, one could use both.. why not? :smallbiggrin:

Greenish
2010-06-08, 03:19 PM
One could say that are not so effective, but AFAIK style feats like High Sword Low Axe from CW came before Tiger Claw.The style feats are for the most part rather unimpressive given how many poor feats they generally take.

[Edit]: High Sword Low Axe requires four feats (five with the prerequisite feats), including two weapon focuses. If you already have Imp. Trip you need for it, save your feats and take Knock-Down.

Kaiyanwang
2010-06-08, 06:46 PM
The style feats are for the most part rather unimpressive given how many poor feats they generally take.

[Edit]: High Sword Low Axe requires four feats (five with the prerequisite feats), including two weapon focuses. If you already have Imp. Trip you need for it, save your feats and take Knock-Down.

Yeah, you have to think twice before plan a build (some style feat was quite good, like three mountains, chance to nauseate on hits and sharing feats with the charge line. NOT a TWF one, tough). Maybe they came quite early in the game.

But I was simply saying that attepmts for different weapons came earlier than ToB.

Pechvarry
2010-06-08, 10:55 PM
Did I miss some ridiculous turn in optimization?

charger: shock trooper. Charging Smite. Pounce. You're good to go, and you kill everything you approach.

TWF: if you have bonus sources of damage, you're severely optimized or you're a cleric BAB. You have to split your enhancement between both weapons, so you get slightly less attack bonus. And getting full attack actions is its own exercise in optimization.

Maybe I just always played 3.0 (indeed, 3.5 as well) at a much lower level of optimization where a bit lower BAB, a -2 penalty on attacks, and 1-2 lower weapon enhancement all came together to result in a sizable increase in player frustration.

--

3.0 vs 3.5 DR: As a TWFer, your damage (in theory) comes in smaller chunks. Since DR is a static reduction, it affects you heavier than a 2-hander. In 3.0, when the Barbarian has a +3 greataxe and comes up against a level-appropriate, DR 10/+3 monster, he's fine and dandy. But the TWF rogue in the party is boasting 2 +2 weapons. Well, sucks to be you.

lesser_minion
2010-06-08, 11:17 PM
D3.0 vs 3.5 DR: As a TWFer, your damage (in theory) comes in smaller chunks. Since DR is a static reduction, it affects you heavier than a 2-hander. In 3.0, when the Barbarian has a +3 greataxe and comes up against a level-appropriate, DR 10/+3 monster, he's fine and dandy. But the TWF rogue in the party is boasting 2 +2 weapons. Well, sucks to be you.

But, again, greater magic weapon always worked against damage reduction as well, so you had no real business spending vast amounts of time under-armed for a particular monster.

Compare with 3.5, where damage reduction is vastly more likely to come into play because there's no easy way around it. And also hurts the TWFer more, because whereas 3.0 TWFers could power attack, 3.5 imposed additional penalties (actually, I believe this was because the 3.5 designers felt that +2 to two skills was valid for a feat, and +10 damage over an entire full attack routine was pushing it).