|
OK, so I noticed that Amiri (a la KM pre-gens)uses a size L bastard sword and has EWP(bastard sword). Does this mean that, with the feat you'd be able to wield this beast two-handed with no penalties, 2h with the -2 penalty, 1 handed with the -2 penalty? I'm a bit confused here. Is the purpose of having the feat so that it can be designated as a 1h weapon and can therefore be used 2 handed (whereas without the feat it wouldn't be weildable at all)?
Does this mean that, with the feat you'd be able to wield this beast two-handed with the -2 penalty. Is the purpose of having the feat so that it can be designated as a 1h weapon and can therefore be used 2 handed (whereas without the feat it wouldn't be weildable at all)?
Yes.
|
|
Does this mean that, with the feat you'd be able to wield this beast two-handed with the -2 penalty. Is the purpose of having the feat so that it can be designated as a 1h weapon and can therefore be used 2 handed (whereas without the feat it wouldn't be weildable at all)?Yes.
I knew if I threw enough possible scenarios in there I'd get something right.
Although I have to wonder...You're spending the feat to learn to use a medium sized bastard sword 1 handed (which you would use two handed otherwise). How is that going to help you when you pick up a large bastard sword and use it two-handed?
Please think of the cat-girls.
|
|
Basically, think of the EWP feat as reducing the wield category of the bastard sword. Since it is now treated as a one-handed weapon for Amiri, she can pick up a large sized one and wield it with one category more difficulty (ie two-handed instead of one-handed). Without this feat it would be one difficulty above two-handed to wield (which is impossible). With this feat it can be wielded two-handed, but with a -2 inappropriate size penalty.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
OK, so I noticed that Amiri (a la KM pre-gens)uses a size L bastard sword and has EWP(bastard sword). Does this mean that, with the feat you'd be able to wield this beast two-handed with no penalties, 2h with the -2 penalty, 1 handed with the -2 penalty? I'm a bit confused here. Is the purpose of having the feat so that it can be designated as a 1h weapon and can therefore be used 2 handed (whereas without the feat it wouldn't be weildable at all)?
Your questions were a little confusing but I'll do my best...
The bastard sword can be used 2-handed as a martial weapon. This means there is no penalty. It can be used 1-handed, but will incur the non-proficient penalty unless you take the EWP.
Amiri's case is special; her weapon is Large, sized for a large creature like an ogre or hill giant. I don't know off the top of my head how the feats and penalties apply to an oversized weapon. It may be that the EWP allows her to use the sword 1- or 2-handed with a reduced penalty for being oversized. However, I'd like to get an official explanation before I give a solid answer.
DogBone
she can not use it one handed, but may use it two handed. Without the feat she would not be able to do so. She also still suffers the penalties.
With the feat a bastard sword is one handed, so you can use a large one handed weapon as a two handed weapon.
|
|
she can not use it one handed, but may use it two handed. Without the feat she would not be able to do so. She also still suffers the penalties.
With the feat a bastard sword is one handed, so you can use a large one handed weapon as a two handed weapon.
It just seems like a game-mechanics technicality to me. You have to have a feat allowing you to use one size of weapon one-handed so you can use a slightly bigger version of that same weapon two handed?
EDIT: I guess I should say that I do get why you have to take the feat, but when you sit down and think about why you're taking the feat and what you're accomplishing by taking the feat it's just silly.
yep, you can use a large sized longsword two handed, at a -2
With the feat a bastard sword is one handed, so ya can use a large sized one two handed at a -2
|
It's happy-go-fun-times with the rules :p
The build is basically using the inappropriately sized weapons stuff on page 144.
The wielder is taking a large bastard sword and wielding it 2-handed, because normally the wielder could wield a medium bastard sword either 1 or 2-handed. Since they can wield it 1-handed, they make a larger version of it to wield 2-handed, but doing so causes a -2 penalty.
It stinks of fromage.
|
A feat and -2 to hit for 2d8 damage over a 1d10 (or really over 2d6 for a Greatsword.)
I'm sorry, I'm not seeing where it's horrifically cheesy. If anything it seems like it's pretty foolish to do. -2 to hit for an average of 2 points more damage over a Greatsword, and then the feat on top? That's just Weapon Specialization with an extra penalty.
Now if there was an in character reason, like this was the mighty bastard sworld of Hurrl the Ogre King, then it'd make sense to want to use it.
|
|
A feat and -2 to hit for 2d8 damage over a 1d10 (or really over 2d6 for a Greatsword.)
I'm sorry, I'm not seeing where it's horrifically cheesy. If anything it seems like it's pretty foolish to do. -2 to hit for an average of 2 points more damage over a Greatsword, and then the feat on top? That's just Weapon Specialization with an extra penalty.
Now if there was an in character reason, like this was the mighty bastard sworld of Hurrl the Ogre King, then it'd make sense to want to use it.
Didn't Amiri steal it from someone then kill them with it?
Sun blade would allow her to use a huge one.
Sun blade would allow her to use a huge one.
not in any games I run, sunblade does not change size. It is Not shortsword sized. I don't give a damn what the munchkins say.
although ya could use a large sunblade twohanded if ya could use a shortsword.
Sun blade would allow her to use a huge one.not in any games I run, sunblade does not change size. It is Not shortsword sized. I don't give a damn what the munchkins say.
although ya could use a large sunblade twohanded if ya could use a shortsword.
I don't think it's cool either, but it's the rules, not much I can do about it. I would allow it though, he would NEVER have enough money to enhance it though, even if he did, it would be pretty hard to do.
she can not use it one handed, but may use it two handed. Without the feat she would not be able to do so. She also still suffers the penalties.
With the feat a bastard sword is one handed, so you can use a large one handed weapon as a two handed weapon.
It just seems like a game-mechanics technicality to me. You have to have a feat allowing you to use one size of weapon one-handed so you can use a slightly bigger version of that same weapon two handed?
EDIT: I guess I should say that I do get why you have to take the feat, but when you sit down and think about why you're taking the feat and what you're accomplishing by taking the feat it's just silly.
Maybe if you think of it in the following way it would make sense. You could wield a large sized bastard sword without the feat at a -6 penalty (-4 for non-proficient and -2 for wrong size).
With the feat you lose the non-proficiency penalty and thus only take the normal -2 penalty. It really is no different at that point than a wizard (or other class without martial weapon proficiency) taking MWP(Longsword) and then wielding a large longsword two-handed.
Didn't Amiri steal it from someone then kill them with it?
She found it next to the body of a Frost Giant killed in an avalanche. She picked it up and intended to bring it back to her people to show what a great warrior she was. While coming back, she overheard them laughing because they believed she had fallen for their scheme to get her killed. Enraged, she killed them with the Frost Giant's sword, then abandoned her people to become an adventurer.
I don't think it's cool either, but it's the rules, not much I can do about it.
You the GM? If so that statement is incorrect. Besides that's a loophole, nothing by RAW says it makes the weapon smaller. You can use the shortsword proficiency and it is finesse able, but it does not change sizes.
Some folks will allow it, but nothing says you must allow it.
|
As far as rationalizing the rule...I'd probably go with something like mastering one-handing the normal-sized weapon means you've gotten great at maintaining your balance and not throwing your back out. Thus the leg up on being able to weild the large version, but now you have to use both hands to keep yourself upright.
She found it next to the body of a Frost Giant killed in an avalanche. She picked it up and intended to bring it back to her people to show what a great warrior she was. While coming back, she overheard them laughing because they believed she had fallen for their scheme to get her killed. Enraged, she killed them with the Frost Giant's sword, then abandoned her people to become an adventurer.
Didn't Amiri steal it from someone then kill them with it?
To be fair those guys were totally trolling her.
Didn't Amiri steal it from someone then kill them with it?A feat and -2 to hit for 2d8 damage over a 1d10 (or really over 2d6 for a Greatsword.)
I'm sorry, I'm not seeing where it's horrifically cheesy. If anything it seems like it's pretty foolish to do. -2 to hit for an average of 2 points more damage over a Greatsword, and then the feat on top? That's just Weapon Specialization with an extra penalty.
Now if there was an in character reason, like this was the mighty bastard sworld of Hurrl the Ogre King, then it'd make sense to want to use it.
Assuming the character has a BAB +4, power atk gives -2 atk and +4 dmg
Assuming the character has a BAB +4, power atk gives -2 atk and +4 dmgDidn't Amiri steal it from someone then kill them with it?A feat and -2 to hit for 2d8 damage over a 1d10 (or really over 2d6 for a Greatsword.)
I'm sorry, I'm not seeing where it's horrifically cheesy. If anything it seems like it's pretty foolish to do. -2 to hit for an average of 2 points more damage over a Greatsword, and then the feat on top? That's just Weapon Specialization with an extra penalty.
Now if there was an in character reason, like this was the mighty bastard sworld of Hurrl the Ogre King, then it'd make sense to want to use it.
Since it's a two-handed weapon, Power Attack gives -2 on attack rolls and +6 on damage rolls at BAB +4.
Using a large bastard sword at -2 on attack rolls and 2d8 damage instead of a medium greatsword at normal attack rolls and 2d6 damage actually favors the greatsword. The fact that you hit 10% less often is more significant than the +2 on average damage. Even with enlarge person, the huge bastard sword does 3d8 vs. the large greatsword's 3d6.
|
|
Maybe if you think of it in the following way it would make sense. You could wield a large sized bastard sword without the feat at a -6 penalty (-4 for non-proficient and -2 for wrong size).
** spoiler omitted **
With the feat you lose the non-proficiency penalty and thus only take the normal -2 penalty. It really is no different at that point than a wizard (or other class without martial weapon proficiency) taking MWP(Longsword) and then wielding a large longsword two-handed.
I guess it just doesn't click. If you have martial weapon prof, you already know how to wield it 2 handed, and you are wielding the large size 2-handed (and would be able to do so because it is possible to wield it 1 handed). Throw in EWP(L bastard sword) or something because learning to use a normal one 1 handed in no way qualifies you to use a large one 2 handed in my eyes. Were it my game I wouldn't make a player burn a feat but would have the -2 penaly, or they could burn a feat and not suffer the -2 penalty.
I guess it just doesn't click. If you have martial weapon prof, you already know how to wield it 2 handed, and you are wielding the large size 2-handed (and would be able to do so because it is possible to wield it 1 handed).
Right, that makes sense.
Throw in EWP(L bastard sword) or something because learning to use a normal one 1 handed in no way qualifies you to use a large one 2 handed in my eyes.
I don't get that.
Let's say you have a wizard that takes MWP(Longsword). Now you say that they are trained to use the regularly sized longsword in both one-hand and two-hands, thus they are capable of reasonably (no -4 non-proficiency penalty) using a larger sized longsword with two-hands, since they have trained to use the regularly sized longsword with both one- and two-hands. Great, that makes sense.
So now take a barbarian, the barbarian knows how to use a regularly sized bastard sword with two-hands without penalty. By taking the EWP feat, they now also know how to wield it one-handed. In fact if a wizard took EWP(Bastard sword), they would know how to use it one- or two-handed as well, just the same as the longsword example above. So just like with the longsword, they already are experienced with using the weapon two-handed, as well as one-handed, they can now use a larger version two-handed without any non-proficiency difficulty.
|
|
I guess it just doesn't click. If you have martial weapon prof, you already know how to wield it 2 handed, and you are wielding the large size 2-handed (and would be able to do so because it is possible to wield it 1 handed).Right, that makes sense.
Throw in EWP(L bastard sword) or something because learning to use a normal one 1 handed in no way qualifies you to use a large one 2 handed in my eyes.I don't get that.
Let's say you have a wizard that takes MWP(Longsword). Now you say that they are trained to use the regularly sized longsword in both one-hand and two-hands, thus they are capable of reasonably (no -4 non-proficiency penalty) using a larger sized longsword with two-hands, since they have trained to use the regularly sized longsword with both one- and two-hands. Great, that makes sense.
So now take a barbarian, the barbarian knows how to use a regularly sized bastard sword with two-hands without penalty. By taking the EWP feat, they now also know how to wield it one-handed. In fact if a wizard took EWP(Bastard sword), they would know how to use it one- or two-handed as well, just the same as the longsword example above. So just like with the longsword, they already are experienced with using the weapon two-handed, as well as one-handed, they can now use a larger version two-handed without any non-proficiency difficulty.
I guess I have a special beef with the bastard sword. I guess what I'm saying is that knowing how to use a M sized bastard sword in one hand in no way impacts how well you would be able to use a L bastard sword in two hands. The mere fact that it's possible to weild with one hand should allow you to use a L one in two hands, but that doesn't mean you need to know how to use the M one one-handed first.
/shrug...it's almost quitin time, so my brain must be fried if I'm still not making sense.
Another problem I suspect is that people may have forgotten that definition of Weapon Size has changed since 3.0.
In 3.0 weapon size referred to the size of a weapon. i.e. long swords were medium so they were two handed martial proficienciesfor small creatures, and bastard swords were large so they were two handed martial and one handed exotic for medium.
3.5 and pathfinder changed all that. Now weapon sizes are described by the size of creatures they were designed for... so now the same bastard sword mentioned above is a Medium weapon. Small bastard swords are two handed blades scaled down for folks on the order of kobolds, haflings, and gnomes. Whereas an ogre might be carrying a Large longsword or wielding a large bastard sword in two hands.
The bastard sword was a medium (one-handed for a medium creature) exotic weapon in 3rd edition. See p. 99 of the 3rd edition PHB.
|
I guess it just doesn't click. If you have martial weapon prof, you already know how to wield it 2 handed, and you are wielding the large size 2-handed (and would be able to do so because it is possible to wield it 1 handed).Right, that makes sense.
Throw in EWP(L bastard sword) or something because learning to use a normal one 1 handed in no way qualifies you to use a large one 2 handed in my eyes.I don't get that.
Let's say you have a wizard that takes MWP(Longsword). Now you say that they are trained to use the regularly sized longsword in both one-hand and two-hands, thus they are capable of reasonably (no -4 non-proficiency penalty) using a larger sized longsword with two-hands, since they have trained to use the regularly sized longsword with both one- and two-hands. Great, that makes sense.
So now take a barbarian, the barbarian knows how to use a regularly sized bastard sword with two-hands without penalty. By taking the EWP feat, they now also know how to wield it one-handed. In fact if a wizard took EWP(Bastard sword), they would know how to use it one- or two-handed as well, just the same as the longsword example above. So just like with the longsword, they already are experienced with using the weapon two-handed, as well as one-handed, they can now use a larger version two-handed without any non-proficiency difficulty.
I guess I have a special beef with the bastard sword. I guess what I'm saying is that knowing how to use a M sized bastard sword in one hand in no way impacts how well you would be able to use a L bastard sword in two hands. The mere fact that it's possible to weild with one hand should allow you to use a L one in two hands, but that doesn't mean you need to know how to use the M one one-handed first.
/shrug...it's almost quitin time, so my brain must be fried if I'm still not making sense.
the deal is that a large bastard sword is now to heavy to use in the same way you've been using the medium bastard sword with martial weapon proficiency. Just like if you increased the weight and size of a long sword you wouldn't be able to use it 1 handed anymore as you couldn't hold it properly. The ewp( bastard sword ) presumably teaches you about how the weapon is balanced and different tricks for effectively using it one handed. You are using the same thought process to use a large bastard sword 2 handed. You are using the knowledge you gained about its balance to wield something you normally wouldn't be able to wield at all, 2-handed.
she can not use it one handed, but may use it two handed. Without the feat she would not be able to do so. She also still suffers the penalties.
With the feat a bastard sword is one handed, so you can use a large one handed weapon as a two handed weapon.
It just seems like a game-mechanics technicality to me. You have to have a feat allowing you to use one size of weapon one-handed so you can use a slightly bigger version of that same weapon two handed?
EDIT: I guess I should say that I do get why you have to take the feat, but when you sit down and think about why you're taking the feat and what you're accomplishing by taking the feat it's just silly.
CRB page 141-144 i had to read it about 5 times before it sunk in.
