Darksol do you think it is RAI or are just trying to say it is RAW, not that I am getting how you think colossal sized weapons would be allowed in either case?
Where is BBT? I don't think he ever addressed that katana quote.
|
Are you saying the RAI is saying you can not use it in one hand?
No I'm saying RAW if the first section is considered rules text then it is impossible to use it one handed period.
The issue with RAI, the issue I have always had with RAI is that me and you probably don't read things the same way. So I look at that read it and say alright EWP gets you 1hand use proficiently 2hand use proficiently or 1hand use w/out proficiency at a -4 that makes perfect sense in my brain.
But the way they're written that's impossible if the first part is rules text so since it's not an intuitive rule I have to fall back on some form of RAW or trying to psychically read the minds of a bunch of game devs I never met.
Can I guess their intent? Sure maybe but that doesn't make me right until they clarify it by faqing it you know?
Did you see the FAQ about the cleric and the bastard sword?
It's pretty clear that RAW/RAI for the Exotic Weapon is that the Exotic Weapon Proficiency Feat provides the requisite training to use said weapon without penalty. So I don't think that bit is a fair reading. That "specialized training" or whatever isn't explicitly defined doesn't really matter. It's clear that's what the purpose of the EWP Feat is - it lets you use the exotic weapon as designed.
Are you saying the RAI is saying you can not use it in one hand?
No I'm saying RAW if the first section is considered rules text then it is impossible to use it one handed period.
The issue with RAI, the issue I have always had with RAI is that me and you probably don't read things the same way. So I look at that read it and say alright EWP gets you 1hand use proficiently, martial 2hand use proficiently, or 1hand use/2hand use can be done w/out proficiency at a -4 that makes perfect sense in my brain and works fine.
But the way they're written that's impossible if the first part is rules text, but if the first part is rules text and since special training is not defined explicitly as being exotic weapon proficiency it can't be used at all one handed. So since it's not an intuitive rule I have to fall back on some form of RAW or trying to psychically read the minds of a bunch of game devs I never met.
Can I guess their intent? Sure maybe but that doesn't make me right until they clarify it by faqing it you know?
Ok. I just wanted to know if you were arguing RAW or RAI.
I have already admitted the RAW could be easier to read so I won't go down that road..
Did you see the FAQ about the cleric and the bastard sword?
Are you saying the RAI is saying you can not use it in one hand?
No I'm saying RAW if the first section is considered rules text then it is impossible to use it one handed period.
The issue with RAI, the issue I have always had with RAI is that me and you probably don't read things the same way. So I look at that read it and say alright EWP gets you 1hand use proficiently 2hand use proficiently or 1hand use w/out proficiency at a -4 that makes perfect sense in my brain.
But the way they're written that's impossible if the first part is rules text so since it's not an intuitive rule I have to fall back on some form of RAW or trying to psychically read the minds of a bunch of game devs I never met.
Can I guess their intent? Sure maybe but that doesn't make me right until they clarify it by faqing it you know?
I did repost it when I was replying to BBT, so I don't see how he missed, but in case he did miss 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"
Since I alone have posted this(the FAQ on the bastard sword) 3 times I would hope somebody notices it.
If you missed it check my previous post. :)
It's pretty clear that RAW/RAI for the Exotic Weapon is that the Exotic Weapon Proficiency Feat provides the requisite training to use said weapon without penalty. So I don't think that bit is a fair reading. That "specialized training" or whatever isn't explicitly defined doesn't really matter. It's clear that's what the purpose of the EWP Feat is - it lets you use the exotic weapon as designed.1 @Hangar) I did see that ruling. However that simply means that the bastard sword is an exotic weapon. Hence anything providing proficiency in it would by default have to give you exotic weapon proficiency.
While it's clear that that is what they intended that is not what the RAW state unless you assume that section of text is flavor text and not rules text. I would gladly make that assumption (which also invalidates the one hand bit) and results in the weapon functioning exactly as I would expect it to work thus allowing one hand non proficient use just like with any other exotic weapon.
But you're instead picking and choosing parts of the sentence to be rules text and others to be flavorful explanations does that make sense?
That FAQ does say "he receives the Exotic Weapon proficiency with the weapon, allowing him to use it one-handed".
Therefore not have the feat would not allow him to be able to use it.
That is how the game works. If you need X for something to be allowed, then you generally can not do it without X.
As an example:
"AMULET OF SPELL CUNNING
Aura moderate transmutation; CL 7th
Slot neck; Price 10,000 gp; Weight 1 lb.
DESCRIPTION
This silver locket only has power when used as a wizard's bonded object. It allows a wizard to prepare an additional 3 levels of spells per day."
"Improved Evasion (Ex)
Improved Evasion (Ex): When subjected to an attack that allows a Reflex saving throw for half damage, an eidolon takes no damage if it makes a successful saving throw and only half damage if the saving throw fails."
"Pounce (Ex)
Pounce (Ex): An eidolon gains quick reflexes, allowing it to make a full attack after a charge. This evolution is only available to eidolons of the quadruped base form."
In all 3 cases you are not allowed to do these things otherwise.
|
Darksol do you think it is RAI or are just trying to say it is RAW, not that I am getting how you think colossal sized weapons would be allowed in either case?
Where is BBT? I don't think he ever addressed that katana quote.
Dealing with life stuff.
Really, all I can say is that it seems that a "without penalty" line got cut from these weapons.
So:
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.
"...without penalty".
That fixes everything. Basically, similar two to four words can be added/changed with these weapons, and solve all issues.
It's pretty clear that RAW/RAI for the Exotic Weapon is that the Exotic Weapon Proficiency Feat provides the requisite training to use said weapon without penalty. So I don't think that bit is a fair reading. That "specialized training" or whatever isn't explicitly defined doesn't really matter. It's clear that's what the purpose of the EWP Feat is - it lets you use the exotic weapon as designed.1 @Hangar) I did see that ruling. However that simply means that the bastard sword is an exotic weapon. Hence anything providing proficiency in it would by default have to give you exotic weapon proficiency.
While it's clear that that is what they intended that is not what the RAW state unless you assume that section of text is flavor text and not rules text. I would gladly make that assumption (which also invalidates the one hand bit) and results in the weapon functioning exactly as I would expect it to work thus allowing one hand non proficient use just like with any other exotic weapon.
But you're instead picking and choosing parts of the sentence to be rules text and others to be flavorful explanations does that make sense?
I'm not picking and choosing anything. You're saying "specialized training" is crunch, but that it's never actually defined, so by RAW you can never one-hand wield. I'm saying that's incorrect. Reading the rules in concert it's clear that the intent of the RAW is for EWP to be precisely that specialized training. Still crunch, but defined crunch.
BBT, do you think that penalty would apply to a nonproficient medium character two-handed wielding an oversized [relevant weapon]?
Darksol do you think it is RAI or are just trying to say it is RAW, not that I am getting how you think colossal sized weapons would be allowed in either case?
Where is BBT? I don't think he ever addressed that katana quote.
Dealing with life stuff.
Really, all I can say is that it seems that a "without penalty" line got cut from these weapons.
So:
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."...without penalty".
That fixes everything. Basically, similar two to four words can be added/changed with these weapons, and solve all issues.
BBT if you wanted to create weapon that was in between categories how would you word it?
I will put it another way say you are on the design team and Jason says I need a weapon that behaves like I am saying the bastard sword and the katana behave?
Would you not word it like the katana is written?
| 1 person marked this as FAQ candidate. |
Darksol do you think it is RAI or are just trying to say it is RAW, not that I am getting how you think colossal sized weapons would be allowed in either case?
Where is BBT? I don't think he ever addressed that katana quote.
It's specifically a RAW thing; the only thing we've been arguing about the whole time. Any who...
The description for Dwarven Waraxe specifically allows a creature of medium size to use the weapon as a Two-handed Martial weapon, according to RAW.
Regardless of what size you find a Dwarven Waraxe, with the clause listed in its description, a medium creature can use a Puny Dwarven Waraxe, or a Colossal Dwarven Waraxe as a weapon, though they still incur inappropriate size penalties, it remains a usable weapon that comes without non-proficiency penalties.
Obviously, I find it rubbish, but if the RAW supports it, it's no different than using the same method of ruling you guys use to denote the whole "can't use X weapon without X proficiency" rule (which I will reiterate, it's not really wrong).
|
|
Thing is, these weapons, apparently, do two things that no other exotic weapons do.
1) Proficiency required changes depending on how you wield it.
This seems RAI, and RAW.
2) You cannot wield the weapon, at all, in the manner that it's classification denotes, without a feat.
This might be RAW, but I doubt it's RAI.
|
|
Thing is, these weapons, apparently, do two things that no other exotic weapons do.
1) Proficiency required changes depending on how you wield it.
This seems RAI, and RAW.
2) You cannot wield the weapon, at all, in the manner that it's classification denotes, without a feat.
This might be RAW, but I doubt it's RAI.
Wait, so they are an exception to the rule?
|
|
Wait, so they are an exception to the rule?Thing is, these weapons, apparently, do two things that no other exotic weapons do.
1) Proficiency required changes depending on how you wield it.
This seems RAI, and RAW.
2) You cannot wield the weapon, at all, in the manner that it's classification denotes, without a feat.
This might be RAW, but I doubt it's RAI.
Yes, it seems some see more, and others, less, exceptions.
When something begins to have more, and more, and more exceptions, continually progressing, as it is analyzed, then something is wrong.
I have always seen these weapons as having one, and only one, exception to the general rules.
Others, see more.
Thing is, these weapons, apparently, do two things that no other exotic weapons do.
1) Proficiency required changes depending on how you wield it.
This seems RAI, and RAW.
2) You cannot wield the weapon, at all, in the manner that it's classification denotes, without a feat.
This might be RAW, but I doubt it's RAI.
So what about that FAQ for the bastard sword that matches the RAW for the Katana?
Note: The FAQ does not say use one handed without a penalty. It says you are allowed to use the bastard sword in one hand.
This also matches the 3.5 FAQ's RAI for the end result.
Do you really believe that this is all a coincidence?
|
|
Wait, so they are an exception to the rule?Thing is, these weapons, apparently, do two things that no other exotic weapons do.
1) Proficiency required changes depending on how you wield it.
This seems RAI, and RAW.
2) You cannot wield the weapon, at all, in the manner that it's classification denotes, without a feat.
This might be RAW, but I doubt it's RAI.
Yes, it seems some see more, and others, less, exceptions.
When something begins to have more, and more, and more exceptions, continually progressing, as it is analyzed, then something is wrong.
I have always seen these weapons as having one, and only one, exception to the general rules.
Others, see more.
Sorry, I forgot to put "#sarcasm" at the end.
The only question I have for you now is are you going to make your improvised weapon fighter rogue dual wielding? ;-)
|
BBT if you wanted to create weapon that was in between categories how would you word it?
Apologies to BBT, but I'll tell you how I'd do it:-
I'd want to make it difficult to use in one hand, but as easy to use in two hands as any other. Its too awkward to use in one hand, but it can be, of course; it's a hand-and-a-half sword, after all! It's designed for both one and two handed use; that's the whole point of it!
Although it was as easy to use it in one hand as it was in two hands in previous editions, I'm going to make it harder to use in one hand. I'm going to give it an attack penalty to use it because of its awkwardness, but I'll give them two ways to eliminate that penalty: use it in two hands, OR get some special training that let's them use it in one hand without that attack penalty.
I know! The rules for non-proficiency give an attack penalty! I'll use that mechanic.
So, despite it obviously being a martial weapon, what I'll do is make it an exotic weapon, but still allow them to use it as a martial weapon when they use both hands to control it.
How shall I explain it? Okay, here goes;-
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.
So, that explains why it's an exotic weapon. Anyone trying to use it in one hand will find it awkward (which is represented by the -4 non-proficiency penalty), unless they've been specially trained in techniques to control it in one hand (which is represented by the exotic weapon proficiency).
But using both hands to control it means that you don't need any special training! Using both hands it's easy to control, the second hand renders the special training moot:-
A character can use a bastard sword two-handed as a martial weapon.
There we go! I know exactly what I mean, and I can't imagine anyone not understanding that!
Darksol do you think it is RAI or are just trying to say it is RAW, not that I am getting how you think colossal sized weapons would be allowed in either case?
Where is BBT? I don't think he ever addressed that katana quote.
It's specifically a RAW thing; the only thing we've been arguing about the whole time. Any who...
The description for Dwarven Waraxe specifically allows a creature of medium size to use the weapon as a Two-handed Martial weapon, according to RAW.
Regardless of what size you find a Dwarven Waraxe, with the clause listed in its description, a medium creature can use a Puny Dwarven Waraxe, or a Colossal Dwarven Waraxe as a weapon, though they still incur inappropriate size penalties, it remains a usable weapon that comes without non-proficiency penalties.
Obviously, I find it rubbish, but if the RAW supports it, it's no different than using the same method of ruling you guys use to denote the whole "can't use X weapon without X proficiency" rule (which I will reiterate, it's not really wrong).
The rules are written assuming the PC's are medium or small sized races. With that in mind that RAW argument does not hold up. We play by RAI anyway so its better to focus on how the game is played. We all know the rules are imperfect enough to be picked apart, but that gets us nowhere.
Now if you don't like the ruling that you have a one-handed weapon by classification that you can't use in one hand, that is fine, but to rail against it, even if you think it is RAI is something I don't understand. I personally don't like some of the FAQ rulings, and some of the non-FAQ rulings, but the game is what it is.
I just tell people the devs or book says X, and then I go on to say why I don't like it, but I won't go and say it is not the rule. I see it as pointless since all they would really have to do is just make an FAQ or errata, but that is just a waste of time if I really knew the RAI the entire time.
If it is an issue of me(really a lot of players) really not the RAI that is different.
Malachi - Clearly then you wouldn't intend for a character to be able to wield an oversized Bastard Sword in two hands without taking the nonproficiency penalty because that obviously wouldn't make any sense. It appears we're largely in agreement!
BBT if you wanted to create weapon that was in between categories how would you word it?Apologies to BBT, but I'll tell you how I'd do it:-
I'd want to make it difficult to use in one hand, but as easy to use in two hands as any other. Its too awkward to use in one hand, but it can be, of course; it's a hand-and-a-half sword, after all! It's designed for both one and two handed use; that's the whole point of it!
Although it was as easy to use it in one hand as it was in two hands in previous editions, I'm going to make it harder to use in one hand. I'm going to give it an attack penalty to use it because of its awkwardness, but I'll give them two ways to eliminate that penalty: use it in two hands, OR get some special training that let's them use it in one hand without that attack penalty.
I know! The rules for non-proficiency give an attack penalty! I'll use that mechanic.
So, despite it obviously being a martial weapon, what I'll do is make it an exotic weapon, but still allow them to use it as a martial weapon when they use both hands to control it.
How shall I explain it? Okay, here goes;-
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.So, that explains why it's an exotic weapon. Anyone trying to use it in one hand will find it awkward (which is represented by the -4 non-proficiency penalty), unless they've been specially trained in techniques to control it in one hand (which is represented by the exotic weapon proficiency).
But using both hands to control it means that you don't need any special training! Using both hands it's easy to control, the second hand renders the special training moot:-
A character can use a bastard sword two-handed as a martial weapon.There we go! I know exactly what I mean, and I can't imagine anyone not understanding that!
That is not what Jason asked you to do.
He wants it to be impossible to use in one hand without EWP. He does not want a penalty.
After seeing your design he asked you to rewrite it.
How do you write it?
Okay, I always figured all these weapons, worked exactly as Malachi described above.
BBT, do you think that penalty would apply to a nonproficient medium character two-handed wielding an oversized [relevant weapon]?
I'm guessing you missed it the first time.
|
|
Malachi - Clearly then you wouldn't intend for a character to be able to wield an oversized Bastard Sword in two hands without taking the nonproficiency penalty because that obviously wouldn't make any sense. It appears we're largely in agreement!
As stated, there are two ways to overcome the awkwardness of the weapon and eliminate that attack penalty:-
• use both hands
• learn special one-hand techniques
Since a medium creature uses a large BS in both hands, then the problem is already solved.
|
|
I still feel like there is a strong desire here to complicate, for the sake of complicating things.
Really, if I am all wrong, and these weapons are so complicated in their use, that I need a reference guide to figure it out, then to hell with that.
Houserule that crap out. PFS? I will just pretend they don't exist then.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
That is not what Jason asked you to do.
He wants it to be impossible to use in one hand without EWP. He does not want a penalty.
After seeing your design he asked you to rewrite it.
How do you write it?
Why on earth would he want to make a hand-and-a-half sword unusable in one hand! That doesn't make sense at all! It's very name and definition means that it can be wielded in either one OR two hands!
Malachi - Clearly then you wouldn't intend for a character to be able to wield an oversized Bastard Sword in two hands without taking the nonproficiency penalty because that obviously wouldn't make any sense. It appears we're largely in agreement!As stated, there are two ways to overcome the awkwardness of the weapon and eliminate that attack penalty:-
• use both hands
• learn special one-hand techniques
Since a medium creature uses a large BS in both hands, then the problem is already solved.
Nah, that's not what follows from your rules. It wouldn't make sense for an oversized longsword and an oversized bastard sword to be used in the exact same manner with the exact same efficiency, despite the fact that you'd need a feat to do that if the weapons were appropriate sized. You'd be making a feat that's already suboptimal and making the benefit of it nigh pointless. That surely couldn't be what you intended. I would grant you that it could be resolved by having the nonproficient user take the penalty for using the oversized bastard sword, though.
That is not what Jason asked you to do.
He wants it to be impossible to use in one hand without EWP. He does not want a penalty.
After seeing your design he asked you to rewrite it.
How do you write it?
Why on earth would he want to make a hand-and-a-half sword unusable in one hand! That doesn't make sense at all! It's very name and definition means that it can be wielded in either one OR two hands!
Because he wants a weapon that is thematically in between sizes, but to make it work mechanically would require rules exceptions like the katana or bastard sword.
Jason is still waiting for his weapon to be written up.
I would just use the katana language since it is better written than the other similar weapons. :)
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I still feel like there is a strong desire here to complicate, for the sake of complicating things.
Really, if I am all wrong, and these weapons are so complicated in their use, that I need a reference guide to figure it out, then to hell with that.
Houserule that crap out. PFS? I will just pretend they don't exist then.
It is not complicated. Just do what the book says. If it says you can't do it then you can't do it despite the normal rules. How is that complicated?
edit:It is no more complicated than combat reflexes or any other rules exception.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I still feel like there is a strong desire here to complicate, for the sake of complicating things.
Really, if I am all wrong, and these weapons are so complicated in their use, that I need a reference guide to figure it out, then to hell with that.
Houserule that crap out. PFS? I will just pretend they don't exist then.
I don't know, if you take a step back and just think: if I have the EWP I can use it like I would use a long sword, and if I don't have the EWP I use it like I would use a greatsword, and try not to put any more thought into it than that, it's really not that complicated.
Thing is, these weapons, apparently, do two things that no other exotic weapons do.
1) Proficiency required changes depending on how you wield it.
This seems RAI, and RAW.
2) You cannot wield the weapon, at all, in the manner that it's classification denotes, without a feat.
This might be RAW, but I doubt it's RAI.
So what about that FAQ for the bastard sword that matches the RAW for the Katana?
Note: The FAQ does not say use one handed without a penalty. It says you are allowed to use the bastard sword in one hand.
This also matches the 3.5 FAQ's RAI for the end result.
Do you really believe that this is all a coincidence?
I guess BBT does assume all of this to be a coincidence, which leads me into my question. What would you accept as proof outside of an FAQ/Errata that my ruling is correct?
|
|
Because he wants a weapon that is thematically in between sizes, but to make it work mechanically would require rules exceptions like the katana or bastard sword.
Jason is still waiting for his weapon to be written up.
What I wrote does the 'half-way' job nicely, but if the power's gone to his head I'll just have to obey.
If (for whatever reason) he wants the hand-and-a-half sword to be unusable in one hand without the special training represented by a feat, the only sane way to go is to put it in the two-handed martial weapon category (that will make sure no-one thinks they can use it in one hand), and then write a feat called 'Warblade', which allows you to treat a bastard sword as if it were one size category smaller.
It has to be that way, because if it were categorised as one-handed then people would wonder why they can't use it one-handed. An attack penalty is one thing, but impossible! That's what the two-handed category is for!
The Cleric FAQ does not address the issue.
Why not?
If the rules say you need to be allowed to do something it follows that without X you can not do it.
That's what the two-handed category is for!
So you would make it a two-handed weapon that is usable in one hand with special training aka a feat?
|
|
The Cleric FAQ does not address the issue.Why not?
If the rules say you need to be allowed to do something it follows that without X you can not do it.
It simply reminds you that being proficient with the weapon, is being proficient with the weapon, as it is classified.
An One-handed Exotic Weapon.
Martial Weapon Proficiency(Bastard Sword) is not even a legal feat.
To say so, is to say you need two feats to wield it, unless you are proficient with all martial weapons.
So, say, an Inquisitor, does not need the Martial Weapon Proficiency(Bastard Sword) feat, and Exotic Weapon Proficiency(Bastard Sword) feat, to wield it in both one, or two hands.
The weapons should be worded thusly
Category - 2handed weapon
Can be treated as a one-handed weapon with EWP
|
|
That's what the two-handed category is for!So you would make it a two-handed weapon that is usable in one hand with special training aka a feat?
If that's what my psychotic boss insists on. It would be listed in the weapons tables as a two-handed martial weapon.
In complete contrast to the way they are written now, which makes them one-handed not two-handed, and exotic not martial.
Which indicates that the rules do not do what this psychotic, alternate universe version of JB wants; the irrational inability to use a weapon in one hand when its been specially designed to be useable in one OR two hands.
But there's not an inability to use the weapon in one hand. You can - you just need the appropriate feat to do so.
|
|
But there's not an inability to use the weapon in one hand. You can - you just need the appropriate feat to do so.
Weapon proficiency feats make you proficient in a weapon. The consequence of using a weapon with which you are not proficient is a -4 attack penalty, not an inability to use it at all.
The only way it could be made unusable is if it were made for a creature two sizes bigger or smaller, which would take it beyond two-handed or light respectively.
A medium creature can wield a small, medium or large bastard sword. If he wields a small or large one, there will be a -2 size penalty.
He could use the small BS in one hand, but as it's an exotic weapon then he'll take a -4 non-proficiency penalty, if he doesn't have the EWP. He could use it in two hands, in which case martial weapon proficiency would be enough, but he would not benefit from 1.5 x Str bonus to damage, because the weapon is light for him.
He could not use a large BS in one hand, as it is a two-handed weapon for him. He may use it in two hands, and martial weapon proficiency is enough, because:-
A character can use a bastard sword two-handed as a martial weapon