I'm assuming you mean Double Slice vs Twin Takedown followed by regular Strike.
So:
Double Slice would be two attacks at full bonus.
Twin Takedown, Strike would be three attacks at full, -2, -4.
My intuition says that the three attacks would be better because the penalties are not very high for that third attack. But intuition is often wrong when dealing with probabilities.
In order to calculate it better, what do you want the d20 outcome to be to hit on that first attack? The level and AC and such is just used to calculate that d20 outcome needed, so let's just skip all the middle math.
Plus there's Resistance, Weaknesses, and the fact the Double Slicer can be a Precision Ranger (or even Outwit w/ a Demoralize debuff beforehand). How much Precision Ranger matters depends on level.
Also the Double Slicer didn't need to Hunt Prey, and a PC could have both options, perhaps doing both if adjacent. (I suppose Twin Takedown first in case the target drops so you'd not need to Hunt Prey, though perhaps not if the math's better vs. the last foe.)
Which is to say, that's a complicated question!
He did specify Flurry Ranger.
With some assumptions:
1d6+2 damage on a hit, double on crit. So 5 or 10 damage to make it easier.
9 hits, 19 crits.
At full bonus, that is .5 to hit, .1 to crit. Expected value 2.5+1 = 3.5 damage.
At -2 bonus, that is .45 to hit, .05 to crit. Expected value 2.25+.5 = 2.75 damage.
At -4 bonus, that is .35 to hit, .05 to crit. Expected value 1.75+.5 = 2.25 damage.
Double Slice at 2x full bonus = 7 damage on average.
Twin Takedown, Strike at 1x of -0, -2, -4 = 8.5 damage on average.
Also to note: Twin Takedown by itself would be 6.25 damage on average, and would leave you with an action left to do something else with.
-------
Against harder to hit opponents:
At full bonus, if 13 hits, 20 crits.
Full bonus attack, that is .35 to hit, .05 to crit. Expected value 1.75+.5 = 2.25 damage.
-2 bonus, that is .25 to hit, .05 to crit. 1.25+.5 = 1.75 damage.
-4 bonus, that is .15 to hit, .05 to crit. 0.75+.5 = 1.25 damage.
Double Slice = 4.5 damage.
Twin Takedown, Strike = 5.25 damage.
Twin Takedown alone = 4 damage.
The best is probably double slice into twin takedown. Double Slice doesn't have flourish, right? Not sure why this is an either/or thing.
The best is probably double slice into twin takedown. Double Slice doesn't have flourish, right? Not sure why this is an either/or thing.
This is indeed the main advantage, get 4 attacks in at 0, 0, -4, -4 (DS, TT) which is a bit better than 0, -2, -4, -4 when doing TT followed by two strikes.
Whether the extra Mapless attack is worth the feats depends on what else you gain from the archetype.
It was for a light hammer throwing ranger so he pretty much automatically gets double Slice because he wants dual throwing feat, so I was debating a hypothetical turn where he hunts and chucks.
Hmm... That's interesting. When you mentioned throwing, I immediately thought that you would want the other feat - Hunted Shot. But that one requires using an actual ranged weapon.
Twin Takedown requires using melee weapons. But the rule doesn't say that you have to make a melee strike. So I would allow it to work with thrown melee weapons and thrown ranged strikes. Otherwise there is a hole in Ranger options for the level 1 dual attack feats for thrown weapons. Even so there is still a hole for thrown ranged weapons. Not that it would be a very optimal choice for weapon anyway.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Per the first CRB errata, a thrown weapon counts as a ranged weapon when you throw it
In the definition for the thrown weapon trait, change the first sentence to “You can throw this weapon as a ranged attack, and it is a ranged weapon when thrown.”
So no throwing hammers as part of twin takedown. But they also aren't reload 0 so no hunted shot either.
They have weird edge cases that cause problems if following the rules in a completely strict manner, yes.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
They have weird edge cases that cause problems if following the rules in a completely strict manner, yes.
I mean, I don't think this is just an instance of being too strict with the rules: the errata was put in place specifically to shut down builds that used 'melee weapon' feats and features with thrown weapon attacks.
It's a questionable rule that puts thrown weapons in an awkward spot that makes them hard to use and kind of bad, but that's RAI.
If you want thrown weapons, dual weapon warrior is the way to go. Otherwise, Rangers are worse with thrown weapons than a fighter, much like fighters are worse with a crossbow.
Per the first CRB errata, a thrown weapon counts as a ranged weapon when you throw it
In the definition for the thrown weapon trait, change the first sentence to “You can throw this weapon as a ranged attack, and it is a ranged weapon when thrown.”So no throwing hammers as part of twin takedown. But they also aren't reload 0 so no hunted shot either.
I don't think this automatically follows. I mean its a common sense reasonable ruling, but I don't see that the rules are tight enough to force this ruling. I can easily see a GM ruling the other way.
For starters there is nothing which says a weapon can't be melee and ranged at the same time. Or maybe its just ranged when resolving the actual Strike.
I mean, I don't think this is just an instance of being too strict with the rules: the errata was put in place specifically to shut down builds that used 'melee weapon' feats and features with thrown weapon attacks.
It's a questionable rule that puts thrown weapons in an awkward spot that makes them hard to use and kind of bad, but that's RAI.
How do you know this? Just from reading the errata on thrown weapons I'd say it was but in place to make sure that thrown weapons could use ranged weapon feats.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
How do you know this? Just from reading the errata on thrown weapons I'd say it was but in place to make sure that thrown weapons could use ranged weapon feats.I mean, I don't think this is just an instance of being too strict with the rules: the errata was put in place specifically to shut down builds that used 'melee weapon' feats and features with thrown weapon attacks.
It's a questionable rule that puts thrown weapons in an awkward spot that makes them hard to use and kind of bad, but that's RAI.
I'll see if I can dig up the thread, but back before the first reprint there was a discussion on whether Thief rogues could use their racket when throwing daggers. A developer chimed in to say no because they aren't melee weapons when you throw them, and that errata would be forthcoming to clarify that they're considered ranged weapons, not melee weapons, when you make ranged attacks with them.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
That's annoying guessing thrown weapons don't have much support.Per the first CRB errata, a thrown weapon counts as a ranged weapon when you throw it
In the definition for the thrown weapon trait, change the first sentence to “You can throw this weapon as a ranged attack, and it is a ranged weapon when thrown.”So no throwing hammers as part of twin takedown. But they also aren't reload 0 so no hunted shot either.
You can use shuriken as they are thrown and reload 0.
Per the first CRB errata, a thrown weapon counts as a ranged weapon when you throw it
In the definition for the thrown weapon trait, change the first sentence to “You can throw this weapon as a ranged attack, and it is a ranged weapon when thrown.”So no throwing hammers as part of twin takedown. But they also aren't reload 0 so no hunted shot either.I don't think this automatically follows. I mean its a common sense reasonable ruling, but I don't see that the rules are tight enough to force this ruling. I can easily see a GM ruling the other way.
For starters there is nothing which says a weapon can't be melee and ranged at the same time. Or maybe its just ranged when resolving the actual Strike.
Twin Takedown and Double Slice have the same wording and Dual-Weapon Warrior has the feat Dual Thrower to allow Dual-Weapon Warrior feats (including Double Slice, as such) to be used with Thrown Weapons. So I think the intent is quite clear in that case.
Twin Takedown and Double Slice have the same wording and Dual-Weapon Warrior has the feat Dual Thrower to allow Dual-Weapon Warrior feats (including Double Slice, as such) to be used with Thrown Weapons. So I think the intent is quite clear in that case.
Dual Thrower affects more than the Dual-Weapon Warrior Dedication feat, it affects the whole archetype. Yes that also includes Double Slice. I agree its pretty pointless though if you could use thrown weapons with Double Slice. So thats a strong indication of intention. The rules are not tight enough though to close it off.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Twin Takedown and Double Slice have the same wording and Dual-Weapon Warrior has the feat Dual Thrower to allow Dual-Weapon Warrior feats (including Double Slice, as such) to be used with Thrown Weapons. So I think the intent is quite clear in that case.Dual Thrower affects more than the Dual-Weapon Warrior Dedication feat, it affects the whole archetype. Yes that also includes Double Slice. I agree its pretty pointless though if you could use thrown weapons with Double Slice. So thats a strong indication of intention. The rules are not tight enough though to close it off.
I agree there could be a case for RAW but you have to jump through a few hoops (considering that you are still wielding a weapon when you throw it and that thrown weapons stay melee weapons when you throw them). But both the errata and Dual Thrower give a good idea of RAI. In my opinion, the doubt is not reasonable enough to create an issue.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I note that this build also needs solutions to the "running out of hammers" problem. In particular, at higher levels I think you actually need two different throwing hammers both of which have returning to make it work.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
There isn't anything equivalent to doubling ring that works with thrown weapons is there.
I think the Blazons of Shared Power would work. Though I am not sure that it would work well enough to make dual-throwing weapons a viable strategy on its own. Maybe the level 11 version to replicate a Returning rune.
Because unlike Doubling Rings, the secondary weapon is fixed and specified during morning preparations. Not just any weapon that you pick up.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
There isn't anything equivalent to doubling ring that works with thrown weapons is there.I think the Blazons of Shared Power would work. Though I am not sure that it would work well enough to make dual-throwing weapons a viable strategy on its own. Maybe the level 11 version to replicate a Returning rune.
Because unlike Doubling Rings, the secondary weapon is fixed and specified during morning preparations. Not just any weapon that you pick up.
Once you throw your weapon, you're not wielding it anymore. So the Blazons wouldn't work.
Once you throw your weapon, you're not wielding it anymore.
There are several issues with doing it like this such as thrown weapons NOT getting proficiency bonuses [you only get those while wielding the weapon] and not being able to strike with them at all [Strike Attack: "You attack with a weapon you're wielding"]. And if Strike id out, so is Returning...
You also have things like Tethered that don't work if you stop wielding a thrown weapon: "If you have a free hand while wielding this weapon, you can use an Interact action to pull the weapon back into your grasp after you have thrown it as a ranged attack or after it has been disarmed (unless it is being held by another creature)." if you stop wielding it, you can't use the Interact.
Once you throw your weapon, you're not wielding it anymore.There are several issues with doing it like this such as thrown weapons NOT getting proficiency bonuses [you only get those while wielding the weapon] and not being able to strike with them at all [Strike Attack: "You attack with a weapon you're wielding"]. And if Strike id out, so is Returning...
You also have things like Tethered that don't work if you stop wielding a thrown weapon: "If you have a free hand while wielding this weapon, you can use an Interact action to pull the weapon back into your grasp after you have thrown it as a ranged attack or after it has been disarmed (unless it is being held by another creature)." if you stop wielding it, you can't use the Interact.
It's not as problematic as it might seem if you figure that the attack roll and the strike are made before the weapon clears your hand, and the strike is the thing that results in it not being in your hand anymore.
As far as Tethered is concerned, the wording on tethered is downright odd on the face of it regardless of whatever else is going on. First, it suggests that you could have thrown the weapon or have it disarmed and still be wielding it while *not* having any free hands. So... you have a sword and a shield (sword is tethered). You get disarmed. You draw another weapon... and you're still somehow wielding the disarmed blade?
Beyond that, the argument that you could have been disarmed and still be wielding the thing is downright odd all by itself. Like, if you get disarmed to that level, then your blade is literally on the floor, and presumably has been since your enemy disarmed it on their turn. How do you count as still wielding it? Well, I suppose that maybe you count as still wielding it because there's a physical tether attaching you, but that pretty much eliminates it from consideration as evidence for/against anything else.
edit: Also worth noting that Blazon of Shared Power can't duplicate Returning for you until the Greater version at item level 11.
It's not as problematic as it might seem if you figure that the attack roll and the strike are made before the weapon clears your hand, and the strike is the thing that results in it not being in your hand anymore.
It works both ways: if you're figuring everything from when it's in your hands, you'd do the same with the blazons.
As far as Tethered is concerned, the wording on tethered is downright odd on the face of it regardless of whatever else is going on. First, it suggests that you could have thrown the weapon or have it disarmed and still be wielding it while *not* having any free hands. So... you have a sword and a shield (sword is tethered). You get disarmed. You draw another weapon... and you're still somehow wielding the disarmed blade?
Beyond that, the argument that you could have been disarmed and still be wielding the thing is downright odd all by itself. Like, if you get disarmed to that level, then your blade is literally on the floor, and presumably has been since your enemy disarmed it on their turn. How do you count as still wielding it? Well, I suppose that maybe you count as still wielding it because there's a physical tether attaching you, but that pretty much eliminates it from consideration as evidence for/against anything else.
With the existence of reactions it's possible to lose access to a hand because of one. I can't think of one off hand but it wouldn't be the first time the game had used preemptive wording.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
It works both ways: if you're figuring everything from when it's in your hands, you'd do the same with the blazons.
Yeah... but the point isn't the blazons. It's the returning. The bit where it comes winging back to your hand clearly happens after the strike has been made, after it is no longer in your hand.
Though, ironically, I have just realized that there's a really easy workaround for this, if that's the way it works... because the runes from the blazons and the suppression from the blazons would wear off at the same time. You could use a dirt-cheap thrown weapon of returning in your off hand. In further irony, that suggests that my interpretation may fail the "too good to be true" rule, as it would let you get all of the benefits of returning without having to take a property rune slot for it.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
So assuming your flurry ranger with agile melee weapons against a standard on level opponent will you end up doing more damage with two actions double slicing or attacking 3 times (hunted strike).
I was going to try and do the maths myself using a high level dc to see but suspected someone has already done it and I could reap the benefits by asking ?
The three attacks with Twin Takedown do more expected damage than Double Slice until you need a 16 or higher to hit with your best attack—something that will only happen if you're badly debuffed and fighting a significantly higher-level enemy (at which point, you shouldn't be attacking at all).
However, it's worth noting that because the difference is relatively small, the damage you would do as a precision ranger with Double Strike is very close to the damage you'd do with flurry and Twin Takedown—in fact, before you get your first striking rune, precision is definitely better.
In general, a good rule of thumb is that flurry is only better when you can spend at least three actions attacking.
So assuming your flurry ranger with agile melee weapons against a standard on level opponent will you end up doing more damage with two actions double slicing or attacking 3 times (hunted strike).
I was going to try and do the maths myself using a high level dc to see but suspected someone has already done it and I could reap the benefits by asking ?
The three attacks with Twin Takedown do more expected damage than Double Slice until you need a 16 or higher to hit with your best attack—something that will only happen if you're badly debuffed and fighting a significantly higher-level enemy (at which point, you shouldn't be attacking at all).
However, it's worth noting that because the difference is relatively small, the damage you would do as a precision ranger with Double Strike is very close to the damage you'd do with flurry and Twin Takedown—in fact, before you get your first striking rune, precision is definitely better.
In general, a good rule of thumb is that flurry is only better when you can spend at least three actions attacking.
Make 3 attacks, or use 3 actions attacking?