Official Rules Response
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
FAQ: http://paizo.com/paizo/faq/v5748nruor1fm#v5748eaic9qut
Exotic Weapons and Hands: If a weapon is wielded two-handed as a martial weapon and one-handed with an exotic weapon proficiency, can I wield it one-handed without the exotic proficiency at a –4 penalty?
No.
Note that normally you can't wield a two-handed weapon in one hand. A bastard sword is an exception to that rule that you can't wield a two-handed weapon in one hand, but you must have special training to use the bastard sword this way. Without that special training, wielding a bastard sword one-handed is as impossible as wielding a greatsword one-handed.
(The same goes for other weapons with this one-handed exotic exception, such as the dwarven waraxe.)
Edit 7/26/13: Correction of a typo in the second sentence that said "you can't wield a two-handed weapon in two hands."
I think this ruling would have been much less confusing had you just used the question I posed in the other thread. The way this is written is sounds like all of those one-handed exotic weapons are being reclassified as two-handed weapons.
I don't see where you're getting that idea. The FAQ is addressing the "if I'm not proficient in wielding it one-handed, can I do so non-proficiently at the –4 nonproficiency penalty?" question. The answer to that is "no." The question has nothing to do with dwarves wielding dwarven waraxes one-handed; a dwarven waraxe is on the weapons table as a 1H weapon, and dwarf with martial weapon proficiency can wield it as a 1H weapon, just like they could yesterday. Weapons aren't being reclassified at all.
The way I read the design intent (I'm sure I'll be corrected by someone somewhere if this doesn't make sense) is that they are one-handed exotic weapons that have a special caveat: cannot be used one-handed by a non-proficient user, plus they have an additional caveat: may be used as a two-handed martial weapon.
They have hit points like a one-handed bladed weapon. They have the size of a one-handed bladed weapon. But if you haven't got EWP with them, treat them like you would a greatsword/greataxe/whatever for all other properties.
BBT, stop bringing up irrelevant questions. You're only confusing the issue.
|
No.
Note that normally you can't wield a two-handed weapon in one hand. A bastard sword is an exception to that rule that you can't wield a two-handed weapon in two hands, but you must have special training to use the bastard sword this way. Without that special training, wielding a bastard sword one-handed is as impossible as wielding a greatsword one-handed.
(The same goes for other weapons with this one-handed exotic exception, such as the dwarven waraxe.)
PDT, is the bolded part a typo? I would think it would say "...an exception to the rule that you can't wield a two-handed weapon in one hand..." considering you can normally wield a two-handed weapon in two hands. ;-)
PDT, is the bolded part a typo? I would think it would say "...an exception to the rule that you can't wield a two-handed weapon in one hand..." considering you can normally wield a two-handed weapon in two hands. ;-)
No.
Note that normally you can't wield a two-handed weapon in one hand. A bastard sword is an exception to that rule that you can't wield a two-handed weapon in two hands, but you must have special training to use the bastard sword this way. Without that special training, wielding a bastard sword one-handed is as impossible as wielding a greatsword one-handed.
(The same goes for other weapons with this one-handed exotic exception, such as the dwarven waraxe.)
Can you? Are you sure? LOL
The way I read the design intent (I'm sure I'll be corrected by someone somewhere if this doesn't make sense) is that they are one-handed exotic weapons that have a special caveat: cannot be used one-handed by a non-proficient user, plus they have an additional caveat: may be used as a two-handed martial weapon.
They have hit points like a one-handed bladed weapon. They have the size of a one-handed bladed weapon. But if you haven't got EWP with them, treat them like you would a greatsword/greataxe/whatever for all other properties.
Wouldn't that make it an exception to the rules of a one-handed weapon, not an exception to the rules for a two-handed weapon like they said?
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
We've been given 3 pieces of information (across the threads and the FAQ):
1) It is a one-handed weapon.
2) It cannot be wielded one-handed without EWP.
3) If you haven't got EWP, treat it like a greatsword.
Everything else falls out of those three points pretty cleanly, if you ask me.
So, a medium PC can't wield a small Bastard Sword in one hand?
A weapon that is treated as two-handed for a small creature is treated as one-handed for a medium creature. Feel free to inbox me.
It is not treated as a two handed weapon.
It still never stops being an one-handed weapon.
It is just an one handed weapon, that must be wielded in two hands.
I still have not seen it ruled as changing classification, depending on proficiency.
I mean for the purpose of who can wield it, the creature it is sized for treats it as two-handed for that purpose. that means a larger creature treats it as one category lighter for the purpose of wielding.
It is not treated as a two handed weapon.
It still never stops being an one-handed weapon.
It is just an one handed weapon, that must be wielded in two hands.
I still have not seen it ruled as changing classification, depending on proficiency.
The FAQ had made the intent clear, even if the words in the book have not changed. Basically it follows the wording for the katana for the purpose of intent and handiness. If you want them to specifically say that you may need another thread to FAQ.
So, does having no non-proficiency penalty change this restriction?
What do you mean?
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
Can you wield a greatsword one-handed non-proficiently with a –4 penalty? No.
So why would you think you can do so with a bastard sword? The sword description says:
Do you have that special training (EWP)? No? Then you can't wield it one-handed.
This reiterates the previous point: without that special training (EWP), you use it as if it were a two-handed martial weapon, meaning you can't wield it in one hand, just like you can't wield a greatsword (a two-handed martial weapon) in one hand.
Feel free to argue "I don't have the necessary proficiency to wield a greatsword in one hand, so I'm just going to do it without proficiency, at a –4." That argument has no merit.
So why would you think you can make that very same argument, except with a bastard sword? The sword's own description says the only way you can use it one-handed is if you have special training (the EWP feat), so if you don't have that special training, you can't use it one-handed. You can't just say "I wield it without proficiency" and ignore the item's explicit limitations.
I think you're being willfully ignorant about understanding this because this ruling differs from how you wanted it to work.
I don't see how he can make it any clearer.
|
|
It is not willful ignorance. I know what the text says.
It is an exception, within an exception, and I am looking to understand why, and what that means.
It never becomes a two handed weapon, or is treated as one.
Unless, that is changing too.
No one is saying that it becomes a two handed weapon. The PDT is telling you that it is treated as one if you don't have the EWP. Which is exactly what a handful of us have been saying all along.
|
|
It is being suggested that it becomes a different classification of weapon, depending on proficiency.
This is why it is not a greatsword.
No. I don't know how many times it must be repeated, there is no classification change. There is no suggestion, implication, or otherwise.
If you don't have the EWP, you treat it as if it were a two-handed weapon. That isn't a change in weapon classification. That is a clarification of how you act with the weapon if you don't have the EWP.
If you don't have the EWP, to you wield the bastard sword in the same way that you would wield a greatsword.
It really isn't difficult. You are making it difficult.
|
A character can use a bastard sword two-handed as a martial weapon.
This reiterates the previous point: without that special training (EWP), you use it as if it were a two-handed martial weapon, meaning you can't wield it in one hand, just like you can't wield a greatsword (a two-handed martial weapon) in one hand.
That's not what the weapon description says!
The description say, '...can use a bastard sword two-handed (meaning 'in two hands') as a martial weapon (as opposed to an exotic weapon).'
Then SKR writes as if it said 'can use it as a two-handed martial weapon'. This would mean you treat the weapon as not only martial instead of exotic (as it says in the description), but also as a different weapon category, which the description definately does not say!
It's a one-handed weapon. The fact that you can't wield a two-handed weapon (like a greatsword) in one hand is irrelavant!
Can you wield a longsword in one hand? Yes. Therefore, you should be able to wield any other one-handed weapon in one hand, like a....bastard sword, for example!
Of course, if you're not proficient then you'd incur a -4 attack penalty.
|
Can you wield a longsword in one hand? Yes. Therefore, you should be able to wield any other one-handed weapon in one hand, like a....bastard sword, for example!
Unless the rule printed for that weapon explicitly says you cannot.
It was unfortunate that this FAQ had to be made, since its existence seems to suggest that the plain written meaning of the rules for the bastard sword is open to question. I would hope we are past that and can talk about rule interactions that actually raise a conflict.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Malachi, I think it's time to drop it. Going all for the RAWiest RAWy-RAW to nitpick and object to the design team itself is pointless and kind of bad manners.
This isn't the FAQ I'd hoped for either, but opposing it by screaming RAAAAAWWWW is kinda rude.
A character can use a bastard sword two-handed as a martial weapon.
This reiterates the previous point: without that special training (EWP), you use it as if it were a two-handed martial weapon, meaning you can't wield it in one hand, just like you can't wield a greatsword (a two-handed martial weapon) in one hand.
That's not what the weapon description says!
The description say, '...can use a bastard sword two-handed (meaning 'in two hands') as a martial weapon (as opposed to an exotic weapon).'
Then SKR writes as if it said 'can use it as a two-handed martial weapon'. This would mean you treat the weapon as not only martial instead of exotic (as it says in the description), but also as a different weapon category, which the description definately does not say!
It's a one-handed weapon. The fact that you can't wield a two-handed weapon (like a greatsword) in one hand is irrelavant!
Can you wield a longsword in one hand? Yes. Therefore, you should be able to wield any other one-handed weapon in one hand, like a....bastard sword, for example!
Of course, if you're not proficient then you'd incur a -4 attack penalty.
Are you seriously going to argue with the PDT what their own intent is, when they literally just came out and very clearly explained what that intent actually is?
As I said before, as was just reclarified, it remains a one-handed exotic weapon. It is treated like (but does not actually become) a two-handed martial weapon for anybody who does not have the relevant EWP feat (or isn't a Dwarf for a DWA, etc.) for the purpose of determining who may wield the weapon and how, and for that purpose alone.
This also answers the question as to whether a person may wield an oversized version of one of these weapons. The answer is you can do so, but only if you have the relevant feat/ability that allows you to wield a properly sized weapon in one hand.
And, as I said, all of this could be clarified by issuing a FAQ. No errata is necessary.
According to the reply, their intent is for the bastard sword to be a two-handed weapon (otherwise it would be an exception to the one-handed weapons, not the two-handed weapons). I suggest in the future they move the weapon into the category they intend it to be.
According to the reply, their intent is for the bastard sword to be a two-handed weapon (otherwise it would be an exception to the one-handed weapons, not the two-handed weapons). I suggest in the future they move the weapon into the category they intend it to be.
It's a one-handed exotic weapon that can only be wielded that way with the feat. That's precisely what SKR noted as well.
|
|
Malachi, I think it's time to drop it. Going all for the RAWiest RAWy-RAW to nitpick and object to the design team itself is pointless and kind of bad manners.
This isn't the FAQ I'd hoped for either, but opposing it by screaming RAAAAAWWWW is kinda rude.
The design team should make the rule match their intent. It's bad game design to intend the rules to mean one thing, yet have the written rule say the opposite!
They should errata 'can be used two-handed as a martial weapon', which means one thing, to read 'can be used as a two-handed martial weapon', which means quite another.
Malachi, I think it's time to drop it. Going all for the RAWiest RAWy-RAW to nitpick and object to the design team itself is pointless and kind of bad manners.
This isn't the FAQ I'd hoped for either, but opposing it by screaming RAAAAAWWWW is kinda rude.
The design team should make the rule match their intent. It's bad game design to intend the rules to mean one thing, yet have the written rule say the opposite!
They should errata 'can be used two-handed as a martial weapon', which means one thing, to read 'can be used as a two-handed martial weapon', which means quite another.
They could do that if they want. They don't need to because it's not necessary. Despite your insistence otherwise, it's perfectly possible (and not difficult) to get to this understanding of the rules from those which are already explicitly written. I know this because a number of us got precisely there using only that.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
According to the reply, their intent is for the bastard sword to be a two-handed weapon (otherwise it would be an exception to the one-handed weapons, not the two-handed weapons). I suggest in the future they move the weapon into the category they intend it to be.It's a one-handed exotic weapon that can only be wielded that way with the feat. That's precisely what SKR noted as well.
Well if that was their intention, they really flubbed it.
Note that normally you can't wield a two-handed weapon in one hand.
If their intention was what you say, then they should have said, "Note that normally you CAN wield a ONE-handed weapon in one hand."
The fact that they were talking about a two-handed weapon, means they intend for it to be a ... two-handed weapon, not a one-handed weapon.
A bastard sword is an exception to that rule that you can't wield a two-handed weapon in two hands, but you must have special training to use the bastard sword this way.
They should have said, "A bastard sword is an exception to that rule that you CAN wield a ONE-handed weapon in ONE hand, INSTEAD you must have special training to use the bastard sword this way."
Again, they are talking about it being an exception to the two-handed weapon rules (such as a lance is), instead of an exception to the one-handed weapon rules.
Without that special training, wielding a bastard sword one-handed is as impossible as wielding a greatsword one-handed.
(The same goes for other weapons with this one-handed exotic exception, such as the dwarven waraxe.)
I wonder, if it is as impossible as a greatsword, would that also imply that is equally as possible to do so. So, yes Jotungrip should allow it. I mean it would create a weird situation where a barbarian could wield a longsword one-handed, greatsword one-handed, elven curved blade one-handed, but not a bastard sword one-handed.
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
They should have said, "A bastard sword is an exception to that rule that you CAN wield a ONE-handed weapon in ONE hand, INSTEAD you must have special training to use the bastard sword this way."
As with many weird things in the Core Rulebook, we had about 45 seconds to put together the book, and had to focus our time on big problems like "barbarians have no interesting class feature choices" and "sorcerers have the same problem," rather than time on "the bastard sword language is weird and could be clarified a bit, even though it's had this wording for 10 years and people were able to use it despite that weirdness."
|
Before this ruling, there was either proficiency, or non-proficiency.
If you were proficient with a weapon, cool.
If you weren't, then you'd take a -4 penalty whenever you tried to use it.
This ruling makes a new classification of proficiency, limited to 4 weapons. It's another exception to the rules, when one was not needed. It's an exception that is listed nowhere in the CRB. It's an exception you can only get by going online. It should have just been left as it was. This will only cause confusion going forward.
This ruling makes a new classification of proficiency, limited to 4 weapons. It's another exception to the rules, when one was not needed. It's an exception that is listed nowhere in the CRB. It's an exception you can only get by going online. It should have just been left as it was. This will only cause confusion going forward.
Yeah, we didn't need any sort of language to explain why a bastard sword is neither a 1H longsword or a 2H greatsword, and works differently from either. Shoulda just left it out of the game. Because everyone knows that more options means less fun!