Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Grog" data-source="post: 988138" data-attributes="member: 6183">Oh, the dual wielder may very well get in more hits. But the question is who will do more damage.Actually, the lower levels of DR is what screws the dual-wielder over relative to the two-handed fighter. High DR would pretty well shut two-handed fighters down too.Take a simple example, two 2nd level fighters, 16 STR, vs. a DR 5 creature. The two-handed fighter gets one attack for 2d6+4 damage, the dual wielder gets one attack for 1d6+3 and one for 1d6+1.The two-handed fighter will always do damage to the DR 5 creature unless he rolls a 2 on 2d6. So, he has a 1 in 36 chance of not doing damage. The dual-wielder will fail to do damage with his primary attack if he rolls a 1 or a 2 on 1d6 (1 in 3 chance), and he'll fail to do damage with his secondary attack if he rolls a 1-4 (2 in 3 chance). This gives him a 2 in 9 chance of not doing damage - much greater than the two-handed fighter's 1 in 36 chance. The two-handed fighter will also inflict much more damage to the creature overall. So, despite the fact that it now costs one less feat, I still maintain that dual-wielding is less effective now than it was in 3.0.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Grog, post: 988138, member: 6183"] Oh, the dual wielder may very well get in more hits. But the question is who will do more damage. Actually, the lower levels of DR is what screws the dual-wielder over relative to the two-handed fighter. High DR would pretty well shut two-handed fighters down too. Take a simple example, two 2nd level fighters, 16 STR, vs. a DR 5 creature. The two-handed fighter gets one attack for 2d6+4 damage, the dual wielder gets one attack for 1d6+3 and one for 1d6+1. The two-handed fighter will always do damage to the DR 5 creature unless he rolls a 2 on 2d6. So, he has a 1 in 36 chance of not doing damage. The dual-wielder will fail to do damage with his primary attack if he rolls a 1 or a 2 on 1d6 (1 in 3 chance), and he'll fail to do damage with his secondary attack if he rolls a 1-4 (2 in 3 chance). This gives him a 2 in 9 chance of not doing damage - [b]much[/b] greater than the two-handed fighter's 1 in 36 chance. The two-handed fighter will also inflict much more damage to the creature overall. So, despite the fact that it now costs one less feat, I still maintain that dual-wielding is less effective now than it was in 3.0. [/QUOTE]

Verification