Balancing Two-Weapon fighting

[Zarrok]

It would be irresponsible for me to suggest changes. My knowledge of all the related or affected feats/builds is paltry compared to some. I'm just trying to get you to think about the problem on a wholistic level (problems that this may introduces) rather than a very localized one (how does this solve my personal issue). It's just like agreeing to use new classes or new feats from various supplements. You may be so focused on what you get, you may not see that you've opened Pandora's Box.


.

A valid question. It's one that gets asked a lot in MMO's. That answer is that it depends on the context. Consider this: If a certain build needs a 19 to hit, removing that -2 means you've just doubled the expected damage. If they hit on a 2 or better, than the removing that -2 isn't helping at all is it?

Consider another example...a character with weapons that due ability damage or have status effects. If we just consider the damage output of removing that -2, we'd only see a 10% increase of the expected damage. If every successful hit lowers the targets Constitution...then the +2 modifier is a much bigger deal than the expected damage isn't it?

And once you start looking at doing increased stat damage or adding status modifiers to weapon hits, suddenly it's harder to compare the -2 benefit in terms of just damage. For example, if you had a choice of TWF with weapons that do Con damage or THF with a weapon that does Con damage...which would you prefer? Depends doesn't it?

The difficulty in answering these questions is probably why there is no "fix" for TWF or other styles. I'm going to repeat what I said above, if you really want to make TWF "viable" give it something that makes it unique and useful...don't try to make it the same as others or more powerful. You like TWF because of the play-style, so add a change that enhances that style of play without treading on the toes of other styles. The THF should always do more damage...you just should be able to say, "Yes, but I can do X and you can't." And then there should be no easy answer as to which is more important, X or more damage.

Let me leave you with a thought:

You can't fix the game...you can only change it.

Hey I appreciate the caution. That's what I'm looking to do just change it. I'll look into the TWF O.P. stuff you listed! I think I'll start from the top down, then go from the bottom up. Thanks!

That having been said, if I were going to make TWF playable for Rangers, I would give Rangers/Fighters Two-Weapon Defense as part of TWF. I'd also change Weapon Finesse for Rangers/Fighters to apply to all weapons and modify To Hit and Damage bonus regardless of the weapon type.

Why not just dip one level of swordsage and take the shadow blade feat on top of weapon finesse or the feycraft template with a light weapon?

D&D, for reasons not entirely clear, really screws over Dex based Fighter/Ranger builds. Better armors reduce Dex benefit and there are numerous conditions where you lose your Dex bonus, but almost none where you lose your Strength bonus or Armor bonus

Note that I don't think Non-Fighter classes need these benefits. Rogues already get tons of versatility and abilities. Making them the equal of Fighters for damage is fundamentally flawed since nothing allows Fighters to replace Rogues with regard to skills.

Isn't this because Dex is probably the strongest attribute overall?

 

[Zarrok]

For those interested here's a link that shed's a little light on the Conan rpg's version of TWF.

Mongoose Publishing • View topic - Two-weapon fighting comparisons?

To all those who have listed proposals. Has anyone playtested any changes?

 

[Dandu]

A fighter with Power Attack whose been buffed up is going to deal out massive DPS as well, though.

 

[Arrowhawk]

Why not just dip one level of swordsage and take the shadow blade feat on top of weapon finesse or the feycraft template with a light weapon?

If you have to multi-class to make a feat or style viable, then you're railroading players. At the very least it feats and intended play-styles should work for the core classes straight up. When new classes come along, its the responsibility of those authors to make sure those classes can't be exploited.

Isn't this because Dex is probably the strongest attribute overall?

I don't know how one compares stats. I think the game has so many vectors it just wasn't possible for WotC to see everything and make everyone happy.

 

[Trance-Zg]

This, I think. THF is the only build that seems to consistently prove valuable at all in combat compared to spellcasters, it seems wrong to nerf the only fighting style that so unanimously seems to "work." It's always seemed to me to be more of a problem of the other styles being too weak, not vice versa.

I am glad you mentioned other impoverished combat styles, though. People focus so much on TWF and Sword and Board; unarmed combat, ranged combat, and (gods help you) one handed weapon (ie, fencing style) combat are even worse and don't get nearly enough pity.

Well S&B is not weak vs.spellcasters with shield ward & shield charge it's a very viable option(maybe add to shield ward its bonus on ref saves vs. burst, blast and line spells).

and archer only needs little tweak to get rid of 30ft rule for half its feats. I.E. far shot extends pointblank shot/sneak attack to 60ft and with "bow sniper" feat(version of crossbow sniper) extends it to 120ft(60ft w/o far shot ofc).

 

[Dandu]

Well S&B is not weak vs.spellcasters with shield ward & shield charge it's a very viable option(maybe add to shield ward its bonus on ref saves vs. burst, blast and line spells).

How do you figure?

 

[airwalkrr]

There is nothing wrong with TWF as written. It's all about taking advantage of the ability to make more attacks rather than deal large amounts of damage with fewer hits. It's simple enough to point out rogue sneak attack to give you an example of what types of things you need to take advantage of.

 

[Dandu]

In essence, "THF is for fighters, TWF is for rogues"?

 

[airwalkrr]

In essence, "THF is for fighters, TWF is for rogues"?

Well, that's an overgeneralized view, but on the most elemental level, yes. Unless you are playing in a campaign where you have guaranteed access to certain items that benefit more from multiple hits (e.g. vorpal) than focusing on hitting as hard as possible with each hit, THF is generally the best approach unless you are a rogue or other class with lots of sneak attack.

TWF isn't broken, it just isn't meant for everyone in D&D. The large amount of feats required to be effective at TWF makes it an inefficient way to increase your damage with most builds relative to the ease with which you can do this by being a THF. So TWF doesn't need to be fixed. The player just needs to be aware of the cases in which it is worthwhile (e.g. rogues) and the cases in which it generally isn't (e.g. barbarians).

Consider that the TWF feat chain has significantly diminishing returns. Taking TWF is a pretty good deal sometimes. You get an extra attack as long as you take a -2 penalty to all attacks. But ITWF is worse than TWF because that extra attack you get is at a -5 penalty compared to your primary attack. And GTWF is obviously even worse. But for a rogue, the prospect of getting all that bonus sneak attack damage is often worth it, even if the successive feats are less valuable than the prerequisite feat. Compare that to the Weapon Focus/Specialization feat chain. You get the same bonus for each successive feat that you got for the prerequisite feat so they are arguably at least as good as the prerequisite feat. As a fighter, if you are stuck choosing between the TWF chain and WF/WS chain then clearly WF/WS is a better choice.

 

[Dandu]

What about Rangers? They're a melee class that gets TWF but no sneak attack to back it up. I mean, here we have the game telling you in more or less direct terms that TWF is ok for a class without large amounts of bonus damage.