Trying to make dual-wielding a bit better

[Valiantheart]

I actually like the idea of keeping ITWF and GTWF feats around but also make each one reduce the TWF penalty by 1 point. Previous editions required the investment of multiple weapon proficiencies to get maximum benefit out of TWF as well. Also, IMCW I do not have the assinine increasing dex requirement in order to take the successive feats. Its not that frickin hard to use two weapons and all the requirements do is relegate the feats to rogues and rangers.

As to Dual Strike, the most logical way to make it a useful feat without overpowering the rogue is to require the character have a certain number of Fighter levels to qualify for it. Fighters are the masters of combat styles afterall and if you set the fighter level requirements at 8 level you have already reduced the maximum rogue sneak attack by 4d6.

 

[zorlag]

-

Proposed feat:

DOUBLE STRIKE [GENERAL]
Prerequisite: Improved Two-Weapon Fighting, Dex 15+
Benefit: This feat allows you to make two attacks, one with your primary weapon and one with your off-hand weapon, as a standard action. These attacks are at your highest attack bonus, with the standard -2 penalty for dual-wielding.
Normal: A character without Double Strike may only make one attack as a standard action.
Special: This feat may not be used in conjunction with the Spring Attack feat. A fighter may select Double Strike as one of his bonus feats.

Comments?

With bit of editing this is fine feat. This sentence goes under special:

Only one of the attacks receives precision bonus damage, such as sneak attack or favoured enemy bonus to damage.

Even better would be to roll benefits of this feat (edited version) into two-weapon fighting feat and let it work with Spring Attack.

Z.

 

[FrankTrollman]

With bit of editing this is fine feat. This sentence goes under special:

Only one of the attacks receives precision bonus damage, such as sneak attack or favoured enemy bonus to damage.

Even better would be to roll benefits of this feat (edited version) into two-weapon fighting feat and let it work with Spring Attack.

Z.

That makes the entire feat worthless and we might as well go home right now.

For the last time:

Two Weapon Fighting starts out behind. The only advantage of Two Weapon Fighting is that you add static damage bonuses twice. If you for some reason negate static damage bonuses for the second attack you should be giving this ability out for free as it is definitionally worse than single-weapon fighting styles.

TWF starts out behind. If you don't let it pull ahead in combination with other abilities it sure as hell isn't worth spending feats on.

-Frank

 

[Aaron2]

TWF starts out behind. If you don't let it pull ahead in combination with other abilities it sure as hell isn't worth spending feats on.

Now that I think about it, the solution to the TWF problem is pretty clear. Just make it something thats free; that everyone can do. If you don't have to spend feats on it, it doesn't matter if its not perfectly balanced.


Aaron

 

[Kemrain]

TWF starts out behind. If you don't let it pull ahead in combination with other abilities it sure as hell isn't worth spending feats on.

In combination with other abilities? What exactly do you mean? The solution I suggested earlier in the thread knocked the tree down to two must-have feats, and made it a trade of to-hit for versatility. It's quite usable with other abilities. I think it could be balanced, too, because the three classes most likley to do TWF will all go about it differently. A Ranger would get the feats for free, the fighter has the feats to spend, and not be hampered by dropping 2 on some versatility, and a rogue doesn't need to power attack, and can spend feats on other things, since they have sneak attack, and can get upto double their sneak attack dice every round with sucessful TWF.

I don't like the idea of making TWF something that's immediately open to everyone at it's greatest potential, especially since I'm suggesting making the base feat all the more powerful. It does take some time and effort to learn to effectively wield two weapons, and to most people it's more of a hinstance than an asset. I think it's deffinately worth spending a feat on, but I'm all about versatility.

Does the Dual Strike feat I suggested: one attack roll gets you an attack with both weapons with all numeric bonuses added in, that counts as wielding a 2 handed weapon for power attack rules, but gets prescision damage once, and can be used once in place of each 'pair' of iterative attacks; make sense?

If you have 2 attacks from BAB, at 7 and 2, and you use 2 light weapons, you get 4 attacks at 5, 5, 0 and 0. With this feat you could make 1 attack at 5, and 2 at 0, or 2 at 5 and one at 0, or 1 at 5 and 1 at 0, with the 'paired' attacks counting as if you used a 2 handed weapon. It will also allow you to make a dual strike as a standard action, making it a viable option for spring attackers, especially if you have a large static bonus to each weapon.

I'm not sure how to word that feat idea to make it make good sense to everyone, but I think I have it in my head well enough. If anyone is confused, please tell me, and I'll try to explain it again.

- Kemrain the Versatile, and pleased this thread is still strong.

 

[Grayhawk]

I'm not sure how to word that feat idea to make it make good sense to everyone, but I think I have it in my head well enough. If anyone is confused, please tell me, and I'll try to explain it again.

I can see why you made the feat this way, I just don't like the mechanic of one attack roll for both weapons. While it removes sneak attack abuse, it just feels too similar (mechanic-wise) to wielding a two-handed weapon; using two shortswords this way compared to a greatsword would have you roll the exact same dice, adding the same bonuses, etc.

But since it feels right to you I don't see why you shouldn't use it, as it certainly doesn't seem unbalanced.

(I'm in the process of touching up on my own two-weapon fighting house rules, and will post them shortly...)

 

[Grayhawk]

Here're my two-weapon fighting house rules (inspired by this and other threads):

First my penalties for two-weapon fighting: (I'm using 3.0 weapon sizes)

2 medium weapons: -4/-8

1 medium + 1 small: -4/-6

2 small or 1 medium + 1 tiny: -4/-4

(Special: Knifes (1d3, 19-20x2) are considered Tiny for small creatures)

Now the feats:

Two-Weapon Fighting
Reduces your penalties when two-weapon fighting by +2/+2.
Prereq is Dex 13 and the feat automatically grants you the benefits of Improved Two-Weapon Fighting and Greater Two-Weapon Fighting if and when you meet the (lowered) prereqs of Dex 15, BAB +6 and Dex 17, BAB +11.

(A ranger who chooses Two-Weapon Fighting at 2nd level does not have to meet the Dex prereqs.)

Dual Strike
Prereqs: Two-Weapon Fighting and BAB +6
When wielding two weapons you may make 1 attack with each as a standard action.

Expert Two-Weapon Fighting
Prereqs: Two-Weapon Fighting and BAB +9
Further reduces your penalties when two-weapon fighting by +2/+2

(If you use 3.5 combat styles for the ranger, the fix seems easy enough: Just grant him Dual Strike at 6th and Expert Two-Weapon Fighting at 11th.)

I only allow sneak attacks once per round, so I won't need a 'prescision damage' limiter like Kemrain's.

This way of doing two-weapon fighting is certainly a power-up compared to 3.5, making it comparable to wielding a two-handed weapon. Of course Frank has a valid point, that you're paying for feats 'just to keep up', but I feel that two-weapon fighting has it's benefits as well. (Whether or not you feel that these are worth the price of the feats are up to you...)

When two-weapon fighting you have greater versatility. Pairing weapons of different damage types (piercing, bludgeoning or slashing) and of different materials improves your chances of beating DR with at least one of your attacks, without the need for backup weapons.

Also, you don't risk 'damage owerflow' as much as a two-handed weapon wielder ('tis better to slay two gobbos with your two shortswords than just one with your greatsword).

And since I limited sneak attack to once per round, the one example where two-weapon fighting will truely shine is in the hands of a ranger facing off against his favored enemy, getting his damage bonus (as much as +10) with each of his attacks. At 11th level that could be 6 attacks at +6 each, or 18 HPs more than the two-handed weapon wielder.

(I don't expect anyone to agree with my two-weapon fighting penalties, but that doesn't really matter as they're merely instituted as flavor and as a reflection of my feeling that it should be easier to wield two shortswords or a longsword and dagger than wielding a longsword and a shortsword.)

Anyway, these are the rules I'll use for my current campaign. At least until I make some new ones...

Hmm, while writing this I'm thinking that maybe the feat cost is too high. Maybe I should take zorlag's suggestion and roll the benefit of Dual Strike into the Two-Weapon Fighting Feat. The more I think about it, the more it feels like this is the way it should have been from the beginning.

Considering my sneak attack limitation, are there any reasons as to why not?

 

[comrade raoul]

I'm really surprised nobody has plugged Monte Cook's approach to two-weapon fighting in AU, which I think solves the problem (and is easily adaptable to D&D). Basically, he uses the following rules:

1. Two-Weapon Fighting reduces your total penalties by 4, on each hand (for a total of -0/-4 with a light weapon).
2. The Ambidexterity feat has been re-introduced, but as a "talent" that can only be taken at first level. Ambidexterity reduces your off-hand penalty by -4, for a total of -0/-0 with a light weapon.
3. A type of exotic weapon called "devanian" weapons exist that allow normally one-handed weapons to count as light weapons. Some classes gain proficiency with these weapons as part of their normal class abilities.

The result is that a character optimized for two-weapon fighting can spend two feats to wield a pair of longswords at no penalty by spending two feats (or at a -4 off-hand penalty for one feat). Even if he's not ambidextrous, he has a clear damage advantage over two-handed characters on a full attack, but he's still less effective than they are when full attacks aren't available. On the whole, I think this is an elegant and fair solution.

 

[Kemrain]

I'm glad to see people coming to solutions they find appropriate to their game. So far, my GM likes the ideas I've come up with/stolen, so I'm happy. But I'd like to see what Frank and Darklone think about the ideas given so far. You two've pushed this thread a lot, and, personally, I'd like to know your opinions.

- Kemrain the Interested.

 

[gravyboat]

I agree with what a previous poster said. TWF does not need additional feats to try and make it better. The core feats and mechanic need to be revised to be more versitile than 2-handed weapons. A two weapon fighter should only ever need to take a max of two feats to use this style. Possibly the core feats should grant additional types of bonuses at higher levels as oppossed to getting better bonuses by continually choosing new types of feats to make TWF better.