Two handed weapons... *spoliers*

[Spatula]

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.

It's called the bastard sword. Used 2H, it does 1d10+1 damage.

But yeah, what Saffron said. If you just want to deal more damage, use a 2d6 weapon. If you want to optimize power attack, use a sword. If you want reach, use a polearm.

 

[vladbat]

A Warlord using any weapon with reach seems great to me as many of his powers are you and adjacent allies.

 

[Ferrous]

I think that the Bastard sword argument is flawed because if you spend a feat on weapon focus with a sword you will get the same damage bonus or better. However this does not stop Greatswords smelling of wee. If you compare a Greatsword with a Greataxe you get lower average damage and much lower damage on critical (higher damage dice + high critical) at the cost of +1 to hit. If you wanted a higher crit with a Greatsword it would cost a feat and yet still deal less damage than a Greataxe on a critical!

To be frank one-handed weapons are even better, as a defender you want to be attacked by as many of your opponents as are not being "controlled " as possible, so the monsters are not hitting your "strikers", so in effect you gain the effect of your shield from 1 or more attackers i.e +2 against each attack as opposed to a single +1 to hit or damage. This effect is further compounded as often you will be attacked by minions, meaning your bonus damage has literally no effect at all but you will still take about 10% less damage.

I hope they can errata the major flaw with Greatswords just being "bad" . I was considering saying that you only get heavy shield proficiency with one-handed build but with a Two-handed weapon build you automatically gain power attack. This would help balance the options in my opinion as you are not paying for two virtual feats that you do not use (or at least very often) with a two-handed build and gain something in return.

 

[Hjorimir]

While the greataxe certainly puts out more damage than the greatsword, the greatsword lends itself more to hitting a lot of targets in a single round (as far as the fighter is concerned).

Given 4e's stance on swarms of monsters, it is something to consider.

Also, you can't use the Swordmaster exploits with anything but a light or heavey blade (excluding polearms).

 

[Ferrous]

True, however in such a case Longsword and shield is still a better option. Same bonus to hit, about 10% less damage taken. And you can also use the Swordmaster expolits

If you are using a Two-handed weapon it is because you want to deal a lot of damage, and the Greatsword fails even at that.

 

[frankthedm]

Yes, the greatsword is now a nitch weapon. If you need a sword for your powers, need a two handed weapon for your powers and / or don't have a feat for the bastard sword, it is just the ticket. Otherwise it is the 2E greatsword all over again.

Personally I might allow a great sword wielder to trade off 2 points of the weapons '+3' Hit Bonus to make a basic attack with an extra 5' of reach.

 

[Stalker0]

True, however in such a case Longsword and shield is still a better option. Same bonus to hit, about 10% less damage taken. And you can also use the Swordmaster expolits

Just a reminder that the warlord only gets light shield proficiency, and the cleric gets no shield prof. So when thinking about shields, a heavy shield is a perk of fighters and paladins. A warlord might seriously think about a greatsword vs only a +1 to AC and ref.

 

[Mirtek]

It's called the bastard sword. Used 2H, it does 1d10+1 damage.

Which doesn't do anything for the damage/defence ratio because it doesn't scale with powers. It's a static +1 no matter whether you are doing 1[W] or 5[W] if it would scale to +5 for 5[W] powers it would do this job, but it doesn't

I think that the Bastard sword argument is flawed because if you spend a feat on weapon focus with a sword you will get the same damage bonus or better.

However this only works if there are so many "must have feats" that the one feat for proficiency will cost you the opportunity to take annother good feat. If you have more than enough feat slots for all the "must haves" and take a few medicore feats anyway (because you still have feat slots after you have all the good feats), then it doesn't hurt at all

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

However the +1 can easily mean that in the end the BS user get's more damage because of the one attack the maul user missed more than him.

That's why I was only comparing the sword with the same +3 to hit. If we start to compare them against axes and hammers we have to factor the -1 to hit

 

[Zsig]

For some reason i had the impression that when you use a weapon in two hands (regardless of it being Versatile or not) you'd get a +1 to damage.

It feels right considering we don't get our 1.5x Str mod anymore.

But after seeing this thread I went to the book and figured there's no such thing.

Anyway, I think that the Versatile feature is kinda overpowered, in the hands of a smart player (one that knows when to grab the shield and when to go full damage) it stands out.

Also, remember that you can't use a 2-handed in one hand.

 

[Mirtek]

Anyway, I think that the Versatile feature is kinda overpowered, in the hands of a smart player (one that knows when to grab the shield and when to go full damage) it stands out.

I don't think so, because it's a static value that never increases. So while the +1 might be noticeable if you're attacking for 1[w]+5 it will quickly be indistinguishable if your hitting for 3[W]+11