Changes to two-weapon fighting.

[Terramotus]

I've always been slightly miffed by the way that two-weapon fighting in 3e has always seemed a subpar choice compared to the weapon and shield style or the two-handed style. Particularly given how feat-intensive it is. To use it at even its most basic level, it requires two feats while the others require none. In order to make it slightly more useful to someone other than thieves, I'm thinking of implementing these changes on a permanent basis in my games.

The changes are:
A partial action used to attack now allows a single attack with each hand. A partial charge also allows an attack with each hand. For the sake of clarity, a standard attack used to move and attack allows an attack with each hand, and a standard charge also allows an attack with each hand.

If a character posesses two weapons of speed, one in each hand, he gains an extra attack with each hand, not just one. Haste still does not stack with weapons of speed. This may actually be more of a clarification than anything else - I've heard that the Sage has reversed his original "No" answer to two speed weapons stacking.

I'm interested in feedback on this, particularly if anyone has tried this, or if anyone sees any obvious pitfalls that I missed. Will this seriously tilt the balance towards the two-weapon users? So far in playtesting I haven't found any serious problems, and it's seemed to be just about the right amount of change needed, in my opinion.

 

[Destil]

1) There really is no such thing as a partial action. You mean with a standard action. (A partial being a standard - the move and not something you usualy elect to take).

Also, if you don't like that it takes more feats to take advantage the style I'd suggest meddling with feats and not core rules. One option:

Two-Handed: Remove 1.5x Str bonus default. Instead taking a feat gives you this bonus.

Shield: Remove shield proficiency from all classes (or perhaps give some classes only small shield pro and make large shields require a feat), so people need to take a feat to use a shield effectively.

Two Weapon: Combine Ambidexterity and Two Weapon Fighting into one feat. Allow anyone with a 8+ BAB to take a second attack, as well (Improved Two Weapon Fighting is included, basically -this breaks some of the feat guidelines for feats not scaling, though it simplifies everything nicely).

This could hurt all melee classes a bit, but it evens out the three styles well.

Giving Fighters an extra 1st level feat to choose between the three, Barbarians the Two-Handed feat, Rangers Two Weapon Fighting and Paladins shield proficiency at 1st level would work (if you wanted to encourage the iconic archetypes).

If you wanted to include archery then requiring a feat to draw ammunition as a fee action could work as an option, too.

 

[silvertable81]

Good Ideas. I'm playing a dual hammer dwarf fighter cleric, I have to sink so many feats into using the two hammers, it ain't funny.

 

[Plane Sailing]

The option which I'm using at present to make TWF a worthwhile expenditure of feats is to allow full strength on the off-hand attack when someone has the ambidexterity feat.

I had considered the possibility of allowing two attacks to be made as a standard action when fighting with two weapons, but it doesn't really gel well the whole "only get multiple attacks on a full attack" idea, which prevails across then entire game.

Otherwise, all kinds of animals, beasts and monsters would logically be able to get extra attacks on standard actions, and that would be a nightmare for PC's.

Allowing full strength on the off-hand attack is, in my mind, completely balanced and fair, considering the limited number of occasions where it comes up (a full attack), while the 2H weapon user gets to use his 1.5x str bonus on every standard attack, Attack of Opportunity, Charge etc.

I think that WotC orginally put the two at parity without giving due consideration to (a) how often the benefit comes up and (b) the feat cost in order to be able to do something.

It is interesting that in d20Modern they have ditched the ambidexterity feat entirely and made TWF a single feat affair. One feat and you've got it.

Cheers

 

[Elder-Basilisk]

I wouldn't change the 1/2 str bonus on the off hand. One of the big changes in 3e that I appreciated was that by reducing the str bonus to damage by 1/2 for off hand attacks, it made it worthwhile to do something other than dual-wield. The idea that users of two handed weapons would still be balanced with dual wielders because they get more damage on partial attacks is, if you ask me, somewhat innaccurate. Most of the time, in high level combats, characters seem to be hasted (in my experience) so that balance would be entirely illusionary as soon as characters start partial charge then full attacking under the influence of haste.

The suggestion of requiring more feats for other fighting styles might work but I think it has some disadvantages as well. First, it restricts barbarians, paladins, and rangers even more to certain fighting styles. I think it's perfectly legitimate to play a sword and shield barbarian. This rule change would make them rarer than non-dual wielding single class rangers. Similarly, a Paladin wielding a greatsword seems a perfectly legitimate choice but this gives them a class propensity to sword and shield like rangers have a propensity toward dual wielding. And giving the fighter two bonus feats at first level would make them compete with rangers for front-loadedness. (Instead of figthers taking a level of ranger for the dual-wield feats you'd have rangers taking a level of fighter for weapon focus and weapon finesse shortsword). The most significant effect of this, however, would not be on the fighting classes but on rogues, clerics, bards, druids, and wizards. If clerics and druids were denied the shield proficiency and required to spend a feat to get extra damage out of two handed weapons, that would make it even harder for them to become decently skilled at any fighting style. Rogues and bards would be somewhat less hurt by the change but if they wanted to adopt an unorthodox style of fighting, it would hurt them.

If you ask me, combining two weapon fighting and ambidexterity into one feat is a bad idea too. It makes two-weapon fighting easier for those who take a suboptimal path true. On the other hand, it also makes it much easier for maxed out TWF characters such as the bastard sword and shield of bashing fighter, the greatsword and armor spikes fighter/ranger/barbarian, and the dual wielding rogue (who, without being human, can now have TWF, ambidex, WP foc: Shortsword, and WP Finesse: Shortsword by 6th level).

If you want to make TWF more attractive, I'd recommend combining TWF with Imp TWF. That seems like the best option I've seen. (That said, I wouldn't recommend changing TWF at all).

 

[Viktyr Gehrig]

I favor combining Ambidexterity and Two-Weapon Fighting into a single feat, but keeping all other traits the same-- off-hand iterative attacks require extra feats, off-hand attacks only add half Str. mod as bonus damage.

This still leaves Two Weapon Fighting suboptimal, but not as pathetically so, and it makes the Ranger slightly less attractive as a single-level frontload, since a single level in Fighter would provide the same benefit (at least for two weapon fighting).

 

[Steverooo]

Change Ambidexterity

And just to muddy the mix, here's yet another idea!

Ambidexterity, as written, makes no sense. First it says that you "ignore all penalties for using an off hand. You are neither left-handed nor right-handed." Then it still says that you can't use anything but light weapons in your off hand (which Ambidexterity says you don't HAVE), and you only get 1/2 Strength bonus in the same off hand (which you don't have), and then blithely allows you to use a staff for two attacks at -2/-2, while using a club in each hand is -4/-4 (although you only get 1/2 Strength bonus with one end).

Huh?

I have ruled that, if you have Ambidexterity (Dex 15+ required to get it), that YOU HAVE NO OFF HAND. Therefore; you get full Strength bonus with both weapons, AND you can use a weapon of your size or less in each hand, with no additional penalty (-2/-2), if you also have Two-Weapon Fighting.

The thing that I think people forget with two-handed weapons is that there is only one to-hit roll. With two weapons (expecially at lower levels), there is less chance to hit with both, so the double-wielder will strike less often than the two-hander Barbarian AND the single-wielding Rogue (Barbarian's +1 BAB, Rogue +0, Ranger +1, but with -2/-2 on the attacks, for -1/-1). Since he hits less often with both attacks, he does less damage than either.

At higher levels, of course, the dual-wielder is still at a BAB loss vs. a two-hander, but the fact that he gets two attacks actually makes him MORE likely to hit with both attacks, as the BAB goes up. Also (as a historical note), it took you a Two-handed-wielding Proficiency, back in the 2e days, to get 1.5x Strength bonus when using a PARTICULAR weapon, that way. Now, everybody gets it.

I say fix Ambidexterity, and then give the two-handers a new Feat to increase their damage from 1.5 to 2x, instead. YMMV.

 

[Bean 2.0]

Ok one thing
The two weapon fighting stlye does not need to be fixed, the reason it needs so many feats is because its is the most powerful melee stlye. No other stlye can deal as much damage (except maybe archery). Now with the parry feats from the dragon issue on swashbuckling characters these two weapon masters turn that overwhelming defense into an unbreakable defense. A fighter/psi warrior gets alot of feats. Use improved unarmed stike , the two weapon feats, and a new feat from The Rokugan book (copied below) may have 12 attacks at full damage more with certain feats and multiclassing

Hand of Osowa-No [ mantis technique ]
Preqs- ambidexterity , two-weapon fighting, base attack +3

Benifit - Add full str mod to attacks with off hand
instead of half str mod

If properly used with power attack, cleave , great cleave, and two-weapon rend the damage cap be comes greater than even the most power epic spells.

 

[Stalker0]

Well, I'm definately with the lose the 1/2 str bonus on the offhand.

There's a technique somewhere...maybe one of the Quint books, that lets you make a single attack with two weapons. They either both hit or both miss, and you get an additional -2 on the attack. I'll try to find it.

TWF becomes more powerful later in the game when you can have enchantments on both weapons. I mean one +5 greatsword is nice, but two +5 weapons is nicer. Whether it measure up then or not I'm not sure. But TWF considering teh feat cost should be better than the other styles in my opinion

 

[Plane Sailing]

I wouldn't change the 1/2 str bonus on the off hand. One of the big changes in 3e that I appreciated was that by reducing the str bonus to damage by 1/2 for off hand attacks, it made it worthwhile to do something other than dual-wield.

I would agree with you IF dual wielding was an option which was freely available to all comers, on the same basis as using a two handed weapon.

The fact that you need to expend two precious feats to have a chance to use dual weapons effectively tilts the balance considerably in my mind.

After all, in previous editions anyone could dual-wield, couldn't they? It was clearly unbalanced back then. That's not the case now.