Agreed to everything in your post (though there isn't a strong "the DM can't be wrong sentiment on these boards xD).
But this subforum is primarily about how the rules are designed, not how they should be designed, hence why the discussion is about the former. You'll find me a frequent poster on the homebrew forum too, though :3
The class feature doesn't have to meet the same requirements that the feat must, that is the difference.
Now if you had a class that had the class feature, proficient in all martial weapons (must say something like this) but the ... oh I don't know ... trident, in that case the class would give proficiency in the bastard sword used in two hands. Because the class feature bypasses the requirements of the feat.
I think that's a distinction without a difference. If the class feature is "You're proficient with all of them" or "You have(or are treated as having) the feat(s) to be proficient in all of them", I don't see a functional difference.
Whether it's via feat or via class feature, the Bastard Sword is not actually a martial weapon. From that regard, no manner of feat or class ability would cover it. However if it were recognized that for the purpose of wielding without the feat it should be treated like a two-handed martial weapon, then it would make sense that the "martial" classes would be proficient (whether via "feat" or class ability), but not other classes who have only some martial proficiencies. That would also cover the hypothetical "all but one" case, as well.
In short, it's not that the martial classes are proficient in all martial weapons that ultimately matters, because the Bastard Sword is not a martial weapon. What matters is that for the purpose of wielding without the feat it is treated like a two-handed martial weapon. It can't be treated like just a "martial" weapon because there really isn't such a thing. It'd have to be treated like a light, one-handed, or two-handed martial weapon. In this case, it'd obviously have to be two-handed.
Agreed to everything in your post (though there isn't a strong "the DM can't be wrong sentiment on these boards xD).
But this subforum is primarily about how the rules are designed, not how they should be designed, hence why the discussion is about the former. You'll find me a frequent poster on the homebrew forum too, though :3
Oh, I agree, which is why intent is meaningless for me in this forum. Looking for intent isn't looking at how the rules are actually designed, but instead how the designers thought they wanted to design the rules. The issue isn't whether they wanted to have a rule do X, but instead did they actually write the rule to do X. If it instead does Y, then their intent for it to do X is meaningless, until they issue an errata and/or a new printing.
In short, it's not that the martial classes are proficient in all martial weapons that ultimately matters, because the Bastard Sword is not a martial weapon. What matters is that for the purpose of wielding without the feat it is treated like a two-handed martial weapon. It can't be treated like just a "martial" weapon because there really isn't such a thing. It'd have to be treated like a light, one-handed, or two-handed martial weapon. In this case, it'd obviously have to be two-handed.
Agreed. Oh, and I think I may have hit upon an hilarious alternative read of the bastard sword martial weapon rule: "a martial weapon" can be read as "a weapon in the category martial weapon", but it can also be read as "any weapon in the category martial weapon". (No, I don't for one second believe this to be the intent.)
Fun.
Oh, I agree, which is why intent is meaningless for me in this forum. Looking for intent isn't looking at how the rules are actually designed, but instead how the designers thought they wanted to design the rules. The issue isn't whether they wanted to have a rule do X, but instead did they actually write the rule to do X. If it instead does Y, then their intent for it to do X is meaningless, until they issue an errata and/or a new printing.
That's more of a philosophical debate. If Kim says "I would like some ice cream", would the most appropriate answer for Charlie be "Oh, would you like it you say? Don't you like it? Can't you?" or "Alright, here's some ice cream."
If the topic of a discussion is "What is it Kim wants?" is it more relevant to look at it as "If we pick apart the sentence, and note the wording exactly, Kim wants to like ice cream" or "Kim probably wants to get some ice cream, that's the most likely intent of what Kim was trying to say".
Is the goal of being a receiver in communication to pick apart the message in a strict sense and look for the most literal interpretation possible, or understanding what the sender was trying to communicate?
While neither is exactly wrong, I think the second interpretation is a more _useful_ one. Whether Charlie wants to give Kim ice cream or not (ie whether or not I like how the rules are designed or not) isn't really relevant in that situation.
A better analogy would be if someone asked, "Would you like some strawberry ice cream?" You answer, "Sure that would be great." They then hand you a bowl and in the bowl is strawberry yogurt. You ask, "I thought this was suppose to be strawberry ice cream?" They answer, "Well you can use yogurt to make frozen yogurt and that is just like ice cream. So this is really ice cream."
At that point, it doesn't matter if they intended to give you ice cream, because what they actually gave you was yogurt.
Uhm... No, because the rules texts are the message, not the ice cream. I could have used any kind of example where the literal interpretation didn't have to go hand in hand with the intent, not because of the sender's ill will but because of the receiver's focus on the literal interpretation.
When someone asks you "what time you've got?" is the most relevant answer "Oh it's three PM" or "I do not have any time in my possession"? It might be that someone who haven't heard the expression "what time you've got" might be unsure what is asked, but when discussing it - is it better to look at what they likely where trying to ask, or what the sentence can mean in it's most literal sense?
Your example would be of the sender consciously trying to bend the words in a different direction; like if the dev's have said "next week we'll release a new full-BAB class" and then release a half-BAB class with some language about it always being well-fed.
I think in my example you mistook the ice cream as representing the rules - that was not my intent. Rather, the rules texts is the person saying they'd like some ice cream; the rules text is a message that the devs (the sender) is trying to convey to us (the receivers).
Official Rules Response
|
FAQ: http://paizo.com/paizo/faq/v5748nruor1fm#v5748eaic9qut
Exotic Weapons and Hands: If a weapon is wielded two-handed as a martial weapon and one-handed with an exotic weapon proficiency, can I wield it one-handed without the exotic proficiency at a –4 penalty?
No.
Note that normally you can't wield a two-handed weapon in one hand. A bastard sword is an exception to that rule that you can't wield a two-handed weapon in one hand, but you must have special training to use the bastard sword this way. Without that special training, wielding a bastard sword one-handed is as impossible as wielding a greatsword one-handed.
(The same goes for other weapons with this one-handed exotic exception, such as the dwarven waraxe.)
Edit 7/26/13: Correction of a typo in the second sentence that said "you can't wield a two-handed weapon in two hands."
So I guess this means that they are a small 2 handed weapon then.
A bastard sword is a one-handed exotic melee weapon, just like it's listed on the table.
One handed weapon that can't be wielded in one hand?
It can, if you have the feat. If you don't have the feat, that's you're decision.
I may have traits and favored class bonuses bringing the non-proficiency penalty down to 0, but without that feat, I can't let go with one hand?
Can you use a greatsword in one hand? No? Then no.
Can I use it one hand as an improvised weapon?
Can you use a greatsword in one hand as an improvised weapon? No? Then no.
You also can't use a greatsword one-handed as an improvised bastard sword, even if you have EWP (bastard sword). The game is very clear that if you don't have EWP (bastard sword), it's a two-handed weapon for you, and if you do have EWP (bastard sword), it's a one-handed weapon for you. The end.
Now it is official classified as a two-handed weapon.
Note that normally you can't wield a two-handed weapon in one hand.
If the BS is not a two-handed weapon this is irrelevant.
A bastard sword is an exception to that rule that you can't wield a two-handed weapon in two hands,
There it is, the bastard sword is a two-handed weapon, otherwise it couldn't be an exception to the two-handed weapon rule.
but you must have special training to use the bastard sword this way. Without that special training, wielding a bastard sword one-handed is as impossible as wielding a greatsword one-handed.
The bastard sword is in the same weapon category as the greatsword.
(The same goes for other weapons with this one-handed exotic exception, such as the dwarven waraxe.)
Alright, now I am officially confused. :(
They are reported as one handed exotic melee, that you cannot use one handed unless you have the proficency.
I love that the Pathfinder Design Team answers questions like these, and more frequent nowadays than ever. It's really great to see. However, this ruling is a bit confusing to me too, and this is something that could affect new players too... I'm not sure I could explain to a new player how this works very well at all.
Wouldn't it had been better if it was stated to be a two-handed weapon (for _all_ purposes), but that people with EWP could treat it as a two-handed or one-handed weapon as they like, as long as they wield it properly?
EDIT:
To clarify the confusion, look at this feat: Shield of Swings
" When you take a full-attack action while wielding a two-handed weapon, you can choose to reduce the damage by 1/2 to gain a +4 shield bonus to AC and CMD until the beginning of your next turn. "
There are several other common abilities which are similarly restricted to two-handed weapons.
1. Can this ever be used with a bastard sword?
2. Does it's compability change with the feats the user has?
3. Does it's compability change based on how it's wielded?
I didn't catch this the first time:
A bastard sword is an exception to that rule that you can't wield a two-handed weapon in two hands,
Apparently you can't use two-handed weapons in two hands, except for bastard swords (and other similar weapons). LOL
I didn't catch this the first time:
A bastard sword is an exception to that rule that you can't wield a two-handed weapon in two hands,Apparently you can't use two-handed weapons in two hands, except for bastard swords (and other similar weapons). LOL
*snerk*
Wouldn't it had been better if it was stated to be a two-handed weapon (for _all_ purposes), but that people with EWP could treat it as a two-handed or one-handed weapon as they like, as long as they wield it properly?
For the love of god this. Please errata the weapon
|
Alright, now I am officially confused. :(
They are reported as one handed exotic melee, that you cannot use one handed unless you have the proficency.
There's nothing to be confused about, though it is awkward just because there isn't a neat place to put it on the weapon charts. It's a one-handed weapon that requires the EWP to use it as a one handed weapon. If you don't have the EWP, it is a two-handed weapon for you.
So, even if you don't have the EWP, it is a one-handed weapon for the purposes of being sundered or other such things that depend on the weapon classification.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
It's treated like a 2-handed martial weapon for the purpose of determining who may wield the sword without the EWP feat and for that reason alone. It's not complicated. For every other reason it is a one-handed exotic weapon. Straight forward. Simple. It works like I said it did, despite being called a troll for continuing to argue it.
No honestly I think this ruling is confusing as heck. I mean I'm fine with whatever it lands on, but I think this is confusing by itself... Not in the least because there seems to be a typo in the FAQ and I don't know how to interpret it, or exactly where the typo is:
"A bastard sword is an exception to that rule that you can't wield a two-handed weapon in two hands"
This is clearly incorrect because there's no rule that you can't wield a two-handed weapon in two hands (obviously). Should it be like this?
"A bastard sword is an exception to that rule that you can't wield a two-handed weapon in one hand"
It makes sense, but implies that a bastard sword is actually a two-handed weapon.
I mean, it's wonderful that they take the time to comment on things like this but I feel _more_ confused after reading it than before.
I was thinking to state it very slightly differently, which might address more corner cases:
If you are not proficient with a bastard sword, you determine how many hands you must use to wield it (and nothing else) as if it was a two-handed weapon of its size.
That would work and sounds like a good wording. But are you sure that's what they meant in the FAQ?
how do you get that result BBT?
|
That would work and sounds like a good wording. But are you sure that's what they meant in the FAQ?I was thinking to state it very slightly differently, which might address more corner cases:
If you are not proficient with a bastard sword, you determine how many hands you must use to wield it (and nothing else) as if it was a two-handed weapon of its size.
I think this, or fretgod99's wording, goes further than the FAQ. "as impossible as wielding a greatsword one-handed" so far gives an analogy for its impossibility, not a direct ruling how you can wield it.
So, the Titan Mauler can wield a 5ft blade in one hand, but finds it impossible to wield the 4ft blade in one hand, without "special training"?
That is the current RAW, yes.
A Titan Mauler can wield a Greatsword(5ft) in one hand, at -2, with Jotungrip.
Somehow, he cannot wield the Bastard Sword(4ft) at all, in one hand, without the Exotic Weapon Proficiency feat.
He can even use Jotungrip with weapons he is not proficient with.
But the FAQ states:
"Without that special training, wielding a bastard sword one-handed is as impossible as wielding a greatsword one-handed. "Doesn't this imply that whatever goes for a greatsword goes for a bastard sword?
EDIT: Ah, now I see the issue. Jotungrip applies only to weapons with the two-handed designation, but the bastard sword never seems to actually get that designation.
Yeah I think that could go either way really but is so niche, so I'm fine with that being DM discretion.