NOW LIVE! Today's the day you meet your new best friend. You don’t have to leave Wolfy behind... In 'Pets & Sidekicks' your companions level up with you!

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Cap'n Kobold" data-source="post: 6843536" data-attributes="member: 6802951">Yep. I would have suggested a +1 to hit, damage or AC, but AC is far too good to be comparable to even to-hit numbers. Increasing the damage to +2 would just conflict with the duellist style as well. Giving a +2 to damage when using the weapon 2-handed might be balanced, but I'm not sure what a fitting bonus for using it 1-handed would be. I allow it as baseline, but as you say, based on the construction of the weapon, sometimes with reduced die size though. Thing is, "quicker and more agile" doesn't mean "Strength is irrelevant". The entire reason that a versatile weapon is quicker and more agile in two hands is because the additional leverage makes a better strength multiplier. Reasons I would use a versatile weapon one-handed compared to in two hands:I want to use a shield for better defence - particularly against multiple people or missiles.I want more reach - if my opponent is using a slightly shorter weapon, or using two-hands, or in a line-fight.Reasons I would use a versatile weapon in two hands compared to one hand:I need to hit something much harder.I'm fighting a larger or heavier weapon or stronger opponent, don't have a shield, and so need the extra bracing when parrying.I need the extra speed, control and force to either get around my opponent's guard, get through her armour, or both.- Most of these are much more situational and based on specifics such as the weapon or armour your opponent has. They don't translate well into D&D combat mechanics.</blockquote>

Verification