Should two-handed weapons deal more damage?

[FireLance]

Well, the bastard sword costs a feat, so I think a feat that gave a +1 or even a +2 untyped bonus to damage with two-handed weapons should be okay.

Alternatively, instead of a flat bonus, it could give a +1/+2/+3 bonus at heroic, paragon and epic levels.

 

[Stalker0]

Alternatively, instead of a flat bonus, it could give a +1/+2/+3 bonus at heroic, paragon and epic levels.

Its called power attack

 

[FireLance]

Its called power attack

You don't have to take an attack roll penalty to get +1 damage with the bastard sword.

The feat would address that anomaly.

 

[keterys]

True, the easiest solution might be to address it with a feat. Something like

Massive Power Attack
Required: Power Attack
Benefit: When suffer only a -1 attack penalty when you power attacking with a two-handed weapon. In addition, your critical hits while power attacking with a two-handed weapon deal an additional 1d12 damage.

 

[Kaldaen]

I agree that it seems odd not to include a Versatile-type damage bonus for all two-handed weapons, but I think that can be rationalized by the (usually) larger damage dice listed for two-handed weapons. This way, it's really only the greatsword that looks out of place.

Without an explicit rationale from WotC, I'm inclined to think that giving the greatsword 1d10 damage was a typo, and that it should have been 1d12 all along. Applying this "house-errata" should take care of the weapon-balance issue -- greatswords are once again worth using in their own right, and bastard swords still have enough appeal to make them worth a feat.

 

[Destil]

The greatsword just sucks. The other two-handers are fine.

Greatswords were overpowered in 3E and got nerfed to make up for it in 4E. I'm just happy there's a reason to use a greataxe now. Greatswords should not be where you go for the most damage, but their fine as an easy to use weapon with a good bonus to hit.

 

[keterys]

There's an entire other thread where it's been mathematically proven that the greatsword would be too strong (compared to the other two-handers) at d12. So if you want to discuss the greatsword itself, best to take it to that other thread.

Perhaps it might be reasonable to say 'Does a maul (2d6) offer enough over a warhammer (1d10) and shield?'

Of course, the Adventurer's Vault may come up with
A) superior hammers and axes to creature a situation like the bastard sword for the other 2handers
B) superior two-handed weapons of any kind

And the Martial Power book may add a ton of feats to further differentiate, increasing 2hander damage or giving a shield bonus to AC or whatever.

So it may all be a moot point if you include those things. I'll stick with my 'Maybe'.

 

[Maximillian]

Since the Bastard Sword is versatile, couldn't one look at it as the improved version of either the Longsword or the Greatsword?

Effectively, if wielded two handed, it does 1/2 a point less damage on average than the Maul or Heavy Flail, but with +1 to attack rolls. I suppose it depends on how much more valuable you consider the attack bonus than the damage.

A superior version of the Greatsword is probably something we'll see very soon from a splatbook, anyway. I'd wager it's coming before year's end.

 

[Anthony Jackson]

Or, almost all the problems can be fixed by simply eliminating the bastard sword.