TWF With Two double weapons

[Aiursfallen]

I'm playing a thri kreen ranger that's gone two weapon fighting. I have two gythkas (also over sized off hand feat).

At level 15 I should have a BAB of 15/10/5. I have a 5 str bonus, and a 4 weapon bonus to all blades.

I'm sitting at 24/19/14 as my attack bonus before any subtractions.

If I full round attack, with TWF, ITWF, and GTWF, I'll have three bonus attacks.

So I should have for my full round attack the following, with subtractions (for TWF and the penalties for OH) now added in:

22/17/12 for Main Hand
22/17/12 X3 for OH (DM said to treat three of the four blades as off hands)
+17/12 from the two feats

Is that correct? Sorry, working with TWF and two double bladed weapons makes keeping track of this stuff kinda difficult. Any help would be greatly appreciated!

[Yuki Akuma]

You should take Multiweapon Fighting instead of Two-Weapon Fighting.

See if you can convince your DM to let you take a Thri-Kreen Ranger racial class that replaces TWF with MWF.

[Aiursfallen]

You should take Multiweapon Fighting instead of Two-Weapon Fighting.

See if you can convince your DM to let you take a Thri-Kreen Ranger racial class that replaces TWF with MWF.

Sorry, I have the multi weapon variant of each of those feats. Sorry for the confusion.

[Zanfire]

Doesn't the mwf text, specifically say it replaces twf for creatures with more than two arms?

[Fax Celestis]

You should take Multiweapon Fighting instead of Two-Weapon Fighting.

See if you can convince your DM to let you take a Thri-Kreen Ranger racial class that replaces TWF with MWF.

He doesn't have to. TWF automatically upgrades to MWF.


Multiweapon Fighting [General]
Prerequisites
Dex 13, three or more hands.

Benefit
Penalties for fighting with multiple weapons are reduced by 2 with the primary hand and reduced by 6 with off hands.

Normal
A creature without this feat takes a -6 penalty on attacks made with its primary hand and a -10 penalty on attacks made with its off hands. (It has one primary hand, and all the others are off hands.) See Two-Weapon Fighting.

Special
This feat replaces the Two-Weapon Fighting feat for creatures with more than two arms.

Improved Multiweapon Fighting (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/epic/feats.htm#improvedMultiweaponFighting) and Greater Multiweapon Fighting (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/epic/feats.htm#greaterMultiweaponFighting) Function in the same way.

EDIT: And no, your full attack routine would look like:

+22/+17+12 Primary, 1.5*STR mod to damage
+22/+17/+12 Secondary, Tertiary, and Quaternary, 0.5*STR mod to damage.

or

+22 primary/+22 off-hand/+22 off-hand/+22 off-hand/+17 primary/+17 off-hand/+17 off-hand/+17 off-hand/+12 primary/+12 off-hand/+12 off-hand/+12 off-hand/+17 bite (since you're a thri-kreen)

[Yuki Akuma]

Welp. I'm a derp.

Yeah that looks right then.

[Kudaku]

@Fax Celestis

Quick question - why 1.5 strength modifier on MWF attacks?

[Fax Celestis]

Because a double weapon is a two-handed weapon that treats its second weapon as a light weapon for the purposes of TWF.

When you wield a two-handed weapon, you inflict 1.5*STR mod bonus damage instead of 1*STR mod.


Off-Hand Weapon
When you deal damage with a weapon in your off hand, you add only ½ your Strength bonus.

Wielding a Weapon Two-Handed
When you deal damage with a weapon that you are wielding two-handed, you add 1½ times your Strength bonus. However, you don’t get this higher Strength bonus when using a light weapon with two hands.

[Darrin]

Because a double weapon is a two-handed weapon that treats its second weapon as a light weapon for the purposes of TWF.

When you wield a two-handed weapon, you inflict 1.5*STR mod bonus damage instead of 1*STR mod.

Not quite. PHB p. 113:

"A character can fight with both ends of a double weapon as if fighting with two weapons, but he or she incurs all the normal attack penalties associated with two-weapon combat, just as though the character were wielding a one-handed weapon and a light weapon."

You can choose to wield a double weapon with a two-handed grip and thus get the x1.5 Str bonus, but you don't get to use the other end as an offhand attack that way.

Aiursfallen: Consider taking 4 levels of Cavestalker (Drow of the Underdark), which would allow you to wield four spiked chains as one-handed weapons.

Also... TWF OffHandbook (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?p=15034585#post15034585).

[lunar2]

actually, a double weapon is treated as a one handed weapon and a light weapon only for the purpose of TWF attack penalties. for all other purposes, it is a two handed weapon. that includes all damage rolls, by RAW.

the DM may rule that it counts as a one handed and a light for damage, or a two handed and an off hand, but by RAW you are wielding it with both hands, not just one, and therefore you get strength and a half on both sides.

[Techwarrior]

Whoa there sir. That statement doesn't mean what you think it means.

The way that the sentence you quoted breaks it into two seperate statements.

"A character can fight with both ends of a double weapon as if fighting with two weapons."

and

"He or she incurs all the normal attack penalties associated with two-weapon combat, just as though the character were wielding a one-handed weapon and a light weapon."

The first sentence allows you to get an extra attack with the other end of this weapon in a full attack, "as if fighting with two weapons." This then references the chart for two weapon fighting, listing attack penalties, and this statement only references attack penalties.

The second sentence clarifies that the character does in fact take penalties for two weapon fighting, and where on that chart the attack penalties fall for a double weapon. In this case that means, as if they were wielding a one handed weapon and a light weapon. This is further clarified in the text that accompanies this table.

What these two statements, even taken together, do not do is alter the actual handedness of a double weapon. Now, since the actual handedness of a weapon is what determines what kind of multiplier we use with our Strength bonus, let's look at that. The quarterstaff is a double weapon, and it's listed as a two-handed weapon. Scanning through the other double weapons, none of them aren't two-handed weapons. So, let's go read about two handed weapons.

Two Handed Weapon
Two hands are required to use a two-handed melee weapon effectively. Apply 1½ times the character’s Strength bonus to damage rolls for melee attacks with such a weapon.

[Darrin]

What these two statements, even taken together, do not do is alter the actual handedness of a double weapon. Now, since the actual handedness of a weapon is what determines what kind of multiplier we use with our Strength bonus, let's look at that. The quarterstaff is a double weapon, and it's listed as a two-handed weapon. Scanning through the other double weapons, none of them aren't two-handed weapons. So, let's go read about two handed weapons.

Two Handed Weapon
Two hands are required to use a two-handed melee weapon effectively. Apply 1½ times the character’s Strength bonus to damage rolls for melee attacks with such a weapon.

I see your point, and it's a good argument. I need to add that to the TWF OffHandbook.

However, PHB p. 134 is where it discusses damage and handedness. I think you've got a solid argument that damage on the primary is x1.5, but there's a bit of a conundrum if offhand damage:

"Off-Hand Weapon: When you deal damage with a weapon in your off hand, you add only 1/2 your Strength bonus.
Wielding a Weapon Two-Handed: When you deal damage with a weapon that you are wielding two-handed, you add 1-1/2 times your Strength bonus."

By your argument, both the primary and offhand are being wielded with two hands. However, page 134 says all offhand attacks get 1/2 Str bonus. So is it x1.5 or x0.5?

Hmm. I need to add that to the Dysfunction thread.

[Kudaku]

If TWF with a double weapon is treated as a 2h weapon, deals 1.5x strength modifier damage and gets the THW power attack progression etc then it strikes me as significantly more viable than most people (including on this forum) rate it...?

[Fax Celestis]

It's not that big of a benefit, to be honest, considering the effective boost is between 3 to 10 points of damage, typically, trending towards the lower end since a TWFer will have to pump DEX in lieu of STR.

[Kudaku]

Well, I found this article (http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/rg/20060912a) covering 3.5 two-weapon fighting rules.

The article starts off by stating the following:


Many people work very hard at making double weapons complex and difficult to use in play. There's no need to agonize over a double weapon, however. In combat, you can use just one end of a double weapon or both ends. If you choose to use both ends, you resolve the attacks exactly as if you were using a one-handed weapon and a light weapon. (One of the examples in the following sections uses a double weapon.)

If you choose to use only one end of a double weapon, you get to choose which end to use (though some double weapons have identical game statistics). No matter which end you choose, you wield the double weapon in two hands and you gain 1-1/2 times your Strength bonus on damage from a hit.

A fair ways further down they list an example of a warrior with 16 strength using a double sword. Damage is determined as though he is fighting with a one-handed and a light weapon - note that his strength modifier is stated as +3 (ie x1 modifier, not x1.5), and +1.

[lunar2]

but articles like that aren't RAW. at best they tell us RAI, which isn't nearly as important. there is really no RAW argument against the main hand getting 1.5x strength on damage. RAW isn't clear on the offhand side. it depends on whether the off hand rules or the two hand rules take precedence.

[Darrin]

there is really no RAW argument against the main hand getting 1.5x strength on damage.


Actually, there is what sounds like a general rule in the text of Power Attack, PHB p. 98:

"Normally, you treat a double weapon as a one-handed weapon and a light weapon. If you choose to use a double weapon like a two-handed weapon, attacking with only one end of it in a round, you treat it as a two-handed weapon."

That appears to be the only place in the Core rules where it discusses how you treat double weapons outside the immediate context of calculating attack penalties. Based on that, a double weapon gets x1.0 Str on primary attacks (one-handed weapon) and x0.5 Str on offhand attacks (light weapon).

[Kudaku]

but articles like that aren't RAW. at best they tell us RAI, which isn't nearly as important. there is really no RAW argument against the main hand getting 1.5x strength on damage. RAW isn't clear on the offhand side. it depends on whether the off hand rules or the two hand rules take precedence.

You really value RAW over RAI when the rule there's ambiguity about is clarified by one of the founders of the rules system itself...? I don't mean to be sarcastic, it just seems like a strange order of priorities.

[Darrin]

You really value RAW over RAI when the rule there's ambiguity about is clarified by one of the founders of the rules system itself...? I don't mean to be sarcastic, it just seems like a strange order of priorities.

For the purposes of RAW, a WotC game designer is on the same footing as everyone else, and everyone interprets ambiguous rules differently. If WotC wants to officially change the rules to clear things up, then there is a mechanism for that: updating/re-releasing the Core rules, and issuing official errata. "Rules of the Game" articles do not fit into either of those categories.

Skip is better than most, but even he gets some things wrong.

[JaronK]

Rules of the Game articles are just as valid as anything else. They're officially published rules by WotC. I may not agree with them either, but they're RAW alright, just as the Swiftblade is.

It's a shame, too, because it would make Double Weapons a lot more viable if they did get 1.5X Str to damage on the mainhand.

JaronK

[lunar2]

Actually, there is what sounds like a general rule in the text of Power Attack, PHB p. 98:

"Normally, you treat a double weapon as a one-handed weapon and a light weapon. If you choose to use a double weapon like a two-handed weapon, attacking with only one end of it in a round, you treat it as a two-handed weapon."

That appears to be the only place in the Core rules where it discusses how you treat double weapons outside the immediate context of calculating attack penalties. Based on that, a double weapon gets x1.0 Str on primary attacks (one-handed weapon) and x0.5 Str on offhand attacks (light weapon).

that's a specific rule, not general. when dealing with power attack, treat a double weapon wielded normally as a one handed weapon and a light weapon. so the main hand gets a 1 for 1 trade off, and the off hand gets no benefit.

@RAW vs. RAI when raw turns out better for an otherwise subpar fighting style than RAI would allow for, then yes, I will definitely take RAW over RAI.

[Darrin]

that's a specific rule, not general. when dealing with power attack, treat a double weapon wielded normally as a one handed weapon and a light weapon. so the main hand gets a 1 for 1 trade off, and the off hand gets no benefit.


The use of "Normally" indicates, as with many other feats, what happens when you are not specifically using Power Attack. This is usually indicated with a "Normal: Without this feat... " paragraph... but here it's in a parenthetical...

Hmmm. Actually, I can't tell exactly what they're trying to say with Power Attack. It looks like a reminder about a general rule, but that general rule is not stated clearly anywhere else. It's not clear how Power Attack works with a double weapon. There's an argument that Power Attack says the primary on a double weapon gets treated as a one-handed weapon being wielded with two hands so x2.0 PA bonus, and the offhand is treated as a light weapon and thus no PA bonus.

[Metahuman1]

Actually, there is what sounds like a general rule in the text of Power Attack, PHB p. 98:

"Normally, you treat a double weapon as a one-handed weapon and a light weapon. If you choose to use a double weapon like a two-handed weapon, attacking with only one end of it in a round, you treat it as a two-handed weapon."

That appears to be the only place in the Core rules where it discusses how you treat double weapons outside the immediate context of calculating attack penalties. Based on that, a double weapon gets x1.0 Str on primary attacks (one-handed weapon) and x0.5 Str on offhand attacks (light weapon).

Which tells me exactly no one at Wizards of the Coast has ever in there life had real martial arts training, particularly with staffs or other weapons.

[Fax Celestis]

Which tells me exactly no one at Wizards of the Coast has ever in there life had real martial arts training, particularly with staffs or other weapons.

...or they took a gamist approach instead of a simulationist (highly more likely, considering a lot of other physics-related vagueries and inconsistencies in the RAW).

[Metahuman1]

...or they took a gamist approach instead of a simulationist (highly more likely, considering a lot of other physics-related vagueries and inconsistencies in the RAW).

Yes but it's highly irksome for a guy I'm playing with stats that say "Solidly in Olympic Athlete/ Spec Ops territory." in terms of his physical capability's to not be able to pull fighting moves that I, an out of practice amateur hobbyist can pull with little trouble.

More so when the Hippy is literally turning himself into the animal kingdom and rallying the entire forest to unite and fight with him, the preacher is literally walking on water, turning water to wine, feeding thousands on a meal for 1, and getting people to come back from the dead, and the bearded dude with the pointy hat blows stuff up, rewrites peoples minds and beams up with out scotty's help and rewrites the flow of time itself by reading a book, praying to god, and getting back to nature.

I know, fantasy, but shouldn't that mean the warriors can also be not just impossibly good, but do entirely possible things with there body's the fighting skills?

[Fax Celestis]

But maaaaaaaagic

But in all seriousness, they seemed to go with Rule of Awesome for spellcasters and realistic rules for noncasters.

[Kudaku]

@RAW vs. RAI when raw turns out better for an otherwise subpar fighting style than RAI would allow for, then yes, I will definitely take RAW over RAI.

I have no problem with anyone houseruling, housebrewing or otherwise making improvements to TWF - like most of the posters on this forum I agree that TWF is sub-par. What I don't really get is why you're making a RAW argument when there's (near as I can tell) clear and RAW-legal clarifications posted that contradictthat it really is RAW. Is it really that important that a houserule improving a lacking combat style has a "RAW justification"?

Oh well, no real point arguing this. Agree to disagree? :smallsmile:

[TuggyNE]

I know, fantasy, but shouldn't that mean the warriors can also be not just impossibly good, but do entirely possible things with there body's the fighting skills?

The crazy talk, it burns us! Mundane is mundaneeeee!

[Metahuman1]

It's crazy to want my character who's suppose to be able fight like a hero out of a Robert E. Howard story to be able to swing a stick with as much or more capability then I would have in real life?

Fax: Yes, I've notice this, and I do find it irritating. But en, I try to find ways around it. Hence my undying love for Book of Nine Swords.

[TuggyNE]

It's crazy to want my character who's suppose to be able fight like a hero out of a Robert E. Howard story to be able to swing a stick with as much or more capability then I would have in real life?

You did notice the coloring, right? That's the color I use for Chief Circle levels of goofy misconceptions or misassumptions.

[Metahuman1]

...
Sorry, got use to looking for blue for comments not meant to be taken at face value. Apologies.

[Fax Celestis]

You did notice the coloring, right? That's the color I use for Chief Circle levels of goofy misconceptions or misassumptions.

Just like I use dark orange for fantastic racism.

Poncy elves took the good colors already, so I had to go with a terrible one that I can't see due to my colorblindness in order to be fantastically racist.

[Gwendol]

The use of "Normally" indicates, as with many other feats, what happens when you are not specifically using Power Attack. This is usually indicated with a "Normal: Without this feat... " paragraph... but here it's in a parenthetical...

Hmmm. Actually, I can't tell exactly what they're trying to say with Power Attack. It looks like a reminder about a general rule, but that general rule is not stated clearly anywhere else. It's not clear how Power Attack works with a double weapon. There's an argument that Power Attack says the primary on a double weapon gets treated as a one-handed weapon being wielded with two hands so x2.0 PA bonus, and the offhand is treated as a light weapon and thus no PA bonus.

Yeah, that would be my reading as well. The double weapons aren't that well thought out. It's likely no-one ever tried TWF with a double weapon using PA, at least not while actually thinking about the RAW.