I did actually mention up thread that I thought a strength to reflex saves feat made sense. I don't disagree with the statement that dexterity is the better defensive ability, but I think that we need to be honest. Dexterity does not make you have better armor class in general, your basic armor class will be equivalent and your touch ac will be much better while your armor class when denied dex will be atrocious. I call that relatively equivalent.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Honestly, if the goal of a character's build is to deal damage, then I see no reason why a nimble 2 weapon fighter shouldn't deal exactly the same damage as a 2 handed fighter of the same level. Both characters if optimized should be able to achieve the same damage with approximately the same defensive capability despite each using completely different methods to achieve those goals.
Whether or not pathfinder can achieve that degree of balance is another matter entirely.
IMHO a nimble warrior should be able to defeat the same foes, but over a slightly longer span of time since typically he can rely on better defensive capability.
Ultimately, both fail to cut the mustard beside a well built enchanted (caster focus on mind effects, not necessarily the specialist wizard specifically) at pretty much any level.
|
Dex based builds are more versital
Pros:
Better long range Ranged attacks
Dex skills
Reflex saves
Lighter armor so better movement (armor training on fighters helps, but I'm not limiting my comment to fighters)
Cons:
Less feats available due to needing weapon finess/dervish dance/slashing grace etc.
Tends to do less damage if not an archer
Worse at swimming and climbing but that might not matter ever
While it's true that both strength and dexterity can represent agility to some extent, strength is more about the power and speed, while dexterity is more about the concentration and precision.
What I don't get is why people are having a problem with strength being the "kill people dead" stat, which is pretty much all it's really good for in this game besides lifting. Dexterity is the stat one uses to "use finesse and precision to move around unnoticed". It hardly makes sense for a character recklessly rushing into combat making wild swings. These definitions make sense if you dig deeper into the past iterations and truly understand why they were called ability scores.
It would be interesting is if dexterity could possibly raise the chance to critical OR raise the damage from a critical hit, which would fall in line with the precision definition of dexterity. It wouldn't be effective on things that ignore precision damage, but that is all part of the game.
Maybe it's just my own preference, but I'd like to see less "make all abilities focused on x stat" which is one of my pet peeves with 5th edition. Isn't the point of having separate stats to have them represent different things?
I'd rather see the game take a direction that makes all ability scores viable for any class. To see more distribution and to see it be effective.
Personally, I'm just tired of 2handed combat being the end all be all melee damage king.
Every other melee fighting style tends to be, for some reason, vastly worse than the 2hander. You're taxed horribly to take on any other fighting style which is inevitably less effective than the 2hander.
The reason why Two Weapon Fighting never stacks up to 2handers is the vast costs to maintain their usefulness. Paying for two weapons, the extra feats and so forth. Meanwhile the 2hander grabs Power Attack and isn't hamstrung by DR.
The problem is not that Str builds are too strong, but that other builds are really ineffective (with TWF being possible the weakest one).
Try to do anything other than wield a 2-handed weapon and spam full-attacks with your martial character and the system will force you to spend countless feats to do it, none of which scale with level or BAB... And to make things worse, you'll probably need an unreasonably high secondary (or even tertiary) attribute too; be it Dex for TWF or Int for maneuver feats.
If other combat styles were not so heavily punished by the rules,we'd see a much greater character variety... But as long as we need 3+ feats just to do your job, 2-handed Str builds will be the only real choice for any moderately optimized character...
|
Frankly - in a straight melee combat - sword & board is every bit as good as a two-handed fighter. The extra AC cancels out the extra damage gained by a two-handed weapon.
(for this comparison I'm ignoring TWF/shield bash trees - 3 way comparisons are tricky & I don't want to deal with that here)
For example - a level 4 fighter with identical stats at level 5.
+12 to hit.
+5 strength bonus
+1 magic weapon
They either have +10 to hit with 2d6+17 damage (7 strength+ 1 magic+ 2 weapon spec + 1 weapon training +6 power attack) with an AC of 21 (+1 full plate)
Or the sword & board fighter is at +10 to hit with (assuming a feat spent on exotic weapon instead of power attack to balance the builds) 1d10+9 damage (5 strength+ 1 magic+ 2 weapon spec + 1 weapon training) with an AC of 26 (+1 full plate & +1 tower shield).
The two-handed fighter will hit the tower shield 1/4 of the time for an average of 24 damage each, or an average of 6 damage a swing. (ignoring crits as they balance between the two builds)
The sword & board fighter will hit the two-handed fighter 1/2 of the time for an average of 14.5 damage, or an average of 7.25 damage a swing.
Therefore in a duel - the sword & board fighter would actually have a slight edge over the two-handed fighter in this example.
The reason that the two-handed fighter is still the overall better build is two-fold.
1. There are defenses other than AC which the shield does nothing to protect against. Touch AC/saves etc (and yes - I know you can deflect a ray with you shield & enough feats - but that's a pretty small % of everything) And the tower shield actually can help somewhat due to the full cover option, but those situations are pretty rare.
2. Offense helps you put down threats faster & your AOOs are more likely to keep foes from smashing the squishy party members. Having high AC doesn't really help the rest of the party much. About the only way I can think of is the Antagonize feat, which even the errata'd version seems controversial despite being rather limited.
So - I'd suggest a feat let wielding a shield boost your saves. It makes sense. For reflex it's obvious (same logic as cover) but even for other saves there's an argument to be made that, at least in the case of a magic shield, that the enchanted shield absorbs some of the magical power out away from your body. (perhaps the bonus to saves is equal to 1/2 the AC bonus rounded down)
As for problem #2 - I'd suggest a feat (perhaps chained off of step-up) which allows people with shields to step in the path of someone in place of a normal AOO and force them to either stop in their tracks or try to overrun the shield-user.
Well - this post ended up being WAY longer than I'd first planned. :P
If other combat styles were not so heavily punished by the rules,we'd see a much greater character variety... But as long as we need 3+ feats just to do your job, 2-handed Str builds will be the only real choice for any moderately optimized character...
Two-Weapon characters can be devastating, but they involve deliberately setting out ways to exploit the hell out of the fact that you have extra attacks - and somehow overcome the problems with abilities. The Guide Ranger archetype can be really brutal with strength and two weapons, for example; other strength-based builds can do it by securing 17 dex through dual talent or whatever, which really isn't that hard to do. Slashing Grace also opens up the possibility of making it powerful. If there's an issue with dual wield, it's that you can't just roll up any old martial character and have it be good.
Charon, PvP analyses aren't particularly accurate, since this game isn't based (or balanced) around PvP.
You compare them to CR appropriate monsters...which the 2H fighter will kill MUCH quicker. Almost twice as fast.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Charon, PvP analyses aren't particularly accurate, since this game isn't based (or balanced) around PvP.
You compare them to CR appropriate monsters...which the 2H fighter will kill MUCH quicker. Almost twice as fast.
I know. Hence...
The reason that the two-handed fighter is still the overall better build is two-fold.
Please read the whole post before criticizing. The bolded was what led to the whole 2nd half of the post.
Our party has 3 melee characters and a mage (I'm the mage. with 3 melee characters, I tend to focus on buffing allies since our GM has insane luck with saving throws and buffs will almost always pay off.)
We're level 6.
In order of effectiveness in combat, we have:
our warpriest, who uses a magic gauntlet, heavy armor and a heavy shield. He tends to drop a Fervor-Battlemight as a swift action to open, then just pummels enemies with his rather nasty unarmed damage dice and heavily enchanted weapon.
Our THF/TWF straight fighter. He combos a greataxe and armor spikes, has every sunder feat he can get his hands on, and is generally pretty badass on paper. He also dumped wisdom. So far for 6th level he's done a total of 8 damage, and that was with his sling, since we've fought Harpies twice (and he repeatedly flunked his will save repeatedly both times. Repeatedly! I now ready protection from evil at all times to help him with his +0 modifier... repeatedly!), and after that he picked a fight with some cyclopses with heavy crossbows at the top of a cliff while he was at the bottom. Not a necessary fight, he just decided to draw weapons after they helped us for no apparent reason. We ran away with our tails between our legs on that one, though to be fair the rest of the party was already leaving after the parley was complete and we just double-timed it when stuff hit the spinney thing. Finally we took on some sand worms of some description which came in, bit us, then fled while their poison did its thing. They aimed for the horses so he was too busy pulling himself up after his horse dumped him on the ground to do anything.
Finally we have our Slayer. Two daggers, no brains. She plays very in your face despite claiming to be a sneaky backstabbing type, primarily due to the player having no idea what they're doing. Very rarely gets sneak attack or even flanking, and tends to be easily bluffed during a fight. (At one point we were in the middle of a battle and one of the enemies yelled out that we were on the wrong side. Slayer immediately leaves melee to go and find the leader of our side and ask them some questions. :Facepalm:)
Our THF/TWF straight fighter. He combos a greataxe and armor spikes,That isn't allowed. It's been FAQ'd.
Shhh! Don't tell our DM that! Anyway, it's not exactly game breaking at this point, as mentioned above.
Damn it, I shouldn't have taken that honestly disadvantage for those extra character points. I'll have to tell my GM and see if we can work something out.
Our THF/TWF straight fighter. He combos a greataxe and armor spikes,That isn't allowed. It's been FAQ'd.
Dumbest FAQ evar!
Charon, PvP analyses aren't particularly accurate, since this game isn't based (or balanced) around PvP.
You compare them to CR appropriate monsters...which the 2H fighter will kill MUCH quicker. Almost twice as fast.
I know. Hence...
The reason that the two-handed fighter is still the overall better build is two-fold.Please read the whole post before criticizing. The bolded was what led to the whole 2nd half of the post.
I did. What I'm saying is the comparison that led off "in a straight melee combat - sword & board is every bit as good as a two-handed fighter" is inherently flawed because of the scenario you used to prove that.
Though I will say IMO a true Sword and Board build (with Shield Slam, Shield Master, TWFing, etc.) is as good as a 2H build. Has a solid amount of versatility, good defenses, and dishes out at least as much damage (since the shield bashes ignore the TWFing penalty that is the bane of most TWFing builds).
Dumbest FAQ evar!Our THF/TWF straight fighter. He combos a greataxe and armor spikes,That isn't allowed. It's been FAQ'd.
It's up there.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Between melee styles here's the reasons:
Two-handed fighting is "easy", once you have Power attack you're set, everything else you add on top of it in feats or class features is just an extra bonus (High str / weapon spec/ rage, etc) or a different way of doing things (Cornugon smash / Reach, etc).
This low intensity fighting style shines like a supernova at early levels compared to:
Two weapon fighting, which requires an initial feat along with a feat tax every few levels to stay relevant. Additionally you must have a sufficient DEX score to do it, which is inefficient for many characters. Despite the costs the payoff tends to be unimpressive, Two weapon fighters are completely gimped when they cannot make a full attack and they are vulnerable to DR.
Two-weapon fighting can beat two-handing in damage and AC if built well. But only when full-attacking.
Two handed fighting also tends to roll over Sword & Boarding.
Using a one-handed weapon and a shield means you get a much bigger AC, at the cost of offense, a one-handed fighting style does as much as 40% less damage per attack then a two handed fighter of equal level. A shield fighting style also tends to depend on a lot of feats, though the payoff is much more reliable then two-weapon fighting. An innate downside to using a shield is that in many circumstances the shield is useless (attacks that require saves instead of AC) and pathfinder generally favors aggression.
Sword & Board beats two-handing in versatility and survivability, you can always put down the shield and wield your weapon in both hands.
Archery is a fighting style favorable over two handing.
Archery is very feat dependent, similar to two-weapon fighting, but Archery has very good payoff for many of the core archery feats, dealing great damage at enough range to make many battles moot, they're over before the monsters ever get to make an attack, just like it is for some spellcasters. The downside here is that you're not playing the role a two-hander does, an archer does damage from a safe distance while two-hander's usually play the role of team HP tank in addition to their damage role, you wouldnt' put an archery specialist on the frontline anymore then you would a Wizard (Unless the wizard or archer has some special training or spell, of which there is a lot in pathfinder).
Sadly I feel that the game lacks a One-handing fighting style, as this style is both cinematic and realistic, a free hand holding nothing is just as good as a shield in many close-up fights, and a single hand can wield a weapon in precise ways never possible in two. Swashbucklers are the only ones who can pull this off I guess.
.
Summary:
Two-handed fighting is a low-cost and action efficient fighting style. With moderate dedication you can pick up two-handing and be very competent in melee, even if your main focus is something entirely different (such as spellcasting as a cleric).
The ease of which you can be inducted into this fighting style makes it the very best method of combat at levels 1-3.
.
Extra
If you want the best of both worlds in terms of spellcasting and melee in a short story lasting only so many levels or sessions (such as the first book in an adventure path) you could build a strength focused spellcaster (even a full caster such as wizard, initial Str 16-17, con 12-14, int 13-15, dump cha & wis).
Flip everyone off while you go around mulching every encounter with your monster Str + Power attack damage and beating every puzzle with your magic, just watch your HP.
Also: I find it hilarious that someone above said full casters and gunslingers were both too good in the same breath....
Why? They are. Not understanding your amusement.
It's up there.Dumbest FAQ evar!Our THF/TWF straight fighter. He combos a greataxe and armor spikes,That isn't allowed. It's been FAQ'd.
Talked to my GM. He's decided to ignore the FAQ on that one.
Though I will say IMO a true Sword and Board build (with Shield Slam, Shield Master, TWFing, etc.) is as good as a 2H build. Has a solid amount of versatility, good defenses, and dishes out at least as much damage (since the shield bashes ignore the TWFing penalty that is the bane of most TWFing builds).
Not to mention Shield Master cuts down on the enchanting cost, which is the other bane of TWF builds.
Why? They are. Not understanding your amusement.
Also: I find it hilarious that someone above said full casters and gunslingers were both too good in the same breath....
The thing is, they're very different types of too good.
The Gunslinger is the ultimate one-trick pony. The class can devastate most published combat encounters by virtue of "ranged attack with Dex-to-damage vs. touch AC." However, that's about all the gunslinger can do. He has almost no in-class ability to solve problems in any way other than shooting.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
just because the scope of gunslinger isn't as big as the full casters doesn't mean it's not too good for what it does. He makes a lot of combats really easy for him. casters do the same thing with combat. just because casters can do stuff out of combat doesn't lessen others ability to trivialize combat.
Dumbest FAQ evar!Our THF/TWF straight fighter. He combos a greataxe and armor spikes,That isn't allowed. It's been FAQ'd.
Not really. About on par with the flurry with two weapons, the crane wing nerf and the most recent stacking FAQ.
just because the scope of gunslinger isn't as big as the full casters doesn't mean it's not too good for what it does. He makes a lot of combats really easy for him. casters do the same thing with combat. just because casters can do stuff out of combat doesn't lessen others ability to trivialize combat.
Yeah, the gunslinger might be a one-trick pony, but whenever he can apply his one trick (and its hard to stop him too often without obviously countering it) he can dish out terrifying damage.
I stand corrected, Umbranus.
Not really. About on par with the flurry with two weapons, the crane wing nerf and the most recent stacking FAQ.Dumbest FAQ evar!Our THF/TWF straight fighter. He combos a greataxe and armor spikes,That isn't allowed. It's been FAQ'd.
I missed the crane wing errata... I just went and looked at it, and it seems to make crane riposte completely unusable now, is that right?
just because the scope of gunslinger isn't as big as the full casters doesn't mean it's not too good for what it does. He makes a lot of combats really easy for him. casters do the same thing with combat. just because casters can do stuff out of combat doesn't lessen others ability to trivialize combat.Yeah, the gunslinger might be a one-trick pony, but whenever he can apply his one trick (and its hard to stop him too often without obviously countering it) he can dish out terrifying damage.
Exactly. Full casters and gunslingers are too good for different reasons, but both are still pretty obviously too good.
Anything that can routinely trivialize equal CR encounters when you just build it "correctly" (meaning you "optimize" insofar as you choose your resources efficiently, but you employ no unobvious optimization tricks)is pretty much by definition "too good." By this definition, approximately half the classes (all full casters plus magus, gunslinger, warpriest, alchemist, summoner and probably paladin and inquisitor) are too good (as is almost anything if you make it an archer). Such a state of affairs is frankly unbelievable in a major game system, and Paizo's failure to address it significantly is outrageous.
Or anyway it would be outrageous if there were simply more outrage about it. But between the people who can't be bothered to learn optimization and therefore need the game to stay very easy, and the optimization munchkins who enjoy trammeling encounters, there are simply too many people who actually enjoy the current, absurd status quo.
There is also a third category of overly complacent people who have no interest in organized play and have fully internalized and accepted that CR is meaningless and that the nature of the game is to have GMs balance everything internally at their own table in their own home game, every time. This group is understandable, but I would suggest to anyone in it that you are like people who vote against their own interests in an election. While everything you believe about the game is true, a reasonable game simply should not exist in such a state, at least not to the degree that it currently does. Furthermore you take far too much work onto yourselves, and off the plate of the designers ( who should be doing it) when you think this way. Finally, although you personally are not interested in organized play, know that some people are and that your approach to gaming is, in organized play, simply untenable.
In short, we have been held hostage for as long as the game has been around by a tea-party-like* element among our constituency that is allowed to run amok due to widespread complacency, and it doesn't show any signs of stopping. Well, at least there's 5th edition now, a game that, whatever its flaws, takes balance issues seriously (for the first 10 levels, anyway). Honestly, I would much rather play Pathfinder, or at least the game that Pathfinder could be. But it's never going to become that until we stop supporting its dysfunction.
*I mean this only in that this group has a position that is extreme and uncompromising, and they raise a fuss and vocally oppose any action that seeks a moderating solution (as evidenced by their vociferous opposition to things like the Crane Wing errata and the armor spike TWF FAQ, etc)
Anything that can routinely trivialize equal CR encounters when you just build it "correctly" (meaning you "optimize" insofar as you choose your resources efficiently, but you employ no unobvious optimization tricks)is pretty much by definition "too good." By this definition, approximately half the classes (all full casters plus magus, gunslinger, warpriest, alchemist, summoner and probably paladin and inquisitor) are too good (as is almost anything if you make it an archer). Such a state of affairs is frankly unbelievable in a major game system, and Paizo's failure to address it significantly is outrageous.
Alternatively, equal CR encounters are supposed to be trivial, which explains why most reasonably-built characters can handle them effectively. As SKR put it some time ago, "the PCs are supposed to win."
An equal CR encounter is supposed to provide enjoyment for the group and use up a small-to-moderate amount of daily resources. Only above-CR encounters are supposed to be "challenging."
My general rule of thumb is that a below-APL encounter should not require daily resources, only unlimited resources (e.g. cantrips and the fighter swinging his sword). Equal-CR enounters might require spells, channels, and uses-per-day, but nothing persistent. Only when you get to APL+1 or APL+2 encounters should you need to burn potions, wand charges, and similar long-term items.
|
|
I am not someone who plays organized games, but i have played and DM'd plenty of games at home. I can't believe that the modules out today for PFS don't include everything an even semi thoughtful GM with enough time to properly prepare for his game can't use to counter all these one trick ponies and "unbalanced" sillyness everyone is whining about.
Statements like this one:
its hard to stop him too often without obviously countering it
Are pretty much everything that is wrong with GM's these days.
In my (slightly less than humble) opinion, any GM who doesn't take the time to really think about what the NPC/Monster element of what his encounters are capable of, and in the case of planned hostile encounters, make every effort to kill as many PC's as possible in as intelligent a way as makes sense for the foe, is doing his players a disservice. By mollycoddling the party and going out of their way to preserve them from their own stupidity or bad luck, GM's are robbing their encounters of realism and taking away too much of what makes this game challenging.
The bottom line: Stop whining and do your research. Let your players know upfront that they better be ready or encounters will kill them. And above all, don't be afraid to pick on their weaknesses and turn their strengths against them.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Statements like this one:
its hard to stop him too often without obviously countering itAre pretty much everything that is wrong with GM's these days.
In my (slightly less than humble) opinion, any GM who doesn't take the time to really think about what the NPC/Monster element of what his encounters are capable of, and in the case of planned hostile encounters, make every effort to kill as many PC's as possible in as intelligent a way as makes sense for the foe, is doing his players a disservice.
I think you may be misunderstanding M. Qordath. The problem isn't with what the BBEG does, it's what the Game Master does. A fourth level bandit king should certainly be smart enough to take cover against a gunfighter and even to have other ranged weapon henchmen available to provide counter-battery fire against the gunman (if he knows that an attack by a gunfighter is likely).
But he shouldn't have a bunch of improbably high-level anti-missile spells put in specifically to prevent the gunfighter from doing massive damage.
And the horde of zombies and skeletons in the graveyard outside his fortress shouldn't even be taking cover.
When you've encountered four groups in a row, all of whom are independently under a Protection from Arrows spell, that's not the BBEG acting intelligently, but the Game Master acting like a jerk.
Similarly, just because there's a slumber witch in the party doesn't mean that every NPC going forward should have the Improved Iron Will feat.
So, while I agree with you that "in the case of planned hostile encounters, [the BBEG should] make every effort to kill as many PC's as possible in as intelligent a way as makes sense," it's important to note that not all encounters are planned, and not all potential countermeasures make sense for all foes -- and, in fact, I'd suggest that no single countermeasure makes sense for every foe.
|
|
I'm not even talking about tailoring spell lists or feats, but why can't the bandit leader use cover to approach the gunslinger (even if cover means meatshield minions) and then charge up and sunder that firearm? even without improved sunder, the potential detriment to the enemy makes it more than worth the risk. And as for protection from arrows, if the enemy caster has had an opportunity to become familiar with the party and knows they're coming, why not? That's not acting like a jerk, that's taking reasonable counter measures. Skeletons and zombies? Well the solution there is to just add more, there's always room for jello.
Honestly, if the goal of a character's build is to deal damage, then I see no reason why a nimble 2 weapon fighter shouldn't deal exactly the same damage as a 2 handed fighter of the same level. Both characters if optimized should be able to achieve the same damage with approximately the same defensive capability despite each using completely different methods to achieve those goals.
Except in theory, the two hande fighter has other advantages over the 2 weapon fighter. Namely a higher dexterity, which can translate to a number of positives that the two handed build doesn't match. Namely, better saves, better stats in a useful set of skills. The non-stabing options that two weapon fighting and a higher dex can provide (higher defenses, extra effects added due to additional attacks made).
So if you want the two weapon fighter to be equal to the task of a two handed fighter in dealing out death, you have to prodive the 2hander with the added features the two weapon gets.
Whether or not pathfinder can achieve that degree of balance is another matter entirely.
IMHO a nimble warrior should be able to defeat the same foes, but over a slightly longer span of time since typically he can rely on better defensive capability.
Isnt this already the case? If you eliminate the higher cost of 2 magic weapons (which I do in my game) then they can do just this with the right options.
I'm not even talking about tailoring spell lists or feats, but why can't the bandit leader use cover to approach the gunslinger (even if cover means meatshield minions) and then charge up and sunder that firearm? even without improved sunder, the potential detriment to the enemy makes it more than worth the risk.
I don't have any issue with that.
And as for protection from arrows, if the enemy caster has had an opportunity to become familiar with the party and knows they're coming, why not?
Because a typical fourth-level bandit captain doesn't have access to second-level spells -- if he does, then that's a very expensive spell slot that one of his henchmen is routinely casting on him, and therefore doesn't have available for a web spell or an invisibility spell, which might well be more useful.
Except in theory, the two hande fighter has other advantages over the 2 weapon fighter. Namely a higher dexterity, which can translate to a number of positives that the two handed build doesn't match. Namely, better saves, better stats in a useful set of skills. The non-stabing options that two weapon fighting and a higher dex can provide (higher defenses, extra effects added due to additional attacks made).
So if you want the two weapon fighter to be equal to the task of a two handed fighter in dealing out death, you have to prodive the 2hander with the added features the two weapon gets.
I think you mixed up two handed fighter and two weapon fighter in your first sentence, but otherwise I strongly agree with this sentiment.
If you make two weapon fighters deal as much damage as a two handed fighter, then the two handed fighter needs equal initiative, AC, and reflex saves to the TWF. Because otherwise you are strictly making the TWF superior to the THF.
And the Swashbuckler is coming close. Not with actual two weapon fighting, but in DPR in a round it comes close to a fighter and offers better defenses than a fighter does.
Twf is down a tonne of feats for that defensive advantage. I would think the feat investment makes it reason able.
|
|
Because a typical fourth-level bandit captain doesn't have access to second-level spells -- if he does, then that's a very expensive spell slot that one of his henchmen is routinely casting on him, and therefore doesn't have available for a web spell or an invisibility spell, which might well be more useful.
And as for protection from arrows, if the enemy caster has had an opportunity to become familiar with the party and knows they're coming, why not?
In which case he chooses the option which makes the absolute best sense for a character of his intelligence/wisdom who wants to kill the players. What ever choice causes more blood to flow faster.
|
|
Twf is down a tonne of feats for that defensive advantage. I would think the feat investment makes it reason able.
I agree, the required Minimum feat+Dex investment for 2 weapons (TWF, ITWF, GTWF, Dex 17) is enough by itself to justify a well built 2 weapon fighter (as in person with 2 weapons regardless of class) being the equal of a THF build in terms of damage output.
Twf is down a tonne of feats for that defensive advantage. I would think the feat investment makes it reason able.
Except its not, because the 2handed fighter doesnt have feats available to his style of combat that offer the same benefits. Just because one style requires an investment, does not offset its advanges. That investment is precisely there because of the advantage being dextrous over being strong supplies. Theres no feat a strong guy can take to add his strength to acrobatics, stealth, disable devices, ride and fly checks. Theres no feat to allow the strong guy to add his strength to his reflex save, or to his ac. Theres no special feat that adds to a 2handed fighter's ac that is exclusive to 2handed fighting.
If there was, then yes, the two styles should do the same damage. Since there isnt, even with the feat investment, there has to be an end game advantage (after all feats have been taken) for 2handed fighting. The only thing it is good for is doing damage, so it SHOULD have the advantage there, since it cannot gain the advantages of other styles of combat.
Twf is down a tonne of feats for that defensive advantage. I would think the feat investment makes it reason able.
I think a tonne, my metric friend, is a bit of an exaggeration. Technically, two weapon fighting requires no feats. You take huge penalties, but it is not required. However, the practical matter of it is two feats, and a third provides a nice damage boost. Two Weapon Fighting, Improved Two Weapon Fighting, and Double Slice.
In my opinion the real problem is how high the requirements are for dex to pick up the feats. This is why rangers/slayers excel at TWF and are pretty much the only classes to do so because they can ignore dex for the most part instead focus on pumping their strength. I think if you lowered the dex require by 2 for all the TWF related feats it would be a fair compensation to making TWF viable. You still would have quite as much damage (I don't think) but it would increase and you would have slightly decrease defenses, but still more than a straight THF.
The only thing it is good for is doing damage, so it SHOULD have the advantage there, since it cannot gain the advantages of other styles of combat.
This! Exactly this! The only the strength has is damage. If it doesn't have the advantage there, and doesn't have anything else it's good for (ignoring carrying capacity), then what would be the point of even having strength as a stat? It would become pointless for anyone to make strength builds if it wasn't better in some way than a dex based build. If you hand out strength build damage to dex builds then it leaves nothing for strength to do.
I do not mean this offensively, but I fear it will come off as such, but I think a lot of people here a lamenting because they are fan boys of dex builds, which if fine, but you need to think of it from a greater perspective than what would benefit you. I agree TWF could be rebalanced so it is more viable than the current rules allow, but saying that the developers should make it such that it does that same damage as a strength build is completely absurd.
|
|
I honestly lament nothing, I know I can build a Dex based TWF that will hold its own against a THF build, it's a little tougher in the early levels, but by "end game" it will be as effective or more effective.
All I'm saying is that this should be the case more often than not. I think what bothers many is that they want dex based nimble Fighters (class) that rival str based 2H Fighters or barbarians for Raw damage.
What they should be doing instead is looking at ways to capitalize on dex based rogue builds that can eventually achieve sneak attack every round, and do not have difficulty arranging for full attack actions (Dimensional Dervish comes to mind) and then understand that achieving this is a dedication to task type build where you focus everything you have at it to the exclusion of everything else.
So, in essence, because two handed fighters don't have feats like improved initiative and lightning reflexes... The two weapon fighter should not do as much damage?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
So, in essence, because two handed fighters don't have feats like improved initiative and lightning reflexes... The two weapon fighter should not do as much damage?
Because they dont have feats that non-strength characters cannot make use of correct. If the two weapon (dextrous) fighter has feats that match the 2handed (strength) fighter's advantages, then the reverse must be true. And those cant be feats the two weapon fighter can also take.
Basically unless there are feats that add strength to all the stuff that dex adds, dex based builds shouldnt do as much damage with the investment of feats. Period.
Also, these so called defense benefits are derived entirely from having a high dex score, which a two hander can have as well. They'll still do more damage than the twfer equivalent.
|
|
Also, these so called defense benefits are derived entirely from having a high dex score, which a two hander can have as well. They'll still do more damage than the twfer equivalent.
At low levels - yes. But with double-slice, a TWF can get their strength bonus to damage twice, while a THF only gets it 1.5 times. (At low levels the THF will still do more - but not at higher levels.) Plus as you level, the TWF gets the benefit of static bonuses such as weapon spec. double what a THF gets.
But the main argument isn't a strength THF build vs a strength TWF build, but rather a THF build vs a TWF build that gets dex to damage.
Meh, if your going to spend all your money and at least five levels worth of feats to get a ten percent advantage in damage as long as nobody moves... I'm not going to loose sleep over it. One dimensional characters are one dimensional.
There is no balance issue there, move along.
|
|
Meh, if your going to spend all your money and at least five levels worth of feats to get a ten percent advantage in damage as long as nobody moves... I'm not going to loose sleep over it. One dimensional characters are one dimensional.
There is no balance issue there, move along.
And that's an argument that you're free to make. It has valid points.
I'm not going to weigh in there. I just want to make sure that you come in using the correct #s etc.
(And grammar - is should be "lose sleep" :P)
You can use items to qualify for feats (see Valeros). So you can TWF and still main stat strength.
In fact the dual-shields fighter is easily the best melee combat style.