[3.P] Decreasing the penalties from TWF

[Novawurmson]

A quick refresher on TWF in 3.5/PF:
Two-Weapon Fighting (http://www.d20pfsrd.com/feats/combat-feats/two-weapon-fighting-combat---final) (PF) / Two-Weapon Fighting (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/feats.htm#twoWeaponFighting)(Feat, 3.5) Two-Weapon Fighting (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/combat/specialAttacks.htm#twoWeaponFighting) (Special Attack, 3.5)

Situation one: A Warrior with a Greatsword swings once with his full modifiers for 2d6+1.5[Str].

Situation two: A Warrior with a Two Short Swords hits once with each for 1d6+[STR] and 1d6+.5[Str], for a total of 2d6+1.5[Str].

But Warrior #2 takes a -4 penalty on his main hand attack and a -penalty on his off hand attack unless he takes a feat.

There's quite a few problems, though: In situation 2, the Warrior has to buy 2 weapons - cheap at first, but rapidly get out of hand when enchanting two weapons. Warrior #2 gets hit twice by DR, which can take a substantial chunk out of his damage.

Of course, TWF becomes more viable with on-hit affects, but it's still penalized for doing the amount of base damage, both in feat prerequisites and in a penalty on attack rolls.

As most of us are well aware, TWF is a bad weapon style unless you've got a large source of bonus damage. Can you see any reason not to just reduce all TWF penalties by 2, making the chart look like this:


Normal penalties: –4/–8
Off-hand weapon is light –2/–6
Two-Weapon Fighting feat –2/–2
Off-hand weapon is light and Two-Weapon Fighting feat +0/+0

[LTwerewolf]

The way we do it is that you retain the -2/-2, but can attack with both weapons as a standard, and certain classes we tacked on the class feature that they can attack as many times with their offhand as mainhand in a full attack.

Now the reason why we keep the -2 is because of the potency of enchants. Eventually You do get your weapons properly enchanted, and 2 +10 weapons are going to be causing more damage than a 2h (assuming just weapons and not ridiculous optimization on power attack/charge/etc). For every +1d6 damage you're putting on your greatsword, you can be getting potentially +2d6 on twf weapons. For every +1 bonus on the greatsword you're getting +2 from twf.

Plus to us it just makes sense. Keeping your weapons untangled when fighting with two of them takes a lot of effort and is much harder than swinging a car door.

[Novawurmson]

But a +10 magic weapon is 200,000g. Using a character wealth by level table (http://www.d20pfsrd.com/classes/character-advancement), you're not expected to have 200,000g until 15th level, and you're not expected to have 400,000g (the price for 2 weapons) until 17th level. Even at level 20 with an expect wealth of 880,000g, that means that the big weapon guy is only spending 1/4 of his wealth on his weapon, while the 2 weapon fighter is paying 1/2 of his wealth on his weapons. That's an absolutely enormous discrepancy.

I agree about being able to attack with two weapons as a standard action, but I wanted to focus on reducing the penalties from TWF in this post.

[LTwerewolf]

It costs the same, however, for one to have +5/+5 and the other to have +10 on his weapon. Then after that, the TWF gets stronger and the 2h stays the same.

[Garagos]

In my campaigns, I keep the -2 penalties for both hands but only require 1 feat, Two Weapon Fighting. I threw out Improved/Greater/Superior TWF and just allow them to gain an additional off hand attack each time they get a new iterative attack. So far it has been working out fine for us.

[Novawurmson]

It costs the same, however, for one to have +5/+5 and the other to have +10 on his weapon. Then after that, the TWF gets stronger and the 2h stays the same.

+5 is 50,000g, +10 is 200,000g (http://www.d20pfsrd.com/magic-items/magic-weapons), so it does not cost the same: It would be half the cost for two +5 weapons. A +7 weapon is 98,000g, so it's about half the cost of a +10 weapon.

Remember that the TWF does not gain the benefit of both weapon enhancements at the same time: A THF with a +5 Flaming Keen Holy Ghost Touch Greatsword gets those benefits on every hit. A TWF with a +5 Flaming Keen Shortsword and a +5 Holy Ghost Touch shortsword on gets the benefits of the Flaming and Keen on his main hand attacks and holy and ghost touch on his offhand attacks.

[Roguenewb]

For a long time at the beginning of my playing 3.5, I thought TWF two attacks as a standard action were normal rules. And you know what? It worked pretty well. THF is *way* too good. You know what the side effect of TWF boosts are? they make Sword and Board better too, and everyone knows how that classic fantasy style is terrible in D&D

[ericgrau]

*wishes people would actually run the numbers thoroughly instead of pretending to run them*

It doesn't make much difference either way, even after all costs of all types. You need tricks like shocktrooper to make a difference. If you have the slightest bonus such as special attacks (like tripping), bonus damage, spell storing, etc., etc. then TWF comes out ahead. Or heck even weapon specialization helps a little. In the end all 3 styles are viable unless you're tweaking out with cheese.

In general analyze first, then fix. Instead of dropping a fix first then waiting for holes to be found. Figure out damage per round (hits x damage) from each at each level given standard WBL and reasonable portions to weapons, ability scores, defense, etc. and average monster stats. Next look at that with and without (non-cheesy) tricks. Then decide what needs to be done, if anything. I know this involves actual work, but it's either that or nothing. I've seen way too many campaigns suffer from excessive houseruling for "balance" rather than flavor.

Minor tweaks OTOH are fine. Even if you're wrong it won't hurt much and it'll encourage people to try something new. I wouldn't do -0/-0 though. I know people vastly underestimate a +1 when they don't do the math so let's just say +2 is a lot more than you think. Try -1/-1. Still OP, but it won't overshadow entirely and it may overcome some prejudices. Even -0/-0 might not completely break the game, but it's quite a lot and I know what 3 pages of such houserules can add up to. On the flipside reducing penalties for oversized weapons is a bit of a trap. Players need the oversized TWF feat or the extra -2 is still a damage downgrade. Make sure the players know that.

[docnessuno]

TWF is superior to THF when additional damage dices are involved (precision damage being the easy way), so as a style it's quite balanced with THF with the -2 penality. What it's not balanced is the massive feat investment that this combat style requires (and the fact you cnanot get your 4th offhand iterative pre-epic always bugs me too).

My personal Fix for TFW is:

Two weapon fighting: As the current feat, plus allows to strike with both hands when a signle melee strike would be allowed (Charge, AoO, Standard action, etc)

Improved TWF: Allows as many OH attacks as your MH iteratives

Two weapon defense: Grants a +1 shield bonus to AC, increasing by +1 at 6/11/16 BAB

[Garagos]

(and the fact you cnanot get your 4th offhand iterative pre-epic always bugs me too).


I think this has been changed. I'm AFB right now but I'm pretty sure they fixed this so you can take the 4th TWF feat when you have a +16 BAB, the other 3 feats and a high enough stat. But like I said above, and you seem to use similar house rules as I do, i lowered the feat intensity of this fighting style so it shouldn't matter anyway.

[Andreaz]

My groups roll in the basic TWF feat into character baseline, and uses the penalties lessened by 2 as per the OP. A single feat gives the offhand Iterative Attacks and a shield bonus equal to the number of iterative attacks you get from bab (not from both weapons, just bab)
On a similar end, my group dismisses Finesse in the same manner, while also adding dex to damage rather than str.

[Tvtyrant]

My solution is to get rid of TWF penalties altogether, and get rid of the feats. You can do it whenever you want, but you get 1 less with your off hand then with your main hand (to a minimum of one attack). TWF is flat worse than THF, so why does it need penalties at all?

[docnessuno]

My solution is to get rid of TWF penalties altogether, and get rid of the feats. You can do it whenever you want, but you get 1 less with your off hand then with your main hand (to a minimum of one attack). TWF is flat worse than THF, so why does it need penalties at all?

Because, as stated TWF is a massive boon for precision damage dealers. While the damage output of a TWF barbarian is slighly lower compared to a THW one, the opposite is not true for other classes. A TWF rogue has huge damage gains from the TWF tree, that should be reflected by some resource invested into mastering it. While i agree that the current TWF feats are too weak and too many, getting rid of them is not the answer imho, and getting rid of the penality is even worse.

[Lord Il Palazzo]

In my current campaign (the first I've ever DMed and the second ever for my group) we realized right around level 4 that you couldn't attack with two weapons as a standard action. The party's ranger had been relying a lot on this as her fighting style and was looking for an ACF she could get by trading in her spellcasting (which wouldn't fit the player's concept of the character very well anyways) so we quickly agreed that the character would be able to attack with two weapons as a standard action (or at the end of a charge or similar) and it's worked just fine. I wish we had done a better job of deciding what did and didn't work up front however, as the ranger started taking levels in swordsage and the question of how maneuvers interact with this ability has come up once or twice. (We decided that she can apply any bonus damage from a maneuver to either but not both of her two attacks and it seems to work pretty well. I could see it working either way though.)

[Tvtyrant]

Because, as stated TWF is a massive boon for precision damage dealers. While the damage output of a TWF barbarian is slighly lower compared to a THW one, the opposite is not true for other classes. A TWF rogue has huge damage gains from the TWF tree, that should be reflected by some resource invested into mastering it. While i agree that the current TWF feats are too weak and too many, getting rid of them is not the answer imho, and getting rid of the penality is even worse.

I'm not buying this line of argument. You make the precision damage dealers a little better when they are fighting the 10 things that take precision damage, but even then the damage output isn't terrific. At the same time you make TWF so prohibitive that no one else can afford to use it, because it only pays off for precision damage. If I wanted to play a Dragonsplints TWF Fighter, I would have to hurl most of my feats into it for marginal gains. With no penalties, it becomes a single feat and I can now afford to take PA and Cleave.

Going back to the Rogue/Precision damage dealer, the damage increase is less impressive than the increase in power granted to a caster simply by getting new spells.

[Kelb_Panthera]

Call me a mad man if you wish, but I always thought of the feat tax on TWF as a way to restrict it to fighters and rangers. Fighters have feats to burn, so picking up all of the twf stuff isn't really a problem, and the ranger gets the basics of TWF (the three basic feats) for free.

Neither is "optimal" but too much optimization detracts from the game by reducing/eliminating the lethality of combat. If you're in a sword-fight there's supposed to be a chance that the other guy sticks his sword in you. Uber chargers and lockdown builds don't allow this at all. They're fun mental excersizes but they just aren't much fun to play.

Let's look at a bit of very simplified combat math.

First a warrior at level 5 whose attack stat started at 15:

BAB 5, +3 attack stat mod, and a +1enhancement from a masterwork weapon makes +9 to attack. LVL 5 average ac is 18. He hits on a 9 which is a 60% chance to hit. If he were a fighter he could have another +1 from WF, or if he were a ranger a +2 for favored enemy. Favored enemy isn't always applicable but a good DM makes sure that it comes up at least somewhat regularly.

The same at 8th level: BAB 8, +4 from stat, and a +1 weapon. That's 13 against 8th level average AC of 21, that hits on an 8, or a 65% chance to hit.

How about 12: Bab 12, +5 attack stat, and a +2 weapon, for +19 against AC 25, hitting on a 6 or a 75% chance to hit.

And 20: BAB 20, +8 stat, +5 weapon makes +33 against ac 33 or a 95% chance to hit because of the natural 1 rule.

Only at the very lowest level of play does any full BAB class have less than even chances of hitting, on a standard attack with "sub-par" stats and no consideration for circumstance.

Many, though not all, of those who optimize would consider anything less than a 95% chance of hitting to be bad at hitting things, but considering that a top-notch baseball player only hits the ball about 75% of the time after dedicating most of his life to the game, and having the best equipment money can buy to help him get better, I don't think those odds are at all bad.

They're certainly more exiting than a virtually automatic, "I hit it for X-hundred damage, and kill it on the spot."

Mind, I'm not against optimizing in principal. I just think bringing the highest degree of optimization into actual play detracts from the game by making combat too predictable.

[Ravenica]

I'm not buying this line of argument. You make the precision damage dealers a little better when they are fighting the 10 things that take precision damage, but even then the damage output isn't terrific. At the same time you make TWF so prohibitive that no one else can afford to use it, because it only pays off for precision damage. If I wanted to play a Dragonsplints TWF Fighter, I would have to hurl most of my feats into it for marginal gains. With no penalties, it becomes a single feat and I can now afford to take PA and Cleave.

Going back to the Rogue/Precision damage dealer, the damage increase is less impressive than the increase in power granted to a caster simply by getting new spells.

you might not buy it for 3.5 but you'd be hard pressed to find many creatures in pathfinder that are immune to sneak attacks, also the twf feats are different for pathfinder as well. the feat tax is gone (only requires twf) and if you really want it there's a feat that lets you do full str damage on offhand as well, in PF twf straight up beats out thf

[Novawurmson]

you might not buy it for 3.5 but you'd be hard pressed to find many creatures in pathfinder that are immune to sneak attacks

Elementals, Incorporeal creatures, and Oozes. Creatures with fortification. I agree that the list is a lot smaller (Undead and Constructs being two big gains for the Rogue), but at the highest levels of optimization, thing are actually worse for the Rogue because the 3.5 Rogue had ways to get around immunity (wand of gravestrike, etc.). They're better off, but they're not


also the twf feats are different for pathfinder as well. the feat tax is gone (only requires twf)

Nope, you still want Improved and Greater TWF.


and if you really want it there's a feat that lets you do full str damage on offhand as well,

It's called Double Slice. Problem is, we're talking about precision damage dealers like Rogues who prefer Dex over Str. Even if you avoid Weapon Finesse and buying Agile weapons, you're still going to end up MAD because you need Dex for the TWF feat tree. And, in the end, it just adds another feat to an already feat-intensive fighting style.


in PF twf straight up beats out thf

It's improved, but certainly doesn't "straight up beat" THF.

[docnessuno]

Going back to the Rogue/Precision damage dealer, the damage increase is less impressive than the increase in power granted to a caster simply by getting new spells.

So, now you are comparing TWF to SPELLS?

You know, that's like comparing a M-16 and a shotgun and then realizing an h-bomb is more destructive. It might be true, but it's also quite unrelated.

[darni]

Pathfinder has this fighter archetype (http://paizo.com/pathfinderRPG/prd/advanced/coreClasses/fighter.html#two-weapon-warrior); It gives you a few class features that make TWF viable even for a non sneak attacker: you end up having a net bonus on TWF, it also gives you a damage and AC bonus, and allows two attacks (not a full attack) as a standard action or AoO. I'm currently playing one (sword and board fighter with this archetype) and it works pretty nicely and doesn't feel disadvantaged (Some feats like Double Slice help here too).

What you're proposing is essentially the class features for levels 13 and 17 of this archetype, together.

[Ravenica]

Would be pretty hard pressed to find a melee build not able to get a very high str and 19-20 dex in a pathfinder game, even on the low point buy for pfs play

[Tvtyrant]

So, now you are comparing TWF to SPELLS?

You know, that's like comparing a M-16 and a shotgun and then realizing an h-bomb is more destructive. It might be true, but it's also quite unrelated.

...No, I am comparing balance within a system. Saying that TWF needs to have penalties because otherwise it provides too many benefits in a system where some players get free nukes per level is a lot like banning handguns in a war where we are using said nukes. It is related, because it is the same game.

Edit: The biggest issue with your attempt to make spells unrelated to melee through a nuke metaphor is that in this case, the nuke is actually cheaper than the shotgun. In any military where missiles are cheaper than guns, guns are going to be phased out or their use is going to be reduced dramatically. It is entirely appropriate to discuss the effectiveness of said WMDs when they are cheaper than a shotgun, and you are arguing for making the shotgun more expensive.

And to go back to your point about Barbarians, actually for the same feat investment as the TWF line, any class becomes a charger and outdoes the precision damage dealer in damage. Even if we agree that there should be some cost for TWF (which I don't), feats are amongst the most valuable resources you have in the 3.P game.

Even for the precision dealer with those same feats you could get as many natural attacks as you get off hands with TWF, and have a higher to-hit on them.

[Novawurmson]

Would be pretty hard pressed to find a melee build not able to get a very high str and 19-20 dex in a pathfinder game, even on the low point buy for pfs play

You need a 15 in Dex for the TWF feat. That's 7 points in a PB setting. You can have an 18 in Str for 17 points, for a total of 24 points. 25 points is the maximum in the CRB and the usual maximum for PBP games on the boards.

[Crasical]

Call me a mad man if you wish, but I always thought of the feat tax on TWF as a way to restrict it to fighters and rangers. Fighters have feats to burn, so picking up all of the twf stuff isn't really a problem, and the ranger gets the basics of TWF (the three basic feats) for free.

Neither is "optimal" but too much optimization detracts from the game by reducing/eliminating the lethality of combat. If you're in a sword-fight there's supposed to be a chance that the other guy sticks his sword in you. Uber chargers and lockdown builds don't allow this at all. They're fun mental excersizes but they just aren't much fun to play.

Not quite a mad man, but certainly not the only school of thought on the matter, either, nor one that I personally subscribe to.

[Novawurmson]

Pathfinder has this fighter archetype (http://paizo.com/pathfinderRPG/prd/advanced/coreClasses/fighter.html#two-weapon-warrior); It gives you a few class features that make TWF viable even for a non sneak attacker: you end up having a net bonus on TWF, it also gives you a damage and AC bonus, and allows two attacks (not a full attack) as a standard action or AoO. I'm currently playing one (sword and board fighter with this archetype) and it works pretty nicely and doesn't feel disadvantaged (Some feats like Double Slice help here too).

What you're proposing is essentially the class features for levels 13 and 17 of this archetype, together.

I'm aware of that archetype; I like a lot of the things proposed in it, but I feel like everyone who wants to TWF should have those options available to them instead of being forced into Fighter.

[HunterOfJello]

In my campaigns, I keep the -2 penalties for both hands but only require 1 feat, Two Weapon Fighting. I threw out Improved/Greater/Superior TWF and just allow them to gain an additional off hand attack each time they get a new iterative attack. So far it has been working out fine for us.

This.

My group leaves in the penalties, since they can be gotten around, but has removed the necessity of taking 3 feats just to be able to properly fight with 2 weapons. It's worked out pretty well so far.

~

I think I"m actually going to use TWF on the bard I'm building right now. I might even grab that extra attack Planar Touchstone feat. That'd be pretty awesome.

[Uhtred]

I had thought that the Tempest prestige class from Complete Adventurer was designed specifically to close the gap between TWF and THF a bit, by eliminating the -2/-2 penalty altogether, allowing TWF on a Spring Attack, increasing TWF AC, and allowing TWF'ers wielding different weapons to apply their Weapon Focus tree feats to both weapons.

[Kelb_Panthera]

I had thought that the Tempest prestige class from Complete Adventurer was designed specifically to close the gap between TWF and THF a bit, by eliminating the -2/-2 penalty altogether, allowing TWF on a Spring Attack, increasing TWF AC, and allowing TWF'ers wielding different weapons to apply their Weapon Focus tree feats to both weapons.

It's an option, but it's a very sub-optimal option. My group stays in a fairly low-op setup by gentlemens' agreement, so a tempest is perfectly viable for us, but in a game where a common warrior archetype has power attack and at least 3 different charge multipliers it gets left choking in the dust.

[Kelb_Panthera]

Not quite a mad man, but certainly not the only school of thought on the matter, either, nor one that I personally subscribe to.

Everyone is entitled to their opinion. I simply gave mine.

[Ravenica]

You need a 15 in Dex for the TWF feat. That's 7 points in a PB setting. You can have an 18 in Str for 17 points, for a total of 24 points. 25 points is the maximum in the CRB and the usual maximum for PBP games on the boards.

and you can reduce both with the right racial options, and can't select the higher ones until higher bab anyway. If you are optomizing in any way twf outguns thf in pathfinder

[Mari01]

and you can reduce both with the right racial options, and can't select the higher ones until higher bab anyway. If you are optomizing in any way twf outguns thf in pathfinder

No. It doesn't. Can you back this up with something? How about posting a TWF build that out-damages a THF build using a 15 point buy if it's so easy to get the stats required in this setting.

We can even make sample character's at different levels to showcase the difference.

[lsfreak]

The severity of two-weapon fighting penalties doesn't make sense to me. Just do a flat -2/-2 for TWF'ing for anyone if the offhand is light, so that if someone wants to TWF for an encounter or two they can, just like someone can pick up a shield or a two-handed weapon for an encounter without an arbitrary, ridiculous attack penalty.

Then the TWF feat itself allows the iteratives, and lets you take penalties for fighting TWF, without making any bonus attacks, to flank by yourself (because I firmly believe passive benefits make sucky/boring feats).

[Garagos]

For those that allow TWF to also grant a shield bonus with the offhand weapon equal to the number of iterative attacks, do you at least require the person to take the Two Weapon Defense feat? If not giving them all those extra attacks plus a decent bonus to AC with one feat seems a bit OP. I like the idea of scaling the shield bonus with iterative attacks but I would definitely make them take TWD to do it.

[Andreaz]

For those that allow TWF to also grant a shield bonus with the offhand weapon equal to the number of iterative attacks, do you at least require the person to take the Two Weapon Defense feat? If not giving them all those extra attacks plus a decent bonus to AC with one feat seems a bit OP. I like the idea of scaling the shield bonus with iterative attacks but I would definitely make them take TWD to do it.

+1/+2/+3...+4 if it's a full bab class. No shield enchantments. I find it powerful, but not powerful enough to warrant a new feat. After all, you are giving up 2hF and shields, and will spend just as much (if not more) money as a shield user to get the same effect a 2hF already has.
The only point of consideration is the previous "how much damage per attack do you get to warrant using two weapons?" bit.

[Novawurmson]

I'm in two minds about it.

One the one hand, it's significantly better than a lot of feats - Rapid Shot doesn't give you a bonus to AC (and only gives you one extra attack), and Shield Focus and Dodge only give you a +1 to AC. On the other hand, archery is one of the best (if not the best) damage style, while TWF has objective problems as a fighting style, and Shield Focus and Dodge are not very good. I think ultimately, the real issue is that there are a lot of changes to the system that need to be made to make all fighting styles balanced.

Something to consider would be to make TWF count as Shield Focus for prerequisites, or at least to make an equivalent feat for Sword-and-Board fighters (another style that needs some love).

[Garagos]

I realize a lot of feats have mulitple benefits/effects (Shocktrooper) but those feats generally also have 2 or 3 pre-req feats as well. I just think that granting iterative attacks for free is enough for a feat that basically has no pre-reqs other than a fairly low Dex score. Adding AC bonuses based on those iteratives in on top of that is too much and should stay with the TWD feat, imo.

[ericgrau]

but in a game where a common warrior archetype has power attack and at least 3 different charge multipliers it gets left choking in the dust.

This would be the actual problem.

The 3 fighting styles are quite close (yes, including all costs/drawbacks) and need no adjustment until favoritism from splatbooks screws it up. The slightest bonus or trick can pull one core style above the other 2.