Why STR should not multiply damage and for Power Attack

[Trodax]

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!

Against unarmored opponents, yes, 2 broadswords = 1 greatsword when it comes to damage output. But against someone in DR 6 armor it instead becomes (1d10-6)+(1d10-6) for the broadswords and 2d10-6 for the greatsword, a clear advantage for the bigger weapon (assuming no one penetrates, which the greatsword also has a better chance of doing). And besides, against opponents with a lot of hp, the greatsword always has a nice chance of inflicting massive damage which the broadsword can pretty much only do if rolling well on a critical hit.

And you actually have a -4 penalty if you fight with two broadswords. That stiff penalty pretty much forces you to always wield a light weapon in your off-hand, which further reduces the damage output and armor penetration.

The way I see it the raised damage for two-handers would have made total sense if all the other rules would have been the same as in D&D. But armor=DR and massive damage really puts some hefty advantages in the hands of the big weapons.

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.

Against a lot of low-level opponents is really where the two weapon fighter should rule, yes. When I first read the Conan rules and noticed that it was so much easier to fight with two weapons than in D&D, I really thought it would be overpowered. All those attacks, with no penalty?!
But in my game it has really turned out that the two-handed fighter by using Cleave+Great Cleave is better off against a lot of foes than the two weapon fighter.

I won't argue with you that fighting with two weapons is a good idea if you have sneak attack, though. That's a killer combo.

I'm not really sure why this discussion has turned into two-handed fighting vs. two weapon fighting, BTW. In my mind the problem is really that two-handers rock more than anything else. I actually think the difference between fighting with a greatsword and fighting with a single broadsword is too big. It makes Conan "more about the stuff, less about the man" than I think it should be.

 

[Trodax]

(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.

Yes, but those percentages would really have to be recalculated if you're up against someone in armor in Conan. For example, if you compare the guy with two broadswords and the guy with a greatsword against an opponent in DR 6 armor (the example I used above), the broadsword-guy will inflict damage on 40% of all successful hits (1d10-6) while the greatsword-guy will inflict damage on 85% of all successful hits (2d10-6) if you assume no Str bonus (a weird assumption, I know :wink: ). That would give you (I'm assuming the broadsword-wielder is taking only a -2 penalty as in your example, it should actually be -4):

Two-handed has 72% (.55*.85+.3*.85) to inflict damage this round.
Two Weapon has 44% (.45*.4+.45*.4+.2*.4) to inflict damage.
Imp. Two Weapon has 52% (.45*.4+.45*.4+.2*.4+.2*.4) to inflict damage

Now that's a quite weird analysis, but still...

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

True, and a good point.

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.

Yeah, that's true. However, just a mail shirt and a steel cap has a DR of 6 which can make quite a difference. And that kind of armor wasn't all that uncommon in the books.

 

[Foxworthy]

You're right DR does hurt the two weapon fighter, which makes sense. I believe that one of the Hyborian series actually has a feat to cover that sort of thing. A two weapon fighter can also get more use out of Weapon Focus, Weapon Spec, and Improved Crit. The armor piercing on the greatswor dis only one higher than that of a broadsword which isn't a huge diffrence.

Using the DR 6 example assuming the attacks hit, a str of 16 (which is low for a straight warrior), weapon focus and weapon spec, and power attack, let's say 5 level for PA. a greatsword will do (2d10+16)-3 at a +4 to hit. That's and average damage of 24

The double broadswords user would do (1d10+10)-3 and (1d10+8)-3 at a +2 to hit on both attacks, that's an average damage of 12.5 and 10.5 for 23 points of damage.

The broadsword isn't that far behind in damage. Add one die of senak attack and you get an average damage of 27.5 for the greatsword and 30 for the broadswords.

Arming swords and other finesse weapons through these equations off even more so. The same level character with a switch of that str bonus to dex. Let's say a str 0f 10 now for simplicty.

Two arming swords against a DR 6 would do (1d10+2)-6 and (1d10+2)-6 on an unfinesse attack for average damage of 1.5 and 1.5 but at a bonus of +7 to hit.

If either of the attacks finessed through the damage output would be 7.5 and 1.5 for 9 points of a damage. If both finessed average damage would be 15.

Add a str of 16 tot he dex of 16 and things go a bit diffently. The average damage becomes (1d10+5)-6 and (1d10+3)-6.

Unfinessed attacks do 7

Half finessed with the first attack finesed do 13

Half finessed with second attack finessed do 13

(note that seems wierd that they do the same average damage.)

Both attacks finessed do an average damage of 19

That's with +7 to hit and no power attack.

Let's do Power attack, Arming Swords, finesse, weapon spec, weapon focus, str 13 and dex 16 against DR 6.

5 point power attack = +2 to hit.

damage is (1d10+8)-6 and (1d10+7)-6.

Unfinessed attacks do an average of 14

First one finessed second one failed 20 damage

Second one finessed first one failed 20 damage.

Both finessed 26 damage.

Not bad. Pump that str up more and it can skyrocket. Plus add a bit of sneak attack and two arming swords could destroy a two handed weapon. The thing that has to be noted is that two wepaon fighting cost feats and ability scores to do right. It's not weak it just needs to be done right.

 

[quigs]

I had a player in my Conan campaign switch from using 2 arming swords with 2 weapon fighting to using a greatsword and power attacking.

Not only did he do way more damage, he almost always penetrated his opponent's DR.

So before you consider changing any of the SRD rules which are proven to work, such as power attack, 2 weapon fighting, and multiplying strength bonuses for 2 handed weapons, I would first look at the Conan rules to see if the problem can be found there.

I have noticed in my campaigns, that just because a house rule or idea sounds good and may give more realistic results, it may not work that well when it comes down to smooth gameplay that is both enjoyable for players and GM's alike.

 

[Ichabod]

I had a player in my Conan campaign switch from using 2 arming swords with 2 weapon fighting to using a greatsword and power attacking.

Not only did he do way more damage, he almost always penetrated his opponent's DR.

So before you consider changing any of the SRD rules which are proven to work, such as power attack, 2 weapon fighting, and multiplying strength bonuses for 2 handed weapons, I would first look at the Conan rules to see if the problem can be found there.

I have noticed in my campaigns, that just because a house rule or idea sounds good and may give more realistic results, it may not work that well when it comes down to smooth gameplay that is both enjoyable for players and GM's alike.

This goes to the heart of my complaint with the discrepancy in effectiveness of various combat styles. We have a party of six major characters. Currently, one uses a bardiche or greatsword. That number should be five, with only the (mostly) thief not gaining much out of the deal.

The GM could come up with more combat situations that involve lots of fragile opponents who spread out (without using mook rules that were based on damage generated like we recently did), but it would have to be quite the extreme in terms of changing how encounters are done to mitigate the effectiveness of the big blow. A horde of 2nd and 3rd level dudes isn't going to crumble to the mighty arming sword plus 1-2 points of STR damage, but it gets eviscerated by 2H + Cleave.

Just for thematic drama, a lot of major battles are likely to be with monsters or characters of comparable or higher level than the party. They often die in one shot to massive damage, maybe two for badass monsters. They take "forever" to kill without. Higher level barbarians and pirates are hard to sneak attack and monsters immune to crits are impossible. Gigantic amounts of normal damage never goes out of fashion.

 

[Netherek]

Well I haven't seen any threads on the fact that the Warhammer and the Bec-de-Corbin are under powered due the fact that they do 1d6 and 2d4 respedtively. They appear pretty under powered, the only time they ever perform to any value is when they penetrate but no other weapon can for the particular character. Only than are they slightly better. Other than that, they suck...

To address the problem of mooks. Quit sending mooks. Send in some bada$$es on occasion, and force them on the defensive. You can't make the encounters balanced in the sense of CR/D&D, or PC's can rely on D&D tried and true tactics. Don't forget, mooks can take serious advantage of outnumber as each attacker after the first gain a to hit bonus. That and weapons can be sundered. If this isn't enough, make use of the damage to parrying weapons as well.

Two handed weapons are dangerous, and rightfully should be. They were nasty historically, and that's what they do. Just remeber that these weapons are inappropriate in many situations, such as in urban settings and the like.

 

[Trodax]

A two weapon fighter can also get more use out of Weapon Focus, Weapon Spec, and Improved Crit.

Yeah, true, there is absolutely an advantage there for the two weapon fighter. It does mean you will want to have the same weapon in both hands, though, and since you take a -4 penalty for fighting with two one-handed weapons, that will pretty much mean you'll be using two light weapons (shortswords). Not saying that's crap or anything, a soldier with two shortswords can probably be a decent setup, but it will give a little lower damage.

As for your other examples, as I said above, there is a -4 penalty for fighting with two one-handed weapons, so fighting with two broadswords or two arming swords will hurt you a lot.
Also, finessing is often quite hard to do successfully (DR 6 ain't easy unless your a lot better than you're opponent), so it's a bit weird to compare damage of a successful finesse attack with that of a greatsword that penetrates armor automatically. And especially the combination of finesse and Power Attack will make it very hard for you to hit. All in all, in my game I've found that hitting hard with an armor penetrating weapon is a lot better at dealing with armor than finessing is.

Well I haven't seen any threads on the fact that the Warhammer and the Bec-de-Corbin are under powered due the fact that they do 1d6 and 2d4 respedtively. They appear pretty under powered, the only time they ever perform to any value is when they penetrate but no other weapon can for the particular character. Only than are they slightly better. Other than that, they suck...

Well the reason for that is probably that it's a much lesser problem if you have one weapon that is underpowered (no one will simply use it) than if you have one weapon that is overpowered (everyone will want to use it!).

Still, though, maybe it's time for a "Save the warhammer!!!"-thread.

 

[Iorwerth]

I have just got the Shem sourcebook and it has a Combat manoeuvre that may be relevant to this discussion:

It is called:

Combine Damage
Prerequisites: More than 1 attack per round, Combat expertise, Quick Draw, Wis 13, Dex 13
You must make a full attack action and all attacks must succeees and be against the same target. Each blow is -2 damage and AP of weapon -2. No Power attack or any feats in its chain may be used. If satisfied then all the damage of different attacks is dealt as if it were a single blow.

 

[Netherek]

If one nerf's Str and bonus PA damage because a 2hander is King, then you run into quirks like when one uses a Warsword switching handedness. Shouldn't using the same weapon 2handed do more damage than using it in one?

We all know the answer is yes.

Also...

Why don't we have complaints comparing the dagger to a broadsword. The Broadsword has almost double the damage, and 2 AP higher. Why isn't their a discussion about a sword overpowering a dagger???

We don't discuss this degree of variance because it makes sense. You don't bring a dagger to fight an Armed and Armoured conflict, you bring a heavier weapon.

Not to mention that the degree of increase is a close match between Dagger/Broadsword and Broadsword/Greatsword. In a Dagger/Broadsword comparison you get a 2 die step increase and a 2 AP increase. With Broadsword/Greatsword you get a 3 die step increas and 1 AP increase.

This seems to be a trend with most of the weapons in relation to each other and size increases.

I think the problem with having a lot of Power Attackers is that the Power Attack feat chain is HUGE, and there are a lot of cool feats. There really needs to be some Shield and Empty Off-hand feats to encourage those styles. I say this not because I think it's broken, but because you have much less variation between those that use those styles than ones that use the Power Attack chain.

As it stands my compiled feat list which has almost every conan book added in has 20+ feats related to Power Attack, and only 8 relating to Combat Expertise, and 4 relating to parry. This really should change to break the symmetry of the lesser feat chains.

 

[Sutek]

Why isn't their a discussion about a sword overpowering a dagger???

That's kinda been my point, to some degree. Arguing that two-handed weapons deal much more damage than one-handed ones causes me to have a reaction of, "No duh!"

The sword/dagger comparison isn't being made because the 2x multiplier to STR bonus when using Power Attack with a two-handed weapon is all the problem seems to be. Wht not make a GM call and say it doesn't wok that way since you already get bonus damage due to the sacrifice/bonus trade off that Power Attack provides????? You got me...

I tried stating that fact that weapons have different tacticsand usefulness, but that was largely ignored or shot down long ago.

The only adendum that'll I'll mention in terms of you question is that I believe tat puncturing weapons ought to have better AP across the board versus soft armor. That would include the likes of daggers and arrows. It makes a finesse attack more appropriate for heavily armored foes and allows for strong characters to weild a dagger in a more threatening manner as well.

 

[Netherek]

I agree Sutek. The funny thing, is that I went through the weapon list making comparisons of weapon families. They all scale in a similar manor. Nothing is broken...

I think the problem is that it's obvious how to use a 2 hander to great effect, and missing the fact that you can counter it in different ways. There are many ways to counter the power house, getting him prone through trips, grapples, and the like are all starters at removing the potential of the one hit wonder.

 

[thulsa]

The sword/dagger comparison isn't being made because the 2x multiplier to STR bonus when using Power Attack with a two-handed weapon is all the problem seems to be. Wht not make a GM call and say it doesn't wok that way since you already get bonus damage due to the sacrifice/bonus trade off that Power Attack provides?????

I've used that house rule recently in my campaign. Since you already get x1.5 Str for using both hands, and the two-handed weapons deal more base damage, it seemed somewhat over-the-top to also give double PA damage.

- thulsa

 

[Majestic7]

I have just got the Shem sourcebook and it has a Combat manoeuvre that may be relevant to this discussion:

It is called:

Combine Damage
Prerequisites: More than 1 attack per round, Combat expertise, Quick Draw, Wis 13, Dex 13
You must make a full attack action and all attacks must succeees and be against the same target. Each blow is -2 damage and AP of weapon -2. No Power attack or any feats in its chain may be used. If satisfied then all the damage of different attacks is dealt as if it were a single blow.

That sounds like a very good maneuver for causing insane massive damage DC in conjucation with two weapons and sneak attack (and the target being flat-footed).

 

[Lord Jolly the Scribe]

Someone break out the slide rule.

I say play it the way you want it and don't worry about what it is you really hate about the rule. The game is there to enjoy and if a guy does a few more points of damage to something, so be it.

Personally it is fine the way it is in my opinion. Disagree? Ok, then don't use it. Agree? Ok, have fun hacking things to itty bitty meatchunks.

But sometimes on the griping I hear on here makes me remember why i quit games like Calculus...I mean DnD long ago. There was more math involved and figuring equal bonuses to appropriate challenges squared by gold coins divided by bardic music than i could shake a longsword at.

(Sorry bout the last little bit. I am working a long shift today )

 

[slaughterj]

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

Not hard at all if you GM the NPCs as total idiots standing around slack-jawed in a featureless plain. But if you GM at least somewhat competently, then you'll run NPCs as if they are smart enough to realize they don't want to get surrounded (i.e., they adjust position to avoid being flanked), there will be plenty of scenarios with things in the way (e.g., walls, wagons, etc. adjacent to the characters, fights in hallways, a row of warriors, etc.) that prevent flanking, and PCs have only but so much movement and often don't want to incur an AOO just to get into flanking position. So sure, flanking does occur, but NOT as often as Mr. Greatsword gets to attack (which is every round!).

 

[jadrax]

I dot think anyone would disagree that if you go out of you way to stop anyone ever sneak attacking that Two Handed Weapons become more powerful.

Just liek if you run every fight inside a ship they become less powerful.

However in a straight one on one fight, Assuming equal strength (20) the level 20 Greatsword user gets 4 attacks doing 2D10+7 damage.

A duel wielder with two zybar knifes gets (assuming he has 1 feet dedicated to it) 8 attacks doing D12+5 damage. (admittedly with a penalty to hit)

Its nowhere near as unbalanced as people are making out.

 

[slaughterj]

I dot think anyone would disagree that if you go out of you way to stop anyone ever sneak attacking that Two Handed Weapons become more powerful.

I'm not saying that, but look at how your own PCs run their characters. You don't find them stuck in flanked positions much, and NPCs are probably trained and smart enough to realize they should avoid the same.

However in a straight one on one fight, Assuming equal strength (20) the level 20 Greatsword user gets 4 attacks doing 2D10+7 damage.

A duel wielder with two zybar knifes gets (assuming he has 1 feet dedicated to it) 8 attacks doing D12+5 damage. (admittedly with a penalty to hit)

Its nowhere near as unbalanced as people are making out.

A -4 penalty to hit on each attack, and each attack at a lower AP, thus likely much less effective against armor. Plus you didn't factor in the 2x effect for power attack for the Greatsword guy. Plus you didn't factor in if the character has a partial action, has to charge, or has to move and then attack (things that often have to be done in combat, especially if you have 4-8 attacks and can easily cut down the opponent next to you, you'll have to move on to the next one), that the Greatsword guy will severely outclass the knife guy.

 

[Sutek]

I dot think anyone would disagree that if you go out of you way to stop anyone ever sneak attacking that Two Handed Weapons become more powerful.

I'm not saying that, but look at how your own PCs run their characters. You don't find them stuck in flanked positions much, and NPCs are probably trained and smart enough to realize they should avoid the same.

I said it once, but I'll say it again: Totally untrue.

Tumble + Sneak attack is performed regularly in my group because they can pull it off without filling up feat slots to deal tremendous damage. You want economy? Sneak attack dice are essentailly FREE!!! you just have to survive and level up (lol). You don't have to "spend" anything and getting into a flanking position is just standing in one of the many squares opposite any of you fellow party members with any bad guy in between. It's opposite border or opposite corner in Conan to achieve a Flank, so all you need is to have trhe Sneak attacker and his ally in two of six possible positions out of eight - that ain't or rare at all.

What might be a nice add/change is to make Defensive Parry be that sacrificing one attack at your highest bonus gets you a bonus to your defense equal to that attack bonus. The Bonus from shields can remain as is (although it doesn't really tell you what the DP shield bonus is actually, does it?).

 

[jadrax]

A -4 penalty to hit on each attack, and each attack at a lower AP, thus likely much less effective against armor. Plus you didn't factor in the 2x effect for power attack for the Greatsword guy. Plus you didn't factor in if the character has a partial action, has to charge, or has to move and then attack (things that often have to be done in combat, especially if you have 4-8 attacks and can easily cut down the opponent next to you, you'll have to move on to the next one), that the Greatsword guy will severely outclass the knife guy.

Yes, circumstances do effect it.

Having a two handed weapon means it can be sundered pretty much in one blow, having a two handed weapon means you often do massive over kill wasting damage, having a two handed weapon gives -2 in crampt conditions, having a two handed weapon means you cant use certain feats and having a two handed weapon means your probably never finessing.

If Your clearly running or playing in a game that emphasizes not having full attacks, not flanking and not fighting hordes of low level opponents, then yes get a two handed weapon.

 

[Trodax]

Not to mention that the degree of increase is a close match between Dagger/Broadsword and Broadsword/Greatsword. In a Dagger/Broadsword comparison you get a 2 die step increase and a 2 AP increase. With Broadsword/Greatsword you get a 3 die step increas and 1 AP increase.

This seems to be a trend with most of the weapons in relation to each other and size increases.

Well, the increase in base damage if you go dagger-broadsword-greatsword isn't linear, it's pretty much exponential:
d4 - average 2,5
d10 - average 5,5
2d10 - average 11

And even if you think this increase is logical for whatever reason, that doesn't by definition mean it's balanced with the rest of the combat system. The thing is that there are discreet thresholds in the damage system: penetrates armor/does not penetrate armor, inflicts massive damage/does not inflict massive damage. The thing that I have found about two-handed weapons is that they often end up above those thresholds, while other weapons end up below them. My point is that 2d10 isn't necessarily twice as good as 1d10, and AP 4 isn't necessarily twice as good as AP 2, the higher values can often be the thing that ends the battle.