Two weapon fighting with no dex?

[CyberThread]

How would it affect gameplay, if we magically waved the dex requirements for two weapon fighting chain?

[Deadline]

You can already do this by being a Ranger. It's ... not the greatest. About the only potential balance issue I can see at first blush is that you'd be more likely to have TWF Fighters wearing full plate, because they won't have to worry about wasting their dex mod.

[dascarletm]

You can already do this by being a Ranger. It's ... not the greatest. About the only potential balance issue I can see at first blush is that you'd be more likely to have TWF Fighters wearing full plate, because they won't have to worry about wasting their dex mod.

Yeah, I like the idea of TWF Ranger with dex at 10-12 with high STR. You can't get the other TWF feats, but only a few are worthwhile anyway. Longsword/Shortsword with PA theoretically should do more damage on average than Greatsword, even with the -2 to hit. (I think?)

If you can pick up dodge and spring attack then you can go Tempest; with the low price of 13 dex. That'll decrease TWF -'s to hit further IIRC.

[Vastly]

I personally don't see this being a tremendous issue, though I suppose it really depends on your players, the types of characters they play and how well they optimize.

Being able to forgo dex and focus strictly on strength would be less MAD, less feat demanding, and would give a damage boost without having to find a way to sub any stat mods.

If its a caster heavy group, the melee character could use all the love they can find. If it's a mostly martial group you might want to keep a closer eye on it.

[SSGoW]

I've always been a fan of waiving all ability score prerequisites for feats.

They really only screw over concepts more so than keep things "realistic". Heck a majority of the great magic-user feats don't have a prerequisites*.

DMM Persist, Quicken Spell, yeah... I can keep going on...

With the idea of BAB + Str = Spells then yeah some stuff to keep the fighter from two weapon fighting makes some sense.. But it has been proven that BAB + Str < Spells.

Even for PrCs I tend to waive ability score prerequisites.

Edit: * ability score prerequisites that are outside their primary ability score.

[Andezzar]

You can already do this by being a Ranger. It's ... not the greatest. About the only potential balance issue I can see at first blush is that you'd be more likely to have TWF Fighters wearing full plate, because they won't have to worry about wasting their dex mod.They don't waste their DEX mod. It only does not apply to AC. All other uses (Intiative, bonus to REF save, bonus to skills etc.) still apply.

[BowStreetRunner]

Two-Weapon Fighting is one of the primary ways to increase damage per round for a martial character, but can easily be nerfed by Damage Reduction. I think the DEX requirement primarily serves to keep the Attack and Damage bonuses low for TWF characters by forcing them to put points in DEX that might otherwise go to STR, requiring feat investment in things like Weapon Finesse for Attack and Shadow Blade for damage, on top of the already large number of feats just to get all your TWF attacks.

On the other hand, Power Attacking with a Two-Handed Weapon can dish out similar quantities of damage without suffering much from DR. The logical nerf to Power Attacking (Zerg rush tactics) is easier to overcome with feats such as Cleave and Great Cleave, or by using a reach weapon and Combat Reflexes.

It seems that the Two-Handed Weapon method has a greater advantage over TWF than is necessarily balanced, so removing the DEX penalty would bring the two more closely in line.

[Rubik]

Two-Weapon Fighting is one of the primary ways to increase damage per round for a martial character,Actually, you do less damage than a low-level Power Attack unless you have large amounts of bonus damage, and it costs far less in a lot of ways (stat wastiture, blown feats, weapon costs, damage potential when not full-attacking)... That penalty to attack rolls could easily be funneled into Power Attack for even more damage, as well.

[BowStreetRunner]

Actually, you do less damage than a low-level Power Attack unless you have large amounts of bonus damage, and it costs far less in a lot of ways (stat wastiture, blown feats, weapon costs, damage potential when not full-attacking)... That penalty to attack rolls could easily be funneled into Power Attack for even more damage, as well.

Which just further reinforces the advantage of Two-Handed Weapon use over Two-Weapon Fighting. By allowing a player to pump STR at the expense of DEX without losing TWF you are probably still going to see Two-Handed Weapons do more damage per round. I would say that it is not a game-breaking change at all.

[Sylthia]

It would help martial classes, so I'm for it.

[Deadline]

They don't waste their DEX mod. It only does not apply to AC. All other uses (Intiative, bonus to REF save, bonus to skills etc.) still apply.

Which is still a waste of their Dex mod. My apologies for inferring that it would be completely wasted, it wasn't my intent. And despite my mention of heavy armor, my intent wasn't clear. Sorry about that.

And in the interest of further clarity, I'm all for such a change. I just think it does have a minimal impact on the current balance (which is already bad, so any improvement is good).

[Talderas]

Actually, you do less damage than a low-level Power Attack unless you have large amounts of bonus damage, and it costs far less in a lot of ways (stat wastiture, blown feats, weapon costs, damage potential when not full-attacking)... That penalty to attack rolls could easily be funneled into Power Attack for even more damage, as well.

Power Attack provides an identical damage benefit to TWF and THF unless you're using a light offhand weapon. In fact, due to the nature of how things stack in D&D each additional power attack feat that increases the trade by 1 more point helps TWF more than THF. One increase for THF power attack trades at 1:3 but the same feat trades TWF at 1:2. Things get fuzzy around bab 16 when TWF only gets one more attack rather than two.

[Andezzar]

Power Attack provides an identical damage benefit to TWF and THF. In fact, due to the nature of how things stack in D&D each additional power attack feat that increases the trade helps TWF more than THF. One increase for THF power attack trades at 1:3 but the same feat trades TWF at 1:2. Things get fuzzy around bab 16 when TWF only gets one more attack rather than two.You forget the attack penalty of TWF. Even if Power Attack gives these same extra damage due to twice as many attacks, you still hit less often.

Leap Attack has been errataed to adding +100% of the normal power attack damage. Normal power attack damage for THF is a 2:1 exchange rate, so leap attack makes it 4:1, if you ignore the sentence "If you use this tactic with a two-handed weapon, you instead triple the extra damage from Power Attack." which has not been erased by the erratum. If you still use that sentence the exchange rate goes to 6:1, because the damage from power attack is not doubled with THF but an alternate exchange rate is used.

[Talderas]

You forget the attack penalty of TWF. Even if Power Attack gives these same extra damage due to twice as many attacks, you still hit less often.

I'm not, since all things being equal, TWF with power attack is only 4 attack bonus lower. Without having a build and a foe you cannot readily factor the difference in attack rolls. TWF will have a higher damage output. The only reliable foe aspect you can readily attribute is damage reduction, in which case TWF has to face it 7 times to 4 times THF must. However there are certain comparisons that can be made. For example, since all attacks the TWF is making are at -4 we can readily assume that whatever iterative attack the THF successfully makes, the TWF makes the earlier iterative as well. For example, if the THF hits with all 4 iteratives under power attack then the TWF would also be able to hit with all the attacks up through his 3rd iterative. So the THF would get 4 hits to the TWF's 6. So in this case, the THF only has a damage advantage of 2 over what the TWF would be capable of doing. It's not impressible especially considering a dual wielding longswords (which is what is necessary for PA both weapons) has a +2 damage advantage over the greatsword so you're at a net zero. This is of course assuming no sources of bonus damage or even a weapon enhancement.


Leap Attack has been errataed to adding +100% of the normal power attack damage. Normal power attack damage for THF is a 2:1 exchange rate, so leap attack makes it 4:1, if you ignore the sentence "If you use this tactic with a two-handed weapon, you instead triple the extra damage from Power Attack." which has not been erased by the erratum. If you still use that sentence the exchange rate goes to 6:1, because the damage from power attack is not doubled with THF but an alternate exchange rate is used.

The errata has no bearing a two handed weapon. The instead clause is an instead. You would not get the benefit of the first and second sentence. So according to the errata'd feat you end up with 1:2 for one handed weapons and 1:3 for two handed. If you ignore the second sentence then two handed weapons would get 1:4.

In the case that advantages THF better, the growth of PA damage causes very little difference in the dynamic between the two. Leap attack gives THF a 2 point advantage over TWF. However that is also assuming no weapon enhancements or bonus damage.

[Kudaku]

Suddenly I'm tempted to put 13+ charisma as a requirement for empower/maximize spell, 13+ wisdom on extend spell, and 18+ int on Quicken spell...

That is an interesting question actually - all casters can qualify for the same metamagic feats simply by being casters or taking a few skill ranks in spellcraft. Why do mundanes have to jump through ability score hoops to get their feats?

[Talderas]

Suddenly I'm tempted to put 13+ charisma as a requirement for empower/maximize spell, 13+ wisdom on extend spell, and 18+ int on Quicken spell...

That is an interesting question actually - all casters can qualify for the same metamagic feats simply by being casters or taking a few skill ranks in spellcraft. Why do mundanes have to jump through ability score hoops to get their feats?

Linear fighter, quadratic wizard (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/LinearWarriorsQuadraticWizards).

[Andezzar]

The errata has no bearing a two handed weapon. The instead clause is an instead. You would not get the benefit of the first and second sentence. So according to the errata'd feat you end up with 1:2 for one handed weapons and 1:3 for two handed. If you ignore the second sentence then two handed weapons would get 1:4.Yup the +100% is irrelevant for the extra damage from Leap Attack with THF, but the line says to triple the extra damage from power attack (and not the hypothetical damage from power attack with a one-handed weapon in one hand). The extra damage from power attack with THF is 2:1, not twice what you would get with a one-handed weapon. Since you only have one multiplication, you do not use the weird D&D multiplication and 2*3 = 6

For reference:
If you attack with a two-handed weapon, or with a one-handed weapon wielded in two hands, instead add twice the number subtracted from your attack rolls.
So when you use Leap Attack with THF the only relevant conversion rate is 2:1. That gets tripled.

[SSGoW]

Suddenly I'm tempted to put 13+ charisma as a requirement for empower/maximize spell, 13+ wisdom on extend spell, and 18+ int on Quicken spell...

That is an interesting question actually - all casters can qualify for the same metamagic feats simply by being casters or taking a few skill ranks in spellcraft. Why do mundanes have to jump through ability score hoops to get their feats?

Back when 3.0 was created they thought BAB and Strength was so powerful that it was even with Wizard/Cleric/Others spells.

Pathfinder has the same problem.

5e looks like it will do a simular thing...

But instead of adding a ton of requirements in 3.5 it would be easier (and nicer) to just get rid of stat requirements.

This would also allow martial characters to show growth without waiting 4 levels for a stat increase. Fighter McFighterton wants to be a more agile fighter and his current THF style has taught him? He picks up dodge, mobility, and spring attack. He has an average dex (10). But he has learned how to use a more dexterous maneuver than just charging in and attacking.

This also opens up a bit of leeway for casters or gishes to be more flexible. Casters power won't change and gish's might but... For the most part mundanes gain the most.

[HalfQuart]

The extra damage from power attack with THF is 2:1, not twice what you would get with a one-handed weapon. Since you only have one multiplication, you do not use the weird D&D multiplication and 2*3 = 6
Just for the record, I disagree with this interpretation. But I'm not interested in debating this point, especially not in this thread.


TWF will have a higher damage output.
I also disagree with this assertion. Unfortunately 3.5 folks never got as number-crunchy as 4e folks did with their DPR calculators, but I'm reasonably convinced that the DPR works out in favor of THF with Power Attack, Leap Attack, Combat Brute, etc. over TWF/ITMF/GTWF, etc. DR leans things heavily towards THF, as do situations when you can't full attack (surprised, charging, slowed, etc). The only time TWF really shines is with some sort of extra damage on each hit: sneak attack, bardic music, flaming, crit fishing, etc.

To the OP: I don't think removing the Dex requirements for the TWF tree would break things, although it could make Fighter-types a bit stronger in the low-levels (1-6) when they're already comparatively fairly strong. At higher levels (10+) they're generally not matching up well with an equally optimized Tier 1-2 class, so at that point I don't really see any problem with the change.

[Chronos]

Using two-weapon fighting (assuming a longsword and shortsword) gives you an average of one point of damage more than a greatsword, but it costs you two points of attack bonus, and you can't change either of those numbers. Meanwhile, if you have Power Attack, you can get +2 to damage at the cost of one point of attack bonus, and it's flexible: You can always choose to spend more or less on it.

And this is even before factors like magic weapon costs, and charges or attacks of opportunity where you only get one of your weapons in, or the feats you need to spend on Two-Weapon Fighting that you could spend on other things.

[dascarletm]

Using two-weapon fighting (assuming a longsword and shortsword) gives you an average of one point of damage more than a greatsword, but it costs you two points of attack bonus, and you can't change either of those numbers. Meanwhile, if you have Power Attack, you can get +2 to damage at the cost of one point of attack bonus, and it's flexible: You can always choose to spend more or less on it.

And this is even before factors like magic weapon costs, and charges or attacks of opportunity where you only get one of your weapons in, or the feats you need to spend on Two-Weapon Fighting that you could spend on other things.

Money actually works out better for 2 weapons, (though I know it sounds wrong)

Lets say we are getting the cream-of-the-crop, holy mother of Gygax, +10 Weapon!:smallcool::smallcool::smallcool::smallcool :
Great sword.

with the same investment of dosh ~200,000gp, give or take a couple thou, you could get 2 +7's. From straight enhancement bonus' you have 4 more for TWF. (This arises from costs being exponential and not linear.) Individual enchantment bonus' aside you are better off with 2 +7s.

For the base damage (let's say no tempest for arguments sake) you net a -2 to hit with each weapon for TWF. With power attack that'll translate to -3 dmg per iterative attack you have. The base increase from dice could be different depending on the load-out. Standard being a d8 and a d6 gets you on average 1 more damage. I recall running an analysis for my own reasons and finding that after factoring in more variables the damage gets roughly= if not better on the TWF side.

That last bit however I have no data for atm so take it with a grain of salt.