A longsword does 1d8 damage and a two handed sword is only 1d10...thats 1 extra damage on average.

Meanwhile dual wielding 2x longswords gets you way more damage on average due to the extra attack. Strength bonuses apply to both weapons equally and with 3 points in two weapon style, you only get -2 THACO for the off hand weapon.

A level 8 fighter is going to have 3 attacks if dual wielding, vs 2 with a two handed weapon. Thats a huge difference in damage output.

Shields at least give you a significant AC bonus. Single weapon style seems pretty lame though...shields are simply better, and if you cant use a shield, then dual wielding is better...

As a group, yeah, two-handers are underpowered. However! Some of the best weapons in the game are two-handers. Lilicor, Ravager, Carsomyr, Vorpal Sword, Staff of the Ram.... These all have abilities that make up for the slower attack speed. In short, it's all about finding the right weapon.

Also remember that you need to spend two slots on two-weapon style just to get rid of the attack penalty with your main hand weapon. Those slots spent on two-handed style would give you actual bonuses.

I'd say that you only need to spend one point in two-handed to get your money's worth. The second point only adds a small increase to your speed factor (or, how soon the attacks come each round).

Not really, when you make a level 1 fighter, you get 4 proficiency points but am only allowed two points max in a single proficiency.

So for a melee dual wielder, you would have something like 2 points in long swords and 2 points in two weapon style.

Compare that to a two handed fighter with 2 points in two handed swords and 2 points in two handed style.

At level 8 the difference is 1 proficiency point...the two hander will max out two handed weapons slightly faster than the dual wielder will max out long swords, but the dual wielder's extra attack per round means he still does WAY more damage.

Another thing that I find confusng : Maces/flails. Why use these? If you are a cleric, you can use morning stars, which do 2d4 damage. Why settle for 1d6 unless you want to use a specific weapon like the flail of ages?

And warhammers....why do they do 1d4 damage? Thats awful.

In the case of the hammer it's speed.

Unenchanted Hammer: 1D4+1 (2-5), speed 4
Unenchanted Flail: 1D5+1 (2-6), speed 7
Unenchanted Mace 1D6+1 (2-7), speed 7
Unenchanted M/Star: 2D4 (2-8), speed 7

They all have minimum 2 damage and there's not much difference otherwise, except in the case of the hammer with it's much greater attack speed. Flail of Ages speed 4, Runehammer speed zero.

How good a weapon type is depends mainly on how good the magical weapons you can find are, the base properties don't matter.

Speed factor isnt a big deal from how its worded...you are still making the same number of attacks per round. A character with a morning star is still going to outdamage a character with a warhammer. Striking slightly faster in the round wont make any significant difference unless both combatants are at the point where they would die to the next hit.

Speed might matter when fighting against mages as a successful hit interrupts casting of spells.