|
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.
So the question becomes, if the PDT rules against you, would you be happy or sad, considering all of these things would be allowed?
|
So the question becomes, if the PDT rules against you, would you be happy or sad, considering all of these things would be allowed?
If they rule anything other than how it is treated now, a lot of people are going to be upset (anyone currently using a Bastard Sword in conjunction with abilities that treat it as a one-handed weapon).
Choose a type of martial weapon. You understand how to use that type of martial weapon in combat.So, choose any martial weapon. Is the bastard sword a martial weapon? I'll have a look for you!
Nnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnno!
Then how do you know if a person is proficient to use it? After all, the rule does say treat it as a martial weapon. What level of proficiency is required? Why is "some" martial proficiency not enough to use it in two hands without the penalty? After all, the rules never say which proficiency is required, other than martial. But they don't specify which martial proficiency. How can we know, from reading the rules, which characters can and cannot use the bastard sword in two hands proficiently?
That answer isn't in the rules. It could be inferred, but apparently inference is verboten, even when based on explicit, relevant developer comments.
Who has ever said the classification re: handedness is going to change? That really isn't relevant. It will always be a one-handed weapon. Even if you treat it as two-handed for determining nom-proficient use, it's still one-handed. Nobody has ever said differently.
|
|
One-handed Exotic Weapon.
Period. Done. End of story.
And just like any other one-handed weapons, you can wield it in two hands. This does not change the fact that it is a one-handed weapon. Feats/abilites/etc that rely on using one-handed weapons work with it.
Unlike most other Exotic weapons, you can wield it as a martial weapon. This does not change the fact that it is an Exotic weapon. Traits such as Heirloom Weapon do not work with it.
This is seriously not that hard to understand.
So, could a Rogue (Swashbuckler) choose a bastard sword (using it two-handed as a "martial" weapon) as the target of her Martial Training ability?
Choose a type of martial weapon. You understand how to use that type of martial weapon in combat.So, choose any martial weapon. Is the bastard sword a martial weapon? I'll have a look for you!
Nnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnno!
Am I a Dwarf?
One-handed Exotic Weapon.
Period. Done. End of story.
And just like any other one-handed weapons, you can wield it in two hands. This does not change the fact that it is a one-handed weapon. Feats/abilites/etc that rely on using one-handed weapons work with it.
Unlike most other Exotic weapons, you can wield it as a martial weapon. This does not change the fact that it is an Exotic weapon. Traits such as Heirloom Weapon do not work with it.
This is seriously not that hard to understand.
But wield it as what martial weapon? This is what you're not getting. You get to wield it as a martial weapon. Not everybody is proficient with martial weapons. Not everybody who is proficient with martial weapons is proficient with all martial weapons.
So, what type of martial proficiency do you need in order to efficiently wield a bastard sword in two hands when you don't have the exotic weapon proficiency feat? It's not a complicated question. BBT answered it, though he hasn't responded to my follow up. What is your response to that question?
You need to have a sit down with your buddy Hangar, then.
Sure thing. We'll get together and discuss how we both think that it's a one-handed exotic weapon, it has always been a one-handed exotic weapon, that it always will be a one-handed exotic weapon, but that it is treated as a two-handed martial weapon for the purposes of determining who can wield it without the EWP feat (and for that purpose alone).
|
|
There is no such thing as a "type" of martial weapon proficiency. In the beginning of each class description there is a section detailing what weapons that class is proficient with, and many classes are simply proficient in martial weapons. End of story.
Unless you mean something completely different, but it wouldn't be the first time you've lost me.
|
|
You need to have a sit down with your buddy Hangar, then.Sure thing. We'll get together and discuss how we both think that it's a one-handed exotic weapon, it has always been a one-handed exotic weapon, that it always will be a one-handed exotic weapon, but that it is treated as a two-handed martial weapon for the purposes of determining who can wield it without the EWP feat (and for that purpose alone).
*crickets*
THEN WHAT THE *bleep* ARE YOU ARGUING ABOUT???
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.
This is all very true. And absolutely none of this would change if the weapon is clarified to be treated as a two-handed martial weapon for the purpose of determining who may wield it without the feat. It's still a one-handed exotic weapon for every other purpose. So, it's not a problem.
| 1 person marked this as FAQ candidate. 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
There is no such thing as a "type" of martial weapon proficiency. In the beginning of each class description there is a section detailing what weapons that class is proficient with, and many classes are simply proficient in martial weapons. End of story.
Unless you mean something completely different, but it wouldn't be the first time you've lost me.
Aside from the fact that Martial Weapon Proficiency grants you proficiency in each weapon individually.
Simple Weapon Proficiency = Proficient in all simple weapons.
Martial Weapon Proficiency = Pick one weapon, and you are proficient in its use.
Which martial weapon do you need to be proficient in, in order to wield a Bastard Sword two-handed without suffering the nonproficiency penalty. Surely you don't think a human wizard with no other weapon feats could wield a Bastard Sword without suffering a penalty. What about a standard elven wizard (since that character would have at least one martial proficiency)?
So, as I said in an earlier post that nobody actually directly responded to, we can assume that feats that get proficiency in all martial weapons can so wield a Bastard Sword. What about those characters or classes that have only some martial proficiencies?
You need to have a sit down with your buddy Hangar, then.Sure thing. We'll get together and discuss how we both think that it's a one-handed exotic weapon, it has always been a one-handed exotic weapon, that it always will be a one-handed exotic weapon, but that it is treated as a two-handed martial weapon for the purposes of determining who can wield it without the EWP feat (and for that purpose alone).*crickets*
THEN WHAT THE *bleep* ARE YOU ARGUING ABOUT???
Why are you confused? I just restated the position I've espoused for this entire debate.
It's a one-handed exotic weapon that's treated like a two-handed martial weapon for determining who may wield it without the proficiency. That means, if you don't have the EWP, you either can't wield it one-handed at all or you must alternatively wield it at a -4 penalty (frankly, it's no skin off my back either way, as I've said multiple times - I think RAW is prohibitive, but it doesn't really matter to me). Additionally, if you do not have the EWP feat, you cannot wield an oversized Bastard Sword at all (or similarly, you must take the -4 nonproficiency penalty in addition to the -2 oversize penalty).
Nothing's changed.
|
|
Nobody likely "addressed" your question because nobody recognized it as such. It is extremely hard to understand where you are coming from.
So, once again,
A Fighter/Barbarian/Paladin (and any other classes that are proficient with martial weapons) can wield a Bastard Sword in two hands, with no penalty what-so-ever. If they wish to wield it in one hand, they take a -4 penalty, unless they have Exotic Weapon Proficiency - Bastard Sword.
A Wizard/Sorceror/Inquisitor (and any other classes that are not proficient with martial weapons) can only wield a Bastard Sword with a -4 penalty, either two-handed or one-handed. If they grab Exotic Weapon Proficiency - Bastard Sword, they can now wield it without penalty in either one hand or two.
|
|
I foresee them coming back with a ruling that effectively says: if you don't have the EWP, you treat it the same way you would treat a greatsword; if you do have the EWP, you treat it the same way you would treat a longsword.
Actually, I wouldn't be surprised if they said that the guy with the EWP can actually choose to wield it as a two-handed martial or a one-handed exotic depending on the circumstances (not just a one-handed it two hands).
Nobody likely "addressed" your question because nobody recognized it as such. It is extremely hard to understand where you are coming from.
The post nobody addressed specifically is here. Regardless, the question I've been asking is the same:
But more seriously, what type of proficiency do you need to wield a Bastard Sword in two hands?
I doubt it's difficult to see where I'm coming from on that.
A Fighter/Barbarian/Paladin (and any other classes that are proficient with martial weapons) can wield a Bastard Sword in two hands, with no penalty what-so-ever. If they wish to wield it in one hand, they take a -4 penalty, unless they have Exotic Weapon Proficiency - Bastard Sword.
A Wizard/Sorceror/Inquisitor (and any other classes that are not proficient with martial weapons) can only wield a Bastard Sword with a -4 penalty, either two-handed or one-handed. If they grab Exotic Weapon Proficiency - Bastard Sword, they can now wield it without penalty in either one hand or two.
That's the easy cases. But you're ignoring the issue.
1. What about characters that have some martial proficiencies?
2. Where exactly is the rules language that supports your answer? Or are you simply inferring your response from the ambiguous language that is there?
It's only ambiguous to you. And if that was your question this whole time, then it's *you* that has been ignoring our answers.
1. What about characters that have some martial proficiencies?
2. Where exactly is the rules language that supports your answer? Or are you simply inferring your response from the ambiguous language that is there?
You have answered neither of those questions.
And seriously, you don't think "wield a bastard sword two handed as a martial weapon" is ambiguous? Because at what point in that statement do they tell you what proficiency you need to wield it that way without a penalty?
I've already recognized classes that grant proficiency in all martial weapons. So, again, what about characters who have proficiency in only some?
Either address it head on or admit you don't have a good response to it.
|
|
Is this your question?
So, again, what about characters who have proficiency in only some?
If it is, then the answer is really, really simple. They are proficient in only those "some". A cleric who's favored weapon is a Longbow is not going to be able to wield a Bastard Sword without taking a -4 penalty.
Does doing so otherwise really make any sense to you?
Is this your question?
So, again, what about characters who have proficiency in only some?If it is, then the answer is really, really simple. They are proficient in only those "some". A cleric who's favored weapon is a Longbow is not going to be able to wield a Bastard Sword without taking a -4 penalty.
Does doing so otherwise really make any sense to you?
I assume then you're inferring this as I can't see an explicit answer in the rules language.
Regardless, the "why" is still relevant. If the Bastard Sword is not a martial weapon for any purpose and never will be, why do you need to be proficient in every martial weapon to wield this one sword like a martial weapon? The rules never mention that. The rule isn't "wield two-handed as a martial weapon, so long as you're proficient with every martial weapon." Why is the theoretical "proficient in all martial weapons but one" character prohibited from proficiently wielding a non-martial weapon like the Bastard Sword?
Looks like you're inferring an answer. If I can't do so with relevant developer commentary, why can you do it without?
|
|
What will satisfy you, fretgod? We've answered in every way we can, and it's still not good enough for you. I'm not "inferring" an answer, I'm giving you an answer. Is it the comparison you're having trouble with? I thought my Longbow example was sufficient. Learning how to wield one weapon is obviously not going to give you proficiency in all weapons. That's common sense. You're not going to find it in the rules anywhere, because it doesn't need to be. The 99% of us that aren't picking apart words just to look for an argument are satisfied with that.
|
|
What will satisfy you, fretgod? We've answered in every way we can, and it's still not good enough for you. I'm not "inferring" an answer, I'm giving you an answer. Is it the comparison you're having trouble with? I thought my Longbow example was sufficient. Learning how to wield one weapon is obviously not going to give you proficiency in all weapons. That's common sense. You're not going to find it in the rules anywhere, because it doesn't need to be. The 99% of us that aren't picking apart words just to look for an argument are satisfied with that.
I think the problem we are having with your side is that, regardless of comments made by James Jacobs regarding how Paizo is going to build their NPCs and a FAQ by Jason Buhlman, you are still saying that it is ok to wield a bastard sword in one hand without the EWP--even though you don't have anything but your own feeling of how it should be interpreted to back it up.
Regarding the "proficiency" portion of this debate, our whole argument is founded upon the understanding that one cannot wield a bastard sword one-handed if they do not have the EWP (which, as I pointed out, is the stronger of the two possible outcomes of this debate).
It's practically impossible to have a real debate on the subject when one side is unwilling to even try to understand what is being argued.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
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.
Then the ability of bastard swords is useless and a fighter wielding a bastard sword in two hands (without the feat) takes the -4 penalty, because a fighter is proficient in all martial weapons and bastard swords are not a martial weapon regardless of how you hold it.
EDIT: To clarify, here's the fighter's proficiency:
A fighter is proficient with all simple and martial weapons and with all armor
So, it's proficient with weapons that are simple or martial.
to quote a few people here:
Is the bastard sword a martial weapon? I'll have a look for you!Nnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnno!
The Bastard Sword is an Exotic Weapon.
Thus, fighters that wield a bastard sword in two hands take the non-proficiency penalty, by that reading of the RAW.
So, again, what about characters who have proficiency in only some?If it is, then the answer is really, really simple. They are proficient in only those "some". A cleric who's favored weapon is a Longbow is not going to be able to wield a Bastard Sword without taking a -4 penalty.
I tend to agree with this. Having proficiency in the longsword doesn't give you proficiency in the greatsword, why would it give you proficiency in any other weapon?
Now can you take martial weapon proficiency in just the bastard sword, my guess is (a) sure, why not it is an inferior choice so why bother stopping someone that wants to make such a dumb choice, or (b) no, it is an exotic weapon that someone with [extensive] training in all martial weapons can use without difficulty in two-hands and taking MWP (bastard sword) is an obvious "trap" so don't bother allowing it. How would the game officials decide? I haven't a clue nor a care.
I'm not sure there are classes that are proficient in all martial weapons but one, are there? Either you are proficient in all martial weapons or you are proficient in a very limited number of them. Could someone take feats to gain proficiency in all but one of them? I doubt it, I don't think any race or class that doesn't get all martial proficiency gets remotely close enough to get all but one.
Are there really DMs out there who think a one die increase is too powerful for -4 penalty? Hell, I would be nice and make it only a -2.
What will satisfy you, fretgod? We've answered in every way we can, and it's still not good enough for you. I'm not "inferring" an answer, I'm giving you an answer. Is it the comparison you're having trouble with? I thought my Longbow example was sufficient. Learning how to wield one weapon is obviously not going to give you proficiency in all weapons. That's common sense. You're not going to find it in the rules anywhere, because it doesn't need to be. The 99% of us that aren't picking apart words just to look for an argument are satisfied with that.
"You're not going to find it in the rules anywhere."
Sounds like you're making an inference, then. That's actually pretty much the definition of inference.
Sure, someone proficient only in a Longbow can't get it. What about a character proficient in a Long Sword? What about a Long Sword and a Greatsword?
What I'm asking for is a clear statement in the rules that tells me what proficiency a character needs to wield a Bastard Sword as a martial weapon. Why is proficiency in all martial weapons necessary? This tells me that a character proficient in every martial weapon but, for instance, the Warhammer couldn't two-hand wield without penalty. Why? Give me an explicit, rules-based answer.
There's a reason I'm being pedantic with this. I'm pretty sure you know why, which is why you're avoiding the primary issue.
So, again, what about characters who have proficiency in only some?If it is, then the answer is really, really simple. They are proficient in only those "some". A cleric who's favored weapon is a Longbow is not going to be able to wield a Bastard Sword without taking a -4 penalty.I tend to agree with this. Having proficiency in the longsword doesn't give you proficiency in the greatsword, why would it give you proficiency in any other weapon?
Now can you take martial weapon proficiency in just the bastard sword, my guess is (a) sure, why not it is an inferior choice so why bother stopping someone that wants to make such a dumb choice, or (b) no, it is an exotic weapon that someone with [extensive] training in all martial weapons can use without difficulty in two-hands and taking MWP (bastard sword) is an obvious "trap" so don't bother allowing it. How would the game officials decide? I haven't a clue nor a care.
I'm not sure there are classes that are proficient in all martial weapons but one, are there? Either you are proficient in all martial weapons or you are proficient in a very limited number of them. Could someone take feats to gain proficiency in all but one of them? I doubt it, I don't think any race or class that doesn't get all martial proficiency gets remotely close enough to get all but one.
This is a fair response. But I think you recognize that you're undoubtedly making an inference, because there's no explicit rules language giving the answer.
It doesn't matter that it'd be an inferior feat, though. It would serve a function. And that such a feat (inferior though it may be) exists would actually explain why characters proficient in all martial weapons would be proficient in two-hand wielding a Bastard Sword and those proficient in only some wouldn't.
As to the theoretical all-but-one class, it's purely a logical argument to demonstrate the extreme of the "some" argument so you can't handwave it away by saying "Being proficient in a Longbow only shouldn't make you proficient in two-handing a Bastard Sword".
You're leaving something out.
I'll give you three guesses as to what it is, and the first two don't count.
I'm really not seeing what you are talking about.
If we are treating bastard sword as explicitly an _exotic weapon_ and not a _martial weapon_, in a way that makes martial weapon proficiency (bastard sword) non-functioning, then it also makes the fighter proficiency in weapons that are martial not applicable to the bastard sword since it isn't in any way a martial weapon.
If we however assume that a bastard sword is a martial weapon when wielded in two hands, fighter proficiency works - but so does a martial weapon proficiency (bastard sword) feat.
Since the argument for MWP(BSword) not existing is that strict RAW doesn't explicitly state that MWP is a martial weapon when wielded in two hands, since it's an argument of strict RAW rather than RAI (not saying it is against the RAI, which I know nothing about), it's completely fair to use strict RAW to show what weird effects such an interpretation has.
So, again, what about characters who have proficiency in only some?If it is, then the answer is really, really simple. They are proficient in only those "some". A cleric who's favored weapon is a Longbow is not going to be able to wield a Bastard Sword without taking a -4 penalty.I tend to agree with this. Having proficiency in the longsword doesn't give you proficiency in the greatsword, why would it give you proficiency in any other weapon?
Now can you take martial weapon proficiency in just the bastard sword, my guess is (a) sure, why not it is an inferior choice so why bother stopping someone that wants to make such a dumb choice, or (b) no, it is an exotic weapon that someone with [extensive] training in all martial weapons can use without difficulty in two-hands and taking MWP (bastard sword) is an obvious "trap" so don't bother allowing it. How would the game officials decide? I haven't a clue nor a care.
I'm not sure there are classes that are proficient in all martial weapons but one, are there? Either you are proficient in all martial weapons or you are proficient in a very limited number of them. Could someone take feats to gain proficiency in all but one of them? I doubt it, I don't think any race or class that doesn't get all martial proficiency gets remotely close enough to get all but one.
This is a fair response. But I think you recognize that you're undoubtedly making an inference, because there's no explicit rules language giving the answer.
It doesn't matter that it'd be an inferior feat, though. It would serve a function. And that such a feat (inferior though it may be) exists would actually explain why characters proficient in all martial weapons would be proficient in two-hand wielding a Bastard Sword and those proficient in only some wouldn't.
As to the theoretical all-but-one class, it's purely a logical argument to demonstrate the extreme of the "some" argument so you can't...
I guess my thought would be, assuming you start a fighter at 1st level. Would you say the fighter has the following bonus feats as per his class: MWP (longsword), MWP (kukri), MWP (light hammer), MWP (greataxe) , MWP (...)? Does the fighter actually have all the MWP feats as bonus feats? What happens when a new book comes out with new martial weapons in it? Does this fighter then gain additional bonus feats automatically as soon as that book is adopted in the group?
Are weapon proficiencies = weapon proficiency feats? Or are weapon proficiency feats a way of modifying the weapon proficiency class feature?
The weapon and armor proficiency features of the classes do not grant the feats. They are one way to get proficiencies, as are feats.
Otherwise a fighter could retrain (see the retraining notes on fighter feats) MWP(Light Hammer) into Power Attack.
The weapon and armor proficiency features of the classes do not grant the feats. They are one way to get proficiencies, as are feats.
Otherwise a fighter could retrain (see the retraining notes on fighter feats) MWP(Light Hammer) into Power Attack.
You can only retrain feats specifically taken as Bonus Feats, anyway.
No. A fighter's inherent proficiencies are listed nowhere as "Bonus Feats".
This is true, though there's really no functional difference between weapon/armor proficiencies being "bonus feats" or simply class features, so far as I'm aware. Either way, it doesn't really impact what's in play here.
No. A fighter's inherent proficiencies are listed nowhere as "Bonus Feats".This is true, though there's really no functional difference between weapon/armor proficiencies being "bonus feats" or simply class features, so far as I'm aware. Either way, it doesn't really impact what's in play here.
It may though.
What we have is a class feature that allows one to be proficient in all martial weapons and an exotic weapon that can be wielded "as a martial weapon", thus the classes with this feature are proficient in the exotic weapon used in that fashion.
On the other hand, we have classes that have some martial weapon proficiencies but not all martial weapon proficiencies. In this case, the only way to become proficient in other martial weapons is to take the MWP feat. The problem is that this feat requires you to "Choose a type of martial weapon." Since the weapon is not a martial weapon but instead is an exotic weapon that can be treated as a martial weapon if used in a certain fashion, it does not qualify for the feat.
The class feature doesn't have to meet the same requirements that the feat must, that is the difference.
Now if you had a class that had the class feature, proficient in all martial weapons (must say something like this) but the ... oh I don't know ... trident, in that case the class would give proficiency in the bastard sword used in two hands. Because the class feature bypasses the requirements of the feat.
EDIT:
Now where it really gets messy is with races involved, say a dwarven cleric and a dwarven waraxe. The dwarven cleric should be able to take MWP (dwarven waraxe), since in the dwarf race descriptions it says: "and treat any weapon with the word “dwarven” in its name as a martial weapon." Basically when a dwarf looks at the weapons tables, dwarven waraxe shows up in the martial category, not exotic category.
EDIT2: Just so people notice, the "treat" part in the dwarven description is the main difference between the bastard sword description and the dwarf description. The bastard sword says the character can use it as a martial weapon, but doesn't say it can treat it as a martial weapon. Slight, but significant difference.
@Nefreet & fretgod99: Agreed, though generally when you get a feat other than the standard level 1/3/5etc feats they're noted as "bonus feats"; it wouldn't be far-fetched to assume all feats gained as a bonus above standard are bonus feats (as all cases I know of mention them, like unarmed strike, stunning fist, weapon finesse, as "bonus feats"). But I agree, by RAW they are not mentioned as bonus feats. They're not mentioned as feats at all, which was my main point though.
@pres man: I don't see where it says they're proficient in "all martial weapons and an exotic that can be wielded "as a martial weapon". The italized part is simply not in the rules.
Well if you want to get really technical, MWP doesn't actually give you proficiency with the weapon (no where does it state anything remotely like you are now proficient with the weapon), it merely removes the non-proficiency penalty (allows you to make attacks "normally").
Martial Weapon Proficiency (Combat)
Choose a type of martial weapon. You understand how to use that type of martial weapon in combat.
Benefit: You make attack rolls with the selected weapon normally (without the non-proficient penalty).
Normal: When using a weapon with which you are not proficient, you take a –4 penalty on attack rolls.
Special: Barbarians, fighters, paladins, and rangers are proficient with all martial weapons. They need not select this feat.
You can gain Martial Weapon Proficiency multiple times. Each time you take the feat, it applies to a new type of weapon.
Which means that if you gain access to a martial weapon through MWP, it doesn't actually qualify you to take something like:
Improved Critical (Combat)
Attacks made with your chosen weapon are quite deadly.
Prerequisite: Proficient with weapon, base attack bonus +8.
Benefit: When using the weapon you selected, your threat range is doubled.
Special: You can gain Improved Critical multiple times. The effects do not stack. Each time you take the feat, it applies to a new type of weapon.
This effect doesn't stack with any other effect that expands the threat range of a weapon.
|
|
EDIT:
Now where it really gets messy is with races involved, say a dwarven cleric and a dwarven waraxe. The dwarven cleric should be able to take MWP (dwarven waraxe), since in the dwarf race descriptions it says: "and treat any weapon with the word “dwarven” in its name as a martial weapon." Basically when a dwarf looks at the weapons tables, dwarven waraxe shows up in the martial category, not exotic category.EDIT2: Just so people notice, the "treat" part in the dwarven description is the main difference between the bastard sword description and the dwarf description. The bastard sword says the character can use it as a martial weapon, but doesn't say it can treat it as a martial weapon. Slight, but significant difference.
How can omitting "treat" out of if change the meaning? If you're not "treating" the bastard sword as a martial weapon under specific conditions, then the fighter can not wield it without a penalty unless he has the EWP. The fighter is proficient with all martial weapons. The bastard sword, when wielded two handed, is a martial weapon. This leaves us with the implication that Martial Weapon Proficiency (bastard sword) is a plausible, albeit probably unnecessary, feat. If anything, the lack of "treat" might imply that it is more definitive in it's assertion that it is a martial weapon under those circumstances. As a..., treat it..., as if it were..., as though it was... all ultimately have the same outcome when you get down to it.
And before those three who are going to tell me that it is a "one-handed exotic weapon that is used in two hands", remember that everyone, even those with the EWP, can use it "two-handed as a martial weapon". This allows the EWP character the flexibility of wielding the bastard sword. While "two-handed as a martial weapon" and "one-handed exotic weapon in two hands" have exactly the same end result when wielding an appropriately sized bastard sword, this flexibility becomes more obvious when wielding an off-sized bastard sword (i.e. Amiri and her large bastard sword).
*Did I just bring this thread back on topic?*
|
|
Well if you want to get really technical, MWP doesn't actually give you proficiency with the weapon (no where does it state anything remotely like you are now proficient with the weapon), it merely removes the non-proficiency penalty (allows you to make attacks "normally").
Martial Weapon Proficiency (Combat)
Choose a type of martial weapon. You understand how to use that type of martial weapon in combat.
Benefit: You make attack rolls with the selected weapon normally (without the non-proficient penalty).
Normal: When using a weapon with which you are not proficient, you take a –4 penalty on attack rolls.
Special: Barbarians, fighters, paladins, and rangers are proficient with all martial weapons. They need not select this feat.
You can gain Martial Weapon Proficiency multiple times. Each time you take the feat, it applies to a new type of weapon.Which means that if you gain access to a martial weapon through MWP, it doesn't actually qualify you to take something like:
Improved Critical (Combat)
Attacks made with your chosen weapon are quite deadly.
Prerequisite: Proficient with weapon, base attack bonus +8.
Benefit: When using the weapon you selected, your threat range is doubled.
Special: You can gain Improved Critical multiple times. The effects do not stack. Each time you take the feat, it applies to a new type of weapon.
This effect doesn't stack with any other effect that expands the threat range of a weapon.
I'm confused, are you deliberately being hyper-critical to prove a point or do you actually believe this?
when you get a feat other than the standard level 1/3/5etc feats they're noted as "bonus feats"Where does it say this?
I think you missed an important word ;)
"generally when you get a feat other than the standard level 1/3/5etc feats they're noted as "bonus feats""I wasn't making a statement that "if it's not marked as a bonus feat it isn't one", I said that _generally_, or _usually_, when a class grants a feat outside of the 1/3/5etc standard feats it's noted as a bonus feat.
I agree that it isn't part of the rules - neither do the rules ever say the Weapon and Armor Proficiency class feature grants any feats whatsoever.
Well if you want to get really technical, MWP doesn't actually give you proficiency with the weapon (no where does it state anything remotely like you are now proficient with the weapon), it merely removes the non-proficiency penalty (allows you to make attacks "normally").
Agreed. That's why I don't advocate strict RAW as the most useful thing in this discussion, and it's more interesting to look at intent.
The intent is clearly that the MWP feats should give proficiency, as is it clearly the intent that a fighter shouldn't take a penalty when using a B-sword two-handed.
Whether or not the intent is for a feat like MWP (B-sword) to be selectable, however, is NOT clear - and thus I oppose people claiming it to be an apparent truth that it doesn't exist. Their reason for claiming it doesn't exist is because strict RAW can be interpreted in a way that cause it to not exist - to which I answer that strict RAW can show a lot of weird things.
Hangarflying: I think he was trying to show me that strict RAW is weird, which means he and I were in agreement.
How can omitting "treat" out of if change the meaning?
"Treat" may apply to a much broader set of options than merely one aspect being described as able to "use". I would suggest that when the rules say "treat" they mean "treat in all ways", whereas when they say "use as" they mean "treat as in this one particular situation".
Agreed. That's why I don't advocate strict RAW as the most useful thing in this discussion, and it's more interesting to look at intent.
The intent is clearly that the MWP feats should give proficiency, as is it clearly the intent that a fighter shouldn't take a penalty when using a B-sword two-handed.
Whether or not the intent is for a feat like MWP (B-sword) to be selectable, however, is NOT clear - and thus I oppose people claiming it to be an apparent truth that it doesn't exist. Their reason for claiming it doesn't exist is because strict RAW can be interpreted in a way that cause it to not exist - to which I answer that strict RAW can show a lot of weird things.
Personally I couldn't care less about intent. Just because someone gets their name on a book or gets a job title doesn't mean they have anymore understanding of how the consequences of decisions will effect other things. No, I prefer to look at things interpret them in the way that causes least disturbing undesirable consequences.
Personally I couldn't care less about intent. Just because someone gets their name on a book or gets a job title doesn't mean they have anymore understanding of how the consequences of decisions will effect other things. No, I prefer to look at things interpret them in the way that causes least disturbing undesirable consequences.
Well, if I didn't have any trust in the dev's skills in game design I wouldn't buy their products or be here. But of course, their intent doesn't always mash with how I'd prefer the game to be, but that's another thing.
If one wants to look at how the rules are designed, what can be looked at is what the devs have said (RAW) and what they likely mean by that (RAI).