S
shurai
Guest
In a nutshell, some folks think that the new version of Two-Weapon Fighting, when taken by rogues, will be overpowered. What do you all think? Will too many rogues take the new version of the feat?
It certainly has the ring of realism. In real life, the kind of non-military anything-goes fighting that rogues prefer certainly has precedent. Most small-weapon fighting systems or styles have use of the off-hand and feet integrated into them, and that could easily be construed as use of TWF with an unarmed attack and Improved Trip or the like.
Likewise, fighting with two weapons, matched or not, is a known roguish tendency that's well-supported by lots of swashbuckling & adventurous literature, such as various characters fighting rapier-dagger or rapier-main-gauche. In addition, it seems to be supported by historical evidence as well.
What about game balance? It's true that rogues will gain a pretty significant new ability, but I don't think it's necessarily the case that every time some class gets a new benefit that it will be 'broken.' For instance, most of the time the advantages are overestimated, and the drawbacks are seldom evaluated. In this case, it's true that although rogues will gain an extra attack, the loss of attack bonus is a bigger deal for them because they generally hit less often than a fighting class.
The real advantage, as many have said, is the extra sneak attack. But, this will only occur during the following subset of situations the rogue is likely to encounter: 1) the rogue is getting a full attack, and 2) the rogue is getting a sneak attack. So mostly this new change will effect rounds in which the rogue begins in a flanking position and doesn't move.
But, most rogues only have a good chance of hitting with Weapon Finesse, which is impossible before 3rd level. So taking the -2 to hit and getting the extra attack will end up sacrificing quite a bit, given the rogue's already-low attack bonus. However, after 3rd level, with both TWF and Finesse, the rogue is dealing a lot more damage at low levels. Later on, I expect that fighters will catch up and pass the rogue in number of attacks and hit probability. It's important to remember that a human rogue could very easily have precisely the same setup by 3rd level in 3.0, for one extra feat, yet not that many people complain about the overpowered dual-shortswording human rogue.
So anyway, I think that although we'll definitely see lots more rogues fighting with two weapons in Edition 3.5, I think this is probably okay, though I'm still mulling over the subtleties. Truly I think the real problem will be with nonhuman rogues, like those who get dex bonuses. Halflings, for instance, will now be much nastier around fourth and fifth level while flanking and full-attacking than they once were. Still, the rogue still has disadvantages, and outside this special situation the rogue will be the same as always.
What do you all think? Is any of my analysis off the mark? Anything I've missed? Do I over-use question marks?
-S
-S
It certainly has the ring of realism. In real life, the kind of non-military anything-goes fighting that rogues prefer certainly has precedent. Most small-weapon fighting systems or styles have use of the off-hand and feet integrated into them, and that could easily be construed as use of TWF with an unarmed attack and Improved Trip or the like.
Likewise, fighting with two weapons, matched or not, is a known roguish tendency that's well-supported by lots of swashbuckling & adventurous literature, such as various characters fighting rapier-dagger or rapier-main-gauche. In addition, it seems to be supported by historical evidence as well.
What about game balance? It's true that rogues will gain a pretty significant new ability, but I don't think it's necessarily the case that every time some class gets a new benefit that it will be 'broken.' For instance, most of the time the advantages are overestimated, and the drawbacks are seldom evaluated. In this case, it's true that although rogues will gain an extra attack, the loss of attack bonus is a bigger deal for them because they generally hit less often than a fighting class.
The real advantage, as many have said, is the extra sneak attack. But, this will only occur during the following subset of situations the rogue is likely to encounter: 1) the rogue is getting a full attack, and 2) the rogue is getting a sneak attack. So mostly this new change will effect rounds in which the rogue begins in a flanking position and doesn't move.
But, most rogues only have a good chance of hitting with Weapon Finesse, which is impossible before 3rd level. So taking the -2 to hit and getting the extra attack will end up sacrificing quite a bit, given the rogue's already-low attack bonus. However, after 3rd level, with both TWF and Finesse, the rogue is dealing a lot more damage at low levels. Later on, I expect that fighters will catch up and pass the rogue in number of attacks and hit probability. It's important to remember that a human rogue could very easily have precisely the same setup by 3rd level in 3.0, for one extra feat, yet not that many people complain about the overpowered dual-shortswording human rogue.
So anyway, I think that although we'll definitely see lots more rogues fighting with two weapons in Edition 3.5, I think this is probably okay, though I'm still mulling over the subtleties. Truly I think the real problem will be with nonhuman rogues, like those who get dex bonuses. Halflings, for instance, will now be much nastier around fourth and fifth level while flanking and full-attacking than they once were. Still, the rogue still has disadvantages, and outside this special situation the rogue will be the same as always.
What do you all think? Is any of my analysis off the mark? Anything I've missed? Do I over-use question marks?
-S
-S
