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

[Shard O'Glase]

Heck my rogue is focussed on the spiked chain and combat reflexes and even I might pick up two wepaon fighting, especially with the possible weapon finesse working for all finessible weapons thing. Now that will work on my chain and my 2 short swords.

 

[00durrin]

actually, if you really want to be a nuissance, instead of dual wielding short swords, get a sun blade and a magical bastard sword. specialize in bastard sword and you've got a higher damaging weapon with the same threat range that still is usable without further penalty in your off hand (the sun blade is anyways). all at the expense of using an extra feat.
alternatively, you could wield a balanced (from the A&EG) longsword (or maybe even a bastard sword, though i'm not sure on this) in your off-hand and get the same benefit.
is balanced basically the enchantment on the sun blade that isn't mentioned but goes into its 50k gp price?

 

[Shard O'Glase]

well for me and my 10 str and 26 dex it means sun blade or not I'll get more bang out of my buck from 2 short swords because they can be finessed. And I don't think the sun blade can be finessed, but it works funky so I'm not sure.

 

[Ranger REG]

Though I'd be happier if two-handed weapons required a feat to take advantage of the 1.5xStr bonus to damage....

You don't need a feat to deal 1.5x Str bonus to damage with two-handed weapon. Heck, if i read the rules right, you don't even need proficiency with said two-handed weapon to deal 1.5x Str bonus to damage (although you may be penalized a -4 nonproficiency attack penalty).

Prior to this change (and d20 Modern, where the new TWF feat makes its first appearance), a lot of people have complained about how expensive to develop a two-weapon fighting style. When asked, a lot of gamers only take Ambi for the sole purpose of reducing the two-weapon fighting penalty, and it was a prerequisite for ITWF and other TWF feat tree. It may not mean a lot for the fighter class, but rogue and wizards/sorcerer would have to wait until 3rd level to take full advantage of two-weapon fighting at the best possible reduced penalties.

 

[DrSpunj]

Ah

You don't need a feat to deal 1.5x Str bonus to damage with two-handed weapon.

I don't want to put words in his mouth (and I apologize, Destil, if I've read you wrong) but I believe he was trying to say that since Two-Weapon Fighting now costs a single feat, wouldn't it be fair if Two-Handed Fighting also cost a feat? A feat which gave you 1.5x Str bonus on your damage whenever you used a weapon of your size or one category larger than you in both hands?

While I see his point, and actually thought about the same thing somewhere along the way since 3.0 came out, I couldn't justify the change. There is just something that makes sense about swinging a sword or baseball bat or whatever with both hands and doing a bit more damage than you can using just one.

For that reason I kind of see Power Attack for 2HF the same way I see 3.5's Two-Weapon Fighting for TWF: You can certainly use the style without paying for the feat, but you aren't getting the most out of it that way!

DrSpunj

 

[maddman75]

I don't like this change actually, and I may not use it. I don't want TWF to be easier to do. Its just a personal prejudice that comes from too many fighters in 2e, wearing full plate and two long swords. Boring. My hat of TFW know no limit.

 

[Petrosian]

Re: Ah

For that reason I kind of see Power Attack for 2HF the same way I see 3.5's Two-Weapon Fighting for TWF: You can certainly use the style without paying for the feat, but you aren't getting the most out of it that way!
DrSpunj

Ok...

you should realize that power attack is less beneficial for a @hF than a 1Hf or a dual wielder in many cases?

Power attack is useful when to hit exceeds damage and its benefit increases as the gap there increases.

By definition with 2HF adding more strength bonus to damage than it adds to hit, it reduces the benefits of PA.

As a rule of thumb, a 2hf should shift less into PA than he would is he were using a 1h weapon, usually dropping off of the PA shift 1/4 of his base strength bonus.

 

[Pax]

well for me and my 10 str and 26 dex it means sun blade or not I'll get more bang out of my buck from 2 short swords because they can be finessed. And I don't think the sun blade can be finessed, but it works funky so I'm not sure.

Weapon Focus: Shortsword
Weapon Finesse: Shortsword
Weapon Specialise: Shortsword
Two-Weapon Fighting

Add 10 levels of Tempest

Add a pair of Sun Blades. Nasty stuff.

Reread theDMG description of hte Sunblade (page 189, btw); it says it can be wielded as a shortsword "with respct to weight and ease of use". I'd say, that's clearly a case for a Sun Blade benefitting from Finesse: Shortsword.

So, wield TWO of the suckers.

 

[satori01]

I approve of no ambidexterity. It should encourage more fighters(and other characters) taking the feat at first level. Rogues have always tried to use 2 weapons usually by taking a level of ranger, now they can dispense with the ranger trick and simply take the feat.

I am a bit dubious about weapon finesse applying to a range of weapons as rapier/shortsword combo is looking very easy now to weapon finesse for one feat.

 

[Ranger REG]

Re: Ah

I don't want to put words in his mouth (and I apologize, Destil, if I've read you wrong) but I believe he was trying to say that since Two-Weapon Fighting now costs a single feat, wouldn't it be fair if Two-Handed Fighting also cost a feat? A feat which gave you 1.5x Str bonus on your damage whenever you used a weapon of your size or one category larger than you in both hands?

While I see his point, and actually thought about the same thing somewhere along the way since 3.0 came out, I couldn't justify the change. There is just something that makes sense about swinging a sword or baseball bat or whatever with both hands and doing a bit more damage than you can using just one.

For that reason I kind of see Power Attack for 2HF the same way I see 3.5's Two-Weapon Fighting for TWF: You can certainly use the style without paying for the feat, but you aren't getting the most out of it that way!

So, you basically agree with me: Don't convert what is a standard rule for two-handed weapon into a feat to be acquired.

So, yeah. I understood Destil the first time.

As for Power Attack, that is just penalizing your attack roll further down, unless you have absolutely no choice ... such as the only way to defeat a monster is with a natural 20 no matter how many how large your current attack bonus.