next »

[Kalis]

Two-handed weapons just have the advantage of incredibly high base damage + 2xStrength Modifier on their damage. This means if they land even a partial hit it will theoretically do far more damage then faster weapons would.

Of course, the extreme end of things would be someone who does a ton of damage, but is really slow vs someone who doesn't do much damage, but is so far they can get surprise.

Light weapons also suffer against creatures that reduce damage + have damage barriers.

That said, -40 for heavy weapons is a bit extreme, but I suppose they are still better at single hits and Area Attacks.

Thing is that a 10% hit for a 120 vs a 50 damage shot is just 12 vs 5 damage. While 12 vs 5 is more than double damage, it is still only a difference of 7.

Since you can't actually attack somebody who has surprised you, high initiative on lighter weapons can be brutal.

Light weapons suffer a bit against damage barriers at first, but after level 2 or 3 damage barriers are a non issues for PC's unless they are in the weaponmaster class.

[Zeru]

Things that straight reduce damage, like certain monster traits, Noht, and like abilities can reduce the base damage of an attack by 30 or more, which significantly weakens lighter weapons. Not to mention things like Supernatural Shields and DR creatures, which take more damage on average from large weapons then they would from small weapons.

Also, while it is only 12 v 5 damage at 10%, it is 60 vs 25 at 50%, which is quite significant. At 200 Attack splitting for 3 attacks, the 120 damage weapon would do 144 damage per hit against 0 AT DR creature, while that 50 Damage would do 80 damage per hit.

I think what they were trying to accomplish was to allow lighter weapons to specialize in multiple attacks in a round, while making two-handed weapons more powerful with single strikes + combat maneuvers. An area attack performed with that 120 damage large weapon is far more dangerous then one performed by that 50 damage small one.

[alphawhelp]

how about some better maths, instead of assuming they hit the same number on the table, lets assume they have the same roll and the same ability

I make 2 attacks with a 2 handed axe, of 100 damage, with a -40 penalty to each one, and I make 3 attacks, with a Hand Axe of 45 Damage, with a -40 penalty to each one.  I have a strength of 10 for this purpose.

Now let us assume that all d100 rolls are identical, and let us also assume that the first attack strikes at the 50% damage range.  With the 2 handed axe, this will cause 65 damage on the first hit, then, on the second hit, because of a -30 penalty to defend, I'll cause 80% damage, or 104 damage, for a total of 169 damage.

With the normal Hand Axe, I will cause 30 damage on the first hit (50%), then I will cause 80% damage on the second hit, or 48 damage, then I will cause 100% damage on the third hit, or 60 damage, for a grand total of 138 damage.

169-138 is a measly 31 points of damage difference, between two weapons that have an enormous damage differential, on rolls that I wouldn't consider sucky at all (138 damage on a single attack action is really really good).

The slower weapon still has the advantage, a little, but were I to say, dual wield ambidextrously a second hand axe, I would get to make yet another attack for 110% damage, after offhand penalty + 4th defense penalty, causing a grand total of 204 damage for the dual-wielding hand axe guy.  If the dual-wielding hand axe guy isn't dual-wielding, he probably has a shield, giving him increased defense ability in return for causing 31 less points of damage than the 2 handed axe guy.

All in all, the new rule is very well balanced.

[wizuriel]

slightly off topic but how do you tell the difference between a small, medium and big weapon?

[Tarrant12]

The chance of getting parried also goes up for the large weapon user doesn't it? Since the penalty to the first attack is so large and the penalty to their second defense is smaller than your penalty to attack?

[alphawhelp]

The chance of getting parried also goes up for the large weapon user doesn't it? Since the penalty to the first attack is so large and the penalty to their second defense is smaller than your penalty to attack?

in my version of the maths both first attacks suffer the same penalty, but the smaller weapon can make 3 attacks for the same penalty the large weapon can make 2.

[Zeru]

how about some better maths, instead of assuming they hit the same number on the table, lets assume they have the same roll and the same ability

There is nothing wrong with the math I provided. I specifically stated that larger weapons were better against DR creatures and breaking supernatural shields. The former only gets a d100, and the latter takes damage for when the weapon fails to hit.

I make 2 attacks with a 2 handed axe, of 100 damage, with a -40 penalty to each one, and I make 3 attacks, with a Hand Axe of 45 Damage, with a -40 penalty to each one.  I have a strength of 10 for this purpose.

Now let us assume that all d100 rolls are identical, and let us also assume that the first attack strikes at the 50% damage range.  With the 2 handed axe, this will cause 65 damage on the first hit, then, on the second hit, because of a -30 penalty to defend, I'll cause 80% damage, or 104 damage, for a total of 169 damage.

With the normal Hand Axe, I will cause 30 damage on the first hit (50%), then I will cause 80% damage on the second hit, or 48 damage, then I will cause 100% damage on the third hit, or 60 damage, for a grand total of 138 damage.

169-138 is a measly 31 points of damage difference, between two weapons that have an enormous damage differential, on rolls that I wouldn't consider sucky at all (138 damage on a single attack action is really really good).

Now try a single attack a full attack value, which is the best coarse of action in many situations, such as overcoming someone's Defense/Projection, particularly on opponents who have powerful supernatural Shields or can defend multiple times without penalty. The two handed weapon wins cleanly in these situation because it has much higher base damage.

In the scenario you proposed above, you are taking the situation were the lighter weapon is supposed to have the advantage (multiple attacks to lower an enemies defense), so of course it comes of looking better.

The slower weapon still has the advantage, a little, but were I to say, dual wield ambidextrously a second hand axe, I would get to make yet another attack for 110% damage, after offhand penalty + 4th defense penalty, causing a grand total of 204 damage for the dual-wielding hand axe guy.  If the dual-wielding hand axe guy isn't dual-wielding, he probably has a shield, giving him increased defense ability in return for causing 31 less points of damage than the 2 handed axe guy.

All in all, the new rule is very well balanced.

You can dual wield many larger weapons with sufficiently high strength, adding ambidexterity into this really does nothing. Someone with 11 Strength could simply dual wield two-handed swords and come out ahead.

While using a Shield can also apply the above just as easily since large weapons don't have to be wielded with two-hands with sufficiently high strength. Also, taking a shield may increase their defense, but it also takes an additional proficiency + gives an initiative penalty of its own.

Not to mention, many large weapons have less apparent advantages, such as higher fortitude/Breakage/Presence.

I'm not saying that the two-handed weapon is always superior, but it has its purpose. The new rules actually gave a big boost to smaller weapons, which in my experience are rather unfavorable under the original rules unless you were equipping a low strength character focused on speed/stealth over damage output.

[Sharpandpointies]

The chance of getting parried also goes up for the large weapon user doesn't it? Since the penalty to the first attack is so large and the penalty to their second defense is smaller than your penalty to attack?

Yes. 

Also, if I were to work out the math for a number of possibilities and found out that with multiple attacks, the light weapon came out very, very close to the heavy one, I wouldn't be happy with the rule change.

Why?  Because then yes, the light one does come out very close to the heavy one due to the rule change.  AND enjoys a significant initiative advantage.  AND can be better used with a shield and/or another light weapon.

I prefer to keep them more like in the base rules, since we're not adding rules for reach:

1.  Onehanded weapons are generally faster, more likely to hit and push someone into defensive mode by attacking first, and better able to combine with a shield/another light weapon;

2.  Two-handed weapons generally give higher damage output, break the opposition's weapons and magical shields more easily, and do better against DR creatures/area attacks. 

I have both in my game - one person using a nodachi, another using a saber/main gauche combination.  There haven't been any complaints yet about balance between them.

[Lizbeth]

Some experience to share.

Initiative is not very important in pure fighter duels — unless you have 100 more than your opponent so you can have decent chances of surprise. Without surprise it's irrelevant who goes first, it matters more who rolls better (assuming both have equal attack/block/AT/etc) — if you go first and roll better you put your opponent on defensive. If you go second and roll better you counterattack with some bonus.
And the damage is important, it directly affects combat effectiveness, so the guy with Taurus will be outperforming guy with the rapier. So I find 20/30/40 penalties reasonable.

And on topic of Weaponsmasters. Weaponsmaster packed with +10 full field plate and full helm, Natural Armour, Energy Armour and Armour of Energy Dominion Ability is a bloody juggernaut. He have AT 10 against physical attacks (less on head but it's harder to hit) and 7 against energy, and most monsters have no decent AP, so to damage this guy monster have to roll 130 more on his attack. Which is quite rare. And even with multiple Blocks penalty this rarely ends in severe damage — and this means that he tanked his party well because monsters attacked him, not the frail wizard or technician. His HP is also over the top, he can get around 50 hp each level if he is willing to sacrifice his secondaries. Lack of MK is negated with Martial Training and Enormous Weapons are comparable to Impossible Weapons Ars Magnuses in effectiveness (and in flashy-ness sometimes too).

So, in total, Weaponsmasters are very good. They are so good that they give you enough defence in ten levels so you can start thinking about switching to tech — because you already have all innate bonuses, great armour and tons of HP so you can afford yourself to take 5hp Tech for some MK and Dominion.

[Ikefist]

Weapon masters are one of the betetr class if you make them right with the extar LP per level advantage 3 points into it you can be getting like 50 Lp a level combine that with a good to crazy wear armour you can ahve At like crazy with a insane life points And if your feeling very very Creative do what i did for the one and only weapon master i played you give them access to a single PSy disapline andgrab your self a ENERGY SHEILD so you can abzorb blows at 1/2 you defence when need me with otu every bring down the sheild or damageing it except on terrible bad hit rolls and let the attacks bounce of your INSANE AT and if yout terrible worry about electicity if you wanted since your grabing a disapline you could make it energy and grab reduce intesityies to lower base damage of eletcity or layer some high quality soft armour that has good ELect AT

Weapon masters Can be just as nasty as other class given just a little creativity

[Lizbeth]

Hard to Kill Adv is pretty overpowered by itself.

Also I don't gen the point of the Shield — you take hits to yourself, not to the shield if you absorb.

[Ikefist]

Thew whole point of the sheild is to not suffer the at6tack penaulty for multiplue attackers when abzorbing blows

[Lizbeth]

Interesting idea. But is it legal to use absorb or defensive fan, for example, while using shields?

[Ikefist]

there is no rule saying you cnn't its a combat manuver it wouldf be like sayin they cann'y use total defence or total attack cuase they use super natural sheilds or a projection

[vytzka]

Using defensive fan and whatnot with a shield sounds fishy to me. After all you're using a weapon, not a shield. Total defense is different because it's "abstract" and doesn't imply anything particular you're doing.