Two-Weapon Defense Feat Question--Is this Balanced?

[Aluvial]

I am having a tough time discerning the weight (balance) of some of new feats that come in different d20 books. Some are easier than others but this particular one has got me wondering.

The feat comes from one of Fantasy Flight Games, d20 system, Legend & Lairs Sourcebooks.

It first appeared in the Seafarer's Handbook as this (pg 23):

Two-Weapon Defense [General]

You can attack AND defend with a weapon in each hand.

Prereq: Dex +13, Two-Weapon Fighting

Benefit: Penalty for fighting defensively is reduced by 2, but you still gain a +2 bonus to your AC for the round.

Normal: See PHB pg. 124

Special: The Ambidexterity feat increases the dodge bonus to +4. You can only use this feat if you wield a weapon in each hand.


Then a new sourcebook of theirs came out called Path of the Sword (pg 87). It has Errata on the Two-Weapon Defense.

Their newest (corrected?) version is here:

Two-Weapon Defese [General]

You can attack and defend with a weapon in each hand.

Prereq: Dex +13, Ambidexterity, Expertise, Two-Weapon Fighting

Benefit: You can take a penalty of -2 to all attack rolls this round in order to gain a +4 dodge bonus to AC until your next action.

Normal: See Expertise (PHB, pg 82) and Fighting Defensively (PHB pg 124)

Special: You can only use this feat if you wield a weapon in each hand.


OK, so is either of these balanced? I would think that the latter of the two is better that the first, but I really don't know if that is saying much.

I'm just wondering if it wise to give someone a +4 dodge bonus to AC AND let them attack still.

Should this also have a level requirement or is too powerful for even that?


The only other feat I can think of that is similar is the Off-Hand Parry from two of the WotC's Player Option series (or whatever they are called) That feat takes a full round action. You sacrifice (one?) your off-hand attack for a +2 AC bonus.

What do you all think, is this feat too strong/unbalanced?

 

[kreynolds]

I think green is a horrible color to use. Try orange. It stands out better.

 

[Aluvial]

Yeah green was pretty bad...

 

[sigfried]

My assessment

The second version is much better in terms of the way its written.

Balance wise it is a strong feat, especialy at lower levels and for characters with a level of ranger who have two of the requirements satisfied by their clas psudo-feats.

I don't think it would be unbalancing in a game, althoug there is a question as to whether it stacks with the use of expertice to fight defensively, or if it replaces the fighting defensively action. It is certainly much stronger than most of the defensive feats avialable from the PHB selections which have very few strong feats that raise armor class.

If I were reviewing this feat I would recomend changing it to offer a +1 dodge bonus to AC when fighting defensively.

 

[Aluvial]

I think it is a powerful combo. The latter is better if only that you have to have the feat prereqs.

Obviously it takes a full roung action to use.

Perhaps the penalties to hit should be -4 instead of the -2 to balance the added dodge.

And it is certain to me that the dodge bonus wouldn't add with the Feats -- Dodge and Mobility (although those two stack with each other).

Aluvial

 

[Elder-Basilisk]

Both of them are too good. The first one would have been OK if it hadn't specified that the bonus goes up to +4 if you have ambidexterity (what two weapon fighter doesn't have ambidexterity). At that point, the feat becomes a no-brainer. -2 to attacks for +4 to AC. No problem. It would be truly hideous if used with the bastard sword+Spiked shield combo.

1/1 human ranger/fighter str 16, dex 15, ambidex, twf, exotic weapon bastard sword, shield expert, two weapon defense.

Masterwork bastard sword, spiked large shield, chain shirt.
Fighting Defensively
AC 22 (+4 armor, +2 shield, +2 dex, +4 dodge)
Atk +1/+1 (+2 BAB, +3 str, -2 TWF, -2 Fighting Defensively) for 1d10+3 and 1d6+1

Given more fighter levels, the character could do this in fullplate.

In order to make the second version work, the character needs another level of fighter in order to get expertise. (Alternately, the character could ditch shield expert--see below).

Human Rgr 1/Ftr 2 Str 16, dex 15
AC 22 (+4 armor, +2 shield, +2 dex, +4 dodge)
Atk +2/+2 or +4 or +6 (if not using the ability)
Note that this character could pump his AC as high as 25 with expertise (single attack at +1 or two at -2/-2) or 27 by fighting defensively as well (single attack at -3 or two at -5/-5).

The second version is somewhat more difficult to get but is still too good. Exchanging attack bonus for AC bonus is almost always done on a 1/1 or worse bonus. Allowing it to be done at a 2/1 ratio will lead to unbalancingly high armor classes. This is especially true since this will be available and attractive to the fighting class construction which already offers the highest AC--the dual wielding sword and shield fighter. (Small AC bonusses become more significant the higher your AC is to begin with). In this regard, it's important to note that neither version of the feat specifies that you actually need to attack with both weapons or even take the penalties for attacking. Consequently, if the previously statted fighter/ranger didn't have shield expert or wanted a higher attack bonus, he could not take the two weapon fighting penalties and have a single attack at +3 or +4 (depending upon the version of the feat) instead of two attacks at +1/+1 or +2/+2

As to the contention that this wouldn't stack with dodge or mobility that would be a house rule. According to the rules all dodge bonusses from any sources always stack. Consequently, this could be used in conjunction with expertise, fighting defensively, dodge, and mobility.

 

[Aluvial]

Both of them are too good...

...Exchanging attack bonus for AC bonus is almost always done on a 1/1 or worse bonus. Allowing it to be done at a 2/1 ratio will lead to unbalancingly high armor classes...

...According to the rules all dodge bonusses from any sources always stack. Consequently, this could be used in conjunction with expertise, fighting defensively, dodge, and mobility.

Well, I think you are right and that is what I was worried about. So basically if I gave an attack deficit equal to the defence bonus I would be OK.

Basically a -4 to attacks for the + 4 dodge to AC.

As for the Dodge bonus stacking, I can't seem to find that rule. Where is that?

Aluvial

 

[kreynolds]

As for the Dodge bonus stacking, I can't seem to find that rule. Where is that?

Page 177, DMG, under Dodge:.