Community

Oct 11, 2012 -- 4:01PM, Hebitsuikaza wrote:

There is sort of a problem about basing an ability you are going to be able to use at level 1 and at level 20 or 30 on a base +1/-1 or +2/-2.

At level one, those modifiers can seem like a fairly substantial swing. Well, they are...

Regardless of one's level, a +1 or -1 is the equivalent of a +5% or -5% chance to hit any particular thing. As you get high level, you get plenty of +1 bonuses from various sources-- increased attributes, BAB, magical equipment, often utilized spells, etc. Once one has a +20 to hit, a +1 or -1 seems to reduce in importance... except that your equally-leveled challenges have been increasing AC at the same rate. So, in the end, the +1 or -1 still equals out to a 5% difference either way.

Now, how about damage? Well, if you are rolling a d8 then your average damage is 4. A +1 is basically a 25% increase in your damage. If you are playing a character with a maximum strength (18 unless you are an orc or something) then you roll 1d8+4. Your average damage is 8. A +1 increases your damage by 12.5%-- still a much larger difference than the 5% you are losing. This also means a strong character really gains only half the benefit a weak character would from this.

But what about when you get to higher levels? Once your get your +3 magical weapon that deals an extra +1d6 fire damage, once you have features or skills that give you a +2 to your overall damage, once your increase your strength to 20? Okay, then you are rolling 1d8+10. Your average damage is 17.  Surprisingly enough a +1 increase is still a +5.8% increase in your damage which means you are still gaining more than you are losing, but it is no where near the shift it used to be. And it certainly won't make up for the fact that you could be wielding a shield or second weapon in that hand instead.

Aren't we talking about 5th edition, though, where a +20 to hit isn't going to happen, while damage can get boosted rapidly?

Oct 11, 2012 -- 1:44PM, Mand12 wrote:

Oct 11, 2012 -- 1:34PM, Trance-Zg wrote:

Oct 11, 2012 -- 11:41AM, Valdark wrote:

In the case of the long sword the second hand offers no benifit and in fact hinders your range of motion.

I guess you never grasped a longsword then?

Or a baseball bat, for that matter.

Quoting both so I can reply to each thing in one post. It's a two-fer! :-)

Anyway, first: well, depends on what your definition of "longsword" is, I suppose. What D&D calls a longsword isn't.

As for the baseball bat - very, very different swing. Try a baseball bat swing with a sword sometime against a competent swordsman and watch how fast you get "killed." Or, depending on the group, kicked out of the list for being exceptionally unsafe. In any event, swinging a baseball bat and swinging a sword are two different things (as is, say, swinging a baseball bat and a golf club, for instance - just because something can be swung with both hands doesn't mean it's the same style of swing).

Oct 12, 2012 -- 7:22AM, dmgorgon wrote:

I agree, that two handed weapons have extra damage factored into the damage dice.   But if that's the case then Bastard swords should have two handed damage and single handed damage listed.

Yes, it should. Likewise, any other weapon that can be used with one or two hands.