|
Hangar, I think one of the biggest flaws in your logic is relying on the stance that "the wording is the same" in 3.5 and Pathfinder. D&D and Pathfinder are different games. They have similar but different rule sets. Weapons were "sized" in 3.5, and they are "handed" in Pathfinder. Pathfinder has really refined how one-handed and two-handed weapons are treated, whereas D&D was sloppy. Pathfinder has changed a lot of little rules here and there and it stands as its own subspecies of D&D now. Could you breed them together and have still run a home game? Sure. But it's going to require a lot of houseruling and GM fiat.
And that's why this argument can't be resolved using 3.5 logic.
I've been telling you from the start that you have to imagine D&D never existed. Imagine it all began with Pathfinder. Your response has been that it should not matter, but it does. 800 posts now in this thread alone should show you that enough people disagree with you to make it a valid point. You continue the same argument, with a sprinkle of tangent findings from dev comments, but the fact remains that if you cracked open a Pathfinder Core Rule Book, and imagined that 3.5 never existed, there would be nothing to support your arguments.
Pathfinder is a different game.
*rubs eyes*
Huh? You're still beating that horse?
Chemak there is also this..
The measure of how much effort it takes to use a weapon (whether the weapon is designated as a light, one-handed, or two-handed weapon for a particular wielder) is altered by one step for each size category of difference between the wielder's size and the size of the creature for which the weapon was designed. For example, a Small creature would wield a Medium one-handed weapon as a two-handed weapon.No I am not trying to help Malachi, but the weapon's primary designation is what determines how hard it is to wield.
Now back to the bastard sword-->Sorry Malachi.
If the weapon is treated as two-handed for the purpose of handiness with EWP then the bastard sword(large version) is too big for a medium creature. The EWP allows it to be treated as one size smaller for the purpose of handiness. JJ(who is not the rules guy), and SKR(who is a rules guy) both support this.
Then there is that Jason(head rules guy) who said the EWP allows the weapon to be wielded without mention of any penalty.
I am sure you will argue that is all a coincidence, but I don't think all of them making similar statements is a coincidence.
edit:Chemak if I misunderstood you ignore what I said.. :)
. Don't think you misunderstood, but you may not have followed my reasoning, which I'll try to reiterate. A medium bastard sword for a medium creature is a one-handed (effort designation) exotic weapon. The same medium bastard sword for a medium creature is also a two-handed (effort designation) martial weapon. All statistics follow those for one-handed weapons (hit points, for example). We know this because the effort designation applies to an appropriately sized weapon, and the bastard sword is classified as a one-handed weapon. The rule for using a one-handed weapon in two hands is just that: it has no bearing on whether a weapon is two-handed (effort designation).
A large bastard sword wielded by a medium creature follows the rules you quoted, Wraith: the effort designation bumps up by one, making it a two-handed (effort designation) exotic weapon. The "exception" for the bastard sword refers to the effort designation "two-handed" (it very explicitly does not refer to using it in two hands), which must therefore also increase by one, which makes it unusable.
I now return you to your regularly scheduled discussion.
@HangarFlying: If a bastard sword used without EWP were to count as a two-handed weapon, then a small one would count as one handed weapon, which then couldn't be used in one hand so it would become a two-handed weapon!
This is in contrast to the rules as they are now, where a small BS counts as a light weapon for a medium creature.
If it counted as two-handed for a small creature then it is one handed for a medium creature.
It wont be a large weapon for creature both sizes with the exact same proficiencies. Otherwise you can say since its now two handed for a medium creature it is one handed for a large creature and therefore it is now two handed for large creature, even though the weapon was made for a small creature. <--That makes no sense at all.
Precisely.
It makes no sense at all for a restriction on using a weapon in one hand to mean that it is treated as a two-handed weapon, ignoring the rules on both weapon category and using an inappropriately-sized weapon.
I was not agreeing with you. I was trying to show that your idea was nowhere near RAI. I also think your idea is nowhere near RAW.
[sarcasm]My humblest of apologies. I was unaware of the superior quality and quantity of substantive evidence that you possessed in relation to ours.[/sarcasm]Everybody that argues a position believes they have a "substantive support" on their side.I recognize that. That's why I said I believe I have more substantive support.
So can I assume are you aware now? :)
What's your point, Richard?11 years ago, in another system, your evidence lies hidden?
Welcome to Pathfinder.
The more you look to past editions of other systems for support, the more you seem out of touch with Pathfinder rules.
This is even more emphasized when many of those were conflicting rules, even in the same system.
When looking for support on a ruling in Baseball, you shouldn't quote Cricket rules, simply because one came before the other.
I don't know where you have been, but we have shown quotes from Pathfinder devs* that support our decision, so 3.5 aside we still have evidence that our interpretation is correct unless 3 Pathfinder(2 of them from the RULES team) suddenly decide to change their minds.
*Did you really not see them? They have been posted several times.
Hangar, I think one of the biggest flaws in your logic is relying on the stance that "the wording is the same" in 3.5 and Pathfinder. D&D and Pathfinder are different games. They have similar but different rule sets. Weapons were "sized" in 3.5, and they are "handed" in Pathfinder. Pathfinder has really refined how one-handed and two-handed weapons are treated, whereas D&D was sloppy.
And that's why this argument can't be resolved using 3.5 logic.
That size difference to handing verbage change has no bearing on ease of use for a weapon. If you use the handing rules and compare them to 3.5 they would still work the same way. Different words, same affect so your statement in this case does not matter if the end result is the same. That is why it can be resolved using 3.5 logic. The only thing that may change is the the bastard sword may actually become a one-handed weapon, but since the end result of this section is that rules play out the same way, there was no need for a language change.
I've been telling you from the start that you have to imagine D&D never existed. Imagine it all began with Pathfinder. Your response has been that it should not matter, but it does. 800 posts now in this thread alone should show you that enough people disagree with you to make it a valid point. You continue the same argument, with a sprinkle of tangent findings from dev comments, but the fact remains that if you cracked open a Pathfinder Core Rule Book, and imagined that 3.5 never existed, there would be nothing to support your arguments.Pathfinder is a different game.
People have tried to use that argument with me before and been wrong, just because they were being stubborn. Now when the words change enough to longer be relevant I don't even look at my old 3.5 rulings, but until then you can't say "same words = different meaning", and expect for it to make sense because even if I was new to Pathfinder I would have still arrived at the same conclusion, and still been correct in both cases. Now if there is something significant between the rules sets you can say "oh that does not matter", but slapping a different label on the game, has no bearing on the meaning of words.
Look at that bolded section and tell me what has changed between editions to make me arrive at a different conclusion. From what I am seeing the rules still plays out the same way since the relevant text is basically "can't use the weapon in one hand....".
"Can't" is the same word in almost any book. It is a lack of permission or ability. If there is a PF 2, that verbage will still have the same meaning.
Chemak there is also this..
The measure of how much effort it takes to use a weapon (whether the weapon is designated as a light, one-handed, or two-handed weapon for a particular wielder) is altered by one step for each size category of difference between the wielder's size and the size of the creature for which the weapon was designed. For example, a Small creature would wield a Medium one-handed weapon as a two-handed weapon.No I am not trying to help Malachi, but the weapon's primary designation is what determines how hard it is to wield.
Now back to the bastard sword-->Sorry Malachi.
If the weapon is treated as two-handed for the purpose of handiness with EWP then the bastard sword(large version) is too big for a medium creature. The EWP allows it to be treated as one size smaller for the purpose of handiness. JJ(who is not the rules guy), and SKR(who is a rules guy) both support this.
Then there is that Jason(head rules guy) who said the EWP allows the weapon to be wielded without mention of any penalty.
I am sure you will argue that is all a coincidence, but I don't think all of them making similar statements is a coincidence.
edit:Chemak if I misunderstood you ignore what I said.. :)
. Don't think you misunderstood, but you may not have followed my reasoning, which I'll try to reiterate. A medium bastard sword for a medium creature is a one-handed (effort designation) exotic weapon. The same medium bastard sword for a medium creature is also a two-handed (effort designation) martial weapon. All statistics follow those for one-handed weapons (hit points, for example). We know this because the effort designation applies to an appropriately sized weapon, and the bastard sword is classified as a one-handed weapon. The rule for using a one-handed weapon in two hands is just that: it has no bearing on whether a weapon is two-handed (effort designation).
A large bastard sword wielded by a medium creature follows the...
But what I bolded shows that whether was one-handed or two-handed does not depend how you use it. It is based on the creature's size versus the size of the creature it was designed for, and as the following quote shows this depends on how the weapon is designed, not how it is being used.
a Small creature would wield a Medium one-handed weapon as a two-handed weapon.
As you can the weapon was designed as a medium one handed weapon so that is what you go by when determining the ease of use of the weapon barring special cases.
At best we have a rules conflict, but I don't think there is one, not even by RAW, and we know the intent so there is no need to muddy the waters with semantics. If you think this is a real issue then starting an FAQ on the issue should be the way to go.
Note my response earlier.
This post has 17 pages. Your most recent response was admitting the 1E/2E reply was based on a post in another thread. I don't remember anything you said about a PF ruling or evidence that does not agree with your position, from what myself and other have posted.
[sarcasm]My humblest of apologies. I was unaware of the superior quality and quantity of substantive evidence that you possessed in relation to ours.[/sarcasm]Everybody that argues a position believes they have a "substantive support" on their side.I recognize that. That's why I said I believe I have more substantive support.
Noted, but there's actually a difference in where I'm coming from and why I worded it the way I did. It appears, in this particularly instance, that I am willing to recognize the validity of the basis of my opposition's position. I understand that there is substantive support on that side as well. The opposition (at least one particular member of it) is apparently unwilling to extend that same courtesy. I'm not the one running around claiming somebody has no logical reason whatsoever to hold the position that they do.
Which results in a medium creature using a tiny bastard sword in two-hands as a two-handed weapon. And since the rules on weapon category are still going strong, a two-handed weapon benefits from a better return from Str bonus and Power Attack.
No it wouldn't. Two-Handedness for Power Attack is not the same thing as Two-Handedness for determining who may wield a weapon. I'm not sure how or why you are conflating the two.
This is one of the reasons we've been explicit that you treat it as two-handed only for the purpose of determining who may wield it and how.
|
Two-Handedness for Power Attack is not the same thing as Two-Handedness for determining who may wield a weapon. I'm not sure how or why you are conflating the two.
I think you confuse wielding a weapon in two hands, and the two-handed weapon classification.
Weapon classification is vital in determining how the weapon functions within the rules.
This is why the "fluctuating weapon classification" thing being suggested by some is troublesome.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
*A load of snipped text, thanks forum*
Wraith, I'm absolutely on your side as far as the final outcome is concerned. I'm almost positive that there is a disconnect between what I'm saying and what you're reading, though (please correct me if I'm wrong).
1) All weapons have an effort designation: light, one-handed, or two-handed. These are defined game terms, and must be read as such.
2) All weapons have a size, which describes the creature size the weapon is designed for. The CRB describes weapons of Small and Medium size.
3) If a weapon is being wielded by a creature of a size it is not designed for, the effort designation changes, and becomes unusable if the effort designation goes lower than light or higher than two-handed.
4) A bastard sword is a one-handed weapon. To use it as a one-handed weapon, the wielder must have EWP (Bastard Sword). It has hit points and other statistics derived from it being a one-handed weapon.
5) A bastard sword has a special rule that says that if the wielder has MWP it is a two-handed weapon.
6) The rules for effort designation clearly differentiate between using a one-handed weapon in two hands and using a two-handed weapon.
7) The special rule for the bastard sword uses the defined game term "two-handed".
8) Other places in the rules (such as the Power Attack feat) also make a clear distinction between using a two-handed weapon and using a one-handed weapon in two hands.
Conclusion: the special rule for the bastard sword applies the effort designation of two-handed to a bastard sword of appropriate size to a wielder who has MWP. Increasing that bastard sword's size to large makes it unusable with MWP for a medium wielder, but a medium wielder with EWP (Bastard Sword) is using it as a two-handed weapon.
I'm not trying to make the bastard sword magically change size, or anything like that: I'm saying that the term "two-handed" is a defined effort designation in the game rules, and that when it is used in the description of the bastard sword, it is being used in that sense, not in the sense "one-handed used in two hands" that some are making it out to be. None of this changes that a bastard sword is a one-handed weapon.
The upshot of all this is that Amiri must have EWP (Bastard Sword) to use her weapon as a two-handed one. Because to a medium creature with MWP it is unusable. That's the RAW, and any other interpretation requires that the term "two-handed" in the description of the bastard sword be the only place in the rules where that term is not being used as an effort designation.
Now, as for whether a character should be able to one-hand it and eat the non-proficiency penalty (assuming it's appropriately-sized), I think it should be allowed, since that would truly make it fall between the long sword and the greatsword.
The upshot of all this is that Amiri must have EWP (Bastard Sword) to use her weapon as a two-handed one. Because to a medium creature with MWP it is unusable. That's the RAW, and any other interpretation requires that the term "two-handed" in the description of the bastard sword be the only place in the rules where that term is not being used as an effort designation.
We agree. :)
|
| 1 person marked this as FAQ candidate. |
*A load of snipped text, thanks forum*Wraith, I'm absolutely on your side as far as the final outcome is concerned. I'm almost positive that there is a disconnect between what I'm saying and what you're reading, though (please correct me if I'm wrong).
1) All weapons have an effort designation: light, one-handed, or two-handed. These are defined game terms, and must be read as such.
2) All weapons have a size, which describes the creature size the weapon is designed for. The CRB describes weapons of Small and Medium size.
3) If a weapon is being wielded by a creature of a size it is not designed for, the effort designation changes, and becomes unusable if the effort designation goes lower than light or higher than two-handed.
4) A bastard sword is a one-handed weapon. To use it as a one-handed weapon, the wielder must have EWP (Bastard Sword). It has hit points and other statistics derived from it being a one-handed weapon.
5) A bastard sword has a special rule that says that if the wielder has MWP it is a two-handed weapon.
6) The rules for effort designation clearly differentiate between using a one-handed weapon in two hands and using a two-handed weapon.
7) The special rule for the bastard sword uses the defined game term "two-handed".
8) Other places in the rules (such as the Power Attack feat) also make a clear distinction between using a two-handed weapon and using a one-handed weapon in two hands.Conclusion: the special rule for the bastard sword applies the effort designation of two-handed to a bastard sword of appropriate size to a wielder who has MWP. Increasing that bastard sword's size to large makes it unusable with MWP for a medium wielder, but a medium wielder with EWP (Bastard Sword) is using it as a two-handed weapon.
I'm not trying to make the bastard sword magically change size, or anything like that: I'm saying that the term "two-handed" is a defined effort designation in the game rules, and that when it is used in the description of the...
I admire the structured way you've presented your argument. It makes it very easy to see where you've gone wrong, and I've bolded that part.
Specifically, you're reading...
A character can use a bastard sword two-handed as a martial weapon
...as if it said...
A character can use a bastard sword as a two-handed martial weapon
The position of words in a sentence affects their meaning. In the second example, a creature would use is as if it were a two-handed weapon (what you refer to as 'effort designation', what the rules refer to as 'weapon category'. If the rule really was written the second way, then your conclusions would be correct, and so would HangarFlyng, Wraithstrike, fretgod99 and JJ himself! I don't blame you, it's a mistake that many people have been making for the past 11 years, because those words first appeared in 3.5 and they meant the same then as they do now. I was among the people and quickly scanned the line and it stuck in my head the wrong way round, 'as a two-handed martial weapon'.
'Two-handed' can mean two things: it could refer to the weapon category ('effort designation' to you), or it could refer to how a weapon is being wielded (in one or two hands). If you use a one-handed weapon two-handed, the 'effort designation' remains one-handed and the 'two-handed' refers to using it in two hands.
Now, let's look again at the actual text:-
A character can use a bastard sword (which is a one-handed weapon) two-handed (i.e. In two hands) as a martial weapon
So, it remains a one-handed weapon used two-handed.
The devs can certainly errata the text to make it say the way a lot of people imagine it says, but they can't just FAQ the use of sentence construction in the English language.
So, with apologies to HangarFlying, yes, you're reading it wrong.
|
Hangar, I think one of the biggest flaws in your logic is relying on the stance that "the wording is the same" in 3.5 and Pathfinder. D&D and Pathfinder are different games. They have similar but different rule sets. Weapons were "sized" in 3.5, and they are "handed" in Pathfinder. Pathfinder has really refined how one-handed and two-handed weapons are treated, whereas D&D was sloppy. Pathfinder has changed a lot of little rules here and there and it stands as its own subspecies of D&D now. Could you breed them together and have still run a home game? Sure. But it's going to require a lot of houseruling and GM fiat.
And that's why this argument can't be resolved using 3.5 logic.
I've been telling you from the start that you have to imagine D&D never existed. Imagine it all began with Pathfinder. Your response has been that it should not matter, but it does. 800 posts now in this thread alone should show you that enough people disagree with you to make it a valid point. You continue the same argument, with a sprinkle of tangent findings from dev comments, but the fact remains that if you cracked open a Pathfinder Core Rule Book, and imagined that 3.5 never existed, there would be nothing to support your arguments.
Pathfinder is a different game.
Weapons were sized in 3.0, they changed to handiness in 3.5. Regarding that specifically, PF and 3.5 are the same, as far as I'm aware.
Weapon size is mentioned in PF but it is not the exact same wording. however the working of the rules has not changed. It is just easier to read so that 3.5 does not apply does not stand especially since backwards compatibility was the main selling point. The other issue is that most of the core rules were just copy and paste. If the changes were as varied as they were between 2nd and 3rd edition that argument would make a lot more sense.
A character can use a bastard sword two-handed as a martial weapon..
Actually you can't only use part of a rule to make a case. The rest of of it says the weapon cant be weilded in one hand so you if you can use it two-handed as a martial weapon, the rules also restricts one handed use barring EWP then your only option is to use it in two hands as a martial weapon..
Effectively you are stuck with using it as a two handed martial weapon without EWP.
You sir can try all of the legal gymnastics and rules lawyering you want, but every dev quote we have mentioned is against you.
You can argue RAW, which you are failing to do properly but no matter how you look at it I think you know how this is most likely to come down.
Unless you find something to make us think the devs intended to anything other than what I have been arguing, and so far you have not, there is not much else left to be said.
Now if you can reconcile the quotes we have list as being the opposite of what they meant I would like to hear your explanation of what they(the devs) actually meant.
Two-Handedness for Power Attack is not the same thing as Two-Handedness for determining who may wield a weapon. I'm not sure how or why you are conflating the two.I think you confuse wielding a weapon in two hands, and the two-handed weapon classification.
Weapon classification is vital in determining how the weapon functions within the rules.
This is why the "fluctuating weapon classification" thing being suggested by some is troublesome.
Not relevant? The point being made was that if it's a "two-handed" weapon, then a person using an undersized ("light" equivalent) weapon would still get the 1.5 STR bonus (Lance FAQ). I'm clarifying. No, that would not happen. Because the only purpose for which the weapons would be treated as two-handed is determining who may wield them and how. For all other purposes, they're one-handed weapons. That's it. That's all there is to it. There is literally nothing else about the weapon that is or would be treated differently. It is not complicated.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I do appreciate your continued willingness to debate the point, Malachi, and it is certainly a refreshing change from the vitriol spewed in other places on the Internet (I am reminded of a certain XKCD strip...). I firmly believe that my point still stands: that the use of the term "two-handed" in the bastard sword description is significant. If it said "in two hands", I would concede the point to you. I'd think it was odd, but you would have won me over. But it doesn't. It uses the defined game term "two-handed". Your argument stems from the understanding that in this instance it is referring to "using with two hands" rather than the game defined term "two-handed".
Imagine there was a hyperlink on the term "two-handed" in the bastard sword description. The full text would read like this (some irrelevant bits snipped for brevity):
Sword, Bastard: A bastard sword is about 4 feet in length, making it too large to use in one hand without special training; thus, it is an exotic weapon. A character can use a bastard sword two-handedas a martial weapon....Two-Handed Melee Weapons: This designation is a measure of how much effort it takes to wield a weapon in combat. It indicates whether a melee weapon, when wielded by a character of the weapon's size category, is considered a light weapon, a one-handed weapon, or a two-handed weapon.
Two-Handed: Two hands are required to use a two-handed melee weapon effectively. Apply 1-1/2 times the character's Strength bonus to damage rolls for melee attacks with such a weapon.
As has been demonstrated, this appears to be the understanding of the developers, designers, and many people here. I have not done an exhaustive search, but I do not believe that there are any instances in the rules beyond those in question here where the term "two-handed" is used in any context other than that which I have been describing.
And we have the sword magically changes from a one-handed weapon to a two-handed weapon.
And we have the sword magically changes from a one-handed weapon to a two-handed weapon.
That is NOT the argument being made. How a weapon is treated, and what it is are not the same thing..
See Power Attack for examples.. :)
I know you're being sarcastic,
I wasn't being.
but I do find your post a little insulting.
I certainly didn't intend it to be.
You're basically telling me that because I came to my own conclusions on how the bastard sword works 11 years ago, which is apparently been the "official" way it works in all iterations of the game, and because this conclusion is what is apparently used in PFS, that I didn't use logic, reason, or consistency in my own conclusion, and that my conclusion is specifically made to s&*& on other people's idea of fun. I read the same words you did. I came to a different conclusion than you did. Why am I (and everyone else who holds my viewpoint, which includes Paizo, apparently) the a*!!$+&?
Actually I didn't tell you that at all. I said that the game officials for official game purposes (e.g. society play) are not bound to "logic, consistency, game balance understanding, ideas of fun other than their own, or reason" to make these calls. And they are not. They can make a call based solely on the way they "feel" it should work. They are allowed this power due to their position in their place of employment.
Now that isn't to say that they couldn't have employed some* of those aspects and certainly, you, coming to the same conclusion may have employed some of them. But what is it someone else said, two people can come to the same conclusion using different methods.
So if the question is how will the weapon work in official game play situations, then I believe you are absolutely correct in your interpretation. That is exactly how it will work in official game play. Bravo! If the question becomes how should it work and what is the most reasonable way it should work, then that is a much more complex situation.
Since there are rules that are contradicting each other (it is a one-handed weapon that can't be wielding in one-hand at all by the average person, for example, i.e. it is a one-handed weapon that is not a one-handed weapon) we can have a discussion about what is the most rational, balanced, and most likely to increase the enjoyment of those people playing. But in that kind of discussion, appeals to authority are fallacies and do not support a position. I don't think that is necessarily what this discussion intended to be about though.
So I feel completely comfortable based on the quotes that have been shown that you won! Bravo! You're position is the one officially sanctioned by the game officials.
*I haven't seen anyone argue that, for example, allowing the bastard sword to be used one-handed (or a large version two-handed) without EWP at a -4 non-proficiency penalty was going to upset game balance. Not developers, not officials, and not anybody on this board.
I, for one, am completely happy discussing the relative merits of allowing the bastard sword to be used one-handed with a non-proficiency penalty, since I believe that is how it should work. This, however, is not the correct forum for it.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Hangar, I think one of the biggest flaws in your logic is relying on the stance that "the wording is the same" in 3.5 and Pathfinder. D&D and Pathfinder are different games. They have similar but different rule sets. Weapons were "sized" in 3.5, and they are "handed" in Pathfinder. Pathfinder has really refined how one-handed and two-handed weapons are treated, whereas D&D was sloppy. Pathfinder has changed a lot of little rules here and there and it stands as its own subspecies of D&D now. Could you breed them together and have still run a home game? Sure. But it's going to require a lot of houseruling and GM fiat.
And that's why this argument can't be resolved using 3.5 logic.
I've been telling you from the start that you have to imagine D&D never existed. Imagine it all began with Pathfinder. Your response has been that it should not matter, but it does. 800 posts now in this thread alone should show you that enough people disagree with you to make it a valid point. You continue the same argument, with a sprinkle of tangent findings from dev comments, but the fact remains that if you cracked open a Pathfinder Core Rule Book, and imagined that 3.5 never existed, there would be nothing to support your arguments.
Pathfinder is a different game.
Even if, for the sake of argument, we ignore all the 3.5 FAQs and relevant information for the nearly identical (and completely identical insofar as the operative language is concerned) Pathfinder version of the weapon, because you don't think it's relevant (which I still dispute), you still have those pesky responses from actual Pathfinder people saying that the Bastard Sword was, in fact, intended to act precisely in the same manner.
You can call them "tangent developer comments" all you want, it doesn't change the fact that they not only exist, but are very much on point. So, even if we pretended like 3.5 never existed, those comments are still going to be pretty persuasive.
The issue is still that based on using the logic of the 3.5 FAQ to back this all up, the Iconic Amiri can't use a large sized bastard sword at all, even with the feat in two hands, it's been quoted already.
Since this is canon, and without changing any crunch from the 3.5 listings, obviously something in the way the weapon rules interract has changed. We need to know exactly what.
Either they threw out the view that it was a 2 handed weapon and the feat made it 1 handed, which would give us the Amiri result, (though she wouldn't actually need the EWP to 2 hand a 2 handed weapon with martial prof then)
OR
they kept the logic, but with the feat MAKES it a 1 handed weapon, so that sizing it up in 2 hands is legal, but -requires- the feat, at which point they have it listed in the wrong place on the table and they need to fix that so that it actually is written as a 2 handed weapon that has an exception by way of a feat.
TG if the weapon description says it can't be wielded in one hand. That is the rules exception. The problem is that it is not written in the manner in which the katana is written so people want to argue against it. If it were written like that people would probably still not like it, but the intent would be more easier to read.
Since we are asking for an FAQ (I clicked the FAQ button), in addition to how we think the rules work as they are currently written, shouldn't we also include how we think they should work?
I have read the rule arguments for both sides and there is enough ambiguity that it could be read either way. So how should it work?
When I read the rules I see it saying that you can wield the bastard sword with a -4 non-proficiency penalty if you don't have the feat. I can also see how it could be read to not be possible at all. But should it really not be possible?
Sorry to bring reality into this fantasy rules discussion, but I have held a bastard sword at a Ren Fair. It's heavy, but it is not impossible to swing with one hand. It would certainly do more damage than a club if it connected with anything.
Secondly, does it break the game? If your 15th level, super strong, sword and board fighter gets his long sword sundered and picks up the bad guy's bastard sword, would it really be impossible for him to wield other than as an improvised club? And does that really make the game more fun or the story more engaging? I would say it does the opposite.
Twig how fun it is or how game breaking it might be does not matter with regard to what the rules are. Someone else who claimed to have reao life weapon experience said the was very difficult to wield in one hand properly. With that out of the way we have dev quotes and an FAQ. None of them support the penalty.
A bastard sword is not heavy. Even a wizard could carry around 2.5-3 pounds of steel in one hand.
|
|
Look at that bolded section and tell me what has changed between editions to make me arrive at a different conclusion.
It won't matter, because we were both obviously thinking it worked different back in 3.5 as well. You and Hangar keep asking why your interpretation of the rules should change, since the text hasn't, and I feel exactly the same way. Fast forward to today and now the only difference is that we have a 3.5 FAQ changing the designation of the Bastard Sword to two-handed, whereas they choose not to do so in Pathfinder. Or in any of the 6 printings of the book since. So I'm going to keep my interpretation that a Bastard Sword is a one-handed weapon, and if you're not proficient in it, you'd take the standard -4 penalty if you still wished to wield it in one hand, because that's what the rules say you should do:
When using a weapon with which you are not proficient, you take a –4 penalty on attack rolls.
To parrot your argument, Why should my interpretation change, when I think I have more evidence on my side?
Look at that bolded section and tell me what has changed between editions to make me arrive at a different conclusion.It won't matter, because we were both obviously thinking it worked different back in 3.5 as well. You and Hangar keep asking why your interpretation of the rules should change, since the text hasn't, and I feel exactly the same way. Fast forward to today and now the only difference is that we have a 3.5 FAQ changing the designation of the Bastard Sword to two-handed, whereas they choose not to do so in Pathfinder. Or in any of the 6 printings of the book since. So I'm going to keep my interpretation that a Bastard Sword is a one-handed weapon, and if you're not proficient in it, you'd take the standard -4 penalty if you still wished to wield it in one hand, because that's what the rules say you should do:
When using a weapon with which you are not proficient, you take a –4 penalty on attack rolls.To parrot your argument, Why should my interpretation change, when I think I have more evidence on my side?
Because there are Pathfinder developer comments which are relevant and demonstrate their intention to treat the Bastard Sword in the same way as did Pathfinder's predecessors?
An exact response to these threads? Or the FAQ regarding Clerics?
You mean the FAQ that says a cleric worshiping a deity with a favored weapon of Bastard Sword would give him the EWP, and therefore allow him to use the Bastard Sword one-handed? I really have a hard time seeing how this helps the argument that anybody can use the Bastard Sword one-handed.
Look at that bolded section and tell me what has changed between editions to make me arrive at a different conclusion.It won't matter, because we were both obviously thinking it worked different back in 3.5 as well. You and Hangar keep asking why your interpretation of the rules should change, since the text hasn't, and I feel exactly the same way. Fast forward to today and now the only difference is that we have a 3.5 FAQ changing the designation of the Bastard Sword to two-handed, whereas they choose not to do so in Pathfinder. Or in any of the 6 printings of the book since. So I'm going to keep my interpretation that a Bastard Sword is a one-handed weapon, and if you're not proficient in it, you'd take the standard -4 penalty if you still wished to wield it in one hand, because that's what the rules say you should do:
When using a weapon with which you are not proficient, you take a –4 penalty on attack rolls.To parrot your argument, Why should my interpretation change, when I think I have more evidence on my side?
So you are saying the devs for Pathfinder and 3.5 are wrong?
Remember we did supply quotes that have them going with our interpretation.
edit:I am not asking about RAW, not that I think you would be right about that either, but RAI?
An exact response to these threads? Or the FAQ regarding Clerics?
The FAQ saying the feat allows a cleric to use the bastard sword in one hand. It says nothing about removing a penalty. It has been quoted and linked to several times.
SKR said the Flambard which like the bastard sword if you have the EWP(bastard sword) allows you to use it in one hand.
SKR also said you need the EWP feat to wield a large bastard sword in one hand IIRC, but even if not the Flambard quote is enough..
Quoting them again won't be difficult.
Did you really just not see them?
|
|
I have indeed seen them, else I wouldn't have referenced them.
Those are the "tangent" developer comments I often refer to. You quote them as though they are the solution and end-all to this discussion, when in fact they were simply answers to entirely different questions.
They can certainly be used as evidence for your side. I do not think it's irrefutable. As I've mentioned before, anyone who ever argues a point believes their evidence and logic is always superior to that of the opposition.
I have indeed seen them, else I wouldn't have referenced them.
Those are the "tangent" developer comments I often refer to. You quote them as though they are the solution and end-all to this discussion, when in fact they were simply answers to entirely different questions.
They can certainly be used as evidence for your side. I do not think it's irrefutable. As I've mentioned before, anyone who ever argues a point believes their evidence and logic is always superior to that of the opposition.
So why don't you believe they are the intent? If you are going to dismiss the evidence I would assume you had some logic behind your reasoning.
Another way of asking would be-->"Why do you think those statements support your interpretation of RAI?"
If you disagree you must believe that the rules team does not agree with us despite what we have quoted.
|
|
I disagree; I believe the rules team does not agree with you; and I believe the quotes you have found were addressing different questions at different times, and have no bearing on this discussion. I haven't ignored anything. I simply do not interpret your evidence as strongly as you do, which makes sense, since we obviously interpreted the initial text of the Bastard Sword differently from the beginning.
But we've already gone back and forth about this. I wish not to do it again. I believe I have rules on my side, you believe you have rules on your side. We both believe our evidence is stronger than that of the other side. We've come to a head. There's nothing more I can do to convince you or you can do to convince me. We have 1,000+ comments about this, and probably half of them are just repeating what we've already said before. I'm happy at this point just waiting for a ruling.
You have also failed to explain what they mean by those quotes, if they are not supporting my side, but that is enough evidence me to believe you are just holding out.
You can say they were addressing different questions, but they are either for or against my interpretation.
If not answering the question in my previous post is all you have then I guess there is no more to be said.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Both quotes I provided from James Jacob were about using the bastard sword. And I even mentioned that he wasn't a rules guy. The first quote I gave was a guy asking specifically what penalties he would take if he wielded it in one hand without the proficiency, which was replied with he couldn't. The second one was how Amiri was built and explaining the only way she could use the large bastard sword. They were addressing questions that were exactly similar to the OP, which was how can it be used, which is what we asked in the first place.
Twig how fun it is or how game breaking it might be does not matter with regard to what the rules are.
True. But it does matter with regard to what the rules should be.
Someone else who claimed to have reao life weapon experience said the was very difficult to wield in one hand properly.
Yes, difficult, not impossible. Honestly it was quite difficult for me, but I am not a big guy. The 6'4" guy that was also there had no difficulty at all using it the first time he picked it up. Really it has more to do with size and strength than training. However, I understand the game balance reason for requiring a feat. A -4 penalty without the feat is where it should be. In my humble opinion, of course.
With that out of the way we have dev quotes and an FAQ. None of them support the penalty.
But they should... ;-)
I've answered you. Many have. But, again, our answers just aren't good enough for you. So, yes, there is likely little more that can be said, as I said in my last post, lol.
Actually you talked around the question. Replying to someone and specifically answering a question are not the same thing.
Brad:Hello. What time is it?
James:The sky is blue. <runs off>
Brad:<confused>
Wraithstrike, while I agree with your stance in general and believe that is the intent, I agree with Nefreet in that the developer quotes - while evidence - isn't really strong evidence. Since the questions asked there where of a different nature, the answers may simply have been sloppily written in regards to other rules that weren't part of the question at the time. I don't think that's the way it is, but it is possible and not horribly unlikely.
I think they're stronger evidence than the other side, mostly because of the 3.5 FAQ which some regard as irrelevant (and there is some merit to that) but only because the other side's evidence is even more weak.