Should two-handed weapons deal more damage?

[keterys]

In discussing the various weapons, it's felt like there's been a lot of problems with things like 2-handing a bastard sword dealing more damage than a greatsword or how close two-handing versatile weapons is to two-handed damage in general and that the value of a shield really might be worth more than the ~+1 damage you get for going two-handed.

So, should they deal more damage? (perhaps a static +1 like Versatile, perhaps a general reworking, feel free to say what you think)

 

[Anthony Jackson]

A shield typically cuts a fighter's damage taken by 10-20%, depending on small or large shield. To keep things in parallel, a 2H weapon should do 10-20% more damage.

At T1, counting the effects of encounter and daily powers, typical damage per hit is about 1.4W + 6 -- 12.3 for a longsword, 13.6 for a warhammer. Bumping that by 15%, we get 14 for a greatsword, 15.7 for a warhammer. Subtracting 6 and dividing by 1.4, we get 5.7 for a greatsword, 7 for a maul.

Eh. That's not unreasonable, except for one problem: the bastard sword, which is a 1H weapon that is as good as a greatsword. If the bastard sword remains in the game, 2H weapons should do more damage.

Thus, on reflection, my preference is to eliminate the bastard sword.

 

[DLichen]

The problem with the greatsword in my opinion is that it lacks a niche since any character could invest in the bastard sword and come out ahead, and there is a sore lack of feats to invest in for most builds. +1 to damage for longsword switchers or +1 AC/Reflex from greatsword usually leads to the bastard sword being a no brainer option.

There just isn't incentive to not take the bastard sword over the greatsword since the draw of the greatsword is the damage upgrade in the first place.

On the flipside, thanks to Eldarin and Wizard of the Spiral whatever, longsword at least has some support going for it.

The greatsword needs some support to remain competitive to the bastard sword or it should be a 2d6 superior weapon.

 

[Kzach]

I do like the idea of having all weapons, when wielded with 2H, dealing 1 extra point of damage. I was going to suggest that in the other thread but felt it wasn't appropriate.

How would that affect the calculations?

 

[erik_the_guy]

Would this damage scale with tier (either increase it to 2 at 21st level, or increase is to 2 at 11th and 3 at 21st).

I'm looking at the fighter powers, and I can't see any powers that look appealing to great weapon fighters. I guess the reason to go with a great weapon is that the larger damage die means better damage on 6[W] attacks, but as you said the greatsword has crappy damage. Oh well.

 

[keterys]

Well, 6W = 12d6 instead of 6d8 is notable... 42 to 27, after all.

I suspect it could work just like Versatile. That mostly makes it better on the basic attacks and at-wills, where the difference is a bit closer.

Or it may not be a good idea. Dunno - I have seen people do greataxe, maul, and greatsword all, so far, so at least it didn't seem too bad to them....

 

[erik_the_guy]

Ok, here is a summary of the difference between the one-handed military weapons and their two-handed analogues.

The Handaxe, shortsword, war pick, and throwing hammer have no two-handed analogues.

battleaxe --> greataxe: +1 damage and 'high crit' property
flail --> heavy flail: +1.5 damage
longsword --> greatsword: +1 damage
scimitar --> falchion: +1 to hit, +0.5 damage
warhammer --> maul: +1.5 damage

It appears that the general trend is that +1.5 damage is a decent bonus for a weapon increasing in size. The high crit property is equal to about 0.5 bonus damage (my own numbers have shown that the high crit property is in fact worth about this much). Also, since high crit and bonus weapon damage both scale with tier (higher [W] powers, increased bonus from high crit, and increased chance to score a critical), the damage increases do not become trivial at higher levels.

There are two exceptions. The scimitar sees an increase of +1 to hit and +0.5 to damage when it becomes the falchion. The other is the greatsword, which gets a mere +1 increase to damage. In my opinion the scimitar sucks. It is a longsword that gives up +1 to hit for the 'high crit' property. It should be +3 to hit, 1d6 damage, high crit if anything. It gets a bit of an extra boost to make it balanced as a two-hander.

So why then does the greatsword see less of an increase over the longsword than the other greatweapons do, and why take a greatsword when a single feat lets you take the bastard sword, giving your the same [W] damage in one hand without sacrificing the +3 prof bonus (effectively, one feat gives you +2 to AC/REF).

I think the answer to this goes a bit deeper, all the way into the one-handed weapons. The balance seems messed up. Why would I take anything other than the longsword? I can either ditchteh +1 proficiency bonus for an extra damage (the axe/flail/hammer route) or I can ditch it for the high crit property (the pick/scimitar route). In my opinion +1 to hit is equal to about 1.5 damage. In this case the longsword is the superior one hander, and the balance issue with the greatsword comes from this:

1. The longsword is greater than the other one-hand military weapons by about 0.5 damage.
2. A two-handed weapon is 1.5 damage ahead of a one hander as shown above.
3. A superior weapon is about 1.0 damage ahead of a one hander:
longsword --> bastard sword: +1 damage
shortsword --> rapier: +1 damage (still light blade)

Then a greatsword should be 0.5 damage ahead of a bastard sword, but since it got less of a boost than the other two handers it is not. One option is to make the greatsword (1d6+1d4) for an average of 6 damage making it 1.5 damage over the longsword and 0.5 damage over the bastardsword. My opinion is that the longsword is too good itself. It is better than the other one handers, and since the bastard sword is based on the longsword, it is also too powerful (as good as a two hander, but in one hand).

Since we obviously don't want to change the longsword, I suggest we change other weapons based around it. This would require a complete reworking of the system unfortunately, which is a pain. I don't see any other way to balance it. As far as I can see the greatsword is not an option for fighters, and the longsword/bastard sword are the best weapons available.

 

[keterys]

You can also use feats to address balance - for instance, scimitars get scimitar dance.

 

[Stalker0]

I think this is something I want to wait and see on. The question ultimately becomes, is the extra damage worth the tradeoff of extra defense to the player. We can run math, we can compare ratios and so forth, but we don't know the damage to defense ratio that is the golden standard, ie the one that players as a whole will feel is fair.

Also remember that shields don't provide a net 10% to defense, a heavy shield provides a +10% to TWO defenses. Granted those are the most common ones hit, but its something to remember. Further, there are many effects that cause ongoing damage which defenses do not stop. And of course, the heavy shield has a large ACP, and since skills are more important in 4e that's a factor. If we eliminate that, then we are looking at the light shield, which is only a 5% increase. But on the other hand, AC and ref defense stop more than damage, they also stop a variety of effects.

If I was going to make any change right now (which I'm not) I would give the two-handed weapons a +1 to damage. Its a quick simple change, and it doesn't cause any scaling issues when you use powers with a lot of dice.

 

[keterys]

Honestly, I suspect that they might do enough extra damage on bigW hits and crits and such, but on basic attacks and such I'm more fuzzy - hence thinking the "Versatile" +1 static bonus might be a good thing to include on 2handed only weapons.

If nothing else as a preventative measure against repeated future complaints.

Probably not worth making a house rule, though, unless you have lots, but if a player complains you can just go 'Eh, have another 1 damage' and not worry much I expect.