Has anyone done the math on 2H weapon vs unarmed TWF?

[Patryn of Elvenshae]

First, don't ever quote the RotG articles. Ever.

Second, the FAQ says no such thing.

Third, there's no issue with using unarmed strike as one of your weapons when using the TWF rules. There are issues with using it as both, just as there are issues with using the same shortsword as both weapons when using the TWF rules.

 

[mvincent]

First, don't ever quote the RotG articles. Ever.

By adding "if desired" to my post I am excluding you. This was a previously agreed upon method to avoid such negativity.

Note that the RotG also says:
"When defining cantankerous, Patryn of Elvenshae is an excellent example"

Second, the FAQ says no such thing.

From the 3.5 FAQ:
"The description of the flurry of blows ability says
there’s no such thing as a monk attacking with an off-hand
weapon during a flurry of blows. What does that mean,
exactly? Can the monk make off-hand attacks in addition to
flurry attacks?
Actually, the text to which you refer appears in the entry
for unarmed strikes. When a monk uses her unarmed strike
ability, she does not suffer any penalty for an off-hand attack,
even when she has her hands full and attacks with her knees
and elbows, using the flurry of blows ability to make extra
attacks, or both.
The rules don’t come right out and say that a monk can’t
use an unarmed strike for an off-hand strike (although the exact
wording of the unarmed strike ability suggests otherwise), and
no compelling reason why a monk could not do so exists.
When using an unarmed strike as an off-hand attack, the monk
suffers all the usual attack penalties from two-weapon fighting
(see Table 8–10 in the Player’s Handbook) and the monk adds
only half her Strength bonus (if any) to damage if the off-hand
unarmed strike hits.
To add an off-hand attack to a flurry of blows, stack
whatever two-weapon penalty the monk has with the penalty (if
any) from the flurry. Attacks from the flurry have the monk’s
full damage bonus from Strength, but the off-hand attack gains
only half Strength bonus to damage. If the off-hand attack is a
weapon, that weapon isn’t available for use in the flurry (if it
can be used in a flurry at all, see the previous question). For
example, a 4th-level monk with the Two-Weapon Fighting feat
and a Strength score of 14 decides to use a flurry of blows and
decides to throw in an off-hand attack as well. The monk has a
base attack bonus of +3 and a +2 Strength bonus. With a flurry,
the character can make two attacks, each at +3 (base +3, –2
flurry, +2 Strength). An unarmed strike is a light weapon, so
the monk suffers an additional –2 penalty for both the flurry
and the off-hand attack, and the monk makes three attacks,
each at an attack bonus of +1. The two attacks from the flurry
are primary attacks and add the monk’s full Strength bonus to
damage of +2. The single off-hand attack adds half the monk’s
Strength bonus to damage (+1).
If the monk in our example has two sais to use with the
flurry, plus the off-hand attack, she can use both in the flurry
(in which case she must make the off-hand attack with an
unarmed strike) or one sai for the off-hand attack and one with
the flurry. The sai used in the off-hand attack is not available
for the flurry and vice versa."

There are issues with using it as both, just as there are issues with using the same shortsword as both weapons when using the TWF rules.

Other posters in his thread (and the players in all games I've played) seem to feel different. Mind you, I have no vested interest in how you play, but if you asked any of the designers, I'm fairly certain how most of them would answer.

 

[Deset Gled]

Other posters in his thread (and the players in all games I've played) seem to feel different.

Perhaps you (or one of the other posters) can explain to me why, if we assume you can use your unarmed strike for two-weapon fighting, you cannot use your unarmed strike for multi-weapon fighting?

Or, perhaps we can all just pray to the many gods of D+D that everything involving unarmed strikes, natural attacks, and monk attacks will be completely rewritten in a way that actually makes sense in 4E.

 

[Patryn of Elvenshae]

Your FAQ quote says nothing about the Unarmed Strike being both the primary and off-hand weapon in the TWF routine.

Lay off the personal attacks.

 

[blargney the second]

Or, perhaps we can all just pray to the many gods of D+D that everything involving unarmed strikes, natural attacks, and monk attacks will be completely rewritten in a way that actually makes sense in 4E.

Dear Mockery, please let it be true!

 

[mvincent]

Perhaps you (or one of the other posters) can explain to me why, if we assume you can use your unarmed strike for two-weapon fighting, you cannot use your unarmed strike for multi-weapon fighting?

Dunno. Can you provide a quote or somesuch saying that you can't (for context)?

If say, I bought two magical gauntlets (one thundering, one shocking burst... we'll call them thunder and lightning ), I would expect to be able to use them both while TWF'ing, even though the rules say gauntlets "lets you deal lethal damage rather than nonlethal damage with unarmed strikes.".

Now, if I had say, four arms (and bought more magical gauntlets), I would expect to be able to let loose with say thunder, lightning, fire and ice.

Or, perhaps we can all just pray to the many gods of D+D that everything involving unarmed strikes, natural attacks, and monk attacks will be completely rewritten in a way that actually makes sense in 4E.

Agreed.

 

[Quartz]

Guys, can we simply assume the legality and move on to the meat of the problem?

 

[DreamChaser]

Guys, can we simply assume the legality and move on to the meat of the problem?

Honestly, there is no way to answer the question without more information, as someone mentioned above. So to help you out, I will make up the "more information" for you.

Let's assume both have STR 26 (+8) (not unreasonable at 21st level) and +5 magic. Both are fighters and have the Frost property on their weapons (great sword in the case of the 2H guy and gauntlets in the case of the brawler). They are fighting a balor (CR 20), DR 15 cold iron and good

With the information we have, the brawler has 8 attacks, 4 dealing 1d3 (2) + 13 +1d6 (3.5) damage and 4 dealing 1d3 (2) + 9 +1d6 (3.5) (+32/+32/+27/+27/+22/+22/+17/+17; I assume these are the attacks you're referring to). On average (attack role of 11), the brawler will hit the balor's AC of 35 4 times out of 8 dealing, on average 18.5 - 15 3.5 + 18.5 - 15 + 14.5 -15 + 14.5 - 15 = 7 points of damage. If the gauntlets were cold iron and holy (+7 average per hit) this would jump to 51+43 or 94 damage in a round.

The 2H fighter has 4 attacks +34/+29/+24/+19 dealing 2d6 (7) + 12 + 1d6 (3.5) (22.5) per hit. He will hit 3 of the 4 hits dealing 22.5 - 15 + 22.5 - 15 + 22.5 - 15 = 22.5 points of damage. If the sword were cold iron and holy, he would deal 29.5 x 3 or 88.5 damage in a round.

By these numbers, the 2H guy is in better shape over all. He only deals 5.5 points less on average than the 2 fist guy under optimum conditions and blows the 2 fist guy out of the water when the DR is involved.

Now give the brawler a higher damage die and this will change. The low damage die of the brawler is all that saves the 2H guy when neither has to worry about DR. Of course, the 2H guy only needs a single +8 cold iron greatsword (130,400 gp) while the brawler needs 2 gauntlets +8 (260,608 gp total) in order to deal this amount of damage. Additionally, the 2H guy could get away with a +5 sword (ditching the cold and holy) and still deal damage on average, while the brawler without one or the other ends up dealing so little damage on average that the balor's DR cancels it out.

DC

 

[Jack Simth]

Yeah, way too many variables for a blanket answer.

For instance, if you compare a Str-24 +5 Greatsword Fighter-15 Power Attacking for 7 (so they have the same attack bonus; 1 for the weapon enhacement difference, 4 for the BAB difference, 2 for the TWF penalties) with a weapon-finess, Dex-24, Str-6 Rogue-15 two-weapon fighting with +4 shortsword attacking that same Balor (they're on opposite sides of him), and the Balor's DR applies, ignoring crits...

2HF: 2d6+10+14+5-15 average 21 damage per hit,
TWF: 9d6+2-15, about average 18.5 damage per hit (a little different than that, actually, but not enough to matter)... but six attempts, rather than the fighter's three, all at the same attack bonus; Rogue gets 37 damage in for each 21 the Fighter does in this instance.

If the Fighter gets Weapon Focus (Greatsword), Weapon Specilization (Greatsword), Greater Weapon Focus (Greatsword), and Greater Weapon Specilization (Greatsword), and power-attacks away the attack difference again, the Fighter gets +8 damage, bringing him up to 29 damage per hit, while the rogue keeps the 18.5 twice as often - 29 vs. 37, Rogue wins. Remove the DR for both, rogue very wins; both spent four feats on this - for the Rogue, that's Weapon Finess, Two-Weapon Fighting, Improved Two-Weapon Fighting, and Greater Two-Weapon Fighting; for the Fighter, that's Weapon Focus (Greatsword), Weapon Specilization (Greatsword), Greater Weapon Focus (Greatsword), and Greater Weapon Specilization (Greatsword). Of course, that's basically it for the Rogue's feats (he's got two or three others available, depending on race), while the Fighter has only spent four of 14 or 15 feats on it.

If you remove DR from the equation, The rogue blows the Fighter's damage out of the water (fighter get a +15 damage per hit, but for every hit the Fighter gets, the Rogue gets two... and also gets the same +15 damage per hit).

But the Rogue is squishy, and shouldn't be in melee anyway. The Fighter's choice of power attack isn't optimal (it's for making the comparison easier), and so on. If you don't ignore crits, the Fighter can get downright nasty when it happens, as everything doubles, while the rogue gets an extra... 1d6-2.