PDA

View Full Version : TWF vs. THF: Are they equal?



Zergrusheddie
2009-04-21, 01:22 AM
I was wondering if a TWF can every be up to par with a THF. THF has been the bread and butter for doing damage in melee for most characters because of the 1.5 strength and the 2:1 Ratio with Power Attack.

Dragonfire Inspiration and Warblades with TWF can do some pretty decent damage because every hit they do will add 6d6. So they can probably end up making 6 or 7 attacks around at their highest attack bonus -2 by using maneuvers. That adds up to a lot of damage. However, a Barbarian/Fighter with a Greataxe and Shock Trooper can pump out a Power Attack Ratio of 3:1 very easily and do something like 1d12+75, and it'll only get worse if you throw something like a Frenzied Berserker into the fray.

Obviously, I'm just an idiot who knows Jack and his well known brother. To you great Forum Users, is TWF always better than THF or can TWF be equal or greater to THF?

Best of luck
-Eddie

papr_weezl8472
2009-04-21, 01:34 AM
Ultimately, it depends on what you're playing. Because two-weapon fighting gets you a lot of extra attacks, it's great when you have some source of extra damage dice on your attack, like sneak attack or your Dragonfire Inspiration example.

The big ol' THF brute, however, can dish out a phenomenal amount of damage, and can front-load the heck out of it with a proper pounce build. You can pretty much guarantee a first-round (or surprise-round!) kill on anything without boatloads of magical protection.

Of course, most things have boatloads of magical protection, or else weren't a threat worth worrying about in the first place. While it's not a hard-and-fast rule, it often seems like TWF builds have some more versatility they can build in, rather than being a pure melee brute. Rogues have skills (including UMD), Warblades have maneuvers.

Ultimately, some classes can pull off TWF and some can pull off THF. Barbarians/Fighters, which are pretty popular in the melee category, don't have much in the way of support for TWF, and they've got oodles for two-handed orgies of destruction. I think that's why THF is trotted around as the main viable option for melee combatants, even if the ToB classes can make TWF a decent alternative.

Keld Denar
2009-04-21, 02:28 AM
TWF can get some pretty big numbers, but not really with DFI. I mean, if you can get DFI on you, thats great, but some of the highest TWF builds involve either multi-shadowpouncing to make massive numbers of full attack or Jack-B-Quick style 6:1 AoOs with Stormguard Warrior.

Then there are the multiplier abuser uberestcharger builds that get like, 2000:1 Power Attack and 200x +str bonus on a charge. Stacking multipliers like Leap Attack, Supreme Power Attack, Valorous Weapons, Headlong Rush, Reckless Rage, and a host of other stuff that wasn't ment to stack gets rediculous. If you flip through enough books, you'll be able to do over 60,000 damage in a single attack, and then you still have 5-6 more!

But really, in less-than-theoretical optimization, 2HF is just easier to scale simply because it takes very little work (just mix Power Attack, Shocktrooper, and Leap Attack and you'll out damage about 9/10 TWF builds at equal levels). Yea, in the Bardblade example you gave, you can dish out decent amounts of damage, and you'll also do a bunch of damage vicariously through your party, but you'll still probably be behind a decently built 2HF even if you aren't giving him your buffs, and you have to build a lot more carefully and have less room for customization.

Bluebeard
2009-04-21, 02:48 AM
Obviously, I'm just an idiot who knows Jack and his well known brother. To you great Forum Users, is TWF always better than THF or can TWF be equal or greater to THF?

Can I have an option C?

Anyway, TWF takes work. Usually it'll take 4 feats just to get the per-round attacks and a decent to-hit modifier. And even then, you're about on par with some strength-based schmo holding a Greatsword.

Unless you get some pretty serious damage from your in-class abilities (usually Sneak Attack), TWF is a heavy investment for zero payoff.
Without Sneak Attack, Stormguard Warrior & Robilar's Gambit help, but then you're up to 8 feats that are absolutely vital to your character. Not that that's necessarily a bad thing, but it can be a bit much.
For non-Sneak attackers, survival between levels 3 and 6 can be pretty damn rough.

And using TWF in combat is more difficult than Power Attack. TWF needs to be able to both move and full attack in a single round to get any benefit from its combat style. Usually this sort of thing comes from Pounce, but until Greater Invisibility is an option charges don't mesh well with Sneak Attack.

Both require the ability to hit despite heavy attack penalties. It's much easier to boost a single powerful attack than it is a full round's worth.
It's also easier to find feats and classes that add tagalong effects to a single standard action attack than it is for TWF-er (beside sneak attack, anyway).

Power Attack-expanding feats are often charge-based. Leap Attack and Shock Trooper, the two big names in THF, dramatically improve the Power Attacker's damage as battles become increasingly mobile. That's a good thing.

I'd agree they both have potential. TWF is just a royal pain to pull off unless you're talking about throwers (where you skirt the mobility issue almost entirely).

[edit:]
Also!
Two weapon fighting in D&D is silly. And Two-Weapon defense sucks too much to be worth anyone's while.

Zen Master
2009-04-21, 02:59 AM
It always depresses me that you cannot ask a question on this board without getting an answer swamped in cheese.

In actual, round-the-table play, I've never seen a 2-hander build out-damage a two-weapon build. Mind you, I've also never seen an ubercharger anywhere but on paper.

Kaiyanwang
2009-04-21, 03:55 AM
It always depresses me that you cannot ask a question on this board without getting an answer swamped in cheese.

In actual, round-the-table play, I've never seen a 2-hander build out-damage a two-weapon build. Mind you, I've also never seen an ubercharger anywhere but on paper.

Well, I don't play so cheesy but I generally think that 2H deals more damage.

I like more TWF because you can combine in an imaginative way full attacks, even mixing thrown and melee attacks, as an example.

More, you can combine it with shield fighting feats and if you go Combat Reflexes, you can play with dual strike from MH and combine with a weapon style.

But I realize that people have different gamestyle. And yes, generally people with some bonus like sneak attack prefer TWF.

I see our Fighter//Knight, once she discovered the power attack - shock trooper and the like tier, she can't go back :smallsmile:

Zergrusheddie
2009-04-21, 04:01 AM
I actually wanted to start this because I read through Jack B. Quick. The reason I used the Bardblade instead of Jack is because the Two-Weapon Fighter wasn't so optimized; I also had loads of fun playing the Bardblade (thanks again Keld.) Jack's 6 Attacks are fantastic, but is that really going to pull off equal damage to Mr. Greataxe? He relies on Tripping and people hitting him, but even if they do attack him his 6 attacks are not that threatening.

Obviously something along the lines of the Ubercharger is going to be far more powerful than anything else considering his weapon is a Double Decker Tour Bus and he has a higher strength than Samson on steroids; there is a reason why he is a campaign smasher :smallwink:.
To better phrase my question: at a reasonable amount of optimization, where a sane DM would allow, can TWF be greater than THF?

Bluebeard
2009-04-21, 04:08 AM
Sure.
The easiest ways are to just add Stormguard Warrior or Sneak Attack.

But that's assuming you can regularly manage full-round attacks.

Zergrusheddie
2009-04-21, 04:14 AM
Sure.
The easiest ways are to just add Stormguard Warrior or Sneak Attack.


And you pick up Karmic and Robilar's? So you basically add +8 damage and attack against every opponent that tries to hit you?

The Gilded Duke
2009-04-21, 04:20 AM
Do both. Greatsword + Improved Unarmed Strike, or Armor Spikes. I think there is also an Eberron Prestige Class that lets you treat both ends of a double Scimitar as two handed weapons.

The part that really kills two weapon fighting for me is the dex requirement, dex based meleers are already feat and class ability expensive. If I am using a TWF build, or even a hybrid one like mentioned above I usually go with ranger so I can pick up the feats without having to put many points into dex.

There are also of course abilities that give you additional attacks such as flurry of blows. A standard monk can wield a quarter staff two handed to build a THF build with additional attacks.

For THF the Desciple of Thyrm at 3rd level gets to add double their strength mod to greataxe damage instead of 1.5 strength.

There is also the One Two Punch of the Frost Rager and similar abilities that allow additional attacks without having to use full round actions or the TWF feats.

And then MultiAttack and Natural weapons.

Bluebeard
2009-04-21, 04:28 AM
And you pick up Karmic and Robilar's? So you basically add +8 damage and attack against every opponent that tries to hit you?

Using the lowest BA attacks -- the ones that aren't as likely to hit anyway -- to gain damage bonuses on the following round can be pretty huge until Robilar's. Then the +4 per attack against you adds up pretty quickly.

And yeah, if you can squeeze Karmic Strike in (by now you need 11 feats), each sucessful hit adds another +4 attack and damage to the rest.

Baalthazaq
2009-04-21, 04:55 AM
I always saw it as TWF is best for specials:
Sneak Attacking, Flaming, Acidic, Shocking, Thundering, Holy, Bane, Wounding, +1? You want TWF.

When you're pulling off 8 attacks per round that do con damage, you can seriously ruin someone's day.

Similarly, unless I'm very much mistaken, Trip, Sunder, and Disarm, all work well with a TWF build if you have a halforc with an adamantine double axe. You can easily start to strip 5 or 6 THF around you of their weapons if you act first.

So special effects work well with extra attacks. Doing nothing fancy might net you something better with a THF, but it's far less fun.

Zergrusheddie
2009-04-21, 05:49 AM
Similarly, unless I'm very much mistaken, Trip, Sunder, and Disarm, all work well with a TWF build if you have a halforc with an adamantine double axe. You can easily start to strip 5 or 6 THF around you of their weapons if you act first.

So special effects work well with extra attacks. Doing nothing fancy might net you something better with a THF, but it's far less fun.

Disarm and Sunder with a Two-Hander nets a +4.

The problem is that TWF tends to be MAD while THF user could just pump strength and call it good. I agree with you 100% on the special abilities line though; my original character used 2 +1 Wounding Shortswords and was absolutely disgusting against creatures that weren't immune because he could burn up to 10 con a round. There were plenty of times where the bad guy just dropped because he was down so much con.

Does TWF vs. THF come down to similar answers like Batman vs. Incantrix Evoker? Batman may throw out a huge Save or Lose but the Evoker does several hundred damage per spell.

Baalthazaq
2009-04-21, 06:19 AM
Disarm and Sunder with a Two-Hander nets a +4.

The problem is that TWF tends to be MAD while THF user could just pump strength and call it good. I agree with you 100% on the special abilities line though; my original character used 2 +1 Wounding Shortswords and was absolutely disgusting against creatures that weren't immune because he could burn up to 10 con a round. There were plenty of times where the bad guy just dropped because he was down so much con.

Does TWF vs. THF come down to similar answers like Batman vs. Incantrix Evoker? Batman may throw out a huge Save or Lose but the Evoker does several hundred damage per spell.

Also true, but personally I'd prefer the second attempt with a good disarm or sunder effect. Adamantine already gives you a very nice bonus to sunders to begin with (ignore hardness effectively). As long as you hit the weapon it is likely to smash on a good to average roll. You only need 10 damage to a greatsword, and 5 to a greataxe. A 16 str and +1 sword guarantees the sunder on the greataxes.

The size modifiers here are obviously a problem, that's why I like the half orc double axe, and improved sunder offsets the bonus to size so you're on even footing again. (Double axes are Light for TWF, but medium for sunders).

Still, what I meant was that you can build a better sunderer with TWF than THF simply because the bonuses stop being meaningful after a point and the extra attacks mean more. You just have to make sure you're giving him all the nice sunder feats.

Eldariel
2009-04-21, 07:12 AM
Also true, but personally I'd prefer the second attempt with a good disarm or sunder effect. Adamantine already gives you a very nice bonus to sunders to begin with (ignore hardness effectively). As long as you hit the weapon it is likely to smash on a good to average roll. You only need 10 damage to a greatsword, and 5 to a greataxe. A 16 str and +1 sword guarantees the sunder on the greataxes.

The size modifiers here are obviously a problem, that's why I like the half orc double axe, and improved sunder offsets the bonus to size so you're on even footing again. (Double axes are Light for TWF, but medium for sunders).

Still, what I meant was that you can build a better sunderer with TWF than THF simply because the bonuses stop being meaningful after a point and the extra attacks mean more. You just have to make sure you're giving him all the nice sunder feats.

Huh? Sundering TWF takes a total of -6 on the opposed attack roll if using light weapons, -2 if using one-handed weapons. Two-Handed Fighter will take +4, so against an average TWFer, a Two-Hander has about +6 - +10 advantage; assuming their standard attack bonus is the same, the Two-Hander will have a huge advantage even if the TWFer burned a feat on Oversized Two-Weapon Fighting to get rid of the -4.

Opposed attack roll is the one thing that will never be "easy" simply because opponent's scales just as fast as your's. Assuming both have...say +20 base bonus to their attacks (let's assume this is a Dex-based Two-Weapon Fighter with Weapon Finesse & Shadow Blade, because else he'd be hurting to have 19 Dex for Greater Two-Weapon Fighting and still maintain good Hit-rates), meaning the opposed check will be made with 18 for the TWFer and 24 on the two-hander. That gives the TWFer about 20% chance to succeed with each attack; if he gets two attacks, he'll have a 35% chance to succeed one roll.


And note that this is assuming their damage is equal, which seems unlikely (the two-hander is like to do much more damage per hit simply because he's two-handing and gets 1.5* stat to hit along with 2+xPower Attack, etc.). Chances are, the Two-Hander needs to land less blows to destroy things than the Two-Weapon Fighter does - note that magic enhancement increases a weapon's HP, and if the weapon you're trying to sunder is of adamantine or heavily magical, you no longer penetrate the hardness (it's 20+). And the Two-Hander has spent...2 feats (Power Attack, Improved Sunder), while the Two-Weapon Fighter has spent...Two-Weapon Fighting, Improved Two-Weapon Fighting, Greater Two-Weapon Fighting, Oversized Two-Weapon Fighting, Weapon Finesse, Shadow Blade, Power Attack, Improved Sunder. And he's still getting soundly beat in numbers - remove any of those and it gets worse. If he spent two levels in Bloodclaw Master to get rid of the two-weapon fighting penalties, he'd still be losing.

The numbers are almost the same for Disarm, except you'll have to account for things that make your immune to disarm, such as Locked Gauntlets. Also, it requires Combat Expertise, costing one more feat to Two-Hander. But the Two-Hander is still much better in it.


Tripping would work if it weren't for the fact that basically all weapons that allow tripping are two-handed. Also, you'll still have the strength-problem and lack of feats to deal with (really, two-weapon fighter can't be as good as a two-hander at anything since he has 3 feats less to work with; if two-weapon fighting feats were combined into 1, they'd be much more equal).

Oh yeah, and you can't have a reach weapon meaning your control ability is vastly diminished unless you wield Kusari-Gama (let's face it, if going this road, you should, even though it's a DMG alternative system weapon; it's the only good TWF weapon for something like this). But yeah, if you want an efficient two-weapon special attack, tripping is your best bet as long as you can find a dual wieldable weapon capable of tripping.


Easiest ways to fix Two-Weapon Fighting:
-Roll Two-Weapon Fighting chain into one feat; leave the prerequisite into 15 Dex.
-Roll Two-Weapon Defense chain into one feat.
-Introduce the ability to use Dex for attacks without feats and allow Weapon Finesse to add Dex as damage.

Suddenly we're dealing with two "necessary" feats instead of five. Life is much easier. That said, with Tome of Battle, there's a good number of things TWFers are better in than two-handers. Tiger Claw has some good stuff dependent on your number of attacks, Stormguard Warrior Tactical Feat is just awesome with Two-Weapon Fighting, Desert Wind really loves Two-Weapon Fighters, etc. Basically, ToB goes a long way towards making the two even, but unfortunately it cannot fix the basic mechanical issue in Two-Weapon Fighting (costs too many feats).

Thrawn183
2009-04-21, 07:17 AM
You are forgetting that magical weapons gain greater hardness and have more HP. Eventually you end up with weapons where it's not so easy to sunder them, though at that level things are pretty crazy anyway. Especially when adamantine no longer ignores their hardness.

Talic
2009-04-21, 07:31 AM
You are forgetting that magical weapons gain greater hardness and have more HP. Eventually you end up with weapons where it's not so easy to sunder them, though at that level things are pretty crazy anyway. Especially when adamantine no longer ignores their hardness.

To reach the required amount of hardness to avoid adamantine weapon hardness ignoring...

You need a Hardness 10 weapon with a +5 enhancement bonus...
Or another adamantine weapon.

Said +5 greatsword would have a hardness of 20, and 60 hp. So a single hit for 80 damage would blast it.

Adamantine greatswords (nonmagical) have hardness 20, and 13 hp. The same sword with a +5 enhancement bonus would sport hardness 30, and either 63 hp, or 80 hp, depending on whether you apply the enhancement hp before the +1/3 hp from adamantine, or vice versa.

Baalthazaq
2009-04-21, 09:48 AM
Huh? Sundering TWF takes a total of -6 on the opposed attack roll if using light weapons, -2 if using one-handed weapons. Two-Handed Fighter will take +4, so against an average TWFer, a Two-Hander has about +6 - +10 advantage; assuming their standard attack bonus is the same, the Two-Hander will have a huge advantage even if the TWFer burned a feat on Oversized Two-Weapon Fighting to get rid of the -4.

Ok, lets see.

Half orc ranger 11, ftr 1. (Using a 5D6 roll).

Str: 22
Dex: 15 (Rangers don't need the prerequisites to get the feats).
Int: 14
Cha: 9
Con: 15
Wis: 14

Simple Sunder build:
Adamantine +5 Double Axe. +5-4 = +5 (It doesn't count as light except for TWF)
Str +4 item and strength 22: +8.
BAB: +12.
Improved Sunder: +4.
Two weapon fighting chain: -2

Total = +27/+27/+22/+22/+17/+17
Each dealing: D8+5+8 with 0 opponent hardness bonus. If you want there are ways of boosting the damage here, but we'll let it slide for now.

I've not included anything outside of the PHB as far as I know. Ideally you'd have a mage cast enlarge person on you too. I have feats left over.

Now you're fighting what that would be a reasonable opponent not specifically designed to eliminate your abilities? Humans, 22Str, level 12 fighters with +5 greatswords, and improved sunder, increased size, etc, etc, etc? Why? If your DM is specifically negating your abilities without purpose then he might as well just bring in a creature that takes your weapon away from you (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/monsters/nightshade.htm#nightwalker).

The TWF sunderer is going to be able to decimate 4 to 6 reasonable opponents if they haven't been built to resist it. A THF will not.

As for disarm, the TWF simply takes the "Stealing" property from Dragon Magazine, and "Disarming" from Cwarrior. Effectively giving you +51/+51/+46/+46/+41/+41 to a disarm check against a colossal sized THF, at level 12.

Tengu_temp
2009-04-21, 10:07 AM
It always depresses me that you cannot ask a question on this board without getting an answer swamped in cheese.

In actual, round-the-table play, I've never seen a 2-hander build out-damage a two-weapon build. Mind you, I've also never seen an ubercharger anywhere but on paper.

I wasn't aware that taking power attack and shock trooper - an extremely simple combo - is considered cheese. And power attack alone is enough for THF to outdamage TWF.

Faleldir
2009-04-21, 10:28 AM
A Disciple Of Dispater with Lightning Maces, Roundabout Kick, Improved Critical and dual Aptitude Kaorti kukri is pretty effective, but cheesy as hell. No pun intended.

Sstoopidtallkid
2009-04-21, 10:33 AM
A Disciple Of Dispater with Lightning Maces, Roundabout Kick, Improved Critical and dual Aptitude Kaorti kukri is pretty effective, but cheesy as hell. No pun intended.Roundabout Kick?

Also, why DoD?

Eldariel
2009-04-21, 10:43 AM
Ok, lets see.

Half orc ranger 11, ftr 1. (Using a 5D6 roll).

Str: 22
Dex: 15 (Rangers don't need the prerequisites to get the feats).
Int: 14
Cha: 9
Con: 15
Wis: 14

Simple Sunder build:
Adamantine +5 Double Axe. +5-4 = +5 (It doesn't count as light except for TWF)
Str +4 item and strength 22: +8.
BAB: +12.
Improved Sunder: +4.
Two weapon fighting chain: -2

Total = +27/+27/+22/+22/+17/+17
Each dealing: D8+5+8 with 0 opponent hardness bonus. If you want there are ways of boosting the damage here, but we'll let it slide for now.

I've not included anything outside of the PHB as far as I know. Ideally you'd have a mage cast enlarge person on you too. I have feats left over.

Now you're fighting what that would be a reasonable opponent not specifically designed to eliminate your abilities? Humans, 22Str, level 12 fighters with +5 greatswords, and improved sunder, increased size, etc, etc, etc? Why? If your DM is specifically negating your abilities without purpose then he might as well just bring in a creature that takes your weapon away from you (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/monsters/nightshade.htm#nightwalker).

The TWF sunderer is going to be able to decimate 4 of those 6 opponents if they haven't been built to resist it. A THF will not.

If opponents have a similar weapon (even non-magical adamantine will do, or +5 Mithril; notice how you gave a +5 weapon to your level 12 character, so chances are your opponents might have some too if the campaign gives you that much money), you'll be dealing with the full hardness, meaning you cannot even damage it with max rolls. Note that double weapons specifically need both ends to be enhanced separately (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/magicItems/magicWeapons.htm), meaning you don't save any money here.

Really, I don't see how running into high level opponents with Adamantine weapons would be DM hating you - just about every good melee weapon is Adamantine since it's the only metal really worth using for those who can afford it.


Also, you have way too expensive weapons - +5 weapon is 50k, or 70% of your expected WPL, so barring shenanigans, you couldn't even acquire one yet. Also, you're TWFing so both of your weapons need to be the same enhancement, meaning you couldn't even afford +4 (32k*2 for 64k - you'd have 16k for the rest of your equipment). +3 is somewhat affordable.

Also, your character's stats are pretty insane. 18+14+15+16+15+11 = 51 point buy - your chances of rolling something like that are under 1%, so you'd need like 100 rerolls to get something on those levels; most DMs aren't quite that permissive.


And this doesn't even address the fact that you cannot move and full attack, or move while full attacking, meaning that the best you can hope for is to sunder one weapon per round, and chances are you aren't sundering even that. Any even bit tougher weapons are completely immune to your sunder attempts (two-hander could easily penetrate the hardness, but you'll never be able to), and that's provided you win the opposed rolls (a generic Orc Barbarian has 24 Str without magic items, 30 while raging, 34 with your magic items - as they're also two-handing, their bonuses will be 12+12+4 without a single feat or weapon bonuses - give them the same weapon bonuses as you and they've got you beat by 6; give them the feat and they've got you beat by 10).

Short version: You're plagued by all the TWF problems, even with the abusive reading of double weapons (that the "light weapon"-part only applies to TWF penalties, not damage, weapon size bonuses or anything of the sort):
-Your two weapons mean you'll have worse enhancements overall because they cost more to you; this is especially bad for a sunderer as you need better base enhancement than your opponent, meaning you need to spend a ****ton on your weapons. Also, you'll be sucking it up without any weapon special abilities due to this. Greater Magic Weapon may help here, but unlike normally, this use depends on the DM.
-You can only attack once after moving, meaning you'll be strictly worse than a two-hander at that point
-Your individual attack damage is too poor to reliably break anything (and if opponent has hardness 20 or higher, you cannot damage their weapon ever)
-You can't move while full attacking meaning you need mooks with crappy weapons to surround you to gain use out of your extra attacks
-You manage to get a flat -2 to all your attacks, meaning an opponent with equal stats is going to be favoured against your rolls.
-You need to spend 11 levels in Ranger for TWF feats, meaning you can't be taking better combat classes (such as Barbarian or Horizon Walker in Core).
-You can't efficiently power attack even though you need the feat for Improved Sunder since you're dual wielding, and thus get greatly diminishing returns from PA.


Basically, there's just no reason to make a two-weapon fighting sunderer or disarmer; two-hander is just so much superior (take this generic Orc Barbarian 12 with Power Attack, Improved Sunder and the rest of the feats open; he'll be rolling at +29 [12 BAB + 9 Str + 4 Improved Sunder + 4 Two-Handed] without magic weapons or rage, +32 with rage, +37 with a +5 weapon and his damage will be 2d6+13 without rage or items, 2d6+18 with rage, 2d6+23 with +5 weapon, and he can easily afford 5 points of PA for +10 damage or 2d6+33). Due to poor mobility, the extra attacks are really only good against one tough opponent and due to poor individual damage, that one tough opponent's weapon is likely immune anyways. Two-Weapon Sundering is really only suited for breaking mooks' weapons and you could just kill the mooks instead saving a lot of time, money and loot.



As for disarm, the TWF simply takes the "Stealing" property from Dragon Magazine, and "Disarming" from Cwarrior. Effectively giving you +12 to a disarm check against a large sized THF. Although I'll admit you'll struggle to break that.

Stealing is meaningless since it's from Dragon Magazine and thus is about as reliably allowed as homebrew. That said, if you run into any Knight-type opponent, you'll still be looking at Locked Gauntlets and autofail. And you'll pretty much suck against any sorts of monsters or casters or whatever since you just spent your entire WPL on learning to disarm for a character for whom it's clearly a suboptimal course.


I mean, what part of two-hander's superiority in this regard is weird? Two-handed fighting gets specific bonuses for all this, two-weapon fighting instead gets penalties, two-weapon fighter needs to spend insane resources on their stats or alternatively 11 levels in Ranger, two-hander has no such obligations. It's not even a game - a two-weapon fighter is just in the wrong league.

Eldariel
2009-04-21, 10:47 AM
Roundabout Kick?

CWar P. 105; if you crit with an unarmed strike, you can make another attack.


Also, why DoD?

Crit range stacking. The whole trick is to have maximized crit range (something like 8-20) with Aptitude Weapons so you apply weapon specific stuff like Lightning Maces & Roundabout Kick to it. Then you go to town. So yeah, just another Aptitude Weapon Abuse.

Renegade Paladin
2009-04-21, 10:54 AM
TWF will never be equal to THF. Even if the benefits were the same, which they're not, TWF requires a bunch of feats to be effective, while THF needs but one (and not even that, really; you'd just be silly not to have Power Attack.) To be on par mechanically, TWF needs to be good enough to make up for THF and whatever else you could have done with those feats, not just THF alone.

Twilight Jack
2009-04-21, 11:07 AM
TWF will never be equal to THF. Even if the benefits were the same, which they're not, TWF requires a bunch of feats to be effective, while THF needs but one (and not even that, really; you'd just be silly not to have Power Attack.) To be on par mechanically, TWF needs to be good enough to make up for THF and whatever else you could have done with those feats, not just THF alone.

Quoted for truth. Did Paizo manage any interesting fixes on the TH vs TW continuum in Pathfinder?

Eldariel
2009-04-21, 11:20 AM
Quoted for truth. Did Paizo manage any interesting fixes on the TH vs TW continuum in Pathfinder?

I don't think they even touched Two-Weapon Fighting. Pretty idiotic too considering that the basic fixes are the most simple thing on the planet - just combine the three Two-Weapon Fighting-feats into one, combine the three Two-Weapon Defense-feats into one and allow Dex to be used for Finesse-weapons as default if desired, and have Weapon Finesse add Dex to damage instead.

Those three changes would suddenly make two-weapon fighting perfectly doable, and while two-handing would still be superior much of the time, two-weapon fighting wouldn't at least be entirely inferior anymore. What annoys me are how simple fixes like this can't have been implemented anywhere.

The problems are all too obvious - it took me exactly one game to figure out what exactly is wrong and what works against common sense: when I first played 3.5, I had a two-weapon fighting character using a double weapon along with some archery-skills who eventually went Fighter 6/Wizard 1 Gish - all the basic problems of 3.5 system were apparent in that character; I couldn't even imagine that I'd need to spend extra feats to get iteratives for my offhand weapon - I already used one feat, WTF?! You want me to use an extra on an attack at immense penalties? And I couldn't imagine why Double Weapons are just as bad as two separate weapons, but require a feat. And I couldn't even begin to imagine why archery sucked so and required a ****ton of feats. And of course I hadn't realized of the fact that Wizard 6/Fighter 1 is just as good a Fighter as Fighter 4, while Wizard 1/Fighter 6 is precisely as good a Wizard as Wizard 1; back then I was into this whole "organic character building"-thing, but I soon realized it's impossible in this system without sucking.

You'd think either making a new print of the PHB or applying a simple errata wouldn't be too much to ask, but they decided to just skip fixing the obvious mistakes and instead made 4.0. And now the others working on 3.5 categorically fail to address the basic errors that jump out of the book. God.

Faleldir
2009-04-21, 11:27 AM
So yeah, just another Aptitude Weapon Abuse.
You say abuse like it's a bad thing.
At the level it would take for a ubercritter to be unstoppable, a full caster has Wish and Genesis. They don't roll to hit, they make YOU roll to live.
No one bats an eye when a prestige class has full (and even double) spell progression, yet the idea of a PrC for Fighters that progresses bonus feats is madness. Why?

Eldariel
2009-04-21, 11:37 AM
You say abuse like it's a bad thing.
At the level it would take for a ubercritter to be unstoppable, a full caster has Wish and Genesis. They don't roll to hit, they make YOU roll to live.
No one bats an eye when a prestige class has full (and even double) spell progression, yet the idea of a PrC for Fighters that progresses bonus feats is madness. Why?

Huh? I said it's an Aptitude Weapon Abuse, not a Disciple of Dispater-abuse. Do you know what Aptitude Weapon does? It allows you to use weapon specific feats with weapons they aren't intended for. For example, Lightning Maces is a Light Mace-specific feat that allows you to make an extra attack with the said Maces whenever you threaten critical (balanced by the fact that Light Maces are 20/x2 weapons). Aptitude is an abuse because:
1) It simply obsoletes a bunch of weapons, and makes the weapon-specific feats that much stronger than they should be. No reason to use Light Mace when you get the benefits for a Kukri
2) Facilitates a near-infinite cascade of attacks with enough work. Just because Mages can bend the reality doesn't mean everything should be one-shottable. As a rule, getting an extra attack for over half of the attacks you make is a bad thing, especially if almost all of them are criticals and thus deal X4 damage (and your base damage is rather immense by then - get Shadow Blade & Weapon Finesse and enjoy your ~100 damage per hit with a 20-30 hits per round).


Sure, melee types are helpless compared to casters, but the thing they don't lack in is dealing damage. It's just everything else that's the problem - being able to teleport around the multiverse, create basically anything you can imagine, being immortal, that's the stuff that makes casters broken. Melee deals enough damage already - no reason to make HP completely useless as a defense.

monty
2009-04-21, 11:42 AM
I don't think they even touched Two-Weapon Fighting. Pretty idiotic too considering that the basic fixes are the most simple thing on the planet - just combine the three Two-Weapon Fighting-feats into one, combine the three Two-Weapon Defense-feats into one and allow Dex to be used for Finesse-weapons as default if desired, and have Weapon Finesse add Dex to damage instead.

This is very similar to how I fix TWF in my games (it's on my list of house rules right below the two paragraphs of monk fixes). It's really not that complicated.

Sstoopidtallkid
2009-04-21, 11:49 AM
This is very similar to how I fix TWF in my games (it's on my list of house rules right below the two paragraphs of monk fixes). It's really not that complicated.2 paragraphs? How do you turn "PLAY A BOOPIN' SWORDSAGE ALREADY!!!1!" into 2 paragraphs?

monty
2009-04-21, 11:57 AM
2 paragraphs? How do you turn "PLAY A BOOPIN' SWORDSAGE ALREADY!!!1!" into 2 paragraphs?

Well, for some reason some people seem to like playing "real" monks, so I'm trying to make it suck less for them.

afroakuma
2009-04-21, 12:03 PM
A nifty solution.

Alright; supposing these changes were implemented and Leap Attack and Shock Trooper were unavailable. Or at least unavailable as partners-in-crime. How would that be for balance?

Eldariel
2009-04-21, 12:15 PM
Alright; supposing these changes were implemented and Leap Attack and Shock Trooper were unavailable. Or at least unavailable as partners-in-crime. How would that be for balance?

I think they'd be reasonably even. TWF would make for a better style for dexterous combatants seeking to leverage their speed and coordination, while strong Hulk Smash-types would prefer their trusty Greatswords. Both would expend about the same amount of feats and both would come out at about the same amount of damage - somewhat less for TWF types (due to the -2 and lack of efficient Power Attack), but that's balanced by the fact that any extra damage you add is added effectively twice.


And really, no reason to ban Leap Attack - it's limited to charges, so it's only usable given the right environment and opponent being not-immediately-next-to-you. Making it do something like add your Str once more to attacks instead of increasing your PA damage could be safer - multiplying arbitrary numbers tends to be pretty risky. If anything, I'd change the wording of Leap Attack to: "On charges with the jump bla bla bla automatic success, add your Strength to damage one more time. If wielding a double weapon, add 1½ times your Strength do damage instead."

Shock Trooper is the real issue here - it means that no matter how much penalty you take, you can pretty much guarantee a hit against all but some odd-bird opponents built not to be hit. Simple fix would be to have it only move the first 5 points from PA penalty to AC. After a certain point, AC penalties stop mattering as opponents hit on 1 anyways (the ones that somehow survived, at any rate), and since you're prepared for that, you don't mind.

Damage increases, however, don't stop mattering since opponents are designed to last a bunch of such hits so after those first 5-6 points of AC penalty, you're effectively getting free damage increase from PA. So allow making a trade up to the point where the trade stops mattering, and then make it cost you accuracy like normal.

Baalthazaq
2009-04-21, 03:40 PM
If opponents have a similar weapon (even non-magical adamantine will do, or +5 Mithril; notice how you gave a +5 weapon to your level 12 character, so chances are your opponents might have some too if the campaign gives you that much money)

Accounted for. I gave the comparative opponents +5 weapons too. Any TWF sunder build works better the lower the numbers. So your point is that you improve my build?


Also, your character's stats are pretty insane. 18+14+15+16+15+11 = 51 point buy - your chances of rolling something like that are under 1%

1) 48 point buy. 17, not 18. +3 from levels, +2 from Horc.
2) I just took what I actually rolled just now using 5D6 and picking the best 3. (I did say the method I was using).


...abusive reading of double weapons...

Abusive? RAW/RAI/Real life/Common sense all dictate it to be so.

A character can fight with both ends of a double weapon as if fighting with two weapons, but he or she incurs all the normal attack penalties associated with two-weapon combat, just as though the character were wielding a one-handed weapon and a light weapon.

The character can also choose to use a double weapon two handed, attacking with only one end of it. A creature wielding a double weapon in one hand can’t use it as a double weapon—only one end of the weapon can be used in any given round.

Seriously, why include the word attack if all penalties apply? Why would two identical weapon ends have different properties?
This is how it is supposed to work. You offset the weight of one by using the other as a balance. That's why you count them as a light and a regular, not because they actually are light and regular.

Also, in the case of a charge, you would use the weapon with TH. In the case of the big opponent you mentioned, you would use the weapon as a TH if you desperately needed to break something you couldn't otherwise.


A regular Orc Barb has....

So? Are you suggesting my Halforc build suddenly stops working with Orc?
Make mine an Orc and it gets the extra +4. You have demonstrated Orcs are cooler than halforcs, but is that what were discussing?

You're comparing something you've obviously optimized with something I threw together from the PHB in 5 minutes. I could get the 34 strength too. It demonstrates nothing other than you've spent more time optimizing the build.

How does taking features I could take but haven't to boost the numbers demonstrate a difference? My only reason for choosing Horc ranger was to demonstrate you can do str based TWF with low dex, and that double weapons are more effective at it.

Finally:
Why are we doing PVP DND? A caster with a single massive epic save or die spell but nothing else, will beat the guy with fireballs. This does not make the first caster better than the second, especially when 2 goblins show up and the epic can only pick one of them to kill before being smacked down by a mere Gobbo.

lsfreak
2009-04-21, 04:04 PM
EDIT: /facepalm. Reading = good.

Eldariel
2009-04-21, 05:42 PM
Abusive? RAW/RAI/Real life/Common sense all dictate it to be so.

SRD (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/equipment/weapons.htm#oneHanded) states that one-handed weapons in offhand only add ½ Str to damage. You appear to be reading it as if they added full Str.


Seriously, why include the word attack if all penalties apply? Why would two identical weapon ends have different properties?
This is how it is supposed to work. You offset the weight of one by using the other as a balance. That's why you count them as a light and a regular, not because they actually are light and regular.

Answer was already quoted - you have to pay double cost for any double weapons made of special materials, any masterwork quality or such, and you need to enhance them separately.


Also, in the case of a charge, you would use the weapon with TH. In the case of the big opponent you mentioned, you would use the weapon as a TH if you desperately needed to break something you couldn't otherwise.

You lost me here. What are you talking about? Certainly this doesn't make two-weapon fighting good for sundering. If anything, it's an argument for just forgetting about two-weapon fighting and wield two-handed instead.


So? Are you suggesting my Halforc build suddenly stops working with Orc?
Make mine an Orc and it gets the extra +4. You have demonstrated Orcs are cooler than halforcs, but is that what were discussing?

You're comparing something you've obviously optimized with something I threw together from the PHB in 5 minutes. I could get the 34 strength too. It demonstrates nothing other than you've spent more time optimizing the build.

How does taking features I could take but haven't to boost the numbers demonstrate a difference? My only reason for choosing Horc ranger was to demonstrate you can do str based TWF with low dex, and that double weapons are more effective at it.

I simply brought the simplest two-hander off the top of my head; hence I didn't wiggle with Half-Orcs (the build was just common sense; full Barbarian, Two-Handed Fighting & strongest race, full Str, just the kind of thing someone starting the game would throw together). Also, Ranger happens to need Wis to cast spells while Barb doesn't, so the Barb can afford the racial Wis-penalty they have. Yours gets +2 Str compared to your present Half-Orc stats if you make it Orc, btw; you need Ranger-levels for TWF with that Dex while I'm free to take Barbarian-levels to get Rage.

The point though was that TWF's need for Dexterity or class levels makes it worse. You could either somehow try to acquire 19 Dex or you take 11 levels of Ranger; either will make you worse than if you didn't need to do either. That's what I, to my mind efficiently, proved. Thanks to not needing to worry about either, the Two-Hander gets much higher Str and combat stats along with damage. He's also better at sundering naturally, which adds up to a higher bonus. I thought we were discussing who's the better sunderer. I just showed that it's indeed two-hander, not two-weapon fighter.


Finally:
Why are we doing PVP DND? A caster with a single massive epic save or die spell but nothing else, will beat the guy with fireballs. This does not make the first caster better than the second, especially when 2 goblins show up and the epic can only pick one of them to kill before being smacked down by a mere Gobbo.

I wasn't going for PvP, I simply did a comparison. I pointed out that all other things being equal, your two-weapon fighter is worse at Sundering than a generic Two-Hander, regardless of whether you take 19 Dex and feats, or Ranger-levels. He's also worse at combat. Ergo, two-weapon fighting is weaker for this purpose (and anything without bonus damage [in core, that means Rogue] really).

Your extra attacks don't matter if your chance of succeeding with two attacks is lower than the comparison's chance of succeeding with one, and your whole tactic doesn't matter if you cannot deal enough damage to take out opponent's weapon. The whole point is that the presented Ranger isn't good at Sundering, except against mooks you could trivially wreck anyways.

Chronos
2009-04-21, 07:06 PM
Quoth Acromos:
It always depresses me that you cannot ask a question on this board without getting an answer swamped in cheese.

In actual, round-the-table play, I've never seen a 2-hander build out-damage a two-weapon build. Mind you, I've also never seen an ubercharger anywhere but on paper.OK, let's look at the simplest possible case. Two level 1 barbarians, one who uses TWF and one who uses THF, and who have the same stats (let's say 18 str: A 16 from the Elite Array, and +2 from being a half-orc). The THF guy uses a greatsword, and the TWF guy uses a shortsword and a longsword. The greatsword guy has an attack bonus of +5 (+1 from BAB, +4 from str), and does a total of 2d6+6 damage each round (2d6 from the base damage of the weapon, +6 from 1.5 times his strength mod). When he rages, that goes up to 2d6+9 at +7 to hit.

Meanwhile, the TWF guy has an attack bonus of +3 (+1 BAB, +4 Str, -2 two-weapon penalty). Each round, he does 1d8+1d6+6: 1d8 from the base damage for the longsword, +4 from str bonus on the longsword, 1d6 from the base damage for the shortsword, +2 from half str bonus for a light weapon. If he rages, that goes up to 1d8+1d6+9 at +5 to hit.

So far, this is looking pretty even: The sword-and-sword guy does a little more damage, but he has a penalty to attack. But wait: There's already a simple way to trade off attack bonus for damage, via the Power Attack feat. And we've already given the sword-and-sword guy his first-level feat (Two-Weapon Fighting), but we haven't given Mr. Greatsword his feat yet. So let's give him Power Attack, and assume that he's always using it for maximum (which at this level is only one point, since they're BAB 1). Now, the greatsword guy is doing 2d6+8 damage at an attack bonus of +4, meaning that he has one point higher attack bonus than the other guy, and he also does an average of one point more damage per round.

But that's still not the whole picture. What if you don't start the round standing next to the guy you want to hit? Now, you have to move (or possibly charge), and then take a standard action to attack. In this case, the guy with two swords is only doing 1d8+4 damage, since he needs a full attack to use the short sword... But the guy with the greatsword is still doing his full 2d6+8 damage.

There are all sorts of other conditions you can consider here, getting progressively more and more complicated. The thing is, though, in almost all of those situations, the guy with the single big weapon stays ahead, or gets even further ahead.

VirOath
2009-04-21, 08:29 PM
Adding to Chronos on this.

The gap gets bigger when you actually take a look at Power Attack. What comes close to evening out the damage with TWF is that they technically get the 1.5 str bonus damage, just spread out on two hits as mentioned before.

But while THF gets a 1.5 bonus from Power Attack, Power Attack doesn't apply to the off hand for damage. So a TWF is always stuck at 1:1, giving a much lower stack for feats.

Only 'cheese' like effect stacking, sneak attack, or anything that adds dice/effects per hit comes close, because those stack with hits a round. Even then you need a way to stick to your target for a full round (Free Movement, pounce, etc.)

Eldariel
2009-04-21, 08:37 PM
Only 'cheese' like effect stacking, sneak attack, or anything that adds dice/effects per hit comes close, because those stack with hits a round. Even then you need a way to stick to your target for a full round (Free Movement, pounce, etc.)

And all that is an expediture of resources (class levels, feats, money) which Two-Hander can use to add to his powers (Power Attack multipliers, Strength increases, extra attacks, etc. - it's worth noting that Two-Handers gain far larger benefits from effects such as Whirling Frenzy and Haste) in a synergistic fashion, generally being able to surpass the Two-Weapon Fighter's stats just fine.

Also, Two-Handers have a large array of reach weapons available to them, while there's (to my knowledge) only one dual wieldable reach weapon and even that's an exotic weapon from DMG alternative era statistics (Kusari-Gama). If asking why this is relevant, reach weapon gives you the alpha strike (thus you're always an attack ahead) and allows you to actually act as a controller greatly adding to your strategic versatility.

Not only that, but many reach weapons enable tricks such as tripping. Oh, and as an added bonus, two-handers' AoOs are much more scary, done at a higher attack bonus for greater damage.


There are just so many reasons Two-Weapon Fighting as written is inferior to Two-Handed Fighting that it's not even worth reciting all of them. Really, most of it is common sense if you just stop to think for a moment.

Brock Samson
2009-04-21, 09:25 PM
A couple of things to think about:

Any ubercharger build is EASILY shut down by a multitude of ways: tanglefoot bags, terrain, miss chances, high AC's, etc... The doesn't stop regular Power Attack from working, but it makes the crazy-multiples much less likely from occurring.

TWF CAN Power Attack and with the right weapons/feat can, for (a bad) example use two longswords/bastard/courtblades(?) swords, getting 1:1 Power Attack bonuses with both hands (I think so, I may be wrong, but they are both not light weapons).

With the various ways to get touch attacks (Wraithstrike, Brilliant Energy Weapon, Heartseeker Amulet, other ways I don't know of including ToB) then even your reduced TWF attack rolls have a good chance of ALL hitting.

Add in either a Pounce ability (barbarian/psionic/anklet of translocation/travel devotion/etc..) and TWFers can get their attacks in each round.

A simple Wounding weapon is certainly going to do a lot more good in the hands of a TWFer than a THFer, no? I should say 2 Wounding weapons actually.

And of course the aforementioned stack-ons (namely Sneak Attack, flaming, acidic, etc...)

I'm not going to do the math here, but BOTH builds can be QUITE effective. If a THFer misses once or twice he fails. If a TWFer misses once or twice, he still has another chance or two to hit. Everybody rolls 1s, and 20s, the TWFer is just going to get a chance to roll more of them.


And let us not forget the feat (i think Elusive Target?) that allows you to ignore the damage bonuses one creature gets from Power Attacking, yet they retain the to-hit-penalties. That's one feat that shuts down quite a bit of the benefits a THFer will get.

Brock Samson
2009-04-21, 09:28 PM
Oh, and there are various ways to get reach, even for the TWFer (potion of Enlarge, abberant reach, etc...) You might not get quite as much reach as a THFer, but still get some.

And can't the spiked chain be used as a double-weapon? If not, maybe we just used to play that way because it makes sense to most people (watch Kill Bill).

Eldariel
2009-04-21, 09:40 PM
A couple of things to think about:

Any ubercharger build is EASILY shut down by a multitude of ways: tanglefoot bags, terrain, miss chances, high AC's, etc... The doesn't stop regular Power Attack from working, but it makes the crazy-multiples much less likely from occurring.

There's only one übercharger and that's not shut down by...well, any of the above. Contingencies, instant teleportation, temporal manipulation and we're talking, but silly terrain, AC, miss chance or tanglefoot bags don't matter once we talk about the übercharger. Of course, it's not intended for playing. But you brought it up, not me. That said, chargers can of course be disrupted, you're right. Luckily Two-Handed Power Attacking is just fine moving & attacking too. Now, Two-Weapon Fighting on the other hand...


TWF CAN Power Attack and with the right weapons/feat can, for (a bad) example use two longswords/bastard/courtblades(?) swords, getting 1:1 Power Attack bonuses with both hands (I think so, I may be wrong, but they are both not light weapons).

You have the wonderful option of spending a dozen feats to be almost as good as the guy who spent one feat towards the same goal (you need Two-Weapon Fighting, Oversized Two-Weapon Fighting and Power Attack to even start with this and you're still dealing with some hefty penalties - now, there are ways around this, such as the Revenant Blade PrC, but by and large this isn't a good plan; that said, Revenant Blade kicks ass, but that's saying more about the class than TWF).


With the various ways to get touch attacks (Wraithstrike, Brilliant Energy Weapon, Heartseeker Amulet, other ways I don't know of including ToB) then even your reduced TWF attack rolls have a good chance of ALL hitting.

Same applies to a greater effect to two-handers who get full damage even from the BAB-15 attack. That said, I wouldn't call touch attacks easy to acquire for actual games ever (Wraithstrike is on a short list for this very reason, Brilliant Energy weapons are hugely limited and...yea).


Add in either a Pounce ability (barbarian/psionic/anklet of translocation/travel devotion/etc..) and TWFers can get their attacks in each round.

Now you need to deal with the same issues Chargers do. Most of those are also limited on uses/day, and have a short range.


A simple Wounding weapon is certainly going to do a lot more good in the hands of a TWFer than a THFer, no? I should say 2 Wounding weapons actually.

Yes, and you have to pay for two weapons so the two-hander is gonna have higher enhancement overall (or more other equipment). This sorta evens out with itself due to the associated extra costs, although this is also the primary reason for the flat -2 to TWF.


I'm not going to do the math here, but BOTH builds can be QUITE effective. If a THFer misses once or twice he fails. If a TWFer misses once or twice, he still has another chance or two to hit. Everybody rolls 1s, and 20s, the TWFer is just going to get a chance to roll more of them.

TWFer, all other things being equal, deals more regular damage. Worse chance to deal lots of damage, worse chance to deal no damage. Take that as you will.


And let us not forget the feat (i think Elusive Target?) that allows you to ignore the damage bonuses one creature gets from Power Attacking, yet they retain the to-hit-penalties. That's one feat that shuts down quite a bit of the benefits a THFer will get.

How many NPCs with Elusive Target have you faced? Oh, and even without PA, Two-Hander does fine damage.


So yes, two-weapon fighting can be almost as good as two-handed fighting...except that you're still spending 3 feats to two-hander's 1. And all the problems given above. Basically, TWF is almost even on base damage, double most bonuses and loses out on a ton of stuff. Again, if you make the suggested changes, TWF would be just fine. As it stands, it is, by and large and as traditionally seen, worse. I'm tired of saying "except for that Stormguard Warrior, Revenant Blade & Greatsword+Spikes/Unarmed Strike" so I simply haven't. Note that the above wouldn't be broken even with the suggested changes.


EDIT:
And can't the spiked chain be used as a double-weapon? If not, maybe we just used to play that way because it makes sense to most people (watch Kill Bill).

Not vanilla, but there's a Chain that can. However, it loses reach when used in such a manner.

Brock Samson
2009-04-21, 10:11 PM
"There's only one übercharger and that's not shut down by...well, any of the above. Contingencies, instant teleportation, temporal manipulation and we're talking, but silly terrain, AC, miss chance or tanglefoot bags don't matter once we talk about the übercharger. Of course, it's not intended for playing. But you brought it up, not me. That said, chargers can of course be disrupted, you're right. Luckily Two-Handed Power Attacking is just fine moving & attacking too. Now, Two-Weapon Fighting on the other hand..."

...What? What's this "The Ubercharger?" And how don't AC, miss chance, or tanglefoot bags (or fatiguing, ex. waves of fatigue) matter?

"You have the wonderful option of spending a dozen feats to be almost as good as the guy who spent one feat towards the same goal (you need Two-Weapon Fighting, Oversized Two-Weapon Fighting and Power Attack to even start with this and you're still dealing with some hefty penalties - now, there are ways around this, such as the Revenant Blade PrC, but by and large this isn't a good plan; that said, Revenant Blade kicks ass, but that's saying more about the class than TWF)."

Yes, it's going to be more feat-intensive. But it's not going to be too terrible. A ranger/rogue mix might be fun. Or even 1 or 2 levels in barbarian as well, 2 more in fighter maybe. It'll cost more feats, but I see the POTENTIAL relevance and use.


"Same applies to a greater effect to two-handers who get full damage even from the BAB-15 attack. That said, I wouldn't call touch attacks easy to acquire for actual games ever (Wraithstrike is on a short list for this very reason, Brilliant Energy weapons are hugely limited and...yea)."

Well, one application of Wraithstrike and any meleer is gonna kick some major butt.


"Yes, and you have to pay for two weapons so the two-hander is gonna have higher enhancement overall (or more other equipment). This sorta evens out with itself due to the associated extra costs, although this is also the primary reason for the flat -2 to TWF."

I still think 2 Wounding weapons are going to do more good more of the time than some other +higher equivalents. Just my thoughts.


"TWFer, all other things being equal, deals more regular damage. Worse chance to deal lots of damage, worse chance to deal no damage. Take that as you will."

Yep, right on there.


"How many NPCs with Elusive Target have you faced? Oh, and even without PA, Two-Hander does fine damage."

Well, if I ever played an extreme Power Attacker, I assume my DM would throw at least a few at me after too many 1-shot shenanigans.

Olo Demonsbane
2009-04-21, 11:19 PM
I houseruled TWF so much that I broke it :smalltongue:

However, I played by first charger build (after over a hundred TWFers) and he out damaged most of them so....


Two Weapon Fighting lets you use a 1-Handed weapon in each hand. No penalty. You can use your itenerative attacks with each hand.

Yeah. I know. I started out with what I thought was simple and have never actually changed it.


Improved Two Weapon Fighting lets you use an additional attack at your full BAB with each weapon. Greater gives you another on top of that. You may not take these feats, but they may be granted as a class feature.

Funnily enough, this also broke samaurais and rangers. Or, not broke them, but many of my more potent TWFers have had 2 levels in ranger and 2 levels in samaurai. :smallbiggrin: Crazy, crazy rules.


Terribly sorry, that wasn't really on topic. By my experiance with the true rules, THF is really potent, especially when you have a swordsage//fighter Leap Attacking across the battlefield with a double kick and a greatsword.

Chronos
2009-04-21, 11:20 PM
All any of that amounts to, though, is ways to mitigate the two-weapon disadvantages. That's not really enough, especially since you're spending feats, gold, and class levels to do it. You don't just need to mitigate the disadvantages; you need to show some actual advantages.

Zen Master
2009-04-22, 02:12 AM
Well, I don't play so cheesy but I generally think that 2H deals more damage.

It really depends on how hard enemies are to hit. The more attacks you are likely to actually land, the more it shifts in favor of TWF - at least from my experience.

Also, in a cooperative group, I feel that allies helping with flanking and buffs end up giving greater benefit to the TWFighter than to the 2-hander charger.

Zen Master
2009-04-22, 02:23 AM
Quoth AcromosThe thing is, though, in almost all of those situations, the guy with the single big weapon stays ahead, or gets even further ahead.

None of this is new to me.

But as always, the point I'm trying to make just doesn't seem to penetrate.

At the actual table, with actual dice, with real people playing the game, not discussing the theory, that just doesn't seem to be the case.

Maybe it's because the other guys around the table just can't be arsed to help a cheesy ubercharger, so he winds up fighting alone, without buffs and without flankers - or maybe the ubercharger is the guy who is too impatient to wait for the others and just runs ahead to deal his massive damage, usually leading to a swift and messy death. For himself.

Fact remains: I've never seen a 2-hander wielder do more actual damage in actual play, than a dualwielder.

Seen. As with my eyes. I can do the math - I know the potential is there for the big 2-hander. It just fails to materialize in the real world.

MeklorIlavator
2009-04-22, 03:31 AM
It really depends on how hard enemies are to hit. The more attacks you are likely to actually land, the more it shifts in favor of TWF - at least from my experience.
This really depends on the bonus damage, but if you have enough, and are likely to hit on all attack, then yes, TWF is better. Of course, if that's the case for most combats then the DM is pampering you, so yes, if the DM directly favors one style over another then the favored style is better.


Also, in a cooperative group, I feel that allies helping with flanking and buffs end up giving greater benefit to the TWFighter than to the 2-hander charger.
This is kinda misleading, as yes, they do gain more from flanking. But, if a Wizard uses a spell storing weapon to cast divine power on himself he gets more out of it than a Cleric. This doesn't mean that the Wizard is a better combatant. Also, many buffs help the THF just as much TWF, so as long as there isn't party favoritism, they should be on equal levels.


None of this is new to me.

But as always, the point I'm trying to make just doesn't seem to penetrate.

At the actual table, with actual dice, with real people playing the game, not discussing the theory, that just doesn't seem to be the case.
And I've seen the exact opposite. Plus, I've seen it when the THF doesn't power attack at all.

Maybe it's because the other guys around the table just can't be arsed to help a cheesy ubercharger, so he winds up fighting alone, without buffs and without flankers - or maybe the ubercharger is the guy who is too impatient to wait for the others and just runs ahead to deal his massive damage, usually leading to a swift and messy death. For himself.
Wow, never knew that Power Attack was considered really cheesy.


Fact remains: I've never seen a 2-hander wielder do more actual damage in actual play, than a dualwielder.

Seen. As with my eyes. I can do the math - I know the potential is there for the big 2-hander. It just fails to materialize in the real world.
And I've had the exact opposite experiences. Can you give any concrete examples? As in, more specific than "I've seen TWF more effective than THF"?

SparkMandriller
2009-04-22, 03:57 AM
Fact remains: I've never seen a 2-hander wielder do more actual damage in actual play, than a dualwielder.

Seen. As with my eyes. I can do the math - I know the potential is there for the big 2-hander. It just fails to materialize in the real world.

So what makes you think that everyone in the world plays the same way your groups do? Or is it just cheesy to play in a different fashion to the way you guys typically do?

Brock Samson
2009-04-22, 04:16 AM
Most commonly, in actual gameplay, I have seen TWFers do more damage, as those who I've seen play THFers who Power Attack rarely hit the person standing right next to them with any/many of their attacks. Maybe that's just because DMs I've played with put us against creatures with higher ACs, and who do make use of incorporeal creatures and displacement and such.

Again, I suppose that's purely the style of the 3 or 4 different DMs I've ever played with.

Kaiyanwang
2009-04-22, 05:24 AM
Maybe we could say that TWF, damage bonuses like SA or similar apart, is good for "procs" too.

I mean, if you oversized TWF two morning stars with three mountains, staggering blow and staggering critical, it's very likely people around you are nauseated, stunned, slowed or any combination of these.

This can be valid even with weapons adding conditions there are a lot (my favourite: TWF two vorpal 2d4-negative-levels-per-hit-don't-remember-the-name swords at epic :smalltongue:).

More, if you use the optional rule of "20, 20, hit" autokill, more attacks are more chance to do it. In my current campaing, the two TWfighters (a ranger//beguiler and a rogue//psywarrior) completely twisted a baaaad situations, in two different istances, thanks to it.

On the other hand, the Fighter//Knight likes PA tier and wreaks havoc. At least in my experience, unless you "stretch" the game in optimization too far, and you vary kind and number enemies, there is not a method of fighting better than the other.

Even if 3.x IMHO has not so much love for axes and one hand - fighting. The latter had some support in PHII and Dragon Compendium, but axes, unless I miss something, has nothing special.

Talic
2009-04-22, 05:38 AM
...What? What's this "The Ubercharger?" And how don't AC, miss chance, or tanglefoot bags (or fatiguing, ex. waves of fatigue) matter?


AC largely doesn't matter because at the levels Ubercharger runs at, the attack bonuses are disgusting. If it misses? Then darn near any other build would have missed. Hallmarks of Ubercharger include ridiculous high strength (bonus to hit), Full BAB (Bonus to hit), Situational modifiers (such as charge), adn ability to get power attack without sacrificing accuracy. The only way you can make one more accurate is psionic feats that allow the attack to go as a touch attack, or wraithstrike.

Miss Chance can be averted by one or two weapon enhancements, which are preferred by the build (and even weapon augment crystals can assist).

Tanglefoot bags are remarkably short range. If you're in range to get hit by one, you're in range to charge. This limits the vulnerability to a ready action. Also, at mid levels, any ability that provides flight can mitigate this further, which is another preferred ability to the build (as ranged combat isn't a forte of it, ability to reach flying creatures is a good thing).

Several races and buffs prove resistant or immune to fatigue as well. Warforged is a particularly good choice for the build. Other Uberchargers? Well, Waves of Fatigue is a good spell.

That's like saying the level 22 Vampire Wizard is weak because one good disintigrate kills it.

Zen Master
2009-04-22, 06:38 AM
Wow, never knew that Power Attack was considered really cheesy.

And I've had the exact opposite experiences. Can you give any concrete examples? As in, more specific than "I've seen TWF more effective than THF"?

Um - did I say that? No - not power attack, but uberchargers are cheesy. And dull. But then what do I care, I'm not playing one.

As for examples? Damned if I know, but with a bit of buffing and creative positioning I can land an incredible number of sneak attacks.

Zen Master
2009-04-22, 06:43 AM
So what makes you think that everyone in the world plays the same way your groups do? Or is it just cheesy to play in a different fashion to the way you guys typically do?

I don't know where you get that from - but if you can direct me to a post of mine from which you infer that, I'm sure I can explain how the misunderstanding happened.

MeklorIlavator
2009-04-22, 07:23 AM
Um - did I say that? No - not power attack, but uberchargers are cheesy. And dull. But then what do I care, I'm not playing one.
My point was that Power Attack on it's own outdamages most TWF builds that I've seen in actual play, and you were saying that TWF is superior without cheese builds. Therefore, things more powerful must be part of a cheese build. This was largely sarcastic, but there is a point: the ubercharger isn't the build that outstrips TWF: it's the build that attempts do the most damage while charging. The real thing that outstrips most TWF(there are times when this isn't true, but at that point you're using highly optimized builds) builds is the Feat Power Attack.


As for examples? Damned if I know, but with a bit of buffing and creative positioning I can land an incredible number of sneak attacks.
In that case, can you list these buffs? Or the general build you're using(mainly, how many attacks do you normally get, at what Attack bonus)? After all, one problem with TWF builds is that several of the attacks are generally at a Attack Bonus so low it's really not worth it.

Eldariel
2009-04-22, 09:19 AM
...What? What's this "The Ubercharger?" And how don't AC, miss chance, or tanglefoot bags (or fatiguing, ex. waves of fatigue) matter?

Übercharger is the name of the build trying to pull out all the stops on charging dealing the maximum amount of damage. In other words, it's the theorethical test for how much damage you can get by charging. ACs under Flying charge so who cares about stupid crap, immune to Fatigue et al., doesn't have True Seeing but has enough attacks to paste you through miss chances anyways. You can check the latest iteration here:
http://web.archive.org/web/20080214233419/http://forums.gleemax.com/showthread.php?t=401662
and a bit more twinked out version (partially 3.0 though hence the notification on 3.5 issues) here (http://web.archive.org/web/20080214234429/http://forums.gleemax.com/wotc_archive/index.php/t-563009)

If you want to talk about Chargers, talk about Chargers. Überchargers mean business and it is unwise to meddle in their affairs.


Yes, it's going to be more feat-intensive. But it's not going to be too terrible. A ranger/rogue mix might be fun. Or even 1 or 2 levels in barbarian as well, 2 more in fighter maybe. It'll cost more feats, but I see the POTENTIAL relevance and use.

It's just that two-handed fighting can spend those feats to deal more damage instead.


Well, one application of Wraithstrike and any meleer is gonna kick some major butt.

Indeed. Hence why the spell is eww.


I still think 2 Wounding weapons are going to do more good more of the time than some other +higher equivalents. Just my thoughts.

Depends - I personally am partial to Holy weapons for example as most opponents in good campaigns tend to be evil; Wounding is rather limited as it doesn't function against few rather large subsections of creatures (most prevalent of them being the Undead).


Well, if I ever played an extreme Power Attacker, I assume my DM would throw at least a few at me after too many 1-shot shenanigans.

If you played a standard Orc Barbarian with Power Attack and maybe Shock Trooper + Leap Attack though, I don't think you'd be facing too many of them. Rarely have I seen DMs specifically build to counter their players. I know I certainly don't do it - I just build for the monsters' own gameplans; they tend to be good enough. Sure, some nimble types might take Elusive Target anyways, but I'll have to say out of personal experience that I have yet to face creatures with the feat outside Arenas.

SparkMandriller
2009-04-22, 10:32 AM
I don't know where you get that from - but if you can direct me to a post of mine from which you infer that, I'm sure I can explain how the misunderstanding happened.

Well, you claimed that in real play, nobody ever plays optimised two handed fighters. And your only reason for thinking this is because nobody in your groups have done so (Because your group will betray them if they do, hah). This certainly suggests to me that you think everyone plays the same way you do. I'm not sure what other impression I could get, even.

Zen Master
2009-04-22, 11:01 AM
Well, on the first page you mentioned that you were depressed that people were posting answers swamped in cheese, and the only suggestions posted by that point were things like PA and having high strength, Leap Attack, and Shock Trooper, or things that were specifically pointed out as being only used in theoretical optimisation. This certainly gave me the impression that you thought using those feats or having a high strength would be cheesy. I dunno what other impression I could get, to be honest.

Well - I'm still depressed.

But I'm not quite sure I follow. You're saying those two first posts aren't more than enough? Or are you saying they aren't entirely the sort of thing this board veritably drowns in?

There's nothing wrong with those posts. Not individually. But read these pages, and it's the same answers over and over again. Certain builds have attained the status of Divine Truth - and though frankly I doubt any great number of people ever play these builds, they are all that seems to be discussed here.

I guess I just completely fail at admiring theoretic builds. It takes a different sort of mind to be fascinated by the fact that as you scale up, numbers grow.

All of this, naturally, totally unrelated to the topic of this thread. And anyways I've nothing further to add to that. Observation, to me, has revealed elephants to be pink, while theoretic calculation determines they should be blue.

Sstoopidtallkid
2009-04-22, 11:19 AM
There's nothing wrong with those posts. Not individually. But read these pages, and it's the same answers over and over again. Certain builds have attained the status of Divine Truth - and though frankly I doubt any great number of people ever play these builds, they are all that seems to be discussed here.

I guess I just completely fail at admiring theoretic builds. It takes a different sort of mind to be fascinated by the fact that as you scale up, numbers grow.I have yet to see you respond to the post by Cronos yesterday:
OK, let's look at the simplest possible case. Two level 1 barbarians, one who uses TWF and one who uses THF, and who have the same stats (let's say 18 str: A 16 from the Elite Array, and +2 from being a half-orc). The THF guy uses a greatsword, and the TWF guy uses a shortsword and a longsword. The greatsword guy has an attack bonus of +5 (+1 from BAB, +4 from str), and does a total of 2d6+6 damage each round (2d6 from the base damage of the weapon, +6 from 1.5 times his strength mod). When he rages, that goes up to 2d6+9 at +7 to hit.

Meanwhile, the TWF guy has an attack bonus of +3 (+1 BAB, +4 Str, -2 two-weapon penalty). Each round, he does 1d8+1d6+6: 1d8 from the base damage for the longsword, +4 from str bonus on the longsword, 1d6 from the base damage for the shortsword, +2 from half str bonus for a light weapon. If he rages, that goes up to 1d8+1d6+9 at +5 to hit.

So far, this is looking pretty even: The sword-and-sword guy does a little more damage, but he has a penalty to attack. But wait: There's already a simple way to trade off attack bonus for damage, via the Power Attack feat. And we've already given the sword-and-sword guy his first-level feat (Two-Weapon Fighting), but we haven't given Mr. Greatsword his feat yet. So let's give him Power Attack, and assume that he's always using it for maximum (which at this level is only one point, since they're BAB 1). Now, the greatsword guy is doing 2d6+8 damage at an attack bonus of +4, meaning that he has one point higher attack bonus than the other guy, and he also does an average of one point more damage per round.

But that's still not the whole picture. What if you don't start the round standing next to the guy you want to hit? Now, you have to move (or possibly charge), and then take a standard action to attack. In this case, the guy with two swords is only doing 1d8+4 damage, since he needs a full attack to use the short sword... But the guy with the greatsword is still doing his full 2d6+8 damage.

There are all sorts of other conditions you can consider here, getting progressively more and more complicated. The thing is, though, in almost all of those situations, the guy with the single big weapon stays ahead, or gets even further ahead.No cheese, no multiplier stacking, just 2 characters at the bare bones with different combat styles and seeing which is better.

monty
2009-04-22, 11:21 AM
There's nothing wrong with those posts. Not individually. But read these pages, and it's the same answers over and over again. Certain builds have attained the status of Divine Truth - and though frankly I doubt any great number of people ever play these builds, they are all that seems to be discussed here.

That's because they work. Why does everyone admire the Batman wizard? Because it works. So why is the Power Attack/Leap Attack/Shock Trooper combination suggested so much? Because it works. It's simply one of the most effective ways to increase damage without going into cheese - and if you consider taking three feats that are specifically designed to work together to be cheese, then there's not much point in continuing this discussion.

The point of this thread was to compare two fighting styles. The only point at which they can be reliably compared is at full optimization, because there is no other objective standard. You can't compare them at a level where they would actually be played, because every group plays at a different level of optimization. Some groups play with (non-uber)chargers. Some play with Tippy wizards. Some play with monks.

Hurlbut
2009-04-22, 11:29 AM
Indeed. Hence why the spell is eww.
Too bad you need to have three levels in sorcerer/wizard to use it on yourself (range: personal, target: you only).

Re: Wraithstrike

Dr_Horrible
2009-04-22, 12:15 PM
Too bad you need to have three levels in sorcerer/wizard to use it on yourself (range: personal, target: you only).

Re: Wraithstrike

Right, which is why it works okay when a Wizard hybrid casts it on himself, but it breaks the game when people claim Constant Effect Wraithstrike Belts, or the Wizard arranges to take the PrC or meta feats needed to cast it on others (and then persist it).

mikej
2009-04-22, 12:45 PM
Right, which is why it works okay when a Wizard hybrid casts it on himself, but it breaks the game when people claim Constant Effect Wraithstrike Belts, or the Wizard arranges to take the PrC or meta feats needed to cast it on others (and then persist it).

Wraithstrike is pretty damn broken, also it's a big double edged sword. Dragons with thier already big attack bonus with this spell and Power Attack can cause serious damage. I'd rather have it banned ( which it is in our gaming group ) to prevent abuse.

Though I'm a fan of TWF, it's fun to imagine how it plays out but it's been proven THF is superior.

Eldariel
2009-04-22, 12:45 PM
Too bad you need to have three levels in sorcerer/wizard to use it on yourself (range: personal, target: you only).

Re: Wraithstrike

Doesn't make it any less sick; instead it limits users to arcane gishes. And they're limited to blunt weapons due to Greater Mighty Wallop. Any such crap that limits characters to only one build suck, which is why I gladly get rid of Wraithstrike & Greater Mighty Wallop when playing even though characters using them aren't on the level of actual casters.

Chronos
2009-04-22, 08:54 PM
Quoth Acromos:
Seen. As with my eyes. I can do the math - I know the potential is there for the big 2-hander. It just fails to materialize in the real world.There are three possible explanations for this:

1: The two-weapon fighters you've seen just happen to have better luck of the dice than the two-handed fighters you've seen. There's nothing that anyone can say to refute this; luck happens. But the lucky guy shouldn't be confused for a guy with superior tactics.

2: The two-handed fighters are actually doing better than the two-weapon fighters, as expected, but you're just not noticing it by virtue of not paying close attention. This is not a criticism of you; almost nobody pays as close attention to things as they think they do. Unless you've written down notes for how much every damage every fighter does in every round of combat, you could easily be misremembering.

3: The two-weapon fighters you've seen are using significantly greater levels of cheese than the two-handed fighters you've seen. This is quite possible, but it flies in the face of your complaints about "too much cheese".

angus cotton
2009-04-22, 09:40 PM
Here is another problem no one mentioned:

The guy in your game group who does not get the whole basic TWF vs THF equation--he plays a TWF. He is dex-based and you level with him. When he finally gets that 8th attack, he gets really annoying because:

a) he always beats you on initiative (cause of the dex), so always goes first, and you have to wait...

b) his math skills may not necessarily be up to par (I refer you to the aforementioned not getting the TWF vs. THF thing).

c) he rolls like ten-zillion dice with his duel weilding frost, shocking-burst, thundering weapons

and it happens EVERY ROUND of EVERY COMBAT of EVERY GAME.....EVER!


AARARARRAARAAAAAARRRRRRRGGGGGGGG!!!!!!!

mikej
2009-04-23, 01:50 AM
Here is another problem no one mentioned:

The guy in your game group who does not get the whole basic TWF vs THF equation--he plays a TWF. He is dex-based and you level with him. When he finally gets that 8th attack, he gets really annoying because:

a) he always beats you on initiative (cause of the dex), so always goes first, and you have to wait...

b) his math skills may not necessarily be up to par (I refer you to the aforementioned not getting the TWF vs. THF thing).

c) he rolls like ten-zillion dice with his duel weilding frost, shocking-burst, thundering weapons

and it happens EVERY ROUND of EVERY COMBAT of EVERY GAME.....EVER!


AARARARRAARAAAAAARRRRRRRGGGGGGGG!!!!!!!

To be entirely fair, this could be any person and class. Though I perfertly understand this. Our previous Warblade player took forever to figured out and roll his dice.

Now it's not really a problem to do with TWF vs THF though.

ericgrau
2009-04-23, 02:46 AM
I have yet to see you respond to the post by Cronos yesterday:No cheese, no multiplier stacking, just 2 characters at the bare bones with different combat styles and seeing which is better.



OK, let's look at the simplest possible case. Two level 1 barbarians, one who uses TWF and one who uses THF, and who have the same stats (let's say 18 str: A 16 from the Elite Array, and +2 from being a half-orc). The THF guy uses a greatsword, and the TWF guy uses a shortsword and a longsword. The greatsword guy has an attack bonus of +5 (+1 from BAB, +4 from str), and does a total of 2d6+6 damage each round (2d6 from the base damage of the weapon, +6 from 1.5 times his strength mod). When he rages, that goes up to 2d6+9 at +7 to hit.

Meanwhile, the TWF guy has an attack bonus of +3 (+1 BAB, +4 Str, -2 two-weapon penalty). Each round, he does 1d8+1d6+6: 1d8 from the base damage for the longsword, +4 from str bonus on the longsword, 1d6 from the base damage for the shortsword, +2 from half str bonus for a light weapon. If he rages, that goes up to 1d8+1d6+9 at +5 to hit.

So far, this is looking pretty even: The sword-and-sword guy does a little more damage, but he has a penalty to attack. But wait: There's already a simple way to trade off attack bonus for damage, via the Power Attack feat. And we've already given the sword-and-sword guy his first-level feat (Two-Weapon Fighting), but we haven't given Mr. Greatsword his feat yet. So let's give him Power Attack, and assume that he's always using it for maximum (which at this level is only one point, since they're BAB 1). Now, the greatsword guy is doing 2d6+8 damage at an attack bonus of +4, meaning that he has one point higher attack bonus than the other guy, and he also does an average of one point more damage per round.

But that's still not the whole picture. What if you don't start the round standing next to the guy you want to hit? Now, you have to move (or possibly charge), and then take a standard action to attack. In this case, the guy with two swords is only doing 1d8+4 damage, since he needs a full attack to use the short sword... But the guy with the greatsword is still doing his full 2d6+8 damage.

There are all sorts of other conditions you can consider here, getting progressively more and more complicated. The thing is, though, in almost all of those situations, the guy with the single big weapon stays ahead, or gets even further ahead.



Ok, maybe he doesn't like to read long posts. Doesn't mean he's wrong. It means some people spend a lot of time on the internet, which certainly doesn't make them better.

So the TWF guy does the equivalent of 2d6+7 (1d8 = 1d6 + 1, on average), and the THF guy does 2d6+8. That only seems to prove that they are about equal, with only a small advantage to THF. Even on single attacks, if that's a frequent issue, a TWF guy with quick draw can two-hand one of his weapons for 1d8+7 (2.5 less damage rather than 1 less damage). Even without a source of bonus damage.

And I'm astounded that people actually see TWF do about as much as THF in real games, and people still come in and doubt them. Ya, TWF is a little worse, but not enough to keep even someone without bonus damage from playing it just b/c he wants to.

Matthew
2009-04-23, 09:40 AM
There are three possible explanations for this:

1: The two-weapon fighters you've seen just happen to have better luck of the dice than the two-handed fighters you've seen. There's nothing that anyone can say to refute this; luck happens. But the lucky guy shouldn't be confused for a guy with superior tactics.

2: The two-handed fighters are actually doing better than the two-weapon fighters, as expected, but you're just not noticing it by virtue of not paying close attention. This is not a criticism of you; almost nobody pays as close attention to things as they think they do. Unless you've written down notes for how much every damage every fighter does in every round of combat, you could easily be misremembering.

3: The two-weapon fighters you've seen are using significantly greater levels of cheese than the two-handed fighters you've seen. This is quite possible, but it flies in the face of your complaints about "too much cheese".

Well, a fourth possibility is that the opponents they are facing have hit points about equal to the average damage of one of the attacks of the character fighting with two weapons...

These threads always come down to the same roundabout debates. It is easier to get high damage with a two handed weapon (or even a one handed weapon sued two handed) in D20/3e. There are lots of ways of putting fighting with two weapons on a subjective parity, and tons of situational caveats as to when X is better than Y, but the bottom line is that the rules are set up so that two handed weapons are the best direct damage dealers.

Bluebeard
2009-04-23, 11:31 AM
Even on single attacks, if that's a frequent issue, a TWF guy with quick draw can two-hand one of his weapons for 1d8+7 (2.5 less damage rather than 1 less damage). Even without a source of bonus damage.We're up to five feats to put the TWF guy on par with the THF guy's one. Congrats.


TWF's not unplayable. It's just clearly worse without tons of bonus damage.

FatR
2009-04-23, 03:18 PM
And I'm astounded that people actually see TWF do about as much as THF in real games, and people still come in and doubt them. Ya, TWF is a little worse, but not enough to keep even someone without bonus damage from playing it just b/c he wants to.
TWF without a bonus damage/some serious cheese is not "a little worse". It is completely and utterly non-wiable past about level 3 due to being a suboptimal option for already weak characters. Try to survive any of the published adventure paths for 3.5 with no-bonus damage, no-cheese TWF meleer some day. Just try it. Even with noticeable anti-optimization of about half of the opponents and absence of non-core feats on monsters, melee characters suffer horribly against non-crippled monsters past about level 5 at most. THF + charging feats is just about the only simple (not requiring complicated class powerdipping) way around that.

Sstoopidtallkid
2009-04-23, 03:41 PM
Ok, maybe he doesn't like to read long posts. Doesn't mean he's wrong. It means some people spend a lot of time on the internet, which certainly doesn't make them better.

So the TWF guy does the equivalent of 2d6+7 (1d8 = 1d6 + 1, on average), and the THF guy does 2d6+8. That only seems to prove that they are about equal, with only a small advantage to THF. Even on single attacks, if that's a frequent issue, a TWF guy with quick draw can two-hand one of his weapons for 1d8+7 (2.5 less damage rather than 1 less damage). Even without a source of bonus damage.

And I'm astounded that people actually see TWF do about as much as THF in real games, and people still come in and doubt them. Ya, TWF is a little worse, but not enough to keep even someone without bonus damage from playing it just b/c he wants to.The TWF guy can't quick-draw, since he doesn't have the feat. He has to draw as part of a move action, which means he can't charge. And 1pt of damage is non-trivial, as is +1AB, at first level. One is 5%, the other 7%. At higher levels, yes, I wouldn't even mention it, but at low ones, yeah, it's a big difference.

And as to why people debate experiential knowledge? Read Cronos' other excellent post:
1: The two-weapon fighters you've seen just happen to have better luck of the dice than the two-handed fighters you've seen. There's nothing that anyone can say to refute this; luck happens. But the lucky guy shouldn't be confused for a guy with superior tactics.

2: The two-handed fighters are actually doing better than the two-weapon fighters, as expected, but you're just not noticing it by virtue of not paying close attention. This is not a criticism of you; almost nobody pays as close attention to things as they think they do. Unless you've written down notes for how much every damage every fighter does in every round of combat, you could easily be misremembering.

3: The two-weapon fighters you've seen are using significantly greater levels of cheese than the two-handed fighters you've seen. This is quite possible, but it flies in the face of your complaints about "too much cheese".

Zen Master
2009-04-25, 03:32 PM
That's because they work. Why does everyone admire the Batman wizard? Because it works. So why is the Power Attack/Leap Attack/Shock Trooper combination suggested so much? Because it works. It's simply one of the most effective ways to increase damage without going into cheese - and if you consider taking three feats that are specifically designed to work together to be cheese, then there's not much point in continuing this discussion.

Because it works. Do you see anyone denying that it works? If not, why keep repeating those same things - it should be very well established by now.

But yea - it works. That's kinda the point. I've tried to get this across before, and sadly failed: We do not play the same game. The game I play does not revolve around what works - it revolves around what works. Even though that's irrelevant for this thread. But your argument that it works is meaningless to me.

Now - just because something is designed to work together does in no way reduce it's cheesyness. Poor game design very much promotes cheese.

How am I going to explain to you all that I'm not pulling my claim that I've seen TWF outshining THF out of thin air. Hm.

Most builds for TWF I've seen have had better mobility, being better able to get into flanking positions, and better able to avoid AoO's. Maybe that's part of it.

Many have featured stealth too. Sometimes terrain may have hindered the charger from making his charge.

There are lots of different reasons - and I've confirmed long ago that the theoretical damage potential of THF is far greater.

I've just not seen it produce that actual result in actual play.

monty
2009-04-25, 03:45 PM
The game I play does not revolve around what works - it revolves around what works.

Wait, what? You lost me there.


How am I going to explain to you all that I'm not pulling my claim that I've seen TWF outshining THF out of thin air. Hm.

Nobody's denying that that's what you've seen, but a number of reasons why that may be have been put forward.


Most builds for TWF I've seen have had better mobility, being better able to get into flanking positions, and better able to avoid AoO's. Maybe that's part of it.

Many have featured stealth too. Sometimes terrain may have hindered the charger from making his charge.

The thing is, though, absolutely none of that has anything to do with TWF. A THF build could do exactly the same things, and while it might not put out as much damage (due to probably focusing on Dex over Str), it would be just as good in all those other things, with more feats to spare. Most melee builds don't rely on charges, anyway. It may help for Leap Attack, but they're perfectly viable without it.

MeklorIlavator
2009-04-25, 03:50 PM
But yea - it works. That's kinda the point. I've tried to get this across before, and sadly failed: We do not play the same game. The game I play does not revolve around what works - it revolves around what works. Even though that's irrelevant for this thread. But your argument that it works is meaningless to me.
Huh? This makes no sense. You seem to be saying "it's not A, it's A". Can you restate this so it makes some sort of sense?


How am I going to explain to you all that I'm not pulling my claim that I've seen TWF outshining THF out of thin air. Hm.
Well, it would help if you could provide examples instead of saying it just happens. Simply providing builds would help immensely. Or you could try and reply to Cronos, who gave a bunch of reason why this might happen.

Most builds for TWF I've seen have had better mobility, being better able to get into flanking positions, and better able to avoid AoO's. Maybe that's part of it.
How can they have greater mobilty if once they move they no longer get Full Attacks, thereby limiting them to one standard attack?

Many have featured stealth too. Sometimes terrain may have hindered the charger from making his charge.
Stealth doesn't really help matters(in terms of damage) unless we start bringing Sneak attack in, in which case their AB is crappy. Hindering charges hurts somewhat, but not as badly as one might expect.

There are lots of different reasons - and I've confirmed long ago that the theoretical damage potential of THF is far greater.
I've just not seen it produce that actual result in actual play.
And right now we're trying to ask you why, or give reasons why this might happen. Unsubstantiated claims counter to both experience and theoretical models tend to be questioned.

Zen Master
2009-04-25, 03:56 PM
Huh? This makes no sense. You seem to be saying "it's not A, it's A". Can you restate this so it makes some sort of sense?


Heheh ... sorry, did I really say that. I must be sleepier than I thought.

Around what's fun. Not works, but fun. Sorry :)


Unsubstantiated claims counter to both experience and theoretical models tend to be questioned.

I honestly don't care. I'm saying from my personal experience of playing RPG's for 20 years, TWF tends to perform better overall and over time than THF. You want to claim I'm mistaken or you just don't believe me - fine. Go right ahead.

monty
2009-04-25, 04:01 PM
Heheh ... sorry, did I really say that. I must be sleepier than I thought.

Around what's fun. Not works, but fun. Sorry :)

You still seem to be implying that the two are mutually exclusive.

Faulty
2009-04-25, 04:02 PM
Has anyone ever seen houserules that fix TWF? Because I like TWF more than THF.

monty
2009-04-25, 04:05 PM
Has anyone ever seen houserules that fix TWF? Because I like TWF more than THF.

I usually make it so all the feats are rolled into one (that is, you get off-hand iteratives as normal), you can hit with both weapons as a standard action, and you get Dex to hit while TWFing.

MeklorIlavator
2009-04-25, 04:07 PM
I honestly don't care. I'm saying from my personal experience of playing RPG's for 20 years, TWF tends to perform better overall and over time than THF. You want to claim I'm mistaken or you just don't believe me - fine. Go right ahead.

In addition to what Monty said, don't get all in a Huff because we don't all automatically believe you. All we're asking is for some examples/proof, and to consider some possibilities of why you've seen that. As I said, just giving us some example builds would be helpful.

Also, 3.5 hasn't been out for 20 years, so that hardly matters.

Faulty
2009-04-25, 04:13 PM
I usually make it so all the feats are rolled into one (that is, you get off-hand iteratives as normal), you can hit with both weapons as a standard action, and you get Dex to hit while TWFing.

That sounds good. If I ever get to run a game, which I hope to, I plan on making finesseable wepaons useable with Dex by default, so that anyone can choose which to us. The Weapon Finesse feat will just let you add Dex to damage rather than Str with finesseable weapons.

monty
2009-04-25, 04:16 PM
That sounds good. If I ever get to run a game, which I hope to, I plan on making finesseable wepaons useable with Dex by default, so that anyone can choose which to us. The Weapon Finesse feat will just let you add Dex to damage rather than Str with finesseable weapons.

What will you do instead of Shadow Blade, then (or do you not use ToB), since it would then be obsolete?

Eldariel
2009-04-25, 04:32 PM
What will you do instead of Shadow Blade, then (or do you not use ToB), since it would then be obsolete?

My experience is that it's fine to just remove Shadow Blade as it is and use the new Weapon Finesse in its stead as a prerequisite. It loses the "Shadow Hand Weapon"-description, but personally I've always found that too limiting anyways.

Zhalath
2009-04-25, 05:47 PM
THF tends to deal more damage, but you get two chances to attack with TWF. If you suddenly roll bad, at least you have another attack.

Chronos
2009-04-25, 05:59 PM
Also, 3.5 hasn't been out for 20 years, so that hardly matters.Actually, that could explain a lot. In 2nd edition, a dual-wielding ranger could do considerably more damage than anyone could with a single weapon. He could use two full-sized weapons like longswords with no penalty at all, and made fully double the normal amount of attacks, with no extra investment. Plus, in 2nd edition, your number of attacks wasn't reduced by moving, so a ranger could move and still get all of his attacks in. If Acromos is remembering his 2nd edition days, then the reason he remembers two-weapon fighting being more effective is that it was. But that changed in 3rd edition.

Faulty
2009-04-25, 07:55 PM
What will you do instead of Shadow Blade, then (or do you not use ToB), since it would then be obsolete?

Haha, I knew someone would ask that. I haven't decided yet. :smallwink:

Zen Master
2009-04-26, 02:34 AM
You still seem to be implying that the two are mutually exclusive.

No. But I do dispute that it's fun because it works. I derive no pleasure from large numbers.

Zen Master
2009-04-26, 02:36 AM
In addition to what Monty said, don't get all in a Huff because we don't all automatically believe you. All we're asking is for some examples/proof, and to consider some possibilities of why you've seen that. As I said, just giving us some example builds would be helpful.

I've given examples. I'm not going to give builds. And I'm in no huff - I can honestly say that I don't give enough of a damn to be in any sort of emotional state.

Zen Master
2009-04-26, 02:37 AM
If Acromos is remembering his 2nd edition days, then the reason he remembers two-weapon fighting being more effective is that it was.

Look - I'm not senile. I can tell the versions apart.

Aquillion
2009-04-26, 02:52 AM
How can they have greater mobility if once they move they no longer get Full Attacks, thereby limiting them to one standard attack?I suspect the problem is that in 3.X, Acromos has read a lot of optimized TWF builds, but hasn't really thought about making them from an optimization standpoint. After all, I get the sense that he doesn't like optimization much. (And that's fine, but this is a discussion about optimization.)

Most TWF builds have a serious mobility option in there. They have to, after all, because TWF is near-useless without something that improves your poor basic mobility. This is different from THF, where optimizing to increase your mobility is a bit more optional.

To someone who has read lots of 'optimized' TWF builds and THF builds, you could easily get the sense that TWF builds are more 'mobile'. In actuality, of course, what you're seeing is a failing of TWF -- in an optimization-heavy world, TWF builds need one of a small handful of mobility options in order to have even basic competence, while THF has it innately (although it can certainly still benefit from mobility-boosting options itself -- and a wider range of them than TWF, because your standard attack doesn't suck. It's just that not every THF build needs to use them, while every TWF build must have a solution for the mobility problem in there somewhere.)

Which comes back to the same basic point: It's not that TWF is useless, but it's much, much harder to optimize, because it has many more limitations and requirements innately. To really do anything with TWF, you need a source of decent bonus damage on every hit and a way to make a full attack on a charge or in addition to movement... plus you need a bunch of feats for TWF itself. All of those seriously cramp your options.

Talic
2009-04-26, 03:37 AM
If we want to go on simple fun rules.

In order for each build to do AS INTENDED, each needs the following:

2 Hander build:
Method to make accuracy at least reasonable
Method to hit hard on at least 1 attack.
Standard action to attack, or single attack as part of a charge.

2 weapon build:
Method to make accuracy at least reasonable
Method to Penetrate DR of various creatures or add extra damage to attacks
Full-Attack Action / Multiple Attack method

Seem Pretty Even, Right? Let's look closer:

Accuracy:
2 hander build, level 6. 18 str, 14 dex, Full BAB. Attack Bonus: +10. (Power Attack, Cleave, Leap Attack)
2 weapn build, level 6. 14 str, 18 dex, Full BAB. Attack Bonus: +10 (Weapon Finesse, Two Weapon Fighting, Improved Two Weapon Fighting)

However, the numbers aren't accurate above. If the Two Weapon fighter is doing what he does, he takes an additional -2. This makes, in most cases, the 2 hander 10% more accurate. Let's translate that through power attack. -2 to hit is +4 to damage, which turns to +8 via leap attack.

Method to hit Hard versus damage boosts?

Again, strength is the friend here. Power attack and Leap attack turn minor penalties into healthy bonuses.
Two Weapon Build? Class Features that lower BAB (decreasing accuracy further), because they're not commonly available on full BAB classes. Enhancement effects that boost damage (whereas two weapon fighter can go for miss-chance negation/mobility)

Number of attacks needed?

Well, the game is built around a "if you move, 1 attack only" mentality. Two handed styles focus on that one attack. Both builds see about the same benefit from pounce (ability to apply charge bonuses to damage on multiple attacks versus maintaining mobility and ability to effectively attack). This is being compared versus standing there and duking it out full attack style.

Two weapon fighting needs the full attack (or dual strike feat, or maneuvers that grant multiple attacks, etc). So either you restrict class options even further to make it viable, to the point of pigeonholing it. It's no longer a "style"... It's a "build".

Bottom Line:
The 2 hander build? Any full BAB class qualifies for effectiveness here. Some get more, some get less. But all can effectively use the style.

The two weapon build? Too many things have to be just so. The flexibility isn't there, and that's not even judging if, after those additions, it DOES catch up/pass 2 handers.

EDIT:
Note: The above build, assuming Greatsword for one, and Longsword/Shortsword for the other, will output the following damages on a full attack:
2 Hander: +10/+5 to hit, 2d6+6 (13 average per hit)
2 Weapn: +8/+8/+3/+3, 1d8+2 / 1d6+1 (6.5/4.5 per hit)

To lower accuracy to even levels, assume power attack for 2 from 2 hander.

2 Hander: +8/+3 to hit, 2d6+10 (17 average per hit)
2 Weapn: +8/+8/+3/+3, 1d8+2 / 1d6+1 (6.5/4.5 per hit)

Group each +8 together on the 2 weapon build, and you have total of 17 damage versus 11.

Now on a charge:

2 hander: +12 to hit, 2d6+6 (13 damage average)
2 weapn: +12 to hit, 1d8+2 (6.5 damage average)

With movement, the build falls a bit farther behind. However, let's look at low AC targets. Against those, the 2 hander pulls even farther ahead, as even a power attack of 2 adds 8 damage, which is more than the 2 weapon guy even gets total. This increases the chances of dropping a foe, which grants a cleave.

Note2: Neither of these builds are even CLOSE to optimized. But they take the minimum requirements for their build, similar stats, and go from there. 3 feats, full BAB class, a 14 and an 18 for relevant stats, and good weapons for their choices.

Adding too many more feats for the two weapon fighter brings shock trooper into the mix, which is when 2 handed really pulls ahead. For example, the above build, with shock trooper, would be at max accuracy on a full attack (+2 over the 2 hander) at 2d6+18, or 25 average damage. Charge would be 2d6+30, or 37. I went off the minimum amount of feats to get an iterative attack with the TWF character.

Dr_Horrible
2009-04-26, 08:27 AM
But Talic! Being good has nothing to do with being fun! You can have fun even if you miss every single attack and do nothing but piss off your friends at the table!

Talic
2009-04-26, 11:00 AM
I do take the liberty that being marginally effective is a goal of the character (that a sense of accomplishment over a success is a valid way to have fun). We're trying to determine if they're equal (look at thread title).

Both have equal arguments for fun.

But, Given the same stat array, geared for the optimal stat placement for the build, the same number of feats, and the weapons they choose, I make a comparison. Given equal resources, I determine if they're even statistically.

They're not. A 2 hander is superior to a 2 weapon in both damage and accuracy, at a casual play level.

The two weapon can counter with numbers of hits, but that eats into mobility and accuracy, typically.

Mobility that the other build already has.

Lycanthromancer
2009-04-26, 11:29 AM
The best way to do TWF is through natural attacks, without investing a ton of feats.

Psychic warriors, totemists, druids, and wildshape rangers/MoMFs (and certain gish monk builds) are absolutely awesome at it. A fighter-type with a psychoactive skin of proteus would be decent at it, too.

Though mundane non-ToB martial characters can't generally stack on powers, soulmelds and/or spells that grant bonus damage (which skyrockets the damage done).

Depending on build, they can match or even exceed the damage output done by two-handed chargers. They take a lot more thought to pull off effectively, however, though such builds tend to be more versatile.

monty
2009-04-26, 12:38 PM
I've given examples. I'm not going to give builds. And I'm in no huff - I can honestly say that I don't give enough of a damn to be in any sort of emotional state.

If you're not going to provide empirical evidence, then your claims are meaningless. I can say that I've seen CW samurai beat the crap out CoDzilla, and if I don't provide an explanation of how that happened in some way, you can't prove me wrong.

Talic
2009-04-26, 06:06 PM
So far, the current huighest damage non-infinite build I've built averages about 135 million at level 20, and is a ranged attack build.

Lycanthro, the problem with the concept of your "TWF can equal or exceed THF" concept is...

Well, it takes a character for TWF with Classes, items, all feats, weapon selection, and abilities, all geared towards TWF synergy....

And compares it to mostly vanilla THF builds.

Note, THF Charge builds, when optimized to that level, can deal tens of thousands of damage per hit, with full attacks available.

Lycanthromancer
2009-04-26, 07:41 PM
A simple build that is good at multiweapon fighting is as follows:

Psychic warrior 10
Powers: 1. bite of the wolf, claws of the beast, hammer
4. metamorphosis (researched),
Feats: Linked Power, Psicrystal Affinity

You can have a fully-augmented claws of the beast up for 1 hour per level, and manifest bite of the wolf Linked to metamorphosis right before combat (or during the first round) to turn into a 10-headed hydra. On any round you attack, manifest hammer as a swift action. Share ALL of it with your psicrystal.

You (and your psicrystal) now have 10 bite attacks that deal 5d8+5 (each) that you can use as a standard action, and an additional 2 claw attacks that deal 4d8+2 (each) on a full-round action, not including feats or gear.

Assuming they all hit, that's a grand total of 116d8+108 points of damage.

Pretty respectable, really. And that's without any special optimization. Optimized (see: Attack Of Opportunity build; also, rhino hide armor/barding on a charge; also, psionic lion's charge for an extra 10-12 attacks per round...each), the damage can go through the roof.

Dr_Horrible
2009-04-26, 08:21 PM
stuff

Yeah, I think you are confused by what TWFing means. No one is arguing that the King of Smack isn't good. Or for that matter that Druids aren't super sweet. Or that Polymorphed Rogues in flank aren't awesome, or that insectile Thri-Keen Soul Devourers aren't badass. We are just saying that on the whole, TWFing, that thing you take the feat TWFing for is worse then THFing.

PS: No one cares whether the 1d2 Crusader does more or less damage then the Hulking Hurler either, just in case anyone is about to bring those up.

Lycanthromancer
2009-04-26, 08:23 PM
Yeah, I think you are confused by what TWFing means. No one is arguing that the King of Smack isn't good. Or for that matter that Druids aren't super sweet. Or that Rogues in flank aren't awesome, or that insectile Thri-Keen Soul Devourers aren't badass. We are just saying that on the whole, TWFing, that thing you take the feat TWFing for is worse then THFing.

PS: No one cares whether the 1d2 Crusader does more or less damage then the Hulking Hurler either, just in case anyone is about to bring those up.Quoth the Lycanthromancer:


The best way to do TWF is through natural attacks, without investing a ton of feats.

Psychic warriors, totemists, druids, and wildshape rangers/MoMFs (and certain gish monk builds) are absolutely awesome at it. A fighter-type with a psychoactive skin of proteus would be decent at it, too.

Dr_Horrible
2009-04-26, 08:39 PM
Quoth the Lycanthromancer:

Quoth me: Natural attacks aren't TWFing. This is not the rocket science.

Lycanthromancer
2009-04-26, 08:47 PM
And yet they do exactly the same thing, but one has a lot less headache attached.

Dr_Horrible
2009-04-26, 09:04 PM
And yet they do exactly the same thing, but one has a lot less headache attached.

Yes, it does damage just like all other kinds of attacks. The difference here being that we are comparing the amount of damage done by them and you have basically said:

X does more damage then Y, and Z does about as much damage as X, therefore Y is pretty good as long as you do Z not Y.

It makes no sense at all. You are making with the gibberish.

Lycanthromancer
2009-04-26, 09:14 PM
...Okay?

I didn't say that at all (whatever it was; it didn't make any sense).

What I said was that using natural weapons attacks is extremely mechanically similar to TWF, to the point that it can easily substitute for it, and is considerably less build-intensive to make it extremely potent; thus, sub natural weapon fighting with classes that do it well if you want to do TWF (because they're so similar mechanically).

Bluebeard
2009-04-26, 09:30 PM
It makes no sense at all. You are making with the gibberish.
Two weapons are two weapons.
Natural attacks give characters two weapons.
Natural attacks don't suck all that hard.
Makes sense to me.

MeklorIlavator
2009-04-26, 10:18 PM
Two weapons are two weapons.
Natural attacks give characters two weapons.
Natural attacks don't suck all that hard.
Makes sense to me.

Except that natural attacks are not two weapon fighting. Opps.

Dr_Horrible
2009-04-26, 10:21 PM
...Okay?

I didn't say that at all (whatever it was; it didn't make any sense).

What I said was that using natural weapons attacks is extremely mechanically similar to TWF, to the point that it can easily substitute for it, and is considerably less build-intensive to make it extremely potent; thus, sub natural weapon fighting with classes that do it well if you want to do TWF (because they're so similar mechanically).

No. They aren't. TWFing and Natural attacks are incredibly different mechanically. More different then THFing and TWFing. So you might as well tell someone to use THFing since it's so similar to TWFing.

Aquillion
2009-04-26, 10:22 PM
Anyway, that aside...

Without turning to Polymorph cheese (which has its own limitations), using natural attacks is still a lot more restrictive than THF, in terms of the kinds of builds that can use it. You're generally committing yourself to a specific race or a specific class or both. The reason THF is so popular isn't just because it's comparatively powerful, but because it can be easily added to just about anything capable of wielding a two-handed weapon with just a few feats.

In general, using large numbers of natural attacks also tends to carry more flavor/fluff limitations than THF. It's much easier to say "All right, my barbarian has this huge-ass two-handed sword" than it is to say "All right, my barbarian is a Thri-Kreen" or "My rogue spends all his time polymorphed into a Hydra" or whatever -- THF fits more easily into most character concepts.

Bluebeard
2009-04-27, 12:52 AM
Except that natural attacks are not two weapon fighting. Opps.
But in a thread that has already dedicated quite a bit of time looking for fixes, posing Natural Attacks as a model seems fitting.
Bringing up the classes which do fair mimicry of TWF without issues seems entirely reasonable.

Removing feat and stat requirements from TWF completely as well as attack penalties and Power Attack penalties (treat any weapon in two hands as 2:1 payoff, any weapon in one hand as a 1:1 payoff) puts the two options on a much more balanced field.
Removing mobility restrictions is simple.
The tradeoff becomes cheaper weapon enhancements (via TWF) v. extra itinerative attacks (via THF).

Lycanthromancer
2009-04-27, 10:29 AM
Oops. Double-post.

Lycanthromancer
2009-04-27, 10:30 AM
If you wanted to houserule the feats, just say you can TWF two light weapons with a cumulative -2 penalty for a single extra attack, and that the TWF feat (ie, all of them rolled into one, as has been discussed) reduces the -10/-6 penalty on wielding 1-handed weapons (as well as allows extra iteratives on light weapons).

And another feat that grants an extra +1d6 points of damage to all attacks made in the round, which increases by 1d6 when you gain an extra 5 points of BAB.

Sounds fair, yes?

Zen Master
2009-04-28, 01:58 AM
If you're not going to provide empirical evidence, then your claims are meaningless. I can say that I've seen CW samurai beat the crap out CoDzilla, and if I don't provide an explanation of how that happened in some way, you can't prove me wrong.

There are numerous examples throughoput the thread. You can go find them. I'm not going to post build here - for the simple reason that I simply don't care enough to invest the time. You can either believe me or not, that's entirely up to you, and I don't give a damn either way.

There is no way on earth for me to give you actual proof of my past observations short of you being at the table, or me having like a video on youtube. So drop it.

Talic
2009-04-28, 02:39 AM
Natural attacks differ from 2 weapon fighting in several important ways.

Natural attacks use a natural attack progression, rather than Base Attack Progression.

What's this mean? Well, for starters, Natural attack characters will never suffer greater than a -5 penalty to attacks after the first. Base attack progression does.

What else? Natural attackers will never get an iterative attack.

Take a wolf. Advance it to have +20 Base attack. What's it get on a full attack? One bite. That's it.

Now take a lion? Whether the base attack is +7 or +20, it's... Claw/Claw/Bite. Even with haste, no matter what else. Natural weapons can't make more than 1 attack per round.

So, unless you're a 10 headed hydra? You're gonna run out of attacks quickly.


EDIT: As a long time DM, I can tell you. I HAVE seen it at my tables. An optimized charger taking out giants, dragons, golems, most things... 1st round of combat, on a Leap attack charge.

Two weapon fighter? Only made a significant impact when combined with 1 ability. Shadowpounce.

If Abilities such as shadowpounce, polymorph, and the like can make TWF effective, that may speak more to the strength of the individual ability than two weapon fighting. Polymorph has long been thought to be the single most broken spell in core.

Shadowpounce was never meant to be used with multiple teleport actions in a round. It's a rules abuse.

Zen Master
2009-04-28, 03:56 AM
As a long time DM, I can tell you. I HAVE seen it at my tables. An optimized charger taking out giants, dragons, golems, most things... 1st round of combat, on a Leap attack charge.

It's very much worth noting that nothing like shock trooper/leap attack has ever been featured at any gaming table I've been at. So when I say TWF has proven better in actual use than THF, it's the basic high str, full power attack with little else to boost it vs. usually a high dex build with sneak attacks and two weapons.

And I have, on rare occasions, seem the former pull off massive crits with perfect timing. But other than that, generally the latter outperforms for formed in most fights.

And like I said, I can't necessarily tell you why. Maybe because tactics and terrain often deny the 2-hander wielder the use of charge or full attack.

Sstoopidtallkid
2009-04-28, 09:43 AM
It's very much worth noting that nothing like shock trooper/leap attack has ever been featured at any gaming table I've been at. So when I say TWF has proven better in actual use than THF, it's the basic high str, full power attack with little else to boost it vs. usually a high dex build with sneak attacks and two weapons.

And I have, on rare occasions, seem the former pull off massive crits with perfect timing. But other than that, generally the latter outperforms for formed in most fights.

And like I said, I can't necessarily tell you why. Maybe because tactics and terrain often deny the 2-hander wielder the use of charge or full attack.And I delt 100 damage last saturday at ECL 9, with a delibrately unoptimized build, no Leap Attack, no Shock Trooper, SA that didn't activate, just PA for full+Rhino's Rush.

I've seen THF outperform TWF. Unless you provide more data, I'm going to assume my observational evidence+the numbers is true over your observational evidence.

Renegade Paladin
2009-04-28, 10:36 AM
Okay, here we go. I'm going to provide a solid, though not optimized, THF build that I've played from level 1 through 17. Meet Rraskinar Remenimi, (http://www.libriumarcana.com/RPG/public_profiler/view.php?id=12) Rashemi berserker.

That character sheet hasn't been updated in a couple of levels; he's gotten more badass since. But level 15 will do just fine. Rraskinar is pretty much a bog-standard barbarian as far as fighting goes; his prestige class gives him nifty stuff that's unrelated while still advancing his brute strength, but not giving any special buffs to his weapon damage, so he's about on par with a straight barbarian in typical combat.

He does not have Leap Attack, nor Shock Trooper. In fact, the only relevant feat he's got is Power Attack. Really, he's weak for his build; if I'd focused on whacking things rather than going into runescarred berserker and picking up lodge and rage feats, he'd hit a lot harder.

Now for the number crunching.

When raging (something he's probably doing when he's fighting anything of consequence, since thanks to the Ice Troll Berserker feat his overall AC actually goes up when he rages, making the only consideration one of touch attacks and resource use) his base greataxe damage is 1d12+16+1d8 (average 27), the extra d8 being from a weapon property. This damage is not particularly impressive, but his attack bonus is, and he has Power Attack. If he drops his whole BAB into PA, he nets 1d12+46+1d8 (average 57), and still hits at +12. Now, I almost never choose to do this, since unless fighting giants or oozes +12 is insufficient to reliably hit opponents at that level, but I can usually get away with trading off 8 or even 10 points of BAB (especially when using the many cleric buffs allowed by runescarred berserker, pushing both attack and damage much higher), end result still being an average 50 or so damage per hit.

Let's look at a TWF build with similar feat investment; that is to say, he gets one relevant feat to spend, obviously TWF. This is going to be quick and dirty, since I don't have such a build lying around at the same level, but it should serve the purpose.

For the sake of damage, I'm going to go with a 15th level rogue using the same stats. (For the record, yes, Rraskinar's stats are insane. The DM rolled a single set of stats on 5d6 drop lowest two at the beginning of the campaign, and everyone used the same ones. Major campaign villains also have that stat block, rearranged as appropriate to class.) If anybody's got a better idea, feel free to let me in on it.

So, 15th level rogue with TWF, 21 DEX, and 18 STR (as appropriate to class). I'll be nice and give him Weapon Finesse as well, since that's not technically directly related to two-weapon fighting. For equipment parity sake, he has a pair (!) of +4 deadly precision short swords (deadly precision grants +1d6 sneak attack, and makes a nice rogue-specific counter to the berserker property, which grants +1d8 damage while raging). A 15th level rogue has a BAB of +11.

So, two short swords, one at +18/+13/+8 and the other at +18 while two-weapon fighting. Attack bonuses on the primary go up by 2 when not using the second weapon, of course. We'll be extra nice and assume that the rogue has access to greater invisibility through some means or another, which is only fair since Rraskinar can pile on divine power and righteous might from his PrC; this gives him an extra +2 to attack while operating, as well as constant sneak attacks.

So while invisible (note that I did not include magical buffs, only rage, in the barbarian example above) our rogue has four attacks, at +20/+20/+15/+10, with damage of 1d6+8+9d6SA (average 43) on the three attacks from the primary weapon and 1d6+6+9d6SA (average 41) on the attack from the secondary. This is presuming that he's attacking a valid target for sneak attack; there are many targets that will cause his damage output to tank.

For comparison, if Rraskinar drops his attacks to an equivalent level (so that he has three at +20/+15/+10) his damage is 1d12+30+1d8 (average 41), or roughly equivalent. Except that he doesn't care what the target's anatomy is when he's doing this. Our rogue buddy gets one more attack, but he has to go toe-to-toe with the target to take it, which isn't the brightest of ideas for a rogue. If we give Rraskinar a buff to make things even with greater invisibility (I count rage and sneak attack as counterbalancing rather than rage being an extra buff, since they're the classes' respective combat mainstay features), things aren't so in balance at the output end. Let's go with divine power, which he can cast on himself from a runescar thanks to his PrC. This only gives him +4 STR, since it doesn't stack with his gauntlets and he already has full BAB, but that boosts his attack by 2 and his damage by 3. Up the PA to again bring his attack bonus in line with the rogue's, and he's throwing around 1d12+37+1d8 (average 48), again without caring about the target's anatomy.

So assuming all attacks hit, the rogue is dishing 170 average damage, while Rraskinar using PA adjustments to match the attack bonus is giving 144. Advantage rogue by a relatively small amount, except for several factors. First, we don't know how the rogue's getting greater invisibility; assassin levels would do the trick, but that's not going to be many player characters in most campaigns. Most likely he's dependent upon items or a friendly arcanist, either of which a two-handed power attacker is likely to have as well. Second, there are large swathes of targets that are immune to sneak attack, in which case the rogue's average damage decreases to 11.5 per hit, 9.5 for the off weapon, average damage on a full attack 44. Third, SA dice are more random than the constant bonus of high STR + Power Attack, which could serve the rogue either well or ill, depending upon the dice. Fourth, full attacks aren't always the norm. On a single attack, Rraskinar is likely to charge, while the rogue will probably want to sneak up on his enemy; Power Attacking the charge bonus away gives Rraskinar an average of 52 damage on a single attack charge. Even without that advantage, his single attack still outpowers the rogue's. And fifth, we can't forget that to get these numbers, the rogue had to buy two +5 weapons to Rraskinar's single +6 (and one of the weapon properties in the +6 doesn't help his damage, which is why I didn't make the rogue's weapons equivalent), a difference of 28,000 gp. On a more even equipment footing, the per-attack damage would have been lower, possibly bringing the full attack damage in line even with the extra attacks, depending upon the difference made. Oh, and for a bonus, Rraskinar is going to break the 50 damage on a single attack threshold more often, forcing saves vs. massive damage when he does so, causing the very real chance that his opponent will simply drop dead. :smallbiggrin:

And that's without optimizing either one for their attack methods. Sure, I could give the rogue Improved TWF and even Greater TWF (he would have just qualified at this level), but then I start replacing feats on the THF build with relevant ones like Leap Attack, Shock Trooper, Combat Brute, the Complete Champion barbarian substitution (the character in question is, after all, a barbarian), etc. That's the main problem with comparing the two builds; while the TWFer is spending feats just to remain competent, the THFer is competent just from having PA, and gets to start adding on other goodies while the TWFer is just trying to keep up. Parity is out of reach if both players build to their attack methods, because of the massive feat investment involved in one but not the other.

Oh, one more thing: 15th level is about the best time to compare the two for the rogue, since on the level before he has one less attack, and on the level after the barbarian has one more. :smalltongue:

Philistine
2009-04-28, 10:58 AM
There are numerous examples throughoput the thread. You can go find them. I'm not going to post build here - for the simple reason that I simply don't care enough to invest the time. You can either believe me or not, that's entirely up to you, and I don't give a damn either way.

There is no way on earth for me to give you actual proof of my past observations short of you being at the table, or me having like a video on youtube. So drop it.

Bolded because it's just so darn funny. You do realize that the amount of time you've already invested in repeatedly denying that you will, or should, post a sample build in this thread greatly exceeds what would have been required to just post it in the first place, right? At the very least, you could answer a few simple questions - for example, "At what level range did this occur?" and "What base class was used for these builds?" Unfortunately, playing the "I just don't care that much" card at this point only serves to strengthen the suspicion that the reason you won't answer the questions is that you can't - like the guy who claims to have a hot girlfriend, "but she lives in another town, you wouldn't know her." It could be true, but usually it's a sign that the speaker is making that (stuff) up. I would also submit that if you really didn't care whether people believed you or not, you'd have stopped responding to this thread long ago.

Because there are very good reasons for disbelief. What you've actually said to this point can be summed up as follows: 1) TWF builds outdamage THF builds; 2) the TWF builds pump DEX; 3) TWF builds are more mobile than THF; and 4) even the very mild levels of optimization represented by Leap Attack and Shock Trooper are not allowed (at least for the THF fighter). The problem is that these points are mutually exclusive. DEX doesn't contribute to damage (it also doesn't contribute to melee accuracy without a feat) - resources spent boosting DEX (whether that's items, or stat points from the initial buy) therefore do not contribute to a build's damage output, whereas resources spent boosting STR directly improve both damage and accuracy (without any feats required). And mobility hinders TWF fighters more than anyone else - their attacks are more numerous but tend to be individually weaker, meaning that movement which denies them the opportunity to Full Attack hurts them much more than it does the THF fighter with his much higher per-hit damage.

Now, there are ways to get around the limitations of TWF. For example, Sneak Attack adds damage per hit and is Core, and/or you grab the ToB feat which grants DEX to damage with certain weapons. You can dip Barbarian for Pounce via an alternate class feature, or take the Travel Devotion feat to get a little mobility back. But apart from SA (which can easily be frustrated by enemy positioning and movement - for those foes who aren't outright immune to it), all of the ways to circumvent the limitations of TWF require going farther outside of Core, and achieving a higher level of optimization, than the stuff you've already disallowed as "too cheesy" for the THF build.

Finally, a note about "the evidence of experience." Eyewitness testimony is the least reliable form of evidence commonly presented in court. Even when a eyewitness is honest, their own perceptions and preconceptions always color their recollections, often to the point that they fail to match up with reality in any particular. A well-known issue is that taking multiple eyewitness accounts of an incident will often result in a "description" of a suspect that has him simultaneously short, average height, and tall; skinny, athletic, and heavyset; dark-haired and bald; bearded and clean-shaven; bare-chested and clothed in various ways, and so forth. Another is that by asking the right questions, or asking questions in a certain way, a skilled interrogator can "lead" the witness to recall things that provably never happened. In this case, there's the added possibility that what you've seen (or think you've seen) is a statistical outlier - a fluke, caused by lucky dice or something of the sort. So there are very good reasons why some people don't put a lot of stock in first-person accounts.

Zen Master
2009-04-29, 02:24 AM
And I delt 100 damage last saturday at ECL 9, with a delibrately unoptimized build, no Leap Attack, no Shock Trooper, SA that didn't activate, just PA for full+Rhino's Rush.

I've seen THF outperform TWF. Unless you provide more data, I'm going to assume my observational evidence+the numbers is true over your observational evidence.

Both observations can be true - you realise that, right? I do in no way deny that THF can do a lot of damage. Not at all. What I'm saying is that in my experience, TWF tends to give a more reliable, round by round high damage.

THF does catch up with massive crits, easily doing 100 or more points in a single attack. The thing is that if you make a single hit in a round, for more than 100 damage, against a 30 hp henchman, you've really done 30 points of damage.

In the same round, the TWF'er can propably hit 2, 3 or 4 times for something resembling 30 points of damage - effectively far outdoing the THF'er. Killing, possibly, 3-4 enemies instead of one. Though that is providing the THF'er doesn't have cleave, but I'm sure you see my point.

So it also has to do with enemies. If you have lots of very tough boss fights, the far higher damage potential of THF will prove better - but if you have lots of mobs of weaker enemies, many attacks will win out.

Zen Master
2009-04-29, 02:28 AM
Bolded because it's just so darn funny. You do realize that the amount of time you've already invested in repeatedly denying that you will, or should, post a sample build in this thread greatly exceeds what would have been required to just post it in the first place, right? At the very least, you could answer a few simple questions - for example, "At what level range did this occur?" and "What base class was used for these builds?".... bla bla bla bla bla bla ..... "lead" the witness to recall things that provably never happened. In this case, there's the added possibility that what you've seen (or think you've seen) is a statistical outlier - a fluke, caused by lucky dice or something of the sort. So there are very good reasons why some people don't put a lot of stock in first-person accounts.

I didn't read most of that. There really wasn't any need or reason to.

I'm going to try and be plain here. I'm not trying to prove anything at all. I quite, quite honestly don't give a damn whether you belive me, or think I'm lying through my teeth.

I'm making conversation here - nothing more. If you cannot converse without requesting proof at regular intervals, then you have a serious social problem.

Go back through the thread. I've answered lots of questions, but the main point you're clearly not getting is this: It all depends how you play.

And trust me on this: I'm easily convinced that in games you play, THF wins out every time, hands down.

Zen Master
2009-04-29, 02:36 AM
Okay, here we go. I'm going to provide a solid, though not optimized, THF build that I've played from level 1 through 17. Meet Rraskinar Remenimi, (http://www.libriumarcana.com/RPG/public_profiler/view.php?id=12) Rashemi berserker.

.... snip ....

Oh, one more thing: 15th level is about the best time to compare the two for the rogue, since on the level before he has one less attack, and on the level after the barbarian has one more. :smalltongue:

Far too long, but a good, solid post. Now, I'm repeating myself here, so please try to pay attention.

I have said repeatedly: Yes, THF has a greater theoretical damage potential than TWF. When I say theoretical, I do not mean using all the (very many) sources I consider cheesy - I mean in the PHB.

So again: I do not deny that you can get more damage out of a high str, a bit old twohander and PA.

However, once the actual dice are rolling, the somewhat rare but extremely powerful crits this produces has made little real impact. Oh sure, on the rare dragon or so it's unbeatable, but maybe part of the confusion arises from the fact that .... lets see here, last time we fought a dragon would have been in 1999. Or 1998.

By the way - I think your character sounds awesome :)

grautry
2009-04-29, 03:17 AM
I didn't read most of that. There really wasn't any need or reason to.

Shame, because he explained beautifully why personal testimony is worth so little when you're trying to establish truth.


I'm making conversation here - nothing more. If you cannot converse without requesting proof at regular intervals, then you have a serious social problem.

Bravo, insulting someone is a perfect way to reinforce your position and show how much you "don't care". Hint: people who actually don't care don't stoop down to the level of insults.

This is not a chit-chat about a celebrity's boobs here, it's a debate of two opposing viewpoints.

Debate is this funny thing, you see. Unless you're willing to provide some proof for your statements then the side that did provide proof wins by default.


However, once the actual dice are rolling, the somewhat rare but extremely powerful crits this produces has made little real impact. Oh sure, on the rare dragon or so it's unbeatable, but maybe part of the confusion arises from the fact that .... lets see here, last time we fought a dragon would have been in 1999. Or 1998.

So what, dice now ignore laws of physics and statistics and run on magic?

If a build is more optimized 'theoretically' then it will be more optimized in actual play, barring continuous bad luck - or bad playing - on the part of THF player.

Bluebeard
2009-04-29, 03:26 AM
@Acromos
I like how you make a single two-handed power attack sound less reliable than full attacking with sneak attack bonuses (which I'm going to assume is what you're talking about). I also like how you focus on one word in one post to create this effect, rather than the actual arguments which have been stated and restated through the thread.

If we're only talking about our own personal gameplay experiences, I only tend to see full round melee sneak attacks for about one round per fight. Often less. And that's discounting the frequent immunities.
The Power Attack guy's full round attack (not requiring sneak attack) happens much more often.

Most of our two-weapon fighters become throwers as soon as their base weapon damage stops mattering. It's the only way they can meaningfully contribute to damage.

The Gilded Duke
2009-04-29, 03:30 AM
My at table experience: Two Weapon Fighters with multiple source books being soundly beat down by PHB only monks. THF taking out over CR monsters in a single round. Psions just winning.

Also, minions are what AOEs are for.

Philistine
2009-04-29, 09:07 AM
Still hoping to see the contradiction between "I don't feel like taking the time to post a build, because I don't care" and "I'm actually spending much more time than that would take (IF I could actually do it), checking the thread every day and responding to every post in it" explained.


Both observations can be true - you realise that, right? I do in no way deny that THF can do a lot of damage. Not at all. What I'm saying is that in my experience, TWF tends to give a more reliable, round by round high damage.

THF does catch up with massive crits, easily doing 100 or more points in a single attack. The thing is that if you make a single hit in a round, for more than 100 damage, against a 30 hp henchman, you've really done 30 points of damage.
The point is that it's not the crits that cause THF to outperform TWF: it's the large, static bonuses from high STR and PA, combined with better AB and superior mobility.


In the same round, the TWF'er can propably hit 2, 3 or 4 times for something resembling 30 points of damage - effectively far outdoing the THF'er. Killing, possibly, 3-4 enemies instead of one. Though that is providing the THF'er doesn't have cleave, but I'm sure you see my point.

So it also has to do with enemies. If you have lots of very tough boss fights, the far higher damage potential of THF will prove better - but if you have lots of mobs of weaker enemies, many attacks will win out.
There are a couple of problems with that idea. First, hit points scale by 1dx + CON per one level, while SA scales by 1d6 per two levels. So damage output from SA rapidly falls behind monster HP totals - and that's without even accounting for the larger HD of monsters (most commonly a d8), or for CON bonuses. That in turn means that the only way the TWF fighter is killing 3-4 enemies per attack is if those enemies are half his level or lower. In fact, on closer examination: to reliably deal 30 points of damage per attack using SA, the TWF fighter needs to be level 17 or higher; but an opponent with 30 HP, assuming a d8 HD and no CON modifier, would be level 7 (or lower, if it has even a 12 in CON).

Your scenario further assumes that all of those weak enemies are bunched up around the TWF fighter so that he has the opportunity to make a full attack and doesn't have to move. And that he's getting SA on every single one of them, all the time, which is tough to pull off unless he's getting extensive help. So basically what you're saying is that the "human wave" is the limit of your DM's tactical acumen, and also that he cherry-picks enemies so that you never have to deal with undead, or constructs, or very large creatures, or creatures with concealment, or ranged attackers, or casters... or even melee fighters of more than half your own level. So this point that you're sure we see - is it that your DM just likes TWF better, and so tailors his entire campaign world specifically to suit the TWF character?

I also love that you assume the THF fighter will only ever hit once per round, despite almost certainly having a higher BAB, and not taking penalties for wielding two weapons, and only needing to boost one stat for both accuracy and damage. PA doesn't mean you have to dump your entire AB to get more damage - against a mob of extremely low-level enemies such as you posited, he's just as capable of using very little or none at all, in which case even his second attack could be going in at a higher AB than the TWF fighter's first one. And since he spent one feat on PA instead of four for Weapon Finesse and TWF, the THF fighter has a feat free to take Cleave. Maybe even Great Cleave - it's usually a sub-par choice, but if the DM is going to insist on swarming the party with extremely low level melee mooks on a frequent basis, it will vastly outperform TWF due to the higher damage output and AB of high-STR, full-BAB THF.


EDIT: It looks like you're misunderstanding why people are harping on the THF fighter's high per-damage attack. The issue here is not which gets more attacks, it's mobility - moving more than 5' limits either character to only one attack per round, barring funky stuff like Pounce (which is more readily available to the THF fighter, BTW). So in a mobile fight, the comparison is between a THF fighter hitting once for 50 damage and a TWF fighter hitting once for 30, if he can get SA at all. If they're both standing still, the THF fighter is as likely to actually hit with 2-3 attacks (assuming a full-BAB class) as the TWF fighter is to hit with 3-4.

tonberrian
2009-04-29, 10:41 AM
Okay, I'm willing to admit that under similar levels of optimization, THF outdamages TWF. However, even TWF does adequate amounts of damage, and it has been said that the problem with melee is not a lack of damage. So wouldn't it be more useful to measure the difference between TWF and THF using something other than damage?

Let's try debuffing. There are a number of different weapon enchantments that add a status effect to your attacks (mostly only criticals, though). Enervating, stunning, cursespewing, doom burst, mindcrusher, paralytic burst, prismatic burst, shattermantle, slow burst, and weakening all add something to attacks or critical hits. But wait, you say, TWF needs more cash to enchant two weapons. I say you're wrong. Very few of these stack with themselves, so it's unnecessary to put them on both weapons. Furthermore, the cost of enchantment increases geometrically with respect to bonus. It works out that two +7 equivalent weapons are just under one +10 equivalent, and considering both need an actual +1, you've got two sets of +6 worth of enchantments, rather than one set of +9. That's almost like having 3 more pluses of enchantment to go around.

There are also several class features and feats that help with this as well. Staggering Critical slows on critical hits with no save, the Illithid Slayer's Breach Power Resistance (which I think also works against SR with transparency), the Swashbuckler's Wounding Critical and Weakening Critical, and the Rogue's Crippling Strike all help as well.

Certainly, a lot of these effects only work on enemies subject to critical hits, but Constructs and Undead are the biggest sources of immunity, right? You're already using Greater Magic Weapon to increase your weapons enhancement bonus to +5, so I think that, at least as long the spell is active, the greater Truedeath and Demolition augment crystals should work.

One of the advantages of this type of build is that it synergizes much better with the wizard than a damage-based fighter, because you're destroying the opponent's saves (helping the wizard by letting him use lower level spells) rather than using your own method of downing an opponent (which means you compete with the wizard, and lose). To extend the popular Batman wizard analogy, the fighter would be like Lucius Fox - handling the day to day challenges while still providing useful abilities to help the wizard do his thing.

Now, I don't have a full build for either TWF or THF that compares based on debuffing the enemies, but at first glance it seems that TWF should be superior here. Even if it is, it remains to be seen if is enough to actually make TWF better than THF.

Doug Lampert
2009-04-29, 11:14 AM
Most commonly, in actual gameplay, I have seen TWFers do more damage, as those who I've seen play THFers who Power Attack rarely hit the person standing right next to them with any/many of their attacks. Maybe that's just because DMs I've played with put us against creatures with higher ACs, and who do make use of incorporeal creatures and displacement and such.The THF is +2 to attack to start with, high AC is LESS of a problem for him, he can power attack for ONE, do more damage than the TWF, and hit a higher AC.

Displacement and incorporeal and other miss chances cause both characters to lose an equal % of damage (and thus technically do hurt the TWF more since he started with more damage, but he also ends with more damage so that's ok), except that if this is at all common it's easier to make one weapon ghost touch than two.

Too much power attack making you miss is the claim that "stupid players will balance it", which works fine till you encounter a non-stupid player. Do the math, it's surprising how LITTLE power attack an optimumizer should use on a full attack even against relatively low AC. But that small amount of power attack puts the THF above the TWF in full attack rounds, and the THF kicks the crap out of the TWF in rounds with movement, haste, or opportunity attacks.

grautry
2009-04-30, 03:37 AM
Now, I don't have a full build for either TWF or THF that compares based on debuffing the enemies, but at first glance it seems that TWF should be superior here. Even if it is, it remains to be seen if is enough to actually make TWF better than THF.

Remember that the TWF will have more free feats then the THF. Those feats can be spent on say, Improved Sunder, Improved Trip, improving grapples, AoOs and so on and so forth.

Any comparison of debuffing capability between the TWF and THF has to take into account that THF will be innately more capable of controlling the battlefield and will have superior mobility.

I know that a Grapple or a Trip is not technically a debuff, but it might as well be since it limits the actions of the opponent and inflicts penalties on certain actions.

Bluebeard
2009-04-30, 03:51 AM
So wouldn't it be more useful to measure the difference between TWF and THF using something other than damage?
...
It works out that two +7 equivalent weapons are just under one +10 equivalent, and considering both need an actual +1, you've got two sets of +6 worth of enchantments, rather than one set of +9. That's almost like having 3 more pluses of enchantment to go around.


Sure. Assuming you land attacks with both weapons.
Which brings us back to the TWF's biggest flaw: mobility.
But with a thrower, absolutely.

Aquillion
2009-04-30, 04:27 AM
Sure. Assuming you land attacks with both weapons.
Which brings us back to the TWF's biggest flaw: mobility.
But with a thrower, absolutely.How are you going to get the ability to use all those item enhancements in a thrown full attack? A returning weapon doesn't return until the start of your next turn, so you need one thrown weapon for every attack in your attack sequence, and they all need both returning and their unique enhancement. That's at least 8000 gp a weapon... will you buy one for every single attack in your sequence, or what?

arguskos
2009-04-30, 05:52 AM
How are you going to get the ability to use all those item enhancements in a thrown full attack? A returning weapon doesn't return until the start of your next turn, so you need one thrown weapon for every attack in your attack sequence, and they all need both returning and their unique enhancement. That's at least 8000 gp a weapon... will you buy one for every single attack in your sequence, or what?
Use Shuriken. Ammo is cheaper than normal weapons. Stack a bunch of extra damage on each shuriken, and go to town. :smallbiggrin:

Kaiyanwang
2009-04-30, 08:23 AM
Use Shuriken. Ammo is cheaper than normal weapons. Stack a bunch of extra damage on each shuriken, and go to town. :smallbiggrin:

Does anything like shuriken but slashing exist?

Faulty
2009-04-30, 09:06 AM
How are you going to get the ability to use all those item enhancements in a thrown full attack? A returning weapon doesn't return until the start of your next turn, so you need one thrown weapon for every attack in your attack sequence, and they all need both returning and their unique enhancement. That's at least 8000 gp a weapon... will you buy one for every single attack in your sequence, or what?

You can use the Bloodstorm Blade PrC from ToB. Once you get to a certain level, you can make a full attack throwing two light weapons without even having to put the returning enchantment on it.

Darrin
2009-04-30, 11:30 AM
You can use the Bloodstorm Blade PrC from ToB. Once you get to a certain level, you can make a full attack throwing two light weapons without even having to put the returning enchantment on it.

You can also Power Attack a two-handed thrown weapon on a charge and put all the usual crazy melee damage multipliers on it.

If you can't use ToB, then a Crystal of Return (MIC p. 65), Gauntlets of Throwing (MIC p. 104), or the Glove of Taarnahm the Vigilant (PGtF p. 123) are all fairly affordable.

Bluebeard
2009-04-30, 11:35 AM
How are you going to get the ability to use all those item enhancements in a thrown full attack? A returning weapon doesn't return until the start of your next turn, so you need one thrown weapon for every attack in your attack sequence, and they all need both returning and their unique enhancement. That's at least 8000 gp a weapon... will you buy one for every single attack in your sequence, or what?

Like argustos and Amesoeurs said, I assume cheap ammunition like shuriken or Bloodstorm Blade.
Another option might be using an Artificer to imbue a bunch of temporary debuffing abilities into a whole routine's worth of magic weapons.
It might get spendy using that many infusions every day, but wealth is the Artificer's central class ability.

fractal
2009-04-30, 11:56 AM
For a different take on 2WF, I had a Pixie Ranger/Swashbuckler who used a high Int and buffs from party members to get good damage on each attack. If you don't have Strength, you have to add damage somehow.

Talic
2009-04-30, 08:18 PM
Rather than title it "debuffs", let's go with what Debuffs are. Combat control.

Tripping, Stand Still, Disarming, all of these limit opponent options (preventing movement, limiting ranged attacks, imposing penalties on abilities).

Without fail, the THF has these abilities more accessibly, due to a lower feat use. Further, most focus on the THF's starring stat. Strength (or damage, for stand still). Disarming receives extra bonuses for 2 handers. In every way, shape or form, at these Combat control methods, the THF is superior in content, availability, and execution. This leaves more time for the party to stop the critters.

Severedevil
2009-04-30, 09:14 PM
THF tripping is better than TWF? Really?

Sickles/Bolas. Get Improved Trip, Quickdraw, and the TWF chain. (I realize that's a lot of feats.) Now you can make a truly vile number of trip attacks per round. Either go high Strength high Dex, or play ranger. Now make everything that could ever exist prone.

A spiked chain might do better, but cheese > non-cheese...

Talic
2009-05-01, 12:44 AM
Yes. Really.

Against pansy small creatures like goblins, yes, a TWFer can throw out MORE trip checks.

However, a THF gets a wide array of reach weaponry.

The fundamental flaw in your reasoning is you assume too much. You need to allocate to Dex and Str. Most games aren't going to give you the luxury of 18's in both... Unless your int, wis, cha, and con are 8.

Put simply, the THFer will have more options available. Too big to trip? Well, with one of the 37 feats he saved by not going TWF, he has Stand Still, which relies on his damage to set a reflex save DC. Needless to say, I will venture that nobody will argue that Two Weapon Fighting is a better overall way to deal higher damage on a single hint? :smallamused:
Even a 20 damage hit (child's play. 2d4 weapon + 9 (22*1.5) is 14, before anything else is even factored) forces a DC 30 Reflex save.

Note: The above can be done by a level 1 THF Human Barbarian while raging. Level 1 Orc Fighter can also do it, and a Level 1 Orc barb while raging will be pushing 17.

At level 10? +1 Guisarme, Barbarian fighter with a 28 base strength (18 base + 4 racial, + 2 (level 4 and 8 increases), +4 (belt of strength). Raging? 32.
2d4+14 base (19), 2d4+17 while raging (22). That's DC 29-32, with very little effort. Only thing even partially optimized is strength. With a 14 dex, this character is entirely viable.
Check the SRD to look for monsters that would even have a 50% chance to pass that. Not many in the CR range.

At level 1, that character makes up for less attacks with more accuracy. +7 to hit.

At level 10? +20 to hit. For added DC against targets with lower AC? A couple points of power attack will boost it nicely. 1 point = an extra 2 DC.

No, Combat control/reactive tripping is firmly in the hands of the character with one weapon that needs two hands.

mostlyharmful
2009-05-01, 12:48 AM
THF tripping is better than TWF? Really?

Sickles/Bolas. Get Improved Trip, Quickdraw, and the TWF chain. (I realize that's a lot of feats.) Now you can make a truly vile number of trip attacks per round. Either go high Strength high Dex, or play ranger. Now make everything that could ever exist prone.

A spiked chain might do better, but cheese > non-cheese...

The point is that the THF guy has the feat slots available to make that work and the plusses on their roll to make it stick to CR appropriate critters rather than just fluff a whole lot of rolls and only be useful against stuff four+ CRs lower than the party.

If you go high strength ranger you're waiting for the very very very slow feat chain to come in, if you go high dex fighter you're attack and trip rolls will suck and you'll do piddly damage. If you go power attacking two-hander you've used a grand total of one feat available at level one, everything else is extra sauce, how much faster do you think you can start functioning as a tripper build? How much higher do you think those rolls are going to be? by mid levels you start seeing more and more large/huge four legged critters with huge strength and more HD than you, casters flying around and incorporeal stuff, if you're going to stay useful to your party and claiming a share of loot you need more than to whiffle a whole lot of nothing attacks at them.

Frosty
2009-05-01, 01:05 AM
I believe a big step towwards fixing this kind of discrepancy is to make Trip attempts use the HIGHER of DEX and STR.

Zergrusheddie
2009-05-01, 01:55 AM
It seems like there are a lot of different opinions on this one. Turning the party's Rogue into a 12 Headed Hydra will put out stupid amounts of damage; I have witnessed this in one the campaigns I've played in. The Rogue would attack at +15 before buffs, deal 1d10+7d6+6, and attack 12 times. He would liquidate anything, especially once he got an Improved Invisibility. However, this is more of a testament to how powerful Polymorph is more than it is a testament to how powerful Two-Weapon Fighting is.

To me, it seems as if TWF suffers from:
1. Feats: There are 3 in the TWF line and ones like Two-weapon Rend or Two-weapon Pounce are also important.
2. Being Expensive: 2 weapons cost more than 1 obviously.
3. Often Class Specific: In most of these posts, Rogues were mentioned as as reasons how TWF can be so powerful. What is a TWF Ranger or a class without Precision Damage supposed to do?

Best of luck y'all
-Eddie

Frosty
2009-05-01, 02:02 AM
Straight Rangers are viable? When? I dunno how they deal respectable damage. Now, Ranger/Scouts on the other hand...

Bluebeard
2009-05-01, 02:04 AM
However, this is more of a testament to how powerful Polymorph is more than it is a testament to how powerful Two-Weapon Fighting is.
I would actually count Polymorph as support for Two Handed Fighting.
Very rarely will you get a high-Dex monster capable of two-weapon fighting effectively.
Very often you will get a high-Strength monster capable of Power Attacking.


What is a TWF Ranger or a class without Precision Damage supposed to do?
Power Attack with a Greatsword and Armor Spikes/Spiked Gauntlets/Unarmed Strikes, of course.
Or beeline into a multiclass with Assassin, Psychic Warrior, Ardent, Artificer or any other of the usual suspects.
Or go sword and board for low levels, use PHB2 retraining to shift into a thrower and eventually into an archer.

Zen Master
2009-05-01, 02:17 AM
Shame, because he explained beautifully why personal testimony is worth so little when you're trying to establish truth.

Bravo, insulting someone is a perfect way to reinforce your position and show how much you "don't care". Hint: people who actually don't care don't stoop down to the level of insults.

This is not a chit-chat about a celebrity's boobs here, it's a debate of two opposing viewpoints.

Debate is this funny thing, you see. Unless you're willing to provide some proof for your statements then the side that did provide proof wins by default.

So what, dice now ignore laws of physics and statistics and run on magic?

If a build is more optimized 'theoretically' then it will be more optimized in actual play, barring continuous bad luck - or bad playing - on the part of THF player.

I'm not trying to establish truth. I'm saying there are variables you're not taking into account.

Regarding insults: I get tired of hearing the same request for proof over and over again. It's not going to happen. Find something else to say, or ... reply to someone else. Quit wasting your time on me.

I'm sorry to say that proof is worth far, far less than you give it credit for. Rhetoric wins pretty much every time, while boring numbers fails to attract anyones attention.

A theoretical build can look ever so fine on paper, and be worthless in actual play, if the situation it's designed for doesn't come up. I've already given examples, I'm not gonna do it again.

And let me state this once and for all: I'll set my hair on fire before I sit down and go through the mindless tedium of creating a build for no good god damned reason except you wanting to see one.

I'll tell you how that's going to go: I post a build. Everybody laughs, and tells me how another build is far superior. I point out that the 'far superior build' is in fact not SRD (or whatever) and thus outside the situation I'm talking about. Everyone will be shocked by my rejection of the wonderful options available in Book X. They will however state that those feats, PRC levels or whatever aren't needed, I could just as well go with combination X (which may or may still not be SRD).

This will then devolve into an endless loop of stupidity. And I not doing it. What you see is what you get - if you cannot communicate on my terms, then lets stop. I will not communicate on yours, and I'm perfectly honest about it, and willing to stop any time you say so.

Hell - I'll give you the last word.

Frosty
2009-05-01, 02:23 AM
Power Attack with a Greatsword and Armor Spikes/Spiked Gauntlets/Unarmed Strikes, of course.
Or beeline into a multiclass with Assassin, Psychic Warrior, Ardent, Artificer or any other of the usual suspects.
Or go sword and board for low levels, use PHB2 retraining to shift into a thrower and eventually into an archer.

Wait, you want to POWER ATTACk using TWF? HUH?

quick_comment
2009-05-01, 02:25 AM
I'll tell you how that's going to go: I post a build. Everybody laughs, and tells me how another build is far superior. I point out that the 'far superior build' is in fact not SRD (or whatever) and thus outside the situation I'm talking about. Everyone will be shocked by my rejection of the wonderful options available in Book X. They will however state that those feats, PRC levels or whatever aren't needed, I could just as well go with combination X (which may or may still not be SRD).

Hell - I'll give you the last word.

Ill put up a SRD THF against your SRD TWF.

Bluebeard
2009-05-01, 02:27 AM
Wait, you want to POWER ATTACk using TWF? HUH?
Sure.
Rangers don't need to boost dex to keep their TWF going and there are a few attacks that can be used alongside a two-handed weapon.
Favored Power Attack and mobility spells can actually make them pretty nasty, especially with Favored Enemy (Arcanist)

MeklorIlavator
2009-05-01, 02:39 AM
You know, I've never actually seen what you're complaining about, Acromos. Or at least, not in any way that really relates to what you're really trying to say. More often, I see the people trying to prove the unpopular option misleads on the sources allowed, or purposely stack the deck one way or another.

Just like what's happening now. In fact, you want to know what I'm thinking? I'm thinking, "what a surprise, the person arguing the unoptimal strategy is being obstructive and genuinely unwilling to really debate. Again.":smallsigh:

Also, as for your examples, they've been so vague that they're essentially worthless, which cause the debate to resemble nothing more then a couple of 6 year olds shouting nu-huh back and forth. Really, this seems to stem from your necessity of using "your terms". How can anyone convince anyone else of anything on "your terms"?

Frosty
2009-05-01, 02:56 AM
Sure.
Rangers don't need to boost dex to keep their TWF going and there are a few attacks that can be used alongside a two-handed weapon.
Favored Power Attack and mobility spells can actually make them pretty nasty, especially with Favored Enemy (Arcanist)

Yeah, but your off-hand weapon (assuming it's light) won't be getting any benefits for FPA, while your main hand will only get a 2:1 return, the same as if you just used a weapon 2-handed with regular PA. So now not only do you already have -2/-2 for TWF, you're making your off-hand less likely to hit with no increase in damage. Plus, you're spending even more feats (need Favored PA on top of PA).

Only time FPA might be good if if you're a ranger using a double-weapon like the quarterstaff. You can choose, on the fly, whether you want to treat it as a two-hand weapon or as two separate weapons.

And how would mobility spells help? You still can't full-attack after a move usually.

Bluebeard
2009-05-01, 03:12 AM
Yeah, but your off-hand weapon (assuming it's light) won't be getting any benefits for FPA, while your main hand will only get a 2:1 return, the same as if you just used a weapon 2-handed with regular PA.I'm using a Greatsword or Falchion and an Unarmed Strike to Power Attack for +3:1/+2:1.
+6:1/+4:1 when I charge.

Plus, you're spending even more feats (need Favored PA on top of PA).
Human: Improved Unarmed Strike, 1: Power Attack, 3:Favored Power Attack, 6:Leap Attack
Doable.

And how would mobility spells help? You still can't full-attack after a move usually.I meant spells like Lion's Charge to do just that.

Talic
2009-05-01, 04:22 AM
Actually, TWF while 2HF is possible, if Feat hungry.

Rather than use armor spikes or the like, I prefer an improved unarmed strike for off hand attacks. Why? Because unarmed strikes are one of the few off-hand, light weapons that receives the benefit of power attack.

So if you are a leap attacking, shock trooping barbarian with this, and you take your full -10 (at level 10)...

Your Two-Handed Weapon, say, a greatsword, does 2d6+1.5 Str+ 40 (2 for 1 power attack+ 100% leap attack)

Your off hand does 1d3+ 0.5 Str + 20 (1 for 1 power attack + 100% leap attack).

Assuming TWF and Imp TWF, Base Str 18, Base Dex 13, 2 points into dex at level 4&8, and an Item of +4 str), your attack progression would look like this (+1 weapon): +15/+10 (greatsword), and +14/+9 (unarmed strike). If you pouncecharge, you get +17/+16/+12/+11 for hefty damage (if all hit, +120 from power attack, average 18 from weapon, and 24 from strength, for a total of 162 damage).

But even not on a charge, you still have an average of 102, and if limited to a single attack, you're pulling 36.

Rather Feat starved though. Lots of potential with belts of battle/etc.

Gralamin
2009-05-01, 05:02 AM
The Amount of Damage on average you do per attack is

D* Min(H,0.95) * (1+X*Min(H, C)-Min(H, C)), where
D = Average Damage
H = Hit Chance
X = Crit Multiplier
C = Crit Chance

The Min's make this correct for values where H < C.
From this equation, its fairly simple to build a model of the system for THF and TWF. I might do it after I sleep.

Zen Master
2009-05-01, 07:24 AM
Ill put up a SRD THF against your SRD TWF.

Did I *just* say that that's not going to happen? I think I did - wait, I'll check.

Yup - I sure did.

And I've said this a milli ... no, more like a billion times already.

The highest possible damage output from THF is far greater than from TWF - in a theoretical head-to-head where to two slug it out against each other without any other considerations.

In practical play, I've never seen this happen. It's not that I've not seen impressive results from THF - just more rarely than from TWF. And this likely has to do (this I've also pointed out many, many times) with how the game plays in my group. It may even have social reasons - such as thinking 'you can do more than 250 points of damage on a crit - I'll buff myself or this TWF-fighter guy instead of you, because you don't need it'.

Furthermore, I've even stated that you do not play the same game I do. Why keep pursuing it like there's some major discrepancy here, some obvious lie or falsehood? It's like I'm recommending any of you to redo your math, or switch to playing TWF'ers.

The theoretical maximum produced on paper has, in my group, failed to materialize in play. Leaving room for TWF to be better.

monty
2009-05-01, 09:37 AM
And I've said this a milli ... no, more like a billion times already.

I still don't understand this. You don't want to take the time to make a build to prove your point, but you are willing to take the time to make dozens of posts trying (and failing, more often than not) to make a rebuttal for every single argument against you. So which is it: do you care, or not?

Philistine
2009-05-01, 09:38 AM
Here's a tip for you, Acromos, out of the goodness of my heart:

Your oft-repeated claims that you "lack time or interest" would be much more believable if they weren't so often repeated. As it is, the fact that you continue to come back to the thread just to renew your protestations of disinterest casts doubt not only on that, but everything else you've said as well, inescapably leading to the suspicion that the reason you "don't want to" provide concrete examples to back up your vague generalities is that you know you can't. Someone who actually wasn't interested in pursuing the discussion would simply state, "I've said my piece, and now I'm done."

And now I've said my piece. And I'm done with this thread.

MeklorIlavator
2009-05-01, 09:44 AM
Actually, you did give a reason why you didn't want to do it, that people always misinterpret the rules of the builds etc. So he offered to take you up on the clearest rule: SRD only. Your fault for suddenly being reasonable.

Why are we continuing? Gee, here I though we were in a debate, where generally you discuss something until either one side calls it quits or on side switches. My mistake.

Oh, and perhaps you could answer my previous post, mainly this quoted part:


Also, as for your examples, they've been so vague that they're essentially worthless, which cause the debate to resemble nothing more then a couple of 6 year olds shouting nu-huh back and forth. Really, this seems to stem from your necessity of using "your terms". How can anyone convince anyone else of anything on "your terms"?

Frosty
2009-05-01, 01:33 PM
I'm using a Greatsword or Falchion and an Unarmed Strike to Power Attack for +3:1/+2:1.
+6:1/+4:1 when I charge.

Human: Improved Unarmed Strike, 1: Power Attack, 3:Favored Power Attack, 6:Leap Attack
Doable.
I meant spells like Lion's Charge to do just that.

And how exactly do you plan on wielding a greatsword AND have an unarmed strike? Dipping into Monk as well? IUS doesn't give you the ability to make unarmed strikes with parts of your body other than your fists.

Is the Lion's Charge a Ranger spell? If so, then the mobility issue still matters until you get the spell. And even then, you can only do it so many times a day. And you're still only getting this amount against Favored enemies. Also, does the spell have material components that you need a free hand for?

Again, if you find a way to make a full-attack on the charge and use feats like Leap attack, then it'll do decent damage. But this is still independent of TWF or THF. This proves that charging, with pounce and PA, is one of the few viable means of being respectible with melee.

Zen Master
2009-05-01, 01:47 PM
Here's a tip for you, Acromos, out of the goodness of my heart:

Your oft-repeated claims that you "lack time or interest" would be much more believable if they weren't so often repeated.

And what, pray tell, would you have me do instead, if the claims are true?

For gods sake, the discussion interests me - but not enough to let myself get bogged down in an infinite loop of trying to discredit or disprove each others builds. That's just way, way too stupid for my taste.

lsfreak
2009-05-01, 02:03 PM
I believe the point with Greatsword + US is that you can let go of your greatsword to make unarmed strikes, just like you can let go of it to cast a swift spell and still get a full attack. Whether that's actually possible is probably up to the DM; I'd allow it myself.

@Acromos: "Rhetoric wins pretty much every time, while boring numbers fails to attract anyones attention."
Uh... what the hell? This argument is nothing but numbers:smallconfused:

Zen Master
2009-05-01, 02:04 PM
You know, I've never actually seen what you're complaining about, Acromos. Or at least, not in any way that really relates to what you're really trying to say. More often, I see the people trying to prove the unpopular option misleads on the sources allowed, or purposely stack the deck one way or another.

Just like what's happening now. In fact, you want to know what I'm thinking? I'm thinking, "what a surprise, the person arguing the unoptimal strategy is being obstructive and genuinely unwilling to really debate. Again.":smallsigh:

Also, as for your examples, they've been so vague that they're essentially worthless, which cause the debate to resemble nothing more then a couple of 6 year olds shouting nu-huh back and forth. Really, this seems to stem from your necessity of using "your terms". How can anyone convince anyone else of anything on "your terms"?

Aw, jeez, ok.

This isn't going to be any better, from your point of view. You realise this, I'm sure.

My examples are from memory. I don't keep records. And I don't care enough about this stuff to have it memorized and ready to fire at the optimizers whenever the need arises. Either you can figure it out for yourself, or you can't. And possible, if you optimize enough, the exceptions that produce the observed results at my gaming table just wont matter. I wouldn't know, see?

Further more, this discussion tends to drag on and on because we really have no - no! - common ground. Like I said - we do not play the same game.

Now, being on opposite sides of an unbrideable trench, we can either discuss on my terms, on yours, or agree to disagree.

Are you even the slightest bit aware that I've granted, time and again, that I understand and acknowledge your point of view? But that as it stands, it simply does not apply to the way the game is played with the people I play with?

Darrin
2009-05-01, 02:14 PM
And how exactly do you plan on wielding a greatsword AND have an unarmed strike? Dipping into Monk as well? IUS doesn't give you the ability to make unarmed strikes with parts of your body other than your fists.


There is nothing in the SRD/PHB that requires an unarmed strike, improved or otherwise, to be made with a fist. An unarmed strike can easily be a kick, headbutt, etc., regardless of whether or not you're a monk.

You can add an unarmed strike as an off-hand attack without taking any feats, but the penalties can be pretty severe (-4/-8, provokes AoO). Adding IUS and TWF reduces the penalties to -2/-2, no AoO. So yes, you can wield a two-handed weapon and declare another secondary weapon as an off-hand attack. Most commonly, this is armor/shield spikes, but an unarmed strike will also work by RAW.

If you want to be able to actuall hurt people with your off-hand IUS, then there are a few ways to improve that: Superior Unarmed Strike, Fist of the Forest, Shou Disciple, Battle Dancer (Dragon Compendium), Monk's Belt, Fanged Ring, Ring of Might, etc.

Renegade Paladin
2009-05-01, 02:40 PM
As far as I'm aware, there's nothing preventing the use of armor spikes in conjunction with a two-handed weapon either. Actually, I've pulled that trick myself with a phalanx of elite soldiers while DMing; polearms and armor spikes to cover the area inside the polearms' reach.

Bluebeard
2009-05-01, 04:36 PM
Is the Lion's Charge a Ranger spell? If so, then the mobility issue still matters until you get the spell. And even then, you can only do it so many times a day. And you're still only getting this amount against Favored enemies.Wand chambers are dirt cheap. Wands aren't too bad either.
With CM, any enemy you care about is favored.

Again, if you find a way to make a full-attack on the charge and use feats like Leap attack, then it'll do decent damage. But this is still independent of TWF or THF. This proves that charging, with pounce and PA, is one of the few viable means of being respectible with melee.
Which is exactly why it was a fitting response to "What's a TWF Ranger supposed to do?"

Frosty
2009-05-01, 08:46 PM
IF wand chambers are allowed. I've been in plenty of games where neither the Spell Compendium nor Dungeonscape are allowed.

Are you saying that with Ranger TWF the only viable melee way is to pounce?

Bluebeard
2009-05-01, 09:11 PM
Are you saying that with Ranger TWF the only viable melee way is to pounce?
It's certainly the easiest.

A TWF Ranger pretty much needs to dip Barbarian, Cleric, Warblade or Swordsage.
Or somehow get the abilities in other ways.
Otherwise the baddies can just step away.

Frosty
2009-05-01, 09:17 PM
So Ranger sucks too much on its own...

Talic
2009-05-02, 12:17 AM
Until flight is readily available, the THF build is more vulnerable to difficult terrain. However, in situations where a move and attack are required, the Two handed weapon still beats the Two weapon fighter in raw damage.

One of the things I think the primary proponent said was that if a Two hander build can kick out a 250 damage hit with hideous accuracy, the damage doesn't matter. A hit = death.

Whereas a Two weapon build is more effective to buff against because of the lower output of each attack.

This suggests a tactic of avoidance for those higher potential hits. Dealing with the two handed build can be dealt with by buffing and dealing with it.

That sounds suspiciously like two weapon fighting is easier to mitigate the damage of. Which is an argument in favor of the sheer power of Two hander builds.

Regardless, Acromos's argument is suspiciously like, "Yeah, Grease is a better spell than Solid Fog. In my games, I've seen grease kill dragons. I've never seen Solid Fog do that."

In other words, <Insert absurd and untrue comparison>, <acknowledge that it's completely against the odds and probability>, <cite unspecifed mitigating factors that make the better of the options worse>, <claim personal experience, that cannot be proven, because nobody else has the same experiences>.

In other words, it's impossible to argue, because FIRST, there's absolutely no evidence he gives to support his view (citing that he's not interested enough to find such information, even though he's certainly interested enough to go around and around with an unsupported argument).

Second, all his supporting claims are subjective, personal experience, which is the least verifiable of information. This is contrasted by the personal experience of several, backed up by statistical supported evidence.

In other words, ignore him. And for you, Acromos, if your games feature it differently, great. Why is it so hard to accept, with so many showing you differently, that your experience is not the norm? Why do you have to argue that TWF is universally better because of personal circumstances that are NOT universal? Can't you just accept that your group is not the norm, and move on? Do you believe that all the people here have nothing but theorycrafting experience, and haven't seen it in practical application? Do you think that the personal experience of others is less valid than yours?

Yes, TWF may be better in your game. That is an anomaly. It is not the norm. Please don't argue it like it is the norm. If you choose to, please provide us with more support than "I saw it happen this way, so it must be true".

Talic
2009-05-02, 12:22 AM
It's certainly the easiest.

A TWF Ranger pretty much needs to dip Barbarian, Cleric, Warblade or Swordsage.
Or somehow get the abilities in other ways.
Otherwise the baddies can just step away.

Other methods that can be effective are the Two handed weapon and off hand attack that doesn't require hands (armor spikes, unarmed strike, etc), combined with trip/stand still to keep things from moving. However, that is insanely feat starved. Expect to dip Fighter to keep up the feats.

Sstoopidtallkid
2009-05-02, 12:48 AM
@Acromos: You have made no response to the following issues raised:
1:TWF greatly reduces mobility, due to requiring a full attack to gain any benefit at all, and in any situation that prevents a full attack being in all ways inferior to THF.
2:TWF requires a large investment of feats, starting at first level when the only feat many builds have availible is needed just to make TWF possible.
3:TWF requires a greater investment of cash, due to the need for 2 enchanted weapons, often leaving you with a less effective set for similar cost.
4:TWF increases MAD, requiring points to be spent on Dex that often benefit the build in no ways other than a slight increase in Init.
5:TWF greatly reduces weapon selection, in many cases preventing Reach weapons or ones with special abilities such as a bonus to disarm. (the exception to this is TWF with armor spikes or similar).
6:TWF renders PA, one of the primary ways of increasing melee damage, far less effective. (again, the sole exception to this is TWF with armor spikes).

Please make me clear in all the ways I am wrong with the above.

Talic
2009-05-02, 01:08 AM
In all fairness, the TWF with armor spikes isn't getting those benefits from two weapon fighting, but from two handed fighting. The TWF-with-spikes is a marriage of the two combos, and thus, isn't really comparing against a 2 handed build, as it is also a 2 handed build.

Now, Kusari-gama (DMG) is a weapon with reach that can be dual wielded.

Thrawn183
2009-05-02, 07:45 AM
I had an Iron Heroes character in my 3.5 campaign (we had to houserule how healing and armor as DR worked but I think we nailed it pretty well) and he was an executioner. Why is this important? Because an executioner can use a double bladed sword to TWF while still getting all the power attack goodies, not needing to spend extra money, and getting sneak attack on every hit. Yeah, I thought I'd seen damage output, then I saw this guy.

It was the first true meat grinder I've ever seen without charging stuff because that doesn't really exist in Iron Heroes.

Sstoopidtallkid
2009-05-05, 12:34 PM
In all fairness, the TWF with armor spikes isn't getting those benefits from two weapon fighting, but from two handed fighting. The TWF-with-spikes is a marriage of the two combos, and thus, isn't really comparing against a 2 handed build, as it is also a 2 handed build.

Now, Kusari-gama (DMG) is a weapon with reach that can be dual wielded.True, Armor Spikes are essentially a cop-out method of using an unholy combination of the 2, but it needed to be mentioned.