A Modest Proposal... (Regarding TWF)
Something 2 of you have been mistaken about is that you need 2 light weapons to achieve -2/-2 to hit. This is incorrect. You may wield a weapon of normal size in your main hand and as long as your offhand weapon is light, the final penalty is -2/-2, assuming you have TWF and Ambi. This is clearly stated under the TWF modifiers section in the PHB.
Roland Delacroix
First Post
I agree with ya, in my campaign i have condensed TWF and Ambidex into one feat. That way they spend one feat and get a real benefit in certain circunstances. Still, i think its a weak feat but good for a few things and looking cool.
That's one thing I was considering, Roland, but was afraid it'd unbalance things. But now I'm leaning more towards just one feat TWF.
BTW, for discussion of the numerical data I've talked about, I posted this topic on the Wizard's site and one the people who actually did the math responded.
In case, you're interested.... http://boards.wizards.com/rpg/ultimatebb.php?ubb=get_topic;f=112;t=003310
BTW, for discussion of the numerical data I've talked about, I posted this topic on the Wizard's site and one the people who actually did the math responded.
In case, you're interested.... http://boards.wizards.com/rpg/ultimatebb.php?ubb=get_topic;f=112;t=003310
hong said:
Well yes, but 2 melee weapons with the same spells on them still likely do more damage, especially with Bulls Strength and the rest.
Its perfectly balanced the way it is. It takes two feats Ambidex and TFW. Shooting two arrows in a round (which is very similar) also takes 2 feats PBS and Rapid Shot.
swift quote
Not to intrude with an off-topic post, but there's some confusion about Jonathan Swift's A Modest Proposal. He is suggesting, tongue firmly in cheek, that a solution to the problem of poverty would be to eat all the poor people. This was inspired because:
You can read the whole thing at http://www.cwrl.utexas.edu/~benjamin/316kfall/316ktexts/swift.html.
- target
Not to intrude with an off-topic post, but there's some confusion about Jonathan Swift's A Modest Proposal. He is suggesting, tongue firmly in cheek, that a solution to the problem of poverty would be to eat all the poor people. This was inspired because:
You can read the whole thing at http://www.cwrl.utexas.edu/~benjamin/316kfall/316ktexts/swift.html.
- target
Crothian
First Post
Sorry for doing that to the thread. But Modest Proposal is one of my favorite stories of all time. Swift is also a great writer. So, I couldn't resist the opurtunity to respond to it in Swift fasion.
On Topic: I think having this into one feat will make it too common. At least as two feats it took a little work and made the ranger a worth while class. Now as one feat, more non figters and non rangers will be able to easily get it. TWF is very strong with sneak attack forinstance. As one feat, I doubt you'd see many rogues without it.
On Topic: I think having this into one feat will make it too common. At least as two feats it took a little work and made the ranger a worth while class. Now as one feat, more non figters and non rangers will be able to easily get it. TWF is very strong with sneak attack forinstance. As one feat, I doubt you'd see many rogues without it.
Elder-Basilisk
First Post
Different Strokes for different folks
I agree with the previous poster. If you change ambidexterity and two weapon fighting to a single feat incorporating the benefits of both, you'll see very few rogues without it.
Right now, as many people have pointed out, the two weapon fighting route is usually inferior to a single two handed weapon in terms of damage dealing ability (although, under certain circumstances and particularly at at the achievement of weapon specialization and improved two weapon fighting, twin short swords or double sword/orc double axe can deal slightly more damage than a two handed weapon when used in full attack actions). However, it's important to note that two weapon fighting can be very advantageous to other characters. Rogues are the most obvious example as they may add sneak attack with both weapons. Fighters wielding a bastard sword and spiked shield (with the shield expert feat) are another example (very similar damage to the single greatsword and the AC from a shield). The Pin Shield and Off-Hand-Parry feats also give two-weapon fighters advantages that the single 2-handed weapon fighter can't gain.
I agree with the previous poster. If you change ambidexterity and two weapon fighting to a single feat incorporating the benefits of both, you'll see very few rogues without it.
Right now, as many people have pointed out, the two weapon fighting route is usually inferior to a single two handed weapon in terms of damage dealing ability (although, under certain circumstances and particularly at at the achievement of weapon specialization and improved two weapon fighting, twin short swords or double sword/orc double axe can deal slightly more damage than a two handed weapon when used in full attack actions). However, it's important to note that two weapon fighting can be very advantageous to other characters. Rogues are the most obvious example as they may add sneak attack with both weapons. Fighters wielding a bastard sword and spiked shield (with the shield expert feat) are another example (very similar damage to the single greatsword and the AC from a shield). The Pin Shield and Off-Hand-Parry feats also give two-weapon fighters advantages that the single 2-handed weapon fighter can't gain.
Similar Threads
