|
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.
Yes, saying that a non-proficient medium character can wield a large bastard sword just as proficiently as a proficient medium character, based solely on the fact that one is holding it in two hands, is...odd.
A character without EWP(Bastard Sword) can't use a 1-size-larger bastard sword as a martial weapon, and so takes a -4 nonproficiency penalty on top of the -2 size penalty. Without EWP, you have to use a bastard sword as a two-handed weapon, and going from your correct size to a size larger means you go up one level in handedness. There is no level above two-handed (vestigal arms don't count!) so you can't use it as a martial weapon.
|
Without EWP, you have to use a bastard sword as a two-handed weapon
You've built you're house on a foundation of sand, my friend! The quoted statement is not true.
First, if a weapon counts as light, one-handed or two-handed for you, you can use it. If it counts as a two-handed weapon you need two hands to use it, otherwise just one. Your proficiencies or lack thereof do not prevent you from using it! The only effect a lack of proficiency has is that you take a -4 attack penalty.
What determines whether a weapon is light, one-handed or two-handed is it's listing on the weapons tables, combined with the rules for using an inappropriately-sized weapon. A bastard sword is listed as a one-handed weapon, so a large one counts as a two-handed weapon for a medium creature. Any medium creature can use a large BS in two hands, whether he is proficient or not. Even though it is an exotic weapon, a special rule for the BS is that you can avoid the non-proficiency penalty if you use it in two hands and are proficient in all martial weapons.
Any restriction in the description of the weapon impacting its one-handed use is not relevant to its two handed use. Having to use a one-handed weapon in two hands would not turn it into a two-handed weapon! It would remain a one-handed weapon used in two hands. A large BS is a two-handed weapon for a medium creature, and nothing in the description says otherwise.
Now let's talk about lances mounted and unmounted. GO!
Without EWP, you have to use a bastard sword as a two-handed weaponYou've built you're house on a foundation of sand, my friend! The quoted statement is not true.
First, if a weapon counts as light, one-handed or two-handed for you, you can use it. If it counts as a two-handed weapon you need two hands to use it, otherwise just one. Your proficiencies or lack thereof do not prevent you from using it! The only effect a lack of proficiency has is that you take a -4 attack penalty.
Uh ... isn't that the primary point of this thread? To determine if this is actually the case?
Consider the question thoroughly begged then, I suppose.
|
|
Without EWP, you have to use a bastard sword as a two-handed weaponYou've built you're house on a foundation of sand, my friend! The quoted statement is not true.
First, if a weapon counts as light, one-handed or two-handed for you, you can use it. If it counts as a two-handed weapon you need two hands to use it, otherwise just one. Your proficiencies or lack thereof do not prevent you from using it! The only effect a lack of proficiency has is that you take a -4 attack penalty.
Uh ... isn't that the primary point of this thread? To determine if this is actually the case?
Consider the question thoroughly begged then, I suppose.
Of the two questions this thread asks, the only one still to be definitively resolved is the question concerning whether a creature without the EWP can use these weapons in one hand at all, or if they can but suffer a -4 non-proficiency penalty.
Although I have my opinion and can support it, the line remains able to be interpreted in two ways.
The same is not true of the question about how many hands it takes to wield these weapons. The rules for this are complete, and aren't changed by the weapon descriptions, despite some misunderstandings.
The devs could certainly change the way it works if they feel that the weapons should be two-handed weapons without EWP, but this would be beyond the scope of a FAQ and require an errata, a change in the actual RAW.
The same is not true of the question about how many hands it takes to wield these weapons. The rules for this are complete, and aren't changed by the weapon descriptions, despite some misunderstandings.
So, the question of whether or not a person can wield a bastard sword in one hand at all (without the feat) has not been resolved. But the question of how many hands it takes to wield a bastard sword is clearly explained within the rules?
That's the whole point to this line of dialogue. Number of hands necessary to wield a bastard sword is specifically what is still open. If you cannot wield a bastard sword in one hand without the feat, then you cannot use a large bastard sword (even in two hands) without the feat. The answer to this large bastard sword mess is entirely dependent upon that first question.
Titan Mauler can TWF with greatswords. But if he wants to TWF with bastard swords without the feat, the penalties are worse than they would be for greatswords. Seems silly. Wouldn't be a problem if the bastard sword was interpreted like 3.5 and treated as a two-handed weapon sans the appropriate feat.
*shrug* Whatever. As I said before, nothing's getting resolved without further explanation.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
If you cannot wield a bastard sword in one hand without the feat...
Okaaay...for the sake of argument...
...then you cannot use a large bastard sword (even in two hands) without the feat.
WTF??? This 'then' doesn't logically follow from that 'if'!
A restriction on using something in one hand tells you nothing about any restrictions on using it in two hands!
If a one-handed weapon is unable to be used in one hand without EWP, this doesn't make it a two handed weapon. The weapon's category (light/one-handed/two-handed) determines how many hands are needed, while how a weapon is used is a different thing! Both are fully described in the rules.
The description of the BS doesn't change what category it is (it remains a one-handed weapon), it has restrictions on how it is used!
Making it a large weapon does change it into a two-handed weapon. The restriction on it's one-handed use then becomes irrelevant.
The weapon is awkward to use one-handed. There are two ways to deal with this: use it in two hands, OR get some special training of how to use it in one hand. Therefore, if you use it in two hands then you have already dealt with its awkwardness; you don't need the EWP as well.
|
|
I'm pretty sure the PDT will respond with something to the effect of:
"Weapons such as the bastard sword, dwarven waraxe, katana, etc. do not fall neatly into either the one-handed weapon category or the two-handed weapon category. In order to account for these unique weapons:
- They are always considered one-handed weapons (hardness, hitpoints, etc.).
- A character must have the Exotic Weapon Proficiency feat to wield them one-handed (or be a Dwarf, in the case of the Dwarven Waraxe).
- A character without the Exotic Weapon Proficiency feat wields them as if they were two-handed martial weapons.
In short, those characters that have the Exotic Weapon Proficiency treat these weapons the same way they would treat a longsword or a battleaxe. Those characters that do not have the Exotic Weapon Proficiency treat these weapons the same way they would treat a greatsword or a greataxe."
(The PDT has my permission to cut and paste this for the FAQ response).
FWIW, here is the description for the Katana:
Specifically constructed for samurai, katanas employ multiple types of steel combined in a distinctive forging process. The result are swords noted for their wickedly sharp yet slender, gently curved blades, designed to make graceful hacking strokes capable of severing opponents' heads and limbs. Though finely balanced, these blades are difficult to master. Characters can use a katana two-handed as a martial weapon, but must take the Exotic Weapon Proficiency (katana) feat to use it one-handed.
*Lawyer'd*
If you cannot wield a bastard sword in one hand without the feat...Okaaay...for the sake of argument...
...then you cannot use a large bastard sword (even in two hands) without the feat.WTF??? This 'then' doesn't logically follow from that 'if'!
A restriction on using something in one hand tells you nothing about any restrictions on using it in two hands!
If a one-handed weapon is unable to be used in one hand without EWP, this doesn't make it a two handed weapon. The weapon's category (light/one-handed/two-handed) determines how many hands are needed, while how a weapon is used is a different thing! Both are fully described in the rules.
The description of the BS doesn't change what category it is (it remains a one-handed weapon), it has restrictions on how it is used!
Making it a large weapon does change it into a two-handed weapon. The restriction on it's one-handed use then becomes irrelevant.
The weapon is awkward to use one-handed. There are two ways to deal with this: use it in two hands, OR get some special training of how to use it in one hand. Therefore, if you use it in two hands then you have already dealt with its awkwardness; you don't need the EWP as well.
I'm not sure how else to explain this. If the argument is that you cannot use the weapon in one hand if you do not have the exotic weapon proficiency, how do you propose a person could use a large one-handed weapon? A person taking the feat and a person not taking the feat are therefore treated the same so long as the weapon is large?
Perhaps the underlying point was unclear, so I'll break it down.
The argument is:
1. You cannot use a bastard sword in one hand unless you have the feat.
2. A large bastard sword is a one handed weapon, but is treated as a two handed weapon for a medium creature.
3. A large person without the feat cannot use a large bastard sword with one hand, but must use two.
4. If a large weapon must be wielded in two hands by a large creature, a similarly situated medium creature cannot use that weapon at all.
5. Because a large creature without the feat cannot use a bastard sword but with both hands, a similarly situated medium creature (one who does not have the feat) cannot wield that weapon at all.
In short, the weapon size rules boil down to this (for one and two handed weapons): If you were the same size category as the weapon, would you be able to wield that weapon in one hand? If the answer is yes, then you can wield it in two hands if you're a size down. If the answer is no, then you cannot wield it at all if you're a size down.
If a person without the feat can wield a large bastard sword with two hands, that person is treated the exact same as a person with the feat, who is also restricted to using said sword in both hands.
If you're a medium creature, how can you possibly wield a weapon that is large if you would need two hands to be able to wield that same weapon if you were large yourself?
That's the point. You've already said that the rules regarding the ability to wield a bastard sword in one hand are unclear and need resolution. So, you've already stated that the argument has merit, even if it's not the one you agree with. The fact that a medium creature cannot wield a large bastard sword at all directly and logically follows from the argument that a medium creature without the feat cannot wield a medium bastard sword in one hand. Without the feat the bastard sword is, for all intents and purposes relevant to questions about who can wield it, treated just like a greatsword. That's it, in a nutshell.
The weapon's category (light/one-handed/two-handed) determines how many hands are needed
True, aside from the bastard sword, dwarven waraxe, and katana, and maybe some others.
FWIW, here is the description for the Katana:
Specifically constructed for samurai, katanas employ multiple types of steel combined in a distinctive forging process. The result are swords noted for their wickedly sharp yet slender, gently curved blades, designed to make graceful hacking strokes capable of severing opponents' heads and limbs. Though finely balanced, these blades are difficult to master. Characters can use a katana two-handed as a martial weapon, but must take the Exotic Weapon Proficiency (katana) feat to use it one-handed.
Well, unless they intended to treat katana's differently than bastard swords for some reason that seems like a pretty clear statement of intent. The wording is much cleaner here.
Debate won't be resolved until we have a direct statement though, I don't think.
|
The idea of an One-handed weapon(this never changes) that is impossible to be used in One hand, without a feat, is a bit mind boggling.
I simply cannot see this as RAI, and the ground is very shaky, in my opinion, for it being RAW.
A weapon that has alternate proficiency required, depending on how it is used, makes more sense, and is a staple amongst a number of weapons, even outside the weapons in question in this thread.
I feel the need to remind folks, that the Bastard Sword, Dwarven Waraxe, Great Terbutje, and Katana, are all One Handed weapons, no matter how many hands are used when wielding it.
This fact never changes.
Never.
The idea of an One-handed weapon(this never changes) that is impossible to be used in One hand, without a feat, is a bit mind boggling.
I simply cannot see this as RAI, and the ground is very shaky, in my opinion, for it being RAW.
A weapon that has alternate proficiency required, depending on how it is used, makes more sense, and is a staple amongst a number of weapons, even outside the weapons in question in this thread.
I feel the need to remind folks, that the Bastard Sword, Dwarven Waraxe, Great Terbutje, and Katana, are all One Handed weapons, no matter how many hands are used when wielding it.
This fact never changes.
Never.
I don't think that's in doubt, honestly. They're "one handed" weapons. I think the question ultimately is whether the intent was to create a corner case, but done through perhaps inartful drafting. The katana language is much closer to that ("must take the feat to use it one-handed" - not "must take the feat to use it one-handed without suffering a penalty ...", etc.).
Besides, it's not a stretch to say it should work like it did in 3.5, considering the relationship of the design teams and the fact that, for all intents and purposes, the wording is the exact same between the systems. Despite the kerfuffle about Pathfinder not being 3.5 or a mere update to 3.5 from a few pages ago, looking to their FAQs when similar questions crop up is not an irrational thing to do (particularly when the operative language used is precisely the same).
That's why I think this one is a much more reasonable FAQ candidate. The alternative interpretation doesn't appear to be nearly so tortured as the fighter bonus feat stuff was. There's a historical basis for it here. Perhaps I'm more amenable to that interpretation because I played 3.5.
*shrug* Patiently waiting. It's not going to hurt my feelings if they decide it one way or the other.
|
|
I'm not sure how else to explain this. If the argument is that you cannot use the weapon in one hand if you do not have the exotic weapon proficiency, how do you propose a person could use a large one-handed weapon?
In two hands.
A person taking the feat and a person not taking the feat are therefore treated the same so long as the weapon is large?
This is already the case. A creature with only MWP and a creature with EWP are already equal in using it in two hands.
Perhaps the underlying point was unclear, so I'll break it down.
The argument is:
1. You cannot use a bastard sword in one hand unless you have the feat.
I don't agree with this, but I do agree that it is open to this interpretation.
2. A large bastard sword is a one handed weapon, but is treated as a two handed weapon for a medium creature.
Correct. This is how the rules for using inappropriately-sized weapons modify a weapon's category.
3. A large person without the feat cannot use a large bastard sword with one hand, but must use two.
For the sake of argument.
4. If a large weapon must be wielded in two hands by a large creature, a similarly situated medium creature cannot use that weapon at all.
Not quite true. If a large weapon must be wielded in two hands because it is a two-handed weapon for that creature, a similarly situated medium creature cannot use that weapon at all. From the same rules as above (inappropriately-sized weapons). These are the rules which determine if a weapon can be wielded at all.
5. Because a large creature without the feat cannot use a bastard sword but with both hands, a similarly situated medium creature (one who does not have the feat) cannot wield that weapon at all.
No. Because the reason the large creature without the feat cannot use it in one hand has nothing to do with the rules which determine if weapons can be wielded at all (inapp-sized); the weapon is a one-handed weapon for him! The reason he can't use it in one hand (accepting, for the sake of argument, that he cannot wield it at all as opposed to wielding at a -4 penalty) is that the description of the weapon restricts its one-handed use, but does not restrict its two-handed use in any way! A medium creature is using it in two hands (because it indisputably is a two-handed weapon for him), and the description does not restrict its two-handed use in any way!
In short, the weapon size rules boil down to this (for one and two handed weapons): If you were the same size category as the weapon, would you be able to wield that weapon in one hand? If the answer is yes, then you can wield it in two hands if you're a size down. If the answer is no, then you cannot wield it at all if you're a size down.
You may wish that the rules say that. But they don't.
If a person without the feat can wield a large bastard sword with two hands, that person is treated the exact same as a person with the feat, who is also restricted to using said sword in both hands.
Yes, this is already true. The EWP trains you how to use it in one hand as well as two. The MWP only trains you how to use it in two hands. The difference is that the EWP trains you in one-handed techniques, which are irrelevant when using it in two hands, such as when using a large one.
If you're a medium creature, how can you possibly wield a weapon that is large if you would need two hands to be able to wield that same weapon if you were large yourself?
If the reason you need two hands to use a medium BS is that you lack the special training to use it in one hand, then that lack will not hurt you when you use it in two. If the weapon were indeed too large, then it would be in the two-handed weapon category. It is not.
That's the point. You've already said that the rules regarding the ability to wield a bastard sword in one hand are unclear and need resolution. So, you've already stated that the argument has merit, even if it's not the one you agree with. The fact that a medium creature cannot wield a large bastard sword at all directly and logically follows from the argument that a medium creature without the feat cannot wield a medium bastard sword in one hand. Without the feat the bastard sword is, for all intents and purposes relevant to questions about who can wield it, treated just like a greatsword. That's it, in a nutshell.
I've stated that the question of whether it can be wielded but at -4 for non-proficiency, or cannot be used at all, is yet to be definitively resolved.
But this in no way restricts the weapon when it is being used in two hands! The rules for using it in two hands are clear!
• size category of the weapon (one-handed)
• inappropriately-sized (a large BS is a two-handed weapon for a medium creature)
• may be used as a martial weapon when used in two hands. This rule in no way restricts how the weapon may be used, it only determines if you suffer a -4 non-proficiency penalty or not. Using an inappropriately-sized weapon does not interact with this clause in any way.
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.
The numbers of rulings I have been correct on based on my 3.5 experience disagrees with you.
Ok, my bad, I was going off other peoples information on it.
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?
From the rules in CRB, a bastard sword is a 1-handed weapon. This makes it a small object. Proficiency should not be able to change what type and size of weapon it is.
Most people that played 3.5 and read the wording came to the same conclusion I did. <---This is going by real life gamers and messageboards.
It also seems the 3.5 devs had that intent.
With that in mind I am sure the Paizo devs at the very least knew what the overwhelming majority opinion would be, so to have the same words being used would not make sense if they wanted a different meaning.
Now I have not read every post. I am actually 3 pages behind so if this has been answered ignore my next question..
Why use the same words and expect for the readers to take a different meaning?
Is the following for a rapier just flavor text also?
You can use the Weapon Finesse feat to apply your Dexterity modifier instead of your Strength modifier to attack rolls with a rapier sized for you, even though it isn’t a light weapon for you. You can’t wield a rapier in two hands in order to apply 1½ times your Strength bonus to damage.
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.
The rules do say it is to large to be wielded in one hand. That may not make it a two-handed weapon, but it definitely means you can't wield it in one hand, and really that is all that matters for the purpose of this discussion.
| 2 people marked this as FAQ candidate. |
I'm pretty sure the PDT will respond with something to the effect of:
"Weapons such as the bastard sword, dwarven waraxe, katana, etc. do not fall neatly into either the one-handed weapon category or the two-handed weapon category. In order to account for these unique weapons:
- They are always considered one-handed weapons (hardness, hitpoints, etc.).
- A character must have the Exotic Weapon Proficiency feat to wield them one-handed (or be a Dwarf, in the case of the Dwarven Waraxe).
- A character without the Exotic Weapon Proficiency feat wields them as if they were two-handed martial weapons.
In short, those characters that have the Exotic Weapon Proficiency treat these weapons the same way they would treat a longsword or a battleaxe. Those characters that do not have the Exotic Weapon Proficiency treat these weapons the same way they would treat a greatsword or a greataxe."(The PDT has my permission to cut and paste this for the FAQ response).
FWIW, here is the description for the Katana:
Specifically constructed for samurai, katanas employ multiple types of steel combined in a distinctive forging process. The result are swords noted for their wickedly sharp yet slender, gently curved blades, designed to make graceful hacking strokes capable of severing opponents' heads and limbs. Though finely balanced, these blades are difficult to master. Characters can use a katana two-handed as a martial weapon, but must take the Exotic Weapon Proficiency (katana) feat to use it one-handed.*Lawyer'd*
Nice find since the bastard sword was the katana before they made the katana it's own weapon.
They need to apply that same wording to the other weapons now.
What do we have here.
Katana="Characters can use a katana two-handed as a martial weapon, but must take the Exotic Weapon Proficiency (katana) feat to use it one-handed."
Bastard Sword="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. You can use a bastard sword two-handed as a martial weapon."
Dwarven Waraxe="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. You can use a bastard sword two-handed as a martial weapon."
Coincidence? I think not.
edit: The other sentence in all of these is restricting one-handed use without EWP.
You're going to have to bear with us here. Imagine 3.5 never existed.
He is saying that if he read it that way years ago, why should he read the exact same words differently now, even if 3.5 never existed.
If you tell me go to the store today, and you tell me the same thing 10 years later I am pretty sure I will interpret it the same way, barring some substantial change in circumstance.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The idea of an One-handed weapon(this never changes) that is impossible to be used in One hand, without a feat, is a bit mind boggling.
I simply cannot see this as RAI, and the ground is very shaky, in my opinion, for it being RAW.
A weapon that has alternate proficiency required, depending on how it is used, makes more sense, and is a staple amongst a number of weapons, even outside the weapons in question in this thread.
I feel the need to remind folks, that the Bastard Sword, Dwarven Waraxe, Great Terbutje, and Katana, are all One Handed weapons, no matter how many hands are used when wielding it.
This fact never changes.
Never.
So, basically, you're saying that you don't like exceptions to the rule...even though the rules are rife with exceptions.
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.
The numbers of rulings I have been correct on based on my 3.5 experience disagrees with you.
The recent sneak attack ruling disagrees with your experiences.
|
|
Is the following for a rapier just flavor text also?
You can use the Weapon Finesse feat to apply your Dexterity modifier instead of your Strength modifier to attack rolls with a rapier sized for you, even though it isn’t a light weapon for you. You can’t wield a rapier in two hands in order to apply 1½ times your Strength bonus to damage.
Let's break it down.
Rapier: You can use the Weapon Finesse feat to apply your Dexterity modifier instead of your Strength modifier to attack rolls with a rapier sized for you, even though it isn't a light weapon.
= it's finessable, despite not being 'light'.
You can't wield a rapier in two hands in order to apply 1-1/2 times your Strength bonus to damage.
= changes the way the Str bonus works when using it in two hands.
That was fun! Let's do the same for the bastard sword!
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.
= explains why it is an exotic weapon. Note that this is often quoted without the 'thus, it is an exotic weapon' part, which changes the meaning and rules consequences of this sentence, resulting in (amongst other things) this thread.
A character can use a bastard sword two-handed as a martial weapon.
= means that, despite it being an exotic weapon, martial proficiency will let you avoid the non-proficiency penalty, providing you use it in two hands.
No part of the description, in PF or 3.5, changes what category of weapon it is; it remains a one-handed weapon, and when you lack the EWP it remains a one-handed weapon. Weapon proficiency does not determine whether you can use a weapon at all, it just let's you avoid a non-proficiency penalty.
I have no problem with including 3.5 FAQs in considering a case. The particular 3.5 FAQ quoted earlier was not supported by the 3.5 RAW. A FAQ only clarifies what the RAW means, but if the RAW doesn't make things work the way the devs think it should, then a FAQ is not enough! For that, the need an errata! Perhaps the 3.5 devs were planning an errata, but a reprint didn't happen before the game was shelved. Perhaps they had a change of heart and left the wording as it was for a reason; 3.5 FAQs were frequently originally from Skip Williams' Sage Advice column, and I've known a few occasions when he had to backtrack and reverse an earlier ruling, but all those rulings are available to be copied and pasted, even if they were later reversed!
Whatever the case there, some of the 3.5 devs became the PF devs. They did change the wording in the BS description, but only the non-rules fluff (from 'Bastard swords are also known as hand-and-a-half swords' to 'A bastard sword is about 4-feet in length'), but they chose not to change the rules crunch (thus, it is an exotic weapon, etc.).
The idea that it is a one-handed weapon with the EWP and a two-handed weapon without is an extremely common belief. But it's still wrong. The rules for using a one-handed weapon in two hands exist, and they exist separately from and simultaneous with the rules for weapon category (light/1H/2H). The rules for weapon proficiency, and the consequences of using a weapon which which you lack proficiency (a -4 attack penalty) are well understood and do not result in a weapon being unusable.
The PF devs can issue an errata if they want to change any of this.
Some history: in 1st and 2nd ed the bastard sword existed, just as it did in 3.0 and 3.5, and now in PF. It's a sword constructed to be useable in one hand or two. But there are many ways to model this in rules terms. The writer has to make a choice, and make it playable while still reflecting the concept in the rules.
Gary Gygax did this by giving it one damage code for it's one-handed use and another for it's two handed use. It was no harder to use it in one hand than it was in two. The weapon proficiencies were a little different from 3rd ed, but there was nothing special or different about proficiency in a bastard sword or a longsword.
In 3rd ed, Monte Cook made his own choices. He wanted to reflect that while it could be used either 1H or 2H, it was harder in 1H and you needed to be stronger. That's why in 3.0 you needed a minimum of 13 Str to take EWP in BS or DW, while no such stat minimum was required for any other exotic weapon. He used the non-proficiency penalty (-4) to reflect the difficulty of using it one handed, without the special training to control it with only one hand, but using a second hand provided all the control you needed with only normal (martial) training. That's why he wrote 'thus, it is an exotic weapon'. If his intention was that it is as impossible to wield one-handed as a two-handed weapon (without a feat), he wouldn't have written that, and he would have made it a two-handed martial weapon, and also written a feat which would allow you to use it as if it were a one-handed weapon for you.
That's the way he could have done it. He didn't. And the consequence of the way he did write it is that it's a one-handed weapon irrespective of the wielder's proficiency.
If I'd been given the task of simulating this weapon in 3rd ed, I'd've made it a one-handed martial weapon, but with a -4 attack penalty to its one-handed use unless:-
• it counts as a light weapon for you
• you have 13+ Str
• (for the DW) you are a dwarf
I'd've gone the Str route rather than the special training route.
We could all imagine how we would've written the rules for bastard swords, but this is the rules forum and we have to deal with the rules we have. Not the rules we might wish we had, or the rules that we would write (ours would all differ anyway), but the rules we have.
The recent sneak attack ruling disagrees with your experiences.Linky please?
SKR suggests applying this FAQ to all sneak attacks:
"The Surprise Spells class feature allows the Arcane Trickster to add his sneak attack dice to spells that deal damage that target flat-footed foes. This damage is only applied once per spell. In the case of fireball this means it affects all targets in the area, with each getting a save to halve the damage (including the sneak attack damage). In the case of magic missile, the extra damage is only added once to one missile, chosen by the caster when the spell is cast."http://paizo.com/threads/rzs2loim&page=2?Sneak-Attack-and-Scorching-Ray #95
The recent sneak attack ruling disagrees with your experiences.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.
The numbers of rulings I have been correct on based on my 3.5 experience disagrees with you.
What are you talking about?
You could at least cite the ruling. :)
said a lot of things..
You forgot about " making it too large to use in one hand without special training"...
edit: That came out wrong..
Malachi what is the point of the text saying the weapon is to large to be wield in one hand, and don't say flavor text unless you can explain why the same devs who were on 3.5 ground floor are expecting us to read the same words in a different manner.
The recent sneak attack ruling disagrees with your experiences.Linky please?SKR suggests applying this FAQ to all sneak attacks:
"The Surprise Spells class feature allows the Arcane Trickster to add his sneak attack dice to spells that deal damage that target flat-footed foes. This damage is only applied once per spell. In the case of fireball this means it affects all targets in the area, with each getting a save to halve the damage (including the sneak attack damage). In the case of magic missile, the extra damage is only added once to one missile, chosen by the caster when the spell is cast."http://paizo.com/threads/rzs2loim&page=2?Sneak-Attack-and-Scorching-Ray #95
First of all that was not me applying a 3.5 ruling to Pathfinder.
Secondly, I was not talking about special cases, and if you had scrolled farther down you would have read where I quoted "surprise spell."
My understanding of the rules was not in error.
I also made other post after that to point that out.
edit: If you had not been so quick to try to prove me wrong, and read the entire thread that would have been clear unless you were just trying to pick up selected quote, knowing that I knew what the rule actually was.
So which is it? Did you not see me quote surprise spell or were you trying to take my quote out of context?
edit 2:Took away text with needless words on my part that would only lead to sniping, and not moving the conversation forward.
|
|
said a lot of things..I like how you conveniently skipped over explaining " making it too large to use in one hand without special training"...
making it too large to use in one hand without special training; thus, it is an exotic weapon.
It's one sentence, and the misquoting is done by not quoting the part after the semi-colon, which is the rules consequence of the fluff of the part before the semi-colon. You can tell that by the word 'thus'. It's big, that's why it's exotic. It's big so it's exotic.
It isn't obviously a candidate for an exotic weapon. Warriors would be trained in it just as they would've been trained in all the martial weapons. That's why its two-handed use is covered by MWP. The only reason for it to be exotic (unlike short/long/great) is to allow the -4 non-proficiency penalty to reflect the difficulty in using it in one hand, without the special training in one hand techniques represented by EWP.
If the second half of the sentence were not there it would change the meaning to being unusable one-handed! I'm not surprised that those who think this is the case anyway choose to omit that part!
The reason that this sentence is essentially fluff (the 3.5 version said it is also known as a hand-and-a-half sword, hardly 'crunch'!) is that we already know that it's an exotic weapon. If that sentence were not there the rules would be the same (MWP covers two-handed use would remain in the description), leaving us only wondering why it isn't a martial weapon like all the other swords, something Monte Cook had to explain to those just buying 3.0 after years of 1st and 2nd ed where the BS is just another weapon.
|
|
In 3rd ed, Monte Cook made his own choices. He wanted to reflect that while it could be used either 1H or 2H, it was harder in 1H and you needed to be stronger. That's why in 3.0 you needed a minimum of 13 Str to take EWP in BS or DW, while no such stat minimum was required for any other exotic weapon. He used the non-proficiency penalty (-4) to reflect the difficulty of using it one handed, without the special training to control it with only one hand, but using a second hand provided all the control you needed with only normal (martial) training. That's why he wrote 'thus, it is an exotic weapon'. If his intention was that it is as impossible to wield one-handed as a two-handed weapon (without a feat), he wouldn't have written that, and he would have made it a two-handed martial weapon, and also written a feat which would allow you to use it as if it were a one-handed weapon for you.
The fact that a 13 STR is required to get that feat speaks highly to the point that if you didn't have the feat, you couldn't wield it one-handed.
The reason why he wrote it the way he did was because the weapon itself is a one-handed weapon (for example, if you try to sunder it), but to reflect that it is a weapon that doesn't fit neatly into either the one-handed weapon category or the two-handed weapon category, he decided to make it an exotic weapon (thus requiring a feat to wield it). Knowing that it could be wielded as a two-handed weapon just fine, he then says that if you don't have the EWP, you can wield with two hands.
Does it become a two-handed weapon? No, it is a one-handed weapon. But it is an exception to the "normal" one-handed weapon rules that allows you to wield it with one hand...you need to have a feat to wield it in one hand. For all practical purposes, if you don't have the EWP, you treat it exactly as if it were a greatsword.
Interestingly, this is how the bastard sword and dwarven waraxe worked for the past 13 years.
It befuddles me that anyone would be surprised that there is an exception to a rule that allows what could normally not be done (or in this case, the exception does not allow what could normally be done), especially when these same people make statements such as "specific trumps general" or "jotungrip is an exception that allows you to wield a greatsword in one hand" or whatever else they quote that says there can be an exception to the rule.
EDIT: clarity
|
|
The reason that this sentence is essentially fluff (the 3.5 version said it is also known as a hand-and-a-half sword, hardly 'crunch'!)...
You are deliberately misrepresenting what is being said. The first part of the sentence in 3.5 said it is also known as a hand-and-a-half sword. Interestingly, the first part of the sentence in Pathfinder says it is 4 feet long. We all agree that these specific parts have no direct impact on the rules.
The rest of the sentences for both versions, though, are identical and DO have a direct impact on the rules.
EDIT: Just because one part of a sentence is not crunchy, that doesn't invalidate the rest of the sentence.
I meant to erase that before you saw it. :)
The rule is telling you that you can't use it in one hand, thus it is an exotic weapon.
With that aside I would like for you to address the following posts.
Post by Hangar flying with the Katana doing exactly what we are saying the Bastard Sword does.
Post by me comparing the language of the Katana to the Bastard Sword and Dwarven Waraxe
Well since the 2nd link quotes the first link I guess you really only need to look at that one.
I'm with Malachi on this one. Bastard Swords are listed in the weapons table under the One-handed Exotic Weapons section. Saying it can't be used as a weapon for which the categorized it as under the table they designed is a bunch of oxymoron rubbish. It's like saying Fireball isn't a real spell, even though it's listed as a 3rd Level Sorcerer/Wizard Spell.
This should be more than enough proof to designate that it serves as a One-handed Exotic Weapon for the purposes of calculating HP, cost, etc. In addition, the caveat for it being usable as a Martial Weapon in Two Hands makes no distinction that it supersedes the factor of it being a One-handed Exotic Weapon other than for proficiency penalties and wielding handiness.
As an addition to this, the text also assumes that the character is sized for the weapon; because of this, the option to wield a Bastard Sword for one size category larger than you is considered a Two-handed Exotic Weapon with a -2 penalty to hit. You otherwise can't use it as a Martial because that makes it have 3 or 4 hands required to use it as such, meaning the proficiency feat is required to avoid an additional -4 to hit, or you simply cannot attack with it at all.
Either we're reading too much into the RAW, or we're throwing common sense out the window because of the RAW; in any event, I don't see how this is hard to figure out.
Darksol would you care to explain the link I asked Malachi to explain?
|
|
I'm with Malachi on this one. Bastard Swords are listed in the weapons table under the One-handed Exotic Weapons section. Saying it can't be used as a weapon for which the categorized it as under the table they designed is a bunch of oxymoron rubbish.
So, is it rubbish that there are rules that grant an exception to allow characters to wield two-handed weapons in one hand? If not, why would this be any different?
I'm with Malachi on this one. Bastard Swords are listed in the weapons table under the One-handed Exotic Weapons section. Saying it can't be used as a weapon for which the categorized it as under the table they designed is a bunch of oxymoron rubbish.So, is it rubbish that there are rules that grant an exception to allow characters to wield two-handed weapons in one hand? If not, why would this be any different?
It seems they think the restriction is just flavor text. That is why I am waiting for a reply to the qoute comparing the katana, bastars sword, and dwarven waraxe.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Considering wrong sized bastard swords, many have looked at up-sizing it, but what about down-sizing it.
If a medium character is wielding a small bastard sword and doesn't have EWP, does that mean they can wield it in two hands to get 1-1/2 since to them it is treated as a "one-handed martial weapon"? If they have EWP, it is then a light weapon and they get no special damage for wielding it two handed? Or would they have to declare, "I am now using it as a martial weapon and not an exotic weapon" (which I guess could hurt someone that has EWP but not all martial weapon proficiency)?
I'm with Malachi on this one. Bastard Swords are listed in the weapons table under the One-handed Exotic Weapons section. Saying it can't be used as a weapon for which the categorized it as under the table they designed is a bunch of oxymoron rubbish.So, is it rubbish that there are rules that grant an exception to allow characters to wield two-handed weapons in one hand? If not, why would this be any different?
Not really. Those rules are significantly more concise and clearly stated compared to this. The rules clearly state for such weapons about handiness, penalties accrued, etc. In addition, the cost and capabilities of such are reasonable in comparison. All I said was it's stupid to say that a Bastard Sword is not a One-handed Exotic Weapon when the weapons table (and apparently other sources) say otherwise. The exception rule is listed for penalties ans proficiency requirements for handiness and the like.
@wraithstrike: Looking at the link, I do notice the main differences between my statements and those of the link are that there is no "go-between", so to speak. I wonder what source you got that information from, firstly. Secondly, I don't understand why it's an "all or nothing" deal for those weapons when it contradicts the rules of non-proficiency/inappropriately sized weapons as they were written, especially since the information in the link provided is not cited in any hardcover that I know is published.
I'm with Malachi on this one. Bastard Swords are listed in the weapons table under the One-handed Exotic Weapons section. Saying it can't be used as a weapon for which the categorized it as under the table they designed is a bunch of oxymoron rubbish.So, is it rubbish that there are rules that grant an exception to allow characters to wield two-handed weapons in one hand? If not, why would this be any different?Not really. Those rules are significantly more concise and clearly stated compared to this. The rules clearly state for such weapons about handiness, penalties accrued, etc. In addition, the cost and capabilities of such are reasonable in comparison. All I said was it's stupid to say that a Bastard Sword is not a One-handed Exotic Weapon when the weapons table (and apparently other sources) say otherwise. The exception rule is listed for penalties ans proficiency requirements for handiness and the like.
@wraithstrike: Looking at the link, I do notice the main differences between my statements and those of the link are that there is no "go-between", so to speak. I wonder what source you got that information from, firstly. Secondly, I don't understand why it's an "all or nothing" deal for those weapons when it contradicts the rules of non-proficiency/inappropriately sized weapons as they were written, especially since the information in the link provided is not cited in any hardcover that I know is published.
The source is Ultimate Equipment. :)
edit:Standby I will get you a link to the PRD(Pathfinder's official online rules source).
edit2: Here is the link-->Click me, and look for the katana. The other weapons are here also.
edit3: The link should take you directly to the katana now.
Well, I re-read each section, and I can see how the "all or nothing" deal can be construed, though it still contradicts the rules for non-proficiency and inappropriate size. Now all I'm going to do is slap the FAQ button and see if the Devs want to cook up this can of worms or not.
Well, I re-read each section, and I can see how the "all or nothing" deal can be construed, though it still contradicts the rules for non-proficiency and inappropriate size. Now all I'm going to do is slap the FAQ button and see if the Devs want to cook up this can of worms or not.
Rules exceptions are a part of the game. The idea behind these weapons is that they are in between weapon sizes,but there is no category to cover that so they had to just say you can't wield it in one hand even though you normally could. If they had made it a two handed weapon that you could wield in one hand with EWP the affect would be the same.
|
|
Considering wrong sized bastard swords, many have looked at up-sizing it, but what about down-sizing it.
If a medium character is wielding a small bastard sword and doesn't have EWP, does that mean they can wield it in two hands to get 1-1/2 since to them it is treated as a "one-handed martial weapon"? If they have EWP, it is then a light weapon and they get no special damage for wielding it two handed?
That is a fair question, and one that I don't know if I can adequately explain.
Whether one agrees with my position or not, I think people can intuitively understand that as things get bigger, they become more difficult to use. Thus, a large bastard sword being 2H is derived from a medium bastard sword being 1H, and if you don't have the ability to wield a medium one 1H, you shouldn't be able to handle something that's bigger. (Again, I'm not saying one has to agree with it specifically, just that I think most can at least understand this point of view). From that position, I think it is fair to say that if something gets smaller, it should be easier to use.
There are a few possible outcomes regarding a smaller bastard sword that I see:
1) Since it is a one-handed weapon, a small bastard sword would be considered a light weapon. Since characters can use a light weapon regardless whether or not they have the EWP, they can use it as a light weapon.
2) Since those without the EWP treat a medium bastard sword as if it were a two-handed weapon, it would be fair to say they would treat a small bastard sword as a one-handed weapon, while those with the EWP would use it as a light weapon. Sure, while they can't hold it with two hands, they do get some benefits for it being a light weapon (TWF with a medium bastard sword in the primary hand and a small bastard sword in the off-hand).
Regarding outcome #2, it would certainly be consistent with how it works for a large bastard sword, and it doesn't seem like it would be a bad thing if that were the case, either.
Considering wrong sized bastard swords, many have looked at up-sizing it, but what about down-sizing it.
If a medium character is wielding a small bastard sword and doesn't have EWP, does that mean they can wield it in two hands to get 1-1/2 since to them it is treated as a "one-handed martial weapon"? If they have EWP, it is then a light weapon and they get no special damage for wielding it two handed? Or would they have to declare, "I am now using it as a martial weapon and not an exotic weapon" (which I guess could hurt someone that has EWP but not all martial weapon proficiency)?
I would say they can weild it in two hands for the 1.5 strength bonus. If they have EWP they could also treat it as a light weapon, which is strange, but seems to be legal within the rules since the weapon does not fit "neatly" within one category. I think situations like this are what the devs are looking at, and that is why they have not responded yet. They may make another rules exception to prevent it from being used in all three categories for one creature.
Now consider if we go 2 sizes smaller (say a large creature wielding a small bastard sword).
For EWP: 1 handed -> light -> unwieldable
For MWP: 2 handed -> 1 handed -> light