Despite the rather ambiguous title, I have given this feat a lot of thought. After studing Fiore's Long Sword fighting techniques for the better part of a year, I have come to realize that a sword is more parts than a blade and handle. The Pommel can be used for striking (origin of the term "to pummel"), and the tip is often used for thrusting. Thus, without further ado:
Bastard Sword Mastery
Prerequisite: Exotic Weapon Proficiency (Bastard Sword), Greater Weapon Focus (Bastard Sword), Weapon Specialization (Bastard Sword)
Benefit: You can thrust with the tip of your bastard sword, using the same damage values (1d10, 19-20/x2) and dealing piercing damage instead. you can also perform a pommel strike that deals 1d6 points of bludgeoning damage and is treated as an off-hand weapon. when using the pommel in this manner, it is possible to use the Bastard sword as a double weapon, with the pommel treated as a light weapon and the blade as a one-handed.
I would like any sort of input, and I prefer constructive criticism to outright rudeness.
:)
Despite the rather ambiguous title, I have given this feat a lot of thought. After studing Fiore's Long Sword fighting techniques for the better part of a year, I have come to realize that a sword is more parts than a blade and handle. The Pommel can be used for striking (origin of the term "to pummel"), and the tip is often used for thrusting. Thus, without further ado:
Bastard Sword Mastery
Prerequisite: Exotic Weapon Proficiency (Bastard Sword), Greater Weapon Focus (Bastard Sword), Weapon Specialization (Bastard Sword)
Benefit: You can thrust with the tip of your bastard sword, using the same damage values (1d10, 19-20/x2) and dealing piercing damage instead. you can also perform a pommel strike that deals 1d6 points of bludgeoning damage and is treated as an off-hand weapon. when using the pommel in this manner, it is possible to use the Bastard sword as a double weapon, with the pommel treated as a light weapon and the blade as a one-handed.I would like any sort of input, and I prefer constructive criticism to outright rudeness.
:)
<sarcasm> This feat is terrible! I am saying this with a mouth full of food! </sarcasm>
I think it's actually a bit weak. Why would I pick this up instead of using a short sword in my off hand (Aside from specialization if that applies, but that's fighter only)? I like this idea, I just think there should be some more benefits.
Would it be better if I dropped some of the prerequisites? Maybe only do Weapon Specialization and Exotic Weapon Proficiency?
Or alternatively, maybe allow the bastard sword to be set against a charge?
It really depends... does treating your bastard sword as a double weapon preclude the use of anything in your other hand, because if not, the implication is that you can have a shield AND double weapon at the same time.
Likewise, does the pommel need to be enchanted separately, or are you planning to use the blade's enchantments for it? That significantly affects the power of that ability just as the above question does.
It really depends... does treating your bastard sword as a double weapon preclude the use of anything in your other hand, because if not, the implication is that you can have a shield AND double weapon at the same time.
Likewise, does the pommel need to be enchanted separately, or are you planning to use the blade's enchantments for it? That significantly affects the power of that ability just as the above question does.
Being able to do either or both of these would make the feat a good choice.
Sadly the rules do state both ends of a double weapon must be enchanted separately.
Dropping prerequisites if you don't want to give much else with the feat is a good idea. I would still go with the short sword since it has a 19-20 crit range though.
Perhaps it would be better if you allowed a single blunt attack that does 1d6 + applicable bonuses, but doesn't require two weapon fighting in order to use. Something along the lines of a monk flurry attack?
This is like that Complete Warrior feat, Spinning Halberd. I like it.
Instead of making this a TWF chain feat, give it some prereqs and have it grant a secondary attack with the pommel.
For Example:
Sword Mastery
Prereq: BaB +6, Weapon Specialization (any sword), Weapons Training 1 (swords)
Benefit: When you make a full-round of attacks with a sword, you may make an additional attack at your full base attack minus 5. This attack deals 1d6 bludgeoning damage plus any bonuses to damage that affect your sword.
I originally added the EWP to suggest that the character has devoted extra time to training with the Bastard sword, though I now realize that "extra practice" is covered by things like Weapon Focus and Specialization.
I like the idea of the Spinning Halberd kind of effect, I may go with that. I will have a revised version of the feat up probably later today, if not tomorrow.
Thank you all for your help, and I look forward to your continued input.
Not a bad feat, though VoodooMike's questions are important considerations.
Best reason to use this instead of a short sword is that (and perhaps this should be clear in the feat) weapon focus/spec/training would stack on it.
Sword Mastery
Prereq: BaB +6, Weapon Specialization (any sword), Weapons Training 1 (swords)
Benefit: When you make a full-round of attacks with a sword, you may make an additional attack at your full base attack minus 5. This attack deals 1d6 bludgeoning damage plus any bonuses to damage that affect your sword.
+1 on this although I'd like to know if you can use it with a shield or not and how powerful that would be.
+1 on this although I'd like to know if you can use it with a shield or not and how powerful that would be.
Eh, why not. If you have Exotic Weapon (bastard sword), go for it. AS I have it written, any one with a sword can use it.
I'd generalize it even further:
Tricky Fighting
You use each part of your weapon to its fullest potential. The pommel, hilt, guard, butt end, etc are just one more thing to hit the other guy with.
prereq: BaB +6, Weapon Specialization (any melee), Weapons Training 1 (group that includes weapon spec'ed weapon)
Benefit: When you make a full-round of attacks with a weapon with which you have Weapon Specialization, you may make an additional attack at your full base attack minus 5. This attack deals 1d6 bludgeoning damage plus any bonuses to damage that affect your weapon.
Thunder and Fang
You have mastered the ancient Shoanti fighting style of Thunder and Fang, allowing you to fight with increased effectiveness when wielding an earth breaker and a klar. As you swing at foes with Thunder (your earth breaker), you slash at them with the Fang (your klar)
Prerequisites: Str 15, Two-Weapon Fighting, Weapon Focus (earth breaker), Weapon Focus (klar)
Benefit:As long as you are fighting with an earth breaker and a klar (and you make attacks with your klar as your offhand attack), you can fight with both weapons as if you were wielding a double weapon, and retain your shield bonus to your Armor Class granted by your klar. Treat your klar as a light weapon for the purposes of determining your total penalty to attack.
A fighter may select Thunder and Fang as on of his fighter bonus feats.
In case you are unfamiliar, an Earth Breaker is a Two-handed Martial weapon, sort of like a bludgeoning Greatsword, 2d6 damage. The klar is basically a light shield or buckler with a stabbing dagger thing stuck out by your fist that can be wielded as a light weapon.
I write this feat here because the result is very similar to what your feat accomplishes. In a nutshell, this feat allows a character to Two-weapon fight with a Two-handed Weapon, a light weapon, and keep the Shield bonus to AC.
If I were sharing your feat for my own game, I would make the prerequisites very similar to Thunder and Fang.
At first, I balked at the idea of a one-handed double weapon, but upon reflection, I dont see why a pommel strike cannot be performed one-handed. I suppose the feat would allow the additional attack with the use of a shield, though the feat is going to drop the EWP prerequisite. It was originally designed to reflect a two-handed style of fighting. However, if a player has the Exotic Proficiency, then I see no reason why they couldn't use this feat one-handed.
Perhaps, if I wanted to focus more on two-handed wielding, I should look more towards the Aldori Dueling Mastery?
One handed double weapon with shield would be very cool. I would maybe throw in a Double Slice effect, but only with that weapon (Since it's in your main hand anyway). You should make it either one additional attack or a true double weapon and disallow attack with the real off-hand with the feat.
Here it is, revised to focus more on using the bastard sword two-handed.
Bastard Sword Mastery
Prerequisites: Weapon Specialization (Bastard Sword), Greater Weapon Focus (Bastard Sword)
Benefit: You can thrust with the tip of your bastard sword, using the same damage values (1d10, 19-20/x2) and dealing piercing damage instead. When you wield your Bastard Sword two handed, you gain a +2 shield bonus to your AC. When you make a full attack action with your Bastard Sword while using it two-handed, you gain an additional attack with the pommel at a -5 penalty that deals 1d6 + 1/2 your strength modifier.
I took a bit from Spinning Halberd and a bit from Aldori Dueling Mastery. Should I add more, lose something, have more text, etc?
Edit: Aldori Dueling Mastery is a feat found on page 67 of the Pathfinder Chronicles Campaign Setting.
|
I would add the text about being able to do this one handed with the EWP. Since unlike a double weapon, this only gives you one extra attack instead of allowing the whole TWF line up, I think it's okay. Course then there is the issue with using this feat along with TWF line up as well. Maybe add a clause for considering the pommel attack non magical? Then it would be about the same as the snap kick feat...course that imposed an extra -2 to all your other attacks instead of made at -5.
I would add the text about being able to do this one handed with the EWP. Since unlike a double weapon, this only gives you one extra attack instead of allowing the whole TWF line up, I think it's okay. Course then there is the issue with using this feat along with TWF line up as well. Maybe add a clause for considering the pommel attack non magical? Then it would be about the same as the snap kick feat...course that imposed an extra -2 to all your other attacks instead of made at -5.
In that case, he still gets the shield bonus for using it even if he attacks with the pommel? Actually... That's really quite good. And with two feat prereqs I can't see anything wrong with it.
And I think snap kick got edited out of 3.5 for being broken. Correct me if I'm wrong.
|
|
I would add the text about being able to do this one handed with the EWP. Since unlike a double weapon, this only gives you one extra attack instead of allowing the whole TWF line up, I think it's okay. Course then there is the issue with using this feat along with TWF line up as well. Maybe add a clause for considering the pommel attack non magical? Then it would be about the same as the snap kick feat...course that imposed an extra -2 to all your other attacks instead of made at -5.In that case, he still gets the shield bonus for using it even if he attacks with the pommel? Actually... That's really quite good. And with two feat prereqs I can't see anything wrong with it.
And I think snap kick got edited out of 3.5 for being broken. Correct me if I'm wrong.
Well snap kick by itself isn't bad. Snap kick while polymorpthed into a giant with superior unarmed strike and levels of monk...well that was more of an issue. Otherwise your taking a -2 to all attacks for an extra 1d3+half strength.
Well snap kick by itself isn't bad. Snap kick while polymorpthed into a giant with superior unarmed strike and levels of monk...well that was more of an issue. Otherwise your taking a -2 to all attacks for an extra 1d3+half strength.I would add the text about being able to do this one handed with the EWP. Since unlike a double weapon, this only gives you one extra attack instead of allowing the whole TWF line up, I think it's okay. Course then there is the issue with using this feat along with TWF line up as well. Maybe add a clause for considering the pommel attack non magical? Then it would be about the same as the snap kick feat...course that imposed an extra -2 to all your other attacks instead of made at -5.In that case, he still gets the shield bonus for using it even if he attacks with the pommel? Actually... That's really quite good. And with two feat prereqs I can't see anything wrong with it.
And I think snap kick got edited out of 3.5 for being broken. Correct me if I'm wrong.
Oh, OK. That's fine then. Even if it used the monk damage die that would be OK.
|
|
I will point out that Snap Kick is usable with a standard action as well though, which was really cool about it, and why some people see it as broken.Oh, OK. That's fine then. Even if it used the monk damage die that would be OK.Well snap kick by itself isn't bad. Snap kick while polymorpthed into a giant with superior unarmed strike and levels of monk...well that was more of an issue. Otherwise your taking a -2 to all attacks for an extra 1d3+half strength.I would add the text about being able to do this one handed with the EWP. Since unlike a double weapon, this only gives you one extra attack instead of allowing the whole TWF line up, I think it's okay. Course then there is the issue with using this feat along with TWF line up as well. Maybe add a clause for considering the pommel attack non magical? Then it would be about the same as the snap kick feat...course that imposed an extra -2 to all your other attacks instead of made at -5.In that case, he still gets the shield bonus for using it even if he attacks with the pommel? Actually... That's really quite good. And with two feat prereqs I can't see anything wrong with it.
And I think snap kick got edited out of 3.5 for being broken. Correct me if I'm wrong.
Oh yeah, that too...but honestly without other things, the feat did so little damage it was a whole lotta so what. Yeah you can an extra 11-13 damage with a kick...that is most likely not a magical weapon and will get eaten up by DR by the time you reach that high of a strength. At low levels 1d3+3 or 4 damage even if all you have is a standard is hardly game breaking. In fact power attacking for that -2 nets you about the same extra damage.