D&D 4E Tell me about your 4e combats (and 2h weapons)

[Gort]

Thing is, it's not exactly a huge bonus. +2 to two of your defenses - you might not even be attacked in those defenses! You're also taking a -2 armour check penalty for your trouble, where the two handed fighter who wears scale has no armour check penalty at all - this is especially a problem considering that escaping grabs is based off athletics, which takes the penalty.

So it really stacks up like this:

Level 1 Two Handed Fighter

+1-3 damage depending on what power is used, increasing as you level.
No armour check penalty.

Level 1 Sword and Shield Fighter

+2 to AC and reflex defenses, static as you level.
-2 armour check penalty, static as you level.


I think they're pretty balanced. The two-handed fighter still gets a bigger bonus out of power attack than the sword and shield guy, as well. I think people are just exaggerating because the gap between sword and shield and two handed was more of a cosmic gulf in 3e, and in 4e it's a choice you might actually think about for a second or two.

 

[Staffan]

A "little" benefit against a "big" drawback is not balanced.

It is, however, appropriate if you want to encourage one over the other.

 

[Mirtek]

Thing is, it's not exactly a huge bonus. +2 to two of your defenses

In a game where the designers always talk about how proud they're about their great math and how every +1 counts at avery level

- you might not even be attacked in those defenses!

Given that one of the two is AC and the defense in which you will be attacked 90% of all time you get attacked, this sounds very unlikely

You're also taking a -2 armour check penalty for your trouble, where the two handed fighter who wears scale has no armour check penalty at all - this is especially a problem considering that escaping grabs is based off athletics, which takes the penalty.

The only point which might be valid, but depends highly on how often you will be graped as opposed to how often a monster will try to hit your AC

and in 4e it's a choice you might actually think about for a second or two.

But it only makes you use this second or two to think about why in the world would anybody consider 2h over 1h+shield

It is, however, appropriate if you want to encourage one over the other.

Hoever you should make both equal and not encourage one over the other. Because this is the exact opposite of balance.

 

[ValhallaGH]

Yeah, he had to spend a feat, by my feat was Dwarven Weapon Training, which, after looking at it, was not calculated into any of my damage figures.

Yes it was. You did 1d12 + 5. +3 from your strength and +2 from your feat.

Nothing I can say will alter the perception you got from your play experience, so I won't try. I will say that the weapons in the PH are some of the most balanced weapons I've ever seen. That includes the two-handers.

Given that one of the two is AC and the defense in which you will be attacked 90% of all time you get attacked, this sounds very unlikely

Bull. AC gets attack 60% of the time generally, 80% when dealing with dudes with weapons.
In the adventure in question, the monsters attack Fortitude 40% of the time or more. These would be the animated statues and the skeletons doing most of the Fort attacks. The Dwarf has a better Fortitude defense than the fighter. Also, the Dwarf moves -1 space when shifted and gets to save immediately against prone, both of which are incredibly powerful in that specific adventure.

 

[Mirtek]

I will say that the weapons in the PH are some of the most balanced weapons I've ever seen. That includes the two-handers.

The great balance between:

1h bastard sword + shield > 2h bastard sword > greatsword

It's ok for 1h bastard sword + shield to be better than 1h longsword + shield, but 1h bastard sword + shield being better than 2h greatsword without a superior weapon choice for the 2h greatsword wielder makes 2h swords suck big

The Dwarf has a better Fortitude defense than the fighter. Also, the Dwarf moves -1 space when shifted and gets to save immediately against prone, both of which are incredibly powerful in that specific adventure.

Both of which have nothing to do with 2h vs. 1h+shield

 

[ondali]

Given that one of the two is AC and the defense in which you will be attacked 90% of all time you get attacked, this sounds very unlikely

having DMed 2 games now i can say that AC is attacked more often then wil, ref and fort, but certainly not 90% of the time, and certainly not by intelligent monsters.
intelligent monsters (ie anyone with above average INT) will use will against fighter type pc's if they have a choice and since AC is usually a point or 3-6 higher than will ref or fort you can attack those fairly good with other attacks

 

[Mirtek]

intelligent monsters (ie anyone with above average INT) will use will against fighter type pc's if they have a choice and since AC is usually a point or 3-6 higher than will ref or fort you can attack those fairly good with other attacks

That's not helping all the intelligent humaonids and monsters with nothing but steel and claw to attack with.

Anyway, the point was that one of the two +2 goes to the most important defense a melee guy has and no matter whether it get's attacked 90%, 80% or 60% of the time, the chance to get not attacked there is small

 

[Ioreck_Thorinback]

You don't have to use a greatsword. I'd check out glaives, halberds, falchions and mauls. All have good damage output and little tricks to bring them up.

Falchions still ge the best attack bonus and high crit. They also benefit from higher level gear and powers, plus you can get away with power attacking with them.

Glaives and halberds are awesome since they not only have reach but they can get standard heavy blade or axe feats. Polearm gamble even grants you threatening reach (a wicked combo with the fighter's class abilities).

Mauls are just big damage dealers.

 

[ValhallaGH]

That's not helping all the intelligent humaonids and monsters with nothing but steel and claw to attack with.

You are going to be so freaking surprised when you actually look through the Monster Manual. And the DMG's monster creation rules, combined with the creativity of DMs, will likely take your breath away.

 

[Mirtek]

You are going to be so freaking surprised when you actually look through the Monster Manual.

Of course a DM can screw his defenders if he wants to, that's the power of the DM. Doesn't change the fact that AC is supposed to be the most important defence for a defender.

And the DMG's monster creation rules, combined with the creativity of DMs, will likely take your breath away.

As a simulationist I am not so pleased by most of the 4e monster rules. One of my favorite things to do with MMs was always to emulate monster vs. monster combats and the 4e creatures just aren't designed for it.