Pathfinder 1E Would a baseball bat be considered a greatclub or a club?

[Dannyalcatraz]

While that's true, the normal use of a baseball bat is 2-handed - although they clearly can be used 1-handed if need be. This puts them closer to the katana, which is effectively a masterwork bastard sword. So I think Neonagash's analogy is a good one.

That's because the normal use of a bat is to hit a baseball or softball traveling 60-105MPH with nobody attacking you. There is zero advantage to using it one-handed for this purpose because it costs you power and control. This is ESPECIALLY true when bunting or if you're trying to not "come around" on a swing. Almost impossible to do without both hands.

Even even if you were using a smaller club in a baseball game, you'd use it the same way. See stickball (as well as spaldeen/fungo). Traditionally, it has been played using a broom handle, but there are manufactured bats for it: 1 yard long and 16oz. And they're still used with 2 hands for the same reasons- power & control.

As a weapon, the bat is perfectly fine in length, balance and mass to use with one handed with shield or with a hand free for grasping/grappling, and requires no special training to use in that way.

 

[neonagash]

Interesting, could you put more into this? Do you think using it in one hand should be it's own feat, and what do you think the damage should be?

Hmm, I'd call it d6 one handed, D8 two handed. I wouldnt make it a feat though. The thing is one of the simplest weapons in the world and even two handed its still inferior to other two handed weapons. Tacking a feat tax onto it on top of that seems excessive for the payoff.

 

[The Crimson Binome]

While that's true, the normal use of a baseball bat is 2-handed - although they clearly can be used 1-handed if need be.

The normal use of a long sword is in two hands. The only time you would use it in one hand is if you really needed your other hand open for something (or possibly for some more advanced combat maneuvers).

 

[delericho]

The normal use of a long sword is in two hands.

Not in D&D/Pathfinder. The weapon those games call a "long sword" is a one-handed weapon, and almost exclusively used that way. If that means that those games are using the wrong name for something, well, it wouldn't be the first time.

That's because the normal use of a bat is to hit a baseball or softball traveling 60-105MPH with nobody attacking you.

This (and the bit I've left out for brevity), however, is a good point.

 

[The Crimson Binome]

Not in D&D/Pathfinder. The weapon those games call a "long sword" is a one-handed weapon, and almost exclusively used that way. If that means that those games are using the wrong name for something, well, it wouldn't be the first time.

The thing that the game calls a "long sword" is a sword which can be used in either one or two hands, exactly like the real-world langschwert. The thing it calls a "club" can be used in either one or two hands, exactly like the real-world baseball bat.

In both cases, the game rules fail to properly incentivize using it in two hands, but it would be odd to suggest that they translate one more faithfully than the other. After all, the real benefit of the baseball bat is that it allows for a full-strength Power Attack - which is, coincidentally, one of the few occasions where someone in Pathfinder might seriously consider using a long sword in two hands.

 

[delericho]

The historical langschwert would be better modelled in D&D/Pathfinder as a bastard sword. Because:

the game rules fail to properly incentivize using it in two hands

It is, indeed, an oddity that the historical longsword is better modelled using some other weapon, but there it is.

In both cases, the game rules fail to properly incentivize using it in two hands, but it would be odd to suggest that they translate one more faithfully than the other.

Indeed. Ideally, the game would introduce a broadsword where the longsword currently sits and then redefine the longsword to sit where the bastard sword is presently. Though I suspect the customer base would reject such a move.

Of course, another way to look at it is that these are all just labels. Indeed, because of differences in the height and weight of various characters, what would be a longsword for one might be a bastard sword for another, and could even be a greatsword for a third - after all, the range of human heights ranges from 4'7" right up to 6'6" (and weight from 95lbs to 220lbs).

So, there's an argument for leaving the weapon definitions somewhat flexible - a character who finds a "bastard sword" in treasure can choose to make a one-off one-step redefinition of the weapon to suit himself. Of course, that approach works best if there are no 'gaps' in the weapon selection - so we have short sword - something - longsword - bastard sword - greatsword. And the same for weapons in the 'club' family.

Ultimately, I don't much care if a baseball bat is a club, a greatclub, or something else - that exact weapon won't appear in any D&D I ever run anyway. But I am at a loss as to what possible harm could come about from introducing a "bastard club" martial weapon to fill in that gap?

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

There isn't- 3.5Ed had the Maul, which was exactly that. Same 1hd exotic/2hd martial mechanics, slightly different damage, & blunt.

 

[Puxido]

Would the baseball bat have anything special on it like disarm, trip, monk, reach or blocking?

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

Not a bat, I wouldn't think.

Now, a baton with an offset handle would be better for disarms/trips:

http://www.copsplus.com/prodnum1593.php

 

[Puxido]

Would a cricket bat act as a baseball bat for proficiency and statistics?