|Paizo Pathfinder® Paizo Games|
|About Paizo Messageboards News Paizo Blog Help/FAQ|
So if I have a bonus to my Trip checks from Improved Trip, I don't get the +2 bonus to my roll when I try using a SBS to render the opponent flat-footed? After all, I'm only using the Trip mechanics, I'm not actually trying to trip them. Nor do I get the +2 bonus from Greater Trip and my ability to trip the target in such a way that it opens them up for an AoO doesn't translate into snagging their clothes in such a way that lets me get an extra attack in? So why call it out as a Trip at all? But if it is a trip, in all ways, would the target being prone, allegedly rendering them "untrippable", also render them immune to Trip checks to impose conditions other than Prone?
As you can see, neither bonus would work if to "trip a foe" is defined as succeeding at a trip attempt and them going from standing to prone. And, in that case, why designate it as a Trip check in the first place? Why not just say make a combat maneuver roll? It seems that they want any bonuses that apply to a Trip attempt to apply equally to this special trip attempt, therefore "trip a foe" cannot possibly equate to succeeding at a trip check and knocking them from not prone to prone.
Query: If I used a Seven-Branch Sword, I could make a trip attempt against a target and, instead of rendering them prone as a result, I can choose to render them flat-footed instead. Can I not do this if they are prone and, if so, why? If I succeed at this, can I not make an AoO via Greater Trip and, if so, why not?
Hmm, well I'll be damned. Never noticed the special on Silent Spell before. So I guess that sets the precedent; any spells the Bard casts via his own Spells class ability have a verbal component which can be satisfied by singing, recitation, or playing an instrument, even if it doesn't normally have such a component. So if you have a way to add spells from some other list to your own spell list, you must use a verbal component and if a spell only on the Bard list lacks a verbal component, the Bard must use one anyway even though someone else taking the spell from the Bard list doesn't have the same obligation.
Ditch GTWF and take Double Slice instead. GTWF for one attack at -10 is, largely, not worth the opportunity cost. So remove that from your build and replace it with Double Slice and you're set.
Something to consider; the Bastard Sword is an example of weapon balance in action. It has too much weight in the blade for such a short, light hilt; it's essentially a Greatsword blade on a Longsword Hilt. To compensate, the pommel (the little dooblie-do at the end of the handle) is made big and heavy to serve as a counter-balance to the weight of the blade. If you re-handled a Katana or Wakizashi so that it was a Medium blade with a Small grip, you'd have to compensate for the shift in balance by adding a large pommel at the end of the hilt to bring the balance back.
Now, how the Bastard Sword in the game represents this is that if you aren't trained to know how that counter-balance works, you'd probably swing a Bastard Sword around as if it were just a Greatsword with a wimpy hilt (if you lack EWP, you cannot one-hand it because you don't understand the whole counter-balanced center of gravity principal). But once you learn to easily manipulate that center of gravity, it takes less effort to wield and you can flip it around in just one hand. The Katana already has a principal like this so maybe go a step farther and say that this modified Katana, which you'd normally need EWP(Katana) for a Halfling to wield it as a 2-h weapon anyway, either cannot be wielded until he takes something along the lines of Weapon Focus or maybe even with the alteration, he still suffers the -2 to attack until he takes Weapon Focus because he's swinging it around as if it were a Nodachi/Dai-Katana rather than a Katana with an altered hilt. For the Medium Wakizashi with the hilt altered in such a fashion, he could treat it the same way as you'd normally treat a Katana; he can wield it under Martial as a two-hander but needs EWP to treat it as a one-hander. But, mind you, all these are, essentially, close to houserules. There are no codified rules for how you'd "alter" a weapon in such a manner, but the rules don't exactly say that you can't, either.
By that logic, a Bard cannot use the Silent Spell metamagic for his spells.
I agree. It seems that all you need to do to "prime" Medusa's Wrath is make an unarmed strike, regardless of whether there is a valid target on whom to use the two extra attacks. If a target is made valid mid-process, they're fair game.
I don't know, I have run out of ways to tell you this. You can't wield an oversized two handed weapon. This feat does not change that.
Once again... this is a false assertion. There is no rule anywhere that states you can't wield an oversized two-handed weapon. What the rule states is that if the change of effort required to wield the weapon would step up or down to anything beyond the scope of light, one-handed, or two-handed, you can't wield it. You are not stepping an Earthbreaker, wielded one-handed via T&F, from two-handed; you're stepping it from one-handed. If you have T&F, you can treat a Colossal Earthbreaker as a one-handed weapon; but a Medium creature can't wield a Colossal one-handed weapon so that doesn't do you much good. A Medium creature can, however, wield a Large one-handed weapon.
The Bastard Sword is, absolutely, a parallel situation just as much as the two lanes of a street are parallel even if one is north-bound and the other is south-bound. You understand that wielding a Large Bastard Sword two-handed because it's a Large one-handed weapon and must be wielded two-handed does not qualify for the requirement of the item to be wielded two-handed if you lack EWP.
Now, I've been more than nice up until this point, but I really must say that your actions here disrespect me, all the other members of this forum, and the designers who work hard to bring us a well made game system. You flagrantly disregard the very basic principals of logical parity in a system. As such, I've already made an official request to have you removed from this thread, but I'll make one last request, here, to have you put down the act voluntarily. I won't offer rebuttals anymore, but will simply indicate for the benefit of any new participants in the thread that your views are incorrect and have been demonstrated incorrect previously in the thread, so that they won't be mislead by disinformation.
Guess what... the general rule is that anyone can wield an exotic weapon and the EWP feat only means they don't take a -4 hit to attack for it. The BS just is exceptional in that you can't even wield it with -4 if you lack EWP. Treating it as a 2-h Martial weapon doesn't mean you can only wield it if you have general Martial proficiency. Anyone from a Wizard to a Fighter can wield a Bastard Sword as a 2-h Martial weapon; they just take a -4 penalty if they lack blanket martial proficiency.
But the main crux is that you seem to understand what "wield as a two-handed weapon" means in the context of a Bastard Sword. You seem to understand that wielding a large one that is treated as a two-handed weapon doesn't qualify in and of itself; you must have the capacity to treat it as the one-handed weapon it is rather than being obligated to treat it as the two-handed weapon it isn't and that the size step applies to what you actually have the capacity to wield it as. But you casually dismiss that information just because it runs in the opposite direction with the Earthbreaker. You claim it's different, but it isn't; 2 + 3 = 5 is the same mathematical expression as 5 - 2 = 3 but what you are doing amounts to claiming that it is fundamentally different and what applies to one doesn't apply to the other. It is ridiculous, disinformative, and possibly even disingenuous.
So what happens if drive to the store and pick up groceries, then drove home to find out that my wife also picked up those same groceries? Was my trip not successful because I picked up a redundant set of groceries?
You need to understand exactly what is meant, mechanically speaking, by "two-weapon fighting". What it lets you do is exceed your normal BAB allowance of attacks. If you are at +11 BAB, you have 3 iterative attacks. These attacks can be made with any combination of the weapon(s) you have available to you. With three weapons, you could make one attack with each of the three, two with one and one with a second leaving the third one idle, or all three attacks with any one of the three weapons. So long as you stay to your normal allowance of attacks, you are not two-weapon fighting; all the attacks get full Str to damage and you suffer no penalties other than the usual decreasing BAB order.
When you Two-Weapon Fight, you're taking on a penalty to your attack rolls in order to make an extra attack beyond what you'd normally be allowed to do. And it's very specific in its application; you must pick one weapon to use as your off-hand weapon and, regardless of what other weapons you may potentially have available, only your designated off-hand weapon can make your extra TWF attack(s). You could have a million different weapons available to use, but you still only get one standard off-hand attack while two-weapon fighting, plus on additional for having each of ITWF and GTWF.
For all purposes concerning wielding it. As far as physical qualities of the weapon (ie. HP, using special materials, whether it can be a Black Blade, etc), it has to be considered a one-handed weapon in its own right. But a Magus using T&F to wield an Earthbreaker one-handed now qualifies to use said Earthbreaker as his designated weapon during Spell Combat which requires that you wield a light or one-handed weapon. Normally, an Earthrbeaker wouldn't qualify; but it does if you have an ability that lets you wield it one-handed.
J Mnemonic wrote:
It says "The aegis can use weapons designed for a creature one size larger without penalty." That just means you ignore the -2 for using a large weapon as a medium creature, you would still need 2 hands to use a one handed large weapon.
The size-step is counted as a penalty just as the numeric attack penalty as precedented by the Redcap. The Redcap is a small Fey with the Heavy Weapons ability which allows it to "wield Medium weapons without penalty". Its stat block gives it a Medium Scythe and Scythes are 2-h weapon. Normally, a Small creature couldn't wield a Medium 2-h because size step would take it up one step to "unwieldable" but by allowing the Redcap to wield a Scythe one size too big, it indicates that "without penalty" includes both the attack penalty and the change in effort to wield. By contrast, Titan Mauler's Massive Weapons specifically calls out only reducing the "attack roll penalty" which doesn't include altering the size-step penalty.
So the plan is a-go.
I understand your point, I do
No, you don't. That has been made abundantly clear by your insistence against it despite the fact that is logically sound and backed up by facts while yours is based on facetious assertions. If you really understood it, you'd drop your position and correct your interpretation the matter. The fact that you don't indicates that you either don't understand it or you are purposefully pursuing a point that you know very well to be incorrect and presenting it to mislead others that may come to the thread looking earnestly for a correct interpretation. And, if the second option, you're violating the primary rule of the forum... don't be a jerk. So, as I said, if you really fail to understand, I'll try to make it clear but that involves work on your part too. And if you really do understand my point, quit derailing the thread.
Using the weapon differently doesn't change the fact that it's a two-handed weapon... but size step rules don't care. Size-steps for inappropriately sized weapons work off the effective effort to wield, whether it matches the weapon or is different due to some specific rules element. A Tiny Earthbreaker is still a two-handed weapon; but the rules state that it only takes light effort for a Medium creature to wield a Tiny Earthbreaker. Likewise, a Medium Dagger is a light weapon and a Huge Dagger is also a light weapon. But, for a Medium creature to wield a Huge Dagger, it takes two-handed effort. It even applies for a properly sized weapon. A Medium Longsword is a one-handed weapon so a Medium creature takes one-handed effort to wield a one-handed weapon. If the effort it takes to wield the weapon were an inherent, fixed property of the weapon itself, it would preclude any possibility of having feats or abilities that change the effort it takes at all. There would not be any Jotungip, Quarterstaff Master, Thunder and Fang, etc.; they could not exist within the mechanical bounds of the system.
It does, actually, but in a round-about manner. Unless otherwise specified, any attack with a melee weapon gets d20+BAB+Str+Other Modifiers. That's standard. The -5 for your second iterative or your ITWF would fall under Other Modifiers.
@haX: In a mechanical system, where you have terms of significance, and where the difference between the terms "in" and "as if" has been clearly illustrated via FAQ to be different and distinct in the context of the Pathfinder System, your argument falls flat. You cannot ignore shades of meaning when they have significant impact. You are stuck on the idea that using a weapon differently, in a way one wouldn't normally be able to use it, can't translate into using a larger version of that weapon. In some cases, it can't, but those cases are explicitly spelled out, as with Jotungrip.
An Earthbreaker, by default, is a two-handed weapon. It doesn't matter what size it is or what size you are, its default category is two-handed. Thunder and Fang allows you the option to change that category from Two-Handed to One-Handed. Again, doesn't matter what size you are or what size it is. So now it's a one-handed Earthbreaker. Now you start looking at size and you only look at the size category of the weapon and your own size category. If it's a Medium weapon and you're a Medium creature, no size change is required. If you are a Large creature and it is Medium, you're wielding a one-handed weapon stepped down by one step to light. If it's Large and you're medium, you're wielding a one-handed weapon stepped up by one step to two-handed. It's just that simple; no muss, no fuss.
Just as how a Pistol-Dagger is a 1-h firearm that happens to also function "as if it were" a dagger (with the usual mechanical stats taken from Dagger), the Buckler Gun is a 1-h firearm that happens to also function "as if it were" a buckler. It would look something like this. Since it's listed as a 1-h firearm and not a 2-h firearm, it can be presumed you fire it with just the one hand. So basically, view it not as a Buckler in the normal sense you'd think of a Pathfinder Buckler, but more like a Tekko-Kagi that "can be used defensively as a buckler". So it's not a "real" buckler, just a firearm that can spoof the +1 AC of one.
Bucklers don't interfere with using firearms so that is a non-issue.
Lastly, since it doesn't call out any special rules as with the dagger-pistol or axe-musket or what-not, I'd say that you just make the firearm masterwork and that has nothing to do with the buckler at all.
That's to disguise yourself as a generic human, mind you, not a specific person. So the only practical benefit you're getting is the class skill. It is the only trait that seems to offer that particular benefit that I could find, but that still seems a pretty steep price to pay; both your Social and Race trait slot for just treating Disguise as a class skill?
It doesn't sound like you readily understand what "trip" means. Just because I grab you to get leverage doesn't make it a grapple. Most trips involve more than just a foot sweep; you actually have to manhandle the target and push them over a fulcrum to lever their center of gravity. Grapple means I grab hold and don't let go.
Regarding your hypothetical ability that lets you functionally act like a snake or an ooze, that's a special property of the ability. It sound to me like it's granting an exception; While using this ability, you can move around without hindrance while prone and cannot be tripped.
Because of a keen understanding of syntactical significance. For example, I could say, "I will drive to the store and get groceries." I may get to the store and find it closed unexpectedly; but that doesn't negate the fact that I drove there.
It sounds to me like it's analogous to the way Bracers of Armor function if you're wearing regular armor. If your Bracers give a higher armor bonus, then the mundane armor, along with any special ability enhancements, is completely suppressed. To illustrate, if you had a +5 Bracers of Armor and a +3 Fortified Chainmail, the fortified would be shut off in the presence of the +5 bonus from the Bracers. That implies that the Fortified effect is "riding" on the +3 bonus; it's part of the +3. So if the +3 doesn't apply, the Fortified, which is a part of the +3, also doesn't apply. It stands to reason, then, that this principal would extend to getting armor enhancement bonuses from multiple sources. The Keen, Flaming Burst, et. al. are "part of" the +1 weapon enhancement bonus on the shield. If you have two options for Enhancement Bonus, +1 (with a bunch of effect riders) or a +5 (via Shield Master), you only apply one since they don't stack. So if you want the benefit of the riders, your attack with the shield is, functionally, only +1.
Can you slither on your back? Is your morphology such that you can either move just as easily flat on your back as you can on your stomach or standing up or, at least, make it a non-action to adjust your position? An Ooze has no distinct top or bottom; it can move around just as easily regardless of it's orientation. A Snake is shaped such that it can always be in a position to move around for negligible effort.
If you're lying flat on your back, arms akimbo, and I grab your arm and lever you over onto your front, I've just tripped you, according to the game, because I beat your CMD. At the same time, that moment that I tripped you and started turning you over, I plant my knee into your spleen. This was no accident; since I have Greater Trip, I flipped you over in a prescribed manner to expose a spot I could easily attack.
To put it another way, you get 2 traits and can pick one trait from any given category (Social, Race, Magical, etc). Normally, you can spend one trait on your Race trait selection and pick from only your own race. Or, you can spend it on a Social trait (Adopted) which lets you pick a race trait from any other race at the cost of your Social trait (so you can't take any other Social trait along with Adopted).
As you can use a Long Sword with two hands, this feat allow you to use a specific two handed weapon in one hand. I see no difference in this comparison, but somehow one means one thing while the other does not?
No, you're still conflating terminology. You can wield a Longsword with two hands. Hell, you can wield a dagger with two hands, it's just that there's no mechanical benefit for doing so. In neither case does the weapon become two-handed. But Thunder and Fang lets you wield the Earthbreaker one-handed; not in one hand but one-handed which is a completely different animal. Now, for all practical purposes, you count an Earthbreaker as a one-handed weapon. That means a Medium Earthbreaker requires one-handed effort to wield and a Large Earthbreaker, one size category larger, steps up from one-handed to two-handed. Seriously, it's not rocket surgery.
You've got to divorce the size category from the handiness category. A Longsword is always a one-handed weapon, whether it's size category is Fine, Medium, or Colossal. The size category just designates the size of creature it was designed for. And the rules say that you change the effort for you to wield by one step for each step of difference between your size category and the weapon's size category. The Earthbreaker, with the Thunder and Fang feat, is counted as a one-handed weapon. That's not size-limited so any sized Earthbreaker is counted as a one-handed weapon; from a Fine to a Colossal. Then you determine how much effort it takes to wield a one-handed weapon of whatever size variant you pick up based on how many sizes difference between you and the weapon. If it's Medium and you're Medium, it is zero steps, so it takes one-handed effort to wield the one-handed weapon. If you're Small, it takes two-handed effort. If you're Large, it takes light effort. If it's Small, it also takes light effort. If it's Large, it takes two-handed effort.
PS: Do you even know what the word Semantics means? You say "semantics" as if the difference in meaning is inconsequential. That is the very root of your inability to comprehend this very simple issue... unless you're being willfully ignorant. In which case, quit trolling the thread.
Jacob Saltband wrote:
In both cases, they would not provoke an AoO because technically, in both cases, no roll takes place. Even if your character doesn't realize ahead of time that the target cannot be tripped, all they've done is spent their action economy on a squandered attack; little different than swinging a mundane Longsword at an incorporeal creature. Both "too big" creatures and creatures immune to tripping simply veto your attempt outright. But no such protection extends to a character that just so happens to be prone. For creatures without legs, being prone has practically no meaning; it's simply a non-issue for them. It doesn't render them vulnerable as it would a person used to walking on their legs. It's that momentary vulnerability of being placed in a vulnerable position that opens up the opportunity for you to attack; it doesn't matter whether or not they started from a similar vulnerable position. If I trip you and kick you on your way down, then flip you over with a judo throw, I'm, again, placing you in a compromising position and get to make a follow-up attack.
No where, anywhere, does it say that a prone creature is immune to trips. Even the FAQ on the matter credits the fact that you can trip an opponent standing up from prone, applying the prone condition redundantly but also pointing out that this doesn't prevent the resolution of the Stand Up action which clears their prone condition.
You cannot use a Longsword, sized properly for you, as a two-handed weapon. You can wield it in two hands, but that's completely different from wielding it two-handed. That's why feats like Power Attack list both two-handed weapons and one-handed weapons wielded in two hands, as separate entities, as qualifying for the increased damage. You're still conflating your terminology.
Swift actions can only be taken on your turn. If the AoO happens outside of your turn (as they typically do), you wouldn't be able to use a swift action. Immediate action, maybe (depending on how the specific ability works), but not just a swift. If the AoO happens during your turn, you can take a swift action if applicable to the situation because it's your turn.
That's very interesting. Could you direct me to where in the rules it says all that? Because I just checked the PRD and it says that, if your roll for the maneuver meets or exceeds the target's CMD, the maneuver is a success. I must have missed all that stuff you just listed. Maybe it was 1 point font or something. And Comic Sans.
Strictly speaking, there is a difference between a Medium Wakizashi and a Small Katana; the size of the hilt. A Medium Wakizashi has a hilt designed for a medium creature to grasp so it would be overly thick in the hands of a Halfling (the -2 to attack). Even if you just shave it down (something rather unfeasible given the location of the tang), that alters the relative balance of the weapon so you've gained nothing. It's flavorful, but you're going to take that -2 hit either way. One way around it would be to dip Titan Mauler as Massive Weapons lets you reduce the attack penalty for oversized weapons. But that will hamper the progress of your Challenge. Instead of making yourself hit harder, maybe make the target easier to hit? Shatter Defenses will render them flat-footed so pick it up, along with Corrungun Smash.
Unless it's just a clarification due to the obvious confusion one might make to a weapon's "effect that activates on a critical hit" being a type of critical hit or how you'd adjudicate it against a creature that is normally immune (and for which you wouldn't normally bother confirming the crit). No such issue exists with Trip because a successful trip is self-evident based on the rules; it's successful when you overcome the target's CMD.
Keep in mind that Elemental Touch isn't a touch spell; it has a range of Personal, not Touch. So it won't work with Spellstrike. It's more of a personal buff; the buff being the ability to make a touch attack. That means it's also not subject to Holding the Charge rules so if you cast Elemental Touch first, you can follow up with something like Frostbite or Chill Touch and deliver both with a single touch or unarmed strike (though, as stated, ET can't be delivered via Spellstrike).
Large equipment must not be very dense. An earthbreaker twice the size of a 13 lb medium earthbreaker should weigh 4 times as much. Or is it 8 times as much?
Those are the rules for enlarging a creature; doubled in each dimension is 8x the weight because 2^3 = 8. The rules on items state that a Large version is twice the weight while a Small version is half the weight, grading out from there to the other size categories.
Jacob Saltband wrote:
Where exactly does it say that flaming burst still goes off on a critical hit even if the creature is immune to crits? Is that a FAQ somewhere?
Magic Weapons and Critical Hits: Some weapon special abilities and some specific weapons have an extra effect on a critical hit. This special effect also functions against creatures not normally subject to critical hits. On a successful critical roll, apply the special effect, but do not multiply the weapon's regular damage.
I'm pretty sure I brought it up before, but if you want to see how much a typical Earthbreaker weighs, pick up the closest 3 month old baby. That's approximately 13 lbs or so. Tie it to a handle, and you've got yourself a good model for the weight of an Earthbreaker. Take a few swings... don't worry, I'm sure the kid will love it. Now grab yourself another 3 month old. That's 26 lbs, just shy of a Large Earthbreaker. Are you trying to imply you can't swing around a pair of infants by some inherent principal? That, regardless of whatever feat or ability you have, the shear weight of a pair of 3 month old babies is just too much for a muscle-bound fighter or barbarian to manage? Because the assertion that 28 lbs for a Large Earthbreaker is simply inherently too big to swing properly is the fundamental basis of the argument Thax and his ilk peddle here.
@Shfish: I suggest you read the combat section. It says:
If you get multiple attacks because your base attack bonus is high enough, you must make the attacks in order from highest bonus to lowest. If you are using two weapons, you can strike with either weapon first. If you are using a double weapon, you can strike with either part of the weapon first.
It's only the additional attacks granted by base attack bonus that are ordered from highest to lowest bonus. Attacks from TWF are not additional attacks granted by base attack bonus. Neither are attacks from Haste or similar sources of additional attacks above and beyond your BAB allowance. Now, the extra attacks from TWF specifically have their own ordering sequence; you get one at highest BAB as standard. ITWF gives you a second attack with your off-hand weapon. Second means it comes after the first. GTWF, likewise, gives you a third. What was written in the FAQ was detailing the difference between making only your BAB allowance of attacks with two weapons in hand vs using TWF rules to exceed your BAB allowance. To keep it short, it only listed Combinations for TWF attacks rather than Permutations. With two weapons available, you have only two Combinations; Weapon A as main-hand and the other as off-hand or vice versa. But you have many more Permutations, which I took the time to list. So check ya'self 'fore ya wreck ya'self.
Each "hand", individually, must follow its own highest->lowest order, but you can "shuffle" those attacks as you see fit. Note that when I say "hand", I mean the attacks you associate with your main-hand and off-hand; a boot blade can be wielded in one of your "hands".
To illustrate, say you have a Longsword and a Dagger. You designate your dagger as your off-hand and you have +12 BAB and ITWF for two off-hand attacks. You have 3 iterative attacks for your main-hand which must be taken in BAB order, and two off-hand attacks which, independently, must be made in decreasing order. So your possible attack permutations are as follows:
Longsword +10/Lognsword +5/Longsword +0/Dagger +10/Dagger +5
Note how, in each routine, no higher-BAB Longsword attack comes later than a lower-BAB one and the BAB-5 off-hand from ITWF never occurs before the BAB off-hand you get standard. So long as you keep to that order, you're fine.
I just can't get it out of my head every time I read this thread; O'Reilly's interview of Stephen Colbert.
"You know what I hate about people who criticize you (O'Reilly)? They criticize what you say but they never give you credit for how loud you say it." -Stephen Colbert
Case in point, if the target is immune to critical hits, you can still still benefit from a weapon that procs an added effect on a critical hit (ie. Flaming Burst) as the target is only immune to the added weapon damage from the critical hit. But if the creature were immune to "melee attacks", then you couldn't even make an attack on them which precludes any possibility of a "potential crit". Same goes for Trips; Immune to Trip and Immune to Prone are two very different things.
Effectively, yes. If you gave a Fine creature (with hands to wield a weapon) some feat or other ability that lets him disregard any and all size step changes and treat all weapons as if they were sized properly for him, he could wield a Colossal Greatsword just as easily as he could wield a Fine Greatsword. That is absolutely what we're saying.
Moreover, if the feat lets you treat an Earthbreaker as a Light weapon (two handiness categories down), then you could wield a Large Earthbreaker as a One-Handed weapon and a Huge Earthbreaker as a Two-Handed weapon. Gargantuan Earthbreakers would still be right out. If you had that, in combination with a feat that lets you count as one size category larger in determining how you wield a weapon, then you count yourself as a Large creature instead of the Medium creature you actually are. That would mean that a Large weapon is zero steps different for you and you could wield the Large Earthbreaker as a Light weapon, a Huge one as a 1-h, a Garg one as a 2-h, and a Colossal one is too big for you.
It's similar to the difference between getting +2 Natural Armor Bonus to AC and getting a +2 Enhancement Bonus to your Natural Armor. Furyborn takes whatever Enhancement bonus is on your weapon (+3 in this case) and increases it by 1. The total value of your "real" enhancement bonus (not including equivalent bonuses like the +2 for Furyborn) stops at +5. So it would look like this:
That's all. If you started with a +1 Furyborn AoMF, it would look like this:
An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure. Being GM is a demanding job and you really have to know your game. If there are some confusing aspects that you choose to dispense with, that's all fine and dandy, but make sure that it is abundantly clear to all your players. At the same time, don't just pitch those aspects into the bin completely. Work at them and try to understand them. I can say that I really understand where this guy is coming from and I'd be pretty pissed off if rules elements I'm used to dealing with were suddenly cut off just because the GM doesn't understand them. It's like buying a car and finding out that the radio only picks up AM signal and not FM; it's pretty standard to expect FM on a modern radio so if it falls short of that, it's something you really should be informed of in advance.
Secondly, I also understand his insistence on playing RAW obsessively. After all, it is a system that was designed by professionals and tends to work best when used properly. If you're going to make replacements and substitutions, you've got to think like a designer when doing so and if you're just flippantly making changes "on the fly", it tends to screw up the balance of the system which is understandably aggravating to other players; especially those with a high degree of system mastery.
Third, keep in mind that while, as GM, you have a certain responsibility and job in the game, you are still just another player. It should never be viewed as "GM vs Players". You still need to make judgement calls, but weigh all your options in doing so. If someone in the game has demonstrably better system mastery than you do, that is a tool available for your benefit. If you're right about the system 60% of the time and he's right 90% of the time, don't let that 10% where he's mistaken provide undue weight against his information because you're 4 times as likely to be wrong given the sample numbers here. Unless you're absolutely certain he is mistaken and know that particular rule in detail, defer to the greater system mastery as a default and double-check later. And make sure he understand this as well; that you're willing to defer to his better judgement in case of a disagreement about how rules work but that doesn't mean that he is in charge of the game; he's just acting as Secretary of Rules Mastery and you are the President (also, keeping in mind, the President is still a citizen just like anyone else).
Regarding his behavior aside from dealing with rules, it's probably a good idea to institute some kind of Parliamentary system by which people have fair turns to declare their actions. Essentially, you want to systematize and codify how people declare and resolve their actions so that everyone has a fair chance for input without needing to just talk over everyone. Here's an example:
GM: Ok, the guard stops you and asks to see your travel permit. Would anyone like to declare an action?
Same goes for things like combat. Ask for a declaration of action first, then ask if anyone has a response action that can respond to such a declaration. Then determine the result of the initial action and check again if anyone has a response to the determination phase. Lastly, resolve the action and apply any results thereof, again asking for response actions. Basically, if someone wants to speak, they need to be "recognized by the chair." and are given a limited opportunity to speak. If anyone wants to interrupt, they can give some kind of signal (ie. raise their hand) and the "chair" (you) will decide where it's appropriate to interrupt the speaking character for the new speaker to talk.
That's sort of why. It imposes a stat tax for using complicated shield maneuvers that would likely involve a higher degree of dexterity to pull off. But keep in mind that permanent ability score bonuses can help you qualify for feats so if he picks up a dex-boosting item, that can cover the deficiency.
I picture it sort of like a big, burly guy doing a rap battle with their opponent for which their opponent is woefully unprepared for. He all of a sudden starts rapping insults to his opponent interlaced with thinly veiled threats and flexing the whole while and the opponent is, understandably, confused because rap battles aren't supposed to exist in the context of this fantasy world.
So why doesn't a Large Bastard Sword qualify for wielding the Bastard Sword two-handed? As a medium creature, you can only wield a Large Bastard Sword two-handed. As you say, size doesn't matter. So, while it takes a non-proficient wielder two hands worth of effort to wield a Medium Bastard Sword, that same effort can easily wield a large one twice the size because you are still "wielding it two-handed". It doesn't say you must wield a Bastard Sword appropriately sized as a two-handed weapon, does it? For that matter, I could consider any Bastard Sword a two-handed weapon because it doesn't specify size. Huge Bastard Sword? I'll wield it as a two-handed martial weapon. Gargantuan Bastard Sword? Two-handed martial weapon. Colossal Bastard Sword? Two-handed martial weapon. It's always a two-handed martial weapon for me regardless of size difference because it says I must wield it as a two-handed martial weapon. If the effective effort to wield the Earth Breaker using T&F doesn't factor into the size equation, then neither does the effective effort to wield the Bastard Sword. So, in that case, the Earth Breaker says you can wield it as a one-handed weapon. It doesn't matter whether it's a fine Earth Breaker or a colossal one; it's a one-handed weapon all around. You know, while we're being ridiculously pedantic.
The crux of the matter is understanding the difference between the source of a bonus, the value of a bonus, and the type of a bonus. The source is what allows you to apply said bonus. Sometimes, it's a feat or ability. Power Attack is the source of the bonus that it adds to your damage rolls. Power Attack is free to activate before you make your attack, but you can't claim to activate it 10 times and claim 10x bonus because it would be a bonus from the same source. In other cases, the source are basic rules on the matter. The Combat rules governing default damage calculation are the source for adding your Strength Modifier to your damage rolls.
The value of the bonus is just how much it is. The value of the Power Attack bonus is spelled out in the feat text and the value of your normal Strength bonus to damage is equal to your Strength Modifier, sometimes multiplied by a factor.
The type is the categorization of the bonus. Mostly, they also don't stack same type. So, even if you have bonuses from different sources, if they are also the same type and those types don't stack, you only use the best one.
So you normally get a bonus equal to your Str modifier (value) from Da Rulez (source) as an untyped bonus (type) added to your Combat Maneuver roll. Agile Maneuvers lets you change the value from Str to Dex, but the source remains the same; Da Rules concerning that specific thing. Fury's Fall (source) lets you add your Dex (value) as an untyped bonus (type) to your maneuver rolls. So we have bonuses from two different sources (Da Rulez and the Fury's Fall feat) that have the same value (Dex modifier) and types that don't prohibit stacking (untyped). There are no rules governing where you derive the value of your bonus in regards to stacking.