Bastard Sword, Two-Handed Fighter Archetype, and Overhand Chop


Rules Questions

1 to 50 of 135 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | next > last >>

1 person marked this as FAQ candidate.

I did a search for this, and didn't see a thread that clearly addressed this specific issue. Though I did see the issue brought up peripherally in some other threads.

Pertinent information:
Overhand Chop is a third level extraordinary ability granted by the Two-Handed Fighter Archetype.

Overhand Chop wrote:

Overhand Chop (Ex)

At 3rd level, when a two-handed fighter makes a single attack (with the attack action or a charge) with a two-handed weapon, he adds double his Strength bonus on damage rolls.

This ability replaces Armor Training 1.

Sword, Bastard--Bolding Mine wrote:

A bastard sword is about 4 feet in length, making it too large to use in one hand without special training.

Description: Due to its size, a bastard sword is an exotic weapon. A character can use a bastard sword two-handed as a martial weapon.

I know that the devs put the rules in the hands of intelligent people, and that they want us to rule in the way that makes the most sense. For that reason, and specifically because of the language that says two-handed as a martial weapon (which I interpret to mean it then is categorized as a "two-handed martial weapon"), I told the player in question I have no problem with their character using a bastard sword in two hands with the overhand chop ability. What I want to know is, am I houseruling that? Or is that the RAI?

The character in question has exotic weapon proficiency for the bastard sword, which means he can wield it in one hand, but I don't think that, in and of itself, removes the ability to still wield the sword two-handed as a martial weapon.

Also, before you ask, the player in question is a younger player who after taking three levels of barbarian, and thinking he wanted to go sword and board with the bastard sword, saw the two-handed fighter archetype and saw the potential for damage increase. He is now trying to decide whether to dip three levels of the Two-Handed Fighter in order to get that (ex) ability. His idea is to have the versatility to wield the bastard sword one-handed with his shield for the AC bonus, and then stow the shield and two-hand the sword for the extra damage when needed. So please don't reply with, "why don't you just get a greatsword."

Thoughts?


MendedWall12 wrote:
the language that says two-handed as a martial weapon (which I interpret to mean it then is categorized as a "two-handed martial weapon")

A character can use a scimitar two-handed as a martial weapon.

This does not mean a scimitar is a two-handed weapon.

The type of weapon it is (which determines the size of the object, among other things) does not change. The only thing that changes is how you use it.


@Grick

Right, which means that technically the character is wielding a one-handed exotic weapon. This is exactly why I came to the boards with this question in the first place. It seems to me to be such a closet corner case. My whole dilemma comes from the fact that a character that doesn't have the exotic weapon proficiency with the bastard sword can still wield it "proficiently" if they wield it in two hands as a martial weapon. That little bit of adjustment seems, to me anyway, to imply that a bastard sword is also a two-handed martial weapon, even though that is not where it is listed in the equipment table. If a character can wield a sword proficiently in two hands, that means it is, at least in that character's hands, a two-handed martial weapon. If it weren't they couldn't wield it proficiently.


RAW, the description text for the bastard sword means:

Quote:
There would be a 2-handed martial weapon listed as "bastard sword" as well as the bastard sword listed under exotic weapons, but as we don't have unlimited space and printing budgets we're only going to put it in the list once.

The rule of "How RPG books are written".


MendedWall12 wrote:
Right, which means that technically the character is wielding a one-handed exotic weapon.

Correct, the bastard sword is a one-handed exotic weapon.

You can wield it with two hands, just like every other one-handed weapon. This doesn't change it into a two-handed weapon.

Some people, who are not as well trained, can only wield it with two hands. This doesn't change it into a two-handed weapon.

There's a significant difference between
"two-handed as a martial weapon"
and
"as a two-handed martial weapon"

One changes how you use it, the other changes the weapon.

MendedWall12 wrote:
If a character can wield a sword proficiently in two hands, that means it is, at least in that character's hands, a two-handed martial weapon.

A character can wield a dagger in two hands, but that doesn't mean it's a two-handed weapon.


The Covenant Man wrote:

RAW, the description text for the bastard sword means:

Quote:
There would be a 2-handed martial weapon listed as "bastard sword" as well as the bastard sword listed under exotic weapons, but as we don't have unlimited space and printing budgets we're only going to put it in the list once.
The rule of "How RPG books are written".

It's the same amount of space to put "as a" before "two-handed" as after.

Also, that means a bastard sword would be changing size from a small to a medium object based on who is holding it.


The question here is wording and syntax. To me it seems to be a question of whether
a two-handed weapon
is different from
a weapon wielded in two hands.
To me, there's an obvious difference. It's what separates the longsword and the greatsword (and, incidentally, the bastard sword), or the battleaxe and the greataxe.

The two-handed fighter is a warrior who specializes in using large weapons to devastating effect. Any fighter can two-hand a longsword, but that doesn't make the longsword a two-handed weapon.

As for the question of whether the bastard sword is also a two-handed martial weapon, that just doesn't make sense. There are plenty of weapons that are like others and can be wielded as other weapons, but that doesn't make them that weapon. Otherwise, a whole host of exotic weapons would have to be listed in the simple and martial category with a caveat that taking Exotic Weapon Proficiency for them grants extra capabilities.

The bastard sword is a one-handed weapon. It can be treated as two-handed for proficiency purposes because it's large, and that's the reason it's an exotic weapon.


It's not the size of the weapon that counts. It's how you use it.

And as for your player: I'll allow it.

Strictly speaking, if you have the exotic weapon proficiency, the bastard sword is a one handed weapon. And currently, as written, Overhand Chop specifically says "two handed weapon". So by RAW it wouldn't work. Unless you oversize the bastard sword. Then its a 2 handed weapon again.

So my question is twofold:
1) Do you have to strictly follow the rules as written, or could you allow a bit of GM fiat to allow Overhand Chop to work with bastard swords?

2) If you must follow the rules, then how about getting the player an oversized bastard sword. Increased damage at a slight penalty to attack...

RPG Superstar 2012 Top 16

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Technically, the bastard sword is a two handed weapon you can take an Exotic Weapon prof to wield with one hand. Yes, it qualifies as a two handed weapon.

Note you still have to wield it with two hands to get the bonus. A guy with Monkey Grip or a Titan Mauler doesn't get the bonuses if he wields a Greatsword in one hand, either.

==Aelryinth


Avianfoo wrote:

It's not the size of the weapon that counts. It's how you use it.

And as for your player: I'll allow it.

Strictly speaking, if you have the exotic weapon proficiency, the bastard sword is a one handed weapon. And currently, as written, Overhand Chop specifically says "two handed weapon". So by RAW it wouldn't work. Unless you oversize the bastard sword. Then its a 2 handed weapon again.

So my question is twofold:
1) Do you have to strictly follow the rules as written, or could you allow a bit of GM fiat to allow Overhand Chop to work with bastard swords?

2) If you must follow the rules, then how about getting the player an oversized bastard sword. Increased damage at a slight penalty to attack...

The oversized bastard sword was going to be my next point of discussion with the player, but I told him I'd come here and see what the consensus was for RAI.

Edit:@Aelryinth, that's my thinking as well. Clearly there are differing opinions on it, though.


Aelryinth wrote:

Technically, the bastard sword is a two handed weapon you can take an Exotic Weapon prof to wield with one hand. Yes, it qualifies as a two handed weapon.

Technically, the bastard sword is a one handed weapon that can be used as a two handed weapon if you don't have the exotic weapon prof.

It does not appear in the weapons table for martial two handed weapons, it appears under exotic one handed weapons.

Regardless, I would still allow this very niche case. The bastard sword is a heavy enough blade to qualify in my opinion.


If he didn't have proficiency with all martial weapons, and just took the exotic prof, I would say that no, he couldn't use it for the overhand chop ability (pretending that those fighter levels didn't give him the martial prof).

But he does have the martial proficiency as well. If he never took the exotic prof feat, he'd be wielding it as a two handed martial weapon and I would definitely allow the Overhand Chop ability to function. I see no reason to not allow it. So, does taking the exotic prof feat change that? I don't think it does. He could be using a different two handed weapon and it would function fine, but he wants the versatility and he spent a feat to get it. I see no issue, personally.


Aelryinth wrote:
Technically, the bastard sword is a two handed weapon you can take an Exotic Weapon prof to wield with one hand.

Table: Weapons: Exotic Weapons - One-Handed Melee Weapons - Sword, bastard

Aelryinth wrote:
Note you still have to wield it with two hands to get the bonus.

Overhand Chop (Ex): "At 3rd level, when a two-handed fighter makes a single attack (with the attack action or a charge) with a two-handed weapon, he adds double his Strength bonus on damage rolls. This ability replaces armor training 1."


Avianfoo wrote:
Technically, the bastard sword is a one handed weapon that can be used as a two handed weapon if you don't have the exotic weapon prof.

Being used two-handed is not the same as being used as a two-handed weapon.


utsutsu wrote:

If he didn't have proficiency with all martial weapons, and just took the exotic prof, I would say that no, he couldn't use it for the overhand chop ability (pretending that those fighter levels didn't give him the martial prof).

But he does have the martial proficiency as well. If he never took the exotic prof feat, he'd be wielding it as a two handed martial weapon and I would definitely allow the Overhand Chop ability to function. I see no reason to not allow it. So, does taking the exotic prof feat change that? I don't think it does. He could be using a different two handed weapon and it would function fine, but he wants the versatility and he spent a feat to get it. I see no issue, personally.

This is the exact logic I was using too, but that doesn't change the fact, as Grick points out so eloquently, that even if he only had the martial proficiency, the weapon is not technically, which is to say game-mechanically, a two-handed weapon. It's a weird weapon, in that it is one of the only weapons a character can not have the specific proficiency for, yet wield it proficiently, as long as they do so with two hands.

I guess my question, and perhaps judging on the differing opinions already stated, one that might be a good candidate for an FAQ is: Is the bastard sword also a two-handed martial weapon, and the devs didn't list it there because they felt the language in its description made that clear?


Grick wrote:
Avianfoo wrote:
Technically, the bastard sword is a one handed weapon that can be used as a two handed weapon if you don't have the exotic weapon prof.

Being used two-handed is not the same as being used as a two-handed weapon.

That was the point of my post.

Dark Archive

A bastard sword is also called a hand-and-a-half-sword. It is designed to be used two-handed or one---with the proper training. It is simply a less "gangly" version of a two-handed sword. The assumption of the overhand chop technique is using a weapon of a large enough dimension to garner enough force to make this martial ability effective. Due to its shear size and weight the bastard sword is in this catagory regardless of the fact that it is still svelte enough to be used one handed in the hands of a highly trained warrior. A scimeter wielded with two hands is not the same. It does not have enough size/weight to generate the required force for a technique such as this.

Shadow Lodge

Have your player buy a bastard sword one size category larger then the character is. Then the bastard sword along with the exotic weapon feat should count as a two-handed weapon. The barbarian archetype in the npc codex does this. The barbarian doesn't get overhead chop, but I imagine as a fighter this must work.


@Karnas--Funny, I was just going to bring up that very point. The name bastard sword was a colloquialism for a sword that was built as a hand-and-a-half sword. Which places it, historically anyway, clearly in between a one-handed and a two-handed weapon. This is also one of the reasons I felt like RAI it should work with the overhand chop ability.

Edit: @EpicEndGame, I will have that conversation with him, but one of the major contentions here, is that the character wants the versatility to use a shield when that extra bump to AC will work in his favor. If he gets the sized up bastard sword, the shield becomes obsolete, unless he carries a regular bastard sword and a large sized bastard sword, but then, again, he's losing the versatility.

Dark Archive

MendedWall12 wrote:

@Karnas--Funny, I was just going to bring up that very point. The name bastard sword was a colloquialism for a sword that was built as a hand-and-a-half sword. Which places it, historically anyway, clearly in between a one-handed and a two-handed weapon. This is also one of the reasons I felt like RAI it should work with the overhand chop ability.

Edit: @EpicEndGame, I will have that conversation with him, but one of the major contentions here, is that the character wants the versatility to use a shield when that extra bump to AC will work in his favor. If he gets the sized up bastard sword, the shield becomes obsolete, unless he carries a regular bastard sword and a large sized bastard sword, but then, again, he's losing the versatility.

Of course the sticky part is...do you allow it while using a shield and wielding it one-handed? If not, then what is the impetus for the player choosing a bastard sword in the first place. Sooo, to throw a hair in the soup, a bastard sword used without a shield, allowing it to be used two-handed when necessary, an emphatic YES.

While using a shield, iffy. A buckler, that would do it. Thats your cake and eat it too.


It seems pretty clear to me that the bastard sword is intended to be a two-handed martial weapon that can be used one-handed by spending an Exotic Weapon Proficiency.

And really, what does it hurt to allow a Two-Handed Fighter to use a Bastard Sword instead of a Great Sword. It's pretty much sub-optimal for him, barring rare niche cases where he'd need a free hand (and in those instances he couldn't use the benefits of his archetype anyway.)

ETA: Ninajed on the him wanting to use a shield stuff.

I still don't see a problem with it, as long he's wielding the sword two-handed when he uses the ability.


@Karnas, you and I are on the same wavelength here, because I just came back to further complicate things.

After looking at the language of the archetype, the overhand chop ability, and Grick's posts, I think that RAW a mounted, two-handed fighter wielding a lance, in one hand mind you, would still gain the benefit of the overhand chop, because mechanically speaking he is wielding a two handed weapon. He isn't currently wielding it two-handed because a lance can be wielded one-handed while mounted. So clearly there are some corner cases here that seem to test the limits of the RAI. I mean the name of the ability is overhand chop, conveying the idea that the warrior is whipping the weapon headlong over their head in order to throw some extra power into it, but that's all fluff. By RAW a lance could be wielded in one hand, and still apply the overhand chop mechanics for damage. How's that for muddying up the works?

Edit:@Karnas again and @Kalshane. I told the player I would make him stow the shield and wield the sword in both hands before I'd give him the benefit of the overhand chop damage bonus. The thing with the lance makes me want to ponder that some more. I'm pretty sure in the end I'll make him stow the shield to use the ability, though.

Dark Archive

MendedWall12 wrote:

@Karnas, you and I are on the same wavelength here, because I just came back to further complicate things.

After looking at the language of the archetype, the overhand chop ability, and Grick's posts, I think that RAW a mounted, two-handed fighter wielding a lance, in one hand mind you, would still gain the benefit of the overhand chop, because mechanically speaking he is wielding a two handed weapon. He isn't currently wielding it two-handed because a lance can be wielded one-handed while mounted. So clearly there are some corner cases here that seem to test the limits of the RAI. I mean the name of the ability is overhand chop, conveying the idea that the warrior is whipping the weapon headlong over their head in order to throw some extra power into it, but that's all fluff. By RAW a lance could be wielded in one hand, and still apply the overhand chop mechanics for damage. How's that for muddying up the works?

Edit:@Karnas again. I told the player I would make him stow the shield and wield the sword in both hands before I'd give him the benefit of the overhand chop damage bonus. The thing with the lance makes me want to ponder that some more. I'm pretty sure in the end I'll make him stow the shield to use the ability, though.

I hear you, and that's when the DM's common sense must prevail and he must do his job as judge and jury (mind you fairly and eloquently as to not Pi$* off his players) to rule. Let the English in the title be your guide as I have seen over 30 years that this is in fact exactly how the game designers intended it. The problem is we are all to over-analytical and make easy things complicated in this game. I personally would never rule on a weapon that cant "chop" being used with this mechanic. Too many lawyers in this world, thats the problem with the world-lol!


MendedWall12 wrote:
By RAW a lance could be wielded in one hand, and still apply the overhand chop mechanics for damage.

Taking this away would be a house rule. I would be severely irritated if a PFS GM disallowed this, if my character was built especially around this combination. (with a bit of Spirited Charge thrown in too of course).


Avianfoo wrote:
MendedWall12 wrote:
By RAW a lance could be wielded in one hand, and still apply the overhand chop mechanics for damage.
Taking this away would be a house rule. I would be severely irritated if a PFS GM disallowed this, if my character was built especially around this combination. (with a bit of Spirited Charge thrown in too of course).

Since I'm the one that said RAW this works, I certainly wouldn't disallow it. I'm just saying that really creates a huge gap between the wording of the ability (which I usually take as some sort of rules intent) and the mechanical application of the rules as written. I mean, the character isn't overhanding or chopping when charging with a lance, yet they still, at least by the RAW, gain the benefits of that particular ability.


MendedWall12 wrote:


Since I'm the one that said RAW this works, I certainly wouldn't disallow it. I'm just saying that really creates a huge gap between the wording of the ability (which I usually take as some sort of rules intent) and the mechanical application of the rules as written. I mean, the character isn't overhanding or chopping when charging with a lance, yet they still, at least by the RAW, gain the benefits of that particular ability.

Why can't I chop with my lance? Obviously it does way more damage that way: everyone else has just been doing it wrong all this time :)

Jokes aside I completely agree with you. The intent of the chop is pretty clear: Do more damage with big heavy weapons. Does this exclude or include using a bastard sword one handed? How about a bastard sword two handed? How about a lance one handed while mounted? This will probably vary from GM to GM. Make your call and keep it consistent. And then have some enemies use the same "trick". :)


How much versatility does he need? Because he would be using Overhand Chop to gain that extra half of his strength on the first swing. If he later levels more in two-handed fighter then he gets twice his strength modifier on a full attack for swings after the first via Backswing.

Although i believe the wording is going to keep him from getting twice his strength modifier on all his attacks. Overhand chop states single attack thus negating it's benefit on a full attack. Level 7 gets Backswing and adds it on the later swings after the first attack only in a full attack action. I suppose a 3 level dip isn't terrible but that moves the level 17 barbarian ability to your capstone, which you are no longer fatigued after a rage, he'd get that at 20.

Reason #1:
Personally he doesn't get much from the dip, it makes his one Rage/Sword/Charge hurt a little more assuming he has an 18 STR, when he rages that nets him a 22 STR +6 mod. this means that he would add +9 to a two handed weapon damage while raging, or a +12 on a single attack (As a standard/ charge action) great if he is going to move and charge, or Vital Strike. That would be at level 6 which may be a boon coupled with Power Attack and Furious Focus.

A straight on level 11 Barbarian gets Greater Rage for a +6 bonus. Lets assume he has pumped his strength at 4 and 8, for a 20 strength (+5 mod) He rages for a 26 STR (+8 mod) and would do +12 damage with a two-handed weapon. This gains an extra 4 damage for +16 (If he makes it to 14 with the 3 level dip)

Overall I would say that the Rage Powers might outweigh the extra 2 feats and bonus damage on a limited attack option.

Reason #2:
The real beauty is level 15 Two-handed Fighter. 100% increase in Power Attack damage with a two handed weapon. Lets be honest as a fighter with Weapon Training AND quite possibly Weapon Focus, you can afford a -X penalty to hit, and unlike everyone else you get a 4*X damage bonus. At level 15 it would be a -4 Penalty to hit, for an extra 8 damage (one handed weapons) normal characters get +12 damage with a two-handed weapon, You my friend get +16. At level 20 it grows to +24 damage, not to mention you can standard action attack at -5 and it's an Auto Crit Threat, (Roll to confirm for 1 level, because at 20 you auto confirm)

I suggest him sticking it out with Barbarian or if he can get a rebuild then to do so. But the Two-Handed Fighter route isn't going to help him be that much more versatile when combined with Barbarian, he drops the shield and starts a rage thats a net loss of 4 AC (on average) and a slight gain on a single attack. Nothing is gained for full attacking.

My $2.20 as it were, sorry for the extended post.


Avianfoo said wrote:

Why can't I chop with my lance? Obviously it does way more damage that way: everyone else has just been doing it wrong all this time :)

Jokes aside I completely agree with you. The intent of the chop is pretty clear: Do more damage with big heavy weapons. Does this exclude or include using a bastard sword one handed? How about a bastard sword two handed? How about a lance one handed while mounted? This will probably vary from GM to GM. Make your call and keep it consistent. And then have some enemies use the same "trick". :)

Hey you know let me put it this way on a joust your lance starts pretty vertical... you then "Overhand Chop" it down to connect with your target, voila the "Overhand Chop Spirited Charge Lance"

edit: added relevant quote for hilarity


It's not exactly a hard concept here.

A Falcata, for example, is a 1-h exotic weapon. You need EWP(Falcata) to wield it proficiently, either with one hand or with two hands.

A Bastard Sword is also a 1-h exotic weapon. EWP(Bastard Sword) will let you wield it proficiently either with one hand or with two hands. But, it has a special caveat that if you're proficient with martial weapons in general, you can wield it with two hands without non-proficiency penalty. It hasn't "become" a 2-h weapon, there aren't separate entries for 1-h bastard swords and 2-h bastard swords. You can still wield a Bastard Sword in one hand even if you have no proficiency with it, you'll just take a -4 non-proficiency penalty doing so.


A) Wielding a two-handed weapon.

B) Wielding a weapon as a two-handed weapon.

C) Wielding a weapon two-handed.

Though similar in wording, those three are not the same.

A) refers to the type of weapon. An appropriately sized greataxe is a two-handed weapon.

B) refers to what type of weapon you wield the weapon as. A human wielding a large longsword is wielding it as a two-handed weapon.

C) refers to how you wield it. You can wield a dagger two-handed.

Overhand Chop (Ex) specifies "with a two-handed weapon" which is A).

It's been shown that B counts as A.

A human with a greataxe, and another human with a large longsword, could both benefit from Overhand Chop. A human with a dagger, even wielded in two hands, cannot.

A bastard sword is a one-handed weapon. "A character can use a bastard sword two-handed as a martial weapon." Using it two-handed is C), which does not qualify for Overhand Chop.

The argument that is not being made is that, when a character is unable to use a bastard sword with one hand, but can use it with two hands, it should be considered to be wielded as a two-handed weapon, rather than as the rules say wielded two-handed.

There's some support for this maybe being the intent. For example, the intent is that without EWP, a character simply cannot wield a bastard sword in one hand. Not even by taking the -4 non-proficiency penalty. It just cannot be done. This is unusual, in that every other weapon in the game can be wielded without any proficiency at all. A wizard can use a Temple sword just by taking a -4 penalty. A wizard can use a bastard sword two-handed by taking a -4 penalty. But that wizard cannot use it one-handed.

So people could very well argue that the intent is that you can use the bastard sword as a two-handed weapon, that's not what the rules say. If anyone wants to create a FAQ post or thread for this, try to use a simple direct question in order to have a better chance of being answered. (Something like "Can a bastard sword be used as a two-handed weapon, in order to benefit from feats or abilities which require a two-handed weapon?")


Kazaan wrote:
You can still wield a Bastard Sword in one hand even if you have no proficiency with it, you'll just take a -4 non-proficiency penalty doing so.

While normally that would be true, the first sentence is not simply fluff, it's a rule. "A bastard sword is about 4 feet in length, making it too large to use in one hand without special training; thus, it is an exotic weapon."

That means that without special training (EWP), it cannot be used in one hand. This is verified as intent as well here.

There are other weapons that use proficiency as a gateway to allow special use beyond just the -4 penalty.


11 people marked this as FAQ candidate. Question unclear. 1 person marked this as a favorite.

Can a bastard sword be used as a two-handed weapon, in order to benefit from feats or abilities which require a two-handed weapon?


I agree with almost all comments so far, except for Grick's comment that a bastard sword simply can't be used in one hand.

I've actually taken training in Miedeval Bastard Sword fighting, as has another friend of mine who is a stuntman. If you can pick up and hold a short sword in one hand, a bastard sword is usually about 12" longer so you should be able to hold it out in one hand as well. BUT, because of its additional length and weight it is much harder to wield properly. Thus, the need for more training to use a bastard sword in one hand proficiently.

The bastard sword was designed historically for exactly the purpose that MendedWall's player wants to use it for ... to allow for increased flexibility in the hands of a more advanced soldier/fighter, with a shield when additional defense still needed, or, without a shield when more offensive damage possible (or you lose your shield).

In re-reading all the comments above and the specific rules, and knowing the above from experience, I believe the intent of the rules is to replicate these limitations and options. A non-proficient character could use it two-handed, and a more advanced character can ALSO choose to use it one-handed.

BTW, in reference to the "overhand chop" motion, you actually get more power out of swinging the blade in one hand back, up and then over your head, and have your second hand grasp the pommel at the overhead position to add additional force on the final downward stroke, than you would buy using both hands to bring the blade straight back over the top of your head, stop, and then bring it forward with both hands straight down.

Liberty's Edge

I'd allow it any day...a bastard sword qualifies for a two-handed weapon, or a one-handed weapon, depending on the circumstances. *shrug* Historically, it's actually often called a two-hander...some of the original bastard swords were actually cut down two-handers.

Grand Lodge RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32

I should start keeping track of who comes into the "Rules Questions" forum with "Well, historically..." or "Balance-wise, it's..." and then follow them into the "Suggestions/House Rules/Homebrew" forum with "Well, by the rules..."


Jiggy, I think you'd agree that the RAI here is questionable, wouldn't you? History and balance aside, I think there's a good question here about whether a bastard sword can count as a two-handed sword for feats and abilities that require that.

Grand Lodge RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32

In all likelihood, the author of Overhand Chop probably did not have the Bastard Sword in mind one way or the other when they wrote it. Thus, there is no "intent" at all on the subject, unless someone has a quote from the author or a developer.

The only remaining thing that's appropriate to post in this section of the messageboards is that the bastard sword is a one-handed weapon and the ability only works with two-handed weapons.

Case closed. Until there's a developer comment, a FAQ entry, or errata; all further discussion on the topic should be in a different part of the boards.

The big letters at the top of the Rules Questions forum wrote:
This forum is for questions and answers about the rules of the Pathfinder Roleplaying Game. House rules, variants and conversions should be posted in the appropriate Community Content forum.


So you don't think that the fact that a bastard sword can't be wielded one-handed at all without the EWP, but that it can be wielded proficiently as a two-handed martial weapon with MWP speaks to the weapon possibly having an unlisted classification as a two-handed martial weapon?


Consider using a Large Sized bastard sword - definately a two handed weapon then.

Grand Lodge

Just take two levels in Titan Mauler.

Combine with a Quickdraw Shield to switch quickly from two-handed, to sword and board.


MendedWall12 wrote:
So you don't think that the fact that a bastard sword can't be wielded one-handed at all without the EWP, but that it can be wielded proficiently as a two-handed martial weapon with MWP speaks to the weapon possibly having an unlisted classification as a two-handed martial weapon?

You said "as a two-handed martial weapon" which is not what the rules state.

The rules say "two-handed as a martial weapon" which is a different situation.

Silver Crusade

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Jiggy and Grick are correct.

One-handed weapons and two-handed weapons are both objects with hardness and hit points. A 1h blade has 5hp, while a 2h blade has 10hp. Would anyone suggest that a bastard sword has 5hp when used in one hand then 10hp when used in two? No! RAW, it is a one-handed weapon. If you use a bastard sword in two hands, then it is a one-handed weapon used two-handed. Suck it up!

Grand Lodge RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32

MendedWall12 wrote:
So you don't think that the fact that a bastard sword can't be wielded one-handed at all without the EWP, but that it can be wielded proficiently as a two-handed martial weapon with MWP speaks to the weapon possibly having an unlisted classification as a two-handed martial weapon?

Even if your premise (the "fact" that it can be wielded "as a two-handed martial weapon") were actually in the rules rather than being an accidental fabrication, and even if that *did* suggest the conclusion you mention, there's still the fact that such a conclusion would necessarily be, as you put it, an "unlisted classification".

Unlisted classifications are not the realm of the Rules forum. Unless of course you want to push for a FAQ on the subject, in which case I suggest starting a new thread with a short, concise question and little else, and urge people to flag the first post of that thread. That's your best bet if that's your goal.

Otherwise, though, we're at the point of "the rule is clearly X, but wouldn't Y probably be a good idea?" and we have an entire forum dedicated to exactly that. And it's not this one.

RPG Superstar 2012 Top 16

1 person marked this as a favorite.

There's already a quote above where a dev said that a Bastard sword is a two handed martial weapon. They just weren't going to put it into the table twice. It's not an exotic weapon...text trumps table. It takes an Exotic weapon PROF to wield it one handed...that does not make it 'always' an exotic weapon, and certainly not 'always a one-handed weapon'. It can be used for over hand chop.

The caveat is that even though it is a two handed weapon that you can wield in one hand with a prof, you can't overhand chop it with one hand...you still have to use both hands.

Using a lance with it, however, means you are converting use of a lance to use as a longspear.

A lance, when charging on a horse, is used VERY SPECIFICIALLY. You couch it in one hand, using your weight plus the mass of the horse to drive it home. That's why it gets the huge crit range and multiplier.

That is definitely NOT two handed usage. Everyone knows how to charge with a lance, it's one of those 'unwritten rules' that people try to deviate from to minmax rules.

If you are on foot, a lance is simply a spear of various size. Using a lance with Overhand Chop means you would not be using it like a lance on the charge. You would be using it like a spear. It would do dmg, have the threat range, and crit modifier of a spear of the appropriate size. If you want the extra goodies of being a lance, use it like a lance.

Protesting that your build tries to use this trick to twink out damage is exactly akin to someone protesting that they can't talk and walk around after they are dead. Trying to redefine 'lance charge' to fit your justification for your build is not how the game works.

==Aelryinth

Grand Lodge

He could go Thunder and Fang as well.

Grand Lodge RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32

Aelryinth wrote:
There's already a quote above where a dev said that a Bastard sword is a two handed martial weapon. They just weren't going to put it into the table twice.

No, there's not. I'm not sure what you thought someone referenced, but the only reference to commentary from Paizo staff that I'm seeing says nothing of the sort.

Silver Crusade

A weapon can only be one object; either a 1h or a 2h weapon.

The designers could have made the bastard sword a 2h martial weapon, with a special rule allowing it to be used 1-handed at the cost of a feat (EWP or something else).

They didn't. They made it a one-handed exotic weapon that can be used in two hands without the EWP.

The consequences of this choice is that the bastard sword is, like it or not, a one-handed weapon.

The solution is to use a large version; that would be a two-handed weapon.


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

That's not an accidental fabrication. It's in the description of the weapon. A bastard sword can be wielded, without EW proficiency, in two hands as long as the character has martial weapon proficiency. The character wielding the weapon, in that situation, isn't proficient in one-handed exotic weapons, they are proficient in two-handed martial weapons. They are wielding the sword proficiently just as if it were a two-handed martial weapon. Do I think that means the B-sword is now magically a two-handed weapon? No, I'll grant you that, but I do think it provides some interesting corner cases where that sword could qualify for something like overhand chop.


Also, language like this:

Malachi Silvertongue wrote:
Suck it up!

isn't helpful. It's actually rather rude.


Jiggy wrote:
Unlisted classifications are not the realm of the Rules forum. Unless of course you want to push for a FAQ on the subject, in which case I suggest starting a new thread with a short, concise question and little else, and urge people to flag the first post of that thread. That's your best bet if that's your goal.

In response to your statement but directed at everyone-

There was a post by Avianfoo about halfway up for the purpose of flagging for FAQ (which everyone should totally do).

I'm siding with MendedWall12 on this one. I think if they didn't want it to count as a martial weapon two handed, they would have said something like "can be used with martial weapon proficiency when used with two hands."

1 to 50 of 135 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder First Edition / Rules Questions / Bastard Sword, Two-Handed Fighter Archetype, and Overhand Chop All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.