Greatsword is dead!

[Cadfan]

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

If you have the books, can you look at the Fighter powers?

All it would take to make two handed weapons viable in this context would be a few two handed weapon specific powers, or a really good two handed weapon fighter class ability.

 

[ferratus]

See, I had the opposite reaction to the original poster. I can see the point of a Greatsword. It does a little extra damage, and it is for power attack all the time.

What I can't see is why any fighter would take a feat to use a bastard sword. It only does 1d10 vs the Longsword 1d8, and both are versatile so they both give the same benefit two-handed. However, the feat simply isn't worth the extra +2 damage only some of the time, when there are feats which grant bonuses to hit and/or damage all the time with a longsword.

Is the bastard sword supposed to be both High Critical and Versatile? That's the only reason I can see to take a feat in Bastard Sword.

 

[FadedC]

Actually doing d8+1 is not the same as doing d10 by the new rules, because of the way powers work.

An attack that does 3[w} does 3d8for a longsword (with a +1 added at the end) and 3d10 for a greatsword. So the greatsword hits for 2 more on average The difference only increases as you level up and get bigger damage multipliers.

Also remember that crits do maximum damage. Greatsword crits for 10, longsword for only 9. Add on that 3w power, the greatsword crits for 30, and the lonsword for only 25.

 

[brehobit]

See, I had the opposite reaction to the original poster. I can see the point of a Greatsword. It does a little extra damage, and it is for power attack all the time.

What I can't see is why any fighter would take a feat to use a bastard sword. It only does 1d10 vs the Longsword 1d8, and both are versatile so they both give the same benefit two-handed. However, the feat simply isn't worth the extra +2 damage only some of the time, when there are feats which grant bonuses to hit and/or damage all the time with a longsword.

Is the bastard sword supposed to be both High Critical and Versatile? That's the only reason I can see to take a feat in Bastard Sword.

I'm fairly sure the bastard sword is +3, d10 vs the long sword being +2 d8. Worth the feat if that's correct.

 

[Mal Malenkirk]

Have you ever seen a zweihander/flamberge/etc.?

Have you?

You'll hit much harder with an axe than with these things.

Axe aside, If you are using a sword for swinging, there is an optimum size in order to transfer the maximum force in the point of impact, and it's not six feet away from your body!

If you don't believe me, pick up a baseball bat and a similar blunt object that is 6 feet tall and see which hits harder while swinging.

Zweihander were used more like a staff/spear than like a sword. Most attacks were thrusts. But then I don't believe the Greatsword of D&D models a Zweihander. Heck, the longsword of D&D isn't a real longsword. RL Lonswords, bastard swords and greatsword are all pretty much all the same size. So don't pay too much attention to the name.

As is, the D&D Greatsword is a valid choice if you don't have a feat to spare.

 

[KKDragonLord]

Well okay, lets see, there really are some perks to two handed

power attack gives +2 dmg -2 hit, +3 w two handed and it scales with levels to: +4/+6 and +6/+9

Potent challenge feat for Con 15 fighters is very nice
adds +con bonus damage for attacks from the challenge ability
(kinda limited) only apllies to 2H

Reaping Strike deals full Str dmg on a miss (opposed to half)

plus theres this whole 3W thing, they even suggest for the paladin to get a 2H for his high dmg powers...
well, okay i guess, maybe i am overreacting

but i still dont like it

 

[Exen Trik]

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

Which begs the question: Why isn't it +2/2d6?

Larger damage and harder to hit with seems perfectly in theme, did they just want to make all swords +3 to hit or what? Or more likely, did they make it so no weapons use multiple dice for damage?

 

[Cadfan]

See, I had the opposite reaction to the original poster. I can see the point of a Greatsword. It does a little extra damage, and it is for power attack all the time.

What I can't see is why any fighter would take a feat to use a bastard sword. It only does 1d10 vs the Longsword 1d8, and both are versatile so they both give the same benefit two-handed. However, the feat simply isn't worth the extra +2 damage only some of the time, when there are feats which grant bonuses to hit and/or damage all the time with a longsword.

Is the bastard sword supposed to be both High Critical and Versatile? That's the only reason I can see to take a feat in Bastard Sword.

Rather than looking at it as "+2 some of the time," look at it as "an average of +1 damage." That's how it works out, statistically.

Spending a feat to gain +1 damage is about par for 4e, it seems, as that's the same bonus you get from Weapon Focus. But the +1 from upgrading to a bastard sword is really +1 per [W] in an attack, so for an encounter that does 2[W] its +2, etc. A flat +1 damage doesn't get that extra benefit. Plus it's worth more when you get a critical hit.

Upgrading to a bastard sword isn't a "must take" option for a fighter using a longsword and shield, but it is a decent one.

Also, if a bastard sword gets +1 attack bonus over a longsword, that's obviously a huge deal. But I don't know for sure if that's the case. The analysis above of the damage stays true either way.

 

[Korgoth]

Unfortunately, 4E greatswords are made of live steel. This is a departure from the 3E greatswords, which were made of gravitically contained nukular explosion.

Seriously, as comrade Mouse pointed out, zweihanders are battlefield weapons for breaking up polearm formations. It's literally just a slightly longer, heavier sword. You can't chop down a castle with it or anything.

I don't have the books (sadly I didn't get mine early and I refuse to download them) but it kind of looks like zweihanders will be for those two-handed melee fighters who prefer accuracy over pure damage. Pure damage will be for great & pole axes and mauls. Zweihanders will do good damage but also hit slightly better. That seems to make perfect sense. If you go with a longsword you probaby won't be able to use some of the really damaging encounter and daily specials.

 

[Spatula]

Which begs the question: Why isn't it +2/2d6?

Larger damage and harder to hit with seems perfectly in theme, did they just want to make all swords +3 to hit or what? Or more likely, did they make it so no weapons use multiple dice for damage?

Plenty of weapons use 2dX for damage. All swords are indeed +3 to hit, vs +2 for nearly everything else.

(Interestingly, to me anyway, the argument that sneak attack only works with "precision" weapons kinda falls down when it turns out slings & crossbows are just as accurate as any other weapon)

The 4e weapons seem well-balanced to me, just like the 3e weapons were. Swords are more accurate, but do less damage. 2H weapons are generally +1 die step over the 1H version, which translates into +1 average damage - the same as if you're using a versatile weapon in two hands. (as mentioned, the versatile weapons will start to fall behind on the powers that do multiple [w]s) The bastard sword is trading off a feat for +1 dmg, no matter if you're looking at it from the perspective of a sword & board fighter or as a 2H fighter, which is pretty neat. Although I'm not sure how the fighter weapon talent is supposed to interact with versatile weapons.

The disappointing bit is the lack of "superior" weapons - I think there's a total of four in the PHB (bastard sword, rapier, katar, spiked chain)