[DRA] Sneaky Staff

[Incendax]

It's underpowered. There are a few good quarterstaff feats, but they all lean towards the defensive or two-weapon attack end of the spectrum. Rogues might not mind the additional defense so that is a valid path if pretty feat intensive, and rogues are not really built to take advantage of two-weapon attacks.

Overall? Not impressive except for flavor.

 

[DonAdam]

I play a Warden so I'm used to counting my shield as an instant interrupt, so I'm used to saying my off-hand still counts as 'one move' even when I attack.

I understand nothing that's going on in this sentence, except that you're playing a warden.

Staff fighting doesn't do anything offensively if you don't have a power that lets you attack twice. So as usual the only potential problem is half elf versatile mastery cheese, but even then all you're buying is the option of hafted defense and not having to enchant both ends. Quarterstaves aren't bad but eat a lot of feats.

 

[Klaus]

It's underpowered. There are a few good quarterstaff feats, but they all lean towards the defensive or two-weapon attack end of the spectrum. Rogues might not mind the additional defense so that is a valid path if pretty feat intensive, and rogues are not really built to take advantage of two-weapon attacks.

Overall? Not impressive except for flavor.

It's feat intensive, but Defensive Staff, Sneaky Staff, Two Weapon Fighting and Two Weapon Defense are a decent build for a rogue.

 

[Ahrimon]

As I read it, you still need to have combat advantage to get the sneak attack damage. It's a proficiency feat that allows the weapon to be considered a rogue weapon for class features.

Not powerful, not weak. Just right in my opinion.

 

[Incendax]

It's feat intensive, but Defensive Staff, Sneaky Staff, Two Weapon Fighting and Two Weapon Defense are a decent build for a rogue.

I disagree. It would take a very specific build to gain any benefit out of the two weapon fighting aspect as a rogue. The option is downright sub-par for most builds, compared to everything you could get investing those feats in other places.

 

[Klaus]

I disagree. It would take a very specific build to gain any benefit out of the two weapon fighting aspect as a rogue. The option is downright sub-par for most builds, compared to everything you could get investing those feats in other places.

The rogue doesn't *have* to attack with both weapons. Getting a +2 to damage, +1 to AC and Reflex (on top of the +1 AC from Defensive) and 1d8 base damage is nothing to sneeze at. It may not be a damage-heavy build, but it does work.

You can also take Two-Weapon Threat (+3 damage with opportunity attacks, which a thief will excel at thanks to Weapon Finesse), Two-Weapon Ambush (paragon, main weapon becomes brutal 1), Two-weapon Opening (paragon, crit with main weapon grants free attack with off-hand) and Two-Weapon Flurry (epic, hit with main weapon to gain free attack at -5 to hit with off-hand).

 

[Incendax]

The rogue doesn't *have* to attack with both weapons. Getting a +2 to damage, +1 to AC and Reflex (on top of the +1 AC from Defensive) and 1d8 base damage is nothing to sneeze at. It may not be a damage-heavy build, but it does work.

You can also take Two-Weapon Threat (+3 damage with opportunity attacks, which a thief will excel at thanks to Weapon Finesse), Two-Weapon Ambush (paragon, main weapon becomes brutal 1), Two-weapon Opening (paragon, crit with main weapon grants free attack with off-hand) and Two-Weapon Flurry (epic, hit with main weapon to gain free attack at -5 to hit with off-hand).

I still don't follow your logic. For the same number of feats you could get Superior Weapon Proficiency(Double Sword), Weapon Expertise, Two Weapon Fighting, and Two Weapon Defense. You've got the same 1d8 damage, the same +1 to AC and Reflex (on top of the +1 AC from Defensive), +2 to Hit (that scales), and +1 to Damage (that scales with your increased hit percentage).

How can you argue that your selection of feats are anything but sub-optimal?

 

[Jhaelen]

How can you argue that your selection of feats are anything but sub-optimal?

Everything is suboptimal (except obviously the optimal ).

 

[Baumi]

The two-weapon Sword gives 1d6 now as far as I remember, but I do agree that the staff is a bit weak, especially compared to a short sword with +3/1d6 that doesn't need any feat.

But if you like the concept it is not far behind and can actually be quite good if you invest a few more feats and take a good magic Weapon like the Staff of Ruin for additional Damage or the Battlestaff for a 19-20 critchance.

 

[Klaus]

I still don't follow your logic. For the same number of feats you could get Superior Weapon Proficiency(Double Sword), Weapon Expertise, Two Weapon Fighting, and Two Weapon Defense. You've got the same 1d8 damage, the same +1 to AC and Reflex (on top of the +1 AC from Defensive), +2 to Hit (that scales), and +1 to Damage (that scales with your increased hit percentage).

How can you argue that your selection of feats are anything but sub-optimal?

The double sword is now 1d6, and is no differenty from dual-wielding short swords, damage-wise.

And what is "optimal"? That depends on the character concept. Do you want to maximize damage? Then this build is sub-optimal. Do you want to build a peasant hero or a martial monk-type that kicks butt with a staff? Then this build is optimal.