Two Weapon Fighting

[frisbeet]

Anyone looking to use or tinker with two-weapon fighting needs to read Guy Fullerton's Analysis of Attacking with Two Weapons.

Very informative.

And/or visit my site:

http://www.geocities.com/frisbeet/DandDandFightin.html


I believe 3e has TWF right, except I'd like to see TWF and ambidexterity merged to a single feat. Damage/round wise it's very comparable to expertly wielding a two-handed weapon, if you take all the feats needed to maximize attacks/round. I think that was their intent.

 

[Taren Seeker]

Anyone looking to use or tinker with two-weapon fighting needs to read Guy Fullerton's Analysis of Attacking with Two Weapons.

Very informative.

Somewhat. He doesn't take into account high crit ranges, energy effects and power attack. Oh, he mentions them, but he doesn't really take them into account.

TWF's can be the damage masters. You just need to devote feats and other resources to do it. Sure it's expensive, but if your goal is to deal more damage then you can do it. I have (and have seen) PC's that are living proof of that.

No Sneak Attack required.

PS. this is SO getting moved to Rules.

 

[Hawkshere]

Somewhat. He doesn't take into account high crit ranges, energy effects and power attack. Oh, he mentions them, but he doesn't really take them into account.

TWF's can be the damage masters.

I don't doubt they can, but a lot of folks start out talking about TWF with misconceptions about how it works, and articles like Guy's helps clear a lot of that up.

Bonus damage is bonus damge - sneak attack is just the most obvious example. I'll admit that I would like to see a mathematical analysis that examines the effect of improved crit ranges on TWF.

Ultimately, TWF is like any kind of specialization - improving specific damage at the cost of general damage and higher training. If TFW was demonstrably more efficient in all cases than the standard methods, then it would be the standard method.

 

[frisbeet]

Maybe I should have sold my site more. On it are two spreadsheets which take into account improved critical, power attack, and damage reduction. Simply parameterize the fighter and weapon or weapons he wields, including weapon-specific feats, etc., and choose DR for the opponent. Then against a range of AC average damage/round is calculated.

Strictly speaking, it isn't a mathematical analysis--it's a tool to do mathematical analysis; you'll have to provide the comparison scenarios. I've tested it quite a bit and can say with confidence that all the calculations done are true.

TWF is a very nice style in many situations. Nice as in damaging.

Anyway, click my signature.

 

[Angcuru]

I disagree with the whole idea of an offhanded weapon.
If you're going to be decent with 2-weapon fighting, you need ambidexterity. Ambidexterity entails that you are able to use both arms and hands equally well. Why is it then that you can't use your 'offhand' as well as your regular hand? It's as if the writers said to themselves.."Hmm... Maybe we should make this feat be not what It really should be, just to mess with the players."

Hell, if you can use both arms equally well, then you should be able to weild two longswords as well as a longsword and a shortsword.

and another thing. Improved 2-Wpn Fighting should eliminate 2-wpn fighting penalties. It's enough that a character has the sacrifice the use of a shield. I say that if you drop 3 feats into a particular skill just to be able to use it, you get no penaties when using that skill. I'm going to have to sit my DM down and try to beat this into his head.
Here's why:
He sets my character up with this inherited sentient(good) longsword, and the sword mentions that it has a twin blade that is evil in nature, but may yet be turned to the light. That's like screaming "START TAKING DUAL-WEILDING FEATS, STUPID!" Kinda mean of him since I was playing my character out to use bows almost exclusively. But when i think of weilding two sentient longswords, one with flame powers and the other with lighting powers, and being a bladesong, hell, that's just too awesome to resist.

 

[Staffan]

Also at low levels can be marginaly better for low STR fighters because they have 2 rolls to get the 19-20 they need to hit.

Assuming you refer to threat range, I don't follow this line of thinking. Sure, a guy wielding two short swords has a greater chance of getting *a* crit in a round (on account of rolling one more time), but the crit the greatsword-wielder gets will hurt so much more. The threat range shouldn't be a factor in the discussion.

 

[Spatula]

Same here. In D&D two weapon fighting is NOT worth -2 to hit, two feats, losing shield bonus, plus having to find 2 magic weapons, etc. All the games i've played in made Ambidex and TWF one feat, and it still sucks unless you have Sneak Attack dice.

I don't agree with this, it just takes longer (and a lot of feats) before TWF starts to pay off. But when it does, it can get powerful. The only real downside, as I see it, is the need for the 2nd weapon, although things like GMW can offset that. A 16th lvl TWF gets 7 attacks per round at -2 to hit compared to the 2HF's 4 attacks. The 2HF can put those 2 points into power attack, but the TWF has 3 more chances at critical hits (plus the damage from those 3 additional attacks).

A figher with greataxe can have Power Attack, Cleave, Weapon Focus, Weapon Speacialize, Expertise, for the same investment as your TWFighter.

The TWF gets those same feats, he just won't have them at the beginning. That's part of the whole "it takes a while to pay off..." thing.

1st lvl: exotic weapon, ambi, TWF
2nd lvl: weapon focus
3rd lvl: power attack
4th lvl: weapon spec.
6th lvl: cleave, expertise
8th lvl: improved crit
9th lvl: improved TWF
10th lvl: OPEN
12th lvl: power crit, OPEN
14th lvl: OPEN
15th lvl: greater TWF

One of those OPEN slots could be this Improved Ambidexterity feat, which apparently gets rid of the -2/-2 penalty. Now the 2HF can use all those TWFing slots on something else, but there's only a handful of weapon-related feats, and the fighting feat chains (power attack, expertise, dodge, etc.) aren't always open (because of stat prereqs). So in the end, the 2HF is more flexible (more fighting styles) but the TWF gets more attacks.

 

[Roland Delacroix]

Assuming you refer to threat range, I don't follow this line of thinking. Sure, a guy wielding two short swords has a greater chance of getting *a* crit in a round (on account of rolling one more time), but the crit the greatsword-wielder gets will hurt so much more. The threat range shouldn't be a factor in the discussion.

Sorry, i wasn't entirely clear. I meant that at low levels AC is usually high enough that even fighters are only hiting on a 18, 19, 20 or thereabouts. Rogues keep up by flanking (+2 hit) and the SA damage.

More later, gotta run out shopping

 

[Angcuru]

let me just say this.

Ambidexterity + Two-weapon fighting + Improved two-weapon fighting + Greater two-weapon fighting + Perfect two weapon fighting = Double attacks per round at no penalty whatsoever.

My epic palaldin goes around slaying multiple Balors per round with dual bastard swords.

4 attacks per round with one blade, 4 with the other, and an extra due to boots of speed.
Average Damage per round - 400-600. Hell, he took out the AVATAR OF CTHULU IN ONE ROUND!

Had he only one blade, this would be only around 200-300 damage, and he'd be paladin paste on Cthulu's Teifling toast.

it's not overrated, it's potentially overpowered.

if anyone wants me to go into extreme detail, i will. (the paladin, or the fighting style, your choice.)