Great weapon fighter is a "trap"? Forked Thread: I don't optimize.

#1

That makes the 1 handed option a lot better. Its still a better two handed build since the purpose of the OA is to punish and not to tickle and two handers can add a lot more damage onto their OAs than others can. But

Yeah but they are both heavy blades and two handed weapons. In your post it looked like you were saying the greatsword is the only twohanded weapon which can take these feats its great.

No, just saying there is nothing wrong with them. Greatswords are balanced weapons and they play just fine as any type of greatweapon fighter. Hammers have more synergy with the basic fighters only builds though and can do some interesting things if you give up a bit of damage with options like Combat Veteran.(con synergy for a dragonborn or dwarf = 2xCon added to healing surge value... a 16 base con dwarf/dragon in the Combat Vet paragon would have a healing surge value of 52 instead of 40 if pumping con)


The weapon that really loses out is picks and axes. There is one axe feat before axe mastery. Axe mastery takes the same skill as heavy blade mastery except with con isntead of dex(trade healing surges for reflex defense). The single axe feat makes the only one of the two handed axes a hit crit weapon... the other is already a high crit weapon.

All weapon abilities for fighters on their powers are universally worse for axes rather than hammers etc etc etc. Well basically everything that isn't a hammer or a blade suffers this problem.
 

log in or register to remove this ad

The problem with greatswords can be summarized in a two words: bastard swords.

One feat that gives nearly the same damage and +2 AC and +2 Ref. There's no single feat for the greatsword fighter that gives even nearly as good a benefit as spending one feat to go BS+Board

There's sure strike, but the issue quickly becomes how often you will use it in a 6 rounds fight ones you have enough encounter (and daily) powers and it's main benefit is still only the consolation prize, as you want to hit and not get the Str mod damage on a miss.

There's potent challenge which is not that usefull to greatsword fighters, as they need Str/Dex/Wis as their three top stats, leaving them with a low Con mod compared to other fighters

The main benifit of GS over BS+Board is power attack and there's the question whether this is worth the same as +2 AC and +2 Ref

Until Complete Martial introduces new superior 2h weapons (and maybe better bracers) at least as far as swords are concerned BS+Board beats GS
 
Last edited:

Why would you spend a feat to lose the +1 damage, power attack, Bracer's of Might Striking, no free hand, etc when you can spend the feat to do something entirely different? Like, Durable, any of the +defensive feats, back to the wall, racial feats, toughness, skill training, a multiclass feat, jack of all trades, ritual casting, quickdraw, skill focus, back to the wall, blood thirst, combat anticipation, Fleet Footed...

The purpose of a great weapon fighter is to get enemies to attack you and not your allies. A shield defeats this purpose. It does so in two ways.

1. It reduces your damage on OAs and combat Challenge by a significant amount.
2. It reduces their likelyhood to miss you, which decreases the benefit they have for attacking you.

So the shield reduces an enemies incentive to attack you, and decreases their disincentive to ignore you.

After thinking about it, it looks like the only reason a fighter should have a shield is for the daily abilities they grant and the few powers that use a shield.(which are quite strong and valid reasons, but "no benefit" is not so simple with the bastard sword)

The shield is then more tactical and leadery, letting you push and possibly negating a few important hits while the two handed weapon is more defenderish and consistent.

If you don't think preventing attacks against your friends is worth +2 AC and Reflex then you should not be playing a defender, you should be playing a striker.

This seems ironic, because the great weapon defender does more dpr. In the end, it just depends on your party config.

If you don't have a controller, a shield fighter gets better, if your leader is a cleric, a shield fighter gets better. If your wizard focuses more on zones or damage rather than forced movement and specific enemy targeting the shield fighter gets better. If you already have a punishing defender a shield fighter gets better.

So if your party looks like:

Cleric, Paladin, Fighter, Ranger, Blast Wizard then the fighter is probably better off as a shield fighter.

If your party looks like:

Warlord, Fighter, Wizard, Warlock, Ranger then the fighter is probably better off as a great weapon fighter.
 
Last edited:

Honestly, I think you can even use a pickaxe and be "fine".

You're not going to be a drag on your party and frankly, any encounter a "optimized S&B" can do, the pickaxe user will be able to do.

Seriously, the biggest factor in winning a fight in 4E is NOT JUST the pre-battle optimization but the actual battle itself.

Like I've said before, 4E is akin to Limited whereas 3.x is Constructed.
 

Hmm... interesting discussion/analysis creeps up while I was asleep :)

I did enjoy the idea of the glaive, but there's no other defender in the party. I don't know how the Cleric was built or what he does. I assume a martial cleric since it's a Dwarf, but I'm not certain. It's looking like the AC bonus isn't going as big a factor as I'm thinking it is, but controlling the battlefield is. That still lends itself to Sword & Board, I think, because of Tide of Iron and Shield Push. I'm not seeing the glaive factor in to control anymore since, as stated earlier, reach weapons no longer threaten. The powers I was going to choose for the glaive were pretty much straight damage powers (e.g. Brute Strike), while for S&B I would choose more control powers that let me push things around. Truth be told I was originally going to play a Warlord, but changed to a Fighter when I saw the party would have no Defender, since we still have the Cleric as a leader type.

The party structure is: Cleric, Ranger (Archer), Rogue, Wizard, Fighter (me)
 
Last edited:

Why would you spend a feat to lose the +1 damage, power attack, Bracer's of Might Striking, no free hand, etc when you can spend the feat to do something entirely different? Like, Durable, any of the +defensive feats, back to the wall, racial feats, toughness, skill training, a multiclass feat, jack of all trades, ritual casting, quickdraw, skill focus, back to the wall, blood thirst, combat anticipation, Fleet Footed...
Because none of them comes close to the power of +2 AC and +2 Ref
The purpose of a great weapon fighter is to get enemies to attack you and not your allies. A shield defeats this purpose. It does so in two ways.
Your job is not to get hit, just to make the enemy try (and fail) to hit you. Your not a WoW tank whose job it is to get hit (because he needs to get hit to gain his rage/mana to do his job) and burn the healers mana.

Your job is to not get hit and thus get the enemy to waste their attacks. Otherwise I feel sorry for your leaders and your healing surges won't last longer than 2-3 fights (which brings us back to the 5 minute workday of past editions)
So the shield reduces an enemies incentive to attack you, and decreases their disincentive to ignore you.
The icentive is not that you will be easily hit, your job is not to get hit. The incentive is that -2 penalty and the punishing extra attack from you if they do not attack you.

With the -2 penalty for not hiting you, the average striker will have the same AC as you with your shield (fighter in scale + heavy shield = AC 19 / ranger with 18 Dex and hide = AC 17 add a -2 penalty and it's effectively AC 19 too). Thus it's no advantage for the monster to try to hit the striker but only a disadvantage because you get a free attack.
 
Last edited:

If you're talking about optimising great weapon fighters, it's feasible to talk about making yourself a more attractive target.

The mobs think they can take you down, and ignoring you is pain and fail. So they are more likely to target you than a S&B fighter.

This works ... as long as the rest of the party understand that's what you're doing.
See, over time, if you're drawing more fire, the rest of the party can afford to invest in feats/powers/equipment that are more offensive in nature.

If the foes die faster, you get hurt less.

It works, so long as the party understands 2 things:
1) It's a team game
2) How to optimise
 

Because none of them comes close to the power of +2 AC and +2 Ref
Different =/= Better. You get +2 AC/Ref. I get to breath underwater when its necessary. You get +2 AC/Reflex, i gain an extra 50% of my total hit points per day.

The icentive is not that you will be easily hit, your job is not to get hit. The incentive is that -2 penalty and the punishing extra attack from you if they do not attack you.
This is only true if your DM is a retard. Lets hope your DM is not a retard. I say this because there is an expectation that your DM is a rational person and is taking rational actions for the enemies(and giving reasons for seemingly irrational actions). Rational people, whether they think they do or not, follow pretty standard decision making processes revolving around costs and benefits. In combat situations costs and benefits become very clear(where they are otherwise very difficult to ascertain) and easy to understand because most people have very similar high priorities for things like "staying alive" and "my friends staying alive". When these priorities come into conflict with other priorities(like how much you spend on dry cleaning), the "staying alive" priorities win out. So, unless your DM is bonkers, he is going to be thinking like this whether you want him to or not.

There are two factors to any decision that someone makes. These factors are

1. Benefit
2. Cost

If you reduce the benefit of taking an action you increase relatively the value of doing something else. If you reduce the cost of an action you increase relatively the value of doing that thing. ED; or, to be a bit simpler. If you reduce the benefit of doing something, you reduce its frequency, if you increase the cost you reduce its frequency. If you increase the benefit of doing something, you increase its frequency, if you decrease the cost of doing something you increase its frequency.

Cost is "what you have to give up to get what you want" so the cost of attacking someone other than the fighter is: One action, the average damage you would do for attacking someone else factoring in that targets value, the average damage you incur for attacking that target factoring in that targets value. And the benefit is the average damage you do to that target. A great weapon fighter, on the "cost" side of that consideration, increases two factors over the shield fighter. This means that so long as the enemy can attack someone else, he is more likely to attack the great weapon fighter than the shield fighter over some other target.

When a fighter increases his AC this reduces the benefit of attacking him. This makes enemies want to attack him less. When a fighter deals less damage with his OAs and combat challenge this reduces the cost of attacking someone other than the fighter. This makes enemies want to attack other people more. A fighter, when trying to make sure he and his friends survive, wants to get himself to be attacked more than his friends.

A fighter wants his AC to be just high enough that he doesn't get hit a lot, but low enough that people would rather attack him than his friends with the -2 penalty. (and more and he is giving the enemy undue benefit). But finding that point is not easy. And all things considered, since the fighter has more hit points, more healing surges, more abilities to repair himself, and less abilities to impose damage and status effects on the enemy. Its better to err on the side of getting hit than letting your friends get hit.

Great weapon fighters do this by really making it appetizing to hit them and really unappetizing to hit someone else. Sword and board fighters do this by interposing themselves between them and the enemy and not letting them past. The more melee fighters you have that are likely to be up close and personal, the better the great weapon fighter is(because he has to take attacks rather than just get in the way and hinder movement). If you have a bunch of ranged guys, then wanting them to hit you is not necessary, since you can instead get in front of them, keep them from getting around you, and make yourself the only target in that manner.

Your job is to not get hit and thus get the enemy to waste their attacks. Otherwise I feel sorry for your leaders and your healing surges won't last longer than 2-3 fights (which brings us back to the 5 minute workday of past editions)
Healing spent on the fighter which has more healing surges and a higher healing surge value is more efficient than healing spent on the rogue which has fewer hit points and a lower healing surge value. Unless everyones AC is so high that the monsters are barely hitting, the increased value of healing the fighter is likely to outweigh the value of the strikers slightly higher AC. In the end though, the monsters are making a rational choice for which character to attack and they will choose what they think is best. If they are choosing the strikers(and if you're sword/board they will be a lot more than if you're great weapon) then you, as a defender, are likely not doing as good a job as you ought to be.

Wayne said:
The party structure is: Cleric, Ranger (Archer), Rogue, Wizard, Fighter (me)

If the Cleric and Wizard are ranged characters, then the sword/board is probably best, just make sure your rogue can take a few hits. Dwarfs have a bonus to wisdom which is great for laser clerics, the ranger is stated as archery, and wizards can be kinda half and half, but is likely to be in the back with the Cleric who can heal him and the ranger who can pick off threats that get through the line.(or the wizard is in front, using movement to hold threats forward, who knows).

I would start fairly neutral and not select too many feats you can't get out of via retraining before you decide whether or not to be a sword and board or great weapon. See whether or not your party needs someone sticky, or someone interposing. Since there is likely to be only one other guy up front with you, the shield is probably a better bet, you can use your daily and encounter powers to protect him while interposing and worry less about running out of powers to stop them from hitting your friends.(fewer friends in range mean fewer friends to use your shield utilities on)

ed: sorry if its a bit rambling after the edits, if you have a question ask and ill explain further.
 
Last edited:


If they are choosing the strikers(and if you're sword/board they will be a lot more than if you're great weapon) then you, as a defender, are likely not doing as good a job as you ought to be.
As the incentive to attacking the fighter is already much greater than the incentive to attack the striker you are only granting the opponent annother bonus without any need to grant it. And in doing so you waste party ressources.

The opponent chosing the striker over the S&B fighter gains no advantage as far as hit chance is concerned, provokes an unnecessary (as he gains no extra benefit that makes it worth provoking this attack) attack from the fighter and most likely loses his own attack because he get's pushed away during this attack.

The GW fighter only wastes hp by making himself easier to hit, the S&B fighter saves these hp by either making the enemy miss him or preventing the enemy from hitting his friend.
 

Remove ads

Top