What's the problem with TWF Rangers

[Slash_712]

I don't know why everyone I ask is so down on these guys. I am trying to run one now and I figure just pickup all the feats I can and slice the hell out of my favored enemies. So does anyone have any suggestions or comments?

[Morty]

Well, TWF itself is weak. You spend a lot of feats and you end up dealing a little less damage than with two-handed weapon. Rangers are actually a little stronger TWFers than other melee classes, as they can apply their favored enemy bonus to every attack. It's not much, though.

[Yechezkiel]

I don't know why everyone I ask is so down on these guys. I am trying to run one now and I figure just pickup all the feats I can and slice the hell out of my favored enemies. So does anyone have any suggestions or comments?

Rangers don't have a lot going for them in melee. Most say go ranged because even without cross-classing it's pretty easy to optimize the ranged thing.

The best Two-Weapon Rng I've seen was mostly Ftr to load up on feats and Weapon Focus/Spec bonuses; make sure you use the same weapon main and offhand if you get these feats (shortswords were best in 3.0, and imo still are in 3.5).

[Yvian]

For THF, strenght is multiplied 1.5
For THF, PA is doubled.

For TWF, strenght is X 1 for primary hand, and zero for the off hand
For TWF, PA is stright for the priamry hand, and zero for the off hand.
For TWF, you take a -2 on your to roll hit.

On average, a THF should be able to land a few devestating blows. On average, the TWF will roll lots of dice, hit sometimes, and do average to low damage. On average, the THF will do more damage in a round then a TWF.

And this is just for full round attacks. On standard actions and charages, the advantage clearly goes to the THF. Also, it tends to be better to have a single highly enchanted weapon that two average enchanted weapons.

There are execptions.

If you have a lot of sneak/skirmish damage, this can make up for this somewhat. But you can't use this in all situations.

There are some builds which involed a certain amount of cheese that gets around this problem. Oversized weapons, sun blade, deverish, etc.

[Talya]

Rangers don't have a lot going for them in melee. Most say go ranged because even without cross-classing it's pretty easy to optimize the ranged thing.

The best Two-Weapon Rng I've seen was mostly Ftr to load up on feats and Weapon Focus/Spec bonuses; make sure you use the same weapon main and offhand if you get these feats (shortswords were best in 3.0, and imo still are in 3.5).

If you're an elf, "Improved Weapon Familiarity" will get you much better dual weild weapons, both of which key off of Rapier for feat choices.

[Soepvork]

For TWF, strenght is X 1 for primary hand, and zero for the off hand
For TWF, PA is stright for the priamry hand, and zero for the off hand.
For TWF, you take a -2 on your to roll hit.

Actually, you get half your strength bonus on your off hand if I'm not mistaken :)

[Khantalas]

For TWF, strenght is X 1 for primary hand, and zero for the off hand

Half for the off-hand actually.

So, assuming perfect accuracy (it is wrong, but it is assumed), the strength bonus doesn't change.

The thing that ruins TWF melee warriors it the fact that Power Attack is doubled for for THF. It has nothing to do with rangers. A fighter TWF will suffer as much. More, apparently, since he will need Dexterity.

I liked the 3.0 Power Attack. IIRC, it wasn't doubled or reduced for anyone.

Then again, I'm a Combat Expertise guy. Never used Power Attack myself.

[Yvian]

Actually, you get half your strength bonus on your off hand if I'm not mistaken :)

Yep, that's right. Teachs me to post on the fly.

[ZeroNumerous]

The problem with TWF Ranger? Rogue does it much, much better.

"Oh, hey guys! Guess what! I now do 2d6+16 versus orcs!"

"Oh. Thats.. Thats cute Ranger, real cute." *Stabs an Orc for 10d6+4*

Thats without any optimization from the Rogue. Just straight Rogue 10 VS Ranger 10.

[Morty]

You do realize of course that ranger is overall better in melee fight and doesn't need anyone to flank an enemy in order to get FE bonus?

[Yechezkiel]

The problem with TWF Ranger? Rogue does it much, much better.

"Oh, hey guys! Guess what! I now do 2d6+16 versus orcs!"

"Oh. Thats.. Thats cute Ranger, real cute." *Stabs an Orc for 10d6+4*

Thats without any optimization from the Rogue. Just straight Rogue 10 VS Ranger 10.

Yep, and Sneak Attack is less situational then Favored Enemies (imo). I've played a Rog to 19 and it faired much better mechanically then the Rgr.

[Yechezkiel]

You do realize of course that ranger is overall better in melee fight and doesn't need anyone to flank an enemy in order to get FE bonus?

You think Rangers have more going for them offensively and defensively in melee?

[Truwar]

There is nothing wrong with playing a TWF Ranger, they are simply not as statistically powerful as many other melee combat builds but unless you are entering a D&D melee combat tournament, this should not be a problem. That being said, you might as well take advantage of the fact that the Ranger does not need to meet the prohibitively high dexterity requirements for TWF feats and focus on your strength attribute.

[Indon]

The problem with TWF Ranger? Rogue does it much, much better.

"Oh, hey guys! Guess what! I now do 2d6+16 versus orcs!"

"Oh. Thats.. Thats cute Ranger, real cute." *Stabs an Orc for 10d6+4*

Thats without any optimization from the Rogue. Just straight Rogue 10 VS Ranger 10.

Of course, on the other hand, rangers are much more durable and capable in combat overall with higher health, BAB, and some cute little forest animal nipping at the enemies' collective heels.

Really, a TWF ranger is pretty viable. They can't dish out the damage that a rogue can, but they make up for it in other areas of combat. The thing is, TWF rangers are weak compared to archer rangers. This is because, unlike sneak attack, favored enemy bonus has no range requirement. You can start picking off orcs from 500 feet back if you like. Why put yourself in harm's way when you can rock just as hard, if not harder, from range?

[ArmorArmadillo]

I don't know why everyone I ask is so down on these guys. I am trying to run one now and I figure just pickup all the feats I can and slice the hell out of my favored enemies. So does anyone have any suggestions or comments?
The advantage of TWF for rangers is that you don't need to meet the Dex pre-reqs, so you can have a really good STR and not invest in Weapon Finesse.

That being said, playing a Ranger, you should ask your DM for a tweak:
Animal Companion at Level-3 instead of 1/2 Level (At 1/2 level it becomes nearly useless past about level 10-12)

[Darrin]

I don't know why everyone I ask is so down on these guys. I am trying to run one now and I figure just pickup all the feats I can and slice the hell out of my favored enemies. So does anyone have any suggestions or comments?

TWF requires a lot of feats to work well, while something like Power Attack only requires one feat, scales as you go up in level, can be used for both a standard attack and a full attack, and on average does more damage than TWF. So in general TWF is much less optimal than a THF+PA.

However, you can break even or outperform the THF+PA fighters if you have a way to add bonus damage to your TWF attacks. And while Rangers do have Favored Enemy damage, it doesn't always apply. Sneak or Skirmish damage is a bit more reliable, while feats/abilities that add various ability scores to your damage give a bit more bang for your buck: Insightful Strike (INT), Shadow Blade or Champion of Corellian (DEX), Snowflake Wardance (CHA), etc. But unless this extra damage relies on just feats, a ranger would have to multiclass into another class or PrC to pick them up early.

There is another way to optimize TWF and still keep up with the PA shock troopers: add armor spikes and a THW to do both. Designate your armor spikes as your offhand weapon, and then you can PA with impunity and still get your offhand attacks. And this can be done fairly easily with a straight ranger.

[Person_Man]

As others have pointed out, the main problem is math. Power Attack just doesn't play very well with TWF.

Here's a trick though. Once you hit mid levels, use Oversized Two Weapon Fighting. It will let you use Power Attack with your off hand.

Also, I would point out that Rangers have limited armor and mediocre hit points. So they really shouldn't be standing on the front line of combat.

[Starbuck_II]

For THF, strenght is multiplied 1.5
For THF, PA is doubled.

For TWF, strenght is X 1 for primary hand, and zero for the off hand
For TWF, PA is stright for the priamry hand, and zero for the off hand.
For TWF, you take a -2 on your to roll hit.

On average, a THF should be able to land a few devestating blows. On average, the TWF will roll lots of dice, hit sometimes, and do average to low damage. On average, the THF will do more damage in a round then a TWF.

And this is just for full round attacks. On standard actions and charages, the advantage clearly goes to the THF. Also, it tends to be better to have a single highly enchanted weapon that two average enchanted weapons.

There are execptions.

If you have a lot of sneak/skirmish damage, this can make up for this somewhat. But you can't use this in all situations.

There are some builds which involed a certain amount of cheese that gets around this problem. Oversized weapons, sun blade, deverish, etc.

Why just use a THW and dual wield armor spikes?
Now you can eat your cake and still have it.
Greatsword/Syche, etc + Armor spikes:
For TWF, strength is X 1.5 for primary hand, and .5 for the off hand
For TWF, PA is doubled for the primary hand, and none for the off hand.
For TWF, you take a -2 on your to roll hit.

It is the most optimized if you must be using two weapons.

[Kiero]

Why just use a THW and dual wield armor spikes?

Because spikes are supremely dumb?

[ZeroNumerous]

Why just use a THW and dual wield armor spikes?
Now you can eat your cake and still have it.
Greatsword/Syche, etc + Armor spikes:
For TWF, strength is X 1.5 for primary hand, and .5 for the off hand
For TWF, PA is doubled for the primary hand, and none for the off hand.
For TWF, you take a -2 on your to roll hit.

It is the most optimized if you must be using two weapons.

Remember it's Ranger we're talking about. He has to either Combat Style: TWF, or Ranged.

As for whoever said Rangers were better in melee and didn't need someone to flank.. If you wanna optimize, Rogue will outclass Ranger so hard it's not even funny. Hell, a ring of displacement gives the rogue auto-sneak attack.

[Fax Celestis]

Because spikes are supremely dumb?

All right, take Improved Unarmed Strike and dual-wield your armored foot.

[ZeroNumerous]

All right, take Improved Unarmed Strike and dual-wield your armored foot.

Or just go Ranged Ranger and not be even less useful than normal TWF'ing with a shortsword.

[Piccamo]

Or just go Ranged Ranger and not be even less useful than normal TWF'ing with a shortsword.

Unfortunately the question was about TWF, not ranged. I agree that ranged is superior.

@Kiero: Armor spikes are not stupid, they're different. You should really consider accepting points of view other than your own.

[Jasdoif]

Here's a trick though. Once you hit mid levels, use Oversized Two Weapon Fighting. It will let you use Power Attack with your off hand.As another trick, combine this with Favored Power Attack (I'm pretty sure that's the name, it's in Complete Warrior). Then you'll get double the Power Attack bonus against your favored enemies in each hand, which may net better then the triple the Power Attack bonus you'd get with a two-handed weapon from the same feat.

[Slash_712]

Well one thing that I hate is DR. Nothing pisses off one ranger I had than DR. I mean it really doesn't matter how many arrows you fire at the guy with say DR 10, nothing freakin hurts him! I think that mainly Rangers just don't like DR because there damage isn't very super. Personally you guys all say to do THW junk, but that is just so much better with a fighter. Also nothing feels better than seven attacks per round. Let's face it, get a high strength and get your damage up along with your attack rolls. Combine that damage with hopefully a favored enemy say +6 and you deal massive damage in a turn. Without a flank :)!

[Leon]

The problem with TWF Rangers is that while TWF is inherently cool, the D&D system dosent handle it well

[Indon]

The problem with TWF Rangers is that while TWF is inherently cool, the D&D system dosent handle it well

I think TWF is handed pretty well. It's not a realistic treatment, of course. Now, sword-and-board I don't think is handled well.

The reason TWF is considered inferior to THF is because THF has the power attack multiplier and power attack is considered to be the conventional way of adding melee damage. As noted in this thread, TWF becomes much more attractive with feats, etc. to increase the applicable power attack modifiers.


Well one thing that I hate is DR. Nothing pisses off one ranger I had than DR. I mean it really doesn't matter how many arrows you fire at the guy with say DR 10, nothing freakin hurts him! I think that mainly Rangers just don't like DR because there damage isn't very super. Personally you guys all say to do THW junk, but that is just so much better with a fighter. Also nothing feels better than seven attacks per round. Let's face it, get a high strength and get your damage up along with your attack rolls. Combine that damage with hopefully a favored enemy say +6 and you deal massive damage in a turn. Without a flank :)!

Personally, I'd just collect Returning Arrows of Slaying (I don't think that's actually possible, but meh) or something.

[Jacob Orlove]

Why just use a THW and dual wield armor spikes?
Now you can eat your cake and still have it.
Greatsword/Syche, etc + Armor spikes:
For TWF, strength is X 1.5 for primary hand, and .5 for the off hand
For TWF, PA is doubled for the primary hand, and none for the off hand.
For TWF, you take a -2 on your to roll hit.

It is the most optimized if you must be using two weapons.
You left off the Animated Shield, so that you can sword-and-board too.

[Twilight Jack]

I found that the Two Weapon Ranger I had in the group I DMed competed with the THF quite nicely with Improved Critical. Once you start doubling the total damage whenever you roll well, those extra attacks every round start looking tastier. Does it make up for the absolute cheddar that greataxe-boy gets when he doubles his pleasure from Power Attack? Probably not, but everyone had a good time and the Ranger ended up using her other feats and skills to solo melee foes that would have smoked Mr. Damage-Optimized.

Of course, if you're not looking to optimize your build for raw mechanical advantage, then you can sidestep this entire problem by playing a character that you feel kicks ass, and stop worrying about eking every drop of raw mathematical efficiency out of your little collection of statistics. You know, play a character?

[Piccamo]

I found that the Two Weapon Ranger I had in the group I DMed competed with the THF quite nicely with Improved Critical. Once you start doubling the total damage whenever you roll well, those extra attacks every round start looking tastier.

When debating you must debate RAW, averages, and probability, not "under these circumstances..." To do otherwise means there is no debate at all as anyone can say anything and chalk it off to "these circumstances."


Does it make up for the absolute cheddar that greataxe-boy gets when he doubles his pleasure from Power Attack?
Are you trying to imply that being good at dealing damage makes you a cheesy munchkin? If you're going to do something, you may as well do it well.


Probably not, but everyone had a good time and the Ranger ended up using her other feats and skills to solo melee foes that would have smoked Mr. Damage-Optimized.
I find this hard to believe. Unless Mr. TWF Ranger was somehow getting full-attacks after moving I doubt he was keeping up in damage and there is no way he was better at dropping melee opponents by virtue of TWF. That would come down to player tactics.


Of course, if you're not looking to optimize your build for raw mechanical advantage, then you can sidestep this entire problem by playing a character that you feel kicks ass, and stop worrying about eking every drop of raw mathematical efficiency out of your little collection of statistics. You know, play a character?
His question was about what people saw was wrong with TWF rangers. People are answering. I'm sorry they didn't talk about your cotton candy world where all builds are created equal. Its been stated before and I'll state it now, playing a character who is good at what he does does not preclude roleplaying well. You should look up the Stormwind Fallacy sometime.

[Jack Mann]

TWF Rangers aren't terrible if you're fighting your favored enemy a lot. That gives you a bit of bonus damage to help you out. However, you're going to be hurting whenever you face anything else. It would be nice if your DM never put anything else in his adventures, but I wouldn't count on it if I were playing a ranger.

Add into this the fact that it's sometimes difficult to get full attacks, and it's better to go with ranged fighting. Then you don't have so many problems with mobility, as most fighter types have.

Or go with the two-handed weapon and armor spikes.

[Dire_E_Coyote]

Other ideas which can help improve TWF damage output:

--Give your weapons enchantments that give extra d6 of damage (flaming, shocking, bane, etc.) Different enchantments for each weapon.
--Make one weapon silver, the other cold iron (if you often face creatures with different kinds of damage resistance). While you're at it, maybe pick up a matched set of light maces for when facing creatures with DR/bludgeoning, if that's common in your campaign.
--Make one weapon a defending weapon for AC boost.
--Make one weapon ghost touch or other useful effect.
--Keen or improved critical has been mentioned.

All of the above can be used with the great sword / armor spikes variety of TWF.

[Indon]

I'd like to throw in, Disuption and Vorpal (at high levels) weapons are also better the more you swing them.

[Slash_712]

Yeah dual vorpal would be just plain SICK!!
Scenario (Odds are in one out of seven attacks you'll roll a twenty eventually)
"Yeah, I just rolled a twenty"
"Roll to confirm"
"Yeah that's a 15, 24 with the addition."
"That will um...., maybe hit"
"Oh come on the bard just hit with an effective roll of 20"
"Yeah, but that was the bard"
"So?"
"He doesn't have vorpal weapons"
"Do I cut this guys head off or what"
"I'll get back to you"
Next time it's your turn.......
"I just did it again"
"F*** you and your seven vorpal attacks!"

[Jasdoif]

(Odds are in one out of seven attacks you'll roll a twenty eventually)With seven rolls, odds are slightly more then 30% that one (or more) of them will be a 20.

[Slash_712]

Hence the eventually

[Closet_Skeleton]

@Kiero: Armor spikes are not stupid, they're different. You should really consider accepting points of view other than your own.

No, they're stupid. Really stupid. No one would even bother stupid. They're like wearing a horned helmet*.

*anyone who wears a horned helmet deserves to have someone land a heavy blow on the horns, snapping their neck

[Twilight Jack]

When debating you must debate RAW, averages, and probability, not "under these circumstances..." To do otherwise means there is no debate at all as anyone can say anything and chalk it off to "these circumstances."

I offered a bit of empiricism, and nowhere did I say "these circumstances." I merely noted that my own personal experience has not borne out the "statistics." Additionally, while not knowing the math (I don't care to do the calculations), by rough estimate and personal experience I can state that Improved Critical's value increases proportionate to the number of attacks being thrown about.


Are you trying to imply that being good at dealing damage makes you a cheesy munchkin? If you're going to do something, you may as well do it well.

I am stating openly that one of the main reasons this discrepancy between THF and TWF exists is that Power Attack was seriously upgraded to favor the former, as opposed to its 3.0 incarnation. The two weapon option was given nothing to balance it. As far as dealing damage making someone a munchkin, I think if they are sitting down with a calculator to compare the numerical advantages inherent in one feat over another, rather than selecting the one that fits the concept of the character they wish to play, then they are no one I want in any game I'm running. Our styles will not mesh, and I will find them tiresome and trying. Is that far enough from implication for you?


I find this hard to believe. Unless Mr. TWF Ranger was somehow getting full-attacks after moving I doubt he was keeping up in damage and there is no way he was better at dropping melee opponents by virtue of TWF. That would come down to player tactics.

I didn't say that she kept up with damage, and yes, much of it did come down to player tactics. I said that she managed to defeat opponents in melee that would have eaten the Barbarian for lunch. Her feat selection allowed her options that the Barbarian didn't have which increased her odds of losing less of her current hp ratio than her opponents did. If she loses 10% of her hp every round, and her opponent loses 12%, she wins, assuming they both started out at full. Again, I don't know the math because I've not bothered. I am reporting what I've seen. Additionally, I am pointing out that the sub-optimal build was able to keep up by understanding what it did well and selecting feats and adjusting tactics accordingly.


His question was about what people saw was wrong with TWF rangers. People are answering. I'm sorry they didn't talk about your cotton candy world where all builds are created equal. Its been stated before and I'll state it now, playing a character who is good at what he does does not preclude roleplaying well. You should look up the Stormwind Fallacy sometime.

By no means does playing an effective character preclude good roleplaying. I'm well aware of the Stormwind Fallacy, and have cited it myself in the past. On the other hand, all things are relative to the group with which one is playing. Optimizing the hell out of your character, and making thematic choices (lithe, finesse based warrior with a pair of swords vs. hulking barbarian with a greataxe) based upon how the rules mechanics support a given theme is indeed a way to have fun at D&D. It is a method, however, that tends to wreak havoc in groups where only one or two players at the table are doing it. It limits the opportunities of those who did not effectively optimize, causing a single character to dominate aspects of the game to a degree that makes things more difficult for the DM (who now must deal with a significant outlier in his encounter building) and less fun for everyone else.

Since the original poster asked the question in the way that he did, I'm going to go out on a limb and suggest that his own roleplaying group, if he has one, doesn't squeeze every last drop out of their character builds. Otherwise, he'd already be conversant in these statistical differences. If I am correct in this assessment, then my advice to play the character that is the thematic twenty tonnes of awesome in his own eyes is good advice.

Amendment to the Stormwind Fallacy: An optimized build does not preclude good roleplaying, nor does an intentionally defective build signify same. Either may well violate the social contract of a given gaming table, however. Tread lightly, sir, for you may tread on the other players' dreams.

I have no inherent problem with characters that go up to 11. I just think they should keep to their own kind.

In the meantime, please try to dial down the outright hostility a couple of notches. I can understand why you might get defensive if you feel like I'm disdaining your preferred gaming style, but the tendency to get hyper-competitive beyond the trappings of civility is one of the main reasons it's not my preferred style. Like an overly optimized character in a casual gaming group, it makes me tired and itchy.

[Indon]

No, they're stupid. Really stupid. No one would even bother stupid. They're like wearing a horned helmet*.

*anyone who wears a horned helmet deserves to have someone land a heavy blow on the horns, snapping their neck

Spiked armor that works is hardly the least realistic thing in D&D. I mean, you have the whole magic that can stop time thing going on, at the very least.

[JaronK]

For two weapon fighting to work, you need to deal more damage per hit. Rogues do this well, due to sneak attack. Actually a single level dip into Warblade for the Blood in the Water stance works very well for a TWF ranger... just get two weapons with a decent crit range and go nuts.

That said, it's usually a lot easier and less feat intensive to rock out with a two handed weapon or a ranged weapon.

JaronK

[Teilos]

TWF is fine with the current RAWs. You need to find a source of damage that is dependend on the number of attacks, though. The Favored enemy can be that source, but this is highly DM dependent. So it is not perfect for a ranger. Better sources were already suggested above.

Going for effective TWF means generally loosing feats compared to THF! Even, if you are a ranger. So please, don't tell me that you had more feat options!

Archery with RAW is fine, if there are many tactical encounters in open field. Unfortunately that is heavily DM dependent and does not work in most standard adventures. So I would not specialise in that.

I like to take ranger levels and just forget about the combat style. You still get a lot compared to other PH melee classes. Just go for THF and you are fine. If you do not want to be the tank go for a reach weapon.


Two-Weapon Fighting [General]
You can fight with a weapon in each hand. You can make one extra attack each round with the second weapon.

Maybe I understand that wrong as non native speaker. But I do not see how you can use a THW and an off hand weapon.

[Closet_Skeleton]

Spiked armor that works is hardly the least realistic thing in D&D. I mean, you have the whole magic that can stop time thing going on, at the very least.

I really really really hate this arguement.

Mainly because I hate any arguement that people think they can constantly recycle. It's as bad as the completely unhelpful and spam-like catgirl arguement.

Feel free to ignore the following rant since I don't mean to derail this thread.

Magic is internally consistant. Magic is there because this is a fantasy game. Armour Spikes are there because some games designer with no idea of how combat really works thought they would be cool. Armour spikes are like Scythed Chariots. They sound cool and deadly until you realise that a chariot would be torn to pieces if it every charged into a group of people.

The fact that there are spellcasters in the world only affects the logic of melee weapons if they're anti-spellcaster melee weapons. Giant swords make sense if they're for killing slow moving giant monsters. Armour Spikes make no sense what so ever. I mean, how long are these spikes? Long enough to get through half an inch of leather armour? Magic fireballs killing people makes sense because fire kills people. Using armour spikes to kill people makes as much sense as wearing a glove made out of sandpaper walking up to someone to try and rub their face when you have a perfectly good gun in your hand.

In other news, I prefer characters that dual-wield with two differant weapons just for visual purposes. The weapon style feats from Complete Warrior are neat for that but a bit of a waste.

[Theodoxus]

The problem with TWF Rangers is that while TWF is inherently cool, the D&D system dosent handle it well

Thinking about this, it seems that TWF and S&B should be tweaked a tad.

Three ranks of shield provide +1, +2 and +3 AC respectively. But, they also provide 25%, 50% and 75% cover as well.

TWF should be two light weapons (TLW) = +1 attack; one medium & one light (OML) = +2 AC, -2 to hit (no additional attack); two medium weapons (TMW) = +4 AC, -4 to hit (no additional attack). For every TWF feat you have (Imp., Greater, etc) you reduce the penalties and increase the bonuses. For instance, Improved TWF would allow TLW +1 attack, +2 AC; OML = +1 attack, +4 AC, no penalty to hit) and TMW would be +4 AC (max, regardless of feats) and -2 to hit (still no bonus attack however).

This TWF table represents what classic TWF is for - increased defense. Typically, using paired light weapons, such as daggers were used for actually getting more damage in, but once you went to rapier and main gouche, the light weapon was used for parrying. Using two heavier weapons decreased your chance to hit, but it was much easier to parry another weapon with your off hand too, due to the mass. Obviously, as you get better with the style, you can increase the size of weapons you're using while still generating the same benefits.

IMO, with these two changes, it makes each combat style a viable option - maybe even something to take feats for each in.

Thoughts?

[Twilight Jack]

TWF is fine with the current RAWs. You need to find a source of damage that is dependend on the number of attacks, though. The Favored enemy can be that source, but this is highly DM dependent. So it is not perfect for a ranger. Better sources were already suggested above.

Going for effective TWF means generally loosing feats compared to THF! Even, if you are a ranger. So please, don't tell me that you had more feat options!


I didn't say the ranger had more feats. I said she had more options due to the feats she selected. She rolled herself in the Combat Expertise and Mobility chains. Combined with her favored enemy choices, it worked out for her. The THF Barbarian to which I'm comparing her went in different directions. He was the best at what he did and what he did wasn't pretty, but it was all he did.

Now then, a THF Fighter would have had way more feats than either of them, but no one was playing one of those.

[Piccamo]

What do you think of when you think of armor spikes? I hope not just little bumps on the armor that happen to deal damage. There could be so many things that are indicative of spikes that to throw them out automatically is stupid. I often think of one of the Guyver suits or Shao Khan from Mortal Kombat (the spikes on his shoulders).

@Twilight: Thanks for getting back to me without letting it get heated. I fear we may simply have differing opinions on the subject and it won't be resolved so I will drop it in this thread.

[Indon]

I really really really hate this arguement.

Mainly because I hate any arguement that people think they can constantly recycle. It's as bad as the completely unhelpful and spam-like catgirl arguement.


You want other examples?

A sufficiently trained fighter with above-average strength (not superhuman by any means) can smash barefisted through an arbitrary amount of stone wall without injury. If you downgrade to glass, he needs almost no training.

A javelin can not be thrown more than 150 feet, regardless of your strength.

Quarterstaves happen.

A fighter can wield a weapon made for someone roughly twice his height at a minor penalty.

A choke hold by a trained killer of average strength deals 1d3 damage every six seconds. If he's of legendary skill, he could deal as much as 4d3 damage with it.

Regardless of how many wounds a warrior sustains, or however many blows land upon his padded (or take your pick) armor, it will never be damaged.

Should I go on? I particularly like the choke hold and glass punching examples, myself.

[Twilight Jack]

What do you think of when you think of armor spikes? I hope not just little bumps on the armor that happen to deal damage. There could be so many things that are indicative of spikes that to throw them out automatically is stupid. I often think of one of the Guyver suits or Shao Khan from Mortal Kombat (the spikes on his shoulders).

@Twilight: Thanks for getting back to me without letting it get heated. I fear we may simply have differing opinions on the subject and it won't be resolved so I will drop it in this thread.

It's not so much differing opinions as different gaming styles. Believe me, I can optimize a character like a drag-racing muscle car when I have to (Air conditioning? Gone. Passenger seats? Who needs 'em. Horsepower? Yes please, give me more horsepower). Were I to sit down with your gaming group, I'd juice up and I probably wouldn't play a two weapon style ranger (because Clerics with Divine Metamagic are just tastier). It's a matter of where you find yourself. The original poster didn't seem to belong to that kind of group, though. I don't either, nor would I really get excited about running for one, because my affections do not that way tend.

That said, consider it dropped. Thanks for the nod.

[BooBooSpooki]

The problem with TWF rangers (http://feerune.online.free.fr/gif/drizzt-m.gif)

:smallbiggrin:

[Indon]

The problem with TWF rangers (http://feerune.online.free.fr/gif/drizzt-m.gif)

:smallbiggrin:

They aren't all Elven.

[Kiero]

Armor spikes are not stupid, they're different. You should really consider accepting points of view other than your own.

Spiked anything is pure goofy stupidity.


The problem with TWF rangers (http://feerune.online.free.fr/gif/drizzt-m.gif)

:smallbiggrin:

Long before Drizzt was even dreamt up, there was Davy Crockett:

http://www.wilsonsalmanac.com/images1/crockett_d_sm.gif

Hatchet-and-knife predates twin scimitar in the popular mindset by centuries. And it's pure awesome.

Also saw lots of it in Last of the Mohicans:

http://images.art.com/images/-/Daniel-Day-Lewis---Last-of-the-Mohicans--C10103887.jpeg

[Caelestion]

My TWF/IUS rogue was extremely successful in the right circumstances. Admittedly, when he couldn't flank, he blew more than a tornado in Texas, but no one expects a rogue to do well on his own, particularly not one with a stunning 1d4 damage (Byeshk knuckle-dusters). When he did flank however, which was obligingly quite often, the sheer bucket of dice was quite sickening! :)

[Indon]

Spiked anything is pure goofy stupidity.


Tell that to The Shrike (http://www.dansimmons.com/images/gallery/dillingham_shrike2.jpg).

(Edit: yes, I DID try to find the spikiest rendition of the Shrike I could find.)

[Caelestion]

The Shrike may not like to hear it but that picture does indeed look goofily stupid.

[Stephen_E]

A non-RAW tweak I always recommend for Rangers is to give them the 2nd lev Druid spell "Flame Blade as a 1st lev Ranger spell. If you're unfamiliar with it, it's from the PHB and creates a flaming blade from your hand that is treated as a scimitar. It makes melee touch attacks, does 1d8+1/2 caster level, no Str bonus, and off course ignores DR (been an energy attack).

This also offers the Metamagic feat advancement path of Empower Spell (multiply the Flame Blade damage by 1.5) and Energy Substitution, for those nasty things with Energy Resistance-Fire. Aside from been useful, the coolness of a Ranger that has actually usefully taken Metamagic feats isn't to underestimated when swapping Ranger stories.

Any TWF Ranger should seriously look at a Dervish Dip of at least 1 level.
It does require 4 Feats, so it isn't for all, but the feats aren't useless for a Ranger - Dodge, Mobility, Combat Expertise and Weapon Focus-Slashing Weapon, and it does get around the tendancy for the Ranger to lose his multiple attacks advantage in a fight. It also allows you to use a Scimitar in both hands at the min -2/-2 penalty. Bad news, the Scimitar is Light for all purposes, so no Power Att, but then you also don't have spare feat slots anyway.

Stephen

[Caelestion]

Well, any combat-feat player should look at two levels of Fighter. Even my TWF/IUS rogue did that. Shame about the skill points though.

[Piccamo]

It's not so much differing opinions as different gaming styles. Believe me, I can optimize a character like a drag-racing muscle car when I have to (Air conditioning? Gone. Passenger seats? Who needs 'em. Horsepower? Yes please, give me more horsepower). Were I to sit down with your gaming group, I'd juice up and I probably wouldn't play a two weapon style ranger (because Clerics with Divine Metamagic are just tastier). It's a matter of where you find yourself. The original poster didn't seem to belong to that kind of group, though. I don't either, nor would I really get excited about running for one, because my affections do not that way tend.

That said, consider it dropped. Thanks for the nod.

I have full confidence that my entire gaming group could come up with high-powered characters, but it rarely ever happens. We like our off-color builds, like my Melee Warlock / Abjurant Champion.

We generally use the rules to make cool concepts rather than very strong characters.

[Twilight Jack]

I have full confidence that my entire gaming group could come up with high-powered characters, but it rarely ever happens. We like our off-color builds, like my Melee Warlock / Abjurant Champion.

We generally use the rules to make cool concepts rather than very strong characters.

Then you're not so dissimilar to me after all.

[Dhavaer]

How about TWf Greatsword/Superior Unarmed Strike? You get Power Attack with both, decent base damage and 1.5 and full strength bonus.

[Orzel]

Well TWF rangers can grab those TWF feat from splats. Some of theim are nice. Some normal feats work better with mutilple hit attempts

You can also grab a few unarmed/stunning fist feats and abuse your foes with your blades when they are stunned, nauseated, or weakened with your higher BAB.

Plus there are many damage booted FE feats like Nemisis and Improveed FE.

But Rangers are mage/summon/FE/minion killers mostly and TWF rangers can't do much else in battle.

[Jerthanis]

I'm gonna jump right in and say that TWF rangers are perfectly respectable contributing melee damage dealers in standard parties, but only if you choose your favored enemies well, and fight them often. Ranged rangers are (IMHO) a tad better, since they can fall back to a greatsword in a pinch, and don't have to always be weathering melee as a light armor + d8 HP class. TWF Rangers can really get some impressive damage going if they are smart, lucky, and have conversations with the DM about getting the most out of that class ability.

Dragons, for instance, are NEVER going to be a good choice for a favored enemy. They're really tough, and probably won't be faced more than once or twice in most games, and even if you fight them a lot, their extremely high AC is going to make most of your iterative attacks miss. Also, full attacking a dragon in melee is asking for trouble.

Abberrations, however, have squishy, spongy bodies which can be hurt for damage, they scale from CR 1 or 2 all the way to the 15s and 20s, they are dangerous, and thus worth the investment of some extra damage against them, and are interesting/thematic enough to feature heavily in a wide range of adventures. Same with Undead.

The key to getting the most out of a ranger is to discuss the game with your DM beforehand, and make sure you're on the same page about the game. A TWF Ranger can be perfectly respectable, but all it really does better at is hurt its favored enemies, so take that into account.

EDIT: Also, remember Improved Favored enemy out of Complete Warrior, it's great for getting a bit of extra oomph behind your Favored Enemy damage bonus.

[DSCrankshaw]

As others have pointed out, the main problem is math. Power Attack just doesn't play very well with TWF.

Here's a trick though. Once you hit mid levels, use Oversized Two Weapon Fighting. It will let you use Power Attack with your off hand.

Also, I would point out that Rangers have limited armor and mediocre hit points. So they really shouldn't be standing on the front line of combat.
While we're speaking of tricks, consider making him a dwarf. Dwarf rangers, "cavers" according to the PHB, are underused in my opinion. The bonus to Con deals with the mediocre HP, and with Oversized Two Weapon Fighting, he can use two Dwarven Waraxes. Add in Power Attack, and soon he's dealing serious damage. His AC's still low for a frontliner, but spells such as Barkskin and Cat's Grace can help there.

[Townopolis]

While we're speaking of tricks, consider making him a dwarf. Dwarf rangers, "cavers" according to the PHB, are underused in my opinion. The bonus to Con deals with the mediocre HP, and with Oversized Two Weapon Fighting, he can use two Dwarven Waraxes. Add in Power Attack, and soon he's dealing serious damage. His AC's still low for a frontliner, but spells such as Barkskin and Cat's Grace can help there.

That's disgusting in a beautiful kind of way.

[Droodle]

While we're speaking of tricks, consider making him a dwarf. Dwarf rangers, "cavers" according to the PHB, are underused in my opinion. The bonus to Con deals with the mediocre HP, and with Oversized Two Weapon Fighting, he can use two Dwarven Waraxes. Add in Power Attack, and soon he's dealing serious damage. His AC's still low for a frontliner, but spells such as Barkskin and Cat's Grace can help there.Or you can just have him use a Dwarven Urgrosh and save yourself the feat. You'll also get more versatility that way....if slightly lower damage dice.

[DSCrankshaw]

Or you can just have him use a Dwarven Urgrosh and save yourself the feat. You'll also get more versatility that way....if slightly lower damage dice.
And you won't be able to do power attack on both attacks, since you treat a double weapon as one medium and one light weapon, and you can't power attack with a light weapon. Person_Man suggested getting Oversized Two Weapon Fighting for that very reason. Nothing against the Urgosh, but I think the bonus to damage is worth the feat.

There's all sorts of ways to make Two Weapon Fighting better, but it does require a very careful build, and some other sourcebooks. Complete Adventurer, with Oversized Two Weapon Fighting and the Tempest, helps a lot. PHB II has some interesting feats too, although I'm less certain how useful they'd be. Does anyone have thoughts on Two-weapon Rend?

[Fax Celestis]

And you won't be able to do power attack on both attacks, since you treat a double weapon as one medium and one light weapon, and you can't power attack with a light weapon. Person_Man suggested getting Oversized Two Weapon Fighting for that very reason. Nothing against the Urgosh, but I think the bonus to damage is worth the feat.

There's all sorts of ways to make Two Weapon Fighting better, but it does require a very careful build, and some other sourcebooks. Complete Adventurer, with Oversized Two Weapon Fighting and the Tempest, helps a lot. PHB II has some interesting feats too, although I'm less certain how useful they'd be. Does anyone have thoughts on Two-weapon Rend?

Getting as many sources of rending as possible is good. Two-Weapon Rend, though, I'm not sure is worth the feat.

Something that is worth it is getting four arms somehow (Girallon Arms soulmeld, girallon's blessing, being a thri-kreen) and using Multiweapon Fighting instead of Two-Weapon Fighting. Same penalties, more attacks.

[Droodle]

And you won't be able to do power attack on both attacks, since you treat a double weapon as one medium and one light weapon, and you can't power attack with a light weapon.Yeah. I was figuring he'd just use it as a two handed weapon when he needs to use power attack. Power attacking while using two weapons is almost never worth it, in my experience, since you are taking -2 to hit already for dual wielding. The Urgrosh would grant you the chance to pick and choose when to power attack.

[Closet_Skeleton]

While we're speaking of tricks, consider making him a dwarf. Dwarf rangers, "cavers" according to the PHB, are underused in my opinion. The bonus to Con deals with the mediocre HP, and with Oversized Two Weapon Fighting, he can use two Dwarven Waraxes. Add in Power Attack, and soon he's dealing serious damage. His AC's still low for a frontliner, but spells such as Barkskin and Cat's Grace can help there.

The problem is that whenever I hear Dwarven Rangers I think of Bugman's Rangers from Warhammer who use a Greataxe/Crossbow combo.

Don't forget Favoured Enemy Power Attack.



http://www.wilsonsalmanac.com/images1/crockett_d_sm.gif

Hatchet-and-knife predates twin scimitar in the popular mindset by centuries. And it's pure awesome.


Awesome.

Depends what you mean by Scimitar. If you mean the 16th century Shamshir then they're too unwieldey to use when focusing on a second weapon. If you mean the Chinese Dao then I'm sure that dual-wielding them is part of Wushu and probably older than Davey Crocket (but not necesaraly using a knife and hatchet).


What do you think of when you think of armor spikes? I hope not just little bumps on the armor that happen to deal damage. There could be so many things that are indicative of spikes that to throw them out automatically is stupid. I often think of one of the Guyver suits or Shao Khan from Mortal Kombat (the spikes on his shoulders).

Do you mean Guyver's Wrist blades? That's a slightly differant thing. I guess Wizards is cautious of that sort of thing after Sword and Fist's rediculous Bladed Gauntlets.

I'm sure those shoulder spikes make sense for a particular move but continuosly shoulder bashing makes for a poor strategy.

The Greatsword's reach makes little sense with the terrible reach on the armour spikes. You'd have to limit your fighting style quite a bit.

[Yvian]

Why just use a THW and dual wield armor spikes?
Now you can eat your cake and still have it.
Greatsword/Syche, etc + Armor spikes:
For TWF, strength is X 1.5 for primary hand, and .5 for the off hand
For TWF, PA is doubled for the primary hand, and none for the off hand.
For TWF, you take a -2 on your to roll hit.

It is the most optimized if you must be using two weapons.

Now, that works by RAW, but it is what I would classify as cheese.

I want my role playing rules to model real combat – some what. Obviously, magic is not modeled off of real life. Such is magic – it can’t be, but combat can.

If you look historically, Board and sword is the most popular, followed by THF, then followed by TWF. There are good reasons for this. THF has greater reach then board and sword, which has greater reach then TWF. Normally a shield offset the advantage of greater reach with TWF. So in real life, a board and sword or THF would be able to strike and dance away from a TWF all day long. OK, so this is D&D – a simplified model of real life and most weapons have reach of 5 ft. I buy that – I have really complex system. By armored spikes in my mind have a reach of zero. I mean you would have to really get into the enemies face, which just does not happen in real life.

So, a few words about TWF in real life using vast generalizations. They tend to be light irregular troops. Peasants that were impressed into service to harrier the enemies flank. Or, they carried a light melee weapon and a throwing weapon – or even better – both -hand axe, dagger, etc. Attack, chop, throw, etc. They tended to rely on speed. Or they fought in close quarters, such as a ship.

Do you know what I would like to see in a ranger? Not a TWF or an archer build – but a spring attack ranger. I mean, a ranger to use TWF needs to take a full attack action. What lightly armed troop is going to do that. I ranger should be able to run, attack, and run away better then anyone else.

[Closet_Skeleton]

If you look historically, Board and sword is the most popular, followed by THF, then followed by TWF.

If you look historically, polearms are the most popular. Two Weapon fighting is rare because it's as much of a waste of training in real life as it is in Dungeons and Dragons. Sword and board wasn't used too much since swords are pretty crap weapons in some ways. Then again, in real life few people chose their weapons, they were dictated by social caste, region and other factors of tradition.

You can't really use historic weapon uses for a role playing game since historically weapons weren't used for fighting monsters down caves. Though if they did then they'd probably use a shortsword and a small shield since large weapons are at a disadvantage underground.

Getting into your opponents face does happen in real life. Or it did any way. Yet still nobody bothered with armour spikes because they'd do nothing more than scratch armour.

Armour Spikes and Spiked Chains almost make sense for gladiators but nobody used net and trident in a proper battle.

[Theodoxus]

If you look historically, polearms are the most popular. Two Weapon fighting is rare because it's as much of a waste of training in real life as it is in Dungeons and Dragons. Sword and board wasn't used too much since swords are pretty crap weapons in some ways. Then again, in real life few people chose their weapons, they were dictated by social caste, region and other factors of tradition.

You can't really use historic weapon uses for a role playing game since historically weapons weren't used for fighting monsters down caves. Though if they did then they'd probably use a shortsword and a small shield since large weapons are at a disadvantage underground.

Getting into your opponents face does happen in real life. Or it did any way. Yet still nobody bothered with armour spikes because they'd do nothing more than scratch armour.

Armour Spikes and Spiked Chains almost make sense for gladiators but nobody used net and trident in a proper battle.

Excellent points CS!

What weapons were used historically had far more to do with where you were than what you were fighting (since, in 99.9999% of all fights it was against humans.) Fighting aboard a ship? Pull out a couple of fast weapons or a buckler. No armor at sea, easier to maim someone and get them out of commission - remember, in 'real fights' as long as the other person is out of the fight, you don't need to kill them - maiming rules in D&D are sketchy at best - which is good for players (who wants to be taken out of a fight in the first round because your arm is disabled and you can't hold a weapon any more) but bad for realism. (As typified in nearly any Swashbuckling movie)

Two armies clashing? Time for the polearms, where reach is king. Defend your poles from raining arrows with massive shields, and then march out into the fray. (Braveheart probably demonstrated this best)

Grudge match between two warriors - sword and board, all the way. Better defense, longer fight - better chance of one person winning without being maimed. (13th Warrior, anyone?) Another excellent grudge match between different weapons was in Rob Roy, with a greatsword vs rapier... but as I noted, without a shield, the victor ended up quite hurt before he split open the fop.

Dungeoneering, being a fabrication of fantasy, has no real world connotations. The closest probably being the Catacombs of Rome (and other ancient cities). There certainly isn't enough room to swing massive greatswords or halberds around. Unfortunately, the game breaks down in these areas too. Playing a halfling rogue with my friend (who's playing my twin brother) with spiked chains - there are numerous times where we're striking at the enemy through party members legs... its RAW, so we can do it, but its impossible to demonstrate through physics. (as is much about that particular weapon)

But, be that as it may - if more care were given to limitations and when it's good and proper to use a specific set of weapons, rather than simply looking for the most damage, highest crit mod with the greatest crit range, again, these kinds of discussions wouldn't arise with 'why does TWF suck?' TWF only sucks when its used anywhere where a better weapon (two hander or S&B) would be a better choice. Try swinging that greatsword on a sailing ship where hawsers are all over the place and you'll get caught up in ropes or wishing you hadn't just sawed through the rigging line for the mainsail.

[Kiero]

Awesome.

Depends what you mean by Scimitar. If you mean the 16th century Shamshir then they're too unwieldey to use when focusing on a second weapon. If you mean the Chinese Dao then I'm sure that dual-wielding them is part of Wushu and probably older than Davey Crocket (but not necesaraly using a knife and hatchet).

Well, if we go into Chinese weapon combos, there's a hell of a lot of paired weapon styles, though mostly two of the same rather than different ones put together.

As an aside, it's pretty unlikely the samurai's daisho were used together.

[Closet_Skeleton]

Well, if we go into Chinese weapon combos, there's a hell of a lot of paired weapon styles, though mostly two of the same rather than different ones put together.

Well, China is a huge place with hundreds of obscure weapons.


As an aside, it's pretty unlikely the samurai's daisho were used together.

Except for the specific and rather late example of Niten Ichi when they are used together. The Niten Ichi style can even be used with two katana if you want. There's also a slightly longer tradition of off-hand parrying weapons such as the kodatchi and Tensen.

The problem isn't really with wielding a Katana and a Wakizashi, it's with claiming that the whole point of the Daisho is that they can be wielded together. The idea of a Katana as merely being the back up for your spear and the Wakizashi as a utility item for suicide, indoor fighting and head collecting isn't at the top of most people's vision of the Samurai.

[Pauwel]

You want other examples?

A sufficiently trained fighter with above-average strength (not superhuman by any means) can smash barefisted through an arbitrary amount of stone wall without injury. If you downgrade to glass, he needs almost no training.

A javelin can not be thrown more than 150 feet, regardless of your strength.

Quarterstaves happen.

A fighter can wield a weapon made for someone roughly twice his height at a minor penalty.

A choke hold by a trained killer of average strength deals 1d3 damage every six seconds. If he's of legendary skill, he could deal as much as 4d3 damage with it.

Regardless of how many wounds a warrior sustains, or however many blows land upon his padded (or take your pick) armor, it will never be damaged.

Should I go on? I particularly like the choke hold and glass punching examples, myself.

Two wrongs don't make a right. Or seven wrongs, in this case.

In other words, it doesn't matter how silly the examples you give are (and I agree with you, they are silly). The only thing these arguments prove is that there are more silly things in D&D than spiked armour, but that doesn't make spiked armour less silly by itself.

[Droodle]

Except for the specific and rather late example of Niten Ichi when they are used together. The Niten Ichi style can even be used with two katana if you want. There's also a slightly longer tradition of off-hand parrying weapons such as the kodatchi and Tensen.One thing to remember is that the size of the Katana was not yet standardized in 1640. It is possible that Musashi and his pupils were training with lighter blades than the "modern" katana.

[Indon]

Two wrongs don't make a right. Or seven wrongs, in this case.

In other words, it doesn't matter how silly the examples you give are (and I agree with you, they are silly). The only thing these arguments prove is that there are more silly things in D&D than spiked armour, but that doesn't make spiked armour less silly by itself.

My point is, yes, it is silly. It's a game, and nothing about the game requires it to be un-silly.

D&D is clearly not meant to function as a gritty/realistic system; it has hit points. Rather, the game is intended to allow characters to achieve pretty clearly impossible (alternately, 'silly') feats on their way to gaining bigger piles of treasure.

So, my argument can be summed up as 'Yes, armor spikes are silly, much like D&D as a whole is.'

[Stephen_E]

It's a good point that the sort of weapons that are good in a Humanoid vs Humanoid battle are different from what you want in a duel, which is different in what you want fighting monsters in general, or undergound (although if you bring it up on the Reallife arms and armour questions, they'll point out that many of the larger weapons could be used effectively in much less space than people thought).

I remember the nice touch in Dragonbane by Barbara Hambly, where the local lord has a Dragon problem. Been a renanaince type of man he studied the literture and went to kill it with poisoned barbed harpoons and a heavy axe. He realise that a Sword simply wouldn't penetrate Dargon armour, and impact damage is simply a waste of time against something with the bulk of a Dragon.

But DnD weapons simply don't/can't handle these sort of problems. 1st ed had the weapon/armour modifiers, but almost no one used it. Rolemaster does a better job (If you try and attack a dragon type creature with Rapiers and such the Dragons biggest danger is dying from laughter) albeit with its own illogic quirks.

Stephen

[Matthew]

If you look historically, polearms are the most popular.

Actually, Spears are by far the most popular weapon, very often with a Shield.


You can't really use historic weapon uses for a role playing game since historically weapons weren't used for fighting monsters down caves. Though if they did then they'd probably use a shortsword and a small shield since large weapons are at a disadvantage underground.

Again, Spears are probably best for this sort of thing... (depending on the shape of the underground passages, the length would be restricted)

[Talkkno]

Just a little humor to calm down the discussion
http://i17.photobucket.com/albums/b57/talkkno/Other/Tales_of_Symphonia_v01_cover_c.jpg

[Matthew]

How about TWf Greatsword/Superior Unarmed Strike? You get Power Attack with both, decent base damage and 1.5 and full strength bonus.
Where is Superior Unarmed Strike from?

[MeklorIlavator]

Where is Superior Unarmed Strike from?

Its from tome of battle, and increases unarmed damage.

[Matthew]

Ah right, gotcha. Thanks.

[Indon]

Just a little humor to calm down the discussion

http://i17.photobucket.com/albums/b57/talkkno/Other/Tales_of_Symphonia_v01_cover_c.jpg

There's a manga for that? I thought it was just a video game!

[Beleriphon]

Does anyone have thoughts on Two-weapon Rend?

Useful in that its automatic damage, but it doesn't scale so there is limited suitability with the feat. Still for a two weapon fighting style its a fairly decent choice. My preference is still Leap Attack/Shock Trooper cheese for TWF damage.

[Talkkno]

There's a manga for that? I thought it was just a video game!

In japan at least; i doubt it will be here in the States for a quite a while

[Fizban]

In japan at least; i doubt it will be here in the States for a quite a while

I don't know if you've just given me a new reason to live, or a new reason to despair (that it will take so long/likely never happen).

Wow, this thread got off topic. But I have to comment on the polearms: the halberd does 1d10/x3, slashing [B]or[B] piercing, and can trip and be set against a charge. Why would anyone use an axe when they can get so much more?

[Zincorium]

I don't know if you've just given me a new reason to live, or a new reason to despair (that it will take so long/likely never happen).

Wow, this thread got off topic. But I have to comment on the polearms: the halberd does 1d10/x3, slashing [B]or[B] piercing, and can trip and be set against a charge. Why would anyone use an axe when they can get so much more?

'Cause the greataxe is the only way barbarians will ever get to use that d12 more than once per level. Battleaxes and waraxes (why are they by necessity dwarven? Never got why that was) are so you can wield more than one weapon or have a shield handy.

Actually, I used a halberd all the time in 2.0, but now in 3.0 you want either a greatsword or a spiked chain, depending on what you're focusing on.

Piercing is the least useful damage type, more critters have /slashing or /bludgeoning than /piercing.

Halberds don't have reach. Crazy, but true.

And lastly, the double damage when set to receive a charge is almost never useful. You are gambling your entire action on whether or not an opponent will charge, and usually charges happen as soon as combat begins and there's no chance to ready actions. Also, if they don't charge, just move and attack or shoot arrows, bam, your entire action is gone.

[Matthew]

Why would Halberds have Reach? Spears don't even get Reach... What you want is a Long Halberd :smallwink:

[LotharBot]

To answer the original question:

TWF tends to be underpowered because:
1) you get less benefit from Power Attack TWF than with a 2-handed weapon (due to not being able to get PA benefit from light weapons)
2) you get a lot of single attacks over the course of a campaign, and not so many full attacks. With TWF you lose a bit of damage each time you have to move+attack vs. if you had a big two-hander.
3) you get a -2 to hit, so you often don't land as much damage on a full attack as you would've with a two-hander.

TWF rules in some circumstances:
1) you can get lots of bonus damage per attack (ex: rogue sneak attack, holy, bane, favored enemy bonus, INT or DEX to damage, etc. Note that "lots" really does have to be "lots" to be worth it; favored enemy alone usually isn't.)
2) you have some sort of "or die" or "or suck" ability with each attack (ex: crippling strike, wounding, vorpal, disrupting.) In this case, the more attacks you can get, the better.

And of course you can always TWF because you like to role-play it even though it's statistically inferior in most combat situations.