dual weild vs two handed..

Ace of Swords · Post by **Ace of Swords** » Sun Nov 01, 2009 3:29 am

I believe the damage a 2 hander does is not significant enough compared to dual weilding.

Consider..

2 long swords , 2d8 (+2 str) specialize +1 = average 14 pts.

2 handed sword , 2d6 (+2 str) specialize +1 = average 10 pts.

Am i missing something?

seems off a bit to me... i am unsure how i want to fix this.

PeelSeel2 · Post by **PeelSeel2** » Sun Nov 01, 2009 12:00 pm

Analyze it with 'to hits' throw in and see where it is at.
_________________
Labor to keep alive in your breast that little spark of celestial fire called conscience.

-George Washington

Omote · Post by **Omote** » Sun Nov 01, 2009 1:32 pm

Yeah, that -3/-6 is a bummer. But you might do more damage. Good call.

~O
_________________
> Omote's Advanced C&C stuff <
Duke Omote Landwehr, Holy Order of the FPQ ~ Prince of the Castles & Crusades Society

Lord Dynel · Post by **Lord Dynel** » Tue Nov 03, 2009 1:14 pm

Omote wrote:
Yeah, that -3/-6 is a bummer. But you might do more damage. Good call.

~O

This is the important part. Sure, two longswords are going to do more damage on a hit, but the success rate for each hit is different.

For an, "off-the-top-of-my-head" comparison, I get this:

Two 5th level fighters, one dual-wielding 2 longswords, (1d8 damage each), +5 to attack, and the other wielding a two-handed sword (2d6), +5 to attack. No other bonuses are calcualted in this comparison. Average die roll on d20 is 11.5

Versus AC 10:

Two Longswords - Average modified die roll of 16.5, modified by -3/-6, so the attack rolls are modifed to 13.5 and 10.5, respectively. Both are hits and damage is averaged out to be 9 points (average die damage of 4.5 x 2).

One two-hander - Average die roll of 16.5, no modifications. Attack hits. Damage is averaged out to 7 points.

Versus AC 15:

Two longswords - Average modified die roll of 16.5, modified by -3/-6, so the attack rolls are modifed to 13.5 and 10.5, respectively. Neither attack hits and 0 damage is dealt.

One two-hander - Average die roll of 16.5, no modifications. Attack hits. Damage is averaged out to 7 points.

I don't have my books in front of me, so I can't remember what specialization does exactly, which is why I left it out of the example. But the conclusion should be more-or-less the same: the higher the AC, the better the one weapon does. The lower the AC, the better the two weapons do. Getting an extra attack is nice, but having a 30% reduction in it's success rate, right off the bat, is only going to be moderately successful against lower AC opponents.
_________________
LD's C&C creations - the witch, a half-ogre, skill and 0-level rules

Troll Lord wrote:
Lord D: you understand where I"m coming from.

serleran · Post by **serleran** » Thu Nov 05, 2009 8:49 pm

One often overlooked benefit of the two-handed weapon is, generally, its length. In C&C, this means first strike. If you can keep your opponent away from you, that is.

One other thing, which I don't think is actually in the rules -- it might be more difficult to disarm someone wielding a two-handed weapon. If it were me, I would give such a person a +2 bonus against the tactic.
_________________
If it matters, leave a message at the beep.
Serl's Corner

PeelSeel2 · Post by **PeelSeel2** » Thu Nov 05, 2009 10:56 pm

Lord Dynel wrote:
This is the important part. Sure, two longswords are going to do more damage on a hit, but the success rate for each hit is different.

For an, "off-the-top-of-my-head" comparison, I get this:

Two 5th level fighters, one dual-wielding 2 longswords, (1d8 damage each), +5 to attack, and the other wielding a two-handed sword (2d6), +5 to attack. No other bonuses are calcualted in this comparison. Average die roll on d20 is 11.5

Versus AC 10:

Two Longswords - Average modified die roll of 16.5, modified by -3/-6, so the attack rolls are modifed to 13.5 and 10.5, respectively. Both are hits and damage is averaged out to be 9 points (average die damage of 4.5 x 2).

One two-hander - Average die roll of 16.5, no modifications. Attack hits. Damage is averaged out to 7 points.

Versus AC 15:

Two longswords - Average modified die roll of 16.5, modified by -3/-6, so the attack rolls are modifed to 13.5 and 10.5, respectively. Neither attack hits and 0 damage is dealt.

One two-hander - Average die roll of 16.5, no modifications. Attack hits. Damage is averaged out to 7 points.

I don't have my books in front of me, so I can't remember what specialization does exactly, which is why I left it out of the example. But the conclusion should be more-or-less the same: the higher the AC, the better the one weapon does. The lower the AC, the better the two weapons do. Getting an extra attack is nice, but having a 30% reduction in it's success rate, right off the bat, is only going to be moderately successful against lower AC opponents.

It is always good when mechanics align with 'Reality'. Historically speaking, two handed fighting styles where popular when their was less armor, and the big Two-Handed weapons where meant to be more of a can opener.
_________________
Labor to keep alive in your breast that little spark of celestial fire called conscience.

-George Washington

Lord Dynel · Post by **Lord Dynel** » Fri Nov 06, 2009 12:12 pm

serleran wrote:
One often overlooked benefit of the two-handed weapon is, generally, its length. In C&C, this means first strike. If you can keep your opponent away from you, that is.

One other thing, which I don't think is actually in the rules -- it might be more difficult to disarm someone wielding a two-handed weapon. If it were me, I would give such a person a +2 bonus against the tactic.

Do two-handers give reach? I know things like pole arms do, but I never thought about giving a wielder of a two-handed sword reach.

I agree about the disarming thing. It should be harder to disarm someone brandishing a weapon in which they have both hands on.

PeelSeel2 wrote:
It is always good when mechanics align with 'Reality'. Historically speaking, two handed fighting styles where popular when their was less armor, and the big Two-Handed weapons where meant to be more of a can opener.

I agree 100%!
_________________
LD's C&C creations - the witch, a half-ogre, skill and 0-level rules

Troll Lord wrote:
Lord D: you understand where I"m coming from.

serleran · Post by **serleran** » Fri Nov 06, 2009 8:44 pm

Quote:
Do two-handers give reach?

Conceivably, but not necessarily. And, doubtful for the midget races, anyway. But, a human with a two-handed sword, assuming something like a claymore, at 6-7 feet long by itself, could get to the 9-10' needed to qualify rather easily. Poor small creatures never seem to qualify for these sort of minor rules... humans have many, many advantages, if one thinks about it.
_________________
If it matters, leave a message at the beep.
Serl's Corner

Omote · Post by **Omote** » Fri Nov 06, 2009 9:49 pm

serleran wrote:
Conceivably, but not necessarily. And, doubtful for the midget races, anyway. But, a human with a two-handed sword, assuming something like a claymore, at 6-7 feet long by itself, could get to the 9-10' needed to qualify rather easily. Poor small creatures never seem to qualify for these sort of minor rules... humans have many, many advantages, if one thinks about it.

This ruling has come up in our games. At one point we gave the flamberge the reach capability, but than backed off. To keep certain polearms/spears and the like with such a capability works just fine. But, in my current game there is a warriors with a true zwei hander, which is 7 feet long. That sword WILL get "reach", though the EV is 5.
~O
_________________
> Omote's Advanced C&C stuff <
Duke Omote Landwehr, Holy Order of the FPQ ~ Prince of the Castles & Crusades Society

Matthew · Post by **Matthew** » Sat Nov 07, 2009 3:23 pm

Trying to get fighting with two weapons to balance with a two handed weapon or weapon and shield will always end in misery. The maths of it just do not line up on a parallel course, because an extra attack is basically a force multiplier. The approach in Castles & Crusades would seem to make fighting with two weapons less viable at low levels, and very useful at high levels, with two handed weapons always languishing behind.

It is not too hard to balance weapon and shield with two handed weapon, just a matter of +1 to hit versus +1 to armour class, but the way that bonuses stack in Dungeons & Dragons magical shields are a valuable source of stackable armour class.
_________________
It is a joyful thing indeed to hold intimate converse with a man after ones own heart, chatting without reserve about things of interest or the fleeting topics of the world; but such, alas, are few and far between.

Yoshida Kenko (1283-1350)

CharlieRock · Post by **CharlieRock** » Sun Nov 08, 2009 1:25 pm

Out of experience of playing both style characters I agree with what we have pretty much established with Lord Dynel's example. Even if he went into more detail, it will only prove what we can see already.

Dual weapons work for mooks, 'Grip and Rip' works for better protected monsters.

We play with a Knight who uses a Spatha+Gladius combo normally. But he knows when the monster looks tough to go with just the spatha. He found this to work well.
_________________
The Rock says ...

Know your roll!

Matthew · Post by **Matthew** » Sun Nov 08, 2009 1:35 pm

CharlieRock wrote:
Out of experience of playing both style characters I agree with what we have pretty much established with Lord Dynel's example. Even if he went into more detail, it will only prove what we can see already.

Dual weapons work for mooks, 'Grip and Rip' works for better protected monsters.

We play with a Knight who uses a Spatha+Gladius combo normally. But he knows when the monster looks tough to go with just the spatha. He found this to work well.

To some extent that is true, but it very much depends on the situation. When calculating the average damage there are threshold points at which the advantage swaps between techniques. If you need a "20" to hit a monster, for instance, then the amount of damage done per blow becomes a significant determinate in whether you choose to make one or two attacks. For previous discussion and calculation methodology see this thread: Two Weapon Fighting.
_________________
It is a joyful thing indeed to hold intimate converse with a man after ones own heart, chatting without reserve about things of interest or the fleeting topics of the world; but such, alas, are few and far between.

Yoshida Kenko (1283-1350)

CharlieRock · Post by **CharlieRock** » Sun Nov 08, 2009 9:08 pm

Matthew wrote:
To some extent that is true, but it very much depends on the situation. When calculating the average damage there are threshold points at which the advantage swaps between techniques. If you need a "20" to hit a monster, for instance, then the amount of damage done per blow becomes a significant determinate in whether you choose to make one or two attacks. For previous discussion and calculation methodology see this thread: Two Weapon Fighting.

If I'm going into a fight I need a 20 to hit with (and this is a very cheap, gamist perspective); I'm swinging everything I have just on the knowledge that the more rolls equals more chances of a 20 and actually doing damage.

Now if I were to somehow realise that an only an 18 or higher hits a monster, I'm more likely to Grip-n-Rip for the best to-hit modifier I can, because even a -2 becomes significant there.
_________________
The Rock says ...

Know your roll!

Matthew · Post by **Matthew** » Sun Nov 08, 2009 9:36 pm

CharlieRock wrote:
If I'm going into a fight I need a 20 to hit with (and this is a very cheap, gamist perspective); I'm swinging everything I have just on the knowledge that the more rolls equals more chances of a 20 and actually doing damage.

Now if I were to somehow realise that an only an 18 or higher hits a monster, I'm more likely to Grip-n-Rip for the best to-hit modifier I can, because even a -2 becomes significant there.

Yeah, as I say, the probability models and specific situations can really change the benefits and drawbacks of the situation, particularly a "natural 20 always hits" rule. In general, fighting with two weapons works relatively better than other modes of combat as the to hit probability increases, the distance between inferior and superior being largely determined by the to hit penalties associated with the technique.
_________________
It is a joyful thing indeed to hold intimate converse with a man after ones own heart, chatting without reserve about things of interest or the fleeting topics of the world; but such, alas, are few and far between.

Yoshida Kenko (1283-1350)

CharlieRock · Post by **CharlieRock** » Tue Nov 10, 2009 6:40 pm

We're not only talking about weapons here. A sword and shield-bash ,imo, counts as dual-wielding. A lot of players in our games (houseruled multiple weapon specialisations a la RC D&D) use a shield bash, or a shield/trip attempt, as their off-hand 'attack'. To me this seems to mix the traditionally thought of dual-wield and double-gripped. You get just as many 'attacks', albeit at lower damage per round overall. It is a lot more durable since you a) have the shield bonus to AC, and b) any successful trip negates counterattacking (for at least one round).
_________________
The Rock says ...

Know your roll!

Matthew · Post by **Matthew** » Tue Nov 10, 2009 9:11 pm

CharlieRock wrote:
We're not only talking about weapons here. A sword and shield-bash ,imo, counts as dual-wielding. A lot of players in our games (houseruled multiple weapon specialisations a la RC D&D) use a shield bash, or a shield/trip attempt, as their off-hand 'attack'. To me this seems to mix the traditionally thought of dual-wield and double-gripped. You get just as many 'attacks', albeit at lower damage per round overall. It is a lot more durable since you a) have the shield bonus to AC, and b) any successful trip negates counterattacking (for at least one round).

Well, without knowing the mechanics behind how you are running weapon and shield I cannot really comment, but I would certainly be tempted to say at this stage that if you are trading AC against damage from a second attack then you will still have the same mathematical imperatives to follow. That is to say, there will be thresholds of probability at which point one technique or style renders another inferior.
_________________
It is a joyful thing indeed to hold intimate converse with a man after ones own heart, chatting without reserve about things of interest or the fleeting topics of the world; but such, alas, are few and far between.

Yoshida Kenko (1283-1350)

CharlieRock · Post by **CharlieRock** » Wed Nov 11, 2009 1:05 pm

Matthew wrote:
Well, without knowing the mechanics behind how you are running weapon and shield I cannot really comment, but I would certainly be tempted to say at this stage that if you are trading AC against damage from a second attack then you will still have the same mathematical imperatives to follow. That is to say, there will be thresholds of probability at which point one technique or style renders another inferior.

The penalty we use for off-hand attacks is btb. The damage a shield does is 1d2. The trip attempt is a Str SIEGE check, that if done using the off-hand increases in CL equal to the to-hit penalty.
_________________
The Rock says ...

Know your roll!

Matthew · Post by **Matthew** » Thu Nov 12, 2009 5:32 pm

CharlieRock wrote:
The penalty we use for off-hand attacks is btb. The damage a shield does is 1d2. The trip attempt is a Str SIEGE check, that if done using the off-hand increases in CL equal to the to-hit penalty.

Well, you can work out the probability fairly easily. Let us say we have a eighth level fighter with strength 12 and weapon specialisation (+1/+1). He has three weapon combination choices:

Quote:
Two Handed Sword: +9 to hit, 2d6+1 (av. 9) damage, +0 armour class
Short Sword and Short Sword: +6/+3 to hit, 1d6+1/1d6+1 (av. 4.5) damage, +0 armour class
Long Sword and Large Shield: +9 to hit, 1d8+1 (av. 5.5) damage, +1 armour class

and your alternative Long Sword and Large Shield: +6/+3 to hit, 1d8+1/1d2+1 (av. 5.5/2.5) damage, +1 armour class

At the low end of the scale, versus say AC 10, and assuming a "1" is always a miss you get:
Two Handed Sword: 0.95 x 9 = 8.55
Short Sword and Short Sword: (0.85 x 4.5) + (0.70 x 4.5) = 6.975
Long Sword and Large Shield:: 0.95 x 5.5 = 5.225
Long Sword and Large Shield:: (0.85 x 5.5) + (0.70 x 2.5) = 4.85

At a higher end, versus say AC 15 you get:
Two Handed Sword: 0.75 x 9 = 6.75
Short Sword and Short Sword: (0.60 x 4.5) + (0.45 x 4.5) = 4.725
Long Sword and Large Shield:: 0.95 x 5.5 = 4.125
Long Sword and Large Shield:: (0.60 x 5.5) + (0.45 x 2.5) = 4.425

And versus AC 20
Two Handed Sword: 0.50 x 9 = 4.5
Short Sword and Short Sword: (0.35 x 4.5) + (0.20 x 4.5) = 2.475
Long Sword and Large Shield:: 0.50 x 5.5 = 2.75
Long Sword and Large Shield:: (0.35 x 5.5) + (0.20 x 2.5) = 2.425

And versus AC 25
Two Handed Sword: 0.25 x 9 = 2.25
Short Sword and Short Sword: (0.10 x 4.5) + (0.00 x 4.5) = 0.45
Long Sword and Large Shield:: 0.25 x 5.5 = 1.375
Long Sword and Large Shield:: (0.10 x 5.5) + (0.00 x 2.5) = 0.55

The dynamics are fairly easy to observe under those conditions, but as bonuses and penalties from magic and such start getting factored in, the probabilities shift. In particular, bonus damage will dramatically undermine the advantage of a two handed sword, more so at easier probabilities than difficult ones, and especially in the case of fighters with both high strength and dexterity.

Bottom line, trading between number of attacks and hit probabilities does not give parallel returns on attacking individual targets. The better choice depends on the hit chance and damage bonuses in play, independent of the number of targets.
_________________
It is a joyful thing indeed to hold intimate converse with a man after ones own heart, chatting without reserve about things of interest or the fleeting topics of the world; but such, alas, are few and far between.

Yoshida Kenko (1283-1350)

serleran · Post by **serleran** » Fri Nov 13, 2009 8:30 pm

Considering the probabilities of finding a good magical one-handed weapon, such as a longsword, and the seeming difficulties of getting one for the more obscure two-handed variety, such as a bearded axe, the balance of power lends toward the dual-wielding character. If the character is even mildly skilled (assuming a fighter or other "warrior type" such as a ranger) and decently statted (does not need 18 Strength and Dexterity -- 14+ will do), then nearly always is it best to wield two weapons... unless some added change is done to give the advantage back to the two-handed. There are some inborn factors which can be used, such as the aforementioned "auto-strike" but some other things might be fun, such as having "two-handed enchantments" which can apply only to weapons of this ilk.
_________________
If it matters, leave a message at the beep.
Serl's Corner

CharlieRock · Post by **CharlieRock** » Fri Nov 13, 2009 9:04 pm

Matthew wrote:
Well, you can work out the probability fairly easily. Let us say we have a eighth level fighter with strength 12 and weapon specialisation (+1/+1). He has three weapon combination choices:

The dynamics are fairly easy to observe under those conditions, but as bonuses and penalties from magic and such start getting factored in, the probabilities shift. In particular, bonus damage will dramatically undermine the advantage of a two handed sword, more so at easier probabilities than difficult ones, and especially in the case of fighters with both high strength and dexterity.

Bottom line, trading between number of attacks and hit probabilities does not give parallel returns on attacking individual targets. The better choice depends on the hit chance and damage bonuses in play, independent of the number of targets.

Okay, I like that stack. Now let's throw (yet) another variable into the mix. Now that you brought up bonus damage from magic and enchantment there is also the AC bonus from same source. So not only are you looking at a "Sword and board" combo that may (or may not) increase the number of attacks, but also the extra defense it has over the dual-wielder who might deal out more damage per round but is certainly taking more in the process.

Out of 100 attacks of 1d8 damage (averaged to 5 pts.) a regular shield will save you 25 points and each successive +1 of enchantment will add another 25 points. So as a player you'd have to balance out the damage saved versus dealt.
_________________
The Rock says ...

Know your roll!

Matthew · Post by **Matthew** » Sat Nov 14, 2009 12:36 am

CharlieRock wrote:
Okay, I like that stack. Now let's throw (yet) another variable into the mix. Now that you brought up bonus damage from magic and enchantment there is also the AC bonus from same source. So not only are you looking at a "Sword and board" combo that may (or may not) increase the number of attacks, but also the extra defense it has over the dual-wielder who might deal out more damage per round but is certainly taking more in the process.

Out of 100 attacks of 1d8 damage (averaged to 5 pts.) a regular shield will save you 25 points and each successive +1 of enchantment will add another 25 points. So as a player you'd have to balance out the damage saved versus dealt.

For comparison with the above calculations it would look more like: 0.05 x 4.5 (or the average damage inflicted from physical attacks), but then you also need to factor in the number of attacks received versus the number made as a fraction. In the case of enchantments you would have to distinguish between two handed weapons and fighting with two weapons, as the first requires one enchantment to the others two. That, of course, assumes that the character himself does not have the resources to switch between styles, which in a game like C&C where there are no "specialisations" for weapon use is pretty unlikely. As Serleran points out, some treasures turn up more frequently than others, but it would certainly not be beyond the pale for a character to possess a magical two handed axe, long sword, dagger and shield.

Also, as Serleran points out, combination statistics cause significant changes. To take an extreme example, if the above fighter had a strength of 18 and another a dexterity of 18 you would get:

Quote:
AC 15:

A
Two Handed Sword: 0.90 x 11 = 9.90
Short Sword and Short Sword: (0.60 x 7.5) + (0.45 x 7.5) = 7.875
Long Sword and Large Shield: 0.90 x 8.5 = 7.65
Long Sword and Large Shield: (0.60 x 7.5) + (0.45 x 5.5) = 6.975

B
Two Handed Sword: 0.75 x 9 = 6.75
Short Sword and Short Sword: (0.75 x 4.5) + (0.60 x 4.5) = 6.075
Long Sword and Large Shield: 0.75 x 5.5 = 4.125
Long Sword and Large Shield: (0.75 x 5.5) + (0.60 x 2.5) = 5.625

...but if another fighter has strength 18 and dexterity 18:

Quote:
C
Two Handed Sword: 0.90 x 11 = 9.90
Short Sword and Short Sword: (0.75 x 7.5) + (0.60 x 7.5) = 10.125
Long Sword and Large Shield: 0.90 x 8.5 = 7.65
Long Sword and Large Shield: (0.75 x 8.5) + (0.60 x 5.5) = 9.675

And that is the basic problem with multiple attacks, that they act as force multipliers and will quickly outstrip two handed weapons so long as bonuses to hit and damage can be introduced. Bear in mind here that the character with a two-handed weapon wants dexterity 18 because it is a source of armour class.

The obvious way to close the probability gap is to say:

Two Handed Weapon: +1 to hit

Weapon and Shield: +1 to armour class

Two Weapons: +1 to armour class in melee

And use a different mechanism for multiple attacks where having two weapons grants an edge of some sort. Unfortunately, the fact that many monsters basically get as many attacks as they have limbs undermines this and the above is not itself perfectly balanced by any means.
_________________
It is a joyful thing indeed to hold intimate converse with a man after ones own heart, chatting without reserve about things of interest or the fleeting topics of the world; but such, alas, are few and far between.

Yoshida Kenko (1283-1350)

Ace of Swords · Post by **Ace of Swords** » Sat Nov 14, 2009 1:22 am

My biggest qualm with the 2 single vs 2 hander is the damage.

The best example i can give of this is find a log and have one guy cut it with 2 hatchets and another guy hit it with a 2 handed axe.

I am leaning to allowing double str bonus with 2 handers.