That's probably going to be taken far more seriously than it was intended. I mean, I do think the concept of MWP(BS) et al. exists, but in the grand scheme of things, it's rather unimportant. Regardless, this could get interesting.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
*cracks knuckles* Who's ready for the next 100+ post count thread on bastard swords :)
Mostly I was struck by whether or not there actually is a MWP. I got curious. Like I said though, it really isn't going to impact the discussion one way or the other, I don't think. Everybody's firmly entrenched already.
*shrug* Dunno. Whole thing's a mess. I think the only thing everybody can agree on is that it'd be nice if they'd use the same language for all of them.
The short reading is that if you're a Dwarf, you get the exotic feat for free (for all intents and purposes, so in functionality but not actuality) if you're proficient in all martial weapons. But if you're not, then you conceivably could actually take MWP(Waraxe) to cover it. That'd be the same as anybody else taking EWP(Waraxe), though.
How does it work for a dwarf cleric using a dwarven waraxe? Does he take MWP or EWP, considering in this case they are exactly the same thing.
And if they just get MWP does getting Reincarnated make it useless?
|
How does it work for a dwarf cleric using a dwarven waraxe? Does he take MWP or EWP, considering in this case they are exactly the same thing.And if they just get MWP does getting Reincarnated make it useless?
I would certainly think that, considering the mental abilities and knowledge doesn't change, it is conceivable for the new form to retain the ability to use the dwarven waraxe as a martial weapon.
And if they just get MWP does getting Reincarnated make it useless?
That's easy. If you try and use the weapon after getting reincarnated your head explodes and you die again. :)
I must say though, that this thread and discussion really is proof that rules discussion itself far away from the game is fun and interesting to some.
Because, I mean, how large will the outcome of this ruling be? Is there an army of fighters just waiting to wield a bastard sword in one hand without proficiency, to make those awesome 1d10 attacks at a -6 penalty?
I don't really care how the dev's rule (if they do), because the difference between "you can wield this weapon at a -6 penalty" and "you can't wield this weapon" are pretty marginal.
In the case of the katana, it's because of samurai movies.
In the case of the Bastard sword, it's because of the name. "See this is my Bastard sword, I must be a truly glorious bastard to wield a sword like this!"
Yeah but I mean, if you want to use a weapon like that, why simply not take proficiency? Without the feat it's useless, and if you want to use it, there's no feat that comes even close to EWP for it. The only situation this would matter is for 1st and 2nd level 1/2 and 3/4 BAB classes that can't get EWP at level 2 (rogues can for example).
I get that people like the bastard sword but do they like sucking at using it, having a -4 or (in the case of a Large B-sword) a -6?
Aren't most of those either giving proficiency (heirloom weapon trait) or quite feat-intensive by themselves and generally considered bad outside of this specific circumstance (arms master)?
Whether you can take Heirloom Weapon with these weapons (to use them two-handed) is another vague area of the rules, and up to DM interpretation.
Well, in my games I'll be allowing all of it. I don't think there is any risk anywhere of this unbalancing anything or even making bastard swords more popular than they would be without the ruling.
|
| 1 person marked this as FAQ candidate. |
No.
Outside determining the proficiency required to avoid penalties, wielding the weapon in two hands does not change the classification.
They remain One-handed Exotic Weapons.
Feats, traits, and abilities treat them as such.
When choosing the relevant trait or feat, how you intend to wield it is not a factor.
| 1 person marked this as FAQ candidate. |
Ok, so then my phalanx fighter one-handing his Lucerne Hammer benefits from the recent lance/power attack FAQ.
No because you treat a two-handed weapon as a one-handed weapon as per the description in the class archetype.
In these discussions of exotic weapons you are simply wielding a one-handed weapon with two-hands.
|
Phalanx Fighting (Ex): At 3rd level, when a phalanx soldier wields a shield, he can use any polearm or spear of his size as a one-handed weapon. This ability replaces armor training 1.
Hmm... Sounds like another FAQ may be in order.
This ability does not change the fact that a Lucerne Hammer is a two-handed weapon. And given the recent FAQ about lances in one hand, I'd have to say that applies to all two-handed weapons wielded in one hand. Including the Phalanx Soldier.
|
RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
Phalanx Fighting (Ex): At 3rd level, when a phalanx soldier wields a shield, he can use any polearm or spear of his size as a one-handed weapon. This ability replaces armor training 1.Hmm... Sounds like another FAQ may be in order.
This ability does not change the fact that a Lucerne Hammer is a two-handed weapon. And given the recent FAQ about lances in one hand, I'd have to say that applies to all two-handed weapons wielded in one hand. Including the Phalanx Soldier.
According to your quote, it says "as a one-handed weapon". If we're still treating its functionality like it's two-handed, then what does "as a one-handed weapon" mean?
|
|
*drinks coffee*
Actually, that sounds right. So the distinction we should look for is "treats/uses as a one-handed weapon" and "may use a two-handed weapon in one hand".
I retract my earlier comment. The Phalanx Soldier would only get +2 damage from Power Attack, and not +3.
I'ma have to look up Thunder and Fang when I get home and see what wording it uses. I just told someone yesterday they would get x1.5 STR and Power Attack with it.
|
|
For those of you who didn't pick up it, I'm drawing a comparison between "as a one-handed weapon" and "as a martial weapon". If BBT's statement is true, then the same logic must be applied to the Phalanx Fighter regarding the lance/power attack FAQ: since feats, traits, abilities, etc. don't change the weapon, it's still a two-handed weapon and as such fulfills the FAQ.
EDIT: In short, you have to apply the understanding consistently across the rules. It can't be one way in a certain situation, and then consider it a different way in another.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
For those of you who didn't pick up it, I'm drawing a comparison between "as a one-handed weapon" and "as a martial weapon". If BBT's statement is true, then the same logic must be applied to the Phalanx Fighter regarding the lance/power attack FAQ: since feats, traits, abilities, etc. don't change the weapon, it's still a two-handed weapon and as such fulfills the FAQ.
EDIT: In short, you have to apply the understanding consistently across the rules. It can't be one way in a certain situation, and then consider it a different way in another.
That's only true if the grammar supports it.
|
|
That's only true if the grammar supports it.For those of you who didn't pick up it, I'm drawing a comparison between "as a one-handed weapon" and "as a martial weapon". If BBT's statement is true, then the same logic must be applied to the Phalanx Fighter regarding the lance/power attack FAQ: since feats, traits, abilities, etc. don't change the weapon, it's still a two-handed weapon and as such fulfills the FAQ.
EDIT: In short, you have to apply the understanding consistently across the rules. It can't be one way in a certain situation, and then consider it a different way in another.
This.
Go by what is written, not what it is inferred, unless errata'd or FAQ'd otherwise.
Seams like you're grossly overthinking this. Proficiency is proficiency. You are or you aren't.31 FAQ requests say that it is unclear.
This discussion has spawned over a 1,000 comments combined over the course of 4 different posts, so it obviously must be a contentious issue (although in reality most of those posts are only from a handful of people).
No, not at all. It is clear. But some folk still like to use 3.5 hairsplitting legalistic arguments. This sort of argument is invalid in PF, where RAI and Common Sense rule over RAW. And, a good number of folks will just hit the FAQ button to annoy SKR.
Some folks really enjoy such Talmudic debates. Nothing wrong with that. The fact that there’s 1000 posts means exactly that- that some few folks enjoy a good meaningless Talmudic debate about how many angels can dance on the head of a pin (you said it yourself "although in reality most of those posts are only from a handful of people"). But annoying the staff and wasting their time over such is BadWrongFun.
Reserve the FAQ button for real rules questions, not getting a staffer to waste his time by siding with you in a such a debate. Especially since, even if they do so, most of the other “losing” side will say that it doesn’t matter, they are wrong even if they write the rules.
So- what’s the point?
That's only true if the grammar supports it.For those of you who didn't pick up it, I'm drawing a comparison between "as a one-handed weapon" and "as a martial weapon". If BBT's statement is true, then the same logic must be applied to the Phalanx Fighter regarding the lance/power attack FAQ: since feats, traits, abilities, etc. don't change the weapon, it's still a two-handed weapon and as such fulfills the FAQ.
EDIT: In short, you have to apply the understanding consistently across the rules. It can't be one way in a certain situation, and then consider it a different way in another.
This.
Go by what is written, not what it is inferred, unless errata'd or FAQ'd otherwise.
What if what is written has multiple legitimate interpretations? Are we then allowed to infer?
Seams like you're grossly overthinking this. Proficiency is proficiency. You are or you aren't.31 FAQ requests say that it is unclear.
This discussion has spawned over a 1,000 comments combined over the course of 4 different posts, so it obviously must be a contentious issue (although in reality most of those posts are only from a handful of people).
No, not at all. It is clear. But some folk still like to use 3.5 hairsplitting legalistic arguments. This sort of argument is invalid in PF, where RAI and Common Sense rule over RAW. And, a good number of folks will just hit the FAQ button to annoy SKR.
Some folks really enjoy such Talmudic debates. Nothing wrong with that. The fact that there’s 1000 posts means exactly that- that some few folks enjoy a good meaningless Talmudic debate about how many angels can dance on the head of a pin (you said it yourself "although in reality most of those posts are only from a handful of people"). But annoying the staff and wasting their time over such is BadWrongFun.
Reserve the FAQ button for real rules questions, not getting a staffer to waste his time by siding with you in a such a debate. Especially since, even if they do so, most of the other “losing” side will say that it doesn’t matter, they are wrong even if they write the rules.
So- what’s the point?
What's clear about it then? Because, as I said, even if you ignore all evidence which predates Pathfinder, there is still a conflict. Direct Pathfinder developer statements demonstrate that the intent of the language is to prohibit use of a bastard sword in one hand without the feat. Yet there's a perfectly legitimate reading of the language that says you should just treat it like any other nonproficiency. Dismissing either of those positions offhand is simply disingenuous. Stop begging the question.
And let's not ignore that this is, in fact, the Rules Forum, the purpose of which is explicitly to debate, determine, and verify how the rules specifically are intended to work. So, if you have ambiguity, people are naturally going to seek clarity here. That's the whole point of this place.
I seriously doubt anybody here is trying to annoy the PDT by requesting clarity on this issue. We'd simply like to know what the intention behind the rule is, because at this point we have two possible answers, both of which (despite the insistent protest by some) actually have legitimate support.
EDIT: Further, if the PDT determines this issue against my position, my response will be something along the lines of "*shrug* I think it's inconsistent with some prior developer statements [assuming they wouldn't be retracted in the answer], but whatever. I'm just glad we finally have some resolution." It's kind of annoying that you're presupposing I'm a poor sport.
I don't know wraith personally, but I don't imagine s/he'd have any objection to it, either - s/he (? - haven't done any sleuthing on that because it doesn't really matter) just wants clarity and uniformity in application of the rules (for PFS) is my understanding. As for Hangar, I do know him personally, and I can guarantee you his response will be pretty much identical to mine.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I solved the dilemma by making ALL weapons have 3 levels of proficiency (simple, martial, exotic). The greater the proficiency level, the better the stuff you can do with the weapon.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I solved the dilemma by saying that all weapons listed as one handed weapons can be used in one hand (kinda obvious really). If the character is not proficient in using the one handed weapon in one hand then they suffer the non-proficiency penalty when they do so.
|
|
If Phalanx Soldier said "may use a two-handed polearm in one hand", it would mean a different thing than it says currently.
Very good. Now, if we accept that "as a one-handed weapon" infers that even though it is a two-handed weapon, under these circumstances you follow the rules for a one-handed weapon.
If we follow the methodology, "as a martial weapon" infers that under those circumstances (you don't have the EWP and you're using it two-handed), you follow the rules for martial weapons. Theoretically then, Martial Weapon Proficiency (bastard sword) is, while obviously redundant, a legal feat.
|
RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
If Phalanx Soldier said "may use a two-handed polearm in one hand", it would mean a different thing than it says currently.Very good. Now, if we accept that "as a one-handed weapon" infers that even though it is a two-handed weapon, under these circumstances you follow the rules for a one-handed weapon.
Yep.
If we follow the methodology, "as a martial weapon" infers that under those circumstances (you don't have the EWP and you're using it two-handed), you follow the rules for martial weapons.
Still good so far.
Theoretically then, Martial Weapon Proficiency (bastard sword) is, while obviously redundant, a legal feat.
No, and here's why:
It's only treated as martial while you're wielding it in two hands. It's conditional, and it's a condition that's dependent on your actions. Promising to only wield a bastard sword in two hands doesn't cause the weapon to be martial in general and become a valid choice for MWP.The feat says "choose a type of martial weapon", not "choose a weapon that you can treat as martial at least part of the time".
Compare to an elf with an elven curved blade: he always treats it as martial in all ways at all times, not just when he handles it a certain way. Thus, the elf could take MWP(ecb).
So a sword magically becomes a martial sword based on how you wield it?
But more seriously, what type of proficiency do you need to wield a Bastard Sword in two hands?
|
|
No, and here's why:
It's only treated as martial while you're wielding it in two hands. It's conditional, and it's a condition that's dependent on your actions. Promising to only wield a bastard sword in two hands doesn't cause the weapon to be martial in general and become a valid choice for MWP.
I am coming from the position that you require the EWP to use it one-handed, otherwise you're stuck using it two-handed. If I believed that you could use it one-handed while incurring the -4 penalty, I would be inclined to agree with you. Look at it from my point of view and it is plausible.
The feat says "choose a type of martial weapon", not "choose a weapon that you can treat as martial at least part of the time".
This coincides with my point above: if you don't have the EWP, it is a martial weapon for you.
Compare to an elf with an elven curved blade: he always treats it as martial in all ways at all times, not just when he handles it a certain way. Thus, the elf could take MWP(ecb).
Well, this is a position that the dwarf is in regarding the dwarven waraxe. For that matter, so is everyone else who doesn't have the EWP...the weapon is a martial weapon for them.
|
|
It stands to reason, especially taking into consideration the evidence that one must have the EWP to wield the bastard sword in one hand, that a 1st level wizard can take the Martial Weapon Proficiency (bastard sword) to wield the bastard sword two-handed. He can't take the Exotic Weapon Proficiency because he doesn't qualify for it yet.
He can get proficiency in a greatsword or a longsword. There is no reason why he couldn't get proficiency to two-hand a bastard sword.
None. If you want to avoid penalties though, you will need proficiency with all Martial weapons.So a sword magically becomes a martial sword based on how you wield it?
But more seriously, what type of proficiency do you need to wield a Bastard Sword in two hands?
Why, though? (To parrot an argument from my opposition) Where does it say that in the rules?
Let's pretend that there's some class function or ability out there that grants a character with proficiency in every martial weapon available, except for one that is chosen based off of some something or other (maybe they're the anti-cleric and they get proficiency in all martial weapons but that one favored martial weapon of that god they hate). Let's pretend that this weapon is a warhammer. Is there some reason to think that this character should be unable to wield a bastard sword in two hands without suffering the penalty, but some general fighter doesn't? What special function is there that happens when you're proficient with all martial weapons that wouldn't happen in this hypothetical all but one of the martial weapons (particularly when the Bastard Sword is not and never will be anything but an exotic weapon, as you've rightly pointed out on a number of occasions)? If this character than took the feat MWP (warhammer), the person would also now be able to wield a bastard sword without penalty?
|
|
There is no Martial Weapon Proficiency(Bastard Sword) feat.
When you choose the feat, you select a Martial weapon.
The Bastard Sword is not a Martial weapon, even if it can be wielded as one, in certain circumstances.
So, although it has the function to be wielded as a Martial weapon, it never actually becomes a Martial weapon.
This means when a PC that is proficient with all Martial weapons, picks up a Bastard Sword, and wields it in two hands, he treats it as a Martial weapon, if he chooses to.
In all other cases, other than when used in two hands, it is treated as an One-handed Exotic weapon.
|
|
Let me explain as to why this unchanging classification, for feats, traits, and abilities, is important.
Rather, some examples:
1) A Bladebound Magus can select a Bastard Sword as his Blackblade, even if he is not proficient, because the classification of One-handed weapon never changes, even if wielded in two hands.
2) A Two-handed Fighter cannot use a Bastard Sword with his Overhand Chop, Backswing, Piledriver, Greater Power Attack, or Devastating Blow ability, simply because he not proficient with a Bastard Sword, because the classification of One-handed weapon never changes, even if wielded in two hands.
3) A Two-handed Fighter cannot gain the Weapon Training bonus whilst wielding a Bastard Sword, in any manner, simply because he is not proficient, because the classification of One-handed weapon never changes, even if wielded in two hands.
4)You cannot use the Raging Hurler feat with the Bastard Sword, simply because you are not proficient with it, because the classification of One-handed weapon never changes, even if wielded in two hands.
5) You cannot use the Pushing Assault feat with a Bastard Sword, simply because you are not proficient with it, because the classification of One-handed weapon never changes, even if wielded in two hands.
6) You cannot use the Shield of Swings feat with the Bastard Sword, simply because you are not proficient with it, because the classification of One-handed weapon never changes, even if wielded in two hands.
7) You can benefit from the Corsair of Taldor whilst wielding a Bastard Sword, because the classification of One-handed weapon never changes, even if wielded in two hands.
8) You can use a Bastard Sword with the Slaying Sprint feat, even if not proficient, because the classification of One-handed weapon never changes, even if wielded in two hands.
None. If you want to avoid penalties though, you will need proficiency with all Martial weapons.So a sword magically becomes a martial sword based on how you wield it?
But more seriously, what type of proficiency do you need to wield a Bastard Sword in two hands?
No, without a FAQ saying otherwise you can take Martial Proficiency (Bastard Sword).
|
|
No, without a FAQ saying otherwise you can take Martial Proficiency (Bastard Sword).None. If you want to avoid penalties though, you will need proficiency with all Martial weapons.So a sword magically becomes a martial sword based on how you wield it?
But more seriously, what type of proficiency do you need to wield a Bastard Sword in two hands?
No.
Simply being able to use it as a Martial weapon, does not change it's classification.
It remains an One-handed Exotic weapon.
This never changes.