Two-Weapon Fighting

[Lily Inverse]

Oh for the love of Kami-sama, THINK about this for a second!

I'll make it easier: Go out to your garage and find a baseball bat. Then go to your kitchen and pick up the chef's knife (the large one). Now consider that these two approximate the weight and balance-point of a scimitar and dagger. Find somebody with a watch, and have them time you while you swing each one, full strength, one time each.

Betcha can't get it down to under a second.

Now consider what's going on in an ACTUAL fight. Dodging. Blocking incoming attacks. Watching your ALLIES to make sure they're not too close to you for comfort. Then keep in mind that the person you would be swinging these things at isn't going to stand there stupidly and let you hit them. You'll be LUCKY to have a second in which to make both attacks (and that "luck" is usually an opponent making a mistake, and is covered by the Attack of Opportunity rules), and a few weeks (the suggested amount of time to learn a feat if training separately in them) of practice isn't going to make you good enough to do so.

Suddenly, one feat doesn't sound like anywhere near enough. I agree that combining ambidexterity and two-weapon fighting makes some sense (you'd have to be an idiot not to train yourself to be ambidexterous when fighting with two weapons, as you'd have to TRY not to do it eventually), but really, anything beyond that is just silly. I have never HEARD of anybody who actually has the equivalent of perfect two-weapon fighting IRL. That implies that it's an epic-level ability, and yet you would have it available to COMMONERS. Yes, it would be rare that a commoner would be dexterous enough, but a human commoner COULD take this feat.

Historically, this idea is just plain ludicrous. If wielding two weapons were really this easy, why doesn't every army in history outfit all of its soldiers with two short-swords or a halfspear and a dagger? Why do you see men with a large piece of metal, known as a shield, strapped to one arm with frightening consistency? And why is the second most common configuration a weapon held in two hands, followed by a single weapon held in one hand, and you almost never see anybody with two weapons prior to the Rennaisance? It COULD be because before a long, light, effective weapon was invented it was considered stupid, bordering on suicidal, to try fighting with two weapons. Sure, you might find an isolated warrior or two who knows this trick, but considering they are JUST as effective as somebody who fights in a more standard way, it's just that, a trick, a flavorful and intimidating method that really has few long-term advantages.

If fighting with two weapons were this easy, more people would do it. You can ALWAYS find a second weapon just laying around. The fact that most people who have any experience with real melee combat don't should tell you it's just not that easy.

Mechanically, I think, the ability is also beyond reasonably good. At the moment I don't have access to the text of the feats in question that you're replacing, but I can tell readily enough that just looking at the tree as it stands versus your ONE feat that they're at LEAST even.

One feat is never a substitute for five. Never is it a balanced trade. I doubt you can convince anybody that it is when all the feats are normal, and you propose to replace an EPIC feat, which are, by nature, much better than those available at levels lower than 20.

I've looked at this from every angle, and all the logic seems to be against you. I can't think of a single remote justification for this travesty of game balance.

 

[Technik4]

No offense Lily Inverse but youre trying to cloud the discussion. Real-world physics, mechanics, and limitations dont really come into play, much, in d&d. Its used as a basis so that people can relate to things that dont need rules, but just because it is difficult in the real world means nothing towards the fantasy.

A commoner could take 1 level of wizard and cast fantastic spells that can do numerous things, is that within game balance? The feat would assuredly have fighter-ish prereqs preventing all commoners with a dex of 15+ (I assure you, a minority of the typical commoner) from taking it. So, maybe the proposed pre-reqs weren't harsh enough.

Now for your third point, that mechanically combining 5 feats into 1 is ludicrously strong. Very much true, to an extent. However, the feats in question are notoriously weak. Even people that like 2wf realize that they are weak, they just enjoy the style or min/max the hell out of it. A newbie can easily make a s-h greatsword fighter, he could easily screw up with a 2-longsword, or even a longsword/shortsword fighter.

I think it was originally done in response to 2ed's reign of elven rangers dual-wielding like maniacs. Obviously THAT was broken, and now with 3ed, its broken in the other direction. See Also: Psionics. Neither are broken to the point of being unplayable, but if you are playing with a min/maxed cleric, a min/maxed fighter, and a min/maxed wizard, your 2wf rogue is gonna be left in the dust at ALL levels. Between your lower BAB than fighter and the penalties for 2wf, not to mention the need to take 5!? feats to get all your off-hand attacks, its not even a viable strategy.

A 2wf fighter is better off, as he has the feats to devote to this style, however, in doing so he loses out (or slows down) the rate which he gets those all-important feats like Weapon Focus, Weapon Spec, Imp Critical, etc.

I invite you to take a look at my suggestion and please broaden your horizons on the subject. Many things can be done to balance such a feat.

Technik

 

[Kraedin]

A realism argument is rather pointless in a D&D discussion, isn't it?

The idea of spliting Ambidexterity (and Multidexterity) back out the feat is one that appeals to me. I only did it this way because d20 Modern did, and that was the basis.

Note: The "normal" entries override the core rules for my purposes.

Multidexterity [General] [Fighter]
You are equally adept at using all of your hands.
Prerequisites: Dexterity 15+
Benefit: Your off-hand(s) suffer no penalty on attack rolls.
Normal: Your off-hand(s) suffer a -6 penalty to attack rolls.

Multiple Weapon Fighting [General] [Fighter]
You are proficient in fighting with multiple weapons.
Prerequisites: Dexterity 13+
Benefit: When fighting with more than one weapon, you can make a number of additional attacks with your off-hand weapon equal to the number of attacks you could normally make with your primary weapon, at the same attack bonuses. You take a -4 penalty on all weapon attacks when you use this feat, or a -2 penalty if your off-hand weapon is light.
Normal: You cannot use an off-hand weapon to make extra attacks.
Special: For each additional weapon used, increase the number of attacks by the number of attacks you could normally make. For example, a 20th level fighter with 4 weapons (one in each hand) could attack 16 times per round.

 

[Lily Inverse]

No offense Lily Inverse but youre trying to cloud the discussion. Real-world physics, mechanics, and limitations dont really come into play, much, in d&d. Its used as a basis so that people can relate to things that dont need rules, but just because it is difficult in the real world means nothing towards the fantasy.

I beg to difer. A realism argument has a very valid place, because it IS the basis for all physical combat in the system. In 3rd Edition, most aspects of melee combat are abstracted or covered in some way to the point where the realism of the model is surprising. Sure, there isn't any way to determine exactly how a blow landed and which internal organs were ruptured, but that's not important to the fact that relative difficulties in landing the blow are covered.

Realism isn't the be-all and end-all, but it's advisable to, when making a sweeping change to the game, go back to it and ask "Does this look even remotely possible?" I think I have answered that question with "no" adequetely.

A commoner could take 1 level of wizard and cast fantastic spells that can do numerous things, is that within game balance?

A level in a class (if he's already a commoner, this makes him at LEAST a second level character) is not analogous to a first-level feat available to ANY class, adventurig or not. THAT is more like clouding the issue.

The feat would assuredly have fighter-ish prereqs preventing all commoners with a dex of 15+ (I assure you, a minority of the typical commoner) from taking it. So, maybe the proposed pre-reqs weren't harsh enough.

Didn't I say this already?

I think it was originally done in response to 2ed's reign of elven rangers dual-wielding like maniacs. Obviously THAT was broken, and now with 3ed, its broken in the other direction. See Also: Psionics. Neither are broken to the point of being unplayable, but if you are playing with a min/maxed cleric, a min/maxed fighter, and a min/maxed wizard, your 2wf rogue is gonna be left in the dust at ALL levels. Between your lower BAB than fighter and the penalties for 2wf, not to mention the need to take 5!? feats to get all your off-hand attacks, its not even a viable strategy.

Comparing a rogue to a fighter isn't smart. A rogue is not a fighter, and will never be as good. Their sneak attack provides a timely support mechanism so that they are useful in combat, but if you send one into melee alone he will be slaughtered, and this is intentional.

A 2wf fighter is better off, as he has the feats to devote to this style, however, in doing so he loses out (or slows down) the rate which he gets those all-important feats like Weapon Focus, Weapon Spec, Imp Critical, etc.

A more valid argument, however, it does fail to take into account the versatility of the two-weapon style over a one-weapon variant. Not surprising, considering the system itself also fails to take the advantages into account. Here's a hint: Fighting with two weapons is not an offensive style, normally, it is a defensive one. There are additional feats already in the game to take care of this discrepancy, I would suggest incorporating THOSE into Two-Weapon Fighting and leaving the rest of the tree alone.

I'm sorry that I don't have my D&D books available, but I'm away from home for the next two weeks. If someone could re-print the text from those feats in the chain save Ambidexterity and Two-Weapon fighting, I would be most happy to provide a detailed numerical analysis.

 

[Technik4]

Sweeping changes to the game? I'm sorry, but I disagree. A sweeping change to the game would have to change one of the founding factors, something like removing the level system or the class system. What we are discussing is powering up a weak chain of feats.

My point was, comparing anything to what a commoner can (or will do) is silly. I was being sarcastic. In order to balance a feat at any step you dont ask yourself if a commoner would want to take it, you ask yourself if this is a feat EVERYONE would want to/have to take. Obviously, at present we can say 'no' to the present 2wf rules.

I wasnt comparing a rogue to a fighter so much as comparing a rogue with bigger negatives, less feats, and albeit one (or two) more chances to hit on a full attack action. Let me ask you, is it better to have:

A. lvl 12 human rogue with: Dodge, Mobility, Spring Attack, Weapon Focus-Rapier, Weapon Finesse-Rapier, Imp Critical-Rapier

or

B. lvl 12 human rogue with: Ambidexterity, 2-Weapon Fighting, Weapon Focus-Shortsword, Off-hand Parry, Weapon Finesse-Shortsword, Improved 2-Weapon Fighting.

Lets say we were going for an offensive minded rogue, ideally doing good sneak damage, and generally staying alive. Assuming 20 dex for each, A has a BAB of +19/+14, can get in and out with spring attack, announce a dodge every turn, and with a +4 keen rapier, has a 12-20 threat range.

B using shortswords (your best, and damn near only option as a rogue, I wont even be mean and go for a longsword/dagger or longsword/shortsword, let alone exotic weapon config) has a BAB of +15/+10 with 2 additional attacks on a full-attack option at +14/+19. She has a +3 keen shortsword and a +2 defending shortsword, so she can add a +2 dodge and a +2 armor bonus and sacrafice her 'bonus' off-hand attacks. Her threat ranges are only 17-20, her weapon can not damage as much DR as A (cannot pierce +4 DR), and her attacks are at 4 worse. These characters spent rougly the same amount of money on their weapons (50,000 of their alotted 88,000), and this is one of the best possible setups for B, wheras A had the extra feat to grab an exotic, or could just as easily pick a different weapon.

OK, that example had a purpose, and that was basically to show that paying 4 feats for 2 attacks (and a defensive option), is weak. You have to have weaker weapons, you have to have less feats to spend on your weapons inherently in order to use twf. Now, these are just single class rogues, would they really have to multi to a fighter just to use a style? I dont think they should, but in most respects it really would be better for B. And what if B would rather do something more stylish, say a rapier and a dagger or some-such combination, now its near impossible with a decent attack bonus. You trade your weapon finesse and weapon focus to whatever is on your main hand, and now you might as well give up all of your extra attacks in lieu of the +4 AC bonus (for the record, you can get a +4 buckler (+5 AC bonus) for 16,000, 2,000 less than the +2 defending weapon.

I hope you dont think Im attacking YOU, Im merely trying to point out that mechanically, for offense or defense, for especially any class other than fighter (but also including fighter) 2wf is weak. End of story. So making a feat that lets you get the benefits of 2 feats with only 2 weapons, and powering up two-weapon fighting to replace improved two-weapon fighting, does NOT seem to be a "travesty of game balance".

Technik

Improved 2-weapon Fighting [General]
Prereq: Two-Weapon Fighting, Ambi, BAB +9
Benefit: In addition to extra single attack you get with off-hand, you get a second attack with the off-hand weapon, albeit at a -5 penalty.

Greater 2-weapon Fighting
Prereq: Improved 2-weapon Fighting, Two-Weapon Fighting, Ambi, BAB +15
Benefit: You get a third attack with your off-hand at a -10 penalty.

 

[Elder-Basilisk]

Here's a problem with all improvements to two weapon fighting styles that none of their proponents on this thread have yet grappled with:

Two weapon fighting is not just two single handed weapons.

Characters who choose to dual wield a single-handed weapon and spiked shield or shield of bashing and characters who choose to dual wield a two handed weapon and armor spikes also benefit from these arrangements. So do characters who wield double weapons but very few of those are superior to paired single handed weapons (and many of those aren't far superior).

With this modified feat available, there would be very little reason for every high level fighter not to spend a single feat to be able to make several more attacks with a shield bash or armor spikes--whether or not they were set up as a dual wielding character. At the cost of a single feat, I would expect the difference between high level fighters not to be whether or not they dual wielded but rather what they dual wielded.

It is also necessary to consider the effect of changing dual wielding requirements on class balance. A change as dramatic as the one proposed enables every rogue to double his/her sneak attack damage on every full attack for the cost of a single feat. As a previous poster demonstrated, the opportunity cost for a rogue to master the dual wielding style is far far higher under the current rules.

As is demonstrated above, it is necessary for a rogue who really wants to master two weapon fighting to devote almost all of his feats to it. And it should be necessary. A 20th level rogue with all the dual wielding feats gets an extra 30d6 sneak attack damage if all his off-hand attacks land. That's a pretty big payoff.

Also, consider my contribution to the 12th level rogue debate under the current rules:

B. lvl 11/1 human rogue/fighter
Iconic Spread:
Str 13, Dex 18 (+3 stat boosts 20 w/gloves of dex), Con 14, int 12, wis 8, cha 10
Ambidexterity, 2-Weapon Fighting, Weapon Focus-Shortsword, Improved Critical: shortsword, Weapon Finesse-Shortsword, Improved 2-Weapon Fighting, (Close quarters combat or some other feat).

Items: +3 keen shortsword, +2 Sure Striking shortsword, Buckler (same as rogue A).

The character's attacks are:
+18/+13 (1d6+4, 15-20/x2) or +16/+11 (as before) and +15/+10 (1d6+2 17-20/x2)

When able to sneak attack (flanking, invisible, or flatfooded opponent--most of which amount to at least a +2 to hit so I'll figure that in) this character manages the following average damage against AC 30:
Atk +18/+12 for (1d6+4, +6d6 15-20/x2) and +17/+12 for (1d6+2 +6d6 17-20/x2)
Using the following formula: average damage per attack=(chance to hit (AB-30+20)x.05) x (average damage of weapon+sneak attack) + (chance to crit ((20-lowest crit #)x .05) x chance to confirm (30-AB)x.05)) x crit damage (weapon damage) the results come out to:
Average damage per round
Primary hand, primary attack:12.5
Secondary hand, primary attack:4.556
Primary hand, secondary attack:9.564
Secondary hand, secondary attack:2.735
Total average damage per full attack action: 29.352

Against AC 25, it comes out to: 57.85 damage per round.

Against AC 20, it comes out to: 86.71

Rogue A (with the rapier) in the same situation comes up with:
AC 30: 27.88
AC 25: 44.42
AC 20: 57.58

So in the AC 30 scenario, two weapon fighting nets the rogue about one and a half points of damage per round. In the AC 25 scenario, however, it nets the rogue 13.5 points of damage/round and in the AC 20 example, it nets the rogue a whopping 29 points of damage per round. I'd call that several feats well spent.

My example rogue multi-ed to fighter but only to pick up Improved Critical: shortsword and Improved TWF at 12th level. Had we selected 15th level as our artificial point of comparison, it would not have been necessary.

If all of the TWF feats were combined into one, this character wouldn't have to multiclass to fighter in order to get Imp Crit at 12th level. In fact, the character would still have a feat free for Iron Will. If he multiclassed into fighter, the character could be a two weapon fighter, with improved critical and have expert tactician to boot.

Now, for a more min-maxed character, try this one on for size:
Same stats as above:
Ambidexterity, TWF, weapon finesse: rapier, weapon finesse:shield bash [Shields count as a LIGHT off hand weapon], Shield Expert, Improved Two weapon fighting.
Equipment: +3 keen rapier (15-20 threat range), +3 large darkwood shield of bashing.

He's got a three to five more points of AC than A and his attack bonus is only one point less. The extra crit range on A's rapier only gives him about one point of extra average damage/hit so not having improved crit isn't really a big deal for this character. And judging from the previous results, this character should dramatically outdamage A against ACs 25 and lower.

Now, just imagine that all of the two weapon fighting feats were condensed into one. This character could now afford to get weapon focus for both his rapier and his shield--all without multiclassing into fighter.

OK, that example had a purpose, and that was basically to show that paying 4 feats for 2 attacks (and a defensive option), is weak. You have to have weaker weapons, you have to have less feats to spend on your weapons inherently in order to use twf. Now, these are just single class rogues, would they really have to multi to a fighter just to use a style? I dont think they should, but in most respects it really would be better for B. And what if B would rather do something more stylish, say a rapier and a dagger or some-such combination, now its near impossible with a decent attack bonus. You trade your weapon finesse and weapon focus to whatever is on your main hand, and now you might as well give up all of your extra attacks in lieu of the +4 AC bonus (for the record, you can get a +4 buckler (+5 AC bonus) for 16,000, 2,000 less than the +2 defending weapon.

I don't think it's silly that multiclassing to fighter should be an attractive option to people who want to fight well. If single classed rogues can get all of the combat feats they want without multiclassing at all, why should anyone play fighters? The same is true for single classed paladins, rangers, etc. If it's possible for any character to fight at peak efficiency in their chosen class without multi-classing to fighter, what does the fighter class exist for?

 

[Technik4]

You bring up some good points Elder Basilisk. However, I think you overvalue some things. Some things that can't be put into an equation for example. Ok, you have shown a good (better than mine) min/maxed shortsword wielder. But, he needs to take the full attack action to get all those attacks. And if a dragon notices the party's rogue whapping up on his 30 ac, he might ignore the fighter for a round and beat the living crap out of the rogue. Rogue A, has done less damage, but springs away to swing another day. With mobility to leave the AoO reach of the dragon, with Dodge on the dragon.

I think people are getting confused precisely what *I* am proposing (though it is in the exact same vein as the original poster's), so I will clearly state my proposed "house" rule.

Ambidexterity [General]
"as phb"

Two-Weapon Fighting [General]
Flavor
Benefit: Your penalties for fighting with 2 weapons is reduced by 2. When you have a BAB of +9 or higher, you may make a second attack with your off-hand at a -5 penalty when making a full-round attack.

Two-Weapon Style [General]
Flavor
Prereqs: BAB +1
Benefit: Choose 2 weapons (note: you may not choose shields or armor spikes) or a double weapon which you are proficient with. You may use those weapons as if you had Ambidexterity and Two-Weapon Fighting feats. You may take feats that require Ambidexterity and/or Two-Weapon Fighting but it only applies to those weapons.
Note: The ranger gets this as a virtual feat at first level.

Ok, essentially I have eliminated the "Improved 2-Weapon Fighting" feat. I have also made it possible for non-fighters to use the two-weapon style (albeit, not without a limitation) with all the regular penalties at the cost of 1 feat. May I humbly ask what is so broken about this? A single class rogue doesnt see the benefit till 12th level, even a fighter wont see it till 9th. They just dont need to pay upkeep on their weapon style decision.

A fighter will still probably get the feats the old ways, and a 2wf saves *1* feat by getting it with 2 specific weapons. At higher levels, the 2wf also gets another feat that he doesnt need to spend to improve his technique. A single class rogue may not take this feat at first level, but she may take Weapon Focus-Short Swords at 1st, and then any character or combat feat she wishes if human. Then at third she may take the two-weapon style and specialize with shortswords. Her penalties will be -1/-1, a limited style, 1 feat, and that she must stand up to whatever she wants those extra attacks against. In my eyes, thats plenty.

For non-fighters, it is also nice. Dual-wielding clerics, paladins, and bards oh my. Suddenly it isnt necessary to multiclass to fighter to dual-wield, but it is to be a true dual-wielder, or to be truly ambidextrous.

Discussion is welcome

Technik

 

[Elder-Basilisk]

Re: Full attacks. This is a pretty much a moot point by 12th level or so. At this point characters should have access to Haste in most battles which will enable them to partial charge and full attack or move and full attack.

The non-TWF rogue could have spring attack instead but going into melee with a dragon, it's not going to help much (unless the rogue has boots of striding and springing). If the rogue wants to move, attack, and move he'll probably still usually be a mere five foot step from the dragon's threat range. And if he wants to be further away, he'll have to tumble just like the TWF rogue.

The other interesting thing that running the numbers brought up is this: the -2 makes a very big difference when foes have decent ACs (30 or so). In the TWF case, the secondary attacks, hardly make any difference to the average damage per round (although they might make a huge difference to the damage in any given round). Give some appropriate buffing (bless, prayer, bard song, etc) from party members, the TWF rogue might be able to get both primary attacks into "hits more than half the time" range but the secondary attacks are almost guaranteed to be long shots. Consequently, Improved TWF doesn't really yield good dividends unless the rogue is fighting foes with poor ACs. Most of the time, TWF will be almost as good as Imp TWF.

Thinking about this, I don't think that rolling TWF and Imp TWF into one feat would really break anything. The one feat for ambidex and TWF (as long as you only use a specific weapon combo) would be a bit much though. Since most characters who use TWF use a specific weapon combo their entire careers (usually picking up weapon focus, EWP, or Weapon finesse early in their careers), there's little reason to take actual TWF and Ambidex. Especially since, in many situations, the benefits from Imp TWF are marginal and even if they're not in the situation a character usually finds himself (a 12th level double sword fighter for instance), it's still no more feats than the character would have spent to get Ambidex and TWF rolled into one. So a character who loads up on the bennies early doesn't suffer if he later decides he'd like imp TWF.

Another interesting note from running the numbers: Improved Crit really doesn't do much for a rogue. Maybe it would if the rogue had a keen flaming burst rapier or something but the extra 1d6+5 or so damage from a crit pales in comparison to the 6d6 or so sneak attack the rogue can have at that level.

 

[Lily Inverse]

Originally posted by Technik1:
I think people are getting confused precisely what *I* am proposing (though it is in the exact same vein as the original poster's), so I will clearly state my proposed "house" rule.

Technik, what you're proposing here is actually one HELL of a lot more reasonable than the original poster, and that makes a lot of difference. I do think the TWF rules as written are a bit under-powered, but the original post, and the later modifications, are simply much too far in the other direction. That would amount to a return to the days of "dual-wielding elven cuisinarts."

Compare your house rule to the above rules by Kraedin and tell me with a straight face that his idea isn't stupidly powerful by comparison.

Also people, keep in mind that dragons are aware in all directions, regardless of line-of-sight, and threaten all squares around them due to wing buffets and tail slaps. A rogue's not going to be sneak-attacking a dragon.

 

[Kraedin]

Multiple Weapon Fighting [General] [Fighter]
You are proficient in fighting with multiple weapons.
Prerequisites: Dexterity 13+
Benefit: When fighting with more than one weapon, you can make an addtional attack each round with your off-hand weapon, at your full attack bonus. If you have a Base Attack Bonus of 9+, you may make a second off-hand attack at a -5 penalty; if you have a Base Attack Bonus of 15+ you make make a third off-hand attack at a -10 penalty, if you have a Base Attack Bonus of 21+ you may make a fourth off-hand attack at a -15 penalty. You take a -4 penalty on all weapon attacks when you use this feat, or a -2 penalty if your off-hand weapon is light.
Special: For each additional weapon used, increase the number of attacks by the appropriate amount. For example, a character with a Base Attack Bonus of +21 with 4 weapons (one in each hand) could attack 16 times per round.

Hmmm.