|
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?
Heeeeey! Congratulations, you found an exception to the rule!
I'm not saying that the bastard sword physically becomes a two-handed weapon if you don't have the EWP. The physical characteristics of the weapon are as a one-handed weapon. Just like the physical characteristics of a greatsword are that of a two-handed weapon.
The way you treat it changes depending on whether or not you have the EWP. Just in the same way that monkey grip changes the way you treat a greatsword.
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.
You still did not answer the question. If the devs KNOW that is the popular interpretation and they want it to be done correctly why not make it clear especially since the 3.0, 3.5 and popular opinion are all the same.
Basically you are saying the devs know most of us read it the other way, and they expect for us to read it a different way while using the same words.
Once again, explain that logic.
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?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.
It gave a person with the feat the option of using the weapon in one hand, but didn't change the weapon. It was basically a better version of EWP (Bastard Sword). It doesn't really impact how the Bastard Sword is interpreted, though. Neither of them change the weapon, just how certain characters may interact with them.
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.
That is another statement I mentioned, that has been ignored.
So after 10+ years of consistency(players and designers) the same words now have a new meaning, but nobody can say how Paizo expects for us to know the same words now have a different meaning.
If they could explain how Paizo would follow that logic I might be swayed, but nobody seems to have an answer.
Since that part of the rules is not much more than a copy, and paste I am failing to see their logic, and they are failing to explain it.
|
|
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.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.
Furthermore, just because an FAQ might have been wrong about something doesn't automatically mean that it is wrong about this.
Taking into account that the FAQ ruling has been consistent across two editions, and the wording of the bastard sword has been consistent (where it counts) across three editions, I'm pretty confident that the older FAQs still have merit.
You still did not answer the question. If the devs KNOW that is the popular interpretation and they want it to be done correctly why not make it clear especially since the 3.0, 3.5 and popular opinion are all the same.
Basically you are saying the devs know most of us read it the other way, and they expect for us to read it a different way while using the same words.
Once again, explain that logic.
I actually answered this. Maybe all of the developers couldn't agree on the actual rule, just as people here can't agree. Maybe they thought it was best just to leave it lay so people wouldn't get upset that their preferred interpretation wasn't tossed to the side (i.e. allow for either interpretation). They already had to deal with gimping the spiked chain, stripping heavy armor proficiency from clerics and any number of other changes and decided this wasn't something they wanted to deal with at the time (probably as pointed out earlier nobody uses a weapon they are unproficient with so it was a non-issue 99.99999% of the time). The fact that many people interpreted the rule that way was fine with them, they could always change it later in society play if they really got bothered by it.
Do I think many at Paizo read it as you do, sure. Is that probably the leading view at Paizo, sure. Does the rules they left force that to be the only view, no. They should rewrite the rules in the PRD and future printings to match something more like the katana description if that is what they want.
Let me ask you now, do you believe that the PF developers were so ignorant that they had no idea that there were also a significant number of people were interpreting it the "badong" way (you can wield it in one-hand and that too large is flavor text), that they didn't consider revising it? Obviously they changed the wording for the katana, why didn't they do that for the bastard sword?
|
|
Let me ask you now, do you believe that the PF developers were so ignorant that they had no idea that there were also a significant number of people were interpreting it the "badong" way (you can wield it in one-hand and that too large is flavor text), that they...
I'm sure they knew that people have been houseruling that way. That doesn't mean that they have to change the way the rules are written or intended to be interpreted.
Let me ask you now, do you believe that the PF developers were so ignorant that they had no idea that there were also a significant number of people were interpreting it the "badong" way (you can wield it in one-hand and that too large is flavor text), that they...I'm sure they knew that people have been houseruling that way. That doesn't mean that they have to change the way the rules are written or intended to be interpreted.
Except the part you left off:
Obviously they changed the wording for the katana, why didn't they do that for the bastard sword?
Your claim is that people are NOW interpreting it "badong" more often, so they had to state the rules for the katana differently than the oh so obvious rules for the bastard sword?
Is this your question because I have no idea what your question is, you just keep saying, "What about my question?" People have asked lots of questions, I'm suppose to remember your pet question? You want me to answer it, ask it directly, not "What about my pet question I asked 5 pages back and can't be bothered to restate?"
I have restated it several times and if you somehow still missed it you could have asked. It is not that hard to say "Wraithstrike what is this question you keep talking about."<---Not snark
I actually answered this.
I did not see you answer it. If so you could have just provided a link to your answer.
Maybe all of the developers couldn't agree on the actual rule, just as people here can't agree.
So your argument is that devs that worked with 3.5 don't really know what the rule is? Really?
Maybe they thought it was best just to leave it lay so people wouldn't get upset that their preferred interpretation wasn't tossed to the side (i.e. allow for either interpretation).
Leaving it lay=not changing the rule=3.5 version is still in affect.
They already had to deal with gimping the spiked chain, stripping heavy armor proficiency from clerics and any number of other changes and decided this wasn't something they wanted to deal with at the time (probably as pointed out earlier nobody uses a weapon they are unproficient with so it was a non-issue 99.99999% of the time).
That did not happen until after the book was released so that does not apply, and even so if that were the case the Vow of Poverty monk would have been redone, and that still does not change what the ruling is. If you want to change the ruling you must change the words.
They should rewrite the rules in the PRD and future printings to match something more like the katana description if that is what they want.
I agree they should to make it easier to read, but that does not change the current RAI.
Let me ask you now, do you believe that the PF developers were so ignorant that they had no idea that there were also a significant number of people were interpreting it the "badong" way (you can wield it in one-hand and that too large is flavor text), that they didn't consider revising it? Obviously the changed the wording for the katana, why didn't they do that for the bastard sword?
They did not change the katana. They made it into its own weapon. With that aside SKR has said that people are allowed to use their own words to write the rules so not every rule, even with the same intent will use the same verbage. Also many times a rule is not changed unless it is made into an issue. Now with this thread they may change it if they can do so without pushing text over onto another page. If they can't errata it, then most likely they will just FAQ it, but considering the lance ruling they have to word it carefully which is most likely the reason why we did have not gotten an FAQ on this thread yet. When it does come I expect for the 10+ yr tradition to continue.
Presman I disagreed with you answer, but at least you answered the question. Thanks.
Still not seen an explanation for how a medium creature with martial weapon proficiency can wield a large bastard sword two-handed when a large creature with the same proficiency must wield the same weapon the same way, but the rules for using oversized weapons say that it becomes unusable. The exception for bastard swords in two hands is completely irrelevant: either it's a large exotic weapon for a medium creature to use two handed, or it is a martial weapon for a large creature to use two-handed, it cannot be a large martial weapon for a medium creature to use two-handed at the same time.
The bastard sword, lance, and dwarven waraxe are all two-handed weapons that can be used in one hand under the correct circumstances (the bastard sword and dwarven waraxe are shown on Table 7–5 as one-handed exotic weapons, but they’re really two-handed weapons). Treat all three of these weapons as two-handed weapons when determining who can use them and how. For example, a Small character cannot use a lance or bastard sword made for a Medium creature, even when mounted (in the case of a lance) or when the Small character has the Exotic Weapon Proficiency (bastard sword) feat.
So if you accept the 3.5 FAQ as gospel, you MUST agree with the stated comment that the bastard sword is really a two-handed weapon and not a one-handed weapon at all. All hit points and such must be done as a two-handed weapon. If you disagree with that, then how can you put any weight on any thing the 3.5 FAQ says about the bastard sword. Well of course there is always cognitive dissonance I suppose.
Is this your question because I have no idea what your question is, you just keep saying, "What about my question?" People have asked lots of questions, I'm suppose to remember your pet question? You want me to answer it, ask it directly, not "What about my pet question I asked 5 pages back and can't be bothered to restate?"
In his defense, he did restate it a time or two and I even directly replied to your request and provided the question as well.
Regardless...
Do I think many at Paizo read it as you do, sure. Is that probably the leading view at Paizo, sure. Does the rules they left force that to be the only view, no. They should rewrite the rules in the PRD and future printings to match something more like the katana description if that is what they want.
Let me ask you now, do you believe that the PF developers were so ignorant that they had no idea that there were also a significant number of people were interpreting it the "badong" way (you can wield it in one-hand and that too large is flavor text), that they didn't consider revising it? Obviously they changed the wording for the katana, why didn't they do that for the bastard sword?
This is basically my thought on this entire mess: I believe the historical interpretation is correct. However, I can absolutely recognize how people get the interpretation that hand-restriction is flavor text (particularly if you're a new-comer to Pathfinder and have no 3.X experience).
That's why I think this is a legitimate and worthy FAQ candidate. I don't FAQ everything just because some random question pops up or there's some possible hypertechnical way in which to interpret rules language that pretty clearly isn't what was intended (recent threads remaining nameless, of course). There's a legitimate question of interpretation here, even if I favor one interpretation over the other. It can't be said that either side lacks a leg to stand on.
For me, the deciding factor is that the language has been completely consistent across various iterations of the game. To me, it would seems highly unreasonable to use identical language but intend it to have a different meaning, particularly when the original meaning had already gained general acceptance. Again, that doesn't mean that the intent truly could be different here. But unless and until any further clarification comes down from those in a position to actually make that decision, the wiser choice in my opinion is sticking with what has already been established.
Furthermore, unless and until said clarification comes down, nothing is getting resolved. I don't think you or Malachi are being illogical in your position; I can absolutely see why you read it that way. But, I still think your interpretation is incorrect at this point.
Malachi, that was a great post. Best post of the thread by far. It's a shame that Hangar keeps harping on inconsequential things and Fretgod keeps making leeps of (il)logic.
I'm going to have to do some math on the build at higher levels, but I think after reading this thread, my ninja is going to 2h a large katana and then wand gravity blade onto it.
Right. I'm illogical. Lulz.
This is the only thing that really irks me, to be honest. Feel free to disagree with my position all you want, just back it up a bit. If you can explain why identical language would mean a different thing over time despite consistent usage, I am legitimately all ears (or eyes, so to speak).
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.
And I answered it and he quoted my answer and he said I hadn't. So at that point I had no idea what he was talking about.
Right on. My bad. No worries then.
|
|
The bastard sword, lance, and dwarven waraxe are all two-handed weapons that can be used in one hand under the correct circumstances (the bastard sword and dwarven waraxe are shown on Table 7–5 as one-handed exotic weapons, but they’re really two-handed weapons). Treat all three of these weapons as two-handed weapons when determining who can use them and how. For example, a Small character cannot use a lance or bastard sword made for a Medium creature, even when mounted (in the case of a lance) or when the Small character has the Exotic Weapon Proficiency (bastard sword) feat.So if you accept the 3.5 FAQ as gospel, you MUST agree with the stated comment that the bastard sword is really a two-handed weapon and not a one-handed weapon at all. All hit points and such must be done as a two-handed weapon. If you disagree with that, then how can you put any weight on any thing the 3.5 FAQ says about the bastard sword. Well of course there is always cognitive dissonance I suppose.
That is certainly a possibility. Though, further into the statement it says that a small character cannot use a medium bastard sword, regardless of its EWP feat status or not. We know this is different in PF because they built Amiri with the EWP and wielding a large bastard sword.
Just because this has changed, doesn't invalidate the entire position that you have to have the EWP to wield it one handed, otherwise you're stuck using it two-handed.
And the debate that 3.5 "really considers it a two-handed weapon" while Pathfinder "really considers it a one-handed weapon" is largely irrelevant in the context of this debate.
The bastard sword, lance, and dwarven waraxe are all two-handed weapons that can be used in one hand under the correct circumstances (the bastard sword and dwarven waraxe are shown on Table 7–5 as one-handed exotic weapons, but they’re really two-handed weapons). Treat all three of these weapons as two-handed weapons when determining who can use them and how. For example, a Small character cannot use a lance or bastard sword made for a Medium creature, even when mounted (in the case of a lance) or when the Small character has the Exotic Weapon Proficiency (bastard sword) feat.So if you accept the 3.5 FAQ as gospel, you MUST agree with the stated comment that the bastard sword is really a two-handed weapon and not a one-handed weapon at all. All hit points and such must be done as a two-handed weapon. If you disagree with that, then how can you put any weight on any thing the 3.5 FAQ says about the bastard sword. Well of course there is always cognitive dissonance I suppose.That is certainly a possibility. Though, further into the statement it says that a small character cannot use a medium bastard sword, regardless of its EWP feat status or not. We know this is different in PF because they built Amiri with the EWP and wielding a large bastard sword.
Just because this has changed, doesn't invalidate the entire position that you have to have the EWP to wield it one handed, otherwise you're stuck using it two-handed.
And the debate that 3.5 "really considers it a two-handed weapon" while Pathfinder "really considers it a one-handed weapon" is largely irrelevant in the context of this debate.
You use the 3.5 FAQ until it is no longer helpful to your position and then you do a "well it doesn't really matter for this discussion." Goalposts have just been moved.
|
|
Malachi, that was a great post. Best post of the thread by far. It's a shame that Hangar keeps harping on inconsequential things and Fretgod keeps making leeps of (il)logic.
I'm going to have to do some math on the build at higher levels, but I think after reading this thread, my ninja is going to 2h a large katana and then wand lead blades onto it.
Edit: After doing the math, with a super high Str, -3/+9 Power Attack, and a wand of lead blades, the medium katana out-damages the large katana.
So, I have quoted a precedent of rules, FAQs, and James Jacobs to show why the wording in the CRB supports my position, and you have...something other than the way you think the rules should be read, I hope?
I'll even take an unofficial response by Jason B or SKR made in the threads. Perhaps this was talked about during the open play test?
|
|
Whaaaat?You use the 3.5 FAQ until it is no longer helpful to your position and then you do a "well it doesn't really matter for this discussion." Goalposts have just been moved.
Not even in the slightest. The goalposts are firmly planted where they have always been. The question isn't whether or not the bastard sword is a one-handed weapon or a two-handed weapon. The question is whether or not the bastard sword can be used in one hand if the character doesn't have the EWP.
Second, I didn't say the 3.5 FAQ doesn't count any more. I acknowledged that there were some changes, but that doesn't mean that everything in the 3.5 FAQ is invalidated based on those changes alone. Neither is the premise that you have to have the EWP to one-hand the bastard sword, which was present in 3.0, 3.5, and until such a time that the PDT says otherwise, is currently present in PF.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
You still did not answer the question. If the devs KNOW that is the popular interpretation and they want it to be done correctly why not make it clear especially since the 3.0, 3.5 and popular opinion are all the same.
Basically you are saying the devs know most of us read it the other way, and they expect for us to read it a different way while using the same words.
Once again, explain that logic.
You are making an assumption. How do you know that your opinion is the popular one? How do you know that it is used by "most people"?
I have been playing this game and it's ancestors for almost 30 years. Since 3.0 came out until now, no one that I have played with in my entire experience has ruled that you could not use a bastard sword one handed without the proficiency. I read the rules for 3.0 and 3.5 and came to the same conclusion that I have now. If you don't have the proficiency you get a -4 using it one handed. If you have a proficiency with all martial weapons there is no penalty when using the one-handed exotic weapon two-handed. Why would you expect me to read it a different way now while they are still using the same words?
Simple, Martial, and Exotic Weapons
Most character classes are proficient with all simple weapons. Combat-oriented classes such as barbarians, cavaliers, and fighters are proficient with all simple and all martial weapons. Characters of other classes are proficient with an assortment of simple weapons and possibly some martial or even exotic weapons. All characters are proficient with unarmed strikes and any natural weapons they gain from their race. A character who uses a weapon with which he is not proficient takes a –4 penalty on attack rolls with that weapon.
Where in this quote does it say that if you don't have proficiency with an exotic weapon that you can not wield it at all?
Waraxe, Dwarven
A dwarven waraxe has a large, ornate head mounted to a thick handle, making it too large to use in one hand without special training.
Description: Due to its size, a dwarven waraxe is an exotic weapon. A Medium character can use a dwarven waraxe two-handed as a martial weapon, or a Large creature can use it one-handed in the same way.
Racial Affinity: A dwarf treats a dwarven waraxe as a martial weapon even when using it in one hand.
Where does it say that you can not use the dwarven waraxe in one hand without proficiency? I do not see a line saying that it should be treated as a two-handed weapon either. I see a line saying I can use it as a martial weapon with two hands (aka, two-handed), but that is the same as using a longsword two-handed, it is still a one-handed weapon.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I also saw someone quote this line:
Two-Handed: 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.
They failed to quote this line:
One-Handed: A one-handed weapon can be used in either the primary hand or the off hand. Add the wielder's Strength bonus to damage rolls for melee attacks with a one-handed weapon if it's used in the primary hand, or 1/2 his Strength bonus if it's used in the off hand. If a one-handed weapon is wielded with two hands during melee combat, add 1-1/2 times the character's Strength bonus to damage rolls.
Notice the line about using it two-handed? That is what the bastard sword, dwarven waraxe and katana are talking about.
Whaaaat?You use the 3.5 FAQ until it is no longer helpful to your position and then you do a "well it doesn't really matter for this discussion." Goalposts have just been moved.
Not even in the slightest. The goalposts are firmly planted where they have always been. The question isn't whether or not the bastard sword is a one-handed weapon or a two-handed weapon. The question is whether or not the bastard sword can be used in one hand if the character doesn't have the EWP.
Second, I didn't say the 3.5 FAQ doesn't count any more. I acknowledged that there were some changes, but that doesn't mean that everything in the 3.5 FAQ is invalidated based on those changes alone. Neither is the premise that you have to have the EWP to one-hand the bastard sword, which was present in 3.0, 3.5, and until such a time that the PDT says otherwise, is currently present in PF.
So the 3.5 FAQ entry is predicated upon the viewpoint that the bastard sword was actually a two-handed weapon. And you have agreed that PF has dismissed this basic foundation and yet you claim the conclusion must be the same as the 3.5 FAQ. Again I say, Whaaaat?
I also saw someone quote this line:
Two-Handed: 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.They failed to quote this line:
One-Handed: A one-handed weapon can be used in either the primary hand or the off hand. Add the wielder's Strength bonus to damage rolls for melee attacks with a one-handed weapon if it's used in the primary hand, or 1/2 his Strength bonus if it's used in the off hand. If a one-handed weapon is wielded with two hands during melee combat, add 1-1/2 times the character's Strength bonus to damage rolls.Notice the line about using it two-handed? That is what the bastard sword, dwarven waraxe and katana are talking about.
Not really. There's no need to add extra texts to those weapons saying that you can use them two-handed, because any weapon can be used two-handed (and use 1 1/2 strength bonus, so long as it isn't light - barring a few exceptions of course).
Unless I'm misunderstanding what you're trying to clarify here ...
I just said you make leaps of illogic, which you do. I can't go back through the hundreds of posts right now, but at least twice in your posts you used the exact words "if blah blah, then you have to assume other blah blah". You don't have to assume anything. If the rules don't say it, they don't say it. Those are the leaps of illogic I was accusing you of making. I'm not saying the entire argument on your side is illogical.Malachi, that was a great post. Best post of the thread by far. It's a shame that Hangar keeps harping on inconsequential things and Fretgod keeps making leeps of (il)logic.
I'm going to have to do some math on the build at higher levels, but I think after reading this thread, my ninja is going to 2h a large katana and then wand gravity blade onto it.
Right. I'm illogical. Lulz.
This is the only thing that really irks me, to be honest. Feel free to disagree with my position all you want, just back it up a bit. If you can explain why identical language would mean a different thing over time despite consistent usage, I am legitimately all ears (or eyes, so to speak).
You must have missed the part where I was explaining the logical conclusion based on the assumption that lack of the EWP feat means you are disallowed from one-handing the relevant weapon. There was a question as to how you get from X (no EWP) to Y (can't wield an oversized Bastard Sword, even two-handed). So, for the sake of argument, assume X and use it to demonstrate Y. That's all that was going on.
|
|
Lord Twig, you are coming from a position that if you don't have the EWP, you can still wield it one-handed. I certainly understand why you think that, but that position isn't supported by precedence.
Unless Paizo tells me otherwise, I have no reason to think their position differs from the official 3.5 position, especially considering that the wording is virtually identical, which is that if you don't have the EWP, you can't use it in one hand.
Do you have any reference or hints that indicate that, while the wording has remained the same, their position has changed?
And I...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.
Every rule has in intention, otherwise it is not really a rule, so I did not know your "every GM has to decide for himself" was your official answer.
Your answer really amounts to "there is no answer". Now if you truely beleive Paizo is supports that as an official game answer, and not a rule 0 answer I am failing to see how you got to that point. I know what you will say, but I am still lost as to how you got there. No I am not asking you for another answer because I think our ideas on Paizo's philosophy are far enough apart that it will just lead to more questions and less answers. That is not necessarily a bad thing. It just is what it is.
|
|
So the 3.5 FAQ entry is predicated upon the viewpoint that the bastard sword was actually a two-handed weapon. And you have agreed that PF has dismissed this basic foundation and yet you claim the conclusion must be the same as the 3.5 FAQ. Again I say, Whaaaat?
The fact that the bastard sword may or may not be a two-handed weapon doesn't invalidate the point that you can't use the bastard sword one-handed if you don't poses the EWP.
You still did not answer the question. If the devs KNOW that is the popular interpretation and they want it to be done correctly why not make it clear especially since the 3.0, 3.5 and popular opinion are all the same.
Basically you are saying the devs know most of us read it the other way, and they expect for us to read it a different way while using the same words.
Once again, explain that logic.
You are making an assumption. How do you know that your opinion is the popular one? How do you know that it is used by "most people"?
EVERY time I saw this come up online the end result was my interpretation. If you like I can go to a few other websites and take the top 4 or 5 threads that come up in search so you know I am not cherry picking.
If that is what you need for me to do just say it.
Simple, Martial, and Exotic Weapons
Most character classes are proficient with all simple weapons. Combat-oriented classes such as barbarians, cavaliers, and fighters are proficient with all simple and all martial weapons. Characters of other classes are proficient with an assortment of simple weapons and possibly some martial or even exotic weapons. All characters are proficient with unarmed strikes and any natural weapons they gain from their race. A character who uses a weapon with which he is not proficient takes a –4 penalty on attack rolls with that weapon.
Where in this quote does it say that if you don't have proficiency with an exotic weapon that you can not wield it at all?
Where does it say that you can not use the dwarven waraxe in one hand without proficiency? I do not see a line saying that it should be treated as a two-handed weapon either. I see a line saying I can use it as a martial weapon with two hands (aka, two-handed), but that is the same as using a longsword two-handed, it is still a one-handed weapon.Waraxe, Dwarven
A dwarven waraxe has a large, ornate head mounted to a thick handle, making it too large to use in one hand without special training.
Description: Due to its size, a dwarven waraxe is an exotic weapon. A Medium character can use a dwarven waraxe two-handed as a martial weapon, or a Large creature can use it one-handed in the same way.
Racial Affinity: A dwarf treats a dwarven waraxe as a martial weapon even when using it in one hand.
The weapon's description says so. The problem is that the opposing side which includes you claims that is only flavor text.
The fact that the bastard sword may or may not be a two-handed weapon doesn't invalidate the point that you can't use the bastard sword one-handed if you don't poses the EWP.So the 3.5 FAQ entry is predicated upon the viewpoint that the bastard sword was actually a two-handed weapon. And you have agreed that PF has dismissed this basic foundation and yet you claim the conclusion must be the same as the 3.5 FAQ. Again I say, Whaaaat?
I agree, but it does have a heck of a lot to do with people trying to use the 3.5 FAQ as evidence of intent. The 3.5 FAQ was based on the assumption that it was a two-handed weapon. PF has rejected that assumption (proven by you), thus we can't rely on the 3.5 FAQ (or older) to indicate PF intent.
People have asked, "Why should we view it differently if they didn't change the words?" Perhaps because they changed the assumption (two-handed vs. one-handed).
You can't rely on older editions to support the argument, YOU proved that by showing they view the weapon fundamentally differently. Thus any claim to older editions is meaningless. I expect you to now stop making any claims to older editions as you have proved they are irrelevant.
Every rule has in intention, otherwise it is not really a rule, so I did not know your "every GM has to decide for himself" was your official answer.
Your answer really amounts to "there is no answer". Now if you truely beleive Paizo is supports that as an official game answer, and not a rule 0 answer I am failing to see how you got to that point. I know what you will say, but I am still lost as to how you got there. No I am not asking you for another answer because I think our ideas on Paizo's philosophy are far enough apart that it will just lead to more questions and less answers. That is not necessarily a bad thing. It just is what it is.
Actually, what I view is that everyone that is involved with PF might not all share the exact same point of view on every subject. It may be that some people had differing views on the bastard sword issue, and decided that it wasn't really necessary to DECIDE. They could punt the ball down the field and deal with it later if necessary. In game play, this is an extremely corner-case issue. Almost nobody uses a weapon they are going to take a non-proficiency penalty for. The choice between using a dagger at full bonus or a bastard sword at a -4 penalty, almost everyone will go with the dagger.
They didn't change any of the wording, so I don't think we can make any conclusion about intent other than they weren't interested in changing the wording. They did change how they viewed it when dealing with wrong sized versions to some degree (see comment above about 3.5 FAQ).
Do I think there is a very strong chance they view it as impossible to wield it one-handed without EWP, sure. I think that is the most likely outcome. I don't think it is the necessarily the most logical or most balanced approach based on the RAW, but I don't expect those to have anything to do with the decision ultimately.
Lord Twig, you are coming from a position that if you don't have the EWP, you can still wield it one-handed. I certainly understand why you think that, but that position isn't supported by precedence.
What precedence? The 3.5 FAQ that says that the bastard sword is actually a two-handed weapon even though no where in the rules does it say that?
You say you understand why I think the bastard sword works the way it does, but completely fail to realize that I think that way based purely one the Rules as they are written. I have even quoted them in their entirety!
Unless Paizo tells me otherwise, I have no reason to think their position differs from the official 3.5 position, especially considering that the wording is virtually identical, which is that if you don't have the EWP, you can't use it in one hand.
How about that they list the bastard sword as a one-handed weapon instead of a two-handed weapon? Isn't that different than what is said in the 3.5 FAQ?
Do you have any reference or hints that indicate that, while the wording has remained the same, their position has changed?
Do you have any reference that indicates that, while the wording has remained the same, that they have adopted the change stated in the 3.5 FAQ that the bastard sword is actually a two-handed weapon?
The fact that the bastard sword may or may not be a two-handed weapon doesn't invalidate the point that you can't use the bastard sword one-handed if you don't poses the EWP.
And again, where in the rules does it say that you can not use a bastard sword one-handed without the EWP?
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. A character can use a bastard sword two-handed as a martial weapon.
So one-handed it is an exotic weapon, and two-handed it is a martial weapon. So sorcerers can't use a bastard sword two-handed because they don't have a martial proficiency? That seems to be what you are implying.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The fact that the bastard sword may or may not be a two-handed weapon doesn't invalidate the point that you can't use the bastard sword one-handed if you don't poses the EWP.So the 3.5 FAQ entry is predicated upon the viewpoint that the bastard sword was actually a two-handed weapon. And you have agreed that PF has dismissed this basic foundation and yet you claim the conclusion must be the same as the 3.5 FAQ. Again I say, Whaaaat?
I agree, but it does have a heck of a lot to do with people trying to use the 3.5 FAQ as evidence of intent. The 3.5 FAQ was based on the assumption that it was a two-handed weapon. PF has rejected that assumption (proven by you), thus we can't rely on the 3.5 FAQ (or older) to indicate PF intent.
People have asked, "Why should we view it differently if they didn't change the words?" Perhaps because they changed the assumption (two-handed vs. one-handed).
You can't rely on older editions to support the argument, YOU proved that by showing they view the weapon fundamentally differently. Thus any claim to older editions is meaningless. I expect you to now stop making any claims to older editions as you have proved they are irrelevant.
I don't think anything was demonstrated saying that it's really a two-handed weapon, a position which has been eschewed by Pathfinder. It's been demonstrated that the explanation for use is, treat it like a two-handed weapon for who can wield it, unless they have the EWP feat. That's not really the same thing as what you're saying. That's why it's all still relevant.
Does a sorcerer take a -8 if s/he wants to use a bastard sword one-handed?
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
In the interest of fairness, I found this while looking through the 3.0 FAQ:
Just what does a Small character have to do to use a bastard sword? I have gotten the impression that a halfling can use a bastard sword as a two-handed weapon provided that she has a Strength score of 13 or better and she takes Exotic Weapon Proficiency (bastard sword). Correct?
There is no Strength requirement to use a bastard sword. A bastard sword is a Medium-Size weapon. It follows all the rules for Medium-Size weapons, except that a Medium-Size creature wielding the sword in one hand takes a –4 attack penalty with it unless she has Exotic Weapon Proficiency (bastard sword). A Small creature using the sword in two hands is just like a Medium-Size creature wielding it in one hand. So, your halfling (or gnome) takes a –4 attack penalty when using the sword two-handed and takes no attack penalty if she has Exotic Weapon Proficiency (bastard sword) and uses two hands; because the sword is Medium-Size, a Small character cannot use it one-handed.
It lends credence to my "hypothetical" scenario that if you can one-hand a bastard sword without the EWP, you must consider the -4 nonproficiency bonus if you're two-handing a large bastard sword.
Though, it is completely contradictory to the 3.0 FAQ I posted before:
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.
So the 3.5 FAQ entry is predicated upon the viewpoint that the bastard sword was actually a two-handed weapon. And you have agreed that PF has dismissed this basic foundation and yet you claim the conclusion must be the same as the 3.5 FAQ. Again I say, Whaaaat?
Whaaaat?You use the 3.5 FAQ until it is no longer helpful to your position and then you do a "well it doesn't really matter for this discussion." Goalposts have just been moved.
Not even in the slightest. The goalposts are firmly planted where they have always been. The question isn't whether or not the bastard sword is a one-handed weapon or a two-handed weapon. The question is whether or not the bastard sword can be used in one hand if the character doesn't have the EWP.
Second, I didn't say the 3.5 FAQ doesn't count any more. I acknowledged that there were some changes, but that doesn't mean that everything in the 3.5 FAQ is invalidated based on those changes alone. Neither is the premise that you have to have the EWP to one-hand the bastard sword, which was present in 3.0, 3.5, and until such a time that the PDT says otherwise, is currently present in PF.
You are making an assumption. Maybe he knows the answer, and is trying to make the answer sound reasonable.
As an example, when I was having the manyshot debate i knew that manyshot forced you into a full attack action, but I had to use the rules to explain it. Basically I had my answer before my explanation was even set up, and even if I had used the wrong logic to arrive at my conclusion my end answer would have been correct.
If I had an example of where someone had gotten a ruling correct, but used incorrect logic to get there I would use that, but I can't think of one at the moment.
PS:Skip may be correct about them being two-handed weapons first, but if so they should be put on the martial weapons table as two-handed weapons, or maybe Paizo can rewrite the bastard sword and dwarven waraxe to sound like the katana if there is room for the rewrite.
According to the 3.0 FAQ the Bastard Sword was a one-handed weapon with special rules so you could not wield it in one hand which is why I think he should have called it a one-handed weapon.
In other words his path to the correct answer was incorrect.
Thank you HangarFlying, this demonstrates one of the problems with looking for RAI. It maybe that different people involved in the development have different views or that a given person's view might change over time. There may not be a single clear intent on some rules.
Every rule has in intention, otherwise it is not really a rule, so I did not know your "every GM has to decide for himself" was your official answer.
Your answer really amounts to "there is no answer". Now if you truely beleive Paizo is supports that as an official game answer, and not a rule 0 answer I am failing to see how you got to that point. I know what you will say, but I am still lost as to how you got there. No I am not asking you for another answer because I think our ideas on Paizo's philosophy are far enough apart that it will just lead to more questions and less answers. That is not necessarily a bad thing. It just is what it is.
Actually, what I view is that everyone that is involved with PF might not all share the exact same point of view on every subject. It may be that some people had differing views on the bastard sword issue, and decided that it wasn't really necessary to DECIDE. They could punt the ball down the field and deal with it later if necessary. In game play, this is an extremely corner-case issue. Almost nobody uses a weapon they are going to take a non-proficiency penalty for. The choice between using a dagger at full bonus or a bastard sword at a -4 penalty, almost everyone will go with the dagger.
They didn't change any of the wording, so I don't think we can make any conclusion about intent other than they weren't interested in changing the wording. They did change how they viewed it when dealing with wrong sized versions to some degree (see comment above about 3.5 FAQ).
Do I think there is a very strong chance they view it as impossible to wield it one-handed without EWP, sure. I think that is the most likely outcome. I don't think it is the necessarily the most logical or most balanced approach based on the RAW, but I don't expect those to have anything to do with the decision ultimately.
Fair enough, but since I have had to answer this at least twice before it does need to be address. It clearly is not going away. Hopefully they handle it soon, since I think it is less complicated that something like invisibility and stealth.
edit:That came out wrong. I don't mean that just because I had to answer a question it should be taken care of. I mean that because it keeps coming up, it should probably get an answer.
In the interest of fairness, I found this while looking through the 3.0 FAQ:
Just what does a Small character have to do to use a bastard sword? I have gotten the impression that a halfling can use a bastard sword as a two-handed weapon provided that she has a Strength score of 13 or better and she takes Exotic Weapon Proficiency (bastard sword). Correct?
There is no Strength requirement to use a bastard sword. A bastard sword is a Medium-Size weapon. It follows all the rules for Medium-Size weapons, except that a Medium-Size creature wielding the sword in one hand takes a –4 attack penalty with it unless she has Exotic Weapon Proficiency (bastard sword). A Small creature using the sword in two hands is just like a Medium-Size creature wielding it in one hand. So, your halfling (or gnome) takes a –4 attack penalty when using the sword two-handed and takes no attack penalty if she has Exotic Weapon Proficiency (bastard sword) and uses two hands; because the sword is Medium-Size, a Small character cannot use it one-handed.
It lends credence to my "hypothetical" scenario that if you can one-hand a bastard sword without the EWP, you must consider the -4 nonproficiency bonus if you're two-handing a large bastard sword.
Though, it is completely contradictory to the 3.0 FAQ I posted before:
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.
You could actually synergize these, if you wanted.
Bastard Sword (or whatever...):
If you have:
Exotic Weapon Proficiency - You can wield an appropriate sized weapon in one hand at no penalty, an appropriate sized weapon in two hands at no penalty, or a one-step oversized weapon in two hands at no penalty aside from size penalties.
Martial Weapon Proficiency only - You can wield an appropriate sized weapon in one hand at -4 penalty (nonproficiency), an appropriate sized weapon in two hands at no penalty, or a one-step oversized weapon in two hands at -4 penalty (since it is a large one-handed exotic weapon which you are not proficient with) in addition to any size penalties.
Neither Martial nor Exotic Weapon Proficiency - You can only wield an appropriate sized weapon in two hands at -4 penalty (nonproficiency). You cannot wield an appropriate sized weapon in one hand at all, nor can you wield an oversized weapon in two hands.
I mean, it actually does kind of follow. If you don't have the requisite training to wield the weapon in the Martial manner proficiently, you certainly don't have the ability to wield it in a more difficult manner. And the Martial user's penalty for oversized use is what I've always thought should be in place, assuming it could be used at all.
*shrug* It's just awful enough to make sense!
Or not ...
|
|
Lord Twig, you are coming from a position that if you don't have the EWP, you can still wield it one-handed. I certainly understand why you think that, but that position isn't supported by precedence.What precedence? The 3.5 FAQ that says that the bastard sword is actually a two-handed weapon even though no where in the rules does it say that?
You say you understand why I think the bastard sword works the way it does, but completely fail to realize that I think that way based purely one the Rules as they are written. I have even quoted them in their entirety!
Unless Paizo tells me otherwise, I have no reason to think their position differs from the official 3.5 position, especially considering that the wording is virtually identical, which is that if you don't have the EWP, you can't use it in one hand.How about that they list the bastard sword as a one-handed weapon instead of a two-handed weapon? Isn't that different than what is said in the 3.5 FAQ?
Do you have any reference or hints that indicate that, while the wording has remained the same, their position has changed?Do you have any reference that indicates that, while the wording has remained the same, that they have adopted the change stated in the 3.5 FAQ that the bastard sword is actually a two-handed?
The bastard sword was listed as a one-handed weapon in 3.5, too. The only way that we know that something is different is from the Amiri build, and that doesn't automatically tell us that they're not treating it like a two-handed weapon like the 3.5 FAQ says. Perhaps they are just taking the EWP feat into account when calculating for the larger weapon.
In short, there are two possible changes that Paizo has made:
1) Paizo is reversing the "it's really a two-handed weapon" comment, and treating it strictly as a one-handed weapon, or
2) Paizo acknowledges the "it's really a two-handed weapon" comment, but is allowing the EWP to count when determining whether a medium creature can use a large bastard sword.
It is obvious something changed, but until Paizo tells us one way or the other, one possibility is no less likely than the other.
Can you say with absolute certainty which change they used? Either one would give us Amiri's build, but only one can be correct.
So I have thought about this some more and have come to the conclusion that the rule really is unclear. There are two different ways that people seem to be reading the same rule.
Sword, Bastard
A bastard sword is about 4 feet in length, making it too large to use in one hand effectively without special training; thus, it is an exotic weapon. A character can use a bastard sword two-handed as a martial weapon.
Sword, Bastard
A bastard sword is about 4 feet in length, making it too large to use in one hand at all without special training; thus, it is an exotic weapon. A character can use a bastard sword two-handed as a martial weapon.
I would personally prefer that the PDT choose the first option as it seems ridiculous that a sword can be "too large" for a Str 30 fighter to wield at all.
Likewise it would make sense to me that if the bastard sword is an exotic one-handed weapon then a large bastard sword would be treated as an exotic two-handed weapon for a medium character and would require an exotic proficiency to use effectively. Without it you would get a -6 the same as trying to use a large falcata without an exotic weapon proficiency.
I agree with that, Lord Twig. Completely, in fact (including the bit about "effectively"). You are about to fall afoul of those who believe that a large bastard sword used in two hands by a medium creature can use the martial proficiency to avoid non-proficiency penalties, though.