Brother Shatterstone said:
Lets have this discussion, as I'm rather curious to hear everyone opinion but I would imagine that someone of Brystasia limited strength is more capable of doing more damage with more attacks but I will admit that’s based upon gut feeling and nothing else.
This assumes all attacks hit, as they have the same chance to hit and crit, there should be no difference. It assumes perfect two weapon fighting and exotic weapon proficiency: Bastard Sword (require 5 feats and a 15 dex) compared to a greatsword power attacking for two (making the chances to hit the same, requiring 1 feat). The advantage goes to the Two Handed weapon initially.
These numbers ignore strength, because with perfect two weapon fighting it comes out the same:
1d10+1d6 (9 average) x4 = 36
Versus
2d6+3 (10 average) x4 = 40
Now assume that all weapons involved are +5, advantage goes to the dual wielder
1d10 +5 + 1d6 +5 (average of 19) x4 = 76
Versus
2d6+8 (average 15) x 4 = 60
Now assume that all weapons are +5 and the combatants are hasted (Note at this point, strength become relevant, at 57 Str or lower, advantage does to the Dual Wielder, 58 Strength or higher it goes to the Two handed weapon wielder.
1d10 + 5 + STR + (1d10 + 5 + STR + 1d6 + 5 + ½ STR) x 4 =(average 86.5 + 7xSTR)
Versus
(2d6 +8 + 1 ½ STR) x5 = (average 75 + 7 ½x STR)
(STR = Strength Modifier)
So the more non-strength damage bonuses you have, the better dual wielding becomes.
Two Handed fighting has several tactical advantages however. You do more damage on AoO, you do more damage on attack where you can not full attack, You do more burst damage and thus have a greater chance to penetrate damage reduction.
Dual wielding is more expensive than two handed weapon fighting, both in the terms of feats and in terms of equipment (twice as many weapons). I personally prefer Two Handed weapons as they present more tactical advantages.