Making 2 weapon fighting not suck-o-rama

[Infiniti2000]

I'd like to see the analysis you have to prove your points. I don't see the glaring you do unless you allow all your restrictions. For example, in one sentence you say that the two-handed fighter spends no feats and is better and then in another sentence you give the two-handed fighter power attack to try and prove another point. IMO, you are choosing arbitrary restrictions merely to suit your unproven point and not considering the whole situation, with all factors considered. I have never done the analysis myself, but every one I have seen falls short of proving anything and the person doing the analysis invariably uses certain restrictions that influence the results (such as not considering two-weapon defense which by your last statement you do not, yet considering power attack, clearly this is in the best interests of the two-handed fighter).

The problem in such an analysis, of course, is that there really are too many variables, some of them being intangible or at the least very hard to define a metric for. Does the TWF need to enhance both items? Is that really a drawback or is it actually an advantage when you consider that PCs will go up against different creatures with different DR or other abilities like incorporeality? It's much more feasible, for example, for the TWF to add ghost touch to his off-hand weapon than for the THF to add a possibly much more expensive enhancement for a "just in case" scenario.

The additional problems are that they are commonly prone to errors. I mean no offense, but just as an example, in your first post you mistakenly point out that a greatsword has a higher chance of critting than a TWF with two light weapons. Huh? 19-20 is more often than 19-20 more times per round?

So, anyway, I intend this only as constructive feedback. I'm not trying to bash your idea, just to provide a different perspective. Like I said, TWF seems to work just fine IMC and the player certainly does not feel like he has less options than the battleaxe/board guy, when in fact he has more. One weapon is cold iron, the other is silver, for example. One is holy, the other is evil outsider bane. You get the drift.

 

[KarinsDad]

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

I always wondered why this is the case.

Many different martial arts have moves of attacking with both arms simultaneously. I was waiting for a very well trained martial artist to take over the boxing world.

But, maybe these moves do not work as well against similarly trained opponents or maybe boxing gloves minimize their impact, and hence they cannot be used in boxing.

 

[frankthedm]

If you blindly think you should ONLY fight with 2 weapon fighting all the time, every time, thats your own fault.


Try +1 vicious shield spikes or armor spikes as your off hand weapon. When you are not attacking with your off hand you are getting a nice ac bonus, when the situation calls for two weapon fighting, you've just done greatsword damage, suffering 1d6 is a piddling scratch.

 

[Gort]

I think it's more likely that since many martial arts are not competitively practiced, it is pretty impossible to judge their worth. Also, the vast majority of martial artists do not have the stamina to beat professional boxers due to the fact that professional competitors can do it for a job (and become human tanks as a result), and amateurs have to make a living some other way.

And the idea that boxing gloves negate double-punches seems highly unlikely to me. It's just a bad way to punch.

On a more D&D topic - if you think two-weapon fighting is so bad, just take a broken prestige class. Like Dervish, from the Complete Warrior book. Gotta love PrCs that let you move and full attack, as well as giving flat plusses to attack and damage!

 

[Crothian]

I've never seena problem with two weapon fighters being as bad as every ones says they are. I also think people worry too much about the numbers.

 

[KarinsDad]

The additional problems are that they are commonly prone to errors. I mean no offense, but just as an example, in your first post you mistakenly point out that a greatsword has a higher chance of critting than a TWF with two light weapons. Huh? 19-20 is more often than 19-20 more times per round?

Careful. He was in error, but so are you.

The chance to threaten is not the same (two attacks at 19-20 versus one), but the chance to crit is also not the same.

His example was for a full round attack. The chances to critical on a normal 50% chance to hit is:

TWF: 10% * 40% + 10% * 40% = 8%
THF: 10% * 50% = 5%

So, the two weapon fighter has a greater chance to critical in a full round attack and also criticals more often.

However, in a single attack, the two handed weapon fighter has a greater chance (5% vs. 4% in this case) to critical. In a single attack, the chance to threaten for both weapons is the same (as long as the chance to hit is 20% or greater), the chance to critical is always different.


But, what I think he was really talking about was the chance to do additional damage via a critical and how much that average damage is. For his house rule, it would be:

TWF: 10% * 40% * (D6+4) + 10% * 40% * (D6+4) = 0.6
THF: 10% * 50% * (D12+6) = 0.625

And there, he was basically correct. The two handed weapon fighter does average more damage due to his criticals.

And, the two handed weapon fighter averages even more damage on a single attack (e.g. Attack of Opportunity or a single attack in a round). There, it is 0.625 versus 0.3 extra points of damage on average.

 

[Kemrain]

My group has mitigated this issue by allowing anyone an off-hand attack for every attack their Base Attack bonus would normally allow. One on and one off for 0-5 BAB, 2 on and 2 off at 6-10 BAB, 3 on and 3 off at 11-15 BAB and 4 on and 4 off at 16+. These attacks are at the regular 2 Weapon Fighthing penalties, and the Two Weapon Fighting feat reduces penalties as usual.

We also made a new feat called Dualstrike (before Complete Adventurer was out) that lets you trads in one on and one off hand attack to make a single attack, at the normal Two Weapon Fighting penalty, that counted as an attack from a 2 handed weapon (1.5x str, 2 for 1 power attack, +4 to disarm and such), as well as counting as one attack forthe purposes of DR. You use the lower attack modifier and worst threat range and critical multiplier of the two weapons, and all the damage is consitered to be of both weapon's types. Precision damage is added in once, but all enhancement bonuses on each weapon stack (the benefit you get for having the penalty to hit). Edit: Forgot to mention. You can Dualstrike as a standard action, albiet still atthe 2wf penalty.

We haven't figured out how this would affectthe Core Ranger, as we don't use them.

We also made Sword and Board more effective by offering 2 for 1 Combat expertise to folks proficient with the shields they're using.

These rules aren't unbalancing the game, and we do see a lot of 2wf'ers, but that's because we have a low-strength high-dex finesser party. Two Handed Weapons still deal the crazy damage.

- Kemrain the Ruler of the House.

 

[kyloss]

I believe as to the feats he was talking about taking multiple feats to keep up with the damage being dealt by the thf as a simple part of leveling before taking feats into account which could instead be spent on the feats like power attack, which would put the thf ahead or two weapon defense to improve his ac like the sword and board fighter. As for a House rule of my own I simply combined the two weapon and following feats into one and am considering lowering slightly the base attack requirement for the new (rapid strike?) feat in complete adventure that lets you attack with both weapons at the same time as a standard action for a penalty. that frees up the other feats for power attack or twd or any of those. I think one feat is okay sacrifice, especialy since they ruled that you can stack multiple damage types ie fire electric on a weapon.

 

[Infiniti2000]

And there, he was basically correct. The two handed weapon fighter does average more damage due to his criticals.

Not true because what he said does not jive with your analysis. While I applaud your analysis, it failed to address my point that most such analyses contain errors. Many times they are simply errors of ommission due to assumptions. In this case, the average damage is incorrect because the assumption of the weapons used is two weapons at d6 each instead of some other choice. It also assumes a certain AC where the TWF penalty is noticeable. There are other assumptions as well. I only wanted to point out that ignoring all those assumptions leads to errors in the analysis, and quite frankly I think yours proves my point.

And, the two handed weapon fighter averages even more damage on a single attack (e.g. Attack of Opportunity or a single attack in a round). There, it is 0.625 versus 0.3 extra points of damage on average.

This is only because of your specific example. In any case, let's say I agree with it. Our assumption is that we get one attack, be it an AoO or a charge or whatever. Who has more options for the single attack, the TWF or the THF? Keep in mind that one of the OP's guiding decisions is "I'm all for options."

 

[sfedi]

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

Why?
Historically this was not the case.
And even in fantasy literature, two weapon fighting isn't even equal.
It's clearly a niche style of combat.
In that it should be good only for a couple of character types/situations.

Which is the case.

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

Then, you should be looking at making sword and board equal (or even better) than two handed fighting.

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.

You're right, but I also noted that they tend to suffer insane amounts of damage as well.
With a decent use of NPCs tactics, a two handed fighter would have a hard time.

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

No, the "other option" should be sword and board, not a niche style as TWF.