Two-Handed Superiority

[Gadwin]

It's an ongoing trend. Just about everyone rolls with two-handed weapons because they simply work best.
To break down some of why this is, let's assume we have a martial class with 18 strength.

Someone using a longsword would have 1d8 from the longsword and then their strength mod, in this case 1d8+4.
Conversely, a greatsword would be 2d6+4, +2 from the 1.5x str multiplier for twohanded weapons; so 2d6+6.
The average output of a die is half of the die's size plus 0.5, since you can never roll below a 1. For 1d8 this becomes 4.5, and for 2d6 this becomes 7.
Thus, the difference in average damage output between a longsword and a greatsword is 8.5 vs 13.
Sword and board only deals 65% of the damage of a two-hander in exchange for their +2 AC, in this common scenario.

Is this trade-off worth it for shields? I don't think so, and I think the playerbase's trends towards 2 handed weapons indicates this as well, especially when there are flat damage reductions and immunities in the mix. DR5 is annoying for two-handers, but outright crippling for shield users. DR's existence also encourages the dominance of 2H weapons. Additionally, a player's damage output is always relevant whereas an AC boost may not be, as it is extremely rare for someone to maintain aggro on mobs all the time to get the value out of that AC boost- not to mention shield users having a much harder time of generating aggro in the first place due to enmity being based on damage dealt. And with the weapon die differences, 2h strength multiplier, and power attack / cleave being powerful feats that only work best with big weapons, you have a nice snowball effect that ensures 2h melee is always best.

I think something needs to be done so that 1h+shield and dual wielding have more of a purpose than they presently do. As-is, the best method of dungeon completion is just everyone swinging big sticks at things with little regard needed for the server's groundbreaking custom aggro mechanics, which is very disappointing after having heard the system talked up for years.

 

[TwistyShape]

To put a fine point on it; I feel penalised for wanting to use a sword and shield.

Enemies have such high AB, I'm getting hit regardless of that +2 AC, killings things faster means I get hit less and therefore theres no reason for me to use a 2hander.
Aggro is generated off damage, as a sword/shield I do less damage overall and generate generally less aggro.
A lot of martial characters have ways to increase their AC over time meaning that come end-game the +2 from large shields will be negated by other martials having the same or, in some cases, better AC.
Towershield are completely unused expect in rare cases, -2 AB vs +3 AC is a fine trade off until you take so many other aspects into account. You certainly can't tank with them.
The damage immunity % is currently so low (generally no more than 10%) that it doesn't impact anyone, so having an extra damage immunity is generally pointless as it boils down to 1 point of damage vs not getting hit.
A non-plate/shield user can have the same, if not more AC using Dex/Tumble/Etc. than a plated knight inc, shield.

There is a reason why everyone uses two handed weapons, and I struggle to believe its just because its a style choice.

 

[Mustafa]

Enemies have too high AB AND AC, so you bet your ass we're going to make the few hits we do land count by maximizing damage, and you make a broken system even worse if you nerf two handers. Please add some kind of benefit to playing 1h and shield, and -2 AB for tower shield is too punishing, perhaps try lowering it to -1 AB and see how things perform from there?

 

[TwistyShape]

-2 AB for tower shield is too punishing, perhaps try lowering it to -1 AB and see how things perform from there?

If they buff Tower Shields, everyone uses a tower shield because the Large makes no sense.

Shield-specific feats need to be introduced to bring them in line with two-handers, some of which could/should be free for some martial classes. Alternatively, something needs to be done stats-wise to make shields or one-handed weapons more worthwhile.

Also, shields generating passive aggro would be nice.

 

[Tassadarh]

I'm jumping in the thread but I think here the experience of strictly martial classes is a bit more important.

If we look at the matter in a "realistic" view: shields that big are only viable when working in formation, for the sort of skirmish we are used, a two handed sword is more efficient (for different reasons than "strike hard" but regardless). Still Shield (and dual wielding) is staple of DnD mechanics.... and it's neat.

Things might begin to change when we start having shields with enchantments, making them way more valuable as an extra enchanting/stat slot; so we need to be aware of that too.

I'm not entirely sure if adding AC or anything directly to the shield would make it a choice comparable to others, but what I've been thinking is giving the sword and board gameplay a distinct feature to make it viable.

It goes on like this:

Sword and Board should give you more crowd control and defence than a two handed, but also: the more shield there are, the more you work as a "formation" making your group as a whole more powerful.
To represent that all enemies around the shield user have a slight snare effect applied to them, the area is very small but it should help with mobs basically sprinting to the backlines and possibly forcing said mob to turn back and continue fighting with the shield user... or at least you should be able to deal 2 opportunity attacks instead of 1 for when an enemy gets aggro form the back lines. This should represent you trying to keep the enemy *there*. An easier (?) way to introduce a similar outcome is to increase the threat generation from whoever is holding a shield (not sure if this effect should also be added on top with the snare effect).

Another option could be some bonus to ally AC to whoever is close to the shieldbearer (area very small, as in you should be basically in weapons reach or a bit less). +1 dodge to everyone around (but the shield user), to maximum of +2 (if there are more shieldbearers). This could foster a more strategic approach and basically switching to a small shield group to gain better AC to the whole frontlines. This is logically representing the shieldbearer offering more defence to the people beside them... and more shield means more defence! However I wouldn't give this effect to the buckler/small shield.

As for dual wield, it could impose a -1 AC to whoever is being attacked by it, it basically represent that the flurry of blows is upsetting the balance/parry/dodge of whoever is being attacked. I don't know if this effect should be stacked with more dual wielders , but I wouldn't go over -2 AC in total to the mob.

 

[Reikenbach]

Fundamentally, I think this all routes back to ongoing problems with the threat/aggro system.

The only reason to use a shield is if you're expecting to take aggro.

The only reason you can expect to take aggro is if you're doing the most damage.*

The only reason you're doing the most damage is if you're using a two-hander.

*The exception to this is that enemies often just spontaneously decide to target archers and casters even if they're not doing the most damage, as though attacks made by characters with low AC generate more threat than attacks made by characters with high AC, regardless of damage. This is most obviously visible when an archer targeted by an enemy equips a shield, immediately after which the enemy will very often turn around and resume attacking the frontliners.

It also doesn't help that the majority of enemies doesn't seem to care much about unit collision. It has proven extremely difficult to plug a doorway even with multiple characters occupying the doorframe, and more than once a shield-heavy frontline has proven to be about as much of a blockade as a waist-high picket fence.

 

[Gadwin]

Fundamentally, I think this all routes back to ongoing problems with the threat/aggro system.

The only reason to use a shield is if youre expecting to take aggro.

The only reason you can expect to take aggro is if youre doing the most damage.*

The only reason youre doing the most damage is if youre using a two-hander.

*The exception to this is that enemies often just spontaneously decide to target archers and casters even if theyre not doing the most damage, as though attacks made by characters with low AC generate more threat than attacks made by characters with high AC, regardless of damage. This is most obviously visible when an archer targeted by an enemy equips a shield, immediately after which the enemy will very often turn around and resume attacking the frontliners.

It also doesnt help that the majority of enemies doesnt seem to care much about unit collision. It has proven extremely difficult to plug a doorway even with multiple characters occupying the doorframe, and more than once a shield-heavy frontline has proven to be about as much of a blockade as a waist-high picket fence.

In regards to the *note in your fifth line, there is a flat modifier for aggro based on damage type. Melee has the lowest modifier at 1x, with ranged and magic having something like 1.2x and 1.3x last I recall. Casting a spell at all also seems to draw aggro based on non-damage factors.

And I do largely agree with the rest. My only difference in opinion being that while threat is undoubtedly in a poor state at the moment, I personally don't believe that things would be all that different in the scheme of weapon superiority were it working. Threat isn't why dual wielding sucks, for example. The damage differentials between every other form of melee and two-handing remain too large for the playerbase to want to pick anything else; and they're right to pick the thing that does 50% more damage than the alternatives.

The niche cases you could argue for dual wielding (sneak attacks, mostly) just as easily apply to ranged (rapid shot), and with even more ease of use and safety.

I firmly believe that one handing and dual wielding will need extra love to be made competitive with their peers. How best to achieve this, I couldn't say.

 

[Reikenbach]

I think the only meaningful advantage Dual Wielding offers currently over Two-Handing is a bonus of +2 AC from Two-Weapon Defense.

As time goes on, though, I think the ability to more rapidly apply bonus damage effects (ie. Flame Weapon) may start to make up for it somewhat.

 

[MkIV]

I think the reason why shields are feeling comparatively bad is because we are using baseline shields and don't have access to more powerful equipment. Keep in mind that simple bonuses like +1 damage proportionally increase the damage of a 1 handed weapon more than a two handed so if anything the gap would narrow more as equipment quality improves.

Sure a +2 AC might feel a little weak? what about +3 or +4? People can attest to the difference between chainmail and plate and we are taking about that difference in AC at higher levels.

Why is the difference between two handed and sword and board feel so big here when it doesn't in other servers? Because other servers don't have level 8s with a plain longsword

How things are now with functionally baseline NwN gear is not an accurate representation of what the server is in its entirety.

 

[Gadwin]

I think the reason why shields are feeling comparatively bad is because we are using baseline shields and dont have access to more powerful equipment. Keep in mind that simple bonuses like +1 damage proportionally increase the damage of a 1 handed weapon more than a two handed so if anything the gap would narrow more as equipment quality improves.

Sure a +2 AC might feel a little weak? what about +3 or +4? People can attest to the difference between chainmail and plate and we are taking about that difference in AC at higher levels.

Why is the difference between two handed and sword and board feel so big here when it doesnt in other servers? Because other servers dont have level 8s with a plain longsword

How things are now with functionally baseline NwN gear is not an accurate representation of what the server is in its entirety.

The gap in damage does not narrow as much as you think it might with damage bonuses. The difference between +0 and +2 in the OP calculations is 65% vs 70%, and that's as huge a leap as we can make without taking very limited magical buff durations into account. Even if we had full blown +2 shields to go with it, is dealing 30% less damage worth the 4 AC (or 20% less chance to be hit)? I don't really think so. Again, one works all the time while the other is conditional.

 

[Reikenbach]

Even if we had full blown +2 shields to go with it, is dealing 30% less damage worth the 4 AC (or 20% less chance to be hit)? I dont really think so. Again, one works all the time while the other is conditional.

It's not a 20% reduced chance to be hit. Assuming you have 20 AC (Heavy Armor, 16 STR, 12 DEX) and the enemy has +10 AB, that's a 40% reduced chance to be hit.

If they have +15 AB, that would be ~27% reduced chance to be hit.

If they have a +20 AB, that would be ~16% reduced chance to be hit.

Shields remain a reasonable option when factoring offense versus defense so long as enemy AB and AC scales comparably with player numbers. The problem is that enemy AC is currently advancing in excess of player AC while their AB is relatively similar compared against full BAB classes, yet enemy damage is also often exceeding comparable player numbers. The result is that the average enemy takes fewer hits, lands more hits, and deal more damage than the average player character in an equivalent role (Archer vs. Archer, Melee vs. Melee, etc.). Accordingly, this means that overwhelming offense tends to be the favorable play, because the longer enemies live the better their output looks compared to players - and because would-be "tank" characters can't reliably maintain threat, odds are it's the players' own damage-dealers who are going to be suffering the most, further compounding the damage output disparity if they go down.

Ironically, I think the decision to disable NPC crits has also contributed to shields feeling low-impact, because one no longer needs to worry about critical confirmations. Not that I'd want crits re-enabled.

 

[Beekeeper]

I've made a separate thread about the situation with the taunt skill. Reducing its cooldown to a more reasonable length could help with threat management for shield users and dedicated tanks. Currently, two minute cooldown means it can't be used every dungeon encounter, even if left for emergencies such as an enemy rushing for the backline, let alone used in a regular fight.

 

[WillDigForFood]

If they buff Tower Shields, everyone uses a tower shield because the Large makes no sense.

Shield-specific feats need to be introduced to bring them in line with two-handers, some of which could/should be free for some martial classes. Alternatively, something needs to be done stats-wise to make shields or one-handed weapons more worthwhile.

Also, shields generating passive aggro would be nice.

Only two classes get Tower Shield proficiency by default - other classes that would have an interest in them have to burn a feat for them, and we have precious few of those.

Tower & Large Shields also provide different DI, which can be a niche bonus depending on which two DI's your armor is providing.

Large Shields also weigh half of what Tower Shields do, which is a substantial benefit on its own for a lot of folks.

There are plenty of reasons to choose a Large Shield over a Tower Shield, even with a reduced (but not eliminated) AB penalty.

 

[TwistyShape]

Only two classes get Tower Shield proficiency by default - other classes that would have an interest in them have to burn a feat for them, and we have precious few of those.

Tower & Large Shields also provide different DI, which can be a niche bonus depending on which two DIs your armor is providing.

Large Shields also weigh half of what Tower Shields do, which is a substantial benefit on its own for a lot of folks.

There are plenty of reasons to choose a Large Shield over a Tower Shield, even with a reduced (but not eliminated) AB penalty.

Then I rescind my point.

But again, using Towershields, we're penalised, even -1 AB is rather huge in the scale of TDN. I actually wonder if any AB reduction is a little harsh. Also, the DI doesn't really matter at this level of loot, and I have a feeling it won't really get much better in the grand scheme of things. There are far fewer reasons to use a Tower Shield over large because large shield gives you a lower time to kill of enemies, because you hit more consistently, and still decent AC bonus, looking at whats on offer from martial classes leveling up though, two handers are eventually brought into line with shields in terms of AC where as shields never really get any better for there still to be a gap between the pair.

 

[Gadwin]

I personally don't like tower shields in nwn and don't want to have to use them. They are pervasively strong in both nwn1 and 2, and i'm just over it. If they have no equal tradeoff and are just better than heavies on account of their feat requirements, then everyone will be shoehorned into having these big ugly doors on their arms once again. Whatever happens with them, it is important that they remain sidegrades rather than upgrades, and reducing the AB penalty while maintaining their benefits goes against that.

On the note of aggro, it's true that further tweaks are needed and that they would help the average shield user, but I still wonder if it will be enough to bring them to parity with other weapons in the overall party contribution. As it is, a sword and shield user would need close to 150% threat multipliers just to match the average 2h chad's aggro output, let alone surpass it.

And if fully investing points in two separate aggro skills isn't enough for a tank to do their job, then rather than implementing feats and options that also have to be invested in, the potency increase needs to come from those skills being made into something more useful.

 

[TwistyShape]

Perhaps it might be a case of upping the numbers a little? Make a large shield 3- 4 AC and a Tower 5- 6 AC? With enemy AB the way it is, they'll still check you often.

 

[WillDigForFood]

And if fully investing points in two separate aggro skills isnt enough for a tank to do their job, then rather than implementing feats and options that also have to be invested in, the potency increase needs to come from those skills being made into something more useful.

This is mildly off topic, but it's worth noting that the Intimidate and Concentrate Threat bonuses do not stack (at least, not according to Khaine and other members of the team.)

It's and either-or scenario, so save yourself some skill points (since most martial classes aren't exactly flush with them to begin with.)

 

[Gadwin]

Intimidate and Concentrate Threat bonuses do not stack

Was speaking of either of these two and Taunt, since they do work together

 

[Reikenbach]

Perhaps it might be a case of upping the numbers a little? Make a large shield 3- 4 AC and a Tower 5- 6 AC? With enemy AB the way it is, theyll still check you often.

Honestly, ramping stat growth harder just pushes us towards an arms race style of balance and causes more trouble in the long run. Given the stated desire for a low-magic setting, the upper bound of potential player AC (counting temporary buffs) probably shouldn't exceed 30 without significant investment - providing 6 off a nonmagical tower shield would be dangerous territory.

 

[TwistyShape]

Honestly, ramping stat growth harder just pushes us towards an arms race style of balance and causes more trouble in the long run. Given the stated desire for a low-magic setting, the upper bound of potential player AC (counting temporary buffs) probably shouldnt exceed 30 without significant investment - providing 6 off a nonmagical tower shield would be dangerous territory.

Okay, thank you. That helps me with future suggestions. Perhaps some flat damage reduction might be in order, then, rather than Damage Immunity.

It's of my understanding that DI is very small, usually being no more than 1 point currently, and that goes for almost everyone wearing armour or using any shield. Perhaps shields need to see a boon in this regard? Rather than outright damage avoidance, it is more damage mitigation. Unfortunately, nothing can really compete with "Offence is the greatest Defence" in a lot of scenarios currently, and it makes sense that 2Handers should be the superior option in this regard. The problem stems from the fact they will, eventually, be at the same AC (or close to) as sword and board users. You could argue crafting will change this, but there's only speculation regarding that until we get our mitts on it!