Bastard Sword, Dwarven Waraxe, Katana, and Great Terbutje


Rules Questions

201 to 236 of 236 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | next > last >>
Grand Lodge

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

Does a PC holding a greatsword in one hand still threaten? No. He is unable to wield it or to make a melee attack into an adjacent square with it.

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Companion Subscriber
Starglim wrote:
blackbloodtroll wrote:
Does a PC holding a Bastard Sword in one hand, without the Exotic Weapon Proficiency feat, still threaten?
Does a PC holding a greatsword in one hand still threaten? No. He is not wielding it and is not able to make a melee attack into an adjacent square with it.

He does if he is a Titan Mauler, and even if it's a Elven Curve Blade, that he's not proficient with, he still threatens.

Shadow Lodge

1.Thank you Pathfinder Design Team for replying to this thread.
2.Why is your titan mauler wielding a Bastard Sword in one hand if he could be wielding an Earthbreaker in one hand instead?
3.The ruling is fairly simple if I am interpreting it right. A Bastard Sword is a one handed exotic weapon. If you use it with 2 hands, It is a Two-handed Martial weapon. Therefor, You can wield it in 2 hands as a Two-handed martial weapon for the purposes of feats, or as a one handed weapon in two hands if you have the feat. Theoretically, you can wield it as a two or one handed weapon if you have the feat. Titan Maulers could wield it in one hand, but still incurs the -2 jotungrip penalty unless he has the feat. What is the confusion here?

Grand Lodge

blackbloodtroll wrote:
Starglim wrote:
blackbloodtroll wrote:
Does a PC holding a Bastard Sword in one hand, without the Exotic Weapon Proficiency feat, still threaten?
Does a PC holding a greatsword in one hand still threaten? No. He is not wielding it and is not able to make a melee attack into an adjacent square with it.
He does if he is a Titan Mauler, and even if it's a Elven Curve Blade, that he's not proficient with, he still threatens.

Did I really need to add "unless he has an ability from somewhere in the Pathfinder line that makes his actions irrelevant to the question at hand"? The elven curve blade can be wielded in one hand under the same conditions as a greatsword can. If he can wield an elven curve blade in one hand and is not proficient with it, he threatens with it and takes a -4 penalty on his attacks of opportunity. If he doesn't have a game ability to wield it in one hand, he is in the same position as a PC holding a bastard sword in one hand without proficiency.

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Companion Subscriber

No, it apparently never changes classification.

It never becomes a two handed weapon, ever.

Just an One-handed weapon, wielded in two hands, or not at all.

Sczarni

Starfinder Charter Superscriber

*phew*

I still hold the opinion that this could have been written cleaner. For about two hours there thousands of characters were weeping.

Designer, RPG Superstar Judge

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

Oops. Obviously that should read "you can't wield a two-handed weapon in one hand." Unfortunately, I can't fix that from offsite, it'll have to wait until Monday.

Designer, RPG Superstar Judge

Fixed. I'll go edit the PDT post about it, too.


So are Bastard Sword et al actually base 2-h weapons with exceptional ability to be wielded as 1-h weapons with the appropriate proficiency, or are they base 1-h weapons that cannot be wielded one-handed without proficiency? Because what the base category is has ramifications on the object's HP and hardness as well as satisfying requirements of certain abilities that necessitate wielding an actual 2-h category weapon (as opposed to a 1-h weapon in 2 hands). The way the FAQ is worded implies that these weapons are actually 2-h weapons but they're all listed in the tables as 1-h weapons.


Kazaan wrote:
So are Bastard Sword et al actually base 2-h weapons with exceptional ability to be wielded as 1-h weapons with the appropriate proficiency, or are they base 1-h weapons that cannot be wielded one-handed without proficiency? Because what the base category is has ramifications on the object's HP and hardness as well as satisfying requirements of certain abilities that necessitate wielding an actual 2-h category weapon (as opposed to a 1-h weapon in 2 hands). The way the FAQ is worded implies that these weapons are actually 2-h weapons but they're all listed in the tables as 1-h weapons.

They're one-handed exotic weapons, as they're listed on the table. SKR made a post about that (in one of the other threads, I think).

Basically, if you don't have the feats, treat them like two-handed weapons to figure out who can wield them and how. For every other purpose, they are one-handed weapons.

EDIT: It was this thread. Here.

Sczarni

Starfinder Charter Superscriber

Perfect example of another divergence from 3.5, since their FAQ clarified that these were 2H weapons able to be wielded in one hand, and these remain 1H weapons.


Nefreet wrote:
Perfect example of another divergence from 3.5, since their FAQ clarified that these were 2H weapons able to be wielded in one hand, and these remain 1H weapons.

That's really the only divergence that I'm aware of. Even 3.5 listed it on the one-handed exotic table. In the grand scheme of things though, that really doesn't matter. Whether they're one-handed treated as two-handed without the feat or two-handed treated as one-handed with the feat doesn't change anything insofar as the question of "who may wield this and how" is concerned.

PF says treat it like a one-handed weapon for everything but who can wield it and how without the feat. That part of the treatment of the weapons has been pretty much identical since 3.0.

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Companion Subscriber

Nobody gets to treat these as anything but one-handed weapons.

A Two-handed Fighter does not get special use out of these weapons, simply because he lacks the appropriate Exotic Weapon Proficiency feat.

No PC should gain something more by lacking a feat.

That is just silly.


I thought I saw that post before stating that the table is correct, but it didn't match up with the language in the FAQ because it seems to imply they're 2-h weapons with an exceptional ability to be able to wield in 1 hand.

Liberty's Edge

blackbloodtroll wrote:

Nobody gets to treat these as anything but one-handed weapons.

A Two-handed Fighter does not get special use out of these weapons, simply because he lacks the appropriate Exotic Weapon Proficiency feat.

No PC should gain something more by lacking a feat.

That is just silly.

I'm confused by what you're saying. How does a two-handed fighter without the EWP gain something that the person with the EWP doesn't get?

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Companion Subscriber

It is an One-handed weapon, that cannot be wielded in one hand, without a feat.

This is true, even if you can wield two handed weapons in one hand.

So, you may be able to wield a Longspear, or Greatsword in one hand, but you still can't wield a Bastard Sword in one hand, without the Exotic Weapon Proficiency feat.

No matter what, you never treat it as a two-handed weapon.

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Companion Subscriber
HangarFlying wrote:
blackbloodtroll wrote:

Nobody gets to treat these as anything but one-handed weapons.

A Two-handed Fighter does not get special use out of these weapons, simply because he lacks the appropriate Exotic Weapon Proficiency feat.

No PC should gain something more by lacking a feat.

That is just silly.

I'm confused by what you're saying. How does a two-handed fighter without the EWP gain something that the person with the EWP doesn't get?

The Two Handed Fighter has abilities that only function with a two handed weapon.

So, he doesn't get to treat a Bastard Sword as a two handed weapon, and use it with said abilities, just because he lacks the appropriate Exotic Weapon Proficiency feat.

Liberty's Edge

I think that the fact that in the case of not having the EWP you have no choice but to wield it two handed, I don't see why the Two Handed Fighter couldn't use the Bastard Sword.

Furthermore, the same mentality goes for any archetypes or abilities that allow a two-handed weapon to be wielded in one hand (jotungrip for example). Yay, he can use the bastard sword in one hand...with a penalty. So what?

If a guy without the EWP is supposed to treat the bastard sword in the same way he would treat a great sword, I don't see anything wrong with him treating a bastard sword in the same way as he would treat a great sword.

EDIT: why would a Two-Handed Fighter archetype be taking an EWP in the bastard sword in the first place, considering that would be going against the point of the archetype?

Liberty's Edge

*Double Post*

Where is the delete button?

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Companion Subscriber

That's not how it works.

You are using the shifting classification thing, again.

The thing, that does not exist.

The classification of One-handed never changes, no matter what feats you have, or don't have.

Liberty's Edge

Eh, however you want to play it your game. It doesn't bother me.

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Companion Subscriber

You mean, I don't want to use your houserule?

I suppose I don't.


It's not a houserule, considering that's how a developer said to treat it.

Aside from that, the only thing it's treated differently for is determining whether or not you can wield it in one hand without the feat. It doesn't become a two-handed weapon for class abilities, just for figuring out what proficiency you need to wield it and in how many hands. It's still a one-handed weapon. Always will be. Just like it's always an exotic weapon.


Kazaan wrote:
I thought I saw that post before stating that the table is correct, but it didn't match up with the language in the FAQ because it seems to imply they're 2-h weapons with an exceptional ability to be able to wield in 1 hand.

I think that's a casualty of having to stick with the old verbiage. The intent is that it is and will remain a one-handed exotic weapon, even though it's really basically a hybrid. I think they easily could have gone either way with it, but simply chose to keep it categorized as a one-handed exotic weapon because that's where it's always fallen on the tables (in PF and 3.5).

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Companion Subscriber
fretgod99 wrote:

It's not a houserule, considering that's how a developer said to treat it.

Aside from that, the only thing it's treated differently for is determining whether or not you can wield it in one hand without the feat. It doesn't become a two-handed weapon for class abilities, just for figuring out what proficiency you need to wield it and in how many hands. It's still a one-handed weapon. Always will be. Just like it's always an exotic weapon.

Why are you saying you disagree, then repeating what I said, in agreement?

Are you agreeing, and disagreeing, with me, and yourself, at the same time?


blackbloodtroll wrote:
fretgod99 wrote:

It's not a houserule, considering that's how a developer said to treat it.

Aside from that, the only thing it's treated differently for is determining whether or not you can wield it in one hand without the feat. It doesn't become a two-handed weapon for class abilities, just for figuring out what proficiency you need to wield it and in how many hands. It's still a one-handed weapon. Always will be. Just like it's always an exotic weapon.

Why are you saying you disagree, then repeating what I said, in agreement?

Are you agreeing, and disagreeing, with me, and yourself, at the same time?

My apologies. I misread a post or two upthread. If we agree on how this works, cool. Seems that we do.

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Companion Subscriber

HangarFlying was suggesting that you actually get to treat it as a weapon, of the two-handed weapon classification, just because you lack a feat.

I was stating that it never changes classification.

It remains a One-handed weapon.

Liberty's Edge

...that is treated like a two-handed weapon.

Kind of in the same way that a phalanx fighter treats a two-handed weapon like a one-handed weapon...no classification change there either.

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Companion Subscriber

No.

It is treated as an One-handed weapon.

Wielding it in two hands does not make it a two handed weapon.

Liberty's Edge

And a phalanx fighter's ability to wield a long spear as a one-handed weapon doesn't make that long spear a one-handed weapon.

The bastard sword without the EWP is treated like a two-handed weapon. That doesn't mean that it becomes a two-handed weapon.

There is absolutely no reason why someone without the EWP should not be able to use the bastard sword for those abilities that require the use of a two-handed weapon.

Grand Lodge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Companion Subscriber

The Phalanx Fighter is not relevant.

Also, the ability actually changes it's classification, as to how it's treated for feats and abilities, as noted in this FAQ.

So, you are suggesting a classification change.

Lacking a feat is not a weapon classification changing special ability.

It is a lack of an ability.

It should not, and cannot benefit you.

Silver Crusade

The phalanx fighter's write-up actually states that you treat it as a one-handed weapon!

The description of the bastard sword does not state that you treat it as a two-handed weapon, at all, under any circumstances.

Liberty's Edge

Sorry guys, but you are absolutely, and unequivocally, wrong.

FAQ it if you want, but I can garuntee with 100% certainty that if they choose to respond with something other than "No response required" it will be to tell you that you are wrong...again.

Or don't, and keep playing the game with your heads buried in the sand. It bothers me not.

Silver Crusade

And SKR used a greatsword as his example of how a one-handed weapon should work!

Quote the bastard sword description, and bold the part which says you use it as a two-handed weapon, as opposed to just using it two-handed (which you can with one-handed weapons).


I can't believe there is no Dwarven Dorn Derger in this thread title...a reach bastard sword.

I was wondering if i have the DD master feat, when i wield a large DD, cast lead blade and then Living monolith my self to large, what is the damage? I can't find the book that has huge/colossal weapon damage.


Malachi Silverclaw wrote:

The phalanx fighter's write-up actually states that you treat it as a one-handed weapon!

The description of the bastard sword does not state that you treat it as a two-handed weapon, at all, under any circumstances.

Aside from determining who can wield it without the feat. For that reason alone you treat it like a two-handed weapon.

201 to 236 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.