Diversifying Fighting Styles (was: One-Handed Fighting)

[Clovenhoof]

I may be repeating myself, but I don't think upping raw damage per hit is the way to go. SHF will _always_ lag behind THF when you compare the damage. You know the starting situation:
- SHF weapons are 1d10 to 1d12 max, THF are up to 2d8/d10+d8/2d10 whatever --> 4 pts average difference
- SHF get's 1x Str bonus, THF gets 1,5x Str bonus --> 3 pts average difference
- Power Attack gives SHF 1x bonus, THF 2x bonus --> 3 pts average difference
- SHF weapons also usually have lower AP values than THF, just as an aside.

So the total is 10 points of difference on average, not taking critical hits or any other special situations (like Great Cleave) into account. What I'm trying to say is that you can't make SHF competitive on that ground, cuz let's face it, giving someone a 10-point damage bonus just because he's fighting one-handed would look a bit ridiculous.

So again, what we need to do is find a niche, a situation in which SHF is better than TWF, THF and S&B. That situation could be a certain type of opposition, or a certain tactical environment, you name it. The only important thing is that this niche is (at least) as game-relevant as the niches the other styles excel in.

The appropriate niche for THF would be high DR opponents.
For TWF it would be larger numbers of low DR opponents, and also for using Sneak Attack.(*)
S&B should be, of course, for situations where defense matters (but we have seen that it doesn't really pay off with the current defense system).

So the questions we need to answer are:
- what would be a suitable niche for SHF, and
- how can it be achieved?

Fire away.

Edit: one possible proposition might be opponents that are hard to hit. This could be easily realized by some attack bonus for SHF. But again, stuff already _is_ easy enough to hit, so you hardly need a specialist for that with the current ruleset.

*) Note about Sneak Attack: I just had an idea for a Sneak Attack limitation: you only get to apply SA if you either pierce the foe's DR with your normal damage, or get in a Finesse attack. This should reflect that it's no use stabbing at someone's heart if it's protected by a thick layer of plate.

 

[Ichabod]

One justification for, let's say, a feat that gave a substantial bonus to hit while fighting 1h is that it's the inverse of how 2w sort of works/has worked in D&D. Conan makes it pitifully easy to fight 2w with no penalties, but the basic idea of 2w fighting is that it's harder than normal and comes with penalties to hit. Logically, then, 1w fighting is relatively easy. With a bit of hand waving, 1h fighting is much easier to the experienced, i.e. feat-spending, fighter than s&b or 2h.

But, why is this useful? After all, it's well known that hitting in this game is easy. As you say, the intention is not to make 1h better than other options but to give it a niche, and sometimes, hitting isn't easy. Sometimes, you want to finesse by something with a ton of DR or want to jack your 1h PA to ludicrous minuses to your attack roll or really want to hit with your third attack that has virtually no bonus or whatever. So, there does seem to be that niche.

Next, let me bring up Weapon Focus just to dismiss a possible argument against this idea. The feat is garbage. Sadly, it's a prereq for feats that aren't. At a minimum, it should be something like +1 to hit with every weapon or have some sort of scaling benefit. That scaling benefit seems to be the simple way to go.

So:
Free and Easy
Prerequisites: None
When wielding a weapon in one hand and with another hand free*, gain half (rounded up) of your BAB to your attack rolls.

* For dudes with more than two arms, I'm thinking you should have an armed hand and an unarmed hand free as a fighting pair to get the benefits for a particular weapon.

This may seem more powerful than it is. I'd consider weakening it in some way if it was a nobrainer too often, though PA and Cleave are virtually required for fighty sorts so even that threshold may not matter. I'm just not feeling the nobrainerness of this. This doesn't help kill stuff anywhere near as much as wielding a 2h weapon. This doesn't give free weapon attacks like 2w fighting. It doesn't turn you into a wall like s&b. A line about making no unarmed attacks with one's offhand(s) could be added to prevent weird unarmed attack combos.

 

[Clovenhoof]

Conan makes it pitifully easy to fight 2w with no penalties, but the basic idea of 2w fighting is that it's harder than normal and comes with penalties to hit.

Well, TWF has been liberated from the typical -2 penalty because it was considered too weak in D&D by a wide range of players. Most TWFers use two light weapons so they can't benefit from PA, and in Conan each strike is reduced by DR separately, so most TWFers have a real problem when confronted with high-DR opposition. I guess that's why the 'Goose felt it justified to make TWF penalty-free.

Free and Easy
Prerequisites: None
When wielding a weapon in one hand and with another hand free*, gain half (rounded up) of your BAB to your attack rolls.

Such a substantial Attack bonus increase as you propose would indeed greatly increase the hit chances on iterative attacks (since Main attacks usually hit anyway). And it would also be incredibly versatile, since you could still use Power Attack and/or Combat Expertise without actually lowering your Hit chances.

This doesn't help kill stuff anywhere near as much as wielding a 2h weapon.

Then it's still too weak. People select certain fighting styles primarily for their ability to kill stuff. And in Conan, the single best method to do this is, you know it, Massive Damage. It doesn't really help to hit with every single attack you get if you only do piddly damage and the hulk remains standing to beat you into the middle of next week on his next turn.

A line about making no unarmed attacks with one's offhand(s) could be added to prevent weird unarmed attack combos.

Actually, I wouldn't worry about unarmed attacks very much. Unarmed is either pretty ineffective (what it is, 1d3 subdual damage?), or if it is effective, it is feat-heavy (IUS and Brawl).

On the contrary, I think it could be _encouraged_ to use the free hand to do something, like for example Trip or Grapple attempts. That's going to make combat more varied and thus cooler, and that's always a good thing.

 

[Trodax]

The appropriate niche for THF would be high DR opponents.
For TWF it would be larger numbers of low DR opponents, and also for using Sneak Attack.(*)
S&B should be, of course, for situations where defense matters (but we have seen that it doesn't really pay off with the current defense system).

So the questions we need to answer are:
- what would be a suitable niche for SHF, and
- how can it be achieved?

Well, what niches are left? It seems plausible that wielding only a single one-handed weapon could give you a little better maneuverability in a fight. Here are some ideas along those lines:

The versatile guy. +1 to hit, +1 dodge, +1 parry as long as you have a free hand.

The master of dodge. +2 dodge as long as you have a free hand (a shield would still protect you better against ranged attacks).

The attack of opportunity expert. Free Combat Reflexes as long as you have a free hand (you could still take the feat to benefit when fighting in a different way). Or one extra attack of opportunity per round (which stacks with Combat Reflexes). Or +2 to hit with AoO, as well as +2 defense against AoO.

The taunting jerk. Each round you may make a DC 15 Cha check as a free action. On a success, one opponent of your choice takes a -2 defense penalty until their next turn. This is only usable as long as you have a free hand (because it allows extension of the middle finger).

(That last one was a joke.)

 

[Clovenhoof]

Increased maneuverability indeed is plausible. It would be fine to base some bonuses off that.
However, Defense Bonuses aren't going to cut it if a Shield gives better results (though a Shield only helps Parry, not Dodge).
Attack bonuses look nice but again, it's already easy to hit stuff in Conan. Maybe it would make a difference for iterative attacks, but if you can use Massive Damage and Great Cleave instead, you don't _need_ to land your iterative attacks.
AoOs rarely occur with normal (i.e. non-Reach) weapons, at least not more than one per round. Many characters will also be immune to AoOs by mid-level so giving them bonuses against AoOs will do nothing for them.

So while the basic idea is good, I'm afraid none of those suggestions will actually have a noticeable effect. I'm having the feeling that the answer is just around the corner and I just can't quite see it.

EDIT: a few more ideas in various directions:

1.) Vital Strike: when fighting SH (i.e. nothing in the off hand), you can aim your blows better and add an extra weapon damage die to _every_ damage roll. This extra die is not multiplied on a critical hit.
This appears grossly imba at first glance but let's do the math first:
SH/VS: 2d12+1xStr+1xPA [best case scenario, Warsword]
THF: 2d8+1,5xStr+2xPA [not even the best weapon]

You'll quickly see that moderately strong characters are better off with SH, and very strong characters can make more of THF.
(If you also impede an attack penalty to 2H weapons, that of course makes SH superior for most values)

2.) or focus more on the thought what you can do with a free hand. The character may be treated as having various feats that benefit from a free hand, such as Improved Trip.
With both hands occupied, you can still make unarmed trip attempts - think of a leg sweep. But with a free hand you can make that a Judo throw, which works better.
Something along those lines, anyway. Doesn't directly increase damage output, but allows you to put yourself in tactically favourable situations.

 

[Trodax]

However, Defense Bonuses aren't going to cut it if a Shield gives better results (though a Shield only helps Parry, not Dodge).

I'm not so sure a dodge bonus couldn't work. For characters whose main defense is dodge, a +2 dodge bonus (or maybe even make it +3?) would be much better than wearing a shield. Characters whose main defense is parry would indeed always be better off with a shield, but they would get use of the bonus against ranged attacks if they happened to find themselves without a shield.

BTW, something I just thought about that I hadn't considered; if you give some sort of bonus for fighting one-handed, would that bonus also apply if you aren't fighting with a weapon at all (I'm thinking of unarmed sorcerers here)? If you give some sort of bonus to the actual attack then this is not an issue, but something like a dodge bonus as discussed here would then be more of a general bonus granted to all characters in the game who don't happen to have their off-hand occupied.

Attack bonuses look nice but again, it's already easy to hit stuff in Conan. Maybe it would make a difference for iterative attacks, but if you can use Massive Damage and Great Cleave instead, you don't _need_ to land your iterative attacks.

It's easy to hit stuff, yes, but remember that any bonus to attack rolls can potentially be turned into more damage, either via Power Attack or because it helps you succeed with finesse attacks (depending on what type of character you are). It won't be competing with two-handers when it comes to damage, though, that's for sure.

AoOs rarely occur with normal (i.e. non-Reach) weapons, at least not more than one per round. Many characters will also be immune to AoOs by mid-level so giving them bonuses against AoOs will do nothing for them.

I agree, AoO's are too rare to really matter.

1.) Vital Strike: when fighting SH (i.e. nothing in the off hand), you can aim your blows better and add an extra weapon damage die to _every_ damage roll. This extra die is not multiplied on a critical hit.
This appears grossly imba at first glance but let's do the math first:
SH/VS: 2d12+1xStr+1xPA [best case scenario, Warsword]
THF: 2d8+1,5xStr+2xPA [not even the best weapon]

You'll quickly see that moderately strong characters are better off with SH, and very strong characters can make more of THF.
(If you also impede an attack penalty to 2H weapons, that of course makes SH superior for most values)

I think this sounds like a little bit too much, and I'm not sure I like the general idea that fighting one-handed should let you deal more raw damage.

2.) or focus more on the thought what you can do with a free hand. The character may be treated as having various feats that benefit from a free hand, such as Improved Trip.
With both hands occupied, you can still make unarmed trip attempts - think of a leg sweep. But with a free hand you can make that a Judo throw, which works better.
Something along those lines, anyway. Doesn't directly increase damage output, but allows you to put yourself in tactically favourable situations.

I like the general idea, but the question is how to implement it. Giving free use of feats I'm not sure I like because it sort of means that fighting one-handed really is a "fighting style" that you plan for your character (and you plan by not taking those feats). In other words, a character who usually fights with sword and shield, and who therefore has learned the Improved Trip feat (if Improved Trip is the freebie you get for fighting one-handed), would not benefit at all from this bonus. I would prefer if the bonus was more situational, so that characters were encouraged to switch around with how they're armed. Don't know if that made any sense.

 

[Majestic7]

I can't help but wonder why one-handed weapons need a boost.

There are already several advantages for using them instead of two-handed weapons:

1) Ease of hiding. You can't take a greatsword to every place, but you can bring a dagger. Even openly, since most of the time they are considered part of a dress and not a weapon. Most urban settings should actually forbid carrying any other weapons on person for everyone who is not a soldier on duty or a noble.

2) Shield. Having a shield can really make a difference. (A shameless ad - this is especially true in the Acheronian Edition, where +3 to Parry is a very significant boost unlike in the vanilla rules.)

3) Finesse fighting. If I remember correctly, only two-handed weapon that can be used with finesse is broadsword (when wielded with both hands). Finesse can be very deadly since it passes straight through DR.

4) Free hand. This can give a definete tactical advantage in some situations, when you can actually hold a torch or something like that. Not to mention some maneuvers.

5) Two-weapon fighting. TWF is good if you can have a really good crit range or have sneak attack capability.

The problem with two-handed weapons killing everyone is not that they do too much damage, but that everyone is too easy to hit...

 

[Clovenhoof]

To quote Ichabod early in this thread,

The common portrayal of the protagonist swordsperson is someone with either a one-handed sword or something akin to a bastard sword. Shields are unusual. Two-handed swords are unusual. Two weapon fighting is unusual.

and we want to encourage players to reflect this style in the game, and you catch mice with bacon so you have to make it attractive mechanics-wise.

 

[Majestic7]

To quote Ichabod early in this thread,

The common portrayal of the protagonist swordsperson is someone with either a one-handed sword or something akin to a bastard sword. Shields are unusual. Two-handed swords are unusual. Two weapon fighting is unusual.

and we want to encourage players to reflect this style in the game, and you catch mice with bacon so you have to make it attractive mechanics-wise.

If you mean characters outside Hyborian time... most swordsmen protagonists that come to mind do not live in a pseudo-medieval society. Rather, they are part of a later age and fight with rapiers etc, in a very different enviroment. Conan fights with whatever he happens to have his hands on at the moment. Sometimes he has two weapons, sometimes a big two-handed weapon, sometimes a one-handed sword.. depending on the circumstances.

Yeah, but if that is your goal, go ahead. I'd do it by creating conditional feats that only work when you have one weapon and the other hand free, such as the Intricate Swordplay, instead of buffing one-handed weapons directly. As it is, they already have plenty of advantages I listed. Granted, the best advantage is that you have a hand free for a shield..but really, any sensible fighter in such age would want a shield to live a little longer.

 

[Clovenhoof]

I'm not so sure a dodge bonus couldn't work. For characters whose main defense is dodge, a +2 dodge bonus (or maybe even make it +3?) would be much better than wearing a shield.

Hm, you may be on to something there. Most defense bonuses indeed focus on improving Parry.

BTW, something I just thought about that I hadn't considered; if you give some sort of bonus for fighting one-handed, would that bonus also apply if you aren't fighting with a weapon at all (I'm thinking of unarmed sorcerers here)?

That would depend on the manner of the bonus, i.e. how you rationalize it. For example, if you give a circumstance bonus based on the fact that you have a weapon to keep your opponent at bay and a hand free to do stuff, then of course this bonus would only apply as long as you actually do wield a weapon.

You could also tie the bonus to some prerequisite that Sorcerers normally don't meet, like - for instance - Martial Weapon Proficiency (i.e. you need to have some proper combat training).

It's easy to hit stuff, yes, but remember that any bonus to attack rolls can potentially be turned into more damage, either via Power Attack or because it helps you succeed with finesse attacks (depending on what type of character you are). It won't be competing with two-handers when it comes to damage, though, that's for sure.

Hmm, that's a point. I'll keep it in mind.

I like the general idea, but the question is how to implement it. Giving free use of feats I'm not sure I like because it sort of means that fighting one-handed really is a "fighting style" that you plan for your character (and you plan by not taking those feats). In other words, a character who usually fights with sword and shield, and who therefore has learned the Improved Trip feat (if Improved Trip is the freebie you get for fighting one-handed), would not benefit at all from this bonus.

I follow you up to this point, but essentially this leads us to the key question whether SHF _should_ be a fighting style in its own right, i.e. a concept you can build a character on, or just a fallback mechanism for characters who are temporarily deprived of their preferred combat style.

So in order to preserve some of the respective feat's usefulness, how about giving not identical but _similar_ situational bonuses for various special moves? This could also be expanded to other fighting styles, each with its own advantages, for example:
* SHF: you gain +4 on Trip attempts. However, you do not negate the AoO.
* S&B: you gain +4 on Bull Rush and Overrun attempts. Again, all other restrictions still apply.
* TWF: you gain +4 on Disarm attempts
* THF: you gain +4 on Sunder attempts

Of course, while this may look neat and logical, this upgrades each fighting style separately and thus doesn't give SHF any edge.

@Majestic:
You also get it in quasi-medieval or mixed-era settings. For example, take the First Flaw trilogy by Abercrombie -- here we have several cultures, the most advanced/civilized ("The Union") being roughly renaissance, fighting with pikes/polearms and crossbows in the field, and rapier and main-gauche in sporting/duel situations. The actual protagonist however is a Northman, a roughly viking-age Barbarian, and unless I missed something he _mostly_ fights with a single (bastard) sword and no shield. Most regular northern warriors however use the typical sword/axe and shield combo.

 

[Trodax]

Having thought about it a bit more, I think giving a bonus to attack rolls would be the simplest and most elegant solution if you want to make fighting with a single one-handed weapon more viable. This is because this bonus is quite flexible, and it could give fighting one-handed an allround edge, while still keeping it individually weaker than the other "fighting styles", which I think feels exactly right. The reason an attack bonus is so flexible is because it:

* Helps you against things that are hard to hit (not common, I know).
* Helps all your iterative attacks, giving you an edge against those hordes of mooks (fighting with two weapons is still superior).
* Can be turned into a point or two of extra damage if you have Power Attack (a two-handed weapon is still vastly superior).
* Makes it easier to succeed on finesse attacks (again, basically increasing damage if you are a finesse fighter).
* Can be turned into a point or two of extra defense if you have Combat Expertise (both dodge and parry!).

Incidentally, this especially helps those characters who are built to be able to fight in various ways (you know, characters who might have both Power Attack and Combat Expertise, and who might have relatively high scores in both Str and Dex so they can fight sometimes two-handed, sometimes with finesse). And I happen to have a great love for this type of character in Conan (as opposed to characters fully optimised to fight in one way).

I would keep the bonus at +1 or +2, because any more and you will make wearing a shield redundant for anyone who has Combat Expertise. You could make the bonus higher, but require a "One-handed feat" to get use of it, but I personally (as I expressed earlier) favour the idea that it is more of a base thing that anyone can do, rather than a "fighting style" you train and prepare for.

 

[Clovenhoof]

I would also prefer not having to spend feats on it, but for a different reason. As I said, we differ in the fundamental approach: you seem to think of SHF just as fallback method when no other fighting style is available, while I would prefer to make SHF a fighting style of equal value to the other main styles. But if SHF is just a fallback, you don't need to spice it up at all.

Likewise, a +1 or +2 attack bonus does very little for the numbers - it's just noise in the system without noticeable effect. I don't like this kind of fake bonuses that look cool at first glance but are totally irrelevant in the long run.

To actually make a difference, the attack bonus would have to be really substantial -- something like the "half BAB" that was mentioned earlier. It may _look_ totally overpowered, but when you actually run the numbers, you'll see that the average DPR is still lower than THF, let alone MD chances. Of course, such a massive attack bonus would indeed warrant a feat.

 

[Majestic7]

Mmh, I won't waste more board space about disagreeing on the basic premise of strengthening one-handed weapons, but an observation -

You should note that too large to hit -bonus for using only one weapon will make Finesse attacks trivial - allowing someone using a single one-handed weapon ~always bypass DR completely. I think Finesse is one of the largest advantages of one-handed weapons anyway.

 

[Trodax]

As I said, we differ in the fundamental approach: you seem to think of SHF just as fallback method when no other fighting style is available, while I would prefer to make SHF a fighting style of equal value to the other main styles. But if SHF is just a fallback, you don't need to spice it up at all.

Yes, I agree we're looking at this a bit differently. The reason I think SHF could use a little spicing up is that there now is absolutely no benefit in fighting like this. OK, a shield does give you an armour check penalty, but if you're fighting with a broadsword, you might as well always have a short sword in your off-hand, because it doesn't penalise you in any way. Perfect for me would be if SHF in various situations could be not the worst, but neither the best choice, if that makes any sense. For example, when you need to be defensive S&B is best, but SHF is better than TWF and THF. When you need to deal a lot of damage in one strike (high DR opponent), THF is best, but SHF is better than S&B and TWF. Something along those lines.

Likewise, a +1 or +2 attack bonus does very little for the numbers - it's just noise in the system without noticeable effect. I don't like this kind of fake bonuses that look cool at first glance but are totally irrelevant in the long run.

I'm not sure I agree a +2 attack bonus is just noise in the system. OK, it probably is if you're looking at pure damage output, but, as I said, there's also a benefit in the flexibility in that it can also help you defensively via Combat Expertise (or when Fighting Defensively if you don't have the feat) depending on the situation.

To actually make a difference, the attack bonus would have to be really substantial -- something like the "half BAB" that was mentioned earlier. It may _look_ totally overpowered, but when you actually run the numbers, you'll see that the average DPR is still lower than THF, let alone MD chances. Of course, such a massive attack bonus would indeed warrant a feat.

With a bonus as large as 1/2 BAB a level 10th character could with Combat Expertise be adding +5 to his defence every round (both dodge and parry). Sure, DPR is still lower than with a greatsword, but such a bonus is in all ways superior to having a shield, which to me means it's overpowered. A problem here as I see it is that THF is so powerful that it's probably impossible to balance anything against it without going overboard. I've been looking more at TWF and S&B when trying to balance.

Anyway, as you said, we're probably looking for different things here, so the discussion might not lead to anything productive.

 

[Clovenhoof]

A problem here as I see it is that THF is so powerful that it's probably impossible to balance anything against it without going overboard.

I guess that's the long and short of it. So maybe I'm moving in a circle, but again it looks like THF needs to be nerfed if other styles are supposed to be competitive.

Again, some or all of the following nerfs may be in order:
* reduce 2H weapon damage dice (to 2d8 max)
* limit Power Attack to 1x bonus
* impose a general -2 penalty on 2H weapons (but not on war sword).

All of this combined may actually lead to a situation where THF does not do the highest average DPR anymore, but still has the highest MD chance. So THF would be more of a high-risk all-or-nothing style while the other styles do smaller, but more reliable amounts of damage.

Then you don't have to give SHF such massive bonuses anymore, but can easily balance with minor boons, like +2 to attack and dodge or something like that.

Concerning shield / S&B: using a shield is great for lowlevel characters, but for several classes it's not ideal or even a bad choice at higher levels. First and foremost the Barbarian, due to the D/P Progressions. In short, Shields are not good for Dodge-based characters.

Finesse: yes, a very high attack value will allow you to (almost) always negate the full DR. But what's the difference below the line? Most DR ratings tend to vary between 5 and 8, sometimes 10, but basically a Str fighter will _always_ pierce the armour, so actual protection is down to 2-5. So our finesse fighter will, on average, do 3-4 more damage than with a regular attack. Big deal.
While your general concern is valid, and a bonus of 1/2 BAB indeed just doesn't _feel_ right, Finesse as such isn't so terribly powerful even if you reliably negate the DR.

 

[Ichabod]

For something like this, I'd rather do it as feats - it's much less confusing to everyone involved to not make a conditional and fundamental change in the combat rules, there's already way too many things to track in this game already. The feats, though, have to be worth taking, maybe not Power Attack level but up there.

I don't get the concern with making finesse better. I don't want to go through every plausible scenario to show why I don't see this being important, I'm just confused that anyone would think it would be.

 

[Majestic7]

I don't get the concern with making finesse better. I don't want to go through every plausible scenario to show why I don't see this being important, I'm just confused that anyone would think it would be.

It is important when/if the characters fight armored foes. Bypassing, say, 6+ DR with Finesse adds quite much to the damage compared to hitting with the same weapon with that DR active. Compared to Power Attack with a two-handed weapon, you lose nothing if the Finesse attempt fails, while PA penalty makes the attack miss completely. Of course, with RAW rules it is very hard to miss anyone with an attack with the screwed attack/defence progression. It is not worldbreaking, but it is definetely a good bonus for using a single weapon. Especially if you use sneak attack in the way that the basic damage from the weapon must first pass DR with at least one point before you can add sneak attack dice.

 

[Clovenhoof]

It is important when/if the characters fight armored foes. Bypassing, say, 6+ DR with Finesse adds quite much to the damage compared to hitting with the same weapon with that DR active.

1.) In the case of DR6, it adds _three frickin points_ compared to a regular attack with a _suitable_ weapon, i.e. one that will Pierce Armour.
2.) and only if Str and Dex are equally high in all considered cases. If Dex is lower, your hit chance and bypass chance is reduced. If Str is lower, you do less damage to begin with.
3.) However, IF Str and Dex are equally high, Finesse is still _vastly_ inferior to a regular Melee attack. Basically Finesse is only good if your Dex is much higher than your Str AND you have some extra damage sources like Sneak Attack.

Compared to Power Attack with a two-handed weapon, you lose nothing if the Finesse attempt fails, while PA penalty makes the attack miss completely.

First you need to roll much higher to get that Finesse attack in, and if you hit but don't bypass, you deduct the full DR, but if the PA hits it's going to do a lot more damage.

BTW I'm strongly considering a house rule that Sneak Attack damage can _only_ be applied on a successful Finesse hit (i.e. with DR bypassed).

 

[Majestic7]

1.) In the case of DR6, it adds _three frickin points_ compared to a regular attack with a _suitable_ weapon, i.e. one that will Pierce Armour.
2.) and only if Str and Dex are equally high in all considered cases. If Dex is lower, your hit chance and bypass chance is reduced. If Str is lower, you do less damage to begin with.
3.) However, IF Str and Dex are equally high, Finesse is still _vastly_ inferior to a regular Melee attack. Basically Finesse is only good if your Dex is much higher than your Str AND you have some extra damage sources like Sneak Attack.

1) That was just an example. When there is someone with DR10 or more, it really starts to matter. Chain hauberk + scale + helmet is a good example and something not too far-fetched for heavy infantry or cavalry.
2) Like Trodax said, Finesse is best for balanced characters. Those who have just high strength are natural users of big two-handed weapons.
3) Hmm? It is never inferior to regular attack, since you don't lose anything if Finesse fails. Most one-handed weapons have really crappy AP, with the exception of warhammer. Thus it is not likely for them penetrate armor anyway, so the effect is same as not succeeding in a Finesse attempt.

Of course if enemies are mostly just naked savages DR doesn't matter.

First you need to roll much higher to get that Finesse attack in, and if you hit but don't bypass, you deduct the full DR, but if the PA hits it's going to do a lot more damage.

BTW I'm strongly considering a house rule that Sneak Attack damage can _only_ be applied on a successful Finesse hit (i.e. with DR bypassed).

Mmh, that is why you really need to fix attack/defence progression as a part of making one-handed more useful. Otherwise Power Attack will always be a more effective and viable option (with two-handed weapons) since it is so easy to hit enemies... or you have to seriously nerf PA.

Sneak attack is conditional already - although it makes a lot of damage, I certainly wouldn't nerf it that much. Requiring basic damage from the normal attack to first pass DR with at least one point before sneak attack dice is more than enough in my experience.

The final note just is that like I keep saying, d20 has a lot of moving parts. If you change one, it affects all the others. Boosting all one-handed weapons without any requirement from the player may have strange consequences and complicate the game further. I think any house rule that causes the need to fix some other part of the game when implemented is better left unused. I'm not saying that you shouldn't change the game towards the direction you want it to go - I'm not RPG police - but noting that small fixes may cause big holes... especially if there are a lot of small fixes.

 

[Ichabod]

The final note just is that like I keep saying, d20 has a lot of moving parts. If you change one, it affects all the others. Boosting all one-handed weapons without any requirement from the player may have strange consequences and complicate the game further. I think any house rule that causes the need to fix some other part of the game when implemented is better left unused. I'm not saying that you shouldn't change the game towards the direction you want it to go - I'm not RPG police - but noting that small fixes may cause big holes... especially if there are a lot of small fixes.

Right, that's the other reason to do things with feats - you can easily take something away/change it (switch the feat out if it's too good ... or if it sucks) and/or look at an aspect of the game with as much isolation as possible. A PC is going to try to make good use out of a feat, which should give some idea of how good it ends up being, whereas a general rules change affects different characters in very different ways to where the most abusive uses and the typical balance level can be lost.