fretgod99 actually said something that reminded me how we squared the circle back in the 3.5 days. We basically decided that "special training" wasn't clearly defined. Since anyone with martial training has been trained in the use of the bastard sword in a two-hand fashion, we just assumed that to mean that they could also wield it one-handed, but with the -4 non-proficiency penalty (that was, they did receive training in using it one hand but didn't go as far as to gain proficiency in one-handed use).
Of course that was a houserule, so not relevant, I just had forgotten that we had done that, thanks fretgod99 for reminding me.
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.
Well, in their defense, if you were to plug that logic into a computer that is exactly the results you would get. Without an explicit exception that the line only applies to appropriately sized weapons, it would work exactly as they claim. Rules as intended be damned!
I have gathered enough data that I know how I will run things in games I GM. However I am still at the mercy of RAW for games that I play in that I do not run. This is why rule changes and clarifications matter even if you don't play in Pathfinder Society.
fretgod99 actually said something that reminded me how we squared the circle back in the 3.5 days. We basically decided that "special training" wasn't clearly defined. Since anyone with martial training has been trained in the use of the bastard sword in a two-hand fashion, we just assumed that to mean that they could also wield it one-handed, but with the -4 non-proficiency penalty (that was, they did receive training in using it one hand but didn't go as far as to gain proficiency in one-handed use).
Of course that was a houserule, so not relevant, I just had forgotten that we had done that, thanks fretgod99 for reminding me.
Frankly it's a completely reasonable solution. I'd probably roll that way, too. Think I mentioned that way back when I first commented in this thread. Makes enough sense for me. I'd still have the nonproficiency penalty for martial only even two-handing an oversized weapon, but whatever. It's such a corner case, when's it going to come up that a person wants to oversized wield a bastard sword without the EWP feat?
|
fretgod99 actually said something that reminded me how we squared the circle back in the 3.5 days. We basically decided that "special training" wasn't clearly defined. Since anyone with martial training has been trained in the use of the bastard sword in a two-hand fashion, we just assumed that to mean that they could also wield it one-handed, but with the -4 non-proficiency penalty (that was, they did receive training in using it one hand but didn't go as far as to gain proficiency in one-handed use).
Of course that was a houserule, so not relevant, I just had forgotten that we had done that, thanks fretgod99 for reminding me.
Sometimes, a houserule turns out to have been RAW the whole time and you didn't realise it. : )
|
Sometimes, a houserule turns out to have been RAW the whole time and you didn't realise it. : )fretgod99 actually said something that reminded me how we squared the circle back in the 3.5 days. We basically decided that "special training" wasn't clearly defined. Since anyone with martial training has been trained in the use of the bastard sword in a two-hand fashion, we just assumed that to mean that they could also wield it one-handed, but with the -4 non-proficiency penalty (that was, they did receive training in using it one hand but didn't go as far as to gain proficiency in one-handed use).
Of course that was a houserule, so not relevant, I just had forgotten that we had done that, thanks fretgod99 for reminding me.
Or not.
Sometimes, a houserule turns out to have been RAW the whole time and you didn't realise it. : )fretgod99 actually said something that reminded me how we squared the circle back in the 3.5 days. We basically decided that "special training" wasn't clearly defined. Since anyone with martial training has been trained in the use of the bastard sword in a two-hand fashion, we just assumed that to mean that they could also wield it one-handed, but with the -4 non-proficiency penalty (that was, they did receive training in using it one hand but didn't go as far as to gain proficiency in one-handed use).
Of course that was a houserule, so not relevant, I just had forgotten that we had done that, thanks fretgod99 for reminding me.
Well it was an effort to satisfy both camps.
In the rules section I only care about RAI.
As an aside I sometimes debate for the purpose of debating. I have never used any of these weapons, and I probably never will. :)
|
|
In the rules section I only care about RAI.
As an aside I sometimes debate for the purpose of debating. I have never used any of these weapons, and I probably never will. :)
As two-handed weapons they are pointless because greatsword.
As one-handed weapons they are pointless because wasted feat.
Having said that, my current 3.5 fighter uses a bastard sword. It would have been a greatsword, but it's throwing/returning and it's a full action to throw a two-handed weapon but only an attack for a one-handed weapon. So when my full attack has killed all the baddies within a 5-foot step and I still have an attack left, I can throw my sword. I couldn't do this if it took a full action.
In the rules section I only care about RAI.
As an aside I sometimes debate for the purpose of debating. I have never used any of these weapons, and I probably never will. :)
As two-handed weapons they are pointless because greatsword.
As one-handed weapons they are pointless because wasted feat.
Having said that, my current 3.5 fighter uses a bastard sword. It would have been a greatsword, but it's throwing/returning and it's a full action to throw a two-handed weapon but only an attack for a one-handed weapon. So when my full attack has killed all the baddies within a 5-foot step and I still have an attack left, I can throw my sword. I couldn't do this if it took a full action.
many of the EWP feats are not worth taking . Some of them are inferior to martial and maybe even simple weapons.
In the rules section I only care about RAI.
As an aside I sometimes debate for the purpose of debating. I have never used any of these weapons, and I probably never will. :)
As two-handed weapons they are pointless because greatsword.
As one-handed weapons they are pointless because wasted feat.
Having said that, my current 3.5 fighter uses a bastard sword. It would have been a greatsword, but it's throwing/returning and it's a full action to throw a two-handed weapon but only an attack for a one-handed weapon. So when my full attack has killed all the baddies within a 5-foot step and I still have an attack left, I can throw my sword. I couldn't do this if it took a full action.
You might be interpreting the rules incorrectly here.
Thrown Weapons
Daggers, clubs, shortspears, spears, darts, javelins, throwing axes, light hammers, tridents, shuriken, and nets are thrown weapons. The wielder applies his or her Strength modifier to damage dealt by thrown weapons (except for splash weapons). It is possible to throw a weapon that isn’t designed to be thrown (that is, a melee weapon that doesn’t have a numeric entry in the Range Increment column on Table: Weapons), but a character who does so takes a -4 penalty on the attack roll. Throwing a light or one-handed weapon is a standard action, while throwing a two-handed weapon is a full-round action. Regardless of the type of weapon, such an attack scores a threat only on a natural roll of 20 and deals double damage on a critical hit. Such a weapon has a range increment of 10 feet.
You'll notice the text right before the part about the action it takes to throw and right after deal with using improvised throwing weapons. I would agree that from context the part about throwing also only applies to improvised throwing weapons. A melee weapon with the throwing enhancement isn't an improvised throwing weapon, thus it can be thrown with a regular attack action.
Here is my take on this. This is not the first thread on bastard swords I've read. This is coming from a Pathfinder player who has done very little 3.5 gaming.
How I understand RAI to be - The bastard sword is a two handed weapon, but can be treated as a one handed weapon if you have EWP.
How I read and understood the RAW - The bastard sword is a one-handed weapon and can be used as such. Without EWP with the standard non-proficiency penalty applies. A large bastard sword can be used by someone with martial proficiency (two-handed) without the need for EWP.
Personally I think errata should be made to move the bastard sword (and katana, dwarven waraxe) to the two-handed weapon category on the chart and make exceptions to to go down to one-handedness rather than the confusing mess to make one-handers act like two-handers.
|
|
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
Your integrity does you credit.
What you've demonstrated is that using any 3rd ed FAQ as 'proof' is pointless and inaccurate.
The way the Paizo FAQ system seems to work is that the design team weighs up the issue, thinks through any ramifications, and then issues a FAQ as an official 'rule', also stating that when the RAW doesn't make things work the way the design team want it to work, then they say that the rules will be errata'd to reflect this.
In contrast, the 3.5 FAQ was Skip Williams writing a magazine column, with frequent errors and changes of mind.
Going to the 3.5 FAQs can help, but it is not proof, especially with contradicting FAQs on the same issue!
The two you've quoted contradict. One definitely says that (without EWP) you wield a BS one-handed with the -4 non-proficiency penalty, and the other says that you cannot wield it at all. Since this is one of the questions we are asking how can any of us present either as 'proof', as the entire reason we are convinced!
Further, a FAQ can explain what the RAW is trying to say, but cannot actually change the written word, nor change the rules of the game; for that you need an errata.
Of the questions we are discussing in this thread, a FAQ would be enough to rule on the issue of: does '...too large to use it in one hand without special training; thus, it is an exotic weapon' mean:-
* you take a -4 non-proficiency penalty when using it one-handed without EWP
OR
* you cannot use it one-handed at all without the EWP
So, a FAQ can resolve this.
What a FAQ cannot do is either change the actual words on the actual paper, nor can a FAQ change the rules of the game.
So a FAQ would not be enough to say that:-
* without EWP, a BS is a two-handed weapon
* the special rules in the description change as the weapon size changes
* using a one-handed weapon in two hands makes it a two-handed weapon, or makes you treat it as a two-handed weapon
* prevents you from using a weapon with which you are not proficient
* turn 'cannot be used in one hand' into 'cannot be used in two hands' if the size is different
* cannot ignore, nor change, the rules about using a weapon of inappropriate size
All these things cannot be touched by a mere FAQ, as changing these would involve changing the actual words in the description, and/or change the rules of the game.
Any FAQ which did this would have to include 'we'll errata this in the next printing', or words to that effect.
Since one of the 3rd ed FAQs required a change in the rules (these weapons are treated as two handed weapons), the FAQ itself was not enough, even for players of 3.5, because there is no errata and the RAW of 3.5 could not support the stated opinion of that FAQ.
|
|
Here is my take on this. This is not the first thread on bastard swords I've read. This is coming from a Pathfinder play who has done very little 3.5 gaming.
How I understand RAI to be - The bastard sword is a two handed weapon, but can be treated as a one handed weapon if you have EWP.
How I read and understood the RAW - The bastard sword is a one-handed weapon and can be used as such. Without EWP with the standard non-proficiency penalty. A large bastard sword can be used by someone with martial proficiency without the need for EWP.
Personally I think errata should be made to move the bastard sword (and katana, dwarven waraxe) to the two-handed weapon category on the chart and make exceptions to to go down to one-handedness rather than the confusing mess to make one-hander act like a two-hander.
That would work!
The trouble is that some people think that's how it works now, when it would need a change of the rules for it to work that way!
Since this is the Rules Thread, we should be discussing what the rules are, not what we think they should be!
That would work!The trouble is that some people think that's how it works now, when it would need a change of the rules for it to work that way!
Since this is the Rules Thread, we should be discussing what the rules are, not what we think they should be!
I agree.
It's just that to my mind the reason that this problem (and this thread) exists is because there is a divide on developer RAI and the written RAW.
To give an example of the problem - with the way the rules are Amiri doesn't need EWP to wield the large bastard-sword. The developers feel that he absolutely DOES need EWP to wield it.
So a FAQ would not be enough to say that:-
* without EWP, a BS is a two-handed weapon
* the special rules in the description change as the weapon size changes
* using a one-handed weapon in two hands makes it a two-handed weapon, or makes you treat it as a two-handed weapon
* prevents you from using a weapon with which you are not proficient
* turn 'cannot be used in one hand' into 'cannot be used in two hands' if the size is different
* cannot ignore, nor change, the rules about using a weapon of inappropriate size
A FAQ could say without the feat you treat it as a two-handed weapon. All of those things you're claiming a FAQ can't address actually would follow pretty simply from a ruling that says a character without the EWP treats such a weapon as a two-handed martial weapon, even though it's a one-handed exotic weapon. And the language to support it is already in the rules (it's what we've been quibbling about, after all). So, despite your protestations otherwise, a FAQ actually could resolve all this quite nicely.
The interesting thing about the second 3.0 FAQ found is that it would allow the small (medium) creature to use the medium (large) weapon two-handed, but they'd have to take the -4 nonproficiency penalty without the feat (because the smaller character using it in two hands is just like a larger character wielding it in one).
And frankly, they're not necessarily contradictory. One says you can use it one-handed, the other says you cannot. However, context does matter. The "you can't use it" answer was in response to a character that doesn't even have martial proficiency. The "you can use it, but at a penalty" doesn't really mention base proficiency's, but it isn't absurd to believe the response assumed at least martial proficiency.
Regardless, the biggest sticking point for me is whether a nonproficient character takes a penalty when wielding an oversized sword two-handed. To me it makes the most sense that they do. As for being able to wield one-handed at all or just at a penalty *shrug*.
Think I'll just follow what I wrote up here, absent a clear directive otherwise.
Easiest fix for all this:
"You may wield a Bastard Sword of your size in two hands as a Martial weapon."
BOOM.
Easy.
Just do that with the Dwarven Waraxe, Great Terbutje, and Katana as well.
The katana already has very clear language in the Ultimate Equipment book. Now I will look up the Great Terbutje. I have never heard of that weapon. :)
Ok, I just read the Great Terbutje description. I guess it can be added to the list also.
|
The katana already has very clear language in the Ultimate Equipment book. Now I will look up the Great Terbutje. I have never heard of that weapon. :)Easiest fix for all this:
"You may wield a Bastard Sword of your size in two hands as a Martial weapon."
BOOM.
Easy.
Just do that with the Dwarven Waraxe, Great Terbutje, and Katana as well.
Sort of. The Katana still leaves some asking questions.
Sort of. The Katana still leaves some asking questions.The katana already has very clear language in the Ultimate Equipment book. Now I will look up the Great Terbutje. I have never heard of that weapon. :)Easiest fix for all this:
"You may wield a Bastard Sword of your size in two hands as a Martial weapon."
BOOM.
Easy.
Just do that with the Dwarven Waraxe, Great Terbutje, and Katana as well.
How so?
I am asking how is the RAI not clear.
Easiest fix for all this:
"You may wield a Bastard Sword of your size in two hands as a Martial weapon."
BOOM.
Easy.
Just do that with the Dwarven Waraxe, Great Terbutje, and Katana as well.
Can you wield an oversized Bastard Sword? If so, which penalties apply?
Sounds nit-picky, but I think something along the lines of "If you do not have the EWP feat, you treat [X Weapon] as a two-handed Martial Weapon" would be a little bit clearer.
That might still leave a question about whether you can wield one-handed at a penalty, or simply cannot, though. The strict reading would be "cannot", I think. Adding "You may still wield a[ X Weapon] of your size in one hand nonproficiently" or whatever would clarify, but now it's getting wordy ...
RAI would likely be that it functions identical to the Bastard Sword.
This idea that without a feat, a Katana in one hand is just some kind of floppy butter knife is silly, and I doubt is intended.
It says in exact terms that you must EWP to wield it in one hand, so that is RAW and RAI. I wish the Bastard Sword was written so precisely. The fact that it is written in such a precise manner was why I compared it to the other two, so I could show the intent of how the bastard was meant to be used.
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.
Now you said the wording left questions. What about those words leaves a question? <--I know how you feel, but I am only asking about the wording. I can understand the bastard sword argument since it does not say "you must....", but I see no hole in the RAI for the katana.
Or just use the Katana language, obviously. But that still leaves open the "Can you wield it one-handed at all?" question.
|
|
I am just saying that if they all remain the One-handed Exotic Weapons that they are, and you change the text to:
"You may wield a <insert weapon here> of your size in two hands as a Martial weapon."
Then everything else is easy to figure out.
Abilities, different sizes, non-proficiencies, the whole deal.
I am just saying that if they all remain the One-handed Exotic Weapons that they are, and you change the text to:
"You may wield a <insert weapon here> of your size in two hands as a Martial weapon."
Then everything else is easy to figure out.
Abilities, different sizes, non-proficiencies, the whole deal.
What is the difference between that and " A character can use a <insert weapon here> two-handed as a martial weapon"
We already know the game assumes the weapon is properly sized for the creature so the "your size" part is just reminder text that takes up word count.
Speaking to the issue of whether or not this is ever used. I had an eldritch knight that used a bastard sword two-handed with a martial proficiency. To cast spells he released one hand and used it one-handed.
The way I read the rules this meant that he suffered a -4 non-proficiency penalty, but he still threatened with his bastard sword. Also his defending property still worked and it still counted as wielded for the arcane bond property.
Well, if we're getting pedantic (this is the Rules section, after all), that's basically what the rule says now, just the "of your size" is implied. It wouldn't necessarily resolve whether using a weapon one size larger would require suffering the nonproficiency penalty (because you'd be using it equivalently as a one-handed weapon) or just the oversized penalty, and it wouldn't necessarily answer the one-handed question, either.
Unless I'm missing how those answers are more obviously derived from that language (which I could be, so feel free to explain it to me) ...
Speaking to the issue of whether or not this is ever used. I had an eldritch knight that used a bastard sword two-handed with a martial proficiency. To cast spells he released one hand and used it one-handed.
The way I read the rules this meant that he suffered a -4 non-proficiency penalty, but he still threatened with his bastard sword. Also his defending property still worked and it still counted as wielded for the arcane bond property.
The devs have said you can take your hands off a two-handed weapon to cast a spell, and then regrip the weapon so you should not have had any issues using the weapon properly.
Sort of. The Katana still leaves some asking questions.The katana already has very clear language in the Ultimate Equipment book. Now I will look up the Great Terbutje. I have never heard of that weapon. :)Easiest fix for all this:
"You may wield a Bastard Sword of your size in two hands as a Martial weapon."
BOOM.
Easy.
Just do that with the Dwarven Waraxe, Great Terbutje, and Katana as well.
How so?
I am asking how is the RAI not clear.
Katana requires two-hands unless you have EWP. Fine, cool whatever.
Now an oversized Katana would turn it a one-handed weapon -> two-handed weapon by the chart.
Am I using it one-handed?
IF YES then EWP
IF NO then NO EWP
By RAW you are using two hands to wield it. Would you need the EWP to wield an oversized Katana? My argument is that RAW says no additional proficiencies are needed. RAI and dev input says you do. Same logic applies to a bastard sword.
Except as possibly a thought exercise no one really wants to wield a bastard sword one-handed without being proficient. What some people want to do is wield these weapons as oversized without needing the EWP feat. Although there is an attack penalty involved you get some interesting interactions when you do size stacking (enlarge person, lead blades, vital strike for example).
I am just saying that if they all remain the One-handed Exotic Weapons that they are, and you change the text to:
"You may wield a <insert weapon here> of your size in two hands as a Martial weapon."
Then everything else is easy to figure out.
Abilities, different sizes, non-proficiencies, the whole deal.
So would you leave out the part about how it is 4' long (or big or whatever) so it's an exotic weapon? Because that the part that seems to mess people up.
Now if the description read: "Due to its <fluff>, a <weapon name> is an exotic weapon. You may wield a <weapon name> for your size two-handed as a martial weapon, or a smaller <weapon name> one-handed in the same way."
|
|
All of those things you're claiming a FAQ can't address actually would follow pretty simply from a ruling that says a character without the EWP treats such a weapon as a two-handed martial weapon, even though it's a one-handed exotic weapon.
The language would have to change! The ability to treat something as something else exists in the game, and would have a definate game effect.
It's not okay to pretend that the description says something when it doesn't! The description does not say 'treat is as a two-handed weapon if you don't have EWP'!
It says (maybe!) that you can't use it in one hand!
If the devs want it to mean 'treat it as a two-handed weapon' then they must change to wording to 'treat it as a two-handed weapon', because what it says now does not mean that!
And a change in the text is beyond the power of a FAQ; for that, you need an errata.
Even that is putting the cart before the horse. Nothing is currently wrong with the way it works as written (beyond 'can't use it 1H/can but at -4'). It works fine as a one-handed weapon and following the normal game rules for weapon size, using one or two hands, weapon proficiency and weapon category.
The language would have to change! The ability to treat something as something else exists in the game, and would have a definate game effect.
It's not okay to pretend that the description says something when it doesn't! The description does not say 'treat is as a two-handed weapon if you don't have EWP'!
It says (maybe!) that you can't use it in one hand!
If the devs want it to mean 'treat it as a two-handed weapon' then they must change to wording to 'treat it as a two-handed weapon', because what it says now does not mean that!
And a change in the text is beyond the power of a FAQ; for that, you need an errata.
Even that is putting the cart before the horse. Nothing is currently wrong with the way it works as written (beyond 'can't use it 1H/can but at -4'). It works fine as a one-handed weapon and following the normal game rules for weapon size, using one or two hands, weapon proficiency and weapon category.
This - This - This
No, that language is available. They simply clarify that when they used the phrase "A character can use a bastard sword two-handed as a martial weapon", they meant "A character without the feat can only use a bastard sword two-handed as a martial weapon." That's one possible interpretation of the entry as a whole. No added language is necessary, they're just clarifying which interpretation is intended. That's the point of FAQ - to clear up ambiguity if more than one possible meaning is presented by the language. And if a character without the feat can only use a weapon two-handed as a martial weapon, you can't oversize it.
Similarly, "A character can use a bastard sword two-handed as a martial weapon" can also be read to mean "A character without the feat can use a bastard sword as a two-handed martial weapon." Also a possible interpretation from the language already present, though granted it's a little bit more nuanced. It's really not as difficult as you're making it out to be.
Aside from that, all they'd have to clarify is whether EWP is necessary to one-hand a weapon at all. If you'd be happier with an errata, whatever. It's no skin off my back. The problem is perfectly resolvable by a FAQ.
Unless your argument is that "A character can use a bastard sword two-handed as a martial weapon" cannot possibly be read, in any context, to mean "A character without the feat can only use a bastard sword two-handed as a martial weapon", then this matter is resolvable by FAQ without having to add any language whatsoever.
EDIT: And for any ancillary concerns (weapon hit points, etc.), it's not difficult to also clarify that it's treated as a two-handed weapon (in the absence of the feat) solely for the purpose of determining who can wield the weapon and in what instances. You just mention exactly that in the FAQ response.
Also, if you'd rather, you can throw in a "proficiently" before "use" to demonstrate that it could be used one-handed at a penalty. That'd also be a legitimate interpretation of the already existent language.
And if a character without the feat can only use a weapon two-handed as a martial weapon, you can't oversize it.
This is the part that requires an errata in my opinion.
Unless you can show wording, an example or precedent in the rules that states this is the case I don't think an FAQ is sufficient. There are weapon size and adjustment rules already and it makes it pretty clear that a one-handed weapon becomes a two-handed weapon.
For the record I agree that this is RAI. I don't agree that it's RAW. It may be bad RAI since exotic weapon are typically terrible anyway and I like feats to be worth something, but that is another discussion entirely.
I do agree that an FAQ would be sufficient to say that it is impossible to use an appropriately sized bastard one-handed, but that would not deal with the oversized issue.
I have hit the FAQ button on the first page. I have read all the posts (there are so many!) and I feel like both sides have some pretty good arguments. I don't know which interpretation was more common back in 3.x days, but I remember some of my friends arguing about it back in the day and here we are still doing it. Let's hope this one makes it into the next round of FAQs (thanks Paizo!) to settle it once and for all.
Well, until the next version comes out and we start it all over again. :P
|
|
They simply clarify that when they used the phrase "A character can use a bastard sword two-handed as a martial weapon", they meant "A character without the feat can only use a bastard sword two-handed as a martial weapon."
Yeah, 'as a martial weapon', not 'as a two-handed weapon'!
But that wording does not require a change in weapon category, because:-
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.
The language actually used does not mean that it becomes a two-handed weapon, nor does it need to be treated as a two-handed weapon.
The rules for using a one-handed weapon already exist, already cope perfectly with these weapons and these one-handed weapons never become, or are treated as, two-handed weapons! They remain one-handed weapons, even if used in two hands as described in the very paragraph that defines one-handed weapons in the game rules!
Nothing in the weapon descriptions, even the katana, changes what these weapons are or how they are treated!
The way the Paizo FAQ system seems to work is that the design team weighs up the issue, thinks through any ramifications, and then issues a FAQ as an official 'rule', also stating that when the RAW doesn't make things work the way the design team want it to work, then they say that the rules will be errata'd to reflect this.In contrast, the 3.5 FAQ was Skip Williams writing a magazine column, with frequent errors and changes of mind.
Why do you assume they followed significantly different processes? Do you think Skip didn't consult at all with the other D&D writers when he wrote the FAQ answers? Do you think the Paizo FAQ answers are infallible?
They simply clarify that when they used the phrase "A character can use a bastard sword two-handed as a martial weapon", they meant "A character without the feat can only use a bastard sword two-handed as a martial weapon."Yeah, 'as a martial weapon', not 'as a two-handed weapon'!
But that wording does not require a change in weapon category, because:-
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.The language actually used does not mean that it becomes a two-handed weapon, nor does it need to be treated as a two-handed weapon.
The rules for using a one-handed weapon already exist, already cope perfectly with these weapons and these one-handed weapons never become, or are treated as, two-handed weapons! They remain one-handed weapons, even if used in two hands as described in the very paragraph that defines one-handed weapons in the game rules!
Nothing in the weapon descriptions, even the katana, changes what these weapons are or how they are treated!
You seem to be missing the part where I said the clarification (assuming that's how they rule it) would boil down to them saying, as was stating in one of the 3.0 FAQs, that for the purpose of determining who wields these types of weapons (and for that purpose only), treat them as two-handed martial weapons. That's a natural conclusion from the reading I provided. Granted, that's not necessarily how they have to read it, but doing it that way would absolutely give them the ability to restrict the use of the weapons via FAQ, without having to add superfluous language.
That isn't a difficult track to follow if they clarify that a nonproficient person can only use such a weapon two-handed as a martial weapon. How do we treat these weapons? Just like any other weapon that can be wielded by this character only two-handed as a martial weapon.
"A character without the feat can only use a bastard sword two-handed as a martial weapon." In other words, "To determine who may wield a bastard sword without the feat, treat it like any other weapon which must be used two-handed."
Your hangup appears to be going from "can only use two-handed/must be used two handed" to "for the purposes of determining who can wield, treat it like". Is that the only possible interpretation of this language? No, certainly not. That's why we're where we are right now. And I can see how you might not like that language and would prefer to read it another way. But it is certainly a legitimate reading and it's not unapparent. There are no great leaps of logic involved in getting from A to B. There is no added language in getting from A to B. The latter logically follows from the former, even if it's not how you would choose to read it (if you can only wield an item in two hands, treat as two-handed when figuring out who can wield it). That it's not what you might not like does not invalidate that it is a legitimate reading. This can be resolved without having to add any new language or change any other rules. They could simply clarify the meaning of the language already in place.
Similarly, they could also clarify it to mean the opposite - that its other apparent meaning is what was intended. There is only a penalty for nonproficiency and even then it's only when trying to one-hand a regularly sized weapon (so both proficient and nonproficient users can two-hand an oversized weapon with equally efficiency).
Two contradictory meanings both apparent from a natural reading of the language. It can easily be resolved by FAQ.
Malachi the point being made is that when a rule can be reasonably read in more than one way, all you need is an FAQ to deliver intent. :)
PS: Good link HangarFlying.
|
|
I am just saying that if they all remain the One-handed Exotic Weapons that they are, and you change the text to:
"You may wield a <insert weapon here> of your size in two hands as a Martial weapon."
Then everything else is easy to figure out.
Abilities, different sizes, non-proficiencies, the whole deal.
So would you leave out the part about how it is 4' long (or big or whatever) so it's an exotic weapon? Because that the part that seems to mess people up.
Now if the description read: "Due to its <fluff>, a <weapon name> is an exotic weapon. You may wield a <weapon name> for your size two-handed as a martial weapon, or a smaller <weapon name> one-handed in the same way."
Okay, so each these weapons would have:
"<Insert non-crunch fluff here>" then the sentence would end, and then "You may wield a <insert weapon here> of your size in two hands as a Martial weapon."
Basically, it would work as a weapon quality, like Deadly, or Trip.
By the way, why is there such a mass necromancy of older editions to confuse the issue with countless rules not relevant.
Who needs zombified rules to prove some point, when most of them contradict each other.
Also, the high historian stance? Really? This is not a simulation.
No need to look through your nose at those that are not as familiar with every aspect of historical weaponry.
Note: Rants are not directed at any single individual.
The same rules text is present in PF so if it was contradicting then, that means it is contradicting now.
The point of using older editions is to show possible intent.
I am all for saying the PF devs have a new intent, without changing the words, but I would expect some reasoning behind such a statement, but I have repeated that enough already.
I have not seen a katana thread in a while.
"Katanas should do 2d10 damage with a x6 multiplier, and bypass all DR because the steel is quadruple folded to the 5th power, and I saw one cut a mountain in half in person."<---Ok, so its not that bad, but....
I think that nonsense is dead btw. At least I hope so.
|
|
I just really like the direction of a sort of universal quality that can be applied to all these weapons.
Like the way Grapple, Performance, Disarm, or Trip are.
So, the "You may wield a <insert weapon here> of your size in two hands as a Martial weapon." idea is based around that.
It's one sentence. It's clear. It's makes it easy to rule around.
Now, perhaps it can be tweaked, but you get the idea.