So if you can't use a medium sized bastard sword in 1 hand at all without the feat, that still doesn't get rid of the weirdness that a martial proficient character can use a BS in 2-hands without the feat at no penalty, or a large BS in 2-hands at -2 size penalty only.
A medium character with martial proficiency can use an appropriately sized Bastard Sword without penalty, that's straight from the rules. The oversize issue isn't answered explicitly, but it's pretty clear from implication. In my opinion, anyway.
|
So if you can't use a medium sized bastard sword in 1 hand at all without the feat, that still doesn't get rid of the weirdness that a martial proficient character can use a BS in 2-hands without the feat at no penalty, or a large BS in 2-hands at -2 size penalty only.
The only thing that would be weird would be the large with just a -2 penalty instead of the -6...but, if you don't have the EWP, you can't use a large one so it's a moot point.
Really, it's all very simple: if you don't have the EWP, you treat the bastard sword as if it were a great sword. If you do have the EWP, you treat the bastard sword as if it were a long sword.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
^ For the purposes of determining who can wield it and how.
|
Well, well, well. What have we here?
I don't know, what do we have?
When I click the link it takes me to the FAQ section for the CRB, but nothing seems to have changed in relation to our discussion.
Please could you quote whatever you're drawing attention to.
|
|
@fretgod99: Well, yeah I always assume that that point is understood. Considering a number of people think that if I say that, I am somehow saying that the weapon is somehow magically changing properties, I suppose I should qualify my comments then. *sigh*
EDIT: showing that this is directed at fret, but Malachi snuck in. CURSE MY SLOW TYPING!
|
|
Well, well, well. What have we here?I don't know, what do we have?
When I click the link it takes me to the FAQ section for the CRB, but nothing seems to have changed in relation to our discussion.
Please could you quote whatever you're drawing attention to.
Huh, that's odd. Sorry about that.
Cleric: Does a cleric, whose deity's favored weapon is the bastard sword, receive free martial or exotic weapon proficiency with the sword?
Since the bastard sword is listed as an exotic weapon, he receives the Exotic Weapon proficiency with the weapon, allowing him to use it one-handed.
—Jason Bulmahn, 07/08/11
Well, well, well. What have we here?I don't know, what do we have?
When I click the link it takes me to the FAQ section for the CRB, but nothing seems to have changed in relation to our discussion.
Please could you quote whatever you're drawing attention to.
I'm going to guess that it's this part here
Cleric: Does a cleric, whose deity's favored weapon is the bastard sword, receive free martial or exotic weapon proficiency with the sword?
Since the bastard sword is listed as an exotic weapon, he receives the Exotic Weapon proficiency with the weapon, allowing him to use it one-handed.
So if you can't use a medium sized bastard sword in 1 hand at all without the feat, that still doesn't get rid of the weirdness that a martial proficient character can use a BS in 2-hands without the feat at no penalty, or a large BS in 2-hands at -2 size penalty only.The only thing that would be weird would be the large with just a -2 penalty instead of the -6...but, if you don't have the EWP, you can't use a large one so it's a moot point.
Really, it's all very simple: if you don't have the EWP, you treat the bastard sword as if it were a great sword. If you do have the EWP, you treat the bastard sword as if it were a long sword.
I think we would have to understand why you can't use it one-handed normally (too large). And if that naturally applies to larger version being wielded two-handed. It may not. Many fighting styles are quite different using two-hands than one-hand. The difference between a martial user and an exotic user for a matching size might not apply as the same difference for a larger sized one. i.e. the method fighting might be identical for a larger long sword and a larger bastard sword.
Actually it is legitimate if you don't see the rules as flavor text. I do hope they just tell use to refer to the katana entry for this. That would save them word space.You're running under the assumption that 1) a character without the EWP can wield a bastard sward one-handed, and 2) the same character can wield a large bastard sword two-handed. I'm running under the assumption that such a character can't.The difference is that my assumption is from reading what the rules say, and yours is from imagining what the writer must have really meant!
Further, even without the assumption that a medium creature can wield a medium BS in one hand at -4, being prevented from using it in one hand does not magically alter the weapon's category! It would remain a one-handed weapon even if you could only use it in one hand.
The rules for what a weapon is (light/1H/2H), and how a weapon is used (in one or two hands) work perfectly, and do not make a one-handed weapon into a two-handed weapon no matter how it is used!
It is a reasonable interpretation that using a BS in one hand is not allowed.
It is not a reasonable interpretation that a one-handed weapon that cannot be used in one hand is treated as a two-handed weapon. Why? Because we already have rules for using a one-handed weapon in two hands, and the weapon remains a one-handed weapon when you do.
A rule is perfectly capable of saying that a weapon is treated as a different category when used in a certain number of hands (cf Jotungrip), but we know that we cannot assume the absence of these words means we can pretend that those words are there (cf lance).
The rules don't say a BS is treated as two-handed, so they aren't
The rules I was talking about was the weapon description, and you can't assume the word "can't" is flavor text. That is instructional text. Specific trumps general. <--Everyone knows that.
Actually it is legitimate if you don't see the rules as flavor text. I do hope they just tell use to refer to the katana entry for this. That would save them word space.You're running under the assumption that 1) a character without the EWP can wield a bastard sward one-handed, and 2) the same character can wield a large bastard sword two-handed. I'm running under the assumption that such a character can't.The difference is that my assumption is from reading what the rules say, and yours is from imagining what the writer must have really meant!
Further, even without the assumption that a medium creature can wield a medium BS in one hand at -4, being prevented from using it in one hand does not magically alter the weapon's category! It would remain a one-handed weapon even if you could only use it in one hand.
The rules for what a weapon is (light/1H/2H), and how a weapon is used (in one or two hands) work perfectly, and do not make a one-handed weapon into a two-handed weapon no matter how it is used!
But this doesn't actually fix the "two-handing a large bastard sword" problem.
You are using a large bastard sword in two hands, there for it is martial and can still be used. This is the same problem as the wording for bastard sword.Katana
Specifically constructed for samurai, katanas employ multiple types of steel combined in a distinctive forging process. The result are swords noted for their wickedly sharp yet slender, gently curved blades, designed to make graceful hacking strokes capable of severing opponents’ heads and limbs. Though finely balanced, these blades are difficult to master.
Benefit: Characters can use a katana two-handed as a martial weapon, but must take the Exotic Weapon Proficiency (katana) feat to use it one-handed.
The intent is clear. The weapon is an exception to the rule.
Do they really need to say "The weapon is an exception to the rule." when the language is telling it is breaking a rule?
|
|
I think we would have to understand why you can't use it one-handed normally (too large). And if that naturally applies to larger version being wielded two-handed. It may not. Many fighting styles are quite different using two-hands than one-hand. The difference between a martial user and an exotic user for a matching size might not apply as the same difference for a larger sized one. i.e. the method fighting might be identical for a larger long sword and a larger bastard sword.
I think it is becoming clearer that that one sentence isn't fluff; it means exactly what it says: the bastard sword is too big to wield one-handed without special training (that alone has me wondering if it is, in fact, a two-handed weapon, weapon chart be damned).
If a medium version is too tough, how would a large version suddenly become easy? Two-handing a large bastard sword is derived from one-handing a medium one. If you can't one-hand a medium one, how can you even wield a bigger one? I mean, you can use it as an improvised weapon or something like that, but not as a large one-handed exotic bastard sword.
We know that in PF we have:
Longsword = 3.5 ft
Bastard sword = 4 ft
Greatsword = 5 ft
So we know that 4 ft is too long to hold in one-hand (assuming that interpretation) and 5 ft is short enough to wield in two-hands. You might note that the bastard is closer to the longsword than the greatsword.
Now it says that large sized weapons weigh twice as much. Assuming that is distributed in all directions evenly, that means the large weapon will be 26% longer than the medium so we have:
Longsword ~ 4.5 ft
Bastard sword = 5.04 ft
Greatsword = 6.3 ft
So we know that 6.3 ft is too long to wield in two-hands. The question then is, is 5.04 ft (less than 1/2 inch) just slightly larger than 5 ft (normal greatsword) too large to use in two-hands?
I don't think the assumption that 4 ft is too long to wield in one-hand can truly justify a claim that 5 ft 1/2 in is too large to wield in two-hands in and of itself.
|
Urumi is 5ft long. It has the same weight as a Bastard Sword.
You can it one hand, even if not proficient. Just take some penalties.
Length and weight comparisons are not the way to go here.
This idea of weapons that magically change classification, as a non-action, without even being magical, is absurd.
For any of these weapons, of your size, the classification of One-handed weapon, never goes away, no matter how you wield it.
It stays One-handed, forever.
Forever!
|
|
Urumi is 5ft long. It has the same weight as a Bastard Sword.
You can it one hand, even if not proficient. Just take some penalties.
Length and weight comparisons are not the way to go here.
This idea of weapons that magically change classification, as a non-action, without even being magical, is absurd.
For any of these weapons, of your size, the classification of One-handed weapon, never goes away, no matter how you wield it.
It stays One-handed, forever.
Forever!
The idea that you even think that I'm suggesting that a bastard sword changes it's hit points depending on how many hands is holding it is absurd.
Urumi is 5ft long. It has the same weight as a Bastard Sword.
You can it one hand, even if not proficient. Just take some penalties.
Length and weight comparisons are not the way to go here.
This idea of weapons that magically change classification, as a non-action, without even being magical, is absurd.
For any of these weapons, of your size, the classification of One-handed weapon, never goes away, no matter how you wield it.
It stays One-handed, forever.
Forever!
Once again, who said anything about it magically changing classifications?
Provide quotes if you can.
If you are just trying to be sarcastic remember it is hard to read tone of voice online.
So if you can't use a medium sized bastard sword in 1 hand at all without the feat, that still doesn't get rid of the weirdness that a martial proficient character can use a BS in 2-hands without the feat at no penalty, or a large BS in 2-hands at -2 size penalty only.The only thing that would be weird would be the large with just a -2 penalty instead of the -6...but, if you don't have the EWP, you can't use a large one so it's a moot point.
Really, it's all very simple: if you don't have the EWP, you treat the bastard sword as if it were a great sword. If you do have the EWP, you treat the bastard sword as if it were a long sword.
My point, is that the BS text limits one-handed use. It is still a one-handed weapon. A large BS becomes a two-handed weapon. A martial proficient user can 2-hand a large BS at a -2 size penalty, and no proficiency penalty, as using 2 hands treats it as a martial weapon.
I agree it is intended that you cannot 2-hand a large BS without the EWP, but I read RAW to be that you can do it.
Who ever said these weapons are changing classification?
Both the Bastard Sword and the Dwarven Waraxe are listed on the charted as one-handed exotic weapons, but the text seems to indicate that they are too large to be used one-handed without the Exotic Weapon Proficiency Feat.
Can they be used in one hand without the Exotic Weapon Proficiency Feat, meaning the restriction is just flavor text, or without the EWP feat should they be treated as 2-handed martial weapons or 1-handed martial weapons with the restriction you must use 2 hands to wield them?
edit:edited
In 3.5 a bastard sword wielded in two hands was a martial proficiency.
In 3.5 a bastard sword wielded in two hands was a martial proficiency.Both the Bastard Sword and the Dwarven Waraxe are listed on the charted as one-handed exotic weapons, but the text seems to indicate that they are too large to be used one-handed without the Exotic Weapon Proficiency Feat.
Can they be used in one hand without the Exotic Weapon Proficiency Feat, meaning the restriction is just flavor text, or without the EWP feat should they be treated as 2-handed martial weapons or 1-handed martial weapons with the restriction you must use 2 hands to wield them?
edit:edited
The 3.5 FAQ said that, but many here are saying if it is not listed as such on the weapons chart that does not matter, which is a fair point.
They are also saying the restriction to it being used in one hand is also fluff/flavor, which I disagree with.
|
|
Changing classification has been mentioned.
Admittedly, I am behind in the discussion, and it was quite a bit earlier.
I am glad there is a consensus of agreement that an One-handed weapon, is an One-handed weapon.
So, what happens when a PC, without the required Exotic Weapon Proficiency feat, takes a hand off this One-handed weapon, to wield it in One hand?
Really, in detail, mechanically, and thematically.
I really need to know.
Changing classification has been mentioned.
Admittedly, I am behind in the discussion, and it was quite a bit earlier.
I am glad there is a consensus of agreement that an One-handed weapon, is an One-handed weapon.
So, what happens when a PC, without the required Exotic Weapon Proficiency feat, takes a hand off this One-handed weapon, to wield it in One hand?
Really, in detail, mechanically, and thematically.
I really need to know.
You already asked this. Regripping is a free action. It will not be an issue, but he can not swing the weapon one handed, and that is the cornerstone of the debate.
Thematically the weapon is in between sizes which is what I said a while back, so since there is no weapon size in between one handed and two handed weapons they had to give it, its own rules.
The bastard sword, the dwarven waraxe, and one other weapon are meant to be treated like the katana, which is a lot more exact in its language, but uses more words to say how it works.
The similarity in language is not a coincidence.
edit: In case you missed it.
Katana: Specifically constructed for samurai, katanas employ multiple types of steel combined in a distinctive forging process. The result are swords noted for their wickedly sharp yet slender, gently curved blades, designed to make graceful hacking strokes capable of severing opponents' heads and limbs. Though finely balanced, these blades are difficult to master. Characters can use a katana two-handed as a martial weapon, but must take the Exotic Weapon Proficiency (katana) feat to use it one-handed.
|
|
Changing classification has been mentioned.
Admittedly, I am behind in the discussion, and it was quite a bit earlier.
I am glad there is a consensus of agreement that an One-handed weapon, is an One-handed weapon.
So, what happens when a PC, without the required Exotic Weapon Proficiency feat, takes a hand off this One-handed weapon, to wield it in One hand?
Really, in detail, mechanically, and thematically.
I really need to know.
What happens when a PC takes a hand off of a greatsword to wield it in one hand?
This is what happens to a character who doesn't have the EWP for the bastard sword.
Also in case you missed it.
Cleric: Does a cleric, whose deity's favored weapon is the bastard sword, receive free martial or exotic weapon proficiency with the sword?
Since the bastard sword is listed as an exotic weapon, he receives the Exotic Weapon proficiency with the weapon, allowing him to use it one-handed.—Jason Bulmahn, 07/08/11
In other words he is not allowed to use it one-handed without the feat.
|
|
Changing classification has been mentioned.
Admittedly, I am behind in the discussion, and it was quite a bit earlier.
I am glad there is a consensus of agreement that an One-handed weapon, is an One-handed weapon.
So, what happens when a PC, without the required Exotic Weapon Proficiency feat, takes a hand off this One-handed weapon, to wield it in One hand?
Really, in detail, mechanically, and thematically.
I really need to know.
What happens when a PC takes a hand off of a greatsword to wield it in one hand?
This is what happens to a character who doesn't have the EWP for the bastard sword.
A Greatsword is a two-handed weapon. A Bastard Sword is an One-handed weapon. I thought we agreed classification never changes.
When this happens with any other One-handed weapon, relevant penalties apply, but the One-handed weapon is wielded with one hand.
People use size, weight, lack of training, and difficulty of use as the reasons for the Bastard Sword to cease functioning as an One-handed weapon.
Now, the Urumi, which is of the same length, same weight, requires the same amount of training, and it is more difficult to use, as using it in two hands does not ease this difficulty, can still be used in one hand, without training.
How does this seem logical, mechanically, and thematically?
Changing classification has been mentioned.
Admittedly, I am behind in the discussion, and it was quite a bit earlier.
I am glad there is a consensus of agreement that an One-handed weapon, is an One-handed weapon.
So, what happens when a PC, without the required Exotic Weapon Proficiency feat, takes a hand off this One-handed weapon, to wield it in One hand?
Really, in detail, mechanically, and thematically.
I really need to know.
What happens when a PC takes a hand off of a greatsword to wield it in one hand?
This is what happens to a character who doesn't have the EWP for the bastard sword.
A Greatsword is a two-handed weapon. A Bastard Sword is an One-handed weapon. I thought we agreed classification never changes.
When this happens with any other One-handed weapon, relevant penalties apply, but the One-handed weapon is wielded with one hand.
People use size, weight, lack of training, and difficulty of use as the reasons for the Bastard Sword to cease functioning as an One-handed weapon.
Now, the Urumi, which is of the same length, same weight, requires the same amount of training, and it is more difficult to use, as using it in two hands does not ease this difficulty, can still be used in one hand, without training.
How does this seem logical, mechanically, and thematically?
Logic(real world or game world) does not matter in rules discussion unless you mean logically within the rules. As an example it is not logical for a fighter to only be able to retrain combat feats gained with his bonus feats, but that is not the rule. From a rules perspective it is not logical to assume the normal feat slots can be traded out due to the way the bonus feat section is worded.
Mechanically the book says what it says within the weapon's description. Refer to my above post with the katana quote as an exampel.
|
|
*facepalm*
BBT, I can't tell if you're deliberately being obtuse or not.
If you don't have the EWP, you can't use it in one hand. Period. The fact that it "may" be a one-handed weapon is irrelevant. I use the greatsword as an example for those people who are unable to see the forest from the trees to help them understand how it works.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I'm glad that at least some people agree that it is not logical that you somehow can not use a bastard sword one-handed with out the EWP. It just doesn't make any sense.
Some people have said, "Well you can use it as an improvised weapon!" I believe even James Jacobs said this. So let's try it...
Improvised Weapons
Sometimes objects not crafted to be weapons nonetheless see use in combat. Because such objects are not designed for this use, any creature that uses an improvised weapon in combat is considered to be nonproficient with it and takes a –4 penalty on attack rolls made with that object. To determine the size category and appropriate damage for an improvised weapon, compare its relative size and damage potential to the weapon list to find a reasonable match. An improvised weapon scores a threat on a natural roll of 20 and deals double damage on a critical hit. An improvised thrown weapon has a range increment of 10 feet.
Well, it seems to me that an improvised bastard sword would most closely resemble a bastard sword on the weapons list. So it does 1d10, threatens on a natural roll of 20 and deals double damage on a critical hit. Of course you take a -4 penalty for not being proficient.
Now let's take a feat...
Improvised Weapon Mastery (Combat)
You can turn nearly any object into a deadly weapon, from a razor-sharp chair leg to a sack of flour.
Prerequisites: Catch Off-Guard or Throw Anything, base attack bonus +8.
Benefit: You do not suffer any penalties for using an improvised weapon. Increase the amount of damage dealt by the improvised weapon by one step (for example, 1d4 becomes 1d6) to a maximum of 1d8 (2d6 if the improvised weapon is two-handed). The improvised weapon has a critical threat range of 19–20, with a critical multiplier of ×2.
There! Now the damage can't be upgraded, because it is already at 1d10, but it now threatens on 19-20 and you don't have the -4 penalty. I guess this is the same as taking the EWP: bastard sword. Except now you can also use the dwarven waraxe, katana and anything else that even remotely resembles them. Yay!
|
|
Except mechanically speaking you can't use it in one hand at all. Since special training is never defined explicitly as exotic weapon proficiency in your beloved descriptive text. Just saying.*facepalm*
BBT, I can't tell if you're deliberately being obtuse or not.
If you don't have the EWP, you can't use it in one hand. Period. The fact that it "may" be a one-handed weapon is irrelevant. I use the greatsword as an example for those people who are unable to see the forest from the trees to help them understand how it works.
What? The requirement for special training is stated in the first sentence of the bastard sword description.
|
|
I'm glad that at least some people agree that it is not logical that you somehow can not use a bastard sword one-handed with out the EWP. It just doesn't make any sense.
Some people have said, "Well you can use it as an improvised weapon!" I believe even James Jacobs said this. So let's try it...
Improvised Weapons
Sometimes objects not crafted to be weapons nonetheless see use in combat. Because such objects are not designed for this use, any creature that uses an improvised weapon in combat is considered to be nonproficient with it and takes a –4 penalty on attack rolls made with that object. To determine the size category and appropriate damage for an improvised weapon, compare its relative size and damage potential to the weapon list to find a reasonable match. An improvised weapon scores a threat on a natural roll of 20 and deals double damage on a critical hit. An improvised thrown weapon has a range increment of 10 feet.
Well, it seems to me that an improvised bastard sword would most closely resemble a bastard sword on the weapons list. So it does 1d10, threatens on a natural roll of 20 and deals double damage on a critical hit. Of course you take a -4 penalty for not being proficient.
Now let's take a feat...
There! Now the damage can't be upgraded, because it is already at 1d10, but it now threatens on 19-20 and you don't have the -4 penalty. I guess this is the same as taking the EWP:...Improvised Weapon Mastery (Combat)
You can turn nearly any object into a deadly weapon, from a razor-sharp chair leg to a sack of flour.
Prerequisites: Catch Off-Guard or Throw Anything, base attack bonus +8.
Benefit: You do not suffer any penalties for using an improvised weapon. Increase the amount of damage dealt by the improvised weapon by one step (for example, 1d4 becomes 1d6) to a maximum of 1d8 (2d6 if the improvised weapon is two-handed). The improvised weapon has a critical threat range of 19–20, with a critical multiplier of ×2.
I seem to recall JJ recomending something to the effect of 1d6/20 to be applied to a large bastard sword as an improvised weapon, but whatever floats your boat.
EDIT: As far as not being able to one-hand a bastard sword being illogical, that's the way it's been since 3rd edition (regardless what that one FAQ response says). Even though people want it to be otherwise, we have fairly strong evidence that shows that Paizo does it just like I've assumed it to work all along.
What? The requirement for special training is stated in the first sentence of the bastard sword description.Except mechanically speaking you can't use it in one hand at all. Since special training is never defined explicitly as exotic weapon proficiency in your beloved descriptive text. Just saying.*facepalm*
BBT, I can't tell if you're deliberately being obtuse or not.
If you don't have the EWP, you can't use it in one hand. Period. The fact that it "may" be a one-handed weapon is irrelevant. I use the greatsword as an example for those people who are unable to see the forest from the trees to help them understand how it works.
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. A character can use a bastard sword two-handed as a martial weapon.
It says it is an exotic weapon because it takes special training to use one handed. It does not actually say that Exotic Weapon Proficiency actually qualifies as that special training.
In any case, it is becoming more clear to me that the devs believe that what is written means that you can not use a bastard sword (or the others) in one hand at all. I believe they are wrong, but intelligent people can disagree on things.
And by the way, being the devs does not automatically make them right. It does, however, make whatever they rule official. Right or wrong.
As a comparison, in one of the sports games I hear people talk about there are referees. These referees make rulings. Their rulings are official, but that does not mean that they never make a bad ruling.
|
|
I am so stealing the improvised weapon idea.
Hell, I can swing around a Bastard Sword, and a Katana!
I mean, just because they are One-handed weapons, doesn't mean you can wield them in one hand.
If you do, then you are not even wielding it as a weapon, but as an improvised weapon.
Boy, all I need is the Catch Off Guard feat, and I can wield all these One-handed Exotic Weapons, in one hand, without penalty.
Alright, I am beginning to see the cool factor of this neat little ruling.
I seem to recall JJ recomending something to the effect of 1d6/20 to be applied to a large bastard sword as an improvised weapon, but whatever floats your boat.
Wait... A large bastard sword only does 1d6?
I'm sorry, if you told me that a 5' piece of sharpened steal only does 1d6x2 damage I am going to call shenanigans. How does that match the rule for improvised weapons at all? That seems more like a vindictive ruling because a player is doing something that the GM just doesn't want him to do.
That was made relevant when you threw your "large bastard swords are easier to use than medium bastard swords" card, coupled with the "description text does not pertain to creature size" card.Large BSs are not easier to use than medium ones for a medium creature; there is a -2 attack penalty for using an inappropriately-sized weapon.
The only sense in which it is 'easier' is that you only need MWP when using one in both hands, no matter the size.
Also, re-read both the Bastard Sword and Dwarven Waraxe description entries; a Bastard Sword simply talks about the weapon in two hands as a martial. The Dwarven Waraxe specifically states that Medium creatures can use it in two hands as a martial. The weapon still incorporates inappropriate size, but even if that text was written for a Colossal sized Dwarven Waraxe, a Medium-sized creature, by RAW, can use it as a two-handed martial weapon.A medium character can use a Dwarven Waraxe Two-handed as a martial weapon.Using it as a martial weapon instead of as an exotic weapon is the special ability here. It's talking strictly about weapon proficiency.
..a large creature can use it one-handed in the same way....that is, as a martial weapon instead of as an exotic weapon.
This alters the weapon proficiency requirement, not the rules on using an inappropriately-sized weapon.
You are forgetting the relevant text I provided: the description of a given weapon assumes a creature is properly sized for it. Only if the creature is also large, can a bastard sword be used in two hands as martial. It's otherwise a 3+ handed weapon for a medium creature.
The relevant text you quoted regarding the dwarven waraxe, while subject to the same changes as the bastard sword, still fits since regardless of its size, it can be wielded by a medium-sized creature in two hands as a martial weapon, according to RAW. Of course, the size penalties still apply, though the specific ruling for that weapon trumps the general ruling for handiness.
Any questions?
Except mechanically speaking you can't use it in one hand at all. Since special training is never defined explicitly as exotic weapon proficiency in your beloved descriptive text. Just saying.*facepalm*
BBT, I can't tell if you're deliberately being obtuse or not.
If you don't have the EWP, you can't use it in one hand. Period. The fact that it "may" be a one-handed weapon is irrelevant. I use the greatsword as an example for those people who are unable to see the forest from the trees to help them understand how it works.
Are you saying the RAI is saying you can not use it in one hand?
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
What? The requirement for special training is stated in the first sentence of the bastard sword description.Except mechanically speaking you can't use it in one hand at all. Since special training is never defined explicitly as exotic weapon proficiency in your beloved descriptive text. Just saying.*facepalm*
BBT, I can't tell if you're deliberately being obtuse or not.
If you don't have the EWP, you can't use it in one hand. Period. The fact that it "may" be a one-handed weapon is irrelevant. I use the greatsword as an example for those people who are unable to see the forest from the trees to help them understand how it works.
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. A character can use a bastard sword two-handed as a martial weapon.It says it is an exotic weapon because it takes special training to use one handed. It does not actually say that Exotic Weapon Proficiency actually qualifies as that special training.
In any case, it is becoming more clear to me that the devs believe that what is written means that you can not use a bastard sword (or the others) in one hand at all. I believe they are wrong, but intelligent people can disagree on things.
And by the way, being the devs does not automatically make them right. It does, however, make whatever they rule official. Right or wrong.
As a comparison, in one of the sports games I hear people talk about there are referees. These referees make rulings. Their rulings are official, but that does not mean that they never make a bad ruling.
We can always disagree (for example, I disagree with how they ruled the recent power attack/lance thing), and I do think that is a good thing.
The problem with your analogy, though, is that sports refs don't also make the rules that they rule on.
What? The requirement for special training is stated in the first sentence of the bastard sword description.Except mechanically speaking you can't use it in one hand at all. Since special training is never defined explicitly as exotic weapon proficiency in your beloved descriptive text. Just saying.*facepalm*
BBT, I can't tell if you're deliberately being obtuse or not.
If you don't have the EWP, you can't use it in one hand. Period. The fact that it "may" be a one-handed weapon is irrelevant. I use the greatsword as an example for those people who are unable to see the forest from the trees to help them understand how it works.
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. A character can use a bastard sword two-handed as a martial weapon.It says it is an exotic weapon because it takes special training to use one handed. It does not actually say that Exotic Weapon Proficiency actually qualifies as that special training.
In any case, it is becoming more clear to me that the devs believe that what is written means that you can not use a bastard sword (or the others) in one hand at all. I believe they are wrong, but intelligent people can disagree on things.
And by the way, being the devs does not automatically make them right. It does, however, make whatever they rule official. Right or wrong.
As a comparison, in one of the sports games I hear people talk about there are referees. These referees make rulings. Their rulings are official, but that does not mean that they never make a bad ruling.
That is a poor comparison. In sport the refs make rulings. In Pathfinder the devs(rules team) actually makes the rules. They may word them badly from time to time, but most of us consider the RAI(how the game is meant to be played) the actual rules even if an ability is worded badly.
I am so stealing the improvised weapon idea.
Hell, I can swing around a Bastard Sword, and a Katana!
I mean, just because they are One-handed weapons, doesn't mean you can wield them in one hand.
If you do, then you are not even wielding it as a weapon, but as an improvised weapon.
Boy, all I need is the Catch Off Guard feat, and I can wield all these One-handed Exotic Weapons, in one hand, without penalty.
Alright, I am beginning to see the cool factor of this neat little ruling.
Catch Off Guard is a prerequisite.
Catch Off-Guard (Combat)
Foes are surprised by your skilled use of unorthodox and improvised weapons.
Benefit: You do not suffer any penalties for using an improvised melee weapon. Unarmed opponents are flat-footed against any attacks you make with an improvised melee weapon.
Normal: You take a –4 penalty on attack rolls made with an improvised weapon.
Totally do this for a Rogue. I can see it now...
NPC1: "Look out! That guy has a sword!"
NPC2: "Relax! That guys doesn't know how to use a sword that big in one hand. Look at how he is holding it!"
NPC1: "Oh, you are right of course. Let's get him!"
Rogue: <Catch Off-Guard Sneak Attack of Death!>
Yep, it would totally work...
You are forgetting the relevant text I provided: the description of a given weapon assumes a creature is properly sized for it. Only if the creature is also large, can a bastard sword be used in two hands as martial. It's otherwise a 3+ handed weapon for a medium creature.
There is no such thing as 3+ handed. There is light/1hand/2hand and not able to be wielded.
Are you saying that a medium creature cannot use a small bastard sword in two hands as a martial weapon either? How does that make sense?
|
|
I seem to recall JJ recomending something to the effect of 1d6/20 to be applied to a large bastard sword as an improvised weapon, but whatever floats your boat.Wait... A large bastard sword only does 1d6?
I'm sorry, if you told me that a 5' piece of sharpened steal only does 1d6x2 damage I am going to call shenanigans. How does that match the rule for improvised weapons at all? That seems more like a vindictive ruling because a player is doing something that the GM just doesn't want him to do.
I'll have to find the quote when I can get to the computer if someone else doesn't post the quote first. I could have also misread what he said. I am also not personally familiar with the improvised weapon rules, so his suggestion didn't set off an alarm.
I seem to recall JJ recomending something to the effect of 1d6/20 to be applied to a large bastard sword as an improvised weapon, but whatever floats your boat.Wait... A large bastard sword only does 1d6?
I'm sorry, if you told me that a 5' piece of sharpened steal only does 1d6x2 damage I am going to call shenanigans. How does that match the rule for improvised weapons at all? That seems more like a vindictive ruling because a player is doing something that the GM just doesn't want him to do.
You don't get full use of it if is not used as intended since it is not being used as a bastard sword.
Personally I don't know if I would allow the object to even be used as an improvised weapon, but assuming I did I would knock the damage die down by one category so I would have it doing 1d10 instead of 2d8.
edit: I misunderstood you. Yeah it should do 1d6 as an improvised(for medium sized characters) one-handed weapon.
I am so stealing the improvised weapon idea.
Hell, I can swing around a Bastard Sword, and a Katana!
I mean, just because they are One-handed weapons, doesn't mean you can wield them in one hand.
If you do, then you are not even wielding it as a weapon, but as an improvised weapon.
Boy, all I need is the Catch Off Guard feat, and I can wield all these One-handed Exotic Weapons, in one hand, without penalty.
Alright, I am beginning to see the cool factor of this neat little ruling.
The only issue is that the crit range is a nat 20, which means you dont get the same effect as the feat that goes with the weapon, but other than that it is a versatile feat.
You are forgetting the relevant text I provided: the description of a given weapon assumes a creature is properly sized for it. Only if the creature is also large, can a bastard sword be used in two hands as martial. It's otherwise a 3+ handed weapon for a medium creature.There is no such thing as 3+ handed. There is light/1hand/2hand and not able to be wielded.
Are you saying that a medium creature cannot use a small bastard sword in two hands as a martial weapon either? How does that make sense?
There is a lot of implying going on. People read the rules, decide it works a certain way, then extrapolate on how the rules would work in some other circumstance. That is fine really. I just don't like the conclusions they are coming to.
And as for the referee example. James Jacobs didn't write the rules either, and it seems Jason Buhlman just cut and pasted these particular rules from previous versions. So are they really the ones that made the rules?
Ultimately it doesn't matter. They can make their official ruling, good or bad, and that is what is official. The rest of us will just have to accept it, house rule it, or beg their GMs to house rule it.
You are forgetting the relevant text I provided: the description of a given weapon assumes a creature is properly sized for it. Only if the creature is also large, can a bastard sword be used in two hands as martial. It's otherwise a 3+ handed weapon for a medium creature.There is no such thing as 3+ handed. There is light/1hand/2hand and not able to be wielded.
Are you saying that a medium creature cannot use a small bastard sword in two hands as a martial weapon either? How does that make sense?
My mistake on that; I suppose I shouldn't be giving Synthesist Summoners and Alchemists more power than what they already have, since they are the only ones who can use weapons in that manner. Of course, those rules don't encompass 3+handed humanoid players, so...
I was saying for a Large Bastard Sword, that's how it'd work. It's not the case for a Small version, though RAW does dictate they can only two-hand a Small Bastard Sword, which is more pointless than using a blowgun in an ample magic and resources campaign.
On a related note, Dwarven Waraxes just got much more popular for a Vital Strike build, since medium creatures can skate around dealing 5D8 a swing, or 20D8 on a Vital Strike. Colossal Dwarven Waraxes ho!
I seem to recall JJ recomending something to the effect of 1d6/20 to be applied to a large bastard sword as an improvised weapon, but whatever floats your boat.Wait... A large bastard sword only does 1d6?
I'm sorry, if you told me that a 5' piece of sharpened steal only does 1d6x2 damage I am going to call shenanigans. How does that match the rule for improvised weapons at all? That seems more like a vindictive ruling because a player is doing something that the GM just doesn't want him to do.
You don't get full use of it if is not used as intended since it is not being used as a bastard sword.
Personally I don't know if I would allow the object to even be used as an improvised weapon, but assuming I did I would knock the damage die down by one category so I would have it doing 1d10 instead of 2d8.
edit: I misunderstood you. Yeah it should do 1d6 as an improvised(for medium sized characters) one-handed weapon.
But a falcata would still do 1d8,19-20/x3 at a -4 penalty? Yeah, that makes sense. My 30 Str raging Barbarian just can deal with all that extra bastard sword weight.
The only issue is that the crit range is a nat 20, which means you dont get the same effect as the feat that goes with the weapon, but other than that it is a versatile feat.
The feat also makes the crit range 19-20x2.
You are forgetting the relevant text I provided: the description of a given weapon assumes a creature is properly sized for it. Only if the creature is also large, can a bastard sword be used in two hands as martial. It's otherwise a 3+ handed weapon for a medium creature.There is no such thing as 3+ handed. There is light/1hand/2hand and not able to be wielded.
Are you saying that a medium creature cannot use a small bastard sword in two hands as a martial weapon either? How does that make sense?
There is a lot of implying going on. People read the rules, decide it works a certain way, then extrapolate on how the rules would work in some other circumstance. That is fine really. I just don't like the conclusions they are coming to.
And as for the referee example. James Jacobs didn't write the rules either, and it seems Jason Buhlman just cut and pasted these particular rules from previous versions. So are they really the ones that made the rules?
Ultimately it doesn't matter. They can make their official ruling, good or bad, and that is what is official. The rest of us will just have to accept it, house rule it, or beg their GMs to house rule it.
They worked hand in hand with those that did, and SKR actually did help with some of the 3.5 rules. I don't know if Jason did or not so ti is not like they were some random people with no inside look as to how the rules came about.
edit:The refs are not even on that level.
You are forgetting the relevant text I provided: the description of a given weapon assumes a creature is properly sized for it. Only if the creature is also large, can a bastard sword be used in two hands as martial. It's otherwise a 3+ handed weapon for a medium creature.There is no such thing as 3+ handed. There is light/1hand/2hand and not able to be wielded.
Are you saying that a medium creature cannot use a small bastard sword in two hands as a martial weapon either? How does that make sense?
My mistake on that; I suppose I shouldn't be giving Synthesist Summoners and Alchemists more power than what they already have, since they are the only ones who can use weapons in that manner. Of course, those rules don't encompass 3+handed humanoid players, so...
I was saying for a Large Bastard Sword, that's how it'd work. It's not the case for a Small version, though RAW does dictate they can only two-hand a Small Bastard Sword, which is more pointless than using a blowgun in an ample magic and resources campaign.
On a related note, Dwarven Waraxes just got much more popular for a Vital Strike build, since medium creatures can skate around dealing 5D8 a swing, or 20D8 on a Vital Strike. Colossal Dwarven Waraxes ho!
You were saying that is how you think it works.
The case is, the text allowing martial proficiency when using with 2 hands is not limited to the size of the weapon. Small, medium, or large, if a medium creature uses 2 hands to wield a bastard sword, he can use his martial proficiency to avoid a non-proficiency penalty. It does not say he can use 2 hands to wield a bastard sword of any size.
Lets go to the dwarven waraxe description:
"A dwarven waraxe has a large, ornate head mounted on a thick handle, making it too large to use in one hand without special training; thus, it is an exotic weapon. A Medium character can use a dwarven waraxe two-handed as a martial weapon, or a Large creature can use it one-handed in the same way. A dwarf treats a dwarven waraxe as a martial weapon even when using it in one hand."
A medium dwarven waraxe is a 1-handed exotic weapon. The weapon text says medium characters can use a dwarven waraxe two-handed as a martial weapon. It does not say anything about the size of the waraxe itself. Colossal waraxe is still in the "cannot be wielded by a medium creature" category, because a colossal size waraxe is a gargantuan size weapon. 2 sizes too big for a medium creature to wield.
You are forgetting the relevant text I provided: the description of a given weapon assumes a creature is properly sized for it. Only if the creature is also large, can a bastard sword be used in two hands as martial. It's otherwise a 3+ handed weapon for a medium creature.There is no such thing as 3+ handed. There is light/1hand/2hand and not able to be wielded.
Are you saying that a medium creature cannot use a small bastard sword in two hands as a martial weapon either? How does that make sense?
No, he's saying that the only option for a nonproficient large creature is to two-hand the bastard sword. Since the only option for a medium creature to wield an oversized bastard sword is if he could wield that same sword in one hand (if he were also large). Since he'd already have to use both hands to wield the "one-hand" version of the large bastard sword, there's no other hand to add. It's an explicit way to say why he thinks it's "too large" for the character to wield without the feat. The feat, essentially, let's you remove one hand from the equation, if you so choose.
A medium creature could use a small bastard sword two-handed, in my opinion. With the feat, that same character could use it as a light weapon.
You are forgetting the relevant text I provided: the description of a given weapon assumes a creature is properly sized for it. Only if the creature is also large, can a bastard sword be used in two hands as martial. It's otherwise a 3+ handed weapon for a medium creature.There is no such thing as 3+ handed. There is light/1hand/2hand and not able to be wielded.
Are you saying that a medium creature cannot use a small bastard sword in two hands as a martial weapon either? How does that make sense?
My mistake on that; I suppose I shouldn't be giving Synthesist Summoners and Alchemists more power than what they already have, since they are the only ones who can use weapons in that manner. Of course, those rules don't encompass 3+handed humanoid players, so...
I was saying for a Large Bastard Sword, that's how it'd work. It's not the case for a Small version, though RAW does dictate they can only two-hand a Small Bastard Sword, which is more pointless than using a blowgun in an ample magic and resources campaign.
On a related note, Dwarven Waraxes just got much more popular for a Vital Strike build, since medium creatures can skate around dealing 5D8 a swing, or 20D8 on a Vital Strike. Colossal Dwarven Waraxes ho!
You were saying that is how you think it works.
The case is, the text allowing martial proficiency when using with 2 hands is not limited to the size of the weapon. Small, medium, or large, if a medium creature uses 2 hands to wield a bastard sword, he can use his martial proficiency to avoid a non-proficiency penalty. It does not say he can use 2 hands to wield a bastard sword of any size.
Right, he was saying how he thinks it works. Just like right now, you're saying how you think it works.