I get the impression that I've missed something. A large bastard sword wielded by a medium creature is a two-handed exotic weapon that imposes a -2 penalty for inappropriate size. I can't see how it can be argued that the same weapon can be wielded by a medium creature with two hands without non-proficiency penalties applying if they only have martial weapon proficiency.
It is implicit that all rules regarding weapon size relate to an appropriately sized weapon. As soon as you go to inappropriately sized weapons, the "handedness" needs to be changed, but this has zero effect on the proficiency required to avoid the non-proficiency penalty. So a large bastard sword (exotic weapon) is a one-handed weapon for a large creature, and a large creature may wield it in two hands as a martial weapon. A medium creature uses it as a two-handed weapon (at -2) with exotic proficiency, and needs... how many hands to use it as a martial weapon? I'm pretty sure that the answer is not "two".
The equivalent question is "why are the bastard sword and other similar exotic weapons the only ones that become easier to use if they're outsized?"
I get the impression that I've missed something. A large bastard sword wielded by a medium creature is a two-handed exotic weapon that imposes a -2 penalty for inappropriate size. I can't see how it can be argued that the same weapon can be wielded by a medium creature with two hands without non-proficiency penalties applying if they only have martial weapon proficiency.
It is implicit that all rules regarding weapon size relate to an appropriately sized weapon. As soon as you go to inappropriately sized weapons, the "handedness" needs to be changed, but this has zero effect on the proficiency required to avoid the non-proficiency penalty. So a large bastard sword (exotic weapon) is a one-handed weapon for a large creature, and a large creature may wield it in two hands as a martial weapon. A medium creature uses it as a two-handed weapon (at -2) with exotic proficiency, and needs... how many hands to use it as a martial weapon? I'm pretty sure that the answer is not "two".
The equivalent question is "why are the bastard sword and other similar exotic weapons the only ones that become easier to use if they're outsized?"
They aren't. If such cases were true, every single melee character would be running around with Colossal (or larger) Bastard Swords in two hands dealing 5D8 or so damage dice per swing. (It'd certainly make the Titan Mauler archetype a lot cooler and actually have commonplace, though much more obsolete.)
It is as you've said, and the players who read into the RAW too literally think they broke the game with such thinking when the RAI is hardly so; it's also the same reasoning why I feel that the "inability to use Bastard Swords without proficiency feat" ruling is incorrect. By that logic, Katanas, Dwarven Waraxes, and Bastard Swords still remain unusable if you have the Heirloom Weapon trait, since RAW says only the Exotic Weapon Proficiency feat allows you to use such weapons in one hand.
Sol why does that invalidate the Heirloom trait?
I get the impression that I've missed something. A large bastard sword wielded by a medium creature is a two-handed exotic weapon that imposes a -2 penalty for inappropriate size. I can't see how it can be argued that the same weapon can be wielded by a medium creature with two hands without non-proficiency penalties applying if they only have martial weapon proficiency.
It is implicit that all rules regarding weapon size relate to an appropriately sized weapon. As soon as you go to inappropriately sized weapons, the "handedness" needs to be changed, but this has zero effect on the proficiency required to avoid the non-proficiency penalty. So a large bastard sword (exotic weapon) is a one-handed weapon for a large creature, and a large creature may wield it in two hands as a martial weapon. A medium creature uses it as a two-handed weapon (at -2) with exotic proficiency, and needs... how many hands to use it as a martial weapon? I'm pretty sure that the answer is not "two".
The equivalent question is "why are the bastard sword and other similar exotic weapons the only ones that become easier to use if they're outsized?"
I don't think anyone said the penalties would not be there for it not being sized correctly. We are just talking about handiness(ease of use).
I get the impression that I've missed something. A large bastard sword wielded by a medium creature is a two-handed exotic weapon that imposes a -2 penalty for inappropriate size. I can't see how it can be argued that the same weapon can be wielded by a medium creature with two hands without non-proficiency penalties applying if they only have martial weapon proficiency.
It is implicit that all rules regarding weapon size relate to an appropriately sized weapon. As soon as you go to inappropriately sized weapons, the "handedness" needs to be changed, but this has zero effect on the proficiency required to avoid the non-proficiency penalty. So a large bastard sword (exotic weapon) is a one-handed weapon for a large creature, and a large creature may wield it in two hands as a martial weapon. A medium creature uses it as a two-handed weapon (at -2) with exotic proficiency, and needs... how many hands to use it as a martial weapon? I'm pretty sure that the answer is not "two".
The equivalent question is "why are the bastard sword and other similar exotic weapons the only ones that become easier to use if they're outsized?"
They aren't. If such cases were true, every single melee character would be running around with Colossal (or larger) Bastard Swords in two hands dealing 5D8 or so damage dice per swing. (It'd certainly make the Titan Mauler archetype a lot cooler and actually have commonplace, though much more obsolete.)
It is as you've said, and the players who read into the RAW too literally think they broke the game with such thinking when the RAI is hardly so; it's also the same reasoning why I feel that the "inability to use Bastard Swords without proficiency feat" ruling is incorrect. By that logic, Katanas, Dwarven Waraxes, and Bastard Swords still remain unusable if you have the Heirloom Weapon trait, since RAW says only the Exotic Weapon Proficiency feat allows you to use such weapons in one hand.
Pathfinders devs also worked for WoTC, and they had influence on the rules over there. I am sure that if the players knew the restriction was what I have been arguing, that they know it also.
Why do you think they would keep the wording the same, if they wanted a different use of the weapons?
Remember I have already stated that most(more than 50%) of the players use my interpretation if you go by online forums. -->I had way to much free time over the last 10 years or so, but if you like I can go to random forums, and do searches just to get links so you know I am not making this up.
I am asking again because nobody can explain why they would expect for us to know the rule has changed if they know most players did not use my interpretation.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
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
Another fair question. It wouldn't be right for a character without the EWP to be able to do something that the character with the EWP couldn't.
Wraith made a good point in that the EWP allows a choice, whereas if you don't have the EWP, you don't have a choice. So to my previous post, there is probably a third possible solution in that if a character does not have the EWP, they must wield it as a 2H, but those with the EWP may wield it 1H or as a 2H depending on the situation.
So a medium character without the EWP may wield:
- a medium bastard sword as a two-handed weapon
- a small bastard sword as a one-handed weapon (-2)
- a tiny bastard sword as a light weapon (-4)
While a medium character with the EWP may wield:
- a large bastard sword as a two-handed weapon (-2)
- a medium bastard sword one handed or two handed (for all practical purposes, wielding a one-handed weapon in two hands or wielding it as a two-handed weapon are the same)
- a small bastard sword as a one-handed weapon (-2)
- a small bastard sword as a light weapon (-2)
- a tiny bastard sword as a light weapon (-4)
It only makes sense that someone with the EWP would be more versatile with the weapon than someone who without the EWP.
Heirloom Weapon: You carry a non-masterwork simple or martial weapon that has been passed down from generation to generation in your family (pay the standard gp cost for the weapon). When you select this trait, choose one of the following benefits: proficiency with that specific weapon, a +1 trait bonus on attacks of opportunity with that specific weapon, or a +2 trait bonus on one kind of combat maneuver when using that specific weapon.”
I think what I have quoted is the errata'd version. I don't see how this stop you from using it in one hand.
edit:I see what he means. He is saying that by RAW if you are proficient with it by any means other than the feat you can't use it in one hand, but that is not RAI. That should be errata'd, but it is not that big of a deal IMHO.
Proficiency whether it is by means of a trait, feat, racial ability, and so on gives the same benefits.
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 -> lightAnother fair question. It wouldn't be right for a character without the EWP to be able to do something that the character with the EWP couldn't.
Wraith made a good point in that the EWP allows a choice, whereas if you don't have the EWP, you don't have a choice. So to my previous post, there is probably a third possible solution in that if a character does not have the EWP, they must wield it as a 2H, but those with the EWP may wield it 1H or as a 2H depending on the situation.
So a medium character without the EWP may wield:
- a medium bastard sword as a two-handed weapon
- a small bastard sword as a one-handed weapon (-2)
- a tiny bastard sword as a light weapon (-4)
While a medium character with the EWP may wield:
- a large bastard sword as a two-handed weapon (-2)
- a medium bastard sword one handed or two handed (for all practical purposes, wielding a one-handed weapon in two hands or wielding it as a two-handed weapon are the same)
- a small bastard sword as a one-handed weapon (-2)
- a small bastard sword as a light weapon (-2)
- a tiny bastard sword as a light weapon (-4)
It only makes sense that someone with the EWP would be more versatile with the weapon than someone who without the EWP.
Good Point. I think they should allow this instead of putting in another restriction to stop what I said may happen in my last post. :)
Sol why does that invalidate the Heirloom trait?
Because RAW, only the Exotic Weapon Proficiency Feat can allow characters to use such weapons in one hand, since that is the only way they have listed to do so.
@ wraithstrike: I only said that I "felt" the interpretation was incorrect. I understand how it is correct in RAW, but it only validates that I can get away with using a Colossal Sized Dwaven Waraxe in 2 Hands as a Martial Weapon (with a -8 penalty, but it's not like we're sticking bonuses to hit, right?) Without incurring an additional -4 Non-Proficiency Penalty. It also means that spells and abilities that grant proficiency with it (outside of Exotic Weapon Proficiency Feat) don't really do it, since RAW, only the feat can allow true proficiency with them.
Sol why does that invalidate the Heirloom trait?Because RAW, only the Exotic Weapon Proficiency Feat can allow characters to use such weapons in one hand, since that is the only way they have listed to do so.
@ wraithstrike: I only said that I "felt" the interpretation was incorrect. I understand how it is correct in RAW, but it only validates that I can get away with using a Colossal Sized Dwaven Waraxe in 2 Hands as a Martial Weapon (with a -8 penalty, but it's not like we're sticking bonuses to hit, right?) Without incurring an additional -4 Non-Proficiency Penalty. It also means that spells and abilities that grant proficiency with it (outside of Exotic Weapon Proficiency Feat) don't really do it, since RAW, only the feat can allow true proficiency with them.
I understand, but why do you "feel" that way? If it is just a feeling that is an acceptable reply also.
How would you get away with using a colossal Dwarven Waraxe but RAW?
By Hanging Flyer's last post, which I agree with at best you could two-hand a bastard sword sized for a large creature.
You can not wield a weapon that is larger than a two-handed weapon for you, and RAW never says "you can wield a bastard sword of any size", so therefore barring a rules exception being listed or at least implied you can't.
Otherwise you are going to have to argue that applies to any feat that give proficiency and we know that is not the case.
When the devs answer this, we can always ask them to remove the feat requirement, or we can ask them to say that proficiency equals having a feat if they have not already stated it somewhere in the message boards, so lets try to stick to intent instead of "I am going to argue that the book says this, even though I don't believe it to be the intent".
|
"why are the bastard sword and other similar exotic weapons the only ones that become easier to use if they're outsized?"
They become harder to use just like all the others; -2 per difference in size category.
In terms of EWP versus MWP, it's easier to use it in two hands than it is in one. This neither affects the rules for weapon size, nor is affected by them.
Malachi is back..<Eagerly awaits response to the link I wanted him to read>
Malachi is back..<Eagerly awaits response to the link I wanted him to read>I'm at work right now. I hate how real life and earning enough money to eat impinges on my posting time. : /
Yeah I know.. Silly things like bills getting in the way of important stuff like rules debates. The world is backwards... :)
Yeah, no. That's not really it at all. It's equally conceivable that they took it off the 2H martial list to conserve space, fully intending for people to treat it just like it was treated in 3.5 (just like how the FAQ from 3.5 says to treat it).
So they haven't really given any new rule clarification and we're not trolling.
But one wonders why they'd use the exact same language if they actually wanted the weapon treated differently, especially when there was already a clear ruling demonstrating how that language was intended to be interpreted.
|
|
I'm still wondering why people argue this. If you say the staff here was functional in the 3.5 days you quote, then they knew this was a question even then. They also know how it was ruled then.
They then went so far as to reprint the weapon, except they added a couple words to the description.
For those of you who argue that "we have no way of knowing if they intended a change since they used the same thing in the description", they made a major clarification to the case as a whole, since the weapon is now listed in the weapon chart as 1 handed exotic ONLY. It no longer has a 2 handed entry. Oddly enough, now it clearly shows they simplified the whole thing from 2h martial but 1 hand with the feat of yore, (which would have made the HP, hardness, and such much better than any other 1 handed weapon) to 1 handed all the time, but a penalty if you don't have special training, and no special training needed to use it like a greatsword for less damage.
This means one of two things if you continue to argue. Either, you do not believe the designers ability to process a change based on the rules of the old system and make an educated decision to change it to only one entry, in which case why are you asking them for a ruling in the first place, they already made one change and you don't like it; OR you know how it works and you're just trolling because you are bored, and think that a possible +1 damage actually matters in the long scheme of things at any point after... oh... 3rd level.
Considering the bastard sword was never listed as a two-handed weapon in the 3.0 or the 3.5 players handbooks (yes, I do have my 3.0 book opened to page 98-99 and my 3.5 book opened to page 116-117 at the very moment I'm writing this), I'm not really sure what your point is.
|
|
3.5 is identical to PF in that regard (as far as what is printed).
3.0 did have a -4 non-proficiency penalty, but they classified the weapons differently. Instead of classifying them as light, 1H, or 2H, they were actually classified by their size. So a dagger was a tiny weapon, a short sword was a small weapon, a longsword was a medium weapon, and a greatsword was a large weapon.
If the weapon size category was smaller than your size category, the weapon was considered a light weapon. If it was the same size category as you, it was a one-handed weapon. If the weapon was one step larger, it was a two handed weapon. You couldn't use a weapon that two steps or more larger than you.
There were no different weapon sizes: no small longsword or large dagger. A human's greatsword was an ogre's longsword. There aren't any rules for non-PC sized stuff. I'm sure the rules for different sized weapons would be in the DMG or the MM, but I don't have those accessible at the moment.
The bastard sword is listed as a medium-sized exotic melee weapon. As such, it should be wielded by a human as a one-handed weapon...but there is an asterisk telling us to refer to the weapon description for special rules. (Now, remember what I said about weapon sizes and how that relates to character size—especially the comparison of a large weapon when used by a human versus an ogre—because that is important here). The bastard sword description, in its entirety, reads as follows:
A bastard sword is too large to use in one hand without special training; thus, it is an exotic weapon. A Medium-size character can use a bastard sword two-handed as a martial weapon, or a Large creature can use it one-handed in the same way.
Bastard swords are also known as hand-and-a-half swords.
After reading the description and relating it to the weapon size rules, it is clear that a) a character must have the EWP to use the bastard sword one-handed, and b) those characters that don't have the EWP must use it as a two-handed weapon, and can not wield it one-handed. This is further confirmed by the fact that, for those characters who do not have the EWP, it is treated as a large weapon, otherwise the large creature would be able to use it as a light weapon, not a one-handed weapon.
When 3.5 came around, they did away with the language regarding the large creature because they now had rules that gave bastard swords to large and small creatures, and they created the inappropriate weapon size rules.
But, the fundamental understanding that those characters that don't have the EWP treat the bastard sword as one size category larger remained (and still remains in Pathfinder), except now it is referred to as "two-handed" instead of "large sized".
I say this because a simple quick search has turned this same question up ... about 5 different times in the last 6 months or so... and still no ruling so it seems to be very low on the importance list, especially with all the recent faq/errata/clarifications issued.
They expect us to follow what the book says. If book says "can't" then we can't.
Instructional words are not flavor text.
edit:If there is some random exception it can be explained logically, or it is just badly written flavor text.
I say this because a simple quick search has turned this same question up ... about 5 different times in the last 6 months or so... and still no ruling so it seems to be very low on the importance list, especially with all the recent faq/errata/clarifications issued.
They expect us to follow what the book says. If book says "can't" then we can't.
Instructional words are not flavor text.
edit:If there is some random exception it can be explained logically, or it is just badly written flavor text.
Except it uses the word thus. Which clearly means that the text prior to this is an explanation of why this is true. In this case Cause aka flavor:A bastard sword is too large to use one handed. Effect: It is an exotic 1h weapon.
Now you can argue otherwise but technically the rule never says that you can use the weapon 1 handed if you have exotic weapon proficiency it says special training which has zero meaning in the game's ruleset we can assume it is saying exotic weapon proficiency but since we're getting all gung ho about the rules technically speaking you can't use it one handed at all because there isn't any way to get special training per the rules.
Let's see if you can answer the question everyone is ducking.
Pathfinders devs also worked for WoTC, and they had influence on the rules over there. I am sure that if the players knew the restriction was what I have been arguing, that they know it also.Why do you think they would keep the wording the same, if they wanted a different use of the weapons?
Remember I have already stated that most(more than 50%) of the players use my interpretation if you go by online forums. -->I had way to much free time over the last 10 years or so, but if you like I can go to random forums, and do searches just to get links so you know I am not making this up.
I am asking again because nobody can explain why they would expect for us to know the rule has changed if they know most players did not use my interpretation.
Also see this link-->Click me and tell me if that is just coincidence
I would like a serious reply, with no sarcasm.
edit: In my quote of myself I am asking why would they keep the words the same and expect for us to read them differently if the majority of online players read it the way I did even for 3.5. That makes no sense.
|
|
I say this because a simple quick search has turned this same question up ... about 5 different times in the last 6 months or so... and still no ruling so it seems to be very low on the importance list, especially with all the recent faq/errata/clarifications issued.
They expect us to follow what the book says. If book says "can't" then we can't.
Instructional words are not flavor text.
edit:If there is some random exception it can be explained logically, or it is just badly written flavor text.
Except it uses the word thus. Which clearly means that the text prior to this is an explanation of why this is true. In this case Cause aka flavor:A bastard sword is too large to use one handed. Effect: It is an exotic 1h weapon.
Now you can argue otherwise but technically the rule never says that you can use the weapon 1 handed if you have exotic weapon proficiency it says special training which has zero meaning in the game's ruleset we can assume it is saying exotic weapon proficiency but since we're getting all gung ho about the rules technically speaking you can't use it one handed at all because there isn't any way to get special training per the rules.
Did you read my post? You should...it's reeeeeeeally good!
Did you read my post? You should...it's reeeeeeeally good!
I say this because a simple quick search has turned this same question up ... about 5 different times in the last 6 months or so... and still no ruling so it seems to be very low on the importance list, especially with all the recent faq/errata/clarifications issued.
They expect us to follow what the book says. If book says "can't" then we can't.
Instructional words are not flavor text.
edit:If there is some random exception it can be explained logically, or it is just badly written flavor text.
Except it uses the word thus. Which clearly means that the text prior to this is an explanation of why this is true. In this case Cause aka flavor:A bastard sword is too large to use one handed. Effect: It is an exotic 1h weapon.
Now you can argue otherwise but technically the rule never says that you can use the weapon 1 handed if you have exotic weapon proficiency it says special training which has zero meaning in the game's ruleset we can assume it is saying exotic weapon proficiency but since we're getting all gung ho about the rules technically speaking you can't use it one handed at all because there isn't any way to get special training per the rules.
It is an invisible post, just like my post comparing the language of the katana to the other two weapons. We will just have to keep bringing the post up, and you should create a link to your post just to be sure they respond to the correct one. :)
I am sure it is way more than 50%. My point however was the majority looked at it the same way I did which is the only reason I used the number 50, and how 3.5 did it was only a small part of a bigger question.
Once again the question is "if the devs are aware of the current understanding, why print the same words and expect a different result".
As for the katana vs the other weapons are you stating that the similarity is only a coincidence you think I am incorrect by RAI with regard to the bastard sword and the dwarven waraxe?
|
|
Sure, frankly I don't care what WoTC did or 3.5 rules or the way they wanted the rules to work when they ported stuff over but you should note that the link you posted to the katana is completely different wording.
Note the word "must" used in the case of the katana while they used nothing to that effect in the case of the bastard sword. I'm willing to say they probably wanted it to work that way but that isn't the way the rules worked out the way they wrote them which is exactly why errata exists. Also it's important to note that the devs don't always get things right sometimes they think they wrote down something that can only be interpreted one way when in actuality they just aren't seeing the other sides of it because they already know what they meant.
It is sad that you're not willing to understand what happened in the past, as it provides insight into what the devs are working with. My post was originally intended as a response to TGMaxMaxer, but it's important for everyone to read.
I still don't understand why people are unwilling to recognize the previous editions, especially when the language is identical, or nearly so, and Paizo hasn't given us any indication that things should work differently.
That is why I am asking gnomersy about the logic of them knowing the majority opinion, and not bothering to change the words. I want him to tell me how that is supposed to make sense. Hopefully he comes back. I really want to hear his answer.
|
|
3.0 Bastard Sword wrote:
A bastard sword is too large to use in one hand without special training; thus, it is an exotic weapon. A Medium-size character can use a bastard sword two-handed as a martial weapon, or a Large creature can use it one-handed in the same way.Bastard swords are also known as hand-and-a-half swords.
After reading the description and relating it to the weapon size rules, it is clear that a) a character must have the EWP to use the bastard sword one-handed, and b) those characters that don't have the EWP must use it as a two-handed weapon, and can not wield it one-handed. This is further confirmed by the fact that, for those characters who do not have the EWP, it is treated as a large weapon, otherwise the large creature would be able to use it as a light weapon, not a one-handed weapon.
The bolded section is in error! I'm familiar with 3.0. It's a medium weapon and medium weapons can be used one-handed by medium creatures. It's also an exotic weapon. A medium creature can use it two-handed as a martial weapon because the description says so. It doesn't say you can't use it one-handed without the EWP!
The result is that a medium creature must use it one-handed as an exotic weapon. This means that if you have EWP you have no attack penalty for non-proficiency because you are proficient. If you do not have the EWP, then you have a -4 non-proficiency penalty!
This is how the rules for weapon proficiency work! Unless specifically stated differently elsewhere, the effect of not having the required proficiency is an attack penalty, not an inability to use the weapon at all! And this is true in 1st, 2nd and 3rd ed and is still true in PF.
|
|
3.0 Bastard Sword wrote:
A bastard sword is too large to use in one hand without special training; thus, it is an exotic weapon. A Medium-size character can use a bastard sword two-handed as a martial weapon, or a Large creature can use it one-handed in the same way.Bastard swords are also known as hand-and-a-half swords.
After reading the description and relating it to the weapon size rules, it is clear that a) a character must have the EWP to use the bastard sword one-handed, and b) those characters that don't have the EWP must use it as a two-handed weapon, and can not wield it one-handed. This is further confirmed by the fact that, for those characters who do not have the EWP, it is treated as a large weapon, otherwise the large creature would be able to use it as a light weapon, not a one-handed weapon.
The bolded section is in error! I'm familiar with 3.0. It's a medium weapon and medium weapons can be used one-handed by medium creatures. It's also an exotic weapon. A medium creature can use it two-handed as a martial weapon because the description says so. It doesn't say you can't use it one-handed without the EWP!
The result is that a medium creature must use it one-handed as an exotic weapon. This means that if you have EWP you have no attack penalty for non-proficiency because you are proficient. If you do not have the EWP, then you have a -4 non-proficiency penalty!
This is how the rules for weapon proficiency work! Unless specifically stated differently elsewhere, the effect of not having the required proficiency is an attack penalty, not an inability to use the weapon at all! And this is true in 1st, 2nd and 3rd ed and is still true in PF.
If this is true as you say, Large creatures would wield the bastard sword as a light weapon, not a one-handed weapon as the rules say they do. Way to conveniently take things out of context instead of looking at the description as a whole.
3.0 Bastard Sword wrote:
A bastard sword is too large to use in one hand without special training; thus, it is an exotic weapon. A Medium-size character can use a bastard sword two-handed as a martial weapon, or a Large creature can use it one-handed in the same way.Bastard swords are also known as hand-and-a-half swords.
After reading the description and relating it to the weapon size rules, it is clear that a) a character must have the EWP to use the bastard sword one-handed, and b) those characters that don't have the EWP must use it as a two-handed weapon, and can not wield it one-handed. This is further confirmed by the fact that, for those characters who do not have the EWP, it is treated as a large weapon, otherwise the large creature would be able to use it as a light weapon, not a one-handed weapon.
The bolded section is in error! I'm familiar with 3.0. It's a medium weapon and medium weapons can be used one-handed by medium creatures. It's also an exotic weapon. A medium creature can use it two-handed as a martial weapon because the description says so. It doesn't say you can't use it one-handed without the EWP!
The result is that a medium creature must use it one-handed as an exotic weapon. This means that if you have EWP you have no attack penalty for non-proficiency because you are proficient. If you do not have the EWP, then you have a -4 non-proficiency penalty!
This is how the rules for weapon proficiency work! Unless specifically stated differently elsewhere, the effect of not having the required proficiency is an attack penalty, not an inability to use the weapon at all! And this is true in 1st, 2nd and 3rd ed and is still true in PF.
It is not in error. He's discussing specifically the 3.0 rules, which is the origin for the 3.5 and Pathfinder rules. It can't be in error because one-handed and two-handed weapons as a concept didn't exist in 3.0.
However, they changed how weapon size worked from 3.0 to 3.5. Despite that, they kept the same wording, likely because they intended the weapon to function the same way (which is demonstrated in the 3.5 FAQ stating that non-EWP use of a medium bastard sword by medium creatures necessitated the use of two hands). That language, once again, was not changed when used in Pathfinder creating a very strong presumption (read: meaning holding this opinion doesn't make me a troll) that the intent was to keep the weapon's function the same.
What is the question you think everyone is "ducking"? The katana is worded differently.
Once again the question is "if the devs are aware of the current understanding, why print the same words and expect a different result".
RE: The Bastard Sword and Dwarven Waraxe in particular.
|
|
Now for the post I've been waiting for ages to be able to write.
The katana is worded differently than BS or DW, and it's how you wish that these other weapons were worded!
Although wishing is not enough, for the sake of advancing the debate I'll use the katana to show why, even if the language of the BS and DW was identical to the katana, it would do what you think it does otherwise.
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.
Here you have got your wish. Completely unlike the normal rules for using a weapon with which you lack the proficiency, the lack of it here prevents you from using it one-handed at all!
But does this change mean everything you say it means? This is where we actually have to apply our reason, and not just let this one piece of information go to our heads and let us assume that everything else we imagine is also RAW!
...must take the Exotic Weapon Proficiency (katana) feat to use it one-handed.
While this does mean that (without EWP) you must use two hands in order to use it, what it does not mean is that it is a two-handed weapon! It means that it is a one-handed weapon used in two hands! The rules for weapon category (light/1H/2H), combined with the rules for using an inappropriately-sized weapon, determine what a weapon is, and neither the rules for how a weapon is used (in one or two hands), nor the rules for weapon proficiency, change what a weapon is!
In the last couple of pages there have been posts gleefully assuming that (without EWP) these weapons are two-handed weapons, then having wild fantasies about what the knock-on effects of this imaginary 'rule' would be for weapons of different sizes! This is all fantasy! For it to be remotely true the wording would have to be 'without EWP it is a two-handed weapon' or 'is treated as a two-handed wrapon'. All the written rule actually does is prevent the katana from being used in one hand; the description absolutely never makes it a two-handed weapon, nor let's you treat it as if it were! Any wishful thinking is simply not RAW, and any extrapolation from that is fruit of a poisoned tree.
Characters can use a katana two-handed as a martial weapon
This means that, if you lack the EWP, you still avoid the non-proficiency penalty so long as you have proficiency in all martial weapons.
It does not mean that it is a martial weapon, only that you can treat it as if it were for the purpose of determining any non-proficiency attack penalty!
It does not mean that it is a two-handed weapon if you are using it as a martial weapon! It remains a one-handed weapon being used in two hands!
There are three game rules in play here:-
• weapon category. The rules for this start from what category a weapon is on the weapon tables (these weapons are all one-handed), modified for the rules for using an inappropriately-sized weapon (these weapons, if made for a large creature, would all be two-handed weapons for a medium creature). None of the descriptions for any of these weapons changes these rules in any way whatsoever, and those who imagine 'cannot use it in one hand' turns it into something else are making up their own rules
• weapon use. Weapons can be used one-handed or two-handed. These rules are well described in the CRB, their effects are well known. The pertinent point is that using a weapon two-handed does not turn it into a two-handed weapon!
• weapon proficiency and weapon type (simple/martial/exotic). These rules, in and of themselves, never prevent the use of a weapon with which you are not proficient; they simply apply a -4 attack penalty! If the description of a weapon says that this particular one-handed exotic weapon cannot be used in one hand without EWP, this does not change it into a martial weapon, nor does it change it into a two-handed weapon! It remains a one-handed exotic weapon but it can't be used one-handed; a different rule
Not being able to use a katana in one hand does not affect it's two-handed use in any way at all! If a medium creature uses a large katana, then that katana is a two-handed exotic weapon! Not three-handed, two-handed, and the limit on its one-handed use is simply not affected by that special rule! It's making up your own rule to say that the rule which prevents you using it in one hand suddenly mutates into preventing you using it in two hands! None of the special rules found in individual weapon descriptions change with weapon size unless they say they do, and no part of the description of katana or BS say that they change with weapon size, so they don't. What you think is sensible is neither here nor there!
So the clause about not being able to use it one-handed does not become an inability to use it two-handed when you use a large one! You made that up!
The clause about being able to use these weapons two-handed as martial weapons applies no matter what the size of weapon or wielder! Nothing in their descriptions change that! Whether the katana is light, one-handed or two-handed, you can use two-handed as a martial weapon and cannot use it one-handed without EWP. Again, extrapolating your own rules is still just you making stuff up!
So a large katana is a two-handed weapon for a medium creature. The inability to use it one-handed doest apply when using it in two hands (obviously!), and you benefit from the clause of being able to use it as a martial weapon, because you are using it in two hands.
I don't know why people keep assuming the medium bastard sword in 3e and 3.5 was interpreted to be impossible to wield one handed by a medium character without the feat.
Sword, Bastard: A bastard sword is too large to use in one hand without special training; thus, it is an exotic weapon. A Medium-size character can use a bastard sword two-handed as a martial weapon, or a Large creature can use it one-handed in the same way.
You'll notice the comment about a large creature is in the sentence discussing using it two-handed as a martial weapon. That sentence is about proficiency. A large creature could use it as a light weapon but in that case the martial proficiency would apply.
As for 3.5, are people seriously basing their arguments on the FAQ that was wrong half the time and had to be correct frequently? The FAQ that said that a lance was really a one-handed weapon and that a bastard sword was really a two-handed weapon? Please, don't go to that source for advice or at least it is no more reliable than Joe Average on a message board and has as much weight.
Why didn't they change the wording in PF? Probably because people couldn't agree on how it should work at the time (just as the people in this thread don't) and they decide to leave the phrasing so people could interpret it how they have been in their own games prior to the switch.
Do I think most people in Paizo probably want to interpret it as impossible to wield in one-hand without the feat, sure, but they have shown they believe that exotics are for flavor only and feats should have to be wasted in order to use inferior weapons without penalty. So I wouldn't be surprised if the katana wording eventually makes it way into a the PRD and future printings for the bastard sword.
|
|
So, the bastard sword is too large to use in one hand without special training. In order to use it one handed, you have to have the special training. As far as the rules are concerned, this means you have to have the EWP.
If a character doesn't have the EWP, can they still use a bastard sword? Yes, they can. If they use the weapon two-handed, it is considered a martial weapon. What does "two-handed" mean?
Two hands are required to use a two-handed melee weapon effectively. Apply 1-1/2 times the character's Strength bonus to damage rolls for melee attacks with such a weapon.
So the question is, can you one-hand a two-handed weapon?
Wait...what is this? What does this FAQ entry from 3.0 say?
Does the penalty for not having a Martial Weapon Proficiency feat stack with the penalty for not having an Exotic Weapon Proficiency feat? For example, what happens if a sorcerer uses a bastard sword in one hand and does not have either the Martial Weapon Proficiency or the Exotic Weapon Proficiency feat for a bastard sword? Is her penalty a straight –4 for not having the Exotic Weapon Proficiency, or does she suffer a –4 for not having the Martial Weapon Proficiency in addition to the –4 for not having the Exotic Weapon Proficiency because a bastard sword requires special training to use with one hand?
No, you don’t get two penalties for nonproficiency. You’re either proficient with a weapon or you’re not. If you’re Medium-size, you have to be proficient with a bastard sword to use it in one hand; if you’re not proficient, you don’t have the option to use the sword one-handed at all. Assuming that the sorcerer in your example is Medium-size, she would have to use the sword in two hands and would suffer the –4 nonproficiency penalty when doing so.
*Christopher Walken voice* Ohhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh */Chrostopher Walken voice*
(There might be some NSFW stuff in that link).
Sorry Malachi and pres man, you're wrong.
|
|
@HangarFlying:
A Medium-size character can use a bastard sword two-handed as a martial weapon, or a Large creature can use it one-handed in the same way
This means a large creature can use it one-handed, as a light weapon, as a martial weapon, in the same way that a medium creature can use it two-handed, as a one-handed weapon in two hands, as a martial weapon instead of an exotic weapon.
|
|
If they use the weapon two-handed, it is considered a martial weapon. What does "two-handed" mean?
It means when you use it in two hands! Just like you quoted but ignored!
How you use a weapon, and what a weapon is, are two separate game rules, and the description of these weapons only ever talks about how it is used.
So you asked a question and quoted the wrong rule as the answer! Was that a deliberate falsehood or an innocent mistake?
responded to my link
Thanks.
Now I have a question. After reading those quotes you are saying the similarity is just a coincidence, and Paizo has no intention of forcing you to use the bastard sword or dwarven waraxe in two hands per RAI?
I don't know why people keep assuming the medium bastard sword in 3e and 3.5 was interpreted to be impossible to wield one handed by a medium character without the feat.
Sword, Bastard: A bastard sword is too large to use in one hand without special training; thus, it is an exotic weapon. A Medium-size character can use a bastard sword two-handed as a martial weapon, or a Large creature can use it one-handed in the same way.You'll notice the comment about a large creature is in the sentence discussing using it two-handed as a martial weapon. That sentence is about proficiency. A large creature could use it as a light weapon but in that case the martial proficiency would apply.
As for 3.5, are people seriously basing their arguments on the FAQ that was wrong half the time and had to be correct frequently? The FAQ that said that a lance was really a one-handed weapon and that a bastard sword was really a two-handed weapon? Please, don't go to that source for advice or at least it is no more reliable than Joe Average on a message board and has as much weight.
Why didn't they change the wording in PF? Probably because people couldn't agree on how it should work at the time (just as the people in this thread don't) and they decide to leave the phrasing so people could interpret it how they have been in their own games prior to the switch.
Do I think most people in Paizo probably want to interpret it as impossible to wield in one-hand without the feat, sure, but they have shown they believe that exotics are for flavor only and feats should have to be wasted in order to use inferior weapons without penalty. So I wouldn't be surprised if the katana wording eventually makes it way into a the PRD and future printings for the bastard sword.
Do you wish to answer my question that everyone is avoiding?
Remember this is not a new idea. That has been the common reading of the weapon for over 10 years now.
So, the bastard sword is too large to use in one hand without special training. In order to use it one handed, you have to have the special training. As far as the rules are concerned, this means you have to have the EWP.
If a character doesn't have the EWP, can they still use a bastard sword? Yes, they can. If they use the weapon two-handed, it is considered a martial weapon. What does "two-handed" mean?
Two hands are required to use a two-handed melee weapon effectively. Apply 1-1/2 times the character's Strength bonus to damage rolls for melee attacks with such a weapon.So the question is, can you one-hand a two-handed weapon?
Wait...what is this? What does this FAQ entry from 3.0 say?
Does the penalty for not having a Martial Weapon Proficiency feat stack with the penalty for not having an Exotic Weapon Proficiency feat? For example, what happens if a sorcerer uses a bastard sword in one hand and does not have either the Martial Weapon Proficiency or the Exotic Weapon Proficiency feat for a bastard sword? Is her penalty a straight –4 for not having the Exotic Weapon Proficiency, or does she suffer a –4 for not having the Martial Weapon Proficiency in addition to the –4 for not having the Exotic Weapon Proficiency because a bastard sword requires special training to use with one hand?
No, you don’t get two penalties for nonproficiency. You’re either proficient with a weapon or you’re not. If you’re Medium-size, you have to be proficient with a bastard sword to use it in one hand; if you’re not proficient, you don’t have the option to use the sword one-handed at all. Assuming that the sorcerer in your example is Medium-size, she would have to use the sword in two hands and would suffer the –4 nonproficiency penalty when doing so.
*Christopher Walken voice* Ohhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh */Chrostopher Walken voice*
(There might be some NSFW...
So that is 3.0 AND 3.5 with the same ruling. Nice find HangerFlying.
So with the same wording across 3.0, 3.5, and Pathfinder I wonder how they will justify thinking the Pathfinder devs who worked for WoTC intending to have a different meaning for RAI.
If they use the weapon two-handed, it is considered a martial weapon. What does "two-handed" mean?It means when you use it in two hands! Just like you quoted but ignored!
How you use a weapon, and what a weapon is, are two separate game rules, and the description of these weapons only ever talks about how it is used.
So you asked a question and quoted the wrong rule as the answer! Was that a deliberate falsehood or an innocent mistake?
The thing I think you're not understanding about the other position is that it boils down to this: If you do not have the EWP, you treat the Bastard Sword, Dwarven Waraxe, etc. as a two-handed weapon. That's what is reflected in the Katana language, that's explicitly how those weapons were generally treated in previous iterations which used the same language, so on and so forth.
Again, it's not a way to necessarily resolve the issue (which has been occurring for a number of years, as wraith has noted), because I know that none of this will convince you. But hopefully it will do away with a lot of this "How could a person possibly understand it to mean that?" that seems to keep cropping up.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
So that is 3.0 AND 3.5 with the same ruling. Nice find HangerFlying.
So with the same wording across 3.0, 3.5, and Pathfinder I wonder how they will justify thinking the Pathfinder devs who worked for WoTC intending to have a different meaning for RAI.
If all you want to have is Paizo slap a FAQ on the issue, then sure those other FAQs are relevant, since they were derived from the Sage advice from the magazines that was written by Paizo (not WotC). Those FAQ also happened to be wrong quite often and had to be updated and corrected, "Sorry we screwed up!" And gave illogical information like that the bastard sword was REALLY a two-handed (large) martial weapon with a special property that EWP let you treat it is a one-handed exotic. Clearly in error in the text.
Errata's and updated prints are really want you need to point to. Of course, they never did move the bastard sword into the two-handed martial category and out of the one-handed exotic. So obviously that FAQ interpretation wasn't taken as gospel.
If Paizo wants to interpret that way, they totally should, but that requires updating the PRD and future copies with wording like the Katana has (if they want to keep it as a one-handed exotic) or move it into the two-handed martial category if they want to accept the interpretation of the older FAQs.
EDIT:
Also just because there were quite a large number of folks that interpreted it the way some here do, doesn't mean they were correct in their interpretation (though it might have been RAI, but not necessarily RAW). Hell, a lot of people believed you could trip someone when they were trying to get up (trip them while they were still prone), those people were in error. These others might have been error too.
In the last couple of pages there have been posts gleefully assuming that (without EWP) these weapons are two-handed weapons, then having wild fantasies about what the knock-on effects of this imaginary 'rule' would be for weapons of different sizes! This is all fantasy! For it to be remotely true the wording would have to be 'without EWP it is a two-handed weapon' or 'is treated as a two-handed wrapon'. All the written rule actually does is prevent the katana from being used in one hand; the description absolutely never makes it a two-handed weapon, nor let's you treat it as if it were! Any wishful thinking is simply not RAW, and any extrapolation from that is fruit of a poisoned tree.
Sure, you can think it that. But the problem with your interpretation is that it leads to weirdly confusing results.
For instance, a large character without the EWP cannot wield a large Katana in one hand. A medium creature, without the EWP and subject to an Enlarge Person spell, cannot wield a large Katana in one hand. Yet a medium creature without the EWP and at ordinary size can use a large Katana in the exact same manner as if the character were actually large (aside from the -2 size penalty). That's what doesn't follow. If, for a medium creature, a medium Bastard Sword is too large to wield one-handed, and everything sizes up, doesn't it stand to reason that, for a medium creature, a large Bastard Sword is too large to wield two-handed?
That's not something that's going to be spelled out in the rules language, and nobody is claiming otherwise. But it's a fairly direct logical inference from the reading that you are simply disallowed from one-handing a Bastard Sword if you don't have the feat. That's where the interplay of the rules come in. It's not illogical and it's not fantasy.
As I've mentioned numerous times in thread, it's certainly conceivable that the developers intended for things to work otherwise. But this logical inference from a historical reading of the rules isn't something that just comes out of left field.
|
|
If they use the weapon two-handed, it is considered a martial weapon. What does "two-handed" mean?It means when you use it in two hands! Just like you quoted but ignored!
How you use a weapon, and what a weapon is, are two separate game rules, and the description of these weapons only ever talks about how it is used.
So you asked a question and quoted the wrong rule as the answer! Was that a deliberate falsehood or an innocent mistake?
Listen, quite simply, if the only choice you have is to use a weapon with two hands, for you it is a two-handed weapon. Otherwise, you would have the option to use it with one hand or two hands. In the case of the bastard sword, dwarven waraxe, katana (or any other possible weapon that is built like these), if you don't have the EWP, the option is removed.
A non-proficient character can wield a bastard sword one-handed no more than they could wield a greatsword one-handed. A non-proficient character can wield a large bastard sword no more than they could wield a large greatsword. That is to say, they can't.
Regardless, as fretgod99 said, even with the preponderance of evidence, you still won't be swayed. To be honest, if the PDT decides to issue a statement about this, I have a feeling you will be one of the ones making dismissive statements about it.
If they use the weapon two-handed, it is considered a martial weapon. What does "two-handed" mean?It means when you use it in two hands! Just like you quoted but ignored!
How you use a weapon, and what a weapon is, are two separate game rules, and the description of these weapons only ever talks about how it is used.
So you asked a question and quoted the wrong rule as the answer! Was that a deliberate falsehood or an innocent mistake?
Listen, quite simply, if the only choice you have is to use a weapon with two hands, for you it is a two-handed weapon. Otherwise, you would have the option to use it with one hand or two hands. In the case of the bastard sword, dwarven waraxe, katana (or any other possible weapon that is built like these), if you don't have the EWP, the option is removed.
A non-proficient character can wield a bastard sword one-handed no more than they could wield a greatsword one-handed. A non-proficient character can wield a large bastard sword no more than they could wield a large greatsword. That is to say, they can't.
Regardless, as fretgod99 said, even with the preponderance of evidence, you still won't be swayed. To be honest, if the PDT decides to issue a statement about this, I have a feeling you will be one of the ones making dismissive statements about it.
Monkey grip in 3e (not 3.5 due to sizing rules changes) allowed a person to wield a greatsword in one-hand. Did that make the greatsword magically become a one-handed weapon? If not, why does the EWP and the bastard sword?
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
So that is 3.0 AND 3.5 with the same ruling. Nice find HangerFlying.
So with the same wording across 3.0, 3.5, and Pathfinder I wonder how they will justify thinking the Pathfinder devs who worked for WoTC intending to have a different meaning for RAI.
If all you want to have is Paizo slap a FAQ on the issue, then sure those other FAQs are relevant, since they were derived from the Sage advice from the magazines that was written by Paizo (not WotC). Those FAQ also happened to be wrong quite often and had to be updated and corrected, "Sorry we screwed up!" And gave illogical information like that the bastard sword was REALLY a two-handed (large) martial weapon with a special property that EWP let you treat it is a one-handed exotic. Clearly in error in the text.
Errata's and updated prints are really want you need to point to. Of course, they never did move the bastard sword into the two-handed martial category and out of the one-handed exotic. So obviously that FAQ interpretation wasn't taken as gospel.
If Paizo wants to interpret that way, they totally should, but that requires updating the PRD and future copies with wording like the Katana has (if they want to keep it as a one-handed exotic) or move it into the two-handed martial category if they want to accept the interpretation of the older FAQs.
EDIT:
Also just because there were quite a large number of folks that interpreted it the way some here do, doesn't mean they were correct in their interpretation (though it might have been RAI, but not necessarily RAW). Hell, a lot of people believed you could trip someone when they were trying to get up (trip them while they were still prone), those people were in error. These others might have been error too.
And just because you think that you're reading it right doesn't preclude the possibility that you're actually reading it wrong.
The wording and FAQ has been consistent throughout the 13 years of 3.x. Unless Paizo decides to actually make a change, there is no reason to assume that a change has been made.