In my group's next campaign we plan on using some rules to make armor a viable option, as well as balance out a few weapon issues. One thing that kind of sticks out is how weapons that require 2 hands seem so inferior to taking 2 one handed weapons. It's hard to justify taking a halberd or flail when you could get an extra attack along with whatever abilities two hand-weapons come with.
One proposed solution is -1 to hit with the second, or off-hand, weapon. This brings up the issue of which weapon should be considered the "offhand" one. This seems like something that would cause disputes to me, so I'm wondering how you guys decide this if you use this rule yourselves.
We're not really fans of nerfing things either. Rather than make dual wielding worse we'd like to bring 2 handed weapons (or rather weapons that can't be used with another weapon) up to the same level, specifically halberds, spears, flails, and morningstars. For this I've been brainstorming some changes/additions to make these weapons more effective:
Spears: Cost reduced to 5 gc (Shields give +2 save in CC, so they're definitely viable, they just seem to cost a bit much for what they do)
Halberds: In addition to +1 str, the halberdier strikes first rather than simultaneously in CC if the initiatives are tied.
Flails/Morningstars: In addition to +1/+2 str for the 1st round of CC, if the opponent is hit, they suffer -1 WS (and/or -1 initiative?) for the rest of the turn do to the heavy impact throwing them off balance.
I'm interested to see what you all think about these. Thanks guys!