Two hand weapons worthless?

I have been theory-crafting fighters with the current packet and I am unable to find anything that would compell me to take a two-handed weapon.  I will exclude polearms for his discussion because of the polearm specific feats.  I can not find anywhere in the packet any statement that gives 1.5x damage modifier to two hand weapons in this edition.  When I run out actual character numbers vs ACs of monsters at the same level two-weapon fighting comes out solidly ahead of two handed weapons across the board.  Seeing as two-weapon fighting offers a number of feats that can enhance a player and two-handed has none I am baffled by the design here.  Is there something I am missing?  The big assumptions I am making are as follows:

1) Martial dice can be added to ANY hit (including light weapon hits in Two-Weapon fighting).  The fighter is worded in such a way that it leads me to believe that this is not "bonus damage" which would be excluded from Two-Weapon fighting, but damage that is triggered off of a successful hit with any weapon you are proficient with.

2) There is no inherent damage bonus for wielding a weapon with two hands other than the base weapon damage.

If those two are true, then the prevalent force in determining total damage output will tend towards the spec with the higher chance of landing a hit on any specific turn.   Even with the -2 penalty the chances of getting a hit with two weapons are much higher than the probablity of a hit with a single weapon.  If 10 out of 20 rolls will hit with a single weapon, then 12.8 out of 20 turns will see at least one hit with a pair if both swing at -2 modifier (1-(1-8/20)2).  

The higher your level, the more reliant on martial dice you become, so the bigger the advantage two-weapon fighting gets.  Add this together with ripost, two-weapon strike and two-weapon defense and you would be a fool to pick a two handed weapon over two-weapon fighting. The 1-2 points of additional damage you get for a weapon with the two-handed requirement is laughable in comparison to the "pros" column two-weapon fighting has.
1) Jury is still out on rhus one from what ive read on these boards.

So if you take away the asumption of 1 the difference is tiny at higher level. Its there all right but with some good feat support in coming pkaytests Im convinced it will level out. They cant introduce barbarians without 2handed weapons being viable ;)
Only real benefit to the greatsword, greataxe and maul is the d12 damage die. If they make your martial damage die relate to your weapon damage die, like I've heard them talk about on one of the live chats, then that would be a huge benefit. Right now it hardly makes up for the benefit of two-weapon fighting. Presumably there will be many more feats, though. Last packet two-weapon fighting was worthless, and now it's great.
Right now you are right; at moderate and high levels that +1 average damage is absolutely not worth giving up 1 AC (or reach, or whatever).  They've said that they are re-working martial damage dice though, and that may mean that weapon damage is going to become more important.
They've already mentioned making two handed weapons more viable by redesigning MDD. Just have to wait for the next packet I suppose. I reckon it'll be out early february.
I have been theory-crafting fighters with the current packet and I am unable to find anything that would compell me to take a two-handed weapon.  I will exclude polearms for his discussion because of the polearm specific feats.  I can not find anywhere in the packet any statement that gives 1.5x damage modifier to two hand weapons in this edition.  When I run out actual character numbers vs ACs of monsters at the same level two-weapon fighting comes out solidly ahead of two handed weapons across the board.  Seeing as two-weapon fighting offers a number of feats that can enhance a player and two-handed has none I am baffled by the design here.  Is there something I am missing?  The big assumptions I am making are as follows:

1) Martial dice can be added to ANY hit (including light weapon hits in Two-Weapon fighting).  The fighter is worded in such a way that it leads me to believe that this is not "bonus damage" which would be excluded from Two-Weapon fighting, but damage that is triggered off of a successful hit with any weapon you are proficient with.

2) There is no inherent damage bonus for wielding a weapon with two hands other than the base weapon damage.

If those two are true, then the prevalent force in determining total damage output will tend towards the spec with the higher chance of landing a hit on any specific turn.   Even with the -2 penalty the chances of getting a hit with two weapons are much higher than the probablity of a hit with a single weapon.  If 10 out of 20 rolls will hit with a single weapon, then 12.8 out of 20 turns will see at least one hit with a pair if both swing at -2 modifier (1-(1-8/20)2).  

The higher your level, the more reliant on martial dice you become, so the bigger the advantage two-weapon fighting gets.  Add this together with ripost, two-weapon strike and two-weapon defense and you would be a fool to pick a two handed weapon over two-weapon fighting. The 1-2 points of additional damage you get for a weapon with the two-handed requirement is laughable in comparison to the "pros" column two-weapon fighting has.

I'd say just give certain two-handed weapons (Great Sword, Great Axe, War Hammer) a property (like Finesse or Versatile) call this property "Grievous" and when inflicting critical damage with this weapon, double your strength bonus.
8.8 My House Rules! (roll the d20) *click to roll*8.8
I have been theory-crafting fighters with the current packet and I am unable to find anything that would compell me to take a two-handed weapon.  I will exclude polearms for his discussion because of the polearm specific feats.  I can not find anywhere in the packet any statement that gives 1.5x damage modifier to two hand weapons in this edition.  When I run out actual character numbers vs ACs of monsters at the same level two-weapon fighting comes out solidly ahead of two handed weapons across the board.  Seeing as two-weapon fighting offers a number of feats that can enhance a player and two-handed has none I am baffled by the design here.  Is there something I am missing?  The big assumptions I am making are as follows:

1) Martial dice can be added to ANY hit (including light weapon hits in Two-Weapon fighting).  The fighter is worded in such a way that it leads me to believe that this is not "bonus damage" which would be excluded from Two-Weapon fighting, but damage that is triggered off of a successful hit with any weapon you are proficient with.

2) There is no inherent damage bonus for wielding a weapon with two hands other than the base weapon damage.

If those two are true, then the prevalent force in determining total damage output will tend towards the spec with the higher chance of landing a hit on any specific turn.   Even with the -2 penalty the chances of getting a hit with two weapons are much higher than the probablity of a hit with a single weapon.  If 10 out of 20 rolls will hit with a single weapon, then 12.8 out of 20 turns will see at least one hit with a pair if both swing at -2 modifier (1-(1-8/20)2).  

The higher your level, the more reliant on martial dice you become, so the bigger the advantage two-weapon fighting gets.  Add this together with ripost, two-weapon strike and two-weapon defense and you would be a fool to pick a two handed weapon over two-weapon fighting. The 1-2 points of additional damage you get for a weapon with the two-handed requirement is laughable in comparison to the "pros" column two-weapon fighting has.

I'd say just give certain two-handed weapons (Great Sword, Great Axe, War Hammer) a property (like Finesse or Versatile) call this property "Grievous" and when inflicting critical damage with this weapon, double your strength bonus.

Not nearly enought. A 5% chance of 5 extra damage when you're hitting for +41 damage anyway doesn't make up for anything

How about bringing back the x3 critical for these weapons? x2 = max + [W], x3 = max + 2[W]. Give two handed non-polearms a significant critical bonus. That's what a greataxe is for anyway, a clunky, slow weapon, but absolutely devastating on that perfect hit.
Right now you are right; at moderate and high levels that +1 average damage is absolutely not worth giving up 1 AC (or reach, or whatever).  They've said that they are re-working martial damage dice though, and that may mean that weapon damage is going to become more important.



This is innacurate. You get on average +2 damage from a 1d12 weapon over a 1d10 weapon. That is enough to kill enemies faster so that your best defense (not getting attacked) happens almost twice as often as a +1 AC character with 2 less damage per round. Do the math you'll see what I'm talking about. The balance point is +2 AC, and if they go for using weapon dice for martial damage dice, then it goes to +3 AC.



The average of a d12 is 6. Average of a d10 is 5. That's a difference of one. Might want to look over you math. And if you are doing 43 vs 42 damage each round, then a +1 AC is a lot more valuable.
Well, with the right feat the Glaive is a pretty cool weapon. Advantage on opportunity attacks and making it a double weapon is pretty powerful for a feat. Plus reach.
Well, with the right feat the Glaive is a pretty cool weapon. Advantage on opportunity attacks and making it a double weapon is pretty powerful for a feat. Plus reach.



The polearm is a bit different. The main concern is about weapons such as the greatsword and greataxe.
How about bringing back the x3 critical for these weapons? x2 = max + [W], x3 = max + 2[W]. Give two handed non-polearms a significant critical bonus. That's what a greataxe is for anyway, a clunky, slow weapon, but absolutely devastating on that perfect hit.

Yep
A rogue with a bowl of slop can be a controller. WIZARD PC: Can I substitute Celestial Roc Guano for my fireball spells? DM: Awesome. Yes. When in doubt, take action.... that's generally the best course. Even Sun Tsu knew that, and he didn't have internets.
Right now you are right; at moderate and high levels that +1 average damage is absolutely not worth giving up 1 AC (or reach, or whatever).  They've said that they are re-working martial damage dice though, and that may mean that weapon damage is going to become more important.



This is innacurate. You get on average +2 damage from a 1d12 weapon over a 1d10 weapon. That is enough to kill enemies faster so that your best defense (not getting attacked) happens almost twice as often as a +1 AC character with 2 less damage per round. Do the math you'll see what I'm talking about. The balance point is +2 AC, and if they go for using weapon dice for martial damage dice, then it goes to +3 AC.



The average of a d12 is 6. Average of a d10 is 5. That's a difference of one. Might want to look over you math. And if you are doing 43 vs 42 damage each round, then a +1 AC is a lot more valuable.

The average on a d12 is actually 6.5 and on a d10 the average is actually 5.5. It's still a difference of one.

If fighting an opponent with 100 hit points, that means the opponent is dropped with a d12 weapon on average, on hit number 16.

If using a d10 weapon, the opponent drops on average, on hit number 19.

That makes the d10 weapon about 85% as effective as the d12 weapon.

It doesn't get any better if the opponent has 1000 hit points. The d10 weapon requiring 154 hits, the d12 weapon requiring 182... again about 85% as effective.

At the lowest levels of play however...

With an opponent with 10 hit points, the d10 weapon has an automatic 10% chance to drop, but on average requires about 2 hits to drop the opponent.

The d12 weapon also requires about 2 hits to drop the opponent, but this is offset by the fact that it is 2.5 times as likely (25%) to drop the opponent (on a roll of 10, 11, or 12) on the first hit.




A rogue with a bowl of slop can be a controller. WIZARD PC: Can I substitute Celestial Roc Guano for my fireball spells? DM: Awesome. Yes. When in doubt, take action.... that's generally the best course. Even Sun Tsu knew that, and he didn't have internets.
Right now you are right; at moderate and high levels that +1 average damage is absolutely not worth giving up 1 AC (or reach, or whatever).  They've said that they are re-working martial damage dice though, and that may mean that weapon damage is going to become more important.



This is innacurate. You get on average +2 damage from a 1d12 weapon over a 1d10 weapon. That is enough to kill enemies faster so that your best defense (not getting attacked) happens almost twice as often as a +1 AC character with 2 less damage per round. Do the math you'll see what I'm talking about. The balance point is +2 AC, and if they go for using weapon dice for martial damage dice, then it goes to +3 AC.



The average of a d12 is 6. Average of a d10 is 5. That's a difference of one. Might want to look over you math. And if you are doing 43 vs 42 damage each round, then a +1 AC is a lot more valuable.

The average on a d12 is actually 6.5 and on a d10 the average is actually 5.5. It's still a difference of one.

If fighting an opponent with 100 hit points, that means the opponent is dropped with a d12 weapon on average, on hit number 16.

If using a d10 weapon, the opponent drops on average, on hit number 19.

That makes the d10 weapon about 85% as effective as the d12 weapon.

It doesn't get any better if the opponent has 1000 hit points. The d10 weapon requiring 154 hits, the d12 weapon requiring 182... again about 85% as effective.

At the lowest levels of play however...

With an opponent with 10 hit points, the d10 weapon has an automatic 10% chance to drop, but on average requires about 2 hits to drop the opponent.

The d12 weapon also requires about 2 hits to drop the opponent, but this is offset by the fact that it is 2.5 times as likely (25%) to drop the opponent (on a roll of 10, 11, or 12) on the first hit.





It looks like you aren't factoring in martial damage dice, which is the main concern when comparing two handed weapons to one handed weapons. Because with martial damage dice, that bigger hit die for the two handed weapon is negligable.
Right now you are right; at moderate and high levels that +1 average damage is absolutely not worth giving up 1 AC (or reach, or whatever).  They've said that they are re-working martial damage dice though, and that may mean that weapon damage is going to become more important.



This is innacurate. You get on average +2 damage from a 1d12 weapon over a 1d10 weapon. That is enough to kill enemies faster so that your best defense (not getting attacked) happens almost twice as often as a +1 AC character with 2 less damage per round. Do the math you'll see what I'm talking about. The balance point is +2 AC, and if they go for using weapon dice for martial damage dice, then it goes to +3 AC.



The average of a d12 is 6. Average of a d10 is 5. That's a difference of one. Might want to look over you math. And if you are doing 43 vs 42 damage each round, then a +1 AC is a lot more valuable.

The average on a d12 is actually 6.5 and on a d10 the average is actually 5.5. It's still a difference of one.

If fighting an opponent with 100 hit points, that means the opponent is dropped with a d12 weapon on average, on hit number 16.

If using a d10 weapon, the opponent drops on average, on hit number 19.

That makes the d10 weapon about 85% as effective as the d12 weapon.

It doesn't get any better if the opponent has 1000 hit points. The d10 weapon requiring 154 hits, the d12 weapon requiring 182... again about 85% as effective.

At the lowest levels of play however...

With an opponent with 10 hit points, the d10 weapon has an automatic 10% chance to drop, but on average requires about 2 hits to drop the opponent.

The d12 weapon also requires about 2 hits to drop the opponent, but this is offset by the fact that it is 2.5 times as likely (25%) to drop the opponent (on a roll of 10, 11, or 12) on the first hit.





It looks like you aren't factoring in martial damage dice, which is the main concern when comparing two handed weapons to one handed weapons. Because with martial damage dice, that bigger hit die for the two handed weapon is negligable.



Except in the latest articles they are talking about using the weapon die for the martial damage dice roll. In which case you do kill monsters about twice as fast and therefore are about equivalent to a +3 AC bonus if you were using a one handed weapon and a shield. Sorry if I didn't explain the context of my reasoning.


The latest articles have not been implemented yet.  Please do not use rumours and speculations as fact, as you can see, it will just confuse everyone.

As it stands right now, with the packet we have NOW, two handed weapons are overshadowed by the MDD.
Youve also forgot about magic weapons, atributes, monster abilities and other players and monsters.
In a 1 on 1 against a brute your level that has no abilities VS a character with 10 str and no martial die or spells your math is very correct Orkkiller.
 That just never happens in any of my games.
-The brute usually has friends, and so do you.
-The monster can have abilites such as poison/desease on hit, then you definately want to not be hit rather than hit harder.
-Unless you are a wizard/cleric with non combat spells and 10 str...you are going to add something to that nearly doubles (at level 1) that 5.5 or 6.5, and then your math is right out.

 And did I remember to mention the other 8 Kobolds that are going to jump you? Your 1v1 theoretical AC is not going to matter anything to them ;)
Perhaps using a weapon 2-handed should increase the size of the martial damage dice when it is used for damage, from d6 -> d8?  Then it scales as martial damage dice are added - not sure if this is too dramatic of an increase though.  It would allow for there to be notable differences between using a bastard sword (or improvised weapons) one-handed or two-handed, so I think that's preferrable to simply changing the stats of two-handed weapons.
Perhaps using a weapon 2-handed should increase the size of the martial damage dice when it is used for damage, from d6 -> d8?  Then it scales as martial damage dice are added - not sure if this is too dramatic of an increase though.  It would allow for there to be notable differences between using a bastard sword (or improvised weapons) one-handed or two-handed, so I think that's preferrable to simply changing the stats of two-handed weapons.


THAT is clever.  I like that.

See I like MDD because it makes the Fighter be more than his weapons, but as everyone has pointed out, when you get enough dice, it doesn't really matter what you're weilding after a while.  But with this, it's a bit more work, but it's very slick.
Perhaps using a weapon 2-handed should increase the size of the martial damage dice when it is used for damage, from d6 -> d8?  Then it scales as martial damage dice are added - not sure if this is too dramatic of an increase though.  It would allow for there to be notable differences between using a bastard sword (or improvised weapons) one-handed or two-handed, so I think that's preferrable to simply changing the stats of two-handed weapons.


THAT is clever.  I like that.

See I like MDD because it makes the Fighter be more than his weapons, but as everyone has pointed out, when you get enough dice, it doesn't really matter what you're weilding after a while.  But with this, it's a bit more work, but it's very slick.


the thing is, anyone with enough weapons training can tell you that it really doesnt matter what you are wielding. thats why i like this fighter. it is more realistic. the damage rates should come down to the skill of the suer, and the weapon is just the medium he chooses to do it with
Sign In to post comments