One-handed and two-handed melee weapons - is the damage really that similar?

[Mezmote]

Hey playground.

I've read through the basic rules PDF for 5E and stumbled across something that made me wonder.

It seems to be, AFAICT, that both one-handed and two-handed melee weapons add your strength modifier to their damage rolls only once. Not 1½ strength or 2 times strength, just strength mod.
That somehow seemed wrong in my head. Can the damage from those two weapon groups really be that similar? I've been playing 3.5 for many years now, where you add 1½ strength mod to damage rolls on two-handed weapons. I've always thought that it made sense that a two-handed weapon dealt more damage than a one-hander, even from a mechanical point of view. You use both your hands, thus disabling you from holding anything else (say, a shield or another weapon). Now I'm not saying that "Two-handers don't deal more damage than one-handers", because they do. But the difference is just very small in my opinion. It's the difference between 1d6/1d8 and 1d12/2d6.

Have I missed something or is it all part of the plan? Are the two weapon groups supposed to be so close to each other in damage?

My own thoughts on the matter is, that WOTC simply wished to simplify the mechanics. Although I'd personally go with using a one-hander and a shield, as the minor damage loss from the dies seems marginal at best. So my choice boils down to: "Do I want to deal 2d6 damage, or 1d8 and gain +2 AC?"

I do think, however, that they can still make the two weapon groups very unique by making feats for each group that differentiate their use.

Even though I found it strange at first, I certainly don't mind the direction they are going with the new edition. IMHO the numbers in 3.5 were scaled horribly out of proportion. I for one welcome the lower numbers, although I wish they would go just a tad higher. But that is just my personal taste.

[Merc_Kilsek]

This is where fighting styles come into play with some of the classes. It helps two-handed weapon users but it is not a flat modifier like before.

Great Weapon Fighting
When you roll a 1 or 2 on a damage die for an attack you make with a melee weapon that you are wielding with two hands, you can reroll the die and must use the new roll, even if the new roll is a 1 or a 2. The weapon must have the two-handed or versatile property for you to gain this benefit

[obryn]

Two-handers are still very much the damage kings.

Dueling is good through the levels.

Two weapon keeps pace with dueling, except when fighters spend their surge, where it falls way behind.

[Human Paragon 3]

Yeah, it's just one more rule to remember that wasn't pulling its weight.

It's more elegant to make things work the same way every time. Attack with a melee weapon, add your strength.

[Cibulan]

I'd also add that the 1.5 strength to two-handed made two-handed weapons the defacto default option for melee. Even classes that should thematically favor the sword and board style ended up being forced (for proper optimization) into the greatsword. Pathfinder exacerbated this with the Power Attack feat adding 1.5 times for two-handed. If the mantra of "offense > defense" is applied (as it is in char ops), then 3.P's 1.5 strength two-handed becomes the only option.

[Morty]

The two-handed weapon style certainly needed to be brought in line with the rest. WotC chose to do that by making all the differences marginal.

[Yuki Akuma]

I'd also add that the 1.5 strength to two-handed made two-handed weapons the defacto default option for melee. Even classes that should thematically favor the sword and board style ended up being forced (for proper optimization) into the greatsword. Pathfinder exacerbated this with the Power Attack feat adding 1.5 times for two-handed. If the mantra of "offense > defense" is applied (as it is in char ops), then 3.P's 1.5 strength two-handed becomes the only option.

In 3.5, Power Attack adds 2 times for two-handed weapons. Pathfinder Power Attack is actually weaker.

[Mezmote]

I like the idea of rebalancing two-handed as to not be the defacto melee option. It really makes sense from a game designs point of view. It might wrestle slightly with verisimilitude (or that might just be me, that is so used to 3.5 rules ^_^). I for one welcome the new edition, but I highly doubt that my gaming group will. They are too entrenched in 3.5. Do you have any advice that could help me persuade a veteran group of players to change system and try it out? I recon that a lot of the old stuff could be ported (although some heavy modification is needed for some material) to the new edition. Is there anything that will create obvious problems that comes to mind?

[Tehnar]

The difference between a fighter specialized in a greatsword and a non specialized class using a longsword is ~3.6 damage. The difference between any other specialized greatweapon and the longsword is smaller, due to the way specialization works (reroll 1&2's).

The difference between the one handed specialization (duelist), and the great weapon specialization is ~1.6. You can still use a shield.

It should be noted that the specialization is only available to the Champion, a fighter subclass.

So yeah, two handed weapons are mechanically lacking so far (will see what the power attack feat does).

[Morty]

It should be noted that the specialization is only available to the Champion, a fighter subclass.

It's not. The Fighting Style feature is available to all fighters, and I think we also saw it on the previewed barbarian and paladin tables. The differences are still marginal, mind you, no arguments here - but let's make sure we're accurate.

[Sartharina]

In 3.5, Power Attack adds 2 times for two-handed weapons. Pathfinder Power Attack is actually weaker.
No. The Pathfinder one is stronger... sort of (Can't infinitely scale it). It gives +3 Damage for -1 attack with a two-handed weapon. The D&D Power attack gives +2 for -1 attack with a two-hander, a +1 for -1 with a one-hander, and +0 for -1 with a Light weapon. Pathfinder is +2 for -1 with a one-hander, and +1 for -1 with a Light weapon.

Frankly, I liked 3.0's Power Attack most: +1 for -1, no exceptions.

[Cibulan]

In 3.5, Power Attack adds 2 times for two-handed weapons. Pathfinder Power Attack is actually weaker.It's been so long since I've played 3.5 instead of PF that I guess I just forgot about that. Thanks for the correction :smallcool:.

[Yuki Akuma]

No. The Pathfinder one is stronger... sort of (Can't infinitely scale it). It gives +3 Damage for -1 attack with a two-handed weapon. The D&D Power attack gives +2 for -1 attack with a two-hander, a +1 for -1 with a one-hander, and +0 for -1 with a Light weapon. Pathfinder is +2 for -1 with a one-hander, and +1 for -1 with a Light weapon.

Frankly, I liked 3.0's Power Attack most: +1 for -1, no exceptions.

..Oh, wait. I see what he meant now.

...3.5's Power Attack is still better, but mostly due to synergies found in 3.5 that aren't in Pathfinder.

[Cibulan]

..Oh, wait. I see what he meant now.

...3.5's Power Attack is still better, but mostly due to synergies found in 3.5 that aren't in Pathfinder.Yay, I get to be right after all :smallbiggrin:

[TheOOB]

The standard one handed weapon, the longsword, deals an average of 4.5 damage on a hit(plus bonuses), a greatsword deals an average of 7 damage. Without modifiers that means a greatsword deals 75% more damage than a longsword. Even with a +5 strength mod(which changes the average damage to 9.5 and 12 respectively) means the greatsword is still doing about 26% more damage than the longsword, which is not an insignificant difference, especially considering that there are not all that many ways to increase damage output.

Consider that pretty much any martial class gets extra attacks(the fighter eventually getting 3 extra attacks), you'll see that damage boost multiple times per turn. That means that 2h weapons do have an significant difference in damage to 1h weapons. Is it enough to make it better than 1h and shield? That's something you have to ask yourself.

[da_chicken]

..Oh, wait. I see what he meant now.

...3.5's Power Attack is still better, but mostly due to synergies found in 3.5 that aren't in Pathfinder.

3.5's Power Attack turns any melee character at middle level with a two handed magical weapon into one hell of a tunnel boring machine.

+11 BAB, Str 22, +1 greatclub held in two hands, taking a full -11 penalty you do three attacks which deal 1d10 + 22 + 9 + 1 = 37.5. For stone, hardness 8 and 15 hp/inch, you're clearing nearly 6 inches each round. Clearing almost a whole square every minute. By hand. Eat your heart out, John Henry.

If you want to do it with style, of course, you just use the gauntlets from adamantine full plate. You don't get double Power Attack, but you do get to punch through walls very easily.

[Tehnar]

3.5's Power Attack turns any melee character at middle level with a two handed magical weapon into one hell of a tunnel boring machine.

+11 BAB, Str 22, +1 greatclub held in two hands, taking a full -11 penalty you do three attacks which deal 1d10 + 22 + 9 + 1 = 37.5. For stone, hardness 8 and 15 hp/inch, you're clearing nearly 6 inches each round. Clearing almost a whole square every minute. By hand. Eat your heart out, John Henry.

If you want to do it with style, of course, you just use the gauntlets from adamantine full plate. You don't get double Power Attack, but you do get to punch through walls very easily.

I'm actually pretty ok with that. Aside from tunneling shenannigans in order to bypass half the dungeon, having a high level martial character bash down walls and stuff is up to my expectations. If only they could bash down walls of force and fire, that would work much better. I mean the spellcasters are doing world altering stuff already at that point, why can't martials bash down a few walls.

[SowZ]

This is where fighting styles come into play with some of the classes. It helps two-handed weapon users but it is not a flat modifier like before.

Great Weapon Fighting
When you roll a 1 or 2 on a damage die for an attack you make with a melee weapon that you are wielding with two hands, you can reroll the die and must use the new roll, even if the new roll is a 1 or a 2. The weapon must have the two-handed or versatile property for you to gain this benefit

Which is actually less than a 1 point of average damage increase on the types of damage dies most two handers are going to be using.

[Merc_Kilsek]

Which is actually less than a 1 point of average damage increase on the types of damage dies most two handers are going to be using.

Just said it helps them. The value can be debatable but, personally, I don't worry about it. A boon is a boon to me.

[Morty]

I think what it boils down to is that there can only be so much difference if the only variables you can work with are damage, to-hit rolls and AC. And the latter two are constrained by bounded accuracy.

[TheOOB]

Which is actually less than a 1 point of average damage increase on the types of damage dies most two handers are going to be using.

Actually with a greatsword it's a 1.3 average damage increase, which is a base 19% weapon damage increase, or an 11% damage increase if you have a +5 strength bonus. Further it decreases the randomness on your damage rolls, which is notable as increased randomness almost always favors the NPC's. It's not huge, bonus but not irrelevant. It's not the best fighting style, it might even be the worst(aside from Two-Weapon fighting at high levels), but it does provide a notable benefit and it's the best choice if your primary goal is to maximize your damage output.

[rlc]

Just said it helps them. The value can be debatable but, personally, I don't worry about it. A boon is a boon to me.

pretty much this. even a little bit of help can make a difference. let's say you're using a greataxe, so it's a 12 sided die, so you have a 1 in 6 chance of getting a 1 or a 2. that's the same chance you have of getting an 11 or a 12, or any other two possibilities. maybe you'll get a 12 on that second roll when you got a 1 on the first one.

[SowZ]

Actually with a greatsword it's a 1.3 average damage increase, which is a base 19% weapon damage increase, or an 11% damage increase if you have a +5 strength bonus. Further it decreases the randomness on your damage rolls, which is notable as increased randomness almost always favors the NPC's. It's not huge, bonus but not irrelevant. It's not the best fighting style, it might even be the worst(aside from Two-Weapon fighting at high levels), but it does provide a notable benefit and it's the best choice if your primary goal is to maximize your damage output.

That's only because the benefit is double on weapons with multiple dice. If it's a d10 or d12, fageddaboutit. It increases consistency a little, but since you can roll another 1 or 2 not much. But a boon is a boon. I'd still take it.

[TheOOB]

That's only because the benefit is double on weapons with multiple dice. If it's a d10 or d12, fageddaboutit. It increases consistency a little, but since you can roll another 1 or 2 not much. But a boon is a boon. I'd still take it.

There's pretty much no reason for a player to use a greataxe, it's a directly inferior option unless there is some kind of axe special ability.

For a Halberd, normal av damage is 5.5, with the fighting style its 6.3, which is a .8 increase or 15%, and with a +5 strength bonus it's an 8% increase, a less impressive increase, but still around 10%, so not insignificant.

So Great-Weapon fighting provides a small but notable increase to damage and increases damage consistency. It is one of the lowest statistical changes to your abilities of all fighting styles, but when paired with the already higher damage of 2h weapons creates the highest damage option for fighters.

[obryn]

There's pretty much no reason for a player to use a greataxe, it's a directly inferior option unless there is some kind of axe special ability.
Barbarians apparently have an "extra damage die" thing, which makes greataxes waaaay better for them.

[Tholomyes]

Barbarians apparently have an "extra damage die" thing, which makes greataxes waaaay better for them.

As much as I'm not a big fan of the way WotC has handled weapons for 5e in general (note how a battle-axe is no different from a longsword, or how a flail is strictly inferior to a Warhammer, ect), I prefer this type of differentiation a lot. Fighters, who, are more controlled weapon users, prefer the weapon with the damage die that has a lower variance, while the wild raging barbarian prefers the swingier damage die, and this is supported mechanically. I just wish this was further supported by the rest of the weapons.

[TheOOB]

Barbarians apparently have an "extra damage die" thing, which makes greataxes waaaay better for them.

Actually makes sense. I was wondering why they made the greataxe worse than the greatsword like that(at least 3.5 had a different crit, which, while usually worse was different enough you might want it). .5 damage isn't irrelevant with the amount of damage attacks do in 5e.

[HunterOfJello]

It seems that damage between weapons is much closer than 3.5e. I just hope that this doesn't lead to all melee damage generally being much lower than a sorcerer or warlock's damage.

[Tholomyes]

It seems that damage between weapons is much closer than 3.5e. I just hope that this doesn't lead to all melee damage generally being much lower than a sorcerer or warlock's damage.Given what we've seen so far, Even a sword and board fighter, who picks up protection or defense, instead of dueling as her fighting style, will still have a pretty large edge over the at-will damage of wizards, which will presumably be similar for sorcerers, and possibly similar for warlocks (though warlocks sound like they will probably be closer to martials in how they operate on a short-rest paradigm, with a fair amount of at-wills). A caster's spells are potent, but limited, so I think a fighter will still edge out casters in terms of damage up until the higher levels, where casters may (or may not, depending on how much short-resting a fighter gets to do) edge out (I am talking purely of damage; I'm suspecting that casters will probably beat out martials overall at higher levels, but this is more from utility and non-damaging spells). Half casters are in a weird area. I'm almost thinking they might be too weak, since they only get a single extra attack, meaning they'll need stuff for the 11th-16th and 17th-20th tiers to keep up, but I'll wait and see.

[TheOOB]

In this thread (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?362255-Little-Bit-of-Math) I showed that at no point is a wizard's cantrip damage at the level of a fighters damage, and usually quite a bit less(the gap widens as the levels get higher). At 20th Level a wizard needs to use at least a 5th level spell slot to exceed a fighters round to round damage, and a wizard only gets 9 slots of level 5 or below, which means a wizard can be better than a fighter at doing damage at the highest level 9 rounds a day. Also keep in mind a wizards spell do a fixed amount of damage, but magic weapons give scaling damage boosts to the fighter(a +1 flaming weapon would give around 18 damage to attack to a level 20 fighter, which is a lot). Also note that potentially several times per day a fighter can act twice and double their damage output, reaching high level wizard spell damage.

At earlier levels, the wizard is going to have even less of their higher level spell slots, meaning that in 5e, even more than in 3e, a wizard who is using a spell to cause damage is probably wasting their turn.

Fighters are the king of sustainable damage, they maintain a consistently high damage output, and will last way longer in combat than any other class. All they really do is fight, but they are very very good at it.

[Mr.Moron]

Have to wait to see how it shakes out long term with new abilities and such but I'd certainly be happy if the differences wind up small. I think I tend to like when the differences between any two setups is roughly at the level of "A small as possible while still being noticeable". Noticeable so choices feel relevant, a small possible so the amount of variability I have to count for (particularly as a GM) between players is minimized.

[Sartharina]

I really wish the Great Weapon Fighting ability had been the same as the "Weapon Mastery" feat from the playtests - roll damage die twice and keep higher. That playtest didn't have any 2d6 weapons - just 1d10 and 1d12 two-handed weapons, and the reroll really increased damage reliability.

[Madeiner]

I dislike the fact that you can reroll 1 and 2s on two handed weapons. It just leads to more dice needed to be thrown, which increases round times.
They should just have given more damage if they wanted to.

Also, i don't understand why its so important if the weapon is 1d6 or 1d12.
In 3.5/P, after a few levels, the damage dice never mattered. Like, you deal more than 60 damage per hit at level 14+, and less than 5 of that is your weapon damage dice.
If 5th is any similar, you dont care what damage dice you do, you look for critical range or any similar scaling things.

[Demonic Spoon]

Also, i don't understand why its so important if the weapon is 1d6 or 1d12.
In 3.5/P, after a few levels, the damage dice never mattered. Like, you deal more than 60 damage per hit at level 14+, and less than 5 of that is your weapon damage dice.
If 5th is any similar, you dont care what damage dice you do, you look for critical range or any similar scaling things.

5th isn't 3.X. Bounded accuracy exists.

For one, magic items aren't assumed, which means that not everyone at level 14 is going to be doing a bunch of extra elemental damage per hit.
Abilities are capped at 20, so no more than +5 strength damage.
Feats presumably aren't going to provide basic +damage boosts.

Fighter scaling will come largely from their extra attacks (Which unlike in 3.x don't have reduced attack bonus). Each extra attack benefits from the weapon damage dice.

[Sartharina]

I dislike the fact that you can reroll 1 and 2s on two handed weapons. It just leads to more dice needed to be thrown, which increases round times.
They should just have given more damage if they wanted to.Rerolling makes the larger die stand out more. However, I hate that it's only 1s and 2s that get rerolled, because that slows down play. Rolling twice and taking higher works faster, and lets larger dice shine more.


Also, i don't understand why its so important if the weapon is 1d6 or 1d12.
In 3.5/P, after a few levels, the damage dice never mattered. Like, you deal more than 60 damage per hit at level 14+, and less than 5 of that is your weapon damage dice.
If 5th is any similar, you dont care what damage dice you do, you look for critical range or any similar scaling things.In 5e, the max extra damage you can deal with an individual attack is +7 (20 Str+Duelist). The damage die is never trivialized.

[hawklost]

I dislike the fact that you can reroll 1 and 2s on two handed weapons. It just leads to more dice needed to be thrown, which increases round times.
They should just have given more damage if they wanted to.

Also, i don't understand why its so important if the weapon is 1d6 or 1d12.
In 3.5/P, after a few levels, the damage dice never mattered. Like, you deal more than 60 damage per hit at level 14+, and less than 5 of that is your weapon damage dice.
If 5th is any similar, you dont care what damage dice you do, you look for critical range or any similar scaling things.

True on the Re-rolls, would have preferred them just saying on a roll of 1 or 2, you get a 3 instead). Of for weapons that use 2dx dice instead, if you get a 2 or 3 (total), count it as a 4 instead. The lowest 2 possible numbers for a total roll are now automatically upgraded to the third lowest number.

[Tholomyes]

True on the Re-rolls, would have preferred them just saying on a roll of 1 or 2, you get a 3 instead). Of for weapons that use 2dx dice instead, if you get a 2 or 3 (total), count it as a 4 instead. The lowest 2 possible numbers for a total roll are now automatically upgraded to the third lowest number.The issue there is the bonus for a Greatsword is minimal (+.111 Damage, on average), to the point that it might as well not exist for most cases. Also, it's important to remember that mechanics should try to cleave somewhat close to the tropes expected of them. A more technically skilled fighter would prefer the weapon that has a lower variance in its damage, while a more wild and raging barbarian would prefer a weapon with greater variance. As the rules stand (for Two handed weapons, at least), this holds well, since the Great Weapon style rewards multiple smaller dice, more than a single large die, while the Barbarian's features do the opposite. Granted, a balance must be struck between having the mechanics emulate tropes and them being easy and fun to play, but I think that having to occasionally reroll a die hasn't broken that balance.

[Knaight]

In 5e, the max extra damage you can deal with an individual attack is +7 (20 Str+Duelist). The damage die is never trivialized.

The thread on the PHB has already noted the existence of a Power-Attack like feat in Great Weapons. That +7 is the most we're seeing out of the basic set before feats, but by all indications it's not the maximum, even without magic.

[TheOOB]

The thread on the PHB has already noted the existence of a Power-Attack like feat in Great Weapons. That +7 is the most we're seeing out of the basic set before feats, but by all indications it's not the maximum, even without magic.

We don't have the text of the feat, but looking at it, it can be interesting, but it's not amazing. You'll probably see a net boost of about 1-2 damage using that feat, a little more if you don't have many bonuses or you have a very high hit rate, and much less if you have a lot of bonuses or have a low hit rate.

[Morty]

Funny how Wizards' answer to something being outpaced - like non-THW styles or damage dice is to bring everything down to the same level of mediocrity.

[Sartharina]

Funny how Wizards' answer to something being outpaced - like non-THW styles or damage dice is to bring everything down to the same level of mediocrity.If you bring everything down to that level of 'mediocrity', you can rebalance the game so that what was mediocre becomes awesome again.

[Knaight]

Funny how Wizards' answer to something being outpaced - like non-THW styles or damage dice is to bring everything down to the same level of mediocrity.

When it comes to combat, later characters still have a pretty huge advantage over earlier ones. I wouldn't call it mediocrity, and would go so far as to say I like things being brought down (though I will say that bringing melee down as they did probably warranted taking another notch or three out of spells.

[da_chicken]

Funny how Wizards' answer to something being outpaced - like non-THW styles or damage dice is to bring everything down to the same level of mediocrity.

So your argument is that they more appropriately balanced the damage output of weapon styles... and that's bad?

[TheOOB]

Funny how Wizards' answer to something being outpaced - like non-THW styles or damage dice is to bring everything down to the same level of mediocrity.

2H Weapons now deal more damage, but not so much that they are the only viable option. This is a good thing.

[SowZ]

I really wish the Great Weapon Fighting ability had been the same as the "Weapon Mastery" feat from the playtests - roll damage die twice and keep higher. That playtest didn't have any 2d6 weapons - just 1d10 and 1d12 two-handed weapons, and the reroll really increased damage reliability.

I second this.

[Knaight]

I second this.

Thirded. Particularly as the advantage mechanic means that it's using something already in the game.

Also, da_chicken: The criticism is that things were balanced by lowering the power of the stronger options instead of increasing the power of the weaker options, not that things were balanced. While I might favor lowering the power of the stronger options (and I suspect you do as well), that appears to be against Morty's preferred design.

It's like the matter with armies. In 5e, adventurers are generally less effective than armies at just killing things. I see that as completely acceptable. Some people saw it as a problem that removed the role of adventurers in society.

[Morty]

If you bring everything down to that level of 'mediocrity', you can rebalance the game so that what was mediocre becomes awesome again.

Awesome in comparison to what? It's all small numbers.


When it comes to combat, later characters still have a pretty huge advantage over earlier ones. I wouldn't call it mediocrity, and would go so far as to say I like things being brought down (though I will say that bringing melee down as they did probably warranted taking another notch or three out of spells.

Characters certainly increase in power as they level, but that's not my point. What I'm talking about is the difference between different styles of weapon combat.


So your argument is that they more appropriately balanced the damage output of weapon styles... and that's bad?

It's amusing how saying "your argument is" tends to be followed by something not resembling the original argument in the slightest bit.


2H Weapons now deal more damage, but not so much that they are the only viable option. This is a good thing.

Here's the thing. The huge advantage two-handed weapons had over the other types was only half of the problem - or wasn't the problem at all, depending on how you look at it. The other half, or possibly the crux of the issue, was that the other styles of fighting didn't have anything to make up for the loss in sheer damage potential. Which was in part caused by the shallow and shoddy nature of the combat system, which didn't really allow for anything more complex than just dealing damage round after round. Instead of giving shields, dual weapons and single one-handers something interesting to make up for not packing as much punch, they made the differences marginal. Slightly higher damage, accuracy or AC... yawn.



Also, da_chicken: The criticism is that things were balanced by lowering the power of the stronger options instead of increasing the power of the weaker options, not that things were balanced. While I might favor lowering the power of the stronger options (and I suspect you do as well), that appears to be against Morty's preferred design.

It's not really about powering any styles up or down. It's about different ways to fight with weapons being distinct. With the combat system being as shallow as ever, the only combat maneuvers being pushed into a single fighter subclass and the differences between actual weapons being dowplayed, they're anything but. Which is generally in keeping with WotC's strategy of avoiding problems by removing them rather than fixing them.