Two-Weapon Fighting

[jmucchiello]

From the above description, we can assume the following about the PHB Feat writeups:

The only rules a Feat breaks are the ones mentioned in the 'Normal:" section of the feat's description.

Thanks. That is what I forgot to look at.

The PHB "normal" section merely points at the TWF info in the combat section which also does not discuss the necessity/non-necessity of a full attack.

I still think the "every round" part of the TWF should be removed and an explicit "when using a full attack action" should be added to the benefit section. But I wouldn't expect to see such an errata.

Thanks again.

 

[Wormwood]

Thanks again.

Not a problem. Glad I could help.

To be honest, I kinda admire the guy. It was a good try.



ps. I hope I didn't come off as too pedantic.

pps. I really liked your "Double Orcs" two pager. Nicely done.

 

[jmucchiello]

Is this player going to roleplay? Tell him his interpretation is ridiculous and smack him hard with all three corerule books over the head. That's what people told me last time when I asked how to argue with such a player.

Actually, we have 3 co-DMs who round-robin run the game. The other two DMs are letting him have the extra attack as a trial run to see if it's balanced or not because the player created the whole character based on the mistaken rules interpretation. No one else in the party has TWF so it's not a real problem (they think). Their reason for letting him have it is so he can explore the character he wanted. (For the last 10 years, that player has always played archer types so this is very new for him.)

Since I was out-voted, my reaction to this is I'm going to make the enemies abuse this rule as often as possible until the player(s) beg us to reverse the ruling. Their next fight against giants should be fun.

To be honest, I kinda admire the guy. It was a good try.

I know the player. He didn't think he was violating (or even stretching) the rules. He was very upset when I said, "you can't do that". But I was being the bad player at that point since I'm not DM at the moment. So the DM ruled to let the character play as expected and I lost the discussion period after the game where they decided to let it stand.

Even if I had found the feat description part to make the correct rule interpretation iron clad, I think the other two DMs would have voted to Rule 0 the player's interpretation just to save the character. Personally I was for have the player create a new character with all the extras he'd attained in game rolled into the new character. But so it goes.

Edit: Glad you liked the doubled orc. I should have the adventure that's teased in it out soon. (I hope.)

 

[Wormwood]

Their next fight against giants should be fun.

Their next fight with a Marilith should be a hoot

 

[jmucchiello]

Their next fight with a Marilith should be a hoot

They're only 8th level. And Multiweapon fighting (i brought it up) was already "nerfed" to only one extra attack per round with a standard action.

No, I'm envisioning TWF, Spring Attacking (large) double-bladed sword wielding frost giants. They have two tanks who should get knocked to bits by the double-striking, Spring attacking giants. Perhaps with boots of springing and striding just to give them 50 feet of movement. I just like the imagery of giants darting in and out of combat.

 

[Darklone]

Hmm, Eldritch knight with three attacks and one spell per round is good enough for me

 

[Vurt]

This may clearly be overly pedantic, but...

TWO-WEAPON FIGHTING [GENERAL]
You can fight with a weapon in each hand. You can make one extra attack each round with the second weapon.

It says that each round you can make an extra attack with a second weapon, not that you may do so. The ability is there, but you may not be able to use it whilly-nilly.

Cheers,
Vurt

 

[jmucchiello]

This may clearly be overly pedantic, but...

It says that each round you can make an extra attack with a second weapon, not that you may do so. The ability is there, but you may not be able to use it whilly-nilly.

Oh that's rich. I wish I'd noticed that. The player focused on "Every round", I could have "focused" on the "can" just as easily. Probably wouldn't have stopped the "let's test it ruling" but I'm looking forward to that test.

 

[maddman75]

Hmm, Eldritch knight with three attacks and one spell per round is good enough for me

Eldritch knights with True Strike and Power Attack.

 

[drnuncheon]

Actually, we have 3 co-DMs who round-robin run the game. The other two DMs are letting him have the extra attack as a trial run to see if it's balanced or not because the player created the whole character based on the mistaken rules interpretation. No one else in the party has TWF so it's not a real problem (they think).

Granting that the intent of the rule is that you need to take the full attack action to get the extra attacks - is it really that unbalancing?

Take a human fighter weilding two shortswords. He's paying a feat to:
* lose AC (no way to use a shield)
* do less damage on average than he would with a greatsword
* at a -2 to hit to boot

The greatsword weilder has it all over the dual-weapon wielder. He can use his weapon more effectively with a standard action (and associated feats like spring attack), he does more damage, he gets bonuses in disarm and sunder actions...and he didn't even have to spend any feats to do it, while the 2W fighter has to keep dropping them into the TWF chain to keep up.

Only when you start getting lots of bonus dice (like, from sneak attack) does two-weapon start to get worth it - but frequently then you don't have the staying power to get up and make the full attacks it requires.

I've often considered allowing a single extra attack on a standard action if you have the 2WF feat. I don't think it would turn out to be unbalancing at all.

J