# Bastard sword v. Greatsword



## Reaper Steve (Aug 11, 2008)

I know there has been much discussion about these two weapons, but I largely ignored most of it. But now I'm curious...

My perception is that the general consensus is that the bastard sword outshines the greatsword.

Are these in fact balanced against each other beyond what the weapon stat line shows?

Best I can tell, for the price of a weapon proficiency feat to use the bastard sword, a PC gets greatsword damage from one hand, or greatsword damage+1 if used two-handed. If that PC happens to be a dual-wielding ranger, he is basically using two greatswords.

Seems like the real question is: is that level of benefit worth one feat? (My perception is that the answer is 'yes.')

At the same time, it really bugs me that a bastard sword being wielded in two hands would have a higher average damage than a greatsword.

If you think that the bastard sword does indeed supplant the greatsword, what fix do you recommend?
-- increase greatsword damage to 1d12?
-- give the greatsword 'high crit?'

Or, even better, I'd like to hear from someone who thinks that the weapons are balanced against each other (due to the feat requirement or something else I missed.)

Thanks!


----------



## Thomson (Aug 11, 2008)

Reaper Steve said:


> I know there has been much discussion about these two weapons, but I largely ignored most of it. But now I'm curious...



Uh, I really recommend skimming through some of the threads which are about this topic.

From my POV to sum it up:


Bastard Sword is a superior weapon and therefore rightfully better than a Greatsword.
Some say, some two weapon powers only work with Greatsword, some say they also work with bastard sword (don't know if this has been solved). If they don't, you do full Str damage with a Greatsword with Reaping Strike, and half with a Bastard Sword even if you wield the Bastard sword in two hands.
I would say, wait for Martial Power to see if they do anything to make heavy blades more interesting


----------



## Reaper Steve (Aug 11, 2008)

Thomson said:


> Uh, I really recommend skimming through some of the threads which are about this topic.




When I get home from Afghanistan next month, I plan on buying a community supporter account. Then I will have access to the search feature and I will search out and read those old threads!




Thomson said:


> From my POV to sum it up:
> 
> 
> Bastard Sword is a superior weapon and therefore rightfully better than a Greatsword.





Just curious... why do you say that?


----------



## Thomson (Aug 11, 2008)

Reaper Steve said:


> When I get home from Afghanistan next month, I plan on buying a community supporter account. Then I will have access to the search feature and I will search out and read those old threads!



 Ah, ok... sorry, I was talking about the WotC boards, forgot that you can't search here...




Reaper Steve said:


> Just curious... why do you say that?



Well, you have to spend a feat for the Bastard Sword, and therefore it should be better than a weapon you can use without a feat. Some people recommended to create the Fullblade, which is a superior weapon like the bastard sword and which is basically a Greatsword doing 1d12 damage.


----------



## FireLance (Aug 11, 2008)

Thomson said:


> Well, you have to spend a feat for the Bastard Sword, and therefore it should be better than a weapon you can use without a feat. Some people recommended to create the Fullblade, which is a superior weapon like the bastard sword and which is basically a Greatsword doing 1d12 damage.



Alternatively, create a Greatweapon Specialization feat that gives you +1 damage per tier with two-handed melee weapons (but not versatile weapons).


----------



## Thomson (Aug 11, 2008)

FireLance said:


> Alternatively, create a Greatweapon Specialization feat that gives you +1 damage per tier with two-handed melee weapons (but not versatile weapons).



Well, a d12 heavy blade would be better, since it gives you +1 average damage for each die, which would improve damage with encounter and daily powers significantly.


----------



## Reaper Steve (Aug 11, 2008)

Thomson said:


> Ah, ok... sorry, I was talking about the WotC boards, forgot that you can't search here...




And I'm completely blocked from the WotC boards out here!

I get what you are saying about the bastard sword being a superior weapon... since it takes a feat it should be better. BUT... I think it should only be better than a comparable military weapon. One order of magnitude better, if you will. It seems like the bastard sword is two orders of magnitude better. It gets d10 damage and retains versatile.


----------



## Saeviomagy (Aug 11, 2008)

Reaper Steve said:


> And I'm completely blocked from the WotC boards out here!
> 
> I get what you are saying about the bastard sword being a superior weapon... since it takes a feat it should be better. BUT... I think it should only be better than a comparable military weapon. One order of magnitude better, if you will. It seems like the bastard sword is two orders of magnitude better. It gets d10 damage and retains versatile.




Eh? It's one step better than a longsword (versatile, d8) and it's one step better than the greatsword(no versatile->versatile).

In fact, the feat is worth effectively a mere +1 damage.

The only real problem is that there's a point where bastard sword proficiency is the only feat left to take if you want to deal damage with heavy blades (either 1 or 2 handed), and so everyone ends up taking it. I imagine that once there are enough splatbooks, this might well simply go away as a problem.


----------



## Mengu (Aug 11, 2008)

I don't really know what the best solution would have been for the Greatsword. If you make it a d12, then there isn't a whole lot of point in taking a Greateaxe because the +1 proficiency bonus of the Greatsword would far outweigh high crit. We almost need a d11 or something in between there, or all the two-handed weapons and bows need a damage bump, which would be too many changes.

The Brutal property may be a good solution. If you added Brutal 1 to a Greatsword, it gives the weapon a 0.5 average damage bump over the Bastard sword. So for a greatweapon fighter, getting the bastard sword proficiency would only yield a +0.5 damage on 1[W] rolls, no extra damage on 2[W] rolls, and less damage on any n[W] rolls where n>2. So the Bastard sword feat may suddenly not be worth it for the greatweapon fighter. Instead they would pick a superior two handed sword with Brutal 2.

The only problem with this approach, is that I don't like the mechanics for the Brutal property, as I think it would be hard to remember in the heat of the moment, and you're rolling 3d10 and adding the numbers, it's real easy to miss the fact that one of them happened to be a 1, and needed to be rerolled. I would ink in "reroll" on the 1's of my d10's if I was using such a weapon.


----------



## Kzach (Aug 11, 2008)

Reaper Steve said:


> My perception is that the general consensus is that the bastard sword outshines the greatsword.




There was a consensus?

IMNSHO, giving any weapon that can be wielded 2H a +1 damage bonus basically solves all the problems. And I don't care if anyone disagrees with me, because my world is tranquil and peaceful and radiates a calm aura of righteousness that cannot be thwarted by the unholy infidels. Especially the one known as keterys


----------



## keterys (Aug 11, 2008)

Heh. I did recommend that solution - just because I'm not convinced it's necessary doesn't mean I don't think that it's a safe way to solve the problem for those who are bothered by the comparison.

I mean, +1 damage really doesn't hurt the game much and if it makes people happier, slap it right in, I say.


----------



## Mr. Teapot (Aug 11, 2008)

Fighter A wants to use a bastard sword.  To do so, he pays the privilege of a feat.  In the end his damage per (W) is 1d10.  If he wields it two handed, he gets +1 damage.

Fighter B wants to use a greatsword.  Since he has a free feat (that Fighter A spent on Bastard Sword Proficiency), he spends the feat on Weapon Focus.  Fighter B does 1d10 per (W), plus 1 at Heroic tier and even higher at later tiers.  

So at Heroic tier, after spending one feat on the weapon, both fighters do identical damage.  At later levels, the greatsword does more for the same investment.  Where's the problem?

If anyone suffers, it is Fighter C, who wields a longsword.  Sure, he takes weapon Focus and does equivalent damage (1d8+1 vs 1d10 = same avaerage) at Heroic Tier, but the bonus from weapon Focus is not included in the (w).  So at later levels, Fighter A's 7(w) attack does 7d10 (=38.5 damage), while Fighter C's attack does 7d8+3 (=34.5).  But Fighter C's 1(w) attacks outdamage Fighter A's.  Is that a worthwhile tradeoff?  Hard to say.


The only real argument that I can see for claiming a bastard sword is too strong is when Fighter A invests two feats into it: Weapon Proficiency and Weapon Focus.  But Fighters B and C could pick other feats to make them effective.  Possibly not more feats to raise damage, but feats that could make them effective in other ways.  But the Bastard Sword Proficiency feat is pretty clearly balanced agains tthe Weapon Focus feat applied to Greatswords or longswords.


----------



## Reaper Steve (Aug 11, 2008)

Mr. Teapot,
Great analysis.

I thought about the Weapon Focus thing as well. So, for the price of one feat, the greatsword equals the bastard sword at heroic, is +1 at paragon, and is +2 at epic.

But like you also stated, the bastard sword use could take that feat as well.

I think the root of my troubles is that at the basic stat level the bastard sword is smaller than the greatsword yet it does more damage when wielded in the same manner. It makes part of me cringe, but as I am a proponent of the 'it's-a-game-not-a-simulator mentality,' I think I can accept it for game balance reasons.


----------



## Mengu (Aug 11, 2008)

Reaper Steve said:


> It makes part of me cringe, but as I am a proponent of the 'it's-a-game-not-a-simulator mentality,' I think I can accept it for game balance reasons.




I would agree, I don't care about simulation, but those game balance reasons seem a bit flimsy in this case. Feats are cheap. There is no reason why a Human Greatweapon Fighter couldn't start out with Bastard Sword and Weapon Focus.


----------



## Mr. Teapot (Aug 11, 2008)

Mengu said:


> There is no reason why a Human Greatweapon Fighter couldn't start out with Bastard Sword and Weapon Focus.




Reasons why a Human Fighter would take other feats:

-Is using a weapon that's not a sword.  Particularly if using a different weapon is part of the character concept or their plan for later levels.  Possibly going the Hammer Rhythm route or using a reach weapon.  (Reach weapons aren't great on a fighter, but they still might choose to do so.)

-Is using his feats for something that makes him better at his role - defending the other PCs - and not something that makes him do more damage, which is the Striker's role.

-Spent his feats on Action Surge and Human Perseverance, because they're the two best Heroic Tier feats anyway.

-Really wanted Plate armor.

-Was given a free magical Greatsword with a cool enchantment on it by the GM at character creation.

-Wanted to Multiclass from the start.

-Has a pet Horse, wanted the Mounted Combat feat to match.  (Note that Mounts are very good for Defenders, as it increases the defender's space to large.  Now twelve people can be adjacent to you and suffer Combat Challenge and Close Burst 1 attacks, instead of just 8.)



Basically, spending two feats on one job is not exactly a no-brainer decision.  There are other feats worth taking that aren't about your weapon damage.


----------



## DracoSuave (Aug 11, 2008)

Taking feats aside, it's actually really simple.

In order to have Bastard Sword, you spend a feat.  Greatsword + a feat can do the same damage as Bastard Sword.  This isn't hard.  

'But feats are cheap.'  Considering you only get one every 2 levels, or one every 20 encounters, I'd say they aren't cheap.  They have to be earned through play which can take many many sessions.  And after that earning of one feat.... now you're Bastard Sword + a feat vs Greatsword + 2 feats.  

You can't make Greatsword a d12 weapon because then it's automaticly superior to all the other two-handed non-reach weapons.  A large +3 military two-handed weapon must be 1d10.  A superior weapon equivalent can then have abilities added on.  In this case, one-handed and versatile.

Any comparison that ignores feats is an argument that is trying to ignore the facts.  In -real- play, those feats -are- an opportunity cost, because you -are- playing through those early levels.


----------



## Dooks Dizzo (Aug 11, 2008)

Greatsword weilding Eladrin with the feat that gives him +2 damage when using swords 

Honeslty I am a little lost as to why 2 handed weapons do not grant an automatic +1 damage built right into their profiles. The advantage of a versitle weapon should be that it allows you to use a Shield as well.


----------



## Mengu (Aug 11, 2008)

Mr. Teapot said:


> Reasons why a Human Fighter would take other feats:
> <snip>



I wasn't saying they should always take those two feats. I just said they could. Yes there are plenty of options. Those options shouldn't preclude Bastard Swords and Greatswords from being balanced against each other.


----------



## DracoSuave (Aug 11, 2008)

Dooks Dizzo said:


> Greatsword weilding Eladrin with the feat that gives him +2 damage when using swords
> 
> Honeslty I am a little lost as to why 2 handed weapons do not grant an automatic +1 damage built right into their profiles. The advantage of a versitle weapon should be that it allows you to use a Shield as well.




They do, actually, as a direct result of their higher die-size.  Not to mention their advantage scales as you use higher-[W] powers.

That said, the Genasi Swordmage I'm building for LFR is going to be wielding a Bastard Sword, because of the versatility.


----------



## Dooks Dizzo (Aug 11, 2008)

That makes sense Draco. I guess I am the type that is blinded when I don't see an immeadiate advantage to a weapon; ie +X to whatever.

It's a touch off topic but what about the Falchion? I am kind of a fan to be honest, over the Great Sword even. Though probably because the picture in the book is so damn cool I can live with a little less average damage.

To go even further off topic, my next character is definitely Dwarven Fighter with the nifty +2 damage with axes feat. I am just torn between using a battle axe versus a Greataxe.

Now to take this digression back onto topic, the Great Bastard debate makes me really wonder if things like axes and such are being ignored? Isn't a Greataxe just as efficient or even more so than a Bastard Sword?


----------



## keterys (Aug 11, 2008)

Falchions are okay in Paragon, and good in epic.


----------



## Mengu (Aug 12, 2008)

Dooks Dizzo said:


> Now to take this digression back onto topic, the Great Bastard debate makes me really wonder if things like axes and such are being ignored? Isn't a Greataxe just as efficient or even more so than a Bastard Sword?




Except for the proficiency bonus. A lot of people prefer the accuracy of the Heavy/Light Blades over other weapons. But there is a significant difference between a 2d6 Maul and a 1d10 sword, especially when you start getting to 3[W] and higher, reliable powers.

I really wish they had some in between damage levels like 1d6+1d4, which would have been more acceptible for something like the Greatsword.


----------



## Victim (Aug 12, 2008)

There's a superior bastard sword, so people compare it to the similar military 2 hander.  There are no superior axes at all right now, so there's no real overlap to invite comparison.


----------

