Two-weapon fighting idea

[Zorgoth]

Two-weapon fighting is well-known to be highly underwhelming on most characters in base D&D. It also doesn't really resemble how people actually fight with two weapons (the offhand weapon functions primarily as a shield). However, fantasy dual-wielding concepts do include hitting with both weapons, so I'm allowing both weapons to hit on high attack rolls.

I'm wondering what people think of this model (or if anyone would find this useful):

Would you fudge my numbers in any way?

Base two weapon fighting rules
Main hand and offhand attacks in two-weapon fighting are not separate attacks. You can make a one-weapon attack or a two-weapon attack. When a two-weapon attack is made, an attack resolves as follows:

If attack roll is less than AC, miss
If attack roll is equal to AC, hit with offhand weapon only
If attack roll is AC+1-AC+4, hit with main hand weapon only
If attack roll is AC+5 or greater, hit with both weapons

When a light weapon is wielded in offhand
a) You can make a two-weapon attack as a standard action, but you take a -3 penalty to your attack roll.
b) You may take a -1 penalty on one-handed attacks to gain +1 to AC.

When a non-light weapon is wielded in the offhand
a) you may make a two-weapon attack as a standard action, but you take a -7 penalty to attack roll on two-weapon attacks and a -1 penalty on one-handed attacks

The three feats below replace TWF, ITWF, GTWF, two-weapon pounce, two-weapon attack of opportunity and two-weapon defense, so they are certainly better. In my opinion, the fact that you need to take so many feats to do two-weapon fighting effectively is absurd.

Two-weapon fighting feat
If your offhand weapon is light, gain a +1 bonus to attack roll on two-weapon attacks (instead of taking a -3 penalty) and gain +1 shield bonus to AC. You may still take a -1 penalty on all attacks to gain an additional +1 shield bonus to AC.

If your offhand weapon is not light, take a -3 penalty on attack rolls on two-weapon attacks instead of a -7 penalty

Improved two-weapon fighting feat
You can use a two-weapon attack for any attack made at your highest base attack bonus (e.g. including attacks of opportunity, the attack after a charge, the first attack of a full attack action, the first flurry of blows attack, both rapid shot attacks, and the attack granted by the haste spell)

Greater two-weapon fighting feat
You can use a two-weapon attack in place of any attack whatsoever (including the extra attacks of a full attack action)

Oversized two-weapon fighting
If your offhand weapon is not light, take a -1 penalty to attack roll on two-weapon attacks instead of a -7 penalty, and hit with both weapons if your attack roll is AC+3 or AC+4. You may take a -1 penalty on all attacks to gain a +1 shield bonus to AC.

I would also allow weapon-specific feats to be taken for pairs of weapons (so you could take weapon focus (rapier+dagger) to get a +1 bonus to attack only when a rapier is wielded in main hand and a dagger is wielded in the offhand).

[Rizban]

Base two weapon fighting rules
Main hand and offhand attacks in two-weapon fighting are not separate attacks. You can make a one-weapon attack or a two-weapon attack. When a two-weapon attack is made, an attack resolves as follows:

If attack roll is less than AC, miss
If attack roll is equal to AC, hit with offhand weapon only
If attack roll is AC+1-AC+4, hit with main hand weapon only
If attack roll is AC+5 or greater, hit with both weaponsThis requires the DM to disclose the AC of the monsters either directly so the player rolls correctly or indirectly by telling the player specifically what to roll. I've not played in a game where it's disclosed explicitly, and we typically roll the attack and damage simultaneously. With this particular resolution system, it's just going to add time and bookkeeping.


When a light weapon is wielded in offhand
a) You can make a two-weapon attack as a standard action, but you take a -3 penalty to your attack roll.
b) You may take a -1 penalty on one-handed attacks to gain +1 to AC.

When a non-light weapon is wielded in the offhand
a) you may make a two-weapon attack as a standard action, but you take a -7 penalty to attack roll on two-weapon attacks and a -1 penalty on one-handed attacksYou're just reducing the existing penalties by 1 and adding an option for a very weak version of Combat Expertise.
I'm not seeing the purpose of that. We agree that it's under powered as written, but I don't see how such a minor change can really rectify that. I'm not seeing a significant enough change to be worth incorporating.


The three feats below replace TWF, ITWF, GTWF, two-weapon pounce, two-weapon attack of opportunity and two-weapon defense, so they are certainly better. In my opinion, the fact that you need to take so many feats to do two-weapon fighting effectively is absurd.Reducing the number of necessary feats is a good step...


Two-weapon fighting feat
If your offhand weapon is light, gain a +1 bonus to attack roll on two-weapon attacks (instead of taking a -3 penalty) and gain +1 shield bonus to AC. You may still take a -1 penalty on all attacks to gain an additional +1 shield bonus to AC.

If your offhand weapon is not light, take a -3 penalty on attack rolls on two-weapon attacks instead of a -7 penaltyThis makes sense, but it really needs to be worded more clearly.


Improved two-weapon fighting feat
You can use a two-weapon attack for any attack made at your highest base attack bonus (e.g. including attacks of opportunity, the attack after a charge, the first attack of a full attack action, the first flurry of blows attack, both rapid shot attacks, and the attack granted by the haste spell)

Greater two-weapon fighting feat
You can use a two-weapon attack in place of any attack whatsoever (including the extra attacks of a full attack action)Okay, this definitely needs some major clarification. You've previously stated that a player can attack with two weapons as a standard action, but nowhere did you say that this does not translate to being able to do so on iterative attacks. My assumption until I reached this point was that you could always attack with two weapons instead of one, but you took a penalty for doing so.

So, if I'm reading what you've written right...
Assuming I have none of these feats, a +6 BAB, and fight with 2 weapons (one of which is light). The following are my mutually exclusive combat options:

I can use a standard action to attack with two weapons and use my move action for something else. -3 to both attack rolls.
I can attack twice with only my main weapon as a full-round action using my iterative attack. -5 to the second attack roll only.

This just brings us right back to where we started. BAB 1-5, TWF is a decent enough option, but +6 and higher, without significant feat investment, 2H Power Attacking is just better. I get a single potent attack as a standard action or multiple iteratives as a full-round action, and my damage is higher, because I'm using a 2H weapon. To use TWF effectively, we're still looking at needing at least 2 feats vs just 1 in Power Attack.


Oversized two-weapon fighting
If your offhand weapon is not light, take a -1 penalty to attack roll on two-weapon attacks instead of a -7 penalty, and hit with both weapons if your attack roll is AC+3 or AC+4. You may take a -1 penalty on all attacks to gain a +1 shield bonus to AC.So, wait, does this have TWF as a prereq? Based on the way it's written, it seems that it doesn't, as standard TWF would have already reduced that -7 to -3.


I would also allow weapon-specific feats to be taken for pairs of weapons (so you could take weapon focus (rapier+dagger) to get a +1 bonus to attack only when a rapier is wielded in main hand and a dagger is wielded in the offhand).This seems like it would actually weaken Weapon Focus by making it even more specialized. Why would I ever take this feat over just, for example, Weapon Focus (rapier)? If I drop or decide to throw the dagger or just simply need that hand for something else, why would I want to also sacrifice the +1 on my rapier?

[Zorgoth]

This requires the DM to disclose the AC of the monsters either directly so the player rolls correctly or indirectly by telling the player specifically what to roll. I've not played in a game where it's disclosed explicitly, and we typically roll the attack and damage simultaneously. With this particular resolution system, it's just going to add time and bookkeeping.


That is a concern I have. If I were DMing, I might fudge the numbers somewhat so it's less clear what the AC is, but it will make resolution longer. For the AC issue, a better approach might be to say that

a) attack < AC => miss
b) attack >= AC => DM rolls d6, 1=offhand only, 2-5=main hand, 6=double hit
c) attack >= AC+5 => double hit

If the DM feels strongly about not giving anything away, you can just roll meaningless dice when you have attack>= AC+5 (which I do all the time anyway; sometimes, it disturbs my players to no end :P). It does still have the inevitable effect of increasing resolution time somewhat, but for my purposes I don't mind too much as I like to narrate combat a little when the dice resolve.

On the plus side, there are fewer attack rolls to resolve in the first place.

Personally, I've never rolled attack and damage simultaneously in any group I've been in, though I can see the advantage now that you mention it.


You're just reducing the existing penalties by 1 and adding an option for a very weak version of Combat Expertise.
I'm not seeing the purpose of that. We agree that it's under powered as written, but I don't see how such a minor change can really rectify that. I'm not seeing a significant enough change to be worth incorporating.

I was trying to find a way to add the parry bonus from realistic two-weapon fighting without making it better than shields (nonmagical non-tower shields grant at most 2 to AC).


Okay, this definitely needs some major clarification. You've previously stated that a player can attack with two weapons as a standard action, but nowhere did you say that this does not translate to being able to do so on iterative attacks. My assumption until I reached this point was that you could always attack with two weapons instead of one, but you took a penalty for doing so.

"As a standard action" is different than "as an attack" -- hence why you can't use many shot on every attack of a full attack.


So, if I'm reading what you've written right...
Assuming I have none of these feats, a +6 BAB, and fight with 2 weapons (one of which is light). The following are my mutually exclusive combat options:

I can use a standard action to attack with two weapons and use my move action for something else. -3 to both attack rolls.
I can attack twice with only my main weapon as a full-round action using my iterative attack. -5 to the second attack roll only.

This just brings us right back to where we started. BAB 1-5, TWF is a decent enough option, but +6 and higher, without significant feat investment, 2H Power Attacking is just better. I get a single potent attack as a standard action or multiple iteratives as a full-round action, and my damage is higher, because I'm using a 2H weapon. To use TWF effectively, we're still looking at needing at least 2 feats vs just 1 in Power Attack.


So, if I'm reading what you've written right...
Assuming I have none of these feats, a +6 BAB, and fight with 2 weapons (one of which is light). The following are my mutually exclusive combat options:

I can use a standard action to attack with two weapons and use my move action for something else. -3 to both attack rolls.
I can attack twice with only my main weapon as a full-round action using my iterative attack. -5 to the second attack roll only.

This just brings us right back to where we started. BAB 1-5, TWF is a decent enough option, but +6 and higher, without significant feat investment, 2H Power Attacking is just better. I get a single potent attack as a standard action or multiple iteratives as a full-round action, and my damage is higher, because I'm using a 2H weapon. To use TWF effectively, we're still looking at needing at least 2 feats vs just 1 in Power Attack. So, if I'm reading what you've written right...

Assuming I have none of these feats, a +6 BAB, and fight with 2 weapons (one of which is light). The following are my mutually exclusive combat options:

I can use a standard action to attack with two weapons and use my move action for something else. -3 to both attack rolls.
I can attack twice with only my main weapon as a full-round action using my iterative attack. -5 to the second attack roll only.


This just brings us right back to where we started. BAB 1-5, TWF is a decent enough option, but +6 and higher, without significant feat investment, 2H Power Attacking is just better. I get a single potent attack as a standard action or multiple iteratives as a full-round action, and my damage is higher, because I'm using a 2H weapon. To use TWF effectively, we're still looking at needing at least 2 feats vs just 1 in Power Attack.


I am keeping the requirement to take three feats to be a fully effective two-weapon fighter (or 4 to) because otherwise it would enable certain classes to use it to utterly devastating effect. For example, a rogue with all the benefits of two-weapon fighting from a single feat (with a requirement of only Dex 13!) could do ludicrous damage from sneak attacks and still have a ton of feats left over while still having high Strength and decent Con. What I wasn't OK with is that you actually need 6+ feats in core rules to do everything a THF fighter does automatically.

I'm working on the assumption that TWF *should not* be as powerful as THF for a Strength based fighter. TWF is great for heroes who have bonus weapon damage or Dex-based weapon finesse fighters who are accepting somewhat lower damage output than Strength fighters in exchange for the massive benefits of having high Dex.

Also, while it's generally posed as a benefit of THF that one magic item is cheaper than two, you have to remember that you can have two magic items with a +5 effective bonus for the same as one with a +7, so you can end up getting a lot more damage (though less attack) out of the TWF option.



So, wait, does this have TWF as a prereq? Based on the way it's written, it seems that it doesn't, as standard TWF would have already reduced that -7 to -3.


That was a mistake on my part. I intended for OTWF to have TWF as a prerequisite. On reflection, however, it may make the most sense to have two separate, similar feat chains so that you can either specialize in having a light offhand or a non-light offhand, and either way you spend three feats. I would still set it up so you can spend four to get everything.


This seems like it would actually weaken Weapon Focus by making it even more specialized. Why would I ever take this feat over just, for example, Weapon Focus (rapier)? If I drop or decide to throw the dagger or just simply need that hand for something else, why would I want to also sacrifice the +1 on my rapier?


Actually, what I wrote there was not thought out well. It makes sense under standard TWF rules because no one wants to take both weapon focus (rapier) and weapon focus (dagger) to get +1 to attack, but in these rules it doesn't because of the joint attack roll. I would just have weapon focus add to the two-weapon attack roll. So you could have weapon focus (rapier) and weapon focus (dagger) and get +2, or just one of them and get +1 (you would only get the highest enhancement bonus from two magic weapons, however, since it is a typed bonus).

[Zorgoth]

Thanks for your comments. Here's what things look like after some modifications.

Base two weapon fighting rules
Main hand and offhand attacks in two-weapon fighting are not separate attacks. You can make a one-weapon attack or a two-weapon attack. When a two-weapon attack is made, an attack resolves as follows:

Player rolls d20, DM rolls hidden d6

If attack roll is less than AC, miss
If attack roll is between AC and AC+4, result depends on DM's d6:
1 results in an offhand hit, 2-5 results in a main hand hit, 6 results in a double hit
If attack roll is AC+5 or greater, always hit with both weapons

When a light weapon is wielded in offhand

You can make a two-weapon attack as a standard action, but you take a -3 penalty to your attack roll.
You may take a -1 penalty on one-handed attacks to gain +1 to AC.
You may not make a two-weapon attack after a charge, as an attack of opportunity, or as part of a full attack action

When a non-light weapon is wielded in the offhand

You can make a two-weapon attack as a standard action, but you take a -1 penalty to your attack roll.
You may not make a two-weapon attack after a charge, as an attack of opportunity, or as part of a full attack action

While two-weapon attacks are somewhat complicated, I'm hoping to not have a particularly deleterious effect on turn length because of the fact that there will be half as many attack rolls in the first place.

Two-weapon fighting feat
Requires Dex 13

If your offhand weapon is light:

Gain a +1 bonus to attack roll on two-weapon attacks instead a -3 penalty.
You gain a +1 shield bonus to AC.
You may take a -1 penalty on all attacks to instead gain a +2 shield bonus to AC.

Oversized two-weapon fighting
Requires Str 13 and Dex 11

If your offhand weapon is not light:

Reduce penalty on two-weapon attacks from -7 to -1.
Further, when the attack roll is between AC and AC+4, hit with both weapons on a 3-6 instead of only on a 6.
Finally, you may take a -1 penalty on all attacks to gain a +1 shield bonus to AC.

Improved two-weapon fighting feat
Requires TWF and Dex 15 OR OTWF and Str 15 and Dex 13

You can use a two-weapon attack for any attack made at your highest base attack bonus (even if there are penalties such as in the case of flurry of blows).

Greater two-weapon fighting feat
Requires TWF and Dex 17 OR OTWF and Str 17 and Dex 15

You can use a two-weapon attack in place of any attack whatsoever (including the extra attacks of a full attack action)

I'm allowing the highest enhancement bonus to attack to be used on two-weapon attacks, which could be very good for min-maxing. You can, for example, put a +5 enhancement bonus on your offhand while stacking damage increasing enchantments on your main hand.

[MoleMage]

A couple internal inconsistencies

Your revised version of Oversized TWF is a lot better than your revised TWF.

Compare:

TWF gives +4 on associated attack roll, +1 AC while dual wielding, and no special effect.

OTWF gives +6 on associated attack roll (which is explicitly designed to be worse than TWF's attack roll normally), no AC bonus, but much higher chance of hitting with both weapons (four times as likely for the variable range). Plus, the offhand weapon is already going to do more damage (Dwarven Waraxe or Bastard Sword for 1d10) compared to most light weapons (1d4 or 1d6 at best).

I would suggest cutting back OTWF to a +4 (-3 to attack rolls overall), and giving the clause of expanded 1d6 range to both versions. I would also spread the range expanding out across the feats to make later feats more interesting (Improved feels lackluster right now). So maybe 5-6 with TWF or OTWF, 4-6 with Improved, and 3-6 with Advanced. Improved also heavily favors people who get extra attacks at full BAB (right now monks and rapid-shot knife-throwers) as it stands right now.

Here's an alternate idea for it, which you can take all or part of.

Improved Two-Weapon Fighting: Prereqs unchanged.
When making a two-weapon attack, you now hit with both weapons if the hidden d6 roll is a 4-6 instead of 5-6.
Additionally, you can use two-weapon attacks in more circumstances. You can now make two-weapon attacks in place of your normal weapon attack for a charge or attack of opportunity. When you take the full attack option, you can make an additional two-weapon attack at your highest base attack bonus as part of the full attack. If you do so, all attacks you make this round are at a -2. Unlike most bonus attacks, this one does stack with bonus attacks granted by the Frenzy alternate barbarian class feature, the Flurry of Blows monk class feature, and the Haste spell effect. In all such cases, any penalties are cumulative.

Advanced Two-Weapon Fighting: Prereqs unchanged.
When making a two-weapon attack, you now hit with both weapons if the hidden d6 roll is a 3-6 instead of 4-6.
Additionally, when you take the full attack action, you may take every attack as a two-weapon attack. You may do this even if you do not take the extra attack granted by Improved Two-weapon Fighting.

You also have a typo in the general rules for two-weapon attacks that states that off-hand non-light weapons are made at a -1 instead of a -7 penalty as indicated by OTWF.

My thoughts overall on the concept

Overall, I think you're addressing the right weaknesses of TWF (especially that it cannot be used as a standard action), but in so doing you are interrupting the flow of play in odd ways. Your hidden d6 roll is unlike any other combat check, as is relative success to AC. The latter at least does not require additional bookkeeping. The former preserves the mystery of AC, but in my experience if you're letting players roll attack rolls they'll figure AC out in a round or two anyway based on which attacks do and don't hit.

[Zorgoth]

OTWF may be OP as written, and ITWF lackluster.

However, I think we also have two different ideas of what TWF should be, which is another part of the issue here.

I'm viewing TWF with a light offhand as a defensive fighting style used by Dex fighters that has offensive benefits when you have a significant advantage, while TWF with a non-light offhand is an offensive fighting style used by fighters with high strength and moderate dex, likely combined with Power Attack.

Purely defensive TWF is also realistically much less difficult than OTWF. Therefore, OTWF without a feat should be something no sane person would ever attempt, while defensive TWF without a feat might be used by someone in a pinch (don't have a shield I can draw, but I have a dagger I can try to parry with). Thus, the buffs provided by the OTWF feat *should* be somewhat greater, primarily because OTWF without a feat is so bad in the first place, but also because you need str *and* dex to do OTWF effectively.

The hidden d6 vs flat numbers determining what gives main hand vs. offhand vs. double attacks is a matter of DM preference. You can balance it similarly either way. I'm presuming hidden d6 below.

Here's how I would be inclined to address your concerns (might fudge the numbers a bit):

TWF:
As my revised TWF

OTWF:
Gain +5 instead of +6 to attack, and get a double attack on a 5-6 instead of a 3-6.

ITWF: Instead of only being able to make a two-weapon attack as a standard action, you may use up to two two-weapon attacks in place of any two attacks you make in a turn, whether they are charges, attacks of opportunity, standard action attacks, or attacks in a full attack action.

When wielding a light weapon in your offhand, you still gain only a +1 shield bonus to AC by defauly, but you may take a -1 penalty to attack to gain a +3 shield bonus to AC.
When wielding an oversized weapon in your offhand, you get a double attack on 4-6.

GTWF:
Any attack may be a two-weapon attack.

When wielding a light weapon in your offhand, gain a +2 shield bonus to AC, and you may take a -1 penalty to attack to instead gain a +4 shield bonus to AC.

When wielding an oversized weapon in your offhand, you get a double attack on 3-6.


Incidentally, my bumping down the prereqs was actually an accident. I don't know whether they need to be bumped down. In a low-magic world, I think that keeping the prereqs attainable is better. In a high-magic world, I'd be inclined to add two to all the requirements (so an OTWF fighter needs 17 Dex at high levels, which is a significant investment that may be hurting his Con, rather than 15 Dex, which at that level he can easily get with an inexpensive magic item, and which he may want anyway even if he's wearing full plate).

Independently of this, Strength-based fighters with a one-handed weapon and shields should get better feats as well that give them higher AC and cool shield bash maneuvers. That's a better fix than gimping two-weapon fighting feats to make it so off hand weapons aren't superior to shields in all circumstances.

[MoleMage]

With the fixes you suggested, I think a better balance has been achieved. If you're trying to separate them out into defensive and offensive variations this makes more sense. Are you going to drop the Two-Weapon Defense feat from the feat tree, since it has largely been incorporated into two weapon fighting with light weapons?