I like bastard swords a lot, and tend to spend the feat on them even if it's not the best option mechanically.
That said, for my own games, I have a house rule where if you have EWP: Bastard Sword (or War Axe for that matter), you get an additional +1 to damage when you wield them two-handed. (Having weapon familiarity does not grant you this bonus.) This plays up their versatility a bit, so you get 1 better average damage than a long sword 1-handed and 2 better two-handed. Still probably not worth a feat, but it helps a bit.
That seems like a nice gesture and I'd support it. :)
I like bastard swords a lot, and tend to spend the feat on them even if it's not the best option mechanically.
That said, for my own games, I have a house rule where if you have EWP: Bastard Sword (or War Axe for that matter), you get an additional +1 to damage when you wield them two-handed. (Having weapon familiarity does not grant you this bonus.) This plays up their versatility a bit, so you get 1 better average damage than a long sword 1-handed and 2 better two-handed. Still probably not worth a feat, but it helps a bit.
The dwarf axe, maybe, because its average damage would match the greataxe (6.5), but can be wielded 1-handed at discretion.
Still, this is a feat whose benefit is essentially +1 damage or +2 damage; which is poor compared to just taking Weapon Spec. On the other hand, it's available to non-fighters and stacks, so hey.
It has been a longstanding tradition amongst d20 crunch enthusiasts that +1 hit and +2 damage is roughly fair for the same investment. Most people would consider trading a feat for +1 damage to be pretty terrible. The biggest exception I've seen is the psionic weapon/fist/shot line of feats which give a passive +1 bonus to damage when you're focused, with the option to dump the passive into +2d6 for a single attack.
IE - Psionic Weapon gives +1 / +2d6, greater psionic weapon increases it to +2 / +4d6. If it were just +1 or +2 the feats would be pretty terrible, but it's actually really solid when you need to bring a sudden burst of pain or try extra hard to disrupt a spell being cast (such as if your enemy is casting a full-round action spell like sleep or summoner monster IX, throw some extra dice on and hope to disrupt.
If you're crunching maximum numbers, then no it's not worth it, but these weapons are more about versatility than maxima. A dwarf axe is better than a battle axe but costs a feat, and is worse than a greataxe but can be used one handed.
Well the waraxe is awesome no doubt. Most of that comes from the fact being a dwarf just gives you an excuse to use a superior version of the longsword/battleaxe. :P
What I meant was that burning a feat for +1 damage is just wasting feats. Even weapon focus would be better. :P
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Ashiel, yes, the Two-Handed Fighter only works with two-handed weapons (category) but the FAQ provided an exception that states that the Bastard Sword used two-handed may be used with feats and abilities that specifically require two-handed weapons.
So while it may be more beneficial to use a Greatsword your statement that a Longsword does everything a Bastard Sword does is not true. There are a number of feats and abilities that specifically require a two-handed weapon (not a weapon used in two-hands) and the Bastard Sword, via the FAQ, counts as a two-handed weapon for those purposes.
Other examples I can think of right now are Pushing Assault and Shield of Swings.
Disclaimer (again): I house-rule that how many hands are on the weapon determines feats and abilities that may be used with the weapon, not it's original category. However, you must still be able to legally use the weapon with the number of hands you are using.
- Gauss
But according to the FAQ it's not a two-handed weapon if you're using it in one hand, yeah?
|
I have two PC's in the Kingmaker campaign that I run weekly who use Bastard Swords. One is a Barbarian, the other is a Rogue/Cavalier. Both of the players enjoy their characters and their choice of weaponry.
Do they use them 1st or 2H? Have either got EWP? If so, by spending a feat or by some other method?
They both have EWP (and both used a feat to purchase it) and primarily use them one handed. Brynndolf (the Barbarian) occasionally switches to two hands for a round or two, usually when facing large monsters (giants, ogres, chimeras, etc).
So am I the only one who loves the bastard sword? My first D&D character ever had one. Bastard Swords are da bomb!
It's my favorite sword, for similar reason. \m/
Ashiel, no, it is not a two-handed weapon if you are using it in one hand. That was not the point I am addressing.
To clarify: You stated that a Bastard Sword was functionally the same as a Longsword.
Longsword: Can be used one-handed or two-handed.
Can be used with feats and abilities that require 1-hand on a weapon.
Can be used with feats and abilities that require 2-hands on a weapon.
Can be used with feats and abilities that specifically require a one-handed weapon.
Cannot be used with feats and abilities that specifically require a two-handed weapon.
Bastard Sword: Can be used one-handed (with EWP) or two-handed.
Can be used with feats and abilities that require 1-hand on a weapon.
Can be used with feats and abilities that require 2-hands on a weapon.
Can be used with feats and abilities that specifically require a one-handed weapon.
Can be used with feats and abilities that specifically require a two-handed weapon.
So, for a couple feats and abilities they are not functionally identical.
This was the point you made that I was contesting. That is all I was trying to say. :)
- Gauss
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Fair enough. Just asking. Nothing makes sense these days. :P
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Yeah, that is why I prefer the following common sense interpretation (house-rule):
All feats and abilities that refer to weapon sizes are really referencing how many hands do you have on the weapon (effort it takes to wield them). There may be exceptions (who knows it a feat or ability will some day require the actual physical size over the handedness).
Makes it simple (mostly). :)
- Gauss
So am I the only one who loves the bastard sword? My first D&D character ever had one. Bastard Swords are da bomb!In which game/edition?
AD&D, many years ago. Haverly of Chall, leader of Tymora's Seven. (Was basically a rip off of Tanis Half-Elven, what can I say it was first character) He was a Peasant Hero (fighter kit) and eventually a Grandmaster with the bastard sword. Good times.
|
|
AD&D, many years ago. Haverly of Chall, leader of Tymora's Seven. (Was basically a rip off of Tanis Half-Elven, what can I say it was first character) He was a Peasant Hero (fighter kit) and eventually a Grandmaster with the bastard sword. Good times.So am I the only one who loves the bastard sword? My first D&D character ever had one. Bastard Swords are da bomb!In which game/edition?
Good times indeed!
These were the days when you could choose to be proficient in a bastardsword for the same cost as any other weapon: basically free with the class.
You could you it 1H or 2H with no minimum Str or 'special' training at all.
Did it surprise you when you realised that 3rd ed made it impossible to use one-handed without proficiency? Or did you initially read it as usable, but at a -4 penalty?
|
|
They both have EWP (and both used a feat to purchase it) and primarily use them one handed. Brynndolf (the Barbarian) occasionally switches to two hands for a round or two, usually when facing large monsters (giants, ogres, chimeras, etc).
When using it in 1H, what do they use in the other?
Do you think either of those PCs would like to find a large bastard sword on the body of one of those giants or ogres?
AD&D, many years ago. Haverly of Chall, leader of Tymora's Seven. (Was basically a rip off of Tanis Half-Elven, what can I say it was first character) He was a Peasant Hero (fighter kit) and eventually a Grandmaster with the bastard sword. Good times.So am I the only one who loves the bastard sword? My first D&D character ever had one. Bastard Swords are da bomb!In which game/edition?Good times indeed!
These were the days when you could choose to be proficient in a bastardsword for the same cost as any other weapon: basically free with the class.
You could you it 1H or 2H with no minimum Str or 'special' training at all.
Did it surprise you when you realised that 3rd ed made it impossible to use one-handed without proficiency? Or did you initially read it as usable, but at a -4 penalty?
I was just glad to get rid of thac0!
Honestly it just wasn't a focus when we made the change. We never had anyone try to use the bastard sword one handed without the feat, but I don't think we have ever had anyone use a weapon they were not proficient with.
|
|
AD&D, many years ago. Haverly of Chall, leader of Tymora's Seven. (Was basically a rip off of Tanis Half-Elven, what can I say it was first character) He was a Peasant Hero (fighter kit) and eventually a Grandmaster with the bastard sword. Good times.So am I the only one who loves the bastard sword? My first D&D character ever had one. Bastard Swords are da bomb!In which game/edition?Good times indeed!
These were the days when you could choose to be proficient in a bastardsword for the same cost as any other weapon: basically free with the class.
You could you it 1H or 2H with no minimum Str or 'special' training at all.
Did it surprise you when you realised that 3rd ed made it impossible to use one-handed without proficiency? Or did you initially read it as usable, but at a -4 penalty?
I was just glad to get rid of thac0!
Honestly it just wasn't a focus when we made the change. We never had anyone try tuse the bastard sword one handed without the feat, but I don't think we have ever had anyone use a weapon they were not proficient with.
Same here. Even with believing that it could be used in 1H at -4, no-one ever did it! Makes me wonder why it needed to be made impossible, when doing so went against the norm for the system. The non-proficiency penalty matches the system, and is plenty of deterrent. : /
In my home-brew setting a popular deity grants it as a favored weapon so I have used it on a couple sword n board clerics I made as NPC's or pregens for new or short-term guest players.
It's also viable for a str based magus under my interpretation (which may be incorrect) and I have had a player take advantage of that before.
I also can never see myself or anyone in my group wanting to use it one-handed at -4. I was curious why people were asking if that was possible, it doesn't seem attractive at all.
Same here. Even with believing that it could be used in 1H at -4, no-one ever did it! Makes me wonder why it needed to be made impossible, when doing so went against the norm for the system. The non-proficiency penalty matches the system, and is plenty of deterrent. : /AD&D, many years ago. Haverly of Chall, leader of Tymora's Seven. (Was basically a rip off of Tanis Half-Elven, what can I say it was first character) He was a Peasant Hero (fighter kit) and eventually a Grandmaster with the bastard sword. Good times.So am I the only one who loves the bastard sword? My first D&D character ever had one. Bastard Swords are da bomb!In which game/edition?Good times indeed!
These were the days when you could choose to be proficient in a bastardsword for the same cost as any other weapon: basically free with the class.
You could you it 1H or 2H with no minimum Str or 'special' training at all.
Did it surprise you when you realised that 3rd ed made it impossible to use one-handed without proficiency? Or did you initially read it as usable, but at a -4 penalty?
I was just glad to get rid of thac0!
Honestly it just wasn't a focus when we made the change. We never had anyone try tuse the bastard sword one handed without the feat, but I don't think we have ever had anyone use a weapon they were not proficient with.
Well, it's a game. Nothing in it is needed. I know you use to need a Str 13 to take the feat, so I would guess it was supposed to represent that you needed that Str to wield it one handed. If you're asking what I think about the game balance, then you're barking up the wrong tree. I'm not by any means a game designer. My sense of balance is skewed by my groups approach to gaming. I simplify read "cannot use in one hand" as you could not use it in one hand. I never put any thought into why or non- proficiency penalties or worried about wether it was a one handed or two handed weapon. (At least until it started popping up here.)
|
|
Me neither. Never mind playing AD&D since the late '70s, ever since 3.5 I read the description and came to the conclusion that it was poorly written, because some people may read the awkward wording and think that it meant you couldn't use it at all one-handed!
Until I came to these boards for the first time just over a year ago, I even thought that it counted as a 1H exotic weapon if you had EWP, and as a 2H martial weapon if you didn't! When someone claimed otherwise I decided to quote the description to show him his error, but when I read the description carefully and critically I realised that he was right and I had been wrong!
Right now I'm still playing my 3.5 cleric1/fighter(kensai)13, rolled up before I first saw these boards. I envisioned a guy with a two-handed sword which could be thrown (and come back) so that if his full attack killed everyone within reach at least he wouldn't waste one of his attacks. To do this that thrown attack had to be an attack not a full round action. I interpreted the RAW as saying that a two-handed weapon takes a full round action to throw (maybe I was being too cautious there), so I chose the bastard sword instead.
The alternate fighters in Dragon 310 (IIRC) included the kensai, who was proficient in all simple weapons, plus one martial or exotic melee weapon which would be his chosen weapon.
I fully intended to use it in two hands exclusively (except when throwing) so I didn't need the EWP, but I got it for free with kensai anyway. If I hadn't, I wouldn't've wasted a feat on it.
BTW, in case you're wondering why cleric1, it's to sacrifice the Travel Domain in order to get the Travel domain feat, which lets me move my speed as a swift action for one minute. I can do it again by using 2 turn undeads, so the cleric level turns one use per day into 5.
Pounce without the pouncing!
Ashiel, no, it is not a two-handed weapon if you are using it in one hand. That was not the point I am addressing.
To clarify: You stated that a Bastard Sword was functionally the same as a Longsword.
Longsword: Can be used one-handed or two-handed.
Can be used with feats and abilities that require 1-hand on a weapon.
Can be used with feats and abilities that require 2-hands on a weapon.
Can be used with feats and abilities that specifically require a one-handed weapon.
Cannot be used with feats and abilities that specifically require a two-handed weapon.Bastard Sword: Can be used one-handed (with EWP) or two-handed.
Can be used with feats and abilities that require 1-hand on a weapon.
Can be used with feats and abilities that require 2-hands on a weapon.
Can be used with feats and abilities that specifically require a one-handed weapon.
Can be used with feats and abilities that specifically require a two-handed weapon.So, for a couple feats and abilities they are not functionally identical.
This was the point you made that I was contesting. That is all I was trying to say. :)
- Gauss
I hope in Pathfinder 1.5 (or 2.0) the change the rules and just say if you use any weapon in one hand it is treaded as a one handed weapon. If you use it with two hands it is treated as a two-handed weapon.
If they want the can treat the lance as an exception, but this should be spelled out clearly.The alternative would be to treat Bastard sword and all its relatives the same way the lance is treated. This would make the S&B far more powerful, but the rules would be more messy.
Universal weapon rule:
In one hand = treat it as one-handed. In two hands = treat it as two-handed. Lance is an exception. Done.
Thinking I'm just gonna house-rule that you cannot 2-hand a 1-handed weapon.
Give some meaning back to these "hand-and-a-half" weapons like the Bastard Sword and the Dwarven War Axe.
(Besides, it's not like the arming sword they had in mind when they statted the "longsword" can be gracefully two-handed.)
:P
They both have EWP (and both used a feat to purchase it) and primarily use them one handed. Brynndolf (the Barbarian) occasionally switches to two hands for a round or two, usually when facing large monsters (giants, ogres, chimeras, etc).When using it in 1H, what do they use in the other?
Do you think either of those PCs would like to find a large bastard sword on the body of one of those giants or ogres?
Valten Garess (The Rogue 10th/Cavalier 1st) does not carry anything in his other hand usually. His build was inspired by the Unencumbered Knight descriptions in Knights of the Inner Sea. Valten is also a mounted archer and likes to be able to shift to and from ranged weapons quickly. A shield would only slow that process down.
Brynndolf Arnandyr (the Barbarian) is a buckler shield wielding barbarian. He just made 11th and got greater rage and plans on multiclassing into Fighter (Viking) next level.
I placed a +1 Large Bastard sword in the hands of some mercenary trolls that the PC's encountered at the beginning of Blood for Blood. The sword ended up on the wall above the living room fireplace at Brynndolf's villa. So far he has only taken it adventuring once. He seems to prefer his +2 Cold Iron Bastard Sword of Frost and the +2 Buckler.