TL;DR: Use and Are are two different things.
Using it 2H means you are using it similar to a Greatsword less like a Longsword.
It doesn't make the blade into a 2H Weapon.
Design Manager
|
TL;DR: Use and Are are two different things.
Using it 2H means you are using it similar to a Greatsword less like a Longsword.
It doesn't make the blade into a 2H Weapon.
This. Yoou can use a longsword in two hands, it's still a one-handed weapon. A DWA can be used in two-hands if you're proficient in martial weapons, it's still a one-handed exotic weapon.
If I am wrong then can you explain to me why Amiri (The Iconic Barbarian for Pathfinder) has EWP Bastard sword for her large Bastard sword if it is unnecessary?
Because it is clearly RAI that you need EWP. The problem is that the RAW is badly written and as such doesn't support this RAI.
Had they classed the bastard sword and the dwarven waraxe as twohanded weapon we'd have much less problems.
But both weapons would be stronger than they are now because twohanded weapons have better stats (hp, hardness) than onehanded weapons.
What strikes me as awkward with this situation is that a wizard could wield the bastard sword onehanded with the same penalty as a fighter doing this. Both take -4 because they lack EWP.
Now if they add the second hand the wizard still has the same -4 while the fighter suddenly has no penalty at all.
To clarify then...
Can a Fighter using a Greatsword pick up and use a large Greatsword, yes or no? If yes, at what penalty?
To clarify then...
Can a Fighter using a Greatsword pick up and use a large Greatsword, yes or no? If yes, at what penalty?
No, he can't do that. It IS a twohanded weapon and those can't be used oversized.
But as a bastardsword is a onehanded weapons the greatsword is not relevant for this discussion.
|
@Lazarx: Of course Amiri uses it at a penalty. It's -2,for the size difference between medium 1h and large 1h. Just like in the oversized weapon rules. Noone has argued that she doesn't take that penalty.From what I've read, a lot of folks here seem to be posting as if she did.
Amiri follows the rules for using inappropriately-sized weapons. For her, using a large weapon incurs a -2 attack penalty for the single size difference.
What we are saying is that she doesn't take the -4 non-proficiency penalty on top of the -2 size penalty, nor would she even if she didn't have EWP.
|
|
Handedness becomes sort of a floating variable when you are dealing with size differences. We aren't talking about an inability to change a weapon into something else here. The Large Bastard Sword exists... it's sitting there. It is a one-handed exotic weapon sized for a Large creature. Without EWP, the Large creature must wield it two-handed. The Polearm is a two-handed martial weapon sized for a Large creature. A Medium creature would require two hands to wield the Bastard Sword with EWP, but cannot wield it without EWP because it would require a category higher than two-handed. A Medium Creature can't wield the Polearm unless they have some ability that drops its effective handedness.
tl;dr: Get a small and tiny polearm and dual-wield them because they still give you the 10' reach.
I've bolded the part where you are mistaken, and put in italics the second mistake which is a consequence of the first.
You wrote, 'Without EWP, the Large creature must wield it two-handed.' Not true. A large creature wielding a large-sized bastard sword is in the same boat as a medium creature wielding a medium-sized bastard sword. Both are one-handed weapons for their respective wielders, and both remain one handed weapons, whether wielded in one hand or in two hands!
The difference between having and not having the EWP is not that the weapon changes categories depending how it is used, but that you are not proficient in using it one handed without EWP; you are proficient with it when using it two-handed as long as you have MWP!
Remember, non-proficiency does not make you unable to use a weapon, it forces you to take a -4 attack penalty. This is in contrast to a weapon which is too big or too small to use!
I have a fighter who wants to use a spear sized for a large creature (particularly a giant).For argument sake lets say he has the fighter archetype that allows him to wield a spear in 1h.
Since this spear is a size category larger then him can he wield it either 1h or 2h at a -2 penalty or is it beyond what would be considered a usable weapon?
You didn't state if you want this to be a pure Pathfinder rule... The 3.5 feat, Monkey Grip, would allow you to do this pretty much as you have written.
|
|
Sometimes objects not crafted to be weapons nonetheless see use in combat. Because such objects are not designed for this use, any creature that uses an improvised weapon in combat is considered to be nonproficient with it and takes a –4 penalty on attack rolls made with that object. To determine the size category and appropriate damage for an improvised weapon, compare its relative size and damage potential to the weapon list to find a reasonable match. An improvised weapon scores a threat on a natural roll of 20 and deals double damage on a critical hit. An improvised thrown weapon has a range increment of 10 feet.
Well if you're going to split hairs like that, then there's nothing preventing you from wielding any weapon because you can use it as an improvised weapon at any time. If your Medium sized character wants to wield a Large Greatsword, it's as an improvised weapon
First, weapons are, by definition, not improvised weapons!
Second, even if you were to apply the improvised weapon rules to wield a large greatsword, the most 'reasonable match' on the weapon list is a...wait for it...large greatsword! Thus, unuseable for a medium creature!
To wield it by the standard presumption of proficiency, you "must" wield it two-handed if you have Martial training but no EWP.
Not really relevant. Wielding a weapon without proficiency does not turn it into an 'improvised' weapon just because you are not proficient in improvised weapons!
|
|
Because such objects are not designed for this use, any creature that uses an improvised weapon in combat is considered to be nonproficient with it and takes a –4 penalty on attack rolls made with that object.
Just because anyone using an improvised weapon is considered to be non-proficient with it, does not mean that being non-proficient with a weapon turns it into an improvised weapon! All poodles are dogs, but not all dogs are poodles, etc.
Next, the idea that you can use weapons which are defined as unusable in the game rules (for being too large for you to wield), just by claiming to use them as 'improvised' is absurd! First, the improvised weapon rules only apply to 'objects not crafted to be weapons'! Second, even when applied to non-weapon objects, the rules state you must 'determine the size category and appropriate damage for an improvised weapon, compare its relative size and damage potential to the weapon list to find a reasonable match'. If this 'matching' results in a 'weapon' too big for you to wield, tough noogies! You can't pick up a siege tower and twat someone with it by claiming it's an improvised weapon so it's size doesn't matter! The improvised weapon rules do not let you circumvent the rules on weapon size, they actually direct you to the rules on weapon size, and not so that you can ignore them!
'Its okay, DM! I know it looks like I'm trying to wield a colossal greatsword, but I'm actually using it as an improvised weapon! So that's -4 to hit for non-proficiency, and 20d6 damage! I think I'll use it two-handed to get +3 damage instead of +2 for my 14 Str!'
|
Design Manager
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I hate to say it due to a standing friendly rivalry but.... Malachi is entirely correct on all counts here.
You can't wield a weapon that's too large for you just by calling it an improvised weapon. It's still too large for you and falls under the rule "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."
Note that it says "at all" not "can't wield the weapon as intended but can grab it by the blade and call it a surfboard so they can use it as a bludgeoning weapon".
And to the point of the main conversation, a fighter wanting to wield a large bastard sword without the EWP feat would do so at a -6, -4 for non-proficiency, -2 for inappropriate size, but he could do it. A bastard sword is always a 1-handed exotic weapon, it just has the apecial ability of being capable of being wielded with the same ease as a martial weapon when used with two hands.
|
Design Manager
|
Just because you have the physical capacity to lift a Huge log's weight, does not mean you're capable of wielding it as a weapon. The rules explicitly state that if a weapon exceeds the "handedness" your size allows, you cannot wield it as a weapon. Unless you're a large sized character wielding that log two-handed or have some feat or ability that allows you to ignore the normal rules, you're not actually "wielding it" you're just a maniacal body-builder carrying around a Huge log. Similarly, you can't wield a Huge Greatsword (or a Greatsword sized for a Large person). Just because you're capable of lifting a given quantity of weight does not translate into you being able wield anything within that weight limit as a weapon.
|
Design Manager
|
***Lastly, stop throwing around this nonsense about me having said that being non-proficient means you use the weapon as an improvised weapon. That's a fiction entirely contrived by you, Malachi; I never brought it up.
...
Additionally, being non-proficient and treating it as an improvised weapon are practically the same thing. If you read the section on Improvised Weapons that you provided, you'll see that the stated reason for the -4 to attack rolls is because you're considered, by default, non-proficient with improvised weapons.
I can see where he might be confused about your stance here.
|
Design Manager
|
No, it started before that. I don't really know where he pulled it from but that comment was in response to the allegation. I think I mentioned a -4 in reference to non-proficiency somewhere and he interpreted it as -4 in reference to improvised weapon.
Ah. I wasn't trying to be antagonistic, just pointing out what I thought may have been the source of the misunderstanding.
|
|
***Lastly, stop throwing around this nonsense about me having said that being non-proficient means you use the weapon as an improvised weapon. That's a fiction entirely contrived by you, Malachi; I never brought it up....
Additionally, being non-proficient and treating it as an improvised weapon are practically the same thing. If you read the section on Improvised Weapons that you provided, you'll see that the stated reason for the -4 to attack rolls is because you're considered, by default, non-proficient with improvised weapons.I can see where he might be confused about your stance here.
Cheers, Ssalarn! That's one less cut&paste for me!
As to where I 'pulled' the earlier one from:-
Well if you're going to split hairs like that, then there's nothing preventing you from wielding any weapon because you can use it as an improvised weapon at any time. If your Medium sized character wants to wield a Large Greatsword, it's as an improvised weapon.
@Kazaan: I hope this clarifies the source of my 'confusion'.
I get what you mean when you want to adjudicate using massive objects (such as a log) to damage foes, and part of a DMs job is to adjudicate situations like this. Just understand that, to do so, you are not using the 'improvised weapons' rule, you are making up something on the fly to deal with a situation at your table. That is only right and proper, but we are discussing a medium creature using a large one-handed weapon, and we have no need to make up rules for this as these rules ready exist.
|
|
And to the point of the main conversation, a fighter wanting to wield a large bastard sword without the EWP feat would do so at a -6, -4 for non-proficiency, -2 for inappropriate size, but he could do it. A bastard sword is always a 1-handed exotic weapon, it just has the apecial ability of being capable of being wielded with the same ease as a martial weapon when used with two hands.
A character can use a bastard sword two-handed as a martial weapon.
Where do you get the non-proficiency penalty from? You're using a large one in two hands, ergo, MWP is enough.
|
And to the point of the main conversation, a fighter wanting to wield a large bastard sword without the EWP feat would do so at a -6, -4 for non-proficiency, -2 for inappropriate size, but he could do it. A bastard sword is always a 1-handed exotic weapon, it just has the apecial ability of being capable of being wielded with the same ease as a martial weapon when used with two hands.A character can use a bastard sword two-handed as a martial weapon.Where do you get the non-proficiency penalty from? You're using a large one in two hands, ergo, MWP is enough.
No, that is not how it works.
You know it too.
|
Design Manager
|
And to the point of the main conversation, a fighter wanting to wield a large bastard sword without the EWP feat would do so at a -6, -4 for non-proficiency, -2 for inappropriate size, but he could do it. A bastard sword is always a 1-handed exotic weapon, it just has the apecial ability of being capable of being wielded with the same ease as a martial weapon when used with two hands.A character can use a bastard sword two-handed as a martial weapon.Where do you get the non-proficiency penalty from? You're using a large one in two hands, ergo, MWP is enough.
The handedness of the weapon would increase as it stepped up in size, so I was a little focused on the equivalencies there. In looking at the weapon again though, you're quite right, the particular wording of the weapon ability means it's actually more feasible to jump straight to grabbing a Large size one, since it is treated as Martial when wielded Two-handed. It's just a bit of an odd duck since you can't wield a Large bastard sword one-handed as a medium creature (barring archetypes or abilities). It's not really that big an issue when you look at it anyways, you're trading -2 to hit for +2 average damage.
Power Attacking with a Medium Bastard Sword is better than fighting with a Large Bastard Sword...
|
|
Power Attacking with a Medium Bastard Sword is better than fighting with a Large Bastard Sword...
You and Ssalarn are both correct; even without the phantom -4, a large bastard sword/dwarven waraxe is sub-optimal. At low levels the -2 is a killer, especially when you'd do enough damage to kill most CR appropriate baddies with a single blow even with a medium-sized weapon, so the -2 attack penalty would be for no real advantage.
At higher levels, maybe it's worth it. It's got plenty of role-playing potential! Optimisation isn't everything!
|
|
And to the point of the main conversation, a fighter wanting to wield a large bastard sword without the EWP feat would do so at a -6, -4 for non-proficiency, -2 for inappropriate size, but he could do it. A bastard sword is always a 1-handed exotic weapon, it just has the apecial ability of being capable of being wielded with the same ease as a martial weapon when used with two hands.A character can use a bastard sword two-handed as a martial weapon.Where do you get the non-proficiency penalty from? You're using a large one in two hands, ergo, MWP is enough.No, that is not how it works.
You know it too.
It's not clear from this post how you think it works. : )
a fighter wanting to wield a large bastard sword without the EWP feat would do so at a -6, -4 for non-proficiency, -2 for inappropriate sizeA character can use a bastard sword two-handed as a martial weapon.Where do you get the non-proficiency penalty from? You're using a large one in two hands, ergo, MWP is enough.
It is implicit that the bastard sword being referred to by the rule is sized appropriately for the wielder. To prove that let's have a closer look at the Dwarven War Axe text:
A Medium character can use a dwarven waraxe two-handed as a martial weapon, or a Large creature can use it one-handed in the same way.
According to the way you're trying to read the rule, a medium character can treat any waraxe as a martial weapon if they can wield it in two-hands, even a Large one. Following that along, a Large creature can treat any waraxe as a martial weapon if they wield it in one-hand, even a Large one. That would mean no Large creature would ever need EWP for the dwarven war axe.
That's absurd, and so is your original premise.
|
|
According to the way you're trying to read the rule, a medium character can treat any waraxe as a martial weapon if they can wield it in two-hands, even a Large one.
Yes. That's what it says.
Following that along, a Large creature can treat any waraxe as a martial weapon if they wield it in one-hand, even a Large one.
I don't follow this 'logic' at all! It doesn't say that!
That's absurd
I agree! Good job nobody thinks that, including me!
... and so is your original premise.
A character can use a bastard sword two-handed as a martial weapon
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
A Medium Character can use a Bastard Sword/Dwarven War Axe 2H. Even a Large One.
A Large Creature can use A medium DWA as a Martial Weapon. Or use a Large DWA 2H as a Martial or 1H as a Exotic Weapon.
R.A.W.: Malachi Silverclaw is correct.
R.A.I.: A Medium Character should need EWP to use a Large version at all and then it would require two hands.
Really the rules are based around the fact that a medium character shouldn't even touch a Large Weapon except to trade it inn for scrap metal/gold to make them a new weapon.
According to the way you're trying to read the rule, a medium character can treat any waraxe as a martial weapon if they can wield it in two-hands, even a Large one. Following that along, a Large creature can treat any waraxe as a martial weapon if they wield it in one-hand, even a Large one. That would mean no Large creature would ever need EWP for the dwarven war axe.
That's absurd
I agree! Good job nobody thinks that, including me!
You're contradicting your own logic then.
A character can use a bastard sword two-handed as a martial weapon.
The dwarven waraxe has almost the exact same language.
A Medium character can use a dwarven waraxe two-handed as a martial weapon, or a Large creature can use it one-handed in the same way.
Surely the word 'Medium' doesn't change the meaning of the statement!
If a medium character can use a large bastard sword two-handed as a martial weapon, then a medium character can use a large dwarven waraxe two-handed as a martial weapon.
If a medium character can use a large dwarven waraxe two-handed as a martial weapon, then a large character can use a large dwarven waraxe one-handed in the same way, i.e. as a martial weapon.
There's simply no other way to interpret these two weapons using that same logic consistently.
|
|
According to the way you're trying to read the rule, a medium character can treat any waraxe as a martial weapon if they can wield it in two-hands, even a Large one. Following that along, a Large creature can treat any waraxe as a martial weapon if they wield it in one-hand, even a Large one. That would mean no Large creature would ever need EWP for the dwarven war axe.
That's absurd
I agree! Good job nobody thinks that, including me!
You're contradicting your own logic then.
A character can use a bastard sword two-handed as a martial weapon.The dwarven waraxe has almost the exact same language.
A Medium character can use a dwarven waraxe two-handed as a martial weapon, or a Large creature can use it one-handed in the same way.Surely the word 'Medium' doesn't change the meaning of the statement!
If a medium character can use a large bastard sword two-handed as a martial weapon, then a medium character can use a large dwarven waraxe two-handed as a martial weapon.
If a medium character can use a large dwarven waraxe two-handed as a martial weapon, then a large character can use a large dwarven waraxe one-handed in the same way, i.e. as a martial weapon.
There's simply no other way to interpret these two weapons using that same logic consistently.
OOOOHHHH!!! I SEE WHAT YOU MEAN!
I apologise for my last post! For some reason I had 'bastard sword' in my head, not 'dwarven waraxe'! No wonder I couldn't follow the logic!
Okay, let's look at the waraxe!
A Medium character can use a dwarven waraxe two-handed as a martial weapon, or a Large creature can use it one-handed in the same way. A dwarf treats a dwarven waraxe as a martial weapon even when using it in one hand.
This breaks down as follows:-
• If a medium creature can use the waraxe (he has in hand) in two hands, then MWP is enough.
• If a dwarf OR a large creature can use the waraxe (in hand) in only one hand, then MWP is enough
So dwarves and large creatures can use it one-handed as a martial weapon, no matter the size of the weapon, as long as they are able to wield that weapon according to the rules on weapon size. It's no more strange that large creatures can do this as it is for dwarves to do this.
|
|
I would have to agree with Azaelas, and go with the simple solution of RAI that you need the EWP to wield a large bastard sword in 2 hands to avoid the -4 nonproficiency penalty.
The mental leaps I took to reach this decision (after almost being swayed by your argument Malachi) were these:
The descriptions specifically call them out as EXOTIC weapons, but wielding them in two hands allows you to use them as martial. Therefore if you are already using them in 2 hands you can't wield a larger size version at all. (But I also acknowledge your point that they are ONE handed weapons). It turns into an order of operations problem then, whether to consider the exotic first or the one-handed first.
I agree that 'RAW' and 'making sense' aren't always the same thing. I've talked about RAW mostly, but here's the 'making sense' part.
A bastard sword is about 4 feet in length, making it too large to use in one hand without special training; thus, it is an exotic weapon.
You need 'special training' to use it in one hand, not two! 'Special' training is the EWP, 'normal' training is MWP. It takes special techniques to use it in one hand because of it's length/weight/balance, OR it takes both hands to cope with it's length/weight/balance.
If you have EWP, you are proficient with using the weapon in all the ways it is used. If you have MWP you are proficient with using it two-handed. The difference between EWP and MWP is therefore that EWP trains you to use it one-handed!
A large one-handed weapon must be used two-handed by a medium creature. The techniques of using it two-handed are covered by the MWP. The only advantage EWP gives is training to use it in only one hand! But those one-hand techniques are not relevant when you're using two hands!
It all makes sense!
If nothing else this was an interesting read.
I see both sides of the issue and i'm currently undecided. I'll give this more thought when it's not 4am.
|
|
You see Malachi it DOESN'T make sense RAW you don't get the ability to treat as something and simultaneously not; get the Good without the bad is the issue. If you must wield it two handed to be proficient it means that effectively it is Two handed in all ways for wielding it.. and that's about it. you COULD use it one handed regardless and take a -4 penalty. It doesnt suddenly change its type.. its a one-handed weapon, BUT your knowledge effects how well you can swing it around.. thus proficient or not. So a person could Do all this.. a normal person not proficient and have a -6 to hit assuming they are medium and it is large. Mainly because your run into the I use two hands on this weapon normally.. I don't know how to use it one handed... so you have to wield it effectively one handed without proficiency to wield it two handed at a higher size.
How big is a large Bastard sword? If you make a bastard sword big.... it may be about the size of a Greatsword or Claymore ;)
Honestly, I REALLY prefer the 2E version of 'One OR Two handed sword' ... This garbage of you 'HAVE' a proficiency in a sword but need to spend a Feat to USE it just kind of sucks. Same deal with sawtooth blade and any other 'martial but ohhh sometimes Exotic' weapons.
The way I see it... is
1) RAW, it's totally legal. 1HS get to bump it to Large....
2) RAI, You need to hands to use it properly... you need three hands for a big one...
3) Rule of Cool! If it looks awesome in your head... and it doesn't give a massive unfair advantage to the player... Who really cares?? Let's have FUN! ^_^
Personally, I still don't get the argument why a medium character can't use a colossal bastard sword two-handed.
Yeah, generally a colossal one-handed weapon could not be used by a medium creature, as per the rules on inappropriately sized weapons, but specific overrides general.
A Medium Character can use a Bastard Sword/Dwarven War Axe 2H. Even a Large One.
A Large Creature can use A medium DWA as a Martial Weapon. Or use a Large DWA 2H as a Martial or 1H as a Exotic Weapon.
R.A.W.: Malachi Silverclaw is correct.
R.A.I.: A Medium Character should need EWP to use a Large version at all and then it would require two hands.
+1
A Medium Character can use a Bastard Sword/Dwarven War Axe 2H. Even a Large One.
A Large Creature can use A medium DWA as a Martial Weapon. Or use a Large DWA 2H as a Martial or 1H as a Exotic Weapon.
R.A.W.: Malachi Silverclaw is correct.
R.A.I.: A Medium Character should need EWP to use a Large version at all and then it would require two hands.
Really the rules are based around the fact that a medium character shouldn't even touch a Large Weapon except to trade it inn for scrap metal/gold to make them a new weapon.
+1
|
|
Why would the inappropriately sized weapon rules not apply when using a Bastard Sword or Dwarven Waraxe as a Martial Weapon?
There is nothing that would indicate those rules regarding the change in handedness would disappear.
That's right! Nothing in the description of either weapon indicates any exception to the rules on using inappropriately-sized weapons.
@Quantum Steve; in theory a medium creature that is proficient in any particular weapon is proficient in that weapon no matter it's size! So a medium fighter is proficient in using a colossal longsword!
While that info sinks in, remember that proficiency in a weapon gives you the ability to attack with it without taking a non-proficiency penalty; it does not let you ignore the rules for using inappropriately-sized weapons!
So, look at that colossal longsword in the ye olde magick-shoppe window, and know that if you could find some way to wield it, you'd at least be proficient in it's use!
Alchemist with Vestigial Arms, Powerful Build, and Titanic Armour.
What does that take it to assuming it all stacks?
Huge with it counting as your size. then have the ability to go up to a 4H weapon.
Wait did what I say is R.A.I. is actually R.A.W.?
So dwarves and large creatures can use it one-handed as a martial weapon, no matter the size of the weapon, as long as they are able to wield that weapon according to the rules on weapon size. It's no more strange that large creatures can do this as it is for dwarves to do this.
Bull. It's absurd that any Large creature automatically considers dwarven waraxes of Large size to be martial. Not Huge creatures, just Large creatures.
Your logic broke Malachi, but I'd bet a stack of Core Rulebooks that you'll never admit it. Troll.
Actually, Malachi is right by R.A.W. By R.A.I. it isn't supposed to work but by R.A.W. it does.