|
Hello,
I'm wondering if it's allowed to buy inappropriately sized weapons. Specifically, could I buy a Small sized Flying Blade for my Half-Elf thus having a 1handed reach weapon with a -4atk mod to regular attacks and a -0atk mod with AoO's? Flying Blade is normally a 2handed weapon that gives a -2atk mod to normal attacks but a +2 to AoO attacks.
Just wondering as this allows my 2nd hand to be free to use other things.
|
Yeah, well, generally you don't make character build allowances for running into GMs that don't follow the rules.
You're not wrong about what you're specifically saying, but there is a flipside to the general sentiment you're expressing. Not every time a GM disagrees with you about something is that GM "not following the rules". Sometimes that GM is simply not agreeing with you about what you say the rules mean. It's a potentially critical distinction.
So, not to quibble about whether or not magic large size weapons automatically resize for medium wielders, but you very much SHOULD be thinking about table variation when planning your PFS build. The more complex the rules interactions that you are relying upon are, the more likely someone is to disagree that they interact the way you say they do.
To give an example, and to tie this all back to the OP:
Consider the question of whether a small, 2-handed weapon could even be wielded as a one handed weapon by a medium sized creature. The rules governing that question are here. To quote the relevant passage:
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.
So, does the "altered by one step for each size category difference" go only down, or both up and down? It doesn't say. There's only one example, and it's not both up and down. I'd imagine that most GMs would assume it works both up and down but it's still reasonable to expect that you might eventually run into a GM that rules it's "Down only", so potentially she might insist that small sized 2-h weapon still has to be used 2 handed by a medium sized creature. In PFS one should plan accordingly.
|
|
I agree with you that on a continuum of reasonableness, the small sized 2 handers can be used by a medium sized critter as a one-handed weapon is the more likely interpretation to be the "RAI".
However, my point stands, I think. Someone might rule the opposite (for whatever reason or reasons) and that opposite reading wouldn't be wrong. If you're so one dimensional that you can't operate without that one handed reach, you're screwed if the GM rules that way. And it's no good to complain about the GM "not following the rules". He is, and it's your own fault you're screwed in this hypothetical example.
|
|
I'm gonna have to disagree at saying that ruling that a small two-handed weapon is still a two-handed weapon for a medium creature isn't a wrong ruling, especially given that the rules for handedness on firearms are specifically different to prevent a medium creature from using a small rifle one-handed.
That's a fine reason to further justify the "both up and down" reading we both seem to agree is the reading that would be more common. I'm not going to make a major issue over it as I'd probably make the same call, personally. However I would certainly back up any GM who made the opposite call as still being completely "within the rules". We can agree to (potentially) disagree on this specific issue.
My advice to the OP on this question remains as it was. Don't be so one dimensional that if your schtick is taken away you can't contribute. That's, imo, valid advice across the board.
Yes, there are some things where it's a good idea to plan for variance.
In this we completely agree.
