Dbl Weapon damage

[The Souljourner]

Just because it uses more feats, shouldn't make it better.

I'll have to totally disagree with you on this one, Crothian. More feats should always make it better. Feats, by definition, are supposed to make a character better. That's why fighters get bonus feats and rangers don't - fighters are focused on being better in combat, whereas rangers have skills and abilities outside of combat.

Now granted, some feats just give options which may not always make a character better. For example, power attack has an upside and a down side, so it doesn't always make you strictly better. However, knowedgeable use of it can make a character with the feat slightly better in combat than one without it. That's a first tier feat, it has no prerequisite feats. Now take Cleave. A character with this feat is strictly superior than one without it. It's never bad to use this feat.

Now compare that to the two weapon fighter vs. a fighter with a two handed weapon. The damage is almost exactly the same. There's more variance in the TWF because of the extra attack, which can mean more misses or more hits, but on average it'll be almost the same damage. So where's the big benefit for the input of two feats? There really isn't one. There's a little benefit in that you can make attacks on different foes with that extra attack, but that's quickly left in the dust once you get multiple attacks. The two hander gets 2 attacks... and you get 2 plus your one offhand. All of a sudden, you're not doing as much damage.

Feats SHOULD make you better. Two feats in the same tree should be fairly significant, though not game breaking. Three feats towards one purpose should be *very* good (look at great cleave, for example).

That's the way the game was designed. I just think they overcompensated for the brokenness of two weapon fighting in 2nd edition by making it bad in 3rd.

-The Souljourner

 

[hong]

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 ...

... and that's before taking into account the various enchantments like frost, shock, etc. Note also how D&D's item pricing rules tend to favour lots of little items, over a few big items.

 

[The Souljourner]

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.

What he was saying was that D&D is only VERY loosely related to real history, so it really shouldn't come into play. D&D is a game, and as a game it needs to be balanced. History doesn't have to make players and DMs happy, so it can do whatever it wants.

His point is that there are a lot of things in D&D that don't exist in the outside world (dire flail anyone?) and a lot of things in the real world that aren't represented in D&D. If we wanted to be historically accurate we would have longbows that ignored armor bonuses at close range, all characters would have 10 hitpoints, and magic wouldn't exist. However, since it is a game, WoTC decided that we needed to make sure that the game is balanced, so it's fun for everyone. Don't forget, you're playing on Krynn or in Faerun or wherever, maybe on that world two weapon fighting was common. Who knows? The point is, it's a fantasy world in a fantasy game.

-The Souljourner

 

[Storm Raven]

I'll have to totally disagree with you on this one, Crothian. More feats should always make it better. Feats, by definition, are supposed to make a character better. That's why fighters get bonus feats and rangers don't - fighters are focused on being better in combat, whereas rangers have skills and abilities outside of combat.

Now granted, some feats just give options which may not always make a character better. For example, power attack has an upside and a down side, so it doesn't always make you strictly better. However, knowedgeable use of it can make a character with the feat slightly better in combat than one without it. That's a first tier feat, it has no prerequisite feats. Now take Cleave. A character with this feat is strictly superior than one without it. It's never bad to use this feat.

Now compare that to the two weapon fighter vs. a fighter with a two handed weapon. The damage is almost exactly the same. There's more variance in the TWF because of the extra attack, which can mean more misses or more hits, but on average it'll be almost the same damage. So where's the big benefit for the input of two feats? There really isn't one. There's a little benefit in that you can make attacks on different foes with that extra attack, but that's quickly left in the dust once you get multiple attacks. The two hander gets 2 attacks... and you get 2 plus your one offhand. All of a sudden, you're not doing as much damage.

Feats SHOULD make you better. Two feats in the same tree should be fairly significant, though not game breaking. Three feats towards one purpose should be *very* good (look at great cleave, for example).

That's the way the game was designed. I just think they overcompensated for the brokenness of two weapon fighting in 2nd edition by making it bad in 3rd.

But you are forgetting that there are categories of characters who will benefit from using two weapon fighting more than a two handed weapon: a high Dexterity, moderate Strength PC using finessed weapons; or a rogue who can apply his sneak attack damage to both attacks; (or someone who is in both categories).

For these individuals, the pay off from using two weapon fighting is significant, enough that their increased damage output easily justifies the investment of two feats. If you don't limit yourself to looking at just a single type of standard combatant (who will likely not benefit from using two weapons) and look at who would benefit from using two weapons, you will find that the feat cost required is easily justified.

Is it an optimal choice for all individuals? No. Is it an optimal choice for some individuals? Yes.

 

[Crothian]

I think the more feats is because it's a harder style. It's real easy to pick up a club and use it in two hands. You have to have some sort of cordination to begin with od course. However, welding two smaller clubs, on ein each hand, and welding them with cordination is a lot harder.

And feats do increase the power of a person. These two feats allow you to do more then without them. The offer more then one weapon or a 2handed weapon. Not everything is balanced by srct number crunching. If that were true, then why is my fighter with Enduarnce, Run, and Toughness not as good as my fighter with weapon focus, power attack and cleave. Same number of feats, but they are not equal.

 

[Storm Raven]

What he was saying was that D&D is only VERY loosely related to real history, so it really shouldn't come into play. D&D is a game, and as a game it needs to be balanced. History doesn't have to make players and DMs happy, so it can do whatever it wants.

And yet, so many elements work very much like they did historically. Daggers are less dangerous than longswords on the battlefield. Plate armor is heavier and more protective than leather armor. Strong people can carry more than weak people. And so on.

His point is that there are a lot of things in D&D that don't exist in the outside world (dire flail anyone?) and a lot of things in the real world that aren't represented in D&D. If we wanted to be historically accurate we would have longbows that ignored armor bonuses at close range, all characters would have 10 hitpoints, and magic wouldn't exist. However, since it is a game, WoTC decided that we needed to make sure that the game is balanced, so it's fun for everyone. Don't forget, you're playing on Krynn or in Faerun or wherever, maybe on that world two weapon fighting was common. Who knows? The point is, it's a fantasy world in a fantasy game.

Saying "it's a fantasy game" is a cop out, and not actually any kind of useful argument. The game uses physics for most mundane activities that are reasonably similar to physics in our experience. Given that fighting with hand held weapons is a mundane activity, we can reference back to real world information concerning that activity. And the real world information is that this fighting style was used incredibly rarely.

The only reason that people in Krynn or Faerun might have used two-weapon style is that the 1e/2e rules on this subject were completely messed up. Not because it made any kind of game world specific sense other than the metagame reason that the rules made it overpowered. Basing your argument on the fact that metagaming in previous editions made the style attractive is downright silly. (And besides, none of the Heroes of the Lance used two weapon fighting as a primary style, probably because the authors realized it would look stupid).

And even if we accept your flawed analysis that two weapon fighting is completely unbalanced with respect to other fighting styles (see my last post on this subject), there is nothing that limits any person's fun with the game. Just don't use that fighting style and you won't feel underpowered.

 

[Storm Raven]

And feats do increase the power of a person. These two feats allow you to do more then without them. The offer more then one weapon or a 2handed weapon. Not everything is balanced by srct number crunching. If that were true, then why is my fighter with Enduarnce, Run, and Toughness not as good as my fighter with weapon focus, power attack and cleave. Same number of feats, but they are not equal.

I'll add to this commentary that one thing to remember about feats is that they are not always appropriate for every character. What is beneficial for one character is not always as benefcial for another (or beneficial at all).

A human monk with Spring Attack gains a lot of benefit from it because of his high speed. A low Dexterity, heavily armored dwarven fighter gains far less benefit from the same feat chain because of his slow speed.

A high strength single classed Fighter gains a significant benefit from the Great Cleave chain because he has the BAB and likely the opportunities to use his skills. A single classed Wizard gains less benefit from this feat chain because he is unlikely to be in the front lines enough to use it and his weapon selection is poor enough that he won't likely to enough damage to pull it off if he does get into melee.

The two weapon fighting feats are very useful to someone with low Strength, high Dexterity and the Weapon Finesse feat, and is also very useful for rogues or other individuals who have damage bonuses they can apply to each discrete attack (like the favored enemy bonus). They are less useful for the big brawler type warrior who would derive more benefit from a big weapon.

All feats are not all equally useful to all individuals. Some are useful to some people, some are useful to other people. Two weapon fighting is no different in this regard.

 

[Mal Malenkirk]

Exactly what are you referring to? It isn't possible to respond to a generalized allegation like yours with any kind of coherent reply.

Where to start?

Historically...

...most of the exotic weapon didn't even exist, not to mention that several would be physically impossible to use.

...the scimitar would never be able to punch through a full plate. Heck, in the crusade it proved unefficient against chain heauberk.

...the rapier was a duelling weapon designed for use against one unarmored opponent. The rapier and the fencing techniques that comes with it are possibly the best tools ever designed for that particular purpose, and are almost useless for anything else.

etc.

D&D is not realist. It's fun and fast paced. And the different options are balanced without regards to historical accuracy.

 

[The Souljourner]

Storm Raven - the rogue point is something that I hadn't thought of, and it does make sense. Huh. You know, usually I have something to come back with, but this time, I just don't.

I'm still not entirely sure it's worth two feats instead of just one (lets be realistic, ambidexterity is almost never useful on its own), but you're right, it is a significant benefit to rogues.

*shrug* Touche.

-The Souljourner

 

[Crothian]

(lets be realistic, ambidexterity is almost never useful on its own),

Really? My first campaign one of the players had this feat, and not 2WF. Granted, he was a duelist, but he used the feat a lot. He loved switching hands in the middle of combat. Once he purposely maimed his right hand to prove that he was better with just using his left hand (sure, it's nasty, but it is fantasy and the cleric was able to heal him right up afterwards).

This isn't the end all of feats, we all know that. But if a PC wants to make the feat more then useless it should be up to them to come up with clever ways of using it.