Is there something I am missing, or is Two Weapon Fighting still annoyingly weak?
I am playing in a group with five melee characters and only one has decided to go with TWF, and he's a rogue. I know Sneak Attack makes TWF worth it, but is there a way for our ranger (who can get TWF for free) want to take it over his greatsword and bow (with associated free archery feats)? How about the fighter? Or a paladin?
I understand that a big sword should probably out damage two smaller ones, but why should a melee character (who isn't a rogue) bother with it?
Is there something I am missing, or is Two Weapon Fighting still annoyingly weak?
I am playing in a group with five melee characters and only one has decided to go with TWF, and he's a rogue. I know Sneak Attack makes TWF worth it, but is there a way for our ranger (who can get TWF for free) want to take it over his greatsword and bow (with associated free archery feats)? How about the fighter? Or a paladin?
I understand that a big sword should probably out damage two smaller ones, but why should a melee character (who isn't a rogue) bother with it?
They shouldn't. Two Weapon fighting, while portrayed as hip and flashy by certain modern fantasy heroes, was incredibly rare in any realistic fighting scenario and is a very difficult thing to do. Even as a rogue I would take TWF and disregard the further feats along that tree.
However if you want to make it more appealing let TWF scale and give him the rest (improved, greater, whatever) TWF for free. The double slash feat does a lot to make strength based fighters work better with TWF.
Back in Beta, I had made an excel sheet to work out the math for comparing different styles of attacks.
It took into account all Attack and Damage factors relating to how well you could do against a target AC.
With the bonuses Fighter gets in Pathfinder, not including the new Critical feats at higher levels (they weren't out yet at the time of comparison), a straight Fighter built for TWF could out-do the damage a Rogue with TWF feats could with sneak attack, and greatly out-does the damage of a Twohanded weapon user.
It did require having the option of a full attack action. So a twohanded weapon user would have the leg up in a move+attack situation, usually with Vital Strike and Charge options.
TWF works well, even for a non-Rogue, as long as he can get his hands on bonus damage (Weapon Specialization feats, magical weapons, etc).
I don't like the idea of a feat tax, and feel that it should do more than just give you the extra attack (like give parry options, the real reason most people used TWFing.. a main-gauche for example). I like the idea of adding additional effects to those feats than simply writing those feats out (backward compatibility and all that).
Basically due to the feat req. and -2 to attacks the only classes IMHO that can REALLY make TWF worthwhile are Fighters, Rangers, Rogues or any full BAB class that multiclasses with fighter (weapon training helps any class offset the -2 to hit)
Cheers.
Don't forget Paladins.
With their new Smite Evil ability, doubling their Smite damage is extremely powerful; especially since the Cha bonus to hit basically negates the TWF penalties to hit (even with two One-Handed Weapons, if the Charisma score is high enough).
Just my 2c.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Actually, I take a different world-view on TWF.
Historically speaking, it was never done. Well, almost never. Not in the sense of someone using two weapons that were both meant to be offensive weapons of the sort meant for killing an opponent.
Sure, some styles used a small defensive weapon in the off-hand. A parrying dagger or main gauche. But even that was only effective against certain weapons - nobody would dream of parrying a broadsword or a claymore or an axe with a main gauche, for example.
The advantage of parrying daggers is that they're much faster than shields and shields block a large area of your visibility, and if you're facing a fencer using fancy footwork and a very light fast weapon, that opponent will likely be able to lunge around your slow shield and/or take advantage of your limited visibility.
So when such weapons became popular, shields became unpopular, leaving the common fighting style to be a rapier in your main hand, and your other hand stick behind your back or behind your head - someplace safe where you wont have fingers chopped off by accident.
But a few guys got the notion that if they held a dagger in their off-hand, preferably one that protected their fingers, they might be able to parry a few of their opponent's attacks, and if they ended up crossing swords, that dagger might come in handy. The idea caught on, somewhat, but still was not widely used.
And as for spiked shields, those were almost never used either, other than an occasional, very short (a couple inches at most) center spike.
Sure, combatants would, when opportunity permitted, bang each other around with their shields, usually in an effort to batter aside the other guy's shield to create an opening to hit him with a weapon, or to get him off balance (which creates an opening to hit him with a weapon).
Nobody was really spiking shields for the intent of injuring their foes with the spikes. Spikes on shields would be a liability as your opponents would use those spikes against you, using their own shield or even their hands to shove against your spike to push your whole shield out of the way so they could clobber you with their weapon. That would be far more of a liability than any minimal chance that you might defeat a foe with your shield spike.
On a further note, to my knowledge, never in the history of mankind has any army, ever, anywhere, any time, equipped any of its soldiers with two weapons or with a weapon and a spiked shield - certainly not in a sense that they were trained use them in any TWF capacity on the battlefield.
I would think that any arguments (based on reality, not game rules) that TWF is superior to any other style of combat would die in the face of real history and the absolute lack of any Earthly military ever using the style.
Given all that, it vexes me sorely that TWF (with or without spiked shields) is the best style of combat for many, if not all, classes in Pathfinder (and in 3.5, too).
I accept that it's a game, and people want options, but to my thinking, TWF should be a limited option, one that is possible but difficult, probably inferior to other options but close enough to still be playable.
That would still be more effective than real-world history lessons would teach us, but would be a fair compromise for a game mechanic.
Here's a build I desperately want to try (with the elite array; the stats I rolled for him are kind of ridiculous). This is a core-only build that I might tweak a very little if some splats are involved, insofar as to add Oversized Two-Weapon Fighting.
Dwarven ranger1-20, dwarven waraxe/heavy shield TWF
Str 15
Dex 12
Con 16
Int 10
Wis 15
Cha 6
1: Favored enemy 1, track, wild empathy, feat (Shield Focus)
2: Combat style feat (Two-Weapon Fighting)
3: Endurance, favored terrain 1, feat (Improved Shield Bash)
4: Hunter's bond, +1 Strength
5: Favored enemy 2, feat (Weapon Focus: dwarven waraxe)
6: Combat style feat (Double Slice)
7: Woodland stride, feat (Shield Slam)
8: Swift tracker, favored terrain 2, +1 Wisdom
9: Evasion, feat (Combat Reflexes)
10: Favored enemy 3, combat style feat (Improved Two-Weapon Fighting)
11: Quarry, feat (Shield Master)
12: Camouflage, +1 Strength
13: Favored terrain 3, feat (Improved Critical: dwarven waraxe)
14: Combat style feat (Two-Weapon Rend)
15: Favored enemy 4, feat (Critical Focus)
16: Improved evasion, +1 Strength
17: Hide in plain sight, feat (Stand Still)
18: Favored terrain 4, combat style feat (Greater Two-Weapon Fighting)
19: Improved quarry, feat (Bleeding Critical)
20: Favored enemy 5, master hunter, +1 Strength
Skills maxed: Climb, Heal, Knowledge (dungeoneering/nature), Perception, Stealth, Survival
Actually, I take a different world-view on TWF.
Historically speaking, it was never done. Well, almost never. Not in the sense of someone using two weapons that were both meant to be offensive weapons of the sort meant for killing an opponent.
I know for a fact that several southeast Asian armies did. Thai warriors were trained to fight with what would amount to two scimitars, on horseback no less. Sword and shield was also popular, but dual scimitars was common, even from horseback.
I agree with the fact that in medieval Europe (the default style of the game) it was almost unheard of until rapier/main gauche was used, but in the rule book it is presented as an option and I'm of the mind that options for a specific type should be roughly equal. If my melee character can choose from TWF, THF and SnB, he should have reasons mechanically to choose any of them, rather than needing character reasons for choosing the obviously inferior options.
I was just making sure that there wasn't something in PF core that I was missing that brought TWF up closer to THF.
Sword and Board TWF is an option I don't think any of the fighter-y types considered.
So it was never done. Neither was slinging about magical fire and lightning and using dragons, so I'm not losing any sleep over it.
I agree with the fact that in medieval Europe (the default style of the game)
Nope. The default style of the game is fairy tales. Grim fairy tales inspired by various European folklore maybe, but not real stuff, anyway.
So if one guy is allowed to do crazy stuff that was never done in real life, like using magic or being a dwarf, why begrudge the other guy his unreal stuff when he wants to use weapons in both hands? The hypocrisy! :P
Is there something I am missing, or is Two Weapon Fighting still annoyingly weak?
I am playing in a group with five melee characters and only one has decided to go with TWF, and he's a rogue. I know Sneak Attack makes TWF worth it, but is there a way for our ranger (who can get TWF for free) want to take it over his greatsword and bow (with associated free archery feats)? How about the fighter? Or a paladin?
I understand that a big sword should probably out damage two smaller ones, but why should a melee character (who isn't a rogue) bother with it?
Well for a ranger, TWF is awesome because they don't have to qualify for the feats. 12 dex, cat's grace as a buff spell til you get an amulet, and you're 16 dex in a breastplate two weapon fighting putting all your points into strength. Starting at 18 STR you've got some serious damage output at level one. It gets better as you add double-slice, rending, and power attack. Throw in quickdraw and your same ranger can two-weapon fight throwing daggers/javelins/whatever and be useful while not in melee, great double-threat.
Spiked shield of bashing is what, 2d6 +1 offhand with free bull rush if you take the shield feats, and count the enhancements on spikes towards your AC, yes please. You can also add nice things like fortification that won't fit on your armor to a shield, which you can't really do if you TWF with a secondary "weapon".
If you want to play an archery ranger they're one of the best classes to do it, but they're also great at TWF.
Since rangers can craft magical arms and armor they are really one of the best classes to consider TWF since it is a more expensive route than enchanting one big sword.
|
From one of the Pathfinder books, there is a new attack option: Bind. This allows you to keep your opponent from using one weapon(or fist/claw/slam, but not bite. Possible wing attacks and maybe sting attacks) and makes them flat-footed for as long as the bind is held. The temple sword and Blade Binder feat both give you a bonus to the BaB/CMB roll. A few level of ranger for TWF and rogue levels can let you pile on the damage(and rogue talents) for evey round you keep the bind going.
Actually, I take a different world-view on TWF.
Historically speaking, it was never done. Well, almost never. Not in the sense of someone using two weapons that were both meant to be offensive weapons of the sort meant for killing an opponent.
I know for a fact that several southeast Asian armies did. Thai warriors were trained to fight with what would amount to two scimitars, on horseback no less. Sword and shield was also popular, but dual scimitars was common, even from horseback.
I agree with the fact that in medieval Europe (the default style of the game) it was almost unheard of until rapier/main gauche was used, but in the rule book it is presented as an option and I'm of the mind that options for a specific type should be roughly equal. If my melee character can choose from TWF, THF and SnB, he should have reasons mechanically to choose any of them, rather than needing character reasons for choosing the obviously inferior options.
I was just making sure that there wasn't something in PF core that I was missing that brought TWF up closer to THF.
Sword and Board TWF is an option I don't think any of the fighter-y types considered.
to say nothing Miyamoto Musashi or the filipino style of eskrima with which the basics were said to be teachable in 24 hours.
two weapon fighting is actually very effective in RL because you are taught to attack two vectors at the same time. Your opponent needs to either cover both or neutralize both if they don't want to get hit.
A shield is an example of a weapon designed to be used in a "two-weapon style" because you can bash someone in the temple with it. Shields also happen to help you hold a line, which is why it was the preeminent style of antiquity. When the main gauche came into play it was because the shield was just not realistic to carry. Bullets made shields effectively useless in combat.
german schools of swordfighting also existed that made use of two weapons, often a gauntlet or cape. The gauntlet let you grab the blade and use the sword in unorthodox ways, such as swinging it backwards to hit with the pommel or hilt. The cape was used to hide the swordfighters movements like a bull-fighter.
Not to mention several different cultures developed Spear and Sword styles, in addition to the standard sword and board (in which the shield is often used offensively just as extensively as the sword is).
The Irish had such a style, as did the Romans... though it was much less common in Rome, generally only used by gladiators.
Not to mention several different cultures developed Spear and Sword styles, in addition to the standard sword and board (in which the shield is often used offensively just as extensively as the sword is).
The Irish had such a style, as did the Romans... though it was much less common in Rome, generally only used by gladiators.
Yep, shields are offensive primarily, defensive secondary. Exceptions do exist to that, but as a general rule shields were used more weapon-like than common thought would lead you to believe...
Now I wanna go watch 300 again.
Indeed, the most famous variant of gladiators were themed after fishermen for some reason, and so used a trident and net as paired weapons in the area. The net was used as a lashing weapon and to catch the opponent's weapon, trip them, or to momentarily immobilize them when thrown. The trident was used to stab and to catch an opponent's blade - a sword caught between the tines, rotate the shaft, and you've caught them. Gladiators also used paired cesti (spiked gloves), axe and sword (not an uncommon combination in European melees in the age of chivalry either - a hand-axe in the left hand and sword in the right were used if you check the illustrations in the few surviving fechtbucher), and probably other combinations.
Speaking of gladiators I did a list of Prestige Classes for the various gladiators at one point. I'm waaayyyy too lazy to copy and paste it all over here, however if someone wants to see them I have a link to them below:
Link to Gladiator Prestige Classes
I did: Bestiarii, Equites, Andabatae, Hoplomachi, Provocatores, and two home brew/non historic: Francious, Massimites
Speaking of gladiators I did a list of Prestige Classes for the various gladiators at one point. I'm waaayyyy too lazy to copy and paste it all over here, however if someone wants to see them I have a link to them below:
Link to Gladiator Prestige Classes
I did: Bestiarii, Equites, Andabatae, Hoplomachi, Provocatores, and two home brew/non historic: Francious, Massimites
And I made the Gladiator class featured in 4 Winds Fantasy Gaming's upcoming Paths of Power. It's a base class with a lot of unique, fun elements.
How much longer before that one is out? Those paths books look interesting to me, but I tend to buy up a set like that all at once.
On a completely different not has any one looked at the impact of TWF with respect to crit ranges (eg pick vs kurki). Is one better (significantly?) than the other?
For pure burst damage I'd assume the x4 items would be better... but presumably the kurki with it's extended range would crit more often and earlier leading to faster kills?
I could bash out the numbers myself, but I suspect a few other people have already done this with more accuracy and detail than I can and .. so please indulge my laziness this once. (maybe a rapier in one hand and an ax or pick in the other?)
As to the original debate, based on the little bit of sword training I've taken I would suggest that one big reason 2wpn fighting wasn't as common as it could have been because it leaves a hand free to engage the enemy in minor grapples and to aid in some blocks with a sword. Google image search talhoffer for examples.
How much longer before that one is out? Those paths books look interesting to me, but I tend to buy up a set like that all at once.
We're trying to get it out by month's end. It's at the editor's currently.
On a completely different not has any one looked at the impact of TWF with respect to crit ranges (eg pick vs kurki). Is one better (significantly?) than the other?
For pure burst damage I'd assume the x4 items would be better... but presumably the kurki with it's extended range would crit more often and earlier leading to faster kills?
I could bash out the numbers myself, but I suspect a few other people have already done this with more accuracy and detail than I can and .. so please indulge my laziness this once. (maybe a rapier in one hand and an ax or pick in the other?)
As to the original debate, based on the little bit of sword training I've taken I would suggest that one big reason 2wpn fighting wasn't as common as it could have been because it leaves a hand free to engage the enemy in minor grapples and to aid in some blocks with a sword. Google image search talhoffer for examples.
Two weapon fighting takes specific training to be effective, and is less effective in the sort of fight when it's many against many, so it often wasn't historically used by soldiers. By a well-trained individual, it can be quite effective.
|
On a completely different not has any one looked at the impact of TWF with respect to crit ranges (eg pick vs kurki). Is one better (significantly?) than the other?
For pure burst damage I'd assume the x4 items would be better... but presumably the kurki with it's extended range would crit more often and earlier leading to faster kills?
In 20 attacks, a 20/x2 weapon will hit X times (depending on target AC) and statistically threatens a crit once, dealing (X+1) times the attack's standard damage if we assume the crit is confirmed.
A 19-20/x2 weapon will threaten a crit twice; that means it does (X+2) times the standard damage.
A 20/x3 weapon will only threaten a crit once, but the extra multiplier means that it too deals (X+2) damage.
An 18-20/x2 weapon threatens three times, giving (X+3) damage.
A 20/x4 weapon only threatens once, but also results in (X+3) damage.
High-crit-range and high-crit-multiplier weapons are basically equal in expected damage output, with high-range weapons having a bell curve that produces more crits that do less damage and high-multiplier weapons having far more occasional flashes of extreme lethality. The advantage, however, goes to high-range weapons when you have non-damage effects on crits like critical feats; since such effects don't typically work any better for high-multiplier weapons that low ones, you get more out of larger numbers of threats.
So it was never done. Neither was slinging about magical fire and lightning and using dragons, so I'm not losing any sleep over it.
I agree with the fact that in medieval Europe (the default style of the game)Nope. The default style of the game is fairy tales. Grim fairy tales inspired by various European folklore maybe, but not real stuff, anyway.
So if one guy is allowed to do crazy stuff that was never done in real life, like using magic or being a dwarf, why begrudge the other guy his unreal stuff when he wants to use weapons in both hands? The hypocrisy! :P
You're right. DOWN WITH MAGIC!
High-crit-range and high-crit-multiplier weapons are basically equal in expected damage output
This is essentially correct, with one caveat. Because feats like bleeding critical and blinding critical don't care what crit multiplier you have, they make high crit range weapons more valuable than high critical multiplier weapons.
|
|
High-crit-range and high-crit-multiplier weapons are basically equal in expected damage outputThis is essentially correct, with one caveat. Because feats like bleeding critical and blinding critical don't care what crit multiplier you have, they make high crit range weapons more valuable than high critical multiplier weapons.
The advantage, however, goes to high-range weapons when you have non-damage effects on crits like critical feats; since such effects don't typically work any better for high-multiplier weapons that low ones, you get more out of larger numbers of threats.
:D
You're right. DOWN WITH MAGIC!So it was never done. Neither was slinging about magical fire and lightning and using dragons, so I'm not losing any sleep over it.
I agree with the fact that in medieval Europe (the default style of the game)Nope. The default style of the game is fairy tales. Grim fairy tales inspired by various European folklore maybe, but not real stuff, anyway.
So if one guy is allowed to do crazy stuff that was never done in real life, like using magic or being a dwarf, why begrudge the other guy his unreal stuff when he wants to use weapons in both hands? The hypocrisy! :P
Majik is impressive. But now MINSC LEADS! SWORDS FOR EVERYONE!!!
On a further note, to my knowledge, never in the history of mankind has any army, ever, anywhere, any time, equipped any of its soldiers with two weapons or with a weapon and a spiked shield - certainly not in a sense that they were trained use them in any TWF capacity on the battlefield.
I would think that any arguments (based on reality, not game rules) that TWF is superior to any other style of combat would die in the face of real history and the absolute lack of any Earthly military ever using the style.
Given all that, it vexes me sorely that TWF (with or without spiked shields) is the best style of combat for many, if not all, classes in Pathfinder (and in 3.5, too).
I accept that it's a game, and people want options, but to my thinking, TWF should be a limited option, one that is possible but difficult, probably inferior to other options but close enough to still be playable.
That would still be more effective than real-world history lessons would teach us, but would be a fair compromise for a game mechanic.
I am pretty confident no army ever fielded wizards creating vast fields of grease/magical fogs/(insert battlefield control spell here) to trip up enemy armies, Shining mounted holy knights who directly invoked the wrath of their gods upon the wicked (not including those who THOUGHT they were doing so), had soldiers transform into large beasts and rend their enemies limb from limb, or had sorcerors hurling fireballs into enemy ranks. I think there is a huge different between reality and in game believability. The 'realism' of a game like dnd is a cinematic thing. And in terms of the hero of the story dueling the BBEG, two weapon fighting is quite believable. We arent talking real life, we are talking fantasy role play.
As for its relative power vs other modes of combat in game, I have never seen a two weapon fighter be better then either the sword and board types or the 2handers in combat unless they really munchkin it. To me it has always seemed inferior in terms of effectiveness. The two weapon fighter rarely hits with all of his attacks, and therefore is outstripped by the 2hander that can do more to ensure his one attack hits. With things like the new paladin smite in PFRPG that may have changed some but i dont think its gone.
High-crit-range and high-crit-multiplier weapons are basically equal in expected damage outputThis is essentially correct, with one caveat. Because feats like bleeding critical and blinding critical don't care what crit multiplier you have, they make high crit range weapons more valuable than high critical multiplier weapons.The advantage, however, goes to high-range weapons when you have non-damage effects on crits like critical feats; since such effects don't typically work any better for high-multiplier weapons that low ones, you get more out of larger numbers of threats.:D
Heh, wow, not sure how I missed that. My only defense is a crippling lack of sleep.
As for its relative power vs other modes of combat in game, I have never seen a two weapon fighter be better then either the sword and board types or the 2handers in combat unless they really munchkin it. To me it has always seemed inferior in terms of effectiveness. The two weapon fighter rarely hits with all of his attacks, and therefore is outstripped by the 2hander that can do more to ensure his one attack hits.
I'm afraid you are mistaken in this. The average AC of most foes in the MM is roughly their CR+13. For a character with a full BAB, their BAB exactly cancels out the scaling portion of their opponents AC, and the additional bonuses they gain from enhancements to strength, magic items, feats, and class abilities rapidly outstrip the rest. (And that's before you even take into account the possibility of having a character like a bard in the party.)
Just a quick example to show this isn't just meaningless theory. A 9th level fighter vs. a CR 9 opponent (average AC 22).
The fighter can easily have:
+9 BAB
+7 Strength (16 base, 2 racial, 2 from levelling, 4 enhancement)
+2 Weapon Focus & Greater Weapon Focus
+2 Weapon Training
+2 Weapon Enhancement
----------------------
+22 To their primary attack
At that point there is still a slight cost for two weapon fighting. Both primary attacks will hit on a 2 or better, exactly the same as the character using a two handed weapon, but the secondary attacks at +15 will have a slightly harder time hitting. Regardless, the two weapon fighter is still going to be dealing more damage overall because of the multiplicative effect of having 4 attacks on a full attack instead of 2.
Just so I'm not leaving anything out, here's a fully fleshed out example of two level 9 fighters, and the total damage they deal.
Fighter 1, One Greatsword
1 Weapon Focus
F Power Attack
F Cleave
3 Combat Reflexes
F Weapon Specialization
5 G. Cleave
F Vital Strike
7 Lunge
F G. Weapon Focus
9 Improved Critical
The fighter with the greatsword, using power attack, will be swinging with a +19/+14, threatening a critical on a 17-20, and dealing 2d6+25 on each hit. Against the average AC 22 foe, he'll deal an average of 49.6 damage per round (that's including crits, misses, the whole shebang.)
Fighter 2, Two Shortswords
1 Weapon Focus
F Power Attack
F Two Weapon Fighting
3 Double Slice
F Weapon Specialization
5 Combat Reflexes
F Imp. Two Weapon Fighting
7 Lunge
F G. Weapon Focus
9 Improved Critical
This fighter, with two shortswords and using power attack, will be swinging with a +17/+17/+12/+12, threatening on a 17-20, and dealing 1d6+19 with the main hand and 1d6+16 with the off hand. Against the average AC 22 foe, he'll deal an average of 30.375 with the main hand and 26.325 with the off hand, for a total of 56.7 average damage per full attack (a 14% damage bump over the other fighter).
Admittedly, the fighter with the two handed weapon will deal more when they're only able to use a standard action to attack. (On the other hand, archery based fighters would massively outperform either character in those situations, so stick and move fights aren't really a strong selling point for two handed weapons over two small weapons.)
I think the numbers would be even more in favor of the TWFer if you swaped out power attack for Exotic Wpn prof double sword.
I think the numbers would be even more in favor of the TWFer if you swaped out power attack for Exotic Wpn prof double sword.
With a double bladed sword and without power attack, he'd be swinging with a +20/+20/+15/+15, threatening on a 17-20, and dealing 1d8+13 with both hands. Against the average AC 22 foe, that's an average of 57.75 average damage per full attack. (I stand corrected, this is a slight increase in damage. On the other hand, the average damage with shortswords is only about 1 point lower, so I suspect that another feat like Disruptive or Improved Initiative might be a better choice. Good catch though.)
I think the numbers would be even more in favor of the TWFer if you swaped out power attack for Exotic Wpn prof double sword.With a double bladed sword and without power attack, he'd be swinging with a +20/+20/+15/+15, threatening on a 17-20, and dealing 1d8+13 with both hands. Against the average AC 22 foe, that's an average of 57.75 average damage per full attack. (I stand corrected, this is a slight increase in damage. On the other hand, the average damage with shortswords is only about 1 point lower, so I suspect that another feat like Disruptive or Improved Initiative might be a better choice. Good catch though.)
The double bladed sword also gives you the option to wield two handed (and take advantage of the strength bonus) against a higher AC opponent that you don't get nearly as easily with the two short swords.
(If it's convient for you, could you run the numbers on a double axe? the Crit range is obviously lower, but I'm thinking with four attacks you're looking at one crit every round or other round that might make up for it...)
I'm afraid you are mistaken in this. The average AC of most foes in the MM is roughly their CR+13. For a character with a full BAB, their BAB exactly cancels out the scaling portion of their opponents AC, and the additional bonuses they gain from enhancements to strength, magic items, feats, and class abilities rapidly outstrip the rest. (And that's before you even take into account the possibility of having a character like a bard in the party.)
Just a quick example to show this isn't just meaningless theory. A 9th level fighter vs. a CR 9 opponent (average AC 22).
The fighter can easily have:
+9 BAB
+7 Strength (16 base, 2 racial, 2 from levelling, 4 enhancement)
+2 Weapon Focus & Greater Weapon Focus
+2 Weapon Training
+2 Weapon Enhancement
----------------------
+22 To their primary attackAt that point there is still a slight cost for two weapon fighting. Both primary attacks will hit on a 2 or better, exactly the same as the character using a two handed weapon, but the secondary attacks at +15 will have a slightly harder time hitting. Regardless, the two weapon fighter is still going to be dealing more damage overall because of the multiplicative effect of having 4 attacks on a full attack instead of 2.
Just so I'm not leaving anything out, here's a fully fleshed out example of two level 9 fighters, and the total damage they deal.
Fighter 1, One Greatsword
1 Weapon Focus
F Power Attack
F Cleave
3 Combat Reflexes
F Weapon Specialization
5 G. Cleave
F Vital Strike
7 Lunge
F G. Weapon Focus
9 Improved CriticalThe fighter with the greatsword, using power attack, will be swinging with a +19/+14, threatening a critical on a 17-20, and dealing 2d6+25 on each hit. Against the average AC 22 foe, he'll deal an average of 49.6 damage per round (that's including crits, misses, the whole shebang.)
Fighter 2, Two Shortswords
1 Weapon Focus
F Power Attack
F Two Weapon Fighting
3 Double Slice
F Weapon Specialization
5 Combat Reflexes
F Imp. Two Weapon Fighting
7 Lunge
F G. Weapon Focus
9 Improved CriticalThis fighter, with two shortswords and using power attack, will be swinging with a +17/+17/+12/+12, threatening on a 17-20, and dealing 1d6+19 with the main hand and 1d6+16 with the off hand. Against the average AC 22 foe, he'll deal an average of 30.375 with the main hand and 26.325 with the off hand, for a total of 56.7 average damage per full attack (a 14% damage bump over the other fighter).
Admittedly, the fighter with the two handed weapon will deal more when they're only able to use a standard action to attack. (On the other hand, archery based fighters would massively outperform either character in those situations, so stick and move fights aren't really a strong selling point for two handed weapons over two small weapons.)
The problem I have with your example is that you say stick and move is not that important, but then you build the 2hander for stick and move. Cleave, vital strike, thats what these feats are for. If you want to make a comparison about full attacks both types of fighters should be based around full attacks. In addition, I think you are wrong about mobility not being a selling point. The 2hander will deal more damage round 1 and every round after they dropped a foe (more or less depending on positioning). That is not situational, that is a least 2 or 3 rounds every fight, let alone when you have a particularly mobile enemy or group of enemies.
You are also ignoring the fact that the 2hander can and will have a better weapon then the 2weapon fighter will have individually. The 2hander will have a +2 or +1 flaming burst weapon when the 2weapon will still have a pair of +1's. And this difference will grow at higher levels.
In addition, how many monsters of CR 9 or above dont have damage reduction? add in a DR 5 or 10 in there and those extra hits start to hurt.
The 2weapon fighter is also more swingy statistically. They will have alot more rounds where they do very little damage, or a whole lot of damage (assuming the enemy doesnt have damage reduction they cant bypass), because of the lower to hit and the reliance on multiple hits. The 2hander is more consistant, getting in a good solid hit more often, and contributing more round by round.
Two weapon fighting takes specific training to be effective, and is less effective in the sort of fight when it's many against many, so it often wasn't historically used by soldiers. By a well-trained individual, it can be quite effective.On a completely different not has any one looked at the impact of TWF with respect to crit ranges (eg pick vs kurki). Is one better (significantly?) than the other?
For pure burst damage I'd assume the x4 items would be better... but presumably the kurki with it's extended range would crit more often and earlier leading to faster kills?
I could bash out the numbers myself, but I suspect a few other people have already done this with more accuracy and detail than I can and .. so please indulge my laziness this once. (maybe a rapier in one hand and an ax or pick in the other?)
As to the original debate, based on the little bit of sword training I've taken I would suggest that one big reason 2wpn fighting wasn't as common as it could have been because it leaves a hand free to engage the enemy in minor grapples and to aid in some blocks with a sword. Google image search talhoffer for examples.
Actually if you read the book of five rings, when he is talking about his own style (two swords), he says it is the best style against many. You can fend them off with slashes to keep them away from you, but if you need to use both hands for power you can just drop one sword. It's harder to get a second one out when you need it than to drop one when you don't. And when it comes to sword fighting Musashi is definately a reliable source.
My favorite technique from that book is called "stab the face"
The problem I have with your example is that you say stick and move is not that important, but then you build the 2hander for stick and move. Cleave, vital strike, thats what these feats are for. If you want to make a comparison about full attacks both types of fighters should be based around full attacks. In addition, I think you are wrong about mobility not being a selling point. The 2hander will deal more damage round 1 and every round after they dropped a foe (more or less depending on positioning). That is not situational, that is a least 2 or 3 rounds every fight, let alone when you have a particularly mobile enemy or group of enemies.
I had feats like Cleave and Vital strike on the two hander build because there were dead levels where there was simply nothing else remaining to take that would be valuable during a full attack.
I also did not state that stick and move rounds weren't important, I said that an archer is going to outperform both a two weapon fighter and a two handed weapon fighter during those stick and move rounds, making them a weak point in favor of a two handed fighter. If you're optimizing for full attack damage, two weapon fighting has the advantage. If you're optimizing for changing targets round to round, an archer has the advantage. My point was that in neither case does the two handed weapon win out (although it does straddle an acceptable middle ground, performing adequately in either situation).
You are also ignoring the fact that the 2hander can and will have a better weapon then the 2weapon fighter will have individually. The 2hander will have a +2 or +1 flaming burst weapon when the 2weapon will still have a pair of +1's. And this difference will grow at higher levels.
I'll give you this, the cost of weapon enchants is definitely a concern for a two weapon fighter. I'll happily work up full builds for each including gear selection, and I'm very confident the two weapon fighter is still going to come out ahead on full attack actions. The benefits of doubling up the number of attacks that receive flat bonuses from weapon training, specialization, critical feats, etc. is just too much for the reduced gold cost of a single weapon to overcome. (The full work up will take a few minutes, so I'll come back and post it in when I've got it finished.)
In addition, how many monsters of CR 9 or above dont have damage reduction? add in a DR 5 or 10 in there and those extra hits start to hurt.
The great majority of them actually, I did a lot of data mining when I did the analysis for the Smite evil thread, and the percentage of foes at any level that have DR of a type that won't be automatically overcome by level appropriate weapons is surprisingly low.
The 2weapon fighter is also more swingy statistically. They will have alot more rounds where they do very little damage, or a whole lot of damage (assuming the enemy doesnt have damage reduction they cant bypass), because of the lower to hit and the reliance on multiple hits. The 2hander is more consistant, getting in a good solid hit more often, and contributing more round by round.
I'm afraid you've got this point completely backwards. Because a two weapon fighter is making more individual attacks for a smaller individual amount of damage they are far less swingy than an equivalent fighter with a two handed weapon.
For example, in the set I gave earlier, the two weapon fighter would miss all four attacks only .81% of the time, whereas the two handed weapon fighter would whiff with both swings 3.5% of the time.
(If it's convient for you, could you run the numbers on a double axe?
Will do, that won't take long, and I'll include all three options, twin shortswords, double sword and double axe when I do the full gear writeup.
The advantage, however, goes to high-range weapons when you have non-damage effects on crits like critical feats; since such effects don't typically work any better for high-multiplier weapons that low ones, you get more out of larger numbers of threats.
Yeah, this is sort of a death knell for the large multiplier weapons. I think they were less popular to begin with but when you add in that they are far less useful in combination with the crit feats they are going to be less and less common.
Here's the fully fleshed out build with gear that was requested earlier.
Fighter, level 9
24 Str (+2 Racial, +2 leveling, +4 Enhancement), 16 Dex, 14 Con, 7 Int, 13 Wis, 7 Cha
+2 Plate Mail (4k)
Ring of Protection +1 (2k)
Amulet of Natural Armor +1 (2k)
Cloak of Resistance +2 (4k)
Belt of Giant Strength +4 (16k)
2 +2 weapons or 1 +3 weapon (16k/18k)
For a total of 44k/46k in total wealth.
Greatsword (+3) w/power attack, +20/+15 for 2d6+26 (+10 str, +9 Power attack, +2 Weapon Spec., +2 Weapon Training, +3 Enhancement) Avg. damage: 65.34 (including crits)
Dual Shortswords (+2) w/power attack, +17/+12 for 1d6+19 and +17/+12 for 1d6+16 (+7 Str, +6/+3 Power Attack, +2 Weapon Spec., +2 Weapon Training, +2 Enhancement) Avg. damage: 68.04 (including crits)
Double Sword (+2), +20/+20/+15/+15 for 1d8+13 (+7 Str, +2 Weapon Spec., +2 Weapon Training, +2 Enhancement) Avg. damage: 69.3 (including crits)
Double Axe (+2), +20/+20/+15/+15 for 1d8+13 (+7 Str, +2 Weapon Spec., +2 Weapon Training, +2 Enhancement) Avg. damage: 69.3 (including crits)
Again, you'll notice all three two weapon fighters are in the lead for total damage. (Although, honestly, I think an archer is going to beat the pants of either melee fighter).
I had feats like Cleave and Vital strike on the two hander build because there were dead levels where there was simply nothing else remaining to take that would be valuable during a full attack.
I guess you are only considering pathfinder core rules then? There is plenty from 3.5 that would be useful, including monkey grip, power critical (an elven fighter using an elven blade and power critical for instance). Melee weapon mastery from PHB 2 also would also be useful. The feat tax that 2 weapon fighting provides is certainly a balancing point, and not including the additional feats the 2hander can make use of because of the lack of a feat tax skews the comparison. At the very least you should give the 2 weapon fighter an equal volume of 'dead levels' if you want to accurately compare the two styles.
I also did not state that stick and move rounds weren't important, I said that an archer is going to outperform both a two weapon fighter and a two handed weapon fighter during those stick and move rounds, making them a weak point in favor of a two handed fighter. If you're optimizing for full attack damage, two weapon fighting has the advantage. If you're optimizing for changing targets round to round, an archer has the advantage. My point was that in neither case does the two handed weapon win out (although it does straddle an acceptable middle ground, performing adequately in either situation).
The fact that the 2hander is good in both situations if not absolutely optimal makes a difference in saying which one is the better choice. The archer has its own set of limitations, and really doesn't apply in the comparison between 2hander and 2weapon.
I will admit pathfinder has made the gap much closer between the different fighter styles with it's changes to power attack, and the add of the archery power attack feat. Perhaps my perception is a holdover from the pre PFRPG days, but I will wait untill I see it for myself before I change that perception.
Greatsword (+3) w/power attack, +20/+15 for 2d6+26 (+10 str, +9 Power attack, +2 Weapon Spec., +2 Weapon Training, +3 Enhancement) Avg. damage: 65.34 (including crits)
Dual Shortswords (+2) w/power attack, +17/+12 for 1d6+19 and +17/+12 for 1d6+16 (+7 Str, +6/+3 Power Attack, +2 Weapon Spec., +2 Weapon Training, +2 Enhancement) Avg. damage: 68.04 (including crits)
Double Sword (+2), +20/+20/+15/+15 for 1d8+13 (+7 Str, +2 Weapon Spec., +2 Weapon Training, +2 Enhancement) Avg. damage: 69.3 (including crits)
Double Axe (+2), +20/+20/+15/+15 for 1d8+13 (+7 Str, +2 Weapon Spec., +2 Weapon Training, +2 Enhancement) Avg. damage: 69.3 (including crits)
Again, you'll notice all three two weapon fighters are in the lead for total damage. (Although, honestly, I think an archer is going to beat the pants of either melee fighter).
If your numbers are right then given the tactical advantage of the 2hander (mobility, only a single weapon to draw, more damage with standard attacks), the 2hander is the better choice despite the fact that your build included several 'dead' levels for the 2hander. If you add in feats outside the core (for which the 2 weapon fighter would have less room) those 4-5 points of damage per round will quickly be overcome along with the added flexibility.
Here's the fully fleshed out build with gear that was requested earlier.
Fighter, level 9
24 Str (+2 Racial, +2 leveling, +4 Enhancement), 16 Dex, 14 Con, 7 Int, 13 Wis, 7 Cha+2 Plate Mail (4k)
Ring of Protection +1 (2k)
Amulet of Natural Armor +1 (2k)
Cloak of Resistance +2 (4k)
Belt of Giant Strength +4 (16k)
2 +2 weapons or 1 +3 weapon (16k/18k)For a total of 44k/46k in total wealth.
Greatsword (+3) w/power attack, +20/+15 for 2d6+26 (+10 str, +9 Power attack, +2 Weapon Spec., +2 Weapon Training, +3 Enhancement) Avg. damage: 65.34 (including crits)
Dual Shortswords (+2) w/power attack, +17/+12 for 1d6+19 and +17/+12 for 1d6+16 (+7 Str, +6/+3 Power Attack, +2 Weapon Spec., +2 Weapon Training, +2 Enhancement) Avg. damage: 68.04 (including crits)
Double Sword (+2), +20/+20/+15/+15 for 1d8+13 (+7 Str, +2 Weapon Spec., +2 Weapon Training, +2 Enhancement) Avg. damage: 69.3 (including crits)
Double Axe (+2), +20/+20/+15/+15 for 1d8+13 (+7 Str, +2 Weapon Spec., +2 Weapon Training, +2 Enhancement) Avg. damage: 69.3 (including crits)
Again, you'll notice all three two weapon fighters are in the lead for total damage. (Although, honestly, I think an archer is going to beat the pants of either melee fighter).
Interesting analysis. I would like to see what double Kukri's would look like. You're losing one ave dam but upping your crit range yet again. it seems like burst enhancements would be better than static bonuses on 18-20 weapons, but I havn't crunched the numbers, that's just me guessing.
Sword and board would be an interesting comparison as well. Takes a lot more feats though. Bashing shields are an incredible weapon.
Edit: one problem with your comparison, your fighter doesn't qualify for improved two-weapon fighting. If he's a ranger that's not an issue, however.
I guess you are only considering pathfinder core rules then?
Correct. The sheer volume of feats and prestige classes available in 3.5 splatbooks would make this sort of comparison effectively impossible. Going down that route just turns it into a contest of "Who memorized what books in the greatest fidelity"
I do agree with you that there may be other options in 3.5 books that would aid a fighter using a large weapon, but there are also feats and classes that would aid a two weapon fighter in equal measure. In the end it's simply not possible to look at every permutation of every sourcebook available, I have to assume that the benefits of sourcebook A for build X will be balanced out by the benefits of sourcebook B for build Y.
At the very least you should give the 2 weapon fighter an equal volume of 'dead levels' if you want to accurately compare the two styles.
Why exactly? My point was to compare the two fighting in a reasonable realistic manner, i.e., as if they were characters that would actually be played, facing even level opponents. Leaving "dead levels" in the two weapon fighter just because the two handed fighter doesn't have as valuable of a feat to take at that point is just the sort of theorycrafting I was trying to avoid.
The fact that the 2hander is good in both situations if not absolutely optimal makes a difference in saying which one is the better choice. The archer has its own set of limitations, and really doesn't apply in the comparison between 2hander and 2weapon.
Well I disagree very much with the "if not absolutely optimal" bit, but I do agree there's something to be said for the benefit of feats like Vital Strike and Spring Attack. And if you're argument is that one build or the other can be effective, based on the situation, then yes, I agree completely. However, the original position you stated (that I refuted) was:
To me it has always seemed inferior in terms of effectiveness. The two weapon fighter rarely hits with all of his attacks, and therefore is outstripped by the 2hander that can do more to ensure his one attack hits.
Which is just flat out false by the time a fighter has even a few levels under their belt.
I will admit pathfinder has made the gap much closer between the different fighter styles with it's changes to power attack, and the add of the archery power attack feat. Perhaps my perception is a holdover from the pre PFRPG days, but I will wait untill I see it for myself before I change that perception.
If your numbers are right then given the tactical advantage of the 2hander (mobility, only a single weapon to draw, more damage with standard attacks), the 2hander is the better choice despite the fact that your build included several 'dead' levels for the 2hander. If you add in feats outside the core (for which the 2 weapon fighter would have less room) those 4-5 points of damage per round will quickly be overcome along with the added flexibility.
Fair enough. My point wasn't that the TWF fighter was better at this level (although at later levels they are objectively better at dealing damage on a full attack, and worse on a standard action). My point was simply that they weren't even close to as bad as your statements earlier ("I've never seen an effective two weapon fighter, they always miss, etc.") suggested.
Interesting analysis. I would like to see what double Kukri's would look like. You're losing one ave dam but upping your crit range yet again. it seems like burst enhancements would be better than static bonuses on 18-20 weapons, but I havn't crunched the numbers, that's just me guessing.
Sword and board would be an interesting comparison as well. Takes a lot more feats though. Bashing shields are an incredible weapon.
Edit: one problem with your comparison, your fighter doesn't qualify for improved two-weapon fighting. If he's a ranger that's not an issue, however.
Good catch, I did miss the 17 Dex requirement, but I can cover it by changing the Belt of Giant Strength to a Belt of Physical Might (Str/Dex).
That will bring the two weapon fighter and two handed fighter closer to one another again though, at least at this level. The numbers really start favoring TWF more the higher you go, eventually the mass of bonuses you can receive to your attack just makes every hit almost a sure thing (95% at least) which really favors TWF.
And the Archer.. just for comparison.
My gut instinct was right, and with Deadly Aim and the new archery feats the ranged Fighter absolutely destroys both of the other types.
17 Str (+2 Enhancement, +1 level), 17 Dex (+2 Racial, +2 Enhancement, +1 level), 12 Con, 7 Int, 10 Wis, 7 Cha
+2 Plate Mail (4k)
Ring of Protection +1 (2k)
Amulet of Natural Armor +1 (2k)
Cloak of Resistance +2 (4k)
Belt of Physical Might +2 (10k)
Bracers of Archery (5k)
+3 Composite Longbow (18k)
For a total of 45k in wealth.
1 Weapon Focus
F Deadly Aim
F Point Blank Shot
3 Rapid Shot
F Weapon Specialization
5 Mobility
F Manyshot
7 Shot on the Run
F G. Weapon Focus
9 Improved Critical
Bonuses to hit: +9 BAB, +6 Dex, +2 WF/GWF, +2 Weapon Training, +3 Enhancement, +1 Bracers of Archery
Comp. Longbow (+3), +21(x2)/+21/+16 for 1d8+17 (+4 Str, +6 Deadly Aim, +2 Weapon Spec., +2 Weapon Training, +3 Enhancement) Avg. Damage: 89.6575 (including crits)
That's a massive 40-50% damage boost over either of the other types. Even moreso when you consider that every single time either of the melee fighters would be using a single attack + move, the archer would likely simply be continuing to pump arrows into people with a full attack.
EDIT: Forgot to include the bonus to hit from the Bracers of Archery and goofed on the math for the last attack. Correcting now.
Interesting analysis. I would like to see what double Kukri's would look like.
Double Kukris (+2) w/ power attack, +17/+12 for 1d4+18 and +17/+12 for 1d4+15 (+6 Str, +6/+3 Power Attack, +2 Weapon Spec., +2 Weapon Training, +2 Enhancement) Avg. damage: 66.69 (including crits)
vs. the corrected shortswords
Double Shortswords (+2), +17/+12 for 1d6+18 and +17/+12 for 1d6+15 (+6 Str, +6/+3 Power Attack, +2 Weapon Spec., +2 Weapon Training, +2 Enhancement) Avg. damage: 64.8 (including crits)
It seems like burst enhancements would be better than static bonuses on 18-20 weapons, but I havn't crunched the numbers, that's just me guessing.
My gut instinct is that the loss of the +2 to hit and damage on each weapon would be too much to make the burst weapon worth it. (As that would essentially be a 10% drop in the total damage every single other flat bonus is adding, on top of the -2 damage per swing.)
Sword and board would be an interesting comparison as well. Takes a lot more feats though. Bashing shields are an incredible weapon.
Will do, sword and board to follow shortly. (EDIT: Make that, after a while, need to do some reading and see what I can find to make sword and board effective)
That's a massive 50% damage boost over either of the other types. Even moreso when you consider that every single time either of the melee fighters would be using a single attack + move, the archer would likely simply be continuing to pump arrows into people with a full attack.
It might actually be worse if you made a human thrower with short spears or javelins with the returning enchant, TWF and quickdraw.
A level two human fighter could be throwing 4 of them a round with Point blank shot, Quick draw, Two wpn fighting, and Rapid shot leaving you seven feats to up the ante through level 9.
It might actually be worse if you made a human thrower with short spears or javelins with the returning enchant, TWF and quickdraw.
Sadly that doesn't entirely work. Returning weapons now all return just before your next turn, and only if you have a hand free, throwing more than 2 weapons with returning means at least one of them will be dead in the water at the beginning of the next round. (And buying that many +1 Returning Javelins would eat up an unhealthy chunk of a 9th level character's gold.)
It might actually be worse if you made a human thrower with short spears or javelins with the returning enchant, TWF and quickdraw.Sadly that doesn't entirely work. Returning weapons now all return just before your next turn, and only if you have a hand free, throwing more than 2 weapons with returning means at least one of them will be dead in the water at the beginning of the next round. (And buying that many +1 Returning Javelins would eat up an unhealthy chunk of a 9th level character's gold.)
Shurkien maybe then?