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

[Valiantheart]

Hmm...till a short time ago, I also thought that bastard sword was a throw-away, the kind of thing someone would take for flavor, maybe increase survivability at low levels. Then, I compared it to some other feats. Over longswords, it gives +1 average and +2 max damage. Kind of like a poor man's weapon spec I'm thinking now that it's not too bad. If you use 2-medium-weapon-fighting feats in your campaigns, imagine a dual bastard sword wielder. BONG! A human fighter could do it at first level.

I use a feat that reduces the TWF penalties by 2. So you can reduce your penalites to -0, -0 or go with 2 mediums and fight at -2, -2. To do anything else would be to give a fighter specializing in a single medium weapon to big of an advantage.

 

[Jeremy Ackerman-Yost]

I liked dual wielding also util WOTC decided to add that asinine incrementing DEX requirment to Improved and Greater two weapon fighting. I guess a game that is "All about options" means only Rangers and Rogues are supposed to be able to wield two weapons. Ridiculous requirement.

Really, all this means is that only high dex characters can wield two weapons with "improved" and "greater" effectiveness. That doesn't strike me as "ridiculous." Quite reasonable, actually.

 

[Steverooo]

i think a kewl idea would be to have a feat that allows a halberd to be used as a close weapon OR a reach weapon.

I really don't think this is necessary...

In 3/3.5e, a Quarterstaff is nothing more than a (0 GP) unshod stick. So why can't anyone use the other end of a polearm for that 1D6 hit, with the appropriate TWF penalties?

Sure, it's worse than the polearm's normal damage, and you hafta take the TWF penalties on BOTH attacks, but for a Fighter with TWF, it's not so bad! If you can do it with an unshod, long stick, why not with any polearm?

And while we're on the subject... Most staves ARE shod. Does that up the damage? Even if not, they can certainly ne shod in Iron, and/or Alchemically Silvered! And why leave the other end of a polearm bare? Most of'em, historically, had end-caps. Some had big, knobby, mace-like heads! I'd say that's a D8 damage...

So a new Feat? I don't see why it's needed. Just say "You can't use the polearm's head to attack within 5', but you can use the butt!"

 

[Steverooo]

Seems like everybody here thinks a feat for the bastard sword is a waste. Then what should be done to the weapon. Better crit range, non-exotic, or maybe free for fighters?

The 13 STR requirement (for one-handed use) isn't enough? It worked for RuneQuest II!

 

[Numion]

I definitely agree with that.

I liked dual wielding also util WOTC decided to add that asinine incrementing DEX requirment to Improved and Greater two weapon fighting. I guess a game that is "All about options" means only Rangers and Rogues are supposed to be able to wield two weapons. Ridiculous requirement.

I have seen high-dex fighters even in my 3.0 games. Light armor is nothing to sneer at, if you're playing a standard magic game, where dex can end up pretty high with items.

 

[krunchyfrogg]

I use a feat that reduces the TWF penalties by 2. So you can reduce your penalites to -0, -0 or go with 2 mediums and fight at -2, -2. To do anything else would be to give a fighter specializing in a single medium weapon to big of an advantage.

What feat is that?

 

[Valiantheart]

Just a feat IMCW. Simple concept and fair to all dual wielders not just those who favor a singular weapon. I am thinking about lowering the TWF, ITWF, and GTWF dex requirements to 13,15, and 17 too. 19 is ridiculously too high.

 

[King_Stannis]

My wife's character, a female, past-her-prime fighter/inkeeper (yep), uses a Greathammer. I treat it just like a greataxe only with bludgeoning instead of slashing damage type. Always was curious why they never had this weapon in the original 3.0 rulebook (whether it's in 3.5 I don't know).

 

[Green Knight]

Hmm...till a short time ago, I also thought that bastard sword was a throw-away, the kind of thing someone would take for flavor, maybe increase survivability at low levels. Then, I compared it to some other feats. Over longswords, it gives +1 average and +2 max damage. Kind of like a poor man's weapon spec I'm thinking now that it's not too bad. If you use 2-medium-weapon-fighting feats in your campaigns, imagine a dual bastard sword wielder. BONG! A human fighter could do it at first level.

Yeah, speaking as someone who's played a couple characters in 3E with bastard swords, the bastard sword is NOT a throwaway. On average, you do a 5 or a 6 on damage. Add in an average Str score of 14 (Average for a Warrior type, anyway) and you got a guy regularly doing 7 to 8 points of damage on a swing. That's pretty much instant death for any creature which you fight at 1st-level. And in my case, I had a habit of consistently rolling above average (I don't know why, but when rolling damage for a bastard sword, I almost always roll above average. I'm also a madman with crits, too). I remember one game of Ravenloft where a Ranger of mine did INSANE amounts of damage with the bastard sword. I LOVED that sword!

But anyway, yeah, the bastard sword is definitely a worthwhile weapon.

As for the subject at hand, when not burning a feat on bastard sword proficiency, I've always been fond of warhammers, myself. You do the same damage as the longsword, with x3 crit, though the threat range is only 20, but the weapon is also bludgeoning. Which means that skeletons and the like don't give you any trouble.

 

[krunchyfrogg]

My wife's character, a female, past-her-prime fighter/inkeeper (yep), uses a Greathammer. I treat it just like a greataxe only with bludgeoning instead of slashing damage type. Always was curious why they never had this weapon in the original 3.0 rulebook (whether it's in 3.5 I don't know).

They have the Maul, introduced in FRCS, I believe. Large, 1d10, B, X3 Crit.