2HW vs. Versatile for Feats?

[Sunglare]

Why should people get a better benefit out of using a military two handed weapon than a using two hands while holding a superior weapon?

Flavor wise: A bastard sword is smaller then a greatsword so why would you get more damage out of it? Listed as in the book: Greatweapon is found under two-handed weapons, bastard sword is listed un One-handed weapons. There's a magic weapon in the Adventure's Vault that even specifically mentions that when you are wielding a weapon with two-hands as opposed to most of the "when using a Two-handed weapon" listings.

Superior does not mean "better then all military weapons." It's just better then it's military counterpart or just something speacial on it's own, like spiked chain. Bastard sword is a better long sowrd, Fullblade (which is a superior Twohanded weapon) is a better Greatsword. Execution Axe is a better Great Axe.

Bastard Sword =|= > Greatsword just beacuse it is a superior weapon.

Edit: I wouldn't having a problem house ruling that Versatile weapons count as Two-Handed weapons to small races because when they use them two-handed they do not benefit from the Versatile property.

 

[Flipguarder]

I don't understand why people don't want two hand wielding a bastard sword to be more powerful than a great sword. One costs a feat, the other doesn't.

 

[Sunglare]

I don't understand why people don't want two hand wielding a bastard sword to be more powerful than a great sword. One costs a feat, the other doesn't.

A raiper cost a feat, should it do more damage then a Greatsword?

If you want a better long sword use a feat and get Bastard sword, if you want a better Greatsword then use a feat and get Fullblade.

And mind you not all classes have access to military weapons.

Why create seperate sections for one-handed and two-handed weapons when they simply could of lumped them all together and then just add a column that says a weapon can be used either 1H, 2H, or both.
I think Mearls jumped the gun when he said let the players have their cake and eat it to.

 

[Flipguarder]

A raiper cost a feat, should it do more damage then a Greatsword?

Thats an unfair misrepresentation of what I said, all the weapons I have compared are heavy blades.

If you want a better long sword use a feat and get Bastard sword, if you want a better Greatsword then use a feat and get Fullblade.

OR use a feat and wield the bastard sword in two hands.

And mind you not all classes have access to military weapons.

what does that have to do with anything?

Why create seperate sections for one-handed and two-handed weapons when they simply could of lumped them all together and then just add a column that says a weapon can be used either 1H, 2H, or both.
I think Mearls jumped the gun when he said let the players have their cake and eat it to.

So you're basing your rules on the idea that they formatted it a certain way? This is just horrible logic. And saying a head designer is wrong is one thing, saying that his intent wasn't how the game was intended is just unreasonable.

It makes VERY little difference game mechanic-wise. The only one I see is that if you allow versatile weapons to function as two handed weapons while being used as such small Barbarians would be much more plausible.

 

[RedBeardJim]

Thats an unfair misrepresentation of what I said, all the weapons I have compared are heavy blades.


OR use a feat and wield the bastard sword in two hands.

My problem there is that you don't see a similar blatant effect with, say waraxe vs. greataxe or craghammer vs. maul. Greatswords (and falchions) just seem kind of meh compared to most other military two-handers.

 

[Flipguarder]

Waraxe held in two hands
+2 prof bonus d12 +1 damage
Great axe
+2 prof bonus d12 damage high crit

Craghammer held in two hands
+2 prof bonus d10 Brutal 2 + 1
Maul
+2 prof bonus 2d6

So tell me again, why is spending a feat and wielding a superior weapon in two hands supposed to be WORSE then not spending a feat and wielding a military weapon in two hands. Does the simple fact that it was meant for two hands and not one denote that it must be more powerful than a superior versatile weapon?

EDIT: and since I can smell this coming, why should it not be more beneficial to spend a feat and get a MORE powerful version of what you have, even if it is a versatile version?

 

[Caliban]

Waraxe held in two hands
+2 prof bonus d12 +1 damage
Great axe
+2 prof bonus d12 damage high crit

Craghammer held in two hands
+2 prof bonus d10 Brutal 2 + 1
Maul
+2 prof bonus 2d6

So tell me again, why is spending a feat and wielding a superior weapon in two hands supposed to be WORSE then not spending a feat and wielding a military weapon in two hands. Does the simple fact that it was meant for two hands and not one denote that it must be more powerful than a superior versatile weapon?

EDIT: and since I can smell this coming, why should it not be more beneficial to spend a feat and get a MORE powerful version of what you have, even if it is a versatile version?

A bastard sword isn't meant to be a more powerful version of a greatsword. It's a more powerful version of a longsword. If you want a more powerful version of a greatsword, get a fullblade.

Superior Versatile weapons are an upgrade to Martial Versatile weapons.

Longsword -> Bastard Sword
Battle Axe -> Waraxe
Warhammer -> Craghammer
Flail -> Triple Headed Flail

They are not an upgrade to martial two-handed weapons. Their main benefit is that you get a damage bump and still have your off-hand free (to use a shield, or for sword mages to get their full AC from Sword Mage warding).

Superior Two-handed weapons are upgrades of the Martial Two-handed weapons.

GreatSword -> Fullblade
Greataxe -> Executioner's Axe
Maul -> Mordenkrad
Longspear -> Greatspear

(these are not exhaustive lists, just the most common weapons used in my experience).

 

[RedBeardJim]

Waraxe held in two hands
+2 prof bonus d12 +1 damage
Great axe
+2 prof bonus d12 damage high crit

Craghammer held in two hands
+2 prof bonus d10 Brutal 2 + 1
Maul
+2 prof bonus 2d6

Yes, exactly. In both of these cases, it's much more of an even match than the "bastard sword vs. greatsword", where the bastard sword is clearly better in every situation. Again, I think this is more of a problem with the greatsword in and of itself, than anything else. I think the greatsword should have been a d12 weapon, frankly, or else d10/high crit.

Look at the military --> superior two-hander transitions, for more data points. Greataxe --> execution axe and maul --> mordenkrad, the only improvement is Brutal. From the greatsword to the fullblade, you're getting *two* improvements (high crit and a bigger damage die). Greatswords are just meh.

So tell me again, why is spending a feat and wielding a superior weapon in two hands supposed to be WORSE then not spending a feat and wielding a military weapon in two hands. Does the simple fact that it was meant for two hands and not one denote that it must be more powerful than a superior versatile weapon?

I wouldn't say it's supposed to be worse, but I wouldn't say it's supposed to be automatically and obviously better, either -- because yes, versatile and two-handed are *different things*.

 

[Mirtek]

Understandable, but the RAW is ambiguous. Obryn is reading it a particular way, but that isn't the only reasonable way to read it. And if a DM in an official game has to rule on an ambiguous bit of RAW, and happens to have heard a designer express the Rules as Intended in a crystal-clear fashion, the way to rule on the ambiguity is pretty obvious.

I just don't see the rules as ambiguous unless you really want to read ambiguousness into them. To me the RAW is quite clear on page 215 under the header "Weapon Groups". Said headers are then later used at the headlines of the tables on pages 218-219 and that's it.

If the heading says on-handed it's as one-handed weapon and if the header says two-handed it's a two-handed weapon.

How you later use a weapon doesn't matter at all. Whether you use a one-handed weapon with a two-handed grip (and gain nothing for it because it's not versatile or gain +1 damage because it's versatile) doesn't change the weapons set category of one-handed.

Same thing the other way round. If you use a two-handed weapon with a one-handed grip (e.g. because of this epic destiny that allows this or you might even play a monster race) the weapon still stays a two-handed weapon for all rules relating to this

If the designers intented it differently, then they have to write what they mean and not write something different from what they wanted

 

[Obryn]

As for the interaction with Weapon Talent, I think another underlying issue is that there's really no reason to restrict a Fighter to +1 to-hit with just one class of weapon. There'd be absolutely zero mechanical or balance problems if it was across the board with melee weapons, IMO. Very few fighters in 4e ever switch out their fighting style, or switch between 1-H and 2-H.

As for barbarians, I don't think there's a balance problem if you let small races count Versatile weapons as Two-Handed. It's not RAW, but who cares in your own, personal game? If it's fun for your players, go for it; I can't think of a single balance issue that would arise.

-O