# Making 2 weapon fighting not suck-o-rama



## two (May 25, 2005)

So, the rules gurus here go to great lengths to show that 2 weapon fightining (for anyone except a rogue sneak attack type) blows big time, like, just blows.  

I agree.

What is to be done?

What do the number crunchers think about the following modifications?  

Does it make 2 weapon fighting too powerful?

My basic goal(s) and premises (premisi?) is/are this:

0)  Ignore sneak-attack rogue types for the following analysis.

1)  Fighting with a greatsword using no feat should be roughly as effective as fighting with 2 weapons with no feat.  In other words, if you don't want to use a shield, fine.  Both ways of fighting without a shield can do a lot of damage, but have a lower AC.

2)  Two-weapon fighting with a feat should be MORE effective than fighting with a greatsword (without using a feat).

That's basically it.

My thinking, sans number crunching, going with my gut, is:

a)  Basic penalty for fighting with 2 weapons is -2/-2 if they are light.  -4/-4 if only off-hand weapon is light, -6/-6 if using two non-light weapons.

b)  Off-hand attacks get full damage normally.

So, a fighter1 with 18 strength can use the greatsword doing 1d12 + 6 damage, or 2-weapon fighting for 2 attacks (at -2 each) with 2 light weapons doing (if it hits) 2d6 + 8 damage.   About the same, but the greatsword criticals more often and has a greater maximum damage potential.    The -2 to hit balances out the +2 extra damage.

The "Two Weapon Fighting" feat needs to make the two-weapon fighter MORE powerful than a feat-less greatsword user, thus:

Two Weapon Fighting:  reduce all penalties by 2.

So you can attack at +0/+0 with 2 light weapons, or -2/-2 with a one-handed/light weapon, or -4/-4 with 2 one-handed weapons.

There, done. 

Add further two weapon fighting feats building upon this basic one.

The idea being two-weapon fighting + 2 feats should "beat" a greatsword user with no feats.

Two-weapon fighting + 3 feats should "spank" a greatsword user with no feats.

Two-weapon fighting + 3 feats should be about as good as a greatsword user with 3 feats.

Etc.


Number crunchers, is my gut outta line?


----------



## Infiniti2000 (May 25, 2005)

"Fighting with a greatsword using no feat should be roughly as effective as fighting with 2 weapons with no feat."

Why?  Why is it important to you only to consider average Damage Output?


----------



## werk (May 25, 2005)

I think it is very important to consider level here, as that determines your attack roll bell curve.

At low level a sword and board will beat a greatsword, but once BAB goes up, his strategy falls apart. (trading hits)

With a high BAB the two weapon fighter is a better match, at low leel, not so much.  Makes sense, you don't learn how to fight with two weapons, you learn how to use one and then progress.

Too many confounding variables to make this comparison anything other than opinion.


----------



## two (May 25, 2005)

Infiniti2000 said:
			
		

> "Fighting with a greatsword using no feat should be roughly as effective as fighting with 2 weapons with no feat."
> 
> Why?  Why is it important to you only to consider average Damage Output?




Why not?  Why should we consider things besides average Damage Output?

If nothing else, I'm a sucker for symmetry.

I'm also sick to death of greatswords and 2-handed melee weapons in general.  As it stands, they are just the be-all-end-all damage dealers.

Wouldn't it be nice if there was another option?  (using 2 weapons?).  

I'm all for options.

As it stands, the only reasonable 2-weapon build is the rogue build; everything else burns feats and feats for little gain compared to the vanilla greatsword.

I like more options.


----------



## Stalker0 (May 25, 2005)

What AE does is have three feats for TWF. The first one is just like the TWF feat from 3.5...so with that feat you are at -2/-2 with a light offhand weapon. The second one drops that further to 0/0 with a lightoffhand. The 3rd lets you be 0/0 with two normal sized weapons.

So then the 2 handed weapon guy can be very very good..but he needs a lot of feats to truly stand above.

An unorthodox, but possible way of curbing 2HF is simply to make the greatsword's damage 2d6 -1. Still does a lot more than a longsword, but not as much as before.


----------



## Inconsequenti-AL (May 25, 2005)

I know you wanted to ignore sneak attack/extra dice attacks: However, powering up 2 weapon fighting will make those versions of it even nastier than they already are?

Also saw an absolutely evil fighter/cleric 2 weapon fighter IMC. No sneak attack, but was really vicious.

That aside:

A little leery of the Str to each weapon you've got there - that looks a lot better than 2 handed weapons... although that's only a gut reaction.

Rather than raw damage, how about adapting the style feats from Complete Warrior - special effect if you hit with both a main and off hand weapon. Perhaps making those generic, rather than tied to a particular pair of weapons? I'd limit it to 1 effect per pair of hits, otherwise it'll get out of hand quite quickly.

Make 2 weapon defense so it gives you +1 shield AC per off hand attack. 1 feat replaces the 3 printed ones.

Allow power attack to work on light weapons again? Although that opens up the old 'Weapon finesse, increase dex, better AC + Power Attack' thing from 3.0...


----------



## Infiniti2000 (May 25, 2005)

two said:
			
		

> Why not? Why should we consider things besides average Damage Output?



 Because it's a complete game system.  If you look at one part of it and ignore the rest, you are intentionally creating houserules in a vacuum - and that's a bad idea.  I mean, do it if you want, but my whole purpose of responding is a sense of caution.


			
				two said:
			
		

> If nothing else, I'm a sucker for symmetry.



 Then, perhaps a houserule such as saying all weapons do 1d6 is what you are looking for.  Then, no one weapon gets an advantage over another.  Perfect symmetry.  I just don't believe that you are looking at this objectively if you say you desire symmetry and then not try to make the weapons symmetrical.


			
				two said:
			
		

> I'm also sick to death of greatswords and 2-handed melee weapons in general. As it stands, they are just the be-all-end-all damage dealers.



 Then the obvious action you should take is remove the problem.  Why not just remove greatswords?  Are there any other two-handed or one-handed (that can wielded two-handed) weapons that cause you difficulties and heartburn? 


			
				two said:
			
		

> Wouldn't it be nice if there was another option? (using 2 weapons?).
> 
> I'm all for options.



 This is no longer about options, but apparently how to beef up two-weapon fighting.  The options still exist.  A player could fight with sewing needles, if he wanted, right?  Anything to keep that from happening besides the player wanting to powergame? 


			
				two said:
			
		

> As it stands, the only reasonable 2-weapon build is the rogue build; everything else burns feats and feats for little gain compared to the vanilla greatsword.



 I disagree.  A player in my game has a fighter 6/ranger 10 using two-weapon fighting.  The fighter 15 uses a battleaxe and board.  I see nothing unreasonable about either option.

In any case, if the thing that is not reasonable is because you feel greatswords are unbalanced (and I am not saying I disagree with that assessment either), then I think you should look at making greatswords balanced, or remove them, instead of escalating every other form of melee combat build to compensate.  At that point, everything would be unbalanced, which is not a good design philosophy.


----------



## two (May 25, 2005)

Infiniti2000 said:
			
		

> Because it's a complete game system.  If you look at one part of it and ignore the rest, you are intentionally creating houserules in a vacuum - and that's a bad idea.  I mean, do it if you want, but my whole purpose of responding is a sense of caution.
> Then, perhaps a houserule such as saying all weapons do 1d6 is what you are looking for.  Then, no one weapon gets an advantage over another.  Perfect symmetry.  I just don't believe that you are looking at this objectively if you say you desire symmetry and then not try to make the weapons symmetrical.
> Then the obvious action you should take is remove the problem.  Why not just remove greatswords?  Are there any other two-handed or one-handed (that can wielded two-handed) weapons that cause you difficulties and heartburn?
> This is no longer about options, but apparently how to beef up two-weapon fighting.  The options still exist.  A player could fight with sewing needles, if he wanted, right?  Anything to keep that from happening besides the player wanting to powergame?
> ...




Well, granted, you have the option to wade into melee with a limp chicken and a brisket of beef.  I meant "option" as in, "viable option."  

As is stands, a melee specialist using 2 weapons just stinks compared to ye olde 2-handed weapon user (it's not just a greatsword problem):

a)  feats on top of feats on top of feats requires to almost but not quite match Fighter w/ 2-handed weapon who is not using feats.  This is true at level 1, 5, 10, 15, 20.  Give the 2-handed weapon guy as many feats as the 2-weapon guy burned, and he's miles ahead.

b)  You have to enchant 2 blades instead of one.  Obvious.

c)  You only get full attacks maybe 50% of the time.  The rest of the time you just have to move & hit once; big advantage to the 2-handed weapon.

d)  power attack advantages, etc. etc. 

e) etc.

I don't think it's asking too much to have a vanilla Fighter8 using 2 weapons, who has burned 2-3 feats on improving his skills, exceed in damage output a vanilla Fighter8 using a 2-handed weapon who has used all his feats on skill focus and save buffs.

That's it.  It's really pretty basic.  The sword-n-board guy gets better AC for less damage.  The 2-handed weapon guy does big damage for less AC.  The 2 weapon user... well, as it stands currently, he gets to have a lower AC and do less damage than either the first two fighting styles.  It's like, huh?  Just seems silly to me.


----------



## Gort (May 25, 2005)

I think it's good that it's bad. If you get what I mean.

In reality, pretty much nobody fought with two swords D&D style. (I mean, attacking with both. Sure, there were parrying daggers and stuff like that, but that's closer to sword and shield)

It's like looking for boxers who punch with both arms at the same time. It's a sucky tactic, so nobody does it.

Edit: Oh yeah, and 2WF is already good for rogues and rangers. (to a lesser degree) Make it better, and you make them better too. Are you willing to make rogues (who already do enormous amounts of damage) do even more damage?


----------



## werk (May 25, 2005)

Gort said:
			
		

> I think it's good that it's bad. If you get what I mean.
> 
> In reality, pretty much nobody fought with two swords D&D style.





Thank you Gort.

Two weapon fighting is a specialist style, not a generic style that anyone can use.  It has it's own benefits and problems.

Picture someone fighting two-weapon.  
Picture someone fighting two-handed.

I see fighters from two different periods in time.


----------



## Infiniti2000 (May 25, 2005)

I'd like to see the analysis you have to prove your points.  I don't see the glaring you do unless you allow all your restrictions.  For example, in one sentence you say that the two-handed fighter spends no feats and is better and then in another sentence you give the two-handed fighter power attack to try and prove another point.  IMO, you are choosing arbitrary restrictions merely to suit your unproven point and not considering the whole situation, with all factors considered.  I have never done the analysis myself, but every one I have seen falls short of proving anything and the person doing the analysis invariably uses certain restrictions that influence the results (such as not considering two-weapon defense which by your last statement you do not, yet considering power attack, clearly this is in the best interests of the two-handed fighter).

The problem in such an analysis, of course, is that there really are too many variables, some of them being intangible or at the least very hard to define a metric for.  Does the TWF need to enhance both items?  Is that really a drawback or is it actually an advantage when you consider that PCs will go up against different creatures with different DR or other abilities like incorporeality?  It's much more feasible, for example, for the TWF to add ghost touch to his off-hand weapon than for the THF to add a possibly much more expensive enhancement for a "just in case" scenario.

The additional problems are that they are commonly prone to errors.  I mean no offense, but just as an example, in your first post you mistakenly point out that a greatsword has a higher chance of critting than a TWF with two light weapons.  Huh?  19-20 is more often than 19-20 more times per round?

So, anyway, I intend this only as constructive feedback.  I'm not trying to bash your idea, just to provide a different perspective.  Like I said, TWF seems to work just fine IMC and the player certainly does not feel like he has less options than the battleaxe/board guy, when in fact he has more.  One weapon is cold iron, the other is silver, for example.  One is holy, the other is evil outsider bane.  You get the drift.


----------



## KarinsDad (May 25, 2005)

Gort said:
			
		

> It's like looking for boxers who punch with both arms at the same time. It's a sucky tactic, so nobody does it.




I always wondered why this is the case.

Many different martial arts have moves of attacking with both arms simultaneously. I was waiting for a very well trained martial artist to take over the boxing world.

But, maybe these moves do not work as well against similarly trained opponents or maybe boxing gloves minimize their impact, and hence they cannot be used in boxing.


----------



## frankthedm (May 25, 2005)

If you blindly think you should ONLY fight with 2 weapon fighting all the time, every time, thats your own fault. 


Try +1 vicious shield spikes or armor spikes as your off hand weapon. When you are not attacking with your off hand you are getting a nice ac bonus, when the situation calls for two weapon fighting, you've just done greatsword damage, suffering 1d6 is a piddling scratch.


----------



## Gort (May 25, 2005)

I think it's more likely that since many martial arts are not competitively practiced, it is pretty impossible to judge their worth. Also, the vast majority of martial artists do not have the stamina to beat professional boxers due to the fact that professional competitors can do it for a job (and become human tanks as a result), and amateurs have to make a living some other way.

And the idea that boxing gloves negate double-punches seems highly unlikely to me. It's just a bad way to punch.

On a more D&D topic - if you think two-weapon fighting is so bad, just take a broken prestige class. Like Dervish, from the Complete Warrior book. Gotta love PrCs that let you move and full attack, as well as giving flat plusses to attack and damage!


----------



## Crothian (May 25, 2005)

I've never seena problem with two weapon fighters being as bad as every ones says they are.  I also think people worry too much about the numbers.


----------



## KarinsDad (May 25, 2005)

Infiniti2000 said:
			
		

> The additional problems are that they are commonly prone to errors.  I mean no offense, but just as an example, in your first post you mistakenly point out that a greatsword has a higher chance of critting than a TWF with two light weapons.  Huh?  19-20 is more often than 19-20 more times per round?




Careful. He was in error, but so are you.

The chance to threaten is not the same (two attacks at 19-20 versus one), but the chance to crit is also not the same.

His example was for a full round attack. The chances to critical on a normal 50% chance to hit is:

TWF: 10% * 40% + 10% * 40% = 8%
THF: 10% * 50% = 5%

So, the two weapon fighter has a greater chance to critical in a full round attack and also criticals more often.

However, in a single attack, the two handed weapon fighter has a greater chance (5% vs. 4% in this case) to critical. In a single attack, the chance to threaten for both weapons is the same (as long as the chance to hit is 20% or greater), the chance to critical is always different.


But, what I think he was really talking about was the chance to do additional damage via a critical and how much that average damage is. For his house rule, it would be:

TWF: 10% * 40% * (D6+4) + 10% * 40% * (D6+4) = 0.6
THF: 10% * 50% * (D12+6) = 0.625

And there, he was basically correct. The two handed weapon fighter does average more damage due to his criticals.

And, the two handed weapon fighter averages even more damage on a single attack (e.g. Attack of Opportunity or a single attack in a round). There, it is 0.625 versus 0.3 extra points of damage on average.


----------



## Kemrain (May 25, 2005)

My group has mitigated this issue by allowing anyone an off-hand attack for every attack their Base Attack bonus would normally allow. One on and one off for 0-5 BAB, 2 on and 2 off at 6-10 BAB, 3 on and 3 off at 11-15 BAB and 4 on and 4 off at 16+.  These attacks are at the regular 2 Weapon Fighthing penalties, and the Two Weapon Fighting feat reduces penalties as usual.

We also made a new feat called Dualstrike (before Complete Adventurer was out) that lets you trads in one on and one off hand attack to make a single attack, at the normal Two Weapon Fighting penalty, that counted as an attack from a 2 handed weapon (1.5x str, 2 for 1 power attack, +4 to disarm and such), as well as counting as one attack forthe purposes of DR.  You use the lower attack modifier and worst threat range and critical multiplier of the two weapons, and all the damage is consitered to be of both weapon's types. Precision damage is added in once, but all enhancement bonuses on each weapon stack (the benefit you get for having the penalty to hit). Edit: Forgot to mention. You can Dualstrike as a standard action, albiet still atthe 2wf penalty.

We haven't figured out how this would affectthe Core Ranger, as we don't use them.

We also made Sword and Board more effective by offering 2 for 1 Combat expertise to folks proficient with the shields they're using.

These rules aren't unbalancing the game, and we do see a lot of 2wf'ers, but that's because we have a low-strength high-dex finesser party. Two Handed Weapons still deal the crazy damage.

- Kemrain the Ruler of the House.


----------



## kyloss (May 25, 2005)

I believe as to the feats he was talking about taking multiple feats to keep up with the damage being dealt by the thf as a simple part of leveling before taking feats into account which could instead be spent on the feats like power attack, which would put the thf ahead or two weapon defense to improve his ac like the sword and board fighter. As for a House rule of my own I simply combined the two weapon and following feats into one and am considering lowering slightly the base attack requirement for the new (rapid strike?) feat in complete adventure that lets you attack with both weapons at the same time as a standard action for a penalty. that frees up the other feats for power attack or twd or any of those. I think one feat is okay sacrifice, especialy since they ruled that you can stack multiple damage types ie fire electric on a weapon.


----------



## Infiniti2000 (May 25, 2005)

KarinsDad said:
			
		

> And there, he was basically correct. The two handed weapon fighter does average more damage due to his criticals.



 Not true because what he said does not jive with your analysis.  While I applaud your analysis, it failed to address my point that most such analyses contain errors.  Many times they are simply errors of ommission due to assumptions.  In this case, the average damage is incorrect because the assumption of the weapons used is two weapons at d6 each instead of some other choice.  It also assumes a certain AC where the TWF penalty is noticeable.  There are other assumptions as well.  I only wanted to point out that ignoring all those assumptions leads to errors in the analysis, and quite frankly I think yours proves my point.


			
				KarinsDad said:
			
		

> And, the two handed weapon fighter averages even more damage on a single attack (e.g. Attack of Opportunity or a single attack in a round). There, it is 0.625 versus 0.3 extra points of damage on average.



 This is only because of your specific example.  In any case, let's say I agree with it.  Our assumption is that we get one attack, be it an AoO or a charge or whatever.  Who has more options for the single attack, the TWF or the THF?  Keep in mind that one of the OP's guiding decisions is "I'm all for options."


----------



## sfedi (May 25, 2005)

> "Fighting with a greatsword using no feat should be roughly as effective as fighting with 2 weapons with no feat."



Why?
Historically this was not the case.
And even in fantasy literature, two weapon fighting isn't even equal.
It's clearly a niche style of combat.
In that it should be good only for a couple of character types/situations.

Which is the case.



> If nothing else, I'm a sucker for symmetry.



Then, you should be looking at making sword and board equal (or even better) than two handed fighting.



> I'm also sick to death of greatswords and 2-handed melee weapons in general.  As it stands, they are just the be-all-end-all damage dealers.



You're right, but I also noted that they tend to suffer insane amounts of damage as well.
With a decent use of NPCs tactics, a two handed fighter would have a hard time.



> Wouldn't it be nice if there was another option?  (using 2 weapons?).



No, the "other option" should be sword and board, not a niche style as TWF.


----------



## Aristotle (May 25, 2005)

two said:
			
		

> That's it. It's really pretty basic. The sword-n-board guy gets better AC for less damage. The 2-handed weapon guy does big damage for less AC. The 2 weapon user... well, as it stands currently, he gets to have a lower AC and do less damage than either the first two fighting styles. It's like, huh? Just seems silly to me.




The two weapon fighter in my campaign (on course to be FTR16/ROG4) admittedly had all of his feats based around two weapon fighting, but I have to say that his damage output was absolutely equal to that of the high damage dealers (at least at 10th level it was, we ended there). And he had a higher AC than anyone else in the group. The only time he ran into any trouble was against enemies with high DR.

The only house rule I put into place to get him there was to allow Two Weapon Defense (and upgraded versions) to work with Combat Expertise (when 2 or more points are spent) just as if the character were fighting defensively.


----------



## Goolpsy (May 25, 2005)

In our campaign, we have a two weapon fighter, and a 2handed weapon fighter..
I must say i believe TWF to be msot powerful...

Someones mentioned the downside of paying for 2 weapons... well jsut look at the list here:
+2 = 8000 gp
+3 = 18000 gp
+4 = 32000 gp
+5 = 50000 gp...

soo..
have a +3 Flaming Keen  Greatsword... or
a 
+4 longsword (vs high dr monsters) and a + 1 Holy shortsword (vs Evil creatures)
so 2 weapons, does have a godo advantage

another thing is...
with the right feats.. you will be insane...
Monkey grib, (and a 'feather ability to a sword  *think balance could work too*)

TWF, monkey grib, ETW (bastard sword)  (3 feats) -6/-6 to hit but
2x Huge Bastard Sword  each dealing  4d6 (if im correct)..

so basicly  double as many attacks, double the damage per hit,  for -6...
well we could make another variant...

TWF, monkey grib, ETW (bastard sword)  (3 feats) -4/-4 to hit but
1 Huge Bastard Sword  each dealing  4d6, and a Large Bastard sword 2d8  (stil lnot sure)

All this does, require that you have used a 'weapon slot' of +1, on each of the weapons... using either 'Feathered' or 'balanced'

Ownage?


----------



## cignus_pfaccari (May 26, 2005)

Aristotle said:
			
		

> The only house rule I put into place to get him there was to allow Two Weapon Defense (and upgraded versions) to work with Combat Expertise (when 2 or more points are spent) just as if the character were fighting defensively.




Um...you mean jacking up the Shield bonus from TWD when he uses Combat Expertise for two or more?

Okay, I can see that.

I used to have a TWF rogue/fighter, and I eventually stopped using TWF unless I was bored, as I could do a lot more damage with my bastard sword in two hands.  I just started a game with a potentially cheesed-out dwarf TWF build, and we'll see how that works.

Brad


----------



## Storyteller01 (May 26, 2005)

KarinsDad said:
			
		

> I always wondered why this is the case.
> 
> Many different martial arts have moves of attacking with both arms simultaneously. I was waiting for a very well trained martial artist to take over the boxing world.
> 
> But, maybe these moves do not work as well against similarly trained opponents or maybe boxing gloves minimize their impact, and hence they cannot be used in boxing.





Martial arts that use a two handed blow (at least as far as I've seen) generally use it to as a push. There is damage, but the opponent gets pushed away as well. Where can he go in a boxing ring?

I've seen well trained martial artists against boxers. It's pretty evil. Boxers, even with the rules restricttions, tend to be REALLY fast. Styles tat rely on timing (Aikido, for an exaple) have a harrd time dealing with boxing strategy.


Hiighjack over...


----------



## Zadam (May 26, 2005)

Storyteller01 said:
			
		

> Martial arts that use a two handed blow (at least as far as I've seen) generally use it to as a push. There is damage, but the opponent gets pushed away as well. Where can he go in a boxing ring?
> 
> I've seen well trained martial artists against boxers. It's pretty evil. Boxers, even with the rules restricttions, tend to be REALLY fast. Styles tat rely on timing (Aikido, for an exaple) have a harrd time dealing with boxing strategy.
> 
> ...




The reason why two handed punches are very rarely used is that most of your strength in an unarmed attack comes not from the arm but the rotation of hips, shoulder etc.  By attacking with both arms at the same time you cant move your body in such a way as to get any decent damage from your blow, so you end up with 2 weak strikes instead of one strong one.  Does have its uses I guess but moreso to stun an attacker rather than doing any significant damage.


----------



## Timeron Malachi (May 26, 2005)

Fighter with 18 STR and a Greatsword: +4 to attack and 2d6+6 to damage.
Fighter with 18 STR and two shortswords: +2/+2 to attacks, and d6+4/d6+2 damage.

Two Weapon fighting vs. twohanded fighting tends to even out, I've noticed. I just usually prefer the slightly higher attack bonus to the higher attack rate. Also, using feats like power attack and leap attack are much more beneficial for a two-handed fighter than a TWF.

But, if a fighter with two weapons puts an enchantment like Wounding on his swords, they can dish out a lot of painful hits in a round.


----------



## Klaus (May 26, 2005)

Here's the symmetry:

1-Handed Weapon + Shield -> Lower Attack Opportunities, Better AC, Lower Damage

2-Handed Weapon -> Lower Attack Opportunities, Lower AC, High Damage

Two Weapons -> Higher Attack Opportunities, Lower AC, Lower Damage

So each style is better at one thing (Defense, Damage Output, Number of Attacks). Choose you flavah.


----------



## TheEvil (May 26, 2005)

Frankly, I consider the sword & board style to be the weakest of the styles, esp. at higher levels.  The defensive boost of the shield just doesn't keep up with attack bonuses, making the style far weaker then it is in 'reality'.


----------



## sfedi (May 26, 2005)

Yep. Shield usefulness doesn't scale.

A +2 to AC at low levels is nice.

But at higher levels is negligible.

And you shouldn't have to spend more than one feat to be competitive with a shield at higher levels (in order to keep it on par with the one feat expenditure of the damage dealers (i.e. Power Attack))

A maneuver I always thought of as nice would be to allow take standard action to gain a +4 cover bonus from your large shield.
Thus, you could move without provoking AoOs.

But I disgress (and that;s something not well thought, just from the top of my head)


----------



## Goolpsy (May 26, 2005)

just use a 2-handed Greatsword... and a Dancing shield... its a free action to let the shield lose, and you'll have both hands to do whatever you like to...


----------



## Angcuru (May 26, 2005)

The downside to 2-wpn fighting is that it has a very long learning curve.  IMO, it only fully pays off when you are a specialist with a single 1-hand weapon i.e. Have weapon focus, weapon specialization, improved critical, etc.  I also ignore the whole light weapon in the off-hand thing, as it just irks me.  If you can wield a weapon in 1 hand you can wield it in the other.

I tend to follow this feat path with my 2-weapon fighters.
Lvl 1 - 2-Weapon Fighting (assuming 3.5 i.e. no ludicrus ambidexterity feat), Weapon Focus
Lvl 2 - Power attack
Lvl 3 - Cleave
Lvl 4 - Weapon Specialization
Lvl 6 - Great Cleave, Improved Initiative
Lvl 8 - Improved Critical
Lvl 9 - Improved 2-weapon Fighting
(intermediary feats)
Next - Greater 2-weapon fighting
(intermediary feats)
Next  - Perfect 2-weapon fighting


In the end, you have double the attacks of a non 2-wpn character.  And once you get to the point where you have completed the feat chain, the damage differential between a 1-hand and 2-hand weapon (given enchanted items etc.) is minimal at best.  Also, with human characters I would take EWP - Katana or Bastard sword as the racial bonus feat to further reduce the damage differential.

Also, with Great Cleave and the potential for 8 normal attacks per round, a character with this feat chain can have a frightening number of attacks.


----------



## werk (May 26, 2005)

Zadam said:
			
		

> The reason why two handed punches are very rarely used is that most of your strength in an unarmed attack comes not from the arm but the rotation of hips, shoulder etc.  By attacking with both arms at the same time you cant move your body in such a way as to get any decent damage from your blow, so you end up with 2 weak strikes instead of one strong one.  Does have its uses I guess but moreso to stun an attacker rather than doing any significant damage.




I agree with all the martial arts observations, but I think of two-weapon fighting as combos.  All martial arts rely heavily on combos, be they right left or punch kick.


----------



## KarinsDad (May 26, 2005)

TheEvil said:
			
		

> Frankly, I consider the sword & board style to be the weakest of the styles, esp. at higher levels.  The defensive boost of the shield just doesn't keep up with attack bonuses, making the style far weaker then it is in 'reality'.




I've always thought the opposite until 3.5 came out.

Then, Power Attack for 2 handed weapons got abusive.

Now, I consider it fairly even.


As for defensive boost of the shield, I disagree.


There are more defensive melee items than offensive melee items in the game.

So, a 20th level Fighter with a 28 Str (with items) and a +5 weapon and +1 weapon focus is +35 to hit.

The defense against this can be Full Plate and Shield (AC 20), +5 Ring of Protection, +5 shield, +5 armor, +5 Combat Expertise, +3 Dex (Mithral Armor and Dex item), +1 Dodge bonus = AC 44

So, a 60% chance to hit on the first attack, a 35% on the second, a 10% on the third and a 5% on the last.

Or, an average of one hit per round, maybe a little higher due to a Keen weapon or something.


The Two Handed Weapon Fighter can only get this high of an AC if he uses an Animated Shield which at high level is very possible. However, it is also very obvious how he is defending himself and intelligent opponents should attempt to take such a shield out (e.g. Sunder, Dispel Magic, etc.).


If he does not have an animated shield (which I consider a broke item anyway since it totally skews game balance), then his best AC (more or less) is 37 (if he too does Combat Expertise at full level). He will get hit 85% chance to hit on the first attack, a 60% on the second, a 35% on the third and a 10% on the last, or closer to two times per round.


----------



## Infiniti2000 (May 26, 2005)

Another often overlooked feature of sword & board is similar to the "more options" feature of two weapons.  It's a lot easier to enhance two items (armor and shield) with different abilities than to enhance one (armor).  For instance, you can put fortification on the shield, invulnerability on the armor, etc., whereas such varying abilities would be much more expensive on only one suit of armor.


----------



## Stalker0 (May 26, 2005)

As for the sword/board style, keep in mind its much cheaper to enhance your armor and shield than to get a really big enhancement bonus on your armor.

+5 armor = 25,000 gp
I can get a +3 shield and a +3 armor for 18,000 gp, and still have 7k left over.


----------



## Klaus (May 26, 2005)

Yes. Those bashing (heh) the shield-and-weapon style are basing that only on the +2 a heavy shield grants. But once you factor magic bonuses, the AC hits the stratosphere.

Plus you can burn two feats into Two-Weapon Fighting and Improved Shield Bash (or is it Shield Expert?) and still have the choice of going full-sword (maximizing attack) or dual wielding your weapon and your shield's spikes.

And here's a neat thing: a shield bash is a bludgeoning weapon, so it can be enchanted to be "disrupting". BAM! Undead goes poof! BAM! Undead goes poof!


----------



## Numenorean (May 26, 2005)

Interesting topic.

For starters, my ranger is 11th level. He fights with a +2 longsword, and a +3 shortsword. His STR is 18. His attacks using TWF are LS +16/+11/+6, and the same for the shortsword SS +16/+11/+6. His damage with the LS is 1d8+6, and 1d6+5 with the SS. Add in improved critical for the LS and he does a lot of damage. My point, I'm happy with a TWF character atm.

When it comes to the various fighting styles you have to realize that each is different and will have certain situational pros and cons. However in the spirit of maintaining game quality, each style should be loosely balanced throughout the length of the game. I stress "loosely".

I'm pretty happy with the styles in 3.5e, but I feel the two handed weapon style is not always the best balanced. Something us old schooler AD&D players might call "monty haul". 

You could do the following to correct the styles(?):

1. Remove the -2/-2 penalty for fighting TWF (given you have the feat) with light/light or 1h/light.

2. Remove the double power attack bonus for two handed weapons. You already get an improved strengtht bonus, you generally get higher damage dice, etc.

3. Increase the shield bonus across the board (pun.. lol). Some of you say how a +2 doesn't mean much when you get higher level, and that I agree with. But don't slouch at a +4, +5, or +7 bonus when you start getting nice magical shields. Maybe shields need to grant a +2 or +3 AC bonus? Or if you take a shield feat you get some sort of combat expertise option when using your shield? This would take some play testing to figure out. My ranger also has improved shield bash as a feat. He carries a +2 light steel magical shield. In some situations I sling the shield, get a +3 AC boost, and I off-hand bash with it. In our campaign you get the + magical enhancement to your ATK and damage with a shield, but still the shield and weapon style isn't that bad.


A fundamental problem in 3e is the imbalance between offense and defense especially as you get to mid and high levels (6th+); in terms of ATK, DMG, and their relation to AC. This problem is the root cause of the weapon style problems we're discussing on here IMO. As you get to the mid and high levels Armor Class becomes basically irrelevant, and thats the problem. No previous edition of D&D had the level of imbalance between melee offense and defense as 3e does. I believe if this problem was remedied, if AC stayed more relevant, then it would bring balance to the different weapon styles.


----------



## KarinsDad (May 26, 2005)

Numenorean said:
			
		

> One of the basic problems of 3e is the imbalance between offense and defense especially as you get to mid and high levels (6th+); in terms of ATK, DMG, and AC. This problem is the root cause of the weapon style problems we're discussing on here IMO. As you get to the mid and high levels Armor Class becomes basically irrelevant, and thats the problem.




Actually, I've thought about this a lot and I've come to the conclusion that this is not a problem at all.

In fact, it is fairly well balanced.

At low level, one or two successful attacks by a Fighter will result in an unconscious character be he a Wizard or a Barbarian. So, this would take one to five rounds on average (depending on AC, luck of the dice, etc.).

At high level, it takes more successful attacks because hit points increase linearly whereas weapon damage does not.

Hence, in order for a Fighter to take out a single opponent in one to five rounds, you need to do damage more often. There are basically three ways for this to occur:

1) Hit for more damage per attack (e.g. increased magic of weapon, increased Strength, feats like Weapon Specialization, Power Attack, etc.).

2) Hit for more attacks per round. The Full Round Attack option is used for this.

3) Have a higher percentage chance to hit due to "to hit" increasing faster than AC.

If you look at all of these, it becomes clear that a high level Fighter still takes out a single opponent (baring magic that prevents it) in one to five rounds at high level, just like at low level.

Without these three ways in which to increase damage per round, combats would stretch on for a long time at high level, just because all of the opponents have so many hit points.


But, being able to hit easily at high level is not the problem. The root cause of the two weapon style imbalance is the fact that they get penalized in so many ways:

1) Without addition feats, they only get one additional attack per round and then, only on full round attacks, not single attacks or Attacks of Opportunity.

2) The base damage for their weapons is about half that of two handed weapons.

3) Their secondary weapon does not get full Strength damage.

4) Both weapons are at minuses to hit.

5) You need to buy twice as many magical weapons (of the same bonus) as the two handed weapon fighter in order to even maintain damage level.


The only two ways to beef up two weapon fighting in the game is to add bonus damage to the attacks via other methods such as Clerical spells or Bardic Inspirations or some other spell or ability that adds damage per successful attack, or to take additional two weapon fighting feats. Even then, the TWF average damage is still lower than the THW average damage as has been illustrated a lot of times on many other threads. But, at least doing this, TWF is competitive. Still slightly inferior, but at least competitive.


----------



## IndyPendant (May 26, 2005)

I sort of make it an unwritten rule never to post in a thread that already has more than around 20 responses.  Most people don't bother reading through it to get my response.  However, this time I have something to say...: )

I think it's hard to argue that you get what you pay for when you take the TWF feats.  However, should you, no matter your build?  I say no.  TWF should be something you design a char around, not an option you select that is one of three equal options (sword and board, two-hander, TWF.)  If it is not set up that way, TWF loses its uniqueness.  You can sort of think of it as if Paladins did not have their Code.  Suddenly Paladins would be an incredibily common class.

On the other hand, TWF fighters really are hosed, unless they're rogues.  Imagine a PC single-class cleric that refuses to heal or buff, and only prepares and casts offensive spells.  How supportive would you be of that concept, regardless of roleplaying factors?  That is, in a way, what a fighter loses when going TWF (if not quite as extreme).  He takes a great many feats to fight--arguably--*worse* than he could without them?  Errr...no?  Thanks?

My idea is to slightly enhance the TWF feat chain, but differently from Stalker0's idea.  I think my concept enhances TWF enough to make it a fair option, yet not so much that TWF becomes just one of three standard choices.  I may even make it canon for my campaigns.  What do you guys think?

Feats:
--TWF: As per SRD.
--Improved TWF: As per SRD, and the attack penalties for both weapons are reduced by 2.  (So standard TWF is done with no attack penalties.)
--Greater TWF: As per SRD, and all off-hand attacks are made with full Str damage bonus.

CW has a feat already that reduces the fighting penalties; I've just combined it with Improved TWF.  These three feats, plus Improved Buckler Defense if you really need the AC(also from CW--though I may have the name wrong; don't have the books with me atm) give the TWF fighter concept enough of a boost to be viable, but not so much as to be overpowered.

Note the prereqs for the feats too.  17 and 19 Dex is nothing to sneeze at!  This has the added benefit of putting the TWF Ranger back into the spotlight again, since they can bypass the high Dex prereqs.

What do you think?


----------



## Numenorean (May 26, 2005)

I like that! I always felt the -2/-2 was a problem.


----------



## sfedi (May 26, 2005)

Another way to improve TWF would be to introduce a Feat that allows to attack once with each weapon as a standard action.


----------



## Aristotle (May 26, 2005)

sfedi said:
			
		

> Another way to improve TWF would be to introduce a Feat that allows to attack once with each weapon as a standard action.



It's in Complete Adventurer.


----------



## radferth (May 26, 2005)

Two weapon fighting has the advantages of potentially allowing one to attack two foes, and it is often a very effective choice for low-strength melee combatants.  If you area beefy 18+str barbarian, and the rules are set up so that two weapon or two-handed weapon fighting are about equal, then something is seriously wrong.  If you use two weapons and a buckler, you are hampered quite a bit if you are moving and fighting, but the advatage you gain is having more tacticle options.  If you are facing lots of DR creatures, it is much easier to have a golf bag of short swords than a golf bag of greatswords.  Two handed weapon fighting ceratainly is better than two weapon fighting in straight up melee, but there are many other situations to consider that straight up mathmatical analysis cannot address.


----------



## two (May 26, 2005)

radferth said:
			
		

> Two weapon fighting has the advantages of potentially allowing one to attack two foes, and it is often a very effective choice for low-strength melee combatants.  If you area beefy 18+str barbarian, and the rules are set up so that two weapon or two-handed weapon fighting are about equal, then something is seriously wrong.  If you use two weapons and a buckler, you are hampered quite a bit if you are moving and fighting, but the advatage you gain is having more tacticle options.  If you are facing lots of DR creatures, it is much easier to have a golf bag of short swords than a golf bag of greatswords.  Two handed weapon fighting ceratainly is better than two weapon fighting in straight up melee, but there are many other situations to consider that straight up mathmatical analysis cannot address.




Does this make sense to anyone?  I need a parser.


----------



## TheAuldGrump (May 26, 2005)

radferth said:
			
		

> Two weapon fighting has the advantages of potentially allowing one to attack two foes, and it is often a very effective choice for low-strength melee combatants.
> 
> If you area beefy 18+str barbarian, and the rules are set up so that two weapon or two-handed weapon fighting are about equal, then something is seriously wrong.
> 
> ...




Here Two, I have broken Radferth's post into smaller, more easily digested bites. (But no rewording Radferth, just breaking it up.)

Now my own comments: I keep hearing about the golf bag, but have never seen it in play, the number of weapons is unchanged from 3.0 in my game, but that may be simply due to doubling up on what the weapons can do - an iron morningstar and a holy silver shortsword for example.

I have only had one two weapon warrior type in my game (a ranger/swashbuckler), and the versatility has been a big factor in his favor, different types of enhancement on his two weapons, and different types of damage means that with his standard load out he can damage just about anything that I throw at him. His alternate load out includes an enchanted buckler. (The party wizard and cleric are both able to make magic arms and armor.) 

The other fighter alternates between sword and board and two handed fighting, being fond of his bastard sword.

In actual play both seem fairly equal, with the lightly armored ranger getting in sooner, and then bouncing out with spring attack to be healed. The heavy fighter tends to gut it out more, then gets healed when the cleric has the opportunity. The two weapon fighter harrasses along the flanks and the bastard sword weilder holds the line. It is generally the two weapon fighter giving the rogue his sneak attack by flanking, both using their mobility to advantage, while the bastard sword is a wall for the wizard and clerics.

The Auld Grump


----------



## DrSpunj (May 26, 2005)

IndyPendant said:
			
		

> My idea is to slightly enhance the TWF feat chain, but differently from Stalker0's idea. I think my concept enhances TWF enough to make it a fair option, yet not so much that TWF becomes just one of three standard choices. I may even make it canon for my campaigns. What do you guys think?
> 
> Feats:
> --TWF: As per SRD.
> ...




I think it's essentially what I've done IMC for over a year now and have been very pleased with. 

The only difference is how I divided up the feats. For me, TWF simply gives you an equal number of off-hand attacks as primary hand attacks, and that's just as true at 1st level (for 1 & 1) as it is at 20th level (for 4 & 4). Improved TWF is now exactly like Improved Rapid Shot and just removes the -2/-2 penalty, while Greater TWF gives full Str bonus to damage with all off-hand attacks.

I've had a few players focus on TWF and find it a lot of fun now, they don't feel cheated. Importantly, neither do the 2HF or the Sword & Shield types, because TWF this way hasn't been overpowering. I will say this version of TWF is often taken by many melee classes because it makes several different fighting styles viable, giving them more options to better take advantage of any situation (which is well appreciated by all, remember _"Options, not restrictions!"_ ).



			
				IndyPendant said:
			
		

> Note the prereqs for the feats too. 17 and 19 Dex is nothing to sneeze at!




Exactly. I've kept the same prereqs as well, which continues to help keep things balanced. For someone focusing on TWF the Dex requirement isn't that difficult, but for someone who just wants the option of dabbling in TWF, well, the Dex 17 is a bit tough. As a whole things are just better all the way around IMC this way.

OTOH, going through a full attack routine and figuring out damage for up to 8 attacks can slow things down a fair bit. IMC you have to roll damage dice with attack dice, and if you have multiple attacks I ask you to get different colored sets of dice to minimize the actual rolling as much as possible. Throwing four d20s with the appropriate damage dice speeds things up considerably once the player has a table to help them figure out their attack bonuses for their most commonly rolled attacks. 

Thanks,

DrSpunj


----------



## KarinsDad (May 26, 2005)

radferth said:
			
		

> If you area beefy 18+str barbarian, and the rules are set up so that two weapon or two-handed weapon fighting are about equal, then something is seriously wrong.




I agree.

If you have two equal skill 18+str barbarians fighting each other, one fighting two weapon, one fighting with a two handed weapon, the two weapon fighter should win by a mile every time.

In real one on one melee combat, two weapon fighting is vastly superior to either a two handed weapon or a weapon and shield. In the SCA, many of the best fighters fight two weapon and they often win.

However, fighting with a shield has many advantages in formation combat. In large groups, weapon and shield is more advantageous than two weapon fighting.

Fighting with a two handed weapon (other than a polearm) has virtually no advantages. But in DND, it is often considered the best technique. Go figure.


----------



## IcyCool (May 26, 2005)

KarinsDad said:
			
		

> If you have two equal skill 18+str barbarians fighting each other, one fighting two weapon, one fighting with a two handed weapon, the two weapon fighter should win by a mile every time.




I disagree, as it is much more difficult to effectively wield two weapons.  This is reflected in D&D by the long feat chain.



			
				KarinsDad said:
			
		

> In real one on one melee combat, two weapon fighting is vastly superior to either a two handed weapon or a weapon and shield. In the SCA, many of the best fighters fight two weapon and they often win.




As I said before, it takes a great deal of skill to wield two weapons effectively.  I guarantee that if you hand a two handed weapon to one rookie, and two weapons to another, the two-hander will usually win.


----------



## Patryn of Elvenshae (May 26, 2005)

IcyCool said:
			
		

> I disagree, as it is much more difficult to effectively wield two weapons.  This is reflected in D&D by the long feat chain.
> 
> As I said before, it takes a great deal of skill to wield two weapons effectively.  I guarantee that if you hand a two handed weapon to one rookie, and two weapons to another, the two-hander will usually win.




Really?

Well, since I've been the rookie in that equation (boffer weapons), I'd bet on the two-weapons guy.

It's far, far too easy to just take your off- or main-hand weapon, bind the other guy's weapon out of line, and whack him with your free hand.


----------



## iwatt (May 26, 2005)

Goolpsy said:
			
		

> just use a 2-handed Greatsword... and a Dancing shield... its a free action to let the shield lose, and you'll have both hands to do whatever you like to...





This answer always comes up in these threads.  :\ 

If there is one magic item I don't and never will allow is the Animated Shield. It breaks the basic balance between the fighting styles, and just is a wierd look.  


I hate animated shields.


----------



## IcyCool (May 26, 2005)

Patryn of Elvenshae said:
			
		

> Really?
> 
> Well, since I've been the rookie in that equation (boffer weapons), I'd bet on the two-weapons guy.
> 
> It's far, far too easy to just take your off- or main-hand weapon, bind the other guy's weapon out of line, and whack him with your free hand.




I've also been the rookie in that situation (both sides), and all I can say to you is, if you managed to not get hosed by the two-hander, congrats.

All I can say is that in my experience, the two-hander generally prevails until the two-weapon gains enough skill.

And according to Patryn's experience, the reverse is true.  So there you are


----------



## sfedi (May 26, 2005)

> I've also been the rookie in that situation (both sides), and all I can say to you is, if you managed to not get hosed by the two-hander, congrats.
> 
> All I can say is that in my experience, the two-hander generally prevails until the two-weapon gains enough skill.



I don't know about eral life, but historically, people fought with two handed weapons or shields.

Even then, in Fantasy, two weapons was for some, not everyone.

So there you go, ficiton and non-fiction "support" that TWF should be inferior (or at least, less popular) than classical two handed or sword & shield


----------



## KarinsDad (May 27, 2005)

sfedi said:
			
		

> I don't know about eral life, but historically, people fought with two handed weapons or shields.
> 
> Even then, in Fantasy, two weapons was for some, not everyone.
> 
> So there you go, ficiton and non-fiction "support" that TWF should be inferior (or at least, less popular) than classical two handed or sword & shield




Quote a non-fiction source.

My reading has indicated that most historical fighting was done with:

1) missile weapons (slings, darts, and arrows, crossbow bolts in later centuries)
2) polearms (easy to teach to peasants)
3) single handed weapons with no shields
4) single handed weapons with shields, typically used in formations since Roman times
5) two weapons with a smaller secondary weapon for parrying / in close thrusting

Two handed weapons are rarely found in the historical literature. Yes, they have found some very large swords, but many of those were ceremonial.

The problem with a two handed sword on the battlefield is that not even your allies can get close to you or they could get accidentally hit. A two handed sword is not very functional in battle. It tires you out quicker, it is clumsy, it is harder to use, it is difficult to parry with, it is slower to react with. Compare it to tennis. When a tennis player is at the service line, they can use a two handed backhand. They have time to set it up. When they are at the net and have to react faster, they almost never use a two handed backhand. There's a reason rooted in the Laws of Physics for that.

There were also more two handed axes used than two handed swords and even two handed axes were relatively rare. Two handed axes are easier and more versatile to use than two handed swords because of the length of the handle. You can choke up during close in fighting.


With regard to DND, a two handed weapon should have a penalty on Attacks of Opportunity. It is time consuming to get such a weapon positioned properly to attack people in all directions.


----------



## KarinsDad (May 27, 2005)

IcyCool said:
			
		

> I've also been the rookie in that situation (both sides), and all I can say to you is, if you managed to not get hosed by the two-hander, congrats.
> 
> All I can say is that in my experience, the two-hander generally prevails until the two-weapon gains enough skill.
> 
> And according to Patryn's experience, the reverse is true.  So there you are




Yes, my experiences were similar to Patryn's in one on one situations.

The easiest combination to use is a single weapon.

The second easiest is two weapon.

Two handed weapon and weapon and shield appear tied for lack of ease of use in one on one situations.

Weapon and shield is not too hard to use, but it's easy to lose with weapon and shield until you get skilled with them. The problem with it is that the shield can block your vision, especially if you bring it up to block a head shot. But, it can even block your vision if you use it in a closed formation position from low shots. It's pretty easy to fake out someone with a shield.

Weapon and shield use is vastly superior in closed rank formations.


----------



## Diirk (May 27, 2005)

KarinsDad said:
			
		

> Two handed weapons are rarely found in the historical literature. Yes, they have found some very large swords, but many of those were ceremonial.
> 
> The problem with a two handed sword on the battlefield is that not even your allies can get close to you or they could get accidentally hit. A two handed sword is not very functional in battle. It tires you out quicker, it is clumsy, it is harder to use, it is difficult to parry with, it is slower to react with. Compare it to tennis. When a tennis player is at the service line, they can use a two handed backhand. They have time to set it up. When they are at the net and have to react faster, they almost never use a two handed backhand. There's a reason rooted in the Laws of Physics for that.




I have no idea on the accuracy, but http://mu.ranter.net/theory/weapons.html is an interesting read. From there:

"The nigh-universal image of the fantasy warrior with a greatsword is of a brawny hulk swinging a gigantic piece of metal around his head, cleaving hapless foes in two.  The UO animation for halberds is of someone holding the head over his shoulder and swinging it into the target.  As a result, these weapons have traditionally been assigned very high damage ratings because of the momentum that must have been imparted by such herculean swings, and very low speed ratings because of the effort it must have taken to lob around a giant piece of metal.

Long weapons like the greatsword and polearms were used because they offered the same advantage as a spear:  that of reach.  The greatsword in particular often lacked cutting edges altogether, and was used as a stabbing weapon.  The proper techniques associated with the use of polearms typically involved extension toward the enemy and some sort of use of the head, with relatively little movement.  The halberd, arguably the most successful of the ornate polearms, had no less than 3 distinct functions, including stabbing like a spear, hamstringing enemies like a scythe, and dismounting knights like a bill hook.  Among its purposes was not to be swung like a giant battleaxe."

I can't remember where atm, but I did find a website that talked about the very large two handed swords either... swords that were as big as the wielder, like you see in computer games... they look ridiculous, but they really existed ! Mostly as execution blades to be sure, but one was used as a mounted weapon in some asian country I think... I forget the name of it.


----------



## sfedi (May 27, 2005)

KarinsDad said:
			
		

> Quote a non-fiction source.



I was thinking mostly on oriental sword-fight.
In which they had a two handed sword, and very quick strokes.

Although as you point, the second weapon was more of a shield/parrying instrument rather than "another weapon to do damage".


----------



## Numenorean (May 27, 2005)

sfedi said:
			
		

> I don't know about eral life, but historically, people fought with two handed weapons or shields.
> 
> Even then, in Fantasy, two weapons was for some, not everyone.
> 
> So there you go, ficiton and non-fiction "support" that TWF should be inferior (or at least, less popular) than classical two handed or sword & shield




I don't think your logic is taking the difficulty factor in to play.

For example in the Hundred Years War and later some knights would dual wield a sword/mace combo, sword/horseman's flail combo, or a sword/han axe combo.

Two handed weapons were used in limited circumstances: Saxon Huscairls wielding long two handed axes over the shield wall, german landsknecht mercenaries using two handed flamberges against horseman, etc.

Of course the Samurai used two handed swords, the katana .. but actually the Katana was a very light hand-and a half weapon. When analyzing D&D weapons I don't think its best to use eastern weapons as a standard ... because the vast bulk of weapons and armor in D&D (core) come from europe, middle east, and western asia. Thats why weapons like the Katana are sort of a fluke in the D&D system.

Do you know what 10 european knights from the 12th century would do to 10 samurai from the 12th century? .. or even 10 of Saladin's Saracens would do to them?

The Samurai are cool, but outside of their armor/weapon environment they would get destroyed.

I'm drifting off topic, my bad.


----------



## Storyteller01 (May 27, 2005)

KarinsDad said:
			
		

> There were also more two handed axes used than two handed swords and even two handed axes were relatively rare. Two handed axes are easier and more versatile to use than two handed swords because of the length of the handle. You can choke up during close in fighting.





katyana's tend to be the exception, but few could afford them.

Axes in Europe also gave the option of double-weapon use due to the handle length. This was especially evident in close quarters combat. The blade would be raked across a target (in a slicing rather tan chopping motion), and the handle end (it may even have been capped with some metal) could be used to club or stun a target.


----------



## Nightfall (May 27, 2005)

Personally if I want to make the bad ass two weapon fighter, I'd go as follows:

Fighter 5/Dervish 10/Tempest 5.

Now you see what two weapon fighting can REALLY do. (Especially with SCIMITARS!  )


----------



## Numenorean (May 27, 2005)

I'm curious where can you find the Dervish prc? Actually whats a good place to find some middle eastern-influenced PrCs?

I could see putting them in a FR or Greyhawk campaign.


----------



## Klaus (May 27, 2005)

Dervish is from Complete Warrior.

If you want a horse-riding desert warrior, the Wild Plains Outrider is good too (Complete Adventurer).


----------



## TheEvil (May 27, 2005)

IndyPendant said:
			
		

> My idea is to slightly enhance the TWF feat chain, but differently from Stalker0's idea.  I think my concept enhances TWF enough to make it a fair option, yet not so much that TWF becomes just one of three standard choices.  I may even make it canon for my campaigns.  What do you guys think?
> 
> Feats:
> --TWF: As per SRD.
> ...




Not bad, scales up rather then starting powerful.  I could definately live with such a mod in a game I played.


----------



## TheEvil (May 27, 2005)

*Regarding SCA and boffer fighter vs. real life*

Examples made using the SCA and boffer fighting forget two very important point:  

                                         Strength doesn't matter.

                                         Game rules trump reality.

This is an overly broad statement that isn't entirely true, and varies across game styles, but is still largely true.  My experience with such things comes from the SCA (as observer and friend) and Amtgard (as a participant).  

The SCA makes extensive use of armor, but only for safety reasons, they ARE hitting each other with ratan clubs.  But once you actually hit the armor, the angle of the hit and to a degree the strength of the hit don't really matter that much.  A hit is a hit, even if it would have been with the flat of the 'blade' and wouldn't have gotten through the armor even if it wasn't.  I can think of two things that really change how combat works.  You cannot strike an opponent below the knees (for very good safety reasons).  This makes a shield much more effective then usual and also means you can't trip an opponent with a pole arm.   You also can't make contact with your opponent.  No grabbing a pole arm shaft, no kicking, no grappling a smaller foe in close combat.  There are also some comments on hit location effect, but I am less familiar with those in the SCA.

In Amtgard (boffer fighting) makes almost no use of armor.  Armor gives you extra hits before you suffer 'damage'.  Damage is a matter of hit location:  Hit in the arm, put it behind your back.  Hit in the leg, on your knees.  Hit in the body, you are dead.  The head isn't a valid target. Like the SCA, no physical contact.  
More generally speaking, the rules in this game are so heavily stacked against anything that isn't light fighting that I became an archer partly out of disgust.  For example: 
  The rules make most weapons lightsabers.  Any hit, from any angle, almost no matter how light, counts as a hit.  
  As long as your weapon is between their weapon and your body, it is a block.  Doesn't matter if your opponent's greatsword drives your shortsword into your shoulder.
  Using sufficient strength to batter through your opponents defenses may get you kicked off the field for 'unnecessary roughness'.  This has a lot to do with the light weight construction of most weapons and shields.

All of this is just a long-winded way of saying that the rules for safety generally prevent a realistic simulation of relative style advantages/disadvantages in most live action fighting games.


----------



## Patryn of Elvenshae (May 27, 2005)

TheEvil said:
			
		

> Examples made using the SCA and boffer fighting forget two very important point:
> 
> All of this is just a long-winded way of saying that the rules for safety generally prevent a realistic simulation of relative style advantages/disadvantages in most live action fighting games.




You're making a pretty bad assumption, here, that the boffer fighting I was involved with was associated with some form of official - and therefore, regulated - body.

It wasn't.  

It was a bunch of guys (and quite a few girls) who built their own boffer weapons and went at things from first principles - including taping the boffers to determine a sword's edge, rather than the flat.  Strikes with the flat didn't count.  "Light" strikes - ones which didn't seem strong enough - didn't count.

The TWFs, at first, nearly always won because the THF, given his lesser flexibility, depends more on his footwork.

Proper footwork is the hardest thing to learn.


----------



## sfedi (May 27, 2005)

Why images of Fightclub are popping on my head?


----------



## FreeTheSlaves (May 27, 2005)

Frankly I am still traumatized after the long reign of Unearthed Arcana, 2nd edition, & Skills & Powers to ever give 2 weapon fighting an inch. For all my early years of D&D the two weapon fighting ruled supreme as the only optimal combat style "choice".

I initially thought I was real clever & original to make one of my characters a twf twink but no, I was just another clod.

Even today, there are still game designers trying to invalidate fighting style choice (animated shield I hate you with a passion) for what objectives I do not know.  

****

On a more relevant note, the problem with beefing up TWF is that it is a fighting style that benefits bonus damage dice/modifiers (rogue & FE ranger). Beefing it for the more traditional warrior types will in effect make it too good for these classes and therefore limit choice.

Something else to bear in mind is that TWF can simulate cleave/whirlwind attack in that it can damage many foes in a more controlled fashion. Sure this lacks raw power but within a party environment, such a fighter can 'set up' the situation for the cleaving types.


----------



## TheEvil (May 27, 2005)

Patryn of Elvenshae said:
			
		

> You're making a pretty bad assumption, here, that the boffer fighting I was involved with was associated with some form of official - and therefore, regulated - body.
> 
> It wasn't.
> 
> ...




Sadly enough, when I started with Amtgard, it more resembled that of which you speak.  However, once we actually started fighting with other groups, it very quickly went to feather weight weapons swinging as fast as you can.   

Re: Proper foot work - Yup, that was the single most important thing I brought with me from fencing in college.  I think I can say without exaggeration that it enabled me to rise to the top of the heap from among 30 some participants.

In any case, I wasn't targetting you with my comments, so much as I was that NO artifical fighting really tells you how well actual styles work.  Your's included.  Did you use armor?  If so, how did it effect being hit, other then to make the wearer slower?  Near as I understand (big "not and expert" sign flashing), heavy armor made you damn hard to hurt with lighter weapons.  When you are fighting unarmored opponents, light weapons make sense.  Why use a greatsword when a rapier will do the job just as nicely against an unprotected body?  My only real historical knowledge of TWF involved rapiers and parrying daggers of one sort or another.  These were not made to hurt heavily armored people.


----------



## Patryn of Elvenshae (May 27, 2005)

TheEvil said:
			
		

> Sadly enough, when I started with Amtgard, it more resembled that of which you speak.  However, once we actually started fighting with other groups, it very quickly went to feather weight weapons swinging as fast as you can.




Certainly was fun, though, wasn't it? 



> Re: Proper foot work - Yup, that was the single most important thing I brought with me from fencing in college.  I think I can say without exaggeration that it enabled me to rise to the top of the heap from among 30 some participants.




I actually started taking fencing classes *after* the boffer thing started.  It certainly makes you quicker on your feet!



> In any case, I wasn't targetting you with my comments, so much as I was that NO artifical fighting really tells you how well actual styles work.  Your's included.  Did you use armor?




Oh, absolutely.  And no, no armor was worn or really assumed - other than, "I don't think you hit me hard enough - try again!"

As far as heavy weapons being used only against armor ...

http://www.thearma.org/essays/StancesIntro.htm 

I, also, am not an expert.  But *they* are!


----------



## TheEvil (May 27, 2005)

Patryn of Elvenshae said:
			
		

> Certainly was fun, though, wasn't it?




It was an absolute blast.  Great exercise too!





			
				Patryn of Elvenshae said:
			
		

> I actually started taking fencing classes *after* the boffer thing started.  It certainly makes you quicker on your feet!




Really makes you realize how static untrained fighters are, eh?




			
				Patryn of Elvenshae said:
			
		

> Oh, absolutely.  And no, no armor was worn or really assumed - other than, "I don't think you hit me hard enough - try again!"




Ah, the days of rhino hiding...  I remember one story I heard from the SCA where a guy who was known for not taking hits was struck so hard in the helmet that it was dented and he was nearly knocked off his feat.  First words out of his mouth were 'Light!'   
You would have thought that hitting someone with a club would discourage them from encouraging you to hit harder... 



			
				Patryn of Elvenshae said:
			
		

> As far as heavy weapons being used only against armor ...
> 
> http://www.thearma.org/essays/StancesIntro.htm
> 
> I, also, am not an expert.  But *they* are!




True.  I also didn't say that they DIDN'T use heavy weapons against lightly armored people, I said they didn't NEED to.  Actually, that kind of helps defeat the chronic misconception that greatswords were clumsy and slow.  No AoO indeed!


----------



## Storyteller01 (May 28, 2005)

Zadam said:
			
		

> The reason why two handed punches are very rarely used is that most of your strength in an unarmed attack comes not from the arm but the rotation of hips, shoulder etc.  By attacking with both arms at the same time you cant move your body in such a way as to get any decent damage from your blow, so you end up with 2 weak strikes instead of one strong one.  Does have its uses I guess but moreso to stun an attacker rather than doing any significant damage.




Highjacking again...

Power is from the hips and body movement. You don't need rotation, just a proper weight  shift. This is the main reason that an overhead cut with a sword is so effective. It's not so much strength as gravity and a well timed forward weight shift.

It's also the main reason why a well timed thai chi or kung fu double palm strike can send an opponent flying. 

This weight shift also allows a defnder to use an attackers push against them. you shift your weight forward just as said pusher begins to make contact. If timed right, said attacker goes flying. Lock the attacker in, and you could get broken or dislocated elblows.   

Highjack over...


----------



## Storyteller01 (May 28, 2005)

There was on option in an OGL book (Quintessential Psychic Warrior, I think) that allowed you to 'extend' your reach with a double weapon. 

Your basically holding the weapon as close to an edge as possible, and swinging with the free end. It accrued a -4 to hit (improvised weapon use) but gives you a reach weapon for that round. I believe you didn't gain the damage bonus for using the weapon two handed though.


----------



## Timeron Malachi (May 28, 2005)

From sparring with bokken (wooden swords) and staffs, and also doing full-speed with boffer swords, I've found that there isn't really any overiding style that trumps all.

When two people square up with longswords or bastard swords, it just comes down to reaction and parrying ability. The way the fighting was done between Tom Cruise and some of his sparring partners in The Last Samurai is sort of what I mean. Once I started using upswinging parries into downswinging counters, I found myself winning 50% more often.

If two people are using two weapons each, personal reach and coordinatedness come into play: be it two daggers, two shortswords, or two longswords. If you just jump in dervish-style, you might win for luck, but the best thing to do is parry with one sword, and counter with the other. Somewhat like fencers with rapier-and-dagger.

The best things to fight with are spears and pole-arms, though...with a spear, you might think that your speed is going to be much less, but you can really crank that thing around. Either swinging it like a staff or making quick stabbing motions.

There was a very fun instance that I was sparring with some boppers, and I was using two ball-and-chains. One was approximately ten feet long, the other about five. I just swung the long-ball around and made testing swings and stuff, but stayed defensive. My friend finally jumped forward, got my flail wrapped around his sword, and came in to bull rush me down, and I just cranked the other one right up...those were the least safe bopper weapons I think we ever used, and then we decided they weren't really fair.


----------



## Gort (May 28, 2005)

KarinsDad said:
			
		

> In the SCA, many of the best fighters fight two weapon and they often win.




Because that means something.


----------



## Coredump (May 28, 2005)

I catches my attention whenever the SCA is mentioned.  While there is a tremendous amount of useful experience to pull from, it is not 100% transferable. Historically, I have seen lots of mis-statements made, and some bad impressions given. So, I may have gotten overly sensitive.



			
				KarinsDad said:
			
		

> In real one on one melee combat, two weapon fighting is vastly superior to either a two handed weapon or a weapon and shield. In the SCA, many of the best fighters fight two weapon and they often win.




This is technically true, but a misleading statement. In the SCA, there a few very good TWF fighters, but the vast majority of top level fighters are sword and shield. From my experience , this holds true regardless of which kingdom or area of the country. There are a rare few that are very good and use Pole, and only a couple that use Greatsword. But that is largely due to the rules that we use, and is *not* directly transferable to the usefulness of the weapon.

But the upshot is that the number of top TWF is still dwarfed by the number of S&B fighters.


> Fighting with a two handed weapon (other than a polearm) has virtually no advantages. But in DND, it is often considered the best technique. Go figure.



Again, fighting with a greatsword in *SCA* has little advantages. But that is because of the rules used. You can't hit at the ankles, you can't 'power through' their shield, or sword, the opponents weapons and shields are 'invulnerable'....  All of these are SCA rules that make 2HF less effective that it could be. 
Plus, hitting someone in the leg with a shortsword, does the same as hitting them with a great weapon.... again, rules, not reality.

Change the rules, so that greatsword can hit below the knee, and that an unimpeded blow to the leg (even the calf) is considered an incapaciting blow (ie. a  kill) and you will see how 'advantagous' the 2 handed sword can be. (And, according to the Wisby dig, more historically accurate.)


----------



## Coredump (May 28, 2005)

Patryn of Elvenshae said:
			
		

> Really?
> 
> Well, since I've been the rookie in that equation (boffer weapons), I'd bet on the two-weapons guy.
> 
> It's far, far too easy to just take your off- or main-hand weapon, bind the other guy's weapon out of line, and whack him with your free hand.



I do not doubt your experience, but what caused that?

usually, in boffer fighting, the polearms are fairly light, the swords can fairly easily deflect them, you are not allowed to 'power through' someones defense, it is impossible to break thier weapon/shield, and you accept a fairly light shot as a kill. (maybe not 'touch' light, but still light).
All of these put the 2HF at a disadvantage. If I can swing a greatsword hard (but still under control), you will not be able to block it with one sword. You will still get hit.



> The TWFs, at first, nearly always won because the THF, given his lesser flexibility, depends more on his footwork.



But, I assert, that is because the rules took away his 'normal' flexibility. His options "hit harder" "break thier weapon/shield", etc are not allowed Try it again, but the sword can't be used to block the great weapon, see how that goes....


----------



## Coredump (May 28, 2005)

KarinsDad said:
			
		

> Quote a non-fiction source.
> 
> My reading has indicated that most historical fighting was done with:
> 
> ...



In melee/war, sure. But check out the tournaments. There it was very common for 2 handed swords, because it was one-on-one.  Also, in war, the emphasis was on defense, not offense. In DnD, we don't care about taking damage, because it doesn't hurt, and we can get easily healed.

1) in group/war fighting. DnD is more about 1-1 fighting.
2) *started* as a peasant weapon. But used extensively by highly trained military units.
3) Huh? Where? a single handed sword, no shield, would only be used as a last resort. (or during the 'rapier' years)
4) *and* in 1-1 fighting, and tournament, etc. *and* in war but not in formation. *very* common form.
5) Mostly only 'late period' in 1-1 dueling scenarios.



> Two handed weapons are rarely found in the historical literature. Yes, they have found some very large swords, but many of those were ceremonial.



 YOu need to do more research, they were used in tournament, and by some fighting units. 





> The problem with a two handed sword on the battlefield is that not even your allies can get close to you or they could get accidentally hit.



Are you assuming this? Or are you using SCA as a justification? I don't know how they use greatswords where you are from, but every kingdom/war I have been in, I could stand next to a greatsword fighter ally and not be worried. A greatsword is *not* used like an out of control baseball bat



> A two handed sword is not very functional in battle. It tires you out quicker, it is clumsy, it is harder to use, it is difficult to parry with, it is slower to react with.



 HUH!!??!!  Granted, due to the SCA rules, there is little reason to use the GS compared to a polearm. But your claims are still pretty far off the mark. They are no 'clumsier' etc than a polearm, and those are pretty useful. 







> Compare it to tennis.



 Lets think about that. Tennis: you are weilding a very light 'weapon', trying to intercept an even lighter object, and the amount of force you deliver is inconsequencial. Hmmm.. sounds like a *very* different situation.  How about chopping down a tree? Or chopping wood? Or using a bayonet? or anything where you are using a heavier object, and force matters. (Heck, even hitting a baseball, try it one handed sometime. Should be easier, afterall, you should be so much faster....) 



> Two handed axes are easier and more versatile to use than two handed swords because of the length of the handle. You can choke up during close in fighting.



 Yes, and the *same* was done with greatswords. It was called 'half-swording' and allowed you to get very powerful attacks when in close.




> With regard to DND, a two handed weapon should have a penalty on Attacks of Opportunity. It is time consuming to get such a weapon positioned properly to attack people in all directions.



I am sorry, but that is ridiculous. Try hitting someone with a baseball bat one handed, not try it two handed. Which is 'faster'?


----------



## Coredump (May 28, 2005)

TheEvil said:
			
		

> Examples made using the SCA and boffer fighting forget two very important point:
> 
> Strength doesn't matter.
> 
> Game rules trump reality.




This, I feel, is the main point TheEvil is making. And I totally agree. Nothing I say below takes anything away from this. But there are a few corrections needed.




> The SCA... But once you actually hit the armor, the angle of the hit and to a degree the strength of the hit don't really matter that much.



 truish. If the angle is poor, it will be considered a 'glance' and not counted. Or it may just not feel 'right', and not counted.







> A hit is a hit, even if it would have been with the flat of the 'blade'



A hit with the 'flat' is *not* considered good, but it is sometimes hard to know when that happens. 







> and wouldn't have gotten through the armor even if it wasn't.



 Sorta... the SCA assumes all have mail, and there is a power level that is considered 'good enough' to get through the presumed armor. Wearing cloth or plate does not change how you need to get hit, and I have no real idea if the 'good' level would actuall get through mail or not.







> You also can't make contact with your opponent.  No grabbing a pole arm shaft, no kicking, no grappling a smaller foe in close combat.



 Mostly true. You can grab the non-blade of a weapon (shaft, pommel, etc.) and you can use your shield/weapon to move their shield/weapon, or to push them through their shield/weapon, but you can't grab their arm (for example)







> There are also some comments on hit location effect, but I am less familiar with those in the SCA.



 hitting an arm/leg disables that limb, body/head is a kill. (if it is of 'sufficient force.')




> All of this is just a long-winded way of saying that the rules for safety generally prevent a realistic simulation of relative style advantages/disadvantages in most live action fighting games.



Agreed


----------



## Storyteller01 (May 29, 2005)

Timeron Malachi said:
			
		

> From sparring with bokken (wooden swords) and staffs, and also doing full-speed with boffer swords, I've found that there isn't really any overiding style that trumps all.




My instructor used to say "master timing, distance, and technique; once you do you'll always win".

How you master those traits is up to you.


----------



## Storyteller01 (May 29, 2005)

There is something I feel we're missing here: Multiple opponents. 


MAss combat relies on killing an opponents quickly. That mean's two handed weapons are the way to go. Few people have the skill or talent to use TWF in this situation (most warriors just don't live that long).  Even katana's, arguably the lights and most effective two handed weapon (because of it's damage and speed IRL) were usually used two handed, as evidenced (is that a word?) by a battleground dig. 80% of the kills were through the clavical. One, this is a stadard target for a two handed overhead strike. Second, striking this target is difficult with one hand, and not nearly as powerful. SUch fighters usually went for the legs and abdominal areas (massive bleeding points).

Those historical figures who made two weapons use famous were always duelists. They never battled more than a few at a time (one story has a samurai using a single sword against 30 opponents).

So, IMHO, having TWF styles break down in typical D&D combat (lots of bad guys) is realistic. Most schools, if they teach twf at all, teach it after the learn the basics. It's an advanced idea that rerquires a hellasious amount of accuracy (or that high BaB  ).


----------



## KarinsDad (May 30, 2005)

Coredump said:
			
		

> 3) Huh? Where? a single handed sword, no shield, would only be used as a last resort. (or during the 'rapier' years)




I suggest you do more research.

Many armies were augmented by irregulars (i.e. peasants).

And, most peasants that were given a weapon were given either a polearm, or a simple single weapon like a club or dagger. They were rarely given shields or armor. The main reason for that is that armies did not have time to train peasants in combat fighting and typically did not have the money to adequately supply them. And peasants, at least in most European countries, were not allowed to own weapons, armor or shields (hence the reason work tools started becoming used as weapons). They were supplied with weapons as needed and then those weapons were collected afterwards.



			
				Coredump said:
			
		

> YOu need to do more research, they were used in tournament, and by some fighting units.




Yes they were. But they were very rarely used in normal combat in Europe until the 16th century. And even then, they had a few specialized roles and were not used by most troops.

http://www.selfdefenseforums.com/forums/archive/index.php/t-6576.html



> His style of fencing was based chiefly on the thrust, recommending that the point is directed to the enemy all the time; almost completely banning the hazardous edge blows, except when fighting multiple opponents.
> 
> On the contrary, Alfieri realises the uselessness of two-handed swords for civilian duels. In his lessons he summarises the basic rules of handling the two-handed sword, starting from the simplest drills and neglecting almost completely specific aspects of single combat.
> The academic exercise of Spadone is actually Alfieri?s greatest concern in his precise and methodical didactic: indeed two-handed sword fencing was regarded as old-fashioned in the middle of the 17th century, where the sword and dagger, or single rapier, were the leading weapons for duels.
> ...




The two handed sword had specific duties, but it was not used as a general purpose combat weapon. For one thing, it was expensive to manufacture.



> All of these put the 2HF at a disadvantage. If I can swing a greatsword hard (but still under control), you will not be able to block it with one sword. You will still get hit.




Except that greatswords were historically used as thrusting weapons.

It is obvious that you do not know that much about how this weapon was actually used if you think that you swing a greatsword. You have to read what weapon masters from the 15th through 17th century wrote down concerning melee weapons.

The problem with swinging a greatsword is that if a trained opponent gets within your guard and blocks the swing near your hands with either a second weapon or a shield, he will kill you with his weapon. Hence the reason that you thrust with a greatsword. You keep the point of such a weapon facing your foe (and hence the reason greatswords and any two handed weapons like polearms should have a penalty on Attacks of Opportunity). Course, the problem with this is that you can only point it at one foe at a time, hence, the reason it the greatsword not very good as a combat weapon in real life (unlike in DND).

Granted, you can swing such a weapon, but swinging it is a tactic of last resort when fighting multiple opponents (similar to Spanish Quarterstaff fighting where you attempt to keep your opponents at bay). But if you are using it that way, then (like I said in an earlier post) it is hazardous to you allies as well as your enemies.

http://www.historicalweapons.com/swordsanddaggersterm.html



> Two-handed sword - a specialized type of great sword that became popular in the 16th century. The size and weight of the weapon, made it unsuited for close formation fighting, and its use was reserved for banner defense, guarding breeches in siege warfare, and forming skirmish lines. The grip was very long in proportion to the blade, and the overall sword could be 5 1/2’ - 6’ long.
> 
> Two-handed Swords are really a classification of sword applied to Renaissance, rather than Medieval, weapons. They are the specialized forms of the later 1500-1600's, known in German as "Dopplehander" ("both-hander") or in English as "slaughterswords" (named after the German "Schlachterschwerter" -- battle swords), or in Italian as "lo spadone". In Germany and England they seem to have enjoyed a vogue for use in single-combat, but their precise military role is still in debate.


----------



## Coredump (May 30, 2005)

KarinsDad said:
			
		

> I suggest you do more research.
> 
> Many armies were augmented by irregulars (i.e. peasants).
> 
> And, most peasants that were given a weapon were given either a polearm, or a simple single weapon like a club or dagger.



A polearm is not a single handed weapon.
I stated that it did happen, but only as a "last resort"

And you seem to be equating a 'peasant army' with one that is unprepared and underequiped. While there were cases of this, it was not automatic. In England, the 'peasants' were trained to use a longbow.
The idea of a peasant army, was that they were not full time, not that they were nothing more than rabble. Irregulars were often provided weapons, and armor if available. It was not always available, hence the 'last resort' bit. BUt to use that as justification that it is better to go single sword compared to sword and shield.....





> Yes they were. But they were very rarely used in normal combat in Europe until the 16th century. And even then, they had a few specialized roles and were not used by most troops.
> 
> http://www.selfdefenseforums.com/forums/archive/index.php/t-6576.html



Selective quoting.
In the same article it states


> The use of the massive two-handed sword was well known and popular all over Europe since the 14th century. Its size and practice evolved throughout the Renaissance.
> In Italy one of the most eminent scholars and historians of the Italian fencing tradition, Jacop Gelli, tells us that this weapon was taught by Master Tappe in Milan and Guido Antonio di Luca during the 14th and 15th centuries ...].







> The two handed sword had specific duties, but it was not used as a general purpose combat weapon. For one thing, it was expensive to manufacture.



Check out Zweilander, landskeneckt, claymore, etc. The greatsword was in use in Scottland in the 1200's, and was popular in Germany/Switzerland in the 14-17th centuries.

You are basing a lot of your assumptions on one or two writtings, done near the end of the 16th century, based on fencing masters. Expand the field and you will get more answers.




> Except that greatswords were historically used as thrusting weapons.



I find this interesting, for a few reasons.

First, it contradicts what you said here







> The problem with a two handed sword on the battlefield is that not even your allies can get close to you or they could get accidentally hit. A two handed sword is not very functional in battle




Second, it defies logic. Medieval people were not stupid. If they wanted a weapon that was 'for thrusting', they would have made a spear. Why go through all of the pain of making a large sword, when a spear would be much easier?
Thrusting with a GS is a viable tactic, but not nearly as useful as thrusting with a spear. (or even polearm) THe *only* advantage a greatsword has over a spear, is that it can be swung.



> It is obvious that you do not know that much about how this weapon was actually used if you think that you swing a greatsword. You have to read what weapon masters from the 15th through 17th century wrote down concerning melee weapons.



Again, using your link.







> Without doubt, Marozzo�s two-hand fencing, beautifully illustrated in the third book of his Opera Nova (Modena 1536), is the most important and extensive work on the subject in the Renaissance. Marozzo carefully illustrates the assaults as unique sequences of blows, opposed guards and steps, thus detailing a sophisticated and complex Art of fencing



 Notice the word "blows". To use a (heavy) greatsword as only a thrusting weapon is foolish. It is weighty to get through armor, or to at least bash the person around

DiGrassi was writing in 1570. By then *armor* was passe. The greatsword was useful against men in armor, gunpowder made armor a waste of time, so the need for a greatsword was lessened. DiGrassi was mostly right, by then the greatsword was not a 'noble' weapon, and it was pretty heaving for the militia, but that is because they were caring swords as a back up weapon to their guns.



> The problem with swinging a greatsword is that if a trained opponent gets within your guard and blocks the swing near your hands with either a second weapon or a shield, he will kill you with his weapon.



You are right. If I am dumb enough to let my opponent get 6 feet closer than I want him, I am in trouble. But even 'near my hands', stopping a greatsword with a single weapon is chancy. This trick works in the SCA because of the *rules* of the SCA. (Can't hit 'too hard', swords invulnerable, blocking is binary...)







> Hence the reason that you thrust with a greatsword.



 Except it is much easier to deflect a thrust than block a heavy blow. And if the defect the thrust, then I am *really* screwed, it is very difficult to recover a GS from a thrust.







> You keep the point of such a weapon facing your foe



 You are in the SCA, does *anyone* you know fight that way? That would make it even easier for people to take the point off-target, and make it just about impossible to throw a decent blow.




> Granted, you can swing such a weapon, but swinging it is a tactic of last resort when fighting multiple opponents (similar to Spanish Quarterstaff fighting where you attempt to keep your opponents at bay). But if you are using it that way, then (like I said in an earlier post) it is hazardous to you allies as well as your enemies.



You are not describing throwing a blow, you are describing 'flailing about wildly', in which case, you would be dangerous no matter what weapon you are using.


----------



## Ruvion (May 31, 2005)

I just want to say...

myself being a noninformant (at least when it comes to swords and medieval fighting), your expertise really illuminated what greatsword fighting is all about Coredump...

Thanks a whole bunch!!!


----------



## JackGiantkiller (May 31, 2005)

As a student of the sword who has experienced both boffer fighting and SCA rules fighting, sport fencing and kenjutsu:

Sport fencing, boffer fighting, ScA rules, bokken work, and shinai practice all have one thing in common. They are not real swords, thus they are not indicative of how one fights with a real sword. There are moves one can make with these weapons that simply cannot be accomplished with a real sword...in the case of the bokken because it is a curved club. In the case of the other 'weapons', because they are, as one other poster mentioned, light enough to be effectively lightsabres.

Several pounds of greatsword screaming down at you cannot be effectively blocked by one hand, and it is unlikely in the extreme that most trained fighters would try to block it at all. I, for one, would dodge a greatsword strike whenever possible, in order to avoid losing a limb, my weapon, or my life to one of the heaviest weapons on the battlefield.. They were often relatively blunt. That's because they didn't have to be razor sharp to remove limbs, and razor sharpess is actually a disadvantage when smashing through plate armor...the edges curl under, or chip.

All that said...even the experts can't know what it was really like. They weren't there. Neither was i, obviously. All we know is what history tells us...and that is rarely enough. So, by all means, keep on arguing...no one is actually going to change their mind if they already have an opinion.  

My only point is, as posted at the top, but paraphrased: Yes, SCA fighting is much closer to tennis than to actual fighting. It is a competetive sport with rules intended to keep people from getting hurt. War, on the other hand, is a competitive sport with rules designed to hurt as many people as possible. Big difference. (ex-military combat medic, take my irreverance with a grain of salt.)


----------



## Storyteller01 (Jun 1, 2005)

KarinsDad said:
			
		

> Fighting with a two handed weapon (other than a polearm) has virtually no advantages. But in DND, it is often considered the best technique. Go figure.




So this is why certain techniques for katanas (thrusts, cuts, leveraging, you know... those armor negating techniques) are taught using two hands? 

Heck, these same techniques are found is nearly all cultures, and and used with all two handed swords (if not most two handed weapons. General targets and leverage are similar). 

A katana (like your bastard sword) IS a weapon that can be used one handed. It's even been made famous by a certain duelist using a long and a short version together (and a certain turtle using two of them  ).

Here's a challenge for you: Get a target (bamboo, rope, whatever... ) and a cut with a sword, both one handed and two. which is easier? 

Can't find a sword? Use an axe and some logs. Same principle

Fact is, fighting with two blades (NOT SCA, but using really sharp pointy things...) trades strength for versatility and improved reaction times. Even Mushashi is quoted (Book of Five Rings) as saying that using two weapons requires incredible strength in both arms. Those who don't have the stregnth are generally using lighter blades with accuracy. 

In mass combat two handed weapons tend to rule, or else every samurai, knight, peasant, etc would have been armed with two weapons, instead of two handed weapons or sword and shield. This would have been especially prevalent in Europe, where the use of two weapons in a fight had been documented more often.


----------



## Storyteller01 (Jun 1, 2005)

Patryn of Elvenshae said:
			
		

> It's far, far too easy to just take your off- or main-hand weapon, bind the other guy's weapon out of line, and whack him with your free hand.




Big difference between 'whacking' the guy and hitting accurately for a kill, especially when you have to strongarm your way through armor with one hand. There is a dubious account of a duelist driving his off hand weapon through a gorget, but the three witnesses each tell a different story. 

Strength isn't incredibly vital when making a kill (a rapier only needs 8 grams of pressure to puncture skin, human neck breaks at about 10 to 11 pounds of torque, a choking technique taught in the military consists of crushing the larnyx between your thumbs), but if your not plowing the weapon through the target, you better hit something EXTREMELY vital.

What exactly are you aiming for?


----------



## FreeTheSlaves (Jun 1, 2005)

So after all this, have we reached a consensus over 2wf sucking/not sucking?


----------



## Nightfall (Jun 1, 2005)

Some how I doubt it...


----------



## Coredump (Jun 1, 2005)

JackGiantkiller said:
			
		

> Sport fencing, boffer fighting, ScA rules, bokken work, and shinai practice all have one thing in common. They are not real swords, thus they are not indicative of how one fights with a real sword.



 Mostly agree. But they can be 'indicative', as long as you realize the differences and don't assume they are he 'same'. 







> In the case of the other 'weapons', because they are, as one other poster mentioned, light enough to be effectively lightsabres.



Just a note. The SCA swords are made of rattan, and are fairly close to accurate weight for longswords. (The SCA greatsword is lighter than the heavy ones.)




> All that said...even the experts can't know what it was really like.



 True, but there are things that can be deduced, and even re-created. Just have to be careful of the inherrent limitations. 



> Yes, SCA fighting is much closer to tennis than to actual fighting. It is a competetive sport with rules intended to keep people from getting hurt.



 eh.... I agree with your main point, but not to the extent you are making it. SCA (and others) can provide indications of things, but we must realize that the rules make a big change is how things are handled. As does the reality that you get to walk away after and SCA/boffer/etc fight. 


> (ex-military combat medic,



 Thank you for that.


----------



## Coredump (Jun 1, 2005)

Storyteller01 said:
			
		

> Fact is, fighting with two blades (NOT SCA, but using really sharp pointy things...) trades strength for versatility and improved reaction times. .




Careful, the two handed sword often has faster reaction times than a single sword (ie medieval longsword). It is an effect of being able to push-pull with two hands. Try it with a stick sometime. And even a rapier had some decent heft to it. The stuff you see olympic fencers pulling is only because their 'swords' are a piece of wire....


edit: Hey Karin's dad... where are you from? I always like meeting other SCA folks, even if we disagree


----------



## Storyteller01 (Jun 1, 2005)

Coredump said:
			
		

> Careful, the two handed sword often has faster reaction times than a single sword (ie medieval longsword). It is an effect of being able to push-pull with two hands. Try it with a stick sometime. And even a rapier had some decent heft to it. The stuff you see olympic fencers pulling is only because their 'swords' are a piece of wire....
> 
> 
> edit: Hey Karin's dad... where are you from? I always like meeting other SCA folks, even if we disagree




Meh... Speaking from training with katanas and katanas/wakizashi. Either way, I'd prefer using two hands to just one (although technically a one handed technique is balanced by movement from the other hand. there really is no such thing as a one handed technique). 


When fighting with one weapon, especially after a deflection, there is a split second where you 'find the line' as the weapon moves into position for a strike (a common phrase in sword work is 'respect the line'). 

For experienced two weapons fighters (I'm not one of them, but I've been whacked enough times to know better) one weapon deflects while the other strikes. The second blade should already be moving into position before or during said deflection.

The time saved is minute, but in combat that little bit saves lives.


----------



## Storyteller01 (Jun 1, 2005)

HAs anyone tried creating a feat that allows you to apply your dex bonus to a weapon you have weapon finesse with (I'm thinking 3.0 here. A dagger is not a rapier, after all...  ).

I was thinking that the feat allowed full dex bonus damage to a weapon you have taken W. Fin for. It would also allow you to gain the bonus in full for both your primary and off-hand weapon. Of course , said damage wouldn't stack power attack or similar abilities (or aiming for accuracy; power attack just hits REALLY hard...).


----------



## cmanos (Jun 1, 2005)

as someone who has used two-handed weapons and two one-handed weapons in real life, I can tell you from experience, wielding a two-handed weapon is not that much different than wielding a one handed weapon.  The only differenc eis the weapon is heavyer, requiring 2 hands to use properly.

Utilizing two one handed weapons takes a lot of skill and dexterity.  Your off hand will always suck more than your main hand.  Only through lots and lots of training can you begin to overcome this penalty.  Heck, even punching with your off hand isn't as effective unless you train a lot.

But this is a fantasy game with no basis in reailty, so do whatever you like.


----------



## BalazarIago (Jun 1, 2005)

sfedi said:
			
		

> Another way to improve TWF would be to introduce a Feat that allows to attack once with each weapon as a standard action.




I don't think this should require a feat.  A creature with a weapon and a natural attack, may do a normal attack with the weapon and a normal attack with the Natural Weapon (At -5).  I see no reason why someone with two weapons could not use both weapons on a standard attack.


----------



## TheEvil (Jun 1, 2005)

BalazarIago said:
			
		

> I don't think this should require a feat.  A creature with a weapon and a natural attack, may do a normal attack with the weapon and a normal attack with the Natural Weapon (At -5).  I see no reason why someone with two weapons could not use both weapons on a standard attack.




Um, that is only on a FULL attack.  Even a dire octipus only gets one attack with a standard action.


----------



## Storyteller01 (Jun 1, 2005)

BalazarIago said:
			
		

> I don't think this should require a feat.  A creature with a weapon and a natural attack, may do a normal attack with the weapon and a normal attack with the Natural Weapon (At -5).  I see no reason why someone with two weapons could not use both weapons on a standard attack.




They are! 
it's being used in defense (parrying and all that). Making a second attack still requires a greater commitment on the part of the attacker (hence the full round action) .


----------



## The Souljourner (Jun 2, 2005)

Two weapon vs. two handed is an interesting comparison.  WoTC went to a lot of trouble to make sure they do similar damage, and each have their own benefits and restrictions.  Two handed is great against damage reduction you can't bypass.  Two weapon is great at not wasting damage on foes who are almost dead.  Two handed is great when you only get one attack.   I think in general, two handed has a lot more inherent benefits than two weapon... but there are enough ways to trick out your two weapon guy that you can make up for it.  

The kick in the nuts is the feats required for two weapon fighting.  Two handed guys need NONE.  Two weapon guys need _four_.  That's insane.  Four feats in the same chain should get you some awesome ability... instead of "not quite keeping up with the greatsword guy".

Remove the feats from two weapon fighting entirely.  No feats, works same as if you had the feats.  Now anyone can pick up a greatsword and do 2d6 + Str*1.5 or two shortswords for the same damage (albeit at a -2 to hit on all attacks).  The -2 is still kinda sucky, but now that we've done away with the base feats, you can add some back in, like a feat that reduces the penalties by 2.

I don't care about how hard it is in real life, I care about how balanced it is in D&D, and how much I want to give alternatives to players so they don't all gravitate towards greatswords.

Plus, I've played a two weapon wielding guy who is doing his level best to tweak the numbers, and I'm still way behind what I could be doing with a simple greatsword and the feats I would have to spare.

-The Souljourner


----------



## ZuulMoG (Jun 3, 2005)

Uh, TWF is much weaker. Compare a longsword and shortsword vs. a greatsword or Sword & Board on a 3rd level human fighter with 18 Str. The two swords guy has TWF, Power Attack, and Cleave. The greatsword/sword&board guys have Power Attack, Cleave, and Great Cleave. Assuming targets with AC16 and 2HD...

2WF: Longsword +5 (d8+4), Shortsword +5 (d6+2) Avg damage = 7.4375
2HF: Greatsword +7 (2d6+6) Avg damage = 17.991168
S&B: Longsword +7 (d8+4) (AC+2) Avg damage = 5.170176
(Avg damage assumes average die rolls (rounded up), accounts for hit probability, critical probability, and probability of killing target and getting a Cleave or Great Cleave facing four targets. For Sword & Board, it also factors in survivability due to added AC.)

Clearly, at 3rd level, 2HF is far superior to S&B, and blows 2WF away too. 2WF is marginally better than S&B, and the increased survivability of S&B probably balances nicely. 2HF, especially with a greatsword, is massively unbalanced.

Damn, I gotta quit taking 2WF at low levels...here I thought it was kickin', turns out it's chicken.

Hmm, what about at higher levels (11+)? Increased hit probability and number of attacks is going to tip the scales in favor of 2WF, but will it be enough with the 2HF & the S&B getting 2 more feats to devote to improving other areas? I think it will. I can't think of a feat selection that will offset the benefit of three extra attacks for the 2WF that either an S&B or a 2HF can pick. Shield bashing feats will bring the S&B up past with the 2HF, but the 2WF is sitting in the fabled catbird seat after 10th level. By this time, the poor 2HF had best start looking for a board, or another weapon... YMMV


----------



## FreeTheSlaves (Jun 3, 2005)

Pros of TWF

Vs 2H
* less damage wasted on overkill
* weapons are able to be used with finesse
Vs S&B
* greater base damage output
* no shield ACP
* no cost for enhancing magic shield
Vs both 2H & S&B
* multiple weapons for greater DR overcoming ability
* greater value gained from bonus damage dice or flat bonuses
* greater ability to control the application of damage upon multiple enemies
* finessed fighting can also mean a good dex bonus for AC & viability of light armour (& thus better skill bonuses because of armour)

****

Cons of TWF  

Vs 2H
* less overall damage output
* lacks the single massive hit to overcome DR
Vs S&B
* less AC
Vs both 2H & S&B
* requires full attack option
* feat intensive
* effective double cost for enhancing magic weapons
* AoO are at the TWF penalty
* easier to be sundered or disarmed due to TWF penalty & light weapons
* more movement actions are required to draw a weapon

****

I think TWF is a viable choice of fighting style that fills a niche, but I would urge any of my players to look at their character's (desired & actual) class, stats, feats, skills & equipment before making a decision. Role playing desire is of course essential but I don't like seeing characters that can't do their tricks well to back up the concept with hard mechanics.


----------



## The Souljourner (Jun 3, 2005)

FreeTheSlaves said:
			
		

> Pros of TWF
> 
> Vs 2H
> * weapons are able to be used with finesse



That just means you need decent Dex *and* strength.  Hardly a benefit.  And if you don't have decent strength, you're already far behind in the game.



			
				FreeTheSlaves said:
			
		

> Vs S&B
> * no cost for enhancing magic shield



Uhh... you still have to enhance your second weapon, and that is, by definition, twice as expensive as enhancing a shield.



			
				FreeTheSlaves said:
			
		

> Vs both 2H & S&B
> * finessed fighting can also mean a good dex bonus for AC & viability of light armour (& thus better skill bonuses because of armour)



Bah, if you have better dex, you have better dex.  Nothing says a two handed fighter can't have just as good dex.  And if you're trading strength for dex, you're crippling your fighter.  Strength = damage.



			
				FreeTheSlaves said:
			
		

> Cons of TWF
> 
> Vs 2H
> * less overall damage output
> * lacks the single massive hit to overcome DR



* Also lacks massive single hit when you can't make a full attack - such as attacks of opportunity, charging, move and attack, spring attack, surprise rounds, etc.



			
				FreeTheSlaves said:
			
		

> I think TWF is a viable choice of fighting style that fills a niche



It's viable.  Barely.  And you really need to understand that you're gimping yourself horribly for something that is really just a matter of style.  You can make up for it somewhat by cheesing out every last bit of bonus damage you can find... but what you're basically doing is working your ass off to keep up with two hander who gets all this crap for free.

-The Souljourner


----------



## KarinsDad (Jun 3, 2005)

I'd like to point out that people keep saying that TWF has an advantage in situations where your opponent is almost dead, you do not waste as much damage.

This is an extremely minor advantage, practically not worth mentioning.

While it is true that if an opponent has 3 hit points left, a single attack from the TW fighter will kill him just as easily as a single attack from the THW fighter. But, you have to look at getting the opponent down to those 3 hit points in the first place.

Let's take a 50% chance to hit, full round attacks, low level. Fighters have 16 Str (we'll ignore criticals since they have the same chance to have those in both cases):

2D6 + 1.5 Str = 11 points of damage per successful hit * 50% chance to hit = 5.5 points of damage per full round attack

D8 + Str + D6 + 0.5 Str = 7.5 + 4.5 = 12 points of damage per two successful hits * 40% chance to hit = 4.8 points of damage per full round attack

If an opponent has 20 hit points, it will take the THW fighter on average two successful hits to take him out. It will take 4 rounds on average for this to occur.

It will take the TW fighter 3 to 4 successful hits and 4+ rounds to do this because he is averaging less damage per full round attack (due to the -2 to hit).

So the fact that on round 5, the TW fighter might kill his opponent who has 1 or 2 hit points left with his first swing and still have a second swing to attack someone else is totally irrelevant.

The THW fighter finished his opponent off in round 4 and is not still fighting him in round 5.


The ability to swing twice is way outshadowed by the ability to do a lot more damage per swing. A lot of damage does sometimes get wasted by the THW fighters, but the fact that they take out opponents faster makes this somewhat of a moot point.

Using the same example above with an opponent of 23 hits, the THW fighter wastes a lot of damage on his third successful hit if he does 22 points of damage on the first two hits and the opponent has 1 hit point left. And it takes him 5 rounds on average to take out the opponent in this case.

The TW fighter also takes out this 23 hit point opponent in an average of 5 rounds. He has no advantage here because he always averages less damage per full round attack. He also averages a LOT less damage per single attack (e.g. a standard action attack, an Attack of Opportunity, etc.).


----------



## The Souljourner (Jun 3, 2005)

^^^^ What he said.  Plus, don't forget double power attack versus no power attack (or at best, PA with only one weapon while *both* weapons get the penalty to hit).

TWF has a huge number of drawbacks that just don't have any balancing benefits.  The problem is that people are still worried about two weapons meaning double damage, and it's really not.  WoTC over-applied the balancing factors... any one of which would have done the trick, but all together they make TWF pretty sucky.

-The Souljourner


----------



## Infiniti2000 (Jun 3, 2005)

You're still not making a balanced analysis.  It would simply not be possible or at least not feasible.  You're making a number of assumptions all in favor of the THF (ignore criticals, ignore DR, low level, add power attack, etc.).  You ignore some things for various reasons (for simplicity or whatever), and yet it's those things that make the difference.  The problem is that it's not feasible to account for everything such that the analysis is fair and some of the things that you need to account for have no real metric without making huge assumptions.  For example, how big of a deal is material DR in a standard campaign?  How big of a deal is it in yours?  The TWF has a significant advantage over the THF in that regard.


----------



## FreeTheSlaves (Jun 3, 2005)

The Souljourner said:
			
		

> That just means you need decent Dex *and* strength.  Hardly a benefit.  And if you don't have decent strength, you're already far behind in the game.



You don't need strength at all, sneak attack, specialization & bonus dice can fulfill that.



			
				The Souljourner said:
			
		

> Uhh... you still have to enhance your second weapon, and that is, by definition, twice as expensive as enhancing a shield.



I already noted this, however not needing to enhance a shield is a pro - how can it not be. I am looking at all things in isolation.



			
				The Souljourner said:
			
		

> Bah, if you have better dex, you have better dex.  Nothing says a two handed fighter can't have just as good dex.  And if you're trading strength for dex, you're crippling your fighter.  Strength = damage.



I look at balance from the POV of 25pt default array, this is my baseline where all my assumptions spring from. Even under the 4d6dl with its high variables you will on average not get enough good scores for everything, something needs to be dumped, eg melee rogue pumps dex & con + pick weapon finesse.



			
				The Souljourner said:
			
		

> * Also lacks massive single hit when you can't make a full attack - such as attacks of opportunity, charging, move and attack, spring attack, surprise rounds, etc.



Mentioned.



			
				The Souljourner said:
			
		

> It's viable.  Barely.  And you really need to understand that you're gimping yourself horribly for something that is really just a matter of style.  You can make up for it somewhat by cheesing out every last bit of bonus damage you can find... but what you're basically doing is working your ass off to keep up with two hander who gets all this crap for free.
> 
> -The Souljourner



I believe that the correct way to look at any game mechanic is from the POV of where it is optimized best? In the case of TWF we need to look at the rogue because of their sneak attack, high dex and weapon finesse. Without bothering to detail my argument, I believe that if 2WF was any better than it is it would make it a no-brainer for every standard built rogue to take it. 

I fully accept that a TWF fighter sucks compared to a 2hander but then my issue is with 2handers getting it too good (only S&B has the money right afaic) but implementing a power attack 1:1.5 ratio & auto-banning the animated shield monstrosity sorts that out somewhat.

If I was going to make a 2WF fighter I'd use a double weapon to get the 2hander benefits as required and switch styles to suit - and I'd carry a shield for when closing with missilers.


----------



## FreeTheSlaves (Jun 3, 2005)

KarinsDad said:
			
		

> I'd like to point out that people keep saying that TWF has an advantage in situations where your opponent is almost dead, you do not waste as much damage.
> 
> This is an extremely minor advantage, practically not worth mentioning.



I agree with you, it is not worth mentioning but what I'm pointing to is the full health mook with 10hp that gets taken down with a minimum of fuss. There can then be 5' steps to attack beyond rather than the immediate cleave - in effect better battlefield control.

Even this is a minor advantage but one nonetheless.

****

Open question for all those who don't like the existing 2WF rules: how would you make the style better and what sort of character build would get the best mileage out of your changes?


----------



## Brother MacLaren (Jun 4, 2005)

FreeTheSlaves said:
			
		

> Open question for all those who don't like the existing 2WF rules: how would you make the style better and what sort of character build would get the best mileage out of your changes?



I'd suggest that people unhappy with 2WF as-is take a good look at the Dervish and Tempest classes.  So any rules changes would have to keep in mind these PrC's.


----------



## ZuulMoG (Jun 4, 2005)

FreeTheSlaves said:
			
		

> Open question for all those who don't like the existing 2WF rules: how would you make the style better and what sort of character build would get the best mileage out of your changes?



I wouldn't change a thing.  It's perfectly balanced with S&B, 2HF is what needs fixing.  I suggest an AC penalty to two-handed weapons to offset their enormously unbalanced damage advantage.


----------



## KarinsDad (Jun 4, 2005)

Infiniti2000 said:
			
		

> You're still not making a balanced analysis.  It would simply not be possible or at least not feasible.  You're making a number of assumptions all in favor of the THF (ignore criticals, ignore DR, low level, add power attack, etc.).  You ignore some things for various reasons (for simplicity or whatever), and yet it's those things that make the difference.  The problem is that it's not feasible to account for everything such that the analysis is fair and some of the things that you need to account for have no real metric without making huge assumptions.  For example, how big of a deal is material DR in a standard campaign?  How big of a deal is it in yours?  The TWF has a significant advantage over the THF in that regard.




What are you talking about?

The THW fighter has the advantage over the TW fighter when it comes to DR.


----------



## two (Jun 4, 2005)

KarinsDad said:
			
		

> What are you talking about?
> 
> The THW fighter has the advantage over the TW fighter when it comes to DR.




And, arguably, with criticals as well.

The THW fighter can either burn a feat which the TWF can't afford for Improved Critical, or with the money not spent on an extra weapon get a keen scabbard or the keen enchantment.

Plus the obvious point that doing a lot of damage improves your critical damage bunches.

A rare off-hand light weapon critical simply isn't adding much to the TWF's damage output.

Since only about 50% of attacks are (being generous) full attacks, much of the time the TWF is moving and hitting once, i.e. not even getting multiple attacks for multiple chances of criticalling.

Being able to make extra attacks, and getting criticals off them, is pretty tough to do, particularly if you depend on damage dice which don't multiply with a critical (unlike, well, the 2hw user).

I've never, ever seen a TWF build that out-damaged a THF in terms of criticals, ever.

(note feat disparity between TWF and THF builds and money disparity, and how this figures into it, as pointed out at the start).


----------



## Infiniti2000 (Jun 5, 2005)

KarinsDad said:
			
		

> What are you talking about?
> 
> The THW fighter has the advantage over the TW fighter when it comes to DR.



 Well, I specifically said material DR, but other types of DR apply.  The THF does not have the advantage because he has only 1 weapon (readied, let's say) that could overcome it, where the TWF has 2 and can have two weapons of different materials.  I'm just saying that you will be making lots of assumptions during the analysis, because it's not feasible otherwise.  And, everytime you make an assumption (e.g. ignore criticals, low level, STR 16), it's usually in favor of one style or another, whether you mean it that way or not.  As another example, someone earlier made the assumption to ignore sneak attacks.  You just plain can't ignore anything like that if you want a balanced analysis.


----------



## Nifft (Jun 5, 2005)

I've only skimmed the thread, so sorry if this has been covered before, but ... isn't it kinda obvious that TWF has an advantage in # of attacks, while 2HW has the advantage in raw damage output?

Thus, shouldn't the TWF guy seek things that favor his strengths -- lots of attacks -- rather than try to ALSO gain the 2HW guy's only advantage?


Things That Are Better With Lots of Attacks:

1/ Wounding (and ability damage in general)
2/ Poison (and anything else that triggers a save or two)
3/ Energy damage (and non-multiplied dice damage in general, including Sneak Attack)
4/ Things that trigger, but do not multiply, on a Crit (Keen Flaming Burst / Shocking Burst / Thundering Kukri)


Attacks can do lots of things besides just HP damage. 2HW is better for just doing damage, but TWF might be better for everything else. Especially poison. 

 -- N


----------



## FreeTheSlaves (Jun 6, 2005)

Nifft said:
			
		

> Especially poison.
> 
> -- N



Yup, I can see a melee built TWF assassin being quite viable.


----------



## KarinsDad (Jun 6, 2005)

Infiniti2000 said:
			
		

> Well, I specifically said material DR, but other types of DR apply.  The THF does not have the advantage because he has only 1 weapon (readied, let's say) that could overcome it, where the TWF has 2 and can have two weapons of different materials.  I'm just saying that you will be making lots of assumptions during the analysis, because it's not feasible otherwise.  And, everytime you make an assumption (e.g. ignore criticals, low level, STR 16), it's usually in favor of one style or another, whether you mean it that way or not.  As another example, someone earlier made the assumption to ignore sneak attacks.  You just plain can't ignore anything like that if you want a balanced analysis.




The THW fighter can have a weapon of adamantine and a weapon of silver, just like the TW fighter.

He then uses what he thinks he needs.

Any factor that you give the TW fighter can be given to the THW fighter.


If you add other factors into your analysis like Sneak Attack damage, fine. You add those factors to both Fighters to get a fair analysis.

Plus, by the time you get significant sneak attack damage of any value, many of your opponents (i.e. many of the non-humanoid ones) are immune to it either directly, or because they cannot lose their Dex bonus, or whatever.


Both fighters can have the exact same abilities. They can have the same type of weapons.


It still becomes a factor of full round attacks only occuring at most 50% (give or take) of the time. Hence, during a single attack (a normal attack or an Attack of Opportunity), the TWF does about 3 + .5 Str (+ Power Attack damage if used) more damage. It matters not a whit what other factors you add in.

It only matters for a full round attack. There, low level is the most advantageous for the TW fighter (because at higher levels, one extra attack means less, especially since all of the attacks are at -10% to hit PLUS he has to take feats in order to bump that up). Hence, his damage becomes (assuming a 4.5 average longsword in one hand and a 3.5 average shortsword in the other):

2x% * (4 + bonuses) versus (x+10%) * (7 + bonuses + 3 + .5 Str)

So yes, if you can get the bonuses to go through the roof, you can catch up. But in order to do that, 2x% * (4 + bonuses) must be greater than (x+10%) * (7 + bonuses + 3 + .5 Str)

At low level, the highest chance to hit is generally in the ball park of 50%, hence:

4 + bonuses > 4.2 + 0.6 bonuses + 2 + 0.3 Str

or bonuses > 5.5 + 0.75 Str

Str 10: 5.5
Str 12: 6.25
Str 14: 7
Str 16: 7.75
Str 18: 8.5
Str 20: 9.25

It's hard at lower levels to get extra bonuses this high. Plus, this example here was with a 50% chance to hit with a -2 thrown in. Your chances to hit most opponents at lower levels will be less than that which gives the THW fighter even more of an edge.

So, on single attacks, the TW fighter does significantly less damage, regardless of other factors. On full round attacks, he does less damage as well unless he has really high bonuses for damage.


The problem for the TW fighter is that he always does less damage on a single attack (approximately 2.5 + 0.5 Str + Power Attack if used).

Always (if you analysis two combatants with the same basic abilities).

So even if he can boost his bonus damage through the roof (which the THW fighter can do as well), the only time he can even come close to the same amount of damage on average is when he does a full round attack.


Btw, criticals are totally irrelevant to the conversation at all if the weapons used have the same critical chances (e.g. 2 handed sword at 19/20 x2 versus a longsword and short sword both at 19/20 x2).

The reason is that criticals increase the percentage damage exactly the same. So, increasing the THW average damage by 10% and increasing the TW average damage by 10% still means that if one character does more average damage than the other, he still does more average damage once you factor in criticals.


Bottom line, create and post any combatant type PC you want (i.e. one with at least one level of Ranger, Paladin, Fighter, or Barbarian) at any level you want with any reasonable set of abilities out of the core rules and show us how much damage he can average fighting two weapon (both for single attacks and full round attacks). I will then illustrate how the exact same PC can average more damage for single attacks and as much or nearly as much with full round attacks fighting with a two handed weapon and the only things I will change are replacing his TW feats with other feats, and replacing his two one hand weapons with two two handed weapons (i.e. if you give him two one handed magical weapons, I will replace that with two two handed magical weapons).

It seems that the only way to prove to you how much more potent THW fighting is will be to allow you to stack the deck in favor of the TW fighter and then illustrate that the exact same fighter still does more damage fighting THW.


----------



## FreeTheSlaves (Jun 6, 2005)

KarinsDad said:
			
		

> Bottom line, create and post any *combatant* type PC you want (i.e. one with at least one level of Ranger, Paladin, Fighter, or Barbarian) at any level you want with any reasonable set of abilities out of the core rules and show us how much damage he can average fighting two weapon (both for single attacks and full round attacks).



This is missing the point because 2WF doesn't shine for the combatant classes it shines for the rogue. I will take you up on your offer if we compare rogue for rogue - default array, average hps, core rules only, standard wealth (no item > half starting wealth).

The problem the game designers faced was whether to make 2WF comparable to other styles for the baseline fighter (which would allow the rogue to really benefit, thereby in effect limiting choice for rogue player) or to balance TWF from the pov of the class that benefit the most from the style.


----------



## FreeTheSlaves (Jun 6, 2005)

"2WF Rogue"

Human male rogue 9
Neutral
str13 dex17(19) con14 int10 wis8 cha12, HPs = 52/52
Feats: TWF, Imp. TWF, Weapon finesse, weapon focus (short sword), skill focus UMD
Skills: tumble+16, use magic device+16, 4*skills max ranked, 6*skills half ranked
Equipment: cold iron +1 short sword of frost (10k), +1 shortsword of flame (8k), mithril breastplate+1 (5k=1k+4k), wand of invisibility (50*charges, 4.5k), gloves of dex+2, ring of deflection+1, cloak of resistance+1, 0.75k remaining from 36K
Class: sneak attack +5d6, improved uncanny dodge, evasion, trapfinding

Att: standard attack with frost sword +12 {1d6+2+1d6 frost (19+,*2)} +5d6 sneak attack
      full atack is frost sword +10/+5 {1d6+2+1d6 frost (19+,*2)} +5d6 sneak attack & flame sword +10/+5 {1d6+2+1d6 flame (19+,*2)} +5d6 sneak attack
AC: 20, Initiative:+4,  Speed:30',  Fort:+6 Ref:+11 Will:+3

****

Such a character typically actives the invisibility or tumbles (depending on the level of threat posed, roll a 4+) to close with an enemy engaging the party tank & then unleashes a full attack before tumbling away.


----------



## FreeTheSlaves (Jun 6, 2005)

"2Handed Rogue"

Human male rogue 9
Neutral
str16(18) dex14 con14 int10 wis12 cha8, HPs = 52/52
Feats: Dodge, Mobility, Spring attack, Martial weapon prof. (Greatsword), Weapon focus (Greatsword) 
Skills: tumble+16, 5*skills max ranked, 6*skills half ranked
Equipment: +1 Adamantine electrical greatsword (11k=3k+8k), mithril breastplate+2 (8k=4k+4k), gloves of str+2, cloak of resistance+2, boots of springing and striding, ring of deflection+1, 1.75k remaining from 36K
Class: sneak attack +5d6, improved uncanny dodge, evasion, trapfinding

Att: standard attack with sword +12 {2d6+7+1d6 elec (19+,*2)} +5d6 sneak attack
full atack is sword +12/+7 {2d6+7+1d6 elec (19+,*2)} +5d6 sneak attack
AC: 20, Initiative:+2, Speed:40', Fort:+7 Ref:+10 Will:+6

****

Such a character relies upon using his superior speed to spring into combat, using tumble as necessary, to flank the enemy facing the party tank, deliver a telling blow and then move out of full attack range, using the tank's threat of an AoO for safety.


----------



## FreeTheSlaves (Jun 6, 2005)

The point of the above illustrations is to show how both characters are what I consider viable builds - I would be pleased to see one of my players present me with something similar & I myself would feel fine to play one such.

If 2WF is altered to compare favourably between two fighter builds I predict that if then I then posted the two rogue examples again, the 2WF would clearly be the better build - and thus the "choice" of fighting style would be null & void because one would be a no-brainer to choose.

Anything that fundamentally undermines the tactical choice of fighting style is imho, bad. It is called a *style* for a reason, it should (nay, Must!) not always be the perfect tactic but it should shine in the circumstances where it is supposed to.

(animated shield - I hate what you represent)


----------



## KarinsDad (Jun 6, 2005)

FreeTheSlaves said:
			
		

> "2WF Rogue"
> 
> Human male rogue 9
> Neutral
> ...






			
				FreeTheSlaves said:
			
		

> This is missing the point because 2WF doesn't shine for the combatant classes it shines for the rogue. I will take you up on your offer if we compare rogue for rogue - default array, average hps, core rules only, standard wealth (no item > half starting wealth).




First off, your calculation on damage is slightly incorrect. The 1D6 for frost and for flame apply like sneak attack damage after all other calculations (i.e. if you critical, you add up all of the damage except frost and sneak attack and then add it in). It does not get added in twice on a critical.

Ok. I replace the TWF and TWF Imp and Weapon Focus (short sword) feats with Exotic Weapon Spiked Chain, Combat Reflexes, and Weapon Focus (Spiked Chain).

He has a +2 Frost Spiked Chain for 18K instead of the two short swords.

Let’s take an opponent of AC 25 (fairly reasonable at 9th level).


On a single attack (like a normal attack or an Attack of Opportunity), the damage is:

45% * ((2D4+3) * 1.05 (critical) + 1D6) = 5.544 average damage

versus

40% * ((D6+2) * 1.1 (critical) + 1D6) = 3.82 average damage


On a single sneak attack (like an AoO with flank), the damage is (with +2 on the attack due to being flank):

55% * ((2D4+3) * 1.05 (critical) + 6D6) = 16.17 average damage

versus

50% * ((D6+2) * 1.1 (critical) + 6D6) = 13.525 average damage


On a single invisible sneak attack (like an AoO when invisible), the damage is (with +2 on the attack due to being invisible and the opponent losing 2 AC from a 14 Dex on the attack because you are invisible):

65% * ((2D4+3) * 1.05 (critical) + 6D6) = 19.11 average damage

versus

60% * ((D6+2) * 1.1 (critical) + 6D6) = 16.23 average damage


On a full round attack, the damage is:

(45% + 20%) * ((2D4+3) * 1.05 (critical) + 1D6) = 7.735 average damage

versus

(30% + 5% + 30% + 5%) * ((D6+2) * 1.1 (critical) + 1D6) = 6.685 average damage


On a full round sneak attack (assuming +2 to hit due to flank), the damage is:

(55% + 30%) * ((2D4+3) * 1.05 (critical) + 6D6) = 24.99 average damage

versus

(40% + 15% + 40% + 15%) * ((D6+2) * 1.1 (critical) + 6D6) = 29.755 average damage


On a full round sneak attack (assuming +2 to hit due to flank and +2 on the first attack due to being invisible and the opponent losing 2 AC from a 14 Dex on the very first attack because you are invisible), the damage is:

(75% + 30%) * ((2D4+3) * 1.05 (critical) + 6D6) = 30.87 average damage

versus

(60% + 15% + 40% + 15%) * ((D6+2) * 1.1 (critical) + 6D6) = 35.165 average damage


The only time the Rogue with the two weapons has an advantage in average damage is in the full round sneak attack cases. However, if he is tumbling away in order to go invisible again, he is at a disadvantage in average damage per combat BECAUSE he is only attacking one round in two (or even three). His average damage at least halves. On the other hand, if he stays put and fights, he will probably not get full round sneak attack damage in every round either (especially since some higher level creatures have immunities or defenses against sneak attacks).

The Rogue with the Spiked Chain, on the other hand, has a 10 foot reach with the spiked chain, so every other round, he can be 15 feet away from his opponent (by full round attacking with or without sneak attack from 10 feet away and then backing up 5 feet) and unless his opponent also has reach, his opponent cannot full round attack back on him. So, he can full round attack most rounds, full round sneak attack on the rounds on which his allies flank with him, and still not be full round attacked back every round. With a 10 foot reach, he also has more chances for Attacks of Opportunities with his Combat Reflexes, especially for opponents who move up to him from 15 or more feet away. This is especially helpful when the Rogue himself is surprised and an opponent moves up to him in the surprise round or in round one before he acts.

In fact, fighting a single foe who does not have reach and does not have tumble, he can attack twice at full damage per round compared to his opponent's once per round. He does this by attacking, and then tumbling away 15 feet or more. He then gets an Attack of Opportunity against his opponent as the opponent rushes in plus his normal attack each round.

All in all, the Rogue with the Spiked Chain still AVERAGES more damage per combat and also can fight more rounds of combat (due to taking less average damage back due to sometimes doing the 15 foot trick) which also increases his damage per combat.


----------



## Infiniti2000 (Jun 6, 2005)

KarinsDad said:
			
		

> It seems that the only way to prove to you how much more potent THW fighting is will be to allow you to stack the deck in favor of the TW fighter and then illustrate that the exact same fighter still does more damage fighting THW.



 Maybe I'm just not making my point clearly enough.  You just plain can't be complete enough.  Or, at least it would be impractical.  By doing this analysis in the first place, you are basically making the biggest, and most erroneous, assumption of all.  Most of us, probably 99%, play D&D or d20 as a group, not individually.  Any analysis you do, therefore, must include the other 3 (typical) party members.  IMC, for example, the party sorcerer frequently dim doors the delayed TWF to the opponent, allowing him a full round of attacks (4 primary, 2 secondary, 1 haste).  How do the other members of the group affect/help/hinder the fighter's tactics?  Obviously, it can be quite varied.  Another assumption you make is ignoring the possibility of multiple opponents with different DR (happens frequently at higher levels).  The TWF has some advantage in that regard.  And then the worst assumption IMO is that the other aspects of the character are ignored (not considering AC or any feats/skills 'wasted' on RP reasons).

I'm not taking up any challenge because it would be counter to my point in that any such analysis is flawed and incomplete.  Why would I undertake what I consider to be a futile endeavor?  Merely statting up two alternate 5th level, 10th level, or even 20th level fighters and comparing something as useless (IMO) as 'average damage' is not worthwhile because it's a situation that never occurs in the game.


----------



## two (Jun 6, 2005)

Infiniti2000 said:
			
		

> Maybe I'm just not making my point clearly enough.  You just plain can't be complete enough.  Or, at least it would be impractical.  By doing this analysis in the first place, you are basically making the biggest, and most erroneous, assumption of all.  Most of us, probably 99%, play D&D or d20 as a group, not individually.  Any analysis you do, therefore, must include the other 3 (typical) party members.  IMC, for example, the party sorcerer frequently dim doors the delayed TWF to the opponent, allowing him a full round of attacks (4 primary, 2 secondary, 1 haste).  How do the other members of the group affect/help/hinder the fighter's tactics?  Obviously, it can be quite varied.  Another assumption you make is ignoring the possibility of multiple opponents with different DR (happens frequently at higher levels).  The TWF has some advantage in that regard.  And then the worst assumption IMO is that the other aspects of the character are ignored (not considering AC or any feats/skills 'wasted' on RP reasons).
> 
> I'm not taking up any challenge because it would be counter to my point in that any such analysis is flawed and incomplete.  Why would I undertake what I consider to be a futile endeavor?  Merely statting up two alternate 5th level, 10th level, or even 20th level fighters and comparing something as useless (IMO) as 'average damage' is not worthwhile because it's a situation that never occurs in the game.





Well, if you play by the rules, Dim Dooring next to a bad guy is a very stupid thing to do.  Read the spell.  

Again, you bring up DR.  I don't think you understand just much this fails to support your cause.  Please explain how the TWF somehow has an easier way getting through some obscure DR than the two-handed weapon user.  *note as always the two-handed weapon user has more money to play around with for his weapon and options, including oils and etc.*

I don't think it's that complicated at all.  Bring the rest of the party into it.

If the TWF requires a lot of actions by the rest of the party members in order to be effective, and the two-handed weapon user does not, that hardly helps the case of the TWF!!

Let me pu it this way:  take a two-handed weapon user.  Boom.  Done.  Doesn't need help.  Is self-sufficient.  Hits hard with one attack, hits really really hard with a full attack.  Given that no feats are used for this style, could easily have PBS, Rapid Shot, and Precise shot if desired, giving excellent ranged options.  While the TWF is the one-trick pony due to feat requirements.  Ranged feats?  Good luck TWF user.

The beauty of the two-handed weapon build is that it's simple, requires no feats, requires no great expenditure of money, and doesn't depend on special tactics/party members to be effective.  (in fact, it's way too good, in my opinion).


----------



## Infiniti2000 (Jun 6, 2005)

two said:
			
		

> Well, if you play by the rules, Dim Dooring next to a bad guy is a very stupid thing to do. Read the spell.



 Why is it very stupid for the sorcerer to dim door the ftr/rgr next to the bad guy such that the ftr/rgr is between them?  Sure, the sorcerer can't take any other actions that round, but getting the fighter with favored enemy, bane, holy, and wounding weapons into a full attack is sometimes more than worth it.  The same tactic can be done with the THF, sure, but it helps negate the claim of "50% are single attacks."  Now, explain to me why this tactic is "very stupid."


----------



## KarinsDad (Jun 6, 2005)

Infiniti2000 said:
			
		

> Why is it very stupid for the sorcerer to dim door the ftr/rgr next to the bad guy such that the ftr/rgr is between them?  Sure, the sorcerer can't take any other actions that round, but getting the fighter with favored enemy, bane, holy, and wounding weapons into a full attack is sometimes more than worth it.  The same tactic can be done with the THF, sure, but it helps negate the claim of "50% are single attacks."  Now, explain to me why this tactic is "very stupid."




Because if the bad guy survives the attack (which is fairly common in DND), he takes a 5 foot step around the ftr/rgr and wastes the Sorcerer with his OWN full round attack.

. S
x F
. B

5 foot step to x, full round attack Sorcerer.

Now, the Sorcerer can dim door 15 feet away, the Fighter/Ranger can then take a 5 foot step and limit the bad guy to a single attack unless the bad guy has reach or a reach weapon (plus the Fighter/Ranger gets an AoO if the bad guy moves 10 feet and does not tumble or some such):

. S
x .
x F
. B

But, even with a single attack, this shouts "HEY, I AM A SORCERER, COME KILL ME". 


Not only that, in order to get ONE additional full round attack in the combat, the Sorcerer is wasting a 4th level Dimension Door spell as opposed to doing something more worthwhile in the combat.

Your argument is here is without merit.

A miscellaneous spell + full round attack > an offensive spell + single attack?

This is totally false (and very stupid as per your question) the vast majority of the time. Sure in a few specific circumstances, it might work well. Maybe if the Fighter/Ranger is 500 feet away and you need to get him into combat, or maybe in a 5 foot wide corridor where the bad guy will have a hard time getting to the Sorcerer, or maybe even if the Fighter/Ranger has Improved Trip and has a high chance of tripping the opponent on a second or third attack of the full round attack, sure.

But most the time, this tactic totally sucks and the bad guy is now within 10 or 15 feet of the Sorcerer.


----------



## KarinsDad (Jun 6, 2005)

Infiniti2000 said:
			
		

> Maybe I'm just not making my point clearly enough.  You just plain can't be complete enough.  Or, at least it would be impractical.  By doing this analysis in the first place, you are basically making the biggest, and most erroneous, assumption of all.  Most of us, probably 99%, play D&D or d20 as a group, not individually.  Any analysis you do, therefore, must include the other 3 (typical) party members.  IMC, for example, the party sorcerer frequently dim doors the delayed TWF to the opponent, allowing him a full round of attacks (4 primary, 2 secondary, 1 haste).  How do the other members of the group affect/help/hinder the fighter's tactics?  Obviously, it can be quite varied.  Another assumption you make is ignoring the possibility of multiple opponents with different DR (happens frequently at higher levels).  The TWF has some advantage in that regard.  And then the worst assumption IMO is that the other aspects of the character are ignored (not considering AC or any feats/skills 'wasted' on RP reasons).
> 
> I'm not taking up any challenge because it would be counter to my point in that any such analysis is flawed and incomplete.  Why would I undertake what I consider to be a futile endeavor?  Merely statting up two alternate 5th level, 10th level, or even 20th level fighters and comparing something as useless (IMO) as 'average damage' is not worthwhile because it's a situation that never occurs in the game.




Basically what you are saying here is the equivalent of:

A first level Fighter cannot be shown to be better in melee combat than a first level Wizard because there are too many factors in the game such as the other 3 PCs.


That's silly. You can sit down and do the math. You can do it at any level. You can do it with any set of abilities, classes, and items.

Sure, you cannot anticipate all game circumstances, but you can figure out average damage for single attacks, full round attacks, etc. And what average damage tells you is the approximate number of rounds it will take for one combatant to take out another with the given AC and a set number of hit points. It gives you a clear indication that one PC or NPC with a specific set of weapons and abilties can take out a given opponent in less or more time (on average), so yes it is worthwhile information.


----------



## TheEvil (Jun 7, 2005)

This is exactly why a cleric with the travel domain is a better choice for this tactic.  Also, why bring just one fighter?  Heck, in one case the cleric brought three people in on top of the BBEG.  Right past all the traps he had littered the slope with.    



			
				KarinsDad said:
			
		

> Because if the bad guy survives the attack (which is fairly common in DND), he takes a 5 foot step around the ftr/rgr and wastes the Sorcerer with his OWN full round attack.
> 
> . S
> x F
> ...


----------



## TheEvil (Jun 7, 2005)

General comment not aimed at anyone in particular, but if the GM runs a game where the most important thing about being a fighter is pure damage output, then they have no one but themselves to blame if people focus on builds for damage over style.


----------



## cignus_pfaccari (Jun 7, 2005)

Nifft said:
			
		

> Things That Are Better With Lots of Attacks:
> 
> 1/ Wounding (and ability damage in general)
> 2/ Poison (and anything else that triggers a save or two)
> ...




I'm gonna disagree with ya on the poison.  That's hellaexpensive, and doesn't work very often.

Otherwise, yes.  Wounding would seem to be the most effective property, as you're chipping away at their HP very fast.  If you can afford it, and aren't squeamish, Souldrinking (1 negative level/hit, more on crit, +4 equivalent) would also be good.

Brad


----------



## FreeTheSlaves (Jun 7, 2005)

KarinsDad said:
			
		

> The only time the Rogue with the two weapons has an advantage in average damage is in the full round sneak attack cases. However, if he is tumbling away in order to go invisible again, he is at a disadvantage in average damage per combat BECAUSE he is only attacking one round in two (or even three). His average damage at least halves. On the other hand, if he stays put and fights, he will probably not get full round sneak attack damage in every round either (especially since some higher level creatures have immunities or defenses against sneak attacks).




I don't dispute your analysis, it seems pretty complete but we need to look at the rogue in his role within a party environment, as Infiniti2000 points out. 

The rogue, even a melee twink such as presented above cannot stay in toe to toe combat for much longer than 1-2 rounds against an equal challenge. The spiked chain & greatsword example has a better overall damage output but the 2WF is designed to dump a lot of damage & then bail. The medium armour & good con is merely to allow survival after a counter-attacking full attack, unless vs exception melee monster - which no experienced rogue would dare expose themself to.

This ability to dump a whack of damage is carefully timed by the rogue to cause the most harm at a pivotal moment in the battle (i.e. force the enemy cleric to heal only himself) and a player that has worked their rogue up from 1st will know and love the tactical aspect of their class. 

Btw, don't worry about crunching numbers KarinsDad but do you think the spiked chain variant is comparable to the springing rogue-swordsman?


----------



## FreeTheSlaves (Jun 7, 2005)

TheEvil said:
			
		

> General comment not aimed at anyone in particular, but if the GM runs a game where the most important thing about being a fighter is pure damage output, then they have no one but themselves to blame if people focus on builds for damage over style.



My experience is that the party without someone focused in AC gets too wasted too often. Someone has to present themselves for the enemies first full attack or to take the AoO for the rest of the group to duck under the reach afterwards. I say "has to" because it is going to happen regardless, the question is is someone prepared? 

When this last happened (I was the AC monkey), the 2handers got too injured needlessly for healing to keep up (partly my fault by not doing my task properly) - I ordered* one to become a temporary archer for that sessions action.

*Yes my character was the ranking officer.


----------



## Infiniti2000 (Jun 7, 2005)

KarinsDad said:
			
		

> But most the time, this tactic totally sucks and the bad guy is now within 10 or 15 feet of the Sorcerer.



  "Most" is so widely open to interpretation, that your opinion on it is rendered immaterial.  In point of fact, you provide a number of examples when it would/could happen with (apparently) even a poor-melee sorcerer.  How about a sorcerer/dragon disciple or someone else who doesn't mind "getting dirty?"  There are numerous situations where a dim door would be useful, if not downright necessary.

But, if you wish, go ahead and totally disregard terrain and any other factors for your incomplete analysis.  Put both combatants in a square, featureless room with no way out.  If that helps you, then more power to you.


----------



## Storyteller01 (Jun 7, 2005)

It a game folks, let's step back and breathe a bit...     


IRL, (the basis of my games, mwahahahahaha...)  twf is difficult to master. Even when you do, the concept is enhancing precision to do greater damage, something not well covered in D&D. Only the most exceptional tend to master a truely offensive twf system. Otherwise, it's a stylized sword and board.


----------



## KarinsDad (Jun 7, 2005)

FreeTheSlaves said:
			
		

> I don't dispute your analysis, it seems pretty complete but we need to look at the rogue in his role within a party environment, as Infiniti2000 points out.




Actually, it had a flaw.  

I did it quickly at work and forgot the part about the TW fighter getting 0.5 Str with the off hand weapon, so the damage in the various full round attacks for the TW fighter should have been about 0.35 to 0.65 less, depending.



			
				FreeTheSlaves said:
			
		

> The rogue, even a melee twink such as presented above cannot stay in toe to toe combat for much longer than 1-2 rounds against an equal challenge. The spiked chain & greatsword example has a better overall damage output but the 2WF is designed to dump a lot of damage & then bail. The medium armour & good con is merely to allow survival after a counter-attacking full attack, unless vs exception melee monster - which no experienced rogue would dare expose themself to.




The problem with dumping a lot of damage and then bailing is that you are not doing that much productively while bailing.



			
				FreeTheSlaves said:
			
		

> This ability to dump a whack of damage is carefully timed by the rogue to cause the most harm at a pivotal moment in the battle (i.e. force the enemy cleric to heal only himself) and a player that has worked their rogue up from 1st will know and love the tactical aspect of their class.




No doubt.

Remember though, if you don't hit, the tactic doesn't work that well.

This is a re-occurring theme in DND that some people don't quite get. They go for the flash as opposed to the bang. In other words, my psion has ways at 8th level to get her AC as high as 36. Even in a situation where she cannot hit the opponent (due to low BAB), she is a pain for the DM since the opponents rarely hit her back. They can attempt to ignore her, but that is a mistake of a different kind.



			
				FreeTheSlaves said:
			
		

> Btw, don't worry about crunching numbers KarinsDad but do you think the spiked chain variant is comparable to the springing rogue-swordsman?




Hard to say. The spiked chain variant gets more full round attacks in due to threatening a larger area and the 15 foot trick. On the other hand, his opponents can get a few more full round attacks back on him.

We have a springing rogue-swordsman-shadow dancer in our group and the hide in plain sight ability combined with spring attack gives her a huge offense due to moving in, sneak attack, tumble away. Next round, hide, move to set up. Rinse and repeat. Granted, she tends to only get an attack in every other round, but she pounds pretty hard when she does hit. And, she only gets hit back when she goes toe to toe (this is a new PC for this player, so she will have to learn the hard way to not go toe to toe).

The problem with the spiked chain variant is that a good tactical DM playing tactical opponents can get around his advantages, especially the AoO reach advantage. I'll post another thread on what I mean by that.


----------



## FreeTheSlaves (Jun 8, 2005)

KarinsDad said:
			
		

> The problem with dumping a lot of damage and then bailing is that you are not doing that much productively while bailing.




That's true, I'd assume that tumble/invisibility would be used to get in close, one full attack & then a tumbling retreat. The only way to get a consistant damage output is to use reach, range or spring attack but in all these cases a rogue will never, on average, be better at average damage output than a fighter - attempting to do so is an exercise in futility. 

I'm not so sure that I would call a rogue vanishing from sight, delaying/readying, or hiding is a waste in productivity. This will have an impact on the enemies decisions if they recognize the threat that he presents. A duel wielding rogue suddenly appearing next to a dex denied/flanked 2nd rank type is pretty much in their worst dreams. 



			
				KarinsDad said:
			
		

> Hard to say. The spiked chain variant gets more full round attacks in due to threatening a larger area and the 15 foot trick. On the other hand, his opponents can get a few more full round attacks back on him.




I'm weary of any rogue build that requires a near static full attack (2WF included), even one with reach. The problems are that a decent tank will merely take a hit to close and reach enemies are not infrequent themselves. My 'reserve character' rogue (moderate mortality campaign) build uses reach & missile at the expense of being specialized in either.

****

Going back to this threads title, how would you make 2 weapon fighting not suck-o-rama? If I was going to buy into this assumption - I'm reserving my judgement still - the only thing I would change is the sheer number of feats required. I would make the initial 2WF free without need for a feat, this seems to be the biggest complaint closely followed by the necessity of the full attack option and lastly the double wealth investment.


----------



## KarinsDad (Jun 8, 2005)

FreeTheSlaves said:
			
		

> Going back to this threads title, how would you make 2 weapon fighting not suck-o-rama?




I would change it from -2/-2 to -1/-1.

That way, it would still take feats, it would still be less damage due to minuses to hit, it would still be less damage due to the 0.5 Str on the off hand weapon, and it would still require investing in two magical weapons.


The way to improve TW fighting without changing the rules is to add either to hit, damage, or both to each attack to the point that the extra damage overcomes the lesser to hit, lesser Str, etc.

That is why the TW fighting Rogue is so comparable to the THW fighting Rogue, not because the Spiked Chain averages 2 points less damage than the Greatsword.

For example, comparing Improved TW fighting and THW fighting (2 bladed sword versus greatsword), both with a non-magical weapon, with a Str of 14, with BAB 6/1, and a 50% chance to hit on the first attack, yields:

(50%+25%) * (2D6 + 3) = 7.5

versus

(40%+15%) * (D8 + 2) + (40%+15%) * (D8 + 1) = 7.8

Here with 3 feats (and nothing else in the mix), the Improved TWF is doing slightly better damage on a full round attack (but less damage on a single attack).

Give both of these characters +5 swords instead and it becomes:

(75%+50%) * (2D6 + 8) = 18.75

versus

(65%+40%) * (D8 + 7) + (65%+40%) * (D8 + 6) = 23.1


Just by giving him a (vastly) better weapon, this has changed the Improved TW fighter from doing 4% more damage (practically the same) to 23% more damage.

There are many ways to do this: Bard Inspirations, Cleric Prayers, magic weapons, etc. Anything which boosts to hit or damage helps the TW fighter more than the THW fighter. The generic problem is that the TW fighter tends to be behind the THW fighter in sheer damage to start out with, hence, he is playing catch up in damage production (as oppopsed to pulling away).


----------



## Brother MacLaren (Jun 8, 2005)

FreeTheSlaves said:
			
		

> I would make the initial 2WF free without need for a feat, this seems to be the biggest complaint closely followed by the necessity of the full attack option and lastly the double wealth investment.



Or, you could make the initial 2WF cost a feat to reflect that it is a specialized and uncommon skill, but allow it to give full iterative attacks with the off-hand. 

Then, a non-fighter 2WF would have two more feats available to take advantage of the many great options such as 2W Defense, Dual Strike, Oversized 2WF, or the style feats in Complete Warrior.

Tempest class does make the -2/-2 go to -1/-1 and then 0/0.  And it gives you two-weapon spring attack.  Very good option for 2WF types.


----------



## TheEvil (Jun 8, 2005)

I still think IndyPendant's idea is the best one.  It keeps TWF as a style that only the more dedicated follow, while taking away alot of the complaints against it.



			
				IndyPendant said:
			
		

> My idea is to slightly enhance the TWF feat chain, but differently from Stalker0's idea.  I think my concept enhances TWF enough to make it a fair option, yet not so much that TWF becomes just one of three standard choices.  I may even make it canon for my campaigns.  What do you guys think?
> 
> Feats:
> --TWF: As per SRD.
> ...


----------



## FreeTheSlaves (Jun 8, 2005)

Brother MacLaren said:
			
		

> Or, you could make the initial 2WF cost a feat to reflect that it is a specialized and uncommon skill, but allow it to give full iterative attacks with the off-hand.



Hmm, that would work by requiring the front end feat with the benefit of not needing any follow up feats. I was thinking of that but I chose to invert it because I wanted parity with S&B & 2H which do not require any feats at their most basic level (btw, my option costs 2 feats, yours costs 1). 

The point of difference between you and I is how we make 2WF "a specialized & uncommon skill" - you want the feat expenditure to back it up while I'd settle for the difficult mastery/standard limitations to reinforce this. Either/or.



			
				Brother MacLaren said:
			
		

> Tempest class does make the -2/-2 go to -1/-1 and then 0/0.  And it gives you two-weapon spring attack.  Very good option for 2WF types.



To be frank, I do not like PrCs built around specializing in a fighting style. If a specialized fighter at 20th level is not the best at any particular fighting style I consider this to be fundamentally wrong - thus activating the auto-ban.


----------



## FreeTheSlaves (Jun 8, 2005)

IndyPendant said:
			
		

> Feats:
> --TWF: As per SRD.
> --Improved TWF: As per SRD, and the attack penalties for both weapons are reduced by 2. (So standard TWF is done with no attack penalties.)
> --Greater TWF: As per SRD, and all off-hand attacks are made with full Str damage bonus.
> ...



The problem with this solution is the cost for benefit varies wildly by level. At Low level this fixes nothing, which may be the case for 20+/- sessions (1/2 a campaign) or be skipped entirely by starting at the mid-levels. At the mid-levels the damage output is approaching 2H while leaving S&B behind. At the early high levels the dex prerequisite is the main limiting factor holding back the style (when gloves of dex begin to proliferate) while S&B is well and truly dead by comparison.

This seems to be encouraging the character to start 2H/S&B and switch to 2WF around the mid-levels+.


----------

