1h vs 2h Weapon Balance

I have the opposite opinion, that 2-handed weapons are not much worth it. You have many 2-weapon fighting feats that are excellent to maximize 1-handed weapons.
I guess it's more a question of playstyle.

Also, you forget Strength bonus + elemental runes. So you have to add +3d6+7 at level 20.
A d12 weapon deals 43.5 average damage and a d8 weapon deals 35.5 average damage at level 20, if I don't make a mistake. The difference is not very high. For Barbarians, it's even less. There is not many reasons to use a 2-handed weapon on a Barbarian, even if I find that silly.

chart

Damage of Fighter with d12 wep, with 2 attacks (0/-5)MAP is pretty much the same as using Double Slice with and without an agile weapon.

I would have thought with a greater weapon pairing ring and 3 elemental damage runes duel wield would get a bit ahead of a two hander but that is one expensive investment for a boost late in the game.

Way I've thought of dual wield vs 2 hander has always been about flexibility. If I enchant one weapon with element x and the other with element y, I get more flex against resistances. Also, variation in poisons, where maybe I poison one to focus on damage and the other to focus on adding a condition, etc.

I have the opposite opinion, that 2-handed weapons are not much worth it. You have many 2-weapon fighting feats that are excellent to maximize 1-handed weapons.

I guess it's more a question of playstyle.

Also, you forget Strength bonus + elemental runes. So you have to add +3d6+7 at level 20.
A d12 weapon deals 43.5 average damage and a d8 weapon deals 35.5 average damage at level 20, if I don't make a mistake. The difference is not very high. For Barbarians, it's even less. There is not many reasons to use a 2-handed weapon on a Barbarian, even if I find that silly.

I mean, not everyone will be using elemental runes. Assuming everyone uses 3 of those on literally every weapon ignores a lot of the things provided by other runes.

I mean, not everyone will be using elemental runes. Assuming everyone uses 3 of those on literally every weapon ignores a lot of the things provided by other runes.

That's why I said it's a question of playstyle. If you need some non-damaging runes, then 2-handed can be better.

Well, that makes at least two points from OP's list of things Paizo should immediately fix invalid, let's see how the rest goes.

For me, the reason 2-handed is disappointing is that there are absolutely no feats to improve it. When you look at all the Fighter and Ranger feats + how the Barbarian rage encourages 1-handed, it's not hard to get better with 1-handed weapons than with 2-handed weapons. But as soon as 2-handed weapons feats will be released, it should be more balanced, with 2-handed being better offensively and 1-handed being more versatile.

While I don't doubt your math I have one thing to add. I do only think the comparison valid if you consider optimal builds and unlimited/equal wealth for all involved.

In game however this is not the experience I am having, at least at low level. For example we just found our first couple of striking runes and of course we did attach them to our highest hit die weapons first before moving on to include smaller hit die weapons like the rogue's short swords. As a result the 2h weapons look, feel and do OP at this very point of time.

I do not doubt that over the levels and at a point when everybody has his optimal equipment this may even out, however parity seems not to hold true very early on, at least not while playing regular APs (usually communist wealth sharing) and not PFS (where wealth/level is strictly individual).

I think 2H weapons have a bit more flexibility than Double Slice because you can also use them as 1-action Strikes. Likewise, with AoOs they're a bit more impressive.

Also there's things like Brutish Shove that require two-handed weapons.

I think overall you can't say one is clearly better than the other.

Has anyone run the numbers on weapon balance? Because of the rune system, it seems high damage die weapons scale much better than one handed weapons, even considering AC advantages of shields. Having a character doing 4d12+ every swing, not including all other other bonuses, seems overly much.

It's working as intended. The point of this, apparently, is now that since bonuses aren't the main factor of the difference in damage of pure martial characters, even though they still get a lot of extra bonuses, is the better weapons they get access to which have bigger dice and get more out of the +1 dice of striking runes.

Has anyone run the numbers on weapon balance? Because of the rune system, it seems high damage die weapons scale much better than one handed weapons, even considering AC advantages of shields. Having a character doing 4d12+ every swing, not including all other other bonuses, seems overly much.

2 points of damage per die on average. You aren't even looking at the full 4d12 damage until around level 18, for most of the game you are looking at 2 or 3 dice, so 4 to 6 points on average. Not insignificant, but not insurmountable. Benefits of not having both hands full of weapons include: shield use (prevents crits, reduces damage a couple times) and action savings (no need to regrip weapons after interacting with the world in a way that isn't stabbing) . I'd say a balanced trade, depending on playstyle. If you are worried, there is always the bastard sword so you can play both sides.

Not to mention that there are two handed weapons that aren't d12 damage dice. And those same d12 weapons don't really have interesting traits, IMO.

Honestly, the Gnome Flickmace is still where its at because of reach and being one handed. Sure it doesn't deal as much damage, but 1 handed reach is really awesome if you have AoO.