No, less damage, less to hit, more feats, and more expensive....
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 missed my point. Comparing a high-str THW to a low-str TWF is completely invalid. NO melee build can afford to have a strength of 10 (at least at low levels) unless he's a rogue, a gish, or some other character with a substantial 'misc' bonus to damage.
A low-level duel-wielder loses out because your weapons have to have at least a +1 enhancement bonus. However, before long you'll find that the THW is using a +1 flaming frost weapon while the TWF is using a +1 flaming weapon and a +1 frost weapon. Same attack bonus, same damage output, but the THW guy paid 2,000 GP more. And it only gets worse from there.
As I've said before, by level 20 the TWF guy will be using two +7 weapons (+14 total bonus), and they'll still be cheaper than the THW guy's +10 weapon.
Now, this is mitigated slightly by the fact that the THW guy doesn't actually want a +3 holy screaming acid flaming frost shock weapon. He's making half as many attacks as the TWF guy, and therefor his damage bonuses only count for half as much. He's going to bring his enhancement bonus all the way to +5 and then pick up some odd qualities like keen or ghost touch, or maybe splurge on vorpal (which will drop his raw damage even more, but give him something which- at least for him- is better than per-hit damage boosts).
As a fighter in particular, you're picking up damage bonuses no only from Weapon Training, but also from Weapon Specialization and Improved Weapon Specialization. By 20th level your fighter has a +8 class-based bonus to damage rolls. For a duel-wielder, that's going to be +16.
It doesn't sound like you have a lot of experience with high-level (or even mid-level) play. "Misc bonuses" to damage come to account for 90% of your output.
Now, just as a TWF guy is going to push for lots of damage-per-attack (because he already gets lots of attacks), a THW guy is going to push for more attack (because he already has a high damage bonus). He'll be taking stuff like Cleave, Combat Reflexes, speed weapons, etc. Things that the TWF guy won't bother with. My point isn't to prove that Two-weapon Fighting is always better than Two-handed Weapons; just that they both kick ass, and that the former has its perks even if you aren't dealing twice-your-level-per-hit in SA dice.
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.
Wait, you are agreeing with me, but trying to say I am wrong because your agreeing with me?
TWF, Imp. TWF, Grt. TWF, TW Pounce, A feat to make two attacks a standard action, no feat for AoO last I checked (but if there is that is another feat). So yo spend 5 feats, 6 for the theoretical one, which gives a normal fighter in their 20 levels theoretically 14 feats left, 15 if they are human, so yeah that sounds like a lot. But you are ignoring a few things.
One is Non fighters which 6 feats is over half of the feats they get in their entire 20 levels, even if they are human.
I had more points, but it is getting late, and I will get back to you later.
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.
Cool thanks, I will look at those!
You missed my point. Comparing a high-str THW to a low-str TWF is completely invalid. NO melee build can afford to have a strength of 10 (at least at low levels) unless he's a rogue, a gish, or some other character with a substantial 'misc' bonus to damage.No, less damage, less to hit, more feats, and more expensive....
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 are missing the point, actually, (LOL pun) there are equal point cost, and a TWF only has to worry about 1 in hit and damage output.
P.S. I will get to the rest of your points later, I am getting tired, but from a quick over-view you are correct on some of them at least.
You are missing the point, actually, (LOL pun) there are equal point cost, and a TWF only has to worry about 1 in hit and damage output.You missed my point. Comparing a high-str THW to a low-str TWF is completely invalid. NO melee build can afford to have a strength of 10 (at least at low levels) unless he's a rogue, a gish, or some other character with a substantial 'misc' bonus to damage.No, less damage, less to hit, more feats, and more expensive....
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?
Irrelevant. An 18 INT, 10 STR would also be equal in point cost. That doesn't make it an equally valid way to build a melee combatant.
If you want to compare TWF to THW, make them both rangers so that they can use the same stats. A dex-based fighter can also be an excellent character, but that's a COMPLETELY different discussion. A dex-based duel-wielder is completely dependent on the misc bonuses which your breakdown ignored.
edit:
P.S. I will get to the rest of your points later, I am getting tired, but from a quick over-view you are correct on some of them at least.
Kay, no sweat. :)
You missed my point. Comparing a high-str THW to a low-str TWF is completely invalid. NO melee build can afford to have a strength of 10 (at least at low levels) unless he's a rogue, a gish, or some other character with a substantial 'misc' bonus to damage.No, less damage, less to hit, more feats, and more expensive....
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 are missing the point, actually, (LOL pun) there are equal point cost, and a TWF only has to worry about 1 in hit and damage output.
P.S. I will get to the rest of your points later, I am getting tired, but from a quick over-view you are correct on some of them at least.
Then Stat out two *real* characters at level 1, one a two handed weapon fighter, the other a two weapon fighter (or have one of us who have looked into TWF alot build one) with the same number of points (oh, say 20) and go from there.
You'll find that a two handed weapon fighter deals out steady damage, with a pretty good burst damage capability, but doesn't burst damage alot. A two weapon fighters baseline damage is lower (much lower in some cases), but their burst potential is through the roof. In alot of ways, it all depends on how you want to do your job...slow, steady and predictable (2hander) or faster, randomer (I think thats a word...my 6 year old stepson uses it...), and constantly variable.
WotC Epic Handbook (3.0 not 3.5) and heavily debated what it does as it is very poorly worded.Where is Perfect Two Weapon Fighting from?What he said?
Where is it from?
To me, it's quite clear that the feat is meant to be the 4th Two-Weapon Fighting feat, giving you the 4th attack with your off-hand weapon.
Evidence of this is that the feat's "normal" paragraph only talks about how you can only make 1-3 off-hand attacks with the other feats. It also never says that you get to ignore the "only one attack unless you make a full attack" restriction, and that normal part never says "without this feat, you need a full attack action for more than one attack, regardless of source).
I'm not quite sure the feat doesn't belong in normal levels (i.e. as the 16th-level feat for two-weapon fighters), anyway.
|
Thread Divert >>>
Jumping on the original posters "effective" request there's one thing in the pathfinder rules which makes fighters more adaptable (read effective) in multiple situations.
Upon reaching 4th level, and every four levels thereafter (8th, 12th, and so on), a fighter can choose to learn a new bonus feat in place of a bonus feat he has already learned. In effect, the fighter loses the bonus feat in exchange for the new one. The old feat cannot be one that was used as a prerequisite for another feat, prestige class, or other ability. A fighter can only change one feat at any given level and must choose whether or not to swap the feat at the time he gains a new bonus feat for the level.
This gives fighters the ability to adapt to the flow of the game. most fighters will start of with as much AC as they can muster over two weapon fighting or two handed weapon feats. If the adventure follows a path that leads you to big creatures then 2 handers are likely the prefered direction and dropping the shield feats are now an option. If you find yourself up against lots of little creatures more often splitting your attacks over more targets is more effective with TWF.
Finally I always find that when I built a fighter character in 3.5 I specialised in 1 particular weapon by the time I reached 6th level only to find that the DM placed magical weapons that I hadn't specialised in - being able to switch (even if its only every 4 levels) is a great bonus.
I've found that two-weapon fighting can be quite nice for a fighter.
You might get a -2 hit on all attacks, and have to pay the cost of a number of feats, but you do get something back:
Agreed, the damage dice will be lower than with a two-handed weapon, but stuff like weapon specialisation and weapon training, not to mention extra damage from the weapon, will be there twice. That's not so bad.
And later, when you get the critical feats, you get to have twice as many chances for a crit (you have to roll high enough for them, anyway, so the initial attack roll has a nice chance of succeeding - and after that, you get +4 on the roll to confirm!), meaning twice as many chances to really f!%~ up the other guy's day by making him bleed, staggering him, blinding him, stunning him, and so on.
Double slice means you get full strength on each hand, too, that means str x2 instead of x1.5 for a greatsword (or whatever floats your boat), and two-weapon rend is another plus for two-weapon damage.
Sure, you'll need both strength and dexterity, but for a fighter, that is advisable, anyway, because of armour training.
If you play a ranger instead, you need it because your style feats work only in medium armour. And while those don't get as many feats, they do get favoured enemy - which aplies equally to both weapons.
And while brutal in the prerequisite department due to lack of feats, smiting paladins with their level as damage bonus for each hand is what gives demons nightmares these days.
|
TWF is rather good in Pathfinder. I'd use dual kukris as a fighter. Add in keen weapons or improved critical and you end up with a threat range of 15-20, on 7-8 attacks per round.
Feats like Weapon Specialization, Greater Weapon Specialization and the Weapon Training class feature also favor TWF.
You might want to check this post, ironically enough in a threat about TWF being the only viable fighter build now. It contains some errors but it still shows the strengths of TWF.
The problem with TWF are standard actions, otherwise it works pretty well.
If one group of people complains about TWF being overpowered and another complains about it being to weak, it seems rather balanced to me.
Two Handed fighters can get a -2 to their attack to gain even more power by taking Monkey Grip, from Complete Warrior.
Every way you stack it, unless you are adding extra damage per swing somehow, two weapon fighting doesn't add up. I wish it did.
|
|
Two Handed fighters can get a -2 to their attack to gain even more power by taking Monkey Grip, from Complete Warrior.
Every way you stack it, unless you are adding extra damage per swing somehow, two weapon fighting doesn't add up. I wish it did.
Fighters gain bonus damage from weapon training and weapon specialization.
Rangers gain bonus damage from favored enemy.Paladins gain bonus damage from smite evil.
Barbarians gain bonus damage from rage (since double slice allows them to apply their full strength bonus on damage rolls with an offhand weapon)
Rogues gain bonus damage from sneak attack.
Bards gain bonus damage from arcane strike and inspire courage.
Clerics gain bonus damage from divine power.
Monks and Druids gain no bonus damage but usually don't use TWF anyway.
I will certainly not deny that TWF is a rather bad choice for Aristocrats, Experts, Warriors, Adepts and Commoners.
Seriously, TWF users usually deal more damage on a full attack than a THF user. With feats like double slice and two weapon rend, even high strength TWF characters are viable.
Rogues gain bonus damage from sneak attack.
Yup. That's why rogues TWF, and fighters THF. Sure, fighters get some bonus damage now and have access to feats that allow them some more extra damage, but so does the rogue.
I may be sticking to my old roots here, but it should be that way for a reason: Deal damage with a two-hander, or gain ac with a shield?
Pathfinder really screwed everything up with their shield feats.
I'd go ahead and bite the bullet on an additional -2 to hit with a Dwarven Fighter with 2-weapon fighting and rock out a pair of Dwarven Waraxes. Extend the critical hit range on those bad boys, double slice, weapon specialization and the whole 9 yards, you're going to have quite the B.A. fighter. Yeah, maybe he won't completely measure up to a 2HF as far as raw damage potential, but he'd be a dervish from hell just the same.
I'd go ahead and bite the bullet on an additional -2 to hit with a Dwarven Fighter with 2-weapon fighting and rock out a pair of Dwarven Waraxes. Extend the critical hit range on those bad boys, double slice, weapon specialization and the whole 9 yards, you're going to have quite the B.A. fighter. Yeah, maybe he won't completely measure up to a 2HF as far as raw damage potential, but he'd be a dervish from hell just the same.
And 3 Rogue levels sure wouldn't hurt. :)
That's my point. There should be some choices that one needs to make. I, also, love TWF fighter builds simply due to their badassery.
|
TW is stat dependant. If rolling stats and you have two that very high, a TWF is easier to accomplish. One high stat go with the THF. There is no way around it. With the point method set your dex high enough to get the two weapon feats with level based stat adjustments when they are available and dump into strength with the rest. This will make your con lower but with armor training the added AC from dex should make up the difference.
If the number of feats is the issue simply spend one on a double weapon. Since crtical hits is where you make up the majority of your damage make sure you use a high threat range weapon, making two-bladed sword you best choice. DM generosity will always play a big part. Burst weapons, strength items, and mithril weapons will help. You may also ask him about creating a double scimitar using craft weapon skill that you can pay to enhance. Spend feats on master craftsman and craft magic arms and armor and enhance it yourself.
two-bladed sword isn't the most optimal weapon IMHO,
there are several choices based upon what you want to do.
|
i found effectiveness with twf builds as rangers and paladins. the new smite evil and favored enemies for rangers have really buffed them up when you get smite bonuses on both main and off hand attacks.
with a paladin the effectiveness of a weapon bond can also mitigate the cost of splitting money on multiple weapons.
i'm only playing a low level paladin right now, and thinking i should have built it on a sword and shield style. but even with a large feat selection, i would think a short sword specialized fighter would make a fine two weapon fighter, especially with the new power attack and two weapon rend.
Two Handed fighters can get a -2 to their attack to gain even more power by taking Monkey Grip, from Complete Warrior.
Every way you stack it, unless you are adding extra damage per swing somehow, two weapon fighting doesn't add up. I wish it did.
Two-weapon fighters can use similar stuff to use bigger weapons, too.
That extra damage per swing is called weapon training and weapon specialisation.
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).
This is one of the clearest, most insightful posts in the history of Paizo (never mind that it perfectly sums up all of my thoughts on the subject as well). Thank you.
I'd go ahead and bite the bullet on an additional -2 to hit with a Dwarven Fighter with 2-weapon fighting and rock out a pair of Dwarven Waraxes.
Forget the bullet. Get Oversized Two-Weapon Fighting.
TW is stat dependant. If rolling stats and you have two that very high, a TWF is easier to accomplish. One high stat go with the THF. There is no way around it.
The one stat fighter is increasingly becoming a thing from the past. With weapon training, fighters are already advised to raise both str and dex.
two-bladed sword isn't the most optimal weapon IMHO,there are several choices based upon what you want to do.
I'd go with something that has 18-20/x2. Kukris if you must, exotic stuff (or scimitars and oversized TWF) if you can.
You'll find that a two handed weapon fighter deals out steady damage, with a pretty good burst damage capability, but doesn't burst damage alot. A two weapon fighters baseline damage is lower (much lower in some cases), but their burst potential is through the roof. In alot of ways, it all depends on how you want to do your job...slow, steady and predictable (2hander) or faster, randomer (I think thats a word...my 6 year old stepson uses it...), and constantly variable.
Really?
I'm tempted to say that you have that exactly wrong. Then again, I could be missing something.
TWF never deals a lot of damage at once. They get their full potential only when full attacking, and their average damage will be MUCH less erratic than a greatsword's. In layman's terms, a double-random is less randomer than a single-random. 2d6 is more predicable than 1d12. 10d10 is more predictable than 1d100.
The THW guy "bursts" more because all his eggs are in the same basket so to speak. On a charge, his damage spikes over a duel-wielder. If someone provokes an AoO, his damage spikes. If he scores a crit, his damage REALLY spikes.
You'll find that a two handed weapon fighter deals out steady damage, with a pretty good burst damage capability, but doesn't burst damage alot. A two weapon fighters baseline damage is lower (much lower in some cases), but their burst potential is through the roof. In alot of ways, it all depends on how you want to do your job...slow, steady and predictable (2hander) or faster, randomer (I think thats a word...my 6 year old stepson uses it...), and constantly variable.
Really?
I'm tempted to say that you have that exactly wrong. Then again, I could be missing something.
TWF never deals a lot of damage at once. They get their full potential only when full attacking, and their average damage will be MUCH less erratic than a greatsword's. In layman's terms, a double-random is less randomer than a single-random. 2d6 is more predicable than 1d12. 10d10 is more predictable than 1d100.
The THW guy "bursts" more because all his eggs are in the same basket so to speak. On a charge, his damage spikes over a duel-wielder. If someone provokes an AoO, his damage spikes. If he scores a crit, his damage REALLY spikes.
I'm not looking at damage per hit I think is what your missing.
A guy with a 2 handed weapon has fairly consistent damage, barring crits. In certain situations (crits) his burst potential is *really* high, but he is less likely to do so since he gets a limited amount of chances to do so.
A guy with two weapons has a much more random damage output. His damage output is based on more attack attack rolls, and more rolled dice. So his damage output is more streaky, but due to that, when its good...its *really* good (2 or 3 crits with burst weapons in a round), but when its bad...well...it can be *really* bad (A round of swings and nothing but air).
Enchantments tend to play a big part of this as well...at least in my experience. Most TWF builds I've seen have alot more bonus dice on damage than the TWF builds.
Eh, like I said...thats from my experience, playing in games, not just sitting down with a calculator...so I'll grant that its subjective. But I think if we sat down with a calculator, we'd prove all of them to be steady damage outputs, simply because we are going off averages...unless soemone feels like writing a probability model for it...and I don't have the time to write one =)
A guy with two weapons has a much more random damage output. His damage output is based on more attack attack rolls, and more rolled dice. So his damage output is more streaky, but due to that, when its good...its *really* good (2 or 3 crits with burst weapons in a round),
(1d6 + str) + (1d6 + .5str) has the same minimum AND maximum damage as (2d6 + 1.5str).
As for crits, likewise, (1d6 + str)x2 + (1d6 + .5str)x2 has the same maximum damage as (2d6 + 1.5str)x2.
However, if a greatsword has a 1-in-20 chance of scoring a crit, then a duel-wielder has a roughly 1-in-10 chance of scoring one crit but a 1-in-400 chance of scoring 2 (for comparable damage).
Now, the above statistics aren't altogether accurate because they don't account for misc bonuses (which the duel-wielder gets on ever hit). The thing is, a lot of that damage is going to be extra dice, which isn't actually multiplied on a crit. Hence why I assume that the duel-wilder's 2 crits aren't much better than the greatsword wielder's 1. For the same reason, a THW guy is much more likely to take keen or vorpal (though less likely to take a burst quality).
but when its bad...well...it can be *really* bad (A round of swings and nothing but air).
If a greatsword has a 1-in-5 chance of "nothing but air", then two shortswords only have a 1-in-25 chance of the same.
It's counter-intuitive, but more rolls actually make things less random, not more.
A low-level duel-wielder loses out because your weapons have to have at least a +1 enhancement bonus. However, before long you'll find that the THW is using a +1 flaming frost weapon while the TWF is using a +1 flaming weapon and a +1 frost weapon. Same attack bonus, same damage output, but the THW guy paid 2,000 GP more. And it only gets worse from there.
OK, while you are right that a TWF could afford two swords at +2 before a THF could afford a +3 weapon, could easially afford 8K worth of stuff other than thw sword, such a a +2 strength item and a +2 armor, or already have the 2k more to get a +3 sword. The latter is completely situational.
As I've said before, by level 20 the TWF guy will be using two +7 weapons (+14 total bonus), and they'll still be cheaper than the THW guy's +10 weapon.
This is incorrect as the total bonus of two +3 weapons, vs a +5 weapon is a net bonus of +1 damage, but a -2 to hit (-4 to -6 counting TWF minuses) and that is it.
Now i have not done the math yet on a flaming/frosting/shocking or their bursting aspect though.
So you did not get any real bonus for spending that many feats on the fighting style and your weapons from the enhancement bonuses. Wielding around numbers like "(+14 total bonus)" are meaningless with out the math to show it.
Now the critical effects could show promise, but then you are faced with elemental resistance and immunity, and that a weapon can only hold a +10 bonus, your stuck with at most 2 bursting effects, unless you want to tap into the +5 enhancement bonuses.
This aside, yeah TWF does get some minimal bonuses from weapon specialization, weapon training groups, and new power attack do help a little, but even after you spend all those feats and get this minimal bonuses to damage you will still have at least a net -2 to hit (-4 with one handed weapons), which in later levels isn't that much. So it looks like to me that the real power here in TWF, other than shield use, is the critical effects and modifiers (which are new).
But with pathfinder alone, you are stuck with full round actions to make use of this with TWF, and to improve on this you need to spend even more feats, which would be spent else where improving on, in most situations, a superior fighting style becoming even more superior.
So in conclusion things are better than they were before, which is something that needs to be investigated, which is why I built this thread in the first place.
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).
Agreed.
On a separate note, how about we stat out characters using real levels: I've never ever played a 20th level character. I tend to end my campaigns at about 12th level, and most people, I doubt, could say they've actually played a character as high as 14. Keep it real, guys.
20th level builds are inappropriate.
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).Agreed.
On a separate note, how about we stat out characters using real levels: I've never ever played a 20th level character. I tend to end my campaigns at about 12th level, and most people, I doubt, could say they've actually played a character as high as 14. Keep it real, guys.
20th level builds are inappropriate.
Agreed as well, however I have played at least 3 level 20 characters now. Age of worms, Savage tide, and Curse of the Crimson Thrown (beta).
So while level 14 is usually the highest, level 20 isn't impossible, but is a more realistic build, as I have rarely gone above 13 with all other of my games (but usually due to TPKs and groups disbanding).
OK, while you are right that a TWF could afford two swords at +2 before a THF could afford a +3 weapon, could easially afford 8K worth of stuff other than thw sword, such a a +2 strength item and a +2 armor, or already have the 2k more to get a +3 sword.
Irrelevant.
No matter what, eventually every warrior is going to want a +3 weapon. When that happens the duel-wielder comes out ahead.
Wielding around numbers like "(+14 total bonus)" are meaningless with out the math to show it.
If you insist.
In an extreme but simple example, a THW guy can use one +1 screaming acid flaming frost shock holy anarchic weapon while a TWF guy can use two +1 screaming flaming frost shock holy weapons for the same price. This example, which presumes that both characters have constant and easy access to greater magic weapon and also that the THW guy isn't very good with numbers, has the duel-wielder dealing +12d6+2 (44) to the greatsword's +9d6+1 (32.5).
Moving to the other extreme (one which favors the greatsword), let's say that they both get +5 weapons. The greatsword takes +5 worth of energy properties, while the duel-wielder gets +2 worth of properties on each weapon. In this case they're still at the same attack bonus, but the greatsword enjoys 5d6+5 points of damage (average 22.5), while the shortswords enjoy 4d6+10 (average 24). In addition, that "+10" (and the greatsword's +5) is multiplied in on a critical hit, which means they're actually more like +6 and +12 in the grand scheme of things (so, roughly, +23 vs. +26).
Like I said, that last example favors the greatsword (by assuming that the duel-wielder takes both his weapons to +5), so the duel-wielder only comes out slightly ahead.
In the end, though, both of those situations are a bit contrived. Real games are more complicated and the end result will be somewhere in the middle. The duel-wielder will probably bring both weapons to +3, or one to +5 and the other to +1 or +2. He'll definitely take a ton of special abilities, but he might also make his off-hand a defending weapon. He might make both weapons wounding and tear the s&~! out of the enemy's CON score, or he might pile on some burst qualities if he's using kukris rather than short swords.
Meanwhile, the THW guy knows he loses out on a net-damage race, so he doesn't even play that game. He's going to take speed or vorpal or throwing and returning. He might not have ANY elemental properties, having sold that frost shock weapon he was using at level 8. He's also more likely to take keen and save himself a feat (whereas the duel-wielder will take Improved Critical rather than take the same weapon property twice).
Nevertheless, it doesn't take a genius to see that the duel-wielder gets more bang for his buck.
Back to the feat-side of things, your "some minimal bonuses" comments continue to baffle me. What part of "+16 damage" are you not getting? If the fighter gets +8 to damage rolls, the duel-wielder doubles that. That's not a "minimal bonus".
It's hard to say whether things were better or worse in 3.5; ultimately that depends on setting and supplements. Non-core spells in particular could let him wrack up some serious per-hit damage bonuses (without even entering the whole PrC/non-core class bramble). Of course, 3.5 was also when Power Attack added double your level for two-handed weapons, and wasn't usable at all with light weapons. In Pathfinder (whether beta or final) both styles gain the exact same benefit from PA.
On a separate note, how about we stat out characters using real levels: I've never ever played a 20th level character. I tend to end my campaigns at about 12th level, and most people, I doubt, could say they've actually played a character as high as 14. Keep it real, guys.
20th level builds are inappropriate.
14th level is 70% of the way to 20th level. =p Most of the things that hold true at 20th level (at least for fighter-types, whose abilities are spaced out in a sane way) hold true at 14th to a proportional degree.
I believe that a 14th level fighter's damage bonus would be +7 rather than +8 (just off the top of my head; I believe they qualify for Greater Weapon spec. and have gotten Weapon Training 3 times).
Irrelevant.No matter what, eventually every warrior is going to want a +3 weapon. When that happens the duel-wielder comes out ahead.
First, gold cost is NOT irrelevant as while in a never ending game you will eventually get two +10 weapons vs. one +10 weapon, you still have to factor in the +4 book and +6 stat item into the equation to keep things apples to apples, as that adds bonuses to hit and damage for the same cost of an additional +10 weapon.
That is 5D6+5 additional damage from weapons, but at a -2 (-4 one handed) to hit. (for simplicity comparison). This with double DR effects too. Edit: And you can only perform this on a full round action to keep it even, where if you need to move this about cuts your damage in half.
A THF gets a +15 damage from other items, and gets an additional +5 bonus to hit (+7 to +9 including TWF minuses). Factoring in power attack (still 1 feat vs. 3+), that is, just from the additional damage from the book and +6 item, +33 damage and +2 to hit (including TWF) vs. the maximum 35 damage with a -2 to hit. Now you could argue that everyone will eventually get a +5 book and +6 stat item, and in a game going on forever, you would be right, but as stated most games will probably end well before this becomes a factor, and then you will have to deal with epic, which still shows the same effects with cost to benefit. DR is less of a problem, and you have a +5 combat maneuver bonus as an additional effect.
Now this is just one build for a weapon, but no TWF already taking a -2 to hit will NOT get the +5 enhancement bonuses. I have yet to figure to bother figuring out how to factor critical effects, which do favor TWF, with the exception of their minus to hit, which lends me to think that if they are going to capitalized on this, bane and other effects that add to hit are now more likely.
First, gold cost is NOT irrelevant as while in a never ending game you will eventually get two +10 weapons vs. one +10 weapon, you still have to factor in the +4 book and +6 stat item into the equation to keep things apples to apples, as that adds bonuses to hit and damage for the same cost of an additional +10 weapon.
Who said anything about two +10 weapons?
I never said anything about two +10 weapons. I could have, as having the option of spending more than 200,000 gp on weapons is a major benefit that the THW guy doesn't have (without getting into epic item rules), but for the sake of simplicity I choose to say that the TWF guy spends his other money on other things, exactly like the THW guy.
That's comparing apples to apples.
What I said was "irrelevant" was the fact that, at earlier levels, a THW guy might decide to spend his money on something other than a +3 weapon (did I missunderstand you? Is that what you were saying?.
I'm not going to name a specific level at which the greatsword guy is going to finally splurge on a +3 weapon, because every game (and ever player) is different, but the exponential pricing of all items means that it eventually will happen. And from that point onward the duel-wielder is going to come out unambiguously ahead in terms of magic item investment.
A two-weapon fighter has access to all the same rings, amulets, broaches etc. that the greatsword guy does, but he also gets an effective discount on magic weapons.
Yes, the duel-wielder is at -2 to attack rolls, which reduces his total damage per round by 10% at all levels. He also has trouble punching through DR, consumes 2 spell slots whenever the cleric is enchanting weapons, spends two or three more feats, and has less ability to utilize "extra attack" powers like haste or Cleave. He also doubles virtually all bonuses from feats or class features (including smite evil in 3.P), is twice as likely to score a special effect like poison or disruption, and has a higher "damage resolution" (i.e. he wastes less of it on overkill).
I'm not pretending that magic items are the only thing that matters, merely asserting that it's one of the perks of using two weapons. Your original post named magic weapon pricing as a disadvantage for duel-wielders, which is false at most levels.
First, gold cost is NOT irrelevant as while in a never ending game you will eventually get two +10 weapons vs. one +10 weapon, you still have to factor in the +4 book and +6 stat item into the equation to keep things apples to apples, as that adds bonuses to hit and damage for the same cost of an additional +10 weapon.Who said anything about two +10 weapons?
I never said anything about two +10 weapons. I could have, as having the option of spending more than 200,000 gp on weapons is a major benefit that the THW guy doesn't have (without getting into epic item rules), but for the sake of simplicity I choose to say that the TWF guy spends his other money on other things, exactly like the THW guy.
That's comparing apples to apples.
What I said was "irrelevant" was the fact that, at earlier levels, a THW guy might decide to spend his money on something other than a +3 weapon (did I missunderstand you? Is that what you were saying?.
I'm not going to name a specific level at which the greatsword guy is going to finally splurge on a +3 weapon, because every game (and ever player) is different, but the exponential pricing of all items means that it eventually will happen. And from that point onward the duel-wielder is going to come out unambiguously ahead in terms of magic item investment.
A two-weapon fighter has access to all the same rings, amulets, broaches etc. that the greatsword guy does, but he also gets an effective discount on magic weapons.
Yes, the duel-wielder is at -2 to attack rolls, which reduces his total damage per round by 10% at all levels. He also has trouble punching through DR, consumes 2 spell slots whenever the cleric is enchanting weapons, spends two or three more feats, and has less ability to utilize "extra attack" powers like haste or Cleave. He also doubles virtually all bonuses from feats or class features (including smite evil in 3.P), is twice as likely to score a special effect like poison or disruption,...
I made my point as to TWF being consistently behind THF in my improvised weapon build for effect to gold cost at all levels pre-epic, based on your premise that they get more damage out of two weapons. This is right, but is made irreverent by 2nd source for damage through strength, which is especially easy when they don't have to worry about getting a dex of 19.
I have never said that TWF's bonus was in magic items, I have been saying that it was not. So on this one subject of magic items with damage, and to some point to hit.
I still say that critical weapon effects could turn this around, and critical feats defiantly will.
Edit: Sorry, maybe I am more tired than I thought, I made some editing.
I made my point as to TWF being consistently behind THF in my improve weapon build for effect to gold cost at all levels pre-epic, based on your premise that they get more damage out of two weapons. This is right, but is made irreverent by 2nd source for damage through strength, which is especially easy when they don't have to worry about getting a dex of 19.
I have never been saying that TWF's bonus was in magic items, I have been saying that it was not. So on this one subject of magic items with damage, and to some point to hit.
I still say that critical weapon effects could turn this around, and critical feats defiantly will.
I'm sorry, I've read this post three times and I seriously can't decode it.
That's probably more my fault than yours. I think I'll just get back to you tomorrow.
I made my point as to TWF being consistently behind THF in my improve weapon build for effect to gold cost at all levels pre-epic, based on your premise that they get more damage out of two weapons. This is right, but is made irreverent by 2nd source for damage through strength, which is especially easy when they don't have to worry about getting a dex of 19.
I have never been saying that TWF's bonus was in magic items, I have been saying that it was not. So on this one subject of magic items with damage, and to some point to hit.
I still say that critical weapon effects could turn this around, and critical feats defiantly will.
I'm sorry, I've read this post three times and I seriously can't decode it.
That's probably more my fault than yours. I think I'll just get back to you tomorrow.
I am also having trouble understanding his posts.
Am I just confused here or is the difference *marginal*.
You can do one and be successful (THF, fewer feats, powerful single attacks) Or do the other and be successful (TWF, For feat costs and stat splitting, get lots of elemental damage effects, extra attacks).
I have not seen any statistical analysis that favors one or the other.
I am so confused about what the point anyone is trying to prove in this thread.
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.
The point was made, but deserves re-iterating, that Power Attack does *just* as much for two-weapon fighting as for two-handed fighting.
And Strength does *more* for two-weapon fighting than two-handed, due to Double Slice. With non-rangers, the two-weapon fighter tends to have a bit more strength. However as both scale upwards, the two-weapon gets more and more out of each increase.
I think the example was 19 str, 10 dex vs 10 str, 19 dex? I presume that's with a roaming +2. 17 str = 13 point-buy. Instead take 15 Str and Dex for 14 point-buy (no way to use exactly 13 between the two), and +2 to Str for 17/15 instead of 19/10. With double slice, both styles get +6 to damage from strength, immediately.
To me, it's quite clear that the feat is meant to be the 4th Two-Weapon Fighting feat, giving you the 4th attack with your off-hand weapon.
Evidence of this is that the feat's "normal" paragraph only talks about how you can only make 1-3 off-hand attacks with the other feats. It also never says that you get to ignore the "only one attack unless you make a full attack" restriction, and that normal part never says "without this feat, you need a full attack action for more than one attack, regardless of source).
I'm not quite sure the feat doesn't belong in normal levels (i.e. as the 16th-level feat for two-weapon fighters), anyway.
I'll say right out: If you don't read PTWF the way I read it, it isn't worth the feat, for anybody, epic or not.
|
|
I'll say right out: If you don't read PTWF the way I read it, it isn't worth the feat, for anybody, epic or not.To me, it's quite clear that the feat is meant to be the 4th Two-Weapon Fighting feat, giving you the 4th attack with your off-hand weapon.
Evidence of this is that the feat's "normal" paragraph only talks about how you can only make 1-3 off-hand attacks with the other feats. It also never says that you get to ignore the "only one attack unless you make a full attack" restriction, and that normal part never says "without this feat, you need a full attack action for more than one attack, regardless of source).
I'm not quite sure the feat doesn't belong in normal levels (i.e. as the 16th-level feat for two-weapon fighters), anyway.
That my friend is an opinion. And furthermore a subjective one at that.
Well, hey, if you want to spend a feat for an extra attack at a -15 penalty...
A -17 penalty, at best. Because normal twf penalties still apply. So -2 for light offhand weapon, and -15 for the attack itself.
Meanwhile, if read in the good way, it helps elevate the two-weapon fighter. The advantage of thf, is that your attacks of opportunity get the weapon(which will typically be stronger than a twf) and str*1.5. So do spring attacks. The two handed fighter actually makes a better mobile combatant than a twf because of this. The "usable" interpretation of PTWF I gave changes this so they are roughly equal in mobility, at the huge cost of 3 extra feats. The weak version makes the fancy dextrous duelist reliant on standing in one space and slugging it out, with an 8th attack at a -17 penalty.
Our campaign is changing from beta to final edition, and my 2wf rogue is changing to a 2wf fighter. I'm going with a high DEX, moderately high STR build dual-wielding kukris. He's a combination dual wielder and critical striker.
At present he's only level 11, but he should be pretty fun by the time we (hopefully) reach level 20.
On average, he won't do as much damage per full attack action as the level 11 barbarian in the group, but with the neat stuff that the critical tree provides I can have some fun with him in combat. /salute!
So the Swashbuckler from the Tome of Secrets upsets the apple cart considerable, right? Full BAB, SA damage, increased crit range, bonus feats, weapon training.......
First, it's dual. Dual. DUAL
Second, I'm surprised the thread got this far without anyone mentioning Improved Buckler Defense.
You can wear a buckler and retain its AC bonus even if you use that arm to attack. Granted, it's -1 to attack.
For either a TWF or 2HWF, if you don't mind a small attack penalty, you can get a buckler to serve as a platform for shield AC.
So when comparing a sword and board TWF with two weapon TWF, gotta keep in mind that the two weapon guy isn't utterly shafted in the AC department.