PDA

View Full Version : Two Weapon Fighting and magic weapons



henebry
2007-01-24, 04:17 PM
Okay, I know there's been a lot of debate on Two Weapon Fighting lately. Talya recently recommended including Two Weapon Defense as a benefit of taking TWF ("Why Two Weapon Fighting Sucks" (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=31844)), and that thread ran to 20 pages before sinking to the second page of this forum.

If TWF is mediocre at low levels, it gets much worse at higher levels. That's because you have to spend twice as much to "keep up" in magic weapons when compared with a single-weapon fighter.

My proposal would allow the creation of two-weapon pairs, in which the cost of magic enhancement for the secondary weapon is at 50% discount (though you'd still pay full cost for both masterwork weapons). This reflects that magic enhancements on a secondary weapon simply aren't as valuable as those added to one's main weapon. To qualify for the discount, the magic enhancement of the secondary weapon would have to be identical to that of the primary, full-cost weapon. (So +1 Flaming on the Rapier means +1 Flaming on the Short Sword.) And the secondary weapon would lose its enhancement when not wielded in company with the primary one, or (alternatively) if the primary weapon weren't in the possession of the wielder. (So you can't lend one of the weapons to a friend. Or sell one to make a profit.)

I've just finished creating a spreadsheet comparison of a TWF character (dex-based, wielding a rapier and short sword with weapon finesse) and a single-wielding character (str-based, wielding a bastard sword one-handed), and I took care to include the effect of crits. The TWF character produces less average damage/round, which is fine, but when both characters start adding magical enhancements to their weapons, this gap increases (for the simple reason that, given similar resources, one of the TWF character's weapons lags behind in magic enhancement). On the other hand, if both the TWF character's weapons are enhanced at the same rate as the single-wielder's weapon, the gap closes (for the simple reason that he gets an extra chance to do +d6 with a frost weapon). That's not good either; both characters should remain essentially on par as wealth rises and magic enhancements are added. My proposal to allow the TWF character to buy enhancements for both his weapons at 1.5 x the cost of a single weapon attempts to strike a balance, keeping the gap between TWF and single-wielders constant as wealth rises.

Matthew
2007-01-24, 04:23 PM
An interesting proposition, but I really think the core of the problemm resides in the mechanics. There are enough other things to spend Gold on in D&D and methods of acquiring magical weapons without having to create a special rule for matched pair weapons.

On the other hand, if this works for you, then I don't really see a huge problem in introducing it into a given campaign. What will you do about Double Weapons? I have long thought it not necessary to enchant a Staff twice...

henebry
2007-01-24, 04:37 PM
What will you do about Double Weapons? I have long thought it not necessary to enchant a Staff twice...

Well, double weapons are the perfect instance for my proposed rule: 1.5 x the base cost to enchant both ends of a double weapon, once again with the stipulation that both enchantments must be identical.

Mr Pink
2007-01-24, 06:56 PM
what happenned to the days when creating a character with two weapons was done because that's how you wanted to role play your character. Now it's about powergaming, and making sure that every skill point, ability point and feat gets you the most out of your character...

what about taking a 6 in wisdom and 14 INT, and role playign that disadvantage... same with TWF if it's THAT bad, just role play it... u know it doens't work out as effectively, but your char doesn't...

D&D is not about competitiveness... it's about having fun, and designing chars with role playing in mind, not damage output per round...

Matthew
2007-01-24, 06:59 PM
I dare say we are acquainted with the virtues of roleplaying and such. The point in this little project is to propose House Rules for making Two Weapon Fighting a mechanically effective option, as well.

Caelestion
2007-01-24, 07:00 PM
I can understand a quarterstaff needing identical imbuements, but not a two-bladed sword. Besides which, any TWF-er with identical weapons is just downright dull.

Matthew
2007-01-24, 07:03 PM
Good point, that.

Jack Mann
2007-01-24, 07:05 PM
Pink, most people don't have fun if they can't do anything useful. Not everyone wants to play sidekick. Most people play D&D so that they can be a hero. They want to at least contribute to the team's effort. A TWF fighter can't contribute very well, which can lead to feelings of frustration. If your character might as well not be there when it comes time to getting things done, then why even bother?

People shouldn't have to choose between using a style they like and being effective.

Bears With Lasers
2007-01-24, 07:08 PM
u know it doens't work out as effectively, but your char doesn't...


Actually, odds are good your character DOES. There's a reason you didn't see people runningaround the battlefield with two longswords, say--they knew it wasn't effective.

When it comes to life-or-death things like combat, people are going to use the best tools availible, for survival's sake.

Yakk
2007-01-24, 07:22 PM
What if you want to role play an effective TWF character? :)

Orzel
2007-01-24, 07:23 PM
I like the idea. High level weapons cost twice as much as armor and shields. This could help out the two bladed sword rangers and the fighters with a +1 flaming burst, keen longsword and a +3 icy burst short sword.

Because TWF only really pay offs with weapon enchancements.

Note: Greatswords and armor spikes should not be a weapon pair.

Yakk
2007-01-24, 09:41 PM
Boost the cost of two handed items by 50%. (you might want to allow + to damage to scale at 1.5x normal rate in this case, and bonus damage dice to grow by 1 die size.)

Drop the cost of enchanting light weapons by 25%.

Normal+Empty: 1.0 base
Dual light: 1.5 base
Sword+Board: 1.5 base
Two handed: 1.5 base
Double weapon: 1.75 base
Normal+Light: 1.75 base

Viscount Einstrauss
2007-01-24, 09:44 PM
I was thinking of implementing "twin" weapons in my campaign. Basically, weapons that are regular magic weapons alone, but gain special abilities whenever both are wielded together. I was also considering making a legacy weapon out of a pair like that.

OzymandiasVolt
2007-01-24, 10:09 PM
Note: Greatswords and armor spikes should not be a weapon pair.
Why? You can't swing a sword downward and then follow up with a spiked shoulder ram, followed by an upward sword swing, followed by a spiked elbow to the face?

MrNexx
2007-01-24, 11:35 PM
When it comes to life-or-death things like combat, people are going to use the best tools availible, for survival's sake.

Then why didn't you see everyone running around the battlefield, leaping like maniacs with honking big greatswords, instead of using sword-and-board?

I mean, if we're going to talk about effective vs. cool...

Bears With Lasers
2007-01-24, 11:41 PM
Because TWF happens to be ineffective in both RL and D&D, whereas leap attacking is only effective in D&D and sword-and-board is only effective in real life. In the world of D&D, effective warriors really do jump at the end of a charge.

MrNexx
2007-01-24, 11:47 PM
Why was it made to be effective in D&D though?

Because it looks cool.

Once that rationale goes away, I'll take the nerfing of TWF more sanguinely.

Bears With Lasers
2007-01-24, 11:56 PM
Who cares why it was made to be effective? The point stands--TWF doesn't make sense from a "what would my character do?" standpoint, because odds are, your characters wants to survive.

MrNexx
2007-01-25, 12:05 AM
I care. I care about design philosophy, and how it influences the decisions made, and how adhering to it can make a more coherent game. If your design philosophy is going to be "If it looks cool, it's going to be effective", then make sure things that look cool are effective. If not, figure out why leaping like a maniac DOESN'T just make you a juicy target for people.

Indon
2007-01-25, 12:06 AM
what happenned to the days when creating a character with two weapons was done because that's how you wanted to role play your character.


Alive and well outside of places like this, I'd have to say.

That said, I think at _least_ double weapons should be fixed. Seriously, seperate enchantment costs is just ridiculous.

Extending select two-weapon pairs into de facto double weapons is a simple step which doesn't strike me as exploitable by powergaming players, and yet helpful to players who just want cool-looking weapons.

Bears With Lasers
2007-01-25, 12:07 AM
I care. I care about design philosophy, and how it influences the decisions made, and how adhering to it can make a more coherent game. If your design philosophy is going to be "If it looks cool, it's going to be effective", then make sure things that look cool are effective. If not, figure out why leaping like a maniac DOESN'T just make you a juicy target for people.

See, by "who cares?" I mean "how is it relevant to the point?"

Talya
2007-01-25, 12:12 AM
I like integrating TWF with two weapon defense, because that was the only way fighting with two weapons was ever a viable fighting style IRL - rapier and main gauche, the parrying dagger. It was not weilded for making regular attacks with, but rather primarily for defending and getting in the occasional opportunistic jab.

Thomas
2007-01-25, 05:58 AM
Note: Greatswords and armor spikes should not be a weapon pair.

Real two-handed swords (not zweihanders, but the actual longswords) were used in conjunction with wrestling and body-to-body combat (I wouldn't say "unarmed"...) - using armor spikes seems a great D&D approximation of that style.


I like integrating TWF with two weapon defense, because that was the only way fighting with two weapons was ever a viable fighting style IRL - rapier and main gauche, the parrying dagger. It was not weilded for making regular attacks with, but rather primarily for defending and getting in the occasional opportunistic jab.

Warhammer Fantasy RP and RuneQuest do two-weapon fighting right; if you're wielding a second weapon (a shield counts as a weapon), you get an extra parry with it. Of course D&D has no parries, so it doesn't really work.

daggaz
2007-01-25, 06:54 AM
I fail entirely to see how having two weapons puts you at a disadvantage compared to having just one when it comes to enchanting them.You have a sword. It costs x gold to enchant to +5.You have a dagger. It also costs x gold to enchant to +5. Now you are equal. You have 'kept up,' and equally. Now you add another dagger. Sure you gotta toss another x gold on it for the +5, but now you have TWO weapons at +5 instead of just one. Its better. Of course it costs more.

MrNexx
2007-01-25, 07:31 AM
The problem, Daggaz, is that TWF is sub-optimal under the rules. You've got a -2 to all your attacks, and your off-hand weapon either can't take advantage of power attack, or you've got even larger penalties, or you've blown even more feats on the style.

On the other hand, someone who's spent far less gold on their single, two-handed weapon, and one feat to use Power Attack, can usually out-perform you. If they take the same -2 to attacks that you get "for free", they get a +4 to damage... which is about what you'll get out of that second weapon you're carrying before enchantment. Yes, you have two chances to hit, and thus two chances to critical, but that's why people generally only take TWF if they have sources of extra damage, such as sneak attack... it becomes far more effective if you're getting bonus dice.

Meanwhile, you have sword-and-board, as its called, which is clearly inferior to all of them, despite being the most common style for a reason.

Orzel
2007-01-25, 09:41 AM
Greatswords + Armor Spikes would the be the first way to abuse this house rule to get a cheap high powered weapon pair (2d6 and 1d6 on a medium). It's not a huge abuse though.

Melee Weapon styles pros and cons

Weapon & Shield
Pro: High AC. Cheap.
Con: Full hands

Two handed non-reach weapon
Pro: Highest base damage. Larger weapon. Double Power attack damage. Cheap.
Con: Full Hands. No AC bonus outside of Animated Shields.

Two handed reach weapon
Pro: Reach. Larger weapon. Double Power attack damage. Various bonuses. Cheap.
Con: Reach. Full Hands. No AC bonus outside of Animated Shields.

Two Weapon Fighting
Pro: Highest total damage? Double up on weapon enhancements/materials. Opional +1-2 AC.
Con: Full Hands. Very expensive feat and cost wise to make work. -2 attack penalty. Extra Penalties (damage with light offhand, attack for onehande offhand, extra feat with double weapons, )

One handed weapon.
Pro. Always have a free hand. Anti-ranged ability.
Con: Feat expensive. No AC bonus outside of Animated Shields. UAS are usual terrible.

Unarmed
Pro: Yeah Monks!
Con: Lol Monks.

daggaz
2007-01-25, 09:58 AM
I just meant the deal about how much it costs to enchant them and such... I realized you dont have as high a chance to hit with the second weapon which makes it sub-par.

What I didnt realize was that you get the -2 to hit with your main weapon as well. How in the nine hells did they figure that out? Whats the friggin difference between attacking while carrying a 10lb shield in one hand or attacking while wielding a dagger there instead? I would say it sounds easier with a dagger. Sure you gotta concentrate a little more to maintain two attacks (but you gotta concentrate to block effectively with a buckler as well), but I would say the main attack is an innate ability for all races, and using two attacks shouldn't be too far behind. (just takes a little training -hence the feat).

Anyhow thats just dumb. I suppose they are trying to balance the free slot you get for adding bonuses, energy damage, and additional crits/sneak attack damage.

henebry
2007-01-25, 10:13 AM
I like the idea. High level weapons cost twice as much as armor and shields. This could help out the two bladed sword rangers and the fighters with a +1 flaming burst, keen longsword and a +3 icy burst short sword. Glad for your enthusiasm, but you'd have to pay full price for this combination under my proposal. My idea is not that you get a "volume discount" when purchasing two weapons; my idea is that the second weapon is crafted as a resonant pair to the primary one. Its half-price enchantment allows it to participate in the enchantment given to the primary wepon, so if you buy a +2 Frost Burst longsword, you can get a resonant short sword which participates in the longsword's +2 Frost Burst ability.

My aim is to keep the TWF who wields a +2 Frost Burst longsword on par with the Fighter wielding a +2 Frost Burst Greatsword. The greatsword wielder starts at level 1 with an advantage (a topic for another day), but this advantage currently increases as magical enhancements are added to his weapon. If the TWF character is allowed to buy at half price a second sword with the identical enhancement (+2 Frost Burst short sword) the power gap stays about even. They started off with 3 unenchanted weapons, and they now both have 3 identically enchanted weapons. Yes, there's a slight comparative advantage in having two frost burst weapons (another chance to do an extra +d6 or even +d10), but the short sword does cost something.


I can understand a quarterstaff needing identical imbuements, but not a two-bladed sword. Besides which, any TWF-er with identical weapons is just downright dull.I agree, but it's not my goal here to entertain you. There's a distinct advantage in buying a secondary weapon that complements the primary one, and for that reason you should pay full price to do this.


I fail entirely to see how having two weapons puts you at a disadvantage compared to having just one when it comes to enchanting them.You have a sword. It costs x gold to enchant to +5.You have a dagger. It also costs x gold to enchant to +5. Now you are equal. You have 'kept up,' and equally. Now you add another dagger. Sure you gotta toss another x gold on it for the +5, but now you have TWO weapons at +5 instead of just one. Its better. Of course it costs more.

Another way of looking at my proposal is that a weapon costs a lot (far more than a wand of shocking grasp that does 2d8 on every touch attack) because a primary weapon can be used multiple times in the same round. But a secondary weapon can only be used once (well, twice if you take improved TWF). So a secondary weapon is, in game terms, much less valuable. This said, it would be abusive to allow a TWF character to buy a half-price secondary weapon that also functions as a "backup": flaming burst to complement a frost burst primary weapon, ghost touch to complement a vorpal primary, etc. So if you want complementary abilities, you pay full price and enchant the secondary weapon normally.


Boost the cost of two handed items by 50%. (you might want to allow + to damage to scale at 1.5x normal rate in this case, and bonus damage dice to grow by 1 die size.)

Drop the cost of enchanting light weapons by 25%.This seems to me an interesting, but far more radical alternative to my proposal. The 3.0/3.5 gods plainly decided that weapon enchantment should cost the same, regardless of weapon size (from tiny to gargantuan) or weapon type (from light to 2-handed). Perhaps they had good reason for doing so. I'm loath to propose opening the can of worms; hence my "band-aid" approach to fix a problem which which the current system produces for the TWF character.


I like integrating TWF with two weapon defense, because that was the only way fighting with two weapons was ever a viable fighting style IRL - rapier and main gauche, the parrying dagger. It was not weilded for making regular attacks with, but rather primarily for defending and getting in the occasional opportunistic jab.I absolutely agree, Talya. I don't see my proposal as an alternative to your idea for adding TWD to TWF. Your idea addresses a fundamental inequity between the TWF character and the single-weapon wielder, present from level 1 onward. Mine addresses an additional power gap which opens up as characters gain weath and begin purchasing/finding magic weapons.

Tola
2007-01-25, 10:28 AM
Weapon & Shield
Pro: High AC. Cheap

Not entirely-You cannot make effective Shield Bashes, unless you attack with ONLY the Shield, or invest in the Two-Weapon tree to drop the penalties to a manageable level.

Indon
2007-01-25, 10:31 AM
Greatswords + Armor Spikes would the be the first way to abuse this house rule to get a cheap high powered weapon pair (2d6 and 1d6 on a medium). It's not a huge abuse though.


Well, I presume there would only be specific weapon sets determined by the DM that work like this; they would, after all, effectively be double weapons. You can't buy one-half of a quarterstaff and one half of some other double weapon and tack the two ends together and say you're proficient at it because you were proficient with the two original double weapons.

Or, in other words, an exotic double-weapon pair like Greatsword/Armor Spikes (magically paired together to work in conjunction, not like the normal weapons themselves would be) should require an exotic weapon specialization.

Fax Celestis
2007-01-25, 10:35 AM
Weapon & Shield
Pro: High AC. Cheap

Not entirely-You cannot make effective Shield Bashes, unless you attack with ONLY the Shield, or invest in the Two-Weapon tree to drop the penalties to a manageable level.

Not true: you can alternate between your weapons. IE: if your attack pattern looks like +9/+4, you can swing with your longsword on +9, and shield bash on +4.

Piccamo
2007-01-25, 12:01 PM
what happenned to the days when creating a character with two weapons was done because that's how you wanted to role play your character.

Now it's about powergaming, and making sure that every skill point, ability point and feat gets you the most out of your character...

It is not only possible, but easy, to roleplay and powergame at the same time.


what about taking a 6 in wisdom and 14 INT, and role playign that disadvantage... same with TWF if it's THAT bad, just role play it... u know it doens't work out as effectively, but your char doesn't...

Thats what dump stats are for :P I am a "powergamer" in that I make the most effective possible character within my character concept. There is no reason to not take advantage of certain aspects presented by your particular concept. If you want to make a smart fighter with low strength and using light weapons, why not go 3 levels into Swashbuckler and take advantage of that? In most epic stories where the main character has a significant weakness, it either turns into a strength or can be used in some way, so why not DnD?


D&D is not about competitiveness... it's about having fun, and designing chars with role playing in mind, not damage output per round...

No one in my group plays to be competitive, they play to have fun. In having fun, they play characters that can do what they want to do; as has been said, people want to play a hero. Also, damage output per round is a very inefficient way to kill people in DnD :smalltongue:



Meanwhile, you have sword-and-board, as its called, which is clearly inferior to all of them, despite being the most common style for a reason.

Sword & Board is not dead. It is simply simulated by a 2-handed weapon and an animated shield. In a world where thats possible and maybe even common, it makes more sense that this would replace the "real world" Sword & Board.

MrNexx
2007-01-25, 12:07 PM
Sword & Board is not dead. It is simply simulated by a 2-handed weapon and an animated shield. In a world where thats possible and maybe even common, it makes more sense that this would replace the "real world" Sword & Board.


Only amongst those who can afford a +3 shield, perhaps.

Piccamo
2007-01-25, 12:12 PM
I do wish that traditional Sword & Board were more prevalent, which is why I'm working on a home-brewed D20 system that is compatible with DnD classes. I was thinking of creating a Shield Skill that you use to parry attacks with the shield, though it would probably use an attack of opportunity. The +3 is 9000gp and, while expensive to commoners, is not expensive to adventurers. The game is designed with the assumption that most characters are going to be adventurers.

MrNexx
2007-01-25, 12:30 PM
9000 is not expensive at what level?

Not everyone is 20th level.

Matthew
2007-01-25, 12:53 PM
Not true: you can alternate between your weapons. IE: if your attack pattern looks like +9/+4, you can swing with your longsword on +9, and shield bash on +4.

Remember, though, Fax, you must have at least invested in Two Weapon Fighting to ignore the -4 for using your Off Hand in an Iterative Attack Routine.

Daggaz:
The reason there is a -2 to Primary and Off Hand Attacks is because in previous editions you could eliminate all penalties, which tended to over power Two Weapon Fighting. It is perfectly reasonable to have a -2 AB penalty when using Two Weapon Fighting. Remember, though, that you do not suffer this penalty unless you use the Two Weapon Fighting attack Routine [i.e. a Character with Weapon and Shield does not suffer the Two Weapon Fighting penalties unless he elects to make an Off Hand Attack in addition to his Primary Attack as part of his Attack Routine].

Folding Two Weapon Defence into Two Weapon Fighting is the most appealing and quick fix. It wouldn't be the only measure I would take, though.

Piccamo:
I use exactly such a system in my House Ruled (A)D&D Game, though it doesn't count against Attacks of Opportunity, but rather against Attacks. There were rules in 2.x for doing more or less the same thing.

Piccamo
2007-01-25, 01:01 PM
9000 is not expensive at what level?

Not everyone is 20th level.

By 10th level 9000gp is significant, but not out of the question for such a useful item.
What do you think of this for a shield skill to help out 2-weapon fighting and sword+board?

SHIELD (DEX)

Check: You may parry incoming attacks. A succesful check lets you take half damage from an incoming ranged or melee attack. A success by 5 or more lets you take no damage. The shield skill is an opposed check; the DC to mitigate damage is equal to your attacker's attack roll. You gain a bonus to your check based on what you have equipped in your offhand, as follows:
{table=head] Equipment|Skill Modifier
One-handed Weapon|+0
Light Weapon|+1
Light Shield|+2
Heavy Shield|+4
Animated Shield|-2*[/table]*Because you don't actually hold on to the shield it is harder to intercept incoming attacks with it.

Action: Immediate. A shield check is used in place of an attack of opportunity.

Special: A use of the Shield skill uses up one attack of opportunity for this round.

Matthew:
I never played 2nd edition, so I really have no experience with it. What do you think of the skill I propose here?

Matthew
2007-01-25, 01:07 PM
Piccamo:
You should check out the 3.x Feat Arrow Block, which allows a Character with a Shield to negate a single incoming Ranged Attack.

The main problem with opposed rolls is 'more rolling'. You might just want to make the Skill Check against the original attack total. Also, introducing new skills is always controversial territory in D&D. I would just use BAB modified by Strength or Dexterity and the Shield Bonus (maybe Shield Bonus x2, as you are proposing).

A Character should also have to be aware of the attack in order to block or parry it.

Piccamo
2007-01-25, 01:14 PM
The problem with straight opposing it by BAB modified by Strength or Dexterity is that at high levels it will be a useless ability. Monsters that deal physical damage will have enough strength to defeat you. A skill can be modified by items, making it get pumped higher and giving a better chance at high levels. What book is Arrow Block in? Instead of making a new roll, it would make sense to just use the original if for no other reason than speeding up combat (which can take a long time as is).

jjpickar
2007-01-25, 01:22 PM
I've mentioned it before and I have to mention it again. There are certain double weapons that do d10/d10 damage and if wielded by a certain base character race (Thri-Keen) whom are blessed with four arms. :smallbiggrin: After considering this, TWF becomes much more attractive I think.

Player: (Looking at calculator) 80 damage.

DM: (confused) How? your weapons aren't even magical.

Answer: More attacks= more chances to critical.:smallbiggrin: :smallbiggrin: :smallbiggrin: :smallbiggrin: :smallbiggrin: :smallbiggrin: :smallbiggrin: :smallbiggrin: :smallbiggrin: :smallbiggrin: :smallbiggrin: :smallbiggrin: :smallbiggrin: :smallbiggrin: :smallbiggrin: :smallbiggrin: :smallbiggrin:

Matthew
2007-01-25, 01:24 PM
I don't know about that. Fighters get plenty of Magical Strength Bonuses and you can always have the Shield Enchantment Bonuses count as well. You could also slot in Feats to enhance it, such as Block, Improved Block, Greater Block and Perfect Block or whatever or you could have Two Weapon Defence stack with it.

Block Arrow can be found in Heroes of Battle

Piccamo
2007-01-25, 01:26 PM
I've mentioned it before and I have to mention it again. There are certain double weapons that do d10/d10 damage and if wielded by a certain base character race (Thri-Keen) whom are blessed with four arms. :smallbiggrin: After considering this, TWF becomes much more attractive I think.

Player: (Looking at calculator) 80 damage.

DM: (confused) How? your weapons aren't even magical.

Answer: More attacks= more chances to critical.:smallbiggrin: :smallbiggrin: :smallbiggrin: :smallbiggrin: :smallbiggrin: :smallbiggrin: :smallbiggrin: :smallbiggrin: :smallbiggrin: :smallbiggrin: :smallbiggrin: :smallbiggrin: :smallbiggrin: :smallbiggrin: :smallbiggrin: :smallbiggrin: :smallbiggrin:
Hmm...wouldn't that be multiweapon fighting rather than two-weapon fighting? Unfortunately there is no line to progress the multiweapon fighting like there is for two-weapon fighting. You also have to be rolling fairly well for all of those land and that is only on a full attack...

Matthew
2007-01-25, 01:29 PM
Sure there are: Monster Feats (http://www.d20srd.org/indexes/monsterFeats.htm)

Piccamo
2007-01-25, 01:32 PM
I don't know about that. Fighters get plenty of Magical Strength Bonuses and you can always have the Shield Enchantment Bonuses count as well. You could also slot in Feats to enhance it, such as Block, Improved Block, Greater Block and Perfect Block or whatever or you could have Two Weapon Defence stack with it.

Block Arrow can be found in Heroes of Battle

With the skill or not you could have those feats block it, but the reason I like it as a skill is so that fighters have something to spend skill points that helps their primary role, while it also helps non-fighters who want to have a similar function by not having to rely on feats. Also, if its basically opposed attack rolls it puts non-full BAB classes at a bigger disadvantage with it.


Sure there are: Monster Feats (http://www.d20srd.org/indexes/monsterFeats.htm)

I cannot get to that SRD from here at work, I use http://www.systemreferencedocuments.org/35/sovelior_sage/monsterFeats.html which only has one Multiweapon Fighting feat instead of a progression, like two-weapon fighting has.

Matthew
2007-01-25, 01:36 PM
Sure, but Fighters don't get enough Skill Points to begin with and Characters without Full Base Attack Bonus progression should be at a disadvantage, in my opinion.

The long and short of it is that there is an Improved Multi Weapon Fighting Feat and a Greater Multi Weapon Fighting Feat available, as well as a Perfect Multi Weapon Fighting Feat available at Epic Levels.

Tola
2007-01-25, 01:42 PM
And these feats outright replace the Two-Weapon Fighting tree for those creatures with more thna two arms.

Piccamo
2007-01-25, 01:44 PM
I'm just going to drop a shield skill issue.

I was unaware of there being a tree for multiweapon fighting, but then I don't really have my books here at work and I never played a character that had that many arms.

KoDT69
2007-01-25, 01:59 PM
I do like the TWF style myself. I think it was much better in 2nd edition though. If you ever got a copy of the Complete Fighter's Handbook, it had some good stuff in there. I did come up with a workable-for-my-group set of house rules for TWF. All examples based on the use of identical weapon types of medium size and using the base fighter class. Not too far off from the book but check it out.

FEATS / Primary / Off-hand / Level / # Off-hand Attacks
None / -4 / -10 / 1 / 1
TWF / -3 / -6 / 1+ / 1
Ambidexterity / -3 / -3 / 1+ / 1
Improved TWF / -2 / -2 / 6+ / 2
Greater TWF / -1 / -1 / 16+ / 3
Perfect TWF / 0 / 0 / 21+ / 4
Silly forum software won't do tabs or multiple spaces :smallfurious:

Using these attack modifiers we also have a house ruling on STR bonus. You get the same STR bonus as long as you take Ambidexterity, 0.5x without it. Likewise, to be fair to the two-hander style, we allow the Ambidex feat to give them 2x their STR modifier on damage instead of 1.5. Sure it seems to equal out and leave the TWF'er still behind, but factor in that a pair of +2 longswords is cheaper than a single +3 greatsword. Add sonic burst or whatever epic enchantment to each later adds up much faster, provided you can afford it. My group will always buy the best possible gear even if they're reduced from riches to using the Profession skill to earn a few silver to buy dinner. It happened just last Tuesday!

Matthew
2007-01-25, 02:05 PM
Two Weapon Fighting was very broken in (A)D&D 2.x, especially via The Complete Fighter's Handbook. Indeed, it was the Two Handed Fighting of (A)D&D 2.x.

henebry
2007-01-25, 02:16 PM
Two Weapon Fighting was very broken in (A)D&D 2.x, especially via The Complete Fighter's Handbook. Indeed, it was the Two Handed Fighting of (A)D&D 2.x.

Interesting. Bet that explains why TWF is so underpowered in 3.0/3.5. Swing of the ol' pendulum.

Matthew
2007-01-25, 02:18 PM
Very much so. In 3.0 you had to have much higher BAB to gain access to Improved Two Weapon Fighting and Greater Two Weapon Fighting, but until Power Attack was changed for 3.5, there wasn't such a great gap.

DeathQuaker
2007-01-25, 04:52 PM
If TWF is mediocre at low levels, it gets much worse at higher levels. That's because you have to spend twice as much to "keep up" in magic weapons when compared with a single-weapon fighter.


Hmmm. I don't see how that works.

Joe Greatsword wants a magic weapon that does good fire damage and some electricity damage. Chuck Florentine wants the same thing.

Joe Greatsword orders a +1 (req. basic enchantment), Shocking, Flaming Burst sword. This is equivalent to a +4 weapon, so Joe Greatsword shells out 32000 GP plus the cost of a masterwork great sword.

Chuck Florentine decides to get a +1 Flaming Burst Rapier, and a +1 Shocking Short Sword. That's the equivalent of a +3 and +2 weapon respectively, so he's paying a total of 26,000 GP (8,000 + 18,000) plus mw weapon cost.

Don't see how Chuck is paying more. Yeah, his weapons individually do less damage, but the paying less for it balances out.

Also, as is the case with TWF in general, he has the benefit of versatility--if he's fighting something he knows is going to ignore the shocking damage, he'll just hit with the Flaming Burst weapon, and likely has abilities like sneak attack, precise strike, or what have you, to make sure that hurts enough. Nah, maybe not as much as Joe, but enough, certainly significantly ouchily.
Or say, if it was a long sword instead of a rapier, he could sheathe the off-hand weapon for that fight and swing it two-handed for a little extra damage. Then go to doing multiple elemental damage when he needed to and so on.

Also, if we are staying with the rapier, the rapier's more likely to crit more often than the greatsword, so Chuck gets more benefit from purchasing the flaming burst weapon to begin with. Yeah, Joe does more damage to begin with, but Chuck can make up for it in ways like this.

And some weapon enchantments could work nicely for a TWFer better than a THer... a defending weapon, say. That's what "Main Gauches" (left-hand weapons) were supposed to be for, anyway, right? So make Chuck's short sword a +3 Defender--if he needs to, he can plunk that extra enhancement into AC, while still hitting damn well with his on hand weapon. Joe with a Defender needs to choose between hitting and AC alone. (Not that Joe will necessarily want a Defender, but... just the idea that some weapon enchantments are ideal for different kinds of char builds.)

What else? Oh, magical materials. If Chuck wants to go to the lower planes to hunt some bad guys, he can make his rapier cold iron and his short sword silver. Demons and Devils look out! Joe's only got one weapon, and you can't make one weapon out of multiple materials, so he's gotta choose whose damage reduction he wants to beat. I think if Chuck wants that advantage, he should pay for it though.

Not doing massive mega damage with one hit does not equal "nerfed." You want to do massive damage? Play a THer. TWFers have other advantages--usually they're part of skillful, fast character builds that can accomplish a lot of different things, and they're extremely adaptable to different situations. AND while no, they don't do the same damage as a twinked-out THer, a twinked-out TWFer can do more than enough. The fact that they wield multiple weapons is ultimately an advantage to them, and yes, I think they should have to pay for that advantage.

Jayabalard
2007-01-25, 05:03 PM
Then why didn't you see everyone running around the battlefield, leaping like maniacs with honking big greatswords, instead of using sword-and-board?

I mean, if we're going to talk about effective vs. cool...because real soldiers didn't have a resurrect'r'us in every town... And staying alive was a fairly big priority for people.

The rules don't give nearly enough defensive disadvantage for the "leaping maniacs with honking big greatswords."

jjpickar
2007-01-25, 05:27 PM
"Leaping maniacs with honking big greatswords?" Now why am I thinking of the Frenzied berserker?:smalltongue:

I thought that sword and board was rather nice actually. A +5 Reflecting tower shield gives you a +9 bonus to AC plus the option to turn one spell per day as per the Spell Turning spell. Sounds pretty good to me. Sure you take a -2 to attack but I think it more than makes up for it in protection from physical and magical attacks.

Rigeld2
2007-01-25, 05:28 PM
And if he had been dual wielding Scythes and critted with both of them, hed have done far far more damage. Never balance to extremes, balance to averages. On average, a ThriKreen isnt going to even connect that often with most of his attacks (no more often than any other TWFer) let alone crit more often.

in response to: http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showpost.php?p=1890532&postcount=40

henebry
2007-01-25, 06:59 PM
Hmmm. I don't see how that works.

Joe Greatsword wants a magic weapon that does good fire damage and some electricity damage. Chuck Florentine wants the same thing.

Joe Greatsword orders a +1 (req. basic enchantment), Shocking, Flaming Burst sword. This is equivalent to a +4 weapon, so Joe Greatsword shells out 32000 GP plus the cost of a masterwork great sword.

Chuck Florentine decides to get a +1 Flaming Burst Rapier, and a +1 Shocking Short Sword. That's the equivalent of a +3 and +2 weapon respectively, so he's paying a total of 26,000 GP (8,000 + 18,000) plus mw weapon cost.

Don't see how Chuck is paying more. Yeah, his weapons individually do less damage, but the paying less for it balances out.

So you're saying that you've done a thorough analysis (using Excel or the like) to show that Joe Greatsword's +4 weapon is "equivalent" to C F's +3 rapier and +2 shortsword? If you've done the analysis, I'll listen to you, but if this is just your gut talking, forget it. I wasted a lot of time on Excel yesterday--not on this precise comparison, but on a closely related one--so for the moment I'm going to trust my gut rather than yours.

You're right that the TWF character has the option of taking two different weapons into battle, but then again so does Joe Greatsword. In fact, he can equip himself with a backup greatsword made from different materials, and for the cost of a single feat (Quick Draw) he can can switch between them with the same alacrity as the TWF character. So in this regard (two weapons enchanted in different & complementary ways) both characters are on equal footing, and under my proposal (as well as under the 3.5 rules) both characters pay full cost for all their weapons.

My proposal treats a more basic problem. When Joe G adds a magical enhancement to his Greatsword, his capacity to deal damage rises faster than the TWF who buys the identical enhancement for his primary weapon. And since Joe G started out able to deal far more damage per round, this rising gap is of real concern. For this reason, I offer the TWF the chance to "keep up" with Joe G at 1.5 x the cost that Joe G is paying.


Also, if we are staying with the rapier, the rapier's more likely to crit more often than the greatsword, so Chuck gets more benefit from purchasing the flaming burst weapon to begin with. Yeah, Joe does more damage to begin with, but Chuck can make up for it in ways like this.

As earlier, do a spreadsheet analysis. I think you'll be surprised to find how little benefit anyone gets from taking one of the elemental "burst" powers, rather than just adding another elemental d6. Unless I'm missing something vital, it looks to me as though WoC should have set the bonus burst damage at d12 or even higher to make burst competitive.

DeathQuaker
2007-01-25, 08:47 PM
So you're saying that you've done a thorough analysis (using Excel or the like)

*LOL* Of course I haven't. It's not necessary for the point I was making, and if I have to do heavy math and use computer programs just to discuss gaming, I have no interest. All I was pointing out was that on the surface it cost the TWFer less than the THer less. Which requires no more special math than adding the costs together.

I'm sure you can have all kinds of fun playing with statistics and determining "max damage output" and all that jazz, but that wasn't my point. Your focus on damage overlooks other aspects of character builds and play styles both in and OUT of combat.

I'm not going into a math argument with you because, YES, YOU WILL WIN. I am a secretary with a Master's Degree in English, and am a complete idiot in the area of statistics. If I thought I was bringing up statistical analysis, I never would have jumped into this discussion. I felt it wasn't necessary to my point, and if you do, you probably don't understand what I'm trying to say anyway.



My proposal treats a more basic problem. When Joe G adds a magical enhancement to his Greatsword, his capacity to deal damage rises faster than the TWF who buys the identical enhancement for his primary weapon.

The TWFer trades damage for versatility. That's all I'm sayin'. I don't care that Joe Greatsword does more damage. I acknowledged that he did. I'm saying that Chuck Florentine just has more versatility -- arguments about Quick Draw aside, cause then we're getting into the variability of character builds which leads only into endless arguments.

My thoughts are, you want the most awesomest damage output in the world, don't play a TWFer, end of story. I think they get other advantages, and that they therefore don't deserve a cost break. My opinion, and you can feel free to discard it. 'Kay? :smallsmile:

Bears With Lasers
2007-01-25, 08:50 PM
"Versatility" isn't an advantage unless it actually helps. TWF doesn't give you any kind of *helpful* versatility.

Matthew
2007-01-25, 09:03 PM
Never been too sold on the Magic Weapon argument myself. There is a ton of magical junk to spend gold on in Dungeons & Dragons over and above one's primary weapon(s).

I would say that Two Weapon Fighting does give some versatility, though. Great Sword and Armour Spikes or whatever... It's rarely worth investing in beyond the initial Feat, though, and once you reach two iterative attacks you may never use it again, depending.

EvilRoeSlade
2007-01-25, 09:47 PM
The thing about magical weapons is that they give a two-weapon fighter the chance to catch up, I think.

You can only enchant a greatsword once, if you have a +5 greatsword then you do 5 extra points of damage. But if you have two +5 shortswords, then you do 10 extra damage. If you then give your greatsword the flaming ability it will do 1d6 extra damage, but if you make each of your shortswords flaming then you do 2d6 extra damage.

I think I'll make a dual wielding duskblade and take the Craft Magic Arms and Armor feat and see how I do.

Shisumo
2007-01-25, 10:36 PM
The thing about magical weapons is that they give a two-weapon fighter the chance to catch up, I think.

You can only enchant a greatsword once, if you have a +5 greatsword then you do 5 extra points of damage. But if you have two +5 shortswords, then you do 10 extra damage. If you then give your greatsword the flaming ability it will do 1d6 extra damage, but if you make each of your shortswords flaming then you do 2d6 extra damage.

I think I'll make a dual wielding duskblade and take the Craft Magic Arms and Armor feat and see how I do.

If CMA&A is your 6th level feat, be sure to take Attune Magic Weapon at 9th.

Vik
2007-01-26, 07:45 AM
The thing about magical weapons is that they give a two-weapon fighter the chance to catch up, I think.

You can only enchant a greatsword once, if you have a +5 greatsword then you do 5 extra points of damage. But if you have two +5 shortswords, then you do 10 extra damage. If you then give your greatsword the flaming ability it will do 1d6 extra damage, but if you make each of your shortswords flaming then you do 2d6 extra damage. On the other hand, the TWF can use Power Attack at -2 to gain a +4 damage, making him almost par with the guy that :
- spent a lot of Feats (1 every 5 level, even more if he takes TWDefense and the like).
- spent twice more gold, or about 1.5 more gold if the THW fighter buy an Animated shield (making the TWDefense laughable).


I think I'll make a dual wielding duskblade and take the Craft Magic Arms and Armor feat and see how I do. That will be pretty much Feat consuming, don't you think ?

Yakk
2007-01-26, 04:39 PM
Why can't you use an animated shield and two weapon fighting by the way?

(Which is to say, Animated shields are basically broken. At a minimium, they should have the same restrictions as a Dancing weapon).

Matthew
2007-01-26, 04:51 PM
If I recall correctly, it is because it is not held.

Yakk
2007-01-26, 07:09 PM
Hmm?


Upon command, an animated shield floats within 2 feet of the wielder, protecting her as if she were using it herself but freeing up both her hands. Only one shield can protect a character at a time. A character with an animated shield still takes any penalties associated with shield use, such as armor check penalty, arcane spell failure chance, and nonproficiency.

Nothing is mentioned about being held, nor is any duration mentioned.

Just hold it, animate it, and then draw your normal weapons.

Matthew
2007-01-26, 07:13 PM
Yeah, but to make a Shield Bash you have to be using Two Weapon Fighting, so the attack has to come from your 'Off Hand', rather than your Floating Shield.