Two hand weapons vs 2 weapon debate

Remove all ads!

After consulting with members of the RPGA (third edition pen and paper) and those people playing NWN (including some who have finished the game), I have put together this summary on the subject of 2 hand weapons vs 2 weapons.

Factors to consider
• Strength bonus: favors 2 hand as multiple base attacks are gained - 2 hand is favored more as strength and number of attacks increase (it’s possible to get strength higher than 30 for boss fights)
• Overcoming Damage Resistance (several bosses have it): favors 2 hand
• Special effects: favors 2 weapon. The effects (working 25-75% of the time and giving a DC14, generally) are usually resisted by bosses, but added elemental damage generally helps
• Investment of feats: favors 2 hand, not only are ambidexterity, 2 weapon fighting, improved 2 weapon fighting, and perhaps weapon proficiency, exotic feats required, but weapon focus, weapon specialization, and improved critical feats may have to be purchased for two weapons instead of one. The use of 2 weapons must provide a clear advantage, because it gobbles up your feats! (And 2 weapons do not provide this clear advantage.) This is probably the best reason to stay away from the two weapon style.
• Investment of GP: costs of 2 magical weapons is greater than one (not a factor in a solo computer game)
• Spell cost: cost to enchant two weapon (Greater Magic Weapon) is greater than one (probably not a factor in a solo computer game)
• Chance to hit: favors 2 weapons because of additional attacks
• Criticals: will favor 2 weapon assuming you have improved critical for the 2 weapons. However, even with improved 2 weapon fighting you will only get two more attacks, which (with improved critical) means only a 40% greater chance for one additional critical (long sword vs great sword) PROVIDED that you hit twice (threaten and confirm the critical).
• Movement: if the game follows the third edition rule, then any movement greater than 5 foot means you only get a single attack. If you have only a single attack, the 2 hand is almost always superior.
• Cleave and attack of opportunity: any single attack (such as these) clearly favors the 2 hand weapon. I've found this to be a big advantage in play.
• Damage types: the two weapons have an advantage of allowing multiple types of damages (some monsters are resistant to particular types of damage such as slashing)

Edited following comments from Vormaerin.
Thanks Vormaerin

Example calculations for strength:
Assumptions:
Two level 15 fighters hasted with the two weapon fighter using a double weapon and improved two weapon fighting - according to third edition rules the two hand weapon will have 1 extra attack and the two weapon style will have three extra attacks and use double blade or medium and light weapons
strength 18: +6 damage for two hand; +4/+2 for main/off hand, two weapon
This is a boss fight and anything less than a base +10 misses (against dragons, more than +10 is needed and will be possible by strength, magical weapons, feats, etc. available to both fighters)
two hand: +15/+15/+10/+5, 3 hits each with +6 strength damage for +18
two weapon: +13/+13/+13/+8/+3, 3 hits each with +4 strength damage for +12
Additionally, base weapon damage of 2 hand is usually superior, depending on magical enchantments.

If I had miscalculated something or neglected to consider some factor, please respond.


[This message has been edited by Kull (edited July 03, 2002).]

[This message has been edited by Kull (edited July 03, 2002).]

[This message has been edited by Kull (edited July 12, 2002).]

[This message has been edited by Kull (edited July 22, 2002).]

 

Lets assume you are a level 15 fighter with an 18 strength, but no weapon specializations.

Your base attack with a greatsword will be +19/+14/+9 and damage will be 1d12+6.

If you use two weapons and have the appropriate feats, you will have base attacks of +17/+12/+7 and +17/+12. Damage will be 1d8+4 and 1d6+2 (or thereabouts).

You are more likely to hit repeatedly by dualwielding, since you have more attacks at the higher attack bonuses. Against a low AC foe, you are likely to do a bit more damage with the twohanded weapon (since you will hit anyway), but against high AC foes the additional high BAB attacks will be more important.

Another important consideration is that when dual wielding, you can use weapons with different attack types. So if you run into a guy with Damage Reduction against slashing, your piercing attack on the shortsword will still do some damage. You also get the two different special effect.

My character was at one time using the Many As One morningstar (does both blunt and piercing damage/bonus to discipline) and the Blacksoul Sickle (slashing damage and vampiric regeneration). That's a lot more versatile than any single two handed weapon in the game.

In a straight up comparison of dual wielding vs a two handed weapon, the advantages generally balance in favor of the dual wielder. But the issue for non rangers is really "what can you get with those three feats instead?". Greataxe and three feats could easily be more valuable dualwielding.

Aloha
Vormaerin

 

Ah...but what about a single weapon and shield? The same fighter described above, using a Longsword, would have an attack value of +19/+14/+9 and do 1d8+4 dmg. But, with a +3 tower shield (which is very common thus far) you would have a total of +6 to your AC. You don't do as much damage total but you get hit around 30% less because of the shield at higher levels. Also, many shields have bonus abilities making them even more worthwhile.

 

Dilune, I've never needed a shield.

Vormaerin, you bring up an interesting point about the damage types. That certainly deserved mention. However, with the feats you save you could easily focus/specialize in a 2 hand blunt weapon and switch out when needed.

In the scenario you described, assuming in each case one hit was missed, the two hand weapon does 16-36 and the two weapons do 16-40 - not much difference. My experience is that the great sword clearly does more damage than the two bladed sword, despite the calculations that suggest otherwise. I can't explain that.

 

Well, I have never managed to get the game to actually let my PC use a double weapon as a true dual wield. I never see 'offhand' in the combat results text or on my character sheet. So one possibility is that your test characters are actually fighting with the double sword as a twohanded 1d8 weapon.

Try experimenting with two separate weapons and see if that makes a difference.

Anyway, yes you could carry two different two handed weapons if you want (even if it is a bit silly in a realism sense). That's why I said the real difference is in what you do with the extra feats. But you are still only using one item's enchantments at any given time.

As for the shield situation, it can be very handy. Shields can make a very big difference against foes using penalty inducing special attacks like Power Strike. But that's really a completely separate issue: "which is better, high offense or high defense". What we are talking about is 'which type of high offense option is better'.

Aloha
Vormaerin

 

Why two weapons is best.
-------BECAUSE IT LOOKS SO COOL!

 

Isn't your parrying ability (I'm not talking about the NWN parry -ability that has to be toggled on) better while doublewielding? I always thought that was the case. Or in the case your character blocks with his/her weapon, is it just another way to describe that the enemy missed (meaning it's only dependant on your AC)? How about the finesse -feat, it raises your attack rolls but how exactly? Just hitting or doing damage as well?

 

Weapon finesse allows you to use your dex bonus instead of your strength bonus for to hit calculations with certain weapons. It only helps you if you have a higher dex than strength (common among rogues) and has no effect on damage.

As for parrying, there is a specific skill you can activate to engage in 'active parrying'. I don't know of any dual wielding modifier to doing so. Block graphics when not in 'parry mode' are just an animation effect. It represents a missed attack due to AC issues.

Aloha
Vormaerin

 

I have say that i prefer 2 weopons for a few reasons.
1 faster attacks
2 looks cooler
3 you can use 2 different weopons that do different additional dmg example i use 2 longswords one adds cold dmg the other adds acid dmg. i used to use a rapier that did fire dmg instead of the acid one but i like the look of the acid sword better.
4 looks cooler

 

Thanks Vormaerin. So a doublewielding ranger with 10-12 str is pretty useless then?

As for Syrel, I read from somewhere that the off-weapon has to be light in order for you to tap the full power from doublewielding. Why, I can't tell though.

 

2 longswords seem to work just fine for me. maybe it's a glich
and even on my off hand i have i higher + as i have +17 on my main and +18 on my offhand due to my off hand sword being +2 instead of +1 on my main.

[This message has been edited by Syrel (edited July 02, 2002).]

 

A mediocre strength isn't really very useful for any fighter type. There is no reason why you couldn't be successful that way, but its certainly far from optimum.

As for 'light' weapons, it works like this: If you have Ambidexterity and and Dual Wielding feats, your to hit penalty is the same for both your off hand and main hand. If the offhand weapon is 'light' (ie one size class smaller than you can normally wield one handed), that penalty is -2. If neither weapon is light, then that penalty is -4.

Personally, I don't think that a -2 to hit on each of your five attacks is worth the extra +1 average damage on two of them that you gain from using two full sized weapons.

Aloha
Vormaerin

 

I know the topic is old, but I needed to say this: Two-handed or Two-weapon weilding is more a matter of style the way I see it. My rogue uses two longswords, even though the penalties are pretty harsh. Why? Because I want him to! Sure it would be more efficient to carry a light weapon in the offhand, but then I wouldn't like the guy as much. Maybe I'll reconsider when the opposition gets tougher (still in ch1), but I don't think so. After all, my inspiration is R A Salvatore...

 

my fighter/barbarian/rogue dualwields katanas...he's lvl 18 and has now 6 attacks...even though the attackbonus isn't that high...never had problems hitting the enemy.

 

A Barbarian weilding katanas.
Well, that's definitely original... Sorry, I know I'm being conservative but I always envision barbarians as large, hairy lunatics waving huge axes about.
Or something like that.

 

I always like to dual-wield because it looks so cool, especially when dual-wielding flaming longswords like my ranger.


[This message has been edited by Abyssal Knight (edited July 14, 2002).]

 

Just thought I'd revise this topic as I'm about to face the same choice. I'm playing a fairly stupid extremely tough dwarven barbarian who is blessed with a high con rather than strength. I'm trying to roleplay as much as possible and so am making decisions based on what seems appropriate. Consequently his litle eyes light up at the sight of any really big axes and he has given up the chance of lots of nice items just to own bigger and shinier ones. In the backpack I have a great axe+1 and a double axe+1 (there's also a heavy mace for pesky undead).

Anyway, I can't use the double axe at the moment because I haven't got the exotic weapons feat but will get the option when I next level up (level 9). Originally I thought this would be a no-brainer - the use of a huge double axe for a feat, well why not. However, looking at all the penalties and the extras feats I'd need to give up to be able to use it properly, it doesn't look at all attractive. Clearing out rooms of goblins would be it's only practical application.

So from a 'powerplay' perspective it doesn't justify using up all of the remainder of my feats to use a weapon that would be little better than my current great axe. From a roleplaying perspective I want a bigger axe.

Of course it could also be argued that the actually roleplaying route would be more like:

'I need some bugger to show me how to use this axe' - take exotic weapons feat
'pah, this thing is far to clumsy I can't hit nothing' - great axe goes back in the pack to be taken out and admired around the campfire but not to be soiled in combat (and no more wasted feats).

So maybe that's what I'll do, 'waste' one feat in the interests of roleplaying. Not to mention seeing my little dwarf swing the thing in anger at least once

 

I was playing PnP as well as NWN with duel and single wield Characters. At low levle there is great use of 2 Weapons, Human fighter level 1 with dex 15+ takes amberdex and two weapon fighting. She has two attacks and this means two parries as well while all others have one. She can take take weapon fokus which allmost negates the -2. Rangers gain the feats at Dueal Wield for free even with lower than 15 Dex so you spare two feats. Fighter or fighter multi classes gain bonus feats on mass, so why waste any tears for to or three more feats? I miss a lot of shieldparry and shieldattack feats in the game so I stopped using them beside the AC Bonus. Trying a level 3 fighter level 17 Wiz was some of my best ideas. She can cast all spells, can wield all weapons. Beside Tensers transformation only gives a -10 on Int or Cha for a sorcerer instead of taking away all castin abilitys. This means I have nearly the same base attack as a fighter by better or equal strengh and can cast, with the right items (Ring of Intellect +5) still nearly all powerfull spells. Imagine a level 17+ Fighter (thats where I get with Tensers) hurling Chainlightning, Circle of Death... Doing all this on parry mode is even more deadly. At last anyone should decide this for himself alone. I expired that on or two extra attacks make the hell of a difference. Beside all that it really looks great.

 

It seems like you don't know about the bug in the game which lets you use double weapons without penalties! You do not need, nor do you benefit from, Ambidexterity, Two-Weapon Fighting or Improved Two-Weapon Fighting.

Beware the risk/possibility of BioWare changing this in a future patch!

 

Yep thanks for that Earlgrey. I did read the other post and do keep up-to-date with patches. So I didn't want to get too fond of the big axe then come unstuck in a future patch