Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Felon" data-source="post: 2359696" data-attributes="member: 8158">Oh how the worm turns. There was a time during 3.0 that folks regularly whinged about the "uberness" of two-weapon fighting, stating that the math bore out how the wielder of a two-handed weapon just couldn't keep up. It all boils down to this: does most of a character's damage come from Strength, or from other bonuses, like sneak attack, favored enemy, weapon properties such as flaming or vicious? Sure the barbarian uses a greatsword. But I'll betcha a rogue of equivalent level can still outdamage him with a couple of short swords.Generally speaking, the DM's who get most upset over their perceived power-attack discrepency are:A) Those lovable "low-magic" DM's who are stingy with magic weapons. If you don't let players get their hands on flaming or vicious weapons, then be aware that you are skewing the combat system to favor two-handers. Low-magic DM's have an annoying tendency to casually unplug elements from the game without considering the reprecussions, and then blame the game when they don't like the results.B) DM's who don't run characters up into the mid-to-high levels (say, 9th and higher). Two-handed weapons shine at low levels, but the benefits don't scale that well compared to many other damage source. When the characters are 11th-level, the guy with Greater Two-Weapon Fighting will have the better deal.And as others said, if a barbarian can routinely get away with taking a -7 penalty and all hist attacks still hit, you really need to consider bumping the AC on some of your foes. Not in every encounter, mind you, just enough that things even out.</blockquote>

Verification