Why STR should not multiply damage and for Power Attack

[Sutek]

How hard is it to Flank? Especially if you have more than one Sneak Attacker around.

"His actions indicate...two-dimensiojnal thinking" - Spock, Star Trek 2: The wrath of Khan.

 

[Foxworthy]

Nice analysis above, but even you note there are some issues, such as the quote above. Therefore, presumably you agree that some tweak might be appropriate.

Well I don't do to the fact that I don't think Two Weapon Fighting should equal two handed weapons. Damage output under normal conditions is roughly the same, the only thing that hurts two wepaon fighting is that it has a greater penalty to attack.

Personally I feel that two weapon fighting should be penalized more then it already if cause it's not really an effective fighting technique. The whole reason two weapon fighting is effective as it is because of Drizzits dual scimitar crap that broke the rules when it was written. Though I do use two weapons when I can get anothe rparty member with sneak attack to flank cause then nothing compares to two weapon fighting, flanking, and sneak attack.

 

[Iorwerth]

I think the point about two weapon fighting is not how effective it is in real life but rather how effective it is as another style of fighting within the game. Personally, I would like a system where there are a number of different fighting styles - two weapons, sword and shield, two handed weapon etc - that are as effective as each other.

The reason for this is that it increases the possibilities for a player when he imagines his character. What i don't want is a situation where one of the player characters is at an immediate disadvantage just because he imagines his character using two weapons.

From what I gather from what has been said, two weapon fighting may do the same amount of damage as a two handed fighter, but has a lesser chance to hit. If this is the case, then the two weapon fighter is not as good.

I may be wrong, as I have only just read the thread quickly, but if that is the case, then the balance is wrong.

 

[jadrax]

I think the point about two weapon fighting is not how effective it is in real life but rather how effective it is as another style of fighting within the game. Personally, I would like a system where there are a number of different fighting styles - two weapons, sword and shield, two handed weapon etc - that are as effective as each other.

The reason for this is that it increases the possibilities for a player when he imagines his character. What i don't want is a situation where one of the player characters is at an immediate disadvantage just because he imagines his character using two weapons.

From what I gather from what has been said, two weapon fighting may do the same amount of damage as a two handed fighter, but has a lesser chance to hit. If this is the case, then the two weapon fighter is not as good.

I may be wrong, as I have only just read the thread quickly, but if that is the case, then the balance is wrong.

Two weapon fighting is overall better, as it gets more use out of sneak attack, weapon specialization and the like.

Even then, Two-weapon fighting is much much better in Conan than straight D&D. The Two weapon fighting feat is a proficiency most classes start with, and Improved two-weapon fighting incorporates all the other off-hand attack feats in its line for one feat, so it continues giving you additional attacks as you level.

 

[Foxworthy]

I think the point about two weapon fighting is not how effective it is in real life but rather how effective it is as another style of fighting within the game. Personally, I would like a system where there are a number of different fighting styles - two weapons, sword and shield, two handed weapon etc - that are as effective as each other.

The reason for this is that it increases the possibilities for a player when he imagines his character. What i don't want is a situation where one of the player characters is at an immediate disadvantage just because he imagines his character using two weapons.

From what I gather from what has been said, two weapon fighting may do the same amount of damage as a two handed fighter, but has a lesser chance to hit. If this is the case, then the two weapon fighter is not as good.

I may be wrong, as I have only just read the thread quickly, but if that is the case, then the balance is wrong.

Yes but thier is a point where balance should not trample over realism or the flavor of the game.

If I wanted to play a 2 foot tall child I wouldn't expect the rules to allow me to have a 20 str. Just because I envision a character doesn't make it worthy of breaking realism on an absurd level.

A person swinging two swords around just ins't as effective as someone with a big ass armor piercing axe. The system is generous to two weapon fighters it doens't need to balance them.

Plus does any one have a REH Conan story reference to someone fighting two handed? I'm pretty sure the only time I can remember thta it might have happened was Beyond the Black River. I'm not 100% sure of that though. Either way people swinging multiple swords around isn't really a gritty Conan type feel.

 

[Soulmage]

From a flavor perspective, big guys with two-handed weapons are the name of the game in the Conan world. There aren't many two-weapon wielders.

I see no reason why the rules shouldn't reinforce the flavor of the world by supporting two handed weapon use. If you're playing Conan, you just need to recognize that two-handed is the optimal style for the world. If you don't want to play the Conan feel, you can always just play standard D&D and use all the Conan names.

 

[quigs]

yeah but d@d had some really retarded damages for weapons in that game. honestly the best weapon was the bastard sword and i never saw a reason to use anything else. but in conan the variation is good and alot more realistic and suits the stories and genre alot better. honestly a 2 hander should always be a vastly better choice for dealing damage and piercing armour. however this conan and players should be changing weapons like they should be changing their socks. weapons break, get lost, get stolen or sometimes a 2 hander is just not practical to use.

Yes, a bastard sword was good, but you had to sink a feat into using it properly one-handed. Otherwise a greatsword was better for 2-handed combat. In Conan, if you make a Hyborian character and don't use a greatsword, you're nuts. Its arguably one of the best 2 handed weapons stats wise. The way the weapons are in Conan doesn't work as well as in D&D IMO. Purchasing a weapon with better stats should make the weapon more expensive. This isn't true in Conan as there are many weapons in Conan that do the exact same damage as swords for instance, and cost 5% of what the swords cost. Most players will not look past this and just buy a few battleaxes rather than sink 20 times that amount into buying one broadsword.

 

[Krushnak]

the pricing is done to represent realistic prices for those weapons. axes are far easier to make than swords (which require quite alot of expertise to make properly) and so are alot cheaper.

 

[Foxworthy]

Axes are also easier to sunder which can be a helpful option against someone weilding one.

 

[Trodax]

Honestly, the problem in my game wasn't the feats or the SRD rules, it was the difference in damage dice between a 1 handed weapon and a 2 handed one.

I understand that damage dice were increased one grade for most weapons, but I think they went too far with the 2 handed weapons. A short sword going from 1d6 to 1d8 is fine. A greatsword going from 2d6 to 2d10 is a bit much. Same with the bardiche. 1d12 to 2d10 is a huge increase compared to most other weapons.

I agree 100% with quigs' opinion on this.

Plus does any one have a REH Conan story reference to someone fighting two handed? I'm pretty sure the only time I can remember thta it might have happened was Beyond the Black River.

Yeah, in that story I *think* there were some picts (and maybe Conan too?) fighting with hatchet & knife (or hatchet & spear maybe). That's probably about it, though.

From a flavor perspective, big guys with two-handed weapons are the name of the game in the Conan world. There aren't many two-weapon wielders.

I see no reason why the rules shouldn't reinforce the flavor of the world by supporting two handed weapon use. If you're playing Conan, you just need to recognize that two-handed is the optimal style for the world. If you don't want to play the Conan feel, you can always just play standard D&D and use all the Conan names.

I don't get why people keep saying that big two-handed weapons is what dominates combat in the books. How many times was Conan armed with a greatsword or a bardiche? I seem to recall that he had a greatsword when going to war as King of Aquilonia (in The Scarlet Citadel?), but that's about it. Much more often he was just armed with a broadsword, scimitar, dagger, poinard or Zhaibar knife.

If anything, the rules should support fighting with just a single one-handed weapon, and there is really not much benefit in doing that.

 

[Iorwerth]

I think Trodax makes a good point. In most of the Conan novels that I have read he is not going around fighting with a two handed weapon. Most often he has a sword and uses his free hand to grab arms, break wrists, shove a poinard deep into someone's throat etc. Maybe he will be described as grasping his broadsword in two hands to make a powerful swing, but he is not described as just a two handed weapon fighter. Therefore, I don't see why a system that favours two handed weapons is closer to the Conan ethos. I also agree with Trodax that the system should work for those who want to just use a weapon in one hand, keeping his other free - maybe a full attack option should allow someone with a free hand to attack with his weapon and make a grapple with his free hand, or push back opponent, pull someone in to his square etc.

As to Foxworthy's point about balance not trampling over realism or the flavour of the game, I agree. However, I don't see see how balancing out different combat styles does trample over realism or the flavour - combat is the prime facet of the game and to penalize a player who wants his character to use a fighting style that turns out to be inferior is just wrong. It is not as if the player wants to play a 2' tall child with 20 Str. All he wants is to use one of the base combat styles described in the game and not feel inferior while doing it.

 

[Majestic7]

If anything, the rules should support fighting with just a single one-handed weapon, and there is really not much benefit in doing that.

Well, I definetely agree with this. If anything else, there should be a feat tree supporting this. I can imagine some sort of fancy Zingaran swordplay with arming sword in one hand and the other hand free for balance (and insulting gestures).

 

[Daz]

If anything, the rules should support fighting with just a single one-handed weapon, and there is really not much benefit in doing that.

Well, I definetely agree with this. If anything else, there should be a feat tree supporting this. I can imagine some sort of fancy Zingaran swordplay with arming sword in one hand and the other hand free for balance (and insulting gestures).

You mean like Intricate Swordplay?

 

[Majestic7]

You mean like Intricate Swordplay?

Yes, but isn't it usable with shield at the moment? It only says right now, that the character needs to be using arming sword or a broadsword in one hand. It doesn't forbid having a second weapon or a shield. I meant a feat tree anyway - not just one feat.

 

[Daz]

"Yes, but isn't it usable with shield at the moment?"
It's ambiguously-worded. Last time I used it my DM made me keep my other hand empty.

 

[Majestic7]

"Yes, but isn't it usable with shield at the moment?"
It's ambiguously-worded. Last time I used it my DM made me keep my other hand empty.

Well, I've allowed my player using it with a shield, as it fits to the defensive nature of his characters combat style and is not exclusively forbidden in the feat description. However, what I meant was a some sort of multiple-feat tree for using only one weapon. Much like the two-weapon combat feat tree.

 

[Trodax]

"Yes, but isn't it usable with shield at the moment?"
It's ambiguously-worded. Last time I used it my DM made me keep my other hand empty.

Well, I've allowed my player using it with a shield, as it fits to the defensive nature of his characters combat style and is not exclusively forbidden in the feat description.

I would probably also allow it with a shield based on how it's worded (it's never been used in my games, actually, so I've never have to made the decision). It's unclear how it's supposed to work, though. I'll add it to the thread with stuff that should be included/corrected in the 2nd edition.

However, what I meant was a some sort of multiple-feat tree for using only one weapon. Much like the two-weapon combat feat tree.

It would be cool with something like that, yes. Along the same lines, I wouldn't mind seeing a feat or two that gave you some sort of bonus when unarmored (Prerequisite: clad in nothing but a loincloth :wink: ). You know, sort of like Light-Footed but not only for sneak attackers.

BTW, Majestic, that's a cute avatar.

 

[Majestic7]

BTW, Majestic, that's a cute avatar.

It's from the Unspeakable Vault of Doom, Cthulhu-webcomic.

http://www.macguff.fr/goomi/unspeakable/links.html

 

[Foxworthy]

As to Foxworthy's point about balance not trampling over realism or the flavour of the game, I agree. However, I don't see see how balancing out different combat styles does trample over realism or the flavour - combat is the prime facet of the game and to penalize a player who wants his character to use a fighting style that turns out to be inferior is just wrong. It is not as if the player wants to play a 2' tall child with 20 Str. All he wants is to use one of the base combat styles described in the game and not feel inferior while doing it.

The damage output against an unarmorued foe is the same with two weapon fighting and two handed weapon fighting.

Giving boost to two weapon fighting tramples over realism since it's not effective as combat form. It shouldn't be equal to fighting with one weapon. The weapons should get an additional bonus to damage over two handed weapons just because it's harder to swing to swords forcefully as opposed to one big weapon built for leverage.

Two Broadswords = Greatsword in the grand scheme of things. The only diffrence in armor piercing is one point. Of course you have a negative 2 to hit with the two broadswords... because it's harder!

Two Weapon Fighting is only really at a huge disadvantge when the user can only take a standard action. And then it's on par with one handed fighting. If the person the two weapon fighter is fighting is flanked, it destroys a two handed weapon.

Game rules shouldn't be adjusted because people don't know how to use the combat style effectively. If a player wnats to make an ineffective character at a fighting style, for example a two wepaon figther without sneak attack, then that's thier choice.

Two Weapon Fighting also has the advantage that you can engange in combat with more then one person with your diffrent weapons where as the two handed fighter can only ight one. That can set up better flanking attacks or if the first weapon kills the opponent the second weapon can do damage to another. A two handed weapon that kills a person loses that extra damage.

When Conan added damage to big weapons it balanced that by reducing the penalities for two weapon fighting.

 

[Netherek]

Here's a few points that have been missed.

1. Should the damage bonus be the same for power attack when using a Broad sword in 1 hand as well as 2 handed? This wouldn't make sense at all really. This is why WotC made the change in power attack in 3.0 to 3.5. It makes perfect sense that a weapon used two handed does more damage.

2. Two weapon combat has other advantages compared two a single weapon that is missed often as well. In 3.0 Sword and Fist there's an article covering when it's good to Two weapon and when it's not.

(example) Two attacks need a 10+ to hit.
Two-handed has 85% (.55+.3) to inflict damage this round.
Two Weapon has 110% (.45+.45+.2) to inflict damage.
Imp. Two Weapon has 130% (.45+.45+.2+.2) to inflict damage.

While Two handed may a whopping power house, the Two weapon combat still inflict damage more often. Don't forget what happens when stacked with sneak attack.

3. Each attack has the ability to crit, so Two weapon fighters have more chances to crit....

4. Giving up shields is a disadvantage, a shield means a 20% difference between a hit and a miss.

5. Heavy armour isn't that prominent if you are staying with the genre. Conan only wore plate when leading armies, otherwise he was in medium armour or less. Heavy armour ourside of plate is really for mounted wariors and that's a different can of worms. My point is that if you stay in genre AP isn't a huge ordeal with Warriors of medium level when comparing broad sword with great sword.

As to Intricate Swordplay, that should be clarified. A feat chain having a single hand style and a sword and shield style would be nice. It would give a little more incentive to choose one of those styles...