Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="two" data-source="post: 2277254" data-attributes="member: 9002">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.&nbsp; I agree.What is to be done?What do the number crunchers think about the following modifications?&nbsp; Does it make 2 weapon fighting too powerful?My basic goal(s) and premises (premisi?) is/are this:0)&nbsp; Ignore sneak-attack rogue types for the following analysis.1)&nbsp; Fighting with a greatsword using no feat should be roughly as effective as fighting with 2 weapons with no feat.&nbsp; In other words, if you don't want to use a shield, fine.&nbsp; Both ways of fighting without a shield can do a lot of damage, but have a lower AC.2)&nbsp; 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)&nbsp; Basic penalty for fighting with 2 weapons is -2/-2 if they are light.&nbsp; -4/-4 if only off-hand weapon is light, -6/-6 if using two non-light weapons.b)&nbsp; 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.&nbsp;&nbsp; About the same, but the greatsword criticals more often and has a greater maximum damage potential.&nbsp; &nbsp; The -2 to hit balances out the +2 extra damage.The &quot;Two Weapon Fighting&quot; feat needs to make the two-weapon fighter MORE powerful than a feat-less greatsword user, thus:Two Weapon Fighting:&nbsp; 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 &quot;beat&quot; a greatsword user with no feats.Two-weapon fighting + 3 feats should &quot;spank&quot; 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?</blockquote>

[QUOTE="two, post: 2277254, member: 9002"] 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? [/QUOTE]

Verification