|
I had this come up at a game a week or so ago and wasn't sure as to the answer (so I let it slide). Is there any rules against a new first level character wielding an oversize (in this case Large) weapon? I couldn't locate any restriction on equipment size on first glance in the PFSGOP but with my ADD I'm fully aware I could have missed something.
It is in the Pathinder Player Manual p.144.
it says...
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.
Hope this helps.
P.S. First Post Ever!!!
Large standard equipment is on the always available list. The only exception are some firearms are not available in inappropriate sizes, per additional resources.
|
One other thing to keep in mind:
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.
Therefore, a human (medium-sized creature) could not wield a large-sized Two-handed Sword, as this would change the weapon designation beyond the three allowable.
Oh, yeah, they can't wield a Large Longbow...it's a two handed weapon to start with. They can buy one, which was what I was covering before, but they'd have no way to wield one normally.
|
|
That falls under common sense. A real-world longbow is 5-6 ft. long. One scaled for a Large creature would be in the 8-9 ft. long range, making it unusable by a medium creature. Technically it's not a two-handed weapon, since ranged weapons are their own category, but that doesn't mean it'll work.
By comparison, I have a dinky little 40lbs-pull bow that is at least 5ft. long. War bows were typically much longer as the length of the bow is a determinant in how heavy the pull is (until you get into modern pulley-based bows). I also have a 6 1/2 ft. staff that, by holding it, is pretty much the longest bow I'd be able to wield, and that would be a pain in enclosed spaces.
TL;DR - I wouldn't let a player at one of my tables get away with this, but I don't think it's technically illegal RAW. I have to run to work, now, so don't have time to research rules and verify.
|
|
Two-Handed: Two hands are required to use a two-handed melee weapon effectively. Apply 1-1/2 times the character's Strength bonus to damage rolls for melee attacks with such a weapon.
Projectile Weapons: Blowguns, light crossbows, slings, heavy crossbows, shortbows, composite shortbows, longbows, composite longbows, halfling sling staves, hand crossbows, and repeating crossbows are projectile weapons. Most projectile weapons require two hands to use (see specific weapon descriptions). A character gets no Strength bonus on damage rolls with a projectile weapon unless it's a specially built composite shortbow or longbow, or a sling. If the character has a penalty for low Strength, apply it to damage rolls when he uses a bow or a sling.
Longbow: At almost 5 feet in height, a longbow is made up of one solid piece of carefully curved wood. You need two hands to use a bow, regardless of its size. A longbow is too unwieldy to use while you are mounted. If you have a penalty for low Strength, apply it to damage rolls when you use a longbow. If you have a Strength bonus, you can apply it to damage rolls when you use a composite longbow (see below), but not when you use a regular longbow.
While it may not be 100% clear that a Large Bow cannot be used by a medium-sized creature, it is certainly implicit within the rules that you cannot.
|
|
One other thing to keep in mind:
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.Therefore, a human (medium-sized creature) could not wield a large-sized Two-handed Sword, as this would change the weapon designation beyond the three allowable.
I wonder if a human with Exotic Weapon Proficiency: Bastard Sword would get around this limitation? The EWP would normally allow the character to wield it in one hand. Increaing the size just makes it back to two-handed.
|
|
A Bastard Sword is listed as a one-handed weapon. So if you had exotic weapon proficiency, you could use a Large Bastard Sword in two hands.
However, if all you are is a fighter with all martial weapon proficiencies, you could not use a large bastard sword in two hands, as you already needed two hands to use the medium-sized bastard sword.
|
RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
I wonder if a human with Exotic Weapon Proficiency: Bastard Sword would get around this limitation? The EWP would normally allow the character to wield it in one hand. Increaing the size just makes it back to two-handed.
Corner cases like this are why people really need to understand the difference between a one-handed weapon with a two-handed usage option and a two-handed weapon with a one-handed usage option. They are not the same thing, and only one of them defines the bastard sword.
I've been called an inappropriately sized weapon before.
O_O
snerk
wipes coffee off of desk
giggle
begines to type comment and walks away snickering
|
|
I wonder if a human with Exotic Weapon Proficiency: Bastard Sword would get around this limitation? The EWP would normally allow the character to wield it in one hand. Increaing the size just makes it back to two-handed.Corner cases like this are why people really need to understand the difference between a one-handed weapon with a two-handed usage option and a two-handed weapon with a one-handed usage option. They are not the same thing, and only one of them defines the bastard sword.
A bastard sword is a one-handed weapon with a two-handed usage option.
It goes back to the whole argument of whether a tengu with sword-training gets all sword-like weapons, or only the generic use of all sword-like weapons.
A bastard Sword is listed as an exotic weapon, so if they get a racial proficiency in bastard sword, they get to use it as the exotic weapon. (Precedent is set on this with a cleric being proficient with deities weapon--if deities weapon is a bastard sword, they essentially get exotic weapon proficiency bastard sword--this is in the PFRPG FAQ).
As such, a Bastard Sword is listed as a one-handed exotic weapon. Therefore if you have exotic weapon proficiency Bastard sword, you can use a large version two-handed per the rules on using oversized weapons.
|
|
Correct, Andrew. Kind of refreshing, really - you should see people try to talk about the bastard sword on the Rules forum. :/
As much as there are a few issues where “key words” have failed (i.e. Attack Action noted as the type of action for a particular feat or ability, when Standard Action was meant), there are several instances where key words have been specifically defined and clarified as a key word. In the case of weapon proficiencies granted on fringe weapons like the Bastard Sword, the precedent for clarification was set when the FAQ clarified the cleric proficiency.
I know it sounds like lawyer speak, but precedent is a huge issue. Sometimes a larger picture and precedent needs to be looked at rather than trying to define something within its own narrow view.
|
RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
Hey, you don't have to tell me. But I've seen other people say all kinds of crazy stuff about the bastard sword, so I wanted to nip it in the bud (errors usually center around thinking it's a martial weapon with a special "mode" you can unlock with EWP, so that's what I focused on).
|
|
That likely goes back to the way the Bastard Sword used to be in 2nd edition. A bastard sword used to be a small two-handed sword unless you spent a second proficiency slot in it (IIRC).
So when 3.0/5 and Pathfinder came out and changed the order of operations so to speak, lots of people didn’t catch that and are still going based off old information. And veterans inform newbies, and so even new folk who aren’t particularly analytical about how the rules are put together, learn the wrong rules from the veterans who never understood the differences in the new rules.
I know I find myself making some errors based on old 3.0 information still. But I’m getting more and more Pathfinder informed as I go.
|
|
There are, however, no rules for inappropriately sized armor or shields.
This is being discussed here.
Scott Wilhelm: A medium creature using a Large Long Sword wields it in 2hands AND suffers a -2penalty to attacks with it.
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.
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.
- Gauss
Sorry for the thread necro here, but this thread covers a lot of the ground I was going to..
So, inappropriately sized weapons.. Everybody's asking about using weapons one size up..
but,
Would a Medium sized character be able to use a Small sized Two-bladed sword in one hand, as a double weapon??
The above post:
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.
would suggest that the small two-bladed sword would be a one-handed weapon for a medium character. One which inflicts a -2 penalty for sure, but still….
Since it works both ways, by RAW it would allow a small two-handed weapon to be wielded as a one handed weapon for a medium character, yes.
Sorry for the thread necro here, but this thread covers a lot of the ground I was going to..
So, inappropriately sized weapons.. Everybody's asking about using weapons one size up..
but,
Would a Medium sized character be able to use a Small sized Two-bladed sword in one hand, as a double weapon??
It could be wielded in one hand, and you would be able to use only one end of the weapon.
A creature wielding a double weapon in one hand can't use it as a double weapon—only one end of the weapon can be used in any given round.
This is from the beginning of the equipment page where it describes the various weapon types.
It could be wielded in one hand, and you would be able to use only one end of the weapon.A creature wielding a double weapon in one hand can't use it as a double weapon—only one end of the weapon can be used in any given round.This is from the beginning of the equipment page where it describes the various weapon types.
But that reference is talking about appropriately sized weapons, not one built for a smaller race.
It could be wielded in one hand, and you would be able to use only one end of the weapon.A creature wielding a double weapon in one hand can't use it as a double weapon—only one end of the weapon can be used in any given round.This is from the beginning of the equipment page where it describes the various weapon types.But that reference is talking about appropriately sized weapons, not one built for a smaller race.
No it's not. A double weapon is a two handed weapon for an appropriately sized race. You can not wield an appropriately sized two handed weapon in one hand.
You can, however, wield an inappropriately smaller sized two handed weapon in one hand.
It could be wielded in one hand, and you would be able to use only one end of the weapon.A creature wielding a double weapon in one hand can't use it as a double weapon—only one end of the weapon can be used in any given round.This is from the beginning of the equipment page where it describes the various weapon types.But that reference is talking about appropriately sized weapons, not one built for a smaller race.
No it's not. A double weapon is a two handed weapon for an appropriately sized race. You can not wield an appropriately sized two handed weapon in one hand.
You can, however, wield an inappropriately smaller sized two handed weapon in one hand.
Here's the quote:
Hey there folks,
You cannot normally use a double weapon in one hand unless it is sized smaller than you. This feat allows you to get around that restriction.
Jason Bulmahn
Lead Designer
Paizo Publishing
A Small two-bladed sword is sized smaller than you (if you are Medium).
So from Jason's quote, which is fairly definitive (given it's Jason!), a Medium PC can use a small double weapon in one hand, as a double weapon.
Cool!
Very non-optimal, but still cool. And the great thing is that given other recent rulings about having loads of different weapon options (barbazu beard, helm of mammoth lords, blade boots, prehensile tails etc etc etc) on your character not allowing you to make 4 off hand attacks, no one would be able to try designing a character two weapon fighting with two small 2-bladed swords. cos that's just cheesy!
Jason's quote (about Quarterstaff Master) was merely clarifying that you can wield it in one-hand. It does not negate the PRD quote above:
A creature wielding a double weapon in one hand can't use it as a double weapon—only one end of the weapon can be used in any given round.
Noteably, you can use a double weapon sized smaller than you in two hands as a double weapon. You can wield any one-handed weapon with two hands. That also allows you to use it as a double weapon again. But then you're stuck with both hands full and can't wield two of them.
I think the two quotes need to be looked at back to back:
A creature wielding a double weapon in one hand can't use it as a double weapon—only one end of the weapon can be used in any given round.
Hey there folks,
You cannot normally use a double weapon in one hand unless it is sized smaller than you. This feat allows you to get around that restriction.
Jason Bulmahn
Lead Designer
Paizo Publishing
Jason's quote is indeed clarifying the PRD quote. The PRD quote says that if you use a double weapon in one hand, you can only use one end of it.
Jason is saying that is true, except when the weapon is sized smaller than you. That's the
unless it is sized smaller than you.
bit.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I think the two quotes need to be looked at back to back:
A creature wielding a double weapon in one hand can't use it as a double weapon—only one end of the weapon can be used in any given round.Hey there folks,
You cannot normally use a double weapon in one hand unless it is sized smaller than you. This feat allows you to get around that restriction.
Jason Bulmahn
Lead Designer
Paizo PublishingJason's quote is indeed clarifying the PRD quote. The PRD quote says that if you use a double weapon in one hand, you can only use one end of it.
Jason is saying that is true, except when the weapon is sized smaller than you. That's the
unless it is sized smaller than you.bit.
No, he's not. You have to look at what the "feat" he's mentioning there is. That feat is Quarterstaff Master
By employing a number of different stances and techniques, you can wield a quarterstaff as a one-handed weapon. At the start of your turn, you decide whether or not you are going to wield the quarterstaff as a one-handed or two-handed weapon. When you wield it as a one-handed weapon, your other hand is free, and you cannot use the staff as a double weapon. You can take the feat Weapon Specialization in the quarterstaff even if you have no levels in fighter.
So, lets review, in chronological order.
A creature wielding a double weapon in one hand can't use it as a double weapon—only one end of the weapon can be used in any given round.
... you can wield a quarterstaff as a one-handed weapon. At the start of your turn, you decide whether or not you are going to wield the quarterstaff as a one-handed or two-handed weapon. When you wield it as a one-handed weapon, your other hand is free, and you cannot use the staff as a double weapon.
You cannot normally use a double weapon in one hand unless it is sized smaller than you. This feat allows you to get around that restriction.
PRD says "If you have it in one hand, you can't use it as a double weapon." It also says "If it's smaller than you, you can wield it in one hand." All double weapons described start as two handed weapons.
The feat lets you wield a quarterstaff in one hand (normally it requires two). It expressly tells you that you don't get to use it as a double weapon, but it didn't have to because it was already forbidden. However, because it's an easily overlooked rule, they reiterated it with instructions on how to switch.
Then there was debate over whether you could wield a double weapon with one hand at all. Jason came along to say you can't, unless it's smaller. Or you have this feat and are using a quarterstaff.
Thus, there's still no way to use a double weapon as a double weapon in one hand.
...
Jason came along to say you can't, unless it's smaller. Or you have this feat and are using a quarterstaff.Thus, there's still no way to use a double weapon as a double weapon in one hand.
It's the "unless it's smaller" bit that's important.
I realize all of the other stuff applies to people using double weapons the right size for them.
But I'm asking about a medium character using a small sized double weapon. It's smaller, therefore he's saying (from my interpretation) that you can use a smaller sized double weapon on one hand.
I suppose we should just agree to disagree unless we get clarification though.
Jason came along to say you can't, unless it's smaller. Or you have this feat and are using a quarterstaff.Thus, there's still no way to use a double weapon as a double weapon in one hand.
...
It's the "unless it's smaller" bit that's important.
I realize all of the other stuff applies to people using double weapons the right size for them.
But I'm asking about a medium character using a small sized double weapon. It's smaller, therefore he's saying (from my interpretation) that you can use a smaller sized double weapon on one hand.
I suppose we should just agree to disagree unless we get clarification though.
I really don't see how you can possibly read that into his quote. It's two sentences. Neither one mentions using a double weapon as a double weapon.
You cannot normally use a double weapon in one hand unless it is sized smaller than you.
Normally you can't wield a double weapon in one hand. It's a two handed weapon and you can't wield two handed weapons on one hand. If the weapon is smaller, you can wield it in one hand. Thus, you can't normally use a double weapon in one hand unless it is smaller.
If he said "You can't use a double weapon normally in one hand unless it is smaller", then there would be ambiguity there. If he said "You can't normally use both sides of a double weapon in one hand unless it is smaller", then you'd have a clear answer. But he said neither of those things. He very clearly is talking about wielding at all.
----
That being said, if you want to read extra words into his off-hand, unofficial clarification of a feat, then I can't stop you.
I'm not dure how relevant this is but. I think (but may but may be wrong) that you may not be able to wield a light weapon 1 size catagory smaller than yoirself.
This would ptebent. You from using a small double weapon as the offhand is light.
It's not a clarification of a feat, it's a comment about a restriction, which a particular feat (kind of) bypasses. The thread the comment was in was about the feat. The subject of the sentence is the restriction. The sentence about the feat is related information (again, IMO).
And, I realize I may be incorrectly inferring here (although I don't think I am), but when Jason says "You cannot normally use a double weapon in one hand" when the PRD already says "A creature wielding a double weapon in one hand can't use it as a double weapon", I believe that when he is saying "use" he means 'use as intended'. Which is as a double weapon.
It's not a clarification of a feat, it's a comment about a restriction, which a particular feat (kind of) bypasses. The thread the comment was in was about the feat. The subject of the sentence is the restriction. The sentence about the feat is related information (again, IMO).
And, I realize I may be incorrectly inferring here (although I don't think I am), but when Jason says "You cannot normally use a double weapon in one hand" when the PRD already says "A creature wielding a double weapon in one hand can't use it as a double weapon", I believe that when he is saying "use" he means 'use as intended'. Which is as a double weapon.
Ok. I can understand where you're coming from now. I entirely disagree, but I understand it.
|
You must use a double weapon in two hands in order to utilise the 'double' quality.
If you have some way to use a double weapon in only one hand (e.g. the Quarterstaff Master feat, or by using a double weapon made for a creature one or two sizes smaller than you), you cannot utilise the 'double' quality unless you use two hands on it for every attack with it during that full attack.
iconic barbarian uses large bastard sword btw
Wrong... you simply can not wield competently a large two handed weapon as a medium creature. Like Amiri, you take a permanent minus to doing so.A Bastard Sword is listed as a one-handed weapon. So if you had exotic weapon proficiency, you could use a Large Bastard Sword in two hands.
However, if all you are is a fighter with all martial weapon proficiencies, you could not use a large bastard sword in two hands, as you already needed two hands to use the medium-sized bastard sword.
So you take a penalty. I'm not saying you'd not take a penalty.
-2 for wrong sized weapon, -2 for TWF for a total of -4.
As I said earlier, hardly optimal, but possible.
You must use a double weapon in two hands in order to utilise the 'double' quality.
If you have some way to use a double weapon in only one hand (e.g. the Quarterstaff Master feat, or by using a double weapon made for a creature one or two sizes smaller than you), you cannot utilise the 'double' quality unless you use two hands on it for every attack with it during that full attack.
If you're reading that from the PRD quote used earlier, we've already discussed that. The quote is, IMO, talking about double weapons of your size.
Jason said you can use a double weapon in one hand if it's smaller than you.If there's another quote somewhere that clarifies the situation more, I'd love to see it..
In the past we use a small longsword as a medium short sword, a small short sword as a medium dagger, a small longspear as a medium spear or a large dagger as a medium short sword. Everthing was fine.
Than came 3.0 and rules for inappropriately sized weapons. Players start to create character builds with this rules and every month we had a new discussion on the boards!
The rules are awful, boring an useless!