Would you ever seriously suggest Two Weapon fighting....

[Masakan]

to anyone who has a build that doesn't have access to Pounce, Travel Devotion or Sudden Leap to some degree?

I sure as hell wouldnt.

[animewatcha]

Depends upon the party, setting, etc. If you use feat adaptation of battle and uncanny tricksters ( to advance battle trickster ), you can pick up 6 feats and maintain 3/4 bab and gain quite a few skill points from uncanny. Thing is coming up with 4 skill tricks asap.

[Pluto!]

to anyone who has a build that doesn't have access to Pounce, Travel Devotion or Sudden Leap to some degree?

I sure as hell wouldnt.
Look out, everybody - D&D badass coming through.

[Masakan]

Look out, everybody - D&D badass coming through.

If all you have are snarky remarks, i suggest you leave.

[Namfuak]

Dragonfire Inspiration bardblade comes to mind, but pretty much any melee build is significantly enhanced by the abilities you stated, or some other way of ensuring they are full attacking for as many turns in combat as possible.

[An Enemy Spy]

Is this about to become a barfight?

[OldTrees1]

Yes, but only in the rare case of Double Hit on an AoO build(which would be improved by pounce), one of the various ways to move and full attack that you did not mention, or a ranged TWF build.




Depends upon the party, setting, etc. If you use feat adaptation of battle and uncanny tricksters ( to advance battle trickster ), you can pick up 6 feats and maintain 3/4 bab and gain quite a few skill points from uncanny. Thing is coming up with 4 skill tricks asap.

That does not have TWF as a prerequisite and I am wondering what in that makes TWF(without a way to move and full attack) any better.

[Xuldarinar]

Yes, I would. It would depend upon the level of optimization one desired and more importantly the theme one wanted to possess, but I would. I've also seriously suggested favored soul before.

[Masakan]

Yes, I would. It would depend upon the level of optimization one desired and more importantly the theme one wanted to possess, but I would. I've also seriously suggested favored soul before.
Actually the only reason Favored soul isn't brought up more is their lack of turn undead fuel that clerics enjoy.

[animewatcha]

Yes, but only in the rare case of Double Hit on an AoO build(which would be improved by pounce), one of the various ways to move and full attack that you did not mention, or a ranged TWF build.





That does not have TWF as a prerequisite and I am wondering what in that makes TWF(without a way to move and full attack) any better.

TWF is known as being pretty feat heavy.

With or without pounce, The double-progression trickster could be used to pick up many of those feats faster to free up the build. Keep in mind, I am in an area where Tome of Battle is a no-no. Hence, I don't much experience with it.

[Namfuak]

Actually the only reason Favored soul isn't brought up more is their lack of turn undead fuel that clerics enjoy.

As well as their dual-stat casting, underwhelming class features, lack of splatbook support compared to clerics, and limited spells known combined with the weaker cleric list (in comparison to wizard/sorcerer or psionic) that arguably drops them to a tier 3 class. All that said, they are definitely a solid tier 3 class, there just isn't much reason to pick them over a cleric for optimized builds, which is why they don't get much love here.

[Masakan]

TWF is known as being pretty feat heavy.

With or without pounce, The double-progression trickster could be used to pick up many of those feats faster to free up the build. Keep in mind, I am in an area where Tome of Battle is a no-no. Hence, I don't much experience with it.
You poor poor poor poor soul.

[BowStreetRunner]

Some of us are more likely to satisfice if we hit on a build that we like rather than attempt to keep searching for a superlative build. After all, if you are talking about a melee build to begin with it really doesn't matter whether you choose two handed or two weapon, the fact is you are already satisficing by not playing a tier one caster.

That having been said, I have used TWF on a thrown weapon rogue build and on a Blood in the Water warblade build an not been disappointed by either.

[Masakan]

Some of us are more likely to satisfice if we hit on a build that we like rather than attempt to keep searching for a superlative build. After all, if you are talking about a melee build to begin with it really doesn't matter whether you choose two handed or two weapon, the fact is you are already satisficing by not playing a tier one caster.

That having been said, I have used TWF on a thrown weapon rogue build and on a Blood in the Water warblade build an not been disappointed by either.
Then tell me this, do you consider Bard Tier 3 or Tier 2?

[Psyren]

to anyone who has a build that doesn't have access to Pounce, Travel Devotion or Sudden Leap to some degree?

I sure as hell wouldnt.

Bomber Alchemist says hi.

[Masakan]

Bomber Alchemist says hi.


What is that a pathfinder thign?

[Psyren]

What is that a pathfinder thign?

Yes, your thread isn't marked and TWF exists in both games. As a bomber would not have any of the things you mentioned, I would recommend TWF to them.

But even assuming 3.5 only, TWF applies to any throwing build. You don't need pounce to throw.

[Masakan]

Yes, your thread isn't marked and TWF exists in both games. As a bomber would not have any of the things you mentioned, I would recommend TWF to them.

But even assuming 3.5 only, TWF applies to any throwing build. You don't need pounce to throw.

That's very interesting to point out.

[WhamBamSam]

Yes, but only in the rare case of Double Hit on an AoO build(which would be improved by pounce), one of the various ways to move and full attack that you did not mention, or a ranged TWF build.Beat me to the punch, though I generally favor Decisive Strike (or Overpowering Attack, I guess) for Double Hit AoO builds, and I generally try to find a way for them to be mounted on something intelligent enough to get them from point A to point B without needing a move action to direct it. So in essence, I guess I'm still using a "move and full attack" trick of sorts.

Then again, if we reframe the question as "would you ever suggest someone play a melee-focused character who didn't have some way to move and make a meaningful attack" it starts to sound pretty silly and obvious.

[Masakan]

Beat me to the punch, though I generally favor Decisive Strike (or Overpowering Attack, I guess) for Double Hit AoO builds, and I generally try to find a way for them to be mounted on something intelligent enough to get them from point A to point B without needing a move action to direct it. So in essence, I guess I'm still using a "move and full attack" trick of sorts.

Then again, if we reframe the question as "would you ever suggest someone play a melee-focused character who didn't have some way to move and make a meaningful attack" it starts to sound pretty silly and obvious.

That was pretty much my question, for as much **** as people give einhandling even IT has the advantage of being fairly mobile.

[OldTrees1]

TWF is known as being pretty feat heavy.

With or without pounce, The double-progression trickster could be used to pick up many of those feats faster to free up the build. Keep in mind, I am in an area where Tome of Battle is a no-no. Hence, I don't much experience with it.

Yes it would help pick up the feats. However it is not exclusive to TWF(nor benefits TWF more) and most of the problems with TWF are evaluated presuming the feats were gotten somehow.

TWF is not a feat heavy as one would think. It is only TWF, ITWF(unless you can buy it via Gloves of the Balanced Hand), and maybe Double Hit if your build uses AoOs. That is still 3 more feats than other styles but usually people overestimate the number of TWF feats that are worth taking (GTWF is not worth a feat since it is an extra attack at a -10 penalty when you can get extra attacks at -2, -3, or -5 penalties via feats instead).

One of the big weaknesses with the TWF feats is that you are investing character resources that will only benefit you during a full attack (excluding the aforementioned Double Hit). Combine that with "move + full attack" being hard to get, TWF is usually recommended contingent on a "move + full attack" option (like Pounce from Spirit Lion Barbarian) being available.


Beat me to the punch, though I generally favor Decisive Strike (or Overpowering Attack, I guess) for Double Hit AoO builds

Using Martial Monk to skip the prerequisites on Double Hit, but wouldn't you suffer the TWF attack penalties on your Decisive Strike unless you took TWF?

[atemu1234]

On a rogue, sure.


If all you have are snarky remarks, i suggest you leave.

All I have is snarky remarks. Could be the name of my memoir.

[Kelb_Panthera]

In a generally low-op game, sure.

Move plus full attack is a concern for all melee characters and if you can't do it then two-handed fighting doesn't fare much better.

Honestly, if I couldn't get a way to move and full attack and I couldn't rely on enemies standing and slugging it out, I'd probably go sword and board over either of the alternatives.

To be even more honest though, I'd probably bow out of that game anyway. It smacks of a game wherein the DM isn't capable of handling complex and powerful characters and is nerfing every which way to cover his lack of system mastery. That or it's a core only (*shudder*) game and screw that.

[Remedy]

As well as their dual-stat casting, underwhelming class features, lack of splatbook support compared to clerics, and limited spells known combined with the weaker cleric list (in comparison to wizard/sorcerer or psionic) that arguably drops them to a tier 3 class. All that said, they are definitely a solid tier 3 class, there just isn't much reason to pick them over a cleric for optimized builds, which is why they don't get much love here.
Strong disagree. The Cleric spell list isn't at the Wizard list's level, sure, but it has plenty enough versatile and gamebreaking spells to give Favored Soul a (low, admittedly) spot in Tier 2. Now, Spontaneous Cleric is better and more fun and definitely a more solid T2, being just the tiniest bit more disadvantaged compared to a sorcerer than the cleric is compared to wizard, but that doesn't push Favored Soul down a whole tier just by its presence.

That's rather tangential to the thread, though.

The best and probably only time to recommend Two-Weapon Fighting is when you have sources of bonus damage or save-or-sucks that apply on a per-hit basis. A character with Sneak Attack and an optimized Bard (or fStS Paladin) nearby will be like a kid in a candy store with Two-Weapon Fighting.

[Masakan]

Strong disagree. The Cleric spell list isn't at the Wizard list's level, sure, but it has plenty enough versatile and gamebreaking spells to give Favored Soul a (low, admittedly) spot in Tier 2. Now, Spontaneous Cleric is better and more fun and definitely a more solid T2, being just the tiniest bit more disadvantaged compared to a sorcerer than the cleric is compared to wizard, but that doesn't push Favored Soul down a whole tier just by its presence.

That's rather tangential to the thread, though.

The best and probably only time to recommend Two-Weapon Fighting is when you have sources of bonus damage or save-or-sucks that apply on a per-hit basis. A character with Sneak Attack and an optimized Bard (or fStS Paladin) nearby will be like a kid in a candy store with Two-Weapon Fighting.

hey I've been actually wondering, Would you say spontaneous casters are more balanced than prepared casters?

[WhamBamSam]

Using Martial Monk to skip the prerequisites on Double Hit, but wouldn't you suffer the TWF attack penalties on your Decisive Strike unless you took TWF?You would indeed suffer the penalties. I'd be cool with regular old non-Martial Monk for Combat Reflexes and something else, or even picking other non-TWF feats with Martial Monk and taking TWF normally. I was just saying that I like Decisive Strike to double the non-precision damage on the Double Hit attacks.

[The Insanity]

Yes, I would.

[OldTrees1]

You would indeed suffer the penalties. I'd be cool with regular old non-Martial Monk for Combat Reflexes and something else, or even picking other non-TWF feats with Martial Monk and taking TWF normally. I was just saying that I like Decisive Strike to double the non-precision damage on the Double Hit attacks.

Oh. I parsed your sentence such that it sounded like you were saying "Decisive Strike instead of TWF" rather than saying "Decisive Strike buffs Double Hit". Yeah that it a nice combination since you double a double.

[Kelb_Panthera]

hey I've been actually wondering, Would you say spontaneous casters are more balanced than prepared casters?

It's not the spontaneity that makes them more balanced than their prepared counterparts. It's the limited spells known. Spontaneous castering as a casting mechanism is actually more powerful than prepared casting.

There's a reason that uncanny forethought is one of the most powerful feats ever printed.

Ultimately though, if you're shooting for a balance point that magical non-casters can actually reach, the difference between how far above that point spontaneous casters vs prepared casters are is utterly negligable. Spontaneous casters are more balanced than prepared casters in a way that's so small as to be fairly academic.

[WhamBamSam]

Oh. I parsed your sentence such that it sounded like you were saying "Decisive Strike instead of TWF" rather than saying "Decisive Strike buffs Double Hit". Yeah that it a nice combination since you double a double.Ah, I see. Sorry for not being more clear.

It's actually a pretty classic combo for Double Hit, going all the way back to Jack B. Quick (though he uses Overpowering Attack what with the whole Fighter 20 thing).

[Troacctid]

I wouldn't have any problems recommending two-weapon fighting to my players. I mean, if you're looking at one attack at your full attack bonus vs. two attacks at -2, I think the math comes out in favor of the latter, generally, especially if you have any extra bonus damage going.

[Uncle Pine]

to anyone who has a build that doesn't have access to Pounce, Travel Devotion or Sudden Leap to some degree?

I sure as hell wouldnt.

I'm playing with this (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showsinglepost.php?p=17503269&postcount=187) build in an adventure created by one of my players and even if there's no Pounce, Travel Devotion and/or Sudden Leap I'd say things are going pretty damn well (we're 3rd level atm). There are also several other ways (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?103358-3-X-Ways-to-get-Pounce-or-Free-Movement) to move and full attack in a round, not that they're strictly necessary anyway. So yes, I would recommend TWF to any person that wanted a character that fights with two weapon.
Contingent Benign Transposition spells also exist (100 gp each) and you can also buy a Benign Transposition wand to your caster if you feel the lack of Pounce that much.

[Curmudgeon]

Yes, for one case: the City Brawler ACF (Dragon # 349, page 92) grants the Barbarian the Two-Weapon Fighting feat tree for unarmed combat as a special exception (no second weapon needed) at Barbarian levels 1, 6, & 11. This works better with Pounce (and the Barbarian doesn't trade away fast movement for this ACF, so the usual Lion Spiritual Totem shenanigans work), but it's a sufficiently good special case that it stands on its own merits.

[Darrin]

to anyone who has a build that doesn't have access to Pounce, Travel Devotion or Sudden Leap to some degree?


Oh heck yeah. (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?279079)


Dragonfire Inspiration bardblade comes to mind

This is probably the stand-out that doesn't rely so much on extra movement.

[Grod_The_Giant]

That was pretty much my question, for as much **** as people give einhandling even IT has the advantage of being fairly mobile.
Um, what? Einhanding has pretty much no benefit whatsover in 3.5-- there's what, one crappy tactical feat? You're better off going sword-and-board. With a non-magical sword.

In the situation you described, I'd probably recommend TWF with Improved Shield Bash-- get the shield when you have to move, and the double-hit when you don't. It also sidesteps the Dex requirement, since you can use Agile Shield Fighter and those gauntlets that give you Improved TWF. And if your build has a significant amount of bonus damage, like a Dragonfire Inspiration Bard, then TWF becomes a darn good idea-- doubly if you have a naturally low Strength.

Or better yet, TWF with a greatsword and armor spikes.

[Masakan]

Um, what? Einhanding has pretty much no benefit whatsover in 3.5-- there's what, one crappy tactical feat? You're better off going sword-and-board. With a non-magical sword.

In the situation you described, I'd probably recommend TWF with Improved Shield Bash-- get the shield when you have to move, and the double-hit when you don't. It also sidesteps the Dex requirement, since you can use Agile Shield Fighter and those gauntlets that give you Improved TWF. And if your build has a significant amount of bonus damage, like a Dragonfire Inspiration Bard, then TWF becomes a darn good idea-- doubly if you have a naturally low Strength.

Or better yet, TWF with a greatsword and armor spikes.

In case you haven't noticed, I don't like immobile characters. To the point where I would rather use an inefficient fighting style like einhandling than TWF if it means that I don't have to stay in the same spot all encounter just to get my full damage off.

[Pluto!]

Einhanders still miss their full attacks in the same situations TWFers do...

[Masakan]

Einhanders still miss their full attacks in the same situations TWFers do...

Besides in general situations I prefer standard action strikes over full attacks anyway, I rather have a hand free to pull stuff out of my belt of many things like noxious smokesticks and tanglefoot bags, and unless your just Full attacking constantly(Which is generally a bad idea unless your a tank) Einhandleing and TWF generally do the same ammount of damage. Hell like someone said above, I rather go Sword and Board over TWF, I understand that the longer a game goes the more it becomes a numbers game, but consider this the opinion of someone who will probably never play a campaign past level 15.

[Telonius]

Depends on the sources available. If it's a PHB- or Core-only environment, and the person has already decided to play a Rogue? Sure. A PHB Rogue with TWF is better than a PHB Rogue without. It's just a shift in opportunity costs. With less feats to choose from, and less tricks available, Rogue doesn't have nearly as many things that would make them stronger than TWF would.

[Curmudgeon]

Einhanders still miss their full attacks in the same situations TWFers do...
So? The Einhander feat benefits the single weapon fighter when they're not making full attacks, as does Snap Kick; both also benefit the character when they make full attacks. A character with the entire Two-Weapon Fighting feat tree gets nothing if they're not able to make full attacks. TWF removes most of the options (tactical movement) which help keep the character alive.

[atemu1234]

hey I've been actually wondering, Would you say spontaneous casters are more balanced than prepared casters?

Limited-list casters are more balanced.


I wouldn't have any problems recommending two-weapon fighting to my players. I mean, if you're looking at one attack at your full attack bonus vs. two attacks at -2, I think the math comes out in favor of the latter, generally, especially if you have any extra bonus damage going.

If you try for damage, in the majority of cases, Two-Handed is better than TWF.

[Masakan]

So? The Einhander feat benefits the single weapon fighter when they're not making full attacks, as does Snap Kick; both also benefit the character when they make full attacks. A character with the entire Two-Weapon Fighting feat tree gets nothing if they're not able to make full attacks. TWF removes most of the options (tactical movement) which help keep the character alive.

Thank you that's pretty much my entire argument in a nutshell.

[Psyren]

So? The Einhander feat benefits the single weapon fighter when they're not making full attacks, as does Snap Kick; both also benefit the character when they make full attacks. A character with the entire Two-Weapon Fighting feat tree gets nothing if they're not able to make full attacks. TWF removes most of the options (tactical movement) which help keep the character alive.


Thank you that's pretty much my entire argument in a nutshell.

Even without pounce, this isn't complicated. Get another source of movement - whether it is a swift-action or free-action shift/teleport, or a bonus move action like Hustle. Once you have that (and you're not using a strength-based 2HF build), TWF wins.

[Curmudgeon]

Even without pounce, this isn't complicated. Get another source of movement ...
The idea is that you don't have extra movement. Pounce and Travel Devotion have been explicitly excluded by the OP. I think the pattern is fairly obvious.

[ericgrau]

to anyone who has a build that doesn't have access to Pounce, Travel Devotion or Sudden Leap to some degree?

I sure as hell wouldnt.
We don't play with shocktrooper either, so sure, yeah, no problem, TWF away.

[Psyren]

The idea is that you don't have extra movement. Pounce and Travel Devotion have been explicitly excluded by the OP. I think the pattern is fairly obvious.

What "pattern?" If someone says I can't have eggs, I don't throw my oatmeal away and sit hungry.

"If you take away everything that makes an option good, it becomes bad" is a pretty inane basis for a thread.

[Myou]

Depends on the sources available. If it's a PHB- or Core-only environment, and the person has already decided to play a Rogue? Sure. A PHB Rogue with TWF is better than a PHB Rogue without. It's just a shift in opportunity costs. With less feats to choose from, and less tricks available, Rogue doesn't have nearly as many things that would make them stronger than TWF would.

Do you feel that a wider selection of books would change this? As far as I knew TWF was the standard choice for a rogue regardless of allowed books.

[Masakan]

What "pattern?" If someone says I can't have eggs, I don't throw my oatmeal away and sit hungry.

"If you take away everything that makes an option good, it becomes bad" is a pretty inane basis for a thread.

Your dodgeing the question, would you still reccoumend it to someone who has no access to any sort of swift action movements

[Psyren]

Your dodgeing the question, would you still reccoumend it to someone who has no access to any sort of swift action movements

As I told you already, yes :smalltongue: a thrower build, who doesn't need to move anywhere to use it.

[Masakan]

As I told you already, yes :smalltongue: a thrower build, who doesn't need to move anywhere to use it.
Let me rephrase the question then, would you recommend it in any MELEE build?

[Psyren]

Let me rephrase the question then, would you recommend it in any MELEE build?

No, I wouldn't - if you remove every situation that makes something useful it ceases to be useful. But that is a tautology as previously stated.

[Masakan]

No, I wouldn't - if you remove every situation that makes something useful it ceases to be useful. But that is a tautology as previously stated.

Well think of it this way, it's less you don't have access and more....nothing would fit.

[Allianis]

Just throwing it out there, TWF is greatly beneficial to a Daring Outlaw build. Sneak Attack + TWF = God of Sneak Attack. I would also throw in for you to try this thread.

http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?231079-Two-Weapon-Fighting-That-Doesn-t-Suck-(-amp-Other-Feats)-D-amp-D-3-5

Good luck.

[BowStreetRunner]

Then tell me this, do you consider Bard Tier 3 or Tier 2?
Actually, in the games I play I don't consider it either. The bard is either an integral and useful member of the party or he is not. The same goes for every other member of the party - they either fit or they don't. If they fit, they serve an important role for the team and they are valuable. If they do not fit, it's not a matter of Tier, it's a matter of not being a good fit for our party's needs.

The last bard we had used dragonfire inspiration and words of creation, plus a few other neat tricks, to enhance just about every other member of the party to a ridiculously high degree. Even our casters were using spells like Whirling Blade to get in on the action. The bonus damage granted by the bard generally accounted for at least two-thirds of the damage we inflicted in each battle so even though he was not doing much in melee himself he was by far our largest source of damage. And when it came time for others in the party to make skill checks and a lot of other sorts of checks he was pumping up our rolls in those areas too. Without that bard our entire party would go down a tier in overall power. So I fail to see how his individual Tier ranking becomes relevant.

It's like asking whether the kicker on an American football team is in the same Tier as a quarterback, running back or receiver. The fact that kickers generally score more points than any other member of the team is usually lost on most people. Every armchair quarterback knows that quarterbacks are Tier 1 and kickers are something like Tier 5 or 6. But most of those armchair quarterbacks have never coached an actual championship caliber team either.

[Telonius]

Do you feel that a wider selection of books would change this? As far as I knew TWF was the standard choice for a rogue regardless of allowed books.

The more books are available, the more feat-starved Rogues start to look. You already probably need Weapon Finesse. Add Craven, Darkstalker, the Sneak Attack feats, multiclass feats (like Daring Outlaw, or even Able Learner, if you're planning on going that route), Shadow Blade (if your Dex is much higher than your Strength, as is likely)... The list of Feats you Absolutely Have To Get starts increasing quickly. You do still need the ability to get multiple attacks per round, to apply your bonus damage; but getting it through other means besides actually taking the TWF feat starts becoming more of a priority. If you can get Gloves of the balanced Hands (from Magic of Faerun, I believe) then there's very little reason to spend a feat on it unless it's a prereq for something else you really want. (Improved TWF is ... kind of an iffy feat. You're a Rogue already, so unless you have some way of really boosting your attack bonus, you're going to be missing regularly on that second hit. Bonus damage doesn't do any good if you don't connect). If you have access to maneuvers in Tome of Battle, most likely from a dip into Swordsage, you can get what's effectively TWF; so much less of a need to take TWF as a feat. (Also gets you access to Pouncing Charge, which makes makes the original question moot anyway).



There are a couple of very specific feats (Double Wand Wielder and Lightning Maces) that require TWF as a prerequisite.

[Amphetryon]

The idea is that you don't have extra movement. Pounce and Travel Devotion have been explicitly excluded by the OP. I think the pattern is fairly obvious.

Are we to rely on the obvious intent, or on the restrictions as written?

[Segev]

In all honesty, any build which starts adding damage to every hit can benefit from TWF. Most of the THF builds are designed for powerful single hits that can only be done once per round.

So sneak attack, skirmish, and even Weapon Specialization builds are good candidates for TWF.

Obviously, Pounce or other abilities that let you close and full attack in one round are excellent for TWF, but they're good for just about any melee build.

[Nerd-o-rama]

Throwing rogue. A really, really stealthy melee rogue. DFI Bardblade or DFI+Charismastacking Bardadin (ideally, you're using something to get full attack on a charge with those, but charging with a Maneuver or Charging Smite and then turning on the blender is also valid if you've got some means of sticking to your opponent).

[Necroticplague]

Since Einhanding was brought up in relation to TWF: TWF, at its worst, has the exact same results as einhanding. A TWFer who doesn't get his full attack, and an einhander who doesn't get his full attack, have the exact same results (one attack with a one handed weapons. However, a TWFer who gets his full attack is much better than an einhander who gets his full attack. Of course, that's only if you look strictly at the weapons being used to damage. When you consider the possibility that the other weapon could be a "stat stick", the TWFer who doesn't get his full attack could still have advantages compared to the einhander (I.E, he might be holding a +1 Eager Dagger, meaning he goes earlier, which can open up his suite of tactical options). When you further consider that TWFing doesn't require that you use two hands (axe-bucklers, braid blades, boot blades, knee blades, sleeve blades, other end of a double weapon, gauntlet, spiked gauntlet, armor razors, armor spikes, and unarmed strikes), thus allowing you to have a free hand while still receiving these benefits, I'm not sure how it could be said in good faith that TWF is in any way inferior. It's not any less mobile because nothing forces you to make a full attack. Your full attack is just more powerful. So unless you're compelled to go with the most potent option, it's not any less mobile (and, depending on weapon enchantments, may very well be more so). However, if you under such a compulsion, than one would also recognize how badly THF blows both of them out of the water, and this whole comparison is moot anyway.

[Morty]

There's very little room in 3.x for more than one weapon style to be fully "optimal". Either one clearly shines above the others, or they're all more or less identical. If AC didn't scale so terribly, using shields could be viable - but two-handed weapons, dual-wielding and einhander all boil down to the same thing.

[Abithrios]

In a high op, all books allowed, pure RAW game, probably not.

At my table, twf can totally be powerful enough. Here are a few deciding factors:

1. Low to mid op game. You don't need to do hundreds of damage in a round if the enemy doesn't have hundreds of health. Another problem sometimes discussed in threads about stuff like this is the fact that the enemy often gets a full counterattack, which is not as bad if the enemy is not powerful to eat you in one round.

2. Favorable house rules. Weapon finesse is free for everyone. You can move half your speed before a full attack. There may be a few more things I am forgetting, but it's a more friendly environment than a RAW only game. I don't pretend my house rules apply to everyone, but if you want to encourage different play styles,you might want to consider making them more viable through small changes to the rules.

I am not going to say it is the best strategy in the game, but there are some cases in which it works. Good enough is good enough, after all.


No, I wouldn't - if you remove every situation that makes something useful it ceases to be useful. But that is a tautology as previously stated.

This is true, but if you do it one at a time, it may be possible to determine what makes it useful, not that that is all that is happening in this thread.


Since Einhanding was brought up in relation to TWF: TWF, at its worst, has the exact same results as einhanding. A TWFer who doesn't get his full attack, and an einhander who doesn't get his full attack, have the exact same results (one attack with a one handed weapons. However, a TWFer who gets his full attack is much better than an einhander who gets his full attack. Of course, that's only if you look strictly at the weapons being used to damage. When you consider the possibility that the other weapon could be a "stat stick", the TWFer who doesn't get his full attack could still have advantages compared to the einhander (I.E, he might be holding a +1 Eager Dagger, meaning he goes earlier, which can open up his suite of tactical options). When you further consider that TWFing doesn't require that you use two hands (axe-bucklers, braid blades, boot blades, knee blades, sleeve blades, other end of a double weapon, gauntlet, spiked gauntlet, armor razors, armor spikes, and unarmed strikes), thus allowing you to have a free hand while still receiving these benefits, I'm not sure how it could be said in good faith that TWF is in any way inferior. It's not any less mobile because nothing forces you to make a full attack. Your full attack is just more powerful. So unless you're compelled to go with the most potent option, it's not any less mobile (and, depending on weapon enchantments, may very well be more so). However, if you under such a compulsion, than one would also recognize how badly THF blows both of them out of the water, and this whole comparison is moot anyway.

Given how few rules make reference to anything to do with einhanding, I don't see why you can't do it while having access to a second weapon (such as armor spikes) for stuff like eager. Just keep your second hand free for whatever else you want to carry and attack only with your main hand.

[Masakan]

In a high op, all books allowed, pure RAW game, probably not.

At my table, twf can totally be powerful enough. Here are a few deciding factors:

1. Low to mid op game. You don't need to do hundreds of damage in a round if the enemy doesn't have hundreds of health. Another problem sometimes discussed in threads about stuff like this is the fact that the enemy often gets a full counterattack, which is not as bad if the enemy is not powerful to eat you in one round.

2. Favorable house rules. Weapon finesse is free for everyone. You can move half your speed before a full attack. There may be a few more things I am forgetting, but it's a more friendly environment than a RAW only game. I don't pretend my house rules apply to everyone, but if you want to encourage different play styles,you might want to consider making them more viable through small changes to the rules.

I am not going to say it is the best strategy in the game, but there are some cases in which it works. Good enough is good enough, after all.



This is true, but if you do it one at a time, it may be possible to determine what makes it useful, not that that is all that is happening in this thread.


Well then let's look at what makes it useful shall we?
In order for TWF to be efficient you need 3 things.
A deep dive into the TWF tree.
The ability to move and Full attack
and Extra Damage, regardless of what it is.

Now It's very easy to become feat starved with a TWF build, but for the sake of argument let's say that That you only need the first 2 AND if allowed you can get easy access to the Gloves of the Balanced hand effectively making it so you only need the first.
Also You need movement, you don't wanna be a sitting duck in any sort of situation and need the ability to move and output your damage, Which can be achieved by Either Lion Totem barbarian Pounce, Travel Devotion, or The Sudden Leap Manuver, I'm sure there are more but I'm certain these are the most direct.
As for extra Damage, Shadowblade from the Tome of battle but this would effectively limit you to Short Swords and daggers, The Slippers of Battle Dancing, which is reliant on a charisma heavy build and would pretty much force you to go bard or something, but is still a viable option, and of course just pump the hell out of strength sacrificing everything else
Needless to say this is fairly feat starved, and incredibly specialized making twf in a single class build incredibly difficult if not flat out impossible.You pretty much HAVE to multiclass in order to get any real use out of it.

In general if you can't get at least one thing from any of the things mentioned, I would suggest giving it a pass, That said a Snowflake wardance bard with a single cloistered cleric dip can make use of TWF fairly easily. Your gonna need a flaw or 2 but it can be done.

[Psyren]

This is true, but if you do it one at a time, it may be possible to determine what makes it useful, not that that is all that is happening in this thread.

What makes it useful are two conditions:

1) The ability to reliably full-attack (if you can't do that, the feat does nothing.)
2) A two-handed weapon is not desirable (because if it is, it will outdamage the TWF build and cost fewer resources to boot.)

For the first, you need a way to get to a new target after every full-attack, because the ideal situation is that you are killing at least one opponent each round. Combat doesn't always work out that way, but that is what a martial class should be aiming to do. Since your move and standard are taken up with full-attack (if they are not, again, TWF is meaningless) then you either need a way to move with your lesser actions, or you need additional actions.

For the second, it's a matter of preference. There has to be a reason for you not to want a 2-hander instead, because that requires less resources to optimize - strength is already your damage and to-hit stat without any investment. So you need a secondary reason - "I want to be Dex-focused so that I can use Dex-based skills," "I want to be Dex-focused so I can switch between melee and ranged attacks easily" "I want a 'thousand-cuts' mode of attack because my class has a bonus damage per hit mechanic" etc.

Without both of these conditions in place, TWF will lose every time.

[OldTrees1]

What makes it useful are two conditions:

1) The ability to reliably full-attack (if you can't do that, the feat does nothing.)
2) A two-handed weapon is not desirable (because if it is, it will outdamage the TWF build and cost fewer resources to boot.)

Double Hit on an AoO build is an interesting way to satisfy #2 and suggests #1 is incomplete.

[TheCrowing1432]

http://files.gamebanana.com/img/ico/sprays/535381399e8f0.png

ive done twf'ing without those abilities and done just fine. You dont always need the "optimal" ability in order to use a fighting style. I know this is an optimization board, but sometimes I think it goes overboard.

[Psyren]

Double Hit on an AoO build is an interesting way to satisfy #2 and suggests #1 is incomplete.

"Reliably attack with both weapons" then?

Though I would question whether one swing with each weapon can truly outdamage a 2-hander, particularly since you're unlikely to have reach (an important component of an AoO build) while dual-wielding.

[Grod_The_Giant]

Get the best of both worlds and TWF with a two-handed weapon and a no-handed weapon like armor spikes. Do good damage on single hits, MORE damage on a full attack, and you can freely take one hand of your weapon if you need to dig out a wand or tanglefoot bag or something. Heck, you can even two-hand a heavy shield and get the AC bonus. Everyone wins! And also yes you're now playing Captain America.

[Deadline]

As for extra Damage, Shadowblade from the Tome of battle but this would effectively limit you to Short Swords and daggers, The Slippers of Battle Dancing, which is reliant on a charisma heavy build and would pretty much force you to go bard or something, but is still a viable option, and of course just pump the hell out of strength sacrificing everything else
Needless to say this is fairly feat starved, and incredibly specialized making twf in a single class build incredibly difficult if not flat out impossible.You pretty much HAVE to multiclass in order to get any real use out of it.

The most commonly achieved forms of extra damage for a TWF style is either Sneak Attack, or Inspired Courage boosts (usually through Dragonfire Inspiration). It's pretty easy to build a Single-Classed TWF Rogue or Bard that consistently out-damages a sword and boarder (with the exception of a sword and basher) or einhander.

[Knaight]

One situation that hasn't been mentioned is fighting with an ally that can get your opponents to move to you. If the other melee person in a group is a Setting Sun Swordsage, you're pretty well covered a lot of the time.

[ThinkMinty]

A Pathfinder Summoner's Eidolon can make a lot of use out of Two Weapon Fighting's multi-limbed equivalent, Multiweapon Fighting, them couple that with some light weapons. Now we'll assume 6 arms, all armed with some kinda +1 keen celestial-mitrhral kukris.

Standard attack at...dunno, level ten-ish when it's somehow plausible you own six of those, that's 6 bushwhacks at +9/each. If you're making full round attacks with that setup, you're either;

1. Standing there forcing them to stick near you because you make six attacks of opportunity if they try to crawl away from you, so they're ****ed either way.
2. Pouncing on that sack of experience points like a demented centipede. Yes, you can get access to a Pounce.

And in those or other scenarios, that's six attacks at +9, then another 6 at +4.

Oh, and the crits are 15-20, so you'll probably get one or two at least.

...

And that's just one way TWF is pretty neat. It's not the king of TO or anything, but it's far from lame. Heck, the Picaroon archetype of Pathfinder's Swashbuckler can sword-and-gun with class features making that an attractive option.

[Mystral]

to anyone who has a build that doesn't have access to Pounce, Travel Devotion or Sudden Leap to some degree?

I sure as hell wouldnt.

Of course I would. After all, it is a prerequisite to Two-Weapon Defense, the strongest feat for any fighter. It let's you use a hand to attack AND defend! It's like the best of both world. And you even get the AC bonus when you attack with that hand. Take that, shield bash.

[OldTrees1]

"Reliably attack with both weapons" then?

Though I would question whether one swing with each weapon can truly outdamage a 2-hander, particularly since you're unlikely to have reach (an important component of an AoO build) while dual-wielding.

That would work although it would allow Dual Strike and Two Weapon Pounce to technically qualify when they are not up to snuff.

For an AoO build sometimes(usually) the effects of a hit(Daze, Stagger, Trip, Knockback) are more important. This leads to an interesting trade off between effects(Double Hit) and damage(THF).

Likewise an AoO build is likely to have reach even if it is using non reach weapons (size or a 2 feat chain to increase reach).

[Masakan]

Of course I would. After all, it is a prerequisite to Two-Weapon Defense, the strongest feat for any fighter. It let's you use a hand to attack AND defend! It's like the best of both world. And you even get the AC bonus when you attack with that hand. Take that, shield bash.
Oh how many people have told me how garbage that feat is

[Necroticplague]

Oh how many people have told me how garbage that feat is

Because it is. Just wear a buckler.

[Dysjong]

It would depend on the game setting and group.

Ordinary D&D 3.5, sure
Pathfinder, perhaps.
D&D 3.5 with gestalt, far too many options.

Also, one has to consider the setup of the group as well. Pounce is not everything and i tend to just stand one place and just go full out anyway, regardless how many or few HP i have.

[Kantolin]

My personal games tend to be relatively low-optimization, and also tend to have a good amount of bonus damage. Thus, two-weapon fighters tend to hugangeously outdamage two-handed fighters when they both can full attack, but two-weaponers aren't able to do as such as often, which works out.

So sure, I would. Although it's worth noting that, even at our table which is so low-op that a level-20-swashbuckler can function... shield-based builds tend to fall a bit flat without some fiat. Le sigh.

[Psyren]

In Pathfinder it would be plenty definite for me. Poison can be made to not suck, thrown weapons (ranged in general really) can be made to not suck, alchemists are a thing, Piranha Strike is a thing, Effortless Lace is a thing, Quick Runner's Shirts are things...

[Kelb_Panthera]

Oh how many people have told me how garbage that feat is

I'm fairly confident that mystral was being sarcastic there.

[Masakan]

I'm fairly confident that mystral was being sarcastic there.
You can never be too sure these days.

[Eisfalken]

Just for the sake of argument, I am curious what the OP considers a better or more optimal build than TWF without some form of "move + full attack" ability.

[Kelb_Panthera]

Just for the sake of argument, I am curious what the OP considers a better or more optimal build than TWF without some form of "move + full attack" ability.

Standard charger build does nasty damage even without pounce. Two-handers are the optimizational default.

[OldTrees1]

Just for the sake of argument, I am curious what the OP considers a better or more optimal build than TWF without some form of "move + full attack" ability.

Any build that expends character resources on things it does not get to use is less optimal than a similar build that spent those character resources on something it would use instead.

Therefore, if you are going to be moving every round, then a THF, Sword and Board, or Single Handed Fighter would be more optimal since they get +1 feat over TWF (unless the TWF build has something that enables TWF despite moving every round).

[BowStreetRunner]

Any build that expends character resources on things it does not get to use is less optimal than a similar build that spent those character resources on something it would use instead.
This is an obvious fallacy. If a feat existed that required 3 dead feats to get it but it gave you Wish as a spell-like ability, I doubt anyone would argue that expending character resources on those 3 dead feats to get Wish is less optimal that someone who took 4 useful but not powerful feats instead. The real question is whether the reward is worth those dead feats. And I would have to agree that in many instances picking up the TWF feat just to qualify for another feat or a PrC later on is sub-optimal, but only because the total benefit gained is less than many of the alternatives.

[ben-zayb]

Get the best of both worlds and TWF with a two-handed weapon and a no-handed weapon like armor spikes. Do good damage on single hits, MORE damage on a full attack, and you can freely take one hand of your weapon if you need to dig out a wand or tanglefoot bag or something. Heck, you can even two-hand a heavy shield and get the AC bonus. Everyone wins! And also yes you're now playing Captain America.

This. Using TWF doesn't mean you don't get to use 2H weapons. Ranger 2WF-2Hers don't even need high Dex for that to work. You don't even need to spend a feat to gain 1 extra off-hand attack because you are wearing the Gloves.

[Hal0Badger]

High Sword Low Axe feat allows you to make a free trip attempt, if you hit both with your axe and sword in the same turn. It requires 2 weapon focus feat as feat tax, but even then, when combined with Dual Strike or two weapon pounce, assuming you beat the trip check, you would be attacking 3 times from your standard action, without a pounce or swift-move tricks.

It can be suggested, if the player wants to build a whirling melee character, in a low-mid optimization game. With a few friendly DM touch, it can even be better (combining TWF tree, decreasing DEX req. etc etc).


Get the best of both worlds and TWF with a two-handed weapon and a no-handed weapon like armor spikes. Do good damage on single hits, MORE damage on a full attack, and you can freely take one hand of your weapon if you need to dig out a wand or tanglefoot bag or something. Heck, you can even two-hand a heavy shield and get the AC bonus. Everyone wins! And also yes you're now playing Captain America.

This is also a cool advice and looks awesome for the fluff.

[OldTrees1]

This is an obvious fallacy. If a feat existed that required 3 dead feats to get it but it gave you Wish as a spell-like ability, -snip-

Using something as a prerequisite is still using it. It is not fallacious to say that unused resources result in no benefit. If you take TWF and never use it, not even as a prerequisite, then you spend character resources for nothing in return.

[Psyren]

Using something as a prerequisite is still using it. It is not fallacious to say that unused resources result in no benefit. If you take TWF and never use it, not even as a prerequisite, then you spend character resources for nothing in return.

You're right that's not a fallacy, but it's still an inane point, just like the restrictions in this thread. "Spending resources on something I have no means or intention of using, makes it useless" is a tautology.

[Max Caysey]

to anyone who has a build that doesn't have access to Pounce, Travel Devotion or Sudden Leap to some degree?

I sure as hell wouldnt.

It would mostly depend on the level of the game. If I knew we were reaching or starting in the mid 10s, possibly going into epic sure. It would also depend on who I was playing with, the level op optimization as well as builds in the party, but I do see it being very cool for some concepts... Screw it, that it might suck. I think that DM and player should work together so characters and setting/campaign fit each other... and so to make sure, that people are having as much fun as possible.