New TWF/flurry system

[RandomCasualty]

What if two weapon fighting/flurry worked like this:

Whenever you make a melee attack with your primary weapon, and miss, you may immediately make a melee attack with your secondary weapon against the same target.

Now, according to the math I've done, it grants about a +5 to hit when you've got a 50/50 chance of landing a hit, and about a +1 when you've got a 5% of failure or success. This assumes that both your attacks have an equal bonus to hit, which probably won't happen.

Now the question is, how does this compare with two handed fighting? Would it be worth it to spend a feat on this combat style or would it still suck?

[Username17]

Looks vaguely familiar.


Here's the math on your system:

Old hit chance / new hit chance / benefit:
2+ / 99.75% / 4.75%
3+ / 99% / 9%
4+ / 97.75% / 12.75%
5+ / 96% / 16%
6+ / 93.75% / 18.75%
7+ / 91% / 21%
8+ / 87.75% / 22.75%
9+ / 84% / 24%
10+ / 79.75% / 24.75%
11+ / 75% / 25%
12+ / 69.75% / 24.75%
13+ / 64% / 24%
14+ / 57.75% / 22.75%
15+ / 51% / 21%
16+ / 43.75% / 18.75%
17+ / 36% / 16%
18+ / 27.75% / 12.75%
19+ / 19% / 9%
10+ / 9.75% / 4.75%


It seems like it would be easier and do more of what you want it to do if it just gave a straight bonus. Perhaps, half your dex bonus...

-Username17

[RandomCasualty]

Well, the thing is that I want some mechanic so that you can actually hit with the offhand weapon. If it's just a straight bonus to attack, then you'll never end up actually using the offhand weapon, so it won't matter if you're weilding a MW dagger there or a +5 shortsword. I'd like to give some advantage to someone wielding two magical weapons without actually giving them more attacks (since you guys have convinced me that more attacks isn't a good method), so I thought that a reroll system may work well.

It still slightly slows down the game by more dice rolling, which is bad, but I can't think of any other way to make the offhand weapon matter, and the solution does prevent buffs to damage from being too powerful, because it doesn't really grant extra attacks.

[Username17]

If you make the off-hand weapon "matter", every two weapon fighter guy is going to be like this:




If you make it "not matter", every two weapon fighter guy is going to be like this:



Fantasy is supposed to support both character types, at least occassionally. But a rules system just isn't going to.

So ask yourself: Which is the more common fantasy archetype?

-Username17

[Essence]

...except that the rules as they exist right now support, well, both. The former with the added damage of a larger off-hand weapon, and the latter with the negated attack penalty of a smaller off-hand weapon.

[RandomCasualty]

Well you can easily incorporate different styles by putting penalties for using larger weapons, as the current system does.

The real debate isn't really even about weapon size. If the weapons had to be light, I wouldn't have a problem with it. The main thing is that I'd like to reward someone for enchanting their weapons. If you've got two +3 weapons you should get some reward for it. If it behaves like a +3 weapon with a normal dagger, then you're getting hosed as a PC.

[Desdan_Mervolam]

Easy enough. Create a "Pair" enchantment that bestows the same benefits on two weapons, so long as those two weapons are weilded together. I'd say make it a flat fee, say 2000gp (or whatever) per plus of enhancement added. That way you get two weapons that have the same enchantment for less than it costs to have two enchanted seperatly. And then if the wielder wants to have other enchantments seperatly (Say Flaming and Frost) they can just go ahead and do it.

-Desdan

[RandomCasualty]

1084613039[/unixtime]]Easy enough. Create a "Pair" enchantment that bestows the same benefits on two weapons, so long as those two weapons are weilded together. I'd say make it a flat fee, say 2000gp (or whatever) per plus of enhancement added. That way you get two weapons that have the same enchantment for less than it costs to have two enchanted seperatly. And then if the wielder wants to have other enchantments seperatly (Say Flaming and Frost) they can just go ahead and do it.

I don't think I quite understand what you're suggesting. Are you saying that to gain the enhancement bonus of your weapon, you need to have specially made paired weapons?

So if I were to use say a +5 longsword and a rusty dagger, I'd get no bonus to hit from my longsword?

[Username17]

1084592526[/unixtime]]...except that the rules as they exist right now support, well, both. The former with the added damage of a larger off-hand weapon, and the latter with the negated attack penalty of a smaller off-hand weapon.

The current edition doesn't actually support either. There is absolutely no reason whatsoever to fight with a main gauche in your off-hand. The damage matters, and you are being charged an attack penalty in your primary hand no matter what you are using. If you aren't doing full damage with your off hand, there's no reason to even have an off-hand attack (and you could be getting a shield bonus instead and suffer no penalties at all).

Meanwhile, the penalty to-hit for using a non-light weapon in your off hand is -2 to both attacks. So by using a non-light weapon in your off hand you'd have to be picking up 4 points of damage just to make it equal to power attack on a single weapon - and you are not.

And that's even before we get into the 3.5 power attack snafu. It's honestly absurd.

The only two weapon styles supported in D&D are double-shortsword or katana/wkizashi. And neither of them are supported very well.

Would you like to see the giant chart of why you would never use TWF in D&D unless you had sneak attack dice again? Do you recall the fact that sneak attack styles gain essentially nothing from switching to the historically popular Rapier/Dagger or Katana/Katana combat modes?

-Username17

[Lago_AM3P]

There's spikes.

And there's several druidic spells that make two-weapon fighting (such that it is) awesome.

But yes, two-weapon fighting chews without sneak-attack.

[RandomCasualty]

Now, the real question is... how do we support both? We want swashbucklers with rapier/main gauche and we also want katana/wakasashi, dual shortsword, dual scimitar and so on.

Now some of these styles can take more feats to become good at than others.

Here is my thinking for a system.

System
Basic System: If you miss with your primary attack, you may attack with a light offhand weapon at a -4 penalty. If the weapon is not a light weapon, the penalty increases to -6. If you attack with a shield in this fashion, you lose the shield's AC bonus until your next action.

Two Weapon fighting (feat): Reduce penalties on offhand attacks by 4.

Now, I'm thinking that we may be able to fit in different styles like main gauche as combat style feats. Perhaps you get a free disarm attack with your main gauche if the enemy misses you.

Katana and wakasashi as well as twin shortswords should work well normally, and we could have another feat that allows you to nullify the penalty for wielding a non-light weapon in the offhand, making dual scimitar also work.

[Sir Neil]

If it's just a straight bonus to attack, then you'll never end up actually using the offhand weapon, so it won't matter if you're weilding a MW dagger there or a +5 shortsword. I'd like to give some advantage to someone wielding two magical weapons without actually giving them more attacks

Er, why not just let the off hand weapon's enhancement bonus add to the hit roll? It'll range from +1 (normal) to +6 (powerful magic), just like shields.

[Draco_Argentum]

One good start for making non-matched weapons viable would be to loosen up the proficiency system. The main gauche and rapier should be a proficiency and weapon focus (or anything that requires you to select a weapon) should apply to both.

[RandomCasualty]

1084681315[/unixtime]]
Er, why not just let the off hand weapon's enhancement bonus add to the hit roll? It'll range from +1 (normal) to +6 (powerful magic), just like shields.

Hmm... well the problem there is that then TWF is almost useless at lower levels. A +1 to hit is not worth giving up a two handed weapon for, though I suppose it could be worth it for a sword and shield bash style, but nobody is going to actually use two weapons straight up at low levels.

Because you can spend a feat to gain TWF and a +1 to hit, or you can spend a feat to gain weapon focus (greatsword), gain a +1 to hit and 1.5x strength.

For TWF to be worth it, you need an attack bonus that's actually somewhat decent. Frank's idea of adding half the dex bonus is a good one mechanically, but thematically I don't like it because it renders the offhand weapon irrelevant. It could be a fist or it could be a +6 vorpal weapon, and both are treated equally.

I've considered just using something liek 1/2 dex bonus + the enhancement of the offhand weapon, but that seems like it'd generate too much of a benefit at high levels. You'd probably be looking at around a +10 bonus to hit. Offhand, that sounds really high for a single feat investment.

[Lago_AM3P]

For a feat investment?

That should be something you do automatically.

Right now, if you do that, TWF would be FAIR, not dominating. Also in Frank's Final Fantasy d20 proposal, shields add half of your constitution bonus to AC.

And as far as I know, two-handed weapons still get various stupid bonuses.

[Sir Neil]

Hmm... well the problem there is that then TWF is almost useless at lower levels.... Because you can spend a feat to gain TWF and a +1 to hit, or...

Why keep the feat? Drop both it and Shield Expert.

[Desdan_Mervolam]

1084618030[/unixtime]]
I don't think I quite understand what you're suggesting. Are you saying that to gain the enhancement bonus of your weapon, you need to have specially made paired weapons?

So if I were to use say a +5 longsword and a rusty dagger, I'd get no bonus to hit from my longsword?

If you really want to use the rusty dager over the +5 main-gauche that the sword was paired with, you probably deserve to not get all the benefits.

I will admit this solution has the problem that it can negate all the benefits associated with the Pair by stealing or sundering one of the weapons. It's an ugly problem and I don't know how to fix it. Though, it's still the best solution for the magical TWF problem I've seen

-Desdan

[RandomCasualty]

1084741093[/unixtime]]
I will admit this solution has the problem that it can negate all the benefits associated with the Pair by stealing or sundering one of the weapons. It's an ugly problem and I don't know how to fix it.

The thing I don't like about paired weapons is that for one, it requires that you get all your weapons enchanted. You can't simply find a weapon and use it like the average character. All your crap has to be specially made for a two weapon fighter.

Which is why the only way I could think to balance the secondary weapon was to have it act as a separate attack roll that comes into play when the primary weapon misses.

This doesn't actually add more attacks, works when you charge, or do a normal attack action and its only real drawback is the fact that you're slowing the game slightly by rolling more dice. However, players can just as easily roll both weapons at the same time and announce "32 or 36, any of those hit?". Even if you never end up needing the offhand attack, you aren't taking up that much more time doing this, and it allows you to use normal weapons and gain appropriate benefits.

Plugging in styles like main gauche and such would probably be combat style feats that let you do stuff. After all when you used the main gauche it was primarily as a disarming/parrying tool as opposed to an attacking weapon, so if you stab with it you generally shouldn't do a hell of a lot of damage.

[Username17]

and its only real drawback is the fact that you're slowing the game slightly by rolling more dice

Not true. The bonus it provides is also variable in absolute and relative terms based on the number of times you hit on a d20. Which means that the utility of the second weapon is something which depends entirely upon game mechanical, metagame concerns.

That is, when you would be better off switching to a shield and when you would be better off pulling out your gladius is entirely dependent upon the number of bonuses you have relative to their AC.

Which means that it's like Power Attack, the action is based on metagame knowledge. However, unlike Power Attack declaration, which is itself a metagame action - this would be an entirely visible and real action. People would end up breaking the fourth wall all the time.

-Username17

[RandomCasualty]

Well, I figure by the time you actually figure out the AC of the creature you're fighting, it won't make that much of a difference anyway, and since all your feats, weapon focus and the like will be invested in whatever you TWF with, people won't be inclined to switch that often.

If they really want to, they can invest in a +2 shield, two +2 melee weapons, and dynamically switch what they do depending on how they see the situation, but I don't really consider that to be a metagame concern, unless they're using OOC knowledge, like knowing a creature's AC before they fight it.

It's perfectly ok for certain fighting styles to work better in certain places, but they should have to figure that out on thier own by attacking it, before this becomes clear. If they then decide after a few rounds of combat that sword and shield would probably be more effective they're free to switch it.

Changing styles depending on situation is actually a good thing, or can be, because it adds more depth and strategy to the game. It's ok that a player is better off attacking a heavily armored creature with a different style than a lightly armored one.

Unless the players have memorized the monster manual and know the ACs beforehand, I don't see the metagaming aspect being that bad. And if they do quote the monster manual ACs then they're metagaming like whores anyway, so adding this rule won't change much.

The important question is: when does that point occur? When would it be advantageous to switch from TWF to S&S or THF?

[Username17]

The important question is: when does that point occur? When would it be advantageous to switch from TWF to S&S or THF?

Any time the bonus to-hit is smaller than the AC or damage bonus from shields or a THW.

The chart I put up assumes the same bonus on both weapons, which means that it costs twice as much as fighting with a two handed weapon. At first level, it's going to be better than fighting with a shield if you hit on a 4-18. But when you have a +2 Shield, it's going to be worse than using it unless you hit on a 7-15. And when you have a +4 shield it's always going to be worse to two weapon fight than to use the shield.

The maximum bonus is +5 if you hit on precisely an 11+. This is no better than having a +3 shield and is only that good if your attack bonus is exactly 11 points less than their AC.

-Username17

[RandomCasualty]

1084806828[/unixtime]]
The chart I put up assumes the same bonus on both weapons, which means that it costs twice as much as fighting with a two handed weapon. At first level, it's going to be better than fighting with a shield if you hit on a 4-18. But when you have a +2 Shield, it's going to be worse than using it unless you hit on a 7-15. And when you have a +4 shield it's always going to be worse to two weapon fight than to use the shield.

Hmm ok... Yeah I can see why this wouldn't work then. Obviously TWF needs to still be better in some way... hmm.