With all that aside TGMaxer you seem to keep avoiding the bastard sword FAQ, and I explained why it matters that it says "allow" as opposed to "removes the penalty".
Since you are still around I will also ask you, are you trying to argue RAW or RAI?
James Jacobs said the official position is that Amiri needs the feat in order to wield the oversized Bastard Sword at all.
Just because it's been a while since it's been posted. Here's the relevant language:
If [Amiri] didn't have the Exotic Weapon (bastard sword) feat, she can only use the weapon as a two handed weapon. Medium creatures simply cannot properly wield Large two handed weapons, so without the feat, she could CARRRY the sword but she couldn't use it.
***
If you're playing in the Pathfinder Society org play campaign, you need Exotic Weapon (bastard sword) as a feat to use [a large bastard sword].
In any event, my intent was to lay down how things "officially" work as regards how you'll see this character concept function in published adventures from us, and how it'll work in the PFS game.
SKR also said that when asked about Amiri, and could she wield the weapon(large version) in one hand.
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.
He mistakenly put the greatsword in there, but he was focusing on the bastard sword and he is right about that.
I will just stay here and ignore the other one..If we don't reply the thread should die.
It never occured to me that these 3 iconic exotic weapons would be more troublesome than a freaking dire flail, and be completely unusable without the EWP instead of just taking the -4 non-proficiency.
Again, I wouldn't have an issue if the clarification allowed for the -4 nonproficient use, just so long as that same penalty applied to a nonproficient user trying to two-hand an oversized Bastard Sword.
Half a session. Does that count?So, how does the Bastard Sword work in 4E?Don't know. Have you played 4E?
What, you didn't master the equipment rules in that time?
Rookie.
Well, remind me.Half a session. Does that count?So, how does the Bastard Sword work in 4E?Don't know. Have you played 4E?What, you didn't master the equipment rules in that time?
Rookie.
Pff. If you can't be bothered to know all the rules to a game you played half a time, I'm not going to waste my time explaining rules to you I've never learned because I never played that edition.
But seriously, I've never played so I have no idea.
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!
I agree, this is how it should have happened (nitpick: not one size category smaller but one level of effort lower) for 3e, 3.5, or PF. The fact that people just kept kicking the can down the road instead of placing the weapon where it belonged (in their design viewpoint) is sad. You can't have a one-handed weapon that can't be wielding normally one-handed.
One-Handed: A one-handed weapon can be used in either the primary hand or the off hand.
Not "can be used under special circumstances". You classify it as a one-handed weapon than that must be an option for everyone (with at least one hand) of the correct size.
What they want to do is say something like the 3e greatsword was really a one-handed weapon because you could take a feat (3e version of monkey-grip) and use it in one-hand. It doesn't matter if everyone else in the world can't do it, if your one special person with their special feat could do it, it must be a one-handed weapon. That is ridiculous, but that is exactly how they want to classify the bastard sword.
4E Bastard Sword:
1d10 damage, has the Versatile property.
Versatile weapons are one-handed, but you can use them two-handed. If you do, you deal an extra 1 point of damage when you roll damage for the weapon.
A small character such as a halfling must use a versatile weapon two-handed and doesn't deal extra damage.
The rules for weapons sized for bigger or smaller creatures don't allow a medium creature to use a large creature's weapon at all.
Well, I'm not an expert on 4E, but it does say that small creatures use the same weapons as medium creatures, but can't use two-handed weapons, so since the versatile property is specifically called out, there's nothing stopping a small creature using a bastard sword at all.
|
Well, I'm not an expert on 4E, but it does say that small creatures use the same weapons as medium creatures, but can't use two-handed weapons, so since the versatile property is specifically called out, there's nothing stopping a small creature using a bastard sword at all.
Yes, but how does that apply to Pathfinder rules?
You just asked how the bastard sword works in 4E. If you want an analysis of what that means for a different game system, I think you need someone else. :)
Well, to complete the set, oD&D, it worked like in 1E and 2E, but with different damage if you use it with a different number of hands, and D&D Next has it functionally the same as 4E, but with the oD&D damage.
From every Paizo source, it seems clear to me, that we are being told "cannot be used one-handed without EWP". Which leads me to the conclusion that a medium creature cannot use a large bastard sword without EWP. This suggests to me that the MWP for two-handing applies to appropriate-sized bastard swords, and that for a large one that advantage fails because two-handing a large one-handed weapon is impossible (you're already using a two-handed weapon two-handed, so should not gain an extra advantage for using a weapon the way it must be used).
|
Again, I wouldn't have an issue if the clarification allowed for the -4 nonproficient use, just so long as that same penalty applied to a nonproficient user trying to two-hand an oversized Bastard Sword.It never occured to me that these 3 iconic exotic weapons would be more troublesome than a freaking dire flail, and be completely unusable without the EWP instead of just taking the -4 non-proficiency.
The penalty for non-proficient use is still there.
But if you have MWP, then you are proficient when using it in two hands.
You keep asserting there should be a non-proficiency penalty for using a weapon for which you have the required proficiency.
And you wonder why I get frustrated with you.
|
|
I played 4E, and they've gone back to the old 3.0 idea that all weapons are of a set size, and wielders of different sizes just have to use what's available with varying degrees of difficulty.
So the weapons tables assume a weapon is always medium size, but a small creature cannot use certain (2H) weapons at all, and must use versatile weapons in two hands, and doesn't deal extra damage when doing so.
A medium creature can use any versatile weapon in one or two hands, but gains +1 damage when using it in two. Note that there is no equivalent of 'Str bonus x 1.5 when used in two hands'.
One problem I had (among many) in 4E was that the greatsword and the bastard sword both do 1d10 damage, but the BS got +1 damage when used in two hands; the BS did more damage than the greatsword!?!
Larger creatures did have specially made weapons, but:-
Creatures can't use weapons designed for creatures larger than themselves. A human can't fit his or her hands properly around the hilt of a fire giant's dagger, let alone use it as an effective weapon
Large creatures could use medium-sized two-handed weapons as if they were one-handed, but could not use medium one-handed weapons at all.
Instead of our light/1H/2H, 4E only had one-handed and two-handed. The dagger and the bastard sword were both one-handed. It designated what we would call light weapons with the 'off-hand' quality, and weapons that could benefit from an extra hand 'versatile'. Longsword, battleaxe, spear, flail, warhammer, war-pick and bastard sword were all versatile. So, any that did 1d8 did the same as a greatsword on average (1d8+1).
Instead of our simple/martial/exotic, they had simple/military/superior. Superior weapons were in that category simply because their stats were 'better' than military weapons, in a game so obsessed with balance as 4E was. So bastard sword and rapier were all 'superior' on that basis.
You needed a feat to be proficient with a superior weapon. Another problem I had with 4E was that it was stated by the designers that they were initially going to make a 'swashbuckler' class, but decided to give rogues those abilities. And they succeeded in making rogues fully capable of swashbuckly things. But they were not proficient in the rapier! I had to waste a first level feat just to be baseline!
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 wanted to cry but there weren't enough tears. I said the same thing at least 3 times.
|
Hi, everyone.
I posted a new thread that hopefully has a more concise question for the Development team to consider.
Head on over to the Bastard Sword, Dwarven Waraxe, Katana, and Great Terbutje thread and please click the FAQ.
It's been a pleasure. Now let's get this resolved.
Nefreet how is your thread question any different from this one? The end result is the same from how I read it.
PS:I am just trying to avoid a 3rd thread on the same topic.
Again, I wouldn't have an issue if the clarification allowed for the -4 nonproficient use, just so long as that same penalty applied to a nonproficient user trying to two-hand an oversized Bastard Sword.It never occured to me that these 3 iconic exotic weapons would be more troublesome than a freaking dire flail, and be completely unusable without the EWP instead of just taking the -4 non-proficiency.
The penalty for non-proficient use is still there.
But if you have MWP, then you are proficient when using it in two hands.
You keep asserting there should be a non-proficiency penalty for using a weapon for which you have the required proficiency.
And you wonder why I get frustrated with you.
And you keep refusing to see where that doesn't follow, particularly from the Pathfinder examples and explanations, the most obvious of which is James Jacobs' post re: Amiri, stating explicitly that she could not use an oversized bastard sword but for her possession of the requisite feat.
And you wonder why I get frustrated with you.
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.
But dead characters are corpses; those two creature types still symbolize a carcass, and it's more than enough proof that dead things can still move.
You're missing my point; the RAW of the BS tells you with a lack of proficiency it's unusable. The RAI for it provides its usage just as much as an equally unused weapon, I.e. blowguns and darts. Why should they make a weapon absolutely require proficiency, when doing so makes that weapon completely obsolete? The whole "adjudication" for it requiring proficiency to even use is a bunch of crap, because it defeats the purpose of putting in the "non-proficiency" section into the book. (On a related note RAW says EWP provides usage with 1 hand only, so even with the feat, wielding odd-sized BS's is illegal. The RAI for it to scale proficiency based on character size-difference doesn't really have any basis, since both subjects function on different levels independent from each other.)
I'm not really failing. I'm just treating the conditions as instructional text for usage of the weapon, which is no different than you treating the inability to use without proficiency as instructional text. Of course the RAI is stupid, but what's the big deal between your BS claim and my DW claim?
|
Again, I wouldn't have an issue if the clarification allowed for the -4 nonproficient use, just so long as that same penalty applied to a nonproficient user trying to two-hand an oversized Bastard Sword.It never occured to me that these 3 iconic exotic weapons would be more troublesome than a freaking dire flail, and be completely unusable without the EWP instead of just taking the -4 non-proficiency.
The penalty for non-proficient use is still there.
But if you have MWP, then you are proficient when using it in two hands.
You keep asserting there should be a non-proficiency penalty for using a weapon for which you have the required proficiency.
And you wonder why I get frustrated with you.
And you keep refusing to see where that doesn't follow, particularly from the Pathfinder examples and explanations, the most obvious of which is James Jacobs' post re: Amiri, stating explicitly that she could not use an oversized bastard sword but for her possession of the requisite feat.
And you wonder why I get frustrated with you.
The guy who is actually in charge of that sort of thing should certainly carry more weight than a pedantic reading of the rules, I would think.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I'm not really failing. I'm just treating the conditions as instructional text for usage of the weapon, which is no different than you treating the inability to use without proficiency as instructional text. Of course the RAI is stupid, but what's the big deal between your BS claim and my DW claim?
You are failing hard, and the difference is common sense is to be applied to the rules. You know that DW claim is not RAI. You are just trying to ask why I can follow RAW and you can't.
Like I said-->"Part of rules adjudication is knowing when to follow the RAW exactly and when to take things into perspective." See-->*
I don't always follow RAW exactly. There is no perfect formula for knowing when to deviate. The book is not written by technical writers or in legalese.
*An example is my ignoring RAW for haste, before the errata, and being correct by RAI. I had no support per RAW when I made my statement, but I was right.
edit:corpses are objects..Undead are creatures..
It would actually be the fourth, since Wraith's post was in response to another thread, and Hangar's came after that. But who's counting?
I guess not me..:)
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Can't rest until 'Bastard Sword' is in the title of every thread on the main page! :)
One problem I had (among many) in 4E was that the greatsword and the bastard sword both do 1d10 damage, but the BS got +1 damage when used in two hands; the BS did more damage than the greatsword!?!
But Bastardswords cost a feat. They better deal more (or something special) than greatsword if they cost a feat.
Instead of our simple/martial/exotic, they had simple/military/superior. Superior weapons were in that category simply because their stats were 'better' than military weapons, in a game so obsessed with balance as 4E was. So bastard sword and rapier were all 'superior' on that basis.You needed a feat to be proficient with a superior weapon.
I preferred Superior to exotic category, the feat was then worth it.
Plus, did they have same proficiency bonus? Weapons in 4E gave an attack bonus if you were proficient.
But Bastardswords cost a feat. They better deal more (or something special) than greatsword if they cost a feat.
One problem I had (among many) in 4E was that the greatsword and the bastard sword both do 1d10 damage, but the BS got +1 damage when used in two hands; the BS did more damage than the greatsword!?!
LOL ... Oh, wait you were talking about 4e. Yeah, probably in 4e a feat should give you a better weapon. Now if this comment had been about PF ... LOL.
|
Well, I was hoping to find someone who knows 4E, to rules on Pathfinder rules.
With 1E, 2E, 3.0, and 3.5 all mentioned, I figured we needed the whole gang.
We really need the RAI, even in other systems, to understand the RAW in Pathfinder.
Best to compare to everything.
I have experience in all version of d&d 1st thru 4e systems. I personally think that one good thing out of 4e is the action cards. this is the best thing they ever come up with in 4e system. But the rest of the 4e is really bad; D&d needs diversity badly which 4e does not have.
1st ed and 2nd ed, have the same build, but 2nd ed has to offer more than 1st. Now 1st was better cause a lot of people had better feel of role-playing and creativity in imagination versus 2nd ed.
3.0, 3.5, and then pathfinder is far more better than the 3.0 and 3.5 put together. Pathfinder has everything you need. well built system in my view point.
|
|
But Bastardswords cost a feat. They better deal more (or something special) than greatsword if they cost a feat.
One problem I had (among many) in 4E was that the greatsword and the bastard sword both do 1d10 damage, but the BS got +1 damage when used in two hands; the BS did more damage than the greatsword!?!
4E did 'balance' very well! Every time they had to choose between game balance and modelling the game reality, they chose balance. Resulting in the absurd idea that a bastard sword does more damage than a greatsword, just because spending a feat should give a benefit.
Instead of our simple/martial/exotic, they had simple/military/superior. Superior weapons were in that category simply because their stats were 'better' than military weapons, in a game so obsessed with balance as 4E was. So bastard sword and rapier were all 'superior' on that basis.You needed a feat to be proficient with a superior weapon.
I preferred Superior to exotic category, the feat was then worth it.
Plus, did they have same proficiency bonus? Weapons in 4E gave an attack bonus if you were proficient.
My biggest beef was with the rapier, which was not better than military weapons, and had no special ability to make up for it (such as the obvious 'high crit').
|
|
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?
Yes. It works so well, and is so obvious, that if the original writer had wanted it to be unusable in one hand, then that's what he would have done: made it a two-handed martial weapon, useable one-handed with a feat.
The fact that he chose the opposite says something. The fact that he chose to make it a one-handed weapon says that he doesn't think it should work as a two-handed weapon!
He also wrote: '...making it too large to use in one hand without special training; thus, it is an exotic weapon.
If he intended it to just be unusable in one hand, 'thus, it is an exotic weapon' only detracts from the intention to make it unusable. He would have just written 'making it too large to use in one hand without special training.', and not added the 'thus...'.
The fact that he chose not to make it a two-handed weapon is evidence that he didn't intend it to be treated as a two-handed weapon.
Why is this worth this kind of discussion? People are upset that you can use a bastard sword that's large and do less average damage than a greatsword.
Why is this an issue? because you don't like people using a slightly outsized weapon?
There is no balance issue whatsoever in a person using a large bastard sword with two hands. Leave it alone.
Why is this worth this kind of discussion? People are upset that you can use a bastard sword that's large and do less average damage than a greatsword.
Why is this an issue? because you don't like people using a slightly outsized weapon?
There is no balance issue whatsoever in a person using a large bastard sword with two hands. Leave it alone.
Nobody has a problem with a person using an oversized Bastard Sword. I just think people should be required to take the feat and/or suffer the relevant penalties if they're going to do so.
Its WORSE than using a greatword! Why does it matter!!?
Its WORSE than using a greatword! Why does it matter!!?
Because 2d8 OMG!
And if you spend actions, resources and money on things like impact enchant and enlarge person it just maybe possibly could be better than using a greatsword!
Its WORSE than using a greatword! Why does it matter!!?A large bastard sword is not necessarily worse than a medium greatsowrd. In fact, at lower levels of static damage, it's entirel possible the large bastard sword will out-DPR the medium greatsword.
Sure it is. If you take a penalty of two to hit, you are loosing more than the average that the enlarged dice gives you. I would say you are loosing as much average damage as the larger dice gives you on a hit.
Sure it is. If you take a penalty of two to hit, you are loosing more than the average that the enlarged dice gives you. I would say you are loosing as much average damage as the larger dice gives you on a hit.Its WORSE than using a greatword! Why does it matter!!?A large bastard sword is not necessarily worse than a medium greatsowrd. In fact, at lower levels of static damage, it's entirel possible the large bastard sword will out-DPR the medium greatsword.
Assuming you hit on an 11 or higher for the greatsword, so 13 or higher for the large bastard sword, the average damage will be higher for the large bastard sword as long as no extra damage is add in. If one point of extra damage is added in they are exactly equal. After that the medium greatsword is doing more damage on average.