Making 2 weapon fighting not suck-o-rama

[KarinsDad]

Why is it very stupid for the sorcerer to dim door the ftr/rgr next to the bad guy such that the ftr/rgr is between them? Sure, the sorcerer can't take any other actions that round, but getting the fighter with favored enemy, bane, holy, and wounding weapons into a full attack is sometimes more than worth it. The same tactic can be done with the THF, sure, but it helps negate the claim of "50% are single attacks." Now, explain to me why this tactic is "very stupid."

Because if the bad guy survives the attack (which is fairly common in DND), he takes a 5 foot step around the ftr/rgr and wastes the Sorcerer with his OWN full round attack.

. S
x F
. B

5 foot step to x, full round attack Sorcerer.

Now, the Sorcerer can dim door 15 feet away, the Fighter/Ranger can then take a 5 foot step and limit the bad guy to a single attack unless the bad guy has reach or a reach weapon (plus the Fighter/Ranger gets an AoO if the bad guy moves 10 feet and does not tumble or some such):

. S
x .
x F
. B

But, even with a single attack, this shouts "HEY, I AM A SORCERER, COME KILL ME".


Not only that, in order to get ONE additional full round attack in the combat, the Sorcerer is wasting a 4th level Dimension Door spell as opposed to doing something more worthwhile in the combat.

Your argument is here is without merit.

A miscellaneous spell + full round attack > an offensive spell + single attack?

This is totally false (and very stupid as per your question) the vast majority of the time. Sure in a few specific circumstances, it might work well. Maybe if the Fighter/Ranger is 500 feet away and you need to get him into combat, or maybe in a 5 foot wide corridor where the bad guy will have a hard time getting to the Sorcerer, or maybe even if the Fighter/Ranger has Improved Trip and has a high chance of tripping the opponent on a second or third attack of the full round attack, sure.

But most the time, this tactic totally sucks and the bad guy is now within 10 or 15 feet of the Sorcerer.

 

[KarinsDad]

Maybe I'm just not making my point clearly enough. You just plain can't be complete enough. Or, at least it would be impractical. By doing this analysis in the first place, you are basically making the biggest, and most erroneous, assumption of all. Most of us, probably 99%, play D&D or d20 as a group, not individually. Any analysis you do, therefore, must include the other 3 (typical) party members. IMC, for example, the party sorcerer frequently dim doors the delayed TWF to the opponent, allowing him a full round of attacks (4 primary, 2 secondary, 1 haste). How do the other members of the group affect/help/hinder the fighter's tactics? Obviously, it can be quite varied. Another assumption you make is ignoring the possibility of multiple opponents with different DR (happens frequently at higher levels). The TWF has some advantage in that regard. And then the worst assumption IMO is that the other aspects of the character are ignored (not considering AC or any feats/skills 'wasted' on RP reasons).

I'm not taking up any challenge because it would be counter to my point in that any such analysis is flawed and incomplete. Why would I undertake what I consider to be a futile endeavor? Merely statting up two alternate 5th level, 10th level, or even 20th level fighters and comparing something as useless (IMO) as 'average damage' is not worthwhile because it's a situation that never occurs in the game.

Basically what you are saying here is the equivalent of:

A first level Fighter cannot be shown to be better in melee combat than a first level Wizard because there are too many factors in the game such as the other 3 PCs.


That's silly. You can sit down and do the math. You can do it at any level. You can do it with any set of abilities, classes, and items.

Sure, you cannot anticipate all game circumstances, but you can figure out average damage for single attacks, full round attacks, etc. And what average damage tells you is the approximate number of rounds it will take for one combatant to take out another with the given AC and a set number of hit points. It gives you a clear indication that one PC or NPC with a specific set of weapons and abilties can take out a given opponent in less or more time (on average), so yes it is worthwhile information.

 

[TheEvil]

This is exactly why a cleric with the travel domain is a better choice for this tactic. Also, why bring just one fighter? Heck, in one case the cleric brought three people in on top of the BBEG. Right past all the traps he had littered the slope with.

Because if the bad guy survives the attack (which is fairly common in DND), he takes a 5 foot step around the ftr/rgr and wastes the Sorcerer with his OWN full round attack.

. S
x F
. B

5 foot step to x, full round attack Sorcerer.

Now, the Sorcerer can dim door 15 feet away, the Fighter/Ranger can then take a 5 foot step and limit the bad guy to a single attack unless the bad guy has reach or a reach weapon (plus the Fighter/Ranger gets an AoO if the bad guy moves 10 feet and does not tumble or some such):

. S
x .
x F
. B

But, even with a single attack, this shouts "HEY, I AM A SORCERER, COME KILL ME".


Not only that, in order to get ONE additional full round attack in the combat, the Sorcerer is wasting a 4th level Dimension Door spell as opposed to doing something more worthwhile in the combat.

Your argument is here is without merit.

A miscellaneous spell + full round attack > an offensive spell + single attack?

This is totally false (and very stupid as per your question) the vast majority of the time. Sure in a few specific circumstances, it might work well. Maybe if the Fighter/Ranger is 500 feet away and you need to get him into combat, or maybe in a 5 foot wide corridor where the bad guy will have a hard time getting to the Sorcerer, or maybe even if the Fighter/Ranger has Improved Trip and has a high chance of tripping the opponent on a second or third attack of the full round attack, sure.

But most the time, this tactic totally sucks and the bad guy is now within 10 or 15 feet of the Sorcerer.

 

[TheEvil]

General comment not aimed at anyone in particular, but if the GM runs a game where the most important thing about being a fighter is pure damage output, then they have no one but themselves to blame if people focus on builds for damage over style.

 

[cignus_pfaccari]

Things That Are Better With Lots of Attacks:

1/ Wounding (and ability damage in general)
2/ Poison (and anything else that triggers a save or two)
3/ Energy damage (and non-multiplied dice damage in general, including Sneak Attack)
4/ Things that trigger, but do not multiply, on a Crit (Keen Flaming Burst / Shocking Burst / Thundering Kukri)

Especially poison.

I'm gonna disagree with ya on the poison. That's hellaexpensive, and doesn't work very often.

Otherwise, yes. Wounding would seem to be the most effective property, as you're chipping away at their HP very fast. If you can afford it, and aren't squeamish, Souldrinking (1 negative level/hit, more on crit, +4 equivalent) would also be good.

Brad

 

[FreeTheSlaves]

The only time the Rogue with the two weapons has an advantage in average damage is in the full round sneak attack cases. However, if he is tumbling away in order to go invisible again, he is at a disadvantage in average damage per combat BECAUSE he is only attacking one round in two (or even three). His average damage at least halves. On the other hand, if he stays put and fights, he will probably not get full round sneak attack damage in every round either (especially since some higher level creatures have immunities or defenses against sneak attacks).

I don't dispute your analysis, it seems pretty complete but we need to look at the rogue in his role within a party environment, as Infiniti2000 points out.

The rogue, even a melee twink such as presented above cannot stay in toe to toe combat for much longer than 1-2 rounds against an equal challenge. The spiked chain & greatsword example has a better overall damage output but the 2WF is designed to dump a lot of damage & then bail. The medium armour & good con is merely to allow survival after a counter-attacking full attack, unless vs exception melee monster - which no experienced rogue would dare expose themself to.

This ability to dump a whack of damage is carefully timed by the rogue to cause the most harm at a pivotal moment in the battle (i.e. force the enemy cleric to heal only himself) and a player that has worked their rogue up from 1st will know and love the tactical aspect of their class.

Btw, don't worry about crunching numbers KarinsDad but do you think the spiked chain variant is comparable to the springing rogue-swordsman?

 

[FreeTheSlaves]

General comment not aimed at anyone in particular, but if the GM runs a game where the most important thing about being a fighter is pure damage output, then they have no one but themselves to blame if people focus on builds for damage over style.

My experience is that the party without someone focused in AC gets too wasted too often. Someone has to present themselves for the enemies first full attack or to take the AoO for the rest of the group to duck under the reach afterwards. I say "has to" because it is going to happen regardless, the question is is someone prepared?

When this last happened (I was the AC monkey), the 2handers got too injured needlessly for healing to keep up (partly my fault by not doing my task properly) - I ordered* one to become a temporary archer for that sessions action.

*Yes my character was the ranking officer.

 

[Infiniti2000]

But most the time, this tactic totally sucks and the bad guy is now within 10 or 15 feet of the Sorcerer.

"Most" is so widely open to interpretation, that your opinion on it is rendered immaterial. In point of fact, you provide a number of examples when it would/could happen with (apparently) even a poor-melee sorcerer. How about a sorcerer/dragon disciple or someone else who doesn't mind "getting dirty?" There are numerous situations where a dim door would be useful, if not downright necessary.

But, if you wish, go ahead and totally disregard terrain and any other factors for your incomplete analysis. Put both combatants in a square, featureless room with no way out. If that helps you, then more power to you.

 

[Storyteller01]

It a game folks, let's step back and breathe a bit...


IRL, (the basis of my games, mwahahahahaha...) twf is difficult to master. Even when you do, the concept is enhancing precision to do greater damage, something not well covered in D&D. Only the most exceptional tend to master a truely offensive twf system. Otherwise, it's a stylized sword and board.

 

[KarinsDad]

I don't dispute your analysis, it seems pretty complete but we need to look at the rogue in his role within a party environment, as Infiniti2000 points out.

Actually, it had a flaw.

I did it quickly at work and forgot the part about the TW fighter getting 0.5 Str with the off hand weapon, so the damage in the various full round attacks for the TW fighter should have been about 0.35 to 0.65 less, depending.

The rogue, even a melee twink such as presented above cannot stay in toe to toe combat for much longer than 1-2 rounds against an equal challenge. The spiked chain & greatsword example has a better overall damage output but the 2WF is designed to dump a lot of damage & then bail. The medium armour & good con is merely to allow survival after a counter-attacking full attack, unless vs exception melee monster - which no experienced rogue would dare expose themself to.

The problem with dumping a lot of damage and then bailing is that you are not doing that much productively while bailing.

This ability to dump a whack of damage is carefully timed by the rogue to cause the most harm at a pivotal moment in the battle (i.e. force the enemy cleric to heal only himself) and a player that has worked their rogue up from 1st will know and love the tactical aspect of their class.

No doubt.

Remember though, if you don't hit, the tactic doesn't work that well.

This is a re-occurring theme in DND that some people don't quite get. They go for the flash as opposed to the bang. In other words, my psion has ways at 8th level to get her AC as high as 36. Even in a situation where she cannot hit the opponent (due to low BAB), she is a pain for the DM since the opponents rarely hit her back. They can attempt to ignore her, but that is a mistake of a different kind.

Btw, don't worry about crunching numbers KarinsDad but do you think the spiked chain variant is comparable to the springing rogue-swordsman?

Hard to say. The spiked chain variant gets more full round attacks in due to threatening a larger area and the 15 foot trick. On the other hand, his opponents can get a few more full round attacks back on him.

We have a springing rogue-swordsman-shadow dancer in our group and the hide in plain sight ability combined with spring attack gives her a huge offense due to moving in, sneak attack, tumble away. Next round, hide, move to set up. Rinse and repeat. Granted, she tends to only get an attack in every other round, but she pounds pretty hard when she does hit. And, she only gets hit back when she goes toe to toe (this is a new PC for this player, so she will have to learn the hard way to not go toe to toe).

The problem with the spiked chain variant is that a good tactical DM playing tactical opponents can get around his advantages, especially the AoO reach advantage. I'll post another thread on what I mean by that.