The Bastard Sword is, and always has been, a one-handed weapon.This is an incorrect statement. The FAQ clarifies that it is a two-handed weapon.
If it didn't, this thread wouldn't be here.
Also, you seem to have changed your mind in the last few months.
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.
Remember, this is the question the FAQ was responding to:
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?
The whole point was to figure out who can wield such weapons and how without taking the EWP feat. It was not "What kind of weapons are Bastard Swords".
Again though, that brings us back to very weird things if it's a one-handed weapon except when it isn't.
Can a two-handed fighter without EWP use it with his abilities?
What happens when he get's a cursed hat that grants him EWP with it?
I can't use a BS one-handed with penalties, but I can use a small BS as a light weapon? Something's off there...
The list goes on...
It feels like to get what the devs intend, it needs to be errata'd to a two-handed martial weapon with a special ability to be wielded as if it were one-handed with EWP. That clears up MOST of the inconsistencies.
Then I am confused as to what you are still debating. :)
- Gauss
I am amazed this thread is still alive. I didn't read the whole thing, but seems that for some reason it matters?
The Bastard sword is a hand and a half weapon.
Its normally a (rather weak) two handed weapon. Or with a feat, you can use it as a one handed weapon (rather decent one handed weapon).
Now I can write this paragraph from another perspective:
Its a one handed weapon for those trained to use it. Or lacking the training, you can use it as a two handed weapon.
I also don't see why it matters? You can also choose to wield the sword in both hands even if you have the feat (Like you can do with all one handed weapons).
I saw mention of the Two Handed Fighter archetype (the only place it might matter which I can think of).
Now ask yourself: If you are playing this archetype, why would you take the EWP feat?
Now also ask yourself: Is the bastard sword the best weapon for what you, the two handed fighter, wants? A greatsword or an elven curved blade are a better two handers (swords). Greataxe, earth breaker and scythes are also much better IMO.
Sorry if I'm stepping on toes, but I think a lot of people are over complicating this issue.
|
I fully understand that and I'm not claiming that using a weapon in two hands makes it a two handed weapon. A long sword is one handed. It can be used with either one or two hands. A bastard sword is a one handed weapon. Without EWP, it cannot be wielded one handed. You must use two hands. If you must (must mind, you not can) use a weapon in two hands, what would you treat the weapon as?
If you were under a curse that made you unable to wield any weapon in only one hand, so that in order to use any weapon you must use it in two hands, would that mean that you treat a longsword as if it were a two-handed weapon? Or as a one-handed weapon being used two-handed?
Would that mean you use a dagger as if it were a two-handed weapon? Including 1.5 x Str bonus, 3:1 ratio for Power Attack, Overhand Chop? Or would it simply be a light weapon being used two-handed (for no benefit)?
Again though, that brings us back to very weird things if it's a one-handed weapon except when it isn't.
Can a two-handed fighter without EWP use it with his abilities?
What happens when he get's a cursed hat that grants him EWP with it?
I can't use a BS one-handed with penalties, but I can use a small BS as a light weapon? Something's off there...
The list goes on...
It feels like to get what the devs intend, it needs to be errata'd to a two-handed martial weapon with a special ability to be wielded as if it were one-handed with EWP. That clears up MOST of the inconsistencies.
Again, none of these are issues. The Bastard Sword is a one-handed weapon. There is no weirdness.
Two-Handed Fighter without EWP use it with his abilities? Is it a two-handed weapon? No. So, no to the Two-Handed Fighter question. It's no different than wielding a longsword in two hands.
A cursed hat has nothing to do with anything. That only matters if you assume that, because a nonproficient character treats it as two-handed for determining how it must be wielded, it actually becomes a two-handed weapon. It does not. It stays a one-handed weapon.
Seriously (and I mean this non-sarcastically), go through any questions that have come up with regard to the BS and ask if the answer cannot be reached by treating it like a one-handed weapon for all purposes except for who may wield one in one hand without the EWP. I haven't seen one yet. It gets confusing because it must be wielded in two hands, but it's not a two-handed weapon and so does not qualify for two-handed-weapon-type things.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Seriously (and I mean this non-sarcastically), go through any questions that have come up with regard to the BS and ask if the answer cannot be reached by treating it like a one-handed weapon for all purposes except for who may wield one in one hand without the EWP.
I mean this reply just as seriously, and I don't doubt your sincerity about this in any way....
The 'treat it as a two-handed weapon if you lack EWP'...is not in the rules, nor in the BS description.
The leap from 'cannot use a (provably) one-handed weapon in one hand' to 'therefore treat it as a two-handed weapon' is not a leap that is supported by the rules or the BS description, nor is it needed because you can still use a one-handed weapon in two hands without requiring a category shift at all!
This leap of logic is a fallacy, and no matter how commonly believed it remains a fallacy.
I don't care how many people think the world is flat...!
Again, none of these are issues. The Bastard Sword is a one-handed weapon. There is no weirdness.
Ok, now go back to the FAQ, read it carefully. Then read the thread. The whole thread.
This is has been stated a hundred times so far. It's also been stated a hundred times in response, no it isn't anymore. The FAQ specifically called it out as being a two-handed weapon, not a one-handed weapon. And the dev commentary called it out as a two-handed weapon. Which is where the thread originated.
Two-Handed Fighter without EWP use it with his abilities? Is it a two-handed weapon? No. So, no to the Two-Handed Fighter question. It's no different than wielding a longsword in two hands.
CRB = No, one-handed weapon
FAQ = Yes, two-handed weapon unless you have EWP, then it's one-handed
A cursed hat has nothing to do with anything. That only matters if you assume that, because a nonproficient character treats it as two-handed for determining how it must be wielded, it actually becomes a two-handed weapon. It does not. It stays a one-handed weapon.
Except that is EXACTLY what the FAQ says happens, and the dev commentary backs it up. It actually is a THW right up until you take EWP and then it becomes a OHW. That is the entire reason this thread exists.
Seriously (and I mean this non-sarcastically), go through any questions that have come up with regard to the BS and ask if the answer cannot be reached by treating it like a one-handed weapon for all purposes except for who may wield one in one hand without the EWP. I haven't seen one yet. It gets confusing because it must be wielded in two hands, but it's not a two-handed weapon and so does not qualify for two-handed-weapon-type things.
I have gone through them, repeatedly. That's why the thread is here. I disagree that it is clearcut, due to the FAQ wording which contradicts the RAW.
|
So for the non-proficient, a medium sized character wielding a medium bastard sword can only wield it with two hands, yet the same character wielding a small bastard sword treats it as a light weapon because it is listed as one-handed!? That doesn't seem right yet it is RAW.
naw I'd treat a medium wielding it without exotic as 1handed if it was small.
I saw mention of the Two Handed Fighter archetype (the only place it might matter which I can think of).
Now ask yourself: If you are playing this archetype, why would you take the EWP feat?
Because you want to be able to continue fighting one-handed if grappled, carrying an unconscious ally in one hand, hand cut off by a critical hit card, etc.
I think the most logically consistent way to view the FAQ is:
(1) This is not a clarification of existing rules but an additional rule.
(2) When they refer to it as a two-handed weapon, they don't mean it is a Two-Handed Weapon, just that it's a weapon you have to use with two hands.
Seriously (and I mean this non-sarcastically), go through any questions that have come up with regard to the BS and ask if the answer cannot be reached by treating it like a one-handed weapon for all purposes except for who may wield one in one hand without the EWP.I mean this reply just as seriously, and I don't doubt your sincerity about this in any way....
The 'treat it as a two-handed weapon if you lack EWP'...is not in the rules, nor in the BS description.
The leap from 'cannot use a (provably) one-handed weapon in one hand' to 'therefore treat it as a two-handed weapon' is not a leap that is supported by the rules or the BS description, nor is it needed because you can still use a one-handed weapon in two hands without requiring a category shift at all!
This leap of logic is a fallacy, and no matter how commonly believed it remains a fallacy.
I don't care how many people think the world is flat...!
I'm not sure if you're agreeing with me or disagreeing with me here. Me saying "It's a one-handed weapon for every purpose but for determining who may wield it in one hand without the EWP feat" is simply a rewording of "you have to use two hands to wield this one-handed weapon if don't have the EWP feat".
If you are arguing in this thread, regardless of which side (of the 10 or so in the thread so far), then you are proof that the situation needs to be clarified/fixed/erratta'd. Please go to the OP and click FAQ.
Again, none of these are issues. The Bastard Sword is a one-handed weapon. There is no weirdness.Ok, now go back to the FAQ, read it carefully. Then read the thread. The whole thread.
This is has been stated a hundred times so far. It's also been stated a hundred times in response, no it isn't anymore. The FAQ specifically called it out as being a two-handed weapon, not a one-handed weapon. And the dev commentary called it out as a two-handed weapon. Which is where the thread originated.
Two-Handed Fighter without EWP use it with his abilities? Is it a two-handed weapon? No. So, no to the Two-Handed Fighter question. It's no different than wielding a longsword in two hands.
CRB = No, one-handed weapon
FAQ = Yes, two-handed weapon unless you have EWP, then it's one-handed
A cursed hat has nothing to do with anything. That only matters if you assume that, because a nonproficient character treats it as two-handed for determining how it must be wielded, it actually becomes a two-handed weapon. It does not. It stays a one-handed weapon.
Except that is EXACTLY what the FAQ says happens, and the dev commentary backs it up. It actually is a THW right up until you take EWP and then it becomes a OHW. That is the entire reason this thread exists.
I have gone through them, repeatedly. That's why the thread is here. I disagree that it is clearcut, due to the FAQ wording which contradicts the RAW.
Seriously (and I mean this non-sarcastically), go through any questions that have come up with regard to the BS and ask if the answer cannot be reached by treating it like a one-handed weapon for all purposes except for who may wield one in one hand without the EWP. I haven't seen one yet. It gets confusing because it must be wielded in two hands, but it's not a two-handed weapon and so does not qualify for two-handed-weapon-type things.
The Dev commentary doesn't back it up, though. He was specifically discussing the wielding mess. He unequivocally states that it's a one-handed weapon. Then mentions that if you don't have the EWP it's a two-handed weapon for you. So, what seems massively more sensible?
1. It's a one-handed weapon, always has been a one-handed weapon, and always will be a one-handed weapon, no matter who wields it, which feats they have, or any other consideration. Or,
2. It's a one-handed weapon, but only if you have a feat that actually makes it a one-handed weapon. If you don't have the feat, it's really a two-handed weapon for you, meaning it qualifies for all sorts of two-handed weapon things. But, if you find yourself in a situation where you have more training and experience using the weapon, it's actually disadvantageous to you because now you can't make use of all those fancy two-handed benefits because only now does it qualify as a one-handed weapon.
The weapon doesn't magically become something else when you take the feat. Taking the feat provides more options, not fewer. At most, SKR's guilty of inartful wording in the second post you referenced. And again, when understood in the context it was intended (purely referencing one's ability to wield the weapon with one hand), it would barely qualify for that.
The bottom line is, logically, the first option is perfectly sensible and workable and can be reached through the rules, FAQs and Dev comments. The second option is unworkably confusing. What support other than an out of context reading of SKR's post is there for the second option?
I think the FAQ could have been worded better, undoubtedly. But the point is that it is intended to work precisely as I've stated: The only reason for which a BS is not treated like a one-handed weapon is determining how a character without the EWP may wield it, which must be done in two hands.
|
Again though, that brings us back to very weird things if it's a one-handed weapon except when it isn't.
Can a two-handed fighter without EWP use it with his abilities?
What happens when he get's a cursed hat that grants him EWP with it?
These are valid questions, but as I pointed out previously, your FAQ question doesn't address this. That being said, a cursed item that takes away some of your abilities...is what cursed items do. Are you going to complain that a spell caster is no longer able to cast verbal spells when they are in an area of silence? Are you going to complain when a Paladin has a cursed item that changes his alignment away from LG?
I'm not saying this is the way the BS works or should work, but if it did work this way, it really isn't as such a big deal that you're making it out to be.
I can't use a BS one-handed with penalties, but I can use a small BS as a light weapon? Something's off there...
Yeah, it's off because you're doing the off-sized weapons incorrectly. You can only use a small bastard sword as a light weapon if you have the EWP, otherwise, it would be used as a one-handed weapon. In the same fashion, you have to have the EWP to use a large bastard sword, otherwise you can't use a large bastard sword at all.
The list goes on...
It feels like to get what the devs intend, it needs to be errata'd to a two-handed martial weapon with a special ability to be wielded as if it were one-handed with EWP. That clears up MOST of the inconsistencies.
Meh, it doesn't need to be. If you don't take the FAQ out of context, then things become more clear.
|
|
Again, none of these are issues. The Bastard Sword is a one-handed weapon. There is no weirdness.Ok, now go back to the FAQ, read it carefully. Then read the thread. The whole thread.
This is has been stated a hundred times so far. It's also been stated a hundred times in response, no it isn't anymore. The FAQ specifically called it out as being a two-handed weapon, not a one-handed weapon. And the dev commentary called it out as a two-handed weapon. Which is where the thread originated.
Two-Handed Fighter without EWP use it with his abilities? Is it a two-handed weapon? No. So, no to the Two-Handed Fighter question. It's no different than wielding a longsword in two hands.
CRB = No, one-handed weapon
FAQ = Yes, two-handed weapon unless you have EWP, then it's one-handed
A cursed hat has nothing to do with anything. That only matters if you assume that, because a nonproficient character treats it as two-handed for determining how it must be wielded, it actually becomes a two-handed weapon. It does not. It stays a one-handed weapon.
Except that is EXACTLY what the FAQ says happens, and the dev commentary backs it up. It actually is a THW right up until you take EWP and then it becomes a OHW. That is the entire reason this thread exists.
I have gone through them, repeatedly. That's why the thread is here. I disagree that it is clearcut, due to the FAQ wording which contradicts the RAW.
Seriously (and I mean this non-sarcastically), go through any questions that have come up with regard to the BS and ask if the answer cannot be reached by treating it like a one-handed weapon for all purposes except for who may wield one in one hand without the EWP. I haven't seen one yet. It gets confusing because it must be wielded in two hands, but it's not a two-handed weapon and so does not qualify for two-handed-weapon-type things.
Again, stop reading the FAQ out of context and it becomes less of a problem.
|
|
If you are arguing in this thread, regardless of which side (of the 10 or so in the thread so far), then you are proof that the situation needs to be clarified/fixed/erratta'd. Please go to the OP and click FAQ.
I will not hit the FAQ button because the answer you desire cannot be derived from the question you asked.
|
|
The Bastard Sword is, and always has been, a one-handed weapon.This is an incorrect statement. The FAQ clarifies that it is a two-handed weapon.
If it didn't, this thread wouldn't be here.
Also, you seem to have changed your mind in the last few months.
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.
I have not "changed my mind", nor is this a matter of opinion. The FAQ now states that the Bastard Sword is a two-handed weapon. Sean K Reynolds now states that the Bastard Sword is a two-handed weapon. This is not only a divergence from the way things have always been (in Pathfinder), it's repeating exactly what happened with the 3.5 FAQ.
Fact. Not opinion.
|
|
The Bastard Sword is, and always has been, a one-handed weapon.This is an incorrect statement. The FAQ clarifies that it is a two-handed weapon.
If it didn't, this thread wouldn't be here.
Also, you seem to have changed your mind in the last few months.
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.I have not "changed my mind", nor is this a matter of opinion. The FAQ now states that the Bastard Sword is a two-handed weapon. Sean K Reynolds now states that the Bastard Sword is a two-handed weapon. This is not only a divergence from the way things have always been (in Pathfinder), it's repeating exactly what happened with the 3.5 FAQ.
Fact. Not opinion.
Stop taking SKR's and the FAQ's language out of context.
And yes, errata'ing it to be a two-handed weapon that can be wielded in one hand with the EWP feat would clear up many inconsistencies (though it would still create questions about when two-handed weapon abilities could be applied).
Similarly, confirming that it is a one-handed weapon for all purposes except for if a person may use it in one hand without the EWP does the same. Except there wouldn't be any questions about two-handed weapon abilities.
Either could satisfy most people's needs. But since it's always worked like the latter, why change it to the former? If the only thing causing consternation at this point is some ambiguous wording, clean up the ambiguous wording by making an unequivocal statement along the lines of "But at all times, the weapons remains a one-handed weapon" after the bit about needing two hands to wield it without the feat.
|
|
If the only thing causing consternation at this point is some ambiguous wording, clean up the ambiguous wording by making an unequivocal statement along the lines of "But at all times, the weapons remains a one-handed weapon" after the bit about needing two hands to wield it without the feat.
Yes. We're on the same page. Now, did you click the FAQ?
Whether it is a one-handed weapon or a two-handed weapon at its base matters for certain mechanics. First and foremost, one-handed weapons have 5 HP while two-handers have 10 HP. How much HP does a Bastard Sword have and why? The CRB lists it under one-handed weapons but the FAQ says you can't wield it one-handed without EWP because you can't wield two-handed weapons (like a Greatsword) one-handed, implying a situation such as with the Lance; a two-handed weapon in which certain circumstance (having EWP) lets you one-hand it. Moreover, certain class abilities require you specifically use a two-handed weapon and a one-handed weapon wielded in two hands doesn't count. Other abilities require you to wield a one-handed weapon and a two-handed weapon wielded in one hand doesn't count. If it's a one-handed weapon and without EWP, you must wield it in two hands like a Longsword being wielded in two hands, then one size step-down makes it a light weapon for you which must be wielded... how? In two hands, but it's still a light weapon? As a one-handed weapon but it doesn't count as light for TWF? Can I step it down another level and wield a Tiny Bastard Sword? Jotungrip allows you to wield a 2-h weapon in one hand. Is the Bastard Sword a 2-h weapon or a one-handed weapon that you must wield two-handed unless you have EWP? Jotungrip works in place of EWP in the first case, but not in the second. Shield of Swings requires you use a 2-h weapon (1-h weapon in 2 hands doesn't count). Bone and Bronze can only be used to make one-handed weapons; can you have a Bone Bastard Sword because it's a light weapon or no because it's a 2-h weapon? Alchemical Silver costs +90 gold for a one-handed weapon and +180 gold for a 2-h weapon. How much does a Silver Bastard Sword costs. What about crafting in general? DC for an exotic weapon is 18 but for a martial weapon is 15. Is the BS really an exotic weapon at its base or it is a martial weapon at its base?
As I've said, all of these are non-issues if you treat it like a one-handed weapon, just as it's written in the CRB. If the only purpose for which the BS is not treated like a one-handed weapon is determining how many hands a person without the EWP feat has to use to wield a BS, none of these are questions the answers to which aren't immediately obvious.
The Bastard Sword is, and always has been, a one-handed weapon.This is an incorrect statement. The FAQ clarifies that it is a two-handed weapon.
If it didn't, this thread wouldn't be here.
Also, you seem to have changed your mind in the last few months.
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.I have not "changed my mind", nor is this a matter of opinion. The FAQ now states that the Bastard Sword is a two-handed weapon. Sean K Reynolds now states that the Bastard Sword is a two-handed weapon. This is not only a divergence from the way things have always been (in Pathfinder), it's repeating exactly what happened with the 3.5 FAQ.
Fact. Not opinion.
It's really immaterial to the larger point. All I was saying is that your opinion on the reading of the FAQ has changed. Back right after it was released, you said that the difference between 3.5 treatment and PF treatment was that in PF, the BS remained a one-handed weapon, while 3.5 changed them into two-handed weapons. It was relevant because you disagreed with looking to 3.5 to help interpret rules language that hasn't changed. Then you disagreed with my statement that they've always one-handed weapons in PF based upon the FAQ.
And none of this changes the fact that SKR's unambiguous statement was "A bastard sword is a one-handed exotic melee weapon, just like it's listed on the table." The second "contradictory" statement looks far less contradictory when taken in context, particular with respect to the questions he was responding to: "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?"; and, "Can I use it one hand as an improvised weapon?". Which is ultimately Hangar's point. This is far less confusing and ambiguous when taken in the original context.
As I've said, all of these are non-issues...It was in response to Skull's confusion as to why a distinction between the two is important. Yes, they could clarify them all by changing the FAQ and saying it has nothing to do with two-handed weapons, re-affirming that it's a one-handed weapon always with a specific restriction on how it may be wielded. Or, they could come back and say that they really did intend it to be more of a two-hander from the very beginning and the place in the CRB is the inelegant wording and should be errata'ed. That's the entire point of the FAQ and the same process we went through in clarifying the contradiction between Half-Breeds not qualifying for racial archetypes while Racial Heritage permitting them. Some people, however, don't seem to be able to wrap their minds around that, however; all the debate about which method is better is mere hypothesis and speculation for the benefit of the Dev team to help come to their decision as to which side it will fall on. We're not debating whether or not there is a contradiction or, at the very least, we're getting "the truth" but not "the whole truth". It may even involve the infamous "unwritten rules". Answers are required; that matter is not under question as Skull, Hanger, and certain others presume. The debate is over which answers would be best and, again, it's all merely talking points and different perspectives for the dev team to take into consideration or not at their discretion. But the way these certain individuals would put it, there's no decision for the dev team to make and the idea of even requesting a clarification is ridiculous and a waste of time. This position is clearly and unambiguously wrong and it's important that newcomers to the discussion not be lulled into a false belief that this is a trivial discussion at hand because of the disingenuous words of a vocal minority.
While the FAQ itself could be worded more clearly, I don't think it's really necessary. The CRB is clear on the status of the weapon. A large bit of what causes confusion is the reference to SKR's second post. But that is legitimately less confusing when the entire post (and the questions to which he was responding - which I provided above) are included. He was answering questions about circumstances in which bonuses/abilities based upon wielding the weapon in one hand might apply, to which he responded, to paraphrase, "If you don't have the EWP, then the BS might as well be a greatsword to you."
And the whole point of the FAQ was to address whether characters without the EWP could wield BS in one hand while taking the -4 nonproficiency penalty or whether they couldn't wield them in one hand at all. The answer is you cannot wield it at all. If you don't have the EWP, it might as well be a greatsword for you. But, it's still a one-handed weapon. If they wanted to newly be treated as a two-handed weapon, they would have explained an impending errata, because not only would it have to be moved out of the one-handed category, but the exotic category as well.
The reason I addressed the underlying issues, though, is because people are arguing about it. Those issues are really simply resolved - treat it how it's listed (and how SKR explicitly said to treat it directly after the FAQ was released): as a one-handed weapon. Besides, if it's intended to be a two-handed martial weapon, what proficiency is necessary to wield it?
Seems fairly clear to me. One-handed. The FAQs aren't trying to say it's a Two-Handed Weapon. They're saying that to the non-proficient user it has all the disadvantages of a two-handed weapon (and none of the advantages).Because there is nothing in the CRB about the Bastard Sword not being able to be used non-proficient with a -4 penalty. Only via the FAQ, and it's the only weapon in the book that has that restriction. That means it doesn't follow the book, and uses a rule that's not in the book. The FAQ then explains that it's because it's really a two-handed weapon. If that's the case, it should be errata'd to be a two-handed weapon (removing it from Magus Black Blade list, increasing it's HP, etc).
Kazaan, this post (and others like it) is why I'm addressing the issues. Because it really seems like mdt wants to relitigate the whole "Can you one-hand a BS without the EWP if you take the nonproficiency penalty" issue that was the entire purpose of the FAQ.
EDIT: It's why I keep reinforcing the point that the intent is to treat it like a one-handed weapon for every reason except for determining who may wield it without the EWP. Because all of the questions go away. Every one of them. If it's a two-handed martial weapon, Amiri is an illegal build. If it becomes a one-handed weapon when you take the feat, you have a paradoxical situation where doing something that is intended to increase options in actuality reduces them. If it's uniformly a one-handed weapon for all purposes other than wielding without the feat, every single one of the issues you raised has a simple answer: treat just like you would any other one-handed weapon. However, if you're asking about how the weapon may be wielded without the feat, pretend it's a greatsword. The only quirk is sizing down, when treating it like a greatsword would imply that you could wield it one more category lower. But again, that's not actually an issue because it's not actually a greatsword (a medium creature cannot wield a tiny one-handed weapon).
I fully understand that and I'm not claiming that using a weapon in two hands makes it a two handed weapon. A long sword is one handed. It can be used with either one or two hands. A bastard sword is a one handed weapon. Without EWP, it cannot be wielded one handed. You must use two hands. If you must (must mind, you not can) use a weapon in two hands, what would you treat the weapon as?If you were under a curse that made you unable to wield any weapon in only one hand, so that in order to use any weapon you must use it in two hands, would that mean that you treat a longsword as if it were a two-handed weapon? Or as a one-handed weapon being used two-handed?
Would that mean you use a dagger as if it were a two-handed weapon? Including 1.5 x Str bonus, 3:1 ratio for Power Attack, Overhand Chop? Or would it simply be a light weapon being used two-handed (for no benefit)?
No. You are just under a curse.
Kazaan, this post (and others like it) is why I'm addressing the issues. Because it really seems like mdt wants to relitigate the whole "Can you one-hand a BS without the EWP if you take the nonproficiency penalty" issue that was the entire purpose of the FAQ.
I find it highly insulting that people keep putting words in my mouth, and telling other people what my motives are. Get over yourself. You are not a Vulcan mind reader.
I have stated my purpose, the FAQ contradicts the RAW, and SKR's comments reinforce that contradiction.
I'd be freaking thrilled if they came back and said 'Hey, we need to errata this to clear it up, it's a two-handed martial, if you have a feat you can use it as if it's a one handed weapon' as that would resolve the conflicts, and stop the stupidity of a one-handed weapon you can't use one-handed without a feat, unless it's one size smaller in which case it's a light weapon.
I will say it again. I DO NOT CARE HOW THEY RESOLVE IT, just resolve it so the FAQ DOES NOT CONTRADICT RAW.
|
|
I've always ruled it depends on how you're wielding the weapon, not if it's classified as a two handed or one handed weapon.
If you two hand a long sword, it's -1/+3
Similarly you know the damage from strenght goes from x1 to x1.5 when you two hand it, it's illogical not to apply the two handed power attack to how you are wielding it, rather than "what category" weapon it is unless it's a prohibited weapon...
I've always ruled it depends on how you're wielding the weapon, not if it's classified as a two handed or one handed weapon.
If you two hand a long sword, it's -1/+3
Similarly you know the damage from strenght goes from x1 to x1.5 when you two hand it, it's illogical not to apply the two handed power attack to how you are wielding it, rather than "what category" weapon it is unless it's a prohibited weapon...
Except that class features, by raw, work or don't work based on it's category (light, one-handed, two-handed). Every weapon has to be one and only one category. If it's not, then wierd things happen. Make it a two weapon, I'm fine with that. Errata the heck out of it and make it a one-handed that follows the rules. But right now after the FAQ it's a one-ish handed that's sort of a two-ish handed that could work for class features unless you have too much training in which case it quits working for you unless you get amnesia then it does again.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Ha! First time I've ever had an apology deleted. I really must be a jerk.
I'd be freaking thrilled if they came back and said 'Hey, we need to errata this to clear it up, it's a two-handed martial, if you have a feat you can use it as if it's a one handed weapon' as that would resolve the conflicts, and stop the stupidity of a one-handed weapon you can't use one-handed without a feat, unless it's one size smaller in which case it's a light weapon.
I will say it again. I DO NOT CARE HOW THEY RESOLVE IT, just resolve it so the FAQ DOES NOT CONTRADICT RAW.
These two statements do not jibe. Apparently, you do care how they resolve it.
They can certainly change how these things work via errata or however else they choose to do it. But it is not "stupidity" to say the BS is, as of this moment (and frankly, before the FAQ came out), a one-handed weapon that cannot be used in one hand without the feat. That was expressly the purpose of the weapon. The point of this FAQ was to come out and say exactly that, even if the wording came out poorly. If it were a two-handed weapon, and intended to be, Amiri couldn't use an oversized one. The FAQ unequivocally states you must have the feat to use an appropriately sized one in one hand.
So, you do care. And I am posting to demonstrate why the answer intended this whole time ought to be the one that continues to be true, whether that requires rewording or not.
Except that class features, by raw, work or don't work based on it's category (light, one-handed, two-handed). Every weapon has to be one and only one category. If it's not, then wierd things happen. Make it a two weapon, I'm fine with that. Errata the heck out of it and make it a one-handed that follows the rules. But right now after the FAQ it's a one-ish handed that's sort of a two-ish handed that could work for class features unless you have too much training in which case it quits working for you unless you get amnesia then it does again.I've always ruled it depends on how you're wielding the weapon, not if it's classified as a two handed or one handed weapon.
If you two hand a long sword, it's -1/+3
Similarly you know the damage from strenght goes from x1 to x1.5 when you two hand it, it's illogical not to apply the two handed power attack to how you are wielding it, rather than "what category" weapon it is unless it's a prohibited weapon...
You don't have to "errata the heck out of it" to make it a one-handed weapon that follows the rules. Making it a two-handed martial weapon would require errata, and it would require a redesign of an iconic character. Literally the only thing that might possibly even need to change to make it work as it is intended to work now, within the rules, is to add to the FAQ a line as simple as: These weapons are and remain one-handed weapons, whether you have the EWP feat or not.
That means you still must have the feat to one-hand them (so no one-handing with the nonproficiency penalty, just like they intend), Amiri still functions as designed, and any of these other issues involving class abilities, feats, etc. are easily resolved by answering a simple question: does said ability/feat/whatever apply to one-handed weapons? If yes, then it applies to BS. If no, then it does not.
Ok I skipped several pages and I know you guys are trying to reach a RAW conclusion not a house rule, but here's my 2 cp on how this could be resolved. This is what I would rewrite Bastard Sword to.
Make it a martial weapon in the 2-handed category. Option to use one handed with EWP.
Done. Simple.
Yes they can, because the Bastard Sword is one of those quirky weapons that BOTH are true, depending on the situation. It's a hand and a half sword, which means it goes both ways depending on the situation. It's placement on the weapon table is Exotic Weapon, One-Handed. However it's supplementary text also reveals that it slumms as a martial weapon for those two handed buffons who don't have the skill to handle her properly. Or for those who DO have the skill but are more concerned with meeting out damage than taking a shield option to protect themselves.The FAQ states that the Bastard Sword is a 2-handed weapon. Thus, because the Bastard Sword is a *base* 2-handed weapon then certain feats and abilities are used.
The CRB states that the Bastard Sword is a 1-handed weapon. Thus, because the Bastard Sword is a *base* 1-handed weapon then other feats and abilities are used.
Both cannot be true.
LazarX,
No, they cannot both be true. If it is a 2-handed weapon then it can be used with abilities that require a 2-handed weapon. If it is a 1-handed weapon that can be used 2-handed then it cannot.
If it is a 1-handed weapon then it can be used with abilities that require a 1-handed weapon. If it is a 2-handed weapon that can be used 1-handed then it cannot be used with abilities that require a 1-handed weapon.
Now, if they ever EVER make the statement that, except for hitpoints, you ignore the category in favor of the number of hands on the weapon (something I do in my home games) then almost all of this becomes a non-issue.
However, as it stands, right now, it matters if this is a 2-handed or 1-handed weapon. The FAQ states it is a 2-handed weapon that becomes a 1-handed weapon with EWP, the CRB states it is a 1-handed weapon that becomes a 2-handed weapon without EWP. Which is it?
- Gauss
I'd be freaking thrilled if they came back and said 'Hey, we need to errata this to clear it up, it's a two-handed martial, if you have a feat you can use it as if it's a one handed weapon'
Definitely this is what should happen.
However, as it stands, right now, it matters if this is a 2-handed or 1-handed weapon. The FAQ states it is a 2-handed weapon that becomes a 1-handed weapon with EWP, the CRB states it is a 1-handed weapon that becomes a 2-handed weapon without EWP. Which is it?
- Gauss
Neither is true. Either it is a two-handed weapon that is able to be wielded in one hand with the EWP feat, or it is a one-handed weapon that can only be wielded in two hands without the EWP feat. In neither case would it become the other.
I know it may seem ticky-tack, but the implications here matter.
Definitely this is what should happen.
I'd be freaking thrilled if they came back and said 'Hey, we need to errata this to clear it up, it's a two-handed martial, if you have a feat you can use it as if it's a one handed weapon'
Disagree, for all the reasons that were discussed ad nauseam just before the FAQ came out.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
It is a big ass sword. It should have hp and hardness of a 2 hand category weapon and be usable with all the 2 hander feats/class abilities/rules for sure.
No one should be able to swing a bastard sword 1 handed without ewp, -4 penalty is not enough, thats what the CRB explicitly calls out even if it's not on the weapon table and can be mistaken for flavor text. That was obviously the intent as written and the FAQ shows that is the way they still want it.
The devs just haven't been precise enough with the language they used, and they probably want to try to fix this without errata but it can't be avoided.
Disagree, for all the reasons that were discussed ad nauseam just before the FAQ came out.Definitely this is what should happen.
I'd be freaking thrilled if they came back and said 'Hey, we need to errata this to clear it up, it's a two-handed martial, if you have a feat you can use it as if it's a one handed weapon'
What were the reasons?