D&D 3E/3.5 [3.5e] One feat = 2 weapon fighting at -2/-2?

[Cedric]

I've already decided that my next fighter is going to specialize in short swords. Just a dual wielding, weapon finesse, short sword using, weapon focused and specialized...blender.

Now, will other fighters do more damage then me? Sure...but still...some keen weapons, improved crit range...etc. It'll be nice eventually.

Have been thinking of taking ranger 2, barbarian 2, rogue 3, sorceror 2, fighter 11...haven't decided though, and of course since I'm starting at 1st level...who knows how far I'll eventually make it.

Cedric

 

[Ciaran]

Now, suppose I'm a seventh level fighter with a STR of 22, and a non-magical greataxe (I'm leaving magic out of it to make the
numbers easier). And let's say you want a 50% chance of hitting an AC of 18.

Huh. I've never been in a game where the players knew the exact AC of their opponents... at least, not since grade school.

Does your comparison still hold up when the players don't have the exact numbers available that they need to min-max their Power Attack calculations?

- Eric

 

[Plane Sailing]

The use of power attack with 2wf is interesting, but the fact is that 2wf is only of benefit when you get a full attack. 2HW get the bigger damage die and all the extras (str etc) on all the single attacks too... charge, move and attack, AoO, cleave... in all those situations the 2H weapon is streets ahead.

I applaud the current move (although I might re-introduce Ambidexterity as a feat which allows 2WF to use full str bonus on both weapons )

 

[Elder-Basilisk]

A few things here:

1. Making TWF a single feat won't overpower fighters, barbarians, paladins, etc fighting with two weapons. They will, at best be marginally better than a fighter with a greatsword (and two more feats)--and even then, primarily at levels 4, 8, and 12.

1.5 Despite popular opinion to the contrary, there are several viable ways of implementing TWF with two weapons:
-Twin Shortsword (everyone knows about this)--this works with weapon finesse
-Twin Handaxe (rarely mentioned)--also works with weapon finesse
-Twin throwing axe--inferior crit range to twin shortsword but you can finish off the full attack by throwing your weapons; also works with weapon finesse.
-Quarterstaff--comparable to twin shortsword if you don't use weapon finesse (worse crit range compensated for by better damage on partial attacks, superior disarm and anti-disarm capabilities, bludgeoning type)
and the exotics:
Dire Flail, Double Sword, Double Axe

2. Making TWF a single feat will IMO overpower shield expert characters (who generally use a d8 or d10 weapon and a spiked or bashing shield in conjunction with the Shield Expert feat from Sword and Fist for all the benefits of TWF AND +2 to +7 to their AC).

3. Making TWF a single feat will probably IMO overpower TWF rogues.

4. Making TWF a single feat will almost certainly overpower TWF shield expert rogues.

 

[I'm A Banana]

Same thing a Monk can do with Flurry of Blows. Seems reasonable to me.

 

[bwgwl]

Huh. I've never been in a game where the players knew the exact AC of their opponents... at least, not since grade school.

Player #1: I attack the big bad guy. i rolled a 17.
DM: Miss.
Player #2: I attack the big bad guy, too. i rolled an 18.
DM: You hit.

what do you think the big bad guy's AC is?

fwiw, that's why i like using the Defense Roll option. it adds another roll to combat, but it gets rid of this problem completely.

 

[Liminal Syzygy]

Generally average damage increases from power attack don't kick in unless you can't beat the target's damage reduction, or unless your attack roll is above the target's AC. And since two weapon fighters already get -2, that reduces the utility of power attack right there.

I agree with the point that it is probably too good for Rogues.

 

[Bendris Noulg]

fwiw, that's why i like using the Defense Roll option. it adds another roll to combat, but it gets rid of this problem completely.

That's why I use it, as well. I much prefer using opposed rolls whenever possible.

 

[paulewaug]

hhhmm I thought I read somewhere that Rogues only get/will only get(?) Sneak Attack damage on 1 of their attacks?
So even if they get multi attacks (and/or TWF) it only counts on the first attack roll of that round....?

I could, of course, be wrong


I agree their is not really much, if any, difference between a TWF and a Monk using Flurry

My group scoffs at the idea of TWF in 3.0, although I do belive it has some merit.
Personally I like the idea of not needing Amidexterity though.
but thats just worth my .02

 

[CRGreathouse]

Huh. I've never been in a game where the players knew the exact AC of their opponents... at least, not since grade school.

Does your comparison still hold up when the players don't have the exact numbers available that they need to min-max their Power Attack calculations?

Sure his calculations do. He just Power Attacks for 2 less than he would if he used a single weapon. This doesn't mean his damage is optimal, but it does mean that the damage relative to the greatsword wielder stays the same.