PFS Fighter (Weapon Master) 1 using a large-sized Bastard Sword?


Rules Questions

51 to 100 of 100 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | next > last >>
Silver Crusade

Shinigaze wrote:
Malachi Silverclaw wrote:
While reading this thread it has become apparent that, even among those who agree that it's RAW, that somehow it's not RAI. I disagree. (we're all only speculating on RAI, BTW)
The RAI seems to pretty clearly intend for you to need EWP to wield a large bastard sword. As mentioned before, the iconic barbarian of pathfinder, i.e. the picture of the barbarian next to the class in the CRB, is an actual statted out character with a full background that was created by the pathfinder developers. The character in question wields a Large bastard sword and also has EWP(bastard sword). If one of the core classes created by the rules of pathfinder to represent one of the classes of pathfinder needs EWP to wield a large sized bastard sword, the intent seems to be that you need EWP to wield a large sized bastard sword.

The statting-out of the barbarian was done by a person. People don't have infallibility. In this case the person in question has either not put two and two together and realised that you only need MWP to use a bastard sword in two hands (even if it's large), or that person felt that she would have grown up with the feat anyway, as presumably she trained with medium-sized weapons before coming across a giant who didn't need his sword anymore, cuz, y'know, he was dead and everything!

The iconics are not statted out as if by a master of theory-craft!

Sczarni

Malachi Silverclaw wrote:

The iconics are not statted out as if by a master of theory-craft!

True, but they are stated out, in some cases at least, by the people who deigned the game. There is a post on the previous page by James Jacobs that states his position on the matter.

As far as I'm concerned his opinion is how the Rule as Intended. But it isn't how it's written.

I agree with you on the RAW part, but I do believe it is not what the designers had in mind.

Obviously we can play it however we choose in our home game, but as far as the OP is concerned he should expect some table variance in Society play. If it was me I would build off the RAI rather then the RAW for PFS play.


Malachi Silverclaw wrote:
BTW, the EWP subsumes the MWP.

No, no it does not. EWP gives you proficiency with one exotic weapon.

EWP:

Choose one type of exotic weapon, such as the spiked chain or whip. You understand how to use that type of exotic weapon in combat, and can utilize any special tricks or qualities that exotic weapon might allow.

Prerequisite: Base attack bonus +1.

Benefit: You make attack rolls with the weapon normally.

Normal: A character who uses a weapon with which he is not proficient takes a –4 penalty on attack rolls.

Special: You can gain Exotic Weapon Proficiency multiple times. Each time you take the feat, it applies to a new type of exotic weapon.

Unless of course you are saying that if you have EWP for the bastard sword then you don't need MWP which I would be inclined two agree with but taking EWP(bastard sword) does not automatically grant you MWP.

Silver Crusade

EWP wrote:
Choose one type of exotic weapon, such as the spiked chain or whip. You understand how to use that type of exotic weapon in combat, and can utilize any special tricks or qualities that exotic weapon might allow.

Since the bastard sword is an exotic weapon, when you have the EWP you understand how to use it in combat, 'including any special tricks or qualities'. So, yes, the EWP allows you to use it one OR two handed proficiently.

In another thread SKR posted that although the fighter is proficient with all martial weapons, that doesn't mean that the fighter has forty or fifty bonus MWP feats! Only that he's proficient with all martial weapons. This was to stop abuse about swapping bonus feats for other feats.

When I say that the EWP subsumes the MWP I'm not saying you get a free feat, I'm saying you are proficient in it's use both one and two-handed if you have the EWP feat.


Ah, but you don't actually need any MWP to effectively wield a Bastard Sword for your size, whether you use one or two hands.

The EWP (Bastard Sword) gives you exactly that: You are proficient with the Bastard Sword (a one-handed exotic weapon).
Like all one-handed weapons, you are free to use it two-handed, giving you the appropriate effects.

The fact that you can proficiently wield a Bastard Sword two-handed (but not one-handed) with the MWP (Bastard Sword) without needing the EWP does not even touch on this.
The EWP is pretty much giving you all the proficiency you'll ever need.
.
.
Now, if you grab an oversized (by one step) Bastard Sword, you are employing an oversized one-handed exotic weapon.

Which means, if you have the EWP, you can use it as intended, as an oversized one-handed weapon (which forces you to wield it two-handed, and slaps the -2 wrong size penalty on you).

If you don't have the EWP, you could theoretically wield it proficiently as an oversized two-handed martial weapon... if only you could use an oversized two-handed weapon of any kind, at all.

However, nothing will stop you from wielding an oversized one-handed weapon without proficiency (giving you the -4 nonproficiency penalty on top of the -2 penalty for inappropriate size).

Whether or not you have the MWP (Bastard Sword) is completely irrelevant in this case:
The only proficiency that allows you to use the Bastard Sword as a one-handed weapon (which then gets moved to two-handed use due to size) is the EWP.


Victor Zajic wrote:

I don't understand how the special rule for bastard swords does not equal you treating it as a 2 handed weapon when you don't have EWP. "A character can use a bastard sword two-handed as a martial weapon" not equaling it being treated as a two handed weapon when you're wielding it that way is a pretty massive leap of logic. which makes it not RAW as far as I'm concerned.

The weapons HP is based off of what table it's on, but I don't see how it's shouldn't be treated at a two handed weapon for purposes of wielding it.

Sadly it is not possible to change weapon size "on the fly" because the weapon size changes a lot of things like weapon hp.

So if the bastard sword's weapon size would change depending on profession it would gain hp when wielded with MWP and loose hp when wielded with EWP.

As I said before the best solution would be to rule that the bastard sowrd IS a twohanded weapon that can be used onehanded with EWP.
But that would mean that not even someone with EWP could use an oversized bastardsword.


Malachi Silverclaw wrote:
When I say that the EWP subsumes the MWP I'm not saying you get a free feat, I'm saying you are proficient in it's use both one and two-handed if you have the EWP feat.

I can agree with this, for a second there I thought you were saying taking EWP(bastard sword) gives you MWP.

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Companion Subscriber

As the Bastard Sword is not listed a martial weapon, it is not a valid choice for the Martial Weapon Proficiency feat.

It is a One-handed Exotic weapon, with a special ability, like the Trip, Monk, or Fragile ability.

Treat it as such.


On a side note, where does it say hand requirements go up by 1 hand/arm if it's a 2-handed weapon a size category larger?
I'm not saying the statement is wrong, but all I've heard is this:

Quote:
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.

Would it go up by 2 hands/arms if it went up 2 size categories? allowing large creature with 4 arms to hold a gargantuan weapon? (at -4)

Scarab Sages

Pathfinder Adventure, Adventure Path, Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber

Normally, these type of arguments go on until a Paizo staffer comes into the thread and directly addresses the specific question. That has already happened from James Jacobs. Regardless of how the rules could be interpreted, they have been clarified by Paizo staff as how they should be interpreted. Where is the mystery here, regardless of how it is written in the book?

If you are in PFS, at least in my local PFS, no GM is going to go against this sort of clarification, and outside of PFS, who cares? The GM of that game sets the rules.


redcelt James will clarify things quite often but as he is not as some put it "the rules guy" his opinion often gets treated as if it were not better than any other poster in there rules forum.

As for use the weapon it is a 1 handed weapon meaning its a two handed weapon if made large. If you don't have EWP then its an additional -4 on top of the -2 for being oversized.

Bastard swords causing confusion and insanity where ever they go.

Silver Crusade

Talonhawke wrote:
As for use the weapon it is a 1 handed weapon meaning its a two handed weapon if made large. If you don't have EWP then its an additional -4 on top of the -2 for being oversized.
Sword, Bastard wrote:
A character can use a bastard sword two-handed as a martial weapon.

Are you using that large bastard sword in two hands? Yes.

Do you have proficiency in all martial weapons? Yes.

Then you may use the large bastard sword in two hands with proficiency!

What excuse does anyone have to ignore the special rules for bastard swords as stated in their description? Those rules are not dependent on weapon size.

The only difference in terms of proficiency between martial weapon proficiency and EWP(bastard sword), is in it's one-handed use! They both let you use it in two hands proficiently!


Darksol the Painbringer wrote:

You did find a Hero Lab bug.

A Large Bastard Sword can only be wielded in 2 hands by a Medium PC, and they must have the Exotic Weapon Proficiency feat in order to do so. Without it, they can't wield it at all due to requiring 3 hands to even use it.

So an alchemist with the Vestigal Arm could wield a large bastard sword with her three hands?

Silver Crusade

After following Malachi's points, I have to agree with him completely.

RAW its a special property of the Bastard Sword, so regardless of size, any character with 'Proficient with all Martial Weapons' can wield it in two hands, only facing the size category penalty.

Thusly, RAW, a Halfling (martial class) could wield a Colossal Bastard Sword with a -10 size penalty, doing a huge base damage... I can't find a chart for... but over 5d6 I would imagine.

So, in this case it seems Hero Lab has only missed the -2 size penalty for the Large size.

I won't debate RAI cause most of it falls into the category of 'common sense'. And as everyone knows - regardless of RAW - what the GM says, goes. And if a player walked up to my table with the above halfling, I'd laugh and turn him away.


Malachi Silverclaw wrote:
A FAQ was asked if the god that gave clerics with the war domain proficiency with the bastard sword gave MWP or EWP. The answer was EWP. It would be absurd to think that such a cleric (they don't have MWP with all weapons like Martians do) could use it without penalty in one hand would suffer a -4 penalty to use it in two. : )

Martians have martial weapon proficiency?


Just my 2 cents on the matter.

Martial proficiency allows the use of a big sword(with a shortened grip).

Exotic proficiency trains you to use that same sword in one hand (theoretically teaching you different techniques and ways to compensate for using less strength for a big unwieldy sword )

In making that big sword even bigger would need to use the same techniques gained from exotic proficiency in wielding it, to compensate for its increased weight and length.

As for the RAW it's clear that yes you can wield a Large bastard sword as a martial weapon.

But I believe RAI to be a different matter.

Silver Crusade

I'm not sure what Martians are doing here! I have enough trouble with ninjas!

Anyway, the clause about using it in two hands only requiring martial weapon proficiency does not mean you are able to use any bastard sword no matter how big! The 'weapon size' rules still apply and must be followed!

In order to be using a weapon in two hands, you must be able to use it in two hands!

Unusable<--light<--one-handed-->two-handed-->unusable

A medium creature using a medium sized one-handed weapon (such as a bastard sword) treats it as a one-handed weapon. The same creature using a large sized one-handed weapon (such as a bastard sword) treats it as a two-handed weapon. The same creature trying to use a huge sized one-handed weapon (bastard sword or not) finds it unusable, and the special clause does not change that.

If you are able to use a bastard sword in two hands, then you only need the MWP to do so!

Simples!


I agree with you that due to the wording the bastard sword, by RAW, can be used as a large weapon without EWP. But as to your argument that this is RAI as well what do you say to James Jacob's comments about the RAI of this and use during PFS play?

Silver Crusade

Shinigaze wrote:
I agree with you that due to the wording the bastard sword, by RAW, can be used as a large weapon without EWP. But as to your argument that this is RAI as well what do you say to James Jacob's comments about the RAI of this and use during PFS play?

I honestly think James didn't think it through!

There have been enough people posting in this thread who (just as honestly) assumed it worked a certain way and never bothered to question it, and initially scoffed at the very notion that EWP was not needed to use a large bastard sword. I was one of those people myself until a month or two ago, and I've been playing with the same 'bastard sword clause' since the last millenium, and it never occurred to me to question it.

But once the logic was pointed out to me, and I had studied it carefully myself, I had no alternative but to admit that the clause does indeed mean you don't need the EWP!

Once I'd though it through I realised that the only difference between the MWP and the EWP is that the latter lets you use it in one hand without penalty, so it makes sense that it's irrelevant when you use it in two.

As for PFS, it is the RAW and PFS must use the RAW. No-one should have a problem with this. Your game won't be unbalanced. Using a large bastard sword in two hands compared to using a medium greatsword in two hands is -2 to attack for an average of +2 damage. Compare that with using Power Attack on a medium greatsword; -1 to attack for +3 damage, rising to -2 to attack for +6 damage at +4 BAB. A medium creature can't use a huge or bigger bastard sword (without other special abilities), so nothing bad is going to happen in your campaign!

Since this possibility was pointed out to me I've been considering a PFS barbarian with a large dwarven waraxe (not very original, I know). Trouble is, that -2 really hurts, much more than the extra damage helps at low level, especially when I'd get more bang for my buck with Power Attack!

Dark Archive

No matter what you think you got away with rules bending Mal, no character other than a titan mauler can ever use a two handed weapon that is sized greater than themselves. Any PFS judge would call your shenanigans at the table, and if you made a problem out of it, let you leave the game in peace.


Well despite your argument that James Jacobs must be wrong, he has stated that it is illegal for you to use a large bastard sword without using EWP in PFS play. Furthermore, I have always found the argument that the developers must be wrong to be such a flawed argument. I have seen people on these forums argue with the developers saying that they are wrong and they must not be reading the rules they developed correctly most often just because they don't want to view their ruling as a house rule.

Your argument that the developers must be wrong ultimately fails for me because it hinges on the fact that the developers are human and are thus subject to human error. This argument can be applied just as easily, in fact more so, to the other side of this argument, i.e. the developers made a mistake when writing the rules for the bastard sword because they only accounted for medium creatures wielding medium bastard swords.

It makes more sense to me that while developing the multitude of rules for pathfinder that they let a few mistakes slip by (as we have already seen throughout the years) than it does for them to have read and re-read the rules for the bastard sword due to player input and come to the same conclusion each time.

That being said, I still stand by that per RAW, because of the mistake in wording, that this is legal for any home game. If playing a home game based in RAI, or in any PFS game though this would be a house rule and illegal for use in PFS play. That is my opinion and I am about 98% sure that nothing anyone else can say will change my opinion further. You are free to believe what you want though.


Carbon D. Metric wrote:
No matter what you think you got away with rules bending Mal, no character other than a titan mauler can ever use a two handed weapon that is sized greater than themselves. Any PFS judge would call your shenanigans at the table, and if you made a problem out of it, let you leave the game in peace.

Actually not even the titan mauler can do that. The jotungrip ability that lets a titan mauler use a two handed weapon in one hand specifies that the weapon must be appropriately sized.


i thought it was well established that bastard swords are NOT two handed weapons in any form... (RAW)

anyways, i disagree with malachi's reasoning on RAI (which he seems to reluctantly engage in, preferring RAW over RAI),
is that the whole part about using weapons in 1 hand vs 2 does indeed seem related to weapon size, because the relative size to you and thus it's ease class of course impact on handedness. the description of bastard sword says it is BIG enough to need two hands without special training.

so i am just not seeing any evidence which would contradict the idea that there was simply a poor wording choice made in the bastard sword rules, and the true intent would be that it can be wielded as a two-handed martial weapon (ease class, not how you are wielding it), which would mean that a large creature could wield a medium bastard sword as a 1-handed martial weapon, but that a medium creature could not wield a large bastard sword at all as a martial weapon (thus they either suffer non-proficiency penalties or need exotic proficiency in it to wield as a 1-handed weapon, meaning a large bastard sword is a 2-handed exotic weapon for them).

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Companion Subscriber

Okay, a Bastard Sword is a one-handed Exotic weapon, that has a special ability, that allows those with proficiency with Martial weapons to wield it with two hands, and treat it as a Martial weapon.

That's it.

You cannot even take the Martial Weapon Proficiency(Bastard Sword) feat, as it is not a Martial weapon. You will need the Exotic Weapon Proficiency feat.

Treat as thus.


blackbloodtroll wrote:

Okay, a Bastard Sword is a one-handed Exotic weapon, that has a special ability, that allows those with proficiency with Martial weapons to wield it with two hands, and treat it as a Martial weapon.

That's it.

You cannot even take the Martial Weapon Proficiency(Bastard Sword) feat, as it is not a Martial weapon. You will need the Exotic Weapon Proficiency feat.

Treat as thus.

I don't want to offend you, but you have said that a few times already and it has done absolutely nothing to convince the one person in this thread that does not believe that.

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Companion Subscriber

Well, I tried.

Seeing the rules as you wish to see them, does mean you are seeing them as they are.

Silver Crusade

Carbon D. Metric wrote:
No matter what you think you got away with rules bending Mal, no character other than a titan mauler can ever use a two handed weapon that is sized greater than themselves. Any PFS judge would call your shenanigans at the table, and if you made a problem out of it, let you leave the game in peace.

I don't know what debate you've been following, mut 'Mal' is certainly not trying to 'use a two-handed weapon that is sized greater than themselves'! A bastard sword is a one-handed weapon.

When you use a one-handed weapon in two hands, it doesn't become a two-handed weapon! It remains a one-handed weapon being used two handed, something the RAW copes with admirably.

So 'Mal' is using a one-handed weapon sized greater than himself. The limit on that is just one size greater (where it is a two-handed weapon for a creature one size smaller); any bigger and a one-handed weapon is unusable.

As to my addressing RAI, thats the part about the EWP training you to use it one-handed, and therefore not making sense to make it help you use it two-handed.


but proficiency in long swords does help you use large longswords as two-handed weapons. (size-scaling ease class)
and proficiency in 1-handed weapons covers their usage both in 1 hand and 2 hands.
the fluff text of bastard sword (seemingly relevant for RAI) says it is larger and harder to use as a 1-handed weapon...
which fits the exact paradigm that the ease class/weapon size rules model,
so that fluff text wouldn't be conflicting if the bastard sword text actually referenced martial two-handed weapon ease class.

if the text stated that bastard swords can also be used as two-handed martial weapons, it would work just like JJ says, and there wouldn't be any conflict with any other rules text or flavor text. the alternative is to say that whoever originally wrote that text always intended for it to work as the RAW states and has never said anything while thousands of people have played it contrary to that RAW, including developers like JJ. OR, the intent doesn't match the RAW.

for PFS, realistically many people are playing in conformance with JJ's comments and not the RAW. technically, this isn't even a case of the RAW just not working and requiring 'adapting' the RAW to have a functional game, the RAW can indeed work just fine, just differently than JJ thinks it does, so it's definitely valid to use the RAW in PFS games, and that is actually what is required by the PFS rules. like i said, many games will be run more in line with JJ's understanding.


Shinigaze wrote:
Carbon D. Metric wrote:
No matter what you think you got away with rules bending Mal, no character other than a titan mauler can ever use a two handed weapon that is sized greater than themselves. Any PFS judge would call your shenanigans at the table, and if you made a problem out of it, let you leave the game in peace.
Actually not even the titan mauler can do that. The jotungrip ability that lets a titan mauler use a two handed weapon in one hand specifies that the weapon must be appropriately sized.

Titan Maulers do get a Massive Weapons ability. It just doesn't do anything other than offset penalties. It's quite useless as written.


I have not read all the posts, so sorry if this has been covered.

You can use an exotic weapon untrained, but you take minuses, so you can use a bastard sword one handed but take the proper minuses, and then you need to add minuses for using the sword of the larger/wrong side.

Silver Crusade

Captain Sir Hexen Ineptus wrote:

I have not read all the posts, so sorry if this has been covered.

You can use an exotic weapon untrained, but you take minuses, so you can use a bastard sword one handed but take the proper minuses, and then you need to add minuses for using the sword of the larger/wrong side.

Sometimes, you have to read the thread! : )

Dark Archive

Shinigaze wrote:
Sigard Spleenbiter wrote:

Very simple.

As hands needed for proper wielding increase with size, a large bastard sword may be wielded by a medium creature as a martial weapon in three hands or two-handed as an exotic weapon.

Even James Jacobs agrees.

The hand requirements in the description must also be sized up. Claiming none of that matters because it's a one-handed weapon when medium-sized is some loony stuff no good GM should allow.

Unfortunately under the rules for inappropriately sized weapons the explicit RAW says nothing about the hand requirements.

** spoiler omitted **

All it says is that the weapon increases a size category to two-handed and the description under bastard sword says that using it with two hands is allowed using MWP. This is a RAW argument and the only one that is being made. Is this a loophole? Yes. Should this be allowed? No. Per RAW is this allowed within the confines of the rules? Yes.

I believe the RAW do specify the hand requirements. If size increases, change one-handed weapons to two-handed, and two-handed to *impossible*, then a Large bastard sword would require *impossible* hands to wield as a martial weapon instead of two. So, a M creature could only wield a Large bastard sword with two hands with the Exotic WP Feat (or the penalty for not having it). My wording may be off, but it the gist seems very clear.

Dark Archive

Malachi Silverclaw wrote:

I'm not sure what Martians are doing here! I have enough trouble with ninjas!

Anyway, the clause about using it in two hands only requiring martial weapon proficiency does not mean you are able to use any bastard sword no matter how big! The 'weapon size' rules still apply and must be followed!

In order to be using a weapon in two hands, you must be able to use it in two hands!

Unusable<--light<--one-handed-->two-handed-->unusable

A medium creature using a medium sized one-handed weapon (such as a bastard sword) treats it as a one-handed weapon. The same creature using a large sized one-handed weapon (such as a bastard sword) treats it as a two-handed weapon. The same creature trying to use a huge sized one-handed weapon (bastard sword or not) finds it unusable, and the special clause does not change that.

If you are able to use a bastard sword in two hands, then you only need the MWP to do so!

Simples!

No, because the requirement in the description about being able to use it in two hands is also subject to the size change. Therefore, two-handed --> Unusable. You can't just look at some of the stats of the weapon, ignoring those which are unfavorable to your argument.

A medium guy would need 3-hands to wield a large Bastard sword as a martial weapon.

What you're arguing is that if a one-handed weapon says in its description that it can be wielded with one-hand, then it can be wielded one-handed by a Medium creature even if the weapon is sized up to Huge. What you're doing is using the description text to flagrantly break the physics of the game. What you need to do is also modify the description text appropriately to the weapon size which is what you're not doing.

Silver Crusade

The rules on using weapons of inappropriate size has definate game mechanics.

None of those changes affect the special qualities called out in the descriptions of individual weapons.

A creature using a bastard sword sized appropriately is using a one-handed weapon. The rules differentiate between what a weapon IS (light, one-handed, two-handed) and how the weapon is USED (in one hand or in two hands)!

When a one-handed weapon is USED in two hands it does NOT become a two-handed weapon! Nothing in the description of bastard sword changes this one iota!

A bastard sword sized for the user remains a one-handed weapon whether it is used one or two handed.

A medium creature using a large one-handed weapon treats it as a two-handed weapon, whether the weapon is a longsword or a bastard sword.


It sounds like, essentially, if you have EWP then it is a 1h weapon.

If you do not have EWP then it is a 2h weapon (you are proficient with it as such under MWP).

If it is large you MUST have the EWP to treat it as a now 2h weapon. Otherwise, like the greatsword, it is too big for you to know how to use it.

This seems like a pretty straightforward logical argument. If EWP then 1h, if not EWP then 2h (at the medium size). All size rules apply as normal.

Silver Crusade

Ubercroz wrote:

It sounds like, essentially, if you have EWP then it is a 1h weapon.

If you do not have EWP then it is a 2h weapon (you are proficient with it as such under MWP).

If it is large you MUST have the EWP to treat it as a now 2h weapon. Otherwise, like the greatsword, it is too big for you to know how to use it.

This seems like a pretty straightforward logical argument. If EWP then 1h, if not EWP then 2h (at the medium size). All size rules apply as normal.

Logical or not, it's simply untrue!

Quote:
If you do not have EWP then it is a 2h weapon

This is the part that is untrue, and any logical sequence resulting from it is also untrue.

Using a one-handed weapon in two hands does not turn it into a two-handed weapon! The special quality of bastard swords allowing you to use them two-handed as a martial weapon does not turn them into two-handed weapons! Bastard swords are not quantum effects; they don't change what they are depending on who's swinging them!

If you were to follow that logic then it would apply to all one-handed weapons! If you use a longsword in two hands, is it suddenly a two-handed weapon? If that were true then you couldn't use a large longsword at all, because you'd be using it in two hands, therefore it's a two-handed weapon and since it's large that makes it three-handed for you = unusable!

Does that longsword example sound absurd? It should, but that is exactly the reasoning you're using for bastard swords!

The only 'special' rule about bastard swords is that if you happen to be using it in two hands, then it counts as a martial weapon in terms of whether or not the wielder is proficient.

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Companion Subscriber

Exactly. It's a One-Handed Exotic Weapon with a special quality.

It is treated as such.


Sigard Spleenbiter wrote:
I believe the RAW do specify the hand requirements. If size increases, change one-handed weapons to two-handed, and two-handed to *impossible*, then a Large bastard sword would require *impossible* hands to wield as a martial weapon instead of two. So, a M creature could only wield a Large bastard sword with two hands with the Exotic WP Feat (or the penalty for not having it). My wording may be off, but it the gist seems very clear.

That is one way to interpret RAW, but Malachi is interpreting RAW another way. If you would wield a longsword in two hands it does not become a two handed weapon, it stays a one handed weapon. Therefore, because a bastard sword is only ever listed as a one handed weapon, when it increases a step due to going to large size it becomes a two handed weapon. The split comes from the reading of the description of the bastard sword. The bastard sword says, "A character can use a bastard sword two-handed as a martial weapon." Malachi is saying that because it says can wield the sword two handed, and not "becomes a two handed weapon" that the category never changes from one handed and the description still applies for not taking the non proficiency penalties for wielding a large bastard sword.

Although, using Malachi's logic I can wield a colossal bastard sword without taking non proficiency penalties. A colossal bastard sword still has the wording of "A character can use a bastard sword two-handed as a martial weapon." so that means I can wield it in two hands, inappropriately sized weapons rules wouldn't apply because apparently the rules in the bastard sword description bypass them.

Silver Crusade

Shinigaze wrote:
Sigard Spleenbiter wrote:
I believe the RAW do specify the hand requirements. If size increases, change one-handed weapons to two-handed, and two-handed to *impossible*, then a Large bastard sword would require *impossible* hands to wield as a martial weapon instead of two. So, a M creature could only wield a Large bastard sword with two hands with the Exotic WP Feat (or the penalty for not having it). My wording may be off, but it the gist seems very clear.

That is one way to interpret RAW, but Malachi is interpreting RAW another way. If you would wield a longsword in two hands it does not become a two handed weapon, it stays a one handed weapon. Therefore, because a bastard sword is only ever listed as a one handed weapon, when it increases a step due to going to large size it becomes a two handed weapon. The split comes from the reading of the description of the bastard sword. The bastard sword says, "A character can use a bastard sword two-handed as a martial weapon." Malachi is saying that because it says can wield the sword two handed, and not "becomes a two handed weapon" that the category never changes from one handed and the description still applies for not taking the non proficiency penalties for wielding a large bastard sword.

Although, using Malachi's logic I can wield a colossal bastard sword without taking non proficiency penalties. A colossal bastard sword still has the wording of "A character can use a bastard sword two-handed as a martial weapon." so that means I can wield it in two hands, inappropriately sized weapons rules wouldn't apply because apparently the rules in the bastard sword description bypass them.

No! I've repeadedly pointed out that this would be impossible. As a one-handed weapon, a large one becomes two-handed and a huge one becomes unusable!

The special quality of bastard swords applies when you use it in two hands; it does not allow you to ignore the weapon size rules! Nor does this quality allow you to use it in two hands at all! It is saying if you use it two-handed you can use it as a martial weapon! No-one on this side of the debate has suggested otherwise!

We completely obey the weapon size rules. Can a medium creature use a large one-handed weapon? Yes, but it counts as a two-handed weapon for that creature. Is a bastard sword a one-handed weapon? Yes, so a large one counts as a two-handed weapon for a medium creature. Are you using it in two hands? Obviously. So the special quality kicks in allowing it to be used as a martial weapon.

What about a huge bastard sword? That takes it beyond two-handed into unusable, so the 'special quality' never comes into it; you're not using it at all, let alone in two hands, so whatever happens when you use it two-handed does not apply because you're not using it two-handed or any other way; you're not using it at all!


Malachi Silverclaw wrote:
The special quality of bastard swords applies when you use it in two hands; it does not allow you to ignore the weapon size rules! Nor does this quality allow you to use it in two hands at all! It is saying if you use it two-handed you can use it as a martial weapon! No-one on this side of the debate has suggested otherwise!

Actually, the rule says you can use a bastard sword two handed as a martial weapon. Here is the relevant text word for word from the pathfinder prd, go ahead read it.

"A character can use a bastard sword two-handed as a martial weapon."

Note that it says can and not "if used in two hands" so it is totally within the rules to use a colossal bastard sword because it is a bastard sword that can be used two handed as a martial weapon.

Silver Crusade

Shinigaze wrote:
Malachi Silverclaw wrote:
The special quality of bastard swords applies when you use it in two hands; it does not allow you to ignore the weapon size rules! Nor does this quality allow you to use it in two hands at all! It is saying if you use it two-handed you can use it as a martial weapon! No-one on this side of the debate has suggested otherwise!

Actually, the rule says you can use a bastard sword two handed as a martial weapon. Here is the relevant text word for word from the pathfinder prd, go ahead read it.

"A character can use a bastard sword two-handed as a martial weapon."

Note that it says can and not "if used in two hands" so it is totally within the rules to use a colossal bastard sword because it is a bastard sword that can be used two handed as a martial weapon.

I've just looked up 'straw man fallacy' on Wikipedia, and here one is!

You're ascribing to me a position you know I don't hold, then show how that is ridiculous, then claim to have belittled my case! Classic!

If you don't believe a medium creature can use a collossal bastard sword, and I don't believe it, who are you trying to convince?

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Companion Subscriber

As things are a bit mixed up, perhaps I should ask:

Who is trying to convince who, of what?


Malachi: Hmmm.... since there is so much clutter floating around in this thread, let me adress you directly.

We both agree that the Bastard Sword is a one handed exotic weapon.

So, with the EWP, you can wield it one handed, or two handed, whatever you prefer, without penalties of any sort.

Now, if you don't have the EWP, you can use it two handed with MWP (Bastard Sword) (which doesn't exist on its own, but is a subset of MWP (all) known by fighter types).

Which means you are at -4 for one handed use (non-proficient) vs. -0 for two handed use (fallback to MWP)

So far, I think we are on the same wave length.

Basically, what we seem to be disagreeing about is whether or not the 'fallback to MWP' (to coin a term) special entry for the bastard sword is subject to the weapon size increase rule.

If it is, the MWP usage possibility for a large Bastard Sword would shift from 2-handed to impossible. Likewise, the MWP usage possibility for a small bastard sword would shift from two handed to one handed.

You claim that this 'fallback to MWP' entry is not affected by the size increase rules. By my logic, it should be.

Did I identify the point of disagreement correctly?


Malachi Silverclaw wrote:

I've just looked up 'straw man fallacy' on Wikipedia, and here one is!

You're ascribing to me a position you know I don't hold, then show how that is ridiculous, then claim to have belittled my case! Classic!

If you don't believe a medium creature can use a collossal bastard sword, and I don't believe it, who are you trying to convince?

You are incorrect, this is not a straw man fallacy. From the wikipedia article I assume you read a straw man fallacy has to fall under one of the following criteria:

1. Presenting a misrepresentation of the opponent's position.
-Every representation of your argument that I have given is exactly what your argument is, I can only assume as much because you have never denied anything I have said in regards to what your stance is. (Note, I never said that you thought wielding colossal was ok.)

2. Quoting an opponent's words out of context — i.e. choosing quotations that misrepresent the opponent's actual intentions
-I don't believe I have quoted you at all let alone out of context.

3. Presenting someone who defends a position poorly as the defender, then refuting that person's arguments — thus giving the appearance that every upholder of that position (and thus the position itself) has been defeated.
-Not even close.

4. Inventing a fictitious persona with actions or beliefs which are then criticized, implying that the person represents a group of whom the speaker is critical.
-Nope.

5. Oversimplifying an opponent's argument, then attacking this oversimplified version.
-I never oversimplified your argument, I created a completely new argument based on the wording of the bastard sword's description that I never said you were making.

My argument does not fall under any of these categories, and in reality, isn't even an argument at all. I never said that wielding a colossal bastard sword means that your argument is invalid. I simply pointed out that by RAW, the bastard sword's description points out that you can use it two handed with martial weapon proficiency and by literal reading of the RAW it means you can wield any size of bastard sword.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Shinigaze wrote:
I simply pointed out that by RAW, the bastard sword's description points out that you can use it two handed with martial weapon proficiency and by literal reading of the RAW it means you can wield any size of bastard sword.

Negative on that, Houston.

By Malachi's reading of the rules, you would be proficient in the two handed use of the bastard sword of any size.

However, the weapon size rules remain untouched, shifting a huge (or larger) Bastard Sword out of wieldable range.

So, while you are proficient with a colossal bastard sword in theory, you are physically incapable of wielding it.


The disagreement, I believe is whether the bastard sword falls into 2 weapon categories.

If it is a 1h weapon only, then whether it is M or L you can wield it 2h.

If it is only a 1h weapon when you have the exotic weapon prof or otherwise a 2h martial weapon then the size matters.

Becaue the weapon description specifies that it is wielded 2h as a martial weapon, I think this weapon actually occupies 2 weapon categories dependant on the proficiencies you have.

I understand both interpretations, I would make someone have EWP to use the large bastard sword 2 H OR I would let a Titan Mauler do it with no prof.

Silver Crusade

@Shihigaze; this is what made me think that you were 'presenting a misrepresentation of an opponent's position':-

Shinigaze wrote:
Although, using Malachi's logic I can wield a colossal bastard sword without taking non proficiency penalties. A colossal bastard sword still has the wording of "A character can use a bastard sword two-handed as a martial weapon." so that means I can wield it in two hands, inappropriately sized weapons rules wouldn't apply because apparently the rules in the bastard sword description bypass them.

Perhaps I took this the wrong way. When you said 'using Malachi's logic' I took that as saying that I had used that logic myself, and I took the 'apparently' part as saying that it was me that made it apparent. That would be a straw man.

Re-reading it, it could be understood that the 'using Malachi's logic' part was simply you applying your own faculties to the subject in a way you think I would, and that it wasn't me that made it 'apparent'. If so, that would not be a straw man, but it would be incorrect on the logic front because I have applied my logical faculties to the problem and already demonstrated that there can be no collossal wielding.

As to the offending sentence itself:-

Sword, Bastard wrote:
A character can use a bastard sword two-handed as a martial weapon.

The subject of this sentence is not weapon size, the subject of this sentence is proficiency. Attempting to abuse this sentence by pretending that it allows you to ignore the rules for using inappropriately sized weapons deserves condemnation of whoever tries it. This sentence is clearly about the required proficiency, and understood properly shows that when used two-handed it is used as a martial weapon. There is nothing there about being able to ignore any other rule, including weapon size.

Silver Crusade

Midnight_Angel wrote:

Malachi: Hmmm.... since there is so much clutter floating around in this thread, let me adress you directly.

We both agree that the Bastard Sword is a one handed exotic weapon.

So, with the EWP, you can wield it one handed, or two handed, whatever you prefer, without penalties of any sort.

Now, if you don't have the EWP, you can use it two handed with MWP (Bastard Sword) (which doesn't exist on its own, but is a subset of MWP (all) known by fighter types).

Which means you are at -4 for one handed use (non-proficient) vs. -0 for two handed use (fallback to MWP)

So far, I think we are on the same wave length.

Basically, what we seem to be disagreeing about is whether or not the 'fallback to MWP' (to coin a term) special entry for the bastard sword is subject to the weapon size increase rule.

If it is, the MWP usage possibility for a large Bastard Sword would shift from 2-handed to impossible. Likewise, the MWP usage possibility for a small bastard sword would shift from two handed to one handed.

You claim that this 'fallback to MWP' entry is not affected by the size increase rules. By my logic, it should be.

Did I identify the point of disagreement correctly?

Thankyou for bringing sanity. : )

Yes, this seems to be the point in contention.

Like it or not, the rules for inappropriately sized weapons never affect any special rules in the description of any weapon, nor affect any ability in the 'special' column in the weapons table.

The 'reach' of reach weapons remains at 10-feet, large shuriken are still drawn as a free action, and the abilty to use bastard swords as a martial weapon are not changed one iota when the weapon in question is being used by a creature of the wrong size.

Using a one-handed weapon in two hands does not turn it into a two-handed weapon! There is nothing in the description of bastard sword which changes this!

I realise that many people assume that a bastard sword is a one-handed weapon when used one-handed, and is a two-handed weapon when used two-handed. I used to think this myself, until I looked at the rules properly! If this were really true then there would be two entries for bastard swords on the weapons table; a two-handed martial weapon and a one-handed exotic weapon. There would also have to be notes on it's hit points as they differ between 1H and 2H weapons. But everyone can see that this is not the case!

The kind of weapon something is (light, one-handed, two-handed) is a completely different thing to how a weapon is used (in one or two hands). The same rules section even spells out what happens when you use a one-handed weapon in two hands, so the rules cope admirably with this.

For a creature using a correctly sized bastard sword it always remains a one-handed weapon, whether or not it is used in two hands and whether or not the user has EWP.

And the rules for using inappropriately sized weapons don't change any special rule in the description of a weapon, even if we wish they did!

Silver Crusade

Midnight_Angel wrote:
Shinigaze wrote:
I simply pointed out that by RAW, the bastard sword's description points out that you can use it two handed with martial weapon proficiency and by literal reading of the RAW it means you can wield any size of bastard sword.

Negative on that, Houston.

By Malachi's reading of the rules, you would be proficient in the two handed use of the bastard sword of any size.

However, the weapon size rules remain untouched, shifting a huge (or larger) Bastard Sword out of wieldable range.

So, while you are proficient with a colossal bastard sword in theory, you are physically incapable of wielding it.

Spot on!


Take a look at the dwarven waraxe. It says a large creature that is not proficient with it can use it one handed. And that weapon operates under the same rules as the bastard sword. Does that have any impact on the theory that these are always 1 handed weapons?

Maybe I am reading more into that statement that there is, but to me it looks like these exotic weapons occupy 2 size categories.

51 to 100 of 100 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder First Edition / Rules Questions / PFS Fighter (Weapon Master) 1 using a large-sized Bastard Sword? All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.