Bastard Swords, Dwarven Waraxes, and handiness.


Rules Questions

1 to 50 of 995 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

30 people marked this as FAQ candidate. Answered in the FAQ. 1 person marked this as a favorite.

Both the Bastard Sword and the Dwarven Waraxe are listed on the charted as one-handed exotic weapons, but the text seems to indicate that they are too large to be used one-handed without the Exotic Weapon Proficiency Feat.

Can they be used in one hand without the Exotic Weapon Proficiency Feat, meaning the restriction is just flavor text, or without the EWP feat should they be treated as 2-handed martial weapons or 1-handed martial weapons with the restriction you must use 2 hands to wield them?

edit:edited


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I believe you can use it one-handed without Exotic Proficiency feat but you'd be treated as unproficient = -4 penalty to attack rolls with the weapon.


2 people marked this as FAQ candidate.

I think your question is poorly worded.

Can they be used in one hand without the Exotic Weapon Proficiency feat, meaning the restriction is just flavor text?
and
Without the feat should they be treated as 2-handed martial weapons or are they 1-handed martial weapons with the restriction you must use 2 hands to wield them?


Protoman wrote:
I believe you can use it one-handed without Exotic Proficiency feat but you'd be treated as unproficient = -4 penalty to attack rolls with the weapon.

The text says differently. 3.5 FAQ also disagreed, and the wording of the weapons are basically the same in both games.

Now some are arguing this has become flavor text in Pathfinder, but I don't know why they would think that, and this question has come up quiet a few times so I think we should get it officially resolved. :)


Tarantula wrote:

I think your question is poorly worded.

Can they be used in one hand without the Exotic Weapon Proficiency feat, meaning the restriction is just flavor text?
and
Without the feat should they be treated as 2-handed martial weapons or are they 1-handed martial weapons with the restriction you must use 2 hands to wield them?

I don't see how your question and my question are not asking the same thing.

We already know they are not 1-handed martial weapons because with the martial proficiecy feat you have to use two hands to wield them.

As for my the 3.5 quote it seems they are only two-handed martial weapons for the purpose of use, but for hit points they still would use the 1 handed weapon rules.

Is your 2nd paragraph asking for the purpose of hit points?


On another note FAQ'ing multiple questions within one thread makes them less likely to get an answer so if you think Tarantula's wording is better than mine, then explain and I will change it. I still have close to an hour to do so.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
wraithstrike wrote:
We already know they are not 1-handed martial weapons because with the martial proficiecy feat you have to use two hands to wield them.

The fact that you need to wield them in 2 hands, does not change them from small objects (1-handed weapon) to medium objects (2-handed weapon).

The restriction is that you cannot wield them 1-handed at all without the EWP feat.

The exception, is that if you use 2-hands, you can treat them as a (1-handed) martial weapon.


Tarantula wrote:
wraithstrike wrote:
We already know they are not 1-handed martial weapons because with the martial proficiecy feat you have to use two hands to wield them.

The fact that you need to wield them in 2 hands, does not change them from small objects (1-handed weapon) to medium objects (2-handed weapon).

The restriction is that you cannot wield them 1-handed at all without the EWP feat.

The exception, is that if you use 2-hands, you can treat them as a (1-handed) martial weapon.

Ok..That makes sense. I will change the original statement.

Grand Lodge RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32

1 person marked this as a favorite.

What are you even asking? A bastard sword sized for you is always a one-handed weapon. Like any one-handed weapon, you can wield it in two hands; the only thing special about it is that when you do so, less proficiency is required. So what exactly are you trying to clarify?


wraithstrike wrote:
On another note FAQ'ing multiple questions within one thread makes them less likely to get an answer so if you think Tarantula's wording is better than mine, then explain and I will change it. I still have close to an hour to do so.

My question focuses on what are the weapons classed as. 1-handed or 2-handed.

There is only 1 answer for this, and whether you have the feat or not, should not change the type of weapon it is, as it also dictates the size the of object the weapon takes up. 1-handed is a small object. 2-handed is a medium object. The fact that one character has a feat, won't change the physical size of the weapon which is dictated by light/1hand/2hand.

If they are 1-handed, then the question is can you wield it with -4 non-proficient 1-handed, or is your only option to 2-hand it or take EWP.


Jiggy wrote:
What are you even asking? A bastard sword sized for you is always a one-handed weapon. Like any one-handed weapon, you can wield it in two hands; the only thing special about it is that when you do so, less proficiency is required. So what exactly are you trying to clarify?

Jiggy the rules text says they can not be wielded in one hand, and so does the 3.5 FAQ. If Paizo wished for the same words to have a different meaning then it needs to be clarified.


But the bastard sword entry on all the weapon tables says it's a one-handed weapon, whether one's proficient or not. If not proficient, people are stuck using the one-handed weapon in two hands as a martial weapon.

Silver Crusade

Wraithstrike, if the rules said that these were two-handed weapons, that can be used in one hand with EWP, then I'd agree with you.

In actuality, they are one-handed weapons, always remain one-handed weapons (barring inappropriate size), and the descriptions of the weapons don't change that, merely allowing you to treat them as martial weapons when used two-handed.


Tarantula wrote:
wraithstrike wrote:
On another note FAQ'ing multiple questions within one thread makes them less likely to get an answer so if you think Tarantula's wording is better than mine, then explain and I will change it. I still have close to an hour to do so.

My question focuses on what are the weapons classed as. 1-handed or 2-handed.

There is only 1 answer for this, and whether you have the feat or not, should not change the type of weapon it is, as it also dictates the size the of object the weapon takes up. 1-handed is a small object. 2-handed is a medium object. The fact that one character has a feat, won't change the physical size of the weapon which is dictated by light/1hand/2hand.

If they are 1-handed, then the question is can you wield it with -4 non-proficient 1-handed, or is your only option to 2-hand it or take EWP.

My question focuses on the intent of how they are supposed to work. Within the game world they are supposed to be tweeners. Now there is no way for the rules to simulate that without rules saying. "Yeah it's a one-handed weapon, but you can't use it one-handed without feat X".

In short the text is creating a rules exception. Now if you have another way to suggest Paizo word the rules exception that might be useful also.


"Yeah it's a one-handed weapon, but you can't use it one-handed without feat X".

This is exactly what it says! Exactly like that. With the added exception that you can use it without EWP in two hands (but that does not make it 2-handed).


I have changed the opening statement to include the 1-handed martial weapon question.


Protoman wrote:
But the bastard sword entry on all the weapon tables says it's a one-handed weapon, whether one's proficient or not. If not proficient, people are stuck using the one-handed weapon in two hands as a martial weapon.

I don't think that's necessarily the case.

Example: Kwai Chang Neidermeyer the One-Handed, monk, with the standard monk weapon proficiencies, finds himself in a weapons store facing a fire elemental. Rather than beat on it bare-handed, he chooses to pick up a weapon and fight it.

* He chooses a longsword. Unfortunately, he's not proficient in longsword, so he takes a -4 penalty to wield it. It turns out the fire elemental also took some levels in rust monster, though, so it eats the longsword.

* He then chooses a rhoka. He's not proficient with that, either, but he can still wield it untrained at -4. However, he also doesn't know how to pronounce it, so...

* He then chooses a greatsword. Unfortunately, since he only has one hand, he can't wield the (two-handed) great sword at all. He drops it and....

* He then chooses a bastard sword. Can he wield it (at a -4) because it's a one-handed exotic weapon, or is it too "too large for him to wield without special training" that he doesn't have, i.e. too large for him to wield at all?

* He then tries a dwarven waraxe. Same question (and presumably same answer).

Silver Crusade

wraithstrike wrote:
Now if you have another way to suggest Paizo word the rules exception that might be useful also.

How about if the rules said that these were two-handed weapons, that can be used in one hand with EWP?

That's not what they say though.


Tarantula wrote:

"Yeah it's a one-handed weapon, but you can't use it one-handed without feat X".

This is exactly what it says! Exactly like that. With the added exception that you can use it without EWP in two hands (but that does not make it 2-handed).

Just to be clear I don't think it becomes two-handed. I just think you are restricted to using it as if it were two-handed.

So the new wording would amount to:

""Yeah it's a one-handed weapon, but you can't use it one-handed without feat X. You may however use it as a two-handed weapon without feat X, but that does not actually make it a two-handed weapon".

Is that how you view it? Yeah that might be a little wordy...:)


Orfamay Quest wrote:

* He then chooses a bastard sword. Can he wield it (at a -4) because it's a one-handed exotic weapon, or is it too "too large for him to wield without special training" that he doesn't have, i.e. too large for him to wield at all?

* He then tries a dwarven waraxe. Same question (and presumably same answer).

My take is that no, he can't wield either, as while they are 1-handed exotic weapons, they both state you cannot wield them in one hand without the associated EWP/Race.


wraithstrike wrote:
Tarantula wrote:

"Yeah it's a one-handed weapon, but you can't use it one-handed without feat X".

This is exactly what it says! Exactly like that. With the added exception that you can use it without EWP in two hands (but that does not make it 2-handed).

Just to be clear I don't think it becomes two-handed. I just think you are restricted to using it as if it were two-handed.

So the new wording would amount to:

""Yeah it's a one-handed weapon, but you can't use it one-handed without feat X. You may however use it as a two-handed weapon without feat X, but that does not actually make it a two-handed weapon".

Is that how you view it? Yeah that might be a little wordy...:)

Ok, I think we are saying the same thing, but you are confusing everybody.

Yes, you are restricted to using it in two hands. (I am using 1-handed and 2-handed to be the weapon type/requirements, while one hand and two hand to denote how it is wielded.)

It still is a 1-handed weapon, and is treated as a 1-handed weapon for everything. HP, size, str mod, etc. It is just a 1-handed weapon being wielded in two hands, and because of the special text on the weapon, you cannot use it one handed.

(To be clear, by default 1-handed weapons use 1x str mod, but have rules which state you get 1.5x str mod if you use them in two hands.)


Malachi Silverclaw wrote:
wraithstrike wrote:
Now if you have another way to suggest Paizo word the rules exception that might be useful also.

How about if the rules said that these were two-handed weapons, that can be used in one hand with EWP?

That's not what they say though.

The idea behind the weapons has been to restrict them to two-handed use unless you had EWP.

That is the wording I am asking for, since that should be assumed to be Paizo's ruling without a deliberate rules change. Like I said to Tarantula in the game world the weapons are actually in between weapon sizes, but the rules have no way to account for that other than what I already posted when I replied to Tarantula.

Grand Lodge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Companion Subscriber

No matter how you wield it, the fact that it is an One-handed weapon never changes.

Feats, abilities, and effects, all treat it as an One-handed weapon.

Never does this change.

Never.


Tarantula wrote:


Ok, I think we are saying the same thing, but you are confusing everybody.

I don't see how unless they are skipping post, but I can make this simple since we agree on the matter.

Do the rest of you agree with Tarantula's interpretation?


blackbloodtroll wrote:

No matter how you wield it, the fact that it is an One-handed weapon never changes.

Feats, abilities, and effects, all treat it as an One-handed weapon.

Never does this change.

Never.

It does not matter if it is one-handed if the book says you can't use it one in hand without feat X.

It would be no different than a wizard spell that required a wizard to have feat X to use it.

No feat=out of luck.

Now if you want to argue that the requirements are now flavor text when they were not before then present your case.

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Companion Subscriber

Wait, is there an insinuation that the weapon is impossible to be wielded in One hand without the feat.

So, as to say, the Fighter wields a Bastard Sword with two hands, then lets a hand free, and now is completely unable to attack with the weapon, and doesn't even threaten?


blackbloodtroll wrote:

Wait, is there an insinuation that the weapon is impossible to be wielded in One hand without the feat.

So, as to say, the Fighter wields a Bastard Sword with two hands, then lets a hand free, and now is completely unable to attack with the weapon, and doesn't even threaten?

If he just has the hand off the sword I would allow him to regrip it, but if that other hand is occupied then no he is not threatening anyone. So yes I am saying without EWP you NEED two hands to wield it, and if you are not wielding you are not threatening.

What makes you think the rules text, is now flavor text, assuming you are saying the " too large to use in one hand..." is just meant to be ignored?

I bolded "now" because when it was copied and pasted to Pathfinder it was rules text.


blackbloodtroll wrote:

Wait, is there an insinuation that the weapon is impossible to be wielded in One hand without the feat.

So, as to say, the Fighter wields a Bastard Sword with two hands, then lets a hand free, and now is completely unable to attack with the weapon, and doesn't even threaten?

That appears to be what tarantula is saying, at least. Kwai Chang Neidermeyer the One-Handed can wield a one-handed exotic weapon like a rhoka at a penalty, but cannot wield a bastard sword at all.

Personally, that's the interpretation I favor as well, but I can see where there's some room for interpretation of the rules.


Both weapons are 1 handed exotic weapons.

Both weapons are one handed weapons regardless of whether you have the feat.

If you are not proficient in any exotic weapon, you can still use it with a -4 to attack rolls, this is the case for -any- weapon, exotic or not that you don't have proficiency with (such as a vanilla sorcerer with a longsword). Making them Exotic weapons is the method for requiring special training to use them one handed, not only do you have to have martial profs, you have to have an extra feat or a racial ability to use them proficiently in one hand.

Both weapons have caveats that allow someone without the feat to instead use them with 2 hands to ignore the -4 non-proficiency with martial training instead of the extra feat.

Your choices with either are (assuming non dwarf for ease)

Use in 1 hand no martial, no feat: -4 penalty
Use in 2 hand no martial, no feat: -4 penalty
Use in 1 hand martial, no feat: -4 penalty
Use in 2 hand martial, no feat: no penalty
Use in 1 hand with feat, martial or not irrelevant: no penalty


That is incorrect TGMaxMaxer..

I will ask you what I asked the others. At what point during the copy and paste process did the rules become flavor text for these weapons.

Silver Crusade

If these weapons can't be used one-handed at all (without EWP/dwarf etc.), they are still not used 'as' two-handed weapons when used two-handed, they remain one-handed weapons being used in two hands.

They would be one-handed weapons...that can't be used in one hand(!).

Interestingly, if you use one of these weapons in two hands, you can use them as martial weapons. This effect is not altered by inappropriate weapon size! Therefore, even without EWP/etc., a medium creature can use a large version of either, and may wield it as a martial weapon in two hands. The fact that you must use them in two hands (because they are two-handed weapons for you per the inappropriately-sized weapons rule) doesn't change the special rule that they can be used as martial weapons when used two-handed. You'd still incur the -2 penalty for using an inappropriately-sized weapon, but wouldn't have a non-proficiency penalty if you were proficient in martial weapons.

The line about being unable to use them in one hand is not relevant when using them in two hands! Again, the rules for inappropriately-sized weapons do not change that line at all!


blackbloodtroll wrote:

Wait, is there an insinuation that the weapon is impossible to be wielded in One hand without the feat.

So, as to say, the Fighter wields a Bastard Sword with two hands, then lets a hand free, and now is completely unable to attack with the weapon, and doesn't even threaten?

Assuming he can't re-grip, and is not wielding the bastard sword in two hands, and does not have EWP for it, yes.

A good example to use is a whip. It also is a 1-hand exotic weapon.

Without EWP(Whip) you can wield a whip in one hand at a -4 non-proficient penalty.

A bastard sword is a 1-hand exotic weapon. It has text in its description which states you cannot wield it in one hand without EWP(bastard sword).
Because of this text, you do not have the option of using it in one hand at a -4, you simply can't.

Some people think that text is descriptive fluff text, which would mean you could wield it the same as a whip, at -4 for non-proficient.

The question is, in the description of a bastard sword or dwarven waraxe, is the text stating you cannot wield it in one hand fluff text which explains why they are exotic weapons, or crunch text, forcing an additional restriction in addition to being exotic?


Malachi Silverclaw wrote:

If these weapons can't be used one-handed at all (without EWP/dwarf etc.), they are still not used 'as' two-handed weapons when used two-handed, they remain one-handed weapons being used in two hands.

They would be one-handed weapons...that can't be used in one hand(!).

Interestingly, if you use one of these weapons in two hands, you can use them as martial weapons. This effect is not altered by inappropriate weapon size! Therefore, even without EWP/etc., a medium creature can use a large version of either, and may wield it as a martial weapon in two hands. The fact that you must use them in two hands (because they are two-handed weapons for you per the inappropriately-sized weapons rule) doesn't change the special rule that they can be used as martial weapons when used two-handed. You'd still incur the -2 penalty for using an inappropriately-sized weapon, but wouldn't have a non-proficiency penalty if you were proficient in martial weapons.

The line about being unable to use them in one hand is not relevant when using them in two hands! Again, the rules for inappropriately-sized weapons do not change that line at all!

The point myself and Tarantula are making is that you need the EWP feat to use them in one hand. Otherwise you need 2 hands.

In other words read Tarantula's post. We have the same thought if my wording is disagreeing with you.

Silver Crusade

wraithstrike wrote:
Malachi Silverclaw wrote:

If these weapons can't be used one-handed at all (without EWP/dwarf etc.), they are still not used 'as' two-handed weapons when used two-handed, they remain one-handed weapons being used in two hands.

They would be one-handed weapons...that can't be used in one hand(!).

Interestingly, if you use one of these weapons in two hands, you can use them as martial weapons. This effect is not altered by inappropriate weapon size! Therefore, even without EWP/etc., a medium creature can use a large version of either, and may wield it as a martial weapon in two hands. The fact that you must use them in two hands (because they are two-handed weapons for you per the inappropriately-sized weapons rule) doesn't change the special rule that they can be used as martial weapons when used two-handed. You'd still incur the -2 penalty for using an inappropriately-sized weapon, but wouldn't have a non-proficiency penalty if you were proficient in martial weapons.

The line about being unable to use them in one hand is not relevant when using them in two hands! Again, the rules for inappropriately-sized weapons do not change that line at all!

The point myself and Tarantula are making is that you need the EWP feat to use them in one hand. Otherwise you need 2 hands.

In other words read Tarantula's post. We have the same thought if my wording is disagreeing with you.

I was the first to FAQ his post!


Malachi Silverclaw wrote:
wraithstrike wrote:
Malachi Silverclaw wrote:

If these weapons can't be used one-handed at all (without EWP/dwarf etc.), they are still not used 'as' two-handed weapons when used two-handed, they remain one-handed weapons being used in two hands.

They would be one-handed weapons...that can't be used in one hand(!).

Interestingly, if you use one of these weapons in two hands, you can use them as martial weapons. This effect is not altered by inappropriate weapon size! Therefore, even without EWP/etc., a medium creature can use a large version of either, and may wield it as a martial weapon in two hands. The fact that you must use them in two hands (because they are two-handed weapons for you per the inappropriately-sized weapons rule) doesn't change the special rule that they can be used as martial weapons when used two-handed. You'd still incur the -2 penalty for using an inappropriately-sized weapon, but wouldn't have a non-proficiency penalty if you were proficient in martial weapons.

The line about being unable to use them in one hand is not relevant when using them in two hands! Again, the rules for inappropriately-sized weapons do not change that line at all!

The point myself and Tarantula are making is that you need the EWP feat to use them in one hand. Otherwise you need 2 hands.

In other words read Tarantula's post. We have the same thought if my wording is disagreeing with you.

I was the first to FAQ his post!

FAQ mine also please since I added part of his text to my post. :)

Silver Crusade

1 person marked this as FAQ candidate.
Tarantula wrote:
The question is, in the description of a bastard sword or dwarven waraxe, is the text stating you cannot wield it in one hand fluff text which explains why they are exotic weapons, or crunch text, forcing an additional restriction in addition to being exotic?

Well put! I'll FAQ this as well. It's a different question to the one about using it 'as' a two-handed weapon.

Silver Crusade

wraithstrike wrote:
Malachi Silverclaw wrote:
wraithstrike wrote:
Malachi Silverclaw wrote:

If these weapons can't be used one-handed at all (without EWP/dwarf etc.), they are still not used 'as' two-handed weapons when used two-handed, they remain one-handed weapons being used in two hands.

They would be one-handed weapons...that can't be used in one hand(!).

Interestingly, if you use one of these weapons in two hands, you can use them as martial weapons. This effect is not altered by inappropriate weapon size! Therefore, even without EWP/etc., a medium creature can use a large version of either, and may wield it as a martial weapon in two hands. The fact that you must use them in two hands (because they are two-handed weapons for you per the inappropriately-sized weapons rule) doesn't change the special rule that they can be used as martial weapons when used two-handed. You'd still incur the -2 penalty for using an inappropriately-sized weapon, but wouldn't have a non-proficiency penalty if you were proficient in martial weapons.

The line about being unable to use them in one hand is not relevant when using them in two hands! Again, the rules for inappropriately-sized weapons do not change that line at all!

The point myself and Tarantula are making is that you need the EWP feat to use them in one hand. Otherwise you need 2 hands.

In other words read Tarantula's post. We have the same thought if my wording is disagreeing with you.

I was the first to FAQ his post!
FAQ mine also please since I added part of his text to my post. :)

Fair enough!

Done. : )

Liberty's Edge

I guess I never thought about it because I figured you could wield it one handed without the feat, but didn't because I didn't want the penalty. But actually looking at it, I guess you can't. That being said, it doesn't really make sense that you can one-hand a greatsword with a penalty, but can't do the same with a bastard sword if you dont have the EWP.


HangarFlying wrote:
I guess I never thought about it because I figured you could wield it one handed without the feat, but didn't because I didn't want the penalty. But actually looking at it, I guess you can't. That being said, it doesn't really make sense that you can one-hand a greatsword with a penalty, but can't do the same with a bastard sword if you dont have the EWP.

I was under the impression that you couldn't one-hand a two-handed weapon.

Grand Lodge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Companion Subscriber

All other Exotic Weapons can be wielded, as is, without a feat, at a penalty.

Why do these two have this magical "failure to perform" addition?

This sounds like fluff to RAW, RAW to fluff, and fluff to RAW juggling to give these two weapons more exceptions and complications than were ever intended.

What is being said, is that the Fighter can wield the Falcata, in one or two hands, without any extra feats, but cannot do the same with the Bastard Sword or Dwarven Waraxe.

I find this conclusion very silly.


HangarFlying wrote:
I guess I never thought about it because I figured you could wield it one handed without the feat, but didn't because I didn't want the penalty. But actually looking at it, I guess you can't. That being said, it doesn't really make sense that you can one-hand a greatsword with a penalty, but can't do the same with a bastard sword if you dont have the EWP.

Greatsword are 2-handed weapons. You cannot use an appropriately sized one (all this discussion has been about) in one hand normally.

You could use a small sized greatsword in one hand, getting the -2 for size penalty. It does give you 1d10 damage over a longswords 1d8. And is in fact, the closest thing to a bastard sword mechanics wise.

Point is, you can't one hand a 2-handed weapon normally, while a bastard sword lets you get a bigger damage die while providing a way to negate the penalty.


blackbloodtroll wrote:

All other Exotic Weapons can be wielded, as is, without a feat, at a penalty.

Why do these two have this magical "failure to perform" addition?

Because they're larger than typical one-handed weapons, even than typical exotic one-handed weapons.

Basically, some weapons are exotic because they're difficult to use (most monk weapons follow in this group; speaking as someone who's done some martial arts, I can understand that).

A bastard sword isn't particularly difficult to use two-handed, but it's very difficult to use one-handed (balance issues; again, I can attest to this from personal experience with katana).

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Companion Subscriber

Urumi is bigger.

I don't understand why either weapon is being referred to as a two handed weapon.

They are one handed weapons.

Feats, abilities, effects, all treat them as the one-handed weapons they are.

Never are they two handed weapons.

Even when wielded in two hands, they remain one-handed weapons.

Sczarni

Starfinder Charter Superscriber

Of all the interpretations here, I agree with BBT's the most.

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Companion Subscriber

I simply find these other interpretations to be much too complicated to be RAI, and adverse to established RAW, on all other weapons.


blackbloodtroll wrote:
Urumi is bigger.

Longer but lighter, as far as I can tell. I've never handled an urumi, so I can't speak from experience about this one.

Quote:


I don't understand why either weapon is being referred to as a two handed weapon.

Sloppy terminology. The difference between "a two-handed weapon" and "a weapon used in two hands" is a term of art that is not at all transparent.

The problem with the bastard sword -- a term that dates back to the 15th century or thereabouts, by the way -- is that it never fit comfortably into either traditional one-handed swords or traditional two-handed sword categories. (That's why it was also called a hand-and-a-half sword in the 19th century.) It's emphatically not a one-handed weapon by anyone's definition other than Paizo's, and most of the manuals of arms stressed two-handed techniques for it. (Heck, even the "long sword" [German langes schwert] was a two-handed weapon in many manuals.)

As far as I know, the key difference between a bastard sword and a two-handed sword (greatsword is a modernism) is that a bastard sword has a blade about the length of a THS's, but a hilt about the length of a one-handed swords. Which is still ample room to hold it in two hands, but not long enough to get some of the really powerful leverage techniques.

But if you don't have forearms the size of Popeye's, you still want to hold the thing with two hands, because those things are heavy.

So the reason that bastards swords historically were called two-handed was because that was how they were usually used. And I suspect the same is true for Pathfinder.


blackbloodtroll wrote:
I simply find these other interpretations to be much too complicated to be RAI, and adverse to established RAW, on all other weapons.

I see no reason that 'you can't wield a bastard sword with one hand without EWP" violates RAW.

One of the fundamental rules of rule interpretation is that the specific trumps general. It takes a move action to draw a weapon, but it takes a swift action to draw one from a spring-loaded wrist sheath. The general rule is that you can wield a weapon with which you are not proficient, but a bastard sword specifically overrides this rule.

Silver Crusade

Tarantula wrote:
HangarFlying wrote:
I guess I never thought about it because I figured you could wield it one handed without the feat, but didn't because I didn't want the penalty. But actually looking at it, I guess you can't. That being said, it doesn't really make sense that you can one-hand a greatsword with a penalty, but can't do the same with a bastard sword if you dont have the EWP.

Greatsword are 2-handed weapons. You cannot use an appropriately sized one (all this discussion has been about) in one hand normally.

You could use a small sized greatsword in one hand, getting the -2 for size penalty. It does give you 1d10 damage over a longswords 1d8. And is in fact, the closest thing to a bastard sword mechanics wise.

Point is, you can't one hand a 2-handed weapon normally, while a bastard sword lets you get a bigger damage die while providing a way to negate the penalty.

Correct.

Assume you are a medium creature.

A small greatsword remains a martial weapon but becomes a one-handed weapon for you. It does 1d10 damage, but attacks at -2 for the size difference.

If the line is crunch, then a medium bastard sword is impossible to wield in one hand without the EWP, or attacks at no penalty if you have the EWP, doing the same 1d10 damage as the small greatsword.

So, which to choose...same damage, but one attacks at -2 but at no feat cost, the other costs a feat to get the same damage at no penalty, by using the BS.

It that's the case, I've probably got better things to do with my feats.

That said, I believe that it's fluff and you can use these two 'hand-and-a-half weapons one-handed with the normal -4 non-proficiency attack penalty if you lack the EWP.


Malachi Silverclaw wrote:


A small greatsword remains a martial weapon but becomes a one-handed weapon for you. It does 1d10 damage, but attacks at -2 for the size difference.

If the line is crunch, then a medium bastard sword is impossible to wield in one hand without the EWP, or attacks at no penalty if you have the EWP, doing the same 1d10 damage as the small greatsword.

So, which to choose...same damage, but one attacks at -2 but at no feat cost, the other costs a feat to get the same damage at no penalty, by using the BS.

It that's the case, I've probably got better things to do with my feats.

You probably have better things to do with your weapons anyway.

A small greatsword does a d10 at a -2 penalty. A medium longsword does a d8 at no penalty. A medium longsword with power attack does a d8+2 damage at a -1 penalty. Better damage AND a lower penalty.

Even if you don't "waste" a feat on power attack, the -2 penalty will hurt you much more than the one point of expected damage will. You'll lose 10% attack chance per attack, so if you expect more than 10 points of damage per round, it will cost you 1.1 damage per attack or more. And 11+ expected damage per round is easy to make even by third level or so. Long sword does 4.5, 18 strength adds another 4, plus a weapon enchantment.

In general, I don't think EWP are worth the feats. Exotic weapons just aren't that good.

Silver Crusade

Orfamay Quest wrote:
Malachi Silverclaw wrote:


A small greatsword remains a martial weapon but becomes a one-handed weapon for you. It does 1d10 damage, but attacks at -2 for the size difference.

If the line is crunch, then a medium bastard sword is impossible to wield in one hand without the EWP, or attacks at no penalty if you have the EWP, doing the same 1d10 damage as the small greatsword.

So, which to choose...same damage, but one attacks at -2 but at no feat cost, the other costs a feat to get the same damage at no penalty, by using the BS.

It that's the case, I've probably got better things to do with my feats.

You probably have better things to do with your weapons anyway.

A small greatsword does a d10 at a -2 penalty. A medium longsword does a d8 at no penalty. A medium longsword with power attack does a d8+2 damage at a -1 penalty. Better damage AND a lower penalty.

Even if you don't "waste" a feat on power attack, the -2 penalty will hurt you much more than the one point of expected damage will. You'll lose 10% attack chance per attack, so if you expect more than 10 points of damage per round, it will cost you 1.1 damage per attack or more. And 11+ expected damage per round is easy to make even by third level or so. Long sword does 4.5, 18 strength adds another 4, plus a weapon enchantment.

In general, I don't think EWP are worth the feats. Exotic weapons just aren't that good.

I agree.

I use BS and DW two-handed so I don't need EWP, and use a large one when my attack bonus is high enough to eat the -2 penalty; I like the flavour of a large DW or BS. It just seems more...awesome! Even if the maths don't entirely back it up.

1 to 50 of 995 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder First Edition / Rules Questions / Bastard Swords, Dwarven Waraxes, and handiness. All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.