1) Why did they take away the 1.5x Str for 2-handed weapons? In the case of the Falchion and the Greatsword, the 2H version appears worse than the 1H versions.
D10 to d12 averages 1 better damage per [W], but comparing that with 10% extra defense to AC and Reflex ...
d10+1 meets d12 on 1[W] attacks, plus grants the option of switching to High Def.
-- Remove the +1 damage from Versatile weapons and re-instate 1.5 Str Damage for 2H.
B) With only 4 Superior weapons listed, i allowed for upping the damage on a Martial weapon to make it Superior. Making a Grand Maul do 2d8 damage on require Superior weapon Feat.
This brought in the idea of doing it repeatedly to make Paramount Weapons which are a step up from Superior (accessible in Paragon Tier) and Supernal weapons, a step up from Paramount (accessible in Epic Tier). This makes Supernal Weapons effectively do 2[W] when compared to basic weapons.
-- Is this too strong of an upgrade for 3 Feats?
-- Will Casters need something comparable?
-- Would an Encounter power (accessible through a Feat [similar to the Channel Divinities] ) that increases the damage dice of a given attack as a Free Action after to-hit is rolled be equal/overpowered for Paragon Tier?
-- Would an Daily power that doubles the number of dice of a given attack (as a Free Action after to-hit is rolled) be equal/overpowered for Epic Tier?
The Paramount weapons would have the Superior damage and add a keyword (likely Versatile or High Crit).
The Supernal weapons would be like the Paramount versions but have +1 proficiency bonus to-hit.
And whatever happened to Weapon Specialization and +1 Acc with given weapon type
I'm going to make a wild stab in the dark here and guess that this is indeed extremely overpowered.
Do you mean 1) or B)?
I suppose you could add +1 damage to all the two-handers, too, without causing too much trouble, though. And the greatsword really does pretty much suck compared to any other two-hander.
1.5 times Str? Well, at 30th level, that's an extra +4 or +5. Doesn't seem like much, until you consider that's almost like an extra 1[W] on every attack. I'd stick to just the +1.
Increasing the die types the way you're proposing will lead to trouble, even without adding more bonuses to hit or weapon keywords.
Increasing the die types the way you're proposing will lead to trouble, even without adding more bonuses to hit or weapon keywords.
Then why should the Short Sword and Longsword get die increases when everything else doesn't?
Giving all weapons an extra [W] isn't as much when every attack does 2[W] (plus about an extra 4[W] from other static bonuses).
Then why should the Short Sword and Longsword get die increases when everything else doesn't?
They don't. Unless you're allowing a PC to play a Gargantuan character using a Gargantuan short or long sword, in which case they could also use a Gargantuan other weapon.
That case aside, I don't see how anything is getting three damage die increases. Even if you allow the MM races as PCs, Oversized will only get you one.
Giving all weapons an extra [W] isn't as much when every attack does 2[W] (plus about an extra 4[W] from other static bonuses).
Like I said, it might not seem like much... but in your case above, it's another 50% base damage and 18% or so total damage. Or, from another perspective, it allows you to do what would have been 7 rounds' worth of damage in 6 rounds.
It's a bigger relative impact on at-will and encounter powers than on the dailies, where the bases get to 7[W] or so. But at-will and encounter powers are what'll be most often used.
I'd be really careful about giving away an extra +4 or +5 damage with every hit.
They don't. Unless you're allowing a PC to play a Gargantuan character using a Gargantuan short or long sword, in which case they could also use a Gargantuan other weapon.
The Rapier and the Bastard sword are Short Swords and Longswords (respectively) that get a bigger damage die in exchange for learning a feat. Letting Paramount and Supernal weapons increase the damage dice again is just excessive, i see that. But i can't imagine any reason why a Superior Greatsword would not have a similar benefit than is already listed for a Superior Longsword.
Like I said, it might not seem like much... but in your case above, it's another 50% base damage and 18% or so total damage. Or, from another perspective, it allows you to do what would have been 7 rounds' worth of damage in 6 rounds.
At lvl 30 with a Greatsword and the max possible 28 strength, an At-Will will do 2d10 +6(weapon) +3(Weapon Focus) [+9 Power Attack, probably] +9 (Strength) +4(half strength with this rule). Average hit of: 42
This rule would be a 9.5% increase in damage.
At lvl 2 with a Greatsword and the max possible 20 strength, an At-Will will do 1d10 +1(Weapon Focus) [+3 Power Attack, probably] +5 (Strength) +2(half strength with this rule). Average hit of: 16.5,
This rule would be about a 12.1% increase in damage.
It has a greater impact at low levels because there are less ways to get your damage up. Even so, this change is barely more than Weapon Focus and about half of Power attack.
Fighters and paladins are better served by going sword and board.
This is a feature, not a flaw.
you did read it right.
Fighters and paladins are better served by going sword and board.
This is a feature, not a flaw.
"Oh, your keyboard sparks whenever you press space bar, huh.... I'm going to have the check the manual to see if that's a 'flaw' or a 'feature.' " ;)
But honestly, i prefer features that create options rather than remove them. At the same time it'll give the Cleric a reason to not rush for Feats to fill his off-hand because it doesn't do much otherwise.
It just tipped the balance.
two hand weapon fighters are plenty good, sword and board is just a little better.
In 3E two hand weapon fighters where much much better than sword and board fighters, I like the shift. Sword and board defenders just feel right.
I don't see any problem with allowing new superior weapons, but I'd review them individually as a DM, rather than just let the players up the damage dice. Make sure they are comparable to the other superior weapons.
And Paramount/Supernal weapons is a bad idea, IMHO. Most powers already do double damage dice at paragon/epic tier, there's no reason to add ANOTHER source of damage dice, and it just creates a feat sink for any melee character.
It's didn't remove anything.
It just tipped the balance.
two hand weapon fighters are plenty good, sword and board is just a little better.
In 3E two hand weapon fighters where much much better than sword and board fighters, I like the shift. Sword and board defenders just feel right.
A lot of the 3E supremacy of 2H weapons came from Power Attack paying double, items of +6 Str and races of +5 Str and all of the bonuses being doubled on Crits, and having 4 attacks per round. You're just not going to see the 1/2 Dragon Ogres with 42 Strength anymore. Plus AC was so low as to be a joke at higher levels. Now the +2 AC means something instead of just being a sip of water in the desert.
I would like Sword and Board, 2 Weapon Fighting, and 2 Handed weapons to all be viable options so the choice is based off of what flavor you want your character to have and not the rules tilting things in a given direction.
The real question is: What would be a fair exchange rate for Defense to Accuracy to Damage?
The book says 1:1:1 ... i'm thinking 1:1:2
Will powers that add dex or cha to the damage instead of strength get 1.5 dex or 1.5 cha added to the damage if they are using a two hander? What about the wizard with an 8 str wielding a quarterstaff? Basically what you'll be doing is making strength an absolutely necessary dump stat for all 2H characters. Probably a bad idea.
If the Power has the Weapon keyword, and the weapon being used is used in 2 hands, yes, it would get the 1.5x Cha or 1.5x Dex (tho i would not apply this to Bows or Crossbows, they already have the built-in defensive bonus of being at range).
And the Wizard with 8 Str isn't going to hit the broad side of a barn with his quarterstaff anyways, but i was thinking of putting in an addendum where it's 1.5x Str or Str +1 whichever is more beneficial.
I would like Sword and Board, 2 Weapon Fighting, and 2 Handed weapons to all be viable options so the choice is based off of what flavor you want your character to have and not the rules tilting things in a given direction.
by... tilting it in the other direction?
by... tilting it in the other direction?
Well that's the thing i'm wondering ... trying to strike a theoretical balance with things ... and where would things be most balanced? After some simple calculations, the RAW seams to put 2H doing about 10% more damage than 1H which very well might be perfect.
There are two house-rules i was thinking of implementing.
1) Why did they take away the 1.5x Str for 2-handed weapons? In the case of the Falchion and the Greatsword, the 2H version appears worse than the 1H versions.
D10 to d12 averages 1 better damage per [W], but comparing that with 10% extra defense to AC and Reflex ...
+2 = 10% only when AC = 20, aka not very often.
Its a 10% increase in miss chance for the monster, BUT that presumes a non 1 and non 20 needed to hit. And, 5% miss compared to 15% isn't that big of a change in reality.
d10+1 meets d12 on 1[W] attacks, plus grants the option of switching to High Def.
-- Remove the +1 damage from Versatile weapons and re-instate 1.5 Str Damage for 2H.
1.5 STR was removed specifically because it turned two handed fighters into the only role a fighter could do and do well. bringing it back means that fighters will universally be better with two handed weapons. Its a bad idea.
B) With only 4 Superior weapons listed, i allowed for upping the damage on a Martial weapon to make it Superior. Making a Grand Maul do 2d8 damage on require Superior weapon Feat.
Which turns into I think 2d10 in the hands of bugbear or minataur, or once some feat comes along that lets you wield one size larger weapons in your hands Or when a paragon path does. Whats worse with the PP and this, it becomes 2d12 with feat/race choices. Its a bad bad move.
This brought in the idea of doing it repeatedly to make Paramount Weapons which are a step up from Superior (accessible in Paragon Tier) and Supernal weapons, a step up from Paramount (accessible in Epic Tier). This makes Supernal Weapons effectively do 2[W] when compared to basic weapons.
Since Epic already does 2[w] with basic attack,s it means a basic attack with three feats invested = 4[w] dailies = 6[w] and God help you when the supernal ranger dual wields supernal longswords and use bladcascade with a half dozen or so rerolls.
-- Is this too strong of an upgrade for 3 Feats?
-- Will Casters need something comparable?
If you do it, Yes, and monsters need 1.5x hp per tier, And make it automatic but remove feats as to not do it weakens the classes against monsters. In generally, No don't Do It.
-- Would an Encounter power (accessible through a Feat [similar to the Channel Divinities] ) that increases the damage dice of a given attack as a Free Action after to-hit is rolled be equal/overpowered for Paragon Tier?
-- Would an Daily power that doubles the number of dice of a given attack (as a Free Action after to-hit is rolled) be equal/overpowered for Epic Tier?
Coupled with the Rest of what you are suggesting Yes. Hell, even not coupled I would be leery of it. (that goes for both)
With both, you have a fighter daily that becomes 28w basically. 46d8 (surpnal maul with the daily and encounter active)= 207+Str*1.5+Everything else damage On Average.
Its not just a bad idea, Its a REALLY REALLY bad idea.
The Rapier and the Bastard sword are Short Swords and Longswords (respectively) that get a bigger damage die in exchange for learning a feat. Letting Paramount and Supernal weapons increase the damage dice again is just excessive, i see that. But i can't imagine any reason why a Superior Greatsword would not have a similar benefit than is already listed for a Superior Longsword.
Ah, okay. I was referring to the stacking damage-die increases. One increase in exchange for a feat probably isn't too bad -- although you'll probably want to come up with something similar for casters. In particular, the warlock could be left lagging here, as he's the only class whose primary purpose is single-target damage yet who doesn't use weapons. A die increase is generally worth +1 damage on average, so this shouldn't be too hard to address, but it will bear thinking about.
You will also want to ban Oversized PCs and any feat or other ability that might allow for wielding weapons larger than yourself, as the dice stacking might start to cause problems with weapons that start out at 2d6.
(1.5x STR)
It has a greater impact at low levels because there are less ways to get your damage up. Even so, this change is barely more than Weapon Focus and about half of Power attack.
Sure, but it's strictly better than WF. Without costing a feat. And it stacks with WF. And it doesn't have any penalties attached, like Power Attack does.
It probably won't break things too badly, but it is a pretty significant boost for str-based two-hander wielders. +10% damage or so over the character's lifetime isn't world-shaking, but it's a decent boost. Especially for free. And it will likely benefit warlords and certain cleric builds more than it will fighters -- did you intend that?
It probably won't break things too badly, but it is a pretty significant boost for str-based two-hander wielders. +10% damage or so over the character's lifetime isn't world-shaking, but it's a decent boost. Especially for free. And it will likely benefit warlords and certain cleric builds more than it will fighters -- did you intend that?
I didn't intend that, but i was aware of it. As for casters, maybe an "Implement Focus" Feat would do it? Plus that would make non-magical Implements do something more than just allowing the Wizard Features.
1) The game hasn't been out long enough to have been able to playtest the damage differences between tiers, so run through an entire campaign before resolving to change a system that probably isn't broken and
2) Why add a system that is only going to add more grief to you're game. It's going to take alot of work to shore up you're creature damage and hit points so encounters are a challenge and not a joke for a party with three two handed characters. Besides, DMing is supposed to be easier in 4th edition, why is everyone looking for ways to complicate it?
However, to make it so as that 2-H fighting doesn't outshine all others, the Def bonuses of shields was increased by 1/2 one's Dex/Int modifier (with 14 Dex a Heavy Shield provides a +3 bonus to AC/Reflex). This also cures my complaint that Dex doesn't do anything if you're wearing Heavy Armor and more accurately reflects RL experience hitting people with sticks (and using shields).
To keep TWF was increased so that the damage bonus is 1 +[Tier] and the Defense bonus for TWD is 1/2 Dex/Int (min 1). This means that by EndGame the 2H Fighters will be dealing out a lot more hurt, but getting hit a lot more than the 1H Fighter, and the TWF Rogue will probably have much better AC than the lot of them (because of the focus on Dexterity and getting 1.5x Dex to AC).
Superior Weapons will be added to fill in the holes, but nothing beyond that. I might put Weapon Specialization (+1 to Hit with given weapon type) back in as Paragon Feat