Results 1 to 17 of 17
-
2009-12-07, 02:33 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Feb 2005
This thread has been Necro'd. Please lock.
Edit: Apparently I can't change the title of the entire thread. So, in big bold:
This thread has been Necro'd, and should be locked.
This is continued from the by RAW thread. The original question was:
The following are the posts of debate that have continued.
------
Essentially, I am trying to clear out some of the inherit ambiguity because of some very badly worded rules.
The answer I received in the thread has very little RAW support (Or, the poster simply refuses to give any RAW support), and so I expand to a new thread for any further discussion.
Edit: Apparently I can't change the title of the entire thread. So, in big bold:
This thread has been Necro'd, and should be locked.Last edited by Gralamin; 2010-01-30 at 01:07 AM. Reason: TGWM posted in it
-
2009-12-07, 03:04 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Dec 2007
- Location
- UTC -6
Re: [4e] On new "Two-Weapon Fighting" Powers
All modifiers are applied once. Whirling Frenzy places all of the damage dice in a single expression, and so regardless of how many different dice you roll, it only as one damage roll. If the damage roll was split up into two expressions (i.e. 1[W] (main-hand) damage and 1[W] (off-hand) damage), then they would apply twice. It's the same as if you rolled Sneak Attack damage on the opponent. Unless it breaks up the damage rolls by specifying two different "X damage" statements, it's only one damage roll. The enchantment modifiers of your off-hand weapon still get applied even though Weapon Focus and such aren't, since enchantment modifiers get added any time the weapon is being used in a damage roll.
Whirling Rend, for example, specifies a second opponent that takes 1[W] (off-hand) damage, which is a second damage roll and gets all of the modifiers that apply to your off-hand damage calculations applied to it.Last edited by Mando Knight; 2009-12-07 at 03:08 PM.
-
2009-12-07, 03:15 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Feb 2005
-
2009-12-07, 03:29 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Dec 2007
- Location
- UTC -6
-
2009-12-07, 03:33 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Feb 2005
Re: [4e] On new "Two-Weapon Fighting" Powers
That isn't as straight forward as you seem to think.
The PHB saids enhancement bonus is added when...Magic weapons and implements grant their enhancement bonus to attack rolls and damage rolls only when you use powers delivered through the weapon the weapon or the implement
-
2009-12-07, 03:45 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Dec 2007
- Location
- UTC -6
Re: [4e] On new "Two-Weapon Fighting" Powers
If you use the weapon for an attack roll, you apply its enhancement bonus to the attack roll. If you use the weapon for a damage roll, you apply its enhancement bonus to the damage roll. Unless otherwise stated, the weapon you use for the attack roll has to be the same weapon as the one used for the damage roll. Barbarian TWF powers state that they add in off-hand damage dice, so they use the off-hand weapon for the damage roll as well as the main-hand weapon.
-
2009-12-07, 03:50 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Aug 2005
- Location
- Mountain View, CA
- Gender
Re: [4e] On new "Two-Weapon Fighting" Powers
I think it is a reasonable interpretation that the offhand weapon's enhancement bonus does apply to damage, but remember that multiple bonuses of the same type do not stack. Under this interpretation you would get whichever enhancement bonus is better.
Like 4X (aka Civilization-like) gaming? Know programming? Interested in game development? Take a look.
Avatar by Ceika.
Archives:
SpoilerSaberhagen's Twelve Swords, some homebrew artifacts for 3.5 (please comment)
Isstinen Tonche for ECL 74 playtesting.
Team Solars: Powergaming beyond your wildest imagining, without infinite loops or epic. Yes, the DM asked for it.
Arcane Swordsage: Making it actually work (homebrew)
-
2009-12-07, 03:59 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Feb 2005
Re: [4e] On new "Two-Weapon Fighting" Powers
-
2009-12-07, 08:26 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Oct 2009
-
2010-01-30, 12:40 AM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- May 2007
- Gender
Re: [4e] On new "Two-Weapon Fighting" Powers
the difference of this is realy important. If they are one damage roll then the tempest barbarian just needs 1 magic weapon and a nonmagical one. If it is 2 damage rolls then we can plan accordingly.
but perhaps we are asking the wrong question. Perhaps the question isn't "does it count as one damage roll." Perhaps the question should be "should it count as one damage roll"
below i will set up a comparison between the damage outputs of the ranger's twin strike and the barbarian's whirling rend at lev1, 6, 11, 16, 21, 26,and 30. For comparison's sake they both begin with 18 str, are using level aproppriate magic waraxes, have weapon focus, the barbarian is not raging, and there are no paragon paths or epic destinies. i also omit the other stats besides str because they are not relevent to this comparison.
"one roll"
{TABLE]ranger|barbarian
1d12+1;+1d12+1;+1d6|1d12+4+1;+1d12
average: 18.5| average;18
1d12+1+2;+1d12+1+2;+1d6|1d12+4+1+2,1d12
average: 22.5| average; 20
1d12+2+3;+1d12+2+3;+2d6|1d12+5+2+3,+1d12
average: 30| average; 23
1d12++2+4;+1d12+2+4;+2d6|1d12+6+2+4,+1d12
average: 32| average; 25
2d12+3+5;+2d12+3+5;+3d6|2d12+7+3+5,+2d12
average: 52.5| average; 41
2d12+3+6;+2d12+3+6;+3d6|2d12+7+3+6,+2d12
average: 54.5| average; 42
2d12+3+6;+2d12+3+6;+3d6|2d12+8+3+6,+2d12
average: 54.5|average; 43[/TABLE]
"two rolls"
{TABLE]ranger|barbarian
1d12+1;+1d12+1;+1d6|1d12+4+1;+1d12+1
average: 18.5|average;19
1d12+1+2;+1d12+1+2;+1d6|1d12+4+1+2,1d12+1+2
average: 22.5|average; 23
1d12+2+3;+1d12+2+3;+2d6|1d12+5+2+3,+1d12+2+3
average: 30|average; 28
1d12++2+4;+1d12+2+4;+2d6|1d12+6+2+4,+1d12+2+4
average: 32|average; 31
2d12+3+5;+2d12+3+5;+3d6|2d12+7+3+5,+2d12+3+5
average: 52.5|average; 49
2d12+3+6;+2d12+3+6;+3d6|2d12+7+3+6,+2d12+3+6
average: 54.5|average; 51
2d12+3+6;+2d12+3+6;+3d6|2d12+8+3+6,+2d12+3+6
average: 54.5|average; 52[/TABLE]
while the second table seems fairer don't forget that the tempest barbararian (on average) has better Hp, better AC, and can rage to further increase his damage. If the two damage rolls rule is adopted this would make tempest barbarians vastly superior to two weapon rangers.Last edited by TGWG; 2010-01-30 at 12:47 AM.
"the world is not beautiful... Therefore it is." -kino no tabi
-
2010-01-30, 01:01 AM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Feb 2005
Re: [4e] On new "Two-Weapon Fighting" Powers
Thread Necromancy, I see. However, I feel the need to address a point.
No, they would not be. But, nothing should be near Ranger's DPS: It is far too high. Even if this was a good topic to pursue, you are not doing so in the right way - you are discounting far too much to have a fair comparison, especially since the maths behind most of this is simple.
In addition, its been mostly established (ish, still arguments). That the Barbarian off-hand attacks still get extra critical hit damage.
Edit: Apparently I can't change the title of the entire thread. So, in big bold:
This thread has been Necro'd, and should be locked.Last edited by Gralamin; 2010-01-30 at 01:06 AM.
-
2010-01-30, 01:02 AM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Jan 2007
Re: [4e] On new "Two-Weapon Fighting" Powers
Diamond Mind avatar provided by Abardam.
-
2010-01-30, 01:11 AM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Feb 2007
- Gender
Re: [4e] On new "Two-Weapon Fighting" Powers
Perhaps if you were to do a chart like that for one- and two-roll statistics, with the raging barbarian, it would help to see where things should be balanced at? Regardless of whether it's RAW or not, it would be nice to see where things SHOULD be.. and then we can guess at where the Barbarian's power level should be in comparison to the Ranger.
Last edited by Quietus; 2010-01-30 at 01:11 AM.
Pokemon friend code : 3067-5701-8746
Trade list can be found on my Giant League wiki page, all pokemon are kept in stock with 5 IVs, most with egg moves, some bred for Hidden Powers. Currently at 55 in stock and counting.
Padherders for my phone and my tablet!
-
2010-01-30, 01:20 AM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- May 2007
- Gender
Re: [4e] On new "Two-Weapon Fighting" Powers
i was comparing the at-wills both of them are likely to use. in the first table the barbarian trails behind the ranger and more or less equals the rangers output when in a rage. In the second table the barbarian's damage output almost equals the rangers and outright surpasses it during his rage.
also while the barbarian may not (hasn't be proven yet) be able to out damage the ranger with encounter and daily powers i'd like to point out that since the barbarian's secondary stat is (dex combined with his "barbarian agility" ability) the barbarian has much more AC and HP then the two weapon ranger, allowing him to do his damage for longer. so if you tradeoff a little bit of damage you get a hefty increase in defense
please enlighten me.
that's also a difficult question. if it counts as the same damage roll then the offhand damage would be maxed. if it's 2 different rolls then you would apply the offhand weapon's crit property on the offhand weapon's target.
true, but what we're deciding is if it counts as 2 damage rolls, which would allow you to apply enhancement bonuses twice.
very well here it is
"one role with rage"
{TABLE]ranger|barbarian
1d12+1;+1d12+1;+1d6|1d12+4+1+4;+1d12+4
average: 18.5| average;26
1d12+1+2;+1d12+1+2;+1d6|1d12+4+1+2+4,1d12+4
average: 22.5| average; 28
1d12+2+3;+1d12+2+3;+2d6|1d12+5+2+3+5,+1d12+5
average: 30| average; 33
1d12++2+4;+1d12+2+4;+2d6|1d12+6+2+4+6,+1d12+6
average: 32| average; 37
2d12+3+5;+2d12+3+5;+3d6|2d12+7+3+5+7,+2d12+7
average: 52.5| average; 55
2d12+3+6;+2d12+3+6;+3d6|2d12+7+3+6+7,+2d12+7
average: 54.5| average; 56
2d12+3+6;+2d12+3+6;+3d6|2d12+8+3+6+8,+2d12+8
average: 54.5|average; 58[/TABLE]
"two roll with rage"
{TABLE]ranger|barbarian
1d12+1;+1d12+1;+1d6|1d12+4+1+4;+1d12+1+4
average: 18.5|average;27
1d12+1+2;+1d12+1+2;+1d6|1d12+4+1+2+4,1d12+1+2+4
average: 22.5|average; 31
1d12+2+3;+1d12+2+3;+2d6|1d12+5+2+3+5,+1d12+2+3+5
average: 30|average; 38
1d12++2+4;+1d12+2+4;+2d6|1d12+6+2+4+6,+1d12+2+4+6
average: 32|average; 43
2d12+3+5;+2d12+3+5;+3d6|2d12+7+3+5+7,+2d12+3+5+7
average: 52.5|average; 63
2d12+3+6;+2d12+3+6;+3d6|2d12+7+3+6+7,+2d12+3+6+7
average: 54.5|average; 65
2d12+3+6;+2d12+3+6;+3d6|2d12+8+3+6+8,+2d12+3+6+8
average: 54.5|average; 68[/TABLE]
the barbarian's doing more damage then I originally thought
p.s; please tell me if i've made any mistakes in my calculations. statistically i'll be wrong eventualy.Last edited by TGWG; 2010-01-30 at 01:46 AM.
"the world is not beautiful... Therefore it is." -kino no tabi
-
2010-01-30, 08:18 AM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Aug 2007
- Location
- Imagination Land
- Gender
Re: [4e] On new "Two-Weapon Fighting" Powers
-
2010-01-30, 03:09 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Dec 2007
- Location
- UTC -6
-
2010-01-30, 06:28 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Aug 2007
- Location
- Imagination Land
- Gender
Re: [4e] On new "Two-Weapon Fighting" Powers
I was actually referring to the total age, but you have a point.