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.
FAQ's are not reminders. They are there for RAI. So once again why is it not accepted.
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.
The instructions did include writing in a rules exception, which would allow you to ignore the normal rules, so the fact that it bypasses the normal rules is no excuse.
You could have even made up your own special weapon property.
I think you are intentionally avoiding the instructions because you know it would end up sounding like the katana.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I like running in circles. It's why I did track in high school.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Martial Weapon Proficiency(Bastard Sword) is not even a legal feat.
Actually, Martial Weapon Proficiency (bastard sword) is a legal feat for a class that isn't proficient in martial weapons. It's just that at that point, it would be pointless because they might as well do Martial Weapon Proficiency (greatsword) instead.
EDIT: Well, I guess it's not necessarily "pointless". Someone might want to do it for flavor reasons, or they want to give up the extra damage to save 2 lbs.
I like running in circles. It's why I did track in high school.Get in car, and do that for over 8 hours.
Welcome to Nascar.
Meh. NASCAR is boring.
|
| 1 person marked this as FAQ candidate. |
Martial Weapon Proficiency(Bastard Sword) is not even a legal feat.Actually, Martial Weapon Proficiency (bastard sword) is a legal feat for a class that isn't proficient in martial weapons. It's just that at that point, it would be pointless because they might as well do Martial Weapon Proficiency (greatsword) instead.
EDIT: Well, I guess it's not necessarily "pointless". Someone might want to do it for flavor reasons, or they want to give up the extra damage to save 2 lbs.
It is not a legal feat, any more than MWP(gnome hooked hammer) is a legal feat.
If you want to be proficient in a weapon where that proficiency is not granted by your class, then you must take the feat which matches the weapon type: simple/martial/exotic.
Since both are exotic weapons, the feats you need are EWP(gnome hooked hammer) or EWP(bastard sword). The fact that both weapons let you use them as if they were martial in some circumstances (using two hands, being a gnome) does not change what these weapons are, which is exotic weapons!
|
|
I think you are intentionally avoiding the instructions because you know it would end up sounding like the katana.
On the contrary, I posted a long time ago (in this thread) that if Monte Cook had wanted the BS to be unusable in one hand without a feat, he would have made it a two-handed martial weapon, and written a feat which would let you use it as if it were one-handed.
I meant it then and I mean it now.
|
Martial Weapon Proficiency(Bastard Sword) is not even a legal feat.Actually, Martial Weapon Proficiency (bastard sword) is a legal feat for a class that isn't proficient in martial weapons. It's just that at that point, it would be pointless because they might as well do Martial Weapon Proficiency (greatsword) instead.
EDIT: Well, I guess it's not necessarily "pointless". Someone might want to do it for flavor reasons, or they want to give up the extra damage to save 2 lbs.
When you take the Martial Weapon Proficiency feat, you pick a Martial weapon.
Bastard Sword is not a Martial Weapon.
More one handed quotes.
In response to a poster trying to use a large bastard sword with no penalty, assuming they have the EWP feat.
No, the EWP allows her to wield a bastard sword of the correct size one-handed instead of two-handed.
It doesn't change that the sword is Large and she is Medium, and therefore she has a –2 size penalty on her attacks with it, even when using it two-handed.
Whether she is using a longsword, bastard sword, or greatsword two-handed, if it is a Large weapon, she takes a –2 penalty.
Note that he does not say in one hand with no penalty. He flat out says one-handed.
------------------------------------------------
I have a clarification question regarding the flambard; am I correct in the following interpretation of its function?
{A character with only martial weapon proficiency can only wield it two handed and does not gain the bonus to sunder.}
Correct.
Flambard
This two-handed sword has a wavy blade that is especially useful for cutting through wooden weapons.Benefit: If you are proficient with this weapon, you gain a +4 bonus on any sunder attempts made against weapons with a wooden haft; otherwise you may use this sword as a bastard sword.
Weapon Feature(s): +4 sunder bonus vs. wood
The weapon follows the bastard sword rules and is only able to be wielded in two hands if they only have martial weapon proficiency.
I think that should be enough to prove RAI.
|
|
Martial Weapon Proficiency(Bastard Sword) is not even a legal feat.Actually, Martial Weapon Proficiency (bastard sword) is a legal feat for a class that isn't proficient in martial weapons. It's just that at that point, it would be pointless because they might as well do Martial Weapon Proficiency (greatsword) instead.
EDIT: Well, I guess it's not necessarily "pointless". Someone might want to do it for flavor reasons, or they want to give up the extra damage to save 2 lbs.
When you take the Martial Weapon Proficiency feat, you pick a Martial weapon.
Bastard Sword is not a Martial Weapon.
It is if you use it in two hands...it is in the description after all: "use in two hands as a martial weapon".
A Dwarven cleric could certainly take the Martial Weapon Proficiency (dwarven waraxe) if he wanted to.
|
|
In SKR's quote he incorrectly states that a medium creature can use a large greatsword at -2, when we all know that a medium creature cannot use a large greatsword at all.
In the second quote, the flambard has a special quality that helps it sunder wooden weapons. If you don't have EWP(flambard) then you can use it as a bastard sword. Since the bastard sword doesn't have the special quality that helps it sunder wooden weapons, then if you're using it as a bastard sword then you don't have access to that special quality.
A flambard is a two-handed weapon not a one-handed weapon, so of course it cannot be used one-handed.
|
|
Wait, now we are saying that a PC, with the Exotic Weapon Proficiency, needs Martial Weapon Proficiency, to wield in two hands without penalty?
So, my line about exceptions, becoming more, and more exceptions, still holds no water?
Hmm.
I asked a question about this and was basically told I was dumb for asking it. The consensus from both sides of this discussion was that if you had the EWP, you could two-hand it...because you can two-hand a one-handed weapon.
|
|
Martial Weapon Proficiency(Bastard Sword) is not even a legal feat.Actually, Martial Weapon Proficiency (bastard sword) is a legal feat for a class that isn't proficient in martial weapons. It's just that at that point, it would be pointless because they might as well do Martial Weapon Proficiency (greatsword) instead.
EDIT: Well, I guess it's not necessarily "pointless". Someone might want to do it for flavor reasons, or they want to give up the extra damage to save 2 lbs.
When you take the Martial Weapon Proficiency feat, you pick a Martial weapon.
Bastard Sword is not a Martial Weapon.
It is if you use it in two hands...it is in the description after all: "use in two hands as a martial weapon".
A Dwarven cleric could certainly take the Martial Weapon Proficiency (dwarven waraxe) if he wanted to.
A BS doesn't become a martial weapon when used in two hands; it may be used as a martial weapon in two hands. In the same way that Jotungrip allows you to use two-handed weapons as if they were one-handed.
|
|
Martial Weapon Proficiency(Bastard Sword) is not even a legal feat.Actually, Martial Weapon Proficiency (bastard sword) is a legal feat for a class that isn't proficient in martial weapons. It's just that at that point, it would be pointless because they might as well do Martial Weapon Proficiency (greatsword) instead.
EDIT: Well, I guess it's not necessarily "pointless". Someone might want to do it for flavor reasons, or they want to give up the extra damage to save 2 lbs.
It is not a legal feat, any more than MWP(gnome hooked hammer) is a legal feat.
If you want to be proficient in a weapon where that proficiency is not granted by your class, then you must take the feat which matches the weapon type: simple/martial/exotic.
Since both are exotic weapons, the feats you need are EWP(gnome hooked hammer) or EWP(bastard sword). The fact that both weapons let you use them as if they were martial in some circumstances (using two hands, being a gnome) does not change what these weapons are, which is exotic weapons!
Is there anything in the gnome hooked hammer description that allows it to be wielded as a martial weapon?
I mean, you're so pedantic about this martial weapon thing in the bastard sword description that I'm actually surprised you're on the opposite side of me on this.
|
|
A BS doesn't become a martial weapon when used in two hands; it may be used as a martial weapon in two hands. In the same way that Jotungrip allows you to use two-handed weapons as if they were one-handed.
Martial Weapon Proficiency(Bastard Sword) is not even a legal feat.Actually, Martial Weapon Proficiency (bastard sword) is a legal feat for a class that isn't proficient in martial weapons. It's just that at that point, it would be pointless because they might as well do Martial Weapon Proficiency (greatsword) instead.
EDIT: Well, I guess it's not necessarily "pointless". Someone might want to do it for flavor reasons, or they want to give up the extra damage to save 2 lbs.
When you take the Martial Weapon Proficiency feat, you pick a Martial weapon.
Bastard Sword is not a Martial Weapon.
It is if you use it in two hands...it is in the description after all: "use in two hands as a martial weapon".
A Dwarven cleric could certainly take the Martial Weapon Proficiency (dwarven waraxe) if he wanted to.
And so if a wizard were to take the MWP, he could use it with two hands...
I think you are intentionally avoiding the instructions because you know it would end up sounding like the katana.On the contrary, I posted a long time ago (in this thread) that if Monte Cook had wanted the BS to be unusable in one hand without a feat, he would have made it a two-handed martial weapon, and written a feat which would let you use it as if it were one-handed.
I meant it then and I mean it now.
Monte Cook was not on the revision team(3.5 revision). Andy Collins was. So was Skip Williams. Both of them were the "Sage" at some point, and for 3.0 Jonathan Tweet was the lead designer.
With that aside you still did not complete the assignment. If you are not going to do the assignment all you have to do is say so.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as FAQ candidate. |
And so if a wizard were to take the MWP, he could use it with two hands...A BS doesn't become a martial weapon when used in two hands; it may be used as a martial weapon in two hands. In the same way that Jotungrip allows you to use two-handed weapons as if they were one-handed.
Martial Weapon Proficiency(Bastard Sword) is not even a legal feat.Actually, Martial Weapon Proficiency (bastard sword) is a legal feat for a class that isn't proficient in martial weapons. It's just that at that point, it would be pointless because they might as well do Martial Weapon Proficiency (greatsword) instead.
EDIT: Well, I guess it's not necessarily "pointless". Someone might want to do it for flavor reasons, or they want to give up the extra damage to save 2 lbs.
When you take the Martial Weapon Proficiency feat, you pick a Martial weapon.
Bastard Sword is not a Martial Weapon.
It is if you use it in two hands...it is in the description after all: "use in two hands as a martial weapon".
A Dwarven cleric could certainly take the Martial Weapon Proficiency (dwarven waraxe) if he wanted to.
There is no MWP(bastard sword)! The wizard would have to take EWP(bastard sword), and wouldn't have any worries.
In SKR's quote he incorrectly states that a medium creature can use a large greatsword at -2, when we all know that a medium creature cannot use a large greatsword at all.
In the second quote, the flambard has a special quality that helps it sunder wooden weapons. If you don't have EWP(flambard) then you can use it as a bastard sword. Since the bastard sword doesn't have the special quality that helps it sunder wooden weapons, then if you're using it as a bastard sword then you don't have access to that special quality.
A flambard is a two-handed weapon not a one-handed weapon, so of course it cannot be used one-handed.
So basically you have no problem with a two-handed weapon being used in one hand?
|
|
I can use a helmet as a bowl.
It does not make it a bowl.
I can use a Bastard Sword in two hands as a Martial Weapon.
It does not make a Bastard Sword a Martial Weapon.
And apparently people think that if you don't have the EWP, you can use the bastard sword in one hand...contrary to the weight of evidence against them.
EDIT: changed 'it' to 'them'.
|
|
There is no MWP(bastard sword)! The wizard would have to take EWP(bastard sword), and wouldn't have any worries.And so if a wizard were to take the MWP, he could use it with two hands...A BS doesn't become a martial weapon when used in two hands; it may be used as a martial weapon in two hands. In the same way that Jotungrip allows you to use two-handed weapons as if they were one-handed.
Martial Weapon Proficiency(Bastard Sword) is not even a legal feat.Actually, Martial Weapon Proficiency (bastard sword) is a legal feat for a class that isn't proficient in martial weapons. It's just that at that point, it would be pointless because they might as well do Martial Weapon Proficiency (greatsword) instead.
EDIT: Well, I guess it's not necessarily "pointless". Someone might want to do it for flavor reasons, or they want to give up the extra damage to save 2 lbs.
When you take the Martial Weapon Proficiency feat, you pick a Martial weapon.
Bastard Sword is not a Martial Weapon.
It is if you use it in two hands...it is in the description after all: "use in two hands as a martial weapon".
A Dwarven cleric could certainly take the Martial Weapon Proficiency (dwarven waraxe) if he wanted to.
Well, sure, that would certainly be the proper way to do it if you're going to burn a feat.
|
|
I think you are intentionally avoiding the instructions because you know it would end up sounding like the katana.On the contrary, I posted a long time ago (in this thread) that if Monte Cook had wanted the BS to be unusable in one hand without a feat, he would have made it a two-handed martial weapon, and written a feat which would let you use it as if it were one-handed.
I meant it then and I mean it now.
Monte Cook was not on the revision team(3.5 revision). Andy Collins was. So was Skip Williams. Both of them were the "Sage" at some point, and for 3.0 Jonathan Tweet was the lead designer.
With that aside you still did not complete the assignment. If you are not going to do the assignment all you have to do is say so.
What part of my task is left incomplete?
You asked for a rule that made it impossible to use in one hand without a feat, and that's what you got! It would work perfectly, although it would work differently than the current RAW, which just illustrates my point. The current RAW does not say what you want it to say.
We cannot discuss, in the rules forum, the rules as they might after an errata, as if that imaginary errata were the current RAW!
|
|
So basically you have no problem with a two-handed weapon being used in one hand?In SKR's quote he incorrectly states that a medium creature can use a large greatsword at -2, when we all know that a medium creature cannot use a large greatsword at all.
In the second quote, the flambard has a special quality that helps it sunder wooden weapons. If you don't have EWP(flambard) then you can use it as a bastard sword. Since the bastard sword doesn't have the special quality that helps it sunder wooden weapons, then if you're using it as a bastard sword then you don't have access to that special quality.
A flambard is a two-handed weapon not a one-handed weapon, so of course it cannot be used one-handed.
Which weapon and how? Jotungrip? I'm okay with Jotungrip's legality.
The flamberge? It's a two-handed weapon, so without some way to use it one-handed, no.
The bastard sword? It's not a two-handed weapon. If it's large, then it is a two-handed weapon, but it can't be used in one hand.
Why are the penalties not enough?
This whole idea that this weapon is so awkward, that it is literally impossible to be wielded at all, as intended, without this feat, seems silly.
Like a thrown weapon, that cannot be thrown, without a feat.
I've said the penalties would probably be fine, from my perspective anyway. But, the nonproficiency penalty would also need to apply to a nonproficient wielder using an oversized weapon, even in two hands.
I think you are intentionally avoiding the instructions because you know it would end up sounding like the katana.On the contrary, I posted a long time ago (in this thread) that if Monte Cook had wanted the BS to be unusable in one hand without a feat, he would have made it a two-handed martial weapon, and written a feat which would let you use it as if it were one-handed.
I meant it then and I mean it now.
Monte Cook was not on the revision team(3.5 revision). Andy Collins was. So was Skip Williams. Both of them were the "Sage" at some point, and for 3.0 Jonathan Tweet was the lead designer.
With that aside you still did not complete the assignment. If you are not going to do the assignment all you have to do is say so.
What part of my task is left incomplete?
You asked for a rule that made it impossible to use in one hand without a feat, and that's what you got! It would work perfectly, although it would work differently than the current RAW, which just illustrates my point. The current RAW does not say what you want it to say.
We cannot discuss, in the rules forum, the rules as they might after an errata, as if that imaginary errata were the current RAW!
I may have overlooked it, but I never saw what was asked for. Your first attempt had penalties. The thematics of the weapons was that your can normally wield it in two hand, but with special training(a feat) you can wield it in one hand.
The mechanics were supposed to match that. Even if you apply a -1000 penalty it is not matching the mechanics that were asked for.
edit:The task was for BBT since he tried to renounce the katana, but you volunteered to do it instead. Since you volunteered knowing the criteria you should provide the work or just say you wont do it.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Why are the penalties not enough?
This whole idea that this weapon is so awkward, that it is literally impossible to be wielded at all, as intended, without this feat, seems silly.
Like a thrown weapon, that cannot be thrown, without a feat.
Why are you against the idea that this weapon (and three others, I guess) are an exception when the rules are filled with so many exceptions?
So basically you have no problem with a two-handed weapon being used in one hand?In SKR's quote he incorrectly states that a medium creature can use a large greatsword at -2, when we all know that a medium creature cannot use a large greatsword at all.
In the second quote, the flambard has a special quality that helps it sunder wooden weapons. If you don't have EWP(flambard) then you can use it as a bastard sword. Since the bastard sword doesn't have the special quality that helps it sunder wooden weapons, then if you're using it as a bastard sword then you don't have access to that special quality.
A flambard is a two-handed weapon not a one-handed weapon, so of course it cannot be used one-handed.
Which weapon and how? Jotungrip? I'm okay with Jotungrip's legality.
The flamberge? It's a two-handed weapon, so without some way to use it one-handed, no.
The bastard sword? It's not a two-handed weapon. If it's large, then it is a two-handed weapon, but it can't be used in one hand.
I was speaking generically but since the Flamberge fits we can use that and the EWP feat since it fits by RAW and RAI.
Also, I'm in the middle of writing a brief that's due tomorrow. You people need to stop distracting me.
Why are the penalties not enough?
Because the rules say "can't", and they don't say "very difficult".
|
|
I think you are intentionally avoiding the instructions because you know it would end up sounding like the katana.On the contrary, I posted a long time ago (in this thread) that if Monte Cook had wanted the BS to be unusable in one hand without a feat, he would have made it a two-handed martial weapon, and written a feat which would let you use it as if it were one-handed.
I meant it then and I mean it now.
Monte Cook was not on the revision team(3.5 revision). Andy Collins was. So was Skip Williams. Both of them were the "Sage" at some point, and for 3.0 Jonathan Tweet was the lead designer.
With that aside you still did not complete the assignment. If you are not going to do the assignment all you have to do is say so.
What part of my task is left incomplete?
You asked for a rule that made it impossible to use in one hand without a feat, and that's what you got! It would work perfectly, although it would work differently than the current RAW, which just illustrates my point. The current RAW does not say what you want it to say.
We cannot discuss, in the rules forum, the rules as they might after an errata, as if that imaginary errata were the current RAW!
I may have overlooked it, but I never saw what was asked for. Your first attempt had penalties. The thematics of the weapons was that your can normally wield it in two hand, but with special training(a feat) you can wield it in one hand.
The mechanics were supposed to match that. Even if you apply a -1000 penalty it is not matching the mechanics that were asked for.
edit:The task was for BBT since he tried to renounce the katana, but you volunteered to do it instead. Since you volunteered knowing the criteria you should provide the work or just say you wont do it.
I don't know how you overlooked it, but the solution was to make it a two-handed martial weapon, and put in the correct place in the tables.
Then write a feat which let's you treat it as if it were one-handed.
Is there any reason that this would not do the job I was asked to do?
|
|
I was speaking generically but since the Flamberge fits we can use that and the EWP feat since it fits by RAW and RAI.So basically you have no problem with a two-handed weapon being used in one hand?In SKR's quote he incorrectly states that a medium creature can use a large greatsword at -2, when we all know that a medium creature cannot use a large greatsword at all.
In the second quote, the flambard has a special quality that helps it sunder wooden weapons. If you don't have EWP(flambard) then you can use it as a bastard sword. Since the bastard sword doesn't have the special quality that helps it sunder wooden weapons, then if you're using it as a bastard sword then you don't have access to that special quality.
A flambard is a two-handed weapon not a one-handed weapon, so of course it cannot be used one-handed.
Which weapon and how? Jotungrip? I'm okay with Jotungrip's legality.
The flamberge? It's a two-handed weapon, so without some way to use it one-handed, no.
The bastard sword? It's not a two-handed weapon. If it's large, then it is a two-handed weapon, but it can't be used in one hand.
Then, I'm not okay with using the flamberge in one hand, because it's a two-handed weapon.
Unlike, say, the bastard sword, which is a one-handed weapon.
I don't know how you overlooked it, but the solution was to make it a two-handed martial weapon, and put in the correct place in the tables.Then write a feat which let's you treat it as if it were one-handed.
Is there any reason that this would not do the job I was asked to do?
That works.. :)
|
|
That works.. :)
I don't know how you overlooked it, but the solution was to make it a two-handed martial weapon, and put in the correct place in the tables.Then write a feat which let's you treat it as if it were one-handed.
Is there any reason that this would not do the job I was asked to do?
That's a relief. : )
How did you miss it the first time? I was dazzlingly eloquent there! : )
That works.. :)
I don't know how you overlooked it, but the solution was to make it a two-handed martial weapon, and put in the correct place in the tables.Then write a feat which let's you treat it as if it were one-handed.
Is there any reason that this would not do the job I was asked to do?
That's a relief. : )
How did you miss it the first time? I was dazzlingly eloquent there! : )
I have no idea, but I was looking for it.. :)
|
|
This is also in the Sunder thread, but i'd really like to hear the justifications on this one too.
"these are listed here, in this area, but they are really this" doesn't mean that they made a mistake? and then clarified how it was intended you should actually treat use them as that other item?
And, incidentally, if you read it, by the 3.5 standard Amiri can't use the larger sized BS at all per that FAQ.
a Small character cannot use a lance or bastard sword made for a Medium creature, even when mounted (in the case of a lance) or when the Small character has the Exotic Weapon Proficiency (bastard sword) feat.So obviously, even with this FAQ something has changed for PF because it's her basic weapon option at 1st level.
Well, yeah, obviously something changed from 3.5 to PF, but we don't know what it was because the devs haven't told us (which, incidentally was precisely the reason why I asked the question in the sunder thread in the first place).
@ Wraithstrike: The beauty about RAW is that there is no such thing as an opinion: If that's what it says, that's what it says. In addition, I already proved that the weapon's description pertains to creatures sized for the weapon, not just for small and medium humanoids, as you say it does.
With that said, the concept of Medium creatures wielding Colossal Dwarven Waraxes is, according to RAW, a legal thing to do. (Heck, I could wield Puny Dwarven Waraxes just to toy around with some goblins and get away with it.) The only conditions are that I am medium size and that I hold the weapon in both hands, and have complete martial proficiency.
Edit: Colossal Dwarven Waraxes ho!
What it say does not matter if that is not what it means Darksol, and the beauty of knowing how to read the rules well is that you can know intent despite imperfect wording. I am sure you dont have dead characters walking around in your game do you?
Edit:When I am right I am right long before the PDT issues an FAQ, even if I don't have proof. That means my words are often facts, not opinions.
What it say does not matter if that is not what it means Darksol, and beauty of knowing how to read the rules well is that you can know intent despite imperfect wording. I am sure you dont have dead characters walking around in your game do you?
Dead things walk around all the time in this game. We usually call them zombies or skeletons, though...
Yes it does. The rules say I can get away with wielding a Colossal Dwarven Waraxe with a -8 penalty to hit. RAW, I can get away with this as long as the written conditions are met. It's no different a conclusion than the one drawn from the rest of the poster's "unwieldable proficiency" statement, since they were both gathered through the same means.
If the devs didn't want us to extrapolate Colossal Dwarven Waraxes, then they would've changed something about it. But they didn't. Now you have the world being swarmed by these ridiculously huge weapons that are some bizarro alternate dimension to that blonde emo kid with that giant holed sword.
But back to my main point: Gee, where did I hear this type of talk at in this thread again? Oh yeah, from the same people who advocate the whole "unwieldable proficiency" argument. RAW, they're right. RAI, it's a ridiculous and pointless rule to have. The same is said or my Dwarven Waraxes: By RAW, it's correct; by RAI, it's stupid and unrealistic in comparison to the rest.
James Jacobs said the official position is that Amiri needs the feat in order to wield the oversized Bastard Sword at all.
|
|
Actually, hangar and wraith you have both argued that the same language and same listing in 3.5 and PF mean that it should be ruled the same. Multiple times.
You guys have used the 3.5 FAQ to justify your reading of intent. I just showed how the 3.5 FAQ is explicitly against the current actual use in play.
So... now we are at the point that something must have changed.
For rules to work, either they must be the general rule, or called out as an exception, yes?
The text is identical (for all intents and purposes) to the earlier edition.
But, Amiri being able to use the large bastard sword is different than 3.5, even with the EWP feat. So... I saw no exception called out for oversized weapons in the feat, we must then logically assume it will be found in the general rules.
Here we find a couple of options, either of which could be the reason it works.
1: They are no longer "treated as" 2 handed weapons at all, reversing the ruling from 3.5, and allowing the normal 1h medium->2h large size to work. The EWP is not needed, martial proficiency takes care of the 2 handed use, and the -2 for size applies.
2: They are still considered 2handed and the EWP allows use in 1 hand, and the size up imposes the -2.
Seriously, did you not read my opening post of the sundering thread or are you intentionally plagiarizing me?
What it say does not matter if that is not what it means Darksol, and beauty of knowing how to read the rules well is that you can know intent despite imperfect wording. I am sure you dont have dead characters walking around in your game do you?Dead things walk around all the time in this game. We usually call them zombies or skeletons, though...
Yes it does. The rules say I can get away with wielding a Colossal Dwarven Waraxe with a -8 penalty to hit. RAW, I can get away with this as long as the written conditions are met. It's no different a conclusion than the one drawn from the rest of the poster's "unwieldable proficiency" statement, since they were both gathered through the same means.
If the devs didn't want us to extrapolate Colossal Dwarven Waraxes, then they would've changed something about it. But they didn't. Now you have the world being swarmed by these ridiculously huge weapons that are some bizarro alternate dimension to that blonde emo kid with that giant holed sword.
But back to my main point: Gee, where did I hear this type of talk at in this thread again? Oh yeah, from the same people who advocate the whole "unwieldable proficiency" argument. RAW, they're right. RAI, it's a ridiculous and pointless rule to have. The same is said or my Dwarven Waraxes: By RAW, it's correct; by RAI, it's stupid and unrealistic in comparison to the rest.
They are not dead. They are undead.
I know you are just trying to make a point with the oversized weapon, but you are failing. Part of rules adjudication is knowing when to follow the RAW exactly and when to take things into perspective. Yeah it is art more than it is a science at times, but oh well, what can you do, but practice and get better at it.
In other words-->Going RAW 100% leads to failure at times.
Actually, hangar and wraith you have both argued that the same language and same listing in 3.5 and PF mean that it should be ruled the same. Multiple times.
You guys have used the 3.5 FAQ to justify your reading of intent. I just showed how the 3.5 FAQ is explicitly against the current actual use in play.
So... now we are at the point that something must have changed.
For rules to work, either they must be the general rule, or called out as an exception, yes?
The text is identical (for all intents and purposes) to the earlier edition.
But, Amiri being able to use the large bastard sword is different than 3.5, even with the EWP feat. So... I saw no exception called out for oversized weapons in the feat, we must then logically assume it will be found in the general rules.
Here we find a couple of options, either of which could be the reason it works.
1: They are no longer "treated as" 2 handed weapons at all, reversing the ruling from 3.5, and allowing the normal 1h medium->2h large size to work. The EWP is not needed, martial proficiency takes care of the 2 handed use, and the -2 for size applies.
2: They are still considered 2handed and the EWP allows use in 1 hand, and the size up imposes the -2.
You missed a few post. I said I agreed with the end result of the 3.5 FAQ, and I have also said that you can get the right end result even if your explanation is wrong. In other words I am not so sure the classification of the sword did not change, but I am sure the end result is the same.
If I were to write the FAQ I would call the Bastard Sword a one-handed weapon that is larger than normal for its category so you need two handed to wield it properly.
However if I were allowed to rewrite the rules I would place it on the table as a two handed martial weapon and a one-handed exotic weapon.
For the purpose of hit points I would have to make a primary choice, but that would be the last thing on my mind.