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

[Majestic7]

Another is the metagame worry about being unable to handle a situation, e.g., weapon sundered, cramped quarters, etc., and therefore the need arises to be a Swiss Army knife. I've found a related but different situation arise in playing Westerns RPGs, where you have a 6-gun or two to shoot with, but that empties quickly and reloading takes too much in-game time, so PCs will carry way too many extra pistols instead - kinda defeats the visual and feel/spirit of the game/genre.

Many pistols sounds silly. I guess the borderline is in what the characters think they might need, not what the players think the adventure might require. Sometimes that is hard to define, though. Metagaming is always silly.

 

[Sutek]

Or you just say, "Okay, you can have two more pistols, but your movement is slower, your reaction time is impaired and it's noticible that you have them."

Other gear can contribute to limiting massive kit-outs. I mean, in a Western game where someone wanted four pistols, I'd have to ask where he's keeping them because holsters are of a certain configuration and won't fit easily anywhere besides a gunbelt or, maybe, inside a heavy jacket. Part of the fun is the re-load time and experiencing a realistic Western shoot-out situation, and although there's plenty of historical accounts of hold-out pistols that could slip under sleeves or into boots, these were thought of as "women's weapons" that no self-respectign outlaw gunman would use.

Pride and prejudice...the law of the West. (lol)

But we aren't talking about nine swords here. Just a dagger, maybe a couple of swords of different sizes and a pole arm. You can only use two at a time, and switching weapons can cause other problems.

But again, what does all that have to do with whether to lower the damage values of two-handed weapons or not? We're going way off topic here...

 

[Bregales]

But we're way off "should two-handed weapons be nerfed" at this point....But again, what does all that have to do with whether to lower the damage values of two-handed weapons or not? We're going way off topic here...

Agreed. Keep them says I.

 

[slaughterj]

[At the same time I'm just mercilessly waiting for a chance to snatch them away, should they stumble and fall.

Heh, I don't wait for that The PCs just had a successful adventure in the desert and next session will start with them having been overwhelmed by a mighty sandstorm, worn down to the point of collapsing, and being captured by a previously encountered bandit, so they will get to enjoy starting with nothing, their valuables likely irretrievably spread amongst the bandit's followers, and tied to some poles in the middle of the bandit's Kozak camp

 

[Majestic7]

Heh, I don't wait for that The PCs just had a successful adventure in the desert and next session will start with them having been overwhelmed by a mighty sandstorm, worn down to the point of collapsing, and being captured by a previously encountered bandit, so they will get to enjoy starting with nothing, their valuables likely irretrievably spread amongst the bandit's followers, and tied to some poles in the middle of the bandit's Kozak camp

Well, I prefer being a vulture to being a god... but I created a new thread for this very subject:
http://www.mongoosepublishing.com/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?t=23825

I think I've made my views on the two-handed issue already clear. They are fine as they are, if anything, damage dice of other weapons could be upgraded.

 

[slaughterj]

Another is the metagame worry about being unable to handle a situation, e.g., weapon sundered, cramped quarters, etc., and therefore the need arises to be a Swiss Army knife. I've found a related but different situation arise in playing Westerns RPGs, where you have a 6-gun or two to shoot with, but that empties quickly and reloading takes too much in-game time, so PCs will carry way too many extra pistols instead - kinda defeats the visual and feel/spirit of the game/genre.

Many pistols sounds silly. I guess the borderline is in what the characters think they might need, not what the players think the adventure might require. Sometimes that is hard to define, though. Metagaming is always silly.

Many pistols, many fantasy weapons, it's all the same. An extra loaded pistol is a relatively small item in size and weight compared to the bulkiness of an extra sword and polearm though, so while 4-6 pistols may be excessive in a genre sense, it is more real-world realistic than the person with the bandolier of throwing daggers, two sheathed swords, a polearm, and a shield about their person.

 

[Sutek]

Not real-world realistic in a Western setting. A standerd Colt Army Peacmaker revolver might weigh as much as 2.3lbs (1048g) without ammo. Say that the gun and a decent ammount of reload ammo weighs an even 3lbs, 4-6 pistols would be about 12-18lbs. All that gun clanking around on your person is going to get you noticed for the value of the guns alone, and there's no good way to hide then at all coming in at near to 11" in any given model.

Conversely, that bandolier of throwing daggers, two sheathed swords, a polearm, and a shield you mention wouldn't seem out of place, especially ina Fantasy setting, including a bow too, would come in at just over 20lbs (going by Conan equipment weights). However, that affords you a ranged weapon, options for reach weapons, two close melee weapons and some protection, but more importantly isn't any more obvious what you're up to than anyone else you might meet on a long journey across Hyboria or Greyhawk.

Now, granted, to use those swords, I'd disaloow switching to the pole arm in mid-fight. You have to drop it to use the close in weapons with both hands. Stuff like that is GM realoism applied on a case by case basis, but simply carrying around all those weapons just comes with the mild cautionary comment of, "You know, all that stuff might attract attention of you go into a city somewhere." No different than owning a wardog or horses - thier existance has to be accomodated in the RPG narrative somehow, so there are always consequences that can come up from any choice the PCs make.

 

[Trodax]

It is more evocative and all that, but you can't afford to do that at low levels.

Yes, exactly, and therefore the rules must be wrong! :wink: (Since the rules should help emulate the stories, I mean.)

But we're way off "should two-handed weapons be nerfed" at this point.

Yeah, we've strayed a bit I guess... Fun discussions, though! I have a feeling the "two-handers are overpowered"-discussion has run its course anyways.

 

[slaughterj]

Not real-world realistic in a Western setting.

I didn't say it was, just that game mechanics promote PCs to act that way, just as they might do with fantasy games for PCs to load up on a variety of weapons to address all occasions.

 

[Foxworthy]

I've never seen a crazy amount of stuff in Conan as a GM or player. As a GM I put realistic limits on stuff like if you have a polearm and a sword you need to drop the weapon in your hands to pull the sword. SInce I don't allow weapons on the ground to be drawn as part of a move equivilant action not many people are willing to drop weapons in case the battle goes badly.

As a player I had one character, he wore a mail shirt because it worked with armored stealth, a helmet and a weapon. Rarely in his 12 levels did he have more than one weapon. Once he had a bow, once he had a second sword. I never carried rope since I had good climb, never carried food cause I had a high survival. Eyes of The Cat meant I didn't really need light sources.

Of course anothe rplayer in the group wore heavy armor and had two Zhalibar Knives and two Ghanata Knives. He carried ropes and everything else you could need.

When it came down to it he's was beat to near death (fate point) by a mob of soldiers.

It proved to me that less equipment was good, it meant I ran faster. Sometimes speed matters.

As for DnD the group carries everything they will possibly need. Damned Hewards Handy Haversack. Though the one time they left that behind after a it almost cost then a dozen or so healing potions.

 

[sbarrie]

Well, with your set up you really begin to favor 1 handers in two weapon fighting over a 2 handed fighting. It's all about things making sense, balance is there under existing rules, it's just 2handers have the obvious format. It takes little imagination to see how to be more effective when using power attack or when facing armoured opponents.

It seems to be your opinion that two handed weapons are only balanced with the Power Attack feat.

I think the weapon styles are balanced even without that feat.

• Two-handed: Lots of damage, and by focusing damage into fewer hits you minimize the effect of armour and maximize your chance at massive damage.
  Two weapons: Lots of attacks, causing somewhat more damage than two-handed weapons, but you need a full attack action to be fully effective.
  One weapon and shield: Cheaper health insurance.
  Reach weapon: Similar to Two-handed, but lower base damage, more awkward but with obvious advantages.

Currently, Power Attack and a two handed weapon blows away every other option for a primarily melee character. It's bad in D&D 3.5, and Conan's armour rules and low massive damage threshold (while themselves great) only amplify the problem with this common feat.

You forget the simple fact you can't have a shield when using a weapon in two hands.

That's both extremely condescending and inaccurate. See "targ".

And let's look at the historical reasons heavier weapons were designed in the first place. As heavier amours were invented, the ability to injure an opponent became difficult, so they invent weapons that could penetrate the said armour. Ironically, the increase in penetration also increases the momentum and force increasing its damage exponentially.

If it wasn't for gunpowder this trend would probably have continued until the weapons and armor were no longer feasable.

And that's both a bizarre conclusion and has nothing to do with the Power Attack feat.

Fighting against a 2hander is tough if you don't have one as well, I know this from experience. Like it or not, a 2hander rightfully should take you out in far fewer connecting blows than a one hander.

Which is how it works even without Power Attack. Changing the Power Attack feat does not change that.

And a single attack that does 25 isn't as good as an two attacks that do 14 and 11 if you're fighting people with lower hit point totals and more numbers.

Very true.

I understand that people thign two handers are unbalanced because they do more damage in one hit. But that's because they are bigger weapons. And for realisim two weapons won't do as much damage in one hit as a bigger weapon, in two hits they may.

I don't think anyone has suggested that two handed weapons should do less damage than one handed ones. And I completely agree that two handers are bigger.

 

[Foxworthy]

I understand that people thign two handers are unbalanced because they do more damage in one hit. But that's because they are bigger weapons. And for realisim two weapons won't do as much damage in one hit as a bigger weapon, in two hits they may.

I don't think anyone has suggested that two handed weapons should do less damage than one handed ones. And I completely agree that two handers are bigger.

Well a lot of the reason I said that was because people thinkt hat THW should get less out of power attack. Which is the other thread. Multi-threads on the same basic topic are a bit hard to seperate all the ideas into the proper post.

 

[jadrax]

That's both extremely condescending and inaccurate. See "targ".

As I read it, you can only use the Targ's +1 Ac bonus when dule welding, it wont work if you use a two hander.

 

[Netherek]

Well, with your set up you really begin to favor 1 handers in two weapon fighting over a 2 handed fighting. It's all about things making sense, balance is there under existing rules, it's just 2handers have the obvious format. It takes little imagination to see how to be more effective when using power attack or when facing armoured opponents.

It seems to be your opinion that two handed weapons are only balanced with the Power Attack feat.

I think the weapon styles are balanced even without that feat.

I am sure you do, but that's an opinion. What I've been pointing out is that PA is easy to analyze its strength, it's much harder to analyze every permutation of feat possibilities. I've shown how it's balanced given the #'s and some of the permutations.

• Two-handed: Lots of damage, and by focusing damage into fewer hits you minimize the effect of armour and maximize your chance at massive damage.
  Two weapons: Lots of attacks, causing somewhat more damage than two-handed weapons, but you need a full attack action to be fully effective.
  One weapon and shield: Cheaper health insurance.
  Reach weapon: Similar to Two-handed, but lower base damage, more awkward but with obvious advantages.

Currently, Power Attack and a two handed weapon blows away every other option for a primarily melee character. It's bad in D&D 3.5, and Conan's armour rules and low massive damage threshold (while themselves great) only amplify the problem with this common feat.

Again you ignore the other less obvious options because you don't like how it's easy to get an MD from a 2h weapon. I've presented an option that lower's the potential somewhat, but the problem when you do that is that you now favor the other extreme.

You forget the simple fact you can't have a shield when using a weapon in two hands.

That's both extremely condescending and inaccurate. See "targ".

You've just proven my point. Read it yourself. As jadrax has mentioned the bonus is only +1 when use with an Off-hand Weapon, and it's specific enough to conclude that is the intent. So no Targe/Greatsword combo.

[

And let's look at the historical reasons heavier weapons were designed in the first place. As heavier amours were invented, the ability to injure an opponent became difficult, so they invent weapons that could penetrate the said armour. Ironically, the increase in penetration also increases the momentum and force increasing its damage exponentially.

If it wasn't for gunpowder this trend would probably have continued until the weapons and armor were no longer feasable.

And that's both a bizarre conclusion and has nothing to do with the Power Attack feat.

It has every thing to do with weapons and greater damage potential. Leverage increases exponentially in power, which increases damage. So if you increase the leverage behind your PA your damage potential increases exponentially.

[

Fighting against a 2hander is tough if you don't have one as well, I know this from experience. Like it or not, a 2hander rightfully should take you out in far fewer connecting blows than a one hander.

Which is how it works even without Power Attack. Changing the Power Attack feat does not change that.

Not in a way that will balance against TWC feat chain. Nerfing PA makes that style shoot through the roof. It loses a sense of realism (yes I know it's a game), and also makes other situations more difficult. It's not a clean fix because you are not take a statistical approach and doing all the math. Frankly, if 2handers dominate your game, that is telling of how you run the game, change it up.

I understand that people thign two handers are unbalanced because they do more damage in one hit. But that's because they are bigger weapons. And for realisim two weapons won't do as much damage in one hit as a bigger weapon, in two hits they may.

I don't think anyone has suggested that two handed weapons should do less damage than one handed ones. And I completely agree that two handers are bigger.

Not directly, but by advocating that PA should be the same regardless of weapon you are saying that 2 broads are better than a great. If you want the math, look at earlier posts.

If 2 broads were best in RL, great swords would never have been invented. Fact is 2 handers are can opening killers, and rightfully should be.

 

[Lord Jolly the Scribe]

I've noticed many of my players have used two-handed weapons but they usually don't add a whole lot of extra damage right now. I think some of them need to learn the bonus of dual wielding.

Hey does the rules state that when dual wielding and you get a half of a modifier, does it round up or down? Or is it not implied and should just be house ruled?

(I hope the question didn't start a whole new bag of worms )

 

[Netherek]

All mods round down in d20 unless specified for the circumstance.

I have a solution for PA that might work for those of you who feel PA is over-powered on the "Should STR and Power attack" thread.

 

[Sutek]

I don't think anyone has suggested that two handed weapons should do less damage than one handed ones.

Well, it's actually the title of the thread - reducing damage of two-handed weapons. If you alter the damage values of two-handed weapons downward, what do you take them down to? The only die permutation is either fewer rolled or less facings, but that means putting two-handed weapons into the damage ranges of one-handed weapon damage.

I think I'll go with "why?" at this point, although it's something that should have been asked right from the start.

Why is it necessary? Because you feel it's just too much damage? Why not use NPC combatants with better DR or more HP or higher FORT saves to counteract the high damage potential tat two-handed weapon pose? I mean, is ther some game-breaking permutation of two-handed weapon damage that I just don't see? Sure, it's a lot of damage, but, as I've mentioned, Sneak Attack can be also. A lion's successive claw attacks can deal horrendous ammounts of damage, but noone seems to be taking issue with that.

I guess I just see two-handed weapons as big, heavy, armor-splitters, and the game system currently portrays them as such pretty accurately.

Of course, all that is quickly undone with a well executed Sunder, Trip or Disarm.

What's the real issue here??

 

[Foxworthy]

I've noticed many of my players have used two-handed weapons but they usually don't add a whole lot of extra damage right now. I think some of them need to learn the bonus of dual wielding.

Hey does the rules state that when dual wielding and you get a half of a modifier, does it round up or down? Or is it not implied and should just be house ruled?

(I hope the question didn't start a whole new bag of worms )

I think d20 is a round down system but I haven't checked to see if it's written anywhere. I'll try to find it though.

Edit: I found it in the 3.5 Players Handbook's glossary. It says that no matter what the size of the fraction is round down. I'd type it word for word but I don't think it's covered by the SRD.

Edit Again: Actually I was wrong it is in the SRD.

Rounding Fractions

In general, if you wind up with a fraction, round down, even if the fraction is one-half or larger.

Exception: Certain rolls, such as damage and hit points, have a minimum of 1.

[/quote]

 

[Trodax]

I don't think anyone has suggested that two handed weapons should do less damage than one handed ones.

Well, it's actually the title of the thread - reducing damage of two-handed weapons. If you alter the damage values of two-handed weapons downward, what do you take them down to? The only die permutation is either fewer rolled or less facings, but that means putting two-handed weapons into the damage ranges of one-handed weapon damage.

Reducing the damage of two-handed weapons does not mean that they have to be reduced to the levels of one-handers (no one has suggested this, just like sbarrie said). In the first post of this thread I suggested that the greatsword/bardiche damage be dropped from 2d10 to 2d8 - that would still have them dealing way more damage than your typical one-hander.

I think I'll go with "why?" at this point, although it's something that should have been asked right from the start.

Well, I stated my reasons in the first post of this 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.

In other words, two-handed weapons dominate combat a little too much for my taste. Throwing tougher opponents at my players as you suggest will probably make it even more important to have a greatsword instead of a broadsword.

 

[Krushnak]

two-handed weapons dominated battlefields in real life, get used to it. if you dont want them to be so important then dont make them so readily available all the time instead of wanting them diminished. the weapons are fine as is it's up to you as a gm to set the tone of the game.