I've got a beef with the Greatsword. A 1d10 damage die seems pathetic for a two-handed weapon, and the extra point of Proficiency Bonus just isn't making up for it, in my mind. The fact that said bonus doesn't scale is what irks me; there are bunches of attacks that use a multiple of weapon damage, but none are going to add your Proficiency Bonus more than once. So the difference in average and maximum damage for using a weapon with a higher base damage increases exponentially with each additional [W], while an extra +1 to hit is always just an extra +1 to hit.
I think what's got me really cheesed off is the fact that you do the same damage (1d10) with a one-handed Axe, Hammer, or Flail. In fact, since those are Versatile, they actually do more damage (albeit by one point) when used two-handed. The fact that a Bastard Sword also does the same damage as a Greatsword (and more if you're 2h-ing it) just seems... off.
The big reason that I'm peeved over this is the fact that the Fighter has Powers that you need to be using a Heavy Blade to get the full benefit of. I see what they were trying to do there - to make Swords the "finesse" weapons - but I've got some issues with the design there. I'm not convinced that I like the underlying concept to begin with; a Barbarian is never going to be barred from using a power because he's using a Maul instead of an Axe, and while I understand the desire to keep Weapon Specialization as an element of the Fighter class, I don't really care for the implementation here. If you are going to tell the Fighter that he needs to be using a certain weapon type to get the full effect from a given Power, you need to make sure that the different weapon types are balanced, and that doesn't seem to be the case.
Thoughts?
Lemme preface this by saying that I adore 4e, and I'll probably never go back to 3.x. That said: incoming nerd rage.
I've got a beef with the Greatsword. A 1d10 damage die seems pathetic for a two-handed weapon, and the extra point of Proficiency Bonus just isn't making up for it, in my mind. The fact that said bonus doesn't scale is what irks me; there are bunches of attacks that use a multiple of weapon damage, but none are going to add your Proficiency Bonus more than once. So the difference in average and maximum damage for using a weapon with a higher base damage increases exponentially with each additional [W], while an extra +1 to hit is always just an extra +1 to hit.
I think what's got me really cheesed off is the fact that you do the same damage (1d10) with a one-handed Axe, Hammer, or Flail. In fact, since those are Versatile, they actually do more damage (albeit by one point) when used two-handed. The fact that a Bastard Sword also does the same damage as a Greatsword (and more if you're 2h-ing it) just seems... off.
The big reason that I'm peeved over this is the fact that the Fighter has Powers that you need to be using a Heavy Blade to get the full benefit of. I see what they were trying to do there - to make Swords the "finesse" weapons - but I've got some issues with the design there. I'm not convinced that I like the underlying concept to begin with; a Barbarian is never going to be barred from using a power because he's using a Maul instead of an Axe, and while I understand the desire to keep Weapon Specialization as an element of the Fighter class, I don't really care for the implementation here. If you are going to tell the Fighter that he needs to be using a certain weapon type to get the full effect from a given Power, you need to make sure that the different weapon types are balanced, and that doesn't seem to be the case.
Thoughts?
Well, a couple of things
1. I think you are correct that the damage on the Greatsword is a little low. There was a thread a while back discussing how, due to the way 2h weapon damage progression works, some weapons were a little weak. Can't find it now, I'll post it later if I do. I think bumping it to 1d12 wouldn't be amiss.
2. I think you are underselling +1 to hit. The bigger an attack as, the more valuable extra hit becomes, so it does scale with big [W] attacks and multiple attacks.
3. You probably want to grab a Fullblade if you are using a 2h sword, and it is well balanced against other Superior 2h weapons, so in practice it's not really going to be a problem.
Greatsword isn't bad early levels. Bumping it to 1d12 would make it functionally better than Greataxe, which is +2 prof and 1d12.
If you want a better heavy blade that isnt an axe, go for a spear.
Honestly, I'd take the greatsword.
(And the Bastard sword requires a feat to weild, so I hope it should be better)
and the extra point of Proficiency Bonus just isn't making up for it, in my mind. The fact that said bonus doesn't scale is what irks me; there are bunches of attacks that use a multiple of weapon damage, but none are going to add your Proficiency Bonus more than once. So the difference in average and maximum damage for using a weapon with a higher base damage increases exponentially with each additional [W], while an extra +1 to hit is always just an extra +1 to hit.
Full stop.
First off, I suggest you go look at the formula for calculating average damage for an attack. I can guarantee you that a +1 to attack rolls is in fact a scaling modifier, because it affects average damage as a multiplier rather than in an additive fashion. This is because when calculating average expected damage, you *multiply* by your chance to hit. You only add a damage bonus. Also consider that a greater chance to hit affects the likelihood that additional effects will apply.
Your post indicates a lack of understanding of this basic mathematical fact. Now that you're aware, that help with your nerd rage?
If the system had a lot more variables (say GURPS), you could do this easily, with damage types, damage modifiers, readying times, parry modifiers, and special maneuvers, at the cost of a lot of added complexity.
Instead, they are trying to make these weapons different, especially for Fighters, using a pretty simple system. That means a lot of things are different, just for the sake of being different. There's nothing, mechanically, about Flails that requires a high dexterity to master them, over swords. There's nothing about Hammers that requires a high constitution. Heavy swung weapons, with a massive lever effect, like maces, hammers, and axes, are typically much less maneuverable than swords, which don't hit with the same force, but can be shifted much more quickly to parry and thrust.
It caused me no end of frustration originally because I wanted to play a Warforged with a Flail (think wrecking ball), but there was NO reason to boost DEX in my concept, except the very strong mechanical reasons to boost dex for flail feats, powers, and Flail Mastery. Eventually, however, I shrugged. High STR & CON fighters use axe or hammer. If I wanted to, I could still use those rules, and say it looked like whatever I wanted it to.
Greatsword damage does seem low, but it slots very nicely into the "+3 proficiency d10 military weapon" slot. Right above it are the two superior weapons, one of which is versatile (but otherwise identical) and the other is higher damage and high crit, but otherwise identical. Right beneath it are the +2 proficiency d10 military weapons (like Broadsword) and the +3 proficiency d8 weapons (like Longsword). It's more a matter of filling the niches than accurately describing real world weapons, I think.
If it bothers you, don't think of it as a greatsword, but something else. My own brain almost exploded when I realized rangers could dual wield bastard swords. Having held one, I could maybe see a Bugbear managing that, but a human?
I've got a beef with the Greatsword. A 1d10 damage die seems pathetic for a two-handed weapon, and the extra point of Proficiency Bonus just isn't making up for it, in my mind. The fact that said bonus doesn't scale is what irks me; there are bunches of attacks that use a multiple of weapon damage, but none are going to add your Proficiency Bonus more than once. So the difference in average and maximum damage for using a weapon with a higher base damage increases exponentially with each additional [W], while an extra +1 to hit is always just an extra +1 to hit.
*Deleted*
I've got a beef with the Greatsword. A 1d10 damage die seems pathetic for a two-handed weapon, and the extra point of Proficiency Bonus just isn't making up for it, in my mind. The fact that said bonus doesn't scale is what irks me; there are bunches of attacks that use a multiple of weapon damage, but none are going to add your Proficiency Bonus more than once. So the difference in average and maximum damage for using a weapon with a higher base damage increases exponentially with each additional [W], while an extra +1 to hit is always just an extra +1 to hit.
It's interesting you should point out the damage, then say the extra +1 to hit doesn't make up for it. +1 to hit is typically equated to +1 to damage (+2 to damage in previous editions using a 2handed weapon). Assuming +1 to hit = +1 more to damage, you're looking at the following:
1d10+1 = 6.5 average damage.
2d6 = 7 average damage.
You're not losing much.
All of these a good (and correct) arguments, but at the end of the day, you have a point- the Great Sword is ever-so-slightly underpowered, at least compared to the Full blade.
The Great Axe -> Exotic Great Axe shift merely adds the ability to reroll 1s and 2s. This is ever so slightly better than a +1 damage increase- vorpal and other properties key on max damage dice, and the reroll makes those slightly more likely, thus the ever so. Otherwise, it's a straight +1/die.
The Great Sword -> Full Blade transition, on the other hand, gives you +1/die and the high crit property, so the designers seemed to think that the great sword needed just a little nudge.
So there you go- you're right, great swords aren't all that great, because for a small price you get a much better weapon.
Assume a Great Weapon Fighter with a Base Attack Bonus of +6 (+5 Strength, +1 Great Weapon Focus) attacking a creature with an AC of 18.
With a Maul (+2 Proficiency), he has a 50% chance (10-19) of striking for 2d6 (average 7) damage per [W], plus 5 for his Strength. He has a 5% chance to roll a 20 and Crit, dealing 12 damage per [W].
With a Greatsword (+3 Proficiency), he has a 55% chance (9-19) of striking for d10 (average 5.5) damage per [W], plus 5 for his Strength. He has a 5% chance to roll a 20 and Crit, dealing 10 damage per [W].
So... correct me if I'm wrong, but the formulas for damage (not simplified, for simplicity's sake), where X equals the number of times that the attack applies weapon damage, would be as follows:
Maul:
.5(7X+5)+.05(12X+5)
Greatsword:
.55(5.5X+5)+.05(10X+5)
If those formulas are correct (and that's assuming a lot, I admit), then the Maul has a higher average damage for every positive value of X.
The value of +1 to Hit increases as does an enemy's AC. Running through the numbers quickly... the breaking point is at the difference between a 15% chance to hit with a Maul and a 20% chance to hit with a Greatsword. That is, the above Fighter does a higher average damage with a Greatsword than with a Maul (at least on up to a 4[W] attack) only against enemies with a 25 AC or higher.
Edit: ...Yeah, that only works if a Greatsword always hits for 5.5, and a Maul always hits for 7. Crap.
Anyone have those formulas handy?
The greatsword is just a bad weapon, that's all.
Okay, so the greatsword sucks. This is bad, because every weapon in D&D must be the best weapon in D&D.
The greatsword is just a bad weapon, that's all.
The problem with using irony in a forum post is that it's hard to tell if you're being sarcastic without things like body language and tone of voice to go on. Way to contribute to the discussion, though.
In all seriousness - I think it's reasonable to expect, if Fighter Powers are going to make it matter what kind of weapon you're using, that all of the weapon types be of more or less the same quality.
So far we have been talking strictly about damage, but lots of powers also have effects as well. Its hard to properly value the effects as they don't have numbers that can be crunched into a formula like expected damage. For example would you rather add 4 damage to an attack or knock an opponent prone, stun it, make it dazed? The more important the effect the more that +1 to hit is valued.
Using your example still, that is 5.5 damage per [w], meaning 11 damage, plus 5 for strength. Giving you 16 more damage, than if you didn't have that +1. So you would have had to hit, 4 more times with the other weapon. All in all though it works out to be about the same.
The problem with using irony in a forum post is that it's hard to tell if you're being sarcastic without things like body language and tone of voice to go on. Way to contribute to the discussion, though.
In all seriousness - I think it's reasonable to expect, if Fighter Powers are going to make it matter what kind of weapon you're using, that all of the weapon types be of more or less the same quality.
No, I'm completely serious about this: there is nothing that says that all weapons have to be equally good.
The Greatsword IS just a lousy weapon: it's far outshone by the fullblade and bastard sword in terms of heavy blades, and it's got a slight accuracy advantage over axes and other weapons that put it barely on par, maybe. What it IS, however, is cheap: you get a kind-of-okay mediocre two-handed heavy blade, in exchange for not having to spend a feat.
It's like steak. Sometimes, all you really need is some meat on a plate, in which case, you can go to Sizzler and get an okay steak for a reasonable price. That's the greatsword. The fullblade/bastard sword is putting on a nice suit and tie and spending fsktons of money going out to La Pretentious Steakhouse, and the two-handed axes/hammers are when you decide you'd rather go get a fine hamburger from your favorite burger joint instead of having steak.
Battleaxe/Warhammer: 50% hit chance, average normal hit=5.5
Longsword: 55% hit chance, average normal hit=4.5
Axe/Hammer: (.5*0)+(.05*10)+(.45*5.5) = 0+.5+2.475 = 2.975 damage per attack
Longsword: (.45*0)+(.05*8)+(.5*4.5) = 0+.4+2.25 = 2.65 damage per attack
Difference: .325 damage in favor of the Axe/Hammer
Clearly the Axe/Hammers are better when there are no modifiers. But the math changes when you add extra static damage.
Battleaxe/Warhammer +10 damage: 50% hit chance, average normal hit=15.5
Longsword +10 damage: 55% hit chance, average normal hit=14.5
Axe/Hammer: (.5*0)+(.05*20)+(.45*15.5) = 0+1+6.975 = 7.975 damage per attack
Longsword: (.45*0)+(.05*18)+(.5*14.5) = 0+.9+7.25 = 8.15 damage per attack
Difference: .175 damage in favor of the Sword
However, we see the opposite shift when we're looking at extra [w]-based damage, like from a power that does 2[w]+Mod.
Battleaxe/Warhammer 2[w]: 50% hit chance, average normal hit= 11
Longsword 2[w]: 55% hit chance, average normal hit= 9
Axe/Hammer: (.5*0)+(.05*22)+(.45*11) = 0+1.1+4.95 = 6.05 damage per attack
Longsword: (.45*0)+(.05*18)+(.5*9) = 0+.9+4.5 = 5.4 damage per attack
Difference: .65 damage in favor of the Axe/Hammer
So when more of your damage comes from static bonuses and not from your die rolls, then accuracy is favored. When more of your damage comes from your [w] rolls, then having a bigger die is the better way to go. And as you were saying, the harder it is to hit something, the more powerful the accuracy becomes. So there are a few sliding scales when it comes to the +2 prof Axes/Hammers versus the +3 Swords, but I think they are mostly balanced. Greatsword is the exception, and as people have mentioned, that is corrected with the Fullblade.
Just adding my two cents
So far we have been talking strictly about damage, but lots of powers also have effects as well. Its hard to properly value the effects as they don't have numbers that can be crunched into a formula like expected damage. For example would you rather add 4 damage to an attack or knock an opponent prone, stun it, make it dazed? The more important the effect the more that +1 to hit is valued.
I can see that, but it seems as if very few of the Fighter's Powers that favor Heavy Blades have any of those special effects. Mostly it's the attacks using Hammers, Axes, Flails, etc. that add status effects, while Heavy Blade stuff is more commonly about either Close Burst or multiple attacks. I'll grant that the extra chance to hit probably does scale better than base weapon damage on many of those attacks, though, since you only get the Secondary and Tertiary attacks as long as you keep hitting...
In any case, yeah, the Fullblade really does seem like the fix; I haven't got the Vault, but I see it in the Character Generator now. Thanks to those who pointed it out.
It's interesting you should point out the damage, then say the extra +1 to hit doesn't make up for it. +1 to hit is typically equated to +1 to damage (+2 to damage in previous editions using a 2handed weapon). Assuming +1 to hit = +1 more to damage, you're looking at the following:
1d10+1 = 6.5 average damage.
2d6 = 7 average damage.
You're not losing much.
Um...I think you're thinking about +1 weapons there buddy. Like, magic weapons. This thread is taling about proficiency bonuses, a new thing in 4e that makes it easier to hit with some weapons than others. Proficiency bonuses don't add damage.
I would be curious to see the Executioner Axe compared with the Fullblade by formula...I'm thinking of playing a Beastmaster ranger and, while I would prefer the Fullblade for fluff reasons, the Executioner's Axe just seems like the better weapon to me =/
Um...I think you're thinking about +1 weapons there buddy. Like, magic weapons. This thread is taling about proficiency bonuses, a new thing in 4e that makes it easier to hit with some weapons than others. Proficiency bonuses don't add damage.
I would be curious to see the Executioner Axe compared with the Fullblade by formula...I'm thinking of playing a Beastmaster ranger and, while I would prefer the Fullblade for fluff reasons, the Executioner's Axe just seems like the better weapon to me =/
No, it's definitely not the better weapon as a rule, though it might be the better weapon for your specific character.
The +1 attack bonus scales very well as you progress in levels. Let's figure out your average damage with either weapon at 15th level, essentially halfway through your career.
The executioner's axe essentially inflicts 7.5 damage per die of attack (re-rolling 1&2 essentially shrinks the range to 3-12, which is d10+2).
The Fullblade inflicts 6.5 damage per die.
Let's say you're a 15th level fighter with a 22str (18 to start, add at every opportunity). You have the appropriate weapon focus and you're swinging a magic +3 weapon. Assume you're attacking something that requires an 11+ to hit with the axe, which means the sword hits on a 10+.
The axe inflicts 7.5 (base) + 6 (str) + 2 (focus) + 3 (magic) = 18.5 average damage 45% of the time and 23 damage 5% of the time (crit on 20, ignore high crit), for an average damage of 9.475.
The blade inflicts 6.5 (base) + 6 (str) + 2 (focus) + 3 (magic) = 17.5 average damage 50% of the time and 23 damage 5% of the time, for an average damage of 9.9.
The fixed bonuses (str, focus, magic) scale with the attack bonus, but don't scale at all with the bonus damage from the axe. Larger number of dice (your 2[w]+ powers) will start to show an advantage to the executioner's axe, but remember that the extra bit of time that those neat status effects and other events that trigger off an attack will trigger more regularly with the full blade. So the conclusion is fairly simply- the full blade competes perfectly well against the executioner's axe, and that's before the weapon-specific feats, which I feel favor the fullblade. Take the fullblade if you want to- it won't cripple your character at all.
EDIT
Bah.. NOW I comprehend that you're looking at a beastmaster ranger. the Fullblade wins hands down for you. Hunter's Quarry is not Oath of enmity. It's another static damage bonus that scales with attack bonus and not with damage bonus. You want the fullblade, absolutely.
This makes me happy too, since I think the fullblade is a cooler weapon of the two, if only because I like swords =P