Bastard Sword, Dwarven Waraxe, Katana, and Great Terbutje


Rules Questions

1 to 50 of 236 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | next > last >>
Sczarni

75 people marked this as FAQ candidate. Answered in the FAQ. 2 people marked this as a favorite.

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?

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Companion Subscriber

Note: For this to get attention, it needs a lot of responses.


hopefully they address it when they answer the other thread..

If say they something like treat the weapon as a two-handed weapon for the purpose of handiness if you don't have EWP that would also answer this question.

PS: I don't expect the word "handiness" to actually be used, but you get the point.. :)

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Companion Subscriber

Indeed.

We will see.

Sczarni

blackbloodtroll wrote:
Note: For this to get attention, it needs a lot of responses.

Response.


Yes and Yes


see the Iconic Barbarian Amiri
She is a Good example of what you are asking


Well, it's still an open question as to whether a medium person can wield a large-sized bastard sword in two hands without EWP if you take a -6 penalty.

Grand Lodge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Companion Subscriber

If the answer was so clear to everyone, then there would not be so many questions.

So, whilst clear to some, it is not so for others.


Without EWP the answer is No because as the weapon moves up the # of hands need to wield it also increases by 1 effectively putting large 2-handed weapons unusable to medium sizes beings.
example: a large Dagger goes from light to one handed
a large longsword goes to 2-handed weapon
and a Large 2-handed sword becomes unusable by medium sized creatures/beings

PFSRD:
PFSRD wrote:

Weapon Size: Every weapon has a size category. This designation indicates the size of the creature for which the weapon was designed.

A weapon's size category isn't the same as its size as an object. Instead, a weapon's size category is keyed to the size of the intended wielder. In general, a light weapon is an object two size categories smaller than the wielder, a one-handed weapon is an object one size category smaller than the wielder, and a two-handed weapon is an object of the same size category as the wielder.

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

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

emphasis is mine

Silver Crusade

warren Burgess wrote:

Without EWP the answer is No because as the weapon moves up the # of hands need to wield it also increases by 1 effectively putting large 2-handed weapons unusable to medium sizes beings.

example: a large Dagger goes from light to one handed
a large longsword goes to 2-handed weapon
and a Large 2-handed sword becomes unusable by medium sized creatures/beings
** spoiler omitted **
emphasis is mine

A bastard sword made for your size is a one-handed weapon. No part of its description turns it into a two-handed weapon if you don't have EWP.

A one-handed weapon that can't be wielded in one hand must be wielded in two hands. This makes it a one-handed weapon used in two hands.

When a medium creature uses a large bastard sword, according to the rules you quoted it becomes a two-handed weapon for a medium creature. This is irrespective of the wielder's proficiency.

A medium creature can and must use a large bastard sword in two hands. When they do they will take a -4 attack penalty if they lack the required proficiency.

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

The required proficiency is martial weapon proficiency.

Liberty's Edge

Eh, don't let Malachi put you off. He's been bandying that idea around for a couple of threads now.

Grand Lodge

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Companion Subscriber
HangarFlying wrote:
Eh, don't let Malachi put you off. He's been bandying that idea around for a couple of threads now.

As have many regarding their own view.

Sczarni

2 people marked this as a favorite.

Excellent! Everything is going according to plan...

*taps his fingers together maniacally*

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Companion Subscriber
Nefreet wrote:

Excellent! Everything is going according to plan...

*taps his fingers together maniacally*

Tzeentch?


Faqd

Sczarni

blackbloodtroll wrote:
Nefreet wrote:

Excellent! Everything is going according to plan...

*taps his fingers together maniacally*

Tzeentch?

I was actually thinking of Mr. Burns from the Simpsons.


1 person marked this as FAQ candidate. 2 people marked this as a favorite.

Seams like you're grossly overthinking this. Proficiency is proficiency. You are or you aren't.

Liberty's Edge

blackbloodtroll wrote:
HangarFlying wrote:
Eh, don't let Malachi put you off. He's been bandying that idea around for a couple of threads now.
As have many regarding their own view.

There can be only one!

Sczarni

Havoq wrote:
Seams like you're grossly overthinking this. Proficiency is proficiency. You are or you aren't.

31 FAQ requests say that it is unclear.

Normally a character not proficient in a particular weapon can still wield it with a -4 penalty. Since the Bastard Sword (and others) are listed as one-handed exotic weapons, some people argue you can wield them in one hand and just take the -4 penalty. This matches nicely with all established rules on proficiency, and those same people argue that these weapons are no different.

Others look at the text descriptions of the weapons and interpret them to mean the weapons can not be wielded at all in one hand unless you have proficiency. They point to obscure 3.5 FAQs and tangent developer comments to make their case.

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).

So, please feel free to click the FAQ button if you have not done so already.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Nefreet wrote:
Normally a character not proficient in a particular weapon can still wield it with a -4 penalty. Since the Bastard Sword (and others) are listed as one-handed exotic weapons, some people argue you can wield them in one hand and just take the -4 penalty. This matches nicely with all established rules on proficiency, and those same people argue that these weapons are no different.

This.

Nefreet wrote:
Others look at the text descriptions of the weapons and interpret them to mean the weapons can not be wielded at all in one hand unless you have proficiency. They point to obscure 3.5 FAQs and tangent developer comments to make their case.

You're proficient or you aren't. Stop over thinking it.

Pathfinder isn't 3.5. And - as someone said yesterday in another post that taking FAQs and running with them like this is akin to running with scissors. Here be a perfect example of that.

*edit* That said - I FAQ'd.

Project Manager

Removed a post. Please don't "bump" threads.

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Companion Subscriber

This seems to require doublethink to figure out for some.

With all the possible FAQ, Big Brother may be watching.


FAQ'ed

EDIT: This is rather ambiguous, if only b/c the katana uses different wording that makes me feel they may have different intentions w/ each weapon.


Nefreet wrote:

Normally a character not proficient in a particular weapon can still wield it with a -4 penalty. Since the Bastard Sword (and others) are listed as one-handed exotic weapons, some people argue you can wield them in one hand and just take the -4 penalty. This matches nicely with all established rules on proficiency, and those same people argue that these weapons are no different.

Others look at the text descriptions of the weapons and interpret them to mean the weapons can not be wielded at all in one hand unless you have proficiency. They point to obscure 3.5 FAQs and tangent developer comments to make their case.

Well, that's certainly one way to put it, I suppose. Obscure FAQs and "tangent" developer comments. Nice.

Not going to lie, I actually laughed when I read this.

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Companion Subscriber

We shall see this answered, eventually.


Shouldn't Exotic Weapon Proficiency encompass both methods of wielding such weapons?

A rogue taking EWP (katana) shouldn't take a penalty from wielding it two-handed.

Grand Lodge

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Companion Subscriber

Exactly.

Sometimes, people just want watch the world burn.


JiCi wrote:

Shouldn't Exotic Weapon Proficiency encompass both methods of wielding such weapons?

A rogue taking EWP (katana) shouldn't take a penalty from wielding it two-handed.

Agreed. Is someone suggesting otherwise? If so, I missed that. I don't any reason to prohibit something like this.

Grand Lodge

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Companion Subscriber

Someone will find a reason to prohibit just about anything.

This includes wielding a one-handed weapon in one hand.


blackbloodtroll wrote:

Someone will find a reason to prohibit just about anything.

This includes wielding a one-handed weapon in one hand.

Sad truth...

MWP (katana) = two-handed only
EWP (katana) = both one-handed and two-handed

Taking EWP essentially means that you've trained hard to wield the selected weapon in every single way, not just one way.

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Companion Subscriber

Thing is, Martial Weapon Proficiency(Bastard Sword, Dwarven Waraxe, Katana, or Great Terbutje) doesn't exist.

Not a valid choice.

None of those weapons are martial weapons, even if treated as such in certain conditions.

They are all One-Handed Exotic Weapons, that some say you can't even wield in one hand.

Liberty's Edge

Yeah, it was I who had thrown out such an idea. Though after thought and discussion, even if Martial Weapon Proficiency (bastard sword) were possible, it would be silly to take it because if you're going to burn the feat, you would take the exotic feat anyways.

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Companion Subscriber

This also means, that none of those weapons are a valid choice for the Heirloom Weapon trait, or the Grenadier Alchemist's Martial Weapon Proficiency.

Sczarni

It's been that way since it was errata'd anyways.


blackbloodtroll wrote:

Exactly.

Sometimes, people just want watch the world burn.

A Flame Nozzle from the 3.5 setting Dragon Mech works a lot better. You get 15 shots before need to reload.

Better yet, it isn't a reflex save but ranged touch to all in a cone so hits evasion using rogues (DC 15 reflex to see if catch on fire though).


1 person marked this as a favorite.
HangarFlying wrote:
blackbloodtroll wrote:
HangarFlying wrote:
Eh, don't let Malachi put you off. He's been bandying that idea around for a couple of threads now.
As have many regarding their own view.
There can be only one!

*cuts off your head*

mmmm Quickenings.

Anyway, for what it's worth I agree with Malachi.

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Companion Subscriber

I want to see the Great Terbutje in more builds too.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

This always seemed pretty obvious to me.

These weapons are one-handed exotic weapons. This means you can wield them as one-handed weapons by taking either the exotic weapon-proficiency involved or taking the -4 penalty for not being proficient with them. So you can wield a larger version in two hands without proficiency by taking the penalty + the penalty for an inappropriately sized weapon.

Alternatively you are allowed to treat these weapons as two-handed martial weapons. Meaning if it's smaller than your own size you can wield it one handed at only -2, appropriately sized in one hand without penalty, but not larger than your own size.

All granted you have proficiency with all martial weapons.

I'm going to mark it as faq candidate anyways, since i don't think i was very convincing.

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Companion Subscriber

This always seemed pretty obvious to many, but then they talk to someone else, and they view it working, very different, and they say the same thing, that it was always clear to them.

This just seems to keep happening.


Take a look at the weapon tables and you will find the needed proficiency. That is the logic behind BBTs 'shields are weapons' posts.

If you dont have the proficiency you can wield the weapon with a -4 penalty. Next you take a look at the weapon description for some special rules.

Weapon tables say 'Exotic one-handed weapon'
Special rules say 'Martial two-handed weapon'

So as example a fighter with the proficiency in 'all martial weapons' can use the BSword two-handed without penalty.

Everybody else with the feat EWP Bastard Sword can use the sword one-handed.

By RAW you can use every one-handed weapon two-handed to get the 1,5 STR bonus. So everybody with EWP Bastard Sword can use the BSword one or two-handed.

At last everybody can wield a large BSword because it is an 'Exotic one-handed weapon' but you get a penalty (-6 without and -2 with EWP BSword).

A new month, the same question. FAQed

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Companion Subscriber

That not quite it either.

None of those weapons are ever two handed, no matter how you wield them.


So what is a two-handed weapon? By RAW :

PRD wrote:

Two-Handed: Two hands are required to use a two-handed melee weapon effectively. Apply 1-1/2 times the character's Strength modifier to damage rolls for melee attacks with such a weapon.

PRD wrote:
A bastard sword is about 4 feet in length, making it too large to use in one handwithout special training; thus, it is an exotic weapon. You can use a bastard sword two-handed as a martial weapon.

So a bastard sword is an exotic one-handed weapon and by his own special rules it is a two-handed martial weapon. Same special rules for the katana, gr. terbutje or d.waraxe.

RAW or at least RAI is clear.

Grand Lodge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Companion Subscriber

You are still just wielding a One-handed weapon, just, in two hands.

You can do that with any One-handed weapon, like a Longsword.

In this case, when you wield, this One-handed weapon, with two hands, you treat it as a martial weapon.

In the end, and I feel the need to repeat, it remains an One-handed weapon.

Sczarni

blackbloodtroll wrote:
This always seemed pretty obvious to many, but then they talk to someone else, and they view it working, very different, and they say the same thing, that it was always clear to them.

Gah! The solution has been in front of us the whole time! People need to stop talking to each other.

But anyways, for those that may see this as obvious and silly, pay attention to the second question I posed in the OP. To those claiming you'd take a -6 penalty when wielding a large Bastard Sword, is that written anywhere? All the weapon description says is you need the proficiency to wield it in one hand. Not two. It may make sense that if you need the feat to wield a medium sized bastard sword in one hand, that you would also need the feat to wield a large sized bastard sword in two hands, but since it doesn't, people are arguing that, RAW, all you need is martial weapon proficiency to wield a large bastard sword in two hands.

And the whole "is it -4 or not at all" argument. It's a package deal.

Grand Lodge RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32

Eridan wrote:
PRD wrote:
A bastard sword is about 4 feet in length, making it too large to use in one handwithout special training; thus, it is an exotic weapon. You can use a bastard sword two-handed as a martial weapon.
So a bastard sword is an exotic one-handed weapon and by his own special rules it is a two-handed martial weapon.

Remember to read carefully; there's a difference between:

"two-handed as a martial weapon" and
"as a two-handed martial weapon".

Unfortunately, people who already believe the latter to be true will go back and read the rule and honestly think it says that, when it actually says the former. Peopl's brainz see wat they epxect to see.


Jiggy wrote:
Peopl's brainz see wat they epxect to see.

I see what you did there. :)


HangarFlying wrote:
Yeah, it was I who had thrown out such an idea. Though after thought and discussion, even if Martial Weapon Proficiency (bastard sword) were possible, it would be silly to take it because if you're going to burn the feat, you would take the exotic feat anyways.

[NOTE: I don't actually expect this to change anybody's opinion on anything. People who agree with me already agree with me. People who don't aren't going to be convinced by this. *shrug* Mostly it was an exercise in avoiding work.]

Thing is, from a hypertechnical standpoint (Rules Forum FTW!) there would have to be some form of martial proficiency relating to the Bastard Sword. The equipment entry says it can be used two handed as a martial weapon. For classes like the Fighter that say you are proficient with all martial weapons, there's no question that two-handed use is permissible without penalty.

But other classes exist which get some martial proficiency, but not all. If Martial Proficiency (Bastard Sword) was not a distinct thing, then it would seem perfectly feasible that a Rogue could two-hand a Bastard Sword without penalty. Or a Bard, a Cleric worshiping a deity with a martial favored weapon, any Elf making use of the Weapon Familiarity class feature, etc. All of them have at least some martial proficiency, but none actually name the Bastard Sword. So, it stands to reason that Martial Proficiency (Bastard Sword) has to actually be something more concrete than just having proficiency with any martial weapon. Otherwise, what sort of martial proficiency would a character need to effectively wield a Bastard Sword as a martial weapon?

If that's the case, Martial Proficiency (Bastard Sword) confers proficiency with use of the weapon as something distinct. It cannot simply be the ability to two-hand a one-handed weapon, since the weapon rules are clear that anybody who can use a one-handed weapon of appropriate size can also two-hand that weapon. Whether Exotic Proficiency (Bastard Sword) carries along with it Martial Proficiency (Bastard Sword) is irrelevant. If you're proficient in one-handing the Bastard Sword, you can use it in two hands pursuant to the weapon rules, anyway.

Everybody already has the ability to use one-handed weapons in two hands. Exotic Proficiency (Bastard Sword) confers access to one-handed use of the weapon, which carries along with it the ability to wield it in two hands. If Martial Proficiency (Bastard Sword) were to grant proficiency in the two-handed use of the Bastard Sword as a one-handed weapon, it would strictly imply that Exotic Proficiency (Bastard Sword) did not carry with it the ability to do the same, otherwise it would be purely redundant (unless it's wholly subsumed by the latter, meaning taking the Exotic version necessarily grants you the Martial version as well, which is not something contemplated by the rules. And, if it does function that way, it's largely irrelevant anyway.).

Martial Proficiency removes the nonproficiency penalties for one weapon. Since Martial Proficiency (Bastard Sword) must exist as a concept, and we know that Exotic Proficiency (Bastard Sword) is necessary to be able to use the Bastard Sword in one hand (which carries along with it the ability to wield it in two hands), Martial Proficiency (Bastard Sword) then must confer the ability to use the Bastard Sword as a two-handed weapon. If it didn't, that would mean that Martial Proficiency (Bastard Sword) wouldn't actually be conferring proficiency with "a weapon", just some partial proficiency with one style of use of one weapon. That doesn't follow from the language of the Martial Weapon Proficiency feat. If the Bastard Sword is conceptualized as being a "separate" two-handed martial weapon for the purposes of characters without the exotic feat, then the proficiencies carry on as one might expect.

The intent for this exists in the rules which grant the ability for people without the requisite Exotic Proficiency to be able to treat it as a Martial Weapon. By granting an exception which allows characters to treat the weapon differently without the primary feat, there's a clear indication given that the weapon is supposed to be wielded differently for different levels of proficiency. Wielding a one-handed weapon in two hands doesn't amount to any difference. Being limited to wielding the weapon as if it were a two-handed weapon is an actual, substantive difference (primarily in, and in this context specifically limited to, regards to size restrictions).

Bastard Swords are still functionally one-handed weapons of appropriate size. They are still functionally exotic weapons of appropriate size. But they are treated differently based upon proficiency for determining who may wield them and how.

(Inb4 Malachi (or somebody else) says "The rules say 'two-handed as a martial weapon', not 'as a two-handed martial weapon.'")

(Also, inb4 this devolves into a lengthy conversation about whether Martial Weapon Proficiency (Bastard Sword) actually exists, even though taking that instead of Exotic Weapon Proficiency (Bastard Sword) is dreadfully silly. And pointless.)

1 to 50 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.