Two-Handed Weapons and 1.5 x STR Mod...Too Much?

[theoremtank]

I've recently been getting the feeling that perhaps the 1.5 x Strength Modifier to Damage for wielding two-handed weapons is unnecessary and too much of a bonus. I haven't fully thought this out so I'm sure there is much I am not considering as to why the designers chose to implement this bonus. But here is my reasoning as to why I feel it should be done away with.

1st) A two-handed weapon already does significantly more damage than single handed weapons even if implemented with the two-weapon fighting style.

2nd) The extra strength that goes into wielding a larger damage weapon two-handed should be abstractly thought of as the strength required to control the heavy weapon.

[In game physics example: F=M*A]
A lighter weapon is swung faster with less mass.
A heavy weapon is swung slower with more mass.
The heavy weapons already gets more damage, so why add even more with 1.5 x Strenght mod.

3rd) The damage done by a finessing fighter is small in relation to that done by a high strength, two-handed weapon wielding fighter. A high DEX lower STR fighter alreafy has the disadvantage of lower STR mod and no increase in accuracy.

4th) Getting rid of the rule would further simplify overall rule mechanics.

Please give thoughts (PRO's and CON's) as to why you might think this rule is good or bad.

Thank you!

 

[Caliban]

I personally think it should take a feat to be able to do x1.5 strengh bonus with a two handed weapon, but I don't feel strongly enough about it rule 0 it for my home game.

 

[Crothian]

The reason it is is for balance. Why would you use a 2HW if it didn't do more damage? You have to sacrifice a shield for it. Also, with 2 weapon style the bonus is x1 and x.5, so it's basically equal to 2HW. I've never seen a problem with it in the 30 months of d20 games, even with the super strong charcaters.

 

[Destil]

I personally think it should take a feat to be able to do x1.5 strengh bonus with a two handed weapon, but I don't feel strongly enough about it rule 0 it for my home game.

Caliban, you read my mind. I've been leaning towards this more and more recently, myself. Still havn't changed it, though.

 

[hammymchamham]

hate to be a bother, but shouldn't this be in house rules?

But my opinion is the same as Crothian. It really only seems bad if you start comparing charecters with epic level strength scores.

 

[(Psi)SeveredHead]

I agree with Crothian

Although a two-handed weapon with armor spikes is quite abusive.

 

[doktorstick]

[In game physics example: F=M*A]

Isn't it actually K.E. = 1/2 * m * v^2? The velocity has much more impact in the energy transfered to the opponent than the mass. I suppose the question would be does the velocity squared of weapon speed overcome that of its mass? Probably.

/ds

 

[Caliban]

The reason it is is for balance. Why would you use a 2HW if it didn't do more damage?

Most two handed weapons already do more damage, even without the extra x1.5 bonus. (Those that don't do more base damage tend to have other abilities such as reach.)

This would just make it less likely to use a one handed weapon in two hands.

You have to sacrifice a shield for it. Also, with 2 weapon style the bonus is x1 and x.5, so it's basically equal to 2HW. I've never seen a problem with it in the 30 months of d20 games, even with the super strong charcaters.

Well, I have seen problems with it. Those characters tend to be damage machines that non-two-handed fighters simply can't match. But like I said, the problems are not enough for me to house rule it (yet). Hasted mages and rogues are a much bigger issue.

 

[Crothian]

This would just make it less likely to use a one handed weapon in two hands.

I think that would be a great lose. I've had players that like the idea of tossing aside their shield to weld their longsword in two hands to do a little more damage. And as a DM I like players that take advantage of those types of options.

Well, I have seen problems with it. Those characters tend to be damage machines that non-two-handed fighters simply can't match. But like I said, the problems are not enough for me to house rule it (yet). Hasted mages and rogues are a much bigger issue.

Ya, as problem rules go, I doubt anyone would list this that high. Even at a 30 strength, the characters are only do an extra 5 points of damage, I don't think it's that big of deal. Now, combining that with other damage bonuses from the absurd amount of magic some people have might be problemsome. There are just too many other factors of characters for me to just point at one think when problems arise.

 

[Shin Okada]

Leave it as it is. At lower level, lack of shield is equal to -2 to AC. And when all the PCs are wearing +4 armors and +4 shields, the lack of shield means -6 AC. I have played a Barbarian greatsword wielder through the 1st level to the 12th level alongside a fully armed Paladin, and know how significant that difference is. (yeah, if someone can have animated shield at higher level, the difference becomes -2 AC again, but that is another story).

I am feeling that at last, in this edition, two-handed weapons had become as strong as one handed weapon. I remember the days of red-boxed DnD, when a two-handed sword did only +1 damage compared to a long sword.

At least, players around me do not rushing two-handed weapons. I see more PCs with shields.