Community

I hope D&D Next will have a very small feat list.    I really don't like the idea of feat taxes taxes for TWF.   It's kind of stupid, I mean who is going to use TWF without those feats?  

With that said, I can understand the need for an untrained and trained distinction.    I just hope that's as far as it goes.     If we end up with half a dozen  feats just to eliminate all the penalties of TWF  etc. I won't be impressed.        Selecting fighting style to be trained in should be one of the options that all fighters (and other classes) have, it shouldn't be a feat tax ever.  

So far I see the potential for several feats just to elminate the penalties

1.  Remove disadvantage on main hand
2.  Remove disadvantage on off hand
3.  Allow advantage on main hand
4.  Allow advantage on off hand
5.  Allow ability modifier on main hand
6.  Allow ability modifier on off hand
7.  Allow non light weapons for off hand

All those Drizzt clones are going to cry (oh wait scimitars are light weapons so he only needs 6 feats).

Nov 8, 2012 -- 11:39AM, Mand12 wrote:

Nov 8, 2012 -- 11:23AM, greatfrito wrote:

I'm really just not satisfied by that first answer.  TWF is just... really... bad.  I hate to see it require feats to be at all worthwhile.  I just think it's too low, and too unsatisfying, of a "baseline" to even build up from it.

Have you seen the untrained 3e TWF rules? 

Yes.  They have a track record for making TWF just terribad (maybe with some very specific circumstances providing exceptions), and then requiring feats to make it passable.

Nov 8, 2012 -- 11:14AM, Mand12 wrote:

I'm saying that class should mean more than a +2 bonus to 'approved' attacks.  An arcane dabbler would get one, singular at-will.  A multiclass fighter/wizard will get a whole lot more. 

And both deserve baseline effectiveness.

See, this is what I would like to see.  Arcane Dabbler should grant the at-will itself, not just a single use of three (that are the most worthless ones, BTW).  Though I think it should be two.  Three was too much, but one doesn't seem to be enough.  That way you can have your combat utility and a non-combat utility out of it, or varied types of combat or non-combat utility.

As for people that are questioning if the feat should be equal to multiclassing, it should be a form of multiclassing.  If I want to play a fighter with some wizard abilities, but don't want to sacrifice Expertise Dice to do so, I would take the feat.  If I was okay with losing the Expertise Dice, but want, say, Improved Two-Weapon Fighting, I would MC Wizard.  There should be multiple ways to accomplish the same thing, each with their own pluses and minuses.  A rigid, My Way or the Highway way of doing things is just not an option.

Nov 8, 2012 -- 11:45AM, Mand12 wrote:

Whereas in 4e, TWF did nothing unless you're a class that would have gotten Bonus Feats under the old system to enable effective TWF, like the fighter and ranger.  They effectively shunted it into the class powers directly (twin strike, dual strike), rather than feats.  I'm not sure how that's an important distinction.

It's always required specialization to use TWF effectively.  Always.

Pretty much this.  If anything, 4E was the MOST heavy-handed in its handling of TWF.  In 3E, you might be able to connect if you didn't have the feat, but you certainly were able to try.  In 4E, you didn't even get to make the attempt without a Power that allowed you to.  Hence why Twin Strike is pretty much the most chosen Half-Elf power.