I was curious as to why the classic Bastard Sword (hand and a half sword) was excluded from the 5th edition PHB until I considered the difficulty in trying to introduce this weapon into the game's existing mechanics.
If a longsword does 1d8 damage and a greatsword does 2d6 damage, it would stand to reason that a bastard sword would do 1d10. In previous editions, the bastard sword was a two-handed weapon unless you had a feat to use it one-handed. Requiring a feat balanced the fact that you were doing 1d10 instead of 1d8.
I can't quite describe it as eloquently as I'd like, but 5e weapons have the weapon properties "baked in" so that you no longer require a ton of weapon proficiency feats. Your chosen race/class now dictates what weapons you're proficient in to avoid the added complexity of requiring extra feats to use them.
Having weapon properties that don't require feats feels like a nice improvement and a way to remove an added layer of complexity, which I'm sure was the intent. I'm curious, however, if non-standard / exotic weapons will be later introduced to the game, necessitating the return of "feat bloat" or if there will be a different mechanic to balance this out. The best solution, imo, would be to keep things clean and write off exotic weapons altogether or have them "baked" into new character classes ie: ninja gets katana proficiency, new class archetype gets "insert exotic weapon here".
Given the eloquence of the new system, I'm personally ok with sheathing my bastard sword for good. Thoughts/comments?
I'm definitely pleased with the current weapons list. A few classics like the spiked chain are inevitabe additions, at some point, but I'd like to see the basic setup of "Simple or Martial" be maintained as much as possible.
So many D&D weapons we are used to, like the Bastard Sword, are fantasy concepts rather than real world weapons. While the dynamics of real world weaponry are far too complex to codify for D&D purposes, I wasn't too sad to see a few silly concepts disappear.
Based upon the exclusions and upon the slight modifications to the included weapons, I actually wondered if they were trying to take a small step toward a bit more "realism". I'm sure it was truly just an effort to streamline and simplify the weapon selection and clean up the feat bloat you referenced.
It's in the upcoming game of thrones expansion - it's called the Snow sword.
Don't you mean "Longclaw"
tallric_kruush wrote:
Noon wrote:
reddaemon wrote:
tallric_kruush wrote:
Angel7 wrote:
Put me down as another one who's glad to see the back of "exotic weapons".
There are already three classes of "sword" in the game (four if you count the dagger). Adding even more classifications on top of that (and making some of them just plain "better" for no real reason).
Thoughts_My_Aim wrote:
In 5e the bastard sword or hand and a half sword is just other names for longsword. No d10 damage one-handed weapon.
I'm ok with the loss of the Bastard Sword, or it returning to its roots as some have said. What I don't like is that all the weapons have a single damage type, very few daggers or swords from history where used for only piercing or only slashing. A gladius for example (the iconic shortsword) was a damn fine chopper and stabby stabby, guess all daggers are stilettos.
What's in a name? The longsword IS the bastard sword since it is versatile. Just use it two handed and VOILA! 1d10 damage.
Thank_Dog wrote:
Forgember wrote:
Forgember wrote:
Double post....
[quote="Angel7"]
Forgember wrote:
Its simply to avoid unecessary mechanics they gave each weapon one damage type. While a longsword thrusts, it's damage comes from a broad blade with the heft of the swing inflicting the damage most of the time. It's easier to say a weapon does one damage type most of the time than create a algorythm to change the damage type based upon some unconfirmable percentage of stab vs slash. If you play in a simulationist group that does not like this, it is easier to let your group houserule how you differentiate than to try and give you rules ou will likely disagree with anyhow. This puts the power in your groups hands, something this edition does very well.
tallric_kruush wrote:
Angel7 wrote:
I always thought that the Urgrosh from 3.0 was the perfect weapon 
Axe, Hammer and a Spear all wrapped in one deadly package.
That's pales in comparison to my question!
Where's my (Martial Melee, 1d6 Bludgeoning, Finesse, Light) Nun-Chucks?!
Yunru wrote:
Bah if anything's a finesse bluedgeoning weapon it's nun-chucks. Is a club finesse? Then it's not a pair of nun-chucks :P
Yunru wrote:
O.o That actually exist or homebrew? May have to update my list of 5e weapons.
Yunru wrote:
I'm also very happy for the Bastard Sword to be rolled into the Longsword. Whilst it's a nice idea in theory to have a middle weapon, D&D isn't detailed enough in mechanics to have it care, and the weapons are broad enough to include it. Along with the broadsword for that matter.
In 2nd ed where odd concepts such as “weapon speed” and different damage vs large or bigger sized monsters than medium or smaller monsters.
So there was an factor that the Bastard Sword in one hand was slightly slower but did the same damage as a longsword, in two hands it was significantly slower but doing more damage than a long sword, but faster but doing less damage than a greatsword.
Hence if you were a dedicated a sword and shield or greatweapon fighter.
In 3E and 4E the bastard sword was balanced by requiring the Exotic Weapon Proficiency feat. The concept of exotic weapons is cool... unfortunately the way 3.X and 4E maths worked, some weapons were often not worth the feat at low levels, but then after a certain point with multiple attacks were the best use of a feat.
I really liked 4E but the Bastard Sword did kinda provoke nerdrage... it was far too good a choice to ignore with the way powers increased by +x[W] , so going from D8 to D10 was worth far too much. And bizarrely if you used a bastard sword two handed it actually became +3/D10+1 weapon... which was better than a +3/D10 greatsword!
Also to me katanas are longswords (or possibly Scimitar!), but that's an entirely different can of worms.
crimfan07 wrote:
Illithidbix wrote:
As long as the whip-dagger stays dead, we're good.
tallric_kruush wrote:
Ok, I'll bite.
Tried googling "trap" to see what it means in RPG lingo without success....
Angel7 wrote:
Every time I hear someone complain about so-called "trap options" in the game, the message I hear behind their words is "Oh noes! The numbers aren't as big as I want them to be!"
"Trap options," "feat taxes," and such only matter if you're playing the game in the way that min/maxers, powergamers, optimizers, etc. play the game. There are other, more rewarding ways to play than that. Played that way, every character winds up looking the same, since the optimizers have gotten the word out on all their forums about all the little exploitable quirks of the system that allow them to wring every last bonus out of the rules, and anything--feat, weapon, armor, character option, etc.--that doesn't give you the biggest, juiciest bonus of all the other options presented is ridiculed as a "trap" in their jaundiced eyes.
If your character wants a light hammer instead of a handaxe, or wants to wear half plate instead of full plate, then go ahead. Your numbers on your character sheet might be a couple of points behind those on someone else's sheet, but who cares? Are you having fun? That's all that matters, and there's more to fun than higher numbers.
WhiteHarness wrote:
Yunru wrote:
crimfan07 wrote:
Improvised Weapons Player's Basic Rules p.47:
"In many cases, an improvised weapon is similar to an actual weapon and can be treated as such. For example, a table leg is akin to a club. At the DM’s option, a character proficient with a weapon can use a similar object as if it were that weapon and use his or her proficiency bonus."
Spiked chain? Sounds like a whip to me. Want to use your long word to bash someone? Sounds like you're going to club them. I see nothing wrong in improvising use of your weapon, RAW even supports it if you ask me. Is not a shortsword with an edge similar to a scimitar? So use it like one.
Luke-Lightning wrote:
Luke-Lightning wrote:
Thoughts_My_Aim wrote:
Bloodscythe wrote:
Bloodscythe wrote:
WhiteHarness wrote:
Well, they can pry my voulge-glaive-guisarme from my cold, dead, gauntlets.
WhiteHarness wrote:
Why is making every weapon a good option a bad thing?
Lord_Ventnor wrote:
Thoughts_My_Aim wrote:
For myself, I like to have a fairly optimal character, but will always accept a bit less DPR in order to have the character concept (flavor) I want.
That said, I wouldn't like it if a Great Weapon weilder is doing twice the damage of my two short sword weilder, but if the difference means I'm doing even a quarter less DPR, I want the concept I had in AD&D for nostalgia's sake.
So in short, I'm going to use the weapon I like and go for the concept I prefer even if it's say 25 percent less DPR. Just don't make it stupidly inferior. lol
Bloodscythe wrote:
Isn't this thread a bit premature? We don't even have a DMG yet. We have NO idea what weapons, or even weapon groups will be added down the line. Exotic weapons, an Exotic weapon Group, Feat, etc. could be added at any time. All we have now is the bare minimum. Who's to say that a year from now we won't be swimming in Bastard Swords, Katanas, Gouges....
Lord_Ventnor wrote:
Yunru wrote:
palinmaz wrote:
If they were going to include the sickle on the weapons chart, they should have made it a good weapon. Or at least one with some benefit to it. What is its point? You could literally have a character just reflavor handaxes as sickles (or better yet, Scimitars), and they'd be better than someone who took them.
It's not good game design.
Angel7 wrote:
ahh, thanks for the clarification. I completely agree and have a better understanding of the reflavoring concept now. There really ISN'T any mechanical advantage to your example, you'd simply have a bigger sickle (ie d6 rather than d4) . It's not like you're trying to get around a set requirement or property. 
For my oath of devotion paladin (with a Spy background), I'm going to make a request to my DM that I be allowed to reflavor my Sacred Weapon power, so that it doesn't emit 20ft of bright light but simply has a soft blue or green glow. This may or may not be an allowable request, however, as my intent is to have this ability better fit my Spy concept ie: to better assist with being stealthy and discrete rather than my sword turning into a lighthouse beacon.
You should youtube bastard swords. Many great videos showing that these are more or less longswords. People in fantasy games tend to not realize how big REAL longswords were, and they generally were used two handed. They -could- be used one handed, but the long hilt would be akward against your wrist so if you were exclusively using it one handed (saw with a shield) then you were not using a longsword, but a lighter, easier to manuever one handed sword.
Yes, years of D&D and fantasy books has light to you:P
Here is a great video on swords:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dk0GBKaMcgE
Go to 2:45 in the video. He goes right in hand & a half sword vs bastard vs longsword.
Angel7 wrote:
Thoughts_My_Aim wrote:
You guys do realize that at somepoint WotC would like to sell more books right? I'm sure the Bastard Sword will return, along with the Spike Chain, Gouge, and so on. It'll probably even be d10 one-handed and a d12 two-handed.
Faytte wrote:
Angel7 wrote:
Houserule B-Sword ... has to be Martial, not the elf racial
d10 , versatile d12 , balanced by higher cost than Great Sword because it's harder to make right
maybe can't use "reach" effects with 1 handed