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

[Legacy_Grani]

               

Maybe:

 

That might be it.

So, any comments on balancing things out by penalizing shield wielders?

               
               

               
            

[Legacy_HipMaestro]

               

That might be it.

So, any comments on balancing things out by penalizing shield wielders?

Perhaps increase the armor check penalty? But that would only affect stealthers and tumblers. Typically, dexers wouldn't be using two-hand weapons, though... just dual-wielding.

 

An additional item characteristic that would penalize damage dealt (something like the OH damage penalty) would need to be implemented to impact STR-focused builds.  But that may be hard-coded. Dunno.  That would end up stacking with the default TH 150% bonus, in effect.

               
               

               
            

[Legacy_rogueknight333]

               

That might be it.

So, any comments on balancing things out by penalizing shield wielders?

 

Rather than penalizing shield wielders, it would seem simpler to achieve some degree of balance by rewarding two-handed weapon wielders by one of the two methods already suggested: either provide weapons with damage bonuses proportionate to their size or base damage (so the gain in offensive power from giving up a shield remains great enough to be a reasonable trade-off), or else attach defensive bonuses to two-handed weapons that compensate to some degree for the lost shield (and note that if you do not want to bother trying to change the default AC type for weapons from the usually redundant deflection, you can always give them some other type of defensive property like damage resistance, regeneration, etc.). Is there some reason you do not want to make use of these options?

               
               

               
            

[Legacy_Grani]

               

Perhaps increase the armor check penalty? But that would only affect stealthers and tumblers. Typically, dexers wouldn't be using two-hand weapons, though... just dual-wielding.

 

An additional item characteristic that would penalize damage dealt (something like the OH damage penalty) would need to be implemented to impact STR-focused builds.  But that may be hard-coded. Dunno.  That would end up stacking with the default TH 150% bonus, in effect.

Why not a penalty to attack bonus? That would make sense somewhat, you need to sacrifice some attack power to gain better defences.

 

Rather than penalizing shield wielders, it would seem simpler to achieve some degree of balance by rewarding two-handed weapon wielders by one of the two methods already suggested: either provide weapons with damage bonuses proportionate to their size or base damage (so the gain in offensive power from giving up a shield remains great enough to be a reasonable trade-off), or else attach defensive bonuses to two-handed weapons that compensate to some degree for the lost shield (and note that if you do not want to bother trying to change the default AC type for weapons from the usually redundant deflection, you can always give them some other type of defensive property like damage resistance, regeneration, etc.). Is there some reason you do not want to make use of these options?

Well, first of all, I need something universal, i.e. I cannot just add better properties to 2H weapons and that's due to the fact that I have an advanced crafting system for players to use with their Craft Weapon and Craft Armor skills. So, basically, any changes I make need to be changes to base stats of the items or some other kind of universal boost/penalty for all items of a given kind.


Second of all, if I made base stats of 2H weapons good enough for them to be just as useful as 1H weapons and shields at max level, then they will be utterly overpowered at low levels.

               
               

               
            

[Legacy_MrZork]

               

It seems like my earlier suggestion of changing the AC bonus type of the 2H weapons to shield bonus in baseitems.2da would help compensate for the AC disadvantage of not wielding a shield and still scale pretty well with your module's leveling and crafting.


Obviously, it's possible to penalize the AB of shield-wielders via OnEquip scripting, and there may be some equitable way of doing it (e.g. -1, -2, -3 AB for small, large, tower shields or something), but I would hesitate to do that. Balancing things beyond what Bioware has done is a tricky business and it's all the more so when the attempt involves trying to balance two things (AB and AC for player characters) that are related but not the same. IMO, the best solution is likely to be the one that directly addresses the imbalance (e.g. AC deficit) without trying to equalize other related-but-dissimilar quantities. I.e., fixing an AC imbalance with an AC bonus may work out, fixing it with an AB adjustment is getting more complicated, fixing it with a concealment bonus is likely to have odd and unpredictable results.

 

I tend to be dubious about balancing attempts, because it's such a tough proposition if the goal is to do anything other than balance the simplest case of a brute swinging a sword at a monster, neither of whom have any special abilities or interesting gear. For one thing, it's difficult to come up with a useful definition of what "balance" means. Is it best to achieve a balance so that the simple AB and AC stats of 2H weapon PCs against monsters is comparable to those of 1H weapon + shield PCs against monsters? Is the metric that the monster lasts the same number of rounds against both test PCs? Or that each test PC has taken the same damage from the monster? Or something else? Once some notion of balance is decided, what are the mechanics of that balance and do they scale? In other words, if the proposal is to apply an AB penalty to 1H+S toons, then how much AB penalty is appropriate for the +3 AC bonus that toon gets (over a 2H toon) from a tower shield at level 1 (assuming he doesn't have a magic shield then) versus the extra damage the 2H toon is doing? Will that same penalty achieve balance at level 40 when the toon has a +X AC magic shield and his counterpart has +Y STR gear? Is a direct comparison of % less damage taken due to higher AC versus % extra damage done due to higher STR bonus appropriate? Or, is that an "illusion of numbers" solution, where parity seems to be achieved by making two numbers the same, even though those numbers may not represent directly comparable quantities?

 

And, really, the AC bonus versus damage may be the easiest item property to deal with. What about a toon with a Fletcher's Foe small shield that grants +1 AC and 15/- versus piercing damage? Not a great shield in terms of AC, but potentially a WIN button versus archers and many dexing dagger/short sword/rapier-wielders. What about a shield that grants +3 will saves? +10 discipline? Immunity to paralysis? Etc. My point is that any balancing attempt is going to be tricky even for simple cases and isn't likely to cover many possibilities and is likely to have other unintended consequences that are difficult to predict. ("Within a month, 1 of 3 new melee toons were strengthing, scythe-wielding WMs, because that was the new high AB melee build.")

 

Anyway, I am not trying to discourage balancing efforts, but any attempt is going to be very environment dependent and will probably leave many situations unbalanced.

               
               

               
            

[Legacy_Grani]

               

It seems like my earlier suggestion of changing the AC bonus type of the 2H weapons to shield bonus in baseitems.2da would help compensate for the AC disadvantage of not wielding a shield and still scale pretty well with your module's leveling and crafting.


Obviously, it's possible to penalize the AB of shield-wielders via OnEquip scripting, and there may be some equitable way of doing it (e.g. -1, -2, -3 AB for small, large, tower shields or something), but I would hesitate to do that. Balancing things beyond what Bioware has done is a tricky business and it's all the more so when the attempt involves trying to balance two things (AB and AC for player characters) that are related but not the same. IMO, the best solution is likely to be the one that directly addresses the imbalance (e.g. AC deficit) without trying to equalize other related-but-dissimilar quantities. I.e., fixing an AC imbalance with an AC bonus may work out, fixing it with an AB adjustment is getting more complicated, fixing it with a concealment bonus is likely to have odd and unpredictable results.

 

I tend to be dubious about balancing attempts, because it's such a tough proposition if the goal is to do anything other than balance the simplest case of a brute swinging a sword at a monster, neither of whom have any special abilities or interesting gear. For one thing, it's difficult to come up with a useful definition of what "balance" means. Is it best to achieve a balance so that the simple AB and AC stats of 2H weapon PCs against monsters is comparable to those of 1H weapon + shield PCs against monsters? Is the metric that the monster lasts the same number of rounds against both test PCs? Or that each test PC has taken the same damage from the monster? Or something else? Once some notion of balance is decided, what are the mechanics of that balance and do they scale? In other words, if the proposal is to apply an AB penalty to 1H+S toons, then how much AB penalty is appropriate for the +3 AC bonus that toon gets (over a 2H toon) from a tower shield at level 1 (assuming he doesn't have a magic shield then) versus the extra damage the 2H toon is doing? Will that same penalty achieve balance at level 40 when the toon has a +X AC magic shield and his counterpart has +Y STR gear? Is a direct comparison of % less damage taken due to higher AC versus % extra damage done due to higher STR bonus appropriate? Or, is that an "illusion of numbers" solution, where parity seems to be achieved by making two numbers the same, even though those numbers may not represent directly comparable quantities?

 

And, really, the AC bonus versus damage may be the easiest item property to deal with. What about a toon with a Fletcher's Foe small shield that grants +1 AC and 15/- versus piercing damage? Not a great shield in terms of AC, but potentially a WIN button versus archers and many dexing dagger/short sword/rapier-wielders. What about a shield that grants +3 will saves? +10 discipline? Immunity to paralysis? Etc. My point is that any balancing attempt is going to be tricky even for simple cases and isn't likely to cover many possibilities and is likely to have other unintended consequences that are difficult to predict. ("Within a month, 1 of 3 new melee toons were strengthing, scythe-wielding WMs, because that was the new high AB melee build.")

 

Anyway, I am not trying to discourage balancing efforts, but any attempt is going to be very environment dependent and will probably leave many situations unbalanced.

I see your point, thank you for explaining it so well.

Well, what I had in mind was to balance the base items and, for the purpose of this balancing, disregard any enhancements they may have. Of course we still need to assume that a 2H weapon will have less enhancements than a set of a 1H weapon + shield or two 1H weapons. The point is, since thanks to the crafting system, virtually any item type can have any property in my module, to just try and balance things out while considering base, unmodified items. (I'm talking about it in response to your examples of enhanced items like shields with resistances to piercing damage or immunities to paralysis, etc.)

 

I agree with what you said that the definition of balance itself is a rather subjective one. I've always considered two characters to be balanced if they have about equal chances of winning against each other in PVP. As opposed to some MMO (like WoW) where different equipment is used in PVP and in PVE (a whole stat is dedicated solely to fighting against other players), equipment and spells/abilities in NWN are pretty much universal (with some notable exceptions, like spells having a different effect on PCs) for fighting NPCs and players alike.

 

I also took your argument about balancing things using the same stat (AC) into consideration and I'm fairly convinced now. Yes, as you said, I planned on modifying AB via OnEquip scripts (and maybe also via OnHearbeat one to ensure the PC is still penalized, since there are ways of removing a supernatural effect), but modifying AC instead might, indeed, be an easier and more secure option.

               
               

               
            

[Legacy_HipMaestro]

               

I don't know if I agree with the original premise that a 2-handed weapon handicaps a player.  It depends.

 

As MrZork has already cited in detail that environment is going to determine where the real advantages lie. They can be itemized for evaluation by a brief orientation period.

 

For one thing, most all the 1H weapons use a x2 multiplier for damage.  The 3 exceptions being warhammer & battleaxe (both martial) and the dwarven waraxe (exotic, so requires a peripheral feat), all x3.  Of these three, only the two axes can be keened by magical means (ignoring the fact that any melee weapon can possess the Keen item property thereby nerfing any value of Keen Edge).

 

The crit multiplier can become a huge factor when dealing with DR, damage resistance and disrupting casting.  The weapon master class can increase the damage so significantly that what appears to be an innocuous advantage can become devastating.  MM's example of a toon with STR 46 Level 40 fighter (though quite impossible STR level including half-orc RDD builds without enhancements or buffs) with a +9 TH bonus becomes +45 just for a mundane scythe master.

 

As magical enhancements are introduced, the effect becomes even more pronounced.  Consider a modest +5 enhancement with 1d6 fire damage.  When that same scythe crits, it will be adding an additional +25 pierce/slash and averaging +15 fire.  So, you'd need to compare a similar exotic S/S set-up like the dwarven axe, which will only reach x4 with the WM multiplier, but get the added +3 from tower (assuming medium race in both cases, naturally).

 

My point is:  besides the environment, it depends on the encounter.  Going toe-to-toe with a melee shielded clone would come down to whether the opposed AC could be "dented" (meaning, fall within the threat range of the 2-handed WM wielder's AB) to take full advantage of the crits.  But even without critting, the 2-hand bonus will be doing that extra bit of damage on every hit, like vs. undead & constructs.  Vs. casters, IMO, the decision is easy... go 2-handed so you stand a chance to disrupt at least the first spell cast. When a scythe is combined in a PM build, now the wielder needs no longer fear the extra landed hits anymore, so can tank easily with just heal potions on hand. 

 

When comparing vs. DWing, the scythe will have fewer opportunities to crit, but will be attacking at a higher AB (+2, at least).  DWing with dwarven war axes, though more damaging, will be done at -4 AB. The question that must be addressed: What is the range of opposing ACs that will be encountered?  That's what will determine the most optimal weapon build.

 

The greataxe would be my second 2-hand weapon preference.  One less feat, more physical damage, but lower overall multiplier than scythe when it comes to using enhanced versions. 

 

Oh, and I find it a bit ironic that among all the discussion about Dual-wield vs. S/S that no one has even hinted that the DW APR is 150% greater than the S/S with extra AC figured in. Or did I miss it somewhere? There are always tradeoffs.  In those tradeoffs lie the intrinsic balance(s).

               
               

               
            

[Legacy_rogueknight333]

               

I don't know if I agree with the original premise that a 2-handed weapon handicaps a player.  It depends...

 

While it is always true that one can posit unusual environments or specialized builds that depart from the usual rules, the OP appears to be dealing with an extremely high-magic situation where every item has a lot of significant bonuses attached to it, and in that sort of environment it could indeed be an important disadvantage to in effect sacrifice an item slot by wielding a two-handed weapon. In that situation, as the magical bonuses associated with the weapon get greater and greater, the additional strength bonus will become an increasingly smaller percentage of the damage it deals (and the higher base damage will constitute an even more insignificant contribution), making it an ever more marginal benefit, while the bonuses attached to the shields will get greater and greater: a Shield +5 confers a huge AC boost, and that is not even taking into account other magical bonuses it might have besides a basic AC enhancement. There would seem to be good reason to think that in this situation a shield is a much more efficient way to use an item slot.

 

For one thing, most all the 1H weapons use a x2 multiplier for damage...The [x3] crit multiplier can become a huge factor when dealing with DR, damage resistance and disrupting casting...

 

...When a scythe is combined in a PM build, now the wielder needs no longer fear the extra landed hits anymore, so can tank easily with just heal potions on hand...

 

As well, environmental considerations can cut both ways. Certainly the above are factors worth considering, but if we are comparing different environments and scenarios, what about one where Devastating Critical is in play? In that case extra critical damage becomes almost meaningless, the important thing would be to just score as many criticals as possible, which certain 1-handed weapons (scimitar, rapier, kukri) can do better than any other. Or what about an environment where supplies of healing resources are strictly limited? That could make having good defense more important than it might otherwise be. Though admittedly, as far as I know, neither is the case in the specific environment under discussion, while some of the scenarios you posit might well apply.

 

...The weapon master class can increase the damage so significantly that what appears to be an innocuous advantage can become devastating.  MM's example of a toon with STR 46 Level 40 fighter (though quite impossible STR level including half-orc RDD builds without enhancements or buffs) with a +9 TH bonus becomes +45 just for a mundane scythe master.

 

I think he is assuming a +12 STR bonus from items, and selecting a basic fighter for the sake of simplicity. In any case, a Weapon Master will of course tend to have better damage output (that is the point of the class) but for purposes of the present discussion comparing a scythe-wielding WM to a WM using scimitar and shield would be much more of an apples to apples comparison. These would have broadly similar offensive capabilities, but with a potentially huge defensive advantage to the latter.

 

Oh, and I find it a bit ironic that among all the discussion about Dual-wield vs. S/S that no one has even hinted that the DW APR is 150% greater than the S/S with extra AC figured in. Or did I miss it somewhere? There are always tradeoffs.  In those tradeoffs lie the intrinsic balance(s).

 

I think this is because discussing dual-wielding in general (which as you suggest offers a very complex and difficult to evaluate set of tradeoffs) is tangential to the main point under discussion: is it worth giving up an item slot for a boost to offensive power? The aspect of dual-wielding relevant to this question would be to compare a single dual-wielded weapon like a Two-Bladed Sword to dual-wielding two distinct weapons. The former has a very slight edge in base damage dealt (which again is almost meaningless if we assume high magical bonuses are attached to all weapons), and some advantages in very specialized situations like Disarming attacks. The latter allows one to equip two items which in a high magic environment can easily come with different and complementary bonuses, and more versatility as well since someone dual-wielding (let us say) short swords has the option of temporarily switching to short sword & shield in a case where increasing defense is especially important.

               
               

               
            

[Legacy_MagicalMaster]

               

That might be it.

So, any comments on balancing things out by penalizing shield wielders?

 

One of the problems is that shields are fine.  Shields +1 are also generally fine.  Even shields +2 are probably fine.  But the AC gap between shield and non-shield keeps increasing -- which is the problem.

 

Well, first of all, I need something universal, i.e. I cannot just add better properties to 2H weapons and that's due to the fact that I have an advanced crafting system for players to use with their Craft Weapon and Craft Armor skills. So, basically, any changes I make need to be changes to base stats of the items or some other kind of universal boost/penalty for all items of a given kind.

 

You could easily add larger damage dice to 2H weapons using the crafting system -- just check the size of the weapon.  Already came up with a system with it in A Peremptory Summons as I mentioned in our PM discussion.  The catch is that it would make it more valuable to vendors so potentially don't let crafted items be vendored.

 

It seems like my earlier suggestion of changing the AC bonus type of the 2H weapons to shield bonus in baseitems.2da would help compensate for the AC disadvantage of not wielding a shield and still scale pretty well with your module's leveling and crafting.

 

Simply giving weapons shield enhancement bonus equal to their enhancement bonus could partially work, yes.

 

IMO, the best solution is likely to be the one that directly addresses the imbalance (e.g. AC deficit) without trying to equalize other related-but-dissimilar quantities.

 

Part of the problem is that there's also a damage deficit.  A 2H may be dealing like 50% more damage than a 1H at level 1 but only like 20% more damage at level 40.  So even if the AC gap is kept constant you have a problem.

 

The crit multiplier can become a huge factor when dealing with DR, damage resistance and disrupting casting.

 

Not really.  Let's say you're fighting an enemy which ignores 10 points of damage per hit and you deal 20 per hit.

With a 20/x3 with keen and improved critical you get 17 hits of 10 damage and 3 hits of 50 damage for 320 damage total.

With 19-20/x2 and keen and improved critical you get 14 hits of 10 damage and 6 hits of 30 damage for 320 damage total.

 

Same total damage.

 

Even if the enemy ignored 20 damage per hit then you have 3 hits for 40 damage versus 6 hits for 20 damage -- still same damage total.

 

And most enemies are going to have their spellcasting disrupted on a crit anyway, frankly, whether it's x2 or x3 (or x4 or x5).

 

MM's example of a toon with STR 46 Level 40 fighter (though quite impossible STR level including half-orc RDD builds without enhancements or buffs) with a +9 TH bonus becomes +45 just for a mundane scythe master.

 

As RogueKnight mentioned, it's simply 17 starting strength with Great Strength VII along with 12 strength from gear.

 

Oh, and I find it a bit ironic that among all the discussion about Dual-wield vs. S/S that no one has even hinted that the DW APR is 150% greater than the S/S with extra AC figured in. Or did I miss it somewhere? There are always tradeoffs.  In those tradeoffs lie the intrinsic balance(s).

 

Dual-wielding is also bad.  It's not simply 150% APR (and if you're hasted then it's not even that) -- it's also a penalty for all attacks and less damage with offhand attacks.


Say your PC has 11 less AB than the enemy has AC.  Your attack schedule is 50%/25%/5%/5%/50% = 1.4 hits per round with 1H/shield.  If you dual wield then you get 40%/15%/5%/5%/40%/15%/50% = 1.7 hits per round.  Which...is a 21.4% improvement.  For three feats and losing a shield.

 

Let's look at two other examples.

 

6 less AB than AC.  1H/shield is 75%/50%/25%/5%/75% = 2.3 hits per round.  DW is 65%/40%/15%/5%/65%/40%/75% = 3.05 hits per round.  So that's a bit better, but still only a 32.6% improvement.

 

16 less AB than AC.  1H/shield is 25%/5%/5%/5%/25% = 0.65 hits per round.  DW is 15%/5%/5%/5%/15%/5%/25% = 0.75 hits per round...or a 15.4% improvement.  Not looking so hot at all.

 

Again, this isn't factoring in lower damage on off-hand attacks or the three feat investment that is needed.  And to put things in perspective, 1 AB is usually 10-15% more hits per round...so if there was a feat that you could repeatedly select to get 1 AB then three of those plus 1H/shield would give better offense PLUS better defense.

 

Along with improving 2H, I also made a system to improve dual-wield.  Basically just gives 2 extra AB to dual-wielders (and 4 if using a non-light weapon so you CAN do something like dual bastard swords).

 

a Shield +5 confers a huge AC boost, and that is not even taking into account other magical bonuses it might have besides a basic AC enhancement. There would seem to be good reason to think that in this situation a shield is a much more efficient way to use an item slot.

 

Yep.

 

As well, environmental considerations can cut both ways. Certainly the above are factors worth considering, but if we are comparing different environments and scenarios, what about one where Devastating Critical is in play? In that case extra critical damage becomes almost meaningless, the important thing would be to just score as many criticals as possible, which certain 1-handed weapons (scimitar, rapier, kukri) can do better than any other. Or what about an environment where supplies of healing resources are strictly limited? That could make having good defense more important than it might otherwise be. Though admittedly, as far as I know, neither is the case in the specific environment under discussion, while some of the scenarios you posit might well apply.

 

Well said.

 

And, in fact, people usually die in NWN due to lack of defense -- I've never seen a situation that has a DPR (damage per round) check.  Almost always about being able to survive and wear something down.  Which makes 2Hs even less appealing.

 

In any case, a Weapon Master will of course tend to have better damage output (that is the point of the class) but for purposes of the present discussion comparing a scythe-wielding WM to a WM using scimitar and shield would be much more of an apples to apples comparison. These would have broadly similar offensive capabilities, but with a potentially huge defensive advantage to the latter.

 

I think this is because discussing dual-wielding in general (which as you suggest offers a very complex and difficult to evaluate set of tradeoffs) is tangential to the main point under discussion: is it worth giving up an item slot for a boost to offensive power

 

Exactly for the former.

 

For the latter, the general question of whether dual-wielding is worth it also seems relevant to the topic.  It's also a small offensive bonus in exchanging for giving up a ton of defense...and also takes 3 feats to boot.

               
               

               
            

[Legacy_Shadooow]

               

I didnt read it all. But basically, the better damage bonuses and enhancements on weapons (ie, higher magic environment) the more advantage dualweaponers do get. Because the 50% dmg on offhand weapon apply only for damage from strenght not other bonuses and those others usually gets much higher than the str bonus in such environments.

 

The only disadvantage is the cost - you pay/need to find out two weapons, not just one.

               
               

               
            

[Legacy_Grani]

               

I'm considering switching my module in the making into lower magic environment. I just get the feeling that the game is more balanced in general when item enhancements are fewer and less powerful.

 

Well, I do realize the results could have been different if I had used different equipment and that there are more things to consider, like fighting against mages or multiple opponents, but I just did a little practical test to determine how well each set does against each other in simple melee.

 

I've created three level 40 fighters, one specializing in longswords, one in longswords + shortswords, and one in greatswords. Then I gave each of them identical equipment consisting of lvl15 items, with the exception of main hand and off-hand items, where I've given them their respectable items of choice, also lvl15. (I made sure the level of these items wasn't increased with properties useless for this test, like spell resistances, etc.)

 

Here are the results.

1H/1H vs 2H - every match I tried ended with 1H/1H's victory. That's not to say these fights were one-sided, since he was ending on the verge of death most of the time.

2H vs 1H/S - in this case, 2H won every fight

1H/1H vs 1H/S - out of 6 fights I tried, each set won exactly 3 of them

 

Looks like dual-wielders would have an overall advantage in such an environment.

 

My methodology might not be ideal, but I thought it might interest you guys.

 

PS: Oh, I've also given them fortitude high enough to avoid deaths due to devastating critical.

 

Edit: I've just repeated these tests, this time using a greatsword, a shortsword and longswords with exact same properties (simple enhancement bonuses). Most of the results were the same, with the exception of 1H/1H vs 1H/S, which this time ended always with 1H/S winning.

So, it's kind of balanced in a way. Rock-paper-scissors kind of balance, but still.

               
               

               
            

[Legacy_MagicalMaster]

               

My methodology might not be ideal, but I thought it might interest you guys.

 

Unfortunately, it is very far from ideal in several ways.  For example...

 

Then I gave each of them identical equipment consisting of lvl15 items, with the exception of main hand and off-hand items, where I've given them their respectable items of choice, also lvl15. (I made sure the level of these items wasn't increased with properties useless for this test, like spell resistances, etc.)

 

What does this even mean?

 

What are "level 15 items?"  Meaning items that the toolset claims a level 15 can use?  The toolset is completely clueless about item value, something like 50 resistance to a damage type is cheaper than like 25% immunity to it or something along those lines.  This is why ILR is terrible by default and meaningless.

 

Even laying that aside, we'd need to know more -- like the total AB and AC of the PCs.  Dual-wielding will do better if enemy AC is so low that the penality to AB doesn't matter, for example.  2H will do better than 1H/Shield if the shield AC doesn't matter due to AC being low in general relative to AB.  If damage resistance is in play then that makes a huge difference.  Etc.

 

In general, though...

 

I'm considering switching my module in the making into lower magic environment. I just get the feeling that the game is more balanced in general when item enhancements are fewer and less powerful.

 

Very much so.  For level 40 characters, bonuses of about 7 is the sweet spot, given or take a point or two based on the specific environment.  For level 20 characters, bonuses of about 4 is the sweet spot.  Past those points the AC tends to outscale the AB, below those points the AB tends to outscale the AC.

 

In a mundane environment, for example, a level 40 fighter would have 46 AB (assuming +0 strength) and 27 AC (full plate, tower shield, 1 dex AC, Armor Skin, cross-class Tumble).  In a +20 environment, a level 40 fighter would have 72 AB (assuming +12 strength) and 127 AC.  Going from AB being 19 higher than AC to being 56 lower.  In a +7 environment you'd have 59 AB (assuming +12 strength) and 62 AC.

 

Basically every increased enhancement bonus is 1 AB and 5 AC, so AC rapidly outscales AB without BAB or stat increases or feats from leveling.

               
               

               
            

[Legacy_WhiZard]

               

The cost argument would not apply to the double weapons.  But looking at the strength argument the double weapons are still competitive with the two-handed weapons even with a decently high strength.  Weapon masters might easily favor the double weapons, as they will likely be taking fighter for feats and get epic weapon specialization to boost damage beyond the typical +5 or whatever enhancement.  Let's compare the greatsword and great axe to the two-bladed sword and double axe.  If one assumes four main hand APR (with the addition of 2 from dual-wielding) then in order for the two handed to keep up with the double weapon the strength modifier will have to be at least 1.23 times the damage bonus (and that 1.23 is under ideal conditions, and usually averages around 1.5 but will always be less than 2).  If we look at epic weapon specialization with the +5 enhancement we are then looking at a strength score of 44 for the two-handed to win on average.  Easy for an RDD, but otherwise the double weapons will often win damage-wise as long as they are heavily supplemented with feats.

 

 

For one thing, most all the 1H weapons use a x2 multiplier for damage.  The 3 exceptions being warhammer & battleaxe (both martial) and the dwarven waraxe (exotic, so requires a peripheral feat), all x3.  Of these three, only the two axes can be keened by magical means (ignoring the fact that any melee weapon can possess the Keen item property thereby nerfing any value of Keen Edge).

 

 

You missed the hand axe, which can be finessed and dual-wielded at the same time.

               
               

               
            

[Legacy_Terrorble]

               

In my playing experience, the survivability benefits of a shield pretty much exceed any benefits provided by 2H or double weapon.

 

In my own module, I did a few basic things to make 2H and double weapons more playable. 2H get enough damage bonus to give them double their STR modifier.  Equiping a double-weapon or quarterstaff gives +2 shield AC and can be improved by +1 for every 10 parry skill points.  I also reserve the best weapon enchantments for larger weapons.  I won't argue that this is balanced, but it's made these options more viable and fun for me.

               
               

               
            

[Legacy_Grani]

               

Unfortunately, it is very far from ideal in several ways.  For example...

 

 

What does this even mean?

 

What are "level 15 items?"  Meaning items that the toolset claims a level 15 can use?  The toolset is completely clueless about item value, something like 50 resistance to a damage type is cheaper than like 25% immunity to it or something along those lines.  This is why ILR is terrible by default and meaningless.

 

 

Yes, that's what I meant by level 15. But worry not, I know that toolset's evaluation of an item is very often... dumb.

That's why I have several guidelines that will apply both in my module's item creation and applied in this test I conducted as well.

One of them is exactly what you were sceptical about: no damage immunities granted by items (they are OP to begin with due to possibility of stacking, then we have what you said about their value being ridiculously low for how powerful they are).

 

In other words, I've taken it into consideration, so don't worry.

I, on the other hand, am under impression that ILR is quite a nice guideline after considering some anomalies like the above one. Well, at least on lower levels, because on higher ones the evaluation of items does get crazy.

 

 

Even laying that aside, we'd need to know more -- like the total AB and AC of the PCs.  Dual-wielding will do better if enemy AC is so low that the penality to AB doesn't matter, for example.  2H will do better than 1H/Shield if the shield AC doesn't matter due to AC being low in general relative to AB.  If damage resistance is in play then that makes a huge difference.  Etc.

Of course, I wholeheartedly agree with that. One set of equipment will always be better suited to fighting some type(s) of characters, while the other will allow you to devastate some others. That's why I didn't specifically pick items that would pulverize the other size, but just some general inventory that an average player might have, with the exception of not having any properties that can help against casters.

Damage resistance was not in play, but I just repeated this test adding 25 slashing resistance (I don't plan on allowing higher item resistances than that when it comes to physical damage) and the result was generally the same. Not every match was won by a character that was "supposed" to win, but considering all matches between two given characters, it was pretty much same story.

 

Edit: In case it interests you (all characters were humans, so no size modifier applied), 1H/S character had 44AC, 2H and 1H/1H had 35AC alike. Don't remember AB though, and can't check it at the moment, so this info alone is pretty much useless right now.