Crossbows, TWF and Throwing.

[ekarney]

Hey Playground, I come here with a favour/question to ask.
As I've never played a thrown build, Crossbow build or TWF fighting build I'd like to know the flaws of all three.
And not just the flaws what needs to be fixed.

For example I know a couple of TWF issues are that the feat chain is too long, the damage pales in comparison to a 2H build and that the hit chance just gets way too crappy.
So now I know this wouldn't 100% fix it and make it perfect, but what if we merged all the TWF, ITWF and GTWF feat into a single feat that "unlocks" as you level up more, and upon gaining ITWF you'd also gain the ability to use 1x Str/Dex (if you have Weapon finesse) to add to your damage.

[Xervous]

Hey Playground, I come here with a favour/question to ask.
As I've never played a thrown build, Crossbow build or TWF fighting build I'd like to know the flaws of all three.
And not just the flaws what needs to be fixed.

For example I know a couple of TWF issues are that the feat chain is too long, the damage pales in comparison to a 2H build and that the hit chance just gets way too crappy.
So now I know this wouldn't 100% fix it and make it perfect, but what if we merged all the TWF, ITWF and GTWF feat into a single feat that "unlocks" as you level up more, and upon gaining ITWF you'd also gain the ability to use 1x Str/Dex (if you have Weapon finesse) to add to your damage.

The issues with most of these builds are the low returns you're getting for your investments compared to the Adamantine standard of pounce barbarian.

First up, TWF demands 15 dex. Generally people like to go with weapon finesse here so you don't have 15 dex sitting alongside a devoted strength score. Even having all of these extra attacks you're not doing much without damage bonuses. Shadow Blade, Hit and Run fighter, and sneak attack are three popular options for stacking damage on your attacks. Certainly there's more that other people will mention but they all have one thing in common, moderate to heavy investment on top of the entry taxes for TWF.
-Lots of feat taxes
-harder to find sources of bonus damage

Thrown weapons generally lend themselves to dex. Point Blank Shot -> rapidshot is a feat tax for extra throws, TWF can be mingled for even more throws. Generally, you end up like TWF except with less ease of access to damage boosts.
EXCEPTION: Sneak attack thrown flasks. Hit AC 5 to land it in a square, splash all your joyous damage onto your target, still requires a lot of build resources to get going.


Dex -> damage
Weapon finesse is a weapon property
TWF is one or zero feats (latter case implying an innate capability)
*Power attack is still iffy for 1h weapons
*Thrown weapons would love power throw

[Calimehter]

After reading the thread title, I was really hoping for a build that used some sort of QuickDraw equivalent to throw crossbows (not bolts) at people, and then beat people about the head with dual-wielded crossbows once the enemy closed to melee range.

Ah well.

[daremetoidareyo]

I have dual wield handcrossbow build somewhere, I'll see if I can find and get a throw anything feat in there to make it a reality.

[ericgrau]

1. Ban shocktrooper. THF is no longer significantly better than <insert style here>.

2. Play whatever style you want. Should be fine.

[Gee-chan]

Yeah, all three of these builds have the problem of requiring ay to many feats for way too little reward.

Throwing can work alright, but bows are just better and cheaper as you don't need to have a stock of constantly breaking magic javelins or something, which gets crazy expensive.

Crossbows are just feat taxes with their reloads and still are outdamaged by bows

TWF can work, but again, it is all those feats. You will be spending most of your feats just trying to make it workable while just 2handing a larger weapon will still deal more damage and have loads more room for fun stuff.

[darkdragoon]

The throwing builds usually don't end up using actual throwing weapons. You've got Bloodstorm Blade for more or less giving you lightsaber control, Hulking Hurler throwing the heaviest thing they can get their hands on and of course the alchemical flask that ate Golarion.

[Darrin]

TWF OffHandbook (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?279079) covers the strengths/weaknesses of the style pretty well. In brief: Yes, you can make some interesting TWF builds that are still effective and interesting to play, but you'll probably wind up trading off some power for "looking cool".

As far as fixes go, combining TWF/ITWF/GTWF into a single feat is a popular one, but it only fixes one of the problems. You still need to find a decent source of bonus damage, some way to pay for your enhancements without undermining your build, and get a reliable means to move + full attack.

Regarding crossbows, archery has its own problems: low damage output, boned by DR, lack of sourcebook support, DMs who start every combat at close range, and so forth. Crossbow also rules out one popular method to dish out DPS: Greater Manyshot only works with bows. Relying on precision damage is somewhat counter-intuitive for ranged builds, though... you have to stay within 30' of your target and this tends to put you in the thick of melee, at which point you wanted ranged attacks for what now? However, I do have a Swift Hunter build that uses Crossbow Sniper to get 10d6 skirmish out to 60'.


Race: Human, Azurin, Strongheart Halfing, or Frostblood Orc/Half-Orc
1) Ranger 1. Feat: Travel Devotion (Complete Champion), Human: PB Shot, Bonus: Track. Wild Empathy -> Spiritual Connection ACF (Complete Champion). Favored Enemy: Undead.
2) Ranger 2. Bonus: Rapid Shot.
3) Scout 1. Feat: Travel Devotion (x2). Skirmish 1d6
4) Feat Rogue 1. Bonus: Hand Crossbow Focus (DotU). Trade Trapfinding for Poison Use or Mimic ACF.
5) Scout 2. Skirmish 1d6.
6) Scout 3. Feat: Crossbow Sniper (PHBII). Skirmish 1d6AC+1.
7) Scout 4. Bonus: Swift Hunter (Complete Scoundrel). Skirmish 2d6AC+1.
8) Ranger 3. Bonus: Endurance. Skirmish 2d6AC+2.
9) Ranger 4. Champion of the Wild ACF -> Bonus: Manyshot (Complete Champion), Feat: Improved Rapid Shot. Animal Companion -> Distracting Attack ACF (PHBII) or Spiritual Guide ACF (Complete Champion).
10) Ranger 5. Favored Enemy: Constructs. Skirmish 3d6AC+2.
11) Dragon Devotee 1.
12) Dragon Devotee 2. Feat: Improved Skirmish (Complete Scoundrel). Skirmish 4d6AC+2/6d6AC+4.
13) Dragon Devotee 3. 1st level Sorcerer casting (pick at least 2 divination spells, such as true strike and sniper's shot, ask DM to let skirmish count).
14) Dragon Devotee 4. Skirmish 5d6AC+2/7d6AC+4
15) Unseen Seer 1. Feat: Travel Devotion (x3). Skirmish 6d6AC+2/8d6AC+4
16) Unseen Seer 2. Advanced Learning: hunter's eye (PHBII spell)
17) Unseen Seer 3.
18) Unseen Seer 4. Feat: Travel Devotion (x3). Skirmish 7d6AC+2/9d6AC+4
19) Highland Stalker 1.
20) Highland Stalker 2. Skirmish 8d6AC+2/10d6AC+4


Throwing is... odd, as it suffers from the same problems plaguing both archery and TWF: low damage output (outside of Hulking Hurler), cost of enhancements, need to be close range, and now you need both ranged and melee feats to get it working. On top of that is the additional headache of how do I get my weapon(s) back into my hands if I suddenly need to do more murderstabbing? Bloodstorm Blade fixes a lot of these problems, but in such a way that makes your ranged attacks somewhat irrelevant: anything a Bloodstorm Blade can do at range, he can probably do a lot better as just a plain ol' melee attack.

[Telonius]

A misread of the thread title gave me an image of a person throwing crossbows that he was dual-wielding as improvised clubs...

[Triskavanski]

Crossbow - The main issue here is that you /have/ to spend a feat to get rapid reload before you can even begin to get comparable damage to a bow. And by that time, there is a lot more feats that the bow user has taken than greatly amplify the damage.

Then you've got like a great number of PrCs, Archetypes, Feats, etc that work well and work only with Bows. Arcane Archer for example you've got to spend focus feats on a bow. There is like deep wood stalker or something like that which requires weapon focus bow. Bows can also add additional damage from having a higher str score.

Some people claim the reason crossbows are suppose to suck are because they're simple weapons and don't require as much training as a martial longbow, completely ignoring the exotic weapon versions of crossbows that still stink.

Two-weapon Fighting - the main argument against this one, and the main source of all your pain.. FEATS! You need at least 3 feats to get the main two-weapon fighting tree (unless you sacrifice an extra attack there) Then your weapons either have to both be light or you've got to split feats between the two for weapon focus and the like, or you've got to take a -4 penalty to wield two 1h weapons (Or again, spend more feats to remove that penalty).

Then there is a ton of other feats for two weapon fighting beyond just getting it running there. Light and 1h weapons are typically also smaller damage die than the 2h weapons.

[Andezzar]

1. Ban shocktrooper. THF is no longer significantly better than <insert style here>.
That is not true. While shocktrooper does help THF significantly, the other styles are weaker even without that feat, even without power attack.
THF gives you 1.5*STR mod to damage. sword and board, bow archery and throwing only 1*STR mod, crossbow archery does not add any STR bonus. With TWF you do get the STR bonus on the main hand attacks and 0.5* STR Bonus on the off-hand attacks, but all attacks suffer penalties (unless you invest even more resources). So fewer attacks will hit. On top of that you do not get twice as many attacks unless you go into epic levels.

THF works with no feat at all. To get to manageable penalties on TWF, you need one feat and additional feats to get additional attacks. These feats also require you to invest in DEX.

You also need to enchant two weapons instead of only one to be just as effective.

So yeah TWF is inferior to THF.

[Telonius]

For example I know a couple of TWF issues are that the feat chain is too long, the damage pales in comparison to a 2H build and that the hit chance just gets way too crappy.
So now I know this wouldn't 100% fix it and make it perfect, but what if we merged all the TWF, ITWF and GTWF feat into a single feat that "unlocks" as you level up more, and upon gaining ITWF you'd also gain the ability to use 1x Str/Dex (if you have Weapon finesse) to add to your damage.

In my personal houserules, TWF does grant an extra attack with each iterative that you gain; it is one of the more common houserules people mention whenever somebody posts asking people about it. In my games, ITWF and GTWF lessen the penalties by one each (so as to throw Ranger a bone). Right now I remove the +1 BAB requirement for Weapon Finesse, but I've been seriously considering junking the feat entirely and making Finesse-able a property of the weapon itself - as in, any character could use Dex to attack if they're wielding it.

[Triskavanski]

Thats pretty much the long and short of it.

In the end its about how many feats does it require between the different styles and weather or not those feats provide enough bonuses to overcome the gap between the style that requires less feats.

Unfortunately these styles do not get enough bonuses to typically cover that gap and then go beyond it. Most of them the feats just simply attempt to close the gap between a style that requires less feats vs a style that requires more feats. And since the less feat style can take other feats to go beyond their starting point, the weaker style can't catch up.

[ericgrau]

That is not true. While shocktrooper does help THF significantly, the other styles are weaker even without that feat, even without power attack.
THF gives you 1.5*STR mod to damage. sword and board, bow archery and throwing only 1*STR mod, crossbow archery does not add any STR bonus. With TWF you do get the STR bonus on the main hand attacks and 0.5* STR Bonus on the off-hand attacks, but all attacks suffer penalties (unless you invest even more resources). So fewer attacks will hit. On top of that you do not get twice as many attacks unless you go into epic levels.

THF works with no feat at all. To get to manageable penalties on TWF, you need one feat and additional feats to get additional attacks. These feats also require you to invest in DEX.

You also need to enchant two weapons instead of only one to be just as effective.

So yeah TWF is inferior to THF.
Needs more DPR or etc. numbers. Or the comparisons of costs and benefits are pretty meaningless because none of it answers "how much". I've run the numbers on both and they are a mouse's nosehair apart.

[Andezzar]

Needs more DPR or etc. numbers. Or the comparisons of costs and benefits are pretty meaningless because none of it answers "how much". I've run the numbers on both and they are a mouse's nosehair apart.I'm to lazy for big number crunching at the moment, but if one style requires zero feats and only one ability it is more efficient than one that requires at least three feats (to keep up) and two ability scores.

[Willie the Duck]

TWF can be credibly fixed by messing with the investment cost (# of feats, Dex requirements). It's just a question of balancing the numbers better than the designers did. What amazes me is that they made fixes between 3.0 and 3.5 (removed the ambidexterity feat investment). That means that they knew that there was a problem, and yet the current state is where they landed.

Crossbows and thrown weapons have institutional games design issues that keep them from working (well). The primary is that ranged combat really isn't that good, full stop. Of course when the goblins across the chasm start shooting arrows or the (un)friendly neighborhood dragon swoops in, everyone had better have a ranged option. However, half the time the best option in this instance is to give the fighter a potion of flying and sticking with their melee options. This again seems to have been a misread in the design between 2e and 3e that they really have never addressed.

Beyond that, thrown weapons in particular are extra sub-par. This is because the range at which they are effective, you could be charging, and charging is awesome. Also, after you've already thrown your weapon at your enemy, they can retaliate by charging you. Now of course, since charging is awesome, there's lots of ways to keep people from charging (terrain) or wanting to do so (longspears). However, like with ranged in general, it is usually more cost effective to figure out how to fix that and get to charge again than to build a combat build around throwing things. Add to that that throwing weapons cost just as much as any other melee weapon (and at the level where magic weapons are "needed," that is a significant limitation), and unless you pay the feat tax of quickdraw, you also lose a move-equivalent action (or you can move and draw if you have a +1 bab, but that's banking on wanting to use your m.e.a. on actually moving).

Crossbows have all these issues, plus they are simple weapons. Most simple weapons are only behind their martial equivalents by a little damage, crit range or multiplier, or a special function like trip or disarm. The crossbow is behind on two fundamental qualities compared to bows (strength to damage, and a m.e.a. to reload). The second can be mitigated by a feat, but the firstcan only be mitigated by not caring about strength to damage (say by overwhelming the loss with sneak attack damage instead). That's a very specific combat build and one of the few that has already been written up to death for the crossbow.

[ericgrau]

I'm to lazy for big number crunching at the moment, but if one style requires zero feats and only one ability it is more efficient than one that requires at least three feats (to keep up) and two ability scores.
I gave feats and class levels to both sides, WBL gear, average monster stats, half attacks full attacks and half single attacks, etc., etc...

What the argument against has going for it OTOH is that it's simple and easy to repeat 10,000 times online without ever doing a complete numerical analysis that I've ever seen in my entire life. But if you have a link to one without shocktrooper I'd like to see it. Until then I have personal rules about giving too much more time than I get back because I have things to do today.

[Triskavanski]

May I see your data there?

[Lans]

I'm to lazy for big number crunching at the moment, but if one style requires zero feats and only one ability it is more efficient than one that requires at least three feats (to keep up) and two ability scores.

The term you appear to be overlooking is significantly.

[Andezzar]

The term you appear to be overlooking is significantly.You think needing to invest at least one feat and 15 in another ability score is not significant? I'm not saying you cannot do decent damage with TWF but that you have to invest more to do damage comparable to that someone with nearly no investment (one high ability score) can do with THF. The saved investment can be used for other useful stuff like BFC.

[ExLibrisMortis]

Two-handing also benefits from reach, and it's the best style for most martial strikes, which typically use only one weapon, even if you have two. You can also cast spells with a two-hander, because you can take a hand off your weapon as a free action, instead of having to sheathe a weapon to get a hand free.

[gorfnab]

A misread of the thread title gave me an image of a person throwing crossbows that he was dual-wielding as improvised clubs...
Crossbows with Bayonet (CS) + Bloodstorm Blade (ToB) might work?

[Andezzar]

Two-handing also benefits from reach, and it's the best style for most martial strikes, which typically use only one weapon, even if you have two. You can also cast spells with a two-hander, because you can take a hand off your weapon as a free action, instead of having to sheathe a weapon to get a hand free.This is actually not quite RAW. While you can drop an item (your hand) as a free action, there is no rule (FAQ don't count) saying that reapplying the hand is also a free action.

[ExLibrisMortis]

This is actually not quite RAW. While you can drop an item (your hand) as a free action, there is no rule (FAQ don't count) saying that reapplying the hand is also a free action.
You're not dropping an item, and you're certainly not picking an item up. "Reapplying the hand" is not an action - it's a part of your next attack action (or your next sheathe action, or your next whatever action). You're free to change hands on a weapon even during a full attack (although it's usually a really bad idea to attack one-handed with a two-handed weapon, obviously).

[Xervous]

This is actually not quite RAW. While you can drop an item (your hand) as a free action, there is no rule (FAQ don't count) saying that reapplying the hand is also a free action.

There's no rule for changing the handedness of a weapon if you're disregarding the FAQ. If we apply the precedent set by changing an item from hand to hand, it's a move action... so this is firmly in DM ruling territory.

[Triskavanski]

There's no rule for changing the handedness of a weapon if you're disregarding the FAQ. If we apply the precedent set by changing an item from hand to hand, it's a move action... so this is firmly in DM ruling territory.

I'd like to point out that using a Bow and Arrow requires two hands, as the bow is a two handed weapon. At some point you do have to hold the bow in a single hand in order to pull out another arrow and load it. But Probably more specifically to this situation, an arcane archer would need the ability to cast spells with his two handed weapon at some point (especially the pathfinder version).

[Andezzar]

I'd like to point out that using a Bow and Arrow requires two hands, as the bow is a two handed weapon. At some point you do have to hold the bow in a single hand in order to pull out another arrow and load it. But Probably more specifically to this situation, an arcane archer would need the ability to cast spells with his two handed weapon at some point (especially the pathfinder version).I'm not saying you cannot remove one hand from a two-handed weapon but that the rules do not say what actions are required to do so. Drawing an arrow is explicitly a free action. Additionally the rules for a ranged weapon that requires to hands to use has no bearing on a two-handed melee weapon (or even a one-handed melee weapon used with two hands).

That an Arcane Archer needs a free hand to cast a spell does not show you which actions are required to have a free hand and a functioning weapon.

[Triskavanski]

I'm not saying you cannot remove one hand from a two-handed weapon but that the rules do not say what actions are required to do so. Drawing an arrow is explicitly a free action. Additionally the rules for a ranged weapon that requires to hands to use has no bearing on a two-handed melee weapon (or even a one-handed melee weapon used with two hands).

That an Arcane Archer needs a free hand to cast a spell does not show you which actions are required to have a free hand and a functioning weapon.

Yes, the rules don't say, especially when you drop the FAQ that does clarify the matter.

I was merely pointing out that a two handed weapon does have situations where one has to remove the hand to continue to perform its functions. And that a class's main feature would require one to remove their hand from the bow to cast a spell and then would need to use the said bow within the same round. Saying this has no bearing on melee 2-handed weapons is moving the goal posts, because there is clearly a moment a two handed weapon to remain functional and use Imbue Arrow would have to be let go with one hand, cast a spell and then draw and shoot the arrow.

We've clearly established at this point that letting go for a moment to use a two handed weapon would not be a move action. Doesn't matter if its a ranged two handed weapon or a melee two handed weapon, switching the handedness wouldn't be a Move or swift action in order for a bow to work or for the Arcane Archer to function with the Imbue Arrow ability.

Still by raw, ignoring the additive to the rules, We still don't know if it is a free or no action.

[atemu1234]

After reading the thread title, I was really hoping for a build that used some sort of QuickDraw equivalent to throw crossbows (not bolts) at people, and then beat people about the head with dual-wielded crossbows once the enemy closed to melee range.

Ah well.

Same. I am disappoint.

[Willie the Duck]

This is actually not quite RAW. While you can drop an item (your hand) as a free action, there is no rule (FAQ don't count) saying that reapplying the hand is also a free action.

FAQ most definitely counts for a rules clarification, just not a rules change.

[Andezzar]

I was merely pointing out that a two handed weapon does have situations where one has to remove the hand to continue to perform its functions.Yes, but the rules do not say that the weapon does continue its function.


And that a class's main feature would require one to remove their hand from the bow to cast a spell and then would need to use the said bow within the same round. Saying this has no bearing on melee 2-handed weapons is moving the goal posts, because there is clearly a moment a two handed weapon to remain functional and use Imbue Arrow would have to be let go with one hand, cast a spell and then draw and shoot the arrow. That class feature tells us how it works. This no bearing on how generally removing one hand from a weapon and reapplying it works. No goal post has been moved.


We've clearly established at this point that letting go for a moment to use a two handed weapon would not be a move action. Doesn't matter if its a ranged two handed weapon or a melee two handed weapon, switching the handedness wouldn't be a Move or swift action in order for a bow to work or for the Arcane Archer to function with the Imbue Arrow ability.Again how Imbue Arrow functions does not tell us how a character (whether Arcane Archer or not) would remove one of his hands from the weapon to do something other than using imbue arrow with it and reapplying it.


FAQ most definitely counts for a rules clarification, just not a rules change.telling us that we can do something the rules do not allow us to do is a rules change. FAQ cannot change rules.

[ekarney]

After reading the thread title, I was really hoping for a build that used some sort of QuickDraw equivalent to throw crossbows (not bolts) at people, and then beat people about the head with dual-wielded crossbows once the enemy closed to melee range.

Ah well.

Well, if I can make a sling build viable, I could probably get that to at least function...



Thanks for the responses everyone, the reason I asked was to see which fixes were needed as I want to eventually make up a class for each of these areas and possibly some items.
I figured I had enough flavour-based classes in my homebrew and I should try working on something more functional.