Okay, say you're a Bard or maybe an Elf who really doesn't want to use an Elven Curved Blade but wants to fight with a sword in two hands (I know, bad example). You have Long Sword proficiency but are not proficient in all martial weapons. The Bastard Sword counts as a martial weapon if used in two hands and it's basically a bigger Long Sword that requires special training if you want to use it in one. Obviously, these couple of instances where someone would get Long Sword proficiency individually aren't going to list “and the Bastard Sword but only if wielding it with two hands”.
The RAW is no as far as I can tell. You don't have proficiency. How would you rule if you were DMing and a player asked you, though? I'm curious because I am probably going to ask my DM this very question and was wondering what you guys had to say. If you'd say no, please explain why so that I can inform my DM of any possible concerns in allowing it.
your not proficient, I would not allow it. As it's not just a longer longsword, it's smiler but not the same weapon, size, wight, balance and the style of combat are very different
Kinda like saying well a short sword is just a bigger dagger. Just because they look kinda alike does not mean they are used anything alike.
I'd say no. It makes sense that a fighter, paladin, ranger, or barbarian could pick up a bastard sword and swing it effectively in two hands. It doesn't make much sense to me for an elf, one that doesn't know how to use martial weapons in general, can pick one up and swing it effectively.
Specifically, elves are suppose to know how to use rapiers and longswords due to the fact that dueling is pretty common in elven society, so even those that don't learn other martial weapons learn them.
On the other hand, nothing in that rationale mentions anything about learning two handed martial weapons. If you argue that longswords are similar to bastard swords, but have to be used with two hands, then the next logical step is to say that if you can swing a bastard sword, why not a greatsword? And why not just know how to use all non-exotic swords?
I guess what I'm saying is, for me, both the letter and the intent of the rules go against the logic of letting an elf that doesn't already know martial weapons, in general, use a weapon not specifically called out for them to use.
|
I would say you do not have the proficiency, so if you want to use it you can, but at the normal -4 penalty. Unless you are physically incapable, such as the greatsword in one hand, you can use any weapon even if not proficient in it. You just take a penalty to the attack roll. You could even use a bastard sword one handed without the exotic weapon proficiency, with only the -4 penalty as a result.
your not proficient, it is not just a longer longsword, it's smiler but not the same weapon, size, wight, balance and the style of combat are very different
Kinda like saying well a short sword is just a bigger dagger
You attack differently with a dagger (piercing) than you do a short sword (I don't care what my book says, it's slashing).
I could use a Long Sword in two hands with the same exact style of combat. How is a Bastard Sword in two hands in any way different? Do you think that all of the melee classes that get the blanket proficiency in all martial weapons actually train with every different kind of weapon in every situation (one and two hands if available)? That's a lot of training and a lot of wasted time on crazy combinations that will never get used. I just kind of saw it as they get used to certain types of weapons and fighting styles and could easily adapt to similar weapons even if they never actually trained too much with them.
Do you think that all of the melee classes that get the blanket proficiency in all martial weapons actually train with every different kind of weapon in every situation (one and two hands if available)? That's a lot of training and a lot of wasted time on crazy combinations that will never get used. I just kind of saw it as they get used to certain types of weapons and fighting styles and could easily adapt to similar weapons even if they never actually trained too much with them.
I'm sure that fighters and paladins and rangers and barbarians learn "techniques" and not every single weapon in the martial list . . . however, we aren't talking about someone that's a dedicated warrior. An elf wizard has held a long sword a few times, so he knows how to swing it without hurting himself or throwing his shoulder out of socket.
The roman short sword was indeed a stabbing weapon. Your saying longsword= every sword made. It's simply not true. You can untrained use a bastard sword as a two handed weapon, without the feat you simply do not know how to use it one handed
It's not a longsword, it is not used like a longsword..if it was you could do so without the feat.
Going by your though process a wizard can use a shortsword..as its a bigger dagger and anyone with a longsword can use a two handed sword. Sorry no
They simply are not the same weapon
If you argue that longswords are similar to bastard swords, but have to be used with two hands, then the next logical step is to say that if you can swing a bastard sword, why not a greatsword?
You *have* to use a great sword in two hands. It's too big otherwise. There is no "Martial Weapon Proficiency (Bastard Sword with two hands)" feat in the game. You just take Exotic Weapon Proficiency and can use it either way.
And why not just know how to use all non-exotic swords?
Well, Bards pretty much do. Focus on the Bard then. The Elf was a terrible example to begin with and I'm surprised that everyone said no based on the fact that they already have proficiency with the Curved Blade which is the same or better in all ways to the Bastard Sword in two hands.
The roman short sword was indeed a stabbing weapon. Your saying longsword= every sword made. It's simply not true. You can untrained use a bastard sword as a two handed weapon, without the feat you simply do not know how to use it one handed.
It's not a longsword, it is not used like a longsword..if it was you could do so without the feat.
I'm talking about using it two handed exclusively. Obviously, you have to take a feat to use it one handed.
Going by your though process a wizard can use a shortsword..as its a bigger dagger and anyone with a longsword can use a two handed sword. Sorry no
They simply are not the same weapon
Short swords can't really be wielded very effectively in two hands which would be the equivalent comparison.
If I were the DM? "No, they are different weapons."
A longsword is a longsword.
A bastard sword is a bastard sword.
A shortsword is a shortsword.
The rules say no; that should be the end of the discussion.
A longsword and a bastard sword have different balance points. Using a long sword 2-handed is not the same as using a bastard sword 2-handed. If you don't believe me, go out and purchase one of each. You will find that they perform differently when you actually swing them around. Thus, one is not simply substituted for the other without appropriate training.
And a shortsword isn't simply a short longsword. It doesn't have the mass to be an effective slashing weapon against armored opponents, movie fight scenes not withstanding.
As to the point about "That's a lot of training and a lot of wasted time on crazy combinations that will never get used," there's a reason simple weapons are simple: They do exactly what you suggest. Using a club is not that much different from using a mace. But fighters do train with a variety of weapons, because one doesn't know what situation one will find himself in.
The Elf was a terrible example to begin with and I'm surprised that everyone said no based on the fact that they already have proficiency with the Curved Blade which is the same or better in all ways to the Bastard Sword in two hands.
Elves do not have proficiency with the Elven Curved Blade. They treat it as a martial weapon. An elf fighter can use it without burning a feat, but an elf wizard or rogue is still out of luck.
Well, Bards pretty much do. Focus on the Bard then. The Elf was a terrible example to begin with and I'm surprised that everyone said no based on the fact that they already have proficiency with the Curved Blade which is the same or better in all ways to the Bastard Sword in two hands.
Elves most certainly do not have proficiency with the Elven Curved Blade. It is treated as a martial weapon.
Zo
EDIT: I have been preempted in a ninja-like fashion.
EDIT: I have been preempted in a ninja-like fashion.
I so rarely get to "ninja" someone.
I'm usually way too long winded for that . . . ;)
Take a level in Fighter. Fighters are pretty awesome.
EDIT: I have been preempted in a ninja-like fashion.
I so rarely get to "ninja" someone.
I'm usually way too long winded for that . . . ;)
I've held and swung both... the longsword is much, MUCH lighter and generally more well balanced, thus not requiring the exotic weapon prof. to use it with two hands. A bastard sword is best described as a 1 1/2 handed sword. It's light enough to carry with two hands, but I wouldn't march into battle with 1 handed unless I trained specifically that way. Also , using a longsword 2 handed and a bastard sword 2 handed is much difference. The longsword takes more finesse whereas the bastard sword requires more strength.
Examples - Aragorn in lord of the rings, he used a sword + a torch , that was a long sword and the torch in the first movie.
In the last movie, the Kings Sword is a bastard sword, he always used it 2 handed.
|
|
Okay as somebody who actually trains with swords...saying that a longsword (arming sword) is the same as a bastard sword (longsword)...just hurts. Realistically speaking, they are not used the same...game rule wise, it´s not allowed. If your a player trying to sneak this past a DM...well your just SOL because you really have no ground to stand on.
Okay as somebody who actually trains with swords...saying that a longsword (arming sword) is the same as a bastard sword (longsword)...just hurts. Realistically speaking, they are not used the same...game rule wise, it´s not allowed. If your a player trying to sneak this past a DM...well your just SOL because you really have no ground to stand on.
I'm actually surprised this thread has this many posts. Open and shut case in my book. To any who aren't familiar, I would recommend looking at how 1st and 2nd ed dealt with weapons and armor that had an actual basis in history. Not that the rules are great, but you can see that real thought was put into their differences. No Thor-style warhammers (2nd ed warhammer did 1d4 IIRC), etc.
Zo
Elves do not have proficiency with the Elven Curved Blade. They treat it as a martial weapon. An elf fighter can use it without burning a feat, but an elf wizard or rogue is still out of luck.
Yeah all about classes that are not prof with all martial weapons get from that racial is they don't need the +1 base attack bonus for the exotic weapon prof. So they can get it at first level with a martial weapon prof.
Also as a DM I would say no to what you would ask. I might however let you trade some class features if you really didn't want to spend the feat.
|
Okay, say you're a Bard or maybe an Elf who really doesn't want to use an Elven Curved Blade but wants to fight with a sword in two hands (I know, bad example). You have Long Sword proficiency but are not proficient in all martial weapons.
Is there some reason you don't want to just use a longsword two-handed?
I'm actually surprised this thread has this many posts. Open and shut case in my book.
I didn't ask for a rules clarification. I already knew what RAW said. I asked for opinions on whether everyone would allow what appeared to be a logical extension (or at least possibility) in weapon proficiency. Apparently, I'm the only one on the Paizo boards who isn't proficient with all martial weapons in real life. :)
I'm kind of surprised everyone is so stingy with something so fairly meaningless (game-wise).
Is there some reason you don't want to just use a longsword two-handed?
No, that's fine too. I just had a mental picture of my character using a Katana or Katana-like sword with both hands (long thin blade). I said Bastard Sword so that I didn't confuse everyone since it isn't detailed in PF. In 3.x Oriental Adventures, a Katana has the same exact statistics.
Of course now I'm going to get 20 posts on how a bastard sword is wayyy different from a katana.
Take a level in Fighter. Fighters are pretty awesome.
It be kind of a waste to take a level in fighter for half of a weapon proficiency. I wouldn't use anything else I got for it besides the combat feat.
Also as a DM I would say no to what you would ask. I might however let you trade some class features if you really didn't want to spend the feat.
Thanks you. This is more what I was looking for. What if I traded Martial Weapon Proficiency (Rapier) for it. I really don't want to be a swashbuckler and won't use it anyway. It doesn't fit the concept.
Bastard Sword two-handed is the martial weapon proficiency for using the blade. One handed use is exotic. If you are a bard who wants to use a bastard sword you spend one feat to get two handed use, two feats total to use it in one hand. If you are a fighter/paladin/ranger or any other character who gets all martial weapons as a starting proficiency you get two-handed bastard sword use as part of the package.
It looks like you'd only need the Exotic Weapon Proficiency to be able to use a Bastard Sword in one or two hands. The only prereq. is BAB +1.
EDIT: I know what you say makes sense in a realistic fashion but it doesn't look like the rules are written that way. Of course realistically, someone who could fluently wield a long sword in two hands would be better at wielding a bastard sword two-handed than a typical commoner with no weapon training what-so-ever too. Rules are over simplified to make them easier to mannage.
It looks like you'd only need the Exotic Weapon Proficiency to be able to use a Bastard Sword in one or two hands. The only prereq. is BAB +1.Silly, but true.
Not so much silly, if you make a comparison with the Longsword.
A Longsword needs (for those who are not Martial Characters) the Martial Weapon Proficiency (Longsword) feat to be wielded without penalties; you can wield it one-handed.
However, as ALL One-Handed weapons, you can decide to wield it Two-Handed insted, in order to squeeze out more from your Strength.
A Bastard Sword needs the Exotic Weapon Proficiency (Bastard Sword) to be wielded One Handed. And again, being a One-Handed weapon, you CAN use it Two-Handed as well.
As a limit case (bordering house-rules), a GM could allow a character to take the Martial Weapon Proficiency (Bastard Sword), but that would be a wasted feat, since the Exotic W.Prof. already includes that possibility - and with the Martial proficiency only, a Bastard Sword could be wielded Two-handed only (clearly a poor choice, since for the same expenditure of a feat, the Greatsword is identical but with a higher damage). A character could only want to make this poor choice if not having the +1 BaB necessary to take the Exotic Weapon Prof. feat for the Bastard Sword... but again, in that case a Greatsword would be better anyway (2d6 vs. 1d10), and the waste of a feat for something that could be taken at worst at 3rd level (for non-full BaB characters - technically at 2nd level, but no class gives bonus feats which grant weapon proficiencies, AFAIK).
While I agree that the use of a bastard sword 2-handed shouldn't be included in longsword proficiency, I think it would be fair to allow someone with proficiency in greatsword to use bastard sword 2-handed.
I wouldn't allow it. The weapon proficiency that elves have is cultural. While they highly esteem the play of fine swords such as rapiers and longswords so much that every single elf knows how to use them, this doesn't extend to any other melee weapon. You get proficiency with longswords, rapiers, and bows of all kinds. That is all. No wizards with bastard swords or rogues with a greatsword unless you want to spend the feat or take other class levels.
The only way I could as a GM be persuaded to alter this is if I was building a campaign world in which elves esteemed different weapons instead, such as a powerful empire that considered only staff combat to be a true artform, or only greatsword combat, etc.
And perhaps I'm just cranky from so many years as GM, but I'm generally disinclined to allow players to deviate from the book. If they can't use what's there to creative effect I don't see why they ought to foist it upon me to incorporate a special version just for them and add to my own paperwork. One might argue that a good GM should be as permissive as possible, but a really good GM knows when to say no because the players need to be responsible and carry their own weight too.
This is a case where the rules do exist to allow you to get exactly what you want, just by spending a feat. Since the rules do already exist, I see no reason why your GM needs pestering just so you can get a freebie and be a sorcerer with a bastard sword without spending the feat.
This is a case where the rules do exist to allow you to get exactly what you want, just by spending a feat. Since the rules do already exist, I see no reason why your GM needs pestering just so you can get a freebie and be a sorcerer with a bastard sword without spending the feat.
Bard, not Sorcerer and I am not playing an Elf (probably half-elf, maybe human). I don't want to be a swashbuckler though.
Sorry, if I'm going to burn a feat for half a proficiency, I'd just as well use it for the curved blade. It might even fit closer to what I'm looking for anyway. I'd just as likely just use a long sword and pretend it looks more like a katana. The +1 damage really isn't a huge deal.
It looks like you'd only need the Exotic Weapon Proficiency to be able to use a Bastard Sword in one or two hands. The only prereq. is BAB +1.Silly, but true.It's just a matter of a bit of editing and sense. Among Exotic weapons, the Bastard sword is fairly unique in that it has an operating mode which is accessible for those who are martially trained i.e. have the martial weapons proficiency.
Not really, dwarven waraxe is the same way. True it's only those two I can think of but they do both work like that
|
|
Also as a DM I would say no to what you would ask. I might however let you trade some class features if you really didn't want to spend the feat.Thanks you. This is more what I was looking for. What if I traded Martial Weapon Proficiency (Rapier) for it. I really don't want to be a swashbuckler and won't use it anyway. It doesn't fit the concept.
I would never allow such cherry picking. If you wanna swap out a class feature for the feat, fine...but I choose what you lose...and if you attempted to try the logic to try to get it for free first, then suggest a rapier for bastard sword swap as you don´t plan on using the rapier...well then I´m taking away your spell casting in exchange for the feat. I had a fighter player try a similar deal to try and get free weapon focus...I said sure, you just have wizards BAB in exchange. What you need is already in the game...it´s not like you want a war cleric with a heavy shield and a mace (that does require some sort of houserules from core to make work for example...usually the addition of somatic weaponry feat...or arcane bonding two handed weapons...). You are gonna just annoy your DM...honestly...and even making the suggestion of what if I give up his for that will be cherry picking (unless your willing to give up something really significant...like spellcasting). Even then I as a DM would b weary of it in case your plan is to just dip. All in all, if your legit about this and not attempting to do this to dip...just take the feat. It´s less of a headache all around.
If you didn't want to be a swashbuckler, why did you chose Bard? That's one of the main flavors to the class.
Your character can certainly use a Bastard Sword in 2 hands if they want. They just get a -4 for not being proficient, just like <i>everyone who doesn't have Martial Weapon Proficiency: Bastard Sword</i>. Your character could use it one-handed as well, at -8 (non-proficient with the base weapon, and non-proficient with the exotic usage on top of it; someone with proficiency in all martial weapons would get a -4 for not having Exotic Weapon Proficiency: Bastard Sword One-handed).
That's how the proficiency system works. Burn the feats, choose a different class, or do without. You'd really be better off just burning a feat and getting proficiency in Elven Curved Blade.
I have to ask what your concept is at this point, really, besides, "I want to be an elf and use a katana"
I have to ask what your concept is at this point, really, besides, "I want to be an elf and use a katana"
There can be only one :)
your not proficient, it is not just a longer longsword, it's smiler but not the same weapon, size, wight, balance and the style of combat are very different
Kinda like saying well a short sword is just a bigger dagger
You attack differently with a dagger (piercing) than you do a short sword (I don't care what my book says, it's slashing).
I could use a Long Sword in two hands with the same exact style of combat. How is a Bastard Sword in two hands in any way different?
Let me put in my two cents as someone who's actually trained and used said weapons in combat.
First of all, Shortsword IS a stabbing weapon. I was kind of surprised too, i initially thought it was slashing. It's not. I've been stabbed in the face way too many times with the dang things to know differently. (Wearing proper safety gear of course!)
As far as longsword vs bastard sword... slight variations in a swords weight, length, and balance can ENTIRELY change your fighting style. Length is actually a huge factor in fighting styles. I've fought one handed with a 27' blade with the balance just in front of my first knuckle. Longer swords require more weight in the pommel or longer handles to keep that balance ratio. Even having a longer handle changes your fighting style because you can't "flip" the blade in your wrist as easily during backswings without catching yourself and slowing your momentum.
Technicality aside, there are so many DIFFERENT styles, shapes, sizes, and lengths and balances of swords in history because each has a different technique and style to use. They are all not the same, even if they look similar.
There can be only one :)
I have to ask what your concept is at this point, really, besides, "I want to be an elf and use a katana"
Well, I mean the reason a bard doesn't get proficiency in all martial weapons is because they are *gasp* NOT WARRIORS. They haven't devoted their childhood/youth to training with multiple weapons to an adequate degree of competence. Instead they learn the power of inspiration, of song and story, of arcane magic and trickery. Bards know how to fight well enough to keep from being instantly killed in a bar-fight two out of three times, but being as they aren't primarily warriors - and have only limited proficiency in armor to protect themselves - it follows that they wouldn't train with front-line battlefield weapons. Since a Bard's class abilities rely on Intelligence, Dexterity, and Charisma, it follows that they'd be best suited to weapons that use those qualities: finesse weapons that rely on quick wits and quick hands, not strong shoulders.
That in turn leads to the other problem with a Bastard Sword Bard: Do you build a mediocre swordsman who doesn't get much advantage from his bardic abilities (due to sacrificing INT & CHA for STR) or a decent bard with a weapon it's pointless to use (low STR = little bonus even with 2 handed weapon)?
heh, it was a highlander joke man...400 yeah old dude with a katana
|
|
As far as longsword vs bastard sword... slight variations in a swords weight, length, and balance can ENTIRELY change your fighting style. Length is actually a huge factor in fighting styles. I've fought one handed with a 27' blade with the balance just in front of my first knuckle. Longer swords require more weight in the pommel or longer handles to keep that balance ratio. Even having a longer handle changes your fighting style because you can't "flip" the blade in your wrist as easily during backswings without catching yourself and slowing your momentum.Technicality aside, there are so many DIFFERENT styles, shapes, sizes, and lengths and balances of swords in history because each has a different technique and style to use. They are all not the same, even if they look similar.
Yep, very true. Even between arming swords (D&D longswords), a type X will handle and fight pretty different from a type XVI...course that level of detail is absent in the game as it does make for a rather complicated battle system. It´s almost as if learning to use a sword effective is difficult or something *rolleyes*...people seem to think you can pick up a weapon and swing it around and do fine...yes you can kill other untrained mooks this way (AKA peasants)...but against somebody actually trained...your in a heap o hurt.
I've fought one handed with a 27' blade with the balance just in front of my first knuckle.
Good lord, how much did that thing weigh? Talk about a 'reach' weapon. . . .
:)
I would never allow such cherry picking. If you wanna swap out a class feature for the feat, fine...but I choose what you lose...and if you attempted to try the logic to try to get it for free first, then suggest a rapier for bastard sword swap as you don´t plan on using the rapier...well then I´m taking away your spell casting in exchange for the feat. I had a fighter player try a similar deal to try and get free weapon focus...I said sure, you just have wizards BAB in exchange. What you need is already in the game...it´s not like you want a war cleric with a heavy shield and a mace (that does require some sort of houserules from core to make work for example...usually the addition of somatic weaponry feat...or arcane bonding two handed weapons...). You are gonna just annoy your DM...honestly...and even making the suggestion of what if I give up his for that will be cherry picking (unless your willing to give up something really significant...like spellcasting). Even then I as a DM would b weary of it in case your plan is to just dip. All in all, if your legit about this and not attempting to do this to dip...just take the feat. It´s less of a headache all around.
I guess I should've submitted this in the "Rules Getting in the Way of Fun" thread. What's wrong with cherry picking abilities that fit your theme so you don't overtax the character to the point that they aren't even effective any longer? No I don't plan to dip or multi-class. A Bard is pretty much already a multi-class character by design. Multi-classing further just seems silly to me. In fact, all multi-classing where you aren't at least at a 2/3 to 1/3 ratio doesn't seem to make much sense to me unless you are power gaming.
If you didn't want to be a swashbuckler, why did you chose Bard? That's one of the main flavors to the class.
Heavy armor is one of the main flavors of the Fighter class. Are you suggesting that making a light armor Fighter is somehow wrong?
You'd really be better off just burning a feat and getting proficiency in Elven Curved Blade.
I've considered this. Bard doesn't get many feats to work with though. Kind of hard squeezing another one in.
I have to ask what your concept is at this point, really, besides, "I want to be an elf and use a katana"
We are starting up an evil campaign and I ended up with good enough stats to be able to melee as well as magic. I plan to play a totally insane former court jester who's on the run because of an apple on the head trick gone awry. Think chaotic evil, totally freaky, scare you out of your pants jester type character who's always in character. Now swashbuckling initially seems a perfect fit as he will be acrobatic and such. The problem is that I plan to gear my character primarily around two things: demoralizing/causing fear in my opponents (making them weaker in a fight) and inspiring/boosting my allies abilities (making us stronger in a fight) both at the same time. I plan to utilize the Weapon Focus -> Dazzling Display -> Shatter Defensive feat chain demoralize my opponents while at the same time inspiring courage. I'd use Dirge of Doom (when I got it) but you have to choose one or the other at a time as you can't do two bardic performances at the same time. Later on I plan to do the Haste/Slow combo while making fun of my enemies who slug around the battle field.
Anyway (and this may sound stupid), I just can't get beyond the idea that a rapier and swashbuckling style of fighting is just not that intimidating. Sure, Zorro could easily turn me into a pin cushion but the deceptive nature of the swashbuckling style just isn't overtly intimidating. I can't see a Minotaur "getting scared" when he sees me twirling around my "toothpick" of a sword. I want something still finesse-like but much more intimidating. I was inspired by martial artists who use a katana or similar weapon in two hands to fit this idea. I'm also not too keen on using a shield while doing flipitty flips around my enemies.
If I wanted to optimize, I'd just use a rapier and shield. My AC would be much higher once I could get my light shield enchanted and the rapier is a very good weapon, especially when you add on critical focused stuff later on. It just doesn't seem to fit to me. Maybe I'm the one that's crazy. I don't know.
I understand where you are coming from that a sword that you swing at someone is about the same as a slightly larger sword that you swing at someone. With the same logic you just used I could justify not having to use Exotic Weapon Proficiency to use a bastard sword with one hand because it is about the same as using a longsword in one hand, just a bit heavier. Yes from a logical standpoint the action is about the same, but if you look at the weapon proficiencies they aren't arranged by what kind physical action it takes to use them, but on mechanics of the game based on balance of what different classes have to do to access the same weapons.
|
Longsword as "katana" style blade? Sure.
Free Exotic or Martial Weapon Proficiency? Not so much.
Looks and style are decidedly mutable in my games, evidenced by the fact that the Paladin uses a "rifle" (longbow stats) but the hard & crunchy bits stay the same.
If you're looking for optimal weapon choices, both rapier (which you don't like) and longsword are excellent.
-t
I always thought you could use a two-handed weapon one-handed with the oversized weapon penalty to attack rolls.
And that a large longsword is a greatsword, and that a large short sword is a longsword, and that a large dagger is a short sword.
Well, breaks my idea of using the Gloves of Arrow Snaring with a two-handed Barbarian if that's true.
|
|
I always thought you could use a two-handed weapon one-handed with the oversized weapon penalty to attack rolls.
And that a large longsword is a greatsword, and that a large short sword is a longsword, and that a large dagger is a short sword.
Well, breaks my idea of using the Gloves of Arrow Snaring with a two-handed Barbarian if that's true.
That was the case in 3.0. It changed in 3.5. Well other then the whole using in one hand deal. Monkeygrip now lets you use a one size larger weapon...so you can use a large longsword that does 2d6 damage in one hand...but not a greatsword which does 2d6 :P . Yeah I have a DM that hates this stuff so he just uses the old 3.0 rules :) .
|
|
I would never allow such cherry picking. If you wanna swap out a class feature for the feat, fine...but I choose what you lose...and if you attempted to try the logic to try to get it for free first, then suggest a rapier for bastard sword swap as you don´t plan on using the rapier...well then I´m taking away your spell casting in exchange for the feat. I had a fighter player try a similar deal to try and get free weapon focus...I said sure, you just have wizards BAB in exchange. What you need is already in the game...it´s not like you want a war cleric with a heavy shield and a mace (that does require some sort of houserules from core to make work for example...usually the addition of somatic weaponry feat...or arcane bonding two handed weapons...). You are gonna just annoy your DM...honestly...and even making the suggestion of what if I give up his for that will be cherry picking (unless your willing to give up something really significant...like spellcasting). Even then I as a DM would b weary of it in case your plan is to just dip. All in all, if your legit about this and not attempting to do this to dip...just take the feat. It´s less of a headache all around.I guess I should've submitted this in the "Rules Getting in the Way of Fun" thread. What's wrong with cherry picking abilities that fit your theme so you don't overtax the character to the point that they aren't even effective any longer? No I don't plan to dip or multi-class. A Bard is pretty much already a multi-class character by design. Multi-classing further just seems silly to me. In fact, all multi-classing where you aren't at least at a 2/3 to 1/3 ratio doesn't seem to make much sense to me unless you are power gaming.
I find it funny that you mention cherry picking class abilities as non power gaming but MC sensibly as powergaming...wow...just wow. Hello mr. pot. I´m sorry, Tell yah what, I´ll make a fighter. I plan on using a long sword and a bow so I´ll give up all my other weapon prof...in exchange, I get to get weapon focus, greater weapon focus, weapon spec and greater weapon spec for it...sound fair right? I´m giving up even more then 4 feats worth...right? That fits my concept of a specialized warrior, why should the rules get in the way of my fun? Yes I realize that your not going to that extreme...but cherry picking class abilities is way WAY more power gaming then MC dips. In fact if power gamers could cherry pick class abilities they would choose that option over MC dip every single time.
I guess I should've submitted this in the "Rules Getting in the Way of Fun" thread. What's wrong with cherry picking abilities that fit your theme so you don't overtax the character to the point that they aren't even effective any longer? No I don't plan to dip or multi-class. A Bard is pretty much already a multi-class character by design. Multi-classing further just seems silly to me. In fact, all multi-classing where you aren't at least at a 2/3 to 1/3 ratio doesn't seem to make much sense to me unless you are power gaming.
What
Dude this has nothing to do with power gaming.
Bastard sword isn't a longsword. That's...that's pretty basic logic. And you can't get rid of class or racial capabilities and try to get a new one.
Just claim your longsword is extra curvy or whatever.
Jesus man, this isn't difficult.
If you really want to use a Bastard Sword, then take a level of <martial class> or take the feat.
Come on now.
I find it funny that you mention cherry picking class abilities as non power gaming but MC sensibly as powergaming...wow...just wow. Hello mr. pot. I´m sorry, Tell yah what, I´ll make a fighter. I plan on using a long sword and a bow so I´ll give up all my other weapon prof...in exchange, I get to get weapon focus, greater weapon focus, weapon spec and greater weapon spec for it...sound fair right? I´m giving up even more then 4 feats worth...right? That fits my concept of a specialized warrior, why should the rules get in the way of my fun? Yes I realize that your not going to that extreme...but cherry picking class abilities is way WAY more power gaming then MC dips. In fact if power gamers could cherry pick class abilities they would choose that option over MC dip every single time.
The extreme example you gave *is* why it isn't fair. If I traded Rapier proficiency and all shield proficiency to gain an equivalent weapon proficiency, I think that would be fair. Isn't this the same kind of thing that's detailed in PHBII and will be in the upcoming APG? So, if someone want's to trade a Paladin's mount, a Ranger's animal companion or a Wizard's familiar for some other not quite as optimal ability because it doesn't fit their character concept, it's considered perfectly fine if it's detailed in a published book but not acceptable otherwise? Gotcha.
As for multi-classing, if you take a single level dip (two for Rogue) for the sole purpose of picking up good class abilities, I'd consider that power gaming. I'm not saying that there's anything wrong with that. If you split you class levels at least somewhat evenly, you are probably playing out a concept and likely not power gaming.
Of course you would choose cherry picking abilities if you are going to come out that far ahead. The point isn't to come out ahead. Anytime that is the point then yes, you are power gaming. The point is to not overly punish your character when the class abilities don't perfectly mesh with your concept.
But you win, I guess. I'll just carry a Rapier and a shield, scare the living daylights out of large monsters with my tiny poker since the rules don't forbid it and make a much more powerful character by constraining myself to the rules. Congratulations, way to stop my power gaming ways.
Dude this has nothing to do with power gaming.
Bastard sword isn't a longsword. That's...that's pretty basic logic. And you can't get rid of class or racial capabilities and try to get a new one.
Just claim your longsword is extra curvy or whatever.
Jesus man, this isn't difficult.
If you really want to use a Bastard Sword, then take a level of <martial class> or take the feat.
Come on now.
Chill people! I already said on multiple occasions that I am perfectly fine using a long sword instead of the bastard sword equivalent Katana. I never said it was the same sword. I just said that someone who was proficient in one could probably use the other especially if they gave up their training in other areas. WTF?
|
I was just wondering if you had considered going half-orc. If you are planning on the dazzling display feat tree, the +2 to intimidate could really help and they get access to some of the really intimidating weapons. I can also imagine that a half orc could quite easily be fitted into the Jester role...and driven mad from it.
It may help....but you may have a charater in mind that precludes it (hard to know on a message board).
|
|
The difference between alternate class features in the PHB 2 and APG and what your suggesting is that YOU don´t get to pick what you get and what you give up. That is key.
You say rapier + shield for two handed bastard sword use is fair...the fighter player is giving up even more feats per feats gained then you so he can think that is fair too. It´s obviously not...but what you think is fair isn´t. You are giving up something you won´t be using to gain something you WILL. That is even MORE powergaming then class dipping.
The difference between alternate class features in the PHB 2 and APG and what your suggesting is that YOU don´t get to pick what you get and what you give up. That is key.
You say rapier + shield for two handed bastard sword use is fair...the fighter player is giving up even more feats per feats gained then you so he can think that is fair too. It´s obviously not...but what you think is fair isn´t. You are giving up something you won´t be using to gain something you WILL. That is even MORE powergaming then class dipping.
I'm sorry, but I continue to have serious problems with that statement and similar ones I've seen. Telling a player that they are stuck with an ability that they will never use because the rules don't explicitly permit them to make a change is...petty. Powergaming has the explicit goal of making an overly powerful, unbalanced character. A player who never uses the full range of a classes' abilities is by definition 'underpowered'. Allowing a small swap just brings them back up to where they supposed to be in the first place.
Now, granted, not all players (or DMs) can be trusted to make those judgment calls, but to label anyone who does as a 'powergamer' is grossly overstating the issue.