Re: Two Weapon Fighting
"I agree with this but do not come to the same conclusion. With 2 weapon fighting and/or rapid shot you get multiple extra d6's without the need to throw yourself into the middle of combat."
Neither 2-weapon fighting nor rapid shot grant any extra d6's of Sneak Attack unless your opponent is flat-footed or you have flanking.
"I disagree based on the fact that the rogue is much more mobile than the fighter. It's MUCH easier for the rogue to flank with the fighter than the other way around. Getting that awesome flanking position and having the enemy move to prevent the fighter from getting to it sucks pretty bad. Much easier for the dexterous thief to tumble into flank after tossing a bunch of daggers to take advantage of the first round flatfooting."
You're assuming the fighter goes after the enemies' initiative. As I said, it depends on your allies (including their mobility and their initiative). It also depends on the terrain. A big open room is much different from a corridor or bridge.
"I also disagree based on the fact that a high level rogue should have some kind of magic to make their own sneak attacks without needing flank."
Maybe... but unless he has improved invisibility, then he's not likely to get sneak attack every round unless he's flanking.
"And I disagree based on the fact that being that first flanked opens yourself up to combat maneuvers that the rogue is ill equipped to defend against. A simple bulrush, trip or disarm makes that flank meaningless and if you're the only foe next to them..."
Again, this is entirely situational. Most enemies do not have improved combat maneuvers, meaning they take an attack of opportunity for attempting them and the damage from that (those) attack(s) give a penalty to the combat maneuver. A rogue with decent Strength and high Dexterity will have a decent CMD anyway. If you are facing opponents that you know have improved combat maneuvers, then you adjust your tactics.
"And one more disagreement. Why not attack that real threat (ranged attackers and casters) with that first round attack instead of making an opening so someone else might be able to attack them later?"
Because front ranks of enemies grant cover (a -4 to hit) and having melee opponents next to ranged attackers or spellcasters forces them to move, take attacks of opportunity, or cast defensively.
As I said, your mileage may vary, but I have had a great deal of success in over a decade of playing 3.0/3.5/PF.
EDIT: Tell you what, I'll make this easy. Since I have said that it is sometimes a good idea and you have asserted that it never is, you must show that in every conceivable situation it is a bad idea, while I only have to show a single situation in which it is a good idea. So, here goes:
Two 5th-level rogues (Str 12, Dex 18, both dual-wielding masterwork shortswords, both have weapon finesse, weapon focus, and two-weapon fighting... that's BAB +3, Dex bonus of +4, +1 for weapon focus, +1 for masterwork, -2 for dual-wield = +7 attack, +9 with flanking) vs. 2 ogres. The rogues get a surprise round by sneaking up on the ogres and both rogues beat the ogres' initiative.
Surprise round, both rogues move into flanking on one of the ogres (the ogres are flat-footed and so do not get attacks of opportunity)
Regular round 1, both rogues attack twice with their shortswords ... ogres have AC 17 (regular and flat-footed... they are still flat-footed since they haven't acted yet), so at +9, the rogues hit on a die roll of 8 or higher (65% chance to hit) so we'll say 3 of the 4 attacks hit.
That's 4d6+1 on main-hand attacks and 4d6 on off-hand attacks. We'll say the miss was a main-hand attack, so they do 12d6+1... an average of 43 damage. Much more than the ogre's average hit points of 30.
They have just eliminated their opponent's ability to flank and cut the damage potential in half. Sounds like a good idea to me.
If they had an ally with any sort of fire or acid damage with them, they could potentially pull this off against a pair of trolls as well, since the trolls' flat-footed AC is just 14, it is highly likely that all 4 attacks would hit (only missing on a roll of 1 to 4, ergo an 80% chance for each attack to hit) doing an average of 58 points of damage, meaning their companion would only have to do 5 points of fire or acid damage in order to finish off the first troll.
Can doing it this way potentially get you in trouble? Sure. But where's the fun in playing it safe all the time?
This message was last edited by the user at 07:58, Thu 22 May 2014.