Sundering a Bastard Sword


Rules Questions

151 to 183 of 183 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | next > last >>
Liberty's Edge

Malachi Silverclaw wrote:
HangarFlying wrote:
Nefreet wrote:
I think 20% of the posts belong to Malachi because the rest of us have hidden these silly arguments. Malachi still believes he can reason with you guys, but the rest of us have given up.

So, did you hide the post that had this:

FAQ wrote:

Cleric: Does a cleric, whose deity's favored weapon is the bastard sword, receive free martial or exotic weapon proficiency with the sword?

Since the bastard sword is listed as an exotic weapon, he receives the Exotic Weapon proficiency with the weapon, allowing him to use it one-handed.

—Jason Bulmahn, 07/08/11

It really isn't a silly argument when we have an FAQ that supports our position.

I'm sorry, but imagine for a moment that JB thinks that you can use a BS in one hand at -4.

The question was about which proficiency: martial or exotic?

He gave the answer, which requires a precise 'exotic'. But the normal way people talk about proficiency is 'can I use such and such a weapon', when we know that the lack of proficiency doesn't stop us using it.

So this quote is supporting evidence, I grant you, but nowhere near conclusive.

It's a good thing I said "supporting" instead of "conclusive" then.

Malachi Silverclaw wrote:
And not being allowed to use something in one hand does not mean that you can't use it in two, even if it's large.

As has been said numerous times before, if you're not willing to acknowledge that the -4 nonproficiency penalty would carry over to the large bastard sword, we're going to keep circling around this until the PDT finally decides to chime in.


TGmaxer the FAQ for the cleric is very clear. The feat allows you to use the weapon in one hand. A penalty is never mentioned.

I explained this upthread also. You can't just ignore it because it disagrees with you.

Silver Crusade

fretgod99 wrote:
Stop being asinine. This is patently ridiculous. Rules as Written includes that which is directly inferable from the existent language. That's how language works. That's how laws work. The Second Amendment no more implies the ability to wantonly shoot children than the Fighter Bonus Feat description implies that you can replace any feats but those specifically taken as Fighter Bonus Feats. Which one of the two of us was making that baseless "but it's RAW!" argument?

Actually, in that thread I was arguing RAI, because the RAW doesnt make sense. In our case, the existing RAW makes perfect sense when used to adjudicate what happens when using a large one-handed weapon. It does make sense, because if you are using both hands then you can control it as easily as any other martial weapon. Being impossible to use in one hand simply wouldn't apply when using it in two hands, and that makes sense.

And they ruled RAW rather than RAI in the fighter thread. RAI is often not so influential in a FAQ, because they are explaining what the written rules mean, not what a rule should have been.

As for what is inferable, what should be infered is that a one-handed weapon used in two hands obeys the rules for using a one-handed weapon in two hands.

It's not rocket science! The rules are already there. If they weren't then you might need to infer something to fill the void, but the written rules totally cover using a one-handed weapon in two hands; no need to infer that in this case they don't apply.


Malachi Silverclaw wrote:
fretgod99 wrote:
Stop being asinine. This is patently ridiculous. Rules as Written includes that which is directly inferable from the existent language. That's how language works. That's how laws work. The Second Amendment no more implies the ability to wantonly shoot children than the Fighter Bonus Feat description implies that you can replace any feats but those specifically taken as Fighter Bonus Feats. Which one of the two of us was making that baseless "but it's RAW!" argument?

Actually, in that thread I was arguing RAI, because the RAW doesnt make sense. In our case, the existing RAW makes perfect sense when used to adjudicate what happens when using a large one-handed weapon. It does make sense, because if you are using both hands then you can control it as easily as any other martial weapon. Being impossible to use in one hand simply wouldn't apply when using it in two hands, and that makes sense.

And they ruled RAW rather than RAI in the fighter thread. RAI is often not so influential in a FAQ, because they are explaining what the written rules mean, not what a rule should have been.

As for what is inferable, what should be infered is that a one-handed weapon used in two hands obeys the rules for using a one-handed weapon in two hands.

It's not rocket science! The rules are already there. If they weren't then you might need to infer something to fill the void, but the written rules totally cover using a one-handed weapon in two hands; no need to infer that in this case they don't apply.

They ruled RAW and RAI. You only get bonus feats at certain levels, and not all combat feats are fighter bonus feats, but all fighter bonus feats are combat feats.

I tried to give you the laptop vs computer example, but you ignored it.

Silver Crusade

HangarFlying wrote:
As has been said numerous times before, if you're not willing to acknowledge that the -4 nonproficiency penalty would carry over to the large bastard sword, we're going to keep circling around this until the PDT finally decides to chime in.

How can you keep ignoring:-

Quote:
A character can use a bastard sword two-handed as a martial weapon

I'm not inferring this, it's actually written down in words!


wraithstrike wrote:

You may have missed it, but RAI is the standard. We just try to use RAW to prove RAI.

This cannot be emphasized enough.

Silver Crusade

Wraithstrike wrote:

They ruled RAW and RAI. You only get bonus feats at certain levels, and not all combat feats are fighter bonus feats, but all fighter bonus feats are combat feats.

I tried to give you the laptop vs computer example, but you ignored it.

Giving me computer examples is a waste of time. I tried to download something yesterday and I don't even know if it worked, or how to find out if it did.

In the fighter thread, I obviously thought wrong about RAI. I tried to argue what I thought must have been RAI, because the RAW was so stupid!

You might get that very same shock here!


Malachi Silverclaw wrote:
fretgod99 wrote:
Stop being asinine. This is patently ridiculous. Rules as Written includes that which is directly inferable from the existent language. That's how language works. That's how laws work. The Second Amendment no more implies the ability to wantonly shoot children than the Fighter Bonus Feat description implies that you can replace any feats but those specifically taken as Fighter Bonus Feats. Which one of the two of us was making that baseless "but it's RAW!" argument?

Actually, in that thread I was arguing RAI, because the RAW doesnt make sense. In our case, the existing RAW makes perfect sense when used to adjudicate what happens when using a large one-handed weapon. It does make sense, because if you are using both hands then you can control it as easily as any other martial weapon. Being impossible to use in one hand simply wouldn't apply when using it in two hands, and that makes sense.

And they ruled RAW rather than RAI in the fighter thread. RAI is often not so influential in a FAQ, because they are explaining what the written rules mean, not what a rule should have been.

As for what is inferable, what should be infered is that a one-handed weapon used in two hands obeys the rules for using a one-handed weapon in two hands.

It's not rocket science! The rules are already there. If they weren't then you might need to infer something to fill the void, but the written rules totally cover using a one-handed weapon in two hands; no need to infer that in this case they don't apply.

No, the RAW on that one was absolutely, unambiguously clear. Bonus Feat = Fighter Bonus Feat, just as you'd expect because that's how language works in this type of thing. That's how it works in statutes. That's how it works in rule books.

Regardless, you're ignoring how the use restrictions and size rules interact. You like to read each in a vacuum. You have a tendency to do this, I've noticed. It's usually not a good idea. The two interact, and in this case is specifically how you get the strong inference that I've been espousing this entire time.

Liberty's Edge

Everytime I see "RAW" this or "RAW" that, I think of something that I saw posted on a previous rules debate oh so many days/weeks/months/years ago (actually, I think it might have been wraith who said it):

"There is no such thing as RAW. There is only RAI". Or something there-abouts.

I expand this a bit further by saying that what is written down on paper is merely interpreted by the one who reads it. That interpretation is colored by that person's experiences, beliefs, education, et cetera. Obviously, the basic purpose of the rules being written as they are, is so that they may be interpreted correctly by the most amount of people. There will always be outliers, but a majority of people should be able to interpret the author's intent. Granted, there are times when the author's intent, through choice of words or limitations beyond the author's control, isn't as succinctly made as it could be and different interpretations result. This forces the author to explain his or her intent and how the words written should be interpreted. In short, there is no such thing as RAW, there is only RAI.

Liberty's Edge

1 person marked this as FAQ candidate.
Malachi Silverclaw wrote:
HangarFlying wrote:
As has been said numerous times before, if you're not willing to acknowledge that the -4 nonproficiency penalty would carry over to the large bastard sword, we're going to keep circling around this until the PDT finally decides to chime in.

How can you keep ignoring:-

Quote:
A character can use a bastard sword two-handed as a martial weapon
I'm not inferring this, it's actually written down in words!

How can you keep ignoring that the description is intended for an appropriately sized wielder?


Malachi Silverclaw wrote:
Wraithstrike wrote:

They ruled RAW and RAI. You only get bonus feats at certain levels, and not all combat feats are fighter bonus feats, but all fighter bonus feats are combat feats.

I tried to give you the laptop vs computer example, but you ignored it.

Giving me computer examples is a waste of time. I tried to download something yesterday and I don't even know if it worked, or how to find out if it did.

In the fighter thread, I obviously thought wrong about RAI. I tried to argue what I thought must have been RAI, because the RAW was so stupid!

You might get that very same shock here!

My point was that I said not every computer is a laptop, and not every combat feat is a bonus feat. <--paraphrasing.

I am sure you dont need to understand computers to understand that.

Liberty's Edge

Malachi Silverclaw wrote:
Wraithstrike wrote:

They ruled RAW and RAI. You only get bonus feats at certain levels, and not all combat feats are fighter bonus feats, but all fighter bonus feats are combat feats.

I tried to give you the laptop vs computer example, but you ignored it.

Giving me computer examples is a waste of time. I tried to download something yesterday and I don't even know if it worked, or how to find out if it did.

In the fighter thread, I obviously thought wrong about RAI. I tried to argue what I thought must have been RAI, because the RAW was so stupid!

You might get that very same shock here!

Might, but not likely considering the evidence weighs in our favor.


HangarFlying wrote:
Malachi Silverclaw wrote:
Wraithstrike wrote:

They ruled RAW and RAI. You only get bonus feats at certain levels, and not all combat feats are fighter bonus feats, but all fighter bonus feats are combat feats.

I tried to give you the laptop vs computer example, but you ignored it.

Giving me computer examples is a waste of time. I tried to download something yesterday and I don't even know if it worked, or how to find out if it did.

In the fighter thread, I obviously thought wrong about RAI. I tried to argue what I thought must have been RAI, because the RAW was so stupid!

You might get that very same shock here!

Might, but not likely considering the evidence weighs in our favor.

I am sure if that cleric+bastard sword FAQ mentioned no penalty for proficiency he would say it mattered, but since it strictly says the feat allows you to wield the weapon in one hand, which is what we are saying, it is being ignored.

Silver Crusade

HangarFlying wrote:
Malachi Silverclaw wrote:
HangarFlying wrote:
As has been said numerous times before, if you're not willing to acknowledge that the -4 nonproficiency penalty would carry over to the large bastard sword, we're going to keep circling around this until the PDT finally decides to chime in.

How can you keep ignoring:-

Quote:
A character can use a bastard sword two-handed as a martial weapon
I'm not inferring this, it's actually written down in words!
How can you keep ignoring that the description is intended for an appropriately sized wielder?

Really? Quote that rule!

The weapons section (in it's entirety) handles inappropriately-sized weapons perfectly. There is no assumption that the mechanics in the individual weapon descriptions vary by size. Quote that rule if it exists.

Silver Crusade

fretgod99 wrote:
Regardless, you're ignoring how the use restrictions and size rules interact. You like to read each in a vacuum. You have a tendency to do this, I've noticed. It's usually not a good idea. The two interact, and in this case is specifically how you get the strong inference that I've been espousing this entire time.

The use restrictions and size rules interact already, in the rules for using an inappropriately-sized weapon:-

Quote:

Inappropriately Sized Weapons: A creature can't make optimum use of a weapon that isn't properly sized for it. A cumulative –2 penalty applies on attack rolls for each size category of difference between the size of its intended wielder and the size of its actual wielder. If the creature isn't proficient with the weapon, a –4 nonproficiency penalty also applies.

The measure of how much effort it takes to use a weapon (whether the weapon is designated as a light, one-handed, or two-handed weapon for a particular wielder) is altered by one step for each size category of difference between the wielder's size and the size of the creature for which the weapon was designed. For example, a Small creature would wield a Medium one-handed weapon as a two-handed weapon. If a weapon's designation would be changed to something other than light, one-handed, or two-handed by this alteration, the creature can't wield the weapon at all.

Nowhere in there does it say that any game mechanics mentioned in any individual weapon descriptions change with size.

Quote that rule if it exists.

Liberty's Edge

Malachi Silverclaw wrote:
HangarFlying wrote:
Malachi Silverclaw wrote:
HangarFlying wrote:
As has been said numerous times before, if you're not willing to acknowledge that the -4 nonproficiency penalty would carry over to the large bastard sword, we're going to keep circling around this until the PDT finally decides to chime in.

How can you keep ignoring:-

Quote:
A character can use a bastard sword two-handed as a martial weapon
I'm not inferring this, it's actually written down in words!
How can you keep ignoring that the description is intended for an appropriately sized wielder?

Really? Quote that rule!

The weapons section (in it's entirety) handles inappropriately-sized weapons perfectly. There is no assumption that the mechanics in the individual weapon descriptions vary by size. Quote that rule if it exists.

*bertstare*

Silver Crusade

HangarFlying wrote:
Malachi Silverclaw wrote:
HangarFlying wrote:
Malachi Silverclaw wrote:
HangarFlying wrote:
As has been said numerous times before, if you're not willing to acknowledge that the -4 nonproficiency penalty would carry over to the large bastard sword, we're going to keep circling around this until the PDT finally decides to chime in.

How can you keep ignoring:-

Quote:
A character can use a bastard sword two-handed as a martial weapon
I'm not inferring this, it's actually written down in words!
How can you keep ignoring that the description is intended for an appropriately sized wielder?

Really? Quote that rule!

The weapons section (in it's entirety) handles inappropriately-sized weapons perfectly. There is no assumption that the mechanics in the individual weapon descriptions vary by size. Quote that rule if it exists.

*bertstare*

I'm immune, on the grounds I've never seen one. : )

I'm just as frustrated with you as you must be with me.

Anyway, bedtime for me. Those sheep aren't going to count themselves!

I hope to wake up to 100 new posts. : )


Malachi Silverclaw wrote:
HangarFlying wrote:
Malachi Silverclaw wrote:
HangarFlying wrote:
As has been said numerous times before, if you're not willing to acknowledge that the -4 nonproficiency penalty would carry over to the large bastard sword, we're going to keep circling around this until the PDT finally decides to chime in.

How can you keep ignoring:-

Quote:
A character can use a bastard sword two-handed as a martial weapon
I'm not inferring this, it's actually written down in words!
How can you keep ignoring that the description is intended for an appropriately sized wielder?

Really? Quote that rule!

The weapons section (in it's entirety) handles inappropriately-sized weapons perfectly. There is no assumption that the mechanics in the individual weapon descriptions vary by size. Quote that rule if it exists.

Quote me the rule where a tiny character can't use a colossal Bastard Sword. The rules language just says "A character can use a bastard sword in two hands as a martial weapon." Specific trumps general, so clearly the size rules don't apply here. RAW!

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Companion Subscriber

Hey, what are the 4E rules on Bastard Swords?


Malachi Silverclaw wrote:
fretgod99 wrote:
Regardless, you're ignoring how the use restrictions and size rules interact. You like to read each in a vacuum. You have a tendency to do this, I've noticed. It's usually not a good idea. The two interact, and in this case is specifically how you get the strong inference that I've been espousing this entire time.

The use restrictions and size rules interact already, in the rules for using an inappropriately-sized weapon:-

Quote:

Inappropriately Sized Weapons: A creature can't make optimum use of a weapon that isn't properly sized for it. A cumulative –2 penalty applies on attack rolls for each size category of difference between the size of its intended wielder and the size of its actual wielder. If the creature isn't proficient with the weapon, a –4 nonproficiency penalty also applies.

The measure of how much effort it takes to use a weapon (whether the weapon is designated as a light, one-handed, or two-handed weapon for a particular wielder) is altered by one step for each size category of difference between the wielder's size and the size of the creature for which the weapon was designed. For example, a Small creature would wield a Medium one-handed weapon as a two-handed weapon. If a weapon's designation would be changed to something other than light, one-handed, or two-handed by this alteration, the creature can't wield the weapon at all.

Nowhere in there does it say that any game mechanics mentioned in any individual weapon descriptions change with size.

Quote that rule if it exists.

Ease of use/Effort is determined by the difference in size between the wielder, and the size of the creature the weapon was made for as explained in your own quote. This is my last post also for a few hours.


Malachi Silverclaw wrote:
fretgod99 wrote:
Regardless, you're ignoring how the use restrictions and size rules interact. You like to read each in a vacuum. You have a tendency to do this, I've noticed. It's usually not a good idea. The two interact, and in this case is specifically how you get the strong inference that I've been espousing this entire time.

The use restrictions and size rules interact already, in the rules for using an inappropriately-sized weapon:-

Quote:

Inappropriately Sized Weapons: A creature can't make optimum use of a weapon that isn't properly sized for it. A cumulative –2 penalty applies on attack rolls for each size category of difference between the size of its intended wielder and the size of its actual wielder. If the creature isn't proficient with the weapon, a –4 nonproficiency penalty also applies.

The measure of how much effort it takes to use a weapon (whether the weapon is designated as a light, one-handed, or two-handed weapon for a particular wielder) is altered by one step for each size category of difference between the wielder's size and the size of the creature for which the weapon was designed. For example, a Small creature would wield a Medium one-handed weapon as a two-handed weapon. If a weapon's designation would be changed to something other than light, one-handed, or two-handed by this alteration, the creature can't wield the weapon at all.

Nowhere in there does it say that any game mechanics mentioned in any individual weapon descriptions change with size.

Quote that rule if it exists.

Precisely, the mechanics operate within the confines of the size restrictions. That's the whole premise behind the restriction on a nonproficient user trying to wield an oversized Bastard Sword.


blackbloodtroll wrote:
Hey, what are the 4E rules on Bastard Swords?

*shrug*

Never played it.


blackbloodtroll wrote:
Hey, what are the 4E rules on Bastard Swords?

I don't know, but it does not matter when the FAW says the sword is allowed to be used in one IF you have the EWP feat.

Now the FAQ(Pathfinder FAQ that is) does not say you can use it without the penalty. It says the feat allows the weapon to be used in one hand.

Those are worlds apart.

I am gone for now..

Sczarni

Starfinder Charter Superscriber
wraithstrike wrote:
HangarFlying wrote:
Nefreet wrote:
I think 20% of the posts belong to Malachi because the rest of us have hidden these silly arguments. Malachi still believes he can reason with you guys, but the rest of us have given up.

So, did you hide the post that had this:

FAQ wrote:

Cleric: Does a cleric, whose deity's favored weapon is the bastard sword, receive free martial or exotic weapon proficiency with the sword?

Since the bastard sword is listed as an exotic weapon, he receives the Exotic Weapon proficiency with the weapon, allowing him to use it one-handed.

—Jason Bulmahn, 07/08/11

It really isn't a silly argument when we have an FAQ that supports our position.

He either won't reply, or it will be an insult, but in case he is still watching:

The FAQ does not say it removes a penalty if you use the weapon in one hand. It says the feat allows the weapon to be used in one hand. Those are two very different things.

Hi. My name's Eric. Nice to meet you. You've obviously never read one of my posts before, so let me introduce myself. I'm not the one who uses ad hominem attacks, fails to admit when he's wrong, or continues to argue nonsensically when provided evidence to the contrary. I was captain of the debate team in High School (oh so many years ago), and my favorite classes in college were Philosophy and Logic. If you click on my name and scroll through the 1,000+ posts I've made over the last year, you will not find a personal attack amongst any of them. You'll also find several times when I was sure of a ruling, defended it, and then apologized and admitted defeat when evidence was shown to the contrary and/or an FAQ cleared the air. After 20 years of gaming, I'm the first to admit I can get rules mixed up.

Now, given that these two threads update too frequently to keep up with every post, no, I had not seen this FAQ. Although it is the first piece of evidence I've seen to make an actual argument for not being able to wield a Bastard Sword one-handed without the feat, it still doesn't address the matter of wielding a large-sized bastard sword in two hands. The intention may be there, and many people have stated already that that is their rule in home games, but it's written nowhere in the rules (that I've seen, yet). As for the argument of whether or not any of those weapons could be wielded in one hand without the feat, I'll give you that this evidence is pretty strong. I am sure a general FAQ announcement would help to finalize the debate.

Sczarni

Starfinder Charter Superscriber
fretgod99 wrote:
Quote me the rule where a tiny character can't use a colossal Bastard Sword. The rules language just says "A character can use a bastard sword in two hands as a martial weapon." Specific trumps general, so clearly the size rules don't apply here. RAW!

It's been quoted ad nauseum already, but here it is again:

Quote:

Inappropriately Sized Weapons: A creature can't make optimum use of a weapon that isn't properly sized for it. A cumulative –2 penalty applies on attack rolls for each size category of difference between the size of its intended wielder and the size of its actual wielder. If the creature isn't proficient with the weapon, a –4 nonproficiency penalty also applies.

The measure of how much effort it takes to use a weapon (whether the weapon is designated as a light, one-handed, or two-handed weapon for a particular wielder) is altered by one step for each size category of difference between the wielder's size and the size of the creature for which the weapon was designed. For example, a Small creature would wield a Medium one-handed weapon as a two-handed weapon. If a weapon's designation would be changed to something other than light, one-handed, or two-handed by this alteration, the creature can't wield the weapon at all.

Silver Crusade

wraithstrike wrote:
Malachi Silverclaw wrote:
Wraithstrike wrote:

They ruled RAW and RAI. You only get bonus feats at certain levels, and not all combat feats are fighter bonus feats, but all fighter bonus feats are combat feats.

I tried to give you the laptop vs computer example, but you ignored it.

Giving me computer examples is a waste of time. I tried to download something yesterday and I don't even know if it worked, or how to find out if it did.

In the fighter thread, I obviously thought wrong about RAI. I tried to argue what I thought must have been RAI, because the RAW was so stupid!

You might get that very same shock here!

My point was that I said not every computer is a laptop, and not every combat feat is a bonus feat. <--paraphrasing.

I am sure you dont need to understand computers to understand that.

Then you'll have no problem understanding that all two-handed weapons must be used in two hands, but not every weapon that must be used in two hands is a two-handed weapon.

Laptops/computers.

Poodles/dogs

Two-handed weapons/weapons which must be used in two hands.

Silver Crusade

fretgod99 wrote:
Quote me the rule where a tiny character can't use a colossal Bastard Sword.

Though you continually ignore my request for rules quotes (because your position is not supported by the rules), I'm happy to do so!

The rule in question is the rule for using an inappropriately-sized weapon. A tiny creature cannot use a colossal weapon (even a bastard sword) because it goes beyond two-handed into unusable.

Quote:
The rules language just says "A character can use a bastard sword in two hands as a martial weapon." Specific trumps general, so clearly the size rules don't apply here. RAW!

You can use one as a martial weapon as opposed to using it as an exotic weapon. This does not let you ignore the rules on weapon size, which work normally.

That sentence is an exception to the normal rules, but it is an exception to the rules on weapon proficiency (which are specified), not the rules on weapon size, which are not mentioned!

Any chance you can provide rules quotes to support your assertions?

There are no rules to support your assertion that the weapon descriptions assume using the correctly-sized weapon. If that were the case, both the dwarven waraxe and the rapier wouldn't need to specify weapon size.

There is no rule to support your assertion that a weapon's description or special properties alter or disappear with using an inappropriately-sized weapon. Rules for over-sized weapons use exist, and notably say no such thing.

There are no rules to support your assertion that a one-handed weapon used in two-hands is treated as if it were a two-handed weapon. On the contrary, the rules define using a one-handed weapon two-handed, and do not say that they are treated as two-handed weapons.

There are no rules to support your assertion that if a creature cannot use a one-handed weapon in one hand because he lacks proficiency that it must be treated as if it were a two-handed weapon.

A lot of unsupported assertions is not 'implied' by the RAW, when the RAW does support using it in two hands as a martial weapon, and does support a one-handed weapon being used in two hands.

Sczarni

Starfinder Charter Superscriber

Hi, everyone.

I posted a new thread that hopefully has a more concise question for the Development team to consider.

Head on over to the Bastard Sword, Dwarven Waraxe, Katana, and Great Terbutje thread and please click the FAQ.

It's been a pleasure. Now let's get this resolved.


Nefreet wrote:
fretgod99 wrote:
Quote me the rule where a tiny character can't use a colossal Bastard Sword. The rules language just says "A character can use a bastard sword in two hands as a martial weapon." Specific trumps general, so clearly the size rules don't apply here. RAW!

It's been quoted ad nauseum already, but here it is again:

Quote:

Inappropriately Sized Weapons: A creature can't make optimum use of a weapon that isn't properly sized for it. A cumulative –2 penalty applies on attack rolls for each size category of difference between the size of its intended wielder and the size of its actual wielder. If the creature isn't proficient with the weapon, a –4 nonproficiency penalty also applies.

The measure of how much effort it takes to use a weapon (whether the weapon is designated as a light, one-handed, or two-handed weapon for a particular wielder) is altered by one step for each size category of difference between the wielder's size and the size of the creature for which the weapon was designed. For example, a Small creature would wield a Medium one-handed weapon as a two-handed weapon. If a weapon's designation would be changed to something other than light, one-handed, or two-handed by this alteration, the creature can't wield the weapon at all.

No see, that's where you're wrong. The rule clearly states that a character can use a bastard sword in two hands as a martial weapon! It doesn't say a medium character may use a medium bastard sword. That's not in the rules! Stop making things up!

I mean, sure, it would seem perfectly reasonable to infer such a basic concept from the rules that the entries are intended to be for ordinary characters under ordinary circumstances, meaning it should be perfectly reasonable to assume a medium character and a medium sword. That may have been the intention, but intention is not RAW! The rules don't actually say that, do they? So clearly we must apply only those very literal words which are expressly written. There is no room for logical inference in RAW!


Malachi Silverclaw wrote:

That sentence is an exception to the normal rules, but it is an exception to the rules on weapon proficiency (which are specified), not the rules on weapon size, which are not mentioned!

Any chance you can provide rules quotes to support your assertions?

Any chance you could do the same for this assertion?

Also, it's reductio ad absurdum. I'm not serious. At least not with that particular post.


1 person marked this as FAQ candidate. 1 person marked this as a favorite.

The idea that RAW trumps RAI is never stated in the rules as written. It is probably not intended either.


Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber

Wandering through the Paizo site, I noticed that B Swords only appear on the Equipment list under the EW 'one handed weapon' chart, not under the Martial 'two handed weapon' one (http://paizo.com/pathfinderRPG/prd/ultimateEquipment/armsAndArmor/weapons. html). Much as I side with the Unassailable Logic of their being Two Handed, the bare RAW fact irrefutably supports the One Handed side of this discussion. I am not happy with this and follow arguments on both sides with great interest.

http://paizo.com/pathfinderRPG/prd/ultimateEquipment/armsAndArmor/weapons.h tml


Bwang wrote:

Wandering through the Paizo site, I noticed that B Swords only appear on the Equipment list under the EW 'one handed weapon' chart, not under the Martial 'two handed weapon' one (http://paizo.com/pathfinderRPG/prd/ultimateEquipment/armsAndArmor/weapons. html). Much as I side with the Unassailable Logic of their being Two Handed, the bare RAW fact irrefutably supports the One Handed side of this discussion. I am not happy with this and follow arguments on both sides with great interest.

http://paizo.com/pathfinderRPG/prd/ultimateEquipment/armsAndArmor/weapons.h tml

Yes, but apparently PF officials only want it to be a one-handed weapon for the purposes of hit points, for all other uses it is a two-handed weapon with a special property that if you take EWP you can wield it as if it was one level of effort less. That isn't RAW, but who every said that the game rules were meant to be used as rules for the game?

151 to 183 of 183 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder First Edition / Rules Questions / Sundering a Bastard Sword All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.