Community

2D4 Begone: The CONS

So what are the downsides to removing the 2d4 damage die size?


Here are a couple potential problems that I can see. Please let me know if you have any I should add!


1) Removing the 2d4 damage die reduces variety.

It should be mentioned that since the 2d4 damage die only exists with 2-handed weapons, it's only the 2-handers that suffer from this.

Still, one example I can think of is the Greatclub.
Currently it is a Mace, and does +2 2d4.
This is actually a decent fit, as it does less damage than the Morningstar and more damage than the Quarterstaff.

When removing the 2d4, we have to make a choice.
Change it to +2 1d8 or +1d10.

Personally, I put it at 1d8.
My reasoning is that the design of the Greatclub seems to suggest it's meant as a measuring post for a 'big old piece o'sumthin' you would smack something with if left with no other choice. It isn't really designed to be the main weapon damage dealer of any character.
Besides, there is the Morningstar already which is also a Mace and seems to fit that role for characters who are only proficient with Simple weapons.

If we were to change it to 1D10, now it would do the same damage as the Morningstar and our new Scythe (thought it did do the same damage as the Scythe before, which was a little wierd...).

That aside, what it really comes down to is....
Would you sacrifice better balanced weapons for a little variety only available to 2-handers?

Personally I wouldn't, as much as I love my variety. But that's just me.


2) Removing the 2d4 now creates a +2 1D10 Glaive. This may potentially be an issue, especially for current Polearm lovers.

Mechanically, it would do the exact same damage as the current Halberd and Longspear.

But when you combine that with the Heavy Blade feats, a few Fighter class features, and Polearm Gamble some people would now consider the new Glaive a 'must-have' weapon that any D&D player would pick over other Polearms.

I don't believe that is true, however. Let me tell you why.

A popular build right now is the Opportunity Attack Optimized Polearm Fighter.
You can read one of the many examples here.
I want to keep this relatively short, so I'll let you read them if you want the exact details.
Basically, the idea is to try and get as many OA's as you can (such as when you have Polearm Gamble and an enemy approaches you) and to keep things away from you (using the Fighter's Combat Superiority).

It should be noted that any Fighter can pull off this trick with any Polearm... it is just more optimized with Blade Opportunity (+2 to hit w/OAs) and Heavy Blade Opportunist (using at-wills w/ OAs).

Therefore, if the Glaive did the same damage as the Halbard and Longspear many people think it would be unbalanced.

But here's the problem, as I see it.

In order to use this build, you need a few things....

-You must have high ratings in Strength, Dexterity, and Wisdom
-You must be a Fighter
-You must spend 2 extra feats
-You must intend to optimize specifically for OAs

These are all variables, and you cannot guarantee every player will make these choices. Therefore, you cannot balance the base weapon design around them.

What if I'm not a Fighter, but want to use a Polearm? Is the new Glaive still an overwhelming choice?
If I want to optimize my situational OAs, sure. And only then if I can afford a higher Dexterity.

But what if I want to optimize for damage? In that case, the Halbard is the obvious choice as Deady Axe adds High Crit.
What if Dexterity and/or Wisdom are one of my dump stats? I won't even qualify.
What if I have a bunch of other feats I'd rather take instead of Blade Opportunist and Heavy Blade Opportunity?
Even if I am a Fighter, what if I prefer the Axe or Spear powers instead?

Heck, what if I just don't like the flavor of the Glaive?
What if my GM always plays tactically and almost never lets me get any Opportunity Attacks?

See what I'm getting at?

Personally I think a +2 1d10 Glaive would not be unbalanced.
It's just very good when optimizing for a very specific trick using a very specific build of a specific class.
Is that a big enough problem to justify "nerfing" the weapon for everyone else who uses it?


3) When removing the 2d4 damage die it could mean we have to change a bunch of creature stats as well, because they do 2d4 damage.

This could be a problem and a hassle... but I actually think the modular design of 4e really works in our favor.

See, in 4e Monsters aren't built like PCs.
They have their own specific rules.

As well, we aren't getting rid of 2d4 damage everywhere, just on the 2-handed damage chart.

There should be no problem whatsoever in leaving the current monster stats as they are.
Even if the PCs should happen to slay a monster and want to steal his gear you could easily convert it to the current equivalent and be done with it.

Here's something else I posted in that other thread.

It should help prevent us going over a lot of the same ground.....

__________________________________________

I think I've finally got a sufficient answer to the whole theory that Heavy Blades are weaker due to having more feats/paths/items to choose from in the Core Books. I don't know why I didn't see this before!

(I'll try to keep this short and sweet. Let me know what you all think! )


So we've all gone back and forth over this topic.
But for now, let's ignore the whole 'direction of design' issue and whether or not WotC will continue to favor Heavy Blades in future products.
Let's also ignore the debate as to whether Blade Opportunist and Heavy Blade Opportunity are better feats than others (such as Hammer Rhythm or Deadly Axe).

Let's look at this in a new way, especially considering the discussion up until this point. In this case, we'll just rely on verifiable facts and numbers.


*ahem*

"If the Greatsword (or any other two-handed Heavy Blade) is balanced against it's kin, then the Longsword (or any other one-handed Heavy Blade) is unbalanced as written."



That, right there, is my case in a nutshell.

Heh, I know. I'm usually a lot more long-winded!
Not to worry... I won't disappoint you.

Let's examine my claim in much more detail...


Let's first examine the one-handed Martial Weapons.
Just as a point of reference, I'd like to specifically use the Longsword as an example.
Using the math we've done already in this thread, we have roughly determined that the current official Longsword is equal to or better than all of the other one-handed Martial weapon options.


Now let's examine the two-handed Martial Weapons.
Likewise, as a point of reference I'd like to specifically use the Greatsword as an example.
Using the math we've already done in this thread, we have roughly determined that the current official Greatsword is worse than all the other two-handed Martial weapon options.


Therefore, we can justifiably conclude that out of the current Heavy Blades it's only the Two-Handed Heavy Blades that fall behind when compared to the other available options in their category.


So that then begs the question, "What do Two-Handed Heavy Blades have that One-Handed Heavy Blades do not, in order to explain this disparity?"

If we look at what's available, the answer is simple. Nothing.

We can't count feats or powers that specifically take advantage of two-handed weapons. Why?
Because all the other two-handed weapon types take advantage of these as well, so they do not specifically aid the case against two-handed Heavy Blades.

Instead, we need to find something unique that only Two-Handed Heavy Blades can use.

But unless I'm missing something, there isn't anything like that in the PHB.


Quite the opposite, in fact!!
One-Handed Heavy Blades get +1 extra Paragon Path and Feat that are specifically only usable with One-Handed Heavy Blades, and not Two-Handed Heavy Blades....

Paragon Path: Wizard of the Spiral Tower, only usable with Longswords.
Feat: Scimitar Dance, only usable with Scimitars.


Therefore, if we are arguing that the Heavy Blades are balanced around their available feats/paths/items... then why do One-Handed Heavy Blades get more of these options, and yet are more powerful in comparison next to their Two-Handed Brethren?


So in conclusion, I believe we can only come to two possible answers...

Either, "If the Greatsword (or any other two-handed Heavy Blade) is balanced against it's kin, then the Longsword (or any other one-handed Heavy Blade) is unbalanced as written."

or

"If the Longsword (or any other one-handed Heavy Blade) is balanced against it's kin, then the Greatsword (or any other two-handed Heavy Blade) is underpowered as written."


Personally, I'm of the opinion that the second answer is correct.