two-handed or two hands?

[calebw]

the players in my campaign are in an argument with me on which is better: a two-handed weapon, or using a weapon in each hand. i have seen great damage potential for each, and am not too terribly sure which is better damage wise. i personally like fighting with 2 weapons better.
so what is it? greatsword (per say), or that longsword and dagger?

 

[Arkhandus]

Why is this in House Rules rather than D&D Rules?

Anyway, the answer is: it depends. If the opposition has low AC, then two weapons can be the most effective approach. Preferably using two bastard swords or similar, rather than a longsword and a short sword, or whatnot. If the opposition has high AC, then a two-handed weapon is definitely the way to go. Overall, a two-handed weapon tends to be better.

However, with the right feats, you could be decent on the offensive (just not great at it) while using a one-handed weapon and a shield, with the Improved Shield Bash feat (IIRC) to retain your shield AC bonus when attacking with the shield (using the shield bash as an off-hand attack). With the advantage of getting a higher AC than the other folks.

If you're a rogue, though, then two weapons are preferable, for use with flanking Sneak Attacks (or Sneak Attacks while under Greater Invisibility from a scroll or an allied wizard).

 

[Branduil]

If you're a rogue, though, then two weapons are preferable, for use with flanking Sneak Attacks (or Sneak Attacks while under Greater Invisibility from a scroll or an allied wizard).

Yes, any class which has a feature where you get lots of bonus damage with each attack benefits the most from TWF.

 

[eamon]

I've run quite a few detailed simulations included criticals, various weapon enchantments such as keen, speed, extra damage, high to low AC, etc... I mostly focused on a situation of around 12th level, as beyond that I'm less familiar with the game, and in any case, I play that less.

Almost always Two-handed fighting bests TWF, even without any feat investment at all. If you're fighting suspiciously low AC's, then TWF can get the edge, however power attack (a single feat!) overturns that again, leaving pretty much only the absurdly low AC's for which two weapon fighting gets a small edge. That is, TWF can approach a few percentage points advantage. vs. high AC's, two handed's advantage grows steadily up to almost a 300% advantage once only natural twenties hit.

The simulations assumed equal expenditure in weaponry (i.e., equal cost, so say a single +4 weapon is about equivalent to two +3 weapons), but assumed that the feat limitation isn't an issue. The resultant damage per round was a weighted average of a standard attack and a full-round attack, with slightly more weight on the full-round attack - this since I'm assuming you'll need to move to attack first, and after that won't engage the same enemy for more than a round or two. If your battles involve prolonged full-attack rounds, TWF looks a little less bad, but even if you only ever full-attack, two handed fighting retains the advantage.

A rangers favored enemy bonus to damage isn't enough to tip the scales, but a rogues sneak attack is; a full-attacking rogue with TWF deals almost as much damage as a fighter with two handed fighting - under optimal conditions.

Summary:
Despite a higher feat investment, and despite a higher ability score requirement, you're better off by far with two handed fighting. TWF is better in some very specific cases, such as the rogues, or should you accumulate a large damage bonus per hit, but not be able to accumulate a high attack bonus to be able to convert into power attack.

Oh, and as an aside: The optimal power attack bonus was lower than I thought; you're best off leaving power attack completely off except for fairly low AC's (since the increase chance of hitting an entire extra hit more than offsets the extra damage, in most cases).

I could probably dig up the numbers if you really want, but it's a lot and I don't have em all.