|
One of my players has this feat at 1st level and i have some questions.
1) He gets two attacks during his turn correct with penalties.
2) Can he attack two different targets?
3) This seems pretty powerful right out of the chute especially since he has an 16 Strength.
Anything else that I should know about this feat?
Yes, he can use it against different opponents. However, he can only make multiple attacks as part of a full round action.
1) He gets two attacks during his turn correct with penalties.
If he performs a full-attack action, yes.
2) Can he attack two different targets?
Yes. He can even take a 5-foot step in between attacks if he hasn't already done so this round. Or, after the first attack, he can change his mind and take a move action.
3) This seems pretty powerful right out of the chute especially since he has an 16 Strength.
Without an extra source of damage, like sneak attacks, he's probably going to be doing a lot less damage than someone with a two-handed weapon.
Anything else that I should know about this feat?
The feat only reduces penalties. It doesn't let you do anything you couldn't do before.
The TWF penalties only apply to attacks made as part of that full-attack action, they do not apply to attacks of opportunity, and they do not apply if he only makes one single attack as a standard action, even if he's wielding two weapons.
-edit-
Helpful links:
The Two-Weapon Fighting feat.
Two-Weapon Fighting rules in the combat chapter.
FAQ: Multiple Weapons, Extra Attacks, and Two-Weapon Fighting
1) Depending on his weapons, yes.
2) Yep. This states the following:
You do not need to specify the targets of your attacks ahead of time. You can see how the earlier attacks turn out before assigning the later ones.
He needs to do a full-attack action (which is a type of full-round action) to do this.
3) It is fairly potent at low levels. But something to keep in mind is that if he is minimizing the penalty to attack, he'll be using light weapons which generally have a smaller damage die. So he might have two short swords both doing 1d6+3 damage, rather than one greatsword doing 2d6+4 damage.
3) It is fairly potent at low levels. But something to keep in mind is that if he is minimizing the penalty to attack, he'll be using light weapons which generally have a smaller damage die. So he might have two short swords both doing 1d6+3 damage, rather than one greatsword doing 2d6+4 damage.
Actually, you only need the light weapon in your off hand; you can use a one-handed weapon in your main hand.
Also, your strength bonus to damage is halved in your off hand (unless you have the Double Slice feat). So you get
- 1d8+3 on the main hand for an average of 7.5
- 1d6+1 on the off hand (3/2=1.5, which rounds down to 1), for an average of 4.5.
Which gets you about 12 points of damage a round (assuming you hit both times, of course).
Your great sword example would average about 11 points of damage per round.
You're absolutely correct about TWF being more effective at lower levels. Additional damage tricks (like rogue sneak attack, precise strike, vital strike, etc.) makes the build more viable at higher levels. (My 8th level fighter/rouge just switched from Long sword/short sword to twin wakisashis with improved critical. If I had know about the sawtooth sabre two levels ago, I would have gone that route, instead.)
But to the OP: no, the TWF is not game breaking. The designers have done a really good job balancing the mechanics.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I'm aware, but using the same weapon in both hands is fairly common as then you can just use weapon focus or other feats and affect both.
3) This seems pretty powerful right out of the chute especially since he has an 16 Strength.
Character 1 dual wields Short Swords with Two-Weapon Fighting.
Character 2 is identical except he wields a Greatsword.
Character 1 attacks twice (assuming 16 Strength and +1 BAB) at +2/+2. His main hand deals 1d6+3, and his off hand deals 1d6+1. If both hit, he deals 2d6+4 total.
Character 2 attacks once (assuming the same) at +4. He deals 2d6+4.
I believe the number speak for themselves.
|
|
I'm not going to go deep into the mechanics, but assuming hitting all the time doesn't tell the whole story. The likelihood of the expected outcomes also figure in, with the two weapon fighter taking a -2 on each attack. There are a lot of situational considerations and this leads to interesting tactical considerations.
In any case, for OP, concentrate on your players enjoying their characters and the game. There are pros and cons to every build, which is one of the things that makes these games enjoyable. As a GM, learn to massage the combat set ups based on the party composition, both in terms of the degree of optimization, and capabilities. If the party seems particularly strong, you can throw more at them. If week, throw less. Try different encounter types and learn to recognize that not every encounter should designed to strain the party.
You can also look to the encounter composition in comparison to the party. Single bad guy encounters tend to be easier than multiple bad guys. One of the big reason is because players can't err regarding who to attack. In addition, there is less wasted overkill damage. Terrain can also make many encounters more interesting. Open field encounters are boring. :)
|
In the above examples (which are a fair reflection of the game in practice), dual-wielding shortswords seem equivalent to wielding a single greatsword, but there are other things to consider.
The greatsworder gets this attack each round because he only needs a standard action to do so and can use a move action to move up to a new foe if the one he is fighting falls, or at the start of combat. Meanwhile the shortsworder only gets his damage if he can get a full attack, possible only if his foe is already within 5-feet.
As well as taking a two-point attack penalty, the dual shortsworder needs to spend his valuable feats on keeping this style viable as the levels rise; Improved TWF, Greater TWF, Double Slice to name just three. He also needs to have a high Dex (15 then 17 then 19) to qualify for them, meaning that he's likely to have less good scores among the rest of his stats.
Meanwhile, the greatsworder can spend his feats on whatever he wants; he even gets more bang for his buck from one of the best feats, Power Attack.
I say all this as I'm in the middle of building a paladin who fights with longsword and spiked gauntlet, laughing in the face of optimisers everywhere!
3) This seems pretty powerful right out of the chute especially since he has an 16 Strength.Character 1 dual wields Short Swords with Two-Weapon Fighting.
Character 2 is identical except he wields a Greatsword.
Character 1 attacks twice (assuming 16 Strength and +1 BAB) at +2/+2. His main hand deals 1d6+3, and his off hand deals 1d6+1. If both hit, he deals 2d6+4 total.
Character 2 attacks once (assuming the same) at +4. He deals 2d6+4.
I believe the number speak for themselves.
Are you saying they're equal?
Because +2/+2 does not equal +4...
Assume AC 10 +4 hits 70% , +2/+2 hits 60% each strike. The chance for both to hit is much less.
greatsword wielder could also totally flub the first roll and not get an extra attack, where is if the dual wielder flubs roll one, he gets another attack. The differences in styles balance out, evenly.
Add in fighting with twin saw tooth sabres, and TWF pulls ahead.
Saw tooth sabres are exotic correct?
Change Greatsword to Elven Curved Blade...
Now Add DR5...
Suddenly that Single Two-hander is much more powerful...
yes because undefeatable DR5 is so common.
Skeletons...Zombies...
A Great sword at 2d6+4 will automatically inflict at least 1 point of damage versus skeletons and full versus zombies, short swords...not so much.
Flavor vs DPR...
If he wants a frikking two-weapon fighter, let him.
The guy can always take his longsword with two hands and start swinging if they ever encounter skeletons/zombies/...
Sheesh!
Or carry a Back-Up Greatsword.
True Fayth, but keep in mind weapon focus/spec and all that, I went for longsword :)
Are you saying they're equal?
Because +2/+2 does not equal +4...
Assume AC 10 +4 hits 70% , +2/+2 hits 60% each strike. The chance for both to hit is much less.
No. The original post expressed fear that Two-Weapon Fighting was too powerful. I was demonstrating that it is actually generally weaker than using a two-handed weapon (AND it costs a feat, too).
In general the TWFer can achieve multiple consistent low-damage attacks, whereas the THFer is based around a lower number of high-damage attacks. The two have approximately equivalent DPR, but the THF has greater spike damage. This makes him more useful against single creatures with high DR. Against multiple low-hp targets with low DR, the TWF can outshine the THF because in all cases excess damage is wasted, and the TWF is more likely to still have attacks available after a kill.
In other words, a TWF can mow through goblins faster than a THF, but against a big demon the THF will hands-down defeat it faster.
Due to the fact that a TWF combatant can choose to switch to being an effective (albeit less effective) THF combatant with minimal additional investment (I personally consider Power Attack to be a bit of an easy pick for either style, and Quickdraw is necessary to really pull it off), TWF offers greater tactical flexibility than THF, but at the cost of several feats and a high non-damaging stat requirement.
All of that considered, I believe TWF to be pretty well balanced against THF.
The bottom line is that TWF is always cooler than THF. This is an indesputable fact. Something to keep in mind when your character wants to impress the ladies (or gentlemen, as the case may be).
Here's the thing that you all seem to be forgetting. Due to the number of different feats and number of attacks, the TWF is more versatile than the THF. Also, once the TWF gains a few levels, the THF can't hold a candle to him; especially in damage.
So where does the balance come from? The TWF is going to be dirt poor. The feat excuse does not hold water, we're talking about fighters; Mr I get a feat each level. Strength and the -2 for dual wielding? Weapon groups take care of that.
Money? Now there's the real problem. It cost MORE to upgrade a weapon than it does armor, A LOT more. The THF doesn't have to spend as much to keep his weapon up as the TWF. Which means he can spend more of his money on other things; armor, magic items, mundane items, etc. etc. So the TWF is going to lose in the AC category. That's where your balance is. Not in how much damage they both can do, but in how much punishment they can take.
I personally only play TWF, when I'm playing a fighter, unless I'm DMing; in which case I never play them due to the power factor.
* Note: Elven curve blade is only good if you use Weapon Finesse, in which case you're actually weakening your THF damage.
Archmic, the math doesn't back you.
Hitting for one attack at 70% for the same damage with two weapons at 60% means that over time, the THW guy does more damage. In this example, he does 16% MORE damage over time then TWF guy.
The culprit here is the -2 to hit. That's 80 vs 70%, 30 vs 20%, etc. As enemies become harder to hit, what you get is a 'flurry of misses' effect.
The TWF suffers from not being able to move and use both weapons (unless he picks certain archetypes). Thta's probably at least half his combat rounds where he's going to be doing half damage.
You have to spend 3 feats on TWF, and then you get 3 extra attacks...not 4. So you aren't doubling the THW guy's attacks at higher level, either. THW guy has 3 feats he can use for better defenses, for example.
And then there's the fact he has to pay for two magical weapons, meaning he's always going to be +1 to +3 behind THW guy in primary weapon terms.
--
I'll grant the coolness factor. I just have to point out the math has been proven and doesn't support you.
A TWF build only works if you can heap on lots of extra damage per attack, generally a rogue build with lots of SA dice.
===Aelryinth
A TWF build only works if you can heap on lots of extra damage per attack, generally a rogue build with lots of SA dice.
===Aelryinth
Just want to point out that this assertion is a slight error: a TWF build works, it is just not capable of outputting as much damage as a THF build. For anyone that isn't concerned solely about pure mechanical DPR, TWF is good. If you want to maximise your DPR, THF is better. And again, if a TWF build is capable of one-shot kills (easy in the low-end game, much harder at higher levels), it can kill more targets than the THF build.
TWF also works if you're a crit-fisher, because crits are based on what you roll, i.e. 15+, and confirming is usually easier then hitting. If you want to daze or stunlock someone, TWF is a good build to do it.
Of course, just outright killing them works fine, too.
==Aelryinth
Since he's talking about dazing and stunning people using crits, he's safely assuming Critical Focus.
The bottom line is that TWF is always cooler than THF. This is an indesputable fact. Something to keep in mind when your character wants to impress the ladies (or gentlemen, as the case may be).
I sometimes feel like I'm the only person that actively dislikes dual wielding, aesthetically.
Here's the thing that you all seem to be forgetting. Due to the number of different feats and number of attacks, the TWF is more versatile than the THF. Also, once the TWF gains a few levels, the THF can't hold a candle to him; especially in damage.
Er, what? No, Two-handed weapons remain better than TWF pretty much forever. The only chance TWF gets is with large amounts of static modifiers not derived from Str or Power Attack.
Ranger's Favored Enemies, for example, can make TWF dangerous, but you've really got to have significant bonuses to attacks to make TWF stronger than Two-handing.
So where does the balance come from? The TWF is going to be dirt poor. The feat excuse does not hold water, we're talking about fighters; Mr I get a feat each level. Strength and the -2 for dual wielding? Weapon groups take care of that.
The feat excuse does hold water because having enough feats to do it and more does not mean you couldn't have used those feats for other things. The same for the -2. The Fighter gets a bonus to cancel that -2, but the Two Handed Fighter gets the same bonus, keeping them +2 to hit over the TWF--unless you go Two Weapon Warrior, of course. But really, Rangers make the best TWFers anyway, since they can ignore the Dex pre-reqs.
Money? Now there's the real problem. It cost MORE to upgrade a weapon than it does armor, A LOT more. The THF doesn't have to spend as much to keep his weapon up as the TWF. Which means he can spend more of his money on other things; armor, magic items, mundane items, etc. etc. So the TWF is going to lose in the AC category. That's where your balance is. Not in how much damage they both can do, but in how much punishment they can take.
The cost to upgrade to the next plus up is generally more than the cost of buying a second weapon at the same plus. I would think it'd make a lot more sense for them to just have a pair of +(X-1) weapons when the Two-Hander has a +X weapon, rather than losing out on so many other items.
* Note: Elven curve blade is only good if you use Weapon Finesse, in which case you're actually weakening your THF damage.
Falso, Elven Curve Blade is better than a Greatsword because of the 18-20/x2 crit range. Honestly, I think if you're Finessing it, you're "doing it wrong."
Of course the No-Dachi kind of makes the Curve Blade pointless...
Here's the thing that you all seem to be forgetting. Due to the number of different feats and number of attacks, the TWF is more versatile than the THF. Also, once the TWF gains a few levels, the THF can't hold a candle to him; especially in damage.
So where does the balance come from? The TWF is going to be dirt poor. The feat excuse does not hold water, we're talking about fighters; Mr I get a feat each level. Strength and the -2 for dual wielding? Weapon groups take care of that.
Money? Now there's the real problem. It cost MORE to upgrade a weapon than it does armor, A LOT more. The THF doesn't have to spend as much to keep his weapon up as the TWF. Which means he can spend more of his money on other things; armor, magic items, mundane items, etc. etc. So the TWF is going to lose in the AC category. That's where your balance is. Not in how much damage they both can do, but in how much punishment they can take.
I personally only play TWF, when I'm playing a fighter, unless I'm DMing; in which case I never play them due to the power factor.
* Note: Elven curve blade is only good if you use Weapon Finesse, in which case you're actually weakening your THF damage.
The math is not on your side when it comes to damage. The exception is a TWF'ing ranger with his favored ability bonus, and maybe a paladin, assuming he is high enough level to have the feats.
You can check the DPR threads, where the math has been done.
|
well soem advantages to two weapon fighting is spliting up your attack. Killing a goblin with 5 for 500000000 damage results in the same thing. If you could kill one goblin with 5 and step up and kill another at 5 again that would behoove you. Although against single enemies two handed rules.
Now where two weapon fighting starts to shine is applying sneak attack to both. If you can get a bite attack to and do 3 sneaks attacks that would be extra awesome. Granted you need to be in a good spot to do this.
Okay, let's look at some things shall we?
THF Build needs strength. So We'll assume a str and con of 16. As he levels he needs to put points into his strength and constitution; giving him 5 points. He's either going to max his damage or give himself a little more con. Since we are talking about pure damage potential I'm going to max his str so by level 20 he has 20 str; the fifth point is useless.
1.5X5=7 assuming he takes heavy blades and has a +5 bonus to his sword that gives him 16 on top of weapon damage 2d8 for a max potential of 32 non-crit and 96 crit in a single hit; assuming weapon mastery. Assuming all crits (96x4) that's 384 max potential damage.
The TWF needs str and dex. So spending 5 out of 21, 98% of the time I play human so I typically have 22, feats; double slice, Two-Weapon Fighting feats, and an exotic weapon prof of Sawtooth Sabre; has 18 str and 19 dex, assuming the 16/16 rolls. 1d8+4(str)+5(magic)+4(weapon group, assuming your dm adds the weapon to a group)=21 damage non-crit and 63 damage crit a hit. Assuming all crits (63x7) that's 441 max potential damage.
Yes I've made a few assumptions however I'm not putting up full builds of either class, only the minimum required to achieve their goals, and I've only used items that are given above; not the weapons I myself would use. But there's your math.
POTENTIAL damage for a TWF is higher than the POTENTIAL damage for a THF. So as stated before the power factor.
The percentage to hit numbers that are being run are correct but wrong at the same time. The TWF loses 3 to hit per attack; at level 20 that's 22 compared to 25, before magic and weapon group. Not really a big loss there, and if you're running up against something that your THF can barely hit with his highest roll, chances are that you've done something to piss off the DM and the 7 potential 20 rolls compared to the 4 is going to be much more helpful.
For those who spread out their feats as a fighter, cool. Your's is going to be slightly more versatile than the builds I make however you've missed on reaching the max potential of what the class is designed to do; Tank or Damage. That's why you find rogues that suck in a fight, but you can't complain when your DM hands you that sneaky mission where you can't go and slaughter everyone in the castle. You're always more than happy about your buddy who made the rogue that can find, disarm, steal, and talk her way out of ANYTHING at that point.
I didn't mean for this to get out of hand and turn into a rant, but here's my point. If you like dealing a lot of damage in a hit and still have the AC to keep your healer happy or you want to be a very diverse fighter go Two-handed; not a lot of feats for relatively good pay off and you can branch out more. If you want to scare your DM with the amount of damage you can do, but probably piss off your healer go Two-Weapon. Anyway you slice it; what you can do and what you are going to do is determined by the roll of a dice, literally.
*Note - you want want to see some percentages. Assume that your lowest two attacks are going to miss. THF =50% hit rate, 2 hits, TWF= 57% hit rate, 4 hits.
* 2nd Note - I used the +5 magic plus to prove an earlier point. +5 armor 25k gold. +5 weapon 50k gold. TWF spends 100k gold to keep his weapons on par while a THF only spends 50k gold, leaving him 50k to spend on other items.
* 3rd Note - If you're worried about a -2 to attack... why in the HECK would you use power attack as a supporting arguement? Yes, inceased damage but lowered attack... this seams counter productive to your argument.
* 4th Note - Rangers can ignore the dex prereqs but they can't ignore the loss of attack pluses, damage pluses, and AC potential of the Two-Weapon Fighter. I've proven to many a Two-Weapon Ranger that my fighter will kill them with out a second thought. The only class I've actually feared fighting is a Two-Weapon Rogue focused on killing.
well soem advantages to two weapon fighting is spliting up your attack. Killing a goblin with 5 for 500000000 damage results in the same thing. If you could kill one goblin with 5 and step up and kill another at 5 again that would behoove you. Although against single enemies two handed rules.
Now where two weapon fighting starts to shine is applying sneak attack to both. If you can get a bite attack to and do 3 sneaks attacks that would be extra awesome. Granted you need to be in a good spot to do this.
At higher levels one shotting bad guys is not likely, and by higher levels I mean by level, if not sooner.
Average damage is the most accurate way to do it, and by average damage TWF loses out. One can assume really good rolls for the TWF'er, but you can use a corner case to prove a point.
Average damage is the most accurate way to do it, and by average damage TWF loses out. One can assume really good rolls for the TWF'er, but you can use a corner case to prove a point.
While I agree that average damage is the most accurate messure but to not account for number of hits throws the real final number off. You should always assume that you miss half the time. At level 20 that's 2 misses for the THF and 3 misses for the TWF. Why these numbers? when working with fractions of things you always round up. This isn't DnD 3.5 where you can't have .5 in a skill and round down. This is simple mathematics in which you always round up at .5.
So with an average weapon damage per hit of 4.5 for the TWF, rounded up to 5, and an average weapon damage of 9 for the THF. It does look like the THF has clinched the victory.
Or has he? Assuming a 50% miss probability that gives the THF 18 weapon damage and 32 constant damage giving us 50 average damage a turn
The TWF has an average 5 weapon damage and 13 constant damage a hit, equaling 18. Which gives us 72 damage a turn. Even if we round down the numbers the TWF still wins with an average damage of 51 damage per turn.
Pound per pound the TWF wins in shear damage.
You want to beat a TWF? Break a weapon. Due to the outrageous price of maximizing damage for a TWF it's highly unlikely that he will have a spare that's on par. If you sunder his main hand weapon you've just killed his damage potential. A THF is uniquely equiped to do this due to the amount of damage he does in a hit, giving him a good chance to break through the weapons hardness and deal it damage. The only way for a TWF to really achieve the same thing is to disarm an opponent. Though if these two fighters met and both are level 20 this is impossible due to Weapon Mastery.
You should always assume that you miss half the time. At level 20 that's 2 misses for the THF and 3 misses for the TWF.
Huh? There is no way on this Earth (or any other world) that you should assume half of the attacks miss. A full DPR calculation uses actual hit chances against a target AC.
Pulling some numbers out of thin air, let's look at a TWF with +25 to hit from BAB and other bonuses, using two non-light weapons, against AC 32 (this makes the numbers a little easier to handle). Since TWF incurs a -4 penalty, our fighter is at +21/21/16/16/11/11/6. His chances of hitting are 0.5/0.5/0.25/0.25/0.05/0.05/0.05. If his average damage is, say, 30 points, his DPR is 49.5.
Our THF isn't suffering that -4 to hit, which makes his chances to hit 0.7/0.45/0.2/0.05. Because he didn't have to focus on Dex to achieve GTWF, if his average damage is a modest 40 (33% higher damage, but 43% fewer hits), he rips out 56 DPR.
While those numbers are made up, they are representative of the interaction between TWF and THF.
Hit chance matters.
Huh? There is no way on this Earth (or any other world) that you should assume half of the attacks miss. A full DPR calculation uses actual hit chances against a target AC.
Pulling some numbers out of thin air, let's look at a TWF with +25 to hit from BAB and other bonuses, using two non-light weapons, against AC 32 (this makes the numbers a little easier to handle). Since TWF incurs a -4 penalty, our fighter is at +21/21/16/16/11/11/6. His chances of hitting are 0.5/0.5/0.25/0.25/0.05/0.05/0.05. If his average damage is, say, 30 points, his DPR is 49.5.
Our THF isn't suffering that -4 to hit, which makes his chances to hit 0.7/0.45/0.2/0.05. Because he didn't have to focus on Dex to achieve GTWF, if his average damage is a modest 40 (33% higher damage, but 43% fewer hits), he rips out 56 DPR.
While those numbers are made up, they are representative of the interaction between TWF and THF.
Hit chance matters.
What you just did is a typical mistake. You've just said ANYONE WHO DOESN'T HAVE 20 BAB WILL NEVER HIT A BOSS. So in saying so, you've just nullified over half the classes in the game. Just saying.
Note - I was using my fighter example from before. Sawtooth Sabre is considered a light weapon if you have exotic weapon proficiency. Meaning that you are wielding two light weapons, -2, not two one handed weapons, -4.
32 ac versus 20 BAB isn't much of a challenge. Assuming you give your fighter 20 str. That gives you 25 plus weapon group gives you 29 plus weapon focus feats give you 31. Giving you a 95% hit chance. If we subtract 3 from that it gives us a 80% hit chance, remember I'm using the previous build and there for the TWF has three less attack than the THF.
So where did I get the 50% let's look.
95%, 70%, 45%, 20%
85%, 60%, 35%, 5%.
With these numbers I can clearly show that yes at level 20 given three less attack versus some one with 32 AC the two weapon fighter has over 50% chance to hit with his top four attacks.
With your argument lets look at I don't know... a ROGUE!
15+5(dex or str)+1(weapon focus)=21 BAB versus 32 AC, the minimum roll for a rogue to hit is 11. So lets start the table shall we?
50%, 25%, 0%
This is pure feats. Versus a target AC. So we learn two things... one; don't ever build a Rogue, not worth, and two, percentages lie. That 0% for the rogue is really a 5% due to the fact that a natural 20 always hits and you have a 5% chance of rolling any number on the dye.
Now if you're fighting something tougher and for the sake of all Fantasy Cliches lets go with an Ancient Red Dragon. A suitable Boss for a level 20 party, and just for fun let's put the Rogue up there again.
AC=38
THF minimum roll 7
70%, 55%, 30%, 5%
TWF minimum roll 10
55%, 30%, 5%, 5%
Rogue minimum roll 18
15%, 5%, 5%
Does the THF have a better shot at hitting? Yes. Does the TWF have a good chance of hitting it the same amount of times? Yes. Anything over 50% is a good chance to hit so yes. Same number of hits. Does the TWF have a better chance of scoring a hit? Yes. With 3 additional chances to hit you bet he does.
I've done the math, I've given very specific examples, with out using magic. But really, when was the last time you saw a fighter with out a tricked out weapon?
* Note - +5 weapon Raises percentages by +25 giving the TWF one more attack over 50% than a THF.
* Final Note - You can keep adding things up and adding things up to counter argue but here's the bottom line. If you're fighting something that has an AC of say... 100. That TWF has a better chance of damaging it than a THF.
This isn't DnD 3.5 where you can't have .5 in a skill and round down. This is simple mathematics in which you always round up at .5.
This is a falacy in your math. It stilts your arguement. By having 2 attacks and rounding twice, you give yourself 1 extra point of damage per round with this math. It doesn't work that way. There is no rounding in the attack. If you did the math over 2 attacks, there would be no need for rounding, which would negate your arguement.
This is a falacy in your math. It stilts your arguement. By having 2 attacks and rounding twice, you give yourself 1 extra point of damage per round with this math. It doesn't work that way. There is no rounding in the attack. If you did the math over 2 attacks, there would be no need for rounding, which would negate your arguement.
Yes you could argue that how ever for simplicity sake since you can't have .5 damage on any given attack you either round up or down. I've down examples with both .5's rounded up and with them rounded down.
Average damage is the most accurate way to do it, and by average damage TWF loses out. One can assume really good rolls for the TWF'er, but you can use a corner case to prove a point.While I agree that average damage is the most accurate messure but to not account for number of hits throws the real final number off. You should always assume that you miss half the time. At level 20 that's 2 misses for the THF and 3 misses for the TWF. Why these numbers? when working with fractions of things you always round up. This isn't DnD 3.5 where you can't have .5 in a skill and round down. This is simple mathematics in which you always round up at .5.
So with an average weapon damage per hit of 4.5 for the TWF, rounded up to 5, and an average weapon damage of 9 for the THF. It does look like the THF has clinched the victory.
Or has he? Assuming a 50% miss probability that gives the THF 18 weapon damage and 32 constant damage giving us 50 average damage a turn
The TWF has an average 5 weapon damage and 13 constant damage a hit, equaling 18. Which gives us 72 damage a turn. Even if we round down the numbers the TWF still wins with an average damage of 51 damage per turn.
Pound per pound the TWF wins in shear damage.
The number for average damage does account for the number of hits. It does it down to the decimal level. By saying you hit X% of the time it says you hit ____ times per combat. That is why it is more accurate. Saying you hit half the time is not accurate because it does not account for the difference between builds, and leads to wildly inaccurate DPR numbers. The DPR numbers also match what I often see at the table barring a string of lucky or unlucky rolls.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
What you just did is a typical mistake. You've just said ANYONE WHO DOESN'T HAVE 20 BAB WILL NEVER HIT A BOSS. So in saying so, you've just nullified over half the classes in the game. Just saying.
I don't see where he said anything like that...
32 ac versus 20 BAB isn't much of a challenge. Assuming you give your fighter 20 str. That gives you 25 plus weapon group gives you 29 plus weapon focus feats give you 31. Giving you a 95% hit chance. If we subtract 3 from that it gives us a 80% hit chance, remember I'm using the previous build and there for the TWF has three less attack than the THF.
I don't think anyone was using level 20, but if you want to, the real numbers would be closer to:
+20 BAB + 12 (Str starts at 18, +5 from levels, +5 inherent + 6 enhancement) + 5 (enhancement on his weapon) + 6 (Weapon Training and Gloves of Dueling) + 2 (Weapon Focus and Greater Weapon Focus) - 6 (Power Attack) = +39/+34/+29/+24
The TWF guy has all of that, except his attacks have a minus 2 penalty and he couldn't get as high a strength because he needed so much Dex, so we'll assume only a 30 Strength. That means +35/+35/+30/+30/+25/+25/+20 (and he spent four extra feats for EWP, Double Slice, and TWF, ITWF, and GTWF).
The two-handed weapon guy deals 2d6 + 18 (Strength) + 18 (Power Attack) + 6 (Weapon Training/Gloves of Dueling) + 5 (Enhancement) + 4 (Weapon Spec and Greater Weapon Spec) = 2d6 + 51 = 58 average.
The TWFer's main hand deals 1d8 + 10 (Str) + 12 (Power Attack) + 6 (Weapon Training/Gloves of Dueling) + 5 (Enhancement) + 4 (Weapon Spec and GWS) = 1d8 + 37 (41.5 average) and his offhand deals the same, but only 6 from Power Attack, so 1d8 + 31 (35.5 average).
Both characters have either Keen weapons or Improved Critical, so they're threatening a crit 20% of the time, and Critical Focus is so obvious that they likely have +4 to confirm.
Now, I looked at some random CR 20 enemies, and they seem to average an AC ~38. I'm going to notate it as Hit chance(Crit chance)
The Two-Handed guy has 76%(19%)/61%(19%)/44%(16%)/24%(11%) which gives an average of 194.3 DPR.
The TWF has 71%(19%)/71%(19%)/48%(16%)/48%(16%)/28%(12%)/28%(12%)/12.75%(2.25%) for an average dpr of 107.17375 main hand and 85.555 off-hand. That's 192.72875 DPR.
In other words, you still deal less DPR while TWFing, and you spent four more feats than the Two-Hander to get there.
With your argument lets look at I don't know... a ROGUE!
This seems like a joke, but I'll do it anyway.
A Rogue is going to be significantly worse, because they will be significantly behind in hit chance. Even if they had the same Strength of 20, they're down 5 BAB, 6 from Weapon Training, and 1 from GWF. And there's no way he can fit Critical Focus in his build. The only "benefit" is 2 fewer points of penalties from Power Attack.
The Rogue's attack bonuses, even assuming flanking, are going to be in the realm of +27/+27/+22/+22/+17/+17.
Their damage is not so great, either. Their main hand is going to have 1d8 + 23 (27.5), while the off-hand is 1d8 + 19 (23.5). Each hit will also land 10d6 Sneak Attack damage (for 35 average), but that doesn't multiply on a crit.
With hit chances of 40%(10%)/40%(10%)/20%(5%)/20%(5%)/4.75%(.25%)/4.75%(.25%), you're looking at abysmal DPR.
Main Hand would be 28.4525, his offhand 22.38375, and his sneak attack between the two hands (which doesn't double on a crit) is 56, for a sad, sad total of 106.83625 DPR, barely more than half of what the fighters had. Hint: Rogues are terrible at fighting.
15+5(dex or str)+1(weapon focus)=21 BAB versus 32 AC, the minimum roll for a rogue to hit is 11. So lets start the table shall we?
50%, 25%, 0%
The 32 AC figure was not at level 20. Level 20 ACs are much higher.
This is pure feats. Versus a target AC. So we learn two things... one; don't ever build a Rogue, not worth,
Ok, good, you knew that. Now I wish I didn't do all that math. :)
But yeah, the ultimate answer is that Two Handed fighting is better than Two Weapon Fighting AND it costs fewer feats. You need big bonuses to hit and damage--Ranger favored enemy, Paladin smiting, etc.--to make TWF compete, and even if it does more, it still just costs too many feats to be worth it. That's why Rangers are the best (possibly only truly viable) TWFers, because you can dump Dex and get the feats free without pre-reqs.
Oh, and double weapons are almost universally better than the Sawtooth Sabres, because you can Two-Hand them for bonus damage on AoOs or single attacks.