|
In a build for my Synthesist/ EK (That utilized Arcane Bond)I have stumbled upon something.
Heirloom weapon makes you proficient with that one weapon, and the transformative property turns the weapon to any other weapon with the same handedness. Basically I planned on Taking an Elven Curve Blade, making it my arcane bond, giving it the Transformative property and switching it to a quarterstaff/ two bladed sword or any other double weapon when I want to cast and if I need some time summon monsters with my spell-like.
The Question is, are you still proficient with your heirloom weapon if it is transformed into something else?
|
In a build for my Synthesist/ EK (That utilized Arcane Bond)I have stumbled upon something.
Heirloom weapon makes you proficient with that one weapon, and the transformative property turns the weapon to any other weapon with the same handedness. Basically I planned on Taking an Elven Curve Blade, making it my arcane bond, giving it the Transformative property and switching it to a quarterstaff/ two bladed sword or any other double weapon when I want to cast and if I need some time summon monsters with my spell-like.
The Question is, are you still proficient with your heirloom weapon if it is transformed into something else?
Interesting.
At its heart, heirloom weapon is based on the idea that you know this weapon and what it can do. The essential idea is related to your history with this weapon, but it doesn't create some sort of magical bond with the weapon. I like the creative thinking of what you're looking at, but I would generally say no. Someone else might decide differently to just reward the creativity or if reading the proficiency with the one weapon differently.
Double weapons built for the same size as caster must be used with two hands. You can use both ends as if TWF, or with one end as a two-handed weapon. To use them with one hand, they have to be sized for a smaller creature, and then you can only use one end. This has been subjected to some confusion via posts by developers; if you pick and choose your developer post, you'll come up with a different view of it. What I've provided is the most recent developer post by Jason. Using it one-handed is based on older posts by James.
If your GM is good with the proficiency idea carrying through transformation, you can always transform your ECB to a greatsword sized for a Small character and use it one handed.
|
|
Really?? Because then that opens a whole different problem; I checked through many-a-thread for an arcane bond with two handed weapons a developers over and over again said that it didn't function; unless you have a staff/quarterstaff/ or double weapon because you COULD wield on side. Also Because a ECB is already a medium sized Two handed wepon I think the only thing I can do is go up (IE Large size longsword) which kind of defeats the purpose of wielding in one hand...Oh forgot to mention the character was a half elf
Btw. Thanks on the interpretation, I thought as much about the proficiency
|
|
Really?? Because then that opens a whole different problem; I checked through many-a-thread for an arcane bond with two handed weapons a developers over and over again said that it didn't function; unless you have a staff/quarterstaff/ or double weapon because you COULD wield on side. Also Because a ECB is already a medium sized Two handed wepon I think the only thing I can do is go up (IE Large size longsword) which kind of defeats the purpose of wielding in one hand...Oh forgot to mention the character was a half elf
Yep, those developer posts by James are the ones I referred to, unfortunately. Arcane bond with a two-handed weapon is a problem. Were I your GM and you were relying on the double weapon ruling, I'd help you make a change to your character so that the ruling situation didn't affect you negatively; your heirloom weapon could be changed to a one-handed weapon that allowed you to arcane bond with it.
I reread the transformative text; yeah, you're right, you could transform it to a Large sized longsword to be used two-handed, but that doesn't buy you anything. I'm getting a bit post-drunk...time to take a break. :)
|
|
Really?? Because then that opens a whole different problem; I checked through many-a-thread for an arcane bond with two handed weapons a developers over and over again said that it didn't function; unless you have a staff/quarterstaff/ or double weapon because you COULD wield on side. Also Because a ECB is already a medium sized Two handed wepon I think the only thing I can do is go up (IE Large size longsword) which kind of defeats the purpose of wielding in one hand...Oh forgot to mention the character was a half elfYep, those developer posts by James are the ones I referred to, unfortunately. Arcane bond with a two-handed weapon is a problem. Were I your GM and you were relying on the double weapon ruling, I'd help you make a change to your character so that the ruling situation didn't affect you negatively; your heirloom weapon could be changed to a one-handed weapon that allowed you to arcane bond with it.
I reread the transformative text; yeah, you're right, you could transform it to a Large sized longsword to be used two-handed, but that doesn't buy you anything. I'm getting a bit post-drunk...time to take a break. :)
Well thats darn-right confusing does that mean the whole core section on double weapons is wrong? Or was that specifically for the quarterstaff? And Even though you as a GM would change the weapon, it doesn't help but rather destroys the concept. You shouldn't HAVE to wield a weapon to cast in the first place, you don't wield an amulet or wield a ring but purposely covering a way around that (Which included sacrificing a standard action and wealth) seems...mean spirited. Now I have no real qualms with Paizo I just think thats strange. Anyway I wonder if this also applies to the twobladed sword which is effectively two longswords attached to one haft.
Well thats darn-right confusing does that mean the whole core section on double weapons is wrong? Or was that specifically for the quarterstaff?
There's nothing "wrong" with the core rules - they state it all accurately.
The interpretation/ruling of the arcane bond rules to prevent two-handed weapons is rather annoying in my opinion, though it might prevent a good bit of cheese. A simple solution, if a DM is strict on this (I am generally strict, but ignore this), is to use a bastard sword, a one-handed exotic weapon. Even if you're not proficient, you can "wield" it in one hand, and actually attack with it in two (if you're proficient with martial).
You would actually be proficient with it as a one-handed exotic weapon, but that doesn't appear to be the weapon you want to be using.
|
|
Well thats darn-right confusing does that mean the whole core section on double weapons is wrong? Or was that specifically for the quarterstaff?There's nothing "wrong" with the core rules - they state it all accurately.
The interpretation/ruling of the arcane bond rules to prevent two-handed weapons is rather annoying in my opinion, though it might prevent a good bit of cheese. A simple solution, if a DM is strict on this (I am generally strict, but ignore this), is to use a bastard sword, a one-handed exotic weapon. Even if you're not proficient, you can "wield" it in one hand, and actually attack with it in two (if you're proficient with martial).
You would actually be proficient with it as a one-handed exotic weapon, but that doesn't appear to be the weapon you want to be using.
Yes That was a thought of mine to use a Bastard sword but the concept (And some pretty cool things) would lose out if I chose that...Now That brings up another question can I not just transform the ECB into a bastard sword because they would have the same handedness because I am not proficient?
Proficiency does not transform along with the transformative property. I think James Jacobs mentioned that in Ask-All-Your-Questions.
Anyone? That seems to be a pertinent question especially for users of the Transformative property
That's what I was going to recommend at first, but the bastard sword by default is a one-handed weapon. So an Elven Curve Blade cannot transform into one.
|
|
Anyone? That seems to be a pertinent question especially for users of the Transformative propertyThat's what I was going to recommend at first, but the bastard sword by default is a one-handed weapon. So an Elven Curve Blade cannot transform into one.
it is a one handed weapon...if your proficient, its not if your aren't, it becomes a two handed martial weapon as far as handedness, see my case? Besides Unless I missed something aren't all double weapons able to be wielded in one hand?
Double: You can use a double weapon to fight as if fighting with two weapons, but if you do, you incur all the normal attack penalties associated with fighting with two weapons, just as if you were using a one-handed weapon and a light weapon. A double weapon can be wielded as a one-handed weapon, but it cannot be used as a double weapon when wielded in this way—only one end of the weapon can be used in any given round.
|
Anyone? That seems to be a pertinent question especially for users of the Transformative propertyThat's what I was going to recommend at first, but the bastard sword by default is a one-handed weapon. So an Elven Curve Blade cannot transform into one.it is a one handed weapon...if your proficient, its not if your aren't, it becomes a two handed martial weapon as far as handedness, see my case? Besides Unless I missed something aren't all double weapons able to be wielded in one hand?
** spoiler omitted **
The devs have said to 1-hand a double weapon it has to be a size smaller. (I think it was Sean)
No swinging a double bladed sword 1-handed
I'd look it up for ya, but I'm on the forums via cell phone.
|
|
Anyone? That seems to be a pertinent question especially for users of the Transformative propertyThat's what I was going to recommend at first, but the bastard sword by default is a one-handed weapon. So an Elven Curve Blade cannot transform into one.it is a one handed weapon...if your proficient, its not if your aren't, it becomes a two handed martial weapon as far as handedness, see my case? Besides Unless I missed something aren't all double weapons able to be wielded in one hand?
** spoiler omitted **The devs have said to 1-hand a double weapon it has to be a size smaller. (I think it was Sean)
No swinging a double bladed sword 1-handed
I'd look it up for ya, but I'm on the forums via cell phone.
Hrm I see...that seems....well, odd. So they made one of the main reasons to use a double weapon, its versatility, gimped unless you take a -2 penalty? While also making 2handed casters impossible with arcane bond....... Well seems like an Easy fix here is the sizing property; baring that, the bastard sword transfomation. An no, just no...The bastard sword is a two handed martial or one handed exotic, not in between...I'm sure
the problem is In slot of case using a double weapon one handed is downright silly. where do you think the other end of the direvflail goes :P
the ruling makes sense.
that said if you really set on this idea take the new quarter staff feat that let's you wield it one handed. turn weapon to staff flip it to 1 hand.
pretty sure if you turn your heirloom to another weapon you loose proficiency provided by the trait til you turn it back.
|
|
Meh, Ok it seems I have to go with the optimizers choice and use a falcata then because 2 -handed weapons are just too powerful to cast with (No staff wielding caster for you unless you take a feat to use what you should already be able to use while casting) I'm kind of sad I'm forced to do this ... I actually thought I was making a way to make Arcane bonded weapons viable...apparently there is only 2 choices... Two hand-one handed weapons or suffer all the time when you want to cast..bummer.
Also it makes perfect sense to one hand some double weapons and not others but thats a realism thing, I can see someone trained to use a Two-bladed sword ablethe swing one blade like a longsword by simply adjusting their hand on the hilt, same with double axe and quaterstaff...apparently they needed a feat line to make double weapons do what they did in the past.
apparently they needed a feat line to make double weapons do what they did in the past.
Double weapons were never able to be wielded in one hand by someone of the size the weapon was made for.
The *entire* issue with this is simply a corner case being clarified and re-clarified over and over.
Rule A: A double weapon is a weapon you can attack with both ends of, treating one as a one-handed weapon, and one as a light weapon. You can also swing one end as a two-handed weapon.
Cheesy Player: "So then if I'm enlarged, I can wield one double weapon in each hand, and attack with both ends of both? Because you can wield a medium two-handed weapon in one hand if you're Large."
Rule B: See Rule A, plus "A double weapon can be wielded as a one-handed weapon, but it cannot be used as a double weapon when wielded in this way—only one end of the weapon can be used in any given round."
The versatility of a double weapon is two-handed + dual-wielding. And that's all it has ever been by the rules. If you're really really interested, look up old Sage Advice articles, which actually have that question from "Cheesy Player", and the clarification is made.
And for what it's worth, you're using Heirloom Weapon - you're already well into "optimizer's choice".
Meh, Ok it seems I have to go with the optimizers choice and use a falcata then because 2 -handed weapons are just too powerful to cast with (No staff wielding caster for you unless you take a feat to use what you should already be able to use while casting)
Actually, it's perfectly possible to be a staff wielding caster. You can carry any two-handed weapon in one hand. You just can't attack with it unless both hands are on it. And you can't cast when both hands are on it. Since most casters are either attacking or casting, this is perfectly reasonable. It's only the magus which breaks the assumption of either/or, which then produces the question.
Also it makes perfect sense to one hand some double weapons and not others but thats a realism thing, I can see someone trained to use a Two-bladed sword ablethe swing one blade like a longsword by simply adjusting their hand on the hilt, same with double axe and quaterstaff...apparently they needed a feat line to make double weapons do what they did in the past.
I don't recall double weapons ever being able to be swung one-handed. It's possible I missed it, but I'd want to see a rules quote to support it.
|
|
apparently they needed a feat line to make double weapons do what they did in the past.Double weapons were never able to be wielded in one hand by someone of the size the weapon was made for.
The *entire* issue with this is simply a corner case being clarified and re-clarified over and over.
Rule A: A double weapon is a weapon you can attack with both ends of, treating one as a one-handed weapon, and one as a light weapon. You can also swing one end as a two-handed weapon.
Cheesy Player: "So then if I'm enlarged, I can wield one double weapon in each hand, and attack with both ends of both? Because you can wield a medium two-handed weapon in one hand if you're Large."
Rule B: See Rule A, plus "A double weapon can be wielded as a one-handed weapon, but it cannot be used as a double weapon when wielded in this way—only one end of the weapon can be used in any given round."
The versatility of a double weapon is two-handed + dual-wielding. And that's all it has ever been by the rules. If you're really really interested, look up old Sage Advice articles, which actually have that question from "Cheesy Player", and the clarification is made.
And for what it's worth, you're using Heirloom Weapon - you're already well into "optimizer's choice".
Ok...its just weird to state that one-handed clause if it can't be...hrm
And as the heirloom weapon thing, that was purely character concept (Besides there are much better weapons as optimizers and DPR calculators have shown) I could just as easily just take the proficiency/be the race/be a wiz/sorc and get a similar result. But yeah Oh well... guess I just have to deal with the bull of casting without my arcane bond..sigh (Yay for no Concentration skill to offset this..)
Ok...its just weird to state that one-handed clause if it can't be...hrmAnd as the heirloom weapon thing, that was purely character concept (Besides there are much better weapons as optimizers and DPR calculators have shown) I could just as easily just take the proficiency/be the race/be a wiz/sorc and get a similar result. But yeah Oh well... guess I just have to deal with the bull of casting without my arcane bond..sigh (Yay for no Concentration skill to offset this..)
The clause is for purposes of the Two-weapon fighting feat. Otherwise, you'd look at a double sword (or even a quarter staff), say that each end was similar to a longsword (or club) which is a one-handed weapon, and would say that you take a -4 to each end. It never meant that you could actually swing it with one hand.
But why would you not have your arcane bond? Transformative, while it might negate heirloom weapon's granted ability to use the weapon, does not prevent you from carrying it or wearing it, nor does it keep it from counting as your bonded weapon.
Ok...its just weird to state that one-handed clause if it can't be...hrm
On that we are entirely in agreement. The language is there to clear up a tiny rare corner case, with no preface or explanation present in the current text.
Bobson: The text of arcane bond requires a weapon to be *wielded* to cast spells without a concentration check. Since two-handed weapons require both hands, you then can't cast spells with a somatic component (is the ruling).
Ok...its just weird to state that one-handed clause if it can't be...hrmOn that we are entirely in agreement. The language is there to clear up a tiny rare corner case, with no preface or explanation present in the current text.
Bobson: The text of arcane bond requires a weapon to be *wielded* to cast spells without a concentration check. Since two-handed weapons require both hands, you then can't cast spells with a somatic component (is the ruling).
If the object is an amulet or ring, it must be worn to have effect, while staves, wands, and weapons must be wielded. If a wizard attempts to cast a spell without his bonded object worn or in hand, he must make a concentration check or lose the spell.
I'd say that in this case, because weapons are lumped in with staves and wands (which can be said to be wielded when ready to use, although they aren't wielded in the combat sense) as part of a fluffy sentance, and because it specifically says "or in hand" when actually discussing the rules effect, I think it's pretty clearly the intent that as long as you can wield the weapon (i.e. you aren't carrying something in the other hand that would prevent you from swinging it), you're good.