EWP Bastard Sword (silly)

[Saeviomagy]

I think the problem isn't so much that EWP is cheap, it's that martial weapon proficiency in a single weapon is too expensive. Basically the only people with martial weapon proficiency are going to be fighters - everyone else will tend to
a) Pick the simple weapon which works best, for a typically minor disadvantage in terms of damage and the like
b) get an EWP

And if you eliminate option b, then I think everyone will just stick with option a.

So - a good idea would be to juice up martial weapon proficiency in some way (say by allowing a small selection of weapons instead of just one). 2 would be a nice number - most people would take it and pick up (say) a decent melee weapon and one of the bows. Others might go for a medium and a light melee weapon. Now it's a feat worth taking. Simple weapon proficiency is still worthwhile, taking a level in a warrior class is still worthwhile, taking EWP is also still worthwhile. But now MWP is a worthwhile feat.

 

[Corwin]

Elves, who have automatic proficiency in longswords, for one.

Many choose rapiers instead, IMX. Besides, we aren't really talking about elves who already have a melee weapon option. We are mainly discussing spellcasters who are interested in spending a feat to pick up a decent melee weapon.

Anyone who does not have Str 13 or more yet.

True. But in that case, I doubt the guy is going to bother with spending any feats on a melee weapon in the first place. He's more likely (and better off) sticking with his spellcasting. Or perhaps picking up Finesse.

Again, this is mainly an isuue of arcane caster types who are interested in going into melee and are willing to spend a feat to get a decent hacking weapon.

Anyone who knows that the majority of magic weapons found in treasure are usually longswords.

Ah yes, the ol' 2e treasure thing. Yet the wizard can make any magic weapon he wants. Or have one made. Every 3e game I've ever played in has had these options available.

We could disallow fighters and combat-oriented classes (who are proficient in all martial weapons) the use of bastard swords as a two-handed weapon. That way, they're all in the same boat.

We could, I suppose. Just scratch the item's martial nature and make it purely an exotic weapon. Basically it's an oversized longsword (thus picking up the extra die size as its "exotic advantage" over its martial equivelant). Then, just like a longsword, the character can choose to weild it two-handed as an option.

But I don't know that this is the best solution. I still rather like mine of restricting the "double" advantage of just taking it as an EWP by non-warrior types.

But, AFAIC, fighters and combat-oriented classes can use the bastard sword two-handed without penalty and does not have to spend a feat for it, while wizards and noncombat-oriented classes must spend a feat. They can't use it as a two-handed nor as a one-handed weapon without applying the penalty.

Exactly. That was the point I was making. Fighters already know how to use the weapon, just not one-handed. So they spend a feat to get the extra option. Wizards would spend the same feat slot to get both.

 

[Magic Slim]

So - a good idea would be to juice up martial weapon proficiency in some way (say by allowing a small selection of weapons instead of just one). 2 would be a nice number - most people would take it and pick up (say) a decent melee weapon and one of the bows. Others might go for a medium and a light melee weapon. Now it's a feat worth taking. Simple weapon proficiency is still worthwhile, taking a level in a warrior class is still worthwhile, taking EWP is also still worthwhile. But now MWP is a worthwhile feat.

That'd be a good idea. In NWN, you could take MWP and it gave you proficiency in all martial weapons. Then, since MWP was its prerequisite, you could take EWP with all the exotic weapons. Of course, the EW list in NWN was far less impressive than the one we have in the pHB.

Slim

 

[MeepoTheMighty]

If a wizard really wants to waste his feat on that, by all means let him. He's got much better things to do, it's not like he's going to break the game just by swinging a sword around.

 

[Norfleet]

That'd be a good idea. In NWN, you could take MWP and it gave you proficiency in all martial weapons. Then, since MWP was its prerequisite, you could take EWP with all the exotic weapons. Of course, the EW list in NWN was far less impressive than the one we have in the pHB.

NWN doesn't have MWP as a prerequisite for EWP. I'd know, I've done something very much like the example above.

 

[Voadam]

If I were DM, I wouldn't let him take it.

EWP (Bastard Sword or Waraxe) is, IMO, taking your skill with the weapon past two-handed proficiency and into one-handed 'mastery'. I wouldn't let you skip the first step.

So if you want it, first you need to be proficient in it as a Martial Weapon.

This weapon (and feat) is, to me anyway, a perk for fighter types who may want to upgrade damage a bit. To let a non-warrior type skip to the front of the class for the same expenditure on only one feat is unfair, IMO.

That's my take on it.

In Everquest RPG bastard swords can be used one handed if the wielder has weapon focus bastard sword and a certain minimum strength (17?). so there it would be a two feat expenditure.

My rgr 1 wizard X used a magic bastard sword throughout a 2 pc campaign that did the whole banewarrens. I used it one handed once in the multiple fights where I had to fight hand to hand. When we switched to 3.5 and I lost two weapon fighting I took up the DM on the offer to switch out EWP bastard sword as we redid the character.

 

[Voadam]

Except that spellcasters like to use rods, wands, staves, scrolls, etc.

What do you do with that wand or rod when you want to swing your chain? Drop it? Put it away?

Generally the same thing a fighter does with his bow or crossbow when he wants to draw his sword.

A wizard who carries a weapon generally casts spells when opponents are at range and then hits them with the weapon when they are near. having something in hand necessitates opportunity costs. forcing a wizard to use his spells to do ranged attacks is not much of a cost though.

 

[totoro]

It would all be so much easier if hand-and-a-half weapons (bastard sword and dwarven waraxe) were simply martial weapons that require Hand-and-a-Half Weapon Proficiency (prereq: STR 13+) to use if you are proficient with the smaller version (long sword and battle axe).

The Warhammer should be a hand-and-a-half weapon, too (1d10 damage, but x2 crit). This would be a good weapon for strong clerics (who are proficient with a mace). You might want to throw in a Warclub, too, that only requires proficiency with the club, but I don't see much call for it.

Maybe a Warpick, too (1d8 damage, x4 crit). And perhaps even an Estoc for those with rapier proficiency (1d8 damage, 18-20/x2 crit), though that is starting to push it.

 

[Ranger REG]

Many choose rapiers instead, IMX. Besides, we aren't really talking about elves who already have a melee weapon option. We are mainly discussing spellcasters who are interested in spending a feat to pick up a decent melee weapon.

Well, you did ask, and I offer one of several answers.

Personally, I'd go for an elven thinblade than a rapier. If we apply Weapon Familiarity to the elf race, that exotic weapon should be a martial weapon in the hand of an elf.

Exactly. That was the point I was making. Fighters already know how to use the weapon, just not one-handed. So they spend a feat to get the extra option. Wizards would spend the same feat slot to get both.

Why should they? Fighters and combat-oriented classes have the benefit of using bastard sword two-handed without penalty as part of their class features. It's not part of the standard feat rules. It would be a double whammy trying to get the wizards (and other classes that are not proficient with all martial weapons) to spend two feat slots just to get full benefit of the weapon, especially when said character must make the decision to either be a militant wizards or enhance their Art. The allotment of feat slots is very limited for a wizard, who does not even begin with proficiency with all simple weapons, just some.

 

[Steverooo]

Why does he get to jump straight to the bigger guns? If a fighter wants to use a bastard sword or waraxe one-handed he has to spend a feat. And he's already familiar with the darn things (insomuch as he can use them two-handed as martial weapons). The mage has no such familiarity before jumping in to it. Yet the same one feat expenditure nets him the same benefits.

[in a thick, tacky, Scotish accent] I just don' like it. It dun't sit right in me belly.[end accent]

Again, to me, those particular weapons are perks to warrior types who want to upgrade from the martial equivelant. From that, I based my opinion.

[Accent]But, Loddy! It IS rrright! If the Wizard wants t'use a hand-and-a-half sword two-handed as a Marrrtial Weapon, he can (with his -4 Non-Proficiency Penalty)! Same as the Fighterrr, therrre. I dinna see th'point in makin'em learrrn Martial Weapon Proficiency: Two-handed Bastard Sword, first![/Accent]

Then again, I don't like the Exotic Weapon Proficiencies, anyway, and don't think the B-sword should be one, anyway.

Will Mages all take the ExoticWP: B-sword, instead of Martial WP: Longsword/Battleaxe? No, probably not. Magical longswords are extremely common, while magical B-swords and axes are not... Personally, I have never seen a Wizzer take MWP: Battleaxe, and doubt I ever will.

I suppose you could solve your problem (assuming you're the GM) by making PCs without Martial WP take MWP:B-sword first, to get rid of the -4 NWP for two-handed use, first, before taking Exotic WP in it, but what does that really gain them? They'll just multiclass Fighter, gain MWP, and spend the extra Feat on Exotic WP: B-sword, instead. Saves 4-8 levels, thattaway...