|
Regardless, I do not care about how things worked in 1, 2, 3, 3.5 or any other game as far as Pathfinder goes. Pathfinder is its own game, and I don't apply monopoly rulings to it, why should I apply 3.5 faq?
If I came to a conclusion when I first read the 3.0/3.5 rulebook (a conclusion which has been verified by an FAQ source), and the wording in the Pathfinder book is the same as it was in the 3.0/3.5 rulebook, why should I expect it to work differently?
|
|
Hangar, where in the CRB (or in any other Pathfinder sourcebook) do you see that the Bastard Sword is listed as a two-handed weapon?
Show us that, and you'll have an argument. As it is now, you're just arguing how it worked in 3.5
If I came to a conclusion when I first read the 3.0/3.5 rulebook (a conclusion which has been verified by an FAQ source), and the wording in the Pathfinder book is the same as it was in the 3.0/3.5 rulebook, why should I expect it to work differently?
EDIT: Or, more to the point, since the language in the Pathfinder book effectively the same as it was in 3.5, show me where it says in the Pathfinder book that I should interpret things differently.
|
Everything in the Pathfinder Core Rule Book states that it is a one-handed weapon. Feats/Abilities/Hardness/HP all react with it as if it were a one-handed weapon. It is listed in the table as a one-handed weapon.
The burden of proof that it is not is on you. It is not up to us to prove it is not a one-handed weapon.
|
|
Even if the text is the same, that doesn't mean that other FAQs or common practices apply.Based upon what?
If you never knew 3.5 existed, what interpretation would an intelligent reading of the Pathfinder Core Rulebook produce?Well, if I never played 3.0 or 3.5, but started with Pathfinder, I would come to the conclusion that if I don't have the EWP the bastard sword is a two-handed weapon for me--because I have to use two hands to wield it...I would treat the bastard sword the same way I treat a greatsword. I would come to the same conclusion I had when I read it in the 3.0/5 handbook the first time because THEY ARE WORDED THE SAME!If it is a 2-handed weapon for you, does it suddenly become medium sized? Because a 2-handed weapon for a medium character is a medium size object, while a 1-handed weapon for a medium character is a small size object.
Or are you saying you specifically have to use two hands to use the weapon as a martial weapon, and otherwise, it is still a 1-handed weapon?
I think a lot of the problems is people being imprecise with terminology.
No, I think the bastard sword is one of those funny "exceptions" to the rule.
RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
For something to work differently in Pathfinder than in 3.5, Paizo does not need to print a comparison or contradiction; they only need to print how it works in Pathfinder, and if that happens to be different than 3.5, then so be it.
And there's not much point in debating any further with anyone not willing/able to accept that as a foundational given. Pathfinder is not an update to 3.5, such that we would start with 3.5 and then only alter that which Pathfinder explicitly tells us to. Pathfinder is a complete game on its own, capable of being read and understood without any prior knowledge of 3.5.
No, I think the bastard sword is one of those funny "exceptions" to the rule.Even if the text is the same, that doesn't mean that other FAQs or common practices apply.Based upon what?
If you never knew 3.5 existed, what interpretation would an intelligent reading of the Pathfinder Core Rulebook produce?Well, if I never played 3.0 or 3.5, but started with Pathfinder, I would come to the conclusion that if I don't have the EWP the bastard sword is a two-handed weapon for me--because I have to use two hands to wield it...I would treat the bastard sword the same way I treat a greatsword. I would come to the same conclusion I had when I read it in the 3.0/5 handbook the first time because THEY ARE WORDED THE SAME!If it is a 2-handed weapon for you, does it suddenly become medium sized? Because a 2-handed weapon for a medium character is a medium size object, while a 1-handed weapon for a medium character is a small size object.
Or are you saying you specifically have to use two hands to use the weapon as a martial weapon, and otherwise, it is still a 1-handed weapon?
I think a lot of the problems is people being imprecise with terminology.
No to what? No you don't think it magically gets bigger if someone lacking proficiency tries to wield it? No you don't think you have to use two hands to wield it as a martial weapon? No you don't think it is a 1-handed weapon?
Again, in CRB, a bastard sword is only ever shown to be a 1-handed weapon exotic weapon. Its text then goes on to say that you can wield it as a martial weapon (changing proficiency requirements) only if you use two hands to do so. It does not say it becomes a 2-handed weapon.
If you disagree, please tell me why, and explain your reasoning, rather than just saying "nope, thats wrong" or an equivalent.
|
|
They also gave Amiri a large BS, which would have been unusable under the 3.5 FAQ.
As to a non-proficiency penalty:-
A character can use a bastard sword two-handed as a martial weapon.If you can use it in two hands, and you do use it in two hands, then you use it as a martial weapon. That is, if you have martial weapon proficiency in all martial weapons because of your class, then you don't take any non-proficiency penalty when using a martial weapon, or using a weapon as a martial weapon.
Since they are one-handed weapons, a large one counts as a two-handed weapon, so a medium creature can wield a large one in two hands, and that doesn't change whether he has exotic or martial or simple or no proficiency!
Well, if that was the case, they wouldn't have given Amiri the EWP feat, and would have instead spent it on something else.
How can you logically argue that a character without the EWP would be penalized while one with the EWP isn't while wielding a medium bastard sword, but then when the same two characters are wielding a large bastard sword, they're both now "proficient". The penalty doesn't just "disappear". The number of hands required to wield large weapon size is being derived from the medium weapon size, which for someone without the EWP means that they get a penalty.
|
|
The wording of the bastard sword and how it is listed in the chart is the same as it was in 3.5, but Pathfinder does not have the same paagraph you quoted above. Therefore, that paragraph does not apply to Pathfinder.
Bastard swords are also known as hand-and-a-half swords. A bastard sword is too large to use in one hand without special training: thus, it is an exotic weapon. A character can use a bastard sword two-handed as a martial weapon.
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-handed as a martial weapon.
Really? Just because one says it is also called a hand-and-a-half sword, and the other says it is four feet long, but all of the rest of the rules regarding how to use the sword is the same, I should just automatically throw out what I knew previously and assume it works differently?
EDIT: highlighting text.
I know Jame Jacob isn't a rules guy, but I found a couple of quotes from him about using a large bastard sword while trying to find a different quote about them.
I'm playing a Paladin in a Kingmaker game and we found a while ago a nifty Bastard Sword.. Originally the Ranger/Bard in the Party took it but she sadly died last game session (Wyverns, and so I now have the weapon...
...but I don't care too much for it... but the DM hinted to us that its an important Sword (it was broken and we had it repaired)..
My Paladin has a magic shield and Shield Focus feat... so I"m a sword and Board character... I would never use the Bastard Sword two handed...
The Bastard Sword is considered a Martial Weapon if used two handed... otherwise you need to burn a Feat on Exotic Weapon Proficiency...
MY Question is what penalty does my Paladin have using the Bastard Sword One handed WITHOUT the Feat?
I was thinking its minus 2 (-2).. since its more of a larger one handed weapon... so its more of a size difference than a random weapon of exotic nature...
anyways..thanks in advance
Your GM can, of course, rule otherwise, but the "penalty" is that, without the Exotic Weapon feat, you simply can not use a bastard sword in one hand.
If I were the GM... I'd be more likely to allow a player to rebuild his character's feat selection than I would be to house-rule a way to dodge the feat in the first place.
As folks have noted, our iconic barbarian Amiri does this exact thing; she uses a Large bastard sword she got from a dead giant as her primary weapon. The ONLY way that she can wield such a weapon is by using it two-handed as an exotic weapon—thus, she has to have the Exotic Weapon (bastard sword) feat, and even then suffers a –2 penalty to attack rolls with it. Part of her story flavor is that she "can only properly wield the sword when she's raging" (as in, the +2 bonus to hit she gets cancels out her –2 penalty for wielding an oversized weapon).
If she didn't have the Exotic Weapon (bastard sword) feat, she can only use the weapon as a two handed weapon. Medium creatures simply cannot properly wield Large two handed weapons, so without the feat, she could CARRRY the sword but she couldn't use it. Best case scenario, I'd let a player who didn't have Exotic Weapon (bastard sword) use a Large bastard sword as a big improvised weapon that dealt like 1d6 damage and had a normal threat range.
If you want your character to use a Large bastard sword as a bastard sword and not a cumbersome improvised weapon in the same way you might wield a sofa or a dinner table, and you're playing in a home game, talk to your GM for final ruling.
If you're playing in the Pathfinder Society org play campaign, you need Exotic Weapon (bastard sword) as a feat to use it.
Though they are from a few years ago and NOT from a rules guy, I still think they have some weight on the matter. I still didn't find the quote I was looking for though. =(
|
|
How can you logically argue that a character without the EWP would be penalized while one with the EWP isn't while wielding a medium bastard sword, but then when the same two characters are wielding a large bastard sword, they're both now "proficient".
This doesn't sound that hard to understand to me.
You want to wield it in two hands? Everyone is proficient. (Or at least, everyone with Martial Weapon Proficiency is)
You want to wield it in one hand? You need a feat to avoid taking the -4.
You want to wield a large-sized Bastard Sword in two hands? Everyone takes the -2 penalty.
I don't see anything wrong with that. Why do you?
|
RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
Just because one says it is also called a hand-and-a-half sword, and the other says it is four feet long, but all of the rest of the rules regarding how to use the sword is the same, I should just automatically throw out what I knew previously and assume it works differently?
No.
More like "Because Pathfinder is a complete game on its own, you should throw out what you knew about a different game published by a different company and assume it works the way the Pathfinder rules say it works, regardless of whether it's the same as or different from similar games made by other companies."|
|
Everything in the Pathfinder Core Rule Book states that it is a one-handed weapon. Feats/Abilities/Hardness/HP all react with it as if it were a one-handed weapon. It is listed in the table as a one-handed weapon.
The burden of proof that it is not is on you. It is not up to us to prove it is not a one-handed weapon.
You have to show me why I think I should think of it differently than I did during 3.5. Just because the covers look different isn't good enough. Just because "Pathfinder isn't 3.5" isn't good enough. If the text is the same, what indication do I have from the Paizo team to let me know that it actually works differently.
There are a number of things that work differently in Pathfinder from 3.5, and I have actual changes in the rules text to FAQ entries to let me know of those changes.
If 3.5 never existed, I would come to the same conclusion as I had when I read 3.5 for the first time because the text is the same. So making me play "what-if" games is irrelevant.
|
|
No, I think the bastard sword is one of those funny "exceptions" to the rule.No to what? No you don't think it magically gets bigger if someone lacking proficiency tries to wield it? No you don't think you have to use two hands to wield it as a martial weapon? No you don't think it is a 1-handed weapon?
Again, in CRB, a bastard sword is only ever shown to be a 1-handed weapon exotic weapon. Its text then goes on to say that you can wield it as a martial weapon (changing proficiency requirements) only if you use two hands to do so. It does not say it becomes a 2-handed weapon.
If you disagree, please tell me why, and explain your reasoning, rather than just saying "nope, thats wrong" or an equivalent.
"No" as in, the bastard sword is one of those weapons that is in-between categories: if you have the EWP, you can wield it as a one-handed weapon. If you don't have the EWP, you're SOL and must wield it as a two-handed weapon.
Seriously, if you have no option but to wield a weapon with two hands, it's a two-handed weapon for you. Which takes us back to the OP and the FAQ question: can you wield a bastard sword in one hand if you don't have the EWP?
|
|
How can you logically argue that a character without the EWP would be penalized while one with the EWP isn't while wielding a medium bastard sword, but then when the same two characters are wielding a large bastard sword, they're both now "proficient".This doesn't sound that hard to understand to me.
You want to wield it in two hands? Everyone is proficient. (Or at least, everyone with Martial Weapon Proficiency is)
You want to wield it in one hand? You need a feat to avoid taking the -4.
You want to wield a large-sized Bastard Sword in two hands? Everyone takes the -2 penalty.
I don't see anything wrong with that. Why do you?
The CRB is written with the understanding (especially regarding weapon descriptions) that a "normal" character is wielding "normal" weapons. That is to say, the character is wielding a weapon that is appropriately sized for him. So, the whole text about wielding it two-handed as a martial weapon only applies if a medium character is wielding a medium bastard sword, or a large character is wielding a large bastard sword, or a small character is wielding a small bastard sword...you get the point. Once you change the weapon size when compared to the character size, that point goes out the window.
So, the only way a medium character can wield a large bastard sword is if they have the EWP, and it would have to be wielded two handed (with the -2 penalty for size).
Unless, they rule that a character without the EWP can wield a bastard sword one handed (with the -4 penalty, of course), then they could wield a large bastard sword but with the -4 proficiency penalty included (for a total penalty of -6).
Though, honestly, I don't think they are going to rule the latter, so trying to argue that is moot.
|
The whole genesis of the way it works in d20 is that Monte Cook was trying to find a rule which enables the concept of a sword which is difficult to use in one hand without the special training to do so.
If he wanted to make it impossible to use in one hand without special training he'd have made it a two-handed (large in 3.0 terminology) weapon, and created a feat which would allow its one-handed use.
The way he chose to do it results in a -4 penalty in its one-handed use without the special training, while it also allows two-handed use with the normal martial training.
He could have made up unique special rules for these two weapons, but the non-proficiency rule gave the penalty he wanted so he used that.
|
|
Just because "Pathfinder isn't 3.5" isn't good enough.Then there's really no point in having a rules discussion with you. Have a nice day.
If that's the way you want to play it. Though, I don't think you're even trying to see things from my point of view. You've got your fingers stuck in your ears, eyes squeezed shut, and screaming "LA LA LA LA, I CAN'T HEAR YOU!"
Though they are from a few years ago and NOT from a rules guy, I still think they have some weight on the matter. I still didn't find the quote I was looking for though. =(As folks have noted, our iconic barbarian Amiri does this exact thing; she uses a Large bastard sword she got from a dead giant as her primary weapon. The ONLY way that she can wield such a weapon is by using it two-handed as an exotic weapon—thus, she has to have the Exotic Weapon (bastard sword) feat, and even then suffers a –2 penalty to attack rolls with it. Part of her story flavor is that she "can only properly wield the sword when she's raging" (as in, the +2 bonus to hit she gets cancels out her –2 penalty for wielding an oversized weapon).
If she didn't have the Exotic Weapon (bastard sword) feat, she can only use the weapon as a two handed weapon. Medium creatures simply cannot properly wield Large two handed weapons, so without the feat, she could CARRRY the sword but she couldn't use it. Best case scenario, I'd let a player who didn't have Exotic Weapon (bastard sword) use a Large bastard sword as a big improvised weapon that dealt like 1d6 damage and had a normal threat range.
If you want your character to use a Large bastard sword as a bastard sword and not a cumbersome improvised weapon in the same way you might wield a sofa or a dinner table, and you're playing in a home game, talk to your GM for final ruling.
If you're playing in the Pathfinder Society org play campaign, you need Exotic Weapon (bastard sword) as a feat to use it.
This is precisely how I'd rule it, since there's an absence of a clearer directive. It's a closet case. It's a one-handed exotic weapon, but behaves like a two-handed martial weapon without the feat. The only way you can use an oversized bastard sword is if it behaves like a one-handed weapon, meaning you'd need to the feat. So, you can't use the large bastard sword (even two-handed) unless you have the feat, because without said feat, it would behave like a large two-handed weapon.
That's the most intuitive explanation, in my opinion. That favors Hangar's interpretation. That's how'd I'd rule it in my game. Can't really resolve it any more than we have at this point without an explicit ruling from those on high.
|
|
The whole genesis of the way it works in d20 is that Monte Cook was trying to find a rule which enables the concept of a sword which is difficult to use in one hand without the special training to do so.
If he wanted to make it impossible to use in one hand without special training he'd have made it a two-handed (large in 3.0 terminology) weapon, and created a feat which would allow its one-handed use.
The way he chose to do it results in a -4 penalty in its one-handed use without the special training, while it also allows two-handed use with the normal martial training.
He could have made up unique special rules for these two weapons, but the non-proficiency rule gave the penalty he wanted so he used that.
Which brings us back around to the original FAQ question.
I understand you're point of view (I'm even trying to argue a mythical what-if, if that point of view were true), but I don't agree with it.
I guess we just need to leave it at that and hope the PDT answers sooner than later.
|
|
So, the whole text about wielding it two-handed as a martial weapon only applies if a medium character is wielding a medium bastard sword, or a large character is wielding a large bastard sword, or a small character is wielding a small bastard sword...you get the point. Once you change the weapon size when compared to the character size, that point goes out the window.
The trouble with this is....you made it up!
Any special abilities of weapons described in their entry is not affected in any way by the rules on inappropriately-sized weapons! Reach weapons made for a medium creature still reach 10-feet no matter the size of the wielder, weapons that give a bonus to certain CMB checks still do no matter the size difference, shuriken can still be drawn as a free action no matter the size difference, and so on!
Do you have any rules support whatever for your idea that the game mechanics described in a weapon's description mysteriously evaporate when used by a creature of the wrong size?
|
|
If 3.5 never existed, I would come to the same conclusionHow, when the table in the CRB lists it as a one-handed weapon?
Due to the description text of the bastard sword that states that if you don't have the EWP, you can wield it in two hands as a martial weapon.
It tells you: "you have to have the EWP to wield this weapon one-handed. If you don't have the EWP, you can still wield it, but you have to wield it two-handed and it's considered a martial weapon".
|
|
Due to the description text of the bastard sword that states that if you don't have the EWP, you can wield it in two hands as a martial weapon.
It tells you: "you have to have the EWP to wield this weapon one-handed. If you don't have the EWP, you can still wield it, but you have to wield it two-handed and it's considered a martial weapon".
Your second paragraph does not logically follow from the first! That's not what the first paragraph means! Being able two wield it as a martial weapon if you use two hands does not mean that you can't wield it one-handed if you don't have the EWP!
|
|
Your second paragraph does not logically follow from the first! That's not what the first paragraph means! Being able two wield it as a martial weapon if you use two hands does not mean that you can't wield it one-handed if you don't have the EWP!Due to the description text of the bastard sword that states that if you don't have the EWP, you can wield it in two hands as a martial weapon.
It tells you: "you have to have the EWP to wield this weapon one-handed. If you don't have the EWP, you can still wield it, but you have to wield it two-handed and it's considered a martial weapon".
You must have missed my post where I said "we'll have to agree to disagree".
|
|
So, the whole text about wielding it two-handed as a martial weapon only applies if a medium character is wielding a medium bastard sword, or a large character is wielding a large bastard sword, or a small character is wielding a small bastard sword...you get the point. Once you change the weapon size when compared to the character size, that point goes out the window.The trouble with this is....you made it up!
Any special abilities of weapons described in their entry is not affected in any way by the rules on inappropriately-sized weapons! Reach weapons made for a medium creature still reach 10-feet no matter the size of the wielder, weapons that give a bonus to certain CMB checks still do no matter the size difference, shuriken can still be drawn as a free action no matter the size difference, and so on!
Do you have any rules support whatever for your idea that the game mechanics described in a weapon's description mysteriously evaporate when used by a creature of the wrong size?
Do you have anything to support your hypothesis that the bastard sword description applies to anything other than a weapon appropriately sized for the wielder?
If you really want me to parse through the entire Paizo website and find quotes stating that the basic assumption of the rules is that you're playing a standard character wielding standard stuff and doing standard things, I can. It'll take me a while, though.
And...for that matter, the description of the bastard sword is not a special feature. Brace, Disarm, Double, Monk, Nonlethal, Reach, and Trip are special features that would apply to an inappropriately sized weapon. The fact that the bastard sword must be wielded two-handed if you don't have the EWP, is not a special feature. It is what makes it an exception to the longsword or greatsword. And that is precisely what it is: an exception.
Again, we'll have to agree to disagree.
EDIT: Removed my quoting myself for readability.
Your second paragraph does not logically follow from the first! That's not what the first paragraph means! Being able two wield it as a martial weapon if you use two hands does not mean that you can't wield it one-handed if you don't have the EWP!Due to the description text of the bastard sword that states that if you don't have the EWP, you can wield it in two hands as a martial weapon.
It tells you: "you have to have the EWP to wield this weapon one-handed. If you don't have the EWP, you can still wield it, but you have to wield it two-handed and it's considered a martial weapon".
Two legitimate interpretations with support, so the squabble can't be resolved without developer intent.
I wouldn't have a problem allowing someone to use a bastard sword one-handed at a -4 penalty, but I wouldn't allow a person to use a large bastard sword two-handed unless they have the EWP feat. Makes the most sense to me. Allowing a character without the feat to wield a large bastard sword two-handed seems to be relegating the restriction language of the rule to irrelevancy.
Due to the description text of the bastard sword that states that if you don't have the EWP, you can wield it in two hands as a martial weapon.
It tells you: "you have to have the EWP to wield this weapon one-handed. If you don't have the EWP, you can still wield it, but you have to wield it two-handed and it's considered a martial weapon".
I agree with what you say here, sort of.
First, I do agree that your point is probably RAI, and is how I would run it in my home game.
RAW, I believe that a bastard sword is and always is a one-handed exotic weapon, and is exactly equal to a whip as far as proficiency and size (with the added caveat that if you use two hands on it, you can treat it as a martial weapon).
Can a fighter 1-hand a medium whip, and take a -4 penalty for nonprof, yes.
Can a fighter 2-hand a large whip and take a -6 penalty (-4 nonprof and -2 size) yes.
Can a fighter 1-hand a medium bastard sword and take a -4 penalty for non-prof, yes(see my previous post for why I think the language left of the semicolon is fluff).
Can a fighter 2-hand a large bastard sword and take a -2 penalty for size, yes. Because using 2 hands on ANY bastard sword allows you to treat it as a martial weapon, and fighters are proficient with martial weapons, he only takes the size penalty. This is the case per RAW.
RAI and how I would run it in my home games: Of course you can't do that, it is silly and doesn't make sense that you can do that. EWP(BS) to wield a large one two-handed is exactly how it should work, and you still get the -2 size penalty to boot.
RAW doesn't mean it makes sense. I think most people (like you) can figure out the RAI, and that it doesn't need an errata, other than to make some people on the forums happy so that RAW and RAI match perfectly. Most people figure it out and make it work just like you have, and that is fine and I'd rather the errata cover more important things than 3 weird 1.5hand weapons.
The good news is that the wizard can use it two-handed and take the -4 penalty whether it is considered a martial or exotic weapon (without a feat). :D
|
|
I agree with what you say here, sort of.
First, I do agree that your point is probably RAI, and is how I would run it in my home game.
RAW, I believe that a bastard sword is and always is a one-handed exotic weapon, and is exactly equal to a whip as far as proficiency and size (with the added caveat that if you use two hands on it, you can treat it as a martial weapon).
Can a fighter 1-hand a medium whip, and take a -4 penalty for nonprof, yes.
Can a fighter 2-hand a large whip and take a -6 penalty (-4 nonprof and -2 size) yes.
Can a fighter 1-hand a medium bastard sword and take a -4 penalty for non-prof, yes(see my previous post for why I think the language left of the semicolon is fluff).
Can a fighter 2-hand a large bastard sword and take a -2 penalty for size, yes. Because using 2 hands on ANY bastard sword allows you to treat it as a martial weapon, and fighters are proficient with martial weapons, he only takes the size penalty. This is the case per RAW.
Generally, I would agree with most of this except for this last paragraph. As I was trying to explain to Malachi, the general assumption that the developers take when making all of this stuff is that you're a medium character (humanoid with two arms, two legs, head, etc) using equipment that is appropriately sized for yourself. There are a number of posts in which the developers mention that (I think there might be an FAQ entry that says as much). The text of the bastard sword description assumes you are a medium character wielding a medium bastard sword (or a small character wielding a small bastard sword).
By your (and malachi's) reasoning, a medium character should be able to two-hand a colossal bastard sword as a martial weapon with no problem. This, of course, is silly.
Two-handing a large bastard sword is predicated upon the fact that you're one-handing a medium bastard sword (assuming a medium character). Making the assumption that you can one-hand a bastard sword without the EWP, and take the -4 penalty, you would have to carry the non-proficiency to the calculation of the larger weapon: -6 due to inappropriate size and non-proficiency.
By your (and malachi's) reasoning, a medium character should be able to two-hand a colossal bastard sword as a martial weapon with no problem. This, of course, is silly.
A medium bastard sword is a 1-handed weapon to a medium character.
A large bastard sword is a 2-handed weapon to a medium character.A huge or larger bastard sword is unwieldable by a medium character.
Two-handing a large bastard sword is predicated upon the fact that you're one-handing a medium bastard sword (assuming a medium character). Making the assumption that you can one-hand a bastard sword without the EWP, and take the -4 penalty, you would have to carry the non-proficiency to the calculation of the larger weapon: -6 due to inappropriate size and non-proficiency.
The problem is that the text of a bastard sword doesn't take size into the equation. Whether it is a small, medium, or large bastard sword, if you use 2 hands to wield it, you are allowed to treat it as a martial weapon instead of an exotic one. Again, this is by RAW.
RAI, I agree, and I would apply -6 for a fighter without EWP trying to wield a large bastard sword. RAI is not RAW however, so be clear which you are discussing.
|
|
By your (and malachi's) reasoning, a medium character should be able to two-hand a colossal bastard sword as a martial weapon with no problem.Nobody has ever stated this, so you must be misunderstanding us.
Actually, Tarantula did say "ANY" bastard sword, and I was taking it to the extreme intentionally.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as FAQ candidate. |
By your (and malachi's) reasoning, a medium character should be able to two-hand a colossal bastard sword as a martial weapon with no problem. This, of course, is silly.A medium bastard sword is a 1-handed weapon to a medium character.
A large bastard sword is a 2-handed weapon to a medium character.
A huge or larger bastard sword is unwieldable by a medium character.Two-handing a large bastard sword is predicated upon the fact that you're one-handing a medium bastard sword (assuming a medium character). Making the assumption that you can one-hand a bastard sword without the EWP, and take the -4 penalty, you would have to carry the non-proficiency to the calculation of the larger weapon: -6 due to inappropriate size and non-proficiency.The problem is that the text of a bastard sword doesn't take size into the equation. Whether it is a small, medium, or large bastard sword, if you use 2 hands to wield it, you are allowed to treat it as a martial weapon instead of an exotic one. Again, this is by RAW.
RAI, I agree, and I would apply -6 for a fighter without EWP trying to wield a large bastard sword. RAI is not RAW however, so be clear which you are discussing.
Though your position presents a logical trap: if RAW says that you don't have to have the EWP to wield a large bastard sword, why did Paizo waste the feat when they created Amiri the Barbarian?
Even under the worst case scenario, it is clearly evident that the bastard sword description is in reference to a medium weapon (or, at least a weapon that is of an appropriate size for the intended wielder).
I said using 2 hands on any bastard sword lets you treat it as a martial weapon. I stand by that.
The size of the sword doesn't matter for what proficiency it uses. You are still restricted by what swords you are capable of using 2 hands on.
Why did paizo waste the feat? Because they also can understand the RAI, just like you and I do. Is it important enough to have errata? No, not really. Most people can figure it out. So the RAW is good enough that it leads people to the RAI, except for those few that insist all games should only ever be run exactly as the book is written with no wiggle room whatsoever. Or for when we are discussing specifically the RAW on the forums to determine exactly how it is written vs how most people run it.
Keep it civil, folks.
Keep it civil, folks.
I try. If I ever have a post which has an issue, I'd hope you would let me know that it was being deleted and why. (Of course, I also understand that this would cause each moderation action to take more time, so I also realize you might not.)
|
|
Actually, Tarantula did say "ANY" bastard sword, and I was taking it to the extreme intentionally.By your (and malachi's) reasoning, a medium character should be able to two-hand a colossal bastard sword as a martial weapon with no problem.Nobody has ever stated this, so you must be misunderstanding us.
The rules which determine how many hands are needed to wield any weapon are a combination of the category of the weapon on the tables modified by the rules for using an inappropriately-sized weapon. A colossal sword is not useable by a medium creature.
The rules for weapon proficiency merely let you avoid the -4 non-proficiency penalty. So, while you may be proficient with a colossal sword, you still can't actually wield it.
Keep it civil, folks.I try. If I ever have a post which has an issue, I'd hope you would let me know that it was being deleted and why. (Of course, I also understand that this would cause each moderation action to take more time, so I also realize you might not.)
Generally we try to let people know why in the comment about deleting posts (I haven't deleted any here -- I'm just trying to head the thread off from going somewhere where I'll have to), or if it's serious enough, we'll private message the poster and let them know why. If you ever have questions about moderation, however, you are free to PM any of us, or ask in the Website Feedback forum. Thanks!
|
|
Why did Paizo waste the EWP for Amiri?
Thinking that a bastard sword is a one-handed weapon with the EWP and is a two-handed weapon without it is a very common misconception. JJ himself suffered from it! I used to, until someone said the opposite on these threads and I checked the rules so I could quote them and show how wrong he was! But the more I looked and understood the more I realised that I was wrong!
I feel better now that I know the truth!
Let us look at text:
3.5:
Known also as hand and a half swords.
A bastard sword is too large to use in one hand without special training; thus, it is an exotic weapon. A character can use a bastard sword two-handed as a martial weapon.
Pathfinder:
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-handed as a martial weapon.
They are identical except in length.
|
|
I have a related question.
Can a character who doesn't have martial weapon proficiencies (such as a wizard or rogue) who has the EWP (bastard sword) feat use a bastard sword two handed without any penalties?
I'm pretty sure I know the answer, I just had a moment of self-doubt and wanted to check with the group.
Thanks!
|
|
I have a related question.
Can a character who doesn't have martial weapon proficiencies (such as a wizard or rogue) who has the EWP (bastard sword) feat use a bastard sword two handed without any penalties?
I'm pretty sure I know the answer, I just had a moment of self-doubt and wanted to check with the group.
Thanks!
Choose one type of exotic weapon, such as the spiked chain or whip. You understand how to use that type of exotic weapon in combat, and can utilize any special tricks or qualities that exotic weapon might allow.
The bastard sword is an exotic weapon. If you have the EWP you never suffer the -4 non-proficiency penalty.
There is no such thing as 'Martial Weapon Proficiency(bastard sword)', because it's not a martial weapon.
There is such a thing as proficiency in all martial weapons, as a class feature. The BS allows you to avoid the -4 penalty if you use it in two hands and have proficiency in all martial weapons.
Your rogue/wizard with EWP(bastard sword) can use it two-handed without penalty.
I have a related question.
Can a character who doesn't have martial weapon proficiencies (such as a wizard or rogue) who has the EWP (bastard sword) feat use a bastard sword two handed without any penalties?
I'm pretty sure I know the answer, I just had a moment of self-doubt and wanted to check with the group.
Thanks!
Two ways to go about answering this:
1. Yes, because it stands to reason that obtaining a greater proficiency with a weapon (Exotic) would carry with it the lesser proficiency (Martial), allowing for any use of the weapon.
2. Yes, because the character has the ability to treat the weapon as one-handed, due to the feat, and you can always use a one-handed weapon in two hands.
To the main point though, it seems rather silly that a character without the EWP feat can use an oversized bastard sword with the same effectiveness as a character who takes the EWP feat, even though both are forced to use the weapons in two hands. And considering the language in the rules that say the bastard sword is larger (and therefore more complicated to wield) than a longsword of the same size, it also seems silly that a character without the EWP feat would suffer the same (rather minimal) penalty to attack using a large longsword in two hands as he or she would using a large bastard sword in two hands. And, it seems rather silly that a person could use an oversized bastard sword in two hands more effectively than they can use a properly sized bastard sword in one hand.
So the argument is that the EWP feat gives a benefit to the taker of the feat only in the case that they're using a medium sized sword, and only in one hand?
Frankly to me, if the rules as intended seems to be that clear, the rules as written can't really be that ambiguous.
On allowing a character without EWP to wield a weapon in one hand at a penalty, I have no problem. On allowing that same character to wield an oversized weapon in two hands with the same proficiency as a character with the EWP (and more effectively than the first could wield a properly sized weapon in one hand), I take exception to that.