Two-Weapon Fighting

[Celtavian]

re

What makes it invalid? Feats break the rules. I'm not looking for a Rule 0 solution. How do you know his isn't the correct interpretation?

Sounds like you weren't looking for answers, just a pointless debate on an invalid interpretation of the rules. Ask any official source if you want. Customer service, the Sage, Andy Collins, Monte Cook, etc, etc. None of them intended for Two-weapon fighting to give an extra attack after moving. I don't think about 99% of the players allow an extra attack either.

If you want to be part of that special 1% of players who like to incorrectly interpret the rules to give advantages that aren't supposed to exist, have at it.

 

[melkoriii]

jmucchiello

I thought you agreed that TWF was to only be used with a Full Attack action?

Why you defending the naive rulings of the other two DMs and player?

 

[jmucchiello]

jmucchiello

I thought you agreed that TWF was to only be used with a Full Attack action?

Why you defending the naive rulings of the other two DMs and player?

Oh, I agree you need a full attack to get an off-hand attack along with a primary attack by the rules. I was playing devil's advocate in the thread to get to the "absolute" truth of the matter contained in the feat description text posted by Wormwood. I think one of my responses was posted simultaneously with some other posts causing me to post after an agreement (or some such).

Also note that drnuncheon stated he's considered making this change in his games. In my own games TWF is sub-optimal (damage-wise) to two-hander or weapon and shield style.

We are going to try it out. In the game where the rule came up, and the DM (not I) said to play the character as assumed, the player managed to do about 12 points of damage, two extra hits (against enemy forces of 9 gargoyles and two stone giants) that he should not have been able to do. IOW, it didn't really affect the game. In the same combat, the tank character did about 30 points of Cleave damage when attacking with a standard action. No one says Cleave is unbalanced that I'm aware of. But TWF granting two attacks on a standard action is? I'll find out.

I predict (just guessing really) that tests involving 1st level characters will make the altered TWF far too powerful. But we're 8th level in that game. By this point, it probably isn't as powerful. I might suggest at some point that ITWF grant this ability (only for the one strike at full BAB) so that you need a 6+ BAB before you can get the extra attack. Time will tell.

 

[Darklone]

There's a rather interesting houserule thread here these days...

 

[jmucchiello]

There's a rather interesting houserule thread here these days...

Where?

 

[Hypersmurf]

Where?

Here - just follow the yellow link.

If that one doesn't work, you could try here instead.

-Hyp.

 

[melkoriii]

jmucchiello

If I allowed my Halfing Rogue/Fighter use this setup.

At lvl 9 I could get Flanking every round with the Pary Pallaidn to get Sneak attack and never have to be in melee (as I would have taken Spring Attack)

THats 2 attacks with a ToHit of
3(rogue)+4(Fighter)+5(Dex)+1(magic weapon)=13+2(Flanking)
+13/+13 (TWF)
Damage
1d6+2(str)+1(magic weapon)+3d6(SA)+1d6(Shock)
1d4+1(str)+1(magic weapon)+3d6(SA)+1d6(Shock)
Average damage of 37.
Thats at lvl 9 each round I tumble/Spring and Flank

Compaired to the Paladin 9th lvl
9(Paly)+4(str)+2(magic weapon)=15
+15/+10 Full Attack action so only 5' step and no Flanking since Im not there when he attacks.
Damage
2d6+6(str)+2(magicweapon) x2
Average Damage 28.

The Paladin has to take the attacks from the Mobs as Im not there. Im actually giving Flanking to the Ranger on a totaly diferant mob.

 

[Pax]

melkorii, 2d6 averages to 7, and [7+6+2]x2 is 30. But stil, the rogue is winning out by a good 7hp/round of average damage.

 

[jmucchiello]

THats 2 attacks with a ToHit of
3(rogue)+4(Fighter)+5(Dex)+1(magic weapon)=13+2(Flanking)
+13/+13 (TWF)
Damage
1d6+2(str)+1(magic weapon)+3d6(SA)+1d6(Shock)
1d4+1(str)+1(magic weapon)+3d6(SA)+1d6(Shock)
Average damage of 37.
Thats at lvl 9 each round I tumble/Spring and Flank

Hey, thanks, this is basically the kind of build I was going to use against the party (minus the shock) to see how off-kilter this change would be. I'm pretty sure they won't like it. But I won't know until it faces their tank (highly optimized for doing damage by our mathematics prodigy).

I'm thinking a group of about 6-8 Dodge, Mobility, Spring Attack, TWF, Weapon Finesse, High Dex rogue/fighters (3/2) with mere MW short swords against our party of 7 8-9th level characters in a wide open area. Neither arcane spell caster often takes large Area of Effect spells. Should be interesting. Haven't decided if I'll include any tanks or not.

melkorii, 2d6 averages to 7, and [7+6+2]x2 is 30. But stil, the rogue is winning out by a good 7hp/round of average damage.

That assumes that he hits, the tank with two-handed fighting hits more often. Or uses PA to do more damage each attack.

 

[Darklone]

Actually I tried this... I used the clean-up crew from Enemies & Allies against my level4-5 group. It nearly killed them though the halflings were rogue1/ftr2 and had no magical gear, not even MW stuff. Too bad guys standing in the middle of a group in full defense do not provide flanking anymore...