Two hander style gets the axe shaft!

[kreynolds]

That's like the best feat I've ever seen.

Of course it is.

Isn't it broken though?

To quote my hero, Gromm...


...I'll beat you to death with your own arm.

 

[LokiDR]

I can see where this is comming from. A person wielding a large axe at 20th level is doing 4 attacks, with a damage of
(1.5*str +1d12) *4
Which, at 26 str would max out at (12+12)*4 = 96

Dual wielding, with something like tempest gives you something like 7 attacks at damage of
(str+1d10)*4 + (.5*str+1d6) *3
which at 26 strength maxes at (8+10)*4 + (4+6)*3 = 102

Actually, this looks pretty even. Energy damage pushes it more towards the dual wielding. You have to remember though that almost all dual wielders are at penalties to hit. This means that the max damage isn't as good, because you are less likely to hit with it.

Conan vs a maxed out dual wielder is still fairly even. As for rouge sneak attack, it is relatively hard to get sneak attack on all of those attacks. And besides, rouges should tend toward speed and numbers rather than strength.

If you are still worried about it, think of it in these terms. The two-hander only has one sword to make into something kick@$$, while the dual wielder has two. The two-hander does better the higher the AC of the creature you go against.

 

[Morose]

Considering you're blowing two feats just to get up to near par (two-weapon fighting/ambidexterity) it SHOULD be superior. Though in practice I see most characters using two-weapon fighting in our campaign being overshadowed by greatsword wielding fighters. They do a much steadier stream of damage. That's just my experience though. I'm sure it looks different on paper.

 

[Crothian]

Considering you're blowing two feats just to get up to near par (two-weapon fighting/ambidexterity) it SHOULD be superior. Though in practice I see most characters using two-weapon fighting in our campaign being overshadowed by greatsword wielding fighters. They do a much steadier stream of damage. That's just my experience though. I'm sure it looks different on paper.

Actually, you also need Improved two weapon fighting, and greater two weapon fighting to get up to 3 attacks with your off hand. So, that's of course 4 feats.

 

[JacktheRabbit]

Finally you will probably want the Twin Weapon Feat from FRCS. Though it doesnt help attack it does grant you a +2 to AC. So that makes 5 feats the ultimate dual wielder will want to have.

 

[kreynolds]

Finally you will probably want the Twin Weapon Feat from FRCS. Though it doesnt help attack it does grant you a +2 to AC. So that makes 5 feats the ultimate dual wielder will want to have.

If you want four attacks with your off-hand, you'll also need Perfect Two-Weapon Fighting (which shouldn't be an Epic feat, by the way ), so that brings your total up to 6 feats.

 

[Crothian]

Perfect Two-Weapon Fighting (which shouldn't be an Epic feat, by the way )

why not?

 

[Morose]

Probably because he feels the mechanics involved with TWF already limit things enough that an extra attack when it would normally make sense in your progression is not a big deal. That would be my guess anyway. And I would agree.

 

[Crothian]

Probably because he feels the mechanics involved with TWF already limit things enough that an extra attack when it would normally make sense in your progression is not a big deal. That would be my guess anyway. And I would agree.

So, it's a weak feat. Nothing new about that. I perfer feats that are a little on the weask side these days.

 

[Morose]

No, nothing new about that though the rule mechanic purist in me feels that all feats should be roughly equal... you filthy roleplayer! Just kidding.

Sorry for getting off topic in the thread BTW.