|
These all use the same basic game mechanism. You subtract x from attack and gain x to damage or defense.
Now looking at the Preview for the ranger and fighter one is level 11 (BAB +11) and one is level 14 (BAB +14). The ranger can subtract -3 from his ranged attack and add +6 to damage. The fighter can subtract -4 from his melee attack and add +8 to damage.
It seems to follow any every 4 level (or BAB) progression:
Level 1-4 -1/+2
Level 5-8 -2/+4
Level 9-12 -3/+6
Level 13-16 -4/+8
Level 17-20 -5/+10
My guess is this damage is added to the primary weapon regardless of 1 or 2 handed and the off-handed weapon is half of this. This is my theory on this mechanic. It is simple, which is what they want to keep.
Any ideas? Comments?
-Remoh
That sounds about right, unfortunately.
Yep, that seems to be essentially how it'll work fortunately.
We don't know the exact formula. It could be how you listed, 1 at 1st, +1 per 4 additional levels, or per 4 levels (4th/8th/12th). Or it could be 1 per 3 levels, min 1 (2 @ 6th, then 9th/12th).
Seems pretty darn powerful.
We don't know how Combat Expertise works - formula looks the same, but not doubled for Valeros. It may double with a shield though.
Seems pretty darn powerful.
Uh...what?
It's powerful like a smurf!
I would be terribly disappointed if power attack was the same for one and two handed weapons.
I would be terribly disappointed if power attack was the same for one and two handed weapons.
Why?
I would be terribly disappointed if power attack was the same for one and two handed weapons.Why?
Because it was important for balancing the different styles of melee combat. Compared to using a two handed weapon, two weapon fighting is made substantially more powerful by precision based damage. Power attack was the the opposite, providing a greater benefit for wielding a two handed weapon compared to two weapon fighting.
Not to mention the number of 3.5 feats and class features that used the same principle wherein an effect is doubled when wielding a two handed weapon.
also note, it only seemed to apply to one weapon at a time...which keeps it balanced. It may be that two handers get a +50% bonus and off hand weapons get Power Attack at 50%...but if so, that again makes sword and board the odd man out for damage.
==Aelryinth
Because it was important for balancing the different styles of melee combat. Compared to using a two handed weapon, two weapon fighting is made substantially more powerful by precision based damage. Power attack was the the opposite, providing a greater benefit for wielding a two handed weapon compared to two weapon fighting.
Not to mention the number of 3.5 feats and class features that used the same principle wherein an effect is doubled when wielding a two handed weapon.
I see. I counter with: no. There are two viable methods of melee combat in D&D (outside of Tome of Battle): one is using a two-handed sword and Power Attack. The other is by having lots of bonus damage dice and using Two-Weapon Fighting. (Actually, there are three, but the action-negating fighter isn't what we're talking about here.)
One-handed fighters get nothing. I mean, they get a boost to AC, but that's...well, the two-handed fighters can just use an animated shield.
At first glance I didn't like this, but after thinking about it for awhile, I realize it is a really big boost to Shield users, dual wielders, and archers. Having it be fixed based on level seems to be a nice solution.
I think this change goes a long way toward making all of the fighting styles a little more equally effective on the battlefield.
Nice solution to the whole Power Attack thing.
|
Well, we don't know for SURE this is how they are going to do it, though it will probably be some variation similar to this.
And regarding Sword and Board being suboptimal, I disagree. It is suboptimal if the only thing you are interested in is dealing damage. Generally speaking, Two-handed fighters get +1 or perhaps +2 to damage. That is hardly earth shattering in difference. As a trade-off sword and board get +1 to +2 to AC.
Seems about even to me.
Because it was important for balancing the different styles of melee combat. Compared to using a two handed weapon, two weapon fighting is made substantially more powerful by precision based damage. Power attack was the the opposite, providing a greater benefit for wielding a two handed weapon compared to two weapon fighting.
Not to mention the number of 3.5 feats and class features that used the same principle wherein an effect is doubled when wielding a two handed weapon.
I see. I counter with: no. There are two viable methods of melee combat in D&D (outside of Tome of Battle): one is using a two-handed sword and Power Attack. The other is by having lots of bonus damage dice and using Two-Weapon Fighting. (Actually, there are three, but the action-negating fighter isn't what we're talking about here.)
One-handed fighters get nothing. I mean, they get a boost to AC, but that's...well, the two-handed fighters can just use an animated shield.
You essentially repeated exactly what I said and then added a comment about one handed one weapon fighters. Now I'll reiterate what Krome said. If you are using a shield, damage isn't a priority for you. If it is, you're doing it wrong.
In terms of damage output, two handed weapons and two weapon fighting should each be viable. Precision damage bonuses and power attack with a bonus for two handed weapons were effective ways to maintain balance. It doesn't look like anything has been done to affect precision damage, so power attack should not be the same for one and two handed weapons.
Damage "not being a priority" as a shield user is painful to contemplate. What else are you going to do? If you're not an actual threat to a monster, it's going to ignore you, and all the AC in the world isn't going to stop it from eating your teammates.
Is this going to make Two-Handed fighting sub-optimal now?
If something has 18 Str and Power Attacks for 4 using a Longsword the damage would be 1d8+12.
If something has 18 Str and Power Attacks for 4 using a Greatsword the damage would be 2d6+14. An average of 3.5 more damage, only 2 of which comes from the actual Two-Handed mechanic. Seems pretty minimal.
|
|
Yeah, the boost you get from two handed weapons is nice, but not earth shattering by any means.
Add in to the mix that some of the newer shield feats allow some nice attacks using the shield and pretty much the difference in damage is accounted for, and the sword and board gets that boost to AC.
The advantage that the sword and board has is that he takes less damage. At minimum he is hit an average of 10% less often, and if the shield is magical that increases. Which means less healing the cleric has to do, which allows the cleric to become a viable attacking character. Add his damage to what the Fighter is doing and the sword and board becomes superior.
But if the cleric has to always be a healbot because the fighter is always hit... I like a game that is cooperative more than a game where one player shines and another has to constantly be a healbot.
I play a Pathfinder game like that. The Barbarian and Cleric/Fighter (Two-handed) are always being hit for mega damage. Each of them has to have a cleric follow behind them as healbots or they would drop before the job is done. Personally I would rather do a couple points less damage and be a viable long term fighter than a two or three shot and drop character.
Interestingly it is the Sorceress with her Magic Missile that is the DPS leader (never misses).
|
|
Is this going to make Two-Handed fighting sub-optimal now?
If something has 18 Str and Power Attacks for 4 using a Longsword the damage would be 1d8+12.
If something has 18 Str and Power Attacks for 4 using a Greatsword the damage would be 2d6+14. An average of 3.5 more damage, only 2 of which comes from the actual Two-Handed mechanic. Seems pretty minimal.
does that make it sub-optimal?
No, it makes it balanced. It would be a darn shame if everyone only played a two-handed fighter. No one would ever want to play a cleric then!
Making something balanced doesn't make it sub-optimal, but does make the character itself more versatile (in other words he now has more options).
Well, we don't know for SURE this is how they are going to do it, though it will probably be some variation similar to this.
And regarding Sword and Board being suboptimal, I disagree. It is suboptimal if the only thing you are interested in is dealing damage. Generally speaking, Two-handed fighters get +1 or perhaps +2 to damage. That is hardly earth shattering in difference. As a trade-off sword and board get +1 to +2 to AC.
Seems about even to me.
animated shiled. Changes everything.
does that make it sub-optimal?No, it makes it balanced. It would be a darn shame if everyone only played a two-handed fighter. No one would ever want to play a cleric then!
Making something balanced doesn't make it sub-optimal, but does make the character itself more versatile (in other words he now has more options).
If an alternative is clearly superior then I'd say that makes something sub-optimal. This version of Power Attack seems to make the benefit of Two-Handed fighting too small to warrant using it.
And if the only Fighter anyone ever played was two-handed I'm certain many people would still play a Cleric. Very certain.
Trust me, I would love for sword and board to be exactly as viable as two-handed. This seems too small of a benefit to lose a shield.
However, I could not be seeing the big picture. What other the other advantages of a Two-Handed weapon in such a system?
animated shiled. Changes everything.
Maybe in 3.5 that was true.
Damage "not being a priority" as a shield user is painful to contemplate. What else are you going to do? If you're not an actual threat to a monster, it's going to ignore you, and all the AC in the world isn't going to stop it from eating your teammates.
You use feats, class abilities, and combat maneuvers (of you or your party members) to deny your opponent movement and apply status effects to make it so that you are the only one for your opponent to attack. Hopefully that isn't too painful to you...
|
And regarding Sword and Board being suboptimal, I disagree. It is suboptimal if the only thing you are interested in is dealing damage. Generally speaking, Two-handed fighters get +1 or perhaps +2 to damage. That is hardly earth shattering in difference. As a trade-off sword and board get +1 to +2 to AC.
Seems about even to me.
If you're a fighter, you're there to do damage. The hit point mechanic of d20 combat makes dealing damage really the only viable way of making a useful front-line character - see also the 3.5 monk, which stays alive and really doesn't do a damn thing else, and therefore might as well not be there.
And +1 to +2 damage is only true at levels 1-3. Every 2 points of Strength bonus is a +3 bonus to damage for the two-hander and +2 damage for the one-hander. Cast bull's strength. Be a barbarian and go into a rage. Gain a size bonus - this one's particularly a big deal, because two-handed weapons also have better weapon dice, which means they get more effect out of spells like enlarge person. All of these enhance the two-hander more than the one-hander in terms of damage output.
(And in Pathfinder, consider the effect of Vital Strike and its successive feats - which would you rather have, another 2d8 or another 4d6?)
Also, let's not forget the money game. A two-weapon fighter has to pay to enhance his armor and both weapons, the most expensive proposition. A sword-and-board guy has to pay for armor, weapon and shield. The two-hander, though, only has to pay for armor and weapon, which typically means he'll have a better weapon and/or better physical enhancements, which only increases the damage disparity.
In 3.5, however, all of this paled next to the potential of Power Attack, which could produce extra damage for a two-hander over a one-hander in ranges from anywhere to +1 to +20, depending on context. Even in Pathfinder, some of the strongest new feats to appear in the Beta were the Overhand Chop line - Backswing in particular is pretty damn good, and only accessible to two-handers.
Two-handed fighting is still just fine. But the gap has been closed somewhat, and that makes me happy.
Is this going to make Two-Handed fighting sub-optimal now?
If something has 18 Str and Power Attacks for 4 using a Longsword the damage would be 1d8+12.
If something has 18 Str and Power Attacks for 4 using a Greatsword the damage would be 2d6+14. An average of 3.5 more damage, only 2 of which comes from the actual Two-Handed mechanic. Seems pretty minimal.
does that make it sub-optimal?
No, it makes it balanced. It would be a darn shame if everyone only played a two-handed fighter. No one would ever want to play a cleric then!
Making something balanced doesn't make it sub-optimal, but does make the character itself more versatile (in other words he now has more options).
How is it balanced if they do almost the same damage and the longsword user can hold a shield, or even another longsword? Two handed weapons should be balanced in terms of damage with two weapon fighting, not one handed one weapon fighting. Think of it this way, if power attack gives the same damage bonus to two handed weapons as one handed primary weapons, the two weapon fighter gets more of a benefit than the two handed weapon user:
Fighter A, wielding a great sword power attacks for -4 = +8 bonus damage
Fighter B, wielding a longsword primary, short sword off-hand power attacks for -4 = +8 bonus damage primary and +4 bonus damage off-hand for a total of +12 damage
How is that balanced?
"How is that balanced?"
It is balanced by half a dozen other factors in the game that you are ignoring.
Without going into too much detail:
A two handed attacker is at full attack bonus, vs -2, -2 (with at least one feat)
A two handed weapon has larger damage dice (1d8) vs (2d6) (see Enlarged)
A two handed attacker adds STR X 1.5 vs X 1 (or X .5 for offhand) (see Enlarged)
A two handed attacker can move and do his most powerful attack vs requiring a full attack action.
A two handed attacker gets maximum benefit out of any type of weapon focus, specialization, weapons training, improved critical, etc.
A two handed attacker has an edge at overcoming DR, and only requires a single weapon of the appropriate type.
A two handed attacker benefits greatly from a high strength, vs a dual wielder REQUIRING a very high DEX, and also benefiting from a high strength.
A two handed attacker requires few feats to reach near- maximum, vs many, many feats required for getting max benefit from other styles.
A two handed attacker generally recievs a greater benefit from spells like magic weapon, holy sword, haste, etc.
With all those advantages, I think that you can still build a great sword and shield, two weapon fighter, or archer.
As for all the comments about "that is all a fighter is", I would have to say - You are doing it wrong. If you take all of those feats that you accumulate as a mid level fighter and put them into one type of style, you are bound to be disappointed. From my experience, the real power of the fighter is that he can have a great AC, deal a ton of melee damage, AND kill you at 200" with his bow.
Again, I really thought that the two-handed power attack overshadowed all other style at the expense of the healer, but these changes and the new feats seem to have leveled the playing field. Great job Paizo folks!
If I am unable to augment "Power" Attack significantly through my amount of strength, it is displeasing and I am displeased.
In 3.x you could take whatever penalty you wanted. If you had greater strength you could take a larger penalty without worrying as much about missing.
In Beta you were limited by strength bonus or BaB, whichever was lower. Since most melee classes have a good BaB, a high strength generally gave a direct increase to viability.
Basing Power Attack off of your BaB only is stupid. I don't typically use that sort of word when referring to something Paizo may have done because I bow to their greater expertise in crafting game mechanics. But come on...
The power attack of a 14 strength ranger and a 30 strength giant are the same? Or the giant gets less benefit because most of its attack bonus comes from strength and the ranger is high level? Retarded.
As an aside, why would you want to bone a feat into uselessness just because you don't feel like your choice of fighting style is effective enough? Why not make your style more capable rather than the alternative less capable? People are still saying that fighters are underpowered and useless in high level play, but you want to see ANY option nerfed? Bad plan.
[EDIT] The last couple of sentences were directed towards the general hissyfit over 2h vs 2wp vs sw&b, not an individual poster.
Indeed. What I am unconvinced of is the usefulness of a Two-Handed weapon over Sword & Board with this system. Two-Weapon Fighting has it's very deadly uses still. But I'm failing to see why I would want to give up a shield for a very minimal damage increase.
animated shiled. Changes everything.Maybe in 3.5 that was true.
well we have to wait and see, won't we? ;-)
stuff
I agree.
Let's hope the gap has been closed somewhat.We still have to wait and see if Two-handed fighting is -1/+2 or -1/+3 and if all the cool crit feats etc. are still there.
But I'm failing to see why I would want to give up a shield for a very minimal damage increase.
Devastating Blow!
But I'm failing to see why I would want to give up a shield for a very minimal damage increase.Devastating Blow!
Hmm, the Overhand Chop tree does give another boost to Two-Handers, not a huge one, but a decent one. Devastating Blow itself greatly shines with scythes and greataxes, but greatswords get a boost out it when you cannot full attack.
The Overhand Chop tree was completely useless in Beta. The only part that wasn't a complete and utter failure was Devastating Blow, and that failed because it turned all fighters into scythe fighters.
The Overhand Chop tree was completely useless in Beta. The only part that wasn't a complete and utter failure was Devastating Blow, and that failed because it turned all fighters into scythe fighters.
I fail to see how it was completely useless. It's not amazing certainly, but it had the potential to add some damage, which is never a bad thing.
A standard action to add twice your Strength modifier to damage instead of 1.5 times your Strength modifier? That extra four points of damage isn't helping anyone.
A standard action to add twice your Strength modifier to damage instead of 1.5 times your Strength modifier? That extra four points of damage isn't helping anyone.
And you use it before you actually get any extra attacks, which means it's extra damage. Then Backswing is similarly extra damage for free once you gain extra attacks at 6 BAB.
Overhand Chop is also useful for when you cannot full attack, which is very often.
It's at the costs of Feats, but for a Fighter that is often not much of a cost.
Four. Points. Of damage. And I'm talking level 20, when you have a +8 modifier to your Strength score.
Four. Points. Of damage. And I'm talking level 20, when you have a +8 modifier to your Strength score.
Compared to Weapon Specialization which gives 2 points of damage? And I'd assume that most Fighters have a Str higher than 26 at level 20, especially Two-Handed users, especially with buffs from the party.
Backswing also gives 3x Str Modifier if the character has +11 BAB, so a 26 Str character would gain 12 damage on the first attack.
I'm not saying it's an awesome set of feats, I'm not even saying it's a great set of feats. I'm merely saying it's not ENTIRELY USELESS.
No hard feelings in all of this, I'm just trying to get a feel for where your coming from. Your previous posts in this thread make it seem as you like the changes to Power Attack so that it does not favor Two-Handed weapons over One-Handed weapons, which if fine. But you also believe the other feat options for Two-Handed weapons are sub-par. Where do you feel Two-Handed fighting still gets power from?
Compared to Weapon Specialization which gives 2 points of damage? And I'd assume that most Fighters have a Str higher than 26 at level 20, especially Two-Handed users, especially with buffs from the party.
16 starting Strength. +5 from leveling, +5 inherent bonus, +6 enhancement bonus = 32 Strength. So a +11 modifier total, which means that you'd be getting +22 damage rather than +15. Sigh. Seven points, then. Monsters still laugh at it.
Oh, and the Pathfinder changes make it even harder for the fighter to get his Strength that high, given the nerfs to wish.
Ironically enough, Weapon Specialization--which is an awful feat, by the way--ends up being better than Overhand Chop because you can use it on a full attack. Which means that you're a) making more attacks with it, so you're getting +2 damage on each attack, and b) you're far more likely to threaten a crit with it, allowing the damage to be multiplied.
I'm not saying it's an awesome set of feats, I'm not even saying it's a great set of feats. I'm merely saying it's not ENTIRELY USELESS.
Fair enough. I suppose I shouldn't say "entirely useless"--I should say "not worth the feat it costs."
Trust me, I don't consider Weapon Specialization to be a good feat. But even on a full attack, if each attack hits, it only adds 8 damage, 1 more than the extra 7 damage from Overhand Chop on a single attack.
Yes, Pathfinder does make it harder to get a high strength. You could squeeze out another 4 if there is an 18 starting and a +2 racial mod, but not all characters will have that.
And Backswing will add an 22 damage (33 total) on the first hit of a full attack at +11 BAB. Nor does Backswing lessen the potency of a full attack, keeping the chance to crit just as high. 22 extra damage instead of +8 from Weapon Specialization. Not great still, and probably a bit underwhelming, but that just brings me back to my point which you did not address...
What are the advantages of Two-Handed weapons over Sword & Board with the changed Power Attack? With your example of a 32 strength the greatsword will give you 15 strength damage compared to the 11 from a longsword. 4 damage a hit is not much by the time a character can actually have 32 strength.
Backswing allows for a full attack? Hmm. Well, that's slightly better.
What are the advantages of Two-Handed weapons over Sword & Board with the changed Power Attack? With your example of a 32 strength the greatsword will give you 15 strength damage compared to the 11 from a longsword. 4 damage a hit is not much by the time a character can actually have 32 strength.
Two-handed weapons allow you to have all the benefits of one-handed fighting (higher AC and all that) with none of the drawbacks (lower damage output). Yes, the changes to Power Attack made one-handed fighting more viable, but why would you when you could just have a floating shield?
"How is that balanced?"
It is balanced by half a dozen other factors in the game that you are ignoring.
Without going into too much detail:
A two handed attacker is at full attack bonus, vs -2, -2 (with at least one feat)
A two handed weapon has larger damage dice (1d8) vs (2d6) (see Enlarged)
A two handed attacker adds STR X 1.5 vs X 1 (or X .5 for offhand) (see Enlarged)
A two handed attacker can move and do his most powerful attack vs requiring a full attack action.
A two handed attacker gets maximum benefit out of any type of weapon focus, specialization, weapons training, improved critical, etc.
A two handed attacker has an edge at overcoming DR, and only requires a single weapon of the appropriate type.
A two handed attacker benefits greatly from a high strength, vs a dual wielder REQUIRING a very high DEX, and also benefiting from a high strength.
A two handed attacker requires few feats to reach near- maximum, vs many, many feats required for getting max benefit from other styles.
A two handed attacker generally recievs a greater benefit from spells like magic weapon, holy sword, haste, etc.
Sure they take an attack penalty, but you get up to three extra attacks.
Damage dice? Is that a joke? Thats an average of 2 extra damage.The same logic that gave 1.5x STR bonus (1.5 two handed = 1.0 primary hand + 0.5 offhand) is the same logic that gave double damage on power attack (2x bonus for two handed = 1x primary hand + 1x off-hand).
A standard action is one attack regardless and if its the two handed fighters 'most powerful attack' it is the two weapon fighter's 'most powerful attack' also.
If the two weapon fighter wields the same weapon, they receive even more of a benefit from weapon focus, specialization, weapons training, improved critical, etc.
They actually receive exactly the same benefit from those spells...
Yes, two weapon fighting requires feats and attribute scores, but the benefit gained from precision damage (sneak attack, sudden strike, etc.) is much greater than for a two handed fighter. Power attack was the counter balance to precision damage.
Backswing allows for a full attack? Hmm. Well, that's slightly better.
Two-handed weapons allow you to have all the benefits of one-handed fighting (higher AC and all that) with none of the drawbacks (lower damage output). Yes, the changes to Power Attack made one-handed fighting more viable, but why would you when you could just have a floating shield?
What would be the point of Backswing if it did not allow for a full attack action? :D
So you're belief is that you loose nothing by Two-Handed fighting because you can simply get an Animated Shield? Understandable.
It would seem to be that the inherent problem here is not that Two-Handed fighting is too potent, but that Animated Shields make Sword & Board obsolete.
There are the obvious limitations of needing to be an appropriate level for a +3 piece of armor to be available, but that's not that high. Even making Animated a +5 bonus only delays it's acquirement by a few levels... Something else would be required.
I suppose this is what house rules are for. Hopefully further changes to this will be made.
So you're belief is that you loose nothing by Two-Handed fighting because you can simply get an Animated Shield? Understandable.
Ought to just let you get more than one shield bonus. Sink your entire treasure share into floating shields if you want, still get hit by area spells.
Seems pretty darn powerful.Uh...what?
Yep. I invite you to work through the numbers a bit, comparing just 3.5 power attack vs. Final power attack (as best we know it to be at this point). Use some target ACs - I think you'll find the Final version to be significantly better over most ranges. I'd be most interested in your conclusions.
[separate from above]
I find it quite interesting that the "things-are-now-balanced" crowd is having to argue with both the "two-weapon-fighting-rocks" and the "two-handed-fighting-rocks" crowds. Good sign of balance there :)
I have seen the Beta Power attack work *quite* well, with both Overhand Chop/Backswing'ing Ranger and with a duel-wielding Rogue. The Final version increase in power will be interesting. I'm VERY curious about x2 or x3 for the two-hander - all bets here are on x3, but we'll see.
[separate from above]
As a [turns out not so-]quick experiment on the Animate Shield front,...
Looking in the Beta NPC charts, "Protection" is considered somewhere between 25-40% (after 1st level) of an NPCs goods. I'm going to cut Armor/shield at 30% on the highish end, since protection would include a lot of other things (cloaks of resistance and such). Since Armor and Shield prices scale the same, that gives shield 15% to work with.
15% of Character Wealth by level gets us to a +1 Animated shield (16,000) at about 12th level. Perhaps a long time to wait to have only 3 worse AC. You could make it a higher priority over armor and get it at perhaps 9th or 10th level, but then you'll be a bit behind on your AC from armor as well.
A +3 Animated shield comes in at about 15th level, while the "my-AC's-as-good-as-yours" +5 Animated shield hits about 17th level.
All this is subject to playing in a high- or low-gold campaign, and individual focus/luck of course. You can technically afford the shield at 6th level - though you'd still be wielding a non-masterwork greatsword. :)
I find it quite interesting that the "things-are-now-balanced" crowd is having to argue with both the "two-weapon-fighting-rocks" and the "two-handed-fighting-rocks" crowds. Good sign of balance there :)
Quite :-)
It's pretty absurd that people can debate this as if they actually had enough info to make a competent judgement.
PATIENCE: All will be revealed in August, until then, not much point in dredging over everything with a fine tooth comb.
p.s. Animated Shield was brought up during the Playtest, so there's a pretty good chance it's been adjusted (cost increased/ power decreased or limited) if it's value vs. 'normal' shields didn't seem balanced enough by it's cost.
15% of Character Wealth by level gets us to a +1 Animated shield (16,000) at about 12th level.
Was there a change to Animated Shield? In the Beta it's only a +2 bonus, and a +3 shield costs 9,000 GP, not 16,000.
"Sure they take an attack penalty, but you get up to three extra attacks."
Yeah, with a high DEX and three feats, you get extra attacks at what -2, -7, and -12? All with a light weapon in your offhand.
"Damage dice? Is that a joke? That's an average of 2 extra damage."
1d8 = 4.5 avg, 2d6 = 7 avg. Not amazing, but it all adds up...
"The same logic that gave 1.5x STR bonus (1.5 two handed = 1.0 primary hand + 0.5 offhand) is the same logic that gave double damage on power attack (2x bonus for two handed = 1x primary hand + 1x off-hand)."
Last time I checked, power attack didn't work with light weapons (until now?), and two attacks at -2 were different then one attack at full.
"A standard action is one attack regardless and if its the two handed fighters 'most powerful attack' it is the two weapon fighter's 'most powerful attack' also."
I think that would be a great argument for a great axe - Would you like to be hit with the great axe (2d6+6), or the long sword (1d8+4), while I hold the dagger in the other hand for effect?
"If the two weapon fighter wields the same weapon, they receive even more of a benefit from weapon focus, specialization, weapons training, improved critical, etc."
OK, but unless you want massive penalties, you are talking about two light weapons, or perhaps using a feat for two-bladed sword or something. It has potential, but also drawbacks.
"They actually receive exactly the same benefit from those spells..."
Except that the two weapon guy is at a negative with his primary hand, and not doing as much damage with each attack. Is that really "the same"?
"Yes, two weapon fighting requires feats and attribute scores, but the benefit gained from precision damage (sneak attack, sudden strike, etc.) is much greater than for a two handed fighter. Power attack was the counter balance to precision damage."
So now the rogue "is much greater" then the fighter? At dealing damage? How does that work again?
I have found that full attacks can be tough to pull off with much frequency. Things like DR, high AC's, and mobile opponents make the game favor sudden high damage over a steady trickle. Sure, rogues, some rangers, fighters, and even some paladins will be able to really rock out with two weapon fighting, but for Barbarians, and high strength fighters, two handed is clearly the way to go. I'm not sure where sword and board fit in, but it will probably be in the middle. Which is as it should be.
PS Another great reason to use a two handed weapon - Reach! Glaves, Long spears, spiked chains, etc.
"So now the rogue "is much greater" then the fighter? At dealing damage? How does that work again?"
Judging from your responses, particularly the one above, I think we're playing very different types of D&D. I wouldn't pick either the rogue or the fighter for dealing damage - both are terrible. I'm thinking in terms of developed and somewhat optimized martial builds that deal hundreds of damage in a single round.
It was my understanding that PFRPG was supposed to balance core material with the subsequent splat book material. Unfortunately, it appears that it is going to end up having a much broader effect that upsets the balance of the game when you actually incorporate those splat books.
"Judging from your responses, particularly the one above, I think we're playing very different types of D&D."
Agreed. My group plays basically with only the Pathfinder beta and no splat books at all. Characters are fairly optimized, but it sounds like on a much smaller scale then you. At around 15th/16th level fighters types are doing about 100 - 150 damage, not including criticals against fairly hit-able opponents. I can say that a core Pathfinder Fighter or Paladin is very comparable to a caster of similar level, which wasn't the case in 3.5. As for how splat books affect things, I have no idea.
I would love to sit in on one of your games and learn a few tricks!
EDIT:
Oh yeah, I'm surprised there hasn't been more mention, but it looks like Power Attack in beta and final works for light weapons - at -X/+X. That seems to be a little boost for two weapon fighting.