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.
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.
Last edited: