Bastard Sword, Dwarven Waraxe, Katana, and Great Terbutje


Rules Questions

151 to 200 of 236 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | next > last >>

Agreed to everything in your post (though there isn't a strong "the DM can't be wrong sentiment on these boards xD).

But this subforum is primarily about how the rules are designed, not how they should be designed, hence why the discussion is about the former. You'll find me a frequent poster on the homebrew forum too, though :3


pres man wrote:

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.

I think that's a distinction without a difference. If the class feature is "You're proficient with all of them" or "You have(or are treated as having) the feat(s) to be proficient in all of them", I don't see a functional difference.

Whether it's via feat or via class feature, the Bastard Sword is not actually a martial weapon. From that regard, no manner of feat or class ability would cover it. However if it were recognized that for the purpose of wielding without the feat it should be treated like a two-handed martial weapon, then it would make sense that the "martial" classes would be proficient (whether via "feat" or class ability), but not other classes who have only some martial proficiencies. That would also cover the hypothetical "all but one" case, as well.

In short, it's not that the martial classes are proficient in all martial weapons that ultimately matters, because the Bastard Sword is not a martial weapon. What matters is that for the purpose of wielding without the feat it is treated like a two-handed martial weapon. It can't be treated like just a "martial" weapon because there really isn't such a thing. It'd have to be treated like a light, one-handed, or two-handed martial weapon. In this case, it'd obviously have to be two-handed.


Ilja wrote:

Agreed to everything in your post (though there isn't a strong "the DM can't be wrong sentiment on these boards xD).

But this subforum is primarily about how the rules are designed, not how they should be designed, hence why the discussion is about the former. You'll find me a frequent poster on the homebrew forum too, though :3

Oh, I agree, which is why intent is meaningless for me in this forum. Looking for intent isn't looking at how the rules are actually designed, but instead how the designers thought they wanted to design the rules. The issue isn't whether they wanted to have a rule do X, but instead did they actually write the rule to do X. If it instead does Y, then their intent for it to do X is meaningless, until they issue an errata and/or a new printing.

Liberty's Edge

fretgod99 wrote:


In short, it's not that the martial classes are proficient in all martial weapons that ultimately matters, because the Bastard Sword is not a martial weapon. What matters is that for the purpose of wielding without the feat it is treated like a two-handed martial weapon. It can't be treated like just a "martial" weapon because there really isn't such a thing. It'd have to be treated like a light, one-handed, or two-handed martial weapon. In this case, it'd obviously have to be two-handed.

I agree with this ruling.

I should also mention that this is the stance that HeroLab takes, and it's the officially licensed (by paizo) character builder.

However, I'd also like to state that this likely won't ever be an issue as the greatsword (as a two handed weapon) is better in every way.


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Rulebook, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
fretgod99 wrote:
In short, it's not that the martial classes are proficient in all martial weapons that ultimately matters, because the Bastard Sword is not a martial weapon. What matters is that for the purpose of wielding without the feat it is treated like a two-handed martial weapon. It can't be treated like just a "martial" weapon because there really isn't such a thing. It'd have to be treated like a light, one-handed, or two-handed martial weapon. In this case, it'd obviously have to be two-handed.

Agreed. Oh, and I think I may have hit upon an hilarious alternative read of the bastard sword martial weapon rule: "a martial weapon" can be read as "a weapon in the category martial weapon", but it can also be read as "any weapon in the category martial weapon". (No, I don't for one second believe this to be the intent.)

Fun.


pres man wrote:
Oh, I agree, which is why intent is meaningless for me in this forum. Looking for intent isn't looking at how the rules are actually designed, but instead how the designers thought they wanted to design the rules. The issue isn't whether they wanted to have a rule do X, but instead did they actually write the rule to do X. If it instead does Y, then their intent for it to do X is meaningless, until they issue an errata and/or a new printing.

That's more of a philosophical debate. If Kim says "I would like some ice cream", would the most appropriate answer for Charlie be "Oh, would you like it you say? Don't you like it? Can't you?" or "Alright, here's some ice cream."

If the topic of a discussion is "What is it Kim wants?" is it more relevant to look at it as "If we pick apart the sentence, and note the wording exactly, Kim wants to like ice cream" or "Kim probably wants to get some ice cream, that's the most likely intent of what Kim was trying to say".

Is the goal of being a receiver in communication to pick apart the message in a strict sense and look for the most literal interpretation possible, or understanding what the sender was trying to communicate?

While neither is exactly wrong, I think the second interpretation is a more _useful_ one. Whether Charlie wants to give Kim ice cream or not (ie whether or not I like how the rules are designed or not) isn't really relevant in that situation.


A better analogy would be if someone asked, "Would you like some strawberry ice cream?" You answer, "Sure that would be great." They then hand you a bowl and in the bowl is strawberry yogurt. You ask, "I thought this was suppose to be strawberry ice cream?" They answer, "Well you can use yogurt to make frozen yogurt and that is just like ice cream. So this is really ice cream."

At that point, it doesn't matter if they intended to give you ice cream, because what they actually gave you was yogurt.


Uhm... No, because the rules texts are the message, not the ice cream. I could have used any kind of example where the literal interpretation didn't have to go hand in hand with the intent, not because of the sender's ill will but because of the receiver's focus on the literal interpretation.

When someone asks you "what time you've got?" is the most relevant answer "Oh it's three PM" or "I do not have any time in my possession"? It might be that someone who haven't heard the expression "what time you've got" might be unsure what is asked, but when discussing it - is it better to look at what they likely where trying to ask, or what the sentence can mean in it's most literal sense?

Your example would be of the sender consciously trying to bend the words in a different direction; like if the dev's have said "next week we'll release a new full-BAB class" and then release a half-BAB class with some language about it always being well-fed.

I think in my example you mistook the ice cream as representing the rules - that was not my intent. Rather, the rules texts is the person saying they'd like some ice cream; the rules text is a message that the devs (the sender) is trying to convey to us (the receivers).

Grand Lodge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Companion Subscriber

I now want ice cream.

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Companion Subscriber

No new news?

70+ hits on FAQ.

Maybe we need more?

Grand Lodge RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32

blackbloodtroll wrote:

70+ hits on FAQ.

Maybe we need more?

If it makes you feel any better, I've got 50+ and 60 on threads from May, still waiting to be answered. :/

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Companion Subscriber

Oh well.

Sczarni

Starfinder Charter Superscriber

I know. I was super stoked when we reached 70. I've seen plenty of FAQs issued for less.

Silver Crusade

Perhaps an indication that the devs are as divided on this as the rest of us?

*I'm not divided!*

*I am!*

(With apologies to Monty Python and The Life of Brian)

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Companion Subscriber

There is a lot of FAQ being thrown about.

Maybe this will get hit along the way.

Liberty's Edge

Hehe...I was wondering when someone was going to bring this thread back up from the depths.

Paizo Employee Official Rules Response

FAQ: http://paizo.com/paizo/faq/v5748nruor1fm#v5748eaic9qut

Exotic Weapons and Hands: If a weapon is wielded two-handed as a martial weapon and one-handed with an exotic weapon proficiency, can I wield it one-handed without the exotic proficiency at a –4 penalty?

No.
Note that normally you can't wield a two-handed weapon in one hand. A bastard sword is an exception to that rule that you can't wield a two-handed weapon in one hand, but you must have special training to use the bastard sword this way. Without that special training, wielding a bastard sword one-handed is as impossible as wielding a greatsword one-handed.
(The same goes for other weapons with this one-handed exotic exception, such as the dwarven waraxe.)

Edit 7/26/13: Correction of a typo in the second sentence that said "you can't wield a two-handed weapon in two hands."

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Companion Subscriber

So, now it is a weapon that changes classification, depending on who is wielding it?

How do you treat them in regards to feats or abilities then?

One-handed or two-handed?


So I guess this means that they are a small 2 handed weapon then.

Designer, RPG Superstar Judge

A bastard sword is a one-handed exotic melee weapon, just like it's listed on the table.

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Companion Subscriber

One handed weapon that can't be wielded in one hand?

I may have traits and favored class bonuses bringing the non-proficiency penalty down to 0, but without that feat, I can't let go with one hand?

Can I use it one hand as an improvised weapon?

Designer, RPG Superstar Judge

blackbloodtroll wrote:
One handed weapon that can't be wielded in one hand?

It can, if you have the feat. If you don't have the feat, that's you're decision.

blackbloodtroll wrote:
I may have traits and favored class bonuses bringing the non-proficiency penalty down to 0, but without that feat, I can't let go with one hand?

Can you use a greatsword in one hand? No? Then no.

blackbloodtroll wrote:
Can I use it one hand as an improvised weapon?

Can you use a greatsword in one hand as an improvised weapon? No? Then no.

You also can't use a greatsword one-handed as an improvised bastard sword, even if you have EWP (bastard sword). The game is very clear that if you don't have EWP (bastard sword), it's a two-handed weapon for you, and if you do have EWP (bastard sword), it's a one-handed weapon for you. The end.


Now it is official classified as a two-handed weapon.

Pathfinder Design Team wrote:
Note that normally you can't wield a two-handed weapon in one hand.

If the BS is not a two-handed weapon this is irrelevant.

Pathfinder Design Team wrote:
A bastard sword is an exception to that rule that you can't wield a two-handed weapon in two hands,

There it is, the bastard sword is a two-handed weapon, otherwise it couldn't be an exception to the two-handed weapon rule.

Pathfinder Design Team wrote:
but you must have special training to use the bastard sword this way. Without that special training, wielding a bastard sword one-handed is as impossible as wielding a greatsword one-handed.

The bastard sword is in the same weapon category as the greatsword.

Pathfinder Design Team wrote:
(The same goes for other weapons with this one-handed exotic exception, such as the dwarven waraxe.)


Alright, now I am officially confused. :(

They are reported as one handed exotic melee, that you cannot use one handed unless you have the proficency.

Sczarni

Starfinder Charter Superscriber

O.O

So, can my Dwarven Magus no longer perform Spell Combat with his Dwarven Waraxe? Yesterday it was a one-handed weapon. Today it's a two-handed weapon being wielded in one hand.

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Companion Subscriber

So, PCs without the appropriate feat, treat these weapons, as two handed weapons, for all feats and abilities?


I love that the Pathfinder Design Team answers questions like these, and more frequent nowadays than ever. It's really great to see. However, this ruling is a bit confusing to me too, and this is something that could affect new players too... I'm not sure I could explain to a new player how this works very well at all.

Wouldn't it had been better if it was stated to be a two-handed weapon (for _all_ purposes), but that people with EWP could treat it as a two-handed or one-handed weapon as they like, as long as they wield it properly?

EDIT:
To clarify the confusion, look at this feat: Shield of Swings
" When you take a full-attack action while wielding a two-handed weapon, you can choose to reduce the damage by 1/2 to gain a +4 shield bonus to AC and CMD until the beginning of your next turn. "
There are several other common abilities which are similarly restricted to two-handed weapons.

1. Can this ever be used with a bastard sword?
2. Does it's compability change with the feats the user has?
3. Does it's compability change based on how it's wielded?

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Nefreet wrote:

Since there is no straight forward question posed in either of the other threads, please click the FAQ link here to finalize the debate.

Question: Can the Bastard Sword, Dwarven Waraxe, Katana, and Great Terbutje only be wielded in one hand by taking the associated Exotic Weapon Proficiency, or can they simply be wielded with a -4 penalty for non-proficiency?

And a follow-up question depending on how the first question is answered:

If the Exotic Weapon Proficiency feat is required to wield any of those weapons one-handed, is it also required to wield large-sized versions of those weapons in two hands?

It's a -6 penalty. -4 for non proficiency and -2 for off size. Amiri gets rid of the -4 because she's proficient, but she lives with the -2. (and uses rage to offset the penalty)


I didn't catch this the first time:

Pathfinder Design Team wrote:
A bastard sword is an exception to that rule that you can't wield a two-handed weapon in two hands,

Apparently you can't use two-handed weapons in two hands, except for bastard swords (and other similar weapons). LOL


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Rulebook, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
pres man wrote:

I didn't catch this the first time:

Pathfinder Design Team wrote:
A bastard sword is an exception to that rule that you can't wield a two-handed weapon in two hands,
Apparently you can't use two-handed weapons in two hands, except for bastard swords (and other similar weapons). LOL

*snerk*

Liberty's Edge

PDT, thanks for the answer! It's good to know that it's really not as difficult as people are trying to make it out to be.

Liberty's Edge

LazarX wrote:

It's a -6 penalty. -4 for non proficiency and -2 for off size. Amiri gets rid of the -4 because she's proficient, but she lives with the -2. (and uses rage to offset the penalty)

You're right for the wrong reasons. If Amiri didn't have the EWP, she couldn't wield the large bastard sword at all.

Liberty's Edge

Nefreet wrote:

O.O

So, can my Dwarven Magus no longer perform Spell Combat with his Dwarven Waraxe? Yesterday it was a one-handed weapon. Today it's a two-handed weapon being wielded in one hand.

No. Your Dwarven Magus treats the Dwarven Waraxe as a martial weapon, even if it's used one-handed. No change there.


Ilja wrote:


Wouldn't it had been better if it was stated to be a two-handed weapon (for _all_ purposes), but that people with EWP could treat it as a two-handed or one-handed weapon as they like, as long as they wield it properly?

For the love of god this. Please errata the weapon

Liberty's Edge

Mokshai wrote:

Alright, now I am officially confused. :(

They are reported as one handed exotic melee, that you cannot use one handed unless you have the proficency.

There's nothing to be confused about, though it is awkward just because there isn't a neat place to put it on the weapon charts. It's a one-handed weapon that requires the EWP to use it as a one handed weapon. If you don't have the EWP, it is a two-handed weapon for you.

So, even if you don't have the EWP, it is a one-handed weapon for the purposes of being sundered or other such things that depend on the weapon classification.

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Companion Subscriber

Did this make Titan Mauler better?

Grand Lodge

blackbloodtroll wrote:
So, PCs without the appropriate feat, treat these weapons, as two handed weapons, for all feats and abilities?

PCs without the appropriate feat are unable to use this one-handed weapon in one hand. It in no way becomes or is treated as a two-handed weapon.

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Companion Subscriber

SKR has compared it to a Greatsword, which is two handed.

This implies that PCs without the appropriate feat treat the weapon as a two handed weapon.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

It's treated like a 2-handed martial weapon for the purpose of determining who may wield the sword without the EWP feat and for that reason alone. It's not complicated. For every other reason it is a one-handed exotic weapon. Straight forward. Simple. It works like I said it did, despite being called a troll for continuing to argue it.

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Companion Subscriber

Then it is wieldable with one hand utilizing Jotungrip.

Grand Lodge

I was thinking to state it very slightly differently, which might address more corner cases:
If you are not proficient with a bastard sword, you determine how many hands you must use to wield it (and nothing else) as if it was a two-handed weapon of its size.


No honestly I think this ruling is confusing as heck. I mean I'm fine with whatever it lands on, but I think this is confusing by itself... Not in the least because there seems to be a typo in the FAQ and I don't know how to interpret it, or exactly where the typo is:
"A bastard sword is an exception to that rule that you can't wield a two-handed weapon in two hands"
This is clearly incorrect because there's no rule that you can't wield a two-handed weapon in two hands (obviously). Should it be like this?
"A bastard sword is an exception to that rule that you can't wield a two-handed weapon in one hand"
It makes sense, but implies that a bastard sword is actually a two-handed weapon.

I mean, it's wonderful that they take the time to comment on things like this but I feel _more_ confused after reading it than before.


Starglim wrote:

I was thinking to state it very slightly differently, which might address more corner cases:

If you are not proficient with a bastard sword, you determine how many hands you must use to wield it (and nothing else) as if it was a two-handed weapon of its size.

That would work and sounds like a good wording. But are you sure that's what they meant in the FAQ?

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Companion Subscriber

So, the Titan Mauler can wield a 5ft blade in one hand, but finds it impossible to wield the 4ft blade in one hand, without "special training"?


how do you get that result BBT?

Grand Lodge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Companion Subscriber

A Titan Mauler can wield a Greatsword(5ft) in one hand, at -2, with Jotungrip.

Somehow, he cannot wield the Bastard Sword(4ft) at all, in one hand, without the Exotic Weapon Proficiency feat.

He can even use Jotungrip with weapons he is not proficient with.

Grand Lodge

Ilja wrote:
Starglim wrote:

I was thinking to state it very slightly differently, which might address more corner cases:

If you are not proficient with a bastard sword, you determine how many hands you must use to wield it (and nothing else) as if it was a two-handed weapon of its size.
That would work and sounds like a good wording. But are you sure that's what they meant in the FAQ?

I think this, or fretgod99's wording, goes further than the FAQ. "as impossible as wielding a greatsword one-handed" so far gives an analogy for its impossibility, not a direct ruling how you can wield it.

blackbloodtroll wrote:
So, the Titan Mauler can wield a 5ft blade in one hand, but finds it impossible to wield the 4ft blade in one hand, without "special training"?

That is the current RAW, yes.

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Companion Subscriber

Also, any PC can wield the Urumi(5ft) in one hand, at -4.

Does a PC holding a Bastard Sword in one hand, without the Exotic Weapon Proficiency feat, still threaten?


blackbloodtroll wrote:

A Titan Mauler can wield a Greatsword(5ft) in one hand, at -2, with Jotungrip.

Somehow, he cannot wield the Bastard Sword(4ft) at all, in one hand, without the Exotic Weapon Proficiency feat.

He can even use Jotungrip with weapons he is not proficient with.

But the FAQ states:

"Without that special training, wielding a bastard sword one-handed is as impossible as wielding a greatsword one-handed. "

Doesn't this imply that whatever goes for a greatsword goes for a bastard sword?

EDIT: Ah, now I see the issue. Jotungrip applies only to weapons with the two-handed designation, but the bastard sword never seems to actually get that designation.
Yeah I think that could go either way really but is so niche, so I'm fine with that being DM discretion.

151 to 200 of 236 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder First Edition / Rules Questions / Bastard Sword, Dwarven Waraxe, Katana, and Great Terbutje All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.