D&D 4E Two Handed Weapons in 4e

[Gloombunny]

Feat for feat, the greatsword wielder keeps up in terms of damage until you both run out of feats to take that improve damage.
At that point he probably takes the bastard sword feat.

Yeah, but I was talking about the weapons themselves, not the characters optimized for using them...

Just think of "superior weapon proficiency:bastard sword" as:

greatsword mastery
You add +1 to damage rolls when wielding a greatsword 2-handed. In addition you may now wield your greatsword one-handed, but you do not gain this benefit.
This feat only works on greatswords that your DM chooses to allow to work in conjunction with this feat.

Now, really - is that a great feat?

Heh! I guess that kinda works.

 

[ForbidenMaster]

It is, however, a little weird that a bastard sword is strictly better than a greatsword even if you never use its one-handedness. It seems like greatswords got the short end of the stick this edition for whatever reason.

Its the same as a rapier vs a short sword. For the price of a feat you get more.

 

[Mal Malenkirk]

It is, however, a little weird that a bastard sword is strictly better than a greatsword even if you never use its one-handedness. It seems like greatswords got the short end of the stick this edition for whatever reason.

Bastard sword cost a feat so it has to be better.

If it helps at all, historically, Bastard Sword were pretty much the same size as what would have been called a Greatsword (It is a term fairly vague that could design many type of oversized sword). Zweihander and other huge renaissance era two-handed sword were never called Greatsword AFAIK.

But then again, a Longsword was the same size as a Bastard Sword too.

I know, RL doesn't help D&D much. The only point I'm making is that it's all in our perception. What we think a greatsword should be. And 4e shifted on us the Greatsword and Bastard Sword. But more often than not, that image we have in our head about what weapons are like wouldn't even exist without D&D.

If you try out Riddle of Steel, a realistical and more historically accurate game, you are in for a shock. ''So that's a Longsword?! What, it's not effective when used with a shield!? My head!''

 

[Gloombunny]

Bastard sword cost a feat so it has to be better.

That doesn't mean it needs to be strictly better than the greatsword in every respect. Other two-handed military weapons are better than the bastard sword in various ways.

If it helps at all, historically, Bastard Sword were pretty much the same size as what would have been called a Greatsword (It is a term fairly vague that could design many type of oversized sword). Zweihander and other huge renaissance era two-handed sword were never called Greatsword AFAIK.

But then again, a Longsword was the same size as a Bastard Sword too.

I know, RL doesn't help D&D much. The only point I'm making is that it's all in our perception. What we think a greatsword should be. And 4e shifted on us the Greatsword and Bastard Sword. But more often than not, that image we have in our head about what weapons are like wouldn't even exist without D&D.

If you try out Riddle of Steel, a realistical and more historically accurate game, you are in for a shock. ''So that's a Longsword?! What, it's not effective when used with a shield!? My head!''

I'm well aware of the wonkiness of D&D's peculiar ideas about what these various weapons and armors are and how they work. I'm just saying, given the way D&D treats weapons, the relationship between bastard sword and greatsword in 4e is odd and inconsistent.

 

[Destil]

Maul and Greataxe sucked in 3E (maul not even existing, Greataxe being inferior to a greatsword). Bastard sword was okay, but generally not worth a feat.

This is their revenge. And it is sweet indeed.

 

[Blackbrrd]

Two handed weapons + power attack was too good in 3.5
Bastard sword is too good in 4e

Two-handed weapons could use a boost in 4e, but double str modifier is too much I think...

 

[Campbell]

The bastard sword is fine mechanically, it just doesn't feel right thematically as a superior weapon. I might just axe it from my game.

 

[vagabundo]

The difference in damage isnt even worth worrying too much about. Just go with whatever you like. It is unlikely to be suboptimal and having a character your happy with it worth the drop in damage...

 

[Craith]

The difference in damage isnt even worth worrying too much about. Just go with whatever you like. It is unlikely to be suboptimal and having a character your happy with it worth the drop in damage...

*rolls Perception* *success*
I can see much truth hidden in this post!

Who cares if you do 3 or 5 points of damage more or less, as long as you have fund doing that damage?

 

[Mirtek]

The bastard sword is fine mechanically, it just doesn't feel right thematically as a superior weapon. I might just axe it from my game.

What's missing is a superior 2H sword. If the superior 1h sword if better than the military 1h sword that's fine, that's the whole point of being a superior 1h sword.

However if the superior 1h sword is better (using in 1h) than the militarsy 2h sword, then either the military 2h sword is too weak or there's the need for a superior 2h sword (who wants to bet that Complete Martial introduces the fullblade or whatever they call the new superior 2h sword?)