D&D 4E Two Handed Weapons in 4e

[med stud]

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?)

As long as we are spared from the mercurial debacle again, I'm happy .

 

[Spenser]

It's pretty easy to create a superior 2H sword -- +3, 1d12, done.

 

[Obryn]

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.

You could have said the same about longswords last edition, when comparing them to bastard swords.

-O

 

[Mirtek]

It's pretty easy to create a superior 2H sword -- +3, 1d12, done.

Yep, I agree. Exactly the superior 2h sword I think is missing

 

[HP Dreadnought]

Yep, I agree. Exactly the superior 2h sword I think is missing

Is there some design reason why a 2h sword couldn't do 2d6?

 

[hamishspence]

Mauls

They existed: in the FRCS, as a basic 2 handed hammer. In 3.5 they became like hammer/shaped bastard swords: exotic one handed, martial two handed.

As for the greatsword: wasn't the classic William Wallace style claymore a pretty fair example. It seemed to lack the odd complex hilt of the bastard sword.

 

[Styracosaurus]

A feat should buy you something, so Bastard sword is okay for my campaign. My PC's care more about the difference between a hammer, an axe and a sword rather than the difference between a big sword and a really big sword.

I wouldn't run around redesigning weapons when "Martial Power" is coming down the pipe in October and two hand sword plays a role as it is right now.

If you don't want to spend a feat on Bastard Sword when you want two-handed attacks, then you are just accepting a less-well designed weapon (when you accept two handed sword). Don't forget that Bastard Sword is a also "katana" in third edition. Katana clearly are the superior weapon for all cool fantasy.

I'd rather see you design stats for a Claymore or Greatsword rather than change the twohanded sword.

jdr

 

[greatamericanfolkher]

So a Bastard sword does a d10+1 when used in two hands but a greatsword only does a d10. That doesn't seem to make sense to me - why not carry a longsword which would do a d8+1 the same average as a greatsword?

The group I'm playing in fixed that by making the greatsword a d12.

 

[Obryn]

The group I'm playing in fixed that by making the greatsword a d12.

If so, I hope they scaled back the proficiency bonus to +2.

Really, with the +1 to-hit, the greatsword seems pretty well-balanced as it is - especially when you might blow a daily or encounter power on a miss. A +1 to hit will always be valuable, at every level of play, in 4e.

-O

 

[Mirtek]

Is there some design reason why a 2h sword couldn't do 2d6?

Then the maul would suck, because it's only +2 to hit instead of the +3.

Or you make the superior 2h sword +3 prof & 2d6 and also add a superior hammer with +3 prof & 2d6