Rangers and Two-weapon fighting

[candidus_cogitens]

I know it has been discussed a lot, and that's exactly why I want to ask for some ideas. I know they're out there.

I believe it has been shown statistically that TWF and Ambidexterity do not produce any significant advantage (if any at all) over just swinging one big weapon with two hands. My personal response to this realization has been simply never to play a ranger or a monk--let alone to take the actual feats. But as a DM, I feel that I owe it to my players to offer something attractive in these classes, and as two-weapon fighting (and flurry of blows, which is the same thing) is such an important part of the class, I'm looking for a way to make it a sensible strategy.

I'm particularly interested in a way of using two weapons for some defensive advantage. Would it be reasonable to add a deflection bonus for using two weapons, since weapons also party function as shields? One option I've considered is giving some kind of bonus for using two weapons when fighting defensively.

The reason I am drawn to the idea of an AC bonus is that it would help to differentiate the specific advantages of two-weapon fighting from other fighting strategies. Just as the use of a greatsword has different advantages and disadvantages in comparison to the use of a longsword and shield, so also the advantages and disadvantages of two-weapon fighting should be distinctive.

I thank you, in advance, for your comments.

 

[fba827]

Hmm - well, regarding two-weapons anyway, there are some feats in Sword and Fist and Masters of the Wild that lets you forgo your offhand attack and instead youse that weapon for a parry / ac.

can't recall details, just remember seeing that.

so that would be one thing that can be done with to-weapon fighting style taht can't be done with a single large weapon ...

Of, you get disarmed or sundered and you still have the other weapon.

(although a larger weapon would of course be more difficult to disarm or sunder but still...)

Hmm, and maybe you don't get a magical sword of kick-ass but instead find an assortment of smaller magical weapons... don't just want to ditch them...

anyway, i am just rambling. will think more about it.

 

[gpetruc]

I think there is a feat in the NetBook of Feats that gives you a deflection bonus tu AC if you forgo your offhand attack to parry (like Main gauche or something similar)

 

[Tony Vargas]

TWF becomes statistically desireable when you have non-trivial, non-STR damage bonuses. Favoured Enemy can be such a bonus, so can sneak attack. Flurry of Blows is not quite like TWF - it /does/ take the Monk's full STR bonus, and, with the improving damage dice of thier unarmed attacks...

So, for Rangers, Monks and Rogues, it should be just fine, even a bit impressive (especially so for the Rogue in the right situation).

For everyone else, it's not especially potent - but it is viable if you want to do it... just like a character built around the greatclub, instead of the greatsword, might be viable... even though he'll be doing 1.5 fewer points of damage with every swing. 1.5 can make all the difference, but it can also make no difference.

 

[Thorvald Kviksverd]

I allow two-weapon fighters in my Basic D&D campaign to make a riposte if their foe misses their own attack roll by a certain amount.

For 3e, perhaps you could do something along the following lines...

If wielding two weapons, the character may make a free attack (AoO) with their smaller/off-hand weapon against any foe who misses their own attack roll by N.

N is dependent upon the size of the off-hand/smaller weapon relative to the size of the wielder...

Tiny: 4

Small: 5

Medium: 6

If dual wielding opponents square off, they may continue to trade ripostes for as long as each continues to miss by a certain amount. I think this presents some interesting choices; for example, a fighter might choose to forego his extra attack, and instead concentrate on defense, in order to minimize the chance of suffering a riposte.

 

[mikebr99]

If your two-weapon fighter/Ranger is doing nothing but... talk to him about taking some levels in the Tempest (MoTW). From the description, it isn't a PrC that is taught, but learned by practice.

And the parrying stuff is already in there...

 

[candidus_cogitens]

I allow two-weapon fighters in my Basic D&D campaign to make a riposte if their foe misses their own attack roll by a certain amount.

I like this idea a lot. Should it be a feat or just an additional rule? I'm leaning towards just making it a standard rule, because I think there should be some inherent value in the basic dual-weilding ability of the ranger, without having to take an additional feat. Also, it would make it almost worthwhile for a standard fighter to consider taking Ambidexterity and TWF as feats.

I might alter the specific mechanics of the rule you proposed though. For instance, rather than getting the attack when the opponent misses by 'N', I might try one of the following:
(a) just allow the attack every time the opponent misses, but make it at -4.
(b) only allow the riposte after a successful SPOT check (against the opponent's failed attack roll) to see if he can detect the weakness exposed by the opponent's clumsy assault.
(c) only allow the riposte after a successful DEXTERITY check (against the opponent's failed attack roll) to see if he is quick enough to take advantage of the opportunity.

 

[candidus_cogitens]

Hmm - well, regarding two-weapons anyway, there are some feats in Sword and Fist and Masters of the Wild that lets you forgo your offhand attack and instead youse that weapon for a parry / ac.

It's called Off-Hand Parry. I find it to be a really weak feat (compounded by the fact that it calls for two other really weak feats as prerequisites).

It basically allows the character to gain the equivalent defensive bonus as for using a large shield, although unlike using a large shield, you still have to take an offensive penalty.

I will grant, however, that it does offer a bit of flexibility to the potential strategies that a dual-weilder might employ. However, it is only slightly preferable to "fighting defensively."

In principle, though, I like the idea of an AC bonus. Intuitively, it seems to me that fighting with two-weapons has more defensive value than offensive value. I would love to have that hunch either confirmed or negated by someone who really knew something about real-life swordplay. If my hunch is correct, I would have to favor the idea of a deflection bonus over the idea of a riposte opportunity (discussed in previous post).

If I were to make a rule, it might be something like this:
You get a +1 deflection bonus to AC whenever you fight with two weapons or use flurry of blows.

It's funny that the Off-hand Parry feat gives you a dodge bonus rather than a deflection bonus. It seems to me that parrying is completely different than dodging. Further, it seems to me that if you are attacking with both arms, your ability to dodge would be less, rather than greater, since you can't use that other arm to help swing your momentum back from the danger zone after you lunge in for an attack.

 

[Thorvald Kviksverd]

I like this idea a lot...

Thanks

I might alter the specific mechanics of the rule you proposed though...

Feel free to alter away. I'm just happy if one of my suggestions provides even a germ of an idea.

For instance...just allow the attack every time the opponent misses, but make it at -4.

Seems perfectly reasonable--especially with the attack penalties in 3e that a dual-wielder already faces for using larger weapons in the off-hand.

Just had another thought, if you're going to make it a general ability, you might also want to allow non-dual wielders to perform a riposte, but at a reduced chance.

For example, perhaps bucklers and normal shields would allow them on a miss by 6 or more (effectively 1 worse than with dual-wielding when the AC bonus is considered), large shields might be an 8, and single weapons a 10 (or perhaps 8 as well)--or whatever numbers seem appropriate.

Perhaps Rapiers would receive a bonus to this as well when used alone.

 

[Judas]

If I were to make a rule, it might be something like this:
You get a +1 deflection bonus to AC whenever you fight with two weapons or use flurry of blows.

It's funny that the Off-hand Parry feat gives you a dodge bonus rather than a deflection bonus. It seems to me that parrying is completely different than dodging. Further, it seems to me that if you are attacking with both arms, your ability to dodge would be less, rather than greater, since you can't use that other arm to help swing your momentum back from the danger zone after you lunge in for an attack.

Having personally taken martial arts for a few years, and reading what the Flurry of Blows represents, giving FoB an AC bonus as well is not right. FoB is a 100% offensive manuver, that's why you can only do a FoB as a full round action. There should not be an AC bonus in FoB. Your description here, describes it quite well:

it seems to me that if you are attacking with both arms, your ability to dodge would be less, rather than greater

Now I agree with you on the feat. It makes more sense as deflection bonus, than a dodge bonus. But Deflection bonuses don't stack. So I'd keep it a dodge bonus.

just my 2¢