I have not seen a katana thread in a while.
"Katanas should do 2d10 damage with a x6 multiplier, and bypass all DR because the steel is quadruple folded to the 5th power, and I saw one cut a mountain in half in person."<---Ok, so its not that bad, but....
I think that nonsense is dead btw. At least I hope so.
If someone made a thread like this and was serious I want to read it for the laughs. :P
I remember when people would rage about that in 3.5. Before there was a katana, people would say "Just use a bastard sword. That's basically what it is." And then excrement would impact the rapidly rotating metal blades.
If someone made a thread like this and was serious I want to read it for the laughs. :PI have not seen a katana thread in a while.
"Katanas should do 2d10 damage with a x6 multiplier, and bypass all DR because the steel is quadruple folded to the 5th power, and I saw one cut a mountain in half in person."<---Ok, so its not that bad, but....
I think that nonsense is dead btw. At least I hope so.
I was exaggerating, but some of the people's claims about how a katana should be statted out were ridiculous :).
The same rules text is present in PF so if it was contradicting then, that means it is contradicting now.
The point of using older editions is to show possible intent.
I am all for saying the PF devs have a new intent, without changing the words, but I would expect some reasoning behind such a statement, but I have repeated that enough already.
It has been shown the basic assumption has changed. In the 3.5 FAQ the basic assumption was the bastard sword was a two-handed weapon. Any conclusion state in the FAQ derived from that assumption. In PF with the iconic barbarian that assumption as been tossed out the window*, since she is capable of wielding a larger one it must not be a two-handed weapon in actuality. Since that assumption no longer applies, you can not then assume any conclusions previously drawn still apply.
Now it could have been that the FAQ was written backwards. That is they had an outcome in mind and then tried to toss up some kind of justification for it (effect preceding cause). Likewise PF could have the same outcome in mind and thus may come up with their own ad hoc justification for it.
I can't prove to you their final position isn't different, but I can prove that their justification MUST be different. And if the justification does change, that means the outcome might as well.
I remember when people would rage about that in 3.5. Before there was a katana, people would say "Just use a bastard sword. That's basically what it is." And then excrement would impact the rapidly rotating metal blades.
Technically it was "functionally" a [mwk] bastard sword in 3.5 by the RAW (see 3.5 DMG regarding "asian weapons").
For the sake of honesty, if you are looking for evidence for the intent in 3.5, the katana entry shows it in more detail.
Katana: While functionally a bastard sword, this sword is the most masterfully made nonmagical weapon in existance. It counts as a masterwork weapon and grants its wielder a +1 bonus on attack rolls. A katana is too large to use in one hand without special training; thus, it is an exotic weapon. A Medium character can use a katana two-handed as a martial weapon, or a Large creature can use it one-handed in the same way. With Exotic Weapon Proficiency (katana), a Medium creature can use it in one hand. A masterwork weapon's bonus on attack rolls does not stack with an enhancement bonus on attack rolls.
Leads me to believe the weapons in question would be better worded with:
"You can use a [weapon] made for a creature of your size category two-handed as a martial weapon. With Exotic Weapon Proficiency ([weapon]), a you can use it in one hand."
|
It has been shown the basic assumption has changed. In the 3.5 FAQ the basic assumption was the bastard sword was a two-handed weapon. Any conclusion state in the FAQ derived from that assumption. In PF with the iconic barbarian that assumption as been tossed out the window*, since she is capable of wielding a larger one it must not be a two-handed weapon in actuality.
EDIT: Errr...if you can't tell, it's supposed to be a linky.
It has been shown the basic assumption has changed. In the 3.5 FAQ the basic assumption was the bastard sword was a two-handed weapon. Any conclusion state in the FAQ derived from that assumption. In PF with the iconic barbarian that assumption as been tossed out the window*, since she is capable of wielding a larger one it must not be a two-handed weapon in actuality.EDIT: Errr...if you can't tell, it's supposed to be a linky.
Ok, whatever I disagree since a two-handed weapon up-sized can't be wielded at all (it would be like saying you could wield a large sized sawtooth sabre in one-hand as long as you used it in your off-hand), the point is SOMETHING changed. That is evidence of a change in thinking. wraithstrike keeps asking for proof they have changed their thinking, that is proof. What extent they have changed their thinking remains to be seen, but saying there is no proof that their thinking has change is disingenuous.
It has been shown the basic assumption has changed. In the 3.5 FAQ the basic assumption was the bastard sword was a two-handed weapon. Any conclusion state in the FAQ derived from that assumption. In PF with the iconic barbarian that assumption as been tossed out the window*, since she is capable of wielding a larger one it must not be a two-handed weapon in actuality.Just because Amiri is built the way she is doesn't mean that Paizo threw out the assumption that the bastard sword is a two-handed weapon.
Paizo absolutely uses the assumption that a bastard sword is a two-handed weapon and when you have EWP you can treat the bastard sword as a one handed weapon.
The problem is that doesn't match what is written.
So are you RAI or RAW?
The same rules text is present in PF so if it was contradicting then, that means it is contradicting now.
The point of using older editions is to show possible intent.
I am all for saying the PF devs have a new intent, without changing the words, but I would expect some reasoning behind such a statement, but I have repeated that enough already.
It has been shown the basic assumption has changed. In the 3.5 FAQ the basic assumption was the bastard sword was a two-handed weapon. Any conclusion state in the FAQ derived from that assumption. In PF with the iconic barbarian that assumption as been tossed out the window*, since she is capable of wielding a larger one it must not be a two-handed weapon in actuality. Since that assumption no longer applies, you can not then assume any conclusions previously drawn still apply.
Now it could have been that the FAQ was written backwards. That is they had an outcome in mind and then tried to toss up some kind of justification for it (effect preceding cause). Likewise PF could have the same outcome in mind and thus may come up with their own ad hoc justification for it.
I can't prove to you their final position isn't different, but I can prove that their justification MUST be different. And if the justification does change, that means the outcome might as well.
** spoiler omitted **
I agree that it is not a two-handed weapon, and I explained why it is possible to get the right answer with the wrong explanation 1 or 2 pages ago.
|
|
Ok, whatever I disagree since a two-handed weapon up-sized can't be wielded at all (it would be like saying you could wield a large sized sawtooth sabre in one-hand as long as you used it in your off-hand), ...
I don't know if you looked at my comments from the link, but I put forward two possibilities:
1) It's a one-handed weapon.
2) It's a two-handed weapon, but the EWP is taken into account (thus able to upsize).
Either one of these scenarios would account for Amiri's build.
... the point is SOMETHING changed. That is evidence of a change in thinking. wraithstrike keeps asking for proof they have changed their thinking, that is proof. What extent they have changed their thinking remains to be seen, but saying there is no proof that their thinking has change is disingenuous.
We both agree that something has changed, but that change doesn't necessarily affect the outcome of whether or not a bastard sword can be used in one hand without the EWP, nor does it show an abandonment of a precedent set by previous editions regarding this question.
... the point is SOMETHING changed. That is evidence of a change in thinking. wraithstrike keeps asking for proof they have changed their thinking, that is proof. What extent they have changed their thinking remains to be seen, but saying there is no proof that their thinking has change is disingenuous.
Actually I asked for proof that they are no longer agreeing with the 3.5 FAQ for the purpose of how to use the weapon since the words are the same.
|
|
*RISE OF THE RUNELORDS SPOILER* that pertains to this thread.
Please spoiler any discussion about this because one of my players is an active participant in this thread.
|
|
Yeah, the AE.
Basically, for those who are unable/unwilling to read the spoiler: the build of a certain character (plus the discussion that surrounded the character) seems to indicate that Paizo holds the opinion that if you don't have the EWP, you can't use the bastard sword, dwarven waraxe, etc. in one hand.
|
You seem to be missing the part where I said the clarification (assuming that's how they rule it) would boil down to them saying, as was stating in one of the 3.0 FAQs, that for the purpose of determining who wields these types of weapons (and for that purpose only), treat them as two-handed martial weapons. That's a natural conclusion from the reading I provided. Granted, that's not necessarily how they have to read it, but doing it that way would absolutely give them the ability to restrict the use of the weapons via FAQ, without having to add superfluous language.
That isn't a difficult track to follow if they clarify that a nonproficient person can only use such a weapon two-handed as a martial weapon. How do we treat these weapons? Just like any other weapon that can be wielded by this character only two-handed as a martial weapon.
"A character without the feat can only use a bastard sword two-handed as a martial weapon." In other words, "To determine who may wield a bastard sword without the feat, treat it like any other weapon which must be used two-handed."
Your hangup appears to be going from "can only use two-handed/must be used two handed" to "for the purposes of determining who can wield, treat it like". Is that the only possible interpretation of this language? No, certainly not. That's why we're where we are right now. And I can see how you might not like that language and would prefer to read it another way. But it is certainly a legitimate reading and it's not unapparent. There are no great leaps of logic involved in getting from A to B. There is no added language in getting from A to B. The latter logically follows from the former, even if it's not how you would choose to read it (if you can only wield an item in two hands, treat as two-handed when figuring out who can wield it). That it's not what you might not like does not invalidate that it is a legitimate reading. This can be resolved without having to add any new language or change any other rules. They could simply clarify the meaning of the language already in place.
Similarly, they could also clarify it to mean the opposite - that its other apparent meaning is what was intended. There is only a penalty for nonproficiency and even then it's only when trying to one-hand a regularly sized weapon (so both proficient and nonproficient users can two-hand an oversized weapon with equally efficiency).
Two contradictory meanings both apparent from a natural reading of the language. It can easily be resolved by FAQ.
So, you think that the devs can persuade us, without any change in either the wording or the rules, that despite the complete lack of words such as 'is' or 'is treated as' a two-handed weapon, 'too large to use in one hand' really means 'treat as a two-handed weapon'?
As luck would have it, the Paizo Design Team have ruled on this very issue within the last month!
We know that if the words say 'treat as a one-handed weapon' then we would treat a two-handed weapon as if it were a one-handed weapon. And if the words say 'treat as a two-handed weapon' then we would treat a one-handed weapon as a two-handed weapon. Obviously.
But what if it doesn't say 'treat as', or words to that effect? What was Paizo's ruling?
When describing a two-handed weapon, if the description says only 'under certain circumstances, you can wield this weapon in one hand', but does not say 'under certain circumstances, treat it as a one-handed weapon', can we assume that it means 'treat as' even when it never says 'treat as'?
According to Paizo, no!
The PDT have recently ruled that a two-handed weapon (the lance), even when legitimately wielded in one hand, remains a two-handed weapon, and is still treated as a two-handed weapon!
So when the description says...:-
you can wield a lance with one hand
...you absolute cannot assume that this means 'treat it as a one-handed weapon when used one-handed.
Given that, Paizo cannot simultaneously tell us that when the description says...:-
too large to use in one hand
...it means the opposite!
According to the design team, if a weapon doesn't say 'treat as' then it doesn't mean 'treat as'!
So, while they can certainly errata it if they want, a mere FAQ cannot tell us that the absence of the words 'treat as' can be assumed for one weapon and not for another.
Furthermore, 'A character can use a bastard sword two-handed as a martial weapon' is not the same as 'A characteruses a bastard sword as a two-handed as a martial weapon'!
It's using it two-handed (as in using a one-handed weapon in two hands) as a martial weapon.
|
|
Yeah, the AE.
Basically, for those who are unable/unwilling to read the spoiler: the build of a certain character (plus the discussion that surrounded the character) seems to indicate that Paizo holds the opinion that if you don't have the EWP, you can't use the bastard sword, dwarven waraxe, etc. in one hand.
As I've previously mentioned, this is the only part which can be resolved with a mere FAQ.
Note that even if they say that you can't wield them one-handed without EWP, this will absolutely not mean that you 'treat it as' a two-handed weapon! It will remain a one-handed weapon used in two hands, without an errata to the contrary.
a very long post
When the devs rule on this what do you think they will say?
I imagine in the early days of development for 3e there was some conversation like this:
Developer 2: Now what about the bastard sword?
D1: So how are we going to describe that.
D2: It is bigger than a long sword and smaller than a great sword.
D1: Hmm, we don't have any size category left to fit it in. Maybe we could make a new one, or a great sword should be huge (two-hand) and a bastard sword could be large (one-and-a-half-hand).
D2: Nah, we already have four weapon sizes [becomes three in 3.5], besides people might think that since a great sword is huge it must be 15 feet tall or something.
D1: So that means it is either medium (one-hand) or large (two-hand).
D2: Well if it is a medium (one-hand) martial weapon, nobody is going to use the long sword, if it is large (two-hand)weapon then nobody will use it and will use the great sword instead. I don't think we can make it martial.
D1: Ok, it is exotic, but nobody is going to take a feat for a large (two-hand) that is infer to the great sword. I guess it has to be a medium (one-hand) exotic.
D2: Sounds good.
D1: Still, if you can use a long sword and a great sword in two-hands with martial training, then if the bastard sword is just a regular type sword between the two, you should be able to use it two-handed with martial training.
D2: Ok, so it is an exotic medium (one-hand), but a martial large (two-hand).
I thought there were only 3 sizes in 3.0. I never played 3.0. I am just by what I Think I saw someone mention earlier. I would look it up, but I don't think it matters at this point.
|
|
I imagine in the early days of development for 3e there was some conversation like this:
** spoiler omitted **
If the conversation went this way (and I think you're there or thereabouts), then the upshot would be that using a one-handed exotic weapon in one hand without proficiency results in a -4 non-proficiency attack penalty.
|
|
I thought there were only 3 sizes in 3.0. I never played 3.0. I am just by what I Think I saw someone mention earlier. I would look it up, but I don't think it matters at this point.
Yeah, in 3.0 dagger was tiny, which would be one-step below 'light' in 3.5.
Remember they didn't have rules on inappropriately-sized weapons. Each weapon was a specific size, so reading the 3.0 BS description only makes sense with that in mind.
I thought there were only 3 sizes in 3.0. I never played 3.0. I am just by what I Think I saw someone mention earlier. I would look it up, but I don't think it matters at this point.Yeah, in 3.0 dagger was tiny, which would be one-step below 'light' in 3.5.
Remember they didn't have rules on inappropriately-sized weapons. Each weapon was a specific size, so reading the 3.0 BS description only makes sense with that in mind.
Keep in mind that 3.0 had small humanoids as playable characters. This means in order to cover the equivalent of {light, one-hand, and two-hand} weapons for both medium and small characters, you'd need 4 sizes of weapons (they overlap for the middle two). With the introduction of 3.5 and versions of weapons for every size creature, they didn't need this anymore so they folded the ultra-light (tiny) and light (small) weapons into one category, light.
If the conversation went this way (and I think you're there or thereabouts), then the upshot would be that using a one-handed exotic weapon in one hand without proficiency results in a -4 non-proficiency attack penalty.I imagine in the early days of development for 3e there was some conversation like this:
** spoiler omitted **
Actually, I think they truly wanted a 1-1/2-hand level of weapons, but just couldn't make it work system they had set up. Basically they painted themselves in a corner and had to try to squeeze this additional size halfway into two other sizes. So I can't say for sure they would have been comfortable with the idea that you could wield it one-handed without EWP at a -4 penalty. I think they wrote the description in such a way as to motivate people to play it the way they envisioned it, one-handed exotic, two-handed martial. They didn't really want people deviating from that concept and working outside the box, so to speak.
|
|
a very long postWhen the devs rule on this what do you think they will say?
Usually I've got a pretty damn good idea of what they will say, though they have surprised me once or twice.
But this time....there is so much history of large amounts of people (devs and FAQs included!) who honestly think it means one thing and just as many people think it means the other, I just can't predict this.
I doubt they'll make it a two-handed weapon though. Too much game material exists with it as one-handed.
For perspective, I used to think that it was a one-handed exotic weapon with the EWP and a two-handed martial weapon without, but that's because I just skimmed the text and thought I understood it. I never gave it a second thought (it's such a sub-optimum weapon with that interpretation I never needed to check it again) until someone posted on this forum with the opposite conviction.
I was about to ridicule him in a blistering post, and thought I'd quote the actual wording just to grind it into his face....! Then it turned out he was right. : /
Reading closely and critically, it's never a martial weapon, just treated as such when used in two hands, and it's treated that way irrespective of size.
It's never a two-handed weapon (unless made for a creature one size larger than you), nor is it ever used as if it were a two-handed weapon. It remains a one-handed weapon used two-handed.
What we might think the rules say, no matter what we might think they should say, doesn't actually change what they do say!
If the rules as written didn't work, that's one thing. But they work just fine as a one-handed weapon; there's nothing to fix!
The only thing that actually needs addressing is whether it can be used one-handed at all or at -4. The current wording is wrong either way. If it can't be used at all, then the 'thus, it's an exotic weapon' just makes it less clear. If it's an exotic weapon and the 'it's too big' text is explain why, then the entire sentence is redundant. It could just say 'a creature can use it two-handed as a martial weapon. Done and done. Anyone who interprets that as meaning it must be used as a two-handed weapon would be wrong!
|
|
Actually, I think they truly wanted a 1-1/2-hand level of weapons, but just couldn't make it work system they had set up. Basically they painted themselves in a corner and had to try to squeeze this additional size halfway into two other sizes. So I can't say for sure they would have been comfortable with the idea that you could wield it one-handed without EWP at a -4 penalty. I think they wrote the description in such a way as to motivate people to play it the way they envisioned it, one-handed exotic, two-handed martial. They didn't really want people deviating from that concept and working outside the box, so to speak.
Another thing to remember is that the new 3.0 rules were being explained to the players of 1st and 2nd ed, where the bastard sword could be used one or two-handed without any 'special' training or high strength. In those games you didn't add 1.5 x Str mod when using a weapon two-handed; the weapons just had appropriate damage codes.
So it did 2-8/2-16 versus S-M/L targets (read 2d4/2d8), but with a line saying that if you used it one-handed then it only did the same damage as a longsword: 1-8/1-12.
So there was absolutely no difficulty in using it one or two-handed before 3rd ed, and it needed explaining as to why it was suddenly an exotic weapon.
So, you think that the devs can persuade us, without any change in either the wording or the rules, that despite the complete lack of words such as 'is' or 'is treated as' a two-handed weapon, 'too large to use in one hand' really means 'treat as a two-handed weapon'?
Yes. For the purpose of determining who may wield it.
I'm not making a blanket, "It's now a two-handed martial weapon, everybody!" statement. Never have.
And again, I'm not saying this is necessarily the reading, I'm not saying you have to adopt it at this time, I'm not saying this is absolutely, positively, no-questions-asked exactly how the PDT intended the section to be interpreted. I am, however, telling you that it is a legitimate interpretation of the already existent language and inferences directly derived therefrom. Ergo, it is possible to FAQ this matter without having to monkey around with the language.
It may not provide the most satisfactory of results. You may not like it. But it certainly is possible.
And frankly, the lance doesn't really have much to do with this. I mean, if we wanted to start talking about whether a creature could wield an oversized lance but only in two hands and while mounted, that would be relevant to the oversized Bastard Sword discussion (for the record, I'd probably be fine with it in my home game), but other than that it's not particularly germane.
|
|
Yeah, the AE.
Basically, for those who are unable/unwilling to read the spoiler: the build of a certain character (plus the discussion that surrounded the character) seems to indicate that Paizo holds the opinion that if you don't have the EWP, you can't use the bastard sword, dwarven waraxe, etc. in one hand.
As I've previously mentioned, this is the only part which can be resolved with a mere FAQ.
Note that even if they say that you can't wield them one-handed without EWP, this will absolutely not mean that you 'treat it as' a two-handed weapon! It will remain a one-handed weapon used in two hands, without an errata to the contrary.
If you HAVE to use the bastard sword two-handed, the question of whether it is a "one-handed weapon being used with two hands" or "being used as a two-handed weapon" is completely irrelevant because the end results are EXACTLY THE SAME. The PDT doesn't need to errata the rules to reflect this.
If you HAVE to use the bastard sword two-handed, the question of whether it is a "one-handed weapon being used with two hands" or "being used as a two-handed weapon" is completely irrelevant because the end results are EXACTLY THE SAME. The PDT doesn't need to errata the rules to reflect this.Yeah, the AE.
Basically, for those who are unable/unwilling to read the spoiler: the build of a certain character (plus the discussion that surrounded the character) seems to indicate that Paizo holds the opinion that if you don't have the EWP, you can't use the bastard sword, dwarven waraxe, etc. in one hand.
As I've previously mentioned, this is the only part which can be resolved with a mere FAQ.
Note that even if they say that you can't wield them one-handed without EWP, this will absolutely not mean that you 'treat it as' a two-handed weapon! It will remain a one-handed weapon used in two hands, without an errata to the contrary.
Not exactly, if you go up a size, then if it is a one-handed weapon used with two-hands [a condition possible for any one-handed weapon] becomes a two-handed weapon used with two-hands [a condition possible for any two-handed weapon]. If it is instead a one-handed weapon used as if it was a two-handed weapon becomes a two-handed weapon not able to be used [because it would have to be treated as a "three-handed" weapon].
|
|
I'm sure some might disagree, but I felt that the discussion of whether or not Paizo considers the bastard sword a one-handed weapon or a two-handed weapon, while certainly directly related to the question in this thread, is deserving of it's own thread.
|
|
Not exactly, if you go up a size, then if it is a one-handed weapon used with two-hands [a condition possible for any one-handed weapon] becomes a two-handed weapon used with two-hands [a condition possible for any two-handed weapon]. If it is instead a one-handed weapon used as if it was a two-handed weapon becomes a two-handed weapon not able to be used [because it would have to be treated as a "three-handed" weapon].
It's kind of funny that you say that because a large one-handed weapon must be used in two-hands by a medium character. For that character, it is a two-handed weapon because he has to use it in two hands...
...and because a medium character would have to use a medium bastard sword in two hands (without the EWP)...
Not exactly, if you go up a size, then if it is a one-handed weapon used with two-hands [a condition possible for any one-handed weapon] becomes a two-handed weapon used with two-hands [a condition possible for any two-handed weapon]. If it is instead a one-handed weapon used as if it was a two-handed weapon becomes a two-handed weapon not able to be used [because it would have to be treated as a "three-handed" weapon].It's kind of funny that you say that because a large one-handed weapon must be used in two-hands by a medium character. For that character, it is a two-handed weapon because he has to use it in two hands...
...and because a medium character would have to use a medium bastard sword in two hands (without the EWP)...
Actually, no. It is not a two-handed weapon because he has to use it in two hands, it is a two-handed weapon for that character because it is a large one-handed weapon, which requires two hands to use. You are putting the cart before the horse.
There is no: "because a medium character would have to use a medium bastard sword in two hands". There is only: "because a medium bastard sword is too large a medium character would have to use it in two hands (without the EWP).
Note: I seem to agree with most that the only question left to resolve is, if you don't have the EWP can you use a bastard sword in one hand or not?
Yes i know it was brought up before but figured i would point out again that the FAQ tag was covered.
Yes i know it was brought up before but figured i would point out again that the FAQ tag was covered.
It was mentioned (a few times, I think). "He can be wrong." "But RAW says differently." Or something like that.
EDIT: And mind you, it's only a little bit sad that quite literally the exact same argument we've been having for pages played out for the few posts right before that.
My main point was that apparently people clicked FAQ the guys who change FAQ tags responded that no reply was needed seems they felt James was right on the money.
My next question is this then.
Can one wield a Flambard in one hand at a -4 penalty?
Flambard
This two-handed sword has a wavy blade that is especially useful for cutting through wooden weapons.
Benefit: If you are proficient with this weapon, you gain a +4 bonus on any sunder attempts made against weapons with a wooden haft; otherwise you may use this sword as a bastard sword.
Weapon Feature(s): +4 sunder bonus vs. wood
My main point was that apparently people clicked FAQ the guys who change FAQ tags responded that no reply was needed seems they felt James was right on the money.
"But they can be wrong." "But RAW says differently." Or something like that.
There's also this quote from a few posts later.
In any event, my intent was to lay down how things "officially" work as regards how you'll see this character concept function in published adventures from us, and how it'll work in the PFS game. How it works in your own game depends on you or your GM. If my description helps, great! If it doesn't, feel free to ignore it.
In short, the "official"/PFS ruling is that you have to take the feat to wield it one-handed and essentially treat it as two-handed for the purpose of figuring out who can wield it. If you want to treat it differently in a home game, by all means do it. But that's how it works by RAW.
EDIT: Also, I hadn't noticed that his post had actually been FAQ'ed and "responded" to, so thanks for pointing that out.
Actually it seems the official stance is "How it works in your own game depends on you or your GM." James Jacobs response is effectively a "house rule" for how it works in published adventures and PFS.
Unless this ruling has been added to the official FAQ?
|
|
Actually it seems the official stance is "How it works in your own game depends on you or your GM." James Jacobs response is effectively a "house rule" for how it works in published adventures and PFS.
Unless this ruling has been added to the official FAQ?
If that's what you got from it...but I don't know how one can consider the way Paizo is doing it to be the house rule.
Actually it seems the official stance is "How it works in your own game depends on you or your GM." James Jacobs response is effectively a "house rule" for how it works in published adventures and PFS.
Unless this ruling has been added to the official FAQ?
It hasn't been added to the official FAQ but as Talonhawke noted, it was marked as a FAQ request and apparently it was deemed that no response was needed.
And again, his intent was to explain how it works for PFS, which is basically purely RAW. So I don't think it can be considered a PFS "house rule".
Actually it seems the official stance is "How it works in your own game depends on you or your GM." James Jacobs response is effectively a "house rule" for how it works in published adventures and PFS.
Unless this ruling has been added to the official FAQ?
It hasn't been added to the official FAQ but as Talonhawke noted, it was marked as a FAQ request and apparently it was deemed that no response was needed.
And again, his intent was to explain how it works for PFS, which is basically purely RAW. So I don't think it can be considered a PFS "house rule".
I think you are making too strong of a claim that PFS = RAW. I am sure there are rule combinations that they found were problematic using the RAW and so changed how they work in society plan.
I think you are making too strong of a claim that PFS = RAW. I am sure there are rule combinations that they found were problematic using the RAW and so changed how they work in society plan.Actually it seems the official stance is "How it works in your own game depends on you or your GM." James Jacobs response is effectively a "house rule" for how it works in published adventures and PFS.
Unless this ruling has been added to the official FAQ?
It hasn't been added to the official FAQ but as Talonhawke noted, it was marked as a FAQ request and apparently it was deemed that no response was needed.
And again, his intent was to explain how it works for PFS, which is basically purely RAW. So I don't think it can be considered a PFS "house rule".
PFS uses the intended rules unless otherwise specifically stated. AFAIK there is no specific rules exception to PFS for this weapon.
With that said I don't know how official "no response required" is.
With that said I don't know how official "no response required" is.
I don't really see it as necessarily shutting the door on this matter, but for me Jacobs' post coupled with the non-response and the historical language makes for a really strong case. Much more so than any counterarguments I've seen presented thus far.
With that said I don't know how official "no response required" is.I don't really see it as necessarily shutting the door on this matter, but for me Jacobs' post coupled with the non-response and the historical language makes for a really strong case. Much more so than any counterarguments I've seen presented thus far.
I can agree with that.
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?
Let me clarify. I am perfectly okay with the ruling as James Jacobs gave it, except for the fact that it is poorly worded.
As folks have noted, our iconic barbarian Amiri does this exact thing; she uses a Large bastard sword she got from a dead giant as her primary weapon. The ONLY way that she can wield such a weapon is by using it two-handed as an exotic weapon—thus, she has to have the Exotic Weapon (bastard sword) feat, and even then suffers a –2 penalty to attack rolls with it. Part of her story flavor is that she "can only properly wield the sword when she's raging" (as in, the +2 bonus to hit she gets cancels out her –2 penalty for wielding an oversized weapon).
The part in bold is fine and makes perfect sense to me. It is a large one-handed exotic weapon, so it requires two hands and the exotic weapon proficiency to use for a medium creature.
If she didn't have the Exotic Weapon (bastard sword) feat, she can only use the weapon as a two handed weapon. Medium creatures simply cannot properly wield Large two handed weapons, so without the feat, she could CARRRY the sword but she couldn't use it. Best case scenario, I'd let a player who didn't have Exotic Weapon (bastard sword) use a Large bastard sword as a big improvised weapon that dealt like 1d6 damage and had a normal threat range.
This is where he loses it. She can not "only use the weapon as a two handed weapon". She can use it as a one handed weapon, two handed. There is a big difference. It is the same as they ruled on the lance. The lance is a two handed weapon that is being used with one hand, it is not a two handed weapon being used as a one handed weapon.
If you want your character to use a Large bastard sword as a bastard sword and not a cumbersome improvised weapon in the same way you might wield a sofa or a dinner table, and you're playing in a home game, talk to your GM for final ruling.
He did not say: "Talk to your GM for a house rule." He said: "talk to your GM for final ruling." So apparently his own ruling is not final.
If you're playing in the Pathfinder Society org play campaign, you need Exotic Weapon (bastard sword) as a feat to use it.
Again, he says that this is for Pathfinder Society play. He does not say it is an official FAQ. If they want to make it an official FAQ, fine. But I would hope they clean up the wording or at least the consistency of their rules when they do so.
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 think he was being facetious, mostly. Hero Lab certainly isn't an authority on rules.
Don't think this has been quoted yet:
The measure of how much effort it takes to use a weapon (whether the weapon is designated as a light, one-handed, or two-handed weapon for a particular wielder) is altered by one step for each size category of difference between the wielder's size and the size of the creature for which the weapon was designed. For example, a Small creature would wield a Medium one-handed weapon as a two-handed weapon. If a weapon's designation would be changed to something other than light, one-handed, or two-handed by this alteration, the creature can't wield the weapon at all.
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."
Exact same words... different order... a lot clearer. As far as I can tell there is no performance difference between using a one-handed weapon two-handed and a two-handed weapon. Of course the bastard sword would still physically be a one-handed weapon (for hit points and things), but it would function as a two-handed weapon when used with a martial proficiency.
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?