Two Weapon Fighting

[JacktheRabbit]

Want some opinions from fellow DM's.

Two weapon fighting, should there be enough feats to allow you to completely offset all negatives for two weapon fighting? OR should there always be at least a -2 primary/ -2 secondary or say a 0 primary / -2 secondary?

Currently I have a player that wields a double bladed sword. He has taken enough feats to remove all negatives from his attacks. So at 7th level he is +11/+6 primary and +11 secondary.

So far I am not sure I like this. Its true that he had to spend 4 feats to get to this level:

ambidexterity
two weapon fighting
improved two weapon fighting
exotic weapon skill double sword

and he is limited to a weapon that is light in his off hand.

Do other DM's see this as ok? I am torn. Part of me things that no matter how many feats you take you shouldnt be as skilled with two weapons as someone is with one. There should always be a negative somewhere. The other part of me says the negative is in the 4 feats he had to spend and that balances things out over all.

Right now I am letting the player do this. The question will arise if this character dies and his next is a clone of him or if someone else wants to follow the same concept.

 

[Tsyr]

Well, consider that for everyone sans a fighter, 4 feats is a huge chunk of their feats. Even for a fighter it's not exactly trivial. I'd say it's fine.

 

[Enkhidu]

Want some opinions from fellow DM's.

Two weapon fighting, should there be enough feats to allow you to completely offset all negatives for two weapon fighting? OR should there always be at least a -2 primary/ -2 secondary or say a 0 primary / -2 secondary?

Currently I have a player that wields a double bladed sword. He has taken enough feats to remove all negatives from his attacks. So at 7th level he is +11/+6 primary and +11 secondary.

So far I am not sure I like this. Its true that he had to spend 4 feats to get to this level:

ambidexterity
two weapon fighting
improved two weapon fighting
exotic weapon skill double sword

and he is limited to a weapon that is light in his off hand.

Do other DM's see this as ok? I am torn. Part of me things that no matter how many feats you take you shouldnt be as skilled with two weapons as someone is with one. There should always be a negative somewhere. The other part of me says the negative is in the 4 feats he had to spend and that balances things out over all.

Right now I am letting the player do this. The question will arise if this character dies and his next is a clone of him or if someone else wants to follow the same concept.

Isn't Improved 2 Weapon the one that allows an extra attack for the off hand at a -5? So the Fighter would be +9/+9/+4/+4?

 

[JacktheRabbit]

Re: Re: Two Weapon Fighting

Isn't Improved 2 Weapon the one that allows an extra attack for the off hand at a -5? So the Fighter would be +9/+9/+4/+4?

It might be improved ambidexterity or called something else, the name eludes me at the moment. Basically it removes a further -2/-2 from two weapon attacks.

I have stepped in and completely shot down a feat that would allow him to wield two medium weapons without penality. To be at no negatives for either weapon the off hand has to be a light weapon.

I really don't want to see a fighter running around wielding a pair of bastard swords.

 

[Enkhidu]

In that case, I'd probably either drop that feat or make the pre-reqs for it more beefy (like BAB+15 or something).

 

[Black_Swan]

I'm pretty much a rules man myself so, as far as I'm concerned if it's in the book and it can be done, let him do it.

Besides losing 4 feats and the benefit of a shield, seems like a decent penalty for the extra attack.

 

[Crothian]

I think there should be a neagtive to the attacks, those extra attacks he gets really make a huge difference at high levels.

 

[Murrdox]

I've never heard of "Improved Ambidextry" or any feat that allows you to fully remove the penalties for 2-weapon fighting. If the player made-up the feat, or is taking it out of a non-standard book or something, then the decision is yours whether or not you allow him to use it.

 

[Arnwyn]

I'm in agreement with Black_Swan (well, not the "if it's in the book it can be done" part):

4 feats and the loss of (important!) AC from a shield is reasonable drawback. [This sounds a lot like something from that Swashbuckler book - if it is, note that not all those feats are appropriate for a "standard" D&D campaign.]

 

[Taren Seeker]

Well for what it's worth, WotC values the ability to negate the final -2 pretty highly. The only way to do this IIRC is to take the Tempest prestige class from MotW. You can't take the class until 10th level and overall it's somewhat weak.

That being said, I think that a feat to negate the -2 only if you have a light weapon in the offhand is fine, but I wouldn't allow it to be taken so early. Slap a +12 BAB on it or something, maybe a 17+dex. Allow rangers to take this if they have 15+ dex.

I really don't want to see a fighter running around wielding a pair of bastard swords.

*hangs head in shame*

But hey, I take the negatives!