Should the Greatsword be d12?

[Kzach]

Just a very simple poll, yes or no.

My reasoning is that it is currently underpowered and it doesn't make logical sense to be as low as it is given the bastard sword will do more damage than it when wielded in two hands.

I also don't believe it unbalances anything by increasing it either. In fact, it brings everything into balance.

I don't feel a greatsword deserves high crit but increased damage is a good fit.

 

[keterys]

Ignoring bastard sword for a moment... wouldn't that make it clearly the best two-hander? That is, it'd do .5 less damage than the maul for +1 to hit, +1 hit vs high crit on the greataxe... those are clear wins. If you want reach, of course, you just want reach so there's not much to compare to there.

 

[cmbarona]

Military v Superior

I'm gonna have to say no to this. I think you're comparing the Bastard Sword to the Greatsword as if they are on the same level of skill use, which they are not.

The Greatsword is a military weapon. It should be comparable to other weapons in the military bracket, and two-handed military weapons at that. Heavy and light blades in 4e are meant to offer increased accuracy at decreased damage. A few exceptions may exist (I haven't double-checked all possibilities), but this is the general aim of the numbers provided by the PHB. Superior weapons are meant to be, well, superior. Thus they offer an appealing choice for a feat.

When you compare the Greatsword to the Bastard Sword, you're comparing a weapon that doesn't require a feat to one that does (unless you really want to spend a feat on the Greatsword for a class that doesn't get military melee as a default). The Bastard Sword should be better than the Greatsword in order to offer the appeal of a more powerful weapon in exchange for a feat. You can take a Weapon Focus feat to get the damage to the same point as a two-handed Bastard Sword if you so desire.

The numbers make sense, if perhaps the flavor does not. Although there are ways you could argue the flavor makes sense as well: e.g., Bastard sword proficiency requires enough training that it's as deadly in your one hand as a Greatsword is in the two hands of a standard Fighter, and even deadlier in both. After all, Bastard Swords are meant to offer flexibility and maneuverability that a Greatsword cannot.

 

[Kzach]

The numbers make sense, if perhaps the flavor does not. Although there are ways you could argue the flavor makes sense as well: e.g., Bastard sword proficiency requires enough training that it's as deadly in your one hand as a Greatsword is in the two hands of a standard Fighter, and even deadlier in both. After all, Bastard Swords are meant to offer flexibility and maneuverability that a Greatsword cannot.

The bastard sword is still a superior weapon to the greatsword if you have the greatsword at d12. It's just not so superior as to be utterly ridiculous.

The bastard sword is a smaller, lighter weapon than the greatsword. At 1d10 each, with the bastard sword being versatile, it does the same amount of damage and is at the same bonus to hit as a greatsword, when wielded one handed. When it is wielded with two hands, however, it is superior to a weapon that is meant to be wielded with two hands.

d12, however, means that the greatsword is superior in damage by an average of 1 point vs. the bastard sword wielded in one hand. When it's wielded in two hands, the average damage is the same as the greatsword, but it's maximum is still lower.

This makes it perfectly fit where it should fit in the heirarchy. Currently the greatsword is below where it should be, but d12 makes it just right.

 

[Nur-ab-sal]

In comparison to the bastard sword, yes. In comparison to the other military two-handed weapons, no. You change the greatsword you're going to have to make a cascade of changes to keep balance... maybe try changing the bastard sword?

 

[Kzach]

In comparison to the bastard sword, yes. In comparison to the other military two-handed weapons, no. You change the greatsword you're going to have to make a cascade of changes to keep balance... maybe try changing the bastard sword?

I really have to strongly disagree with that. It brings it into line with the other two-handed melee weapons. Currently it's the worst choice in the bunch.

Weapon			Hit		Average	Properties	Damage
				Bonus	Damage			Potential

Falchion			+3		5		High crit	        8 (16)
Glaive			+2		5		Reach		8
Greataxe			+2		6.5		High crit	        12 (24)
Greatsword (d10)		+3		5.5		None			10
Greatsword (d12)		+3		6.5		None			12
Halberd			+2		5.5		Reach		10
Heavy Flail			+2		7		None			12
Longspear			+2		5.5		Reach		10
Maul				+2		7		None			12

 

[comrade raoul]

How I'd do it:

• Greatsword becomes 2d6 damage, superior.
• The bastard sword is a two-handed military heavy blade with a +3 proficiency, 1d10 damage.
• A heroic-tier feat allows Medium characters with bastard sword proficiency to wield it in one hand. If you did this with a feat, you could even specify that you can't use an off-hand weapon with a bastard sword, though I'm not sure whether you'd want to.

 

[keterys]

I really have to strongly disagree with that. It brings it into line with the other two-handed melee weapons. Currently it's the worst choice in the bunch.

How so? I think you may be undervaluing a +1 attack.

 

[Ruin Explorer]

I'd really like to see some detailed math for this, from people who know what they're doing (i.e. not me!)

I mean, for me, it's clearly a "dumb" situation where a dude with a bastard sword is better off than a 2H sword. It's Just Not Right, as they say.

On the other hand, I'm not keen to return to 1E/2E's "Haha why aren't using a two-handed sword if you're using a two-handed weapon?". Still, even that's more acceptable to me than "Bastard Sword > 2H sword". I mean, jeez.

Maybe I should make a Feat so that the 2h sword can do more damage or otherwise have a genuine advantage over the bastard sword?

 

[keterys]

Or make the 2h sword a superior weapon, rather than just a military one.