In a lot of games, having a high strength gives you a flat number to add to damage, and heavy weapons like two-handed swords roll bigger damage dice than lighter ones. The end result of this is that the lower your strength, the more you are incentivized to use a heavy weapon, because the larger damage die will mean a bigger percentage increase for you.
Reductio ad absurdum: If your strength damage bonus is 1, going from a regular sword that does d6 damage to a two-handed sword that does 2d6 damage gives you a 78% increase in damage output. If your damage bonus is 1000, going from a d6 sword to a 2d6 two-handed sword gives you an increase in damage output of around 1/3 of a percent.
So you end up with a situation where people with high strengths are incentivized to avoid big, two-handed weapons and prefer to go with something like a sword-and-shield combo, while weaklings are incentivized to walk around toting zweihanders and shit.
This problem exists because many systems don't take into account that people with low strength can't wield heavy weapons. Weapons should have a minimum strength requirement attached to them. In some games (DnD, Pathfinder) however, you get half again your strength for wielding a weapon with two hands, so in that case it benefits strong characters more to wield weapons in two hands, rather than one.
Nolan Cooper
>This problem exists because many systems don't take into account that people with low strength can't wield heavy weapons. Weapons should have a minimum strength requirement attached to them. But the problem still exists, it just has a higher ground floor. The weakest people capable of wielding heavy weapons are the most incentivized to use them.
>In some games (DnD, Pathfinder) however, you get half again your strength for wielding a weapon with two hands, so in that case it benefits strong characters more to wield weapons in two hands, rather than one. This does address the problem, though in my opinion, it's a less than elegant solution for a couple of reasons. First, it's kind of obnoxious to add one-and-a-half times your strength bonus (but then I like shit as simple and streamlined as possible, so others may not understand my point of view). Second, it stacks inflated damage on top of already-larger weapon damage, so things can get a bit out of hand damage-wise. One thing I don't like about it is that it takes away the possibility of a graze--or anything approaching that. If your strength bonus is 4, for instance, the very least damage you can do with a two-handed weapon is 7, which is pretty close to the maximum damage a normal dude does with a normal sword.
In the end, it feels like a patch on a flawed system. With that said, I'm not sure what the ideal solution is. It still bugs me though.
Eli Nelson
The problem exists because those "heavy Weapons" like the 2 handed sword weren't that heavy, and are easier for someone with a lower strength to use for prolonged times.
1. This problem is nowhere common except in very direct D&D clones 2. Even there the modifier is usually multiplied on 2h weapons. 3. Actually, that's accurate. Most likely totally accidentaly, but still. One handed weapons DO benefit from user's physical strength more than two handed ones. Because in case of one handed weapons it is the ONLY factor that drives them, while in case of two handed weaponry the leverage can compensate for it to a large degree.
Colton Cooper
This is why you only make two handed weapons give a strength bonus to damage, other weapon types do not. This means that if you have low or negative strength modifier, you should stick with smaller weapons that way you aren't being penalized for using a big sword.
Asher Davis
You could have all weapons do the same damage and just differ in how much of your strength bonus is applied.
To all weapons do d8 and: dagger -- 1/2x str sword -- 1x str greatsword -- 2x str
Michael Murphy
What are you talking about? You have a skill penalty per point your ST is lower than the min. ST for the weapon you're wielding.
Samuel Thompson
I think the problem with your Grok of the situation is that most player characters have at least average strength, which is enough to wield "heavy" weapons. A zero (or a 10 in DnDs case) is not weak, its average.
Gavin Smith
If I had strenght bonus of 1000 (assuming 3.pf rules) I wouldn't bother with weapons anymore. Clearly my fists are the greatest weapons ever forged by any god or mortal.
Ian Brooks
But then you run into the inverse problem where the guy with no strength bonus hits just as hard with a six inch shank as he does with a six foot compensator.
Nicholas Hall
the solution: larger hit dice for lighter weapon, higher strength multiplier for heavier weapon
Robert Cruz
>(assuming 3.pf rules)
Hudson Cooper
Well if I'd just said 1000 strenght bonus some autist would have dug up his homebrew campaign where 1000 Str bonus is like pennies.
Gavin Sullivan
Even then Monks would still be shit. 'cept for Zen archers.
Ryan Myers
Base damage on the stat rather than the attribute then... or don't play dnd
Isaac Peterson
Well, to be fair, I think shield and sword does require a fair bit of strength because you don't have all that weight distributed between two hands and one of the things in your hands is a slab of metal, wood, and/or hide.
but, this does seem a bit of an issue for a DnD-based system.
Perhaps the obvious suggestion might be that while using heavy, two-handed weapons, a player can apply x3 their strength bonus rather than x1 (one handed) or x1.5 (normal two handed)
Add to that maybe some minimum strength score requirements and maybe that can patch something?
William Cruz
>But then you run into the inverse problem where the guy with no strength bonus hits just as hard with a six inch shank as he does with a six foot compensator A guy with no strength bonus wouldn't be able to use a six foot compensator.
William Miller
Oddly enough, in real life, the actual weapons that were used two-handed arguably require more finesse and less strength (with the exception of stupid big fantasy style weapons). Think about it. If you have two points of contact on a weapon, you have much more control, and weapons in real life were nowhere near as insanely heavy as they are implied to be in pretty much any game. Equivalent hand tools are much heavier, for example, because you don't need to recover from strikes or change their angle swiftly.
If I was weaker and wanted to hurt somebody more effectively I would prefer to use a two-handed spear, or a longsword.
Robert Martinez
Strength only applies to hit chance. Damage is exclusive weapon die. Weapons add a hit chance the lighter they are. So a dagger have +3 (+str) to hit, 1d4 (no str added) damage. A sword is +1, 1d8 damage.
Owen Lewis
Well, usually I see that fixed by the fact that characters with low strength don't want to be using melee weapons to begin with, unless they have ones that can use their dexterity instead.
In cases where someone doesn't have very good strength or dex, they're also usually playing a caster who doesn't have access to a lot of those same weapons in general, and still would rather use something with range.
While mathmatically it's better to use a two-handed sword over a standard one if you have low strength, it's also better to use a crossbow or something that actually suits your stats, since the ability to keep your distance or use something you have an actual bonus in will help more in the long run.
Isaac Lee
Guys with high strength will usually still pick a big weapon to do more damage even if the proportional increase is less.
Owen Cooper
I fail do see the problem. Why wouldn't a bigger weapon do more damage?
John Bailey
Most of my players just pick a weapon that fits their character's personality.
Although I do have one guy who always rolls a caster and always buys a falchion because of the damage boost and crit range.
He rarely hits bc proficiency but hey, it's his choice.
Tyler Collins
You realise this means that big swords really are Compensating for low strength, right?
Nathan Russell
>one character is a guy who hits stuff with a sword >one character is a guy who can magically bend reality to his will >both are equally good at adventuring
Luke Kelly
Yeah that does bug me, glad I'm not the only one. The way the numbers scale does influence game.
Any game that's gives high flat damage bonuses offer renders the trade off between a d6 weapon and a d8 weapon irrelevant.
>the solution: larger hit dice for lighter weapon, higher strength multiplier for heavier weapon
Interesting. Could you elaborate more?
You could also do a what Savage World does. The Str bonus is rated from a d4 to a d12 same as the weapons, you roll both for damage and need at least the same Str to use that type of weapon secondly.
Sebastian Nguyen
Why exactly are high strength characters incentivized to avoid high damage weapons? Because it's not as much of a percentage increase? Why does that matter if you're trying to maximize damage?
Nicholas Carter
They're incentivized to avoid two-handed weapons, because they get proportionally less benefit from devoting two hands to one murder implement. Reading comprehension.
Aaron Ramirez
Because you're getting diminishing results. +3 a covers average differences between d6 and a d12, with out the possibility of 1 damage.
Remember DnD has a "hand economy", someone with 16 strength could do a lot of damage with a great axe. But is usually better off getting a d6 shortsword and a shield or look into two weapon fighting.
Jacob Wood
Somebody has to keep the mage from getting shanked at the beginning of the adventure. And later, unless the DM is a retard, the guy with the sword should have magic gear that allows him to throw giants off their feet or whatever other shit.
Blake Bennett
because d4+3 is objectively better than 2d6+3, duh
Jordan Rivera
The idea of fighters as defenders and bodyguards to wizards only worked in previous editions when they had strict penalties and limits on casting in combat.
Mechanically fighters *are* redundant nowadays. Just bring another wizard, or if you're feeling cautious maybe a cleric.
Noah Cooper
Or a crossbow, if you could afford one.
The problem isn't that big weapons do more damage, that's obvious and expected. It's that big weapons proportionately gain less from higher strength than smaller weapons. Having low strength and attempting to wield a heavy weapon should probably incur an accuracy and/or damage penalty if below a threshold based on the unwieldiness of the weapon in question much like the penalty for dual wield without ambidexterity but no such mechanic exists in DnD RAW.
Ethan Nelson
>d4+3 objectively better then 2d6+3, duh.
No it's not, but offer not worth the trade off. But If it's a d4+3 but you can attack twice every round or what ever, or use an item or use a shild and most enemies don't have more than 8 hit points. That that extra damage is going to be wasted.
Plus if your GM is the common sort arsehole who says critical fumbles harm allies, you actually do you want to cap your maxuim damage.
Yes I've play those DMs.
Asher Kelly
AD&D pulled a load of dick moves for heavier weapons, with having axes in particular being essentially "trap weapons", as you had to basically be fairly proficient in them to counter-act both the attacks-per-round and initiative you lost due to their size, plus they generally had THAC0 penalties to boot, and with no real benefit in terms of being able to overcome some specialised DR like you got from hammers and other heavy bludgeoning weapons, and honestly while everyone's talkign about the difference from a knife and a bastard sword, the difference in damage die from a bastard sword and a great axe is a fart compared to a bastard sword's superior speed and lack of THAC0 penalties.
Grayson White
I remember a war game on Veeky Forums a while back which had odd taken this.
The bigger the weapon the bigger the dice type used and you had to roll over the enemie's armour defence as normal.
But rolling the highest number on the dice was a guaranteed wound. So there was a trade off (explained that smaller weapons were better a finding weak spots)
If anyone could remember what it was called that would be great.
