Why two handed????

[SliceandDiceKid]

What advantage does a 2h weapon grant besides the potential 4 extra damage from higher damage dice???

I guess great weapon master's -5/+10 is alright if you're sure you'll hit...

But other than that, I couldn't find anything while skimming the PHB in their favor besides the fighting style.

Am I missing something?

[Daishain]

Well, there at least WERE two reasons

The first is that dealing single target damage is among the most important functions for a melee fighter. If you can't dish it in combat, you had better be doing something else useful. This is, if anything, even more true now than before.

The second is that THW had previously added 1.5 times your strength bonus to its damage, rather than just the standard bonus. This may actually still be in effect, but I can't find a rule for it.

[edge2054]

The cleave effect on GWM is nice too.

[SliceandDiceKid]

Well, there at least WERE two reasons

The first is that dealing single target damage is among the most important functions for a melee fighter. If you can't dish it in combat, you had better be doing something else useful. This is, if anything, even more true now than before.

The second is that THW had previously added 1.5 times your strength bonus to its damage, rather than just the standard bonus. This may actually still be in effect, but I can't find a rule for it.

Yeah, this was my thinking. But why sacrifice defensive capability of a shield and shield mastery when you don't get the 1.5 str anymore?

And again the heavy weapon -5 for +10 is ok, but you'd better know you're going to hit, or you look like a fool.

[Snails]

Great Weapon Fighting rerolls become more valuable, too.

BTW, the primary reason to use -5/+10 is not because you are sure you will hit -- that will be approximately never until you hit very high levels in the world of bounded accuracy, but because you can finish the opponent off the opponent quickly. It is quite possible for your average damage you go down, while the average number of attacks to kill your target goes down as well. This is most likely when your can accurately gauge the target HPs are 10-20 (for non-high levels PCs).

[SliceandDiceKid]

The cleave effect on GWM is nice too.

The cleave portion doesn't require a 2H.

[Snails]

Yeah, this was my thinking. But why sacrifice defensive capability of a shield and shield mastery when you don't get the 1.5 str anymore?

In 3.5, it was almost never the case that a dedicated meleeist should use anything other that a 2Her. In 5e, the optimal choice is less obvious. Really, I think there is no absolutely stronger answer -- it depends on the tactics your party uses. For example, if I am standing next to my buddy the Paladin, I might as well go for the bigger weapon at the cost of a little AC.

[SliceandDiceKid]

Great Weapon Fighting rerolls become more valuable, too.

BTW, the primary reason to use -5/+10 is not because you are sure you will hit -- that will be approximately never until you hit very high levels in the world of bounded accuracy, but because you can finish the opponent off the opponent quickly. It is quite possible for your average damage you go down, while the average number of attacks to kill your target goes down as well. This is most likely when your can accurately gauge the target HPs are 10-20 (for non-high levels PCs).


Yes dealing more damage more quickly is desirable, but not when it compromises your survivability. And the philosophy that a fighter who can't deal a little more damage is worthless is faulted. If he can piss off enemies and withstand a monstrous beating, he provides invaluable defense for casters and less sturdy attackers.

[edge2054]

Ehh.. from a pure optimization perspective why go anything other than Polearm Master/Duelist/Quarterstaff?

I see that I was wrong about GWM cleaves. It still costs a bonus action which rules out GWM + TWF anyway. Someone could go Duelist + GWM but you'll lose the potential for the power attack.

Ultimately I think it comes down to play style. I really think the optimal fighter build is the quarterstaff build. I also wouldn't ever play it. Some people just like to smash things, hit really hard, and smugly say "I crit for 36 damage!" Other's prefer to have a bit more AC and wear the enemy down one round at a time.

I think the fighting styles are pretty well balanced and there's no clear winner in this edition (one-handed quarterstaves aside).

[Sartharina]

What advantage does a 2h weapon grant besides the potential 4 extra damage from higher damage dice???

I guess great weapon master's -5/+10 is alright if you're sure you'll hit...

But other than that, I couldn't find anything while skimming the PHB in their favor besides the fighting style.

Am I missing something?

The 2, 3, or 4 average extra damage from the higher damage die (Also Multiplied on a Crit) is reason enough alone for you to use a Two-handed weapon instead of a shield.

[MustacheFart]

Other than the Polearm master quarterstaff cheese mentioned above, two-handers also gain the benefit of reach. Except for the piddle d4 damage whip, all reach weapons are heavy two-handers. A reach weapon is no long penalized to hitting at it's max range like in 3.5. In other words, a Glaive in 5th ed can attack at 5 feet away as well as 10 feet away. This means you have the benefit of drawing more AoO's from enemies with little downside. Combo this with polearm master and you can become a nightmare to be around.

Two-handers don't have to be just about the damage. They can also be about control. Remember, that extra AC won't matter if you kill your enemy as he enters your range.

The greatest feat combo would be: Polearm master, Sentinel, Mageslayer, Great Weapon Master. You'd be an absolute nightmare. They come to you, you hit them. They leave you, you hit them. They try to cast around you, you hit them.

In my HOTDQ game we just did the 2nd module. Here's something applicable (don't want to spoil):

I looted a halberd from the armory of the cultist camp in chapter two so that was enough to swap me into going Sentinel. I'll see how it works out.

[Galen]

What advantage does a 2h weapon grant besides the potential 4 extra damage from higher damage dice???

I guess great weapon master's -5/+10 is alright if you're sure you'll hit...

But other than that, I couldn't find anything while skimming the PHB in their favor besides the fighting style.

Am I missing something?The -5/+10 is supposed to combo with the Berserker class feature that gives advantage on attack rolls.
Two rolls at -5, one is likely to hit, +10 damage kills the enemy, make a bonus attack from the quasi-Cleave ability, kill another enemy, now they have Advantage on attack rolls against you, which does them little good, because guess what, THEY'RE DEAD!

[Ramshack]

I think this is one of the greatest parts of 5.0. Some threads ask why 2hander, some ask why dual wield some ask why 1 hander. There is no flat out best option. Which is a testament to the balance of the game. Some people feel that 2 more ac is more important than the 2 more average damage etc. There are feats and class features that benefit different styles in different ways. A barbarian that can use his bonus action with a 2hander is great, or a ranger dual wielding with colossus slayer to make that second attack really shine, or a paladin with duelist and shield mastery.

There all good, they all do compareable damage and some will prefer the subtle differences of the others.

[SliceandDiceKid]

The -5/+10 is supposed to combo with the Berserker class feature that gives advantage on attack rolls.
Two rolls at -5, one is likely to hit, +10 damage kills the enemy, make a bonus attack from the quasi-Cleave ability, kill another enemy, now they have Advantage on attack rolls against you, which does them little good, because guess what, THEY'RE DEAD!

Or the potential others clobber you the following round. Your optimal condition fails to justify the recklessness.

And yes, for RP/style, I'd go 2h. I'd just consider myself much more vulnerable, I think.

[MustacheFart]

The -5/+10 is supposed to combo with the Berserker class feature that gives advantage on attack rolls.
Two rolls at -5, one is likely to hit, +10 damage kills the enemy, make a bonus attack from the quasi-Cleave ability, kill another enemy, now they have Advantage on attack rolls against you, which does them little good, because guess what, THEY'RE DEAD!

The advantage on attack rolls is a class feature of the Barbarian not the berserker path. It's learned at level 2 and it's called Reckless Attack.

[Sartharina]

Other than the Polearm master quarterstaff cheese mentioned above, two-handers also gain the benefit of reach. Except for the piddle d4 damage whip, all reach weapons are heavy two-handers. A reach weapon is no long penalized to hitting at it's max range like in 3.5. In other words, a Glaive in 5th ed can attack at 5 feet away as well as 10 feet away. This means you have the benefit of drawing more AoO's from enemies with little downside. Combo this with polearm master and you can become a nightmare to be around. Actually - polearm users that aren't masters draw significantly less OAs than non-reach users - they have a 10' bubble of safe maneuevering around them, instead of a 5' bubble.

[SliceandDiceKid]

I think this is one of the greatest parts of 5.0. Some threads ask why 2hander, some ask why dual wield some ask why 1 hander. There is no flat out best option. Which is a testament to the balance of the game. Some people feel that 2 more ac is more important than the 2 more average damage etc. There are feats and class features that benefit different styles in different ways. A barbarian that can use his bonus action with a 2hander is great, or a ranger dual wielding with colossus slayer to make that second attack really shine, or a paladin with duelist and shield mastery.

There all good, they all do compareable damage and some will prefer the subtle differences of the others.

Good input

[MustacheFart]

Actually - polearm users that aren't masters draw significantly less OAs than non-reach users - they have a 10' bubble of safe maneuevering around them, instead of a 5' bubble.

I thought of that but I wonder how much less they actually have. Sure, the enemy can move around within 10 feet of you now instead of 5 but you also reach to that 10. He goes beyond that there's the same AoO. If he's leaving your immediately vicinity it is either to run or do something he doesn't want to do while in melee with you, most likely. In such cases, you still prevent them due to threatening that range.

I guess what I'm getting at is thus far the majority of AoOs seem to be from fleeing enemies. A fleeing enemy isn't going to travel only 10 feet. He's going to provoke regardless.

So I agree with what you're saying but can you site an example of where that would be potentially bad or cause you to miss out on an AoO?

[Sartharina]

I thought of that but I wonder how much less they actually have. Sure, the enemy can move around within 10 feet of you now instead of 5 but you also reach to that 10. He goes beyond that there's the same AoO. If he's leaving your immediately vicinity it is either to run or do something he doesn't want to do while in melee with you, most likely. In such cases, you still prevent them due to threatening that range.

I guess what I'm getting at is thus far the majority of AoOs seem to be from fleeing enemies. A fleeing enemy isn't going to travel only 10 feet. He's going to provoke regardless.

So I agree with what you're saying but can you site an example of where that would be potentially bad or cause you to miss out on an AoO?
Instead of fleeing, he's going to attack a squishy party member 15' away from you, either behind or to a side. In fact, target-swapping would be the biggest cause of OAs in most games.

[MustacheFart]

Instead of fleeing, he's going to attack a squishy party member 15' away from you, either behind or to a side. In fact, target-swapping would be the biggest cause of OAs in most games.

Well the squishy could just take into account that you're using a polearm and spread out more as well. It's not unreasonable to expect your party to adjust to another player's combat style. Though to be fair, in some cases this wouldn't be possible such as cramped tunnels.

As to target-swapping being the biggest cause of OAs, do you have any stats to back that up? Also are we talking 3rd ed or 5th ed which hasn't been out that long. Because of the change in movement with 5th ed results may be different. I definitely can see it being significant but not sure if I want to say it's the biggest. At least in my experience it hasn't been, what with the average length of a combat encounter and all.

[edge2054]

Running seems like the biggest cause (not counting feats). I'd say target swapping is heavily discouraged by AoO. If I Disengage before I move then I've just lost that rounds damage.

Personally I don't see much point to reach weapons without Polearm Master. But I've only gotten a chance to play one session and have yet to see how they actually work in game.

[MustacheFart]

Running seems like the biggest cause (not counting feats). I'd say target swapping is heavily discouraged by AoO. If I Disengage before I move then I've just lost that rounds damage.

Personally I don't see much point to reach weapons without Polearm Master. But I've only gotten a chance to play one session and have yet to see how they actually work in game.

Well, I used one this past chapter 2 of HOTDQ. Worked quite well against a pursuing army of kobolds and cultists. Several tried to run at different points and several were killed by OAs from the halberd I stole from them.

[Snails]

Yes dealing more damage more quickly is desirable, but not when it compromises your survivability. And the philosophy that a fighter who can't deal a little more damage is worthless is faulted. If he can piss off enemies and withstand a monstrous beating, he provides invaluable defense for casters and less sturdy attackers.

"Compromises your survivability" is a very broad concept.

When you are fighting weakish things, which we expect to see more of in 5e, getting one shot kills has a lot of value, because simply removing enemies reduces attacks against you. Heavy 2Her weapons do this much more easily.

When fighting strong things, not having that shield is only costing you 15%-20% of your staying power. There are ways of keeping the upside while mitigating the downside, through reach, teamwork, etc.

FYI: As a player, I rather like "control" options. So I am not down on S&B; in fact, it looks more fun in 5e than any earlier edition. I see a lot of fun potential for teamwork, one high AC tank working together with a heavy weapon tank.

[BW022]

But other than that, I couldn't find anything while skimming the PHB in their favor besides the fighting style.

Am I missing something?

Few things...

1. Two-handed weapons do more damage per attack -- potential and overall. When you factor in critical hits, attacks of opportunity, times when you can't use TWF (i.e. no bonus action), etc. damage is often more than just a one or two more per hit. Damage can be as high as TWF without using a bonus action.

2. Higher per hit damage can be useful when facing creatures with damage reduction, immunities, heavy armor mastery, etc. Multiple small hits may not be as advantageous as one large hit.

3. All reach weapons in the game are two handed. Reach has a number of advantages including:
* You can move, attack, and move again without provoking attacks against creatures with reach.
* As above, when mounted.
* You can potentially reach more creatures with out moving.
* You control a larger area, making it easier to block larger areas. Useful in more open spaces.
* You can attack creatures who may not be able to reach you. Across a pit, stuck in a web spell, if you are flying, etc.
* It allows you to make shove attacks at 10'. You can push folks off those nearby or knock them prone, at distance.
* The polearm master feat allows multiple attacks with certain weapons and more importantly allows provoking attacks upon entering reach. This is one of the few abilities which allows an opportunity attacks, ensures first attacks, and greatly adds to blocking potential. Could be combined with say war caster allowing ranged spell reactions without any disadvantage.

4. Two-handed weapons allow you to more easily free both your hands and redraw your weapon. If you need both hands to climb, pick a lock, raise a portcullis, switch to a bow or crossbow, pull a character to safety, etc. it is easier with a two-handed weapon. You only get one free 'single interact with object' in a turn, so you can stow your greatsword, allowing you to save your action turn a large crank, grab a PC, start climbing the tree, etc. With a weapon and shield it is always an action to stow a shield. With TWF, it is an action to stow the second weapon (baring the dual wielder feat). Thus, you end up having to wait until the next turn to interact with something around you or use your action. You suffer the same issue when you need to switch back to your weapons (i.e. having to waste your action getting out the shield or second weapon).

For some rangers, archers, thrown weapon, etc. folks, a two-handed weapons might be a better backup weapon (assuming strength)... than wasting turns drawing a sword/shield or two weapons -- and switching back.

5. As above, if you have a versatile weapon, you can more easily transfer it to one hand in order to free up another hand for casting or other tasks where you need at least one hand free. Yet, you still have a weapon in order to provoke attacks against those moving through/around you. Likewise, you can easily switch back to two-hands for the extra damage when you no longer need both hands.

6. There maybe a roleplaying or psychological advantage in having heavy two-handed weapons in combat. Opponents may assume that you are more dangerous, avoid you, or treat you differently than they might otherwise. If a wizard carries a greatsword or pike, many intelligent opponents may not be keen on charging. They have to assume that since you are carrying a martial weapon... you are likely some type of martial type. This may keep you out of melee long enough to get a spell off.

Two-handed weapons can also have psychological effects when they score critical hits or otherwise do a lot of damage -- likely more so than other weapons. If you crit someone with a greatsword for 4d6+str near they beginning of combat and kill a bugbear outright... it can easily have the rest of the bugbears thinking twice about being in melee with you. A TWF or weapon/shield is less likely to have that same one hit drop.

7. Larger weapons (especially those with reach) may be useful in cases as non-combat tools. Thing such as casting a light spell on the end of a glaive or pike in order to see a bit further. Putting the weapon across a pit in order to secure a rope or work as a crude pulley; lifting a halfling onto a roof; baring a doorway; reaching keys for the cell door; poking a body it the bottom of a pit; cutting a trip wire 10' back, etc.

8. Many heavy weapons are carried during normal travel rather than stowed. A staff, glaive, or halberd may already be in your hands rather than a sword in its scabbard. In a few cases, this may mean it out sooner. Staff can typically mean you get opportunity attacks without having to get your weapon out.

9. There can be roleplaying reasons to have such weapons. You are from a country/area in which certain weapons are common. People are less likely to start a bar-bawl with a half-orc with a greataxe leaning against the wall. You just want to look bad-ass.

That said, there are obviously advantages to weapon/shield, or two weapon fighting also.

[odigity]

Few things...

It's been weeks and no one else has commented, so I just wanted to drop in and thank you for the fantastic write-up on 2HW benefits. Lots of great stuff in there.