I'm thinking of playing through IA 5 again after a long break, and I'm wondering whether its a good idea to give a 1.5x str bonus to 2 handed weapons as per IWD2 rules.

1) Its makes more sense. You are swinging it with 2 hands afterall
2) More incentive to use 2 handed weapons. Currently, there is no incentive at all, since dual wielding gives extra attack and more weapon bonuses

Anyway, its good to be back. I'll be starting a IA5 game when time permits

Regards
Mongerman

Well you do get double the critical rate with the two handed weapon style though a 1.5x str bonus would be great to help balance against dual wielding.

Don't forget the whirwind attack. The bonus to critical not too powerful because the helmet protect it. I dont think the 1.5x str bonus is not good idea because it means bonus thaco too. I think add bonus damage to the the weapon style.
The two handed weapons are very powerful in IA so doesn't necessery improved it.

Does the increased critical range bonus (19-20 critical for two handed weapons) stack with the riskbreaker's increased critical range (17-20) making the range 16-20? If so, a riskbreaker getting criticals every one in four hits would be extremely powerful.

Edited again. Actually it wasn't a pointless posting. D'oh.

...

http://forums.blackwyrmlair.net/index.php?showtopic=1811



This includes not only that he won't be a good fighter with two handed weapons, but it also excludes the appropiate weapon style, I just looked it up ingame.

Shame, but thanks for the info

The riskbreaker could go for the single weapon style to get a wider critical range with the JD sword :X

A flat bonus damage for 2 handed weapon style might be nice.

1 pip +3 damage, 2 pips +6 damage
Just an idea...

That would work too, since +6 dmg is just slightly less then half 18/00 str dmg. My point is, other then availibility of weapons, there is absolutely no reason to use a 2 handed weapon atm. Dmg wise, dual wielding wins. Bonus from weapons, 2 weapons are again better then one. And using a shield allows AC and defensive bonuses.

I see my manual and the 18/00 strength grants only +3 thaco and +6 damage the 25 strength grants +7 thaco and +14 damage so the +3 and +6 damage bonus seems good.

The idea of granting damage bonuses for the two-handed proficiency is a good one but I don't think the damage bonus should be any more than +1/+2. I think +3/+6 is too much; a character with a two-handed weapon and GWW would be too powerful.

+60 extra potential damage on GWW does sounds pretty high. Perhaps +2/4, is more appropriate, I was just throwing ideas out there

However consider that improved haste for dual weilding is 2 extra attacks that can easily be 60 damage (especially with critical strike). You also gain very important stat bonuses (JD, FoDW, Blackrazor, Crom F) albiet with a lower threat range.

I think someone with a huge 2handed weapon *should* be scary. Just as is someone with dual weild and 8x attacks per round!

... assuming you hit everytime. Personally If at all I only choose a few GWWs for those two handed weapon fighters who cannot place more than two profiency points into a weapon, for example Keldorn. As you "only" have 5-6 attacks per round with Improved Haste (without or with the gauntlets adding 1/2 attack per round) it seems to be a good choice. On the other hand you need to hit. If I could have like 100 attacks per round they would be useless if I only hit on a critical hit. Therefore I like Critical Strike more. No matter whether I have 5 attacks, or 10: they all hit and that's quite likely the most important thing to consider for a warrior type, imho.

Riskbreakers can't put any stars in Two handed Weapon Style (this disadvantage exists even in the current version, it was just missed in the kit's description and should be added for the next release).

@Arkain

The link you had given was to the old Riskbreaker kit (v8). The v9 description can be found in IA's readme. Disadvantages are the same though.

I know, but as the disadvantages are the same I thought it might be nice to give some source.