54 réponses à ce sujet

[Grani]

I've just had this thought.

While normally the fact that two-handed weapons take two slots instead of one is compensated by their larger damage output in comparison to single-handed weapons, is it the same on higher levels?

Obviously, items for characters at high levels tend to have many magical enhancements. Isn't it more viable for players to choose two SH weapons, both having enhancements, or an SH weapon and a shield (same story) than a single item? This is basically a choice between having one "set" of enhancements or having twice as much. And I'm not sure if the additional base damage compensates for that.

 

Any thoughts on the matter?

[HipMaestro]

Depends on the weapon category of the two-handed weapon.

 

A two-sided weapon only gets the same STR modifier boni as using two SH weapons, 100% STR mod on MH plus 50% STR mod on the OH weapon side, i.e. the size category does not have the same effect as with a typical large weapon, 150% STR mod..

 

So, if you are comparing a two-bladed sword (for instance) vs. two kukris, both do slashing damage, the same STR boni apply, but only the kukris can be finessed. The enhancement has no different effect unless it is different for each of the two SH weapons being used.

 

So finessable vs. non-finessable is one factor.  Another could be the difference in other item properties from MH to OH, including OnHit, elemental damage type, etc.  Yet another difference is in magical buffing.  To imbue the two-bladed sword with GMW (again, for instance), a single cast will enhance both hands, while two casts are needed to accomplish the same effect on both SH weapons.  The shield option, naturally, is only open for the two SH weapons.

 

Finally, though it seldom comes up, is that, each of the two SH weapons could be of different damage types.  Related to a choice like this is the WM's WoC selection and fighter's WS which would require additional feats to achieve the same potential on both hands while the two-sided would only require one.

 

Two-sided weapons are harder to disarm than two medium, small or tiny ones.

 

Crit range and multiplier (in regards to the chosen weapon type) can be a factor depending on the AC being confronted.  To some extent, damage type can matter (like vs. some undead).

 

The determination of whether a particular weapon type is "large" (and benefit from the 150% two-hand bonus) is related to race.  So, a longsword wielded by a human gets only the MH damage (100% STR mod), while a gnome would be getting the two-hand bonus using the same weapon.

 

Character level has no effect on the two-hand bonus other than being able to pump up STR to higher levels, assuming it is a STR-focused build.

 

There is a rather obscure difference related to rolling multiple dice for base damage like with scythe and greatsword.  The realized damage (what is actually experienced in-game), or the damage "probability", gets clustered around the average damage, with the very high and very low damages seldom experienced.  With two SH weapons, every base damage possibility is equally possible (i.e. linear).  This nuance become even more apparent and noticeable with critical hits.

 

That's about all I can think of atm.  There are probably others, though.

 

It's typically a matter of aesthetics.  Some players feel the appearance of fighting with a two-sided weapon "looks cool" so forgo any of the disadvantages..

[Grani]

I see. Thanks for elaborating on that.

[MrZork]

Hip's comments were very thorough. One added consideration with double-sided weapons is that they allow a duel-wielder to do damage typical of medium-sized weapons while not suffering an additional AB penalty to both weapons, which can be significant. That is, normally, a melee toon has to choose between duel wielding two small or tiny weapons (or spending several extra feats in order to wield one medium and one small weapon) which will do 1d4 or 1d6 base damage and having a -2 AB total AB penalty for duel wielding versus duel wielding two medium-sized weapons which typically do 1d8 (1d10 for exotic) base damage but will incur a -4 AB penalty for duel wielding. The double-sided weapons allow the toon to do 1d8 base damage with both main-hand and off-hand attacks while only incurring the -2 AB penalty for duel wielding. That extra base damage at a higher AB can be significant.

 

As to two-handed (but not double-sided) weapons, also consider that the extra 50% strength damage can be very useful in getting past damage resistance and damage reduction (and chewing through DR from spells) and disrupting spellcasters, especially since it is also multiplied on crits. That can be important when going up creatures with high DR or those who will only be hurt on a crit (or both, e.g. Black Slaad).

 

To the broader question, it's worth noting that the environment is likely to be important, as will single-player versus multiplayer play and PvP. There isn't going to be a definitive answer without knowing those factors. Does the module have keen short swords? Is there a shield that provides immunity from mind-affects? Is there a mage around in a low-magic environment who can cast Greater Magic Weapon and Flame Weapon on both of my weapons? Is there a cleric around in a similar low-magic environment who can cast Magic Vestments on my shield? Etc. The general rule in the game is that having more pieces of gear equipped means the toon will be better buffed. But, hitting more often (the AB penalty) matters and doing more damage per hit (the STR bonus and base weapon damage) matters.

[MagicalMaster]

While normally the fact that two-handed weapons take two slots instead of one is compensated by their larger damage output in comparison to single-handed weapons, is it the same on higher levels?

 

Generally speaking, no.  Unless the author of the module scales damage based on weapon size in some manner (like my mods do) then the bonus damage is static static while shields provide incredible defense.

 

For example, consider a level 1 fighter with 16 strength.  With a longsword he does 7.5 average damage per hit while a greatsword does 11 damage per hit.  However, the longsword gets a shield which adds 3 AC.  So you basically have a choice of dealing 50% more damage or being able to take 50% more damage (basically take about 35% less damage with the shield, roughly).  Fairly balanced, important choice to make.

 

Fast forward to a level 40 fighter with 46 strength.  If he's using a longsword +10 with 2d6 bonus damage (which is what you find in HotU) then he deals 45.5 damage per hit.  Greatsword, on the other hand, is 57 damage.  So we're down to a 27% damage increase -- and if the sword has more than just 2d6 bonus damage on it then the difference becomes even smaller.  So we compare that 27% damage increase to the value of a shield -- and even something like a +7 tower shield means you can take like 125% more damage (basically take like 55% less damage).  So unless you're playing in an extremely easy environment, then being able to take 125% more damage is much better than dealing 27% more damage -- especially when it comes to making healing more efficient.  And this isn't even factoring in additional bonuses that may be on the shield.

 

So, sadly, using a 2H usually is not viable in challenging environments at high levels unless the author takes the time to alter some things -- you don't gain much damage and you lose so so so so so much defense.  There's really no reason for shields to increase in enhancement -- 3 extra AC already scales automatically, so to speak.

 

There are some exceptions to this -- if you play a low AC Dwarven Defender where you plan on getting hit, for example or (like I said) if the enemies are so easy that the extra AC doesn't really matter.  But in the latter case then nothing really matters and you could play an intellect based rogue with little issue most likely.

[MrZork]

I thought that the OP was mostly interested in a comparison between two-handed weapons and duel wielding, where there is no direct AC difference. Apologies to him if I went off topic in my remarks.

[MagicalMaster]

He was interested in all of the above   He asked about both the difference between 2H versus 1H/shield and 2H versus Dual-Wield.

 

He was also asking especially about stat bonuses rather than just offense/defense -- the thought being that if 2H has a good offense/defense tradeoff compared to 1H/shield it might still be worse due to lacking the extra stats/immunities/saving throws/etc.

[MrZork]

That may be what threw me: I read it as a question primarily about damage output, with the mention of shields occurring in the context of discussing how an extra equipped item could provide more total item properties, just as an off-hand weapon could. Obviously, when that off-hand item is a shield, those properties tend to enhance defense, but I read the post as focused on how those properties impact damage.

 

Either way, your discussion of the AC impact of shield-wielding versus non-shield-wielding is something any melee toon designer does well to consider.

 

BTW, a thought occurred to me when reading your post: Would changing the AC bonus type for 2-handed weapons (by changing their AC_Enchant entries in baseitems.2da) help address the defensive penalty that wielding them incurs? Obviously, it wouldn't have much impact for modules where weapons don't get AC bonuses. But, I think that is partly a catch-22: Because items with deflection AC bonuses are already so readily available, there is little use for adding it to a weapon. But, lots of modules have custom weapons (not to mention forges and gem systems) where adding an AC bonus to a weapon might actually be useful if it were shield AC.

[WhiZard]

He was interested in all of the above   He asked about both the difference between 2H versus 1H/shield and Dual-Wield versus 1H/shield.

 

As a matter of correction, it was 2H versus 1H/shield and 2H versus dual-wield.  The OP did not ask about dual-wield versus 1H/shield.

[MagicalMaster]

As a matter of correction, it was 2H versus 1H/shield and 2H versus dual-wield.  The OP did not ask about dual-wield versus 1H/shield.

 

Whoops, fixed.  Posting at 1 AM can lead to bad things!

 

BTW, a thought occurred to me when reading your post: Would changing the AC bonus type for 2-handed weapons (by changing their AC_Enchant entries in baseitems.2da) help address the defensive penalty that wielding them incurs? Obviously, it wouldn't have much impact for modules where weapons don't get AC bonuses. But, I think that is partly a catch-22: Because items with deflection AC bonuses are already so readily available, there is little use for adding it to a weapon. But, lots of modules have custom weapons (not to mention forges and gem systems) where adding an AC bonus to a weapon might actually be useful if it were shield AC.

 

Yes, letting 2H weapons give shield AC would be a solution.  One nice thing about it is that you can then scale up the shields as well -- it's fine to make a shield +7 because the 2H (or dual-wielding weapons or whatever) will still give 7 shield AC anyway.  You avoid an ever widening gap between 1H/shield and 2H (or dual-wield).

[Nick The Noodle]

Allowing Fighters to use shields and a two handed weapon should be an option in my opinion, but requiring a Fighter feat to do so.  Historically, Greek and Macedonian spear/pikemen did, much like Huscarls/Varangian Guardsmen et al later on. 

[Grani]

Or we could have some penalties for wielding shields to nerf them. Like a penalty to attack rolls?

But wouldn't this nerf fighters and other similar melee characters too much in comparison to other classes, like wizards, monks?

 

Would anyone suggest what penalty (and how severe) could be done to balance these three melee sets with each other? I, unfortunately, suck a little when it comes to balancing.

[henesua]

How do you allow a PC to wield a shield and a 2 handed weapon? I don't know how that works.

 

There would have to be some other tweak made. Changing two handed weapons to have defensive bonuses would be one way to do this. I think thats what Magical Master was suggesting.

[Grani]

How do you allow a PC to wield a shield and a 2 handed weapon? I don't know how that works.

 

There would have to be some other tweak made. Changing two handed weapons to have defensive bonuses would be one way to do this. I think thats what Magical Master was suggesting.

 

Did anyone say anything about wielding both a shield and a 2H weapon?

[MrZork]

How do you allow a PC to wield a shield and a 2 handed weapon? I don't know how that works.

There would have to be some other tweak made. Changing two handed weapons to have defensive bonuses would be one way to do this. I think thats what Magical Master was suggesting.

Did anyone say anything about wielding both a shield and a 2H weapon?

Maybe:
 

Allowing Fighters to use shields and a two handed weapon should be an option in my opinion, but requiring a Fighter feat to do so. Historically, Greek and Macedonian spear/pikemen did, much like Huscarls/Varangian Guardsmen et al later on.

[Grani]

Maybe:
 

That might be it.

So, any comments on balancing things out by penalizing shield wielders?

[HipMaestro]

That might be it.

So, any comments on balancing things out by penalizing shield wielders?

Perhaps increase the armor check penalty? But that would only affect stealthers and tumblers. Typically, dexers wouldn't be using two-hand weapons, though... just dual-wielding.

 

An additional item characteristic that would penalize damage dealt (something like the OH damage penalty) would need to be implemented to impact STR-focused builds.  But that may be hard-coded. Dunno.  That would end up stacking with the default TH 150% bonus, in effect.

[rogueknight333]

That might be it.

So, any comments on balancing things out by penalizing shield wielders?

 

Rather than penalizing shield wielders, it would seem simpler to achieve some degree of balance by rewarding two-handed weapon wielders by one of the two methods already suggested: either provide weapons with damage bonuses proportionate to their size or base damage (so the gain in offensive power from giving up a shield remains great enough to be a reasonable trade-off), or else attach defensive bonuses to two-handed weapons that compensate to some degree for the lost shield (and note that if you do not want to bother trying to change the default AC type for weapons from the usually redundant deflection, you can always give them some other type of defensive property like damage resistance, regeneration, etc.). Is there some reason you do not want to make use of these options?

[Grani]

Perhaps increase the armor check penalty? But that would only affect stealthers and tumblers. Typically, dexers wouldn't be using two-hand weapons, though... just dual-wielding.

 

An additional item characteristic that would penalize damage dealt (something like the OH damage penalty) would need to be implemented to impact STR-focused builds.  But that may be hard-coded. Dunno.  That would end up stacking with the default TH 150% bonus, in effect.

Why not a penalty to attack bonus? That would make sense somewhat, you need to sacrifice some attack power to gain better defences.
 

Rather than penalizing shield wielders, it would seem simpler to achieve some degree of balance by rewarding two-handed weapon wielders by one of the two methods already suggested: either provide weapons with damage bonuses proportionate to their size or base damage (so the gain in offensive power from giving up a shield remains great enough to be a reasonable trade-off), or else attach defensive bonuses to two-handed weapons that compensate to some degree for the lost shield (and note that if you do not want to bother trying to change the default AC type for weapons from the usually redundant deflection, you can always give them some other type of defensive property like damage resistance, regeneration, etc.). Is there some reason you do not want to make use of these options?

Well, first of all, I need something universal, i.e. I cannot just add better properties to 2H weapons and that's due to the fact that I have an advanced crafting system for players to use with their Craft Weapon and Craft Armor skills. So, basically, any changes I make need to be changes to base stats of the items or some other kind of universal boost/penalty for all items of a given kind.

Second of all, if I made base stats of 2H weapons good enough for them to be just as useful as 1H weapons and shields at max level, then they will be utterly overpowered at low levels.

[MrZork]

It seems like my earlier suggestion of changing the AC bonus type of the 2H weapons to shield bonus in baseitems.2da would help compensate for the AC disadvantage of not wielding a shield and still scale pretty well with your module's leveling and crafting.

Obviously, it's possible to penalize the AB of shield-wielders via OnEquip scripting, and there may be some equitable way of doing it (e.g. -1, -2, -3 AB for small, large, tower shields or something), but I would hesitate to do that. Balancing things beyond what Bioware has done is a tricky business and it's all the more so when the attempt involves trying to balance two things (AB and AC for player characters) that are related but not the same. IMO, the best solution is likely to be the one that directly addresses the imbalance (e.g. AC deficit) without trying to equalize other related-but-dissimilar quantities. I.e., fixing an AC imbalance with an AC bonus may work out, fixing it with an AB adjustment is getting more complicated, fixing it with a concealment bonus is likely to have odd and unpredictable results.

 

I tend to be dubious about balancing attempts, because it's such a tough proposition if the goal is to do anything other than balance the simplest case of a brute swinging a sword at a monster, neither of whom have any special abilities or interesting gear. For one thing, it's difficult to come up with a useful definition of what "balance" means. Is it best to achieve a balance so that the simple AB and AC stats of 2H weapon PCs against monsters is comparable to those of 1H weapon + shield PCs against monsters? Is the metric that the monster lasts the same number of rounds against both test PCs? Or that each test PC has taken the same damage from the monster? Or something else? Once some notion of balance is decided, what are the mechanics of that balance and do they scale? In other words, if the proposal is to apply an AB penalty to 1H+S toons, then how much AB penalty is appropriate for the +3 AC bonus that toon gets (over a 2H toon) from a tower shield at level 1 (assuming he doesn't have a magic shield then) versus the extra damage the 2H toon is doing? Will that same penalty achieve balance at level 40 when the toon has a +X AC magic shield and his counterpart has +Y STR gear? Is a direct comparison of % less damage taken due to higher AC versus % extra damage done due to higher STR bonus appropriate? Or, is that an "illusion of numbers" solution, where parity seems to be achieved by making two numbers the same, even though those numbers may not represent directly comparable quantities?

 

And, really, the AC bonus versus damage may be the easiest item property to deal with. What about a toon with a Fletcher's Foe small shield that grants +1 AC and 15/- versus piercing damage? Not a great shield in terms of AC, but potentially a WIN button versus archers and many dexing dagger/short sword/rapier-wielders. What about a shield that grants +3 will saves? +10 discipline? Immunity to paralysis? Etc. My point is that any balancing attempt is going to be tricky even for simple cases and isn't likely to cover many possibilities and is likely to have other unintended consequences that are difficult to predict. ("Within a month, 1 of 3 new melee toons were strengthing, scythe-wielding WMs, because that was the new high AB melee build.")

 

Anyway, I am not trying to discourage balancing efforts, but any attempt is going to be very environment dependent and will probably leave many situations unbalanced.

[Grani]

It seems like my earlier suggestion of changing the AC bonus type of the 2H weapons to shield bonus in baseitems.2da would help compensate for the AC disadvantage of not wielding a shield and still scale pretty well with your module's leveling and crafting.

Obviously, it's possible to penalize the AB of shield-wielders via OnEquip scripting, and there may be some equitable way of doing it (e.g. -1, -2, -3 AB for small, large, tower shields or something), but I would hesitate to do that. Balancing things beyond what Bioware has done is a tricky business and it's all the more so when the attempt involves trying to balance two things (AB and AC for player characters) that are related but not the same. IMO, the best solution is likely to be the one that directly addresses the imbalance (e.g. AC deficit) without trying to equalize other related-but-dissimilar quantities. I.e., fixing an AC imbalance with an AC bonus may work out, fixing it with an AB adjustment is getting more complicated, fixing it with a concealment bonus is likely to have odd and unpredictable results.

 

I tend to be dubious about balancing attempts, because it's such a tough proposition if the goal is to do anything other than balance the simplest case of a brute swinging a sword at a monster, neither of whom have any special abilities or interesting gear. For one thing, it's difficult to come up with a useful definition of what "balance" means. Is it best to achieve a balance so that the simple AB and AC stats of 2H weapon PCs against monsters is comparable to those of 1H weapon + shield PCs against monsters? Is the metric that the monster lasts the same number of rounds against both test PCs? Or that each test PC has taken the same damage from the monster? Or something else? Once some notion of balance is decided, what are the mechanics of that balance and do they scale? In other words, if the proposal is to apply an AB penalty to 1H+S toons, then how much AB penalty is appropriate for the +3 AC bonus that toon gets (over a 2H toon) from a tower shield at level 1 (assuming he doesn't have a magic shield then) versus the extra damage the 2H toon is doing? Will that same penalty achieve balance at level 40 when the toon has a +X AC magic shield and his counterpart has +Y STR gear? Is a direct comparison of % less damage taken due to higher AC versus % extra damage done due to higher STR bonus appropriate? Or, is that an "illusion of numbers" solution, where parity seems to be achieved by making two numbers the same, even though those numbers may not represent directly comparable quantities?

 

And, really, the AC bonus versus damage may be the easiest item property to deal with. What about a toon with a Fletcher's Foe small shield that grants +1 AC and 15/- versus piercing damage? Not a great shield in terms of AC, but potentially a WIN button versus archers and many dexing dagger/short sword/rapier-wielders. What about a shield that grants +3 will saves? +10 discipline? Immunity to paralysis? Etc. My point is that any balancing attempt is going to be tricky even for simple cases and isn't likely to cover many possibilities and is likely to have other unintended consequences that are difficult to predict. ("Within a month, 1 of 3 new melee toons were strengthing, scythe-wielding WMs, because that was the new high AB melee build.")

 

Anyway, I am not trying to discourage balancing efforts, but any attempt is going to be very environment dependent and will probably leave many situations unbalanced.

I see your point, thank you for explaining it so well.

Well, what I had in mind was to balance the base items and, for the purpose of this balancing, disregard any enhancements they may have. Of course we still need to assume that a 2H weapon will have less enhancements than a set of a 1H weapon + shield or two 1H weapons. The point is, since thanks to the crafting system, virtually any item type can have any property in my module, to just try and balance things out while considering base, unmodified items. (I'm talking about it in response to your examples of enhanced items like shields with resistances to piercing damage or immunities to paralysis, etc.)

 

I agree with what you said that the definition of balance itself is a rather subjective one. I've always considered two characters to be balanced if they have about equal chances of winning against each other in PVP. As opposed to some MMO (like WoW) where different equipment is used in PVP and in PVE (a whole stat is dedicated solely to fighting against other players), equipment and spells/abilities in NWN are pretty much universal (with some notable exceptions, like spells having a different effect on PCs) for fighting NPCs and players alike.

 

I also took your argument about balancing things using the same stat (AC) into consideration and I'm fairly convinced now. Yes, as you said, I planned on modifying AB via OnEquip scripts (and maybe also via OnHearbeat one to ensure the PC is still penalized, since there are ways of removing a supernatural effect), but modifying AC instead might, indeed, be an easier and more secure option.

[HipMaestro]

I don't know if I agree with the original premise that a 2-handed weapon handicaps a player.  It depends.

 

As MrZork has already cited in detail that environment is going to determine where the real advantages lie. They can be itemized for evaluation by a brief orientation period.

 

For one thing, most all the 1H weapons use a x2 multiplier for damage.  The 3 exceptions being warhammer & battleaxe (both martial) and the dwarven waraxe (exotic, so requires a peripheral feat), all x3.  Of these three, only the two axes can be keened by magical means (ignoring the fact that any melee weapon can possess the Keen item property thereby nerfing any value of Keen Edge).

 

The crit multiplier can become a huge factor when dealing with DR, damage resistance and disrupting casting.  The weapon master class can increase the damage so significantly that what appears to be an innocuous advantage can become devastating.  MM's example of a toon with STR 46 Level 40 fighter (though quite impossible STR level including half-orc RDD builds without enhancements or buffs) with a +9 TH bonus becomes +45 just for a mundane scythe master.

 

As magical enhancements are introduced, the effect becomes even more pronounced.  Consider a modest +5 enhancement with 1d6 fire damage.  When that same scythe crits, it will be adding an additional +25 pierce/slash and averaging +15 fire.  So, you'd need to compare a similar exotic S/S set-up like the dwarven axe, which will only reach x4 with the WM multiplier, but get the added +3 from tower (assuming medium race in both cases, naturally).

 

My point is:  besides the environment, it depends on the encounter.  Going toe-to-toe with a melee shielded clone would come down to whether the opposed AC could be "dented" (meaning, fall within the threat range of the 2-handed WM wielder's AB) to take full advantage of the crits.  But even without critting, the 2-hand bonus will be doing that extra bit of damage on every hit, like vs. undead & constructs.  Vs. casters, IMO, the decision is easy... go 2-handed so you stand a chance to disrupt at least the first spell cast. When a scythe is combined in a PM build, now the wielder needs no longer fear the extra landed hits anymore, so can tank easily with just heal potions on hand. 

 

When comparing vs. DWing, the scythe will have fewer opportunities to crit, but will be attacking at a higher AB (+2, at least).  DWing with dwarven war axes, though more damaging, will be done at -4 AB. The question that must be addressed: What is the range of opposing ACs that will be encountered?  That's what will determine the most optimal weapon build.

 

The greataxe would be my second 2-hand weapon preference.  One less feat, more physical damage, but lower overall multiplier than scythe when it comes to using enhanced versions. 

 

Oh, and I find it a bit ironic that among all the discussion about Dual-wield vs. S/S that no one has even hinted that the DW APR is 150% greater than the S/S with extra AC figured in. Or did I miss it somewhere? There are always tradeoffs.  In those tradeoffs lie the intrinsic balance(s).

[rogueknight333]

I don't know if I agree with the original premise that a 2-handed weapon handicaps a player.  It depends...

 

While it is always true that one can posit unusual environments or specialized builds that depart from the usual rules, the OP appears to be dealing with an extremely high-magic situation where every item has a lot of significant bonuses attached to it, and in that sort of environment it could indeed be an important disadvantage to in effect sacrifice an item slot by wielding a two-handed weapon. In that situation, as the magical bonuses associated with the weapon get greater and greater, the additional strength bonus will become an increasingly smaller percentage of the damage it deals (and the higher base damage will constitute an even more insignificant contribution), making it an ever more marginal benefit, while the bonuses attached to the shields will get greater and greater: a Shield +5 confers a huge AC boost, and that is not even taking into account other magical bonuses it might have besides a basic AC enhancement. There would seem to be good reason to think that in this situation a shield is a much more efficient way to use an item slot.

 

For one thing, most all the 1H weapons use a x2 multiplier for damage...The [x3] crit multiplier can become a huge factor when dealing with DR, damage resistance and disrupting casting...

 

...When a scythe is combined in a PM build, now the wielder needs no longer fear the extra landed hits anymore, so can tank easily with just heal potions on hand...

 

As well, environmental considerations can cut both ways. Certainly the above are factors worth considering, but if we are comparing different environments and scenarios, what about one where Devastating Critical is in play? In that case extra critical damage becomes almost meaningless, the important thing would be to just score as many criticals as possible, which certain 1-handed weapons (scimitar, rapier, kukri) can do better than any other. Or what about an environment where supplies of healing resources are strictly limited? That could make having good defense more important than it might otherwise be. Though admittedly, as far as I know, neither is the case in the specific environment under discussion, while some of the scenarios you posit might well apply.

 

...The weapon master class can increase the damage so significantly that what appears to be an innocuous advantage can become devastating.  MM's example of a toon with STR 46 Level 40 fighter (though quite impossible STR level including half-orc RDD builds without enhancements or buffs) with a +9 TH bonus becomes +45 just for a mundane scythe master.

 

I think he is assuming a +12 STR bonus from items, and selecting a basic fighter for the sake of simplicity. In any case, a Weapon Master will of course tend to have better damage output (that is the point of the class) but for purposes of the present discussion comparing a scythe-wielding WM to a WM using scimitar and shield would be much more of an apples to apples comparison. These would have broadly similar offensive capabilities, but with a potentially huge defensive advantage to the latter.

 

Oh, and I find it a bit ironic that among all the discussion about Dual-wield vs. S/S that no one has even hinted that the DW APR is 150% greater than the S/S with extra AC figured in. Or did I miss it somewhere? There are always tradeoffs.  In those tradeoffs lie the intrinsic balance(s).

 

I think this is because discussing dual-wielding in general (which as you suggest offers a very complex and difficult to evaluate set of tradeoffs) is tangential to the main point under discussion: is it worth giving up an item slot for a boost to offensive power? The aspect of dual-wielding relevant to this question would be to compare a single dual-wielded weapon like a Two-Bladed Sword to dual-wielding two distinct weapons. The former has a very slight edge in base damage dealt (which again is almost meaningless if we assume high magical bonuses are attached to all weapons), and some advantages in very specialized situations like Disarming attacks. The latter allows one to equip two items which in a high magic environment can easily come with different and complementary bonuses, and more versatility as well since someone dual-wielding (let us say) short swords has the option of temporarily switching to short sword & shield in a case where increasing defense is especially important.

[MagicalMaster]

That might be it.

So, any comments on balancing things out by penalizing shield wielders?

 

One of the problems is that shields are fine.  Shields +1 are also generally fine.  Even shields +2 are probably fine.  But the AC gap between shield and non-shield keeps increasing -- which is the problem.

 

Well, first of all, I need something universal, i.e. I cannot just add better properties to 2H weapons and that's due to the fact that I have an advanced crafting system for players to use with their Craft Weapon and Craft Armor skills. So, basically, any changes I make need to be changes to base stats of the items or some other kind of universal boost/penalty for all items of a given kind.

 

You could easily add larger damage dice to 2H weapons using the crafting system -- just check the size of the weapon.  Already came up with a system with it in A Peremptory Summons as I mentioned in our PM discussion.  The catch is that it would make it more valuable to vendors so potentially don't let crafted items be vendored.

 

It seems like my earlier suggestion of changing the AC bonus type of the 2H weapons to shield bonus in baseitems.2da would help compensate for the AC disadvantage of not wielding a shield and still scale pretty well with your module's leveling and crafting.

 

Simply giving weapons shield enhancement bonus equal to their enhancement bonus could partially work, yes.

 

IMO, the best solution is likely to be the one that directly addresses the imbalance (e.g. AC deficit) without trying to equalize other related-but-dissimilar quantities.

 

Part of the problem is that there's also a damage deficit.  A 2H may be dealing like 50% more damage than a 1H at level 1 but only like 20% more damage at level 40.  So even if the AC gap is kept constant you have a problem.

 

The crit multiplier can become a huge factor when dealing with DR, damage resistance and disrupting casting.

 

Not really.  Let's say you're fighting an enemy which ignores 10 points of damage per hit and you deal 20 per hit.

With a 20/x3 with keen and improved critical you get 17 hits of 10 damage and 3 hits of 50 damage for 320 damage total.

With 19-20/x2 and keen and improved critical you get 14 hits of 10 damage and 6 hits of 30 damage for 320 damage total.

 

Same total damage.

 

Even if the enemy ignored 20 damage per hit then you have 3 hits for 40 damage versus 6 hits for 20 damage -- still same damage total.

 

And most enemies are going to have their spellcasting disrupted on a crit anyway, frankly, whether it's x2 or x3 (or x4 or x5).

 

MM's example of a toon with STR 46 Level 40 fighter (though quite impossible STR level including half-orc RDD builds without enhancements or buffs) with a +9 TH bonus becomes +45 just for a mundane scythe master.

 

As RogueKnight mentioned, it's simply 17 starting strength with Great Strength VII along with 12 strength from gear.

 

Oh, and I find it a bit ironic that among all the discussion about Dual-wield vs. S/S that no one has even hinted that the DW APR is 150% greater than the S/S with extra AC figured in. Or did I miss it somewhere? There are always tradeoffs.  In those tradeoffs lie the intrinsic balance(s).

 

Dual-wielding is also bad.  It's not simply 150% APR (and if you're hasted then it's not even that) -- it's also a penalty for all attacks and less damage with offhand attacks.

Say your PC has 11 less AB than the enemy has AC.  Your attack schedule is 50%/25%/5%/5%/50% = 1.4 hits per round with 1H/shield.  If you dual wield then you get 40%/15%/5%/5%/40%/15%/50% = 1.7 hits per round.  Which...is a 21.4% improvement.  For three feats and losing a shield.

 

Let's look at two other examples.

 

6 less AB than AC.  1H/shield is 75%/50%/25%/5%/75% = 2.3 hits per round.  DW is 65%/40%/15%/5%/65%/40%/75% = 3.05 hits per round.  So that's a bit better, but still only a 32.6% improvement.

 

16 less AB than AC.  1H/shield is 25%/5%/5%/5%/25% = 0.65 hits per round.  DW is 15%/5%/5%/5%/15%/5%/25% = 0.75 hits per round...or a 15.4% improvement.  Not looking so hot at all.

 

Again, this isn't factoring in lower damage on off-hand attacks or the three feat investment that is needed.  And to put things in perspective, 1 AB is usually 10-15% more hits per round...so if there was a feat that you could repeatedly select to get 1 AB then three of those plus 1H/shield would give better offense PLUS better defense.

 

Along with improving 2H, I also made a system to improve dual-wield.  Basically just gives 2 extra AB to dual-wielders (and 4 if using a non-light weapon so you CAN do something like dual bastard swords).

 

a Shield +5 confers a huge AC boost, and that is not even taking into account other magical bonuses it might have besides a basic AC enhancement. There would seem to be good reason to think that in this situation a shield is a much more efficient way to use an item slot.

 

Yep.

 

As well, environmental considerations can cut both ways. Certainly the above are factors worth considering, but if we are comparing different environments and scenarios, what about one where Devastating Critical is in play? In that case extra critical damage becomes almost meaningless, the important thing would be to just score as many criticals as possible, which certain 1-handed weapons (scimitar, rapier, kukri) can do better than any other. Or what about an environment where supplies of healing resources are strictly limited? That could make having good defense more important than it might otherwise be. Though admittedly, as far as I know, neither is the case in the specific environment under discussion, while some of the scenarios you posit might well apply.

 

Well said.

 

And, in fact, people usually die in NWN due to lack of defense -- I've never seen a situation that has a DPR (damage per round) check.  Almost always about being able to survive and wear something down.  Which makes 2Hs even less appealing.

 

In any case, a Weapon Master will of course tend to have better damage output (that is the point of the class) but for purposes of the present discussion comparing a scythe-wielding WM to a WM using scimitar and shield would be much more of an apples to apples comparison. These would have broadly similar offensive capabilities, but with a potentially huge defensive advantage to the latter.

 

I think this is because discussing dual-wielding in general (which as you suggest offers a very complex and difficult to evaluate set of tradeoffs) is tangential to the main point under discussion: is it worth giving up an item slot for a boost to offensive power

 

Exactly for the former.

 

For the latter, the general question of whether dual-wielding is worth it also seems relevant to the topic.  It's also a small offensive bonus in exchanging for giving up a ton of defense...and also takes 3 feats to boot.

[Shadooow]

I didnt read it all. But basically, the better damage bonuses and enhancements on weapons (ie, higher magic environment) the more advantage dualweaponers do get. Because the 50% dmg on offhand weapon apply only for damage from strenght not other bonuses and those others usually gets much higher than the str bonus in such environments.

 

The only disadvantage is the cost - you pay/need to find out two weapons, not just one.