Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="kerleth" data-source="post: 6040339" data-attributes="member: 84383">That might work for balancing, but it is not satisfying to me. If I'm gonna have two attacks, I don't want the other one to only hit when the first one hits. If I have to settle for that, I'd rather go for the simplicity of one attack with a bonus. Blackbrrd. If it's just a "flavor" thing, and not also it's own mechanical niche, I wouldn't be happy. Correct me if I'm wrong, but with your original method the average damage per round might be the same as a heavy weapon, but the damage on any given round is much more likely to be close to the middle, and not as swingy as the single two-hander. That would give it it's own niche, so I'd be satisfied. Another question. When you figure in the increased chance for critical hits and the bonus damage in the current playtest, would it bring two-weapon fighting ahead of two-handed? One more thing. I think the damage you have for the greatsword is off. You have it listed as 2d6, but the actual statistic is 1d12. That would meanGreatsword at 50% accuracy equals 5.75 damage.Putting it ever so slightly behind. Combining that with increased frequency of bonus damage from criticals would increase this a little further. I'm guessing about 1/2 a point in favor of two-weapon fighting for both the .25 discrepancy and the crits together. This isn't game breaking, but it is worth noting.</blockquote>