|
1. If it is better than the core options, which one of the proponents actually showed mathmatically it is. So at minimum I would argue it would be power creep. And power creep breaks the game in increments.The evidence I have seen is that it is not substantially better. In fact, it seems to be roughly on par with standard TWF, and a substantial loss from 2HF.
2. I can easily see my character punching with both hands and then kicking in the 6 seconds alloted. But by rule, I can't. Because I can visualize it doesn't mean it works.Yes, I understand that. That's why I asked #3.
3. It doesn't explicitly say dead players can't move either.Yes, but if it hasn't passed #1 and #2, then the point is moot. And unless there is a necromancer hiding nearby, this definitely breaks verisimilitude.
Lost a longer post...grr...
To sum up, looking at Ilja's post, Said is clearly lagging (relatively) and Gaby is only competitive because of the Strength difference caused by the Dex pre-requisite.
Rangers don't have that pre-requisite. So with same stats...
You build out two rangers with the same set-up and the gap is even larger for like builds in the iconic framework of the class.
Neither side is going to move without a dev ruling, but now that I can see the same people who claimed this is settled and obvious have been having the same debate in other threads with tons of other for over a year with no resolution...I would say I was disapointed but that would indicate some higher expectation on my part.
Design Manager
|
For using a THW and armor spikes yeah he falls hard I mean Armor spikes are clearly evil items.Obviously. I mean, look at the Lord of the Rings movies: whose armor had spikes? The bad guys! Did any of those elves have spiky armor? Nope. Heck, Gandalf didn't even HAVE armor.
Yeah, if you're using armor spikes, your PC may as well be a demon lord.
Consensus is reached. Armor spikes = Bad Guy
And to bring it back to the start, due to Jason Bulmahn's-by-way-of-mark's statement that using two-handed weapons would preclude the ability to "wield" armor spikes, and Jason's later characterization of said statement as "off the cuff", let's all hit the FAQ button and go back to arguing about whether the paladin should fall.But Cheapy.... The poor Paladin has been so happy lately. He hasn't been dragged through the muck for nearly 3 months now....
Ok, good point. How about fixing rogues? Can we come up with a million threads about those? There's soon to be a void in the forums with the lack of monk threads.
|
Design Manager
|
Ok, good point. How about fixing rogues? Can we come up with a million threads about those? There's soon to be a void in the forums with the lack of monk threads.And to bring it back to the start, due to Jason Bulmahn's-by-way-of-mark's statement that using two-handed weapons would preclude the ability to "wield" armor spikes, and Jason's later characterization of said statement as "off the cuff", let's all hit the FAQ button and go back to arguing about whether the paladin should fall.But Cheapy.... The poor Paladin has been so happy lately. He hasn't been dragged through the muck for nearly 3 months now....
I'm down with that. You know who's a terrible person? That multi-class Paladin/Rogue half-orc trying to TWF with a falchion and armor spikes.
RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
the same people who claimed this is settled and obvious have been having the same debate in other threads with tons of other for over a year with no resolution
Wait, there were older threads on this question? Those could be helpful to read; can you link them or point me in the right direction (good search terms to find them, etc)?
But, when the Paladin falls, sometimes he lands on top of evil... If he were wearing armor spikes...?
|
|
the same people who claimed this is settled and obvious have been having the same debate in other threads with tons of other for over a year with no resolutionWait, there were older threads on this question? Those could be helpful to read; can you link them or point me in the right direction (good search terms to find them, etc)?
So like I said, we will see how the Devs rule. It is odd that one FAQ was marked as addressed.
|
RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
So where's the part where I debated the question of this thread? The post of mine you linked doesn't discuss it at all. I searched through the rest of my posts in that thread, and it looks like I don't discuss the subject of 2H+0H TWFing at all.
Which would explain why I didn't think of that thread - I was mostly just following along, then jumped in at the end to point out a technicality.
But, you know, very clever of you to represent me as having had arguments with people about this subject (when I didn't discuss that subject at all) for over a year (the thread actually lasted only a month).
I believe that's referred to as "lying".
The issue here is whether it is potentially overpowered to allow two handed fighters to do an off-hand attack in the same round they are wielding a weapon in two hands.
Or at least that's what I think the issue is.
To those who say "why would you restrict a player's options"? The answer is "because I'm not certain this particular option is fair to the other players."
Sure some of you think it is perfectly fair. I'm not convinced. I think it's a potential exploit. I have conceded that it MAY be feat heavy enough to allow it, even with the potential extra damage to the already best damage build in the game. But others have pointed out that it really doesn't require much feat investment.
There are literally THOUSANDS of things that "restrict player options" for balance purposes in spite of multiple arguments that the restriction is unfair or hampers verisimilitude. That's why the game is an abstraction of combat, not a simulation of combat.
I await (fruitlessly no doubt) a developer response to settle this. I just won't hold my breath.
|
RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
The issue here is whether it is potentially overpowered to allow two handed fighters to do an off-hand attack in the same round they are wielding a weapon in two hands.
Or at least that's what I think the issue is.
Not quite.
The question of this thread is:Is it legal, and/or is it the intent, that a PC could TWF with a two-handed weapon and a zero-handed weapon?
Jiggy, fine, although I think that's a pretty semantic distinction. Perhaps it's more precise but the end result is the same and the issue still is one of balance, not verisimilitude or creative rules interpretation.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
"Potentially Overpowered" is certainly part of the issue.
Perhaps someone has statted this out and determined that it could be game breaking, but I haven't seen it. I have heard the shout of "WHAT ABOUT RANGERS!?!?" But, nobody seems to have run the DPR, yet.
As the proponent (at least the most recent one) of the "why would you restrict?" line of thinking:
"Game-breaking Exploitation" would certainly qualify as a reason to restrict, in my opinion. I am not a fan of power creep, or munchkinism, or min-maxing for that matter (when your 5 int, 5 cha character speaks like an effete, educated ladies-man). But, it's disingenuous to call something an exploit because there is a quantifiable (even if slight) increase in DPR, at the unquantifiable expense of "all the other potential things you have to give up to get it".
In other words, assuming legality, I still would not use this on my Stonelord (which I stated above), because IMHO the cost/benefit ratio is too high.
Crusader, as a GM "breaks the game" is not the threshold for "overpowered" in my games. The game doesn't have to break for an option to be overly powerful compared to other player characters.
Crusader, as a GM "breaks the game" is not the threshold for "overpowered" in my games. The game doesn't have to break for an option to be overly powerful compared to other player characters.
Nor should it be. But, when facing an enemy who wants to kill my party, I find we are much more "powered" because I have defensive stance with reach, combat reflexes, and stand still, than if I, personally were doing slightly more damage per round. Just the same as our witch believes we are more powered with the Stonelord (i.e. me) enlarged, than with another offensive spell.
Like I said, DPR is easily quantifiable. "Every other potential option you could substitute for this" is not so.
The thunderstriker adopts an unusual fighting style, gripping a heavy weapon with both hands and switching to a defensive posture with weapon and buckler, lashing out with the shield with surprising speed and power.
Seems pretty clear the intent is to fight with both a THW and buckler, particularly given the abilities in the archetype.
I don't read that fluff and see what you see. I just read a list of some of the things the given archetype is about - just like any other archetype fluff text.
For that to be the intent, the RAW would have to support it it, which isn't the case. A reading of RAW always has the intent in it somewhere. Poor wording can and will lead to multiple possible interpretations of that intent, but I'm not seeing anything in this archetype that even begins to lend itself to this interpretation.
As the proponent (at least the most recent one) of the "why would you restrict?" line of thinking
If you always play with the exact same group of people this isn't a big deal. If you play with different groups of people consistency in how rules work is preferred (spelled out house rules for a given campaign being excepted). Understanding how the rules work has effect on how a person does or does not build their characters.
As the proponent (at least the most recent one) of the "why would you restrict?" line of thinkingIf you always play with the exact same group of people this isn't a big deal. If you play with different groups of people consistency in how rules work is preferred (spelled out house rules for a given campaign being excepted). Understanding how the rules work has effect on how a person does or does not build their characters.
I'm not proposing inconsistency in any way. What I'm saying is that if this 1) doesn't explicitly violate a rule, 2) doesn't "exploit" a hole in the rules in a way that makes a PC significantly stronger than one that doesn't "exploit" it, and 3) doesn't ruin immersion or "realism" in the cinematic quality of RP... Then why bother to stop someone from doing it?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
1. If it is better than the core options, which one of the proponents actually showed mathmatically it is. So at minimum I would argue it would be power creep. And power creep breaks the game in increments.
Unless it's illegal by the rules, it IS core stuff and thus no power creep. And the amount it was better with was quite minor, and might very well have been different for a different class or archetype or level (the small difference shows that just something as minor as GWS will probably put the shortsworder ahead).
So like I said, we will see how the Devs rule. It is odd that one FAQ was marked as addressed.
Can't this be due to the fact that it is addressed in the 3.5 FAQ and that generally, unless a rule has been changed it works the same as in 3.5?
It's not a definite answer, but it's the only explanation I can find.
|
Design Manager
|
Unless it's illegal by the rules, it IS core stuff and thus no power creep. And the amount it was better with was quite minor, and might very well have been different for a different class or archetype or level (the small difference shows that just something as minor as GWS will probably put the shortsworder ahead).
1. If it is better than the core options, which one of the proponents actually showed mathmatically it is. So at minimum I would argue it would be power creep. And power creep breaks the game in increments.
Lot of good stuff here. It's misleading to compare two level one characters, as there is actually quite a bit of swing in power at first level. Choosing a mid-range level like 8-12 with two builds using the same basic layout except for the feats pertinent to the differences is what's going to show any actual difference in power. Take 2 base fighters with the same point buy, or two rangers with the same point buy, then lay out the two equivalent builds and see where you end up for a better summation of how imbalancing a given mechanic is. For example, take two 10th level rangers with the Two-Weapon Fighting Style and give one A greatsword and armor spikes and place him side-by-side with a ranger using a more standard weapon array, then compare damage and accuracy against appropriate challenges.
Lot of good stuff here. It's misleading to compare two level one characters, as there is actually quite a bit of swing in power at first level. Choosing a mid-range level like 8-12 with two builds using the same basic layout except for the feats pertinent to the differences is waht's going to show any actual difference in power. Take 2 base fighters with the same point buy, or two rangers with the same point buy, then lay out the two equivalent builds and see where you end up for a better summation of how imbalancing a given mechanic is. For example, take two 10th level rangers with the Two-Weapon Fighting Style and give one A greatsword and armor spikes and place him side-by-side with a ranger using a more standard weapon array, then compare damage and accuracy against appropriate challenges.
You're ninja'd on the fighter ;)
The tl:dr; is that Greatsword/Spiked armor came out slightly ahead of Shortsword/Shortsword, but Greatsword only came out far ahead of both _and had leftover feats for other stuff_.When taking an average of one standard attack and two full attacks, shortsword/shortsword dealt 6.7% less damage than Greatsword/Spiked Armor, and Greatsword dealt 15.8% more damage than it (and 24.1% more than the shortsword/shortsword guy).
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Personally, I'm in favor of allowing it.
So what if it's sligjtly more effective than a TWFer? We have plenty of case where non-core options are better than the standard options, from spells to whole classes. And TWF is a pretty weak fighting style anyway.
The ways I see it, this will give us more options and viable builds without breaking anything. The game won't be completely unbalanced because Fighters/Rangers' DPR increased by 4~6 points.
The difference is small enough that it doesn't really matter. A guy who is TWFing is likely not doing so for style, since that's never been the optimal choice.
Between allowing new stuff and forbiding/restricting it, unless it breaks the game, I'm always in for allowing it.
|
Design Manager
|
Lot of good stuff here. It's misleading to compare two level one characters, as there is actually quite a bit of swing in power at first level. Choosing a mid-range level like 8-12 with two builds using the same basic layout except for the feats pertinent to the differences is waht's going to show any actual difference in power. Take 2 base fighters with the same point buy, or two rangers with the same point buy, then lay out the two equivalent builds and see where you end up for a better summation of how imbalancing a given mechanic is. For example, take two 10th level rangers with the Two-Weapon Fighting Style and give one A greatsword and armor spikes and place him side-by-side with a ranger using a more standard weapon array, then compare damage and accuracy against appropriate challenges.You're ninja'd on the fighter ;)
The tl:dr; is that Greatsword/Spiked armor came out slightly ahead of Shortsword/Shortsword, but Greatsword only came out far ahead of both _and had leftover feats for other stuff_.When taking an average of one standard attack and two full attacks, shortsword/shortsword dealt 6.7% less damage than Greatsword/Spiked Armor, and Greatsword dealt 15.8% more damage than it (and 24.1% more than the shortsword/shortsword guy).
Why would we go shortsword/shortsword... Streamlining the feats so they all apply to the same weapon I'm guessing?
Why would we go shortsword/shortsword... Streamlining the feats so they all apply to the same weapon I'm guessing?
Some of the critical feats aren't applied to specific weapons, but to weapon groups, which expands the options for this build significantly.
Why would we go shortsword/shortsword... Streamlining the feats so they all apply to the same weapon I'm guessing?
Yes, most TWFers use the same weapon to make weapon focus/specialization/improved critical apply to them all. Both the greatsword fighter and the SS/SS fighter could apply +2 to hit and +2 to damage on all attacks, and doubled crit range, while the GS/AS could only do so on main attacks.
EDIT: On the ranger, I agree that GS/AS might very well win out there, but that's to a large degree because rangers make quite crappy TWFers in general, unless sword/boarding. They can boost strength for damage, sure, but with their limited armor and no shield they still need a decent dexterity. Rangers are much better at archery and switch hitting. But yes, GS/SA could probably empower Ranger TWFers (other than sword/boarders).
On the other hand, looking at rogues, I think light weapon/light weapon will come out faaar ahead of greatsword/SA; they need to boost dex, so can't have that great strength, they don't have a huge number of feats, their main source of damage is SA, and many go for either kukri/kukri and crit feats or dagger/dagger to make a ranged sneak attack during a surprise round or when other opportunities show themselves.
|
Design Manager
|
Some of the critical feats aren't applied to specific weapons, but to weapon groups, which expands the options for this build significantly.
Why would we go shortsword/shortsword... Streamlining the feats so they all apply to the same weapon I'm guessing?
I was having similar thoughts. What happens when you apply one of the standard archetypes (like Two-Weapon Warrior, which nearly every fighter who plans on TWF takes) and then compare him to our greatsword / armor spike guy? Upping the shortswords to a warhammer and scimitar, or paired rapiers or longswords will probably change the dynamic considerably.
What's the most potent TWF build currently available? My guess would be a Two-Weapon Warrior using the Thunder and Fang feat to dual-wield an Earthbreaker and Klar, which probably should be the closest in damage to our greatsword / armor spike guy. I haven't run the numbers yet, but my guess would be that you'd see T&F doing about 3.5 DPR less in exchange for 1-5 more AC (depending on level). I don't know if that's the best or worst basis for comparison though.
I'm not proposing inconsistency in any way. What I'm saying is that if this 1) doesn't explicitly violate a rule, 2) doesn't "exploit" a hole in the rules in a way that makes a PC significantly stronger than one that doesn't "exploit" it, and 3) doesn't ruin immersion or "realism" in the cinematic quality of RP... Then why bother to stop someone from doing it?
1) There are a million things that would not explicitly violate a rule at my table that I would not let fly. Conversely there are a million things not spelled out in the rules that I would. A large part of that whole 'other thread' being referenced to in this one is what the rules actually say is correct on the subject of THF/TWF combined. I don't recall a single person in either side of the discussion in that other thread suggesting one could THF/TWF and then one handed attack with a single weapon using one of those same hands (I may have missed it, though I did follow the entire thread). I don't know where the individuals in that thread would stand on this, but certainly at least some of them would say it violates the rules - hence inconsistency.
2) Your opinion of significantly stronger is not necessarily going to match everyone else's opinion.
3) Again this is merely opinion. What breaks immersion for you is not the same for another.
|
|
The issue here is whether it is potentially overpowered to allow two handed fighters to do an off-hand attack in the same round they are wielding a weapon in two hands.
Or at least that's what I think the issue is.
Not quite.
The question of this thread is:
Is it legal, and/or is it the intent, that a PC could TWF with a two-handed weapon and a zero-handed weapon?
Well put.
|
|
"Potentially Overpowered" is certainly part of the issue.
Perhaps someone has statted this out and determined that it could be game breaking, but I haven't seen it. I have heard the shout of "WHAT ABOUT RANGERS!?!?" But, nobody seems to have run the DPR, yet.
As the proponent (at least the most recent one) of the "why would you restrict?" line of thinking:
"Game-breaking Exploitation" would certainly qualify as a reason to restrict, in my opinion. I am not a fan of power creep, or munchkinism, or min-maxing for that matter (when your 5 int, 5 cha character speaks like an effete, educated ladies-man). But, it's disingenuous to call something an exploit because there is a quantifiable (even if slight) increase in DPR, at the unquantifiable expense of "all the other potential things you have to give up to get it".
In other words, assuming legality, I still would not use this on my Stonelord (which I stated above), because IMHO the cost/benefit ratio is too high.
Ilja actually did it for Fighters on the first page, the finding (Ilja can correct me) was that the hybrid did less damage on a single attack than a straight THF (less strength because of need for dex) and was comparable the rest of the time with a slight edge to the hybrid, but did much more on a single attack than a TWF while doing basically equal damage the rest of the time.
So the hybrid fighter was better than the TWF.
I extrapolated from that that since the only reason the THF did better was the strength descrepency, and Rangers don't have the Dex pre-requisite, it would follow that the Ranger Hybrid would both be able to do as much damage as the THF and The TWF, making it, well...better.
So yes, someone ran the numbers.
|
|
Unless it's illegal by the rules, it IS core stuff and thus no power creep. And the amount it was better with was quite minor, and might very well have been different for a different class or archetype or level (the small difference shows that just something as minor as GWS will probably put the shortsworder ahead).
1. If it is better than the core options, which one of the proponents actually showed mathmatically it is. So at minimum I would argue it would be power creep. And power creep breaks the game in increments.
Poor use of core on my part, my intent was to imply more a classic build "core type" build.
You will admit it is curious that, to my knowledge, no NPC with this build has ever appeared. Again, to my knowledge.
But all of this will remain curiosity unless and until we get a ruling.
|
RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
Even if Mr. Greatsword and Mr. Hybrid deal the same damage on a hit, you still have to factor in the reduced chance of that big hit. Additionally, if Mr. Hybrid deals more average DPR than Mr. Greatsword, well... he should: he invested more feats in doing so.
Unless of course we have Mr. Greatsword spend the same number of feats improving his own attack routine that Mr. Hybrid spends enabling his hybridness.
So yeah, math needs to be done. Can't really guess about the rangers from the fighters, not with any kind of certainty.
|
|
So like I said, we will see how the Devs rule. It is odd that one FAQ was marked as addressed.Can't this be due to the fact that it is addressed in the 3.5 FAQ and that generally, unless a rule has been changed it works the same as in 3.5?
It's not a definite answer, but it's the only explanation I can find.
I doubt it. It may just be something they misclicked, or maybe they answered another question in the thread and not this one.
Not to mention even if the armor spikes are ok, then we have to figure out the free action bit which would make pulling a blade with quick draw possible :)
|
|
Even if Mr. Greatsword and Mr. Hybrid deal the same damage on a hit, you still have to factor in the reduced chance of that big hit. Additionally, if Mr. Hybrid deals more average DPR than Mr. Greatsword, well... he should: he invested more feats in doing so.
Unless of course we have Mr. Greatsword spend the same number of feats improving his own attack routine that Mr. Hybrid spends enabling his hybridness.
So yeah, math needs to be done. Can't really guess about the rangers from the fighters, not with any kind of certainty.
Only on the TWF attack.
On the standard attack, the numbers are the same as it is only one attack.
Ilja actually had feats left over for everyone. That would be less true of a Ranger I think, even with the combat feats and ignoring pre-requisitites. But it isn't like a THF build requires many feats.
|
RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The point is that if possible, the builds being compared should invest the same number of feats. If that's not feasible, then the one spending the most feats to accomplish its goal should be expected to be performing better.
So if Mr. Greatsword takes Power Attack at level 1, Furious Focus as his ranger bonus feat (I think you can do that...), and doesn't invest any other feats at all; but Mr. Hybrid has to spend feats on those same two feats PLUS the TWF chain and so forth, then Mr. Hybrid should average more damage output, because he paid for it. Otherwise, he's the one getting shafted. Same goes for gold investment.
I don't know whether their investment (or their damage, for that matter) will come up even or not; I'm just saying it needs to be part of the conclusion.
Not to mention even if the armor spikes are ok, then we have to figure out the free action bit which would make pulling a blade with quick draw possible :)
Yes, but that's far more vague and not really part of this issue itself, even though you could potentially combine one with each other (though I do not really see any major benefit coming from it unless there's some sick combo I've missed)
Ilja actually did it for Fighters on the first page, the finding (Ilja can correct me) was that the hybrid did less damage on a single attack than a straight THF (less strength because of need for dex) and was comparable the rest of the time with a slight edge to the hybrid, but did much more on a single attack than a TWF while doing basically equal damage the rest of the time.
Which, if I'm not mistaken, means that if you are wielding a longsword and a shortsword, and you can only take a standard action, and you dropped your shortsword and two-handed your longsword, you would do more damage than if you held on to shortsword. I don't need numbers for that. It's obvious.
So, can you wield a longsword and armor spikes? Can you two-weapon fight with them? If you are restricted to a single standard action, can you place your "off-hand" on the hilt of your longsword and swing with both hands? Yes, yes, and yes.
The only real question is: Do you ever have to take your "off-hand" off?
No but those feats can be used to expand on his THF or to increase versatility by having a larger subset of ranged feats to use before closing to bring the hammer.
You will admit it is curious that, to my knowledge, no NPC with this build has ever appeared. Again, to my knowledge.
Don't really think it's that curious. I don't think there's any throwing hammer/kukri, or falcata/sickle or whatever else build either. Most TWF builds seems to use a few iconic styles, and nearly always the same primary hand/off-hand weapon. I think that's says more about this being an unusual fighting style than it being not allowed (just like throwing hammer/kukri is very much allowed but still rare to see).
|
|
Human Ranger takes power attack and furious focus 1st level then TWF as his ranger feat next level.
Remember the Ranger feat chain can be specifically the TWF chain.
The advantage the THF would get would be going the switch hitter route outlined by Treantmonk.
Even if the Hybrid (can we call it that for sake of symplicity going forward) takes the same feats as the TWF ranger, he will always do more on the single attack and I suspect more on the TWF attacks as well, since his primary hand weapon will always do more damage, and I don't think anything on the offhand could compensate enough for the difference.
I'm heading home from work shortly, I may crunch it when I get home, but I wasn't kidding when I said that you put it really well.
"Is it legal, and/or is it the intent, that a PC could TWF with a two-handed weapon and a zero-handed weapon?"
I don't think it was not the intent for this to be a possible combo, and I think if it is allowed it outshines the TWF build.
There can be a whole other discussion of the TWF being flawed relative to the THF build, but hopefully not here :)
|
|
Not to mention even if the armor spikes are ok, then we have to figure out the free action bit which would make pulling a blade with quick draw possible :)Yes, but that's far more vague and not really part of this issue itself, even though you could potentially combine one with each other (though I do not really see any major benefit coming from it unless there's some sick combo I've missed)
Well, you would get the weapon training bonuses for one thing. And the advantages for being limited to unarmed weapons go out the window.
But like you said, topic of another thread and another ruling.
I doubt there is much question if the "hybrid" produces more damage than a classic TWF build.
The question is how does it perform against a classic THF build. Does it outperform that or not?
Yeah, I know Ilja ran some numbers. I'm not quite convinced they are comprehensive is all.
Ilja actually had feats left over for everyone. That would be less true of a Ranger I think, even with the combat feats and ignoring pre-requisitites. But it isn't like a THF build requires many feats.
It's not like there was a lot of feats left over. Ignoring Iron Will, that every fighter reaaaally should have, there where two feats left to play around with (which I put into combat reflexes and improved initiative - again, two feats I think no fighter should skip, although less obligatory than iron will). For a fighter, two feats that don't go into making you work is pretty low.
The greatsword fighter had 3 extra feats above that.
So if Mr. Greatsword takes Power Attack at level 1, Furious Focus as his ranger bonus feat (I think you can do that...), and doesn't invest any other feats at all; but Mr. Hybrid has to spend feats on those same two feats PLUS the TWF chain and so forth, then Mr. Hybrid should average more damage output, because he paid for it. Otherwise, he's the one getting shafted. Same goes for gold investment.
Two-handed Weapon is a pretty bad focus for ranger, but still I think it could pull it off and get higher numbers than the TWFers. The comparison should be between the different types of TWF, in which case I think for rangers, 2HW/0HW will win out but for rogue, light/light will win out.
|
|
Ilja actually did it for Fighters on the first page, the finding (Ilja can correct me) was that the hybrid did less damage on a single attack than a straight THF (less strength because of need for dex) and was comparable the rest of the time with a slight edge to the hybrid, but did much more on a single attack than a TWF while doing basically equal damage the rest of the time.Which, if I'm not mistaken, means that if you are wielding a longsword and a shortsword, and you can only take a standard action, and you dropped your shortsword and two-handed your longsword, you would do more damage than if you held on to shortsword. I don't need numbers for that. It's obvious.
So, can you wield a longsword and armor spikes? Can you two-weapon fight with them? If you are restricted to a single standard action, can you place your "off-hand" on the hilt of your longsword and swing with both hands? Yes, yes, and yes.
The only real question is: Do you ever have to take your "off-hand" off?
We are talking greatswords, not longswords. I still think longswords would be out, but I would be less surprised if a ruling went that way given One-handed weapons do less damage.
The the point of this arguement was you can use the Two-handed weapon and still attack with the off-hand by "letting go" of the two-handed weapon between attacks.
Am I wrong?
Also, Ilja went with two shortswords in that TWF build in order to get the fighter bonuses and crit bonuses applied to both weapons.
The the point of this arguement was you can use the Two-handed weapon and still attack with the off-hand by "letting go" of the two-handed weapon between attacks.
Am I wrong?
Yes, you are wrong.
Look at the title: "does not require hands"
The two examples posted were longspear/kick and greatsword/spiked armor.
Neither a kick (unarmed strike) nor spiked armor require hands.
Keep both hands on the 2H weapon at all times. Attack with the second weapon which does not require any hands.
Well, you would get the weapon training bonuses for one thing. And the advantages for being limited to unarmed weapons go out the window.
Main +10 greatsword attack
release greatsword, draw longsword
Off-hand +10 longsword attack
drop longsword, regrip greatsword
Main +5 greatsword attack
release greatsword, draw second longsword
Off-hand +5 longsword attack
(ev. drop longsword and regrip greatsword to threaten out of your turn)
Next round, it starts all over again. Won't you end up with a huge pile of longswords at your feet?
EDIT: Added OT spoiler tag - this isn't part of this thread really, as Grick said.
You need to take them in order from highest to lowest
Full Attack: "If you get multiple attacks because your base attack bonus is high enough, you must make the attacks in order from highest bonus to lowest."
Off-hand attacks are not granted because your base attack bonus is high enough, so they do not need to be made in order.
You can 2-hand a 1-hand weapon.
You need to take them in order from highest to lowestFull Attack: "If you get multiple attacks because your base attack bonus is high enough, you must make the attacks in order from highest bonus to lowest."
Off-hand attacks are not granted because your base attack bonus is high enough, so they do not need to be made in order.
It's kind of vague and depends on interpretation, whether "the attacks" refer to "the attacks you make" or "the attacks you get because base attack bonus is high", and the intent of the rule seems unclear (at least as unclear as this issue). In the latter interpretation, if you had for example BAB +16/+11/+6/+1 you could make the attacks in order +11/+6/+1/+16 since the first attack isn't because of high BAB.
But I'll concede that point and satisfy with "it's really obnoxious to do"