|
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.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.
And anyone optimising a 2H build will certainly have at least 14 Str, which gives +3 damage 2H.
Making it -6 instead of -2 is not needed to make it a sub-optimum choice, especially when they do have the required proficiency when using it 2H: MWP.
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 entirely possible the large bastard sword will out-DPR the medium greatsword.
Unless you are a Ranger using Lead Blades.... probably not.
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..
I only said the whole "dead things walk around all the time" to humor you. (It seems I failed my Perform [Comedy] check.)
But you see my example; taking RAW into consideration as legal rules for the DW are obviously preposterous, but not so for the BS? I don't see the RAI purpose for negating the use of it without proficiency when the rules don't encompass that sort of front, especially considering that A. The previous rules for the BS are turning out to be obsolete due to the new rules/changes PF implemented, and B. Such exceptions are already covered in sections of the book outside the BS description, and negating them because of the single use of the word in said description is ridiculous.
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.
I disagree. I have rewritten rules to make them cleaner, so that does not mean you can rewrite a rule, and therefore assume what the author intended just because it was not clear enough.
I could have written the weapon up as a one-handed weapon and still gotten the same end result, by using the katana language.
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..
I only said the whole "dead things walk around all the time" to humor you. (It seems I failed my Perform [Comedy] check.)
But you see my example; taking RAW into consideration as legal rules for the DW are obviously preposterous, but not so for the BS? I don't see the RAI purpose for negating the use of it without proficiency when the rules don't encompass that sort of front, especially considering that A. The previous rules for the BS are turning out to be obsolete due to the new rules/changes PF implemented, and B. Such exceptions are already covered in sections of the book outside the BS description, and negating them because of the single use of the word in said description is ridiculous.
I understand, but so far every official 3.5 and PF statement supports one-handed use. None of them mention removing a penalty. They mention allowing weapon use.
I understand, but so far every official 3.5 and PF statement supports one-handed use. None of them mention removing a penalty. They mention allowing weapon use.
I agree that this does seem to be the case.
To me it does not make any sense. In my opinion it would be better from a game and verisimilitude perspective if it just imposed a penalty. But logic, reason and, apparently, fun don't matter. Whatever the Paizo team rules is final.
I could have written the weapon up as a one-handed weapon and still gotten the same end result, by using the katana language.And the katana wording allows you to use a large one in two hands as a martial weapon.
I agree with this as well. By a strict reading, even the large katana can be used in two hands as a martial weapon.
|
I agree with this as well. By a strict reading, even the large katana can be used in two hands as a martial weapon.I could have written the weapon up as a one-handed weapon and still gotten the same end result, by using the katana language.And the katana wording allows you to use a large one in two hands as a martial weapon.
If you're a large creature.
Okay, I just found this:
Waraxe, Dwarven Double
Race Dwarf
This hefty waraxe is similar to the common dwarven waraxe, but its recurved blade spans forward and back from its head like a deadly butterfly.
Benefit: A dwarven double waraxe grants a +1 bonus on all attack rolls after the first when using Cleave or Great Cleave.
This is an Exotic One-handed weapon from the Advanced Race Guide. Notice the complete lack of any statement that it is too large to use one-handed or a requirement to use it two-handed as a martial weapon. So I guess anyone can pick up this weapon and use it one-handed with a -4 non-proficiency penalty, right?
Now it does reference that it is similar to a dwarven waraxe in appearance, but that's it. However, I am sure that there are those here that will ignore the rest of the sentence, take the word "similar" out of context and try to make some argument about it.
Edit: Here is a link to make it official.
If you're a large creature.I agree with this as well. By a strict reading, even the large katana can be used in two hands as a martial weapon.I could have written the weapon up as a one-handed weapon and still gotten the same end result, by using the katana language.And the katana wording allows you to use a large one in two hands as a martial weapon.
That would not be a strict reading. That would be a pretty liberal (but not unreasonable) reading. You are assuming the "if you're a large creature", the rules don't actually say that.
Also, the khopesh is heavier than a bastard sword, just as heavy as a dwarven waraxe, it is an exotic one-handed weapon, but it can be picked up and used in one hand just fine with just a -4 penalty. Why is this true for the khopesh but not the bastard sword or dwarven waraxe?
Khopesh 20 gp 1d6 1d8 19-20/×2 — 8 lbs. S trip APG
Sword, bastard 35 gp 1d8 1d10 19–20/×2 — 6 lbs. S — CRB
Waraxe, dwarven 30 gp 1d8 1d10 x3 — 8 lbs. S — CRB
I could have written the weapon up as a one-handed weapon and still gotten the same end result, by using the katana language.And the katana wording allows you to use a large one in two hands as a martial weapon.
I could also say weapon X is a one-handed weapon that is slightly larger than normal so it still requires two hands. <---not the exact wording, but you get my point.
Going by the argument your side has been making--> I also don't see how the katana is a two-handed weapon. Just like the bastard sword it is classified as a one-handed weapon. If the katana is a two handed weapon then so is the bastard sword.
Okay, I just found this:
Waraxe, Dwarven Double
Race Dwarf
This hefty waraxe is similar to the common dwarven waraxe, but its recurved blade spans forward and back from its head like a deadly butterfly.
Benefit: A dwarven double waraxe grants a +1 bonus on all attack rolls after the first when using Cleave or Great Cleave.
This is an Exotic One-handed weapon from the Advanced Race Guide. Notice the complete lack of any statement that it is too large to use one-handed or a requirement to use it two-handed as a martial weapon. So I guess anyone can pick up this weapon and use it one-handed with a -4 non-proficiency penalty, right?
Now it does reference that it is similar to a dwarven waraxe in appearance, but that's it. However, I am sure that there are those here that will ignore the rest of the sentence, take the word "similar" out of context and try to make some argument about it.
Edit: Here is a link to make it official.
It is a double weapon so if you want to use it in that manner(for TWF'ing) you would have to use two hands. The strange thing is most double weapons are two-handed weapons. This is strange design, and breaks normal philosophy.
I see it as a possible mistake in the chart since there is no text to support breaking the normal rules for double weapons.
It is a double weapon so if you want to use it in that manner(for TWF'ing) you would have to use two hands. The strange thing is most double weapons are two-handed weapons. This is strange design, and breaks normal philosophy.
I see it as a possible mistake in the chart since there is no text to support breaking the normal rules for double weapons.
It is not a double weapon. It is a one-handed weapon that has "double" in it's name. Do you see a property of "double" in the special column? No? Then it is not a double weapon.
I don't pay attention to weapon weights. I think they pick a weight after the flavor is decided. As an example the Urimi is also 6 lbs, just like the katana, and it is not restricted in the same manner.
There is another weapon with text similar to the bastard sword that someone mentioned before.
The Great Terbutje is only 4 pounds, and it has the same language as the bastard sword.
As you can see weight is not a factor.
It is not a double weapon. It is a one-handed weapon that has "double" in it's name. Do you see a property of "double" in the special column? No? Then it is not a double weapon.It is a double weapon so if you want to use it in that manner(for TWF'ing) you would have to use two hands. The strange thing is most double weapons are two-handed weapons. This is strange design, and breaks normal philosophy.
I see it as a possible mistake in the chart since there is no text to support breaking the normal rules for double weapons.
You are right. I just read the name. Without language saying it operates like the normal dwarven waraxe I would not impose the restriction though.
Does it make sense within the game world for this version to not be restricted, if the normal one is? Not to me.
|
|
I could have written the weapon up as a one-handed weapon and still gotten the same end result, by using the katana language.And the katana wording allows you to use a large one in two hands as a martial weapon.
I could also say weapon X is a one-handed weapon that is slightly larger than normal so it still requires two hands. <---not the exact wording, but you get my point.
Going by the argument your side has been making--> I also don't see how the katana is a two-handed weapon. Just like the bastard sword it is classified as a one-handed weapon. If the katana is a two handed weapon then so is the bastard sword.
A katana is a one-handed weapon.
A large katana is a two-handed weapon for a medium creature.
A medium creature can and must use a large katana in two hands, and according to the text a katana may be wielded as a martial weapon in two hands, so if you have MWP you don't need EWP to avoid the non-proficiency penalty.
I could have written the weapon up as a one-handed weapon and still gotten the same end result, by using the katana language.And the katana wording allows you to use a large one in two hands as a martial weapon.
I could also say weapon X is a one-handed weapon that is slightly larger than normal so it still requires two hands. <---not the exact wording, but you get my point.
Going by the argument your side has been making--> I also don't see how the katana is a two-handed weapon. Just like the bastard sword it is classified as a one-handed weapon. If the katana is a two handed weapon then so is the bastard sword.
A katana is a one-handed weapon.
A large katana is a two-handed weapon for a medium creature.
A medium creature can and must use a large katana in two hands, and according to the text a katana may be wielded as a martial weapon in two hands, so if you have MWP you don't need EWP to avoid the non-proficiency penalty.
I did not know we were discussing large katanas.
I am still pretty proud of my "Dwarven Double Waraxe" find. :-)
Apparently whoever created it decided to give it the cleaving bonus, but decided that it could not be used two-handed as a martial weapon. The upside of leaving that out means that it can be used one-handed without the proficiency. This of course breaks the rational used for saying that a dwarven waraxe is "too big" to use one-handed without special training.
Therefore, the PDT will either have to rule that the dwarven waraxe can also be used one-handed (and by extension the bastard sword and others) or they will have to errata the Dwarven Double Waraxe and add a line explicitly stating that it can not be used one-handed at all without proficiency. I would assume that it could still be used two-handed with a -4 NWP penalty.
I, of course, think it would be better (and more fun) to rule the first way, but at this point I can see them digging in their heels and stubbornly refusing to change their minds on the matter. Humans being human after all.
Hmmm... Well, I guess there is a third option. They could continue to ignore the issue and hope it goes away.
I dont think one weapon getting past editing is going to make them change all the other weapons. If anything, they will change the new weapon.
I think they will answer it. They just have to do it in such a way as to not increase the word count by too much, which may be the issue since they might not just want to use the FAQ.
It may be easier to give these weapons a special category in order to save words in the book.
I don't see the big deal with the dwarven double axe. Yay, so it says its similar to a dwarven waraxe, so what? It doesn't have the language that the dwarven waraxe has so why would we be trying to use that as evidence of anything?
So you have no problem with a weapon that is bigger than a dwarven axe that can be used in one hand untrained while the dwarven axe itself can't?
See, this is why I think there has been far too much focus on the rules for these weapons and not enough thought given as to how they should work. Regardless of what the rules say, it is entirely possible to use a bastard sword as a sword (not an improvised weapon) in one hand with absolutely no training at all.
My next question is this then.
Can one wield a Flambard in one hand at a -4 penalty?
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
Since wraith and I only got one answer ill ask again?
|
|
Since wraith and I only got one answer ill ask again?My next question is this then.
Can one wield a Flambard in one hand at a -4 penalty?
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 answer is no. It's a two-handed weapon so can't be used in one hand.
Unlike, say, a bastard sword, which is a one-handed weapon.
Since wraith and I only got one answer ill ask again?My next question is this then.
Can one wield a Flambard in one hand at a -4 penalty?
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 answer is no. It's a two-handed weapon so can't be used in one hand.
Unlike, say, a bastard sword, which is a one-handed weapon.
SKR disagreed.
SKR disagreed.Since wraith and I only got one answer ill ask again?My next question is this then.
Can one wield a Flambard in one hand at a -4 penalty?
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 answer is no. It's a two-handed weapon so can't be used in one hand.
Unlike, say, a bastard sword, which is a one-handed weapon.
You can't use the Flambard as a one-handed weapon because the RAW language would have the Flambard be treated as a two-handed martial, due to the default text of it being considered a two-handed weapon. In addition, no RAW language supports it being usable as a one-handed weapon outside of it otherwise being considered a BS, whose language isn't described in the Flambard's description.
If we're going to argue that a Flambard functions the same as a BS, then the rulings must either be that EWP for BS affects the Flambard as well (or vice-versa), or you must take separate EWP feats for each weapon type, and being separate weapons means the rules for their function are mutually exclusive.
|
|
I don't see the big deal with the dwarven double axe. Yay, so it says its similar to a dwarven waraxe, so what? It doesn't have the language that the dwarven waraxe has so why would we be trying to use that as evidence of anything?So you have no problem with a weapon that is bigger than a dwarven axe that can be used in one hand untrained while the dwarven axe itself can't?
See, this is why I think there has been far too much focus on the rules for these weapons and not enough thought given as to how they should work. Regardless of what the rules say, it is entirely possible to use a bastard sword as a sword (not an improvised weapon) in one hand with absolutely no training at all.
It's an exotic weapon that requires a feat (unless you're a dwarf), so no, I don't see a problem with that.
EDIT: On the other hand, because it's "similar to the dwarven waraxe", perhaps we're supposed to treat it in the way we would treat a dwarven waraxe—it sounds fluffy, but perhaps it's really crunchy.
It's an exotic weapon that requires a feat (unless you're a dwarf), so no, I don't see a problem with that.I don't see the big deal with the dwarven double axe. Yay, so it says its similar to a dwarven waraxe, so what? It doesn't have the language that the dwarven waraxe has so why would we be trying to use that as evidence of anything?So you have no problem with a weapon that is bigger than a dwarven axe that can be used in one hand untrained while the dwarven axe itself can't?
See, this is why I think there has been far too much focus on the rules for these weapons and not enough thought given as to how they should work. Regardless of what the rules say, it is entirely possible to use a bastard sword as a sword (not an improvised weapon) in one hand with absolutely no training at all.
If you're a dwarf who can't use all martial you can't use the weapon regardless because you can't take a MWP feat for it since it's not really a Martial weapon.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
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.
{A character with Bastard Sword Proficiency but not Flambard Proficiency can wield it one handed and does not gain a bonus to sunder.}
Correct.
{A character with Flambard Proficiency but not Bastard Sword Proficiency can only wield it two handed, but does gain the bonus to sunder.}
Correct.
{A character with both Flambard and Bastard Sword Proficiency can wield it one handed and gains the bonus to sunder.}
Correct.
{Also, shame on Paizo for publishing that bats are rodents in one of their products.}
Reminds me of writing the 3E PH and trying to explain what weasel-like animals were for the purpose of a familiar's "speak with animals of its kind" ability. "We can't say 'speak with mustelidae,' most people don't know what that means without looking it up...."
It's actually to your advantage to treat bats as rodents, otherwise bat familiars can only talk with bats, while rat familiars can talk with rats, mice, squirrels, porcupines, beavers, chipmunks, guinea pigs, and voles. And yes, I know the familiar rules treat them as different types of animals.
SKR disagreed.Since wraith and I only got one answer ill ask again?My next question is this then.
Can one wield a Flambard in one hand at a -4 penalty?
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 answer is no. It's a two-handed weapon so can't be used in one hand.
Unlike, say, a bastard sword, which is a one-handed weapon.
You can't use the Flambard as a one-handed weapon because the RAW language would have the Flambard be treated as a two-handed martial, due to the default text of it being considered a two-handed weapon. In addition, no RAW language supports it being usable as a one-handed weapon outside of it otherwise being considered a BS, whose language isn't described in the Flambard's description.
If we're going to argue that a Flambard functions the same as a BS, then the rulings must either be that EWP for BS affects the Flambard as well (or vice-versa), or you must take separate EWP feats for each weapon type, and being separate weapons means the rules for their function are mutually exclusive.
If I tell you a developer said something, 99% of the time I can provide a link, and the rule the dev is citing.
Talonhawk has the link to the ruling. If you need the text for the weapon here it is.
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
I understand your argument but specific trumps general.
|
|
It's nice to have a dev ruling, and now we know how to use a flambard.
As you say, specific trumps general. The specific rules for the flambard is that it is a two-handed weapon which can be used in one hand with the correct feat.
The specific rules for a bastard sword is that it is a one-handed weapon that can be used one-handed with a particular feat. Specific trumps general.
If the devs think that a bastard sword is a two-handed weapon that can only be used one-handed with the correct feat, then the RAW does not support that and needs to be errata'd. However, we can't say (in the rules forum) what the rule is based on some theoretical but unknown errata which may or may not happen, based on what we think the devs might or might not think about it.
If they errata it to be a two-handed weapon, then they will have changed the rule. They can do that! But it won't make the arguments I made about the rules as they were before the errata flawed. I can only use the RAW we have, not the RAW which doesn't exist yet (if it ever does).
|
|
Malachi, there is no such thing as RAW. It is based on an interpretation. If the devs come back and say it's a two-handed weapon, you, BBT, and Jiggy will undoubtably whine about "that's not what it says". Well, yes that is what is says considering those that won the debate were able to interpret things correctly, while you interpreted it wrong. Could things be worded differently? Possibly, but the fact that they aren't doesnt mean that "it isn't RAW".
Based on the recent discoveries, my "sundering a bastard sword" question doesn't seem so stupid anymore, does it (Malachi, BBT, Jiggy, Nefreet)?
But, more importantly is what is a flambard and where do I find the description?
SKR disagreed.Since wraith and I only got one answer ill ask again?My next question is this then.
Can one wield a Flambard in one hand at a -4 penalty?
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 answer is no. It's a two-handed weapon so can't be used in one hand.
Unlike, say, a bastard sword, which is a one-handed weapon.
You can't use the Flambard as a one-handed weapon because the RAW language would have the Flambard be treated as a two-handed martial, due to the default text of it being considered a two-handed weapon. In addition, no RAW language supports it being usable as a one-handed weapon outside of it otherwise being considered a BS, whose language isn't described in the Flambard's description.
If we're going to argue that a Flambard functions the same as a BS, then the rulings must either be that EWP for BS affects the Flambard as well (or vice-versa), or you must take separate EWP feats for each weapon type, and being separate weapons means the rules for their function are mutually exclusive.
If I tell you a developer said something, 99% of the time I can provide a link, and the rule the dev is citing.
Talonhawk has the link to the ruling. If you need the text for the weapon here it is.
...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
Well, one of my two arguments (the latter) was the correct interpretation. BS proficiency allows one-hand use of the Flambard, and Flambard proficiency allows the sunder bonus, but both feats are required for one-hand use and sunder bonuses (which is crappy anyway), since they are cited as separate weapons (though function as the same type of weapon).
Just FYI, if you are tired of arguing about what the specific wording is or how officials claim things work and just want to discuss all these wacky items in 3e, 3.5, PF or whatever, feel free to come to the following thread:
Bastard Swords and Other Wacky Weapons in 3X
It is in the D&D 3.5/d20/OGL section, so don't feel obligated to worry about the exact wording or what some official somewhere who might not understand game balance says. Go and have fun.
It can be found in the Adventurer's Armory hangerflying.
So the real question becomes
Does a Flambard used in one hand by virtue if having EWP bastard sword still get str bonus and PA as a two handed weapon?
So the real question becomes
Does a Flambard used in one hand by virtue if having EWP bastard sword still get str bonus and PA as a two handed weapon?
How does the lance work for those?
I believe it gets treated as a 2h for both.
|
|
So the real question becomes
Does a Flambard used in one hand by virtue if having EWP bastard sword still get str bonus and PA as a two handed weapon?
Well, my understanding is that it would be using as if it were a one-handed weapon under those circumstances.
(I don't particularly agree with that particular ruling, I do wish they would have given us a bit more than a "yes" to work with).
|
|
Based on the recent discoveries, my "sundering a bastard sword" question doesn't seem so stupid anymore, does it (Malachi, BBT, Jiggy, Nefreet).
I thought that thread was a good idea. Any attempt to get the devs to make a ruling is okay by me.
The ruling they gave wasn't any where near as comprehensive as we all would like, being limited to confirming that the BS's category in the book is correct (via 'no reply required').
As to 'no such thing as RAW', the words used to convey the rules mean the same thing whenever they are encountered in the rules, and the general rules apply unless there is a specific exception to specific rules.
The BS only has two exceptions, and one is disputed:-
• the ability to use it as a martial weapon when used in two hands. This is an exception to the normal proficiency rules. It is not an exception to the rules on weapon size (being able to use a weapon with a certain proficiency instead of the usual proficiency is not an exception to the inability to use weapons that are larger than two-handed for you, nor an exception to the rules on weapon category
• the (disputed) inability to wield a one-handed weapon in one hand. This is an exception to the way one-handed weapons may be used. It is not an exception to the way weapons are categorised as light/1H/2H, nor is it an alteration of the usual practice of the rules on weapon size not interacting with a weapon's description unless it specifically says it does, such as with the rapier
If the devs want a bastard sword to be an exception to the rules for weapon category, weapon size, weapon proficiency (losing MWP when using an oversize weapon) and/or how weapon descriptions interact with the rest of the rules by default, then they absolutely do need to change the written word.
For us to assume that the text somehow 'implies' the breaking of four different game rules without actually saying so, is not the way forward in the rules forum.
|
|
Sorry, I thought you were one of the one's bagging on it.
As far as RAW, it's an interpretation.
You think the wording needs to be changed because you think it reads a certain way. I read it a different way, and so if the devs rule in my favor, obviously I think the wording doesn't need to be changed.
If the devs rule in your favor, I'm not going to complain about needing to change the way the rules are worded, I'll take what the devs say and carry on (that's not to say that I don't agree with it, but I can work with it). I'm not saying that *you* will whine or complain, but taking the scorched ray sneak attack thread as an example, the response to the PDT has been disrespectful, to put it nicely.
I find it funny that the sundering thread got LESS people clicking for a FAQ than this one and got answered already...D:
|
|
I never looked at the scorching ray/Sneak Attack thread. What happened?
There are times when the Design Team make a decision which I think is bad ('lance/Power Attack', anyone?), but personal attacks aren't the way forward.
I always try to remember that 'playing the man' (i.e. ad hominem argument) just shows a bankrupt argument. You have to actually address the opposing argument, even when you want to shake someone by their virtual lapels.
I try to remember that, but it doesn't always work. : )
Agreed, Malachi. Attacking the PDT is no way to go after a ruling(and attacking people who don't agree with how you read the rules is downright nasty as well). If you're going to disagree with someone, going at the subject matter is the proper response. =)
And I'm also curious as to what happened in the scorching ray/Sneak Attack thread. I only read it when it had about 15 posts or so.
Basically you only get to sneak attack one target with spells that provide multiple attacks ss a single action.