The question is, in the description of a bastard sword or dwarven waraxe, is the text stating you cannot wield it in one hand fluff text which explains why they are exotic weapons, or crunch text, forcing an additional restriction in addition to being exotic?Well put! I'll FAQ this as well. It's a different question to the one about using it 'as' a two-handed weapon.
I asked if it was flavor text in my opening post. :)
|
I asked if it was flavor text in my opening post. :)The question is, in the description of a bastard sword or dwarven waraxe, is the text stating you cannot wield it in one hand fluff text which explains why they are exotic weapons, or crunch text, forcing an additional restriction in addition to being exotic?Well put! I'll FAQ this as well. It's a different question to the one about using it 'as' a two-handed weapon.
I like the way he put it. : )
Also, while I read your initial text first, I didn't check out your edit until much later.
You're doing good work though, trying to get answers!
So are the design team! Even if I don't like some of the answers, at least they are doing a good job of being unambiguous.
I just wanted to mention the katana is in the same boat as the bastard sword and Dwarven war axe.
I am sure jotungrip would allow you to weild a bastard sword in one hand. The idea behind the weapon is that it is large enough that the average user needs two hands tos use it, but with EWP you do it with one hand.In order for that idea to work it was listed as a one handed exotic weapon. Now they could have made it a two handed martial weapon that you could weild in one hand with EWP but no matter how they word it the end result would be the same. Well it would have more hit points but other than that it would not matter much.
|
|
I am sure jotungrip would allow you to weild a bastard sword in one hand. The idea behind the weapon is that it is large enough that the average user needs two hands tos use it, but with EWP you do it with one hand.In order for that idea to work it was listed as a one handed exotic weapon. Now they could have made it a two handed martial weapon that you could weild in one hand with EWP but no matter how they word it the end result would be the same. Well it would have more hit points but other than that it would not matter much.
First, if these weapons were written as two-handed weapons which could be used in one hand with the correct feat, then this thread wouldn't exist! We'd all agree on how it works.
Second, although what you say about using Jotungrip to use a bastard sword one handed without the EWP makes sense, I've recently learned to my cost that 'making sense' doesn't seem to be a priority. : )
Like it or not, Jotungrip allows you to wield a two-handed weapon in one hand. It does absolutely nothing to help you wield a one-handed weapon (like a bastard sword), even if you can only wield it in two hands if that line is crunch.
Yet another reason to believe that the line is fluff.
Of course, he could just wield it with one hand, at -4.You know, like every other Exotic One-handed weapon.
... that doesn't explicitly say it can't be wielded one-handed.
You know, aside from the fact that the books say you can't do that, you could totally do that.
Jotungrip works with two-handed weapons.
It does nothing for one-handed weapons.
Of course, he could just wield it with one hand, at -4.
You know, like every other Exotic One-handed weapon.
The weapon is treated as a two handed martial weapon without Ewp. Yeah i know RAW doea not say that but I am sure that is what the devs will say when. they chime in.
The weapon is treated as a two handed martial weapon without Ewp. Yeah i know RAW doea not say that but I am sure that is what the devs will say when. they chime in.
Well, I hope that is not what they say, because that opens even larger cans of worms.
How many hit points does a bastard sword have? What size is it? Does it have fewer hit points against a Sunder attempt if I happen to be skilled with the weapon?
I think the simplest solution is to invoke "specific trumps general." You can wield any one-handed exotic weapon without proficiency at -4 except for the weapons whose descriptions say otherwise..
It's not even like there's something unusual about rules exceptions. :
Bolas: You can't be tripped during your own trip attempt when using a bolas.
Chain, Spiked: You can use the Weapon Finess feat [...] even though it isn't a light weapon.
Curve Blade, Elven: You can use the Weapon Finess feat [...] even though it isn't a light weapon.
Gauntlets: Your opponent cannot use a disarm action to disarm you of gauntlets.
Gauntet, Spiked: Your opponent cannot use a disarm action to disarm you of spiked gauntlets.
... and that's only up to the G's in the Core book.
I think the only substantive difference is that there are generally in the players' favor, so the players simply whine less. I certainly expect that BBT would complain loudly if I said "oh, the immunity to disarm is simply flavor text" and had the ogre rip his hand right off his arm.
I've recently learned to my cost that 'making sense' doesn't seem to be a priority. : )
If you mean the bonus feat thread the problem was that you tried to use real world logic to figure a rule out. Rules logic and real world logic don't often agree. When reading the book ignore what you want and do what the book says. If the book says you need two hands for a one handed then it takes two hands.
I've recently learned to my cost that 'making sense' doesn't seem to be a priority. : )If you mean the bonus feat thread the problem was that you tried to use real world logic to figure a rule out. Rules logic and real world logic don't often agree. When reading the book ignore what you want and do what the book says. If the book says you need two hands for a one handed then it takes two hands.
I'm not sure what the "making sense" issue is. Granting that a bastard sword is intermediate in size between a one-handed and a two-handed weapon (it was called a "hand and a half sword" for a reason), it will not fit cleanly into either category. That's true historically as well; the manuals of arms didn't know what to do with it. It's too small for a two-handed weapon, and too large for a one handed weapon.
As far as I can tell, the designers had three choices:
* Make a special new category for 1-1/2 handed weapons. I hope we agree that down that path lies madness. (Although that's what the historical fencing masters did, but they didn't have to deal with every weapon under the sun...)
* Treat the bastard sword in all respects like a two handed weapon, but make a special exception to the rule that you can't wield a two-handed weapon one-handed. This is superficially cleaner but may also break some other rules like weapon size and hit points.
* Treat the bastard sword in all respects like a one handed weapon if you know how to use it. Otherwise, make a special exception to the various rules about one-handed weapons.
The designers took the third door. You might have preferred the second door, but, given that none of the choices were actually very good, I don't think that you can claim the third door doesn't "mak[e] sense."
I've recently learned to my cost that 'making sense' doesn't seem to be a priority. : )If you mean the bonus feat thread the problem was that you tried to use real world logic to figure a rule out. Rules logic and real world logic don't often agree. When reading the book ignore what you want and do what the book says. If the book says you need two hands for a one handed then it takes two hands.
I'm not sure what the "making sense" issue is. Granting that a bastard sword is intermediate in size between a one-handed and a two-handed weapon (it was called a "hand and a half sword" for a reason), it will not fit cleanly into either category. That's true historically as well; the manuals of arms didn't know what to do with it. It's too small for a two-handed weapon, and too large for a one handed weapon.
As far as I can tell, the designers had three choices:
* Make a special new category for 1-1/2 handed weapons. I hope we agree that down that path lies madness. (Although that's what the historical fencing masters did, but they didn't have to deal with every weapon under the sun...)* Treat the bastard sword in all respects like a two handed weapon, but make a special exception to the rule that you can't wield a two-handed weapon one-handed. This is superficially cleaner but may also break some other rules like weapon size and hit points.
* Treat the bastard sword in all respects like a one handed weapon if you know how to use it. Otherwise, make a special exception to the various rules about one-handed weapons.
The designers took the third door. You might have preferred the second door, but, given that none of the choices were actually very good, I don't think that you can claim the third door doesn't "mak[e] sense."
He is sayign that it would make sense for it to work as a two-handed weapon when it is used as a martial weapon, but the book does not list it as a two-handed weapon, so he is not sure that is the intent.
Part of that is a reference to the "fighter bonus feat" thread where he presented an answer that made sense in the gameworld, but did not made sense rules wise since it went against what was in the book.
Personally, I think the intent is clear.
He is sayign that it would make sense for it to work as a two-handed weapon when it is used as a martial weapon, ...
Would it? So, more hit points then if I'm holding it in two hands?
Would it? So, more hit points then if I'm holding it in two hands?
He is sayign that it would make sense for it to work as a two-handed weapon when it is used as a martial weapon, ...
Let me rephrase that. "as if" it were a two-handed weapon..
IIRC, in the 3.5 PH, They listed Bastard Swords on the Two Handed Martial list AND the One Handed Exotic List, but no longer do so in the PF CRB. It seems like it's considered One Handed and if you're proficient with Martial Weapons, it gives you a special exception to use a Bastard Sword two handed if you find one on the ground after the rust monster eats your greatsword.
So I have a few questions:
Are there any feats or abilities that it being only a One Handed Weapon will affect? Like a duelist needs one handed piercing weapons?
If it's actually a One Handed weapon, does that mean if I'm only proficient in Simple Weapons, can I use a Bastard Sword one handed at -4? Or would I be trapped as two handing it?
...Are we now discussing whether "wield two-handed as a martial weapon" actually means "wield as a two-handed martial weapon" instead?
I'm not sure. I still don't know what happens when you split that particular hair. It's a term of art that I'm not yet comfortable that I understand.
RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
...Are we now discussing whether "wield two-handed as a martial weapon" actually means "wield as a two-handed martial weapon" instead?I'm not sure. I still don't know what happens when you split that particular hair. It's a term of art that I'm not yet comfortable that I understand.
"Term of art"? What do you mean by that?
It's a simple matter of connecting adjectives/adverbs to their objects, which is fundamental to basic english literacy.
Since the phrase is "wield two-handed as a martial weapon", then "two-handed" is an adverb which describes the manner in which you "wield"; and "martial" is an adjective which describes "weapon" (the resulting object, "martial weapon" is then referenced by the verb "as" to indicate that the manner in which you "wield" is the same as the manner in which one would wield a "martial weapon").
If instead the phrase were "wield as a two-handed martial weapon", then "two-handed" and "martial" would both be adjectives defining the object "weapon" (with the verb "as" referencing the resulting object "two-handed martial weapon" to indicate that the manner in which you "wield" is the same as the manner in which one would wield a "two-handed martial weapon").
The key difference, obviously, is whether "two-handed" describes the weapon whose wielding you emulate; or whether "two-handed" is itself a description of the act of wielding, regardless of the nature of the weapon. Being able to identify that kind of difference is essential to fluency in the language.
Unfortunetly, meny poeple thes dayz jsut kind of barrel throgh wrods adn fill in teh blanks wiht thier own assumtions of wat it must be sayng, wich is very unhelpful whn it coms to interpetng rules.
I think we got everyone on the same page that a bastard sword is and always will be a 1-handed weapon.
The only question left now, is can you wield a bastard sword in one hand at a -4 non exotic proficient penalty, or does the weapon text prevent one handing at all without the EWP feat?
...Are we now discussing whether "wield two-handed as a martial weapon" actually means "wield as a two-handed martial weapon" instead?
Something like that.
When the official ruling comes down I think it will be that the weapons(bastard sword and dwarven waraxe) are one-handed weapons that are actually to large to be wielded in one hand, and that without EWP, for the purpose of handiness it will count as two-handed martial weapons. For the purpose of hit points they will count as a one-handed weapons.
The only question left now, is can you wield a bastard sword in one hand at a -4 non exotic proficient penalty, or does the weapon text prevent one handing at all without the EWP feat?I can see where that question is coming from. Which post do I FAQ-flag for that?
That question is asked indirectly in the opening post.
"Can they be used in one hand without the Exotic Weapon Proficiency Feat, meaning the restriction is just flavor text".
If you use it in one hand without EWP the rules will dictate that the -4 penalty be in place.
I don't think your words communicate the question; it reads more like you're asking whether the entire idea of it being exotic is flavor text.
The restriction is referring to the "must use two hands" idea, since that is the only restriction in the description for the weapons.
Both questions make for an important distinction. If, for instance, the weapon is considered to be 2-handed in any form, then this FAQ ruling comes into play:
Power Attack: If I am using a two-handed weapon with one hand (such as a lance while mounted), do still I get the +50% damage for using a two-handed weapon?
Yes.
—Pathfinder Design Team, 05/24/13
Both questions make for an important distinction. If, for instance, the weapon is considered to be 2-handed in any form, then this FAQ ruling comes into play:
Power Attack: If I am using a two-handed weapon with one hand (such as a lance while mounted), do still I get the +50% damage for using a two-handed weapon?
Yes.
—Pathfinder Design Team, 05/24/13
I am sure the RAI won't work that way however, even though by RAW someone will try to use it to justify it in a game.
I am sure the RAI won't work that way however, even though by RAW someone will try to use it to justify it in a game.Both questions make for an important distinction. If, for instance, the weapon is considered to be 2-handed in any form, then this FAQ ruling comes into play:
Power Attack: If I am using a two-handed weapon with one hand (such as a lance while mounted), do still I get the +50% damage for using a two-handed weapon?
Yes.
—Pathfinder Design Team, 05/24/13
Heh. And here I was thinking for the first time.... you know.... ever.... that the bastard sword + shield, with its mediocre stats and EWP feat tax, might actually become an attractive weapon combo to wield.
Heh. And here I was thinking for the first time.... you know.... ever.... that the bastard sword + shield, with its mediocre stats and EWP feat tax, might actually become an attractive weapon combo to wield.I am sure the RAI won't work that way however, even though by RAW someone will try to use it to justify it in a game.Both questions make for an important distinction. If, for instance, the weapon is considered to be 2-handed in any form, then this FAQ ruling comes into play:
Power Attack: If I am using a two-handed weapon with one hand (such as a lance while mounted), do still I get the +50% damage for using a two-handed weapon?
Yes.
—Pathfinder Design Team, 05/24/13
With all of this aside I don't think many of the EWP based weapons are actually worth a feat. The spiked chain was in 3.5, but it got nerfed. Now I would probably only burn a feat on the Falcata or the double kama, once it is written so I can actually understand it.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
You should be able to use a Bastard Sword or Dwarven Waraxe one-handed, without the Exotic Weapon Proficiency, at a -4 penalty.
Power Attack: If I am using a two-handed weapon with one hand (such as a lance while mounted), do still I get the +50% damage for using a two-handed weapon?
Yes.
—Pathfinder Design Team, 05/24/13
This is a bad ruling. Sorry. If this were true then you would not get +50% when using a one-handed weapon with two hands. If they want to make this a special exception for only the lance I would be fine with that.
Can a large character use a medium greatsword with one hand and get the +50% damage from Power Attack for using a two-handed weapon?
If so, can a medium character use a small greatsword with one hand and get the +50% damage from Power Attack for using a two-handed weapon?
I really don't think they should. And if for some reason you could use an appropriately sized two-handed weapon in one hand I would not allow you to get the +50% bonus from Power Attack.
Edit: I also think it is silly to say that a weapon is too big to wield one-handed when most martial characters become strong enough to lift a car. Swinging a (relatively) little piece of metal around should be almost effortless.
Edit2: A 28 Str character can lift 2,400 lbs. and "stagger" around with it.
This is a bad ruling. Sorry. If this were true then you would not get +50% when using a one-handed weapon with two hands. If they want to make this a special exception for only the lance I would be fine with that.
Can a large character use a medium greatsword with one hand and get the +50% damage from Power Attack for using a two-handed weapon?
If so, can a medium character use a small greatsword with one hand and get the +50% damage from Power Attack for using a two-handed weapon?
This ruling doesn't affect 1-handed weapons at all. If you wield a 1H weapon in two hands, you get 1.5x STR bonus, the same as always.
Secondly, a 2-handed weapon, one size category too small for a character, is considered a 1-handed weapon for that character. Not a 2-handed weapon small enough to be wielded 1-handed. So, this ruling doesn't apply to that, either.
All this ruling says, is that if you are wielding an appropriately sized 2-handed weapon in one hand, you still get the bonuses for wielding a 2-handed weapon. If there is a penalty associated with you wielding it in one hand (as there would be in most cases), then you still take that penalty.
All I'm saying, is that if these weapons were reclassified (and yes, it would have to be a reclassification) as martial 2-handed weapons that could be wielded 1-handed with the EWP feat, rather than 1-handed exotic weapons that can be wielded as martial weapons with 2 hands, then they would be much more attractive options.
Does Amiri, the iconic barbarian, really need Exotic Weapon proficiency to wield a large bastard sword two-handed? It doesn't look like she really needs it.
This ruling doesn't affect 1-handed weapons at all. If you wield a 1H weapon in two hands, you get 1.5x STR bonus, the same as always.This is a bad ruling. Sorry. If this were true then you would not get +50% when using a one-handed weapon with two hands. If they want to make this a special exception for only the lance I would be fine with that.
Can a large character use a medium greatsword with one hand and get the +50% damage from Power Attack for using a two-handed weapon?
If so, can a medium character use a small greatsword with one hand and get the +50% damage from Power Attack for using a two-handed weapon?
You are parsing words here. If a two-handed weapon always does 150% damage with Power Attack, why doesn't a one-handed weapon always do 100% damage? It is not consistent otherwise. Hence why this is a bad ruling.
Secondly, a 2-handed weapon, one size category too small for a character, is considered a 1-handed weapon for that character. Not a 2-handed weapon small enough to be wielded 1-handed. So, this ruling doesn't apply to that, either.
Where does it say this? I have been looking for the exact wording. Because everyone knows it is the exact words that matter and not the intent.
All this ruling says, is that if you are wielding an appropriately sized 2-handed weapon in one hand, you still get the bonuses for wielding a 2-handed weapon. If there is a penalty associated with you wielding it in one hand (as there would be in most cases), then you still take that penalty.
All I'm saying, is that if these weapons were reclassified (and yes, it would have to be a reclassification) as martial 2-handed weapons that could be wielded 1-handed with the EWP feat, rather than 1-handed exotic weapons that can be wielded as martial weapons with 2 hands, then they would be much more attractive options.
It would be more attractive number-wise, and make less sense.
Does Amiri, the iconic barbarian, really need Exotic Weapon proficiency to wield a large bastard sword two-handed? It doesn't look like she really needs it.
The EWP doesn't factor in. She is not trying to wield it in one hand.
She is wielding a 2-handed martial weapon in two hands. It is one size category too large for her, so she takes a -2 penalty to attack rolls. All of that is accounted for in her stat block.
What's your point?
Secondly, a 2-handed weapon, one size category too small for a character, is considered a 1-handed weapon for that character. Not a 2-handed weapon small enough to be wielded 1-handed. So, this ruling doesn't apply to that, either.Where does it say this? I have been looking for the exact wording. Because everyone knows it is the exact words that matter and not the intent.
Right here:
Weapon Size: Every weapon has a size category. This designation indicates the size of the creature for which the weapon was designed.
A weapon's size category isn't the same as its size as an object. Instead, a weapon's size category is keyed to the size of the intended wielder. In general, a light weapon is an object two size categories smaller than the wielder, a one-handed weapon is an object one size category smaller than the wielder, and a two-handed weapon is an object of the same size category as the wielder.
Inappropriately Sized Weapons: A creature can't make optimum use of a weapon that isn't properly sized for it. A cumulative –2 penalty applies on attack rolls for each size category of difference between the size of its intended wielder and the size of its actual wielder. If the creature isn't proficient with the weapon, a –4 nonproficiency penalty also applies.
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. If a weapon's designation would be changed to something other than light, one-handed, or two-handed by this alteration, the creature can't wield the weapon at all.
Does Amiri, the iconic barbarian, really need Exotic Weapon proficiency to wield a large bastard sword two-handed? It doesn't look like she really needs it.The EWP doesn't factor in. She is not trying to wield it in one hand.
She is wielding a 2-handed martial weapon in two hands. It is one size category too large for her, so she takes a -2 penalty to attack rolls. All of that is accounted for in her stat block.
What's your point?
My point is she took the feat and didn't need it. I believe they originally gave her the feat because they believed she would need it. I would rule the same way, that you need the feat to use a large bastard sword with two hands.
The second point, about small sized weapons, is well made. So it is not an issue after all.
My point is she took the feat and didn't need it. I believe they originally gave her the feat because they believed she would need it. I would rule the same way, that you need the feat to use a large bastard sword with two hands.
Difficult to say, in this one instance. The allowance that you can wield it in two hands as if it were a martial weapon does not actually make it a martial 2-handed weapon. Or at least, that's part of what is being debated here.
So, what she is actually wielding is a Large 1-handed Exotic weapon. The designers might have felt that increasing its size category made it a 2-handed exotic weapon for her, regardless of the allowance for wielding it as a martial weapon. In that circumstance, if she didn't have the feat, she would take a -4 non-proficiency penalty in addition to the -2 inappropriately sized penalty.
That is just my interpretation of the reasoning behind giving her the feat. Once again, if it were reclassified as a 2-handed martial weapon, with an EWP caveat, it would clear a lot of this up, as well as making it a viable weapon option for sword and board melee... without overpowering it, I might add...
A large bastard sword is an exotic one-handed weapon. If used with two hands it can be used as a martial weapon. She is using it with two hands, ergo, it is martial. Period. Full Stop.
Now I actually don't agree with the above statement, but that seems to be the way people want to read it. Otherwise it is "just fluff".