| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The bastard sword (or the Dwarven waraxe) is the iconic hand-and-a-half weapon. But no one ever uses it as one: anyone interested in wading in two-handed would rather just use a greatsword (and save a feat), and most shield-and-sword builds would rather use a feat for something other than one-bigger die size and less-frequent loot drops.
Add to that the fact that the entire 'one-handed' weapon category are hand-and-a-half weapons in that you can switch to a two handed grip for more damage (assuming a Str > 14.) Historically, longswords/broadswords were likely to be hand-and-a-half hilted.
It might be interesting to re-evaluate the weapon categories from light/one-handed/two-handed to something like light (daggers, shortswords)/one-handed (sabers, rapiers, scimitars)/half-and-a-half (longsword, battleaxe, mace)/two-handed (greataxe, greatsword), perhaps with simple Str pre-reqs to proficiency instead of requiring a secondary feat.
I'm all for the spice of variety, though what exactly would be the benifit of hand-and-a-half weapons? the point is to be able to wield them one or two-handed, which they already accomplish. I'm just curious what making another catagory would bring.
I think it's a good idea. Do you intend to do it for all the weapons or just the select groups you've listed?
I'm just curious what making another catagory would bring.
The idea would be to canonize that there are some one-handed weapons that are one-handed because they do a d8 (or d6 with a special feature), but shouldn't really be usable two-handed, like the rapier.
Also, to keep some of the good ideas behind the bastard sword (like 'you can only use this one-handed with a 13 str') without the handicap of needing a feat that would just be ignored.
So, think of a world where a 10 Str person (like a typical villager) needs both hands to use a longsword properly. If you have 14 str (picking this level because it is the point where two-handed actually yields a bonus), then you could use it one-handed instead.
Do you intend to do it for all the weapons or just the select groups you've listed?
All the weapons. The weapons I listed are examples to give an idea of the things that end up in that category. (The bastard sword and dwarven waraxe just go away - They are simply the larger end of the longsword/battleaxe definition.)
Well, the Pathfinder Longsword is actually a historical Arming sword or a broadsword, while the Bastard sword is the historical Longsword.
An Arming sword isn't meant to be wielded two handed while a historical Longsword can be wielded one handed in a pinch.
Removing the two hand benefit from one handed weapons would make the bastard sword more attractive and give it a unique role among the weapons.
If you're interested in historical european fencing, just youtube HEMA (Historical European Martial Arts), alot of the practitioners are well versed in the litterature of the time.
Scolagladiatora
Here's a good channel about swords and theory (not much sparring).
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Well, the Pathfinder Longsword is actually a historical Arming sword or a broadsword, while the Bastard sword is the historical Longsword.
Historical weapons have shifted names and meaning several times: 'bastard sword' was originally a term for armorers and historians to refer to swords that don't neatly fit into their contemporary definitions, before it became a term for 'hand and a half sword'. That is, it once meant 'sword of uncertain/illegitimate origin', before it meant 'crossbreed sword'.
We don't need the 2nd edition Arms and Equipment guide that was exhaustive over different medieval specimens of weapons and armor with different rules for each, and 37 polearms. We need, for the game, broader weapon definitions that can apply to various weapons, the same way 'fighter' can be anything from a gladiator to a caravan guard to a knight to a grizzled mercenary.
'Longsword' should be able to able encompass any mostly-straight sword of sufficient length and heft to fight with a slashing motion, but not so long or heavy as to require two hands for a strong, skilled wielder. Longswords, broadswords, dao, katanas, and so on.
Scimitars and rapiers should, between them, cover most of the sabers, cavalry swords, and cutlasses.
Battleaxe should be able to encompass any axe bigger than a hatchet but small enough that it could be used with a shield.
Maces and morningstars do not need to be different weapons.
We don't need a billion different polearms just because weapons historians love to split those particular hairs. Does the game really benefit from having different (or repeated) rules for a glaive, naginata, halberd, and glaive-guisarme, despite them being fundamentally the same weapon?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I always liked the versatility bucklers have to offer: you could use them for additional defence or wield your weapon two-handed for extra damage. Aside from that, yeah, the bastard sword offers no real advantage.
Perhaps some feats supporting a unique combat-style for these weapons would be the way to go?
But you can use that buckler with a longsword, too. Getting a bastard sword means spending a feat for an average of one extra damage (1d8->1d10). There are lots of other, more relevant, things to spend a feat on.
My goal is to get rid of the bastard sword (and waraxe), while finding a different way to make half-and-a-half weapons work in the game, without necessarily requiring buy-in via feats. Because feats that aren't taken are rules that might as well not exist.
Yeah, there are loads of sword types that can be condensed to the current 3-4 types.
Imo, one handed weapons should be one handed weapons only, the grip is made for one hand only.
This would give the "hand and a half" type weapons a use, and actually making them unique.
Here's my suggested alteration to the handedness rules:
Light, One-Handed, and Two-Handed Melee Weapons: This designation is a measure of how much effort it takes to wield a weapon in combat. It indicates whether a melee weapon, when wielded by a character of the weapon's size category, is considered a light weapon, a one-handed weapon, or a two-handed weapon.
Light: A light weapon is used in one hand. It is easier to use in one's off hand than a one-handed weapon is, and can be used while grappling (see Combat). Add the wielder's Strength modifier to damage rolls for melee attacks with a light weapon if it's used in the primary hand, or half the wielder's Strength bonus if it's used in the off hand. Using two hands to wield a light weapon gives no advantage on damage; the Strength bonus applies as though the weapon were held in the wielder's primary hand only.
An unarmed strike is always considered a light weapon.
One-Handed: A one-handed weapon can be used in either the primary hand or the off hand. Add the wielder's Strength bonus to damage rolls for melee attacks with a one-handed weapon if it's used in the primary hand, or 1/2 his Strength bonus if it's used in the off hand. Using two hands to wield a one-handed weapon gives no advantage on damage; the Strength bonus applies as though the weapon were held in the wielder's primary hand only.
Two-Handed: Two hands are required to use a two-handed melee weapon effectively. Apply 1-1/2 times the character's Strength bonus to damage rolls for melee attacks with such a weapon.
Hand-and-a-half: A wielder may choose to treat these weapons as one- or two-handed. If treating the weapon as one-handed, wielders with a strength modifier less than +2 take a -2 penalty to attack rolls.
Heavy: Treat these weapons as two-handed, except that wielders with a strength modifier less than +2 take a -2 penalty to attack rolls.
Heavy is there to distinguish between the (mostly martial) two-handers that are big, heavy, and clumsy if you aren't strong enough (greatswords, earthbreakers) and the (mostly simple) two-handers that just require a two-handed grip (quarterstaves, spears).
So, think of a world where a 10 Str person (like a typical villager) needs both hands to use a longsword properly. If you have 14 str (picking this level because it is the point where two-handed actually yields a bonus), then you could use it one-handed instead.
After playing lots of dark souls I actually think that sounds pretty cool lol, would such ever allow for one-arming a greatsword for kicks if you had the strength? XD
EDIT: I see I've been ninja'd lol
I'm liking the idea of making hand and a half be better or give some bonus of some kind vs use taking a one-handed sword and using it 2handed. But how do you work it out and give what kind of bonus and minus to this kind of thing?
The bonus is that I revised 'one-handed' to not actually get a benefit from using two hands.
It's probably a better idea to up hand-and-a-half weapons than to nerf all other one-handed weapons. People already complain that martials are underpowered.
What kind of bonus do you have in mind? The gap between a longsword and a greatsword doesn't have a lot of design space in it.
And it doesn't really make sense to two-hand a rapier, anyway.
The bonus is that I revised 'one-handed' to not actually get a benefit from using two hands.
Oh sorry i didn't notice when i looked but i do see it now. I guess its a start but it feels like your really making one-handed weapons more like light weapons to me. Or am i misunderstanding you somehow.
The bonus is that I revised 'one-handed' to not actually get a benefit from using two hands.Oh sorry i didn't notice when i looked but i do see it now. I guess its a start but it feels like your really making one-handed weapons more like light weapons to me. Or am i misunderstanding you somehow.
That's accurate. Light weapons still have some mechanical advantages over one-handed to account for their lesser damage - being usable in a grapple, or easier to TWF, usable with Weapon Finesse, and so on.
This whole train of thought started with 'Bastard swords are really poorly done', and trying to think of ways that keep the relative weapon categories interesting when choosing a weapon.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Meh, personally I am fine with things as they are. The die damage if wielding 1-handed is more than any other weapon one-handed. It's not a tremendous amount of difference, especially at higher levels, but it's also not noticeably less than your traditional 2-handed weapons.
If you're insistent that they deserve a boost, something as simple as "no buckler penalty for two-handed wielding with a buckler" is a pretty nifty trait to add without breaking the game.
Meh, personally I am fine with things as they are. The die damage if wielding 1-handed is more than any other weapon one-handed. It's not a tremendous amount of difference, especially at higher levels, but it's also not noticeably less than your traditional 2-handed weapons.
If you're insistent that they deserve a boost, something as simple as "no buckler penalty for two-handed wielding with a buckler" is a pretty nifty trait to add without breaking the game.
I have to admit i like the sound of this. It sort of feels right to me. But that's just my 2cp.
I like the idea too. I also think adding martial weapons training adds a lot.
Light: Can be used in a grapple, can be used off-hand, finessable, TWF capable
One Handed: TWF capable, finessable with martial weapon training
One and a Half Handed: Can be used one handed with sufficient strength and Martial Training, can be used two-handed with simple weapon training
Two Handed Must be used two handed
2x same light weapon can be used in TWF and then both weapons can benefit from the same feat. Having unmatched weapons allows a martial character to use a one handed weapon but remain dex focused
I have a nagging feeling that a martial weapon trained character should be able to do more damage with a hand and a half weapon in one hand than a non-martial weapon trained character can with 2 hands but can't think of a suitable mechanic off the top of my head. Getting this right might make sword and board more appealing as a choice. Perhaps something like the Sword & Sorcery mechanic of TWF = bonus to hit rather than 2x attacks, weapons and shield = bonus to AC and 2 handed = bonus to damage might be a good starting point with martial training moving the damage dice up one notch so the longsword is 1d8 in the hands of a simple weapon fighter but requires 2 hands so benefits from the added strength bonus but is 1d10 in the hands of the martial fighter who also gets the benefit of the shield.
I have a nagging feeling that a martial weapon trained character should be able to do more damage with a hand and a half weapon in one hand than a non-martial weapon trained character can with 2 hands but can't think of a suitable mechanic off the top of my head.
I think a longsword wielded two-handed is still martial. That's why I tied it to strength of proficiency. I picked 14 Str as the threshold because that's the point where two-handed wielding actually does more damage.
As it stands, a character with 12 Str will never two-hand a longsword. He still does more damage with a greatsword, because more dice, but he never has a reason to use the longsword in a versatile way.
So by requiring 14 str for hand-and-a-half weapons, it means that you get these choices:
<14 Str (old rules) - Longsword one handed. Greatsword two-handed.
<14 Str (new rules) - Longsword two handed. Greatsword two-handed or longsword one-handed at a penalty.
>=14 Str (either) - Longsword one handed, or two handed at a bonus (more damage). Greatsword two handed (for even more damage).
I have a nagging feeling that a martial weapon trained character should be able to do more damage with a hand and a half weapon in one hand than a non-martial weapon trained character can with 2 hands but can't think of a suitable mechanic off the top of my head.I think a longsword wielded two-handed is still martial. That's why I tied it to strength of proficiency.
I respect that, my thought process went along the lines of a non-martial could effectively use the weapon with two hands and parry, thrust and slash without the weapon pulling them about with it's momentum. Martial training teaches them how to make the momentum work for them so that they could use it one-handed without the sword's momentum making them off-balance. The same training also teaches them how to use the momentum and their own weight more effectively to deliver more powerful blows. A base level of strength would be required to keep the weapon under control.
or we could leave it with niche cases where you want to swing a sword and occasionally get a free-hand. also, if a feat is worth +1 to hit, why not +1 to damage?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
also, if a feat is worth +1 to hit, why not +1 to damage?
There are much more elegant ways to have such a feat than EWP (Bastard Sword).
also, if a feat is worth +1 to hit, why not +1 to damage?There are much more elegant ways to have such a feat than EWP (Bastard Sword).
but none where you get to one hand a sword that normal people have to wield two-handed, BOW BEFORE ME TWO-HANDERS!
Hand-and-a-half weapons require two hands to wield. A creature with a Strength of 15 or higher can wield hand-and-a-half weapons with one hand. (although, maybe that Strength score should change depending on the size of the weapon.
NEW TRAIT
Hand-and-a-Half Weapon Training
Benefit: You can wield hand-and-a-half weapons one handed if your Strength is 13 or higher.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The bastard sword (or the Dwarven waraxe) is the iconic hand-and-a-half weapon. But no one ever uses it as one: anyone interested in wading in two-handed would rather just use a greatsword (and save a feat), and most shield-and-sword builds would rather use a feat for something other than one-bigger die size and less-frequent loot drops.
Add to that the fact that the entire 'one-handed' weapon category are hand-and-a-half weapons in that you can switch to a two handed grip for more damage (assuming a Str > 14.) Historically, longswords/broadswords were likely to be hand-and-a-half hilted.
It might be interesting to re-evaluate the weapon categories from light/one-handed/two-handed to something like light (daggers, shortswords)/one-handed (sabers, rapiers, scimitars)/half-and-a-half (longsword, battleaxe, mace)/two-handed (greataxe, greatsword), perhaps with simple Str pre-reqs to proficiency instead of requiring a secondary feat.
I already house ruled that for years (since beta basically)
You can't two hand a longsword because there isn't enough hilt.
You can two hand one handed hafted weapons, but you only get +1 damage for doing so.
This makes bastard sword prof more attractive.
Currently, my 1st level skald in Iron Gods wields a bastard sword two handed, because he doesn't have the feat to do it one handed.
Why doesn't he use a great sword?
1) initial character creation cost, couldn't afford it.
2) he plans on using bastard sword as a basis for his fighting style, trading back and forth between TWF and Two handing.
3) bastards swords are smaller and lighter and , seriously have you even seen anyone SHEATH a great sword?
4) a "Claymore" is just too skald/iconic.
5) Bastard swords have always been my go to weapon for melee characters.
Bastard swords made more sense in 1E when a weapon proficiency was just that , prof in one weapon, the weapon tables had lengths and a chart for room to swing it rules, 2 hand swords were almost never useable indoors.
It was also very important to carry daggers back then because any tunnels or crawling, printed use of things like longswords.
I liked those rules
I DO NOT like "ALL Martial weapons"
I think only fighters should get that.
Other Full BABS should be able to pick X number of weapon categories at level one.
Simple is a Category,
Light blades, heavy blades etc
Anyone else thats not full BAB has X singular weapon choices they can use.
One feat = one fighter weapon group, not a single weapon.
One feat = one exotic weapon.
The old 3X weapon prof system is dumb.
But you can use that buckler with a longsword, too. Getting a bastard sword means spending a feat for an average of one extra damage (1d8->1d10). There are lots of other, more relevant, things to spend a feat on.
My goal is to get rid of the bastard sword (and waraxe), while finding a different way to make half-and-a-half weapons work in the game, without necessarily requiring buy-in via feats. Because feats that aren't taken are rules that might as well not exist.
Feat tax vs. stat tax.
Would the all encompassing long sword in your new weapons list do d8 or d10?
Id like to see the other wild swords go away too (like OP falcata)
While your on this subject
1) bucklers not being able to shield bash?
DUMB! 1d4 shield bash please. (really i can't bash with a spiked buckler??)
2) spears… why is a normal spear a) a two handed weapon but b) can still be thrown? (it has a range increment) does that mean you have to throw it two handed?
Spears AND long spears should use these same rules you are considering for bastard sword/war axe (i.e. str based handedness use)
3) TWO handed weapons (great axe, great club, great sword) should be able to be one handed by characters with extreme strength, like with a belt of giant strength
Say anything above a 19 or 20 (yes this would mean barbarians being bale to one hand a great sword while raging)
but none where you get to one hand a sword that normal people have to wield two-handed, BOW BEFORE ME TWO-HANDERS!also, if a feat is worth +1 to hit, why not +1 to damage?There are much more elegant ways to have such a feat than EWP (Bastard Sword).
hes referring to weapon focus, which only gives you +1 to hit with a specific weapon… the functional equivalent of bastard sword or war axe.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Im starting to like the STR limitation idea… it would see a resurgence of the use of a short sword as well (seeing as characters under a certain str could no longer one hand a longsword)
t would also put the kibosh on dervish dancing magi dumping str (can't one hand a scimitar with an 8 str)
Same should go for armor (STR requirements)
current rules have no draw back to wearing full plate with a low str score if you are proficient
The combinations as I see them
2xLight weapons - TWF non martial dex build or build to make most use of feats with matched weapons (Rogue?)
1 Hand + Light - TWF Dex martial build (Swashbuckler?)
1 Hand + Shield - Dex martial or combat non-martial (Cleric?)
1 1/2 Hand - non martial using a 1 1/2 weapon
1 1/2 Hand + Light STR based TWF, or (with other rule modifications) a thrower build
1 1/2 Hand + Shield STR based martial balancing attack and defence
2 Handed - STR based martial looking to hit hard
The thrower idea I particularly like as an option as it makes throwing builds viable. The character can engage in melee with one and attack another at a short distance with an off-hand, would work well with the quick draw feat. A houserule would need to state that holding the melee weapon negates the AoO of the thrown weapon to be effective.
The 1 1/2 + Shield build could be a viable way to make the spear one handed (and true to historical martial troops) as martials above a certain strength could wield the spear one handed whilst non-martials have to wield it 2 handed.
|
i definitely think odd ability scores ought to serve as pre-reqs. so, ST 13 for power attack, 15 for hand-and-a-half, etc.
Im starting to like the STR limitation idea… it would see a resurgence of the use of a short sword as well (seeing as characters under a certain str could no longer one hand a longsword)
t would also put the kibosh on dervish dancing magi dumping str (can't one hand a scimitar with an 8 str)
Same should go for armor (STR requirements)
current rules have no draw back to wearing full plate with a low str score if you are proficient
good point. i like this idea as well. especially if DX-to-damage is opened up, giving ST another function to compensate (and discourage dumping)
I like the idea of an "attribute gate" to open up abilities in the game that don't require feats. However, I don't think anything is gained by adding the granularity of a new weapon category. Perhaps new weapon "special" along the lines of trip or reach that allows you to use it as you describe.
"hafted" weapons (or whatever) can be used in one hand if your strength bonus is => xxx, or conversely "hafted" weapons can be used in 2 hands and get the corresponding extra strength bonus, power attack advantage, and qaulify for feats and abilities requiring the use of a 2 handed weapon. Normal: light and one-handed weapons gain no benefit from being used in 2 hands.
So by requiring 14 str for hand-and-a-half weapons, it means that you get these choices:<14 Str (old rules) - Longsword one handed. Greatsword two-handed.
<14 Str (new rules) - Longsword two handed. Greatsword two-handed or longsword one-handed at a penalty.
>=14 Str (either) - Longsword one handed, or two handed at a bonus (more damage). Greatsword two handed (for even more damage).
This speaks to me, both mechanically and as a simulationist model.
I consider myself a low STR, high DEX person.
I don't have much training in (long)sword fighting, but I could definitely see a difference between 1-handed holding and 2-handed holding. In 1-handed, my sword arm would tire easy, my wrist would twist after parries, making me open for upcoming blows even if my "hits" were about as solid as my stronger friends'. I couldn't see a huge difference in the "damage" of my hits with a 2-handed grip (second hand would often even release upon a hit), but my parries were more solid, my counter-swings were quicker and I was altogether more efficient.
In game terms, I was suffering a penalty that a 2-hand grip was cancelling. I doesn't flatter my ego, but I works.
I like that it reinforces the "this race is generally frail and therefore use this weapon instead of that other weapon" trope which at the moment has no or few mechanical weight.
I guess that in a fantasy setting, I would rather use a lighter, quicker weapon like a hilted saber of some sort (no way I'd go without a shield!!!), which the game would allow me to use without penalties and with a similar rate of efficiency as a longsword (based of different quirks such as high crit thresholds and weapon finesse etc).
'findel
Here's a really simple idea:
Bastard swords, Katanas, etc. are two-handed martial weapons, with the special property that if you have Weapon Focus in them, you can use them as a one-handed weapon, or you can use one that is one size too big for you as a two-handed weapon. Dwarven waraxes have this ability, but also give dwarves the ability to use them one-handed.
Requiring higher stats to wield certain weapons and/or armor is just another way to weaken martials.
If you want to encourage players to choose a certain option, it is better to boost said option than nerf other options because if you take that route you need to nerf EVERY other option equally to make it fair.
Furthermore, requiring more than 13 in a stat is requiring someone to be exceptionally above average in that attribute. Remember, a 10 is not low, it is average. An average man can swing a sword and wear armor.
Furthermore, requiring more than 13 in a stat is requiring someone to be exceptionally above average in that attribute. Remember, a 10 is not low, it is average. An average man can swing a sword and wear armor.
Stating that 10 is average is a fair point, but I think it is a bit of stretch to say that an average strength human person can wield a longsword proficiently in one hand. The average person who has a need to wield a longsword on a regular basis is probably significantly stronger than the average person. To use a modern corollary the average worker is probably not as strong as the average labourer.
13 may be the wrong number but it is probably close
Proficiency is sufficiently covered by requiring a feat or at least one of many classes. That represents training along with the BAB.
Requiring higher stats to wield certain weapons and/or armor is just another way to weaken martials.
If you want to encourage players to choose a certain option, it is better to boost said option than nerf other options because if you take that route you need to nerf EVERY other option equally to make it fair.
Furthermore, requiring more than 13 in a stat is requiring someone to be exceptionally above average in that attribute. Remember, a 10 is not low, it is average. An average man can swing a sword and wear armor.
an average man CANNOT wear armor and fight swinging a a full sized longsword one hand.
anyone real life was above average strength and more physically fit than common/average men.Fighting in full armor with heavy blades is not an 'average' thing to do.
I can't think of a single martial build that would want to wear heavy armor and swing a long sword that wouldn't have a high str, can you?
So I fail to see how this is limiting martials.
It is eliminating the need to have useless feats, allowing the character to take more feats, since there are infinitely more than when the game first began, and al of them are better.
There is no high dex character wanting to fight with heavy blades anyway… which is why they all dump their strength.
Furthermore, requiring more than 13 in a stat is requiring someone to be exceptionally above average in that attribute. Remember, a 10 is not low, it is average. An average man can swing a sword and wear armor.Stating that 10 is average is a fair point, but I think it is a bit of stretch to say that an average strength human person can wield a longsword proficiently in one hand. The average person who has a need to wield a longsword on a regular basis is probably significantly stronger than the average person. To use a modern corollary the average worker is probably not as strong as the average labourer.
13 may be the wrong number but it is probably close
average worker v average laborer… uh, whats the difference?
Someone who performs work at a desk, isn't a "worker" really.
work/labor are synonyms, but I think you meant a desk jockey vs a construction worker?
Furthermore, requiring more than 13 in a stat is requiring someone to be exceptionally above average in that attribute. Remember, a 10 is not low, it is average. An average man can swing a sword and wear armor.Stating that 10 is average is a fair point, but I think it is a bit of stretch to say that an average strength human person can wield a longsword proficiently in one hand. The average person who has a need to wield a longsword on a regular basis is probably significantly stronger than the average person. To use a modern corollary the average worker is probably not as strong as the average labourer.
13 may be the wrong number but it is probably close
average worker v average laborer… uh, whats the difference?
Someone who performs work at a desk, isn't a "worker" really.
work/labor are synonyms, but I think you meant a desk jockey vs a construction worker?
By average worker I meant all occupations whether sedentary or active, which would include desk jockeys, labourers and many other occupations.
By labourer I meant the subset of workers that work on building sites and other primarily outdoor areas, whose job usually entails carrying heavy loads for extended periods of the day.
Sorry if my corollary wasn't clear enough for you :-)
dotting
I feel like mentioning that "attribute gates" don't actually do anything. people already wanting to invest in melee will already have high strength, with the possible exception now of swashbucklers, thus the status quo actually does not change, except that anyone and everyone who wants to use a 1-1/2er now can for free. the prereq is barely one, when it is something already needed for a proper build to use that item.
I think the strength idea works if you want more weapons to be used. If you are dumping strength to be a dex build you are not likely to be using a one-handed or heavier weapon anyway, and since 13 is the prereq for power attack it makes sense to have it as minimum.
On second thought if the longsword and bastard sword are equally available then the longsword will likely not be picked up.
I think most of the exotic weapons would see more use if they were picked up with a trait instead of a feat and/or some such as nunchuks were given proficency for free if you were born in a certain area.
Another idea is to give them a little something extra. I know that right now I am never going to use nunchuks as written. Maybe they get a +4 to disarm instead of a +2, as an example.
I think there will always be a weapon that is not picked up for whatever reason, but at the same time exotic weapons are not worth the feat in my opinion. It is like paying a feat tax on flavor.
Requiring higher stats to wield certain weapons and/or armor is just another way to weaken martials.
If you want to encourage players to choose a certain option, it is better to boost said option than nerf other options because if you take that route you need to nerf EVERY other option equally to make it fair.
Furthermore, requiring more than 13 in a stat is requiring someone to be exceptionally above average in that attribute. Remember, a 10 is not low, it is average. An average man can swing a sword and wear armor.
an average man CANNOT wear armor and fight swinging a a full sized longsword one hand.
anyone real life was above average strength and more physically fit than common/average men.Fighting in full armor with heavy blades is not an 'average' thing to do.
by today's standards maybe, but people back in the day were much more active and thus had higher endurance and higher strength. I mean imagine having to walk to your local grocery store, and you don't have a refrigerator, just some salted meat in your ice box(if you live in a northern climate).
I think the strength idea works if you want more weapons to be used. If you are dumping strength to be a dex build you are not likely to be using a one-handed or heavier weapon anyway, and since 13 is the prereq for power attack it makes sense to have it as minimum.
On second thought if the longsword and bastard sword are equally available then the longsword will likely not be picked up.
I think most of the exotic weapons would see more use if they were picked up with a trait instead of a feat and/or some such as nunchuks were given proficency for free if you were born in a certain area.
Another idea is to give them a little something extra. I know that right now I am never going to use nunchuks as written. Maybe they get a +4 to disarm instead of a +2, as an example.
I think there will always be a weapon that is not picked up for whatever reason, but at the same time exotic weapons are not worth the feat in my opinion. It is like paying a feat tax on flavor.
maybe BAB is a better prereq?
I think the strength idea works if you want more weapons to be used. If you are dumping strength to be a dex build you are not likely to be using a one-handed or heavier weapon anyway, and since 13 is the prereq for power attack it makes sense to have it as minimum.
On second thought if the longsword and bastard sword are equally available then the longsword will likely not be picked up.
I think most of the exotic weapons would see more use if they were picked up with a trait instead of a feat and/or some such as nunchuks were given proficency for free if you were born in a certain area.
Another idea is to give them a little something extra. I know that right now I am never going to use nunchuks as written. Maybe they get a +4 to disarm instead of a +2, as an example.
I think there will always be a weapon that is not picked up for whatever reason, but at the same time exotic weapons are not worth the feat in my opinion. It is like paying a feat tax on flavor.
What about if a strong martial (full BAB) character were able to do 1d10 with the weapon whilst a strong non-martial would only get 1d8 from the same weapon? This would squeeze out the bastard sword (and waraxe) as a separate weapon
Both are able to wield it effectively but the martial character can use it more effectively. This might also close the gap between 2 handed use and shield use. I've found the majority of strong martials usually go 2 handed preferring extra damage to extra AC.