Rogue build: TWF or non-TWF?

[Saph]

I'm building a Catfolk Rogue and trying to decide whether or not to go for the Two-Weapon Fighting route.

Catfolk Two-Weapon Fighting looks nice at first glance - you get to use the Catfolk Pounce feat to get multiple sneak attacks in the first round of combat assuming you win initiative (which you have a pretty good chance of due to your huge dex). The problem is lack of feats.

The feats I'd like are:

• Weapon Finesse (essential)
• Improved Initiative
• Two-Weapon Fighting
• Catfolk Pounce

Problem is, to get all those feats with a straight Rogue I'll have to be level 10 (9 levels of Rogue +1 LA, maybe a little less if LA buyoff is allowed). Our group normally plays around 3rd-9th level, so something's going to have to go.

The options I'm thinking about are:

1) Lose Improved Initiative - trouble with this is that it weakens Catfolk Pounce and means less sneak attacks.

2) Multiclass to Fighter or Ranger - multiclassing to Fighter will hurt the character's skillmonkey status and will mean XP penalties since Catfolk's favoured class is Ranger, and multiclassing to Ranger for two levels just for one feat seems a waste, although at least it won't hurt my skills as much.

3) Give up on TWF entirely and just do single attacks.

So what do you think - is TWF worth it for a rogue? Are the extra sneak attacks worth the feat investment? I'm split between Options 1, 2, and 3 at the moment and can't decide. Any suggestions from rogue-savvy players would be welcome.

- Saph

[Rigeld2]

So what do you think - is TWF worth it for a rogue? Are the extra sneak attacks worth the feat investment?
The only thing that makes TWF worth it is extra dice.

Remember, you also get sneak dice when flanking, so if you charge into flanking, Catfolk Pounce still helps. I'd lose Imp. Init, and think real hard about dumping Weapon Finesse, depending on stats and weapons used.

[Saph]

Remember, you also get sneak dice when flanking, so if you charge into flanking, Catfolk Pounce still helps. I'd lose Imp. Init, and think real hard about dumping Weapon Finesse, depending on stats and weapons used.

Charging into flanking sounds difficult - how do you make sure you start your turn with an ally exactly on the other side of your target?

As for Weapon Finesse, catfolk have a +4 Dex, so it seems like a real waste not to make the most of it. My current stats are Str 12 and Dex 20, so Weapon Finesse is effectively a +4 to hit.

- Saph

[greenknight]

TWF is certainly worthwhile for a Rogue. In your case, I'd go with 2 Ranger levels. Yes, that is a lot for just 1 Feat, but realistically the Ranger levels also give you Track (making your character a bit more effective as a scout), a favored enemy and a much better range of weapons to choose from.

[Rigeld2]

Charging into flanking sounds difficult - how do you make sure you start your turn with an ally exactly on the other side of your target?
Work with your allies to allow you to do that. If they purposely move opposite of your rogue, you can charge into flanking.


As for Weapon Finesse, catfolk have a +4 Dex, so it seems like a real waste not to make the most of it. My current stats are Str 12 and Dex 20, so Weapon Finesse is effectively a +4 to hit.
True, but do you have to have it at 1st level? Go Catfolk Pounce/TWF/Weapon Finesse (1/3/6) and you should be fine. Youre still using it to get you a decent AC, so I dont think youre wasting it.

Again, what weapons are you planning on using?

[Saph]

Again, what weapons are you planning on using?

Either a rapier or a short sword, a second short sword if I go for the TWF route, with a light mace as backup and a shortbow for ranged.

- Saph

[Talya]

True, but do you have to have it at 1st level?


Technically, a rogue can't have weapon finesse at 1st level. You need a BAB of at least 1 to take it.

[Bears With Lasers]

TWF is worth it for a rogue. You might consider dipping two levels of Psychic Warrior, which will get you two bonus feats; you can spend one of'em on Expanded Knowledge: Dimension Hop, to gain a swift-action teleport that'll get you out of danger after your pounce. Downside is, you'll need a little Wisdom.

Edit: Finesse's +1 BAB prereq is an example of absolutely shoddy game design.

[Rigeld2]

Technically, a rogue can't have weapon finesse at 1st level. You need a BAB of at least 1 to take it.
I always forget that... so there doesnt seem to be much of a problem going CP/TWF/WF.

[Bears With Lasers]

TWF/WF/CP, then. Pounce does you no good unless you have multiple attacks, and TWF does you no good without WF to give you a decent AB.

Edit: the PsyWar version would go like this:

1: TWF
PW 1: WF
PW 2: Expanded Knowledge: Dimension Hop
3: Catfolk Pounce.

You get all your feats at level 3, ECL 4. You get Weapon Finesse at ECL 3. You lose some skills, but, oh well--price you pay.

[Rigeld2]

With Pounce, you can still TWF, its just at -4 to both. If youre charging/flanking, that nulls out.

Meh, I can see going both ways.

[Bears With Lasers]

You could also take Fighter instead of PsyWar, but then no Dimension Hop for you. Fighter 1/Psion 1 is also an option, instead of PsyWar 2; Psion synergizes with INT, gets a bonus psionic feat at level 1, and will let you Dimension Hop 4 times per day or so with a rogue's INT.

[TRM]

I might skip the TWF all together, but that is just my prepherance.
And, yes, I would agree that Weapon Finesse is absolutely essential (assuming of course you use light weapons :smallamused: )



Pounce does you no good unless you have multiple attacks, and TWF does you no good without WF to give you a decent AB.
Bears With Lasers usually knows what he's doing, and I echo him on this matter.

Something like:
Weapon Finesse/Catfolk Pounce/TWF
With a single level of fighter you could get all of these by level 4 (which would be ECL 5???) Except it might be good to take the level of fighter first as you need a base attack bonus of +1 for Weapon Finesse.
For an extra feat you could dip into Fighter for one level, which would also increase your HP and attacks (and give you access to more weapons)

Edit: It appears that most of what I wrote was already written.

[Saph]

The problem with dipping Fighter, Psion, or PsiWar is that it further hurts my skills, which will already be a little below average due to the LA, and I'm not sure the extra damage will be worth making the character poorer in his main role as a skillmonkey.

The other problem that the Catfolk favoured class is Ranger. So if I multiclass into anything else, I'll start getting hit with XP penalties once my Rogue level hits 3 or 4. Wouldn't be a problem for a short game though, I guess.

- Saph

[Reinboom]

Charging into flanking sounds difficult - how do you make sure you start your turn with an ally exactly on the other side of your target?

There's a skill trick in complete scoundrel called Twisted Charge that allows you to make a single turn with a charge. 2 skill points loss to give you a really great combat option, very worthy of a look.

[Bears With Lasers]

The problem with dipping Fighter, Psion, or PsiWar is that it further hurts my skills, which will already be a little below average due to the LA, and I'm not sure the extra damage will be worth making the character poorer in his main role as a skillmonkey.

The other problem that the Catfolk favoured class is Ranger. So if I multiclass into anything else, I'll start getting hit with XP penalties once my Rogue level hits 3 or 4. Wouldn't be a problem for a short game though, I guess.

- Saph

Oh, it's ranger? I thought it was rogue. See if you can wheedle Rogue as a favored class out of your DM. :P If not, Ranger 2/Rogue X should do (in that you can take Weapon Finesse at level 1, gain TWF at level 2, and take Catfolk Charge at level 3, then progress as a rogue) and has no XP penalty. No Dimension Hop for you, though.

[Jannex]

I've never done TWF with a rogue before (usually I find that, with 3/4 BAB, they don't need any to-hit penalties), but in your case it sounds like the way to go. So here are my thoughts:

I'd go with the ranger dip. It'll keep your skill points up, give you Track (which never hurts), and if you do the Ranger levels first, it'll give you your +1 BAB at first level to let you take Weapon Finesse. Here's what it'd look like...

1 (Ranger) - Weapon Finesse, Track
2 (Ranger) - TWF
3 (Rogue) - Catfolk Pounce

You'll have all three key feats by your third class level, leaving you the rest of your progression to do with as you please, and your skills don't take a significant hit. Not to mention, no worries about multiclass penalties, since Ranger is your favored class. That's what I'd do, in your position.

Edit: Dangit, ninja'ed by a Bear. Stephen Colbert was right about them!

[Saph]

Oh, it's ranger? I thought it was rogue. See if you can wheedle Rogue as a favored class out of your DM. :P

Heh.


If not, Ranger 2/Rogue X should do (in that you can take Weapon Finesse at level 1, gain TWF at level 2, and take Catfolk Charge at level 3, then progress as a rogue.

I'll probably go rogue, ranger, rogue, ranger and then rogue from there on for the extra starting skill points. If I'm starting at level 2, though, Ranger first would be better.

- Saph

[Bears With Lasers]

Rogue first doesn't let you start with Weapon Finesse.
I suppose you could go Rogue first and just chuck daggers or shoot a bow for the first two levels.

[Matthew]

I would probably drop Improved Initiative.

[jameswilliamogle]

I don't know if its been mentioned yet, but 2 levels of Ranger in there will work well and relieve some feat crunch. A Rogue 16 / Ranger 4 will work well for you, getting +16 BAB by 20th level and still getting nearly everything a rogue would want.

If you were willing to drop most of the Rogue levels and instead go into a PrC, you could add Fighter levels with no XP penalty. Something like Rogue 4 / Fighter 4 / Ranger 2 / Nightsong Enforcer 10 would have BAB +19, TWF for free, 3 bonus feats, 6d6 sneak attack, and only requires Improved Initiative, which you wanted anyways.

So, that makes it something like

Rogue 2 / Ranger 2 / Fighter 2 / Rogue +1 / Fighter +1 / Nightsong Enforcer 10 / Fighter +1 / Rogue +1

1 Improved Initiative
3 Weapon Finesse
4 bonus Two-Weapon Fighting
5 bonus (any fighter)
6 Catfolk Pounce
6 bonus (any fighter)
9 Neraph Charge (you MUST obtain this, somehow: Planar Handbook: renders opponent flat-footed after a charge, once per opponent per encounter)
12 any (Craven)
15 any
18 any
bonus (any fighter, taken sometime after the last one)

A couple of levels of Shadowblade at high level will get you Assasin's Stance, and also qualify you for Shadowblade. The bonus feats should go to the TWF chain of feats.

[Devils_Advocate]

multiclassing to Ranger for two levels just for one feat seems a waste, although at least it won't hurt my skills as much.
Actually, it gives you the equivalent of three feats: in addition to TWF and Track, multiclassing to Ranger gets you +2 to Fort saves (as does the Great Fortitude feat). Plus Wild Empathy and a Favored Enemy bonus.

Of course, you lose some skill points and a Sneak Attack die and don't get Evasion and Uncanny Dodge as soon as you would have if you went straight Rogue.


Edit: Finesse's +1 BAB prereq is an example of absolutely shoddy game design.
Ugh. Tell me about it. It's ridiculous that a single-class rogue can't get this feat until level 3. C'mon, a weak, agile dagger-wielding sneak-attacker with high hand-eye coordination only learns how to stab at his enemies with grace and precision after he's had a fair amount of experience clumsily thrusting at them? Why the hell would he be clumsily thrusting in the first place?

If rogues got Weapon Finesse as a bonus feat and could only use Sneak Attack in combination with Weapon Finesse or ranged attacks, it would make far more sense than their current ability to sneak attack with greatswords. (Though in that case, you might want to delay Sneak Attack to 2nd level, increasing every even level thereafter. Otherwise it might make the class too front-loaded.)

Anyway, maybe Saph could convince the DM to drop the BAB requirement for Weapon Finesse on the grounds that it is immensely stupid.


I don't know if its been mentioned yet, but 2 levels of Ranger in there will work well and relieve some feat crunch.
... It was mentioned in the first post, and has been one of the main subjects of disussion in this thread. :smallconfused:

Also mentioned in the first post was the unlikelihood of playing past level 9.

[Talya]

Edit: Finesse's +1 BAB prereq is an example of absolutely shoddy game design.



The existence of Finesse at all is an example of absolutely shoddy game design. It should be automatic.

[Matthew]

With you until... automatic? Weapon Finesse is a deeply flawed Feat, but there's no mechanical reason it should be automatic.

[Jannex]

With you until... automatic? Weapon Finesse is a deeply flawed Feat, but there's no mechanical reason it should be automatic.

I think I see what she's saying: that some melee weapons should go off of Dex by default, because that's how you use them. A rapier isn't designed to be used to bash someone over the head; by its very nature, it requires agility and finesse to use. Theoretically, if you're "proficient" with a rapier, then you know how to use it correctly, i.e. with Dex instead of Strength.

[Matthew]

There's some justification to that view, but remember Strength is required to successfully make use of hand eye coordination, contributing directly to the speed at which you move. If anything, AB should be a combination of Strength and Dexterity, but mechanically Dexterity already governs more than enough aspects of the game.

[Cybren]

Well no STR is your AB so you can penetrate armor.
it's just that for some reason being stronger also allows you to penetrate...uhm...dodging

[Bears With Lasers]

Because you can swing your weapon harder and faster. That takes strength.

[Cybren]

Well yes and no but due to how the D&D rules distort reality it doesn't matter.

[Reinboom]

You could combine dex and str. Str against flat footed, dex against touch, or add both together when normal (only for melee attacks, of course).
Only a minor added complication that could easily be tracked that would also improve hand to hand combat in advantage of fighters, and remove weapon finesse altogether.
hmm.... I like this idea, I think I have a new alternate houserule. Woo.

On the topic, I would also try to squeeze weapon finesse out of your DM for first level. +1 BAB is just silly when your dealing with a class that should be of finesse anyways.

[Telonius]

Hasn't been mentioned yet, but Search, Spot, Hide, and Move Silently are on the Ranger's class skill list. UMD and Tumble are the only completely key Rogue skills not on the Ranger list. (There are a bunch of other useful skills that aren't on the Ranger list, like Bluff, Diplomacy, Disguise, Escape Artist, but they're more situation-dependent). You can definitely make up for that over a few levels.

[Talya]

With you until... automatic? Weapon Finesse is a deeply flawed Feat, but there's no mechanical reason it should be automatic.


Sure there is.

You don't use strength to push a rapier through armor. Doing so just breaks the rapier. It's all finesse, there's no way to use strength. The rapier could not punch THROUGH armor, it found gaps in it.

For that matter, even most heavier bladed weapons require a combination of strength and dexterity to use properly. A skilled swordsman never became so through brute force, but through reflexes, coordination, and pure dextrous talent.

It is true that certain weapons required a certain amount of strength to weild well, especially the heavier they got. Greatswords and bastardswords (not Katanas), axes, blunt weapons, etc. Even these required a certain amount of dexterity or you'd never hit, but one can make a valid argument that strength was paramount with them. But most bladed weapons (even those not considered "light" by the SRD, like katanas, scimitars and longswords) were primarily finesse weapons from the start. Strength was secondary, you didn't win by brute force, but by superior agility.

[Bears With Lasers]

That's a realism reason, Talya, not a mechanical reason.

[Telonius]

Not to belabor the obvious, but ...

Mechanical reason for the feat to get rid of the +1 requirement: the sorts of characters Weapon Finesse would most benefit (Rogues, Dex-based Monks...) cannot get it at first level. They have to wait until 3rd level. Other classes that will not benefit as much from high dexterity (Paladins, Fighters, Barbarians...) are able to take it at first level. Fighters, in particular, have three opportunities to get the feat before Rogues and Monks get it - Normal first level, Fighter first level, and Fighter second level. Not that a Fighter would take the feat, of course (though for some insane reason it's on the Fighter Feats list).

This makes little sense, particularly for Rogues, who are proficient in almost all of the weapons to which Weapon Finesse applies. Due to their lack of heavier armor, and heavily dexterity-dependent skill selection, they will likely try to keep their dexterity as high as possible. (Most of their damage is not Strength-based, so it's rather silly to increase strength.) So this leads right into the mechanical reason for it to be automatic, at least for Rogues:

In nearly every Rogue build, Weapon Finesse is beneficial. I have never seen an actual, in-play Rogue without it (in the same way that I've never seen a Fighter that didn't take Power Attack). This is not as big of an issue for Fighters, who have feats to spare; they can take PA at first, second, or third without it putting too much of a crimp in their style It is an issue for Rogues, who do not get any bonus feats. When something is so close to the mechanical class concept that seeing a character without it would be just plain weird, it ought to be a class feature.

To Talya, I would submit that the problem isn't with Weapon Finesse, the problem is with the Rapier. The rapier's damage already mitigates against it being used as a strength-based weapon. It's only a d6. The only reason a Strength-based fighter would ever use it would be if he had nothing else available. Which does bring me to another fix for it: Reclassify the Rapier as a Light Weapon (possibly with some bonuses to disarm attempts while wielding it). You can't use Power Attack on Light weapons, and a Rapier seems like just the sort of weapon this should apply to. I honestly don't think you'll see an explosion of wizards and clerics suddenly picking up Rapiers if the change is made.

[Latronis]

You could combine dex and str. Str against flat footed, dex against touch, or add both together when normal (only for melee attacks, of course).
Only a minor added complication that could easily be tracked that would also improve hand to hand combat in advantage of fighters, and remove weapon finesse altogether.
hmm.... I like this idea, I think I have a new alternate houserule. Woo.

On the topic, I would also try to squeeze weapon finesse out of your DM for first level. +1 BAB is just silly when your dealing with a class that should be of finesse anyways.

What i did once was drop base armour from 10 to 0 and had a d20 roll for AC with BAB + Dex mod vs AC + dodge etc. Add the armour bonuses and if neccassary the strength mod to hit. A negative to either stat always penalised the attack bonus. That was when someone wanted to use the HP\WP variant, oh and a crazy HD based on race (so d8 for everyone + con) and DR for the fightery classes. Ended up dropping it altogether, though the d20 roll benefited wizards and the like a little more, though you could just keep base AC as it is.

[Matthew]

Not to belabor the obvious, but ...

Mechanical reason for the feat to get rid of the +1 requirement: the sorts of characters Weapon Finesse would most benefit (Rogues, Dex-based Monks...) cannot get it at first level. They have to wait until 3rd level. Other classes that will not benefit as much from high dexterity (Paladins, Fighters, Barbarians...) are able to take it at first level. Fighters, in particular, have three opportunities to get the feat before Rogues and Monks get it - Normal first level, Fighter first level, and Fighter second level. Not that a Fighter would take the feat, of course (though for some insane reason it's on the Fighter Feats list).
Actually, it makes very good mechanical sense. If you allow Weapon Finesse to be taken by everybody at Level 1, then you are just further sidelining the melee advantages of Full Base Attack Bonus Characters. The mechanics favour Fighters and full Base Attack Bonus Characters with regard to Weapon Finesse and so it should.

[Talya]

Not that a Fighter would take the feat, of course (though for some insane reason it's on the Fighter Feats list).

Are you kidding? Fighters make the best dual-weild combatants in the game, with weapon specialization, and lots of feats for two weapon fighting/defense...and two weapon fighting requires very high dexterity, so it's likely to be a dual weild fighter's highest stat. Not every fighter is a greatsword-monkey. And of course it's the only reasonable class to lead up to dervish, and dervish begs for a dual-weild finesse build.


Which does bring me to another fix for it: Reclassify the Rapier as a Light Weapon (possibly with some bonuses to disarm attempts while wielding it). You can't use Power Attack on Light weapons, and a Rapier seems like just the sort of weapon this should apply to. I honestly don't think you'll see an explosion of wizards and clerics suddenly picking up Rapiers if the change is made.

Bad idea, because then you'd see rogues dual weilding rapiers. Which apart from being corny, is intentionally designed to be non-optimal. Besides, The Scimitar is currently a "strength based" weapon and has identical stats to the rapier.

While I agree power attack should be impossible with a rapier from a realism standpoint, my main issue is that anyone proficient with a rapier, shortsword, dagger, kukri, or similar weapon is going to be using finesse. Strength simply doesn't help as much with those weapons.

[Bears With Lasers]

Actually, it makes very good mechanical sense. If you allow Weapon Finesse to be taken by everybody at Level 1, then you are just further sidelining the melee advantages of Full Base Attack Bonus Characters. The mechanics favour Fighters and full Base Attack Bonus Characters with regard to Weapon Finesse and so it should.
If the rogue can finesse weapons at level 1 rather than at level 3, the fighter isn't going to be marginalized. However, that BAB +1 prereq just means that builds that will rely on it through their entire careers (like rogues) spend the first two levels being pointlessly crippled. It's not fun. The fighter doesn't have more fun, and the rogue doesn't have more fun.


Are you kidding? Fighters make the best dual-weild combatants in the game, with weapon specialization, and lots of feats for two weapon fighting/defense...
Are you kidding? Fighters make crappy TWFers, because Two-Weapon Defense is a terrible feat, and Weapon Specialization doesn't provide anywhere nearenough bonus damage to make TWF's suboptimality worth it. TWF is a lot of feats invested for absolutely no actual advantage unless you've got bonus damage with each hit. Rogues make good TWFers for that reason; Fighters... not so much. Even rangers make better TWFers than fighters, and rangers don't make particularily good TWFers.
Fighters just don't have any real way to get any benefits from TWF.


and two weapon fighting requires very high dexterity, so it's likely to be a dual weild fighter's highest stat. Not every fighter is a greatsword-monkey. And of course it's the only reasonable class to lead up to dervish, and dervish begs for a dual-weild finesse build.Only a couple of levels of Fighter are included in ideal lead-ups to Dervish. Besides, those are Dervish builds not Fighter builds. Oh, and Dervishes are often better off with a two-handed high-strength build, too.
A fighter COULD go for dex-over-STR TWF, but he would be putting himself at a significant disadvantage compared to his brethren by doing so. "Realistically", most fighters wouldn't do so for the same reason that no one lerans the three-section staff as an actual self-defense weapon: it takes more effort and gives you less advantage, and that's something you can know before you ever start learning it.

[Talya]

Are you kidding? Fighters make crappy TWFers, because Two-Weapon Defense is a terrible feat, and Weapon Specialization doesn't provide anywhere nearenough bonus damage to make TWF's suboptimality worth it. TWF is a lot of feats invested for absolutely no actual advantage unless you've got bonus damage with each hit.


I touched on this in my TWF thread a while back...yes, TWF is poorly implemented. I believe that TWF should either include TWD as part of the feat, or perhaps, more optimally, TWF should auto-scale with BAB for iterative attacks, just like your main hand, and TWD could scale as well, so two feats for the whole thing instead of 6.

That said, fighters still make the best dual weilders. They have the feats to take it, along with the only advantage it gives (two weapon defense without sacrificing much damage,) and they have the BAB to make the -2 to hit almost meaningless. With Greater Weapon Specialization, you're getting +4 to damage from every attack with each hand. (If you're smart, you're using the same weapon in each hand.) That's actually higher than the x1.5 strength bonus you're getting from a two hander for 20 strength.

Yes, it's true the fighter could raise his strength higher, but so can the dual weild fighter, and they get the same damage bonus from it (x1.5 = x1+x0.5). Lastly, the dual weild fighter will have much higher initiative checks, slightly higher armor class, and touch AC. (But lower flatfooted AC, it's true--but far less likely to be flatfooted.)

As for 2 hander dervishes, I've thought of that and trying to build one. It seems quite difficult to make it work...they need to wear light armor, which means they need dexterity. Also, it's such a waste to not use "slashing blades." The class is so obviously designed around an arabic theme, though, that i'd love to see a nice Falchion build for one that still has high armor class.

For dual weild dervishes, with only two levels of fighter, qow do you work Combat Expertise, Dodge, Mobility, Weapon Focus: Scimitar, Two Weapon Fighting all in by level 5 and still have room for a regional feat too, btw? Plus weapon specialization is awesome on dual weilders...it's equivalent to +6 points of strength, for a 2 hander.

[Bears With Lasers]

That said, fighters still make the best dual weilders. They have the feats to take it, along with the only advantage it gives (two weapon defense with sacrificing much damage,) and they have the BAB to make the -2 to hit almost meaningless. With Greater Weapon Specialization, you're getting +4 to damage from every attack with each hand. (If you're smart, you're using the same weapon in each hand.) That's actually higher than the x1.5 strength bonus you're getting from a two hander for 18 strength.
How does that make them the best dual wielders? They're getting +4 damage with each hit. That's a lot less benefit than 5 to 10 d6. A TWFer is generally gonna have Weapon Finesse, since he'll have a high dex. Therefore, he'll have a low strength, since he'll spend most of his efforts raising DEX. Therefore, his damage will be pretty low, +4 or no +4.


Yes, it's true the fighter could raise his strength higher than 18, but so can the dual weild fighter, and they get the same damage bonus from it (x1.5 = x1+x0.5). Lastly, the dual weild fighter will have much higher initiative checks, slightly higher armor class, and touch AC. (But lower flatfooted AC, it's true--but far less likely to be flatfooted.)At level 12--the level at which you can pick up Greater Weapon Spec--you bet your ass Greatsword Joe is gonna have more than 18 strength. If he had 17 strength at level 1, he's gonna have 20... and a +4 or 6 STR-boosting item, availibility depending. That's 26 STR.
The dual-wielder can't raise his STR as high, because he needs to start with enough dex for the TWF feats. In fact, it's generally not going to be high at all--he's raising Dex! If he raises STR as his secondary, he's not raising CON (Fort save & HP) or WIS (Will save), so he'll still have less strength and thus less damaage and be worse off in another way to boot.

The TWFer has also taken TWF, ITWF, GTWF, and TWF. Greatsword Joe could do something actually useful with those feats, and four's a bunch. Core-only, Power Attack's a must (so he's getting +4 to damage just by cancelling out that -2 bonus; his weapon will also be better than either one of the TWFers') and then maybe Cleave. He could switch to being Guisarme Joe and pick up Expertise and Imp. Trip, or take Iron Will and Great Fortitude.
If you get outside of core, he gets access to some actually pretty good feats, like Elusive Target, Karmic Strike, Shock Trooper, et cetera, and the disparity only rises.


So TWF Guy has blown four feats for +1 shield AC (totally overridden by the animated shield he should pick up) and three offhand attacks. His seven attacks put together (at level 16) will do less damage than Greatsword Joe's four normal attacks; when you add in Haste, that widens even more, because now it's 5 vs. 8 attacks, when each greatsword attack is worth at least two TWF attacks. He'll have a lower Will save, or a lower Fort save and less HP. He'll be far worse off whenever he can't get a full atttack (something that happens more and more as you get higher-level). Sure, he's getting +4 damage with one hand and +4 with the other, but GJ is getting +4 from WS/GWS and another +4 from Power Attack (or +10% instead of +4 damage).

To sum up, a TWFing fighter is basically just robbing himself of four feats to be worse than Greatsword Joe.

It's been said, repeatedly: you need a significant source of bonus damage, such as the rogue's sneak attack. Without it, you're just not getting anything out of TWF, becuase it comes out even with THF at best and you're paying for the privilege.

[Talya]

I actually corrected it. Greater weapon spec (+8 damage per pair of hits) is slightly more damage for a dual weilder than 20 strength (+7 per hit) is for a two hander.

Yes, they'll be raising dexterity, but nothing prevents them from wearing that +6 strength girdle or similar. They also probably won't be starting with less than 14 strength either, depending on point buy.

The one thing you point out that's absolutely right, and it's my major complaint with TWF feats, is that they cost way too much for only a marginal advantage...and I'm not talking about just the TWF feats either. if it were only two or three feats for all three levels of TWF and TWD, it's suddenly worthwhile. Make TWF scale its iterative attacks without a need for ITWF or GTWF, and make TWD start at +3 and never increase. Then it's all worth it. (Of course, then you have to give TWD to rangers, as well as throwing some other bone to them along the way.)

[Matthew]

What about the necessity of making them as a Full Round Action? Honestly, this has been done to death and I think you started a thread about this a while back where it was once again shown that it doesn't make sense to Two Weapon Fight as a Fighter, but it makes every bit of sense to do so as a Rogue.

[Bears With Lasers]

I actually corrected it. Greater weapon spec (+8 damage per pair of hits) is slightly more damage for a dual weilder than 20 strength (+7 per hit) is for a two hander.
You're forgetting that the two-hander can also have Greater Weapon Spec, and Power Attack cancels out the +4 on the other hand.


Yes, they'll be raising dexterity, but nothing prevents them from wearing that +6 strength girdle or similar. They also probably won't be starting with less than 14 strength either, depending on point buy.
If they're managing to start with 14 STR, 14 CON, a non-terrible WIS, and still start with 17 dex... well, that's a pretty high point-buy, there.
12 is more likely (and more reasonable, given that 12+6 is 18, and 20 STR won't get you an additional off-hand damage point). That 20 STR is nowhere near what Greatsword Joe will wind up with (17+5+4+6, say, for a final STR of 32). Greatsword Joe will do more damage, with or without af ull attack. Especially if Power Attack becomes involved.


The one thing you point out that's absolutely right, and it's my major complaint with TWF feats, is that they cost way too much for only a marginal advantage...and I'm not talking about just the TWF feats either. if it were only two or three feats for all three levels of TWF and TWD, it's suddenly worthwhile. Make TWF scale its iterative attacks without a need for ITWF or GTWF, and make TWD start at +3 and never increase. Then it's all worth it.
Even then, it's not worth it. You're still spending feats to be almost as good, see above. TWF gives you no advantage over THF. You do less damage, often pretty significantly, you have worse saves (except Reflex, the least important one), you're spending more money on stuff, and you're far worse off at any time that you can't full attack. You do have better initiative, but that's it.
Fighters just plain don't make good TWFers. They get nothing out of it.

I'll address the dervish stuff in more detail when I get back. For now, I'll say that STR dervishes generally do have a somewhat lower AC, but either want to get hit most of the time (Karmic Strike + Power Attack + Deft Opportunist) or have ways of avoiding it (Reach weapons, reach increasers, plus Stand Still or tripping), and they also kill their enemies faster so they take fewer attacks.

Non-fighter TWF entry could look like Swash 1/Monk 2/Swash +2 (using the monk variants can get you, say, Dodge and Mobility; Swashbuckler gets you Weapon Finesse. As a human, you pick up Combat Expertise and Weapon Focus at first and take Carmendine Monk or Kung-Fu Genius, for INT to AC, at level 3, if that's allowed, and TWF at 6, or take TWF at 3.
Scout 3/Fighter 2 is also a good entry.

[Matthew]

If the rogue can finesse weapons at level 1 rather than at level 3, the fighter isn't going to be marginalized. However, that BAB +1 prereq just means that builds that will rely on it through their entire careers (like rogues) spend the first two levels being pointlessly crippled. It's not fun. The fighter doesn't have more fun, and the rogue doesn't have more fun.
Not sure I am with you here. It's not about marginalisation, as much as chipping away at the benefits of being a Fighter at low levels. Rogues already do plenty of things at Level 1, without needing to increase their combat potency. If Weapon Finesse was available at Level 1, what Rogue wouldn't take it?

[Bears With Lasers]

None. But as is, you have 18-dex 12-str rogues being pathetic in combat at first level, because they can't actually hit in melee (which is where sneak attacking generally happens). They are not going to outshine the fighter in combat at low levels. The fighter will hit harder and more often--greatsword vs. rapier alone makes up for that sneak attack die, and then you have the 1.5x STR thing. The fighter won't be unhappy that the rogue can take Weapon Finesse.

On the other hand, the Rogue will not need to just grit his teeth and wait for level 3. He'll be able to have more fun.
Seriously, if a feat is that vital to a class (note that this doesn't make Weapon Finesse overpowered), not letting them have it for the first couple of levels is just exacerbating the general Suck of level 1. It does nothing in the long run, and it's pointless punishment at levels that don't need pointless punishment.

[Matthew]

I see what you're saying, but I think that if we make it available at Level 1, then the next logical step is to remove it from the game and make it just 'the norm' to use Dexterity with all Light Weapons. I'm not really on board with that, as it makes it even more beneficial for a Rogue to neglect Strength in favour of Dexterity or Intelligence (or whatever).

Now, to be fair, this might be a result of clashing playstyles, but I think there should be benefits and drawbacks from neglecting one Attribute over another. For me, it's a trade off. If you pump up Dexterity at the expense of Strength as a Rogue, then you have a reduction in Melee effectiveness at Levels 1 and 2. You can solve it by multiclassing into Fighter, but again, it's a trade off.

I guess a lot of it comes down to what you think is a 'typical' Attribute spread for Base Class X.

[Talya]

Even then, it's not worth it. You're still spending feats to be almost as good, see above.

Well, you do have 3 more AC, and can attack more targets at a time, but yeah, I should probably rule out the -2 attack penalty, too.


you're spending more money on stuff

This isn't really true.

Two +1 shortswords do the same damage and cost half as much as one +2 greatsword. (1d6+1 + 1d6+1 = 2d6+2) That ratio holds up, too. Two +2 shortswords do the same damage and cost half as much as one +4 greatsword. Of course, those compound the "Hit penalty" problem, so it's even more important to remove the -2 automatic penalty.

Two +5 shortswords do far more damage than a single +5 greatsword (2d6+10 vs. 2d6+5), barring power attack damage, but of course cost twice as much.

Note that once you start putting other special abilities on weapons, they become even more balanced in favor of twf. Energy damage on one weapon in a pair is just as good as having it on a two hander. Having it on both weapons is twice as good. Special effects, such as wounding, daze, vorpal, etc. also are just as good on a single weapon as on a two hander. Putting it on both is twice as good. The only mod that favors the two hander is "Keen."



and you're far worse off at any time that you can't full attack.

Yeah, this is a problem. Perhaps make "Dual Strike" automatic as well.



I'll address the dervish stuff in more detail when I get back.

Please do! I really want to see more dervish builds. The polearm/reach weapon idea is really good as well, but I want to see a viable falchion build, just because it fits the style of the dervish class so well.

[Matthew]

Talya, you cannot discount Power attack when thinking about how Two Weapon Fighting and Two Handed Fighting interact. The whole Power Attack issue is what makes Two Handed Fighting better than Two Weapon. The Strength Bonus is by the by. Once you start factoring in other cheese beyond core (such as Leap Attack, etc...) Two Weapon Fighting looks very poor indeed.

Using only the core rules, I cannot see how a Two Weapon Fighter can compare to what can be done with a Two Handed Fighter. It's true that dual wounding properties (or whatever) help the Two Weapon Fighter out, but it's not enough. Comparative builds never present a case where Two Weapon Fighters are better than Two Handed Fighters, especially when you start looking at Speed effects.

The effectiveness of a given build changes over levels, but there is almost nothing to recommend a Two Weapon Fighting Build over a Two Handed Build.

[Talya]

Using only the core rules, I cannot see how a Two Weapon Fighter can compare to what can be done with a Two Handed Fighter...The effectiveness of a given build changes over levels, but there is almost nothing to recommend a Two Weapon Fighting Build over a Two Handed Build.

I don't disagree with this. I had a very long thread about why two weapon fighting is broken (in a bad way). I house rule a lot of improvements to it, which I've mentioned in this thread...its too many feats to get no advantage over a two hander. Nevertheless, people still dual weild. I think my house rules do a good job of evening out the balance to make it worthwhile. As for power attack, that's GOOD. Dual weilding should do less damage than power attacking with a two hander. The advantages of dual weilding should always be defensive in nature, not offensive. But as I said earlier, the way it's currently implemented, fighters make the best two weapon fighters. They surpass rogues (who can hardly hit while dual weilding unless they get REALLY lucky, can a rogue's mediocre BAB really afford to take yet another -2 penalty?), and rangers (who don't have enough feats to really get the advantage out of it). Under current rules, a TWF build is less optimal than a 2 hander by far, which is why I have an entire thread about how to fix two weapon fighting, so I'm not really saying that they are even without changes. I'm saying that a dual weilding fighter is about the best dual weilder you can find.

[Matthew]

So what are you saying, Fighters are better at Fighting than Rogues? That seems kind of implicit. I think the idea is that Rogues and Rangers are better suited to Two Weapon Fighting than Fighters, as it plays to their advantages. A Fighter is almost always going to be a better straight up combatant than either of these two Base Classes.

[Rigeld2]

Id disagree that Fighters make better TWFers. Sure, Rogues wont hit as often (due to lower BAB) but the -2 for TWF is nullified by the +2 for flanking. Plus, everything that does hit gets +3.5 damage per sneak attack die... the TWF Fighter gets +1/BAB sacced, maybe less if his offhand isnt a one-handed finessable weapon.

Assuming the Fighter invests in OTWF, and the Rogue doesnt, it starts to look like this:

Fighter 10 -
1d8+7(PA to match the rogues AB, assume 18 STR)+ per mainhand hit, 1d8+5 per offhand hit

Rogue 10 -
1d8+17.5 (assume 10 STR, 5d6 sneak) per mainhand hit, 1d6+17.5 per offhand hit.

Both are assumed to be flanking (best damaging position) so the flank bonus cancels out the TWF penalty for both of them. Even assuming the Fighter is a dwarf so he doesnt have to waste a feat for proficiency on a 1d10 1hander, hes not going to come near the damage output of the Rogue. I didnt bother with a Ranger because I partially agree, except for the fact that its not that feat intensive for them, but they only get bonus damage vs specific creatures... against a non favored enemy theyd be just as effective as a Fighter.

[Talya]

Actually, a ranger is not playin to his advantages by dual weilding. If he's number crunching, he's going with archery and switching to a two hander in close combat. The rogue is the only one that is really playing to a class feature by dual weilding.

What I'm saying, is if you want to play a dual-weilding character, you pretty much need to be a fighter to make it worthwhile. Even a rogue benefits from at least two levels of fighter if he's going to dual weild, for the feats. So yes, Weapon Finesse should be a fighter bonus feat. While it's not their current most optimal build, fighters are still the best light melee combatants among core classes. Most people don't look at a class and figure out how to number crunch it to be the best. They have a character concept in mind and then try to build a class that best-implements it. For the stand-up, in-your-face dual weilder, the fighter > All.

[Matthew]

Actually the Ranger is playing to his strengths by Dual Wielding, he's just generally better off being an Archer.

You certainly don't need to be a Fighter to make Dual Wielding worthwhile. You'd have to be pretty bonkers to not choose Two Weapon Fighting for a Melee Rogue, regardless of whether you take that Base Class all the way. By the time he reaches Level 20, the Rogue should be looking at something like:

Dexterity: 25-29 (Base 14-18, +5 Adjustment, +6 Magic)
Base Attack Bonus: +15 / +10 / +5
Magic Weapons: Two +5 something or others.

Standard Attack: +29
Full Round Attack: +27 / +27 / +22 / +22 / +17 / +17

A Two Weapon Fighter is only looking at a five to seven point advantage over this and one additional attack.

[Talya]

Rigeld:
The fighter will have weapon specialization, the ranger won't. That's a BIG bonus for a dual weilder.

As for the fighter vs. rogue:

The rogue's already at 3/4 the BAB of the fighter. (Or less, if they multiclass much.) Flanking isn't relevant, if the rogue has it, so does the fighter, both negate their twf penalty.either way, the rogue is still missing a hell of a lot.

We're also ignoring that half your average opponents are invulnerable to sneak attack (undead, constructs, elementals.) We're also ignoring that smarter groups of enemies use tactics to make flanking either hard, or undesirable. ("You want to stand there? Ha. Sucker.")

We're also ignoring that the fighter has enough feats to try to further compensate for the rogues advantages. Weapon Focus, Improved Crit, weapon specialization (which applies double for dual weilders and has the advantage of being bonus damage against any opponent), dual strike, etc.

It's close, but sneak attack is situational damage that can't be counted on. As a class feature, it's not designed to be a standup, always-in-play ability. If the rogue gets to apply it and can hit reliably, they will outdamage just about everyone in the game. That's a big "if."

[Matthew]

Sure, but saying Fighters are better Fighters than Rogues are, is not the same as saying it's not wise to take Two Weapon Fighting as a Rogue.

[Rigeld2]

For the stand-up, in-your-face dual weilder, the fighter > All.
I'm sorry, I didnt realize that taking 2 levels of a class over 20 means that youre considered that class, and not the one you spent the other 90% (literally) of your career doing.

Sure, dipping 2 levels of Fighter for feats isnt a horrible idea (I never bother with it, but meh) but its not the guaranteed best idea either. And it doesnt make you a Fighter if the other 18 levels you have are Rogue.

[Rigeld2]

Rigeld:
The fighter will have weapon specialization, the ranger won't. That's a BIG bonus for a dual weilder.
Weapon Spec is +2 damage. Against favored enemies by level 10, the Ranger has +6 vs one, and +2 vs two others. He also wasted -0- feats picking that up. So against a non favored enemy, hes slightly behind, but against his one very favored enemy, the Ranger is far ahead.


The rogue's already at 3/4 the BAB of the fighter. (Or less, if they multiclass much.) Which the Fighter has to PA away to get the bonus damage that makes TWF worth it.


Flanking isn't relevant, if the rogue has it, so does the fighter, both negate their twf penalty.either way, the rogue is still missing a hell of a lot.If you dont PA as a Fighter, sure he hits more often. He also does next to nothing for damage.


We're also ignoring that half your average opponents are invulnerable to sneak attack (undead, constructs, elementals.) We're also ignoring that smarter groups of enemies use tactics to make flanking either hard, or undesirable. ("You want to stand there? Ha. Sucker.")Tumble is a class skill for a Rogue. By level 5 you can ignore AoOs from moving around people if you move at half speed. By 15, you can move through thier space with no AoO (at half speed).


We're also ignoring that the fighter has enough feats to try to further compensate for the rogues advantages. Weapon Focus, Improved Crit, weapon specialization (which applies double for dual weilders and has the advantage of being bonus damage against any opponent), dual strike, etc.Weapon Focus gives him another +1 to damage for both hands (PAed away) bringing him to 1d10+10 and 1d10+8. Find another +7 average damage for the mainhand, and +9 average damage for the offhand. At level 10. (already added in Weapon Spec for you)


Against non sneakable foes, the Fighter might come out better than the Rogue... but its not "have your average opponents" and there are ways to get around that limitation even. The Rogue is so much better when he can sneak, the Fighter has to play catchup.


It's close, but sneak attack is situational damage that can't be counted on. As a class feature, it's not designed to be a standup, always-in-play ability. If the rogue gets to apply it and can hit reliably, they will outdamage just about everyone in the game. That's a big "if."They wont outdamage a THF built for damage, but that should be a given.

[Talya]

Weapon Spec is +2 damage. Against favored enemies by level 10, the Ranger has +6 vs one, and +2 vs two others. He also wasted -0- feats picking that up. So against a non favored enemy, hes slightly behind, but against his one very favored enemy, the Ranger is far ahead.

I wasn't referring to favored enemies. Favored enemy is a powerful, situational ability. When facing a favored enemy, rangers should reign supreme.



Which the Fighter has to PA away to get the bonus damage that makes TWF worth it.

The fact that they have that BAB to PA away is also a huge advantage...but they're probably using weapons too small to PA with.



If you dont PA as a Fighter, sure he hits more often. He also does next to nothing for damage.

2d6+4 (for two shortswords with weapon spec) > 0 (for the rogue missing with his sneak attacks.)



Tumble is a class skill for a Rogue. By level 5 you can ignore AoOs from moving around people if you move at half speed. By 15, you can move through thier space with no AoO (at half speed).

I wasn't referring to attacks of opportunity.


Weapon Focus gives him another +1 to damage for both hands (PAed away) bringing him to 1d10+10 and 1d10+8.

Power attack is limited by your BAB. I don't believe you can use a weapon focus bonus as part of your PA.

BTW, if by level 20 you're guaranteed a +5 inherent ability bonus, a +6 ability item, and two +5 weapons, your DM needs a smack to the head.

[Talya]

I'm sorry, I didnt realize that taking 2 levels of a class over 20 means that youre considered that class, and not the one you spent the other 90% (literally) of your career doing.

Sure, dipping 2 levels of Fighter for feats isnt a horrible idea (I never bother with it, but meh) but its not the guaranteed best idea either. And it doesnt make you a Fighter if the other 18 levels you have are Rogue.

You are everything you've taken even a single level in.

[Rigeld2]

The fact that they have that BAB to PA away is also a huge advantage...but they're probably using weapons too small to PA with.
Then theyre WAY behind in damage, making the choice in TWF a purely defensive one... and not the best idea at that.


2d6+4 (for two shortswords with weapon spec) > 0 (for the rogue missing with his sneak attacks.)And 1d8+1d6+35 (if one mainhand and one offhand hit) >>>>>> 2d6+4.


I wasn't referring to attacks of opportunity.Really?
We're also ignoring that smarter groups of enemies use tactics to make flanking either hard, or undesirable. ("You want to stand there? Ha. Sucker.")Its difficult (although not impossible, I'd agree) to make it undesireable enough that the Rogue wouldnt tumble there.


Power attack is limited by your BAB. I don't believe you can use a weapon focus bonus as part of your PA.I guess I went too fast for you.
Lets say I have a BAB of 10. I PA away 3 of that for +3 damage, leaving me with an AB of 7. If I increase my AB to 8, but only need 7, I can PA one more away. Follow?


BTW, if by level 20 you're guaranteed a +5 inherent ability bonus, a +6 ability item, and two +5 weapons, your DM needs a smack to the head.Check the Wealth by Level tables, your friendly neighborhood Wizard with the crafting feats and items available in big cities tables in the DMG. If you debate something, you have to assume the default world. In the default world, those items are easy to attain by level 20.

You are everything you've taken even a single level in.
No. Youre saying that mechanics are above roleplaying. If I have a Fighter 3/Hexblade 3/Ur-Priest 10, that doesnt make me a Fighter/Hexblade/Ur-Priest when I introduce myself. It makes me a holy warrior fighting for a dead god, trying to bring him back.

[ZekeArgo]

You are everything you've taken even a single level in.

I'm sorry, but no. Thats like saying "Hey, I just came up with the ultimate fighter build! Fighter 1/Wizard 19! HAHA! I laugh at all who think fighters are underpowered now!"

Edit: Heh, simued

[Talya]

Really?Its difficult (although not impossible, I'd agree) to make it undesireable enough that the Rogue wouldnt tumble there.

I'd suspect the enemy would be counting on him to tumble "there." Enemy rogue comes out of hiding, now flanking the rogue who wanted that flanking spot so bad...

Lets say I have a BAB of 10. I PA away 3 of that for +3 damage, leaving me with an AB of 7. If I increase my AB to 8, but only need 7, I can PA one more away. Follow?

I'm okay with that. It just makes power attack more powerful...equivalent to some more weapon specialization.


Check the Wealth by Level tables, your friendly neighborhood Wizard with the crafting feats and items available in big cities tables in the DMG. If you debate something, you have to assume the default world. In the default world, those items are easy to attain by level 20.

760,000 gp. Most DMs will impose a limit per item of about 10% of your total value, don't you think? Plus even The City of Splendors won't sell a +5 manual or tome of anything. (+4, yes.)



No. Youre saying that mechanics are above roleplaying. If I have a Fighter 3/Hexblade 3/Ur-Priest 10, that doesnt make me a Fighter/Hexblade/Ur-Priest when I introduce myself. It makes me a holy warrior fighting for a dead god, trying to bring him back.

We got into this TWF debate by discussing the mechanical relevance of having weapon finesse in the fighter feat list. It's all mechanical. If you're going to argue from an RP perspective, it's very obvious why weapon finesse is in the fighter list: it's a standard melee combat feat. Fighters are the masters of melee combat. Of course they'd get it.

[Rigeld2]

Your comment that, effectively, everything with a single fighter level is a fighter, was tangentenial to the original arguement. And the DMG suggests a 25% limit per item, not 10%.

As for the mystery rogue coming out of the shadows... how often, really, does that happen?