RPG Superstar 2013 Top 32
|
Just as the title suggests, I'm looking for a compelling MECHANICAL reason for a rogue not to take Two-Weapon Fighting. I can understand all kinds of role-play reasons for it, but I'm looking for something crunchy. Some alternative for rogues to dish out their damage without using TWF and still being somewhat effective in combats. I'm not necessarily looking for something BETTER, but something that at least doesn't horribly suck by comparison.
Just as the title suggests, I'm looking for a compelling MECHANICAL reason for a rogue not to take Two-Weapon Fighting. I can understand all kinds of role-play reasons for it, but I'm looking for something crunchy. Some alternative for rogues to dish out their damage without using TWF and still being somewhat effective in combats. I'm not necessarily looking for something BETTER, but something that at least doesn't horribly suck by comparison.
Greatsword rogue?
Greatsword rogue?
Elven curve blade rogue with Whirlwind Attack (:
Depnds on the weapons. A rouge wieldng a longsword and a shortword has a slight 1 point better damage average than a single wielding greatsword rouge.
True, but he needs less feats and could go with Vital Strike to hit and run tactics, that would be REALLY damaging.
|
RPG Superstar 2013 Top 32
|
Greatsword rogue?
Well... at 1st level, it doesn't look too bad. You'd have to burn a feat to get proficiency with the greatsword (or dip a level of a martial class), so your feat tax is equal. At 1st level, a TWF rogue dual-wielding shortswords is dealing 2d6 with each hit twice on a full attack action, for a total of 4d6 damage. The greatsword rogue is only hitting once for 3d6 (when sneak attacking, of course) but has a higher chance of succeeding in that attack. Also, he isn't beholden to needing a full attack action to get his damage in.
At higher levels, though, particularly by level 5 or so, it really starts to fall apart. The TWF with shortswords is dishing out 8d6 per round while the greatsword is only 5d6. By 9th level, iterative attacks have come to town and the TWF (who must invest another feat by now) is dishing out a terrifying 24d6 compared to the 14d6 of the greatsword.
|
|
Depnds on the weapons. A rouge wieldng a longsword and a shortword has a slight 1 point better damage average than a single wielding greatsword rouge.True, but he needs less feats and could go with Vital Strike to hit and run tactics, that would be REALLY damaging.
Unless he is an elf and already gets Longsword proficency for free.
|
RPG Superstar 2013 Top 32
|
Flachion and increase the crit range? Along with a reasonable strength score and power attack it could be really good.
The flaw with this idea is the same as the greatsword. By not choosing to use two weapons, you're dealing HALF as much sneak attack as you otherwise would. The first 3 levels it doesn't matter so much, but beyond level 7 or so, the single-weapon option becomes vastly inferior with regards to damage.
The truth is, it's ridiculous to even imagine a rogue with a Two-handed weapon, I wouldn't allow a sneak attack to come from that, like in second edition, too distastefull.
Of course, if you are in a situation that using full attack is good, NOTHING for ANY class compares to the 2 weapon fighting style. But if u r a one hit guy, that's the way to go.
|
Flachion and increase the crit range? Along with a reasonable strength score and power attack it could be really good.The flaw with this idea is the same as the greatsword. By not choosing to use two weapons, you're dealing HALF as much sneak attack as you otherwise would. The first 3 levels it doesn't matter so much, but beyond level 7 or so, the single-weapon option becomes vastly inferior with regards to damage.
If you can use 3.5 stuff there's Telling Blow from PBII that allows you to get sneak attack on critical hits. So with a falchin and keen/improved critical you're getting there. Of course if you're only talking about pathfinder stuff then I'm out of ideas for the moment. I'm off to work now so I'll try and get an idea tonight.
|
Remember that not using 2 weapons increases your chances of hitting, as well as freeing up feta slots that can be used to increase your damage itself.
A greatswordt itself has a sneak attack equivalent damage boost compared to a 1d6 weapon, also count the added bonus strenght (which would be higher due to not neccesarily needing high Dex for TWF. That on top of a 10% increase chances of hiting and an extra Feat.
Not saying that it is optimal or neccesarily better than TWF, just that saying ¨it is half as much damage¨in looking at it within a very limited scope.
Just my 2cp
|
|
The truth is, it's ridiculous to even imagine a rogue with a Two-handed weapon, I wouldn't allow a sneak attack to come from that, like in second edition, too distastefull.
Of course, if you are in a situation that using full attack is good, NOTHING for ANY class compares to the 2 weapon fighting style. But if u r a one hit guy, that's the way to go.
I've always liked this description of sneak attack with regard to one handed or two handed weapons: one handed means you're finding the specific dots on a monster to deal more damage, two handed means you're connecting the dots ;)
|
|
It's true that mechanically there is no better build for a rouge then twf if you want him to deal insane amounts of damage. In fact, in that regard he can be a better damage dealer than a fighter, although he will not hit as often on average. I guess that is why I always encourage my players to think of more than just mechanics when creating a character.
|
RPG Superstar 2013 Top 32
|
Remember that not using 2 weapons increases your chances of hitting, as well as freeing up feta slots that can be used to increase your damage itself.
A greatswordt itself has a sneak attack equivalent damage boost compared to a 1d6 weapon, also count the added bonus strenght (which would be higher due to not neccesarily needing high Dex for TWF. That on top of a 10% increase chances of hiting and an extra Feat.
Not saying that it is optimal or neccesarily better than TWF, just that saying ¨it is half as much damage¨in looking at it within a very limited scope.
Just my 2cp
Normally, I would agree with you. However, a rogue is going to need high DEX to bolster his skills, AC, and Reflex saves anyway. Neglecting that for more STR is just going to get him killed. So really, he can't afford to give up much DEX at all. Also, as far as "damage-boosting feats" for 2-handers, I assume you're mostly talking about Power Attack, which completely negates the notion of having a better to-hit chance than TWF. As for the damage bonus from higher STR, a two-hander deals STR x 1.5. TWF deals STR x 1 for the main hand and STR x 0.5 for the off-hand. It's a wash there. With Double Slice, the off-hand deals full STR.
CLICK HERE and look at the jack b nimble build on the first page and the hulky build on the second page. the TWF build has a slight advantage on a full attack but basically has to devote all feats to it. the two hand falchion build does way more damage on a single attack or when not sneaking, and has feats left over for other stuff.
TWF BARELY outdamages a two hander. not worth it, if you ask me.
this is just flat out not supported by the math. see the link i posted above. TWF is really not that great for a rogue.Flachion and increase the crit range? Along with a reasonable strength score and power attack it could be really good.The flaw with this idea is the same as the greatsword. By not choosing to use two weapons, you're dealing HALF as much sneak attack as you otherwise would. The first 3 levels it doesn't matter so much, but beyond level 7 or so, the single-weapon option becomes vastly inferior with regards to damage.
BARELLY?!? sorry mate, your math is completelly wrong. That's why lots of us are loobying for the Overhand Chopp tree to return.
|
RPG Superstar 2013 Top 32
|
With sneak attack, it is ~41.8 and about 1.9 str damage from crippling attack. a +1 to hit is worth 3.9 DPR, a +1 to damage is worth 1.2 DPR, and an additional attack is worth an additional 32.4 DPR.
With sneak attack, it is ~45.65, with an average of 3.4 str damage from Crippling Attack. With sneak attack, a +1 to hit is worth 5.37 DPR, a +1 to damage is worth 1.70 DPR, and an additional attack is worth ~14.77 DPR.
The TWFer is 4 DPR ahead here. Also...
(Note that most sneak attacking rogues will also be flanking, and the +2 to hit from flanking increases their DPR to ~56.39.)
Adding that same +2 to hit for Hulky yields a total of ~49.6 DPR. The TWF is fully 13% better. Also note that the TWF gets more pure benefit from both +hit AND +damage effects. Things like bardic music, haste, bless, and so on are almost GUARANTEED to be a feature of the battle at level 10+.
Just as the title suggests, I'm looking for a compelling MECHANICAL reason for a rogue not to take Two-Weapon Fighting.
Well, the elven curve blade rogue with Lunge + Whirlwind has the capacity to deal more damage than a TWF rogue -- or pretty much any other character -- in terms of pure DPR. Of course, the optimal situations are a bit unlikely to happen. . . but they *can* happen.
One thing about TWF rogues is that if they don't have sneak attack, they're quite subpar. By the higher levels, a simple cloak of minor displacement makes you completely immune to sneak attack -- unless the rogue has a true seeing capability. Also, there are a number of monster types that are immune to sneak attack. Sometimes you don't get the drop on a monster or don't get a flank. This happens more or less depending on your party composition and the encounter.
So, assuming you won't get sneak attack all the time, the TH approach deals significantly more damage during that time. Yes, it's less than what a fighter/barbarian/paladin/ranger/bard would do with an equivalent weapon. But it's better than sitting there twiddling your thumbs, UMDing a wand, etc.
|
RPG Superstar 2013 Top 32
|
yes, but you completely ignored damage on single attacks, and extra attacks. hulky gets 30 extra damage with haste, for instance, vs only 15 for jack b nimble. and on a single attack, hulky does about twice as much damage, 30 vs 15. and hulky has step up and lunge, for instance, to make it more likely to even be able to get full attacks more than one round in a row.
Okay, I will grant, then, that the 2-handed build is superior if your rogue is going to be dropping dudes like flies and zipping from one fight to the next. In my experience, though, at levels 10+, you're mostly fighting Large (or bigger) creatures who love to just stand up and smash down on the people in melee. In these scenarios, you're getting full attacks round after round. I suppose the damage bonus from haste is pretty significant on the 2-hander, though. So... okay, you've made your point. They are, at least, close enough to be alternatives.
Great stuuf too that it works good on 10th but once you get 4 attacks with 2 weapons Vs 2 with a two handed it goes very diferently.
Okay, I will grant, then, that the 2-handed build is superior if your rogue is going to be dropping dudes like flies and zipping from one fight to the next. In my experience, though, at levels 10+, you're mostly fighting Large (or bigger) creatures who love to just stand up and smash down on the people in melee. In these scenarios, you're getting full attacks round after round. I suppose the damage bonus from haste is pretty significant on the 2-hander, though. So... okay, you've made your point. They are, at least, close enough to be alternatives.well, under those circumstances the TWF rogue is prolly better due to the extra str damage, but that is pretty much the exact opposite of my experiences in play. YMMV based on how your gm does things obviously.
the main thing i really like about the two hander is the 4 feats and 1 rogue talent you have over the TWF rogue that you can use for whatever you want. that versatility definitely would come in handy in the games i've played in.
Great stuuf too that it works good on 10th but once you get 4 attacks with 2 weapons Vs 2 with a two handed it goes very diferently.the level 10 rogue in that thread IS getting 4 attacks with two weapons vs the two of the falchion rogue.
So, I'm an idiot and can't do math or read, so what? hehe
|
|
With sneak attack, it is ~41.8 and about 1.9 str damage from crippling attack. a +1 to hit is worth 3.9 DPR, a +1 to damage is worth 1.2 DPR, and an additional attack is worth an additional 32.4 DPR.With sneak attack, it is ~45.65, with an average of 3.4 str damage from Crippling Attack. With sneak attack, a +1 to hit is worth 5.37 DPR, a +1 to damage is worth 1.70 DPR, and an additional attack is worth ~14.77 DPR.The TWFer is 4 DPR ahead here. Also...
(Note that most sneak attacking rogues will also be flanking, and the +2 to hit from flanking increases their DPR to ~56.39.)Adding that same +2 to hit for Hulky yields a total of ~49.6 DPR. The TWF is fully 13% better. Also note that the TWF gets more pure benefit from both +hit AND +damage effects. Things like bardic music, haste, bless, and so on are almost GUARANTEED to be a feature of the battle at level 10+.
All of this is absolutely correct. From a pure mechanical standpoint, if you can guarantee never needing to make more than a 5ft step during any combat ever, TWF is better.
However, all of this is dependent on the average length of combat and the average style of fight. Assume either initiative or surprise the first round, and a flanking buddy in additional rounds. The TWF needs to 'waste' a round moving into position, while hulky can open up with a charge or move + attack and not lose out. If the average fight against a CR level + 2 or 3 encoutner lasts 5 rounds, then hulky does about 285 damage, while the TWF does around 225. If the fight is over in 4 or 3 rounds, hulky looks even better. If There are multiple mobs and TWF cannot 5ft step into flanking all the time, hulky looks better still.
The only time TWF does better is against a single immobile target with lots and lots and LOTS of hit points - enough to make the fight last 7 or 8 rounds against an entire party unloading everything they have. It's honestly hard to imagine those kind of encounters taking place, well, ever - even a dragon isn't going to just stand there and let the rogue make a full attack sneak every round.
So, in the (useful but hardly definitive and definately boring) Endless Open Field and against a single foe with infinite hit points and infinite rounds and a constant flanking buddy, TWF does 10-20% more damage per round, depending on party buffs - technically better. In a typical encounter, where the fight only lasts a few rounds and some mobility is required, the Two-Hander, "Hulky" style rogue is the definitive winner.
Damage Per Round is a useful metric, not the useful metric - mobility and versatility are important too, and the TWF gives up too much of those in exchange for too little extra DPR. For a rogue in a dynamic adventuring party, TWF is decidedly and definitively sub-optimal.
... and non-damage on-hit effects (for example, Crippling Strike) happen more often.
This is the primary reason to go TWF with a Rogue. Increased focus on Dex brings other benifits as well such as initiative (which is important for Rogues) and increased Dex modifier to AC with light armor.
The two handed Rogue is going to be simply better when sneak attack is not an option, and still hold his own when it is. Certainly better in regards to skirmish fighting as well if he picks up goodies like cleave.
There are reasons to go either direction. I think the TWF Rogue has the edge when the circumstances are right (full attacking with sneak attack when flanking), but is less consistant with offensive output.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
To the OP: Improved Feint. It's a move action, so you're not getting a full attack, but it lets you set up your own sneak attacks instead of having to rely on flanking. Which is REALLY nice if your party consists of a wizard, a healer, an archer, and you.
To the OP: Improved Feint. It's a move action, so you're not getting a full attack, but it lets you set up your own sneak attacks instead of having to rely on flanking. Which is REALLY nice if your party consists of a wizard, a healer, an archer, and you.At that point get a greatsword and give up on sneak attack. You'll do more damage than trying (and failing a lot at) feinting.
True enough, unless (a) you don't want to spend a feat on greatsword proficiency, and (b) you dumped Str down to 13 or less. By using that feat on Skill Focus (Bluff) instead, you can jack up your feint chances pretty high.
At that point give up on doing damage and get a bow. Feinting as the only melee is suicide.
I'll agree that in the long run, it's likely to prove self-destructive if you get into a lot of fights. For adventures like "The Prince of Redhand," that Bluff synergy is getting a lot of milage, however.
On the subject of bows, are they non-viable if you want to do any damage to speak of? Isn't there any non-cheesy way of getting more sneak attacks in after enemies stop being flat footed?
Bluff is a useful skill. Feinting is not a useful tactic.
Why is that? care to share?
|
|
On the subject of bows, are they non-viable if you want to do any damage to speak of? Isn't there any non-cheesy way of getting more sneak attacks in after enemies stop being flat footed?
Woking with a partner to set up flanks is the best way. Make sure it's a bruiser so that the opponent is more likely to attck him then you.
Mechanical reason to not TWF? You've been rolling low on the hit points for the last few levels and don't want to spend that much time in close combat with your enemies. Think about either taking up the bow or getting spring attack.
On the subject of bows, are they non-viable if you want to do any damage to speak of? Isn't there any non-cheesy way of getting more sneak attacks in after enemies stop being flat footed?Woking with a partner to set up flanks is the best way. Make sure it's a bruiser so that the opponent is more likely to attck him then you.
Flanking with a bow is a no-go, bro.
|
|
Flanking with a bow is a no-go, bro.On the subject of bows, are they non-viable if you want to do any damage to speak of? Isn't there any non-cheesy way of getting more sneak attacks in after enemies stop being flat footed?Woking with a partner to set up flanks is the best way. Make sure it's a bruiser so that the opponent is more likely to attck him then you.
There are a few feats I have seen that allow you to use someone else's flank while firing a bow. I just don't remember the specific names right now.
Why is that? care to share?Bluff is a useful skill. Feinting is not a useful tactic.
Feinting was a bad tactic in 3.5 because your(unmodified) bluff check was opposed to a special sense motive check which had your foe's BAB added: d20 + sense motive ranks + CHA mod + BAB.
This made it mechanically impossible to reliably beat someone trained in sense motive as levels went up.In PF though, this is not the case anymore. Your foe has the choice of using BAB or sense motive ranks to base the DC of the check, not both.
This change alone is enough to at least re-evaluate the usefulness of feint as a tactic IMO.
edit:
Feinting doesn't work a significant amount of the time (since the base success rate is 65%), has all of the disadvantages of full attacking, and all of the disadvantages of making single attacks. Since you need to burn two feats to make it work, you might as well just take a 2h weapon proficiency and something else.
Mmm, never looked at it this way. Food for thought.