After some discussion a few weeks back in General regarding the usefulness of Versatile weapons (really, more the usefulness of the versatile property itself), I came up with the following changes. Here I list my revamped Versatile property, along with the modified Versatile versions of PH1 and AV1 weapons. Following that are three feats, and some additional musings.
Weapon Properties
Versatile: Versatile weapons are weapons that can effectively be used as either one-handed or two-handed weapons. A versatile weapon's listed statistics are used when the weapon is used as a one-handed weapon. When you use a versatile weapon as a two-handed weapon, you take a -1 penalty on attack rolls, and the weapon's statistics change as listed with the versatile keyword.
Example: A longsword has a d8 damage die and Versatile (d10). When used as a two-handed weapon, you take a -1 penalty on the attack roll but the weapon die increases to d10.
*: Note that many of the above weapons (particularly those from AV1) have an alternate modification listed in brackets []. These are other, non-damage-die, modifications I've considered. These are applied just like the damage die change (replacing the base value, for proficiency bonuses; new properties are simply added on to the base properties). As it stands, I'm not currently using these alternate properties, but if I do in the future, weapons will only have one Versatile property - they will not ever allow a choice.
Homebrew Weapons Superior Talwar**; +3, 1d8, Heavy Blade group; High crit, Versatile (d10) **: A character proficient with this weapon can treat it as a scimitar for the purpose of the Scimitar Dance feat.
Feats
Versatile Weapon Advantage Prerequisite: Dex 13 Benefit: When you hit a target with a versatile weapon used as a one-handed weapon, you gain a +1 bonus to your attack rolls against the same target using the weapon as a two-handed weapon until the end of the turn. When you hit a target with a versatile weapon used as a two-handed weapon, you gain a +1 bonus to your attack rolls agianst the same target using the weapon as a one-handed weapon until the end of the turn. Versatile Weapon Defense Prerequisite: Dex 13 Benefit: While you are wielding a versatile weapon as a one-handed weapon and have your other hand free, or while you are wielding a versatile weapon as a two-handed weapon, you gain a +1 shield bonus to AC and Reflex defense. Versatile Weapon Training Prerequisite: Dex 13 Benefit: You do not take a -1 penalty to attack rolls while wielding a versatile weapon as a two-handed weapon.
Builds and Powers
At the moment, I have none prepared. I would like to at least create a Versatile-focused option for the Fighter class. Really it probably needs just more attack powers that require (or benefit from) a weapon wielded in one hand, though a few multi-attack powers that force a switch (from one-handed to two-handed, or from 2- to 1-; they would require a versatile weapon) could be interesting. I could imagine a potential Ranger build as well - or at least some kind of Ranger option (even if just some additional powers).
EDIT: I didn't really think about it at first, but these rules kind of assume that you do away with the Small weapon restrictions (as I've done). They might still work with Small critters getting the weapon restrictions, but none of these were designed with those limitations in mind.
Is there any logical reason for the -1 attack penalty or is simply there because you believe it is needed for balance reasons? Personally, i would have no problem with increasing the damage die by 1 and not changing the attack.
Is there any logical reason for the -1 attack penalty or is simply there because you believe it is needed for balance reasons? Personally, i would have no problem with increasing the damage die by 1 and not changing the attack.
In the other thread there was concern raised for just raising the damage die with no drawbacks. In my own implementation, the only risk would be that many of the military weapons would simply supplant their two-handed counterparts, because they would be lighter, but just as effective.
From an asthetic standpoint, I wanted there to be a meaningful difference in choosing between one-handed and two-handed use, so that a character would be more likely to willingly swap between them. With the penalty, one-handed attacks are more accurate, but less damaging, than their two-handed counterparts. The character can swap to two-handed for the increased damage (such as situations where his accuracy is high enough, even with the penalty), but shouldn't be permanently attached to two-handed use.
That said, the Versatile Weapon Training feat seems an obvious feat, even if it effectively undermines the above idea a bit.
EDIT: I think the "logic" of it is much the same as power attack - you can use these weapons in an alternate fashion, but unless you are familiar with this alternate fighting style (Versatile Weapon Training feat), you are sacrificing accuracy for power.
I should have typed a bit longer but I'm doing all this half asleep. What I was trying to get at, is that if you leave the attack the same and increase the damage die by one, your versatile weapon is still weaker than an actual two-handed weapon of the same class. For example, if you increase a battleaxe from +2/1d10 onehanded to +2/1d12 twohanded, it is still weaker than the greataxe, which also has the high crit property. You get a reward for versitile, but its still not quite as good as acutally using a genuine two handed weapon.
One little thing though: for Versatile Weapon Talent, shouldn't "end of the turn" be "end of your next turn"? Otherwise, you're only ever going to get the bonus when you spend an action point.
As it stands, I'm reading it as a choice between using the larger damage die, or increasing the proficiency bonus by +1, when you wield the weapon in two hands. However, since doing so imposes a -1 penalty to attack rolls, that would make the second choice kind of pointless.
One little thing though: for Versatile Weapon Talent, shouldn't "end of the turn" be "end of your next turn"? Otherwise, you're only ever going to get the bonus when you spend an action point.
Or use the weapon with a melee power that allows you to make more than one attack. (Melee powers target individuals, each attack made with it's own attack and damage rolls.)
Personally, I'd go with just the bump in damage die. As someone above said, the regular two-handed versions also have some nicer properties.
Logically, giving an attack penalty just doesn't sit well with me since you're suggesting that you would be less accurate using the weapon two-handed when actually it should be the opposite since you're gaining more control of the weapon. Conceptually, think of trying to cut wood with an axe or swinging at a baseball one-handed. It can be done, but you're a lot more awkward doing it.
For the argument that you're using the weapon in an unfamiliar way -Anyone who had experienced martial training with such a weapon would also likely be trained in how to use it two-handed since it's intended to possibly be used that way. For exampke, someone who uses a sword and shield might have to anticipate that their shield might be shattered.
If you want to apply a penalty, how about applying a -1 to AC and/or Reflex? After all, you're in a stance where you're exposing more of your body but you don't have the natural range of a regular two-handed weapon.
Why would I ever want to use Versitile weapons in two hands under this system? I'm essentially changing the stats of my weapon into the stats of another, balance one-handed weapon, except I need to weild it in two hands.
I should have typed a bit longer but I'm doing all this half asleep. What I was trying to get at, is that if you leave the attack the same and increase the damage die by one, your versatile weapon is still weaker than an actual two-handed weapon of the same class. For example, if you increase a battleaxe from +2/1d10 onehanded to +2/1d12 twohanded, it is still weaker than the greataxe, which also has the high crit property. You get a reward for versitile, but its still not quite as good as acutally using a genuine two handed weapon.
I have to admit, I forgot about that. In using the 1-handed damage progression, and using the longsword as the "example" almost every time, I kind of "duh'd" on two-handed damage + properties. I'm probably going to be taking another go at everything, but I'll keep that in mind. However, I still don't want two-handed to be an obviously better choice than one-handed for the versatile wielder...
One little thing though: for Versatile Weapon Talent Advantage, shouldn't "end of the turn" be "end of your next turn"? Otherwise, you're only ever going to get the bonus when you spend an action point.
Or use the weapon with a melee power that allows you to make more than one attack. (Melee powers target individuals, each attack made with it's own attack and damage rolls.)
Greyman hit most of my reasoning. I intentionally went with the more limited option, to go with the attack bonus. The other way would encourage swapping grips every round, but could end up giving a nigh-constant, stacking, attack bonus.
I could go with the nigh-constant bonus, but if I did so, I'd swap it from a bonus to attack to a (higher) bonus to damage.
Like I noted too, that feat may end up as a build-specific feat, when I put together either a Fighter or Ranger build (or, if I do both, it may end up remaining "generic", but mostly appealing to those builds).
As it stands, I'm reading it as a choice between using the larger damage die, or increasing the proficiency bonus by +1, when you wield the weapon in two hands. However, since doing so imposes a -1 penalty to attack rolls, that would make the second choice kind of pointless.
Right, those are weird, and I'm probably going to toss them. I may keep the addition of properties for some weapons, and toss the changes in proficiency. But, as I tried to explain in the * sblock, those are a concept I was working with, but will probably just scrap entirely, but either way they are not a choice between the two (the final product will have one and only one Versatile property).
The idea was for those to be weapons that are awkward in one hand, and more stable in two. In effect, yeah, it would cancel out when using them two-handed normally, making them poor choices for two-handed weapons.
Even with the feat, I can't see them getting any use. So more likely than not, consider the prof bonuses scrapped in Versatile. Unless I dump the penalty - at that point, they'd make some sense, at least.
Personally, I'd go with just the bump in damage die. As someone above said, the regular two-handed versions also have some nicer properties.
Logically, giving an attack penalty just doesn't sit well with me since you're suggesting that you would be less accurate using the weapon two-handed when actually it should be the opposite since you're gaining more control of the weapon. Conceptually, think of trying to cut wood with an axe or swinging at a baseball one-handed. It can be done, but you're a lot more awkward doing it.
For the argument that you're using the weapon in an unfamiliar way -Anyone who had experienced martial training with such a weapon would also likely be trained in how to use it two-handed since it's intended to possibly be used that way. For exampke, someone who uses a sword and shield might have to anticipate that their shield might be shattered.
If you want to apply a penalty, how about applying a -1 to AC and/or Reflex? After all, you're in a stance where you're exposing more of your body but you don't have the natural range of a regular two-handed weapon.
Fair enough. I'll consider -1 AC and/or Reflex (or just Defenses, for simplicity's sake) as an alternative when I go back through.
Why would I ever want to use Versitile weapons in two hands under this system? I'm essentially changing the stats of my weapon into the stats of another, balance one-handed weapon, except I need to weild it in two hands.
For much the same reason as folks use Power Attack, I suppose (though, is my group the only one with players who PA with one-handed weapons?). For much the same reason as folks use Versatile weapons two-handed in the core rules (a bonus to damage). It's not the automatic / no drawback "+1" of the core rules, but it's quite potent. While it's... differently useful than power attack, it's a built-in quality, rather than something that requires a feat.
If I get it right, one-handed PA gives +2 damage for -2 attack and costs a feat. Versatile gives +1 (average) damage for -1 attack - or more, with higher [w] attacks.
Er... I... Yeah... My wife is watcing some crazy anime show thing, and the dog wants to play, so I totally lost my train of thought. Maybe I'll get it back, later.
What I was trying to get at, is that if you leave the attack the same and increase the damage die by one, your versatile weapon is still weaker than an actual two-handed weapon of the same class. For example, if you increase a battleaxe from +2/1d10 onehanded to +2/1d12 twohanded, it is still weaker than the greataxe, which also has the high crit property. You get a reward for versitile, but its still not quite as good as acutally using a genuine two handed weapon.
Maybe I'll get it back, later.