Making 2 weapon fighting not suck-o-rama

[two]

So, the rules gurus here go to great lengths to show that 2 weapon fightining (for anyone except a rogue sneak attack type) blows big time, like, just blows.

I agree.

What is to be done?

What do the number crunchers think about the following modifications?

Does it make 2 weapon fighting too powerful?

My basic goal(s) and premises (premisi?) is/are this:

0) Ignore sneak-attack rogue types for the following analysis.

1) Fighting with a greatsword using no feat should be roughly as effective as fighting with 2 weapons with no feat. In other words, if you don't want to use a shield, fine. Both ways of fighting without a shield can do a lot of damage, but have a lower AC.

2) Two-weapon fighting with a feat should be MORE effective than fighting with a greatsword (without using a feat).

That's basically it.

My thinking, sans number crunching, going with my gut, is:

a) Basic penalty for fighting with 2 weapons is -2/-2 if they are light. -4/-4 if only off-hand weapon is light, -6/-6 if using two non-light weapons.

b) Off-hand attacks get full damage normally.

So, a fighter1 with 18 strength can use the greatsword doing 1d12 + 6 damage, or 2-weapon fighting for 2 attacks (at -2 each) with 2 light weapons doing (if it hits) 2d6 + 8 damage. About the same, but the greatsword criticals more often and has a greater maximum damage potential. The -2 to hit balances out the +2 extra damage.

The "Two Weapon Fighting" feat needs to make the two-weapon fighter MORE powerful than a feat-less greatsword user, thus:

Two Weapon Fighting: reduce all penalties by 2.

So you can attack at +0/+0 with 2 light weapons, or -2/-2 with a one-handed/light weapon, or -4/-4 with 2 one-handed weapons.

There, done.

Add further two weapon fighting feats building upon this basic one.

The idea being two-weapon fighting + 2 feats should "beat" a greatsword user with no feats.

Two-weapon fighting + 3 feats should "spank" a greatsword user with no feats.

Two-weapon fighting + 3 feats should be about as good as a greatsword user with 3 feats.

Etc.


Number crunchers, is my gut outta line?

 

[Infiniti2000]

"Fighting with a greatsword using no feat should be roughly as effective as fighting with 2 weapons with no feat."

Why? Why is it important to you only to consider average Damage Output?

 

[werk]

I think it is very important to consider level here, as that determines your attack roll bell curve.

At low level a sword and board will beat a greatsword, but once BAB goes up, his strategy falls apart. (trading hits)

With a high BAB the two weapon fighter is a better match, at low leel, not so much. Makes sense, you don't learn how to fight with two weapons, you learn how to use one and then progress.

Too many confounding variables to make this comparison anything other than opinion.

 

[two]

"Fighting with a greatsword using no feat should be roughly as effective as fighting with 2 weapons with no feat."

Why? Why is it important to you only to consider average Damage Output?

Why not? Why should we consider things besides average Damage Output?

If nothing else, I'm a sucker for symmetry.

I'm also sick to death of greatswords and 2-handed melee weapons in general. As it stands, they are just the be-all-end-all damage dealers.

Wouldn't it be nice if there was another option? (using 2 weapons?).

I'm all for options.

As it stands, the only reasonable 2-weapon build is the rogue build; everything else burns feats and feats for little gain compared to the vanilla greatsword.

I like more options.

 

[Stalker0]

What AE does is have three feats for TWF. The first one is just like the TWF feat from 3.5...so with that feat you are at -2/-2 with a light offhand weapon. The second one drops that further to 0/0 with a lightoffhand. The 3rd lets you be 0/0 with two normal sized weapons.

So then the 2 handed weapon guy can be very very good..but he needs a lot of feats to truly stand above.

An unorthodox, but possible way of curbing 2HF is simply to make the greatsword's damage 2d6 -1. Still does a lot more than a longsword, but not as much as before.

 

[Inconsequenti-AL]

I know you wanted to ignore sneak attack/extra dice attacks: However, powering up 2 weapon fighting will make those versions of it even nastier than they already are?

Also saw an absolutely evil fighter/cleric 2 weapon fighter IMC. No sneak attack, but was really vicious.

That aside:

A little leery of the Str to each weapon you've got there - that looks a lot better than 2 handed weapons... although that's only a gut reaction.

Rather than raw damage, how about adapting the style feats from Complete Warrior - special effect if you hit with both a main and off hand weapon. Perhaps making those generic, rather than tied to a particular pair of weapons? I'd limit it to 1 effect per pair of hits, otherwise it'll get out of hand quite quickly.

Make 2 weapon defense so it gives you +1 shield AC per off hand attack. 1 feat replaces the 3 printed ones.

Allow power attack to work on light weapons again? Although that opens up the old 'Weapon finesse, increase dex, better AC + Power Attack' thing from 3.0...

 

[Infiniti2000]

Why not? Why should we consider things besides average Damage Output?

Because it's a complete game system. If you look at one part of it and ignore the rest, you are intentionally creating houserules in a vacuum - and that's a bad idea. I mean, do it if you want, but my whole purpose of responding is a sense of caution.

If nothing else, I'm a sucker for symmetry.

Then, perhaps a houserule such as saying all weapons do 1d6 is what you are looking for. Then, no one weapon gets an advantage over another. Perfect symmetry. I just don't believe that you are looking at this objectively if you say you desire symmetry and then not try to make the weapons symmetrical.

I'm also sick to death of greatswords and 2-handed melee weapons in general. As it stands, they are just the be-all-end-all damage dealers.

Then the obvious action you should take is remove the problem. Why not just remove greatswords? Are there any other two-handed or one-handed (that can wielded two-handed) weapons that cause you difficulties and heartburn?

Wouldn't it be nice if there was another option? (using 2 weapons?).

I'm all for options.

This is no longer about options, but apparently how to beef up two-weapon fighting. The options still exist. A player could fight with sewing needles, if he wanted, right? Anything to keep that from happening besides the player wanting to powergame?

As it stands, the only reasonable 2-weapon build is the rogue build; everything else burns feats and feats for little gain compared to the vanilla greatsword.

I disagree. A player in my game has a fighter 6/ranger 10 using two-weapon fighting. The fighter 15 uses a battleaxe and board. I see nothing unreasonable about either option.

In any case, if the thing that is not reasonable is because you feel greatswords are unbalanced (and I am not saying I disagree with that assessment either), then I think you should look at making greatswords balanced, or remove them, instead of escalating every other form of melee combat build to compensate. At that point, everything would be unbalanced, which is not a good design philosophy.

 

[two]

Because it's a complete game system. If you look at one part of it and ignore the rest, you are intentionally creating houserules in a vacuum - and that's a bad idea. I mean, do it if you want, but my whole purpose of responding is a sense of caution.
Then, perhaps a houserule such as saying all weapons do 1d6 is what you are looking for. Then, no one weapon gets an advantage over another. Perfect symmetry. I just don't believe that you are looking at this objectively if you say you desire symmetry and then not try to make the weapons symmetrical.
Then the obvious action you should take is remove the problem. Why not just remove greatswords? Are there any other two-handed or one-handed (that can wielded two-handed) weapons that cause you difficulties and heartburn?
This is no longer about options, but apparently how to beef up two-weapon fighting. The options still exist. A player could fight with sewing needles, if he wanted, right? Anything to keep that from happening besides the player wanting to powergame?
I disagree. A player in my game has a fighter 6/ranger 10 using two-weapon fighting. The fighter 15 uses a battleaxe and board. I see nothing unreasonable about either option.

In any case, if the thing that is not reasonable is because you feel greatswords are unbalanced (and I am not saying I disagree with that assessment either), then I think you should look at making greatswords balanced, or remove them, instead of escalating every other form of melee combat build to compensate. At that point, everything would be unbalanced, which is not a good design philosophy.

Well, granted, you have the option to wade into melee with a limp chicken and a brisket of beef. I meant "option" as in, "viable option."

As is stands, a melee specialist using 2 weapons just stinks compared to ye olde 2-handed weapon user (it's not just a greatsword problem):

a) feats on top of feats on top of feats requires to almost but not quite match Fighter w/ 2-handed weapon who is not using feats. This is true at level 1, 5, 10, 15, 20. Give the 2-handed weapon guy as many feats as the 2-weapon guy burned, and he's miles ahead.

b) You have to enchant 2 blades instead of one. Obvious.

c) You only get full attacks maybe 50% of the time. The rest of the time you just have to move & hit once; big advantage to the 2-handed weapon.

d) power attack advantages, etc. etc.

e) etc.

I don't think it's asking too much to have a vanilla Fighter8 using 2 weapons, who has burned 2-3 feats on improving his skills, exceed in damage output a vanilla Fighter8 using a 2-handed weapon who has used all his feats on skill focus and save buffs.

That's it. It's really pretty basic. The sword-n-board guy gets better AC for less damage. The 2-handed weapon guy does big damage for less AC. The 2 weapon user... well, as it stands currently, he gets to have a lower AC and do less damage than either the first two fighting styles. It's like, huh? Just seems silly to me.

 

[Gort]

I think it's good that it's bad. If you get what I mean.

In reality, pretty much nobody fought with two swords D&D style. (I mean, attacking with both. Sure, there were parrying daggers and stuff like that, but that's closer to sword and shield)

It's like looking for boxers who punch with both arms at the same time. It's a sucky tactic, so nobody does it.

Edit: Oh yeah, and 2WF is already good for rogues and rangers. (to a lesser degree) Make it better, and you make them better too. Are you willing to make rogues (who already do enormous amounts of damage) do even more damage?

 

[werk]

I think it's good that it's bad. If you get what I mean.

In reality, pretty much nobody fought with two swords D&D style.

Thank you Gort.

Two weapon fighting is a specialist style, not a generic style that anyone can use. It has it's own benefits and problems.

Picture someone fighting two-weapon.
Picture someone fighting two-handed.

I see fighters from two different periods in time.