Archer and Dual Wielder Specialties: What am I missing?

[Ahwe Yahzhe]

I'm assuming that the Level 1 feat is the backbone for any Specialty (I prefer the original term "Theme", even if 4e references are apparently verboten in DDN). So what am I missing the the new versions of Twin Strike? "Rapid Shot" for the Archer and "Two-Weapon Fighting" for the Dual Wielder both allow two attacks with proficient weapons, but with half the damage for each attack.

The only benefit I can ascertain from making two attack rolls instead of one is that more rolls lower the variability of average damage. Is that really all? I know the math is flatter with bounded accuracy instead of level-based scaling, but is this a feat with no meaningful benefit? What am I missing?

 

[Bow_Seat]

The trick is comparing it with the required damage to kill creatures. Since a lvl1 fighter with this can attack two different creatures that respectively will, on average, go down in one attack (even at half damage) he can clear rooms much faster. Combine this with multiple CS dice he can cleave off of both attacks.

It is speculated that this could also be very good if you can apply conditions with your attacks, using CS dice or some other method. For example you could knock down AND push, where a two handed weapon wielder could do one.

In summation, this keeps TWF from being outright better at dealing damage than two handed weapons, will providing utility and decrease in damage variance.

Sword and Board best for defense
Two handed weapons best for single target damage
Two weapon fighting best for wanton slaughter

also, at level 3 you no longer lose that defense bonus since you get the +1 AC that you were missing from not having a shield. It would look like it was a wasted feat, but when comparing to other feats it's about equal in the mix (no 1st lvl feats are that overwhelming)

 

[Salamandyr]

I'm hoping to convince the designers to instead go with the two feats letting you roll damage dice twice, and take the best result (and to get rid of the stupid "finesse weapon only" thing, at least in the main hand, for dual wielders).

 

[Ahwe Yahzhe]

In summation, this keeps TWF from being outright better at dealing damage than two handed weapons, will providing utility and decrease in damage variance.

Sword and Board best for defense
Two handed weapons best for single target damage
Two weapon fighting best for wanton slaughter

also, at level 3 you no longer lose that defense bonus since you get the +1 AC that you were missing from not having a shield. It would look like it was a wasted feat, but when comparing to other feats it's about equal in the mix (no 1st lvl feats are that overwhelming)

Thanks- I hadn't thought of those options. While I wouldn't call it "wanton slaughter," there are plenty of monsters in the 3-11 hp range so I can see TWF as minion-smacking at low levels, then providing more utility for fighters (5th+) with multiple combat superiority dice. But it definitely moves Twin Strike/TWF away from its traditional "more damage" effect...

 

[john112364]

Thanks- I hadn't thought of those options. While I wouldn't call it "wanton slaughter," there are plenty of monsters in the 3-11 hp range so I can see TWF as minion-smacking at low levels, then providing more utility for fighters (5th+) with multiple combat superiority dice. But it definitely moves Twin Strike/TWF away from its traditional "more damage" effect...

Which to my mind at least is a good thing. One of the problems with TWF has always been the increased damage output in relation to any other style. This way it still allows multiple attacks but no huge damage increase. And as Bow_Seat stated, if you can add CS to each attack it is still an effective option. It just takes a little thinking outside the box.

 

[Bow_Seat]

I think that it is very clear that they are steering far clear of the TWF being the obviously superior damage style. Instead of making it compete with 2 handers or sword/boarders they tried to give it a unique purpose of it's own.

In my opinion this is a good springboard because if you make different styles compete for performing the same job then one of them is going to inevitably be better than the other. If you give them unique roles, however, then I can imagine there'd be less optimization squables.


Edit: what I am not sure about (rules as written) is the process of declaring these attacks. Let's say, for example, that you attack a monster, call it an orc, and do damage but don't kill it. This orc is looking at your scrawny dnd playing nerd ass thinking "I'm going to go Slab McBulkHuge on this kid." Can you then say "yeah so let's half that damage, I'm attacking again with my off hand and using my CS dice to try to knock him down."

If you could do this then it would provide some pretty cool reaction opportunities to try to make up for poor first attack attempts. Anybody have a ruling on this?

 

[Sunseeker]

Personally I'd prefer if they just reduced the damage by one die-type than the weird way they're doing it now.

 

[Olgar Shiverstone]

Looks like a potential benefit of either is to increase the probability of a rogue's sneak attack hitting (assuming it isn't also halved).

 

[the Jester]

Looks like a potential benefit of either is to increase the probability of a rogue's sneak attack hitting (assuming it isn't also halved).

It is, but half of bonus damage is still better than none. If the rogue can get advantage against a hard to hit foe, I can see how double attacking can be a pretty good option.

 

[Bow_Seat]

It seemed to be that literally ALL damage associated with the attack is to be halved. Deadly Strike damage/ Critical Hit damage/ Sneak Attack damage. From the wording, I would say RAI that no damage is to circumvent the (1/2) multiplicative modifier.