1) Given an ammount of money I can use the gloves to make a character with better abilities (unless it is a 10th- level characters, when the price of the gloves is in line with other magic items), since the Core Rulebook magic items are the reference, the only problem here are the gloves.2) I don't see the problem with properly designed items that are related to class features, specially when the core rules expect you to have them.
I see the problem with items that shouldn't be related to class features or don't need to be related to class features, I.e. Why is an item that enhances mele characters available only to core fighters?
1) I don't get it. You mean, compared to weapon enhancements?
2) This is an item giving weapon-related bonuses versus maneuvers that gives further bonuses to a class supposed to rock with weapons. I really don't get the problem, sorry.
Why does everyone say TWF is such a feat drain? I count 3: 2-Weapon Fighting, Improved 2WF, and Greater 2WF. 4 if you include Double Slice like I like to do.
Compare Archery, which has (let's count 'em): Point-Blank Shot (even if it's just a pre-req), Deadly Aim, Rapid Shot, Manyshot. That's 4, which increases to 5-6 if you include Precise Shot and Improved PS. Yet no-one complains about the number of feats for Archery from what I've seen.
What exactly am I missing?
Aside from what Dire Mongoose said...
Those three TWF feats? Required to do it AT ALL. And you're down 3 feats for the same reason, a lot of stat points, and a lot of gold to get your second weapon. And even with all that, you still do less damage than some guy who picked up a two handed weapon.
No offense, Cod, but my 16 Str Half-Orc double-axer without power attack almost always outdamages the enlarged barbarian in our group with 22 str and power attack.
But, yes it is very expensive to upgrade both heads of the weapon.
As for the stats, I may lose one point of to-hit and damage for the lower str, but my AC is a couple points higher, so (theoretically) I'm taking about 10% less damage overall. It's a pretty decent trade-off to me.
Any THF getting out damaged by a TWF of any kind, especially a non Rogue is doing it wrong. I say non Rogue, because SA at least makes TWF semi viable. Or would if SA worked...
Also, both of you will get automatically hit.
The first part is incorrect. The second part is incorrect too.
The last part is also incorrect.
In short every said was incorrect.
No offense, Cod, but my 16 Str Half-Orc double-axer without power attack almost always outdamages the enlarged barbarian in our group with 22 str and power attack.
Could you post builds? This doesn't seem possible.
Any THF getting out damaged by a TWF of any kind, especially a non Rogue is doing it wrong. I say non Rogue, because SA at least makes TWF semi viable. Or would if SA worked...
Also, both of you will get automatically hit.
The first part is incorrect. The second part is incorrect too.
The last part is also incorrect.
In short every said was incorrect.
Perhaps you would like to enlighten us as to WHY this is (allegedly) the case?
If you hit on a 12 anyway, hitting on a 14 isn't really any worse.
Now if you need an 18 and pa raises it to 20, sure, that is a bad deal
Why? Both cases are 10% less likely to hit. The math is the same, I think it's just psychological.
The only time it "doesn't matter" to PA is when you would automatically hit (barring a 1) and the PA penalty doesn't change this.
If you hit on a 12 anyway, hitting on a 14 isn't really any worse.
Now if you need an 18 and pa raises it to 20, sure, that is a bad deal
Why? Both cases are 10% less likely to hit. The math is the same, I think it's just psychological.
The only time it "doesn't matter" to PA is when you would automatically hit (barring a 1) and the PA penalty doesn't change this.
Nope: If I go from needing a 20 to needing an 18, I hit three times as often.
14 to a 12, is, what, 1.4x as much?
Not trying to be rude and hijack this thread,but can someone please tell me how to start my own thread?
Ok found it thanks peace out crane
Fixed.
No it isn't simply misquoted. A two weapon fighter can easily out damage and out live a two handed fighter. It's not even a chore. I mean anyone capable of math can easily see why. I'm not even going to bother explaining why you are wrong.
Singleton got errated, something you could miss.
Wait, what? Where? Does it scale up now?
|
First of all, may I ask why you've chosen to forgo the critical effect feats? Given that you qualify for Critical Mastery, have a decent critical threat range, and so many attacks, I can't see any reason not to take at least a couple of them such as tiring, exhausting, sickening or staggering critical. They're too good to pass up for a straight fighter. Since you've ignored them for both builds I'll move on. I also disagree with going with wounding weapon instead of just an extra +2 enhancement bonus, but I'll ignore that disagreement and leave it be.
However, the fact that you don't have power attack, even for a TWF, simply must be a mistake. For purposes of my math I'm removing Persuasive and adding Power Attack.
I'm also adding in the Twin Blades bonus of +4 to hit and damage when full attacking with two weapons, that looks like a simple oversight in the original build.
With power attack, using the Two-Weapon Warrior archetype, your melee full attack should look something like:
Main hand: +1 speed wounding short sword: +28/28/23/18/12 to hit for 1d6+27 damage each.
Damage: +10 Power Attack, +8 Strength, +4 Twin Blades, +2 Weapon Specialization, +2 Greater Weapon Specialization, +1 Enhancement
Off hand: +3 defending wounding short sword (including allocating 2 points to AC as per the original character sheet): +28/23/18 to hit for 1d6+22 each
Damage: +5 Power Attack, +8 Strength, +4 Twin Blades, +2 Weapon Specialization, +2 Greater Weapon Specialization, +1 Enhancement
Each hit causes 1 bleed damage, and rend is 1d10+12 damage.
Basically, you were completely ignoring the Twin Blades class feature, and not taking Power Attack is a terrible decision for any melee fighter who can take it. All critical threat/hit information and basically all the other math is as you had it.
With the original build, you're still missing weapon training in your math, which would add an extra +4 to hit and damage.
...
I guess a fighter can never take a skill feat without automatically becoming inferior. :(
I did take into account TWIN BLADES. You are looking at the wrong attack line.
|
Singleton got errated, something you could miss.Wait, what? Where? Does it scale up now?
From the APG errata:
Page 105—In the Free Hand Fighter archetype, in the •
Singleton class feature, in the last sentence, change
“replaces weapon training 1” with “replaces weapon
training 1 and 4.” After the first sentence, add the
following sentence:
This bonus increases by +1 per six levels after 5th.
...I guess a fighter can never take a skill feat without automatically becoming inferior. :(
I did take into account TWIN BLADES. You are looking at the wrong attack line.
I think it's more of a case of "If you are going to take skill feats/ whatever then make sure you get the most out of your combat feats."
Though I agree that Power Attack could be incredibly good in certain scenarios, I can also see it turning your high damage attack routine into a "flurry of misses" in others.
Also, not every dual-weapon build needs to have the crit feats in order to be viable.
This character was built to have options. She can kill stuff that needs killing with her extreme number of attacks and cumulative bleed damage, or she can scare/talk enemies out of a fight altogether. If fighting a mobile enemy, she can fall back on her bleed damage and deadly stroke ability to win the day.
I appreciate the advice given (it IS good advice) though I grow tired of people on these forums thinking that only focused builds are at all viable (I'm not pointing fingers at you w0nkothesane, or anyone else specific).
Fixed.No it isn't simply misquoted. A two weapon fighter can easily out damage and out live a two handed fighter. It's not even a chore. I mean anyone capable of math can easily see why. I'm not even going to bother explaining why you are wrong.
I believe if you're going to ad hom people like that you have a responsibility to back your smack.
On average, much as I hate to say it, the math will back Codzilla. The -2 to hit of the TWF tends to just add up over time, and the extra feats the TWF takes the THF can take to increase his TH, Dmg, or have other utility feats. This point has been made on the boards, endlessly. There's also the problem of no Pounce not evening the playing field of dmg (THF will usually do better on standard attacks), and the cost of two weapons means the THF has a better weapon at all levels, which also adds up.
Now, the POTENTIAL dmg of the TWF style is definitely higher. It's just harder to realize it, since you very seldom hit with all attacks, and every attack you don't have puts you behind the curve.
The math has been done many times. When we see a claim like yours, it usually is because the THF is ignoring certain feats, or the TWF has considerably more wealth for some reason.
==Aelryinth
On average, much as I hate to say it, the math will back Codzilla. The -2 to hit of the TWF tends to just add up over time, and the extra feats the TWF takes the THF can take to increase his TH, Dmg, or have other utility feats. This point has been made on the boards, endlessly. There's also the problem of no Pounce not evening the playing field of dmg (THF will usually do better on standard attacks), and the cost of two weapons means the THF has a better weapon at all levels, which also adds up.
Now, the POTENTIAL dmg of the TWF style is definitely higher. It's just harder to realize it, since you very seldom hit with all attacks, and every attack you don't have puts you behind the curve.
The math has been done many times. When we see a claim like yours, it usually is because the THF is ignoring certain feats, or the TWF has considerably more wealth for some reason.
==Aelryinth
I dunno about damage comparisons, but I do know the higher in level a fighting class gets, the less his attack rolls matter. By the time you are level 10-15, you are pretty much autohitting any CR-appropriate encounter and can afford to sink a few points into things like Combat Expertise, Power Attack, and Two-Weapon Fighting.
As such, I think a TWF Fighter would have the upper hand since he, like the two-hander, will pretty much auto-hit his targets. The difference being the TWF has a higher AC due to his higher Dexterity score. If he is allowed to take things like the Dervish Dance feat, then I also believe the numbers would end up backing the TWF guy over the two-handed one.
I believe if you're going to ad hom people like that you have a responsibility to back your smack.
Generally I agree with you -- but this is CoDzilla and I've backed it before with him, and have gotten nothing to ever prove any of his points.
As such what is good for the goose is good for the gander.
However to cover the basics:
Mobile fighter can make their attacks while moving at level 11 by simply giving up their highest attack. You two weapon fight and you'll have at least 5 attacks at that point doing so.
Two handed fighting: 1 1/2 strength on one weapon
Two weapon fighting: strength on one weapon 1/2 strength on the other
Two handed fighting: 1.5 power attack
Two weapon fighting: 1.power attack first weapon, .5 power attack second
Chance for criticals: more swings means better chance for the two weapon.
Two weapon fighting done with shield mastery will automatically have better AC and will have tactical options that are not available as easily for the two handed fighter, and is rather cheap to boot (since shield mastery turns the shield's enhancement bonus to AC into an enhancement bonus for attacks and damage as well as reducing the penalties).
In addition any static bonus that applies to damage or attack rolls you receive will apply to both weapons giving a bigger increase to DPR.
|
Why does everyone say TWF is such a feat drain? I count 3: 2-Weapon Fighting, Improved 2WF, and Greater 2WF. 4 if you include Double Slice like I like to do.
Compare Archery, which has (let's count 'em): Point-Blank Shot (even if it's just a pre-req), Deadly Aim, Rapid Shot, Manyshot. That's 4, which increases to 5-6 if you include Precise Shot and Improved PS. Yet no-one complains about the number of feats for Archery from what I've seen.
What exactly am I missing?
Agreed. And those are hardly 'Feat Drain/tax'. TWF...each of those Feats gives you more attacks. ignoring the 2 handed vs. 2WF argument (I happen to like playing characters of both sorts), having several attacks, each with a chance to crit, add bonus energy damage, etc...is hardly Draining.
-Uriel
|
|
I find that the Archer to be incredibly badass.
Much better than a Core 'bow guy' simply because h can (At 9th) Shoot in melee without provoking. The trade-offs that you get for losing armor training etc are specifically archer-related. More range, more to hit,more damage, stack-able with both Focus and Specialization. Solid all around.
I actually made a Crossbowman for an NPC (Now a Cohort of one of the PCs in my Kingmaker game. Level 5, stats rolled, in order (I roll stats, in order, for all of my NPCs, to give them a more 'real' feel. having every melee fighter with an 18 Strength and a crap Int or Charisma is boring...)
His stats might look high for a point buy, but that's what happens with Rolls... Just pertinent Combat stuff listed. No need to list things that folks might think useless (Like him having ranks in Craft:Sculpture and Prof:Soldier.
Dorn von Benbreck Human Fighter (Crossbowman) 5
Str 14 Dex 20/22 Con 12 Int 16 Wis 14 Cha 13
F:+5 R:+8 W:+3 HP 49 AC 20/16T/14F
Init +8
Traits: Reactionary,Highlander
Feats:Point Blank Shot, Rapid Shot,Precise Shot
Ex Wpn:Repeating Heavy Crossbow,Deadly Aim,
Focused Shot,Rapid Reload,
Fighter Proficiencies...
"Diplomacy" +1 Repeating Heavy Crossbow
+13(14 witin 30') 1D10+2/+11(12) 1D10+6 w Deadly Aim
If 'ready', +3 damage,if within 30', another+3 damage.
So, this situation happened in game... Dorn is one of the bodyguards of the game's Baron. A situation had formed, Dorn was aimed at the enemy as things went sour. Key word to shoot from the Baron is 'Well, I see that Diplomacy isn't what it used to be'... Which triggers Dorn to fire, in the Surprise round.
He shoots, + 12,D10+13...Not too shabby. Init is rolled, he beats the bad guys, shoots again, 2 shots at +10,D10+10... Killed both of the henchmen that the bandit chief had brought along.
Sure a bow is easier,usually 'better' but getting to shoot while lying down in heavy cover is huge in certain situations. And, most importantly, it is a cool-assed NPC.
For comparison, we also have Yargh, a 5th lvl half-orc Archer in the same campaign
Long Comp Bow (Mighty +4) +12(13 w 30') D8+6,
Within 30', Deadly, rapid etc... +10,+10 (11 w 30') D8+10
He is a feat behind, in a straight ranged race, since I gave him Keen Scent (Which has proved far more useful than Wpn Spec, for instance, in the game, having saved the party from more than a few ambushes, etc...).
-Uriel
if you want to do a damage comparison, you have to set guidelines.
Stats.
$ for weapons.
$ for armor.
Core feats.
Are we talking archetypes or Core Fighters?
Then you do a straight dmg/th comparison at various AC's.
The AC difference tends to end up being all of 2 points from Dex, tops. Note that armor training and armor easily compensate for starting with a lower Dex. Maximum AC for ANY fighter is Mithral Full Plate with a 24 Dex. A THW Fighter starting with a 13 Dex can reach that with +5 Inherent and a +6 Booster.
The biggest problem with TWF is the reliance on full attacks, and the penalty to hit.
The mobile fighter looks pretty good. However, he's effectively giving up his two primary attacks, and hitting with his iteratives. That's effectively -7 to hit. That's a pretty hefty penalty to get off more attacks...a flurry of misses scenario. It's like handing the enemy a +5 Shield. IF you hit on a 2, you're now missing on an 8. That's a 33% drop in damage potential.
Sure, more attacks = more crit chances. However, penalties to hit means fewer crit CONFIRMATIONS.
There's also the problem in that you don't get double attacks (although TW Rend sort of fixes this). You get 4 + 3. The THW guy gets 4.
So, yeah, the damage POTENTIAL is all there. The average damage isn't going to be quite so extreme.
The biggest thing is, of course, the feat cost. TWF, ITWF, GTWF is 3 feats. You can't describe them as 'extra damage' against a THF guy...what they are is 'keeping up with base'. Without that extra damage and attacks, the TWF falls out of the competition. He NEEDS two weapon attacks for every one that the THW guy gets to stay competitive.
That's 3 feats the THW guy can spend on something else. Be it Cleave, Lunge, and Step UP, Or the Vital Strike Chain.
A +5 Weapon is 50k. That's the same as a +4 Weapon and a +3 Weapon...more penalties. They all start stacking up. Lower Strength, Lower To hit, lower base dmg.
You start adding everything up, and TWF tends to suffer.
==Aelryinth
===Aelryinth
if you want to do a damage comparison, you have to set guidelines.
Stats.
$ for weapons.
$ for armor.
Core feats.
Are we talking archetypes or Core Fighters?
All of the characters I make in my free time follow the same standards:
ABILITY SCORES - 25 pt. buy
STARTING FUNDS - Standard for their level, though those with crafting feats can craft magic items at crafting costs
CORE/APG FEATS - All feats from any Pathfinder hardback published by Paizo are allowed by default, provided prequisites are met. Sometimes, other Paizo publication suplamental rules are introduced, though this is not commonly done.
PC COMPARISONS - We are talking about APG fighters as they compare to Core fighters attempting to do the same things (such as TWF fighting, THW fighting, mobile fighting, archery, etc.).
Also, all of my PCs have 3/4 the variable amount of HP (rounded up). Therefore, a 10th-level fighter with 20 Constitution who put all his favored class bonuses into HP would end up with 138 (10 first level + 68 variable + 50 Con + 10 favored class = 138, rounded up).
My groups tend to play high powered games in which surviving is often hit or miss.
Many of the options from the APG are not "more powerful" then the core rule book. And that is as it should be. If every book that comes out has "more powerful" options that are better then the original books you get power creep too fast and no one will ever play a normal version of the class. And normal SHOULD be the best option overall.
The advantage of the alternate classes is not "more power" but more flavor and options based upon your character concept. They can do things that normal fighter or other characters cannot.
-1
Then everyone plays the same 'build' over and over and over and over.Pimping sub-standard features as 'flavor' Doesn't help people when they want consistency.
Why buy a product that alternate builds for classes, but the alternate builds are substandard to the vanilla class.
Many of the options from the APG are not "more powerful" then the core rule book. And that is as it should be. If every book that comes out has "more powerful" options that are better then the original books you get power creep too fast and no one will ever play a normal version of the class. And normal SHOULD be the best option overall.
The advantage of the alternate classes is not "more power" but more flavor and options based upon your character concept. They can do things that normal fighter or other characters cannot.
-1
Then everyone plays the same 'build' over and over and over and over.
Pimping sub-standard features as 'flavor' Doesn't help people when they want consistency.
Why buy a product that alternate builds for classes, but the alternate builds are substandard to the vanilla class.
I think he described it incorrectly.
The way I think of it is that the Core Fighter is the Generalist archetype. He does a lot of things well and isn't specialized to the point of sacrificing utility in other areas.
In contrast the Archetypes are specialists. They sacrifice some of the flexibility of the generalist archetype for increased power in a limited subsection of "fightery things". This typically means that the bonuses are more situational and at times they have access to abilities that the generalist doesn't have.
Generalist > Specialist if you want to have a lot of flexibility and Specialists > Generalist if you want to be better at what you want to focus on.
While not every archetype succeeds in this regards (some are definitely sub-par) I think as a whole most of the archetypes succeed in providing additional options without making the base class completely worthless.
As such I think that they have succeeded in avoiding the 2e Kit and 3e PrC problem, i.e. that supplemental options are so much better than the base options.
So in other words higher than normal point buy and higher than normal funds (as crafting is normally not taken as a discount or that much of one).
The rules aren't at all clear on whether or not you can use starting funds for item creation so I don't think it's fair to declare what is "normal."
I don't personally believe you can create items with starting funds, but most of my roleplaying groups allow for it regardless, so I build my characters to suit.
Many of the options from the APG are not "more powerful" then the core rule book. And that is as it should be. If every book that comes out has "more powerful" options that are better then the original books you get power creep too fast and no one will ever play a normal version of the class. And normal SHOULD be the best option overall.
The advantage of the alternate classes is not "more power" but more flavor and options based upon your character concept. They can do things that normal fighter or other characters cannot.
-1
Then everyone plays the same 'build' over and over and over and over.
Pimping sub-standard features as 'flavor' Doesn't help people when they want consistency.
Why buy a product that alternate builds for classes, but the alternate builds are substandard to the vanilla class.I think he described it incorrectly.
The way I think of it is that the Core Fighter is the Generalist archetype. He does a lot of things well and isn't specialized to the point of sacrificing utility in other areas.
In contrast the Archetypes are specialists. They sacrifice some of the flexibility of the generalist archetype for increased power in a limited subsection of "fightery things". This typically means that the bonuses are more situational and at times they have access to abilities that the generalist doesn't have.
Generalist > Specialist if you want to have a lot of flexibility and Specialists > Generalist if you want to be better at what you want to focus on.
While not every archetype succeeds in this regards (some are definitely sub-par) I think as a whole most of the archetypes succeed in providing additional options without making the base class completely worthless.
As such I think that they have succeeded in avoiding the 2e Kit and 3e PrC problem, i.e. that supplemental options are so much better than the base options.
I agree--especially with the idea that archetypes should not be "better than" the base class.
However, I also agree that some of the Fighter archetypes in particular are sub-par--in that they suffer from the opposite problem---some of the archetypes, you create a weaker character with the archetype than if you stuck with the generalist--in other words, the attempt to specialize without being "better than" was done over-cautiously, and the problem is---and the two-weapon fighter archetype is a good example---they are not specialized *enough*, IMO, that there is no significant difference between the archetype and the base class, and where there is a difference, it's that the base class is in fact more versatile, useful, and fun to play.
I see two problems with many of the fighter archetypes:
1. Most of their tradeoffs for Armor Mastery are not as good as Armor Mastery. For example, the free hand fighter's bonus dodge bonus does not provide as much benefit, IMO, as the bonus to max dex and speed that Armor Mastery does (and is especially weak, in fact, since the Free Hand Fighter cannot use a shield). Mobile Fighter is one of the exceptions to this, and I think that's part of why people cite it as a good archetype. There absolutely SHOULD be a tradeoff here, but many of the tradeoffs are not equal at all---you're usually giving up a lot of good for very little benefit, when you should be giving something that's generally useful all the time for something that might be more technically powerful but in a more limited circumstance. (Now, if the free hand fighter allowed the Max Dex bonus to continue to go up along with the Dodge bonus, it would be a comparable ability without being more powerful, especially since the FHF would likely be staying in lighter armor since he doesn't get the bonus to speed.)
2. Some of the lower level Weapon Training/Armor Training benefits show early on in the base Fighter; some of the lower level abilities of the archetypes shine a little less because they are circumstantial, with the character benefiting less from specialization. A number of the archetypes' really cool, signature abilities are high level---but on the average, most campaigns are low-to mid level only. This is kind of a YMMV thing, and it depends on build and archetype, but it is something I noticed very generally.
I am the first person to start complaining about rules bloat as more books come out--but if we end up with, idk, "rules nerfing" as the alternative, the point is being missed.
Well Said. (I do think there are worthy archetypes but generally I agree).
Many of the options from the APG are not "more powerful" then the core rule book. And that is as it should be. If every book that comes out has "more powerful" options that are better then the original books you get power creep too fast and no one will ever play a normal version of the class. And normal SHOULD be the best option overall.
I totally disagree with your statement.
first: The orginal fighter should not be more powerful the the APG they should be equal, otherwise why even bother with making options!
Second: The APG fighter Options are not even equal to using the base fighter!
Third: The APG fighter options would have been best to be used as optional fighter FEATS then to loose the armor or weapon training!
This is true of some of the other class options in the APG. The barbarian one only has a couple worth taking. And nine times out of ten the Invulnerable Rager is the one they are using in a build.
When people use the APG fighter options they never seem to use Crossbowman, Free Hand Fighter, Phalanx Soldier, Roughrider, Savage Warrior, or Shielded Fighter. At least I don't think I've ever seen anyone use them a build on these boards.
I have someone playing a Phalanx Soldier in one of my PbP games,
Many of the options from the APG are not "more powerful" then the core rule book. And that is as it should be. If every book that comes out has "more powerful" options that are better then the original books you get power creep too fast and no one will ever play a normal version of the class. And normal SHOULD be the best option overall.
I totally disagree with your statement.
first: The orginal fighter should not be more powerful the the APG they should be equal, otherwise why even bother with making options!
Second: The APG fighter Options are not even equal to using the base fighter!
Third: The APG fighter options would have been best to be used as optional fighter FEATS then to loose the armor or weapon training!
Well, wait. Not every APG option is weak. And even most of the weaker ones have several potential in feat and maneuver combos. Simply, has been pointed out that most of them somewhat "lag behind".
Should be pointed out that there were not so many things to exchange - fighter get weapons and armor impovements, and bravery. Fullstop.
But try to transform in feats the TWFighter options to build a normal fighter. I can bet you end up not having enough feat at level 20 :)
But try to transform in feats the TWFighter options to build a normal fighter. I can bet you end up not having enough feat at level 20 :)
with 20 feats, 21 if your playing a human, there really aren't that many Two Weapon fighting feats even if you revamp the 3.5 ones. You will still have feats left over for Focus and specialization.
I agree with the creator of this post that the two weapon fighter option in the APG is so lack luster.
I go on to say that all its options could have been feats and we would still be able to have enough feats left over for weapon focus and Specialization.
What if I wish some maneuver feat too? Did you considered power attack? Saving throw boosters?
BTW, at high level (ahem, see Deathquacker post) I can see definitively this guy do with maneuvers like greater trip.
Use kopesh. Trip. Obtain AOO, used for two hits. 1 attack gained and the enemy is prone.
Go combat reflexes, high crit, and maneuver/crit feats. With all these attacks free maneuvers will "proc" allowing for more blows and maybe more chance to bestow conditions (more saves). Feat intensive maybe.
It's somewhat like the crossbow fighter. People expected it allowed to play crossbow like bows - it does not. You have to think differently, re-think the concept maybe.
Still exploring.. and yeah, there are "meh" options anyway, as said.
What if I wish some maneuver feat too? Did you considered power attack? Saving throw boosters?
20 feats count out how many two weapon fighter feats there are and at what levels you can get them and you can still do all those.
BTW, at high level (ahem, see Deathquacker post) I can see definitively this guy do with maneuvers like greater trip.
Use kopesh. Trip. Obtain AOO, used for two hits. 1 attack gained and the enemy is prone.
You had to bring up the trip, the last thing I want to do with a two weapon fighter is trip someone, if I wanted to trip my opponents I would have devoted the feats to do that, to give me something I don't want makes the option not wanted.
Go combat reflexes, high crit, and maneuver/crit feats. With all these attacks free maneuvers will "proc" allowing for more blows and maybe more chance to bestow conditions (more saves). Feat intensive maybe.
I have been playing two weapon fighters in 2nd edition D&D before I even heard about Driz'zt, I have tried different things with them when they became more viable in Skills and Powers/Combat and Tactics (2nd Edition precursor to third edition). I have come to expect certain things from my two weapon fighters since I started playing 3.5 and pathfinder and the APG options did not do it for me. I still have the Tempest 3.5 PRC in my NPC's build because the APG's options sucked.
It's somewhat like the crossbow fighter. People expected it allowed to play crossbow like bows - it does not. You have to think differently, re-think the concept maybe.
Still exploring.. and yeah, there are "meh" options anyway, as said.
I don't expect a crossbow user to fight like a bow user, but when the options given to you could have been put in a feat why take away from the class and call it an option.
and everyone that played the Pathfinder beta should recognize some of the Two hand fighter options, they where feats in BETA.
20 feats count out how many two weapon fighter feats there are and at what levels you can get them and you can still do all those.
4 feats for the weapon focus line, 5 for the standard TWF, 8 for the alternative abilities. 17. Not sure is worthy.
You had to bring up the trip, the last thing I want to do with a two weapon fighter is trip someone, if I wanted to trip my opponents I would have devoted the feats to do that, to give me something I don't want makes the option not wanted.
Dunno.. I mean, what about doing both, not be restrained to only one thing? In this case the feat would be "EWP: Kopesh", anyway - the rest is with Combat Expertise + TWF line. Just tinkering, 'though. I have no actual data ;)
I have been playing two weapon fighters in 2nd edition D&D before I even heard about Driz'zt, I have tried different things with them when they became more viable in Skills and Powers/Combat and Tactics (2nd Edition precursor to third edition). I have come to expect certain things from my two weapon fighters since I started playing 3.5 and pathfinder and the APG options did not do it for me. I still have the Tempest 3.5 PRC in my NPC's build because the APG's options sucked.
Sure? high crit build should work. take a look in the DPR thread (other posters will correct me maybe). I re-state it: APG options must be explored deeply yet - I just wonder double opportunity + combat patrol and the control feats above how could work. A DPR + Control build perhaps?
I don't expect a crossbow user to fight like a bow user, but when the options given to you could have been put in a feat why take away from the class and call it an option.
See above about TWF.
and everyone that played the Pathfinder beta should recognize some of the Two hand fighter options, they where feats in BETA.
Compared to the core TWF, the standard (core) TH fighter gains a lot more - feat wise. I think that to gain the things like overhand chop and devastating blow should specialize, at least in the current set of rules. In the future.. who knows?