Double slice only dealing precision damage once makes it seem like it wouldn't be the best for rogues, but because of being able to choose which attack gets precision damage if you critical and the accuracy bonus on the second attack, double slice deals almost as much precision damage as attacking normally twice.
Double slice isn't in my tool, but I calculated it by hand:
Using double slice against an at level flat footed enemy with moderate AC:
At level 2: about 20 expected damage
At level 20: about 90 expected damage
That's really good.
|
Double slice only dealing precision damage once makes it seem like it wouldn't be the best for rogues, but because of being able to choose which attack gets precision damage if you critical and the accuracy bonus on the second attack, double slice deals almost as much precision damage as attacking normally twice.
Double slice isn't in my tool, but I calculated it by hand:
Using double slice against an at level flat footed enemy with moderate AC:
At level 2: about 20 expected damage
At level 20: about 90 expected damageThat's really good.
It's also a good way to punch through resistances, since the damage combines.
PLUS, you don't have to use it! If you have an opponent who has low AC and is easy to hit, you can just do the normal two strikes and get sneak attack on each.
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
That sounds wrong.
My own calculations indicate that simply attacking for 2d6+4 twice at -0/-0 (with +8 to hit vs. a flat-footed AC of 16, which is standard High AC at that level) at level 2 only has a DPR of around 17.6 (18.275 if one attack is a rapier and thus has Deadly).
Doing the same for one attack at 3d6+8 results in a DPR of 14.8 (15.475 if adding Deadly).
Now neither of those are quite what Double Slice does, but because of the ways in which they differ (the first is flatly better, since it applies Sneak Attack twice, something Double Slice can never do) and the second is flatly worse (since it applies it only once no matter what, ignoring the advantages in picking where to put it), the damage basically has to be somewhere between the two.
I imagine Double Slice may be better than it looks, but something almost has to have gone wrong with that math for it to look that good.
That sounds wrong.
My own calculations indicate that simply attacking for 2d6+4 twice at -0/-0 (with +8 to hit vs. a flat-footed AC of 16, which is standard High AC at that level) at level 2 only has a DPR of around 17.6 (18.275 if one attack is a rapier and thus has Deadly).
Doing the same for one attack at 3d6+8 results in a DPR of 14.8 (15.475 if adding Deadly).
Now neither of those are quite what Double Slice does, but because of the ways in which they differ (the first is flatly better, since it applies Sneak Attack twice, something Double Slice can never do) and the second is flatly worse (since it applies it only once no matter what, ignoring the advantages in picking where to put it), the damage basically has to be somewhere between the two.
I imagine Double Slice may be better than it looks, but something almost has to have gone wrong with that math for it to look that good.
You did vs high ac, I compared against moderate ac
It's the same as adding Sneak Attack damage 1.36 times, 20.9ish with a rapier and short sword, 19.8 with 2 short sword, which is about 20.
Against hard ac, i got 17.95 with 2 short swords, 18.85 with a rapier.
Did you not reduce the AC by 2 for flat footed?
So random question about your tool citricking, how do you do Forceful, and is there a way to apply monks perfected form at 19/20?
So random question about your tool citricking, how do you do Forceful, and is there a way to apply monks perfected form at 19/20?
For forceful for every level, set the damage to something like 1d8+1 instead of 1d8 when you select the weapon damage die.
For forceful at a specific level use the rune section, adding something like +4 damage at level 18.
Only do those for second attacks, for 3rd attacks it would be +2 or +8.
Hope that's clear
I imagine Double Slice may be better than it looks, but something almost has to have gone wrong with that math for it to look that good.
From my calculations, it's a 10% to 12% increase from level 2 to 20 in damage when using two weapons with two actions versus Striking twice with an Agile weapon. This is assuming a d6 weapon with no other traits besides Agile and adding 1d6 elemental damage runes whenever possible. You can edge around 15% increase if you have a main hand with a d8 die.
For reference, for level 2 against AC 16 (flat-footed hard AC). Two strikes gets 14.3 average DPR and Double Slice gets 16.04 average DPR, between 15 and 18, as you predicted. Lowering the AC to moderate (14) we have 17.6 DPR for 2 Strikes and 19.81 (citricking's 20) for Double Slice.
It seems viable, but not dominant. The hassle of drawing two weapons, using two hands and the class feat cost could turn some people away from it, me included.
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
You did vs high ac, I compared against moderate ac
Ah, gotcha. For the record, this is a mistake in terms of actual expected damage (though it matters little if comparing two builds, since the difference between Moderate and High is usually only one point), as the Monster Building Guidelines in the GMG, people at Paizo, and the monsters from the Bestiary themselves, all indicate that High AC is the expected amount for most enemies to have.
It's the same as adding Sneak Attack damage 1.36 times, 20.9ish with a rapier and short sword, 19.8 with 2 short sword, which is about 20.
Against hard ac, i got 17.95 with 2 short swords, 18.85 with a rapier.
Did you not reduce the AC by 2 for flat footed?
No, I did include that. I'm a bit at a loss to explain the discrepancy. Maybe my own math is in error, though I don't think so. Especially as Sfyn's math seems to support mine.
I imagine Double Slice may be better than it looks, but something almost has to have gone wrong with that math for it to look that good.From my calculations, it's a 10% to 12% increase from level 2 to 20 in damage when using two weapons with two actions versus Striking twice with an Agile weapon. This is assuming a d6 weapon with no other traits besides Agile and adding 1d6 elemental damage runes whenever possible. You can edge around 15% increase if you have a main hand with a d8 die.
For reference, for level 2 against AC 16 (flat-footed hard AC). Two strikes gets 14.3 average DPR and Double Slice gets 16.04 average DPR, between 15 and 18, as you predicted. Lowering the AC to moderate (14) we have 17.6 DPR for 2 Strikes and 19.81 (citricking's 20) for Double Slice.
It seems viable, but not dominant. The hassle of drawing two weapons, using two hands and the class feat cost could turn some people away from it, me included.
Moderate flatfooted AC at level 2 is 15 not 14 (https://2e.aonprd.com/Rules.aspx?ID=995), but you got the numbers correct. High flatfooted is 16, but your numbers are off, it's 15.95 exD for two normal rogue strikes, with 17.95 for double slice.
But the main point was correct.That's a 12.5% increase for double slice compared to attacking twice. A fighter gets an 18.5% increase for double slice and I think everyone agrees that's a good feat for dual wielding fighters.
You did vs high ac, I compared against moderate acAh, gotcha. For the record, this is a mistake in terms of actual expected damage (though it matters little if comparing two builds, since the difference between Moderate and High is usually only one point), as the Monster Building Guidelines in the GMG, people at Paizo, and the monsters from the Bestiary themselves, all indicate that High AC is the expected amount for most enemies to have.
No, I did include that. I'm a bit at a loss to explain the discrepancy. Maybe my own math is in error, though I don't think so. Especially as Sfyn's math seems to support mine.It's the same as adding Sneak Attack damage 1.36 times, 20.9ish with a rapier and short sword, 19.8 with 2 short sword, which is about 20.
Against hard ac, i got 17.95 with 2 short swords, 18.85 with a rapier.
Did you not reduce the AC by 2 for flat footed?
High AC is what melee fighters are given as a baseline, not all monsters. I don't think you should say that it's a mistake to compare against moderate when not all of a characters enemies will be melee fighters (there's casters and other types of foes too, I don't think a rogue will always be going toe to toe with big strong monsters like exemplified in the bestiary). Moderate is literally 1 point less than high. (I took you saying that is a mistake as a personal insult).
From the monster building guidlines: "Because AC is one of the most important combat stats, you need to be more careful with setting this number for any creature you expect will end up in a fight. Low AC typically fits spellcasters, who compensate with their selection of powerful spells. Most creatures use high or moderate AC—high is comparable to what a PC fighter would have. Reserve extreme AC for a creature that is even better defended; these values are for creatures that have defenses similar in power to those of a champion or monk. "
Should you really be telling me using moderate AC was a mistake? When I clearly said I was using moderate AC?
As for your numbers, they are literally 1 point off, maybe you didn't add an item bonus at level 2?
|
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
High AC is what melee fighters are given as a baseline, not all monsters. I don't think you should say that it's a mistake to compare against moderate when not all of a characters enemies will be melee fighters (there's casters and other types of foes too, I don't think a rogue will always be going toe to toe with big strong monsters like exemplified in the bestiary). Moderate is literally 1 point less than high. (I took you saying that is a mistake as a personal insult).
The majority of monsters in the Bestiary are melee fighters, and people have done the actual math on number of Bestiary creatures with which ACs and the vast majority are indeed in the High range.
Should you really be telling me using moderate AC was a mistake? When I clearly said I was using moderate AC?
It's a mistake to use it as a base standard, yes. It's a pretty minor one all things considered, but most foes PCs target will have high AC, so that's the most relevant number.
As for your numbers, they are literally 1 point off, maybe you didn't add an item bonus at level 2?
I did indeed not add an item at level 2. That would explain it. That one's my bad. I tend to think of level 2 before magic weapons because you tend not to get them until level 2, but for standardized things like this it is correct to include them.
It's not a mistake.
A mistake is not seeing I wrote "moderate".
A mistake is calculating the expected damage incorrectly.
A different value judgement on what AC to compare against is not a mistake.
|
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
Deadmanwalking has a point, High AC is much more common among monsters than Moderate. The word High doesn't mean "high for a monster", it means "high for a PC of the same level".
Since high AC is more common than moderate among monsters, it makes sense to take it as your focus when evaluating whether something is an all-weather good feat.
That said, I think the flexibility of using/not using, and handling of DR, indeed makes it a good tool for rogues. I hadn't caught on to the trick of applying sneak attack to the strike that crits instead of simply defaulting to the first attack that hits. That's pretty neat.
|
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
To clarify, this particular misunderstanding is clearly my fault, which I admit to entirely. I missed the Medium AC bit in the initial post, which is entirely my bad, and all the confusion followed directly from me making that mistake. My sincere apologies in that regard.
However, as a separate matter, High AC is better for calculations like this than Moderate AC is for all the reasons I've gone into, making not using it a (relatively minor) error in methodology if your intent is to actually reflect how PCs will do against monsters in play.
|
However, as a separate matter, High AC is better for calculations like this than Moderate AC is for all the reasons I've gone into, making not using it a (relatively minor) error in methodology if your intent is to actually reflect how PCs will do against monsters in play.
Just for my knowledge, it sounds like High AC is the median/most common for monsters but is it also the average value when including the low AC monsters?
And does anyone have a link to a spreadsheet where those values are visible?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
And does anyone have a link to a spreadsheet where those values are visible?
Not that I know of.
But right around 2/3rds of the critters in Bestiary 1 have High AC (I'd have to do the math again, but it was between 62% and 65%).The next biggest group was moderate, IIRC.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Maybe it's just me, but I'm over here wondering why you all are so fixated on a white room simulation with an equal level opponent, when most combats I've played have usually included many lower level opponents and maybe one equal or greater threat.
I think the point is that scrub clean up, while common, isn't necessarily worth the feat investment here. And lots of things are pretty good against weaker opposition, it's the tougher opposition that you generally want to invest build resources to handle.
Except you have to dual wield. But yeah it's good.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Maybe it's just me, but I'm over here wondering why you all are so fixated on a white room simulation with an equal level opponent, when most combats I've played have usually included many lower level opponents and maybe one equal or greater threat.
Statements like "most enemies will have hard AC" might work from a descriptive standpoint when you poll the bestiary, but ignore that they will appear in significantly uneven amounts at different points in an individual players carrier.
Hypothetical DPR against an equal level opponent is neat, but if a tactic is stronger against slightly below level opponents and only slightly less optimal against an equal or higher level opponent then I think there's a fair argument that the average player may actually be better off taking the approach that your modeling seems to be optimized for.
But the low ac guys don't really matter much, honestly. They are fodder. My party nearly wiped on the first boss to Fall of Plaguestone. They didn't sweat anything prior. None of of the packs of enemies really phased them. But the first boss, by himself, was enough to drop two PCs and an animal companion while taking the other two PCs below half.
So, ya, scrub clean up is fine and all but the way PF2 math works, modeling against high ac is more pertinent in measuring how good an ability is in play when it really really counts.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Maybe it's just me, but I'm over here wondering why you all are so fixated on a white room simulation with an equal level opponent, when most combats I've played have usually included many lower level opponents and maybe one equal or greater threat.
Statements like "most enemies will have hard AC" might work from a descriptive standpoint when you poll the bestiary, but ignore that they will appear in significantly uneven amounts at different points in an individual players carrier.
Hypothetical DPR against an equal level opponent is neat, but if a tactic is stronger against slightly below level opponents and only slightly less optimal against an equal or higher level opponent then I think there's a fair argument that the average player may actually be better off taking the approach that your modeling seems to be optimized for.
But the low the guys don't really matter much, honestly. They are fodder. My party nearly wiped on the first boss to Fall of Plaguestone. They didn't sweat anything prior. None of of the packs of enemies really phased them. But the first boss, by himself, was enough to drop two PCs and an animal companion while taking the other two PCs below half.
So, ya, scrub clean up is fine and all but the way PF2 math works, modeling against high ac is more pertinent in measuring how good an ability is in play when it really really counts.
You perspective is very biased by being based off of low level play. As level increases higher level enemies become relativity less threatening and lower level enemies become relativity more threatening.
@citricking
That's actually does not reflect the math or design philosophy of PF2 at all.
The base design of PF2 is that modifiers like +1 or +2 are as impactful at low levels as they are at high levels.
So, the same could be said of other numbers.
@citricking
That's actually does not reflect the math or design philosophy of PF2 at all.
The base design of PF2 is that modifiers like +1 or +2 are as impactful at low levels as they are at high levels.
So, the same could be said of other numbers.
It's literally true though. Level +2/3 opponents are a lot more dangerous at level 1 than 10
It's because of how HP and damage numbers scale.
I feel that the way the math works (with crits and so on especially), level matters plenty more than you are letting on.
In any case, I have always found, even apart for PF2 and in other table top games, that how you do against tougher opponents matters much more than how you do against scrubs.
I feel that the way the math works (with crits and so on especially), level matters plenty more than you are letting on.
In any case, I have always found, even apart for PF2 and in other table top games, that how you do against tougher opponents matters much more than how you do against scrubs.
More than I am letting on?
Well the thing is because of how a +1 gives a relatively consistent bonus, how well you do against tough opponents is about how well you do against scrubs (excluding things like deadly, which double slice doesn't depend on)
That side discussion really has no effect on the merit of double slice, about 30% more damage against a none flat footed target, 12.5 percent against a flat footed target.
|
|
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
I'd like to apologize for the derail. My only intention was to point out what I saw, and see, as a very minor methodological error in your otherwise always very solid analysis of DPR in PF2.
It's one point of AC folks, and while that matters a bit, it's not as big a deal as everyone here is making it out to be and things have gotten way more heated than is warranted by a very minor disagreement on what number should be used for this kind of comparison.
So, citricking, I'm really sorry about this whole thing, it's largely my fault and I feel terrible about it.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I'd like to apologize for the derail. My only intention was to point out what I saw, and see, as a very minor methodological error in your otherwise always very solid analysis of DPR in PF2.
It's one point of AC folks, and while that matters a bit, it's not as big a deal as everyone here is making it out to be and things have gotten way more heated than is warranted by a very minor disagreement on what number should be used for this kind of comparison.
So, citricking, I'm really sorry about this whole thing, it's largely my fault and I feel terrible about it.
No problem, I don't mind that you said you thought that it was better to use hard. I just think calling that a mistake was really harsh to me.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Not to be a bummer but by RAW, I don't think it's clear if the decision on which attacks get the precision damage occurs before or after the strike as been resolved.
You add any precision damage only once, to the attack of your choice.
This would greatly affect how much damage it does and should be resolved.
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I was a little skeptical of that at first myself, but I read the Feat, and I think it's pretty clear in context that it does indeed work that way. The sentence you quote follows another, and modifies it:
If both attacks hit, combine their damage, and then add any other applicable effects from both weapons. You add any precision damage only once, to the attack of your choice.
The 'and then add any other applicable effects' bit in the first sentence would seem to include Precision Damage, which the second sentence then modifies to say you only get to add to one.
In context, I think that's pretty clearly indicating what order you do things, and that you add the Precision damage after you determine what hit.
So, how does Double Slice stack up against Twin Feint in a situation where the enemy isn't otherwise flat-footed? Twin Feint gives you one normal attack and one attack at normal MAP but the target automatically counts as flat-footed.
They're about the same actually, both are a good increase over attacking twice. About 30% going from memory. I think double slice is a little better.
|
|
So, how does Double Slice stack up against Twin Feint in a situation where the enemy isn't otherwise flat-footed? Twin Feint gives you one normal attack and one attack at normal MAP but the target automatically counts as flat-footed.
I think that would depend on how much you gain from Sneak Attack compared to how much you gain from the main strike. If your main strike is weak compared to your sneak attack, then getting it is a big deal. If your main strike is strong compared to your sneak attack, then not getting it with double slice is not a big deal.
Consider a level 5 rogue who has two striking weapons (perhaps via Doubling Rings). The second weapon is agile, so let's say a rapier and a shortsword. Our rogue has also got a Dex of 19 and the Thief racket. So our strikes do 2d8+4 and 2d6+4. Since we don't have flat-footed in any other way, we just have to compare the second strike of a double slice with the second strike of a twin feint. The double slice's second attack will be made at 0 MAP, the Twin Feint will be at a -2 (agile MAP, but flat-footed) but do 2d6 extra damage if it hits.
I don't like the odds of Twin Feint there, but it might just barely be worth it. When your base weapon damage goes up again from weapon specialization though, it becomes less attractive again.
But let's consider further: imagine that you do have a way of getting the enemy flat-footed. For example, you score a critical hit with your rapier which makes the enemy flat-footed. At this point, Twin Feint doesn't do anything anymore, it's just a -4 to hit compared to Double Slice because they now both get the benefit of sneak attack and a flat-footed enemy exactly once.
What if you get a flank on the enemy? Then Twin Feint doesn't do anything that two regular strikes won't also do. Double Slice gives you the option of foregoing sneak attack on the second strike that hits, to avoid a -4 to hit on your second strike. That's a good deal!
---
My take on it is that Twin Feint is a bad solution to the problem of having no flanking. You can do regular flanking, Gang Up or Dread Striker, and get much better benefits.
In fact, I think often you have to ask yourself if Twin Feint isn't worse than spending one action positioning to get a flank and then attacking only once.