Why no 4th attack with two weapons?

[heavyfuel]

We have the Two Weapon Fighting feat chain which grants extra attacks with your off hand weapon without massive penalties.

The first feat doesn't grant an extra attack, but greatly reduces the penalty for the 1 extra attack you normally get.
Second feat grants a second attack to pair with your new BAB of +6. Similarly, the attack also takes a -5 penalty.
Third feat grants a third attack to pair with your new BAB of +11. Similarly, the attack also takes a -10 penalty.

Why no fourth feat though? Why not have "Supreme Two Weapon Fighting" or something like this at BAB +16 granting you a fourth attack at -15?

I know this feat chain is considered sub-optimal, but I really want to focus on the why here. Any ideas on the designers' motives for not adding this 4th feat?

[Rebel7284]

Because taking a feat for an attack at a whopping -15 is a little... silly

[heavyfuel]

You mean, unlike taking a feat for an extra attack at -10, which is perfectly reasonable :smalltongue:

[Deophaun]

Because taking a feat for an attack at a whopping -15 is a little... silly
I think you misread the OP. He didn't ask why a reasonable person wouldn't have a fourth feat. He asked why the people who gave the Monk a half-assed version of a first level wizard spell as a capstone wouldn't have a fourth feat.

I'm going to say page space, myself.

[heavyfuel]

I think you misread the OP. He didn't ask why a reasonable person wouldn't have a fourth feat. He asked why the people who gave the Monk a half-assed version of a first level wizard spell as a capstone wouldn't have a fourth feat.

I'm going to say page space, myself.

You nailed my motives.

Page space might actually be a good reason.

[Psyren]

You mean, unlike taking a feat for an extra attack at -10, which is perfectly reasonable :smalltongue:

Its a heck of a lot more reasonable than -15 though.'

Even WotC occasionally stops and says "nah, on second thought, let's not print this..."

[ezekielraiden]

Actually, back in 3.0, there was an Epic feat (Perfect Two-Weapon Fighting) that removed any cap on the number of offhand iterative attacks you could make. It was never properly updated to 3.5e, but there are SRD versions out there that have it.

[heavyfuel]

Actually, back in 3.0, there was an Epic feat (Perfect Two-Weapon Fighting) that removed any cap on the number of offhand iterative attacks you could make. It was never properly updated to 3.5e, but there are SRD versions out there that have it.

Huh. This feat is actually pretty good when consider you'd get extra off-hand weapon attacks from Haste , AoOs, and other things.

[lylsyly]

Actually, back in 3.0, there was an Epic feat (Perfect Two-Weapon Fighting) that removed any cap on the number of offhand iterative attacks you could make. It was never properly updated to 3.5e, but there are SRD versions out there that have it.

Do you have a link for this? Please! I know of two and neither has that feat or any other epic content.

[Psyren]

A quick Google brought me to dandwiki (https://www.dandwiki.com/wiki/SRD:Perfect_Two-Weapon_Fighting). (Don't give me that look, it's one of their SRD pages so it should be fine.)

[ezekielraiden]

Do you have a link for this? Please! I know of two and neither has that feat or any other epic content.

Just for corroboration (and with book references), the feat is also listed here on another website that can be found via Google search. (Link removed to avoid any possibility of copyright infringement.)

[lylsyly]

I know it is the ELH and CW, I was asking for a 3.0 SRD link. I have two such links and neither contains epic stuff.

It's even at d20srd.org and yes *shudder* D&DWiki. But those are 3.5.

I even know that ELH is considered 3.0 and CW is also basically 3.0 (look at the listed sources for it) even though it was pubished after the 3.5 core books.

I asked for a 3.0 SRD link

"but there are SRD versions out there that have it"

[Psyren]

...Why the heck do you want 3.0 links? :smallconfused:

[heavyfuel]

My ELH says so:


Benefit: You can make as many attacks with your offhand weapon as with your primary weapon, using the same base attack bonus. For example, a character with this feat and a base attack bonus of +18/+13/+8/+3 could make four attacks per round with his primary weapon and four attacks per round with his off-hand weapon using this base attack bonus. You still take the normal penalties for fighting with two weapons.

So yeah. Every time you get a primary weapon attack you also get an offhand weapon attack. Pretty good feat, too bad it's [Epic].

[lylsyly]

Because I am a 60 year old NERD that is always looking for more "Stuff."

But never mind.

[Arael666]

ahem... you guys do realize that complete warrior has the "perfect two weaponf fighting" feat, right?

[heavyfuel]

ahem... you guys do realize that complete warrior has the "perfect two weaponf fighting" feat, right?

Yeah, and it has the same reading and [Epic] tag as the one I posted from the ELH. What point are you trying to make, exactly?

[Arael666]

Yeah, and it has the same reading and [Epic] tag as the one I posted from the ELH. What point are you trying to make, exactly?

the point that it exists? granted it was not printed on phb, but it exists, when the op clearly questions the absense of such a feat.

[Psyren]

Because I am a 60 year old NERD that is always looking for more "Stuff."

But never mind.

*backs away slowly*

(ELH is technically 3.0 if you want to use that.)

[heavyfuel]

the point that it exists? granted it was not printed on phb, but it exists, when the op clearly questions the absense of such a feat.

I am OP, and the feat I questioned about doesn't exist.

Perfect TWF is a much better feat than the one I asked about, but it's also Epic, so it's not readily available for level 16 characters with full BAB.

[martixy]

Ah, hm... I never realized what the wording of Perfect TWF implied and had always wondered why it was all the way up in epic.

Now it all makes more sense.

How OP would it be for Imp. TWF to include Greater and Perfect TWF automatically? Essentially for Imp. TWF to just give you the same progression to your off-hand. Judging by TWF's second class status among combat styles, I'd say not at all, but maybe I'm not seeing some exploit.

[OgresAreCute]

Ah, hm... I never realized what the wording of Perfect TWF implied and had always wondered why it was all the way up in epic.

Now it all makes more sense.

How OP would it be for Imp. TWF to include Greater and Perfect TWF automatically? Essentially for Imp. TWF to just give you the same progression to your off-hand. Judging by TWF's second class status among combat styles, I'd say not at all, but maybe I'm not seeing some exploit.

Seems like a relatively common homebrew/houserule to have long, mediocre feat chains condensed into a single feat that scales up automatically on its own.

[Arael666]

Seems like a relatively common homebrew/houserule to have long, mediocre feat chains condensed into a single feat that scales up automatically on its own.

Yeah, I usually do that. Two-weapon fighting gives all iterative attacks when full atacking, and you can get improved to remove the remaining -2 penalty, I keep the half str on offhand damage though.

[lylsyly]

*backs away slowly*

(ELH is technically 3.0 if you want to use that.)

ROFL

ELH is 3.0 (July 2002) and even though Complete Warrior was published a whole 6 months after the 3.5 PHB the sources they claim to have pulled from are all 3.0 (IIRC it was already in the pipeline for publication and they couldn't be bothered to delay it for an update (but that would be typical of WoTC wouldn't it).

IMHO the only way to fix the TWF feat tree is for a single scaling feat.

BAB +1 plus TWF 1 extra attack and -2/-2
BAB +6/+1 2 extra attacks and -1/-1
BAB +11/+6/+1 3 extra attacks and -0/-0
BAB +16/+11/+6/+1 4 extra attacks and yeah, why not +1/+1 because you've gotten really good at it.

Now maybe a TWF ubercharger almost makes sense ;D

Every attack? Including AoOs? Nope!

just my 2 credits coppers
YMMV

[heavyfuel]

Including AoOs? Nope!


This can already be done pre-epic with the "Double Hit" feat (Mini Hb)

[lylsyly]

This can already be done pre-epic with the "Double Hit" feat (Mini Hb)

Which is why we don't need two feats with the same effect. "There's a Feat for that!" Besides, I gave them a to hit bonus, LOL

[Pleh]

Now maybe a TWF ubercharger almost makes sense ;D

A decent start, at least. You're still not getting the damage multipliers and your off hand weapon still has to be light to keep the penalties where you want them.

Still wanting to stack Craven Sneak Attacks on to make sure the damage from all these attacks is somewhat relevant.

[Deophaun]

Yeah, and it has the same reading and [Epic] tag as the one I posted from the ELH. What point are you trying to make, exactly?
It doesn't have the same reading, because it begins

When making a full attack...
PTWF got nerfed into the ground because of all those mundanes lording it over those epic spellcasters.

[lylsyly]

A decent start, at least. You're still not getting the damage multipliers and your off hand weapon still has to be light to keep the penalties where you want them.

"But there's a Feat for that!" lol


PTWF got nerfed into the ground because of all those mundanes lording it over those epic spellcasters.

Ha, Now it's all beginning to make sense ;D

If I had a dollar for every feat that should scale by BAB or level .........

[heavyfuel]

It doesn't have the same reading, because it begins

PTWF got nerfed into the ground because of all those mundanes lording it over those epic spellcasters.

Huh, hadn't seen that. Yeah, the feat is now much worse than the ELH/SRD version

[Zaq]

I was going to say something about WotC thinking that TWF is for Rogues rather than for anyone will full BAB, but then I remembered that WotC thinks that Rangers engage in TWF for some reason. So I got nothing.

[martixy]

Yeah, I usually do that. Two-weapon fighting gives all iterative attacks when full atacking, and you can get improved to remove the remaining -2 penalty, I keep the half str on offhand damage though.

TBH that seems a lot less... impactful than my variant. In yours, TWF is just very very good and Imp. TWF is... meh really.

Me, I'd combine TWF, Double Hit and Dual Strike (these really have no reason to be separate). Maybe grant the benefits of Dual Strike at BAB+6(standard action attack with both) and Double Hit at BAB+11(AoOs with both weapons). Or maybe both at BAB+6, whatever.
And I'd let Imp. TWF grant the iterative progression for off-hand.
That way, both times you're getting something qualitatively different.

Maybe a Greater TWF which:
1. Removes the -2.
2. Makes off-hand full-STR.
3. Allows extra attacks to apply to your off-hand as well, like how the wording of Perfect TWF implies.

Still a feat chain, but a very good one now.

Another thing to consider is also what class features these changes may be invalidating - such as Ranger's TWF track or ToB Bloodclaw's main schtick, and likely the entire point of the class.

[ManicOppressive]

ROFL

ELH is 3.0 (July 2002) and even though Complete Warrior was published a whole 6 months after the 3.5 PHB the sources they claim to have pulled from are all 3.0 (IIRC it was already in the pipeline for publication and they couldn't be bothered to delay it for an update (but that would be typical of WoTC wouldn't it).

IMHO the only way to fix the TWF feat tree is for a single scaling feat.

BAB +1 plus TWF 1 extra attack and -2/-2
BAB +6/+1 2 extra attacks and -1/-1
BAB +11/+6/+1 3 extra attacks and -0/-0
BAB +16/+11/+6/+1 4 extra attacks and yeah, why not +1/+1 because you've gotten really good at it.

Now maybe a TWF ubercharger almost makes sense ;D

Every attack? Including AoOs? Nope!

just my 2 credits coppers
YMMV

I do this as a DM, and I also do it for the Two-Weapon Defense line which makes it... I don't know, using the word good here seems offensive. Passable? Not an actively harmful choice?

[Eldariel]

Remember, in 3.0 ITWF came later (+9 BAB for ITWF) and GTWF much later and wasn't even in PHB (IIRC Sword & Fist released GTWF). At the start WotC honestly thought a single extra attack would be enough for the trade-off, which had been true in AD&D and with 3.0 Power Attack (lacks the two-handed 2-for-1 clause) wasn't that horrible overall. So it's a 3.0 legacy thing that leads to there only being two; they got upgraded to be up to speed with the BAB improvements instead of having to wait until Samurai-levels of badness to get it, but they didn't go all the way and they made 2-handed PA which made two-handing the best style, not close (not to mention the easiest).

EDIT: No, GTWF was in Masters of the Wild and it required +15 BAB. So there was no room for a fourth one in 3.0 in pre-epics (Perfect TWF was thus the natural progression as an epic feat) and when porting these feats to 3.5 they never just added another one.

[Pleh]

Another thing to consider is also what class features these changes may be invalidating - such as Ranger's TWF track or ToB Bloodclaw's main schtick, and likely the entire point of the class.

I dunno. I think "naturally scaling TWF" is basically what the Ranger has already, so I'd say it's probably just as good or better to let them get this scaling TWF feat as a bonus feat when they would have gotten Combat Style (TWF), then any dead levels from the sudden lack of advancing Combat Style can be Scout Bonus feats.

[Rijan_Sai]

It doesn't have the same reading, because it begins

PTWF got nerfed into the ground because of all those mundanes lording it over those epic spellcasters.


Huh, hadn't seen that. Yeah, the feat is now much worse than the ELH/SRD version

Um... how, exactly, did this make it "much worse than the ELH/SRD version"? AFAIK, you can't make more than one attack in a round without using a full-attack anyway, (barring a few tricks and abilities that override that clause,) so adding "When making a full attack" is just clarifying, not "nerfing."

Honestly, the only "nerf" to the feat is that CW removes the "Special" clause from the ELH:

Special: A ranger can qualify for this feat even if he hasn’t taken Ambidexterity or Two-Weapon Fighting, but can only use it when wearing light armor or no armor,

[ShurikVch]

Now maybe a TWF ubercharger almost makes sense ;DNote:
Oversized Two-Weapon Fighting reduces TWF penalty for non-light offhand weapon
Dwarven Thane (Dragon #299) at 1st level gets ability to add full Str bonus to offhand weapon
The Hammer of Moradin PrC at 3rd level gets x1.5 Str bonus for Warhammer

So, how about the twin-warhammer dwarven ubercharger?

[MrSandman]

Um... how, exactly, did this make it "much worse than the ELH/SRD version"? AFAIK, you can't make more than one attack in a round without using a full-attack anyway, (barring a few tricks and abilities that override that clause,) so adding "When making a full attack" is just clarifying, not "nerfing."

Honestly, the only "nerf" to the feat is that CW removes the "Special" clause from the ELH:

Because the reading in ELH means that every single time you get an attack with your main hand, you also get one with your off-hand. This includes stuff like opportunity attacks and, maybe haste? (I can't remember how exactly it works in 3.0). I'm not sure it's a huge nerf, but it's certainly more than just clarifying.

[Eldariel]

Note:
Oversized Two-Weapon Fighting reduces TWF penalty for non-light offhand weapon
Dwarven Thane (Dragon #299) at 1st level gets ability to add full Str bonus to offhand weapon
The Hammer of Moradin PrC at 3rd level gets x1.5 Str bonus for Warhammer

So, how about the twin-warhammer dwarven ubercharger?

Revenant Blade does it better getting the key 2xPA on both ends of the Valenar Double Scimitar (without needing OTWF to boot, tho EWP takes the feat tax). I'd look at the Elf Charger 😉

[RNightstalker]

If you are looking for a 3.0 solution, the Tempest PrC in Masters of The Wild has a class ability at 10th level called "Supreme Two-Weapon Fighting", which grants the elusive 4th off-hand attack you're looking for. FYI, it also grants Improved Two-Weapon Fighting at 1st level and Greater Two-Weapon Fighting at 5th level.

[Rijan_Sai]

If you are looking for a 3.0 solution, the Tempest PrC in Masters of The Wild has a class ability at 10th level called "Supreme Two-Weapon Fighting", which grants the elusive 4th off-hand attack you're looking for. FYI, it also grants Improved Two-Weapon Fighting at 1st level and Greater Two-Weapon Fighting at 5th level.

If you're playing in a strictly 3.0 game, that works. Unfortunately, that class was "updated" (and nerf-batted) to 3.5 in Complete Adventurer, and lost all the upgrades to Two-Weapon Fighting that it had, (though it did keep the lessened penalties for TWF.)


Because the reading in ELH means that every single time you get an attack with your main hand, you also get one with your off-hand. This includes stuff like opportunity attacks and, maybe haste? (I can't remember how exactly it works in 3.0). I'm not sure it's a huge nerf, but it's certainly more than just clarifying.

I guess I just don't see that as a major loss... Sure, the extra attack on an AoO would be nice, but, while I'm not familiar with 3.0 Haste, in 3.5 the extra attack requires using a full attack anyway... (Hmm... just read it in the 3.0 SRD (on Dragon.ee; Google it; sorry, don't want to risk linking) that Haste allows "...an extra partial action..." along with some other bonuses. That's usually either a Standard or a Move action, so could be used for an extra attack, maybe?)