[Rules] Two Options For Fixing TWF

[Fax Celestis]

===Two-Weapon Fighting===
Long purported to be the red-headed stepchild of D&D combat, two-weapon fighting is a sub-par method of carrying out the primary function of an adventurer—that is, dispatching your opposition.

====Weapons Designed for Two-Weapon Fighting===
One of the easiest ways to make two-weapon fighting slightly more tolerable is to designate specific weapons as "Florentine" weapons.

Florentine weapons are designed to be used while fighting with two weapons. As such, a character wielding Florentine weapons takes a smaller penalty to attack rolls when fighting with two weapons than a character without does.

A character fighting with two Florentine weapons does not suffer the standard penalties for fighting with two weapons, as long as they are the same type. Further, one who possesses the Two-Weapon Fighting feat gains additional benefits. See the following table:

{table=head]Circumstances | Primary Hand | Off-Hand
Normal Penalties | -6 | -10
Off-hand weapon is a one-handed Florentine weapon | -6 | -8
Off-hand weapon is a light Florentine weapon | -6 | -6
Both weapons are one-handed Florentine weapons | -4 | -6
Primary weapon is a one-handed Florentine weapon and off-hand is a light Florentine weapon | -2 | -4
Both weapons are light Florentine weapons | -2 | -2
Off-hand weapon is a one-handed Florentine weapon and wielder has Two-Weapon Fighting Feat | -4 | -5
Off-hand weapon is a light Florentine weapon and wielder has Two-Weapon Fighting Feat | -3 | -4
Both weapons are one-handed Florentine weapons and wielder has Two-Weapon Fighting Feat | -2 | -3
Primary weapon is a one-handed Florentine weapon and off-hand is a light Florentine weapon and wielder has Two-Weapon Fighting Feat | +0 | -1
Both weapons are light Florentine weapons and wielder has Two-Weapon Fighting Feat | +0 | +0[/table]

The following list, while far from comprehensive, gives a good idea as to what qualifies as a Florentine weapon.

Dagger, punching dagger, club, light hammer, handaxe, kukri, short sword, rapier, scimitar, sai, dire flail, dwarven urgrosh, gnome hooked hammer, orc double axe, two bladed sword, and quarterstaff.

===Condensing the Two-Weapon Fighting Feat===
Perhaps the simplest method of making Two-Weapon Fighting a viable option is to condense the Two-Weapon Fighting feat tree into one feat, thereby freeing up feat options for the character. As it stands, Two-Weapon Fighting's biggest problem is that it requires an immense expenditure of resources to "remain current" with the feat tree. Consider replacing the Two-Weapon Fighting tree with the feat below:

Two-Weapon Fighting
Prerequisites: Base Attack Bonus +1, Dexterity 13+
Benefits: You are able to attack with two weapons with relative ease. 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.

When your Base Attack Bonus is +6 or greater, you may make an additional off-hand attack . In addition to the standard single extra attack you get with an off-hand weapon, you get a second attack with it, albeit at a -5 penalty.

When your Base Attack Bonus is +11 or greater, you may make an additional off-hand attack. You get a third attack with your off-hand weapon, albeit at a -10 penalty.

When your Base Attack Bonus is +16 or greater, you may make an additional off-hand attack.. You get a fourth attack with your off-hand weapon, albeit at a -15 penalty.

Normal: If you wield a second weapon in your off hand, you can get one extra attack per round with that weapon. See the Two-Weapon Fighting special attack.

Special: A fighter may select Two-Weapon Fighting as a bonus feat.

Feats that have Improved Two-Weapon Fighting or Greater Two-Weapon Fighting as their prerequisites should instead use Two-Weapon Fighting as a prerequisite, as well as the Base Attack Bonus needed for the replaced feat.

[Hawriel]

Im looking on page 160 of the 3.5 players handbook two-weapon fighting chart.

Table 8-10 two-weapon fighting Penalties

Circumstance Primary Hand / Off hand
normal -6 / -10
OHW light -4 / -8
TWF feat -4 / -4
OHW light + TWF feat -2 / -2

Double Weapons:
You can make an extra attack as if using two weapons. The second attack from a double weapon is made as if it was a light weapon.

Ranged weapon:
same rules apply when throwing or firing a weapon in each hand. A dart or shuriken are light weapons. [I would add throwing knives.] Bolas, Javelins, net, or slings are used as a one handed weapon. [I would add hand crossbow, and remove slings, javelins, and nets.]

Thats is very simple and truly an impovement over 3.0 with the ambedextarity feat, that was removed in 3.5 The rule is assuming that the primary hand weapon is a one handed weapon sutch as a long sword or battleaxe. I proposed to my GM a house rule.

When using two light weapons: Off hand +0 primary hand +0.
A total wash. I think using a weapon that does a D6 damage offsets not having a penalty

Example: fighting in true florentine fashion with a rapier and main gauche. I know by the rules a rapier is a one handed weapon but the fact that it can be used with weapon finesse IMO trumps this and should be treated like a light weapon.

I would limit the list of weapons to what you call "florentine" to thoughs usable by the weapon finesse feat. And or weapons traditionaly used in a two weapon style. Hand axe, tomahawk, knife, (U.S. marines used this combo along with cutlesses and bording pikes when bording an enemy sailing ship, not to mention native americans who it was adopted from.), dagger, dirk, main gauche, stiletto, rapier, saber, scimitar, club, small martial art weapons, ect. A light hammer, or light mace really are not light weapons even though D&D sais they are. Double weapons are just fanacy silliness and have been covered already in the rules mentioned above. The quarterstaff is an exeption and IMO is treated just as it should be. The last exeption is using a cloak in the off hand, it is a style with real presedence. what your calling 'florentine weapons' D&D calls light or double weapons.

The fighter, ranger, rogue, bard and monk are the classes most likely going to fight with two-weapons. Any other class is just a modifacation of the thoughs five. Your criticisem of two weapon combat is that it uses to many feats. My responce is this.

The fighter:
Total of 18 feats if you play one till 20th level. The number of feats needed to do this style does not matter to the fighter, why...18 feats. You really only need three feats to be effective in the style. TWF, ITWF and GTWF thats it. Seeing as the off hand attack starts at your full attack, any additional feats are gravy. Whether the fighter is STR or DEX based this is really all a fighter really needs.

The Ranger:
you get three feats for free, regardless if you qualify for them or not. No problem here. A hand axe, dagger combo would be very fitting.

The Rogue:
I have a 10th level human Rogue. I play him as a swashbuckler. He usess a rapier and main gauche. These are his feats, TWF, ITWF, weapon finesse, dodge, mobility, imp. trip, combat expert, imp initiative, imp. crit rapier, iron will, exotic weapon firearms. for being a rogue, uncanny dodge. after 10th level I dipped into fighter for 4 levels. I got 4 feats doing that, 3 fighter, 1 at 12th level. To add icing to the cake he has a rapier of speed, +1 attack at full BAB. The next feat I take will be Imp. disarm. Even if I did not take the fighter levels I only needed TWF and ITWF to be a good flanker, oh and flanking gives backstab (I refuse to call it anything els :smallamused: ) I have no problems with two-weapon style here.

The Bard:
I can see the bard taking TWF as a fluff. After all if the bard is in heavy melee combat somthing has gone wrong. The bards feats are better spent improving magic or charisma based skills.

The Monk:
I can sum it up in three words: flurry of blows. This ability is TWF, ITWF, and GTWF combined. The penalsties also wash out by 9th level. I see no problems here. Especialy sence a monk can do up to 2D10 damage per hit. A monk can also use monk weapons with this ability.

The way two-weapon fighting works in 3.5ed D&D makes perfect sence for the system. It truely is one of the better revised rules in the game. This is a chosen fighting style no different if a player desided to invest in shield use, mounted combat, ranged combat or two-handed weapon use. The feat cost would be more or less the same. Having the TWF feats based off of DEX also makes sence, it takes alot of coordination to use both hands in this manner.

Lastly I would like to compare your chart to the one in the PHB. In the PHB there are 4 steps. With two concise notes below. In four easy steps it lowed the penalty from -6/-10 to -2/-2. Suprisingly simple and direct for wotc. With my house rule that would make it 5 steps to bring it to -0/-0. Yours has 11 steps to do the same thing.

[dr.cello]

I like condensing the feat cost--though two-weapon fighting really does shine when you have a rogue using it, or someone with precision-based damage, it seems too expensive, feat-wise. The 'florentine weapons' mechanic seems a little bit too clunky.

[Yakk]

"If your mainhand weapon can be finessed and is 1 handed or light, remove a 1 point penalty from both of your TWF penalties. If both weapons can be finessed and are 1 handed or light, instead remove a 2 point penalty from both TWF penalties."

That generates most of the interesting effects of your table with fewer rules.

You could add in some effects from having an offhand finessable weapon...

The "and are 1 handed or light" clauses are there to deal with spiked chain+armor spikes cheese.

...

Do condense the standard TWF into one feat.

Some other ideas:
A feat to allow you to apply the average of your Dex and Strength to both weapons when you use weapon finess on both weapons.

A feat that generates weapon fonus/specialization effects when you wield both weapons.

A feat that lets you do double-attacks when making an AoO, charge, or other similar situation.

The defense TWF chain.

...

These need not be a single feat, but can be combined with each other.

[StickMan]

I think if you used one rule or the other you may be fine but the two together seem very strong. You take one feat and say are using two Florentine short swords, you have no penalty to attack with both up to your base attack. So at level 20 you've twice the number of attacks at the same bonus as the other fighter, barbarian, rogue... what ever, for only the cost of one feat. If your a rogue this is huge as your adding 10d6 damage sneak attack, and your losing very little.

Now on the other side of things fighter types and rogues are going to be taking this so you really can't over power them in comparison to casters. It seems your just disbalancing them to other fighter types, this is not to terrible but it would be nice for the other styles to get a bit of a boost. May be give two handed fighters a full two times the str bonus to attack and damage and give people using shields some kind of counter role to represent blocking with a shield. Not sure about what I would do for the archer types to be honest.

[Krelon]

wouldn't it be simpler if ITWF would additionally lessen the penalty by 1 (up to -1/-1) and GTWF would lessen the penalty by 2 (up to +0/+0)?

Short fix to two feats and a dedicated character will profit from taking the entire tree.

[Townopolis]

After playing around a bit with TWFing in a lab environment, I really like the second option. However, I still think Dual Strike should be rolled into the base TWF feat. With combatants needing to move around so much, I have a hard time accepting the THW fighter getting his 2d6+1.5 Str attack when the TWFer doesn't get his 1d8+1d6+1.5 Str attack at -2 AB. At that point, he's already spent a feat and 2 points of attack bonus for +1 averge damage.

I'd say roll Dual Strike into the feat for free.

Also, one thing that hits TWF really hard is that Power Attack is pure awesome for THW, but not so much for TWF (or S&B for that matter, but we'll deal with that another time in another thread).

Seems to me, with THW fighters all picking up Power Attack as the holy grail of their damage dealing, something similar for TWF needs to appear to keep the two styles level.

Something like:

Onslought
Prerequisites: BAB +3
Effect: For every successful hit you land in a round, all following hits in that round deal a cumulative +1d4 damage. Maximum +3d4.
Example: Joe takes a full attack action to attack twice with his longsword. His first attack hits for 1d8+2 damage. If his next attack hits, it will deal 1d8+1d4+2 damage.

Fred the halfling is dual wielding short swords and takes a full attack action to strike four times in the round. His first attack hits, dealing 1d4+2 damage, his first offhand attack hits, dealing 2d4+1 damage. Next, he hits with his second mainhand attack, dealing 3d4+2 damage. If his second offhand attack hits, it will deal 4d4+1 damage.

The feat isn't specific to TWFers, can be used by anyone to boost their damage, but TWFers would generally get a little more out of it due to their increased number of attacks, much like THW fighters get more out of power attack than anyone else. As it is up there, the feat adds +2.5 average damage per successive hit, could need to be tweaked for balance. Also, may want to add a "this damage does not stack with precision based damage" clause, as stacking this with sneak attack could get ugly fast.

Math

14 Str, 14 Dex:

Level 1: Weapon Focus: Greatsword/TWF (Fax's + my addition)
Standard or full attack
Greatsword: +4 melee (2d6+3) [10 avg. 75%thac10]
or
Longsword: +1 melee (1d8+2) and
Shortsword: +1 melee (1d6+1) [11 avg. 60%thac10]

Level 6: Power Attack/Onslought
Standard
Greatsword: +6 melee (2d6+6+3) [16 avg. 85%thac10]
or
Longsword: +6 melee (1d8+2) and
Shortsword: +6 melee (1d6+1d4+1) [13.5 avg. 85%thac10]

Full Attack
Greatsword: +6 melee (2d6+6+3) [16 avg. 85%thac10] and
Greatsword: +1 melee (2d6+6+3) [16 avg. 60%thac10]
32 total avg. damage if all attacks hit
or
Longsword: +6 melee (1d8+2) and
Shortsword: +6 melee (1d6+1d4+1) [13.5 avg. 85%thac10] and
Longsword: +1 melee (1d8+2d4+2) and
Shortsword: +1 melee (1d6+3d4+1) [23.5 avg. 60%thac10]
37 total avg. damage if all attacks hit

Level 11
Standard
Greatsword: +11 melee (2d6+6+3) [16 avg. 110%thac10]
or
Longsword: +11 melee (1d8+2) and
Shortsword: +11 melee (1d6+1d4+1) [13.5 avg. 110%thac10]

Full Attack
Greatsword: +11 melee (2d6+6+3) [16 avg. 110%thac10] and
Greatsword: +6 melee (2d6+6+3) [16 avg. 85%thac10] and
Greatsword: +1 melee (2d6+6+3) [16 avg. 60%thac10]
48 total avg. damage if all attacks hit
or
Longsword: +11 melee (1d8+2) and
Shortsword: +11 melee (1d6+1d4+1) [13.5 avg. 110%thac10] and
Longsword: +6 melee (1d8+2d4+2) and
Shortsword: +6 melee (1d6+3d4+1) [23.5 avg. 85%thac10] and
Longsword: +1 melee (1d8+3d4+2) and
Shortsword: +1 melee (1d6+3d4+1) [26 avg. 60%thac10]
63 total avg. damage if all attacks hit

Level 16
Standard
Greatsword: +16 melee (2d6+6+3) [16 avg. 135%thac10]
or
Longsword: +16 melee (1d8+2) and
Shortsword: +16 melee (1d6+1d4+1) [13.5 avg. 135%thac10]

Full Attack
Greatsword: +16 melee (2d6+6+3) [16 avg. 135%thac10] and
Greatsword: +11 melee (2d6+6+3) [16 avg. 110%thac10] and
Greatsword: +6 melee (2d6+6+3) [16 avg. 85%thac10] and
Greatsword: +1 melee (2d6+6+3) [16 avg. 60%thac10]
64 total avg. damage if all attacks hit
or
Longsword: +16 melee (1d8+2) and
Shortsword: +16 melee (1d6+1d4+1) [13.5 avg. 135%thac10]
Longsword: +11 melee (1d8+2d4+2) and
Shortsword: +11 melee (1d6+3d4+1) [23.5 avg. 110%thac10] and
Longsword: +6 melee (1d8+3d4+2) and
Shortsword: +6 melee (1d6+3d4+1) [26 avg. 85%thac10] and
Longsword: +1 melee (1d8+3d4+2) and
Shortsword: +1 melee (1d6+3d4+1) [26 avg. 60%thac10]
89 total avg. damage if all attacks hit

[Matthew]

Condensing Two Weapon Fighting into one Feat is definitely the way to go. I would not be inclined to reduce the penalties to 0 under any circumstances. They should always be at least -2/-2. Two Weapon Fighting should also be possible as part of a Charge or Standard Attack Action. The 0.5 Strength Multiplier for the 'Off Hand' should be elminated and Power Attack should work with Light Weapons.

The problem you get after cleaning up Two Weapon Fighting in this way, is that though it begins to compete with Two Handed Fighting, it also outshines Weapon and Shield, for which something then needs to be done.

[Fax Celestis]

The problem you get after cleaning up Two Weapon Fighting in this way, is that though it begins to compete with Two Handed Fighting, it also outshines Weapon and Shield, for which something then needs to be done.

Well, granted, but S&B is a matter for another thread. This is about TWF.

[Matthew]

Well, granted, but S&B is a matter for another thread. This is about TWF.

Not entirely, because Weapon and Shield is itself a form of Two Weapon Fighting. That's where the trouble begins to arise, all methods are interconnected.

[StickMan]

After playing around a bit with TWFing in a lab environment, I really like the second option. However, I still think Dual Strike should be rolled into the base TWF feat. With combatants needing to move around so much, I have a hard time accepting the THW fighter getting his 2d6+1.5 Str attack when the TWFer doesn't get his 1d8+1d6+1.5 Str attack at -2 AB. At that point, he's already spent a feat and 2 points of attack bonus for +1 averge damage.


OK the big thing your missing in your calculation is that you get more than one chance to hit. If a THW fighter misses he misses and deals no damage. If a TWF misses with his first weapon he may hit with his second still dealing damage. I think rolling all the two weapon fighting feats together your fine and should be on balance with two handed fighting. Any thing else and your pushing past the line.

[Townopolis]

On the flipside, if a THW fighter rolls and hits, he deals all his damage. If a TWFer rolls and hits, he can still lose half his damage to a poor second attack roll.

[Eighth_Seraph]

...That be exactly wha' tha esteemin' StickMan be sayin', mate. Tha balance be kept by tha bloody damage o' the greatsword and the hit chance o' a good dagger. Melikes both o' tha fixes and may even consider usin' 'em both aboard me craft, as the boys like to carry bottles o' grog into a boardin' party, and some shattered glass goes so well wit' a cutlass, don'tcha think, mate?

[Townopolis]

Ok, I thought I should support my position with a little more math. It's not as good as a solid day of playtesting, but more easily transmitted over the internet. So, with the help of 2 women smarter than I, I give you...

2 characters. As in my above post, each has 14 Str and +1 BAB. The first has a greatsword and weapon focus: greatsword. The second has a longsword, a shortsword, and TWF.

Both get all their attacks, either because they take a full attack action, or because TWF has Dual Strike rolled into it.

They are fighting the first CR 1 monster I found, which is a ghoul. It has a 14 AC.

Greatsword

Average damage per hit: 10
Chance to hit: 55%

.55*10=5.5
--------------
5.5 Average damage per round.

Longsword & Shortsword

Average damage per longsword hit: 6.5
Average damage per shortsword hit: 4.5
Chance to hit for both: 40%

Probability tree time.
60% chance the first one misses, then a 60% chance the second hits: .6*.6=.36 (36% chance neither hits: 0 damage)
60% chance the first misses, then 40% chance second hits: .6*.4=.24 (24% chance the second attack hits: 4.5 damage)
40% chance first hits, 60% chance second misses: .4*.6=.24 (24% chance first hits: 6.5 damage)
40% first hits, 40% second hits: .4*.4=.16 (16% chance both hit: 11 damage)

.36*0
.24*4.5
.24*6.5
.16*11 +
-------------
4.4 Average damage per round.

5.5 average damage/attack action for THW
4.4 average damage/attack action for TWF

Now, as the ACs go up, THW will get better, and as ACs go down, TWF will improve. Also, TWF has the advantage of being able to voluntarily split your damage between 2 opponents if you feel the need to.

[Edit] There is, I must admit, a point to be made that, at least at low levels, some enemies (orc, for example) have a mere 4 HP. So the TWFer has the advantage there, because a single hit from any weapon will kill the enemy.

Long story short, I think it's perfectly reasonable to let a TWFer get 2 attacks on a standard action.

[Person_Man]

I think that condensing the Two-Weapon Fighting Feats are a good idea.

But eliminating the condensing the feat requirements will make two weapon fighting SUPERIOR to two handed fighting in terms of damage output. I'm fine with that though, since there are no one handed weapons that provide reach and threaten, other then the lance+shield from horseback, which can't be easily combined with TWF.

Condensing them also creates a minor problem for the Ranger, who now must choose some other bonus feat at 6th and 11th level.

[StickMan]

I should also point out that that if you have say a:
+1 flaming, shock Greatsword it deals 4d6+1 cost 18,000 GP.
vs a +1 Flaming shortsword and a +1 shock shortsword deals 4d6+2 if both hit or 2d6+1 if only one cost 16,000 GP.

Or

+4 Flaming, Shock, Acid, Frost Greatsword deals 6d6+4 damage cost: 128,000 GP
vs +2 Flaming, Shock, Acid shortsword and a +3 Acid, Frost, shock, short sword, if both hit you deal 8d6+5 plus damage for 122,000 GP.

Now I'm sure there is some other mix of enchantments that work even better but that is just how I look at two weapon fighting once you get magic weapons.

[Krelon]

I should also point out that that if you have say a:
+1 flaming, shock Greatsword it deals 4d6+1 cost 18,000 GP.
vs a +1 Flaming shortsword and a +1 shock shortsword deals 4d6+2 if both hit or 2d6+1 if only one cost 16,000 GP.

Or

+4 Flaming, Shock, Acid, Frost Greatsword deals 6d6+4 damage cost: 128,000 GP
vs +2 Flaming, Shock, Acid shortsword and a +3 Acid, Frost, shock, short sword, if both hit you deal 8d6+5 plus damage for 122,000 GP.

Now I'm sure there is some other mix of enchantments that work even better but that is just how I look at two weapon fighting once you get magic weapons.

One problem is that enchanting two weapons is more expensive than enchanting one weapon. If you split the money for two weapons (like you suggest)... quite often you will end up with move+standard action hitting with a worse enchanted blade than the THW fighter (and the money for the second weapon is wasted).

besides most damage comes not from the additional enchantments but from power attack and blades with so many different energy types one or two will suffer from resistance.

[Townopolis]

Even if the TWFer gets both attacks, he still has a lower average damage than the THW fighter with Weapon Focus: Greatsword. (I chose weapon focus because it seemed a good basic feat to be placed alongside TWF for testing purposes)

Let's say our boys are level 6 with full BAB and 18 STR by this point.

THW fighter has an attack bonus of +11 (and a +1 weapon makes 12)
The TWFer has an attack bonus of +8 (and +1 weapons makes 9)

A +1 shocking flaming greatsword deals 21 avg. damage (4d6+1+6)
A +1 flaming longsword deals 13 avg. damage (1d8+1d6+1+4)
A +1 shocking shortsword deals 10 avg. damage (2d6+1+2)

They fight an AC 18 monster (average salamander). Base chance to hit 10 AC with +0 AB is 55% and each point of AB/AC is +/-5% so...
THW fighter has a 12-8=4=20% 20+55=75% chance to hit
TWFer has a 9-8=1=5% 5+55=60% chance to hit with either weapon.

21*.75=15.75
13*.6=7.8
10*.6=6

THW avg. damage: 15.75
TWF avg. damage: 13.8

so that extra 2000 buys you +1.95 average damage/action.

******************

Now they're level 14 with full BAB and 22 STR. Same feats as before

THW AB=21
TWF AB=18

They're fighting an enemy with 28 AC (adult blue dragon)

THW hit chance: 70% But his greatsword is +4, making that 90%
TWF hit chance: 55% But his swords are +3/+2, making that 70%/65%

+4 flaming shocking acidic frost greatsword avg. damage: 34
+3 flaming shicking acidic longsword avg. damage: 24.
+2 acidic frost shocking shortsword avg. damage: 19

34*.9=30.6
24*.7=16.8
19*.65=12.35

THW Avg. damage: 30.6
TWF Avg. damage: 29.15

So this time 6000 is buying you +1.45 damage.
This comparison doesn't take into account that
-As Krelon said, elemental damage enhancements are not the meat and potatoes of magical greatsword users, they get their extra damage elsewhere.
-Critical hits: each fighter has a seperate advantage here, THW confirms more criticals, TWF gets more chances to confirm. THW will, however, benefit much more from a Keen enchantment.
-Power Attack: more specifically, the control a power attacker can exert over his AB/damage balance. Against hard to hit opponents, you PA less to hit more, against easy to hit opponents you PA more, upping you damage/hit.
-At this point, THW fighters who go down the power attack line (the usual THW line) have a decent bag of support feats (shock trooper, leap attack) that help them considerably more than others. TWF doesn't have this.

[Krelon]

You are absolutely right

it is necessary to evaluate a line of feats and compare them
TWF,ITWF,GTWF vs. (for example) WFocus,PA,Cleave

Maybe my imagination is not so good any more but there aren't that many support feats for TWF out there except getting a shield bonus, which at a rate of +1 per feat sucks.

What are good support feats/abilities for TWF?

I mean, improved feint for instance is not supporting TWF at all...
Sneak Attack (if it works) is better with TWF than THW.

[AtomicKitKat]

Collapse the TWF tree into one Feat, then give BAB+Dex requirements for the additional attacks.

For the Ranger, replace the ITWF/GTWF bonus Feats with something that lets them do 2 attacks as an attack action, and maybe shuffle some stuff around, about level 16 or so, they get pounce?