Two-weapon Fighter vs. Two-handed Fighter

[crystallos]

as the title says im curious which route is better to go from a dpr standpoint. i like the flavor of both i just am at a loss to which is the biggest hitter

[Blueluck]

.

Read this thread to answer your question.

.

If you're looking for advice rather than just math:

• Both strategies can be frighteningly effective if built and played well. Pick whichever one you like better.

• If you don't have a preference, pick whichever one contrasts most with the other characters. For example, if you have a two-weapon rogue in the party, play big-stick guy; if you have an APG Scout Rogue in the party, play a TWF fighter; if everyone else is a glass cannon, play sword & board, and so on.

• If you don't have a preference, and your party members don't want to cooperate, ask your GM which he prefers. I always have more fun playing the character my GM approves of rather than the one he struggles against.

[the_hulk]

from a dpr standpoint i believe the two handed fighter wins. the current champion i believe is a pure mounted barbarian who rides a tiger. charges with lance and the tiger pounces for loads of damage. i would say to maximize him even further, take 7 levels of mounted barbarian and 3 of two handed fighter to gain double str bonus on your charge att.

but going back to your point, a two weapon fighter must achieve 15 dex and is feat starved unless you are a ranger allowing you to ignore the 15 dex but then you are feat starved. or you are a monk but then you have to be a monk.

a two handed fighter is much better with the APG also. the fighter variant allowing them double str on their initial attack. you are at no point feat starved and all you need is str str and more str. you can take furious focus to get rid of your power attack minuses. cleave allows you "two weapon fight" on two opponents if they are adjacent at no penalty to hit, just your AC. you can also take other utility feats such as imp initiative, dodge, weapon focus, quick draw to charge at double your speed, etc. the real damage difference lies in power attack and doubling that str mod though.

you could try to min max that further by taking a lvl of alchemist for the +4 mut bonus to str.

or barbarian for the +4 mor bonus to str.

cleric subdomain growth to grow large as a swift gaining reach, a 3D6 weapon and a +2 size bonus to str.

you could take 3 lvls of ranger for the +4 enh bonus to str but you probably don't wanna use up 3 lvls and if you have any items that will be an enh bonus and won't stack.

other not recommended ways to up your str would be to take lvls of druid to gain wild shape or domain powers. these are more long investments as opposed to the dipping listed above.

[Father Dale]

I'm not a math nerd (not that theres anything wrong with that!), so I can't offer a breakdown of DPR comparing the two styles.

However, I think that when factoring in the opportunity cost involved in choosing either option, the THF comes out ahead, because the TWF must invest more in feats and abilities in order to achieve parity with the THF. This leaves the THF with more resources at his disposal, either to further improved his DPS, offer other options that the TWF can't pursue, or to shore up defenses and weaknesses.

Although there are a lot of different ways to build a character focused on either option, in general the TWF must expend more feats in order to maintain DPS parity (Imp TWF, Grtr TWF, etc.). And many of those feats have requirements of a high Dex score, which requires an investment in magic items and/or attribute points, just to keep his effectiveness high. The THF needs less feats and can focus his attribute points on his Str. Thus he could use his extra feats to further increase his damage output, and should have a higher attack bonus as well.

Also, the TWF has that pesky -2 to all attacks, which will lower his overall DPR. There are ways to negate this, but again there is the cost of going that route as opposed to others.

All that being said, I'd go with the excellant advice given above.

My advice would be to picture your Character as you would like him to be, and then come up with a build plan in that direction. When you see your Character in all his glory at the mid-teens, what does he look like? How does he act? That should give you an indication of what style of combat to puruse. (e.g. Is he a big hulking brute, who batters down his enemies with his mighty strength? then go THF. Is he a tactical combatant, looking to take advantage of momentary weaknesses in his enemies? Go with a CMB type character who trips, bull rushes, etc. Is he a tower of defense, soaking up all the blows his enemies can rain upon him? Then go sword and board. etc, etc.)

Personally, my favorite is probably sword and board (since it wasn't a very viable option in 3.5 but is in PF), but it can require heavy feat investments and a lot of planning to make really effective.

[Ardenup]

Roughly?

TWF's depending on build do 20-30% more damage than 2 handed on a FULL ATTACK. sounds ok? problem is you don't get 2 full attack all the time.

If you go swordnboard you'll have a much better AC but needs even MORE feats.

I'd use the APG two weapon warrior using 2 of the same weapon (double use of weapon fcs, gtr, spl)

TH goes more damage on the move and overall is 3 or 4 feats better off.

Personally I prefer TWF and I take feats that help that. Standstill, stepup, following step, steup and strike etc.

[EWHM]

TWF can get a little better DPR ultimately, but at level 10 THF is still ahead. THF has a lot of other advantages also:
1) His attacks of opportunity are generally better
2) His gear is substantially cheaper because he has only one weapon to buy rather than a matched set
3) Haste helps him more than a TWF
4) He's nowhere near as feat starved, and can usually afford a decent secondary schtick, whereas the TWF, particularly the shield TWF, generally can not.
5) He doesn't have to contort his stat allocation to qualify for feats like the TWF fighter does.

TWF has the advantage of scaling his DPR more rapidly when he gets bonuses to hit (e.g. flanking, bless, prayer, heroism, etc). If memory serves, level 11/12 is the point where they generally start pulling ahead in their full attack damage.

[Demoyn]

A lot of this is a little misleading. For instance, the point was made that getting one magical weapon is cheaper than getting two. However, two +2 weapons cost half of what a single +3 weapon costs, but you end up with an extra +1 damage (though less to hit, obviously).

When you add in certain buffs the TWF can get an even bigger boost. Bard song and weapon specialization affect a two weapon fighter twice as much as a two-handed fighter.

That's not to say that that two weapon fighters are better than two-handed fighters. They are both equal to each other circumstantially. If you're fighting a bunch of low to moderate AC opponents with lots of buffs then TWF will be vastly superior. However, if you're fighting a high AC character or a character with unsurpassable DR while only having haste then the THF will pull ahead by a wide margin.

The best advice is just to build a character with whatever style you see yourself enjoying the most, then try to surround yourself with the optimal support for that style. Pro-tip: dwarven barbarian TWF using dwarven waraxes pouncing (beast totem) with a dedicated bard in the party (haste/inspire courage on round one).

[vuron]

The major problem keeping TWF from being as competitive with the THF is the high cost of TWF feats in terms of ability scores and other feats.

Even with Pathfinder expanding the number of feats gained the TWF has to invest a large percentage of his build points in making a workable TWF. This means that on average Strength is lower for the TWF (less damage, lower to hit) and Con is lower (less HPs to tank with).

The THF can afford to invest in a STR/CON belt while the TWF will generally want a STR/DEX/CON belt which is extremely expensive.

Investing in one weapon is cheaper than investing in two weapons especially now that most characters are going to want something other than the old 3.x standby of +1 flaming, shocking, holy, etc.

The THF can get nice feats like lunge and step up earlier than the TWF fighter can which increases flexibility. He can also get some archery feats to supplement the roles he plays.

I think an endgame TWF starts to pull ahead in terms of pure DPR especially when you start getting to the status inflicting criticals. I haven't done the math but I actually think when you start factoring out WBL it's probably later than 12.

However go with what's the coolest for you. I personally like TWF or TWF (Sword + Board) so will often go with that even though it's suboptimal and incredibly frustrating in low Point Buy games.

[Swiftbrook]

I've seen a lot about THF requiring fewer feats and higher damage per hit. How does the THF stack up against the TWF (sword & board) defensively (AC)? It seems like the you get much more AC boost (Dex + shield + cheap shield enhancement) in the TWF then you get to hit boost (Str) in a THF build.

-Swiftbrook