So is there NOTHING in all of Ultimate Combat for a Two-Handed Fighter?


Advice

51 to 100 of 104 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | next > last >>
Liberty's Edge

Mike Schneider wrote:
at -10 iterative when you have such a "lovely" string going; I dare you. You need four in a row to match the damage bonus of Weapon Specialization.

Actually I was wrong about that -- you need four in a row to receive an averaged ONE point of extra damage per attack. You need FIVE in a row to receive two per attack (same as Weapon Spec).

Assuming you're a Hasted archer at 11th with five attack rolls (i.e., no extra for Manyshot); assume you're so good that you're 95% to hit your target with your three "big" Rapid Shot + Haste attacks, 80% with the -5 and 55% with the -10.

You are Hell-on-wheels...and 37.7% to get all five to hit.


Gorbacz wrote:
I'd like to repeat: 2H Fighters don't need any more love in the damage department. Actually, I'm glad there's only one no-brainer DPR boost feat in UC for them.

A) The OP did say more damage.

B) 2H Fighters don't need any more love, but arcane casters do? I like to repeat something from the thread, ULTIMATE COMBAT FIRST IMPRESSIONS:

ProfessorCirno wrote:
Zark wrote:

UC:

Fighter feat: 1
Paladin spells: 31
Ranger spells: 32
Wizard/ Sorcerer spells: 97
This basically says everything that needed to be said.


Mike Schneider wrote:
Mike Schneider wrote:
at -10 iterative when you have such a "lovely" string going; I dare you. You need four in a row to match the damage bonus of Weapon Specialization.

Actually I was wrong about that -- you need four in a row to receive an averaged ONE point of extra damage per attack. You need FIVE in a row to receive two per attack (same as Weapon Spec).

Assuming you're a Hasted archer at 11th with five attack rolls (i.e., no extra for Manyshot); assume you're so good that you're 95% to hit your target with your three "big" Rapid Shot + Haste attacks, 80% with the -5 and 55% with the -10.

You are Hell-on-wheels...and 37.7% to get all five to hit.

However, if you are a gunslinger who only has to hit touch with a 95% chance even on final iterative attack, it has potential to be a pretty golden feat. Hell, multiclass in some Synthesyst. Grow a bunch of arms, and enjoy the benefits of the 8 attack bonus damage in a single round.


While not specifically designed for TH-fighters there are a lot of combat maneuver feats in the book. Like Drag Down, Felling Smash, Twin Thunders. I especially like Felling Smash.

Other cool feats are the Dazzling Display feats.

If you want damage there are the Vital strike feat chain, Devastating Strike and Improved Devastating Strike. Me, I don't like them at all.

There are only one feat specifically designed for fighters. I can be used by THW-fighters. It's called Pin Down and it is actually nice. Although Step up is perhaps better. Especially if you pick the whole step up chain.


Shadow_of_death wrote:
Mergy wrote:
Starbuck_II wrote:
Wiggz wrote:

I just got finished with my perusal of the new Ultimate Combat, looking through feats, new archetypes, etc. and found nothing that I would add to my Two-Handed fighter. Did I miss something? I'm sincerely hoping that I did...

Perhaps they should have called it Ultimate Combat for Monks instead, eh?

Tiger pounce: you ignore PA penalty but get the bonus to damage. You're welcome 2 handed Fighters.
I agree that Two-handed Fighters don't need much love, but don't tell them to spend 4 feats just to get one thing that benefits them.
Would two of those happen to be power attack and furious focus? I dont have the book so im actually asking

No, Unarmed stick, Tiger Style, Tiger Claw. All of which mainly benefit unarmed sticks.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Prior to Ultimate Combat, if I wanted to make a fighter, it would be a 2H Fighter. Now, if I make a fighter, I make the kind of fighter I would like.

I would agree that there isn't much love for the vanilla 2H fighter, but if you actually do things other than that, even other 2H fighting with maneuvers or reach or something, you'll find something worthy.

2H fighters are boring but effective. Ultimate Combat is the spice that broadens your idea of effective fighting. Ultimate, indeed.

I would actually hate the book if it were filled with feats like, say, Supreme Weapon Specialization or something like that. I don't need that, it's not interesting, I could have made it myself, and it feels lazy. That there are so many feats in the book and not one of them looks like that is pretty good to me.

I very much approve of Ultimate Combat.

Liberty's Edge

Hammer the Gap looks like a wonderful feat for Monks.

Liberty's Edge

Inconvenience wrote:
Mike Schneider wrote:
You are Hell-on-wheels...and 37.7% to get all five to hit.
However, if you are a gunslinger who only has to hit touch with a 95% chance even on final iterative attack, it has potential to be a pretty golden feat. Hell, multiclass in some Synthesyst. Grow a bunch of arms, and enjoy the benefits of the 8 attack bonus damage in a single round.

Well, yes, if you have sixteen guns in sixteen holsters (because you don't want to be defenseless after just one volley) and Muleback Cords to carry the freakin' arsenal (because you dumped your STR because you're a Gunslinger) and don't mind zorching a whole day's worth of Grit in only one or two rounds (depending upon how close you are to your target, since guns have crappy range increments).

-- If you have eight 95% attacks per round, do you really need extra damage? (Note that even if your opponent is a comatose dragon with a touch-AC of 8 or something likewise horrible, you're still 50% likely to roll a 1 halfway through your second-round volley.)

Swivl wrote:
Prior to Ultimate Combat, if I wanted to make a fighter, it would be a 2H Fighter. Now, if I make a fighter, I make the kind of fighter I would like.

Beware the trap: any archetype which replaces "Weapon Training" with something which seems similar but which isn't named "Weapon Training" will not receive the power-up from Gloves of Dueling (and those things make a "vanilla" fighter shine because, if he splits his WT into several weapon groups, he'll be +3/+3 to all of them w/Gloves).


Nodachi: Elven curve blade that you don't have to spend a feat on. [1d10(18-20x2)]

Liberty's Edge

edross wrote:
Nodachi: Elven curve blade that you don't have to spend a feat on. [1d10(18-20x2)]

The only reason to use an ECB in the first place is to Finesse it (otherwise you'd use a greatsword).


Mike Schneider wrote:
edross wrote:
Nodachi: Elven curve blade that you don't have to spend a feat on. [1d10(18-20x2)]
The only reason to use an ECB in the first place is to Finesse it (otherwise you'd use a greatsword).

Unless you're a critfisher.


Mike Schneider wrote:
edross wrote:
Nodachi: Elven curve blade that you don't have to spend a feat on. [1d10(18-20x2)]
The only reason to use an ECB in the first place is to Finesse it (otherwise you'd use a greatsword).

Greatsword is 19-20/x2 which is inferior. In higher level play critical damage is a much greater factor.


Feral wrote:
Not every book is going to have optimization gold. If fact, I would prefer very few did. There's plenty in UC that is usable, useful, and/or viable for a two-handed fighter.

Agreed, it's a nice book that seems to add some more interesting options for [i]new[i] good martial builds that specialize in things other than using a freaking greatsword just like people have been doing for years and years in 3.5. I would have liked to see some more ECB type genuinely different finessable weapons (seriously it's the first and still only 2h finessable weapon) or offhand defensive weapons with maneuver bonuses used in a lot of fighting styles to help finesse builds bloom a bit more without forcing them to take Agile maneuvers (which should have been part of finesse after +6 BaB or something). Some other interesting things could have been new armors that behave differently on a base level (i.e. a low medium armor with dex past the cap going to DR) or something else interesting for the more nimble fighters with a feat tax (finesse) to even do their thing


WelbyBumpus wrote:
Mike Schneider wrote:
edross wrote:
Nodachi: Elven curve blade that you don't have to spend a feat on. [1d10(18-20x2)]
The only reason to use an ECB in the first place is to Finesse it (otherwise you'd use a greatsword).
Unless you're a critfisher.

Yeah they're both good options for different builds. I personally think that critfishers are typically better off with Falchions for the more predictable damage, but if we're talking about things from UC added for two-handers Nodachi should atleast be mentioned.

Liberty's Edge

Captain Sir Hexen Ineptus wrote:
Mike Schneider wrote:
edross wrote:
Nodachi: Elven curve blade that you don't have to spend a feat on. [1d10(18-20x2)]
The only reason to use an ECB in the first place is to Finesse it (otherwise you'd use a greatsword).
Greatsword is 19-20/x2 which is inferior. In higher level play critical damage is a much greater factor.

Assuming Keen or ImpCrit with both, approximately 95% of the time (i.e., anytime you roll a 15 or 16 -- the only numbers that make a difference between the two -- then roughly halving odds for nonconfirms or vs. non-critabls) you're forfeiting a steady 1.5 extra damage with the d10 vs. the 2d6.

IOW, you need to have numeric bonuses totalling more than 28.5 (19 x 1.5) for it to be worth carrying an 18-20/x2 two-hander instead of a 19-20/x2 greatsword (let alone spending a feat for the privilege). Even if you confirm 100% of the time and your opponents are always critable, your numeric bonus still has to be over 27. (These numbers are a little low because I am not factoring that a greatsword's large dice are also multiplied in crits, amplifying the addition +1.5s; figure that if your numeric bonus to damage is not at least 30, then it's not at all worth doing -- only paladins, cavaliers and the like have any business even thinking about it)


STR Ranger wrote:
Again, why is hammer the gap any good.

Firearms. Most notably, the Gunslinger.

At 10th level, if you build yourself for the feat, you could realistically have Manyshot, two attacks, and an extra haste attack. Note; this is not an easy combo to pull off, as you'd need Rapid Reload and paper cartridges to pull it off (at 11th level, you can do Rapid / Lightning Reload).

All of a sudden, the damage from that feat is looking REALLY good when you're landing four touch attacks against enemies using a full attack bonus at 10th level. I agree that it's not all that good for most other melee fighters though, and you may need additional levels / feats to make it a viable build.

Too bad the feat has to have every attack targeting the same target, or it could have made a nice combo with Whirlwind Attack.


Mike Schneider wrote:
Assuming Keen or ImpCrit with both, approximately 95% of the time (i.e., anytime you roll a 15 or 16 -- the only numbers that make a difference between the two -- then roughly halving odds for nonconfirms or vs. non-critabls) you're forfeiting a steady 1.5 extra damage with the d10 vs. the 2d6.

Woah, preachin' to the choir man. I personally think the mantra "bigger crit range is more important than bigger damage dice" is overblown and over simplified, for a lot of the reasons you just listed. However, I don't think that means we have to be anti-big-crit-range. The truth is that measuring the value of say a Falchion over a Greatsword involves a large and hugely situational number of variables that can't be compared in absolute terms. The difficulty is a testament to how well this particular aspect of the game is balanced. Since the importance of a big crit range varies by character build/campaign/encounter, and the OP is just asking what new goodies does UC have for 2-handers, I think its fair to bring up the No-Dachi as something some 2-hand builds may want to consider.


Quote:

Hammer the Gap (Combat)

Prerequisite: Base attack bonus +6.
Benefit: When you take a full-attack action, each
consecutive hit against the same opponent deals extra
damage equal to the number of previous consecutive
hits you have made against that opponent this turn. This
damage is multiplied on a critical hit.

This is high-level gunslinger-only feat. You need to have a reliable ability to inflict multiple consecutive hits per round.

Maybe an archer-type ranger with greater invisibility and haste could also benefit from this feat...

Either way, it's nothing to write home about.

Regards,
Ruemere

Liberty's Edge

Your numeric bonus to damage has to be almost 40 to justify using a falchion over a greatsword.


Pathfinder Maps, Pawns Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber; Starfinder Charter Superscriber
Mike Schneider wrote:
Your numeric bonus to damage has to be almost 40 to justify using a falchion over a greatsword.

Why is that?


Mike Schneider wrote:
Your numeric bonus to damage has to be almost 40 to justify using a falchion over a greatsword.

How much damage is landing sickening critical or one of the critical triggered free combat maneuver feats twice as often worth?

Liberty's Edge

Ravingdork wrote:
Mike Schneider wrote:
Your numeric bonus to damage [edit: plus weapon dice] has to be almost 40 to justify using a falchion over a greatsword.
Why is that?

Suppose you could have Keen or Improved Critical with either. -- This means only 15s and 16s make a difference for you.

Suppose that half the time you roll a 15 or a 16 with your falcion, it does not confirm, or the target is not critable, or the 15 or 16 is insufficient to breach AC in the first place.

-- This essentially means that only about 5% of the time it's making a difference (after obtaining Keen or ImpCrit).

Which subsequently means that 19 times out of 20 on realistic average, you're sacrificing 2pts of damage per swat with a falchion's 2d4 instead of a greatsword's 2d6, or losing 38pts before getting that one extra confirmed crit versus critable target while using a falchion instead of a the greatsword. So, that extra damage that crit does has to be almost forty to cover the difference and make the falchion a better weapon.

If you are frequently fighting Enlarged, the disparity becomes even worse, with you losing out 3.5dmg per swat with 2d6 falchion versus 3d6 greatsword (meaning your base crit-multipliable damage will have to be north of 66pts in order for the falchion to be a better weapon if the same 5% realistic difference situations hold).

Only paladins, cavaliers, and a few other classes with bonus-per-level damage can really exploit (die:smaller)18-20/x2 weapons effectively, and only when they're using their limited class abilities.

In the hands of anyone else, and especially at low level, a falchion is a munchkin-trap.


Atarlost wrote:
Mike Schneider wrote:
Your numeric bonus to damage has to be almost 40 to justify using a falchion over a greatsword.
How much damage is landing sickening critical or one of the critical triggered free combat maneuver feats twice as often worth?

This.

Also, I'd like to see Mike's math. How many attacks are you using? What attack bonus do they have against what target AC? Is there any bonus to critical confirmation rolls? Etc.

EDIT: Referring to the above post, it's as I thought. There actually isn't any math supporting the position.

Let's provide some, shall we?

10th level Fighter fighting a generic CR 12 opponent. Fighter has 22 Strength (18 to start and a +4 item) and is built with crits in mind, so has Critical Focus. He's using a +1 keen weapon with full Weapon Focus/Specialization and Power Attack. His attack bonus is +21/+16 vs AC of 27, yielding a 75% and 50% chance to hit and a 95% and 70% chance to confirm without Power Attack, -15% chance to each while using PA. His damage bonus is +14 without PA and +23 with.

With a falchion, he deals (19 * 0.3 [chance to crit] * 0.95 [chance to confirm] * 2 [crit multiplier) + (19 * 0.3 * 0.05 [didn't confirm]) + (19 * 0.45 [chance to hit but not threaten]) + (19 * 0.3 * 0.7 * 2 [second iterative crit]) + (19 * 0.3 * 0.3 [2nd iterative failed crit]) + (19 * 0.2 [2nd it noncrit]) = 33.155 average damage without power attack, and (I'm not going to repeat the formula from here on out) 37.94 with.

With a greatsword, he deals 33.18 average damage without power attack and 35.125 with.

Thus, the pure damage inflection point for this character is actually met when using Power Attack, plus he crits significantly more often to trigger any feats or abilities that increase the value of his crits.

Liberty's Edge

Pathfinder Companion, Pawns Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber; Starfinder Charter Superscriber

Two 10th level fighters, with Str 22, +4 swords, Weapon Focus and Specialization, Greater Weapon Focus, Critical Focus, Improved Critical, Power Attack and 2 points of weapon training in heavy blades, full-attacking AC 24 (the "typical" AC for a CR 10 monster):

+4 greatsword: 63.03 DPR
+4 falchion: 64.79 DPR

Including the Power Attack bonus, each fighter has a +26 static bump to his damage.

In other words, your math's off, Mike.

Liberty's Edge

Atarlost wrote:
How much damage is landing sickening critical or one of the critical triggered free combat maneuver feats twice as often worth?

They simply do not occur enough additional times versus applicable targets for a smaller-die/18-20 weapon to be worth the continual nickel-n-dime self-nerfing.

(I'm not a fan of critical feats either, particularly when they're taken at the expense of any more frequently-deployable feat line.)

Liberty's Edge

Shisumo wrote:

Two 10th level fighters, with Str 22, +4 swords, Weapon Focus and Specialization, Greater Weapon Focus, Critical Focus, Improved Critical, Power Attack and 2 points of weapon training in heavy blades, full-attacking AC 24 (the "typical" AC for a CR 10 monster):

+4 greatsword: 63.03 DPR
+4 falchion: 64.79 DPR

Including the Power Attack bonus, each fighter has a +26 static bump to his damage.

In other words, your math's off, Mike.

How generous of you to be granting yourself the opportunity to fight critable monsters 100% of the time.

And note that it took all of those feats and upgrades for the falchion to finally match the greatsword -- meaning it sucked at lower level, and you were "short-changing" your tank-needing allies at the table if you played him every trudging step of the way up from 1st with the less-damaging weapon (e.g., a concern when playing PFS, etc). Parachuting fully-formed into a high-level campaign, of course, is another matter.

Another aspect which is seldom-appreciated or even accounted for: every attack with an inferior weapon which leaves an opponent standing with 1 or 2hp is an opportunity for pain-avoidance lost; and the increased incidence of such instances if being endured for an increased probability of dealing a huge amount of "blow through" damage on a crit which does way more than what was needed. (I'm not exactly sure how to mathematically model that, since there aren't any "typical enemy HP" guidelines that I'm aware of, but I have a gut hunch my assessment is correct, because I swear to god almost every time I get a crit, it's against some already well-softened enemy.)


Mike Schneider wrote:
How generous of you to be granting yourself the opportunity to fight critable monsters 100% of the time.

There are very, very few noncrittable monsters, as a percentage of total monsters, in Pathfinder. Categorically, only incorporeal creatures, elementals, oozes, and plants are immune to crits. None of those are especially common opponents in most campaigns (Undead in general are, but incorporeal ones tend to be pretty rare because they're very, very nasty).

Quote:
And note that it took all of those feats and upgrades for the falchion to finally match the greatsword -- meaning it sucked at lower level, and you were "short-changing" your tank-needing allies at the table if you played him every trudging step of the way up from 1st with the less-damaging weapon (e.g., a concern when playing PFS, etc). Parachuting fully-formed into a high-level campaign, of course, is another matter.

False dichotomy. Falchions deal less than two less points of damage on average than greatswords. They don't "suck at lower levels".

Liberty's Edge

(Actually you meant to charge me with a reductio ad absurdum fallacy there, not a false dichotomy; but I digress. :-P)

Quote:
Falchions deal two less points of damage than greatswords. They don't "suck at lower levels".

In the 1st-through-5th/6th game, 2pts is usually north of 10% of damage, and a significant factor when fighting 2nd- and 3rd-level bad guys with hitpoints in the teens.

(If you're used to playing high-level only, the importance of this is easy to overlook. But now put yourself into the shoes of a low-level PFS player in a stretch of bad luck, and short of the necessary Fame to free-pay Raise Dead -- he's not "crit-fishing" for extra massive slugs against jabberwocks; he needs the best possible chance to drop opponents routinely rather than leaving them standing with a few hp.)


Why not just use a greatsword at low levels and then switch to falchion?
Fighters can even trate feats (at certain levels) so you can take weapon focus (greatsword) at 1st or 2nd level and then change it to falchion later, before you take weapon specialization.

Liberty's Edge

leo1925 wrote:
Why not just use a greatsword at low levels and then switch to falchion? Fighters can even trade feats (at certain levels) so you can take weapon focus (greatsword) at 1st or 2nd level and then change it to falchion later, before you take weapon specialization.

What they can't do following this swap-out strategy is allocate money efficiently. I.e., if you're planning to switch to a falchion at 8th or so (depending upon the power-level of your campaign), it's impractical to spend on a magic sword if you're then going to sell it for half. It's particularly annoying in the 5th/6th zone when other players are upgrading to +2 weapons while you're still nursing a MW.

(On a general note I don't like to plan to trade feats, because there's always a new book coming along, there's bound to something in it which is very enticing, and I'll miss an opportunity to tuck into my build if I'm shuffling WFs.)

Now the nodachi -- even though Paizo flubbed designing this weapon (obviously confusing it for a nagamaki) -- is a weapon I could grow to love. As a d10 it's slightly better than the 2d4 falchion, it has the brace property, and is in the polearm as well as heavy blade groups (so you could use one as a Phalanx fighter).

The Exchange

Mike Schneider wrote:

... Suppose that half the time you roll a 15 or a 16 with your falcion, it does not confirm, or the target is not critable, or the 15 or 16 is insufficient to breach AC in the first place.

-- This essentially means that only about 5% of the time it's making a difference (after obtaining Keen or ImpCrit).

Which subsequently means that 19 times out of 20 on realistic average...

I'd hazard a guess that there's a difference here in what people see as 'a realistic average'.


Mike Schneider wrote:
Mike Schneider wrote:
at -10 iterative when you have such a "lovely" string going; I dare you. You need four in a row to match the damage bonus of Weapon Specialization.

Actually I was wrong about that -- you need four in a row to receive an averaged ONE point of extra damage per attack. You need FIVE in a row to receive two per attack (same as Weapon Spec).

Assuming you're a Hasted archer at 11th with five attack rolls (i.e., no extra for Manyshot); assume you're so good that you're 95% to hit your target with your three "big" Rapid Shot + Haste attacks, 80% with the -5 and 55% with the -10.

You are Hell-on-wheels...and 37.7% to get all five to hit.

Man, that REALLY does blow hard. Oh, well back to hating it. :(

I think we'll have to mesh this with the 3.5 crushing strike feat.

Might work if we.make it each attack adds a cumulative +1 to ATTACK and DAMAGE. It's real value won't lie in the damage added but the stacking bonus to successful iteratives.....

Liberty's Edge

ProfPotts wrote:
Mike Schneider wrote:
Which subsequently means that 19 times out of 20 on realistic average...
I'd hazard a guess that there's a difference here in what people see as 'a realistic average'.

You'll also be running into targets with Fortification armor properties at higher level.

Suffice to say that, if there is even a slight chance that a threat does not result in a crit, the falchion remains an inferior weapon until into the double-digit levels.


Mike Schneider wrote:
(Actually you meant to charge me with a reductio ad absurdum fallacy there, not a false dichotomy; but I digress. :-P)

No, actually, I didn't. You proposed a dichotomy: greatsword or suck. This is false.

Liberty's Edge

Fozbek wrote:
You proposed a dichotomy: greatsword or suck.

Because, obviously, when I employed the word "suck, it almost certainly meant I was comparing the damage output of a falchion to a strand of limp pasta.

<roll eyes>


Mike Schneider wrote:
Fozbek wrote:
You proposed a dichotomy: greatsword or suck.

Because, obviously, when I employed the word "suck, it almost certainly meant I was comparing the damage output of a falchion to a strand of limp pasta.

<roll eyes>

Hey! The irumi does not need your harsh comments sir. It's awesome without the damage output.


Mike Schneider wrote:
Fozbek wrote:
You proposed a dichotomy: greatsword or suck.

Because, obviously, when I employed the word "suck, it almost certainly meant I was comparing the damage output of a falchion to a strand of limp pasta.

<roll eyes>

Because, obviously, when you employed the word "suck," it almost certainly didn't mean you were saying the greatsword is a viable two-handed weapon and the falchion isn't.

<rolls eyes>


Pathfinder Maps, Pawns Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber; Starfinder Charter Superscriber

<rolls eyes> (all the kids are doing it these days)

All the weapons are viable, but none so more than the greatsword. ;P


Ravingdork wrote:

<rolls eyes> (all the kids are doing it these days)

All the weapons are viable, but none so more than the greatsword. ;P

That statement is too general as well.

Verifiable statements:
1. Against uncrittable enemies, the greatsword is better than the falchion by an avg of 2 damage per hit(1.5 per hit for nodachi).
2. Against crittable enemies, falchions are better once certain baselines are hit. a) when your bonus damage allows your crits to overcome the 2 point difference in damage and b) the higher frequency of activating crit feats.

If you want to measure which weapon is better generally, there need to be conditions placed or otherwise people are just ranting pointlessly. IE, what percentage of creatures of generally crittable, hit chance ranges, crit confirmation chance, ect.

Now what it comes down to for me is that a 1.5 or 2 pt avg damage difference per hit is not going to change class dpr much anyway, so I have trouble seeing how even in a non crit based build how this is important. For 2 handers if you have 5 attacks, you are losing at most 10 points of dpr. So in the worst case scenario, a lvl 20 person is down 10 dpr against non crittable enemies. Thus from an optimization standpoint, choosing a greatsword is not a terribly important decision.

On the other hand, if you are making a crit based build, maximizing crits increases the value of your entire build, so 18-20 crit ranges is a must because it allows you to increase dpr, gain more use of crit feats, and you also get greater value out of outflank and paired opportunist.

So I have trouble seeing how the greatsword is the 2handed weapon king.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Maps, Pawns Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber; Starfinder Charter Superscriber
thepuregamer wrote:
"Real serious sounding stuff."

I was just kiddin' man. Didn't you see the winking razberry'in smiley?


didn't know such a thing as a razberry'in smiley existed.

Liberty's Edge

All who dare to engage in the least hyperbole will be lashed! You have been warned!


thepuregamer wrote:
didn't know such a thing as a razberry'in smiley existed.

;-P

;-P
;-P
;-P
;-P
;-P
;-P
;-P
;-P
;-P

You've just been winkin' raspberry smiley-ed ten times in rapid succession. How do you feel?

By the way, I award myself +1 for not contributing anything else to this heavily derailed thread. Huzzah!

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Adventure, Rulebook Subscriber; Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber
Mike Schneider wrote:
All who dare to engage in the least hyperbole will be lashed! You have been warned!

ME FIRST!


Gorbacz wrote:


As far as 2H goes - 2H fighters don't need any boosts. They are on the top of damage scale. They get a small bump up from Hammer the Gap, which is good to take if you already have all the other must-take feats.

OK, so as someone playing their first 2H fighter in a while, what ARE the Must-Take feats?

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Ravingdork wrote:
Shadow_of_death wrote:
Well with the tiger pounce mentioned above you could actually use the combat expertise, with power attack being free you wont even notice the penalty from combat expertise, its free ac.

So you take a penalty to attacks in order to gain AC. Then you lose the AC to gain Power Attack.

Um...why not just use Power Attack by itself? You end up with the same net result.

This actually was a popular feat combination in Arcanis under another name, Power Attack and Heedless Assault. High level fighters were doing it all the time for hideous amounts of damage.

Liberty's Edge

Feral wrote:
Look, its basically Gunfighters, Oriental characters and then some siege/vehicle stuff. That's fine and all, but I consider it a little more fringe than I would have expected for a mainstream book.

My two most recent PFS characters are a glaive-fighting cleric with Guided Hand and Crusader's Flurry, and a TWF samurai with a dash each of fighter[unarmed] and barbarian[urban].

Shadow Lodge

Inconvenience wrote:
Mike Schneider wrote:
Mike Schneider wrote:
at -10 iterative when you have such a "lovely" string going; I dare you. You need four in a row to match the damage bonus of Weapon Specialization.

Actually I was wrong about that -- you need four in a row to receive an averaged ONE point of extra damage per attack. You need FIVE in a row to receive two per attack (same as Weapon Spec).

Assuming you're a Hasted archer at 11th with five attack rolls (i.e., no extra for Manyshot); assume you're so good that you're 95% to hit your target with your three "big" Rapid Shot + Haste attacks, 80% with the -5 and 55% with the -10.

You are Hell-on-wheels...and 37.7% to get all five to hit.

However, if you are a gunslinger who only has to hit touch with a 95% chance even on final iterative attack, it has potential to be a pretty golden feat. Hell, multiclass in some Synthesyst. Grow a bunch of arms, and enjoy the benefits of the 8 attack bonus damage in a single round.

Just remember that until you get to 13th level, where you don't misfire with some guns, trying to get extra attacks is generally a horrible idea, barring the use of dead shot, in which case extra attacks falls back into the awesome category. But, when you get to 11th level you get signature deed, you can be making dead shots every time you can make a full round action. not to sure why to make dead shots? well then

why dead shot is to good:

you make all your attacks at a single target, but only fire one shot. so lets just say at 11th level when you'll be doing this all the freaking time you make 3 shots at one target with a +1 musket and you have 18 dex, point blank shot, you're doing 3d12+6, compared to 3d12+18. now you look at this and think, but dead shot is bad, but here is there kicker, if you can get and confirm a critical hit the entire attack is a crit. suddenly with just one of your 3 crits being confirmed your damage has gone up to 12d12+24 compared to 5d12+24. so what are the odds of this happening you might ask? well with 3 attacks and improved critical you have a 10%(19-20) chance to get a crit on each shot. The chance to get all 3 crits as individual attacks its .1% (.1^3=.001) where as to get a critical 1 out of 3 it's actually 27.1%(1-.9^3=1-.729=.271). So on average once every 4 rounds you should be instant killing one target with low touch AC. Just remember that you get grit back for getting critical hits and for killing stuff, you pull off one of these crits you should get 2 grit back. A word of warning on confirm these crits, you need to confirm at -5 of the shot that crit, so say you're 11th level so your bab is 11/6/1 and your second shot got a threat you need to confirm that a 1+dex+other modifiers. this means you may not confirm the crit on the last iterative because you're looking at having an attack bonus for that shot below 0 generally.

And the icing on the cake for those who aren't 13th level (so any one in PFS) dead shot lowers your chance to misfire A LOT. Again, using a musket and reloading with paper cartridges you have a 15% to misfire with any shot, 2 attacks with dead shot brings this down 2.25%, 3 attacks is .3375%, 4 attacks .050625%, at 11th level you can actually forgo the paper cartridges because of lightning reload(reload as swift or free if you have rapid reload with your fire arm), so the odds become 3 attacks: .1%, 4 attacks:.01%.

can iterative attacks be better than dead shot? yes, at the edge of the bell curve, i could imagine a gunslinger taking a two level dip in alchemist to get a vestigial arm or two to be able to reload two fire arms, take two weapon fighting feats and hope for crits and not misfires (two weapon fighting with pistols and paper cartridges for a total of 5 attacks in a round gives you a 40.951% chance of a misfire with one of your pistols and this chance goes up as you make more attacks in a round). But this actually takes quite an effort to pull off and doesn't give much wriggle room where as deadshot doesn't need much other than leveling gunslinger(in fact i'm only assuming 3 feats are taken here; point blank shot, improved critical and signature dead).

So spread the word, Gunslingers and iterative attacks(outside the use of deadshot) don't mix well as they need to be at least 13th level not to misfire every other round.

PS. you can do all that dead shot stuff with a double hackbut, take all the D12 rolls above and double how many you just made, 11th level gunslinger (18 dex, point blank shot) dead shot crit with all attacks(3) hitting with a +1double hackbut: 24d12+24

PPS. you can use deadeye with dead shot, do i really need to say any more?

oh and to bring my post back on topic
yeah so what if two hand fighters didn't get much this book, one could already optimize one without to much effort and still have enough feats to do other things. I think the point of Ultimate Combat was to give feats/archetypes/options in general that allow for the 'non-cookie cutter' or less optimized builds to actually work, not become awesome DPR machines but able to do their shtick effectively enough to not be a joke. If you want to go have a DPR pissing contest change that R to an S and go play wow. If Pazio can introduce more options for characters without making certain builds over powered then they've done a decent job in my books


gigglestick wrote:
OK, so as someone playing their first 2H fighter in a while, what ARE the Must-Take feats?

Power Attack, Cleave and Furious Focus, Shield of swings, Vital strike, Improved critical, i´d say.


RedPorcupine wrote:
gigglestick wrote:
OK, so as someone playing their first 2H fighter in a while, what ARE the Must-Take feats?
Power Attack, Cleave and Furious Focus, Shield of swings, Vital strike, Improved critical, i´d say.

Vital strike and shield of swings? Why?

About cleave, pre UC i would have to say take it at 1st or 2nd level and change it later, after UC it might be worth it going the cleave line.

My list is:
Power attack, weapon focus, weapon spec and the rest line, maybe furious focus, dazing assault, iron will, improved iron will, improved critical, critical focus, toughness.

51 to 100 of 104 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder First Edition / Advice / So is there NOTHING in all of Ultimate Combat for a Two-Handed Fighter? All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.