Trying to make dual-wielding a bit better

[FrankTrollman]

It's more of a process of grinding your nose in it. If you are a Two Weapon Fighting Ranger, then every time your "Combat Style" feat comes up you "don't fall farther behind". If you are a Bow Ranger, then every time your "Combat Style" feat comes up you get better at Archery.

The 3.5 Ranger makes it abundantly clear where Two Weapon Fighting belongs in the 3.5 rulesset: The Trashcan.

-Frank

 

[Darklone]

TWF is balanced in respect to classes with a lot of extra damage to their attacks, e.g. rangers and especially rogues.

The problem I see here: TWF is a bit on the weak side for all other classes but pretty strong for a rogue with +10d6 on every attack.

In systems like AU or WoT where you don't get so much sneak attack so fast, TWF without any penalties to attack seems to be pretty balanced.

 

[CCamfield]

Well, you could simply change the TWF penalties such that every +X BAB of a character drops the penalties by 1 point. X could be 6, or 9. (Well, it could be anything...)

This would give some benefit to rogues but more to fighter-types with BAB of +1/level. If X=6, at level 18+ it reduces the penalty for fighting with two medium weapons to -1/-1.

 

[FrankTrollman]

Even for Rangers, if they are attacking their favored enemy they get +2 damage on each weapon.

So they get 2 short sword attacks at +2 damage each. One gets full strength, the other gets half strength. So if both hit you are looking at 2d6 + 1.5 strength +4 damage. But they don't automatically hit, in fact they suffer a -2 to-hit penalty. Meanwhile, a greatsword would be handing out 2d6 + 1.5 Strength +2 damage with no to-hit penalty with no feat expenditure at all.

So the Ranger suffers a -2 t-hit penalty to get a +2 total damage. In other words, if he is facing a favored enemy he is using 3rd edition power attack for 2. If he is facing anything else, he's just behind. Ad remember that this costs a feat for every attack you have, and of course it only works on a full attack, and if you ever multiclass you are falling behind on that.

It can pay off for Rogues, because so much of their damage is bonus damage. It sucks for everyone else - including the Rangers for whom it is supposed to be a primary class benefit.

-Frank

 

[Darklone]

Right, Frank. But 6th level Rangers with a +4 to damage at 4 attacks compared to a greatsword wielder with +2 to 2 attacks... It's still not great and the Ranger only benefits against his favoured enemy (humans, anyone ) but it looks ok to me.

Then there's the defense dude with full C-Expertise and fighting defensively with two bastardswords at full Power Attack...
If he only hits with a natural 20, who cares?

 

[RandomUsernamehmimo71]

My girlfriend was reading through this, and asking me about it, so I tried vainly to remember highschool math, and try to run the numbers.. I'd appreciate any thoughts on where and how I screwed up

Single Longsword Attack- 1d20 + BAB. 12DMG.
TWF Feat- Two attacks, One at 1d20-4, the other at 1d20-4. D8 each.


Attacking someone who is AC 11. 1st level fighter. +1BAB. Strenth of 18, so +4.

Long Sword (LS)- Must Roll a 10 or Higher. 55% chance of doing 1d8 dmg.
(you hit on 11/20 results)
TWF- Two chances to roll a 14 or higher. 35% chance each of doing 1d8 dmg.
(you hit on 7/20 results)

Two 35% chances are above one 55% chance. This means that TWF has a higher base chance to hit, and higher maximum damage.
Best case LS- 8. Best Case TWF- 16.

TWF comes out ahead, as it should, as it requires the expenditure of a precious feat.

Adding in Strength Damage continues the pattern. The LS will now get 1d8+4. The Second Sword of TWF only get's .5 strength damage. As either weapon is equally likely to hit, we'll give them .75 strength damage. That gives the TWF average 1d8+3.

Two weapon Fighting is beginning to look less impressive. The reduced strength damage on average hurts.
The average damage done is Base chance to hit, applied to the average damage.

The average damage of a Longsword (1d8) is 4.5.
LS- 55% (4.5 + 4) = 55% (8.5) = 4.675 dmg/hit
TWF- 35%(4.5 + 4) + 35%(4.5 + 2)= 35%(8.5) + 35% (6.5) = 2.975 + 2.275 = 5.25 dmg/hit

This math (if it's right) shows that TWF continues to give a great advantage in the probability to do damage each hit, as well as increasing the Maximum damage.
Maximum LS damage- 8+4=12. Maximum TWF Damage = 8+4+8+2 = 22.
You would be doing 96% more damage in the best case.

So it would seem that the TWF feat allows you to optimize for the best case, while lessening your chances at the average damage. While this is a valid choice, I'm not sure that it is worthy of a feat. But it does still allow people to do more maximum damage than they would otherwise, so it's a toss up.

Now, let's add Power attack into the mix.

Single Sword Powerattacking for 1. This gives the single attack a 50% chance of hitting(10/20).
For the sake of simple numbers, let's pretend that you can powerattack more than your BAB, to show the trend upward. Powerattacking for Two would require a 12 (9/20) for a 45% chance to hit.

LS P1- 50%(4.5+4 +1 ) = 50%(9.5) = 4.75
LS P2- 45%(4.5+4 +2 ) = 45%(10.5) = 4.725
LS P3- 40%(4.5+ 4 + 3) = 40%(11.5) = 4.6

So PowerAttacking for one, as you are supposed to be able to, improved your average damage. For the sake of thoroughness, let's do the same chart assuming a BAB or +2.
Now, a long sword requires a 9 to hit. (12/20 results)

LS - 60% (4.5+4) = 60%(8.5) = 4.8
LS P1- 55%(4.5+ 4 + 1)= 55%(9.5) = 5.225
LS P2- 50%(4.5 + 4 +2) = 50%(10.5)= 5.25


So, by this math, again, assuming I'm not a freaking idiot, which I suspect I am, you would need a matching feat (One char gets Power Attack, the other gets TWF) AND a BAB increase to match the power of TWF.

But, to bring this back to more relevance, you can use a Great Sword, if you only have one weapon, which changes everything.

The Greatsword get 2d6 damage, and also gets 1.5 STR. We'll go back to our BAB of +1.

GS- 55% (7 + 6) = 55%(13) = 7.15!

Wow.. Now, this gets even more impressive if you use Powerattack

GS P1 50%(7+ 6 + 2) = 50% (15) = 7.5!

Ok. So This means that the TWF route only does 70% of the damage of the Great Sword. ((5.25*100)/7.5x)

The difference in maximums has also been reduced.
Maximum LS damage- 8+4=12.
Maximum LS P1 Damage = 8 + 4 + 1 = 13.
Maximum TWF Damage = 8+4+8+2 = 22.
Maximum GS Damage = 12 + 6 +2 = 20

So at this point, if you go TWF, you are gaining a 9% increase in Total Damage, but Losing 38% of average damage. Doesn't sound like a very tempting prospect.


But let's try taking Critical hits into account.

Both a LS and a GS crit on a 19-20, for x2. (On a side note, this makes the prospect of using a LS a bit limiting, as a GS seems to be better is Most categories..)

The GS has a 10% chance to do double damage, including all added strength. Which means we can add One Tenth of the total sum (from above), to the Current Average Damage per round.

GS, Adjusted for Crit- 7.15 + .715= 7.865

For the TWF, each weapon has a separate chance to crit, so the extra critical damage must be calculated separately.

TWF- Attack 1- 35%(4.5 + 4)= 2.975
Attack 2- 35%(4.5 + 2) = 2.275

Attack 1, Adjusted for Crit = 2.975 + .2975 = 3.2725
Attack 2, Adjusted for Crit = 2.275 + .2275 = 2.5025
TWF, Adjusted for Crit = 5.775
(Granted, this comes out the same mathmatically as 5.25 + .525, but I'm trying to break everything down as much as possible)


Well, at this point, we have TWF up to doing 73% of the Great sword.. But it's still nothing to write home about.

Perhaps this could be countered by giving all TWF users TWD? This would give you a +1 to your AC, while you have the set of swords out.

Then let us put the two people in Battle, Each having a BAB of 1, and an AC of 10. Because Mr. TWF has his second weapon out, his AC will raise to 11.

GS attacking TWF+TWD - Needs to Roll a 10. 55% chance to hit. 55%(7 + 4) = 6.05 dmg/hit
TWF+TWD attacking GS- Needs to Roll a 13 on each. 40% chance to hit. 40%(3.5 + 4) = 2.8; 40%(3.5 + 2) = 2.2.. = 5 dmg/hit
Adding Crits-
6.05 + .605 = 6.655
5 + .5 = 5.5

In this instance, the GS Advantage is still present, but the GS is only doing 17.3% damage than the TWF style. Still Ahead, but not nearly as far.

As others have discussed, this will only get worse as the GS user gets multiple attacks, the the TWF user does not gain additional attacks with the second weapon.


Even if we were to reduce the Great Sword to critting only on a 20, then we would reduce it's extra damage per round by half. That would reduce it's damage per round to 7.5 per round on average, or 6.35 per round against the better AC of the TWF. It's still doing 13.38% more damage. Not enough of a change. Let's discard that idea..

This would seem to be a difficult problem to solve. Another Solution, of course, would be to restore the Full Strength damage to handed weapon in a TWF attack.

That would give us
TWF- 35%(4.5 + 4) + 35%(4.5 + 4)= 35%(8.5) + 35% (8.5) = 2.975 + 2.975 = 5.95
+ .595 = 6.545 dmg/hit

If we combined that, with adding in TWD to TWF, we'd be left with the two facing each other
TWF+TWF- 6.545
GS- 6.555

Which is much closer to where things should be. Keep in mind, however, that the Two weapons user would have still spent a feat (or, if we aren't combining TWF and TWD) Two feats, to keep up with the Base GS attacker.


To try to conclude, It seems that that the difference isn't that a Great Sword does more damage than Two Weapon Fighting, but that if you are using TWF, you must use medium weapons, where a single weapon fighter could use a larger weapon.
When putting the Long Sword against the Two Weapon Fighting fighter, Two Weapon Fighting won handily.

But any fight between a LongSword and a GreatSword is heavily biased towards the Great Sword user. Two Weapon fighters are forced to use the smaller weapon, and will thus be at a disadvantage, even with regular attacks..


Thoughts? Care to explain the numerous places I screwed up on my math? Or even tell me I have a basic misunderstanding of D20 combat?

Colin
\

 

[FrankTrollman]

Attacking someone who is AC 11. 1st level fighter. +1BAB. Strenth of 18, so +4.

Long Sword (LS)- Must Roll a 10 or Higher. 55% chance of doing 1d8 dmg.
(you hit on 11/20 results)
TWF- Two chances to roll a 14 or higher. 35% chance each of doing 1d8 dmg.
(you hit on 7/20 results)

Two 35% chances are above one 55% chance. This means that TWF has a higher base chance to hit, and higher maximum damage.
Best case LS- 8. Best Case TWF- 16.

This isn't a math error - it's a comparison error. You just compared a character using both arms an a full attack action to a character using only one arm and a standard attack action. These are not remotely the same. If the single Longsworder was half-way intelligent, he'd be striking two handed with that thing - as apparently he doesn't have a shield (which gives a significant defensive advantage).

Moreover, you neglected that the second longsword does less damage. In the first, you'd have a 55% chance of doing d8+6, in the second you have a 35% chance of doing d8+4 and another 35% chance of doing d8+2. That's 5.775 average damage for the single longsword and 5.25 average damage for the pair.

In short, the guy dual-wielding has paid a feat, some money, and a move-equivalent action to do less damage.

But all this is irrelevent, as the proper comparison to this yokel fighting with two longswords is in fact a character using a Greatsword - which does 2d6+6 damage at no to-hit penalty with no feat expenditure at all. The TWF guy is doing 2d8+6 at -4 to-hit - or in short flushing 4 points of attack bonus into half-strength power-attack.

So, by this math, again, assuming I'm not a freaking idiot, which I suspect I am, you would need a matching feat (One char gets Power Attack, the other gets TWF) AND a BAB increase to match the power of TWF.

Not exactly. The guy with greatsword is ahead to begin with. The Greatsworder can power attack for +/- 4 and have the same attack bonus as the guy with two Longswords. But while the guy with two longswords has gained 2 average damage, the Greatsworder has gained four. Now, any subsequent +/-1 the Greatsworder puts into Power Attack gets him +1 damage, and it gets the Dual-Wielder +2. That means that if the greatsworder puts 2 more points into power attack (for a total of +/- 6), the Dual Wielder can match by putting in his "first" two. And then they are equal - the Greatsworder fighting at -6 to-hit for 2d6+12 damage and the Double Longsworder fighting at -6 to-hit for 2d8+10 (in both cases the average damage is 19 and the attack bonus is the same).

So if you habitually find yourself power attacking for +/-7 or more - the TWF has finally paid off - but not so much as simply spending a feat on anything else might.

But let's try taking Critical hits into account.

Since it adds the same proportion to both sides of the equation, why would we do that?

At best, it won't make any difference, at worst it will make your math harder to follow and introduce sources of error.

To try to conclude, It seems that that the difference isn't that a Great Sword does more damage than Two Weapon Fighting, but that if you are using TWF, you must use medium weapons, where a single weapon fighter could use a larger weapon.
When putting the Long Sword against the Two Weapon Fighting fighter, Two Weapon Fighting won handily.

No it didn't. The Longsword alone beats the double long swords' pants off. The fact that you can, and will, use a shield or a large weapon if oyu itend to fight with one weapon is simply a kick in the crotch for an already inferior combat style.

-Frank

 

[RandomUsernamehmimo71]

Thanks for looking through that for me. I really appreciate it. I do have a couple of comments or replies, though.

This isn't a math error - it's a comparison error. You just compared a character using both arms an a full attack action to a character using only one arm and a standard attack action.

True, but keep in mind we're talking about a First Level Fighter here. That is all the attacks he could make during one round.

Moreover, you neglected that the second longsword does less damage. That's 5.775 average damage for the single longsword and 5.25 average damage for the pair.

You're right in that I did not account for the +50% bonus for using the sword two handed initially. Good point. That throws off Every calculation of Long Sword further on.

But all this is irrelevent, as the proper comparison to this yokel fighting with two longswords is in fact a character using a Greatsword.

Agreed. That's why I went into the Great sword below.
The reason I was looking at the Long sword versus two long swords was to establish a baseline... If TWF was so seriously borked that fighting with Two of Long Swords was worse than one Long Sword, then there would be a very serious problem.
But we need to start with that, as a base, and then expand upon it.

As it is, the fact that they are equal is damning evidence, but the greater maximum damage of TWF makes a possibility.. Until you start looking at a greatsword, as I did further on.

Not exactly. The guy with greatsword is ahead to begin with. The Greatsworder can power attack for +/- 4 and have the same attack bonus as the guy with two Longswords.

That's true, but you're skipping ahead. I was first comparing a TWF fighter, to a fighter with a Great Sword, without Power Attack.

Each is a feat, and it's a fair comparison to compare them, as you suggest. In fact, I did exactly that later on.. But in testing, you want to examine one variable at a time. So I was, trying at least, to test TWF against the Great Sword, before introducing the Power Attack ont he Great Sword.

Since it adds the same proportion to both sides of the equation, why would we do that?

At best, it won't make any difference, at worst it will make your math harder to follow and introduce sources of error.

That's true, but I was adding that to be able to later on discuss the posibility of modifying the Great Sword Crit range, to attempt to fix the problem.

No it didn't. The Longsword alone beats the double long swords' pants off.

It came out even for Average Damage, and a greater maximum. That is for comparing One Longsword WITHOUT powerattack to Two Long Swords, with TWF.

That being said, if you give the Long Sword Power Attack under the 3.5 rules, it does come out ahead. 5.75 damage with Power Attack with a Long Sword, and only 5.25 with TWF.



Thanks for the help. I'm a bit frustrated that I don't seem to understand WoTC motivations.. They aren't setting rules to make things balance out right (which simple math shows), and they aren't setting them to be ultra-realistic.. So I'm a bit at a loss as to how they derived their numbers..


Colin

 

[Wormwood]

Off the top of my head, would this help lessen the suck factor?

TWO-WEAPON FIGHTING [GENERAL]
(as PHB, but you get one additional off-hand attack at BAB +6 and BAB +11--as per standard ITWF & GTWF)

IMPROVED TWO-WEAPON FIGHTING [GENERAL]Prerequisites: Dex 17, Two-Weapon Fighting base attack bonus +6.
Benefit: Your penalties for fighting with two weapons are reduced by one.

GREATER TWO-WEAPON FIGHTING [GENERAL]Prerequisites: Dex 19, Two-Weapon Fighting base attack bonus +11.
Benefit: Your penalties for fighting with two weapons are reduced by one.

 

[Darklone]

This might be too good for rogues to miss.

That's the problem IMHO, TWF in standard D&D is balanced for rogues and smackdownish sneak attacks...

Similar houserule: Two Weapon Defense:
The shield bonus increases by one when you take ITWF and by another point as soon as you have GTWF...

What do you think?