Well, thread title is pretty self evident. What do you think?
I'll add a bit more: as it stands I see various of the following things all apply to 2-handed weapons simply in their design/construction:
*higher damage die
*higher crit range
*higher crit damage multiplier
*special maneuver benefits (disarms, bracing, etc)
*reach
This is all stuff that 2-handed weapons just get ... apparently because they're 2-handed. My point being that the weapons themselves already offer quite a lot in terms of what is brought to the table in sacrifice of the shield. So ... why stack even MORE on top of that for free with that 1.5x damage rule?
AD&D did grant damage bonuses, but that was through style specialization (ie: the only benefits you got was through the weapon itself, unless dedicating resources elsewhere).
I'm NOT against the idea of granting that x1.5 ... just getting it *for free* since Feats do exist.
So, the full thought is to re-introduce this with a few other feats to harken back to the AD&D "2-handed style specialization" benefits.
Feats to make up for the loss/add to 2-handed specialists overall:
"Fast Swing" - add a +2 initiative bonus, and a +1 to damage inflicted for 2-handed weapon users when using a 2-handed weapon, or a one handed weapon wielded in 1 hand (excludes "light" weapons). This does stack with Improved Initiative if also present.
Prerequisites: Weapon Focus with a 2-handed weapon.
"Leveraged Strike" - add 1.5 x str to damage inflicted with a 2-handed weapon, or a 1 handed weapon wielded in one hand (excludes "light" weapons).
Prerequisite: str 13+
"Greater Leveraged Strike" - add 2x str to damage inflicted with a 2-handed weapon, or a 1 handed weapon wielded in one hand (excludes "light" weapons).
Prerequisites: Leveraged strike, BAB +12
Do you mean to be saying ", or a one-handed weapon wielded in two hands."?
I don't strongly think there needs to be a change, but neither do I think two-handed weapons would disappear if you made the change.
Edit: Also, you have to rename "Greater Levered Strike" to be "Overhand Chop"!
Um, alright, i don't get it. Sounds to me like you are just over complicating things. Which i mean, hey if you like extra rules just because, then more power to you.
You listed a variety of things 2 handed weapons get, but those aren't abilities that all 2 weapons have. They have combination of those abilities sure. But not all 2 handers have all those "bonuses"
But really you are questioning the extra 1-2 points of damage your average pc is going to do by using a 2 handed weapon?
I think that's a fair trade off when you consider they lose a shield and all the enchants the shield could possibly have.
As for your feats...
Fast swing? why would you take this over improved init? I mean really blowing a feat for a whole 1pt of damage? That will be epic when you get to 5th level.. /sarcasm
The other two feats come across as pointless. At 12th level, figuring an 18 str.. you blew a feat for +8 damage.. when the RAW would have given you +6 and something else from a worthwhile feat like ooh say Cleave.
Sorry man.. not to be mean but thumbs down
Perhaps you're clear on it, but I think he means the 1.5x Str bonus, not power attack benefit.
Edit: I get that you're right out attempting to reduce the power of two-handed weapons slightly. So obviously one wouldn't "choose" this over the current system if you had a two-handed weapon. Fast swing is a nice feat, half of improved initiative, half of weapon specialization (but for any two-handed weapon).
Consider this: your character has their shield sundered and now has to finish a fight fast with just their trusty longsword. They could take it in both hands and really bash away, which would reward them with higher damage in the current system, or if there is a requirement for a feat ... they can't. Now it makes common sense to me that using both hands on a weapon delivers more power.
My only complaint with the current system is that if you don't have a positive strength modifier, you are kind of stuffed. In fact, if you have a strength of six, and you use both hands to try and plunge your dagger into a foe, you end up worse off than you started! I would replace the x1.5 strength with an effective +2 to strength, whichever is the better, so weaker characters may occasionally take advantage of a giving it a good hard whack.
Oh, and light weapons can now power attack, that restriction was removed.
|
Perhaps you're clear on it, but I think he means the 1.5x Str bonus, not power attack benefit.
Yes, and I don't see the 1.5x Str bonus to damage as a problem. Power attack doubling a THF's extra damage was the problem.
In 3.0 you could PA with light weapons, according to the Feat section. I'll have to review the rest of the book to see if there is an exception buried somewhere.
Interesting thought Dabbler.
Perhaps you're clear on it, but I think he means the 1.5x Str bonus, not power attack benefit.
Yes, and I don't see the 1.5x Str bonus to damage as a problem. Power attack doubling a THF's extra damage was the problem.
In 3.0 you could PA with light weapons, according to the Feat section. I'll have to review the rest of the book to see if there is an exception buried somewhere.
Interesting thought Dabbler.
Personally, I very much prefer the current power attack. It means those high str monsters don't destroy me half as quickly. The old one was busted on a character who had enough other bonuses to hit.
As for the 1.5X damage on power attack and str for THW, I don't see any problem. You are sacrificing AC and access to a very poewrful feat chain to get them. THF are some of the highest damage dealers, but they don't always beat out TWF. Remove that bonus damage, and they are significantly less powerful than other builds, dealing less damage and having a lower AC. They go from being a fairly ballanced choice to being clearly sub-optimal for most builds.
Do you mean to be saying ", or a one-handed weapon wielded in two hands."?
I don't strongly think there needs to be a change, but neither do I think two-handed weapons would disappear if you made the change.
Edit: Also, you have to rename "Greater Levered Strike" to be "Overhand Chop"!
Yeah ... chalk it up to "rough drafts" and all that.
Seriously, though - all BIG TIME rough on the *draft* there. I'm just trying to field it out and get some thoughts.
I'm quite aware that not ALL of the 2-handed wpns gain all of the things listed, but all of the things listed appear in various degrees in all of the various 2-handed weapons. Point being, they ALL get advantages that most smaller weapons do not get at all, AND, IMO that is part of the *power* of the weapon in the first place.
Yes, they do lose some options (shields), but they also gain things no other weapons grant. On top of the weapon versatility, they're also gaining str boosting for free ... in the existing system where "extras" get tacked on for dedication to a chosen style, etc, I think it fits better to charge a resource to make this happen (ie: feats) rather than just hand it out for this *one* style because it's "realistic" and charge other styles out the nose to be usable (ie: 2-wpn feat tree).
I'm not against letting 2-handed weapons being damage kings - they probably should be. I just want there to be a feat-cost associated with it just like there are feat costs associated with 2-wpn style, and sword and board style.
I don't really think this complicates rules. I think it's *fair* to all combat styles (not just pushing one ahead of the rest by default), and it's actually even more simple, and progressive/rewarding in developing the style.
Feat-wise:
Keep in mind that fast swing lets you get a +2 on init and a +1 to dmg (subject to whatever multipliers, etc would normally apply on it) with ANY 2-handed weapon. It's part speed, and part power. It's a useful feat for anyone that seriously wants to dedicate and develop that style of combat.
You could completely use any of these things with something like Cleave (why wouldn't you?). They make the style more effective. {+8 is more than +6} Keep in mind the whole point is to flat out change the RAW and remove 1.5 str in the first place. SO ... raw (w/the proposed change) would be +4 damage, period. The first feat brings back the 1.5 (+6), and the last brings it up past the existing baseline and increases it to x2 (+8). Neither feat is "pointless" in context of what's proposed.
@Dabbler: I get where you're coming from w/the example, BUT I'm coming at this from the design/game perspective. Feats open up options and allow things to happen that are not normally allowed. Currently, 2-handed weapons don't fit into this, BUT every other weapon set really does fall into this, so, if anything, this is more to re-align 2-handers to work like all other combat style choices. "common sense" doesn't say anything about most of the rule interactions - they're rule interactions. I do like the suggestion of adding a "minimum damage added" tagline, though. {probably a good idea regardless, honestly}
As for the 1.5X damage on power attack and str for THW, I don't see any problem. You are sacrificing AC and access to a very poewrful feat chain to get them. THF are some of the highest damage dealers, but they don't always beat out TWF. Remove that bonus damage, and they are significantly less powerful than other builds, dealing less damage and having a lower AC. They go from being a fairly ballanced choice to being clearly sub-optimal for most builds.
My suggestions would change that *sometimes better* into making them ALWAYS better, BUT ... at a cost of feats. Currently, they can take Power Attack ... and there is NOTHING else that matters for them, feat-wise, to be effective.
I'm removing that 1.5 default boost at base level, re-introducing it (and improving it) through feat chains, and opening up some more options for 2-handed style types to take advantage of ... for the cost of a feat.
I'm not just taking things away here ... I'm charging feats, and adding better, more useful, and more powerful options for that shield loss.
As for the 1.5X damage on power attack and str for THW, I don't see any problem. You are sacrificing AC and access to a very poewrful feat chain to get them. THF are some of the highest damage dealers, but they don't always beat out TWF. Remove that bonus damage, and they are significantly less powerful than other builds, dealing less damage and having a lower AC. They go from being a fairly ballanced choice to being clearly sub-optimal for most builds.My suggestions would change that *sometimes better* into making them ALWAYS better, BUT ... at a cost of feats. Currently, they can take Power Attack ... and there is NOTHING else that matters for them, feat-wise, to be effective.
I'm removing that 1.5 default boost at base level, re-introducing it (and improving it) through feat chains, and opening up some more options for 2-handed style types to take advantage of ... for the cost of a feat.
I'm not just taking things away here ... I'm charging feats, and adding better, more useful, and more powerful options for that shield loss.
You suggestion would also make many non-damage focused THF builds unable to keep up. Trippers, for instance, would now need to spend a majority of their feats to stay competative with the other fighting styles, making them highly unfavorable. The ranger switch hitter would be severly gimped, as would your typical barbarian. Most classes are already feat starved, I would not want them to be even moreso. I would rather see fewer TWF feats, like getting rid of ITWF and GTWF and just giving them for free when you get itterative attacks. I think that would be a better ballance than forcing a feat tax on all TWFs.
I'm removing that 1.5 default boost at base level, re-introducing it (and improving it) through feat chains, and opening up some more options for 2-handed style types to take advantage of ... for the cost of a feat.I'm not just taking things away here ... I'm charging feats, and adding better, more useful, and more powerful options for that shield loss.
except you're not..
you're taking away a +1 to +2 damage.. that would have been the trade off for the +1 to +2 AC from a shield.And making the player spend feats to get it back..
And i'm sorry this is my opinion but +4 initiative is better then +2 and a measly +1 damage. At 12th level who cares about a +1 to damage. That +2 initiative is going to be far more important when you are trying to stop an opponent from casting a spell in your face then +1 to damage.
And I take issue with your statement "Currently, they can take Power Attack ... and there is NOTHING else that matters for them, feat-wise, to be effective." nonsense.. There are plenty of interesting feat chains that 2 handed wielders can explore.
The vital strike chain...
The weapon specialization chain
The power attack chain.
Sure a single weapon wielder can take these chains as well. But it would be at the expense of optimizing their shield use.
Also i disagree with this alleged versatility you are claiming makes 2 handed weapons superior. Most of the traits are shared by other non two handed weapons.
Reach is a double edged sword.. sure i can hit you from far away but once you're in close the weapon is useless.
Brace? that's a one trick pony.
Trip.. honestly i'd need to look this one up.
Disarm.. other weapons have it.
Now if you wanted to explore something that might be more useful without modifying the raw for no reason I would love to see some feat chains specifically for 2 handed weapons. Perhaps ones that expanded the special abilities.
I'm all for adding feats to allow people to specialize, but i see no reason to remove the 1.5 strength bonus, unless off hand weapons will recieve 0 strength bonus and all sheild profficiencies are no longer included in class features. You are removing the basic benefit of the style of combat which I dont think is a balanced thing to do.
Yes the weapon dies are slightly larger but thats it. All those other benefits are available in 1handed weapons as well. Its not reasonable to use them as reasons to reduce the effectiveness of 2handed weapons. There is a very significant loss in not having and off hand free, and it isnt limited only to not having a shield.
except you're not..
you're taking away a +1 to +2 damage.. that would have been the trade off for the +1 to +2 AC from a shield.
Hmm ... the most interesting piece you mention there in the whole of that.
I stand by the assertion of Power Attack being the only 2-wpn benefit feat.
That *measley* +2 stacks w/Imp. Init, and another +1 to damage is always useful, especially when it stacks w/other effects.
The versatility stands, as described - it varies from weapon to weapon, but they ALL have it, somewhere. The one-handed weapons do not by and large (flails are about the only exception, barring Exotics).
However, less snark and thread crap in general would be nice from you, as ... when not foaming at the mouth, there's some interesting points you make.
@Cain: I like the idea of dropping "feat tax" in general as well. I especially like just "tie it to bab" as an idea. Nice!
@Kolo: what else does having a free hand do beyond allow shield use?
eh the snark is free of charge :)
I stand corrected on the one point. I miss read your initial post as NOT stacking with Imp. Initiative.
As a feat by itself i don't see anything wrong with your fast swing.
I would perhaps add in a -1 Ac penalty or -1 to hit.
Trading off defense or accuracy for the speed and power.
Actually this might fit into the power attack chain.
But i still agree with most of the rest that you shouldn't take away the str x 1.5 damage bonus.
I think kolo made an excellent point that losing the off hand has more of an impact then just a shield and the minor extra damage is to off set this loss.
@Kolo: what else does having a free hand do beyond allow shield use?
Drink a potion, hold something important (treasure, hostage, rope holding up a party member), cast a spell, be able to use the weapon in a grapple, hand an item to a party member, off the top of my head.
That and its balanced the loss of abilities from so many classes that you get by NOT going two weapon fighting. Ranger, Rogue, Fighter, Paladin, Cavalier, Inquisitor, all these classes have bonuses that are applied PER attack such as smite or sneak attack, or weapon specialization/weapon training. These bonuses directly synergize with the two weapon fighting feats which essentially double your benefit from the class feature at the cost of the feat. The feats you present here dont come close to matching that kind of a benefit. The small bonus of 1.5 strength is a little bit of give back for that lost opportunity cost. If you are going to make it cost a feat it should give a much bigger benefit then just giving back the 1.5 damage amount if you want that feat/feat chain to be anywhere near in line with the two weapon fighting tree or the shield bash tree.
I think if you want to make THF a style in and of itself, you need to make sure the feats are worthwhile and unique. Shield users, for instance, can pick up free shield bashing that gives bull rushes. TWF get more attacks than normal and can pick up rend. Archers get lots of damage, more attacks, the ability to bypass cover. Just giving a + to damage is much less interesting, but becomes sudo-mandatory for everyone in the style. Giving neat abilities that don't have to be taken but are fun IMO is the way to go.
Somewhere floating arround here someone put together an idea of how the weapons are ballanced. Basically, all weapons were given a certain point value, and with those points they can buy damage dice, crit range, special qualities. Simple, martial and exotic all had different base values, and THW are a consistent ammount better than the other weapons. Theoretically, a shield would be worth the difference between a longsword and a 2HS.
I consider a +1-2 to AC to be more than worth 2.5 average damage, especially once you consider the +1-2 will be increased with magic up as high as 7 and the +2.5 will be static. Even with a high strength character and 1.5 damage, this only gets up to 6.5 with a 26 str character. I think requiring a feat to have the THW make up the difference is a mistake.
@Dabbler: I get where you're coming from w/the example, BUT I'm coming at this from the design/game perspective. Feats open up options and allow things to happen that are not normally allowed. Currently, 2-handed weapons don't fit into this, BUT every other weapon set really does fall into this, so, if anything, this is more to re-align 2-handers to work like all other combat style choices. "common sense" doesn't say anything about most of the rule interactions - they're rule interactions. I do like the suggestion of adding a "minimum damage added" tagline, though. {probably a good idea regardless, honestly}
Well I view verisimilitude as part of the game design process. If it makes common sense for you to be able to do something in real life without special training, then in the game it should be likewise possible to do. If you want to belt somebody really hard with something, grabbing it in both hands is what most people would do instinctively, and it would deliver more damage.
Hence the gaming system should reflect this. However, I think it should also reflect that dirty great weapons are ... less than accurate.
I'm NOT against the idea of granting that x1.5 ... just getting it *for free* since Feats do exist.
Just because feats exist doesn't mean that everything has to be turned into a feat. In fact, there are some feats which I would - and did - turn into general abilities. For example, Weapon Finesse is no longer a feat in my games, and hasn't been since before 3.5. And you can use the Power Attack-like feats without the feat, albeit at reduced efficiency (after all, you can fight defensively without Combat Expertise).
Let me ask you this: If you go the Sword and Board style, do you get a watered-down benefit from it unless you take a feat? No. You get the full AC bonus the shield grants, which can go up to +7 (plus extra benefits).
And that's what you give up when you use a two-handed weapon. Your AC will be two lower from the start, and the difference will grow.
And that's totally not worth a mere +1 damage die size! Longsword vs. greatsword means 1d8 vs. 2d6, or 4.5 vs 7 on average. That's a difference of 2.5. Forever. You could argue that saving on the magical shield means you can afford a weapon with an extra +1, so it's 3.5 on damage.
Even in the beginning, where 2.5 points of damage can be something, it's not really that good a trade. And after a while, the 2.5 to 3.5 will be negligible, while the lost AC amounts to increased hurt rates - 25% more likely to feel the pain is not something you endure just so the dents you put into the enemy's HP is a teeny bit bigger.
|
|
I would prefer TWF give the extra attacks depending on BAB instead of requiring extra feats for each attack.
I would prefer that Power Attack and Combat Expertise be basic options available to all characters without requiring a feat. Thus anyone could subtract up to 5 points from attack and place it into either damage or AC.
Anyone could take the Improved maneuver feats at first level, as they no longer need to take PA or CE. I could see Improved PA/CE feats being introduced to allow characters with BAB of more than 5 to increase the cap to a maximum of their BAB.
These are just some plans for my own game. Already use the TWF rule.
Personally, I very much prefer the current power attack. It means those high str monsters don't destroy me half as quickly. The old one was busted on a character who had enough other bonuses to hit.
As for the 1.5X damage on power attack and str for THW, I don't see any problem. You are sacrificing AC and access to a very poewrful feat chain to get them. THF are some of the highest damage dealers, but they don't always beat out TWF. Remove that bonus damage, and they are significantly less powerful than other builds, dealing less damage and having a lower AC. They go from being a fairly ballanced choice to being clearly sub-optimal for most builds.
Seriously. I recently ran the last fight in the Captain Gnash (Exemplars of Evil) book, converted to pathfinder of course. The players ran. Fast. They averaged around level 6. There were five of them, and an npc. The npc was a dwarf I threw in. AND, using pathfinder power attack, the -thing-, which shall remain description-less in favor of less spoilers, dropped the dwarf in one round to unconscious and dying.
If, it was the 3.5 power attack, the creature could easily lose 11 points off all FIVE of its attacks, and still be able to hit everyone with an 8+ roll.
It was one of the first encounters where 3.5 rules would of been worse.
Though, watching the players run out of the ship as the monster smashed through each floor slowly was awesome, ending with them on their own ship, trying to sail away, while the monster was leaping off of its ship to their ship, was. Awe inspiring. Especially when the thankfully healed dwarf bullrushed the monster, with great aid from everyone else, off their ship as it leaped across.
Never seen players so happy to not be fighting something anymore.
You might as well just rule that two handed fighters get one less feat than other builds, it will have exactly the same in game effect as the 1.5x Str feat.
I think this is fine. Two-handed is numerically superior to all other builds and that's a bummer. It could stand to be worse in some way.
I think this is fine. Two-handed is numerically superior to all other builds and that's a bummer. It could stand to be worse in some way.
I think archers disagree, not that it matters because numbers dont always tell the whole story, and not all options can be made to be equal. The "can only hit things hard" is boring to some people so they dont mind sacrificing power for the ability to do other things that are cool.
I think this is fine. Two-handed is numerically superior to all other builds and that's a bummer. It could stand to be worse in some way.
It already is. It trades a small boost of power for an intially-small-but-grows-much-larger-the-higher-level-you-are drop in AC compared to someone using a shield. See several comments above.
How exactly does "fast swing" work? I don't know if any other effect that changes your initiative based on a combat option like what kind of weapon you happen to be wieldng or which type of action you take.
I think this is fine. Two-handed is numerically superior to all other builds and that's a bummer. It could stand to be worse in some way.
Yep, gotta disagree, two-hander is better at low levels but sword and board TWF and archery eclipse it at higher levels.
How exactly does "fast swing" work? I don't know if any other effect that changes your initiative based on a combat option like what kind of weapon you happen to be wieldng or which type of action you take.
Yeah ... it's a bit of a take on one of the AD&D advantages of 2-handed style specialization. They got a bonus on initiative for their weapon speeds (an init modifier to all attacks). So, I figured that granting this would just be very simple in D20 as a +2 to init (as there are no wpn speeds anymore).
As for "why" it works/worked ... I believe the thinking was that being *dedicated* and *specialized* in 2-handed weapon use, you learned how to make the weapon move more quickly with 2 hands upon it vs. just the one hand. For the ones that are dedicated in requiring 2-hands, it was a matter of learning exactly *where* the best grip was for more speedy/responsive attack patterns, etc.
One thing in general here, though: keep in mind that the idea isn't to just nerf 2-handers, but also to expand on them and bring the style more options and progressions in general. There's been a lot of focus on the "low end" only features. Complaints that w/out a feat the 1-handed weapon guy can't baseball bat for extra damage anymore ... to this I say so what? The *point* is about making this a dedicated style path ... NOT about making things weak. If you look at the whole plan, it also grants a much greater damage bonus to the 2-handers in the long run. But this is a matter of feats and investment *in the style* overall - NOT granting it for free.
That said, I've also heard "common sense" applied to 2-handing damage benefits. I think that this is particularly odd as "common sense" really doesn't apply to most things in this game ... at ALL. From the abstraction of "to hit" chances to the meaning of "hit points" to freakin' omni-directional vision as defaults in combat (ie: no facing ever), this system breaks "common sense" left and right. 2-handing, while making sense, really does go against the grain and stand out to me as "why this?"
To be fair, though, I'm seeing it as a possibly intentional design choice to exchange that AC shield sacrifice ... but then, why are 2-handed and Shields the only styles that grant a mechanical benefit for "free" compared to using only 1 weapon in 1 hand (and nothing in the other), or using 2-wpns outright?
Skill seems to be the answer. It takes more skill to learn those other things, so Feats come into play, and "common sense" overrides the rest. I'm ok w/shields as they already have a proficiency to be used (and it's an option as a Feat as well = precedent for more or less where I'm headed). Granting the 2-handed weapons an automatic, and undedicated boon just ... is weird. Charging 2-wpn guys a feat ... makes sense. If there were 1-handed only boons, and they were wrapped in feats ... that would make sense as well (I guess - we're talking about dedication to a particular style of combat at this point).
I'm just not 100% sold on "common sense" as a design reason given that SO much of D20 has NOTHING to do with common sense at all - not even remotely.
At the same time, *mechanically* as Cinder pointed out, I can see the trade off in estimated #'s of 1-2 dmg points and the 1-2 points of AC in the low levels ... so, it may be perfectly *fine* to let this guy get a bonus of up to 1.5 str on his 2-handed attack. The 1-wpn guy is *expected* to get his benefit through a shield (1-wpn ONLY is a specialized/dedicated style to be fleshed out in feats), and the 2-wpn guy is just doing things MUCH harder/more difficult and advantageous (doubling attacks), so he's paying feats from the get for it (again - style specialization).
Yeah ... I guess I'm leaning towards leaving the 1.5x str in place now. I *am* however, still looking to build up the style, and the Beta feats {now that I've looked at 'em again Majuba ;-) } do NOT go far enough towards developing the style, IMO. I think I'll focus my efforts towards 2-handed specific feats and move this to a new thread in the Suggestions/Houserules now.
Thanks for all the help, peoples!! Seriously - this was useful in helping to focus me to head where I wanted to be in the first place.
*thumbs up to all*
To me using a longsword 2 handed should do more damage than using it 1 handed
The problem I have always had is that unless you have 14 or higher strength you get no benefit from using a weapon 2 handed.
Perhaps if you are looking to scale back 2 handed's benefit and go the feat route that would be fine but I equally reckon you should rule a 1 handed weapon used 2 handed does +1 damage.
Not quite along the same lines as your proposal but I just throught I would throw in my 2cp
That said, I've also heard "common sense" applied to 2-handing damage benefits. I think that this is particularly odd as "common sense" really doesn't apply to most things in this game ... at ALL.
Wasn't that the justification 4e used? They ended up with pure mechanics that made no sense to anyone but the game's designers in the name of 'balance' ... that's why I don't play it.
Sorry, I know 'common sense' may not be that heavily built into D&D, but I'd prefer to keep that of it that it has.
That said, I've also heard "common sense" applied to 2-handing damage benefits. I think that this is particularly odd as "common sense" really doesn't apply to most things in this game ... at ALL.Wasn't that the justification 4e used? They ended up with pure mechanics that made no sense to anyone but the game's designers in the name of 'balance' ... that's why I don't play it.
Sorry, I know 'common sense' may not be that heavily built into D&D, but I'd prefer to keep that of it that it has.
So ... almost none, then? ;-)
No - I hear you. I do NOT like 4e even *slightly* for the record.
My initial drive was more along the lines of an AD&D "reversion" more than anything else. In AD&D, 2-handing weapons didn't net you ANY gain until you took specialization in the style. I was more looking at *why* this was changed at all in the first place. It's just ... weird. It stands out against every thing else I've seen in the system, and the best we can manage is "it makes sense, so why not?"
:shrugs:
Hell, since shields are feat-based as well, I could see leaving my initial suggestions as they stand and just allowing some "feat swap" for anyone wanting to go all 2-handed. Just drop one/both of the shield Feats and you're good to go (Tower Shield if Fighter, or Shields in general for any other class that gets to use 'em). It's a straight swap - you plan on NOT using shields, so why "waste" a feat/class feature/whatever on it in the first place? Swap it out with that 1.5 str feat and it's all good.
Yeah ... :shrugs: either way, my focus is on developing the style a bit more overall.
How exactly does "fast swing" work? I don't know if any other effect that changes your initiative based on a combat option like what kind of weapon you happen to be wieldng or which type of action you take.Yeah ... it's a bit of a take on one of the AD&D advantages of 2-handed style specialization. They got a bonus on initiative for their weapon speeds (an init modifier to all attacks). So, I figured that granting this would just be very simple in D20 as a +2 to init (as there are no wpn speeds anymore).
You still haven't explained how it works.
I have this feat. We're ambushed by some goblins. My greatsword is strapped to my back. I roll a 12 for iniative, not including the feat. Is my initiative 12 or 14? If it's 12, does it change to 14 when I draw my greatsword? Does it drop back to 12 if I later sheath the greatsword?If it's 14 from the beginning, then can I be a TWF rogue and get the +2 to Initiative without ever actually weilding a two-handed weapon at all?
It's my understanding that for all other effects in the game, initiative is static -- it's rolled at the beginning of combat, and then it only changes if you use special initiative actions. The idea of changing initiative counts based on other actions in combat is adding something that the rules don't currently support.
How exactly does "fast swing" work? I don't know if any other effect that changes your initiative based on a combat option like what kind of weapon you happen to be wieldng or which type of action you take.Yeah ... it's a bit of a take on one of the AD&D advantages of 2-handed style specialization. They got a bonus on initiative for their weapon speeds (an init modifier to all attacks). So, I figured that granting this would just be very simple in D20 as a +2 to init (as there are no wpn speeds anymore).You still haven't explained how it works.
I have this feat. We're ambushed by some goblins. My greatsword is strapped to my back. I roll a 12 for iniative, not including the feat. Is my initiative 12 or 14? If it's 12, does it change to 14 when I draw my greatsword? Does it drop back to 12 if I later sheath the greatsword?
If it's 14 from the beginning, then can I be a TWF rogue and get the +2 to Initiative without ever actually weilding a two-handed weapon at all?
It's my understanding that for all other effects in the game, initiative is static -- it's rolled at the beginning of combat, and then it only changes if you use special initiative actions. The idea of changing initiative counts based on other actions in combat is adding something that the rules don't currently support.
Oh! Ok ... got ya.
Well, for simplicity's sake, I'd leave it as static initiative. It's a 2-handed weapon feat only, so it would *only* be active if you're using a 2-handed weapon. (ie: combined, if you suddenly switch a 1-handed weapon to a 2-handed grip, you'll still have the less init, assuming you started w/only 1-hand. This'll stop that mid-combat shifting stuff if you don't like it, and most probably don't.)
As for draw the weapon, you're using the 2-handed weapon, so the init bonus would apply and that 12 would bump up 2 more to 14, and REMAIN there for the duration of the combat, barring refocusing, waiting, etc.
There would be NO change of initiative as, you point out, it's static. So it's there for the first draw/wpn/use/whatever ... if you decide on 2-handing AFTER that fact, too late to gain a boon (init's been rolled and determined already).
At the same time, to NOT be a dink of a GM, I'd probably just grant the PC a +2 bump in init and place that order where ever it lands him now anyway. It's not a big deal, and easy to determine on the fly.
Intent, though, is that this is ONLY for active 2-handed use/wielding and the init part is (like always) determined at the start of combat only.
Edit: I'll amend the "like always" bit because I know there is the rule/option/whatever of rolling init on a round by round basis, so if that's in play and use, clearly, this would change on a round by round basis. But that's the point of that optional rule in the first place, partially.
|
To me using a longsword 2 handed should do more damage than using it 1 handed
The problem I have always had is that unless you have 14 or higher strength you get no benefit from using a weapon 2 handed.
....I equally reckon you should rule a 1 handed weapon used 2 handed does +1 damage.
I agree; there are times when even the weediest of people want to grip their weapon in both hands and really whack something.
A minimum damage bonus for the stance would make sense, since the default position (Str 10= +0), is a purely arbitary baseline.
That, or changing the baseline, so that stats of 0 gave +0 stat mod, and every positive score gave a positive mod...
I've been round to see my gran before, and found her chopping firewood*. She's in her 90's, and would be Str 3? 4? (if you're being generous)
A double-handed grip made a big difference, yet according to D&D SRD, there'd be absolutely no reason not to just use one hand for the same effect, and pick your nose with the other.
If we had a minimum damage bonus, or a revised, all-positives stat-mod scale, then we'd be able to use the characterful minis out there, of gnomes, halflings and goblins with great weapons, which currently sit in the bottom of toolboxes, unused and unloved.
*Yes, I did say 'Sit down and let me do that'. But not straight away, because she was having so much fun. Take That! WHACK!
|
I really don't see a problem here. You inherently strike harder when driving the blow with both hands. It would be the difference between chopping wood with an axe in one hand vs an axe in two hands. I've chopped up firewood before and I can tell you first hand, that axe does a lot more "damage" to the wood with two hands.
Making it a feat specialization doesn't seem to work when the greater damage comes from the weilding itself. They already have proficiency, now they have to get a second proficiency to do what they already should be able to do by logic of how they are being used. As for comparing it to shields, shields are not weapons in their basic form.
Yeah many of the two handed weapons get special qualities. But take note where those that do have say trip and reach for example also do less damage. So you do the same damage as long sword but get trip and reach. To do more damage the two handed weapons don't get anything special. To get the 2D6 from the great sword it's just a two handed weapon with the same crit stats as long sword. The Great axe is the same as the battle axe but does 1D12 for being two handed. While the Guisarme does 2D4 the same as the any max 8 damage weapon, slightly better because you minimum damage is 2 but you get trip and reach too but on average 4.5 or 5 average damage is really the same when rounding up. Reach while it is nice has draw backs.
All two handed weapons only do a little more than a one handed weapon but not much. It's the 1.5 strength damage and power attack increased damage that make them even worthwhile. With out that I'd go sword and board all the time.
As for AD&D I never saw anyone ever use two handed weapons, it wasn't worth it. I shouldn't say never but people tried and always ended up ditching the two handed sword for a long sword. Of course the random treasure tables that favored longswords over evey thing didn't help.
In interests of common sense, but not in game balance.
Pick up a stick.
A good, solid, about three foot long stick.
Find a tree. Not some huge redwood, but something decent. I'm sure common sense can tell you what I speak of.
First, take the stick, in one hand. Strike the tree.
Feel the force of it through your arm, perhaps take in account how you swung the stick. Did you swing for speed, or for power? Or did you just flail away.
Next.
With the same stick, assuming your overwhelming amount of skill and expertise using a stick against a tree hasn't broken the stick or the tree one handed, take the stick in two hands.
Yeah. Doesn't that feel nice? YOu can control that stick far more now. Regardless of your strength, or your expertise. You know that tree is in for it. All the paper its brothers and sisters provided, only to render you torn by their papercuts! Yes! Now is the time to strike!
Hit the tree, with the stick, while holding the stick. In two hands. Naturally, regardless of who you are. You always put more weight into the strike.
Always. Unless you are going against common sense, and trying to prove this test wrong. In which case, strike the tree with your head. It will all make sense then.
Now tell me.
Just how much skill is required to swing a stick?
... and we would like to stress that no trees were harmed to make this presentation. Trees are good things. Just ask any treant ...