|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
What the heck is wrong with them now?
I know how they work, but then I find some people coming along, and saying "No, that is way too simple, let's complicate it".
I don't understand why, and I feel there is a lot of reaching, to make it more, and more complicated.
I can't see this as RAI, and I really have to strain to see how it could be RAW.
Some people just want to watch the world burn.
I can't see this as RAI, and I really have to strain to see how it could be RAW.
Yeah, I deeply sympathize how difficult it must be for you to read "A bastard sword is [...] too large to use in one hand without special training" as meaning that a bastard sword is too large to use in one hand without special training.
Such dreadful contortions of interpretation must literally pain you.
What the heck is wrong with them now?
I know how they work, but then I find some people coming along, and saying "No, that is way too simple, let's complicate it".
I don't understand why, and I feel there is a lot of reaching, to make it more, and more complicated.
I can't see this as RAI, and I really have to strain to see how it could be RAW.
Some people just want to watch the world burn.
Yep, I completely agree with this.
I think the RAI is that the bastard sword is a one-handed weapon that takes an Exotic Weapon Proficiency to use efficiently. Or you can use it two-handed with a Martial Proficiency. Simple.
A large bastard sword would be treated as a two-handed weapon that (in my opinion) should require an Exotic Weapon Proficiency to use. Without the feat you should not be able to use it at all.
Likewise a small bastard sword could be used one-handed by a medium creature with only a Martial Proficiency.
Oh, and you should be able to use the bastard sword one-handed with a Martial Proficiency (or no proficiency) at a -4 penalty. Because that just makes sense.
What the heck is wrong with them now?
I know how they work, but then I find some people coming along, and saying "No, that is way too simple, let's complicate it".
I don't understand why, and I feel there is a lot of reaching, to make it more, and more complicated.
I can't see this as RAI, and I really have to strain to see how it could be RAW.
Some people just want to watch the world burn.
Yep, I completely agree with this.
I think the RAI is that the bastard sword is a one-handed weapon that takes an Exotic Weapon Proficiency to use efficiently. Or you can use it two-handed with a Martial Proficiency. Simple.
A large bastard sword would be treated as a two-handed weapon that (in my opinion) should require an Exotic Weapon Proficiency to use. Without the feat you should not be able to use it at all.
Likewise a small bastard sword could be used one-handed by a medium creature with only a Martial Proficiency.
So basically you are saying the rules team decided to change almost 10 years of rules text into flavor text, but did not think it was important enough to let anyone know about it.
The conversation...
SKR:Maybe we should allow those weapons to be used in one hand now with a penalty.
Jason B: Really? Well ok. Well it has been the way it is for a long time. How do you want to rewrite it.
SKR: Rewrite it? What for? Look our readers all have mind reading abilities. They will know we just decided to change the meaning without changing the words. The new people will be able to know that when we say something like "can't be used in one hand" that we are not really serious.
Jason B: So you are saying that we will tell them you "can't" use the weapon in one hand, but they will know we are just joking?
SKR: Yeah. Trust me. We won't have to change any words. They will just know to ignore what sounds like instructions, and an actual rule. It will help with the word count, and the time needed to rewrite it.
Jason B: I am sure they will question us about this at some point. This does not sound like a good idea.
SKR: 10 bucks on the says this never comes up.
Jason B: Deal.
----------------------
Note: I am not picking on SKR. I just put a random dev's name in a random spot.
|
Does Amiri, the iconic barbarian, really need Exotic Weapon proficiency to wield a large bastard sword two-handed? It doesn't look like she really needs it.
She doesn't need the EWP to wield it, but it does make sense in story terms that she'd have been trained with (normal size) bastard swords before she ever found the large one.
She doesn't need the EWP to wield the large BS, because as a (medium) BS is a one-handed weapon, a large BS counts as a two-handed weapon for her (according to the rules for inappropriately-sized weapons). She has martial weapon proficiency as a barbarian. Due to the special rule in the weapon description, despite the fact that the large BS counts as an exotic two-handed weapon, 'A character can use a bastard sword two-handed as a martial weapon'. Since she must use two hands to wield it, she is definately using it in two hands, therefore she may use it as a martial weapon.
The rules for inappropriately-sized weapons do not alter the rules in the weapon description.
Does Amiri, the iconic barbarian, really need Exotic Weapon proficiency to wield a large bastard sword two-handed? It doesn't look like she really needs it.She doesn't need the EWP to wield it, but it does make sense in story terms that shed have been trained with (normal size) bastard swords before she ever found the large one.
She doesn't need the EWP to wield the large BS, because as a (medium) BS is a one-handed weapon, a large BS counts as a two-handed weapon for her (according to the rules for inappropriately-sized weapons). She has martial weapon proficiency as a barbarian. Due to the special rule in the weapon description, despite the fact that the large BS counts as an exotic two-handed weapon, 'A character can use a bastard sword two-handed as a martial weapon'. Since she must use two hands to wield it, she is definately using it in two hands, therefore she may use it as a martial weapon.
The rules for inappropriately-sized weapons do not alter the rules in the weapon description.
While correct per RAW, I believe RAI would be that you could only wield it 2-handed with EWP and otherwise could not. Again, I think that is RAI, but it also takes up way too much wordspace to spell out for such a corner-case, so I'm not overly concerned that you don't need EWP to wield a large bastard sword in two hands.
Does Amiri, the iconic barbarian, really need Exotic Weapon proficiency to wield a large bastard sword two-handed? It doesn't look like she really needs it.She doesn't need the EWP to wield it, but it does make sense in story terms that shed have been trained with (normal size) bastard swords before she ever found the large one.
She doesn't need the EWP to wield the large BS, because as a (medium) BS is a one-handed weapon, a large BS counts as a two-handed weapon for her (according to the rules for inappropriately-sized weapons). She has martial weapon proficiency as a barbarian. Due to the special rule in the weapon description, despite the fact that the large BS counts as an exotic two-handed weapon, 'A character can use a bastard sword two-handed as a martial weapon'. Since she must use two hands to wield it, she is definately using it in two hands, therefore she may use it as a martial weapon.
The rules for inappropriately-sized weapons do not alter the rules in the weapon description.
I know this may sound silly, but if that were the case, what would stop a character from using a colossal Bastard Sword in two-hands because "A character can use a bastard sword two-handed as a martial weapon"? Specific trumps general, no?
Personally, I'm of the opinion that all weapons were written with Medium sized creatures in mind and that the Core Rule Book describes what a medium sized character needs to wield a medium sized bastard sword and that a medium sized creature would need 3 hands to wield a large bastard sword as a martial weapon, but that's not supported in the RAW.
Bastard swords, or hand-and-a-half swords, were long swords that were most effectively used with both hands, but were not as heavy or long as a true greatsword. With proper training, a swordsman could wield one in a single hand, for use with a shield or while on horseback. Interesting fact: in most medieval fighting manuals, the bastard sword was referred to as the "longsword", and the single hand, 30-34 inch blade cruciform sword D&D calls a longsword is an "arming sword" or just "sword"; it was considered to be a sidearm or secondary weapon.
Using that as my base, I see it this way:
Using a bastard sword in two hands requires a martial weapon proficiency, because it is a martial weapon. Using it in one hand requires training above and beyond normal to strengthen the wrist and forearm appropriately and getting used to the different leverage, explaining why it needs an exotic proficiency to be used one-handed.
So if you are proficient with all martial weapons, you can use a bastard sword in two hands without penalty, but attempting to use it one-handed gives you the -4 penalty because you haven't specifically trained to do so.
Since the bastard sword can be used one-handed, and because it is slightly smaller than a true two-handed sword, it should be considered a medium weapon.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Wraithstrike, I like how you assume that the way you read the rule for the past 10 years is obviously the correct way, whereas the way I read the rule for the past 10 years is obviously wrong.
Your argument seems to be that "this is the way the rule is and you want to change it", but I don't want to change the rule at all. I am saying that your interpretation is wrong and that my way is the correct way, always has been, and it needs to be clarified.
Personally, I'm of the opinion that all weapons were written with Medium sized creatures in mind and that the Core Rule Book describes what a medium sized character needs to wield a medium sized bastard sword and that a medium sized creature would need 3 hands to wield a large bastard sword as a martial weapon, but that's not supported in the RAW.
I agree with this very much. Thanks for articulating it better than I could.
|
|
I can't see this as RAI, and I really have to strain to see how it could be RAW.Yeah, I deeply sympathize how difficult it must be for you to read "A bastard sword is [...] too large to use in one hand without special training" as meaning that a bastard sword is too large to use in one hand without special training.
Such dreadful contortions of interpretation must literally pain you.
It helps if you read the whole sentence, instead of just reading the first half.
The weapon descriptions do not (and need not) say if a weapon is exotic, martial or simple. That information is in the table. So why does it say it in the BS description? Let's take a look:-
A bastard sword is about 4 feet in length, making it too large to use in one hand without special training; thus, it is an exotic weapon.
The only reason to write '...; thus, it is an exotic weapon' is not to say that it's impossible to use a one-handed weapon in one hand! The '(it's) too large to use in one hand without special training' part is explaining why it's an exotic weapon!
For those who think that making it useable in one hand at -4 would be a change, I'll point out that in both 1st and 2nd ed the BS could be used either one or two-handed, without penalty, with only normal proficiency. The difference was that in two hands it did 2d4/2d8 damage (verses S-M/L targets), while in one hand it did 1d8/1d12.
When 3rd ed came along they decided to make it harder to use one-handed and easier to use two-handed, and this is how they diid it.
If they really wanted it to be unusable in one hand without the EWP then they'd've made it a two-handed weapon that could be used in one hand with a feat. They didn't.
BTW, in 3.0 you needed at least 13 Str to take EWP BS or DW, indicating that you also had to be strong to wield it one handed. In a game where my barbarian has 28 Str, 36 when raging, and is able to use a greatsword in one hand at -2 with Jotungrip, it really doesn't make sense to be absolutely unable to use a BS in one hand on the grounds that it's too heavy!
I know, I know....'making sense' again...will I ever learn...!
'A bastard sword is about 4 feet in length, making it too large to use in one hand without special training; thus, it is an exotic weapon' could have been written 'A bastard sword is an exotic weapon because it is about 4 feet in length, making it too large to use in one hand without special training'.
It's about the unusual balance that it's size gives it (compared to most one-handed weapons). Two hands let you control it with no problem, but it requires special training (the EWP) to avoid a -4 penalty when trying to use it in one hand. You must learn special techniques to control it using only one hand. This also explains why you can still use a large one without the EWP, as you do have both hands to control it.
The 'thus it is an exotic weapon' part would be superfluous if the intent were to forbid its one-handed use. It would just say 'A bastard sword is about 4 feet in length, making it too large to use in one hand without special training.' the sentence would end with a full stop/period, not a semi-colon saying 'thus...'.
TL;DR: it's fluff, not crunch.
|
|
I know this may sound silly, but if that were the case, what would stop a character from using a colossal Bastard Sword in two-hands because "A character can use a bastard sword two-handed as a martial weapon"? Specific trumps general, no?
What would stop it is the rules. : )
Specifically the rules for using an inappropriately-sized weapon. If a weapon counts as a two-handed, one-handed or light weapon for you, then you can use an inappropriately-sized weapon at the appropriate penalty. If the weapon would count as less than light or more than two-handed for you, then you can't use it at all, and being proficient in it won't help you!
So, a medium sized creature (with martial weapon proficiency) would certainly be proficient with a colossal bastard sword in two hands, that doesn't mean that they can use it; it's too big!
Being proficient doesn't let you avoid the rules on using inappropriately-sized weapons, and the line 'A character can use a bastard sword two-handed as a martial weapon' is about the proficiency you need to use it.
|
It helps if you read the whole sentence, instead of just reading the first half.
The weapon descriptions do not (and need not) say if a weapon is exotic, martial or simple. That information is in the table. So why does it say it in the BS description? Let's take a look:-
A bastard sword is about 4 feet in length, making it too large to use in one hand without special training; thus, it is an exotic weapon.The only reason to write '...; thus, it is an exotic weapon' is not to say that it's impossible to use a one-handed weapon in one hand! The '(it's) too large to use in one hand without special training' part is explaining why it's an exotic weapon!
For those who think that making it useable in one hand at -4 would be a change, I'll point out that in both 1st and 2nd ed the BS could be used either one or two-handed, without penalty, with only normal proficiency. The difference was that in two hands it did 2d4/2d8 damage (verses S-M/L targets), while in one hand it did 1d8/1d12.
When 3rd ed came along they decided to make it harder to use one-handed and easier to use two-handed, and this is how they diid it.
If they really wanted it to be unusable in one hand without the EWP then they'd've made it a two-handed weapon that could be used in one hand with a feat. They didn't.
BTW, in 3.0 you needed at least 13 Str to take EWP BS or DW, indicating that you also had to be strong to wield it one handed. In a game where my barbarian has 28 Str, 36 when raging, and is able to use a greatsword...
Even if it may be fluff, you shouldn't discount it.
The question you have to ask yourself is: can your medium character use a medium greatsword in one hand?
EDIT: Fluff text is important to provide context in how things should be interpreted...it gives a direction of intent. Furthermore, I will provide an example of why fluff text is important.
A creature wielding a double weapon in one hand (such as a human wielding a Small two-bladed sword) can't use it as a double weapon--only one end of the weapon can be used in any given round. (Emphasis mine).
A creature wielding a double weapon in one hand can't use it as a double weapon--only one end of the weapon can be used in any given round.
The Pathfinder CRB omits the fluff example of the human using a Small two-bladed sword. It's a small chunk of text. It's fluff. It's important. Without it, it appears as though a human can use a medium two-bladed sword in one hand with no issue just as long as he only attacks with one end in a given round (as I originally assumed). If the omitted fluff text had been included, it would have been clear that the human could do so, as long as it was a weapon intended for a Small character (and taking the appropriate penalties, of course).
EDIT 2: clarification.
|
|
Personally, I'm of the opinion that all weapons were written with Medium sized creatures in mind and that the Core Rule Book describes what a medium sized character needs to wield a medium sized bastard sword and that a medium sized creature would need 3 hands to wield a large bastard sword as a martial weapon, but that's not supported in the RAW.I agree with this very much. Thanks for articulating it better than I could.
In this case, opinion be damned! It's provably untrue!
For a medium creature, no matter what proficiencies the creature may or may not have, a medium bastard sword is a one-handed weapon, therefore a large bastard sword counts as a two-handed weapon for the same creature.
Not three-handed. Two-handed. Nothing in the description of the weapon changes what category the weapon is (light/one-handed/two-handed). What it says is about what proficiency you need (simple/martial/exotic) to avoid a -4 non-proficiency penalty!
A character can use a bastard sword two-handed as a martial weapon.
|
|
The question you have to ask yourself is: can your medium character use a medium greatsword in one hand?
???
This thread is about bastard swords and dwarven waraxes, which are one-handed weapons.
You can start your own thread about greatswords, but I think you'll be lonely. I don't think there is any disagreement about how many hands you need to use a greatsword, which is a two-handed weapon.
|
|
The question you have to ask yourself is: can your medium character use a medium greatsword in one hand????
This thread is about bastard swords and dwarven waraxes, which are one-handed weapons.
You can start your own thread about greatswords, but I think you'll be lonely. I don't think there is any disagreement about how many hands you need to use a greatsword, which is a two-handed weapon.
I edited my post while you were typing your response. I'm trying to draw a comparison.
If you have the EWP, you can use it in one hand (no arguments on this point). If you don't have the EWP, you have to use it in two hands. You can't one-hand the bastard sword without the EWP no more than you can one-hand a greatsword.
I don't see what's confusing about Large bastard swords. It's basically just a somewhat awkward greatsword. Even if you don't know your way around a one-handed bastard sword, big sword choppa choppa remains the same in theory and practice.
Does this mean a Large bastard sword is a better choice than a Large longsword? Well, yes. It is. And the price to pay is that if you take Weapon Focus (bastard sword) it will only ever apply to oversized weapons unless you burn a feat on EWP (bastard sword), which you don't need to wield the thing. It's a very specialized concept, and I have no problem with El Bastardo Bigsword enjoying the slightly larger damage die.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I edited my post while you were typing your response. I'm trying to draw a comparison.
Fair enough. : )
If you have the EWP, you can use it in one hand (no arguments on this point). If you don't have the EWP, you have to use it in two hands. You can't one-hand the bastard sword without the EWP no more than you can one-hand a
I have no problem with you putting your case, but the reason there is disagreement is the poor way it is written. The original writer (Monte Cook in 3.0) knew what he meant, so another way of interpreting what he wrote didn't occur to him, so it didn't occur to him to make the language unambiguous.
But which way did he mean? Did he mean that without EWP you couldn't use a BS in one hand at all? Or did he mean that the reason that the BS is an exotic weapon (swords seem martial, not exotic) is that its size makes it difficult to control in one hand (-4 penalty) but easy in two (martial proficiency).
If he thought it should be impossible to use in one hand, he'd have made it a two-handed weapon, useable in one hand with a feat!
Other weapon descriptions do not state if a weapon is simple, martial or exotic; that information is in the tables. Another way for him to have written it is ' A bastard sword is about 4 feet in length, making it too large to use in one hand without special training'. But that's not what he wrote! He wrote, ' A bastard sword is about 4 feet in length, making it too large to use in one hand without special training; thus, it is an exotic weapon.'
That last part only makes sense in context as an explanation of why a sword is an exotic weapon! If his intention was to make it absolutely unusable in one hand (without EWP), he wouldn't have written that.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Personally, I'm of the opinion that all weapons were written with Medium sized creatures in mind and that the Core Rule Book describes what a medium sized character needs to wield a medium sized bastard sword and that a medium sized creature would need 3 hands to wield a large bastard sword as a martial weapon, but that's not supported in the RAW.I agree with this very much. Thanks for articulating it better than I could.In this case, opinion be damned! It's provably untrue!
For a medium creature, no matter what proficiencies the creature may or may not have, a medium bastard sword is a one-handed weapon, therefore a large bastard sword counts as a two-handed weapon for the same creature.
Not three-handed. Two-handed. Nothing in the description of the weapon changes what category the weapon is (light/one-handed/two-handed). What it says is about what proficiency you need (simple/martial/exotic) to avoid a -4 non-proficiency penalty!
A character can use a bastard sword two-handed as a martial weapon.
Previous Assertion 1: A medium sized character who does not have EWP(bastard sword) cannot wield a medium bastard sword in one hand. This is per the bastard sword text.
As a result of A1, it makes no sense to allow a medium sized character to wield a large bastard sword in 2 hands at only a -2 size penalty. When if they were enlarged to large size, and then picked up the large bastard sword, they could not one hand it.
Logically, this means that a medium character should be able to wield a medium bastard sword in one hand at the -4 non-proficiency penalty. This reinforces the fact that a bastard sword is exotic for one handed use, and does not have a crunch limit on being wielded in one hand. "A bastard sword is about 4 feet in length, making it too large to use in one hand without special training;" is fluff, and everything after the semicolon is crunch.
Therefore, I am changing my opinion. As currently is written, a medium character who does not have EWP(BS) should be able to use one hand to wield a BS at a -4 non-proficient penalty, and could use 2 hands to wield a large BS at -4 non-proficient and -2 size penalties.
|
|
Therefore, I am changing my opinion. As currently is written, a medium character who does not have EWP(BS) should be able to use one hand to wield a BS at a -4 non-proficient penalty,
Your integrity does you credit. You also win a free toaster. : )
and could use 2 hands to wield a large BS at -4 non-proficient and -2 size penalties.
Except this is where the special rule comes in:-
A character can use a bastard sword two-handed as a martial weapon.
Are you using the large BS in two hands? Yes? Well, you have to, according to the rules on inappropriately-sized weapons, so yes you're using it two-handed...and therefore can use it as a martial weapon. Since you do have martial weapon proficiency, you don't take a non-proficiency penalty!
Come on....there's a coffee-maker in it for you...!
: )
|
|
FWIW:
The bastard sword, lance, and dwarven waraxe are all two-handed weapons that can be used in one hand under the correct
circumstances (the bastard sword and dwarven waraxe are
shown on Table 7–5 as one-handed exotic weapons, but they’re
really two-handed weapons). Treat all three of these weapons
as two-handed weapons when determining who can use them
and how. For example, a Small character cannot use a lance or
bastard sword made for a Medium creature, even when
mounted (in the case of a lance) or when the Small character
has the Exotic Weapon Proficiency (bastard sword) feat.
(Emphasis mine).
Not saying the PDT won't change things, but until they do, this is how it's supposed to be.
As I stated in the other thread about one-handed/two-handed attacks, if the PDT would do us the kind favor of retracting the FAQ post, all of these questions will go away, and we would be left with a common sense interpretation: if you hold it in one hand, you apply one-handed stuff; if you hold it in two hands, you apply two-handed stuff. Simple.
Therefore, I am changing my opinion. As currently is written, a medium character who does not have EWP(BS) should be able to use one hand to wield a BS at a -4 non-proficient penalty,Your integrity does you credit. You also win a free toaster. : )
and could use 2 hands to wield a large BS at -4 non-proficient and -2 size penalties.Except this is where the special rule comes in:-
A character can use a bastard sword two-handed as a martial weapon.Are you using the large BS in two hands? Yes? Well, you have to, according to the rules on inappropriately-sized weapons, so yes you're using it two-handed...and therefore can use it as a martial weapon. Since you do have martial weapon proficiency, you don't take a non-proficiency penalty!
Come on....there's a coffee-maker in it for you...!
: )
You're right. To be fair, I did just say a generic "character" and not necessarily one with martial proficiency, so I could be right or wrong equally. :P
If they are martially proficient, they can 2-hand a large bastard sword at only -2 for size difference. If they are not martially proficient, they can still 2-hand it at -4 and -2 for nonproficient and size.
|
|
Therefore, I am changing my opinion. As currently is written, a medium character who does not have EWP(BS) should be able to use one hand to wield a BS at a -4 non-proficient penalty,Your integrity does you credit. You also win a free toaster. : )
and could use 2 hands to wield a large BS at -4 non-proficient and -2 size penalties.Except this is where the special rule comes in:-
A character can use a bastard sword two-handed as a martial weapon.Are you using the large BS in two hands? Yes? Well, you have to, according to the rules on inappropriately-sized weapons, so yes you're using it two-handed...and therefore can use it as a martial weapon. Since you do have martial weapon proficiency, you don't take a non-proficiency penalty!
Come on....there's a coffee-maker in it for you...!
: )
You're right. To be fair, I did just say a generic "character" and not necessarily one with martial proficiency, so I could be right or wrong equally. :P
If they are martially proficient, they can 2-hand a large bastard sword at only -2 for size difference. If they are not martially proficient, they can still 2-hand it at -4 and -2 for nonproficient and size.
What kind of coffee-maker do you want? : )
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
What kind of coffee-maker do you want? : )
Can you make it the kind where I can make my coffee from the ink of RAW? Then I can say I drink the rules for breakfast!
P.S. This is a terrible idea and no one should ever try it.
|
|
As I stated in the other thread about one-handed/two-handed attacks, if the PDT would do us the kind favor of retracting the FAQ post, all of these questions will go away, and we would be left with a common sense interpretation: if you hold it in one hand, you apply one-handed stuff; if you hold it in two hands, you apply two-handed stuff. Simple.
We agree about the absurdity of the FAQ. One of the bad things about it is that even though it only talks about Power Attack, it tempts people to apply the same 'logic' to the way the Str bonus adds to damage.
As for any decision on BS/DW, if they're going to errata them then they should do so; make them two-handed weapons and put them in the correct section in the tables.
I still don't think that's better than the other way, though! I think it's more true to the spirit of the concept of these weapons to keep them as one-handed, and useable at -4 in one hand without the EWP.
|
|
Therefore, I am changing my opinion. As currently is written, a medium character who does not have EWP(BS) should be able to use one hand to wield a BS at a -4 non-proficient penalty,Your integrity does you credit. You also win a free toaster. : )
and could use 2 hands to wield a large BS at -4 non-proficient and -2 size penalties.Except this is where the special rule comes in:-
A character can use a bastard sword two-handed as a martial weapon.Are you using the large BS in two hands? Yes? Well, you have to, according to the rules on inappropriately-sized weapons, so yes you're using it two-handed...and therefore can use it as a martial weapon. Since you do have martial weapon proficiency, you don't take a non-proficiency penalty!
Come on....there's a coffee-maker in it for you...!
: )
Your end result is sort of correct, but for the wrong reasons. Paizo has made a departure from the 3.5 FAQ regarding this because Amiri the Barbarian wields a Large Bastard Sword two-handed. Whereas the 3.5 FAQ states that the bastard sword is treated as a two-handed weapon for determining inappropriate size, regardless if you have the EWP or not, Paizo, derived from how they treat Amiri, takes the EWP into account before calculating what size of weapon could be used.
So, if your medium character does NOT have the EWP, they could not wield a Large Bastard Sword because that would make it a designation of something other than a light, one-handed, or two-handed weapon. If they have the EWP, they could wield it two-handed with a -2 penalty. Page 56 of the 3.5 FAQ has a real handy-dandy chart that explains this whole "inappropriately sized weapon" mess--it's much easier for me to visualize it. (EDIT 3: I made a .pdf of the chart and uploaded it to Google Docs).
EDIT: Even if Paizo said it was strictly a one-handed weapon, even for those without the EWP, the end result is the same. If you don't have the EWP, you still have to use it two-handed. Since a Large Bastard Sword, without the EWP, would still have to be used two-handed, a medium sized creature can't wield it because the inappropriate weapon size rules take a Large Bastard Sword beyond a two-handed weapon for medium creatures.
EDIT 2: Don't fixate on the bastard sword as a one-handed weapon and then calculate from there. You need to look at how many hands are required to wield the weapon, then calculate from that point. In all cases except the Bastard Sword and the Dwarven Waraxe, the chart matches the number of hands, and so looking at the chart works out. But in these two cases, it depends on whether or not you have the EWP. (EDIT 4: In this case, the chart I am referring to is the weapon chart on page 142-143, not the chart that I linked to above).
|
|
Even if Paizo said it was strictly a one-handed weapon, even for those without the EWP, the end result is the same. If you don't have the EWP, you still have to use it two-handed. Since a Large Bastard Sword, without the EWP, would still have to be used two-handed, a medium sized creature can't wield it because the inappropriate weapon size rules take a Large Bastard Sword beyond a two-handed weapon for medium creatures.
Gimme my toaster back!
If it's a one-handed weapon (and it is), then the restriction in using it one-handed is just that! A restriction on using it one-handed! There is no restriction in using it two handed!
The rules for the number of hands you need to use a weapon do not reference the wielder's proficiency at all, and nothing in the description of these weapons restricts how you use them in two hands!
Don't fixate on the bastard sword as a one-handed weapon and then calculate from there.
That's exactly what I'll do! It's how the rules work!
Any special rule does exactly what it says on the tin! The restriction in the description is entirely about it's one-handed use (whether it's -4 or not allowed is in dispute), not about its two-handed use. What is wrong is making up your own extrapolation of that and then thinking that your made-up rule trumps the RAW on using inappropriately-sized weapons!
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Hangar, if you can show us where it says a bastard sword is a 2-handed weapon, I might agree with you. Until I see that, it is a 1-handed weapon.
If you can show where it says it is a 2-handed weapon, then we need some errata, because it is a contradiction in the rules with where it says it is a 1-handed weapon.
|
|
Even if Paizo said it was strictly a one-handed weapon, even for those without the EWP, the end result is the same. If you don't have the EWP, you still have to use it two-handed. Since a Large Bastard Sword, without the EWP, would still have to be used two-handed, a medium sized creature can't wield it because the inappropriate weapon size rules take a Large Bastard Sword beyond a two-handed weapon for medium creatures.Gimme my toaster back!
If it's a one-handed weapon (and it is), then the restriction in using it one-handed is just that! A restriction on using it one-handed! There is no restriction in using it two handed!
The rules for the number of hands you need to use a weapon do not reference the wielder's proficiency at all, and nothing in the description of these weapons restricts how you use them in two hands!
Don't fixate on the bastard sword as a one-handed weapon and then calculate from there.That's exactly what I'll do! It's how the rules work!
Any special rule does exactly what it says on the tin! The restriction in the description is entirely about it's one-handed use (whether it's -4 or not allowed is in dispute), not about its two-handed use. What is wrong is making up your own extrapolation of that and then thinking that your made-up rule trumps the RAW on using inappropriately-sized weapons!
I guess we'll have to wait on dev clarification, but I find it ironic that you're the one to usually pull out the 3.5 FAQ and now you're discounting it.
Be that as it may, let us assume for the sake of argument that you can wield the bastard sword one-handed without the EWP, with the -4 penalty—your previous calculation was still wrong.
A medium creature (without the EWP) can't wield a large bastard sword as a martial weapon—transitioning it to a large weapon would require something more than a two-handed weapon, which is not allowed. Conversely, if wielded as a one-handed exotic weapon (with the -4 penalty), a large bastard sword could be wielded in two hands, but the -4 proficiency penalty carries through. It's still a one-handed exotic weapon, even though you use two hands to wield it. So the total penalty for wielding a large bastard sword without the EWP in one hand is -6 (-2 for weapon size, -4 for proficiency).
|
|
Hangar, if you can show us where it says a bastard sword is a 2-handed weapon, I might agree with you. Until I see that, it is a 1-handed weapon.
If you can show where it says it is a 2-handed weapon, then we need some errata, because it is a contradiction in the rules with where it says it is a 1-handed weapon.
I think it's a general understanding that unless the PDT has specifically changed something, you carry on with how it was done during 3.5. The 3.5 FAQ states that the bastard sword is a two-handed weapon unless you posses the EWP (I quoted it above). Has the PDT issued a clarification to say otherwise?
Do you have access to the 3.5 FAQ? I'm not home at the moment, but I can quote the relevant sections when I get home. It's on page 55 or 56.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
A medium creature (without the EWP) can't wield a large bastard sword as a martial weapon—transitioning it to a large weapon would require something more than a two-handed weapon, which is not allowed.
You're still thinking in terms of a Bastard Sword being a two-handed weapon to begin with. It isn't. It's a one-handed weapon. In every sense.
A large-sized Bastard Sword would be a two-handed weapon for a medium-sized creature.
|
RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
I think it's a general understanding that unless the PDT has specifically changed something, you carry on with how it was done during 3.5.
No. D&D 3.5 is a different game produced by an entirely different company. Although based on the same OGC, Pathfinder is a complete game in itself, not a list of alterations to an existing game. Any interpretation of Pathfinder rules that relies on 3.5 to make sense (i.e., a reader of the CRB who is intelligent but never knew 3.5 existed would never come to the same conclusion) is extremely likely to be wrong.
The 3.5 FAQ states that the bastard sword is a two-handed weapon unless you posses the EWP (I quoted it above). Has the PDT issued a clarification to say otherwise?
Yes, it's called the Core Rulebook. It says the bastard sword is a one-handed weapon whose proficiency requirements change if you put your other hand on it.
|
|
You're still thinking in terms of a Bastard Sword being a two-handed weapon to begin with. It isn't. It's a one-handed weapon. In every sense.
A large-sized Bastard Sword would be a two-handed weapon for a medium-sized creature.
That is the crux of the issue. If it is determined that a medium character can wield a bastard sword one-handed without the EWP (albeit, with the -4 penalty), then I agree, though the -4 penalty would carry through (for a total penalty of -6). If it is determined that a medium character could not wield a bastard sword one-handed without the EWP, then no, he would not be able to wield a large bastard sword.
|
|
I think it's a general understanding that unless the PDT has specifically changed something, you carry on with how it was done during 3.5.No. D&D 3.5 is a different game produced by an entirely different company. Although based on the same OGC, Pathfinder is a complete game in itself, not a list of alterations to an existing game. Any interpretation of Pathfinder rules that relies on 3.5 to make sense (i.e., a reader of the CRB who is intelligent but never knew 3.5 existed would never come to the same conclusion) is extremely likely to be wrong.
The 3.5 FAQ states that the bastard sword is a two-handed weapon unless you posses the EWP (I quoted it above). Has the PDT issued a clarification to say otherwise?Yes, it's called the Core Rulebook. It says the bastard sword is a one-handed weapon whose proficiency requirements change if you put your other hand on it.
Except for the problem that for all extents and purposes, the wording for the bastard sword (as well as how it is listed in the weapon chart) is identical between 3.5 and Pathfinder. Sure, 3.5 says that it is also called a hand-and-a-half sword while Pathfinder says that it has a blade that is 4 feet in length. Everything beyond that point is identical. What is there to tell me that I'm supposed to think that the bastard sword operates differently between the two editions? Has the PDT stated something to that effect? Why should I assume that things operate differently just because the name on the cover has changed, when everything regarding the mechanics of the bastard sword has stayed the same?
|
RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
Even if the text is the same, that doesn't mean that other FAQs or common practices apply. If you never knew 3.5 existed, what interpretation would an intelligent reading of the Pathfinder Core Rulebook produce? Well, it says it's a one-handed weapon whose proficiency requirements are reduced if you use both hands.
There is nothing in anything published by Paizo that would suggest anything else. The only reason to think it counts as a two-handed weapon is if you're carrying over knowledge of 3.5 - knowledge which Paizo chose not to print or even acknowledge/affirm.
That which is not in a Pathfinder product or the Pathfinder FAQ is not a Pathfinder rule. Just because the Pathfinder rules didn't explicitly contradict a 3.5 practice doesn't mean that it's a valid interpretation. Being supported by the text and not being contradicted by the text are NOT the same thing.
Except for the problem that for all extents and purposes, the wording for the bastard sword (as well as how it is listed in the weapon chart) is identical between 3.5 and Pathfinder. Sure, 3.5 says that it is also called a hand-and-a-half sword while Pathfinder says that it has a blade that is 4 feet in length. Everything beyond that point is identical. What is there to tell me that I'm supposed to think that the bastard sword operates differently between the two editions? Has the PDT stated something to that effect? Why should I assume that things operate differently just because the name on the cover has changed, when everything regarding the mechanics of the bastard sword has stayed the same?I think it's a general understanding that unless the PDT has specifically changed something, you carry on with how it was done during 3.5.No. D&D 3.5 is a different game produced by an entirely different company. Although based on the same OGC, Pathfinder is a complete game in itself, not a list of alterations to an existing game. Any interpretation of Pathfinder rules that relies on 3.5 to make sense (i.e., a reader of the CRB who is intelligent but never knew 3.5 existed would never come to the same conclusion) is extremely likely to be wrong.
The 3.5 FAQ states that the bastard sword is a two-handed weapon unless you posses the EWP (I quoted it above). Has the PDT issued a clarification to say otherwise?Yes, it's called the Core Rulebook. It says the bastard sword is a one-handed weapon whose proficiency requirements change if you put your other hand on it.
In the weapon tables, 3.5 the bastard sword was listed as 1-hand exotic, and 2-hand martial.
In pathfinder, it is ONLY listed as 1-hand exotic. Therefore it is only ever a 1-handed weapon in pathfinder.
|
|
In the weapon tables, 3.5 the bastard sword was listed as 1-hand exotic, and 2-hand martial.
In pathfinder, it is ONLY listed as 1-hand exotic. Therefore it is only ever a 1-handed weapon in pathfinder.
I've got my 3.5 book opened to page 117 and it is most certainly NOT listed in the 2-handed martial melee section. Nor is it listed in the 2-handed martial melee section of page 99 of my 3.0 Players Handbook. In all three books, it is listed in the Exotic Melee section as a one-handed melee weapon (although, 3.0 calls it "Medium-size" instead of "one-handed"...whatever).
Ok, my bad, I was going off other peoples information on it.
Regardless, I do not care about how things worked in 1, 2, 3, 3.5 or any other game as far as Pathfinder goes. Pathfinder is its own game, and I don't apply monopoly rulings to it, why should I apply 3.5 faq?
From the rules in CRB, a bastard sword is a 1-handed weapon. This makes it a small object. Proficiency should not be able to change what type and size of weapon it is.
|
|
Even if the text is the same, that doesn't mean that other FAQs or common practices apply.
Based upon what?
If you never knew 3.5 existed, what interpretation would an intelligent reading of the Pathfinder Core Rulebook produce?
Well, if I never played 3.0 or 3.5, but started with Pathfinder, I would come to the conclusion that if I don't have the EWP, the bastard sword is a two-handed weapon for me--because I have to use two hands to wield it...I would treat the bastard sword the same way I treat a greatsword. I would come to the same conclusion I had when I read it in the 3.0/5 handbook the first time because THEY ARE WORDED THE SAME!
Even if the text is the same, that doesn't mean that other FAQs or common practices apply.Based upon what?
If you never knew 3.5 existed, what interpretation would an intelligent reading of the Pathfinder Core Rulebook produce?Well, if I never played 3.0 or 3.5, but started with Pathfinder, I would come to the conclusion that if I don't have the EWP the bastard sword is a two-handed weapon for me--because I have to use two hands to wield it...I would treat the bastard sword the same way I treat a greatsword. I would come to the same conclusion I had when I read it in the 3.0/5 handbook the first time because THEY ARE WORDED THE SAME!
If it is a 2-handed weapon for you, does it suddenly become medium sized? Because a 2-handed weapon for a medium character is a medium size object, while a 1-handed weapon for a medium character is a small size object.
Or are you saying you specifically have to use two hands to use the weapon as a martial weapon, and otherwise, it is still a 1-handed weapon?
I think a lot of the problems is people being imprecise with terminology.
|
|
On the question of the 3.5 FAQ: the contents of the FAQ were incompatible with the RAW of 3.5, meaning that the next printing of the 3.5 PHB would/should have been errata'd such that these weapons were not one-handed exotic weapons, but in fact two-handed martial weapons. Then a couple of feats, one for each weapon, would have allowed those with the feat to treat them as if they were one-handed.
Pathfinder had as much access to the 3.5 FAQs as the rest of us, and even better knowledge of the design intent, seeing as how most of the big name PF devs also were working on 3.5 at he time. Yet they chose to define these weapons as one-handed and exotic.
They could have changed the wording of the weapons' descriptions to match any intent that they are really two-handed. They did change the wording, but only the fluff part about why it's an exotic weapon (hand-and-a-half versus 4-foot length), so chose not to change the rest.
They also gave Amiri a large BS, which would have been unusable under the 3.5 FAQ.
As to a non-proficiency penalty:-
A character can use a bastard sword two-handed as a martial weapon.
If you can use it in two hands, and you do use it in two hands, then you use it as a martial weapon. That is, if you have martial weapon proficiency in all martial weapons because of your class, then you don't take any non-proficiency penalty when using a martial weapon, or using a weapon as a martial weapon.
Since they are one-handed weapons, a large one counts as a two-handed weapon, so a medium creature can wield a large one in two hands, and that doesn't change whether he has exotic or martial or simple or no proficiency!
Weapon proficiency does not determine whether or not you can use a weapon! It merely determines whether or not you suffer a -4 non-proficiency penalty!
What does determine whether or not you can wield a weapon are the rules on using inappropriately-sized weapons. Absolutely nothing in the description of either weapon changes what category of weapon they are!
The description of the bastard sword has two sentences. Let's examine each:-
A bastard sword is about 4 feet in length, making it too large to use in one hand without special training; thus, it is an exotic weapon.
What does 'thus' mean? 'So'. 'Therefore'.
A bastard sword is about 4 feet in length, making it too large to use in one hand without special training; therefore, it is an exotic weapon.
In order of increasing size, the swords go: short/long/bastard/great. They are all martial weapons. Except the bastard sword. Why? 'A bastard sword is about 4 feet in length, making it too large to use in one hand without special training'
So?
'Thus, it is an exotic weapon.'
None of this changes the weapon into a two-handed weapon.
Now, the other sentence:-
A character can use a bastard sword two-handed as a martial weapon.
Does this change the category (light/one-handed/two-handed) of the weapon? No, it changes which type of proficiency (simple/martial/exotic) let's you avoid the -4 non-proficiency penalty, when you use it in two hands. The principle of using a one-handed weapon in two hands has ample rules support; we know how to adjudicate that, and it isn't by turning into a two-handed weapon!