Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Grayhawk" data-source="post: 1184060" data-attributes="member: 11288">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/-81 medium + 1 small: -4/-62 small or 1 medium + 1 tiny: -4/-4(Special: Knifes (1d3, 19-20x2) are considered Tiny for small creatures)Now the feats:Two-Weapon FightingReduces 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 StrikePrereqs: Two-Weapon Fighting and BAB +6When wielding two weapons you may make 1 attack with each as a standard action.Expert Two-Weapon FightingPrereqs: Two-Weapon Fighting and BAB +9Further 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?</blockquote>

Verification