Post/Author/DateTime	Post
jb_gade 06-22-03, 09:11 AM	I have a half-drow ranger I have just made him last night and will be using him in an upcoming campain that I myself will be running. I am going to have him take advantage of the virtual feats from ranger thus he will be fighting with two weapons. I originally had him fighting with both long sword and short sword, but since I will need double the feats to specialize in fighting this way I was wondering if maybe it would be better to fight with two of the same weapon. I am interested in what others might have done in my situation, and I appreciate any responses.
Tzalice Minoladir 06-22-03, 10:41 AM	I'm not too familiar with TWF, but you do wanna make sure he doesn't get a hold of, say, a figurine of wondrous power (onyx panther) or such. :angel:
jb_gade 06-22-03, 11:38 AM	(lol) No he's not Drizzt he's just a half-drow ranger, and rangers have two-weapon fighting, I have no intentions of using scimitars etc. I just like playing two-weapon fighters.
evoken_november 06-22-03, 01:37 PM	Seems more like a Character Optimization topic to me, but no matter! Two of the same weapon certainly helps if you're dealing with things like Weapon Focus, or any other weapon specific feats. That way you can double up on the effect from a single feat instead of having to spread your talents around. The problem with this (and with any specialization, really) is that you may not find really good magical versions of your favored weapon, and your character's flavor will go unfulfilled if you don't. Unfortunately, TWFers often need all the advantage they can get to offset their to hit penalties, so this could very well be your best bet to get you started on the right foot. Having said that, I'm not so sure TWF is all that great under normal circumstances. Honestly, it's more of a "Let them come to me" fighting style that meshes very well with a primarily ranged warrior. Since you can't make use of both weapons during a Standard action, you will find yourself only hitting once on the round when you close in on your opponent. All your opponent will have to do to frustrate you is keep you from getting full round attacks by fighting defensively/using expertise, striking at you once, then running back 10 or more feet. This is even more to their advantage since you're not wearing a shield and are therefore easier to hit than if you were. They could afford the hit to their BAB just to get a better AC against you. Your best strategy would be to start out with your bow drawn and wait until the enemy is tired of being shot at. They advance on you, make their one melee attack, and then when your turn comes up, you quickdraw both weapons and make them wish they'd stayed back and let you keep shooting. ;) If you really don't want to hang back like that and wait for the enemy to come to you, there is one other way... just make sure you're playing 3.0 and aquire yourself some Boots of Speed, or make friends with a Wizard who will haste you. :)
Strife 06-22-03, 04:28 PM	To address the question: If I were you, which I'm not, I would go for two of the same, preferably shortswords since 1) they are light and 2)"finessable" (as a light armored ranger I assume you have a high Dex score). 3) Longswords isn't a very "ranger like" weapon... (IMHO) ;) But as I see it, for you it isn't especially problematic fighting with diffrent weapons unless... 1) You plan to take fighter levels (<4) 2) In you game others than fighers are allowed to "specialize". Weapon focus, is after all, only +1 to hit... When deciding about which weapons to use... it all boils down to supply and demand, really... after all, a +3 longsword is better (almost) anyday of the week than the unenchanted shortsword, or wichever weapon you choose to use two of but could only find/buy/get from DM one enchanted. oops, forgot you asked which was better, two or one. That depends on what you want. 1 weapon + shield = good to better defense (as shield + full plate is an option), moderate chance to hit & damage 2 Handed weapon = moderate to good defence (as full plate is still an option), moderate chance to hit, good to awsome damage (1.5x strenght, high damage weapons) 2 weapons = moderate to worse defence (no shield and more often than not, only light armor), good (or at least twice as good) chance to hit, moderate to good damage (might hit once, might hit twice) Oh, and one more thing, In your position I would seriously consider some rogue levels... (although I would start out as a rouge and not as a ranger) sneak attack is wonderfull for TWF's Then to address an answer... evoken_november Even if your analys of the pro's and con's of TWF are largly correct, you are wrong about at least one thing. The enemy can't just turn thier backs on him and run 10' away from him, at least not without provoking an AoO, which is worse than the threat of an off-hand attack. With that said your "frustarating" enemy is someone who will have a possible sligly higher AC (and making one, potentially more damaging, attack at a lower chance to hit, considerable lower if he both fights defensivly and uses expertise. That would be a penaly somewere around -4 to -8). And then he procceds with turning his back?, provoking an AoO, and now he has lower AC as he no longer fights defensivly (and I would rule that expertise is right out of the window since that bounus only last until your next action [DMG p. 82] (which of couse in this example would be his next action, running, walking, whatever, 10' away from the character) actually he will be worse off than the ranger since he pratically wasted his attack, sure the ranger will only make one attack, but with higher chans to hit.
jb_gade 06-22-03, 05:48 PM	Strife, I was actually planning on taking both fighter <4, and rogue 3 in the first place although I disagree with the starting at rogue part as it means that I would'nt be able to fight with two weapons at level 1 but I had already planned to take rogue at level 2 because of sneak attack +1d6 and major skill points. But now I'm just getting into min/maxing so I'll keep this topic more role-playing and less roll-playing.
evoken_november 06-22-03, 06:13 PM	Hmm... Okay, expertise could be out, but you forget about Dodge and Mobility, both of which could apply to that style of fighting against a TWFer. That's an extra +5 right there, so all other things being equal, you're still more likely to hit the TWFer than they are to hit you. I still also maintain that this could be a valuable tactic in a group setting against a TWFer. I'd rather slow down the rate at which he's damaging me so my allies can offer backup than be torn apart in 1/3 the time. I'll grant you the Expertise argument, but now that I think about it, standing and fighting full-round style would actually be a better time to use Expertise anyway. That's when the ranger's TWF penalties kick in, and expertise just adds to his woes, especially if you're an enchanted shield user. I'll have to test it.
JusticeZero 06-24-03, 12:06 PM	You're going to want a Small weapon if it's doubled. Shortswords are good and easy to find, yes. I've had good luck with sickles, which are slightly numerically inferior but look pretty cool. Also worth looking at are light picks (median damage goes down by 1, but x4 crits), daggers (good crit range and easy to find enchanted versions of), My official min-maxing suggestion, however, is to go with a pair of throwing axes. The stats are only slightly worse than a shortsword (20x2 instead of 19x2), but they do slashing (not as many invulnerable foes) and in addition, they CAN BE THROWN. Thus, if you find yourself in a less than perfectly advantageous spot you can let them fly at another part of the battle and draw more. Or, i'd go with daggers, as they share the same basic advantages and are more common.
JusticeZero 06-24-03, 12:09 PM	duh me. Oh, and the reason we recommend taking your first level in Rogue is for the extra 16-24 skill points. Take half/half Apprentice levels if you need.
JusticeZero 06-24-03, 12:18 PM	Here's what i'd do: I'm a Drow knifefighter or hatchetman. I start out from the getgo with one in each hand, but, I don't fight TWF. Rogue 1: (8+int)*4 skill points, sneak attack. Standard attack: +0 (one blade - I act as if I have TWF, but I don't take any benefit from it) Rog 1/Rgr 1: In 3.0, this gives me TWF, so now I fight at -1/-1. Continue as desired.
Strife 06-24-03, 04:37 PM	Frankly, a TWF's biggest problem isn't dishing out damage or avoiding damage (as he at most will lose a +5 enchanted shield and even this might be avoided by fighting with two shields, preferably spiked, as they also count as light) as all other options are still available to him (such as dodge, mobility and magic items). What I belive is a TWF's greatest weakness is the fact that he requiers 3-4 good stats. If you take rogue levels you almost certainly will want a high INT to get as much skill points as possible (especially if you only have a timber rogue...) good CON is almost a must since you're bound to be hit more and a DEX is required if you (ab)use the ranger virutal-feats, and maybe a high STR if you choose an "unfinesseable" weapon. I know I have to lucky to manage this... and when it comes to Min/maxing, I wonder if ranger really is such a good idea? I mean, fighter + rogue levels can get you those feats, and more, for real, and with lesser risk of EXP penalty Now, of course all this can be solved with a little magic, but can you afford it?
Sisyfos 06-30-03, 02:46 PM	Somewhere earlier on someone claimed that moving away from a TWF fighter gives the fighter an attack of oppurtunity. This is not true. Moving in anyones threatened zone for more than 5 feet gives AoO. Leaving from a fight does not accomplish this unless your opponent has a reach of 10 feet. TWF:ing knife fighter is a pretty sound concept. It could be better if one would make it a TWF:ing kukri fighter with improved critical. This is rather feat heavy option though. Among the best TWF options is to make a shield expert (= feat that allows one to attack with his shield and still keep its AC bonus) or to make one of your weapons a "defending" weapon (defending = enchantment that allows one to move the +:s from the weapon to ones AC). A dagger fighter is an interesting option. Take twin daggers. Weapon specialties with them. Take also quickdraw, point blank shot and rapid shot feats. Mix in some fighter, ranger and rogue levels. Get a high bluff, boots of striding, high move silently and hide. You end up with a very mobile character that is deadly up and close, can use its bluff skills to disappear from sight (bluff can be used to replace shadowdancer's "Hide in Plain Sight" special ability) and can throw those daggers rapidly and accurately. This one should be interesting and also quite like the build you were looking for. Sincerely, Sisyfos
Edymnion 07-01-03, 02:48 AM	If you use two weapons, please don't forget that you can have both weapons drawn and attack with only one weapon that round. You only get TWF if you attempt to attack with both weapons in one round, you can hold that second weapon in your off-hand and not be TWF. Also, 3.5 is making Weapon Finesse apply to ALL finessable weapons, which I strongly agree with. Try talking to your DM and see if they will use this rule, in which case you may want to use a rapier/shortsword combo. Another idea for you to toss around, use a double weapon. A quarterstaff, a two bladed sword, or an ashandri (quarterstaff weapon with a shortsword blade on one end, from Wheel of Time d20, d8/d6 Bludgeoning/Slashing) would be good. You can take weapon focus and specialization in it, and fight one weapon style or two without having to draw more weapons. Costs the same to enchant as 2 weapons though, and is easier to sunder one weapon than two. Or you can go for style over pure usefulness and dual weild Bladed Guantlets (talk to DM about houseruling them to 18-20/x2, otherwise they're underpowered) and get things like the flaming enchantment and spread rumors of a demonic fighter in the area because of your half-drow appearance, and large flaming claws. Pair of light picks are INCREDIBLE if you put elemental burst enchantments on them. On a crit you get 4d4+3d10 damage, and that is SWEET for such little weapons. Its also going to depend a LOT on whether or not your DM is going to custom tailor drops, or roll them off the charts. If your DM rolls for treasure, you want common weapons like shortswords, because the uncommon weapons will almost never show up on those rolls. If your DM tailors the stuff so you're pretty much garunteed of finding magical versions of whatever you pick, go for those cool looking weapons like picks, two bladed swords, or whatever you like. If DM rolls treasure randomly, make sure and ask if you can commission items to be made, and if you can upgrade your weapons. I strongly encourage upgrading weapons, as it lets players get attatched to their "signature" weapon instead of trading in their grandpa's sword just because this next one is a little bit better. My Rogue/Fighter is using paired shortswords, btw.
Tytalus 07-02-03, 08:41 PM	I'd recommend checking the Character Optimization board and the build FAQ there. Anyway, what's known there with respect to TWF: - TWF generally only pays off if you do some extra damage (sneak attack comes to mind) - Using two weapons of the same kind is more effective - Use light weapons if you use the same weaons. Dual wielding two greatswords (with monkey grip) is not worth it - to-hit is more important than the extra damage - Weapon focus is a surprisingly strong option, especially if you use two waepons of the same kind - High crit multiplier weapons (picks) are only useful under certain circumstances: if you have elemental burst enchantments, if you can extend the threat range (keen, impr. critical, weapon master's enhanced critical range), and/or if you have a very (!) high str modifier. I'd go for two shortswords, if you don't want to depend on these things. Also: better chances of finding a magic weapon of that kind. And, more as a consequence: - 3 levels of rogue really pay off because of the extra damage, evasion, uncanny dodge, better reflex saves. - If you incorporate rogue levels, definately take your first level as rogue for skill points galore. Seriously. - If you don't want weapon spec. (not necessary if you have sneak attack damage), you might want to consider barbarian levels instead of or in addition to fighter for rage and better maneuverability (to get you in flanking positions, for example) - Basically you'll have to decide between frontline fighter (for which TWF is not a good choice) or a support fighter that flanks and employs sneak attacks to his advantage (this is where rogue levels come in handy)
Edymnion 07-03-03, 01:20 AM	Yes, if you take even one level of Rogue in your entire career, take it at first level. A reasonably intelligent Rogue (Int 14) will get more skillpoints at lvl 1 than a normal intelligence fighter gets in 20. I mean, really, take max ranks in a profession and some complimenting creation skills if you have to, but 40+ skill points are nothing to sneeze at!