Two weapon fighting -- am I missing something?

[wilrich]

I was creating a character and noted the two weapon fighting feat -- whenever you have a weapon in your off hand, you get a +1 to damage with your main weapon and you (obviously) have to forgo any defense bonus you could get from a shield. Then I considered using a versatile weapon with two hands -- same cost/benefit -- +1 to damage and no shield bonus to defenses -- which doesn't cost a feat.

Am I missing something, or is two weapon fighting a rip off? For the price of a feat, you get a benefit that you can get without spending a feat. I appreciate that two weapon fighting is a prerequsite for various other feats that confer additional benefits, but those cost more feats -- in my mind, two weapon fighting should be a viable feat on its own and the feats it is a prerequisite for are not so much more useful than other feats that I think a person should have to waste a feat on two weapon fighting just to have access to them (I'd be curious if anyone disagreed)

Am I missing something, or would it be reasonable to either:

a) allow the benefits of the two weapon fighting feat (+1 to damage whenever you have a weapon in your off hand) without forcing characters to spend a feat (to bring it in line with the same benefit using a versatile weapon with two hands provides without having to spend a fest), or
b) make two weapon fighting grant a +2 to damage rolls with the main weapon?

Thank you in advance for your thoughts!

 

[Mort_Q]

I'm not sure what you mean by "alllow two weapon fighting without a feat." Any character can already hold a weapon in each hand if they so choose, and attack with either. The only way to attack with both weapons is to have a power that says you can, with or without the feat. The benefit is more attack rolls.

 

[Obryn]

Well, for one thing, you might not have a versatile weapon in your on-hand.

Second, I think the TWF feat is more for characters who are already using two weapons. It's a way to boost damage.

-O

 

[stonegod]

And there are the feats that come after (Two-Weapon Defense being the key one).

 

[boar]

Ah, but you're assuming that anyone who dual-wields weapons could wield a versatile weapon instead. Not true! TWF is an option to boost damage for rangers, rogues, tempest fighters, and any class that uses weapons as implements (sorcerer, wizard, etc). That's actually quite a broad spectrum of classes who benefit from TWF and can't use a versatile weapon.

 

[Spatula]

What boar said. Additionally, it's a way to get shield-benefits (with TW Defense) for characters that have a decent DEX but a low-to-average STR.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

Right, its an interesting comparison, and its true that using a versatile weapon in two hands is 'equivalent' to TWF, but any character that is going to wield a weapon in 2 hands would be far better off using a real two-handed weapon.

Basically you have 3 cases. There are characters who wield two-handed, they have no use for TWF, even if they happen to be using a versatile weapon. You have characters who use a shield, who also obviously have no use for TWF. Then you have all the characters who can't or don't want to occupy a hand with a shield, 99% of whom won't want to wield two-handed either, they like TWF.

Truthfully its not a particularly incredible feat by itself. Being a prereq for TWD makes it marginally appealing. The downside mechanically to making TWF stronger though is the main beneficiary, TBF rangers, don't need the help and are in fact arguably a bit OP already in the hands of someone with a good grasp of 4e character optimization. I don't think adding a point of damage will break anything seriously, after all its 1 point of damage. If you have some fairly casual players that are looking for a slight damage increase it might be handy for them. Even at +2 damage though I don't think its going to make TWF a good option for anyone it wasn't already a good option for.