Two-blades ranger with two bastards - kosher?


log in or register to remove this ad

Interesting! That directly contradicts the information I got. Are there any sources you can reference?

I suspect this is due to the problem that sword names are a bit fuzzy. Terms like bastard sword tend to be applied to a wide range of swords, some of which probably never would be wielded one handed with a full shield and others that would and probably were.
 

Honestly, I'm more concerned about the halfling rangers with two scimitars. (Can someone tell me why a scimitar isn't a Versatile weapon? :p )

Same thing with rapiers, ugh. They should have found some other way to define what weapons halflings can use. Its a silly situation now where weapons that aren't versatile for reasons other than size can still be used by halflings one-handed.

Or more simpy, for halflings, versatile on a weapon isn't an advantage like it is for anyone else; its a restriction. And it often doesn't make any sense; I'm not quite sure why a halfling can't use a short sword 1 handed, or 2 handed, like other races do with long swords.
 


^^LOL, on the is this realistic debate, I have always reckoned a Dire Flail sounds pretty tricky to manoeuvre. Is there any martial arts knowledgeable people who can point to something even remotely similar in RL?
What about a double axe or urgosh?
 



Honestly, I'm more concerned about the halfling rangers with two scimitars. (Can someone tell me why a scimitar isn't a Versatile weapon? :p )
As far as I can tell, it's the only one-handed weapon that isn't either versatile or off-hand. It makes sense, though.

Historically, they were lighter and less dependent on the weight of the blade than a longsword and thus wouldn't benefit greatly from having the extra force of a second hand behind it. Longswords were as much dependent on the jarring force of the blow as it was sharpness of the blade.
 

I'm not sure why so many people focus on realism in D&D. Those same people don't tend to complain, in my experience, about a wizards ability to shoot magic missiles at his foes. I expect most would agree that historically, that didn't happen?
 

Actually, if it helps at all folks, I might shed a little light on bastard swords.

A bastard sword was originally just known as a hand-and-a-half sword. The grip was longer than a normal one-handed sword, but to wield it two handed required the gripping of not only the remaining grip, but of the pommel as well.

It was actually not often weilded two handed, but could be for situations that merited it, usually hacking down foliage.

Because of the discomfort with using it two handed, plus the fact it never really met the standard design of a one hander or a two hander, it eventually was called a bastard sword because it was the "bastard child" of a marriage of the two sword types.

The statement above that people didn't use them and shields at the same time is false - they were most commonly used with the other hand consumed with something else.

When used two handed, they were hefted (in D&D terms, slashing).

When used one handed, they were used more like an Epee (rapier).

They were also one of the first swords that featured a blade guard that curved down behind the fingers - but not to protect the fingers. It was actually used to grip the sword half-sideways in order to be able to quickly slash something one handed without breaking your wrist.

And there folks, is more than you ever wanted to know about bastard ...

... swords
 

Remove ads

Top