Making 2 weapon fighting not suck-o-rama

[sfedi]

Another way to improve TWF would be to introduce a Feat that allows to attack once with each weapon as a standard action.

 

[Aristotle]

Another way to improve TWF would be to introduce a Feat that allows to attack once with each weapon as a standard action.

It's in Complete Adventurer.

 

[radferth]

Two weapon fighting has the advantages of potentially allowing one to attack two foes, and it is often a very effective choice for low-strength melee combatants. If you area beefy 18+str barbarian, and the rules are set up so that two weapon or two-handed weapon fighting are about equal, then something is seriously wrong. If you use two weapons and a buckler, you are hampered quite a bit if you are moving and fighting, but the advatage you gain is having more tacticle options. If you are facing lots of DR creatures, it is much easier to have a golf bag of short swords than a golf bag of greatswords. Two handed weapon fighting ceratainly is better than two weapon fighting in straight up melee, but there are many other situations to consider that straight up mathmatical analysis cannot address.

 

[two]

Two weapon fighting has the advantages of potentially allowing one to attack two foes, and it is often a very effective choice for low-strength melee combatants. If you area beefy 18+str barbarian, and the rules are set up so that two weapon or two-handed weapon fighting are about equal, then something is seriously wrong. If you use two weapons and a buckler, you are hampered quite a bit if you are moving and fighting, but the advatage you gain is having more tacticle options. If you are facing lots of DR creatures, it is much easier to have a golf bag of short swords than a golf bag of greatswords. Two handed weapon fighting ceratainly is better than two weapon fighting in straight up melee, but there are many other situations to consider that straight up mathmatical analysis cannot address.

Does this make sense to anyone? I need a parser.

 

[TheAuldGrump]

Two weapon fighting has the advantages of potentially allowing one to attack two foes, and it is often a very effective choice for low-strength melee combatants.

If you area beefy 18+str barbarian, and the rules are set up so that two weapon or two-handed weapon fighting are about equal, then something is seriously wrong.

If you use two weapons and a buckler, you are hampered quite a bit if you are moving and fighting, but the advatage you gain is having more tacticle options.

If you are facing lots of DR creatures, it is much easier to have a golf bag of short swords than a golf bag of greatswords.

Two handed weapon fighting ceratainly is better than two weapon fighting in straight up melee, but there are many other situations to consider that straight up mathmatical analysis cannot address.

Here Two, I have broken Radferth's post into smaller, more easily digested bites. (But no rewording Radferth, just breaking it up.)

Now my own comments: I keep hearing about the golf bag, but have never seen it in play, the number of weapons is unchanged from 3.0 in my game, but that may be simply due to doubling up on what the weapons can do - an iron morningstar and a holy silver shortsword for example.

I have only had one two weapon warrior type in my game (a ranger/swashbuckler), and the versatility has been a big factor in his favor, different types of enhancement on his two weapons, and different types of damage means that with his standard load out he can damage just about anything that I throw at him. His alternate load out includes an enchanted buckler. (The party wizard and cleric are both able to make magic arms and armor.)

The other fighter alternates between sword and board and two handed fighting, being fond of his bastard sword.

In actual play both seem fairly equal, with the lightly armored ranger getting in sooner, and then bouncing out with spring attack to be healed. The heavy fighter tends to gut it out more, then gets healed when the cleric has the opportunity. The two weapon fighter harrasses along the flanks and the bastard sword weilder holds the line. It is generally the two weapon fighter giving the rogue his sneak attack by flanking, both using their mobility to advantage, while the bastard sword is a wall for the wizard and clerics.

The Auld Grump

 

[DrSpunj]

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.

I think it's essentially what I've done IMC for over a year now and have been very pleased with.

The only difference is how I divided up the feats. For me, TWF simply gives you an equal number of off-hand attacks as primary hand attacks, and that's just as true at 1st level (for 1 & 1) as it is at 20th level (for 4 & 4). Improved TWF is now exactly like Improved Rapid Shot and just removes the -2/-2 penalty, while Greater TWF gives full Str bonus to damage with all off-hand attacks.

I've had a few players focus on TWF and find it a lot of fun now, they don't feel cheated. Importantly, neither do the 2HF or the Sword & Shield types, because TWF this way hasn't been overpowering. I will say this version of TWF is often taken by many melee classes because it makes several different fighting styles viable, giving them more options to better take advantage of any situation (which is well appreciated by all, remember "Options, not restrictions!" ).

Note the prereqs for the feats too. 17 and 19 Dex is nothing to sneeze at!

Exactly. I've kept the same prereqs as well, which continues to help keep things balanced. For someone focusing on TWF the Dex requirement isn't that difficult, but for someone who just wants the option of dabbling in TWF, well, the Dex 17 is a bit tough. As a whole things are just better all the way around IMC this way.

OTOH, going through a full attack routine and figuring out damage for up to 8 attacks can slow things down a fair bit. IMC you have to roll damage dice with attack dice, and if you have multiple attacks I ask you to get different colored sets of dice to minimize the actual rolling as much as possible. Throwing four d20s with the appropriate damage dice speeds things up considerably once the player has a table to help them figure out their attack bonuses for their most commonly rolled attacks.

Thanks,

DrSpunj

 

[KarinsDad]

If you area beefy 18+str barbarian, and the rules are set up so that two weapon or two-handed weapon fighting are about equal, then something is seriously wrong.

I agree.

If you have two equal skill 18+str barbarians fighting each other, one fighting two weapon, one fighting with a two handed weapon, the two weapon fighter should win by a mile every time.

In real one on one melee combat, two weapon fighting is vastly superior to either a two handed weapon or a weapon and shield. In the SCA, many of the best fighters fight two weapon and they often win.

However, fighting with a shield has many advantages in formation combat. In large groups, weapon and shield is more advantageous than two weapon fighting.

Fighting with a two handed weapon (other than a polearm) has virtually no advantages. But in DND, it is often considered the best technique. Go figure.

 

[IcyCool]

If you have two equal skill 18+str barbarians fighting each other, one fighting two weapon, one fighting with a two handed weapon, the two weapon fighter should win by a mile every time.

I disagree, as it is much more difficult to effectively wield two weapons. This is reflected in D&D by the long feat chain.

In real one on one melee combat, two weapon fighting is vastly superior to either a two handed weapon or a weapon and shield. In the SCA, many of the best fighters fight two weapon and they often win.

As I said before, it takes a great deal of skill to wield two weapons effectively. I guarantee that if you hand a two handed weapon to one rookie, and two weapons to another, the two-hander will usually win.

 

[Patryn of Elvenshae]

I disagree, as it is much more difficult to effectively wield two weapons. This is reflected in D&D by the long feat chain.

As I said before, it takes a great deal of skill to wield two weapons effectively. I guarantee that if you hand a two handed weapon to one rookie, and two weapons to another, the two-hander will usually win.

Really?

Well, since I've been the rookie in that equation (boffer weapons), I'd bet on the two-weapons guy.

It's far, far too easy to just take your off- or main-hand weapon, bind the other guy's weapon out of line, and whack him with your free hand.

 

[iwatt]

just use a 2-handed Greatsword... and a Dancing shield... its a free action to let the shield lose, and you'll have both hands to do whatever you like to...

This answer always comes up in these threads. :\

If there is one magic item I don't and never will allow is the Animated Shield. It breaks the basic balance between the fighting styles, and just is a wierd look.


I hate animated shields.