Bastard Sword in two hands if you have long sword proficiency only?


Pathfinder First Edition General Discussion

51 to 100 of 118 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | next > last >>

Cold Napalm wrote:
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.

Fine give me another weapon that fits the bill. I don't really care. You're missing the point.

Cold Napalm wrote:
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.

A fighter giving up weapon proficiencies for feats other than weapon proficiencies is giving him new class abilities that enhance his character for almost no cost. It's not like Martial Weapon Proficiency, despite being a feat, actually doesn't have the same value as most feats. If that were the case then the melee characters would be super duper overpowered as they start the game with a hundred extra feats. Giving up one weapon proficiency and shields for a slightly different weapon proficiency is hardly game breaking especially when it is less optimal for the character at hand. What is so hard to believe about a character that didn't choose the same fighting style and weapon selection as most others do in his generic character class?

Your players either never ask you for anything (because you'll purposely sabotage their character in return) or they ask way too much from you (hence the total lack of working with the player).

[occ]WHAT!!! You want Martial Proficiency (bastard sword)? Sure, all you have to do is give up all of your other class abilities.[/occ]

You rock!

Grand Lodge

My players ask for stuff all the time...but never do they attempt to use a logical fallicy on me, fail, then attempt to justify doing a class feature swap and claim it is not power gaming. Nor would my players want to give me the extra work of redoing a class feature when it is covered by an existing rule set. Reflavor what a longsword looks like...all you. Want me to fiddle with mechanics so you can save a feat...umm yeah that´s not power gaming at all...yeah believe what you want.


Cold Napalm wrote:
My players ask for stuff all the time...but never do they attempt to use a logical fallicy on me, fail, then attempt to justify doing a class feature swap and claim it is not power gaming.

So I was wrong on my initial assumption. I really didn't think that it was a big deal. Turns out, it's the end of the world. My bad.

Why do you think I asked all of you about it? Getting many opinions makes it easier to make an educated decision, hence the switch to a class feature swap. I must say that I really enjoy feeling like a criminal for inquiring about this. Can't wait until I have another question.

Cold Napalm wrote:
Nor would my players want to give me the extra work of redoing a class feature when it is covered by an existing rule set.

Yep, the rules cover every possibility. Good thing too, otherwise people might have to ask questions. Yuck!

Cold Napalm wrote:
Reflavor what a longsword looks like...all you. Want me to fiddle with mechanics so you can save a feat...umm yeah that´s not power gaming at all...yeah believe what you want.

I don't know. There's nothing in the rules that say a long sword can look like a katana. I don't think it's allowed. That might be trying to power game. Swapping a weapon proficiency for a less optimal one totally is. Charging a feat to a character to make the swap is fair though. Gotcha.

sanwah68 wrote:

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).

Interesting, I completely threw out the idea of a half-orc because I couldn't picture one as a jester. I might have to reconsider this.

Mynameisjake wrote:
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.

Thank you.


I hesitate to bring this up, but the only reason I responded to the original post was because you initially presented this as, "would you allow this or not and why?" and seemed to be pretty interested in reading opinions and also said you were interested in presenting these opinions to your GM to help him make his decision.

I don't expect you to change your opinion on this proposal based on what I presented as my opinion. Nor am I saying that what you propose is game breaking. I simply presented what I would do in my campaign when presented with this same question, and why. I was a bit taken aback when, contrary to the original post, you seemed to want to prove to people that disagree with you that they are wrong.

Now that I've posted again, however, I'd like to throw this in as well. If I say yes to every "not quite game breaking" modification to a class that a player proposes for only a "slight" advantage over the core rules, where do I draw the line? If one player has a reasonable modification to a barbarian, then can I deny the wizard that has a similarly reasonable request, or the cleric?

And then, after all of these slight modifications, I'm keeping track of not the core classes, where I can refer to the baseline in the books, but to an every expanding collection of houseruled custom classes. Keep in mind, I really don't have much of a problem with a class ability substitution that's in a book, because its not a houserule I'm keeping track of . . . I know where to look for the modification to the baseline as well as the baseline.

However, I'm a "bad GM" if I don't allow players their custom classes. Instead, I should do that, and when I get confused over what I allowed and what I didn't, or when the player's get confused over what is allowed and what isn't, and the game grinds down to a crawl, is that a better option that letting someone not have to burn one feat?

Plus, your request just didn't seem that obvious or logical . . . I don't know why I'd let a bard, a class that isn't known for swinging huge two handed weapons, gain the ability to do so with no penalties.

At any rate, I'm going to try to remember this experience next time I'm tempted to post about my opinions on rules situations.

Grand Lodge

Frogboy wrote:
Cold Napalm wrote:
My players ask for stuff all the time...but never do they attempt to use a logical fallicy on me, fail, then attempt to justify doing a class feature swap and claim it is not power gaming.

So I was wrong on my initial assumption. I really didn't think that it was a big deal. Turns out, it's the end of the world. My bad.

Why do you think I asked all of you about it? Getting many opinions makes it easier to make an educated decision, hence the switch to a class feature swap. I must say that I really enjoy feeling like a criminal for inquiring about this. Can't wait until I have another question.

Asking is fine...pushing the issue when you hear what you don´t like isn´t. If a player brought up your line o thinking, I would explain why it isn´t so...then he can use his feat and be on his marry way. When he tries to wiggle something else...yeah that´s when we have a problem.

¨frogboy¨ wrote:
Cold Napalm wrote:
Nor would my players want to give me the extra work of redoing a class feature when it is covered by an existing rule set.
Yep, the rules cover every possibility. Good thing too, otherwise people might have to ask questions. Yuck!

Except of course what you wanted was 100% covered by the rules...there was no grey area, of what if...zip zilch nada.

¨frogboy¨ wrote:
Cold Napalm wrote:
Reflavor what a longsword looks like...all you. Want me to fiddle with mechanics so you can save a feat...umm yeah that´s not power gaming at all...yeah believe what you want.
I don't know. There's nothing in the rules that say a long sword can look like a katana. I don't think it's allowed. That might be trying to power game. Swapping a weapon proficiency for a less optimal one totally is. Charging a feat to a character to make the swap is fair though. Gotcha.

And why do you assume that using the bastard sword is suboptimal to a rapier? I mean generally speaking it is...but when asked for, it´s not as sub optimal as generally speaking. As for your rather asinine first comment...actually there is...at least on 3.5...which you must be using if your talking about bastard swords as katanas.

Grand Lodge

Mynameisjake wrote:
Cold Napalm wrote:

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.

Okay WTF...so by your definition, a fighter who doesn´t use EVERY SINGLE martial weapon is underpowered because he has a class feature that he isn´t utilizing?!? I´m sorry... the fighter is underpowered...but THAT ins´t the reason for it. And I feel the rules hate you love. Try making a core only gish...nothing says needs houserules like doing that. But the goal of the OP is to modify the class so he can save a feat...that IS powergaming...period. And quite frankly most DM will say NO to things like that. Even small ones because that causes more problems down the line.


Cold Napalm wrote:

[b[Okay WTF...so by your definition, a fighter who doesn´t use EVERY SINGLE martial weapon is underpowered because he has a class feature that he isn´t utilizing?!?[/b] I´m sorry... the fighter is underpowered...but THAT ins´t the reason for it. And I feel the rules hate you love. Try making a core only gish...nothing says needs houserules like doing that. But the goal of the OP is to modify the class so he can save a feat...that IS powergaming...period. And quite frankly most DM will say NO to things like that. Even small ones because that causes more problems down the line.

No, pretty sure I didn't say that. What I did say is that wanting to swap an ability that doesn't fit the character concept for one that does, is not, automatically, power gaming.

Wanting to exchange each and every martial weapon for a different feat? Powergaming.

Wanting to exchange the ability to use a shield and a martial weapon proficiency for a different martial weapon proficiency? Not Powergaming. Not even a little bit.


KnightErrantJR wrote:
I hesitate to bring this up, but the only reason I responded to the original post was because you initially presented this as, "would you allow this or not and why?" and seemed to be pretty interested in reading opinions and also said you were interested in presenting these opinions to your GM to help him make his decision.

I am and it was my intention although the overwhelmingly large number of “No” answers has shifted me from that to figuring out a more acceptable solution for my character and DM. If everyone here says no, I'm not going to try to sneak it by my DM. I don't roll like that. :)

KnightErrantJR wrote:
I don't expect you to change your opinion on this proposal based on what I presented as my opinion. Nor am I saying that what you propose is game breaking. I simply presented what I would do in my campaign when presented with this same question, and why. I was a bit taken aback when, contrary to the original post, you seemed to want to prove to people that disagree with you that they are wrong.

I was just trying to clarify my initial reasoning which still proved to be false. I was also taken off guard when I received such an overwhelmingly negative response to what seemed to me a logical extension of the rules. My ignorance of medieval weaponry is so prevalent that I actually offended some of you. I apologize for that as well.

KnightErrantJR wrote:

Now that I've posted again, however, I'd like to throw this in as well. If I say yes to every "not quite game breaking" modification to a class that a player proposes for only a "slight" advantage over the core rules, where do I draw the line? If one player has a reasonable modification to a barbarian, then can I deny the wizard that has a similarly reasonable request, or the cleric?

And then, after all of these slight modifications, I'm keeping track of not the core classes, where I can refer to the baseline in the books, but to an every expanding collection of houseruled custom classes. Keep in mind, I really don't have much of a problem with a class ability substitution that's in a book, because its not a houserule I'm keeping track of . . . I know where to look for the modification to the baseline as well as the baseline.

That's perfectly fine and valid. It's your game and I'm not trying to tell you how to play it. I'll suggest that every minor modification to the rules that one makes doesn't have to, in fact probably shouldn't, become cannon. These aren't universal tweaks that should be sifted through so that one can create a more powerful character. Just because something may be needed to make a certain character concept work doesn't mean that every character should have free reign over that exception now. Things will break if someone makes that their goal.

KnightErrantJR wrote:
However, I'm a "bad GM" if I don't allow players their custom classes. Instead, I should do that, and when I get confused over what I allowed and what I didn't, or when the player's get confused over what is allowed and what isn't, and the game grinds down to a crawl, is that a better option that letting someone not have to burn one feat?

I'm not going to call you a bad GM but if you don't allow some minor custom tweaks, you may end up encouraging your players to play very cookie cutter character builds. It's amazing how many good ideas are nerfed into oblivion when you try to follow the rules to a tee.

KnightErrantJR wrote:
Plus, your request just didn't seem that obvious or logical . . . I don't know why I'd let a bard, a class that isn't known for swinging huge two handed weapons, gain the ability to do so with no penalties.

I didn't ask for proficiency in the Great Sword. That'd be going too far IMO. The Bastard Sword doesn't really fit the theme well either but it was the closest thing to the Katana that PF offers since it shares the same stats (in 3E). The initial question was mainly, if I have the ability to perfectly swing a sword with one or two hands, can I swing a slightly bigger sword in two hands only?

KnightErrantJR wrote:
At any rate, I'm going to try to remember this experience next time I'm tempted to post about my opinions on rules situations.

Touché :)

Cold Napalm wrote:
Asking is fine...pushing the issue when you hear what you don´t like isn´t. If a player brought up your line o thinking, I would explain why it isn´t so...then he can use his feat and be on his marry way. When he tries to wiggle something else...yeah that´s when we have a problem.

You aren't my DM. If you were and said no then I'd be fine with that and drop it. This is a forum and is generally used [by me] for open debate. I apologize, I like to argue and debate things.

Off topic:
Just the other day I took the position that the idea of intelligence was a made up concept. That the value of different types of knowledge was situational. I even went as far as to argue that the knowledge of how to make a sandwich is more important than quantum physics. Unfortunately, a lot of other forums aren't as cool as this one. I never even got a chance to prove my outlandish statement. No one even challenged me. They just insulted my intelligence and moved on with their “I'm smarter than everyone else” circle jerk. Point is, I'll argue almost anything [in the proper setting]. It's part of my fun.

Cold Napalm wrote:
Except of course what you wanted was 100% covered by the rules...there was no grey area, of what if...zip zilch nada.

It was grey enough for me to ask.

Cold Napalm wrote:
And why do you assume that using the bastard sword is suboptimal to a rapier? I mean generally speaking it is...but when asked for, it´s not as sub optimal as generally speaking.

In my case, it is. We don't even use the Weapon Finesse feat as it's, well, the dumbest feat ever and is only in the game so that they can oversimplify to the point of Strength = Combat Prowess. The rapier gives me a better to hit and a higher critical threat range and a higher AC as I could utilize a shield. Bastard sword gives me more damage although I won't hit or crit as much so it'd probably average about the same, maybe less. Can't imagine averaging more than +1 damage while taking a -1 to attack and AC which is a far bigger penalty IMO. The AC penalty will continue to grow as enhancements become available too. Trust me, I'd be more powerful with a rapier and a shield.

Cold Napalm wrote:
As for your rather smart ass first comment...actually there is...at least on 3.5...which you must be using if your talking about bastard swords as katanas.

Fixed that for you. Try not to take me too seriously when I say stuff like that. :)

The Katana was a replacement for the Bastard Sword in Oriental Adventures (3.0). I'm not sure in 3.5. Maybe it's in the Samurai's description in Complete Warrior. A bastard sword is very different type of sword, I assume, than a Katana though. This is the very basis that my original premise got shot down on. Allowing any bastard sword a Samurai finds to magically morph into a Katana would actually strengthen my argument a smidgen. Why can't I morph a bastard sword into a slightly bigger long sword that identical in every way except requires me to use two hands to wield. If I can handle one sized a half a step down with one hand (or two), I should be able to handle this one just fine...certainly better than someone who's never even seen one before.

I probably shouldn't have gone there again.


Frogboy wrote:
I'm not going to call you a bad GM but if you don't allow some minor custom tweaks, you may end up encouraging your players to play very cookie cutter character builds. It's amazing how many good ideas are nerfed into oblivion when you try to follow the rules to a tee.

Well, in my last two campaigns I've had:

(spoilers, just in case you don't want to waste your time with reading these)

Spoiler:

A human Shoanti paladin of Erastil wielding an earth breaker and having a hard time learning civilized rules, even though he tried to follow them.

A half-orc rogue with a 10 dex and a 20 strength that was a really effective thug, and often spoke in broken Common even though privately he could speak rather fluently with a decent intelligence.

A half-orc fighter with a three tatooed on his forehead from when he was born into a slave fighting pit that once ate a rot grub out of curiosity and was fond of the orc shotput.

A cowardly half-elf wizard that makes very poor decisions.

A gnome druid obsessed with crafting.

An elderly halfling cloistered cleric that lived in a brothel and constantly talked about his horrible ex-wife.

Essentially I allowed some "non-core" material, (i.e. the orc shotput, for example), and a variant class (the cloistered cleric, from Unearthed Arcana).

Other campaign:

Spoiler:

A dwarven cavalier that was an ex-drill sergeant for the Chelaxian military.

An aasimar cloistered cleric that's a drug addict with parents that are trying to hide his "secret" from high society.

A half-elf rogue that uses a greatspear with a brush attached to the top of it and works as a "chimney sweep."

A human rogue with some psionic feats working for an organization besides the one the PCs are connected to.

A dwarf fighter/monk/cleric whose parents were circus performers and never taught him about being a dwarf.

A half-elf divine bard/urban ranger who cross dresses and tries to get revenge for perceived wrongs against him.

In this group, I've allowed three variant classes from Unearthed Arcana, and I allowed one custom feat, for the dwarven monk, as he started to learn being a dwarf from the other dwarf.

Essentially I allowed him to take a feat allowing him to use a battle axe as a monk weapon with the same prerequisites as some of the Eberron feats that allow for longswords, double swords, and long spears as monk weapons.

So I'm not averse to custom material in the campaign, but even letting the dwarven monk use the battle axe, I expected him to burn a feat and have the proper prerequsites for the similarly structured feats.

So I'm not against customizing characters, but I don't think its needed to make a unique character, and I like to have some very narrow guidelines for what I allow as a houserule.


Frogboy wrote:
seekerofshadowlight wrote:

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.

Short swords were primarily piercing weapons, based upon the ancient Roman and Greek short swords.

Several pounds make a large difference when wielding a two-handed weapon. It's a martial weapon, it isn't a longsword...

Therefore it would not, should not be allowed.


KnightErrantJR wrote:
Frogboy wrote:
I'm not going to call you a bad GM but if you don't allow some minor custom tweaks, you may end up encouraging your players to play very cookie cutter character builds. It's amazing how many good ideas are nerfed into oblivion when you try to follow the rules to a tee.

Well, in my last two campaigns I've had:

(spoilers, just in case you don't want to waste your time with reading these)

** spoiler omitted **

Other campaign:

** spoiler omitted **...

I did say "may".

And even though I saw a bunch of very creative and interesting characters in there, I didn't see many character build. Now obviously statting out a bunch of characters is totally overkill but this was more of what I was getting at. If you force a character to take a feat for every single thing that is different or unique about his character build, you run the risk of having a player want to do try something but when it's statted all up, he realizes that it's just not a feasible character to play. Might make a nice 15th level NPC once everything comes together but just plain too weak to start at level one and play it out.

I'm not saying that you do this, in fact, you probably do exactly what I'm talking about more than you realize.


I really dont see how not allowing you to brake rules in what is an unrealistic way anyhow as limiting. You have options to do what you want. You just do not want to use such options


I know this will be considered heresy by some, but I'm not too put out if the PCs burn a feat or two over the course of a 1-15 campaign that aren't that useful all of the time.


Agreed

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Adventure, Rulebook Subscriber

Burn the infidel! *fist shake*

Grand Lodge

KnightErrantJR wrote:
I know this will be considered heresy by some, but I'm not too put out if the PCs burn a feat or two over the course of a 1-15 campaign that aren't that useful all of the time.

One or two? Most of my characters have half or more of their feats burned for stuff I consider fun...but are utterly subpar. which is odd considering the way I discuss things like in the gish thread :P .


Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber
Frogboy wrote:
Dragorine wrote:
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.

That seems like a fair trade. I would think most of the time the rapier is a better weapon for a bard mechanicaly...unless you really put a lot of points into str :P

I would personaly rather a player play the concept they want and have fun in my games. It could also be an interesting back story on why your bard is trained with a Bastard Sword (2handed) and not a rapier.


Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber
Mynameisjake wrote:


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.

I agree with this as well. Why would some bard who was never interested in using a rapier or shield in the first place be trained in their use. We know this isn't RAW but it could be interesting back story wise and it isn't power gaming or over powered when mechanicaly it would be better to use a rapier with most bards anyway.


Cold Napalm wrote:
KnightErrantJR wrote:
I know this will be considered heresy by some, but I'm not too put out if the PCs burn a feat or two over the course of a 1-15 campaign that aren't that useful all of the time.
One or two? Most of my characters have half or more of their feats burned for stuff I consider fun...but are utterly subpar. which is odd considering the way I discuss things like in the gish thread :P .

Burning a feat for fun is something completely different from what I am talking about...unless you consider it fun to spend a feat on Martial Weapon Profiency (Bastard Sword). I know what you are referring to though. My last character before this burned a feat (in 3.5 no less) on Leadership just to bring in my "cohort" as an NPC. She was for purely role playing purposes and never traveled with the group. That I consider a "fun" feat.

I'll give a similar example. A player comes to you and says that he wants to create a swashbuckling Paladin, a build that plays contrary to the strengths of the class. Do you:

A) Say okay, spend all of your feats on skill boosting feats in attempts to realize your concept and be even further behind on the power scale compared to creating a typical build that plays to his strengths.

B) Say neat idea, let's work together to make this guy not so lame. I'll let you downgrade your Armor Proficiency to light and your Weapon Proficiency to only those that can be utilized with Weapon Finesse and I'll give you 4+INT skill points instead of 2+INT and make Acrobatics a class skill for you.

I'm an option B) guy myself whether I'm playing or DMing. Personally, I consider that more fun than option A). Maybe I'm just weird.


I know I'm not the first on this thread to say this, but it is worth repeating: a Bastard sword is a martial weapon when used with 2 hands, and you need "martial weapon proficiency: Bastard sword" to use it 2 handed. Open and shut case.

I agree that the two swords are similar, that is why they are listed in the same group for the fighters "weapon training" ability (PF core rulebook page 56), but only a martial scholar like a fighter knows how to take advantage of the similarity.

Bastard swords are overrated anyway, it rolls 1 damage higher, on average, than a longsword. Just grab your longsword with 2 hands.


Norburn wrote:
I know I'm not the first on this thread to say this, but it is worth repeating: a Bastard sword is a martial weapon when used with 2 hands, and you need "martial weapon proficiency: Bastard sword" to use it 2 handed. Open and shut case.

I know, you're right. I've already conceded on this. I have been proven wrong and freely admit it.

Norburn wrote:
Bastard swords are overrated anyway, it rolls 1 damage higher, on average, than a longsword. Just grab your longsword with 2 hands.

True and I've stated this as well. I was kind of thrown for a loop as to why I received so much resistance towards this.

Grand Lodge

Frogboy wrote:


I'll give a similar example. A player comes to you and says that he wants to create a swashbuckling Paladin, a build that plays contrary to the strengths of the class. Do you:

A) Say okay, spend all of your feats on skill boosting feats in attempts to realize your concept and be even further behind on the power scale compared to creating a typical build that plays to his strengths.

B) Say neat idea, let's work together to make this guy not so lame. I'll let you downgrade your Armor Proficiency to light and your Weapon Proficiency to only those that can be utilized with Weapon Finesse and I'll give you 4+INT skill points instead of 2+INT and make Acrobatics a class skill for you.

I'm an option B) guy myself whether I'm playing or DMing. Personally, I consider that more fun than option A). Maybe I'm just weird.

Or option C) make a bard and have himself be called a paladin. I have had a player use the bard class as a priest quite well. The bard is a good mechanical fit. I would rather use existing rules before mashing up existing one.

RPG Superstar 2012 Top 16

TO the OP:

Ask the DM if you could take a reduced non-proficiency penalty for swapping (-2), and then if you use it for a few levels, you promise to blow a EWP feat on it, and then remove the penalty entirely.

Related proficiency in many things does make sense.

On the other note: Swords do 3 kinds of attack - Hacking damage, slicing damage, and thrust/pierce damage.

Shorts swords are slice and thrust. They are made for use with heavy shields, and close-in-fighting where you can't USE a bigger weapon. They are effectively a big knife that is useful against armor.

Long swords are not a soldiers weapon...they are an officer's weapon, or a champions...they are made for one on one combat and dueling. A longsword performs all three roles equally well...that's why its a duelling sword.

Bastard swords and greatswords were made for use on or against horses, or if you just HAD to have tons of reach. They are primarily hacking weapons that are better balanced then axes are. They can thrust and they can slice, but they really aren't made for it.

Katanas and the curved weapons are hacking and slicing weapons...scimitars, sabres, etc. They generally aren't made for use against armor...they are made for cutting through softer substances with a hellacious edge. They are also duelling weapons because of the length...most samurai in armies used the spear and the tanto.

All Swords are capable of all three uses, although I probably wouldn't let you hack with a rapier. However, you can give the edge of a rapier a fine cut and slice with it, although a saber would probably work better for you. Rapiers also tend to have problems with armor that heavier blades can overcome.

In short, most generic blades should be s/p, with speciality blades like the rapier and scimitar restricted to one or the other. The katana is straight enough to be an effective thrusting weapon in combat, and the oldest styles of katanas were indeed straight edged, not curved.

==Aelryinth

Grand Lodge

Well...not quite. Swords...at least euro sword´s focus on hacking, slicing and piercing depends on what era and type your talking about. The arming sword (D&D lonngsword) of the type X-XIII era would all be pretty hack and slashy type weapon (although the XII could stab okayish). The XIV and XVI would be the all rounders and the XV and XVII would be stab and slice. By the time you get to the XVIII metallurgy has gotten good enough where the swords can kinda have it all and basically be all rounders like the XIV and XVI...only as good at hacking and slicing as the X-XIII and stab as well as the XV and XVII. Of course this would also translate over in the longswords (D&D bastard swords).

Okay, quick primer on the history of sword done :) .


Are you playing in Golarion? If so, this sounds like a good weapon for you. Takes EWP, but very katana-like, and kinda cool for backstory.

Dueling Sword, Aldori: You can use the Weapon Finesse
feat to apply your Dexterity Modifier instead of your Strength
modifier on attack rolls with an Aldori Dueling Sword sized
for you, even though it isn’t a light weapon. You may wield
an Aldori dueling sword in two hands in order to apply 1-1/2 times your Strength bonus to damage, even when using it with
Weapon Finesse. These swords are about 3–1/2-feet long, very
slightly curved, and sharp only along the outer edge.

Dueling sword, Aldori 20 gp 1d6 1d8 19–20/x2 — 3 lb. Slashing

If your DM allows it, this could be a neat exotic weapon for a bard. It could work out nicely, depending on your build.


Cold Napalm wrote:
Or option C) make a bard and have himself be called a paladin. I have had a player use the bard class as a priest quite well. The bard is a good mechanical fit. I would rather use existing rules before mashing up existing one.

So option A) then, huh? That's perfectly valid and there's nothing wrong with that (and I'm not being sarcastic in any way).

I'm kind of surprised you went with Bard for swashbuckling Paladin. I thought you'd go Ranger really. Most of the Bard's abilities don't even work on the truly evil creatures that a Paladin specializes in eradicating. A Ranger can at least be an Undead, Evil Outsider and Dragon hunter and be highly religious which is a close match. He's still a hunter and the Bard is still a performer. If someone wants to play a Paladin class (destroyer of evil) and fight with the swashbuckling style, they are indeed left with only option A).

Again, nothing wrong with that. Whatever works for you is cool.


Frogboy wrote:
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.

Actually you are 100% wrong in this statement.

There is a 'Martial Weapon Proficiency' feat in game. Should, for example, a Wizard, Sorcerer, Cleric, Bard, Druid or Rogue wish to leanr a martial weapon for which they do not already have proficiency they need to take this feat and then choose the specific martial weapon they want to use.

One example is Greatsword. It is a two handed martial weapon. If they use a feat to take 'Martial Weapon Proficiency:Greatsword' they can now use a Greatsword two handed without the non proficiency penalty.

A Bastard Sword is EXACTLY THE SAME. It is a Martial two handed weapon. Rangers, Barbarians, Fighters and Paladins are proficient with all Martial Weapons and can therefore use a Bastard Sword in two hands.

The sole difference between the two weapons, game mechanics wise, is that the Bastard Sword offers a seperate option, to be wielded one handed with the expenditure of an Exotic Weapons Feat selection.

Now, due to a quirk of game mechanics, it is smarter for someone to take the Exotic Weapon proficiency than the martial weapon one in the case of the bastard sword, if they do not already posses any proficiency in it whatsoever.

"A bastard sword is about 4 feet in length, making it too large to use in one hand without special training; thus, it is an exotic weapon. A character can use a bastard sword two-handed as a martial weapon"

It says right there that it is a two handed martial weapon.

For your bard to use a bastard sword, you have to expend a feat. If you wanted to get rules lawyerish you would have to expend 2 feats if you wanted to use it one AND two handed, since the exotic weapon Prof says it trains you to use it ONE handed, not two. Since you do not have it normally as a martial weapon proficiancy you would still need to burn the extra feat to use it two handed as well.

Bastard swords are not just bigger versions of long swords. Their GAME stats are extrememly similar but by that logic then you should be able to use Large Scimitars as easily as a Medium Longsword right? I mean their game stats are nearly identical.

But they actual use, desing and size are anything but.

Rules as written and intended do not let you apply your elven long sword proficiency to anything but the long sword. Otherwise it would have listed other weapons, specifically, in the listing.

As always, you DM can make his/her own ruling of anything they wish, but you did as for opinions based on the game rules and intent.

Why not just ask your ref if you can come from an offshoot branch of elves, who do not like Rapiers, Longswords or bows, but instead are culturally biased to the Bastard Sword? Trade away all your other racial proficiencies for the Bastard Sword Exotic and Martial Profciency? You are effectively trading 4 feats for 2 which is a fine and fare trade off. Then you could write up a quick backgound explaining the social differences and their consequences among other elves and you have added to everyones game.


Just to add... someone mentioned Half-Orc as a possibility, since you're looking to do the whole intimidation thing. Some additional points to consider in that regard:

* Half-Orcs no longer have to always be brutish barbarians. The floating +2 suggests that Half-Orcs are just as varied in build and personality as humans and half-elves. Heck, you can even file down your tusks if you're particularly ashamed of your non-human heritage.

* Half-Orcs gain proficiency with the Falchion. A bastard sword base damage averages 5.5 points. A falchion is 5 points even, plus has a better crit range (and better still with Keen or Imp. Crit.). So that's your path to a wicked-looking sword, without bending rules and without sacrificing a feat.

And Darkvision is always a plus too.

Grand Lodge

Frogboy wrote:
Cold Napalm wrote:
Or option C) make a bard and have himself be called a paladin. I have had a player use the bard class as a priest quite well. The bard is a good mechanical fit. I would rather use existing rules before mashing up existing one.

So option A) then, huh? That's perfectly valid and there's nothing wrong with that (and I'm not being sarcastic in any way).

I'm kind of surprised you went with Bard for swashbuckling Paladin. I thought you'd go Ranger really. Most of the Bard's abilities don't even work on the truly evil creatures that a Paladin specializes in eradicating. A Ranger can at least be an Undead, Evil Outsider and Dragon hunter and be highly religious which is a close match. He's still a hunter and the Bard is still a performer. If someone wants to play a Paladin class (destroyer of evil) and fight with the swashbuckling style, they are indeed left with only option A).

Again, nothing wrong with that. Whatever works for you is cool.

How is that option A?!? From a pure power aspect bards kinda outshine a paladin. If you want the smite evil ability of a paladin while using a rapier and moving around, that just means your a paladin who isn´t using his heavy/medium armor prof and using a martial weapon...you know kinda like how a fighter doesn´t use ALL his martial weapon feats...and only ONE of his armor prof at any given time. Then you focus your feats on vital strike line up and use lighting stance combo. Which is good for pretty much ANY mobility based combatant.


(in response to the original post, not the thread that seems to have developed since then).

I would probably say no. You are trying to get a free feat. I would not be able to grant that to you without letting the other PC's choose a free feat as well. (which I suppose is do'able, but really not necessary)

Regardless of your reasons why (power gaming, flavor, Rp reason, etc.) the fact of the matter is that some things just require a feat to accomplish or to accomplish well. It does suck when your race and class doesn't come out exactly the way you wanted but thats why you Can buy wep prof's with your feats. To help you fill out the character the way you want them to be.

-S


Cold Napalm wrote:
How is that option A?!? From a pure power aspect bards kinda outshine a paladin.

lol

Cold Napalm wrote:
If you want the smite evil ability of a paladin while using a rapier and moving around, that just means your a paladin who isn´t using his heavy/medium armor prof and using a martial weapon...you know kinda like how a fighter doesn´t use ALL his martial weapon feats...and only ONE of his armor prof at any given time. Then you focus your feats on vital strike line up and use lighting stance combo. Which is good for pretty much ANY mobility based combatant.

And you're much weaker than a typical Paladin. Still, I said there's nothing wrong with going this route.


ZappoHisbane wrote:

Just to add... someone mentioned Half-Orc as a possibility, since you're looking to do the whole intimidation thing. Some additional points to consider in that regard:

* Half-Orcs no longer have to always be brutish barbarians. The floating +2 suggests that Half-Orcs are just as varied in build and personality as humans and half-elves. Heck, you can even file down your tusks if you're particularly ashamed of your non-human heritage.

* Half-Orcs gain proficiency with the Falchion. A bastard sword base damage averages 5.5 points. A falchion is 5 points even, plus has a better crit range (and better still with Keen or Imp. Crit.). So that's your path to a wicked-looking sword, without bending rules and without sacrificing a feat.

And Darkvision is always a plus too.

Ever since sanwah68 brought up the idea of a half-orc jester, I've been thinking about it...and really liking the idea.

And yeah, it makes the build much easier to put together too which is a nice bonus also.


Frogboy wrote:

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.

The text for the Bastard Sword is very clear: it can be used two-handed as a martial weapon.


I would let anyone who has martial weapon proficiency with the greatsword be treated as proficient when using a bastard sword two-handed. So a bard/cleric/druid/monk/rogue/sorcerer/wizard/adept/commoner/expert/whatever who spent a feat on the greatsword martial weapon proficiency could use a bastard sword two-handed.

That's not written or implied anywhere in the rules, but doesn't seem to me to be very unbalancing. After all, if you have greatsword proficiency, mechanically, you're usually going to be better off using a true greatsword in your two hands than a bastard sword anyway.


Gilfalas wrote:
Frogboy wrote:
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.
Actually you are 100% wrong in this statement...

You can use one handed weapons two handed provided they're not light weapons to you. This is how proficiency in every other one handed weapon works, I don't see why you'd read the exception allowing you to use a bastard sword in two hands as a martial weapon as a requirement of martial weapon proficiency rather than a freebie to characters with martial weapon proficiency. If you wanna get quibbly with the wording, I'd ask why you're emphasing the bit that says "can use...as a martial weapon" over the "is an exotic weapon." That lends itself more to the reading that it's an exotic weapon that you have the option of using two handed as martial, not a weapon that requires two separate proficiencies.


I decided to dig through the 3.5/3.0 FAQs on the proficiency question and didn't find anything that directly addresses this. I did find this in the 3.0 FAQ though;

3.0 FAQ wrote:


"Just what does a Small character have to do to use a bastard sword? I have gotten the impression that a halfling can use a bastard sword as a two-handed weapon provided that she has a Strength score of 13 or better and she takes Exotic Weapon Proficiency (bastard sword). Correct?

There is no Strength requirement to use a bastard sword. A bastard sword is a Medium-Size weapon. It follows all the rules for Medium-Size weapons, except that a Medium-Size creature wielding the sword in one hand takes a –4 attack penalty with it unless she has Exotic Weapon Proficiency (bastard sword). A Small creature using the sword in two hands is just like a Medium-Size creature wielding it in one hand. So, your halfling (or gnome) takes a –4 attack penalty when using the sword two-handed and takes no attack penalty if she has Exotic Weapon Proficiency (bastard sword) and uses two hands; because the sword is Medium-Size, a Small character cannot use it one-handed. "

So under the two feat interpretation, a small creature can use a medium bastard sword in two hands with the exotic proficiency feat, but if she trades the medium bastard sword for a small one, she loses the ability to use it two handed and has to take martial weapon proficiency to use it that way.

That's kind of convoluted, but it is the 3.0 FAQ so take that with whatever authority you ascribe to it.


D@mn!!! Frogboy did get shot down pretty hard. LOL, I once asked for a free feat with the Elven Curved Blade for my Half-Elf rogue and got shut down for two pages too so don't take it personal chief, which unfortunately appears to be what you are doing.

I also wouldn't roll with that half-orc jester one of the posters was trying to get you to do. If you have a build in mind stick to it. because rarely ever does straying from your original concept lead to role-playing satisfaction....at least in my world.

In general, if what you want can be accomplished through the rules using feats, class-dipping, etc then you should go that route before asking for anything. I know it seems petty but "Doesn't anyone give a $#!T about the rules!!!"


Giving a player a feat isn't that bad, guys, especially when it's to allow him to do something like go into melee at low level. If you did want a good model of the katana though, I'd go with either scimitar or Falchion stats. The whole point of the katana is it's a razor, and razors should have a high chance to crit.

They're mostly resistant because yeah, guy is asking for a feat, and the other players will want one too. My main question is why you're fighting if you're a jester. Just something to do at low levels?

I once had a fighter in one of my games get lucky and roll a +2 bastard sword on the treasure chart. Guy wasn't proficient, and he was a longsword fighter. He took the feat to use it, and I let him trade it in later for improved critical, saying all that time spent with the bastard sword had given him a stronger arm and thus better aim.

Honestly, chill out. You act like giving someone a feat is like giving them wizard equivalent spellcasting. Especially when it's for weapon proficiency in a very situational weapon.

I dunno. If I had a say, I would go with the Tengu Bard. Good will save, free proficiency with all the swords, and I don't have to be a wussy elf. Oh and I can vocally accompany songbirds. People don't like Tengu? Hat of Disguise or alter self into, I dunno a dwarf or something. Anything but an elf.

Sovereign Court RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32, 2010 Top 8

Disclaimer: IRL I like the katana because it's a curved blade. No mysticism, just a curved blade.

For fear of stirring up another katana arguement, I prefer the 1d8/18-20 for the katana myself, one or two handed as bastard sword.

Like I said, gamewise it's a funny quirk that if you buy Bastard Sword as an EWP, you can use it two handed (MWP) w/o penalty. It's like the ladder/pole tax in 3.x just one of those little quirks that comes up. Nothing to worry about.

As to tweaking the bard... I might be inclined to allow trading whip and rapier for bastard sword. especially for an Andoran bard, to use the campaign setting. Else, spend a feat, you have more. My oft cited Arcane legionary class has mind blank as a 6th level spell. It makes iron will mostly useless, but I'll still take the feat for my 'less than perceptive but indomintable' Wis 8 iconic legionary.

Dark Archive

I would not let the player have free a free bastard sword prof. I do feel that the bastard sword is probably the best match stat wise for a katana.

I offer you a couple of solutions in the realms of house rules for your bard to get use of a bastard sword as a a katana:

solution 1 (rule mechanic): I would let a player take an exotic weapon feat at 1st level without meeting the +1 BaB condition with the following stipulations in effect. when they use the exotic weapon as a first level toon they get a -2 to all attack rolls with it. When they use the weapon as a level 2 toon they get a -1 penalty to all rolls made with it. When they reach level 3 (the point when they would normally be able to take the feat) I would let them use the weapon without penalty.

solution 2:(story route) Reflavor a long sword to be a Wakizashi. Use it for a few levels and roleplay the character using that time to find a master to teach the the art Bushido. The Katana was manily the weapon of the samurai, and was often reserved for the elite noble military class anyways. It does not make a whole lot of sense for a level 1 character to be rocking one. It is the mark of master and a noble. With this option you don't get immediate mechanical gratification. But you set yourself up for it, and you get to have a story that is true to your theme and within the rules. Besides it will give you time to save up for the weapon as a katana in all rights should be a masterwork weapon.

Hope you figure it out.

love,

malkav

RPG Superstar 2015 Top 8

Since the OP was thinking of making a human, one option is to use your human bonus feat to take proficiency in two-handed-weapon-of-your-choice. Since otherwise the build would be the same, theoretically, if it was a half-elf or whatever, then you've got an extra feat to play with as a human and you may as well use that feat to help you make the character you want at first level. The bonus human feat is exactly for situations like this.

Someone else also mentioned playing a half-orc, as half-orcs are proficient in falchion--which is in fact one of the better two-handed blades in the game. (Re-fluff as a nodachi or whatever if you like.) Remember half-orcs no longer suffer a Cha bonus, and you can make one that passes for human if you like. They can make pretty good bards, actually.

Option three is the already mentioned "wield a longsword with two hands." That's fine, and again, should be no problem fluffing it as a single-bladed, slightly curved sword (okay, technically that falls into the "scimitar" class of weapons, but let's not complicate this).

If your DM is allowing Traits, then it's possible he'll let you take extra Weapon Proficiencies as a trait, so talk to him about that.

Liberty's Edge

Hey Frogboy,

Yeah, RAW is clear as a bell. If you absolutely MUST use a bastard sword as your weapon (thematic choice would be the only real difference IMO), then you'll need to pick on of the following:

A) Suck up the nonproficiency penalty
B) Level dip or take a feat to buy off the penalty
C) See if there's something you and your DM can work out as a compromise
D) Get a Sunblade when you have 50K gp burning a hole in your pockets

IMO there's not much game difference between using a longsword and bastard sword. Going from d8 to d10 isn't that big a deal since most characters who use two-handed weapons tend towards high STR and possibly Power Attack. In those cases, most of the damage does not come from the dX so much as the +Y.

That's just my 2 coppers, YMMV. Cheers!

Liberty's Edge

The rules are very clear and unambiguous: no, an Elf or a Bard cannot use a bastard sword in two hands without taking Martial Weapon Proficiency (Bastard Sword).

That said, given that elves are proficient with longswords (which can be used two-handed), I do not see a problem with letting an elf exchange the longsword proficiency for bastard sword martial proficiency. It's hardly imbalencing.

Now, I wouldn't let an elf do a one-to-one weapon exchange in general; it's not "any two martial weapons" its "these two specific martial weapons for flavor reasons". But wanting to swap longsword with martial bastard sword or rapier with kukri isn't a big deal, as long as there's some in-character reason for it.


Cold Napalm wrote:
Frogboy wrote:
Dragorine wrote:
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.

I'm with Napalm on this one. I've always treated Feats and Class Features very differently. Everybody gets feats. Class features are those neat things that you have to actually be the class to get.

My point is, sure, maybe swapping out one thing you'll never use for something more fitting sounds nice. Trading off a weapon prof. for another is powergaming, plain and simple. It sounds like you're trying to get a mechanically better weapon, gain with unequal loss. Any time We've ever dealt with "cherry picking" abilities, we always had to trade in something substantial. Trading in your Rapier proficiency is NOT equal to a Ranger trading their animal companion, or a Paladin trading their special mount.

What's to stop a rogue from trading in his weapon prof. with a Sap and trading it for a Spiked Chain?

What's to stop a halfling trading in their Sling for a Greatsword?

Sovereign Court

What I don't get is people claiming it a quirk that if you pay for the EWP feat you get the bonus of using two handed. That's not a quirk at all. If you take any proficiency feat instead of dipping for all proficiencies, it means you've trained enough with that one specific weapon enough to know how to use it. How is it a quirk at all that if you train with a bastard sword you know how to use a bastard sword.

It makes me think of grand theft auto, in it you could buy a hat, then you could buy the same hat worn backwards, and buy the same hat sideways, and then if a new version of the game came out where you bought the hat and you could wear it however you wanted people would call it a quirk that you bought that hat and now you didn't have to buy the hat worn sideways, and the hat worn backwards etc.

Liberty's Edge

lastknightleft wrote:


It makes me think of grand theft auto, in it you could buy a hat, then you could buy the same hat worn backwards, and buy the same hat sideways, and then if a new version of the game came out where you bought the hat and you could wear it however you wanted people would call it a quirk that you bought that hat and now you didn't have to buy the hat worn sideways, and the hat worn backwards etc.

Would you be using the hat one or two handed? Do you require special class features or fears to wear hats? Do different kinds of hats require additional hat-related training? Are there Improved and Greater Hat Wearing abilities? Does colour matter?

PS :D

Sovereign Court

Xuttah wrote:
lastknightleft wrote:


It makes me think of grand theft auto, in it you could buy a hat, then you could buy the same hat worn backwards, and buy the same hat sideways, and then if a new version of the game came out where you bought the hat and you could wear it however you wanted people would call it a quirk that you bought that hat and now you didn't have to buy the hat worn sideways, and the hat worn backwards etc.

Would you be using the hat one or two handed? Do you require special class features or fears to wear hats? Do different kinds of hats require additional hat-related training? Are there Improved and Greater Hat Wearing abilities? Does colour matter?

PS :D

Two handed

yes
yes
yes
yes


As a DM, I often hand out 1 extra feat free at character generation for everyone that goes beyond the normal allotment, for tweaking due to concept, or just for pure powergaming. Although I will rule out feats that would not be normally obtainable due to class, race, region, etc.

I also don't understand why the type of weapon would influence intimidate in a negative manner, it is you proficiency and mastery of said weapon that may make others reconsider, even if it is a rapier.

Liberty's Edge

lastknightleft wrote:


PS :D

Two handed

yes
yes
yes
yes

Yay! I qualify for Improved Hat Wearing (black, motoring cap) next level!


Frogboy,

For what it's worth, I'm with Jake on this one. I like variant class features, and as a DM I have no problem swapping out stuff like that for a typical game.

If the goal is to create a tactical exercise, then strict adherence to the RAW is far more important, and I'd say "no." But for a casual RP-heavy game, I see no reason that classes need to be anywhere near as rigid as some of the comments here suggest.

51 to 100 of 118 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder First Edition / General Discussion / Bastard Sword in two hands if you have long sword proficiency only? All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.