D&D 3E/3.5 Two-Weapon Rules for 3.5e

[comrade raoul]

I'm in a two-weapon fighting sort of mood today, as evidenced by my revised tempest, which you might want to check out. I also thought I'd include the house rules I expect to use when 3.5e comes out. While I mostly like the new version of the two-weapon fighting, I think it's too good for rogues, who really should spend more feats. I'd also had some other two-weapon feats, which I'd mean to use with the new system.

Ambidexterity [General]
Prerequisites: Dex 15+, base attack bonus +1
You've got a knack for using both of your hands with equal grace and precision, which offers a number of advantages.
Benefit: You suffer no special penalties for using your off-hand (for example, a previously right-handed character whose right hands are disabled or restrained may pick a lock or fight with a weapon in his left hand at no penalty), you gain a +2 competence bonus to Escape Artist and Perform (Juggling) checks, and you may perform sneak attacks with your off-hand. If you are fighting with two weapons, you designate which of your hands is your "primary hand" and which is your "off-hand" at the beginning of each round (thus determining which hand receives your full strength bonus to damage, or, under some circumstances, which hand may be used for additional attacks).
Normal: You may not perform sneak attacks with your off-hand.
Note: The restriction under "normal" is a new house rule, but a very important one. Rogues now need to spend two feats, as they once did, to get an increased number of sneak attacks. This feat is of little interest to non-rogues.

Twin Sword Style [General, Fighter]
Prerequisites: Dex 15+, Expertise, Int 13+, Two-Weapon Fighting, Weapon Focus, base attack bonus +3
You have special training in fighting with a pair of blades.
Benefit: Choose one of the following weapons: dagger, shortsword, scimitar, longsword, bastard sword. You must have taken the Weapon Focus feat with the weapon you choose. When wielding a weapon of that type in each hand, you may designate a single opponent at the beginning of your action, against whom you gain a +1 dodge bonus until your next action. If your off-hand weapon is not light, reduce your penalties from two-weapon fighting by 2 (that is, you suffer penalties as though your off-hand weapon were a light weapon).
Note: Based on the regional feat from the FRCS, but built to make off-hand weapons of the same size more appealing. Drizz't has this feat. Essentially, this is two fairly weak benefits (slightly increased two-weapon damage, the 3.0 dodge) rolled up into a one stronger feat, with prerequisites.

Circle Attack [General, Fighter]
Prerequisites: Proficiency with a double weapon, Two-Weapon Fighting, base attack bonus +6
You can perform a quick attack with both ends of a double weapon, striking two adjacent foes.
Benefit: As a standard action, you may declare that you're using this feat. Make an attack with one end of your double weapon; you suffer the normal penalties for two-weapon fighting, and you may not increase your Strength bonus to damage. If you hit, you may immediately make an attack with the other end of your weapon against a different, adjacent opponent.
Note: Based on the weak Circle Kick feat in Sword & Fist, but it's only a standard action. Adds a unique style to double weapons, I think.

Generally, these three feats help diversify the ways in which characters fight with two weapons. Some characters will be happy with a pair of light weapons and only take Two-Weapon Fighting and its higher-level cousins. Rogues will take Two-Weapon Fighting and Ambidexterity. Dedicated fighter-types who want to maximize their damage output will probably take Twin Sword Style or Circle Attack; there are good reasons for each.

Note that the 3.5e version of my Tempest revision shouldn't have Ambidexterity as a prerequisite.

 

[Bean 2.0]

in circle blow (cool feat by the way) what do you mean "may not increase str bonus to damage"

 

[comrade raoul]

in circle blow (cool feat by the way) what do you mean "may not increase str bonus to damage"

Usually, when people make standard attacks with double weapons, they don't use both ends but instead use them as two-handed weapons. As a result, they multiply their strength bonus by 1.5 (as is typical when using a weapon with both hands). Since characters with this feat use both ends, they can't do that.

Also, I want to use this chance to emphasize again the big fix, which changes the dynamic for two-weapon fighting in 3.5. I didn't emphasize this enough above: the main house rule here is that unless you have Ambidexterity, you can't make sneak attacks with your off-hand. The other feats are sort of icing on the cake.

 

[Eldorian]

Or you could do what I did to revise the duel wielding sneak attackers that deal insane amounts of damage. I changed sneak attack dice into d10s, and stipulated only one per round. It's a nice little boost at low levels (before irritative attacks), and is nice for rogues that don't want to go the two weapon route. If the rogue doesn't go two weapons, they are severly crippled in damage, IMO.

Eldorian Antar

 

[Winterthorn]

Good stuff!

Nice! I like what I see

Any thoughts about the handling of double weapons--like the classic: the quarterstaff--in comparison to handling two separate weapons?

I was always disappointed that the quarterstaff seemed to get short changed in 3.0--too many penalties for such an intrinsically well balanced weapon that is so easy to procure...

Quarterstaff Talent [General]
Prerequisites: Dex 13+, base attack bonus +1
You are exceptionally fond of using the quarterstaff as your principle weapon for attack and/or defense.
Benefit: When wielding a quarterstaff, you waive the -4 penalty to your off-hand attacks.
Normal: Off-hand attacks with a quarterstaff suffer a -4 penalty to the attack roll.
Special: Monks and Rangers, by virtue of their martial styles and experiences unique to both, coincidently gain this feat for free at 1st level.
Note: This feat is unorthodox in that it serves only one weapon, yet the quarterstaff is a highly accessible weapon for most classes--it's cheap to buy and esy to make. This feat is written more for "mechanical completeness" rather than leaving it as a new ability for just two tweaked classes in my game. Considering that the off-hand attack with a quarterstaff is considered "light", two attacks (via the full attack option) with this feat would offer spellcasters a -4, -4... The question remains as to how Two-Weapon Fighting 3.5 would affect this? (I still haven't seen "the details" ) An ambitious character with Two-Weapon Fighting 3.0 would lower melee penalties down to just -2, -2...

Too "specific" maybe? I'm still thinking about it all... As I've said, I think the quarterstaff seems under-utilized in the 3.0 game given its availablity, I hope 3.5 corrects this!

-W.

 

[comrade raoul]

Winterthorn: Because the 3.5 (or d20 Modern) version of two-weapon fighting treats Ambidexterity and Two-Weapon Fighting as one feat, that sort of quarterstaff fighting feat (which looks like Ambidexterity, but just limited to the staff) is unnecessary.

But don't worry about the quarterstaff. It has the significant advantage of being the only non-exotic double weapon -- this is a pretty big boost. Under the standard, 3.0 system, the quarterstaff is often nearly as good as, or even better than, a pair of shortswords: sure, your threat range is a bit smaller, but you're harder to disarm and can increase your strength bonus on standard attacks.

Under my system, the quarterstaff is even better, because you use Circle Attack with it, without having to spend a feat on an exotic weapon proficiency slot.

 

[Winterthorn]

Winterthorn: Because the 3.5 (or d20 Modern) version of two-weapon fighting treats Ambidexterity and Two-Weapon Fighting as one feat, that sort of quarterstaff fighting feat (which looks like Ambidexterity, but just limited to the staff) is unnecessary.

If that's what Two-Weapon Fighting 3.5 will be, then that's good news then! Thanks, one less tweak for me LOL

-W.

 

[drnuncheon]

One tiny nitpick:

"a previously right-handed character whose right hands are disabled or restrained may pick a lock or fight with a weapon in his left hand at no penalty"

Lockpicking generally takes two hands - one to manipulate the tension bar and the other to work the pick. I'd give serious penalties to anyone who tried to do it one-handed, whether it was their primary hand or not.

J

 

[DonAdam]

I think one feat for two weapon fighting is a bit much.

Therefore, I'm going to only grant 1/2 strength bonus on both hands.

 

[Silver Griffon]

These feats look great judging by what I've seen of 3.5 so far!
But, what about twin rapiers?