House Rules: Two Weapon Fighting as One Feat

airwalkrr · Feb 28, 2013

What are your thoughts on eliminating the Two-Weapon Fighting chain and just including them all as one feat. What I am talking about specifically is getting rid of Improved Two-Weapon Fighting and Greater Two-Weapon Fighting and including their benefits in Two-Weapon Fighting. Your second and third off-hand attack still doesn't come until 6+ and 11+ BAB as usual. But given that the TWF feat chain grants diminishing returns as each successive (or iterative) attack is less effective than the primary attack each feat in this chain gets progressively worse. In fact, you could just allow anyone to make off-hand attacks at the appropriate base attack bonuses, but the Two-Weapon Fighting feat reduces your penalties by 2. You could also allow a fourth off-hand attack if you have a +16 BAB. For rangers, give them Two-Weapon Defense and Quick Draw at 6th and 11th-level respectively. Seem fair enough?

Ahnehnois · Feb 28, 2013

I prefer the Trailblazer take on iteratives so you don't have those worthless low attacks. That being said, I think your rules are decent. TWF doesn't need to take as many feats as it does.

Empirate · Feb 28, 2013

I've toyed with similar ideas and can see nothing wrong with consolidating the tree into one feat, neither balance-wise nor where in-game logic is concerned.

You may want to think about feats to replace the TWF tree for Rangers (and in general), though, as Two-Weapon Defense is horrible as is, and if you want to Quickdraw stuff, you don't wait until level 11 to do so. Two-Weapon Rend, Dual Strike, or your choice of the tactical feats in Complete Warrior which make use of two different weapons (High Sword Low Axe, Crescent Moon Style etc.) make better candidates, IMO. If you want a defensive option, roll Two-Weapon Defense and the Improved and Greater versions into one feat, and it'll be worthwhile.

If these options make you nervous where balance is concerned, just consider the raw damage output of two-handers compared to twin weapons, and the advantage where action and gp economy is concerned. TWF needs a lot of help to remain competitive.

delericho · Feb 28, 2013

The only potential issue I can see lies with sneak attack, the careful use of which has allowed the Rogue in my current game to remain competitive and relevant right into the low teens, despite working alongside a Wizard (Diviner), a Cleric, and an Artificer.

As far as I can see, Sneak Attack was designed and 'balanced' on the assumption that the Rogue would get to use it once per round. Adding a few iterative attacks doesn't massively change that, as there are also some 33% of monsters that are just immune. And adding some off-hand attacks at the cost of feats is likewise fine, because of the feat cost. But adding several additional attacks for a single feat might be going too far.

Empirate · Mar 1, 2013

Well, the additional attacks are made at progressively lower attack bonuses. Rogues already have medium BAB, so a) they don't get many iterative attacks except at the highest levels of play, and b) their iterative attacks are not that likely to hit, anyway. So sneak attack on multiple attacks isn't really much of a problem IMO.
What might become overpowering is e.g. Inspire Courage optimization coupled with the Dragonfire Inspiration feat. That kind of damage boost can be enough to convince even a non-sneak attacker to go the dual-wielding route. But on the other hand, IC optimization gets rather insane anyway, where pure numbers are concerned. If your game is one in which that is allowed, you likely don't feel uncomfortable about pure melee damage anyway, so two weapons or one, many feats or one, melee will feel powerful at your table.

EDIT: Also, I'm not too sure about the 'intended balance' of sneak attack damage. Only 1/round means a 10th level Rogue deals like 25 points of damage (2d6+1 from a +1 flaming Shortsword and a Str 10, plus 5d6 sneak attack) when he hits. Typical CR 10 opponents have a lot of hit points (Rakshasa: 52 [but rather extreme DR], Formian Myrmarch: 102, Noble Salamander: 112, Eleven-Headed Hydra: 118, Fire Giant: 142, Bebilith: 150, Gargantuan Monstrous Scorpion: 150, Juvenile Red Dragon: 168).
25 points don't really make a large dent in that. Multiple attacks are basically what's needed to stay competitive in this environment.

delericho · Mar 1, 2013

Empirate said:
EDIT: Also, I'm not too sure about the 'intended balance' of sneak attack damage.

I didn't say it was balanced well...

Empirate · Mar 1, 2013

delericho said:
I didn't say it was balanced well...

airwalkrr · Mar 2, 2013

I have always just felt that Two-Weapon Fighting and its ilk are feat taxes on rogues because it is the only way to keep them competitive at dealing damage. Yes, they have lots of skill points, trapfinding, and evasion, but none of those abilities help them deal damage. When it comes right down to it, D&D is about killing monsters and taking their stuff. Rogues don't add much to that without sneak attack. And even with all the TWF feats, they are still hard-pressed to compete with the other melee classes. So TWF keeps them at least dealing respectable damage in the right circumstances.

Jackinthegreen · Mar 2, 2013

The majority of games I've participated in have houseruled TWF to be one feat just as you've done it. A few have even added the benefits of Oversized TWF for free if the character has at least 13 strength. So far it has brought up classes like the ranger decently (though not as much as many would like, but better spellcasting fixes that) and actually let the bonus dice classes (ninja, rogue, and scout) keep up with 2H barbarians and such, assuming both can get the best circumstances for their damage.

Sadrik · Mar 3, 2013

Ahnehnois said:
I prefer the Trailblazer take on iteratives so you don't have those worthless low attacks. That being said, I think your rules are decent. TWF doesn't need to take as many feats as it does.

What was their take again, I dont remember...