Is the Greatsword the ultimate weapon?

[Umbran]

Is the greatsword-wielding (GS) fighter or barbarian the best build for combat effectiveness?

If you happen to have a high strength, against a single critter that has lots of hit points, a high armor class, and that is likely to hit you no matter what you do, perhaps.

If you have a lower strength, against a mob with lesser hit points, or a critter that's got a lower AC itself, or that is only marginally abile to hit you, or that don't allow you to step up right next to them, there are perhaps better choices.

 

[Gort]

I prefer sword and board. My character is fullplated, with a tower shield and longsword... AC 40 at 16th level, before expertise and such.

Sure, Mr Greatsword will dish out a lot more damage than I will, but there's a lot more to being a fighter than doing damage. Mages, rogues, heck, even the cleric deals lots of damage. But with the exception of the cleric, none of them can take the hits monsters will give them. They need protecting.

In the campaign my aforementioned fighter is in, I fought alongside a barbarian with a greataxe. His deficient AC meant that although he had the occasional critical dealing over a hundred damage, he was face down in the dust every fight (well, not EVERY fight), with his player begging to be healed before his rage ran out and he died. Sword and towerboard, on the other hand, was always the last one standing.

 

[Trainz]

I prefer sword and board. My character is fullplated, with a tower shield and longsword... AC 40 at 16th level, before expertise and such.

Hmmm... interesting.

Wouldn't it be more optimal though to select scimitar instead of long-sword ? Instead of 1d8 you deal 1d6, but with Improved Critical your crit range goes from 17+ (long-sword) to 15+... damage dice rolled means less at higher levels because you damage output rests more on the bonuses than on the dice...

For example, 16th level fighter with Str 22, proper feats:

Scimitar +5: 1d6(3.5)+15 (+5 weapon, +6 Str, +4 Specialization), crit 15+
Long-Sword +5: 1d8(4.5)+15 (+5 weapon, +6 Str, +4 Specialization), crit 17+

In average, you only deal 1 point of damage more with Long Sword, and with Scimitar you crit 10% more.

 

[Victim]

Sword and board style is obseleted by magical Animated shields. A character using a two hander can then recover most of his AC loss. There's no comparable item that let's a 1 weapon guy get 1/2 again STR bonus.

Lance charges are strong too.

 

[hong]

Sword and board style is obseleted by magical Animated shields. A character using a two hander can then recover most of his AC loss. There's no comparable item that let's a 1 weapon guy get 1/2 again STR bonus.

Lance charges are strong too.

HAW HAW!!1! I BANNED animated shields from my game!!!

Christ, but they're stupid.

 

[Dark Jezter]

I'm a little surprised that so many people are saying that fighters who don't use shields tend to die often. I'm currently participating in two D&D campaigns. One has a greataxe-weilding fighter as the primary melee character of the group, and the other campaign has a greatsword-weilding barbarian as the primary melee character of the group. In both campaigns, the primary melee characters have yet to die.

Perhaps if the character weilding a two-handed weapon stupidly charges into battle against overwhelming odds, he would die often. However, I've observed that if a two-handed weapon-weilder fights intelligently, he has very good survivability.

 

[pawsplay]

Longsword. It's readily available. Put all your favorite Feats on it. Now, you can:

- Wield it in one hand, using the other hand for something else
- Wear it with a shield, getting an AC bonus
- Pair it with another weapon
- Use it two-handed, doing only 1.5 points less damage on average than the greatsword

Versatility, yay. The above applies to the bastard sword as well, but it requires an extra Feat, and I avoid specializing in exotics except for flavor because of the rarity of powerful weapons.

 

[ShadowX]

One thing that I think many of you forget in your critique of weapons is that 3e is an offensively favored system. Battles are usually very quick and thus speed is critical. Neglecting animated, a sword and board may have the advantage in an endurance fight when the increased AC is used more often. Even then the relative ease with which monsters hit may stymie the shield users bonus. With 2h you can lay the smack down quicker, and 3.5 power attack just helps that along. Hp is more useful than AC in the aggressive 3e system and this further enhances the 2h users advantage. Lastly many of you ignore the 1.5 strength bonus that adds up with the ease of acquiring ability bonuses in 3e.

 

[pawsplay]

Nothing makes you appreciate an AC bonus like running into a platoon of orc archers.

 

[Creamsteak]

Different DMs have different styles. Most people tell me they don't have twenty and thirty round combats, but I do. Most encounters with large groups do not break down to fireballs and cleaving when I run a game, and most encounters with a single opponent do not break down into a big bang spells and melee damage output match when I run them. That said:

Hp is more useful than AC in the aggressive 3e system.

On that point I have to disagree. Reducing the number of hits you take by 30-40% in melee and 20% ranged through the use of shields, feats, items, and spells will almost always out-pace a hit point monkey with a crazy damage output. Most of the time 400 hp getting hit 50% of the time is not as good as 100 hp getting hit 10% of the time.

What's really critical there is, if the enemy can hit you more than 50% of the time, they will be powerattacking you just the same (assuming big melee vs. big melee).

And in a 1 vs 1 fight, endurance trumps. When it's 4 vs 4, whoever can focus fire and cut down the enemies numbers first wins, so if a greatsword focused character can cut down one opponent at a time, that will quickly win the fight.