We all know that 2 handed weapons greatly out damage 1 handed weapons at higher levels. So I was wondering how this small change would affect the balance.
Attack penalty adds when you use the same hand more than once in combat. As an example a 2 handed swords is used to attack with the first action. Any additional attacks would have a -5 penalty (as both hands where used). The second and third attack would be at -5 and -10 as usual. But when 2 1 handed weapons are used the first attack with weapon 1 has no penalty. A second attack with weapon 2 has no penalty, but a third attack with either hand would be at a -5.
This could also allow for shields to stay raised from turn to turn without the need to lower them, because the sword and board player would have a natural penalty to offset the shields advantage. As they would make all 3 attacks with the same hand.
While this won't make +5 1 handed weapons hit harder than +5 2 handers, it will increase thier overall damage per round making the 1 handers closer to the damage of 2 handers.
Well i dont think you need to do anything to fix damage. I mean class feats make them comparable and they fill different niches.
|
1 person marked this as a favorite.
|
WizardsBlade wrote: We all know that 2 handed weapons greatly out damage 1 handed weapons at higher levels. So I was wondering how this small change would affect the balance.
Attack penalty adds when you use the same hand more than once in combat. As an example a 2 handed swords is used to attack with the first action. Any additional attacks would have a -5 penalty (as both hands where used). The second and third attack would be at -5 and -10 as usual. But when 2 1 handed weapons are used the first attack with weapon 1 has no penalty. A second attack with weapon 2 has no penalty, but a third attack with either hand would be at a -5.
This could also allow for shields to stay raised from turn to turn without the need to lower them, because the sword and board player would have a natural penalty to offset the shields advantage. As they would make all 3 attacks with the same hand.
While this won't make +5 1 handed weapons hit harder than +5 2 handers, it will increase thier overall damage per round making the 1 handers closer to the damage of 2 handers.
2 handers *don't* greatly out damage 1 handers.
Longsword vs Greatsword
1d8 vs 1d12
Average damage difference is 4.5 vs 6.5
You're only looking at 2 more average damage per +, so yes a +5 weapon is a difference of 12 damage.
27 damage vs. 39 damage.
It's not a big deal.
HWalsh wrote: 27 damage vs. 39 damage. 39/27 = 144%, that's actually pretty huge. It'll be slightly less due to damage property runes and strength bonus, but 5d12+7+2d6 = 46.5 avg, while 5d8+7+2d6 = 36.5; that's still a 27% damage increase. These are not small improves, it's the difference in killing a monster in 4 rounds versus 5 rounds.
1-handers face the same problem they did in PF1: the primary role of a front-liner is to deal damage, and that makes two-handed weapons extraordinarily attractive because it fits perfectly within your stated role.
Dasrak wrote: HWalsh wrote: 27 damage vs. 39 damage. 39/27 = 144%, that's actually pretty huge. It'll be slightly less due to damage property runes and strength bonus, but 5d12+7+2d6 = 46.5 avg, while 5d8+7+2d6 = 36.5; that's still a 27% damage increase. These are not small improves, it's the difference in killing a monster in 4 rounds versus 5 rounds.
1-handers face the same problem they did in PF1: the primary role of a front-liner is to deal damage, and that makes two-handed weapons extraordinarily attractive because it fits perfectly within your stated role. Except that two handers rangers get a feat to make two strikes for an action, two handed fighters get one to make two attacks for two actions... Fighters also get two attacks for a single action if their MAP is bigger than 8, rangers reduce their MAP... Agile makes your to hit close the gap, and some abilities like backstab, deadly and etc close the gap even more. This time there several good reasons to double wield...
What feat gives rangers 2 strikes for 1 action?
The two from the errata. One is with bows the other is if you use two distinct weapons.
Edit: only vs hunted targets but still.
I would like one-handed weapon with no shield to be competitive. Do not like the choice of two-handed or two-weapon.
It is. Lol you can use that free hand to cast or to use maneuvers(grab, shove, trip.) and use a bastard sword to have a choice of striking harder... I mean theres a whole chain of fighter feats for 1 handed combatants.
|
1 person marked this as a favorite.
|
oholoko wrote: It is. Lol you can use that free hand to cast or to use maneuvers(grab, shove, trip.) and use a bastard sword to have a choice of striking harder... I mean theres a whole chain of fighter feats for 1 handed combatants. which every caster with fighter dedication loves.
Rob Godfrey wrote: oholoko wrote: It is. Lol you can use that free hand to cast or to use maneuvers(grab, shove, trip.) and use a bastard sword to have a choice of striking harder... I mean theres a whole chain of fighter feats for 1 handed combatants. which every caster with fighter dedication loves. Except bards and sorcerers that take paladin dedication instead xD
oholoko wrote: Agile makes your to hit close the gap, and some abilities like backstab, deadly and etc close the gap even more. This time there several good reasons to double wield... This point about the 1 handed weapons traits making the weapons better doesn't seem to add up. It appears to me that 2 handed weapons default to the damage of a d12 (weapons below a d12 get more traits to boost them to damage closed to a d12) while 1 handed weapons default to the damage of a d8 (only weapons with less than a d8 have any of the traits you mentioned).
I'll grant you that there are class specific abilities that can make 2 weapon fighting a little closer to 2 handed fighting, but its only for rangers and while it gives 4 attacks in 1 round MAP is still increased after every action for the number of attacks. Other class are still at the 27% disadvantage when using 2 weapons instead of 2 handing a weapon. It's like offering 2 spells that are identical except one does 8d12 and one does 10d12 and then wondering why people don't use the 8d12 spell.
oholoko wrote: It is. Lol you can use that free hand to cast or to use maneuvers(grab, shove, trip.) and use a bastard sword to have a choice of striking harder... I mean theres a whole chain of fighter feats for 1 handed combatants. Nothing to laugh about, those are the same tired old excuses from the previous editions; killing things, dead, is the most efficient way of dealing with opposition in D&D, prancing around with torches (ludicrous) and one-handed grabs, trips and what-have-you, notwithstanding.
HWalsh wrote: WizardsBlade wrote: We all know that 2 handed weapons greatly out damage 1 handed weapons at higher levels. So I was wondering how this small change would affect the balance.
Attack penalty adds when you use the same hand more than once in combat. As an example a 2 handed swords is used to attack with the first action. Any additional attacks would have a -5 penalty (as both hands where used). The second and third attack would be at -5 and -10 as usual. But when 2 1 handed weapons are used the first attack with weapon 1 has no penalty. A second attack with weapon 2 has no penalty, but a third attack with either hand would be at a -5.
This could also allow for shields to stay raised from turn to turn without the need to lower them, because the sword and board player would have a natural penalty to offset the shields advantage. As they would make all 3 attacks with the same hand.
While this won't make +5 1 handed weapons hit harder than +5 2 handers, it will increase thier overall damage per round making the 1 handers closer to the damage of 2 handers.
2 handers *don't* greatly out damage 1 handers.
Longsword vs Greatsword
1d8 vs 1d12
Average damage difference is 4.5 vs 6.5
You're only looking at 2 more average damage per +, so yes a +5 weapon is a difference of 12 damage.
27 damage vs. 39 damage.
It's not a big deal. Magic weapons now deal extra dice in damage, so the difference multiplies. For example, a +1 rapier does 2d6 damage for an average of 7, which is just barely above a non-magical greatsword, which does 1d12 for an average of 6.5. A +5 rapier will deal 5d6 damage (5-30, avg 17.5, std 3.82), while a +5 greatsword will deal 5d12 (5-60, avg 32.5, std 7.72)
This sort of system still worked in 1e, because fighting with two weapons actually got you more attacks. It doesn't matter that a rapier and a shortsword each do only 1d6 damage, because you get twice the attacks. So except for the -2 TWF penalty, you're effectively doing comparable damage to the greatsword's 2d6. But in 2e, there are effectively no ways to break the 3 attacks/turn cap, so there's no longer that balance.
The only two ways I see to fix this are to either give more people ways to break the 3 attacks/turn cap, or to nerf two-handed weapons, limit everything to 1d8 damage max, and find an alternative way to make 2-handed weapons special.
Vic Ferrari wrote: oholoko wrote: It is. Lol you can use that free hand to cast or to use maneuvers(grab, shove, trip.) and use a bastard sword to have a choice of striking harder... I mean theres a whole chain of fighter feats for 1 handed combatants. Nothing to laugh about, those are the same tired old excuses from the previous editions; killing things, dead, is the most efficient way of dealing with opposition in D&D, prancing around with torches (ludicrous) and one-handed grabs, trips and what-have-you, notwithstanding. If that's the case, why do most casters agree that killing things dead (blasting) is the least efficient way of dealing with opposition in pf1?
I think one handed builds could work if more support for battlefield control martials are there.
BluLion wrote: Vic Ferrari wrote: oholoko wrote: It is. Lol you can use that free hand to cast or to use maneuvers(grab, shove, trip.) and use a bastard sword to have a choice of striking harder... I mean theres a whole chain of fighter feats for 1 handed combatants. Nothing to laugh about, those are the same tired old excuses from the previous editions; killing things, dead, is the most efficient way of dealing with opposition in D&D, prancing around with torches (ludicrous) and one-handed grabs, trips and what-have-you, notwithstanding. If that's the case, why do most casters agree that killing things dead (blasting) is the least efficient way of dealing with opposition in pf1? Yikes, false equivalency or what, we're taking about melee damage and manoeuvres, not save or suck/die spells, please...
Vic Ferrari wrote: BluLion wrote: Vic Ferrari wrote: oholoko wrote: It is. Lol you can use that free hand to cast or to use maneuvers(grab, shove, trip.) and use a bastard sword to have a choice of striking harder... I mean theres a whole chain of fighter feats for 1 handed combatants. Nothing to laugh about, those are the same tired old excuses from the previous editions; killing things, dead, is the most efficient way of dealing with opposition in D&D, prancing around with torches (ludicrous) and one-handed grabs, trips and what-have-you, notwithstanding. If that's the case, why do most casters agree that killing things dead (blasting) is the least efficient way of dealing with opposition in pf1? Yikes, false equivalency or what, we're taking about melee damage and manoeuvres, not save or suck/die spells, please... My bad, but still, I think maneuvers just need to be buffed to be able to inflict more severe conditions than knock down. That way, a sword and board or an open hand that focuses mostly on durability over damage could contribute to combat better, kinda like how tanks in most games rely mostly on durability and crowd control for their contribution.
|
1 person marked this as a favorite.
|
BluLion wrote: Vic Ferrari wrote: BluLion wrote: Vic Ferrari wrote: oholoko wrote: It is. Lol you can use that free hand to cast or to use maneuvers(grab, shove, trip.) and use a bastard sword to have a choice of striking harder... I mean theres a whole chain of fighter feats for 1 handed combatants. Nothing to laugh about, those are the same tired old excuses from the previous editions; killing things, dead, is the most efficient way of dealing with opposition in D&D, prancing around with torches (ludicrous) and one-handed grabs, trips and what-have-you, notwithstanding. If that's the case, why do most casters agree that killing things dead (blasting) is the least efficient way of dealing with opposition in pf1? Yikes, false equivalency or what, we're taking about melee damage and manoeuvres, not save or suck/die spells, please... My bad, but still, I think maneuvers just need to be buffed to be able to inflict more severe conditions than knock down. That way, a sword and board or an open hand that focuses mostly on durability over damage could contribute to combat better, kinda like how tanks in most games rely mostly on durability and crowd control for their contribution. Yes, to all of that, and I was hoping for Legendary to open up for some epic martial shenanigans.
Vic Ferrari wrote: BluLion wrote: Vic Ferrari wrote: BluLion wrote: Vic Ferrari wrote: oholoko wrote: It is. Lol you can use that free hand to cast or to use maneuvers(grab, shove, trip.) and use a bastard sword to have a choice of striking harder... I mean theres a whole chain of fighter feats for 1 handed combatants. Nothing to laugh about, those are the same tired old excuses from the previous editions; killing things, dead, is the most efficient way of dealing with opposition in D&D, prancing around with torches (ludicrous) and one-handed grabs, trips and what-have-you, notwithstanding. If that's the case, why do most casters agree that killing things dead (blasting) is the least efficient way of dealing with opposition in pf1? Yikes, false equivalency or what, we're taking about melee damage and manoeuvres, not save or suck/die spells, please... My bad, but still, I think maneuvers just need to be buffed to be able to inflict more severe conditions than knock down. That way, a sword and board or an open hand that focuses mostly on durability over damage could contribute to combat better, kinda like how tanks in most games rely mostly on durability and crowd control for their contribution. Yes, to all of that, and I was hoping for Legendary to open up for some epic martial shenanigans. I agree that buffs seem to be needed for maneuvers but still, duelist parry and others are quite useful for fighters and lay on hands/champion powers along with the ability to use shields/maneuvers close the gap of 1 handed weapons to me.
oholoko wrote: Vic Ferrari wrote: BluLion wrote: Vic Ferrari wrote: BluLion wrote: Vic Ferrari wrote: oholoko wrote: It is. Lol you can use that free hand to cast or to use maneuvers(grab, shove, trip.) and use a bastard sword to have a choice of striking harder... I mean theres a whole chain of fighter feats for 1 handed combatants. Nothing to laugh about, those are the same tired old excuses from the previous editions; killing things, dead, is the most efficient way of dealing with opposition in D&D, prancing around with torches (ludicrous) and one-handed grabs, trips and what-have-you, notwithstanding. If that's the case, why do most casters agree that killing things dead (blasting) is the least efficient way of dealing with opposition in pf1? Yikes, false equivalency or what, we're taking about melee damage and manoeuvres, not save or suck/die spells, please... My bad, but still, I think maneuvers just need to be buffed to be able to inflict more severe conditions than knock down. That way, a sword and board or an open hand that focuses mostly on durability over damage could contribute to combat better, kinda like how tanks in most games rely mostly on durability and crowd control for their contribution. Yes, to all of that, and I was hoping for Legendary to open up for some epic martial shenanigans. I agree that buffs seem to be needed for maneuvers but still, duelist parry and others are quite useful for fighters and lay on hands/champion powers along with the ability to use shields/maneuvers close the gap of 1 handed weapons to me. I too, am happy with that, but I am thinking of the DPR Crowd; big, these days...
|
1 person marked this as a favorite.
|
oholoko wrote: Except that two handers rangers get a feat to make two strikes for an action, two handed fighters get one to make two attacks for two actions... Fighters also get two attacks for a single action if their MAP is bigger than 8, rangers reduce their MAP... Agile makes your to hit close the gap, and some abilities like backstab, deadly and etc close the gap even more. This time there several good reasons to double wield... Yeah, with proper feat support two-weapon is fine. Sword-and-board and free-hand, though, have problems. Free-hand works if you're multiclassing as a caster, but that's more because you really don't have a choice in the matter. If you aren't a caster, there's not much point in going free-hand.
Recent threads in Pathfinder Playtest General Discussion
|
