Bastard Sword question

serleran · Post by **serleran** » Tue Feb 20, 2007 12:54 pm

Well, if you're going to look at these things historically, nearly every longsword would be a bastard sword, or a broadsword. Categorizing them is next to impossible, and many, many weapons have hand-and-a-half hilts... including several museum replicas I own from a wide range of time periods. What that means for the game: nothing.

As to what damage they do: its listed. Normally, if a weapon can be used one or two handed, its one-handed damage has a better die, but its two-handed gets more dice, reduced by one step. For example, if a weapon does 1d6 one-handed, it would do 2d4 two-handed.

Dristram · Post by **Dristram** » Tue Feb 20, 2007 5:46 pm

FWIW, in my game I went the historical route, the long sword IS the bastard sword. The strictly one-handed sword I call the arming sword, or just "sword", which knights commonly use on horseback. I don't have a "broad sword" by name but that damage is what the arming sword does now.

Arming sword: 2d4

Bastard sword: 1d8 one-handed, 1d10 two-handed

Lurker · Post by **Lurker** » Wed Feb 21, 2007 9:56 pm

Quote:
Well, if you're going to look at these things historically, nearly every longsword would be a bastard sword, or a broadsword. Categorizing them is next to impossible, and many, many weapons have hand-and-a-half hilts...

Very true. -History blurp, the true broadsword was called that because it was broad compared to the more popular cut & thrust swords, not when compared to older swords-

Quote:
FWIW, in my game I went the historical route, the long sword IS the bastard sword. The strictly one-handed sword I call the arming sword, or just "sword", which knights commonly use on horseback. I don't have a "broad sword" by name but that damage is what the arming sword does now.

Arming sword: 2d4

Bastard sword: 1d8 one-handed, 1d10 two-handed

I like the naming here much more historical, where does the war sword fallin or would you go with it being the bastard sword?
_________________
"And so I am become a knight of the Kingdom of Dreams and Shadows!" - Mark Twain

Forgive all spelling errors.

Knight Errant & Humble C&C Society Contributor
C&C Society

Dristram · Post by **Dristram** » Thu Feb 22, 2007 12:28 am

Lurker wrote:
I like the naming here much more historical, where does the war sword fallin or would you go with it being the bastard sword?

A "war sword" would be a bastard sword from what I understand. The "long sword" as well would be another name for bastard sword, but sort of.

From what I've learned over many years of interest in swords, the difference between a long and bastard sword would be the bastard sword had a blade as long as a regular sword, except a longer hilt specially designed for one or two hands. The long sword was a generic term for a sword that had a long blade and could be used one or two handed. So, in theory, those swords with slightly longer blades and just plain longer hilts would not be bastard swords, but instead called "long swords". But there were so many damn types and styles of swords made in the medieval era to truly categorize them would be practically impossible.

I chose to ignore the whole "long sword" idea and used the medieval historically used "bastard sword" name for all types of swords used one or two handed.

BASH MAN · Post by **BASH MAN** » Thu Feb 22, 2007 7:38 am

I don't use it as listed at all. I use the Basic D&D version:

1 handed it does 1d6+1

2 handed it is 1d8+1. Essentially, it is a trade off of higher minimum damage for lower maximum damage between longsword and bastard sword in 1 hand. 2-handed, you are better off with a greatsword, sure, but being able to switch between 1 or 2 handed is pretty convenient, I'd say...
_________________
Basic Action Games http://www.bashrpg.com

Check us out for free demos and downloads or visit us onFacebook.

Dristram · Post by **Dristram** » Thu Feb 22, 2007 9:09 pm

All a bastard sword was, was a regular one-handed sword with a hilt designed to allow a second hand. The only thing I can think of for the reasoning is to deliver a more powerful blow. In game terms, the question is, how much more powerful?

So, another way to look at it would be if a sword does something to the order of 1d8 damage, a bastard sword wielded one-handed would also deal 1d8. Then wielded two-handed, maybe a +1 to damage is granted. For C&C, the tradeoff is interesting. Give up a +1 bonus to AC from a shield for a +1 bonus to damage.

Finding a balance between using the sword vs. the bastard sword isn't really appropriate. It seems that once the bastard sword came to light, strictly one-handed swords saw less and less use.

I'd be tempted to have four primary swords in my games:

short sword - 1d6 damage and concealable

war sword - 1d8 damage, +1 damage wielded two-handed

great sword - 1d10 damage, strictly two-handed

two-handed sword - 1d12 damage, -1 to initiative in combat due to its great size

pineappleleader · Post by **pineappleleader** » Fri Feb 23, 2007 3:29 am

Dristram wrote:
two-handed sword - 1d12 damage, -1 to initiative in combat due to its great size

IMHO -1 to initiative is hardly a penalty at all. If you throw "good" dice, you won't even notice the -1.

In one set of 5 box D&D that I have a two-handed sword always goes LAST in a round. The bastard sword went in regular initiative order, even when used two-handed. That was its advantage.

The trade off was between lots of damage and going last, or less (but still respectable) damage and going in regular initiative order.

Few players are willing to give the monsters what amounts to a free swing just so they can use a two-handed sword. With the bastard sword you get to use a two-handed weapon, but don't always have to go last.
_________________
The Blood of Dragons flows through my veins!

Prepare to meet your DOOM!

Kobold battle cry

Dristram · Post by **Dristram** » Fri Feb 23, 2007 3:55 am

pineappleleader wrote:
IMHO -1 to initiative is hardly a penalty at all. If you throw "good" dice, you won't even notice the -1.

I didn't do that to be a large penalty. Just an irritant. One where a tie roll will automatically be a loss for the one with the two-handed sword. I don't add Dex bonuses to Initiative in my games. So any penalty can be felt. FWIW, the scimitar gets a +1 to initiative in combat.

phadeout · Post by **phadeout** » Fri Feb 23, 2007 4:52 pm

I'd just like to note something about the 2-Handed Sword and Initiative.

This sword, was historically (lets say the Scottish version for fighting cavalry) was design to fight those that had a much longer reach and/or were on horse back vs. a footman.

If you make the 2-Handed Sword go last in combat, that defeats it's purpose (to reach you before you can reach me). So you may want to say:

For the 1st Round of combat, 2-haned sword goes first, after that (when melee is closed) you go last.

But then, the same arguments for initiative can be made for many weapons (polearms, spears, pikes, etc).

Dristram · Post by **Dristram** » Fri Feb 23, 2007 5:33 pm

phadeout wrote:
I'd just like to note something about the 2-Handed Sword and Initiative.

This sword, was historically (lets say the Scottish version for fighting cavalry) was design to fight those that had a much longer reach and/or were on horse back vs. a footman.

Yep.

Quote:
But then, the same arguments for initiative can be made for many weapons (polearms, spears, pikes, etc).

I do apply the -1 in my game for pole weapons. I also have a rule where somone with a pole weapon acts as a large creature for purposes of striking first against opponents with smaller weapons, and the two-handed sword counters that, though it does not strike first itself.

BASH MAN · Post by **BASH MAN** » Sun Feb 25, 2007 8:04 am

A lot of people seem fascinated with whether or not bastard sword is unbalanced, allowing someone to do 1d10 dmg as a 1-handed weapon.

What about the godentag-- a weapon that I had never heard of until I got my 2nd printing of C&C this week, but is apparently some sort of spiked mace-- 1d6+3 dmg, 1 handed! A minimum of 4 per hit, and max of 9. Sure, the max is less than a bastard sword, but your chance of rolling max dmg is higher, plus your min is 4! That is without weapon spec. or str bonus.

While we are on the subject of obscure weapons from the 2nd PHB, what the heck is a sleave tangler?

Is a Poniard's +2 bonus to hit, damage, or both against people wearing certain armors?

Also, am I reading it right that the wolf spear gets no special abilities? Is it a typo? The longspear gets x2 dmg vs. a charge and the regular spear is x2 when charging on a mount. I am surprised that the wolf-spear gets no bonus vs. a charging foe, considering that is what it was designed to do-- to stop a charging animal with the crossbar at the base of the blade-- without it, the berserking beast (likely a boar) would fight its way up the spear and maul the wielder.
_________________
Basic Action Games http://www.bashrpg.com

Check us out for free demos and downloads or visit us onFacebook.

Dristram · Post by **Dristram** » Sun Feb 25, 2007 5:53 pm

BASH MAN wrote:
What about the godentag-- a weapon that I had never heard of until I got my 2nd printing of C&C this week, but is apparently some sort of spiked mace--

I thought a godentag, or goedendag, was a 5'-6' two-handed heavy reinforced shaft with a sturdy armor piercing spike on top, used to great effect againt knights in the 1300s. I read of it somewhere in my days of medieval weapon research.

Quote:
I am surprised that the wolf-spear gets no bonus vs. a charging foe, considering that is what it was designed to do-- to stop a charging animal with the crossbar at the base of the blade-- without it, the berserking beast (likely a boar) would fight its way up the spear and maul the wielder.

Oh! The wolf spear is the same as a boar spear? I didn't get that.