Which is better now TWF or THF

[Sir_Chonas]

TWF is also better for casters with stat booster/ability increasing scepters. . .Just remember that having 2 of a modifier is better than having 1, even if the base damage done by the 1 is > than the base of the 2.

[stazer]

I run with people in the level 13-14 range and very few TWF users have PA, while all THF users do.
At higher levels this may change, because we now have an extra feat at 18.

your talking to people who have been playing for over 3 years...its terribly insulting when you say most if not all dont use pa when all end game dps has pa or is considered gimp...if your only running with people in 13-14 you are VERY limited in knowledge of this game and need to consider researching more extensively beore posting...what you said is just embarrassingly inaccurate.

[Thanimal]

Aside from the Exploiter, most TWF users I see do not have it.

(Removed. No need to pile on after the above post got in before this one.)

[Thanimal]

TWF is also better for casters with stat booster/ability increasing scepters. . .Just remember that having 2 of a modifier is better than having 1, even if the base damage done by the 1 is > than the base of the 2.

I have completely failed to understand this post. Could you explain?

[Adarin]

No. Every single twf'ing character I have, or people that I know has, uses power attack.

I don't have it! :P

Granted I'm only level 4 and more focused on base feats currently .

[WeaselKing]

I prefer fwf.

[Sir_Chonas]

I have completely failed to understand this post. Could you explain?

If a caster has a scepter of power in one hand, and a scepter of lightning lore in the other (or any other modifier weapon) it's better than having a staff of power in both hands. Regardless of the base damage, because casters will be casting more than bashing.

[Absolute-Omniscience]

THF was always higher DPS for Barbarians due to their massive strength and power attack enhancements.

Strength affects TWF just as much as it does THF, there is no, I repeat, there is no difference between STR and PA, when using TWF or THF

STR
TWF = 100% mainhand, 50% offhand = 150% from stregnth
THF = 150% main hand

PA
TWF = +x main hand, +x off hand = x*2
THF = 2*x main hand

Since module9 much beter for KoTC Paladins due to how glancing blow procs worked. Fighter was pretty close but I think this patch gives THF the edge, even auto attack.

Wrong, and utterly untrue, TWF is still ahead, by quite a bit.

You make it sound as if getting vicious on every glancing blow is something extremely fancy and you forget about that TWF gets *2 on EVERY effect in the game.

As soon as Cforce puts up the new estimator I will fix my calculator for the new attackspeed changes and post some proof.

[cforce]

Strength affects TWF just as much as it does THF, there is no, I repeat, there is no difference between STR and PA, when using TWF or THF

STR
TWF = 100% mainhand, 50% offhand = 150% from stregnth
THF = 150% main hand

PA
TWF = +x main hand, +x off hand = x*2
THF = 2*x main hand

Not *quite* true, as the THF also gets additional damage (to the tune of 1/3 of the mainhand bonus) on both, on 3/4 or 1/2 of attacks in the chain. So, if twitching, THF gets: 150% main attack + (150% * 1/3 * 1/2) = 175% total STR bonus and 2pa * 1/3 * 1/2 = 2.33x PA. Coupled with the fact that a single THF swing (in twitch mode) is faster than a single (2 attack) swing in TWF mode, and you've got a THF getting more points of damage/sec added for each point of STR, or each point of PA.

The attack rate goes down if the THF'er isn't doing twitch attacks, but the glancing blow contribution goes up.

As soon as Cforce puts up the new estimator I will fix my calculator for the new attackspeed changes and post some proof.

Workin on it . The biggest missing piece right now is verified THF-twitch counts at BAB 20. Actually, I'm also working on a modified copy of your DPS calculator to make it easier to do the Monk/Unarmed calcs with the Rings -- I'll throw that back over the wall to you once it's working.

[Seabhac]

Hello everyone,

I would like to know the answer to this as well.

[Absolute-Omniscience]

The answer is; TWF deals more dps.
This thread contains the dps numbers. (OP contains the results)

[BracchusBridgeburner]

The last person I ran with regularly that didnt have PA asked in a group once, "Is it worth giving up Power Critical for Power Attack?" He was booted from group and guild in 20 seconds, its that big of a deal.

BTW is it possible that those 13-14 range players are newbs?

non-factual anecdotal examples that can't possibly be quantified.

[BracchusBridgeburner]

The answer is; TWF deals more dps.
This thread contains the dps numbers. (OP contains the results)

those calculators fall FLAT - completely flat - on their face in actual gameplay. This was the same horrible mistake made by elitistjerks.com and that awful bit of scrap called simcraft. simulations don't work unless you admit to a margin of error wide enough to make the difference between pretty much all of those builds negligable. Which of course means it's pointless. If you want real numbers you need to actually build those characters and then run in-game dps meters on every one of them.

The main reason those simulations aren't worth scrap is because they assume the characters are being run not by a human, but by an automated computer program that will hit every single clickie/power/spell/whatever at exactly the moment it needs to be hit, every single time, without fail or error. That's simply ludicrous. An argument could be made that they still show the 'potential' for max dps. However, that argument can very reasonably be countered by mentioning that low to zero 'twitch' dps builds, that require much less timing or precision could actually pull ahead of those other builds when they are being employed by a human being and not an automaton.

[Phidius]

TWF is also better for casters with stat booster/ability increasing scepters. . .Just remember that having 2 of a modifier is better than having 1, even if the base damage done by the 1 is > than the base of the 2.

I think the discussion here is whether to take the TWF, ITWF, and GTWF feat chain versus the THF, ITHF, and GTHF feat chain to get better melee DPS.

It is better for casters to find 2 weapons (usually scepters) to get twice the effects (Potency, Lore, Spell Pen, Focus) as a single weapon (such as a quarterstaff). However, they don't need the TWF feat to get this benefit.

[cforce]

The main reason those simulations aren't worth scrap is because they assume the characters are being run not by a human, but by an automated computer program that will hit every single clickie/power/spell/whatever at exactly the moment it needs to be hit, every single time, without fail or error. That's simply ludicrous.

Shade, when are you posting that new twitch video, again?



But, seriously: Bracchus, you're arguing that because information isn't perfect, it's useless. That's not a very sound argument. Simulations/calculations and in-game observations are *both* imperfect information. Luckily, they have flaws in different ways. A smart player uses both, treats neither as gospel, and ends up ahead of people who blindly assert that only one is valuable, and ignore the other.

[Aranticus]

those calculators fall FLAT - completely flat - on their face in actual gameplay. This was the same horrible mistake made by elitistjerks.com and that awful bit of scrap called simcraft. simulations don't work unless you admit to a margin of error wide enough to make the difference between pretty much all of those builds negligable. Which of course means it's pointless. If you want real numbers you need to actually build those characters and then run in-game dps meters on every one of them.

The main reason those simulations aren't worth scrap is because they assume the characters are being run not by a human, but by an automated computer program that will hit every single clickie/power/spell/whatever at exactly the moment it needs to be hit, every single time, without fail or error. That's simply ludicrous. An argument could be made that they still show the 'potential' for max dps. However, that argument can very reasonably be countered by mentioning that low to zero 'twitch' dps builds, that require much less timing or precision could actually pull ahead of those other builds when they are being employed by a human being and not an automaton.

if everything needs to have a working example, then almost nothing in RL will get done. simulations are perfectly fine in calculations with the condition that all variables are constant except for the one being compared. given that the same player is behind the different toons facing the same enemy in the same environment, etc, the result will be pretty similar to what one can get by running the calculations

[sephiroth1084]

I don't know, glancing blows proccing trip, lightning, curse, sunder, and other great effects is simply phenomenal.

That alone puts THF ahead of TWF, and not having to spend the time to make and upgrade two weapons is just gravy.

Plus having a higher to hit than TWF users makes killing some deadly mobs a cakewalk.

Also don't forget that as a THF user, you will be getting more of your STR bonus to damage, and PA does 2X the damage as well.

This quickly adds up to a lot of damage.

Not a lot of TWF users even use PA, but as a THF you can, and with your STR mod bonus you will be doing some SICK damage.

I'm seeing a lot of half- or mis-information in this thread.

Power Attack has the same value for THF and TWF: On THF, you gain +10 damage on your attacks, while with TWF you gain +5 damage on each attack, but you have more attacks.

Similarly, THF gains Str x 1.5, while TWF gains Str plus Str x 0.5. While the PA and Str bonuses aren't necessarily equal across both styles, the two styles are essentially gaining the same benefits from these two sources of damage. In fact, I'm pretty sure that TWF still benefits more from additional damage sources than THF does overall, but benefits less so against targets with DR that it cannot bypass.

Glancing Blows can proc some special effects like Trip, which may affect multiple targets, while similar effects have a chance to activate twice if the activation coincides with a TWF-hooked attack, meaning 2 saves from one enemy per activation, or double damage from Smite Evil vs. the chance to affect multiple opponents.

TWF also has a much higher chance of applying weapon-based special effects, as they are being applied to all 7 (8 if ranger) attacks, rather than 4 w/ a % chance to proc on glancing blows.

Now, I'm not going to comment on which is better DPS, as I am not a numbers guy, and others here are more qualified/experienced to comment, but some of the claims being tossed around are kind of silly.

[Thanimal]

This "math is irrelevant" assertion comes up surprisingly frequently on a message board that you'd expect to be dominated by nerds. Huh.

Analysis is our best tool to predict what will happen. These predictions are not exact. That's NOT the same thing as being useless. See also my comments here:

http://forums.ddo.com/showpost.php?p...5&postcount=32

(Edited. Original link was something totally irrelevant. My apologies to those who clicked there, and my thanks to Sep for pointing it out!)

[Quikster]

non-factual anecdotal examples that can't possibly be quantified.

Who said it was non-factual?

Why do you want it quantified when the numbers are impossible to obtain by a human playing a game?


The fact is, anyone concerned with DPS at end game should have power attack. Are you somehow confused about this. +5 damage > +0 damage does that simplify it enough for you to be quantified?

[sephiroth1084]

This "math is irrelevant" assertion comes up surprisingly frequently on a message board that you'd expect to be dominated by nerds. Huh.

Analysis is our best tool to predict what will happen. These predictions are not exact. That's NOT the same thing as being useless. See also my comments here:

http://forums.ddo.com/showthread.php?t=128210

Not sure if that was a reply to me or not, but your link doesn't seem to follow from your statement above it, as you have no comments on that page.