New fighter class: Two-Weapon Fighter

G

Guest

Guest
Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

I came up with this idea for a fighter subclass because when I was in the military I practiced
with a friend of mine that did SCA and learned that I have a hard time fighting with anything
other then two weapons of the same length.

I would really like to hear some input on this class. I would like to hear if you think that it
is too powerful or not powerful enough or balanced well. I’ve wrote out the special abilities of
this class like feats but I’m not sure that I want to create these feats or just make them
special to this class. I’m worried that they could out balance the rest of the game as feat
available to all classes. The only thing that I’m sure will be class exclusive is the Natural
Two-Weapon Fighting. I want that to be the draw to the class but I want it to balance.

Two Weapon Fighter

LVL....BAB...................Fort....Ref....Will....Special
1st....+1.....................2.......0........0.......Natural Two-Weapon Fighting
2nd....+2.....................3.......0........0.......Two-Weapon Fighting
3rd....+3.....................3.......1........1.......Off-Hand Parry
4th....+4.....................4.......1........1.......Two-Weapon Defense
5th....+5.....................4.......1........1
6th....+6/+1..................5.......2........2.......Improved Two-Weapon Fighting
7th....+7/+2..................5.......2........2.......Unflankable
8th....+8/+3..................6.......2........2.......Improved Two-Weapon Defense
9th....+9/+4..................6.......3........3
10th..+10/+5..................7.......3........3.......Improved Natural Two-Weapon Fighting
11th..+11/+6/+1...............7.......3........3.......Greater Two-Weapon Fighting
12th..+12/+7/+2...............8.......4........4
13th..+13/+8/+3...............8.......4........4.......Greater Two-Weapon Defense
14th..+14/+9/+4...............9.......4........4.......Improved Unflankable
15th..+15/+10/+5..............9.......5........5
16th..+16/+11/+6/+1..........10.......5........5.......Same Weapon
17th..+17/+12/+7/+2..........10.......5........5
18th..+18/+13/+8/+3..........11.......6........6.......Full Strength Bonus with Off Hand
19th..+19/+14/+9/+4..........11.......6........6
20th..+20/+15/+10/+5.........12.......6........6.......Different Weapon

Natural Two-Weapon Fighting (Mine) – Penalty for using two weapons reduced by 1. You
have a -1 penalty for using a hafted, or solid, double weapon or using a weapon and
shield, unless you take the feats to use the shield as a weapon.

Two-Weapon Fighting (PHB) – Penalty for primary hand lessens by 2 and your off hand by 6.

Off-Hand Parry (Masters of the Wild) – When fighting with two weapons and using the
full attack option, you can on your action decide to attack normally or to sacrifice
all your off-hand attacks for that round in exchange for a +2 dodge bonus to your AC.
If you take this option, you also suffer penalties on your attacks as if you were
fighting with two weapons. If you are also using a buckler, its AC bonus stacks
with the dodge bonus. You can use only bladed or hafted weapons of a size category
smaller than your own with this feat.

Two-Weapon Defense (PHB) – Gain +1 shield bonus to your AC/Gain +2 when fighting defensively.

Improved Two-Weapon Fighting (PHB) – Get second attack with off weapon at -5.

Unflankable (Mine) – Can no longer be flanked by 2 opponents. Must be considered
flanked in 2 or more way to be flanked.

Improved Two-Weapon Defense (Mine) – Gain an additional +1 shield bonus to
you AC/Additional +1 when fighting defensively.

Improved Natural Two-Weapon Fighting (Mine) – Penalty for using two weapons reduced
by another 1. Your penalty for using a hafted double weapon or shield increases by 1.

Greater Two-Weapon Fighting (PHB) – Get third attack with off hand at -10.

Greater Two-Weapon Defense (Mine) – Gain an additional +1 shield bonus to you
AC/Additional +1 when fighting defensively.

Improved Unflankable (Mine) – You can no longer be flanked.

Same Weapon (Mine) – If using same type weapon in each hand (IE: 2 longswords)
off hand weapon considered a light weapon.

Full Strength Bonus with Off Hand (Mine) – You gain your full strength bonus to
damage on all of your off hand attacks.

Different Weapon (Mine) – If using a different weapon in your off hand that
weighs the same or less then the weapon in your primary hand then it is considered a light
weapon.
 
G

Guest

Guest
Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

Quentin Stephens wrote:
> Miles Raines <ruhakycoh@kellychen.com> wrote in
> news:200503121925837.SM01272@gateway3.kellychen.com:
>
> > I came up with this idea for a fighter subclass
>
> Also known as Ranger.

Also known as fighter. there's nothing wrong with the TWF rules. but
this does read like a poorly thought out ranger (unflankable?).
Advice: let it doe and use fighter or ranger. Or a fighter/rogue if
you're desperate for uncanny dodge.
 
G

Guest

Guest
Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

Miles Raines <ruhakycoh@kellychen.com> wrote in
news:200503121925837.SM01272@gateway3.kellychen.com:

> I came up with this idea for a fighter subclass

Also known as Ranger.
 
G

Guest

Guest
Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

On Wed, 16 Mar 2005 07:13:25 -0800, Anivair wrote:

>
> Quentin Stephens wrote:
>> Miles Raines <ruhakycoh@kellychen.com> wrote in
>> news:200503121925837.SM01272@gateway3.kellychen.com:
>>
>> > I came up with this idea for a fighter subclass
>>
>> Also known as Ranger.
>
> Also known as fighter. there's nothing wrong with the TWF rules. but
> this does read like a poorly thought out ranger (unflankable?).
> Advice: let it doe and use fighter or ranger. Or a fighter/rogue if
> you're desperate for uncanny dodge.

I agree. The new 'class abilities' could be changed to new feats.
As a seperate class it's a bit too shallow IMO.

LL
 
G

Guest

Guest
Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

Matthias wrote:
> On 16 Mar 2005 13:29:29 GMT, Quentin Stephens
<stq@stq.gro.ku.invalid> wrote:
>
> >Miles Raines <ruhakycoh@kellychen.com> wrote in
> >news:200503121925837.SM01272@gateway3.kellychen.com:
> >
> >> I came up with this idea for a fighter subclass
> >
> >Also known as Ranger.
>
> There's more to Ranger than two-weapon fighting ... favored enemy,
tracking, the
> alternative bow feats, the spellcasting. It's not really comparable
unless you
> want to rag on the Barbarian for being too much like the Rogue
because they have
> some class abilities in common as well.

Not for being too much alike, but for already filling hte role. this
is like making a class called "sneaker" because while you want your
character to sneak you think there's no reason he needs to have sneak
attack.

Or, more accurately, this is kind of like making a casting class just
like sorcerer, but who only gets spells that start with O.

Fighter handles this concept just fine (better) and so does ranger.
 

Matthias

Distinguished
Jul 1, 2003
137
0
18,680
Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

On 16 Mar 2005 13:29:29 GMT, Quentin Stephens <stq@stq.gro.ku.invalid> wrote:

>Miles Raines <ruhakycoh@kellychen.com> wrote in
>news:200503121925837.SM01272@gateway3.kellychen.com:
>
>> I came up with this idea for a fighter subclass
>
>Also known as Ranger.

There's more to Ranger than two-weapon fighting ... favored enemy, tracking, the
alternative bow feats, the spellcasting. It's not really comparable unless you
want to rag on the Barbarian for being too much like the Rogue because they have
some class abilities in common as well.

--

Matthias (matthias_mls@yahoo.com)

"Scientists tend to do philosophy about as well as you'd expect philosophers to
do science, the difference being that at least the philosophers usually *know*
when they're out of their depth."
-Jeff Heikkinen
 

Matthias

Distinguished
Jul 1, 2003
137
0
18,680
Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

On 17 Mar 2005 06:39:01 -0800, "Anivair" <anivair@gmail.com> wrote:

>
>Matthias wrote:
>> On 16 Mar 2005 13:29:29 GMT, Quentin Stephens
><stq@stq.gro.ku.invalid> wrote:
>>
>> >Miles Raines <ruhakycoh@kellychen.com> wrote in
>> >news:200503121925837.SM01272@gateway3.kellychen.com:
>> >
>> >> I came up with this idea for a fighter subclass
>> >
>> >Also known as Ranger.
>>
>> There's more to Ranger than two-weapon fighting ... favored enemy,
>tracking, the
>> alternative bow feats, the spellcasting. It's not really comparable
>unless you
>> want to rag on the Barbarian for being too much like the Rogue
>because they have
>> some class abilities in common as well.
>
>Not for being too much alike, but for already filling hte role. this
>is like making a class called "sneaker" because while you want your
>character to sneak you think there's no reason he needs to have sneak
>attack.
>
>Or, more accurately, this is kind of like making a casting class just
>like sorcerer, but who only gets spells that start with O.
>
>Fighter handles this concept just fine (better) and so does ranger.

If you favor a campaign world where all fighter-types look alike, all roguish
characters have the same abilities, and all clerics have the same array of
spells, that kind of thinking is fine.

I don't see the need to constrain specific abilities to this or that class.
Freeform classes means you can have one culture whose rangers have everything
but spells and the favored enemy ability, and another culture has all the
standard ranger abilities. If there is a background explanation for such class
variation in the game world, it should be perfectly okay to create Ranger
Variant I & II, or create a Wilderness Warrior class that's based on ranger but
without the spells and favored enemy.

However, I do see the benefit of making sure your players dickering over useless
or dominating PC's, by way of balancing out the classes overall.

--

Matthias (matthias_mls@yahoo.com)

"Scientists tend to do philosophy about as well as you'd expect philosophers to
do science, the difference being that at least the philosophers usually *know*
when they're out of their depth."
-Jeff Heikkinen
 
G

Guest

Guest
Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

Matthias wrote:

> If you favor a campaign world where all fighter-types look alike, all
roguish
> characters have the same abilities, and all clerics have the same
array of
> spells, that kind of thinking is fine.

I'm noot suggesting anyhting of the sort, and in fact I'm suggesting
the opposite. I'm saying that if you want to be a two weapon fighter,
there's no reason that you can't do that with the ranger or fighter
class despite the fact that they have other steryotypes associated with
them. Just because you're a ranger doesn't mean you need to be an
archer or a two weapon fighter or a tracker at all. A serial killer is
just as valid a ranger concept as is a woodsman who is a professional
trapper. So you don't need a serial killer class or a hunter class
because those are rangers. Part of the class system is realizing that
the classes are broad categories, not just pidgeon holes.

> I don't see the need to constrain specific abilities to this or that
class.
> Freeform classes means you can have one culture whose rangers have
everything
> but spells and the favored enemy ability, and another culture has all
the
> standard ranger abilities. If there is a background explanation for
such class
> variation in the game world, it should be perfectly okay to create
Ranger
> Variant I & II, or create a Wilderness Warrior class that's based on
ranger but
> without the spells and favored enemy.

No problem with that, of course, but I might prefer a ranger that
didn't focus on spell (or may just didn't learn to cast them) or who's
favored enemy ability was just downplayed. Or applied to somehting
else like forest creatures.
 
G

Guest

Guest
Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

Brian wrote:
> "Anivair" <anivair@gmail.com> wrote
> > No problem with that, of course, but I might prefer a ranger that
> > didn't focus on spell (or may just didn't learn to cast them)
> There's a non-casting variant of ranger (and paladin) in the Complete
> Warrior.

I never said there wasn't. And a noncasting ranger is a fine idea, I
guess. I would have just houseruled it for someone, but whatever. But
I can see the purpose behind a spell-less ranger because there aren't
really good rule options for it (though i see no reason not to use a
fighter or a barbarien if that's what you're going for). But a two
weapon fighter is already covered by the rules. The premise of the
class was "fights with two weapons" which a fighter does just as well
if not better and with more room for custimization.
 

Brian

Distinguished
Sep 9, 2003
1,371
0
19,280
Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

"Anivair" <anivair@gmail.com> wrote
> No problem with that, of course, but I might prefer a ranger that
> didn't focus on spell (or may just didn't learn to cast them)
There's a non-casting variant of ranger (and paladin) in the Complete
Warrior.