Menu
News
All News
Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
Pathfinder
Starfinder
Warhammer
2d20 System
Year Zero Engine
Industry News
Reviews
Dragon Reflections
Columns
Weekly Digests
Weekly News Digest
Freebies, Sales & Bundles
RPG Print News
RPG Crowdfunding News
Game Content
ENterplanetary DimENsions
Mythological Figures
Opinion
Worlds of Design
Peregrine's Next
RPG Evolution
Other Columns
From the Freelancing Frontline
Monster ENcyclopedia
WotC/TSR Alumni Look Back
4 Hours w/RSD (Ryan Dancey)
The Road to 3E (Jonathan Tweet)
Greenwood's Realms (Ed Greenwood)
Drawmij's TSR (Jim Ward)
Community
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Resources
Wiki
Pages
Latest activity
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Downloads
Latest reviews
Search resources
EN Publishing
Store
EN5ider
Adventures in ZEITGEIST
Awfully Cheerful Engine
What's OLD is NEW
Judge Dredd & The Worlds Of 2000AD
War of the Burning Sky
Level Up: Advanced 5E
Events & Releases
Upcoming Events
Private Events
Featured Events
Socials!
Twitch
YouTube
Facebook (EN Publishing)
Facebook (EN World)
Twitter
Instagram
TikTok
Podcast
Features
Top 5 RPGs Compiled Charts 2004-Present
Adventure Game Industry Market Research Summary (RPGs) V1.0
Ryan Dancey: Acquiring TSR
Q&A With Gary Gygax
D&D Rules FAQs
TSR, WotC, & Paizo: A Comparative History
D&D Pronunciation Guide
Million Dollar TTRPG Kickstarters
Tabletop RPG Podcast Hall of Fame
Eric Noah's Unofficial D&D 3rd Edition News
D&D in the Mainstream
D&D & RPG History
About Morrus
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
The
VOIDRUNNER'S CODEX
is coming! Explore new worlds, fight oppressive empires, fend off fearsome aliens, and wield deadly psionics with this comprehensive boxed set expansion for 5E and A5E!
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Dungeons & Dragons
A Modest Proposal... (Regarding TWF)
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="Archimago" data-source="post: 121547" data-attributes="member: 1204"><p>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.</p><p></p><p> 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. </p><p> 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. </p><p> 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. </p><p> The chart of penalties for TWF, under this scheme will look like this:</p><p></p><p>Main Hand/Off-hand..........Attack Modifiers</p><p></p><p>Non-light/Light.....................-2/-4 </p><p>Light/Light...........................-2/-2 </p><p>Non-Light/Non-Light..............-4/-4</p><p>Double................................-2/-2</p><p></p><p> 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). </p><p> 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. </p><p> 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. </p><p> I humbly await criticism and concerns.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Archimago, post: 121547, member: 1204"] 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. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Dungeons & Dragons
A Modest Proposal... (Regarding TWF)
Top