why the change with TWF?

[bobbryan2]

Tempest III seems to be a huge advantage now. With the new stand and deliver autoattack approach to combat, what deep multiclass combination can possibly match the extra attack from Tempest III that will yield an extra 30-150+ dmg per round?

Seems like TwF without 18 ranger is a bit gimp now.

You're coming to some pretty game altering conclusions without really trying the changes out. Tempest III was already giving an extra attack before they normalized the attack rates. Nothing has really changed except that Tempest III comes up every 4 hits instead of every 5.

Don't try to figure out the metagaming implications with pure theory. It often leads to over-adjusting to game changes and developing less than optimal strategies. TWF benefits standing still now... so start out with trying to stand still. Don't over invest in ideas like tumbling, stunning blow, paralyzers in the like... just start with standing still.

[maddmatt70]

You're coming to some pretty game altering conclusions without really trying the changes out. Tempest III was already giving an extra attack before they normalized the attack rates. Nothing has really changed except that Tempest III comes up every 4 hits instead of every 5.

I do think rangers got a little bump, but nothing that huge really especially since I was beginning to think fighters and the other classes did more dps then rangers this mod.

Don't try to figure out the metagaming implications with pure theory. It often leads to over-adjusting to game changes and developing less than optimal strategies. TWF benefits standing still now... so start out with trying to stand still. Don't over invest in ideas like tumbling, stunning blow, paralyzers in the like... just start with standing still.

Agreed although I do think stunning blow for a twf is a better tactic on trash then it was. Rush up hit a stunning blow on first attack especially against enemy archer or enemy spellcaster and then just stand and swing. Tumbling is even worse with these changes because you are constantly moving and attacking and losing attacks in the process.

[Roman]

You're coming to some pretty game altering conclusions without really trying the changes out. Tempest III was already giving an extra attack before they normalized the attack rates. Nothing has really changed except that Tempest III comes up every 4 hits instead of every 5.

Don't try to figure out the metagaming implications with pure theory. It often leads to over-adjusting to game changes and developing less than optimal strategies. TWF benefits standing still now... so start out with trying to stand still. Don't over invest in ideas like tumbling, stunning blow, paralyzers in the like... just start with standing still.

Standing still = less movement
Stunning blow = less movement
Paralyzer = less movement
Less movement = more DPS

Standing Still, Stunning Blow, Paralyzer = More DPS due to less movement.

Where is the fallacy of logic in that?

[bobbryan2]

Standing still = less movement
Stunning blow = less movement
Paralyzer = less movement
Less movement = more DPS

Standing Still, Stunning Blow, Paralyzer = More DPS due to less movement.

Where is the fallacy of logic in that?

Where is the fallacy of logic in that?

Let's see. Oh yes. When using a paralyzer, you are kept from using greensteel. Not Using greensteel = less DPS.

Again, you're using pure theory and half facts to derive metagaming implications. Don't do that. It's more than probable that standing still with greensteel will be far more effective than standing still with a paralyzer.

[Roman]

Where is the fallacy of logic in that?

Let's see. Oh yes. When using a paralyzer, you are kept from using greensteel. Not Using greensteel = less DPS.

Again, you're using pure theory and half facts to derive metagaming implications. Don't do that. It's more than probable that standing still with greensteel will be far more effective than standing still with a paralyzer.

1 person sacrifices DPS on a single weapon to improve the DPS of 3-7+ other melee. Your argument is weak.

[bobbryan2]

1 person sacrifices DPS on a single weapon to improve the DPS of 3-7+ other melee. Your argument is weak.

The only 'argument' I have is one of cautioning people against jumping to conclusions. That argument is one of many ways your conclusions can be in error.

You do not have the factual basis for any of these metagaming conclusions. You do not know how much DPS is gained by TWF standing still, because I haven't seen exact attack rates for moving and for standing pat.

And even if we did, you are not even addressing the fact that most creatures can be attacked without moving. So the DPS loss going from greensteel to paralyzing, in many cases, is completely lost, and the DPS improvements you allude to never occur.

Finally, it doesn't even make sense in real world scenarios. If you could paralyze effectively at high levels, people would actually do it against cleaving orthons and things that caused high amounts of damage.

My arguments are weak huh? I'm not the one prophesizing the second (or is it first) coming of tumble combat.

[Roman]

The only 'argument' I have is one of cautioning people against jumping to conclusions. That argument is one of many ways your conclusions can be in error.

You do not have the factual basis for any of these metagaming conclusions. You do not know how much DPS is gained by TWF standing still, because I haven't seen exact attack rates for moving and for standing pat.

And even if we did, you are not even addressing the fact that most creatures can be attacked without moving. So the DPS loss going from greensteel to paralyzing, in many cases, is completely lost, and the DPS improvements you allude to never occur.

Finally, it doesn't even make sense in real world scenarios. If you could paralyze effectively at high levels, people would actually do it against cleaving orthons and things that caused high amounts of damage.

My arguments are weak huh? I'm not the one prophesizing the second (or is it first) coming of tumble combat.

What you're saying is you need more data to understand the implications, because you lack knowledge. That is called ignorance, and is easily fixed by asking questions or doing more research.

[bobbryan2]

What you're saying is you need more data to understand the implications, because you lack knowledge. That is called ignorance, and is easily fixed by asking questions or doing more research.

No... I'm saying YOU need more data to understand the implications, because YOU lack knowledge. That is called ignorance, and is easily fixed by asking questions or by doing more research.

[Yargore]

What you're saying is you need more data to understand the implications, because you lack knowledge. That is called ignorance, and is easily fixed by asking questions or doing more research.

You're the one making the claims here.
He is basicly saying that you shouldn't be so quick to judge.

[foxx]

What you're saying is you need more data to understand the implications, because you lack knowledge. That is called ignorance, and is easily fixed by asking questions or doing more research.

ouch.