Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Infiniti2000" data-source="post: 2277913" data-attributes="member: 31734">I'd like to see the analysis you have to prove your points.&nbsp; I don't see the glaring you do unless you allow all your restrictions.&nbsp; For example, in one sentence you say that the two-handed fighter spends no feats and is better and then in another sentence you give the two-handed fighter power attack to try and prove another point.&nbsp; IMO, you are choosing arbitrary restrictions merely to suit your unproven point and not considering the whole situation, with all factors considered.&nbsp; I have never done the analysis myself, but every one I have seen falls short of proving anything and the person doing the analysis invariably uses certain restrictions that influence the results (such as not considering two-weapon defense which by your last statement you do not, yet considering power attack, clearly this is in the best interests of the two-handed fighter).&nbsp;The problem in such an analysis, of course, is that there really are too many variables, some of them being intangible or at the least very hard to define a metric for.&nbsp; Does the TWF need to enhance both items?&nbsp; Is that really a drawback or is it actually an advantage when you consider that PCs will go up against different creatures with different DR or other abilities like incorporeality?&nbsp; It's much more feasible, for example, for the TWF to add ghost touch to his off-hand weapon than for the THF to add a possibly much more expensive enhancement for a &quot;just in case&quot; scenario.&nbsp;The additional problems are that they are commonly prone to errors.&nbsp; I mean no offense, but just as an example, in your first post you mistakenly point out that a greatsword has a higher chance of critting than a TWF with two light weapons.&nbsp; Huh?&nbsp; 19-20 is more often than 19-20 more times per round?&nbsp;So, anyway, I intend this only as constructive feedback.&nbsp; I'm not trying to bash your idea, just to provide a different perspective.&nbsp; Like I said, TWF seems to work just fine IMC and the player certainly does not feel like he has less options than the battleaxe/board guy, when in fact he has more.&nbsp; One weapon is cold iron, the other is silver, for example.&nbsp; One is holy, the other is evil outsider bane.&nbsp; You get the drift. <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f642.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":)" title="Smile&nbsp; &nbsp; :)"&nbsp; data-smilie="1"data-shortname=":)" /></blockquote>

[QUOTE="Infiniti2000, post: 2277913, member: 31734"] I'd like to see the analysis you have to prove your points. I don't see the glaring you do unless you allow all your restrictions. For example, in one sentence you say that the two-handed fighter spends no feats and is better and then in another sentence you give the two-handed fighter power attack to try and prove another point. IMO, you are choosing arbitrary restrictions merely to suit your unproven point and not considering the whole situation, with all factors considered. I have never done the analysis myself, but every one I have seen falls short of proving anything and the person doing the analysis invariably uses certain restrictions that influence the results (such as not considering two-weapon defense which by your last statement you do not, yet considering power attack, clearly this is in the best interests of the two-handed fighter). The problem in such an analysis, of course, is that there really are too many variables, some of them being intangible or at the least very hard to define a metric for. Does the TWF need to enhance both items? Is that really a drawback or is it actually an advantage when you consider that PCs will go up against different creatures with different DR or other abilities like incorporeality? It's much more feasible, for example, for the TWF to add ghost touch to his off-hand weapon than for the THF to add a possibly much more expensive enhancement for a "just in case" scenario. The additional problems are that they are commonly prone to errors. I mean no offense, but just as an example, in your first post you mistakenly point out that a greatsword has a higher chance of critting than a TWF with two light weapons. Huh? 19-20 is more often than 19-20 more times per round? So, anyway, I intend this only as constructive feedback. I'm not trying to bash your idea, just to provide a different perspective. Like I said, TWF seems to work just fine IMC and the player certainly does not feel like he has less options than the battleaxe/board guy, when in fact he has more. One weapon is cold iron, the other is silver, for example. One is holy, the other is evil outsider bane. You get the drift. :) [/QUOTE]

Verification