| 7 people marked this as a favorite. |
I love that bastard swords are no longer exotic weapons, but noticed one weird thing in the weapons table already.
Daggers, shortswords, longswords and greatswords are all versatile between slashing and piercing.
Bastard swords can swap between 1 and 2 hands but only do piercing. Seems a bit odd when all the other swords of the same basic shape do both.
If its a balance thing and they had to be only one, I would have thought they are more commonly slashing than piercing?
This sounds like a typo to me.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
Agreed, should be 1d8 S with the traits versatile p, two-hand d12.
This thread brought to you by the bastard sword being my favourite weapon through years of LRP
Agreed, should be 1d8 S with the traits versatile p, two-hand d12.
I suspect it won't have Versatile P because they don't want it to just be a straight up better Longsword. Agreed it should be 1d8 S though, that has to be a typo.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
This reminds me, I don't see the value in having explicit "Versatile" quality.
Just list damage type S/P.
Fine, this can be 'costed' as quality in terms of weapon design guideline...
But that doesn't need to be exposed to every single player who simply wants to use one.
If there isn't any substantial 'rule' that needs to be referenced, beyond what can be expressed as "S/P" damage type, it's a waste to format it like this.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Meh. Easy enough to clarify X/Y typing as meaning X is primary damage type, and things that care about primary damage type can say so. That allows what you propose AND stuff which isn't so picky.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
There may eventually be abilities that require a weapon of a specific damage type ("requires a bludgeoning weapon"). The issue with something like S/P is that it gives all multitype weapons a secret advantage for each such ability that comes out.This reminds me, I don't see the value in having explicit "Versatile" quality.
Just list damage type S/P.
Fine, this can be 'costed' as quality in terms of weapon design guideline...
But that doesn't need to be exposed to every single player who simply wants to use one.
If there isn't any substantial 'rule' that needs to be referenced, beyond what can be expressed as "S/P" damage type, it's a waste to format it like this.
Not... really. For B AND P, like the old PF1 morningstar, it was an advantage. But in this system damage type has to be declared (if you have a choice) before each attack.
There isn't actually a primary damage type for S, Versatile P. You still have to choose, every time.
I think the only benefit to S, Versatile P over S/P in this system is so it shows up clearly in the Trait section as the weapon's benefit over other weapons.
----
But for OP; yeah, I don't get bastard swords. I'm puzzled, for one thing, they're piercing only, but the two hand trait is also... meh? You still have to burn an action to change grip, which is exactly the same as if you dropped it and drew a new weapon.
Except several classes have quick draw, which lets them draw a new weapon and attack for a single action, which is actually superior.
But for OP; yeah, I don't get bastard swords. I'm puzzled, for one thing, they're piercing only, but the two hand trait is also... meh? You still have to burn an action to change grip, which is exactly the same as if you dropped it and drew a new weapon.
Except several classes have quick draw, which lets them draw a new weapon and attack for a single action, which is actually superior.
Dropping the weapon and drawing another one is only equal (or superior with quick draw) if you don't account for having to pay for and carry the second weapon.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Is there going to be an errata for the playtest? That will be kind of important if we're sticking to RAW for testing purposes. This does look like a typo to me. It should be slashing, versatile P just like all the other blades. Unless it's supposed to be an estoc.
And I've got to agree with versatile being unneeded. Also morningstar as a blunt weapon that can do piercing instead is odd. It's got big spikes coming out of the head. It's impossible to not do piercing damage unless you hit with some part other than the head. It should really just be B and P like in PF1.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
The action to add a hand is annoying and should probably go away. Just because there are multiple actions doesn't mean everything needs to take one.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
There is the level 4 Fighter feat, Dual-Handed Assault:
[[AA]]
Requirements: You are wielding a one-handed melee weapon and have a
free hand.
Strike with the required weapon. You quickly switch your grip during the Strike to make the attack with two hands. If the weapon doesn’t normally have the two-hand trait, increase its die by one step for this attack (see the Increasing Weapon Damage Dice sidebar). If it has the two-hand trait, you gain the benefit of that trait and a +2 circumstance bonus to damage. When the Strike is complete, you resume gripping the weapon with only one hand. This action doesn’t end any stance or fighter feat effect that requires you to have one hand free.
The problem with that approach is that by defining the ability as a class power, no one but members of that class can use it. That's how you end up in a game where no one dares to sit down, because it's undefined what kind of action (if any) getting back to your feat is.
KISS - keep it simple, stupid. Let's get rid of pointless bloat that only limits people. Giving people three abilities per level but making each of them terribly narrow is just bad design.
Worth mentioning, I did a quick look through the Bestiary, and here's what I saw, with respect to the value of Slashing (versatile P):
# of creatures for whom Piercing is more useful than slashing: 1 (The Rakshasa)
For reference, # of creatures for whom the reverse is true: 9
Edit: whoops, mixed up on the fact that the Bastard Sword is Piercing now. That's not going to get confusing...
Agreed, should be 1d8 S with the traits versatile p, two-hand d12.I suspect it won't have Versatile P because they don't want it to just be a straight up better Longsword. Agreed it should be 1d8 S though, that has to be a typo.
Well considering in real life the bastard sword is literally just the longsword called by another name.
But, hey, they also say katana are a one handed weapon (they're not, they lack the balance to be effective single handed).
Honestly, and this is just my opinion, the weapon chart needs to be cleaned up. Remove all the trope weapons (and not just the double weapons). Variety should come from like a modding system so we can have dual knives with basket hilts that adds the parry and twin quality.
I think the bastard sword should be slashing d8 with versatile piercing and d10 damage two handed. Otherwise it's just better than the two-handed sword if it also has versatile piercing.
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I think the bastard sword should be slashing d8 with versatile piercing and d10 damage two handed. Otherwise it's just better than the two-handed sword if it also has versatile piercing.
If we do that, then bastard swords will just go back to being rather worthless. Why use them two-handed when better two-handed weapons exist and why use them one-handed when you won't get any more mileage out of them when using a longsword?
I say give the bastard sword the versatile property, but give the longsword and greatsword each something to distinguish them and enable their specialization. Giving the Greatsword the Forceful property would make sense given how they have been wielded in both fiction and history, while longswords could gain the Parry property for more defensive options.
It gets the versatility of being able to be used one or two handed. Which is great when you need a hand to hold a torch or a rope or a shield. Or you need maximum damage.
If not what I said then the two-handed sword is useless vs the bastard sword.
|
The issue with the Bastard Sword was one of the first issues I noticed when I was looking through the book.
It costs more than a longsword and greatsword combined, is only piercing, but can be 2-handed to d12. It lacks the versatility trait which would make the extra cost make sense. If it is purely to keep the Bastard sword from becoming the default, you can up the price or change the rarity. Considering that the real world values of swords were much higher than those depicted in the game, I could see that as an option. Changing the rarity (from common to uncommon) COULD be used, but is actually would feel more artificial.
So, my recommendation is: raise the price and add Versatility S to the Bastard sword.
---------------
On a side note, for those looking for 'realism' with swords, the reason that bashing (which could be accomplished by a technique called 'kalf-swording') isn't an option for versatility with swords is due to balance. This was confirmed when I spoke to Jason Bulmahn at PaizoCon about it. My hope is that we get a feat, on the fighter or general list, that would allow it (you could even call it Half-Swording).