Looking at TWFing in PF1e vs PF2e


Classes


2 people marked this as a favorite.

This is looking at the feat investment required for TWFing in PF1e vs PF2e. Many of the feats are just signficantly worse in PF2e because everything has been nerfed into the ground. This is not looking at that aspect and instead simply seeing what's required in order to invest in TWFing.

I am also not exploring the fact that in PF2e TWFing has been locked down to specific classes as I'm already harping on about that in other threads.

Baseline TWFing in PF1e vs PF2e
In PF1e You need the following feats to get baseline TWFing working:
1) Two-Weapon Fighting (Reduced penalty on extra attack)
2) Improved TWFing (extra attack) - 6th level
3) Greater TWFing (extra attack) - 11th level

In PF2e you don't need any feats to get TWFing working. However you will deal about -1 penalty to damage for a +1 bonus to attack rolls. If you do take Two-Weapon Flurry this gives you 2 extra attacks which is quite substantial, however it's at your worst attack penalty so the chances of them hitting are the same as a PF1e's +16 attack hitting. Not very good.

In PF1e a TWFer (shortsword/shortsword) and a Two-Handed Fighter (greatsword) are going to deal the same amount of damage however the TWFer will have less accuracy due to the -2 TWF penalty and a lower enhancement bonus on their weapons.

Double Slice in PF1e vs Double Slice in PF2e
If you take double slice in PF1e you effectively get +1/2 strength mod damage to half of your attacks. If you take Double Slice in PF2e you get to reduce your penalty with your off-hand weapon by an additional -4 for 1 attack.

Two-Weapon Defense in PF1e vs Twin Parry in PF2e
You get a flat +1 AC bonus in PF1e vs losing an attack in PF2e for a +2 AC bonus. The power level is certainly different but they fil the same niche in terms of effect.

At 16th level you can remove the action required to have Twin Parry running by taking Twin Paragon.

Two-Weapon Rend in PF1e vs Twin Riposte and Improved Twin Riposte in PF2e
You get a +2d6 damage bonus once a round in PF1e vs being able to effectively spend an AoO when someone critically misses you so long as you are under the effects of Twin Parry. Improved Twin Ripose gives you an extra AoO each round in PF1e terms that must be spent on the Twin Riposte action instead of a standard AoO.

Conclusions
Someone who wants to invest the bare minimum into Two-Weapon Fighting in PF1e needs 3 feats while in PF2e you need 0 feats. Although in either case the benefits of investing in TWFing is almost non-existant.

Someone who wants to specialise in TWFing will need at least 6 feats in both PF1e and PF2e.

I think this is fairly balanced out. I think there's definitely reasons to go a TWFer in PF2e vs a Two-Handed fighter.


This looks like a decent analysis. I saw the thread title and thought this would be another "this thing was stronger in 1e" that didn't regard the fact that, well, almost everything is stronger in 1e. But you actually acknowledged that so kudos.


John Lynch 106 wrote:
I think this is fairly balanced out. I think there's definitely reasons to go a TWFer in PF2e vs a Two-Handed fighter.

I did math a while back in another thread. In order to make the best of TWF in PF2 you MUST use Double Slice. It's where 90% of your damage is going to come from. If you don't and take that -4 for iterative attacks your DPR drops significantly (-4 equates to 20% of your second attack's expected damage).

Then if you compare Double Slice vs. a Greatsword being swung twice, the Greatsword (or Greataxe) will be doing +1.5 average DRP compared to the best possible Double Slice combo against targets of expected difficulty (that is, if you use the encounter building rules in the Bestiary, #PCs of PL-2 critters). As you use weaker monsters, Double Slice shines a little better (because of the extra crits) and as you use stronger monsters, the Greatsword shines a little better (higher base damage, not crit reliant). Encounter rules encourage fewer bigger monsters more than it encourages lots of little things due to the construction of the exp budget; this is especially true for "boss encounters."

Monsters with resistance to S, B, or P damage types will also benefit the Double Slice player, whereas monsters with weaknesses will benefit the Greatsword player.


Draco18s wrote:
John Lynch 106 wrote:
I think this is fairly balanced out. I think there's definitely reasons to go a TWFer in PF2e vs a Two-Handed fighter.

I did math a while back in another thread. In order to make the best of TWF in PF2 you MUST use Double Slice. It's where 90% of your damage is going to come from. If you don't and take that -4 for iterative attacks your DPR drops significantly (-4 equates to 20% of your second attack's expected damage).

Then if you compare Double Slice vs. a Greatsword being swung twice, the Greatsword (or Greataxe) will be doing +1.5 average DRP compared to the best possible Double Slice combo against targets of expected difficulty (that is, if you use the encounter building rules in the Bestiary, #PCs of PL-2 critters). As you use weaker monsters, Double Slice shines a little better (because of the extra crits) and as you use stronger monsters, the Greatsword shines a little better (higher base damage, not crit reliant). Encounter rules encourage fewer bigger monsters more than it encourages lots of little things due to the construction of the exp budget; this is especially true for "boss encounters."

Monsters with resistance to S, B, or P damage types will also benefit the Double Slice player, whereas monsters with weaknesses will benefit the Greatsword player.

I think it's worth noting the increased consistency of Double Slice though. Say you're swinging a +1 Greatsword with 18 Str at 50% and 25% to hit (I'm assuming no third attack because in my experience so far it's rarely done). This is an average 3/8 chance to hit per attack. More importantly there's a 1/8 chance of hitting twice, a 4/8 chance of hitting once, and a 3/8 chance of missing entirely. Double slice with a +1 pair of weapons will swing at a 50% chance twice, average 1/2 chance per attack. More importantly, there's a 1/4 chance of hitting twice, a 2/4 chance of hitting once, and only a 1/4 chance of missing entirely. That said, the Greatsword will hit an average of 17 damage (2d12+4) which is average 6.375 damage per attack factoring the 3/8 chance to hit on average. If we go the strongest TWF option damage-wise, that being a d8 weapon and a d6 weapon, the average damage between them is 10 per hit, or 5 average per attack factoring in the 50% hit chance.

As you say, it is better damage on average to use 2H but I think the lesser chance of missing entirely is worth mention for Double Slice. There will be plenty of times you just need one last hit on someone, and it doesn't have to be a strong one. That damage gap will grow with more dice being added but I think both styles are still quite viable.

Also wouldn't weaknesses be more beneficial to Double Slice (weakness adds damage to each hit so more hits is better) while resistance benefits 2H (damage taken off each hit so less hits with more damage each is better)?

Lastly, from crunching math in my head I think that due to the crit rules the damage difference stays about the same if you start going up in hit rate, while going down benefits Double Slice since the avoidance of the iterative penalty is more important.


Edge93 wrote:
I think it's worth noting the increased consistency of Double Slice though. Say you're swinging a +1 Greatsword with 18 Str at 50% and 25% to hit (I'm assuming no third attack because in my experience so far it's rarely done).

That's exactly the math I was referring to.

Go here: http://topps.diku.dk/torbenm/troll.msp
Paste this into the big box: https://pastebin.com/9itBXB0D
And click "calculate probabilities"

The last line of the big box chunk is what controls which of the functions (weapons) are used and what MAP there is. After calculating the probabilities there's an average below the graph.

Here's the results:
+1 weapons, +4 Strength, +12 to hit

VS 23 AC

Rapier/Light Pick: 12.95 (spread 11.2)
Longsword/Hatchet: 14.3 (spread 11.3)
Rapier/Rapier: 12.45 (spread 11.2)
Longsword/Longsword: 14.0 (spread 12.1)
Greatsword (2 swings): 15.3 (spread 15.3)
Greatpick (2 swings): 14.65 (spread 15.8)

VS 20 AC

Rapier/Light Pick: 20.15 (spread 14.5)
Longsword/Hatchet: 20.8 (spread 13.0)
Rapier/Rapier: 17.7 (spread 12.4)
Longsword/Longsword: 19.6 (spread 13.1)
Greatsword (2 swings): 22.5 (spread 17.1)
Greatpick (2 swings): 22.1 (spread 18.4)

VS 17 AC

Rapier/Light Pick: 29.3 (spread 16.4)
Longsword/Hatchet: 28.6 (spread 13.6)
Rapier/Rapier: 26.25 (spread 14.7)
Longsword/Longsword: 28.0 (spread 14.6)
Greatsword (2 swings): 30.6 (spread 17.6)
Greatpick (2 swings): 30.875 (spread 19.8)


1 person marked this as a favorite.

It is a fairly common argument on these boards. Is PF2 style even TWF?
One thing not mentioned is TWF in PF1 gives extra attacks, which is not true for PF2 until L14 (two-weapon flurry). Hence the feeling is different. If I get excited about making a character with the most attacks, PF2 doesn't have many options.

Just some food for thought. Your analysis is good comparing the two game systems. I just wanted to mention about more attacks vs. some people going for dps calculations.

As someone who used to get excited about having lots of attacks....

Community / Forums / Archive / Pathfinder / Playtests & Prerelease Discussions / Pathfinder Playtest / Player Rules / Classes / Looking at TWFing in PF1e vs PF2e All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.
Recent threads in Classes