And we are still left with with the original question at the top of this thread, which is still a valid question.Which people have already answered for you. Multiple times now in multiple threads.
If we wrapped it in a bow for you and hand wrote a card would you accept it?
While I think it should still be treated as a one-handed weapon for all purposes outside of determining who can wield it and how, I don't think it's definitively settled.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
And we are still left with with the original question at the top of this thread, which is still a valid question.Which people have already answered for you. Multiple times now in multiple threads.
If we wrapped it in a bow for you and hand wrote a card would you accept it?
The question has not been answered, but it won't be until PDT steps in, hopefully by answering the other thread which should take care of this one also.
A definite answer to whether the bastard sword has 10 hp or 5 hp might give us some insight.
I think we will learn it has 7.5 hps. LOL
|
We already have the answer to this question.
A Bastard Sword is, and always has been (in Pathfinder), a one-handed weapon. As we keep telling you, in Pathfinder, this has never not been the case.
How else can we reword it for you?
The only valid question left is whether or not you need a feat to wield it in one hand, or if you can just apply the normal -4 penalty for non-proficiency. But THAT'S IT.
Quit trying to put lipstick on an ugly pig.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
We already have the answer to this question.
A Bastard Sword is, and always has been (in Pathfinder), a one-handed weapon. As we keep telling you, in Pathfinder, this has never not been the case.
How else can we reword it for you?
The only valid question left is whether or not you need a feat to wield it in one hand, or if you can just apply the normal -4 penalty for non-proficiency. But THAT'S IT.
Quit trying to put lipstick on an ugly pig.
It was listed as a one-handed weapon in 3.5 also, but the FAQ disagreed so maybe the paizo devs will say the same thing. He is looking for RAI, but like I said we can't prove RAI so we have to wait on the PDT.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I appreciate the position that the 3.5 FAQ isn't meaningful for everyone. I fear it int appreciated by everyone that it is meaningful for some. I also think that as time goes on, the relevance of the 3.5 FAQ declines as the playing population moves farther from a proportion of PF players with 3.5 experience that once was close to universal.
All that can be said if the 3.5 FAQ at this point is that, if it is meaningful to you, there is an answer there that works for those who find it meaningful. For those for whom it isn't meaningful, the 3.5 FAQ reference just plain doesn't matter.
Given how many of the general rules questions that get debated were the same questions that lead to 3.5 FAQ entries, it's a shame to rehash the same discussions that took place 2003-2008, but thems the breaks.
However, given that the question DID arise from the 3.5 days to justify the question as frequent, it's primarily facia evidence that it justifies an FAQ button click. Such questions often distill a rules concept in need of explanation, even if there isn't already a history of a dozen, score, or hundred existing threads of the form (repeat question)->(rehash)->(face palm). It's not as though sunder itself comes up very often; it just captures the issue in an easily corralled manner.
And, the relative frequency in which devs have taken a different stance from the 3.5 rulings means its generally unwise to assume they'll rule the same. Personally, I sometimes wonder if it isn't a practice to confirm brand independence and/or add to brand identity. But, then again, I'm a cynical grognard with too much time on his hands, so just ignore my conspiracy ramblings.
Edit: I see we're already at "No Reply Needed." I guess the PTB disagree with this approach. One-handed for sundering it is.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Not sure why it was ever in question.
Where in the weapon table is it? One-Handed Weapon.
Can it be wielded in two hands? Yes, any One-Handed Weapon can.
Does it have any special properties? Yes, when wielding it two weapon, it's treated as a martial weapon.
Can I wield a Large One-Handed weapon in two hands if I'm medium? Yes, with a penalty.
Do I need EWP to wield a large bastard sword in two hands? No. Normally I'd get non-proficiency with it, but it's special quality says when wielded with 2 hands, it's treated as martial. Nothing about the size change changes this. It's counter-intuitive, but it's RAW.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
No. Reply. Required.
This means that the information is unchanged from the CRB, and that the language in the CRB is not ambiguous.
So, does the CRB say it's a one-handed weapon? Yes, in the place where every weapon's category is defined: the weapons table. It's listed as a one-handed exotic weapon.
Is there anywhere where the CRB says it's a two-handed weapon, or is treated as a two-handed weapon when used in two hands? No.
Can one handed weapons be used in two hands? Yes.
Do one-handed weapons count as two-handed weapons when used in two hands? No.
Would an inability to use a one-handed weapon in one hand turn it into a two-handed weapon? No.
All of this is RAW, and not contradicted by any other RAW.
Furthermore, all this quoting of the 3.5 FAQ which says that these weapons are really two-handed, and not one-handed as stated in 3.5 RAW, ignores the 3rd ed FAQ which says the opposite, and says you can use it one handed at -4 if you lack the EWP. Stating that 3.5 treats these weapons as two-handed is not true! To be true, 3.5 would have to have errata'd the text to change them from one-handed to two-handed, which they never did!
|
|
And we know that official Paizo publications, as well as PFS, use the paradigm that if you don't have the EWP, you can't use a bastard sword one handed (and the only way to use a large bastard sword is if you have the EWP)—which is a perfectly acceptable interpretation from the rules as they are currently printed.
|
|
And we know that official Paizo publications, as well as PFS, use the paradigm that if you don't have the EWP, you can't use a bastard sword one handed (and the only way to use a large bastard sword is if you have the EWP)—which is a perfectly acceptable interpretation from the rules as they are currently printed.
I've already agreed that a FAQ could resolve this (in favour of either interpretation) without needing an errata.
Just know that even if they rule that they can't be used in one hand without EWP, this will not turn them into two-handed weapons! They will remain one-handed weapons that are used in two hands.
Does being unable to use a one-handed weapon in one-hand mean that it counts as a two-handed weapon?
No! Just like being able to use a lance (two-handed weapon) in one hand does not mean that it counts as a one-handed weapon!
Paizo have just ruled on this very issue! How something is used does not change what it is!
|
|
We should have known that a staff response wouldn't be enough for him. I suggest everyone else just move along and ignore him.
I'll give you the benefit of the doubt, since you're not active in the other thread. Might have to scroll up a couple of posts to get the full context.
|
The Bastard Sword, Dwarven Waraxe, Katana, and Great Terbutje are One-handed weapons.
In Pathfinder, they have always been One-handed weapons.
No matter how you wield them, they remain One-handed weapons.
How do you determine hit points? As an One-handed, that's how.
When you wield it two hands, they still remain One-handed weapons.
When determining how they work with abilities, feats, spells and what not, you treat them as One-handed weapons.
|
|
Just know that even if they rule that they can't be used in one hand without EWP, this will not turn them into two-handed weapons!
I never claimed that it would.
They will remain one-handed weapons that are used in two hands.
If your only option is to wield a weapon in two hands, and when wielded as such acts like a two-handed weapon, your wielding that one-handed weapon as a two-handed weapon.
Does being unable to use a one-handed weapon in one-hand mean that it counts as a two-handed weapon?
No! Just like being able to use a lance (two-handed weapon) in one hand does not mean that it counts as a one-handed weapon!
The lance is a non-sequitur in this discussion. The lance allows you to use it in one or two hands if mounted. With no EWP, you must use the bastard sword two-handed. If you don't have the EWP, you can't use a large bastard sword. Call it what you will: a one handed weapon that can only be used in two hands and can't be used oversized because its too big, or it's used as a two-handed weapon. Whatever, the end result is the same.
Paizo have just ruled on this very issue! How something is used does not change what it is!
I don't know if you saw my previous post that linked to some stuff in the other thread, but while it isn't from the PDT's mouth, it's the closest thing we have at this point. It's how Paizo is creating their NPCs and how it's being run in PFS, so I really don't know what else there is to argue about.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as FAQ candidate. |
No.
They remain One-handed weapons no matter how you try to wield them.
You throw it? One-handed weapon.
An Alchemist wielding it with three hands? One-handed weapon.
Attempting to wield it with your clenched butt cheeks? One-handed weapon.
You and an ally both holding the handle with one hand? One-handed weapon.
So, no dancing around to having them "sometimes an One-handed weapon" and "sometimes a two handed weapon".
What are they, and how are they always treated?
One-handed weapon.
|
|
No.
They remain One-handed weapons no matter how you try to wield them.
You throw it? One-handed weapon.
An Alchemist wielding it with three hands? One-handed weapon.
Attempting to wield it with your clenched butt cheeks? One-handed weapon.
You and an ally both holding the handle with one hand? One-handed weapon.
So, no dancing around to having them "sometimes an One-handed weapon" and "sometimes a two handed weapon".
What are they, and how are they always treated?
One-handed weapon.
*facepalm*
And the difference between what you're saying and what I'm saying is?
EDIT: More clearly, the end result of wielding "as a two-handed weapon" and being forced to wield the "one-handed weapon in two hands" is different how?
|
|
More clearly, the end result of wielding "as a two-handed weapon" and being forced to wield the "one-handed weapon in two hands" is different how?
Did I not just point it out? Classification.
Longsword is just the same.
One handed weapon, no matter how you wield it.
Do light weapons become two-handed weapons because you wield them with two hands?
No.
More clearly, the end result of wielding "as a two-handed weapon" and being forced to wield the "one-handed weapon in two hands" is different how?Did I not just point it out? Classification.
Longsword is just the same.
One handed weapon, no matter how you wield it.
Do light weapons become two-handed weapons because you wield them with two hands?
No.
He is not asking about classification. He is asking about the end result.
|
|
The end result is that a large one is a two-handed weapon for a medium creature.
Any resemblance between a one-handed weapon which must be wielded in one hand and an actual two-handed weapon is not relevant. What a weapon is does not change with how it is used, even if it must be used in a certain way.
The rules for using a one-handed weapon are so much a part of the rules that using a one-handed weapon in two hands is part of the very paragraph in which one-handed weapons are defined!
Meanwhile, weapons are only treated as another category only if the rules specifically say they are, such as where Jotungrip says that two-handed weapons wielded in one hand this way are treated as if they were one-handed weapons, while the lance, which lacks any such wording, still counts as (and is!) a two-handed weapon.
Since the bastard sword is defined as a one-handed weapon, and no part of it's description ever says that it is treated as a two-handed weapon in any circumstances, saying that they are is simply making up your own rules!
Well, bully for you, but this is the rules forum!
|
RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
...while it isn't from the PDT's mouth, it's the closest thing we have at this point.
Not anymore it's not; look at the beginning of this thread, your first post. You've got the verdict straight from the Pathfinder Design Team, just like you wanted.
That verdict is "no reply required".
The rules say that any one-handed weapon can be wielded in two hands. They also say that if you do that with a bastard sword, you get to treat it as a martial weapon. Nowhere do the rules say that when you wield a one-handed weapon (bastard sword or not) in two hands that it is treated as a two-handed weapon.
Never, anywhere.
Page 140, Core Rules Under Sword, Bastard it says,
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.
That is the line we are going with and that is how we reacehed our decision. If it disagree's with your interpretation then I am sorry but it still in no way invalidates my response or ability to do so.
At this point I think I am done here. This entire 'discussion' is getting way too heated over what seems to be an extremely minor issue.
|
|
...while it isn't from the PDT's mouth, it's the closest thing we have at this point.Not anymore it's not; look at the beginning of this thread, your first post. You've got the verdict straight from the Pathfinder Design Team, just like you wanted.
That verdict is "no reply required".
I moved that post you're quoting from to the other thread, as that is where it belongs.
The PDT responded to my question of whether or not the bastard sword was a one-handed weapon or a two-handed weapon, to which my response that you quoted was not related to.
This THREAD is about classification.
That does not matter. If you respond to a post then your reply should go along with that post. If you think someone is off-topic then ask them to stay on topic.
While I agree that the "no faq required" means it's a one-handed weapon, I will note that there IS a difference in how B-sword is treated from other one-handed weapons. Not just a special ability but also a special drawback that isn't mentioned in it but has been mentioned by the devs:
You can use a large khopesh in two hands without EWP.
You cannot use a large bastard sword in two hands without EWP.
When treating the bastard sword as a one-handed exotic weapon with the special ability to treat it as a martial weapon when wielded two-handed, there is no rules support for this limitation - which has been stated by the devs exist.
It's peculiar.
|
|
While I agree that the "no faq required" means it's a one-handed weapon....Not just a special ability but also a special drawback that isn't mentioned in it but has been mentioned by the devs:
A special drawback which isn't mentioned in the rules???
This means that this theoretical 'special drawback' is not the rules!
While I agree that the "no faq required" means it's a one-handed weapon....Not just a special ability but also a special drawback that isn't mentioned in it but has been mentioned by the devs:A special drawback which isn't mentioned in the rules???
This means that this theoretical 'special drawback' is not the rules!
It's clearly in the rules as intended, even if not explicitly written in them (and remember, that RAW trumps RAI isn't written in the rules!).
|
|
The rules say that any one-handed weapon can be wielded in two hands. They also say that if you do that with a bastard sword, you get to treat it as a martial weapon. Nowhere do the rules say that when you wield a one-handed weapon (bastard sword or not) in two hands that it is treated as a two-handed weapon.
Never, anywhere.
Page 140, Core Rules Under Sword, Bastard it says,
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.That is the line we are going with and that is how we reacehed our decision. If it disagree's with your interpretation then I am sorry but it still in no way invalidates my response or ability to do so.
At this point I think I am done here. This entire 'discussion' is getting way too heated over what seems to be an extremely minor issue.
How is quoting a description that does not say it is or is treated as a two-handed weapon evidence of the opposite?
|
|
It's clearly in the rules as intended, even if not explicitly written in them (and remember, that RAW trumps RAI isn't written in the rules!).While I agree that the "no faq required" means it's a one-handed weapon....Not just a special ability but also a special drawback that isn't mentioned in it but has been mentioned by the devs:A special drawback which isn't mentioned in the rules???
This means that this theoretical 'special drawback' is not the rules!
That's not 'clear' at all! The rules work just fine as written, and as written do not work the way you might wish.
The rules on what weapon category a bastard sword is are very clear, and demonstrated by 'no reply required': it's a one-handed exotic weapon.
The rules on using an inappropriately-sized weapon are clear: a large bastard sword is a two-handed weapon for a medium creature.
The rules on weapon proficiency are clear: if you are proficient in a weapon then you can use it without penalty, and if you are not proficient then you take a -4 attack penalty.
If you use a bastard sword in two hands, you may use it as a martial weapon. Therefore, if you have MWP then you are proficient as long as you use it in two hands. This is clear. There is no 'only if it's sized for you' language (like there is for the rapier), so it cannot be assumed the writers meant something they didn't say!
That's not 'clear' at all! The rules work just fine as written, and as written do not work the way you might wish.
It's clearly intended since the devs have said it's intended. For someone who just has the book it might not be apparent, obviously, but for us here in this discussion who has seen the dev's comments on this and Amiri's weapon it is clear that the intent is that you cannot use a large bastard sword unless you're proficient in it (assuming a medium-sized human fighter for example).
The rules on what weapon category a bastard sword is are very clear, and demonstrated by 'no reply required': it's a one-handed exotic weapon.
Agreed. Never disputed that fact, in fact explicitly said I agree that that is the only rational conclusion from their comment.
There is no 'only if it's sized for you' language (like there is for the rapier), so it cannot be assumed the writers meant something they didn't say!
We can assume it since the devs have _explicitly said this_. (note the later post that clarifies this is the official stance, not a "how i'd run it" post).
|
|
From that post:-
Medium creatures simply cannot properly wield Large two handed weapons.
This is in error. It's also ambiguous. Does he mean 'large two-handed weapon' meaning a weapon that is one-handed for a medium creature and then made large, such as a large longsword? If he means that, then he's wrong. A medium creature certainly can use a large longsword as a two-handed weapon at a -2 penalty.
Does he mean that a bastard sword starts off as a two-handed weapon so goes beyond two-handed into unusable if made large? He's wrong again; a bastard sword starts off as a one-handed weapon, not a two-handed weapon, and the proficiencies a wielder may or may not have don't change that fact.
No, he means that for the purposes of determining who can wield a bastard sword, you treat it like a two-handed weapon.
He means actual two-handed weapons such as greatswords, or any weapon that is treated as one for the purpose of handiness.
|
|
Bastard swords (made for your own size) are not 'treated as' two-handed weapons no matter what proficiencies you have or don't have. No part of the description says they ever are, and it would take specific wording to ignore how the rules for using a one-handed weapon in two hands work.
You're making up your own rule. Isn't this the rules forum?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Bastard swords (made for your own size) are not 'treated as' two-handed weapons no matter what proficiencies you have or don't have. No part of the description says they ever are, and it would take specific wording to ignore how the rules for using a one-handed weapon in two hands work.
You're making up your own rule. Isn't this the rules forum?
It is implied however, which is why I hope they use the katana language if they errata it. I am sure the FAQ, whenever it comes about will address this.
|
|
It is implied however
What you're saying here, is that:
• a bastard sword, even though it is a one-handed weapon, cannot be used one-handed without a feat
Implies:
• that a bastard sword is treated as if it were a two-handed weapon if you don't have the feat
Well, that would only be an implication if there were no other way in the rules that a weapon can be used in two hands, other than by treating it as a two-handed weapon!
But you know that this isn't true! You know that you may use a one-handed weapon in two hands, and it remains a one-handed weapon at all times. It is not treated as a two-handed weapon, it is treated as a one-handed weapon used in two hands.
Since the rules for using a one-handed weapon in two hands already exist, and since the description of the bastard sword never tell you to treat it as a two-handed weapon under any circumstances, then the implication that it must mean that is wishful thinking, not an implication of the text.
I was saying this specific weapon is treated as it is two-handed for the purpose of handiness. I know that is true.
I don't know how else we can write "for the purposes of determining who may wield it and how they may do so" in order for it to stick. Nobody has ever tried to claim it's a two-handed weapon or magically becomes so as soon as you start grabbing it with another hand or if you don't have the EWP feat.