I'm new to Pathfinder and just have the core rulebook from which to draw. I'm making a low level rogue and feel like (in order to get good use out of sneak attack) I pretty much HAVE to go the TWF route. Is that true, or is there another path that can be as combat effective at low level? We have a couple of tanks in the group so finding a flank should be easy enough.
For pure damage? No, there aren't any comparable builds. Bows just have a hard time sneak attacking- as they cannot be flanked with. As for single weapon fighting... spring attack- it's a viable build, it's damage is sad but it's very defensive- combine with cleave for the best results (vital strike won't be as good- weapon damage won't be great. I would stick with a finesse-able weapons as dex still needs to be high. Personally I like the elven curve blade, as you can power attack with it, as well as finesse it. Lunge has it's uses for this as well- you never have to be adjacent.
I've been somewhat amused by the half-orc rogues who sneak attack with a greataxe ...
The OP indicated a "low-level" rogue. At very low levels, there's not so much difference, since that off-hand attack misses a lot and you're only getting 1 or 2 dice of precision damage. It's a mid to high levels where that second chance to get 4 or more dice really makes a difference.
Thanks for the input - that's about the same conclusion I had reached. I think I might end up playing a monk with Disable Device as a class skill from a background trait. At least then I can call my two weapon fighting by a different name :)
RPG Superstar 2008 Top 32, 2011 Top 16
|
you certainly don't need to go TWF. It's a pooular option for rogues, but it reduces their chance of hitting and splits their expenditures on weapons. If you go with a single weapon, that's effectively a +3 to hit (2 from not having TWF penalties, and 1 from being able to afford a weapon with an additional +1 enhancement bonus.) In addition, that frees up feats that you can use elsewhere.
With tumbling being harder now, I'd rather spend a feat on skill focus acrobatics to make it easier to set up the flank without taking an AoO.
I'm new to Pathfinder and just have the core rulebook from which to draw. I'm making a low level rogue and feel like (in order to get good use out of sneak attack) I pretty much HAVE to go the TWF route. Is that true, or is there another path that can be as combat effective at low level? We have a couple of tanks in the group so finding a flank should be easy enough.
I played a TWF rogue in 3.5 (played it from level 7-14) and unless you focus a LOT of your build points and magic items in AC and HP (via Con), you're not going to last very long. True, PF rogues get on average 1 more HP per level, but I still think TWF is not necessarily the way to go. Sure, it's VERY satisfying when you get 5 hits in on the enemy where they all do sneak attack damage... but that's extremely rare. More often, you have to use a move action to get in place, take one good shot, and then get brutally murdered as the monster gets his full attack to decide that you better not be able to open up with 5 attacks just like the last one. It depends on too many other variables beyond your control. Under the best of conditions, you're taking a huge chance. Having extra attacks is nice, but you're at a lower BAB than the fighter and you're giving yourself an additional -2 per attack, and all attacks beyond the first two are much worse. So, odds are you'll only hit once or twice per round anyway, and then you're a fragile target.
A better route is to go with dodge/mobility/spring attack and then focus on increasing your speed. You get more out of your sneak attack when you're more sure you'll stay alive to do it again next round.
|
If combat-effectiveness is all you're looking for, then yeah, TWF gives you the most sneak-attack damage-dealing.
Rogues are about a lot more than sneak-attack, though. They have LOTS of skills available. Scouting helps the party prepare for things before they know you're there; you're gonna keep the party from getting blasted by traps; a charisma rogue can be tons of fun to play (if you're into actual roleplaying...); tumbling helps you get in good positions; etc.
Don't forget that there are other things that RPGs are about than dealing damage...
(Your playstyle may vary. 8^)
I'm new to Pathfinder and just have the core rulebook from which to draw. I'm making a low level rogue and feel like (in order to get good use out of sneak attack) I pretty much HAVE to go the TWF route. Is that true, or is there another path that can be as combat effective at low level? We have a couple of tanks in the group so finding a flank should be easy enough.
As the above poster suggested, if you can find a way to generate concealment or cover for yourself, a ranged rogue is the best damage-dealing build. Rapid Shot is Two-Weapon Fighting for archers, and no need to move into melee or flanking means almost every turn is spent full-round-attacking for the maximum number of sneak attacks.
If combat-effectiveness is all you're looking for, then yeah, TWF gives you the most sneak-attack damage-dealing.
Rogues are about a lot more than sneak-attack, though. They have LOTS of skills available.
However, skills and TWF aren't really an either-or proposition. The only way that they start to compete with each other are if you want to take lots of Skill Focus or +2/+2 feats.
I'd also argue that TWF doesn't decrease your chance to hit, especially at low levels. Each individual attack is less likely to hit, but you're making more attacks, which usually means that you end up hitting more often.
If you do the math, anytime you hit with a 16 or less, TWF is going to produce at least one hit more often than a single attack. If you need a 17, TWF fighting hits 19% of the time, compared with 20% for a single attack, which is very close to a draw. 18 is the only time it's clearly bad idea to TWF (9.75% vs 15%). Once you get to 19, the two chances to roll a natural 20 almost balance a 19 hitting (9.75% vs 10%). If you need a natural 20 without TWF, two chances are clearly better than one (9.75% vs 5%).
This assumes that there's no difference between your primary and off-hand damage. If you have a strength of 25 and your weapons are a +3 flaming burst shocking burst acidic burst keen rapier and a non-magical dagger, TWF fighting will be bad idea much more often.
At low levels, were probably looking at rapier and short sword, or two short swords, doing a damage of 1d6 + 1d6 (sneak) + 0-2 (strength). For the offhand, that's possibly one less damage. If the primary weapon is a rapier, that would give an additional 5% extra damage to the primary hand due to additional critical hits.
At mid-levels, TWF fighting probably starts to lose ground, since it makes it even less likely that the iterative attacks will hit. However, I think that most of the time, two attacks at -2/-2 will hit more often than two attacks at +0/-5. The third attack at -7 just helps add to the advantage of TWF.
If combat-effectiveness is all you're looking for, then yeah, TWF gives you the most sneak-attack damage-dealing.
Rogues are about a lot more than sneak-attack, though. They have LOTS of skills available. Scouting helps the party prepare for things before they know you're there; you're gonna keep the party from getting blasted by traps; a charisma rogue can be tons of fun to play (if you're into actual roleplaying...); tumbling helps you get in good positions; etc.
Don't forget that there are other things that RPGs are about than dealing damage...
(Your playstyle may vary. 8^)
QFT.
IMHO, DPS isn't what the game is about. It's about role-playing. The stats of your character are just there to determine success of any given action so it's not a case of "cops and robbers".
"Bang! Gotcha!"
"Did not!"
What role-playing penalties do TWF rogues suffer compared to others?
I've been somewhat amused by the half-orc rogues who sneak attack with a greataxe ...
Heh heh. Is perfectly viable way to be fighting.
What role-playing penalties do TWF rogues suffer compared to others?
That depends on whether your DM allows you to roleplay your corpse's answers during a speak with dead session.
TWF requires that you stand in one place for a full round. If you can full-round them, they can full-round you. If they can full-round you, you're dead. With light armor and a d8, you can generally soak a hit if you get unlucky and provoke an AoO while maneuvering; but you can't tank a troll. It just ain't happening.
The rogue's primary role is skillmonkey. Sneak attack is a consolation prize. It looks like big piles of damage, but it's really only there so you don't feel completely left out in combat. Exploit it when the risk seems worth the reward, perhaps go for Spring Attack or try to find a reliable concealed-sniping trick, but don't push your luck: you are the third squishiest class in the game, ahead of only sorcerers and wizards.
As the above poster suggested, if you can find a way to generate concealment or cover for yourself, a ranged rogue is the best damage-dealing build. Rapid Shot is Two-Weapon Fighting for archers, and no need to move into melee or flanking means almost every turn is spent full-round-attacking for the maximum number of sneak attacks.
Don't forget that Deadly Aim is power attack for Ranged weapon users, and it gets really, really really nasty. As I learned while playtesting a ranged fighter. As a ranged rogue, if you can generate concealment, you will hit like a ton of bricks
Here's the thing about two weapon fighting: while each attack is less likely to hit, more attack rolls equals more hits total. In a 3.5 game I'm playing in (it's hanging in the air as I'm currently DMing Pathfinder with that group) we have a twf rogue (with about 3 levels of fighter, but we're at 17th level- so he's mostly a rogue) and he dominates comabt. The other contenders are a 17th level paladin and my fochlucan lyrist (that prestige class's prerequisists hurt even worse than you thought) So that's not a huge competitions, but still.
But yes- a TWF rogue is a glass canon- he can dish it out but he can't take it. Not that he should- he shouldn't have to take a full-attack- the foe should come to him, he should full-attack the foe, and the foe should be dead. period.
I suggest that any range rogue find a way to get hide in plain site feature- he'll need it. So far, the best option I've seen is the shadowdancer dip, but even that's not a great idea so... If i want to play ranged characters- I stick to classes that do it well.
I play almost exclusively as Rogues and very rarely take the TWF chain unless I am going for TWD. I think the -2 to all attack rolls is too high a price to pay for a single extra attack, at least at low to mid levels. The Rogue already has a lower BAB progression and to throw a -2 on all attacks on top of that seems counterproductive to me. At mid to high levels I like TWF as a way to increase your potential damage but by that time you have the gold to increase the enhancement bonuses on your weapons to make up for the -2 penalty. At low to mid levels I prefer the Boots of Speed option.
With the TWF path you have to pay the price of a feat, -2 to all attacks, and probably the gold to Enhance two +2 weapons to make up for the -2 to your attacks. (That is 8,000 for each +2 weapon, 16,000 for two.)
With the Boots of Speed path you pay 12,000 gold and get an item that doubles your movement speed, gives you +1 to AC, +1 to all Attack rolls, +1 to Reflex Saves, and one additional attack at full BAB on a full attack action. This is usable for 10 rounds a day which need not be consecutive rounds. It is turned on and off as a free action.
For negligible damage.
Maybe you missed this part but Boots of Speed gives you the same additional attack that TWF does, as part of a full attack action. Except that Boots of Speed gives you +1 to all attacks instead of -2.
TWF = Additional attack with offhand as part of a full attack action with -2 to all attacks.
Boots of Speed = Additional attack as part of a full attack action +1 to all attacks.
It is the same damage with a far better chance of actually hitting.
I misunderstood what you were planning to do with the boots, indeed.
I wasn't planning to do anything special with the boots. That is just what Haste does, plain and simple. Haste gives you an additional attack with a full attack action at your full BAB; in addition you get +1 to all attack rolls as well as +1 to AC and + 1 to Reflex saves. Also it increases your speed by 30' up to double your base speed.
Another advantage is that you can 2h your rapier or use an elven curve blade or whatnot.
You would be freed up to use an elven curve blade or some other weapon with two hands. However, you don't gain the 1.5 STR bonus to damage by using a rapier with two hands. The rapier is a strictly one handed weapon and there is no benefit for using it with both hands.
The disadvantage is that this only kicks in when you can afford Boots of Speed, and that it obviates getting Haste from any other source. It's not an either-or thing to TWF and use a Haste source.
Actually it is far more cost effective to spend 12,000 gold on the boots than to spend 16,000 for two +2 weapons trying to make up for the disadvantage that TWF puts you at.
How is it a disadvantage when you don’t need the party Wizard to cast Haste on you, or when you don’t need or want a Speed weapon? You can still take advantage of an ally casting Haste on you; it just means you don’t have to use up the rounds of Haste available from your boots and can save them for later. Also you would have no need of a weapon of Speed. Actually, Haste is far better than a Speed weapon anyway and the boots are far cheaper since you are paying the cost of a +4 weapon if you want a Speed enchant.
You can get Boots of Speed at low to mid levels so you aren't suffering from the -2 to all attacks. Then at mid to high levels when you can afford multiple weapons of +2 enhancement or better you can invest in TWF and you have an additional attack from TWF plus the additional attack from Haste and you are still able to maintain a decent hit rate.
I play almost exclusively as Rogues and very rarely take the TWF chain unless I am going for TWD. I think the -2 to all attack rolls is too high a price to pay for a single extra attack, at least at low to mid levels. The Rogue already has a lower BAB progression and to throw a -2 on all attacks on top of that seems counterproductive to me. At mid to high levels I like TWF as a way to increase your potential damage but by that time you have the gold to increase the enhancement bonuses on your weapons to make up for the -2 penalty. At low to mid levels I prefer the Boots of Speed option.
With the TWF path you have to pay the price of a feat, -2 to all attacks, and probably the gold to Enhance two +2 weapons to make up for the -2 to your attacks. (That is 8,000 for each +2 weapon, 16,000 for two.)
With the Boots of Speed path you pay 12,000 gold and get an item that doubles your movement speed, gives you +1 to AC, +1 to all Attack rolls, +1 to Reflex Saves, and one additional attack at full BAB on a full attack action. This is usable for 10 rounds a day which need not be consecutive rounds. It is turned on and off as a free action.
While I'll agree that for non-rogues TWF is largely a sub-par choice, due to the feat intensity and the gold expense primarily, and that beyond the first feat it gets worse with each additional attack, TWF is NECESSARY for a rogue to keep up on damage. A TWF rogue who learns to flank like a good monkey can tear the $#!& out of just about anything, especially in pathfinder. Saying that a -2 to attacks for an additional, at 10th level, 24 damage (+3 short sword, 5d6 SA) ISN'T worth it is pretty silly to me. Especially when the -2 is mitigated by the flanking.
And remember, you can get the extra attack from TWF AND that from haste, meaning at 10th level you can have 3 attacks at +5 (before stat, weapon, haste, conditional modifiers) and a 4th at +0, each doing 24ish points of damage. At that point trading out 24 points of damage for 10% more chance to hit seems silly IMO.
While I'll agree that for non-rogues TWF is largely a sub-par choice, due to the feat intensity and the gold expense primarily, and that beyond the first feat it gets worse with each additional attack, TWF is NECESSARY for a rogue to keep up on damage. A TWF rogue who learns to flank like a good monkey can tear the $#!& out of just about anything, especially in pathfinder. Saying that a -2 to attacks for an additional, at 10th level, 24 damage (+3 short sword, 5d6 SA) ISN'T worth it is pretty silly to me. Especially when the -2 is mitigated by the flanking.And remember, you can get the extra attack from TWF AND that from haste, meaning at 10th level you can have 3 attacks at +5 (before stat, weapon, haste, conditional modifiers) and a 4th at +0, each doing 24ish points of damage. At that point trading out 24 points of damage for 10% more chance to hit seems silly IMO.
Your example begins at level 10. I already stated that at mid to high levels I agree that TWF is a good option.
@ angryscrub:
Attacking with two weapons is a full attack action.
Full-Round Actions
A full-round action requires an entire round to complete. Thus, it can't be coupled with a standard or a move action, though if it does not involve moving any distance, you can take a 5-foot step.Full Attack
If you get more than one attack per round because your base attack bonus is high enough (see Base Attack Bonus in Classes), because you fight with two weapons or a double weapon, or for some special reason, you must use a full-round action to get your additional attacks. You do not need to specify the targets of your attacks ahead of time. You can see how the earlier attacks turn out before assigning the later ones.The only movement you can take during a full attack is a 5-foot step. You may take the step before, after, or between your attacks.
If you get multiple attacks because your base attack bonus is high enough, you must make the attacks in order from highest bonus to lowest. If you are using two weapons, you can strike with either weapon first. If you are using a double weapon, you can strike with either part of the weapon first.
While I'll agree that for non-rogues TWF is largely a sub-par choice, due to the feat intensity and the gold expense primarily, and that beyond the first feat it gets worse with each additional attack, TWF is NECESSARY for a rogue to keep up on damage. A TWF rogue who learns to flank like a good monkey can tear the $#!& out of just about anything, especially in pathfinder. Saying that a -2 to attacks for an additional, at 10th level, 24 damage (+3 short sword, 5d6 SA) ISN'T worth it is pretty silly to me. Especially when the -2 is mitigated by the flanking.And remember, you can get the extra attack from TWF AND that from haste, meaning at 10th level you can have 3 attacks at +5 (before stat, weapon, haste, conditional modifiers) and a 4th at +0, each doing 24ish points of damage. At that point trading out 24 points of damage for 10% more chance to hit seems silly IMO.
Your example begins at level 10. I already stated that at mid to high levels I agree that TWF is a good option.
Yes and you said low to mid you prefer the boots of speed. 10 is mid.
Okay then, let's look at level 5. Rogue has a 20 dex 12 str, weapon focus (shortsword) and two +1 shortswords. Weapon Finesse of course. Total attack bonus +10. Assuming you're flanking and can sneak attack that's one attack at +12 to attack for 4d6+2 damage, hitting (against a CR 5 with 18 AC) 75% of the time. Let's call that 12 damage (75% of the average of that hit).
Now let's say he takes a full attack and gets two attacks, instead at +10 (-2 to each attack) for 4d6+2 each. 65% chance to hit on either, let's call that 10.5 points of damage per hit or 21 total. 21>12. This is at a point where you (by wealth guidelines mind you) can't afford boots of speed. I don't think a 75% average damage increase is a bad choice.
Is my math off?
So, instead of buying two +2 weapons to make up for the -2 to all attacks, you are buying two +1 weapons (+ 1,300gp each) and sinking a second feat into it (Weapon Focus). Sure it is cheaper now but you are sinking twice as many feats into this one additional attack.
Going strictly by the book a level 5 character should have roughly 10,500 GP. Generally speaking (according to my own experiences) if you play in a campaign up from level 1 you generally make a good deal more than what the book says, so the idea of a 12,000 GP item is not that farfetched if one is dedicated to getting it.
....
So now let's revisit that example of a 5th level Rogue. This Rogue will have a 20 Dex and Weapon Finesse. The Rogue doesn't have magic weapons.
Option 1) With Boots of Speed instead of TWF: 12,000gp + 0 feat cost.
BAB 3, +5 Dex bonus, +1 Haste, one additional attack Haste = Attack bonus 9/9 or 11/11 if flanking. This build doesn't have any Feat cost so you can take any feats you like. For instance you could get Weapon Focus with this build as well and put your numbers even further ahead of a TWF build: 10/10 or 12/12 if flanking. Also, if this Rogue is able to afford a single +1 weapon (whether now or within his next few adventures) his numbers will increase to 11/11 or 13/13 when flanking.
In addition you get +1 AC, +1 Reflex Saves, x2 Base Movement Speed.
Option 2) With TWF instead of BoS: 0gp + 1 feat cost. 16,000gp + 1 additional feat to break even with BoS.
BAB 3, +5 Dex bonus, -2 TWF, one additional attack TWF = Attack bonus 6/6 or 8/8 if flanking. This build costs no money but has a cost of one feat to start with. On top of that one feat you must buy two +2 weapons and spend an additional feat (Weapon Focus) just to break even with the numbers you gain from wearing BoS.
....
In the end you can achieve the same numbers either way. If you can't afford BoS in your game by level 5 then perhaps TWF and two +1 weapons would be the way to go but you aren't going to be quite as effective that way as you would with BoS. It is all based on game setting and personal preference. It is also largely based on whether or not you are allowing 3.5 materials into your game. TWF is a far better option to spend your feats on in a strictly PF game than it would be in PF + 3.5 game.
BoS = 12,000gp
TWF = 16,000gp + 2 feats
You could skimp on the magic weapons:
TWF = 2,600gp + 2 feats.
But your attacks would be -1/-1 of what they could be with BoS. If the BoS guy has Weapon Focus also then you will be -2 /-2 of what you could be and -3/-3 of what they could be as soon as the BoS guy can afford a single +1 weapon. If that is acceptable to you, then by all means go for TWF and two +1 weapons. I was merely providing another option for the OP and stating my opinion that BoS are a better way to go in some circumstances.
Have you done the math on +2 mainhand, masterwork offhand, TWF, and Boots? I would but I am, like, super lazy.
Level 5 Rogue with 20 Dex and Weapon Finesse:
+2 main hand weapon, masterwork offhand weapon, TWF, and BoS:
BAB 3, +5 Dex bonus, -2 TWF, one additional attack TWF, one additional attack Haste, +1 to attack rolls Haste, +2 Weapon (+1 off hand weapon) = Attacks 9/9/8
+2 main hand weapon, masterwork off hand weapon, and TWF:
BAB 3, +5 Dex bonus, -2 TWF, one additional attack TWF, +2 Weapon (+1 off hand weapon) = Attacks 8/7
+2 main hand weapon and BoS:
BAB 3, +5 Dex bonus, +1 to attack rolls Haste, one additional attack Haste, +2 Weapon = Attacks 11/11
Anyways, to contribute something meaningful to the thread, there is an item that gives two weapon fighting, it's under 10,000 gold but I can't remember the exact price off-hand. Name of the item is Gloves of the Balanced Hand, Magic Item Compendium.
I will have to look into those for my Rogue if my group switches to PF rules. Currently I have Gloves of Dex but since those have been converted to belts in PF my glove slot would be freed up. Those gloves would be a nice way for me to get TWF without messing with the current feat progression I have planned.
For the record most campaigns...no scratch that ALL campaigns I've played in have had less than the "standard" treasure until much later levels. Be that as it may, I'll loan you another 1500gp so you can buy your boots.
Okay, SHADOWLORD so in your example your character sank every last dime he had buying boots of speed, which give him 10 rounds a day of extra speed and extra attacking. Which by the way is about half the combat for the day, assuming 5 rounds of combat per 4 encounters. He has no magic weapons, or armor, not even a potion of cure light wounds.
On the other hand my rogue sank 4600 into two +1 shortswords, +2 Belt of Incredible Dexterity, and has enough left for +1 armor and some potions of CLW and Invisibility.
Thing is, in the first round of combat the wizard casts Haste, obviating your entire gold piece budget and making you look like a fool, while I tear the absolute crap out of this Winter Wolf or whatever with my +12/+12/+12 attack routine.
Don't say "oh but your built takes another feat" because any dex based rogue trying to be combat effective, especially at lower levels, is going to take Weapon Finesse and Weapon Focus. What other feats are you going to take that will make you combat effective?
Also, again, it isn't an either/or proposition even at low levels. At the point which you can theoretically afford Boots of Speed your wizard should be pumping out hastes when the baddies jump out of the closet. -2 to attacks is nothing, is mitigated by flanking or any of a number of other situational modifiers which coincidentally allow a rogue to do anything less than abyssmal damage.
You said TWF is a poor choice at low to mid levels, then complained that my level 10 example wasn't "mid level" enough for you. I reworked a very standard 5th level rogue build, at a level where you wouldn't normally be able to afford the boots, and you still won't listen to reason. How about this?
Level 1 rogue, 15 dexterity, 12 strength, human, two feats Weapon Finesse and TWF. No magic items whatsoever, not even masterwork weapons, just two daggers. He has a +2 to hit vs. an AC of 12. He's NOT even flanking. On average he does 3.5 damage on a hit, which he does 55% of the time, which is 1.925 damage a round. Let's round it UP to 2. Utter crap. Now if he attacks using TWF he hits 45% of the time..but twice. On average he'll hit for 3.15 points of damage. Let's round that DOWN to 3. That's a 50% increase in damage, on average, with a horribly built wanker with two sharp spoons.
I rest my case.
@the OP. You certainly can play a rogue without TWF, if that's what you want. In my opinion, and I think the math bears this out, TWF will largely mean a boost to your damage per round. If it doesn't fit your flavor or concept, you won't be any worse for wear though your comrades might wonder why you're not bringing the pain.
Thing is, in the first round of combat the wizard casts Haste, obviating your entire gold piece budget and making you look like a fool, while I tear the absolute crap out of this Winter Wolf or whatever with my +12/+12/+12 attack routine.This post is full of some dumb stuff that doesn't need replying to, but this part does. Haste is a multitarget buff, so the fact that the rogue can't benefit from it while using Boots of Speed is an opportunity cost. A wizard is going to be casting Haste on the party, not just the one person.
When did I say it wasn't? I'm merely pointing out that haste stacks with TWF, and someone investing their money in boots of speed as an alternative to TWF isn't seeing the whole picture.
Have you done the math on +2 mainhand, masterwork offhand, TWF, and Boots? I would but I am, like, super lazy.Level 5 Rogue with 20 Dex and Weapon Finesse:
+2 main hand weapon, masterwork offhand weapon, TWF, and BoS:
BAB 3, +5 Dex bonus, -2 TWF, one additional attack TWF, one additional attack Haste, +1 to attack rolls Haste, +2 Weapon (+1 off hand weapon) = Attacks 9/9/8+2 main hand weapon, masterwork off hand weapon, and TWF:
BAB 3, +5 Dex bonus, -2 TWF, one additional attack TWF, +2 Weapon (+1 off hand weapon) = Attacks 8/7+2 main hand weapon and BoS:
BAB 3, +5 Dex bonus, +1 to attack rolls Haste, one additional attack Haste, +2 Weapon = Attacks 11/11
Yes, so, wouldn't the best option above be the +9/+9/+8 option? The point is to do damage, and you only do more damage if you attack and hit more. A 10% reduction in hit is worth a 50%+ increase in damage. Isn't it?
For the record most campaigns...no scratch that ALL campaigns I've played in have had less than the "standard" treasure until much later levels. Be that as it may, I'll loan you another 1500gp so you can buy your boots.
Like I said, it is ultimately up to DM style, game setting, and personal experience/preference. Every game I have played in I have had a good deal more than book levels of treasure. Most people I have talked to say the same, if you want to argue that be my guest. Besides that, if you are a Rogue and don't have more money than the other members of your party, you are probably doing something wrong.
Okay, SHADOWLORD so in your example your character sank every last dime he had buying boots of speed, which give him 10 rounds a day of extra speed and extra attacking. Which by the way is about half the combat for the day, assuming 5 rounds of combat per 4 encounters. He has no magic weapons, or armor, not even a potion of cure light wounds.
Again this is a question of DM style. I have rarely had more than one or two major battle per day in my campaigns (that is per day in game mind you, not per game session). But my DMs have been driven by story far more than by hack and slash so you don't generally find yourself fighting 4 times per day for 5 average rounds. The one exception would be story driven onslaughts or overpopulated dungeons which we have not ventured into lately.
Also the members of my party are extremely efficient at butchering the opposition so I have rarely had battles that lasted more than 4 rounds unless it was a major story arching boss type fight, or the enemy caught us completely off our game.
In addition, not every round will be one that I need Haste in, so the fact that I can turn the boots on and off with a free action is nice. Out of a 4 round combat I may only use the BoS for 2 or 3 rounds.
On the other hand my rogue sank 4600 into two +1 shortswords, +2 Belt of Incredible Dexterity, and has enough left for +1 armor and some potions of CLW and Invisibility.
And I can equal all those numbers with only BoS. Now, unless I have additional funds I am short on potions of CLW or Invisibility but I would probably just steal them if I couldn't afford them. Money could be an issue with a DM who plays tight, but I am a Rogue, so I steal A LOT. But to be honest with you, I try to spend as little as possible on potions and only use them for absolute emergencies. They feel like a money pit to me.
Thing is, in the first round of combat the wizard casts Haste, obviating your entire gold piece budget and making you look like a fool, while I tear the absolute crap out of this Winter Wolf or whatever with my +12/+12/+12 attack routine.
You are the one spouting things about 4 combats per day, so does your Wizard have 4 Haste spells memorized per day? If not then BoS will never be a bad purchase. In addition just because your Wizard can cast Haste doesn't mean he will be able to target ALL party members. If he can't it is nice to know that you have your own source of Haste and the Wizard is free to target other party members if need be. Besides, I am generally too far away from my party when combat starts to be affected by the Wizard's Haste.
Don't say "oh but your built takes another feat" because any dex based rogue trying to be combat effective, especially at lower levels, is going to take Weapon Finesse and Weapon Focus. What other feats are you going to take that will make you combat effective?
If you are including 3.5 materials in your game then there are plenty of feats I would take before Weapon Focus. I am not going to map out my character for scrutiny but I will say that without having to worry about sinking feats into the TWF chain or spending gold on a second weapon I have been able to focus on feats that more than make up for it. If I turn on the BoS I have three attacks at level 10. With the higher attack bonus I have I am likely to hit with at least two of those if not all three. With my feat selection and weapon the way it is I deal between 26 and 67 damage per attack. So, when I hit with all three attacks I am dealing 78 damage before I even touch my damage dice and have a maximum damage output of 201 damage in one turn. However, if I were playing a strictly PF core game I wouldn't have access to a good portion of my character build so I would likely have to resort to TWF to keep up with damage.
Also, again, it isn't an either/or proposition even at low levels. At the point which you can theoretically afford Boots of Speed your wizard should be pumping out hastes when the baddies jump out of the closet. -2 to attacks is nothing, is mitigated by flanking or any of a number of other situational modifiers which coincidentally allow a rogue to do anything less than abyssmal damage.
Again assuming three things: You are close enough to the party to receive Haste, the Wizard can target all party members with a single casting, and your Wizard has memorized enough Haste spells to cover every combat in the day.
The -2 may not kill your hit rate but it is always going to affect it.
You said TWF is a poor choice at low to mid levels, then complained that my level 10 example wasn't "mid level" enough for you. I reworked a very standard 5th level rogue build, at a level where you wouldn't normally be able to afford the boots, and you still won't listen to reason.
So you are claiming to be the voice of reason while I am a raving lunatic, how diplomatic of you.
Actually as I recall what happened was I put forth an alternate opinion to the TWF worshipers in the thread and you attacked it. I put forth an argument to your attack and you are attacking that as well. If that makes me incapable of listening to reason well I guess you can just call me a fanatic.
Level 1 rogue, 15 dexterity, 12 strength, human, two feats Weapon Finesse and TWF. No magic items whatsoever, not even masterwork weapons, just two daggers. He has a +2 to hit vs. an AC of 12. He's NOT even flanking. On average he does 3.5 damage on a hit, which he does 55% of the time, which is 1.925 damage a round. Let's round it UP to 2. Utter crap. Now if he attacks using TWF he hits 45% of the time..but twice. On average he'll hit for 3.15 points of damage. Let's round that DOWN to 3. That's a 50% increase in damage, on average, with a horribly built wanker with two sharp spoons.
You are saying at level 1 you would rather gamble on two attacks at +0/+0 than have one attack at +2. I disagree.
I rest my case.
Yeah I guess so, if your case is that an extra attack at the cost of a feat and -2 to all attacks is so obviously superior to an extra attack with no penalty to any attacks and +1 to all attacks plus a host of other benefits.
@the OP. You certainly can play a rogue without TWF, if that's what you want. In my opinion, and I think the math bears this out, TWF will largely mean a boost to your damage per round. If it doesn't fit your flavor or concept, you won't be any worse for wear though your comrades might wonder why you're not bringing the pain.
At the end of the day the math still says -2 to all attacks. I have played plenty of Rogues and rarely taken TWF, I have always done just fine without it. The character I have now has gutted everything he has come across and put to shame every Rogue (most of them TWF NPCs) that he has encountered. As for not being able to bring the pain, my party would laugh at you.
You are trying to paint me as some lunatic for not bowing down to TWF but when it comes down to pure numbers mine are higher. The only arguments you have are money and assumptions about other party members and their spell selections. I would not rely on the party Wizard to determine my combat effectiveness. Money has never been an issue in most games I have played in. My current game is quite a bit above average due to a house rule for haggling prices but as I said before, I am a Rogue and I steal A LOT. Your other argument is that you don’t have to use one or the other but can use both. I never said you couldn’t or shouldn’t. The OP asked if TWF was the only way to go and my post provided an alternate path. I didn’t say you couldn’t combine the two what I said was for some extra gold you can buy this item and gain the same effect but your numbers will be higher and that is absolutely true.
Yes, so, wouldn't the best option above be the +9/+9/+8 option?
I would say that depends on whether you want more attacks or a higher hit rate. In my experience a lower attack bonus means you will hit less, especially against NPCs with higher than average AC.
The point is to do damage, and you only do more damage if you attack and hit more.
The numbers are going to say that you will attack more but I will hit more reliably.
A 10% reduction in hit is worth a 50%+ increase in damage. Isn't it?
The difference between 9/9 and 11/11 is 19% lower hit rate but you gain a 50% increase to potential damage with one additional attack at +8.
The difference between using TWF 8/7 and BoS 11/11 is 28%/37% lower hit rate with no increase in potential damage.
TWF + BoS is a good deal. TWF instead of BoS is just sacrificing hit rate.
TWF requires that you stand in one place for a full round. If you can full-round them, they can full-round you. If they can full-round you, you're dead.
That's my principal caveat, as well. Not only that, but it's very rare that a monster is going to move itself into a position where you can use a full attack action. That means that the first round you're in melee with the monster, you get one attack, and it gets its full attack on you. IF you can survive that round and use your full TWF with sneak attack, if it's still up, it can get another full round of attacks against you, which you will very likely not be able to stand up to.
The problem is that the monster usually gets more full-attack actions against you than you can ever get against it. When it works, it's beautiful. More often, it's suicide.
There are ways to compensate for this: Buff up your defense rather than offense, have a reliable source of concealment, ensure that the monster will attack someone else, be absolutely sure your attack will drop it, get someone else to move you into place after the monster's turn but before your own... I'm sure there are other ways. Those fall under what I called the variables beyond your control.
To use an analogy from a game I haven't played in years, it's like having a devastating Magic: the Gathering card combo... but it requires all 7 cards in your hand to be the ones you want.
bunch of nonsense
Go read A Man In Black's post two above yours. He makes the math pretty simple. An additional attack, even with a minor penalty to hit, is going to do more damage.
As a side note, are you the type of person who would build a fighter without power attack because the chance of not hitting occasionally is not worth, ya know, killing the monsters entire rounds earlier?
And honestly, I REALLY want to know what splatbook feats you're taking at level 1-5 that obviate the damage increase from TWF. Pretty please?
The difference between 9/9 and 11/11 is 19% lower hit rate but you gain a 50% increase to potential damage with one additional attack at +8.The difference between using TWF 8/7 and BoS 11/11 is 28%/37% lower hit rate with no increase in potential damage.
I see numbers like this come up a lot when people are arguing for hit over attacks, damage, or whatever and they're extremely biased and really don't have much to do with the how the system actually works.
The difference between a +9 and a +11 is about 10% hit rate, meaning that when you gain +2 more hit you will hit on average 10% more. Sure the plus is 19% higher but that doesn't mean anything because your chance to hit is measured on a 20 sided die in increments of 5%. Saying the difference between +8 and +11 is that you'll hit 28% more often is like saying someone with a hit of +3 will hit 300% more often then someone with a hit of +1. It's not the case and is a poor basis for argument.
Now if you meant that it's 19% more +hit and 28% more +hit then spell that out please. Because it is not that big of an increase in how often you will actually hit and proposing otherwise is misleading.
|
Haste is a multitarget buff, so the fact that the rogue can't benefit from it while using Boots of Speed is an opportunity cost. A wizard is going to be casting Haste on the party, not just the one person.
Ah, but the Haste spell isn't necessarily wasted on the rogue.
Unless the wizard is casting haste every fight, the rogue can just choose to use his boots of speed when the wizard hasn't casted haste. In this situation, the boots of speed aren't as great, but still do have an advantage over not having them at all.
I'm not arguing that the boots of speed are a better choice, mechanically. I don't think they are. But I do think that they're a pretty decent choice if you've got a character concept that doesn't fit with TWF.
To the OP, I think it's a matter of making a decision. Do you want to go with a sub-optimal build that fits what you imagine better, or just take the 'better' route and run with it?
I find it much more rewarding to just go with a concept and try to play that concept as well as I can. In the end, I remember characters more when I don't compromise concept for the sake of optimization.
EDIT: Just adding that I DO NOT subscribe to the idea that optimization and good roleplaying are mutually exclusive. I just prefer to pick the concept and then optimize it (within the constraints of that idea) rather than fit my fluff around the optimized person.
bunch of nonsense
Why thank you for this summary of my words.
Go read A Man In Black's post two above yours. He makes the math pretty simple. An additional attack, even with a minor penalty to hit, is going to do more damage.
I read it. His math seems pretty good. It's a better argument than the insults you have been spewing. The thing about his example is that it doesn't compare wearing BoS with just TWF; it is comparing BoS with TWF + ITWF.
BoS vs. TWF = 3 attacks vs. 3 attacks and the numbers are slightly higher for the BoS guy.
BoS vs. TWF + ITWF = 3 attacks vs. 4 attacks, of course the numbers will lean toward the TWF when you add an extra attack from ITWF.
Eli the efreet.
Rapier BOS Jack does ~57.13 damage and 4.3 str damage. (25 damage, 80%/80%/55%, crits included)
TWF {+ ITWF} no-BOS matched swords Jack does ~64.38 damage and 5 str damage. (25 damage, 75%/75%/50%/50%, crits included)Fr'ktktktktkt the flanked froghemoth.
Rapier BOS Jack does ~36.58 damage and 2.8 str damage. (25 damage, 55%/55%/30%, crits included)
TWF {+ ITWF} no-BOS matched swords Jack does ~38.63 damage and 3 str damage. (25 damage, 50%/50%/25%/25%, crits included)
He shows 3 attacks for the BoS guy and 4 attacks for the TWF guy. Where did that extra attack come from? ITWF is what gives the 4th attack. Of course BoS isn't going to win out damage wise against TWF + ITWF. BoS only gives one additional attack, where TWF + ITWF give two additional attacks.
If you want to fairly compare BoS against TWF alone the numbers would be this:
Eli the efreet.
Rapier BOS Jack does ~57.13 damage and 4.3 str damage. (25 damage, 80%/80%/55%, crits included)
TWF no-BOS matched swords Jack does ~?? damage and 5 str damage. (25 damage, 75%/75%/50%, crits included)
Fr'ktktktktkt the flanked froghemoth.
Rapier BOS Jack does ~36.58 damage and 2.8 str damage. (25 damage, 55%/55%/30%, crits included)
TWF no-BOS matched swords Jack does ~?? damage and 3 str damage. (25 damage, 50%/50%/25%, crits included)
?? = I am not entirely sure what formula AMIB used to generate these damage totals but I am sure he could finish the equations.
I never claimed that BoS gave you better results than the ENTIRE TWF CHAIN. I said it gave you higher numbers than TWF, ONE FEAT, which is true.
As a side note, are you the type of person who would build a fighter without power attack because the chance of not hitting occasionally is not worth, ya know, killing the monsters entire rounds earlier?
Again thank you for this insightful diagnosis of the type of person and player I am.
And honestly, I REALLY want to know what splatbook feats you're taking at level 1-5 that obviate the damage increase from TWF. Pretty please?
I am not feeling particularly inclined to indulge you.