Two Weapon Fighting and Deadly Strike

[BASHMAN]

If somebody is using Two Weapon Fighting or Rapid Shot, and they hit and use Deadly Strike, is the Deadly Strike damage also halved, or is that separate?

 

[TerraDave]

If it wasn't halved, those feats would actually be (almost) as good as those of some other backgrounds.

(it would also be a 4E nod to twin strike and hunters quarry, with twin strike finally balanced).

 

[Lord Mhoram]

Yeah I think so. The purpose of those seem to be "two hands does the same amount of damage as a single strike, you can just split it between two targets" so splitting the deadly strike seems to be very appropriate"

 

[Salamandyr]

I think it's either halved and applying to each attack, or full damage but only on one target.

At least I think that's the intention.

I'm really not loving the two weapon fighting rules. Not so much because of the halving damage, but because of the pointless limitations. Why only finessable weapons? Why is there no incentive to use a dagger in the off-hand (the most common off hand weapon)?

It basically feels like a mechanic designed to convince people not to dual wield. To be fair, after the proliferation of two weapon fighting, perhaps it's time reign it in.

 

[Ahnehnois]

Half damage is half damage.

 

[BASHMAN]

Yeah I think so. The purpose of those seem to be "two hands does the same amount of damage as a single strike, you can just split it between two targets" so splitting the deadly strike seems to be very appropriate"

True, but I don't think you get to use Deadly Strike twice and halve the result both times. It seems like you'd "get" to expend your 1 Deadly Strike / round to do 1d6/2 extra damage on a hit that is already doing 1d6/2. And the other attack... if it hits at all will only do 1d6/2 (you have no more Deadly Strike left to add).

 

[mlund]

Indeed: half damage is half damage.

That's why in the next pass Deadly Strike needs to explicitly state that if you use it on one of the two multi-attacks the Deadly Strike damage is either A. rolled for both or B. not halved.

IE - "This additional damage is not halved by making two attacks with Two Weapon Fighting or ..."

- Marty Lund

 

[BASHMAN]

Half damage is half damage.

Then it seems like Dual Wielding is a sucker's bet.

The upside is you can *potentially* kill 2 Kobolds a round IF you have an 18 STR or DEX. 1d6+4/2 = 3.75 DMG on a hit. Getting to add 1d6/2 increases that to 5.5 Dmg to a single target. If you hit the same target with both attacks, you do 9.25 Dmg.

Compare to using the same weapon and just hitting once: 1d6+4 = 7.5 Dmg, adding Deadly Strike increases it to 11 Dmg. And this is not even the *correct* comparison, because since we are not using Dual Wielding, we are now using a bigger, more damaging weapon that does 1d8 or 1d10 damage per hit. Assuming 1d8 Dmg, we now do 1d8+4 = 8.5 Dmg + Deadly Strike = 12 Dmg. Assuming 1d10 it becomes 13 damage.

Also, if the 1d6/2 rounds down to 0 when you roll a 1, I could see many a fit being thrown at the game table.

Instead of half damage for each hit, maybe it should be -3 Dmg for each hit, or half, whichever is better.

 

[Ahnehnois]

Then it seems like Dual Wielding is a sucker's bet.

It kind of should be. That being said, the point of my post was that simple is good. Trying to figure out what is halved and what is not is a headache. If TWF needs a viability boost, I would improve it some other way.

 

[Salamandyr]

Then it seems like Dual Wielding is a sucker's bet.

I have a feeling this is the intention.

EDIT: I have this feeling that when we see the ranger class, they'll have some kind of mechanic that makes two weapon fighting and rapid shot viable/more powerful.