Munskins/Power gaming - Two weapon fighting feat with two bastard sword

[S'mon]

I really like history and i try to make my campaign world as close possible of how it was in the medieval era, but i was referering to the rules of DnD and not historical fact.

Well I think it's unwise to say "I can't visualise how anyone could wield 2 5'2" bastard swords!" as an appeal to realism, while ignoring the reality that bastard swords weren't 5'2" anyway... Can't you just visualise the bastard swords as being an historically accurate 4' or so?

Basically my bottom line is:

1. Game-reality: The rules allow it. It's not unbalanced, in fact it's a very weak attack style given the Feats needed to do it even at a -4 penalty.

2. Real-reality: In reality, people with sufficient strength & practice can indeed wield 2 bastard swords. But, just as in the game-reality, rarely do/did, because it's a suboptimal combat style.

So this is a rare case where rules & reality match well. Just take a foot off those listed PHB weapon lengths and you're fine.

 

[MoonZar]

Well I think it's unwise to say "I can't visualise how anyone could wield 2 5'2" bastard swords!" as an appeal to realism, while ignoring the reality that bastard swords weren't 5'2" anyway... Can't you just visualise the bastard swords as being an historically accurate 4' or so?

Basically my bottom line is:

1. Game-reality: The rules allow it. It's not unbalanced, in fact it's a very weak attack style given the Feats needed to do it even at a -4 penalty.

2. Real-reality: In reality, people with sufficient strength & practice can indeed wield 2 bastard swords. But, just as in the game-reality, rarely do/did, because it's a suboptimal combat style.

So this is a rare case where rules & reality match well. Just take a foot off those listed PHB weapon lengths and you're fine.

Hello S'mon,

Well as people said i should stop compare to reality !

Thanks you for all insight comment

 

[S'mon]

Well i have many medieval encyclopedia who say that the bastard is around 5 feet with the handle and other reference who say this was more around 4 feet and half. I personnaly think that in real history you had bastard sword from all size beetwen 4 feet and half and 5 feet.

I don't think 5' long swords were ever made for one-handed use. I think your first reference was conflating them with greatswords, just as D&D conflates greatswords with the huge late-medieval/renaissance zweihander swords used in pike formations to lop off enemy pike-heads. Those zweihanders were not the sort of weapon an individual would carry around for skirmish combat D&D style.

 

[MoonZar]

I don't think 5' long swords were ever made for one-handed use. I think your first reference was conflating them with greatswords, just as D&D conflates greatswords with the huge late-medieval/renaissance zweihander swords used in pike formations to lop off enemy pike-heads. Those zweihanders were not the sort of weapon an individual would carry around for skirmish combat D&D style.

Yeah probably, maybe they just give name for a general idea. After all a sword is a sword regardless of the size.

The rules in DnD just put reference of damage on kind of sword to make the game work and this probably still very far from reality.

 

[asdel]

I'd recommend not worrying about it. I am playing a dwarf with two waraxes in a sort of magic intensive game. At low levels relitive to armor class, the -4 is a problem. At higher levels, you need a shield not to get hit, or you need want to fight with the weapon two-handed to double your power attack bonus.

My dwarf is +25 to hit with axe #1 or +21/+16/+11 and +20 with Axe #1 and Axe #2.

I am generally better off with fighting two-handed with the waraxe:
Attack Points into power attack bonus Damage bonus
primary 10 pts +15 +20 + str * 1.5
secondary 5 pts +15 +10 + str * 1.5
trit. 0 pts +15 str * 1.5

vs. two weapon fighting
primary 6pts
Alternat 5pts
seconard
tritiarty

 

[asdel]

I'd recommend not worrying about it. I am playing a dwarf with two waraxes in a sort of magic intensive game. At low levels relitive to armor class, the -4 is a problem. At higher levels, you need a shield not to get hit, or you need want to fight with the weapon two-handed to double your power attack bonus.

My dwarf is +25 to hit with axe #1 or +21/+16/+11 and +20 with Axe #1 and Axe #2.

I am generally better off with fighting two-handed with the waraxe:
Attack Points into power attack bonus Damage bonus
primary 10 pts +15 +20 + str * 1.5
secondary 5 pts +15 +10 + str * 1.5
trit. 0 pts +15 str * 1.5

vs. two weapon fighting
primary 6pts +15 +6
Alternat 5pts +15 +5pts
seconard 1pts +15 +1
tritiarty no power +11 ---

Over all, I am better off using one ax with two hands, then using two axes.

 

[cignus_pfaccari]

Here's more fun TWF cheese...the Dwarven Hammer Dude

Needs: Dodge, Mobility, Spring Attack, Power Attack, Two-Weapon Fighting, Imp. TWF, WF: Battleaxe, WF: Warhammer, 10 ranks Craft (Weaponsmith), 5 ranks Knowledge (Religion). Should also have Oversized TWF and Greater TWF.

Edit: Also needs Iron Will for Hammer of Moradin, which I'd forgotten. If you can convince your DM to allow Moradin to have the War domain (which, really, he should), that'll free up the feat slot necessary.

Noticed this on Saturday when projecting this build forward from 2nd level for our Eberron game.

Ftr 6
Clr 3
Dwarven Thane 1 (Dragon # 299; the Mountain Hand ability lets you use full Str on off-hand weapons)
Hammer of Moradin 3 (PGtF; the Powerful Grip ability at 3rd level adds 0.5x Str damage to your warhammer attacks, so a two-handed warhammer does 2x Str and a single-handed does 1.5x Str)
Tempest 4

So, at 17th level, the Dwarven Hammer Dude has a BAB of 16 and 7 attacks with 1.5x Str at -0 penalty. You'll have 7 of the 8 absolutely required feats by 6th level, and then take Imp. TWF at 9, Oversized TWF at 12, and Grt TWF at 15.

Fun, no?

Brad