Making 2 weapon fighting not suck-o-rama

[Angcuru]

The downside to 2-wpn fighting is that it has a very long learning curve. IMO, it only fully pays off when you are a specialist with a single 1-hand weapon i.e. Have weapon focus, weapon specialization, improved critical, etc. I also ignore the whole light weapon in the off-hand thing, as it just irks me. If you can wield a weapon in 1 hand you can wield it in the other.

I tend to follow this feat path with my 2-weapon fighters.
Lvl 1 - 2-Weapon Fighting (assuming 3.5 i.e. no ludicrus ambidexterity feat), Weapon Focus
Lvl 2 - Power attack
Lvl 3 - Cleave
Lvl 4 - Weapon Specialization
Lvl 6 - Great Cleave, Improved Initiative
Lvl 8 - Improved Critical
Lvl 9 - Improved 2-weapon Fighting
(intermediary feats)
Next - Greater 2-weapon fighting
(intermediary feats)
Next - Perfect 2-weapon fighting


In the end, you have double the attacks of a non 2-wpn character. And once you get to the point where you have completed the feat chain, the damage differential between a 1-hand and 2-hand weapon (given enchanted items etc.) is minimal at best. Also, with human characters I would take EWP - Katana or Bastard sword as the racial bonus feat to further reduce the damage differential.

Also, with Great Cleave and the potential for 8 normal attacks per round, a character with this feat chain can have a frightening number of attacks.

 

[werk]

The reason why two handed punches are very rarely used is that most of your strength in an unarmed attack comes not from the arm but the rotation of hips, shoulder etc. By attacking with both arms at the same time you cant move your body in such a way as to get any decent damage from your blow, so you end up with 2 weak strikes instead of one strong one. Does have its uses I guess but moreso to stun an attacker rather than doing any significant damage.

I agree with all the martial arts observations, but I think of two-weapon fighting as combos. All martial arts rely heavily on combos, be they right left or punch kick.

 

[KarinsDad]

Frankly, I consider the sword & board style to be the weakest of the styles, esp. at higher levels. The defensive boost of the shield just doesn't keep up with attack bonuses, making the style far weaker then it is in 'reality'.

I've always thought the opposite until 3.5 came out.

Then, Power Attack for 2 handed weapons got abusive.

Now, I consider it fairly even.


As for defensive boost of the shield, I disagree.


There are more defensive melee items than offensive melee items in the game.

So, a 20th level Fighter with a 28 Str (with items) and a +5 weapon and +1 weapon focus is +35 to hit.

The defense against this can be Full Plate and Shield (AC 20), +5 Ring of Protection, +5 shield, +5 armor, +5 Combat Expertise, +3 Dex (Mithral Armor and Dex item), +1 Dodge bonus = AC 44

So, a 60% chance to hit on the first attack, a 35% on the second, a 10% on the third and a 5% on the last.

Or, an average of one hit per round, maybe a little higher due to a Keen weapon or something.


The Two Handed Weapon Fighter can only get this high of an AC if he uses an Animated Shield which at high level is very possible. However, it is also very obvious how he is defending himself and intelligent opponents should attempt to take such a shield out (e.g. Sunder, Dispel Magic, etc.).


If he does not have an animated shield (which I consider a broke item anyway since it totally skews game balance), then his best AC (more or less) is 37 (if he too does Combat Expertise at full level). He will get hit 85% chance to hit on the first attack, a 60% on the second, a 35% on the third and a 10% on the last, or closer to two times per round.

 

[Infiniti2000]

Another often overlooked feature of sword & board is similar to the "more options" feature of two weapons. It's a lot easier to enhance two items (armor and shield) with different abilities than to enhance one (armor). For instance, you can put fortification on the shield, invulnerability on the armor, etc., whereas such varying abilities would be much more expensive on only one suit of armor.

 

[Stalker0]

As for the sword/board style, keep in mind its much cheaper to enhance your armor and shield than to get a really big enhancement bonus on your armor.

+5 armor = 25,000 gp
I can get a +3 shield and a +3 armor for 18,000 gp, and still have 7k left over.

 

[Klaus]

Yes. Those bashing (heh) the shield-and-weapon style are basing that only on the +2 a heavy shield grants. But once you factor magic bonuses, the AC hits the stratosphere.

Plus you can burn two feats into Two-Weapon Fighting and Improved Shield Bash (or is it Shield Expert?) and still have the choice of going full-sword (maximizing attack) or dual wielding your weapon and your shield's spikes.

And here's a neat thing: a shield bash is a bludgeoning weapon, so it can be enchanted to be "disrupting". BAM! Undead goes poof! BAM! Undead goes poof!

 

[Numenorean]

Interesting topic.

For starters, my ranger is 11th level. He fights with a +2 longsword, and a +3 shortsword. His STR is 18. His attacks using TWF are LS +16/+11/+6, and the same for the shortsword SS +16/+11/+6. His damage with the LS is 1d8+6, and 1d6+5 with the SS. Add in improved critical for the LS and he does a lot of damage. My point, I'm happy with a TWF character atm.

When it comes to the various fighting styles you have to realize that each is different and will have certain situational pros and cons. However in the spirit of maintaining game quality, each style should be loosely balanced throughout the length of the game. I stress "loosely".

I'm pretty happy with the styles in 3.5e, but I feel the two handed weapon style is not always the best balanced. Something us old schooler AD&D players might call "monty haul".

You could do the following to correct the styles(?):

1. Remove the -2/-2 penalty for fighting TWF (given you have the feat) with light/light or 1h/light.

2. Remove the double power attack bonus for two handed weapons. You already get an improved strengtht bonus, you generally get higher damage dice, etc.

3. Increase the shield bonus across the board (pun.. lol). Some of you say how a +2 doesn't mean much when you get higher level, and that I agree with. But don't slouch at a +4, +5, or +7 bonus when you start getting nice magical shields. Maybe shields need to grant a +2 or +3 AC bonus? Or if you take a shield feat you get some sort of combat expertise option when using your shield? This would take some play testing to figure out. My ranger also has improved shield bash as a feat. He carries a +2 light steel magical shield. In some situations I sling the shield, get a +3 AC boost, and I off-hand bash with it. In our campaign you get the + magical enhancement to your ATK and damage with a shield, but still the shield and weapon style isn't that bad.


A fundamental problem in 3e is the imbalance between offense and defense especially as you get to mid and high levels (6th+); in terms of ATK, DMG, and their relation to AC. This problem is the root cause of the weapon style problems we're discussing on here IMO. As you get to the mid and high levels Armor Class becomes basically irrelevant, and thats the problem. No previous edition of D&D had the level of imbalance between melee offense and defense as 3e does. I believe if this problem was remedied, if AC stayed more relevant, then it would bring balance to the different weapon styles.

 

[KarinsDad]

One of the basic problems of 3e is the imbalance between offense and defense especially as you get to mid and high levels (6th+); in terms of ATK, DMG, and AC. This problem is the root cause of the weapon style problems we're discussing on here IMO. As you get to the mid and high levels Armor Class becomes basically irrelevant, and thats the problem.

Actually, I've thought about this a lot and I've come to the conclusion that this is not a problem at all.

In fact, it is fairly well balanced.

At low level, one or two successful attacks by a Fighter will result in an unconscious character be he a Wizard or a Barbarian. So, this would take one to five rounds on average (depending on AC, luck of the dice, etc.).

At high level, it takes more successful attacks because hit points increase linearly whereas weapon damage does not.

Hence, in order for a Fighter to take out a single opponent in one to five rounds, you need to do damage more often. There are basically three ways for this to occur:

1) Hit for more damage per attack (e.g. increased magic of weapon, increased Strength, feats like Weapon Specialization, Power Attack, etc.).

2) Hit for more attacks per round. The Full Round Attack option is used for this.

3) Have a higher percentage chance to hit due to "to hit" increasing faster than AC.

If you look at all of these, it becomes clear that a high level Fighter still takes out a single opponent (baring magic that prevents it) in one to five rounds at high level, just like at low level.

Without these three ways in which to increase damage per round, combats would stretch on for a long time at high level, just because all of the opponents have so many hit points.


But, being able to hit easily at high level is not the problem. The root cause of the two weapon style imbalance is the fact that they get penalized in so many ways:

1) Without addition feats, they only get one additional attack per round and then, only on full round attacks, not single attacks or Attacks of Opportunity.

2) The base damage for their weapons is about half that of two handed weapons.

3) Their secondary weapon does not get full Strength damage.

4) Both weapons are at minuses to hit.

5) You need to buy twice as many magical weapons (of the same bonus) as the two handed weapon fighter in order to even maintain damage level.


The only two ways to beef up two weapon fighting in the game is to add bonus damage to the attacks via other methods such as Clerical spells or Bardic Inspirations or some other spell or ability that adds damage per successful attack, or to take additional two weapon fighting feats. Even then, the TWF average damage is still lower than the THW average damage as has been illustrated a lot of times on many other threads. But, at least doing this, TWF is competitive. Still slightly inferior, but at least competitive.

 

[IndyPendant]

I sort of make it an unwritten rule never to post in a thread that already has more than around 20 responses. Most people don't bother reading through it to get my response. However, this time I have something to say...: )

I think it's hard to argue that you get what you pay for when you take the TWF feats. However, should you, no matter your build? I say no. TWF should be something you design a char around, not an option you select that is one of three equal options (sword and board, two-hander, TWF.) If it is not set up that way, TWF loses its uniqueness. You can sort of think of it as if Paladins did not have their Code. Suddenly Paladins would be an incredibily common class.

On the other hand, TWF fighters really are hosed, unless they're rogues. Imagine a PC single-class cleric that refuses to heal or buff, and only prepares and casts offensive spells. How supportive would you be of that concept, regardless of roleplaying factors? That is, in a way, what a fighter loses when going TWF (if not quite as extreme). He takes a great many feats to fight--arguably--*worse* than he could without them? Errr...no? Thanks?

My idea is to slightly enhance the TWF feat chain, but differently from Stalker0's idea. I think my concept enhances TWF enough to make it a fair option, yet not so much that TWF becomes just one of three standard choices. I may even make it canon for my campaigns. What do you guys think?

Feats:
--TWF: As per SRD.
--Improved TWF: As per SRD, and the attack penalties for both weapons are reduced by 2. (So standard TWF is done with no attack penalties.)
--Greater TWF: As per SRD, and all off-hand attacks are made with full Str damage bonus.

CW has a feat already that reduces the fighting penalties; I've just combined it with Improved TWF. These three feats, plus Improved Buckler Defense if you really need the AC(also from CW--though I may have the name wrong; don't have the books with me atm) give the TWF fighter concept enough of a boost to be viable, but not so much as to be overpowered.

Note the prereqs for the feats too. 17 and 19 Dex is nothing to sneeze at! This has the added benefit of putting the TWF Ranger back into the spotlight again, since they can bypass the high Dex prereqs.

What do you think?

 

[Numenorean]

I like that! I always felt the -2/-2 was a problem.