Power Attack Woes :(

[Felon]

I run a lowish-magic game, but even at standard magic levels PCs have maybe +1 shield per 3 or 4 points of BAB - which is +6 dmg 2h, so 2h PA is still better IMO.

eg: An 8th level PC has maybe a +2 shield, 4 points higher AC. With 2h weapon he can do +16 damage, 1h only +8.

Your logic is erroneous.

First off, the guy with the shield will have a consistent AC bonus. To get the damage output you're talking about, a character has to power attack by his full BAB, and doing that most of the time is a pretty severe handicap (which is a nice way of saying it's a dumb thing to do). It's odd how often in these thread the little that there's an actual penalty for power-attacking gets disregarded.

And if the guy's got a shield with spikes and TWF, then he's not only got a nice AC bonus, but he can trade that in for a bash that will usualy afford a better damage-to-penalty ratio than the power-attacker's getting.

This confuses the #@!!# out of me. I've never ever heard anyone at any time claim 2-weapon fighting was "uber" in 3.0. Never, not once, never. 3.5 did a lot to make 2-weapon fighting less feat-intensive (i.e. power it up), and it still is clearly and lamely sub-par to vanilla greatsword users. It was far worse in 3.0, when it was a low-damage dealing feat-sink. Seriously, I think you must have confused something here.

Actually, I've explained how TWF is not sub-par, so you can assert how "clearly" lame it is all you want, but let me know when you can actually back it up with facts.

No confusion on my part. Folks in the know did the math. TWF was superior then, and it's still superior now if you keep using it as a feat-sink (a GTWF with a couple of holy, flaming swords makes a joke out of 2-hander).

 

[Storm Raven]

No confusion on my part. Folks in the know did the math. TWF was superior then, and it's still superior now if you keep using it as a feat-sink (a GTWF with a couple of holy, flaming swords makes a joke out of 2-hander).

At the cost of a pile of feats, and double the price for weapons. Exciting!

 

[Belen]

Actually, I've explained how TWF is not sub-par, so you can assert how "clearly" lame it is all you want, but let me know when you can actually back it up with facts.

No confusion on my part. Folks in the know did the math. TWF was superior then, and it's still superior now if you keep using it as a feat-sink (a GTWF with a couple of holy, flaming swords makes a joke out of 2-hander).

Really? Please give us your analysis here. IME, two-weapon fighting sucks, although does not suck as bad as the sword and shield fighter.

My powergamer friend will not touch a two weapon fighter. Even with my house rule that taking ambidexterity allow full damage from off hand will net you a lower damage output than a two-hander. The two-hander tends to hit just as often as a two-weapon fighter and deals more damage. And the two-hander only need ONE feat to do it!

A two-weapon fighter needs a high dex, usually at the cost of strength because they need that 19 dex to get Improved two-weapon fighting. So the lower strength corresponds to a lower attack bonus, unless they use light weapons with yet another feat added into the mix. Lower strength still means lower damage even with using light weapon, which themselves do less damage.

I use the RPGA as the ulimate judge in this debate. Very few people in that organization play two-weapon fighters. Almost all of them use the Power Attacking two-handed weapon fighters because that is the ultimate fighter combo in 3.5.

 

[Majoru Oakheart]

Yes, I understand. This happens in my games too. It isn't so much the amount of damage that they do than the fact that they kill enemies before they even get to act.

For instance, in my game recently, I was using a level 15 Cleric as an enemy(by himself). He had around 85 hps, if I remember correctly. The party averaged 11th level. I had a half-ogre barbarian/fighter in my group. His strength was 26 before raging and 30 after. With a +1 sword and weapon focus, it meant that his pluses to hit were +21 while raging. Without power attacking his damage was 5d6+16 (+1 large vicious greatsword).

The cleric, being an NPC and having NPC gear had an AC of 26. So, If he power attacks for 9 (his full BAB), he had +12 to hit and needs to roll a 14, not easy, but not impossible. With his full power attack, he does 5d6+34, slightly above average that is 54 damage. This battle ended with the barbarian going first, rolling a crit for over 100 damage and the cleric dying.

But, the problem here isn't so much power attack as the fact that strength is too useful as it increases. 1.5 times your strength becomes more and more useful the more strength you have. I've actually created a wizard once who was better than the fighter in the group at melee damage simply because of his strength. (he was actually a half-orc barbarian 1/wizard 14)

 

[Belen]

At the cost of a pile of feats, and double the price for weapons. Exciting!

Thank you. I forgot all about the enormous cost in those magic weapons, which means that they have no money left for any other items.

 

[two]

Your logic is erroneous.

First off, the guy with the shield will have a consistent AC bonus. To get the damage output you're talking about, a character has to power attack by his full BAB, and doing that most of the time is a pretty severe handicap (which is a nice way of saying it's a dumb thing to do). It's odd how often in these thread the little that there's an actual penalty for power-attacking gets disregarded.

And if the guy's got a shield with spikes and TWF, then he's not only got a nice AC bonus, but he can trade that in for a bash that will usualy afford a better damage-to-penalty ratio than the power-attacker's getting.



Actually, I've explained how TWF is not sub-par, so you can assert how "clearly" lame it is all you want, but let me know when you can actually back it up with facts.

No confusion on my part. Folks in the know did the math. TWF was superior then, and it's still superior now if you keep using it as a feat-sink (a GTWF with a couple of holy, flaming swords makes a joke out of 2-hander).

There have been many threads over in the rules forum on the subject. Plenty of math involved, and at anything except very high levels vanilla greatsword wins hands down. At high levels, the two weapon fighting monkey can maybe get close to damage dealt buy buying, well, 2 sun blades and etc. And by spending about 6 more feats than the vanilla greatsword guy. And etc.

Or by using certain prestiage classes (Dervish).

At the end of the day, however, it's pretty sad. Two-weapon fighting requies massive min/maxing, $ outlay for two weapons, feat upon feat -- all to keep up (in damage dealt) with a very un min-maxxed Fighter15 with a +5 greatsword and power attack.

And naturally, the Fighter15 is far less specialized, having not used up all those feats.

Plus, when you can't full attack, which is about 50% of the time (at least), the 2-weapon guy's damage output drops 75%. The greatsword user just charges and bumps up power attack.

Anyway, check out the rules forum, good stuff.

 

[Kae'Yoss]

This confuses the #@!!# out of me.

I've never ever heard anyone at any time claim 2-weapon fighting was "uber" in 3.0. Never, not once, never.

With the right choice of class and weapons, you can make these attacks really count. The key is in using weapon enhancements that grant bonus dice (flaming and the like, holy and the like) as well as sneak attack. This can lead to a high damage output.

 

[Belen]

With the right choice of class and weapons, you can make these attacks really count. The key is in using weapon enhancements that grant bonus dice (flaming and the like, holy and the like) as well as sneak attack. This can lead to a high damage output.

Yes, but this plays into his argument. A Power Attacking fighter is superior in every way to a two-weapon fighter.

A two-weapon rogue is different because at least his prime stat is dex and he gets some sneak attack to help him out in the damage arena. And that rogue still spends ALL his feats on the two-weapon fighting route.

The only way to make a viable two-weapon fighter is to min/max multiclass.

 

[Kae'Yoss]

Yes, but this plays into his argument. A Power Attacking fighter is superior in every way to a two-weapon fighter.

A two-weapon rogue is different because at least his prime stat is dex and he gets some sneak attack to help him out in the damage arena. And that rogue still spends ALL his feats on the two-weapon fighting route.

The only way to make a viable two-weapon fighter is to min/max multiclass.

Even then, he can get the elemental enhancements and so on.

 

[maddman75]

Even then, he can get the elemental enhancements and so on.

Yeah, but the two handed fighter who does about the same damage has a lot of money left for other items as well as a ton of feats freed up.

I don't think that's a bad thing though. One thing that bothered me about late 2e was how common TWF was. There was really no reason not to fight with two weapons. Its a highly specialized style that takes a lot of training to pull off. As it should be.