D&D 3E/3.5 [3.5e] One feat = 2 weapon fighting at -2/-2?

[Simplicity]

Hang on... I've been hearing that Two Weapon Fighting no longer has a prereq. of ambidexterity... The feat
Two Weapon Fighting never had that prerequisite. So, I think
what is being said here is:
In 3.5e, you can fight with two weapons at -2/-2 penalty with only one feat, Two Weapon Fighting.

Does anyone else think this might be kind of overpowered? What fighter wouldn't take this feat immediately? Fighters quickly get way more attack bonus than they can use... An extra attack sure would be handy... Heck, for only one feat, you might as well take it just so you can switch between one & two handed fighting modes.

I'm hoping that there is at least a decent DEX prerequisite (15 would be nice).

 

[drnuncheon]

In 3.5e, you can fight with two weapons at -2/-2 penalty with only one feat, Two Weapon Fighting.

Does anyone else think this might be kind of overpowered? What fighter wouldn't take this feat immediately?

The same ones that don't take it now:

1. Archers
2. The classic 'Sword & Board' style
3. Those using a greatsword or other two-handed weapon
   [/list=1]
   
   J

 

[Olgar Shiverstone]

I don't see that most fighters would necessarily take it (it's still inferior to other combat styles) -- but every single rogue should.

That's what worries me about combining the two -- it will dramatically increase the number of dual-wielding rogues who are getting multiple sneak attacks as round (since flanking will cancel out the penalty if it remains -2/-2, which it might not).

'Course, that's thinking in a vacuum -- we'll have to see how it works out overall. We know they're trying to make TWF "suck less"; it remains to be seen if we've gone into "doesn't suck enough" territory ala 1R/2E TWF.

 

[ruleslawyer]

To be precise, TWF will allow you to wield two weapons at a -4/-4 penalty, or -2/-2 if the off-hand weapon is light.

Thus, a vanilla fighter has two options: burn a feat for the chance to get two attacks if and when a full attack is available at a lower attack bonus and inflicting only one-half Str bonus with the off hand, or don't burn the feat, use a two-handed weapon, and get 1 1/2 Strength bonus on your single attack that is usable all the time and at your full attack bonus. Seems balanced to me. It does make TWF more attractive to rogues, though.

 

[RangerWickett]

Two Weapon Fighting is going to reduce the penalties for dual-wielding from -6/-10 to -4/-4. Also, the old rule will still be in place that if at least one of those weapons is one or more size categories smaller than you, the penalties are reduced by a further 2/2. So a human fighting with a pair of scimitars suffers -4/-4, but a human fighting with a longsword and a shortsword (or a katana and a wakizashi) suffers only -2/-2.

Now, for Rogues, this means you're best off fighting with a rapier and a shortsword, unless you pick up weapon focus, in which case you'd want a pair of shortswords, so you only have to pick the feat once. For Fighters, who will want to be taking Weapon Specialization, you'd be best off fighting with a pair of shortswords too.

Still, I think two-handed weapon-wielders will come out ahead in damage, but two-weapon fighters will have more style. I just hope there's a feat in the core rules to make it worthwhile to fight with rapier and main gauche.

So yeah, basically all they're changing is that Two-Weapon Fighting now provides all the benefits of before, plus extra benefits equal to Ambidexterity.

 

[Simplicity]

Still, I think two-handed weapon-wielders will come out ahead in damage, but two-weapon fighters will have more style. I just hope there's a feat in the core rules to make it worthwhile to fight with rapier and main gauche.

I disagree. Two weapon fighters should come out way ahead in damage. Why?

POWER ATTACK. The other fight feat.

Just like TWF, no fighter worth their salt doesn't take Power Attack. Power Attack subtracts from all of your to-hit rolls and adds to all of your damage rolls up to your BAB.

Now, suppose I'm a seventh level fighter with a STR of 22, and a non-magical greataxe (I'm leaving magic out of it to make the
numbers easier). And let's say you want a 50% chance of hitting an AC of 18.

My Strength gives me a +6 to hit, my BAB gives me a +7.
Thus, I add +13 to whatever I roll, so I need to roll a 5 to get
an 18. If I want a 50% chance to hit 18, I can afford to use +5 on my power attack with a single weapon.

With a greataxe then I've got
1d12(axe) + 9(str) + 5 (powerattack) = 20.5.

If I want the same chances with each of two wielded weapons (say a long sword and a short sword). Then I get
1d8(longsword) + 6(Str) + 3(powerattack) = 13.5 dmg
1d6(shortsword) + 3(str) + 3(powerattack) = 9.5 dmg

The two weapon wielder wins in damage. Even if you take into account the fact that the greataxe wielder might weapon focus in great axe with the extra feat. If you consider that the axe wielder might specialize, then the damage numbers match, but the axe wielder has an extra feat. For that extra feat, the two weapon wielder could have gone exotic weapon, and still won.

Fighters can typically blow quite a bit of their BAB in Power Attack, and still be able to hit quite often. This example isn't even taking into account magic weapons, Bull's Strength, or other buff spells.

 

[Simplicity]

Also, remember that a person with the TWF feat can split their damage up between opponents. If someone falls on the first hit, then the second hit can be made on a different opponent. If the two weapon fighter has cleave, then he can even follow through and attack the next person with two attacks.

 

[Simplicity]

Actually, I see the problem with this argument... Taking into account multiple attacks. The axe wielder gets multiple attacks with their axe... The dual wielder has to use their longsword... In the end, the extra attack is just one more attack, and it's not enough to add up to all of the extra axe attacks.

I take it all back.

 

[Bendris Noulg]

It does seem silly, to a degree; They eliminate the front-load on the Ranger, but then they follow up by combining the two Feats that made Ranger 1 desired to begin with.

Oh, well... One of those changes I won't be adopting.

 

[RangerWickett]

Also, how the heck did you get a 7th level fighter with a 22 Strength?

Of course, this still doesn't address my personal beef with D&D now: the proliferation of magic items. Aside from one-shot items like potions and scrolls, I think each character should have at most 2 magic weapons, magic armor, a magic shield, and maybe two or three magic items like strength belts or cloaks of elvenkind. The one real problem that could overpower two-weapon fighting is having magic weapons (flaming swords, etc.). At 20th level, two +5 flaming, shocking shortswords cost about the same as a +5 flaming burst, shocking burst, frost greatsword, but the dual-wielder gets to add that +5 to damage on more attacks.

I'm not saying you have to take out all the cool magic items; some campaigns work with them, like Piratecat's. I just wish they had something like the Magic Item to Hero Point exchange system in Four-Color to Fantasy, where you could give out nifty special abilities to high level characters, instead of having to explain where all these magic items were when they were lower level.