PDA

View Full Version : Suggestion for: Oversized Two Weapon Fighting



Zerkul
10-20-2011, 12:21 PM
Since Monk class keeps getting love why don't share some for the other TWF classes as well? Here's my suggestion for Oversized TWF feat:

Oversized TWF - Keep the feat just as it is now and add full strength bonus benefit to all off-hand attacks.

Maybe Tempest prestige could do the same for a Ranger: give him full strength bonus on off-hand attacks even without Oversized TWF feat.



I have to remember that per D&D rules (http://forums.ddo.com/showthread.php?t=147407) monks should get half strength bonus to off-hand attacks and should have -2 attack penality if TWFing.



Official Errata:

Can a monk fight with two weapons? Can she combine
a two-weapon attack with a flurry of blows? What are her
penalties on attack rolls?

A monk can fight with two weapons just like any other
character, but she must accept the normal penalties on her
attack rolls to do so. She can use an unarmed strike as an offhand
weapon. She can even combine two-weapon fighting with
a flurry of blows to gain an extra attack with her off hand (but
remember that she can use only unarmed strikes or special
monk weapons as part of the flurry). The penalties for twoweapon
fighting stack with the penalties for flurry of blows.



Z.

Xenostrata
10-20-2011, 01:14 PM
/signed, just one thing.

THFing needs some love too. With the increase in fort, eSoS isn't the answer to everything anymore, and TWF has a total monopoly on proc effects, which are becoming more and more important.

Kielbasa
10-20-2011, 03:02 PM
Signed. Yes please.

Kinerd
10-20-2011, 05:51 PM
Monks can barely get working weapons, they don't need any relative nerfs. This could also marginalize Paladins, and they definitely don't need any relative nerfs.

Xionanx
10-20-2011, 06:21 PM
A) This isn't the suggestion forums
B) Seriously? Monks have been getting "love"?:confused:

baii
10-20-2011, 06:48 PM
they should let ppl dual wield sos with the feat hence "oversized" !

Xionanx
10-20-2011, 07:41 PM
they should let ppl dual wield sos with the feat hence "oversized" !

Actually, that would be "Monkey Grip" and I would seriously manhunt and kill the dev's if they ever put that feat in the game. Everyone would instantly TR/Reroll all of their THF/TWF characters and make them Duel Wielding Greatsword users:rolleyes:

gloopygloop
10-20-2011, 07:43 PM
A) This isn't the suggestion forums
B) Seriously? Monks have been getting "love"?:confused:

They've been getting lots of love. Some of their weapons almost work now!

Xenostrata
10-20-2011, 09:14 PM
Actually, that would be "Monkey Grip" and I would seriously manhunt and kill the dev's if they ever put that feat in the game. Everyone would instantly TR/Reroll all of their THF/TWF characters and make them Duel Wielding Greatsword users:rolleyes:

ARRRGGGGG!!!!1!!1!1!!!

http://www.dnd-wiki.org/wiki/Monkey_Grip_(3.5e_Feat)

Monkey Grip does NOT allow people to dual wield 2 handed weapons! It allows them to wield weapons of higher size categories (like a Longsword crafted for a human could be used by a halfling).

Everyone, please end the circulation of the Monkey Grip Fallacy.

Veriden
10-20-2011, 09:55 PM
Since Monk class keeps getting love why don't share some for the other TWF classes as well? Here's my suggestion for Oversized TWF feat:

Oversized TWF - Keep the feat just as it is now and add full strength bonus benefit to all off-hand attacks.

Maybe Tempest prestige could do the same for a Ranger: give him full strength bonus on off-hand attacks even without Oversized TWF feat.



I have to remember that per D&D rules (http://forums.ddo.com/showthread.php?t=147407) monks should get half strength bonus to off-hand attacks and should have -2 attack penality if TWFing.





Z.

I'm game for monks getting 1/2 str on off hands if with 2wf that we also get far faster attack speed to indicate the larger number of attacks per round that we get. Also, perfect two weapon fighting please.

Xionanx
10-21-2011, 12:21 AM
ARRRGGGGG!!!!1!!1!1!!!

http://www.dnd-wiki.org/wiki/Monkey_Grip_(3.5e_Feat)

Monkey Grip does NOT allow people to dual wield 2 handed weapons! It allows them to wield weapons of higher size categories (like a Longsword crafted for a human could be used by a halfling).

Everyone, please end the circulation of the Monkey Grip Fallacy.

In case you weren't aware a 1D8 Longsword became a 2D6 Longsword when it was made "Large" a Greatsword is a 2d6 weapon... ie, Dual Wielding Greatswords. But I'll elaborate because I had a player in one of my tabletop games who LOVED this feat and abused the hell out of it constantly.

The thing is, the way "Size Categories" worked in PnP 3.0/3.5 is that players could do it. From the SRD:

"A weapon’s size category isn’t the same as its size as an object. Instead, a weapon’s size category is keyed to the size of the intended wielder. In general, a light weapon is an object two size categories smaller than the wielder, a one-handed weapon is an object one size category smaller than the wielder, and a two-handed weapon is an object of the same size category as the wielder. "

Therefore a "Medium Sized" human wielding a "appropriately sized" greatsword is wielding a "Medium Greatsword". Now, the functionality of Monkey Grip is:

Monkey Grip [General, Fighter]
This feat allows you to wield a weapon one size larger than normal in one hand.
Prerequisite: Str 13, +1 Base Attack Bonus.
Benefit: This feat grants the ability to wield melee weapons that are one size too large for your race, as if they were one size smaller, at a –2 penalty to hit. (This includes using two-handed weapons as single-handed weapons, as two-handed weapons are considered a size category larger.)
Special: A Fighter may select this as a bonus feat.

Think on that for a second, wielding weapons as if they were one size category smaller would make that MEDIUM greatsword a SMALL greatsword, which in turns makes it dual wield-able.

Now, if that weren't bad enough, "1D10" Bastard swords, which are already wield-able one handed became 2D8 bastard swords, but remember that a player COULD ALREADY CHOOSE WIELD ONE CATEGORY LARGER AT A -2 PENALTY!!! So what happens when you have a smartass fighter in your party who insists on buying weapons TWO size categories larger and having the wizard cast enlarge on him so he can fight at a -2 Penalty.

Player goes from Medium to Large
"4D8 Gargantuan Bastard Sword" becomes dual wield-able at a -2 penalties
add in monkey grip to eliminate the -2 penalties or, in the case of the guy in my party, he "upgrades" to COLOSSAL 6D8 Dual Wielding Bastard swords.:rolleyes:

All perfectly legit and legal in the 3.5 rules...

So yeah, keep monkey grip OUT of DDO FFS


EDIT: It should be noted that there are TWO different versions of Monkey Grip (as well as the "Oversized Weapon Fighting" feat, which did the exact same thing as monkey grip and didn't stack with it.. so really *** WoTC?). Anyway, the differences between the 3.0 and the 3.5 versions are this:

In 3.0 according to the Players Handbook you COULD NOT wield weapons larger then your size category AT ALL. So, the Monkey Grip feat introduced in The Complete Warrior allowed you to do so, but at a -2 penalty. This limited you to wielding weapons one size category larger then you.

In 3.5 according to the Players Handbook you COULD wield weapons ONE size category larger then you at a -2 penalty by default, everyone got this no feat required. The Monkey Grip feat was then changed to allow you to TREAT weapons as if they were a size category smaller, eliminating the -2 penalty and/or allowing you to wield weapons TWO size categories larger then you. (then, some lazy WoTC writers added in "Oversized Weapon Fighting" and "Powerful Build" which BOTH did the EXACT SAME THING, DIDN'T STACK, and were all around worthless feat additions.. but hey, they needed to be able to say "Complete Warrior add's XX NEW feats to the game" when it came time to market it, who said those feats had to be unique or not duplicate functionality... but anyway.)

Again, this was the major issue with using "Weapon Sizing" in 3.0 and 3.5, especially when players started figuring out that a "Large" half orc monk started with higher unarmed damage, and the a "Wizard" could "Permanently" ENLARGE said player or, if they had a really daft DM "Baleful Polymorph" a player into a Firbolg... yeah... good times.

TheDjinnFor
10-21-2011, 01:12 AM
Monkey Grip does NOT allow people to dual wield 2 handed weapons! It allows them to wield weapons of higher size categories (like a Longsword crafted for a human could be used by a halfling).

Which, given basic understanding of the rules, means you can dual wield two-handed weapons.

cru121
10-21-2011, 01:25 AM
@monkey grip
It seems that you are using the monkey grip description online (http://www.dandwiki.com/wiki/Monkey_Grip_%283.5e_Feat%29). Note that it says homebrew.

Now note that the feat allows you to wield a weapon
a) one size larger than normal
b) in one hand

a normal sized bastard (assuming EWP) is a one-handed weapon. without monkey grip, you could wield a large bastard as a two-handed weapon at -2. with monkey grip, you can use a large bastard as a one-handed weapon at -2.

you cannot use a huge bastard, because of
a) it's 2 cats larger than normal, but more importantly
b) even if you ignored a), it would now be a two-handed weapon, i.e. monkey grip cannot apply

Now if we looked at official sources, this feat is in Sword and Fist supplement (3.0) and Complete Warrior (3.5). I am not familiar with 3.0 details, so let's look at the CW version.
You can use melee weapons one size category larger than you are with a –2 penalty on the attack roll, but the amount of effort it takes you to use the weapon does not change.
Even this version does not allow the broken interpretation, because you can only use weapons one size category higher. No matter what, you cannot use huge weapon, because it's more than 1 size cat larger.

Xenostrata
10-21-2011, 05:15 AM
Which, given basic understanding of the rules, means you can dual wield two-handed weapons.

When only considering random loot, yes, it allows you to carry the equivalent of a greatsword in each hand for your size. However, my DM decided that just because a small longsword and a medium greatsword did the same damage doesn't mean they were balanced equally, and so Greatswords could not be dual wielded (or greataxes, etc). In DDO, this is relevant because it would still forbid the TWFing of eSoSs

Xionanx
10-21-2011, 05:45 AM
No matter how you slice it, 3.0 and 3.5 were flawed systems, and every additional supplement just added to it. But why we expect flawless tabletop game systems is beyond me. Its hard enough for ONE person to keep track of and make a rule for every possible situation, let alone when you add a "Team" of people making the rules. And then you have to wonder, what makes "Monte Cooks" vision of what the "Official" rules should be any better then Joe Billybob who has been playing and DM DnD since it first came out?

Honestly, there are some players who I think have a better grasp of the rules, their intentions, and how they should have been implemented then the people who "wrote" the PHB/DMG in the first place.

I would say the same for DDO as I imagine there are QUITE a few players of DDO who could probable come up with better, fairer, and more balanced solutions then the devs are currently giving us. Why? Because as players they have "Skin in the game" and are invested in it being fun, fair, and balanced.

I used to play with a guy who designed his own game system that he called "Kill you all", some kind of post apocalyptic setting where "books" were one of the most valuable resources for trade as people struggled to maintain knowledge. Anyway, long story short I was able to multiply my damage in his system by welding 8 double barrel shotguns together and firing them ALL at once... not exactly something I imagine he foresaw someone doing when he was writing up those rules.:p

I thought I had a point to all of this but I have lost it....:p

TheDjinnFor
10-25-2011, 12:21 AM
When only considering random loot, yes, it allows you to carry the equivalent of a greatsword in each hand for your size.

No, it allows you to carry in one hamd, not just the equivalent of a greatsword, but a greatsword.

Weapons have two sizes: their size category as an object, and the size category of their intended wielder.

As per RAW:


"A weapon’s size category is keyed to the size of the intended wielder. In general, a light weapon is an object two size categories smaller than the wielder, a one-handed weapon is an object one size category smaller than the wielder, and a two-handed weapon is an object of the same size category as the wielder."


"The measure of how much effort it takes to use a weapon (whether the weapon is designated as a light, one-handed, or two-handed weapon for a particular wielder) is altered by one step for each size category of difference between the wielder’s size and the size of the creature for which the weapon was designed. If a weapon’s designation would be changed to something other than light, one-handed, or two-handed by this alteration, the creature can’t wield the weapon at all."

You can use the weapons size as an object to derive the effort (light, one handed, or two-handed) needed to wield it. All light weapons in PHB1 are considered Tiny objects, all one-handed weapons are considered Small objects, and all two-handed weapons are considered Medium objects.

So a small longsword is a one-handed weapon for a medium wielder that deals 1d8 damage with a crit rating of 19-20/x2.

A medium greatsword is a two handed weapon for a medium wielder that deals 2d8 damage and has a crit rating of 19-20/x2. Monkey grip allows you to treat it as one size category smaller for the purposes of dual-wielding it: so you can treat a medium greatsword as a small greatsword (a one-handed weapon) and dual-wield it.

If you obtain a copy of PHB 2 you can see what I'm talking about; the weapons are divided into tiny, small, medium and large rather than light, one-handed, two-handed, etc. In fact, the Maul is a Large weapon, making it impossible to wield by a medium user, but it has an exotic proficiency that allows you to treat it as a Medium weapon and thus two-hand it (similar to the way the Bastard Sword is a two-handed weapon that can be treated as a one-handed weapon using an exotic feat).

Under this system a Medium Greatsword and a Medium Longsword deal the exact same damage and have the exact same crit rating and are wielded with the exact same effort (light/one/two) but are different for purposes of proficiency only (so someone proficient in medium longswords still take penalties wielding a medium greatsword).


However, my DM decided that just because a small longsword and a medium greatsword did the same damage doesn't mean they were balanced equally, and so Greatswords could not be dual wielded (or greataxes, etc). In DDO, this is relevant because it would still forbid the TWFing of eSoSs

A small longsword and a medium greatsword don't deal the same damage. A small longsword and a small greatsword do, though, and can be wielded in one hand by a proficient wielder. If your DM made a house rule stating otherwise, then that's his choice, but dual-wielding ESoS using Monkey Grip is still RAW.

quijenoth
10-25-2011, 04:44 AM
Ok people really need to read monkey grip properly and stop using 3.0 rules over 3.5 because 3.5 “replaces” 3.0
3.5 rules...
http://s3.postimage.org/7s7qek6jl/monkeygrip.png

So according to the rules ...
* a large longsword is a one-handed weapon for a large creature.
* For a medium sized creature it is a 2 handed weapon.
* For a medium sized creature with monkey grip it is .... a one-handed weapon.

Great we all agree on this.
However this next scenario is where it gets people confused.

According to the rules ...
* A medium greatsword is a one- handed weapon for a large creature.
* For a medium sized creature it is a 2 handed weapon.
* For a medium sized creature with monkey grip it is .... a 2 handed weapon.

Why? Because of the second part of the first sentence of monkey grip...

but the amount of effort it takes you to use the weapon does not change.
A greatsword is still a greatsword, and as such must be wielded in 2 hands if you are undersized

So a character with oversized 2 weapon fighting and monkey grip could duel wield 2 large longswords but he cannot duel wield 2 medium greatswords.

In PnP players would have large longswords made for them (or keep those they looted from ogres or giants) but since there are no large longswords in DDO monkey grip would be useless.

WruntJunior
10-25-2011, 07:33 AM
Let me add that it does, in fact, say that you couldn't use a larger weapon in your off hand. So even if you could use the esos in your main hand alone, you'd not be able to use one in your off hand.

Xenostrata
10-25-2011, 01:31 PM
Ok people really need to read monkey grip properly and stop using 3.0 rules over 3.5 because 3.5 “replaces” 3.0
3.5 rules...
http://s3.postimage.org/7s7qek6jl/monkeygrip.png

So according to the rules ...
* a large longsword is a one-handed weapon for a large creature.
* For a medium sized creature it is a 2 handed weapon.
* For a medium sized creature with monkey grip it is .... a one-handed weapon.

Great we all agree on this.
However this next scenario is where it gets people confused.

According to the rules ...
* A medium greatsword is a one- handed weapon for a large creature.
* For a medium sized creature it is a 2 handed weapon.
* For a medium sized creature with monkey grip it is .... a 2 handed weapon.

Why? Because of the second part of the first sentence of monkey grip...

A greatsword is still a greatsword, and as such must be wielded in 2 hands if you are undersized

So a character with oversized 2 weapon fighting and monkey grip could duel wield 2 large longswords but he cannot duel wield 2 medium greatswords.

In PnP players would have large longswords made for them (or keep those they looted from ogres or giants) but since there are no large longswords in DDO monkey grip would be useless.

Thank you for so effectively stating what I'd been trying to get across.

Two Handed Weapons were built and balanced with the idea of fighting with two hands. Monkey Grip allowed the player to treat overly large ONE handed weapons as they would if they were smaller. Normally, they would have to be carried in two hands due to bulkiness, but they were still balanced for one-handed use - only difference is it is the one-handed use of something larger.


Quote:
"A weapon’s size category is keyed to the size of the intended wielder. In general, a light weapon is an object two size categories smaller than the wielder, a one-handed weapon is an object one size category smaller than the wielder, and a two-handed weapon is an object of the same size category as the wielder."

This is describing the size of the weapon, not the size of the weapons intended user. Just because a Two Handed weapon for a medium creature is the same size as a One Handed weapon for a large creature doesn't mean they are treated the same way at all.

The purpose of the Monkey's Grip feat was to allow for the use of larger one handed weapons, not two handed weapons.

Indoran
10-25-2011, 06:17 PM
/first post signed

Regarding monkey grip... Have you guys seen whats the damage a large Longsword does??????


Size Cost1 Damage Weight hp
Large 30 gp 2d6 8 lb. 10

Just like a Greatsword :O OMG

Maybe a Large Longsword is functionally a Greatsword... yes it's somewhat lighter... so what? thats just due to the system way of handling increases in dimentions and mass (far from the most important point)

Be as legalist as you want... but a Large Longsword is almost equal to a greatsword... being that SoS exists monkey grip implementation is a bad idea for DDo.

There are way more OP feats in 3.5 btw... and also way more interesting too... why can we not see some of that instead?

quijenoth
11-22-2011, 03:55 AM
/first post signed

Regarding monkey grip... Have you guys seen whats the damage a large Longsword does??????


Size Cost1 Damage Weight hp
Large 30 gp 2d6 8 lb. 10

Just like a Greatsword :O OMG

Maybe a Large Longsword is functionally a Greatsword... yes it's somewhat lighter... so what? thats just due to the system way of handling increases in dimentions and mass (far from the most important point)

Be as legalist as you want... but a Large Longsword is almost equal to a greatsword... being that SoS exists monkey grip implementation is a bad idea for DDo.

There are way more OP feats in 3.5 btw... and also way more interesting too... why can we not see some of that instead?

Have you seen what the damage of a large shortsword does? OMG thats the same as a Longsword! so would someone with monkeygrip class 2 longswords as light weapons? no, because they are MADE differently.

Google a greatsword (do zwiehander), longsword and shortsword (do gladius) and you will see the main difference with these weapons is the proportional length of the hilt versus the length and width of the blade.

The problem with your relaxed attitude to the rules means a large longsword vs a greatsword should be treated differently because they look similar.

Going on your assumption; because the damage is the same you can use a longsword as a greatsword. But, by that same argument, you could NOT use a large battleaxe as a greataxe because the large battleaxe does 2d6 and a greataxe does 1d12!

The Rules MUST apply to all weapons equally, making assumptions for specific weapons over others just causes confusion.

azrael4h
11-23-2011, 11:11 PM
Have you seen what the damage of a large shortsword does? OMG thats the same as a Longsword! so would someone with monkeygrip class 2 longswords as light weapons? no, because they are MADE differently.

Google a greatsword (do zwiehander), longsword and shortsword (do gladius) and you will see the main difference with these weapons is the proportional length of the hilt versus the length and width of the blade.

The problem with your relaxed attitude to the rules means a large longsword vs a greatsword should be treated differently because they look similar.

Going on your assumption; because the damage is the same you can use a longsword as a greatsword. But, by that same argument, you could NOT use a large battleaxe as a greataxe because the large battleaxe does 2d6 and a greataxe does 1d12!

The Rules MUST apply to all weapons equally, making assumptions for specific weapons over others just causes confusion.

Rather than a Gladius, which was used by the Roman Empire, compared to a Zwiehander and a typical German Longsword, try comparing them to an Arming Sword, which was a shorter, double edged war sword used in a single hand. While they basically developed in a straight line from the shorter, earlier Arming Sword to the two-handed Long Sword and finally to the monstrous Zwiehander Great Swords, the arming sword, or short sword, remained in use as a sidearm even after it fell out of use as the main weapon, alongside it's two-handed descendants.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arming_sword

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Longsword

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zweih%C3%A4nder

quijenoth
11-24-2011, 09:37 AM
I can see this thread detailing into a "D&D equipment doesn't make sense" thread as your links point out the longsword is in-fact a bastard sword :0 *gasp* :)

the arming sword is probably the closest intent of what D&D refers to a longsword as being but my point is regardless of stats like damage weight and crit range weapons have a design that makes them unique.

Saying a large version should be treated as another weapon just because their stats match and they look similar is not in-keeping with the rules. Otherwise you could have people argue (though unsuccessfully) that a large warhammer that does 2d6 should be treated as a greatsword because the damage dice is the same !

Book_O_Dragons
11-24-2011, 10:02 PM
Ok people really need to read monkey grip properly and stop using 3.0 rules over 3.5 because 3.5 “replaces” 3.0
3.5 rules...
http://s3.postimage.org/7s7qek6jl/monkeygrip.png

So according to the rules ...
* a large longsword is a one-handed weapon for a large creature.
* For a medium sized creature it is a 2 handed weapon wielded at a -2 penalty.
* For a medium sized creature with monkey grip it is .... a one-handed weapon wielded at a -2 penalty.

Great we all agree on this.
However this next scenario is where it gets people confused.

According to the rules ...
* A medium greatsword is a one- handed weapon for a large creature wielded at a -2 penalty.
* For a medium sized creature it is a 2 handed weapon.
* For a medium sized creature with monkey grip it is .... a 2 handed weapon.
* For a huge creature it is a light weapon wielded at a -4 penalty

Why? Because of the second part of the first sentence of monkey grip...

A greatsword is still a greatsword, and as such must be wielded in 2 hands if you are undersized

So a character with oversized 2 weapon fighting and monkey grip could duel wield 2 large longswords but he cannot duel wield 2 medium greatswords.

In PnP players would have large longswords made for them (or keep those they looted from ogres or giants) but since there are no large longswords in DDO monkey grip would be useless.

You forgot the penalty for wielding weapons made for different sized creatures.


Now if we looked at official sources, this feat is in Sword and Fist supplement (3.0) and Complete Warrior (3.5). I am not familiar with 3.0 details, so let's look at the CW version.
You can use melee weapons one size category larger than you are with a –2 penalty on the attack roll, but the amount of effort it takes you to use the weapon does not change.

This is what my copy of Complete Warrior says. The feat requires a +1 BAB.