Hmmm... Comparing 2 Fighters at 10th level. Both have Weapon Focus, Weapon Specialization, Greater Weapon Focus, Improved Critical and Weapon training with their main weapon.
Other than their weapons, their gear is exactly the same.
Notice that Gloves of Dueling are probably not affordable at this level, but I included an extra calculation taking them in consideration anyway.
Target AC is 24 (Average AC for CR 10 creatures).
Normal: +20/+20/+15/+15; 1d4+12
Average DPR: 67.28
Average DPR with Haste: 92.80
With Power Attack: +17/+17/+12/+12; 1d4+18 & 1d4+15
Average DPR: 88.16
Average DPR with Haste: 123.76
With Gloves of Dueling: +22/+22/+17/+17; 1d4+14
Average DPR: 87.12
Average DPR with Haste: 114.84
With Gloves of Dueling + Power Attack: +19/+19/+14/+14; 1d4+20 & 1d4+17
Average DPR: 90.72
Average DPR with Haste: 119.52
Normal: +23/+18; 2d4+16
Average DPR: 57.12
Average DPR with Haste: 90,72
With Power Attack: +20/+17; 2d4+25
Average DPR: 74.40
Average DPR with Haste: 122.40
With Gloves of Dueling: +25/+20; 2d4+18
Average DPR: 66.24
Average DPR with Haste: 103.04
With Gloves of Dueling + Power Attack: +22/+26; 2d4+27
Average DPR: 81.84
Average DPR with Haste: 131.44
(All calculations were made with the aid of HeroLab and my Excel DPR calculator, but feel free to double check)
---
So... The TWFer has about +10 damage per turn... Unless someone casts Haste, in which case the difference grows pretty small.
That's with 4 feats of additional investment. The 2-Hander could, for example, get Cornugon Smash, Hurtful and Vital Strike (and still have a 1 feat advantage).
And his weapon bypasses DR silver/cold iron. And his standard action is more powerful.
---
Basically, in the best case scenario... When the TWFer hits on all but a 1, he deals 180% the damage of someone fighting with a single (1-handed) weapon. The 2-Hander deals 150% damage.
So, for an additional 3~4 feat investment, the TWFer will (at best) deal +16.7% more damage than the 2-Hander... But that's before we take 4 big things into consideration:
- Power Attack bonuses
- Difference in Weapon Enhancement
- Difference in Feat Investment
- Damage Reduction
|
I find it interesting that a discussion which began as a question of whether or not strength builds are too good somehow became a treatise on the differences between THF and TWF and which is better. That argument which has not yet degenerated to the level of kindergartners on a school bus isn't acutally relevant to the question unless you're in some way illustrating one or the other play style as too good.
Ultimately, It's my opinion that for a smart GM, there is no such thing too good.
You obviously haven't played mythic yet ;)
==Aelryinth
I find it interesting that a discussion which began as a question of whether or not strength builds are too good somehow became a treatise on the differences between THF and TWF and which is better. That argument which has not yet degenerated to the level of kindergartners on a school bus isn't acutally relevant to the question unless you're in some way illustrating one or the other play style as too good.
Which is directly what the discussion is doing, I'm afraid.
From the OP:
I've played and DMed a decent amount, I've noticed that characters pump strength and grab a two-hand weapon seem to have minimum issues in games, or at least few in comparison to other characters. They start out with massive dps and great hit chance, they can generally one hit most things before they have a chance to fight back, and generally they make everyone else pale in comparison. And this is before you add in class features or power attack.
And while I realize that late game other classes have more options and can do many things a two-hand fighter can never hope to achieve, it does seem to me that strength-based melee characters never seem to struggle much, short of explicitly designed encounters meant to disable or put range between their opponents.
The first question, then, is whether or not the OP's observation is true, that THF's actually do have "massive dps and great hit chance," and the dex-based two-weapon fighter is a good baseline for comparison against, since it occupies roughly the same tactical role as a front-line damage machine.
Or to put it another way, is the two-handed fighter actually that good, even within his chosen role?
Guys, what about 10 strength twf slayers and rogues? They get damage from other places. What do the numbers come up as and how would those change if you could add dex to damage? How does that compare to THF warriors and fighters?
Guys, what about 10 strength twf slayers and rogues? They get damage from other places. What do the numbers come up as and how would those change if you could add dex to damage? How does that compare to THF warriors and fighters?
IMHO, anything that relies on precision damage (like sneak attack) loses, since precision damage is too situational to be relied on.
I already have issues (as expressed upthread) with assuming that a two-weapon fighter will be in a position to get off all sixty-two of her iterative attacks. Assuming that a slayer or rogue will not only be in a position to get multiple iterative attacks but also be able to get sneak attack with all of them is even less plausible.
|
|
Firstly, I feel the need (petty though it may be) to point out that DPS is an acronym from a completely different dialect of Nerd, and the OP needs to spend more ranks in speak language. :P
Secondly, this is indeed the function of the THF, and melee builds are easier to optimize for a reason: 1st someone has to deal the damage, and 2nd there has to be a play style that is easy to do well, or the hobby will fail to draw in new players.
3rdly, Be a better GM. sure mindless foes will be easy kills for the brute builds of the world, but they are supposed to be. They serve 2 functions, 1st to slow the party down and give the mastermind time to prepare for them, and 2nd to slowly winnow away party resources in the form of HP, spells, potions etc...
A good GM knows these things and plans for them, skeletons and zombies are not the be all end all of an adventure (with the possible exception of survival horror), they are merely speed bumps on the road to the next character level. And should in nearly all instances be commanded under the direction of some intelligent force which can take the time to observe the party and prepare special surprises for anything that might be performing too well.
|
|
Guys, what about 10 strength twf slayers and rogues? They get damage from other places. What do the numbers come up as and how would those change if you could add dex to damage? How does that compare to THF warriors and fighters?IMHO, anything that relies on precision damage (like sneak attack) loses, since precision damage is too situational to be relied on.
I already have issues (as expressed upthread) with assuming that a two-weapon fighter will be in a position to get off all sixty-two of her iterative attacks. Assuming that a slayer or rogue will not only be in a position to get multiple iterative attacks but also be able to get sneak attack with all of them is even less plausible.
You are wrong, or just bad at building an optimized sneak attacker. with ranks in UMD, and the dimensional feat path, you can pretty much guarantee a sneak attacker will eventually get sneak attack every round if they want it. The whole reason why TWF exists IMHO is to make sneak attacks land as much as possible. Pretty much most of the penalties for TWF and having 3/4 BAB are accounted for by the bonuses you get while under the effects of greater invisibility, and are flanking with yourself.
Yes, sneak attack is great if you jump through a million hoops and two weapon fighting is great if you jump through a million hoops. How much of your characters resources are spent on all these hoops and how complicit is your gm in getting all those hoops to pay out dividends? There is just too much here to go wrong for this kind of character to be a real danger to game balance. How many times have you seen posts in one thread or another claiming to ban this or that thing that has to do with damage output? I'm kind of surprised to say this, but I feel as though the people on the other side of this argument are theory crafting themselves into a tizzy over something that just won't play out at the table.
Rough math time. Let's assume invisible and flanking (hahaha flanking almost never happens).
+2 inv, +2 flanking, -2 TWF, -5 3/4 BAB, -4 no weapon training or equivalent, +6 no power attack = -1. So you come out behind in to-hit during your best situation.
Optimise settings, both sides get another +2 from items (gloves of duelling, headband of the ninjutsu)
So more rough math
Attack patterns assuming haste or speed since teamwork is being assumed:
You: 95%, 95%, 95%, 70%, 70%, 45%, 45%
Them: 100%, 100%, 75%, 50%, 25%
Net 165% your favour
Now for damage:
+35 SA, -15 strength, -4 weapon training, -18 PA = -2 behind in base damage
Rough math, you are way behind after crits, more so if DR is a factor. With dex to damage you may actually do more damage. Which some may argue makes sense considering all the hoops and resources you are investing in an attempt to out DPR the guy that walks up to things and smacks them.
Sneak Attack works if you can hit, and hit a lot. Stat-independent, the more attacks you get the better. Outrageous SA builds usually involve monsters with a lot of limbs and multi-attack for spreading the fun.
But you realize you used level 20 there, right? There's a lot of other stuff that comes online by level 20. Still, if you can get away with it and hit all the time, Sneak Attack is actually a decent, stat-independent damage buff.
==Aelryinth
Ultimately, a THF is optimized out the door with 1 feat. TWF takes much greater system mastery to compete with, and thats okay.If it only took greater system mastery (i.e.: knowledge of the rules), it'd be okay... But it takes more than that. It takes far more investment and even then, it's still inferior to 2-handed weapons most of the time.
I agree that TWF is inferior to THF. I've done the math enough times to know that. However, that doesn't mean it needs to be as good as THF at dealing damage or that THF is too good at what it does. I agree however, that TWF could use some buffing to make it more competitive. But not necessarily at dealing damage. It's okay for it not to deal as much damage, but it should offer things that THF doesn't. Currently the AC bonus, reflex, init are not enough of an offset. But if you made their damage equal to THF then they haven't anything left for their fighting style to do.
As a house rule I've instituted that TWF, ITWF, and GTWF all occupy a single feat slot. The feat grows once you reach the prereqs for it, no spending extra feats on it. However, THF also get two free feats that require power attack as a prereq (upon meeting the reqs). I also did the same thing with Vital Strike, IVS, GVS that I did with TWF. However, you can only choose one of these sets (to get the upgrades for free).
|
|
Rough math time. Let's assume invisible and flanking (hahaha flanking almost never happens).
+2 inv, +2 flanking, -2 TWF, -5 3/4 BAB, -4 no weapon training or equivalent, +6 no power attack = -1. So you come out behind in to-hit during your best situation.
Optimise settings, both sides get another +2 from items (gloves of duelling, headband of the ninjutsu)
So more rough math
Attack patterns assuming haste or speed since teamwork is being assumed:
You: 95%, 95%, 95%, 70%, 70%, 45%, 45%
Them: 100%, 100%, 75%, 50%, 25%
Net 165% your favourNow for damage:
+35 SA, -15 strength, -4 weapon training, -18 PA = -2 behind in base damageRough math, you are way behind after crits, more so if DR is a factor. With dex to damage you may actually do more damage. Which some may argue makes sense considering all the hoops and resources you are investing in an attempt to out DPR the guy that walks up to things and smacks them.
I don't know your playstyle or that of the groups you play in, but my rogues are always flanking, or in a position to allow my allies to flank by the end of the first round of combat. And my allies always oblige by stepping into the requisite space. this is only rarely ever an issue at the tables i play in, because we're all always happy for an extra +2 to hit.
Also you're math hasn't taken into account the benefit of your opponent being denied dex to AC when you're invisible either. so while the bonus to hit is only +2, the loss of dexterity bonus can be quite a substantiol boost to the frequency with which your attacks land.
So that 5ft step thing can easily put you 10ft away from a flanking position.
GM monster tactics have A LOT to do with how easy flanks are. If you are like my GMs, monsters take advantage of the 5ft step, corners, being back to back, choke point, ect, that make flanking either impossible or suicidal.
So that 5ft step thing can easily put you 10ft away from a flanking position.
GM monster tactics have A LOT to do with how easy flanks are. If you are like my GMs, monsters take advantage of the 5ft step, corners, being back to back, choke point, ect, that make flanking either impossible or suicidal.
That just sounds like good GM tactics. I would hate it if combat was filled with tactically stupid enemies.
You left off magic weapons and their cost. Or you added it to one and not the other. I'm not sure WHAT you did here, actually.
I used +3/+2 weapons for the TWWarrior (1d8+3/2) and a +3 weapon for the THF; a difference of 8k for a level 12 character. If you run it +3/+3 vs +4, your generosity here amounts to a 4k difference for a level 12 character.
I also used the Two-Weapon Warrior archetype (TWWarrior), which treats a large weapon in the offhand as light at that level (or alternately drops the TWF penalty to -1, usually the better option really). TWWarrior also gains a slightly larger bonus from 'dual blades' than the THFighter does from weapon training, though it's marginal. Apologies if my shorthand is confusing, but the numbers work.
I'm not sure why you stopped running the numbers with Rend; it's a straight extra 17.5 as long as you hit once with each hand. Haste, for the THF, is worth the difference between mainhands ~ 9.5 by my numbers or 13.5 by yours; the TWF gets a tiny bit more out of the +1ab though. As far as standard attack goes, the TWWarrior's Doublestrike feature at 9 allows both weapons on a standard and it works with Rend.
You're absolutely right that the TWWarrior has to spend more feats; given the class he can afford them, so it's a hypothetical question of what those extra feats are worth in the big picture.
Anyhow we can run assorted comparisons all day - my point was simply that if you use a class/archetype that's good at exploiting TWF, it's far more competitive than it generally gets credit for. People act like the -2 penalty is somehow horrible, yet they'll grab Power Attack (as bad or worse) in a second because they can leverage the extra damage. It's feat intensive and likely less optimized, but it's perfectly viable for some builds - possibly better in a few cases.
That just sounds like good GM tactics. I would hate it if combat was filled with tactically stupid enemies.So that 5ft step thing can easily put you 10ft away from a flanking position.
GM monster tactics have A LOT to do with how easy flanks are. If you are like my GMs, monsters take advantage of the 5ft step, corners, being back to back, choke point, ect, that make flanking either impossible or suicidal.
It depends on the enemies too though. We were fighting enemies in an adventure, and the GM was using pretty decent tactics, grouping up, preventing flanks, etc. And then he looked at their stat sheet to find the DC for something, and realized these creatures had INT of 3. Suddenly all those tactics didn't make nearly as much sense.
|
|
So that 5ft step thing can easily put you 10ft away from a flanking position.
GM monster tactics have A LOT to do with how easy flanks are. If you are like my GMs, monsters take advantage of the 5ft step, corners, being back to back, choke point, ect, that make flanking either impossible or suicidal.
I definitely agree that they do, but my parties have typically been able to mitigate that by being tactically smart our selves, using cohesive unit tactics like focusing on a single monster/enemy at a time, and using magic/terrain to divide and conquer. Also it helps using solid defensive magic like blur displacement and invisibility to attain your flanking position in relative safety.
Ultimately, a THF is optimized out the door with 1 feat. TWF takes much greater system mastery to compete with, and thats okay.If it only took greater system mastery (i.e.: knowledge of the rules), it'd be okay... But it takes more than that. It takes far more investment and even then, it's still inferior to 2-handed weapons most of the time.I agree that TWF is inferior to THF. I've done the math enough times to know that. However, that doesn't mean it needs to be as good as THF at dealing damage or that THF is too good at what it does. I agree however, that TWF could use some buffing to make it more competitive. But not necessarily at dealing damage. It's okay for it not to deal as much damage, but it should offer things that THF doesn't. Currently the AC bonus, reflex, init are not enough of an offset. But if you made their damage equal to THF then they haven't anything left for their fighting style to do.
As a house rule I've instituted that TWF, ITWF, and GTWF all occupy a single feat slot. The feat grows once you reach the prereqs for it, no spending extra feats on it. However, THF also get two free feats that require power attack as a prereq (upon meeting the reqs). I also did the same thing with Vital Strike, IVS, GVS that I did with TWF. However, you can only choose one of these sets (to get the upgrades for free).
Oh, i don't think 2-handed is too good. I think TWF is too weak. If you check my collection of house rules, you will notice that I made TWF (and a bunch of other feat chains) a scaling feat.
I definitely agree that they do, but my parties have typically been able to mitigate that by being tactically smart our selves, using cohesive unit tactics like focusing on a single monster/enemy at a time, and using magic/terrain to divide and conquer. Also it helps using solid defensive magic like blur displacement and invisibility to attain your flanking position in relative safety.So that 5ft step thing can easily put you 10ft away from a flanking position.
GM monster tactics have A LOT to do with how easy flanks are. If you are like my GMs, monsters take advantage of the 5ft step, corners, being back to back, choke point, ect, that make flanking either impossible or suicidal.
At some point the investment needed to get off the flank starts having negative returns.
You get to the point that it is just better not to flank, even if that means a character is vastly diminished.