Rule-of-Three: 07/03/2012

DEFCON 1 · Jul 7, 2012

ZombieRoboNinja said:
I'm actually starting to think this might be the way to go, with one caveat: TWF should be a reasonable option without any feats/themes, just like sword and board already is. (Maybe -3/-3?) You'll notice you don't need the Guardian theme to use a sword and shield; it just makes that style more effective.

Yup. You just make bare-bones / anyone can use TWF balanced against the other baseline attack modes (sword 'n board, great weapon), then use the Themes to give the extra 'oomph' for specializing in TWF. No reason to cordon off the attack mode unnecessarily.

Personally, I'd also like to see 'single weapon w/ open off-hand' attack mode have a theme attached to it as well, like the duelist theme. Perhaps with an introductory feat that gives something along the lines that if wielding a Finesse weapon in one hand with nothing in the other, if you have Advantage on attack your weapon has the Brutal property, or you crit on 19-20 (the bigger crit range here wouldn't bother me, because the Finesse weapons are all have lower damage dice.)

drothgery · Jul 7, 2012

Tallifer said:
Forsooth. Bring back severe penalties for trying to attack with two weapons at once. It should take several feats to become skilled at such a difficult and obscure combat style.

... except that it's been the Ranger's shtick since 2e, and was so good in 2e that it's kind of expected that it shouldn't be too difficult, at least for the ranger.

Now, in 4e carrying two weapons isn't all that useful unless you're a ranger or a tempest fighter (you can get some bonuses to attack and/or defense for feats, but you never get extra attacks).

pemerton · Jul 8, 2012

As 4e has once again confirmed, the difficulty with balancing 2WF as it's traditionally been implemented in D&D is that you get to double all your static adds.

It would be much better as a flat bonus to hit, to defence, or to damage (maybe pick one, or perhaps be able to choose from round to round).

BobTheNob · Jul 8, 2012

pemerton said:
As 4e has once again confirmed, the difficulty with balancing 2WF as it's traditionally been implemented in D&D is that you get to double all your static adds.

It would be much better as a flat bonus to hit, to defence, or to damage (maybe pick one, or perhaps be able to choose from round to round).

Someone on these forums suggested you have 1 attack roll, then roll damage for both weapons and pick which one you want to apply. Best suggestion regarding TWF I have heard to date.

Stalker0 · Jul 9, 2012

Ratskinner said:
Two-weapon mechanics should penalize you heavily.

I don't agree with this per say.

TWF is an opportunity cost, because by using it you are not using Sword and Board or THF style.

The problem in 3e was that because of the extra attack mechanic of TWF, it was directly competing with THFs turf. As such, a compensation mechanic (attack penalty) had to be introduced.

That does not have to be the way TWF works. For example, perhaps the style could provide a bonus to both AC and damage....basically becoming a midpoint between the offensive of THF and the defense of sword and board.

Or perhaps TWF is weaker than THF but stronger when you get advantage, etc.

I think there is a lot of design room that can be explored here, and I would much prefer such an option to a simple big attack penalty.

pemerton · Jul 9, 2012

BobTheNob said:
Someone on these forums suggested you have 1 attack roll, then roll damage for both weapons and pick which one you want to apply. Best suggestion regarding TWF I have heard to date.

So a type of "advantage" mechanic for damage. Sounds fine, but you would need to balance the damage numbers of the 2WF weapons compared to the 2H weapons to make sure they are both mechanically viable options.

Stalker0 said:
TWF is an opportunity cost, because by using it you are not using Sword and Board or THF style.

The problem in 3e was that because of the extra attack mechanic of TWF, it was directly competing with THFs turf. As such, a compensation mechanic (attack penalty) had to be introduced.

That does not have to be the way TWF works. For example, perhaps the style could provide a bonus to both AC and damage....basically becoming a midpoint between the offensive of THF and the defense of sword and board.

Or perhaps TWF is weaker than THF but stronger when you get advantage, etc.

I think there is a lot of design room that can be explored here, and I would much prefer such an option to a simple big attack penalty.

I agree with this - if 2WF is going to be a significant option (and tradition suggests that it should be) then it needs to be designed to live happily in the space of other weapon options, rather than mucking everything up with the multiple attack implementation.

Rule-of-Three: 07/03/2012

DEFCON 1

Legend

drothgery

First Post

pemerton

Legend

BobTheNob

First Post

Stalker0

Legend

pemerton

Legend

Similar Threads

AD6_gamerati_skyscraper

Recent & Upcoming Releases