|
5 years ago ::
Jul 15, 2008 - 2:47PM
#241
|
Date Joined:
May 21, 2008
|
And why should TWF be "viable" for the fighter, anyway? Should 1h + shield be "viable" for the ranger?
Its as viable for the Ranger as TWF is for the fighter. Which to me is plenty viable, but to everyone else isn't.
The only downside for the ranger with weapon+shield is most of his abilities state 'must be wielding two weapons' for melee, I'll check in a bit see if its technically possible to build one with a shield at all.
What amuses me, is I concede that for the warlord and paladin TWF is pretty much non-option, yet no one really cares if they (warlord and paladin) TWF. I offer alternatives to just randomly allowing extra attacks with strength and enhancment on, I get told that doesn't fix the problem.
I show that fighters are as viable with two weapons (granted from diffrent categories, but meh), and ignored on that too.
Basically to me, the people clamoring most for 'viable' in the sense of 'two attacks all the time with strength!' twf are really wanting the older broken 2E mechanics, as in 3E it was vastly inferior for the fighter (and wasn't much of an option) AND ranger to two weapon fight (I can dig out my old explination behind it, essentially gaining an attack at -3 in the old multiple ton of attack world of 3.X meant losing much of your damage potential).
|
|
|
|
5 years ago ::
Jul 15, 2008 - 3:10PM
#242
|
Date Joined:
Jun 22, 2008
|
I think ranged combat should be viable for the fighter.
I mean c'mon, he's a fighter. He should just be badass at EVERYTHING.
|
|
|
|
5 years ago ::
Jul 15, 2008 - 3:27PM
#243
|
|
|
Feat Suggestion
Ambidexterity,
Prerequiste Dex 15
you may wield a weapon with each hand, each weapon may be used in a basic attack or at will power as a standard action. this also removes the -2 penalty for fighting with 2 onehand weapons
Special, you can fight with 2 weapons at a -2 penalty to attack rolls with each weapon, fighting with 2 off hand weapons (such as daggers) removes this penalty. they may be used for at will powers or basic attacks as a full round action.
Weapon Finesse
Benefit
For weapons of the Light Blade category, you apply your dexterity modifer to attack and damage rolls instead of your strength
|
|
|
|
5 years ago ::
Jul 15, 2008 - 3:28PM
#244
|
Date Joined:
Aug 12, 2006
|
Then say that when it's brought up instead of ignoring it.
And why should TWF be "viable" for the fighter, anyway? Should 1h + shield be "viable" for the ranger?
(Actually, having asked that, I'd argue that it should, but everyone seems so damn focused on making twf viable for the fighter rather than 1h+shield viable for the ranger. So sad.)
1- I did.
2- Because twf increases the fun for some fighter players.
3- Yes, it should.
In general, I'm just opposed to arbitrary limitations imposed on players. I can accept the sword/board or thf for the paladin easier, probably because traditionally, in movies and literature, that's what they use. (and mostly because I've never had a player want to play a twf pally). Warlords should also be able to use twf, because, well, why not?
Aluman, I came up with pretty much the exact same thing for cleave and passing attack.
Also, looking through the ranger power list, it's almost possible to build a thf or sword/board ranger. They run into two problems: For at-wills they have but one: Hit and run. They also have a few levels with no non-twf/ranged powers; 5th, 13th, 17th, 29th. That's actually not nearly as bad as I expected. The at-will could be solved easily enough by removing the twf requirment from careful attack since it really doesnt need it. Some of the other powers could be similarly modified (at 5th, two wolf pounce could easily be brought more in line with passing attack, etc) And with some fighter multiclassing feats the sword n board or th ranger really wouldnt be in that bad of shape after 10th level...
|
|
|
|
5 years ago ::
Jul 15, 2008 - 4:37PM
#245
|
Date Joined:
Mar 28, 2007
|
I told my fighter that if he had defensive TwF I'd consider him to be wielding a shield. I didn't feel like massively screwing around with the rules on a new player.
|
|
|
|
5 years ago ::
Jul 15, 2008 - 9:13PM
#246
|
Date Joined:
May 21, 2008
|
In general, I'm just opposed to arbitrary limitations imposed on players. I can accept the sword/board or thf for the paladin easier, probably because traditionally, in movies and literature, that's what they use. (and mostly because I've never had a player want to play a twf pally). Warlords should also be able to use twf, because, well, why not?
For the same reason Warlords don't really THF well, really. Warlords should either be Reach or Sword+Board at least rules as written, they gain minor benefits from either TWF or THF not enough that it outweighs what they lose both ways.
Aluman, I came up with pretty much the exact same thing for cleave and passing attack.
See to me that's a Better way of balancing TWF, rather than going out and out free use of two attack powers each round OR Two attacks with Strength.
Also, looking through the ranger power list, it's almost possible to build a thf or sword/board ranger. They run into two problems: For at-wills they have but one: Hit and run. They also have a few levels with no non-twf/ranged powers; 5th, 13th, 17th, 29th. That's actually not nearly as bad as I expected. The at-will could be solved easily enough by removing the twf requirment from careful attack since it really doesnt need it. Some of the other powers could be similarly modified (at 5th, two wolf pounce could easily be brought more in line with passing attack, etc) And with some fighter multiclassing feats the sword n board or th ranger really wouldnt be in that bad of shape after 10th level...
That's again basically what I would do if I wanted a Sword+board striker (or if a player of mine wanted one).
|
|
|
|
5 years ago ::
Jul 15, 2008 - 9:14PM
#247
|
Date Joined:
May 21, 2008
|
I told my fighter that if he had defensive TwF I'd consider him to be wielding a shield. I didn't feel like massively screwing around with the rules on a new player.
This works too.
|
|
|
|
5 years ago ::
Jul 16, 2008 - 5:52AM
#248
|
Date Joined:
Mar 28, 2007
|
I'm also going to create some expanded S+B as well as TwF and THF rules.
Our party runs the gamut, a TwF, a S+B, a THF, and an unarmed character (Well it's my Battle Sorceror so unarmed might not be accurate)
I miss some of the old TwF feats, ao I'll be bringing them back.
|
|
|
|
5 years ago ::
Aug 08, 2008 - 11:11PM
#249
|
Date Joined:
Aug 24, 2007
|
How about letting players gain pluses on any magic bonuses from their offhand weapon, apply to their attack rolls and ac?
say they weild a +2 dagger in offhand, give them a +2 ac or a +2 attack and let them choose each round weather they are using the offhand weapon as an offensive or defensive action that round.
|
|
|
|
5 years ago ::
Aug 09, 2008 - 4:36PM
#250
|
Date Joined:
Jun 25, 2008
|
The feat for an at-will double attack is just fine.
|
|
|
