Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.
ShortQuests -- Pocket Sized Adventures! An all-new collection of digest-sized D&D adventures designed for 1-2 game sessions.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="jmucchiello" data-source="post: 1170709" data-attributes="member: 813">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.</blockquote>

Verification