the ranger can select greater two-weapon fighting as a bonus feat at level 10. this gives him a third secondary attack.
but he doesn't get his third primary attack until level 11!
so the ranger can have three secondary attacks before having three primary attacks.
is this correct?
Yes, this is correct.
Yes, this is correct.
weird.
Yes, but it calls out your 3rd attack. I would expect table variation on this, since the feat is written assuming you have the other two first.
Yes, but it calls out your 3rd attack. I would expect table variation on this, since the feat is written assuming you have the other two first.
Yes, I would expect the Ranger to have already picked up the Two-weapon Fighting and Improved Two-weapon Fighting prior to this for Greater Two-weapon Fighting to work, even though the Ranger doesn't need the prerequisites for the feats from his selected style(when picked at the levels they are awarded a Ranger Style Feat).
maybe greater two-weapon fighting shouldn't be available as a bonus ranger feat until level 14. that way the ranger would get his/her third primary attack before his/her secondary attack.
The authors assumed people would take them in order, and so far I've never seen anyone not do it, but I'm sure there is a GM somewhere dealing with this.
I don't mind the ranger having 3 offhand attacks before having two primary attacks. I do mind him trying to use GTWF without taking ITWF and expecting to get 3 offhand attacks. I wouldn't let him get 3 offhand attacks until he took all 3 feats.
Like the War Priest is able to have this on steroids, having a second off hand 2 levels before his main off hand and his third 3 levels before his 3rd main. I don't see any reason having it be one level early for the ranger is a problem (most people don't even want it since an attack at -10 does so little for DPR since you'll miss with it so much.)
TWF is largely worthless in terms of a DPR build except for specific set ups e.g. massive sneak attack damage. Rangers don't get SA and Favored Enemy is limited to very specific creature types.
When I did homebrew, we gave Rangers the TWF combat style for free...it nerfs them. As soon as you start introducing enemies with DR, TWF becomes painfully weak. In fact, it is so lousy as a combat option, Paizo had to give Rogues Dex to damage to compensate.
TWF actually does more damage until DR kicks in.
TWF actually does more damage until DR kicks in.
Actually it does not. You need a specific build or set of circumstances where the bonus damage massively exceeds the weapon damage for that to occur.
Feat for feat and gold piece per gold piece, a THF kicks the snot out of a TWF. It isn't even close. There's a reason Paizo gave the unchained Rogue TWF for free and invented a feat that allows Dex to Damage just for that class. It's because when you run the numbers on a spreadsheat, TWF is a joke.
What skews peoples perceptions is when you get a something like a Knife Master Rogue with +6D8 sneak attack and dual wielding bane weapons. THEN, it is over the top.
Most people don't get it, but TWF sucks for a very specific reason: sneak attack.
When D&D chose to give Rogues Sneak Attack on possibly every hit, it would have been obvious to them that TWF + SA would be over-powered. So WotC must have decided to nerf the bejesus out of TWF so that it wouldn't be an "I win" button in the hands of a high level Rogue.
TWF is nice thematically, but mechanically it is an eyesore unless you can tack on massive bonus damage to each hit. Most classes can't do that.
For instance Two weapon fighting rangers against their favored enemies(with instant enemy spell as a backup, of course) or Slayers, perhaps?
TWF actually does more damage until DR kicks in.
Actually it does not. You need a specific build or set of circumstances where the bonus damage massively exceeds the weapon damage for that to occur.
Feat for feat and gold piece per gold piece, a THF kicks the snot out of a TWF. It isn't even close. There's a reason Paizo gave the unchained Rogue TWF for free and invented a feat that allows Dex to Damage just for that class. It's because when you run the numbers on a spreadsheat, TWF is a joke.
What skews peoples perceptions is when you get a something like a Knife Master Rogue with +6D8 sneak attack and dual wielding bane weapons. THEN, it is over the top.
Most people don't get it, but TWF sucks for a very specific reason: sneak attack.
When D&D chose to give Rogues Sneak Attack on possibly every hit, it would have been obvious to them that TWF + SA would be over-powered. So WotC must have decided to nerf the bejesus out of TWF so that it wouldn't be an "I win" button in the hands of a high level Rogue.
TWF is nice thematically, but mechanically it is an eyesore unless you can tack on massive bonus damage to each hit. Most classes can't do that.
Actually it does without SA. TWF rangers and paladins do more damage than the two handed versions.
Weapon damage is not the source of the main damage in PF. Additional damage such as from power attack or a favored enemy bonus is.
The extra attacks is the reason why. That is why eidolons can shred things at lower levels due to the number of attacks, but if they run into DR they can't overcome their numbers fall off.
Just to be clear here I'm not talking about some dex only build that can't add dex to damage, and also doesn't have a strength bonus.
Also any damage based build is going to be garbage if the extra damage(such as strength, class abilities etc) isnt the primary source of damage. Even with two-handed types you can get over 30 points of damage per hit easily, and less than half of that is coming from the base weapon damage.
The unchained rogue got dex for free because it needed it. If it was just because of TWF being weak they could have just given it to everyone.
Also the unchained rogue doesn't get TWF for free.
If you use a dex build, and ignore strength of course the damage will be terrible.
And when I was talking of TWF of course I was assuming all sources of damage such as smite were included. I didn't put any limiters in that, so my point stands. Now if you had said at the beginning "TWF sucks in <insert situation>..." that would have been a different argument.
RPG Superstar 2011 Top 32
|
Yes, Ranger's can get TWF for free. Which means they aren't taking Archery and they are now going to have to rely on melee for their damage contribution. So they go all STR and have to use two different weapons. Twice the enchantment coast, no benefit of Weapon Focus on both weapons or Weapon Specialization.
If they use, say, two shortswords or a double weapon, they avoid all these issues except the doubled enhancement cost. Which is indeed substantial. With a double weapon they even get THF benefits when making a single attack.
When wielding a double weapon without using TWF it is a single two handed weapon, with all the benefits thereof.
The quarterstaff isn't exotic, just a little crappy.Right on both accounts. Actually surprised you don't see more quarterstaff TWF'ers in the game because TWF only works if you add-on damage is massive compared to the weapon damage.
Oh wait, I know why we don't see more TWFing Q-staffers....because TWF basically sucks.
Wait so are you arguing that Two handers/archery are so great that I don't need any bonus damage other than my stat to good? I'm seriously trying to get what your saying by add-on damage. Because by midlevel everyone is shooting for addon-damage thats why vital strike is considered a trap option because it doesn't grant the addon damage just more dice.