D&D 3E/3.5 Multiple attacks with a 2-handed weapon? 3 or 3.5

magnusmalkus · Oct 9, 2012

Razjah said:
I think something like this would be a good way to handle this, your gnolls could advance through the ranks of their organizations and gain the feats as they go. Recruits would have power attack, initiates have power attack and improved sunder, adepts have power attack, improved sunder, and weapon focus. Then the Smashers have the new feat and an awesome ability to bust up gear in combat.

At least, this is how I would handle this.

Yes, correct. This is EXACTLY what I'm doing.

I like to use rules as written and try to make the build as rules legal as possible - holding myself to the same standard as players and characters - but I will pull DM Rank once in a while and custom create a feat or ability to fill a niche.

magnusmalkus · Oct 9, 2012

Greenfield said:
I know I'm a latecomer to this conversation, and I'm a little brain burned, but can someone point me to a place in the rules where is says people using two handed weapons don't get multiple attacks?

That's the founding premise in the OP, and I'm unfamiliar with it. Think of me the old beggar on the corner: "Clues for the clueless?"

You are correct, there is no rule that says using two handed weapons denies you multiple attacks.

I was seeking wisdom from the community for a rules as written way to give a specific monster build an extra attack before multiple attacks kick in via BAB while adhering to a few provisos (as mentioned in the first post).

Razjah · Oct 9, 2012

magnusmalkus said:
I like to use rules as written and try to make the build as rules legal as possible - holding myself to the same standard as players and characters - but I will pull DM Rank once in a while and custom create a feat or ability to fill a niche.

If you want to avoid the DM Rank issue, why not have the PCs run into the Smasher Gnolls, and let them make a knowledge check. If they succeed, they learn of the technique and how focused it is on sundering. Then the PCs can take the feat if they meet the pre-reqs. Now you move from DM pulling crap on the party to introducing a house rule in a seamless way.

Omegaxicor · Oct 9, 2012

except that the PCs won't have Gnolls training them to use the technique? (a DM's excuse/reason to deny player's requests to learn the feat)

Razjah · Oct 9, 2012

Oh, yeah, if you want to keep this out of the player's hands. But if having all options available to both the GM and the party is important to the game, then having the party able to analyze the feat and pick it up later is something needed.