Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="frisbeet" data-source="post: 2364956" data-attributes="member: 10287">I applaud your effort in calculation, but these numbers aren't correct.&nbsp; I do however agree the Barb20 vs. TWF F20 isn't a close comparison on TWF vs. THF+PA, though this whole TWF thing is quite a sidebar to the thread topic...except that it leads to an answer...Anyway, here's the correct #s for the Fighter 20 example.Str 29Dex 19Feats as above.&nbsp; Wields two-bladed sword.&nbsp; Blade 1 is +5 Speed Shock; Blade 2 is +5 Flaming Frost (an interesting combo).THF with blade 1 has the attack bonus progression:+36/+36/+31/+26/+21&nbsp; That's 20 (BAB) +9 (Str) +2 (WF, gWF), +5 (Weapon), with the extra full BAB attack from the Speed enchantment.Average damage/normal hit = 30That's 4.5 (sword) +13 (Str) +4 (WS, gWS) +5 (sword enchant) +3.5 (sword xtra)Average damage/crit hit = 56.5 (sword xtra not doubled)TWF with both blades has the AB progression:blade1+34/+34/+29/+24/+19Average damage/normal hit = 26 That's 4.5 (sword) +9 (Str) +4 (WS, gWS) +5 (sword enchant) +3.5 (sword xtra)Average damage/crit hit = 48.5blade2+34/+29/+24Average damage/normal hit = 24.5That's 4.5 (sword) +4 (Str) +4 (WS, gWS) +5 (sword enchant) +7 (sword xtra)Average damage/crit hit = 42Math checkSuppose blade1 is wielded THF-style, and your opponent's AC is 30.&nbsp; Turns out the best PA to go with is 7, not zero!&nbsp; How did I get 7?&nbsp; Well, here's the average full attack damage/round against AC 30, PA 0 (no DR).[(15/20 + 4/20*1/20)*30 + (4/20*19/20)*56.5] x 3 for the +36/+36/+31 attacksplus(13/20 + 4/20*3/20)*30 + (4/20*17/20)*56.5 for the +26 attackplus(8/20 + 4/20*8/20)*30 + (4/20*12/20)*56.5 for the +21 attackboop beep beep boop boop...answer = 151.79 Now, what if you PA-ed for 7?AB progression = +29/+29/+24/+19/+14blade1 normal D = 30 + 7*2 = 44blade1 crid D = 84.5&lt;full attack D, 30 AC&gt; = [(15/20 + 4/20*1/20)*44 + (4/20*19/20)*84.5] x 2+ (11/20 + 4/20*5/20)*44 + (4/20*15/20)*84.5+ (6/20 + 4/20*10/20)*44 + (4/20*10/20)*84.5+ (1/20 + 4/20*15/20)*44 + (4/20*5/20)*84.5= 177.14 OK, clearly 177.14 &gt; 151.79.&nbsp; So PA 7 better than PA 0.&nbsp; What about PA 6? or PA 8? or PA 20?&nbsp;&nbsp; <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f615.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":confused:" title="Confused&nbsp; &nbsp; :confused:"&nbsp; data-smilie="5"data-shortname=":confused:" /> This is where spreadsheets can help.&nbsp; Mine does every calculation, PA 0-20 (no epic levels, sorry), and is why it's so darn big.&nbsp; But it is exact.&nbsp; Turns out 7 gives the max damage. BTW, there is no complete analytic formula which generates the optimum PA values... you're much better off doing this tby brute force or by a more elegant dynamic program.This is all presented to give the reader confidence that the numbers which follow are correct.And here they are.[CODE]AC&nbsp; &nbsp; THF&nbsp; &nbsp; PA&nbsp; &nbsp; THF+PA&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; TWF&nbsp; &nbsp; PA&nbsp; &nbsp; TWF+PA10&nbsp; &nbsp; 167.7&nbsp; &nbsp; 20&nbsp; &nbsp; 358.2&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; 224.7&nbsp; &nbsp; 16&nbsp; &nbsp; 303.511&nbsp; &nbsp; 167.7&nbsp; &nbsp; 20&nbsp; &nbsp; 349.9&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; 224.7&nbsp; &nbsp; 15&nbsp; &nbsp; 298.112&nbsp; &nbsp; 167.7&nbsp; &nbsp; 20&nbsp; &nbsp; 341.5&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; 224.7&nbsp; &nbsp; 14&nbsp; &nbsp; 292.713&nbsp; &nbsp; 167.7&nbsp; &nbsp; 20&nbsp; &nbsp; 333.2&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; 224.7&nbsp; &nbsp; 13&nbsp; &nbsp; 287.314&nbsp; &nbsp; 167.7&nbsp; &nbsp; 19&nbsp; &nbsp; 323.6&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; 224.7&nbsp; &nbsp; 12&nbsp; &nbsp; 281.915&nbsp; &nbsp; 167.7&nbsp; &nbsp; 18&nbsp; &nbsp; 314.0&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; 224.7&nbsp; &nbsp; 11&nbsp; &nbsp; 276.516&nbsp; &nbsp; 167.7&nbsp; &nbsp; 17&nbsp; &nbsp; 304.4&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; 224.7&nbsp; &nbsp; 10&nbsp; &nbsp; 271.117&nbsp; &nbsp; 167.7&nbsp; &nbsp; 16&nbsp; &nbsp; 294.8&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; 224.7&nbsp; &nbsp; 9&nbsp; &nbsp; 265.718&nbsp; &nbsp; 167.7&nbsp; &nbsp; 15&nbsp; &nbsp; 285.2&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; 224.7&nbsp; &nbsp; 8&nbsp; &nbsp; 260.319&nbsp; &nbsp; 167.7&nbsp; &nbsp; 14&nbsp; &nbsp; 275.6&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; 224.7&nbsp; &nbsp; 7&nbsp; &nbsp; 254.920&nbsp; &nbsp; 167.7&nbsp; &nbsp; 13&nbsp; &nbsp; 266.0&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; 224.7&nbsp; &nbsp; 7&nbsp; &nbsp; 249.621&nbsp; &nbsp; 167.7&nbsp; &nbsp; 12&nbsp; &nbsp; 256.4&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; 224.7&nbsp; &nbsp; 6&nbsp; &nbsp; 244.322&nbsp; &nbsp; 167.7&nbsp; &nbsp; 11&nbsp; &nbsp; 246.8&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; 223.2&nbsp; &nbsp; 6&nbsp; &nbsp; 239.123&nbsp; &nbsp; 167.7&nbsp; &nbsp; 11&nbsp; &nbsp; 237.5&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; 221.6&nbsp; &nbsp; 5&nbsp; &nbsp; 234.024&nbsp; &nbsp; 165.9&nbsp; &nbsp; 10&nbsp; &nbsp; 228.3&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; 220.1&nbsp; &nbsp; 5&nbsp; &nbsp; 228.925&nbsp; &nbsp; 164.1&nbsp; &nbsp; 10&nbsp; &nbsp; 219.4&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; 218.6&nbsp; &nbsp; 4&nbsp; &nbsp; 223.926&nbsp; &nbsp; 162.4&nbsp; &nbsp; 9&nbsp; &nbsp; 210.5&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; 217.1&nbsp; &nbsp; 4&nbsp; &nbsp; 218.927&nbsp; &nbsp; 160.6&nbsp; &nbsp; 9&nbsp; &nbsp; 202.0&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; 212.6&nbsp; &nbsp; 3&nbsp; &nbsp; 214.028&nbsp; &nbsp; 158.9&nbsp; &nbsp; 8&nbsp; &nbsp; 193.5&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; 208.2&nbsp; &nbsp; 3&nbsp; &nbsp; 209.229&nbsp; &nbsp; 155.3&nbsp; &nbsp; 8&nbsp; &nbsp; 185.3&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; 203.7&nbsp; &nbsp; 2&nbsp; &nbsp; 204.430&nbsp; &nbsp; 151.8&nbsp; &nbsp; 7&nbsp; &nbsp; 177.1&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; 199.3&nbsp; &nbsp; 1&nbsp; &nbsp; 199.631&nbsp; &nbsp; 148.3&nbsp; &nbsp; 7&nbsp; &nbsp; 169.3&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; 194.8&nbsp; &nbsp; 0&nbsp; &nbsp; 194.832&nbsp; &nbsp; 144.7&nbsp; &nbsp; 6&nbsp; &nbsp; 161.5&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; 187.4&nbsp; &nbsp; 0&nbsp; &nbsp; 187.433&nbsp; &nbsp; 141.2&nbsp; &nbsp; 5&nbsp; &nbsp; 153.7&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; 180.1&nbsp; &nbsp; 0&nbsp; &nbsp; 180.134&nbsp; &nbsp; 135.9&nbsp; &nbsp; 4&nbsp; &nbsp; 145.9&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; 172.7&nbsp; &nbsp; 0&nbsp; &nbsp; 172.735&nbsp; &nbsp; 130.6&nbsp; &nbsp; 3&nbsp; &nbsp; 138.1&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; 165.3&nbsp; &nbsp; 0&nbsp; &nbsp; 165.336&nbsp; &nbsp; 125.3&nbsp; &nbsp; 2&nbsp; &nbsp; 130.3&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; 157.9&nbsp; &nbsp; 0&nbsp; &nbsp; 157.937&nbsp; &nbsp; 120.0&nbsp; &nbsp; 1&nbsp; &nbsp; 122.5&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; 145.9&nbsp; &nbsp; 0&nbsp; &nbsp; 145.938&nbsp; &nbsp; 114.7&nbsp; &nbsp; 0&nbsp; &nbsp; 114.7&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; 134.1&nbsp; &nbsp; 0&nbsp; &nbsp; 134.139&nbsp; &nbsp; 105.7&nbsp; &nbsp; 0&nbsp; &nbsp; 105.7&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; 122.3&nbsp; &nbsp; 0&nbsp; &nbsp; 122.340&nbsp; &nbsp; 96.8&nbsp; &nbsp; 0&nbsp; &nbsp; 96.8&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; 112.0&nbsp; &nbsp; 0&nbsp; &nbsp; 112.041&nbsp; &nbsp; 88.1&nbsp; &nbsp; 0&nbsp; &nbsp; 88.1&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; 101.7&nbsp; &nbsp; 0&nbsp; &nbsp; 101.742&nbsp; &nbsp; 81.0&nbsp; &nbsp; 0&nbsp; &nbsp; 81.0&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; 91.1&nbsp; &nbsp; 0&nbsp; &nbsp; 91.143&nbsp; &nbsp; 73.9&nbsp; &nbsp; 0&nbsp; &nbsp; 73.9&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; 80.7&nbsp; &nbsp; 0&nbsp; &nbsp; 80.744&nbsp; &nbsp; 66.7&nbsp; &nbsp; 0&nbsp; &nbsp; 66.7&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; 70.5&nbsp; &nbsp; 0&nbsp; &nbsp; 70.545&nbsp; &nbsp; 59.5&nbsp; &nbsp; 0&nbsp; &nbsp; 59.5&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; 63.1&nbsp; &nbsp; 0&nbsp; &nbsp; 63.146&nbsp; &nbsp; 52.6&nbsp; &nbsp; 0&nbsp; &nbsp; 52.6&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; 55.7&nbsp; &nbsp; 0&nbsp; &nbsp; 55.747&nbsp; &nbsp; 47.3&nbsp; &nbsp; 0&nbsp; &nbsp; 47.3&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; 48.1&nbsp; &nbsp; 0&nbsp; &nbsp; 48.148&nbsp; &nbsp; 42.0&nbsp; &nbsp; 0&nbsp; &nbsp; 42.0&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; 40.6&nbsp; &nbsp; 0&nbsp; &nbsp; 40.649&nbsp; &nbsp; 36.5&nbsp; &nbsp; 0&nbsp; &nbsp; 36.5&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; 33.3&nbsp; &nbsp; 0&nbsp; &nbsp; 33.350&nbsp; &nbsp; 31.1&nbsp; &nbsp; 0&nbsp; &nbsp; 31.1&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; 28.9&nbsp; &nbsp; 0&nbsp; &nbsp; 28.9[/CODE] Comments:1). Turns out you can power attack with a two bladed sword, even though the off-hand attack gains no benefit. 2).&nbsp; Turns out for low-mid AC for either style, you're better off PAing for at least a little.3).&nbsp; A lot of analysis such as this has proven #2, and disproven the oft-stated myth that you should only PA, and then for max, when you can't hit an opponent except with a 20, or when your opponent clearly has no armor.&nbsp; That's bull.4).&nbsp; Against ACs 24-47, this character is better off TWF.5).&nbsp; Ergo, 2 for 1 THF PA trade-off not overpowered. edit: once again, free spreadsheet found on the site linked in the signature of my 1st post above</blockquote>

[QUOTE="frisbeet, post: 2364956, member: 10287"] I applaud your effort in calculation, but these numbers aren't correct. I do however agree the Barb20 vs. TWF F20 isn't a close comparison on TWF vs. THF+PA, though this whole TWF thing is quite a sidebar to the thread topic...except that it leads to an answer... Anyway, here's the correct #s for the Fighter 20 example. Str 29 Dex 19 Feats as above. Wields two-bladed sword. Blade 1 is +5 Speed Shock; Blade 2 is +5 Flaming Frost (an interesting combo). [U]THF with blade 1[/U] has the attack bonus progression: +36/+36/+31/+26/+21 That's 20 (BAB) +9 (Str) +2 (WF, gWF), +5 (Weapon), with the extra full BAB attack from the Speed enchantment. Average damage/normal hit = 30 That's 4.5 (sword) +13 (Str) +4 (WS, gWS) +5 (sword enchant) +3.5 (sword xtra) Average damage/crit hit = 56.5 (sword xtra not doubled) [U]TWF with both blades[/U] has the AB progression: blade1 +34/+34/+29/+24/+19 Average damage/normal hit = 26 That's 4.5 (sword) +9 (Str) +4 (WS, gWS) +5 (sword enchant) +3.5 (sword xtra) Average damage/crit hit = 48.5 blade2 +34/+29/+24 Average damage/normal hit = 24.5 That's 4.5 (sword) +4 (Str) +4 (WS, gWS) +5 (sword enchant) +7 (sword xtra) Average damage/crit hit = 42 [U]Math check[/U] Suppose blade1 is wielded THF-style, and your opponent's AC is 30. Turns out the best PA to go with is 7, [I]not zero![/I] How did I get 7? Well, here's the [U]average full attack damage/round against AC 30, PA 0 (no DR).[/U] [(15/20 + 4/20*1/20)*30 + (4/20*19/20)*56.5] x 3 for the +36/+36/+31 attacks plus (13/20 + 4/20*3/20)*30 + (4/20*17/20)*56.5 for the +26 attack plus (8/20 + 4/20*8/20)*30 + (4/20*12/20)*56.5 for the +21 attack boop beep beep boop boop... answer = [B]151.79[/B] [U]Now, what if you PA-ed for 7?[/U] AB progression = +29/+29/+24/+19/+14 blade1 normal D = 30 + 7*2 = 44 blade1 crid D = 84.5 <full attack D, 30 AC> = [(15/20 + 4/20*1/20)*44 + (4/20*19/20)*84.5] x 2 + (11/20 + 4/20*5/20)*44 + (4/20*15/20)*84.5 + (6/20 + 4/20*10/20)*44 + (4/20*10/20)*84.5 + (1/20 + 4/20*15/20)*44 + (4/20*5/20)*84.5 = [B]177.14[/B] OK, clearly 177.14 > 151.79. So PA 7 better than PA 0. What about PA 6? or PA 8? or PA 20? :confused: This is where spreadsheets can help. Mine does every calculation, PA 0-20 (no epic levels, sorry), and is why it's so darn big. But it is exact. Turns out 7 gives the max damage. BTW, [I]there is no complete analytic formula which generates the optimum PA values...[/I] you're much better off doing this tby brute force or by a more elegant dynamic program. This is all presented to give the reader confidence that the numbers which follow are correct. And here they are. [CODE]AC THF PA THF+PA TWF PA TWF+PA 10 167.7 20 358.2 224.7 16 303.5 11 167.7 20 349.9 224.7 15 298.1 12 167.7 20 341.5 224.7 14 292.7 13 167.7 20 333.2 224.7 13 287.3 14 167.7 19 323.6 224.7 12 281.9 15 167.7 18 314.0 224.7 11 276.5 16 167.7 17 304.4 224.7 10 271.1 17 167.7 16 294.8 224.7 9 265.7 18 167.7 15 285.2 224.7 8 260.3 19 167.7 14 275.6 224.7 7 254.9 20 167.7 13 266.0 224.7 7 249.6 21 167.7 12 256.4 224.7 6 244.3 22 167.7 11 246.8 223.2 6 239.1 23 167.7 11 237.5 221.6 5 234.0 24 165.9 10 228.3 220.1 5 228.9 25 164.1 10 219.4 218.6 4 223.9 26 162.4 9 210.5 217.1 4 218.9 27 160.6 9 202.0 212.6 3 214.0 28 158.9 8 193.5 208.2 3 209.2 29 155.3 8 185.3 203.7 2 204.4 30 151.8 7 177.1 199.3 1 199.6 31 148.3 7 169.3 194.8 0 194.8 32 144.7 6 161.5 187.4 0 187.4 33 141.2 5 153.7 180.1 0 180.1 34 135.9 4 145.9 172.7 0 172.7 35 130.6 3 138.1 165.3 0 165.3 36 125.3 2 130.3 157.9 0 157.9 37 120.0 1 122.5 145.9 0 145.9 38 114.7 0 114.7 134.1 0 134.1 39 105.7 0 105.7 122.3 0 122.3 40 96.8 0 96.8 112.0 0 112.0 41 88.1 0 88.1 101.7 0 101.7 42 81.0 0 81.0 91.1 0 91.1 43 73.9 0 73.9 80.7 0 80.7 44 66.7 0 66.7 70.5 0 70.5 45 59.5 0 59.5 63.1 0 63.1 46 52.6 0 52.6 55.7 0 55.7 47 47.3 0 47.3 48.1 0 48.1 48 42.0 0 42.0 40.6 0 40.6 49 36.5 0 36.5 33.3 0 33.3 50 31.1 0 31.1 28.9 0 28.9 [/CODE] Comments: 1). Turns out you can power attack with a two bladed sword, even though the off-hand attack gains no benefit. 2). Turns out for low-mid AC for either style, you're better off PAing for at least a little. 3). [U]A lot [/U] of analysis such as this has proven #2, and disproven the oft-stated myth that you should [I]only [/I] PA, and then for max, when you can't hit an opponent except with a 20, or when your opponent clearly has no armor. That's bull. 4). Against ACs 24-47, this character is better off TWF. [SIZE=5]5). Ergo, 2 for 1 THF PA trade-off not overpowered. [/SIZE] edit: once again, [U]free[/U] spreadsheet found on the site linked in the signature of my 1st post above [/QUOTE]

Verification