Two-handed weapons -- nerfed, or am I missing something?

[Obryn]

I'm really not seeing how the greatsword is (1) worthless, or (2) worse than the bastard sword.

Yes, if you use a bastard sword 2-handed you get a +1 to the final damage. On the other hand, if you take Weapon Focus you get a +2 to the final damage.

The +1 extra to-hit for swords won't ever be useless in 4e, at least in theory.

It will do less raw damage, but it will hit more often, especially for non-reliable Daily powers.

Yes - for the guy who just wants to roll the biggest damage dice, it's a poor bet. For the guy who's primarily worried about hitting more often, it's a good one.

-O

 

[Cadfan]

*quietly pairs a two handed maul with Reaping Strike, power attack, and with the feat that does Con damage on a miss, and a bunch of Reliable powers*

If you're using a two handed weapon, you get increased damage and you save the cost of a shield, which you then invest into something else. Its a fluid system.

The greatsword is no longer the king of all weapons. This is as it should be. But its not worthless.

 

[hong]

It's not D&D if there's no Bohemian ear-spoon.

Is this the real life?
Is this just fantasy?

 

[Mengu]

That's a pretty marginal difference, honestly. In 3.x, you were trading lots of damage for lots of protection. It seems like you're now trading lots of protection for not that much damage. Once you get a few magic items that small difference is going to look even smaller.

Actually, you're trading not that much protection for not that much damage. Remember unlike 3.x, there are no more +X magic shields. Yes for defenders shields are probably still a good thing. But for say, a Warlord who only gets light shield proficiency, giving up a +1 AC for a little extra damage is an acceptable trade. And the Greatsword gives him better accuracy for a bit more reliability when using his powers.

 

[AllisterH]

I think sword+board will be the way to go for ftrs.

with mastery, +3 to ac and +3 to reflex is really huge compared to doing, what, 10-15% more damage?

more damage means enemies go down faster, and in that sense will be hitting less. I think you will take even less damage with beefed up defenses.

I suspect HP racing isnt really as effective a tactic as maxing DEF.

It really is monster dependant. Fortunately, a fighter is mainly dealing with creatures that attack his AC so I think you *MIGHT* be right.

(Do people realize that this might be the FIRST time since back in 1E when UA was released that sword & board might actually be the best choice?)

1E-UA/2E - TWF was king. Part of the reason why elves were so bloody good.
3E - THF ruled the roost
4E - S&B ??

That said, it's still unclear. No-one has really crunched the numbers when you factor in feats, opportunity attacks etc.

For example, for a fighter, Opportunity attacks are going to be common, or at least more common than for say a ranger, agreed?

How much of a factor does this play?

How does this factor into the calculation when you have feats that allow a HEAVY BLADE to use their at-will power with a basic attack?

Hell, I'm not even convinced that TWF is "DA SUCK" as everyone seems to be thinking (At epic tier, for a fighter with Longsword and a handaxe, the two weapon fighting/defense/flurry will REALLY add up thanks to opportunity attacks)

 

[HD300]

If all your focused on is doing DAMAGE, then Heavy Flail is the best.

I'm trying to go for maximum damage possible currently with my Fighter I have set up, and dex looks to be a stat I don't want to pump. I need 15 for the Flail feat that gives +2 to hit vs someone with a shield, and my con score will have to drop because of it.

Now if I just went with axe, I'll be able to use the heroic feat that adds con damage to AOO attacks to decent success, and get the epic level 19-20 crit range with axes (I clearly won't have a 19 dex to get it with a flail).

Opinions?

 

[Sir Brennen]

Comparing base weapon numbers is really only a small part of the whole picture. Feats and Powers are what will distinguish the different weapon uses - even moreso when the Martial Powers book comes out.

 

[Mirtek]

*Sorry, double post due to bad connection to enworld from Germany*

 

[Mirtek]

Sure, the feats are more plentiful and now as powerful as the latter era 3.5 feats, but neither are they like Toughness and you'll ALWAYS want to spend a feat on something.

It takes one feat for the 1h+Shield user to get the same Def than the greatsword user. There is no single feat a Greatsword user can take to get the same defence as the 1h+shield user.

many powers have advabtages with specific weapons

Howeder greatsword and bastardswords (even greatswords and longswords) count as the same weapon category (all are heavy blades). Any bonus you get for wielding a greatsword you also get with a longsword/bastardsword

More damage with Power Attack, 1 point per tier.

However this is still static damage. So attacking with at paragon tier 4[W] power with 22 Str and a +4 weapon it's 6d10+12 vs. 6d10+14 still not worth -2 AC and -2 Ref

*quietly pairs a two handed maul with Reaping Strike, power attack, and with the feat that does Con damage on a miss, and a bunch of Reliable powers*

Cool which power is that? So far I only heard about a power that let's you add your Con bonus to damage if you hit with an attack provoked through a violated fighter challenge. Con bonus on a miss? Does this work with every weapon and every power?

 

[Surgoshan]

This. Shields no longer grant enhancement bonuses. And the math is more linear overall, so you should always be happy to pick up a +2 one way or another. I believe shields max out at +3 with a feat?

Yep. It's a paragon tier feat... and it requires Dex 15, which will make it difficult for many defenders.