|
7 months ago ::
Nov 07, 2012 - 9:18PM
#41
|
Date Joined:
Sep 19, 2006
|
I like some of the ideas here, but I think to a degree, everyone has forgotten about a few things. First I am sure that you guys are thinking of primarily fighters and rangers when you talk about making a balanced TWF system. Well you left one out. The monk (or even just a simple unarmed brawler fighter. How would you figure in unarmed TWF that the monk has done in the past (although he was actually doing unarmed multi-weapon fighting, but that's technicalities really) and still make it balanced. Keep in mind that unless they give the monk a similar treatment as they did in 3.X, having scaling unarmed damage (I doubt it) his damage will be naturally low.
That would probably fall under some Monk rules that supercede or work with TWF. The easiest way would be to allow Unarmed Monks treat their weapons as higher than normal (1d6 or 1d8) and light weapons for purposes related to weapons. But to be honest I have no idea how they're going to treat the Monk with D&D:Next. He could get Ki points, Expertise Die, Psionic features, etc based on how different each addition has approached the class.
Also there are more than 3 fighting styles. Everyone here has assumed full hands for fighting while fighting in melee. Sword and board. Two-handed great-weapons. Two Weapon Fighting. What about what I refer to as Dueling? That is a single weapon in one hand and nothing in the off hand. Or what I refer to as Swashbuckling? That is a single weapon with a light ranged weapon (throwing dagger, hand crossbow, powder pistol etc) in the off hand? I think all of these should be available as possible 'fighting styles' that are balanced as equal options.
I'm not really sure how they'll treat Single-use weapon users (Duelists, Swashbucklers, etc). In 4E such characters usually went with the Grappler-style fighter, using a person as a shield or throwing them to the ground or grabbing and pulling them into clusters for their friends to beat on. Additionally there is a lot of versatility that comes with a free hand which can hold a single-hand ranged weapon, flask of acid, throwing dagger, lantern/torch, fist full of dirt or flour, your cloak to be used as a shield or bluff your opponent, bag full of marbles or caltrops, a black egg, or thermal nuclear detonator. A lot of this would be much harder or impossible to pull off while wielding two weapons, a shield, or a two-handed weapons AND attack in the same turn.
|
|
|
|
7 months ago ::
Nov 08, 2012 - 3:13AM
#42
|
Date Joined:
Oct 30, 2012
|
I like some of the ideas here, but I think to a degree, everyone has forgotten about a few things. First I am sure that you guys are thinking of primarily fighters and rangers when you talk about making a balanced TWF system. Well you left one out. The monk (or even just a simple unarmed brawler fighter. How would you figure in unarmed TWF that the monk has done in the past (although he was actually doing unarmed multi-weapon fighting, but that's technicalities really) and still make it balanced. Keep in mind that unless they give the monk a similar treatment as they did in 3.X, having scaling unarmed damage (I doubt it) his damage will be naturally low.
That would probably fall under some Monk rules that supercede or work with TWF. The easiest way would be to allow Unarmed Monks treat their weapons as higher than normal (1d6 or 1d8) and light weapons for purposes related to weapons. But to be honest I have no idea how they're going to treat the Monk with D&D:Next. He could get Ki points, Expertise Die, Psionic features, etc based on how different each addition has approached the class.
Also there are more than 3 fighting styles. Everyone here has assumed full hands for fighting while fighting in melee. Sword and board. Two-handed great-weapons. Two Weapon Fighting. What about what I refer to as Dueling? That is a single weapon in one hand and nothing in the off hand. Or what I refer to as Swashbuckling? That is a single weapon with a light ranged weapon (throwing dagger, hand crossbow, powder pistol etc) in the off hand? I think all of these should be available as possible 'fighting styles' that are balanced as equal options.
I'm not really sure how they'll treat Single-use weapon users (Duelists, Swashbucklers, etc). In 4E such characters usually went with the Grappler-style fighter, using a person as a shield or throwing them to the ground or grabbing and pulling them into clusters for their friends to beat on. Additionally there is a lot of versatility that comes with a free hand which can hold a single-hand ranged weapon, flask of acid, throwing dagger, lantern/torch, fist full of dirt or flour, your cloak to be used as a shield or bluff your opponent, bag full of marbles or caltrops, a black egg, or thermal nuclear detonator. A lot of this would be much harder or impossible to pull off while wielding two weapons, a shield, or a two-handed weapons AND attack in the same turn.
I think a problem is that Two-weapon fighting is available for Rogues.
So then it has to be less good than sword and board or big 2 handed weapon, because if it's not then every Rogue will take it at no oppotunity cost. That is the Fighter is giving up either +1 AC or 2 points of average damage whilst the Rogue isn't.
This is also the problem with the Katana at present, as a Rogue can't use a shield anyway it is "just better" for them to use one rather than a short sword or rapier.
This could be solved by having a two weapon fighting feat that Fighters get for free, as they do shields and two handed martial weapons, so that they can be equivalent.
|
|
|
|
7 months ago ::
Nov 08, 2012 - 5:25AM
#43
|
Date Joined:
Jul 29, 2012
|
so long as it doesn't degenerate in the trap option (the trapiest of traps!) it was in 3E.
Not at all, I tweaked out one of my player's barbarian/ranger focusing on TWF (all the Feats), total food processor (sick damage output per round).
|
|
|
|
7 months ago ::
Nov 08, 2012 - 6:57AM
#44
|
Date Joined:
Aug 31, 2008
|
I still think that two-weapon fighting should do less total damage (if you hit twice) than a single hit from a heavy two-handed weapon. As others have said, two-weapon fighting gives you the advantage of two chances to hit and the ability to attack two separate foes.
If people are worried about how this interacts with class proficiencies (such as the fact that rogues can't use heavy weapons, so using two weapons might seem like an obvious choice), just include two-weapon fighting capability within each class.
For example (and, as usual for me, this is off the top of my head):
Fighters can use any one-handed weapon in their off hand. So a fighter could use two long swords.
Rogues can use any light weapon in their off hand. So a rogue could use two short swords, or a rapier and dagger.
On the other hand, you can also use the design ethos I call, "Don't sweat the small stuff." I thought of this in response to an above post that brought up the fact that a rogue has no reason to not use a katana, because it is better than a rapier or short sword.
Is this an issue? I say no. The difference is an average of 1 point of damage per attack. We aren't talking ground breaking numbers here. So those who are most interested in eeking every last bit of damage out of their character can use a katana, and those who care more about flavor can pick any weapon with the knowledge that they won't be doing much less damage anyway.
|
|
|
|
7 months ago ::
Nov 08, 2012 - 7:43AM
#45
|
Date Joined:
Jul 29, 2012
|
I was perfectly happy with the last "iteration" TWF.
|
|
|
|
7 months ago ::
Nov 08, 2012 - 8:46AM
#46
|
Date Joined:
Nov 19, 2007
|
For those who haven't seen it yet, TWF is addressed in this week's Q%A.
In memory of wrecan and his Unearthed Wrecana.5e should strongly stay away from "I don't like it, so you can't have it either."
|
|
|
|
7 months ago ::
Nov 09, 2012 - 6:22PM
#47
|
Date Joined:
May 18, 2002
|
Hey, now to be fair, at least soem of those TWF feats aren't completely, 100% worthless, just mostly worthless.
Not at all, I tweaked out one of my player's barbarian/ranger focusing on TWF (all the Feats), total food processor (sick damage output per round).
A trap option doesn't necessarily have to be a bad option.
Going into TWF in 3.x will eat up all of your feats. You'll come out of it a walking lawnmower, but it's still a trap.
|
|
|
|
7 months ago ::
Nov 09, 2012 - 9:39PM
#48
|
Date Joined:
Jan 15, 2009
|
Not at all, I tweaked out one of my player's barbarian/ranger focusing on TWF (all the Feats), total food processor (sick damage output per round).
A trap option doesn't necessarily have to be a bad option.
Going into TWF in 3.x will eat up all of your feats. You'll come out of it a walking lawnmower, but it's still a trap.
Heh I described CuCulaines Chariot Feat as a riding lawnmower.. heck its buildable as one maneuver. Till the beginning of your next turn you do CS dice damage to all adjacent targets (animate or not) its a berserk move and can work while moving and hurts friends and enemies. Now how much should it cost. 
|
|
|
|
7 months ago ::
Nov 09, 2012 - 11:06PM
#49
|
Date Joined:
Aug 11, 2006
|
I'm I the only one who liked two attacks at 1/2 damage? I think it doesn't even need to be a feat if you use light weapons. The feat can allow you to use 1 handed weapons and get a +1 shield bonus to AC while dual wielding.
@mellored That's fine, but I don't think it should cost a feat. The feat ought to offer some improvements to that baseline.
That's what i ment.
2 attacks @ 1/2 damage as baseline. Feats can expand on it, like +1 AC and you can act like you have a shield.
Agreed. I liked it as well, as long as it wasn't a feat.
|
|
|
|
7 months ago ::
Nov 09, 2012 - 11:15PM
#50
|
Date Joined:
Aug 11, 2006
|
Hey, now to be fair, at least soem of those TWF feats aren't completely, 100% worthless, just mostly worthless.
Not at all, I tweaked out one of my player's barbarian/ranger focusing on TWF (all the Feats), total food processor (sick damage output per round).
A trap option doesn't necessarily have to be a bad option.
Going into TWF in 3.x will eat up all of your feats. You'll come out of it a walking lawnmower, but it's still a trap.
That's the thing, if you wanted to be a high burst hitter as a Fighter, you picked a two handed weapon (usually a great sword) and had a select chain of feats to go through. Power Attack and every single weapon + to hit and damage booster feat you could find. Being the two handed Whack-A-Mole took as many feats as the Bionic Lawnmower Two Weapon Fighter, it's just that baseline the - 2 to hit was the penalty everyone looked at.
Every single Fighter trick build required and still requires a hyper focus into a single weapon/style set up.
|
|
|
