ranger two-weapon bonus feats


Rules Questions


Adventure Path Charter Subscriber

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.


Adventure Path Charter Subscriber
Shady Stranger wrote:
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.


wraithstrike wrote:
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).


Adventure Path Charter Subscriber

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.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Well, Greater Two-Weapon Fighting says you get a third attack at -10, but nothing about getting a second attack. So, I'd say Greater without Improved, grants you an attack at -10, but you don't get an attack at -5.

The Exchange Owner - D20 Hobbies

wraithstrike wrote:
I don't mind the ranger having 3 offhand attacks before having two primary attacks. I wouldn't let him get 3 offhand attacks until he took all 3 feats.

+1


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.


I typically don't dual-wield unless my character has access to the Thrashing Dragon discipline from Path of War. It makes dual-wielding quite nice. (If you then add on Dragon Fury PRC, you get some nice damage outputs . . . Power Attack with +3 per -1 on both weapons at higher levels!)


N N 959 wrote:

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.


wraithstrike wrote:


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.


N N 959 wrote:
wraithstrike wrote:


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?


N N 959 wrote:
wraithstrike wrote:


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.


wraithstrike wrote:
N N 959 wrote:
wraithstrike wrote:


...
....

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...

When I started playing 3.5, I was of the mindset that TWF was superior for a ranger. I ran the the numbers and it doesn't work.

Quote:
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.

I already said you need a specific set of circumstances "where the bonus damage massively exceeds the weapon damage." So if you're simply telling me that TWF is better when this is true, then I've already pointed that out.

But without SA or special builds (which includes magical weapons) that can tack on massive damage per hit TWF is a joke. TWF as compared to THF is inferior. TWF can exceed THF given specific circumstances which are not normal to 99% of the games people play. Yes, if you give a TWF two human bane weapons and put him in a room of naked humans who can't move, he's going to out damage a THF with a bane weapon.

Quote:
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.

At low levels, a THF barbarian with a greatsword + Power Attack will absolutely crush anything and everything with far more efficacy than any eidolon. Yeah, I see Druids with their bear cubs and Summoners think that they are all that with a few extra attacks. Sure, compared to the sword and board fighter or any other straight up martial class, all those extra attacks are kind of helpful. But front-loaded massive damage is FAR superior in killing and damage prevention than having to use lots of little hits.

The fact that a 20 always hits and a 1 always misses even further skews the advantage to massive damage weapons. It gets even more lopsided when you start using feats to expand the crit range for THF's.

Quote:
Also the unchained rogue doesn't get TWF for free

You're right. It's Weapon Finesse, which is essentially the other side of Dex to Damage and allows the uRogue to hit with nearly the same accuracy as a THF. Dex to Damage would be undercut without an equal to-hit modifier.

Quote:
The unchained rogue got dex for free because it needed it.

Uh...yeah, that's exactly my point. If TWF was so fantastic without SA, then you shouldn't need to buff Rogues at all. If TWF was fo fantastic with Sneak Attack then they wouln't have added Dex to Damage because it would have been too good.

In play, it's clear that SA is not dependable for a variety of reasons. TWF Rogues were doing snot for damage outside of TWF SA, so Paizo had to boost the baseline TWF rogue damage.

Quote:
If it was just because of TWF being weak they could have just given it to everyone.

No, they absolutely could not give it to everyone. A Knife Master with Dex to Damage for a feat, would be stupid (at least in the world of martials). It's not the average that WotC was nerfing with TWF, it was the extreme that they had to cap. A TWF build can be over-powered in very limited circumstances.

Quote:
If you use a dex build, and ignore strength of course the damage will be terrible.

And here in lies the ultimate problem with TWF: You have to build up two stats. A THF can focus on one and armor up because he doesn't need a 15 Dex for the TWF feat.

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.

I've been through it. Once you start fleshing out the character for day-to-day combat, TWF is a black hole for ranger, fighters, barbarians, you name it. Sure, with enough money and investment, you might become serviceable and even win the day once or twice in 20 combats (if the GM sets it up for you, gives you dual bane weapons against your FE and then fills the dungeon with them). But it ain't going to beat a THF on average.

I've done the math...without DR.

Sovereign Court RPG Superstar 2011 Top 32

N N 959 wrote:
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.


Deleted because it was incorrect


When wielding a double weapon without using TWF it is a single two handed weapon, with all the benefits thereof.


Java Man wrote:
When wielding a double weapon without using TWF it is a single two handed weapon, with all the benefits thereof.

You're right. I was misreading the TWF penalties as indicating that the double weapon had to be Single+Light.

But all double-bladed weapons are exotic, so that's another feat. You can take an appropriate race, but then you're losing the extra feat from human, so either way, you're paying more for less damage right out of the gate.

Sovereign Court RPG Superstar 2011 Top 32

The quarterstaff isn't exotic, just a little crappy.


ryric wrote:
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.

Sovereign Court RPG Superstar 2011 Top 32

Back in 3.0, I made a TWF quarterstaff wielding druid. It was reasonably effective at low levels, especially with shillelagh. After about level 4 though I transitioned to a more pure caster role.


N N 959 wrote:
ryric wrote:
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.


Talonhawke wrote:


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.

No. I'm pointing out that TWF is a bad option for Rangers and that TWF as implemented by WotC and Paizo essentially is an inferior damage dealer as compared to THF. It does more damage than Sword and Board, but you're giving up a ton of AC to go that route, so it's the worst of both worlds.

I'm also not a fan of switch-hitting rangers. Bad stuff happens in melee. Rangers can do massive damage from range

Thematically, I do like TWF.

Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder First Edition / Rules Questions / ranger two-weapon bonus feats All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.