Greatsword, not Bastard Sword

[comrade raoul]

Consider the following changes.

• The bastard sword is removed from the game.
• The following heroic-tier feat is added.

Greatsword Parry
Prerequisites: Str 15, Dex 13
Benefit: You gain a +1 shield bonus to your AC and Reflex defense when wielding a greatsword. In addition, you are treated as wielding a shield when meeting the requirements for feats or powers that require them.

Thus, the greatsword replaces the bastard sword. Longswords remain credible options for fighters: essentially, greatsword wielders pay a feat and a point of defense for the extra damage. Great weapon fighters get access to Tide of Iron and any other shield powers, and look cool doing so.

 

[Anthony Jackson]

Pushes should not be a feature of greatsword styles; among two-handed weapons it's mostly characteristic of a staff or a polearm wielded as a staff.

 

[Kzach]

Put simply, no.

Add +1 damage to all weapons that can be wielded 2H instead.

The greatsword is not a weapon you will be doing any parrying with. It's unwieldy, cumbersome, heavy and very long. It's for those reasons that it's hard for an opponent to avoid, which makes the +3 hit bonus make sense. But you are also not going to be flicking it around, allowing for a defensive bonus. If anything, swinging this will put you off balance. And it certainly doesn't warrant a reflex bonus given that it provides no protection whatsoever to area effect attacks or your ability to dodge.

This also rips off sword & board fighters, making 2HD fighters the best choice, which just doesn't gel with the whole defender concept.

 

[FireLance]

Add +1 damage to all weapons that can be wielded 2H instead.

This.

But it should cost a feat, IMO.

 

[comrade raoul]

Add +1 damage to all weapons that can be wielded 2H instead.

Scales weirdly into higher levels. Maybe an increasing bonus?

The greatsword is not a weapon you will be doing any parrying with. It's unwieldy, cumbersome, heavy and very long.

Sure, maybe that's how greatswords really were. I'm not too concerned about realism considerations unless they seem thematically damaging, and they don't for me here. When I think of greatswords in fantasy, I think of Conan and movie!Aragorn. But if that's not the case for you and others, you're probably right.

This also rips off sword & board fighters, making 2HD fighters the best choice, which just doesn't gel with the whole defender concept.

Not really! You still get less defense with the greatsword than you do with a heavy shield. The longsword is the baseline here--you're trading one point of average damage per die for a feat and a +1 AC/Reflex bonus. That's not a bad trade.

The way I see it, this feat makes the greatsword a nice intermediate choice. Want defense? Go battleaxe, longsword, or warhammer. Want power? Go greataxe, maul or falchion. Want a bit of both? Go greatsword.

 

[Kzach]

When I think of greatswords in fantasy, I think of Conan and movie! Aragorn. But if that's not the case for you and others, you're probably right.

Conan's was a bastard sword. IMO Aragorn's was a Claymore, not a Zweihander, although I guess the two are close enough to be considered the same.

Not really! You still get less defense with the greatsword than you do with a heavy shield. The longsword is the baseline here--you're trading one point of average damage per die for a feat and a +1 AC/Reflex bonus. That's not a bad trade.

It narrows the gap too much, IMO. Add damage to the weapon, but not defence. Not only does defence not make sense, it's really just saying, "Hey, I wanna do big damage AND not suffer for it!" That's part of the balance of the system, though. Feats shouldn't break that balance, which is what I feel adding defence to the Greatsword wielder does.

 

[firesnakearies]

It looks like a bad idea to me.

 

[Donovan Morningfire]

I don't think its a bad idea in theory, just not the current execution. After all, there's Two-Weapon which gives you the benefit of having a light shield while still litting you get your damage bonus from wielding two weapons.

In fact, why not revamp the feat so that you just get the +1 AC/Ref (non-scaling) when wielding a two-handed weapon? Toss in Weapon Focus (category of weapon) as a pre-req to keep it from being too much of a "gimme" feat at low levels, especially for Eladrin and Dwarves with their racial weapon training feats. Just change the name a bit, perhaps to Great Weapon Parry?

As for realism... rationalize it as the bad guys not wanting to get to close to the guy swinging several pounds of metal at high speed for fear of getting their noggins cracked

On providing the ability to use shield-based powers, that might be getting to be a bit much, especially in addition to the defensive benefits. As a separate Paragon-tier feat... maybe.

 

[Anthony Jackson]

Greatsword + this feat: +1 AC, +1 Ref, +3/1d10 weapon. Cost: 1 feat.
Bastard Sword + small shield: +1 AC, +1 Ref, +3/1d10 weapon. Cost: 1 feat, and must be proficient with a small shield.

It's balanced vs the bastard sword, as long as we add a prereq that's similar in magnitude to being proficient with a small shield. However, IMO the bastard sword is too good and should be removed.

 

[mps42]

just as a point of note

From a sword enthusiast:
Conan=bastard sword: approx 3 to 3.5 foot blade
Aragorn=bastard to hand-and-a-half sword: approx 3.5 to 4 foot blade
Braveheart/William Wallace=claymore: approx 4 to 4.5 foot blade
Greatsword: approx 5.5 to 6 foot blade

Just thought I'd mention it...