Versatile Weapons and Power Attack

[Danceofmasks]

Nah, that scene worked better in 3.5e ... 'cos in 4e removing a shield is a standard action.

 

[Shadowsong666]

Lets take a Paragon Swordmage with a bastard sword +3, bloodclaw and the power attack feat.

one-handed extra damage through weapon & feat:
+3 weapon damage bonus
+6 weapon damage for using the bloodclaw at-will power
+4 weapon damage for doing a power attack (-2 to attack)
_____
+13 total

two-handed extra damage through weapon & feat:
+3 weapon damage bonus
+9 weapon damage for using the bloodclaw at-will power
+6 weapon damage for doing a power attack (-2 to attack)
+1 damage for using a versatile weapon two-handed
_____
+19 total

difference: 6 damage per attack

Now lets assume the following, which is imho RAW per WoTC QA.

swordmage attacks the target
swordmage gets +3 bonus to AC for just using a one-handed weapon
free action - uses the bastard sword two-handed
swordmage now gets +1 bonus to AC for using a two-handed weapon
standard action - swordmage makes his attack using bloodclaw, power attack (if possible with CA, because -2 penalty to attack is not good).
swordmage takes 3 untyped damage which he can't resist against.
free action - uses the bastard sword one-handed again
swordmage gets +3 bonus to AC again for just using a one-handed weapon
end of turn

So, if the enemy is not using an interrupt, this gives the swordmage a +6 damage bonus without any evil side-effects.
At 11th level, with the right equipment, he would do around 1d10+29 damage per attack (+6 INT, +3 sword, +2 weapon focus, +1 versatile, +2 armbands of power, +9 bloodclaw, +6 power attack) and taking 3 (wow!) damage per attack and -2 to attack.

I think thats OK for a defender so far. Killing a Level 12 Kuo-Toa Marauder in about 3-4 rounds solo.

Imho thats not really cool, but rules are rules, right?

And yes, i just wanted to point out how easy it is to abuse the rule for extra damage with around 0 side-effects.

 

[Danceofmasks]

-4 to hit is about as evil a side effect as you're ever likely to have ... so it's not broken in the slightest.

 

[Shadowsong666]

-4 to hit is about as evil a side effect as you're ever likely to have ... so it's not broken in the slightest.

get CA
get assistance from your local cleric or warlord.

Righteous Brand and CA gives you around +8 to attack - so with this things going you still have +4

But hell, to STR clerics using Righteous Brand on each other with Glaives is enough to kill the monsters easily. ^^

 

[Mallus]

Lets take a Paragon Swordmage with a bastard sword +3, bloodclaw and the power attack feat... snip...

My group rules that a Swordmage loses the one-handed AC boost any round they make a two-handed attack. Get the two-handed benefits, lose the one-handed benefits. Works out fine.

 

[chitzk0i]

There's no penalty to attack with a bloodclaw weapon. You take damage equal to the enhancement bonus of the weapon.

 

[Shadowsong666]

My group rules that a Swordmage loses the one-handed AC boost any round they make a two-handed attack. Get the two-handed benefits, lose the one-handed benefits. Works out fine.

i totally understand that and its a good way to handle it, but its a house rule. For many people, whysodamnever, sticking to the rules as written is life.
But yeah, if that gets out of hand i would think about a house rule too.

There's no penalty to attack with a bloodclaw weapon. You take damage equal to the enhancement bonus of the weapon.

thanks. i was typing that without access to the AV. Now that i checked it i can confirm that the -2 penalty for bloodclaw is wrong. I will edit my post above now.

 

[elandy]

Yes, my problem was with a swordmage, who (by the FAQ) can use a versatile weapon two handed for attack, and still retain it's full AC benefits during the rest of the round (pretty much like Shadowsong666 pointed out). I'm Ok with the "having your cake and eat it too" philosophy, but I think that's a lot of cake... but maybe I'm wrong.

My group rules that a Swordmage loses the one-handed AC boost any round they make a two-handed attack. Get the two-handed benefits, lose the one-handed benefits. Works out fine.

I was ruling it that way, untill the FAQ came out and F**KED my point of view.

Andy.-

 

[Mallus]

I was ruling it that way, untill the FAQ came out and F**KED my point of view.

Ignore the FAQ. Your ruling makes more sense, plus, it provides the Swordsage with a tactical decision to make re: PA.

 

[MyISPHatesENWorld]

Ignore the FAQ. Your ruling makes more sense, plus, it provides the Swordsage with a tactical decision to make re: PA.

It makes no more sense. It just removes the benefit of the versatile property for no reason.