Modified Two-Weapon Fighting

[RobbyPants]

I actually thought about adding in a feat like Nimble TWF earlier today.

I'm not sure we really need a BAB requirement, at least not for Oversized TWF.  I mean, it takes two feats to even get it, and if you do, you're not looking at a large increase on damage.  Even with a natural 18 Str, the difference between a greatsword and two longswords here is 2d6+6 vs 2d8+8.  That's only four points on average for two feats.  So I don't think a BAB prereq is necessary.

As for Nimble TWF, it might work pretty well.  I like the half-dice idea in that it can still be worth while, but it doesn't scale as fast as the normal 3.5 rules.  I might pull the Dex to damage part out because I was also strongly considering giving everyone the benefit of the Weapon Finesse feat for free, and having Weapon Finesse grant +Dex to damage on a finessable weapon.  Of course, you wouldn't have known that because I didn't say it earlier .  That being said, I still think this would be worth a feat on its own for rogues.  It's a solid damage increase once you get to 3rd or 7th level.

[archangel.arcanis]

The Bab requirement was just to push it back to 3rd level, though requiring 2 stats at 15 helps with that. Like was said earlier we shouldn't have someone being perfect at two weapon fighting at first level plus that 4 extra points is huge at the lowest levels and by level 3 it should even out better. But to take full advantage they would need power attack as well. Either way that should end up fine.

We still need to address defense otherwise it is just trying to survive until you can get in a full attack. I'd love to remove the glass cannon effect from them, but am not sure how yet. Also what did you think about my 2 alternatives for dealing with DR/cost? personally the more i think about it the more i like the lite version of it, because the other version would just get too powerful i think.

[RobbyPants]

Glass cannon issues, and separate damage DR are a pain.  I was thinking about it at length on Sunday and coming up short each time.  About the closest thing I can think of is to scrap the concept of WBL entirely and use the Tome Book of Gears rules for magic items.  Mainly, that magic weapons never have their own "plusses", but rather have an enhancement bonus to hit and damage equal to 1/3 the user's level.  Also, you can only attune eight items at a time and attuning takes 24 hours.

This would make it less of a big deal for a TWFer to simply have two level appropriate weapons without other players feeling like they're getting away with something.

[archangel.arcanis]

at that point we are also getting into a whole game rewrite as well. I suggest we set the scope of this project, i know you already have some other system rewrites so maybe tying this into there would help as well.

[RobbyPants]

That's actually what I'm doing.  I just had this thought as one of many.  I suppose we get to a point (like DR and glass cannon issues) where you really can't think of it in a vacuum anymore.

I guess basically I'm looking to resurrect a lot of what the rebalancing project was, but on a somewhat smaller scope.  So rather than an uber-fix, I'm looking more for an uber-improvement.  I love what I've read in the Tome project, but I want something much less high powered.

The problem is, is that projects so large tend to fail, and I'm more looking for a set of rules to help balance some parts of the game to others that allow me, as a DM, to run a more fun game.  It's hard to write something up so large that suits everyone's needs.  For instance, there are a lot of books that I don't own, so I don't take those aspects of the game into account when balancing things.  However, using those books, my changes might actually make things worse!

[archangel.arcanis]

well i'd be willing to help out with the whole project.

[RobbyPants]

I may resurrect some of the old threads.  I'm still debating how much I want to start at the brainstorming phase, or if I want to come up with a semi-complete draft and post it all at once for critiquing.  Both approaches have their merits.

[archangel.arcanis]

well if you want some small group work before opening it to the general masses Google wave is open to the public now and this should be the type of thing it excels at.