Should the Greatsword be d12?

[Anthony Jackson]

Remember, I am assuming a melee basic attack with a +4 modifier to damage for a heroic tier character.

+4 is low. A level 1 character probably has +4 (18 stat); a level 10 character probably has +8 (20 stat, +2 weapon, +1 feat), a level 11 +9 (21 stat, +2 weapon, +2 feat), a level 20 +12 (23 stat, +4 weapon, +2 feat), a level 21 +14 (24 stat, +4 weapon, +3 feat), a level 30 +17 (26 stat, +6 weapon, +3 feat) so I recommend using +6, +11, and +15.

 

[Kzach]

Maybe in the PHB2? Why does it matter? Are you trying to make a claim that a defender doesn't want to hit?

No, just making a point about something you insisted made a big difference in the calculations, ie. extra damage dice.

No striker would want to wield a greatsword so I don't see how it factors into the equation. And if in the future, say the barbarian is a striker, then the barbarian's powers could easily work with the greatsword as a d12, not the other way around.

In other words, your point was moot.

 

[Kzach]

Good stuff, Erik. It's particularly noteworthy that the d12 greatsword is not only better at damage than the greataxe and maul, but its bonus to hit _also_ makes it superior for all of these other instances. That's a surefire sign that it's a bad idea.

Edited for my emphasis:

The greataxe seemed to perform the best overall.


I modified the chart so the greatsword used 1d12 for damage. It would appear that the greatsword is just a bit weaker than the axe in terms of damage output.

With certain powers, a high #[W] damage makes the +1 to hit on a greatsword more appealing, but it also makes the higher [W] of the greataxe appealing.

The greataxe is definitley a higher damage weapon than the greatsword.

Even in attacks that deal [7]W I am sure you will find that the higher damage die of the axe (multiplied by 7) makes up for the swords +1 to hit. It seems that the axe fighter is best to take high [W] powers and the sword fighter should take powers that have a special effect on a hit (cleave, crack the shell, etc).

Again... you seem to be seeing only what you want to see, not what is actually written. And when it does conflict with your view, you claim that all the data is wrong.

 

[redrover]

This looks like an interesting thread and all, but I have been rather wondering why you haven't been basing the analysis on average damage per round.

That is, instead of dealing with raw average weapon damage per hit, just take that number and multiply it by the hit chance per round against a defined value (say 15 for Heroic Tier). You could stop there or figure in an appropriate attribute (maybe 16 at 1st, and boosted 1 at each opportunity).

Further, you can find the effect of different levels by just running the "per round" averages at, say 5th, 15th, and 25th levels. Seems to me an average damage per round number could be scaled more easily than what you’re using.

It would not only give a discrete value for a weapon in comparison to others, but all the confusion over the effect of attack bonuses and the exact bonus of critical hit damage would disappear because these would all factor into the average per round damage figure.

You would have to be careful about defining the parameters: weapon, target AC, level, attribute; and note that significant increments will look extremely small, but using an average damage per round figure may allow much more analysis flexibility without having to muck with permutations and such...

For example, you can compare different class, weapon, and attribute builds. (Like what level does a ranger with a bastard sword have to be to match a 5th-level paladin with a dagger in melee. Just set the base parameters, use the per round to erode each subject's hit points, and see who drops first.)

Just thought this might be a little easier for the math-challenged than what you're using now.

 

[DLichen]

I haven't checked the spreadsheet math everybody else did yet but according to my own conclusions:

If your damage bonus is less than 10-12 (pre epic), the greataxe is a superior choice for damage output

-Why 10-12? At around 10, the DPR is around a decimal point off between the two with the axe still ahead, by 12, the greatsword is dealing around equal damage if the greatsword hits on a 10 and a greataxe hits on a 12 (may vary depending on magic weapon you are using, approximate numbers)

At any point where you can get hammer rhythm and can use it well, the maul is the best choice, the damage on a miss is just too good (ie paragon, when +10 to damage becomes viable)

Once you hit epic, the greataxe catches up slightly, especially if you factor in vorpal, but is still the inferior choice

Conclusions: Hammer rhythm is NUTS good, and so is scimitar dance

Greatsword isn't blown out of the water by any means, it's just not very special, especially for a two-hander, you would almost always use a bastard sword if you could instead, and if you have the dex to really make yourself good with swords (for improved crit) - scimitars would usually be even better than the other options

The only two handed sword worth using from a char op standpoint would be the falchion after you get gauntlets of destruction

But I think the key point here is:

Any time you would want to use a greatsword, a bastard sword does it better for a feat, and 4e characters have feats to blow usually. A greatsword (and by extension the longsword) really needs some omph so that players have a reason to use it (bar fluff) past heroic level because the bastard sword is just plain better.

However, if you note from hammer rhythm, a weapon's power comes largely from feat support. Paladins who have a hard time meeting the con req for hammer mastery would be much better served going axes or swords instead.

My favorite bandaid patch at the moment for greatsword lovers is to add a superior greatsword that does +3 2d6 - but I'm sure once the martial splat book comes out and more worthy feats are there to take, using a bastard sword is no longer such a no brainer.

 

[Anthony Jackson]

This looks like an interesting thread and all, but I have been rather wondering why you haven't been basing the analysis on average damage per round.

Perhaps you haven't been reading the analyses? I assure you, I'm not doing damage per hit (I'm actually doing damage per 20 attacks).

 

[FoxWander]

This looks like an interesting thread and all, but I have been rather wondering why you haven't been basing the analysis on average damage per round.

That is, instead of dealing with raw average weapon damage per hit, just take that number and multiply it by the hit chance per round against a defined value (say 15 for Heroic Tier). You could stop there or figure in an appropriate attribute (maybe 16 at 1st, and boosted 1 at each opportunity).

Etc...

Actually, this is exactly what my spreadsheet shows- damage adjusted for chance to hit a given AC. I take the average of that value over the range of ACs from 10 to 20, but it still shows the adjusted damage against each AC. That's why I think my 'true value' calculation works so well. It factors in the proficiency bonus, high-crit and using a versatile weapon 2-handed. By inputting different bonuses to hit and damage you can really see how the rankings change.

Maybe I'll add a macro button to make resorting the list even easier than using the filter arrows. That way you could change the bonus hit and damage values and get an easy re-assessment of how the true value changed. And I could easily add columns to show 2(W) and 3(W) values as well. But I've got to go to work now- maybe I'll monkey around with it over my lunch break again. Your tax dollars at work! (I'm military)

 

[deleteme123456]

Perhaps you haven't been reading the analyses? I assure you, I'm not doing damage per hit (I'm actually doing damage per 20 attacks).

Yeah, what he said, we're all doing damage per round. The ones I've looked at all took chance to hit * average damage at some point, whether expressed as such or calculated by "damage if I roll a 1, damage if I roll a 2..."

To other topics, it's true that no melee striker wants a greatsword. In fact, unless you're keterys, no one wants a greatsword.

To answer the claim that average damage is unfairly emphasized, I used my spreadsheet and changed the average damage modifier to only 0.5%. To simulate the importance of hitting, I imposed a -1 damage penalty on misses across the board (lowering the miss damage for a fighter's cleave, setting -1 for the rest).

The only noticable effect this has is that is completely defies logic when looking at the results. You find rangers now want to use daggers, probably because of the throw range. Cleaving fighters want to use Greataxes or Halberds or Longspears (this is reasonable). Nonstrikers want to use the Handaxe or Throwing Hammer. If the value for being throwable is halved, then the Nonstrikers become just like Cleaving fighters, while the Rangers want to use the Spiked Chain. If the penalty for being military is removed because let's face it, only STR-based Clerics have any complaint about that, then EVERYONE except rogues want GA, Halberd, Longspear.

If I crank the "miss penalty" up to 50% of the average damage the only difference is that Lethal Hunters gain a slight edge by using Spiked Chains, which in turn only narrowly beat Bastard Swords (1H) and Short Swords (tied) which beat the other triumverate by an even lesser margin.

It's true that weapons don't exist in a vacuum, and it's possible that a greatsword really is more useful because of that +hit, but in a world where the bastard sword exists and feats are cheap, it's pretty hard to claim the greatsword is worth anything.

 

[eloquentaction]

Yeah, what he said, we're all doing damage per round. The ones I've looked at all took chance to hit * average damage at some point, whether expressed as such or calculated by "damage if I roll a 1, damage if I roll a 2..."

To other topics, it's true that no melee striker wants a greatsword. In fact, unless you're keterys, no one wants a greatsword.

To answer the claim that average damage is unfairly emphasized, I used my spreadsheet and changed the average damage modifier to only 0.5%. To simulate the importance of hitting, I imposed a -1 damage penalty on misses across the board (lowering the miss damage for a fighter's cleave, setting -1 for the rest).

The only noticable effect this has is that is completely defies logic when looking at the results. You find rangers now want to use daggers, probably because of the throw range. Cleaving fighters want to use Greataxes or Halberds or Longspears (this is reasonable). Nonstrikers want to use the Handaxe or Throwing Hammer. If the value for being throwable is halved, then the Nonstrikers become just like Cleaving fighters, while the Rangers want to use the Spiked Chain. If the penalty for being military is removed because let's face it, only STR-based Clerics have any complaint about that, then EVERYONE except rogues want GA, Halberd, Longspear.

If I crank the "miss penalty" up to 50% of the average damage the only difference is that Lethal Hunters gain a slight edge by using Spiked Chains, which in turn only narrowly beat Bastard Swords (1H) and Short Swords (tied) which beat the other triumverate by an even lesser margin.

It's true that weapons don't exist in a vacuum, and it's possible that a greatsword really is more useful because of that +hit, but in a world where the bastard sword exists and feats are cheap, it's pretty hard to claim the greatsword is worth anything.

I think this is right in line with the analysis I did last night.

Infocynic - Please post your latest sheet, I'd like to go over your numbers.

Also - what do you think about the boost I suggested to the Greatsword and to Superior weapons in general?

-- Hirahito

 

[keterys]

To other topics, it's true that no melee striker wants a greatsword. In fact, unless you're keterys, no one wants a greatsword.

Well, yeah, you want a bastard sword in general. But, if there was an upgraded form of the other weapons you'd want those, too. The presence of the bastard doesn't change anything about the balance of the greatsword, maul, and greataxe.

For those who want a greatsword at d12... you're outright saying you want the greatsword to be a better option than a greataxe or maul. Period. Why?