FEAT: Hand-and-a-half sword technique (please critique!)

Halivar · Jul 19, 2003

In D&D, you can wield bastard swords one of two ways: two hands on the hilt, or one. In reality, bastard swords were much more specialized. Using the bastard sword, or "hand-and-a-half" sword the way it was really intended was more of a martial art, which required intense training and practice. Hand-and-a-half sword techniques bear a lot of similarity to eastern sword techniques.

In the hand-and-a-half sword technique, the primary hand is on the hilt, while the off-hand lies flat against the center of the blade. The off-hand acts as a pivot, changing grips to parry and block attacks from opposing blades. This allows the use of as much dexterity as a quarterstaff would.

HAND-AND-A-HALF SWORD TECHNIQUE
You are skilled at using the bastard sword as a defensive, as well as ofensive weapon.
Prerequisites: Martial weapon proficiency (bastard sword/2-H), Exotic weapon proficiency (bastard sword/1-H), +1 BAB or higher.
Benefit: When wielding a bastard sword with one hand on the hilt and the other on the blade, you gain a +2 deflection bonus to AC. All attacks use your one-handed damage modifier. You cannot carry anything in your off-hand, and you cannot use your off-hand to perform somatic components to spells.

HAND-AND-A-HALF WEAPON FINESSE
You are an expert at wielding the bastard sword as an offensive weapon.
Prerequisite: Hand-and-a-half sword technique
Benefits: When fighting using the hand-and-a-half sword technique, you may elect to use your dexterity modifier instead of your strength modifier on attack rolls. This feat may only be taken once.

mmu1 · Jul 19, 2003

To be honest, I've never been sold on any "This weapon is actually more special than anything else, so it needs different rules" type of feats, because, if nothing else, it's not good for game balance.

However, in this case, the two feats are actually pretty underpowered.

The first one, taken by itself, is pure fluff - you get to spend a feat, for what? You can't use your off-hand, you get one-handed damage, and you get less of an AC bonus in the long run because you can't use a magical shield. So it's spending a feat to be worse at something than someone with all the prerequisites who just fights sword-and-board.

The second one is definitely more useful, and helps to justify the existence of the first one, but still not an optimal choice for someone wanting to use Weapon Finesse. They'd be better off with two weapons, or spending the feats on the Spring Attack chain, or if they're a fighter, just taking Wepon Specialization and Greater Specialization sooner - the extra 2 points of average damage from a Bastard Sword quickly ceases to matter, it's the bonuses that count...

Halivar · Jul 19, 2003

Good point mmu1. I had not considered it from that perspective.

What if the two feats were combined into one?

EDIT: Well, still not any more damage (and probably less) than TWF w/ finesse. Back to drawing board, I suppose.

the Jester · Jul 19, 2003

I don't like feats aimed at a specific weapon either. I don't think they're necessary, and they open the can of worms that holds the question, "But what about my (fill in weapon name)? It can (fill in action other weapons supposedly can't do)! Where's the feat to capitalize on that??"

Balance often trumps reality. Never cry physics in a world full o' magic.

Xeriar · Jul 19, 2003

Going beyond the point, I've always read the long sword as being the hand-and-a-half sword, though I've heard it disputed on these forums, I haven't on Sword Forum International where the word would mean something.

Beyond which, the hand-and-a-half technique was used to fight armor, not as a superior defensive technique or one with exceptional finesse.