Don't two-handed weapons handicap players by taking two slots?

[Legacy_Grani]

               

I've just had this thought.

While normally the fact that two-handed weapons take two slots instead of one is compensated by their larger damage output in comparison to single-handed weapons, is it the same on higher levels?


Obviously, items for characters at high levels tend to have many magical enhancements. Isn't it more viable for players to choose two SH weapons, both having enhancements, or an SH weapon and a shield (same story) than a single item? This is basically a choice between having one "set" of enhancements or having twice as much. And I'm not sure if the additional base damage compensates for that.

 

Any thoughts on the matter?

               
               

               
            

[Legacy_HipMaestro]

               

Depends on the weapon category of the two-handed weapon.

 

A two-sided weapon only gets the same STR modifier boni as using two SH weapons, 100% STR mod on MH plus 50% STR mod on the OH weapon side, i.e. the size category does not have the same effect as with a typical large weapon, 150% STR mod..

 

So, if you are comparing a two-bladed sword (for instance) vs. two kukris, both do slashing damage, the same STR boni apply, but only the kukris can be finessed. The enhancement has no different effect unless it is different for each of the two SH weapons being used.

 

So finessable vs. non-finessable is one factor.  Another could be the difference in other item properties from MH to OH, including OnHit, elemental damage type, etc.  Yet another difference is in magical buffing.  To imbue the two-bladed sword with GMW (again, for instance), a single cast will enhance both hands, while two casts are needed to accomplish the same effect on both SH weapons.  The shield option, naturally, is only open for the two SH weapons.

 

Finally, though it seldom comes up, is that, each of the two SH weapons could be of different damage types.  Related to a choice like this is the WM's WoC selection and fighter's WS which would require additional feats to achieve the same potential on both hands while the two-sided would only require one.

 

Two-sided weapons are harder to disarm than two medium, small or tiny ones.

 

Crit range and multiplier (in regards to the chosen weapon type) can be a factor depending on the AC being confronted.  To some extent, damage type can matter (like vs. some undead).

 

The determination of whether a particular weapon type is "large" (and benefit from the 150% two-hand bonus) is related to race.  So, a longsword wielded by a human gets only the MH damage (100% STR mod), while a gnome would be getting the two-hand bonus using the same weapon.

 

Character level has no effect on the two-hand bonus other than being able to pump up STR to higher levels, assuming it is a STR-focused build.

 

There is a rather obscure difference related to rolling multiple dice for base damage like with scythe and greatsword.  The realized damage (what is actually experienced in-game), or the damage "probability", gets clustered around the average damage, with the very high and very low damages seldom experienced.  With two SH weapons, every base damage possibility is equally possible (i.e. linear).  This nuance become even more apparent and noticeable with critical hits.

 

That's about all I can think of atm.  There are probably others, though.

 

It's typically a matter of aesthetics.  Some players feel the appearance of fighting with a two-sided weapon "looks cool" so forgo any of the disadvantages..

               
               

               
            

[Legacy_Grani]

               

I see. Thanks for elaborating on that.

               
               

               
            

[Legacy_MrZork]

               

Hip's comments were very thorough. One added consideration with double-sided weapons is that they allow a duel-wielder to do damage typical of medium-sized weapons while not suffering an additional AB penalty to both weapons, which can be significant. That is, normally, a melee toon has to choose between duel wielding two small or tiny weapons (or spending several extra feats in order to wield one medium and one small weapon) which will do 1d4 or 1d6 base damage and having a -2 AB total AB penalty for duel wielding versus duel wielding two medium-sized weapons which typically do 1d8 (1d10 for exotic) base damage but will incur a -4 AB penalty for duel wielding. The double-sided weapons allow the toon to do 1d8 base damage with both main-hand and off-hand attacks while only incurring the -2 AB penalty for duel wielding. That extra base damage at a higher AB can be significant.

 

As to two-handed (but not double-sided) weapons, also consider that the extra 50% strength damage can be very useful in getting past damage resistance and damage reduction (and chewing through DR from spells) and disrupting spellcasters, especially since it is also multiplied on crits. That can be important when going up creatures with high DR or those who will only be hurt on a crit (or both, e.g. Black Slaad).

 

To the broader question, it's worth noting that the environment is likely to be important, as will single-player versus multiplayer play and PvP. There isn't going to be a definitive answer without knowing those factors. Does the module have keen short swords? Is there a shield that provides immunity from mind-affects? Is there a mage around in a low-magic environment who can cast Greater Magic Weapon and Flame Weapon on both of my weapons? Is there a cleric around in a similar low-magic environment who can cast Magic Vestments on my shield? Etc. The general rule in the game is that having more pieces of gear equipped means the toon will be better buffed. But, hitting more often (the AB penalty) matters and doing more damage per hit (the STR bonus and base weapon damage) matters.

               
               

               
            

[Legacy_MagicalMaster]

               

While normally the fact that two-handed weapons take two slots instead of one is compensated by their larger damage output in comparison to single-handed weapons, is it the same on higher levels?

 

Generally speaking, no.  Unless the author of the module scales damage based on weapon size in some manner (like my mods do) then the bonus damage is static static while shields provide incredible defense.

 

For example, consider a level 1 fighter with 16 strength.  With a longsword he does 7.5 average damage per hit while a greatsword does 11 damage per hit.  However, the longsword gets a shield which adds 3 AC.  So you basically have a choice of dealing 50% more damage or being able to take 50% more damage (basically take about 35% less damage with the shield, roughly).  Fairly balanced, important choice to make.

 

Fast forward to a level 40 fighter with 46 strength.  If he's using a longsword +10 with 2d6 bonus damage (which is what you find in HotU) then he deals 45.5 damage per hit.  Greatsword, on the other hand, is 57 damage.  So we're down to a 27% damage increase -- and if the sword has more than just 2d6 bonus damage on it then the difference becomes even smaller.  So we compare that 27% damage increase to the value of a shield -- and even something like a +7 tower shield means you can take like 125% more damage (basically take like 55% less damage).  So unless you're playing in an extremely easy environment, then being able to take 125% more damage is much better than dealing 27% more damage -- especially when it comes to making healing more efficient.  And this isn't even factoring in additional bonuses that may be on the shield.

 

So, sadly, using a 2H usually is not viable in challenging environments at high levels unless the author takes the time to alter some things -- you don't gain much damage and you lose so so so so so much defense.  There's really no reason for shields to increase in enhancement -- 3 extra AC already scales automatically, so to speak.

 

There are some exceptions to this -- if you play a low AC Dwarven Defender where you plan on getting hit, for example or (like I said) if the enemies are so easy that the extra AC doesn't really matter.  But in the latter case then nothing really matters and you could play an intellect based rogue with little issue most likely.

               
               

               
            

[Legacy_MrZork]

               

I thought that the OP was mostly interested in a comparison between two-handed weapons and duel wielding, where there is no direct AC difference. Apologies to him if I went off topic in my remarks.

               
               

               
            

[Legacy_MagicalMaster]

               

He was interested in all of the above '>  He asked about both the difference between 2H versus 1H/shield and 2H versus Dual-Wield.

 

He was also asking especially about stat bonuses rather than just offense/defense -- the thought being that if 2H has a good offense/defense tradeoff compared to 1H/shield it might still be worse due to lacking the extra stats/immunities/saving throws/etc.

               
               

               
            

[Legacy_MrZork]

               

That may be what threw me: I read it as a question primarily about damage output, with the mention of shields occurring in the context of discussing how an extra equipped item could provide more total item properties, just as an off-hand weapon could. Obviously, when that off-hand item is a shield, those properties tend to enhance defense, but I read the post as focused on how those properties impact damage.

 

Either way, your discussion of the AC impact of shield-wielding versus non-shield-wielding is something any melee toon designer does well to consider.

 

BTW, a thought occurred to me when reading your post: Would changing the AC bonus type for 2-handed weapons (by changing their AC_Enchant entries in baseitems.2da) help address the defensive penalty that wielding them incurs? Obviously, it wouldn't have much impact for modules where weapons don't get AC bonuses. But, I think that is partly a catch-22: Because items with deflection AC bonuses are already so readily available, there is little use for adding it to a weapon. But, lots of modules have custom weapons (not to mention forges and gem systems) where adding an AC bonus to a weapon might actually be useful if it were shield AC.

               
               

               
            

[Legacy_WhiZard]

               

He was interested in all of the above '>  He asked about both the difference between 2H versus 1H/shield and Dual-Wield versus 1H/shield.

 

As a matter of correction, it was 2H versus 1H/shield and 2H versus dual-wield.  The OP did not ask about dual-wield versus 1H/shield.

               
               

               
            

[Legacy_MagicalMaster]

               

As a matter of correction, it was 2H versus 1H/shield and 2H versus dual-wield.  The OP did not ask about dual-wield versus 1H/shield.

 

Whoops, fixed.  Posting at 1 AM can lead to bad things!

 

BTW, a thought occurred to me when reading your post: Would changing the AC bonus type for 2-handed weapons (by changing their AC_Enchant entries in baseitems.2da) help address the defensive penalty that wielding them incurs? Obviously, it wouldn't have much impact for modules where weapons don't get AC bonuses. But, I think that is partly a catch-22: Because items with deflection AC bonuses are already so readily available, there is little use for adding it to a weapon. But, lots of modules have custom weapons (not to mention forges and gem systems) where adding an AC bonus to a weapon might actually be useful if it were shield AC.

 

Yes, letting 2H weapons give shield AC would be a solution.  One nice thing about it is that you can then scale up the shields as well -- it's fine to make a shield +7 because the 2H (or dual-wielding weapons or whatever) will still give 7 shield AC anyway.  You avoid an ever widening gap between 1H/shield and 2H (or dual-wield).

               
               

               
            

[Legacy_Nick The Noodle]

               

Allowing Fighters to use shields and a two handed weapon should be an option in my opinion, but requiring a Fighter feat to do so.  Historically, Greek and Macedonian spear/pikemen did, much like Huscarls/Varangian Guardsmen et al later on. 

               
               

               
            

[Legacy_Grani]

               

Or we could have some penalties for wielding shields to nerf them. Like a penalty to attack rolls?

But wouldn't this nerf fighters and other similar melee characters too much in comparison to other classes, like wizards, monks?

 

Would anyone suggest what penalty (and how severe) could be done to balance these three melee sets with each other? I, unfortunately, suck a little when it comes to balancing.

               
               

               
            

[Legacy_henesua]

               

How do you allow a PC to wield a shield and a 2 handed weapon? I don't know how that works.

 

There would have to be some other tweak made. Changing two handed weapons to have defensive bonuses would be one way to do this. I think thats what Magical Master was suggesting.

               
               

               
            

[Legacy_Grani]

               

How do you allow a PC to wield a shield and a 2 handed weapon? I don't know how that works.

 

There would have to be some other tweak made. Changing two handed weapons to have defensive bonuses would be one way to do this. I think thats what Magical Master was suggesting.

 

Did anyone say anything about wielding both a shield and a 2H weapon? '>

               
               

               
            

[Legacy_MrZork]

               

How do you allow a PC to wield a shield and a 2 handed weapon? I don't know how that works.

There would have to be some other tweak made. Changing two handed weapons to have defensive bonuses would be one way to do this. I think thats what Magical Master was suggesting.

Did anyone say anything about wielding both a shield and a 2H weapon? '>

Maybe:
 

Allowing Fighters to use shields and a two handed weapon should be an option in my opinion, but requiring a Fighter feat to do so. Historically, Greek and Macedonian spear/pikemen did, much like Huscarls/Varangian Guardsmen et al later on.