Dbl Weapon damage

[Mal Malenkirk]

I see no problem with that.

Then that's what you should have wrote in your first post.

Personnaly I do see a slight problem with that.

A PC fighter who understand the concept of cost of opportunity is unlikely to want to do exotic TWF. Too high a cost for too small a benefit. I don't want a 2nd edition power option but neither should TWF be a lame horse.

 

[hong]

Then that's what you should have wrote in your first post.

I'll write anything I feel like writing.

Personnaly I do see a slight problem with that.

A PC fighter who understand the concept of cost of opportunity is unlikely to want to do exotic TWF. Too high a cost for too small a benefit. I don't want a 2nd edition power option but neither should TWF be a lame horse.

While ensuring a character isn't useless is a valid concern, I think the current setup is fine. Right now, TWF and/or a double weapon is something that provides benefits in certain limited situations. It's specialised, not uniformly superior. It also gives the wielder style points in terms of flair and uniqueness, which makes him or her stand out from the crowd.

IMO this is the reason why people should be using TWF, not simply as a better means of smacking down monsters. If what you want is to be a tank or a brick, then a big sword, axe or polearm is your natural schtick, and the existing rules encourage that. If what you want is to be a swashbuckler, then the two-weapon style is your schtick. However, a swashbuckler shouldn't also expect to be as good at smacking monsters as a tank or a brick.

 

[Storm Raven]

A PC fighter who understand the concept of cost of opportunity is unlikely to want to do exotic TWF. Too high a cost for too small a benefit. I don't want a 2nd edition power option but neither should TWF be a lame horse.

Why not? In our history it pretty much was: almost no one used it much for real combat. Looking back at the thousands of years of warfare history, there are only a few isolated instances of the two weapon style being used. I see no reason to make it any better "in game", since it was empirically shown to be an inferior choice "in reality".

 

[Mal Malenkirk]

Why not? In our history it pretty much was: almost no one used it much for real combat.

This isn't a valid argument unless you are willing to apply it to all the weapons and fighting style of D&D. There is not much historical realism going on in the rest of the game (nevermind the magic, I'm talking about the other weapons and styles)

 

[Mal Malenkirk]

IMO this is the reason why people should be using TWF, not simply as a better means of smacking down monsters.

A valid point, but it flies in the face of the overall balance that is prevalent throughout the rules.

Let's say I want to use a rapier because of style issues; do I get shafted? Hardly. It is on par with other medium one handed weapon.

But If I want to use TWF instead of T-H or 1W1S? These three style are balanced, just like all the weapons of a same size are balanced. Except of course for the fact that TWF requires feat.

To use an anology;

An exotic weapon require a feat to use but it is slightly superior to other weapons of the same size.

Therefore, IMHO, a style that requires between 2 and 3 feats to use effectively should also be slightly superior to styles that require none.

Nevermind style and historical use, that's how D&D works by and large except apparently for TWF.

A solution might be to cut down drastically the number of feats required to use TWF instead of improving the style itself. If the TWF feat allowed ambidexterity for the purpose of fighting with a weapon in the off-hand and also granted the benefit of Improved TWF at level 8, it might be more worthwile without making the style itself more powerful.

 

[hong]

A valid point, but it flies in the face of the overall balance that is prevalent throughout the rules.

Oh, rot. There's nothing to suggest that TWF characters are substantially worse, overall, than anyone else. They may need high Dex and eat up a couple of feats, but that's about it. If the feat cost bothers you that much, take one level of ranger like every other minmaxing TWF PC out there.

 

[Crothian]

2WF is slightly superior to 2HF. You can split your attacks to more targets easier. You do less damage, but with a couple of good magical weapons, the damage will be in the blade and not the str bonus.

However, I still think it's more of a style thing. Just because it uses more feats, shouldn't make it better.

 

[The Souljourner]

I agree 100% with Mal, they're all balanced with respect to damage and benefits, except for the need of the TWF to use up a whole bunch of feats. In my campaign I think I'd make a single two weapon fighting feat that lets you get an extra attack at your normal attack bonus, with all attacks at -2 to hit. You wouldn't get the benefits of ambidexterity, however. Exotic double weapons wouldn't require this feat, since knowledge of how to use the weapon implies knowledge of how to use it correctly (i.e. in two hands). Thus you could take TWF and fight with any medium weapon and light offhand weapon, or take proficiency with an exotic double weapon, and be able to fight with just that one weapon. The balance being that the exotic doubles have better offhand damage dice than light weapons, but are more rare and you can't use any other two weapon style.

This is still slightly balanced towards the fighter who uses a two handed weapon, because he doesn't need a feat for it, but people who do spend the feat gain options the two handed fighter doesn't get. Seems fair to me.

-The Souljourner

 

[Christian]

And don't forget, when you're talking about balancing-a double weapon fighter does more basic damage than a two-handed weapon fighter. Unless the double weapon fighter is using a quarterstaff (in which case he didn't have to spend a feat on exotic weapon proficiency). There aren't any two-handed weapons that do 2d8 damage ...

 

[Storm Raven]

This isn't a valid argument unless you are willing to apply it to all the weapons and fighting style of D&D. There is not much historical realism going on in the rest of the game (nevermind the magic, I'm talking about the other weapons and styles)

Exactly what are you referring to? It isn't possible to respond to a generalized allegation like yours with any kind of coherent reply. If you are more specific, perhaps I would understand what you are trying to say.

In any event, it is valid to point out that historically, two weapon fighting was difficult and rare, and that it should be no surprise that it would also be made difficult and rare by the game rules. I also don't have a problem accepting that it is a difficult and rare fighting style that is somewhat disfavored by the rules, and simply living with that fact.