|
4 months ago ::
Jan 16, 2013 - 12:08PM
#21
|
Date Joined:
Mar 16, 2007
|
I hate to be a downer, but that idea for the Dual Wielding feat doesn't affect ANYTHING if you choose to fight with two large weapons...
Also, mechanically speaking, fighting with two weapons can still be incredibly useful, due to the Martial Damage Dice system. Even if you don't get a static mod to the off-hand weapon, if your primary weapon missed, you can do 1d6-6d6 extra damage with the offhand and apply the Martial Damage Bonus, dwarfing the mods you missed out on. It seems really weak in theory, looking at that flat 1d6 you get, but when used with the other game systems, it allows you to split up your martial damage dice and use multiple attack-based maneuvers.
I'm pretty sure this is wrong. The feat says you only get to use the die of damage with no modifiers. I interpret "no modifiers" to mean any and all static modifiers including weapon focus, magic enhancement, strength, iron armbands type crap if it makes it in this edition, and also any class bonuses including martial damage dice and the martial damage bonus.
|
|
|
|
4 months ago ::
Jan 16, 2013 - 2:35PM
#22
|
Date Joined:
Jul 29, 2012
|
@Eric888: I generally agree, with one reservation:
Assuming the weapon is magical, shouldn't its enhancement bonus be part of the expression "weapon damage"? Bonuses from buffs (like prayer) or other magic items (like armbands/whatever) are indeed excempt, but I believe a weapon's enhancement bonus and other, passive damage bonuses (including dice) of the weapon should be part of "weapon damage."
Where am I wrong? (Has there ever been a clarification on this matter, in any edition?)
|
|
|
|
4 months ago ::
Jan 16, 2013 - 3:08PM
#23
|
Date Joined:
Jul 27, 2009
|
I had a chuckle about the idea of asking the SCA about their opinion about anything related to fencing  OTOH, when you Google "Spanish Rapier & Dagger", there's some authentic stuff in the first few hits. I fence myself, and the idea of wielding two backswords at the same time is ludicrious... However, it's a fantasy game.
|
|
|
|
4 months ago ::
Jan 17, 2013 - 1:50AM
#24
|
Date Joined:
Mar 16, 2007
|
@Eric888: I generally agree, with one reservation:
Assuming the weapon is magical, shouldn't its enhancement bonus be part of the expression "weapon damage"? Bonuses from buffs (like prayer) or other magic items (like armbands/whatever) are indeed excempt, but I believe a weapon's enhancement bonus and other, passive damage bonuses (including dice) of the weapon should be part of "weapon damage."
Where am I wrong? (Has there ever been a clarification on this matter, in any edition?)
It's all just guesswork. I can see your argument as I can also see how martial damage dice are a seperate pool of damage that does not care about "only the weapon die" or not and only cares if an attack hit this turn or not.
I don't think the designers can effectively try to attack the stacking static modifiers problem without first defining it and creating an ingame term for it.
|
|
|
|
4 months ago ::
Jan 17, 2013 - 11:21AM
#25
|
Date Joined:
May 24, 2012
|
When I said that lok's dual wield feat doesn't accomplish anything, what I meant was... It functions entirely independent of what your off-hand weapon is. You can take an entire feat to wield a bastard sword in that offhand, but it offers you no difference than if you were wielding a pencil. It's essentially a false choice, something that requires character resource investment but doesn't change gameplay whatsoever. It's like if you were to burn five talent/skill points in an MMO on getting a new skin for your weapon- Any other choice that actually changes gameplay is better and preferable. If you want to make it a satisfying choice to take a feat, it needs to improve your character in some way. Not all feats need to be equal, per se, but all feats need to feel like you made the right choice in taking it.
|
|
|
|
4 months ago ::
Jan 17, 2013 - 1:14PM
#26
|
Date Joined:
Jul 29, 2012
|
When I said that lok's dual wield feat doesn't accomplish anything, what I meant was... It functions entirely independent of what your off-hand weapon is. You can take an entire feat to wield a bastard sword in that offhand, but it offers you no difference than if you were wielding a pencil. It's essentially a false choice, something that requires character resource investment but doesn't change gameplay whatsoever. It's like if you were to burn five talent/skill points in an MMO on getting a new skin for your weapon- Any other choice that actually changes gameplay is better and preferable. If you want to make it a satisfying choice to take a feat, it needs to improve your character in some way. Not all feats need to be equal, per se, but all feats need to feel like you made the right choice in taking it.
Oh, sry, now you make more sense... :D
Well, in defense to my Dual Wielding feat suggestion, I wish to note that it also allows you to negate the -2 attack penalty if you wield a light weapon (and it can potentially affect both primary and off-hand weapon attacks).
In essence, I opted to have the Dual Wielding feat work for both light and non-light weapon wielders. I also opted to suggest a basic version. If anyone has an improvement to add, please feel free.
Some thoughts: I could have Dual Wielding negate the primary weapon penalty, light or not (what Two-Weapon Strike does), but then I need something to add to Two-Weapon Strike in its place... oh well, back to the drawing board :D
|
|
|
|
4 months ago ::
Jan 18, 2013 - 2:09PM
#27
|
Date Joined:
Nov 13, 2001
|
Instead of starting my own thread I just want to confirm one thing.
Can you attack two targets with TWF as it's written / intended?
ty
|
|
|
|
4 months ago ::
Jan 22, 2013 - 2:00PM
#28
|
Date Joined:
Jul 29, 2012
|
@Nivek_Loneshadow: Yes, nothing prevents you from directing each attack made while wielding two weapons, at a different target.
|
|
|
