D&D 5E Bastard Sword Idea

[Chevallaine]

Forgive me if this is dredging up an old topic, I didn't see another thus far so I wanted to see if this would be a plausible idea for the traditional bastard sword.

1d10 / Slashing / Heavy, Special, Versatile (1d12)

Special: STR 15 required to use one-handed, else attacks are made at a Disadvantage. You are not at a Disadvantage when using the Versatile property while below the STR requirement. The weapon is still considered Heavy, regardless of STR.

I loved the idea of wielding the sword one-handed (see: Aragorn) back in 3.0/3.5 and was disappointed when I found it "missing" in 5e (I believe the Longsword versatility was supposed to be a nod toward this). While we no longer possess official exotic weapons or exotic weapon proficiency I believed a STR requirement would fulfill the gap nicely and I hope to find a consensus.

Thoughts or Criticism?

 

[Bardbarian]

See Long Sword. That is why it has the versatile property. If you want to add heavy to it, you are looking for a 1 hander to use great weapon fighting with and will already have a 15 str so that part is irrelevant.

 

[Chevallaine]

See Long Sword. That is why it has the versatile property. If you want to add heavy to it, you are looking for a 1 hander to use great weapon fighting with and will already have a 15 str so that part is irrelevant.

What if I added to the special: "Cannot be combined with GWF while wielded with one hand"? Or perhaps increased the STR requirement to 18 or 20 so it may require a few levels to obtain? (note "may")

My point is that longsword is boring imo and 3.0 had the same properties I propose (more or less)

 

[ccs]

I'll just keep using the long sword. It's already got the rules I need.
All I'll do if I intend to use it as a bastard sword is describe it as a bit longer with a longer hilt.

 

[Chevallaine]

So just stick with 5e's giant list of homogenization? I do not wish to come across as crass, it just seems like there is little flavor in the current weapons and armor with nothing truly unique.

 

[Oofta]

The 3.5 longsword became the rapier, the bastard sword became the longsword.

What we think of as the longsword was often termed bastard sword, and rapiers were derived from arming swords (aka knightly swords). But realistically? If you wanted to have an accurate name for swords, it would depend on time period and region. There's a lot of debate on names.

There's nothing wrong with adding a heavier version of the longsword if you want, just not sure it's necessary.

 

[Quickleaf]

So just stick with 5e's giant list of homogenization?

Well, if you're looking for greater differentiation of weapons, older editions took into account increased damage dice vs. larger foes (though the "why" eludes me) & different speeds for different weapons & even rules for how effective some weapons are vs. certain types of armor.

As far as the bastard sword goes, 5e is actually pretty on point. Historically, a bastard sword is the same as a hand-and-a-half sword, which is what the D&D longsword is meant to model (rather than a rapier, which is how "longsword" seems to have been used in the Elizabethan era when such "Sword Names" were popular).

 

[Saeviomagy]

The problem is that your change just makes for a flat-out better weapon. Nobody who could wield a longsword to any effect wouldn't wield your weapon.

Even if you raise the minimum on it, you're basically saying that in exchange for boosting your hit and damage with strength melee weapons, you get a boost to the damage of strength melee weapons. There's not really any choice or trade off.

If you want to create a weapon that has a die size larger damage, then it needs some sort of downside to stop it becoming the default weapon in it's category.

Part of why the 5e weapons list is so vanilla is that there aren't many negative attributes. Some ranged weapons have loading, and that's about it.

It would be cool to add some negative traits to the weapons list and create some alternatives. I can certainly imagine a melee version of 'loading' being added to extremely heavy melee weapons, for instance. The only problem is that below level 5, those weapons would be mandatory...

 

[Lost Soul]

Well, if you're looking for greater differentiation of weapons, older editions took into account increased damage dice vs. larger foes (though the "why" eludes me) & different speeds for different weapons & even rules for how effective some weapons are vs. certain types of armor.

As far as the bastard sword goes, 5e is actually pretty on point. Historically, a bastard sword is the same as a hand-and-a-half sword, which is what the D&D longsword is meant to model (rather than a rapier, which is how "longsword" seems to have been used in the Elizabethan era when such "Sword Names" were popular).

I think the damage vs larger creatures was a balance issue to keep fighters on par with wizards and give them a bit more "oomph" than clerics. I reason this because I have been replaying the old gold box games since GOG has updated them to work with new PC's. I found that giving longswords 1D12 & great swords 3D6 goes a long way to keep martials balanced against fireballs, lightning bolts & magic missiles that were not capped in 1rst edition. Getting 2 attacks per round with 3D6+8 vs a hill giant is respectable damage without having to resort to silly animae like monkey grip feats. Since most monsters were large or bigger as you gained levels it added a nice bit of DPR to those classes.

 

[Horwath]

Just buff up longsword damage to 1d10(1d12 versatile). No reason that longsword and rapier have same damage.