|
5 months ago ::
Jan 21, 2013 - 9:42AM
#1
|
|
|
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.
|
|
|
|
5 months ago ::
Jan 21, 2013 - 10:10AM
#2
|
Date Joined:
Apr 12, 2010
|
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 
|
|
|
|
5 months ago ::
Jan 21, 2013 - 11:53AM
#3
|
Date Joined:
Nov 21, 2012
|
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.
|
|
|
|
5 months ago ::
Jan 22, 2013 - 12:08AM
#4
|
Date Joined:
Jan 15, 2009
|
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.
<Ioun> they're apparently making a MolIsCool pp
|
|
|
|
5 months ago ::
Jan 22, 2013 - 3:06AM
#5
|
|
|
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.
|
|
|
|
5 months ago ::
Jan 22, 2013 - 12:31PM
#6
|
Date Joined:
Jan 22, 2013
|
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 |
|
|
|
|
5 months ago ::
Jan 22, 2013 - 12:53PM
#7
|
|
|
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
|
|
|
|
5 months ago ::
Jan 23, 2013 - 12:33AM
#8
|
Date Joined:
Nov 21, 2012
|
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.
|
|
|
|
5 months ago ::
Jan 24, 2013 - 5:07AM
#9
|
Date Joined:
Jan 24, 2013
|
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.
|
|
|
|
5 months ago ::
Jan 24, 2013 - 5:17AM
#10
|
|
|
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.
|
|
|
