tldr version: 1.There's no 2handed sword that equals the staff of the ram And there are other nice staves as well 2.Blunt damage is the best damage. So staves > swords
Yes, clay golems can only be hit by enchanted blunt weapons
You are talking about 2 separate things. Is the "best" staff better than the "best" 2 handed sword or other weapon? I make no claim about that, I am not even playing BG2 at the moment and haven't in forever, I am dealing with BGEE right now.
The second point is the general question are staffs better than 2 handed swords in general? To me that means assuming 2 essentially equal weapons (ie non magical vs non magical, +1 vs +1, etc). That is what I am talking about. I hear you that blunt damage is the best damage but not when it is often significantly less than other damage, so I don't agree that staffs are better than swords. The better damage vs normal sized monsters and the much better damage vs large sized monsters combined with a good chance of critical (both the have same chance for critical but since you do more damage it does even more doubled) make the 2handed sword better, not factoring in price.
tldr version: 1.There's no 2handed sword that equals the staff of the ram And there are other nice staves as well 2.Blunt damage is the best damage. So staves > swords
Yes, clay golems can only be hit by enchanted blunt weapons
You are talking about 2 separate things. Is the "best" staff better than the "best" 2 handed sword or other weapon? I make no claim about that, I am not even playing BG2 at the moment and haven't in forever, I am dealing with BGEE right now.
The second point is the general question are staffs better than 2 handed swords in general? To me that means assuming 2 essentially equal weapons (ie non magical vs non magical, +1 vs +1, etc). That is what I am talking about. I hear you that blunt damage is the best damage but not when it is often significantly less than other damage, so I don't agree that staffs are better than swords. The better damage vs normal sized monsters and the much better damage vs large sized monsters combined with a good chance of critical (both the have same chance for critical but since you do more damage it does even more doubled) make the 2handed sword better, not factoring in price.
What is your source for this extra damage vs. large-sized monsters? This is the first I've heard of it.
To all regarding the damage vs larger monsters, it is for sure implemented in BGEE. In the black Pits there is a round where you attack just ogres so it is pretty easy to test if you don't believe, just go an attack the ogres and watch your damage. I had a 2 handed sword equipped and have a max of +8 damage once everything is factored in, so I should be able to do no more than 18 hp of damage per swing. In one fight I got a hit for 19, 20, 22, and 26 hp (26 should be the max - you fight like 10 ogres so you can get a lot of information).
From memory (20 years ago playing as a teen) here is how damage goes against larger creatures, I'll try to outline it more clearly later.
2handed - 3d6 bastard - 2d8 battle axe - 1d12? long sword - 1d12? short sword - 1d8
This is one reason why the bastard sword is significantly more expensive than the long sword.
I forget what arrows and other stuff did, one or two things went down actually (ie a dagger is so small to a dragon it doesn't even do 1d4).
Also in BG2, or at least the later stages, the problem is with bows in general is finding magic ammo with a high enough +x to damage enemies immune to, say, +2 weapons. This is why the Gesen shortbow is one of the best ranged weapons in BG2, as it counts as a +4 weapon (unlimited ammo).
Actually, not if you go to the Hold. There you can find +3 (I think. I KNOW +2) infinite quivers for both bows and Xbows. they are not an issue. Granted, if you go there early you might find a grave as well. :-(
tldr version: 1.There's no 2handed sword that equals the staff of the ram And there are other nice staves as well 2.Blunt damage is the best damage. So staves > swords
Yes, clay golems can only be hit by enchanted blunt weapons
You are talking about 2 separate things. Is the "best" staff better than the "best" 2 handed sword or other weapon? I make no claim about that, I am not even playing BG2 at the moment and haven't in forever, I am dealing with BGEE right now.
The second point is the general question are staffs better than 2 handed swords in general? To me that means assuming 2 essentially equal weapons (ie non magical vs non magical, +1 vs +1, etc). That is what I am talking about. I hear you that blunt damage is the best damage but not when it is often significantly less than other damage, so I don't agree that staffs are better than swords. The better damage vs normal sized monsters and the much better damage vs large sized monsters combined with a good chance of critical (both the have same chance for critical but since you do more damage it does even more doubled) make the 2handed sword better, not factoring in price.
What is your source for this extra damage vs. large-sized monsters? This is the first I've heard of it.
The joy of being a teen with free time and memorizing all of the 2nd edition handbooks etc when they came out oh so many years ago. I know for 100% sure in PnP this is the way it was, there is a chart out there with it labeled, I just need to find it. I am very confident it is implemented in the game because of my above experiences (and it should be, it makes sense) but it is not then something else is broken giving inaccurate damages. I also fought the same group of ogres with a staff and the best damage I got (not including critical, which the above where not obviously) was 18 I believe, possibly 20 if staffs do 1d12..
That has listings for weapon damages for small/large targets. If nobody else tests, I can maybe run some tests when I get home. I HIGHLY recommend using the Kensai "Kai" ability, or the Blade's "Offensive Spin" ability. Find a fight with both a large creature and a small creature, and hit both with the same character (with some form of max damage skill active). Compare your damage to see if there's a difference.
That has listings for weapon damages for small/large targets. If nobody else tests, I can maybe run some tests when I get home. I HIGHLY recommend using the Kensai "Kai" ability, or the Blade's "Offensive Spin" ability. Find a fight with both a large creature and a small creature, and hit both with the same character (with some form of max damage skill active). Compare your damage to see if there's a difference.
If you could test things out in BGEE, I'd be very interested to know the results, thanks.
it doesn't exist in either iwd/2/bg/1/2/PST...you 'll hit a gobo with the same amount as you would hit a dragon. You are free to 'testing' it by yourself....
[and it also depends on the wielder of the weapon ^^]
edit: If you want rule-existance in a game, the best bet is still ToEE with Co8 installed
There's no difference to damage based on size in BG, TotSC, BG2, ToB or BGEE Or any infinity engine game for that matter As far as I know, the earliest video game representation of what you're talking about is NWN 2 (not sure about 1) So there goes that part of your argument
Now for damage. The fact of the matter is that if you can't hit, it doesn't matter how much damage you do. Slashing damage has to deal with higher AC than Blunt damage. Not to mention there are many more enemies that are resistant or flat-out immune to slashing than to blunt. All of that dwarfs the minor base damage advantage of 2h swords and sets the staves head and shoulders above And that's before even factoring in the fact that there are more good staves than there are good 2h swords. Or the staff of the ram
Do we have any ideas what might have accounted for the numbers @npititim is reporting (non-critical 19,20,22,26)? Npititim, can you screencap the sorts of hits you reported?
@Rhyme - well the good news is that you forced me to learn how to capture a screen in BG which I didn't previously know how to do.
I am not sure if I can attach 3 pics in one post so I will post first the screen capture, this is of the guy doing 20 dam not critical and I don't believe that is doable given the current stats. He is a beserker but I didn't enrage him for this fight or haste him which I think might add damage as well. You can also see the quarter staff doing 15 damage which seems to high to me if the base is 1d6?
If I have to guess, I'd say he didn't account either for strength or proficiency bonus to damage
edit:
Numbers are in Grandmastery = +5 bonus to damage 19 half-orc strength = + 7 bonus to damage
This accounts for maximum of 22 damage for a guy wielding an unenchanted 2handed sword Throw in an enchantment and the berserker +2 bonus to damage and voila
I just ran a test of a variety of weapons with no modifiers and didn't see the size the factor being included so I believe I was incorrect in stating that it was part of the game.
The damage bonuses I had were + 5 str (human 18/90ish), + 4 for mastery, + 1 for 2 weapon style and then sometimes I would use berserkers (+2) so it is a total of +10 dam which could explain the 20 I posted. I feel like I have seen some exceptions to that with both the staff and sword but I will look more carefully and see what comes up.
I just ran a test of a variety of weapons with no modifiers and didn't see the size the factor being included so I believe I was incorrect in stating that it was part of the game.
The damage bonuses I had were + 5 str (human 18/90ish), + 4 for mastery, + 1 for 2 weapon style and then sometimes I would use berserkers (+2) so it is a total of +10 dam which could explain the 20 I posted. I feel like I have seen some exceptions to that with both the staff and sword but I will look more carefully and see what comes up.
I'm 80% sure I've seen damage indicating the "vs larger" damage was implemented. I will assume it was unless someone knows of documentation indicating otherwise. I've seen too many non-critical hits in the 20 range to think those were all d10 results.
I just ran a test of a variety of weapons with no modifiers and didn't see the size the factor being included so I believe I was incorrect in stating that it was part of the game.
The damage bonuses I had were + 5 str (human 18/90ish), + 4 for mastery, + 1 for 2 weapon style and then sometimes I would use berserkers (+2) so it is a total of +10 dam which could explain the 20 I posted. I feel like I have seen some exceptions to that with both the staff and sword but I will look more carefully and see what comes up.
I'm 80% sure I've seen damage indicating the "vs larger" damage was implemented. I will assume it was unless someone knows of documentation indicating otherwise. I've seen too many non-critical hits in the 20 range to think those were all d10 results.
Ok first off..you have it backwards....a smaller character takes MORE damage from a larger weapon while a large character takes less. You try stabbing an ogre with a 2hded sword, it's only going to deal bastard sword damage..you try stabbing a giant with a 2hded sword it should only deal longsword or even shortsword damage, depending on which giant you stabbed (Longsword for a Hill or ettin, shortsword for a frost, stone, fire, cloud or dagger damage vs a storm giant) damage, because the weapon size relative to the target is a several classes lower.
3d6 is the damage for a 2hded Sword sized for a giant, not the damage vs a giant. The chart you referenced is weapons of different sizes, which BG doesn't enforce. Otherwise much like in 3rd edition, a halfling wielding a Longsword would treat it like a 2hded Sword. Similiarly, ogres and giants will often use weapons fit for their size (the average ogre-sized club is 2d8), or use more common weapons as if they were something smaller.
It is not about giant sized weapons, just normal weapons against giant targets. In PnP most swords do more damage to giant sized enemies. This is to compensate and give fighters an edge against giant enemies and dragons who have tons of hit points and they would be expected to go toe to with a fighter.
Some weapons do less damage to giant sized enemies, a mage will do very little damage to a giant with his puny dagger. He is much better casting a lucky disintegrate spell.
Also spears do double damage when set against a charging enemy etc.
Point is none of these rules are implemented in BG:EE as far as I know.
Except that the text directly contradicts what you're saying. It's in the 2nd edition handbook, in the section 9,the chapter for combat. Weapon damages listed are relative to use against a human sized creatures. Larger creatures will take comparatively less damage, while smaller creatures will take more. In example, striking a hill giant with a longsword will do as much damage as if striking a human with a short sword, due to the creature's larger size relative to the weapon. Conversely, striking a Brownie, a tiny fey, with a dagger would deal damage as if striking a human with a longsword.
The only reference at all to a large creature taking additional damage, is with a lance or spear during a charge (or defending against a charge), which is in addition to the double damage a charge already deals.
AH..I found what you're talking about. It's an optional rule in the DM guide. The default system can make it difficult for warrior classes who rely heavily on their weapons to fight against larger enemies such as ogres, giants, and dragons if not properly prepared. Therefore, at your option, you can allow select large weapons to deal additional damage to larger creatures.
I just ran a test of a variety of weapons with no modifiers and didn't see the size the factor being included so I believe I was incorrect in stating that it was part of the game.
The damage bonuses I had were + 5 str (human 18/90ish), + 4 for mastery, + 1 for 2 weapon style and then sometimes I would use berserkers (+2) so it is a total of +10 dam which could explain the 20 I posted. I feel like I have seen some exceptions to that with both the staff and sword but I will look more carefully and see what comes up.
I'm 80% sure I've seen damage indicating the "vs larger" damage was implemented. I will assume it was unless someone knows of documentation indicating otherwise. I've seen too many non-critical hits in the 20 range to think those were all d10 results.
Well I just attacked an ogre while using kai and hit for 17 damage. Thats +5 from 18/95 strength, +2 from specialization, and 10 from the 2H sword.
Definately no additional damage based on enemy size going on there.
That doesn't really prove anything. Per 2E rules a 2-Handed Sword should do 1d10 damage against man-sized or smaller opponents; or 3d6 against larger. The only thing this example proves is that a 10 was rolled for damage. Which per PNP rules should happen far more often against larger opponents than it does against man sized. The sword's average damage is 5.5 against man-sized, or 10.5 against larger. That means, against larger it should do more than possible against normal opponents about half the time. Which seems to be about what I'm seeing. Minsc just tears apart the big guys! Of course with 2-handed weapon style specialization he's also scoring critically more often, so my perception may be wrong.
Is there any mention of additional damage to larger creatures/monsters in either the BG1 or BG2 manual? It was awhile ago when I last browsed through either but I don't recall either mentioning this concept. This seems like something important enough to warrant a little ink in a game manual.
@atcDave TJ_Hooker said the character used a kai, which would have automatically given a maxed out damage roll (giving a 10 from an assumed 1d10). The math adds up assuming that the kai function is working appropriately.
I did a test and don't think that large sized damage is included although I think it should be. I say that because I was using a 2 handed sword which should be 3d6 ie a minimum of 3 dam done and there were a few times I did 2 pts of dam which would obviously occur with 1d10. I also didn't do over 10 hp of dam any time I was testing it specifically.
The average damage between a quarterstaff and 2hd sword is only 2 in favor of the sword. So raw damage-wise, with no other factors considered, the sword is a little bit better....add in the attack speed difference (the staff is 3x faster on the swing), the difference in AC mods (slashing gets royally screwed, with piercing only slightly better) meaning the staff will hit more which does remain a concern till mid BG2, and the resistances which while not wide spread does mean that overall, quarterstaves are better then other 2hded weapons.
Not to mention that they have a few weapons that skew the results, such as the staff mace (1hd 2d4+2 blunt, considered a quarterstaff or a mace), The staff of striking (2hd 1d6+9, blunt) in BG1 or in the sequel, those same items plus the staff of the Ram 1d6+10 10% chance to knockback/stun, or 1d6+12+1d4 15% chance to knockback/stun.
Due to being bugged, the Chelsey Crusher Halberd is currently the strongest weapon in BG1 (narrowly beating the staff of striking by 1 point and not being charged based)...but once it's fixed a quarterstaff +3 would be superior, especially in the hands of a warrior who could get 3 or more attacks using haste (with only 2 attacks the quarterstaff is roughly equal in potential damage, though it would hit more often and be faster).
With exception to the Warblade and Carsomyr, all 2hd swords have a base 1d10, but never really have any other damage buffs, aside from raw enhancement. Some rare ones like the sword of Chaos deal an additional 1 damage that heals you..but that's about it. And of the 1d12 Swords, only Carsomyr has an extra damage bonus on top of enhancement, but only vs CE.
I hear you and appreciate the well laid out explanation. To me there are 2 debates which is: Is specific X magical weapon (staff of striking let's say) better than Y magical weapon? I don't have a dog in that fight.
The more general question is a standard version of X weapon, in this instance staffs, better than a standard version of another weapon, in this instance a 2 handed sword? To that question I do have an opinion and I feel the sword is superior. An extra 0-4 of damage, every attack, is quite significant - that is the difference between a dagger hitting you each time or not. Once you start to specialize critical hits become more common and then that damage becomes an extra 0-8 pts of damage, that is more than a second attack from a staff.
I know the staff gets better to hit THACO's against some armor which is nice but I have noticed no general difference in the number of hits that a sword or staff gets when actually keeping track things in game. The attack speed is definitely a nice bonus for the staff.
As I said I can appreciate that the staff does have some things going for it. However in running a scenario with 2 equal players except one has a staff and the other has a 2 handed sword, the 2 handed sword generally does better for me, both in terms of number of kills and also total damage per battle. For instance in a recent fight my staff did 208 total damage from 12 hits and my sword did 222 from 11 hits. That is just one example but that seems to be the trend. In the black pits you face a variety of enemies which I think gives you a sampling of armor and resistances etc. So far my sword guy has killed 53 enemies I believe and the staff has killed 45, something like that.
As a side note, if staffs are awesome, why are clubs then not better? I would think the option to dual wield or use a shield would put a club above a staff given the same damage and clubs are even faster if I recall correctly?
@atcDave TJ_Hooker said the character used a kai, which would have automatically given a maxed out damage roll (giving a 10 from an assumed 1d10). The math adds up assuming that the kai function is working appropriately.
Clubs actually ARE better in most cases...but they're a very under represented item type, that didn't get a lot of love in BG1, +1 is the best you get (well..in EE there's a new +2 one that deals +1d4 cold damage on hit...but I haven't found where you get it yet), though the Root of the Problem is one of the few items that can hurt greater wolfweres. In BG2, they're a little bit better..but still lacking..only a single club can hit higher then +3 and it has an annoying habit of blowing YOU up with a fireball at a time when most tough enemies are immune to fire....which depending on class and if you're soloing or not might be a worse deal, then just using the Staff of the Ram with GWW.
Technically speaking, the FoA+5 is the best overall weapon in the game. (Blunt, 1d6+6, +2 fire, +2 cold, +2 acid, +2 electric, +2 poison, free action, 33% on hit to slow the enemy for 4 rounds, no save, and nothing is immune (-4 thac0, -4 ac, reduced movement speed, attack speed set to 10)). Tears through any magical defense except PfMW, slows every other, and deals a A LOT of damage, even vs enemies with some resistances, who are rarely immune to more then 1 or two (have to be immune to at least 3 elements for the staff of the ram to potentially be better).
If you play a Beastmaster, Dual-Clubs will be your primary melee use for most of the saga, especially in BG2 with Gnasher (1d6+2, deals 2 damage per round for 3 rounds, on hit, no save) and Blackblood (1d6+3 + 3 Acid) Both of which can be gotten basically immediately out of the prelude.
In BG1, you just buy 2 clubs, and you're set. Just need a magical one, or a magic quarterstaff for the few enemies you need a minimum enhancement to hit.
I just noticed...the BG:EE Root of the Problem is actually weaker then the BG2 version..the BG2 version has +1 acid, in addition to everything else.
@Zanathkariashi As a side note, if staffs are awesome, why are clubs then not better? I would think the option to dual wield or use a shield would put a club above a staff given the same damage and clubs are even faster if I recall correctly?
1) The best club in BGEE is +2, whereas there is a +3 Quarterstaff and the totally awesome Staff of Striking, which is +3 THACO, but does +6 extra damage (i.e. 10-15 damage overall), though each strike uses a charge (great for backstabs, though!). In BG2 there are *much* better quarterstaves than clubs
2) With the two-handed weapon fighting style (which all staves but the staff mace use) with just the first point in this you get +2 damage, double critical hit chance (19-20) and -2 speed. the second point gives a further -2 speed.
Of course if using clubs there is the potential to dual-wield (though not all classes can out more than a point into this, which is pretty useless, as would still nerf the main hand) or to put points into single weapon fighting, which doubles the crit chance (19-20) and reduces AC by 1 (by 2 total on the second point), but *doesn't* increase damage.
I'm currently thinking about proficiencies for a planned Skald build, as they can't use "real" shields (only bucklers) and can only put on point in two-weapon fighting, I'm thinking of giving them proficiencies in halberds (especially for Chesley Crusher, Bards only get one attack anyway, unless hasted) and quarterstaves, though will probably go halberds (and crossbows) first, then two-handed style, then staves, as the good staves (and access to haste spells) only really come later in BGEE.
Comments
The second point is the general question are staffs better than 2 handed swords in general? To me that means assuming 2 essentially equal weapons (ie non magical vs non magical, +1 vs +1, etc). That is what I am talking about. I hear you that blunt damage is the best damage but not when it is often significantly less than other damage, so I don't agree that staffs are better than swords. The better damage vs normal sized monsters and the much better damage vs large sized monsters combined with a good chance of critical (both the have same chance for critical but since you do more damage it does even more doubled) make the 2handed sword better, not factoring in price.
From memory (20 years ago playing as a teen) here is how damage goes against larger creatures, I'll try to outline it more clearly later.
2handed - 3d6
bastard - 2d8
battle axe - 1d12?
long sword - 1d12?
short sword - 1d8
This is one reason why the bastard sword is significantly more expensive than the long sword.
I forget what arrows and other stuff did, one or two things went down actually (ie a dagger is so small to a dragon it doesn't even do 1d4).
That has listings for weapon damages for small/large targets. If nobody else tests, I can maybe run some tests when I get home. I HIGHLY recommend using the Kensai "Kai" ability, or the Blade's "Offensive Spin" ability. Find a fight with both a large creature and a small creature, and hit both with the same character (with some form of max damage skill active). Compare your damage to see if there's a difference.
[and it also depends on the wielder of the weapon ^^]
edit: If you want rule-existance in a game, the best bet is still ToEE with Co8 installed
There's no difference to damage based on size in BG, TotSC, BG2, ToB or BGEE
Or any infinity engine game for that matter
As far as I know, the earliest video game representation of what you're talking about is NWN 2 (not sure about 1)
So there goes that part of your argument
Now for damage. The fact of the matter is that if you can't hit, it doesn't matter how much damage you do. Slashing damage has to deal with higher AC than Blunt damage. Not to mention there are many more enemies that are resistant or flat-out immune to slashing than to blunt.
All of that dwarfs the minor base damage advantage of 2h swords and sets the staves head and shoulders above
And that's before even factoring in the fact that there are more good staves than there are good 2h swords. Or the staff of the ram
I am not sure if I can attach 3 pics in one post so I will post first the screen capture, this is of the guy doing 20 dam not critical and I don't believe that is doable given the current stats. He is a beserker but I didn't enrage him for this fight or haste him which I think might add damage as well. You can also see the quarter staff doing 15 damage which seems to high to me if the base is 1d6?
If I have to guess, I'd say he didn't account either for strength or proficiency bonus to damage
edit:
Numbers are in
Grandmastery = +5 bonus to damage
19 half-orc strength = + 7 bonus to damage
This accounts for maximum of 22 damage for a guy wielding an unenchanted 2handed sword
Throw in an enchantment and the berserker +2 bonus to damage and voila
The damage bonuses I had were + 5 str (human 18/90ish), + 4 for mastery, + 1 for 2 weapon style and then sometimes I would use berserkers (+2) so it is a total of +10 dam which could explain the 20 I posted. I feel like I have seen some exceptions to that with both the staff and sword but I will look more carefully and see what comes up.
3d6 is the damage for a 2hded Sword sized for a giant, not the damage vs a giant. The chart you referenced is weapons of different sizes, which BG doesn't enforce. Otherwise much like in 3rd edition, a halfling wielding a Longsword would treat it like a 2hded Sword. Similiarly, ogres and giants will often use weapons fit for their size (the average ogre-sized club is 2d8), or use more common weapons as if they were something smaller.
Some weapons do less damage to giant sized enemies, a mage will do very little damage to a giant with his puny dagger. He is much better casting a lucky disintegrate spell.
Also spears do double damage when set against a charging enemy etc.
Point is none of these rules are implemented in BG:EE as far as I know.
The only reference at all to a large creature taking additional damage, is with a lance or spear during a charge (or defending against a charge), which is in addition to the double damage a charge already deals.
AH..I found what you're talking about. It's an optional rule in the DM guide. The default system can make it difficult for warrior classes who rely heavily on their weapons to fight against larger enemies such as ogres, giants, and dragons if not properly prepared. Therefore, at your option, you can allow select large weapons to deal additional damage to larger creatures.
@Silchas Thanks for the quick answer!
@atcDave TJ_Hooker said the character used a kai, which would have automatically given a maxed out damage roll (giving a 10 from an assumed 1d10). The math adds up assuming that the kai function is working appropriately.
The average damage between a quarterstaff and 2hd sword is only 2 in favor of the sword. So raw damage-wise, with no other factors considered, the sword is a little bit better....add in the attack speed difference (the staff is 3x faster on the swing), the difference in AC mods (slashing gets royally screwed, with piercing only slightly better) meaning the staff will hit more which does remain a concern till mid BG2, and the resistances which while not wide spread does mean that overall, quarterstaves are better then other 2hded weapons.
Not to mention that they have a few weapons that skew the results, such as the staff mace (1hd 2d4+2 blunt, considered a quarterstaff or a mace), The staff of striking (2hd 1d6+9, blunt) in BG1 or in the sequel, those same items plus the staff of the Ram 1d6+10 10% chance to knockback/stun, or 1d6+12+1d4 15% chance to knockback/stun.
Due to being bugged, the Chelsey Crusher Halberd is currently the strongest weapon in BG1 (narrowly beating the staff of striking by 1 point and not being charged based)...but once it's fixed a quarterstaff +3 would be superior, especially in the hands of a warrior who could get 3 or more attacks using haste (with only 2 attacks the quarterstaff is roughly equal in potential damage, though it would hit more often and be faster).
With exception to the Warblade and Carsomyr, all 2hd swords have a base 1d10, but never really have any other damage buffs, aside from raw enhancement. Some rare ones like the sword of Chaos deal an additional 1 damage that heals you..but that's about it. And of the 1d12 Swords, only Carsomyr has an extra damage bonus on top of enhancement, but only vs CE.
I hear you and appreciate the well laid out explanation. To me there are 2 debates which is: Is specific X magical weapon (staff of striking let's say) better than Y magical weapon? I don't have a dog in that fight.
The more general question is a standard version of X weapon, in this instance staffs, better than a standard version of another weapon, in this instance a 2 handed sword? To that question I do have an opinion and I feel the sword is superior. An extra 0-4 of damage, every attack, is quite significant - that is the difference between a dagger hitting you each time or not. Once you start to specialize critical hits become more common and then that damage becomes an extra 0-8 pts of damage, that is more than a second attack from a staff.
I know the staff gets better to hit THACO's against some armor which is nice but I have noticed no general difference in the number of hits that a sword or staff gets when actually keeping track things in game. The attack speed is definitely a nice bonus for the staff.
As I said I can appreciate that the staff does have some things going for it. However in running a scenario with 2 equal players except one has a staff and the other has a 2 handed sword, the 2 handed sword generally does better for me, both in terms of number of kills and also total damage per battle. For instance in a recent fight my staff did 208 total damage from 12 hits and my sword did 222 from 11 hits. That is just one example but that seems to be the trend. In the black pits you face a variety of enemies which I think gives you a sampling of armor and resistances etc. So far my sword guy has killed 53 enemies I believe and the staff has killed 45, something like that.
As a side note, if staffs are awesome, why are clubs then not better? I would think the option to dual wield or use a shield would put a club above a staff given the same damage and clubs are even faster if I recall correctly?
Technically speaking, the FoA+5 is the best overall weapon in the game. (Blunt, 1d6+6, +2 fire, +2 cold, +2 acid, +2 electric, +2 poison, free action, 33% on hit to slow the enemy for 4 rounds, no save, and nothing is immune (-4 thac0, -4 ac, reduced movement speed, attack speed set to 10)). Tears through any magical defense except PfMW, slows every other, and deals a A LOT of damage, even vs enemies with some resistances, who are rarely immune to more then 1 or two (have to be immune to at least 3 elements for the staff of the ram to potentially be better).
If you play a Beastmaster, Dual-Clubs will be your primary melee use for most of the saga, especially in BG2 with Gnasher (1d6+2, deals 2 damage per round for 3 rounds, on hit, no save) and Blackblood (1d6+3 + 3 Acid) Both of which can be gotten basically immediately out of the prelude.
In BG1, you just buy 2 clubs, and you're set. Just need a magical one, or a magic quarterstaff for the few enemies you need a minimum enhancement to hit.
I just noticed...the BG:EE Root of the Problem is actually weaker then the BG2 version..the BG2 version has +1 acid, in addition to everything else.
2) With the two-handed weapon fighting style (which all staves but the staff mace use) with just the first point in this you get +2 damage, double critical hit chance (19-20) and -2 speed. the second point gives a further -2 speed.
Of course if using clubs there is the potential to dual-wield (though not all classes can out more than a point into this, which is pretty useless, as would still nerf the main hand) or to put points into single weapon fighting, which doubles the crit chance (19-20) and reduces AC by 1 (by 2 total on the second point), but *doesn't* increase damage.
I'm currently thinking about proficiencies for a planned Skald build, as they can't use "real" shields (only bucklers) and can only put on point in two-weapon fighting, I'm thinking of giving them proficiencies in halberds (especially for Chesley Crusher, Bards only get one attack anyway, unless hasted) and quarterstaves, though will probably go halberds (and crossbows) first, then two-handed style, then staves, as the good staves (and access to haste spells) only really come later in BGEE.