D&D 3E/3.5 The bastard sword in 3E

[Numenorean]

Talk among our gameroup has recently been on the bastard sword. We don't like it as it is.
The idea that a sword like the bastard sword would essentially do the same damage (d10) whether wielded one handed or two handed doesn't make alot of sense.

We've thought about taking a page from old 1st edition AD&D and making the bastard sword equivalent to the longsword when wielded one handed, but give it perhaps the d10 damage when used two handed. Also drop the required feat to use it one handed. We felt that was always more of a game mechanics thing and not based on reality.

I've wielded swords in RL before. Most bastard swords are not much larger than a longsword, and they weight is just a little different and slightly more because of the longer handle.

I think more than anything the bastard sword in 3E is a great example of conflict between reality and game mechanics/balance.

Thoughts? Any other bastard sword modifications out there?

 

[nak9788]

Keep in mind any weapon wielded two-handed adds 1.5 times the Strength modifier to damage. So a bastard sword wielded by a Str 18 character would deal 1d10+4 in one hand or 1d10+6 in two-hands. So essentially they thought of that already.

 

[Numenorean]

Keep in mind any weapon wielded two-handed adds 1.5 times the Strength modifier to damage. So a bastard sword wielded by a Str 18 character would deal 1d10+4 in one hand or 1d10+6 in two-hands. So essentially they thought of that already.

True.

So because the damage bonus changes when wielded one handed to two handed (IF you have a STR that gives a bonus) it makes it ok that the base weapon damage stays the same between wielded one handed and two handed?

I see the logic they used but I don't think its solid in the case of the bastard sword. It still lacks the explanation why it would do base 1d10 when wielded one handed, whereas the longsword only does 1d8, and essentially a bastard sword is a longsword (maybe a couple inches longer ~2) with a longer handle.

The bastard sword is a tricky weapon to do right in a game setting IMO.

 

[Patryn of Elvenshae]

If that's what you want to do, then why does a longsword wielded in one hand do the same damage as a longsword wielded in two hands?

What about a dagger, or a shortsword?

The way you are going sacrifices simplicity, and I'm not entirely sure you'd get anything worthwhile out of it.

 

[nak9788]

True.

So because the damage bonus changes when wielded one handed to two handed (IF you have a STR that gives a bonus) it makes it ok that the base weapon damage stays the same between wielded one handed and two handed?

I see the logic they used but I don't think its solid in the case of the bastard sword. It still lacks the explanation why it would do base 1d10 when wielded one handed, whereas the longsword only does 1d8, and essentially a bastard sword is a longsword (maybe a couple inches longer ~2) with a longer handle.

The bastard sword is a tricky weapon to do right in a game setting IMO.

Well it is a bigger weapon and thus more damage. If any character can wield it, it should do the same base damage, with the exception of Strength. Of course masterswordsmen would be able to use it more effectively, hence the inclusion of Weapon Focus, Weapon specialization, etc.

I always had certain problems how damage was dealt. If you recall in 2nd ed., weapons dealt variable damage depending upon the size of the creature. Usually, the bigger the monster the more damage it took. But it made you wonder if you took a mace to a pixie vs a dragon, the pixie should take more damage simply because it was the same size as the weapon that hit it.

The weapon damage system in 3rd ed. is quite reasonable. Therefore, we never really questionned because if you try to invoke logic in a fantasy based game, it doesn't work. Believe me, I've tried. If you try to take into account reality in any situation, it usually makes the rules so complicated, it becomes unplayable, or, in case of damage, weapons so lethal, that one blow could kill a high level creature. In the words of Peregrin Took "Even the mightiest warrior can be slain by a single arrow."

 

[Numenorean]

True.

Another reason why I'm debating this stuff is because in-game my ranger character is at a point where he has to decide between a longsword or bastard sword as his main sidearm.

LOL. I'm really hung up on it atm

Any thoughts, advice would help.

 

[Patryn of Elvenshae]

Think of it this way.

Using a bastard sword in one hand requires a feat.

In return for this feat, you gain, on average, +1 damage over a longsword (avg. roll of 1d10 vs. avg. roll of 1d8).

Is that worth the trade-off to you?

More importantly, however, which weapon *sounds* cooler to you?

 

[atom crash]

The default for the longsword is to be wielded one-handed. Anyone can wield it two-handed to get an additional strength bonus to damage.

The default for the bastard sword is to be wielded two-handed. It costs a feat to be able to use it with one hand and do the same base damage. You trade off the 1.5x strength bonus to damage for the 1d10 base damage -- that's a larger damage die than any other single-handed weapon -- while using a shield. Or an off-hand weapon.

That sounds fair to me.

 

[silentspace]

The default for the longsword is to be wielded one-handed. Anyone can wield it two-handed to get an additional strength bonus to damage.

Yep. Every other weapon works this way. Why not the bastard sword?

 

[werk]

.02

save the feat for something more tasty.