A Modest Proposal... (Regarding TWF)

Archimago · Mar 26, 2002

I know there have been extensive posts on the issue of TWF, but I was thinking about its mechanics and needed a place to get feedback, and so another thread on this topic is born.

As has been pointed out by many mathematically inclined people TWF is not always superior to 2-handed style. The specific example used is two short swords vs a greatsword. The conclusion was that damage wise they are fairly similar over the long run, but 2H style is better against high ACs. There is very neaerly an equilibrium between the two styles from this POV, yet one requires two feats and the other none. The justification for requiring two feats comes from the benefit extra attacks have on sneak attacks. So no feat TWF would be out of the question.
What about 1 feat TWF. TWF is nearly comparable to Rapid Shot, but that is only one feat. Well, two is you count Point Blank Shot, but it a prereq that has utility. With TWF the style is essentially useless until both feats are obtained. For non-humans, and non-fighters, this is quite a penalty.
My proposal is to make TWF one feat, but like Rapid Shot, give it a requisite feat that is useful as well. The obvious candidate is weapon focus, since their bonuses are equal and both put a limitation on the application of that bonus - a certain weapon for one, within 30 ft for the other.
The chart of penalties for TWF, under this scheme will look like this:

Main Hand/Off-hand..........Attack Modifiers

Non-light/Light.....................-2/-4
Light/Light...........................-2/-2
Non-Light/Non-Light..............-4/-4
Double................................-2/-2

The penalty for using a weapon, whether main or off-hand, that one does not have weapon focus for increases by 2. This means that if one fought with two short swords w/o WF, the penalty would be -4/-4 or if using a short sword (off-hand) and longsword (main) w/o WF on the sh. sword the penalty would be -2/-6. Since WF itself add +1, the penalties with this alt.TWF would be in practice -3 (-2 from no TWF w/o WF, -1 from not having WF in the first place).
To clarify, taking the feat TWF would not require WF, but if one wants to avoid the penalties, one should take WF in the appropriate weapon.
Overall, for non-sneak attacking types this makes TWF a bit better because it does not waste a precious feat, and both TWF and WF are useful in their own right. For sneak attacking types they don't have to put in two feats anymore, but if they don't opt for the WF they their ability to hit, and thus use their sneak attacks will be hampered a fair bit, which will ostensibly force they to still commit two feats.
I humbly await criticism and concerns.

kreynolds · Mar 26, 2002

House Rules, bubba. Take this to the House Rules.

Crothian · Mar 26, 2002

Ya, this is House Rules Forun stuff, but that won't stop me from replying.

First, I must say by the title of the thread I was really hoping wacked out ideas on solving the problems of TWF that are not supported by the author, but were actually ideas given to him by an Americian. Ya, that's a not so funny take on the real Modest Proposal by John Swift.

You're trying to make this require less feats, but in reality your requiring it to take many more. Weapon Focus is a weapon specific. So, TWF would only be applied to that weapon. If I wanted to fight with short sword and a long sword I'd need WF in each and TWF in each. Otherwise why would WF short sword help with fighting with 2 long swords?

As it is, you don't need both feats to fight with 2 weapons. That's one of the things about TWF. Sure, it's a lot easier, but not absolutely needed. You need rapid shot to fire that extra arrow. Also, it's not fair to compare ranged attack feats with melee attack feats. They appear similiar, but there is a lot of difference between the two.

You idea isn't bad. I think you need a different prerequite feat besides weapon focus. I'd go with Ambidexterity personally. Otherwise, what becaomes of that feat?

kreynolds · Mar 26, 2002

Crothian said:
Also, it's not fair to compare ranged attack feats with melee attack feats. They appear similiar, but there is a lot of difference between the two.

Yeah, range being the first thing I can think of.

Archimago · Mar 27, 2002

Firstly to the silly...

I was really hoping wacked out ideas on solving the problems of TWF that are not supported by the author, but were actually ideas given to him by an Americian.

Who is the American you're referring to Crothian, neither Jonathan Swift (Irish) or myself (Canadian) are from the US. I alluded to the real "Modest Proposal" b/c my post followed a structure of a proposal and I just happened to of Swift. Besides, shoulf attract a few people in this crowded board.

And now to the serious...

Firstly, is there a way for me to move this thread to house rules myself, or do I just have to wait for an admin. I wasn't sure exactly where to put it because my first part is an exposition of the problem with the current TWF config and can be separated from the house rule I suggest to fix it.

You're trying to make this require less feats, but in reality your requiring it to take many more.

I'm not trying to make it require less feats, I'm trying to reach a similar end to having TWF and Ambidex w/o having one useless feat. Which would be which ever one you take first if you don't take them at the same time.

As it is, you don't need both feats to fight with 2 weapons. That's one of the things about TWF. Sure, it's a lot easier, but not absolutely needed.

True but it might as well be. Accruing a -10 penalty pretty much bars a low level character from bothering with it unless they ge the feats, and if they get only one the penalties are still so high it remains practically useless.

You idea isn't bad. I think you need a different prerequite feat besides weapon focus. I'd go with Ambidexterity personally. Otherwise, what becaomes of that feat?

I'm not to concerned with the problem of keeping the same feats around, but since ambidex (or TWF, which one is taken first) has no application outside of TWF (unlike Rapid Shot) until both feats are taken, I would like a different feat to be the prereq, one that doesn't suffer from this fault (although my alt. TWF wouldn't list it as a prereq in the strict sense of D&D).

Also, it's not fair to compare ranged attack feats with melee attack feats. They appear similiar, but there is a lot of difference between the two.

I acknowledge that one is ranged and one melee (very clever kreynolds

), but they are still similar. Both have the same bonus and both limit that bonus. True that you don't need to wield an extra bow to benefit from Rapid Shot (I'd like to see that

), but that's because of the nature of the weapons. Besides if replaced TWF with a feat like "Speed Attack" that was Rapid Shot in melee, then that would be entirely unbalanced.

Crothian · Mar 27, 2002

"Who is the American you're referring to Crothian, neither Jonathan Swift (Irish) or myself (Canadian) are from the US. I alluded to the real "Modest Proposal" b/c my post followed a structure of a proposal and I just happened to of Swift. Besides, shoulf attract a few people in this crowded board. "

I can't find it to quote, but in the story Swift states that the radical ideas are not actually his own. That they come from an
Americian.

"Firstly, is there a way for me to move this thread to house rules myself, or do I just have to wait for an admin. I wasn't sure exactly where to put it because my first part is an exposition of the problem with the current TWF config and can be separated from the house rule I suggest to fix it. "

Only the all mighty Admins hold the vast secrets to moving threads.

"I'm not trying to make it require less feats, I'm trying to reach a similar end to having TWF and Ambidex w/o having one useless feat. Which would be which ever one you take first if you don't take them at the same time. "

Since they both help out in different ways, I'm not sure they are useless. Cleave and Great cleave, are two feats where the first becomes useless.

It's not a bad idea, I'm just not sure what to have as the first feat. Neither Power Attack or Expertise makes sense.

What happens to the Ranger? Will he get both of the feats in place of his old TWF feats?

Archimago · Mar 27, 2002

I can't find it to quote, but in the story Swift states that the radical ideas are not actually his own. That they come from an

Ah that's what you meant, I know what you're referring to. However, Swift is most likely referring to an "American" as in someone from the Americas not USA, specifically he is likely talking about a "savage" (as the Europeans called them) from the Americas. But this is majorly off-topic.

Since they both help out in different ways, I'm not sure they are useless. Cleave and Great cleave, are two feats where the first becomes useless.

Cleave w/o Great Cleave still lets you do something definite. Either one of ambidexterity or TWF doesn't let you fight w/ two weapons effectively. You can use the style, but your attack rolls will make it useless until you have both.

It's not a bad idea, I'm just not sure what to have as the first feat. Neither Power Attack or Expertise makes sense.

Hmm, expertise might be good, but unfortunately it means that TWFers would need 13int. Okay, nevermind, it wouldn't be good.

Erekose13 · Mar 27, 2002

You could try something like the Rokugan book did with Daisho Technique. It required specific weapons to be used (katana/wakizashi), Bab 1+ and Wis 13+. you get the feats you need for one feat, but only with specific weapons.

Archimago · Mar 27, 2002

I can't find it to quote, but in the story Swift states that the radical ideas are not actually his own. That they come from an

Ah that's what you meant, I know what you're referring to. However, Swift is most likely referring to an "American" as in someone from the Americas not USA, specifically he is likely talking about a "savage" (as the Europeans called them) from the Americas. But this is majorly off-topic.

Since they both help out in different ways, I'm not sure they are useless. Cleave and Great cleave, are two feats where the first becomes useless.

Cleave w/o Great Cleave still lets you do something definite. Either one of ambidexterity or TWF doesn't let you fight w/ two weapons effectively. You can use the style, but your attack rolls will make it useless until you have both.

It's not a bad idea, I'm just not sure what to have as the first feat. Neither Power Attack or Expertise makes sense.

Hmm, expertise might be good, but unfortunately it means that TWFers would need 13int. Okay, nevermind, it wouldn't be good.

What happens to the Ranger? Will he get both of the feats in place of his old TWF feats?

This is a whole other big mess, but short answer would be yes, I guess.

How about a compromise.
- Keep ambidex and TWF, but change how they affect the penalty progression.
- The prereqs of the feats remain as PHB
- instead of TWF and ambidex individually getting you half-way to decent penalties, have TWF reduce the penalty most of the way and then ambidex supplement it the rest of the way. This means only one feat is needed to TWF, but the penalties are sever enough to warrant picking up ambidex.
- the current penalty for fighting w/ two light weapons and having both TWF and Ambi is -2/-2, how about w/ this system, if you only get TWF then the penalty for light/light is -4/-4, which is playable, and getting ambidex lowers it to -2/-2.
Would this be a tenable position or is my other proposal still better?

Gromm · Mar 27, 2002

kreynolds said:
Yeah, range being the first thing I can think of.

Damage too.
Arrows generally don't break 1d8+6 damage ona good day.
Single handed melee weapons can easily break 1d10+6 without magic, plus more attacks.

The way I see it the current system is balanced. Most two weapon fighters do it for the style anyway. Plus with feats like twin sword they actually come out better on the deal. Add in two magical weapons with a variety of abilities and there you go.

And getting rapid shot takes 2 feats too for the record, just like Two weapon fighting and Ambidexterity.