Should two-handed weapons be weakened in Conan 2nd?

[Trodax]

I think the damage of two-weapons should be slightly reduced in Conan 2nd (about 2d8 instead of 2d10 for the greatsword/bardiche sounds about right) for the reasons I stated in that other thread:

The problem I have with two-handers isn't that they are deadly per se, but rather that the difference when compared to other weapons (such as a broadsword) is too great.
I've had plenty of combats where the guy with the two-hander is really the deciding factor; the guys armed with normal weapons are taking down a foe every other turn perhaps, while the bardiche-wielder is cleaving through a couple of enemies every turn. In the end it's turned out that the actions of the guys with normal weapons haven't been all that important, it's always a greater blow to the party as a whole when the bardiche-wielder misses an attack or gets knocked unconscious. I don't like this.

 

[Majestic7]

I think the damage of two-weapons should be slightly reduced in Conan 2nd (about 2d8 instead of 2d10 for the greatsword/bardiche sounds about right) for the reasons I stated in that other thread:

The problem I have with two-handers isn't that they are deadly per se, but rather that the difference when compared to other weapons (such as a broadsword) is too great.

I disagree for the simply reason that I like massive damage. It keeps a sense of mortality even if characters or villains reach high levels. In the stories, two-handed swipe from a big weapon usually kills a man with one strike if it hits. It is a trade between parry or more attacks and more damage. If anything, all weapons could do more damage...

 

[Krushnak]

also if you have one massive melee powerhouse owning everything he comes across them have the majority of enemies focus fire on him. sunder his weapon, disarm him, grapple him. dont just let him have his way all the time, this is conan nail him to a tree if he complains. and if he really gets out of hand then have him lose an arm or a hand in a fight.

 

[Trodax]

I disagree for the simply reason that I like massive damage. It keeps a sense of mortality even if characters or villains reach high levels.

I like massive damage and the deadliness of the game as well. As I wrote above, the thing I dislike is the big difference in how deadly different weapons are. Saying that massive damage is too much a property of two-handed weapons would be another way of putting it (massive damage is something that might happen on a critical for most weapons, but happens frequently on regular hits and is almost guaranteed on a critical for a two-hander). Two-handers should, of course, do more damage, I just think they do a little too much more. :wink:

With the armor and AP rules it can become very extreme in some situations: Consider a guy with Str 18 who attacks someone in heavy armor (DR 8 ). Armed with a broadsword he will be doing 1d10+4-8 points of damage, 1 or 2 points on average. The same guy armed with a greatsword will do 2d10+6-4 points of damage, 13 points on average. The difference you can get in some of these (extreme) situations is just too large for my taste.

In the stories, two-handed swipe from a big weapon usually kills a man with one strike if it hits.

Funny, from the stories I never got the impression that the weapon you wield is all that important really. Conan was very deadly when armed with just a dagger or poinard as well.

If anything, all weapons could do more damage...

Upping the damage for all weapons except the two-handed ones would actually also solve the "problem" as I see it, that's true.

 

[Sutek]

With the armor and AP rules it can become very extreme in some situations: Consider a guy with Str 18 who attacks someone in heavy armor (DR 8 ). Armed with a broadsword he will be doing 1d10+4-8 points of damage, 1 or 2 points on average. The same guy armed with a greatsword will do 2d10+6-4 points of damage, 13 points on average. The difference you can get in some of these (extreme) situations is just too large for my taste.

But see, I think this assertion is flawed. With a broad sword against DR8 armor you'd have different tactics to someone with a bardiche. That's the reason most guards in the modules are assigned broadswords, I believe: It's a common/guard weapon intended for fighting with comrades in groups, or for taking on mostly un-armored opponents.

I've always thought, in my 25+ years of playing RPGs, that longer weapons should deal more damage, and in Conan they do. It makes sense from a basic scientific standpoint because the longer the weapon, the more efficient a lever you have. It's physics. Add a better edge, and shorter weapons can deal the same or greater damage as longer, heavier weapons (war sword vs. bardiche). Weapons specifically crafted for taking on armored opponents rather than enforcing cerfews and petty theft.

In other words, I believe that a better comparison to a bardiche is either the warsword (which does more damage on it's own and is two-handed) or an arming sword (which is described as being the typical back-up weapon for even broadsword wielders). In a way, I still don't think that's a fair comparison, because bardiche are reach weapons, so there's another factor thrown in on top of damage.

I guess what I'm driving at is that you can't argue that weapon A does too much damage compared to weapon B because every weapon has it's strengths, drawbacks, benefits and penalties. That broadsword can deal as much damage as a bardiche, but you can't hide a bardiche under you cloak, now can you? With an arming sword, you can match the broadswords damage exactly, but it can be used as a Finesse attack and possibly ignore that DR8 armor altogether. Does that make it unfair when compared to broadsword damage against the same DR8 armor?

This discussion sort of dovetails with our previous debate on arrows needing to have increased AP in some way. I think the issues revolving around damage are damage versus DR, massive damage and total damage. Personally, I think things are fine.

Now, I'd like to see one thing. In the SG-1 RPG, most of the damge of weapons is dished out by firearms. Guns deal an average ammount of damage comparatively, some much better than others, but very few with multiple dice to generate that damage. The main mechanic revolves around characters taking various stacking feats that gradually increase the critical threat range. That's thier version of massive damage, and in the D20 system, one without "called shots", it emulates gaining more and more accuracy such that more precise and deadly wounds occur in each hit. Having more feats for sword play and archary like that in Conan would be nice, and I mean beyong even Improved Critical, to off-set weapons that relatively deal less damage than thier big honkin 2 handed counter parts.

Heck - make Improved Crit illegal with 2handed strikes. That suddenly makes a broadsword or arming sword better than a bardiche in some ways. :wink:

 

[Trodax]

So of the people who have voted roughly 1/3 think two-handers are a bit too powerful, while 2/3 think the rules are fine as they are (no one has voted to make them deal more damage, but I didn't really expect that :wink: ).

I was just thinking about the reasons for peoples differing opinions on this. It could of course be that different folks want different things; some people think it's appropriate for big weapons to be devastating, while others (like me) don't want them to dominate as much. But perhaps it could also be that different people run the game slightly differently. I'm sure two-handed weapons become more/less powerful if you have combats with many low-level opponent/a few high-level ones, opponents in heavy armor/unarmored opponents, etc. etc.

As I've said, in my game the high damage of two-handed weapons have been sort of a problem. Nothing close to breaking the game or anything, but it's one of the two rules-things that my players have remarked upon (the other being Defensive Blast). My perception is that they have been pretty useful against most types of opponents; very good when fighting powerful foes with high DR, but also very good at mowing through low-level mooks (with the Cleave and Great Cleave feats). But maybe I'm just running my combats slightly "wrong".

So, anyways, to my question: in what situations do you think two-handed weapons are most powerful, and what situations can't they handle as well?

 

[Majestic7]

So, anyways, to my question: in what situations do you think two-handed weapons are most powerful, and what situations can't they handle as well?

They are very good in causing massive damage - so they are most powerful against big monsters, as they have a chance of lopping their heads off in one strike. Even without criticals. They are generally bad against multiple opponents (without cleave!), as the character will have less DV due to lacking a shield and less attacks than with two weapons. They are bad in tight rooms as well - I'm throwing around -2 for insufficient space for large weapons pretty liberally.

I like massive damage a lot though. I think the fix for your complaint about them causing much damage compared to other weapons would be to increase the damage of one-handers, not nerf two-handers.

 

[Castel]

Well the problem is that the way things are at the moment, 2handed weapons are a little overpowered in comparison to other weapons...
In my opinion all other melee weapons damage must be increased (The game would be much more deadly, and more fun)
Or decrease te G-sword to 2d8 (making more balanced the in-game combat mechanics)
Since there is not an "increase all other weapons damage" option, i´ll vote for the decrease of the G-sword damage!
Have fun RPGming

 

[Netherek]

The weapons are scaled with good balance and with historical acuracy (as much that can be applied to a game). Historically when heavy armour dominated the field of battle so too did two handed weapons with single handed weapons serving a backup.

Anyway, check some of the "balance" points I made in the STR bonus to Power attack thread.

 

[Bregales]

Sorry, I'm happy with the damage factors as currently written.

 

[Yogah of Yag]

I think it's fine the way it is.

 

[Lord Jolly the Scribe]

I like it and not enough of my players use it. Those who do usually wield one handed weapons in both hands so they still take a penalty to attack.

But honestly I like it. I think it helps when fighting hordes of goons.

 

[Trodax]

Thought a little more about this stuff, and a lot of the issue I've had with two-handers being too powerful actually comes from the Cleave and Great Cleave feats. These feats really enable the guy with the big two-hander to be absolutely devastating against hordes of lesser foes (in addition to big, tough enemies against which the two-handers is also king). Without those feats the two-handed fighter would have a much harder time against multiple foes. Sure, every hit is a kill, but the limited number of attacks would restrict his usefullness in those situations.

So a variant way of fixing the two-handed problem (if you agree it's a problem :wink: ), would be to restrict those feats in some way. Perhaps just remove Great Cleave completely or something.

 

[Daz]

Thought a little more about this stuff, and a lot of the issue I've had with two-handers being too powerful actually comes from the Cleave and Great Cleave feats. These feats really enable the guy with the big two-hander to be absolutely devastating against hordes of lesser foes (in addition to big, tough enemies against which the two-handers is also king). Without those feats the two-handed fighter would have a much harder time against multiple foes. Sure, every hit is a kill, but the limited number of attacks would restrict his usefullness in those situations.

So a variant way of fixing the two-handed problem (if you agree it's a problem :wink: ), would be to restrict those feats in some way. Perhaps just remove Great Cleave completely or something.

Yeah that's the problem:
-Big nasty critter? Two-handed is good.
-Low DR? Two-handed is good.
-High DR? Two-handed is very good.
-Lots of little critters? Two-handed is good.
-Very mobile battle? Two-handed is very good
-Very stationary battle? Two-handed is good

No real downside except for being vulnerable to sundering.

 

[jadrax]

Thought a little more about this stuff, and a lot of the issue I've had with two-handers being too powerful actually comes from the Cleave and Great Cleave feats. These feats really enable the guy with the big two-hander to be absolutely devastating against hordes of lesser foes (in addition to big, tough enemies against which the two-handers is also king). Without those feats the two-handed fighter would have a much harder time against multiple foes. Sure, every hit is a kill, but the limited number of attacks would restrict his usefullness in those situations.

But now were swinging the balance argument the other way, your Two-hander guy has three feats to the Duel-Wielders one feat.

 

[jadrax]

Yeah that's the problem:
-Big nasty critter? Two-handed is good.

Unless, (Like about 50% of the things in Conan,) it can grapple, in which case you really want a light weapon. (although if you actually have a greatsword you can use your pommel, it's not great.)

-Low DR? Two-handed is good.

It's pretty much comparable to duel-wielding.

-High DR? Two-handed is very good.

Erm no, Two-hander is bad, get a finesse weapon.

-Lots of little critters? Two-handed is good.

It's appalling, unless you invest three feats into it.

-Very mobile battle? Two-handed is very good

Yes, this is the one place where two handers really shine.

-Very stationary battle? Two-handed is good

Not as good as Duel-wield, and downright bad if you have sneak attack and can use it.

 

[Etepete]

To me, the answer is simple: just up the damage of smaller weapons.

And for the realism and leverage: yes, 2h weapons come down with more force, but in reality a small knife or a rock is more than enough to kill someone in a single stroke.

 

[Trodax]

But now were swinging the balance argument the other way, your Two-hander guy has three feats to the Duel-Wielders one feat.

True, it does take three feats, but since the greatsword-wielder becomes a virtual lawnmower against mooks, it is well worth it.

-High DR? Two-handed is very good.

Erm no, Two-hander is bad, get a finesse weapon.

No way! An opponent in DR 8 heavy armor will be very hard to tackle for a finesse-fighter (unless you are of very much higher level, in which case he'll be cut to pieces), but if you can penetrate with a big two-hander, those 4 points of reduced damage ain't that bad (if you're doing like 2d10+6 to begin with). IME, two-handers are king against heavy armor.

-Lots of little critters? Two-handed is good.

It's appalling, unless you invest three feats into it.

Yes, but if you do, you can destroy them all in one round.

 

[Netherek]

To me, the answer is simple: just up the damage of smaller weapons.

And for the realism and leverage: yes, 2h weapons come down with more force, but in reality a small knife or a rock is more than enough to kill someone in a single stroke.

Humans are essentially a single HD creature. So in relation to that, a dagger having a good solid hit (crit) with some strength behind it will kill in one blow. The som goes for any weapon, especially if you only give an average score per HD.

Commoner 2hp
Barbarian 5hp
Borderer 5hp, etc. etc.

The HD gained from levels represents the ability to roll with the blow and other techniques to minimize the damage. That is also why the number of Hp that heals per day increase with level.

 

[Sutek]

That's a good point too, Nethrek. Normal schmoes dealing damage isn't what we're talking about - these are super heroes dealing super hero damage.

Additionally, I think the reason that this discussion has gone back and forth so long is because it's a dead-lock. The modes are ballanced, and noone can get an upper hand in the debate because neither is better - they each have their uses and strengths and weaknesses.

Is this thread dead yet. (lol)