2 Short Swords or 1 Great Sword?

[Nifft]

I have not really used my dual-wielding abilities since I have not recently come accross any magical one-handed weapons to my liking. The ones that did, did not really fit the way I envision my character. The closest ones are the short swords.

Now that the +2 short swords have been made available, I am wondering about getting some use out of my dual-wielding ability.

If you want to dual-weild, go for it. You don't have to power-game... since your Feats are stuck as they are, you might get more pleasure from your choices if you dual-weilded.

If someone else could use a massive power-sword, your party as a whole may be more effective if you use the two short swords.

-- Nifft

 

[Tyrrell]

Damage from the two handed sword is 2d6 + thundering (1d6?)+ 2 (magic enhancement) + strength bonus + half of your strength bonus.

Damage from the two short swords is 2d6 + 4 (magic enhancement) + Strength bonus + half of your strength bonus

So the two handed sword does more damage.

On the other hand, the two short swords are harder to hit with.

Oh wait, that's on the same hand.

If you had specialization or more magical short swords two weapon fighting could possibly work out better for you but it would still be questionable because of all of the times that you take AoO's and only get standard actions rather than full round attacks.

Edit: but let me second what Nifft posted about powergaming not being the only choice and about spreading the wealth around the party.

 

[kigmatzomat]

Damage from the two handed sword is 2d6 + thundering (1d6?)+ 2 (magic enhancement) + strength bonus + half of your strength bonus.

Thundering is d8 bonus but ONLY on a crit. Base damage is similar, but not equal because, as noted, you get lower attack bonuses. I'll also point out one +2 Thundering blade is equal to 4 +2 shortswords, cash wise, so $ to $, the greatsword should have some advantage.

However there are plus sides to twin weapons. The two light weapons can be used while grappled or swallowed. You have the option (in theory) of having more special effects (such as one flame and one frost weapon).
A dual-wielder can wear a buckler, gaining AC (at the cost of attack bonus on the offhand), which can be handy while spring attacking.

Of course I've always been fond of using a spiked shield as the off-hand weapon on dual-weilders. Lots of AC when needed, not insigificant damage when not. Shield Expert when something double nifty shows, like a shield of Bashing.

 

[Marius]

What are the minimum damage for two d6 weapons vs 1d12 weapon?

 

[demon_jr]

Some of my fighting tactics are also based on the composition of my party.

I am for the most part the main meeler for our group. The party is mainly composed of spellcasters, who rarely enter the actual melee. Instead they either attack from a distance or from the air, which is a good idea. However when one of the spellcasters is in trouble, I usually try my best to aid them, unless I myself am being hard pressed at the time.

That being the case, I rarely use my spring attack as much, since my tactic would be to stand in front of our enemies and try to prevent them from engaging with the spellcasters. I would have a hard time doing such a thing if I was always bouncing around the place.

In addition, I also have a few rogue levels, which gives me a +2d6 sneak attack. However, I have few opportunities to get into a flanking position, since few party members are in actual melee.

I am trying to decide if the increased rate of attack (by using dual-wielding) would balance out with the greater chance to hit (by using the greatsword with no penalties since I am not dual wielding.)

 

[Chun-tzu]

In addition, I also have a few rogue levels, which gives me a +2d6 sneak attack. However, I have few opportunities to get into a flanking position, since few party members are in actual melee.

A summoned creature can be a big help in this case, as even a level 1 summoned monster would grant the flanking bonus. With multiple spellcasters and no other melee combatants in the party, you'd think at least one could prepare a summoning spell for this purpose.

 

[SpikeyFreak]

I am trying to decide if the increased rate of attack (by using dual-wielding) would balance out with the greater chance to hit (by using the greatsword with no penalties since I am not dual wielding.)

Check the link in my sig.

--Metagamer Spikey

 

[Hypersmurf]

The two light weapons can be used while grappled or swallowed.

Most Swallow Whole attacks require slashing weapons to escape.

-Hyp.

 

[Marius]

Personally, I prefer the versatility of two weapons, usually a long sword and a short sword, however. One you can get the same damage in two attacks, or you can target multiple targets, depending on house rules, etc.

I find this is much more fitting for dextrous characters. Save the giant weapons for barbarians and the like.

 

[Lord Zardoz]

My Opinion

When going for high damage, dual weilding two shortswords is not the greatest of attack options. Generally when dual weilding, it is better to go for something like 1 Long Sword + 1 Short Sword. Against large numbers of weak enemies, using the paired short swords is probably a good choice.

But there are other considerations.

Dual weidling can give you the flexibilty to use the Extra attack for a Trip, Disarm, or Sunder attack. If you often do that sort of thing, then dual weidling is probably not a bad idea at all.

Also, if you had a single +2 Quarter staff, you could dual weild that, and get the benefit of 1.5 str on primary attack and .5 str on secondary attack instead of 1.0 and .5 with the two short swords.

END COMMUNICATION