Here's a thought about two-handed melee weapons, like the great sword. Like some people, I give a +1 attack bonus to anyone fighting with two weapons, rather than two attacks; the rationale is that you're trading the +1 defense you would get from a shield in your off-hand for a +1 to hit. Since the common argument about using "all weapons do 1d6 damage" is that it makes using a two-handed weapon a drawback rather than an advantage, why not give the same +1 attack bonus to great swords and the like?
This is better, for me, than increasing the damage of a great sword. Consider: an ogre does 1+2 damage. If you increase the damage of the great sword, you have to ask: is a man with a great sword equivalent to an ogre? If not, the most damage a great sword should do is 1+1. That's considerably less than most proponents of "variable weapon damage" would prefer.
The way I manage d6-only damage:
ReplyDelete-the opponent with the longest range (mace vs dagger; sword vs mace; greatsword vs sword, etc.) gets +1 to hit.
-two-weapon combat is allowed only to fighters or thieves with 15+ dexterity: you can use the second weapon to attack (+1 to hit) or to parry (+1 to AC)
-two handed weapons do 1d6+1 damage only if wielded by a fighter with 15+ strength.
This way, a character who isn't strong enough wouldn't forfeit the protection of a shield for a cumbersome weapon.
Is that "two-weapon combat is allowed only to (fighters or thieves) with 15+ dexterity" or "two-weapon combat is allowed only to (fighters) or (thieves with 15+ dexterity)"?
Delete(The moment I posted my comment, I realized my wording was clumsy...)
ReplyDeleteIt's only 15+ DEX characters, either fighters or thieves. Thus, a player who gets an average strength but high dexterity could choose a fighter with rapier & "main gauche" , à la Grey Mouser.
Well, that makes two-handed weapons and dual wielding equivalent mechanically, which is kind of boring. I use two dice, take highest for two-handed weapon damage. Thus, it skews higher, but doesn't reach the possibilities of ogre damage. (Rules originally lifted from Philotomy.)
ReplyDeleteThey aren't completely equivalent under this rule. First, because you generally can't dual-wield five-foot or six-foot swords, so there's a difference of reach. Second, the +1 for dual wielding is either +1 to attack or +1 to defense (using off-hand weapon as a "shield".)
DeleteI've done the two-dice, take highest before (didn't quite help during the TPK...) I might still do it in addition to the +1 to attack.
That's true about reach. I don't distinguish between the reach of weapons other than spear or pole arm versus smaller melee weapon, so I didn't think of that, but I know you do, so that's a totally fair difference.
DeleteBut that leads to another issue; isn't dual wielding always better than using a shield, if you have the option to get a +1 AC? Or am I forgetting some other perk you make available to those using shields?
Well, it's an either/or situation. You're either using your off-hand weapon to attack, or to defend, but not both at the same time. Oh, and a parry is useless against a missile weapon, so you need a shield for that.
Delete