Why do they hold back the cool toys until level 25-30?

[SphereOfFeetMan]

Your DMs have been letting you get away with murder apparently as no DM I know would let you use TWF to fight with two weapons that you cannot wield at the same time. Seriously, they'd think you were joking even asking about it.

Nice assumptions. I said that my Dms go by RAW in this situation, not that I do this tactic. Your Dm's houserules have no bearing on anything. In any case that still leaves 1-handed fighting+thrown weapon, twf with armor spikes, and twf with unarmed strikes, etc.

As Martin said, you're still better off just power attacking with your greatsword.

I never disputed that PA is useful. I am asking about all the situations in which it is not. Answer the question:

I'll repeat the question a third time: So by the RAW: When you twf untrained with a secondary weapon without decreasing your primary attacks chances of hitting (and increasing your damage compared to all other options, including PA), how is this not an "effective option?"

[RandomCasualty2]

I'll repeat the question a third time: So by the RAW: When you twf untrained with a secondary weapon without decreasing your primary attacks chances of hitting (and increasing your damage compared to all other options, including PA), how is this not an "effective option?"

It could be effective if you've got two foes, or if for whatever reason power attack doesn't work against that enemy.

But the situation is very rare. First, once you've got iterative attacks it never happens because your iteratives won't be auto hits. So we're talking about level 1-5.

How often are you going to be able to hit on a -2 prior to level 6?

A gelatinous cube maybe?

I'll give you that it's a valid option in a rare case, but it's not going to have any measure of frequency that makes it something you see often at all. You may see such an opportunity once in your character's entire career.

And if we add that criteria, then the 4E fighter gains a lot more options. Something as simple as tide of iron could be said to:

-Be able to inflict save or die effects (if fighting on the edge of a chasm or magma pit)
-Be able to inflict fire damage if fighting near something that's on fire, like a burning building
-Be able to drown your foe (when fighting near a lake)

And so on and so on.

I mean there's so many things you could conceptually push someone into.

Granted, these cases won't come up very often at all, but they're probably going to come up as much, if not more so than the guy who finds opponents he can hit on a roll of -2. Not to mention these things can come up for levels 1-30 pretty much, not just for levels 1-5.

But all that isn't all that meaningful. I really don't care what extra options a class can get if the stars and planets are aligned right and happens once every 20 gaming sessions. Yeah both the 3.5 guy and the 4E guy gain new stuff when you factor in weird edge case scenarios. But I don't really care about those. I care about the bread and butter. The stuff you're using every gaming session.

I thnk we can both agree that using TWF untrained is not a bread and butter option. It's something that may be optimal once in your character's career.

A 4E fighter's bread and butter options are much more diverse than the 3.5 guy, who chances are is just going to spam the same attack over and over.

[SphereOfFeetMan]

I thnk we can both agree that using TWF untrained is not a bread and butter option. It's something that may be optimal once in your character's career.

Provably False.

-I mathematically proved that vs the average monsters Ac, the trip fighter can twf untrained every round, and it is more effective.
-I mathematically proved that it is more effective to ranged twf untrained rather than take one bowshot at close range.
-I mathematically proved that vs 3 or more enemies in a group, two alchemists fire does more damage than a greatsword.
-I mathematically proved that the cost is insignificant, especially compare to 4e rituals.
-I have shown that the 3e Fighter has the following options: Alchemist fire, Thunderstones, Acid, Holy water, Tanglefoot bags. I have proven these are more effective, and more interesting than anything a low level 4e fighter gets.
-I have shown that twf thrown weapons is more effective vs creatures with DR. You supported this point in your Fireball/Fire resistance post.
-I have even used examples that are all core, and don't use any magic items (because you unreasonably argue they come from another class's abilities and can't be used in the examples).

RC, you have been proven wrong on just about every point, objectively and mathematically. You describe average numbers and fundamental gaming tropes as "ultrarare" and "...optimal once in your character's career."

You assume that charging with a greatsword is always the most effective option, and any situation that deviates from this preselected situation is nearly nonexistent. Either you have no ability to think tactically, or the games you play in are identical, and don't require any change of tactics. Even in that most restricted and retarded case, twf untrained is mathematically and provably an effective option. End of argument.

[RandomCasualty2]

-I mathematically proved that vs the average monsters Ac, the trip fighter can twf untrained every round, and it is more effective.

How exactly are you tripping with TWF? I'm not seeing many weapons that can trip as an offhand weapon, and I hardly think you want to use your primary to do that. If you're doing it unarmed, then you're unarmed strikes provoke unless you've got improved unarmed strike, whcih requires yet another feat.

-I mathematically proved that it is more effective to ranged twf untrained rather than take one bowshot at close range.

While technically true, the math in this case is deceptive, because you need a very specific situation to make this worthwhile.

If you can full attack within the range increment of genade weapons, you might as well just charge iwth your greatsword, which does more damage. You need some situation that expressely puts you at about 10-20 feet away and prevents you from doing a move + attack or a charge.

I mean seriously who fires a bow at 20 ft anyway? you're just gonna take out your greatsword and charge em down.

-I mathematically proved that vs 3 or more enemies in a group, two alchemists fire does more damage than a greatsword.

But how do you end up in these scenarios where you're 10-20 feet away and decide to drop your sword and throw alchemist's fire instead of just charging?

I mean really, dropping your sword isn't a smart tactic to use.

-I mathematically proved that the cost is insignificant, especially compare to 4e rituals.

Every cost is significant at low levels. I'd much rather be putting money toward the party pool for wands of CLW than wasting them on alchemist's fire.

-I have shown that the 3e Fighter has the following options: Alchemist fire, Thunderstones, Acid, Holy water, Tanglefoot bags. I have proven these are more effective, and more interesting than anything a low level 4e fighter gets.

No you haven't. If we want to deal with edge case scenarios, then consider what happens when you've got a 4E fighter with a foe with his back to a cliff and you can use tide of iron to push him off if he fails a save. 4E fighters can immoblize people, so that covers the tanglefoot bags. They also have effects that hit a group of foes around them, which is a heck of a lot more practical than dropping your sword at 10 feet and using alchemist's fire.

Really deafening is the only thing that a 3E guy can do with thunderstones that a 4E character can't do at all.

-I have shown that twf thrown weapons is more effective vs creatures with DR. You supported this point in your Fireball/Fire resistance post.

This much does happen to be true. But again, dropping your sword to use thrown weapons at close range is still a poor tactic if you ask me.

You assume that charging with a greatsword is always the most effective option, and any situation that deviates from this preselected situation is nearly nonexistent.

And again, you keep talking about below level 6, where my sample character is level 9. Is it maybe because all these odd edge cases become completely inefficient when you get iterative attacks?

I posed a sample level 9 character lets see a level 9 3.5 fighter to counter it, and then we can compare from there.

And you seem to be focusing on these weird edge case scenarios to try to boost your guy's number of actions. So lets stop talking about making alist and counting each action.

Lets talk about percentage. What percent of the time is your character likely to use each action. Isn't it true that 80%+ of the time you're just using a standard full attack with a greatsword?

Because really I don't give a fuck that maybe one time when the planets were aligned you happened to use TWF and alchemist's fire. That's something you did once and isn't indicative of much because it was rarely used.

I'm looking for the bread and butter stuff. if you don't use it at least for say one round out of 20, then it's just not significant enough to really count as a commonly used action.

[MartinHarper]

Odd: there isn't a single 4e power or item that deafens yet.

-I mathematically proved that vs the average monsters Ac, the trip fighter can twf untrained every round, and it is more effective.

Do you mean more effective than power attack?
As I understand the maths: we can hit an average target on a -2 (due to prone+flanking+build).
Option A: power attack for 4, and do an extra 8 points of damage (95% of the time). Average extra damage: 7.6.
Option B: twf to throw an alchemist's fire. 2d6 damage, average 7. We would hit on an 11 (-1 vs touch ac of 10). Average extra damage: 3.5.

Seems that power attack is more damaging for the character you mentioned, against a prone and flanked target, barring the specific situations you mentioned before:

1. Fighter lacks power attack feat (which removes one of the areas where the 3e fighter has more options).
2. Primary target is under 11hp (so a certain kill with a guisarme hit) and you know this.
3. Primary target has elusive target feat.

[SphereOfFeetMan]

How exactly are you tripping with TWF? I'm not seeing many weapons that can trip as an offhand weapon, and I hardly think you want to use your primary to do that. If you're doing it unarmed, then you're unarmed strikes provoke unless you've got improved unarmed strike, whcih requires yet another feat.

Goddamn you are dense. See my Orc tripper build. Again.

While technically true, the math in this case is deceptive, because you need a very specific situation to make this Worthwhile. If you can full attack within the range increment of genade weapons, you might as well just charge iwth your greatsword, which does more damage. You need some situation that expressely puts you at about 10-20 feet away and prevents you from doing a move + attack or a charge.

I mean seriously who fires a bow at 20 ft anyway? you're just gonna take out your greatsword and charge em down.

There are tons of situations where charging isn't possible or reasonable. Look at low level published adventures. They are common.

But how do you end up in these scenarios where you're 10-20 feet away and decide to drop your sword and throw alchemist's fire instead of just charging?

I mean really, dropping your sword isn't a smart tactic to use.

I showed a reasonable build that could throw out to 30 ft, that is a 60 ft diameter to hit two enemies.

Possible ways to not drop your sword:
-You can have the thrown weapons in your hands on round one, and draw your sword on round two.
-You can take your off-hand off of your thw and throw a weapon.
-You can tie a string to your sword.
-You can have multiple swords.
-etc. This isn't rocket science.

Every cost is significant at low levels. I'd much rather be putting money toward the party pool for wands of CLW than wasting them on alchemist's fire.

Nonsense. You are spending gp on offense instead of defense. Worst case, it is a wash. And as I explained previously, you could make 1/4 of all your attacks a level with consumable thrown weapons and it would cost less than one wand of clw.

No you haven't. If we want to deal with edge case scenarios, then consider what happens when you've got a 4E fighter with a foe with his back to a cliff and you can use tide of iron to push him off if he fails a save. 4E fighters can immoblize people, so that covers the tanglefoot bags. They also have effects that hit a group of foes around them, which is a heck of a lot more practical than dropping your sword at 10 feet and using alchemist's fire.

Really deafening is the only thing that a 3E guy can do with thunderstones that a 4E character can't do at all.

A 3e Fighter can bull rush. FFS.

3e Twf options: immobilize 2 guys for multiple rounds. Alchemist fire for 2 kills and splash damage. Deafen a group of foes.
4e Fighter: 1/day,1/encounter immobilizes 1 guy for 1 round. splash damage only on adjacent foes.

The shittiest shit, 3e twf untrained, offers more options than a 4e fighter. Oh, and you don't have to drop your sword (unless you are retarded, which seems to be your default position).

This much does happen to be true. But again, dropping your sword to use thrown weapons at close range is still a poor tactic if you ask me.

Finally a concession. Now, and try to keep up, if you are not retarded you do not have to drop your sword.

I'm looking for the bread and butter stuff. if you don't use it at least for say one round out of 20, then it's just not significant enough to really count as a commonly used action.

Possibly 1/4 of all your attacks levels 1-5 could be twf thrown ranged. Levels 1-5 are 1/4 of the game. So we are at 1/16 of all your attacks in the game. This could go up to 1/8 if we use the Orc tripper example (who can twf on every round).

Can you name any 4e power that you use for at least 1/20 of all your attacks during the entire game? If not, then no 4e power is relevant by your standards.

[SphereOfFeetMan]

Do you mean more effective than power attack?
As I understand the maths: we can hit an average target on a -2 (due to prone+flanking+build).
Option A: power attack for 4, and do an extra 8 points of damage (95% of the time). Average extra damage: 7.6.
Option B: twf to throw an alchemist's fire. 2d6 damage, average 7. We would hit on an 11 (-1 vs touch ac of 10). Average extra damage: 3.5.

Seems that power attack is more damaging for the character you mentioned, against a prone and flanked target, barring the specific situations you mentioned before:

1. Fighter lacks power attack feat (which removes one of the areas where the 3e fighter has more options).
2. Primary target is under 11hp (so a certain kill with a guisarme hit) and you know this.
3. Primary target has elusive target feat.

2. Note that the example was doing 15 dmg. So 2/3 of the time when attacking an enemy it will cost you nothing to make one extra attack with twf.
4. Immobilizing a second target is usually better than 8 damage to the first target (especially when enemies have avg 55 hp).
5. Forcing concentration checks on a secondary caster is usually better than 8 damage to the first target (especially when enemies have avg 55 hp).
6. Forcing 20% spell failure on a group of casters is usually better than 8 damage to the first target (especially when enemies have avg 55 hp).
etc.

So, when fighting a target, it is mathematically provable that 2/3 of the time it is advantageous to use twf once. If you meet any of the other criteria, it is more than 2/3 the time.

[MartinHarper]

2. Note that the example was doing 15 dmg. 2/3 of the time when attacking an enemy it will cost you nothing to make one extra attack with twf.

I think the example is doing 2d4+9 damage on a regular hit. So, 11-17 damage, average 14. If the monster has more than 12hp, you can't be sure of taking it out without using power attack.

Could you explain where the 2/3 number comes from?

[SphereOfFeetMan]

I think the example is doing 2d4+9 damage on a regular hit. So, 11-17 damage, average 14. If the monster has more than 12hp, you can't be sure of taking it out without using power attack.

Could you explain where the 2/3 number comes from?

When a monster is near killable (avgs), it will have between 22 and 0 hp. Power attacking for 8 kills it from 22hp to 15 hp, while non-power attacking kills it from 14hp (avgs) or 12hp (certain) down to 0 hp. So any time you are in the 14 to 0 hp band, not power attacking and getting a twf off hand thrown attack vs a second target is the most effective option (read: free bonus damage/immobilization/etc.)

You are right, you can't be sure of taking it out in one hit if it has 13-14hp. I was going by averages to get the 2/3 number. If you needed to be certain of killing the monster in one hit, it is only over half the time that it is advantageous to twf at least once.

Note that if you roll really shitty on the 1/2 to 2/3 part, you still have the option of hitting it with the twf thrown alchemist fire.

[MartinHarper]

Oh, I see. So it's 1/2 the time for the final attack on the monster, not half of all attacks. Thanks for clearing that up. Requires you to know how many hps the monsters have left, but some games are like that.

So: level 5 fighter: trips, hits, power attacks, immobilises, deafens, does splash damage. That's six things. I think that compares poorly with a 4e fighter. But perhaps you had not finished with your example build?

[SphereOfFeetMan]

Oh, I see. So it's 1/2 the time for the final attack on the monster, not half of all attacks. Thanks for clearing that up. Requires you to know how many hps the monsters have left, but some games are like that.

Mostly right. One option is that you guesstimate/know the hps and decide on the last attack. The other option is just playing the odds. If you know that 1/2 or 2/3 of the time you can get a free twf attack, you could make that extra attack on round 1, 2, 3, etc, or the last round. It doesn't really matter. This also allows you to choose the most advantageous round to make the twf attack.

So: level 5 fighter: trips, hits, power attacks, immobilises, deafens, does splash damage. That's six things. I think that compares poorly with a 4e fighter. But perhaps you had not finished with your example build?

I don't consider number juggling and bullshit bonuses to be real character abilities/options. That includes 3e power attack. Those 5 things you listed (minus power attack) are achievable for a level 1 3e Fighter. That doesn't even count all the other default combat options in the game.

The level 1 4e early example character could do two things: attack and bull rush. (And bullshit number juggling/bonuses)

If you make a level 5 4e Fighter, and list only the non-number juggling/bullshit bonus abilities, I'll make a level 5 3e Fighter by the same standard.

[Voss]

Odd: there isn't a single 4e power or item that deafens yet.

Not really. Its a somewhat complicated effect that has non-combat consequences. So they took it out.

[Psychic Robot]

Not really. Its a somewhat complicated effect that has non-combat consequences. So they took it out.

On the plus side, no 20% failure chance for spells.

[virgil]

How is there a wide range of options for the 4E fighter? A 4E fighter will likely have one of his abilities be strategically useful/appropriate for the encounter, but it will only be for one round; and 4E fights go on way too long for a one round burst of strategy to make any difference (a crit makes more of a difference, largely). I don't see options there, I see a semi-random wave that flat-lines halfway through the fight (if it's heroic tier, sooner otherwise).