Post/Author/DateTime	Post
Xavorin 05-26-07, 09:37 PM	I looked for a bit on this forum, but I couldn't find any other thread like this. Maybe I just didn't look hard enough. But anyway... Does anybody have any thoughts on whether or not bastard swords are worth the feat to be able to wield in one hand? Or is it just worth it to get, say, a longsword and weapon focus? I'm asking on behalf of my Paladin :D.
Dire_Rhino 05-26-07, 10:23 PM	Generally, EWP is considered not to be worth a feat. There are, however, exceptions. 1. Spiked Chain (usually in conjunction with a Tripping build). It finesses, trips, disarms, reaches, and whitens your teeth while you sleep. What's not to love? 2. Your plans involve the Exotic Weapons Master PrC. Some of the weapon tricks can be fun and educational! 3. You really, really want to. The general consensus seems to be that 2HF is THE way to go if you're a meleer with no source of extra damage (SA, skirmish, w/e), and 2WF if you do have that extra zip in your attacks. Sword-and-board is the bastard child of the two that nobody really likes (especially since you can take Improved Buckler Defense, which allows you to have your cake and eat it, too.)
Nathreet 05-26-07, 10:33 PM	Sword-and-board beats both THF and TWF in any core duel. Try it. The only exceptions would be the ways to have both a shield and THF. Like an animated shield, or improved buckler defense. But if those aren't available, go with sword-and-board. As for the original question: You're basically gaining 1 damage. So it depends on your other options. Usually other feats are better than that. The +1 AB from weapon focus is definately worth more than 1 damage.
sensestaker 05-26-07, 11:13 PM	I'd have to say not for a paladin. If you're a sword and shield fighter with a bazillion feats and you really want the biggest sword you can wield one handed (without a penelty), sure. But for you, no.
Cold Napalm 05-26-07, 11:47 PM	Well you could do sword and board AND TWF hehe...improved shield bash is fun. As for the EWP...gernally not worthwhile.
Dire_Rhino 05-26-07, 11:58 PM	@ Nathreet: I disagree. And I am a bored engineering student. This spells disaster - or, at the very least, a look at the numbers. I will preface this with whatever fallacy states that 1v1 duels do not determine game balance in any way. Sblocked so as not to overly derail the thread: Let’s take two fighters, Alice and Bob. Alice is “old school”, and fights with a Longsword, while Bob is more daring and uses his Greatsword. Stats are as follows: Alice/Bob Human Ftr5 15(+1)/13/14/12/10/8 (+1 Str. lvl 4) HP: 32 Atk: MW Longsword/Greatsword +10 (1d8+5/2d6+6) AC: 22/20 (Full Plate +1, (MW Heavy Iron Shield)) Feats: PA, WF: Relevant, WS: Relevant, Cleave, Imp. Init, Imp. Sunder Without PA, Alice hits precisely 50% of the time. 45% of the time, she will do 9.5 damage, and 5% of the time she will confirm a critical, dealing 19 damage. Thus, her ADR (average damage/round) is 5.225. She will kill Bob in 6.12 rounds – round to 7. Without PA, Bob hits 40% of the time. 36% of the time, he will do 13 damage, and 4% of the time, he will confirm a critical, dealing 26 damage. Thus, his ADR is 5.72. He will kill Alice in 5.59 rounds. Thus, Bob has the advantage over Alice – not much of one, but one nonetheless. However, if you add in the fact that Bob’s going to have spare change from not needing a shield, he can go buy a few potions of Cure X, which will tip the balance in his favor. He could, alternately, buy an oil of magic weapon, which would bump ADR to 6.93, essentially ensuring a win in this scenario (he has a 1.5 round advantage over Alice). Now let’s have some fun with PA. The risk-reward factor for each is different. Alice trades attack for damage at a 1:1 ratio, while Bob does so at a 1:2 ratio. This means that Alice’s ADR decreases as she uses PA. Bob, on the other hand, likes PA. If he PA’s for 1, his ADR goes up to 5.775. Not much, but it’s better than poor Alice. So, if they both PA the same amount, Bob will always come out ahead by one ‘step’ – his ADR will always be higher than Alice’s. In fact, the ‘ideal’ situation – where Bob PAs for 1 and Alice just attacks, maximizing both ADRs, Bob has a .578 round advantage on Alice – still slight, but he’s ahead. Round 1: Direct Damage goes to Bob. Score: Bob 1, Alice 0. Fine. Now for something completely different – Sundering. Alice is, understandably, a bit miffed that Bob can outlive her. So, she decides to remove Bob’s oversized compensation. Luckily, she took the Improved Sunder feat, and provokes no AoO and gets a +4 to the opposed attack roll. However, Bob is wielding a two-hander, and thus gets a +4 as well. Alice once again hits 50% of the time. However, she needs to roll over 10 damage to nick the blade, which happens 37.5% of the time. Thus, she deals 1.5 damage to Bob’s blade 18.75% of the time, and takes a whopping 35.5 rounds to break it. Bob, on the other hand, is mildly annoyed by Alice’s attempt to damage his precious blade, and decides to return the favor. He also took Improved Sunder, and thus gets +4 (and +4 for his big honkin’ beatstick) to his opposed attack roll. Alice, however, gets nothing. Bob, noting this fact, Power Attacks for 5. He now has a 3-point advantage over Alice, and hits 65% of the time. Every time he hits, the 5-point PA guarantees he will overcome the hardness of Alice’s longsword, and will do 13 average damage to it every time. In fact, his minimum damage is 1+1+6+10 (-10 for hardness), guaranteeing that Alice’s sword will get snapped in half with one hit, and thus taking an average of 1.53 rounds to sunder Alice’s precious family heirloom. Round 2: Sundering goes very solidly to Bob. Score: Bob 2, Alice 0. I see no advantage here. And as the game progresses, Bob will get even better – he gains more benefit from STR-boosting items, and Alice has her cash spread out over her armor and shield, whereas Bob is investing it in his sword. Furthermore, as the game advances, Alice will find her armor less useful, as Chris the mighty spell-slinger only cares about Touch AC anyways. While Alice is off turtling, Bob is laying the smack down on Chris with his Mighty Pointed Stick of Hurting +3, Power Attacking left and right, and generally going to his Happy Place. @OP: Like I said, EWP is not worth it, unless the campaign isn't going to see the light of level 6 or so. At lower levels, the extra bit of damage can be huge.
AAB 05-27-07, 12:56 AM	although... i was planning on building a bastard sword fighter with the exotic weapon master PrC and still use the bastard sword two-handed. it's an odd (probably often-used, i'm not sure) way to give the man with the smaller sword a damage advantage.
Bopple 05-27-07, 01:20 AM	While bastard sword is a very good choice for a fighter who is planning for an Exotic Weapon Master, it does not worth it for a paladin, at all. Your paladin starves for feats. Don't waste your precious feat on lousy one like EWP. Let's look at the feats you'd better consider; Power Attack Divine Might Leap Attack Improved Buckler Defense Shock Trooper(requiring Improved Bull Rush) Divine Shield Karmic Strike(requiring Dodge and Combat Expertise) Robilar's Gambit(requiring Combat Reflexes) Awesome Smite Ect ect ect...
Krusk 05-27-07, 11:19 AM	If you are set on an exotic weapon, there are better ones than the bastard sword. Actually most are better than the bastard sword.
DinwathSereglin 05-27-07, 04:15 PM	Its worth it if you want your character to use it. Pay no heed to the powergaming min-max session above. Does bastard sword fit what you want your guy to do? Then use it.
Oliver D'Argent 05-27-07, 04:23 PM	If your Paladin's deity uses a bastard sword, the feat is worthwhile for RP purposes - not every feat must be taken strictly for power purposes.
Nathreet 05-27-07, 04:55 PM	Well you could do sword and board AND TWF hehe...improved shield bash is fun. As for the EWP...gernally not worthwhile. I forgot about that feat. I've actually looked at improved shield bash before and said "Aha!" But after I ran the numbers, the other two problems with TWF still made it worse than sword-and-board: -2 AB, spreading weapon cash across two weapons. It was surprisingly bad, making me realize that losing that shield AC is only half the problem. That's why THF tends to be better than TWF, unless you're a rogue with a reliable sneak attack trigger. @ Nathreet: I disagree. And I am a bored engineering student. This spells disaster - or, at the very least, a look at the numbers. I will preface this with whatever fallacy states that 1v1 duels do not determine game balance in any way. Sblocked so as not to overly derail the thread: Let’s take two fighters, Alice and Bob. Alice is “old school”, and fights with a Longsword, while Bob is more daring and uses his Greatsword. Stats are as follows: Alice/Bob Human Ftr5 15(+1)/13/14/12/10/8 (+1 Str. lvl 4) HP: 32 Atk: MW Longsword/Greatsword +10 (1d8+5/2d6+6) AC: 22/20 (Full Plate +1, (MW Heavy Iron Shield)) Feats: PA, WF: Relevant, WS: Relevant, Cleave, Imp. Init, Imp. Sunder Without PA, Alice hits precisely 50% of the time. 45% of the time, she will do 9.5 damage, and 5% of the time she will confirm a critical, dealing 19 damage. Thus, her ADR (average damage/round) is 5.225. She will kill Bob in 6.12 rounds – round to 7. Without PA, Bob hits 40% of the time. 36% of the time, he will do 13 damage, and 4% of the time, he will confirm a critical, dealing 26 damage. Thus, his ADR is 5.72. He will kill Alice in 5.59 rounds. Thus, Bob has the advantage over Alice – not much of one, but one nonetheless. However, if you add in the fact that Bob’s going to have spare change from not needing a shield, he can go buy a few potions of Cure X, which will tip the balance in his favor. He could, alternately, buy an oil of magic weapon, which would bump ADR to 6.93, essentially ensuring a win in this scenario (he has a 1.5 round advantage over Alice). Now let’s have some fun with PA. The risk-reward factor for each is different. Alice trades attack for damage at a 1:1 ratio, while Bob does so at a 1:2 ratio. This means that Alice’s ADR decreases as she uses PA. Bob, on the other hand, likes PA. If he PA’s for 1, his ADR goes up to 5.775. Not much, but it’s better than poor Alice. So, if they both PA the same amount, Bob will always come out ahead by one ‘step’ – his ADR will always be higher than Alice’s. In fact, the ‘ideal’ situation – where Bob PAs for 1 and Alice just attacks, maximizing both ADRs, Bob has a .578 round advantage on Alice – still slight, but he’s ahead. Round 1: Direct Damage goes to Bob. Score: Bob 1, Alice 0. Fine. Now for something completely different – Sundering. Alice is, understandably, a bit miffed that Bob can outlive her. So, she decides to remove Bob’s oversized compensation. Luckily, she took the Improved Sunder feat, and provokes no AoO and gets a +4 to the opposed attack roll. However, Bob is wielding a two-hander, and thus gets a +4 as well. Alice once again hits 50% of the time. However, she needs to roll over 10 damage to nick the blade, which happens 37.5% of the time. Thus, she deals 1.5 damage to Bob’s blade 18.75% of the time, and takes a whopping 35.5 rounds to break it. Bob, on the other hand, is mildly annoyed by Alice’s attempt to damage his precious blade, and decides to return the favor. He also took Improved Sunder, and thus gets +4 (and +4 for his big honkin’ beatstick) to his opposed attack roll. Alice, however, gets nothing. Bob, noting this fact, Power Attacks for 5. He now has a 3-point advantage over Alice, and hits 65% of the time. Every time he hits, the 5-point PA guarantees he will overcome the hardness of Alice’s longsword, and will do 13 average damage to it every time. In fact, his minimum damage is 1+1+6+10 (-10 for hardness), guaranteeing that Alice’s sword will get snapped in half with one hit, and thus taking an average of 1.53 rounds to sunder Alice’s precious family heirloom. Round 2: Sundering goes very solidly to Bob. Score: Bob 2, Alice 0. I see no advantage here. And as the game progresses, Bob will get even better – he gains more benefit from STR-boosting items, and Alice has her cash spread out over her armor and shield, whereas Bob is investing it in his sword. Furthermore, as the game advances, Alice will find her armor less useful, as Chris the mighty spell-slinger only cares about Touch AC anyways. While Alice is off turtling, Bob is laying the smack down on Chris with his Mighty Pointed Stick of Hurting +3, Power Attacking left and right, and generally going to his Happy Place. @OP: Like I said, EWP is not worth it, unless the campaign isn't going to see the light of level 6 or so. At lower levels, the extra bit of damage can be huge. Sigh, try again with equal wealth, magic gear. Use standard wealth per level. Spread AC items across 3-4 sources. As a bored engineering student, upholding the honor of bored engineering students everywhere, it irks me when someone "looks at the numbers" and yet makes up a few of them. If you don't like duels, you can try fights against monsters of the appropriate CR's. But, regardless of what you make the build fight against, the point is to have it fight against something. This allows a reliable, objective way to measure the build, rather than opinion. It's not perfect, but nothing is. Unless you have time to try out 100 builds in real-life games, testing a build like this is still 100 times better than not.
Xavorin 05-27-07, 06:40 PM	Whoa... 11 replies already! Cool! Anyway, I guess I should have been a little more specific in my "setting-description". I'm currently playing a 7th level Lesser Aasimar(houseruled one) Paladin. I took money grip, and am wielding a large +1 flaming bastard sword. I do 2d8+1d6 damage per hit, and on a full attack I do 4d8+2d6. My strength is something like 17, so I would normally have an attack bonus of +12/+5 (with weapon focus). The fact that the sword is innapropriately sized gives me -2 on all attack rolls, so that brings it down to +10/+5. I played one session with this guy, and he did very well. The only problem was that I completely forgot about Smite Evil. Whoops :D. Anyway, it looks like the general consensus is that EWP for bastard swords is a waste. So two more questions now! a.) Should I re-do my paladin, keeping ability scores and such, to just be wielding a longsword (maybe large) and get feats like Weapon Focus, Power Attack, and some divine stuff? and... b.) Well, I can't remember what my second question was... Hopefully it'll come back to me. Thanks for all help so far!
StevenO 05-27-07, 07:08 PM	I'd say the Bastard Sword is worth it IF you would have to spend a feat to gain a martial weapon proficiency. Of course there are other weapons I'd consider first. If you are a cleric 3 looking to get a weapon better than the simple ones you can now use then spending the feat on an exotic weapon (Bastard Sword) would make far more sense than spending it on a martial weapon (longsword). I see exotic weapons as being a better choice for non-warriors who don't get all Martial weapons but want to use a better weapon.
Johannixx 05-27-07, 07:20 PM	I find that the bastard sword, used in two hands, is VERY effective when combined with the Exotic Weapon Master PrC's Uncanny Blow ability (2x to Strength damage instead of 1.5x when two-handing an exotic one-handed weapon) and a raging barbarian. Crunch!
Dire_Rhino 05-27-07, 07:54 PM	@OP: Monkey Grip, while cool, is also considered rather subpar... You increase your weapon (call it a longsword in this case) size by 1, going from 1d8 (avg. 4.5) to 2d6 (avg 7). You are gaining 1.5 average damage and paying for it by taking -2 to attack rolls. This is a bad deal compared to Power Attack, where you can take gain +2 damage by taking the same -2 and turn it on and off at will. (and you get a free feat, too!) The situation is a bit different with a bastard: 1d10 (5.5) goes to 2d8 (9). In this case, you gain 1.5 points of damage for "free" when using the feat. Consider, however, that you can use that same feat to pick up Weapon Focus and gain +1 to hit, tradeable for +1 to damage with PA, and you can again turn it on and off at will, it seems (to me, at least) a rather close deal. Me, I'd rather spend feats elsewhere, but that's a personal preference. @Nathreet: I admit to simplifying some things (using the NPC equip-table in the MIC rather than calculating WBL meticulously)- but I do think it's close. Alice and Bob have roughly equivalent equipment: They both have: MW weapon: ~300 GP +1 Full plate: 2,650 GP costing ~3,000 GP Alice also has a MW heavy steel shield, costing 170 GP, totalling 3170 GP. (OK, these are low, even for NPCs. I bow to your correctness and will run a better-thought simulation.)
Dire_Rhino 05-27-07, 09:57 PM	Yes, a double post. I apologize to all. Alice: +1 Plate: 2650 +1 HS Sh.: 1170 +1 Longswd: 2315 +1 Comp LB +3: 2700 totaling 8835 GP Bob: +1 Plate: 2650 +1 Grtswd: 2350 MW Comp LB +3: 700 Amulet of NA +1: 2000 Potion of bull’s strength: 300 totalling 8000 GP. I underequipped Bob to reflect that he couldn’t reliably burn through a P:BS every combat. Note, again, that this falls into the “duel fallacy” – yeah, Alice could also afford a P:BS, but that’d max her out; however, Bob is at a dead-ish level in his upgrade chart – he can’t quite afford the Next Big Thing. So, I thought that’d be the best way to reflect relative power levels. We will chuck Alice and Bob into a 60’ open circle, surrounded by disinterested Wizards forum members. Alice has the following stats: 32 HP AC 23 (10+9[FP+1]+3[HSS+1]+1[dex]) Atk: LS+1 (+10) 1d8+6 [5.775] Alice hits 50% of the time. Her weighted damage average, with crits, is .45*10.5 + .05*21, for 5.775 ADR. or LB +1 (+7) 1d8+4 [3.2725] Alice hits 35% of the time. Her weighted damage average, with crits, is .3325*8.5 + .0175*25.5, for 3.2725 ADR Bob has the following stats: 32 HP AC 21 (10+9[FP+1]+1[AoNA+1]+1[dex]) Atk: GS+1 (+12) 2d6+10 [9.35] {P:BS factored in} Atk: GS+1 (+10) 2d6+7 [6.16] Bob hits 50% of the time. His weighted damage average, with crits, is .45*17 + .05*34, for 9.35 ADR. Without BS (heh), Bob hits 40% of the time; his weighted damage average is .36*14+.04*28, which comes out to 6.16 ADR. or Mw LB (+7) 1d8+3 [2.25] Bob hits 25% of the time. Her weighted damage average, with crits, is .225*7.5 + .025*22.5, for 2.25 ADR We’ll run one combat with the potion, and one without. Alice and Bob are 60’ away. Rd. 1: Alice shoots Bob, dealing 3.2725. Bob drinks the potion. {A: 32; B: 28.7275} Rd. 2: Bob moves in 20’ and shoots Alice, dealing 2.25. Alice charges Bob, dealing 6.93. {A: 29.75, B: 21.7975} Rd 3: Alice hacks at Bob, dealing 5.775. Bob returns the favor, dealing 11.22 (the AC penalty for charging). {A: 18.53, B: 16.0225} Rd 4: Bob chops at Alice, dealing 9.35. Alice viciously swings at Bob, dealing 5.775. {9.18, 10.2475} Rd 5: Alice attacks Bob, dealing 5.775 Bob chops Alice and she goes down (9.35) {-.17, 4.4725} Rd 6: Rocks fall, everybody dies. So, with a potion of Bull’s Str, Bob has a significant advantage over Alice. Round 1: Bob. Score: Alice 0, Bob 1. But wait! That’s not fair! Bob is using a consumable, while Alice is not! Well… yeah. So, let’s look at a more equitable fight. Our intrepid combatants will start right next to each other. This negates Alice’s longbow, bringing gear values down to 6135 and 7000, respectively. Alice is at a disadvantage here, but at this gear level there aren’t any nonconsumables that fit into the ~1000GP level that would have an impact here. Rd 0: {32, 32} Alice and Bob hack away, dealing 5.775 and 6.16, respectively. {25.84,26.225} {19.68,20.45} {13.52,14.675} {7.36,8.9} {1.2,3.125} {-4.96,-2.65} Once again, Bob comes out on top, barely. Score: Alice 0, Bob 2. Round 3: Sundering is essentially no contest. Alice can barely scratch Bob’s weapon, whereas Bob can PA to full and crush Alice’s blade in about 2 rounds. This is solidly Bob. Note that this would come into play in real gametime during a 1v1 match – Bob would take the hits necessary to snap Alice’s blade, forcing her to use her bow, and sealing the match for him. Final score: Alice 0, Bob 3. I interpret this as follows: While a S&B fighter has the edge in AC, a THF still beats them in raw damage output. Moreover, the increased bonuses for certain combat maneuvers (disarming, sundering, etc.) when using a THF weapon make the user more versatile in combat; this is arguably a strong goal for fighters and even more so for non-fighter characters who want to do more than simply hack away. Also, the increased viability of PA when using THF makes fighting several classes of monsters (most notably vermin and undead, who have large numbers of HP per CR, but lower AC) much easier.
utilitarian 05-27-07, 10:21 PM	If I had to pick an exotic weapon for a paladin I'd probabaly go for a Mercurial Greatsword or a Fullblade myself. I'm not big on sword/board tho so take from what what you will. (Mercurial Longsword could be a choice for a decent exotic 1hander)
Xeviat-DM 05-27-07, 10:32 PM	Dire_Rhino, I'm going to object to the equipment choices you made. I understand that you wanted to throw ranged combat into the mix, but giving the sword and boarder a magic ranged weapon while you gave the two-hander an amulet of natural armor for the same price is unfair. If you change that, things might swing a little differently.
Dire_Rhino 05-27-07, 11:45 PM	And the thread rolls further off the rails... XDM, I argue the choices I made as follows. 1. To attempt to stave off the Duel Fallacy, I tried to de-optimize the contestants for an arena-style combat. The reason for this is that, in a campaign, a fighter will want a ranged weapon. To deny that as a cash sink is to optimize for arena, and doing so would skew results. Fine, you say. But what about Bob (heh)? He doesn't have a magic longbow. Yes, I know. I'd argue that Bob is well aware of his defensive shortcoming, and would try to make that up as soon as possible, rather then spending his cash on enhanced magic weapons. Alice, on the other hand, has AC and to spare, allowing her to increase her offensive enhancement. Note that I attempted to allow that to come in to play in the first combat (60' apart). That being said, your words have merit. Here's the numbers, again, with Alice coughing up extra for an AoNA instead of that +1 bow. All things being equal, however, Bob needs to spend 1K on something, which he can't; I will thus propose an Item of Constitution +1, which grants .5HP/HD. Bonus^2*1000 rules give this a value of 1000, and puts gear totals within 200 GP of each other. Alice and Bob are next to each other and hack away. Alice has a slight edge in damage: 5.775 vs. 5.39. However, Bob has 2.5 extra HP. {Alice,Bob} {32,35.5} {26.61,29.725} {21.22,23.95} {15.83,18.175} {10.44,12.4} {5.05,6.624} {-.34,.85} So Bob is still ahead, but questionably so, due to the legality of the Item of Con+1. This proves one thing, and one thing only, which I propose to call the Duelist's Fallacy: A 1v1 duel can never be an accurate judge of game balance, as it can never take into effect enough conditions to show the object in question as it would accurately occur in play. For you engineering/math geeks out there (hi), consider this: A duel represents the performance of an object at a single point. What we are trying to determine is game balance - the integral, if you will, of performance at all points in a typical game. This can never be found via a single point. Case in point - above. I chose lvl5 as an arbitrary point where most classes seem on the same (ish) power level, where arcanists can begin to do something that's not win-or-suck, and meleers aren't killing monsters in one hit with their shortswords. However, the consequences are that Alice can spend all her cash on useful items, but Bob is stuck with $1300 that he can't use. At all. Of course, he's saving up for that spiffy Belt of Str. +2, which he'll be able to buy in just a few level-appropriate encounters. If I chose to use lvl6, Bob's ability to have that belt would have probably skewed damage calculations (as the damage from his greatsword due to STR would have gone from 3*1.5 (round down to 4) to 4*1.5 (6). And that's just one of many factors. Clearly, the only indication of balance or superiority is a holistic approach -after a bunch of games, you see the zweihander outperform the longsword, or vice versa. So, there you have it. I (arguably) proved my point - that THW are superior, but in the process also proved that my proof was useless. Take that for what you will, and remember the Duelist's Fallacy.
Alyss 05-28-07, 12:26 AM	bastard swords=katana. That's worth a feat on principle. However, if you want raw damage, go with a greatsword and Power Attack. That's darn good
Krusk 05-28-07, 12:40 AM	Anyway, it looks like the general consensus is that EWP for bastard swords is a waste. So two more questions now! Well hold on, as your character has already got a decent bastard sword, and uses them a bit, it might be a good idea to one hand them and grab a shield. depending on your str bonus to damage. the diffrence between 3 and 4 isnt much, so as long as you don't increase it or plan to you are not missing out. I would say for your charactter do it.
Xavorin 05-28-07, 01:28 PM	Well hold on, as your character has already got a decent bastard sword, and uses them a bit, it might be a good idea to one hand them and grab a shield. depending on your str bonus to damage. the diffrence between 3 and 4 isnt much, so as long as you don't increase it or plan to you are not missing out. I would say for your charactter do it. I already have a shield: A +1 heavy steel. My strength score is 17, I believe.
Xavorin 05-28-07, 01:29 PM	And the thread rolls further off the rails... XDM, I argue the choices I made as follows. 1. To attempt to stave off the Duel Fallacy, I tried to de-optimize the contestants for an arena-style combat. The reason for this is that, in a campaign, a fighter will want a ranged weapon. To deny that as a cash sink is to optimize for arena, and doing so would skew results. Fine, you say. But what about Bob (heh)? He doesn't have a magic longbow. Yes, I know. I'd argue that Bob is well aware of his defensive shortcoming, and would try to make that up as soon as possible, rather then spending his cash on enhanced magic weapons. Alice, on the other hand, has AC and to spare, allowing her to increase her offensive enhancement. Note that I attempted to allow that to come in to play in the first combat (60' apart). That being said, your words have merit. Here's the numbers, again, with Alice coughing up extra for an AoNA instead of that +1 bow. All things being equal, however, Bob needs to spend 1K on something, which he can't; I will thus propose an Item of Constitution +1, which grants .5HP/HD. Bonus^2*1000 rules give this a value of 1000, and puts gear totals within 200 GP of each other. Alice and Bob are next to each other and hack away. Alice has a slight edge in damage: 5.775 vs. 5.39. However, Bob has 2.5 extra HP. {Alice,Bob} {32,35.5} {26.61,29.725} {21.22,23.95} {15.83,18.175} {10.44,12.4} {5.05,6.624} {-.34,.85} So Bob is still ahead, but questionably so, due to the legality of the Item of Con+1. This proves one thing, and one thing only, which I propose to call the Duelist's Fallacy: A 1v1 duel can never be an accurate judge of game balance, as it can never take into effect enough conditions to show the object in question as it would accurately occur in play. For you engineering/math geeks out there (hi), consider this: A duel represents the performance of an object at a single point. What we are trying to determine is game balance - the integral, if you will, of performance at all points in a typical game. This can never be found via a single point. Case in point - above. I chose lvl5 as an arbitrary point where most classes seem on the same (ish) power level, where arcanists can begin to do something that's not win-or-suck, and meleers aren't killing monsters in one hit with their shortswords. However, the consequences are that Alice can spend all her cash on useful items, but Bob is stuck with $1300 that he can't use. At all. Of course, he's saving up for that spiffy Belt of Str. +2, which he'll be able to buy in just a few level-appropriate encounters. If I chose to use lvl6, Bob's ability to have that belt would have probably skewed damage calculations (as the damage from his greatsword due to STR would have gone from 3*1.5 (round down to 4) to 4*1.5 (6). And that's just one of many factors. Clearly, the only indication of balance or superiority is a holistic approach -after a bunch of games, you see the zweihander outperform the longsword, or vice versa. So, there you have it. I (arguably) proved my point - that THW are superior, but in the process also proved that my proof was useless. Take that for what you will, and remember the Duelist's Fallacy. Oh, I don't mind the side-tracking. I enjoy seeing what other people have to say on these things. Don't stop! :D Edit: No sarcasm intended!
Krusk 05-28-07, 06:33 PM	I already have a shield: A +1 heavy steel. My strength score is 17, I believe. So youve already got a magical shield, but are two handing your weapon? I would definatly say take the feat, in your case, unless you want to totally rebuild your character.
Xavorin 05-28-07, 06:41 PM	So youve already got a magical shield, but are two handing your weapon? I would definatly say take the feat, in your case, unless you want to totally rebuild your character. No, no... You misunderstand. I have the shield, but I also have monkey grip so I can one-hand the sword. Edit: I also forgot to mention earlier that I'm asking if EWP is good, but also if Monkey Grip is too... Sorry!
Rerecros 05-28-07, 07:02 PM	Just play a dwarf, they treat a war axes as martial weapons.
Venenum 05-28-07, 07:36 PM	Just play a dwarf, they treat a war axes as martial weapons. I like that solution, then get someone else to play a half-giant or goliath, and get fling ally...
Xavorin 05-28-07, 08:30 PM	Just play a dwarf, they treat a war axes as martial weapons. I like that solution, then get someone else to play a half-giant or goliath, and get fling ally... I gotta pass that idea on...
Grimmoloth 05-28-07, 09:52 PM	No...wait umm...no.
Krusk 05-28-07, 10:19 PM	No, no... You misunderstand. I have the shield, but I also have monkey grip so I can one-hand the sword. Edit: I also forgot to mention earlier that I'm asking if EWP is good, but also if Monkey Grip is too... Sorry! oh... FYI monkey grip will not let you wield a medium two handed weapon one handed. at best you can wield one handed, a large longsword. two handed will let you wield a large bastard sword. so if you take EWP bastard sword you can do what you are doing now with a large bastard sword. or two hand a large bastard sword without the feat. generally monkey grip is not a good feat, unless you want a big weapon for flavor. with MG EWP BOTH Large bastard one hand N n Y medium bastard one hand n Y you can but serves no purpose large bastard 2 hand Y n Y
Xavorin 05-29-07, 04:15 PM	I do have EWP bastard sword, so it all works out... The reason I have the big weapon and thus MG is because our group needed a melee damage dealer (have a warmage, but that's spells). I could have just done EWP proficiency with bastard swords and used a normal bastard sword, but that would have been only 1d10 damage as opposed to 2d8. So in this case I guess I have monkey grip because I need a big weapon, but also needed the defensive bonuses of a shield.
Xeviat-DM 05-29-07, 04:29 PM	If you're comparing what's effectively the same character, they should be the same character. What you do is choose a slightly higher level, and you ensure that the sword/shield user spends the same amount on their shield/amulet/ring/armor as the two hander spends on their amulet/ring/armor. I see nothing fair about you having the two-hander buy an amulet of natural armor while you have the sword and shield user buy a bow, especially when you can't wield a bow and a shield at the same time, costing you actions. So, until you fix that, I'm going to point out that your test doesn't prove anything. I don't see how having them have more even equipment really makes things more optimized? You could have spent the same amount to give the two-hander the bow; why you chose differently, I can't be sure. Now, ultimately, I doubt that change will do too much, but it might do enough. At the very least, it will prove that if you have a high strength score, you should use a two-hander.
Zobdek 05-29-07, 05:03 PM	I like that solution, then get someone else to play a half-giant or goliath, and get fling ally... Umm you can only fling an ally that is a size category smaller than yours... dwarves are medium and so are half-giants and goliaths.
Goreg Skullcrusher 05-29-07, 05:58 PM	While EWP and Monkey Grip are generally considered subpar feats, they synergize remarkably well together. You can use MG to wield a large bastard sword, since it is a one-handed weapon. In doing so your damage ramps up from an average of 5.5 (1d10) to 9 (2d8). This is an increase of 3.5 damage for a loss of 2 to-hit, fairly close to a 2-to-1 ratio. This is actually quite good for someone who isn't wielding their weapon in both hands, and thus can't benefit from the 2-to-1 ratio Power Attack normally provides. Incidentally it's for this reason that MG is considered inferior to Power Attack. PA grants you a 2-to-1 ratio with weapons wielded in both hands, but can be tweaked or turned off as desired unlike with MG.
Dire_Rhino 05-29-07, 11:46 PM	Again, so not to force folks to read huge masses of text... I would argue that 'having the same character' is, in fact, the opposite of what we must do here. In an instance where we are trying to consider the relative power level of a weapon, it may be possible to have similar characters using them - although that is not always the case, especially when one considers weapons that require feats/ability scores/etc. to wield. What we are really testing here is the relative merits of two builds, builds that by definition must be different (or else we'd have nothing to compare). In this particular case, the choice of weapon means little for the build itself - the feats picked are roughly the same. Thus the focus of the comparison (and, indeed, the comparison itself!) must come from equipment choices. When I build a S&B fighter, I do select different equipment than I would for a THF. Each build has strengths and weaknesses; I attempt to remedy those as necessary with equipment choices. In this case, I chose to delay the enhancement of ranged offensive capabilities in order to shore up what I saw was a more pressing need - the lack of AC. [and on a side note, I did rerun the combat, giving Alice an AoNA]. However, were I to use Alice and Bob as NPCs, I would not give Alice an AoNA - her AC is high enough as it is. That's the choice I make when creating the build, a direct consequence of the choice to S&B. Further, the choice to even out the equipment is necessary. At lvl5, 1000 GP represents a significant amount of capital that could be invested in something useful, rather than sitting around getting dusty. If I were to give Alice NPC WbL and Bob PC WbL, that would definitely make the difference between the two. Thus, if I have 1/8 (ish) of a person's capital unspent, they are 1/8 weaker than an equally strong character who can spend ~100% of the WbL. And finally, even I agree that duels prove nothing (heck, I even prefaced my first post with that!). The argument we're in is simply an extension of the Duelist's Fallacy - there are so many different choices that one makes when building a character, and so many random variables in the arena pit, that an arena combat can never act as a determining factor between two choices. Furthermore, "arena" situations are likely to come up very rarely in play, and thus reflect the true game performance even more poorly than, say, a series of EL-appropriate encounters would. I will say that I do enjoy the argument, though. That's one of the things I love about the Wizards boards - there's actually room for civilized discourse and, God forbid, arguments that don't erupt into flamewars. So thanks. ;) In response to other posters: Umm you can only fling an ally that is a size category smaller than yours... dwarves are medium and so are half-giants and goliaths. Half-giants (maybe) and Goliaths (for sure) have a trait called Powerful Build, which basically lets them count as Large for this kind of thing. (And no, it doesn't stack with Monkey Grip.) While EWP and Monkey Grip are generally considered subpar feats, they synergize remarkably well together. I feel a need to look at this more closely (cue groaning). In this case, you take Monkey Grip and EWP:BS for +3.5 damage, -2 to BAB (assume a 10 Str for easier terminology). Drop both feats. Grab a Medium Longsword, Power Attack, and WF: Longsword. This gives you +0 damage, +1 to BAB. Now PA for 3. You end up with +3 to damage, -2 to BAB. Look familiar? You lose .5 damage for the ability to alter the accuracy of your strikes (and the option to have up to +1 to BAB). I think it's a good trade. So, your tagline could be: 'Monkey Grip and EWP: Bastard Sword: Two feats that suck so badly, they need synergy to break even!'
neostrider 05-30-07, 01:35 AM	Bastard Sword gets a lot more hate than everyone should be giving it. I give everyone this scenario. It sounds like a lot of people haven't had to face this kind of thing, so I must assume you're party is very synced or your DM gets you let you slide on this little rule. You need a free hand to quaff potions, pick things up, do ANYTHING other than hold your sword in a threatening manner. Notice the word threatening. If you spent a turn quaffing a potion, mechanically speaking you let your sword fall limply to your side until you grab it again on your next turn. Its a problem of timing, something the core D&D system has trouble with. While its fine to say that you drink the potion and then grab the sword again at the end of your turn, technically you weren't holding your sword in a way you could wield for at least 3 seconds, which is enough downtime for someone to slip through a square you'd normally threaten (or at least threaten without a -4 penalty) I have a caster that is running into the same problem with wielding a spike chain (I don't know why he did it but he took EWP for it). I told him ahead of time that he'd have to 'let go' off the chain to cast a spell and thus would be considered unarmed after he cast a spell. He was just happy that holding on with the other hand meant he didn't have to 'pick up' the weapon. Has anyone else had this experience? How have you handled it? Would Quickdraw change this? I could see arguements for both sides of the quickdraw arguement. I'd think it wouldn't help, but I'd like to hear what everyone else thinks
AAB 05-30-07, 01:42 AM	i generally ignore that, except in the case of clerics who want to cast spells but keep their weapon and shield both in hand. for potions and the like, though, i ignore it.
Dungeonrenter 05-30-07, 08:02 AM	Ok, Some of this has been covered a little but: Exotic Weapon profiency is better the more feats you have. If you have only the games standard 1 feat every 3 levels, and are not human, I would pretty much say NO! A paladin can take divine feats and use a long Sword and you will have lots more fun. However, if you are human, then it is worth considering. If you are a human fighter, then you pretty much aught to. If your game master has given you extra feats for any reason, then again it becomes more worth it. The thing my groups have discovered about the bastard sword is that it is a good weapon if you know you are not going to need your shield all the time. The damage differance between a bastard sword wielded two handed is a lot less than a longsword weield two handed. Think of it this way. On average in two attacks from your longsword that cause damage (ignoring strength for now) the dice will show one result 4 or lower and one result 5 or higher. So in two attacks we can say 9 damage on average. With the Great Sword two attacks is 14 damage on average (one 3 or less and one 4 or more on both attacks) Thats a differance of 5 points of damage. Now with the bastard sword the average across two attacks is 11 damage (one 5 or less and one 6 or more). So if you are using all of these weapons two handed, say because you want to maximize damage in a short fight, the differance between bastard sword and great sword is consdierably smaller than the longsword and greatsword. However, then in longer fights where hp's are more important you can with the exotic weapon prof. Use bastard sword and shield. This versitility is worth it, If you have feats to spend on it.
Zobdek 06-02-07, 06:48 PM	Half-giants (maybe) and Goliaths (for sure) have a trait called Powerful Build, which basically lets them count as Large for this kind of thing. (And no, it doesn't stack with Monkey Grip.) Not to derail the actual thread but... from the races of stone sblocked for length Powerful build: The physical stature of a goliath lets him function in many ways as if her were one size category larger. Whenever a goliath is subject to a size modifier or special size modifier for an opposed check (such as during grapple checks, bull rush attempts, and trip attempts), the goliath is treated as one size larger if doing so is advantageous to him. A goliath is also considered to be one size larger when determining whether a creature's special attacks based on size (such as improved grab or swallow whole) can affect him. A goliath can use weapons designed for a creature one size larger without penalty. However, his space and reach remain those of a creature of his actual size. The benefits of this racial trait stack with the effects of powers, abilities, and spells that change the subject's size category.Fling Ally: You can pick up an ally at least one size category smaller than you and throw him toward a specific square up to five range increments away. It takes a move action to pick up an ally and a standard action to throw that ally. The goliath only counts as large for opposed rolls/checks, a creature's special attack and wielding weapons. Fling ally is none of these, it is a feat. I don't think that goliaths could fling dwarves w/out enlargement. And to add my 2 cents, maybe someone should run an example where various level fighters with the two different fighters actually fight several cr equivalent challenges (with party back up would be more accurate). However that is more work than I would think is a good idea for a debate such as this one. The biggest thing to determine with ewf(Bastard Sword) is if the flavor or utility for your campaign allows you to still be effective. While wielding ultimate unstoppable power is not necessary in D&D it is still necessary to be effective.
Bopple 06-02-07, 10:13 PM	Those feats specifically say you can use Powerful Build to qualify for them.
Zobdek 06-03-07, 01:26 AM	Those feats specifically say you can use Powerful Build to qualify for them. I am not arguing the ability to qualify, I am arguing the ability to use it on a dwarf if you are a goliath.
Jeriaus 06-03-07, 01:55 AM	MG and Powerful Build DO stack. The last line of Powerful Built kinda makes that clear.
kenji508 06-03-07, 09:52 AM	Yes, if thats what you want to play. In the first campain i ever played in, i was a human ranger with EWP, and improved initiative going for archery. Taking a feat because it makes the game fun for you is ALWAYS worth it. My ranger might not have been a Damage dealing king, but it was very fun running around saving the 3 casters hide (large party, maby 7-8 players) Nerfing yourself to an ungodly level would definitly be a bad idea (Like Quicken Spell for a ranger) but other than that, play what you want to...
Yadot 06-03-07, 11:19 AM	MG and Powerful Build DO stack. The last line of Powerful Built kinda makes that clear. Monkey Grip and Powerful Build would stack if the former changes the subject's size as outlined in the last clause of the latter. As it is now, both look to your size (Medium) and let you wield one size catagory bigger (Large) weapons. If Monkey Grip said that you can wield weapons one size catagory bigger than normal. Full Stop. Then they would stack.
Jeriaus 06-03-07, 03:54 PM	Hmm, you right by the RAW they dont. The RAI they can and should given the porpose of the abiliteis. I choose to use rules as intended.
Sergikins 06-04-07, 06:44 PM	i currently am playing a paladin with a bastard sword and a hvy steel shield. but I'm using a paladin variant somewhere on this board, called the rebalanced paladin. Its very very very well done, I'd reccomend it you can find it in the PEACH orchard on the character class fourms. the Argent Bastion specilization makes it worth it to go sword and board. another thing to consider in the THW versus sword and board is magic vestment. where as the THW fighter can have one piece of armor, the sword and board fighters bonus to AC from magic vestment can be doubled if cast twice.
Xavorin 06-04-07, 07:10 PM	i currently am playing a paladin with a bastard sword and a hvy steel shield. but I'm using a paladin variant somewhere on this board, called the rebalanced paladin. Its very very very well done, I'd reccomend it you can find it in the PEACH orchard on the character class fourms. the Argent Bastion specilization makes it worth it to go sword and board. another thing to consider in the THW versus sword and board is magic vestment. where as the THW fighter can have one piece of armor, the sword and board fighters bonus to AC from magic vestment can be doubled if cast twice. That's precisely the paladin that I'm using. I was taking the Aggressive specialization, since we have a knight who's more of a defensive character. And what's Magic Vestment? I've never heard of it.
Xavorin 06-06-07, 02:48 PM	Might've asked this previously, but I don't think so. Anyway: I'd also like to know if people think that the -2 penalty I get on attack rolls from a innapropriately sized weapon is worth it or not. I was thinking that maybe I should get a greatsword, or a falchion or something.
valinor 06-10-07, 10:44 PM	Hi all, This is a really interesting discussion and I'm glad it's on here because I have been reconsidering whether it's worthwhile to wield a Bastard Sword or better to wield a Great Sword. I'm currently playing a 28th level Fighter 4/Cleric 3/Exotic Weapon Master 1/Anointed Knight 10/Fist of Raziel 10 (yeah, it's an epic game we've been running since first level for 6 years now!). A friend turned me on to the EWP + EWM combo for added strength damage with Uncanny Blow (x2 instead of x1.5) when I first drew up my character. But it occurs to me now that this choice was shortsighted. At very low levels and with very high strength, it might be worthwhile to go this route. But generally it's not worth it. In mock combat, my bastard sword-wielding character will do 30 more points of damage per round when wielding it two-handed than my great sword-wielding twin. This does not include extra damage resulting from criticals. Regardless, both characters will deal enough damage in one round to kill the other without critical hits. Now, considering that I have to waste a feat and a level for 30 extra points, it's not worth it. Let me explain. I could have taken Improved Initiative instead of EWP, statistically ensuring that my great sword-wielding twin goes first (on average) and kills my bastard sword-wielding character before he gets to do his extra 30 points of damage. Also, I could have spent the extra level on some other class, like cleric, granting me access to more and higher spells. Overall, I would say don't go the EWP+EWM route unless you want the flexibility of using a weapon one-handed with a shield sometimes (which would add some to AC but would drop the strength damage to just 1x) OR it's your deity's preferred weapon and this will give you extra goodies down the line OR you just like the idea of a bastard sword and don't care about powergaming! But for number-crunching powergamers, I recommend going the staid and true route of the great sword.
Grimmsfeld 06-11-07, 06:12 AM	Overall, I would say don't go the EWP+EWM route unless you want the flexibility of using a weapon one-handed with a shield sometimes (which would add some to AC but would drop the strength damage to just 1x) OR it's your deity's preferred weapon and this will give you extra goodies down the line OR you just like the idea of a bastard sword and don't care about powergaming!Deity's preferred weapon? Ok. Don't care about powergaming? That's fine. Misguided thinking that EWP [Bastard Sword] is somehow granting you more versatility over something else? Why would you even say such a silly thing. It's not giving you any more versatility than you'd have with a battle axe, longsword, or trident. For normal, medium characters, plain and simple, it's +1 average damage. For something with Powerful Build, I'd still say it's kind of...meh. You gain an average +2 damage over a longsword, and you're still losing a feat, and you've also lost a point of BAB. For example, a Goliath Fighter 1 could have both EWP and W-Focus Bastard Sword. Before figuring in strength, his attack bonus is +2. A dwarf fighter 2 on the other hand, went with Weapon Focus Longsword and Power Attack. He's got an attack bonus of +3, is one feat closer to anything that required Power Attack (in addition to the benefits of Power Attack) and is two levels away from Specialization. For the opportunity cost of an average 4.5 damage, or 3.5 if he Power Attacks for one. Iunno...I suppose the Goliath would start to come into his own if he could get someone to put Enlarge Person on him, but then again, he's not a person, per se. He's a giant. Iunno...even if it's a difference of 4.5 damage, once the party starts to level up and define their characters, that 4.5 is going to be noticed less and less... PS-Kind of as an aside, I would like to point out that a lot of this debate is moot if you're playing a Tome of Battle character. Even a juiced Goliath-wielded or Monkey Gripped Weapon is a little silly when you start getting to throw around 12d6 and 8d8. Might still be worth it for a Diamond Mind or Iron Heart Warblade, though...those two disciplines seem to have the least maneuvers that actually grant bonus dice, and a lot more that grant extra attacks.
RobbyPants 06-11-07, 03:56 PM	I do have EWP bastard sword, so it all works out... The reason I have the big weapon and thus MG is because our group needed a melee damage dealer (have a warmage, but that's spells). I could have just done EWP proficiency with bastard swords and used a normal bastard sword, but that would have been only 1d10 damage as opposed to 2d8. So in this case I guess I have monkey grip because I need a big weapon, but also needed the defensive bonuses of a shield. This will work out in that Monkey Grip only outdoes Power Attack in two cases: when using one-handed weapons, and when the wielder is huge or larger. Luckily, you do get a substantial gain. However, for future reference, if you want to have a big weapon and the defense of a shield without having to burn through two feats, just use a greatsword and get an animated shield. The shield only costs about 9,000 gp. It'll take a bit until you can afford it, but once you can, it's far superior. Plus, with the extra feats you saved, you can invest in better feats like Power Attack. All in all, EWP isn't much of a feat, other than for flavor.
TheAnthroDM 06-11-07, 04:10 PM	Powerful build lets you count as large when it's an Advantage to you, this is pointed out in the text. Thus Monkey Grip and Fling Ally work. Because it is an advantage for you to use them.
tyrecian 06-11-07, 05:25 PM	my 2 cents to the OP. TANK OPTION Sounds like a fun PC. Pally sword and board, MonkeyGripped (-2) with a Bastard Sword for that big hit with many dice. Go Expertise (-5) and take the Tower Shield (-2) and you are the party's tank. Combining your healing with your high AC, and every once in a while you will roll a 20 and hit, dealing out large damage. Not terrible, actually you will be the one saving people a lot, but not dealing so much damage, in fact you will never deal much damage, but you will be a lifesaver.... and the other party members will thank you when you are the wall that never falls: -9 to your attack, but +9 to AC in every round. Combine that with +1 dex and Full Plate you have a natural 27. Add shield of faith, or some other craziness and you can get an AC into the 30's easily. HIGH DAMAGE Ok, so you dont use a shield, but you are a monster. Use Power Attack to throw away your base attack to swing that 2 hander for x2 to your PA'ed damage. In this scenario you dont really care what weapon you use. The difference between a bastard sword and a great sword is 5 or 7, so use a weapon that gives better crits (use 2 handed), such as a scimitar or a falchion. That way you can get keen on it and even up the ante on your PA more and more... woot! With this build you will end up dealing a lot more damage, but you wont have the AC of a tank, which is OK because you are a paladin, and have the HIGH saving throws and LoH to help out when you are low on health. With this guy, you will dish out the damage, and concentrate on the +x rather than the dice. No monkey grip, no EWP, you will want to focus on your damage... so take Power Attack, and perhaps even Lady's Gambit (which is great, but requires iron will, which kinda sucks for you)... Also you will want to take mounted feats so that you can also charge with the LANCE, which is a great way in which to deal tons and tons of damage without really having to worry too much about the roll. Those are my fun pally builds. Depends on what you want to play, but Monkey grip is really only lots of fun at low levels, when the dice roll matters a great deal more than at higher levels, where the dice are supplanted by the additional damage you get from other soures such as feats and such. The AC/tank build is fun if you have a strong party, but if they are relying on you for damage, try the high crit slice and dice tank. Not only is it fun, but a paladin is built for some serious action, with the high saves and HPs and such. You will love charging on a mount with power attack, and i suggest a ring of spell storing (minor) for your pally when you can afford it, for 3 true strikes/day for those charges when you want to power attack everything you ever dreamed. Combined with Spirited Charge you can do x3 damage with a lance. At 10th level, PA'ing 10, you can derive +60 damage from PAttack and spirited charge ALONE with a lance. You have a 17 strength, add 12, you are at 82 damage and that is b4 you ever apply your 3d8 :D or any other modifiers (such as Divine Sacrifice, holy weapon, greater magic weapon, etc.).... Make your pally shine :)
neostrider 06-13-07, 12:30 AM	Versatility is the key to EWP bastard sword. Its an extra die size over all the other one-handed weapons, and with the crit range of a regular sword you might notice it more often than others. Anyone who says to take any two handed sword from the martial weapon list is commiting themselves to always two handing a weapon. Assuming they spent all their feats on that weapon, the moment they enter a scene that requires them to one hand a weapon and they won't be able to use their weapon again. DMs tend to be pretty giving when it comes to moving a character's hands around, so I imagine that in a lot of hack and slashes this kind of benefit is pretty much lost. There's a lot of debate about the following scenario: Figher moves to a switch (move action). He pulls the switch (move or standard, either way...). If he's wielding a two handed weapon, is he allowed to be considered wielding it when he's done? On, and on the debate goes. Essentially if your DM likes fast pace heroic fights the answer tends to be yes. If you want a nitty-gritty pulp fiction or dark game you may want your players fearful and would want to say no. I've yet to see a RAW quote saying which way is correct. It mostly boils down to... "I can carry my sword in one hand right? Well then can't I just regrab it with the other at the end of my turn?" Both very argueable points. Sometimes a players will want to use a shield instead of dealing out lots of damage. Sometimes he has to carry a character over his shoulder. Maybe he's lost an arm. Maybe he's hanging from the edge of a cliff. Sometimes that other hand just has more important stuff to do. Thats when having one weapon that deals a lot of damage AND can be used one handed helps. Especially when the same feats apply to how you're wielding it. Something a two handed weapon can't do.
Grimmsfeld 06-13-07, 01:16 AM	EWP Bastard Sword is like half a Weapon Specialization Longsword, without the requesite Fighter levels. Imply that +1 damage(for a normal sized bastard sword) is versatility all you want.
RobbyPants 06-13-07, 03:24 PM	Powerful build lets you count as large when it's an Advantage to you, this is pointed out in the text. Thus Monkey Grip and Fling Ally work. Because it is an advantage for you to use them. It's the way they're both worded. Powerful Build lets you use a weapon one size larger than your size. Monkey Grip lets you use a weapon one size larger than your size. Both of them refer to your size, not the size of the weapon you're currently using, thus, they don't stack. The part of Powerful Build that states what type of weapon you can use supersceeds the part that says you count as large when it's a benifit.
Yadot 06-13-07, 05:04 PM	Powerful Build also says you only count as one size larger if advantageous "Whenever a [you are] subject to a size modifier or special size modifier for an opposed check (such as during grapple checks, bull rush attempts, and trip attempts)." It also says, "The benefits of this racial trait stack with the effects of powers, abilities, and spells that change the subject’s size category." Monkey Grip does not change your size category.