2h weapon damage bonus?

[hamishspence]

Feats too

Potent Challenge requires two handed weapons. power attack is better with two handed weapons. The rule for versatile weapons not counting as two handed for these purposes was from a Cust-serv answer: check forum for the compilation, its quite early.

Combined with heavy Blade opportunity (lets you use reaping strike or other at will on OAs) you can get a great deal out of a two handed weapon.

Unfortunately, as written, halflings are effectively crippled for two-handed purposes. They can get a lot out of the scimitar (only one-handed non-versatile heavy weapon) but unless you allow small versions of the standard weapons, or ignore that Cust-serv ruling, you will not be able to give it a strong two-handed build.

 

[abyssaldeath]

The bastard sword only seems overpowered because there are no superior two-handed weapons that non-reach weapons.

 

[Mengu]

The bastard sword only seems overpowered because there are no superior two-handed weapons that non-reach weapons.

If there was a BFGS, superior two handed heavy blade, with +3 proficiency, and 2d6 damage, would this make the bastard sword worse, or the greatsword better?

 

[RigaMortus2]

I am actually a bit miffed about greatswords and bastard swords... I might houserule greatsword base damage to 1d10+1 in my game (too bad we can't make it 2d5!)

Well, you could make it 2d5 if you wanted to. Just roll a 2d10 and half the result...

 

[abyssaldeath]

If there was a BFGS, superior two handed heavy blade, with +3 proficiency, and 2d6 damage, would this make the bastard sword worse, or the greatsword better?

It wouldn't make the weapons better or worse. What it would do is increase the damage output for twohanded weapon user. Why should a one handed weapon user have the same damage output as a twohanded weapon user with just spending a feat and no option to increase damage the same way for a twohanded weapon user?

I guess my point is that it is not a problem with the weapons themselves, but the options available to the player.

 

[Nifft]

Thing is, greatswords are already quite competitive with other two-handed weapons. It's just that bastard swords are overpowered, really.

IMHO all Superior weapons could disappear, and the game would continue to work just fine.

Cheers, -- N

 

[Gloombunny]

IMHO all Superior weapons could disappear, and the game would continue to work just fine.

I think rapiers should stay, since they give rogues a reasonable option other than daggers. (Short swords seem like kind of a joke... one step up in damage die is not as good as +1 to hit!)

But katars are kind of pointless, bastard swords too damn good, and while I don't have any particular objections to shuriken I can't say I'd miss them if they were gone.

 

[AnonymousOne]

IMHO all Superior weapons could disappear, and the game would continue to work just fine.

Cheers, -- N

hmmm

I must admit I'm not very familiar with the new 4e rules, but I'd like to see the rapier and shuriken stay. Still, I'm not sure if the rapier is a good call for the rogue given that it now takes a feat to pick up. I think I'd rather have +4 to hit than the +3 ... still I haven't played it yet. I might be wrong.

I'm still trying to wrap my head around the new rules.

 

[Danceofmasks]

Superior weapons are supposed to be better than martial weapons.
I don't see anyone complaining that martial weapons are better than simple weapons .. I mean it's a different class of weaponry!

Greataxes are awesome, though. Not as good as a bastard sword ('cos it's @#$%!), but better than any martial.

 

[Ahrimon]

Why even have the bastard sword though? Why not just make a feat to weild a greatsword with one hand?

My biggest mental block on all this is that they have the same damage and yet the greatsword is larger.