Two handed weapons... *spoliers*

[Spatula]

You don't get extra damage from 2H weapons, aside from the larger die.

Extra damage comes from attacks that do 2x or more weapon damage, which is to say, nearly every encounter and daily power, and every attack at the epic tier. Also as you note, PA gives you much more bang for your buck with using 2H weapons.

The space between base 1H and 2H damage is much less, but then you don't lose much by giving up a shield, either, unless you have a bunch of shield-related powers. Which you probably don't if you're focused on using 2H weapons.

 

[Peter LaCara]

Also, 2H weapons give you bigger crits, since they have a larger maximum damage than 1H weapons.

 

[Sashi]

Can anyone confirm that you get 1.5x str to damage with a 2H weapon? From what powers I see, they completely ignore basic attacks anyway (so 2W+str modifier is just your flat STR no matter if you've got a dagger or a greataxe).

I think this is okay, actually. Considering the tradeoff is always longsword +2 AC vs Greatsword and never changes.

Unless you get a Bastard Sword, which is one-handed superior to the longsword AND 2H superior to the Greatsword. Flavor-wise it doesn't quite make sense, but mechanically it does.

I wonder if the game would totally break if you put in the Zweihander as a 2H superior weapon (+3 2d6 damage)?

 

[Kurotowa]

I really doubt there's a 1.5x rule in there. It's exactly the sort of needless complexity that 4e is trying to avoid.

The general benefit with a 2H weapon seems to be the larger damage dice, which look to add up quickly with higher multiplier weapons. In specific there's also Power Attack and the Fighter at-will power Reaping Strike, both of which give more damage with a 2H weapon. And there may be a few more ones that trigger in the Fighter power list.

 

[Mirtek]

Use a 2H weapon if you want to deal the absolute highest damage you can, but if you don't, you're not gimping yourself in the damage department like you were with 3E

Use Sword & Board if you want to have the absolute highest AC you can, but if you don't, you're not gimping your AC like you were in 3E

These are good things.

The problem is that 2h weapon does NOT deal the absolute highest damage. Take a bastard sword and a shield and you deal the same damage as with the best 2H weapon and you have the shield.

Unless you get a Bastard Sword, which is one-handed superior to the longsword AND 2H superior to the Greatsword. Flavor-wise it doesn't quite make sense, but mechanically it does.

The main problem is that the bastard sword is not only 2h superior to the greatsword but that it's also 1h equal to the 2h great sword.

Bastard sword + shield has exact the same damage than 2h greatsword without shield.

The reaping strike benefit is negligible because the point of reaping strike is still to hit your opponent and not to miss. The miss damage is just a consolation which you do not want if you roll your attack roll (it's nice to have if the roll fails, but you truly wanted the roll to hit)

Then theres the power attack thing, but it's not much either. The diff. between 1h and 2h is only 1-3 points which are not multiplied with powers. So a 1[W] power has the same 3 point diff than a 6[W] power (also I personally dislike PA, never used it in 3.x, I always wanted my to hit as high as possible)

but then you don't lose much by giving up a shield, either,

Given all this "every +1 matters in 4e" talk I find it hard to believe that suddenly two +2 don't matter at all.

 

[jasin]

The problem is that 2h weapon does NOT deal the absolute highest damage. Take a bastard sword and a shield and you deal the same damage as with the best 2H weapon and you have the shield.

At the cost of a feat.

(also I personally dislike PA, never used it in 3.x, I always wanted my to hit as high as possible)

This makes your credibility on the subject of damage optimization somewhat dubious.

 

[Mirtek]

At the cost of a feat.

Which is not worth as much in 4e (when you get 16 feats before any bonus feats are counted in) as in 3e (when you get only 7 feats before any bonus feats counted in).

Also there is no single feat a 2h fighter can take to get the same AC/Ref as a 1h+shield fighter while the 1h+shield fighter can take a single feat to get the same damage than the 2h fighter.

IMO what is missing is a superior 2h weapon to restore the 1h+shield vs. 2h damage/defence ration back to the strictly military level.

If you only look at the military weapons the longsword+shield deals less damage than the greatsword while having more defence. That's the expected trade off which makes both options worthwhile.

One the superio bastard sword enters the fray the 2h handed option is completly redundant. Here there should be some superior 2h weapon to keep it at the same level than before.

So the 1h guy can be happy that he's now doing as much damage as the military 2h guy was but still has his defence and the 2h guy can be happy that he's still doing more damage than the superior 1h guy and that this is good enough to justify his weaker defences.

Either that or more of the multiple [W] powers should be made 2h only.

I have to agree with the people predicting that Martial Power will offer a solution (I wonder whether through introducing new superior 2h weapons or through special 2h power)

 

[Lord Sessadore]

Don't forget that there are more weapons than just the swords A greataxe outstrips a 1h-wielded bastard sword, as does the maul and the heavy flail. True, they have +2 prof instead of +3, but if you're after damage that's probably where you should go instead of the greatsword.

I do agree that the bastard sword/greatsword comparison is a little wierd, but I think it works just fine if you think about it. It'll buff out

 

[Grazzt]

I really doubt there's a 1.5x rule in there. It's exactly the sort of needless complexity that 4e is trying to avoid.

The general benefit with a 2H weapon seems to be the larger damage dice, which look to add up quickly with higher multiplier weapons. In specific there's also Power Attack and the Fighter at-will power Reaping Strike, both of which give more damage with a 2H weapon. And there may be a few more ones that trigger in the Fighter power list.

This. I haven't seen anything in the books anywhere that mention the x 1.5 rule. Seems to be gone.

 

[SaffroN]

The Maul, Heavy flail and Great Axe all do more expected damage then the Bastard Sword.

I'm going to focus on the Maul

It does 2d6 with a +2 Prof. A Bastard sword does 1d10 with a +3 and requires a feat to use.

If your using both weapons two handed:
Bastard Sword gains a +1 Versatile bonus

Expected Damage on a [W] attack (no modifier)
Maul 7
Bastard Sword 5.5 + 1 = 6.5

Expected Damage on a 3[W] attack (no modifier)
Maul 7*3 = 21
Bastard Sword 5.5*3 + 1 = 17.5

Expected Damage on a 6[W] attack (no modifier)
Maul 7*6 = 42
Bastard Sword 5.5*6 + 1 = 34

I've heard the 'Feats aren't worth much in 4e' argument before. There is no denying that this is somewhat true. However, If your playing a Campaign that remains within the heroic tier, you will only have 6 feats to use by the end. This extra feat may be better used somewhere else. Maybe Toughness or Powerful Charge.

There are also additional things to consider such as weapon groups. A heavy blade fighter will requite some dexterity where as a hammer fighter will rely on constitution.

In a nut shell
The maul user does more damage and gets an additional feat. The Bastard Sword user gets a +1 to hit.