Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.
Rocket your D&D 5E and Level Up: Advanced 5E games into space! Alpha Star Magazine Is Launching... Right Now!

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="tarchon" data-source="post: 461465" data-attributes="member: 5990">Not at all.  In most practical cases it's better than two-handed fighting.   You have to consider what the AC of a typical opponent is, and it's not usually in that 3-5 AC range where THF tends to be better, unless the character is particularly strong.  For half-orc barbarians with Bull's Strength, TWF is indeed less attractive, but for the Ranger who tends to be less of a tank, it makes much sense.For example, I took the Ranger 5/Rogue 5 in our group, gave him two 1d6 short swords (without his sneak attack and their extra dmg dice).  +8 BAB, +3 Str bonus.  For any AC less than 28, TWF is better.  (Obviously, for Full Attacks.)Granted, for ACs 28-30, two-handed is better, but out of all the creatures he encounters at his level, how many of them have one of those 3 ACs?  Not many.  Even if I give him a full Bull's Str, +5, the THF optimality range only increases to AC 29-32.A general rule of thumb is that you look at the AC that requires a 20 to hit (31 in this case).  From ACs 1-2 less than that down to about 5 less than that, THF is commonly better.  For all other AC values, TWF is usually better.  The points at which the optimal form changes vary a little bit, but generally, the penalty for choosing the wrong form near the lower limit is small.  It's a different story at the upper limit, but if you're fighting at the upper limit, you're dead meat anyway.Now I'm not talking about half-giants with gargantuan mercurial greatswords and 5 feats I never heard of from some obscure supplement, but for typical PCs in typical situations, TWF usually gives more damage.</blockquote>

Verification