THF vs TWF

[Trixity]

Ok, I have seen a bunch of posts regarding how good the Tempest rgr is but I have had some people talking about the THF also.

Which can deal out the most damage?

[Verdant_Force]

oh no, not another one of these threads...:rolleyes:

/flame on!

[Dawnblade]

It's amazing how many of the same thread show much on a regular basis.

[Trixity]

Well, I didnt see any when I searched.

If there is another link, please just post it on here and I will go to that thread.

I don't want to rehash an old subject, I just didnt see it.

[stockwizard5]

Max TWF >> Max 2HF (period).

Note: This may change in future mods

[Angelus_dead]

If there is another link, please just post it on here and I will go to that thread.
Yesterday there was a thread in the monk forum by a guy who said THF was more damaging than TWF. He is very wrong (although there's a germ of truth to it for monks, because their TWF abilities are delayed so they don't kick in until level 9)

The answer is that TWF provides many more attacks than THF or 1WF, which gives it not only more damage in the majority of scenarios, but also far better results in situations where your weapon attacks are accomplishing something besides damage.

[Trixity]

The original discussion stemmed from the fact that a guildy of mine was wondering which one was best and we were talking about it.

I think the most convincing arument I have seen, bar the number of attacks, is that a TWF can become a 2HF easily while a the reverse is not true.

[Angelus_dead]

I think the most convincing arument I have seen, bar the number of attacks, is that a TWF can become a 2HF easily while a the reverse is not true.
That's true... however, if you try it you may often see it's hilarious how decently a THF warrior can use dual weapons totally untrained.

Sometimes when my level 16 character is in Gianthold Tor normal I'll switch to TWF for no reason at all. Most players don't know that untrained TWF gives you 7 attacks in the time a character with all three TWF feats would have 10.

[frugal_gourmet]

This probably gets discussed all the time, but something needs to be done about this, imo. TWF should probably be a bit better than THF because it requires more resources and character design elements (like feats). But, it shouldn't outshine it by as much as it does.

[maddmatt70]

That's true... however, if you try it you may often see it's hilarious how decently a THF warrior can use dual weapons totally untrained.

Sometimes when my level 16 character is in Gianthold Tor normal I'll switch to TWF for no reason at all. Most players don't know that untrained TWF gives you 7 attacks in the time a character with all three TWF feats would have 10.

With all of your cries for nerfs and such to twf you should look at the capacity that THF provides players to "play" with mobs. A hasted THF need never get hit by a mob especially when they fight in fog. The reach advantage gives twitch players a virtually rope a miss strategy.. They also have an easier time tripping mobs with that reach. THF advantages are not necessarily in the dps column but in other ways such as better stat distribution, etc. I think if gtwf is nerfed they should nerf the thf reach advantage...

[Angelus_dead]

With all of your cries for nerfs and such to twf
Wrong.

[maddmatt70]

Wrong.

Oh really so you didn't just post a nerf the gtwf thread which got all the usual suspects out complaining about all the advantages of twf and how broken it is. Yeah I must have misread that whole thread.

[The_Phenx]

This probably gets discussed all the time, but something needs to be done about this, imo. TWF should probably be a bit better than THF because it requires more resources and character design elements (like feats). But, it shouldn't outshine it by as much as it does.

Why shouldn't it?

You get twice as many hits with stat damage/vorpals cause your using two weapons? Makes sence to me.

THF get +10 per swing from power attack where TWF gets +5 so thats a wash... THF gets glancing blows..Better to hit.

Ive seen plenty of THF folks who kick tail.. they are just built for dpsing crowds and cleaving instead of 1 on 1.

People you need to stop thinking every attack class in the game need to be equal on every term.

Every build is better in different situations. Where a twf will drop into a crowd and work on 1 at a time a THF can drop in cleave with a vorpal/disrupter/paralyzer and theoretically kill or disable the whole bunch in 1 shot. And a S&B guy isnt supposed to come close to eithers damage output since he is more defensive.

Yes at this moment the flavor of the week is a tempest ranger... it used to be greatax weilding dwarven barbarians... I am sure it will again soon.

But like I have said before.

When your comparing a ferarri to a lamborghini... yes one goes 215 and the other goes 220 but when your doing over 200 mph does that last 5 really matter?

[Angelus_dead]

Oh really so you didn't just post a nerf the gtwf thread
Right, I didn't. The thread I posted did not suggest nerfing TWF, and my motivation in creating it was to ensure that IF the devs nerf TWF for whatever reason, the nerf won't be as strong as it otherwise could be. My suggestion was to show the devs a way they could both nerf GTWF overall, but not nerf it for those characters who would have been able to qualify for STWF anyhow.

Otherwise, I'm afraid they just would have dropped GTWF from 10 attacks to 9.


which got all the usual suspects out complaining about all the advantages of twf and how broken it is.
Strangely, that turned out to be true as well. They surprised me and decided to complain mostly about the weakness of Shields instead.

[maddmatt70]

Right, I didn't. The thread I posted did not suggest nerfing TWF, and my motivation in creating it was to ensure that IF the devs nerf TWF for whatever reason, the nerf won't be as strong as it otherwise could be. My suggestion was to show the devs a way they could both nerf GTWF overall, but not nerf it for those characters who would have been able to qualify for STWF anyhow.



Does the below look familiar to you?

Default how to nerf GTWF
I am omitting (or at least postponing) the discussion of whether or not the Greater Two Weapon Fighting feat should be nerfed. Following is a suggestion for how to nerf it, if a game designer thought that was wise.


Current GTWF: Requires BAB 11 and Dex 17 (or granted by Ranger 11). Grants a dual-wielding character an offhand attack on the 1st, 4th, and 5th swing animations.

Nerfed GTWF: Requires BAB 11 and Dex 17 (or granted by Ranger 11). When dual-wielding you gain an offhand attack on the 4th swing animation. Additionally, if you have Dex 19 or Ranger 13 you gain an offhand attack on the 5th swing animation. If you have Dex 21 or Ranger 15 you gain an offhand attack on the 1st swing animation.

Options: Instead of nerfing as fully as described above, which makes 2/3rds of GTWF conditional on high dex or ranger levels, it could be nerfed to a lesser extent by only making one of the granted attacks depend on the more stringent requirement. Another way to soften the nerf would be to use dex thresholds of 18 and 19 in place of 19 and 21.

Effects: This variation of GTWF essentially combines the old proposed Superior TWF feat into it, but retains the higher dex requirement. That's rather like you gain STWF, but without having to spend a feat on it. The effect on gameplay would be to weaken high-strength TWF characters (which especially means barbarians), while leaving high dex or ranger characters untouched.

Warning: A nerf such as above would be better received if players were given an opportunity to re-allocate their ability score point-buy from creation, which would be a good idea as an plat-draining service regardless.

[feynman]

OK, as someone who has been at the center of several of these, I think I can definitively state that TWF is vastly superior to THF. The last case I thought I might be able to win out for THF was the monk, due to the crippling weapon limitations of the class, but even then, TWF is coming out ahead, if less than for other classes.

[The_Phenx]

I wish Ani was still playing.

He was a THF that could easily keep up with if not best twf's

[Angelus_dead]

Does the below look familiar to you?
Of course it does. What part of "I am omitting the discussion of whether GTWF should be nerfed" is hard for you to understand?

Do you comprehend that it's possible for someone to give instructions on how to do something, without necessarily implying that the action is necessary or even good?

[frugal_gourmet]

People you need to stop thinking every attack class in the game need to be equal on every term.


I absolutely do not. In fact, I already said I believe TWF should be more effective at damage than THF. It comes with greater cost after all.

I will say I do believe every class or strong archetype should be as roughly equal and useful as possible overall. Perhaps they do not need to be perfectly balanced, but efforts should be maintained to keep things on somewhat close footing.

As for the rest, I'm too ignorant to argue. My education on the matter comes only from these message boards. I came here to research how I would make my next character. However, after weeks of browsing it has become apparent to me that one strategy is about 15 times more popular, and -- trying to parse the information I've read here as best I can -- I've come to the conclusion it is advantageous. Not just advantageous in certain ways, but just flat out advantageous.

I could easily be wrong. And maybe I'm receiving a biased cross-section of evidence browsing these forums. But your opinion just appears to me to be one held by a very scant number of people.

In any case, I just briefly expressed my frustration with a conclusion I came to reading these message boards. I prefer that there we more diverse options and strategies, as I'm planning my next character. Perhaps you're right, and I'll just play for awhile more and see what's what.

[feynman]

Actually, all of us are going to be embarrassed if they come out with monkey grip, and we need all the TWF and THF feats.

[The_Phenx]

Shrug it all depends on what you want your critter to do.

If you want max dps with max healing make a halfling with dragonmarks

If you want max dps with self buffs make a ranger hybrid

If you want max dps while needing a pocket cleric make a 14 barb 2 fighter

If you want great dps with good crowd contol make a thf

If you want max ac well you get the point.

Just figure out what roll you want him to fill, how soloable you want him to be and how you want to play him.

And let that determine your path not the 3% flavor of the month crowd, becaue they are all valid builds.

[Angelus_dead]

If you want max dps while needing a pocket cleric make a 14 barb 2 fighter
Replacing fighter2 with ran1/rog1 would greatly improve DPS.


If you want great dps with good crowd contol make a thf
TWF is much better than THF at melee CC. Their effects are far more reliable because the monsters must pass two saving throws to resist them.

[The_Phenx]

I could easily be wrong. And maybe I'm receiving a biased cross-section of evidence browsing these forums. But your opinion just appears to me to be one held by a very scant number of people.

In any case, I just briefly expressed my frustration with a conclusion I came to reading these message boards. I prefer that there we more diverse options and strategies, as I'm planning my next character. Perhaps you're right, and I'll just play for awhile more and see what's what.


:) chin up.

Take the forums with a grain of salt.

The way they look at things is the best 100% uberest thing possible.

And at that moment it is a tempest ranger twf.

If that is 100%

a twf fighter is 98%

a twf barb is 96% (only because they are needy)

a thf is 92 %

The footing isnt as unequal as they say... most are concerned with the "best" way to build things based on the current situations in the game. Tempest ranger, Intimitanks....and they end up doing a LOT of re-rolling. Hell I remember RANGERS ARE GIMP cries to the heavens and AC is useless shrieks and cries of utter DOOOOOMMMMMM!!!

Ghinsuu has been around since 3 months after beta.. and he is a 32 pt version of my original toon. I was TWF before it was popular. I remember peopel telling me I was gimp for running around with twin kopeshs. lol.

Find your fun stick with it, There are plenty of builds out there....and whatever build you pick ... make that build as effective as it can be.

[frugal_gourmet]

Actually, all of us are going to be embarrassed if they come out with monkey grip, and we need all the TWF and THF feats.

If you were wielding an oversized weapon in each hand, however, you would not get the benefits of THF fighting.

[The_Phenx]

Replacing fighter2 with ran1/rog1 would greatly improve DPS.


TWF is much better than THF at melee CC. Their effects are far more reliable because the monsters must pass two saving throws to resist them.

Im generalizing homie :). Dont get all specific number cruncher on me, trying to help the guy have fun instead of eeeking out the last possible drop of dps before they change something.

And yes I know the advantages of twf for combat... Been at it since release... But that is still vs 1 enemy only.

Cmon you remember the thf dwarf barb with the SOS dontcha? that was endlessly debated on these forums too.

Or with the paralyzer freezing a room ful of mobs w cleave/great cleave.

Admit it.... you do.

[maddmatt70]

Actually, all of us are going to be embarrassed if they come out with monkey grip, and we need all the TWF and THF feats.

Was having this conversation the other day. In pnp it doesn't work that way you describe; furthermore, green steel dwarven war axes do the same damage as greensteel greataxes - food for thought.

[bandyman1]

OK, as someone who has been at the center of several of these, I think I can definitively state that TWF is vastly superior to THF. The last case I thought I might be able to win out for THF was the monk, due to the crippling weapon limitations of the class, but even then, TWF is coming out ahead, if less than for other classes.


Humm.....so TWFing is vastly superior to THFing? Even with monks, and say, Quarterstaff vs. Kamas :confused:???


:rolleyes:I think maybe someone should be posting this on the monk forums.

[orcbanian]

TWF is better than THF... but THF is so much more fun!!! I can run around with a + holy burst greataxe and deal out 150+ critical hits while dealing over 20 points of glancing damage/hit. THF does suck for things like wounding, puncturing, and vorpals and I HEAR that TWF has better DPS, but I am not sure its as much fun. :)

[frugal_gourmet]

Was having this conversation the other day. In pnp it doesn't work that way you describe; furthermore, green steel dwarven war axes do the same damage as greensteel greataxes - food for thought.

This is true. All it does in PNP is allow you to utilize (for a penalty) a weapon designed for a size larger creature. There are no such weapons in this version.

[Angelus_dead]

This is true. All it does in PNP is allow you to utilize (for a penalty) a weapon designed for a size larger creature. There are no such weapons in this version.
Also, the Monkey Grip feat is always a mistake for a medium player character in D&D, unless you had better access to nice L weapons than you did M weapons. Assuming you already had Power Attack, wielding a Large Greatsword with Monkey Grip gave you exactly zero benefit over a Medium Greatsword.

[Gwylar_Herbleaf]

Has the discusion of "to hit" entered this thread or others?

I mean I KNOW at lower and medium levels THF is superior because no matter what feats you have or weapons used your hit with primary and secondary weapon hand is NOT as high as THF if you use TWF?

I see lots of numbers on possible amounts of damage using TWF over THF but is that assuming you hit EVERY time, more of one or the other - or is this simply limited to 16 level chars where its a wash?

Honestly curious because I have much better luck at low and mid levels with THF than TWF - its "sexier - flashier" if you will to go TWF, but it is NOT better than a THF, who by 8th level can easily deal 130-150 crits on a 19-20 w greataxe... You dont even get a +1 paralyzer until 10th unless its race restricted...

I am not trashing one style or the other - just saying what I have seen at low and mid levels to say at least 10th - where a good deal of the game can be played unless you hyper rush through the levels simply to get past them.

Can somebody clarify if "to hit" is a factor in limiting the effectiveness of TWF over THF at higher levels - as I do not have a fighter over 12 - my high char is cleric and he uses neither of course.


If it is not harder to hit with TWF than THF then it must start later than 10th to 12 level or so, if not please enlighten me...

[Samadhi]

That's true... however, if you try it you may often see it's hilarious how decently a THF warrior can use dual weapons totally untrained.

Sometimes when my level 16 character is in Gianthold Tor normal I'll switch to TWF for no reason at all. Most players don't know that untrained TWF gives you 7 attacks in the time a character with all three TWF feats would have 10.

Seriously? I've wondered about this many times. Only 7 -> 10 completely untrained to trained?

[Angelus_dead]

Seriously? I've wondered about this many times. Only 7 -> 10 completely untrained to trained?
You have 5 attacks in a normal combo.
Adding an offhand weapon adds 2 more attacks, on the 2nd and 5th swing.
Adding the TWF feat reduces the penalty on attack rolls to a managable -2, as long as the offhand weapon is light.
Adding ITWF adds 1 more attack on the 3rd swing.
Adding GTWF adds 2 more attacks, on the 1st and 4th swings.

[Gwylar_Herbleaf]

this DPS is hypothetical, because it assumes 0% attack misses, it does not take critical hits into account, and it assumes a monster does not move out of the way during the 1 second.

Help me out if I messed this up! WINSOM

I asked this on the other thread too - but there were some different people weighing in here as well... Looking for an answer plz.

Thats been my question in a couple of these threads that was never answered to my satisfaction - Are you guys assuming you will hit every time to sustain an argument that TWF is better than THF? Cause its a fact that THF does pure damage in bigger chunks and you only have to hit 1 time to do that rather than figure out the % of the time you WONT hit with both attacks on TWF...

I see these big hypothetical #'s associated with TWF - but in practice you cant hit everytime and the law of averages seems to weigh in on the side of THF some with regard to needing to roll less random dice to score hits...

Can somebody at least reply who has been doing all the figuring and advise why to hit, and number of times you have to roll a to hit, either is or is not relevant to total overall damage dealt out in a DDO combat?

[llevenbaxx]

If you were wielding an oversized weapon in each hand, however, you would not get the benefits of THF fighting.

I didnt think Monkey Grip allowed for Dual wielding oversized weapons but havnt looked at that material in a long time. Does it say you cant or just not say anything either way about it? Thought it was only for one hand too...

Would be a nice boost for S&Bers and a good idea to exclude TWF from its benefits. If THF wanted to pick up a shield from time to time they would also be able to with this feat. Think this would be a good way to no matter how the PnP feat is.

[oogly54]

What seems amazing to me is the historical argument for barbaians not having an AC is that they have plenty of HP to survive without an AC and it was too hard for them to get one with the max DPS. With the rangers TWF, they have no AC or HPs. Do you really think it is beneficial for a character to do a ton of DPS, taking agrro, and have low HPs and no AC? I don't know how many times I have read that unless you have a 60AC you might as well have zero. Which is fine if you have a lot of HPs, but rangers DONT have 600 HPs.

Don't give me the an intimidate tank will take aggro and I will kill the mob. Sure that works but how many support toons do you need to make your character work, you need an intimidate tank and a cleric to make you toon reliable? Sure you can WOP down a render pretty fast, but in the mean time half your life just went bye-bye.

[maddmatt70]

What seems amazing to me is the historical argument for barbaians to not have an AC is that they have plenty of HP to survive without an AC and it was too hard for them to get one with the max DPS. With the rangers TWF, they have no AC or HPs. Do you really think it is beneficial for a character to do a ton of DPS, taking agrro, and have low HPs and no AC? I don't know how many times I have read that unless you have a 60AC you might as well have zero. Which is fine if you have a lot of HPs, but rangers DONT have 600 HPs.

Don't give me the an intimidate tank will take aggro and I will kill the mob. Sure that works but how many support toons do you need to make your character work, you need an intimidate tank and a cleric to make you toon reliable? Sure you can WOP down a render pretty fast, but in the mean time half your life just went bye-bye.

Not really sure if your post is clear in making its point, but I can say after reading your post that you have never run with Axer (Shade). That guy played the whole barbarian thing back in mod2 and mod3 when the only people really running barbarians were 14 year old kids. He would form a quest as the only melee character he always had a bard and the rest of the characters in hisparty were arcanes or clerics and he asked for every buff in the game at the start and then just zerged to the end killing things as he went like a crazy man. The buffs mitigated the damage he took and his dps overpowered whatever actually hurt him. The point is high dps mitigates damage as does displacement, stoneksin and many other things - ac really isn't required and has never been required. Now ac is a damage mitigator when coupled with other damage mitigators can be effective..

[oogly54]

Not really sure if your post is clear in making its point, but I can say after reading your post that you have never run with Axer (Shade). That guy played the whole barbarian thing back in mod2 and mod3 when the only people really running barbarians were 14 year old kids. He would form a quest as the only melee character he always had a bard and the rest of the characters in hit party were arcanes or clerics and he asked for every buff in the game at the start and then just zerged to the end killing things as he went like a crazy man. The buffs mitigated the damage he took and his dps overpowered whatever actually hurt him. The point is high dps mitigates damage as does displacement, stoneksin and many other things - ac really isn't required and has never been required. Now ac is a damage mitigator when coupled with other damage mitigators can be effective..

I think you missed my point, a barb has the HP to do such things and survive, a ranger doesn't.

It is like my sorc running up to a mob, in striking distance, and casting fireball and cone of cold, etc. And standing there hoping I kill the mob before he kills me. And trust me I do WAY more damage than any ranger could dream of. And can displace myself, stone skin myself, etc. I probably win the battle, but lose half my life. Oh, and there are 6 more mobs right behind him.

[feynman]

If you were wielding an oversized weapon in each hand, however, you would not get the benefits of THF fighting.


Was having this conversation the other day. In pnp it doesn't work that way you describe; furthermore, green steel dwarven war axes do the same damage as greensteel greataxes - food for thought.


This is true. All it does in PNP is allow you to utilize (for a penalty) a weapon designed for a size larger creature. There are no such weapons in this version.

1) screw PnP :)
2) it would let you use 2-handers w/ 1 hand
3) maybe make the THF feeats not work w/ TWF, but w/ S&B?


What seems amazing to me is the historical argument for barbaians not having an AC is that they have plenty of HP to survive without an AC and it was too hard for them to get one with the max DPS. With the rangers TWF, they have no AC or HPs. Do you really think it is beneficial for a character to do a ton of DPS, taking agrro, and have low HPs and no AC? I don't know how many times I have read that unless you have a 60AC you might as well have zero. Which is fine if you have a lot of HPs, but rangers DONT have 600 HPs.

Don't give me the an intimidate tank will take aggro and I will kill the mob. Sure that works but how many support toons do you need to make your character work, you need an intimidate tank and a cleric to make you toon reliable? Sure you can WOP down a render pretty fast, but in the mean time half your life just went bye-bye.

Not exactly; on shroud elite, 50 AC = 0 against the boss, but not necessarily against anything else. Rangers should be able to hit 60 AC by that point, and evasion goes a long way towards survivability. Sure, you see some screwy builds out there, but that's player, not game.

[maddmatt70]

I think you missed my point, a barb has the HP to do such things and survive, a ranger doesn't.

It is like my sorc running up to a mob, in striking distance, and casting fireball and cone of cold, etc. And standing there hoping I kill the mob before he kills me. And trust me I do WAY more damage than any ranger could dream of. And can displace myself, stone skin myself, etc. I probably win the battle, but lose half my life. Oh, and there are 6 more mobs right behind him.

Hehe are you referring to Ooogly your fighter or oogly your rogue. Well if you are referring to Ooogly your fighter are you trying to say that you would outdamage a tempest ranger dual wielding w/p or green steels or whatever with a higher ac then ooogly and evasion and better saves. I mean lets just flat out throw the chips on the table there are rangers in game right now who do more dps then you do and have ac in the mid 70s self buffed and they got some serious saves. You would lose the battle, the war and the whole kitten kubbudle. Now those ranger folk worked hard to get the gear just like you did - the difference is they got a better build right now in game.

[oogly54]

Not exactly; on shroud elite, 50 AC = 0 against the boss, but not necessarily against anything else. Rangers should be able to hit 60 AC by that point, and evasion goes a long way towards survivability. Sure, you see some screwy builds out there, but that's player, not game.

Again missed the point, it is not about AC, it is about HPs. If you do not have the HPs to survive taking aggro, then what good does it make to do max DPS? If you are a ranger that has a 60+ AC with little HPs then I am on board with you and it rocks. BUT VERY few rangers have even a 50 AC when TWF. 45AC, 300 HPs, and MAX DPS is a recipe for death.

[Niclos]

If you want to talk about attacks per round, why doest anyone ever calculate glancing blows. I get them all the time even on single enemies. I believe a 2hf would out shine in a mob of 2 or more for calculating dps damage. I love going into von 4 and instead of running through the shrine after pulling the left side side switch I go the same way i came in and wait. Ill do like 200-300 damage heck maybe more an example is, sword of shadows i do about 50 ish on a non crit add 20 more for glancing on that enemy plus if i glance 5 thats 100 more. Those numbers can get even crazier with one cleave. Im really trying hard to keep my 2hf barb in line with 2wf and i find there are times i can excel and times i cant. I also picked up stunning blow, sorry i dont use rapiers so crit ranges are around 17-20(another reason why crit rage 2 is not overpowered) however a stunned enemy is instant critical and I land on orthons and devils all the time. Its nice to banish rolling a 2 and hitting them for 150 ish when i do. High dps for certain situations and excellent support dps for other. PLease quit posting on why my Barbarian is so much weaker than other ones. Thanks

[Kaboth]

this DPS is hypothetical, because it assumes 0% attack misses, it does not take critical hits into account, and it assumes a monster does not move out of the way during the 1 second.

Help me out if I messed this up! WINSOM

I asked this on the other thread too - but there were some different people weighing in here as well... Looking for an answer plz.

Thats been my question in a couple of these threads that was never answered to my satisfaction - Are you guys assuming you will hit every time to sustain an argument that TWF is better than THF? Cause its a fact that THF does pure damage in bigger chunks and you only have to hit 1 time to do that rather than figure out the % of the time you WONT hit with both attacks on TWF...

I see these big hypothetical #'s associated with TWF - but in practice you cant hit everytime and the law of averages seems to weigh in on the side of THF some with regard to needing to roll less random dice to score hits...

Can somebody at least reply who has been doing all the figuring and advise why to hit, and number of times you have to roll a to hit, either is or is not relevant to total overall damage dealt out in a DDO combat?

Doesnt really matter on the to hit rolls, but if you like you can play witht he numbers but the end result is still the same. you get 10 attacks at +35 as opposed to 5 attacks at +40 to hit, just using general numbers BTW. At that point you're really not going to miss except the lower to hit bonuses in your attack chain. Most TWF have high crit rang weapons, like rapiers that crit on 15 to 20 while being low damage dice they crit often and if you have a bursting weapon you are doing additional burst damage as well.... If the weapons have save effects on them your getting double the save effects...etc...

Tempest rangers and tempest splashes are the flavor of the month AFAICT, before that it was dwarven barb, then batman builds, etc...