PDA

View Full Version : How do you fix TWF? [3.5]



NineThePuma
2011-01-05, 08:40 PM
Just a thought that occurred to me. I personally, when DMing, use a "Two Weapon Fighting is Perfect Two Weapon Fighting during Full Attacks, Improved is during Standard Attacks, Greater is during AoOs. Improved lessens penalties to -1, and Greater removes outright" with Perfect no longer existing.

But what about the rest of you?

Greenish
2011-01-05, 08:48 PM
Two-Weapon Fighting [General]

Prerequisite
Dex 13.

Benefit
Every time you attack with your mainhand weapon, you can make an additional attack with your offhand weapon. All your attacks take -2 penalty on a turn use choose to exercise this option.

Special
A 2nd-level ranger who has chosen the two-weapon combat style is treated as having Two-Weapon Fighting, even if he does not have the prerequisite for it, but only when he is wearing light or no armor.

A fighter may select Two-Weapon Fighting as one of his fighter bonus feats.I lowered the Dex requirement to 13 to be in line with other combat option feats (Power Attack, Combat Expertise etc.). The actual effect is cripped from Snap Kick.

olelia
2011-01-05, 09:11 PM
While that feat seems to help with the feat sink that normally occurs with two weapon fighting. I believe the root cause is simply damage ratios. Two weapon fighting you get half your Str on your secondary weapon and you only get x1 Power Attack which simply makes it harder for you to hit even with the reduced penalty from your homebrew :smallfrown:.

mootoall
2011-01-05, 09:14 PM
Yeah, I make it less of a feat tax by making it scale by HD/ECL, though that nerfs the ranger. I'd probably give the ranger an accelerated version of it though.

Greenish
2011-01-05, 09:18 PM
While that feat seems to help with the feat sink that normally occurs with two weapon fighting. I believe the root cause is simply damage ratios. Two weapon fighting you get half your Str on your secondary weapon and you only get x1 Power Attack which simply makes it harder for you to hit even with the reduced penalty from your homebrew :smallfrown:.You get 1x str from mainhand, 0.5x from offhand, for the grand total of 1.5x per iterative, just like two-hander, yours is just divided into two.

You get 1:1 returns from PA to both weapons (note that my version allows using one-handed weapons without extra penalty).

It also allows you to gain both extra mainhand and offhand attack from effects such as haste, as well as using both weapons for AoO and other miscellaneous attacks, and of course works with ToB strikes (though some are better with THF).

[Edit]:
Yeah, I make it less of a feat tax by making it scale by HD/ECL, though that nerfs the ranger. I'd probably give the ranger an accelerated version of it though.It doesn't nerf ranger, assuming of course that you give it other feats in place of ITWF and GTWF. Two-Weapon Rend is an option, as are the weapon style feats, most of which are meant for TWF, yet saddled with too many prerequisites (which ranger would plain ignore).

Ravens_cry
2011-01-05, 09:21 PM
Other problems are damage reduction, the bane of all thousand cuts types, and enchantment costs. How would one fix them?

AslanCross
2011-01-05, 09:21 PM
You get 1x str from mainhand, 0.5x from offhand, for the grand total of 1.5x per iterative, just like two-hander, yours is just divided into two.

You get 1:1 returns from PA to both weapons (note that my version allows using one-handed weapons without extra penalty).


A 1:1 AB-damage ratio is still smaller than the 1:2 that PA gives for two-handers, though.

Eldariel
2011-01-05, 09:24 PM
Other problems are damage reduction, the bane of all thousand cuts types, and enchantment costs. How would one fix them?

Really, enchantment costs even out. You get more out of enchantments than people with one weapon since you have more attacks, and in compensation get less enchantments. I've run the numbers; it's fairly even. DR; well, it's just a natural issue of the combat style, not something that necessarily needs to be "fixed". There are ways to overcome DR, after all.

Though I personally like scaling the Dex requirements by 2 for each extra BAB-based attack you're making. After all, to fight with two weapons efficiently, you need to be dexterous. It's not that big a deal; caps out at 19 Dex anyways, something you can reasonably have by then. Just little something to give it a different feel.

NineThePuma
2011-01-05, 09:25 PM
1:1 twice, so effectively 1:2.

Seems alright, but I do like me some feat tax.

Greenish
2011-01-05, 09:25 PM
A 1:1 AB-damage ratio is still smaller than the 1:2 that PA gives for two-handers, though.1:1 for two attacks. THF hits less often (per full attack), but for more damage, while TWF hits more often (statistically, by the virtue of having more attacks) but for less damage.

At least, that's how I'd imagine. Besides, you could TWF with a two-hander and armour spikes or unarmed strikes. :smalltongue:

[Edit]: I consider Shadow Blade to be enough of an enticement to focus on Dex with a TWFer. :smallbiggrin:

Lateral
2011-01-05, 09:27 PM
Other problems are damage reduction, the bane of all thousand cuts types, and enchantment costs. How would one fix them?

Simple. Make damage from TWF stack for each pair of attacks. So, at 20th level, you have 2 attacks at +20 BAB that stack with each other for DR, then 2 attacks at +15 BAB that stack, then 2 at +10 that stack, and finally 2 at +5 that stack. Assuming each attack does 1/2 the damage you're getting on each strike with a two-hander, you're bypassing just as much DR as someone with a two-hander is.

Greenish
2011-01-05, 09:29 PM
Seems alright, but I do like me some feat tax.It's not like a TWFer is running out of feats to take. :smallamused:

AslanCross
2011-01-05, 09:33 PM
1:1 twice, so effectively 1:2.

Seems alright, but I do like me some feat tax.


1:1 for two attacks. THF hits less often (per full attack), but for more damage, while TWF hits more often (statistically, by the virtue of having more attacks) but for less damage.

At least, that's how I'd imagine. Besides, you could TWF with a two-hander and armour spikes or unarmed strikes. :smalltongue:

[Edit]: I consider Shadow Blade to be enough of an enticement to focus on Dex with a TWFer. :smallbiggrin:

Oh, right. This is why I'm not a math teacher. :smallsigh: It still is odd that the best way to TWF is actually to use a two-hander and spikes on your armor, though.

And yes, Shadow Blade is a great way to boost damage.

Godskook
2011-01-05, 09:41 PM
I just say that the TWF feat has the benefit of the PTWF feat and call it a day.

Greenish
2011-01-05, 09:44 PM
It still is odd that the best way to TWF is actually to use a two-hander and spikes on your armor, though. Actually, the best way to TWF (both with this change and without) is to use a two-hander with unarmed strike, since US benefits from PA, unlike armour spikes (they're light, right?).

[Edit]:
I just say that the TWF feat has the benefit of the PTWF feat and call it a day.That doesn't help with PA returns or benefit non-full attacks, though.

FMArthur
2011-01-05, 10:25 PM
Actually, the best way to TWF (both with this change and without) is to use a two-hander with unarmed strike, since US benefits from PA, unlike armour spikes (they're light, right?).

[Edit]: That doesn't help with PA returns or benefit non-full attacks, though.

No, it doesn't. There are lots of other ways to make it effective anyway. TWF is still harder to optimize but isn't quite so inherently inferior out of the box with feat consumption. I really think that's all that needs to happen.

Popertop
2011-01-05, 10:26 PM
Simple. Make damage from TWF stack for each pair of attacks. So, at 20th level, you have 2 attacks at +20 BAB that stack with each other for DR, then 2 attacks at +15 BAB that stack, then 2 at +10 that stack, and finally 2 at +5 that stack. Assuming each attack does 1/2 the damage you're getting on each strike with a two-hander, you're bypassing just as much DR as someone with a two-hander is.

This is genius. If you attack with both weapons at each iterative, then they stack for the purposes of overcoming damage reduction. They are still treated as two separate attacks. There might be problems later but this seems like a good fix.

ShneekeyTheLost
2011-01-05, 10:41 PM
Other problems are damage reduction, the bane of all thousand cuts types, and enchantment costs. How would one fix them?

Well, there's several ways...

1) have different weapons with different composition to be able to bypass given DR

2) Shards of Granite to flat ignore DR

3) Ramp up damage-per-hit so that you're blowing through it anyways.

The way I see it, this is a balancing factor between TWF and THF. THF has higher single-hit damage numbers, but don't have as many hits. This is good if you have to take down one big, scary monster. This is less than good if you need to take down swarms of mooks. TWF has more attacks, so they can 'thin the herds' easier, so to speak. Each style should have it's place where it shines, and where its performance is lackluster.

FMArthur
2011-01-05, 10:52 PM
Hey disregard that last thing I said. I'm full of TWF ideas all of a sudden. :smallbiggrin:

Here's my Two-Weapon Defense:

Two-Weapon Defense [General]

Prerequisite
Dex 13.

Benefit
Whenever you wield a melee weapon in your off-hand and have not attacked with it in the current round, you gain a shield bonus equal to 10 minus the weapon's maximum roll on its damage dice. Always use the weapon's Medium damage in this formula, regardless of its actual size. (This is a fixed number, so write it down on a weapon's statblock to avoid slowing down combat.)

Additionally, if you have the Two-Weapon Fighting feat as well as this one you may strike with an both your main hand and off-hand weapons on your Attacks of Opportunity if you take a -2 penalty to both attacks.

Special
A fighter may select Two-Weapon Defense as one of his fighter bonus feats.
Yeah, it doesn't require Two-Weapon Fighting. So what? :smallamused:

I would definitely integrate shield-wielding into this somehow with some kind of bonus, if they didn't already do their own thing. Maybe just add their own bonus to this one? They already deal low attack damage, so that helps, but they'd need the bonuses adjusted to prevent the lighter ones from outperforming the heavier ones in AC.

Pechvarry
2011-01-05, 11:10 PM
As with the OP, I like the 1st to essentially be PTWF. I like your progression for the Improved and Greater slowly making it into a better Snap Kick as well. However, I think I'd leave the penalties at -2, but roll Oversized TWF into Improved. So it's always -2 penalty, but you can stop caring about Light weapons as of level 6. Finally, I'd have Greater remove the Strength penalty on the offhand strikes. For 3 feats sunk, all requiring high DEX, I think it should be better than what Two-Handers are doing out-of-the-box.

Oh, and I like lowering the DEX req by 2 on all of them. 13>15>17 instead of 15>17>19.

I'd also like to roll Pin Shield into a tactical feat of some sort, I'm just not sure what.

NineThePuma
2011-01-05, 11:49 PM
@Shadow Blade: Only applies to certain weapons, which are mostly Light as I recall.

@Oversized: Ewww... I personally prefer to be using my two short swords with Shadow Blade, or go Double Kukri. But I'm crazy, so... meh.

faceroll
2011-01-06, 12:40 AM
My fix to TWF is to roll the whole tree into one feat, along with a couple other feat revisions:
Everyone gets Weapon Finesse for free.
Improved Weapon Finesse lets you get dex to damage with a weapon you are finessing. You get 2x dex damage when TWFing, instead of 1.5x strength damage.

Not being able to PA efficiently is a bummer, but with flurry of blows, snap kick, whirling frenzy, and multiple limbs, not to mention iteratives from BAB and the TWF feat, you get more than enough attacks to make up for it.

Pechvarry
2011-01-06, 01:06 AM
@Oversized: Ewww... I personally prefer to be using my two short swords with Shadow Blade, or go Double Kukri. But I'm crazy, so... meh.

It's important to me to make sure I'm catering to as broad of character concepts as possible instead of what I personally prefer. Oversized TWF isn't going to result in a bunch of dual-wielded greatswords. It just means people can wield 2 longswords instead of 2 short swords without the absolutely ridiculous -4 penalty.

NineThePuma
2011-01-06, 01:14 AM
To quote Ike. "They'll get no sympathy from me." =| Let them suffer a tax.

Skjaldbakka
2011-01-06, 01:17 AM
I don't generally bother, since my players are optimizers, so if they are 2WFing, they find ways to get extra d6s. Sneak Attack, energy damage buffs, etc.

If I were...

1. No x0.5 str mod for off handed attacks
2. A one handed off hand weapons results in -2/-2 w/feats. Light off-hander results in -0/-0 with feats.
3. Two Weapon Fighting allows a single off hand attack whenever making a charge or an attack as a standard action. Improved would give you an offhand attack whenever you get a bonus attack from haste or similar effects. Greater would give you an off hand attack with attacks of opportunity, and any 'free' attacks, such as from improved trip or class features or spells or feats that grant free attacks. These would be in addition to normal effects of those feats.

TheWhisper
2011-01-06, 01:23 AM
I like my TWF realistic.

In other words, you have two hands, but not two brains. If you have a weapon in each hand, you may attack with either one on any attack you get, but you do not get extra attacks. An offhand weapon is also considered to be equivalent to a buckler (+1 AC shield).

Your offhand is at -3. No penalty if you take TWF feat.

TWD gives +2 AC shield when dual-wielding.

Remove all other feats in chain.

Popertop
2011-01-06, 01:27 AM
My fix to TWF is to roll the whole tree into one feat, along with a couple other feat revisions:
Everyone gets Weapon Finesse for free.
Improved Weapon Finesse lets you get dex to damage with a weapon you are finessing. You get 2x dex damage when TWFing, instead of 1.5x strength damage.

Not being able to PA efficiently is a bummer, but with flurry of blows, snap kick, whirling frenzy, and multiple limbs, not to mention iteratives from BAB and the TWF feat, you get more than enough attacks to make up for it.



I would gladly trade inability to PA on TWF for that

faceroll
2011-01-06, 02:35 AM
I like my TWF realistic.

In other words, you have two hands, but not two brains. If you have a weapon in each hand, you may attack with either one on any attack you get, but you do not get extra attacks. An offhand weapon is also considered to be equivalent to a buckler (+1 AC shield).

Your offhand is at -3. No penalty if you take TWF feat.

TWD gives +2 AC shield when dual-wielding.

Remove all other feats in chain.

How much do you know about "realistic" fights?

Tvtyrant
2011-01-06, 03:01 AM
...Get your realism out of my catgirl D&D!

NineThePuma
2011-01-06, 03:10 AM
...Get your realism out of my catgirl D&D!

Quoted for emphasis.

If I want realism, I go LARPing. If I wanna be awesome, I grab dice.

TheWhisper
2011-01-06, 03:10 AM
How much do you know about "realistic" fights?

I was a martial arts instructor before I graduated college and got a real career.

So, less than everything, more than nothing.

NineThePuma
2011-01-06, 03:12 AM
I'm actually half way decent with two blades at once. The fact is: if you know a couple attack routines/kata, you're good.

faceroll
2011-01-06, 03:15 AM
I was a martial arts instructor before I graduated college and got a real career.

So, less than everything, more than nothing.

With sticks? I got a buddy who's been doing SCA stuff for like 20 years, and he's really good, maybe the best in the state. He likes to fight with an axe and mace.

Greenish
2011-01-06, 06:14 AM
I like my TWF realistic.

In other words, you have two hands, but not two brains. If you have a weapon in each hand, you may attack with either one on any attack you get, but you do not get extra attacks. An offhand weapon is also considered to be equivalent to a buckler (+1 AC shield).

Your offhand is at -3. No penalty if you take TWF feat.

TWD gives +2 AC shield when dual-wielding.

Remove all other feats in chain.Not another case of "melee can't have nice things"! :smallsigh:

Emmerask
2011-01-06, 06:17 AM
With Tob :smalltongue:

Psyx
2011-01-06, 06:51 AM
Just a thought that occurred to me. I personally, when DMing, use a "Two Weapon Fighting is Perfect Two Weapon Fighting during Full Attacks, Improved is during Standard Attacks, Greater is during AoOs. Improved lessens penalties to -1, and Greater removes outright" with Perfect no longer existing.

But what about the rest of you?

TWF doesn't need a fix to my mind, as it's a niche style and was never overly historically popular nor effective. It's shield use that I feel need much more of a boost.

Greenish
2011-01-06, 06:57 AM
TWF doesn't need a fix to my mind, as it's a niche style and was never overly historically popular nor effective.Neither was shouting "fireball" and flinging bat poo at the enemy. :smallamused:

Anyhow, sword & board has quite a bit of feat support as is.

Psyx
2011-01-06, 09:41 AM
Still a mechanically weak choice though.

TWF is niche, and best used by certain character types. For those types (sneak attackers for example) it's already hugely, highly optimal. For others... not so.

So I'm happy to leave it as-is, rather than make it both a good choice for normal melee types and an even better one for sneak attackers and the like.

AtomicKitKat
2011-01-06, 11:03 AM
Don't stack the damages. If you want to bypass the Damage Resistance, do the above-mentioned stuff, or get some precision dice(Sneak Attack, Skirmish, etc.).

I like the Snap Kick fix(ie, bonus attack with offhand whenever you attack with your main hand). Maybe do the same for Flurry of Blows as well("You're now fast enough to throw 3 punches in the time it takes a Fighter to swing his greataxe once").

RMS Oceanic
2011-01-06, 11:10 AM
There are two major issues I think.

1. It's feat heavy. Going full in will cost almost half of the feats you own.
Possible Solution: Houserule a "Growing feat" version of TWF that melds them into one. Either that, or have many more feats.
2. The larger issues of having to choose between mobility and iterative attacks.
Possible Solution: Give everyone some sort of inherant Spring Attack ability allowing them to move and hit at the same time.

HeadlessMermaid
2011-01-06, 11:31 AM
I've taken a page from Frank's Tome and use combat feats that scale with BAB. It works great, but it's not a "quick-and-dirty" fix - a lot of things have been revised along the way.

Combat feats scale with your BAB. When “normal” feats are granted, you need not meet the prerequisites unless otherwise noted.

Two Weapon Fighting
Prerequisite: Dex +14
+0: You gain Two-Weapon Defense (shield bonus +1).
+1: You gain Two-Weapon Fighting and +2 to Feint when wielding two weapons.
+6: You gain Improved Two-Weapon Fighting and the shield bonus increases to +2.
+11: You gain Greater Two-Weapon Fighting and the Feint bonus increases to +4.
+16: You gain Skewer Foe, Pulverize Foe and Flay foe, and the shield bonus increases to +3.

A relevant modification here is Feint: it counts as an attack action instead of standard, and you may add your BAB to your Bluff check. Improved Feint allows you to feint as a swift action (and in that case, it doesn't count as one of your attacks.)

Gnaeus
2011-01-06, 12:07 PM
Other problems are damage reduction, the bane of all thousand cuts types, and enchantment costs. How would one fix them?

You can also fix enchantment costs by adjusting costs based on weapon type. Something like 2h-100%, 1H 60%, light 40%. This also benefits muggles vs. casters a little.

Pechvarry
2011-01-06, 01:10 PM
Kali/Eskrima proves that dual wielding works, but let's try to stay away from realism debates. ESPECIALLY personal qualifications. That "I'm a master martial artist and I say it works like this" followed by "no I'm a master martial artist and I say it's that" sort of thing gets threads closed and gets katana topics banned.

I also agree that shielding needs more buffs than TWF, as it's a HUGE feat sink and you still aren't a good tank because you gave up reach.

But for TWF, I really just think it boils down to this: TWF builds need 3 feats to really be any good. THFers only need... Power Attack. So the simple roll-in of iteratives into the base feat is all that's really necessary.

TheWhisper
2011-01-06, 01:20 PM
Kali/Eskrima proves that dual wielding works, but let's try to stay away from realism debates. ESPECIALLY personal qualifications. That "I'm a master martial artist and I say it works like this" followed by "no I'm a master martial artist and I say it's that" sort of thing gets threads closed and gets katana topics banned.

Oh, of course two-weapon fighting works. It just doesn't do what people think it does.

Skorj
2011-01-06, 01:21 PM
I like the approach of my favorite homebrew (D&D Online), though I'm not sure how practical it is at the table. If you grab two weapons, iterative attacks on the main hand are normal, and for each such attack theres a chance to get an offhand attack as well:

Base: 20%
TWF: 40%
ITWF: 60%
GTWF: 80%
Rangers can get an additional 20% boost as they level, bringing it to 100% at level 18 with the full feat chain. For the table top, that % chance could be determine by the main hand d20 roll instead of a separate d% roll if desired.

Pechvarry
2011-01-06, 01:32 PM
That would be... hilarious with lightning maces.

TheWhisper
2011-01-06, 01:57 PM
Not another case of "melee can't have nice things"! :smallsigh:

Guilty as charged.

It's just so bloody hard not to try to inject realism when gaming things that actually exist. Magic, by contrast, gets a break because you can't do that.

That's the real reason that wizards and clerics are Tier 1, and Fighters are Tier 3.

It's just the snowball effect of a million and two comparisons of the real with the entirely imaginary... because in the real world, casting spells or praying has no effect whatsoever.

NineThePuma
2011-01-06, 02:14 PM
Fighters are tier 5.

Pechvarry
2011-01-06, 02:16 PM
Guilty as charged.

It's just so bloody hard not to try to inject realism when gaming things that actually exist. Magic, by contrast, gets a break because you can't do that.

Then you have to admit that what you think is "realism" only applies to humans of levels 1 through 5. Once a fighter gets his first iterative attack, he's pushing the limits of human ability. You must concede that his abilities (to TWF or anything else) will be better than human after this point. Just look at his jump check.

Greenish
2011-01-06, 02:19 PM
Fighters are tier 5.What, I thought all ToB classes were tier 3?!

:smallwink:

randomhero00
2011-01-06, 02:23 PM
Just give the first two feats for free to all martial characters. Boom, fixed.

NineThePuma
2011-01-06, 02:25 PM
Fighter. PHB. All it gets is feats.

Pechvarry
2011-01-06, 02:31 PM
Greenish was making a joke, referencing how much happier people are when they cross out "warblade" in their copy of ToB and write in "fighter".

randomhero00
2011-01-06, 02:32 PM
Fighter. PHB. All it gets is feats.

Yeah but they can make a PA build better than a TWF build. Its straight math, baby.

Rixx
2011-01-06, 02:44 PM
I'd say just grant the improved and greater TWF iterative for free as your Base Attack Bonus scales up.

Sure, damage reduction still sucks, but keep in mind you benefit a lot more from circumstantial bonuses to attack rolls than a two-hander would. TWF warriors are also good crowd controllers, being able to alternate their attacks between different enemies - in Pathfinder, these attacks can also be disarm or trip maneuvers (not sure about 3.5).

Also, this feat helps: http://www.d20pfsrd.com/feats/combat-feats/double-slice-combat---final

Greenish
2011-01-06, 02:55 PM
in Pathfinder, these attacks can also be disarm or trip maneuvers (not sure about 3.5).The same, though getting reach on one-handers burns yet another feat, and two-handers get bonus for disarming.

Two-handers are also better for Attacks of Opportunity, which tend to be the base of most crowd control builds.

Duke of URL
2011-01-06, 03:00 PM
My fixes

1) TWF grants one off-hand attack per main-hand attack, no feat chain required. Can also attack with both weapons as a standard action or as part of a martial strike. Can attack with both weapons as an attack of opportunity, but this consumes two AoOs.

2) TWD grants a +2 shield bonus, +1 for each additional iterative attack gained (+3 at BAB +6, +4 at BAB +11, +5 at BAB +16).

Keinnicht
2011-01-06, 03:18 PM
I don't know if one feat is reasonable, but how about:

1: Two Weapon Fighting as is, Dex prereq lowered to 13. You can attack with both weapons as a standard action.
2: Two Weapon Defense gives you a bonus equal to one-fifth your BAB.
3: Improved Two Weapon fighting now just lets you attack as many times with your off-hand as it does with your primary hand.

Draz74
2011-01-06, 03:23 PM
In my CRE8 system, full attacks are gone, and extra attacks are harder to get in general. So the TWF feat tree looks something like this (WIP):


[Weapon Trick] Feat: Two-Weapon Fighting
Prerequisites: Fighting Level 1 (aka BAB +1), Dexterity 2 ranks.
Action: swift
Effect: expend Momentum to make an attack with your off-hand weapon.
Benefits:

You may attack normally with a weapon in your off-hand.
Gain a +1 [shield] bonus to your Defense save when wielding a weapon in each hand.

Normal: attacks with a weapon in your off-hand take a -5 accuracy penalty, as if they were improvised weapons.

[Weapon Trick] Feat: Two-Weapon Tempest
Prerequisites: Fighting Level 5, Dexterity 5 ranks, base Reflex +3, Two-Weapon Fighting.
Action: swift
Requirement: Your off-hand weapon must be a light weapon or identical to your main weapon.
Effect: make an attack with your off-hand weapon. If you have already Hit (or Critically Hit) the target of this attack with your main weapon this turn, this attack adds +1d6 damage.
Benefit: gain a +2 [shield] bonus to your Defense save when wielding a weapon in each hand.


TL;DR (or if the CRE8 jargon just makes it too hard to understand): There are two feats in the feat tree.

The first one lets you make an off-hand attack as a swift action, but only occasionally; it also gives you a defense bonus as if you were wielding a light shield, and makes you ambidexterous (so you can choose between your two weapons on the fly, which is a subtle but powerful advantage).

The second feat, which is only available to higher-level characters, lets you make an off-hand attack as a swift action every turn and add Rend damage to the attack. It also upgrades your defense bonus to be equivalent to a heavy shield.

Zeful
2011-01-06, 03:23 PM
I've taken a page from Frank's Tome and use combat feats that scale with BAB. It works great, but it's not a "quick-and-dirty" fix - a lot of things have been revised along the way.

Combat feats scale with your BAB. When “normal” feats are granted, you need not meet the prerequisites unless otherwise noted.

Two Weapon Fighting
Prerequisite: Dex +14
+0: You gain Two-Weapon Defense (shield bonus +1).
+1: You gain Two-Weapon Fighting and +2 to Feint when wielding two weapons.
+6: You gain Improved Two-Weapon Fighting and the shield bonus increases to +2.
+11: You gain Greater Two-Weapon Fighting and the Feint bonus increases to +4.
+16: You gain Skewer Foe, Pulverize Foe and Flay foe, and the shield bonus increases to +3.

I find this approach to be inelegant at best. To many words. I prefer to simply switch TWF into a combat option that works whenever you make an attack (so bonus attacks from things like haste, give more attacks). And include a couple of other feats (Two Weapon Defense, Perfect Two Weapon Fighting, a couple for specific weapon combinations like twin axes, twin shortswords, Longsword & Shortsword and so on) to provide extra damage, bonus AB to using TWF, a stacking deflection bonus when wielding two weapons, and maybe Full Attacks as Standard actions while attacking with two weapons, or maybe Immediate Action attacks.

Is it more elegant? To me yes it is, but that's simply my opinion.

John Campbell
2011-01-06, 08:04 PM
Personally, I'm okay with two-weapon fighting being feat-intensive and not really all that good. It fits my experience.

Zeful
2011-01-06, 08:55 PM
Personally, I'm okay with two-weapon fighting being feat-intensive and not really all that good. It fits my experience.

And you are at best 2nd level, your experience represents less than 10% of the game, and as such can't be relied upon.

Popertop
2011-01-06, 09:04 PM
TWF doesn't need a fix to my mind, as it's a niche style and was never overly historically popular nor effective. It's shield use that I feel need much more of a boost.

Actually, the author of the Book of Five Rings, and greatest swordsman in documented history (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miyamoto_Musashi) used a two weapon fighting style.

Skjaldbakka
2011-01-07, 12:23 AM
Re: Realistic 2WF

1: Nerfing non-casters for the sake of realism is pointless. They already get the short end of the stick, making it also covered with poison ivy is just cruel.

2: Two Weapon Fighting isn't unrealistic. I've seen it done, and am somewhat envious of the coordination of people who can do it.

JaronK
2011-01-07, 03:52 AM
A big issue with the "every attack gives an offhand attack too" thing is feats and abilities that generate more attacks. Such things now generate much more... consider how nasty the Aptitude Kukri/Lightning Mace/Roundabout Kick combo already is. Now imagine if it got double returns... instant infinite attacks.

As such, I'd just make TWF give the benefits of ITWF and GTWF as you level automatically. It's not right for everyone, but totally worth it for sneak attackers, throwers, and a bunch of other types.

There's no need to overpower it.

As for the reason it wasn't common, swords and such were expensive. You could either get one guy with two swords, or two guys with one sword each. Plus, you want shields if you can get them to deal with archery fire. Wielding two weapons is definitely superior to wielding just one (and it's not that hard, it just requires practice... and yes, I've done it). It's just not cost effective for army situations.

JaronK

ffone
2011-01-07, 04:37 AM
This is genius. If you attack with both weapons at each iterative, then they stack for the purposes of overcoming damage reduction. They are still treated as two separate attacks. There might be problems later but this seems like a good fix.

I disagree. It's occurred to me too (stack vs DR) and several others, but it makes TWF little more than a refluffing of 2H.

Also, it gets silly when you attack different foes with each weapon. And what do you do when the weapons bypass different types of DR? If you give best-of-either, now everyone's gonna walk around with different damage types on each hand, even if they like the 'twin' look fluffwise.

IMO it's more interesting when the styles have different strengths and weaknesses...the problem isn't that TWF is weaker v DR, but that it lacks any credible strengths to compensate (barring sneak attack or other big sources of per-attack damage)

Psyx
2011-01-07, 06:47 AM
Actually, the author of the Book of Five Rings, and greatest swordsman in documented history (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miyamoto_Musashi) used a two weapon fighting style.

Mushashi never used ni-to in a documented duel - only a single blade.

As for being the greatest documented swordsman in history... not really. Aside from Go Rin No Sho -which was self-penned, of course- there isn't as much written about him as you'd think (factually anyway), and plenty of Western fencers had well documented and amazingly successful careers.

In Europe the use of two weapons was pretty much restricted to a case of rapiers or rapier and dagger combinations (there were exceptions but these were the main two combinations: I'm generalising). These weapon combinations were designed for daily carry and use in civilian application (where one couldn't use something more useful and frankly superior, like a shield or a larger weapon, and would not be facing a heavily armoured foe) and most certainly not for the field of battle.

All the Western fencing masters and Mushashi himself states that one should not start even trying to use two weapons until you have mastered one.




Two Weapon Fighting isn't unrealistic.

Indeed. It's just generally inferior to other styles and far harder to learn.

TWF is amazingly optimal if you have sneak attack or similar. Making it better doesn't really boost fighters and the like that much, and at the same time it would make rogues further eclipse them.

John Campbell
2011-01-07, 08:29 AM
And you are at best 2nd level, your experience represents less than 10% of the game, and as such can't be relied upon.

I wish people would stop trotting out that bit of nonsense. D&D is craptastic for representing the abilities of real people, and pretending that it's because everyone is low level doesn't actually make it work, and that Alexandrian article doesn't show that it does. It proves only that you can min-max a low-level character to get a reasonable result out of one skill modifier if you ignore everything else. It does not solve the problem that 3.x places sharp restrictions on the variety of fairly mundane combat actions that a low-level character can perform. Most people don't do enough fighting of the type that D&D is designed to represent to run afoul of that. It is not safe, however, to assume that no one does.

I have fifteen years of armored combat experience. I have a list of combat feats that I absolutely have to have to do things that I can provably do - not just feats that I can speculate that I might have, but ones that enable a combat maneuver or the like that can't be done without the feat, but that I can do - that's long enough that I'd have to be at least Fighter 10 just to have enough feat slots to take them all. If you're going to insist that I'm an NPC class, I'm easily into epic levels. I might be able to shave a level or two off that with flaws and the like... but on the other hand, I probably have even more feats; that list is just the ones that I can prove that I have. And at least one of them has a +6 BAB as a prereq, which implies a minimum of six levels in a full-BAB class.

This also implies that I can take a dive off the roof of a three-story building and, even in the absolute worst possible case, not be more than mildly inconvenienced by hitting the ground below. That this is obvious nonsense doesn't mean that I'm "really" only 2nd level and deluded about the skills I've earned in fifteen years in armor. It means that D&D is a terrible representation of what real people can actually do.

Two-Weapon Fighting isn't on that feat list. I've done it a bit, but that and watching, and fighting, other people who use it have shown me that the learning curve is steep, and there isn't really any big payoff for climbing it. If you put in a lot of time and effort training your off hand to be smart, you can be... almost as effective as sword-and-board in single combat, and still useless on a battlefield. Woo. The same amount of time and effort spent on any other weapons form will make you a more effective fighter.

Coidzor
2011-01-07, 08:37 AM
D&D is craptastic for representing the abilities of real people

Exactly. So why are you expecting realism from one aspect of the combat system and not others? No one can nock, aim, and fire 7 arrows separately over the course of 6 seconds. Or Run 20 yards, hit someone 5 times with a cumbersome axe and then hit someone else a single time in 6 seconds.

Psyx
2011-01-07, 08:38 AM
Ithe learning curve is steep, and there isn't really any big payoff for climbing it. If you put in a lot of time and effort training your off hand to be smart, you can be... almost as effective as sword-and-board in single combat, and still useless on a battlefield. Woo.

This. A thousand times.

Gullintanni
2011-01-07, 08:42 AM
Agreed

Two-Weapon Fighting isn't on that feat list. I've done it a bit, but that and watching, and fighting, other people who use it have shown me that the learning curve is steep, and there isn't really any big payoff for climbing it. If you put in a lot of time and effort training your off hand to be smart, you can be... almost as effective as sword-and-board in single combat, and still useless on a battlefield. Woo. The same amount of time and effort spent on any other weapons form will make you a more effective fighter.

As for TWF being specifically inferior to single hand/sword and board, there is mixed truth in this. TWF is almost always inferior to single hand fighting against heavily armored foes, owing to a specific inability to penetrate armor.

Against sword and board, the reason TWF is not particularly useful is because a shield is particularly useful as a weapon itself. Someone trained in the use of a shield would effectively be a TWFighter with a shield bonus to AC, and the improve shield bash feat, plus be just as difficult to penetrate in terms of armor.

TWF shines against unarmored opponents. One of my best friends runs a martial arts school and could make enough attacks in 6 seconds to make a Tempest cry. If he's using a staff, those attacks are forceful enough to seriously injure even armored foes. He's been doing this for about 12 years, so I'd agree that the learning curve is steep, and it's not the ideal form of combat for say rank-and-file combat against armored foes, as would have been experienced in medieval wars, but it definitely has its advantages.

On a battlefield, not terribly useful. TWF styles would function best in 1 on 1 combat, when the volume of attacks allows the combatant to control the pace of the fight. Sword and board is still more practical, easier to learn, easier to teach and given equal levels of training, it's easier to survive...but given the right set of (narrow) circumstances, TWF can be terrifying.

Coidzor
2011-01-07, 08:45 AM
Simply because something is difficult and without huge payoff IRL is a poor justification for having feats and combat styles that are mechanically worth less than others, especially if one has the opportunity to rebalance things.

Skjaldbakka
2011-01-07, 09:50 AM
The realism folks seem to be making the argument that IRL, 2WF is suboptimal. It is also suboptimal mechanically, so... nerfing it even further is pointless.

Of course, once you set foot into a fantasy rpg settings, realism goes out of the picture anyway. There aren't many historical accounts of dragon slaying or facing off against hordes of undead, etc, etc.

Crow
2011-01-07, 10:42 AM
Once you work in enhancement bonuses on weapons, and if you can get the Collision enhancement, TWF can just edge ahead of Two-Handers...barely. Even with power attack. But that is only if, *IF* you can get every attack to hit, and have not hit +16 BAB yet (or if you have perfect TWF).

This doesn't take into account the Dex requirements and feats you have to put in to get there, along with the increased resources you have to put into your weapons.

I'd make TWF one feat which scales with BAB, and put the requirement as Dex 13, as a start.

Personally, I'd rather see sword/board brought in line with it's RL effectiveness, which is sorely underestimated in D&D.

Psyx
2011-01-07, 10:54 AM
It is also suboptimal mechanically, so... nerfing it even further is pointless.

No: It's optimal. For rogues. So why make it even better, is my point?

Power attack is sub-optimal for rogues, and full plate is sub-optimal for wizards. Does that mean they need balancing?

Gullintanni
2011-01-07, 11:57 AM
...but given the right set of (narrow) circumstances, TWF can be terrifying.


The realism folks seem to be making the argument that IRL, 2WF is suboptimal. It is also suboptimal mechanically, so... nerfing it even further is pointless.

As I mentioned above, TWF can be devastating. TWF is one of a very select few instances of 3.5 capturing reality fairly well (as well as any combat in DnD can). It requires a disproportionate amount of skill and effort to master, produces a flurry of less precise attacks, is significantly less potent against heavily armored or more durable foes, and is excellent against unarmored or lightly armored foes owing to the 1000 cuts strategy.

Its biggest mechanical failure is that the invested feats produce a far less versatile combatant than 3 or less other, better feats. (PA, Shock Trooper spring to mind).

If you accept that TWF produces above optimal results in a less than an optimal number of situations, then TWF isn't that broken. Still, it would benefit from far less feat tax.

Pechvarry
2011-01-07, 12:26 PM
I tried. This is officially a "realism in D&D" thread and is now completely pointless.

Coidzor got it right -- we can't do half the things in D&D. Why the crap would you decide to pick on TWF?

NineThePuma
2011-01-07, 12:36 PM
As the OP, I'd like to say "Realism can GTFO." and then point out that I'm specifically looking at making it less feat intensive or otherwise bettering it. My initial example is "free iterative attacks in the main feat, later feats let you use two weapons on more than a full attack." This solves the feat intensive nature OR the mobility issues, and so it's a choice.

Gullintanni
2011-01-07, 12:43 PM
As the OP, I'd like to say "Realism can GTFO." and then point out that I'm specifically looking at making it less feat intensive or otherwise bettering it. My initial example is "free iterative attacks in the main feat, later feats let you use two weapons on more than a full attack." This solves the feat intensive nature OR the mobility issues, and so it's a choice.

Sorry, was trying to answer the realism point and move back into the 3.5 side by reopening the feat tax discussion. Regardless, versatility and feat tax are my biggest problems with the TWF tree.

I'd say, main feat allows for all three additional attacks that GTWF normally yields. Imp. TWF allows for an attack with each hand on a charge and on a standard action. GTWF adds Two-Weapon Rend on a charge and allows one attack per hand on an AoO.

TWF should make you good at using two weapons. ITWF and GTWF should give you new options and expanded functionality.

Two Weapon Defense should scale with BAB. 1/4th BAB = Shield Bonus. +1 at level 4, +5 at 20.

AtomicKitKat
2011-01-07, 01:20 PM
I support rolling the current benefits of the tree into the base Feat, and giving the optional add-ons to the former Improved/Greater TWF.

John Campbell
2011-01-07, 02:15 PM
Exactly. So why are you expecting realism from one aspect of the combat system and not others?
I'm expecting realism verisimilitude from all of it; D&D just very seldom obliges me. But in the rare instance that it does, I don't see the need to break it in the name of "balance".

Why should all weapons forms be created equal, anyway? They aren't in the real world; why should they be in the game? Why should the answer to, "TWF sucks," not be, "So don't do that, then"?

TheWhisper
2011-01-07, 02:18 PM
Mushashi never used ni-to in a documented duel - only a single blade.

...

All the Western fencing masters and Mushashi himself states that one should not start even trying to use two weapons until you have mastered one.

I came here to say this. Since you beat me to it, I'll add detail:



Warriors, both commanders and troopers, carry two swords at their belt. In olden times these were called the long sword and the sword; nowadays they are known as the sword and the companion sword. Let it suffice to say that in our land, whatever the reason, a warrior carries two swords at his belt. It is the Way of the warrior.

"Nito Ichi Ryu" shows the advantages of using both swords.

The spear and the halberd are weapons which are carried out of doors.

Students of the Ichi school Way of strategy should train from the start with the sword and the long sword in either hand. This is a truth: when you sacrifice your life, you must make fullest use of your weaponry. It is false not to do so, and to die with a weapon yet undrawn.

If you hold a sword with both hands, it is difficult to wield it freely to left and right, so my method is to carry the sword in one hand. This does not apply to large weapons such as the spear or halberd, but swords and companion swords can be carried in one hand. It is encumbering to hold a sword in both hands when you are on horseback, when running on uneven roads, on swampy ground, muddy rice fields, stony ground, or in a crowd of people. To hold the long sword in both hands is not the true Way, for if you carry a bow or spear or other arms in your left hand you have only one hand free for the long sword. However, when it is difficult to cut an enemy down with one hand, you must use both hands. It is not difficult to wield a sword in one hand; the Way to learn this is to train with two long swords, one in each hand. It will seem difficult at first, but everything is difficult at first. Bows are difficult to draw, halberds are difficult to weild; as you become accustomed to the bow so your pull will become stronger. When you become used to wielding the long sword, you will gain the power of the Way and wield the sword well.

As I will explain in the second book, the Water Book, there is no fast way of wielding the long sword. The long sword should be wielded broadly and the companion sword closely. This is the first thing to realise.

According to this Ichi school, you can win with a long weapon, and yet you can also win with a short weapon. In short, the Way of the Ichi school is the spirit of winning, whatever the weapon and whatever its size.

It is better to use two swords rather than one when you are fighting a crowd, and especially if you waant to take a prisoner.

These things cannot be explained in detail. From one thing, know ten thousand things. When you attain the Way of strategy there will not be one thing you cannot see. You must study hard.

Now, this may be a little hard to understand, but what Musashi is saying here is that one should train with two swords, in order to improve one's ability to flexibly wield one.

He also recommends using two swords when surrounded by multiple opponents.

Zeful
2011-01-07, 03:16 PM
I wish people would stop trotting out that bit of nonsense. D&D is craptastic for representing the abilities of real people, and pretending that it's because everyone is low level doesn't actually make it work, and that Alexandrian article doesn't show that it does. It proves only that you can min-max a low-level character to get a reasonable result out of one skill modifier if you ignore everything else. It does not solve the problem that 3.x places sharp restrictions on the variety of fairly mundane combat actions that a low-level character can perform. Most people don't do enough fighting of the type that D&D is designed to represent to run afoul of that. It is not safe, however, to assume that no one does.D&D is not meant to model reality at all, it is instead designed to model Heroic Fantasy. So it doesn't matter who you are or what your qualifications, they do not and never have applied to the genre that D&D is at it's heart. With that in mind, you are at best 2nd level by genre stipulations, a mook, as am I, as well as pretty much everyone else even reading this thread.


I'm expecting realism verisimilitude from all of it; D&D just very seldom obliges me. But in the rare instance that it does, I don't see the need to break it in the name of "balance".

Why should all weapons forms be created equal, anyway? They aren't in the real world; why should they be in the game? Why should the answer to, "TWF sucks," not be, "So don't do that, then"?
Because this is heroic fantasy, not reality, and if the game can't model it's chosen genre well, then it needs to be fixed, and in Heroic Fantasy skilled fighters resemble something out of a Wuxia movie or Greek myth (same thing really) than anything approximating a reality and they can fight with any weapon set up better than they "should" in reality.

You have problems with Verismilitude and D&D? Read more.

Popertop
2011-01-07, 05:10 PM
Mushashi never used ni-to in a documented duel - only a single blade.

As for being the greatest documented swordsman in history... not really. Aside from Go Rin No Sho -which was self-penned, of course- there isn't as much written about him as you'd think (factually anyway), and plenty of Western fencers had well documented and amazingly successful careers.

Please back this up with supporting evidence.

I'll give you the point about the rapiers and stuff.


No: It's optimal. For rogues. So why make it even better, is my point?

Power attack is sub-optimal for rogues, and full plate is sub-optimal for wizards. Does that mean they need balancing?

You're acting like rogues are the only characters deemed worthy enough to receive significant benefit from TWF. Maybe other martial characters would like to receive significant benefit. Just because rogues would benefit most doesn't mean you shouldn't change anything. Honestly, what rogue does take power attack? and since when did wizards wear full plate? those aren't choices those classes make normally or even abnormally, so that's a bad comparison.