[Rogues] Why NOT Two-Weapon Fighting?


Pathfinder First Edition General Discussion

51 to 100 of 131 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | next > last >>
RPG Superstar 2010 Top 32

David Fryer wrote:
Flanking with a bow is a no-go, bro.
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.

The only ones I can think of are in 4e. That said, Distant Advantage (lets you count as flanking at range if your allies flank a foe) or Vexing Flanker (when you flank a foe, it counts as flanked for all of your allies in either melee or at range) port over to 3e nicely, if you want to fix the issue with houserules. You just need to add some wholly unnecessary and illogical prerequisites that make the feat completely impractical. I suggest Dodge, Combat Expertise, and just to be fun how about Nimble Moves.

Quote:

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.

No, it isn't. To start, feint/attack has all of the disadvantages of full attacking and all of the disadvantages of making single attacks.

Next, let's do the math. Assuming you've maxed Bluff, your bluff mod is level + 3 + cha mod. Enemies will typically have BAB roughly equal to CR, so you're facing CR + wis mod. That's a 65% chance to succeed to start, except that some enemies will have Sense Motive, some enemies will have higher wisdom than your cha, and some enemies (especially dangerous ones) will have higher BAB than your level.

So feinting doesn't autofail against Sense-Motive-trained enemies like it did in 3.5, but it still fails enough of the time that you're left standing there floating in the breeze doing about 10 damage if you hit.

Liberty's Edge

Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Charter Superscriber; Pathfinder Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Society Subscriber

The only reason I can think NOT to take two-weapon fighting as a rogue is if you wanted to build a rogue that uses ranged attacks with a bow or crossbow.

Sovereign Court

Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber; Pathfinder Maps, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Maps, Starfinder Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Society Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Charter Superscriber
A Man In Black wrote:

No, it isn't. To start, feint/attack has all of the disadvantages of full attacking and all of the disadvantages of making single attacks.

Next, let's do the math. Assuming you've maxed Bluff, your bluff mod is level + 3 + cha mod. Enemies will typically have BAB roughly equal to CR, so you're facing CR + wis mod. That's a 65% chance to succeed to start, except that some enemies will have Sense Motive, some enemies will have higher wisdom than your cha, and some enemies (especially dangerous ones) will have higher BAB than your level.

So feinting doesn't autofail against Sense-Motive-trained enemies like it did in 3.5, but it still fails enough of the time that you're left standing there floating in the breeze doing about 10 damage if you hit.

Not even useful if it let's you get off one of those sneak attack add-ons like Bleeding Attack or Slow Reactions or Dispelling Attack? (note that I'm genuinely asking)

I've got an 8th-level Ranger/Rogue built around TWF and Feinting. If I start the round able to sneak attack, I usually TWF, but if I don't have surprise or flanking, I'll feint and then take a single attack. As Kirth mentioned, I've maxed Bluff, have a good Cha and crazy high Dex, and it seems to work most of the time. I don't crunch numbers to see if it's the best possible thing I can do, but it's effective enough. And just as a matter of personal taste, I can see an occasional two-handed swing, but two-handed weapons just don't fit my concept of a rogue most of the time. But to each his/her own.


heres a good mechanical reason to not take 2 weapon fighting.

maybe you are human and need that free hand to manipulate objects or hold the darn torch because the frail but stingy jerk of a wizard doesn't want to cast light. or even to use those darn tools.

If anybody opts to play anything but a dwarf or half orc, tell both the cleric and the wizard, that they both have to prepare light in one of thier 0 level slots. i mean the party casters should not be stingy on those at will light spells. as a rogue, you do not want to hold a torch because it eats up a free hand needed to do something else.

heres to all you Stingy wizards who don't cast light in pathfinder!

Just cast the darn light spell already. you can do it at will. the rogue needs both his hands, the tank needs both of his hands, as a wizard, you only need one free hand for your spells


If you have a friendly caster to give you greater invis(or you can carry scrolls and use UMD), then you don't need feint or flanking, and at that point, bow with rapid shot becomes a very viable option.


Mosaic wrote:
As Kirth mentioned, I've maxed Bluff, have a good Cha and crazy high Dex, and it seems to work most of the time. I don't crunch numbers to see if it's the best possible thing I can do, but it's effective enough.

Depends on the character and the style of the campaign, but if you've got Skill Focus in Bluff anyway (raising the base success from 65% to more like 80& or 95%, depending on if you get the +3 or +6 to checks) -- and aren't starved for feats for whatever concept you're shooting for -- Improved Feint can be a handy addition.

As MIB points out, for standard dungeon crawls, this will be a waste of a feat or two and will eventually get you killed. In a nonstandard campaign -- one in which you're bluffing a lot more often than you're fighting, and/or you don't have a lot of guys standing around setting up flanks for you -- the extra perk of being able to sneak attack on demand a decent fraction of the time might be worth the feat expenditure.

One could argue that a nonstandard campaign "just isn't D&D," and maybe it isn't -- but if the same ruleset can be used to support a fantasy-based Streetwise & Spies (TM) game, I see no reason not to expand the discussion.


A Man In Black wrote:

...snip...

Next, let's do the math. Assuming you've maxed Bluff, your bluff mod is level + 3 + cha mod. Enemies will typically have BAB roughly equal to CR, so you're facing CR + wis mod. That's a 65% chance to succeed to start, except that some enemies will have Sense Motive, some enemies will have higher wisdom than your cha, and some enemies (especially dangerous ones) will have higher BAB than your level.

So feinting doesn't autofail against Sense-Motive-trained enemies like it did in 3.5, but it still fails enough of the time that you're left standing there floating in the breeze doing about 10...

let's really put this in perspective by using hulky. one version as written in the DPR thread, one version that ditches lunge and step up for skill focus and deceitful to really boost his bluff chances, and i guess one other feat to get improved feint.

lunge hulky full attacks for about 25 damage. feint hulky does about 30 damage on a successful feint sneak attack.

if it's a spell caster that tries to take a 5' step, lunge hulky can follow. feint hulky watches sadly. if it moves 10 feet away, next round lunge hulky can take a 5' step and do a full attack. feint hulky can do a single attack.

so what we have is, best case scenario where the opponent just stands there, for a 3 feat investment feint hulky can do 5 more damage a round. wheeee.


A Man In Black wrote:


...snip...

This change alone is enough to at least re-evaluate the usefulness of feint as a tactic IMO.

No, it isn't. To start, feint/attack has all of the disadvantages of full attacking and all of the disadvantages of making single attacks.

Next, let's do the math. Assuming you've maxed Bluff, your bluff mod is level + 3 + cha mod. Enemies will typically have BAB roughly equal to CR, so you're facing CR + wis mod. That's a 65% chance to succeed to start, except that some enemies will have Sense Motive, some enemies will have higher wisdom than your cha, and some enemies (especially dangerous ones) will have higher BAB than your level.

So feinting doesn't autofail against Sense-Motive-trained enemies like it did in 3.5, but it still fails enough of the time that you're left standing there floating in the breeze doing about 10 damage if you hit.

Was that a re-evalution of feint? ;)

Now seriously.
I see your point, but what would make it a good tactic then?
Auto success? To look at a similar case; tumbling/acrobatics. In 3.5 it was an auto success beyond certain level. It was changed for a good reason.
With the actual rules what's the chance of success of acrobatics against an appropiate CR enemy? You must invest gear and feats to make it reliable at all levels.
Does it make it a bad tactic? I don't think so. It makes it something you will only try when there's no other option.

That said I agree that from an optimization point of view those resources are better spent elsewhere. In something less situational.

Sovereign Court

Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber; Pathfinder Maps, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Maps, Starfinder Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Society Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Charter Superscriber
Kirth Gersen wrote:
Depends on the character and the style of the campaign, but if you've got Skill Focus in Bluff anyway (raising the base success from 65% to more like 80& or 95%, depending on if you get the +3 or +6 to checks) -- and aren't starved for feats for whatever concept you're shooting for -- Improved Feint can be a handy addition.

I've got that, plus as a ranger, my favored enemies are human, so that gives me +2 to Bluff, Attack and Damage.

Kirth Gersen wrote:
As MIB points out, for standard dungeon crawls, this will be a waste of a feat or two and will eventually get you killed. In a nonstandard campaign -- one in which you're bluffing a lot more often than you're fighting, and/or you don't have a lot of guys standing around setting up flanks for you -- the extra perk of being able to sneak attack on demand a decent fraction of the time might be worth the feat expenditure.

He's a Pathfinder Society character, so not entirely dungeon crawls, but a lot of combat. He's basically my attempt at a swashbuckler build. Being human and my choices of rogue talents have meant I have a fair number of feats, though never enough. Definitely shines in certain situations and not as good in others - I tend to stand back and shoot crossbows at weird monsters.

BTW- I caught the subtle correction you made to the quote; I went back and fixed the original ;)


the Two Handed Weapon build for rogue is what I call the Thug build. Assuming point buy, every point you put in strength you take away from dex or you're dumping something else like wis or int to get there. This build works pretty well for a multiclass rogue/fighter who can wear heavier armor to make up for the loss of Dex and who can wield the strong 2H martial weapons needed for this build.

Even taking an elf who is already proficient in Longsword and using that, you'll come out okay. I'm quite attached to my 2WF rogue build(s) but the numbers are there and especially if you find it hard to get a full attack routine off on a flanked opponent the 2H build should work well for you. Especially with Spring Attack and Vital Strike.

Conceptually I'm rather attached to the dual daggers/shortswords type rogue. Even there, though, a dip into fighter to get proficiency in Kukri is rather appealing to me.


Yeah, I've seen successful 2H weapon rogue builds.

In my case, the PC in question had 4 fighter levels, a high STR, a glaive, and dodge/mobility/spring attack. His schtick was to never get full attacked, and make up for the single attack by getting lots of attacks of opportunity. His damage output was great; his big weakness (as usual) was his will save.

The problem with the 3.5 2WF rogue is that he has to end his turn standing next to the big monster, and he doesn't have the hit points to survive there. I think it's probably a lot easier in Pathfinder to make a rogue who can tank, though.

Ken

RPG Superstar 2010 Top 32

Kirth Gersen wrote:
As MIB points out, for standard dungeon crawls, this will be a waste of a feat or two and will eventually get you killed. In a nonstandard campaign -- one in which you're bluffing a lot more often than you're fighting, and/or you don't have a lot of guys standing around setting up flanks for you -- the extra perk of being able to sneak attack on demand a decent fraction of the time might be worth the feat expenditure.

You misunderstand my point. Bluff is an awesome skill, by all means take it.

But it's a bad idea to stand there and feint. It'll just get you killed. Even with talents.


If standing there to feint will get you killed, wouldn't standing there to do a full attack also get you killed?

That's a strong reason to pick something other than TWF, to get the benefit you need to end your action near the thing you attacked, and get pummeled.

It's a good argument for using a twohander then. Spend feats on spring attack instead and keep yourself a bit more safe.


wouldn't a spiked chain and maybe the lunge feat allow you a fair measure of security while still attacking fully ?

oops, nevermind, forgot it lost reach >_<


Remco Sommeling wrote:

wouldn't a spiked chain and maybe the lunge feat allow you a fair measure of security while still attacking fully ?

oops, nevermind, forgot it lost reach >_<

Funny exampe of why this was changed.

RPG Superstar 2010 Top 32

Kaisoku wrote:
If standing there to feint will get you killed, wouldn't standing there to do a full attack also get you killed?

Bear in mind the context. The would-be feinter was going to be the only melee, and thus needed some strategy to get sneak attack. At that point, forget sneak attack.


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber
angryscrub wrote:

lunge hulky full attacks for about 25 damage. feint hulky does about 30 damage on a successful feint sneak attack.

if it's a spell caster that tries to take a 5' step, lunge hulky can follow. feint hulky watches sadly. if it moves 10 feet away, next round lunge hulky can take a 5' step and do a full attack. feint hulky can do a single attack.

so what we have is, best case scenario where the opponent just stands there, for a 3 feat investment feint hulky can do 5 more damage a round. wheeee.

Important thing to remember (and I wish I'd remembered it in a game yesterday where my BBEG *had* Improved Feint and one of the PC's was a Duelist...) is that Feinting also denies Dex and Dodge bonuses to AC, increasing to-hit (and thus damage) nicely. Unless you don't need the bonus to auto-hit anyways on your primary attack.


Fatespinner wrote:
Hulky McRogueBoy wrote:
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.
Jack B. Nimble wrote:
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...

A Man in Black wrote:
(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+.

Its unlikely that on the first round of ANY combat you get a full attack its more likely that the two weapon fighter falls behind. Also as some DMs play enemies with great tactical movement decision making it can be the case that rogues have to choose BETWEEN sneak attack and full attack... in all those scenarios the two hander wins.

Often the two hander will be in a position to net the +2 where a one hander is not.


PRD wrote:


Creating a Diversion to Hide: You can use Bluff to allow you to use Stealth. A successful Bluff check can give you the momentary diversion you need to attempt a Stealth check while people are aware of you.

Don't forget this use of bluff!


A Man In Black wrote:
Xum wrote:
Why is that? care to share?
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.

gold


Back in 2E I seem to remember a book called the "Complete Thieves Guide"
There where all kinds of ways for a thief to arm him/herself. It really depended on what kind of thief he/she was. A "thug" would probable take something that would do lots of damage. A "scout" was good with a bow. A "cat burglar" and a "cut purse" would do light weapons, and a "fence" would just have a thug around for protection ;)
There are no rules that I'm aware of for this idea and it would have limited uses, but what about a pole vaulting thief (the laughing starts now). The thief would be armed with a pole arm and use it to hurdle himself over opponents to a flaking position, or over difficult terrain and low walls and such.
Lt. Stone


I'm surprised no one took DR into account.

Wouldn't it lower your damage significantly compared to a two-handed character?


insaneogeddon wrote:
A Man In Black wrote:
Xum wrote:
Why is that? care to share?
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.
gold

I would disagree, you need to build for feint but I can get a level 2 PFS character with +14 feint, rising to +30 at level 11 and ability to take 10 in combat, can anyone find a CR 12 creature in the bestiary that 40 will fail against?


Volaric wrote:

I'm surprised no one took DR into account.

Wouldn't it lower your damage significantly compared to a two-handed character?

DR reduces each hit. If I can do a big hit and lose X once, I'd rather that then losing X on both hits. The more times you sspread out your hits versus condensed bigger hits, the greater the DR impact. It doesn't just apply to the first hit, it works with each attack.

For example, if I have one attack with a greatsword doing 2d6+1d6 (sneak) or I have two shortswords 1d6+1d6 x2, against DR/5 then it's gonna be 0-13 (originally 3-18) with one attack versus 0-7(originally 2-12 x2) with twf (if both hit). This doesn't bring into account the variable STR and higher levels, but I'd like to hear what others have to say on this.

RPG Superstar 2010 Top 32

tlotig wrote:
I would disagree, you need to build for feint but I can get a level 2 PFS character with +14 feint, rising to +30 at level 11 and ability to take 10 in combat, can anyone find a CR 12 creature in the bestiary that 40 will fail against?

At what cost?

Those boosts don't come free. You're already two feats down just to feint at all.


insaneogeddon wrote:


Its unlikely that on the first round of ANY combat you get a full attack its more likely that the two weapon fighter falls behind. Also as some DMs play enemies with great tactical movement decision making it can be the case that rogues have to choose BETWEEN sneak attack and full attack... in all those scenarios the two hander wins.

Often the two hander will be in a position to net the +2 where a one hander is not.

While this can often be the case, it isn't always. This depends upon the party as well.

Some reasonable factors:
1. a very good stealth & scouting:
If you can scout ahead, find the bad guys and be in position for round 1, you certainly can get a full attack off.

2. a supportive party:
I remember playing with one party where the party wizard's most damaging spell was dimension door. He would dim door the melee PCs into full attack range and then they would proceed to nuke the poor bad guy...

3. Bad guys that deliver themselves to you:
Sometimes the bad guys get the jump on you and charge you (as the lead scout). You delay (if needed) for a flank and get your full attack.

That all said, there are many times where one big attack edges out over a TWF fight. But towards that I would suggest that you consider having your offhand weapon be armor spikes and still use a big two handed weapon for single attacks (like charges, move and attacks, and AOOs). Then the feat cost for TWFing is the real cost here.

-James


james maissen wrote:

...snip...
2. a supportive party:
I remember playing with one party where the party wizard's most damaging spell was dimension door. He would dim door the melee PCs into full attack range and then they would proceed to nuke the poor bad guy...

hmmm, only problem i see with that is, doesn't that put the wizard in full attack range as well?

james maissen wrote:

...snip...

That all said, there are many times where one big attack edges out over a TWF fight. But towards that I would suggest that you consider having your offhand weapon be armor spikes and still use a big two handed weapon for single attacks (like charges, move and attacks, and AOOs). Then the feat cost for TWFing is the real cost here.

-James

yeah, the feat cost has always been my main concern. a two hander pretty much requires only 1 feat over 20 levels for his combat schtick. power attack ftw.


angryscrub wrote:


hmmm, only problem i see with that is, doesn't that put the wizard in full attack range as well?

Well with the people he was bringing with him that had delayed to go right after his turn... there wasn't anything left to full attack the wizard.

Not to mention that this was in 3.5 and both melee PCs he took with him had staggering strike.. so even if the target survived it would have needed to make multiple fort saves not to be staggered. But yeah it's an issue.. though in general when you are using d-door offensively you have enough offense to bring to bear that you are nuking your target in one round... and even if you aren't the wizard seems the least dangerous of the group at that point.

-James

RPG Superstar 2015 Top 8

If damage is your primary goal and you want a good melee sneak attack build, yeah, TWF is a great bet.

I think most other builds are viable and rogues will contribute damage regardless of what they choose--the question is really, to the person building the rogue, do they care about an extra few points of damage a round or not? Some do, some don't.

A Half-Orc thug with rogue levels can take a falchion, focus on a crit build, can do a nasty bit of damage even when NOT flanking. Same half-orc thug could also, with his innate bonus to Intimidate plus having it as a class skill, could also build up the Dazzling Display tree to the point where he renders all shaken foes flat-footed. He'll be uber damage man in a fight with a mess of mooks.

There's advantages to being the ranged rogue as well, especially if you've built a more skill-based, fragile rogue than one built for melee. Go up to Shadowdancer so you can snipe from a distance and you'll be doing some nice damage there. Sure, you can increase that damage using Rapid Shot which is the equivalent of TWF but from far away, but it still isn't a TWF build.

Maybe your rogue wants to focus on combat maneuvers and takes the finessable spiked chain to be tripping and disarming--useful again, especially if you can't be flanking all the time.

You could also do a defensive rogue build--someone where your goal is not to do damage, but to take the shots while the others attack the enemy (jack that AC up, take resiliency, etc.), so you're contributing to combat but by doing the surviving, not the killing.

It may also be campaign dependent--TWF gets screwed by DR because the DR gets subtracted from each weapon strike. So if you're in a campaign where you're going up against a lot of DR creatures... or likewise, in a campaign where you don't have a flanking buddy, or are fighting creatures that are immune to precision attacks (less common in Pathfinder, but still possible)... you're going to want a build that isn't reliant on either flanking or sneak attack damage. You may as well come up with some alternate rogue build ideas in case it ever comes up.

Shuriken Nekogami also has a point. :) I've actually always wondered why the halfling fighter/thief/shadowdancer in my campaign didn't TWF, but I think he wants his hands free for potions and thrown items and whatnot.


ok, let's say one of my players will be making a rogue for his next character, and is not interested in either twf or thw. Just a short sword. What feats would you suggest for him?


blope wrote:
ok, let's say one of my players will be making a rogue for his next character, and is not interested in either twf or thw. Just a short sword. What feats would you suggest for him?

If he's ADAMANT about a single shortsword and can't be talked into, say, rapier. With rapier he could be a duelist/musketeer sort of character. Weapon finesse is still a good way to go to reduce MAD, and Weapon Focus in the chosen weapon will help. When he gets high enough, the Spring Attack and Vital Strike feat trees will help make him a hit and run sort or rogue.


blope wrote:
ok, let's say one of my players will be making a rogue for his next character, and is not interested in either twf or thw. Just a short sword. What feats would you suggest for him?

hmmmm, whatever he feels like i guess? there are no feats that are going to do much for his damage, but if there aren't any other rogues that are combat optimized in his party he shouldn't really notice.

power attack is a damage loss when he's sneak attacking, and only a slight increase at best (1-2 points) if he's not, so not necessarily worth it really.

skill focus and fleet come to mind as good options.


blope wrote:
ok, let's say one of my players will be making a rogue for his next character, and is not interested in either twf or thw. Just a short sword. What feats would you suggest for him?

Well, if you go for homebrew, I put together this feat over in this thread.

Quote:

Einhander (Combat)

Your free hand is not a liability but an asset.
Prerequisites: Dex 13, BAB +1
Benefit: When wielding a single one-handed or light weapon, and your off-hand remains empty, you gain a +2 dodge bonus to AC. This bonus increases to +4 when your base attack bonus equals +6. It further increases to +6 when your base attack bonus equals +11.

It makes single-wielding something of a viable option. There is current discussion amongst my group of making it only work with finesse weapons, or working differently for them than non-finesse weapons.


you can always use a masterwork buckler or mithral shield, even when fighting with a single weapon, I kinda like this option you can make an ocasional shieldbash with the proper feats as well.

Two-weaponfighting has an advantage of not having to get close for a full attack though, with quickdraw you can be a very nasty knifethrower as well.

Scarab Sages

Wow, that Einhander feat is kind of powerful, don't you think?

Heck, there's no reason for a sword and boarder to use a board. He'll end up with a lot better ac from that feat! And fighters can use a 13 dex :)

Mmm... be nice for a monk or druid as well.


re: Einhander

yeah, balancing it against Shields is a major minimum requisite...
Dodge costs one Feat... One Feat increases your Shield Bonus by 1...
People pay alot to enchant their Shields to offer more than 1 or 2 AC...
basiclly, all those numbers could easily be halved. it's not like you can't wear armor while using this Feat.

perhaps it should also apply only against those enemies you have attacked this round (or the previous round, if your Init hasn't come up yet again) That would make it more of a 'dueling' feat for 1-on-1 fighting (though if you split your Iterative Attacks - which isn't always the most efficient course, unless you're dropping your enemies - it could apply to more enemies)


Einhander

prerequiste : +1 BAB, dodge

+1 BAB - +1 dodge bonus
+6 BAB - +2 dodge bonus
+11 BAB - +3 dodge bonus
+16 BAB - +4 dodge bonus

A little less than the original, I'd allow it like this


Mauril wrote:
blope wrote:
ok, let's say one of my players will be making a rogue for his next character, and is not interested in either twf or thw. Just a short sword. What feats would you suggest for him?

Well, if you go for homebrew, I put together this feat over in this thread.

Quote:

Einhander (Combat)

Your free hand is not a liability but an asset.
Prerequisites: Dex 13, BAB +1
Benefit: When wielding a single one-handed or light weapon, and your off-hand remains empty, you gain a +2 dodge bonus to AC. This bonus increases to +4 when your base attack bonus equals +6. It further increases to +6 when your base attack bonus equals +11.
It makes single-wielding something of a viable option. There is current discussion amongst my group of making it only work with finesse weapons, or working differently for them than non-finesse weapons.

This would be a must for a duelist...as it's like one of their abilities.


If you end up having to move around a lot it might be better to take the what you can of the vital strike chain and pair it with the spring attack tree. It all depends on what the games you play in are like.


Well, you have to compare it to my version of Shield Mastery, which increases your reflex defense, and my version of Two Weapon Defense, which scales with level. Both put you ahead of Einhander. Einhander is just there to make the single rapier finesse fighter/rogue/bard/whatever a viable character.

Also, as mentioned, there is discussion in our group to make the +2/+4/+6 progression apply to a finesse weapon, with a +1/+2/+3 progression for non-finesse weapons.

The feat was originally just +1/+2/+3, but I was was told that it seemed too weak.


blope wrote:
ok, let's say one of my players will be making a rogue for his next character, and is not interested in either twf or thw. Just a short sword. What feats would you suggest for him?

I'm doing this in 3.5 now with a Rogue/Fighter 2/Nightsong Enforcer. I didn't want him to be yet another TWF rogue. I'm using Spring Attack tree and the Vexing and Adaptable Flanker Feats from PHbII. I had to give him an average strength (10 due to my rolls), so without flanking and sneak attack, he doesn't do much damage, but as part of a team (as the Nightsong Enforcer is supposed to work) he's very handy to have around.

AJ


Don't forget that in 3.5 there are higher level additions to the spring attack tree that give you 2 and 3 attacks (although you need a BAB of +18 for the last one) when using spring attack.

Dark Archive

Kind of surprised that this didn't come up but what about reach (without bringing feats on the proficiency for something) with a Long Spear? My reading of flanking rules for reach shows an increased number of squares that a reach weapon user can occupy and count as flanking.

Though the average damage is a mere 4.5 compared to 7 for a greatsword, initial weapon damage means a lot less in my experience after lvl 6 or so when magic damage and strength enhancing items start to really boost damage.


james maissen wrote:
insaneogeddon wrote:


Its unlikely that on the first round of ANY combat you get a full attack its more likely that the two weapon fighter falls behind. Also as some DMs play enemies with great tactical movement decision making it can be the case that rogues have to choose BETWEEN sneak attack and full attack... in all those scenarios the two hander wins.

Often the two hander will be in a position to net the +2 where a one hander is not.

While this can often be the case, it isn't always. This depends upon the party as well.

Some reasonable factors:
1. a very good stealth & scouting:
If you can scout ahead, find the bad guys and be in position for round 1, you certainly can get a full attack off.

2. a supportive party:
I remember playing with one party where the party wizard's most damaging spell was dimension door. He would dim door the melee PCs into full attack range and then they would proceed to nuke the poor bad guy...

3. Bad guys that deliver themselves to you:
Sometimes the bad guys get the jump on you and charge you (as the lead scout). You delay (if needed) for a flank and get your full attack.

That all said, there are many times where one big attack edges out over a TWF fight. But towards that I would suggest that you consider having your offhand weapon be armor spikes and still use a big two handed weapon for single attacks (like charges, move and attacks, and AOOs). Then the feat cost for TWFing is the real cost here.

-James

1. Its been pointed out that stealth is practically impossible by the rules even with a friendly DM. Also splitting the party is often a hassle to DM and takes from other players joy AND is risky as that means those slimes and ropers n such get you for free. Neverming the need for the DM to be liberal and the players to metagame to know exactly when you are in a good positionn and they should approach (unless you have group telepathy IN GAME).

2. Well placed summons can do alot but normally not on the 1st round, and this is situational enough that it might be 1 in 10 combats... 2hander is 9 in 10.

3. Bad guys that come up go first so its unlikely you can 5ft step and get a flank unless their idiots and provoked attack of opportunity to go past you or its a rare situation in a large area with few foes and manny allies in which case you have it covered anyway even if you do 1 pt dam per round. Its HIGHLY unlikely in my experiencethe fighter at the front with less move and less inclination to loosse full attack damage and no tumble/good acrobatics use is likely to set up the flank for you.


everybody should at least have a single spiked gauntlet each, even the casters. as to threaten squares.


I wish all casters would man up and metagame in this regard but most seem to have brain hemmorages at the thought of being in melee and prepping for it as asking for it.

51 to 100 of 131 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder First Edition / General Discussion / [Rogues] Why NOT Two-Weapon Fighting? All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.