Bastard sword v. Greatsword

[keterys]

Heh. I did recommend that solution - just because I'm not convinced it's necessary doesn't mean I don't think that it's a safe way to solve the problem for those who are bothered by the comparison.

I mean, +1 damage really doesn't hurt the game much and if it makes people happier, slap it right in, I say.

 

[Mr. Teapot]

Fighter A wants to use a bastard sword. To do so, he pays the privilege of a feat. In the end his damage per (W) is 1d10. If he wields it two handed, he gets +1 damage.

Fighter B wants to use a greatsword. Since he has a free feat (that Fighter A spent on Bastard Sword Proficiency), he spends the feat on Weapon Focus. Fighter B does 1d10 per (W), plus 1 at Heroic tier and even higher at later tiers.

So at Heroic tier, after spending one feat on the weapon, both fighters do identical damage. At later levels, the greatsword does more for the same investment. Where's the problem?

If anyone suffers, it is Fighter C, who wields a longsword. Sure, he takes weapon Focus and does equivalent damage (1d8+1 vs 1d10 = same avaerage) at Heroic Tier, but the bonus from weapon Focus is not included in the (w). So at later levels, Fighter A's 7(w) attack does 7d10 (=38.5 damage), while Fighter C's attack does 7d8+3 (=34.5). But Fighter C's 1(w) attacks outdamage Fighter A's. Is that a worthwhile tradeoff? Hard to say.


The only real argument that I can see for claiming a bastard sword is too strong is when Fighter A invests two feats into it: Weapon Proficiency and Weapon Focus. But Fighters B and C could pick other feats to make them effective. Possibly not more feats to raise damage, but feats that could make them effective in other ways. But the Bastard Sword Proficiency feat is pretty clearly balanced agains tthe Weapon Focus feat applied to Greatswords or longswords.

 

[Reaper Steve]

Mr. Teapot,
Great analysis.

I thought about the Weapon Focus thing as well. So, for the price of one feat, the greatsword equals the bastard sword at heroic, is +1 at paragon, and is +2 at epic.

But like you also stated, the bastard sword use could take that feat as well.

I think the root of my troubles is that at the basic stat level the bastard sword is smaller than the greatsword yet it does more damage when wielded in the same manner. It makes part of me cringe, but as I am a proponent of the 'it's-a-game-not-a-simulator mentality,' I think I can accept it for game balance reasons.

 

[Mengu]

It makes part of me cringe, but as I am a proponent of the 'it's-a-game-not-a-simulator mentality,' I think I can accept it for game balance reasons.

I would agree, I don't care about simulation, but those game balance reasons seem a bit flimsy in this case. Feats are cheap. There is no reason why a Human Greatweapon Fighter couldn't start out with Bastard Sword and Weapon Focus.

 

[Mr. Teapot]

There is no reason why a Human Greatweapon Fighter couldn't start out with Bastard Sword and Weapon Focus.

Reasons why a Human Fighter would take other feats:

-Is using a weapon that's not a sword. Particularly if using a different weapon is part of the character concept or their plan for later levels. Possibly going the Hammer Rhythm route or using a reach weapon. (Reach weapons aren't great on a fighter, but they still might choose to do so.)

-Is using his feats for something that makes him better at his role - defending the other PCs - and not something that makes him do more damage, which is the Striker's role.

-Spent his feats on Action Surge and Human Perseverance, because they're the two best Heroic Tier feats anyway.

-Really wanted Plate armor.

-Was given a free magical Greatsword with a cool enchantment on it by the GM at character creation.

-Wanted to Multiclass from the start.

-Has a pet Horse, wanted the Mounted Combat feat to match. (Note that Mounts are very good for Defenders, as it increases the defender's space to large. Now twelve people can be adjacent to you and suffer Combat Challenge and Close Burst 1 attacks, instead of just 8.)



Basically, spending two feats on one job is not exactly a no-brainer decision. There are other feats worth taking that aren't about your weapon damage.

 

[DracoSuave]

Taking feats aside, it's actually really simple.

In order to have Bastard Sword, you spend a feat. Greatsword + a feat can do the same damage as Bastard Sword. This isn't hard.

'But feats are cheap.' Considering you only get one every 2 levels, or one every 20 encounters, I'd say they aren't cheap. They have to be earned through play which can take many many sessions. And after that earning of one feat.... now you're Bastard Sword + a feat vs Greatsword + 2 feats.

You can't make Greatsword a d12 weapon because then it's automaticly superior to all the other two-handed non-reach weapons. A large +3 military two-handed weapon must be 1d10. A superior weapon equivalent can then have abilities added on. In this case, one-handed and versatile.

Any comparison that ignores feats is an argument that is trying to ignore the facts. In -real- play, those feats -are- an opportunity cost, because you -are- playing through those early levels.

 

[Dooks Dizzo]

Greatsword weilding Eladrin with the feat that gives him +2 damage when using swords

Honeslty I am a little lost as to why 2 handed weapons do not grant an automatic +1 damage built right into their profiles. The advantage of a versitle weapon should be that it allows you to use a Shield as well.

 

[Mengu]

Reasons why a Human Fighter would take other feats:
<snip>

I wasn't saying they should always take those two feats. I just said they could. Yes there are plenty of options. Those options shouldn't preclude Bastard Swords and Greatswords from being balanced against each other.

 

[DracoSuave]

Greatsword weilding Eladrin with the feat that gives him +2 damage when using swords

Honeslty I am a little lost as to why 2 handed weapons do not grant an automatic +1 damage built right into their profiles. The advantage of a versitle weapon should be that it allows you to use a Shield as well.

They do, actually, as a direct result of their higher die-size. Not to mention their advantage scales as you use higher-[W] powers.

That said, the Genasi Swordmage I'm building for LFR is going to be wielding a Bastard Sword, because of the versatility.

 

[Dooks Dizzo]

That makes sense Draco. I guess I am the type that is blinded when I don't see an immeadiate advantage to a weapon; ie +X to whatever.

It's a touch off topic but what about the Falchion? I am kind of a fan to be honest, over the Great Sword even. Though probably because the picture in the book is so damn cool I can live with a little less average damage.

To go even further off topic, my next character is definitely Dwarven Fighter with the nifty +2 damage with axes feat. I am just torn between using a battle axe versus a Greataxe.

Now to take this digression back onto topic, the Great Bastard debate makes me really wonder if things like axes and such are being ignored? Isn't a Greataxe just as efficient or even more so than a Bastard Sword?