TWF yes or no

[j_spencer93]

I was going to hold off posting this today, but it was posted on an earlier post of mine so I have to ask...why does everyone say TWF sucks? I have made some good NPCs with the build before that can put a stop to hulking brutes with ease.

[Greenish]

It eats feats, it eats money, it needs high Dex, it doesn't really work with PA (bar some builds), and it's even more screwed when it can't make full attacks.

You can make a good TWFer, but two-handing a big weapon just takes a lot less effort for the same results.


[Edit]: Oh yeah, it doesn't benefit from extra attacks as much as two-handers, and Imp. TWF/Greater TWF are hilariously poor feats (a bonus attack at -5/-10 that's weaker than your normal attacks).

[j_spencer93]

mmm well I can see what you mean, a fighting with 2 handed weapon can decided to take WF, WS, and those feats making his 2 handed weapon vastly superior when your still working on TWF to get even....ya never mind I do so why 2 handed fighting is preferred. TWF does take to many feats to do in a normal game.

[Gwendol]

What Greenish said. The rules aren't helpful, and unless you can stack on extra damage it will always be a sub-par tactical choice. Flanking rogues can benefit from the style though.

[Gavinfoxx]

Let's compare to a decent but not incredible level 9 two hander, shall we?

Human, Spirit Lion Totem, Whirling Frenzy Barbarian 9

Feats:
1. Power Attack
Hu: Battle Jump
3: Improved Bull Rush
6: Shock Trooper
9: Leap Attack

Items of note:
-A +1 Baatorian Greensteel Gloryborn Valorous Greatsword (a +2- equivalent weapon).
-A +2 Enhancement item of strength.

Assumptions: He starts with an 18 strength and he puts his level 4 and 8 bonus to strength, and he maxxes Jump.

Here is his attack routine on a Whirling Frenzy-enabled Heedless Charge, jumping at the enemy to enable Battle Jump, with Leap Attack, with full power attack, at level 9:

Attack 1:
26 str (+8)
-2 to hit from whirling frenzy
+9 bab to hit
+1 enhancement to hit
+2 charge

Damage: 2d6
+1 enhancement
+12 strength (8 +4)
+1 Gloryborn
+27 with a Leap Attack Power Attack (9*3, via leap attack, rather than 9*1.5)
+1 from Greensteel

Multiplier x3 = Battle Jump (x2) + Valorous (x2)

(So a 2d6 changes into 6d6 after the x3 multiplier)

Damage on first attack is 6d6+126

So +18/6d6+126
or an average of 147 damage.

Attack 2:
26 str (+8)
-2 to hit from whirling frenzy
+9 bab to hit
+1 enhancement to hit
+2 charge

This is the same as the first attack, so +18/6d6+126
again, an average of 147 damage.

Attack 3:
28 str (+8)
-2 to hit from whirling frenzy
+4 bab to hit
+1 enhancement to hit
+2 Charge

+13 to hit

Damage:
Damage: 2d6
+1 enhancement
+12 strength (8 +4)
+1 Gloryborn
+27 with a Leap Attack Power Attack (9*3, via leap attack, rather than 9*1.5)
+1 from Greensteel

So this is +13/6d6+126
again, an average of 147damage.

So ~441 damage at level 9, after moving in a charge, while relatively under-equipped (you should have higher strength and better gear).

Can two weapon fighting compete with that?

[j_spencer93]

{scrubbed}

[eggynack]

mmm well I can see what you mean, a fighting with 2 handed weapon can decided to take WF, WS, and those feats making his 2 handed weapon vastly superior when your still working on TWF to get even....ya never mind I do so why 2 handed fighting is preferred. TWF does take to many feats to do in a normal game.

Or, more accurately, you'll fill those slots with good feats. Think something more along the lines of power attack, improved bull rush, and shock trooper. Another advantage of two handed fighting is that the weapons tend to be intrinsically better. For example, a great martial weapon is the guisarme, which gets you both tripping, which is one of the best combat maneuvers in the game, and reach, which is something you're generally going to want. Getting both of those things on a one handed weapon isn't particularly easy. Similarly, two handed weapons have the spiked chain at exotic, which is one of the best weapon options out there. What does one handing have by comparison?

Ultimately, the feat expenditure is only part of the problem. Even with the same amount of free feats, two handed fighting will generally do either the same amount of damage as two weapon, or even more. Without precision damage, two handing is just better in most conceivable ways. There are certainly a few corner cases, but they're corner enough that we can safely just claim the superiority of two handing without it being too big of an issue.

[Gavinfoxx]

{scrub the post, scrub the quote}

Here's a thread about the various ways of getting extra attacks. Two weapon fighting loses out compared to other methods.

http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?p=7066595

If you combine most of these feats into one or two feats:

Two Weapon Fighting
Improved Two Weapon Fighting
Oversized Two Weapon Fighting
Two Weapon Defense
Dual Strike
Improved Two Weapon Defense
Greater Two Weapon Defense
Combat Reflexes
Two Weapon Attack of Opportunity
Two Weapon Pounce
Two Weapon Rend
Double Hit


Than two weapon fighting would be okay, I suppose.

[j_spencer93]

gavin- i know it does lol i can stack monk attacks pretty good.

[j_spencer93]

but if we going by dmg i would choose a wizard...damn things throw more dmg then anything else.
a kobold in my last game found a scroll that contained fireball and ended up with a Maximized Empowered Searing Fiery explosive blistering fireball that really fired anything in its path

[Gavinfoxx]

...Yeaaaa... You are playing at an extremely low optimization level, and are not having your characters go up against the sorts of greater challenges the system can provide. Please try to recalibrate your expectations and understanding of the game, and try to realize that your optimization level isn't as high as you think it is.

And sorcerers win out on damage, read this:

http://community.wizards.com/go/thread/view/75882/19868534/The_Mailman:_A_Direct_Damage_Sorcerer

[j_spencer93]

um i stated i don't like to optimize. i kinda think building a class just to be good, instead of something you want to play as is lame. if you want to talk optimized look at a TWF leshay, level 20 fighter that think is a beast, or a minotaur knight focused on armor optimization and toughness feats (as in giant/draconic toughness) you have a damn meat shield.
i never once said i want optimized. actually said the opposite, i want interesting unique ideas to fight. i can create overpower two handers with my eyes closed.

[Gavinfoxx]

If you want interesting and tactical, and not overpowered I would suggest you play something from Tome of Battle. Just take one of the classes all the way to 20.

[j_spencer93]

ya honestly that what everyone seems to think and i like the feats in there and classed but my players never choose them. idk why, but dislike everyone immediately saying multiclass to warblade of swordsage lol i have almost every PDF you can think of, i know whats out there.

[John Longarrow]

Unarmed/TWF does win out over 2-handed in some cases. Normally this is situations that for RP reasons your 2-hander would be excluded, such as when traveling through a city with weapon restrictions or in an environment that does not lend itself to charge attacks/2 handed use (like climbing).

For some NPCs it would not make sense for them to be built around a 2-handed charge build, such as discrete palace guards that appear as servants/entertainers or for assassins (NOTE: Not the pClass, the actual vocation).

[j_spencer93]

lol ya like in a cave 10ft or smaller, that big weapon going to be kinda cumbersome. had this happen once with my players, actually caused them all to die.

[Gavinfoxx]

lol ya like in a cave 10ft or smaller, that big weapon going to be kinda cumbersome. had this happen once with my players, actually caused them all to die.

Except, generally, D&D rules don't go to that level of simulationism...

At that point, you are talking about house rules and you need to declare that you are using house rules and what they are at the beginning of the post. That's only polite.

[OldTrees1]

@j_spencer93

Two weapon fighting is at several disadvantages
1) They lose feats to unlock their style. Normally characters do not run out of good feats so this feat tax really hurts.
2) They lose out on Stats. They need more STR to keep up with two handed fighters and need more DEX to be able to take their feats.
3) Only Two Weapon Fighting, Improved Two Weapon Fighting and Two Weapon Rend are powerful enough to be worth a feat. Even then there is argument about their value.

The existence of these obstacles is why people say TWF sucks. So in order to create an interesting encounter with a dual wielder, you would be looking at overcoming these obstacles. I suggest looking up the Diopsid race or finding some source of extra damage (like sneak attack) to overcome the poor Str.

[j_spencer93]

oh my bad man, um idk about house rules cause i think that stuffs actually touched upon in underdark or some book but yes i use common sense in most situations. you use a giant weapon in crapped space, be ready to be penalized. now you have me wondering what book i got my rules from, i have a rules page i use which i composed of rules i liked from the different 3.5 pdfs.

[j_spencer93]

old trees- i agree they loses out, to many feats for normal game, btw i would use weapons suitable for finesse if you want a half good TWF. or dervish and TWF

[Gavinfoxx]

You should use this for the core of your rules:

http://www.d20srd.org/

For basic combat and such. Also check out the rules compendium book.

Also, you are going to want to edit your posts, so that it is only one post at a time, so you aren't replying to yourself. Put your other messages in the first post, and remove the text from the later ones, and stop replying to yourself...

It's frowned upon here.

Also, Tome of Battle has a prestige class in it that is better than Tempest/Dervish for two weapon fighting. Just saying.

[OldTrees1]

Also do note that cramping is not an issue when the Two Handed Fighter is using a 1 handed weapon 2 handed.

[John Longarrow]

oldTrees1,

If you have a dex-centric build to begin with (dex to damage as well as to hit and AC) then going TWF may work a lot better than dumping points int o STR JUST to get power attack and feats based off of it.

For a halfling rogue build with some levels of fighter and Sword Sage tossed in, TWF makes far more sense than power attack. Same basic reasons you cite, trying to NOT spread your stat points around and to use feats that are advantagous to you.

[j_spencer93]

lol i know about the SRD and i actually have all the books it does compiled together for my own game, plus some. and ya i really should start doing that. also i will have to look that up, wasn't aware of that, but on a side note dervish really seems like a class the drizz't character should be given in game but it isn't.

oldtrees- ya you are right, it wouldn't be a problem then except my players always 2 handed giant weapon, idk why, maybe because that optimal for damage.

[PersonMan]

why does everyone say TWF sucks?


2 handed beats it in dmg every time.

You kinda answered your own question here.

2 handed = more damage, less attack rolls, higher attack bonuses, therefore more reliable damage.

Also, I don't see how getting a lot of attacks is somehow better if you admit you're doing less damage. Do you mean per attack? Even then it's better to have 3 attacks at a high attack bonus than 5 at a lower one.

Also, about the roleplaying thing...one thing to remember here is that, if you ask 'is Feat A good or bad?' people generally won't come with a bunch of roleplaying, fluff-based stuff. They'll tell you if Feat A is good and, if it isn't, generally point you to something better. There are quite a few people who don't use classes and feats as in-game concepts and instead as metagame ones, meaning that they can divorce the mechanics of a character from the default fluff, allowing them to mix-and-match whatever they need to build a character with the abilities of the concept.

It's like asking which engine is faster, A or B, and when someone answers you say "wow I'm glad my friends don't think like you, they care about fuel consumption". It's a valid point, but entirely outside the area of the question and answer.

[Gavinfoxx]

Remember -- combine your replied to yourself posts.

And Tempest and Dervish were made obsolete by a prestige class in Tome of Battle, go check it out.

[OldTrees1]

oldTrees1,

If you have a dex-centric build to begin with (dex to damage as well as to hit and AC) then going TWF may work a lot better than dumping points int o STR JUST to get power attack and feats based off of it.

For a halfling rogue build with some levels of fighter and Sword Sage tossed in, TWF makes far more sense than power attack. Same basic reasons you cite, trying to NOT spread your stat points around and to use feats that are advantagous to you.

See part about "extra damage"
I found that Shadow Blade is not enough extra damage for TWF but Shadow Blade + Sneak Attack is good enough for the Dexterous TWF. It still takes more investment to merely tie an uninvested THF but people play TWF because they want to not because it is optimal.

Shadow Blade + Knowledge Devotion is also a nice combo if you have the skillpoints. (Like rogues do)

[j_spencer93]

personman- i already admitted dmg wise 2 handed was far better, i just don't understand why everyone choices dmg over flavor.

[Gavinfoxx]

Because people like being able to hit and affect enemies and move about in combat and do tactical things and hitting is better than not hitting? And getting through DR is more fun than not?

[j_spencer93]

Ya, really does kinda suck you can't get a decent TWF that can do cool things like a 2 handed. instead you sacrifice basically all feats to get on par with an average 2 hander.

[PersonMan]

personman- i already admitted dmg wise 2 handed was far better, i just don't understand why everyone choices dmg over flavor.

If my flavor is "guy with a big sword who hits things really hard and kills big monsters in one hit", then TWF is more than useless to me.

The answer to your question is No, they don't. Well, some do, but there are plenty of people who play THF over TWF because of flavor.

For example, if I'm playing a fighter who doesn't like to fight and thinks it's a last resort which should be dealt with as quickly as possible to minimize risk, then going for a charging THF build makes sense. It fits the flavor.

[Myrddin0001]

me personally, the TWFers I've ever built I never used the entire feat chain. Just TWF and maybe imp. TWF. Just for style and an extra hit. With that combo it doesn't eat as many feats, BAB, or economy as using the entire chian.

[j_spencer93]

i didn't mean TWF is more flavorful over THF, not at all.

[OldTrees1]

Ya, really does kinda suck you can't get a decent TWF that can do cool things like a 2 handed. instead you sacrifice basically all feats to get on par with an average 2 hander.

And now you know why people say it sucks.

There are people that want to do 2handed. They don't care about the status of TWF. However the people that want to do TWF look at the rules and say "these rules suck". Some stick with the style despite the pain. Some forgo the style to avoid the pain. This choice is a result of poor rules.

[PersonMan]

So what do you mean, then?

Your original question has been answered, not only by other but by yourself.

The other point you raised, about roleplaying and flavor, has been answered (and you went back on your statement in an odd manner as well).

Could you clarify, then, what you mean with things like "i just don't understand why everyone choices dmg over flavor."?

[eggynack]

personman- i already admitted dmg wise 2 handed was far better, i just don't understand why everyone choices dmg over flavor.
What flavor am I really missing out on by picking up a greatsword over a longsword and a shortsword? It feels like you can mostly just substitute in whatever weapon you want on your character's backstory, and it'll come out pretty much the same. In fact, I'd say that increased damage actually makes two handing more flavorful. There's little more jarring within a game than having your master swordsman run up to a dragon and barely manage to hurt it. Unless the flavor of your character is being really bad at hurting bad guys, it feels like you should make your character really good at hurting bad guys.

[Segev]

Two-handed weapons take less investment to get to a peak that is pretty impressive.

TWF and MWF take a fair bit of work to make "as good as you picture" in that you're relatively accurate and hitting a lot. And then take still more effort to make really shine.

They can be impressive. You want things that add damage to your every attack. Sneak Attack and its cousins are obvious starting points. Knowledge Devotion, casting Burning Blades, the Shadow Hand feat that adds dex to damage (and, importantly, doesn't treat it as half dex mod the way str to damage does with off-hand weapons)...

It can add up, if you can manage your full attacks. Like the two handed weapon wielder, you wind up really wanting pounce, or something equivalent. Ranged attacks would be nice except that so many things don't work well with them (e.g. sneak attack), at least not on a full attack, which is where you shine.

It even - almost - makes Weapon Specialization worth a feat. Sadly, it does NOT make it worth 4 levels of fighter.

[j_spencer93]

you mixed flavor (kind) with optimization. anyways, i know its been answered. i was kinda wondering why everyone keep posting on it lol in the middle of looking at the feat chain i decided ya, optimization makes it crap, really is to feat consuming. take TWF at best, maybe improved and TWD but nothing more.
actually in my game, the players all decided weapon specialization, weapon focus, etc were stripped of fighter prerequisites. i didn't mind, i actually never liked that prerequisite.

[Gavinfoxx]

Actually don't take TWD.

[j_spencer93]

ok, im curious why not?
personally i enjoy dodge feats better but still curious why not take it?

[eggynack]

ok, im curious why not?
personally i enjoy dodge feats better but still curious why not take it?
Because it's a tiny numerical bonus. To be worthwhile, any given feat either needs to provide a moderate to massive numerical bonus, or else open up an entire facet of the character in question. Thus, weapon focus is bad, because it gives a +1 to hit. Knowledge devotion is good, because it gives a +1 to +5 bonus to both attack and damage. Improved trip is great, because it lets you do completely new things with your character. Power attack is also great, because it grants a great damage boost, particularly with shock trooper.

[j_spencer93]

ya but when the game first came out before, lets be honest, others books released newer feats that went overkill, TWD's 2 shield bonus wouldn't of been bad. I see what you mean, but honestly I think the games feats kinda went stupid somewhere done the like, but a feat is a feat I agree, why take the weaker one.
on another note, would TWF with TWD be worthwhile is you focused on fighting defensively?

[Greenish]

I'll just note that I quite like TWF characters, despite the effort. No one (I think) is saying you shouldn't do it, just that, say, if you're going to go houseruling on weapon styles, that's a good candidate to start with.


It even - almost - makes Weapon Specialization worth a feat. Sadly, it does NOT make it worth 4 levels of fighter.Weapon Specialization opens Melee Weapon Mastery, which does make the option more tempting, and fighters have ACFs and variants to help.

[eggynack]

ya but when the game first came out before, lets be honest, others books released newer feats that went overkill, TWD's 2 shield bonus wouldn't of been bad. I see what you mean, but honestly I think the games feats kinda went stupid somewhere done the like, but a feat is a feat I agree, why take the weaker one.
Yes, it would have been bad. Two weapon defense still only gives a tiny numerical bonus, even if you're in core. Possibly more importantly, it gives a tiny numerical defense to AC, and pumping AC is intrinsically suboptimal to some extent. It's a defensive power up in an offensively oriented game, and it doesn't defend against nearly enough. There are enough feats in core to fill up an entire build, and though you might scrape the bottom of the barrel a bit near the end, the bottom of the barrel will not include two weapon defense, because two weapon defense is bad.

[j_spencer93]

oh well, and I personally like TWF build, and THF build. I honestly like about every build as long those playing it actually want to play that character instead of making it for power.
oh I just looked through the TOB and only duel wielding class I see focuses on daggers...how does that replaces tempest of dervish? which stack pretty well?
also the game is only offensive based if the DM makes it so. I have ran games based on stealth, and surviving. In the stealth one, THF and TWF were equal, getting away and sneaking was far more important then hack and slash.

[Segev]

ya but when the game first came out before, lets be honest, others books released newer feats that went overkill, TWD's 2 shield bonus wouldn't of been bad. I see what you mean, but honestly I think the games feats kinda went stupid somewhere done the like, but a feat is a feat I agree, why take the weaker one.
on another note, would TWF with TWD be worthwhile is you focused on fighting defensively?

False. First off, TWD is a +1 shield bonus. You're generally better off just getting an animated shield; the gp are less valuable than a feat.

Secondly, Weapon Focus is not a worthwhile feat by itself. It's okay if you're getting it free off of a class (but even then, only if the class gives much cooler stuff along with it, either at the same level or later). But it's not worth a feat. Even in a core-only game, I would look askance at it. Perhaps especially, since it doesn't open any truly useful feat chains in Core. Weapon Spec is, as I said, only even remotely good if you're TWFing, and fighters are not the best TWFers. It's better to get more Rogue levels for more Sneak Attack and better ability to make it trigger than it is to get 4 levels of fighter for Weapon Spec.

It's not that later feats were "overpowered" and made Weapon Focus and its ilk weak in comparison; it's that Weapon Focus and its ilk are weak, and there were already better things to do with your feats, to the point that, if you ran out of fitting things to do with them, you settled for Weapon Focus. Or you picked it up because you thought the name was cool and wanted the flavor of saying "I focused on this weapon in my training," and didn't understand or care why the +1 to hit was not the best thing you could have done with that feat.

[j_spencer93]

Segev thanks for correcting that, It is +1 not +2, and ya my players would pick weapon focus because of the flavor. idk maybe may players just are unique lol.
and no some later feats really were overpowered but then again some base feats were just crap. a little bit of both.

[Segev]

Nah, there are plenty of players who will pick up things just for flavor. They may even have fun with it, as long as they're not winding up being punished for it by discovering that somebody else picked up something that was more effective by a notable amount. Many, many games manage to be low or mid-op without anybody realizing there are optimization levels. Others wind up breaking because somebody stumbles on a more optimal strategy. For some reason, they're the ones that typically get "blamed" for the game being less fun.

[j_spencer93]

my game is really hard, I wont lie. I use common sense, physics, and realism to extreme degrees, and my players still only want to play flavor and have a blast doing it. fun games.

[Firechanter]

Let's compare to a decent but not incredible level 9 two hander, shall we?
[...]
Hu: Battle Jump
[...]
So ~441 damage at level 9, after moving in a charge, while relatively under-equipped (you should have higher strength and better gear).

Can two weapon fighting compete with that?

While I do agree with your general point, I'd really like to see how you can use Battle Jump at this level, even against a Medium target. You'd have to jump 10' high, that is a DC 40.

Still, even without Battle Jump, that's still a potential damage somewhere around 300 points (not factoring in actual hit chances), so that's not shabby at all.

[brujon]

oh well, and I personally like TWF build, and THF build. I honestly like about every build as long those playing it actually want to play that character instead of making it for power.
oh I just looked through the TOB and only duel wielding class I see focuses on daggers...how does that replaces tempest of dervish? which stack pretty well?
also the game is only offensive based if the DM makes it so. I have ran games based on stealth, and surviving. In the stealth one, THF and TWF were equal, getting away and sneaking was far more important then hack and slash.

You're looking at it the wrong way. Just because a class doesn't have a speciifc class feature that relates to TWF, like Tempest or Dervish, it doesn't mean it can't be an AWESOME two weapon wielder, even better than a Tempest or Dervish, for that matter.

Did you take a look at the White Raven stance, Leading the Charge? +IL to damage on a charge is INSANELY good, if you TWF and Pounce, this damage can go skyhigh. Or Dancing Mongoose and Raging Mongoose maneuvers from Tiger Claw? Girallon Windmill Flesh Rip, which can add insane amount of damages the more attacks you land on a turn? The fact that Sudden Leap maneuver + Leaping Dragon Stance, both from Tiger Claw, enables two full attacks on a round with the Battle Jump feat?

There's also the fact that those are BASE classes, not prestige classes, and that both Dervish and Tempest requires a LOT of feats, not counting the feats you'll already have to invest in order to make TWF function. So, are the class features really worth it, when ToB offers you much more flexibility and even raw power from the get go? Plus, nothing says you can't go into Dervish or Tempest from a Warblade start, for instance.

Bloodstorm Blade is an awesome TWF/Thrower hybrid. Seriously... It's an awesome class, and can be extremely powerful if done right... Talenta Boomerang + Boomerang Daze comes to mind, or abuse the aptitude part, not use a Boomerang, and even grab Lightning Maces to boot, so you can go insane on the number of attacks. There's potential for a really, really insane number of attacks when you combine it with Flurry of Blows, Master Thrower's Palm Throw, Haste and other ways of getting more attacks or full-attack actions. It can quickly get insane. Really insane.

Eternal Blade is also another prestige class of note in the book that works well with TWF. Guided Strike let's you ignore DR, eliminating one of the biggest problems with TWF, which is losing too much damage to DR. Eternal Training gives you a decent boost to damage & attack, and it's flexible enough that it can be useful if you know what you'll face. Finally, the capstone ability, taking a turn as an Immediate Action, well, i can't stress enough how powerful it is...

Telflammar Shadowlord or Crinti Shadow Marauder + the Shadow Hand maneuvers that teleport(Shadow Jaunt, Stride and Blink), enables you to make a lot of full attacks in a round. I do mean a lot. Requires an specific build to work properly, though...

So, in short... Don't judge a book by it's cover. Sometimes a class is presented as a be-all end-all of X, and in reality, it's abilities can all be replicated and done better by another class that doesn't require as many feats. There REALLY is a reason why people are always recommending Tome of Battle.

[Segev]

A month or few ago, I was toying with Dvati builds that used the most restrictive reading of their rules I could find (a forum post by the guy who edited them for 3.5 inclusion in Dragon Compendium said they get 1 round of actions between both bodies, except for when both are actually moving).

By this interpretation, they're one creature, and undeniably have four hands, so are eligible for Multiweapon Fighting.

Because TWF and MWF are so pricey, I decided to focus on daggers, and not get more than MW daggers so that I could have sheer numbers of them. This meant relying heavily on class abilities and feats for damage.

I used Invisible Blade and Unseen Seer and Rogue with a splash of Abrupt Jaunt conjuror to develop something that had loads of attacks/turn and tons of damage if it could get its sneak attacks off.

Now I want to look at the ToB for more than Shadow Blade and Assassin Stance and see if raw numbers can be added that don't require sneak attack and precision damage vulnerability, and see how high up that can go.

[Con_Brio1993]

personman- i already admitted dmg wise 2 handed was far better, i just don't understand why everyone choices dmg over flavor.

DnD in my opinion is actually a pretty bad game for flavor based character choices. Some combat styles and character classes are just outright suboptimal. It was extremely hard to play a class that felt like a monk until Unarmed Swordsage came out.


my game is really hard, I wont lie. I use common sense, physics, and realism to extreme degrees, and my players still only want to play flavor and have a blast doing it. fun games.

Sounds like an awful game. DnD is a fantastical setting. Do you outright ban magic? Or is wonky physics somehow "too unreal" for you while magically summoning fire isn't?

[Vortenger]

You can have TWF capabilities with little investment... Gloves of the balanced hand from MIC gives TWF or upgrades it to ITWF. for 250% of the base cost, you can have both. 2 feats saved, and blender level attacks achieved.

[brujon]

Two attacks, and a wasted item slot that's typically used to better effect. I suppose in a niche build it might have a place, but it's a really poor equipment choice. If you're desperate and have a lenient DM then you might convince him to let you apply custom magic item creation rules on the Gloves and craft/buy it as a non-slot miscellaneous magic item, and pay much more for it because of that. Plus, if you need ITWF for a prestige class, you're SOL if you lose your gloves, because then you lose access to all it's class features.

Optimization-wise, TWF, currently, will not *objectively* beat THF outside the realms of cheese and niche builds, meaning, yeah, in some specific cases and instances, it might be able to deal more damage in a consistent fashion, but that's the exception, not the rule. Plus, if you try hard enough, maybe even applying the same cheese, you can pull similar stunts with THF, sometimes with better results, so the point is moot.

With enough optimization around it, TWF is more than playable enough, but it won't be right off the bat. You'll be level 11 at least before you start seeing pay-offs, but with a charging build, you can have a decent chassis to go from level 1 onwards, and have it matured before level 9.

Not that it matters *TOO* much, since specializing in melee is a trap in D&D in any case, however you wish to look at it. So, from the viewpoint of optimization, you can go crazy with TWF, because if you're not playing a T1 or T2 caster, you're already not optimizing to full potential anyway. The difference between them is not really that big outside of situations where you're either against a foe with big AC, large DR, fighting at the lower levels or, when you depend on precision damage, against immune foes.

If your campaign is starting at higher levels, and you have some way of dealing with big AC, large DR and immune foes, then TWF is not really that much worse than THF. Otherwise, you might have trouble.

[eggynack]

Two attacks, and a wasted item slot that's typically used to better effect. I suppose in a niche build it might have a place, but it's a really poor equipment choice. If you're desperate and have a lenient DM then you might convince him to let you apply custom magic item creation rules on the Gloves and craft/buy it as a non-slot miscellaneous magic item, and pay much more for it because of that. Plus, if you need ITWF for a prestige class, you're SOL if you lose your gloves, because then you lose access to all it's class features.

First of all, why're gloves so important? I'm not really hip to the whole glove game, and I've always had the impression that it's not the single most slot in existence. Second of all, why not just stick those other abilities in the same slot? There's really nothing stopping you. You can just keep stacking glove items in the glove slot until your character is a decaying husk of a warrior, though you have to pay a premium on non-common enhancements. Third of all, you can't use the gloves to apply for a prestige class, because they don't actually give you the feat. They just let you fight as though you have the feat.

[Hiro Protagonest]

my game is really hard, I wont lie. I use common sense, physics, and realism to extreme degrees, and my players still only want to play flavor and have a blast doing it. fun games.

Gah, realistic physics, the bane of people who can't cast spells everywhere!

[Con_Brio1993]

Gah, realistic physics, the bane of people who can't cast spells everywhere!

Hey maybe he doesn't let people cast spells. Can't be having unrealistic, physics defying magic.

[eggynack]

Hey maybe he doesn't let people cast spells. Can't be having unrealistic, physics defying magic.
Y'know, I know it's a bit off topic, but I've never particularly understood how magic defies physics. Magic is physics. Magic is repeatable and study-able, and defined. Even divine magic acts the same way every time you use it, or else works in different ways sometimes in keeping with some fundamental physical law. Drawing an arbitrary division between science and magic has some faulty logic to it.

[Con_Brio1993]

Y'know, I know it's a bit off topic, but I've never particularly understood how magic defies physics. Magic is physics. Magic is repeatable and study-able, and defined. Even divine magic acts the same way every time you use it, or else works in different ways sometimes in keeping with some fundamental physical law. Drawing an arbitrary division between science and magic has some faulty logic to it.

It defies real world physics, not DnD physics. But some people like enforcing real world physics selectively into DnD, in a way that disproportionately hurts melee classes.

Ie. Not being able to jump in Heavy armor even if you have an insane jump modifier because "realistic physics" but somehow being able to cast fireballs out of your hands without suffering severe third degree burns.

[eggynack]

It defies real world physics, not DnD physics. But some people like enforcing real world physics selectively into DnD, in a way that disproportionately hurts melee classes.

Ie. Not being able to jump in Heavy armor even if you have an insane jump modifier because "realistic physics" but somehow being able to cast fireballs out of your hands without suffering severe third degree burns.
That is a very true thing. D&D stuff works a lot better if you just allow the system to have its own physics. It means that we can stop thinking about certain questions, like how a swordsage can teleport as an extraordinary ability. He just can, cause that's how the universe's physics work.

[Hiro Protagonest]

That is a very true thing. D&D stuff works a lot better if you just allow the system to have its own physics. It means that we can stop thinking about certain questions, like how a swordsage can teleport as an extraordinary ability. He just can, cause that's how the universe's physics work.

To be fair, that could've been a typo, because Shadow Hand is a discipline with supernatural moves.

[eggynack]

To be fair, that could've been a typo, because Shadow Hand is a discipline with supernatural moves.
I'd call it more of a mistake than a typo, because there're a few of those extraordinary teleportation maneuvers (though they seem to all reference jaunt, so it might go back to typo). Still, I guess that my point is that the division between magic and physics is a bit hazy and arbitrary. Like, let's say that some guy in real life started shooting fireballs out of his hands. There'd obviously be some skepticism, but after all of the testing, and repeated experiments, a logical response wouldn't be, "This breaks the laws of physics." It would be, "Our understanding of physical laws are incomplete, and must be revised to include using your words to shoot fireballs."

[Tathum]

I personally find that the answer to this comes down to what kind of game you're playing...

If you're DM has you going up against standard mooks with no obstacles or complex strategies, go Two Hander / Power Attack all the way. Big monsters with alot of HP, get the greatsword.

If your DM is fond of using soldiers, tactics, and more complicated terrain, monsters that use illusion and magic defenses, go Two Weapon Fighting.

Most campaigns I've run and been in, the strategy always seemed to be more about teamwork and surviving the long haul instead of being able to hit something hard. That's not to say that doing 140 damage in one swing isn't worthwhile when fighting a Tarrasque, its just that we typically would be going into fights where we had to figure out how to navigate the battlefield to corner and flank a much quicker monster, or being able to attack something fast enough to get through its parrying defenses, or afflicting enough debuffs in a short period of time to stop a rampaging beast from demolishing a city (ahh, the be berserking troll that regenerated his damage faster than we could afflict, there was an angry Cleric that watched the 200+ damage he did in the opening rounds do almost nothing that night).

One of my favorite characters I ever rolled was a Spellsword with two short swords at her side. I had to challenge a kingdoms champion to single combat against someone with a greatsword that swung four times a round and actually smashed me through a pillar in his opening charge.

After that, he only hit me twice during the rest of the fight thanks to improved parry, took little damage thanks to magical defenses, and I was still able to hit him with Chill Touch charged in one sword and Brutal Seething Surge charged in the other at the start. It was a very long fight, but in the end, he could barely stand in his armor, had confessed his duplicity in the conspiracy against the queen, and then I cursed and disintegrated him (he made his save, but a crit Enervate in one sword swing and a crit Disintegrate in another sword swing in the final rounds made it beside the point).

I walked out of the throne room to explosive cheers and a small fiefdom to be Lady over. That was a brilliant session.

But, we also played a game where we were nameless gladiators in the colosseum, just having to fight big monsters. Every once in a while, the DM would throw in a smarter fight, but the bulk of it was big swings and big hits. Except for the occasional trip, two handers did the job just fine.

So, yeah, really depends on the campaign and how you view your character.

[eggynack]

I personally find that the answer to this comes down to what kind of game you're playing...

If you're DM has you going up against standard mooks with no obstacles or complex strategies, go Two Hander / Power Attack all the way. Big monsters with alot of HP, get the greatsword.

If your DM is fond of using soldiers, tactics, and more complicated terrain, monsters that use illusion and magic defenses, go Two Weapon Fighting.

Most campaigns I've run and been in, the strategy always seemed to be more about teamwork and surviving the long haul instead of being able to hit something hard. That's not to say that doing 140 damage in one swing isn't worthwhile when fighting a Tarrasque, its just that we typically would be going into fights where we had to figure out how to navigate the battlefield to corner and flank a much quicker monster, or being able to attack something fast enough to get through its parrying defenses, or afflicting enough debuffs in a short period of time to stop a rampaging beast from demolishing a city (ahh, the be berserking troll that regenerated his damage faster than we could afflict, there was an angry Cleric that watched the 200+ damage he did in the opening rounds do almost nothing that night).

One of my favorite characters I ever rolled was a Spellsword with two short swords at her side. I had to challenge a kingdoms champion to single combat against someone with a greatsword that swung four times a round and actually smashed me through a pillar in his opening charge.

After that, he only hit me twice during the rest of the fight thanks to improved parry, took little damage thanks to magical defenses, and I was still able to hit him with Chill Touch charged in one sword and Brutal Seething Surge charged in the other at the start. It was a very long fight, but in the end, he could barely stand in his armor, had confessed his duplicity in the conspiracy against the queen, and then I cursed and disintegrated him (he made his save, but a crit Enervate in one sword swing and a crit Disintegrate in another sword swing in the final rounds made it beside the point).

I walked out of the throne room to explosive cheers and a small fiefdom to be Lady over. That was a brilliant session.

But, we also played a game where we were nameless gladiators in the colosseum, just having to fight big monsters. Every once in a while, the DM would throw in a smarter fight, but the bulk of it was big swings and big hits. Except for the occasional trip, two handers did the job just fine.

So, yeah, really depends on the campaign and how you view your character.
I don't really understand your claim here. What particular tactical advantage does TWF grant? THF has superior tripping and battlefield control in general, and is just a more mobile offensive form, because of charging, and because you do better on a standard attack than a TWF guy. It just doesn't seem like you gain all that much from TWF against tricky tactics requiring situtations.

[Gavinfoxx]

I don't really understand your claim here. What particular tactical advantage does TWF grant? THF has superior tripping and battlefield control in general, and is just a more mobile offensive form, because of charging, and because you do better on a standard attack than a TWF guy. It just doesn't seem like you gain all that much from TWF against tricky tactics requiring situtations.

Seconded. Two Handed fighting is more mobile and tactical. What advantage are you claiming TWF has?

[Yuki Akuma]

TWF is only worth it if you have something that activates every attack, like Sneak Attack or Dragonfire Inspiration, and you can reliably land most of your attacks. Pounce is also nice, but that's nice for anyone who's doing full attacks.

Otherwise, it's really not worth it.

[Tathum]

I don't really understand your claim here. What particular tactical advantage does TWF grant? THF has superior tripping and battlefield control in general, and is just a more mobile offensive form, because of charging, and because you do better on a standard attack than a TWF guy. It just doesn't seem like you gain all that much from TWF against tricky tactics requiring situtations.

As I said in my post, if you're dealing with a campaign that allows you to charge everything all the time against monsters that don't equip themselves or use complex strategies guarding themselves against overwhelming force, then go Two-Hander and swing away.

But if you're dealing with a DM fond of using puzzles in almost everything they do, including overcoming intelligent generals with something brighter than an army of mooks at their command or monsters that don't just run up to you and nibble, then you can't just use a polearm with a high STR and hope for the best.

Off the top of my head of the things we had to deal with were:

An army of four legged golems that attacked a city. It was tight fighting in alleys and thin streets and the golems made it a habit to move around corners and attack citizens instead of staying still. The Fighter with the spiked chain couldn't trip them and physical DR made them a pain, but we eventually found that sonic damage did the trick. My Spellsword cast Sonic Weapon on both swords and basically 'scared' the golems into pit traps. Two Hander was useless (couldn't charge or trip), but he eventually had a blast dropping his chain as him and the cleric went around grappling a few golems into the pit traps for disposal.

We were in the Abyss getting ready to sack Lolth's spider ship (oh, Queen of the Demonweb Pits, I miss you) and we fought a couple of those female demons with six arms. We basically had to attack 18+ times a round to get passed their parrying our attacks. The Wizard in the party was pissed at the start because of SR, but then had a field day with Haste on all of us and a Tenser's Transformation to help out with a few spare swings and an easier flank. The Two-Hander was useless because all he got was three attacks a round that were all parried (we didn't know of Robilar's Gambit back then, he would have owned against these with that).

Fought an assassin that had an uncanny ability to pop up out of nowhere, sneak attack one of our weaker members, five-foot step and then vanish until his round came back. We were slowly getting poisoned and HP sapped until we moved into a small ravine and had our Wizard back up into a corner. The assassin appeared next to him, but was unable to five-foot step and vanish. We proceeded to kill him and discover his orders on him to see who sent him. The Two Hander wasn't useless on this guy, as I recall, he got the final blow that took off 40+ HP, but he couldn't charge the whole fight because there was no one ever up to charge.

I mentioned the giant troll attacking the city, our Cleric used all of his buffs, was standing giant next to it, swung and did massive damage, only to watch the wounds heal faster than he could deliver his blows. Immune to acid and fire (for some dickish reason), it came down to draining his strength (god, I love Chill Touch and Spellsword) so his thrashing didn't damage the buildings too much), and enervation until the troll finally passed out and we could take him out of the city and bury the son of a bitch. The Two Hander was relegated to being a meat shield and holding the beasts attention as best as he could.

And in the Champion fight I mentioned, it was nothing but me parrying attacks with 8 attacks a round against the Fighter's 4. In a massively long fight, he hit me a total of 3 times. I never did huge damage, but every hit I got in had something attached to it (sonic weapon, Lightning Burst, Chill Touch, Brutal Seething Surge), and it all added up fast. It was an instance where I had to go up directly against a Two-Hander and came out clean.

I know for most, these kind of fights aren't the norm, but for us, they were pretty much standard a couple of times a session. Yeah, we came up on groups of hobgoblins for the greatsword warrior to cleave through, but more often than not we had to do a bit more than just roll high cheer at fist full of sixes on the table.

Though, in that vein, I did swing a short sword charged with disintegrate and crit for an additional 44d6 damage. With all my other bonuses and damage, I think I did about 240 damage in one stab.

[Hiro Protagonest]

Um... THF without charge is still stronger than TWF. A greatsword does the same damage as two shortswords, and an average of one less damage than a shortsword + longsword, meaning it's better for costing less feats before you even factor in the attack penalties and double magic weapon cost of TWF.

[eggynack]

As I said in my post, if you're dealing with a campaign that allows you to charge everything all the time against monsters that don't equip themselves or use complex strategies guarding themselves against overwhelming force, then go Two-Hander and swing away.

But if you're dealing with a DM fond of using puzzles in almost everything they do, including overcoming intelligent generals with something brighter than an army of mooks at their command or monsters that don't just run up to you and nibble, then you can't just use a polearm with a high STR and hope for the best.
You can't use a pair of shortswords either. Shortswords aren't exactly puzzle solvers. I mean, sometimes you'll be unable to charge for whatever reason, but two weapon fighting will be equally bad in that situation, because you're stuck with closing and then attacking. The two styles are relatively identical in that situation.



An army of four legged golems that attacked a city. It was tight fighting in alleys and thin streets and the golems made it a habit to move around corners and attack citizens instead of staying still. The Fighter with the spiked chain couldn't trip them and physical DR made them a pain, but we eventually found that sonic damage did the trick. My Spellsword cast Sonic Weapon on both swords and basically 'scared' the golems into pit traps. Two Hander was useless (couldn't charge or trip), but he eventually had a blast dropping his chain as him and the cleric went around grappling a few golems into the pit traps for disposal.
How did TWF help here? If the other guy were a spellsword, he could have cast sonic weapon as well, and scared the golems into traps or whatever. The TWF had nothing to do with it. Without the spells, because spells are good, the THF would have been better, because THF is far better at dealing with DR.



We were in the Abyss getting ready to sack Lolth's spider ship (oh, Queen of the Demonweb Pits, I miss you) and we fought a couple of those female demons with six arms. We basically had to attack 18+ times a round to get passed their parrying our attacks. The Wizard in the party was pissed at the start because of SR, but then had a field day with Haste on all of us and a Tenser's Transformation to help out with a few spare swings and an easier flank. The Two-Hander was useless because all he got was three attacks a round that were all parried (we didn't know of Robilar's Gambit back then, he would have owned against these with that).
What parrying are you talking about, exactly? I'm not really aware of a system for that.

I'm not going to do the rest of these, because they seem to be the same story again and again. There's some sort of odd parrying system which I'm unaware of, and the rest of the time you're using magic. Magic is good. No one's arguing against magic. However, you have to assume some sort of parity between these situations, or you get an incomplete picture. If you're assuming a TWF guy with magic, you have to also assume a THF guy with magic. If there's some sort of magic that only TWF guys get, that's an argument in your favor, but you can stick magic on a THF guy without too much difficulty.

[Yuki Akuma]

Tathun, all I'm getting from that post is "when your game is filled with house rules to screw over THF, TWF is better" and "magic is better than THF".

Which are... pretty obvious, yes, but bring nothing useful to the discussion.

I'd also like to point out that THF is better for spellcasters in general, due to the ability to actually perform somatic components while wielding them. You can't do that while wielding two weapons unless you drop one (or have more than two hands, or have a class feature that lets you do it like Daggerspell Mages do).

[Con_Brio1993]

Wow the logic is... puzzling.

Many of those examples make it sound like the spellsword magic did most of the work, and the fact that the spellsword choice to do TWF was irrelevant.

[j_spencer93]

think some people need to stop putting words into my mouth. fighters jumping in heavy armor is no problem, when I said physics, I meant physics obviously twisted to fit a world with people throwing fireballs.
and no magic is allowed with no restrictions, not once did I imply anything else. Really people, read what is put and only that.
and physics in my game would be, idk realistic weight given to items, and the inability to go swinging a massive greatsword in a small cave. logic, phsyics, etc can be applied to a game with no additional hardships by a good DM. also, not once has anyone of my players that have optimized survived because then they become to focused on 1 task to handle anything else.
massively heavy armored two handed greataxe wielding minotaur fell to death down a hole once, and then again next session by causing a cave in. sometimes 2 handed is just bad, but if looking for damage. no better build can be asked for, except maybe magic users.
oh and a great example of my physics is my minotaur charged on an icy cave floor, couldn't stop because realistically stopping over 2,000 lbs is well, hard, and crashed into a wall, dealing enough damage to cause the roof the cave in, oh and the floor which was thin ice anyways to shatter. fell to his death, poor brute didn't stand a chance while the light fighters all made their save and got to safety. although the half white dragon orc got them afterwards.

[Tathum]

Tathun, all I'm getting from that post is "when your game is filled with house rules to screw over THF, TWF is better" and "magic is better than THF.

And what I'm getting from a lot of you guys seems to be is "when you do stuff I'm not comfortable with, your argument is invalid."

That's what our campaign was like. Straightforward swinging and blasting away was rarely successful. Not sure how having wagons and rocks that interfere with line of sight and charging is house rules, but anyway...

I'm kidding, I assume you mean the 5'-Step and vanish (as constructs and trolls should be in all campaigns). But, like the rest of us, the DM liked going away with stories like, "remember that assassin that the Mage of the Valley sent after us! Wizard, you put your ass on the line to setup that kill! Can't believe we finally figured out how to down him!" ... instead of stories like, "remember when we fought that contingent of hobgoblins? That was the third on of the night. I rolled so high! I must have great cleaved 8 in a row over and over!"

--------

You can parry an attack by rolling at a -4 penalty (-8 for non light weapons). If your attack roll is higher than your opponents roll, you parry the attack and take no damage. Improved Parry feat lessens that penalty by -4. Only good on attacks directed at you.

My girlfriend had a Pally with the Goad feat and Improved Parry that was very successful on single targets.

And as for puzzling logic, in that specific Troll fight, it was about rebuffing the monster as fast as possible. Multiple Chill Touch attacks in both swords made that fight. Two Weapon Fighting granted twice the chances to debut per round, etc.

And we did have a number of fights like that.

But, again, that was just us! If you don't have that style in your campaigns, if its flat terrain with not much to hide or conceal with, if being in a 10' hallway Ina dungeon didn't impair your ability to swing a pole arm, then Two Handed All the way! In all instances anyway, its just personal preference and style.

I will keep this thread in mind, though. I always hear nothing but, Spellswords are weak! And now I hear multiple people saying that it was Spellsword and magic that saved the day. I've been saying that all the time! Eh, who cares ... I had fun the whole time playing it...

Oh, and as a Two Weapon spell sword, you cast your spells pre-fight, they stay there for 8 hours, so it's not tough. And then still spell all the way for stuff you might want midfight. When we hit later epic levels, one of my favorite combos was Empowered Still Disintegrate. I'd still Brutal Seething Surge and Emerald Flame Fist as well, as they run out pretty quick when you swing and hit so many times a round...

[Gigas Breaker]

You can't charge under those conditions in the first place. If I was that minotaur I think I would be pretty upset to lose a character because of that.

[j_spencer93]

he charged into the cave, not inside the cave, that was my bad, I did not specify that did I?

[j_spencer93]

ya tathum it seems if you don't like cleaving and dealing mass damage then you suck on these forums...kinda kills the mood to play actually. anyways, ya I like to make my player's actions matter, actually something very similar to what you said happened lol but was an assassin from an organization called the black hand, that they inadvertently helped kill the guard captain, and now they needed to clean up loose ends.
and actually using logic, and being DM I would allow him to try to charge if he had been in the cave, you can try in real life to charge on ice. kinda stupid if you can't in D&D wouldn't it be?

[Con_Brio1993]

think some people need to stop putting words into my mouth. fighters jumping in heavy armor is no problem, when I said physics, I meant physics obviously twisted to fit a world with people throwing fireballs.
and no magic is allowed with no restrictions, not once did I imply anything else. Really people, read what is put and only that.
and physics in my game would be, idk realistic weight given to items, and the inability to go swinging a massive greatsword in a small cave. logic, phsyics, etc can be applied to a game with no additional hardships by a good DM. also, not once has anyone of my players that have optimized survived because then they become to focused on 1 task to handle anything else.
massively heavy armored two handed greataxe wielding minotaur fell to death down a hole once, and then again next session by causing a cave in. sometimes 2 handed is just bad, but if looking for damage. no better build can be asked for, except maybe magic users.
oh and a great example of my physics is my minotaur charged on an icy cave floor, couldn't stop because realistically stopping over 2,000 lbs is well, hard, and crashed into a wall, dealing enough damage to cause the roof the cave in, oh and the floor which was thin ice anyways to shatter. fell to his death, poor brute didn't stand a chance while the light fighters all made their save and got to safety. although the half white dragon orc got them afterwards.

So basically house rules using more Earthlike physics in a fantastical setting that shouldn't have Earthlike physics that serve to further weaken melee classes. Good jorb buddy.

[Hiro Protagonest]

ya tathum it seems if you don't like cleaving and dealing mass damage then you suck on these forums...kinda kills the mood to play actually. anyways, ya I like to make my player's actions matter, actually something very similar to what you said happened lol but was an assassin from an organization called the black hand, that they inadvertently helped kill the guard captain, and now they needed to clean up loose ends.
and actually using logic, and being DM I would allow him to try to charge if he had been in the cave, you can try in real life to charge on ice. kinda stupid if you can't in D&D wouldn't it be?

Y'know, if you had asked for a way to optimize TWF, we would've given you options. It's never going to be as strong as THF, but there are ways.

[j_spencer93]

I use few house rules actually. Just logic. and like to know how I got warned about insulting others play styles, funny isn't it. anyways, I cant find anything that says a minotaur can not charge into an icy cave. unless your saying its because of his armor, which was mythril although that is my fault again didn't mention that but anyways, I cant find a RAW rule saying anything contrary to him charging onto ice, actually thought frostburn had rules for that. I will have to look.
cramped conditions fighting is in underdark, and yes frostburn has rules for ice.

[j_spencer93]

jade dragon I know how to optimize it, I don't want to optimize it I was wondering why it was so bad, but answered my own question shortly after posting this.

[TuggyNE]

And what I'm getting from a lot of you guys seems to be is "when you do stuff I'm not comfortable with, your argument is invalid."

More accurately, that your argument is invalid because of non-standard conditions that are doing all the heavy lifting, rather than TWF itself. (With one or two notable exceptions, detailed later.)


That's what our campaign was like. Straightforward swinging and blasting away was rarely successful. Not sure how having wagons and rocks that interfere with line of sight and charging is house rules, but anyway...

Sooooo… how is TWF not straightforward swinging? No, really. That is, what can you do with TWF that can't be done with THF using the same imagination or whatever?


I'm kidding, I assume you mean the 5'-Step and vanish (as constructs and trolls should be in all campaigns). But, like the rest of us, the DM liked going away with stories like, "remember that assassin that the Mage of the Valley sent after us! Wizard, you put your ass on the line to setup that kill! Can't believe we finally figured out how to down him!" ... instead of stories like, "remember when we fought that contingent of hobgoblins? That was the third on of the night. I rolled so high! I must have great cleaved 8 in a row over and over!"

That's great, but THF is not good merely because you can cleave with it, or because people like featureless hordes of mooks, or in situations with lots of rollplayers: it's superior mechanically in nearly any situation TWF is any good in. Not just superior, but strictly superior, in that it can do all the same things and more and better.


You can parry an attack by rolling at a -4 penalty (-8 for non light weapons). If your attack roll is higher than your opponents roll, you parry the attack and take no damage. Improved Parry feat lessens that penalty by -4. Only good on attacks directed at you.

That's a pretty handy houserule, but it is a houserule. (And one that, of course, does benefit attack spammers like TWFers quite a bit.)


And as for puzzling logic, in that specific Troll fight, it was about rebuffing the monster as fast as possible. Multiple Chill Touch attacks in both swords made that fight. Two Weapon Fighting granted twice the chances to debut per round, etc.

Ah, here we go. Bonus damage (and debuff) per hit: standard recognized situation, one of very few, in which THF is not strictly superior, and may not be superior at all. Already properly noted and accounted for in earlier posts.


I will keep this thread in mind, though. I always hear nothing but, Spellswords are weak! And now I hear multiple people saying that it was Spellsword and magic that saved the day. I've been saying that all the time! Eh, who cares ... I had fun the whole time playing it...

Do you hear "Spellswords are weak!" and "Spellsword magic is responsible for the good results here" from the same people? I would venture to suppose not, since most of the posters arguing for the general mechanical weakness of TWF here are well aware that Spellsword is a very common gish PrC.


Oh, and as a Two Weapon spell sword, you cast your spells pre-fight, they stay there for 8 hours, so it's not tough.

One thing I'm not certain of is whether it's RAW-legal to have separate charged spells with Spellsword weapons; I know normally you can only have one charge at a time, and casting any other spell discharges it harmlessly. Is there some exception I'm not aware of, or is that a silent houserule? If the latter, well, that would explain a bit more of the effectiveness; if you change the mechanics in ways that favor TWF, of course TWF is going to be mechanically better than the usual, but that doesn't change the situation for most players!


ya tathum it seems if you don't like cleaving and dealing mass damage then you suck on these forums...

Nahhhhh. Most posters here don't care about cleaving much at all. Charging multipliers and similar is usually where the love is, and being able to focus on one enemy to kill them dead in one or two rounds with increasing reliability.

In point of fact, mass damage is often a bit underrated here, because of the common aphorism that an enemy at 1 HP is still fully functional, but an enemy with effective debuffs applied, or a dead enemy, can't hurt you — and therefore that leaving five enemies at half HP, instead of one or two enemies dead, is suboptimal.

[Gigas Breaker]

Movement During a Charge
You must move before your attack, not after. You must move at least 10 feet (2
squares) and may move up to double your speed directly toward the designated
opponent.

You must have a clear path toward the opponent, and nothing can hinder your
movement (such as difficult terrain or obstacles). Here’s what it means to have a
clear path. First, you must move to the closest space from which you can attack
the opponent. (If this space is occupied or otherwise blocked, you can’t charge.)
Second, if any line from your starting space to the ending space passes through a
square that blocks movement, slows movement, or contains a creature (even an
ally), you can’t charge. (Helpless creatures don’t stop a charge.)

If you don’t have line of sight to the opponent at the start of your turn, you can’t
charge that opponent.

You can’t take a 5-foot step in the same round as a charge.

If you are able to take only a standard action or a move action on your turn, you
can still charge, but you are only allowed to move up to your speed (instead of up
to double your speed). You can’t use this option unless you are restricted to
taking only a standard action or move action on your turn. He couldn't have charged if there was difficult terrain such as ice anywhere in the line towards his target.

[Greenish]

I'd also like to point out that THF is better for spellcasters in general, due to the ability to actually perform somatic components while wielding them. You can't do that while wielding two weapons unless you drop one (or have more than two hands, or have a class feature that lets you do it like Daggerspell Mages do).Or there's Somatic Weaponry from Complete Mage, if you feel like you haven't invested enough feats to the concept yet. :smallcool:


That's what our campaign was like. Straightforward swinging and blasting away was rarely successful. Not sure how having wagons and rocks that interfere with line of sight and charging is house rules, but anyway...I'm not sure how that's an argument for or against any specific weapon style.


You can parry an attack by rolling at a -4 penalty (-8 for non light weapons). If your attack roll is higher than your opponents roll, you parry the attack and take no damage. Improved Parry feat lessens that penalty by -4. Only good on attacks directed at you.

My girlfriend had a Pally with the Goad feat and Improved Parry that was very successful on single targets.That sounds interesting. If I wanted to pick Improved Parry, which book should I drag to my DM for approval?


And as for puzzling logic, in that specific Troll fight, it was about rebuffing the monster as fast as possible. Multiple Chill Touch attacks in both swords made that fight. Two Weapon Fighting granted twice the chances to debut per round, etc.Which Spellsword are we speaking of here? The Complete Warrior one doesn't work like that.


I will keep this thread in mind, though. I always hear nothing but, Spellswords are weak! And now I hear multiple people saying that it was Spellsword and magic that saved the day. I've been saying that all the time! Eh, who cares ... I had fun the whole time playing it...Well, mind, people usually mean the PrC in Complete Warrior, which is quite weak (for a caster, still better than not having spells).

[Tathum]

ya tathum it seems if you don't like cleaving and dealing mass damage then you suck on these forums...kinda kills the mood to play actually. anyways, ya I like to make my player's actions matter, actually something very similar to what you said happened lol but was an assassin from an organization called the black hand, that they inadvertently helped kill the guard captain, and now they needed to clean up loose ends.
and actually using logic, and being DM I would allow him to try to charge if he had been in the cave, you can try in real life to charge on ice. kinda stupid if you can't in D&D wouldn't it be?

I hear that.

We had one high school friend that joined us and went Fighter with a Greatsword and went over a list of Prestige classes he was going take down the line that would make the rest of the party obsolete.

He lasted two sessions before getting pissed and left whining. What did him in was a large stone door that required five keys and riddles to discover which key went where. He felt he should just be able to bash the door and when his steel shattered against the thick stone he sat and complained for an hour before leaving for a smoke and never came back.

Played with him once more, he was a Sorceror that cast only sleep his first fight. Kind of useful, but when he ran out, he argued for the whole afternoon when he couldn't whip out his light crossbow and fire it in the same round. That night, when the innkeep wouldn't take a 5gp gem to cover his 12gp tab (failed that bluff check), he protested by sleeping outside of town with an untrained survival skill.

The ranger found his remains and ogre footprints by a smoking campfire the next morning and everyone was VERY happy about it.

[Yuki Akuma]

A Spellsword is better than a Fighter, but worse than a pure caster.

So, compared to other casters, Spellswords are weak, but compared to anyone without spells, they're pretty good.

Also I completely forgot about Somatic Weaponry. Shows how often I play gishes, I guess.

[Hiro Protagonest]

He lasted two sessions before getting pissed and left whining. What did him in was a large stone door that required five keys and riddles to discover which key went where. He felt he should just be able to bash the door and when his steel shattered against the thick stone he sat and complained for an hour before leaving for a smoke and never came back.

If he can beat the stone's hardness, he should be able to bash the door in. I mean, if he can only just beat it, it should take a few minutes, but it should be possible. Now, if you want to actually make him roll out every round while the rest of you figure it out, that's acceptable. As is declaring that the stone is enchanted to be extra-tough (although you should provide a hard-and-fast number).

But because of the way your group dealt with it, it's a case of "realism makes non-casters weaker".

And isn't taking out a crossbow a move action? If he needs to load it, then he needs to load it, and that takes up his other move action. It's fair to say that a crossbow has to be unloaded when you pull it out, but you should use the rules.

[Con_Brio1993]

I use few house rules actually. Just logic. and like to know how I got warned about insulting others play styles, funny isn't it. anyways, I cant find anything that says a minotaur can not charge into an icy cave. unless your saying its because of his armor, which was mythril although that is my fault again didn't mention that but anyways, I cant find a RAW rule saying anything contrary to him charging onto ice, actually thought frostburn had rules for that. I will have to look.
cramped conditions fighting is in underdark, and yes frostburn has rules for ice.

Using earth logic for physics in a fantastical setting IS a house rule. There's no reason to think DnD universe follows Earth physics. None at all. You aren't using logic by applying an Earth way of thinking about physics to DnD.

[Gigas Breaker]

If he can beat the stone's hardness, he should be able to bash the door in. I mean, if he can only just beat it, it should take a few minutes, but it should be possible. Now, if you want to actually make him roll out every round while the rest of you figure it out, that's acceptable. As is declaring that the stone is enchanted to be extra-tough (although you should provide a hard-and-fast number).

But because of the way your group dealt with it, it's a case of "realism makes non-casters weaker".

Yeah, it also sounds like "Whuh? You don't want to solve my riddles and want to try your own solutions? Well, screw you. Your weapon shatters." Could have just said your sword doesn't leave a mark and left it at that. This was punishment for no good reason.

Also, why couldn't he have drawn his light crossbow and fired it in the same round?


The more I think about the charging minotaur the more absurdly, hilariously harsh that situation appears to me.

"I charge."
"There is ice on the floor."
"Oh, that sucks. Guess I won't be hitting that guy. You didn't say anything about ice, though."
"You slide across the ice."
"Ok, that sucks too."
"You hit the wall and take damage."
":("
"There is a cave in."
"What?"
"The ice gives too."
"Come on, dude!"

[Hiro Protagonest]

Using earth logic for physics in a fantastical setting IS a house rule. There's no reason to think DnD universe follows Earth physics. None at all. You aren't using logic by applying an Earth way of thinking about physics to DnD.

Yeah, saying you use logic basically means that you have houserules that you don't tell people about because you can't be bothered to put them on paper or pixel.

Edit:^ I actually edited in stuff about the crossbow soon after making that post. But yeah, just saying "you can't fire it after drawing it" when drawing it is a move action isn't fair.

[eggynack]

And what I'm getting from a lot of you guys seems to be is "when you do stuff I'm not comfortable with, your argument is invalid."
I've explained this in another thread (I think it was the one about how wizards don't work the way we think they do), and I'll say it here as well. You can either talk about the way things can or should be, or you can tell people that the assessments they've made are wrong. You can't do both. Saying that a parry system would be cool is a valid thing to say, but saying that we're wrong about TWF because of the parry system your group made up is not valid. You'd have to make your argument something like, "You guys are totally right about TWF in all the things you say. However, let's imagine that there were this nifty parry system. Would the combat advantage lean more towards TWF then?" That could be a fun discussion to have, but it is not this discussion.

The books are what they are, and in any argument about which of two things is better, we need to have a stable basis to work off of. That means comparing the two mechanics within the system we all play in, and comparing them with all other things being about equal. In the latter case, it means that you can't compare TWF guy with magic, to a THF guy without magic. This is even true if magic isn't that great, because we need to hold things equal, and it's doubly true when your anecdotes about killing stuff with TWF are often anecdotes about killing stuff with magic. If you have any actual examples of TWF's tactical advantage over THF, go right ahead and mention them. However, you haven't really done that thus far.

[Jerthanis]

Sometimes Two Weapon Fighting is beneficial at very low levels, when having an extra chance of rolling matters more than each attack being less powerful and accurate.

Like, if you're fighting Kobolds with their 4 HP, having another chance to hit in the same round can help a bit more than the potential overkill of THF. It also will sometimes allow killing 2 very weak enemies when you roll well. You of course will need to be good enough at hitting that a -2 to hit won't push your chances of hitting down to negligible, so you might need +6 or so to hit before even this edge case becomes true.

Just trying to think of other situations where TWF isn't totally pointless, because people have described pretty well how it generally (under)performs.

[Studoku]

The more I think about the charging minotaur the more absurdly, hilariously harsh that situation appears to me.

"I charge."
"There is ice on the floor."
"Oh, that sucks. Guess I won't be hitting that guy. You didn't say anything about ice, though."
"You slide across the ice."
"Ok, that sucks too."
"You hit the wall and take damage."
":("
"There is a cave in."
"What?"
"The ice gives too."
"Come on, dude!"
I'm imagining this with Loony Tunesesque sound effects.

[TheIronGolem]

ya tathum it seems if you don't like cleaving and dealing mass damage then you suck on these forums
Nobody said that, or anything like that. Please take your own advice about not putting words in people's mouths.

Also, you may want to familiarize yourself with the Stormwind Fallacy, because many of the backhanded comments you're making about optimization are running smack into it.

[TheIronGolem]

Sometimes Two Weapon Fighting is beneficial at very low levels, when having an extra chance of rolling matters more than each attack being less powerful and accurate.

Like, if you're fighting Kobolds with their 4 HP, having another chance to hit in the same round can help a bit more than the potential overkill of THF. It also will sometimes allow killing 2 very weak enemies when you roll well. You of course will need to be good enough at hitting that a -2 to hit won't push your chances of hitting down to negligible, so you might need +6 or so to hit before even this edge case becomes true.

Just trying to think of other situations where TWF isn't totally pointless, because people have described pretty well how it generally (under)performs.

TWF can also win out in cases where you're getting bonus damage from each weapon, if the bonus damage is substantially more than the weapon's base damage. Sneak Attack is the classic example, but there are also cases like Bane weapons or Pathfinder's version of Smite Evil.

Also, TWF can be helpful if you've got two weapons that trigger on-hit effects like poison or Disruption.

Not the most common of use cases, but worth mentioning.

[eggynack]

Nobody said that, or anything like that. Please take your own advice about not putting words in people's mouths.

Also, you may want to familiarize yourself with the Stormwind Fallacy, because many of the backhanded comments you're making about optimization are running smack into it.
It would also be helpful if the vaguely insulting comments were more accurate. Generally, damage focused optimization is one of the less interesting and powerful things you can do. It's just that it's one of the few things you can do with combat. If you use THF, you deal damage. In general, if you use TWF, you do nothing. It's a bit of a simplification, but the point is that TWF, in a vacuum, doesn't do all that much. It's not like we build up shrines to the every mighty force of THF. It's just far better by way of comparison.

Edit: Also, the question of the thread isn't, "How can I build up an interesting and flavorful TWF character?" it's, "Is TWF particularly useful from a mechanical perspective?" All of these discussions of flavor and homebrew are somewhat off topic.

[Gigas Breaker]

I'm imagining this with Loony Tunesesque sound effects.

I'm picturing more how the villain dies at the end of The Naked Gun. "My father died the same way."

[Con_Brio1993]

The whole minotaur and steel door fiasco reminds me of a DM I had last year. He was very clearly new to the whole DM thing, and I believe that he personally hated me in real life and did everything he could to make my characters as ineffective as possible.

At one point in the game I was thrown in prison for being a magic user (our captives couldn't risk having a magic user running free) and for being new to the party and thus less trustworthy (my last character died from having his tongue cut out for casting charm person as a joke on a party member).

I was thrown into a cell, but managed to make a bluff check so that the guards would allow me to keep my spellbook with me in the prison cell. I waited awhile for the guard to go off duty and then attempted to cast a spell. The walls of the cell light up and the DM gives me a reflex save to stop casting, saying that if I fail my character will be disintegrated by the anti magic runes all over the prison cell. I made the save.

Then I sat for a real world two hours while the rest of the party got to roleplay.

That particular DM was also fond of putting us on long boat voyages and REFUSING to skip past the voyage. We spent an average of 1.5-2 real world hours sitting and waiting for each boat voyage to end, with the only possibility being to talk amongst ourselves, or talk to the crew which was made up entirely of ******* pirates who would attempt to steal from you if you ever talked to them.

[magwaaf]

its all personal preference.

my current character is an oversized 2wf character. im absolutely loving it. i wield
main hand is a +2 collision throwing returning greataxe

my offhand is a +2 keen speed tulwar

there are ore stats to the weapon but isnt as relevant to the topic

anyways

im having an absolute blast dual wielding its been ridiculous fun with solid damage.

[eggynack]

its all personal preference.

I don't see how this is true. Sure, there's some personal preference involved, but when you get right on down to it, the two styles have actual objective advantages and disadvantages. If you want to deal large amounts of damage, most of the time you're locked into two handing. There're certainly a few builds that work well with TWF, but it doesn't seem like a pure preference thing. I mean, I guess it is, but only to the extent that basically any choice you make in the game is personal preference. Like, one guy might prefer taking toughness a pile of times, and another guy might prefer taking up a tripping and AoO build, and both of those are preferences, but one of those options is more optimal than the other.

[Greenish]

Well, I guess in the sense that unless your group plays really high power games, you can make both TWF and two-handing to work if you know what you're doing.

[eggynack]

Well, I guess in the sense that unless your group plays really high power games, you can make both TWF and two-handing to work if you know what you're doing.
I guess that's halfway true. It's just that the two systems are different enough, both in optimization method, and in power level, that calling it entirely personal preference seems somewhat inaccurate. At moderate levels of optimization, you generally don't have much of a choice if you want damage dealing, or combat tactics in general. Sure, at low optimization you're not getting those shiny toys that THF gets, and the extra feats are being spent on dodge and toughness, and at high optimization you're dealing unnecessarily high damage either way, but there's a lot of in between. Choosing between a greatsword and a greataxe is a personal preference issue (it's obviously the greatsword, but they're close enough that it doesn't matter). Choosing between TWF and THF has a lot of important mechanical weight behind it.

[Segev]

Yeah, TWF shines when you can get class- or race- or other not-paid-for-per-weapon boosts to your damage.

In theory, TWF and THF do the same damage from Str, and TWF does (+1)x("weapon" base damage). TWF costs a feat and some accuracy for this privilege. This is because THF does 1.5x str damage, while TWF does 1x str damage on the primary hand, and half that on the off-hand, leading to a total of 1.5x str damage. (Well, str mod, but you know what I mean.)

The second weapon, you have to pay for. You technically can choose to take a larger accuracy hit in lieu of paying a feat, but that gets quickly into silly-not-worth-it territory. So you take the feat. And still are at -10% chance to hit (unless you had such a poor chance to hit that you were relying on nat 20s, or such a great one that you only missed on a nat 1) compared to the TWF guy.

TWF also has a minimum dex requirement, which is utterly useless to your attack or damage rolls with melee weapons, unless you spend additional feats.


However.


When you start spending additional feats on things like adding dex to damage of each attack (which, I might add, is not halved by being in the off hand, at least not with Shadow Blade), and you start adding class features that boost your damage-per-hit without regard for it being a secondary attack, TWF begins to pull ahead.

But the high-op THF user is going to spend far less on reaching his peak damage, and he may well be comparable to you unless you eke out every drop of optimization. He then spends his remaining resources on other things.

Oh, and he's gone ahead and dropped a fortune on his weapon of choice, which pushes his damage output higher still. The TWF warrior is going to be understandably hesitant, because spending a like amount will get only half his attacks that kind of boost. Yes, half his attacks are equal to ALL the attacks by the THF guy, but it still feels...unsatisfying.

If you REALLY go to town on the weapons, though, TWF has a higher ceiling than THF in terms of damage output and proc potential. Just make sure you're proc effects are things that don't expend themselves on the first hit.

[PersonMan]

We were in the Abyss getting ready to sack Lolth's spider ship (oh, Queen of the Demonweb Pits, I miss you) and we fought a couple of those female demons with six arms. We basically had to attack 18+ times a round to get passed their parrying our attacks. [...] The Two-Hander was useless because all he got was three attacks a round that were all parried (we didn't know of Robilar's Gambit back then, he would have owned against these with that).

Oh, here THF should have been better because in my games a two-hander automatically sunders a weapon used to parry it. If they tried to parry then their weapons would just get destroyed and the fight would be easy. Meanwhile the TWFer gets screwed over because when a non-two-hander gets parried they are automatically disarmed.

Gee, it's almost as if houserules change the circumstances of an argument and should be mentioned beforehand.

(Also, if a parry mechanic is used, then a TWFer gets screwed over almost just as bad because the parrying enemy can just parry the 6 highest attack bonus attacks (THF A #1, maybe 2, TWF #1-4) and laugh as the rest miss horribly.)

[Firechanter]

If I wanted to build a TWFer, I would probably take only TWF, maybe at most ITWF, but certainly not GTWF.
I'd go for a Tiger Claw Warblade skilled as Dual Kukri Critfisher, maybde add in a level of Barb with the usual ACFs as we're about it, and otherwise go for the Dancing/Raging Mongoose maneuvers. Maybe add Bloodclaw Master, although that's a very minor benefit and you lose maneuvers (because you can't swap out old ones).

Bake with grated Lightning Mace Aptitude Cheese on top.

The biggest selling point on that build is also the reason why I wouldn't want to play it or have it at my table. Something like 10+ attacks per round, plus Crit confirmations and damage, is an _awful_ lot of rolling for a single character. The other players grow impatient and annoyed. I've heard lines like, "Okay, it's X's turn, let's go play Xbox". Even the TWFer gets bored after a while.

[Con_Brio1993]

its all personal preference.

Objectively false. This assumes DnD is a perfectly balanced game where all options are exactly equal in efficacy.

[Talya]

If you've got an inspire-courage optimized DFI bard in your party, TWF is a better choice than it normally would be.

Basically, anything that gives you a lot of bonus damage on all attacks can start to make TWF appealing.

[Segev]

This is why the Leadership feat is part of the TWF progression; the Inspire-optimized Bard is a feature of the build!

[Andreaz]

My big issue with Two-Weapon is the feat tax. A full TWF build requires 3 or 4 feats just to function, and you're either spreading your abilities thin or getting another feat or two to even the field.

In my games we solve this with the following set of houserules:
--------------------------------------
Weapon finesse is free, everyone has it.
All weapons that attack with Dex also calculate damage with Dex instead of STR.
The basic TWF feat is also free. A single feat makes the off-hand iterative. Defensive TWF feats remain unchanged.
--------------------------------------

[Greenish]

I like Seerow's take on it (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=199946), which makes TWF (the whole basic chain) a martial weapon proficiency, and has Imp. TWF feat that grants you an off-hand attack for each main-hand one you make (allowing TWF the full benefit of extra attacks, standard attacks, charges, AoO, and the like).

Oh, and reduces the Dex requirement to 13, in line with other combat style feats like Combat Expertise, Power Attack, and Combat Focus.

[Ignominia]

So, the crux of the argument seems to be that THF is superior in its ability to dish out greater damage for less investment feat wise vs TWF.

So, what about classes like the ranger or (shudder) the CW Samurai who get the base feats (TWF, ITWF & GTWF) for free? I know in the Rangers case they get the feats at an appropriate level compairable to when another class could take them, while the Samurai does not.

Or what about classes that has sneak attack? For examlpe, a particularily dexterous Rogue with relativly low strength, could really benifit from 1 or 2 of the TWF feats no? Does getting an extra set of sneak die mitigate the disparity between TWF damage and THF damage?

Please no comments about how horrible the CW Samurai is, so nobody should be playing it anyway. Im simply asking if there is a feasable way to make TWF not so punishing using RAW. :smallwink:

[Marlowe]

Late to the party and may have missed something; but I'd like to ask the OP why he thinks Two-weapon-fighting has more "flavour" than a two handed weapon.

What "flavour" is he thinking about?

I can't think of a single historical army that equipped its troops in such a fashion. In real fighting, protection from ranged attacks (in the real world, having a shield) is important, reach is important, having a missile option available while still being equipped for melee is important, and in a pre-gunpowder setting getting through armour is important.

You might be prepared to take a hit on one of these things if other troops in the army take up the slack. (So, in a late-medieval German infantry unit, you might have the Pikes in the front line with the Greatswords behind them ready to intervene if something gets through the Pike wall, with crossbows or arquebusiers on the flanks to suppress enemy ranged units. In a Roman legion you have a big shield to not die, a few javelins to bother the enemy as they charge you, and a cutting sword to hit them when they do get close.)

And fighting with a couple of shortswords or whatever doesn't help with any of those things. It's strictly an option for solo duels where you don't have to worry about a third party shooting you, or riding over you on a horse, or on how such you can protect your friends. And before anyone mentions Samurai with katana and ---that dagger-thing I can never spell. Samurai in wartime used spears and bows. Katana and dagger-thing-that-starts-with-W were ceremonial.

I'd agreed that adventurers are not soldiers. And that weapon choices may be subject more to the practicalities of clambering around in a dungeon that strict effectiveness, but why do you consider fighting in a doubly ineffective style (both historically and in terms of the actual rules) more "flavourful" than approaches that actually work?

Did the Grey Mouser, Moonglum, and that Drow chap cast such a long shadow?

[Greenish]

So, what about classes like the ranger or (shudder) the CW Samurai who get the base feats (TWF, ITWF & GTWF) for free? I know in the Rangers case they get the feats at an appropriate level compairable to when another class could take them, while the Samurai does not.There is no free lunch. Taking levels in ranger or samurai gets you the TWF feats for free, yes, but the opportunity cost is taking levels in ranger or samurai. Rangers have an advantage in that they don't need to meet the Dex requirements and can thus focus on Str for damage, but that won't bring them much closer to two-handing. A ranger with archery combat style, Power Attack, and a two-hander is probably better in melee than a two-weapon ranger.

Swift Hunter helps, but that's more investment (and you need some source of decent mobility, adding further investment yet).


Or what about classes that has sneak attack? For examlpe, a particularily dexterous Rogue with relativly low strength, could really benifit from 1 or 2 of the TWF feats no? Does getting an extra set of sneak die mitigate the disparity between TWF damage and THF damage?Well, as has been noted (several times, if you cared to read it) in the thread, getting a fixed source of damage on all attacks does help TWF. So yeah, that's one way to get extra mileage from TWF. Though rogues are a bit fragile to be trading full attacks (which TWF requires) with monsters.


Please no comments about how horrible the CW Samurai is, so nobody should be playing it anyway. Im simply asking if there is a feasable way to make TWF not so punishing using RAW. :smallwink:No one is saying that you can't get enough damage* from TWF with enough investment, the point is, it takes a bigger investment than two-handing.

So, no, there isn't.


*By most reasonable standards.

[Yuki Akuma]

And before anyone mentions Samurai with katana and ---that dagger-thing I can never spell. Samurai in wartime used spears and bows. Katana and dagger-thing-that-starts-with-W were ceremonial.

Wakizashi.

Although technically it's more like a short sword. A dagger would be a tanto.

[Ignominia]

Well, as has been noted (several times, if you cared to read it) in the thread, getting a fixed source of damage on all attacks does help TWF. So yeah, that's one way to get extra mileage from TWF. Though rogues are a bit fragile to be trading full attacks (which TWF requires) with monsters.



I may have misspoke, I DID read the thread, and DID notice the comments about Sneak dice helping, my question was not meant to be: "Does extra damage help?" (Which is obviously a true statement) it was: "is the addition of the extra damage enough to close the gap between THF and TWF" I know some of you out there are great at crunching the numbers and looking at exactly what a specific build is capable of at each level, I was simply wondering if anyone has done the math.

As a side note, I feel this thread may have taken a slightly snarky turn. People seem to be a tad defensive in thier opinions on the topic. Offering passive agressive replies or in some cases down right rude replies. The forums here are supposed to be a haven for those of us who share a common interest. I hate to see a thread (which is on a topic that is obviously important to people considering the amounts of views/posts its gotten) devolve into bickering and arguements. Putting someone one the defensive with a passissive agressive (or blatantly agressive) comment forces most to take a "hard line" and decreases thier chances of being open and receptive to new ideas. Which, to my understanding, is the entire point of this forum

Then again, maybe its just me and Im being too sensitive :smallbiggrin:

[Yuki Akuma]

An optimized-out-the-wazoo TWFer can match a THFer in damage potential, but it's both more random - generally you're adding dice, rather than flat damage, and you have more chances to miss - and also more resource-intensive.

[Greenish]

"is the addition of the extra damage enough to close the gap between THF and TWF"I still don't understand what you mean. You can boost TWF damage until you're doing X/round, almost regardless of the value of X, but the same amount of effort allows two-handers to deal Y/round damage, where Y>X.

So, in case of most any given build of two-handing, you can get TWF to match it, but that doesn't close the gap, it just shifts it from "potential damage" to "effort expended".


I may have been overly snarky, and maybe I'm the one failing to understand the question, but to me it seems you fail to understand the answer.

[Segev]

I still don't understand what you mean. You can boost TWF damage until you're doing X/round, almost regardless of the value of X, but the same amount of effort allows two-handers to deal Y/round damage, where Y>X.

I'm not convinced of the underlined portion. I think you reach a point where the THF user has capped out his damage and, even if he has more choices available to make in his build, he has no more choices available to make THF do greater damage.

I think the TWF user CAN spend more energy and options to get past this point.

So if Y is the optimization cap of a THF user's damage, and X is that of a TWF user, I think X>Y. But it takes SIGNIFICANTLY greater investment for a TWF user to manage this.

And a THF user reaches Y with, generally, less effort than does the TWF user. The TWF user just isn't capped at that point.

[Greenish]

Can you actually fit everything in D&D that could conceivable improve your damage into a single build, though? Perhaps in theory, but I find it quite unlikely, though of course you'll face diminishing returns before long. Then again, the entire TWF feat chain is about diminishing returns, so…

[Edit]: Anyway, since both styles run into getting damage of +yes long before they stop improving, the difference is quite academic, even if TWF ended up with higher cap (probably due to dragonsplit master or revenant blade or similar which blur the lines between the two styles).

[Firechanter]

FWIW, if you look at the spinoff game Conan D20, pretty much all Martial classes get TWF for free there, and the single ITWF feat gives you as many off-hand as main-hand attacks, and you suffer NO penalties to TWFing at all, _and_ there are ways to Move+Full Attack (min level 10, usually level 15). And guess what? TWF is _still_ inferior to plain old THF with Power Attack.

That may give you an idea of the kind of love you need to throw at TWF to make it worthwhile.

[Ignominia]

I think Yuki Akuma hit the nail on the head,

TWF is a more random source of POTENTIAL damage (through additional DICE and not a flat modifier), likely suited better to dealing with many small foes as opposed to one large foe, as in the example provided by Jerthanis wherein multiple attacks agains many kobolds is more useful than a single big attack.

Whereas:

THF is a more stable source of FLAT damage with less risk associated with it but has the potential of wasting the overage of the damage, without application of further feats (such as cleave)

In the situation provided (many low hp enimies) a TWFighter w/ only one feat (TWF) is about the same as a THFighter with only one feat (cleave). Puttin the two builds on a 1:1 basis for feat expendature to accomplish a specific task.

Now, on the flipside, consider a single high HP opponent.
A TWF with a single feat (TWF) has a higher % chance to miss, (due to having to roll to hit twice AND at a -2 penalty) and a random modifier to damage.

Whereas, a THF with a single feat (power attack) has a higher % to hit, for a HIGHER more CONSISTANT number.

Giving the THF the edge in this scenario.


Is that a fair understanding of everyones assesment of the two styles?

[Greenish]

Well, getting reach is a bit trickier for TWF, and no matter how many attacks you have, you can only hit the enemies you can reach (unless you quick draw throwing weapons, I guess).

[Ignominia]

Well, getting reach is a bit trickier for TWF, and no matter how many attacks you have, you can only hit the enemies you can reach (unless you quick draw throwing weapons, I guess).

No arguement here.

Heres whats going on in my head;
Consider a 1st level Rogue with TWF, a 10 str, and an 18 dex,dual wielding shortswords. With ONE feat, hes able to attack 1 OR 2 opponents (his choice) @ -2/-2 for a range of 2-12 (1d6 wpn+1d6 wpn) (without sneak) 4-24(1d6 wpn+ 1d6 sneak +1d6 wpn + 1d6 sneak)(with sneak) damage (divided between 2 foes or against a single foe) With the addition of one more feat (weapon finese) he drastically increases his chances of success. (+2/+2)

Now consider a 1st level fighter, with Power Attack and Cleave, a 18 str and a 10 dex wielding a greatsword. With TWO feats hes able to attack 1 or 2 opponents @+4 (with power attack) (PROVIDED he kills the first one) for a range of 10-20(2d6 wpn, +2 powerattack, +6 THF)

In this scenario, the rogue has a wider range of potential, with a higher cap, whereas the fighter has a narrower but more consistant ability to deal damage.

Are my calculations correct? Baring any errors, to me, this seems rather balanced... Please, correct me if Im wrong (In the politest manner possible :smallbiggrin:)

[Greenish]

Barring criticals, that's correct. If we take criticals into account, the fighter has the wider range of potential and higher cap.

[Marlowe]

Well, techically a 1st level rogue can't have Weapon Finesse. Although may be unfair to mention since the +1 BAB prequisite is usually the first thing anyone with a heart and a brain houserules away.

[Greenish]

Well, techically a 1st level rogue can't have Weapon Finesse.And it doesn't. You'll note that the example level 1 rogue isn't actually leveraging that 18 Dex for anything but qualifying for TWF.

[Ignominia]

So, I guess if you are playing a fighter (or even a ranger, or any class that doesnt provide sneak dice) then THF is MECHANICALLY superior.

However, when you factor in Sneak Dice, and compair the potential damage against the flat damage given by power attack, the TWF style comes ahead. BUT ONLY IF YOU ARE WILLING TO GAMBLE.

It should be noted, that in both scenarios only 2 feats were used EACH. And, as its been said before the TWF feat tree is one of diminishing returns. TWF CAN be a real black hole if you allow it to be, but you dont NEED all the extra feats on the tree to see it through.

A rogue with TWF style and a fighter with THF style can put in a compairable investment of feats to acomplish a balanced play style. In that the Rogue can achieve POTENTIALLY greater results at a SIGNIFIGANTLY increased risk, and that a Fighter can achieve more stable but LOWER results with a SIGNIFIGANTLY greater degree of success.

Can we agree on this? Or am I out to lunch?

[sleepyphoenixx]

That's true for low levels at least. The problem with TWF at higher levels is that you need to pay for two magic weapons instead of one. On the other hand there are several good sources of flat bonus damage per hit that make TWF worthwhile if you can fit them into your build. At higher levels TWF even pulls ahead in the to hit department since you don't sacrifice BAB for bonus damage.
You'll need a lot of bonus damage to catch up to an optimized THF charger though.

[Yuki Akuma]

THF doesn't sacrifice to-hit for bonus damage, either, because THF has Shock Trooper. :smallwink:

[Greenish]

However, when you factor in Sneak Dice, and compair the potential damage against the flat damage given by power attack, the TWF style comes ahead. BUT ONLY IF YOU ARE WILLING TO GAMBLE.No. You can't dismiss things like probabilities and average damage by declaring that "you're willing to gamble". As I pointed out, if we don't care about how unlikely it is, the fighter has higher damage cap in the above example. If you hit with all of your attacks and roll max SA damage, yes, you can do a lot of damage, but so can a two-hander guy who crits with a scythe.


It should be noted, that in both scenarios only 2 feats were used EACH. And, as its been said before the TWF feat tree is one of diminishing returns. TWF CAN be a real black hole if you allow it to be, but you dont NEED all the extra feats on the tree to see it through.Agreed (though it never stops me from being bothered if I'm giving up two-handed potential for just a single weaker attack).


A rogue with TWF style and a fighter with THF style can put in a compairable investment of feats to acomplish a balanced play style. In that the Rogue can achieve POTENTIALLY greater results at a SIGNIFIGANTLY increased risk, and that a Fighter can achieve more stable but LOWER results with a SIGNIFIGANTLY greater degree of success.

Can we agree on this?No. See above re. damage caps and ignoring probabilities.

[eggynack]

No arguement here.

Heres whats going on in my head;
Consider a 1st level Rogue with TWF, a 10 str, and an 18 dex,dual wielding shortswords. With ONE feat, hes able to attack 1 OR 2 opponents (his choice) @ -2/-2 for a range of 2-12 (1d6 wpn+1d6 wpn) (without sneak) 4-24(1d6 wpn+ 1d6 sneak +1d6 wpn + 1d6 sneak)(with sneak) damage (divided between 2 foes or against a single foe) With the addition of one more feat (weapon finese) he drastically increases his chances of success. (+2/+2)

Now consider a 1st level fighter, with Power Attack and Cleave, a 18 str and a 10 dex wielding a greatsword. With TWO feats hes able to attack 1 or 2 opponents @+4 (with power attack) (PROVIDED he kills the first one) for a range of 10-20(2d6 wpn, +2 powerattack, +6 THF)

In this scenario, the rogue has a wider range of potential, with a higher cap, whereas the fighter has a narrower but more consistant ability to deal damage.

Are my calculations correct? Baring any errors, to me, this seems rather balanced... Please, correct me if Im wrong (In the politest manner possible :smallbiggrin:)
I'ma just answer your more recent question by answering this question. Your math is technically accurate, but it doesn't give us the whole picture. For one thing, you're using ranges when you should be using averages. The TWF rogue is dealing an average of 14 damage a round, while the THF fighter is dealing 15 average damage a round. These two numbers look similar, but you're still missing a number of factors. For instance, you never actually took attack bonus into account. You noted the possibility of not sneak attacking, which is important, but the fighter is getting +4 to hit from strength, as well as a +1 to hit from TWF-power attack, and a +1 BAB.

You're also missing the possibility that we're dealing with a barbarian rather than a fighter, which tilts the damage even further in the THF guy's favor. Giving him whirling frenzy means that he's getting the rogue's two attacks, and is dealing more on each one than the fighter was dealing with his one attack. You can even add pounce to the mix, have the barbarian charge, and he'll even have a higher chance to hit. Making him a water orc instead of a blank slate pushes it towards our THF guy even more. It's not really about gambling, or about having a broader range versus a stable center. It's just about the actual average damage you're doing, and the fact that the THF guy is doing significantly more. I don't even think the TWF guy gets much closer when you optimize him, because TWF doesn't have that many tricks at early levels by my understanding.

That's just at level one, where the barbarian might have a marked advantage, but the rogue takes awhile to catch up, and he gets some nifty tricks while he's at it. In conclusion, if you want to do the math, do all the math. Actually consider the chance to hit, and the real damage dealt, and the distance between what you've presented and what is possible. You may not necessarily need to consider the third aspect, but you should think about it at least a little. My analysis even ignored the possibility that your rogue won't be able to sneak attack, when sneak attacking is not perfectly consistent. Even in your version, the rogue was dealing less damage, and dealing that damage with less frequency. Also, on samurai and rangers, they seriously get TWF at level two. That's just stupid. The ranger catches up after that, but the samurai just languishes in the squalor of slow advancement. It's rather tragic, really.

[Ignominia]

Right, becasue if we are ignoring probability, than the fighters bonus damage (by virtue of power attack/THF) gets DOUBLED (or more depending on weapon) on crit.

where as a rogues sneak dice would NEVER be doubled.

Even, if the rogue is getting 2 sneak attacks, it would still pale in comparison to a fighters x4 damage with a scythe...

I guess then the question comes down to one of probability... and averages. which is WAAAAAAAY over my head.

I feel good about where we ended with this. I was constantly getting the impression from the forum that TWF was a DRASTICALLY inferior style. After looking at it, I dont feel thats the case. I do feel that THF does end up being superior, but there isnt as big a gulf between them as I once thought...

Provided you play a rogue :smallbiggrin:

[Yuki Akuma]

Provided you play a rogue :smallbiggrin:

Not true!

...Heavily optimised DFI+Snowflake Wardance Bard also works.

[Ignominia]

Ok, Eggynack, valid points all around to be sure.

Id like a base model to compair on, as opposed to the tendancy to see who is the better optimizer.

The question im concerned with is not one of "who can make the better PC" but "Is TWF and THF actually balanced"

Is there a way that we could make a PC with TWF the EQUAL of a PC with THF with a similar investment of character building resources?

EDIT: Is TWF a risk vs reward style compaired to THF's slow and steady style? and will the numbers even out in the end?

[eggynack]

I guess then the question comes down to one of probability... and averages. which is WAAAAAAAY over my head.

It's not nearly as difficult as it looks, or at least it's not as difficult as it appears to you. For damage, you just take the median on the die, which is half the die +.5. Thus, 1d6's average damage is 3.5. To hit based stuff is a bit more tricky, but you just multiply the chance of hitting by the average damage. It's quite dependent on the monster you're fighting in that way.

If you don't want to do the math, I suggest using the power attack calculator (http://donjon.bin.sh/d20/power/). It makes the whole thing rather simple, and even gives a range of AC's so that you don't have to enter each one individually. I'll just run some example based stuff, for reasons. This rogue's average damage against an AC of 15 is 2.94, and against 14 it's 3.67. For the fighter, his average damage is 8.25 against an AC of 15, and 9.07 against an AC of 14. This is using your numbers rather than my numbers, so it goes even more in my favor if I really want it to. Still, you should check the site out if it's the kinda thing you're interested in.

[Greenish]

The question im concerned with is not one of "who can make the better PC" but "Is TWF and THF actually balanced"No.


Is there a way that we could make a PC with TWF the EQUAL of a PC with THF with a similar investment of character building resources?No.


EDIT: Is TWF a risk vs reward style compaired to THF's slow and steady style? and will the numbers even out in the end?
No, and no.


Glad we cleared that up. :smalltongue:

[Ignominia]

It's not nearly as difficult as it looks, or at least it's not as difficult as it appears to you. For damage, you just take the median on the die, which is half the die +.5. Thus, 1d6's average damage is 3.5. To hit based stuff is a bit more tricky, but you just multiply the chance of hitting by the average damage. It's quite dependent on the monster you're fighting in that way.

If you don't want to do the math, I suggest using the power attack calculator (http://donjon.bin.sh/d20/power/). It makes the whole thing rather simple, and even gives a range of AC's so that you don't have to enter each one individually. I'll just run some example based stuff, for reasons. This rogue's average damage against an AC of 15 is 2.94, and against 14 it's 3.67. For the fighter, his average damage is 8.25 against an AC of 15, and 9.07 against an AC of 14. This is using your numbers rather than my numbers, so it goes even more in my favor if I really want it to. Still, you should check the site out if it's the kinda thing you're interested in.

Ok, thats GREAT info! I just have 2 questions...
1)When calculating "to hit" you say you multiply average damage by "Chance to hit"? How is that number obtained and expressed? Is it a % based off of attack bonus vs ac?

2) the average numbers for a rogues attacks vs a fighters attacks, do they include a rogues sneak damage?

[eggynack]

1)When calculating "to hit" you say you multiply average damage by "Chance to hit"? How is that number obtained and expressed? Is it a % based off of attack bonus vs ac?
You figure out the necessary die roll to hit a given enemy, and determine the percentage odds of getting that roll. For example, a fighter with +6 to hit successfully strikes an enemy with 14 AC on a roll of 8. Thus, because rolls of 8 or higher encompass 65% of the possible rolls (you can just multiply the quantity of possible rolls by 5%) you can multiply that by the damage dealt.



2) the average numbers for a rogues attacks vs a fighters attacks, do they include a rogues sneak damage?
Indeed they do. The rogue, hitting twice with sneak attack, deals 4d6 damage. That comes out to 14 damage. I haven't included any of the critical hit stuff, which makes things a little more complicated, but the PA calculator takes that into account, so I rarely do it myself. If I'm not mistaken, putting the sneak attack into the extra dice section causes that damage to not be multiplied on a crit. I might check that nowabouts though.

Edit: I was not mistaken. That works for sneak attack stuff. I'm not entirely sure how to get the extra iteratives from ITWF and GTWF into the calculator yet, but I'll probably figure it out. If all else fails, you can always just run the whole thing twice, or even multiply relevant attacks by two. It's not an absolute method, but it's not hard to figure out a method that works.

[Ignominia]

Take a 1st level Rogue, with the TWF feat, using 2 short swords.
16 STR (+3) modifier
BAB +0

On an attack (provided that he can hit with sneak) he gets;

+1 to hit for 1d6 +1d6 sneak
TWICE

If we consider the target AC to be 15, that gives him a 30% chance to hit.
(he must roll a 14 or higher on a d20)

The average of a d6 roll is 3.5.
3.5x4 (the number of d6's he rolls) plus 4 (3 str from primary and 1 str from off hand weapon) is 18 damage.

if we multiply that by his 30% hit chance we get 5.4

So over the life of the fight his average damage should be 2.7 per hit or an average of 5.4 per round (because of TWF)

__________________________________________________ __________________________________________________ _______

Now take a 1st level Fighter with the power attack feat, using a greatsword
16 STR (+3) modifier
BAB +1

On an attack, he gets;
+3 to hit for 2d6 + 6 (4 points from STR because of THF and 2 points from Power Attack from subtracting 1 from his attack)

If we consider the target AC to be 15, then that gives him a 40% chance to hit.
(he must roll a 12 or higher on a d20)

the average of a d6 roll is 3.5
3.5x2 (the number of d6's he rolls) PLUS 6 (from THF and PA) is 13

if we multiply that by his 40% hit chance we get 5.2

So over the life of the fight his average damage should be 5.2 per hit and per round.

EDIT: I know this doesn't include crits (which are the big sticking point) but I just wanted to make sure I did my math right. Also, I put the Rogue and Fighter on the same playing field for STR, trying to compare apples to apples as best I can.

[eggynack]

The math is close, but you're failing to include the low number. 14-20 includes seven digits, which means a 35% chance, and the same holds true for the fighter, for whom the odds are 45%. I'm assuming that you're not using these numbers as actual proof, because setting strength equivalent makes very little sense. The rogue has to stick a 15 in dexterity, and will probably pick up weapon finesse meaning a total stat dump, and the fighter only has to increase strength, which means a probable 18 or higher.

[Ignominia]

Awesome Eggynack, thanks. Ill make that adjustment.

So far, Im not trying to prove anything. I simply want a base level comparison for my own edification. Beyond a straight one to one comp, I feel there are just way too many variables to consider. Stat distribution is definitely one of them, if we are using a point buy system or a roll of the dice it completely changes the argument. For the sake of this exercise I assume that stats are equal to remove one variable from the equation.

Im concerned about 2 things in this equation so far.
1) having to hit 35% twice, is HARDER and therefore LESS LIKELY than trying to hit 45% once is it not? Should my over all hit chance for the Rogue then reflect this?
2) Crits. this is the big issue. How do I factor in the chance of a crit?

[Greenish]

Kinda pointless, but if you want to compare, you might want to give the fighter his actual class feature, that is to say, a feat. Pick Weapon Focus, for example, and fighter AD/R comes out at 6.5, comparable to rogue's 6.3.

Of course, if they have to move, or can't flank, or they get AoO, well.


[Edit]: You factor the crits by adding the crit damage multiplied by the likelyhood of a crit. Greatsword, longsword, shortsword, all threaten on 19-20, so 10% chance to threaten. You multiply that with the chance to confirm (the same as chance to hit), and then multiply that with the damage of the crit.

So, with a greatsword (sans WF) the damage would be 0.45*13+0.45*0.1*13 (since all of the damage gets multiplied), resulting in 6.435 average damage by round.

[Edit]: And,
Fighter 1, 16 Str, with Weapon Focus, PA: 0.5*13+0.5*0.1*13=7.15
Rogue 1, 16 Str, with TWF: 0.35*10+0.35*0.1*6.5 + 0.35*8+0.35*0.1*4.5=6.685

[eggynack]

1) having to hit 35% twice, is HARDER and therefore LESS LIKELY than trying to hit 45% once is it not? Should my over all hit chance for the Rogue then reflect this?
The distribution is probably different, but just multiplying the first attack by two accounts for what's probabilistic going to occur.


2) Crits. this is the big issue. How do I factor in the chance of a crit?
It's a bit annoying, but it's not that tricky. You generally just add on the additional average damage of a critical hit. Thus, for our fighter, it would be 10% (for the threat) * 45% (for the confirmation) * 13 (for the damage), for an additional damage of .585. If the damage multiplier is higher, you just subtract one from the multiplier and multiply through by that. Thus, if it's a *3 crit weapon, you multiply the end result by 2.

Edit: In the pull of the almighty answer, I have been draw into an unfortunate and untimely swordsaging. Will I ever recover what has been lost? Is there even anything left to find? I cannot say for certain.

Anyways, I'ma write up some quick barbarian stats. Let's assume a water orc whirling frenzy spirit lion barbarian with 22 strength a greatsword, and power attack. On a frenzy, his strength is 26. Thus, in a frenzyless state, his damage is 2d6+9, and he has a +7 to hit, and a +9 on a charge. In a frenzyful state, his damage is (2d6+12)*2, and he maintains his previous to hit numbers. Now, onto the actual damage. Out of a frenzy, against an AC of 15, he deals 11.88 damage when not charging, and 13.86 when charging. When he's in a frenzy, he deals 27.72 damage when not charging, and 32.33 damage when charging. Those are the general numbers that our noble rogue has to beat at level one.

[Ignominia]

Thanks for the input Greenish (EDIT:) and Eggynack, that was exactly what I was looking for.

Im not trying to build one PC to beat the other. its simply an exercise to examine the core concept behind a rogue with TWF and sneak and a fighter with power attack and THF. I'm stripping away anything that makes for an uneven playing field. For the sake of argument we'll say that the fighter chose Cleave as his second feat at first level.

Also, I don't see the point of you suggesting that my pursuit of an answer here is "kinda pointless" I find it condescending. If you find this line of discussion not to your liking don't participate, however if you feel like continuing to add your valuable and appreciated input on the mechanics in question please do so. But by all means, don't let me keep you...

[Greenish]

We could figure out the extra damage output from cleave, but we'd have to give our target dummies hp in addition to AC (and, I guess, presuppose that two of them are close enough to be cleaved). For the sake of simplicity, let us assume that they have 8 or less HP (and thus if the fighter hits, they go down). Not an unreasonable number, I feel.

So then,
Level 1 fighter, 16 Str, PA, Cleave: 0.45*13+0.45*0.1*13 + 0.45*(0.45*13+0.45*0.1*13)=9.33075

For that matter, we could have two rogues, to really compare apples to apples,
Level 1 rogue, 16 Str, Weapon Focus (Greatsword): 0.5*15.5+0.5*0.1*11.5=8.325
Level 1 rogue, 16 Str, Martial Weapon Proficiency (Greatsword): 0.45*15.5+0.45*0.1*11.5=7.4925


And I'm not going to apologize for calling pointless number-twiddling pointless. :smalltongue:

[Edit]: Silly me, rogues are neither proficient with greatswords, nor capable of taking Weapon Focus on 1st level.

[Ignominia]

Ok, I'm sorry, but you are going a tad fast for me and throwing in different variables, while I attempt to count both fingers and toes to follow along :smallsmile:

Heres where Im at:

Rogue level 1, TWF with shortswords and a 16 STR BAB +0

+1 to hit with each dagger for 1d6+1d6 sneak.

vs AC 15, the Rogue has a 35% chance to hit.

Average damage per hit without sneak (because crit damage will need to be calculated BEFORE sneak damage) 11
(3.5 avg d6+3.5 avg d6+3 str main hand+1 str off hand)

Crit chance of 10% gives us an additional damage of +0.385
(0.35 chance to hit x 0.10 chance to crit x 11 avg damage)

NOW we add the average sneak damage of 7
(3.5 avg d6 + 3.5 avg d6)

So, 11 average damage from both weapons, + 0.385 avg crit damage + 7 avg sneak damage = 18.385

Multiply that by your chance to hit (35%) and you get 6.435

__________________________________________________ ___________

Moving on to Fighter Level 1, Power attack with Greatsword and a 16 STR BAB +1

+3 to hit with Greatsword for 2d6+6
(4 from STR, 2 from Power attack)

vs AC 15, the Fighter has a 45% chance to hit.

Average damage per hit is 13
(3.5 avg d6 + 3.5 avg d6 + 6)

Crit chance of 10% gives us an additional damage of +0.585
(0.45 chance to hit x 0.10 chance to crit x 13 avg damage)

So, 13 average damage from the greatsword, + 0.585 avg crit damage = 13.585

Multiply that by your chance to hit (45%) and you get 6.113

Is the math all correct here? Greenish, you gave some slightly different numbers... where did I go wrong?

[eggynack]

Greenish was just running the fighter numbers with cleave, rather than normal style. In any case, you're still putting all of your rogue stat into strength for some reason, which makes very little sense. What stat assignment method are we using? Let's go with, I dunno, 28 point buy. That gives our fighter 18 strength, 16 con, and 10 dex, with a bunch of 8's. Then there's race to consider. I'll again go with water orc, which puts the fighter at 22 strength, 18 con, and -2 to mentals. I could make it dragonborn too, if I want, for 20 con and 8 dex. That's pretty good stuff.

[Ignominia]

I don't disagree that those are all fine choices.

However, Im simply trying to examine the core mechanic, Im in NO way trying to build a PC. Im just trying to find the MOST LEVEL PLAYING FIELD to examine these two game mechanics.

Did I do the math correctly? My plan is once I understand the math to put together a comprehensive spreadsheet that will allow me to add and delete variables to examine different aspects of TWF and THF. But before I can do that, I need to make sure I've got the math right.

Since you and Greenish seem to have such a solid understanding of it, Im relying on the two of you to double check my work before I begin. Once the base math is in place, the optimizing war can begin.

[Greenish]

Is the math all correct here? Greenish, you gave some slightly different numbers... where did I go wrong?I dunno, did you round up the numbers in between?

(I can't actually math, I'm just putting numbers into the calculator. :smalltongue:)

Then there's race to consider. I'll again go with water orc, which puts the fighter at 22 strength, 18 con, and -2 to mentals. I could make it dragonborn too, if I want, for 20 con and 8 dex. That's pretty good stuff.Eh, might go with half-elves (that is to say, no relevant racial mods) just for the sake of simplicity. That the best +1 LA Dex race (probably arctic air goblin) isn't as good as the water orc isn't really here nor there.

[eggynack]

I don't disagree that those are all fine choices.

However, Im simply trying to examine the core mechanic, Im in NO way trying to build a PC. Im just trying to find the MOST LEVEL PLAYING FIELD to examine these two game mechanics.

Did I do the math correctly? My plan is once I understand the math to put together a comprehensive spreadsheet that will allow me to add and delete variables to examine different aspects of TWF and THF. But before I can do that, I need to make sure I've got the math right.

Since you and Greenish seem to have such a solid understanding of it, Im relying on the two of you to double check my work before I begin. Once the base math is in place, the optimizing war can begin.
Setting things that shouldn't be equal equal isn't a level playing field. Also, you really don't have to do math. The power attack calculator can do every single thing we've talked about here, and more besides. Its prime function is checking the damage of various power attack quantities, but it also functions fine with regular attacking, or even sneak attacking. I mean, it's nice knowing how to do this stuff, but mathing everything out by hand feels a bit unnecessary.


Eh, might go with half-elves (that is to say, no relevant racial mods) just for the sake of simplicity. That the best +1 LA Dex race (probably arctic air goblin) isn't as good as the water orc isn't really here nor there.
I feel like it's both here and there. We have to consider the best options possible on both sides, because that's how you learn which is actually better. If it's possible to get free strength from multiple sources, and it's difficult to get free strength in the same quantities, then that has to be considered. In any case, I feel like my barbarian works out pretty well. It's notable that he's also running significantly higher HP, and that he's going to pick up improved trip for free next level. He can also pop into fighter levels after that, because he's free to do so. Rogues are basically priced in to continue picking up precision damage bonuses, but two handed fighters can have some fun.

[Ignominia]

Setting things that shouldn't be equal equal isn't a level playing field. Also, you really don't have to do math. The power attack calculator can do every single thing we've talked about here, and more besides. Its prime function is checking the damage of various power attack quantities, but it also functions fine with regular attacking, or even sneak attacking. I mean, it's nice knowing how to do this stuff, but mathing everything out by hand feels a bit unnecessary.

You're not wrong. I don't disagree at all, but Im not trying to draw workable results from these specific numbers. Right now, what I want is to understand the math behind how the abilities work. You are correct in that the power attack calculator you showed me does everything Im trying to do here. However, I, personally, for my own reasons, want to understand how the system works. Once I understand these numbers, I can then look at specific builds and how one side can be weighed against the other.

[Greenish]

I feel like it's both here and there. We have to consider the best options possible on both sides, because that's how you learn which is actually better.Eh, for lots of PCs, the theoretically best race for level 1 plays no great role, and for that matter, you can build Str-based TWFer (though not at the 1st level).


If it's possible to get free strength from multiple sources, and it's difficult to get free strength in the same quantities, then that has to be considered.Well, there's Ferocity, which is basically Rage that boosts Str and Dex. Granted, getting to apply the Dex to damage is a bit trickier.


Rogues are basically priced in to continue picking up precision damage bonuses, but two handed fighters can have some fun.Daring Outlaw does help there.


But really, what I'm saying is that you don't have to consider things like ease of pumping a given stat when comparing THW and TWF. The difference is clear enough anyway, and pulling in dragonborn water orcs just unnecessarily murks the picture.

[Edit]: Besides, the more variables we introduce, the more variables we have to juggle.

[TuggyNE]

Is the math all correct here? Greenish, you gave some slightly different numbers... where did I go wrong?

Your crit calculations are off; you're effectively factoring in crit confirmation rolls twice instead of once, which drops them too low. Rogue goes up to 6.685, and Fighter goes to 6.434. (This was also a problem in eggynack's earlier post; eggy, you have led someone astray!)

But I think the situation would benefit from some AnyDice (http://anydice.com/program/2976/graph/), which (hurray!) agrees with your corrected results almost exactly. You can add to that in various ways to see more possibilities, which hopefully should be useful for your calculations. (I've spent a good bit of time over the last year or so polishing those functions, so they should be quite reliable if properly treated. Let me know if something is confusing.)

[Ignominia]

Good catch Tuggy! thanks! what would be the proper formula for calculating crits then?

[TuggyNE]

Good catch Tuggy! thanks! what would be the proper formula for calculating cries then?

You have the calculation for chance-to-hit, which is applied to all hits; normally, any critical threat is also a hit, barring exceptional cases that we don't care about here*. Therefore, assume that any time you meet the critical threat chance, you've hit, and reuse the chance-to-hit as the critical confirmation roll.

Result is that you multiply crit damage by crit threat range %, add that to the damage on an average successful hit, and multiply the result by the chance to hit % for the total average.

*This simplification fails if you have a threat range greater than 20 and are facing an opponent with such high AC that you can only hit on a 20, for example.

Edit: I should mention that the AnyDice code I wrote actually handles crits in the full formal way, and can deal with 18-20 crit ranges where you can only hit on a 19, and so forth. It does so by effectively separating the to-hit roll into ranges, and modelling the confirmation roll separately. Those ranges are: hit and threaten (always at least 5%), miss and threaten (usually 0%; can be folded into regular misses), hit with no threat (usually greater than 0%, but not always), and miss with no threat (always at least 5%). The confirmation roll ranges are a lot simpler, being just critical hit (always at least 5%) and regular hit (also always at least 5%).

[eggynack]

Your crit calculations are off; you're effectively factoring in crit confirmation rolls twice instead of once, which drops them too low. Rogue goes up to 6.685, and Fighter goes to 6.434. (This was also a problem in eggynack's earlier post; eggy, you have led someone astray!)

Where'd I do that? It's 10% for the critical *45% for the confirmation * the damage. You just add it directly onto the base numbers, because that factors in the *2. Anyways, seriously, power attack calculator. I mean, if this were anything outside of basic multiplying and adding, that could be kinda fun, but doing piles of arithmetic over and over again doesn't really get me any satisfaction. It might take a bit less time to do it for one situation, but once you have the numbers in there, you effectively test a number of situations at once.


Eh, for lots of PCs, the theoretically best race for level 1 plays no great role, and for that matter, you can build Str-based TWFer (though not at the 1st level).
I'd say that it plays an even bigger role at first level, when small bonuses are harder to come by, and a little difference accounts for a lot.



Well, there's Ferocity, which is basically Rage that boosts Str and Dex. Granted, getting to apply the Dex to damage is a bit trickier.
True, but as I noted, you're priced into not that to some extent, because of sneak attack.



Daring Outlaw does help there.
A little, but not much. Then you're just priced into being either a rogue or a swashbuckler. You can't do much really fun stuff, although you can do some.



But really, what I'm saying is that you don't have to consider things like ease of pumping a given stat when comparing THW and TWF. The difference is clear enough anyway, and pulling in dragonborn water orcs just unnecessarily murks the picture.
You should consider it some. Tossing dragonborn on there might be a bit unnecessary. The point I'm trying to make, I guess, is that a rogue pushing strength is a MAD type of beast compared to a fighter pushing strength.


Besides, the more variables we introduce, the more variables we have to juggle.
I guess. What I have down seems like pretty simple stuff though. It's just basic statistical comparisons. It only really gets complicated when I start tossing combat maneuvers into the mix.

[TuggyNE]

Where'd I do that? It's 10% for the critical *45% for the confirmation * the damage. You just add it directly onto the base numbers, because that factors in the *2.

Double check that with the PA calculator.

But effectively, you're including the .45 chance to hit twice (once for the to-hit roll, once for the confirmation), the results are off; the to-hit roll can be properly modeled by the critical threat chance.

[eggynack]

Double check that with the PA calculator.

But effectively, you're including the .45 chance to hit twice (once for the to-hit roll, once for the confirmation), the results are off; the to-hit roll can be properly modeled by the critical threat chance.
I don't think I'm multiplying through though. It's just .45*damage+.1*.45*damage. I think the difference, and it's a logical one, is that I should just multiply my end result by .45 instead of doing the whole rigmarole. I should probably do some math checking, though I've gotten slightly lost in this thread's maze of numbers.

[TuggyNE]

I don't think I'm multiplying through though. It's just .45*damage+.1*.45*damage. I think the difference, and it's a logical one, is that I should just multiply my end result by .45 instead of doing the whole rigmarole. I should probably do some math checking, though I've gotten slightly lost in this thread's maze of numbers.

The second .45 is the problem; a confirmed critical hit has a 10%*45% chance of occurring, while your calculations give it a 10%*45%*45% chance.

Basically, if you hit the 10% threat chance, you already know you hit, so you don't need an extra roll for that, only one roll for the confirmation. But since you're folding the crit damage into the regular damage, and since confirmation is usually at the same attack bonus as regular attacks, just use the attack chance from the full calculation for the confirmation chance for crits.

[eggynack]

The second .45 is the problem; a confirmed critical hit has a 10%*45% chance of occurring, while your calculations give it a 10%*45%*45% chance.

Basically, if you hit the 10% threat chance, you already know you hit, so you don't need an extra roll for that, only one roll for the confirmation. But since you're folding the crit damage into the regular damage, and since confirmation is usually at the same attack bonus as regular attacks, just use the attack chance from the full calculation for the confirmation chance for crits.
See, I think the problem here is the one I said. I'm not incorporating the first 45% into the critical hit chance. The damage can be expressed as 45%(damage+10%*damage), which is the way you're doing it, and is likely a better way. However, I'm multiplying through, which comes out to 45%*damage + 45%*10%*damage. The 45% is used twice, but the two instances don't overlap in the critical hit part.

[TuggyNE]

See, I think the problem here is the one I said. I'm not incorporating the first 45% into the critical hit chance. The damage can be expressed as 45%(damage+10%*damage), which is the way you're doing it, and is likely a better way. However, I'm multiplying through, which comes out to 45%*damage + 45%*10%*damage. The 45% is used twice, but the two instances don't overlap in the critical hit part.

Ah. I think I (and Ignominia) read your post(s) wrongly for whatever reason.


It's a bit annoying, but it's not that tricky. You generally just add on the additional average damage of a critical hit. Thus, for our fighter, it would be 10% (for the threat) * 45% (for the confirmation) * 13 (for the damage), for an additional damage of .585.

Total average damage added by crits per attack is 0.585, yes. Per hit, it's 1.3 average.


Anyways, I'ma write up some quick barbarian stats. Let's assume a water orc whirling frenzy spirit lion barbarian with 22 strength a greatsword, and power attack. On a frenzy, his strength is 26. Thus, in a frenzyless state, his damage is 2d6+9, and he has a +7 to hit, and a +9 on a charge. In a frenzyful state, his damage is (2d6+12)*2, and he maintains his previous to hit numbers. Now, onto the actual damage. Out of a frenzy, against an AC of 15, he deals 11.88 damage when not charging, and 13.86 when charging. When he's in a frenzy, he deals 27.72 damage when not charging, and 32.33 damage when charging. Those are the general numbers that our noble rogue has to beat at level one.

OK, these seem right when cross-checked, so I guess it was just a miscommunication. :smallsigh:

[eggynack]

OK, these seem right when cross-checked, so I guess it was just a miscommunication. :smallsigh:
Yeah, probably. This stuff is always jumbled and confusing, even if the base math is very simple and logical. It's something to do with quantity, mixed with the sheer variety of possibilities. Like, I went back and looked at whatever my post was referring to, and it was far from immediately apparent whether it was referring to the 18 strength fighter, or the 16 strength one. I think it was the latter, but still. Anyways, at least this is less complicated than that barbarian vs. monk encounter testing thing. In that one, I started having to figure out how tripping and grappling play out statistically. I don't think I ever quite figured it out. It's like a massive crazy tree of possibilities. Like, Yggdrasil, but for statistics. Something like that.

[XeraEternal]

That the best +1 LA Dex race (probably arctic air goblin) isn't as good as the water orc isn't really here nor there.

I'm sure I'll get beaten for mentioning anything from Dragon Compendium, but wouldn't the best +1 LA race for TWF technically be the Diopsid? :smalltongue:

(For those who don't know, they get to ignore dex requirements for the entire Two-Weapon tree, and get monkey grip but better for free, which is to say they can use Large size light+one-handed weapons without penalty, and medium Two-handers in each hand, getting 1.5x str from EACH when TWF, though even with the TWF feat they'd still be at -4)

[Darrin]

That the best +1 LA Dex race (probably arctic air goblin) isn't as good as the water orc isn't really here nor there.

Where are you getting the LA +1? Air goblins are LA +0, and the Arctic template (Dragon #306) is also LA +0.

If you're going just for pure Dex, a Shadow-Walker Unseelie Fey Air Goblin is probably best, although an Anthropomorphic Giant Squid has it beat on arms. But with that you've also got racial HD.


I'm sure I'll get beaten for mentioning anything from Dragon Compendium, but wouldn't the best +1 LA race for TWF technically be the Diopsid? :smalltongue:


Anthropomorphic Giant Squid still out-cuddles Mr. Wanna-Be-Thri-Kreen, but if we're looking for something without racial HD or template shenanigans... I'd probably have to give it to the Diopsid.

[Firechanter]

To quote from the Haiku Thread:

Two sword style rocks!
You get to do less damage,
and pay feats for it.

[Yuki Akuma]

To quote from the Haiku Thread:

Two sword style rocks!
You get to do less damage,
and pay feats for it.

And like any good quote from the Haiku Thread, it was written by someone who doesn't know how a haiku works. :smallwink: (You're missing a syllable on the first line.)

'Style' is a fairly weird word - most dictionaries say it's one syllable, even though some dialects pronounce it as two. Writing it as 'sty-le' or something might help people realise they should be pronouncing it with two.

This pointless side note brought to you by someone resisting the urge to rant about how 'proper' haiku don't count syllables anyway.

[eggynack]

And like any good quote from the Haiku Thread, it was written by someone who doesn't know how a haiku works. :smallwink: (You're missing a syllable on the first line.)

'Style' is a fairly weird word - most dictionaries say it's one syllable, even though some dialects pronounce it as two. Writing it as 'sty-le' or something might help people realise they should be pronouncing it with two.

These two statements seem rather contradictory. Anyways, I've always said it with two syllables, even if I recognize in this late hour that it might be more commonly pronounced with one.

[Yuki Akuma]

These two statements seem rather contradictory. Anyways, I've always said it with two syllables, even if I recognize in this late hour that it might be more commonly pronounced with one.

Most dialects pronounce it as one syllable. Some as two. It rhymes with "mile" and "file". So read 'properly', that haiku's missing a syllable and you need to contort "style" a bit to make it fit.

[Firechanter]

And like any good quote from the Haiku Thread, it was written by someone who doesn't know how a haiku works. :smallwink: (You're missing a syllable on the first line.)

You're right, I noticed that, but didn't want to edit someone else's work. ;) Style is one syllable. But you can always resort to the fact that Japanese haiku don't count syllables but "sound carriers" (or whatever you'd call them). "Nippon-wa" is a complete five-morae verse, although we would count only three syllables. ^^ By the same logic, you might identify the -s from "rocks" as separate mora.

[Greenish]

I'm sure I'll get beaten for mentioning anything from Dragon Compendium, but wouldn't the best +1 LA race for TWF technically be the Diopsid? :smalltongue:

Where are you getting the LA +1? Air goblins are LA +0, and the Arctic template (Dragon #306) is also LA +0. I meant to write +0 LA (to match the water orc), my bad.

[Djinn_in_Tonic]

Late to the party and may have missed something; but I'd like to ask the OP why he thinks Two-weapon-fighting has more "flavour" than a two handed weapon.

What "flavour" is he thinking about?

I can't think of a single historical army that equipped its troops in such a fashion. In real fighting, protection from ranged attacks (in the real world, having a shield) is important, reach is important, having a missile option available while still being equipped for melee is important, and in a pre-gunpowder setting getting through armour is important.

Just as a minor aside:

Rapier & Dagger and Rapier & Cloak are both documented and practiced combat styles, and both rely on a weapon (the cloak is used both offensively and defensively) in the off hand. Additionally, supposedly the Dimachaerus (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dimachaerus) used twin swords in the Roman gladiator pits.

Here's an article on the proper use of two long-bladed swords in combat. (http://l-clausewitz.livejournal.com/368413.html) It pulls from Giacomo di Grassi's fencing manual, and he was a renowned Italian fencing master.

Troops weren't given two weapons because keeping track of both your weapons and effectively USING two weapons in a fight is hard. You have to really train at it, and troops probably didn't have the time to drill that extensively. The twin-weapon styles are also primarily used in duels or small frays against lightly armored opponents, due to the lack of formation fighting (which would mess up the dual-wielder) and the lack of heavy armor (which likewise puts a damper on things).

There's definitely precedent for it though, and the swashbuckling duelist or the dual-wielding beserking gladiator barbarian are hallmarks of fiction with a basis in history.