I know dual damage types were removed from existing weapons to balance them but based on some earlier discussions in another thread could it be justified to make the two huge weapons in the game do two types (add blugeoning to both as they're likely to do that just through the potentially massive trauma they inflict, it's like being hit by a bus!)? As it currently statnds it is really difficult to choose a large character (-1 ab, pita to manuvre, gets in the way of everything, etc) when you can make an normal (or small) size 2h character and do equal damage with other associated benefits. Prepares self for torrent of brutal smackdowns
If this were to go through, you'd see everyone turn their 2handers into large using these. Dualtype adds way too much to pass on in terms of power. If a buff to these were made I'd start by fixing their base dmg to be 2d12. 1d10 from large > to 1d12 on huge, then dbl the base from exotic to make it 2d12. This would be minor, yet meaningful buff. 2handing a bastardsword is currently 2-16, aka average of 9 damage - huge would be 2-24 aka 13. +4 damage from being large size, -1 ab vs small size +1 ab. Additional dmg buff from not suffering str penalty of gnome/halfling, also suffer from the problems you described of large chars. Anyway, I think that'd make it a reasonable choice over "must go dual type".
Post by drunkenboastor on Jun 4, 2017 16:35:25 GMT
I am in strong agreement that large sized two handed weapon users are at a disadvantage compared to medium and small races. Because of the limited options, I also agree that there should be an option to do bludgeoning damage with Lance and Merc Sword, but it should not be passive. Add something like a command to be able to swap base damage of the Lance/Merc to bludgeoning, so for Lance would be !dampierce and !dambludge. If wanted to have extra costs to having the ability to switch damage types, could restrict it by feat like Dirty Fighting, or make the !dam(damage type) commands swift actions.
Considering that the last long-in-the-works weapons redux was in part (primarily?) focused on rebalancing/removing dual phys type from the game, I think it's safe to guess that dual type will never be brought back under any circumstance. As fallen said, giving huge weaps any mechanism for dual type would simply create a new flavor of the week meta, rather than merely bringing huge weaps and the large 2hers that wield them "up to par" to viable status.
If adding ~4 dmg isn't enough to balance the scales vs the ab/ac lost vs med/small 2hers, maybe dmg plus added AB would help (either universal or only applied to disarm/kd maneuvers--read on). I think both a sensical as well as satisfactory (in terms of realistic/visceral reasoning) solution would be to a) fix the brokenly-subpar base damage of these weapons, and further grant an AB bonus.
There should absolutely be some benefit to wielding a massive weapon in combat, but unfortunately with now-abysmal base damage and HG's customized kd/disarm checks, there is absolutely no benefit, only the penalty to ac/ab from size modifier. Yes, huge weapons are inherently slower and less accurate than smaller weapons, but after all they are harder to dodge, parry, or block; they are inherently better-suited to disarming--and their large-sized wielders inherently better-suited to knocking down--which d20/NWN allowed for with toon/weapon size-based modifiers, but HG removed.
At worst, a simple +1 ab to help neutralize large size penalty, at best maybe a specialized application to combat maneuvers to improve the weapons themselves; in total maybe something like ~+4 dmg and +1-2 ab. In this way, a large 2her is still penalized by geometric annoyance, uncraftable appearance, and -ac, but at least would no longer be a no-contest clear loser in comparison to medium, let alone small, 2hers.
Since the realistic impact of losing ab vs small/med on HG endgame is most importantly he reduced success of kd/disarm than actually landing attacks, a good compromise would be to reward large toons and huge weapons with +ab on kd/disarm (period, not relative to enemy's size/weapon--I guess the vanilla comparison mechanic was removed long ago for a reason, let's not have big monsters impossible to kd/disarm and halflings incapable of succeeding on anything >medium).
If vanilla numbers (4 per size category difference) for kd/disarm modifier are too extreme, then maybe half it to 2/category; that way large 2her is at least getting +1 ab vs medium/+2 ab vs small on kd/disarm, to make up for -1 ac/total ab vs medium and -2 vs small.
In the end it should be noted that "huge weapon" issue is two problems, each with its own specific issue:
1) Huge weapons terribad base damage after weap update. Regardless of toonsize wielding it/all other things being equal, it's just crappy/nonsensical base dmg within weapon balance microcosm
2) Large toons terribad for several reasons as mentioned above/in other threads
Unfortunately, a solution to problem #1 (as I ranted about in thread longer ago, and fallen's proposal above addresses) doesn't really solve #2, so to actually give huge weapons a niche or semblance of min/max playability, something to help ameliorate penalties of 1+2 both is required.
large toons are stigmatized in society already, it's impossible to maneuver to the places you want to get to in combat
and making people sacrifice quality of life changes in order to achieve their pinnacle min/max isn't any fun either. see: people(ahem..) play pariah despite it's terriawful size, and complain every day about how terrible it is to move from point a to point b)
maybe what we need is free shadowstepping all our huge friends
frankly in my very completely unbiased view the perfect solution would be to eradicate huge weapons and appearances entirely
Possible, yes, though I'm afraid we lack the technical capacity at this time. Also, if we had it, there's a laundry list of other stuff we'd do first, as we've taken other steps to make large weapons and characters more appealing, with more in the works.
It is still relevant. Mercurial Greatsword and Lance are the only alternative for large creatures to 2H. They are both inferior to many medium weapons which is silly. A massive bludgeoning weapon should also be added - great club or uprooted tree or whatever. The base damage should be greater than a bastard sword or even a scythe.
I think large sized toons should get a damage bonus to make uo for the ab/ac loss (discounting large qol issues such as maneuverability).
Call it being to be able to better leverage their str. Would changing their str bonus to damage to maybe add a .5 str mod to damage on all large sized toons?
Perhaps adding a bonus to all stat checks versus kd to account for their mass? As is being large seems to only be a penalty, and considering the number of large subs it woukd be neat if there was a tangible benefit to being large when theres so many downsides.
yes, eventually this should be addressed. I believe once 2h dmg has found the sweet spot of rough balance required to move forward with more detailed and complex changes, things like fine-tuning damage to scale with size is probably on the agenda.
as for equating mass to being more resilient to knockdown--it's a creative suggestion, but it doesn't really reflect reality, even on an intuitive level. being larger/taller is a disadvantage in many ways in regards to being knocked down; it's actually kind of a foundational principle of hand-to-hand combat. of course, this does only apply to bipeds--it's hard to argue the logic of something like a four-legged wemic being harder to knock down.
extra str mod-based damage is a bit more appealing, but in my opinion, this should be more a factor of weapon size and the relation between the size of the weapon and the size of the wielder. as you said, being better able to leverage strength (well put). but a flat bonus under all conditions is a bit less subtle than i'd hope for.
anyway, once 2h evens out, it would be great to pursue some large-size disadvantage amelioration strategies.