Making 2 weapon fighting not suck-o-rama

[Klaus]

Dervish is from Complete Warrior.

If you want a horse-riding desert warrior, the Wild Plains Outrider is good too (Complete Adventurer).

 

[TheEvil]

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?

Not bad, scales up rather then starting powerful. I could definately live with such a mod in a game I played.

 

[TheEvil]

Regarding SCA and boffer fighter vs. real life

Examples made using the SCA and boffer fighting forget two very important point:

Strength doesn't matter.

Game rules trump reality.

This is an overly broad statement that isn't entirely true, and varies across game styles, but is still largely true. My experience with such things comes from the SCA (as observer and friend) and Amtgard (as a participant).

The SCA makes extensive use of armor, but only for safety reasons, they ARE hitting each other with ratan clubs. But once you actually hit the armor, the angle of the hit and to a degree the strength of the hit don't really matter that much. A hit is a hit, even if it would have been with the flat of the 'blade' and wouldn't have gotten through the armor even if it wasn't. I can think of two things that really change how combat works. You cannot strike an opponent below the knees (for very good safety reasons). This makes a shield much more effective then usual and also means you can't trip an opponent with a pole arm. You also can't make contact with your opponent. No grabbing a pole arm shaft, no kicking, no grappling a smaller foe in close combat. There are also some comments on hit location effect, but I am less familiar with those in the SCA.

In Amtgard (boffer fighting) makes almost no use of armor. Armor gives you extra hits before you suffer 'damage'. Damage is a matter of hit location: Hit in the arm, put it behind your back. Hit in the leg, on your knees. Hit in the body, you are dead. The head isn't a valid target. Like the SCA, no physical contact.
More generally speaking, the rules in this game are so heavily stacked against anything that isn't light fighting that I became an archer partly out of disgust. For example:
The rules make most weapons lightsabers. Any hit, from any angle, almost no matter how light, counts as a hit.
As long as your weapon is between their weapon and your body, it is a block. Doesn't matter if your opponent's greatsword drives your shortsword into your shoulder.
Using sufficient strength to batter through your opponents defenses may get you kicked off the field for 'unnecessary roughness'. This has a lot to do with the light weight construction of most weapons and shields.

All of this is just a long-winded way of saying that the rules for safety generally prevent a realistic simulation of relative style advantages/disadvantages in most live action fighting games.

 

[Patryn of Elvenshae]

Examples made using the SCA and boffer fighting forget two very important point:

All of this is just a long-winded way of saying that the rules for safety generally prevent a realistic simulation of relative style advantages/disadvantages in most live action fighting games.

You're making a pretty bad assumption, here, that the boffer fighting I was involved with was associated with some form of official - and therefore, regulated - body.

It wasn't.

It was a bunch of guys (and quite a few girls) who built their own boffer weapons and went at things from first principles - including taping the boffers to determine a sword's edge, rather than the flat. Strikes with the flat didn't count. "Light" strikes - ones which didn't seem strong enough - didn't count.

The TWFs, at first, nearly always won because the THF, given his lesser flexibility, depends more on his footwork.

Proper footwork is the hardest thing to learn.

 

[sfedi]

Why images of Fightclub are popping on my head?

 

[FreeTheSlaves]

Frankly I am still traumatized after the long reign of Unearthed Arcana, 2nd edition, & Skills & Powers to ever give 2 weapon fighting an inch. For all my early years of D&D the two weapon fighting ruled supreme as the only optimal combat style "choice".

I initially thought I was real clever & original to make one of my characters a twf twink but no, I was just another clod.

Even today, there are still game designers trying to invalidate fighting style choice (animated shield I hate you with a passion) for what objectives I do not know.

****

On a more relevant note, the problem with beefing up TWF is that it is a fighting style that benefits bonus damage dice/modifiers (rogue & FE ranger). Beefing it for the more traditional warrior types will in effect make it too good for these classes and therefore limit choice.

Something else to bear in mind is that TWF can simulate cleave/whirlwind attack in that it can damage many foes in a more controlled fashion. Sure this lacks raw power but within a party environment, such a fighter can 'set up' the situation for the cleaving types.

 

[TheEvil]

You're making a pretty bad assumption, here, that the boffer fighting I was involved with was associated with some form of official - and therefore, regulated - body.

It wasn't.

It was a bunch of guys (and quite a few girls) who built their own boffer weapons and went at things from first principles - including taping the boffers to determine a sword's edge, rather than the flat. Strikes with the flat didn't count. "Light" strikes - ones which didn't seem strong enough - didn't count.

The TWFs, at first, nearly always won because the THF, given his lesser flexibility, depends more on his footwork.

Proper footwork is the hardest thing to learn.

Sadly enough, when I started with Amtgard, it more resembled that of which you speak. However, once we actually started fighting with other groups, it very quickly went to feather weight weapons swinging as fast as you can.

Re: Proper foot work - Yup, that was the single most important thing I brought with me from fencing in college. I think I can say without exaggeration that it enabled me to rise to the top of the heap from among 30 some participants.

In any case, I wasn't targetting you with my comments, so much as I was that NO artifical fighting really tells you how well actual styles work. Your's included. Did you use armor? If so, how did it effect being hit, other then to make the wearer slower? Near as I understand (big "not and expert" sign flashing), heavy armor made you damn hard to hurt with lighter weapons. When you are fighting unarmored opponents, light weapons make sense. Why use a greatsword when a rapier will do the job just as nicely against an unprotected body? My only real historical knowledge of TWF involved rapiers and parrying daggers of one sort or another. These were not made to hurt heavily armored people.

 

[Patryn of Elvenshae]

Sadly enough, when I started with Amtgard, it more resembled that of which you speak. However, once we actually started fighting with other groups, it very quickly went to feather weight weapons swinging as fast as you can.

Certainly was fun, though, wasn't it?

Re: Proper foot work - Yup, that was the single most important thing I brought with me from fencing in college. I think I can say without exaggeration that it enabled me to rise to the top of the heap from among 30 some participants.

I actually started taking fencing classes *after* the boffer thing started. It certainly makes you quicker on your feet!

In any case, I wasn't targetting you with my comments, so much as I was that NO artifical fighting really tells you how well actual styles work. Your's included. Did you use armor?

Oh, absolutely. And no, no armor was worn or really assumed - other than, "I don't think you hit me hard enough - try again!"

As far as heavy weapons being used only against armor ...

http://www.thearma.org/essays/StancesIntro.htm

I, also, am not an expert. But *they* are!

 

[TheEvil]

Certainly was fun, though, wasn't it?

It was an absolute blast. Great exercise too!

I actually started taking fencing classes *after* the boffer thing started. It certainly makes you quicker on your feet!

Really makes you realize how static untrained fighters are, eh?

Oh, absolutely. And no, no armor was worn or really assumed - other than, "I don't think you hit me hard enough - try again!"

Ah, the days of rhino hiding... I remember one story I heard from the SCA where a guy who was known for not taking hits was struck so hard in the helmet that it was dented and he was nearly knocked off his feat. First words out of his mouth were 'Light!'
You would have thought that hitting someone with a club would discourage them from encouraging you to hit harder...

As far as heavy weapons being used only against armor ...

http://www.thearma.org/essays/StancesIntro.htm

I, also, am not an expert. But *they* are!

True. I also didn't say that they DIDN'T use heavy weapons against lightly armored people, I said they didn't NEED to. Actually, that kind of helps defeat the chronic misconception that greatswords were clumsy and slow. No AoO indeed!

 

[Storyteller01]

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.

Highjacking again...

Power is from the hips and body movement. You don't need rotation, just a proper weight shift. This is the main reason that an overhead cut with a sword is so effective. It's not so much strength as gravity and a well timed forward weight shift.

It's also the main reason why a well timed thai chi or kung fu double palm strike can send an opponent flying.

This weight shift also allows a defnder to use an attackers push against them. you shift your weight forward just as said pusher begins to make contact. If timed right, said attacker goes flying. Lock the attacker in, and you could get broken or dislocated elblows.

Highjack over...