I think he was being facetious, mostly. Hero Lab certainly isn't an authority on rules.FWIW, Hero Lab throws a flag if you try to one-hand a bastard sword without the EWP. *flame suit on*Hero lab can have mistakes. I'm betting that it flags it because they feel that is how it works. It doesn't mean that is the correct or incorrect way, merely that there are multiple possible readings of the text. Which is the entire point of this thread.
Does it throw the same flag if you try to one-hand a whip without the EWP?
I just checked the bastard sword in Hero Lab and it doesn't make it red when wielded one-handed without EWP. Are you sure you didn't have a 2nd weapon equipped too?
It also says that a large bastard sword can be used with only the -2 penalty when oversized.
|
I think he was being facetious, mostly. Hero Lab certainly isn't an authority on rules.FWIW, Hero Lab throws a flag if you try to one-hand a bastard sword without the EWP. *flame suit on*Hero lab can have mistakes. I'm betting that it flags it because they feel that is how it works. It doesn't mean that is the correct or incorrect way, merely that there are multiple possible readings of the text. Which is the entire point of this thread.
Does it throw the same flag if you try to one-hand a whip without the EWP?
I just checked the bastard sword in Hero Lab and it doesn't make it red when wielded one-handed without EWP. Are you sure you didn't have a 2nd weapon equipped too?
It also says that a large bastard sword can be used with only the -2 penalty when oversized.
It's on the weapons tab. It doesn't give you a red warning, it just puts a "no-no" sign next to the weapon and if you hover the mouse it says "you don't have the proficiency" or something like that...maybe it did put in a -4 nonproficiency, I don't recall now.
It's on the weapons tab. It doesn't give you a red warning, it just puts a "no-no" sign next to the weapon and if you hover the mouse it says "you don't have the proficiency" or something like that...maybe it did put in a -4 nonproficiency, I don't recall now.
The circle with the line through it is just the nonproficency warning, so you should have been seeing the -4 penalty. It would light up as red if HeroLab detected it as illegal.
|
With this in mind I think the easiest fix would be to change this: "A character can use a bastard sword two-handed as a martial weapon."
In to this: "A character can use a bastard sword as a martial two-handed weapon."
The two different sentences mean different things. This just shows that, in order for the devs to make these weapons two-handed, or to be treated as if they were two-handed (as opposed to one-handed weapons being used in two hands), then they would have to actually change the actual words on the actual paper!
This is beyond the purview of a mere FAQ, and would require an errata.
Even that is making an assumption! These weapons work just fine as one-handed weapons. Nothing is broken. Nothing needs fixing.
Follow up question...
Why do people want to prevent characters from using a bastard sword in one hand without the proficiency? What is lost or gained by preventing it? Why is this same issue not present when using the falcata in one hand without proficiency?
Serious questions. The bastard sword and it's ilk are the only exotic weapons that would be impossible to wield as intended without the proficiency. All other exotic weapons can be used with a -4 penalty, but not the bastard sword, dwarven waraxe or katana. Why?
Big is not really a reason when I can have a 6'6" barbarian with enough strength to lift a car and no EWP with a bastard sword. Would a bastard sword really be to big for him to wield in one hand with a -4 penalty? Really?
For the record, I really wouldn't have any problem with that. I've said that before, but it's buried by now. However, I would have a problem with a nonproficient person two-handing a large bastard sword without taking the penalty.
|
|
For the record, I really wouldn't have any problem with that. I've said that before, but it's buried by now. However, I would have a problem with a nonproficient person two-handing a large bastard sword without taking the penalty.Follow up question...
Why do people want to prevent characters from using a bastard sword in one hand without the proficiency? What is lost or gained by preventing it? Why is this same issue not present when using the falcata in one hand without proficiency?
Serious questions. The bastard sword and it's ilk are the only exotic weapons that would be impossible to wield as intended without the proficiency. All other exotic weapons can be used with a -4 penalty, but not the bastard sword, dwarven waraxe or katana. Why?
Big is not really a reason when I can have a 6'6" barbarian with enough strength to lift a car and no EWP with a bastard sword. Would a bastard sword really be to big for him to wield in one hand with a -4 penalty? Really?
So would I!
But a medium-sized creature with martial weapon proficiency does have all the proficiency he needs:-
A character can use a bastard sword two-handed as a martial weapon.
^ We've been through this. If you're down with a nonproficiency and size penalty, we're on the same page. You're not, so we're not.
Malachi isn't really wrong. He's just treating the words quite literally , just as everyone else is with the whole "No Proficiency, No Stabby" phrase. A valid point, and the only difference between the two is content and subject.
The only issue he ignores is that the text for the weapon description assumes the character is properly sized for the weapon in question, so in that regard, he is wrong.
The exception for this is the Dwarven Waraxe, which specifically states Medium Sized creatures being able to do so, meaning RAW permits characters to walk around with Colossal+ sized Dwarven Waraxes in 2 hands with only -8 to hit, and a slamming 5D8 damage dice. (Vital Strike, ho!)
Of course the RAI for it is complete garbage but let's face it; that's the only way players (and characters alike) are going to appreciate these weapons. (That, and it actually gives the devs more incentive to errata this silliness, since their own RAW supports such concepts.)
|
|
Malachi isn't really wrong. He's just treating the words quite literally , just as everyone else is with the whole "No Proficiency, No Stabby" phrase. A valid point, and the only difference between the two is content and subject.
The only issue he ignores is that the text for the weapon description assumes the character is properly sized for the weapon in question, so in that regard, he is wrong.
The exception for this is the Dwarven Waraxe, which specifically states Medium Sized creatures being able to do so, meaning RAW permits characters to walk around with Colossal+ sized Dwarven Waraxes in 2 hands with only -8 to hit, and a slamming 5D8 damage dice. (Vital Strike, ho!)
Of course the RAI for it is complete garbage but let's face it; that's the only way players (and characters alike) are going to appreciate these weapons. (That, and it actually gives the devs more incentive to errata this silliness, since their own RAW supports such concepts.)
Incorrect on two counts.
First, the rules for using an inappropriately-sized weapon are the rules concerning using weapons of different sizes. These rules never state that special game mechanics within the description of any weapon change in any way when using a weapon of the 'wrong' size, so any 'cannot use it one-handed' remains true at any size, and 'may be used in two hands as a martial weapon' remains true at any size.
The description of a weapon would have to specifically state if weapon size changes things, and if it doesn't, then it doesn't.
Quote the rule which supports your assertion that the rules in a weapon's description alter with size as a general rule applicable to all weapons unless specifically stated otherwise.
Secondly, the limits of which weapons can be wielded at all are not the rules on weapon proficiency (which only assigns a -4 non-proficiency penalty), but the rules on using inappropriately-sized weapons: if it goes beyond light or two-handed, you can't actually use it even if you are proficient.
So, a medium creature absolutely cannot wield a colossal weapon, even if they are proficient with that type of weapon.
|
|
First, the rules for using an inappropriately-sized weapon are the rules concerning using weapons of different sizes. These rules never state that special game mechanics within the description of any weapon change in any way when using a weapon of the 'wrong' size, so any 'cannot use it one-handed' remains true at any size, and 'may be used in two hands as a martial weapon' remains true at any size.
If you're going to try to "school" anyone on what they're doing wrong, make sure you're providing correct information.
The descriptions in the equipment section are absolutely intended to describe weapons, armor, and equipment that is appropriately sized for the user. To think otherwise is about as silly as thinking that a weapon changes its hitpoints based on the number of hands holding it.
Malachi isn't really wrong. He's just treating the words quite literally , just as everyone else is with the whole "No Proficiency, No Stabby" phrase. A valid point, and the only difference between the two is content and subject.
The only issue he ignores is that the text for the weapon description assumes the character is properly sized for the weapon in question, so in that regard, he is wrong.
The exception for this is the Dwarven Waraxe, which specifically states Medium Sized creatures being able to do so, meaning RAW permits characters to walk around with Colossal+ sized Dwarven Waraxes in 2 hands with only -8 to hit, and a slamming 5D8 damage dice. (Vital Strike, ho!)
Of course the RAI for it is complete garbage but let's face it; that's the only way players (and characters alike) are going to appreciate these weapons. (That, and it actually gives the devs more incentive to errata this silliness, since their own RAW supports such concepts.)
Incorrect on two counts.
First, the rules for using an inappropriately-sized weapon are the rules concerning using weapons of different sizes. These rules never state that special game mechanics within the description of any weapon change in any way when using a weapon of the 'wrong' size, so any 'cannot use it one-handed' remains true at any size, and 'may be used in two hands as a martial weapon' remains true at any size.
The description of a weapon would have to specifically state if weapon size changes things, and if it doesn't, then it doesn't.
Quote the rule which supports your assertion that the rules in a weapon's description alter with size as a general rule applicable to all weapons unless specifically stated otherwise.
Secondly, the limits of which weapons can be wielded at all are not the rules on weapon proficiency (which only assigns a -4 non-proficiency penalty), but the rules on using inappropriately-sized weapons: if it goes beyond light or two-handed, you can't actually use it even if...
The text still denotes its treatment as a weapon properly sized to the bearer.
Light, One-Handed, and Two-Handed Meld Weapons: This designation is a measure of how much effort it takes to wield a weapon in combat. It indicates whether a melee weapon, when wielded by a character of the weapon's size category, is considered a light weapon, a one-handed weapon, or a two-handed weapon.
Bolded the relevant part that says the description defaultly treats the weapon as if a character were of the appropriate size. This is why I say that the Bastard Sword doesn't get away with being usable as a colossal weapon.
The Dwarven Waraxe, on the other hand, has text that specifically targets Medium-sized creatures able to use it as a Two-handed Martial Weapon in Colossal size, since the text denotes the handiness does not change for Medium-sized creatures.
(I gotta say, defending the ridiculous RAW in this thread is a lot more fun than disproving it.)
|
|
Response to Malachi on the Sunder thread in order to drag the conversation back over here.
The end result is that a large one is a two-handed weapon for a medium creature.
What? I wasn't referring to a large bastard sword.
Any resemblance between a one-handed weapon which must be wielded in one hand and an actual two-handed weapon is not relevant. What a weapon is does not change with how it is used, even if it must be used in a certain way.
Do you mean "one-handed weapon which must be wielded in two hands and an actual two-handed weapon..."? If the situation is that you have to wield a one-handed weapon in two hands--1.5 STR, +50% to Power Attack, you can't wield a large version of it--how is that in any way different from a two-handed weapon? Call it a one-handed weapon that must be wielded in two hands if you want, but it still functions exactly as a two-handed weapon under those conditions. Am I saying it IS a two-handed weapon? No. Am I saying it gains an additional 5 hp? No. Fine, I'll call it a "one-handed weapon that must be wielded with two hands and acts in exactly the same manner as if you had just said 'wield it as a two-handed weapon'", but I'm sure that would get a little long-winded.
The rules for using a one-handed weapon are so much a part of the rules that using a one-handed weapon in two hands is part of the very paragraph in which one-handed weapons are defined!
Is it really so exciting that it requires an exclamation point?
Meanwhile, weapons are only treated as another category only if the rules specifically say they are, such as where Jotungrip says that two-handed weapons wielded in one hand this way are treated as if they were one-handed weapons, while the lance, which lacks any such wording, still counts as (and is!) a two-handed weapon.
You're talking about abilities or descriptions that allow a character choice. The bastard sword, if the character doesn't have the EWP, doesn't offer a choice--it must be held in two hands if the character doesn't have the EWP.
Since the bastard sword is defined as a one-handed weapon, and no part of it's description ever says that it is treated as a two-handed weapon in any circumstances, saying that they are is simply making up your own rules!
You're running under the assumption that 1) a character without the EWP can wield a bastard sward one-handed, and 2) the same character can wield a large bastard sword two-handed. I'm running under the assumption that such a character can't. So, from that point of view, being forced to wield a one-handed weapon in two hands (i.e. "one-handed weapon that must be wielded with two hands and acts in exactly the same manner as if you had just said 'wield it as a two-handed weapon'") is functionally identical in every single way with "wielding it as a two-handed weapon". That is the assumption uses when Paizo makes NPCs. Sure, it isn't the PDT making an FAQ, so I'm sure you're going to "pooh-pooh" it away, but it's the most official ruling that we have to date.
Well, bully for you, but this is the rules forum!
Yay, bully for me is right. I'm not so pedantic that I can't take a quote from James Jacobs at face value.
|
|
I am still trying to figure out why people are trying to make these 3 or 4 particular weapons WORSE THAN ANY OTHER EXOTIC WEAPON IN PRINT because for some reason, they should not be allowed to be used at a normal -4 non-proficiency.
You can use a whip without the EWP... at a -4. You can use a Falcata without the EWP, at a -4. You can use an Urumi without the EWP, at a -4.
You are not giving the designers credit enough. A good many of them were around in 3.x days. They saw the same question raised then, saw the FAQ that showed the original intent, and what would be necessary to change it in print so that it was clear in that manner. It was proposed before the end of 3.5 that it be edited in the next printing.
Pathfinder came out, FULLY KNOWING that this had been asked, and used the exact same wording without changing the text.
Now, some people have used that to justify them thinking it goes the same way as the 3.x FAQ, which means you believe them to be stupid. If they wanted it to be the same as 3.5, in order to NOT HAVE THIS ARGUMENT AGAIN, would they not, being intelligent rational beings, have -USED- that FAQ text (or a OGL equivalent) in order to head this off?
Or, since they have given us rules for non-proficiency, over and under sized weapons, and the interactions between them, perhaps they have just listed it exactly as they meant it.
I don't have a problem with this. I surely wouldn't balk if the PDT declared this to be the way it is.
The problem I have is Malachi stating that the -4 nonproficiency penalty somehow magically disappears once the weapon becomes a large version.
EDIT: Derp. Penalty, not bonus.
I am still trying to figure out why people are trying to make these 3 or 4 particular weapons WORSE THAN ANY OTHER EXOTIC WEAPON IN PRINT because for some reason, they should not be allowed to be used at a normal -4 non-proficiency.
You can use a whip without the EWP... at a -4. You can use a Falcata without the EWP, at a -4. You can use an Urumi without the EWP, at a -4.
You are not giving the designers credit enough. A good many of them were around in 3.x days. They saw the same question raised then, saw the FAQ that showed the original intent, and what would be necessary to change it in print so that it was clear in that manner. It was proposed before the end of 3.5 that it be edited in the next printing.
Pathfinder came out, FULLY KNOWING that this had been asked, and used the exact same wording without changing the text.
Now, some people have used that to justify them thinking it goes the same way as the 3.x FAQ, which means you believe them to be stupid. If they wanted it to be the same as 3.5, in order to NOT HAVE THIS ARGUMENT AGAIN, would they not, being intelligent rational beings, have -USED- that FAQ text (or a OGL equivalent) in order to head this off?
Or, since they have given us rules for non-proficiency, over and under sized weapons, and the interactions between them, perhaps they have just listed it exactly as they meant it.
I really only call these flavor weapons, since they are generally garbage, even if they use the same rules as the other weapons. RAI, I agree and it's simpler that way. RAW, they don't work that way. Just like how the Dwarven Waraxe isn't supposed to work the way I say it can, but it can, because RAW can be really stupid sometimes. That's why I extort the stupidity of the RAW, since it's the same argument that the people who advocate RAW use, and they can't really revoke it. That's why RAW is WAR.
I am still trying to figure out why people are trying to make these 3 or 4 particular weapons WORSE THAN ANY OTHER EXOTIC WEAPON IN PRINT because for some reason, they should not be allowed to be used at a normal -4 non-proficiency.
You can use a whip without the EWP... at a -4. You can use a Falcata without the EWP, at a -4. You can use an Urumi without the EWP, at a -4.
You are not giving the designers credit enough. A good many of them were around in 3.x days. They saw the same question raised then, saw the FAQ that showed the original intent, and what would be necessary to change it in print so that it was clear in that manner. It was proposed before the end of 3.5 that it be edited in the next printing.
Pathfinder came out, FULLY KNOWING that this had been asked, and used the exact same wording without changing the text.
Now, some people have used that to justify them thinking it goes the same way as the 3.x FAQ, which means you believe them to be stupid. If they wanted it to be the same as 3.5, in order to NOT HAVE THIS ARGUMENT AGAIN, would they not, being intelligent rational beings, have -USED- that FAQ text (or a OGL equivalent) in order to head this off?
Or, since they have given us rules for non-proficiency, over and under sized weapons, and the interactions between them, perhaps they have just listed it exactly as they meant it.
TGMaxer most of the exotic weapons are not even worth a feat, and we not trying to make them worse. We are just reading what the book says. Personally I don't care one way or the other since I am not spending a feat on a bastard sword no matter which way the ruling goes.
Actually if they wanted a different ruling they could have used different words. <--Another way to look at it.
I don't care one way or the other since I am not spending a feat on a bastard sword no matter which way the ruling goes.What, you don't want to TWF with a bastard sword and a small bastard sword in the off hand?
LOL..I will pass. That -2 stacking with the twf penalty is more than I need. :)
The more I think about it the more I feel the original decision to put these weapons half in the one-handed category and half in the two-handed category is just a cowardly way to go, and game designers that continue that trend are still making this cowardly decision.
I really think they should just up and decide if it is a one-handed weapon fully and embrace that, a one-handed that you can't use one-handed without some special ability isn't really a one-handed weapon. Calling it that is a lie. Its category should be how the weapon could be used by the average person, not by some elite warrior.
If they want it to be a two-handed weapon, then make that decision and call it that. Just because a special ability might allow you to use it differently doesn't change what it is (see the lance).
This half-arse waffling, it is a one-handed weapon except when it isn't, is just stupid and poor design philosophy. And with the addition of the weapon sizing that came with 3.5, it just got worse. Can you use weapon finesse (since it is technicality a light weapon) on a small bastard sword even if you have to treat it as a one-handed martial weapon (sort of like a wacky rapier). Can you wield a larger one in two-hands since the problem with wielding it in one-hand normally was it was too long but wielding it two-handed fixed that, why wouldn't it stay fixed when it got a little longer?
I don't think they are going to ever change it (at least not until PF2), but it is sad to see them continue to bring new crappy design weapons into this. Let's add the katana and still do the stupid its half a one-handed and half a two-handed weapon. It is poor design, and has been since the beginning.
|
|
First, the rules for using an inappropriately-sized weapon are the rules concerning using weapons of different sizes. These rules never state that special game mechanics within the description of any weapon change in any way when using a weapon of the 'wrong' size, so any 'cannot use it one-handed' remains true at any size, and 'may be used in two hands as a martial weapon' remains true at any size.
If you're going to try to "school" anyone on what they're doing wrong, make sure you're providing correct information.
The descriptions in the equipment section are absolutely intended to describe weapons, armor, and equipment that is appropriately sized for the user. To think otherwise is about as silly as thinking that a weapon changes its hitpoints based on the number of hands holding it.
The rules cope perfectly with using weapons of any size; the existence of the rules for using an inappropriately-sized weapon do that for you.
If the rules assumed that you are using a weapon made for your size, then the rapier wouldn't need to specify that you can only use it with Weapon Finesse if it's sized for you!
The weapon rules do not break down if you try to use a weapon of the 'wrong' size; they tell you exactly what to do!
|
|
The text still denotes its treatment as a weapon properly sized to the bearer.
Core Rulebook p. 141 wrote:
Light, One-Handed, and Two-Handed Meld Weapons: This designation is a measure of how much effort it takes to wield a weapon in combat. It indicates whether a melee weapon, when wielded by a character of the weapon's size category, is considered a light weapon, a one-handed weapon, or a two-handed weapon.
Bolded the relevant part that says the description defaultly treats the weapon as if a character were of the appropriate size.
It uses this as the starting point...then tells you what to do if the weapon is inappropriately-sized! And those rules do not alter any special mechanic in the description of any weapon.
This is why I say that the Bastard Sword doesn't get away with being usable as a colossal weapon.
The rules on using an inappropriately-sized weapon tell you that a medium creature cannot use a colossal weapon.
The Dwarven Waraxe, on the other hand, has text that specifically targets Medium-sized creatures able to use it as a Two-handed Martial Weapon in Colossal size, since the text denotes the handiness does not change for Medium-sized creatures.
This is simply untrue! The DW may be used as a martial weapon if you use it in two hands, but all that does is let you count as proficient. It doesn't let you ignore the rules for using an inappropriately-sized weapon!
|
|
If the situation is that you have to wield a one-handed weapon in two hands--1.5 STR, +50% to Power Attack, you can't wield a large version of it--how is that in any way different from a two-handed weapon?
The bolded part is the difference! Being unable to use a one-handed weapon in one hand is not relevant when using it in two, nor when using a two-handed weapon in two!
For the record when I (and most others) talk about using an oversized bastard sword it doesn't mean one of colossal size. Rather it means using a bastard sword that is one-step up from 'appropriately sized'.
|
|
You're running under the assumption that 1) a character without the EWP can wield a bastard sward one-handed, and 2) the same character can wield a large bastard sword two-handed. I'm running under the assumption that such a character can't.
The difference is that my assumption is from reading what the rules say, and yours is from imagining what the writer must have really meant!
Further, even without the assumption that a medium creature can wield a medium BS in one hand at -4, being prevented from using it in one hand does not magically alter the weapon's category! It would remain a one-handed weapon even if you could only use it in one hand.
The rules for what a weapon is (light/1H/2H), and how a weapon is used (in one or two hands) work perfectly, and do not make a one-handed weapon into a two-handed weapon no matter how it is used!
|
|
The problem I have is Malachi stating that the -4 nonproficiency penalty somehow magically disappears once the weapon becomes a large version.
Since you may use it as a martial weapon when used in two hands, MWP means that you don't have a non-proficiency penalty to take when you use it in two hands!
If you lacked MWP, then you would have the -4 penalty.
|
|
If the situation is that you have to wield a one-handed weapon in two hands--1.5 STR, +50% to Power Attack, you can't wield a large version of it--how is that in any way different from a two-handed weapon?The bolded part is the difference! Being unable to use a one-handed weapon in one hand is not relevant when using it in two, nor when using a two-handed weapon in two!
It's not really worth going around this circle with you if you're not willing to acknowledge the fact that a) there are two legitimately possible interpretations from the written rules, b) you and I share opposite interpretations.
I'll leave you with this: the PDT may very well rule that your interpretation is the correct one. Until that time, the Paizo stat blocks, and how we have been told with what assumption they are built with, holds a hell of a lot more credibility than you, and I'm more inclined to believe that they (Paizo) are doing it the right way and you are not.
|
|
I don't care one way or the other since I am not spending a feat on a bastard sword no matter which way the ruling goes.What, you don't want to TWF with a bastard sword and a small bastard sword in the off hand?
A medium creature using a medium BS in his 'main' hand and a small BS in his off hand would be:-
main: -2 to attack, 1d10 damage
off: -4 to attack, 1d8 damage
Using two medium versions:-
main: -4 to attack, 1d10 damage
off: -4 to attack, 1d10 damage
Using a short sword in the off hand:-
main: -2 to attack, 1d10 damage
off: -2 to attack, 1d6 damage
You pays you money, you makes your choice. : /
All that is assuming EWP. Without it (if allowed at all):-
main: -6 to attack, 1d10 damage
off: -8 to attack, 1d8 damage
etc.
Not really trying to game the system by using it non-proficiently, are we?
|
|
I don't care one way or the other since I am not spending a feat on a bastard sword no matter which way the ruling goes.
You don't need to spend a feat if you use it in two hands (and have MWP)!
It's inferior to a greatsword, but if you use a large version you do more damage than a greatsword (2d8 versus 2d6), but suffer a -2 attack penalty.
Probably not good at low levels, but you could probably suck that penalty up at higher levels.
And it is way cool!
The text still denotes its treatment as a weapon properly sized to the bearer.
Core Rulebook p. 141 wrote:
Light, One-Handed, and Two-Handed Meld Weapons: This designation is a measure of how much effort it takes to wield a weapon in combat. It indicates whether a melee weapon, when wielded by a character of the weapon's size category, is considered a light weapon, a one-handed weapon, or a two-handed weapon.
Bolded the relevant part that says the description defaultly treats the weapon as if a character were of the appropriate size.
It uses this as the starting point...then tells you what to do if the weapon is inappropriately-sized! And those rules do not alter any special mechanic in the description of any weapon.
This is why I say that the Bastard Sword doesn't get away with being usable as a colossal weapon.The rules on using an inappropriately-sized weapon tell you that a medium creature cannot use a colossal weapon.
The Dwarven Waraxe, on the other hand, has text that specifically targets Medium-sized creatures able to use it as a Two-handed Martial Weapon in Colossal size, since the text denotes the handiness does not change for Medium-sized creatures.This is simply untrue! The DW may be used as a martial weapon if you use it in two hands, but all that does is let you count as proficient. It doesn't let you ignore the rules for using an inappropriately-sized weapon!
That was made relevant when you threw your "large bastard swords are easier to use than medium bastard swords" card, coupled with the "description text does not pertain to creature size" card.
Also, re-read both the Bastard Sword and Dwarven Waraxe description entries; a Bastard Sword simply talks about the weapon in two hands as a martial. The Dwarven Waraxe specifically states that Medium creatures can use it in two hands as a martial. The weapon still incorporates inappropriate size, but even if that text was written for a Colossal sized Dwarven Waraxe, a Medium-sized creature, by RAW, can use it as a two-handed martial weapon.
|
|
...there are two legitimately possible interpretations from the written rules
Yes, but only the question of if it can be used one-handed at -4, or not be used at all. We share opposite interpretations about that.
But it is not a legitimate interpretation that it stops being a one-handed weapon when it is (or must be) used in two hands.
|
|
That was made relevant when you threw your "large bastard swords are easier to use than medium bastard swords" card, coupled with the "description text does not pertain to creature size" card.
Large BSs are not easier to use than medium ones for a medium creature; there is a -2 attack penalty for using an inappropriately-sized weapon.
The only sense in which it is 'easier' is that you only need MWP when using one in both hands, no matter the size.
Also, re-read both the Bastard Sword and Dwarven Waraxe description entries; a Bastard Sword simply talks about the weapon in two hands as a martial. The Dwarven Waraxe specifically states that Medium creatures can use it in two hands as a martial. The weapon still incorporates inappropriate size, but even if that text was written for a Colossal sized Dwarven Waraxe, a Medium-sized creature, by RAW, can use it as a two-handed martial weapon.
A medium character can use a Dwarven Waraxe Two-handed as a martial weapon.
Using it as a martial weapon instead of as an exotic weapon is the special ability here. It's talking strictly about weapon proficiency.
..a large creature can use it one-handed in the same way.
...that is, as a martial weapon instead of as an exotic weapon.
This alters the weapon proficiency requirement, not the rules on using an inappropriately-sized weapon.
I don't care one way or the other since I am not spending a feat on a bastard sword no matter which way the ruling goes.You don't need to spend a feat if you use it in two hands (and have MWP)!
It's inferior to a greatsword, but if you use a large version you do more damage than a greatsword (2d8 versus 2d6), but suffer a -2 attack penalty.
Probably not good at low levels, but you could probably suck that penalty up at higher levels.
And it is way cool!
Sucking that penalty still means less damage. I don't see the point in spending a feat to do that.
You know I don't think you can wield the large version with EWP only. We have been down that road. :)
You're running under the assumption that 1) a character without the EWP can wield a bastard sward one-handed, and 2) the same character can wield a large bastard sword two-handed. I'm running under the assumption that such a character can't.The difference is that my assumption is from reading what the rules say, and yours is from imagining what the writer must have really meant!
Further, even without the assumption that a medium creature can wield a medium BS in one hand at -4, being prevented from using it in one hand does not magically alter the weapon's category! It would remain a one-handed weapon even if you could only use it in one hand.
The rules for what a weapon is (light/1H/2H), and how a weapon is used (in one or two hands) work perfectly, and do not make a one-handed weapon into a two-handed weapon no matter how it is used!
Actually it is legitimate if you don't see the rules as flavor text. I do hope they just tell use to refer to the katana entry for this. That would save them word space.
Medium creature can wield a large longsword in two hands at a -2 penalty.
Medium creature undergoes an Enlarge Person spell and can now wield the same large longsword in one hand at no penalty.
Medium creature can wield a large [relevant weapon] in two hands at a -2 penalty. The same as the large longsword, even though we are told that it is more difficult to wield a large [relevant weapon] than a large longsword.
Medium creature undergoes an Enlarge Person spell and can now wield the same large [relevant weapon] in one hand at a -4 penalty. So a creature is less efficient at wielding an appropriately sized [relevant weapon] than wielding an oversized [relevant weapon] in a manner consistent with how they are forced to inefficiently wield the appropriately sized [relevant weapon].
To me, that is utterly nonsensical.
|
|
Medium creature can wield a large longsword in two hands at a -2 penalty.
Medium creature undergoes an Enlarge Person spell and can now wield the same large longsword in one hand at no penalty.
Medium creature can wield a large [relevant weapon] in two hands at a -2 penalty. The same as the large longsword, even though we are told that it is more difficult to wield a large [relevant weapon] than a large longsword.
Medium creature undergoes an Enlarge Person spell and can now wield the same large [relevant weapon] in one hand at a -4 penalty. So a creature is less efficient at wielding an appropriately sized [relevant weapon] than wielding an oversized [relevant weapon] in a manner consistent with how they are forced to inefficiently wield the appropriately sized [relevant weapon].
To me, that is utterly nonsensical.
It makes sense because the penalty for wielding an oversized weapon is -2 per step, and the penalty for non-proficiency is -4.
Since you are proficient when using it in two hands (with MWP, because it specifically says so!) then there is no non-proficiency penalty.
It's awkward to use in one hand (so -4 penalty without EWP), but it is not awkward to use in two hands!
Medium creature can wield a large longsword in two hands at a -2 penalty.
Medium creature undergoes an Enlarge Person spell and can now wield the same large longsword in one hand at no penalty.
Medium creature can wield a large [relevant weapon] in two hands at a -2 penalty. The same as the large longsword, even though we are told that it is more difficult to wield a large [relevant weapon] than a large longsword.
Medium creature undergoes an Enlarge Person spell and can now wield the same large [relevant weapon] in one hand at a -4 penalty. So a creature is less efficient at wielding an appropriately sized [relevant weapon] than wielding an oversized [relevant weapon] in a manner consistent with how they are forced to inefficiently wield the appropriately sized [relevant weapon].
To me, that is utterly nonsensical.
It makes sense because the penalty for wielding an oversized weapon is -2 per step, and the penalty for non-proficiency is -4.
Since you are proficient when using it in two hands (with MWP, because it specifically says so!) then there is no non-proficiency penalty.
It's awkward to use in one hand (so -4 penalty without EWP), but it is not awkward to use in two hands!
No it doesn't. You are proficient in using a weapon of your size in two hands, if you have martial proficiency. But again, this all revolves around the same conversation we've been having. We've both stated our cases. You refuse to recognize that the size usage issue directly follows from the issue regarding how and when a person may use a weapon one-handed.
If a person cannot use an appropriately sized weapon one-handed (assuming for the sake of argument), how is it reasonable to think that the person can use a larger weapon two-handed? The natural reading of the size restrictions is that in order to wield an oversized weapon in two hands, you need to be able to wield the same appropriately sized weapon in one hand. The same idea applies to a nonproficiency penalty. That's the inference you're refusing to see. It follows directly from reading the rules in concert. If you treat each in a vacuum, I suppose it might be difficult to make that connection.
Bottom line is that's as basically as I can explain it. If you still at this point refuse to recognize this interpretation as even an option, there literally is no sense in continuing the discussion (there probably hasn't been for pages now). You will never convince me that yours is the only reading possible, no matter how many exclamation points you use.
You heard it here, folks: a weapon that is explicitly and definitely harder to use than a long sword becomes easier to use if it and the long sword are large. Just by increasing its size, you make it easier to use!Eleventy-one!!
|
|
Actually it is legitimate if you don't see the rules as flavor text. I do hope they just tell use to refer to the katana entry for this. That would save them word space.You're running under the assumption that 1) a character without the EWP can wield a bastard sward one-handed, and 2) the same character can wield a large bastard sword two-handed. I'm running under the assumption that such a character can't.The difference is that my assumption is from reading what the rules say, and yours is from imagining what the writer must have really meant!
Further, even without the assumption that a medium creature can wield a medium BS in one hand at -4, being prevented from using it in one hand does not magically alter the weapon's category! It would remain a one-handed weapon even if you could only use it in one hand.
The rules for what a weapon is (light/1H/2H), and how a weapon is used (in one or two hands) work perfectly, and do not make a one-handed weapon into a two-handed weapon no matter how it is used!
It is a reasonable interpretation that using a BS in one hand is not allowed.
It is not a reasonable interpretation that a one-handed weapon that cannot be used in one hand is treated as a two-handed weapon. Why? Because we already have rules for using a one-handed weapon in two hands, and the weapon remains a one-handed weapon when you do.
A rule is perfectly capable of saying that a weapon is treated as a different category when used in a certain number of hands (cf Jotungrip), but we know that we cannot assume the absence of these words means we can pretend that those words are there (cf lance).
The rules don't say a BS is treated as two-handed, so they aren't
You heard it here, folks: a weapon that is explicitly and definitely harder to use than a long sword becomes easier to use if it and the long sword are large. Just by increasing its size, you make it easier to use!Eleventy-one!!
Hooray for logic?
Two-handing a regular bastard sword with no penalties is somehow harder than two-handing a large bastard-sword where you get a -2 penalty? Additionally it doesn't become easier to use then a large longsword, both would be at a -2 penalty - ie same difficulty.
You heard it here, folks: a weapon that is explicitly and definitely harder to use than a long sword becomes easier to use if it and the long sword are large. Just by increasing its size, you make it easier to use!Eleventy-one!!Hooray for logic?
Two-handing a regular bastard sword with no penalties is somehow harder than two-handing a large bastard-sword where you get a -2 penalty? Additionally it doesn't become easier to use then a large longsword, both would be at a -2 penalty - ie same difficulty.
That's sort of the point. They shouldn't be the same difficulty to use, since it's explicitly stated that the Bastard Sword is more difficult to use. You have to use it in two hands to avoid a penalty. But apparently using a big one (that would necessitate you using it in two hands were it appropriately sized, at least to avoid penalties) is no more difficult that using a big longsword (which does not require you to use it in two hands for any purpose), which is not intended to be as difficult to use.
In terms of difficulty to use:
Medium Creatures, Medium Weapons - Bastard Sword > Longsword
Large Creatures, Large Weapons - Bastard Sword > Longsword
Medium Creatures, Large Weapons - Bastard Sword = Longsword
That doesn't follow.
The rules don't say a BS is treated as two-handed, so they aren't
Nope. But the rules certainly imply that they should be treated that way for the purposes of determining who may wield them and how.
|
|
You heard it here, folks: a weapon that is explicitly and definitely harder to use than a long sword becomes easier to use if it and the long sword are large. Just by increasing its size, you make it easier to use!Eleventy-one!!Hooray for logic?
Two-handing a regular bastard sword with no penalties is somehow harder than two-handing a large bastard-sword where you get a -2 penalty? Additionally it doesn't become easier to use then a large longsword, both would be at a -2 penalty - ie same difficulty.
No, he's referring to Malachi's claim that if you don't have the EWP, you get the -4 when one-handing a medium bastard sword, but that -4 penalty somehow goes away when using a large bastard sword. (I.E. a -4 for medium and -2 for large, as opposed to -4 for medium and -6 for large).
Actually it is legitimate if you don't see the rules as flavor text. I do hope they just tell use to refer to the katana entry for this. That would save them word space.You're running under the assumption that 1) a character without the EWP can wield a bastard sward one-handed, and 2) the same character can wield a large bastard sword two-handed. I'm running under the assumption that such a character can't.The difference is that my assumption is from reading what the rules say, and yours is from imagining what the writer must have really meant!
Further, even without the assumption that a medium creature can wield a medium BS in one hand at -4, being prevented from using it in one hand does not magically alter the weapon's category! It would remain a one-handed weapon even if you could only use it in one hand.
The rules for what a weapon is (light/1H/2H), and how a weapon is used (in one or two hands) work perfectly, and do not make a one-handed weapon into a two-handed weapon no matter how it is used!
But this doesn't actually fix the "two-handing a large bastard sword" problem.
Katana
Specifically constructed for samurai, katanas employ multiple types of steel combined in a distinctive forging process. The result are swords noted for their wickedly sharp yet slender, gently curved blades, designed to make graceful hacking strokes capable of severing opponents’ heads and limbs. Though finely balanced, these blades are difficult to master.
Benefit: Characters can use a katana two-handed as a martial weapon, but must take the Exotic Weapon Proficiency (katana) feat to use it one-handed.
You are using a large bastard sword in two hands, there for it is martial and can still be used. This is the same problem as the wording for bastard sword.
|
|
Actually it is legitimate if you don't see the rules as flavor text. I do hope they just tell use to refer to the katana entry for this. That would save them word space.You're running under the assumption that 1) a character without the EWP can wield a bastard sward one-handed, and 2) the same character can wield a large bastard sword two-handed. I'm running under the assumption that such a character can't.The difference is that my assumption is from reading what the rules say, and yours is from imagining what the writer must have really meant!
Further, even without the assumption that a medium creature can wield a medium BS in one hand at -4, being prevented from using it in one hand does not magically alter the weapon's category! It would remain a one-handed weapon even if you could only use it in one hand.
The rules for what a weapon is (light/1H/2H), and how a weapon is used (in one or two hands) work perfectly, and do not make a one-handed weapon into a two-handed weapon no matter how it is used!
But this doesn't actually fix the "two-handing a large bastard sword" problem.
You are using a large bastard sword in two hands, there for it is martial and can still be used. This is the same problem as the wording for bastard sword.Katana
Specifically constructed for samurai, katanas employ multiple types of steel combined in a distinctive forging process. The result are swords noted for their wickedly sharp yet slender, gently curved blades, designed to make graceful hacking strokes capable of severing opponents’ heads and limbs. Though finely balanced, these blades are difficult to master.
Benefit: Characters can use a katana two-handed as a martial weapon, but must take the Exotic Weapon Proficiency (katana) feat to use it one-handed.
The assumption of the descriptions is that it is, if not specifically for medium creatures, at least appropriately sized for the intended wielder. If you look at it from that point of view, things actually fall into place nicely.
Saying you treat it like a two-handed weapon only for the purposes of determining who may wield it without the feat and like a one-handed weapon for every other purpose would clarify everything. It could be done by FAQ, since it can be inferred from the language already in place, in addition to the examples Paizo itself has published.
Saying that it is a one-handed weapon for any and all purposes (though you still need the feat to wield one-handed without a penalty) would also clarify pretty much everything. There'd still be a discussion about oversize and nonproficiency penalties, in my opinion. Though they could drop a line clarifying that as well.
Hm, interesting. I suppose from a purely objective case it doesn't necessarily resolve everything, though it does stack one more example on the side saying you can't even use it without the feat. It says "allowing him to use it one-handed" not "allowing him to use it one-handed without taking a penalty".
So if you can't use a medium sized bastard sword in 1 hand at all without the feat, that still doesn't get rid of the weirdness that a martial proficient character can use a BS in 2-hands without the feat at no penalty, or a large BS in 2-hands at -2 size penalty only.