Two Weapon Fighting & negating the penalties

Omote · Post by **Omote** » Fri Dec 29, 2006 2:36 am

This this question comes from the Dragonsfoot messageboards, but is expanded a bit here:

What stats negate the penalties for two-weapon fighting?

Two-weapon fighting suffers a -3/-6 penalty. -3 for the first attack and -6 for the senconf, "off-hand" attack. According to the PHB, a PCs DEX score modifies these penalties.

Does this mean that a PC weilding two weapons with a high DEX and STR receives the benefit of both high stats, or just DEX? In otherwords, does STR still affect the bonus to hit for two-weapon fighting?

...........................................Omote

FPQ
_________________
> Omote's Advanced C&C stuff <
Duke Omote Landwehr, Holy Order of the FPQ ~ Prince of the Castles & Crusades Society

gideon_thorne · Post by **gideon_thorne** » Fri Dec 29, 2006 2:52 am

Quote:
"These penalties are affected by the character's dexterity modifier. The characters STR mod only applies to damage inflicted."

Page 119 first colum, bottom of the page. ^_^
_________________
"We'll go out through the kitchen!" Tanis Half-Elven

Peter Bradley

serleran · Post by **serleran** » Fri Dec 29, 2006 2:52 am

Strength always affects melee attack to hit and damage. So, yes. An 18 Strength and 18 Dex would mean no off-hand penalty.

Treebore · Post by **Treebore** » Fri Dec 29, 2006 3:35 am

I see that Peter, but the fighters STR applies in every other type of melee attack, I can't really buy it to omitting it now. I think allowing them to stack makes enough sense.

gideon_thorne · Post by **gideon_thorne** » Fri Dec 29, 2006 3:37 am

Treebore wrote:
I see that Peter, but the fighters STR applies in every other type of melee attack, I can't really buy it to omitting it now. I think allowing them to stack makes enough sense.

*chuckles* Dude wanted a btb answer, he got one. It's not gonna make the same sense to everyone.
The logic behind it, I suspect, has to do with strength not applying so much to hand-eye coordination.
_________________
"We'll go out through the kitchen!" Tanis Half-Elven

Peter Bradley

Treebore · Post by **Treebore** » Fri Dec 29, 2006 3:55 am

I can see the logic, but I will definitely house rule this to allow for stacking between the two. Especially since so much of the rules support adding STR bonuses to BtH.

Besiedes, unless they roll up a super character like my daughter did today, or my youngest son did a few months ago, there aren't going to be a lot of fighter types with high DEX and STR.

Omote · Post by **Omote** » Fri Dec 29, 2006 3:56 am

gideon_thorne wrote:
Page 119 first colum, bottom of the page. ^_^

Ahhhhh YES. I have read this section no less then 20 times, I'm sure. Why I didn't remember that I'll never know. However, Tree makes a good point as to why STR wouldn't help in this case.

Gives me much to ponder although I'm apt to go with what the book says.

..........................................Omote

FPQ
_________________
> Omote's Advanced C&C stuff <
Duke Omote Landwehr, Holy Order of the FPQ ~ Prince of the Castles & Crusades Society

serleran · Post by **serleran** » Fri Dec 29, 2006 4:03 am

Perhaps the book states what it does as a means to discourage dual-wielding. Of course, an easier way would have been to make the penalties harsher, but have Strength and Dex apply normally. Heh. Just one passage of the book I'll gleefully ignore. Just 'cause its in there doesn't mean its "good." Hell, the turn rules, as is, are yucky for my tastes... but that's why I have the CK sharpie.

gideon_thorne · Post by **gideon_thorne** » Fri Dec 29, 2006 4:07 am

I have a -4 penalty to TWF in my own house rules. I also have ambidexterity and TWF as a weapons style available in my game. So, clearly I dont follow the book, just figured I'd interpret it.
_________________
"We'll go out through the kitchen!" Tanis Half-Elven

Peter Bradley

Treebore · Post by **Treebore** » Fri Dec 29, 2006 4:42 am

I realize that too. Just we aren't exaclty worried about adhering to tournament rules, are we? So if I were the OP I would go with the book, for now. But house rule it as soon as you decide you don't like it. I don't think players will complain about changing such a rule mid-game.

cleaverthepit · Post by **cleaverthepit** » Fri Dec 29, 2006 4:42 am

I think it is fine to house rule these as much as you want. By the book, no the str mod does not effect the to hit roll when using two weapons.

There is some 'fighting' logic behind this decision but of greater import was in setting up rules for later development. This rule allows designers to create a chracter class 'skill' or 'ability' the capacity to add str bonus on the to hit - say if making a swashbuckling type character. It also brings in the concept of dex being the to hit modifier and not str.

Anyway, it gives wiggle room for later development.

Also, for those interested in these types of house rules consider bumping some classes that you feel might be slighted.

For example, many people feel the barb is understrengthed in combat. Consider giving the barb several bonus like adding str to two weapon fighting to hit rolls and +1 on combat maneuvers such as charging.

Davis

maasenstodt · Post by **maasenstodt** » Fri Dec 29, 2006 3:26 pm

I've used the two weapon fighting rules as written extensively in my games and they've worked just great. By switching out STR for DEX 'to hit' bonuses, it gives fighters (and other combatants) that are more agile than strong a chance to shine. At the same time, the actual penalties are just stiff enough to make low and mid level PCs really have to think about their options, thus adding an element of risk and excitement. In sum, I really like the rule.

In fact, I like the rule so much that the only house rule I've made in this area extends the BTB penalties to archers wishing to fire two arrows in a round. In that case, a -3 penalty applies to the first shot and -6 to the second. As per the two weapon fighting rule, DEX bonuses to hit still apply. This rule has been playtested thoroughly and works so well and seemlessly that it's essentially official in my games.

Omote · Post by **Omote** » Fri Dec 29, 2006 5:21 pm

maasenstodt, that is a really cool idea regarding the missile fire. i think I will have to try that. 8)

................................................Omote

FPQ
_________________
> Omote's Advanced C&C stuff <
Duke Omote Landwehr, Holy Order of the FPQ ~ Prince of the Castles & Crusades Society

Treebore · Post by **Treebore** » Fri Dec 29, 2006 5:38 pm

I will too. Even though my feat like options allows for them to try to get a second shot, if they are willing to take this penalty to assure them two chances, I think they will like it, at higher levels anyways, which is where they are (9th and 10th).

johns · Post by **johns** » Fri Dec 29, 2006 6:17 pm

Two weapon fighting for archery - nice concept. I believe I'll be using that in my game.

gideon_thorne · Post by **gideon_thorne** » Fri Dec 29, 2006 6:21 pm

Interesting idea on the archery. I still use the 2 arrow ROF methodology in my game. Its just a huge hassle to retool a bunch of characters so I just leave em as is. ^_~`
_________________
"We'll go out through the kitchen!" Tanis Half-Elven

Peter Bradley

Metathiax · Post by **Metathiax** » Fri Dec 29, 2006 7:08 pm

maasenstodt wrote:
In fact, I like the rule so much that the only house rule I've made in this area extends the BTB penalties to archers wishing to fire two arrows in a round. In that case, a -3 penalty applies to the first shot and -6 to the second. As per the two weapon fighting rule, DEX bonuses to hit still apply. This rule has been playtested thoroughly and works so well and seemlessly that it's essentially official in my games.

Good idea, I'll probably adopt this rule.
_________________
"Abandon the search for Truth; settle for a good fantasy." author unknown
My C&C Page
My House Rules v8

moriarty777 · Post by **moriarty777** » Fri Dec 29, 2006 8:50 pm

I use this rule in my campaign already... It works well enough though I don't extend it to crossbows and the archer shouldn't have much of a move if he's firing twice in one round.

I think I might have got the idea originally from Dragonsfoot myself (or at the very least... inspired from one of the threads).

With regards to two-weapon fighting. I find that the penalties as they are (by the book) are fine enough. My players have found that the loss of a shield in a combat can really make a difference at times!

Moriarty the Red
_________________
"You face Death itself in the form of... 1d4 Tarrasques!"

Partner to Brave Halfling Publishing
http://www.arcanacreations.com

phadeout · Post by **phadeout** » Sat Dec 30, 2006 1:04 am

gideon_thorne wrote:
Page 119 first colum, bottom of the page. ^_^

Wow... I feel like an idiot for never noticing this! I always thought that that Dex Cancels the penalities (so a 20 Dex would make them 0/-2) "cancelling them, but can't make them positive" - then add Str mod as normal...

Now I have to go rethink my house rules on this.

gideon_thorne · Post by **gideon_thorne** » Sat Dec 30, 2006 1:25 am

Now the question people have to ask themselves is this...

Does the magical bonus of a weapon negate the negative modifier for TWF, and why?
_________________
"We'll go out through the kitchen!" Tanis Half-Elven

Peter Bradley

maasenstodt · Post by **maasenstodt** » Sat Dec 30, 2006 2:03 am

gideon_thorne wrote:
Now the question people have to ask themselves is this...

Does the magical bonus of a weapon negate the negative modifier for TWF, and why?

That one's easy for me to answer. Yes, magical bonuses apply because they are magic bonuses. The same qualities that make such a weapon more likely to strike true when used as a single weapon make it true when used paired.

Treebore · Post by **Treebore** » Sat Dec 30, 2006 5:54 am

How could it not? It directly adds to your BtH. Same reason why I can't buy into STR not offsetting it. Your BtH counters it, eventually. At 7th level or higher.

You guys are starting to sound like players of 3E d20. Please stop.

cleaverthepit · Post by **cleaverthepit** » Sat Dec 30, 2006 1:57 pm

I never thought of using TWF penalties for missile fire. NICE

Someone always wants to play an archer. so see my next thread.....

Davis

maasenstodt · Post by **maasenstodt** » Sat Dec 30, 2006 3:58 pm

moriarty777 wrote:
I use this rule in my campaign already... It works well enough though I don't extend it to crossbows and the archer shouldn't have much of a move if he's firing twice in one round.

I think I might have got the idea originally from Dragonsfoot myself (or at the very least... inspired from one of the threads).

I've mentioned using this rule before in this Dragonsfoot thread, so I'd wager that's where you first saw it. We've been playing with this rule since last summer, so it's been around for a while.

moriarty777 · Post by **moriarty777** » Sat Dec 30, 2006 9:25 pm

maasenstodt wrote:
I've mentioned using this rule before in this Dragonsfoot thread, so I'd wager that's where you first saw it. We've been playing with this rule since last summer, so it's been around for a while.

Then... credit goes where credit is due! Thanks Maasenstodt! For the life I me I just couldn't remember where it originated from (although I'm glad I was right about my suspicion about Dragonsfoot). I now remember that it was when I was checking out the thread on ROF. My latest C&C campaign started also at that time and the houserule found it's way in right at the beginning of the campaign!

It's a great ruling that fits SOOO well in with the game.

Moriarty the Red
_________________
"You face Death itself in the form of... 1d4 Tarrasques!"

Partner to Brave Halfling Publishing
http://www.arcanacreations.com

Omote · Post by **Omote** » Sat Dec 30, 2006 11:25 pm

Treebore wrote:
You guys are starting to sound like players of 3E d20. Please stop.

Boo to you Treebore for even suggestion such a thing. Wow, harsh man, harsh. I think this is a perfectly balanced, and insightful discussion on the core C&C rules, a rule that greatly affects players and CKs alike.

Great discussion and suggestions.

.........................................Omote

FPQ
_________________
> Omote's Advanced C&C stuff <
Duke Omote Landwehr, Holy Order of the FPQ ~ Prince of the Castles & Crusades Society

Treebore · Post by **Treebore** » Sun Dec 31, 2006 1:42 am

I should have put the winking emoticon at the end of that. No one is even close to some of those "rules boys" on the various 3E sites.

So that was meant as a "tongue in cheek" kind of statement.

Hope I didn't piss anyone off or hurt feelings.

BASH MAN · Post by **BASH MAN** » Mon Jan 01, 2007 8:24 pm

Because I use weapon mastery rules, the penalties with 2 weapon fighting simply equate reduced mastery, and also a -2 to hit with both weapons. Using paired daggers has no penalty, paired shortswords makes you lose 1 mastery level in the off-hand. longsword/shortsword makes you lose 1 mastery level with both weapons, and paired longswords is 2 mastery levels with both weapons. This equates to a major penalty to damage, but only a slight penalty to hit (between -2 with each and -4 with each).

A grandmaster of longsword does 3d6 dmg per hit (by my rules), and gets a +4 to hit on top of BtH from class and STR. If he chose to pair up the longswords, he would do d12 dmg with each longsword and have +0 to hit in addition to his BtH. So a 20% loss in chance to hit, and a 40% drop in average damage per hit.

Assuming his base chance to hit was 100% before, he would have an average of 10 dmg per round as grandmaster. With 2 attacks, he is doing slightly less-- 9.6 dmg per round. This is of course, ignoring things like STR bonus, Weapon Specialization (yes, I let them stack!), magic bonus, etc.

Essentially the way I have it working out, you are no better or worse of TWF than you are using a single weapon, for the most part.
_________________
Basic Action Games http://www.bashrpg.com

Check us out for free demos and downloads or visit us onFacebook.

Troll Lord Games

Two Weapon Fighting & negating the penalties

Two Weapon Fighting & negating the penalties

Re: Two Weapon Fighting & negating the penalties

Re: Two Weapon Fighting & negating the penalties

Re: Two Weapon Fighting & negating the penalties

Re: Two Weapon Fighting & negating the penalties

Re: Two Weapon Fighting & negating the penalties