Question about the Katana

[Talonhawke]

Don't forget your -2 to attacks.

[Krodjin]

Talonhawke wrote:

Don't forget your -2 to attacks.

you're referring to Malachi's idea correct?

[Talonhawke]

Yes

[LazarX]

Grick wrote:

Why is this the case? Who knows. Should proficiency with an exotic weapon count as having the feat? Probably. Is the Katana description not worded as well as it could be? Probably. Should a Samurai be able to use a Katana in one hand? Probably.

Again, Pathfinder is a game that rides on exceptions. The Samurai in it's base form has full proficiencies with the katana, so they effectively have the feat without needing to have it. Just as Fighters have Tower Shield proficiency that other martials have to spend a feat to acquire.

The katana weapon description is perfectly fine as it's written as a general rule. Samurai are the exception to that rule.

[LordKadarian]

just keep in mind a few things one the two handed proficiency part is not technically part of proficiency, it is a special ability of the weapon just like for the bastard sword. it allows you to treat a normally exotic weapon as a martial weapon.

just as if we take a Dwarf or an Elf or a Half-Orc they get similar effects with weapons named after them. dwarven war axe orcish urgosh, etc.
These weapons are still exotic and if we were not a dwarf the axe would still take exotic proficiency to wield one handed, but by being dwarven we may treat it as a martial weapon and thus it becomes easier to meet the prerequisite, although it does not change it so that the weapon can be wielded two handed with simple weapon proficiency. So in short special ability does not change the proficiency type there is only one type of proficiency.

thus they are all proficiency exotic so anyone with actual proficiency with the weapon would have exotic proficiency for them and not martial.

[Malachi Silverclaw]

Talonhawke wrote:

Don't forget your -2 to attacks.

You're right, of course! : )

Drooling and laughing maniacally while typing instead of sleeping make for incomplete posts!

[Can'tFindthePath]

The weapon proficiency feats GRANT proficiency, not the other way around. Being proficient is being proficient.

Look at the Monk. Does anyone seriously contend that they don't have full and normal proficiency in all the exotic weapons listed for them?

[Can'tFindthePath]

Ravingdork wrote:

Are wrote:

Ravingdork: As I mentioned in my post, the armor proficiency and shield proficiency feats specifically say they are bonus feats:

PRD wrote:

Special: Fighters and paladins automatically have Heavy Armor Proficiency as a bonus feat. They need not select it.

Special: All characters except monks, sorcerers, and wizards automatically have Light Armor Proficiency as a bonus feat. They need not select it.

Special: Barbarians, clerics, druids, fighters, paladins, and rangers automatically have Medium Armor Proficiency as a bonus feat. They need not select it.

Special: Barbarians, bards, clerics, druids, fighters, paladins, and rangers all automatically have Shield Proficiency as a bonus feat. They need not select it.

Special: Fighters automatically have Tower Shield Proficiency as a bonus feat. They need not select it.

So unless you're prepared to make the argument that fighters can swap out any of those 5 feats for other feats with their "Bonus Feats" class feature, then you shouldn't use that as an argument against treating weapon proficiencies as bonus feats.

Holy crap.

Don't you just love finding little goodies like this...that shatter your perceptions of the rules that you take for granted....oi!