Ranger w/2 bastard swords

[ValhallaGH]

What feat is that? I know that Bastard Swords are Superior, Versatile weapons - meaning that they can be wielded one-handed. However, they don't have the "off-weapon" property, so unless there is a feat that overrides that distinction, I'm not sure a Ranger can two-weapon wield Bastard Swords. Can anyone clarify that for me?

Thanks

The feat I mentioned was Weapon Proficiency (the OP mentioned proficient). You don't need the feat to swing the swords but it makes them more useful.

The Ranger: Two Weapon Fighter build grants the ability to use one-handed weapons as off-hand.

There's no, on paper, reason why this better than two Battleaxes... Or two Warhammers... Or even two Flails... Add to that, one less feat for any of those...

Actually there is. The proficiency bonus is higher for a bastard sword than it is for any of those weapons. *shrug* I'm not saying I like it, just that it's there.

 

[Andor]

Groo will do what Groo does best!

 

[Hypersmurf]

Are we reading the same feat?

1/ It's not weapon specific -- there is no Monkey Grip [Greatsword].
2/ It doesn't let you use a two-handed weapon in one hand, just an oversized one-handed weapon.
3/ Off-hand is explicitly prohibited.

Better check which edition he was referencing.

-Hyp.

 

[Benly]

Other than the fact this is cheesier than the entire state of Wisconsin, is there any reason NOT to do this?

The main reason I can think of is if you want to use Scimitar Dance instead. Depending on your build and what kind of enemies you fight, the guaranteed damage on a miss can add up to more damage than the increase from using a bastard sword and it blends nicely with the Stormwarden abilities.

In theory, you could also want it for one of the other weapon-specific feats, but in practice I suspect Heavy Blade Opportunity + Twin Strike is just too good to pass up.

 

[Nifft]

Better check which edition he was referencing.

So that's a "no, we're not reading the same feat", I guess, since you're talking about the pre-revision version.

Cheers, -- N

 

[Wormwood]

Isn't this more or less how HERO works already?

Yep.

More or less how D&D works at my table as well.

 

[Hypersmurf]

So that's a "no, we're not reading the same feat", I guess, since you're talking about the pre-revision version.

He specified 3E. You're reading the 3.5 feat, not the 3E feat.

Even if you consider 3.5 to be part of the 3E continuum, "That was never legal" must, by definition, take into account the rules from the beginning of 3E.

-Hyp.

 

[Nifft]

He specified 3E. You're reading the 3.5 feat, not the 3E feat.

Even if you consider 3.5 to be part of the 3E continuum, "That was never legal" must, by definition, take into account the rules from the beginning of 3E.

Right, that's a fair point.

I'll amend it to: "that may have been briefly legal, depending on interpretation".

Cheers, -- N

PS: ... though you surely must have heard people use "3e" to refer to "before 4e", as opposed to your reading of "the books before 3.5e".

 

[Mengu]

I'm sorry, I should have said 3.0 instead of 3e, that would have saved a half dozen posts. I'll go hide under a rock now.

 

[Hypersmurf]

PS: ... though you surely must have heard people use "3e" to refer to "before 4e", as opposed to your reading of "the books before 3.5e".

Hmm. I've usually seen "3.x" to cover both 3E and 3.5 with a single term. I know I've personally always used 3E to refer to third edition, and 3.5 to refer to, uh, 3.5.

(Though, interestingly, our own rules forum here is described as "Third edition and older", and includes 3.5 )

-Hyp.