The Concept Is... he DOESN'T use a sword.

[nimisgod]

Dude. Swords suck. They're passe. Axes too. Maces? Lame.

Use Sword Chucks . They're the only way a real fighter with flaming red armor should fight.

Disclaimer: If you aren't a fighter with flaming red armor, then Sword-Chucks is not for you. Pregnant women and those with heart conditions should avoid the use of Sword-chucks.

Use of Sword-chucks by children under the age of 30 requires parental supervision

 

[Steverooo]

In 1e, I also loved the Spetum and Ranseur... Disarming a foe on a "To-Hit" AC 7 or 8 (whatever it was) was cool, until Unearthed Arcana came out, and Rangers had their first four weapons chosen for them... then my DM said you had to be proficient with the weapon before that worked (and in those days, you were proficient in four or fewer weapons up until about eigth level, or so). That fixed that!

Even back in the 1e days, I had a PC who used claws. We worked out the damage way back then, and it hasn't changed, since.

Starting out in 3e, I used a longsword for two levels or so, as it was light, did 1D8, and could be used two-handed for that extra point of damage (since I had no shield). I also used the Morningstar the same way, though.

Once I got rid of the non-proficiency penalties, though, I used claws on both hands, with TWF.

Finally, at sixth level, I picked up an Exotic WP in Cable/Chain, which is basically an over-sized Manriki-Gusari. I started carrying a chain at first level, but didn't use it (God, how I hate that stupid "Improvised Weapons" rule)! Now, I finally have the ability to use a weighted chain, pair of manacles, or my specially-made cable (which doesn't jingle!) without penalties.

So, my current character hasn't used a longsword since second level. He mainly uses the Masterwork Mighty Composite Longbow and a +1 set of Claws, although he has his Masterwork Cable for dealing with creatures that need a blunt whoopin'. He also carries a combination Masterwork Handaxe/Hammer/Prybar (which can be thrown as a Throwing Axe), and Longknife (which can be wielded in-hand as a shortsword, or thrown as a dagger), although those are more tools than weapons.

He still has the Masterwork Morningstar in the weapons boot on his mount. I think he sold the Masterwork Longsword at third level!

Yeah, it's always nice when you get a GM who will work with you, and let you design your own weapons (even if he makes you find someone with Knowledge (Architecture & Engineering) to design it, first)! I love my weapons!

 

[tetsujin28]

The mathematical superiority of the longsword vs. other non-exotic 1-handed weapons (and the greatsword vs. just about anything) was proven way back when 3e came out on these boards. Back in 1e there was a reason to carry a military pick: those wacky AC to hit modifiers. Wasn't it something like +4 against plate?

You want a cool weapon in 3e/3.5? Heavy mace. Especially an adamantine heavy mace. The damn things are nearly unbreakable to begin with, and making them adamantine combines with the sunder feat to make you pretty scary. Plus you could always give it disruption. Try that with a sword.

Other good choices? Well, if you're a dwarf, then it's dumb not to carry a waraxe. Otherwise, the various polearms and exotic weapons are the real alternatives to the longsword.

 

[garyh]

I've wished since 3.0 came out that there'd be a suitable Core-book two-handed bludgeoning weapon. The greatclub is terrible. Where's my really, really big hammer that does 1d12/20/x3? I know that's the same as a greataxe except for damage type, but it's a flaver issue. I wanna crush things!

Yeah, give me a greathammer (1d12/20/x3) and I could tell you my next PC...

 

[tetsujin28]

The greatclub doth suck mightily.

 

[Numion]

Yes, but in terms of D&D statistics, the longsword isn't particularly better than the battle axe, the heavy pick or the warhammer.

A longsword has a better crit range, but:

1) The battle axe and the warhammer inflict exactly the same base damage and have a better crit multiplier.

2) The pick is a bit weaker on a regular hit, but much nastier on a critical.

Statistically axes and swords do the same damage when criticals are taken into account. Swords have criticals twice as often as axes, but axes cause twice the extra damage on a critical.

In normal games the sword ends up being better, though. Axe criticals are more likely to be wasted or in other words being overkill. There's no point beating the opponent to -34 when -11 will do just as well.

A more important reason is that it's more fun to roll criticals more often, even if they're not as big as with axe.

The most common weapon in our games is the two-handed sword. No one has ever used a long sword as their main weapon. My archer used it as a backup weapon for a while, but then got a mace for that job (after some, ahem, skeletons).

Shields are never used. Offense is the best defense.

Edited typo..

 

[Arcane Runes Press]

Statistically axes and swords do the same damage when criticals are taken into account. Swords have criticals twice as often as axes, but axes cause twice the extra damage on a critical.

In normal games the sword ends up being better, though. Axe criticals are more likely to be wasted or in other words being overkill. There's no point beating the opponent to -34 when -11 will do just as well.

A more important reason is that it's more fun to roll criticals more often, even if they're not as big as with axe.

Fair enough, though I think part of the appeal to the axe is the joy of taking that opponent to -34. That seems to be my experience anyway - I find equal fun in critting more often, and critting big.

When I play a master duelist, I like to see the constant crits. It gives the impression of consumate skill. Lower stakes, steady reward.

When I play a pick wielding knight, I live for the tremendous damage. It gives the feeling of incredible savagery. High stakes, break the bank.


I definitely agree on your second point. When I do choose to use a sword, I vastly prefer the zweihander duelist route to the longsword & shield combo.

Patrick Y.

 

[tetsujin28]

The best shield is an animated shield. But it's pretty hard for me to give up a possible 7 points of AC, just to use a two-handed sword.

 

[Numion]

The best shield is an animated shield. But it's pretty hard for me to give up a possible 7 points of AC, just to use a two-handed sword.

The usefulness of the shield also depends on the group. If no-one in the group uses a shield, it's a nash equilibrium. The enemies have no point in concentrating on any single combatant. If one has no shield and deals bigger damage with a 2-h sword, he gets the brunt of the attacks over the high-AC shielded people. Not good.

On the other hand, if nobody uses a shield there's little point for one character to use a shield. The enemy won't even try to hit you because there are lower-AC, higher damage output threats out there. End result isn't good for the team.

Above analysis applies only if the DM is a rat bastard (as I am) and uses effective tactics.

 

[DWARF]

Right now I'm playing a Warhorse-riding bastard sword and large shield weilding fighter. Is he a knight? Not even close!

I've actually gone to it because I tend to play Dwarves (duh) and I've done the heavily-armored hammer or axe weilder to death, whether they be cleric or fighter. So for me, bastard sword is a little taste of something different.