• Welcome to this new upgrade of the site. We are now on a totally different software platform. Many things will be different, and bugs are expected. Certain areas (like downloads and reviews) will take longer to import. As always, please use the Meta Forum for site queries or bug reports. Note that we (the mods and admins) are also learning the new software.
  • The RSS feed for the news page has changed. Use this link. The old one displays the forums, not the news.

Consensus about two-weapon fighting?

FrogReaver

Explorer
You continually give Action Surge and other fighter features far more worth than they merit when those features are not constant. Sure, features such as Divine Smite are limited as well, but with all the slots a high level Paladin has at his disposal, it is more than what the Fighter can do.
The other poster was talking about a fighter vs paladin in 2nd and 3rd tier play. The paladin gets a lot of goodies. That we all agree with. However, the fighter with feats is still better at fighting.

Precision is usable at most 6 times per short/long rest, and with Action Surge at 11th level or higher you could blow through all of it in a single round. Being able to dish out the most damage for a single round does not make Fighters (in general, since you have a very specific build in mind) the best at fighting.
You act like having the option to blow through all your short rest resources in a single round at the start of a fight is a bad thing? That's part of what makes the fighter with feats the hands down best class at fighting.
 

dnd4vr

Explorer
You act like having the option to blow through all your short rest resources in a single round at the start of a fight is a bad thing? That's part of what makes the fighter with feats the hands down best class at fighting.
Going nova is great for one round, but then the fighter falls behind. Unless the nova ends the battle, a fighter often isn't the best at fighting. With sneak attack occurring with an ally in the fight, the rogue in our group often outstrips the fighter in damage.

We've added several house rules to make fighters better at fighting, and now they are showing promise, but it's sad we had to do that.
 

Zardnaar

Adventurer
More an indication the Paladin is OP. Most of the charisma based classes are.

Fighters are the best at higher levels- at damage.
Even with feats the paladin's aura at 6 is better than any feat.

5E has a heap of overkill, you don't really need the -5/+10 feats. Sentinel us fairly good especially in a rogue.
 

Ancalagon

Dusty Dragon
What did Warhammer do?
More an indication the Paladin is OP. Most of the charisma based classes are.

Fighters are the best at higher levels- at damage.
Even with feats the paladin's aura at 6 is better than any feat.

5E has a heap of overkill, you don't really need the -5/+10 feats. Sentinel us fairly good especially in a rogue.
I think that the paladin is probably the most powerful class in the game...
 

Gladius Legis

Explorer
with all the slots a high level Paladin has at his disposal, it is more than what the Fighter can do.
You do realize the Paladin is capable of enacting his strongest nova only once per day, right? Any other "nova" the Paladin does after using his highest spell slots won't be as strong.

Meanwhile, the Fighter's Action Surge/Precision Attack nova is as strong as it always is whenever he does it.
 

dnd4vr

Explorer
You do realize the Paladin is capable of enacting his strongest nova only once per day, right? Any other "nova" the Paladin does after using his highest spell slots won't be as strong.

Meanwhile, the Fighter's Action Surge/Precision Attack nova is as strong as it always is whenever he does it.
I am not claiming the best nova = the best fighting, others have done that but that is not my standard for what makes for the best fighting ability. A high level paladin can apply many more divine strikes over the course of a day than a fighter can action surge or use precision.

Or consider the fighter compared to the rogue like in our party. Both are attacking the same target, allowing the rogue to apply his sneak attack damage EVERY round, not as a nova ability. At maximum, that is an average of 35 extra damage per round, every round, as long as he has an ally in battle. Oh, and that is without the GWM/SS -5/+10, which a rogue could employ with ranged weapons just as easily as the fighter can with a heavy weapon.
 

Gladius Legis

Explorer
A high level paladin can apply many more divine strikes over the course of a day than a fighter can action surge or use precision.
Which still doesn't put the Paladin's daily damage output ahead of the Fighter.

Or consider the fighter compared to the rogue like in our party. Both are attacking the same target, allowing the rogue to apply his sneak attack damage EVERY round, not as a nova ability. At maximum, that is an average of 35 extra damage per round, every round, as long as he has an ally in battle. Oh, and that is without the GWM/SS -5/+10, which a rogue could employ with ranged weapons just as easily as the fighter can with a heavy weapon.
1) You clearly haven't done or seen the math of Fighter vs. Rogue DPR comparisons. Fighters tend to come out ahead in those.
2) Sneak Attack is not to be compared to Action Surge and Superiority Dice. If it's to be compared to anything the Fighter has, it's Extra Attack and possibly Fighting Style.
3) It's been figured out a LONG time ago that the Rogue taking the SS -5/+10 is actually harmful to his damage output.
 

dnd4vr

Explorer
Which still doesn't put the Paladin's daily damage output ahead of the Fighter.

1) You clearly haven't done or seen the math of Fighter vs. Rogue DPR comparisons. Fighters tend to come out ahead in those.
2) Sneak Attack is not to be compared to Action Surge and Superiority Dice. If it's to be compared to anything the Fighter has, it's Extra Attack and possibly Fighting Style.
3) It's been figured out a LONG time ago that the Rogue taking the SS -5/+10 is actually harmful to his damage output.
No, but I see it in actual game play, not white room analysis. In actual game play, not every fighter is a carbon copy of the uber-damage build or something that gets min/maxers juices flowing. For fighters to be better, they have to better in general, which they certainly are not. I am not saying every fighter has to be better than every other battler, either, but should have an edge when it comes to combat and the only edge they have is limited in uses.

Fighter suck at fighting compared to what the other battlers can do. Ok, the don't suck, but they aren't any better either IME, although they should be--otherwise, what do they have to offer really?
 

Zardnaar

Adventurer
Yep it's debatable if fighters are any better at combat than say rangers and paladin's. If they are it's marginal and Paladin's and rangers do other stuff.

The white room theory craft fighter build is sharpshooter+hand crossbow expert. More level 11+ and assumes a magical hand crossbow which tend to be rare.

Airlock works from level one, fighter might be marginally ahead in damage level 6 and 7 or have +1 to hit and damage level 8.

Not such a great trade off for Paladin and Hunter ranger abilities.
 

Gladius Legis

Explorer
No, but I see it in actual game play, not white room analysis. In actual game play, not every fighter is a carbon copy of the uber-damage build or something that gets min/maxers juices flowing. For fighters to be better, they have to better in general, which they certainly are not. I am not saying every fighter has to be better than every other battler, either, but should have an edge when it comes to combat and the only edge they have is limited in uses.

Fighter suck at fighting compared to what the other battlers can do. Ok, the don't suck, but they aren't any better either IME, although they should be--otherwise, what do they have to offer really?
Well, MY actual gameplay has Fighters consistently outdamaging Rogues. And I'm not even talking about GWM/SS Fighters. Nope. I'm talking good old sword-and-board, without any feats that directly help that fighting style.

The math agrees, too. And for the record, I'm sick of having math dismissed as "white room analysis." You just want to remove any objective and quantifiable evidence from the discussion, which is intellectually dishonest. You just want it as your anecdotal evidence vs. everyone else's because that's where it's easier for you to "win" the argument.
 

Zardnaar

Adventurer
White room analysis normally involves some high level theory craft build cherry picked for a certain level. If you have to pick level 14 or 17 with an example you have already list the argument IMHO.

Rogues don't out damage fighters much except maybe at certain levels or via help from others.
 

5ekyu

Explorer
Well, MY actual gameplay has Fighters consistently outdamaging Rogues. And I'm not even talking about GWM/SS Fighters. Nope. I'm talking good old sword-and-board, without any feats that directly help that fighting style.

The math agrees, too. And for the record, I'm sick of having math dismissed as "white room analysis." You just want to remove any objective and quantifiable evidence from the discussion, which is intellectually dishonest. You just want it as your anecdotal evidence vs. everyone else's because that's where it's easier for you to "win" the argument.
"You just want to remove any objective and quantifiable evidence from the discussion, which is intellectually dishonest. "

Actually, intellectually dishonest is making a lot of assumptions that reflect only a small subset of the types of challenges, running repetitive sequences and then claimingnyour results as "objective".

The white room analysis tends to weed out anything not easily consistently quantifiable but in actual play a wide variety on non-quantifiable factors affect the outcomes greatly.
 

Zardnaar

Adventurer
White rooms useful for forums, but in typical games you don't tend to see the power builds in action.

Same as why 3E probably worked well most of the time. Just because you can do something doesn't mean you should.

Or know how to abuse it. Team work is a bit of a foreign concept with casuals and newbies so the rarely if ever buff each other or have things like battlemasters granting attacks to rogues.

Or fighters abusing hand crossbows plus sharpshooter at level 11+. Highest level game I've seen here is level 7 at the flgs and they have around a dozen games running.

My power build is a celestial warlock with healer feat. Playing a Sorlock would just ruin the game for the others so why do it?
 

dnd4vr

Explorer
Well, MY actual gameplay has Fighters consistently outdamaging Rogues. And I'm not even talking about GWM/SS Fighters. Nope. I'm talking good old sword-and-board, without any feats that directly help that fighting style.

The math agrees, too. And for the record, I'm sick of having math dismissed as "white room analysis." You just want to remove any objective and quantifiable evidence from the discussion, which is intellectually dishonest. You just want it as your anecdotal evidence vs. everyone else's because that's where it's easier for you to "win" the argument.
Well, if your experience differs then that is great for you and your table. At ours, we see fighters as being underpowered compared to the damage other battlers consistently do, so we've made house-rules to make them more palatable.

You might be sick of it but there is a reason for it as 5ekyu notes. So, YOUR math agrees due to whatever specific conditions you (or others) are examining. I am a great person to do white room analysis (master's degrees in both mathematics and statistics) but stopped doing it because it only examines certain conditions in game play and cannot accurately reflect the game experience as a whole.

Certain analysis is fine depending on just what you are looking to prove, but this argument is not one of them. Statistics of any kind can nearly always be slanted to what the user wants to "prove."

Finally, I am not out to "win" any argument. We're having a discussion and I am well aware that personal experience can differ. If you think fighters are the tops at fighting, then as I said, good for you. :)

"You just want to remove any objective and quantifiable evidence from the discussion, which is intellectually dishonest. "

Actually, intellectually dishonest is making a lot of assumptions that reflect only a small subset of the types of challenges, running repetitive sequences and then claiming your results as "objective".

The white room analysis tends to weed out anything not easily consistently quantifiable but in actual play a wide variety on non-quantifiable factors affect the outcomes greatly.
Yeah, which is why I don't bother doing it any more.
 

Gladius Legis

Explorer
Actually, intellectually dishonest is making a lot of assumptions that reflect only a small subset of the types of challenges, running repetitive sequences and then claimingnyour results as "objective".
Care to point out specifically what "lot of assumptions" I'm making on something as basic as a Fighter's TYPICAL ATTACK ACTION? No? Then your words are empty platitudes.

The white room analysis tends to weed out anything not easily consistently quantifiable but in actual play a wide variety on non-quantifiable factors affect the outcomes greatly.
Again, talking about the damage of a Fighter's typical attack action. There aren't really any "non-quantifiable factors" that effect the Fighter's attack action's damage compared to anyone else. The Fighter makes his attacks. Simple miss/hit probability and damage averages. Something that gives the Fighter disadvantage on attacks is going to do the same to the Paladin or the Rogue. Your "non-quantifiable factors" really aren't relevant.
 

Gladius Legis

Explorer
At ours, we see fighters as being underpowered compared to the damage other battlers consistently do
Based on what?

So, YOUR math agrees due to whatever specific conditions you (or others) are examining.
It's a Fighter executing his typical attack action. There are literally no other "specific conditions" to consider. Especially when comparing to other classes who would be affected the same (or worse in the case of the Rogue) by those same "specific conditions."

Certain analysis is fine depending on just what you are looking to prove, but this argument is not one of them.
This is a simple damage comparison between classes. Based on your assertions that Fighters don't deal as much damage as other classes, when that is in fact provably wrong. Yes, this argument absolutely is one of them.
 

dnd4vr

Explorer
Based on what?
Based on what we see in practice at our table. I thought that was evident.

It's a Fighter executing his typical attack action. There are literally no other "specific conditions" to consider. Especially when comparing to other classes who would be affected the same (or worse in the case of the Rogue) by those same "specific conditions."

This is a simple damage comparison between classes. Based on your assertions that Fighters don't deal as much damage as other classes, when that is in fact provably wrong. Yes, this argument absolutely is one of them.
Fine, here is a simple, general, analysis for you that proves my point.

Fighter takes Duelist Fighting Style and is a sword and board. They always attack in tandem, allowing the Rogue to use Sneak Attack every round (the Fighter gets Duelist on every attack of course). Both start with ability mods +3, but the Fighter boosts ASI at 4th and 6th, the Rogue at 4th and 8th. Assuming a hit probability of 60% (reasonable against most ACs regardless of tier). Both use generic d8 weapons, say long sword and rapier.

Note: these are not min/maxed DPR builds, but "standard" types for their classes.

whiteroom.png

The table shows the results. The Fighter does, on average by level, 1 hp less DPR (yellow) than the Rogue. For 12 of the 20 levels, the Rogue does more damage (red). The levels when the Fighter does more is because of the increase in the number of attacks. Then the Fighter's edge decreases as Sneak Attack improves, eventually losing out again to the Rogue.

This purposefully ignores archetype features, feats, etc. because once you include them, you are no longer looking at the base types.

Now, I will certainly acknowledge that if you give the Fighter a greatsword and Great Weapon Fighting style, the Fighter performs better 13 out of 20 levels with an average DPR increase of about 1.4 over the Rogue. But, again, 1.4 DPR over a base Rogue is hardly impressive and makes me feel like a Fighter is the king of weapon combat.
 

FrogReaver

Explorer
[MENTION=6987520]dnd4vr[/MENTION] - your chart shows a level 1 rogue doing 11 damage but a fighter doing 9.5. The fighter with duelist style will only be .5 damage behind the rogue. Something is off in your numbers.
 

Advertisement

Top