Alternate ranger combat styles
Jasin Zujovic
the default TWF and archery?
I remember someone predicting a polearm style as the first homebrew
style, and I have a polearm-using ranger (OK, a shugenja with one level
of ranger, but still), so: what feats would be appropriate for a polearm
style? Combat Reflexes would be nice, if you have the Dex. But beyond
that, nothing really springs to mind.
How about this new feat:
[name?] [GENERAL]
Prerequisites: BAB +1
Benefit: You can treat a polearm [is this precise enough? should it list
the weapons one by one?] as a double weapon, with one head dealing damage
as normal for the weapon, and the other dealing damage as a quarterstaff
(1d6, x2, bludgeoning). The "quarterstaff head" can be used against
adjacent foes (only).
Special: If want to attack with both heads in the same round, normal TWF
penalties apply. A fighter may select [the feat] as one of his fighter
bonus feats.
Of course, in a campaign using this, the DM should allow polearms to be
enchanted as double weapons, each head separately.
Also, would it be unbalanced to just allow ranges to pick a feat from a
list (consisting mostly of fighter feats plus some other appropriate
stuff like Self-Sufficient, Diehard &c.) at 2nd, 6th and 11th?
--
Jasin Zujovic
jzuj...@inet.hr
Marc
> Has anybody given any thought to combat styles for rangers, other than
> the default TWF and archery?
There is the halberd style, still in existence in our world. Feats would
include: Improved Trip, Improved Disarm, Hold the Line.
--
Marc -- No comment
Marcq
proposals. If you put a little thought into it, you can come up with a
proposal that is as sensible as the baseline rules.
One proposal had to do with substituting feats appropriate for a crossbow in
place of a bow (many shot didn't seem as sensible for a crossbow and rapid
reload, while of suspect real-world mechanics, seemed more useful than rapid
shot at level 2 ;-)
Marc
--
http://www.four-hands.com/marcs_stuff.htm
Donald Tsang
>Has anybody given any thought to combat styles for rangers, other than
>the default TWF and archery?
The first thing I thought of was "Wrestling". One could get (say)
Improved Unarmed Strike, (the +4 feat for) Grappling, and Improved
Trip...
But then I realized that the 3.5e Monk already gets those.
Some sort of "Brawling/Wrestling" track does seem appropriate, though.
Shades of Paul Bunyan, Davy Crockett, and Heracles... maybe if we added
Lasso and/or Whip to the weapons available to the "Cowboy" Style, it'd
be different enough from the Monk to warrant including?
Donald
James Quick
Jasin Zujovic <jzuj...@inet.hr> wrote:
> Has anybody given any thought to combat styles for rangers, other than
> the default TWF and archery?
>
> I remember someone predicting a polearm style as the first homebrew
> style, and I have a polearm-using ranger (OK, a shugenja with one level
> of ranger, but still), so: what feats would be appropriate for a polearm
> style? Combat Reflexes would be nice, if you have the Dex. But beyond
> that, nothing really springs to mind.
BTW, that was me on the polearm style.
Here is my take on it.
The first level of combat style gives both the Archer and the TWF an
extra attack at -2. Your new feat (slightly changed below) does the
same. Good Fit.
Haft Strike [GENERAL]
Prerequisites: BAB +1
Benefit: You can treat any 2-handed reach weapon that has a haft
(Glaive, Guirsame, Lance and Ranseur) as a double weapon, with one
head dealing damage as normal for the weapon, and the other dealing
damage as a quarterstaff (1d6, x2, bludgeoning). The "quarterstaff
head" can be used against adjacent foes (only).
Special: If want to attack with both heads in the same round, normal
TWF penalties apply, though the weapon is treated as a light weapon
for purposes of determining any penalties. A fighter may select [the
feat] as one of his fighter bonus feats.
> Of course, in a campaign using this, the DM should allow polearms to be
> enchanted as double weapons, each head separately.
Yes, of course.
For Improved Combat Style he gets either Manyshot or Improved 2-weapon
fighting. This is effectively another bonus attack. I would part ways
here, and give him something that makes a little better sense. I think
a feat that gives him a bonus to AC when fighting with a hafted weapon
would work (similar to 2 Weapon defense). This is to represent that he
is using the haft of the weapon to block attacks. I would make it a +2
bonus, however.
Finally, for Combat Style Mastery he gets either Improved Precise Shot
or Greater 2 weapon Fighting. This either ignores cover or grants
another attack. I would go with an ability that grants him a bonus
with special maneuvers. +4 when both tripping and disarming seems good.
In fact, you could grant Combat Expertise at 2nd level (perhaps with a
special note that he gets a +1 AC bonus all the time), Improved Feint
at 6th, and both Improved Disarm and Improved Trip at 11th (This
granting of 2 abilities is to compensate the polearm fighter for the
fact that the archer & TWF get feats they could not have taken prior
to gaining them as a class ability (assuming a single-classed ranger),
the polearm tree grants abilities that have lower prerequisites.
> Also, would it be unbalanced to just allow rangers to pick a feat from a
> list (consisting mostly of fighter feats plus some other appropriate
> stuff like Self-Sufficient, Diehard &c.) at 2nd, 6th and 11th?
That would seem ok for a Ranger who desires no Combat Style, or who
wants to fight with a great or bastard sword, or sword and shield, or
whatever. It's a little less desireable, IMO, than making a deliberate
path for them.
--
James Quick [][][] jamesqu...@hotmail.com
Profanity is the first resort of the inarticulate motherfucker.
-- Elizabeth D. Brooks, among others.
Bradd W. Szonye
>> Has anybody given any thought to combat styles for rangers, other than
>> the default TWF and archery?
James Quick <JamesQu...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> The first level of combat style gives both the Archer and the TWF an
> extra attack at -2. Your new [polearm] feat (slightly changed below)
> does the same. Good Fit.
Agreed.
> Haft Strike [GENERAL]
>
> Prerequisites: BAB +1
>
> Benefit: You can treat any 2-handed reach weapon that has a haft
> (Glaive, Guirsame, Lance and Ranseur) as a double weapon ...
No longspear? (Editorial error, I'm guessing.) Why not all hafted
weapons, or at least all polearms and spears?
> Special: If want to attack with both heads in the same round, normal
> TWF penalties apply, though the weapon is treated as a light weapon
> for purposes of determining any penalties. A fighter may select [the
> feat] as one of his fighter bonus feats.
As written, the ranger would have -4 to hit with both ends, worse than a
TWF ranger's -2 with a quarterstaff. I'm not sure, but also it seems to
"fill in" the threatened area of a reach weapon, so that you threaten
the outer circle with the head and the inner circle with the butt. Does
the extra benefit balance the extra penalty? I'm not sure, but this
seems more like a "flavor" option than a "power" option to me.
> For Improved Combat Style he gets either Manyshot or Improved 2-weapon
> fighting. This is effectively another bonus attack. I would part ways
> here, and give him something that makes a little better sense.
What about Improved Haft Strike, which gives one more attack and reduces
the penalty to -3? Greater Haft Strike could give a third butt attack
and reduce the penalty to the usual -2. Too powerful?
> I think a feat that gives him a bonus to AC when fighting with a
> hafted weapon would work (similar to 2 Weapon defense).
A defense bonus with hafted weapons seems totally inappropriate to me.
Except for the quarterstaff, they're *not* parrying weapons -- not even
HK action heroes use them that way, in my movie-watching experience.
>> Also, would it be unbalanced to just allow rangers to pick a feat
>> from a list (consisting mostly of fighter feats plus some other
>> appropriate stuff like Self-Sufficient, Diehard &c.) at 2nd, 6th and
>> 11th?
> That would seem ok for a Ranger who desires no Combat Style, or who
> wants to fight with a great or bastard sword, or sword and shield, or
> whatever. It's a little less desireable, IMO, than making a deliberate
> path for them.
Agreed. Each path should have a specific set of feats.
--
Bradd W. Szonye
http://www.szonye.com/bradd
Geoffrey Brent
> A defense bonus with hafted weapons seems totally inappropriate to me.
> Except for the quarterstaff, they're *not* parrying weapons -- not even
> HK action heroes use them that way, in my movie-watching experience.
I may be misreading Silver, but he seems to make some mention of it:
http://www.pbm.com/~lindahl/brief.html
eg:
*****
Of the fight of the morris pike against the like weapon.
Cap. 14.(60)
1. If you fight with your enemy having both morris pikes with both
points of your pikes forewards, low upon the ground, holding the butt
end of the pike in one hand single with knuckles upwards & the thumb
underneath, with the thumb & forefinger towards your face & the little
finger towards the point of the pike, bearing the butt end of the pike
from the one side to the other right before your face, then lie you with
your arm spent & your body open with your hand to your right side with
your knuckles downwards & your nails upwards.
Or you may lie in that sort, with your hand over to the left side with
your knuckles upwards & your nails downwards, whereby all your body will
be open, if then he shall suddenly raise up the point of his pike with
his other hand & come thrust at you, then in the mounting of his point
or his coming in, suddenly toss the point of your pike with your hand
single & so thrust him in the legs with your pike & fly out therewith.
Or else you may stand upon your ward & not toss up your point but break
his thrust by crossing the point of his pike with the middle of your
pike by casting up your hand, with the butt end of your pike above your
head, & so bearing over his point with your staff, to the other side as
for example.
*****
See also http://www.fireandsword.com/torch/torchlejeudelahache.htm
(translation of a 15th-century text),
http://www.thehaca.com/spotlight/NotesLEJEUDELAHACHE.htm (includes some
illustrations of poleaxe parrying), and
http://www.the-exiles.org/Article%20Le%20Jue%20de%20la%20Hache%20Lesson.htm
for more discussion of polearm technique. A hafted weapon certainly
wouldn't be my first pick for parrying, but the medieval writers
certainly seem to have advocated some polearm parries.
Jasin Zujovic
> > Special: If want to attack with both heads in the same round, normal
> > TWF penalties apply, though the weapon is treated as a light weapon
> > for purposes of determining any penalties. A fighter may select [the
> > feat] as one of his fighter bonus feats.
>
> As written, the ranger would have -4 to hit with both ends,
Wouldn't it be -4/-8 (if you didn't get TWF as a regular feat)?
> worse than a
> TWF ranger's -2 with a quarterstaff. I'm not sure, but also it seems to
> "fill in" the threatened area of a reach weapon, so that you threaten
> the outer circle with the head and the inner circle with the butt. Does
> the extra benefit balance the extra penalty? I'm not sure, but this
> seems more like a "flavor" option than a "power" option to me.
Hm. The point of my feat wasn't actually the extra attack (although, you
can use it with TWF); it was the "natural" reach effect, being able to
attack both opponents 10 ft. away and 5 ft. away.
> > For Improved Combat Style he gets either Manyshot or Improved 2-weapon
> > fighting. This is effectively another bonus attack. I would part ways
> > here, and give him something that makes a little better sense.
>
> What about Improved Haft Strike, which gives one more attack and reduces
> the penalty to -3? Greater Haft Strike could give a third butt attack
> and reduce the penalty to the usual -2. Too powerful?
Perhaps. Makes Haft Strike + Improved Haft Strike + Greater Haft Strike
the same as Haft Strike + TWF + Improved TWF + Greater TWF.
> >> Also, would it be unbalanced to just allow rangers to pick a feat
> >> from a list (consisting mostly of fighter feats plus some other
> >> appropriate stuff like Self-Sufficient, Diehard &c.) at 2nd, 6th and
> >> 11th?
> >
> > That would seem ok for a Ranger who desires no Combat Style, or who
> > wants to fight with a great or bastard sword, or sword and shield, or
> > whatever. It's a little less desireable, IMO, than making a deliberate
> > path for them.
>
> Agreed. Each path should have a specific set of feats.
Agreed, mostly, but I was thinking of a ranger who fights with a bastard
sword. I tried thinking about which feats could emphasize the bastard's
sword "versatility", can be used both one-handed and two-handed and all
that, and nothing really comes to mind. The feats a bastard sword wielder
takes are Weapon Focus, Power Attack, EWP... just the regular feats.
Although, if 3.5 had a feat similar to the 2E one-handed style mastery
(if you have a free hand, you get a bonus to AC), you could give rangers
EWP, Power Attack and the AC feat. If the ranger needs defense, he uses a
one-handed grip (AC bonus from the feat), if offense: two-handed (Str x
1.5 and, more importantly, two-handed Power Attack).
But how much sense would that feat really make? How does having a free
hand help you AC? Balance, perhaps? How plausible is that (I really don't
know much about RL combat)?
What about bucklers? Can you use a two-handed weapon if you're wearing a
buckler (and you're ready to forfeit the buckler's bonus for the round)?
Still, the best route for a buckler-and-bastard ranger would probably be
TWF, taking EWP at 1st and Improved Shield Bash at 3rd, rather than a new
style.
--
Jasin Zujovic
jzuj...@inet.hr
Robert FISHER
> Hm. The point of my feat wasn't actually the extra attack (although, you
> can use it with TWF); it was the "natural" reach effect, being able to
> attack both opponents 10 ft. away and 5 ft. away.
This is what I'm thinking of (which might be equivalent to what you or
someone else has said, but I'm rephrasing it my own way): With any
hafted reach weapon, you can make a 1d6 attack against an opponent 5'
away. It counts as an off-hand attack. If you want to use it with TWF,
it counts as a light weapon.
Should you need a feat to do this? I dunno.
All of which has nothing to do with ranger combat styles. (Since I
haven't switched to 3.5 yet.)
> But how much sense would that feat really make? How does having a free
> hand help you AC? Balance, perhaps? How plausible is that (I really don't
> know much about RL combat)?
Using it one handed also allows you to turn your body so that your
shoulders are more parallel to the direction of your attack. This makes
you a smaller target and moves more of you farther from your opponent.
Of course, if you're facing multiple opponents, it might only help you
against one opponent. You could say you only get the bonus to AC vs. one
opponent per round--like the dodge feat. Or not.
In any case, in D&D the plausibility of it wouldn't really bother me. I
suspect that, in reality, the reason for weilding a bastard sword two
handed is to have better control rather than to do more damage. Yet D&D
(once you get the EWP for using it single handed) says you choose to
weild it two handed in order to do more damage. (Although, I suppose I
could counter argue that having more control would lead to doing more
damage...)
I like this a lot. Although bastard swords may be well balanced vs.
other weapons currently, I think they really need something else to make
them more attractive to players.
--
Robert FISHER Robertus PISCATOR
valete et gratias vobis pro piscibus omnibus agimus
(Replies via email are presumed spam.)
(Responsa per cursus publicum electronicum praesumuntur sagnationes.)
Jasin Zujovic
> > Hm. The point of my feat wasn't actually the extra attack (although, you
> > can use it with TWF); it was the "natural" reach effect, being able to
> > attack both opponents 10 ft. away and 5 ft. away.
>
> This is what I'm thinking of (which might be equivalent to what you or
> someone else has said, but I'm rephrasing it my own way): With any
> hafted reach weapon, you can make a 1d6 attack against an opponent 5'
> away. It counts as an off-hand attack. If you want to use it with TWF,
> it counts as a light weapon.
>
> Should you need a feat to do this? I dunno.
Probably. IME, polearms are pretty nice weapons as it is.
> > But how much sense would that feat really make? How does having a free
> > hand help you AC? Balance, perhaps? How plausible is that (I really don't
> > know much about RL combat)?
>
> Using it one handed also allows you to turn your body so that your
> shoulders are more parallel to the direction of your attack. This makes
> you a smaller target and moves more of you farther from your opponent.
>
> Of course, if you're facing multiple opponents, it might only help you
> against one opponent. You could say you only get the bonus to AC vs. one
> opponent per round--like the dodge feat. Or not.
>
> In any case, in D&D the plausibility of it wouldn't really bother me. I
> suspect that, in reality, the reason for weilding a bastard sword two
> handed is to have better control rather than to do more damage. Yet D&D
> (once you get the EWP for using it single handed) says you choose to
> weild it two handed in order to do more damage. (Although, I suppose I
> could counter argue that having more control would lead to doing more
> damage...)
>
> I like this a lot.
What do you mean? Improving the options for the bastard sword wielder?
> Although bastard swords may be well balanced vs.
> other weapons currently, I think they really need something else to make
> them more attractive to players.
Well, I think they're attractive enough to the weapon-and-shield
fighters. They've got feats to spare, and +1 to damage is +1 to damage.
But I like bastard swords and I dislike shields, so I'm always looking
for a good game-mechanical reason for a character to use a bastard sword
two-handed or one-handed without a shield. (Bladesingers work for the
latter, if you allow them to use bastard sword, which I did for a shade
bladesinger NPC.)
--
Jasin Zujovic
jzuj...@inet.hr
Wayne Shaw
wrote:
>Has anybody given any thought to combat styles for rangers, other than
>the default TWF and archery?
>
I've thought of both pole-weapon and single weapon styles, but both
require creation of nonstandard feats to support them; I have a few of
the former, but not the latter.
>[name?] [GENERAL]
>
>Prerequisites: BAB +1
>
>Benefit: You can treat a polearm [is this precise enough? should it list
>the weapons one by one?] as a double weapon, with one head dealing damage
>as normal for the weapon, and the other dealing damage as a quarterstaff
>(1d6, x2, bludgeoning). The "quarterstaff head" can be used against
>adjacent foes (only).
I have a rules similar to this; I call the feat "Pole fighting".
Bradd W. Szonye
> I have a rules similar to this; I call the feat "Pole fighting".
You may want to killfile Hong for about the next 24 hours.
Ian Sturrock
<jzuj...@inet.hr> writes
>Has anybody given any thought to combat styles for rangers, other than
>the default TWF and archery?
I came up with a few for The Quintessential Ranger (Mongoose
Publishing). I was especially happy with the shortstaff style, to give
a Little John archetype to counterbalance all those Robin Hoods. :)
As a DM though I wouldn't mind allowing players to come up with their
own, based on more or less any combo of feats, so long as they had some
kind of vague connection. I don't think there's any especial risk of
powergamey combos, at least, not ones that are any more powerful than
the archery style as it's written. I'd be concerned to ensure that the
three feats chosen were connected just for flavour reasons.
--
"Every winner is a villain, every loser is a hero. Just put on your two step
shoes and lose the blues. . . and dance like it's year zero. . ." (Alabama 3)
Ian Sturrock
<jzuj...@inet.hr> writes
>Agreed, mostly, but I was thinking of a ranger who fights with a bastard
>sword. I tried thinking about which feats could emphasize the bastard's
>sword "versatility", can be used both one-handed and two-handed and all
>that, and nothing really comes to mind. The feats a bastard sword wielder
>takes are Weapon Focus, Power Attack, EWP... just the regular feats.
You could look into Talhoffer's _Medieval Combat_, which has a great
section on the hand-and-a-half sword. I only picked up a copy recently,
so I didn't respond to your earlier post about the versatility of 1H/2H
bastard sword use, but you could base feats around such things as:
Half-swording -- this is where you hold the bastard sword by the handle
in one hand, and by the blade in the other (some have a leather ricasso
here so you get a better grip) and use it like a spear. It would enable
piercing attacks and more importantly let you set the weapon against a
charge.
Reversed Sword -- here you reverse the sword, hold the blade, and use
the guard like a hammer or hook! This would allow bludgeoning attacks
(maybe at x3 or even x4 critical, instead of 19-20/x2) and also give you
bonuses to trip and disarm with the weapon held this way (it's used to
hook a weapon in one illustration).
Murder-Stroke -- this is basically a power attack variant with a
reversed sword, where you put all your effort into making a single
attack down onto your enemy's skull with the guard. Make it a
full-round action for one attack, but it should be pretty devastating if
it connects.
Too tired to write these up as proper feats right now I'm afraid, but
I'm sure someone could give it a go.
Geoffrey Brent
> You could look into Talhoffer's _Medieval Combat_, which has a great
> section on the hand-and-a-half sword. I only picked up a copy recently,
> so I didn't respond to your earlier post about the versatility of 1H/2H
> bastard sword use, but you could base feats around such things as:
[techniques snipped]
These are interesting techniques, but a bit more detailed than the usual
abstraction of the combat system - probably better covered by existing
feats than by adding new ones.
IMHO, a character who knows Reversed Sword would be better represented
by giving him Improved Disarm and/or Improved Trip, and if a proficient
character can fight with a bastard sword in a 5' wide corridor he
probably already knows about half-swording. Maybe alter the damage type
to slash/pierce.
Most of the rest concerns specific bludgeoning techniques. This might be
better represented with a more general feat, eg (feel free to nitpick):
Bludgeon. PR: BAB +1 or better, proficient with a martial weapon. By
striking with guard, haft, or pommel, you can use a weapon that normally
delivers slashing or piercing damage to deliver crushing damage instead.
Reduce the weapon's normal damage by one step (d8 to d6, d6 to d4,
etc...) and reduce criticals to 20/x2. Possibly add the option to use it
while grappled.
Alternately, allow *any* character to bludgeon as above (perhaps
provoking an AoO), and make the feat Improved Bludgeon, with a bonus on
the attack and negating the AoO.
This leaves it as a rather weak attack, mainly useful against DR/crush,
but apart from situations where damage type is important I don't think
it's desirable to make a bastard sword more efficient as a club than as
a sword. The grappling option would make it a lot more useful as a feat,
and perhaps adding Power Attack as a prereq would improve balance here.
Bradd W. Szonye
> You could look into Talhoffer's _Medieval Combat_, which has a great
> section on the hand-and-a-half sword. I only picked up a copy
> recently, so I didn't respond to your earlier post about the
> versatility of 1H/2H bastard sword use, but you could base feats
> around such things as:
>
> Half-swording --
> Murder-Stroke --
Which of these techniques are used exclusively with the bastard sword,
and which are also used with greatswords or broadswords?
Jasin Zujovic
> >Has anybody given any thought to combat styles for rangers, other than
> >the default TWF and archery?
>
> I came up with a few for The Quintessential Ranger (Mongoose
> Publishing). I was especially happy with the shortstaff style, to give
> a Little John archetype to counterbalance all those Robin Hoods. :)
Could you tell us a bit more? I thought quarterstaff was covered OK with
TWF, if you house rule quarterstaff as an acceptable weapon. Worse than
twin shortswords, but not by much.
...
Actually, I've just checked, and I've noticed I can no longer find the
double weapon restriction in the ranger's description. Insteresting.
Didn't notice it before.
> As a DM though I wouldn't mind allowing players to come up with their
> own, based on more or less any combo of feats, so long as they had some
> kind of vague connection. I don't think there's any especial risk of
> powergamey combos, at least, not ones that are any more powerful than
> the archery style as it's written.
Yeah, that was my thinking too. Archery is pretty good!
> I'd be concerned to ensure that the
> three feats chosen were connected just for flavour reasons.
So would I, if I allowed a ranger to pick his own feats. But that's easy
for the creative player, just like justifying new +2/+2 feats.
--
Jasin Zujovic
jzuj...@inet.hr
Ian Sturrock
<bradd...@szonye.com> writes
>Ian Sturrock <i...@ty-gath.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>> Half-swording --
>> Reversed Sword --
>> Murder-Stroke --
>
>Which of these techniques are used exclusively with the bastard sword,
>and which are also used with greatswords or broadswords?
Hard to say. The only place I've seen most of them is Talhoffer, and he
is referring specifically to the hand-and-a-half sword. However,
there's loads of other fechtbuchs out there, not all of them so easily
available.
Certainly I've seen examples of actual greatswords with ricassos though,
and have heard of them being used with half-swording. I could imagine
it's possible -- though I don't have any evidence either way -- that the
reversed sword technique would be more difficult the longer and heavier
the sword is. Your hand-and-a-half sword is significantly easier to
play around with than your greatsword, for just those reasons of size
and weight -- so though it would doubtless be possible to reverse the
grip on a greatsword, I'm certain it would take longer and be more
awkward (standard action rather than free action, maybe).
Geoffrey's point that these are rather specific techniques is well taken
though. Personally I don't mind this too much, though it can result in
feat bloat I suppose. The thing is, though, that allowing this kind of
versatility into already powerful D&D weapons like the longsword,
bastard sword and greatsword does mean one has to think about game
balance, and the easiest way to balance out extra capabilities for
weapons is to mean you have to spend a feat to get 'em. . . and there is
some precedent for feats that can only be used with certain weapons due
to the physical mechanics of the weapon anyway (manyshot is only for
bows, rapid reload only for crossbows etc). So maybe the way forward is
to allow one or two feats that could let the user use these techniques
with any of the weapons you mentioned.
Ian Sturrock
<jzuj...@inet.hr> writes
>Could you tell us a bit more? I thought quarterstaff was covered OK with
>TWF, if you house rule quarterstaff as an acceptable weapon. Worse than
>twin shortswords, but not by much.
Ah, well, I wanted a more historical style of quarterstaff, where one
holds one end and uses the incredible leverage of the thing to bash in
skulls with the other end, rather than the D&D/Hollywood version of
using it like a 'double weapon.' (Admittedly the latter does have some
historical provenance, but it's a relatively late development, used for
stage-gladiator fights rather than military combat). So I came up with a
new weapon, shortstaff, which is really just a different way of using a
quarterstaff. A lot of this is based on material in Terry Brown's
excellent _English Martial Arts_ and on George Silver, who reckoned the
staff to be the best all-round weapon -- a condition that didn't seem to
be reflected in its D&D use.
Of course, this is all side-by-side with the standard D&D quarterstaff
rules, so it's an extra option rather than a replacement. I favour a
reasonable degree of historical authenticity WRT weapons in my own
games, but I recognise that D&D in itself is actually better suited to a
more Hollywood style of play anyway -- which is no bad thing.
>> I'd be concerned to ensure that the
>> three feats chosen were connected just for flavour reasons.
>
>So would I, if I allowed a ranger to pick his own feats. But that's easy
>for the creative player, just like justifying new +2/+2 feats.
Definitely, and of course the best options from a power-play perspective
-- say, Power Attack, Cleave, Great Cleave, or Combat Expertise,
Improved XX and Improved YY -- are also the easiest to justify. Again,
I don't think this is a bad thing. I like the new ranger, I think it's
very well balanced, but I doubt it's the first choice for a powergamer.
That said, I might be more inclined to refuse a player the chance of
devising his own feat progression if I thought he just planned to dip
into Ranger for two levels!
Robert FISHER
> Robert FISHER wrote:
>>
>>I like this a lot.
>
> What do you mean? Improving the options for the bastard sword wielder?
>
Sorry. I was unclear. I meant specifically that I like the AC bonus for
using a bastard sword single handed, as it meets my general desire of
improving the options for the bastard sword wielder.
Wayne Shaw
<bradd...@szonye.com> wrote:
>Wayne Shaw <sh...@caprica.com> wrote:
>> I have a rules similar to this; I call the feat "Pole fighting".
>
>You may want to killfile Hong for about the next 24 hours.
Oh, I can ignore him easily enough when he's just being a smartass.
It's when he's trolling and I don't initially figure it out that I
find him irritating.
Bradd W. Szonye
> But I like bastard swords and I dislike shields ....
I just don't get this. Oh, well, no accounting for taste!
> ... so I'm looking for a good game-mechanical reason for a character
> to use a bastard sword two-handed or one-handed without a shield.
Well, first I'd try looking for a good realistic reason for it. Which
seems pretty difficult, since there isn't much point in leaving a hand
empty in medieval combat. It might make sense if you want to use the
off-hand for spellcasting, but you can do that with a light shield too.
Jasin Zujovic
> > But I like bastard swords and I dislike shields ....
>
> I just don't get this. Oh, well, no accounting for taste!
I guess I'm just weird that way.
> > ... so I'm looking for a good game-mechanical reason for a character
> > to use a bastard sword two-handed or one-handed without a shield.
>
> Well, first I'd try looking for a good realistic reason for it. Which
> seems pretty difficult, since there isn't much point in leaving a hand
> empty in medieval combat. It might make sense if you want to use the
> off-hand for spellcasting, but you can do that with a light shield too.
What about using both hands on the bastard sword? Is there any reason IRL
to do that, a opposed to buying a greatsword? Better control in some way,
because it's lighter...?
--
Jasin Zujovic
jzuj...@inet.hr
Hong Ooi
Oy. Since when have I done anything to deserve this? I am wounded,
grievously!
--
Hong Ooi | "Does *anyone* at WOTC bother to
ho...@zipworld.com.au | _think_ when making housecat stats?"
http://www.zipworld.com.au/~hong/dnd/ | -- MSB
Sydney, Australia |
Ian Sturrock
<bradd...@szonye.com> writes
>Well, first I'd try looking for a good realistic reason for it. Which
>seems pretty difficult, since there isn't much point in leaving a hand
>empty in medieval combat.
The only reason I can think of is to grapple your opponent. Even then,
though, this is more likely to be part of a specific move where you let
go of the hilt with one hand, keep hold with the other, and grapple with
the hand with which you've let go of the sword.
A quick look at Talhoffer again shows something like that -- Plate 7,
"The swordsman on the left captures his opponent's sword. The
illustration depicts the chap on the left with his hand-and-a-half sword
raised up behind his head as though for a downward strike, held in his
right hand. His left arm and hand are around the sword-handle and hands
of his opponent, locking them against his (the grappler's, not the
grapplee's) side. Plate 11 has another grappling move, where one
combatant "shoves his opponent away by grasping him round the elbow."
Plate 10 has a non-grappling move in which only one hand is on the
sword. It looks like the attacker is getting a bit of extra reach by
swinging the sword one-handed by the pommel (or as the text puts it
"throwing the sword suddenly outward), in a low horizontal arc.
How one would convert any or all of this to game terms is another
matter, of course. The first two are probably best represented by
Improved Grapple and Improved Overrun, though I guess one could allow
benefits to the latter with another feat, so long as the user had a hand
free at the time -- seems a bit weak for a feat. I suppose a feat might
allow one to use the Plate 10 trick as a means of turning a bastard
sword into a reach weapon, but this would be debatable since its reach
is clearly not as great as a greatsword's even if the latter is held
two-handed.
Perhaps the best way, if the O.P. likes prestige classes, is to
incorporate a number of the bastard sword tricks into a specific bastard
sword one/two-handed super-versatile-guy. That way you can give out
moves as class features which would be too weak and/or specific to use
as feats.
Wayne Shaw
wrote:
>On Thu, 04 Sep 2003 19:42:21 GMT, Wayne Shaw <sh...@caprica.com> wrote:
>
>>On Wed, 03 Sep 2003 23:06:14 GMT, "Bradd W. Szonye"
>><bradd...@szonye.com> wrote:
>>
>>>Wayne Shaw <sh...@caprica.com> wrote:
>>>> I have a rules similar to this; I call the feat "Pole fighting".
>>>
>>>You may want to killfile Hong for about the next 24 hours.
>>
>>Oh, I can ignore him easily enough when he's just being a smartass.
>>It's when he's trolling and I don't initially figure it out that I
>>find him irritating.
>
>Oy. Since when have I done anything to deserve this? I am wounded,
>grievously!
Yes, yes, have a cookie and settle down.
Bradd W. Szonye
>> Well, first I'd try looking for a good realistic reason for it. Which
>> seems pretty difficult, since there isn't much point in leaving a hand
>> empty in medieval combat. It might make sense if you want to use the
>> off-hand for spellcasting, but you can do that with a light shield too.
Jasin Zujovic <jzuj...@inet.hr> wrote:
> What about using both hands on the bastard sword? Is there any reason
> IRL to do that, a opposed to buying a greatsword?
You're specialized in the bastard sword, and you don't always have a
shield handy, perhaps? Or your shield gets sundered?
Louis
Without a shield you can do that cool posing thing where you hold your
sword above your head but still pointed at your target and hold your
off-hand out in front of you in the 'stop' or guard postion. (Usually
while crouching for extra 'style' effect)
Experts: (Cause we all know you think you are) Does this have any
real-world advantage? Is it a good position to launch many different
attacks from or is it pure HongKong/Hollywood?
Yeah, a real solid game reason to use a sword one-handed without a shield.
2e had an optional specialization in the CFHB where you could get an AC
bonus for using a sword one handed. However, they even acknowledged that
there was no real-world precedent for this. It's just so people could
look cool in the game and still get a benefit for specializing in the
first of the four main 'armed' fighting styles.
Finally you can use thieves cant in the off hand to intimidate your
opponent by prominently displaying your middle finger.
http://www.google.ca/search?q=Middle+Finger
-Louis
Gary Johnson
: Without a shield you can do that cool posing thing where you hold your
: sword above your head but still pointed at your target and hold your
: off-hand out in front of you in the 'stop' or guard postion. (Usually
: while crouching for extra 'style' effect)
: Experts: (Cause we all know you think you are) Does this have any
: real-world advantage? Is it a good position to launch many different
: attacks from or is it pure HongKong/Hollywood?
If you're fighting with single-edged swords (such as katanas), you can try
and grab the opponent's swordblade with your palm against one side and
your fingers hooked around the blunt back edge of the sword and pressing
against the other side. If it works, you've got a great opportunity to
injure or kill your opponent while their sword is pinned. If the opponent
twists their sword in time, your hand will be injured. You may still kill
your opponent, but at the cost of an injured hand.
Cheers,
Gary Johnson
--
Home Page: http://www.uq.net.au/~zzjohnsg
X-Men Campaign Resources: http://www.uq.net.au/~zzjohnsg/xmen/start.htm
Fantasy Campaign Setting: http://www.uq.net.au/~zzjohnsg/selentia.htm
Bryan J. Maloney
>
>: Without a shield you can do that cool posing thing where you hold
>: your sword above your head but still pointed at your target and hold
>: your off-hand out in front of you in the 'stop' or guard postion.
>: (Usually while crouching for extra 'style' effect)
>
>: Experts: (Cause we all know you think you are) Does this have any
>: real-world advantage? Is it a good position to launch many different
>: attacks from or is it pure HongKong/Hollywood?
It's a position from which one can easily defend against a downward blow
and from which one can launch a powerful cut. Anything else requires
moving the body and using the force of the pivot to power a strong cut
from above. Looks spiffy, but I wouldn't trust my life to it. But D&D is
all about "looks spiffy".
Bradd W. Szonye
>>> Special: If want to attack with both heads in the same round, normal
>>> TWF penalties apply, though the weapon is treated as a light weapon
>>> for purposes of determining any penalties. A fighter may select [the
>>> feat] as one of his fighter bonus feats.
> Bradd W. Szonye wrote:
>> As written, the ranger would have -4 to hit with both ends,
Jasin Zujovic <jzuj...@inet.hr> wrote:
> Wouldn't it be -4/-8 (if you didn't get TWF as a regular feat)?
I guess so. I'd need to look it up to be sure.
> Hm. The point of my feat wasn't actually the extra attack (although,
> you can use it with TWF); it was the "natural" reach effect, being
> able to attack both opponents 10 ft. away and 5 ft. away.
OK, that makes sense. In D&D 3.0, I used to assume that rangers were all
about flexibility (TWF removes penalties for an exotic style), but in
D&D 3.5 they're pretty obviously about speed and stealth, so I assumed
that it was a "speed feat" like TWF.
>> What about Improved Haft Strike, which gives one more attack and
>> reduces the penalty to -3? Greater Haft Strike could give a third
>> butt attack and reduce the penalty to the usual -2. Too powerful?
> Perhaps. Makes Haft Strike + Improved Haft Strike + Greater Haft
> Strike the same as Haft Strike + TWF + Improved TWF + Greater TWF.
Right. In the long run, I think the Haft Strike path is a little better,
but early on it's not quite as good. Dunno if that's a good idea -- "pay
now, get awesome power later" is an AD&D design that D&D3 has mostly
tried to abandon.
> But how much sense would that feat really make? How does having a free
> hand help you AC? Balance, perhaps? How plausible is that (I really
> don't know much about RL combat)?
I strongly dislike the "free hand gives you better AC" idea. While it's
not unreasonable to come up with a benefit for one-handed styles, better
AC seems like an exceptionally silly choice of benefit. Better
grappling, disarming, bull-rushing, &c make sense, because they can make
use of that free hand. But better AC? How does a free hand make you
better at dodging?
Ian Sturrock
<bradd...@szonye.com> writes
>I strongly dislike the "free hand gives you better AC" idea. While it's
>not unreasonable to come up with a benefit for one-handed styles, better
>AC seems like an exceptionally silly choice of benefit. Better
>grappling, disarming, bull-rushing, &c make sense, because they can make
>use of that free hand. But better AC? How does a free hand make you
>better at dodging?
I think people think of it as somehow improving one's balance when
fencing if held up behind the fencer, though research and experiment by
Terry Brown (_English Martial Arts_) suggests that it gives little if
any benefit and that there are better positions for the free hand (he
recommends holding it over the solar plexus, where it can be used both
to guard against attacks to the vulnerable stomach and for grappling).
However, if one is looking for a more cinematic than 'realistic' style
of game, it might be appropriate to allow it. The movie swashbuckler,
after all, always has one hand free yet never gets hit! Spurious,
maybe, but it would look good in the movie. . .
Geoffrey Brent
> What about using both hands on the bastard sword? Is there any reason IRL
> to do that, a opposed to buying a greatsword? Better control in some way,
> because it's lighter...?
Requires less room to use effectively?