3
edits
Changes
→Trying to work out the balance between Two-Handed Weapons and this Feat: new section
:This is the same folks who decided the penalty for silver weapons (-1 to damage because silver is softer) is stupid because wooden weapons don't take that same penalty. If someone wants to dual-wield whips, I'll give them a heartfelt 'Merry Christmas' and see how it goes. And you say 'bladed' weapons, but I'm pretty sure you meant to include maces and flails and clubs and the like. --Genowhirl 17:28, 5 June 2011 (UTC)
== Trying to work out the balance between Two-Handed Weapons and this Feat ==
Hey guys,
Despite being an administrator now at your sister site, I was kind of looking at some of the specifics of Frank & K's Races of War, and specifically noticed a particular trend in my own campaign which made me come here to question about a balance concern of mine: I'm worried that this feat makes Two-Weapon Fighting way more appealing that Two-Handed Weapons, in general. Now, with all the love for roleplay and scenario aside (We all have players, or are players, who look to calculate the best possible benefits of their options and make decisions based on that, rather than how cool a greatsword is, aesthetically), I want to know what justification or reason could be found to offset this concern. For that reason, I've come here, since I know a number of the major retainers of Frank & K's work do frequent this site since our historic schism forced us to part ways.
My basic argument exists on this level, and it may well be wrong; Please feel free to correct me if I'm doing something inappropriate:
Say "NotLumu" has the choice of spec'ing to run with either a two-handed weapon or a set of two weapons, and is considering her feats after she has taken the Tome Barbarian Class. In this particular scenario, she has narrowed down her choices to the following options: Two Longswords, or One Greatsword.
In the case of both sets of weapons, let us presume she has a Strength modifier of +4, and that she has a moderately high base attack bonus. How about +10, giving her two attacks, +10/+4 (Not using Races of War's progression, in this case, although we could and I truthfully am not sure the concerned portion would change at all)?
With this feat, the longswords are capable of dealing 1d8+4 and 1d8+2, twice each, for a grand total of potential damage being 44, with a full attack action, excluding criticals and presuming that all four attacks hit.
With the greatsword, she is capable of dealing 2d6+6 damage twice, for a grand total of potential damage being 18, with a full attack action, excluding criticals and presuming both attacks hit.
That's a staggering difference in damage capability, especially considering that one dwarfs the other, and will only continue to do so, further on. The argument could be made that four attacks are less likely to hit than two, but I feel that is an argument that is avoiding the real issue of damage out per set of attacks. Also consider that even if NotLumu only took a single attack in the round, and not a full attack action, her longswords (since she gets the extra attack any time she normally attacks) would do a potential total of 22 damage in the same circumstances, while the greatsword could only do 18 potential damage.
Furthermore, I believe the argument could be made that she could pursue something like Power Attack with the feat she has not used for Two-Weapon Fighting, but that would mean that in order to compensate her damage with the Greatsword, she would have to give up relatively massive amounts of her chance to hit, just to break even. Using the secondary example, Lumu could give up +4 from her attack roll, and end up at 22 potential damage, presuming she hits with the +6 remaining, while she otherwise uses the two longswords at +10/+10 and achieves the same level of damage.
Even minimum damage is no different between the two, and even moreso, is surpassed when the user gains more attacks with this feat.
So, given this information, I am curious as to how this balances with or even makes two-handed weapons a reasonable alternative when this is an option. It is possible, highly so, that I am missing some part of the equation, as I'd hope there'd be something missing for it to be this skew'd in the favor of the Two-Weapon Fighting option; And regarding that, please keep in mind that this is purely concerning potential damage dealt, and doesn't even broach the rest of the feat, such as bonuses to AC and the ability to feint, which a Greatsword fighter would not get.
Here's hoping you all can help me with this. [[User:Jwguy|Jwguy]] ([[User talk:Jwguy|talk]]) 01:49, 14 August 2014 (UTC)
