| 36 people marked this as FAQ candidate. 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
The game's weapons tables have several categories: light, one-handed, two-handed, and ranged.
It seems clear that ranged weapons, by default are not considered light, one-handed, or two-handed weapons. They are their own category.
Some ranged weapons specifically state how many hands it takes to use them, but this in and of itself does not necessarily make them part of the light, one-handed, or two-handed weapon groups for the purposes of rules that deal with handedness.
How then, do ranged weapons interact with rules in regards to handedness? Take inappropriately sized weapons, for example. Could a medium character wield and fire a large bow with no other drawback than a -2 to hit?
Additionally, when a melee weapon within the light, one-handed, or two-handed category is used as a ranged weapon, does it retain its melee weapon category for the purposes of feats, abilities, magic item enchantments, etc?
Please FAQ if you too would like to know how these rules were intended to interact.
The issue is, as we have been discussing in another thread Kazaan, that there is not spot actually written where it explains this. Trust me that I agree with you Kazaan, I actually went in to a long tirade about how the sizes of the weapons compared to the sizes of the wielder interact, but this does not change the fact that it is not in the rules. As far as the rules say, bows require two hands to wield no matter what size they are. The issue with handedness is the fact that a certain Tiefling trait allows you to wield a large weapon without penalties, and according to the rules, any bow of any size only requires two hands, so they are not actually listed in the penalty section. Like I said, I completely agree with you, and I can not see how it could be any other way, but it is true that the rules do not specify.
In order for the rules to explicitly specify every esoteric possibility that could come up at any time, ever, it would take a book weighing approximately 12 metric f*+@tons. The problem that people have is that they can't wrap their minds around the idea that RAW can be implicit as well as explicit. Implicit doesn't automatically mean "not RAW" or "RAI". Implicit RAW is just as valid as Explicit RAW.
Slightly harsh in tone BUT Right on Man! Tell it Like it IS!
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
That certainly is an interesting position to take on the matter.
So, if I'm reading the rules quotes so far, you can wield a colossal longbow on a medium character if I take the appropriate penalties? After all, it's 2 handed regardless of size. Thus, it never "sizes out" like a 2h weapon normally would. Time for Gravity Bow!
This question comes up all the time at the table in really weird ways. The chakram is a prime example. Can I wield it as a melee weapon with two hands for 1.5x STR to damage? I would guess no, since it's not listed as a one-handed weapon. Can I TWF with it effectively? Well, it's not a light weapon, so you operate like it's a one-handed weapon with -4/-4. But I thought it wasn't a one-handed weapon because I couldn't use it in two hands?
This was something I thought was going to be addressed in UE and didn't actually happen.
Guns seem to be the only listed ranged weapons with list handednes and its just one-handed and 2-handed.
Xena Thor, the cardcaster magus, would like a word with you. Yes, the archetype so poorly written, the only way you get to use Spell Combat is if you start in melee, then 5' to range.
The issue here is there's a RAI vs RAW argument going on. Obviously, I have no intention of bringing a colossal longbow ranger to the table, but the rules are written such that a strict RAW interpretation says it's legal. It's certainly not intended. Most GMs would call shenanigans on that. There's about 30 or so realism arguments to be made against it, not least of which is getting stuck in hallways. That said, if you're in a RAW-restricted format, like PFS, there are corner-cases like this that need to be addressed. The specifics of the bow trump the general rules regarding weapon size here. Any sane RAI GM is going to just laugh at someone who brings something that ridiculous to the table, and rightfully so, but it's one of the linguistic issues that's hung around because legacy.
At the same time, though, there are questions to be had regarding more rational resizing and other features. What is the maximum size chakram that a medium creature can wield? Does Weapon Training: Thrown help the fighter when using a dagger as a melee weapon? The RAW answer is unclear on the first question, but certainly positive on the second. Is that actually intended though? Is training for throwing weapons the same as training for melee use?
I agree that this is a frequently asked question.
I think the answer will be that it adheres to reality for the former question, and for the second question, that they will apply for weapons that are intended to be used in melee or thrown, unless it does not make sense. For weapons that are not meant to be thrown (Greatswords, etc), I do not think they will apply, as the feats etc represent special training with said weapon, and that doesn't usually include throwing giant swords at people.
Usually.
In order for the rules to explicitly specify every esoteric possibility that could come up at any time, ever, it would take a book weighing approximately 12 metric f~%!tons. The problem that people have is that they can't wrap their minds around the idea that RAW can be implicit as well as explicit. Implicit doesn't automatically mean "not RAW" or "RAI". Implicit RAW is just as valid as Explicit RAW.
Regarding the issue at hand, there is no explicit rule to apply, but there are implicit rules which I outlined in my post. If you want to go with absolute explicit-only rules, then you cannot wield a weapon not designed for your size (or virtual size in the case of Tiefling, Redcap, Centaur, etc) at all because...
I just want to show you that I completely already agree with you, just the fact that it is still unclear how it will be handled.
It says regardless of size, it requires two hands to use. I think everyone here is forgetting how a bow is named. A shortbow is about 3ft in length, for a medium sized person. This is roughly half the height of the average medium creature, a little higher than half, but roughly. A longbow is about 5ft in length for a medium sized creature. This is roughly the height of the character(which by the way, OP, why not just use a flavored Longbow to be a bit larger than the person instead about their size anyway?), of course this is a little smaller than the average medium character, but is still about their height.
What would the height of a Medium Shortbow be compared to the height of a Small creature? It would be about the same size as a Longbow for a Small creature. What would the Medium Longbow be compared to the height of a Large creature? It would also be about the size of a Large Shortbow. Honestly, a little shorter than what their shortbow would be. This being said, I maybe could see the ability to use a Large Shortbow, but it would be treated as a longbow for the sake of using it as a Medium sized creature.
At this point, you are not getting a damage increase, so is there a real reason to doing this? A Large Longbow would be about twice the height of the standard Medium sized creature. It would be somewhere between 10-12ft tall. A medium sized creature could not draw the bow to get the strength needed to deal damage. I do not mean the character would not have the strength, but the strength of the bow comes from drawing the bow back to a certain distance. This distance on a Large Longbow would be longer than the Medium creature is tall. It is impossible unless you have Mr. Fantastic's powers...
That being said, how is the ranged weapon going to count? Will it count not at all, like you suggest, or will it be as I said before in this quote? A Large Shortbow becomes a Medium Longbow and a Medium Shortbow becomes a Small Longbow. That is what needs to be clarified, in my opinion.
Well I know with throwing non throwing weapons handedness matters to determine action time.
So, if I'm reading the rules quotes so far, you can wield a colossal longbow on a medium character if I take the appropriate penalties? After all, it's 2 handed regardless of size. Thus, it never "sizes out" like a 2h weapon normally would. Time for Gravity Bow!
This question comes up all the time at the table in really weird ways. The chakram is a prime example. Can I wield it as a melee weapon with two hands for 1.5x STR to damage? I would guess no, since it's not listed as a one-handed weapon. Can I TWF with it effectively? Well, it's not a light weapon, so you operate like it's a one-handed weapon with -4/-4. But I thought it wasn't a one-handed weapon because I couldn't use it in two hands?
This was something I thought was going to be addressed in UE and didn't actually happen.
No, way off the mark. Just because ranged weapons don't follow the light/1-h/2-h size categories doesn't mean that a fine creature can wield a colossal longbow just by taking the net -16 penalty to attack. You still are obligated to consider that a weapon is too big or too small for the creature to wield. In the absence of explicit rules stating how, we must rely on implicit rules and those implicit rules work quite well as I outlined in my initial posting. A Longbow, for instance, is "equivalent" to wielding a 2-h weapon meaning you can't wield an over-sized one, though you could conceivably wield one up to 2 sizes smaller (but it still requires 2 hands). So a Medium creature could wield a Tiny, Small, or Medium Longbow. Large or bigger is too big to handle while Diminutive or smaller is too small.
Regarding the Chakram, we have no real indication of size in the rules. Real-life Chakram are described as ranging from 5-11 inches which would actually put it in the category of diminutive. We can chock this up to the fact that it is a circle rather than a "long" weapon so we'll call that Tiny for working purposes. So, as far as relative size goes for "how big/small of one can I...
The longbow has an explicit rule. It says that you wield it in 2 hands regardless of size.
I don't see what Card Caster has to do with any of this, but I can say that you are misinterpreting the archetype. Card Caster doesn't use Spell Combat with cards at all; period. It wasn't designed to. Your problem is that you cling to the paradigm of "Shocking Grasp Spell Combat". There are other uses of Spell Combat besides using a Spellstrike touch spell. You could use a buff or debuff, for instance; hit them with a support spell or even throw out something like Burning Hands before moving in for melee with a normal melee weapon. When using Harrowed Spellstrike, you're doing so as just a normal standard action. It simply doesn't combine with Spell Combat in the way that a vanilla Magus can do. Same goes for the Myrmidarch.
I only brought up the cardcaster because I have a player that laments its current status and how it is unlikely to be errata'd.
Back to the discussion at hand, as I've said repeatedly, the RAW vs RAI debate is a phantom; that is not the problem in the first place. If you're going to say "strict RAW interpretation" (presumed to mean explicit interpretation only) then you cannot wield an improperly sized ranged weapon because, since you can't step-up or step-down the size, your result is, by definition, going to be "something other than light, one-handed, or two-handed" and, thus, you cannot wield the weapon.
I just re-read the text. I'm retracting this humorous interpretation. It's ambiguous enough to apply logic. "You need at least two hands" is not the same as "is a two-handed weapon." That said, there is an (admittedly silly) mechanical difference in the game between a small longbow and a medium shortbow.
Regarding Weapon Training, would you say that Monk training only covers the weapons as melee weapons? If so, what is Shuriken doing in there? Weapon Training covers all uses of the applicable weapons; if you're trained in the use of thrown weapons, that covers using them as melee weapons if they can be used as such. Otherwise, you'd have to specify whether your Weapon Focus(Dagger) applied to throwing a dagger or attacking in melee, but not both. Intent is a nice thing to know, but the writer of Titan Mauler had his intent outright overridden by the rules team and the wording of his archetype was changed accordingly. It's great when RAW (both explicit and implicit) matches RAI, but if there is a disconnect, it is the responsibility of Paizo to change it because it is their commercial...
I wasn't doubting whose responsibility it is to address the question. It's simply important for Paizo to know that it is a question.
The longbow has an explicit rule. It says that you wield it in 2 hands regardless of size."In two hands" and "two-handed weapon" are two very different terms in the mechanics of pathfinder. A Longsword can be wielded "in two hands", but doing so doesn't qualify it as a two-handed weapon for, say, Shield of Swings or Pushing Assault. Likewise, when wielding a Bow, you must use two hands regardless of size doesn't make it a two-handed weapon regardless of size. It just means that even if it is small enough to count as a one-handed or even a light weapon for you, you still need to devote both hands to operating it.
I agree that it never becomes a "two-handed weapon," as that is a specific game term and category. I think that "You need two hands to use a bow, regardless of its size" is agnostic to the 'handedness' of weapons (because ranged weapons don't get that designation) and simply sets a specific rule for the weapon. So, no matter how large it is, it still needs two hands to use.
Inappropriately Sized Weapons: A creature can't make optimum use of a weapon that isn't properly sized for it. A cumulative –2 penalty applies on attack rolls for each size category of difference between the size of its intended wielder and the size of its actual wielder. If the creature isn't proficient with the weapon, a –4 nonproficiency penalty also applies.
[BREAK, messageboard quotes automatically removed this line return :-p]
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.
The first section decribes penalties for using the wrong sized weapon, it never restricts you from using a weapon. The only part of the entry which forbids you from using a weapon in the second part where it talks about adjusting the effort of the weapon.
We know already that bows don't have an effort category because they are ranged weapons. We know that the two hands to use clause in the bow entry doesn't designate an effort category because language for that assignment CAN be found in the light crossbow entry and it is entirely different. So we are left to conclude that the "measure of effort" section in the above quoted passage does not apply to ranged weapons, and therefore its useage restrictions do not apply either.
So we are left to conclude that the "measure of effort" section in the above quoted passage does not apply to ranged weapons, and therefore its useage restrictions do not apply either.Your logic concludes that a Fine creature (<6 inches tall) is capable of wielding a Colossal Longbow (64+ feet) just so long as it takes the -16 penalty; thus your logic is incorrect.
The rules absolutely support that case. Is it silly? Yes. Is it within the rules? Yes.
Logic is never incorrect just because you dislike the outcome. That's one of logic's biggest strengths.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Yep and strangely they are the only handed ranged weapons.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
So we are left to conclude that the "measure of effort" section in the above quoted passage does not apply to ranged weapons, and therefore its useage restrictions do not apply either.Your logic concludes that a Fine creature (<6 inches tall) is capable of wielding a Colossal Longbow (64+ feet) just so long as it takes the -16 penalty; thus your logic is incorrect.
The rules supported a fine creature deflecting a gargantuan bite attack with crane wing. The rules support someone creating their own dimension. Whatever reasoning you used for old crane wing working is similar to the reasoning that a fine creature can use a colossal longbow.
Heck going in the other direction the rules support that it is no easier for a colossal creature to save against fireball if only one of its squares is affected than if a fine creature is in the dead center.
The rules support that a halfling's short sword can if vorpal remove that same creatures' head.
Heck going in the other direction the rules support that it is no easier for a colossal creature to save against fireball if only one of its squares is affected than if a fine creature is in the dead center.
The rules support that a halfling's short sword can if vorpal remove that same creatures' head.
Indeed, a vorpal dagger weilded by a fine creature could decapitate a storm giant.
Hey guys, remember how I said I re-read the text and retracted the silly longbow discussion? That's because it actually says this:
You need at least two hands to use a bow, regardless of its size.
"At least" breaks the silliness.
Hey guys, remember how I said I re-read the text and retracted the silly longbow discussion? That's because it actually says this:
You need at least two hands to use a bow, regardless of its size."At least" breaks the silliness.
There are no provisions for making a bow use more than 2 hands.
Also, as previously discussed, using two hands does not make it a two-handed weapon. It doesn't go up and down on the effort scale.
|
Well, it does not suggest that larger Bows can be used, but that even smaller Bows require at least two hands.
So, in order of operations, an inappropriately sized weapon, alters the number hands required. This is true of all weapons. For melee weapons, this changes the effective handedness. For ranged weapons, handedness is not an issue, but the number of hands required, still changes.
All the wording of "at least" means that there is a minimum of 2 hands needed for a bow. There is no actual numerical number that goes up and down, just the fact that every bow can not have less than 2 hands to use it. I still believe that a Large Longbow is unwieldly by any medium size creature, but if you look at the rules, something is clearly missing to make it so.
False, because of argumentum ad absurdum. It isn't a matter of me "not liking it", it's a matter that your conclusion is absurd.So we are left to conclude that the "measure of effort" section in the above quoted passage does not apply to ranged weapons, and therefore its useage restrictions do not apply either.Your logic concludes that a Fine creature (<6 inches tall) is capable of wielding a Colossal Longbow (64+ feet) just so long as it takes the -16 penalty; thus your logic is incorrect.The rules absolutely support that case. Is it silly? Yes. Is it within the rules? Yes.
Logic is never incorrect just because you dislike the outcome. That's one of logic's biggest strengths.
Games rules don't adhere to the absurd of the physical world. Know your scope.
Please FAQ if you're curious about this issue as well.
The game's weapons tables have several categories: light, one-handed, two-handed, and ranged.
It seems clear that ranged weapons, by default are not considered light, one-handed, or two-handed weapons. They are their own category.
Some ranged weapons specifically state how many hands it takes to use them, but this in and of itself does not necessarily make them part of the light, one-handed, or two-handed weapon groups for the purposes of rules that deal with handedness.
...
I'm not sure if this is useful, but the description of Shadowcraft Weapons (Blood of Shadows) does categorize ranged weapons as either one-handed or two-handed.
Shadowcraft Weapons
This highly malleable weapon is forged from insubstantial darkness using a combination of illusion and transmutation magic. Each shadowcraft weapon is designed with a base type (melee or ranged) and handedness (one-handed or two-handed for ranged weapons, and light, one-handed, or two- handed for melee weapons).
...