Menu
News
All News
Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
Pathfinder
Starfinder
Warhammer
2d20 System
Year Zero Engine
Industry News
Reviews
Dragon Reflections
White Dwarf Reflections
Columns
Weekly Digests
Weekly News Digest
Freebies, Sales & Bundles
RPG Print News
RPG Crowdfunding News
Game Content
ENterplanetary DimENsions
Mythological Figures
Opinion
Worlds of Design
Peregrine's Nest
RPG Evolution
Other Columns
From the Freelancing Frontline
Monster ENcyclopedia
WotC/TSR Alumni Look Back
4 Hours w/RSD (Ryan Dancey)
The Road to 3E (Jonathan Tweet)
Greenwood's Realms (Ed Greenwood)
Drawmij's TSR (Jim Ward)
Community
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions, OSR, & D&D Variants
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Resources
Wiki
Pages
Latest activity
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Downloads
Latest reviews
Search resources
EN Publishing
Store
EN5ider
Adventures in ZEITGEIST
Awfully Cheerful Engine
What's OLD is NEW
Judge Dredd & The Worlds Of 2000AD
War of the Burning Sky
Level Up: Advanced 5E
Events & Releases
Upcoming Events
Private Events
Featured Events
Socials!
EN Publishing
Twitter
BlueSky
Facebook
Instagram
EN World
BlueSky
YouTube
Facebook
Twitter
Twitch
Podcast
Features
Million Dollar TTRPG Crowdfunders
Most Anticipated Tabletop RPGs Of The Year
Tabletop RPG Podcast Hall of Fame
Eric Noah's Unofficial D&D 3rd Edition News
Top 5 RPGs Compiled Charts 2004-Present
Adventure Game Industry Market Research Summary (RPGs) V1.0
Ryan Dancey: Acquiring TSR
Q&A With Gary Gygax
D&D Rules FAQs
TSR, WotC, & Paizo: A Comparative History
D&D Pronunciation Guide
D&D in the Mainstream
D&D & RPG History
About Morrus
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions, OSR, & D&D Variants
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
two-handed or two hands?
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="eamon" data-source="post: 3795917" data-attributes="member: 51942"><p>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.</p><p></p><p>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 <em><strong>small</strong></em> 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.</p><p></p><p>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.</p><p></p><p>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.</p><p></p><p>Summary:</p><p>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.</p><p></p><p>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).</p><p></p><p>I could probably dig up the numbers if you really want, but it's a lot and I don't have em all.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="eamon, post: 3795917, member: 51942"] 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 [i][b]small[/b][/i] 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. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
two-handed or two hands?
Top