Greatsword is dead!

[KKDragonLord]

Thats it, it has to be a typo, i wont believe anything else

+3 1d10 greatsword? are we back on ad&d?
(would be ok if it were still the best weapon)

the greataxe has a +2 d12 dmg and a heavy crit to boot

the bastard sword is superior all right
but +3 1d10 and versatile?

so if its best to use a bastard sword 2handed than a GS, whats the point of making greatswords at all?

the GS is really getting the nerf stick this time, and i thought they knew it was on of tthe favorites....

thats it...
just house ruled it to +3 2d6 for the sake of making sense

 

[Crothian]

I don't think it was the best weapon in 3.x but that question would deserve its own thread.

 

[Mouseferatu]

You ever seen an actual greatsword? Compared to a large battleaxe? There's no way the sword should do as much damage.

It's +3, compared to the axe's +2. I think that's a perfectly acceptable trade-off.

As for why even have the greatsword when the bastard sword's better? Because the bastard sword requires an extra feat to use; the GS doesn't.

 

[LowSpine]

You are right it should be better than a bastard sword, but it should not be as good as a great axe.

We don't know the rules on 2h weapons - they could get con mod bonus to damage or anything else so who knows it may be better.

 

[Mirtek]

so if its best to use a bastard sword 2handed than a GS, whats the point of making greatswords at all?

For people being to stingy to spent a feat?

As it sounds it's almost also better to use a longsword 2handed, it's versatile property makes it do the same damage than the greatsword plus you can use it 1handed if needed (well, I guess powers with more than 1[W] make the greatsword better than the longsword).

 

[FadedC]

Yeah the greatsword is fine, in most cases you want +1 to hit more then you want +1 to damage. I suspect that it will still be the most commonly used 2-handed weapon. But now there might occasionally be people who use a maul or a greataxe.

If you made a greatsword 2d6 then there would be no reason to use any other 2-handed weapon.

 

[Cadfan]

Hmm.

So I could wield a greatsword and get a +3/1d10 weapon that counts as a heavy blade.

Or I could wield a bastard sword and get a +3/1d10 weapon that counts as a heavy blade, and also use a shield. Though it would cost me a feat.

That's really like spending a feat to wield a greatsword and a shield at the same time. Sign me up.

Are there other things I don't know about here? Generic benefits to two handed fighting, or class abilities or powers that trigger from two handed wielding?

 

[Aservan]

You ever seen an actual greatsword? Compared to a large battleaxe? There's no way the sword should do as much damage.

It's +3, compared to the axe's +2. I think that's a perfectly acceptable trade-off.

As for why even have the greatsword when the bastard sword's better? Because the bastard sword requires an extra feat to use; the GS doesn't.

Alright mouse-boy usually I find your posts to be right on the money but I fell compelled to point out that the counter argument to bastard versus great sword is in your own post.

Have you ever seen a zweihander/flamberge/etc.? There's no way the bastard sword should do as much damage.

Saying the bastard sword is just plain better, but "it costs a feat" is a cheap cop out on the designers' part. Especially when I have seen the feat section and possibly the majority of feats are of questionable utility. I don't at this point see people balking at using a feat to wield a superior weapon. I hope I am wrong about the feat utility, though.

 

[Mirtek]

One thing that could speak against swords of all kinds in the hands of fighters is that someone told me that the secondary stat for swords is Dex.

If this is true and has a significant meaning then I guess we truly won't see a lot of fighters with swords since their heavy armor makes Dex useless to them.

Although, didn't some old preview article mention a sword fighter selecting a high Wis?

 

[Mouseferatu]

Alright mouse-boy usually I find your posts to be right on the money but I fell compelled to point out that the counter argument to bastard versus great sword is in your own post.

Well, can't please everyone all the time.

Have you ever seen a zweihander/flamberge/etc.? There's no way the bastard sword should do as much damage.

Here's the problem. A lot of terms to which D&D assigns specific meanings aren't always as clear-cut, historically. Ask a dozen historians where the line is between a "zweihander" and a "hand-and-a-half (bastard) sword," you'll probably get a dozen different answers.

Especially since, at least in part, it depends on the person. I have a friend who's quite capable of wielding a full-sized Scottish claymore one-handed without the slightest bit of effort. A lot of what we think of as "two-handed swords" actually qualify as bastard swords for large and/or strong and/or trained soldiers. (And let's face it; most D&D fighters are at the upper end of the strength scale. ) Plus, a lot of historical two-handed swords were meant either

A) purely for cleaving pole-arms, not for the sort of sword fights we think of, or

B) ceremonial purposes.

So while it's very different from past editions, I don't think it's actually any more historically inaccurate to equate the greatsword and the bastard sword. Either way, the game's blurring the line; in this case, it's just blurring it in the opposite direction from past editions.