PDA

View Full Version : What is wrong with TWF?



ExtravagantEvil
2010-11-28, 10:03 PM
Ok, recently, I checked in on the thread here concerning TWF in conjunctuon with Arcane Strike, and this got me wondering, what is unoptimized about TWF, I've heard mention of excessive feats to make it capable, but I'd like to know as to why it is incapable of standing without TWF on its own, and why it is suboptimal. Thanks for the assistance
--- ExtravagantEvil

BeholderSlayer
2010-11-28, 10:11 PM
Build point expenditure, feat expenditure, you need to buy twice as many weapons (you have less money to spend on other stuff), you have lower attack, you don't get enough extra attacks to offset the major benefits of strength-and-a-half and double BAB Power Attack that two handed fighting enjoys, damage reduction makes you cry.

that's probably the short list, but all i could come up with right now.

Tvtyrant
2010-11-28, 10:12 PM
You have to take feats to add extra iterative attacks, which are at a penalty. A two handed weapon adds 1.5 Str bonus to its attacks and the weapon does more based damage, while TWF has two low base damage weapons that get less strength bonus and are less likely to hit.

TWF is great when you are trying to hit as often as possible (Sneak attack, Arcane Strike, poisoned blades) because it allows you to deliver other forms of damage, but it doesn't do much damage on its own. Also, it doesn't work without a full round attack, which means the lightly armored person whose weapons don't get full strength bonuses has to stand there and take it in order to get off the feat intensive barrage of attacks.

Sucrose
2010-11-28, 10:14 PM
In addition to the severe feat tax issue, you always take a -2 penalty to your attacks unless you have invested somehow in negating the penaty. Your attacks, without bonus damage, do W+Str and W+1/2Str, where W is your weapon damage dice.

Meanwhile, a warrior using a two-handed weapon has a bigger damage dice, usually fairly close to 2W, and gets Str*1.5 on each attack, so each of his blows are worth one from both your main and off-hand. Essentially, you're paying 3 out of the precious 7 feats you will ever get in your adventuring career in order to get a -2 to hit versus someone who spent the feats on Skill Focus and picked up a greatsword.

That said, TWF can still be decent, if you have a source of bonus damage that changes the equation, so your two attacks do W+Str+Bonus and W+1/2Str+Bonus, thus double-dipping your bonus damage. Still feat-intensive, but possibly worthwhile.

Psyren
2010-11-28, 10:21 PM
damage reduction makes you cry

This one bears repeating, it is easily forgotten by TWFers.

Amphetryon
2010-11-28, 10:30 PM
Some reasons TWF gets a bad rap:

THF requires good STR and probably good CON. TWF requires DEX 15 in addition, unless dipping ranger (or limited other obscure options).

While it is possible to make the damage from TWF at least theoretically comparable to that of THF, that does not take into account the fact that the TWF is unlikely to hit on all of his iterative attacks as the Attack Bonus diminishes, thereby reducing damage expectancy.

DR and various common resistances, which are of minimal concern when the damage comes from one or two huge hits, further reduce the damage expectations per round when your damage is the result of multiple smaller hits.

Finally, because TWF relies on a higher DEX score, practitioners of that style are likely to want lighter armor options to fully utilize the DEX bonus, which works at odds with obtaining a decent AC at low-mid levels where normal, armor-based AC is still a solid defense.

DukeofDellot
2010-11-28, 11:39 PM
Something I've been pondering. Experience has taught me that amazing dexterity is not necessary for two weapon fighting (though the same experience has taught me that STR does not equal chance to hit so take this as you may).

But if we removed... or at least reduced the Dex requirement (say 11/13/15 instead) would TWF become viable?

I've had a lot of players ask me about wielding two weapons only to be turned down by the DEX requirements, and it would be nice to tell them "sure" as apposed to "No, it needs to be a decision you make in the beginning."

tyckspoon
2010-11-28, 11:44 PM
Something I've been pondering. Experience has taught me that amazing dexterity is not necessary for two weapon fighting (though the same experience has taught me that STR does not equal chance to hit so take this as you may).

But if we removed... or at least reduced the Dex requirement (say 11/13/15 instead) would TWF become viable?

I've had a lot of players ask me about wielding two weapons only to be turned down by the DEX requirements, and it would be nice to tell them "sure" as apposed to "No, it needs to be a decision you make in the beginning."

Wouldn't fix it, but it would be helpful; at least remove the increasing Dex requirement for the Improved/Greater parts of the chain. Dex 13 for Two Weapon Fighting, and that's all you have to worry about. All the 17/19 Dex requirements really did was put another roadblock in the way of people who didn't want to do a Finesse build.

SaintRidley
2010-11-28, 11:46 PM
Better to just fold all the feats into one which scales as you level.

DukeofDellot
2010-11-28, 11:56 PM
Wouldn't fix it, but it would be helpful; at least remove the increasing Dex requirement for the Improved/Greater parts of the chain. Dex 13 for Two Weapon Fighting, and that's all you have to worry about. All the 17/19 Dex requirements really did was put another roadblock in the way of people who didn't want to do a Finesse build.

13, like Dodge and Combat Expertise, probably a good number... hey, and you still get you're full Dex to AC in Full Plate.


Better to just fold all the feats into one which scales as you level.

I've thought of that, but since our group doesn't use Attacks of Opportunity, which always seemed to me to be a big reason to stick to a single weapon, I'd feel more comfortable with the three feats. Besides, I play Pathfinder which gives you a few extra feats here and there.

Zaq
2010-11-29, 12:10 AM
I've thought of that, but since our group doesn't use Attacks of Opportunity, which always seemed to me to be a big reason to stick to a single weapon, I'd feel more comfortable with the three feats.

I'm really not sure what you mean by this. Can you elaborate a little bit? (Also, why not use AoOs? That kind of shuts down the vast majority of melee characters who want to do anything other than charge and/or power attack.)

Gorgondantess
2010-11-29, 12:14 AM
Think of it this way: with a greatsword, you get 2d6+1.5x str mod to damage, plus any weapon enchantments.
With TWF, you have a shortsword & a longsword that deal 1d6+.5x str mod & 1d8+str mod, respectively, plus half the enchantments on each. This averages only one more damage over the greatsword, and then you also have to deal with the lost feat and the -2 to attack.
The only places TWF is good is when you gain additional damage regardless of amounts of attacks, like sneak attacking, and then it's still often not worth it. In the end, it's just a flat out poorly thought out system, no more, no less.

Eldariel
2010-11-29, 12:23 AM
It's really just:
- You need high Dex for TWF feats.
- You either need high Str for damage, or some feat that transfers Dex to damage (doesn't exist in Pathfinder).
- You need to pay a feat to be equivalent with a two-hander who hasn't spent a feat. You further need to spend additional feat every 5 levels, each further feat worse and harder to qualify for than the last (first feat got you an attack at full bonus, latters come with -5 each).
- Your weapon selection is worse (two-handers contain reach weapons, weapons with decent base damage scaling with size [Greatsword is 6d6 at Gargantuan, for example], tripping weapons, etc. while one-handers...simply don't).
- You gain lesser benefit from everything that only grants you one attack (single attacks on either charge or after movement; you get "half" attack compared to a two-hander - Haste/similar spells; you only get one weapon attack from those - Attacks of Opportunity; again, you only get "half" the attack each).
- It costs you more to get your weapons (but comparatively, weapon enhancements are ultimately better for you since you apply them more often so not so bad that there isn't something good there).
- You get -2 to all attacks for all this.

So, it eats tons more resources than two-handed fighting for lesser gain. You need a significant number of bonus damage sources that get applied on every attack to offset all that.

Ultimately, if you play something that simply doesn't have feats worth taking whatsoever (like Pathfinder Core without AoOs, which axes most feats that are worth anything more than once per adventure), then yeah, it's an alright option, though two-hander still comes out ahead. It's not like you could get anything else useful with all those feats anyways so you aren't missing out on much (hope to god you aren't playing a Fighter since otherwise you get even MORE feats that do nothing).

But if you had an array of powerful feats to pick up, you'd suddenly be much better off as a two-hander again. Simply put, two-weapon fighting places a huge, unnecessary feat tax on you. If it was one feat the whole chain and didn't have all those movement-related issues, it would be very good.

Thanatos 51-50
2010-11-29, 12:31 AM
Despite all the issues everybody just listed, I feel that a character TWF'ing with a scimitar and a spiked sheild is about twelve different kinds of epic.

Kelb_Panthera
2010-11-29, 12:35 AM
I'm gonna go ahead and be that guy here, and say that there's nothing wrong with twf. If that's what you wanna do with a character, then by all means do it. It is inarguably a sub-optimal choice if you don't have some form of bonus damage, as has been stated above, and will be stated below.

Coidzor
2010-11-29, 01:19 AM
I've thought of that, but since our group doesn't use Attacks of Opportunity, which always seemed to me to be a big reason to stick to a single weapon, I'd feel more comfortable with the three feats. Besides, I play Pathfinder which gives you a few extra feats here and there.

What? You feel that's the big issue? That's... a passing concern at best in most analyses I've seen.

Just_Ice
2010-11-29, 02:16 AM
Lots is wrong with TWF. On top of all that's already said, you have two weapons that can be lost or broken instead of just one, you have to drop something to chug a potion or w/e (whereas two-handed weapons you can cling to or monkey grip if you must), without quick draw it takes more actions to draw stuff, Almost all of the specific Two-weapon styles are downright terrible (high sword low axe, anyone?)

This is DnD, though. Any reasonable DM should take pity on you. Go ahead and take TWF if it makes sense for your character, it's a fun feat.

Eldariel
2010-11-29, 02:17 AM
Lots is wrong with TWF. On top of all that's already said, you have two weapons that can be lost or broken instead of just one, you have to drop something to chug a potion or w/e (whereas two-handed weapons you can cling to or monkey grip if you must), without quick draw it takes more actions to draw stuff, Almost all of the specific Two-weapon styles are downright terrible (high sword low axe, anyone?)

This is DnD, though. Any reasonable DM should take pity on you. Go ahead and take TWF if it makes sense for your character, it's a fun feat.

High Sword Low Axe is actually quite good. Just, it costs about 300 feats too much, like basically all the Style-feats. So...meh. Still, an effective extra attack per every two attacks you make is quite nice.

ericgrau
2010-11-29, 02:21 AM
Boiled down it does slightly less damage than THF in core (including all the extra feats and magical enchantments the THFer gets), and much less damage once you bring in splatbook options. Really it's no big deal and in practice most groups don't notice the difference in damage between TWF and THF.

If you want to really optimize for TWF then try going for per-attack or per-hit effects. Touch attacks like tripping that work even with attack roll penalties and/or on cheap weapons are a nice options too. Spell storing weapons, any save based effect, bonus damage of course and poison (yes, it does work well at mid levels just not high levels) are some other examples. Do watch your attack bonus rather than going for a billion attacks though; most of the multi-armed, flurry, etc., etc. builds I see decrease the number of actual hits you get. TWF and haste are probably enough; I might not even bother with GTWF due to the -10 penalty.

Makiru
2010-11-29, 03:50 AM
My latest character in D20 Future came about with the question, "What if Kratos used chainsaws?"

The rest, as they say, was history.

Yeah, I knew TWF was bad going into it, but I had never done that kind of build yet and felt like messing around. Of course, I also made things more needlessly complicated by picking an amorphous blob for race so I could potentially wield up to six weapons without impairing my move speed. (Having one leg still nets full speed on a dralasite. Who knew?) I've had my ups and downs with the character. Seeing as I currently roll around nine attacks on a full attack, at least one hits, and the thought of this whirling ball of death feels pretty cool.

So, yeah, don't go TWF if you actually care about your damage and accuracy, etc, and you want to be useful before level 5 when the mages start their exponential jump to battlefield domination (something else D20 Modern fixes to an extent). However, if you're like me and adore the silly, impractical builds, it might just be up your alley.

Curmudgeon
2010-11-29, 06:46 AM
Two-weapon fighting just costs too much.

Feat cost: The Two-Weapon Fighting tree provides one extra attack with +˝ STR bonus damage per hit, each feat, whereas two-handed fighting automatically gives +1˝ STR damage each hit, costing no feats. Because each successive iterative attack has a lower chance of hitting, the expected boost to damage from each successive TWF feat is lower; i.e., you start with a poor feat and each feat that follows is worse than the one before. Just think of what you're giving up by not getting to pick some other feats that could give your character greater benefits. If you want to use TWF with thrown weapons, add the expense of Quick Draw as well.

Money cost: You need at least twice as many weapons, with twice or more the expense for enhancements. (See action cost (2) below.)

Action cost (1): You can only use TWF on a full attack. In a surprise round: you get no benefit. If you've got to use a move action (typically because your enemies don't obligingly stay in one place): you get no benefit. (The enemies don't need to be combat geniuses to see two weapons and decide to use hit-and-move tactics to thwart you, so don't complain to your DM when this happens every single combat.) If you're using a decent missile weapon: you get no benefit. On an attack of opportunity: you get no benefit.

Action cost (2): You're going to need a hand for something else occasionally. There's no "Quick Sheathe" feat, so you'll be forced to drop at least one of your weapons. If you later want to resume TWF you'll need yet another weapon to draw. Then of course you're going to need to spend the time to retrieve dropped weapon(s) later (assuming they haven't been picked up by an enemy and used against you).

Miss cost: All of your attacks are at -2 to hit. Compare this to a Haste spell or Boots of Speed, which give an extra attack with a bonus to all attacks rather than a penalty.

Weapon choice cost: You're going to be forced to use a light weapon in your off hand, or else your miss cost will be even higher (or your feat cost to avoid that). There are poorer choices in the light weapon category, and you'll have to trade off either damage or critical threat range.

ShadowFighter15
2010-11-29, 06:50 AM
The only way I know of to make TWF useful is with the Tome of Battle; hell, dual-wielding is what the Tiger Claw style uses as much as animalistic ferocity.

Aotrs Commander
2010-11-29, 06:59 AM
We've always ruled TWF gets full strength off-hand. Which gives it a bit of a boost, not much, but it's a start. We nearly always have at least one TWF in any party (most of us think it's really awesome) and they don't generally seem to fair too badly compared to the THF, though granted, they're not Shock Troopering level. But sometimes the fact they can't PA isn't always a disadvantage, since they are thus less reliant on PA for extra damage and so have a more consistent level of damage output on targets of any AC. (Whereas PA often works best on lower AC targets, or with the aforementioned Shock Trooper.)

shadow_archmagi
2010-11-29, 07:09 AM
Compare:

1. Greatsword fighter is going on +5 to hit, and deals 2d6+6 (average 13) damage, because he has +4 STR.

2. Longsword Shortsword fighter is going on +3 to hit, and deals 1d8+4 and 1d6+2 (average 14) damage.

Congrats, your to-hit is now 10% lower, and you've spent a feat. Damage Reduction now makes you cry. Keeping your weapon enchanted is now twice the effort. You can't be as easily buffed with the Magic Weapon spell.

Keep in mind that 10% lower chance to hit can be a lot more than 10%. If you're fighting a monster with, say, 22 AC, then Greatsword fighter will hit it on a 17 and you'll hit it on a 19. You went from having four good numbers to having two. Your damage dealt per round got cut in half by your TWF.


TWF thrives if you have a source of extra damage. A rogue, for example, might get +4d6 sneak attack, so then TWF would make sense, because he's dealing an extra 14 damage per attack so more attacks is good.

Fitz10019
2010-11-29, 07:46 AM
Lots is wrong with TWF....without quick draw it takes more actions to draw stuff...

Actually, that's one thing that is not wrong with 2WF. The Draw or Sheathe a weapon rules state that with 2WF, you may draw both weapons combined with a regular move, just like everyone else may draw one weapon during a regular move. It's one of those painful editing oversights that it isn't mentioned in the feat description.

http://www.d20srd.org/srd/combat/actionsInCombat.htm#draworSheatheaWeapon

Fitz10019
2010-11-29, 07:48 AM
Compare:

1. Greatsword fighter is going on +5 to hit, and deals 2d6+6 (average 13) damage, because he has +4 STR.

2. Longsword Shortsword fighter is going on +3 to hit, and deals 1d8+4 and 1d6+2 (average 14) damage.

Congrats, your to-hit is now 10% lower, and you've spent a feat. Damage Reduction now makes you cry. Keeping your weapon enchanted is now twice the effort. You can't be as easily buffed with the Magic Weapon spell.

Keep in mind that 10% lower chance to hit can be a lot more than 10%. If you're fighting a monster with, say, 22 AC, then Greatsword fighter will hit it on a 17 and you'll hit it on a 19. You went from having four good numbers to having two. Your damage dealt per round got cut in half by your TWF.


TWF thrives if you have a source of extra damage. A rogue, for example, might get +4d6 sneak attack, so then TWF would make sense, because he's dealing an extra 14 damage per attack so more attacks is good.

Right, except that rogue has another 5% lower chance to hit, because of his BAB.

Duke of URL
2010-11-29, 07:59 AM
Weapon choice cost: You're going to be forced to use a light weapon in your off hand, or else your miss cost will be even higher (or your feat cost to avoid that). There are poorer choices in the light weapon category, and you'll have to trade off either damage or critical threat range.

Don't forget that if you take any weapon-specific feats, you're also forced to wield (the same) light weapons in both hands, or forfeit the benefits of those feats for a good number of your attacks.

The money cost is, I think, overblown. First of all, it gives you a use for more of the "junk" magic weapons that you run across, especially light weapons for the off-hand. Secondly, look at it this way -- a +8 weapon costs 64k (plus base weapon cost), which gives you a net +7 of useful enhancements (because enhancement bonuses are a waste if someone in the party can cast greater magic weapon). A pair of weapons at +6/+5 costs 61k (plus base weapon costs), and provides a net +9 of useful enchantments -- so you technically get more out of those weapons for less cost, although each one only applies to some of your attacks.

Curmudgeon
2010-11-29, 08:06 AM
Secondly, look at it this way -- a +8 weapon costs 64k (plus base weapon cost)
Off by half here. A +8 weapon costs 128,000 gp. See the table (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/magicItems/magicWeapons.htm#tableWeapons).

panaikhan
2010-11-29, 08:17 AM
We had a party where the fighter went TWF with whip-daggers and spiked armour. getting away from that guy proved interesting.

Also, where does it say you only get multiple attacks using TWF during a full attack action? We've missed that entirely.

Curmudgeon
2010-11-29, 08:24 AM
Also, where does it say you only get multiple attacks using TWF during a full attack action? We've missed that entirely.
Combat chapter, under "Full-Round Actions":
Full Attack

If you get more than one attack per round because your base attack bonus is high enough, because you fight with two weapons or a double weapon or for some special reason you must use a full-round action to get your additional attacks.

Adamantrue
2010-11-29, 08:26 AM
I notice that "sub-optimal" and "bad" got lumped into the same category here. I can't help but point out that if you aren't in a group that lives on the edge of the optimization curve, you can still do well with TWF. And there are some advantages.

If you want to have some fun with it, pick a Light Weapon that can also be thrown (like a Throwing Axe or Light Hammer, but even the lowly Club or Dagger can work), and pick up Quick Draw. You've now effectively also got Rapid Shot (which requires Point Blank Shot) for throwing-based Ranged combat, so its 2 Feats for 2 Feats. You also have no real need to worry about Disarms or Sunders, and are almost always in a position to make a Full Attack (even against a hit-and-run opponent).

Equipment can ease some of the burden of the costs people have already mentioned, and sometimes work in your favor. For example, Bracers of Lightning (MIC, 11000 gp) can give all your attacks (melee or ranged) an extra 1d6 electric damage, helping you close the damage output and equipment cost gap (an equivalent damage boost for a Greatsword would cost 16000 gp, and wouldn't cover ranged options). Also, Gloves of the Balanced Hand (MIC, 8000) may be a better investment than actually taking Improved Two-Weapon Fighting depending on the economy of your game.

Oversized Two-Weapon Fighting can be interesting, not so much for increased Damage (I highly recommend Twin-Trident Fighting, for the novelty), but it also increases your ability to use/cope with unusual Combat Options like Disarms or Sunders (though with Quick Draw, those may not be as much of a problem anyways).

Sadly, all of that still won't match THF over the long haul, as there just isn't enough tricks available to match the scaling of the game. But for the low-mid level game, it isn't as bad as people are making it out to be, and has much more style.

http://img809.imageshack.us/img809/9313/jasonstatham.jpg

Duke of URL
2010-11-29, 08:56 AM
Off by half here. A +8 weapon costs 128,000 gp. See the table (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/magicItems/magicWeapons.htm#tableWeapons).

Oops. But the point is still valid. barring the use of special materials like cold iron, a pair of +2 weapons costs less than a single +3 weapon -- they both have a net +2 of enchantments that can be placed on them after the obligatory +1 enhancement bonus.

A single +4 costs more than a +3 and +2, either way it's +3 net.

A +5 costs almost identical to a +4 and a +3 (difference only in the second base weapon price), the former is net +4 and the latter is net +5.

And so on. The higher you go, the more net you gain with TWF. The drawbacks, on the other hand, are that the each enchantment only apply to some of your attacks and that you're delayed in choosing the enchantments with higher costs. Ergo, the appropriate TWF strategy is to load up on multiple lower-cost properties.

lesser_minion
2010-11-29, 09:18 AM
(The enemies don't need to be combat geniuses to see two weapons and decide to use hit-and-move tactics to thwart you, so don't complain to your DM when this happens every single combat.)

Can I complain when every single enemy can actually get away with using those tactics themselves? Not being able to move and full attack is not exclusive to two-weapon fighting characters, and the same ways to get around it apply.

And the fact that TWF does nothing when you have to move is pretty clearly a quirk of the game system -- from which it follows that it doesn't reflect the reality of the setting, so people in the setting shouldn't actually be aware of it.

(Although obviously a quirk that does this much damage probably needs to be fixed somehow).

Amphetryon
2010-11-29, 09:24 AM
Can I complain when every single enemy
And the fact that TWF does nothing when you have to move is pretty clearly a quirk of the game system -- from which it follows that it doesn't reflect the reality of the setting, so people in the setting shouldn't actually be aware of it.

(Although obviously a quirk that does this much damage probably needs to be fixed somehow).I don't see how this follows, honestly. If it's a known fact within the world that most people who wield two weapons are more effective when not moving, those within the world should be aware of it, unless everyone within the world is genre-savvy enough to only use TWF in combination with some form of Pounce.

lesser_minion
2010-11-29, 09:33 AM
I don't see how this follows, honestly. If it's a known fact within the world that most people who wield two weapons are more effective when not moving, those within the world should be aware of it, unless everyone within the world is genre-savvy enough to only use TWF in combination with some form of Pounce.

No, because quirks of the game rules don't correspond to anything in the reality of the setting. If the only reason why something happens is because of a hack used in the turn-based system -- which is entirely transparent to the characters -- then it shouldn't happen in the reality of the setting.

The rules only adjudicate events when the players are present -- the overwhelming majority of fights happen off-camera, and it's entirely fair to assume that bizarre quirks of the rules aren't present for them.

Curmudgeon
2010-11-29, 09:58 AM
If it's a known fact within the world that most people who wield two weapons are more effective when not moving, those within the world should be aware of it, unless everyone within the world is genre-savvy enough to only use TWF in combination with some form of Pounce.

No, because quirks of the game rules don't correspond to anything in the reality of the setting. If the only reason why something happens is because of a hack used in the turn-based system -- which is entirely transparent to the characters -- then it shouldn't happen in the reality of the setting.
Regardless of the abstractions ("quirks") used in the game system, characters have learned what's effective and what's not. They know that if somebody holding a weapon in two hands gets a good running start, they'll do more damage ─ so the obvious counter is to maneuver to interpose trees or whatnot so they don't have that chance (foil a charge). And letting someone line up their whirling blades to chop you repeatedly is an equally bad idea, so you should keep your distance, hitting only before moving (avoid full attacks).

The PCs know what they're doing, don't they? So should the NPC enemies. Don't complain when both sides understand the world they live in.

Aotrs Commander
2010-11-29, 10:19 AM
I'm at a loss to see why denying any melee character full attack actions is any less good at negating any one combat style. THF is just as reduced by lack of full attack actions (not everything in the world is going to have Shock Trooper. Not to mention running away from the the TWF Pounce Shock Trooper barbarian is probably the worst option you can attempt...)

Every melee character outside of ToB or Shock Trooper is fragged over if they can't get a full attack off; it's one of the weakness endemic to melee, not to TWF itself. That said, it's not that easy to hit-and-run without a resource expenditure (e.g feat/spell/magic item) so, aside from light fighters with Tumble, not everything is going to be able to run off without getting lots of AoOs every time.

lesser_minion
2010-11-29, 10:22 AM
And letting someone line up their whirling blades to chop you repeatedly is an equally bad idea, so you should keep your distance, hitting only before moving (avoid full attacks).

This doesn't change the fact that a lot of enemies are themselves going to be worse off without full attacks, so for a DM to consistently put the players up against opponents who can actually afford to run away after attacking once is simply not reasonable.

The only reason you can't follow a retreating opponent and continue attacking is because the rules don't let you. Not because it's something that fails to make sense in the game setting.

So yes, the fact that TWF doesn't do anything while moving is a quirk, not a natural part of the setting.

I can just about buy the idea that it's OK for the DM to metagame about as much as the players, but I don't think that's usually the case in this particular instance -- the high dex actually encourages you to think of the TWF guy as an agile, mobile combatant even though the rules tell you that he's the exact opposite.

AstralFire
2010-11-29, 10:29 AM
This doesn't change the fact that a lot of enemies are themselves going to be worse off without full attacks, so for a DM to consistently put the players up against opponents who can actually afford to run away after attacking once is simply not reasonable.

Also, for future reference, quirk != abstraction. Quirks are places where the model gives unnatural results.

The only reason you can't follow a retreating opponent and continue attacking is because the rules don't let you. Not because it's something that fails to make sense in the game setting.

I'm going to back LM up on this. Pegging player weak spots consistently is one strike, pegging a weaker player is another, and the third is when you hit them with something that they can't do not because it's out of flavor with the character they made, but because they built incorrectly.


I'm at a loss to see why denying any melee character full attack actions is any less good at negating any one combat style. THF is just as reduced by lack of full attack actions (not everything in the world is going to have Shock Trooper. Not to mention running away from the the TWF Pounce Shock Trooper barbarian is probably the worst option you can attempt...)

Every melee character outside of ToB or Shock Trooper is fragged over if they can't get a full attack off; it's one of the weakness endemic to melee, not to TWF itself. That said, it's not that easy to hit-and-run without a resource expenditure (e.g feat/spell/magic item) so, aside from light fighters with Tumble, not everything is going to be able to run off without getting lots of AoOs every time.

THF may be just as reduced by lack of iterative attacks, but it's not reduced in the damage on the attacks it can make. Dual Strike and its ilk should be much easier to get if not free.

Greenish
2010-11-29, 10:30 AM
I'm at a loss to see why denying any melee character full attack actions is any less good at negating any one combat style. THF is just as reduced by lack of full attack actions.One hit from THF does more damage than one hit from TWF, so the former isn't quite so screwed. :smallwink:

Amphetryon
2010-11-29, 10:32 AM
The rules only adjudicate events when the players are present -- the overwhelming majority of fights happen off-camera, and it's entirely fair to assume that bizarre quirks of the rules aren't present for them.Emphasis mine. Could you explain why it is 'entirely fair to assume' that the basic way that combat works within the world is significantly different when there's someone present with a PC halo? That's entirely inconsistent with a coherent, immersive worldview, IMO.

AstralFire
2010-11-29, 10:36 AM
Because it's patently clear that the overwhelming majority of settings were designed first with little to no afterthought for the rules and attempting to actually play out most story events is highly improbable?

Aotrs Commander
2010-11-29, 10:44 AM
One hit from THF does more damage than one hit from TWF, so the former isn't quite so screwed. :smallwink:

That same point applies to sword&board too. And 1HF, come to that...

I don't disagree that THF has a higher damage output than the others under normal conditions, only to Curmudgeon's assertion that denial of full attacks is a drawback specific to TWF to be exploited by the DM, when it's nearly equally effective at screwing over all melee characters (aside from ToB strikes or UberChargers). After all, there's not that much difference, only 5-6 points or so, discounting PA (which of course gives you a lower attack output anyway), which is big at low-level, granted, but steadily less so as the levels climb.

Jayabalard
2010-11-29, 10:45 AM
Think of it this way: with a greatsword, you get 2d6+1.5x str mod to damage, plus any weapon enchantments.
With TWF, you have a shortsword & a longsword that deal 1d6+.5x str mod & 1d8+str mod, respectively, plus half the enchantments on each.I'm not entirely sure what you mean by this; I think that you're saying something like "you can only afford to get half as much enchantments on each of your weapons" ... which isn't really accurate. The ratio varies, but generally you can afford two weapons that are each somewhere between 60% and 80% of what you could afford if you were using a 2 handed weapon, ie: you can get two +2 weapons for less than the price of a +3 (66.6% repeating of course), you can get a +3 and a +4 weapon for the price of a +5 weapon (60 and 80% respectively), you can get two +7 weapons for less than the price a +10 weapon (70%).


Emphasis mine. Could you explain why it is 'entirely fair to assume' that the basic way that combat works within the world is significantly different when there's someone present with a PC halo? That's entirely inconsistent with a coherent, immersive worldview, IMO.Because D&D is not designed to be a simulation; it's built strictly to give you a way to deal with the game world when someone wearing a PC halo is around; sure, you can treat it as if it's a true simulation of how everything in that game world works, but that's about as effective as putting a square peg in a round hole.

AstralFire
2010-11-29, 10:48 AM
That same point applies to sword&board too. And 1HF, come to that...

I don't disagree that THF has a higher damage output than the others under normal conditions, only to Curmudgeon's assertion that denial of full attacks is a drawback specific to TWF to be exploited by the DM, when it's nearly equally effective at screwing over all melee characters (aside from ToB strikes or UberChargers). After all, there's not that much difference, only 5-6 points or so, discounting PA (which of course gives you a lower attack output anyway), which is big at low-level, granted, but steadily less so as the levels climb.

Sword and Board is not something you take in core D&D to improve your damage, though. The much higher attack bonus relative to ACs at higher level will usually work in Power Attack's favor, too. It's not a TWF specific drawback, but it is something that hurts TWF more than it should.

lesser_minion
2010-11-29, 11:05 AM
Emphasis mine. Could you explain why it is 'entirely fair to assume' that the basic way that combat works within the world is significantly different when there's someone present with a PC halo? That's entirely inconsistent with a coherent, immersive worldview, IMO.

The rules should fit the setting -- the reverse might be desirable, but it shouldn't be enforced -- the setting was usually there first.

It would be better to go back to the rules in question, think over why they produce odd results, and see if you can do better -- for example, you might change full attack so that it allows you to take a penalty to hit in order to move up to your speed.

But that does take a bit of work -- for example, you'd probably want to re-work charges if you did that, to make sure that there's something to be said for either option.

As a stopgap, assuming that the rules aren't flawed off-camera is tolerable.

Choco
2010-11-29, 11:27 AM
I gotta agree with Adamantrue. TWF, while greatly underpowered in most cases, is exceptionally useful in throwing builds relying on alternate forms of damage (which is kinda funny, cause then you technically no longer a melee char).

You can focus on Dex as your primary stat by taking Weapon Finesse, then be sure to take all 5 levels of Master Thrower to make all your thrown attacks touch attacks (which will also allow you to accurately hit most opponents even out to your max range increment). Your BAB should be high, AT LEAST 1 higher than 3/4 progression, and combined with your high attack bonus from your Dex and your attacks being touch attacks you can override the inaccuracy of your lower iterative attacks while making the higher ones 95% accurate against most enemies.

Then focus on how you will deal your damage, since it sure as hell won't be from your weapons. You get an insane number of attacks (double the usual if you also took the Palm Throw ability of the Master Thrower) and do not have to worry about moving most of the time (though I would recommend a Belt of Battle anyway), I would invest the rest of the build around boosting alternate damage. Load up on enough Iaijutsu and/or Sneak Attack and your damage output, while below the best ubercharger builds, is still enough to kill most enemies in 1 round.

big teej
2010-11-29, 12:52 PM
okay, call me crazy, BUT


what if you played an OGRE with Two Weapon Fighting? +9 strength:smallbiggrin:



(I ask because I have an ogre ranger....)

AstralFire
2010-11-29, 12:54 PM
okay, call me crazy, BUT


what if you played an OGRE with Two Weapon Fighting? +9 strength:smallbiggrin:



(I ask because I have an ogre ranger....)

It'd be a waste of a perfectly good power attacker. TWF overtakes PA when your attacks are getting a large, flat bonus per attack - like with Dragonfire Inspiration + Arcane Strike.

Tvtyrant
2010-11-29, 01:01 PM
Actually there is a very good reason you don't get a full round attack and a move action; its called "time." Your turn is only a few seconds long, and before they handed out pounce to players you weren't supposed to be fast enough to get in 6 attacks and run 30 ft. So yes, the ingame logic says you would keep moving to avoid being lacerated. The enemy would also use a lot more pole arms then they do as well, but what can you do?

lesser_minion
2010-11-29, 01:05 PM
Actually there is a very good reason you don't get a full round attack and a move action; its called "time." Your turn is only a few seconds long, and before they handed out pounce to players you weren't supposed to be fast enough to get in 6 attacks and run 30 ft. So yes, the ingame logic says you would keep moving to avoid being lacerated. The enemy would also use a lot more pole arms then they do as well, but what can you do?

If someone retreats from you and you follow them, you're in melee range the whole time. Why can't you spend that time attacking them? Sure, it'd be harder, but I'm not convinced it would be as hard as the game makes it.

And it also runs into problems when you walk up to an enemy and hit them once, but they get to full attack you -- why do they have six seconds to attack you if you're only in melee range for three seconds?

That's not even fair, let alone realistic.

Eldariel
2010-11-29, 01:09 PM
I don't disagree that THF has a higher damage output than the others under normal conditions, only to Curmudgeon's assertion that denial of full attacks is a drawback specific to TWF to be exploited by the DM, when it's nearly equally effective at screwing over all melee characters (aside from ToB strikes or UberChargers). After all, there's not that much difference, only 5-6 points or so, discounting PA (which of course gives you a lower attack output anyway), which is big at low-level, granted, but steadily less so as the levels climb.


Actually there is a very good reason you don't get a full round attack and a move action; its called "time." Your turn is only a few seconds long, and before they handed out pounce to players you weren't supposed to be fast enough to get in 6 attacks and run 30 ft. So yes, the ingame logic says you would keep moving to avoid being lacerated. The enemy would also use a lot more pole arms then they do as well, but what can you do?

Well, it makes no sense 'cause the amount of time lost is in no ways percentile of the amount of attacks lost. And Haste is pretty useless after movement too. And so on. "Single attack" mechanic is pretty broken and TWF happens to be the biggest loser.

THFer has way higher damage on that single attack and thanks to reach weapons, it's harder to deny THFers full attacks without provoking, while TWFers aren't so lucky. They basically get ˝ the attack THFer gets and can't Power Attack with to make most of the primary attack having high attack bonus. TWFer gets the same damage as a S&Ber when limited to a single attack. Something to think about.

Tvtyrant
2010-11-29, 01:09 PM
If someone retreats from you and you follow them, you're in melee range the whole time. Why can't you spend that time attacking them?

I do know the rationale behind the rule. That's why I referred to it as a 'kludge' rather than declaring it patently unrealistic.

Of course you could always equip all of your bad guys with throwing weapons and have them just keep on retreating.

Kelb_Panthera
2010-11-29, 01:49 PM
Guerrilla tactics aren't that hard to thwart. Ready action to trip/grapple/bullrush the bugger when he gets within reach. Alternatively, ready action to 5ft step out of the enemy's reach or into his intended path.

Also, someone said they weren't convinced that fighting an enemy while you run along side him is that much harder. It is. It's usually a good way to get the opponent to stop running though, at least IRL.

Coidzor
2010-11-29, 03:03 PM
So yes, the fact that TWF doesn't do anything while moving is a quirk, not a natural part of the setting.

I can just about buy the idea that it's OK for the DM to metagame about as much as the players, but I don't think that's usually the case in this particular instance -- the high dex actually encourages you to think of the TWF guy as an agile, mobile combatant even though the rules tell you that he's the exact opposite.

Identifying it as a quirk and thus something to be ignored is an act of metagaming though. So, yeah.

Dex doesn't really contribute to mobility at all except in the form of the Winged template and a bonus to tumble checks, and if it did, it would be metagaming to decide that based solely upon the Dex of the character.

Doug Lampert
2010-11-29, 04:25 PM
I'm at a loss to see why denying any melee character full attack actions is any less good at negating any one combat style. THF is just as reduced by lack of full attack actions (not everything in the world is going to have Shock Trooper. Not to mention running away from the the TWF Pounce Shock Trooper barbarian is probably the worst option you can attempt...)

Every melee character outside of ToB or Shock Trooper is fragged over if they can't get a full attack off; it's one of the weakness endemic to melee, not to TWF itself. That said, it's not that easy to hit-and-run without a resource expenditure (e.g feat/spell/magic item) so, aside from light fighters with Tumble, not everything is going to be able to run off without getting lots of AoOs every time.

At levels 1-5 a standard attack costs sword and board or THW guy NOTHING. It costs TWF guy almost half his damage, and he does less damage on average to start with.

It only gets worse at higher levels.

Greenish
2010-11-29, 05:05 PM
ILoad up on enough Iaijutsu and/or Sneak Attack and your damage output, while below the best ubercharger builds, is still enough to kill most enemies in 1 round.Iaijutsu Focus, while legal by RAW (assuming you use melee weapons, like daggers), is somewhat questionable for a throwing build.

Still, Invisible Blade's free feints + Palm Throw + IF… :smallcool:

big teej
2010-11-29, 07:09 PM
I have another question.....

would it be way to wonky to just ignore the distinction between full and single attack?

AstralFire
2010-11-29, 07:16 PM
I have another question.....

would it be way to wonky to just ignore the distinction between full and single attack?

It's an overly simplistic fix for my tastes, in that suddenly melee now has little incentive to stay still as opposed to when they had no incentive to move, but it's quick and does not break anything.

WarKitty
2010-11-29, 07:24 PM
I have another question.....

would it be way to wonky to just ignore the distinction between full and single attack?

It would probably be easiest to have a to-hit penalty. Preferably correlated to how far you move, so a 10-foot move doesn't take as much out of you as a long move.

Orzel
2010-11-29, 07:35 PM
If you don't have heavy bonus damage, have a stacking on-hit bonus/penalty, are a ranger (and thus gets TWF for free with not Dex Req), or have lots of money; TWF is not a good option for you.


Str Ranger with double weapon, TWFing with both ends or Favored Power Attacking with one end.

big teej
2010-11-29, 09:18 PM
It's an overly simplistic fix for my tastes, in that suddenly melee now has little incentive to stay still as opposed to when they had no incentive to move, but it's quick and does not break anything.

overly simplistic? aye, I'll grant you that
but I'm a simple guy, and I like simple things
furthermore, if it truly doesn't break anything (and it hasn't so far) why not?
last: its not like helping melee out is a bad thing.

Esser-Z
2010-11-29, 09:36 PM
TWF gets along very well with Stormguard Warrior!

AstralFire
2010-11-29, 09:42 PM
overly simplistic? aye, I'll grant you that
but I'm a simple guy, and I like simple things
furthermore, if it truly doesn't break anything (and it hasn't so far) why not?
last: its not like helping melee out is a bad thing.

I consider helping out melee to be less of a balance issue and more of an options issue - the Monk is so enduring a class despite being weak because it, unlike every other core melee class, has a variety of equally effective options it can take at any one time. If you're in a campaign where the enemies are so weak as to allow any of these options to work, well, you can really have a blast trying like five different things.

Giving everyone free pounce just results in more action monotony. In short, I think ToB is a better option than giving everyone pounce. :P