Full strength bonus on both weapons in two weapon fighting

[Diirk]

Yeah TWF is a bit underpowered imo.. sure you can make it as good as THF under specific conditions... but when you're playing in a 3-4 man party can you really expect to always have the bard, the cleric etc all the time? What if you're playing core where the bard doesn't even get the instrument, feat or spell to boost inspire courage? What if you aren't a fighter? (favoured enemy and sneak attack are advantageous in a way similair to specialization, but alot more limited).

Etc etc.

Not to mention you need a high dex for twf which usually means you'll have a lower str than the THF guy, and you need to spend another feat every 6 levels just to keep up with the THF guy. Ouch.

Ps. Your poor fighter with 2 shortswords can never power attack low ac beasties for lots of damage ;(

 

[Staffan]

Personally, I don't mind if spending feats on two-weapon fighting is a sub-optimal option. However, it should not be inferior to not spending the feats at all.

In other words, 2 shortswords plus Two-weapon fighting and Improved TWF should be a worse option than just a greatsword, but worse than (e.g.) greatsword + power attack + weapon focus. Unfortunately, currently it's in the first position, not the second.

However, the fighting style that really needs help is weapon + shield. IMO, it should be the style that provides the greatest benefit for the feats invested, but the only feats around for sword & board fighting seem to focus on turning him into a two-weapon fighter by making shield bash a better option.

 

[KarinsDad]

However, the fighting style that really needs help is weapon + shield. IMO, it should be the style that provides the greatest benefit for the feats invested, but the only feats around for sword & board fighting seem to focus on turning him into a two-weapon fighter by making shield bash a better option.

Hmmmm.

I think Weapon and Shield is the strongest combination of them all. It needs no help at all.

Granted, it does not do as much damage as a Two Handed Weapon per swing, but there are some hidden benefits here:

1) The obvious benefit of +x to AC. At higher levels, this is huge. When your opponents have 3 or 4 attacks per round, a +5 Shield (or better yet, +5 Tower Shield) stops 35% * 3 or 4 or basically about one+ hit per round against you per opponent (and it also increases your odds of surviving poison, level drains, and other nasty things). Granted, a TWF or THF could have an Animated Shield, but guess what item is the first for my NPCs to Sunder, Grab (if allowed), or Dispel Magic on (and of course, the Sword and Shield user could also have an animated shield and use his weapon two handed when doing so as well)?

2) Extra damage from Strength and the weapon type is often overrated, especially at mid to high levels. For example:

Greatsword: 2D6 + 3 (weapon) + 7 (Strength) + 2 (Specialization) + 6 (other bonus, e.g. spells, Greater Specialization, etc.) = 25.

Longsword: D8 + 3 (weapon) + 5 (Strength) + 2 (Specialization) + 6 (other bonus, e.g. Power Attack, Greater Specialization, etc.) = 20.5.

Against a creature with 60 hits, the Greatsword takes it out on average in 3 successful hits. The Longsword also takes it out on average in 3 successful hits. Even against a creature with 120 hits, the Greatsword takes it out on average in 5 successful hits. The Longsword also takes it out on average in 6 successful hits.

So yes, there are situations where the Greatsword takes out a creature in one fewer average successful hits, but on the other hand, at those levels, the Longsword and Shield user (who has access to the same basic feats as the Greatsword usere) and not been getting hit about once per round per opponent where the Greatsword user has.

There are also situations where the opponent has 10 or fewer hit points and the Greatsword user wastes more hits of damage than the Longsword user.

Even against one opponent, the Longsword user will survive more often. Against multiple opponents, the Greatsword user is totally screwed because even though he is dishing out more damage, he is typically taking more damage than he is dishing out.


Now, this is not true at first level, but somewhere around fourth to sixth level or so, weapon and shield starts taking over:

Greatsword: 2D6 + 6 (Strength) = 13 and maybe 40% chance of getting hit.
Longsword: D8 + 4 (Strength) = 8.5 and maybe 30% chance of getting hit.


And for a single feat, the Longsword user can get a Bastard Sword and up his average damge by one point if he wants.


And yes, Power Attack can turn the Two Weapon Fighter into a mega-damage dealer. If he hits. It is a delicate balancing act and not always reliable. It often prolongs a battle in the attempt to end it quicker. Plus, as DM, I silently enjoy when the opponent has 12 hits remaining and the Fighter Power Attacks his Two Handed Weapon to bump it up to 40 points of damage.


The styles to me that are screwed are Two Weapon Fighting and Polearm Fighting (and no, a Scythe is not a polearm, it is a field tool).

 

[Bront]

Not really. For natural attacks, there are three possibilities regarding damage bonuses to attacks.
1: A single attack, usually a bite or a slam. It gets 1.5 times Str bonus to damage.
2: Multiple instances of a single attack form, usually 2 claws. All attacks get full Str bonus to damage.
3: Several different attack forms. One attack form is considered primary, and gets full Str bonus. All others are considered secondary, and get -5 to hit (-2 with the Multiattack feat) and half Str bonus to damage.

Gerneraly, when I picture a Bear who gets Claw/Claw/Bite, it's one hit for each claw, and they aren't listed as different damages. Same for the Monk with Fury of blows, which is discribed as the monk using all kinds of different body parts to attack (Hands, elbows, knees, feet, head, ect). But yes, some monsters are different.

 

[Brother MacLaren]

Does that sound equitable to you?

OF COURSE NOT. I never said it was balanced. Go re-read my post again - I specifically noted that the THF does better against a higher AC, and you bring up that as a point to rebut my post?

Where, exactly, did I say TWF was "equitable" or "balanced"? I spelled out certain circumstances in which the TWF does well (and, yes, I forgot the off-hand Str penalty, my mistake; on the other hand, I did use 2 short swords rather than long-short or 2-bladed sword). And I specifically acknowledged that THF is more powerful due to the times when you only get one attack - AOOs or when moving.

Of course if you don't have a bard or cleric you don't get the benefit of their abilities. That's irrelevant to my point, which was that TWF tends to benefit more than other styles from abilities that apply a bonus to damage (I see that you caught this point in your first reply). Because it starts out so far behind, as you noted, this isn't a game-breaker - but it was a simple statistical observation, not an assessment of the overall power of the two styles. I came up with a situation using variables from the 9th-level game in which I play (bard with boosted Inspire Courage, Str 16 fighter-type, AC +/-20 foes). Looking at the MM, most CR 6 monsters do have AC of 20 or less (even dragons and outsiders).

Now, you mention that only Fighters get specialization. True, but other classes have their own bonuses that give more of an advantage to TWF than to THF:
Ranger doesn't get Specialization, but Favored Enemy bonus can be as high as +13. A Ranger with the two-weapon combat style gets several feats for free without needing the 19 Dex, so the TWF style works well for the Ranger.
Swashbuckler doesn't get Specialization, but can use Int bonus.
Paladin doesn't get Specialization, but can use Smite and Divine Might.
Dervish Dance gives up to +5, which stacks with Specialization.
The TWF build is great for rogues, of course.
Barbarian, true, is always best with THF, as are other Str-based builds.

 

[Staffan]

Gerneraly, when I picture a Bear who gets Claw/Claw/Bite, it's one hit for each claw, and they aren't listed as different damages. Same for the Monk with Fury of blows, which is discribed as the monk using all kinds of different body parts to attack (Hands, elbows, knees, feet, head, ect). But yes, some monsters are different.

The claws aren't listed as different, but the bite is. A brown bear's full attack from the SRD is: "2 claws +11 melee (1d8+8) and bite +6 melee (2d6+4)". The claws are the primary attack form and get full Str bonus, and the bite is the secondary and gets half. That's a great example of "multiple different attack forms."

Looking at some different animals (because that's the page I'm looking at), we also have the Bison as an example of "single attack" ("Gore +8 melee (1d8+9)"), and the mule is the only example of "multiple instances of single attack form" that doesn't have special rules about it ("2 hooves +4 melee (1d4+3)").

 

[DrSpunj]

This is totally a House Rule IMG, but after running some of these same numbers a year or so ago I changed the TWF feat chain pretty dramatically, and the changes have worked well:

Two-Weapon Fighting (Dex 15) You can reduce the TWF penalties by 2 and you gain an off-hand attack for each iterative attack you have with your Primary hand.

Improved TWF (Dex 17, BAB +6, TWF) You can reduce the TWF penalties by another 2 (total of 4).

Greater TWF (Dex 19, BAB +11, ITWF) Attacks with both hands now receive full Str Mod bonus to damage.

Massive TWF (Str 17, BAB +7, TWF) AU feat; You can use any one-handed weapon in your off-hand.

So, just by taking TWF you have just as many attacks with your off-hand as you do with your primary hand (which may be 1, 2, 3, or 4), and that increases appropriately as you gain more iterative attacks with a higher BAB.

Improved TWF removes the -2/-2 penalty, just like Improved Rapid Shot does for that feat chain, and Greater TWF allows your full Str bonus to all attacks (though it may not be a very good feat for many PCs at 11th level or later when it becomes available).

I have seen this in play on several occasions now and feel it greatly improves the TWF chain without overpowering things. Each feat offers something substantial (which is important to me, given the limited number of feats available for any PC) and as a whole don't "break" the system. Two-Handers don't feel cheated and Sword & Shield users find this allows them more feats to focus on making the most of their shield.

Thanks.

DrSpunj

 

[KarinsDad]

OF COURSE NOT. I never said it was balanced. Go re-read my post again - I specifically noted that the THF does better against a higher AC, and you bring up that as a point to rebut my post?

Where, exactly, did I say TWF was "equitable" or "balanced"? I spelled out certain circumstances in which the TWF does well (and, yes, I forgot the off-hand Str penalty, my mistake; on the other hand, I did use 2 short swords rather than long-short or 2-bladed sword). And I specifically acknowledged that THF is more powerful due to the times when you only get one attack - AOOs or when moving.

I'm sorry. I thought you posted:

With the right combination of such effects, you can do quite well with the TWF style.

You keep pointing out certain circumstances (bonuses) where TWF does almost as good as THF and then posted some slightly incorrect math to show that they are equal in one case to prove your point.

The fact is that the only time TWF gets near THF is when you do a full round attack. Single attacks typically happen nearly as often as full round attacks since they happen whenver you move and whenever you AoO.

I was merely pointing out that mathematically, except in the BAB +5 case (unless you take even more feats), TWF does less damage in the full round attack case virtually every time and every time in the single attack case.

If it is doing less damage almost all of the time, it is not doing well.


The point of this thead is: is making the off hand weapon the normal strength ok? The answer is, yes, regardless of your extra bonuses point.

 

[Brother MacLaren]

You keep pointing out certain circumstances (bonuses) where TWF does almost as good as THF and then posted some slightly incorrect math to show that they are equal in one case to prove your point.

I started off by noting that such bonuses give more of a benefit to TWF than to THF. You pointed out the greater marginal increase in damage does go to the TWF when a full attack is taken, but not when a single attack is taken. Point granted. TWF should focus on abilities to allow multiple attacks even when moving.

You then assumed I was saying that this could make TWF as good overall as THF, though I said no such thing. I'm an agnostic on the topic because I haven't fully crunched the numbers on every combination of the various options. You seem to think you have, and have decided that "no matter how many non-Str bonuses you have, it will never be enough (within standard game mechanics)." I refuse to concede that point, as there are a lot of feats, spells, options, and class abilities out there - many of which appear to benefit the TWF. I am still undecided. One of the highest non-Str bonuses to damage (after Sneak Attack) is Favored Enemy. What isn't clear, and where TWF could really benefit its most common practitioner, is to make the Ranger "virtual feats" count as prereqs for other feats and prestige classes.

And, if I meant "doing as well as or better than the THF style," I'd have said that rather than "doing quite well." Because I don't know how they compare when these various abilities are combined and when "probable" situations are assessed, I didn't say the former. I absolutely stand by this: I did not say TWF and THF are balanced. I've pointed out the various strengths of the THF style along with some strengths of the TWF style without saying which one is better overall.

 

[med stud]

(...)

The point of this thead is: is making the off hand weapon the normal strength ok? The answer is, yes, regardless of your extra bonuses point.

Yeah I think Im convinced. I will go with full strength bonus and do away with improved TWF and greater TWF.