Am I reading something wrong or is Tempest fighter just better?

[Morgan_Scott82]

So I'm typing this on a break at the office and don't have my books with me if I make an error please point it out.

That said it occured to me the other day that the tempest fighter gives up absolutely nothing (I know they give up Fighter Weapon Talent, but they get back exactly the same bonus and then some).

Tempest Technique gives you a +1 to attack with weapons with the off hand property, the Two weapon defense feat and a +1 to damage if they're in light armor or chainmail, this bonus increases to plus two with weapons that have the offhand property.

I believe the designers thinking was that the damage bonus was to make up the typically lower damage of weapons with the off hand property, and the sacrifice in AC.

However with the right choice of weapon you effectively give up nothing.

Using any of the double weapons in AV, makes this a no brainer. All double weapons have the off-hand, and defensive property. The defensive property gives you a +1 unnamed bonus to AC, combine this with the +1 shield bonus for two weapon defense, you've totally made up the gap between the chain armor the tempest fighter will be using and the scale armor + shield the regular fighter will be using. The +1 to hit from Fighter weapon talent is made up by the +1 to hit with weapons that have the off hand property.

Therefore mechanically speaking there is little reason for a fighter to not be a tempest fighter.

• Equivilent AC
• Equivilent Attack bonuses
• Equivilent base weapon damage (double weapons provide off hand weapons at d8, d10 and d12)
• +3 bonus damage (+2 unnamed bonus from tempest technique, and an additional +1 feat bonus from two weapon fighting)

Have I missed something or is the combination of Tempest Technique and the Double weapons from AV, just mechanically superior to PHB fighters?

 

[Alabast]

Wielding a double weapon is not the same as wielding two weapons. You cannot gain the bonus from Two Weapon fighting or Two Weapon Defense when wielding a double weapon.

I think. I don't own Adventurer's Vault, this is only my memory from a book store.

 

[logopolis]

Have I missed something or is the combination of Tempest Technique and the Double weapons from AV, just mechanically superior to PHB fighters?

You're absolutely correct. As per RAW in the Adventurer's Vault, using a double weapon does count as wielding two weapons. So yes, the tempest fighter option is mechanically the best one.

There have been a number of other threads criticizing some of the rules in the Adventurer's Vault, and the consensus is that double weapons are silly and broken.

 

[Saeviomagy]

The fault definately lies with double weapons. With the exception of a ranger dual wielding exotic main hand weapons, they do more damage than any other combo AND they save you money on magic weapons AND you get +1 defense AND you often get bizarre rule niches (like a rogue with a light blade that's also a heavy blade, or an eladrin with a spear that's also an axe).

Throw out double weapons and suddenly the tempest works again, and it's just battlerager that's busted.

 

[Rechan]

Does the main hand weapon need to have the off-hand property, or can the main hand weapon be anything?

Are double weapons off-hand for both hands?

 

[Morgan_Scott82]

Are double weapons off-hand for both hands?

The days of thinking of double weapons as two weapons that can have seperate properties and be enchanged separately are over, the double axe is a single weapon with the defensive and off hand properties.

The fault definately lies with double weapons. With the exception of a ranger dual wielding exotic main hand weapons, they do more damage than any other combo AND they save you money on magic weapons AND you get +1 defense AND you often get bizarre rule niches (like a rogue with a light blade that's also a heavy blade, or an eladrin with a spear that's also an axe).

Throw out double weapons and suddenly the tempest works again, and it's just battlerager that's busted.

I'm not sure that I agree with you here. You're certainly correct that the Tempest Fighter is broken with the addition of double weapons, but I'm still not certain that it's balenced with out them.

To find out lets examine five cases, a tempest fighter with two shortswords, a one handed fighter with a longsword and shield, a one handed fighter with a battleaxe and shield, a two handed fighter with a greatsword and a two handed fighter with a maul. Lets assume they're all wearing the best armor that takes advantage of their class features, and have the same abilitys scores (18 Str), lets further assume that they're all 1st level and are attacking the same first level soldier (AC 17). With these assumptions the defining elements are the proficiency bonus and base damage of their weapons, lets look at each case:

Tempest fighter with two shortswords.
AC: 17
Proficiency bonus: +3
Total attack bonus: +8
Damage: Range 7-12, Average 9.5
Chance to hit the example soldier: 65%
Expected Damage output: 6.175

Fighter with Shield and Longsword
AC: 18
Proficiency bonus: +3
Total attack bonus: +8
Damage: Range 5-12, Average 8.5
Chance to hit the example soldier: 65%
Expected damage output: 5.525

Fighter with Battleaxe and Shield
AC: 18
Proficiency bonus: +2
Total attack bonus: +7
Damage: Range 5-14 Average 9.5
Chance to hit the example soldier: 60%
Expected damage output: 5.7

Fighter with Greatsword
AC: 17
Proficiency bonus: +3
Total attack bonus: +8
Damage: Range 5-14, Average 9.5
Chance to hit the example soldier: 65%
Expected damage output: 6.175

Fighter with Maul
AC: 17
Proficiency bonus: +2
Total attack bonus: +7
Damage: Range 6-16 Average 11
Chance to hit the example soldier: 60%
Expected damage output: 6.6

Hmmm I guess you're right with PHB only weapons, the tempest fighter is balenced. I think other AV weapons might be a problem as well, not just the double weapons. Specifically anything with the defensive property since it allows the tempest fighter to match the AC of the sword and board fighter and the damage of the greatweapon fighter (this could be mitigated if the bonus from the defensive weapon property was rephrased as a shield bonus rather than an unnamed bonus).

Edit: As a point of reference here's what an Urgosh tempest fighter would look like in the above comparison:

AC 18
Proficinecy bonus: +2
Total attack bonus: +7
Damage: Range 7-18, Average 12.5
Chance to hit the example soldier: 60%
Expected damage output: 7.5

 

[Logan_Bonner]

The double weapons originally had two different lines of text, like so:

Two-bladed sword    +3    d10    —    40 gp    15 lb.    Heavy blade
      (Off hand)    +3    d6                Light blade    Off-hand

It's best to think of them that way, with each end having different traits. They're certainly not supposed to let you use a heavy blade with sneak attack on a technicality or anything like that.

 

[James McMurray]

Can we expect an erratta?

 

[abyssaldeath]

The double weapons originally had two different lines of text, like so:

Two-bladed sword    +3    d10    —    40 gp    15 lb.    Heavy blade
      (Off hand)    +3    d6                Light blade    Off-hand

It's best to think of them that way, with each end having different traits. They're certainly not supposed to let you use a heavy blade with sneak attack on a technicality or anything like that.

Thank you so very much. I knew it was suppose to work that way. It was just too good otherwise.

 

[Morgan_Scott82]

The double weapons originally had two different lines of text, like so:

Two-bladed sword    +3    d10    —    40 gp    15 lb.    Heavy blade
      (Off hand)    +3    d6                Light blade    Off-hand

It's best to think of them that way, with each end having different traits. They're certainly not supposed to let you use a heavy blade with sneak attack on a technicality or anything like that.

Thanks for the info Logan.

Can you provide any insight into why the change was made in the final draft? Your example above preserves the older logic of two different weapon with differing properties superglued together. The recent Customer service response that many people have been discussing implied that the double weapon was a single weapon and therefore all proporties applied to all attacks using the weapon. I think the former interpretation provides more clarity and is easier to understand. Can you help us understand the reason for the change?