House Rule for TWF Attack?

[Palanan]

So, it seems I’ve been mistaken for some time, and a TWF attack is meant to be a full-round action, with no move action allowed in the same round. My only consolation is that I’m probably not the only one who’s made this mistake.

This seems to be a real penalty for TWF builds, given that you have to spend one or more feats to even get started with this. How common is it to houserule that a move action can be taken in the same round as a TWF attack?

[icefractal]

Fairly common. A version I've seen a few times is to have it just match your base main-hand attacks. So two attacks as a standard action, and as a full-round it scales with your BAB (basically getting ITWF / GTWF for free at the appropriate levels).

The effect is that TWF becomes more viable for classes that aren't getting bonus damage on their attacks, which I think is generally a good thing.

[Elkad]

I let my players do it. 1 swing per weapon. if they have TWF, as a standard action.

Natural Weapons get the primary attack(s) only. Which is an incongruity, but I'm sometimes kind to my players. And if one of them decides to play a claw/claw/bite lizardman or something, I'll probably give him an exception to the exception.

I also improved the feat. It's 0/-2 with 2 light weapons, or -2/-2 with standard/light.

They are still paying for 2 weapons, and not stacking strength and powerattack like the Greatsword guy.

[Necroticplague]

So, it seems I’ve been mistaken for some time, and a TWF attack is meant to be a full-round action, with no move action allowed in the same round. My only consolation is that I’m probably not the only one who’s made this mistake.You're the only one I've ever seen make that mistake.


This seems to be a real penalty for TWF builds, given that you have to spend one or more feats to even get started with this. How common is it to houserule that a move action can be taken in the same round as a TWF attack?
I've never seen that as a houserule before this thread.

[Hackulator]

There are various feats which allow you to do this in various situations.

Dual Strike - feat, Complete Adventurer. You can use a standard action to make one attack to hit with both your primary weapon and your offhand weapon. Precision damage such as sneak attack only applies once.

Double Hit - feat, Miniatures Handbook. When you make an attack of opportunity, you also get to attack the same target with your offhand weapon.

Two-Weapon Pounce - feat, Player's Handbook II. When you charge you can attack with both your main hand and your offhand.

[Psyren]

I would just combine all the Vital Strike feats into one feat that scales like the chain does, and let players take that. That would let them move and still get a solid amount of damage in, but would also reward positioning yourself so that you can let loose with those full-attacks.

[Gruftzwerg]

Well or you could just go for a Barb 1 dip for ACF pounce..

I mean, most halfway optimized melee rely on it. That's what's common.

[Palanan]

Originally Posted by icefractal
Fairly common.


Originally Posted by Elkad
I let my players do it.

Okay, glad to hear I’m not the only one who’s thought of this.


Originally Posted by Hackulator
There are various feats which allow you to do this in various situations.

These are good to keep in mind, thanks.


Originally Posted by Psyren
I would just combine all the Vital Strike feats into one feat that scales like the chain does, and let players take that. That would let them move and still get a solid amount of damage in, but would also reward positioning yourself so that you can let loose with those full-attacks.

Interesting, thanks. This isn’t a feat I’m familiar with, and since the party is second level it’s still pretty far off everyone’s radar.

Two characters have TWF (the ranger and the Urogue) and I’d prefer just tweaking the mechanics of the feat they already have. I have absolutely no feel for game mechanics, so I’m not sure if a houserule would make things easier or just unleash more hassles.

[martixy]

I have it at BAB+6(for standard action and AoOs), but yea, many people do this. It's a much needed buff.

[KillianHawkeye]

This isn’t a feat I’m familiar with

Vital Strike is a Pathfinder feat. Although you didn't mention which edition you're playing, and I personally think that 3.5 is the safest assumption on these boards, it's not that surprising to occasionally find Pathfinder-specific advice in an unlabeled thread.

[Florian]

How common is it to houserule that a move action can be taken in the same round as a TWF attack?

Since your question originated in the PF RAW questions thread: Never heard about that house rule and wouldn't allow it. Go for the appropriate Fighter archetype, or pick Twin Fang Style and Vital Strike.

[Blymurkla]

If you are indeed asking with Pathfinder in mind, Unchained had this thing called Revised Action Economy (http://paizo.com/pathfinderRPG/prd/unchained/gameplay/revisedActionEconomy.html) that could be worth checking out. Its whole purpose isn't to boost TWF, but I've heard that that's one of the things it does because it doesn't penalise movement the way the game usually does. You could also find this thread (http://paizo.com/threads/rzs2tz4u?Marshmallows-Revised-Revised-Action-Economy) to be interesting.

[King of Nowhere]

I am among those who do it.

I figure, as two weapon fighting isn't an optimized style of combat, it won't screw balance to buff it. Even with this buff, the rogue does much less damage than the barbarian. As for rangers, I've never figured what the class is good at, so no risks for improving it.

I wonder why they didn't introduce this buff for twf with 3.5; by that time, they knew a two-handed weapon was the only viable melee style, and this removes choices from the game. A well balanced game has many correct ways to do things. they should have buffed twf

[Zombimode]

Fairly common.

Don't think so.



There are various feats which allow you to do this in various situations.

Dual Strike - feat, Complete Adventurer. You can use a standard action to make one attack to hit with both your primary weapon and your offhand weapon. Precision damage such as sneak attack only applies once.

Double Hit - feat, Miniatures Handbook. When you make an attack of opportunity, you also get to attack the same target with your offhand weapon.

Two-Weapon Pounce - feat, Player's Handbook II. When you charge you can attack with both your main hand and your offhand.

To add: Martial Strike (Wolf Fang Strike*): Standard Action, two attacks (with different weapons), both at -2. To note: you get full Str Bonus on damage on both of theese attacks.

*I think that is the name

[Florian]

I have absolutely no feel for game mechanics, so I’m not sure if a houserule would make things easier or just unleash more hassles.

You just don´t have a player play a class that really profits by using TWF and can build upon that. The combination of crit fishing, TWF and large static damage bonus can really wreck an encounter. Consider, for example, a Cavalier/Paladin firing up Challenge/Smite and going at it with twin Kukris/Wakizashi and Improved Critical.
It gets more pronounced with a Fighter. You know, you can actually create a very functional Sword n Board build around using TWF and stacking a lot of free "riders" to it.

Thing is, you have two "weaker" classes at hand right now, that´s why your house rule seems to be a good remedy. But consider what that´d mean for any of the classes that´re actually good at it.

[Palanan]

Originally Posted by KillianHawkeye
Although you didn't mention which edition you're playing, and I personally think that 3.5 is the safest assumption on these boards, it's not that surprising to occasionally find Pathfinder-specific advice in an unlabeled thread.

I’m running Pathfinder, but I wanted to leave it open to both PF and 3.5 commentary.


Originally Posted by Florian
You just don´t have a player play a class that really profits by using TWF and can build upon that.

I can’t quite follow what you’re saying here.


Originally Posted by Florian
Thing is, you have two "weaker" classes at hand right now, that´s why your house rule seems to be a good remedy. But consider what that´d mean for any of the classes that´re actually good at it.

What other classes are you referring to?

[Darrin]

How common is it to houserule that a move action can be taken in the same round as a TWF attack?

According to Emperor Tippy, if you go by the wording in the PHB, this is actually RAW. D&D is an exception-based rules system, and by his reading, taking the TWF feat allows you to make offhand attacks on a standard attack.

I never quite decided if I was comfortable with that interpretation. But you're not alone, no.

[Elkad]

You just don´t have a player play a class that really profits by using TWF and can build upon that. The combination of crit fishing, TWF and large static damage bonus can really wreck an encounter. Consider, for example, a Cavalier/Paladin firing up Challenge/Smite and going at it with twin Kukris/Wakizashi and Improved Critical.
It gets more pronounced with a Fighter. You know, you can actually create a very functional Sword n Board build around using TWF and stacking a lot of free "riders" to it.

Thing is, you have two "weaker" classes at hand right now, that´s why your house rule seems to be a good remedy. But consider what that´d mean for any of the classes that´re actually good at it.

Barring multi-attack pounce with a bunch of arms, it still doesn't beat a charging powerattack with a bunch of multipliers, where every point of AC you give up turns into 12-20 (or more) damage.
Sure, sometimes you can't charge. It's far more often your opponent is immune to crits. Or has DR that comes off every swing.

[Psyren]

Vital Strike is a Pathfinder feat. Although you didn't mention which edition you're playing, and I personally think that 3.5 is the safest assumption on these boards, it's not that surprising to occasionally find Pathfinder-specific advice in an unlabeled thread.

Given how compatible the two are, if a thread is unlabeled I have no qualms about providing a PF solution if it might fit what the OP is asking for. And even if a thread is labeled 3.5, sometimes the OP in those threads is okay with 3rd party or even homebrew, which to me opens the door to PF material again.


Barring multi-attack pounce with a bunch of arms, it still doesn't beat a charging powerattack with a bunch of multipliers, where every point of AC you give up turns into 12-20 (or more) damage.
Sure, sometimes you can't charge. It's far more often your opponent is immune to crits. Or has DR that comes off every swing.

In PF, the only way I know of to apply power attack penalties to AC instead of to hit is Tiger Pounce, which has the trade-off that it limits your other style feats and requires you to take IUS.

[Kayblis]

In PF, the only way I know of to apply power attack penalties to AC instead of to hit is Tiger Pounce, which has the trade-off that it limits your other style feats and requires you to take IUS.

3.5 has the Shock Trooper feat, that allows you to shift your penalty to attack rolls to your AC. Almost every 3.5 ubercharger build uses it.

[King of Nowhere]

You just don´t have a player play a class that really profits by using TWF and can build upon that. The combination of crit fishing, TWF and large static damage bonus can really wreck an encounter. Consider, for example, a Cavalier/Paladin firing up Challenge/Smite and going at it with twin Kukris/Wakizashi and Improved Critical.
It gets more pronounced with a Fighter. You know, you can actually create a very functional Sword n Board build around using TWF and stacking a lot of free "riders" to it.

Thing is, you have two "weaker" classes at hand right now, that´s why your house rule seems to be a good remedy. But consider what that´d mean for any of the classes that´re actually good at it.

Well, maybe I'm about to say something stupid because I don't know the system that well, but I don't buy that explanation.
fishing for crits doesn't give any advantage. Ok, you'll get more crits, but those crits will deal less damage. statistically you can treat critical strikes as an increase in the damage you expect to deal, which depends on the specific statistics. For example, if you hit with 11 or better, and have 19-20/x2 crit, you can expect to hit half the times, and one in ten of those hits will be a critical (one hit in 5 will be a 19 or 20, with 50% chance to confirm), and you deal +100% damage, so on average you deal 10% more damage. The thing is, you'll ddeal 10% more damage if you are making 20 attacks with a knife or 1 attack with a greatsword. So, more crits mean nothing.
As for special attacks on hit, things like stunning fist or smite evil can be used once per round, doesn't matter how many attacks you make. Now, if you have an enchanted blade that casts a spell every time it hits, and you have two of those, then you may take advantage of the thing. I've never seen it, though.
The only class I know that really profits from twf is rogue, because sneak attack applies to every hit. But even with houseruled buffs, it doesn't match the damage output of the barbarian. And it doesn't work if you're not flanking, or if the opponent is immune to flanking, or to critical strikes, or any of the other ways to avoid sneak attacks. and rogues are squishy, so a rogue jumping in the middle of melee to make sneak attacks is at high risk of soon becoming a dead rogue. Frankly, in the group I DM, the only thing preventing this from happening is that the barbarian deals so much more damage than the rogue anyway, that nobody cares much for focusing the rogue in the first place.

[Psyren]

3.5 has the Shock Trooper feat, that allows you to shift your penalty to attack rolls to your AC. Almost every 3.5 ubercharger build uses it.

The problem is that you're benchmarking against 3.5 Power Attack/ubercharging when the PF version is much more reasonable. So non-2H forms of fighting don't actually need that much buffing, relatively, to keep up.

[Bebbit]

According to Emperor Tippy, if you go by the wording in the PHB, this is actually RAW. D&D is an exception-based rules system, and by his reading, taking the TWF feat allows you to make offhand attacks on a standard attack.

I never quite decided if I was comfortable with that interpretation. But you're not alone, no.

I never actually noticed that. Now that's it's brought up and I re-read it, it doesn't state that the extra attack can only be on a full round like an iterative. It just says you get an extra attack per round with that weapon.

[Psyren]

But isn't there a general rule that says you can only gain extra attacks if you take the full attack action?

Also worth noting - the TWF feat doesn't actually give any attacks, you get those just by dint of using a second weapon. What the feat does is reduce penalties.

[Bebbit]

But isn't there a general rule that says you can only gain extra attacks if you take the full attack action?

Also worth noting - the TWF feat doesn't actually give any attacks, you get those just by dint of using a second weapon. What the feat does is reduce penalties.

Oh yeah, you're right. It's specified under the Full Attack options. Never mind.

That's what I get for second guessing myself.

[Darrin]

But isn't there a general rule that says you can only gain extra attacks if you take the full attack action?

Yes, but you take feats to let you do things outside of the general rules. That's the whole point of taking feats.

It's not clear to me when exactly an ability/effect trumps a "general rule". The rules themselves aren't consistent enough, so it all boils down to "whatever works best for your game".

[Bebbit]

Yes, but you take feats to let you do things outside of the general rules. That's the whole point of taking feats.

It's not clear to me when exactly an ability/effect trumps a "general rule". The rules themselves aren't consistent enough, so it all boils down to "whatever works best for your game".

Except the full Attack option specifically says
If you get more than one attack per round because your base attack bonus is high enough, because you fight with two weapons or a double weapon or for some special reason you must use a full-round action to get your additional attacks.

The benefit for getting the TWF feat is
Your penalties on attack rolls for fighting with two weapons are reduced. The penalty for your primary hand lessens by 2 and the one for your off hand lessens by 6. See the Two-Weapon Fighting special attack.

Nowhere does it say you can bypass the need for a Full Attack.

[PrismCat21]

(3.5) I allow an off-hand attack on a standard action as well. So far it's rarely become much of an issue. My players also aren't that concerned with optimizing, so I'm sure that helps.

The only time I can remember it causing problems was with a player that caused problems nearly every session. He's gone now, and there hasn't been an issue since.

[Florian]

Well, maybe I'm about to say something stupid because I don't know the system that well, but I don't buy that explanation.

Ok, here´s one of the basic differences for PF: Things like "Smite Evil" work "per enemy" and the bonus is on all attacks until the target is down. The sister ability, "Challenge" can even be upgrade to work "per encounter" (Chain Challenge feat). Nearly any martial class has some sort of passive to hit / to damage buff and those work favorable with more attacks instead of more powerful attacks.

Also consider that the basic TWF support feats include upgrading off-hand attribute bonus from x0,5 to x1 and upgrade TWF to use the Rend monster universal ability, while the basic Crit support feat start with better crit confirmation rolls and then proceed to add "riders" for nearly any condition in the game (Fighter can apply two conditions per crit).

Add to this that some classes can "overcharge" their weapons, either to be functional +15 equipment or activate special versions of enhancement, like an Inqusitors "Greater Bane" ability, which is functionally 2x Bane against a selected target. Hurts a lot when you have "Twin Bane" to enhance both weapons at once.

To use a slightly cheese example: A (lvl 20) Rageborn Inquisitor VMC Paladin with the Rage domain will generate something like a flat +50 damage bonus vs. evil outsiders (per hit) from passive abilities alone. Even at x2, that will sum up with a high crit weapon.

Edit: That´s why I said Palanan has to deal with the two least powerful classes when it comes to TWF.

@Psyren:

Joah, generally true: No additional attacks on a standard attack, not even with haste or blessing of fervor. That´s what makes a Vexing Daredevil with a Butcher Axe so fun and unique.

[Darrin]

Nowhere does it say you can bypass the need for a Full Attack.

Tippy's interpretation was based on the wording in the PHB. I believe what he's referring to is this (PHB p. 102):

"You can fight with a weapon in each hand. You can make one extra attack each round with the second weapon." (emphasis added)

This text appears just before the prereqs and benefit section, but it's not clear if this is rules text or descriptive text. We've had arguments about that sort of text before, to no useful resolution.

Tippy sometimes has a rather... *unique* view of how RAW works. I may have misunderstood his argument, so I should probably stop putting words in his mouth.

[EDIT] Ok, I found Tippy's post on the subject. He actually quotes the TWF rules section on page 160 in the Combat section rather than the TWF feat in the Feats section.

Here's Tippy's post about TWF (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showsinglepost.php?p=15494294&postcount=32).

[Bebbit]

Tippy's interpretation was based on the wording in the PHB. I believe what he's referring to is this (PHB p. 102):

"You can fight with a weapon in each hand. You can make one extra attack each round with the second weapon." (emphasis added)

This text appears just before the prereqs and benefit section, but it's not clear if this is rules text or descriptive text. We've had arguments about that sort of text before, to no useful resolution.

Tippy sometimes has a rather... *unique* view of how RAW works. I may have misunderstood his argument, so I should probably stop putting words in his mouth.

[EDIT] Ok, I found Tippy's post on the subject. He actually quotes the TWF rules section on page 160 in the Combat section rather than the TWF feat in the Feats section.

Here's Tippy's post about TWF (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showsinglepost.php?p=15494294&postcount=32).

From what I gather, it's just stating you can make an attack using the weapon you have in your off-hand instead of just holding it. It still falls under the Full Attack action because it's an extra attack granted by using two weapons. It's pretty clear about that. No matter how many extra attacks you get from TWF, it's still an extra attack using two weapons, and that falls under the Full Attack.

It doesn't say the attack is free, or that it's outside the rules of the Full Attack. Tippy's post seems like it's taking some very liberal readings of the rules, while ignoring the over-arcing one of the Full Attack.

[Psyren]

Yes, but you take feats to let you do things outside of the general rules. That's the whole point of taking feats.

It's not clear to me when exactly an ability/effect trumps a "general rule". The rules themselves aren't consistent enough, so it all boils down to "whatever works best for your game".

Rules trump each other when they contradict. That isn't the case here because the feat doesn't specify the type of action you need to get that extra attack, while the general rules do. Thus there is no "specific" to trump the "general."

[Darrin]

Rules trump each other when they contradict. That isn't the case here because the feat doesn't specify the type of action you need to get that extra attack, while the general rules do. Thus there is no "specific" to trump the "general."

"Specific trumps general" is not embodied in the actual rules. That's something the community has come up with to help adjudicate rules disputes. The actual rules themselves offer no such courtesy.

I can point to the TWF feat and state that it obviously allows me to do something outside of the Full Attack rules. You can point at the Full Attack rules and say that obviously does not allow any such thing. It all boils down to, "Whatever works best for your game."

And in the interests of pedantry... if it was so obvious that the TWF rules did not allow an offhand attack on a standard action, then why did they bother to change the wording in the Rules Compendium?

[CharonsHelper]

"Specific trumps general" is not embodied in the actual rules. That's something the community has come up with to help adjudicate rules disputes. The actual rules themselves offer no such courtesy.

No they don't, but it's a general logical truth for EVERYTHING. Not just 3.x or RPG rules.


I can point to the TWF feat and state that it obviously allows me to do something outside of the Full Attack rules. You can point at the Full Attack rules and say that obviously does not allow any such thing. It all boils down to, "Whatever works best for your game."

No. No it doesn't. There is a right & a wrong answer.

Some rules are iffy and up to judgment calls. This one isn't.

[Bebbit]

And in the interests of pedantry... if it was so obvious that the TWF rules did not allow an offhand attack on a standard action, then why did they bother to change the wording in the Rules Compendium?

Ok, so you're now saying that in order to get your interpretation of the rules, you're going to ignore the more recent explanation of them that dismisses your theory?

That's not RAW, that's a houserule. Don't get the two confused.

If you totally disregard the rules for a Full Attack, I guess you could say that it's a Standard Action. But any extra attacks you gain from using two weapons is specifically covered in the rules for a Full Attack.

[Psyren]

"Specific trumps general" is not embodied in the actual rules. That's something the community has come up with to help adjudicate rules disputes. The actual rules themselves offer no such courtesy.

Actually, that order of rules adjudication can be found in the 3.5 errata file. So it does exist in codified form. But it is often misused here.



I can point to the TWF feat and state that it obviously allows me to do something outside of the Full Attack rules. You can point at the Full Attack rules and say that obviously does not allow any such thing. It all boils down to, "Whatever works best for your game."

And in the interests of pedantry... if it was so obvious that the TWF rules did not allow an offhand attack on a standard action, then why did they bother to change the wording in the Rules Compendium?

I don't disagree with any of this.

[Darrin]

Ok, so you're now saying that in order to get your interpretation of the rules, you're going to ignore the more recent explanation of them that dismisses your theory?

Actually, arguing about the "bootstrap" authority of the Rules Compendium (or lack thereof) is a time-honored tradition on this forum.

Of course, it helps that the Rules Compendium is not the most recent explanation of the rules. The PHB has been re-issued since then, and for whatever reason it did not include all of the changes from the RC.

[Bebbit]

Ok, maybe you can explain how you think it's RAW to have two attacks on a Standard Action.

This is how I believe it's RAW:
The TWF feat says it gives you an extra attack with your offhand weapon. Now whether this is in addition to the regular attack you get while wielding a weapon in your off-hand or not is irrelevant. What matters here is that it says extra attack.

The Full Attack action states that if you get more that one attack per round from two weapons, you must use the Full Attack.
Now I'm no scholar, but I do believe adding an extra attack is generally considered more than one, and it's not considered a Haste Effect. Thus, it falls under needing to be a Full Attack action.

[Palanan]

Originally Posted by Darrin
Tippy sometimes has a rather... *unique* view of how RAW works.

I never quite decided if I was comfortable with that interpretation. But you're not alone, no.

Thanks. Tippy definitely has a unique perspective on the rules. Like yourself, I can’t really agree with him on this one.


Originally Posted by Darrin
And in the interests of pedantry... if it was so obvious that the TWF rules did not allow an offhand attack on a standard action, then why did they bother to change the wording in the Rules Compendium?

And as a related question, why didn’t Paizo clarify the wording when they brought out Pathfinder? That’s what I’m wondering now.


Originally Posted by Darrin
The PHB has been re-issued since then, and for whatever reason it did not include all of the changes from the RC.

If you mean the deluxe reprint of the PHB, I think the reason is pure corporate laziness. I doubt if they had much interest in spending staff time on correcting the fine nuance of certain rules, much less cross-checking with other products in their line. Not when it’s much simpler just to send the old files to the printer with a fancified cover, and squeeze a little more money from a line they've otherwise put to bed.


Originally Posted by Florian
Joah, generally true….

What does “Joah” mean here?

:smallconfused:

[Psyren]

Of course, it helps that the Rules Compendium is not the most recent explanation of the rules. The PHB has been re-issued since then, and for whatever reason it did not include all of the changes from the RC.

We all know the "whatever reason." WotC grabbed whatever proof they had lying around and sent it to the printer. They weren't about to invest more effort than that for a dead edition, yet people keep trying to read some kind of obvious authorial intent into that purely monetary decision when it was anything but.

[Darrin]

And as a related question, why didn’t Paizo clarify the wording when they brought out Pathfinder? That’s what I’m wondering now.


In my limited experience with Pathfinder, I have been unable to assign any coherent rationale to how exactly Paizo updates their rules. As soon as I think they have an inkling of what they are doing, they say something about unarmed strikes that challenges the most basic and fundamental assumptions of coherent thought.



If you mean the deluxe reprint of the PHB, I think the reason is pure corporate laziness.


I am in agreement with you here, but it still comes up in discussions about the Rules Compendium. Establishing the intent of the designers is a fool's errand. For every example you can point to where the designers explained their intentions, we can point to dozens (if not hundreds) of examples where the designers ran in the complete opposite direction, laughing and screaming along the way.

Hence my preference for "Whatever works for your group." I find that this should be the most authoritative resolution for any and all rules disputes: "Well, we tried it with our group, and we found that {X} works best in actual play." An online forum makes for an excellent repository for exactly this sort of empirical data.

[King of Nowhere]

Ok, here´s one of the basic differences for PF: Things like "Smite Evil" work "per enemy" and the bonus is on all attacks until the target is down. The sister ability, "Challenge" can even be upgrade to work "per encounter" (Chain Challenge feat). Nearly any martial class has some sort of passive to hit / to damage buff and those work favorable with more attacks instead of more powerful attacks.

Also consider that the basic TWF support feats include upgrading off-hand attribute bonus from x0,5 to x1 and upgrade TWF to use the Rend monster universal ability, while the basic Crit support feat start with better crit confirmation rolls and then proceed to add "riders" for nearly any condition in the game (Fighter can apply two conditions per crit).

Add to this that some classes can "overcharge" their weapons, either to be functional +15 equipment or activate special versions of enhancement, like an Inqusitors "Greater Bane" ability, which is functionally 2x Bane against a selected target. Hurts a lot when you have "Twin Bane" to enhance both weapons at once.

To use a slightly cheese example: A (lvl 20) Rageborn Inquisitor VMC Paladin with the Rage domain will generate something like a flat +50 damage bonus vs. evil outsiders (per hit) from passive abilities alone. Even at x2, that will sum up with a high crit weapon.

Edit: That´s why I said Palanan has to deal with the two least powerful classes when it comes to TWF.

@Psyren:

Joah, generally true: No additional attacks on a standard attack, not even with haste or blessing of fervor. That´s what makes a Vexing Daredevil with a Butcher Axe so fun and unique.

oh, ok. So in pathfinder twf is actually a viable fighting style that does not need buffs, while in 3.5 it sucks so it can be buffed freely.

[CharonsHelper]

oh, ok. So in pathfinder twf is actually a viable fighting style that does not need buffs, while in 3.5 it sucks so it can be buffed freely.

In Pathfinder, especially at higher levels, it's the highest DPR combat style, especially for classes with a lot of static damage (rouge/samurai/fighter etc.). (in comparison to two-handed)

The drawback is the feat costs, DR affecting it more, and only benefitting when making a full attack.

TWF gains less benefits from Haste (obviously) but more benefits from static buffing such as Inspire Courage.

[Psyren]

I am in agreement with you here, but it still comes up in discussions about the Rules Compendium. Establishing the intent of the designers is a fool's errand. For every example you can point to where the designers explained their intentions, we can point to dozens (if not hundreds) of examples where the designers ran in the complete opposite direction, laughing and screaming along the way.

We may not have definitive proof, but it doesn't take much common sense to conclude that for a corporation, spending resources on refining an edition they'd rather people not be buying anyway is not an easy sell to the bean counters. Certainly it's far more likely that they were lazy than that someone at WotC literally sat with both the PHB and RC on their lap and consciously said "let's roll back all the rules clarifications we spent considerable amounts of time and money on developing and publishing for no reason." So no, I call BS on the idea that we simply have to throw up our hands and be at a loss because truth is unknowable.



Hence my preference for "Whatever works for your group." I find that this should be the most authoritative resolution for any and all rules disputes: "Well, we tried it with our group, and we found that {X} works best in actual play." An online forum makes for an excellent repository for exactly this sort of empirical data.

But that's even worse, as it's entirely subjective. What works for Tippy's group is not going to work for mine, at all, and what works for your group may also not work. I don't particularly care how much fun someone else's group had by giving every single melee in the game pounce for free, it's not for me. I'd rather use an official solution (even if it's situational) or failing that, some form of lesser "pounce" like Vital Strike.

[Florian]

oh, ok. So in pathfinder twf is actually a viable fighting style that does not need buffs, while in 3.5 it sucks so it can be buffed freely.

The synergy between the feats and the passive buffs makes the difference. Both, TWF and archery are very feat intensive, tho, so classes with bonus feats gain more out of it.

Incidentally, that also touches on another fighting style that changed: Sword n Board, because it has great synergy with TWF. Female human in Full Plate with Large Steel Shield and Longsword? Dwarf in Chainmail with Shield and Warhammer? Spartan with Spear and Shield? Run, run like hell and don´t let them full attack.

[CharonsHelper]

Incidentally, that also touches on another fighting style that changed: Sword n Board, because it has great synergy with TWF. Female human in Full Plate with Large Steel Shield and Longsword? Dwarf in Chainmail with Shield and Warhammer? Spartan with Spear and Shield? Run, run like hell and don´t let them full attack.

If they grab Shield Mastery - which most characters can't get until level 11. (Rangers & Slayers can nab at 6.)

And of course - Sword & Board has always been good for secondary combatants like clerics & melee bards who don't have the BAB to make use of Power Attack effectively (they'll miss too much) and aren't going to be attacking every round, so the AC boost is well worth the loss of 1.5x STR damage & slightly lower dice. (Not to mention that melee bards should generally grab Fencing/Slashing Grace.)

[Pleh]

But that's even worse, as it's entirely subjective. What works for Tippy's group is not going to work for mine, at all, and what works for your group may also not work. I don't particularly care how much fun someone else's group had by giving every single melee in the game pounce for free, it's not for me. I'd rather use an official solution (even if it's situational) or failing that, some form of lesser "pounce" like Vital Strike.

I actually am not convinced that the "official solution" is any less subjectively based. Possibly even less so since the game makers had to build on fewer play tests of the system than an online forum with over a decade of game time with this same system.

We all like to imagine that WotC has programs and whiteboards with formulas and careful balance calculations being considered as they created this content.

The fan community who has actually analyzed it in that detail seems to find the official solutions to make less sense rather than more.

I dunno. To me, it looks like a kitchen recipe scenario. The franchise sells prepackaged ingrediants for exactly their recipe, but some groups are better off customizing some or most of the material.

Thing of it is, it's all been subjective from the start. The official solution is only different in that you can theoretically settle disputes easier by asking the group to agree to submit to a neutral third party opinion.

But honestly, strangers on a forum can be just as much a neutral third party authority. Heck, if GitP forumites pooled resources and published a guide for 3.5 following the OGL rules, it would essentially be a 3rd party resource, like arms and equipment guide.

Edit: I guess my point is that you don't necessarily know that what worked at Tippy's table won't work at yours if you refuse to try it.

[Andreaz]

The two houserules I use are
The canonical TWF feat is a baseline feature of the game. Anything that had it as a pre-requisite now requires BAB 1 (i.e: lol whatever).
Anything that has a prerequisite of the TWF chain (improved, greater, whatev) now requires the TWF feat.
TWF Feat: Requires BAB 6. "While dual wielding your standard action attack can consist of one attack per weapon. On a full attack, your offhand weapon can attack as many times as the main hand weapon, instead of only once."

So single attacks are double attacks and clusters of attacks are double clusters of attacks. Shiv that bastard. BAB 6 is just so going past "yay one extra attack" is for the serious stabbers.

----

If you want to delve into multiweaponry it pays to think of mainhand and offhand as abstracts. One set of attacks gets to be main, the others are off, and the set is not restricted to any given weapon. This is how the game works already, but it's a little counterintuitive to imagine a sword + dagger + armor spikes dual wielder going doing his full attack in a mixed and messy fashion:


Main 1
Main 2
Main 3
Main 4
Off 1
Off 2
Off 3
Off 4


Sword
Dagger
Spike
Spike
Sword
Spike
Dagger
Sword


But you can do that.

[CharonsHelper]

I actually am not convinced that the "official solution" is any less subjectively based.

It's not that it's more/less subjective. It's just that it's the shared baseline to start from.

Ex: Everyone knows that 3.5 monk is terrible, but that doesn't somehow make one person's homebrew monk the new official rule. If you want to use your homebrew fix that's fine, but don't try to pretend that it's the actual rule despite blatant evidence to the contrary.

I have no issues with any houserules. I have issues with people claiming that their houserules are the default.

[Psyren]

I actually am not convinced that the "official solution" is any less subjectively based. Possibly even less so since the game makers had to build on fewer play tests of the system than an online forum with over a decade of game time with this same system.

We all like to imagine that WotC has programs and whiteboards with formulas and careful balance calculations being considered as they created this content.

The fan community who has actually analyzed it in that detail seems to find the official solutions to make less sense rather than more.

I dunno. To me, it looks like a kitchen recipe scenario. The franchise sells prepackaged ingrediants for exactly their recipe, but some groups are better off customizing some or most of the material.

Thing of it is, it's all been subjective from the start. The official solution is only different in that you can theoretically settle disputes easier by asking the group to agree to submit to a neutral third party opinion.

But honestly, strangers on a forum can be just as much a neutral third party authority. Heck, if GitP forumites pooled resources and published a guide for 3.5 following the OGL rules, it would essentially be a 3rd party resource, like arms and equipment guide.

"If GitP forumites pooled resources" is a much bigger problem than you imply. The benefit of a design team is that they have a clear hierarchy, so they can achieve (or if necessary, impose) consensus. Eventually, someone in charge (be it a Jason Buhlman, or a Monte Cook, or a Keith Baker etc) is going to have the last word on a dispute and they will publish a unified response, because doing so is their job. They also have the advantage that, if wording truly is ambiguous or unclear, they have the power to simply state which interpretation they intended, or outright change that wording via errata to make it clearer. It's difficult to do in a medium that revolves around print, but it's always an option at least.

All of that is impossible on a forum, and perhaps especially on this one. There is no power structure relative to rulings - only endless bickering, followed by moderation for people who cross the civility line. And while a design team can have a baseline power tolerance (however rough), the forum is all over the place in terms of what we want at our tables. Forums are excellent at finding amiguities, loopholes and flaws that the designers didn't, it's true, but the solutions are the sticking point. Whenever we try a community project like the one you describe, endless wrangling seems to be the order of the day; I've seen tons of it even in smaller scale efforts like the ToB errata project, never mind trying to fix anything as complicated as wealth or spells.



Edit: I guess my point is that you don't necessarily know that what worked at Tippy's table won't work at yours if you refuse to try it.

I may not have played in TV myself, but I've read it and know it's not for me. His stuff is an excellent thought experiment, don't get me wrong, but I want it nowhere near my dice.

[Pleh]

It's not that it's more/less subjective. It's just that it's the shared baseline to start from.

Ex: Everyone knows that 3.5 monk is terrible, but that doesn't somehow make one person's homebrew monk the new official rule. If you want to use your homebrew fix that's fine, but don't try to pretend that it's the actual rule despite blatant evidence to the contrary.

I have no issues with any houserules. I have issues with people claiming that their houserules are the default.

Eh, but my point is that the baseline is just as arbitrary. I'm not declaring houserules to be the same as official sources, just to be rather equally subjective in their creation.


"If GitP forumites pooled resources" is a much bigger problem than you imply. The benefit of a design team is that they have a clear hierarchy, so they can achieve (or if necessary, impose) consensus. Eventually, someone in charge (be it a Jason Buhlman, or a Monte Cook, or a Keith Baker etc) is going to have the last word on a dispute and they will publish a unified response, because doing so is their job. They also have the advantage that, if wording truly is ambiguous or unclear, they have the power to simply state which interpretation they intended, or outright change that wording via errata to make it clearer. It's difficult to do in a medium that revolves around print, but it's always an option at least.

All of that is impossible on a forum, and perhaps especially on this one. There is no power structure relative to rulings - only endless bickering, followed by moderation for people who cross the civility line. And while a design team can have a baseline power tolerance (however rough), the forum is all over the place in terms of what we want at our tables. Forums are excellent at finding amiguities, loopholes and flaws that the designers didn't, it's true, but the solutions are the sticking point. Whenever we try a community project like the one you describe, endless wrangling seems to be the order of the day; I've seen tons of it even in smaller scale efforts like the ToB errata project, never mind trying to fix anything as complicated as wealth or spells.



I may not have played in TV myself, but I've read it and know it's not for me. His stuff is an excellent thought experiment, don't get me wrong, but I want it nowhere near my dice.

The forum pooling resources is just a theoretical example. The product doesn't have to be good, just that it can have the 3rd party authoritative status if we wanted regardless of how good it is (or isn't). That's how arbitrary authority in D&D is.

After all, the WotC material has issues to begin with (part of the original question of the thread).

If ever this community published their own content, I'm sure it would set a hierarchy based on who was actually doing the work of publishing and printing. If the entire process was up to commitee, nothing would ever get done (as we've seen).

[Psyren]

Arbitrary authority is still authority if it's recognized, which first-party material generally is. Now, WotC shot themselves in the foot by (a) pre-emptively invalidating all their FAQ and forum posts as being non-authoritative, and (b) relying on an opaque and often contradictory CustServ system, so I don't blame people for disputing their authority, but PF for good or ill at least has a clear and unified voice in their pronouncements, even if said pronouncements sometimes end up getting retracted later.

And that is, in my opinion, what a rules-heavy system needs to be healthy - a good FAQ system, one that lets the designers clear things up without being beholden to print runs. (And in the future, the ability to rely on electronic redaction and errata completely.) As you correctly mentioned, forums just have way more man-hours to playtest this stuff and suss out all the issues, so the designers need an easy way to squash bugs and keep the game fresh. Video games have figured this out years ago via patching and DLC, but tabletop is struggling to keep pace.

[Pleh]

Video games have figured this out years ago via patching and DLC, but tabletop is struggling to keep pace.

I do like the minecraft model. Keep pushing the official, core content forward, but leave it a one time payment and leave it open to the modders so the community plays exactly how they prefer.

[Florian]

But honestly, strangers on a forum can be just as much a neutral third party authority. Heck, if GitP forumites pooled resources and published a guide for 3.5 following the OGL rules, it would essentially be a 3rd party resource, like arms and equipment guide.

Forget it. Good analytical skills do not automatically transfer to good or even decent creative skills.
I´ve got some experience as a project manager under my belt and the people I deem able to cooperate on sch a project are very few.

[Pleh]

Forget it. Good analytical skills do not automatically transfer to good or even decent creative skills.
I´ve got some experience as a project manager under my belt and the people I deem able to cooperate on sch a project are very few.

Lol, my thought was actually a little more along the lines of a catalogue of the forum's best ideas, starting with the oldest and most popular.

Wasn't so much thinking they would creatively start from scratch. Just take the bits and pieces we already generally recognize as a community (i.e. the things we've largely used analytics to vet).

[Psyren]

I do like the minecraft model. Keep pushing the official, core content forward, but leave it a one time payment and leave it open to the modders so the community plays exactly how they prefer.

Technically, Rule Zero means infinite modding potential. And it's certainly easier to throw together some tabletop houserules than it is to code a mod.

But that convenience is also the tabletop mod's downfall - there's little centralization, what exists has little quality control, and the extent to which homebrew content can harm a tabletop game is limitless. Can you imagine if Minecraft modding sites had the same QC standards as DanDwiki? We'd all be drowning in malware.


Lol, my thought was actually a little more along the lines of a catalogue of the forum's best ideas, starting with the oldest and most popular.

Thing is, determining what is "best" or even "most popular" is only the beginning of the problems you'd have.

[CharonsHelper]

Video games have figured this out years ago via patching and DLC, but tabletop is struggling to keep pace.

It's easier to keep everyone on the same patch with a video game, especially now that so many require internet access.

Tabletop inherently doesn't. The closest thing would be if a TTRPG only released as a PDF, updating as they went.

Except it would still at a major disadvantage to video game patching, because the owners of video games don't have to change their play to apply the patch.

I think that it's really an apples & oranges comparison.

[Florian]

I think that it's really an apples & oranges comparison.

Not really. It depends on the creator wanting to be in charge of the creation or not.

[Psyren]

It's easier to keep everyone on the same patch with a video game, especially now that so many require internet access.

Tabletop inherently doesn't. The closest thing would be if a TTRPG only released as a PDF, updating as they went.

Except it would still at a major disadvantage to video game patching, because the owners of video games don't have to change their play to apply the patch.

I think that it's really an apples & oranges comparison.

It is right now, but it's the direction I think the hobby needs to take. Designers will always have less time to playtest than the audience they're releasing for, so exploits are inevitable. The ability to fix those exploits is therefore paramount.

Not sure what you mean by "change their play." Patches in both media can drastically change gameplay.

[CharonsHelper]

The ability to fix those exploits is therefore paramount.

Many RPGs release playtest versions months before release to help with that. (Whether or not they listen to play-testers is a different matter.)



Not sure what you mean by "change their play." Patches in both media can drastically change gameplay.

Because in a TTRPG they have to both be aware of a change and actively apply it. For minor tweaks in a video game you may not even notice.

[Psyren]

Many RPGs release playtest versions months before release to help with that. (Whether or not they listen to play-testers is a different matter.)

No amount of playtesting is going to eliminate all problems, including some serious ones. Nor can they release the entire thing as a playtest, otherwise then they're just cutting into sales as people stick with the free playtest versions. And lastly, not all of the feedback from a playtest is useful; if the designers for instance are adamant that Dex to Damage should not be an easy thing, all the playtest feedback saying "give them Dex to Damage!" is going to create more noise and clutter that they have to wade through.

This is to say nothing of the other deadlines they have to hit. To even have a public playtest, they need an internal one first, then they have a small window to incorporate all the feedback when it's over so they can get the whole thing to the printer, who themselves have multiple clients they're trying to juggle, all to try and hit some release date (e.g. the holiday season) to maximize sales so that the designers don't simply starve. In short, the Real World sucks.


Because in a TTRPG they have to both be aware of a change and actively apply it. For minor tweaks in a video game you may not even notice.

Gotcha, that's true. Well, one day when we have AIs DMing for us, that problem will fix itself :smalltongue:

More realistically though - I would love it if 3.5/PF had an official and much more user-friendly take on HeroLab or PCGen that the designers could directly update with FAQ and Errata.

[CharonsHelper]

No amount of playtesting is going to eliminate all problems, including some serious ones. Nor can they release the entire thing as a playtest, otherwise then they're just cutting into sales as people stick with the free playtest versions.

Oh sure - about the only way I think it makes much sense is for Kickstarter games. I know that I plan to give the current version of Space Dogs* out to Kickstarter backers as soon as the campaign's over to get some more play-testing before I polish it up and print it out. (One of the many reasons I want the game 98% done before the Kickstarter.)


*Shameless Plug


More realistically though - I would love it if 3.5/PF had an official and much more user-friendly take on HeroLab or PCGen that the designers could directly update with FAQ and Errata.

That could be nice, and it's a bit surprising that it hasn't been done yet. Just directly integrate it into the game. You could even streamline character creation in the book - instead giving explanations of what the Character Creation Engine (or whatever) is doing - basically assuming its use.

[Pleh]

Technically, Rule Zero means infinite modding potential. And it's certainly easier to throw together some tabletop houserules than it is to code a mod.

But that convenience is also the tabletop mod's downfall - there's little centralization, what exists has little quality control, and the extent to which homebrew content can harm a tabletop game is limitless. Can you imagine if Minecraft modding sites had the same QC standards as DanDwiki? We'd all be drowning in malware.

Thing is, determining what is "best" or even "most popular" is only the beginning of the problems you'd have.

Ever seen Goat Simulator?

What you call "problems," others might call "features."

This is what I mean when I say authority is arbitrary and everything is subjective.

Some games (I accept that yours seems to be one) work better with greater objectivity, but not all of them will.

But if 5e is any indication, I think we will see tabletop games go even further into making objective rules optional rather than mandatory. If we want absolute, umbreakable mechanics, just play on a console.

[Psyren]

Ever seen Goat Simulator?

What you call "problems," others might call "features."

This is what I mean when I say authority is arbitrary and everything is subjective.

Some games (I accept that yours seems to be one) work better with greater objectivity, but not all of them will.

Oh I'm not denying that. But I know what I like from my RPGs, and Goat Simulator isn't it. I don't think I'm alone either.



But if 5e is any indication, I think we will see tabletop games go even further into making objective rules optional rather than mandatory. If we want absolute, umbreakable mechanics, just play on a console.

I get your point but I don't really agree. Certainly 5e proved that "rules-light" is a thing people want. But expecting the entire market to go that way is not my expectation. There is room for both rules-light and rules-heavy, and in fact I would argue that the industry as a whole is made better by both options being available. I like 5e, but I also like PF and 3.5, and I for one want both to exist and be popular.

[CharonsHelper]

I get your point but I don't really agree. Certainly 5e proved that "rules-light" is a thing people want. But expecting the entire market to go that way is not my expectation. There is room for both rules-light and rules-heavy, and in fact I would argue that the industry as a whole is made better by both options being available. I like 5e, but I also like PF and 3.5, and I for one want both to exist and be popular.

I'll agree with this sentiment.

Also - I can see an argument that the industry is healthier with D&D being at least as lite as 5e. Because of it's place as undisputed market leader (and has been other than during the peak of Vampire & TSR woes coincided) it's generally the first TTRPG taste that people get. Being a bit lighter probably makes the learning curve of new players easier.

[Palanan]

In other news, @Psyren, thanks for the speedy and very helpful reply in the Pathfinder RAW thread.

I suppose if the party rogue manages to flank and hit twice, I shouldn't begrudge her the extra +1d6. :smallsmile:

[Psyren]

No problem!


I'll agree with this sentiment.

Also - I can see an argument that the industry is healthier with D&D being at least as lite as 5e. Because of it's place as undisputed market leader (and has been other than during the peak of Vampire & TSR woes coincided) it's generally the first TTRPG taste that people get. Being a bit lighter probably makes the learning curve of new players easier.

Yes and no; Rules-light is indeed better for new tabletop players. But it's also harder to translate to any other medium EXCEPT pure tabletop, and so you lose the new players from that angle. PF, being more defined, you can make into video games and board games and card games more easily than you can with 5e. Those other media don't have a GM you can mother-may-I to and clear up ambiguities with - the rules themselves have to do that, and that is where rules-heavy (with patches, if needed) shines.

I myself was introduced to the hobby as a whole through Baldur's Gate. I've since gone to older TTRPGs like 2e and Rolemaster, and of course forward to 3/PF/4/5, but without that first entry I might never have done so, and thought of "RPG" as that thing I do on my Super Nintendo where I choose Fight, Magic, or Item.

[Florian]

I suppose if the party rogue manages to flank and hit twice, I shouldn't begrudge her the extra +1d6. :smallsmile:

Remember the discussion we had a while ago about how to design a good and challenging encounter that is not too swingy?

I told you back then that your party is a bit unbalanced as its more or less entirely dependent on positioning and full attacks, but will then manage to deal disproportional amounts of damage.

Your situation will change once the Ranger hits level 4 and gets an animal companion, which should be a wolf. You might also want to talk with your Rogue player to switch to Unchained Monk (Monk of the Mantis) and maybe go for the Twin Fangs Style feat chain.

[Palanan]

Originally Posted by Florian
I told you back then that your party is a bit unbalanced as its more or less entirely dependent on positioning and full attacks, but will then manage to deal disproportional amounts of damage.

Things are definitely still swingy, although the party steamrolled their last two combats, which I’d intended to be extremely tough.

Unfortunately I’m not great at tactical combat, so I didn’t run the opponents as effectively as I could. It worked out storywise, since in-game they weren’t the brightest bad guys and weren’t used to fighting a determined group; but my tactics could certainly use sharpening.