@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!
So you're saying that the bastard sword gives you the proficiency to use a bastard sword as a martial weapon, but not, necessarily, the ability to use it.
I get it now.
I guess the text can be interpreted in a variety of ways.
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.
It works by Malachi's interpretation of RAW, but not all interpretations of RAW.
Under literal R.A.W. I think a PFS coordinator or Head GM posted on it.
And said that is how R.A.W. is but in PFS you must take EWP or have a Third Hand.
|
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.
I didn't write it, Monte Cooke did!
I've checked both my 3.0 and 3.5 PHBs. In 3.0 (Monte Cooke) the crunch of the Dwarven waraxe was the same as it is now, and the bastard sword had the same crunch as the waraxe! Except for the dwarf bit. Medium sized creatures could use either weapon in two hands as martial weapons; large creatures could use either in one hand as martial weapons. But in 3.0 there was no 'light/1H/2H'; there was 'small/medium-sized/large'.
A lot of posters on this thread have said something like, 'Well, you might be right by RAW, but clearly wrong by RAI!' Hands up those of you who've spoken to Monte Cooke about this very subject!
We can all guess at Monte's intent, but I'm just reading the RAW here, and the way it reads also makes sense to me; training in using it in one hand (EWP) doesn't help you to use it in two!
Trying to guess Monte's intent, what's clear to me is that he wrote the special rules for those two weapons with the assumption that the weapons were (in 3.0 jargon) 'medium-sized'. That's the only way the line about (specifically) large creatures makes sense. Monte simply doesn't address the issue of larger or smaller weapons in the special rules for those two weapons.
Imagine that the 3.0 DM did need to address a large bastard sword. He could take the line, 'can use it in two hands as a martial weapon', as written, or he could extrapolate for different weapon and wielder sizes. Whatever he rules, it's a house-rule, and no worse for that because since Monte didn't address it, this DM had to make his own call.
In 3.5 the wording of the crunchy bit of bastard sword got changed, and PF retained that crunch. This new wording now makes it much easier to combine with the rules on inappropriately-sized weapons, and they are as I've posted many times. The only nay-sayers are those who believe that they somehow know the original and/or subsequent intent of the wording, and that is not credible. My reading of the RAW does not rely on any imagined 'intent authority', just on 'reading comprehension', but I've also detailed how it all makes sense.
As for the 'intent' of the PF devs, the only intent demonstrated was to 'cut & paste' the crunch and alter the fluff slightly.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I have said this before in other threads. This game is designed for ordinary people from as young as 13 or even younger to pick up and play, you don't need a law degree to play this game. If it takes this much discussion to figure out a rule you are probably over looking the basic concept of the rule. just ask someone who has never played the game or any game before to look at it and ask what they think the rule is saying. More than likely they are right. Rules Lawyers tend to over analyze a rule to death, to the point that they have completely missed the point of the rule. Go with your gut, that is my advise to the OP everything else is other players interpretation.
I have said this before in other threads. This game is designed for ordinary people from as young as 13 or even younger to pick up and play, you don't need a law degree to play this game. If it takes this much discussion to figure out a rule you are probably over looking the basic concept of the rule. just ask someone who has never played the game or any game before to look at it and ask what they think the rule is saying. More than likely they are right. Rules Lawyers tend to over analyze a rule to death, to the point that they have completely missed the point of the rule. Go with your gut, that is my advise to the OP everything else is other players interpretation.
This is good advice.
I have said this before in other threads. This game is designed for ordinary people from as young as 13 or even younger to pick up and play, you don't need a law degree to play this game. If it takes this much discussion to figure out a rule you are probably over looking the basic concept of the rule. just ask someone who has never played the game or any game before to look at it and ask what they think the rule is saying. More than likely they are right. Rules Lawyers tend to over analyze a rule to death, to the point that they have completely missed the point of the rule. Go with your gut, that is my advise to the OP everything else is other players interpretation.This is good advice.
I am wrong sometimes and I miss things sometimes and I do disagree with people on here some times. But this is one rule I always follow when in doubt.
I am wrong sometimes and I miss things sometimes and I do disagree with people on here some times. But this is one rule I always follow when in doubt.
Strangely, I had a new player read those rules...
His explanation was almost word for word what Malachi said. Then he said that it is stupid and ridiculous then asked if I was going to run it that way.
I am wrong sometimes and I miss things sometimes and I do disagree with people on here some times. But this is one rule I always follow when in doubt.Strangely, I done this... And he agrees with Malachi...
His explaination was almost word for word what Malachi said. Then he said that it is stupid and ridiculous then asked if I was going to run it that way.
I'm sorry for being stupid but your post makes no sense to me lol.
I'm sorry for being stupid but your post makes no sense to me lol.I am wrong sometimes and I miss things sometimes and I do disagree with people on here some times. But this is one rule I always follow when in doubt.Strangely, I done this... And he agrees with Malachi...
His explaination was almost word for word what Malachi said. Then he said that it is stupid and ridiculous then asked if I was going to run it that way.
1) You aren't stupid.
2) How does the edited version look?
I'm sorry for being stupid but your post makes no sense to me lol.I am wrong sometimes and I miss things sometimes and I do disagree with people on here some times. But this is one rule I always follow when in doubt.Strangely, I done this... And he agrees with Malachi...
His explaination was almost word for word what Malachi said. Then he said that it is stupid and ridiculous then asked if I was going to run it that way.
1) You aren't stupid.
2) How does the edited version look?
lol that makes much more sense
Still need more clarifying?
And this is a 13 Year Old Genius. EDIT: He is the Genius. I am just a 19 Year Old Nerd/Geek/Dork.
Its funny how that works.
Him and Me both agree that treating the Martial Wielding of them as a separate weapon and have them fall under the handedness restrictions is the easiest method.
Using a Equavilency system is good as well. So that a Small Longsword is a Medium Shortsword.
I agree with that.
Doesn't work perfect but helps with some of the more common weapons.
|
|
I've been re-visiting my 3.0 PHB on the subject of weapon size, wielding inappropriately-sized weapons and the special rules for bastard sword/dwarven waraxe.
Weapon size: there were no different weapon sizes for different size wielders in 3.0! There was just a single set of weapons and each weapon had a size that didn't vary. Shortswords were small, longswords were medium-sized and greatswords were large. There was no such thing as a greatsword sized for small creatures or a short sword sized for huge creatures; each weapon had a set size!
How the size of the wielder interacted with weapons was this:-
• If the weapon's size category was smaller than your's (such as a human using a short sword) then the weapon was light for you
• If the weapon's size category was the same as your's (such as a bugbear using a greatsword) then the weapon was one-handed for you
• If the weapon's size category was one step larger than your own (such as a halfling using a longsword) then the weapon was two-handed for you
As a consequence of this there were no rules about 'inappropriately-sized weapons!' From the perspective of the 3.5 and PF weapon rules, we can see the limitations of the 3.0 system, and why it got changed!
However, the dwarven waraxe special rule was written for this system!
A dwarven waraxe is too large to use in one hand without special training, thus it is an exotic weapon. A medium-size 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.
Remember, there was no such thing as a large waraxe or a small waraxe or a colossal waraxe! There was just 'waraxe', and that was a medium-sized weapon! This is why the rule can say ' large creature' specifically and still make sense, in a way that does not make sense in the 3.5 or PF rules-set, with their varying weapon sizes!
The bastard sword had the same (crunch) wording as the waraxe in 3.0.
It should be noted that Monte Cooke had no 'intent' whatever about large waraxes or bastard swords; they didn't exist in 3.0.
In the 3.5 revision the special rule for the waraxe evolved into this:-
A dwarven waraxe is too large to use in one hand without special training; thus, it is an exotic weapon. 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 is virtually identical to the PF description, only some fluff was added. Can you see the problem? The problem is that the rules on weapon size are now completely different! Weapons can now be different sizes, and we have rules on using inappropriately-sized weapons to cope! But the 'revised' waraxe description only makes sense under the old rules! They don't work properly with the new rules!
In order to make the waraxe description compatible with the new rules, reference to 'medium' and 'large' creatures should be excised and replaced by references to using weapons of 'your own size' or 'one step smaller than your own size'.
In contrast, the description for bastard swords did get changed! From a description almost identical to the waraxe (including 'medium' and 'large' creatures) it changed to:-
Bastard swords are also known as hand-and-a-half swords. A bastard sword is too large to use in one hand without special training; thus, it is an exotic weapon. A character can use a bastard sword two-handed as a martial weapon.
Again, identical to the PF description apart from the fluff.
Unlike the (now outdated) waraxe description, the revised bastard sword description works perfectly with the new rules on weapon size and inappropriately-sized weapons! No trying to guess at RAI is needed; the phrase, 'A character can use a bastard sword two-handed as a martial weapon' is not ambiguous, does not reference outdated concepts of static weapon size or specific wielder size, and requires no interpretation!
We simply don't know if the author of the 3.5 revision envisioned using a large bastard sword; we don't know what he would have thought if he did. We don't need to know! The rule works as is!
The same cannot be said of the waraxe. The current description simply refers to an outdated rules-set and no longer satisfies without 'interpretation', and we all know how divisive that can be! Although the RAW says that large creatures and dwarves can use it as a martial weapon (and I can't blame anyone for taking this literally), I can't really justify that all (specifically) large creatures would treat the waraxe as a martial weapon no matter the size of the axe, even while I can see that all dwarves would treat it as a martial weapon.
This apparent change of heart may surprise some. : )
As I've said before, I was previously not even trying to guess RAI, because the author was not addressing the subject of large weapons at all! I was just reading the RAW.
I'm now going to understand what has been written, in order to extrapolate what I believe the rule would say if it had been updated to the current rules.
Yes, this will be a house rule. Any attempt by any of us to extrapolate the RAW will be a house rule. The RAW remains as I said it is.
• Both the waraxe and the bastard sword have many things in common. Both are one-handed weapons, but are longer/heavier than other one-handed weapons
• They are not as large or heavy as two-handed weapons. In every edition under discussion here, they are one-handed. The author could have made them two-handed weapons, that could be wielded one-handed if you had the EWP! He never did. We must conclude that, although they are somewhere between one and two-handed weapons in size, they are closer to one-handed
• Assuming MWP, there are three ways that have been written to cope with the length/weight/balance of these two weapons:-
1: Use them in two hands!
2: Get special training to use them in one hand!
3: Use versions of them made for creatures one-step smaller than you, so they would count as light weapons for you
With that in mind, here is my version of the crunch that these weapons would have in common; the fluff will differ, and the waraxe will also always count as a martial weapon for dwarves:-
A waraxe/bastard sword is too large to use in one hand without special training; thus, it is an exotic weapon. A character can use a dwarven waraxe/bastard sword sized for him two-handed as a martial weapon, or can use one that is made for a creature one size smaller than him one-handed as a light, martial weapon
A waraxe/bastard sword is too large to use in one hand without special training; thus, it is an exotic weapon. A character can use a dwarven waraxe/bastard sword sized for him two-handed as a martial weapon, or can use one that is made for a creature one size smaller than him one-handed as a light, martial weapon
That's pretty much my interpretation of the weapons this whole time. All the weapons in the CRB assume they are the appropriate size for the wielder by default (otherwise there would be no need for rules for inappropriately sized weapons).
This whole discussion just makes me miss the Monkey Grip feat from 3.5. that would solve everything. they need to reprint that feat.
This whole discussion just makes me miss the Monkey Grip feat from 3.5. that would solve everything. they need to reprint that feat.
NO THANK YOU!
I allowed it and had a hard enough time dealing with one of my player who wanted duel wield Large Double Axes and argued that he can use TWF to TWF with each axe!
Besides it kinda messes up the Mess that is Titan Mauler even more than it already is.
I loved that feat but I understand why you feel that way.
I loved that feat but I understand why you feel that way.
Oh it is nice.
Though I would like to see a Fighter Archetype that works similar to Titan Mauler.
And Titan Mauler Errata'd to allow it to actually Synergize its 2 major abilities.
|
If the OP still happens to be reading this thread, I'm sorry to inform you that, in three pages, no one has informed you that the Phalanx Soldier archetype doesn't work like that.
At 3rd level, when a phalanx soldier wields a shield, he can use any polearm or spear of his size as a one-handed weapon.
Illeist I said that a while back.
|
|
A waraxe/bastard sword is too large to use in one hand without special training; thus, it is an exotic weapon. A character can use a dwarven waraxe/bastard sword sized for him two-handed as a martial weapon, or can use one that is made for a creature one size smaller than him one-handed as a light, martial weaponThat's pretty much my interpretation of the weapons this whole time. All the weapons in the CRB assume they are the appropriate size for the wielder by default (otherwise there would be no need for rules for inappropriately sized weapons).
It must be noted that the above is just an educated guess at what the wording would be if they had updated the description and made both weapons consistent! It is not how it works now, is not the only reasonable guess and is not how I would write it. This is:-
A waraxe/bastard sword is too large to use in one hand without special training; thus, it is an exotic weapon. A character can use a dwarven waraxe/bastard sword two-handed as a martial weapon, or can use one that is made for a creature one size smaller than him one-handed as a light, martial weapon
The difference is the lack of the phrase, 'sized for him', a phrase which is also lacking from the description that was revised: the bastard sword.
There is what a weapon is (light/one-handed/two-handed), and there is how a weapon is used (in one or two hands). With all the different possible weapon sizes and all the possible creature sizes, there are only three weapon sizes usable by any particuler individual, and they will be light, one-handed and two-handed for him.
But the description of the bastard sword (the only one that was revised to match the weapon rules that were changed between 3.0 and 3.5) does not mention weapon size at all! It only mentions how it is used! This means that if a bastard sword is used one-handed then you need the EWP tp be proficient, even if it is a light weapon for you! If you use it two handed then you only need MWP to be proficient, even if it is a two-handed weapon for you!
This is in marked contrast to how it was described in 3.0, the bastardised remains of which still sully the description of the dwarven waraxe.
|
|
That's a very easy issue to resolve. You must be wielding a Double weapon in two hands for it to function as a Double Weapon. The Quarterstaff is also a double weapon and it can't be used as such when wielding it one-handed via the Quarterstaff Master feat. Your player basically has two heads to choose from in main-hand and two heads to choose from in off-hand. Bing bang boom.This whole discussion just makes me miss the Monkey Grip feat from 3.5. that would solve everything. they need to reprint that feat.NO THANK YOU!
I allowed it and had a hard enough time dealing with one of my player who wanted duel wield Large Double Axes and argued that he can use TWF to TWF with each axe!
Besides it kinda messes up the Mess that is Titan Mauler even more than it already is.
Spot on!
Spot on!That's a very easy issue to resolve. You must be wielding a Double weapon in two hands for it to function as a Double Weapon. The Quarterstaff is also a double weapon and it can't be used as such when wielding it one-handed via the Quarterstaff Master feat. Your player basically has two heads to choose from in main-hand and two heads to choose from in off-hand. Bing bang boom.This whole discussion just makes me miss the Monkey Grip feat from 3.5. that would solve everything. they need to reprint that feat.NO THANK YOU!
I allowed it and had a hard enough time dealing with one of my player who wanted duel wield Large Double Axes and argued that he can use TWF to TWF with each axe!
Besides it kinda messes up the Mess that is Titan Mauler even more than it already is.
& yet my group and I spent 2 Hours dealing with this. Using that exact argument.