PDA

View Full Version : Why Two Weapon Fighting sucks



Pages : [1] 2

Talya
2007-01-15, 09:04 AM
While 3.5 is definitely a step up on 3.0, d20's two weapon fighting system is very poorly thought out. Other than stylistic reasons (including Drizzt wannabes), there is no good reason to take two weapon fighting. Think about it:

For 3 feats (even as a ranger---if you didn't take that combat style you'd get another), you gain the ability to make a half-assed off-hand attack with an inferior weapon that doesn't bring your weapon damage up anywhere near that of a greatsword. (Assuming you full attack...a greatsword weilder has an even bigger advantage if you charge, or make some other standard attack as opposed to a full round attack action.)

Let's do the math for the average twf:
If you're going to dual weild, other than as a ranger, chances are you went high dexterity to qualify for the feats. This means you're using finessable weapons, and your dex > str, so you've likely taken weapon finesse, too.

Rapier + main gauche = 1d6 + str bonus, 1d4 + half strength bonus, at -2 to hit.
Greatsword = 2d6 + 150% strength bonus, at full attack bonus.

Both will have similar armor class (because of the heavy the armor they will wear), the greatsword weilder will do more damage from strength bonus alone, and then from much greater accuracy and will also have four extra feats to spare (Finesse, TWF, ITWF, GTWF.)

The high strength ranger with a longsword and shortsword might be the exception to this, but he's going to have an armor class equivalent to a paper house.

I have no problems with greatswords doing more damage than dual weilding, actually, because it's realistic. They SHOULD do more damage. However, this puts two handed weapons at a huge advantage...the dual weilder has to pay a ridiculous price in feats to do less damage with no upside. This makes no sense, balance-wise.

It also ignores "realism," (as much as a fantasy-magic based game is realistic, anyway.) People did not dual weild for the purposes of increasing their odds of killing the enemy...they did it as a flexible way to defend themselves and still sneak in the occasional opportunistic stab. This is where the "Two weapon defense" feats come in, except hey, that's 3 more feats to add to your already patheticly expensive combat style, for a measily +3 to shield armor.

Simple solution. TWF should include TWD as part of the feat. (as ITWF would include ITWD, and GTWF would include GTWD.) Suddenly there's a reason to dual weild, that makes sense as far as combat realism.

Bears With Lasers
2007-01-15, 09:09 AM
A pretty solid analysis. An alternative solution might be to have the Two-Weapon Fighting feat grant extra off-hand attacks whenever you'd get an extra main-hand attack--that way, you're sinking one feat into TWFing, not spending three feats to be less effective than Greatsword Joe.

Matthew
2007-01-15, 09:11 AM
Mostly true and often discussed here. Here's a statistical break down.

Level 1


Human Fighter 1 A (Great Sword)

Feats: Weapon Focus (Great Sword), Power Attack, Cleave,
[Base Attack Bonus (1) + Weapon Focus (1) – Power Attack (1)] = (1 AB)
[Great Sword (2D6) + Power Attack (2)] = (2D6+2, 9.0)

Human Fighter 1 B (Long Sword and Heavy Shield)

Feats: Weapon Focus (Long Sword), Power Attack, Cleave,
[Base Attack Bonus (1) + Weapon Focus (1) – Power Attack (1)] = (1 AB)
[Long Sword (1D8) + Power Attack (1)] = (1D8+1, 5.5)

Human Fighter 1 C (Two Long Swords)

Feats: Weapon Focus (Long Sword), Two Weapon Fighting, Oversized Two Weapon Fighting,
[Base Attack Bonus (1) + Weapon Focus (1) – Two Weapon Fighting (2)] = (0 AB)
[Long Sword (1D8)] = (1D8+0, 4.5)
[Base Attack Bonus (1) + Weapon Focus (1) – Two Weapon Fighting (2)] = (0 AB)
[Long Sword (1D8)] = (1D8+0, 4.5)

Attacking Armour Class 10


Human Fighter 1 A 60% (2D6+2, 9.0)
Human Fighter 1 A 60% (2D6+4, 11.0)
Human Fighter 1 B 60% (1D8+1, 5.5)
Human Fighter 1 B 60% (1D8+2, 6.5)
Human Fighter 1 C 55% (1D8+1, 4.5) / 55% (1D8+1, 4.5)
Human Fighter 1 C 55% (1D8+1, 5.5) / 55% (1D8+1, 5.5)

Level 2



Human Fighter 2 A (Great Sword)

Feats: Weapon Focus (Great Sword), Power Attack, Cleave, [-],
[Base Attack Bonus (2) + Weapon Focus (1) – Power Attack (2)] = (1 AB)
[Great Sword (2D6) + Power Attack (4)] = (2D6+4, 11.0)

Human Fighter 2 B (Long Sword and Heavy Shield)

Feats: Weapon Focus (Long Sword), Power Attack, Cleave, [-],
[Base Attack Bonus (2) + Weapon Focus (1) – Power Attack (2)] = (1 AB)
[Long Sword (1D8) + Power Attack (2)] = (1D8+2, 6.5)

Human Fighter 2 C (Two Long Swords)

Feats: Weapon Focus (Long Sword), Two Weapon Fighting, Oversized Two Weapon Fighting, Power Attack,
[Base Attack Bonus (2) + Weapon Focus (1) – Two Weapon Fighting (2)] = (1 AB)
[Long Sword (1D8)] = (1D8+0, 4.5)
[Base Attack Bonus (2) + Weapon Focus (1) – Two Weapon Fighting (2)] = (1 AB)
[Long Sword (1D8)] = (1D8+0, 4.5)


Level 3



Human Fighter 3 A (Great Sword)

Feats: Weapon Focus (Great Sword), Power Attack, Cleave, [-], [-],
[Base Attack Bonus (3) + Weapon Focus (1) – Power Attack (2)] = (2 AB)
[Great Sword (2D6) + Power Attack (4)] = (2D6+4, 11.0)

Human Fighter 3 B (Long Sword and Heavy Shield)

Feats: Weapon Focus (Long Sword), Power Attack, Cleave, [-], [-],
[Base Attack Bonus (3) + Weapon Focus (1) – Power Attack (2)] = (2 AB)
[Long Sword (1D8) + Power Attack (2)] = (1D8+2, 6.5)

Human Fighter 3 C (Two Long Swords)

Feats: Weapon Focus (Long Sword), Two Weapon Fighting, Oversized Two Weapon Fighting, Power Attack, Cleave,
[Base Attack Bonus (3) + Weapon Focus (1) – Two Weapon Fighting (2)] = (2 AB)
[Long Sword (1D8)] = (1D8+0, 4.5)
[Base Attack Bonus (3) + Weapon Focus (1) – Two Weapon Fighting (2)] = (2 AB)
[Long Sword (1D8)] = (1D8+0, 4.5)


Level 4



Human Fighter 4 A (Great Sword)

Feats: Weapon Focus (Great Sword), Power Attack, Cleave, [-], [-], Weapon Specialisation (Great Sword),
[Base Attack Bonus (4) + Weapon Focus (1) – Power Attack (2)] = (3 AB)
[Great Sword (2D6) + Weapon Specialisation (2) + Power Attack (4)] = (2D6+6, 13.0)

Human Fighter 4 B (Long Sword and Heavy Shield)

Feats: Weapon Focus (Long Sword), Power Attack, Cleave, [-], [-], Weapon Specialisation (Long Sword),
[Base Attack Bonus (4) + Weapon Focus (1) – Power Attack (2)] = (3 AB)
[Long Sword (1D8) + Weapon Specialisation (2) + Power Attack (2)] = (1D8+4, 8.5)

Human Fighter 4 C (Two Long Swords)

Feats: Weapon Focus (Long Sword), Two Weapon Fighting, Oversized Two Weapon Fighting, Power Attack, Cleave, Weapon Specialisation (Long Sword),
[Base Attack Bonus (4) + Weapon Focus (1) – Two Weapon Fighting (2)] = (3 AB)
[Long Sword (1D8) + Weapon Specialisation (2)] = (1D8+2, 6.5)
[Base Attack Bonus (4) + Weapon Focus (1) – Two Weapon Fighting (2)] = (3 AB)
[Long Sword (1D8) + Weapon Specialisation (2)] = (1D8+2, 6.5)


Level 5



Human Fighter 5 A (Great Sword)

Feats: Weapon Focus (Great Sword), Power Attack, Cleave, [-], [-], Weapon Specialisation (Great Sword),
[Base Attack Bonus (5) + Weapon Focus (1) – Power Attack (2)] = (4 AB)
[Great Sword (2D6) + Weapon Specialisation (2) + Power Attack (4)] = (2D6+6, 13.0)

Human Fighter 5 B (Long Sword and Heavy Shield)

Feats: Weapon Focus (Long Sword), Power Attack, Cleave, [-], [-], Weapon Specialisation (Long Sword),
[Base Attack Bonus (5) + Weapon Focus (1) – Power Attack (2)] = (4 AB)
[Long Sword (1D8) + Weapon Specialisation (2) + Power Attack (2)] = (1D8+4, 8.5)

Human Fighter 5 C (Two Long Swords)

Feats: Weapon Focus (Long Sword), Two Weapon Fighting, Oversized Two Weapon Fighting, Power Attack, Cleave, Weapon Specialisation (Long Sword),
[Base Attack Bonus (5) + Weapon Focus (1) – Two Weapon Fighting (2)] = (4 AB)
[Long Sword (1D8) + Weapon Specialisation (2)] = (1D8+2, 6.5)
[Base Attack Bonus (5) + Weapon Focus (1) – Two Weapon Fighting (2)] = (4 AB)
[Long Sword (1D8) + Weapon Specialisation (2)] = (1D8+2, 6.5)


Level 6



Human Fighter 6 A (Great Sword)

Feats: Weapon Focus (Great Sword), Power Attack, Cleave, [-], [-], Weapon Specialisation (Great Sword), [-], [-],
[Base Attack Bonus (6) + Weapon Focus (1) – Power Attack (2)] = (5 AB)
[Great Sword (2D6) + Weapon Specialisation (2) + Power Attack (4)] = (2D6+6, 13.0)

Human Fighter 6 B (Long Sword and Heavy Shield)

Feats: Weapon Focus (Long Sword), Power Attack, Cleave, [-], [-], Weapon Specialisation (Long Sword), [-], [-],
[Base Attack Bonus (6) + Weapon Focus (1) – Power Attack (2)] = (5 AB)
[Long Sword (1D8) + Weapon Specialisation (2) + Power Attack (2)] = (1D8+4, 8.5)

Human Fighter 6 C (Two Long Swords)

Feats: Weapon Focus (Long Sword), Two Weapon Fighting, Oversized Two Weapon Fighting, Power Attack, Cleave, Weapon Specialisation (Long Sword), Improved Two Weapon Fighting, [-],
[Base Attack Bonus (6) + Weapon Focus (1) – Two Weapon Fighting (2)] = (5 AB)
[Long Sword (1D8) + Weapon Specialisation (2)] = (1D8+2, 6.5)
[Base Attack Bonus (6) + Weapon Focus (1) – Two Weapon Fighting (2)] = (5 AB)
[Long Sword (1D8) + Weapon Specialisation (2)] = (1D8+2, 6.5)


Level 7



Human Fighter 7 A (Great Sword)

Feats: Weapon Focus (Great Sword), Power Attack, Cleave, [-], [-], Weapon Specialisation (Great Sword), [-], [-],
[Base Attack Bonus (7) + Weapon Focus (1) – Power Attack (2)] = (6 AB)
[Great Sword (2D6) + Weapon Specialisation (2) + Power Attack (4)] = (2D6+6, 13.0)

Human Fighter 7 B (Long Sword and Heavy Shield)

Feats: Weapon Focus (Long Sword), Power Attack, Cleave, [-], [-], Weapon Specialisation (Long Sword), [-], [-],
[Base Attack Bonus (7) + Weapon Focus (1) – Power Attack (2)] = (6 AB)
[Long Sword (1D8) + Weapon Specialisation (2) + Power Attack (2)] = (1D8+4, 8.5)

Human Fighter 7 C (Two Long Swords)

Feats: Weapon Focus (Long Sword), Two Weapon Fighting, Oversized Two Weapon Fighting, Power Attack, Cleave, Weapon Specialisation (Long Sword), Improved Two Weapon Fighting, [-],
[Base Attack Bonus (7) + Weapon Focus (1) – Two Weapon Fighting (2)] = (6 AB)
[Long Sword (1D8) + Weapon Specialisation (2)] = (1D8+2, 6.5)
[Base Attack Bonus (7) + Weapon Focus (1) – Two Weapon Fighting (2)] = (6 AB)
[Long Sword (1D8) + Weapon Specialisation (2)] = (1D8+2, 6.5)


Level 8



Human Fighter 8 A (Great Sword)

Feats: Weapon Focus (Great Sword), Power Attack, Cleave, [-], [-], Weapon Specialisation (Great Sword), [-], [-], Greater Weapon Focus (Great Sword),
[Base Attack Bonus (8) + Weapon Focus (2) – Power Attack (3)] = (7 AB)
[Great Sword (2D6) + Weapon Specialisation (2) + Power Attack (6)] = (2D6+8, 15.0)

Human Fighter 8 B (Long Sword and Heavy Shield)

Feats: Weapon Focus (Long Sword), Power Attack, Cleave, [-], [-], Weapon Specialisation (Long Sword), [-], [-], Greater Weapon Focus (Long Sword),
[Base Attack Bonus (8) + Weapon Focus (2) – Power Attack (3)] = (7 AB)
[Long Sword (1D8) + Weapon Specialisation (2) + Power Attack (3)] = (1D8+5, 9.5)

Human Fighter 8 C (Two Long Swords)

Feats: Weapon Focus (Long Sword), Two Weapon Fighting, Oversized Two Weapon Fighting, Power Attack, Cleave, Weapon Specialisation (Long Sword), Improved Two Weapon Fighting, [-], Greater Weapon Focus (Long Sword),
[Base Attack Bonus (8) + Weapon Focus (2) – Two Weapon Fighting (2) – Power Attack (1)] = (7 AB)
[Long Sword (1D8) + Weapon Specialisation (2) + Power Attack (1)] = (1D8+3, 7.5)
[Base Attack Bonus (8) + Weapon Focus (2) – Two Weapon Fighting (2) – Power Attack (1)] = (7 AB)
[Long Sword (1D8) + Weapon Specialisation (2) + Power Attack (1)] = (1D8+3, 7.5)


Level 9



Human Fighter 9 A (Great Sword)

Feats: Weapon Focus (Great Sword), Power Attack, Cleave, [-], [-], Weapon Specialisation (Great Sword), [-], [-], Greater Weapon Focus (Great Sword), [-],
[Base Attack Bonus (9) + Weapon Focus (2) – Power Attack (3)] = (8 AB)
[Great Sword (2D6) + Weapon Specialisation (2) + Power Attack (6)] = (2D6+8, 15.0)

Human Fighter 9 B (Long Sword and Heavy Shield)

Feats: Weapon Focus (Long Sword), Power Attack, Cleave, [-], [-], Weapon Specialisation (Long Sword), [-], [-], Greater Weapon Focus (Long Sword), [-],
[Base Attack Bonus (9) + Weapon Focus (2) – Power Attack (3)] = (8 AB)
[Long Sword (1D8) + Weapon Specialisation (2) + Power Attack (3)] = (1D8+5, 9.5)

Human Fighter 9 C (Two Long Swords)

Feats: Weapon Focus (Long Sword), Two Weapon Fighting, Oversized Two Weapon Fighting, Power Attack, Cleave, Weapon Specialisation (Long Sword), Improved Two Weapon Fighting, [-], Greater Weapon Focus (Long Sword), [-],
[Base Attack Bonus (9) + Weapon Focus (2) – Two Weapon Fighting (2) – Power Attack (1)] = (8 AB)
[Long Sword (1D8) + Weapon Specialisation (2) + Power Attack (1)] = (1D8+3, 7.5)
[Base Attack Bonus (9) + Weapon Focus (2) – Two Weapon Fighting (2) – Power Attack (1)] = (8 AB)
[Long Sword (1D8) + Weapon Specialisation (2) + Power Attack (1)] = (1D8+3, 7.5)


Level 10



Human Fighter 10 A (Great Sword)

Feats: Weapon Focus (Great Sword), Power Attack, Cleave, [-], [-], Weapon Specialisation (Great Sword), [-], [-], Greater Weapon Focus (Great Sword), [-], [-],
[Base Attack Bonus (10) + Weapon Focus (2) – Power Attack (3)] = (9 AB)
[Great Sword (2D6) + Weapon Specialisation (2) + Power Attack (6)] = (2D6+8, 15.0)

Human Fighter 10 B (Long Sword and Heavy Shield)

Feats: Weapon Focus (Long Sword), Power Attack, Cleave, [-], [-], Weapon Specialisation (Long Sword), [-], [-], Greater Weapon Focus (Long Sword), [-], [-],
[Base Attack Bonus (10) + Weapon Focus (2) – Power Attack (3)] = (9 AB)
[Long Sword (1D8) + Weapon Specialisation (2) + Power Attack (3)] = (1D8+5, 9.5)

Human Fighter 10 C (Two Long Swords)

Feats: Weapon Focus (Long Sword), Two Weapon Fighting, Oversized Two Weapon Fighting, Power Attack, Cleave, Weapon Specialisation (Long Sword), Improved Two Weapon Fighting, [-], Greater Weapon Focus (Long Sword), [-], [-],
[Base Attack Bonus (10) + Weapon Focus (2) – Two Weapon Fighting (2) – Power Attack (1)] = (9 AB)
[Long Sword (1D8) + Weapon Specialisation (2) + Power Attack (1)] = (1D8+3, 7.5)
[Base Attack Bonus (10) + Weapon Focus (2) – Two Weapon Fighting (2) – Power Attack (1)] = (9 AB)
[Long Sword (1D8) + Weapon Specialisation (2) + Power Attack (1)] = (1D8+3, 7.5)


There were a number of soultions posed in the Two Weapon Fighting Thread a while back.

Ambrogino
2007-01-15, 09:16 AM
Other than stylistic reasons

To my mind, stylistic reasons is the only reason to take anything in an RPG.As long as your stylistic reasons match those of the GM and the rest of your group, everything else is meaningless.

Thomas
2007-01-15, 09:16 AM
D&D's combat system can't model two-weapon fighting accurately.

WHFRP and MRQ do a better job; in WHFRP, you get a free parry (which basically doubles your amount of parries), and in MRQ, you get either a free parry or a free attack at -20% to hit, when you have a weapon in your other hand (in WHFRP, only certain weapons, including shields, qualify).

Two-weapon fighting works fine for the actual Finesse types (like Rogues) in D&D, and for Swashbuckler/Duelists (you go for TWD).

Logos7
2007-01-15, 09:29 AM
Notices that the discussion has ignored the effects of Hit Per Ability and Crits

First, Not saying that Two Weapon Fighting Roxors , but when your a rouge looking to eviserate subjects in the first round it's the extra attacks that count not the damage on the attacks ( which is nicely suplimented by your sneak attack)

Second As well Ranger's Favored Enemy works on a per hit basis, and if your two wepaon fighting against your favored enemy you'd be a fool not to two weapon fight if you took that combat path even at the minimum +2 against it ( anyone want to break it down for me)

Third Style is important, Who ever said it wasn't yet it seems to be effectively discrerditied.

4th you (almost) Double your attacks you effectively double the chance you have for getting/landing a crit, dont see that factored in and that's juust laxiness, crits can be wigged out if you do it right

5th, Power Attack isn't optimum for Two Weapon fighting, so why are you comparing it like it is? Not everrything is point for point comparable, if anyone wants to explain to me how alertness , is point to point comparrible to green bound summoning for instance. Some Feats are better than others

6th Diversity is a value in itself, Yeah Greatsword Joe and his Buddy Sword and Board Ted are nice, But what happens when they get grabbled? what about the ability to throw and melee at the same time, what about twin throwing ( The Dagger or Axe Master ) etc.

Theirs lot of sideways stuff you conviently neglected in assuming fighters and power attack is the king of the ring, and that makes for a poor argument my friends.

I really think that you do not recognize how powerful an extra attack can be, the versatility etc that having more than twf'ers around brings etc. The Game is all about make pretend and the moral of a group of differents make for a stronger whole, yet some people can't get over that each and every character is not going to optimized for the same thing ( Damage in this case)

Anyway just my 2 c's

Logos

Talya
2007-01-15, 09:44 AM
First, Not saying that Two Weapon Fighting Roxors , but when your a rouge looking to eviserate subjects in the first round it's the extra attacks that count not the damage on the attacks ( which is nicely suplimented by your sneak attack)


Don't get me started on how unbalancing it is for rogues to be able to make full round attack actions of sneak attacks while flanking, period. I never mentioned rogues here, but yes, you can always create situations with certain classes that "break" the ruleset, balancewise.


Second As well Ranger's Favored Enemy works on a per hit basis, and if your two wepaon fighting against your favored enemy you'd be a fool not to two weapon fight if you took that combat path even at the minimum +2 against it ( anyone want to break it down for me)
Rangers have an advantage for another reason, as well, which I mentioned: They can have a full set of off-hand attacks and still have a high strength bonus. This is a bigger deal than favored enemy, since anything that only affects one type of creature is hard to factor into the overall balance.



Third Style is important, Who ever said it wasn't yet it seems to be effectively discrerditied.

It's important, but we're talking balance, where it doesn't matter.



4th you (almost) Double your attacks you effectively double the chance you have for getting/landing a crit, dont see that factored in and that's juust laxiness, crits can be wigged out if you do it right

First of all, no it doesn't come close to doubling the of chance them, thanks to the crit threat roll, and the -2 to-hit penalty applied to both the hit roll and the threat roll, but that doesn't matter. A crit on a greatsword will still do more damage than a combined main-hand/offhand double-crit while dual weilding...and you have a much better chance of criting on a single greatsword attack than critting with both your main and offhand simultaneously.



5th, Power Attack isn't optimum for Two Weapon fighting, so why are you comparing it like it is? Not everrything is point for point comparable, if anyone wants to explain to me how alertness , is point to point comparrible to green bound summoning for instance. Some Feats are better than others

I never mentioned power attack AT ALL. I didn't consider it relevant. But if you want to include power attack, include it as a qualification for cleave/great cleave, which will add a lot more 2d6 + STRx1.5 attacks to the greatsword weilder's round...


6th Diversity is a value in itself, Yeah Greatsword Joe and his Buddy Sword and Board Ted are nice, But what happens when they get grabbled?

They have lots of spare feats over the dual weilder. Let them take improved grapple and watch how successful enemy grapple attacks are against the high-strength two handed types.


what about the ability to throw and melee at the same time, what about twin throwing ( The Dagger or Axe Master ) etc.

Almost always a poor decision in combat.



Theirs lot of sideways stuff you conviently neglected in assuming fighters and power attack is the king of the ring, and that makes for a poor argument my friends.

Again, I never once mentioned power attack.



I really think that you do not recognize how powerful an extra attack can be, the versatility etc that having more than twf'ers around brings etc. The Game is all about make pretend and the moral of a group of differents make for a stronger whole, yet some people can't get over that each and every character is not going to optimized for the same thing ( Damage in this case)

Actually, I said two handers SHOULD do more damage than dual weilding. Dual weilding should improve your defensive abilities.

Rigeld2
2007-01-15, 10:00 AM
First, Not saying that Two Weapon Fighting Roxors , but when your a rouge looking to eviserate subjects in the first round it's the extra attacks that count not the damage on the attacks ( which is nicely suplimented by your sneak attack)
This is the only reason ever to TWF = having lots of per hit damage.


4th you (almost) Double your attacks you effectively double the chance you have for getting/landing a crit, dont see that factored in and that's juust laxiness, crits can be wigged out if you do it right
Instead of calling others lazy, how about you educate yourself. You dont come close to double the crit rate by TWF.


5th, Power Attack isn't optimum for Two Weapon fighting, so why are you comparing it like it is?
Thats the only way for a TWFer to possibly come close to the damage a THFer can do. Without that, TWF falls even more behind.


6th Diversity is a value in itself, Yeah Greatsword Joe and his Buddy Sword and Board Ted are nice, But what happens when they get grabbled?
Cause... being grappled cant ever happen to the TWFer. And the saving of feats allow them to pick up Imp. Grapple, giving a bonus, on top of the fact that they can dump Dex and max STR whereas a TWFer cant.

what about the ability to throw and melee at the same time
Wow... what a useless ability.

, what about twin throwing ( The Dagger or Axe Master ) etc.
Rarely good.


Theirs lot of sideways stuff you conviently neglected in assuming fighters and power attack is the king of the ring, and that makes for a poor argument my friends.
Youre making a poor argument that anything you mentioned even matters.


I really think that you do not recognize how powerful an extra attack can be, the versatility etc that having more than twf'ers around brings etc.
Versatility? THFers have the feat room to pick up battlefield control feats. TWFers dont. Thats versatility.


The Game is all about make pretend and the moral of a group of differents make for a stronger whole, yet some people can't get over that each and every character is not going to optimized for the same thing ( Damage in this case)
TWFers are all about doing damage - with that kind of feat investment thats the only thing they can be. THFers have the room to branch out.

Hileria
2007-01-15, 10:05 AM
Min/maxers attack... again. How incredibly boring. "I always equip my fighter with a greatsword, because I can do x extra points of damage, and I've got the math to prove it." Break out of your stale mold once in a while - try something different for crying out loud. Here's a thought: come up with a character concept with a little more depth than "How to kill things the quickest". You might actually find you enjoy your game a little more.

Maybe your character has a quirk - he's got a shield that's nothing special, but it's been handed down in his family for generations and it's considered good luck. Or he once saw a guy wielding twin daggers take down huge bruiser in full plate, and now he's sold on that fighting style. Or heck, maybe he does the bastard sword and shield deal - two handed when he wants a little more damage, and one-handed and shield when he wants more protection.

My cleric is wielding a short spear. Now the goddess didn't mandate that I need to use her favored weapon, but since it is the favored weapon that's what I chose to use. Egads, only 1d6 instead of 1d8. How will I ever cope?

Flex some role-playing muscles (even in decisions as minimally role-playing based as equipment layout can sometimes be) sometimes instead of always basing every decision on the math.

Bears With Lasers
2007-01-15, 10:08 AM
Don't get me started on how unbalancing it is for rogues to be able to make full round attack actions of sneak attacks while flanking, period. I never mentioned rogues here, but yes, you can always create situations with certain classes that "break" the ruleset, balancewise.

ERRRNT. Buzz, wrong. Full attacks with sneak attack aren't unbalancing; leaving aside the fact that they can't apply, the damage can fairly easily be matched and exceeded by a guy with a greatsword (10d6 is only 35 average damage!), and rogues are fragile. The TWFing rogue gets splattered in melee.

TWF is one way of optimizing Sneak Attack, but Sneak Attack is an ability to let rogues contribute something in combat--it doesn't make them kings of damage, viable front-line fighters, or unbalanced in any way.

Bears With Lasers
2007-01-15, 10:11 AM
Min/maxers attack... again. How incredibly boring. "I always equip my fighter with a greatsword, because I can do x extra points of damage, and I've got the math to prove it." Break out of your stale mold once in a while - try something different for crying out loud. Here's a thought: come up with a character concept with a little more depth than "How to kill things the quickest". You might actually find you enjoy your game a little more.
Because obviously, anyone who cares about balance or talks about mechanics never roleplays and bases all of their decisions on killing things the quickest.
Right.


Flex some role-playing muscles (even in decisions as minimally role-playing based as equipment layout can sometimes be) sometimes instead of always basing every decision on the math.To put it bluntly: you're assuming a hell of a lot here, and you're totally wrong for doing it. Not everyone who realizes that THF beats TWF hands down always uses THF. In fact, a lot of posts like this happen because people have a problem with that--they think TWF should be mechanically just as viable as TWF. You shouldn't have to gimp your character mechanically for the sake of roleplaying.

Edit: And, oh, yeah--not only is D&D a bad game for a pure roleplaying experience, your roleplaying isn't inherently superior to anyone's powergaming, so quit trying to suggest that people are having badwrongfun by making effective characters, even if they do it without any thought for fluff. People play the way they like. If it works for them and their group, that's what matters.

ExHunterEmerald
2007-01-15, 10:11 AM
Min/maxers attack... again. How incredibly boring. "I always equip my fighter with a greatsword, because I can do x extra points of damage, and I've got the math to prove it."

...the entire point of this is pointing out an in-game flaw with TWF. So damage and weapon choice have relevance. And while I'm quick to support roleplaying over optimization, I've got to point out that nobody likes to suck.

Bears With Lasers
2007-01-15, 10:14 AM
Shut up! Don't you know that you're not a REAL roleplayer if your character is mechanically effective?! It's not as though D&D is in part about the mechanics, after all! It evolved from improvisational theater, not tactical wargaming! That's what makes it such a perfect system for pure roleplay--screw crunch-obsessed systems like Wushu and games like Nobilis!

Talya
2007-01-15, 10:15 AM
ERRRNT. Buzz, wrong. Full attacks with sneak attack aren't unbalancing; leaving aside the fact that they can't apply, the damage can fairly easily be matched and exceeded by a guy with a greatsword (10d6 is only 35 average damage!), and rogues are fragile. The TWFing rogue gets splattered in melee.

TWF is one way of optimizing Sneak Attack, but Sneak Attack is an ability to let rogues contribute something in combat--it doesn't make them kings of damage, viable front-line fighters, or unbalanced in any way.

Different issue for a different thread.
Suffice it to say that rogues were never meant to be primary combat classes, they are balanced by their skills, combat is secondary to them. Giving them the ability to do 66d6 in a single round should simply never happen (even as unlikely as those later attacks are to hit). A rogue should never even come close to the damage potential of a primary fighting or casting class.

Talya
2007-01-15, 10:16 AM
Heh...as for the arguments about min-maxing and roleplaying, it is possible to be a good roleplayer AND to be simultaneously concerned with game mechanics and being effective, you know.

Bears With Lasers
2007-01-15, 10:19 AM
Different issue for a different thread.
Suffice it to say that rogues were never meant to be primary combat classes, they are balanced by their skills, combat is secondary to them. Giving them the ability to do 66d6 in a single round should simply never happen (even as unlikely as those later attacks are to hit). A rogue should never even come close to the damage potential of a primary fighting or casting class.
I'd suffice it to say that, except it's totally wrong. They *don't* have the ability to do 66d6 in a single round, because they will miss with a number of attacks, period. They aren't close to the combat effectiveness of a primary fighting or casting class (casting classes aren't very good at damage, and it's their single worst option, meleeing casters like clerics and druids aside).

Sneak attack is what MAKES the rogue a secondary combatant. Without it, they wouldn't be secondary--they'd be useless in a fight. Sneak attack makes them viable secondary combatants--able to produce a significant amount of damage, even if they can't do as much or hit as well as fighter types. D&D, by default, revolves heavily around combat--it would totally suck to play a character who was "balanced by his skills" so much that he couldn't do anything in a fight.

ExHunterEmerald
2007-01-15, 10:20 AM
Heh...as for the arguments about min-maxing and roleplaying, it is possible to be a good roleplayer AND to be simultaneously concerned with game mechanics and being effective, you know.


This is true!
I'm playing a sword-and-board paladin, and I'm looking at Leaping Attack to improve my charge damage, because I can see it apply to him as a character.
It can also be fun to work out in-game stuff far, far ahead of time, or even reflect mechanic choices as you develop. Making the game and the fluff mesh perfectly leads to more fun than exclusivity in either.

Hileria
2007-01-15, 10:25 AM
TWF only "sucks" if you you're primarily concerned about how much damage your doing. Unless your DM is min/maxing every critter or NPC he throws at you - you shouldn't have to be damage optimized in order to have an enjoyable game. And if that's the case, try to talk the DM out of it.

My contention is that you feel your character is gimped by taking TWF, that you're overly concerned with damage output. One of the sessions my players told me they enjoyed the most was a classic murder mystery -- find the clues, solve the murder. There was one, and only one combat, in the entire adventure. Role-playing beats out dice rolling any day with my group. But heck, if you're group is more geared to ginsu-ing critters and like it - more power to ya.

Bears With Lasers
2007-01-15, 10:31 AM
TWF only "sucks" if you you're primarily concerned about how much damage your doing. Unless your DM is min/maxing every critter or NPC he throws at you - you shouldn't have to be damage optimized in order to have an enjoyable game. And if that's the case, try to talk the DM out of it.
It's D&D. Being competitive in combat is usually a part of an enjoyable game. On the subject of "shouldn't have to", you shouldn't have to be sucky in combat just because your character's a TWFer.


My contention is that you feel your character is gimped by taking TWF, that you're overly concerned with damage output. One of the sessions my players told me they enjoyed the most was a classic murder mystery -- find the clues, solve the murder. There was one, and only one combat, in the entire adventure. Role-playing beats out dice rolling any day with my group. But heck, if you're group is more geared to ginsu-ing critters and like it - more power to ya.Mm-hmm. And... what exactly stops Greatsword Joe from finding clues, solving murder, or roleplaying?
The point is, when it does come to combat (and let's not kid ourselves, it's D&D, so it will; the best and combat-lightest D&D game I've had had the first three without any combat and averaged a combat every two sessions, with combat in every session towards the end), you will suck if you went with TWF over THF*. Big showdown with the BBEG? You'll be contributing very little. That's not fun for most people.
Your character IS mechanically gimped by taking TWF. Even if it's an investigative or social game, you spend three feats on TWF, and those are feats you could have spent or social stuff or investigative stuff--or even just on Skill Focus: Basketweaving, because you're a REAL ROLEPLAYER and that was the crappiest feat you could find that fits your character. And if, god forbid, there should be combat (you know, that thing the majority of the D&D rules, spells, items, etc. deal with), you'll be gimped combat-wise, too.
So why is "stop caring that you're gimped!" the right response, here?

*Unless you have a significant source of bonus damage, like Sneak Attack.

Talya
2007-01-15, 10:37 AM
I'd suffice it to say that, except it's totally wrong. They *don't* have the ability to do 66d6 in a single round, because they will miss with a number of attacks, period.

I accounted for that, but they DO have the ability to hit with them all. The fact that they'll usually miss with some is irrelevant.



They aren't close to the combat effectiveness of a primary fighting or casting class (casting classes aren't very good at damage, and it's their single worst option, meleeing casters like clerics and druids aside).

Except they do more damage than any of the other classes in a group. WAY more damage. As for damage of casting classes, it's the primary function of the sorceror to be a cannon, so I disagree. And a rogue still outdamages them.


Sneak attack is what MAKES the rogue a secondary combatant. Without it, they wouldn't be secondary--they'd be useless in a fight. Sneak attack makes them viable secondary combatants--able to produce a significant amount of damage, even if they can't do as much or hit as well as fighter types. D&D, by default, revolves heavily around combat--it would totally suck to play a character who was "balanced by his skills" so much that he couldn't do anything in a fight.

This is just Everquest mentality sneaking into pen and paper gaming. Rogues were never intended to be major damage dealers.

House rule in my campaigns makes sneak attacking a standard action in any situation, therefore while you can flank-sneak attack, you can't do it more than once in a round. Rogues are balanced by skill ranks, not by ever approaching the combat damage of classes who's job it is to do damage. Any DM worth his salt will have a party in a dungeon without a rogue utterly screwed.

Morty
2007-01-15, 10:39 AM
What many people on this board seem to mess up is the difference between 'to suck' and 'to be non-optimized'. As long as I can do something, concept > optimization. Sure, TWFing character may be less efficent than THWer, but it's still no monkey-gripping kobold samurai.

Matthew
2007-01-15, 10:42 AM
It's true. Two Weapon Fighting is mechanically inferior to Two Handed Fighting, except in very limited circumstances. There's no two ways about it.

I used Power attack in the above data to show why Two Handed Fighting is superior to Two Weapon Fighting. If you don't Power Attack with Two Weapon Fighting, the situation is far worse.

Bear in mind that comparing styles must be done within one Character Class. Comparing a Two Weapon Rogue to Two Handed Weapon Fighter tells you nothing about the style and everything about Sneak Attack.

There's little optimised about a Two Handed Weapon Fighter with Power Attack. It's as basic as it gets.

Previous Discussion:

Two Weapon Fighting (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=30734)

Fronko
2007-01-15, 10:46 AM
One of the sessions my players told me they enjoyed the most was a classic murder mystery -- find the clues, solve the murder. There was one, and only one combat, in the entire adventure. Role-playing beats out dice rolling any day with my group.

Which is perfectly reflected in the choice of your avatar, I suppose. ;)

ExHunterEmerald
2007-01-15, 10:50 AM
I accounted for that, but they DO have the ability to hit with them all. The fact that they'll usually miss with some is irrelevant.
No it's not. Do you plan encounters assuming every hit is going to be a critical, since it's technically possible?


Except they do more damage than any of the other classes in a group. WAY more damage. As for damage of casting classes, it's the primary function of the sorceror to be a cannon, so I disagree. And a rogue still outdamages them.
That depends on the caster's playstyle.


This is just Everquest mentality sneaking into pen and paper gaming. Rogues were never intended to be major damage dealers.
I disagree. I've played maybe two hours of WoW and I still believe rogues should have some ability in melee aside from being a skillmonkey.


House rule in my campaigns makes sneak attacking a standard action in any situation, therefore while you can flank-sneak attack, you can't do it more than once in a round. Rogues are balanced by skill ranks, not by ever approaching the combat damage of classes who's job it is to do damage. Any DM worth his salt will have a party in a dungeon without a rogue utterly screwed.
They don't approach the combat damage, is the thing--they're a secondary combatant.

Bears With Lasers
2007-01-15, 10:51 AM
I accounted for that, but they DO have the ability to hit with them all. The fact that they'll usually miss with some is irrelevant.
What? No, it's not. By that mentality, the Fighter just Power Attacks for his full BAB with every attack and always crits (hey, it's possible! The fact that they'll usually miss not/crit is irrelevant). Pick up a scythe, woo, that's +40 damage, more than the rogue's sneak attack before the x4 critical multiplier (+160 a hit, whee!)--and it works on everything, and without even trying.
What matters is average damage. The rogue's is going to be lower, because the rogue will miss a lot. 35 AC is pretty much standard for high-level opponents (i.e. Balor)--if you think the rogue is ever going to hit that except on a very high roll (balanced out by low rolls that miss on his primary attacks) with his -10 attacks, well, I'm not sure what to say.
The fact that they miss is very relevant, because it means that they do less damage.


Except they do more damage than any of the other classes in a group. WAY more damage. As for damage of casting classes, it's the primary function of the sorceror to be a cannon, so I disagree. And a rogue still outdamages them.Do you know why the rogue otudamages the sorcerer? Because spellcasters suck at doing damage. Woo! Fireball! 5d6, that's 17 points on average! The fighter does about that with each swing.
They're okay at damaging lots of opponents at once, but that's pretty irrelevant, as if you're fighting lots of opponents, they're weaker (or they'd just kill you all) and not as much of a threat--let the fighter spend a few extra rounds cutting them up.
Damage is the least effective option of arcane casters. Buffing, debuffing, and battlefield control are the choices of an effective spellcaster. (For example, compare the damage output of a Fireball to the damage done from the extra attacks granted to everyone by Haste).

Rogues do not outdamage fighters. If they do, the fighter is doing it wrong, or focusing on defense rather than offense.
At higher levels, between crit-immune creatures and Fortification, sneak attack often doesn't even come into play.


This is just Everquest mentality sneaking into pen and paper gaming. Rogues were never intended to be major damage dealers. I think it's pretty safe to say they were intended to do exactly as much damage as they do, since they were, you know, given sneak attack, and allowed to use it with every attack (as opposed to 2E's Backstab).
Rogues aren't major damage dealers. They're OK at it--which makes them helpful in combat. Without it, they'd have nothing but their skills, which would essentially mean that the rogue is only slightly better than an Expert and has nothing worth doing in a fight. All of the classes are meant to be able to contribute to combat.


House rule in my campaigns makes sneak attacking a standard action in any situation, therefore while you can flank-sneak attack, you can't do it more than once in a round. Rogues are balanced by skill ranks, not by ever approaching the combat damage of classes who's job it is to do damage.Except that skill ranks come into play more rarely and with less significant effects than combat (which can, you know, kill you) most of the time. Sneak attack once a round makes the Rogue a crappier Warlock, and Warlocks are bad enough.
Rogues are skill/trapmonkeys. This doesn't mean that they shouldn't be able to contribute in a fight. Why should they be the only class with that distinction? Clerics can heal and fight. Wizards can cast utility spells and fight. Rangers can track and fight. Fighters can, um, fight and fight some more.
Sneak attack doesn't make rogues into evisceration machines. Instead, it keeps them marginally capable in combat. It makes them relevant, rather than completely ignorable. (+10d6 on one attack at level 20? What opponent will *care*?)
The primary function of rogues is skillmonkeying. That doesn't mean they should be able to contribute next to nothing in combat--and what they DO contribute, as is, isn't more significant than anyone else. Rogues ARE already secondary combatants. They've got a decent but not overwhelming damage output, and they're fragile, which means they get splattered if they wade in and try to gut things all the time. Look, it's a gray render! Oh no, the rogue got grappled, now he's dead in one round.

Charity
2007-01-15, 10:54 AM
My calming music pre-empted me .. there is little reason to read the following, but I won't edit it and stop any of the naturally curious amongst you....

Are they trying to rile BWL into the LN snap trap?
Don't bite so hard man, there are dozens of threads where you have been proven mechanically correct on the whole TWF thing, and the Sneak attack malarky. I'd point at one but I'm too bone idle.
As for the whole you can't role play if you do more than X damage a round skit it is bunce and we all know it ..
*plays bear soothing music*
"If you go down to the woods today..."

ExHunterEmerald
2007-01-15, 10:55 AM
...I ought to just leave it to Bears, seeing as he's said everything I have, only better.
Or just invest in a Cloak of Charisma.

Bears With Lasers
2007-01-15, 10:56 AM
I'm a bear. Well, bears. I either bite people or shoot them with laser beams from my eyes. That's the way it's gotta be.

Were-Sandwich
2007-01-15, 10:57 AM
I must play a monkey gripping kobold samurai now.

Bears With Lasers
2007-01-15, 10:57 AM
...do you have any idea of how very flammable you are?

Were-Sandwich
2007-01-15, 11:03 AM
I'm sorry, but the mental image is hilarious.

Charity
2007-01-15, 11:07 AM
I'm a bear. Well, bears. I either bite people or shoot them with laser beams from my eyes. That's the way it's gotta be.
Hey min max man you're not allowed to role play at the detriment of your character are you?


Sorry sorry

Leave it, leave it
*pulled back by a red haired girl wearing head to foot burbury*
leave em Sharon ee's not worth it

Yakk
2007-01-15, 11:08 AM
Holy Flaming Frost Sneak Attacks Batman!

+14d6 damage per hit.

Do a L 16 rogue/L 4 full-BaB class to get +16 BaB. You lose 2 Sneak Attack dice, but now a fighter taking 4 points of power attack is competative.

+10 favoured enemy, oversized two-weapon fighting, double holy axiomatic flaming frost bastardswords.

41.5 damage per hit before strength & crits. 1.5x strength damage total, 2x power attack damage. Twice as many rounds, so 83 damage per round of hits.

In comparison, a "2 power attack, -2 to hit, +4 damage" holy axiomatic flaming frost greatsword with +10 favoured enemy damage. 47 damage per hit. Same ability to deliver power attack, same ability to deliver strength bonus.

The Greatsword user beats the TWFer on a charge, but in full attack melee the TWF wins from sheer bonus dice delivery.

I'm aware that weapon finess is gimpy if you aren't playing a rogue with buckets of sneak attack damage to back it up. Weapon Finess is a last resort ability. Melee in D&D is about strength.

And yes, it takes a bucketload of feats to make TWF viable.

Morty
2007-01-15, 11:08 AM
Well, medium-sized katana is actually probably bigger than kobold, and is he's wielding medium-sized wakizashi off-hand it's indeed hilarious.

Matthew
2007-01-15, 11:10 AM
So close, Charity. You almost derailed this thread...

Bears With Lasers
2007-01-15, 11:11 AM
Yakk--you're assuming the Greatsword Guy hasn't done anything with his feats. He could have, say, taken Weapon Specialization and Greater Weapon Specialization (or, more to the point, Leap Attack and Shock Trooper), or various other feats.

Oh, and let's not forget damage reduction, which knocks five to fifteen points off every attack--what doesn't have it, at high levels?

Matthew
2007-01-15, 11:14 AM
Costs him a lot less as well...

Also Two Handed Fighting + Off Hand Spiked Armour = Bleh! (+ Animated Shield = Double Bleh!)

Charity
2007-01-15, 11:14 AM
http://www.silverbearcafe.com/private/images/train_wreck.jpg
How much harder does one have to try?

v :tongue:

ExHunterEmerald
2007-01-15, 11:15 AM
[im]http://www.silverbearcafe.com/private/images/train_wreck.jpg[/img]
How much harder does one have to try?
Well, a little harder to open the img tag...Hee.

Charity
2007-01-15, 11:20 AM
OOoo I have a sort of on topic Q

Can you cast two spectal hand (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/spectralHand.htm) spells and use TWF with chill touch? (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/chillTouch.htm)


v Cool

Bears With Lasers
2007-01-15, 11:20 AM
Yes, you can.

Valairn
2007-01-15, 11:23 AM
I have it!!!!!!

Kobold Monkey Gripping Exotic Maul while sneak attacking and power attacking!

ExHunterEmerald
2007-01-15, 11:25 AM
...why sneak attacking?

Bears With Lasers
2007-01-15, 11:25 AM
*shoots Valairn with his eye-lasers*

Valairn
2007-01-15, 11:27 AM
Honestly..... just the visual

Truwar
2007-01-15, 11:27 AM
TWF is most useful for a somewhat narrow range of characters in D&D. Mainly for rogue/swashbuckler types. When you get outside of those you tend not to do as well (although High Sword/ Low Axe is VERY nice). My only real gripe with TWF is how incredibly feat intensive it is to walk that path. I personally believe that the flexibility provided by two-weapon fighting (especially when wielding a double weapon) brings it up to pretty much on-par with THF. The thing is, the TWF specialist (and you really have to be a specialist if you are going to be wielding two weapons) has to spend quite a number of feats to be on-par with any Joe Hack n’ Slash that walks up and grabs himself a two-handed weapon (not just a Greatsword, there are a lot of really nice two-handed weapons, the Guisarme comes to mind…).



Min/maxers attack... again. How incredibly boring. "I always equip my fighter with a greatsword, because I can do x extra points of damage, and I've got the math to prove it." Break out of your stale mold once in a while - try something different for crying out loud. Here's a thought: come up with a character concept with a little more depth than "How to kill things the quickest". You might actually find you enjoy your game a little more.

Maybe your character has a quirk - he's got a shield that's nothing special, but it's been handed down in his family for generations and it's considered good luck. Or he once saw a guy wielding twin daggers take down huge bruiser in full plate, and now he's sold on that fighting style. Or heck, maybe he does the bastard sword and shield deal - two handed when he wants a little more damage, and one-handed and shield when he wants more protection.

My cleric is wielding a short spear. Now the goddess didn't mandate that I need to use her favored weapon, but since it is the favored weapon that's what I chose to use. Egads, only 1d6 instead of 1d8. How will I ever cope?

Flex some role-playing muscles (even in decisions as minimally role-playing based as equipment layout can sometimes be) sometimes instead of always basing every decision on the math.

Why not just dispense with those pesky rules altogether? I mean, by your standards, you should not even roll dice as it gets in the way of “real” Role Playing. The desire for a balanced underlying rule framework for your RPG does not mean you are a Min/Maxer or a bad Role Player. Conversely, just because you make a sub-powerful character does not mean you are a good role-player. I suppose what I am trying to say is that the desire for a balanced rule-system for your RPG does not mean you are some kind of mindless powergamer.

Orzel
2007-01-15, 11:27 AM
TWF is only useful for sneak attack character and people who always buys maxxed up weapons. The more damage you can scram on each attack, the better TWF becomes. The problem is damage scramming is hard to do without lowering AC or AB by a lot. Therefore class features are the things that make TWF worthy.

TWF is pretty much for:

Str based TWF rangers
Fighters and Rangers with heavily enhanced weaponry
SA masters in melee

Str based TWF rangers can add STR damage without using points on DEX. But they are very easy to hit.

Fighters and Rangers with heavily enhanced weaponry can weild 2 weapons with +X worth of enhancements . They can hold +2X weaponry and be high damage dealers. Their defense often sufferes though.

SA masters in melee can rack up a lot of damage. They can deal the most damage to low AC enemies. But their low BAB and AC often makes them require a debuff on their target.

Also if your DM makes a high AC world/quest/enemy, extra chances at a 15+ roll at full BAB is nice. (curse you NWN1)

Shatenjager
2007-01-15, 11:29 AM
What many people on this board seem to mess up is the difference between 'to suck' and 'to be non-optimized'. As long as I can do something, concept > optimization. Sure, TWFing character may be less efficent than THWer, but it's still no monkey-gripping kobold samurai.


Holy Crap I need to play that charachter!

I can see him now, standing atop the hill in the middle of a vast battlefield after having vanquished his gnomish enemies who lie in a pile around him wielding the kobaldic equivalent of a no-dachi. Yes! Yes! Let the vortex of suck that is Gimpy the Kobald commence!

Matthew
2007-01-15, 11:30 AM
Damn it, just give the Kobold a Small Great Sword!

ExHunterEmerald
2007-01-15, 11:31 AM
ZOMG UR A MINMAXER!11four

Matthew
2007-01-15, 11:31 AM
Nah, I just hate to see Kobolds suffer needlessly... (especially Samurai ones - they have it so bad already)

Shatenjager
2007-01-15, 11:34 AM
If I played him I would probably do that. I would also probably play him as a paladin or a fighter. But at the same time, he is "Gimpy Kobald, Samurai, master of the Monkey grip school of fighting"

This is the part where you come up with the concept and make him work mechanically. You're still kinda screwed though as you need to roll something huge for strength.

Matthew
2007-01-15, 11:37 AM
I suppose you could always have him Monkey Grip two Medium Wakizash... I don't think it counts as a D&D Daisho, though. Actually, he could probably Monkey Grip a Katana and a Wakizashi...

I can see it now, the Kobold who killed a Human Samurai and adopted his weapons and style of combat! (little knowing how lame it was - perhaps deludng himself that it was a glorious victory)

MrCab
2007-01-15, 11:44 AM
TWF is great for sneak attack and anything that gives you bonuses per hit, like Sneak Attack. But even without that, the base damage is slightly flawed. Just go TWF with two short swords, and at least in one pair of attacks, you match 2d6+150% Str damage from a great sword. From there, the two handed fighter has power attack and no -2 to attack to help him out, while the TWF guy has twice as much sneak attack damage (though only when applicable), and the possibility of twice as many magic weapon abilities getting applied (immune to fire? this other weapon does cold damage. Cold Iron no good? This one's Silver. Think Haley and Sabine).

So in essence, it's much easier to do Two Handed fighting: less feats, more consistant damage. Two weapon fighting is expensive (feats & paying for two weapons), but gives you the chance to apply more abilities.

AtomicKitKat
2007-01-15, 11:54 AM
ZOMG, Skill Focus: Craft, Basketweaving is so OP. You could make a masterwork basket and seriously hurt somebody by throwing it, or put someone's eye out by throwing an uncompleted basket with all its loose ends in their face. For the true roleplayer, nothing beats Skill Focus: Meditation. :P

DeathQuaker
2007-01-15, 12:12 PM
Both will have similar armor class (because of the heavy the armor they will wear), the greatsword weilder will do more damage from strength bonus alone, and then from much greater accuracy and will also have four extra feats to spare (Finesse, TWF, ITWF, GTWF.)

First of all, before I get into anything, I agree with your ultimate conclusion: TWF should be designed better as a defensive fighting style.

I wanted to politely niggle at this, though: you seem to assume that any TWF build will automatically include ITWF and GTWF. Most of the builds I've thought up don't, actually. I'd rather take feats that improve damage or crit range of the weapons I'm TWF-ing with -- if you do want to do some damage with TWFing, I find that adding on that 4th attack at -10 really doesn't do a thing for you, and you're better off taking another feat anyway.

You are right, it is much easier to max damage output as a two-hander fighter than a TWFer. And I agree that's how it should be--when I make TWF builds it's usually not to be a max-damager--and they usually have other abilities that make up for it.

It would be nice to boost the defensiveness of TWF. Maybe when taking the TWD feat, rather than simply gain an additional +1 to your AC when fighting defensively, your penalty to attack lowers by 2. In other words, you're fighting in a way that makes it easier to fight defensively and set up ripostes. Or something along those lines...

Ramza00
2007-01-15, 12:43 PM
so many of these responses in this thread should be ignored due to the high amount of vitrol. Regardless.

TWF doesn't compare to THF unless you can add a good amount of , such as weapon enchantments, sneak attack, or magic spells. For example this build.

----------------------------------------------

Monk 2/Paladin 9/Fist of Raziel 9

For full monk damage use
Ascetic Knight Feat (Monk and Paladin lvls stack for unarmed and smite damage)
Superior Unarmed Strike (+4 monk lvls for unarmed damage)
Monk's Belt (+5 monk lvls for unarmed damage)
=2d10 damage.

Other Feats
Divine Might
TWF
ITWF
GTWF
Serenity (Changes Turn Attempts, Divine Grace, and Lay on Hands to Work off Wisdom instead of Cha)
Snap Kick?

Have your party wizard cast greater mighty wallop on your fists. Its a 3rd lvl spell that lasts per hours per day, at caster lvl 16 it will last 16 hours per day and give you 4 damage size increases (but not literal size increases). If he bitches smack him upside the head with your copy of the PHB, then buy him a pearl of power.

2d10+4 Size increase (consult p28 of the DMG)=12d8 damage per hit.

This is before weapon enchantments, strength, power attack, smite, divine might etc. Grab an amulet of mighty fists or the savage species amulet to add weapon enchantments to your natural weapons (note you already have your fist enchanted with a permanent greater magic fang for the +5 enchantment bonus)

The above build has 19 bab (I use partials), he can easily grab the TWF feats and still have a decent BAB, and his damage would be vastily boosted by the 3 additional attacks, you might want to even add snap kick to the build. Note this build doesn't utilize Improved Natural Attack for 12d8 is as far as the chart on page 28 goes :smallwink:

4 Attacks+1 Haste+3 TWF+1 Flurry+1 Snap Kick=10 Attacks with alot of damage.

Note you would only want to be using Flurry and Snap Kick when you are smiting due to the fact flurry and Snap Kick each lower your Attack Bonus by 2 for all attacks only to gain one extra attack.

Yakk
2007-01-15, 12:57 PM
Flurry of Blows doesn't stack with TWF, does it?

Viscount Einstrauss
2007-01-15, 12:59 PM
I think it does, but unless you have good TWF feats stacked into it, you're gonna have one hell of a time hitting anything.

Ramza00
2007-01-15, 01:05 PM
Read the FAQ, yes it does.


The description of the flurry of blows ability says
there’s no such thing as a monk attacking with an off-hand
weapon during a flurry of blows. What does that mean,
exactly? Can the monk make off-hand attacks in addition to
flurry attacks?
Actually, the text to which you refer appears in the entry
for unarmed strikes. When a monk uses her unarmed strike
ability, she does not suffer any penalty for an off-hand attack,
even when she has her hands full and attacks with her knees
and elbows, using the flurry of blows ability to make extra
attacks, or both.
The rules don’t come right out and say that a monk can’t
use an unarmed strike for an off-hand strike (although the exact
wording of the unarmed strike ability suggests otherwise), and
no compelling reason why a monk could not do so exists.
When using an unarmed strike as an off-hand attack, the monk
suffers all the usual attack penalties from two-weapon fighting
(see Table 8–10 in the Player’s Handbook) and the monk adds
only half her Strength bonus (if any) to damage if the off-hand
unarmed strike hits.
To add an off-hand attack to a flurry of blows, stack
whatever two-weapon penalty the monk has with the penalty (if
any) from the flurry. Attacks from the flurry have the monk’s
full damage bonus from Strength, but the off-hand attack gains
only half Strength bonus to damage. If the off-hand attack is a
weapon, that weapon isn’t available for use in the flurry (if it
can be used in a flurry at all, see the previous question). For
example, a 4th-level monk with the Two-Weapon Fighting feat
and a Strength score of 14 decides to use a flurry of blows and
decides to throw in an off-hand attack as well. The monk has a
base attack bonus of +3 and a +2 Strength bonus. With a flurry,
the character can make two attacks, each at +3 (base +3, –2
flurry, +2 Strength). An unarmed strike is a light weapon, so
the monk suffers an additional –2 penalty for both the flurry
and the off-hand attack, and the monk makes three attacks,
each at an attack bonus of +1. The two attacks from the flurry
are primary attacks and add the monk’s full Strength bonus to
damage of +2. The single off-hand attack adds half the monk’s
Strength bonus to damage (+1).
If the monk in our example has two sais to use with the
flurry, plus the off-hand attack, she can use both in the flurry
(in which case she must make the off-hand attack with an
unarmed strike) or one sai for the off-hand attack and one with
the flurry. The sai used in the off-hand attack is not available
for the flurry and vice versa.


Can a monk fight with two weapons? Can she combine
a two-weapon attack with a flurry of blows? What are her
penalties on attack rolls?
A monk can fight with two weapons just like any other
character, but she must accept the normal penalties on her
attack rolls to do so. She can use an unarmed strike as an offhand
weapon. She can even combine two-weapon fighting with
a flurry of blows to gain an extra attack with her off hand (but
remember that she can use only unarmed strikes or special
monk weapons as part of the flurry). The penalties for twoweapon
fighting stack with the penalties for flurry of blows.
For example, at 6th level, the monk Ember can normally
make one attack per round at a +4 bonus. When using flurry of
blows, she can make two attacks (using unarmed strikes or any
special monk weapons she holds), each at a +3 bonus. If she
wants to make an extra attack with her off hand, she has to
accept a –4 penalty on her primary hand attacks and a –8
penalty on her off-hand attacks (assuming she wields a light
weapon in her off hand).
If Ember has Two-Weapon Fighting, she has to accept only
a –2 penalty on all attacks to make an extra attack with her off
hand. Thus, when wielding a light weapon in her off hand
during a flurry of blows, she can make a total of three attacks,
each at a total bonus of +1. At least one of these attacks has to
be with her off-hand weapon.
A 20th-level monk with Greater Two-Weapon Fighting can
make eight attacks per round during a flurry of blows.
Assuming she wields a light weapon in her off hand, her three
off-hand weapon attacks are at +13/+8/+3, and she has five
attacks (at +13/+13/+13/+8/+3) with unarmed strikes or any
weapons she carries in her primary hand. If the same monk also
has Rapid Shot and throws at least one shuriken as part of her
flurry of blows (since Rapid Shot can be used only with ranged
attacks), she can throw one additional shuriken with her
primary hand, but all of her attacks (even melee attacks) suffer
a –2 penalty. Thus, her full attack array looks like this:
+11/+11/+11/+11/+6/+1 primary hand (two must be with
shuriken) and +11/+6/+1 off hand.

Ramza00
2007-01-15, 01:06 PM
I think it does, but unless you have good TWF feats stacked into it, you're gonna have one hell of a time hitting anything.
That is why I did a paladin monk build which gets full bab except 2 lvls, and I recommend you only using flurry and snap kick when you are smiting and thus get wis to hit added to all your attacks. (Took Serenity which modifies Cha to Hit to Wis to Hit).

Thomas
2007-01-15, 01:26 PM
"X attacks for X average damage" is pointless. You need to calculate the actual average, which is modified by final attack bonus. One point of difference is a 5% difference in average damage.

Talya
2007-01-15, 01:27 PM
What? No, it's not. By that mentality, the Fighter just Power Attacks for his full BAB with every attack and always crits

It's not relevant because it affects all classes equally on their latter attacks in a full round action. If you're saying those attacks aren't useful because they can never hit, then you wouldn't complain if one removed sneak attack from them, now, would you?


What matters is average damage.
Which, mathematically for a rogue doing flanking full round sneak attacks, averages 4-5x as much as a fighter using a greatsword. Not sure where you get lower at all.


The fact that they miss is very relevant, because it means that they do less damage.

And again, that greatsword is going to miss a lot with later attacks, too. Big whoop, they get an extra one at +5 over the rogue...trust me: +20@2d6/+15@2d6/+10@2d6/+5@2d6 is less average damage than +13@11d6/+13@11d6/+8@11d6/+8@11d6/+3@11d6/+3@11d6. A LOT less.




Do you know why the rogue otudamages the sorcerer? Because spellcasters suck at doing damage. Woo! Fireball! 5d6, that's 17 points on average! The fighter does about that with each swing.

5d6? At level 5, maybe. By level 20 (which is what the above examples are all assuming), it's 20d6. More with metamagics. 40d6 for disintegrate.



Rogues do not outdamage fighters. If they do, the fighter is doing it wrong, or focusing on defense rather than offense.

Even if the fighter goes +10 damage/-5 to hit from power attack, the rogue will outdamage them if they get flanking.


At higher levels, between crit-immune creatures and Fortification, sneak attack often doesn't even come into play.
Specific situations of crit-immune creatures don't get balanced in here, any more than you can assume favored enemy applies on any given ranger example. Besides, it's lower & mid level stuff that tends to be more crit-immune, like undead. High level stuff (like outsiders) are completely susceptible to them.



I think it's pretty safe to say they were intended to do exactly as much damage as they do, since they were, you know, given sneak attack, and allowed to use it with every attack (as opposed to 2E's Backstab).

And yet you just admit they were. Backstab was one of the few things 2E got right.


Rogues aren't major damage dealers. They're OK at it--which makes them helpful in combat. Without it, they'd have nothing but their skills, which would essentially mean that the rogue is only slightly better than an Expert and has nothing worth doing in a fight. All of the classes are meant to be able to contribute to combat.

1 sneak attack per round will keep pace with a fighter's 2 hand bonus.



Except that skill ranks come into play more rarely and with less significant effects than combat (which can, you know, kill you) most of the time.


And traps and locked doors can't kill you? We generally make a lot more skill checks than attack rolls.


Rogues are skill/trapmonkeys. This doesn't mean that they shouldn't be able to contribute in a fight. Why should they be the only class with that distinction? Clerics can heal and fight. Wizards can cast utility spells and fight. Rangers can track and fight. Fighters can, um, fight and fight some more.

Sure...the moment you give all the other classes 8 skills + int per level, and more class skills to make up for it, you've got a point.


Sneak attack doesn't make rogues into evisceration machines.

It doesn't if you're inept at playing a rogue. If you have some tactical sense, it very well does make them into evisceration machines.

Desaril
2007-01-15, 01:27 PM
This thread is heated! Whew, I like debate, but I'm outclassed!

I think everyone knows that TWF is mechanically weaker than THF, but I must support Hileria's basic premise- that the mechanics rules should be role-play neutral. If I have to choose mechanics over role-playing to be effective (whatever that means), then I probably will. The DM will have to respond by choosing opposition that is mechanically better. Then mechanics begin to overshadow role-playing. That's not a bad thing to all players, but it is a bad thing to many.

If we simply want to maximize the mechanics, we quickly find the optimal builds and repeat them. We see the same phenomena in CCG (most competitive Magic decks look very similar because certain cards are just more effective). And since mechanics in a RPG are largely mathematical, we can figure out the results on paper (or computer) without even meeting.

Lastly, just like BWL said, if you want a system that encourages more roleplaying, D20 may not be your choice. Of course, given all the history , novels, campaign settings, and other "fluff" provided by WOTC, it's hard to accept that we can't balance the two objectives. Rather than throw out all my d20 stuff, I just want to make "corrective additions".

To that purpose, I applaud Talya's insightful analysis and agree that TWF should be amended to make it a neutral choice compared to other combat feats to encourage choosing different options.

Thomas
2007-01-15, 01:31 PM
It's not relevant because it affects all classes equally on their latter attacks in a full round action. If you're saying those attacks aren't useful because they can never hit, then you wouldn't complain if one removed sneak attack from them, now, would you?


Which, mathematically for a rogue doing flanking full round sneak attacks, averages 4-5x as much as a fighter using a greatsword. Not sure where you get lower at all.



And again, that greatsword is going to miss a lot with later attacks, too. Big whoop, they get an extra one at +5 over the rogue...trust me: +20@2d6/+15@2d6/+10@2d6/+5@2d6 is less average damage than +13@11d6/+13@11d6/+8@11d6/+8@11d6/+3@11d6/+3@11d6. A LOT less.

The rogue's attack bonus is going to be a lot lower than the fighter's. Possibly by as much as 10 or more. Again, it's -5% damage for every point less in attack bonus. That adds up real quick.

(And those damage values are ridiculous.)

Rigeld2
2007-01-15, 01:39 PM
And again, that greatsword is going to miss a lot with later attacks, too. Big whoop, they get an extra one at +5 over the rogue...trust me: +20@2d6/+15@2d6/+10@2d6/+5@2d6 is less average damage than +13@11d6/+13@11d6/+8@11d6/+8@11d6/+3@11d6/+3@11d6. A LOT less.

If a fighter is only doing 2d6 at level 20, hes inept.

Talya
2007-01-15, 01:46 PM
If a fighter is only doing 2d6 at level 20, hes inept.

Note I included only dice damage there, the other stuff will average out. You could include power attack, but it will reduce the fighter to +15/+10/+5/+0, and end up not affecting the overall damage much. Strength bonuses will favor the fighter, weapon damage bonuses (+elemental damage, +enhancement damage) will favor the rogue, etc. It all balances out...easiest just to use the base dice.

Talya
2007-01-15, 01:48 PM
The rogue's attack bonus is going to be a lot lower than the fighter's. Possibly by as much as 10 or more. Again, it's -5% damage for every point less in attack bonus. That adds up real quick.

(And those damage values are ridiculous.)

All other things being equal, it's a +7 difference at level 20. That's a 35% loss.

Note that that means on the first two sneak attack swings a rogue is going to average a little over 7x the damage of the fighter. The following two swings are at -25% for them both, so it drops to a 6x advantage on the rogue. The next two swings the rogue only averages 3x the damage of the fighter's one. The last swing belongs to the fighter alone, where he averages half a d6 damage, and the rogue has nothing.

Assuming the +20 has a 100% hit rate (which it doesn't, but it averages out properly if you use it), the fighter will average 5d6 damage (+bonuses) over 4 attacks, and the rogue will average about 26d6 + bonuses over that same round.

Rigeld2
2007-01-15, 01:51 PM
Note I included only dice damage there, the other stuff will average out. You could include power attack, but it will reduce the fighter to +15/+10/+5/+0, and end up not affecting the overall damage much. Strength bonuses will favor the fighter, weapon damage bonuses (+elemental damage, +enhancement damage) will favor the rogue, etc. It all balances out...easiest just to use the base dice.
Power Attack wont affect the overall damage much? -5 for +10 normally, +20 leap attacked, and im sure hes got shock trooper so its really -20 AC for +40. Incidentally, thats a higher damage than your 11d6 average, on top of the fact that the Fighter will hit more often.

The Fighter will also have better gear overall - the TWF rog is spending twice as much on weapons.

Rigeld2
2007-01-15, 01:53 PM
All other things being equal, it's a +7 difference at level 20. That's a 35% loss.
Part of the point is, all other things are not equal.

ImperiousLeader
2007-01-15, 01:56 PM
I refuse to touch the roll-play vs. role-play argument with the 10 ft. pole I have in my backpack ;)

However, there is a new feat that does offer TWF builds some punch: Stormguard Warrior. This tactical feat from Tome of Battle offers the ability to make touch attacks that deal no damage, so that you gain +5 damage for each touch attack on every attack you make next round. So, if you land three touch attacks in round 1, in round 2 every attack you make against the same target deal +15 points damage.

A mathematical comparison between TWF with Stormguard Warrior and Power Attack can be found here (http://boards1.wizards.com/showthread.php?p=9874597#post9874597). This makes the Warblade one of the better classes for TWF builds, especially since they can use the Mongoose maneuvers to truly get an obscene number of attacks.

Thomas
2007-01-15, 02:00 PM
Note I included only dice damage there, the other stuff will average out.

Er, no, it won't? The fighter will have a better Strength, and even the most unimaginative Weapon Spec. fighter will have extra damage from that. That's just scratching the surface. Power Attack will affect the damage hugely (here's a calculator (http://direpress.bin.sh/tools/power.html) to show how much); when used in the right amount, it will boost average damage immensely.


All other things being equal, it's a +7 difference at level 20. That's a 35% loss.

That's a hugely significant loss. One-third less hitting.

Your assumptions are shoddy; pick a series of average ACs (maybe 25, 30, 35) and calculate the actual average damages for a given set of realistic attack bonuses and total damage values against them, and then we'll have something concrete to talk about.

Talya
2007-01-15, 02:08 PM
Power Attack wont affect the overall damage much? -5 for +10 normally, +20 leap attacked, and im sure hes got shock trooper so its really -20 AC for +40. Incidentally, thats a higher damage than your 11d6 average, on top of the fact that the Fighter will hit more often.

The Fighter will also have better gear overall - the TWF rog is spending twice as much on weapons.

What is this "leap attacked" and shock trooper damage you're speaking of? It doesn't sound like standard SRD stuff, or even the more common campaign rulebooks.

You'd lose 25% of your power attack damage--and all other damage you do-- on the first attack, on average, from extra misses. You'd lose 33% of it on the second hit, from extra misses. You'd lose 50% of it on the 3rd swing....and about 95% of it on that last swing.

Note that to match the 10d6 sneak attack bonus, you'd need an average of +35 damage per hit.

Rigeld2
2007-01-15, 02:10 PM
Theyre both from Complete Warrior. Shock Trooper moves the to hit penalty to AC, and Leap Attack doubles Power Attack damage. So I dont miss any additional amount, and I do a huge amount more damage than you think I do.

Heck, if I was a Frenzied Berserker, itd be -20 AC for +120 damage per hit.

Just noticed a mistake above. With Leap Attack and Shock Trooper its -20 AC for +80 damage per hit, not +40.

Talya
2007-01-15, 02:12 PM
Ah, the "complete" books.

Let's leave them out of it...most of the stuff in them is so completely broken it isn't funny.

Amiria
2007-01-15, 02:13 PM
Nooooo ! Leap Attack is from Complete Adventurer. Search for those feats here, I'm to lazy at the moment to make fancy links:

http://realmshelps.dandello.net/datafind/feats.shtml


What is this "leap attacked" and shock trooper damage you're speaking of? It doesn't sound like standard SRD stuff, or even the more common campaign rulebooks.

Campaign rulebooks ? Do you mean campaign-specific sourcebooks ? No, they are not, but they are very common (and rather balanced) general splatbooks.

Were-Sandwich
2007-01-15, 02:15 PM
Leap Attack is from Complete Adventurer. ITs a common mistake, and it really should have been in CW anyway.

And Stormguard Warrior pwns. I started a thread about usign Channel The Storm to get obscene amounts of bonus damage.

Completes, broken. Please. There are much more broken supplement lines.

Talya
2007-01-15, 02:16 PM
Actually, before I claim leap attack is as broken as half the other stuff in the complete books, does it allow you to make a full attack? It sounds like a charge action of sorts...

Rigeld2
2007-01-15, 02:16 PM
Let's leave them out of it...most of the stuff in them is so completely broken it isn't funny.

...
Cause core is so balanced.


Nevermind, I'm through.

ImperiousLeader
2007-01-15, 02:18 PM
Actually, before I claim leap attack is as broken as half the other stuff in the complete books, does it allow you to make a full attack? It sounds like a charge action of sorts...

IIRC, Leap attack requires a charge action ... so the way to break it is to get pounce, allowing full attacks on a charge.

Talya
2007-01-15, 02:31 PM
IIRC, Leap attack requires a charge action ... so the way to break it is to get pounce, allowing full attacks on a charge.

Ah, like mixing scout and dervish, it's on a list of things that require immediate DM veto then. (actually, scout alone is on my list of things I veto...)

Were-Sandwich
2007-01-15, 02:34 PM
You think scouts are broken?
Please expand.

Rigeld2
2007-01-15, 02:36 PM
Ah, like mixing scout and dervish, it's on a list of things that require immediate DM veto then. (actually, scout alone is on my list of things I veto...)
Wow.

Do you allow clerics, wizards, and sorcs as written in Core?

Ramza00
2007-01-15, 02:36 PM
The new good full attack pouncer/leap attacker may be a scout 4/ranger 16 with the new complete scoundrel ranger/scout hybrid feat. You get 5d6 skirmish, full favored enemies, one of your favored enemies that was immune to precision damage isn't anymore (choices choices undead or constructs), twf bonus feats for free, and 16 lvls of ranger casting which gives you lion's charge 2nd lvl spell. 19 bab and since ac is usally all or nothing and your ac sucks, go leap attack and shock trooper.

Leush
2007-01-15, 02:40 PM
Isn't two weapon fighting weaker in real life too (assuming insane hp)?

What amuses me is that if someone takes TWF, TWD, and Improved Shield Bash, he is more effective at defense than someone who doesn't.

No big deal though? Here's what's funny though: Wielding your shield as a weapon makes your AC higher than wielding it as a shield.

In any case, just a note, don't forget to subtract the 'wasted' damage per monster from your average hit. Since if "Thog smash for 1d12+567 damage" and the monster has less hp, you're essentially wasting damage. (Although great cleave does replace that...)

To be fair I prefer two handed fighting, as much for the spare feats as for the flavor.

Thomas
2007-01-15, 02:47 PM
Isn't two weapon fighting weaker in real life too (assuming insane hp)?

What amuses me is that if someone takes TWF, TWD, and Improved Shield Bash, he is more effective at defense than someone who doesn't.

No big deal though? Here's what's funny though: Wielding your shield as a weapon makes your AC higher than wielding it as a shield.

How? You just get the +1 shield bonus to AC from TWD, instead of the +2 shield bonus (doesn't stack with TWD) plus enhancement bonuses etc. (which you don't get from TWD).

And whether fighting with two weapons beats fighting with a two-handed weapons is for another thread (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=18302), but I'd assume there were good reasons two-handed weapons weren't hugely popular in Europe in the late medieval and renaissance times (aside from armored longsword-fighting). Fighting with two weapons offers you extra protection, without the encumberance of the shield.

Fax Celestis
2007-01-15, 02:51 PM
Fighting with two weapons offers you extra protection, without the encumberance of the shield.

It's also cheaper to get a second dagger than a shield.

Talya
2007-01-15, 02:54 PM
Wow.

Do you allow clerics, wizards, and sorcs as written in Core?

Scout isn't core, and is pretty universally accepted as broken. Any non-core class requires DM approval to play.

Only changes i make to core rules:

I buff up rangers a bit (back to 1d10 hit dice), make a minor change to sneak attack. Sorcerors and bards get a small buff of a few extra "known spells" in campaign settings with extra large spell lists, but other than in those situations they're unchanged.

TWF feats get TWD of the same level added to them. Sneak attack is changed to a standard action. If done from concealment it gets a bonus chance to immediately render your target unconscious (vs. fortitude save.)

Ramza00
2007-01-15, 02:55 PM
What game do you play? Scout is weaker than rouge.

Were-Sandwich
2007-01-15, 03:01 PM
Tell Null we found another player for his Counter-D&D game.

ImperiousLeader
2007-01-15, 03:01 PM
Afterall, Scout can't trigger Skirmish on multiple attacks as easily as the rogue can trigger sneak attacks, and the damage is half of what the rogue achieves. I've never considered scouts broken, skirmish is nice and all, but it's hardly the uber-power. I'd have to see the stats of a full one, but even Scout/Dervish hardly strikes me as all that over-powered.

Talya
2007-01-15, 03:02 PM
What game do you play? Scout is weaker than rouge.

Someone hasn't thought it through...scout is pretty much unstoppable at upper levels, with great saves, higher hit points, high armor class, high damage while moving--which is always, unstoppable mobility (Freedom of movement as a constant ability), inability to be caught flatfooted, inability to be "sneak attacked", etc. etc. etc. + bonus feats, high running speed in a class that relies on mobility...coupled with 8 skill ranks per level, it's pretty awesome.

Were-Sandwich
2007-01-15, 03:03 PM
Skirmish is only useful in very specialised builds. Ranger/SCout/Dervish/Highland Stalker is a example.

^: You're joking right?

Fax Celestis
2007-01-15, 03:06 PM
Tell Null we found another player for his Counter-D&D game.

I've got to try that one of these days. You'd think with the way people talk about it, it's gotta be good.

clarkvalentine
2007-01-15, 03:08 PM
Note I included only dice damage there, the other stuff will average out.


In their wisdom, the 3.5 design team game each the TWF rogue and a THF fighter each a primary means of increasing their damage - rogues have Sneak Attack, fighters have Power Attack. Each is a fundamental, indispensable part of their repertoire. Accounting for one and ignoring the other does not lead to a valid comparison.

A THF fighter with Power Attack and a big sword is going to out-damage a TWF rogue every time.

Add in to this the question of how often a rogue really gets to make a full attack with sneak attacks every time. We played a long campaign with a high level TWF rogue. In a year of game time, I can count the number of flanking full attacks he got on one hand.

It's some nice damage, but in practice it's not nearly as powerful as it looks like it is at first glance.

- Clark

Yakk
2007-01-15, 03:24 PM
Talya considers rogues to be too strong.

Toss on 7 points of power attack on the L 20 fighter using a falcion -- that makes the combat round of the fighter look more like the rogue.

(keen on both):
13/13/8/8/3/3, each doing 11 + 35 bonus dice damage per attack, or 22+70 bonus dice per double-attack.
vs
13/8/3/-2, each doing 31 damage + bonus dice

Every point of +strength adds about +2 damage to both build's rounds.
Every point of +power attack adds about +2.6 damage to build's rounds.

If you only have a simple attack (ie, you are moving), the greatsword wins by far. But if you get to do a full round, the rogue dealing bonus dice wins. And the greatsword gets an extra attack at -2.

Without the rogue sneak attack dice, the two-handed fighter has a 9 point damage edge.

...

Fighter Keen Falchion vs Fighter Keen double-scimitar

18/18/13/13/8/8/3 @ 8.5 per swing + bonus damage
18/13/8/3 @ 14 per swing + bonus damage

14 vs 17 damage per round for the 18 13 and 8 to hit rounds.
Same crit profile.
Same power attack damage boost on 18 13 and 8 to hit rounds.
Same strength increase damage boost on 18 13 and 8 to hit rounds.

The 3 to hit round, if it connects, helps the two-handed fighter.

TWF with two scimitars requires 4 feats over THF with a falchion.

TWF can deliver extra bonus dice (holy, flaming, etc) easier.

THF gets to deal charge damage much better.

Rigeld2
2007-01-15, 03:31 PM
Someone hasn't thought it through...scout is pretty much unstoppable at upper levels, with great saves, higher hit points, high armor class, high damage while moving--which is always, unstoppable mobility (Freedom of movement as a constant ability), inability to be caught flatfooted, inability to be "sneak attacked", etc. etc. etc. + bonus feats, high running speed in a class that relies on mobility...coupled with 8 skill ranks per level, it's pretty awesome.
Great saves? Hes got the same saves as a Fighter, except its Reflex instead of Fort.
High armor class? You mean that Light armor plus the Skirmish AC? Cause thats all they get.
High damage while moving 10' or more per round which means no full attacks.
Barbarians also cant be sneaked or caught flat footed. They also get Fast Movement.

Its a decent class, but nothing awesome. And its nowhere near universally accepted as being broken.

Its not a great class unless youre going into Dervish. Then its worth it.

Fizban
2007-01-15, 03:36 PM
Scouts rely on Greater Many Shot, which IIRC effectively allows a full bow attack as a standard action.

ExHunterEmerald
2007-01-15, 03:36 PM
It's also cheaper to get a second dagger than a shield.
Not for enchanting.

Were-Sandwich
2007-01-15, 03:37 PM
Not literally, but thats the gist of it.

Fax Celestis
2007-01-15, 03:43 PM
Not for enchanting.

I'm referring to historically, or as if you were a commoner.

Rigeld2
2007-01-15, 03:55 PM
Scouts rely on Greater Many Shot, which IIRC effectively allows a full bow attack as a standard action.
Not really. As a lvl 20 scout your BAB is 15, using Greater Manyshot youd get 3 attacks at +9/+9/+9. Not really a full attack, but close. And you cant Rapid Shot or anything else with it, since its a standard action, not a full attack.

ImperiousLeader
2007-01-15, 03:58 PM
Don't you only get skirmish on one of those arrows?

its_all_ogre
2007-01-15, 03:59 PM
fighters outdamage even dual wielding rogues who flank for full attacks.
due to the fact that fighters have so many more bonuses to damage from power attack, leap attack, weapon spec, 1.5 str bonus, having a higher str than a rogue anyway helps.
it gets nasty when a ftr/rogue uses a greatsword and hs power attack and cleave/great cleave and tumbles into a flanking position.
with whirlwind attack instead actually makes the feat really worthwhile!

complete adventurer has nothing in it that is really overpowering, the scout class is nice but not overpowerful in anyway, in gestalt it rocks though, but if you're playing gestalt then you're obviously not worried about overpowered characters.

TWF should allow each weapon to have its own standard action when you have moved and drop the str bonus reduction on off hand attacks.
then the rogue can feint with one hand and instantly sneak attack with the other.
bear in mind the rogue normally relies on the +2 bonus flanking provides too much for this to be overpowering. also you can fight defensively with your off hand and attack normally with your main hand. or combine that with expertise, gaining shedloads more AC than a shield would give anyway.

Ramza00
2007-01-15, 04:01 PM
Don't you only get skirmish on one of those arrows?
With manyshot yes, greater manyshot you get it for all arrows.

Matthew
2007-01-15, 04:07 PM
Talya:
About Nine Months ago I was of your opinion. Over the course of a lengthy thread, I came to the realisation that Two Weapon Fighting Sneak Attack is not broken. The thread dealt with it quite extensively and you can find it here: Sneak Attack Questions (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=23007&highlight=Sneak+Attack)

Talya
2007-01-15, 04:14 PM
Skirmish is only useful in very specialised builds. Ranger/SCout/Dervish/Highland Stalker is a example.

^: You're joking right?

20 levels of scout is a highly specialized build that's insanely powerful by being unstoppable. Sure, they take a while to kill the enemy, but they'll do it without taking any damage themselves.

Fax Celestis
2007-01-15, 04:15 PM
20 levels of scout is a highly specialized build that's insanely powerful by being unstoppable. Sure, they take a while to kill the enemy, but they'll do it without taking any damage themselves.

By...having an AC in the mid-twenties?

Right.

Talya
2007-01-15, 04:16 PM
Don't you only get skirmish on one of those arrows?

With manyshot, yes, since it's a single attack roll.

In every other case, the scout gets the full skirmish bonus on every individual attack in a round in which he moves far enough. It's not relevant really, a scout is not likley to make more than a single standard attack action in a round (barring an inattentive DM who lets them take a feat or PrC that lets them make a full attack in a round in which they move).

Thomas
2007-01-15, 04:18 PM
TWF with two scimitars requires 4 feats over THF with a falchion.

And those feats come out of the total 8 that a human rogue gets by level 20 (add, what, 2-3 if you use your special abilities for feats, instead of, say, crippling strike, which is better for TWF).

The fighter gets 7+11 without even being human. More than double. Talk about versatility.


And Scout is only broken when I dip in it for Uncanny Dodge so my swashbuckler/fighter/duelist can't lose his 70+ AC when caught flat-footed... *cough* Thank Tymora for conveniently front-loaded classes.

Talya
2007-01-15, 04:22 PM
By...having an AC in the mid-twenties?

Right.


If you've only got an AC in the mid-20's at level 20, your build is weak or you're using inferior gear. My level 13 sorceress has 26 armor class in a game I'm a player in...and it's not a particularly magic-heavy campaign, and she's not really trying, her focus is on other stuff.

Talya
2007-01-15, 04:31 PM
And those feats come out of the total 8 that a human rogue gets by level 20 (add, what, 2-3 if you use your special abilities for feats, instead of, say, crippling strike, which is better for TWF).

The fighter gets 7+11 without even being human. More than double. Talk about versatility.

hence, the original post. TWF feats don't give you enough bang for the buck as it stands. Adding TWD to it at least gives it a reason for existing. (For every melee class.)



And Scout is only broken when I dip in it for Uncanny Dodge so my swashbuckler/fighter/duelist can't lose his 70+ AC when caught flat-footed... *cough* Thank Tymora for conveniently front-loaded classes.

And anybody min-maxing like that usually gets a few angry titans dropped on them just for existing...

Fax Celestis
2007-01-15, 04:35 PM
If you've only got an AC in the mid-20's at level 20, your build is weak or you're using inferior gear. My level 13 sorceress has 26 armor class in a game I'm a player in...and it's not a particularly magic-heavy campaign, and she's not really trying, her focus is on other stuff.

The point I'm making is that Scout's can't effectively Skirmish in anything but light armor, which gives them low AC and makes them a glass cannon.

Thomas
2007-01-15, 04:37 PM
And anybody min-maxing like that usually gets a few angry titans dropped on them just for existing...

Hey, it's perfectly rules-legal, with nothing but SRD equipment (and less than full WBL spent at that AC), one feat tree outside the SRD (Improved and Greater Two-Weapon Defense), and either one or two classes outside the SRD (since the Scout is optional)...

+19 AC when fighting defensively is really nice.

There's not even any weird synergies going on; it's just as much AC-boosting items as possible, combined with the best AC-boosting PrC (Duelist).

Talya
2007-01-15, 04:44 PM
The point I'm making is that Scout's can't effectively Skirmish in anything but light armor, which gives them low AC and makes them a glass cannon.

Scouts are pretty dexterity dependant, like most "light armor" classes.

You'll notice that if they focus on dexterity, the average rogue, swashbuckler, and even ranger or barbarian can be equal to a fighter in armor class. Scouts are no different, except they also have the skirmish armor class bonus (+5 at level 20). Not to mention the mobility armor class bonus (+4 against attacks of opportunity) in every round since they never stop moving (and can't be stopped, short of knocking them out/killing them.) You'll actually notice that the dexterity cap for armor tends to even out within a point of the armor's actual armor class. (so 8 AC, +1 dex, or 2ac, +7 dex, etc.) There is armor out there tailor made for you. (And chances are it's a mithral chain shirt or mithral breastplate.)

Matthew
2007-01-15, 04:50 PM
I, for one, would like to see this 'broken' Scout build and how it compares to a Fighter of the same level.

Fax Celestis
2007-01-15, 04:50 PM
Scouts are pretty dexterity dependant, like most "light armor" classes.

You'll notice that if they focus on dexterity, the average rogue, swashbuckler, and even ranger or barbarian can be equal to a fighter in armor class. Scouts are no different, except they also have the skirmish armor class bonus (+5 at level 20). Not to mention the mobility armor class bonus (+4 against attacks of opportunity) in every round since they never stop moving (and can't be stopped, short of knocking them out/killing them.) You'll actually notice that the dexterity cap for armor tends to even out within a point of the armor's actual armor class. (so 8 AC, +1 dex, or 2ac, +7 dex, etc.)

This is what spells like hold person, temporal stasis, and other immobilizing spells are for. The Scout has a weak will save (if I recall correctly), and as such is very susceptible to well-placed magical attacks, which (suprisingly enough) ignore AC.

Talya
2007-01-15, 04:55 PM
This is what spells like hold person, temporal stasis, and other immobilizing spells are for. The Scout has a weak will save (if I recall correctly), and as such is very susceptible to well-placed magical attacks, which (suprisingly enough) ignore AC.

The scout also gets "Freedom" (as per the level 9 wizard spell) as an "always-on", permanent class ability. They don't need to make a save...They're immune.

Legoman
2007-01-15, 04:56 PM
I didn't read the whole thread, but what about the following scenario:

It's one of our group's first time playing, and we're dropping him right into the current game at 17th level. I suggested all the different martial types, and he likes the idea of the monk the best.

His feat selection was something along the lines of Trip/Rapid Stunning/Freezing the Lifeblood/Extra Stunning/TWF chain. His STR is 26.

So, basically, we've got this guy whose attack progression along the lines of:

+18/+18/+18/+18/+13/+13/+8/+8

Now, between tripping, paralyzing, and using his CW-activated poison on his gloves, he's basically forcing fort saves versus lose, and opposed trip attempts versus lose harder (With free attacks on success) against everyone in the room.

This is a guy who can, very feasibly, knock everyone in the room on their ass in a single round, with half of them either paralyzed or short 1d10 CON.

As for to-hit problems? I'm using divine meta-magic to permanency brilliant aura on his fists.

So, TWF, warranted? What would have been better to take, in place of his role as a 'lol everyone loses?'

Also, his AC is 39.

Fax Celestis
2007-01-15, 04:58 PM
Then use close quarters! Wall of Force! Telekinetic Sphere! Deep Slumber! Confusion! There are ways to stop someone in their tracks without giving them a save and/or getting around Freedom of Movement.

The point is, in order to get that wonderful Skirmish boost, they've got to do something: move. And that means they have to move to get to you, otherwise they don't get that Skirmish damage. The solution therefore is: get something betweeen you and them.

EDIT: Or hell, FLY. He can't hit you if he can't reach you.

Talya
2007-01-15, 04:59 PM
Monk Flurry of Blows does not stack with TWF, it replaces it. Can't use both together.

Matthew
2007-01-15, 05:00 PM
No Talya, it stacks. Check the FAQ.

Skyserpent
2007-01-15, 05:00 PM
Monk Flurry of Blows does not stack with TWF, it replaces it.

Wrongo, Perry, It actually does. I didn't believe it at first but yeah, you can in fact add Two-Weapon Fighting to a Flurry, not that you would want to, I mean, their Attack Bonus isn't all that impressive already, and sinking -4 into it just to get one more attack? Ridiculous...

A Monk could also plug in Snap Kick just to make things more insane. That's a lot of strikes that aren't going to hit.

Legoman
2007-01-15, 05:03 PM
Brilliant Energy + Penalties for Flurry disappear eventually = Still Hit a Lot.

Talya
2007-01-15, 05:31 PM
Wrongo, Perry, It actually does. I didn't believe it at first but yeah, you can in fact add Two-Weapon Fighting to a Flurry, not that you would want to, I mean, their Attack Bonus isn't all that impressive already, and sinking -4 into it just to get one more attack? Ridiculous...

A Monk could also plug in Snap Kick just to make things more insane. That's a lot of strikes that aren't going to hit.

I specifically read something on wizard's site not long ago that said they didn't stack (basically, the reasoning was, flurry of blows already included every attack a monk could make with either hand, foot, head, weapon held, or other body part, but of course there are feats like circle kick that add to this, and it wouldn't be the first time they'd gone back on it.) Unfortunately, the Main35faq is down on their site right now, so I can't even check there.

The monk -2 Flurry penalty goes away at mid levels, you know.

Ramza00
2007-01-15, 05:34 PM
Read post 60 of this thread again, that is posted directly from the D&D FAQ which was updated less than a month ago.

Shhalahr Windrider
2007-01-15, 05:42 PM
also you can fight defensively with your off hand and attack normally with your main hand.
No, you can't.


Fighting Defensively as a Standard Action: You can choose to fight defensively when attacking. If you do so, you take a –4 penalty on all attacks in a round to gain a +2 dodge bonus to AC for the same round.
...
Fighting Defensively as a Full-Round Action: You can choose to fight defensively when taking a full attack action. If you do so, you take a –4 penalty on all attacks in a round to gain a +2 dodge bonus to AC for the same round.
(emphasis mine)

Matthew
2007-01-15, 05:46 PM
He appears to have meant 'if his optional rule was in play' [i.e. each weapon had its own Standard Action].

Bears With Lasers
2007-01-15, 06:30 PM
Someone hasn't thought it through...scout is pretty much unstoppable at upper levels, with great saves, higher hit points, high armor class, high damage while moving--which is always, unstoppable mobility (Freedom of movement as a constant ability), inability to be caught flatfooted, inability to be "sneak attacked", etc. etc. etc. + bonus feats, high running speed in a class that relies on mobility...coupled with 8 skill ranks per level, it's pretty awesome.
Unstoppable mobility? Please. Forcecage--where's your mobility now? Oh, and a Ring of Freedom of Movement (40k) gets anyone Freedom of Movement.
High damage? Please. Adding 5d6 to each hit, or even to one hit, is lousy damage at level 20. Great AC? Please. They're only 5 up on any lightly-armored warrior, and lightly-armored isn't necessarily the way to go for AC (a decent Dex and Mithral Fullplate will get you more than maxing Dex out).

What's your scout going to do when a fighter charges him? Or when a dragon catches him (since it moves faster)? Or when a balor uses its implosion SLA?
Or when it has to make a Fort or Will save? Oh, look, Finger of Death, Wail of the Banshee, Implosion, Insanity, Confusion, Fear, Slow, et cetera et cetera.


You have a very skewed view of D&D that doesn't even remotely resemble the way the game actually works. Rogues are melee monsters? (As everyone here who's actually done the math vs. a viable fighter build has told you, nnno.) Scouts are unstoppable? (Until they get charged or have to make a Fort or Will save.) The Complete splatbooks are broken? (The PHB has vastly more broken material than any of the Complete books--even Complete Divine.)


I'll put up sample AB and damage outputs vs. high-level monsters at some point soon. From what I can see, you're ignoring the fighter's much higher AB and Strength score but assuming the rogue will hit with every attack. No wonder you think the rogue is better.

Viscount Einstrauss
2007-01-15, 06:47 PM
I'm playing around with making a gestalt here, and I just found some funny things that help improve the whole TWF system-

First, it must be understood what all I did with this guy. He's a level Rogue/Barbarian 1, Ranger/Swashbuckler 2, Rogue/Swashbuckler 1, Rogue/Fighter 2, then some special class for four levels that I'm still figuring out, so we'll ignore it and just say he's the six levels I've figured out already.

The feat list looks something like this, completely out of order from whence they were obtained-
Track, Weapon Finesse, Two-Weapon Fighting, Improved Two-Weapon Fighting, Greater Two-Weapon Fighting, Combat-Reflexes, Two-Weapon Attack of Opportunity, Oversized Two-Weapon Fighting, and Exotic Weapon: Bastard Sword.

So, I've got a guy running around with two bastard swords with no penalty whatsoever for doing it, dealing an amusing amount of AoO damage. It took some MAJOR exploits of the class tree to do it, but I'm quite happy with myself.

Matthew
2007-01-15, 06:52 PM
Here's the basic layout before factoring in Attribute Modifiers and such:

Level 1


Fighter 1 A (Great Sword)

Feats: Weapon Focus (Great Sword), Power Attack,
[Base Attack Bonus (1) + Weapon Focus (1) – Power Attack (1) + Flanking (2)] = (3 AB)
[Great Sword (2D6) + Power Attack (2)] = (2D6+2, 9.0)

Fighter 1 B (Long Sword and Heavy Shield)

Feats: Weapon Focus (Long Sword), Power Attack,
[Base Attack Bonus (1) + Weapon Focus (1) – Power Attack (1) + Flanking (2)] = (3 AB)
[Long Sword (1D8) + Power Attack (1)] = (1D8+1, 5.5)

Fighter 1 C (Two Long Swords)

Feats: Two Weapon Fighting, Oversized Two Weapon Fighting,
[Base Attack Bonus (1) – Two Weapon Fighting (2) + Flanking (2)] = (1 AB)
[Long Sword (1D8)] = (1D8, 4.5)
[Base Attack Bonus (1) – Two Weapon Fighting (2) + Flanking (2)] = (1 AB)
[Long Sword (1D8)] = (1D8, 4.5)

Rogue 1 A (Short Sword)

Feats: [-],
= (2 AB)
[Short Sword (1D6) + Sneak Attack (1D6)] = (2D6, 7.0)

[B]Rogue 1 B (Two Short Swords)

Feats: Two Weapon Fighting,
= (0 AB)
[Short Sword (1D6) + Sneak Attack (1D6)] = (2D6, 7.0)
[Base Attack Bonus (0) – Two Weapon Fighting (2) + Flanking (2)] = (0 AB)
[Short Sword (1D6) + Sneak Attack (1D6)] = (2D6, 7.0)

[B]Attacking Armour Class 10

Fighter 1 A 70% (2D6+2, 9.0)
Fighter 1 B 70% (1D8+1, 5.5)
Fighter 1 C 60% (1D8, 4.5) / 60% (1D8, 4.5)
Rogue 1 A 65% (2D6, 7.0)
Rogue 1 B 55% (2D6, 7.0) / 55% (2D6, 7.0)

Attacking Armour Class 12

Fighter 1 A 60% (2D6+2, 9.0)
Fighter 1 B 60% (1D8+1, 5.5)
Fighter 1 C 50% (1D8, 4.5) / 50% (1D8, 4.5)
Rogue 1 A 55% (2D6, 7.0)
Rogue 1 B 45% (2D6, 7.0) / 45% (2D6, 7.0)

Attacking Armour Class 14

Fighter 1 A 50% (2D6+2, 9.0)
Fighter 1 B 50% (1D8+1, 5.5)
Fighter 1 C 40% (1D8, 4.5) / 40% (1D8, 4.5)
Rogue 1 A 45% (2D6, 7.0)
Rogue 1 B 35% (2D6, 7.0) / 35% (2D6, 7.0)

Attacking Armour Class 16

Fighter 1 A 40% (2D6+2, 9.0)
Fighter 1 B 40% (1D8+1, 5.5)
Fighter 1 C 30% (1D8, 4.5) / 30% (1D8, 4.5)
Rogue 1 A 35% (2D6, 7.0)
Rogue 1 B 25% (2D6, 7.0) / 25% (2D6, 7.0)

Attacking Armour Class 18

Fighter 1 A 30% (2D6+2, 9.0)
Fighter 1 B 30% (1D8+1, 5.5)
Fighter 1 C 20% (1D8, 4.5) / 20% (1D8, 4.5)
Rogue 1 A 25% (2D6, 7.0)
Rogue 1 B 15% (2D6, 7.0) / 15% (2D6, 7.0)

Attacking Armour Class 20

Fighter 1 A 20% (2D6+2, 9.0)
Fighter 1 B 20% (1D8+1, 5.5)
Fighter 1 C 10% (1D8, 4.5) / 10% (1D8, 4.5)
Rogue 1 A 15% (2D6, 7.0)
Rogue 1 B 5% (2D6, 7.0) / 5% (2D6, 7.0)

Level 2


Fighter 2 A (Great Sword)

Feats: Weapon Focus (Great Sword), Power Attack, Cleave,
[Base Attack Bonus (2) + Weapon Focus (1) – Power Attack (2) + Flanking (2)] = (3 AB)
[Great Sword (2D6) + Power Attack (4)] = (2D6+4, 11.0)

Fighter 2 B (Long Sword and Heavy Shield)

Feats: Weapon Focus (Long Sword), Power Attack, Cleave,
[Base Attack Bonus (2) + Weapon Focus (1) – Power Attack (2) + Flanking (2)] = (3 AB)
[Long Sword (1D8) + Power Attack (2)] = (1D8+2, 6.5)

Fighter 2 C (Two Long Swords)

Feats: Two Weapon Fighting, Oversized Two Weapon Fighting, Weapon Focus (Long Sword),
[Base Attack Bonus (2) + Weapon Focus (1) – Two Weapon Fighting (2) + Flanking (2)] = (3 AB)
[Long Sword (1D8)] = (1D8, 4.5)
[Base Attack Bonus (2) + Weapon Focus (1) – Two Weapon Fighting (2) + Flanking (2)] = (3 AB)
[Long Sword (1D8)] = (1D8, 4.5)

Rogue 2 A (Short Sword)

Feats: [-],
= (3 AB)
[Short Sword (1D6) + Sneak Attack (1D6)] = (2D6, 7.0)

[B]Rogue 2 B (Two Short Swords)

Feats: Two Weapon Fighting,
= (1 AB)
[Short Sword (1D6) + Sneak Attack (1D6)] = (2D6, 7.0)
[Base Attack Bonus (1) – Two Weapon Fighting (2) + Flanking (2)] = (1 AB)
[Short Sword (1D6) + Sneak Attack (1D6)] = (2D6, 7.0)

[B]Attacking Armour Class 10

Fighter 2 A 70% (2D6+4, 11.0)
Fighter 2 B 70% (1D8+2, 6.5)
Fighter 2 C 70% (1D8, 4.5) / 70% (1D8, 4.5)
Rogue 2 A 70% (2D6, 7.0)
Rogue 2 B 60% (2D6, 7.0) / 60% (2D6, 7.0)

Attacking Armour Class 12

Fighter 2 A 60% (2D6+4, 11.0)
Fighter 2 B 60% (1D8+2, 6.5)
Fighter 2 C 60% (1D8, 4.5) / 60% (1D8, 4.5)
Rogue 2 A 60% (2D6, 7.0)
Rogue 2 B 50% (2D6, 7.0) / 50% (2D6, 7.0)

Attacking Armour Class 14

Fighter 2 A 50% (2D6+4, 11.0)
Fighter 2 B 50% (1D8+2, 6.5)
Fighter 2 C 50% (1D8, 4.5) / 50% (1D8, 4.5)
Rogue 2 A 50% (2D6, 7.0)
Rogue 2 B 40% (2D6, 7.0) / 40% (2D6, 7.0)

Attacking Armour Class 16

Fighter 2 A 40% (2D6+4, 11.0)
Fighter 2 B 40% (1D8+2, 6.5)
Fighter 2 C 40% (1D8, 4.5) / 40% (1D8, 4.5)
Rogue 2 A 40% (2D6, 7.0)
Rogue 2 B 30% (2D6, 7.0) / 30% (2D6, 7.0)

Attacking Armour Class 18

Fighter 2 A 30% (2D6+4, 11.0)
Fighter 2 B 30% (1D8+2, 6.5)
Fighter 2 C 30% (1D8, 4.5) / 30% (1D8, 4.5)
Rogue 2 A 30% (2D6, 7.0)
Rogue 2 B 20% (2D6, 7.0) / 20% (2D6, 7.0)

Attacking Armour Class 20

Fighter 2 A 20% (2D6+4, 11.0)
Fighter 2 B 20% (1D8+2, 6.5)
Fighter 2 C 20% (1D8, 4.5) / 20% (1D8, 4.5)
Rogue 2 A 20% (2D6, 7.0)
Rogue 2 B 10% (2D6, 7.0) / 10% (2D6, 7.0)

Level 3


Fighter 3 A (Great Sword)

Feats: Weapon Focus (Great Sword), Power Attack, Cleave, [-],
[Base Attack Bonus (3) + Weapon Focus (1) – Power Attack (2) + Flanking (2)] = (4 AB)
[Great Sword (2D6) + Power Attack (4)] = (2D6+4, 11.0)

Fighter 3 B (Long Sword and Heavy Shield)

Feats: Weapon Focus (Long Sword), Power Attack, Cleave, [-],
[Base Attack Bonus (3) + Weapon Focus (1) – Power Attack (2) + Flanking (2)] = (4 AB)
[Long Sword (1D8) + Power Attack (2)] = (1D8+2, 6.5)

Fighter 3 C (Two Long Swords)

Feats: Two Weapon Fighting, Oversized Two Weapon Fighting, Weapon Focus (Long Sword), Power Attack,
[Base Attack Bonus (3) + Weapon Focus (1) – Two Weapon Fighting (2) – Power Attack (0) + Flanking (2)] = (4 AB)
[Long Sword (1D8) + Power Attack (0)] = (1D8, 4.5)
[Base Attack Bonus (3) + Weapon Focus (1) – Two Weapon Fighting (2) – Power Attack (0) + Flanking (2)] = (4 AB)
[Long Sword (1D8) + Power Attack (0)] = (1D8, 4.5)

Rogue 3 A (Short Sword)

Feats: [-], [-],
= (4 AB)
[Short Sword (1D6) + Sneak Attack (2D6)] = (3D6, 10.5)

[B]Rogue 3 B (Two Short Swords)

Feats: Two Weapon Fighting, Weapon Finesse,
= (2 AB)
[Short Sword (1D6) + Sneak Attack (2D6)] = (3D6, 10.5)
[Base Attack Bonus (2) – Two Weapon Fighting (2) + Flanking (2)] = (2 AB)
[Short Sword (1D6) + Sneak Attack (2D6)] = (3D6, 10.5)

[B]Attacking Armour Class 10

Fighter 3 A 75% (2D6+4, 11.0)
Fighter 3 B 75% (1D8+2, 6.5)
Fighter 3 C 75% (1D8, 4.5) / 75% (1D8, 4.5)
Rogue 3 A 75% (3D6, 10.5)
Rogue 3 B 65% (3D6, 10.5) / 65% (3D6, 10.5)

Attacking Armour Class 12

Fighter 3 A 65% (2D6+4, 11.0)
Fighter 3 B 65% (1D8+2, 6.5)
Fighter 3 C 65% (1D8, 4.5) / 65% (1D8, 4.5)
Rogue 3 A 65% (3D6, 10.5)
Rogue 3 B 55% (3D6, 10.5) / 55% (3D6, 10.5)

Attacking Armour Class 14

Fighter 3 A 55% (2D6+4, 11.0)
Fighter 3 B 55% (1D8+2, 6.5)
Fighter 3 C 55% (1D8, 4.5) / 55% (1D8, 4.5)
Rogue 3 A 55% (3D6, 10.5)
Rogue 3 B 45% (3D6, 10.5) / 45% (3D6, 10.5)

Attacking Armour Class 16

Fighter 3 A 45% (2D6+4, 11.0)
Fighter 3 B 45% (1D8+2, 6.5)
Fighter 3 C 45% (1D8, 4.5) / 45% (1D8, 4.5)
Rogue 3 A 45% (3D6, 10.5)
Rogue 3 B 35% (3D6, 10.5) / 35% (3D6, 10.5)

Attacking Armour Class 18

Fighter 3 A 35% (2D6+4, 11.0)
Fighter 3 B 35% (1D8+2, 6.5)
Fighter 3 C 35% (1D8, 4.5) / 35% (1D8, 4.5)
Rogue 3 A 35% (3D6, 10.5)
Rogue 3 B 25% (3D6, 10.5) / 25% (3D6, 10.5)

Attacking Armour Class 20

Fighter 3 A 25% (2D6+4, 11.0)
Fighter 3 B 25% (1D8+2, 6.5)
Fighter 3 C 25% (1D8, 4.5) / 25% (1D8, 4.5)
Rogue 3 A 25% (3D6, 10.5)
Rogue 3 B 15% (3D6, 10.5) / 15% (3D6, 10.5)

Level 4


Fighter 4 A (Great Sword)

Feats: Weapon Focus (Great Sword), Power Attack, Cleave, [-], Weapon Specialisation (Great Sword),
[Base Attack Bonus (4) + Weapon Focus (1) – Power Attack (2) + Flanking (2)] = (5 AB)
[Great Sword (2D6) + Weapon Specialisation (2) + Power Attack (4)] = (2D6+6, 13.0)

Fighter 4 B (Long Sword and Heavy Shield)

Feats: Weapon Focus (Long Sword), Power Attack, Cleave, [-], Weapon Specialisation (Long Sword),
[Base Attack Bonus (4) + Weapon Focus (1) – Power Attack (2) + Flanking (2)] = (5 AB)
[Long Sword (1D8) + Weapon Specialisation (2) + Power Attack (2)] = (1D8+4, 8.5)

Fighter 4 C (Two Long Swords)

Feats: Two Weapon Fighting, Oversized Two Weapon Fighting, Weapon Focus (Long Sword), Power Attack, Weapon Specialisation (Long Sword),
[Base Attack Bonus (4) + Weapon Focus (1) – Two Weapon Fighting (2) – Power Attack (0) + Flanking (2)] = (5 AB)
[Long Sword (1D8) + Weapon Specialisation (2) + Power Attack (0)] = (1D8+2, 6.5)
[Base Attack Bonus (4) + Weapon Focus (1) – Two Weapon Fighting (2) – Power Attack (0) + Flanking (2)] = (5 AB)
[Long Sword (1D8) + Weapon Specialisation (2) + Power Attack (0)] = (1D8+2, 6.5)

Rogue 4 A (Short Sword)

Feats: None Relevant,
= (5 AB)
[Short Sword (1D6) + Sneak Attack (2D6)] = (3D6, 10.5)

[B]Rogue 4 B (Two Short Swords)

Feats: Two Weapon Fighting, Weapon Finesse,
= (3 AB)
[Short Sword (1D6) + Sneak Attack (2D6)] = (3D6, 10.5)
[Base Attack Bonus (3) – Two Weapon Fighting (2) + Flanking (2)] = (3 AB)
[Short Sword (1D6) + Sneak Attack (2D6)] = (3D6, 10.5)

[B]Attacking Armour Class 10

Fighter 4 A 80% (2D6+6, 13.0)
Fighter 4 B 80% (1D8+4, 8.5)
Fighter 4 C 80% (1D8+2, 6.5) / 80% (1D8, 6.5)
Rogue 4 A 80% (3D6, 10.5)
Rogue 4 B 70% (3D6, 10.5) / 70% (3D6, 10.5)

Attacking Armour Class 12

Fighter 4 A 70% (2D6+6, 13.0)
Fighter 4 B 70% (1D8+4, 8.5)
Fighter 4 C 70% (1D8+2, 6.5) / 70% (1D8+2, 6.5)
Rogue 4 A 70% (3D6, 10.5)
Rogue 4 B 60% (3D6, 10.5) / 60% (3D6, 10.5)

Attacking Armour Class 14

Fighter 4 A 60% (2D6+6, 13.0)
Fighter 4 B 60% (1D8+4, 8.5)
Fighter 4 C 60% (1D8+2, 6.5) / 60% (1D8+2, 6.5)
Rogue 4 A 60% (3D6, 10.5)
Rogue 4 B 50% (3D6, 10.5) / 50% (3D6, 10.5)

Attacking Armour Class 16

Fighter 4 A 50% (2D6+6, 13.0)
Fighter 4 B 50% (1D8+4, 8.5)
Fighter 4 C 50% (1D8+2, 6.5) / 50% (1D8+2, 6.5)
Rogue 4 A 50% (3D6, 10.5)
Rogue 4 B 40% (3D6, 10.5) / 40% (3D6, 10.5)

Attacking Armour Class 18

Fighter 4 A 40% (2D6+6, 13.0)
Fighter 4 B 40% (1D8+4, 8.5)
Fighter 4 C 40% (1D8+2, 6.5) / 40% (1D8+2, 6.5)
Rogue 4 A 40% (3D6, 10.5)
Rogue 4 B 30% (3D6, 10.5) / 30% (3D6, 10.5)

Attacking Armour Class 20

Fighter 4 A 30% (2D6+6, 13.0)
Fighter 4 B 30% (1D8+4, 8.5)
Fighter 4 C 30% (1D8+2, 6.5) / 30% (1D8+2, 6.5)
Rogue 4 A 30% (3D6, 10.5)
Rogue 4 B 20% (3D6, 10.5) / 20% (3D6, 10.5)

Level 5


Fighter 5 A (Great Sword)

Feats: Weapon Focus (Great Sword), Power Attack, Cleave, [-], Weapon Specialisation (Great Sword),
[Base Attack Bonus (5) + Weapon Focus (1) – Power Attack (3) + Flanking (2)] = (5 AB)
[Great Sword (2D6) + Weapon Specialisation (2) + Power Attack (6)] = (2D6+6, 15.0)

Fighter 5 B (Long Sword and Heavy Shield)

Feats: Weapon Focus (Long Sword), Power Attack, Cleave, [-], Weapon Specialisation (Long Sword),
[Base Attack Bonus (5) + Weapon Focus (1) – Power Attack (3) + Flanking (2)] = (5 AB)
[Long Sword (1D8) + Weapon Specialisation (2) + Power Attack (3)] = (1D8+5, 9.5)

Fighter 5 C (Two Long Swords)

Feats: Two Weapon Fighting, Oversized Two Weapon Fighting, Weapon Focus (Long Sword), Power Attack, Weapon Specialisation (Long Sword),
[Base Attack Bonus (5) + Weapon Focus (1) – Two Weapon Fighting (2) – Power Attack (1) + Flanking (2)] = (5 AB)
[Long Sword (1D8) + Weapon Specialisation (2) + Power Attack (1)] = (1D8+3, 7.5)
[Base Attack Bonus (5) + Weapon Focus (1) – Two Weapon Fighting (2) – Power Attack (1) + Flanking (2)] = (5 AB)
[Long Sword (1D8) + Weapon Specialisation (2) + Power Attack (1)] = (1D8+3, 7.5)

Rogue 5 A (Short Sword)

Feats: None Relevant,
= 5 AB
[Short Sword (1D6) + Sneak Attack (3D6)] = (4D6, 14.0)

[B]Rogue 5 B (Two Short Swords)

Feats: Two Weapon Fighting, Weapon Finesse,
= 3 AB
[Short Sword (1D6) + Sneak Attack (3D6)] = (4D6, 14.0)
[Base Attack Bonus (3) – Two Weapon Fighting (2) + Flanking (2)] = 3 AB
[Short Sword (1D6) + Sneak Attack (3D6)] = (4D6, 14.0)

[B]Attacking Armour Class 10

Fighter 5 A 80% (2D6+8, 15.0)
Fighter 5 B 80% (1D8+5, 9.5)
Fighter 5 C 80% (1D8+3, 7.5) / 80% (1D8+3, 7.5)
Rogue 5 A 80% (4D6, 14.0)
Rogue 5 B 70% (4D6, 14.0) / 70% (4D6, 14.0)

Attacking Armour Class 12

Fighter 5 A 70% (2D6+8, 15.0)
Fighter 5 B 70% (1D8+5, 9.5)
Fighter 5 C 70% (1D8+3, 7.5) / 70% (1D8+3, 7.5)
Rogue 5 A 70% (4D6, 14.0)
Rogue 5 B 60% (4D6, 14.0) / 60% (4D6, 14.0)

Attacking Armour Class 14

Fighter 5 A 60% (2D6+8, 15.0)
Fighter 5 B 60% (1D8+5, 9.5)
Fighter 5 C 60% (1D8+3, 7.5) / 60% (1D8+3, 7.5)
Rogue 5 A 60% (4D6, 14.0)
Rogue 5 B 50% (4D6, 14.0) / 50% (4D6, 14.0)

Attacking Armour Class 16

Fighter 5 A 50% (2D6+8, 15.0)
Fighter 5 B 50% (1D8+5, 9.5)
Fighter 5 C 50% (1D8+3, 7.5) / 50% (1D8+3, 7.5)
Rogue 5 A 50% (4D6, 14.0)
Rogue 5 B 40% (4D6, 14.0) / 40% (4D6, 14.0)

Attacking Armour Class 18

Fighter 5 A 40% (2D6+8, 15.0)
Fighter 5 B 40% (1D8+5, 9.5)
Fighter 5 C 40% (1D8+3, 7.5) / 40% (1D8+3, 7.5)
Rogue 5 A 40% (4D6, 14.0)
Rogue 5 B 30% (4D6, 14.0) / 30% (4D6, 14.0)

Attacking Armour Class 20

Fighter 5 A 30% (2D6+8, 15.0)
Fighter 5 B 30% (1D8+5, 9.5)
Fighter 5 C 30% (1D8+3, 7.5) / 30% (1D8+3, 7.5)
Rogue 5 A 30% (4D6, 14.0)
Rogue 5 B 20% (4D6, 14.0) / 20% (4D6, 14.0)

Level 6


Fighter 6 A (Great Sword)

Feats: Weapon Focus (Great Sword), Power Attack, Cleave, [-], Weapon Specialisation (Great Sword), [-], [-],
[Base Attack Bonus (6) + Weapon Focus (1) – Power Attack (3) + Flanking (2)] = (6 AB)
[Great Sword (2D6) + Weapon Specialisation (2) + Power Attack (6)] = (2D6+6, 15.0)

Fighter 6 B (Long Sword and Heavy Shield)

Feats: Weapon Focus (Long Sword), Power Attack, Cleave, [-], Weapon Specialisation (Long Sword), [-], [-],
[Base Attack Bonus (6) + Weapon Focus (1) – Power Attack (3) + Flanking (2)] = (6 AB)
[Long Sword (1D8) + Weapon Specialisation (2) + Power Attack (3)] = (1D8+5, 9.5)

Fighter 6 C (Two Long Swords)

Feats: Two Weapon Fighting, Oversized Two Weapon Fighting, Weapon Focus (Long Sword), Power Attack, Weapon Specialisation (Long Sword), Improved Two Weapon Fighting, [-],
[Base Attack Bonus (6) + Weapon Focus (1) – Two Weapon Fighting (2) – Power Attack (1) + Flanking (2)] = (6 AB)
[Long Sword (1D8) + Weapon Specialisation (2) + Power Attack (1)] = (1D8+3, 7.5)
[Base Attack Bonus (6) + Weapon Focus (1) – Two Weapon Fighting (2) – Power Attack (1) + Flanking (2)] = (6 AB)
[Long Sword (1D8) + Weapon Specialisation (2) + Power Attack (1)] = (1D8+3, 7.5)

Rogue 6 A (Short Sword)

Feats: None Relevant,
= 6 AB
[Short Sword (1D6) + Sneak Attack (3D6)] = (4D6, 14.0)

[B]Rogue 6 B (Two Short Swords)

Feats: Two Weapon Fighting, Weapon Finesse, [-],
= 4 AB
[Short Sword (1D6) + Sneak Attack (3D6)] = (4D6, 14.0)
[Base Attack Bonus (4) – Two Weapon Fighting (2) + Flanking (2)] = 4 AB
[Short Sword (1D6) + Sneak Attack (3D6)] = (4D6, 14.0)

Level 7


[B]Fighter 7 A (Great Sword)

Feats: Weapon Focus (Great Sword), Power Attack, Cleave, [-], Weapon Specialisation (Great Sword), [-], [-],
[Base Attack Bonus (7) + Weapon Focus (1) – Power Attack (3) + Flanking (2)] = (7 AB)
[Great Sword (2D6) + Weapon Specialisation (2) + Power Attack (6)] = (2D6+6, 15.0)

Fighter 7 B (Long Sword and Heavy Shield)

Feats: Weapon Focus (Long Sword), Power Attack, Cleave, [-], Weapon Specialisation (Long Sword), [-], [-],
[Base Attack Bonus (7) + Weapon Focus (1) – Power Attack (3) + Flanking (2)] = (7 AB)
[Long Sword (1D8) + Weapon Specialisation (2) + Power Attack (3)] = (1D8+5, 9.5)

Fighter 7 C (Two Long Swords)

Feats: Two Weapon Fighting, Oversized Two Weapon Fighting, Weapon Focus (Long Sword), Power Attack, Weapon Specialisation (Long Sword), Improved Two Weapon Fighting, [-],
[Base Attack Bonus (7) + Weapon Focus (1) – Two Weapon Fighting (2) – Power Attack (1) + Flanking (2)] = (7 AB)
[Long Sword (1D8) + Weapon Specialisation (2) + Power Attack (1)] = (1D8+3, 7.5)
[Base Attack Bonus (7) + Weapon Focus (1) – Two Weapon Fighting (2) – Power Attack (1) + Flanking (2)] = (7 AB)
[Long Sword (1D8) + Weapon Specialisation (2) + Power Attack (1)] = (1D8+3, 7.5)

Rogue 7 A (Short Sword)

Feats: None Relevant,
= 7 AB
[Short Sword (1D6) + Sneak Attack (4D6)] = (5D6, 17.5)

[B]Rogue 7 B (Two Short Swords)

Feats: Two Weapon Fighting, Weapon Finesse, [-],
= 5 AB
[Short Sword (1D6) + Sneak Attack (4D6)] = (5D6, 17.5)
[Base Attack Bonus (5) – Two Weapon Fighting (2) + Flanking (2)] = 5 AB
[Short Sword (1D6) + Sneak Attack (4D6)] = (5D6, 17.5)

Level 8


[B]Fighter 8 A (Great Sword)

Feats: Weapon Focus (Great Sword), Power Attack, Cleave, [-], Weapon Specialisation (Great Sword), [-], [-], Greater Weapon Focus (Great Sword)
[Base Attack Bonus (8) + Weapon Focus (2) – Power Attack (4) + Flanking (2)] = (8 AB)
[Great Sword (2D6) + Weapon Specialisation (2) + Power Attack (8)] = (2D6+10, 17.0)

Fighter 8 B (Long Sword and Heavy Shield)

Feats: Weapon Focus (Long Sword), Power Attack, Cleave, [-], Weapon Specialisation (Long Sword), [-], [-], Greater Weapon Focus (Long Sword),
[Base Attack Bonus (8) + Weapon Focus (2) – Power Attack (4) + Flanking (2)] = (8 AB)
[Long Sword (1D8) + Weapon Specialisation (2) + Power Attack (4)] = (1D8+6, 10.5)

Fighter 8 C (Two Long Swords)

Feats: Two Weapon Fighting, Oversized Two Weapon Fighting, Weapon Focus (Long Sword), Power Attack, Weapon Specialisation (Long Sword), Improved Two Weapon Fighting, [-], Greater Weapon Focus (Long Sword),
[Base Attack Bonus (8) + Weapon Focus (2) – Two Weapon Fighting (2) – Power Attack (2) + Flanking (2)] = (8 AB)
[Long Sword (1D8) + Weapon Specialisation (2) + Power Attack (2)] = (1D8+4, 8.5)
[Base Attack Bonus (8) + Weapon Focus (2) – Two Weapon Fighting (2) – Power Attack (2) + Flanking (2)] = (8 AB)
[Long Sword (1D8) + Weapon Specialisation (2) + Power Attack (2)] = (1D8+4, 8.5)

Rogue 8 A (Short Sword)

Feats: None Relevant,
= 8 AB
[Short Sword (1D6) + Sneak Attack (4D6)] = (5D6, 17.5)

[B]Rogue 8 B (Two Short Swords)

Feats: Two Weapon Fighting, Weapon Finesse, [-],
= 6 AB
[Short Sword (1D6) + Sneak Attack (4D6)] = (5D6, 17.5)
[Base Attack Bonus (6) – Two Weapon Fighting (2) + Flanking (2)] = 6 AB
[Short Sword (1D6) + Sneak Attack (4D6)] = (5D6, 17.5)

Level 9


[B]Fighter 9 A (Great Sword)

Feats: Weapon Focus (Great Sword), Power Attack, Cleave, [-], Weapon Specialisation (Great Sword), [-], [-], Greater Weapon Focus (Great Sword), [-],
[Base Attack Bonus (9) + Weapon Focus (2) – Power Attack (5) + Flanking (2)] = (8 AB)
[Great Sword (2D6) + Weapon Specialisation (2) + Power Attack (10)] = (2D6+12, 19.0)

Fighter 9 B (Long Sword and Heavy Shield)

Feats: Weapon Focus (Long Sword), Power Attack, Cleave, [-], Weapon Specialisation (Long Sword), [-], [-], Greater Weapon Focus (Long Sword), [-],
[Base Attack Bonus (9) + Weapon Focus (2) – Power Attack (5) + Flanking (2)] = (8 AB)
[Long Sword (1D8) + Weapon Specialisation (2) + Power Attack (5)] = (1D8+7, 11.5)

Fighter 9 C (Two Long Swords)

Feats: Two Weapon Fighting, Oversized Two Weapon Fighting, Weapon Focus (Long Sword), Power Attack, Weapon Specialisation (Long Sword), Improved Two Weapon Fighting, [-], Greater Weapon Focus (Long Sword), [-],
[Base Attack Bonus (9) + Weapon Focus (2) – Two Weapon Fighting (2) – Power Attack (3) + Flanking (2)] = (9 AB)
[Long Sword (1D8) + Weapon Specialisation (2) + Power Attack (3)] = (1D8+4, 9.5)
[Base Attack Bonus (9) + Weapon Focus (2) – Two Weapon Fighting (2) – Power Attack (3) + Flanking (2)] = (9 AB)
[Long Sword (1D8) + Weapon Specialisation (2) + Power Attack (3)] = (1D8+4, 9.5)

Rogue 9 A (Short Sword)

Feats: [-], [-], [-], [-],
= 8 AB
[Short Sword (1D6) + Sneak Attack (5D6)] = (6D6, 21.0)

[B]Rogue 9 B (Two Short Swords)

Feats: Two Weapon Fighting, Weapon Finesse, [-], Improved Two Weapon Fighting,
= 6 AB
[Short Sword (1D6) + Sneak Attack (5D6)] = (6D6, 21.0)
[Base Attack Bonus (6) – Two Weapon Fighting (2) + Flanking (2)] = 6 AB
[Short Sword (1D6) + Sneak Attack (5D6)] = (6D6, 21.0)

Level 10


[B]Fighter 10 A (Great Sword)

Feats: Weapon Focus (Great Sword), Power Attack, Cleave, [-], Weapon Specialisation (Great Sword), [-], [-], Greater Weapon Focus (Great Sword), [-], [-],
[Base Attack Bonus (10) + Weapon Focus (2) – Power Attack (5) + Flanking (2)] = (9 AB)
[Great Sword (2D6) + Weapon Specialisation (2) + Power Attack (10)] = (2D6+12, 19.0)

Fighter 10 B (Long Sword and Heavy Shield)

Feats: Weapon Focus (Long Sword), Power Attack, Cleave, [-], Weapon Specialisation (Long Sword), [-], [-], Greater Weapon Focus (Long Sword), [-], [-],
[Base Attack Bonus (10) + Weapon Focus (2) – Power Attack (5) + Flanking (2)] = (9 AB)
[Long Sword (1D8) + Weapon Specialisation (2) + Power Attack (5)] = (1D8+7, 11.5)

Fighter 10 C (Two Long Swords)

Feats: Two Weapon Fighting, Oversized Two Weapon Fighting, Weapon Focus (Long Sword), Power Attack, Weapon Specialisation (Long Sword), Improved Two Weapon Fighting, [-], Greater Weapon Focus (Long Sword), [-], [-],
[Base Attack Bonus (10) + Weapon Focus (2) – Two Weapon Fighting (2) – Power Attack (3) + Flanking (2)] = (9 AB)
[Long Sword (1D8) + Weapon Specialisation (2) + Power Attack (3)] = (1D8+4, 9.5)
[Base Attack Bonus (10) + Weapon Focus (2) – Two Weapon Fighting (2) – Power Attack (3) + Flanking (2)] = (9 AB)
[Long Sword (1D8) + Weapon Specialisation (2) + Power Attack (3)] = (1D8+4, 9.5)

Rogue 10 A (Short Sword)

Feats: [-], [-], [-], [-],
= 9 AB
[Short Sword (1D6) + Sneak Attack (5D6)] = (6D6, 21.0)

[B]Rogue 10 B (Two Short Swords)

Feats: Two Weapon Fighting, Weapon Finesse, [-], Improved Two Weapon Fighting,
[Base Attack Bonus (7) – Two Weapon Fighting (2) + Flanking (2)] = 7 AB
[Short Sword (1D6) + Sneak Attack (5D6)] = (6D6, 21.0)
[Base Attack Bonus (7) – Two Weapon Fighting (2) + Flanking (2)] = 7 AB
[Short Sword (1D6) + Sneak Attack (5D6)] = (6D6, 21.0)

Matthew
2007-01-15, 06:54 PM
Level 11


Fighter 11 A (Great Sword)

Feats: Weapon Focus (Great Sword), Power Attack, Cleave, [-], Weapon Specialisation (Great Sword), [-], [-], Greater Weapon Focus (Great Sword), [-], [-],
[Base Attack Bonus (11) + Weapon Focus (2) – Power Attack (5) + Flanking (2)] = (10 AB)
[Great Sword (2D6) + Weapon Specialisation (2) + Power Attack (10)] = (2D6+12, 19.0)

Fighter 11 B (Long Sword and Heavy Shield)

Feats: Weapon Focus (Long Sword), Power Attack, Cleave, [-], Weapon Specialisation (Long Sword), [-], [-], Greater Weapon Focus (Long Sword), [-], [-],
[Base Attack Bonus (11) + Weapon Focus (2) – Power Attack (5) + Flanking (2)] = (10 AB)
[Long Sword (1D8) + Weapon Specialisation (2) + Power Attack (5)] = (1D8+7, 11.5)

Fighter 11 C (Two Long Swords)

Feats: Two Weapon Fighting, Oversized Two Weapon Fighting, Weapon Focus (Long Sword), Power Attack, Weapon Specialisation (Long Sword), Improved Two Weapon Fighting, [-], Greater Weapon Focus (Long Sword), [-], [-],
[Base Attack Bonus (11) + Weapon Focus (2) – Two Weapon Fighting (2) – Power Attack (3) + Flanking (2)] = (10 AB)
[Long Sword (1D8) + Weapon Specialisation (2) + Power Attack (3)] = (1D8+4, 9.5)
[Base Attack Bonus (11) + Weapon Focus (2) – Two Weapon Fighting (2) – Power Attack (3) + Flanking (2)] = (10 AB)
[Long Sword (1D8) + Weapon Specialisation (2) + Power Attack (3)] = (1D8+4, 9.5)

Rogue 11 A (Short Sword)

Feats: [-], [-], [-], [-],
= 10 AB
[Short Sword (1D6) + Sneak Attack (6D6)] = (7D6, 24.5.0)

[B]Rogue 11 B (Two Short Swords)

Feats: Two Weapon Fighting, Weapon Finesse, [-], Improved Two Weapon Fighting,
= 8 AB
[Short Sword (1D6) + Sneak Attack (6D6)] = (7D6, 24.5)
[Base Attack Bonus (8) – Two Weapon Fighting (2) + Flanking (2)] = 8 AB
[Short Sword (1D6) + Sneak Attack (6D6)] = (7D6, 24.5)

Level 12


[B]Fighter 12 A (Great Sword)

Feats: Weapon Focus (Great Sword), Power Attack, Cleave, [-], Weapon Specialisation (Great Sword), [-], [-], Greater Weapon Focus (Great Sword), [-], [-], Greater Weapon Specialisation (Great Sword), [-],
[Base Attack Bonus (12) + Weapon Focus (2) – Power Attack (5) + Flanking (2)] = (11 AB)
[Great Sword (2D6) + Weapon Specialisation (4) + Power Attack (10)] = (2D6+14, 21.0)

Fighter 12 B (Long Sword and Heavy Shield)

Feats: Weapon Focus (Long Sword), Power Attack, Cleave, [-], Weapon Specialisation (Long Sword), [-], [-], Greater Weapon Focus (Long Sword), [-], [-], Greater Weapon Specialisation (Long Sword), [-],
[Base Attack Bonus (12) + Weapon Focus (2) – Power Attack (5) + Flanking (2)] = (11 AB)
[Long Sword (1D8) + Weapon Specialisation (4) + Power Attack (5)] = (1D8+9, 13.5)

Fighter 12 C (Two Long Swords)

Feats: Two Weapon Fighting, Oversized Two Weapon Fighting, Weapon Focus (Long Sword), Power Attack, Weapon Specialisation (Long Sword), Improved Two Weapon Fighting, [-], Greater Weapon Focus (Long Sword), [-], [-], Greater Weapon Specialisation (Long Sword), Greater Two Weapon Fighting,
[Base Attack Bonus (12) + Weapon Focus (2) – Two Weapon Fighting (2) – Power Attack (3) + Flanking (2)] = (11 AB)
[Long Sword (1D8) + Weapon Specialisation (4) + Power Attack (3)] = (1D8+7, 11.5)
[Base Attack Bonus (12) + Weapon Focus (2) – Two Weapon Fighting (2) – Power Attack (3) + Flanking (2)] = (11 AB)
[Long Sword (1D8) + Weapon Specialisation (4) + Power Attack (3)] = (1D8+7, 11.5)

Rogue 12 A (Short Sword)

Feats: [-], [-], [-], [-], [-],
= 11 AB
[Short Sword (1D6) + Sneak Attack (6D6)] = (7D6, 24.5)

[B]Rogue 12 B (Two Short Swords)

Feats: Two Weapon Fighting, Weapon Finesse, [-], Improved Two Weapon Fighting, [-],
= 9 AB
[Short Sword (1D6) + Sneak Attack (6D6)] = (7D6, 24.5)
[Base Attack Bonus (9) – Two Weapon Fighting (2) + Flanking (2)] = 9 AB
[Short Sword (1D6) + Sneak Attack (6D6)] = (7D6, 24.5)

Level 13


[B]Fighter 13 A (Great Sword)

Feats: Weapon Focus (Great Sword), Power Attack, Cleave, [-], Weapon Specialisation (Great Sword), [-], [-], Greater Weapon Focus (Great Sword), [-], [-], Greater Weapon Specialisation (Great Sword), [-],
[Base Attack Bonus (13) + Weapon Focus (2) – Power Attack (6) + Flanking (2)] = (11 AB)
[Great Sword (2D6) + Weapon Specialisation (4) + Power Attack (12)] = (2D6+16, 23.0)

Fighter 13 B (Long Sword and Heavy Shield)

Feats: Weapon Focus (Long Sword), Power Attack, Cleave, [-], Weapon Specialisation (Long Sword), [-], [-], Greater Weapon Focus (Long Sword), [-], [-], Greater Weapon Specialisation (Long Sword), [-],
[Base Attack Bonus (13) + Weapon Focus (2) – Power Attack (6) + Flanking (2)] = (11 AB)
[Long Sword (1D8) + Weapon Specialisation (4) + Power Attack (6)] = (1D8+10, 14.5)

Fighter 13 C (Two Long Swords)

Feats: Two Weapon Fighting, Oversized Two Weapon Fighting, Weapon Focus (Long Sword), Power Attack, Weapon Specialisation (Long Sword), Improved Two Weapon Fighting, [-], Greater Weapon Focus (Long Sword), [-], [-], Greater Weapon Specialisation, Greater Two Weapon Fighting,
[Base Attack Bonus (13) + Weapon Focus (2) – Two Weapon Fighting (2) – Power Attack (4) + Flanking (2)] = (11 AB)
[Long Sword (1D8) + Weapon Specialisation (4) + Power Attack (4)] = (1D8+8, 12.5)
[Base Attack Bonus (13) + Weapon Focus (2) – Two Weapon Fighting (2) – Power Attack (4) + Flanking (2)] = (11 AB)
[Long Sword (1D8) + Weapon Specialisation (4) + Power Attack (4)] = (1D8+8, 12.5)

Rogue 13 A (Short Sword)

Feats: [-], [-], [-], [-], [-],
= 11 AB
[Short Sword (1D6) + Sneak Attack (7D6)] = (8D6, 28.0)

[B]Rogue 13 B (Two Short Swords)

Feats: Two Weapon Fighting, Weapon Finesse, [-], Improved Two Weapon Fighting, [-],
= 9 AB
[Short Sword (1D6) + Sneak Attack (7D6)] = (8D6, 28.0)
[Base Attack Bonus (9) – Two Weapon Fighting (2) + Flanking (2)] = 9 AB
[Short Sword (1D6) + Sneak Attack (7D6)] = (8D6, 28.0)

Level 14


[B]Fighter 14 A (Great Sword)

Feats: Weapon Focus (Great Sword), Power Attack, Cleave, [-], Weapon Specialisation (Great Sword), [-], [-], Greater Weapon Focus (Great Sword), [-], [-], Greater Weapon Specialisation (Great Sword), [-], [-],
[Base Attack Bonus (14) + Weapon Focus (2) – Power Attack (6) + Flanking (2)] = (12 AB)
[Great Sword (2D6) + Weapon Specialisation (4) + Power Attack (12)] = (2D6+16, 23.0)

Fighter 14 B (Long Sword and Heavy Shield)

Feats: Weapon Focus (Long Sword), Power Attack, Cleave, [-], Weapon Specialisation (Long Sword), [-], [-], Greater Weapon Focus (Long Sword), [-], [-], Greater Weapon Specialisation (Long Sword), [-], [-],
[Base Attack Bonus (14) + Weapon Focus (2) – Power Attack (6) + Flanking (2)] = (12 AB)
[Long Sword (1D8) + Weapon Specialisation (4) + Power Attack (6)] = (1D8+10, 14.5)

Fighter 14 C (Two Long Swords)

Feats: Two Weapon Fighting, Oversized Two Weapon Fighting, Weapon Focus (Long Sword), Power Attack, Weapon Specialisation (Long Sword), Improved Two Weapon Fighting, [-], Greater Weapon Focus (Long Sword), [-], [-], Greater Weapon Specialisation, Greater Two Weapon Fighting, [-],
[Base Attack Bonus (14) + Weapon Focus (2) – Two Weapon Fighting (2) – Power Attack (4) + Flanking (2)] = (12 AB)
[Long Sword (1D8) + Weapon Specialisation (4) + Power Attack (4)] = (1D8+8, 12.5)
[Base Attack Bonus (14) + Weapon Focus (2) – Two Weapon Fighting (2) – Power Attack (4) + Flanking (2)] = (12 AB)
[Long Sword (1D8) + Weapon Specialisation (4) + Power Attack (4)] = (1D8+8, 12.5)

Rogue 14 A (Short Sword)

Feats: [-], [-], [-], [-], [-], [-],
= 12 AB
[Short Sword (1D6) + Sneak Attack (7D6)] = (8D6, 28.0)

[B]Rogue 14 B (Two Short Swords)

Feats: Two Weapon Fighting, Weapon Finesse, [-], Improved Two Weapon Fighting, [-],
= 10 AB
[Short Sword (1D6) + Sneak Attack (7D6)] = (8D6, 28.0)
[Base Attack Bonus (10) – Two Weapon Fighting (2) + Flanking (2)] = 10 AB
[Short Sword (1D6) + Sneak Attack (7D6)] = (8D6, 28.0)

Level 15


[B]Fighter 15 A (Great Sword)

Feats: Weapon Focus (Great Sword), Power Attack, Cleave, [-], Weapon Specialisation (Great Sword), [-], [-], Greater Weapon Focus (Great Sword), [-], [-], Greater Weapon Specialisation (Great Sword), [-], [-], [-],
[Base Attack Bonus (15) + Weapon Focus (2) – Power Attack (6) + Flanking (2)] = (13 AB)
[Great Sword (2D6) + Weapon Specialisation (4) + Power Attack (12)] = (2D6+16, 23.0)

Fighter 15 B (Long Sword and Heavy Shield)

Feats: Weapon Focus (Long Sword), Power Attack, Cleave, [-], Weapon Specialisation (Long Sword), [-], [-], Greater Weapon Focus (Long Sword), [-], [-], Greater Weapon Specialisation (Long Sword), [-], [-], [-],
[Base Attack Bonus (15) + Weapon Focus (2) – Power Attack (6) + Flanking (2)] = (13 AB)
[Long Sword (1D8) + Weapon Specialisation (4) + Power Attack (6)] = (1D8+10, 14.5)

Fighter 15 C (Two Long Swords)

Feats: Two Weapon Fighting, Oversized Two Weapon Fighting, Weapon Focus (Long Sword), Power Attack, Weapon Specialisation (Long Sword), Improved Two Weapon Fighting, [-], Greater Weapon Focus (Long Sword), [-], [-], Greater Weapon Specialisation, Greater Two Weapon Fighting, [-], [-],
[Base Attack Bonus (15) + Weapon Focus (2) – Two Weapon Fighting (2) – Power Attack (4) + Flanking (2)] = (13 AB)
[Long Sword (1D8) + Weapon Specialisation (4) + Power Attack (4)] = (1D8+8, 12.5)
[Base Attack Bonus (15) + Weapon Focus (2) – Two Weapon Fighting (2) – Power Attack (4) + Flanking (2)] = (13 AB)
[Long Sword (1D8) + Weapon Specialisation (4) + Power Attack (4)] = (1D8+8, 12.5)

Rogue 15 A (Short Sword)

Feats: [-], [-], [-], [-], [-], [-],
= 13 AB
[Short Sword (1D6) + Sneak Attack (8D6)] = (9D6, 31.5)

[B]Rogue 15 B (Two Short Swords)

Feats: Two Weapon Fighting, Weapon Finesse, [-], Improved Two Weapon Fighting, [-], [-],
[Base Attack Bonus (11) – Two Weapon Fighting (2) + Flanking (2)] = 11 AB
[Short Sword (1D6) + Sneak Attack (8D6)] = (9D6, 31.5)
[Base Attack Bonus (11) – Two Weapon Fighting (2) + Flanking (2)] = 11 AB
[Short Sword (1D6) + Sneak Attack (8D6)] = (9D6, 31.5)

Talya
2007-01-15, 07:10 PM
High damage? Please. Adding 5d6 to each hit, or even to one hit, is lousy damage at level 20.

Really? So the scout swings for 7d6+STRx1.5 on his every hit, and the fighter (who's also not going to be able to full attack while fighting him) gets 2d6+STRx1.5, with probably a higher strength. Who's doing more damage? Come on...




Great AC? Please. They're only 5 up on any lightly-armored warrior, and lightly-armored isn't necessarily the way to go for AC (a decent Dex and Mithral Fullplate will get you more than maxing Dex out).

A Mithral Breastplate is light armor, has 3 less armor class than Mithral Fullplate, but allows 2 more dex bonus. So he starts out with 1AC less than the fighter...but then the scout gets +5 from moving. It's not a big AC difference.


What's your scout going to do when a fighter charges him?

Same thing the fighter does when the scout clips him with his sword...either avoid the attack or take damage. Thing is, he's doing a lot more damage with his one attack than the fighter is doing with his...


Or when a dragon catches him (since it moves faster)? Or when a balor uses its implosion SLA?

Dragon? Well, as much as any single melee character can defeat a dragon, he will or he won't. At least the dragon will also get only one attack on him per round.

With regard to fortitude saves, the scout isn't that badly off, their battle fortitude ability mitigates that a lot. They've got +9 base fortitude save at level 20, halfway in between the fighter's and the rogues. (Much like the swashbuckler's "Grace" ability does for their reflex save.)


Or when it has to make a Fort or Will save? Oh, look, Finger of Death, Wail of the Banshee, Implosion, Insanity, Confusion, Fear, Slow, et cetera et cetera.

Will saves are their one weakness, yes. Although it seems more of an oversight that they don't get slippery mind, when looking at the rest of their list.


Rogues are melee monsters? (As everyone here who's actually done the math vs. a viable fighter build has told you, nnno.)

Only a few have said so, and the math doesn't support them. Take a look through the thread...flanking rogues seriously outdamage fighters.


Scouts are unstoppable? (Until they get charged or have to make a Fort or Will save.)

I'm not sure what your fixation on charge is...it's just another attack, one that they have a good chance of avoiding thanks to better than average armor class. It doesn't mess them up at all.


The Complete splatbooks are broken? (The PHB has vastly more broken material than any of the Complete books--even Complete Divine.)

Yes, the PHB has some very broken stuff. Like flanking full round sneak attacks, and dual weild being almost useless for non-rogues. But the complete books are more broken...hell, just check the reviews of them. The complete books have a few gems of useful stuff, but it's easy to see where they are broken, people even pointed it out in this thread...such as charging full round attacks at +4 damage for every -1 of armor class you take...



I'll put up sample AB and damage outputs vs. high-level monsters at some point soon. From what I can see, you're ignoring the fighter's much higher AB and Strength score but assuming the rogue will hit with every attack. No wonder you think the rogue is better.
I didn't make that assumption. My calculations above assumed the rogue would miss 35% of the time on the first two attacks (when the fighters hit 100% of the time on their first...which also doesn't happen, but i gave them the benefit of the doubt), 60% of the time on the second two attacks (with the fighters missing only 25% of the time on their second), and 85% of the time on the last two attacks (with fighters missing 50% of the time on their third attack, and 75% of the time on their last attack.) I modified damage accordingly. The rogue did a total of about 26-27 d6 of damage, compared to the fighter's 5 or 6.

Fax Celestis
2007-01-15, 07:39 PM
The problem here is that rogue-types (including the scout) get their damage from dice, while fighter-typess get their damage from modifiers. Sure, that rogue is going to deal ~20d6+16 (average 86) on a TWF full attack sneak attack where he hits with all swings. But the fighter is going to do ~2d6+120 (average 127) on a single attack charge, and he's only got to hit with one swing instead of eight.

Bears With Lasers
2007-01-15, 07:39 PM
Really? So the scout swings for 7d6+STRx1.5 on his every hit, and the fighter (who's also not going to be able to full attack while fighting him) gets 2d6+STRx1.5, with probably a higher strength. Who's doing more damage? Come on...
Yeah, yeah. Except that the Scout's strength is, what, 10? 12? And the Fighter's is 34 at level 20 (18 base, +6 item, +5 from levels, +5 Tome). So the Fighter's getting +18 where the Scout's getting +0 or +1. Oh, look at that--the average damage of 5d6 is 17.
Oh, yeah, and he's taken Weapon Focus/Spec and Greater Weapon Focus/Spec, so that's +4 more damage. Oh, and the Fighter's got a much higher attack bonus (5 more from levels, +2 from WF/GWF), so he can afford to Power Attack, let'ssay for three points, cancelling out the Scout's AC advantage and getting +6 damage on top of that. So we've got the Fighter at +7 points over the Scout.
Then we remember that the Scout isn't using a greatsword, because he's not dumb--he's using a rapier or shortsword with Weapon Finesse, because Dex is his primary stat.
Also, the Fighter can, you know, trip the Scout.
And, of course, the Fighter is likely to have Heavy Fortification armor, making the Skirmish useless.
And the fighter has much more HP.


A Mithral Breastplate is light armor, has 3 less armor class than Mithral Fullplate, but allows 2 more dex bonus. So he starts out with 1AC less than the fighter...but then the scout gets +5 from moving. It's not a big AC difference.Mithril Breastplate stifles the Scout's DEX bonus, giving him a lower overall AC.


Same thing the fighter does when the scout clips him with his sword...either avoid the attack or take damage. Thing is, he's doing a lot more damage with his one attack than the fighter is doing with his...Except he's not. See above. And the fighter normally full-attacks monsters, whereas the Scout can't without Greater Manyshot (woo, three or four arrows)--he's getting more attacks on a full attack, each for more damage, and is more likely to hit.



Dragon? Well, as much as any single melee character can defeat a dragon, he will or he won't. At least the dragon will also get only one attack on him per round.Or more likely, ignore him, because his 6d6 points of damage a round (20.5 on average) aren't really worth bothering with when there's real melee types and especially spellcasters a round.
And god forbid the dragon should ever get in a full attack. Just one will take the Scout down. A fighter or melee cleric can actually hit the thing more than once a round.


With regard to fortitude saves, the scout isn't that badly off, their battle fortitude ability mitigates that a lot. They've got +9 base fortitude save at level 20, halfway in between the fighter's and the rogues. (Much like the swashbuckler's "Grace" ability does for their reflex save.Yeah, +9, with maybe +2 or +3 from their CON. Now check the DC on a Balor's Implosion SLA.


Will saves are their one weakness, yes. Although it seems more of an oversight that they don't get slippery mind, when looking at the rest of their list. Will saves, and Fort saves (they can't afford as high a CON as the Fighter's), and being hit (low HP)... so what makes them so uber, again? Oh no! Freedom of Movement, which anyone can and should get as a 40k-gp item by the time the Scout's kicks in! Oh no! Skirmish! Trade multiple attacks for an extra 17 points of average damage on one and an AC bonus that won't save you from anything!


Only a few have said so, and the math doesn't support them. Take a look through the thread...flanking rogues seriously outdamage fighters.Only if you ignore that the rogue misses far more often and the fighter gets 1.5x his 34 strength to damage, and has a higher AB he can sink into Power Attack.


I'm not sure what your fixation on charge is...it's just another attack, one that they have a good chance of avoiding thanks to better than average armor class. It doesn't mess them up at all.The point is that the scout can't stay out of range. He will get power-attack charged. He will get hit, for more damage than he does.


Yes, the PHB has some very broken stuff. Like flanking full round sneak attacks, and dual weild being almost useless for non-rogues. But the complete books are more broken...hell, just check the reviews of them. The complete books have a few gems of useful stuff, but it's easy to see where they are broken, people even pointed it out in this thread...such as charging full round attacks at +4 damage for every -1 of armor class you take...Oh no, charging full-round attacks with a good power attack ratio! Fighters become somewhat useful against high-level monsters! Gasp! Oh no! Full-round sneak attacks! Rogues can do some damage before they get absolutely splattered by the monster for standing right there! Gasp!
Meanwhile, the core books have clerics and druids. They've got things like Polymorph Any Object (the wizard turns himself into a gold dragon with the gold dragon's base INT), Gate (I Gate in an Efreeti as an immediate service, no XP cost, and have him use his Wish SLA to make me a Ring of Infinite Wishes; he'd pay an enormous XP cost--but it's an SLA, so he doesn't, and can just up and make it), more Gate (I Gate in a Titan to fight for me, no XP cost. The Titan uses its Gate SLA to Gate in another Titan. Repeat ad infinitum), Shapechange (I turn into a Choker. Two spells a round), the bead of Karma (especially when coupled with Holy Word type spells).
There are only a couple of things in the Complete books that approach this (like the Hulking Hurler). For overpowered-but-not-totally-broken stuff, Core is also ahead. It has the three most overpowered classes in the game (Cleric, Druid, Wizard), Disjucntion, Time Stop, Divine Power/Righteous Might, freaking Natural Spell... compared to that, Leap Attack and Shock Trooper don't really compare.


I didn't make that assumption. My calculations above assumed the rogue would miss 35% of the time on the first two attacks (when the fighters hit 100% of the time on their first...which also doesn't happen, but i gave them the benefit of the doubt), 60% of the time on the second two attacks (with the fighters missing only 25% of the time on their second), and 85% of the time on the last two attacks (with fighters missing 50% of the time on their third attack, and 75% of the time on their last attack.) I modified damage accordingly. The rogue did a total of about 26-27 d6 of damage, compared to the fighter's 5 or 6.A level 20 Fighter is likely to have 10 AB on a level 20 Rogue (5 points of BAB, +2 for WF/GWF, +2 for the Rogue's TWF penalty, +1 for a slightly better weapon since the cleric will be casting Greater Magic Weapon on the Fighter, not the Cleric). Your numbers are way off. You're also consistently ignoring the Fighter's 34 strength compared to the rogue's 10, as well as damage reduction (pretty much all high-level monsters have it).

Norsesmithy
2007-01-15, 07:57 PM
Six words.




+5 Buckler of Heavy Fortification

Too many things are immune to extra dice damage, including my paladin or fighter.

Even if you ignore all the scary tricks doable with Power Attack, Shock Trooper, and friends, you shouldn't ignore my little friend the buckler.

Rogues and Scouts need their extra dice to not be totally useless in a fight.

These dice are of limited use at levels where armours called +1 Heavy fortification live though.

Freedom of movement is nice but far from game breaking, especially when almost every charector has a ring that does the same thing.

As a scout your only real choice is to run away from and snipe at a fighter that is properly equiped, you just cannot go toe to toe, and in a sniper battle, my money is on the fighter who has a +strength bonus magic bow.

SpiderBrigade
2007-01-15, 08:09 PM
Running into more than a few enemies wearing Armor of Heavy Fortification is the rogue equivalent of all the monsters having rings of Antimagic Field. It means your DM is out to get you.

I don't really see why these TWF discussions always turn into Fighter-vs-Rogue (or Scout) PvP deathmatches. TWF doesn't have to make a rogue do more damage than a fighter, or somehow beat a fighter in a fight, to be a useful thing for a rogue to take. Even with Sneak Attack it probably won't add up to the sheer damage a fighter can put out - but that's why rogues are good at lots of other things, too. TWF lets them be at least reasonably good in combat.

Bears With Lasers
2007-01-15, 08:12 PM
Spider, that last is exactly my point. Talya seems to feel that TWF + sneak attack somehow makes rogues unstoppable melee machines.

Charity
2007-01-15, 08:15 PM
Are you still at it?
Are you sure this isn't some sort of elaborate wind up?
*Hands an award for patience to BWL*

Wow

krossbow
2007-01-15, 08:22 PM
I've only seen a few useful dual wield builds:

A: Players handbook 2 variant swashbuckler. THERE the character gains teh defensive skills that people are talking about, plus they have insightful strike. Still not uber.

B. Rouges.

C. any campaing with guns.
________
CLEAR TRICHOMES (http://trichomes.org)

Fax Celestis
2007-01-15, 08:24 PM
B. Rouges.

Yes, I suppose dual-wielding makeup compacts would be rather effective, wouldn't it?

krossbow
2007-01-15, 08:29 PM
Yes, I suppose dual-wielding makeup compacts would be rather effective, wouldn't it?


Fighter: OH GOD! I've been makeuped! How the hell am I supposed to face the other fighters now?! *runs off crying*



yeah, yeah; common mispelling. Then again, the hexblade art has them wearing makeup...
________
Mazda B-Series (http://www.ford-wiki.com/wiki/Mazda_B-Series)

Viscount Einstrauss
2007-01-15, 08:30 PM
If you can apply your disguise kit twice like that, then man is it ever.

Bears With Lasers
2007-01-15, 08:30 PM
Guys can wear makeup if they want to! It's okay! Eyeliner, anyone?

Viscount Einstrauss
2007-01-15, 08:32 PM
Ewww, eyeliner looks terrible on a guy! Especially since most of the guys that do it are pale, making their eyes look dead or something. Especially, again, if they use dark lipstick too, something that's also prone to be used. I mean, what's so great about being undead?

Fax Celestis
2007-01-15, 08:39 PM
Ewww, eyeliner looks terrible on a guy! Especially since most of the guys that do it are pale, making their eyes look dead or something. Especially, again, if they use dark lipstick too, something that's also prone to be used. I mean, what's so great about being undead?

Chicks, man. Chicks dig the vampirity.

Charity
2007-01-15, 08:43 PM
I guess they just dig stiffs, who'd have thought...

Matthew
2007-01-15, 08:46 PM
Still trying to derail the thread, Charity?

I dunno, does Angel wear Make Up?

Charity
2007-01-15, 08:53 PM
Well it's a dirty job but you understand

BWL has been arguing for hours, patience of a rock..
If he's on camera he wears make-up, Angel that is, not BWL... though how would I know, he may.

Viscount Einstrauss
2007-01-15, 08:58 PM
The only time I wore makeup, I was trying to pass for a girl as a prank.

It was the one and only time, as it was a resounding success. I'm a very pretty girl :(

Ramza00
2007-01-15, 09:04 PM
Chicks, man. Chicks dig the vampirity.
Werewolves are sexier than vampires, sure a vampire may kick a werewolf's ass (especially if the vampire has guns), but werewolves are sexier than vampires. Seriously who wants to sleep with the undead?:smallsmile:

Fax Celestis
2007-01-15, 09:05 PM
Werewolves are sexier than vampires, sure a vampire may kick a werewolf's ass (especially if the vampire has guns), but werewolves are sexier than vampires. Seriously who wants to sleep with the undead?:smallsmile:

People who read Anne Rice. And Joss Whedon.

Matthew
2007-01-15, 09:06 PM
Well it's a dirty job but you understand

BWL has been arguing for hours, patience of a rock..
If he's on camera he wears make-up, Angel that is, not BWL... though how would I know, he may.

Maybe the lasers make it appear as though he's wearing makeup? I would imagine super hot laser rays would cause some residue around the eyes or charr the fur in some way. Actually, now I come to think of it, bears do kind of look as though they wear eye makeup...

http://images.google.co.uk/images?q=tbn:HFsVSR-r7mn70M:http://calexphoto.smugmug.com/photos/78020715-D.jpg


Werewolves are sexier than vampires, sure a vampire may kick a werewolf's ass (especially if the vampire has guns), but werewolves are sexier than vampires. Seriously who wants to sleep with the undead?

I think there's a special name for that fetish...

Ramza00
2007-01-15, 09:19 PM
I think there's a special name for that fetish...

What are you thinking of?

Matthew
2007-01-15, 09:25 PM
I think it begins with an N and it ends with an a, and is somewhat related to Wizards who meddle with the Undead.

Viscount Einstrauss
2007-01-15, 09:28 PM
Hahaha, awesome character idea! A necromancer necrophiliac.

What? I don't care what you guys think, I'm totally doing that to some poor, unsuspecting DM.

BCOVertigo
2007-01-15, 09:40 PM
Hahaha, awesome character idea! A necromancer necrophiliac.

What? I don't care what you guys think, I'm totally doing that to some poor, unsuspecting DM.

Lichloved from BoVD. Yes it's a feat.

AtomicKitKat
2007-01-15, 10:01 PM
Some things.

Scout(and Monk and Dhervish and hell, almost every other class that grants +movespeed) grants "enhancement bonus to movespeed". This means it doesn't stack with the various magic boots that boost your speed.

Monk2+Belt should grant you the flurry of a Monk 7, I think? That alone reduces the penalty to -1.

Only time TWF Sneak Attack is any good is when you tack on the "alternative" Sneak Attack feats. Like Staggering Strike+Hamstring+Crippling Strike, to leave your foe a tired, slow, and ineffective mess on the floor. But then, you're already out 3 feats from the TWF tree. TWF really needs to just require one feat, and grant bonus attacks when your main hand gets them, if you match the Dexterity requirement.

Talya
2007-01-15, 10:09 PM
Yeah, yeah. Except that the Scout's strength is, what, 10? 12? And the Fighter's is 34 at level 20 (18 base, +6 item, +5 from levels, +5 Tome)

This is half the problem...you're viewing this from the standpoint of a DM who lets you minmax...where items +5 (You said +6...have to assume that's a typo, nobody should have +6 pre-epic) are things every level 20 character will have, where the DM lets you all outfit yourselves to death. I'm viewing this from the standpoint of a campaign where the good gear is really rare, when you get one random treasure roll every other week...and it's truly random, off the chart, and nothing more than minor and very occasionally medium items are purchasable...you aren't getting that stuff. Tome? I've never seen one drop in randomly, ever. We're coming from entirely different roleplay expectations.

Talya
2007-01-15, 10:11 PM
Ewww, eyeliner looks terrible on a guy!

Hello? Jack Sparrow?

Ramza00
2007-01-15, 10:14 PM
Monk2+Belt should grant you the flurry of a Monk 7, I think? That alone reduces the penalty to -1.

Monk unarmed damage and monk's flurry are seperate. Monk's belt doesn't progress flurry.

Talya
2007-01-15, 10:15 PM
Spider, that last is exactly my point. Talya seems to feel that TWF + sneak attack somehow makes rogues unstoppable melee machines.

Unstoppable? No, that belongs to the scout.

It does make them the highest single-target damage dealers, bar none. Rogues should be a distant 6th, at best, in that category.

And i'm stretching it there, I don't think I wanna see them outdamaging Wizards or druids+companions either. I think the only guys they should really outdamage are bards and maybe clerics...

Jack_Simth
2007-01-15, 10:29 PM
Different issue for a different thread.
Suffice it to say that rogues were never meant to be primary combat classes, they are balanced by their skills, combat is secondary to them. Giving them the ability to do 66d6 in a single round should simply never happen (even as unlikely as those later attacks are to hit). A rogue should never even come close to the damage potential of a primary fighting or casting class.You can make it a little more likely with Quickdraw and Flasks of Acid (plus get a little range in to boot, and the occasional bit of mostly inconsequential secondary splash damage)... doesn't work so hot after the surprise round, though, unless you get support from others in denying your opponent's Dex to AC. Like with Grease, Greater Invisibility, Blindness.

Thrown weapons, by default, use Dex to hit.
Flasks of Acid are touch attacks (and are REALLY likely to hit something that's been denied Dex to AC... even on the last iterative attack with the off hand).
Range is usually such that you'll be within the 30 feet.

Sure, it's feat intensive, but you can get a rogue-20 that's staying out of melee and doing something like 77d6 acid damage each round (1 attack from haste, 3 attacks from the primary hand, 3 attacks from the off hand, each for 10d6 sneak attack and 1d6 base damage). Sure, it costs 70 gp/round... so? That 77d6 averages 269.5 points of damage; you can one-round a great many CR 20 opponents that way.

Fax Celestis
2007-01-15, 10:29 PM
I think the only guys they should really outdamage are bards and maybe clerics...

Abuh?! I think you just lost all credibility.

Rigeld2
2007-01-15, 10:29 PM
This is half the problem...you're viewing this from the standpoint of a DM who lets you minmax...where items +5 (You said +6...have to assume that's a typo, nobody should have +6 pre-epic) are things every level 20 character will have, where the DM lets you all outfit yourselves to death. I'm viewing this from the standpoint of a campaign where the good gear is really rare, when you get one random treasure roll every other week...and it's truly random, off the chart, and nothing more than minor and very occasionally medium items are purchasable...you aren't getting that stuff. Tome? I've never seen one drop in randomly, ever. We're coming from entirely different roleplay expectations.
Oh, I see. So if you dont follow the guidelines in the rules, then the classes arent balanced as everyone else sees them.

Oh, and +6 items are cheap. You should read the rules sometime. Everyone else here argues from the standpoint of the rules in the DMG/SRD... not houseruled extremely low magic campaigns. Youre the one being stubborn and saying "Well... since the way I play isnt normal, then my view is 100% correct."

Talya
2007-01-15, 10:31 PM
+6 enhancements are, by the SRD, epic items. Price is irrelevant, you can't get them pre-epic. You need house-rules to get that stuff, they don't drop on the standard loot tables. As for most of the other things, they drop so rarely that you'd be lucky to see a tome in a year of gaming.

Talya
2007-01-15, 10:33 PM
Abuh?! I think you just lost all credibility.

Rogues are thieves, not assassins. They're a skill class, they're supposed to barely hold their own in combat. They are not meant to be primary combatants...they skulk around and avoid combat, getting in a rare stab if an opportunity presents itself.

Think Regis in Salvatore's books for the stereotypical rogue design.

TSR understood this, 2nd edition rogues were on the wizard to-hit chart, and backstab was once a round. Wizards decided to make rogues into the melee damage dealers they are now.

krossbow
2007-01-15, 10:36 PM
Unstoppable? No, that belongs to the scout.




It wasn't that bad till players handbook II created the feats that let you spring attack and full attack (somewhat), or if your using the dervish class.
________
JOHN COLETTI (http://www.ford-wiki.com/wiki/John_Coletti)

Rigeld2
2007-01-15, 10:37 PM
+6 enhancements are, by the SRD, epic items. Price is irrelevant, you can't get them pre-epic. You need house-rules to get that stuff, they don't drop on the standard loot tables. As for most of the other things, they drop so rarely that you'd be lucky to see a tome in a year of gaming.
Wrong.
http://www.d20srd.org/srd/magicItems/wondrousItems.htm#beltofGiantStrength
+6 is 36,000 and not in the epic section. The other stat items are like that. As I said, read the rules, dont just assume you know them.

edit: and who cares about random drops? Casters craft... thats one of the things that makes them strong.

Jack Mann
2007-01-15, 10:38 PM
+6 enhancements are, by the SRD, epic items. Price is irrelevant, you can't get them pre-epic. You need house-rules to get that stuff, they don't drop on the standard loot tables. As for most of the other things, they drop so rarely that you'd be lucky to see a tome in a year of gaming.

When people discuss +6 weapons, they mean a weapon that is effectively +6, with special abilities. Generally, +1 with +5 worth of special abilities. Though the enhancement bonus can't rise above +5, the effective cost of the weapon can go to +10 pre-epic.

EDIT: My mistake. I thought you were discussing weapons, not stat-boosting items. Those go to +6 pre-epic.

Fax Celestis
2007-01-15, 10:38 PM
Rogues are thieves, not assassins. They're a skill class, they're supposed to barely hold their own in combat. They are not meant to be primary combatants...they skulk around and avoid combat, getting in a rare stab if an opportunity presents itself.

Think Regis in Salvatore's books for the stereotypical rogue design.

TSR understood this, 2nd edition rogues were on the wizard to-hit chart, and backstab was once a round. Wizards decided to make rogues into the melee damage dealers they are now.

I was referring to clerics. Have you not heard of CoDzilla?

Viscount Einstrauss
2007-01-15, 10:39 PM
Eyeliner doesn't make Johnny Depp sexier. Johnny Depp makes eyeliner sexier.

Kantolin
2007-01-15, 10:40 PM
Rogues are thieves, not assassins.
<mild aside> Interestingly, that's something I like about the class. Rogues are not necessarily thieves, nor are they necessarily diplomats, focused skill monkeys, or such.

I personally like the Thuggish rogue myself. Who's essentially, in mindset, a fighter who's not afraid to play dirty.

The only problem I have with this is that, as most other classes can't find traps, you're expected to be able to do just that. Bleah.

So anyway, to hop back to the topic at hand for a moment, the following is not an epic item in the slightest, and exists in the PHB or DMG, and gives a +6 to strength:

http://www.d20srd.org/srd/magicItems/wondrousItems.htm#beltofGiantStrength

The ''+5 is the max pre-epic" exists for straight Plusses to a magic weapon/armour. You can in fact have overall bonuses that add up to a +10 before making the item epic, but you can have a +5 Vorpal sword... just not a +6 Vorpal Sword.

Talya
2007-01-15, 10:40 PM
Wrong.
http://www.d20srd.org/srd/magicItems/wondrousItems.htm#beltofGiantStrength
+6 is 36,000 and not in the epic section. The other stat items are like that. As I said, read the rules, dont just assume you know them.

edit: and who cares about random drops? Casters craft... thats one of the things that makes them strong.


We are not discussing "effective" +6 items. Someone mentioned a +6 enhancement item, they were not referring to special abilities. A +5 keen sword of flaming burst might be an effective +8 item, but it's still a +5 sword, not a +8 sword. A +8 sword is epic, and has +8 to hit and damage.

ExHunterEmerald
2007-01-15, 10:41 PM
Rogues are thieves, not assassins. They're a skill class, they're supposed to barely hold their own in combat. They are not meant to be primary combatants...they skulk around and avoid combat, getting in a rare stab if an opportunity presents itself.

Think Regis in Salvatore's books for the stereotypical rogue design.

TSR understood this, 2nd edition rogues were on the wizard to-hit chart, and backstab was once a round. Wizards decided to make rogues into the melee damage dealers they are now.
Now it's just turning into a flavor opinion. You're convinced your type of rogue is THE proper one, when rogue is one of the most customizable classes.
My personal rogue-idea is Feist-style Jimmy the Hand style rogues. We'll just both have to deal with how we see the class and character, and homebrew for our own tastes if needbe.

Rigeld2
2007-01-15, 10:46 PM
We are not discussing "effective" +6 items. Someone mentioned a +6 enhancement item, they were not referring to special abilities. A +5 keen sword of flaming burst might be an effective +8 item, but it's still a +5 sword, not a +8 sword. A +8 sword is epic, and has +8 to hit and damage.
Note, nothing in my post refers to a sword.

Yeah, yeah. Except that the Scout's strength is, what, 10? 12? And the Fighter's is 34 at level 20 (18 base, +6 item, +5 from levels, +5 Tome)
That +6 is the item I linked. Its pre-epic. Its not a weapon.

[Scrubbed]

krossbow
2007-01-15, 10:50 PM
Meh, call me a power gamer, but I love giving my guys better than +6 stuff all the time. It's often limited use, but still; man it can be fun.

Talya
2007-01-15, 11:00 PM
Note, nothing in my post refers to a sword.

That +6 is the item I linked. Its pre-epic. Its not a weapon.

Learn to read.

I didn't say your post referred to a sword. I said it referenced a +6 item. I had no idea what item you meant by "+6 item." Learn to express yourself in a clear manner. A +6 strength belt is not a typical "+6 item."

It's also pretty darn rare, notwithstanding. Just as rare as the tome. The +5 manual of gainful exercise is a 1% chance on the major wondrous item chart, as is the belt of giant strength +6. A CR20 encounter has a 33% chance of droppin 1d3 major items, each of which has a 20% chance of being a wondrous item.

Therefore, on average, fifteen CR20 encounters will net 10 major items, 2 of which will be wondrous items. On average you'd need about 375 CR20 encounters to get one of those two items. (assuming you'd get one on 50 tries on the wondrous item list...big assumption, but the odds are decent by that point.)

(Of course, a CR20 dragon will drop three times as many on average, but a CR20 Balor won't drop anything at all, so ...we'll just say that the average encounter drops average loot.)

Rigeld2
2007-01-15, 11:08 PM
http://www.d20srd.org/srd/feats.htm#craftWondrousItem

Also, you said, and I quote,
+6 enhancements are, by the SRD, epic items. Price is irrelevant, you can't get them pre-epic. You need house-rules to get that stuff, they don't drop on the standard loot tables. As for most of the other things, they drop so rarely that you'd be lucky to see a tome in a year of gaming.
While the latter may be correct, its fixable by crafting what you want. The former is absolutely 100% wrong, as I proved.

Talya
2007-01-15, 11:11 PM
Oh yes, you can craft them.

If you're a spellcaster who has the right spells and right feats to do so, and your DM gives you the downtime to make the things, and you don't mind falling behind in the experience required to make them...

In which case, you aren't the fighter in the example, either...so the fighter had to give you a lot to convince you to make it...

Fax Celestis
2007-01-15, 11:19 PM
...like perhaps saving your life when you run out of spells? That's quite an obligation.

Rigeld2
2007-01-15, 11:19 PM
Nevermind. You really arent worth the warning I just got. I wish I could put people on this forum on ignore.

Talya
2007-01-15, 11:25 PM
You get pretty worked up when someone challenges your assumptions with logic, math and thought. You should relax.

And men think we're the emotional ones.

krossbow
2007-01-15, 11:39 PM
Nevermind. You really arent worth the warning I just got. I wish I could put people on this forum on ignore.



Isn't that called just not going to a forum? Because... y'know, other people ARE the purpose of a forum.




anyways... It's very useful in iron heroes too; but then again, Iron heroes lets you tweak things so you use just one stat, soo...

Renegade Paladin
2007-01-15, 11:40 PM
so many of these responses in this thread should be ignored due to the high amount of vitrol. Regardless.
Vitriol is not a reason to ignore someone's points. A guy who's gotten fed up with an idiot and starts insulting him doesn't then automatically become wrong; assuming so is a form of the ad hominem logical fallacy.

When I saw that I had to say something. Sorry. Anyway:

While 3.5 is definitely a step up on 3.0, d20's two weapon fighting system is very poorly thought out. Other than stylistic reasons (including Drizzt wannabes), there is no good reason to take two weapon fighting.
We get to here, full stop. That's where you went wrong. This isn't a matter of saying min/maxers are bad roleplayers; you just dismissed stylism or roleplaying as a valid reason to do something; ergo you said that someone who makes a choice based on something other than the numbers is a bad player. I'm sorry, no.

Fizban
2007-01-15, 11:42 PM
On the issue of what +6 enhancement means, an "item of ability score +X" grants an enhancement bonus. It's a +6, and it's not epic. Generally people don't talk much about what's on the sword or armor, since it matters less than the ability boosters, tomes, and other items. Weapon means weapon, armor means armor, shield means shield, and item means anything else.

Now, as for random treasure, take a look at how much straight cash the random treasure table give out. While some of the WBL assumes randomly distributed items, a lot more of it assumes you can head to a magic shop to buy what you need. +6 stat boosting items and even tomes are pretty cheap compared to your total wealth at 20th level, and it is assumed the characters have the means to purchase such items.

ExHunterEmerald
2007-01-15, 11:42 PM
You get pretty worked up when someone challenges your assumptions with logic, math and thought. You should relax.

And men think we're the emotional ones.

...did you just play the sex card? On the entire forum?
...Wow. I don't think he should've snapped at you, but sheesh. i think this thread's worn on a bit long.

krossbow
2007-01-15, 11:42 PM
We get to here, full stop. That's where you went wrong. This isn't a matter of saying min/maxers are bad roleplayers; you just dismissed stylism or roleplaying as a valid reason to do something; ergo you said that someone who makes a choice based on something other than the numbers is a bad player. I'm sorry, no.


No he didn't. He said "OTHER THAN". He's counting that as an option. What, should he not note the stat part at all? Because he did state that it's valid if your just RPing.

Talya
2007-01-15, 11:45 PM
No he didn't. He said "OTHER THAN". He's counting that as an option. What, should he not note the stat part at all? Because he did state that it's valid if your just RPing.


Thank you. You are correct. I said "Other than." Stylistic reasons are a valid reason to take TWF, but they are the ONLY valid reason. There are no others (with the notable exception of rogues under 3.5), it's poorly implemented, mechanically.

One thing, though, the correct pronoun is "she."

Wehrkind
2007-01-15, 11:46 PM
I think probably the best way, at least to my realism focused thoughts, is to change the way the off hand weapon works. Instead of saying you get 1 attack at penalty, give the player options (the whole reason one fights with two hands in real life.)
A character can either:
1. Make one attack at -2 or something with the off hand for every base attack.
2. Fight defensively for +2 AC against ONE opponant per off hand attack.

I like this because it puts the top end damage a little below all out damage dealers like THFs, but has less defense than a sword and board. In personal experience, that is about where is should be, since defending is harder than with a shield, and hitting is more awkward since controlling both hands at the same instant is rough.
Flavor wise, it allows for swashbucklers and such to whirl around and be fancy, but without the repugnant pile of feats needed.
I understand Wizards making TWF tough and training intensive, since it really is, but I agree that the cost is too steep as written.

Rigeld2
2007-01-15, 11:49 PM
You get pretty worked up when someone challenges your assumptions with logic, math and thought. You should relax.

And men think we're the emotional ones.
No, I get worked up when someone is so set in the idea that their way is the correct way to play that she says things like

Except they do more damage than any of the other classes in a group. WAY more damage. As for damage of casting classes, it's the primary function of the sorceror to be a cannon, so I disagree. And a rogue still outdamages them.

Which, mathematically for a rogue doing flanking full round sneak attacks, averages 4-5x as much as a fighter using a greatsword. Not sure where you get lower at all.

It doesn't if you're inept at playing a rogue. If you have some tactical sense, it very well does make them into evisceration machines.

You could include power attack, but it will reduce the fighter to +15/+10/+5/+0, and end up not affecting the overall damage much. Strength bonuses will favor the fighter, weapon damage bonuses (+elemental damage, +enhancement damage) will favor the rogue, etc. It all balances out...easiest just to use the base dice.And more. Every one of these points was proven wrong using RAW in the DMG and SRD. Instead of admitting then that you played in a very low magic world (where I honestly dont know how stuff would be skewed) you said things like

Let's leave them out of it...most of the stuff in them is so completely broken it isn't funny.
Ah, like mixing scout and dervish, it's on a list of things that require immediate DM veto then. (actually, scout alone is on my list of things I veto...)
Scout isn't core, and is pretty universally accepted as broken. (absolutely false btw)

20 levels of scout is a highly specialized build that's insanely powerful by being unstoppable. Sure, they take a while to kill the enemy, but they'll do it without taking any damage themselves. (another absolutely false statement)

And anybody min-maxing like that usually gets a few angry titans dropped on them just for existing... (In response to someone using mostly core stuff that she doesnt alter)

The scout also gets "Freedom" (as per the level 9 wizard spell) as an "always-on", permanent class ability. They don't need to make a save...They're immune.They get http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/freedomOfMovement.htm at level 18. It doesnt make them immune to Hold Person, or many of the other immobilizing spells. Maybe you should reaquaint yourself with the class you hate so much?

Only a few have said so, and the math doesn't support them. Take a look through the thread...flanking rogues seriously outdamage fighters.Only when you 1) Ignore Power Attack 2) Ignore many commonly accepted splats (Complete series) 3) seriously nerf the magic level of the game. Only one of those I have any real problem with (ignoring power attack). Th thing that made me very angry was that it wasnt until you were proven wrong that you started saying things like "Well thats not allowed in my game, or it never happens." Also, you totally ignored things like Weapon Focus and Weapon Spec. and Greater Weapon Spec. Those are core, and give the fighter another edge over a rogue.

+6 enhancements are, by the SRD, epic items. Price is irrelevant, you can't get them pre-epic. You need house-rules to get that stuff, they don't drop on the standard loot tables. As for most of the other things, they drop so rarely that you'd be lucky to see a tome in a year of gaming.When proven wrong by me posting,

Wrong.
http://www.d20srd.org/srd/magicItems...fGiantStrength (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/magicItems/wondrousItems.htm#beltofGiantStrength)
+6 is 36,000 and not in the epic section. The other stat items are like that. As I said, read the rules, dont just assume you know them.

edit: and who cares about random drops? Casters craft... thats one of the things that makes them strong.
you replied

We are not discussing "effective" +6 items. Someone mentioned a +6 enhancement item, they were not referring to special abilities. A +5 keen sword of flaming burst might be an effective +8 item, but it's still a +5 sword, not a +8 sword. A +8 sword is epic, and has +8 to hit and damage.edit: dont want another warning

Learn to express yourself in a clear manner.
Funny... I got a warning and scrubbed for saying "Learn to read". I'm not saying that to you here now, just pointing out that the two statements arent very dissimilar.

And no, I dont normally explode on a whim. Something about you has hit all the wrong buttons.

krossbow
2007-01-15, 11:55 PM
One thing to remember people about why rogues do not eviserate:


High levels: Enemies often fly, and if not flying, they often run around still.

Because of this, it is often difficult to get even one sneak attack sometimes (try it on a dragon; it's even hard to pull off feints and such against them), so you will be in a difficult setup.

If you can flank, good, you do do comparable, if not more. But count those 2-3 rounds you DIDN'T flank or sneak attack. that drains you down.




WHile I did jab at rigeld 2 on his anger, his points are all valid.
________
MOTOR COMPANY (http://www.yamaha-tech.com/wiki/Yamaha_Motor_Company)

Wehrkind
2007-01-15, 11:59 PM
This is starting to taste like the "CoDZilla" arguments we used to see a lot.

Viscount Einstrauss
2007-01-16, 12:02 AM
This is one of the reasons I always DM gestalt games. If you play your cards right, you can make just about anything useful.

Ramza00
2007-01-16, 12:06 AM
Yadda Yadda Yadda Blah Blah Blah.

Talya
2007-01-16, 12:06 AM
NAnd more. Every one of these points was proven wrong using RAW in the DMG and SRD.


No, they weren't. All the math, every last bit of it, back severything I've said.


Instead of admitting then that you played in a very low magic world (where I honestly dont know how stuff would be skewed) you said things like

So the treasure tables as stated in the books are a "l"very ow magic world?" Those treasure tables are the default.



(absolutely false btw)
(another absolutely false statement)
(In response to someone using mostly core stuff that she doesnt alter)

False statements? So now you're calling me a liar? All those things are 100% true.


They get http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/freedomOfMovement.htm at level 18. It doesnt make them immune to Hold Person, or many of the other immobilizing spells. Maybe you should reaquaint yourself with the class you hate so much?

Let's look at the SRD you mention:


This spell enables you or a creature you touch to move and attack normally for the duration of the spell, even under the influence of magic that usually impedes movement, such as paralysis, solid fog, slow, and web.

Any magical influence that usually impedes movement, such as those mentioned, and any others that impede movement. What does hold person do?


Only when you 1) Ignore Power Attack
Which I mathematically debunked as lower in damage than sneak attack.


2) Ignore many commonly accepted splats (Complete series)

The complete series is "commonly accepted" only as a series of sourcebooks that good DMs have to be EXTREMELY careful about allowing things from, on a case by case basis, because they can rapidly imbalance a campaign. The first things people mentioned (Shock trooper, leap attack, pounce combo) was an obvious example. Every single review of these books rips them apart for balance reasons, and you're hard pressed to find D&D purists that consider them canonical and automatically allowable.


3) seriously nerf the magic level of the game.
Once again, the default magic level in the SRD is not a nerf.



Only one of those I have any real problem with (ignoring power attack).

I did not ignore it. I proved you'd need a power attack bonus of +35 to equal the bonus from a sneak attack...to get +36 you need to take a -18 penalty to hit.


Th thing that made me very angry was that it wasnt until you were proven wrong that you started saying things like "Well thats not allowed in my game, or it never happens." Also, you totally ignored things like Weapon Focus and Weapon Spec. and Greater Weapon Spec. Those are core, and give the fighter another edge over a rogue.

No, I did not ignore them. In fact, they are part of my problem with TWF....namely that TWF takes so many damn feats and gives so little back...fighters with those extra feats can take focus, improved crit and weapon spec, vastly improving their damage. The thing is, that's a TWF problem, not a rogue problem. A dual weilding fighter has the same problems as the rogue there.



When proven wrong by me posting,...Doesnt look like you even read what you quoted and replied to. At least I did you that courtesy.

All you proved with your posting is that your posting didn't say what type of +6 item you were discussing...the moment I saw your sentence including "+6 item" and "+5 manual", I thought "What the is his DM doing, giving out major and epic items for halloween trick-or-treat or something?" Most characters by 20 will never ever see those items.


And no, I dont normally explode on a whim. Something about you has hit all the wrong buttons.

[Scrubbed]

Renegade Paladin
2007-01-16, 12:07 AM
Isn't two weapon fighting weaker in real life too (assuming insane hp)?
Real life? The hilarious thing is that sword and board kicks the crap out of both two weapon fighting and using a big honking claymore in real life. :smallamused:

Talya
2007-01-16, 12:10 AM
If you can flank, good, you do do comparable, if not more. But count those 2-3 rounds you DIDN'T flank or sneak attack. that drains you down.



The math is already in this thread (both by me and others) proving that if you can flank, a dual weilding rogue will outdamage a two-hander weilding fighter. But you're right, that's only if you can flank.

I don't think situations should exist where rogue gets to outdamage them except by some miraculous dice roll.

BTW, what's a "CoDZilla?"

PinkysBrain
2007-01-16, 12:10 AM
ergo you said that someone who makes a choice based on something other than the numbers is a bad player. I'm sorry, no.
Depends if his character is internally consistent or not ... a stupid caster with a low casting stat can be internally consistent, the heroic and smart martial character who chooses to fight in a stupid way? Not so much.

Meta gaming is bad for the verisimilitude of the game, for whatever reason you do it.

Talya
2007-01-16, 12:13 AM
Now, as for random treasure, take a look at how much straight cash the random treasure table give out. While some of the WBL assumes randomly distributed items, a lot more of it assumes you can head to a magic shop to buy what you need. +6 stat boosting items and even tomes are pretty cheap compared to your total wealth at 20th level, and it is assumed the characters have the means to purchase such items.

Funny you should mention that.

You know, there are rules in most campaign settings for what size of city can support magic shops with certain levels of goods. I don't think even in Waterdeep, the largest city in the highest magic campaign setting in the d20 system, can one simply waltz into a local magic shop and buy the most powerful major wondrous items, but its been a while since I checked.

Fizban
2007-01-16, 12:17 AM
I'll take this one:

CoDzilla: Cleric or Druid-zilla, the fact that the cleric and druid classes are vastly overpowered. Each can become just as good in melee as a fighter with only two spells (cleric) or one feat (druid), while retaining all of their full-spellcasting abilities. Do a search and read one of the many threads about it.

Renegade Paladin
2007-01-16, 12:19 AM
Funny you should mention that.

You know, there are rules in most campaign settings for what size of city can support magic shops with certain levels of goods. I don't think even in Waterdeep, the largest city in the highest magic campaign setting in the d20 system, can one simply waltz into a local magic shop and buy the most powerful major wondrous items, but its been a while since I checked.
You're right. You can't. But a simple +6 to a stat magic item isn't anywhere near the pinnacle of wondrous item power. Being unable to buy a holy avenger or a mirror of life trapping in a shop doesn't mean you still can't get some powerful stuff; Waterdeep's gold piece limit is way the hell above 36,000. And there's always the option of having items commissioned. Or heck, include a crafter mage in the party; the campaign I'm running currently has one and they're stocked with magic items up to the gills.

Edit: Just looked it up. Waterdeep's gold piece limit is 100,000 gp. That means you can go shopping in the city and you will, with some amount of shopping around, be able to find magic items such as the various elemental control items (each costing exactly 100k), an apparatus of Kwalish, a pearl of power for a 9th level spell, eyes of petrification, and, horror of horrors, manuals and tomes to increase your stats by +3 all in stock, or at least potentially so.

Fizban
2007-01-16, 12:24 AM
Hmm, consulting the DMG, a +6 ability item can be bought in any large city (12,000+ people). While a tome is a bit out of the range for a metropolis, this doesn't take into account the planar metropolis designation, which is effectively unlimited. True, that's not in the DMG, but most campaign settings have such a place. Sigil, the city of Dis, just about any big town not on the material plane has been described something like "the players can buy anything here if they have the money".

PinkysBrain
2007-01-16, 12:30 AM
You know, there are rules in most campaign settings for what size of city can support magic shops with certain levels of goods. I don't think even in Waterdeep, the largest city in the highest magic campaign setting in the d20 system, can one simply waltz into a local magic shop and buy the most powerful major wondrous items, but its been a while since I checked.
You have a very rose colored memory :) Anything under 100K gp is generally available in a metropolis ... and also Waterdeep.

AtomicKitKat
2007-01-16, 12:32 AM
I think I'll post what should really be my last post in this thread.

In reply to the topic title, 3 words Extreme Feat Investment. I've already posted my fix to it above, but here it is again for "convenience". Bring it down to a single feat(or style), and have it automatically grant the bonus off-hand attacks when you gain them on the main-hand(or a level/BAB or 2 later), as long as you have the Dex for it.

Roland St. Jude
2007-01-16, 12:32 AM
Sheriff of Moddigham: Just your local peace officer here to humbly request that y'all mosey along. Or, at the very least, take it down a notch. I'm not locking the thread (yet); I'm just requesting (in the way that law enforcement officers often "request") that you avoid attacking each other or violating any other board rules. Thank you.

Talya
2007-01-16, 12:34 AM
Damned if I can remember where those limits are now...but while 36,000 might be doable, is the 137,500gp of the tome just as easy to get in a place like Waterdeep?

Renegade Paladin
2007-01-16, 12:36 AM
Not +5. +4 is barely over, and you can easily get +3.

illathid
2007-01-16, 12:40 AM
Funny you should mention that.

You know, there are rules in most campaign settings for what size of city can support magic shops with certain levels of goods. I don't think even in Waterdeep, the largest city in the highest magic campaign setting in the d20 system, can one simply waltz into a local magic shop and buy the most powerful major wondrous items, but its been a while since I checked.

One could buy a belt of Giant Strength +6 in a large city according to RAW. The most expensive +strength tome one could buy in a metropolis would be a Manual of Gainful Exercise +3. So it's not quite to the level that Bears and others have been saying, but thats only -2 from the fighters total strength.

If we look in the FR campaign setting we can see that one could buy a +4 tome in Waterdeep (it's only a couple thousand short for the +5 version, so some DM's might let it slide).

So yeah, not that uncommon.

P.S. CoDzilla, or "Cleric or Druid" zilla, refers to the completely overpowered nature of core druids and clerics.

EDIT: Wow, I just got super ninja'd. Also Fizban is right, just go to a Planar Metropolis. Visit Sigil, for all your magic item shopping needs!™

PinkysBrain
2007-01-16, 01:17 AM
If you have a high enough level caster you can simply buy scrolls of wish instead of the tome though.

Charity
2007-01-16, 04:48 AM
You get pretty worked up when someone challenges your assumptions with logic, math and thought. You should relax.

And men think we're the emotional ones.
Emphasis mine

HA ha ha ha ha ha *wipes away a tear of mirth*

Stubborn refusal to acknowledge anothers argument is which part of mathmatics? I must have missed that module.

Seriously though this has been explained again and again and well you get the picture. I advise you go to the WotC boards and try out this Q on them, oh could you post a link, I could do with a good laugh.

Matthew
2007-01-16, 06:10 AM
Rogues are thieves, not assassins. They're a skill class, they're supposed to barely hold their own in combat. They are not meant to be primary combatants...they skulk around and avoid combat, getting in a rare stab if an opportunity presents itself.

Think Regis in Salvatore's books for the stereotypical rogue design.

TSR understood this, 2nd edition rogues were on the wizard to-hit chart, and backstab was once a round. Wizards decided to make rogues into the melee damage dealers they are now.

I just want to point out that Rogues are Rogues, not Thieves ad that they are intended to do exactly what they already do in combat.
Also, the Rogues of (A)D&D 2.x did not use the Wizard THAC0 progression. They progressed at a slightly slower rate than Priests (actually at Level 3, they had a better THAC0 than a Priest). Since they progressed in levels faster, it was very comparative.

Talya, would you mind presenting these 'broken' Rogue and Scout builds with comparative Fighter builds?

PinkysBrain
2007-01-16, 06:22 AM
Melee rogues are dead men walking in my experience.

Charity
2007-01-16, 07:05 AM
You cast your seed on stoney ground, this 'discussion' has been going on unchanged for about a day now, Talya is resolute in her beliefs, no amount of crunch will change this.

Rigeld2
2007-01-16, 08:26 AM
No, they weren't. All the math, every last bit of it, back severything I've said.
Really?



So the treasure tables as stated in the books are a "l"very ow magic world?" Those treasure tables are the default.
Since when is
This is half the problem...you're viewing this from the standpoint of a DM who lets you minmax...where items +5 (You said +6...have to assume that's a typo, nobody should have +6 pre-epic) are things every level 20 character will have, where the DM lets you all outfit yourselves to death. I'm viewing this from the standpoint of a campaign where the good gear is really rare, when you get one random treasure roll every other week...and it's truly random, off the chart, and nothing more than minor and very occasionally medium items are purchasable...you aren't getting that stuff. Tome? I've never seen one drop in randomly, ever. We're coming from entirely different roleplay expectations. the default treasure tables? Are you familiar with the Wealth by Level table?



False statements? So now you're calling me a liar? All those things are 100% true.
Obviously your definition of "universally accepted to be broken" and mine are different. There isnt one person in this thread who agrees with you on that. Scouts can very easiliy take damage while attempting to kill an opponent. They are not unstoppable. And if youre going to DM Fiat someone out of existance for using the rules the way they are written, when you dont change them ahead of time... AC 70 isnt that bad, especially since that build wont be doing much damage. Your vaunted rogue and scout builds wont be able to do much to it tho, sorry.


Any magical influence that usually impedes movement, such as those mentioned, and any others that impede movement. What does hold person do?
You got me there. I actually had never realized that Freedom of Movement negated Hold Person. I'll ignore the fact that you thought it was the ninth level Freedom tho.


Which I mathematically debunked as lower in damage than sneak attack.
Only by ignoring commonly accepted splatbooks, and even then, its not really that much lower.


The complete series is "commonly accepted" only as a series of sourcebooks that good DMs have to be EXTREMELY careful about allowing things from, on a case by case basis, because they can rapidly imbalance a campaign. The first things people mentioned (Shock trooper, leap attack, pounce combo) was an obvious example. Every single review of these books rips them apart for balance reasons, and you're hard pressed to find D&D purists that consider them canonical and automatically allowable.
Heh...
http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=26968
automatically allowable
http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=27039
allowed
http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=2419
allowed
http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=27055
allowed

Funny... that was 1 minute looking on this site alone. Methinks youre alone in your feelings.


Once again, the default magic level in the SRD is not a nerf.
I challenge you to fill a level 20 characters WBL using just the treasure tables.


I did not ignore it. I proved you'd need a power attack bonus of +35 to equal the bonus from a sneak attack...to get +36 you need to take a -18 penalty to hit.
Thats funny. That assumes that the Rogue hits exactly as often as the Fighter. Thats not true.


No, I did not ignore them. In fact, they are part of my problem with TWF....namely that TWF takes so many damn feats and gives so little back...fighters with those extra feats can take focus, improved crit and weapon spec, vastly improving their damage. The thing is, that's a TWF problem, not a rogue problem. A dual weilding fighter has the same problems as the rogue there.
If you didnt ignore them, why in the bloddy hell have you never once in any single comparison included them?


All you proved with your posting is that your posting didn't say what type of +6 item you were discussing...the moment I saw your sentence including "+6 item" and "+5 manual", I thought "What the is his DM doing, giving out major and epic items for halloween trick-or-treat or something?" Most characters by 20 will never ever see those items.
Most characters by level 20 will see a +6 item, guaranteed. 36k out of 720k isnt hard to manage.


[Scrubbed]
[Scrubbed]

Roderick_BR
2007-01-16, 08:54 AM
Rigeld2.... do you have some problem? :smallconfused:
It's getting hard to follow the thread about Two-Weapon Fighting while you bicker with everyone and everything here.

Charity
2007-01-16, 09:00 AM
In his defence
It is difficult not to refute such extreme claims, and he is only arguing with the same individual that nearly everyone here has.

This debate is clearly going nowhere and is only loosely connected to the original post.
Hows the battle of the core classes comming on?
It may demonstrate some of the points raised here.

As we play 3.0 round these parts...
TWF did it suck more or less in 3.0?
PA was only 1:1
and you could PA with light weapons.
but it required yet another feat
Wadya think?

Rigeld2
2007-01-16, 10:18 AM
Rigeld2.... do you have some problem? :smallconfused:
It's getting hard to follow the thread about Two-Weapon Fighting while you bicker with everyone and everything here.
[Scrubbed] I'm not bickering with everyone and everything here - just with Talya.

Shhalahr Windrider
2007-01-16, 10:21 AM
Rogues are thieves, not assassins.
According to the Glossary in the PHB, Rogues are "a class made up of characters who primarily rely on stealth rather than brute force or magical ability." Not quite seeing how that means they're all theives and none of them are assassins. Seems to me that an assassin relies on stealth over brute force. (And yes, having to go through hell and high water to set up flanks or deny your opponent his or her Dex mod is stealth over brute force.)

Please also note that to actually take levels in the Assassin PrC (http://www.systemreferencedocuments.org/35/sovelior_sage/assassin.html) would require at least 8 skill points of cross class skills for anyone other than a Bard or Rogue (assuming core only for the moment). I think that demonstrates that Rogues were intended to fulfill the role of assassin when necessary.


They're a skill class, they're supposed to barely hold their own in combat.
Once you factor in that a rogue that tries to hold his or her own in combat tends to get eviscerated themselves (d6 hit die and light armor for the loss), you'll find they just can't do that. The only fighting style that a sneak-attack focused rogue can really manage is constant use of Spring Attack to keep the target(s) of a battle from hitting back too hard themselves. Of course, this tends to deny them the use of a full attack.


They are not meant to be primary combatants...they skulk around and avoid combat, getting in a rare stab if an opportunity presents itself.
Never seen a rogue do anything else.


So the treasure tables as stated in the books are a "l"very ow magic world?" Those treasure tables are the default.
Of course, those tables assume the existence of various "magic shops" and the ability of spellcasters to custom build magic items as an outlet for the extreme excess of gold and other mundane wealth. If you only let PCs get their magic items through these random drops and disallow the ability of them to flesh out the rest of their magical equipment in this fashion, yes, your campaign is Low Magic.

In any case, I don't understand such devotion to random drops. I'd think the Lich of Caerbannog would have ditched the +5 holy flaming battleaxe for which he had no use in the nearest rubbish pile a long time ago. Random treasures are only fit for those creatures who do not have the intelligence to actively collect their treasure. As such, they only make sense in a fraction of encounters.


If you have a high enough level caster you can simply buy scrolls of wish instead of the tome though.
Which, naturally, can be used to craft your own +5 manuals. Or better yet: Don't muck about with librams and manuals, but use the scrolls to raise your scores directly. 5 scrolls == +5 inherent bonus. Ain't it fun how that works out?

Thomas
2007-01-16, 10:39 AM
A: Players handbook 2 variant swashbuckler. THERE the character gains teh defensive skills that people are talking about, plus they have insightful strike. Still not uber.

Nah, not necessary. Here's my old build...

Swashbuckler 3/Fighter 4/Duelist 10/?undecided? 3. (Scout is good for Uncanny Dodge; otherwise, Rogue. Barbarian 2 would net you Uncanny Dodge, but that just doesn't fit the concept.)

Str 13, Dex 15, Int 16. The rest is optional. Human, unless you want to ditch one of the feats. All increases go to Dex, for Dex 20 at 20th level.

Feats: Combat Reflexes, Dodge, Elusive Target, Greater Two-Weapon Defense, Improved Two-Weapon Defense, Improved Two-Weapon Fighting, Mobility, Power Attack, Robilar's Gambit, Two-Weapon Defense, Two-Weapon Fighting, Weapon Finesse.

(Elusive Target and Robilar's Gambit are optional, but man, do they help you control the battlefield.)

Defensive items: +5 defending dagger, amulet of natural armor +5, bracers of armor +8 (+10 is possible as a non-epic item, but we're sticking to RAW), gloves of dexterity +6, headband of intellect +6, manual of quickness in action +4, tome of clear thought +4, and a ring of protection +5.

That's AC 54; +10 for Dex 30, +8 for the bracers, +5 deflection, +5 natural, +8 for Int 26 and Canny Defense, +5 for the dagger, and a +3 shield bonus for Greater Two-Weapon Defense.

Fighting defensively, the character takes a -4 penalty to attacks (with a +5 keen speed rapier, Dex 30, and Weapon Finesse, that leaves +31 as the attack bonus), and increases AC by +19; +10 dodge for Elaborate Parry, +3 dodge for fighting defensively with 5+ ranks in Tumble, and a +6 shield bonus instead of a +3 from Greater Two-Weapon Defense.

That's AC 73.

The character is tricky - impossible, even - for most monsters around CR 20 to hit. Robilar's Gambit gives them +4 to attacks, but that won't really help; meanwhile, the character gets up to 11 attacks of opportunity per round against opponents who attack him (one per attack), with a damage of 1d6+18 (assuming a belt of giant strength +6). He's not a great damage-dealer, but he's not neglible, either; he can either go +31/+31/+26/+21/+16 for 1d6+18+2d6 (precise strike) damage with the rapier, or +29/+29/+24/+19/+14 and +24/+19 with rapier and dagger (lose the precise strike; the dagger deals 1d4+10 damage). Add +4 to those attacks when not fighting defensively (and +5 more for the dagger if foregoing using the bonus for defense).

The character should have some gold left over (by WBL) for items that let him fly and/or teleport, etc.


Anyway, that's an effective TWF build. Works best against humanoid opponents, but should make a very effective party member in fights against anything else, too. Magic is a weakness, but that's true of most non-paladin melee builds.


+6 enhancements are, by the SRD, epic items. Price is irrelevant, you can't get them pre-epic. You need house-rules to get that stuff, they don't drop on the standard loot tables. As for most of the other things, they drop so rarely that you'd be lucky to see a tome in a year of gaming.

RTFSRD.

Weapons and armor of over +5 are epic. +6 stat-boosting items are not. They're in the DMG and SRD. Items that grant an armor bonus up to +10 are not epic (bracers of armor).

Ambrogino
2007-01-16, 10:51 AM
I love that build. It makes me smile every time I see it.

Thomas have you ever done a level by level breakdown of that build on the way up? I've always wondered at what stage everything starts coming together for it.

Matthew
2007-01-16, 11:21 AM
As we play 3.0 round these parts...
TWF did it suck more or less in 3.0?
PA was only 1:1
and you could PA with light weapons.
but it required yet another feat
Wadya think?

Yeah, Two Handed Fighting was less great, relative to Weapon and Shield or Two Weapon Fighting back in 3.0. It is pretty much too late to tun back the Power Attack clock, though, and that extra Ambidexterity Feat was a serious problem for non Human Rogues.

I much preferred the old Power Attack rules, but I prefer low power type Dungeons & Dragons in general. I can't see the sense in preventing Light Weapons from being used in conjunction with Power Attack either. Hell, I would have been happy with a five point cap and Improved, Greater and Perfect Power Attack Feats.

Basically, niether the 3.0 or 3.5 rules cut it for balancing these three styles. 3.5 fixed this and that, but then opened up a bunch of new balance issues.

I wouldn't care if Sneak Attack could only be applied once, as part of a Standard Attack Action, but that it can be applied multiple times doesn't bother me either.

Yakk
2007-01-16, 11:26 AM
Nevermind. You really arent worth the warning I just got. I wish I could put people on this forum on ignore.

You can put people on ignore.

Yes, there are +6 non-epic items. Yes, your post didn't explicitly mention it, but I figured out you where talking about modifying one's strength once I thought "+6 can't be enhancement to weapon hit/damage without cheese. Assuming he isn't being cheesy, what is he talking about?", a basic step you should take before disagreeing with someone.

Yes, in this forum you are allowed to say "You did not express yourself clearly, so the misunderstanding is your fault", and are not allowed to say "you didn't read my post". There are rules about saying "you didn't read my post", but no rules about "you didn't express yourself clearly".

The answer is, in short, if you run into someone who will agressively attack anything they disagree with with a warped or misunderstood meaning, and if you find that aggrivating, you put them on ignore.

On the other hand, if you enjoy talking to people who warp what people say in order to generate disagreement, and then blame the person whose statement they are warping, you can leave them off ignore. Just don't violate forum rules while doing so.


Vitriol is not a reason to ignore someone's points. A guy who's gotten fed up with an idiot and starts insulting him doesn't then automatically become wrong; assuming so is a form of the ad hominem logical fallacy.

But they become difficult to speak with without getting warnings on this forum. A thread full of Vitrol is a sign that you should avoid the thread, simply because you can get an official warning for participating in the Vitrol.

Rigeld2
2007-01-16, 11:52 AM
You can put people on ignore.
Thanks. Wasnt aware that I could. Just figured out how.

Hoggmaster
2007-01-16, 12:34 PM
I like how TWF is represented in the Conan RPG... it is a proficency, with feats associated with it... very nice..

TheDarkOne
2007-01-16, 12:40 PM
I'm pretty sure Hold Person still works against someone with freedom of movement. Hold Person doesn't so much impede movement as it stops you from doing anything at all. I know I've read an argument about it before, and I think they reached that conclusion, but I'm not totally sure.

Shisumo
2007-01-16, 12:48 PM
I just typed up a huge post that actually went through the math on a elf TWF rogue 20 and a half-orc greatsword fighter 20 against AC 35 - and then the forum burped, and I lost it. The short version works like this: using the feat lists and equipment from the PHB2, I worked out how much average damage each would do, assuming both were flanking.

Despite the 10d6 sneak attack damage from the rogue, the fighter still came out 9 points ahead without using Power Attack.

The big issue comes from this assumption here:


I proved you'd need a power attack bonus of +35 to equal the bonus from a sneak attack...to get +36 you need to take a -18 penalty to hit.
As it happens, this is rather emphatically not the case. The rogue build I used - which I will stick at the end of this post - did an average of 44 points of damage with the primary hand, and 42 points with the off-hand. The fighter did an average of 37 points - so you only need a -4 to hit to equal (or, rather, exceed) the rogue's average sneak attack damage. That plus the fighter's greater attack bonus basically seals the deal.

Here are the builds I used (I'm not going to repost the math, though, sorry):
Half-orc fighter 20
Str 22 (26), Dex 13, Con 14, Int 8, Wis 12, Cha 6
Feats: Power Attack, Cleave, Weapon Focus: greatsword, Improved Sunder, Weapon Specialization: greatsword, Iron Will, Improved Bull Rush, Greater Weapon Focus: greatsword, Melee Weapon Mastery: slashing, Improved Critical: greatsword, Armor Specialization: heavy, Greater Weapon Specialization: greatsword, Slashing Flurry, Overwhelming Assault, Intimidating Strike, Improved Initative, Weapon Supremacy: greatsword, Cometary Collision
+5 thundering shock greatsword, belt of giant strength +4
Full attack (flanking bonus): +37(39)/+32(34)/+27(39)/+22(24) (2d6+23 plus 1d6 sonic plus 1d6 electricity - average 37)

Elf rogue 20
Str 13, Dex 22 (26), Con 10, Int 14, Wis 10, Cha 8
Feats: Two-Weapon Fighting, Weapon Finesse, Combat Expertise, Improved Two-Weapon Fighting, Weapon Focus: shortsword, Improved Feint, Improved Initiative, Two-Weapon Rend, Greater Two-Weapon Fighting, Dodge
+5 shortsword and +4 shortsword, gloves of Dexterity +4
Full attack (flanking bonus): +27(29)/+22(24)/+17(19) (1d6+6 plus 10d6 - average 44) and +26(28)/+21(23)/+16(18) (1d6+4 plus 10d6 - average 42)

Renegade Paladin
2007-01-16, 01:22 PM
Yes, in this forum you are allowed to say "You did not express yourself clearly, so the misunderstanding is your fault", and are not allowed to say "you didn't read my post". There are rules about saying "you didn't read my post", but no rules about "you didn't express yourself clearly".

The answer is, in short, if you run into someone who will agressively attack anything they disagree with with a warped or misunderstood meaning, and if you find that aggrivating, you put them on ignore.

On the other hand, if you enjoy talking to people who warp what people say in order to generate disagreement, and then blame the person whose statement they are warping, you can leave them off ignore. Just don't violate forum rules while doing so.
Which is a problem. You shouldn't have do to that; to have rules preventing people from demanding that someone read what they wrote instead of lying about it and no rules to punish misrepresenting someone is a situation ripe for abuse.

But they become difficult to speak with without getting warnings on this forum. A thread full of Vitrol is a sign that you should avoid the thread, simply because you can get an official warning for participating in the Vitrol.
Which is why I think the rules on this board are more broken then some I could name in d20, but that's an issue for a different thread.

Anyway, back to the topic:
Rogues are thieves, not assassins.
Actually, no. Rogues are... rogues. They can be thieves, vigilantes, dungeon delvers, sages in the right topics, crime lords, toughs, thugs, spies, diplomats, and, yes, assassins. The class can and does fill all of these roles and more depending on the skill set chosen and what the character does with it.

Shhalahr Windrider
2007-01-16, 01:34 PM
Rogues are... rogues. They can be thieves, vigilantes, dungeon delvers, sages in the right topics, crime lords, toughs, thugs, spies, diplomats, and, yes, assassins. The class can and does fill all of these roles and more depending on the skill set chosen and what the character does with it.
Oh, man! You said it so much better than I did. I'm jealous! :smallbiggrin:

Renegade Paladin
2007-01-16, 01:54 PM
Oops. I forgot con artist. How did I forget con artist? :smallamused:

Roland St. Jude
2007-01-16, 01:57 PM
Sheriff of Moddingham: Let me try this again. Please stop personally attacking others. Even "cleverly" worded attacks such as "anyone who can't see the truth of that is ignorant" or "people like that are just irrational when it comes to game balance" are still flames according the rules of this board.

This is the last thread-wide warning. Next time, I'll just lock the thread.

Thank you.

Ramza00
2007-01-16, 02:07 PM
Sheriff of Moddingham: Let me try this again. Please stop personally attacking others. Even "cleverly" worded attacks such as "anyone who can't see the truth of that is ignorant" or "people like that are just irrational when it comes to game balance" are still flames according the rules of this board.

This is the last thread-wide warning. Next time, I'll just lock the thread.

Thank you.
Please just lock this thread, it isn't going to be productive, people's patience have already reached the mark and are no longer paying attention to it, or there patience is gone and they are going to vent there frustration/anger in ways that are considered flaiming under the rules.

Renegade Paladin
2007-01-16, 02:18 PM
Please just lock this thread, it isn't going to be productive, people's patience have already reached the mark and are no longer paying attention to it, or there patience is gone and they are going to vent there frustration/anger in ways that are considered flaiming under the rules.
You know, if you dislike the thread that much, you could just stop reading it. Just a friendly suggestion.

Were-Sandwich
2007-01-16, 02:34 PM
Think about it this way: Every flame here is uneeded agro that could be clogging up another thread. Best leave them to it.

Yakk
2007-01-16, 02:58 PM
Based off "Shisumo"'s builds:

Rogue: 86/86/86 @ +28/23/18 or better.
Fighter: 94/47/47/47 @ +28/+23/+18/+13 or better.

Assuming 85% chance to hit on first round, then 60% second, 35% third, 10% forth.

Second, swap the greatsword for a falcion. 2 less damage on average, but +30% crit damage on average.

Rogue with hit and crits:
76/54/31 = 161 average damage

Fighter with hit and crits:
104/37/21/5 = 167 average damage

In effect, the Fighter and the Rogue do about the same damage.

The Fighter gains about 7 damage per additional point of strength, or 2 damage without sacraficing the improved accuracy.

+1 to hit adds ~8% to the damage of the Rogue via accuracy.
+1 to hit adds ~11% to the damage of the Fighter via accuracy.

Each 1 point of increased melee damage deals 2.34 damage for the Fighter.
Each 1 point of increased melee damage deals 1.98 damage for the Rogue.

The Fighter can, in that situation, sacrafice a point of power attack and gain about 13 to 15 more damage. Ie, the Fighter is not attacking optimally.

The Rogue, meanwhile, cannot fine tune her attacks.

...

In essence, a decently built power attacking Fighter and a Rogue do about the same damage. The Rogue needs to be flanking and not moving to deal her damage.

The Fighter will beat the Rogue if the Rogue is not flanking, they are fighting a target immune to precision damage, or if the combat is mobile and doesn't allow full attacks.

Additional attribute boosts help the Fighter more than the Rogue. Every +1 strength bonus generates more additional damage for the Fighter than every +1 dex bonus for the Rogue.

...

So, from what I can tell, the Rogue can match the Fighter's damage. On precision-weak, not moving, flanked targets, or during a surprise round.

Otherwise, the Fighter far outdamages the Rogue.

(A power attack charge is a thing to fear -- while a running sneak attack is weak.)

Renegade Paladin
2007-01-16, 03:07 PM
Off my builds? I'm flattered, but I don't think those are mine...

FdL
2007-01-16, 06:44 PM
I'm only going to give my little 2 cents about these kind of discussions.

When arguing from the crunch side of things, people usually assume too much of what would happen IN GAME. But character builds cannot possibly be designed taking into account that you will be able to buy X item, that the party wizard will craft X item for you, that your Archivist will be given lots of scrolls, that your pun pun's watchacallit magic lizard will be there to do its weird thing :) , even that you will be able to take that obscure PrC...Etc.

They're all in-game variables, and as such they should only be available once your character is finished, and then it's the DM's world and his adventure (I'm not even talking about house rules here).

One thing is to build in the lab, but characters are meant to be played. Otherwise it's just taking it out of context and you might as well play Excel (tm)


That is my particular, personal opinion and whoever doesn't agree with it, doesn't have to.

Fax Celestis
2007-01-16, 06:49 PM
One thing is to build in the lab, but characters are meant to be played. Otherwise it's just taking it out of context and you might as well play Excel (tm)

Hey, man. Don't knock Excel. That game is fun. Play it all the time when I'm supposed to be working.

Roderick_BR
2007-01-16, 07:03 PM
Ah, I see. My more sincere apologies then.
Hmm... I was doing some maths myself, and seeing the high "cost" in feats, and the lesser chances of hits per attack, TWF does have some good damage, but too little to compensate all the trouble.

Viscount Einstrauss
2007-01-16, 07:07 PM
Yeah, outside of heavily manipulating feat progressions in various classes. Even then, you won't start really shining until you're halfway to epic.

Then again, if you keep up with it into epics, you could have a very powerful combatant...

Okay, new project- forget about THF. Try to build a level 25 TWF using every exploit feasibly possible, assuming that the only thing limitting you is ordinary class restrictions. I'm curious to see how powerful you could really make the build in epics (well, and I'd like to know exactly what kind of progression could be used for it).

Shisumo
2007-01-17, 12:13 AM
Off my builds? I'm flattered, but I don't think those are mine...

They're not really mine, either - I stole the fighter outright from the PHBII, and the rogue is mostly from the same source (appropriate changes to the "duelist" character option to make it a TWFer). Note that the equipment is also from the PHBII, and thus NPC level rather than PC level.

AtomicKitKat
2007-01-17, 12:19 AM
Okay, new project- forget about THF. Try to build a level 25 TWF using every exploit feasibly possible, assuming that the only thing limitting you is ordinary class restrictions. I'm curious to see how powerful you could really make the build in epics (well, and I'd like to know exactly what kind of progression could be used for it).

Just point me towards it. I presume we're allowed more or less anything from 3.5, what about 3.0? Updated or otherwise?

Darrin
2007-01-17, 08:26 AM
Just point me towards it. I presume we're allowed more or less anything from 3.5, what about 3.0? Updated or otherwise?

It's not epic, but how about a level 20 TWF build with 126d6+450 sneak attack damage:

http://boards1.wizards.com/showpost.php?p=10836750#post10836750

AtomicKitKat
2007-01-17, 09:57 AM
I meant the contest. :P I'm still undecided on whether stances should be considered "broken". Will need to get ToB eventually and see the exact rules on them.

ImperiousLeader
2007-01-17, 11:35 AM
ToB is not epic, but I'm willing to try and build a 20th level TWF Warblade and see how it matches up.

PinkysBrain
2007-01-17, 12:07 PM
It's not epic, but how about a level 20 TWF build with 126d6+450 sneak attack damage
I assume the 450 is mostly from Craven ... which admittedly is broken. At level 20 the ability to do 126d6 when everything hits isn't really though.

Darrin
2007-01-17, 12:29 PM
I assume the 450 is mostly from Craven ... which admittedly is broken. At level 20 the ability to do 126d6 when everything hits isn't really though.

Shadow Blade helps, but if you want to get really broken, Combat Rhythm from Stormguard Warrior makes +450 look like Improved Tickle:

http://boards1.wizards.com/showthread.php?t=764997

PinkysBrain
2007-01-17, 12:43 PM
Actually combat rhythm isn't really the problem there, WRT is (the fact that D&D has so many stacking buffs doesn't help either, but WRT is the biggest issue there).

Uncommon to popular belief these kind of broken builds are far more often the result of singular broken abilities than because of unexpected synergies.

Telonius
2007-01-17, 01:27 PM
Based off "Shisumo"'s builds:

Rogue: 86/86/86 @ +28/23/18 or better.
Fighter: 94/47/47/47 @ +28/+23/+18/+13 or better.

Assuming 85% chance to hit on first round, then 60% second, 35% third, 10% forth.

Second, swap the greatsword for a falcion. 2 less damage on average, but +30% crit damage on average.

Rogue with hit and crits:
76/54/31 = 161 average damage

Fighter with hit and crits:
104/37/21/5 = 167 average damage

In effect, the Fighter and the Rogue do about the same damage.

The Fighter gains about 7 damage per additional point of strength, or 2 damage without sacraficing the improved accuracy.

+1 to hit adds ~8% to the damage of the Rogue via accuracy.
+1 to hit adds ~11% to the damage of the Fighter via accuracy.

Each 1 point of increased melee damage deals 2.34 damage for the Fighter.
Each 1 point of increased melee damage deals 1.98 damage for the Rogue.

The Fighter can, in that situation, sacrafice a point of power attack and gain about 13 to 15 more damage. Ie, the Fighter is not attacking optimally.

The Rogue, meanwhile, cannot fine tune her attacks.

...

In essence, a decently built power attacking Fighter and a Rogue do about the same damage. The Rogue needs to be flanking and not moving to deal her damage.

The Fighter will beat the Rogue if the Rogue is not flanking, they are fighting a target immune to precision damage, or if the combat is mobile and doesn't allow full attacks.

Additional attribute boosts help the Fighter more than the Rogue. Every +1 strength bonus generates more additional damage for the Fighter than every +1 dex bonus for the Rogue.

...

So, from what I can tell, the Rogue can match the Fighter's damage. On precision-weak, not moving, flanked targets, or during a surprise round.

Otherwise, the Fighter far outdamages the Rogue.

(A power attack charge is a thing to fear -- while a running sneak attack is weak.)


Hmm. Switching out a level of Rogue for a level of Master of Masks (from the Complete Scoundrel excerpt) can get you the Assassin mask, which gives +1d6 to damage. Your BAB would be 1 lower, though. Would it be worth it?

Also, if you're building a damage rogue, you might consider ditching the Weapon Finesse and bumping up the strength instead of dex. You do still need 15 Dex to get TWF. Although Finesse is a traditional Rogue-y feat to take, it's a drag on total damage output if your strength is less than your dex. Your Attack Bonus would be exactly the same if you based the character around strength, but your damage would be higher because of the +x strength bonus for each hit.

Shisumo
2007-01-17, 01:43 PM
Hmm. Switching out a level of Rogue for a level of Master of Masks (from the Complete Scoundrel excerpt) can get you the Assassin mask, which gives +1d6 to damage. Your BAB would be 1 lower, though. Would it be worth it?

Also, if you're building a damage rogue, you might consider ditching the Weapon Finesse and bumping up the strength instead of dex. You do still need 15 Dex to get TWF. Although Finesse is a traditional Rogue-y feat to take, it's a drag on total damage output if your strength is less than your dex. Your Attack Bonus would be exactly the same if you based the character around strength, but your damage would be higher because of the +x strength bonus for each hit.
I went Finesse because the number "66d6" was thrown out for damage at one point, which I interpreted as 6 attacks doing 10d6 damage (plus a 1d6 weapon), and that requires GTWF, and *that* requires Dex 19. Once I'd committed to Dex that far, trying to split up ability score bonuses to make the to-hit probability high enough via Strength to make the build work seemed unfeasible. That said, someone else is welcome to try it.