|
I've always seen people say that you should get power attack if you're two weapon fighting due to the damage that it provides you. The issue is that combining the penalties from both makes it so inaccurate that the image you get is less of a devastating human blender, and more of someone blindly flailing around hoping they will hit something.
You can hurt as you want, but there's no point if you can't hit your target. So why would anybody put such potentially detrimental penalties on themselves just the for sake of more damage?
There are a lot of way you can boost your accuracy. If you are playing a character that can boost their accuracy high enough to overcome the penalties power attack will significantly increase the damage your do. For example, a ranger with maxed out favored enemy that is fully buffed will usually have an incredibly high accuracy and can easily handle the penalty for power attack as well as two weapon fighting.
For the most part two weapon fighting usually means the character is DEX based. There are also very few ways to get DEX to damage when using two weapon fighting. This means the damage is usually a lot lower than those using other styles of fighting especially two handed. Power attack or better yet piranha strike is one of the few ways to add damage to two weapon fighting.
It is also very useful when the character needs to wade through a ton of minions to get to the real target. Many GM will have a bunch of low threat creatures just protect the boss. They are usually enough of a threat they cannot be ignored, but not really that hard to deal with. A character using two weapon fighting and power attack can often cut through them like a hot knife through butter.
Not all abilities need to be good at all times. Being able to vary your tactics to meet the situation is a lot better than having a single tactic that does not always solve all your problems.
I've always seen people say that you should get power attack if you're two weapon fighting due to the damage that it provides you.
Well, not everyone can be good at math!
What actually usually kills Power Attack for TWF is the 1:1 ratio for the off-hand, which brings the effective ratio down to 1.5:1 across your attacks (slightly higher with Haste). Depending on the build, but that's usually around the effective ratio of Power Attack, meaning doesn't really change the (average) DPR - which in turn makes it a bad feat, obviously.
There are exceptions, of course, e.g. from having so high an attack roll bonus that you're overcapped. Barbarian with Reckless Abandon/Accurate Stance being an example. But yes, most people who suggest Power Attack on TWF simply don't understand the game well.
In terms of damage boost, power attack for TWF is actually somehat equivalent to power attack for a 2 handed weapon, you get 2 on your main hand and 1 on your off hand, for the same 3 that a 2 handed weapon user gets.
Nope, that's not how the math works, basically because you apply the attack roll penalty twice.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Nope, that's not how the math works, basically because you apply the attack roll penalty twice.
What penalty is applied twice?
When using two weapons fighting (with the appropriate feats) all your attacks suffer a -2 penalty but you get one or more extra attacks when compared to someone using a single weapon.
The power attack penalty is applied once to all your attacks, the same thing that happens to all people using power attack.
What actually usually kills Power Attack for TWF is the 1:1 ratio for the off-hand, which brings the effective ratio down to 1.5:1 across your attacks (slightly higher with Haste). Depending on the build, but that's usually around the effective ratio of Power Attack, meaning doesn't really change the (average) DPR - which in turn makes it a bad feat, obviously.
Strange math.
Two-handed weapon - you add 3 points of damage for each point of to hit you lose.Single weapon - you add 2 points of damage for each point of to hit you lose.
Two weapons - you add 2 points of damage to your primary weapon and 1 point of damage to your secondary weapon for each point of to hit you lose.
I don't see how 2 and 1 (separate values) are averaged into 1.5, unless you include the multiplier for the number of extra attacks you get.
We can spend a few thousand words arguing if 2-weapon combat is better or worse than two-handed combat and what characters can get more or less for one or the other, but power attack change something only when you need to bypass damage reduction.
The usefulness of power attack will depend on how much damage you are already doing. 2 added to 5 is an almost 50% increase in damage. 2 added to 20 is just a 10% increase in damage. The penalty to attack applies to your chances to deal either set of damage, so the high damage attacker is on average risking a lot more for power attack than the low damage attacker.
Two weapon fighting is different. It’s basically always an increase to average damage. Its problem is more because of the emotional and practical issues of rolling so many less accurate attacks. There is a very real chance to roll all misses one round just to roll all hits the next. These occurrences will be at convenient times as often as inconvenient times. So this will inevitably feel bad. The other problem is that regardless of a good or bad string of luck, these attacks will take a long time to roll. Online dice rollers largely alleviate this problem but aren’t a reality for everyone.
What penalty is applied twice?
When you attack twice as often, you're affected by the penalty twice as often. If you add the damage bonuses together, you also need to add the attack penalties together.
I don't see how 2 and 1 (separate values) are averaged into 1.5, unless you include the multiplier for the number of extra attacks you get.
+2 50% of the time and +1 50% of the time equal +1.5 on average.
We can spend a few thousand words arguing if 2-weapon combat is better or worse than two-handed combat and what characters can get more or less for one or the other, but power attack change something only when you need to bypass damage reduction.
- Let's take a sample character. 10th level, 22 strength, TWF, Improved TWF, WFocus, WSpec, +2 Weapon Training; attacking an average CR 10 enemy (24 AC). TWF uses two 1d6 weapons with +2, two-handed uses a 1d6 weapon with +3 with a damage bonus of +3.4 (a tiny bit below a 2d6 weapon, it makes the DPR without Power Attack equal).
Without Power Attack, both style do 39.7 DPR.
With Power Attack, 2H does 45.2 DPR, or +14%, while TWF does 40.8 DPR, or +2%.
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
It completely comes down to your character, party, and campaign. If you’re playing a TWF full BAB class (say a ranger) in a PFS game and you almost always play with a bard whose first round is “good hope as a standard and then I inspire courage as a move” then you’ve got really good chances to hit, even with iteratives. Power attack is adding damage.
If you are playing a rogue in a challenging homebrew campaign with no party buffers, then power attack reduces your chance to hit, and isn’t that much damage in comparison to the sneak attack you are aiming for, anyway.
There isn’t a straightforward right answer for every situation. It is worth noting that what you are asking is almost equivalent to “why would you ever combine Rapid Shot and Deadly Aim?”
|
|
What penalty is applied twice?When you attack twice as often, you're affected by the penalty twice as often. If you add the damage bonuses together, you also need to add the attack penalties together.
I don't see how 2 and 1 (separate values) are averaged into 1.5, unless you include the multiplier for the number of extra attacks you get.+2 50% of the time and +1 50% of the time equal +1.5 on average.
We can spend a few thousand words arguing if 2-weapon combat is better or worse than two-handed combat and what characters can get more or less for one or the other, but power attack change something only when you need to bypass damage reduction.Let's take a sample character. 10th level, 22 strength, TWF, Improved TWF, WFocus, WSpec, +2 Weapon Training; attacking an average CR 10 enemy (24 AC). TWF uses two 1d6 weapons with +2, two-handed uses a 1d6 weapon with +3 with a damage bonus of +3.4 (a tiny bit below a 2d6 weapon, it makes the DPR without Power Attack equal).
Without Power Attack, both style do 39.7 DPR.
With Power Attack, 2H does 45.2 DPR, or +14%, while TWF does 40.8 DPR, or +2%.
I see what you are trying to say, but your numbers are completely off. Maybe you have forgotten to list some modifier.
With the two-handed weapon, greatsword, damage 2d6.
BAB +10, +2 weapon focus, +2 weapon training, +6 str =+20/+15
Damage: 2d6+13, average damage 20, ratio 83% with the first attack 62.5% with the second.
DPS 29.17
With two weapons combat, 2 shortswords, 1d6 each.
BAB +10, +2 weapon focus, +2 weapon training, +6 str -2 TWC =+18/+15 primary hand +18/+15 secondary hand.
Damage: 1d6+10 primary hand, average 13.5, 1d6+7 secondary hand, average 10.5.
% percentage: primary hand 75% and 54%, secondary hand 75% and 54%
DPS 17.4 primary, 13.6 secondary = total 31
Adding power attack:
With the two-handed weapon, greatsword, damage 2d6.
BAB +10, +2 weapon focus, +2 weapon training, +6 str, -2 PA =+17/+12
Damage: 2d6+22, average damage 29, ratio 71% with the first attack 54% with the second.
DPS 35.04 Damage increase from power attack: 20.1%
With two weapons combat, 2 shortswords, 1d6 each.
BAB +10, +2 weapon focus, +2 weapon training, +6 str -2 TWC - 3 PA=+15/+12 primary hand +15/+12 secondary hand.
Damage: 1d6+16 primary hand, average 19.5, 1d6+10 secondary hand, average 13.5.
% percentage: primary hand 63% and 42%, secondary hand 63% and 42%
DPS 20.3 primary, 14.1 secondary = total 34.4
The increase from power attack: 10.9%
So, yes, power attack increases the damage when you use two weapons by only of 10% against 20% from using a single two-handed weapon, but the guy using 2 weapons deals 98% of the damage dealt by the guy using a single weapon.
Different target AC, different bonuses, the ability to do precision damage, etc. will all change those numbers and percentages but using Power attack or Piraha strike is almost always beneficial, barring the instances in which you hit only with very high numbers.
Your other static modifiers to damage will change that too.
I see what you are trying to say, but your numbers are completely off. Maybe you have forgotten to list some modifier.
No, I didn't. You, however, forgot the weapon enchantments and gave Weapon Focus a +2, and for TWF you have iteratives that are only -3 behind.
I also used 20-20/x2 crit stats, not that that really changes things, but if you prefer it with real weapons:
2H with greatsword: 41.7 without PA (+22/+17, 23 avr. dmg.), 47.5 with PA (+19/+14, 32 avr. dmg.) [+14.2%]
TWF with 2 shortswords: 41.6 without PA (+19/+14, 15.5 avr. dmg. | +19/+15, 12.5 avr. dmg.), 42.7 with PA (+16/+11, 21.5 avr. dmg. | +16/+11, 15.5 avr. dmg.) [+2.6%]
using Power attack or Piraha strike is almost always beneficial, barring the instances in which you hit only with very high numbers.
Not only is this objectively false*, it also totally ignores that the feats aren't free.
*) Swashbuckler, 22 dex, +2 shocking rapier, WFocus, WSpec, Fencing Grace (with +2 SWT & Precise Strike), vs. average CR 10 enemy (24 AC):
Without PA: +21/+16, 1d8+12+1d6+10, DRP 54.2
With PA: +18/+13, 1d6+18+1d6+10, DPR 53.4
Yes, the damage loss isn't big, and I actually had to use an elemental weapon enchantment to make the math work (although it does increase the DPR). But this is a not-outlandish situation where PA means paying for a feat to make the damage worse, on character hits on a 3 (without PA).
+2 50% of the time and +1 50% of the time equal +1.5 on average.
You know you get to do both attacks, right? So it's not +1.5 per round on average, because there's no averaging. It's +2 + +1 = +3.
Obviously this assumes that you get a full attack with exactly 2 attacks, vs a single-weapon user who gets exactly one attack, and it all changes if you have BAB 6+ and don't have ITWF/GTWF so you're not getting the other secondary iteratives so 2H @ BAB+6 = +6+6 = +12 vs TWF = +4+4+2 = +10, etc. Which is in its turn muddied by the second +6 and +4 being at -5 to hit.
And then you get into complications of Furious Focus which is (for reasons that escape me) only for 2H weapons, and even if you house-rule that away is presumably no good for the off-hand strike.
But otherwise, PA is in all ways as good or better than Piranha Strike unless you don't have the 13+ strength to qualify for PA. This is notably because PS doesn't work for 2H or non-light weapons and is not a prerequisite for any feats.
Because you're a LE Slayer that took Deific/Diverse Obedience and worships Achaekek to get the 3rd Sentinel boon, called Mantis Style Mastery (Ex): "You take no penalties on attack rolls from two-weapon fighting when wielding two sawtooth sabres simultaneously, and you gain a +2 profane bonus on all damage rolls with sawtooth sabres. If you deal sneak attack damage with a sawtooth sabre, you deal 2 additional points of damage for each die rolled as part of your sneak attack damage..."
The +2 profane bonus per attack has the potential to multiply on a crit, too. A level 18 Slayer's 6D6 Sneak Attack would net an extra +12 points of damage to every attack that deals Sneak Attack.
Sure, it's [at least] level 18, but Greater TWF is no longer a trap option... full-BAB gives you [at least] 4 attacks, GTWF gives you 3 more... +18/+18/+13/+13/+8/+8/+3. Two-Weapon Rend's extra 1D10+1.5str would be almost guaranteed to proxy.
Still looking at +13/+13/+8/+8/+3/+3/-2 including Power Attack's -5 penalty at BAB+18... well worth the ~70 extra damage it will potentially give this routine. With seven attacks, +10 damage to each sounds quite nice... potentially multiplied on that 17-20/×2 critical threat profile (with Improved Critcal). Studied Target's bonus is +4 at this level, making Power Attack's penalty a nonfactor.
So it's not +1.5 per round on average, because there's no averaging.
- Not +1.5 damage per round on average, I was talking about the ratio between attack roll penalty and damage roll bonus. And the latter is indeed +1.5 on average (times the BAB-dependent multiplier), as a +2 to half the damage rolls and +1 to the other half of damage rolls has the exact same effect as a +1.5 to all damage rolls.
Take the above TWF character, and instead of Power Attack, add a -3 to attack rolls and a +4.5 to damage rolls (a 1:1.5 ratio between those two numbers), both for all attacks. The DPR will be exactly the same as with PA.
The same principle also applies to other things that don't effect both attacks equally. For example, Weapon Specialization with only the main hand, a +2 to half the attacks in the sample's case, increases the average damage by as much as a +1 to all attack rolls.
it all changes if you have BAB 6+ and don't have ITWF
It changes surprisingly little, actually. If we remove ImpTWF from my sample character, the effective ratio is 1:1.63, and the benefit or PA would still be weaker than the +1 to damage rolls you can get from a trait. Even with Haste added it's still just 1:1.72 - notably worse than even the 1:2 ratio one-handed builds or natural attack builds get, although at least somewhat worth a feat.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Improved and greater two weapon fighting are not traps. The improvements are minor, but they don’t change the penalties you were already taking from two weapon fighting, so they are pure bonus damage for that fighting style. The only possible reason to avoid them is if you are playing under some house rule where natural 1s give you a penalty, in which case you should stay away from any multi-attack build anyway.
|
|
I see what you are trying to say, but your numbers are completely off. Maybe you have forgotten to list some modifier.No, I didn't. You, however, forgot the weapon enchantments and gave Weapon Focus a +2, and for TWF you have iteratives that are only -3 behind.
You used a fighter as an example, at level 10 he can have greater weapon focus and it is stupid not having it, especially for the guy using two weapons combat. I used that, should have spelled it out.
The -3 on iterative is an error, I hope only a copy/paste error, I will redo the math.using Power attack or Piraha strike is almost always beneficial, barring the instances in which you hit only with very high numbers.Not only is this objectively false*, it also totally ignores that the feats aren't free.
Do you know the meaning of "almost always"?
Yes, the damage loss isn't big, and I actually had to use an elemental weapon enchantment to make the math work (although it does increase the DPR). But this is a not-outlandish situation where PA means paying for a feat to make the damage worse, on character hits on a 3 (without PA).
Besides having your math working, there is any reason to have a +2 shocking weapon and not a +3 weapon?
|
|
There was an error in the Excel spreadsheet I made, so here are the calculations redone. Interesting results.
Two-handed weapon, greatsword, damage 2d6, with Greater weapon focus and improved critical.
BAB +10, +2 greater weapon focus, +2 weapon training, +2 weapon, +6 str =+22/+17
Damage 2d6+15, average 22, critical on 17+.
DPS 36.3
With PA to hit +19/+14, Damage 2d6+24, average 31
DPS 41.85, a 15.29% increase.
TWF BAB +10, +2 greater weapon focus, +2 weapon training, +2 weapon, +6 str, -2 for TWF =+20/+15 off-hand +20/+15
Damage 1d6+12, average 15.5 off-hand 1d6+9, average 12.5
DPS 40.6
With PA hit +17/+12 off-hand +17/+12
Damage 1d6+18, average 21.5, off-hand 1d6+12, average 15.5
DPS 42.55, a 4.8% increase
The increase when fighting with two weapons is a bit less than a third of what you get with a two-handed weapon
Increasing the AC the numbers change:
AC 28:
- two-handed: 26.4, with PA 29.45
- TWF: 29.4, with PA 27.75
AC 32:
- two-handed: 18.7, with PA 17.05
- TWF: 18.2, with PA 12.95
AC 36:
- two-handed: 11, with PA 7.75
- TWF: 8.4, with PA 3.7
AC 40:
- two-handed: 4.4, with PA 3.1
- TWF: 2.8 with PA 3.7
Obviously, increasing the to-hit bonuses will shift the number the other way.
If your BAB increase to +11 and you get one more interactive attack, it changes again.
Your calculations completely ignore crits. May I suggest my DPR calculator?
Also, two +2 weapons are about as expensive as a single +3 weapon (16.6k vs. 18.3k), which is why I used the latter in my sample.
You used a fighter as an example, at level 10 he can have greater weapon focus and it is stupid not having it, especially for the guy using two weapons combat. I used that [...]
Well, for trying to reproduce my result you shouldn't have. As for me, I didn't use GWF because it would have put the 2H build over the hitcap, thus somewhat warping the comparison (i.e. artificially increasing the gain from PA for 2H).
Do you know the meaning of "almost always"?
I took the two sentences to be related, i.e. that the cases not included in "almost always" refered to "the instances in which you hit only with very high numbers". Either way, it's not just Swashbucklers, but also Rogues, Ninjas, Stalker Vigilantes, everyone else with Sneak Attack, Magi, Monks with Jabbing Master, everyone with an oversized impact weapon, everyone with full Shikigame Style, everyone with high base damage natural attacks... I can probably come up with a lot more if I think about it for a minute. There are also cases where the feat does provide a benefit, but one that's so small that the feat cost can't be justified - Inquisitors with Bane active being an example.
My point is, your statement was way to blanket and general.
Going over the hit cap is fairly realistic though. It seems reasonable to have a calculation that includes that. Not sure how far to take it though. Gloves of dueling aren’t completely unusual at level 10, but they also aren’t an expectation of the game like greater weapon focus.
|
|
Your calculations completely ignore crits. May I suggest my DPR calculator?
My calculations include the critics and the chance of confirming them.
Considering that I would have to dismantle and verify all of it to be sure that there aren't hidden errors, no thanks.
Also, two +2 weapons are about as expensive as a single +3 weapon (16.6k vs. 18.3k), which is why I used the latter in my sample.
Some other modifier that you haven't listed in your posts?
Looting +2 weapons is more common than looting +3 weapons. Two +2 looted weapons cost less than a purchased +3 weapon. We can spend uselessy the next 20 posts arguing about what equipment is more probable and how people will spend money.
You used a fighter as an example, at level 10 he can have greater weapon focus and it is stupid not having it, especially for the guy using two weapons combat. I used that [...]Well, for trying to reproduce my result you shouldn't have. As for me, I didn't use GWF because it would have put the 2H build over the hitcap, thus somewhat warping the comparison (i.e. artificially increasing the gain from PA for 2H).
We are speaking of a probable build or some artificial construct? In a probable build people will take GWF if they have the feats.
Do you know the meaning of "almost always"?I took the two sentences to be related, i.e. that the cases not included in "almost always" refered to "the instances in which you hit only with very high numbers". Either way, it's not just Swashbucklers, but also Rogues, Ninjas, Stalker Vigilantes, everyone else with Sneak Attack, Magi, Monks with Jabbing Master, everyone with an oversized impact weapon, everyone with full Shikigame Style, everyone with high base damage natural attacks... I can probably come up with a lot more if I think about it for a minute. There are also cases where the feat does provide a benefit, but one that's so small that the feat cost can't be justified - Inquisitors with Bane active being an example.
My point is, your statement was way to blanket and general.
Seeing the redone calculation, it was.
Part of the problem with this comparison is that there are more feats to improve two weapon fighting than two handed fighting. For instance, Hand’s Autonomy lowers those two weapon fighting penalties, typically by 1.
Improved and greater two weapon fighting are not traps.
Improved Two-Weapon Fighting isn't a trap. However, Greater Two-Weapon Fighting is (IMO). Damage-wise (average DPR), you are better off with Two-Weapon Rend (not to mention Double Slice is worth it in and of itself for 16+ Str [including an enhancement bonus from a magic item]).
So, considering that Weapon Finesse and Piranha Strike exist, and TWF generally requires lots of Dex, Which is also great for archery, you generally want to spend any extra feats you have on archery feats (Deadly Aim), this leaves little space for Power attack.
Since you are REALLY wanting to pump Dex for a TWF build, and have some points to spend on other abilities, STR easily becomes a dump stat for TWF. So yeah, while Power Attack can be put on a TWF build, there's usually better uses of that feat slot.
(Also, don't forget about Effortless Lace)
Improved and greater two weapon fighting are not traps.Improved Two-Weapon Fighting isn't a trap. However, Greater Two-Weapon Fighting is (IMO). Damage-wise (average DPR), you are better off with Two-Weapon Rend (not to mention Double Slice is worth it in and of itself for 16+ Str [including an enhancement bonus from a magic item]).
Ideally, you'd be taking both. GTWF even increases the odds of TWR occurring.
What you are probably alluding to is the ranger combat style. In that case, I think I'd still usually get GTWF, because the prerequisites of TWR are easier to reach with belts, so you can take it with normal feats. Maybe if you are playing in a magic item light campaign or you had to dump dexterity for some reason, then TWR would be a better choice.
Note: That last bit was more the perspective of a slayer. A ranger will get both. One at 10 and one at 14. So, even less of a trap there. In that case, you'd probably take TWR first, but that hardly makes GTWF a trap. The difference is pretty minor and GTWF can still be better if you are relying on your attacks for rider effects.
My calculations include the critics and the chance of confirming them.
BAB +10, +2 greater weapon focus, +2 weapon training, +2 weapon, +6 str =+22/+17
Damage 2d6+15, average 22, critical on 17+.
DPS 36.3
- Against AC 24, +22 is 95% chance to hit, +17 is 70% chance to hit.
0.95*22 = 20.9
0.7*22 = 15.4
20.9+15.4 = 36.3
I already get your total DRP just by multiplying the average damage with the hit chance, so where is the increased damage from critical hits?
What did I not list?Also, two +2 weapons are about as expensive as a single +3 weapon (16.6k vs. 18.3k), which is why I used the latter in my sample.Some other modifier that you haven't listed in your posts?
TWF uses two 1d6 weapons with +2, two-handed uses a 1d6 weapon with +3 with a damage bonus of +3.4 (a tiny bit below a 2d6 weapon, it makes the DPR without Power Attack equal).
We are speaking of a probable build or some artificial construct? In a probable build people will take GWF if they have the feats.
I was speaking about a sample build, as my point (and my post) was not just about 10th level Fighters, and I only used one to get good numbers for the comparison. Were you only talking about a single, specific build?
Going over the hit cap is fairly realistic though.
For TWF? That really depends on the class and build. I deliberately made the comparison to show how PA affects the two styles when they're not overhitcapped. This has the effect that the results are still valid when fighting a high CR boss opponent, somethign I think is of higher interest than the DRP when fighting weak monsters.
Also, I assume everyone to be smart enough to understand that if you don't suffer the downsides from PA, it's a good feat.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Also, I assume everyone to be smart enough to understand that if you don't suffer the downsides from PA, it's a good feat.
The thing is that the original question is more generic than that. Is it good to get both Power Attack and Two Weapon fighting? I think the answer is that it can certainly be good to have both. Going over the hit cap isn't that hard, especially with a few outside buffs and some specialized class and feat options.
We also didn't bring damage reduction into the mix. With DR, things can swing back in favor of power attack, because having a 95% chance to deal 0 damage is a lot worse than having a 75% chance to deal some damage.
What's a hit cap?
Hit chance is capped at 95% (as a natural 1 always misses), so if you already hit an opponent on an attack roll of 2, every attack roll bonus beyond that does nothing, at least not for that attack.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Improved and greater two weapon fighting are not traps.Improved Two-Weapon Fighting isn't a trap. However, Greater Two-Weapon Fighting is (IMO). Damage-wise (average DPR), you are better off with Two-Weapon Rend (not to mention Double Slice is worth it in and of itself for 16+ Str [including an enhancement bonus from a magic item]).Ideally, you'd be taking both. GTWF even increases the odds of TWR occurring.
What you are probably alluding to is the ranger combat style. In that case, I think I'd still usually get GTWF, because the prerequisites of TWR are easier to reach with belts, so you can take it with normal feats. Maybe if you are playing in a magic item light campaign or you had to dump dexterity for some reason, then TWR would be a better choice.
Note: That last bit was more the perspective of a slayer. A ranger will get both. One at 10 and one at 14. So, even less of a trap there. In that case, you'd probably take TWR first, but that hardly makes GTWF a trap. The difference is pretty minor and GTWF can still be better if you are relying on your attacks for rider effects.
Even without going ranger or slayer, pretty much all of the TWF feat chain only needs 17 Dex to qualify (other than a few like Greater TWF). For most ability generation methods, it is perfectly viable to only bring Dex up to 17 (or 18 with more generous methods) and focus more on Str; it may be as simple as a 14 Dex +2 racial +1 advancement. Focusing more on Str and taking "good enough" on Dex also requires less feats than getting Dex to melee attack rolls and also on damage.
The -10 for the third off-hand attack with Greater TWF, on top of the -2 for TWF in the first place, makes it basically diminishing returns from an average DPR perspective. Two-Weapon Rend, on the other hand, has a larger return on DPR; as long as at least one attack with the primary weapon and one attack with the off-hand weapon hit in the same round (probably about 2-3 times as likely as that off-hand attack at -12) then the rend happens.
Even without going ranger or slayer, pretty much all of the TWF feat chain only needs 17 Dex to qualify (other than a few like Greater TWF). For most ability generation methods, it is perfectly viable to only bring Dex up to 17 (or 18 with more generous methods) and focus more on Str; it may be as simple as a 14 Dex +2 racial +1 advancement. Focusing more on Str and taking "good enough" on Dex also requires less feats than getting Dex to melee attack rolls and also on damage.
The -10 for the third off-hand attack with Greater TWF, on top of the -2 for TWF in the first place, makes it basically diminishing returns from an average DPR perspective. Two-Weapon Rend, on the other hand, has a larger return on DPR; as long as at least one attack with the primary weapon and one attack with the off-hand weapon hit in...
I disagree, Keep boosting DEX above 18, and get that third attack with each weapon up to where it is hitting consistently. The added Dex also boosts AC and Init as a bonus. These extra hits especially add to DPR if you have a damage boost to give them such as Sneak Attack, flaming, etc. it's not too difficult to have a bonus 5 or 6 d6 per attack on a TWF build.
It goes back to what I was saying about going over the hit cap. Even two-handed weapon fighters want to do that for their own iteratives. And there are ways to reduce the penalties of two weapon fighting, like Hand's Autonomy.
The decision also comes to if you do or don't receive any additional bonuses to the Two Weapon Rend damage. I lean to interpret the weapon being capped at what it says, but I know some interpret it differently. 1d10+1.5*Strength is a nice addition, but with the right options the offhand attack can be 1d6+Strength+multiple myriad bonuses
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Not to mention that it was too often fails to take into account player luck The closest it does is say "it all averages out so luck is not real" which is BS given luck is just having a streak of good/bad rolls.
Do you anoint your dice in sacred oils and refuse to roll any dice that aren't yours because that would break your innate luck aura?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Also DPR calculators are only good for the sake of getting some numbers for the sake of comparison. They do not automatically determine that one build is better than another. Not to mention that it was too often fails to take into account player luck; The closest it does is say "it all averages out so luck is not real" which is BS given luck is just having a streak of good/bad rolls.
This is so wild. You actually dismissed the entire field of probability because you don't believe in averages.
Yes, it's possible and very likely that you actually score an average below or higher than the expected average of a D20 die. With a smaller sample size that will happen. But if you keep rolling, and the die isn't unbalanced, it will regress towards the mean.
"Luck" is already accounted for. And "bad luck" as well. That's what an average is.
This is the equivalent of saying that Russian Roulette isn't dangerous because "you're very lucky".
I think the argument being posed to you, Temperans, is that DPR calculators don’t remove probability, but that they calculate according to the mean at which enough rolls will eventually arrive. What people perceive to be an impactful roll or series of rolls, on the other hand, is a largely subjective thing and thus—in my humble opinion—not something worth really debating. I do agree, however, that DPR alone can’t tell you how good a build is. It’s great within a very narrow focus of the game, but obviously can’t capture the value of a character aimed at, e.g., controlling a battlefield or ending combat with non-lethal solutions.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Ah, that makes more sense.
I suppose that we could, as a treat, evaluate these options in words beyond DPR. I propose potential and reliability.
A flurrying CMonk with PA has high potential, but low DPR and low reliability. This means that if you're on a hot streak you can deal a lot of damage, but the opposite absolutely kneecaps you. Most of the time the build will fail to achieve what it was meant to do. (In this case: deal damage)
A Vital Strike/Furious Focus fighter has low potential, low DPR, but high reliability. It won't surprise you but in return it will give you what was promised.
Outflank crit fisher Hunter. High potential, good DPR, medium reliability. Attacks will often hit and those that crit leads to a lot of extra damage. But you also rely on those crits to really get ahead.
Going into the TWF feat path (and using PA with it), no matter the class, means that you are relying on multiple low-accuracy strikes rather than fewer (but more accurate) attacks.
As the DPR seemed about equal from the discussion provided by Derklord and Diego Rossi, we can conclude that by going into the TWF feat path you are sacrificing reliability in return for higher potential.
For the type of player who wants every roll to matter, TWF might be more their thing.
Chained Monk's Flurry of Blows is literally TWF.
Er, no. FoB has absolutely no relation to any of the TWF rules. It uses TWF as reference points for understanding, but mechanically is 100% seperate.
I felt like the discussion was devolving into argueing how good the DPR calculator was instead of how good the combination may actually be.
No one in this thread talked about the validity of DPR calculators until you came along. The discussion you dreaded was only started by your post.
Otherwise people tend to only remember the impactful rolls.
This bias is actually a big part of why DPR calculators are so valuable. If for example Power Attack lets you kill one boss super quick because you got lucky on your rolls, but reduces your damage output in 20 other fights, you might still have the impression that it's a good feat for you. A DPR calculator shows the raw numbers, without any warped perception.
[DPR calculators] do not automatically determine that one build is better than another.
In other news, water is wet.
Back to the thread, one example for combining both is when your attacks only hit on a nat 20. At that point it doesn't matter what penalties you have you are only trying to get any damage you can get and more attacks helps for that.
Not technically wrong, but if your character is build in a way that they find themselves in situations where they can only hit on a natural 20, they should not take Power Attack to begin with.
Not that this ever happens unless you deliberately gimp your character.
Damage Per Round(DPR) is the 'derail' in this thread.
No, DPR is used to support arguments on the topic of this thread. It's the discussion of the validity of of DPR calculators that Temperans startet and that you continue that's the derail.
The metric should include variance(σ^2) or standard deviation(σ) or AAD as that is very helpful to describe the probable damage distribution
You spelled out what DPR stands for, but you've apparently failed to understand what it means. Damage per round. Not "time it takes a given character to kill a specific opponent". DPR is intended as average damage per round. Removing variance isn't a bug in DPR calculators, it's the core feature.
If you want to see whether or not a given build can one-round-kill a specific demon lord, variance needs to be acknowledged and included. But when the question is whether or not Power Attack will improve your characters damage output over the course of the campaign, variance is irrelevant.