D&D 5E 2-handed weapons: damage delimma

[dave2008]

I'd say double damage is fair, if you double the consequences of not using a shield. AC goes down by (at least) 2 points when using a two-handed weapon.

To be clear I am not proposing double damage. Just doubling the the modifier damage, coupled with a reduction in the actual weapon damage. So for a greatsword:

RAW: 11(2d6 + 4) slashing damage
Proposed: 13 (1d10 + 8) slashing damage

That is less than a 20% increase in damage. I don't really feel the need to modify the shield AC bonus, but here are some thoughts:

• Raise the bonus to AC from a shield to be 3.
• Spend a bonus action to raise your shield and improve the AC bonus from 2 to 3(or 4 if you feel that is needed). This similar to the PF2e approach.

 

[Esker]

I know you said you weren't too concerned about balance, but I'm curious (and others might be), so here's a back-of-the-envelope balance analysis of this. I'm assuming no feats, since heavy weapons are already favored for melee damage when feats are in play (as others have said).

As a baseline, take a longsword, no shield, no fighting style, and consider our build options.

For those with access to a fighting style, we currently have the following options, ordered from most offense-oriented to most defense-oriented (I'm ignoring TWF and Protection styles):

• Switching to a greatsword and taking GWF style gives +3.83 to damage per hit and +0 AC
• Switching to a greatsword and taking Defense style gives +2.5 damage per hit and +1 AC
• Dueling gives +2 damage per hit and the ability to wear a shield for +2 AC
• Sword and board with defense style gives +0 damage per hit and +3 AC

Greatsword with defense seems very nearly dominated by sword and board with dueling style: +0.5 damage per hit does not seem worth -1 AC. I tend to think +1.83 damage per hit is not likely worth giving up 2 AC either. There's also the reach dimension: if you forego a shield, then you get the option of trading 1.5 damage per hit for 5' extra reach. Others may disagree, but in my view, without taking feats (or spellcasting object interaction fiddliness, which favors 2H) into account, on a fighter, ranger, or paladin, sword and board is mechanically superior to using a two-handed weapon.

If you change the greatsword to 1d10 but double STR to damage, you're more or less giving characters who use one a flat +2.5 to damage over what they would have gotten under RAW (assuming 18 STR). So now we're talking about a tradeoff between either +3 damage per hit vs +1 AC, or +4.33 damage per hit vs +2 AC.

My gut says that by the time you get extra attack at least, this tips the balance a bit too far in favor of the greatsword, even without feats.

How about for a character that doesn't get a fighting style? Then RAW you're basically choosing between +2.5 damage per hit or +2 AC. That strikes me as a relatively even trade. But now it would become +5 damage per hit vs +2 AC. And if you're a barbarian, this is an even better deal, since with reckless attack you can squeeze more out of that +5, and increasing your AC is worth less when you are giving enemies advantage against you and when you have resistance to their damage.

What if instead of just making this a blanket property of two-handed weapons, you replaced the GWF fighting style with this?

 

[dave2008]

How about for a character that doesn't get a fighting style? Then RAW you're basically choosing between +2.5 damage per hit or +2 AC. That strikes me as a relatively even trade.

+2.5 damage is not equivalent to +2 AC. AC is always on preventing damage. The +2.5 is only on a hit. The actual number, when misses are accounted for is closer to +1.5. I think my suggest make it a little more even actually.

What if instead of just making this a blanket property of two-handed weapons, you replaced the GWF fighting style with this?

As I noted in another post, I would rather modify how shields work. I'm not really interested in making this a feat, but you could. I could also see it as a specific feature of a fighter class or subclass.

 

[Esker]

+2.5 damage is not equivalent to +2 AC. AC is always on preventing damage. The +2.5 is only on a hit. The actual number, when misses are accounted for is closer to +1.5. I think my suggest make it a little more even actually.

But keep in mind that it's on each attack, so it's +3 DPR if you don't have advantage. If you're a barbarian you have at-will advantage, so then it's more like 4.2 DPR. If you combine this with GWF style, we're talking about +5.2 or so DPR (more if you have a source of advantage) vs +2 AC. At level 5, 5 extra DPR is a pretty big deal; it's like getting an always-on spiritual weapon, for example.

As I noted in another post, I would rather modify how shields work. I'm not really interested in making this a feat, but you could. I could also see it as a specific feature of a fighter class or subclass.

I wasn't suggesting making it a feat, but rather a fighting style. That cuts down on some of the benefit by preventing it from stacking with GWF, and avoids pushing barbarians so strongly toward it as an option. Though maybe you like the idea of strongly incentivizing barbarians to use big heavy weapons, which I could see.

 

[dave2008]

But keep in mind that it's on each attack, so it's +3 DPR if you don't have advantage. If you're a barbarian you have at-will advantage, so then it's more like 4.2 DPR. If you combine this with GWF style, we're talking about +5.2 or so DPR (more if you have a source of advantage) vs +2 AC. At level 5, 5 extra DPR is a pretty big deal; it's like getting an always-on spiritual weapon, for example.

I wouldn't compare a character with GWM vs a sword and board character with nothing. That is apples and oranges.

I wasn't suggesting making it a feat, but rather a fighting style. That cuts down on some of the benefit by preventing it from stacking with GWF, and avoids pushing barbarians so strongly toward it as an option. Though maybe you like the idea of strongly incentivizing barbarians to use big heavy weapons, which I could see.

I could see it as a fighting style. That being said, we don't have any barbarians in my group, so I don't think about them much at all!

 

[Fenris-77]

It would be easier to just give one handed weapons the same -5/+10 and maybe leave off the bonus attack bit. It's not going to shoot fighters into the top tier anyway and then the additional damage on GW stays balanced. Restrict it to straight Fighter if it makes you feel better.

 

[Esker]

I wouldn't compare a character with GWM vs a sword and board character with nothing. That is apples and oranges.

The comparison was between GWF (not GWM, since I'm excluding that) vs sword and board with dueling style:

Edit: I forgot to modify the value of rerolling 1s and 2s to take the change to 1d10 into account. So we have:

• Dueling style is +2 damage per hit; shield is +2 AC.
• Greatsword (at the modified 1d10) gives +1 damage per hit vs a longsword; GWF gives another +0.8; double STR gives another +4. All together, +5.8 to damage.

So, the net benefit of using a greatsword with GWF style instead of sword and board with dueling style is +3.8 damage per hit, at the cost of +2 AC. With two attacks per round at 60% to hit, that's +4.6 DPR.

Though actually, by making a greatsword 1d10 instead of 2d6, you would push people using two handed weapons toward defense style instead, so maybe the more relevant comparison is +3 damage per hit (or +3.6 damage per round) at the cost of 1 AC.

 

[Quartz]

I have often wandered about why we don't add strength modifiers twice to damage with 2-handed weapons.

The simple answer is that the additional damage is modelled by the increased damage die. As per Versatile weapons, two-handed is worth +1 (on average) damage.

 

[NotAYakk]

Power Attack: When attacking with a wrapon in two hands, you can forgoe your Str bonus to hit to add an additional 2x ste bonus to damage.

This is basically GWM feature, but scales with Str. It is quite strong.

 

[dave2008]

The simple answer is that the additional damage is modelled by the increased damage die. As per Versatile weapons, two-handed is worth +1 (on average) damage.

That is discussed elsewhere in the thread. I take the increase damage die to account for the greater heft, and therefore force, of the weapon. I would like strength to model the character contribution.