Post/Author/DateTime	Post
058 11-17-06, 09:52 PM	The bastard sword in D&D is a very interesting weapon. Rather than imposing large negatives for using it without the proficiency, it's simply been made two-handed for those not proficient and one-handed for those who are. An interesting solution, but it doesn't satisfy me. The bastard sword is simply a name that refers to an exceptionally long long-sword. It is, technically, still a long-sword, which is the source of the first portion of my dissatisfaction--why is it an exotic weapon when it fits right in with the other European martial weapons? Secondly, wielding it one- or two-handed was not a matter of proficiency; it was a matter of preference and situation. It is depicted, in paintings and such, as being used both one- and two-handed by trained knights. My solution to this is to change the bastard sword to a martial weapon, with some slight modifications--if a player chooses to wield the weapon in one hand, of course s/he gets the bonus of being able to utilize a shield or other weapon in the off-hand. However, a player who decides to wield it with both hands, I believe, should get a damage bonus for applying the strength of both arms rather than just one. So, here is the technical information of my solution: One-handed: As a normal one-handed martial weapon, but--to prevent everyone from switching straight to bastard swords and leaving the long-sword in the warehouse--with a -2 attack penalty explained by the weapon's great weight burdened upon one arm. Two-handed: When wielded with both hands, the weapon has no attack penalty. As a two-handed weapon, it precludes the use of a shield (other than a buckler) or another weapon in the off-hand. Additionally, a bastard sword wielded in two hands has half again as much strength added to damage, rounded down to a minimum of one. As an example, a fighter with a strength score of 16 (+3) adds four points to damage, instead of only three. Does this seem like a balanced solution to you folk who are more experienced in this than I, or does it need tweaking? Also, as a matter of pure nit-picking, would anyone have any objections to adding a third damage type to long- and bastard swords, blunt? Further old paintings have depicted knights holding their sword by the blade to swing in order to make contact with the pommel, turning the weapon into a club capable of dealing some damage through a plate-covered opponent.
makeshiftwings 11-17-06, 10:14 PM	You already do get 1.5x your strength bonus for weilding a bastard sword in 2 hands. And I'd say the rules more or less say that you can already use the Bastard Sword in one hand without having the proficiency, but at a -4 penalty instead of your -2. Spending the feat on proficiency is supposed to represent extra training learning to properly weild the sword in just one hand so that you no longer have the nonproficiency penalty when you do it. Mechanically, your version of the bastard sword would be fairly inferior. If you use it two handed, it's worse than a greatsword. If you use it one-handed, it's worse than a longsword if the character has Power Attack (since he could take a -2 attack for a +2 damage with a power attacking longsword, while the bastard sword is a -2 attack for an average of only +1 damage). It's arguably worse across the board since you can already switch between one and two hands with a normal longsword, so the only advantage you get is the average of +1 damage in exchange for a -2 to hit, which most people will not find worth it.
058 11-17-06, 10:20 PM	Ah, well, scratch that, then. As a note, it's not supposed to be better than the great-sword at any rate, two-handed. But thanks for the information.