Well, I am finding it hard to build a fighter that can be effective at TWF with weapons, not shields. I know that if I can make it to level 11, more than half my total non-epic level, and near level 15 which is the end of most modules, you can make it by with Shield Mastery Feat. But even then you probably end up using two shields (unless this has changed).
I must be blind but it just seems like there is no way for one to make using two different weapons effective in a build.
So I am just looking at TWF builds in general I could apply, ones that do not include Rogues at all though.
I have a character concept that uses two different weapons in combat, but I find the feats too expensive to pull it off without trashing my capability, especially with a level 15 build.
Also if you have ideas on how to fix TWF for no rogues and builds including two different weapons posting them here would be great.
So if you could, please share.
1. Take Greater Two-Weapon Fighting and Perfect Two-Weapon Fighting and include their benefits in Improved TWF, thus shortening the tree by 2 feats.
2. Allow a single attack with each weapon on a standard action.
Done!
1. Take Greater Two-Weapon Fighting and Perfect Two-Weapon Fighting and include their benefits in Improved TWF, thus shortening the tree by 2 feats.
2. Allow a single attack with each weapon on a standard action.
Done!
Ummm OK
Seriously?
Am I missing something here, or can shields now be enchanted with 'flaming' or 'sonic' or other weapon features.
And using two weapons allows you to have 2x the number of weapon features?
How is that not effective?
-Campbell
Where is Perfect Two Weapon Fighting from?
can shields now be enchanted with 'flaming' or 'sonic' or other weapon features.
Yes.
Just as they could in 3.5.
It is called shield spikes.
|
Rapier/Kukri with 12 feats should be effective. (more effective with 2 rapiers)
[1]TWF
[F1]Weapon Focus (rapier)
[F2]Double Slice
[3] Weapon Finesse ?
[F4]Weapon Spec (rapier)
Weapon Training I (light blades)
[5] open
[F6]Imp TWF
[7] open
[f8] Greater Weapon Focus (rapier)
[9] Improved critical (rapier)
[F10]Critical Focus
[11] Bleeding Critical or two weapon rend
+4 to hit, +4 dmg for the rapier (critical on 15+)
+1 to hit, +1 dmg kukri
Requires 17 dex, full damage for off-hand weapon for strength
I'm not certain what he means by effective.
You do damage, you get multiple attacks? What is it about the build that makes it so 'ineffective'?
I guess if you want to do 1d4 base damage then you can go with spiked shields. But I don't see why that makes other weapon only combos ineffective.
-Campbell
Seriously?
Am I missing something here, or can shields now be enchanted with 'flaming' or 'sonic' or other weapon features.
And using two weapons allows you to have 2x the number of weapon features?
How is that not effective?
-Campbell
You have always been able to enhance shields with "flaming" or "sonic" or other weapon features. Paizo didn't change this.
A shield could be built that also acted as a magic weapon, but the cost of the enhancement bonus on attack rolls would need to be added into the cost of the shield and its enhancement bonus to AC.
You are correct that energy properties are where it's at: the strength of duel-wielding lies in per-hit damage bonuses. I'm not sure what the OP is complaining about, other than the fact that two-weapon fighting with a shield is better than two-weapon fighting with an actual weapon.
Improved Shield Bash is a really dumb feat and I've hated it in every SRD game that's used it. Coming in from the opposite direction, Two-weapon Defense should also let you enhance your off-hand weapon as a shield (i.e, stacking with your armor enhancement), and I don't think anyone would think that was balanced.
Reading Shield Slam made me want to stab a puppy. It's five times better than Improved Bullrush and doesn't even have it as a prerequisite.
Reading Shield Mastery made me lose faith in the human race.
I understand the desire to make sword-and-board better, but good lord, letting sword-and-board do everything that TWF does (except better) isn't the way to go. High-end shield feats should make you better at defending yourself, and shield-punching should just be an option for compromising between the two paths (switching from one to the other round-by-round).
Edit: Someone mentioned the kukri, which reminded me how powerful crit range is in Pathfinder (with all the auto-confirm powers), which should be taken into account (shields can't crit for diddly). I don't think that mitigates their superiority, though; you can still use a kukri/scimitar/whatever in your primary hand, after all.
But even then you probably end up using two shields (unless this has changed).
You can only make an off-hand attack with a shields. Unless you have three arms (a distinct possibility in this game), you can't attack with two shields.
Their AC bonuses also wouldn't stack ("shield bonuses" aren't exempt from bonus stacking the way that dodge bonuses are), unless I'm mistaken.
Am I understanding it correctly, that the enchantment bonus (+X and shield/weapon features) has to apply separately for defense and offense? So you can have a shield +0 enchantment bonus to AC /+2 enchantment bonus to hit flaming?
Pathfinder is helping you because even if your main-hand/off-hand weapon are not identical, if they are in the same weapon group you can maximize Weapon Training on both. Having the same net damage bonus with Power Attack as 2-Handers doesn't hurt you either.
Shields ARE very strong "2WF" options, and certainly they make more sense for a /2WF/ Warrior than taking Improved and Greater Bullrush, since besides the +2/+4 to-hit, Shield Bash achieves MOST of what they do but in a very synergistic Feat Chain.
EDIT: AFAIK, there is no limit on using a Shield in your main-hand. It is listed in the Weapons Table with no such restrictions. You only benefit from one shield's /AC bonus/, but the point of such a dual-shield setup is maximizing Weapon Spec/Focus/Training and Shield Feats (like Shield Bash and possibly Shield Mastery).
Here are some weapon options which allow you to use a 2-Handed grip/ have decent damage on main-hand (helpful for Standard Attacks/ Vital Strike)
Dwarven Waraxe + Throwing/Hand Axe (ranged option, same Wpn Training group)
Bastard Sword + Short Sword (Hvy & Lt Blades Groups unfortunately)
double weapons
Dwarven Ugrosh (single Wpn Spec/Focus/Training)
Dire Flail (Maneuvers, single Wpn Spec/Focus/Training)
"Gnome" Hooked Hammer (Maneuvers, single Wpn Spec/Focus/Training)
Two-Bladed Sword (single Wpn Spec/FocusTraining)
Orc Double Axe (single Wpn Spec/Focus/Wpn Training)
Here's a pretty vanilla feat built, assuming a Racial Double Weapon:
Wpn Spec,
Wpn Focus,
Grt Wpn Spec,
Blind-Fight
Vital Strike,
Double Slice,
Critical Focus,
Imp 2WF,
Power Attack,
Improved Critical: Double Weapon X,
Lunge,
Disruptive,
Cleave,
Imp Vital Strike,
Grt 2WF,
=16 Feats
Also: looking at the rules as written.
A sixteenth level fighter would get
+16/+11/+6/+1 With primary
and
+16/+11/+6 with secondary
If they took the two weapon fighting chain, in *addition* to a +1 Shield bonus from Two-Weapon Defense.
If you took all of the above the shield fighter, for the cost of a few more feats would get-
+16/+11/+6/+1 with a weapon, and
+16/+11/+6 with a shield.
They can also get a free bull rush.
The shield will (likely) do less damage then a second weapon, and must split it's enhancement bonus between attack and defense. A few feats are equal to 4, *six* if you want the bonuses to Ac from shield focus.
Why is the first not effective?
This may be true. However, the fact remains that the core rules don't let you enhance a weapon as a shield. That ability would be very powerful, accounting for a substantial AC boost at high levels (+7 armor/+7 shield costs less than +10 armor), and the fact that we're talking about throwing this in for free shows was a power disparity there is.
Also, even if this were an "official interpretation" (what others might call errata), I still don't like it because it blurs the line between TWF and sword-and-board. Letting you spend a bunch of feats to do both at once makes the decision less meaningful, and also leaves other builds behind (why can't a greatsword be enhanced as a shield? Why can't a wizard's staff?).
As for shield slam, it's not just better for shield-bashers, it's better period. If you want to be the best at pushing people around you'd be a fool not to use a shield. Using your attack roll means you're adding enhancement and misc bonuses to your CMB (BIG deal); not only that, but if your attack hits, you've already made a high roll anyway and get to use the same roll for the bullrush. AND they fall prone if you bash them into a wall.
Also if you have ideas on how to fix TWF for no rogues and builds including two different weapons posting them here would be great.
I'm not sure if this is what you mean or not when you say fix it. It's my proposal for a house rule though.
I just reread that "if you want to push people around you'd be a fool not to use a shield". Rather than the seething, black-hearted derision that I intended, I find that it actually has a certain ring of... sense?
Just the same, I think "shield bulldoze" should have been a completely separate thing from the whole shield-twf debacle, and should have built onto Improved Bullrush.
Right. I don't see any reason why it's even necessary to have any Shield Feats in order to make a Bullrush with your Shield (gaining it's Wpn Enhancement Bonus), but nobody besides serious Shield Fighters w/ Shield Feats generally HAS any Shield Weapon Enhancements (note: if you want more than +2 Enhancement, Shield Mastery's AC->WpnEnh Bonus benefit actually provides no benefit). I'm not 100% certain if Unarmed Strike Enhancements would apply to (non-Shield/non-Weapon Knockback) Bullrushes. BTW, ALL Maneuver attempts are Attack Rolls and take all generally applicable Attack Bonuses (Flanking, Morale, etc) (I may have misunderstood what you wrote)
That said, Imp/Greater Bullrush do make sense for 2-Handed Weapon Fighters: They have a lesser "Feat Tax" and so have room for it, the +2/+4 helps and allows them to focus on Enhancing only one Weapon (no Shield). It's really only an issue for Dual Wielders, for whom the Feat Tax would be signifigant, and only emphasizes that "2WF'ing" with Shields would synergize way better.
|
|
Shields can hit more often in a TWF/Shield Master build, BUT, you're only going to crit with those shields occasionally, which is different than the rapier/kukri build I set-up, in which you have a 30% chance to crit with your main hand and 15% chance with your off-hand, longsword/shortsword would be 20%/10%. If you TWF with double dwarven axes by taking a dwarven TWFer, you will suffer the penalties for fighting without a light weapon in your off-hand, but your improved crits and end up with 10% chance with each hand...for a 1d10 dmg/x3 weapon, if those are burst weapons, it can be brutal.
BTW, ALL Maneuver attempts are Attack Rolls and take all generally applicable Attack Bonuses (Flanking, Morale, etc) (I may have misunderstood what you wrote)
CMB = Base attack bonus + Strength modifier + special size modifier
Some abilities which add to attack also add to CMB, but not all of them. In fact, not most of them. Inspire Courage doesn't. Flanking doesn't. Weapon Focus doesn't. Enhancement bonuses don't. At high levels, the difference between an attack roll and a CMB is going to be big.
Combat Maneuver Defense is the one that ports over any dodge/sacred/deflection/etc. bonuses from armor class.
The PRD could be wrong here, or I could have missed something, but for all of the preview characters their CMB is just their BAB + their strength.
I'm sure you can find a similarly basic line describing normal Melee Attacks.
CMB would not include any such bonuses because it's a generic value (like BAB).
Specific Weapon Enhancements/Bonuses don't apply to ALL/EVERY Maneuver,
likewise for for Feats, Special Abilities (like Smite), etc.
When you attempt to perform a combat maneuver, make an attack roll and add your CMB in place of your normal attack bonus. Add bonuses you currently have on attack rolls due to spells, feats, These bonuses must be applicable to the weapon or attack used to perform the maneuver.
Maneuver Attacks take all attack bonuses, and CMD is linked to Touch AC, and Jason has said as much in a board post (Weapon Enhancements apply, which makes sense and was true in 3.5 for attack roll portion). CMB/CMD is for all intents FUNCTIONALLY identical to Maneuver AC from the play-test, though with a different 'presentation'.
The fact that Jason chose NOT to present THE most simple extension of the melee system in the clearest way possible (like just adding an Attack MODIFIER to normal Attack numbers to account for reverse Maneuver Size Bonuses, and deriving CMD direclty from Touch AC+BAB+STR+Maneuver Size Mod) is inexplicable to me, and the amount of posters confused on this subject (to the point of derailing other topics like this one) only reinforces this point.
From a game-play perspective, re-calculating all applicable Feats, Bonuses, etc (Iterative Maneuvers!) seems ridiculously cumbersome compared to applying a flat modifier to "normal" attack numbers (if you're like me and pre-calculate attack options, i.e. Iterative/2WF/Power Attack, etc). Since their OUTCOME is functionally identical, you CAN use this approach yourself and be 100% compatable (just double Maneuver Size Mod to cancel out already-factored-in Normal Size Mod (if non-Medium) and apply this on the fly)
But even then you probably end up using two shields (unless this has changed).You can only make an off-hand attack with a shields. Unless you have three arms (a distinct possibility in this game), you can't attack with two shields.
Their AC bonuses also wouldn't stack ("shield bonuses" aren't exempt from bonus stacking the way that dodge bonuses are), unless I'm mistaken.
Shield Master (Combat)
Your mastery of the shield allows you to fight with it without hindrance.
Prerequisites: Improved Shield Bash, Shield Proficiency, Shield Slam, Two-Weapon Fighting, base attack bonus +11.
Benefit: You do not suffer any penalties on attack rolls made with a shield while you are wielding another weapon. Add your shield's shield bonus to attacks and damage rolls made with the shield as if it was an enhancement bonus.
Nothing in there about off-hand weapon
When you attempt to perform a combat maneuver, make an attack roll and add your CMB in place of your normal attack bonus. Add bonuses you currently have on attack rolls due to spells, feats, These bonuses must be applicable to the weapon or attack used to perform the maneuver.
Okay, you're right.
It also means that every single statistic posted in the "CMB vs. CMD" thread was completely wrong.
I don't think "It's a base statistic like BAB" is exactly right, though. The base statistic IS BAB.
On the other hand, you can't include (for instance) your weapon enhancement bonus in the base statistic because not all maneuvers let you use your weapon.
Nothing in there about off-hand weapon
It's in the descriptions for light or heavy shields, under equipment. All shield attacks are off-hand attacks.
Shield Bash Attacks: You can bash an opponent with a light shield, using it as an off-hand weapon. See “shield, light” on Table: Weapons for the damage dealt by a shield bash. Used this way, a light shield is a martial bludgeoning weapon. For the purpose of penalties on attack rolls, treat a light shield as a light weapon. If you use your shield as a weapon, you lose its AC bonus until your next turn. An enhancement bonus on a shield does not improve the effectiveness of a shield bash made with it, but the shield can be made into a magic weapon in its own right.
Taken to its literal conclusion, this would mean that you can only shield-bash on a full attack, which would mean that you can't move in the same round, which would mean that the "if you move with them" clause for Shield Slam is at least partially wasted ink.
I may be taking that line too literally. Nevertheless, if you're trying to defend a two-shield build, "spirit of the rules" may not be your best defense. =p
I would also ask *again* what the original poster means by 'efficient'.
There are lots of two weapon fighting builds listed in this topic, and I still can't figure out what he means is *wrong* with using two weapons. I think if he (mechanically and mathematically) described what he meant, then we could be more helpful in addressing his concerns.
Well, don't use two different weapons. So you lose out on a one die step damage on your main weapon? No big deal.
Get something with a high crit range, like kukris. If you have access to the right weapons, use some exotic stuff that is like a kukri, but with more damage (or a short sword with higher crit range) instead. There's stuff like that out there.
Anogher option is to see if you can get the Oversized Two-Weapon Fighting feat (which eliminates the penalty of having a non-light weapon in your off-hand).
That way, you save on a lot of feats.
Get TWF, Improved and Greater TWF. Two-Weapon Defense. Double Slash (or however that feat that lets you use full strength on the off-hand is called). Two-Weapon Rend.
Also get weapon focus, weapon specialisation, and the follow-ups
Also, get improved crit, critical focus, and load up on critical feats. The fun part here is that with that many attacks, you're bound to make some critical hits. That means double damage (real double damage, not the cheap rip-off a rogue gets with a crit) AND maybe some nasty side-effect for your victim.
If you want to go completely bonkers, and your GM lets you, the Book of Experimental Might 2 has a couple of really nice crit feats.
Together with all the bonuses you get from the fighter class, you'll be powerful enough.
Ignore Int and Cha, and mostly ignore Wis (a minor bonus, maybe even an average score. Focus on Strength, Dexterity, Constitution.
Where is Perfect Two Weapon Fighting from?What he said?
Where is it from?
Epic Level handbook. It is the most important one. Whenever you have an attack with your primary hand, you get an attack with your offhand. AoO = two attacks; Spring Attack = two attacks(or more with phbII feats) etc.
What 'Yoss said.
I believe there's something out there called an "Elven Lightblade" that is a Light Weapon but counts as a Rapier for all other purposes, meaning Weapon Spec/Focus not to mention Training. But I also don't see straight up dual Short Swords as a problem either. If a 2WF build is slightly behind in Standard/Vital Strike Damage (3d6+stuff vs. 3d10+stuff at 12th level isn't game-shattering), well, they will certainly make up for it in Crits. Power Attack no longer disfavors 2WF/Light Weapons, as I said before.
*IF* 2 Weapon Defense DOESN'T allow Shield Enhancements, I definitely would NOT take it,
and even if it does, you have to decide if you'd rather have other Feats outside of 2WF.
2 Weapon Rend is OK (probably best for high STR/low DEX Ranger), I'd probably rather take Improved Critical with the Feat, and instead of buying Keen+Elemental, get Elemental Burst to go with the 2WF Crit Factory.
And pure damage output (standard or full attack) isn't the whole game.
You will want to cover your vulnerabilities.
And have some utility feats to keep UP, or keep your opponents DOWN.
(Improved/Greater Trip + Lunge = you Full Attacking + AoO's, them not.)
Sure, you CAN make a sub-optimal choice like using different main/off-hand weapons which don't even share a Weapon Training Group, but there's plenty of GOOD choices that DO allow you to synergize/ maximize your Feats and Abilities.
I would also ask *again* what the original poster means by 'efficient'.
There are lots of two weapon fighting builds listed in this topic, and I still can't figure out what he means is *wrong* with using two weapons. I think if he (mechanically and mathematically) described what he meant, then we could be more helpful in addressing his concerns.
What niche or effect worth the feats you place into it when compared to other niches such as Two Handed weapon fighting, and sword and board fighting.
I have gone extensively into the mathematics of TWF and have found that you spend tones of feats, split stat focus, and twice the money to gain very little in return. Maybe it is just me, but till the PRPG came along TWF was for rogues and others who could get decent extra damage to mitigate the minuses of TWF. So it became obvious to me that damage, hit, and combat maneuvers was not their thing, unless I missed something.
Shield Bash Attacks: You can bash an opponent with a light shield, using it as an off-hand weapon. See “shield, light” on Table: Weapons for the damage dealt by a shield bash. Used this way, a light shield is a martial bludgeoning weapon. For the purpose of penalties on attack rolls, treat a light shield as a light weapon. If you use your shield as a weapon, you lose its AC bonus until your next turn. An enhancement bonus on a shield does not improve the effectiveness of a shield bash made with it, but the shield can be made into a magic weapon in its own right.Taken to its literal conclusion, this would mean that you can only shield-bash on a full attack, which would mean that you can't move in the same round, which would mean that the "if you move with them" clause for Shield Slam is at least partially wasted ink.
I may be taking that line too literally. Nevertheless, if you're trying to defend a two-shield build, "spirit of the rules" may not be your best defense. =p
That maybe true, but you only need to bash with one shield to keep your AC bonus; since there is no reason you couldn't use one shield just as a weapon, as it is listed as one in the weapon's chart.
I would also ask *again* what the original poster means by 'efficient'.
There are lots of two weapon fighting builds listed in this topic, and I still can't figure out what he means is *wrong* with using two weapons. I think if he (mechanically and mathematically) described what he meant, then we could be more helpful in addressing his concerns.
What niche or effect worth the feats you place into it when compared to other niches such as Two Handed weapon fighting, and sword and board fighting.
I have gone extensively into the mathematics of TWF and have found that you spend tones of feats, split stat focus, and twice the money to gain very little in return. Maybe it is just me, but till the PRPG came along TWF was for rogues and others who could get decent extra damage to mitigate the minuses of TWF. So it became obvious to me that damage, hit, and combat maneuvers was not their thing, unless I missed something.
I'd like to see your math on this subject. I'd also like to know what feats your looking at for the different builds, and so on. Its hard to answer your question if we don't have an example of what you consider "efficient". Everyone jas their own opinion (from my friend who thinks efficient is 'I didn't die that combat!!!' to my other friend who complains about inefficiency if he doesn't kill something *every* combat [even against one foe])
@Hexen: Have mine, 'Yoss, and Xaaon's posts helped your problem at all?
Thank you for answering my query.
What niche or effect worth the feats you place into it when compared to other niches such as Two Handed weapon fighting, and sword and board fighting.
"Worth the feats"?
I want to play a two weapon fighter! Oh, hey, look, it's suddenly worth all the feats.
You have two weapons, you do damage, you get a ton of attacks, and you're real useful when you have various effects on your weapons.
I have gone extensively into the mathematics of TWF and have found that you spend tones of feats, split stat focus, and twice the money to gain very little in return. Maybe it is just me, but till the PRPG came along TWF was for rogues and others who could get decent extra damage to mitigate the minuses of TWF. So it became obvious to me that damage, hit, and combat maneuvers was not their thing, unless I missed something.
I would like to see those extensive mathematics. I'm looking at it, and I can't seem to see the big advantage shields have over weapons or vice versa. Now, it seems like, no matter what path or route you take, you'll be fairly effective and helpful to the group that you adventure with.
And I kind of thought that was the whole point.
Tonnes of feats? You have to spend even *more* feats to get the shield functionality.
I don't understand where you're splitting stat focus? Strength?
If you do go finesse and split the stats to dex, you also get all the advantages of high dex. I'm not seeing how this negatively affects the build.
Why do you spend twice the money? Two weapon ends/ two shields/ two weapons/ weapon and shield/ <- Each has two items that can take enchantments up to +10. The cost is similar. (And I point out the shield is gimped because it has to split that +10 between defense and offense)
Also: I'm not clear on who 'their' is referring to in the sentence 'So it became obvious to me that damage, hit, and combat maneuvers was not their thing, unless I missed something'
Rogues? Fighters? It seems like a valid option, and I am not seeing how it is not effective or less effective than other options.
@Hexen: Have mine, 'Yoss, and Xaaon's posts helped your problem at all?
Very much, thank you.
P.S.
Thing have changed a bit from 3.5. And I am happy to see it.
Here is a thought for something that might help with some diversity in weapon styles.
Two-Weapon Focus (Combat)
Choose Two types of weapons, but of a different type from each other. You can also choose unarmed strike, but not grapple (or ray, if you are a spellcaster), as one of your weapons for the purposes of this feat.
Prerequisites: Proficiency with selected weapons, two weapon fighting, base attack bonus +1.
Benefit: You gain a +1 bonus on all attack rolls you make using the selected weapons, but only when they are both used in conjunction with two weapon fighting. This does work with combat maneuvers and attacks of opportunities, but only as long as they are suffering the penalties from two-weapons fighting.
Special: You can gain this feat multiple times. Its effects do not stack. Each time you take the feat, it applies to a new type of weapon.
Thank you for answering my query.
What niche or effect worth the feats you place into it when compared to other niches such as Two Handed weapon fighting, and sword and board fighting.
"Worth the feats"?
I want to play a two weapon fighter! Oh, hey, look, it's suddenly worth all the feats.
You have two weapons, you do damage, you get a ton of attacks, and you're real useful when you have various effects on your weapons.
You lost me here. To keep from flaming you, I will just ignore you.
You lost me here. To keep from flaming you, I will just ignore you.Thank you for answering my query.
What niche or effect worth the feats you place into it when compared to other niches such as Two Handed weapon fighting, and sword and board fighting.
"Worth the feats"?
I want to play a two weapon fighter! Oh, hey, look, it's suddenly worth all the feats.
You have two weapons, you do damage, you get a ton of attacks, and you're real useful when you have various effects on your weapons.
I'm not the only one who asked to see your math, or is wondering what you mean by worth.
I don't understand why you would 'flame' me. Worth and value are flexible, dependent on desire, alterable by supply, environment, and demand. These are simple facts.
You made the claim, all I'm confused about is the definition of your terms.
You lost me here. To keep from flaming you, I will just ignore you.Thank you for answering my query.
What niche or effect worth the feats you place into it when compared to other niches such as Two Handed weapon fighting, and sword and board fighting.
"Worth the feats"?
I want to play a two weapon fighter! Oh, hey, look, it's suddenly worth all the feats.
You have two weapons, you do damage, you get a ton of attacks, and you're real useful when you have various effects on your weapons.
I'm not the only one who asked to see your math, or is wondering what you mean by worth.
I don't understand why you would 'flame' me. Worth and value are flexible, dependent on desire, alterable by supply, environment, and demand. These are simple facts.
You made the claim, all I'm confused about is the definition of your terms.
The math was for 3.5, which has changed. The points made does prove things are better.
TWF tree by it self is inferior to THWF with no feats, just like 3.5.
I did an extensive TWF thread in the beta playtesting detailing this. I will try and find it.
BrB
I did an extensive TWF thread in the beta playtesting detailing this. I will try and find it
BrB
Thanks. :-) I look forward to seeing it. :-D
-Campbell
TWF tree by it self is inferior to THWF with no feats, just like 3.5.
This is if there are no miscellaneous bonuses to damage.
By 20th level, your base damage and your strength bonus count for relatively little, and virtually everything other bonus to damage (ever bonus to damage that I can think of, in fact) is doubled for TWF. What I said about shield/armor above applies to weapon enhancements too; for the price of one +10 weapon, you can get 2 +7 weapons and deal an extra 4d6 points of energy damage.
Nevertheless, I'll wait and read your thread before I quibble too hard. I assume you make the case that damage reduction negates the duel-wielder's headway?
Looking at it, what I see, is that there really isn't a significant advantage anywhere. It all seems pretty equal in power and utility, each shining more against some opponents than others.
It is my belief that this change was the whole point of the revision. I don't see any 'traps' or 'punishments' for bad builds. Now you can just come up with a concept and play it and be somewhat assured that you'll be effective in combat.
Looking at it, what I see, is that there really isn't a significant advantage anywhere. It all seems pretty equal in power and utility, each shining more against some opponents than others.
It is my belief that this change was the whole point of the revision. I don't see any 'traps' or 'punishments' for bad builds. Now you can just come up with a concept and play it and be somewhat assured that you'll be effective in combat.
yes they are sort of equal, except if you notice the feat spent on each style.
Two Weapon fighting has NEVER been an effective choice for fighters for one reason: damage output. One can almost certainly get better results from using a Two-Handed weapon instead, using power attack.
Rogues benefit from TWF, that's it.
...
You just compared a DEX 19, STR 10 TWF to a DEX 10, STR 19 THW. Then complained that the dex-fiend dealt less damage? You didn't even look at other bonuses to damage (which, at high levels, could have the scrawny fencer dealing even more damage than the brute). This is why, when someone says "I've done an extensive comparison trust me", we don't just give him the benefit of the doubt.
For an even comparison, try making them both rangers. A ranger doesn't need a high dexterity to take TWF so you can give them the same stats. The duel-wielder will be at -2 to hit, but their damage will be identical, at least until we start tossing in Weapon Specialization/enhanced weapons/inspire courage/favored enemy/etc, at which point you'll clearly see the benefits of two-weapon fighting. This, however, will be counterbalanced by the fact that the greatsword-wielder gets to put all his eggs in the same basket; he deals more damage on a charge, more damage on an attack of opportunity, more damage on a cleave etc. He also has more feats.
You can go back and forth on this all the way to level 20, finding that each path has benefits and drawbacks.
What you did, though, was compare dexterity to strength, which isn't the same at all as comparing TWF to THW.
Two Weapon fighting has NEVER been an effective choice for fighters for one reason: damage output. One can almost certainly get better results from using a Two-Handed weapon instead, using power attack.
Rogues benefit from TWF, that's it.
I agree. A fighter needs to spend a ton of feats just to keep up with the functionality of a Two Handed weapon with no feats. That is one of the three the key problems.
...
You just compared a DEX 19, STR 10 TWF to a DEX 10, STR 19 THW. Then complained that the dex-fiend dealt less damage?
No, less damage, less to hit, more feats, and more expensive.
After 4 feats to keep it in line you think you would get extensive benifits from them, or what ever you add onto them. I am more than willing to listen to them, as this is the reason why I made this thread, was to find them.
Weapon specialization is a good point. Weapon focus however shows a slight problem as you gain no additional benefit for having TWF.
A similar problem happens with enhancement bonuses, as you pay 8000 gold for two +1 weapons, granting a net +1 to hit and +2 damage. Is that +1 damage really worth that 4000 gold? And if you don't spend it, your stuck with a -1 to one of your two attacks, making the actual equivalent bonus to hit for 4000 gold about a +0.5.
I agree. A fighter needs to spend a ton of feats just to keep up with the functionality of a Two Handed weapon with no feats. That is one of the three the key problems.Two Weapon fighting has NEVER been an effective choice for fighters for one reason: damage output. One can almost certainly get better results from using a Two-Handed weapon instead, using power attack.
Rogues benefit from TWF, that's it.
A ton is hyperbole. At most it's six. (That's how many feats a human fighter has at level 5? 4?) Two of those give a whole extra attack. One gives armor, another increases damage from strength. A third reduces the inherent to hit penalty associated with TWF, which a THF user isn't subject to.
The *advantage* of using two weapons is a huge amount of extra damage from weapon features. Enchantments, buffs, and elemental damage effects will quickly turn full attack turns into an huge advantage. The THF loses out on all those effects, but gains the freedom to explore other feat chains (or just gain extra hitpoints from toughness. :-)
What are the other two key problems?
-Campbell
What are the other two key problems?
-Campbell
2 Weapon Cost: While you spend 200,000 more gold for the same bonus to hit but with a bonus to damage. How does that equate to the bonus from a THWF that got a single weapon with 200,000 gold, and had another 200,000 for a +6 strength item and Manual of Gainful Exercise +4. The results are debatable, and I will be honest, I have not looked too much into it.
3 Stat splitting as you need a dex of 19, and a strength as high as you can if you don't use weapon finesse, but that costs you a feat and gives you nothing for damage and combat maneuvers.
Complete Warrior has some good Weapon Style Feats that give you special attacks when using a specific combo of weapons. The feat cost is heavy but the effect is nice on most of them.
What are the other two key problems?
-Campbell2 Weapon Cost: While you spend 200,000 more gold for the same bonus to hit but with a bonus to damage. How does that equate to the bonus from a THWF that got a single weapon with 200,000 gold, and had another 200,000 for a +6 strength item and Manual of Gainful Exercise +4. The results are debatable, and I will be honest, I have not looked too much into it.
3 Stat splitting as you need a dex of 19, and a strength as high as you can if you don't use weapon finesse, but that costs you a feat and gives you nothing for damage and combat maneuvers.
Given 200,000 gold, you could get 1 +5 weapon with +5 added features, or two +2 weapons with +5 added features. (you give up +15% to hit and +6 damage, for 3 additional chances to hit, and possibly a bunch of bonus elemental damage)
Given 400,000 gold, you could get that +10 from strength (Str item and Manual) instead of a second +10 weapon, or you could get another base weapon damage die, another three attacks, another critical shot, another +5 enchantment bonus and another, oh, say 4d6 in elemental damage, or whatever you want.
As far as stat splitting goes, I do not understand why you have to have to split stats. You could go ahead and do a strength bonus build. Or, you know, you could not. If you take the feat (where ever it's from) that allows you to use the same size weapons, then you do get the advantage of not splitting the stat. If you do split the stat, you also gain a better AC (which is even more improved by the armor training.)