new feat suggestion: Ambipotency

[Cabral]

I don't know... the idea of an orc barbarian with Str 26 dealing more damage with two shortswords than a greataxe disturbs me.

Not IMC!

I do agree, though, that TWF need not be a prerequisite.

Assuming you wanted to allow this feat, why not add with another feat that allowed you to add double strength to damage with a two-handed wepon as apposed to 150%. Also, note: That barbarian would have a better attack bonus with the battleaxe. Also, you could include the restriction that a raging barbarian can't use Ambipotency...

 

[Plane Sailing]

Assuming you wanted to allow this feat, why not add with another feat that allowed you to add double strength to damage with a two-handed wepon as apposed to 150%.

I specifically wouldn't do this. two handed weapons get the freebie 150% damage bonus which they get on every *standard attack*, every *charge attack* and every *AoO*.

I believe that Sword and Fist had some stupid feat that made 2H weapons even more uber; totally unnecessary IMO - mostly for the reasons noted above.

The Ambipotency feat gives a greater total benefit to someone who is both strong *and* dextrous *and * gets to make a full attack. Not a terribly common set of circumstances, especially compared to all the circs where the 2H user gets his freebie bonus.

 

[Crothian]

One thing to balance this all out is to get a -1 on all attacks that round when using the feat. You lose a little on your aim because your swinging with all your might with both hands multiple times.

I also like the idea of x2 damage with 2-handed weapon instead of x1.5 I'm not to sure on the Prerequistes, Power attack, and str 17+. A BAB of maybe 6+ or something like that might be in order too.

 

[Tony Vargas]

This would go a long way towards returning TWF to the prominence it enjoyed in 2E.

Any character with a STR bonus will benefit from this feat, and will have the potential to do more damage dual-wielding than using a two-handed weapon. The effect will be more pronounced as you improve STR, so very strong characters will have a strong encentive to use it.

Rather the opposite of the usual idea of a TWF character being the quick, dexterous type.

For instance, a 1st level human fighter with AmbiDEX/TWF/Ambipotence, could dish out as much as 20 points of damage using two shortswords (22 using a short and longsword), vs 18 max for a greatsword. A 2nd level Orc fighter with the same feats and a 20 STR could dish 24 points with a battle ax & hand ax, say, vs 19 for a greatax (thanks to the x1.5 bonus being rounded down).

 

[Crothian]

That's only if you hit both times. And you're penalized in your attack bonus. So, yes, it has the potential to be worse, but will people actually do that with their big strong half orc barbarian? I don't think so.

 

[navriin]

As was pointed out I think it is overpowered, it would greatly increase the number of dual-wielders walking around, which is a gripe of mine since it isn't really the all-powerful sword style DnD always seems to make it (sword and shield seems the best to me).

Also, it opens up a can of worms...other players would want a x2 str damage feat for their greatsword users, and more would want some type of shield feat for their sword and board guys, which would really just spiral the numbers up and accomplish the same effect if you just stick with things as-is.

just my thought on the matter

 

[Cabral]

Another option for improving the attractiveness of TWF is to go in a different direction than competing with two-handed weapons in damage. Instead you could design feats that enhance nifty keen stuff you can do with your off-hand ... shield bonus to AC when you parry, offhand disarm attempt, etc ...
How about something like:
Hidden Strike
Prerequisites: Str 13+, Dex 15+, TWF
Benefit: You can use a full-attack action to feint and get a clear shot at your opponent. Make a Bluff Check (DC 10+opponents BAB?). If successful, your opponent loses his dexterity bonus for an attack with your off-hand weapon.

(Whould that be a full-attack action or standard action?)

 

[Tony Vargas]

Hidden Strike
(Whould that be a full-attack action or standard action?)

Not bad. The Feint would have to be in place of an attack action with the primary weapon, the Hidden Strike coming from the off-hand weapon. That's cool, it illustrates one of the advantages that TWF arguably does have IRL - it's harder for a defender to keep track of two weapons than one.

I suppose a character with Improved Two Weapon Fighting could actually use up two primary-weapon attacks to get in two Hidden Strikes.

Of course, this'd primarily benfit Rogues, who are already the only class that seriously benefits from TWF...