Greatsword is dead!

[MindWanderer]

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

Ah, but remember that since 3e, bastard sword=katana. And as everyone knows, katanas have been grossly underpowered, and ought to be +3/3d10, high crit, and vorpal.

Seriously, it works from a balance perspective, although I disagree with the nomenclature. Needing a feat to use a bastard sword two-handed is just silly. (It's smaller, but somehow... heavier?) Call it a fullblade or something.

Does the ranger's dual blade style allow him to off-hand a bastard sword? If so, I see a minotaur ranger in my near future....

 

[GoodKingJayIII]

A lot of fighter powers are focused around specific weapons, and the damage output is usually:

X[W] + Str + [Weapon Secondary Stat]

So, if Swords use Dex, having a 14-16 in Dex for extra damage is still pretty useful.

 

[Victim]

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?

WIS has a number of fighter related benefits that aren't specific to weapon type.

There are some benefits for 2 handed weapon use (Reaping Strike, Power Attack) but I think having a shield is better.

 

[KKDragonLord]

I am not arguing against the Battle Axe, geez, it still has that High Crit Property and all, for lucky players thats all it takes to sell it

just doesnt seem fair at all that you could indeed use a long sword two handed and do the same average dmg (with a better minimum even)

and even though the D&D bastard sword is completely unrealistic (bastards were actually pointy longswords with 2handed grips, Claymores were smaller GS that you could carry in one hand)
I love the flavor of spending a feat to use a BIG sword next to my shield

its just that as is, using a GS is just Stupid

with a 2d6 it still holds its own when the other weapons keep their benefits over it as well

 

[Starbuck_II]

Dude, +3 1d10 is equivalent to +2 2d6.

That +1 to hit matters alot in this edition.

Using averages:
With +3 1d10: it deals +1 hit and damage compared to Longsword 1 handed. If Longsword used 2 handed, you still do +1 more hit and +0.5 damage.

With +2 2d6: it deals +0 hit but 2.5 more damage than longsword 1 handed. If longsword 2 handed, you still do +1.5 damage.

 

[Cadfan]

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?

I don't think this will be the case. The other fighter secondary stats are con and wis. They don't do a ton either. I can see the advantage in investing in dex. It improves your reflex defense, several important skills, and if you invest in it enough you can drop your heavy armor for hide armor and get back your original speed and a low skill penalty.

In comparison, con just gives you healing surges, and you've already got a pile of those. It doesn't even improve your fort defense, because your str will be higher.

 

[KKDragonLord]

Dude, +3 1d10 is equivalent to +2 2d6.

That +1 to hit matters alot in this edition.

Using averages:
With +1 1d10: it deals +1 hit and damage compared to Longsword 1 handed. If Longsword used 2 handed, you still do +1 more hit.

With +2 2d6: it deals +0 hit but 3 more damage than longsword 1 handed. If longsword 2 handed, you still do +2 damage.

The +1 dmg it would give over a longsword is statistically moot because its only on a full die, and the +1 of the longsword, increases the minimum damage, making the grand average fairly equal.

 

[Kraydak]

...
just doesnt seem fair at all that you could indeed use a long sword two handed and do the same average dmg (with a better minimum even)
...

This. No one should ever use a greatsword, as a longsword is strictly better.

Given 4e's apparent weapon scaling (+1 to hit=+1 die size=high crit=versatile), the greatsword is down one from the greataxe. Note that the axe didn't gain base damage going from battleaxe to greataxe, but did gain high-crit.

 

[Victim]

There's a huge difference between +1 damage and ~ +1 from die size in 4e.

Sure, a longsword matches a Greatsword for average damage on a normal attack. However, when you start looking at multiple [W] from powers, then the Greatsword's bonus keeps going up, while the longsword is a static +1.

 

[KKDragonLord]

Actually, now that im thinking about it, it really seem that the new edition is saying: Dont go 2 handed unless you want to be a spiked chain fighter

its pretty obvious since there aren't any other 2handed superior weapons.

what im thinking about house ruling now is:

Martial Weapons:
+2 Great Axe 1d12
+3 Long Sword 1d8 Versatile

Superior weapons:
+3 Greatsword 2d6
+3 Bastard Sword 1d10
+2 Double-Axe 1d12 High-Crit

Edit:
What i really like about this solution is that its more historically acurate, as zweihander mercenary were rare for extra specializing to use the GS
and also, the Bastard Sword is a more technologicaly advanced weapon compared to the long sword, and was also rarer (and Longsword always had a better status) plus this is a middle ground between historical Bastard Sword and the movie sized D&D Bastard sword