Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="ECMO3" data-source="post: 8783100" data-attributes="member: 7030563">Mathematically TWF with the fighting style and an ASI will do more damage than using a Glaive or Halberd with no ASI and the PAM featAt 5th level if all attacks hit,16 strength PAM is doing 2d10+1d4+9=22.518 strength TWF is doing 3d6+12=22.5However, the TWF is htting more often so it will outdamage the PAM fighter.&nbsp; At 15 AC for example PAM is doing 13.5DPR, TWF is doing 14.625 with the same action economy.Add to this the TWF can go with hand axes and engage at range as well.I think the reason TWF gets a bad wrap is people think of it as a Ranger style and people try to use it on a dex-based Ranger using Hunters Mark.&nbsp; On that build it does suck because they are limited to finesse weapons and they need to use a bonus action to cast/move hunters mark.&nbsp; PAM is actually a better build for a Ranger than TWF.&nbsp; But TWF works very well on a strength-based fighter with a subclass with few bonus actions.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="ECMO3, post: 8783100, member: 7030563"] Mathematically TWF with the fighting style and an ASI will do more damage than using a Glaive or Halberd with no ASI and the PAM feat At 5th level if all attacks hit, 16 strength PAM is doing 2d10+1d4+9=22.5 18 strength TWF is doing 3d6+12=22.5 However, the TWF is htting more often so it will outdamage the PAM fighter. At 15 AC for example PAM is doing 13.5DPR, TWF is doing 14.625 with the same action economy. Add to this the TWF can go with hand axes and engage at range as well. I think the reason TWF gets a bad wrap is people think of it as a Ranger style and people try to use it on a dex-based Ranger using Hunters Mark. On that build it does suck because they are limited to finesse weapons and they need to use a bonus action to cast/move hunters mark. PAM is actually a better build for a Ranger than TWF. But TWF works very well on a strength-based fighter with a subclass with few bonus actions. [/QUOTE]

Verification