Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Dykstrav" data-source="post: 5309034" data-attributes="member: 40522">There are two parts to this.Keep in mind, for starters, that weapon nomenclature is a hotly debated topic among historians and military buffs, not to mention LARPers, wargamers, and tabletop RPG enthusiasts. What one person might call a "bastard sword" would be a longsword to some folks, a broadsword to others, and yet still any variety of historical foreign appellations to those who feel that such distinctions are important. There simply is no consensus on the "true" designations for many weapons.In 3E/3.5, "exotic weapon" doesn't mean "originating in a foreign culture." In the requires-feats-to-use sense, it's a weapon that you have to train extensively with to use properly. Bluntly, the game isn't served by having dozens upon dozens of minor variations of common weapons. It's a lot of extra detail (and time spent poring over mostly-the-same options) for minimal return on practical differences when the dice hit the table. I believe that a 3E supplement actually phrased things this way in a discussion about a weapons equivalency table... Maybe the Arms and Equipment Guide? I'll check on that some time.In this sense, it's a nod towards game balance. As others have noted... It's essentially a longsword that deals more damage, sitting between the longsword and the greatsword on the weapons chart. You could use a bastard sword with one hand to do sword-and-board, but at a -2 to attacks, or you could use a two-handed sword and go up to 2d6 damage, or do sword-and-board with a longsword. It affords you more opportunities for interesting tactical options for your character.If you check out historical depictions of bastard swords in use, a great many illustrations depict them wielded with both hands. If you check out historical depictions of the katana, many of them also are wielded with both hands. That seems like a close enough match for me to consider them equivalent for game terms.To take it a step further... Look at a kendo/kenjutsu match some time. Those contestants keep both hands on the weapon most of the time. Sure, you don't have to use both hands to win a fight with it (although some judges may penalize you for technique), but most wielders are going to prefer to keep both hands on the weapon for maximum control and precision, at least when striking with it. In this sense, equating the katana with the bastard sword in D&D makes perfect sense to me. Sure, I can imagine that some warriors can effectively wield it one-handed, but not necessarily every member of the town militia you might encounter on the streets.If you think that requiring a specialized feat to wield it one-handed is "unrealistic" or "penalizes" a character, also consider that the samurai wielded the katana as a mark of social status and prestige, not because of its effectiveness in battle (although it was certainly effective). Also consider that samurai didn't fight with shields, and until Miyamoto Musashi, rarely fought with two weapons. Even to this day, most traditional schools of kenjutsu/kendo teach the use of a single weapon with both hands. What else are they going to use their other hand for? In game terms, you might as well get 1.5 times your Strength bonus to damage as long as you have the hand free anyway, right?</blockquote>

Verification