Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Diamondeye" data-source="post: 4127585" data-attributes="member: 60019">The problem with 2 weapon fighting in 3.5 that needs to be addressed is that, compared to 2-hander and weapon-shield styles it is ridiculously feat/dexterity intensive.  It's treated like a "special" style of fighting.  While I can see how realism might dictate that it's harder to learn, it should not be THAT hard to require all those feats.The dexterity requirement is even worse.  You have to get 19 dexterity to get all the feats, which really means 20 since you're going to go for that extra point.  If you're a heavily armored type you can't then get the benefit of all that dexterity.Ranger ignore the dexterity requirement... but they are lightly armored anyhow, and need dexterity for archery even if they focus on melee, since it's their usual secondary role, which defeats the whole purpose.Worse, this dexterity-orientation tends to force people to take weapon finesse (another feat) and light weapons to get more out of their dexterity, and that limits options for the character even further.In my campaign I've made weapon finesse automatic for light weapons; the feat allows you to use dexterity on one-handed swords, such as scimitars, longswords, and the like.  There are no Two weapon defense feats; you get +1 AC with each level of TWF you take.The dexterity minimums are reduced to 10, 12, 14 respectively.This is problematic because a character should not have to spend all his feats just being able to use his fighting style, especially when it's no more effective than another style (2-hander)What needs to happen in 4e is that it needs to have 3 well-balanced styles (shield, 2 weapon, 2 hander) for melee-heavy characters.  In my opinion shield should emphasize defense, 2-hander offense, and two-weapon a balance of them.2E had this initially, but then two-weapon got ridiculous, and I think as a result 3E was written scared of it; this is something 4E needs to remedy.. without making it into a "Ranger thing".  There's nothing wrong with Rangers having it, but you shouldn't have to be a Ranger to do it.</blockquote>

Verification