I'm debating whether to get an oversized weapon, taking a -2 to hit, but getting extra damage, and was just curious on people's thoughts on whether the tradeoff is worthwhile.
|
In Pathfinder, when characters gain levels the base damage of their weapon becomes less important. Everyone can get an enhancement bonus, strength bonus and power attack and each combat class also has other ways of increasing this numerical bonus.
Any damage is affected by the reduced attack roll while only the base damage is increased, making it a bad bargain in most cases.
I'm debating whether to get an oversized weapon, taking a -2 to hit, but getting extra damage, and was just curious on people's thoughts on whether the tradeoff is worthwhile.
Generally speaking, it's like having a point or two of Power Attack that you can't turn off (without switching weapons). If your attack bonus is high enough that you're always Power Attacking anyways (e.g. if you're already hitting on a 1, say), it might be mildly worth it. The difference in damage is pretty small, though, and most weapons have a larger-sized equivalent anyways (e.g. longsword -> greatsword).
|
Well, a large greataxe goes from 1d12 to 3d6 for a -2 to hit. Run the numbers, and you'll find that not only does that raise the average damage from 6.5 to 11.5 (+4), but it also makes it FAR more likely that you'll roll an 11 or 12, meaning your DPR gets much more consistent (no surprise 1's when you really don't want them).
Well, a large greataxe goes from 1d12 to 3d6 for a -2 to hit.
But (barring 3.5 feats like Monkey Grip) a Medium-sized character can't use a Large greataxe. So that's a poor example, isn't it?
advances feat:alchemist has a "lighten weapon" feat designed around the same premise as monkey grip.
check it out.
I was thinking of this feat in reference to a gunslinger and two weapon fighting with muskets instead of pistols.
Then again it would bring the -4 of two weapon pistols down to -2.... so its essentially a +2 attack feat, in that case.
|
|
The measure of how much effort it takes to use a weapon is altered
by one step for each size category of difference between the wielder’s size and the size of the creature for which the weapon was designed. For example, a Small creature would wield a Medium one-handed weapon as a two-handed weapon. If a weapon’s designation would be changed to
something other than light, one-handed, or two-handed by this alteration, the creature can’t wield the weapon at all.
So
One Handed Large = Two Handed for Medium
Two Handed Large = Can not use as a Medium
Large Battle Axe = Two Handed for Medium = 2D6
Large Scimitar = Two Handed for Medium = 1D8
If you have tons of to hit or are fighting low AC opponents, it's actually worth it. Large Falcatas and Bastard Swords topping the list.
Basically if you ALWAYS Power Attack, it's something to think about. Though it's hard to say when EWP:Falcata is a better feat than WF:Greatsword.
Speaking of large weapons, a large Sawtooth Sword gives the Falacata one hell of a run for it's money for best 1-handed weapon.
It is also worth it with a large Heavy crossbow (2d8) going vital strike, but I think the penalty is -6.
It is also worth it with a large Heavy crossbow (2d8) going vital strike, but I think the penalty is -6.
Forgot about Vital Strike. Once saw a ranger that swung a large bastard sword with enlarge, lead blades, and greater vital strike. He would Spring Attack for something like 16d8 + 40. Who needs Full Attacks?
certainly some nice options here, thanks for the ideas everyone.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
It is also worth it with a large Heavy crossbow (2d8) going vital strike, but I think the penalty is -6.Forgot about Vital Strike. Once saw a ranger that swung a large bastard sword with enlarge, lead blades, and greater vital strike. He would Spring Attack for something like 16d8 + 40. Who needs Full Attacks?
I dont think vital strike mix with spring attack. But it would have been Nice:(
The Titan Mauler barbarian lets you use oversized weapons without a penalty.
I dont think vital strike mix with spring attack. But it would have been Nice:(It is also worth it with a large Heavy crossbow (2d8) going vital strike, but I think the penalty is -6.Forgot about Vital Strike. Once saw a ranger that swung a large bastard sword with enlarge, lead blades, and greater vital strike. He would Spring Attack for something like 16d8 + 40. Who needs Full Attacks?
It did at the time. Spring Attack used to let you move before and after an attack action. It has since been errata'd to be a full-round action not unlike charge. I still house-rule it, though.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
It did at the time. Spring Attack used to let you move before and after an attack action. It has since been errata'd to be a full-round action not unlike charge. I still house-rule it, though.I dont think vital strike mix with spring attack. But it would have been Nice:(It is also worth it with a large Heavy crossbow (2d8) going vital strike, but I think the penalty is -6.Forgot about Vital Strike. Once saw a ranger that swung a large bastard sword with enlarge, lead blades, and greater vital strike. He would Spring Attack for something like 16d8 + 40. Who needs Full Attacks?
I lets you move before and after an attack. Not move before and after a standard action which is what vital strike needs.
Did no one notice this is a 3+ year necro?
Nope. Embarasing:(
It makes vital strike much more useful