Damage Reduction vs. Two Weapon Fighting

Darklone said:
Scion: A THF dude who gets swallowed will cut his way out when he carries a dagger with him? He can't draw it nor wield it inside...


SRD:
Swallow Whole (Ex): A tyrannosaurus can try to swallow a grabbed opponent of up to two sizes smaller by making a successful grapple check. The swallowed creature takes 2d8+8 points of bludgeoning damage and 8 points of acid damage per round from the tyrannosaurus’s gizzard. A swallowed creature can cut its way out by using a light slashing or piercing weapon to deal 25 points of damage to the gizzard (AC 12). Once the creature exits, muscular action closes the hole; another swallowed opponent must cut its own way out.

swalled by making a grapple check, this entry says nothing about continuing to be grappled, nor needing to make further grapple checks to draw a weapon (although that is possible). But beyond that nothing stops a character from weilding the dagger and cutting his way out. So from this reading drawing a dagger would be easy enough, cutting their way out with be easy. If there is some special info elsewhere feel free to share.
 

log in or register to remove this ad

Ridley's Cohort said:
Scion,

Qualitatively the big picture is:
THF: high offense, low defense
S&S: low offense, high defense
TWF: medium offense, medium defense

Prove it.

In the above examples thf had the same ac as sword and board most of the time. Twf has the same options open to it but at a high cost.

As for the rest, I want all of them to be generally equal. The twf and thf share certain characteristics. Thf however does more damage, has the same (comparable) ac, and uses less feats to do so. I have no merely been going by the damage output, I have been comparing everything else as well. If they are ahead in 90+% of the ways out there then something is wrong.

Thf doesnt need power attack, it is just incredibly powerful for it to use in 3.5. So its entry costs are still 0.

Even if you use it as an entry cost (which is odd) it still only adds an extra combat manuever to the thf whereas the twf had to use a feat to just get into the same ballpark of damage that the thf had before any feats were spent.

So with damage being obvious (thf does more), cost being obvious (thf costs less), feat choices being obvious (thf costs less), and ac being debatable at best is there really even any room left to debate? Your chart above points to trends that have yet to be shown anywhere, where are you getting your data?
 

Scion said:
So with damage being obvious (thf does more), cost being obvious (thf costs less), feat choices being obvious (thf costs less), and ac being debatable at best is there really even any room left to debate? Your chart above points to trends that have yet to be shown anywhere, where are you getting your data?

The highest damage is THF (says you).
The lowest damage is S&S (obvious except for a few corner cases, but TWF could always use the same weapon in worst case scenario).
The highest AC is S&S (because of the good shield full time).
The lowest AC is the THF (cannot use offhand shield/buckler, Off Hand Parry feat).
QED

You still need to express what your goal is, at least qualitatively, unless I misunderstood you. If they all should be about the same, then why bother having different styles at all?
 

I'm a big fan of two-weapon fighting, despite all its 'flaws'. Yes, my AC isn't as high. Yes, my to-hit and damage potential isn't that high. (But then again, I usually play rogues, so I have sneak attack).

All I can say is that Two-Weapon fighters should know their role - know when to fight and know when to support. They can't always hog the glory, and add to their kill count. Chances are, the barbarian with a greataxe is going to kill so many more people than you are, simply because he has Great Cleave.

So if you like the style of fighting with Two-Weapons, then stick with it. You like it, but don't like the disadvantages that come with - well, you can't always get everything.

As for the DR thing, there are always oils. Silver Sheen, etc, etc. If you're a good party with a good cleric, then you can always cast Touch of Adamantite (which will obviously go to the barbarian's weapon.)
 

Ridley's Cohort said:
You still need to express what your goal is, at least qualitatively, unless I misunderstood you. If they all should be about the same, then why bother having different styles at all?

My goal is of course to make them all just as viable to play over as many different builds as possible. Each has to have their strengths and weaknesses. Currently thf has lots of strengths and very few weaknesses. Twf has the most weaknesses and fewest strengths with sword and board falling somewhere in between.

The comparison in damage was to show which was on top there, it is fine if thf does the most damage there. But then you go to the others and see that thf can generally have the same ac, costs less feats to use appropriately, has a lower cost in at least a few cases, etc etc.

People have said that thf has the lowest ac, this has been demonstrated to be not true for the most part. Twf with two weapons will have the same ac as the thf, but the thf will have extra money left over for better armor enhancements. If you combine twf and sword and board you can increase their strengths, they are better together than alone in most cases. However you also increase the cost (in the case of yet more feats, 4 minimum) and still at this point your ac is basically the same as the thf. If you toss in off hand parry (whatever this does) then you are down by 5 feats. Somewhere the dam just has to break.

I just want each to be a viable choice, not just a 'it is flavorful so I will take it even with its huge list of penalties'. Roleplaying choices are fine, but the base part of the game is there to make every choice interesting and useful while having different strengths and weaknesses.

Changing twf to be only a single feat I think fixes the vast majority of the problems, as I have said before. Unless someone comes up with some powerful reasons otherwise I'll hope that for version 4.0 this is how it will be.
 

As to the swallow whole question, I would still figure that the character is grappled but even if he isn't drawing a dagger means that he'll attack once--and it's pretty hard to do 20-25 points of damage in one attack with a dagger (especially since you can no longer benefit from power attack with light weapons). It's a lot easier to do that much damage in a full attack with a highly magical shortsword (or other light weapon for TWF) with which you're specialized.

As to Scion's contentions, it's significant to note that he's trying to have his THF both ways:
They have better attacks because they have more money sunk into their weapon.
AND they have better defense because they have more money free for armor (including an animated shield). I would think that my analysis above demonstrated that they can EITHER have a slightly better weapon OR have a good AC with the animated shield, but that the added cost of animating a shield precludes having BOTH superior attacks and a superior AC. If the THF character buys a good animated shield and the TWF character chooses to ignore the option of buying a shield, the TWF character will actually have better weaponry. (Oh, and incidentally, two +1 wounding shortswords cost a mere 36,620 gp so one shouldn't discount the benefit that TWF can draw from specific equipment at relatively low levels--and two spellstoring swords (16,620gp) would be potentially quite nasty as well (two Inflict Serious Wounds, Empowered Magic Missiles, or Searing Lights (esp nasty against vampires per combat)).

As to the rest, two weapon fighting is NOT a "Role Playing" choice unless taking Greater Weapon Specialization is also a role playing choice. Role playing choices are being heroic or cowardly, chaste or slutty, etc. Two Weapon Fighting or any other fighting style is a combat style choice. There's nothing particularly "flavorful" about fighting with two weapons (unless it's that 2e munchkin flavor you're going for)--at least no more than there is about any other weapon style.

My own take on the breakdown of combat styles, FWIW, is as follows:
THF: Very offensively focussed. Big damage but generally quite vulnerable.
S&S: Defensively focussed. Lower damage (although it can be reasonably high) but generally less vulnerable.
TWF: Flexible: Can be almost as offensively focussed as THF (and is potentially slightly more damaging if using a double weapon) or as defensively focussed as sword and shield (heck, it can be done with a sword and shield) and can switch between offensive and defensive focusses on a round by round basis.

And as to powerful reasons why TWF should take more than one feat. Two words: Sneak Attack.
 


Darklone said:
Hmm. Wasn't there something in the FAQ once about being swallowed whole and not being able to draw a weapon?

Well, according to Gamestoppers 6, a swallowed creature is still considered grappled.

But Gamestoppers wasn't noted for getting stuff right. For example, in the same article, the DM tells Lidda she can sneak attack the purple worm because it's grappling. But it's grappling her.

-Hyp.
 


I ran into this problem when I was playing a monk too. I was making a mad number of attacks per round, but none of them could get past DR. I almost lost my 10th-ish level monk to a CR 5 bad guy with DR 10/magic.

What about a house rule saying that you add all the damage you do in a round before you subtract DR. So if you hit with two attacks, and do 6 then 9 you did 15, which will do 5 points to a monster with DR 10/***.

It’s just a thought, but maybe it really kills DR too much. Maybe … (begins to ponder)

-Tatsu
 

Remove ads

Top