I'll just have to let her switch to Fullblade Proficiency instead, and let her "reskin" it as more of a bastard sword than an Exalted-style surfblade, ha.
Oh and by the way, are you trying to say that the players wants to have the weapon treated as two-handed even when they're using it one-handed? 'Cause if so, then I have to agree with the CB here...
So no, neither I nor the player was trying to cheat. We just thought that if you were using it two-handed, it counted as a two-handed weapon, but apparently not.
This part of the reason why this ridiculous restriction needs errata asap.
Which of course begs the question, what are small barbarians supposed to do?
Oh man. I hadn't even thought of that. I guess all they get is Pressing Strike, until Primal Power.
In my opinion, its not really fair that barbarians can not use one handed weapons. I wouldn't mind if there was more of a fundamental reason than a single line of restriction present only on the at-will powers, but in its current format that restriction seems sort of arbitrary and unnecessary.
But otherwise, yes, we will have to wait for primal power.
I am hoping that the devs will errata that line in one of two ways. I am hoping either they will re-word the power so that it works with two-handed weapons and versatile weapons wielded in two hands, or that they will find some way to simply remove that line.
In my opinion, its not really fair that barbarians can not use one handed weapons. I wouldn't mind if there was more of a fundamental reason than a single line of restriction present only on the at-will powers, but in its current format that restriction seems sort of arbitrary and unnecessary.
But otherwise, yes, we will have to wait for primal power.
I think the issue is not with whats in the barbarian's hands but rather with whats not there. i think they went two weapon requirement to disallow two weapon barbarians and barbarians with shields.
Perhaps if they just disallowed what they did not intend, then it would lighten up the restrictions a little for example (this power only works if the barbarian is not wearing a shield or wielding two weapons, or a double weapon).
love,
malkav
It just seems like an arbitrary restriction with no real benefit. I could live with it if it was required for balance... but I honestly don't see how it is.
For the moment, though, I'll just have to explain the situation to my player. Hopefully she'll be cool with having to use a non-Versatile two-hander until such time as this gets ironed out. The small Barbarians problem suggests this may be, at least in part, an unintended effect of the restriction.
On a side note does anyone remember if the preview barbarian power with the mini packs had a two-handed weapon requirement?
Edit: I checked the Ampersand and the Barbarian At-will attack power that comes in the mini packs does not have the two-handed weapon stipulation. So now you will have 2 at-wills that do not require this.
This was changed from the preview and playtest that we had. They apparently in the 4 or 5 months or so found a reason to change the powers to this. So I am not so sure you should be expecting to see a change come down the pike to modify this.
On a side note does anyone remember if the preview barbarian power with the mini packs had a two-handed weapon requirement?
Devs have made mistakes and fixed things before. I see no reason to have zero hope. Especially considering the number of players I have heard complain about this change already. I certainly think they will at least fix the powers so that they work with versatile weapons, and include one more barbarian at-will power that does not require a two handed weapon in Primal Power.
Devs have made mistakes and fixed things before. I see no reason to have zero hope. Especially considering the number of players I have heard complain about this change already. I certainly think they will at least fix the powers so that they work with versatile weapons, and include one more barbarian at-will power that does not require a two handed weapon in Primal Power.
Very true. But in the majority of those cases they didnt have a 4 or 5 month playtest open to everyone to help them make the decision beforehand. They had to have seen something during that time that made them make this change. And with Primal Power slated for release in October, I am sure you will see more at-wills there that are not restricted to two-handed weapons.
I checked the Ampersand and the Barbarian At-will attack power that comes in the mini packs does not have the two-handed weapon stipulation. So now you will have 2 at-wills that do not require this.
Alas, it's a Human Barbarian, so even once that gets published to the Character Builder she'll have one useless At-Will. Until Primal Power, of course.
House-rule (and thus go back to paper for calculations on those powers), or step in line and go with a "true" two-hander... decisions, decisions. :P
Alas, it's a Human Barbarian, so even once that gets published to the Character Builder she'll have one useless At-Will. Until Primal Power, of course.
House-rule (and thus go back to paper for calculations on those powers), or step in line and go with a "true" two-hander... decisions, decisions. :P
Since its a feat in question why not go back and let them choose a Superior Two-handed weapon?
Since its a feat in question why not go back and let them choose a Superior Two-handed weapon?
Because "being small" won't let a halfling wield any 2-H weapon, unless it has the Small property.
Very true. But in the majority of those cases they didnt have a 4 or 5 month playtest open to everyone to help them make the decision beforehand. They had to have seen something during that time that made them make this change. And with Primal Power slated for release in October, I am sure you will see more at-wills there that are not restricted to two-handed weapons.
I don't remember seeing a lot of discussion in the playtest forum about how the at-will required a two-handed only clause. I remember discussion about the potential power abuse of non-strikers gaining striker damage dice, or other strikers gaining double striker damage dice, via paragon multiclassing... but this two-handed requirement does not do the best job of fixing that. It certainly stops the rogue->paragon barbarian problem. But a pet ranger with a two-handed weapon->paragon barbarian still gains double striker damage dice, the avenger can stack its oath abilities with striker damage dice, and every other two-handed defender out there can still gain striker damage dice.
Honestly, I think the devs just dropped the ball on this one. Its not the biggest problem in the world. 4e still rocks. The PHB2 is still an all around amazing book. But this particular change seemed pointless, and poor from a mechanical stand point.
I hold out hope that the devs will fix it, both to more adequately stop abuse in the hands of other classes, and to open up more barbarian build options.
Because "being small" won't let a halfling wield any 2-H weapon, unless it has the Small property.
I would go and get a copy of the other at-will from the March Ampersand and have them use it. And perhaps we will see something in the Primal Power book in October that doesnt have these restrictions.
Since its a feat in question why not go back and let them choose a Superior Two-handed weapon?
If you look back at the OP, that's exactly the plan (and since then I've got it okayed by the player*). Fullblade is probably our best bet. It was just rather a surprise, that's all!
*Three sessions in, and she's saying "This barbarian character was broken from the get go. I am never playing a barbarian again." I suspect that's mostly due to Barbarians' squishiness--she spent most of last session's level 1 encounter unconscious--but the "you can't use the weapon you wanted" revelation was insult to injury. I offered to let her switch to a more durable class, but it sounds like she'll stick it out and see if a couple levels improve matters.
If you look back at the OP, that's exactly the plan (and since then I've got it okayed by the player*). Fullblade is probably our best bet. It was just rather a surprise, that's all!
*Three sessions in, and she's saying "This barbarian character was broken from the get go. I am never playing a barbarian again." I suspect that's mostly due to Barbarians' squishiness--she spent most of last session's level 1 encounter unconscious--but the "you can't use the weapon you wanted" revelation was insult to injury. I offered to let her switch to a more durable class, but it sounds like she'll stick it out and see if a couple levels improve matters.
If you build your Barbarian to do nothing but deal damage you will end up unconscious quite a bit. It is not hard to make a viable Barbarian that can start the game with a 17 or 18 AC and still be doing decent damage with powers.
Not sure if she would be up for it but a Half-orc Barbarian is viable. I made one up for fun as well as a Half-orc Ruthless Ruffian Rogue
Alas, it's a Human Barbarian, so even once that gets published to the Character Builder she'll have one useless At-Will. Until Primal Power, of course.
House-rule (and thus go back to paper for calculations on those powers), or step in line and go with a "true" two-hander... decisions, decisions. :P
I have the answer to your problem...
Give her a Greatsword, then right click on it, edit properties and change the name to 'Bastard Sword'
The only thing you are missing is the versatile bonus which you can correct by giving her the free feat 'Weapon Focus' or you can retrain bastard sword proficiency for weapon focus
This will make the power cards print correctly i believe, at least until 11th level when the weapon focus becomes +2.