Felon said:
In a damage-over-time test, the -2 penalty for 2WF is typically compared to a -2 penalty for Power Attacking two-handed (for +4 damage).
So, take an 18 Str guy just investing one feat in 2WF and doing longsword + shortsword, and compare that to him using a greatsword. He's getting the following damage output:
1d8 + 4 = 8.5 average w/longsword
1d6 + 2 = 5.5 average w/shortsword
2d6 + 6 + 4 = 17 average w/greatsword
The greatsword's total exceeds both the longsword and shortsword put together. However, this is mitigated by having two chances to damage a target versus only one (which is what the "2WF suxorz" folks generally don't take into account).
Now, let's throw in EWF (waraxe) and Oversized 2WF:
1d10 + 4 = 9.5 average per swing w/greataxe in primary hand.
1d10 + 2 = 7.5 average per swing w/greataxe off-hand.
For the cost of three feats (or two for a dwarf), the total damage output matches the greatsword's, while having two chances to inflict damage rather than one tilts the scales (as SteveC points out, we're already in a situation where AC is effectively boosted by taking a -2 penalty).
Now, there are situations where the two-handed weapon still has a big advantage, like when a character has to move 10 feet or more to attack. That's where feats like Two-Weapon Pounce (PHBII) and Dual Strike (CV) can clean up.
One odd thing about Two's rationale is that he says it's somehow different for rogues than for fighters. The same "delivery system" strategy that a 2WF uses with his sneak attack damage also applies to other forms of bonus damage, such as Weapon Specialization or Favored Enemy, magical weapon bonuses and so forth.
+++????????+++
This cracks me up.
Having 2+ chances to do damage does, in fact, make it more likly you will do SOME damage.
At the same time, it makes it less likely you will do, for example, 80% of the maximum damage you are capable. Your damage results get bunched up in the middle more.
Example: 50% chance for main, 50% off. Both hit 25% of the time, and you now have a decent chance of doing 80% of max. damage for the character. (must roll well on 2d6 or 1d6 + 1d8).
Both miss 25% of the time, doing 0.
One attacks hits 50% of the time doing 10-50% of max damage for the character.
Compare to greatsword:
50% to hit. When it hits, it has an decent chance of doing 80% max damage (see 25% case above). Note that even the lowest damage output for the greatsword is quite good, in the case above min = 12!
50% of the time it just misses.
Longwindedly, yes, 2 weapon fighters hit more and do less damage on average. This is balanced over the long term by the greatsword which hits less often (fewer attacks) but does way more damage per hit and has a damage output that is less "bunched" in the middle.
{to think about it another way, the 2 weapon user has to get 2 criticals with 2 weapons to maximize their damage; it's much easier obviously just to roll a critical with one greatsword}
I'm not "overlooking" the fact the 2 weapon users hit more. It's that it is not mathematically relevant. It's taken into account using estimated damage. They hit more often and do a lot less damage.
"The greatsword's total exceeds both the longsword and shortsword put together. However, this is mitigated by having two chances to damage a target versus only one (which is what the "2WF suxorz" folks generally don't take into account). "
It's not mitigated by this at all. The times you hit and do less damage with one of your 2 weapons and DROP the enemy equals the times the greatsword hits and does a lot and drops the enemy (which the 2 weapon user could not match).
They cancel out, roughly, even when you consider game play.
++++++++
"One odd thing about Two's rationale is that he says it's somehow different for rogues than for fighters. The same "delivery system" strategy that a 2WF uses with his sneak attack damage also applies to other forms of bonus damage, such as Weapon Specialization or Favored Enemy, magical weapon bonuses and so forth."
Yes totally. You need to stack these "flat damage" bonuses. The best is sneak attack. You can rarely if ever get enough bonus out of Weapon Specialization, favored enemy, magic weapon, etc. to make up for the loss of feats and $ by the greatsword user.
Nothing comes close to sneak attack damage. That's why it is the only thing that really works for these types of builds.
Favored enemy does not work; the 2 weapon builds get to apply it with both weapons, the greatsword user just once. FE bonuses are just not high enough to offset the sucky 2 weapon damage. Plus, FE only applies... to FE.
magical weapon bonuses, similarly get very expensive with 2 weapons.
2 +1 Flaming Acidic Cold short swords = 64K
1 +1 Flaming Acidic Cold Sonic greatsword = 50K with 14K left over
(of course these are sub-par weapons for levels 8+, much better is +1 Holy X Y Z)
Point is, the 2 weapon user pays more for weapon enchantments which get increasingly meaningless when levels rise (many, many monsters have fire/cold/acid resistance). Weee!
+++++++++++++++
"For the cost of three feats (or two for a dwarf), the total damage output matches the greatsword's, while having two chances to inflict damage rather than one tilts the scales (as SteveC points out, we're already in a situation where AC is effectively boosted by taking a -2 penalty)."
FOR THE COST OF THREE FEATS!
Go team go! You spend three feats and now match the vanilla greatsword user!
(the greatsword fighter has in the meantime used the 3 feats on PB Shot, Rapid Shot, Precise Shot, and is an excellent ranged attacker as well as matching the 2 weapon user in melee, or heck, just spent the feats on Weapon Focus, Improved Weapon Focus, Weapon Specialization, and is killing the 2 weapon user again in both full round attack damage and most egregiously charges/single attack situations/aoo's).
C'mon. You are seriously going to spend three feats to match the greatsword user and calling it ... even?
