| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
This appeared on 10/28/12
Bastard Sword: Is this a one-handed weapon or a two-handed weapon?
A bastard sword is a one-handed weapon (although for some rules it blurs the line between a one-handed and a two-handed weapon).The physical properties of a bastard sword are that of a one-handed weapon. For example, its hardness, hit points, ability to be crafted out of special materials, category for using the Craft skill, effect of alchemical silver, and so on, are all that of a one-handed weapon.
For class abilities, feats, and other rule elements that vary based on or specifically depend on wielding a one-handed weapon, a two-handed weapon, or a one-handed weapon with two hands, the bastard sword counts as however many hands you are using to wield it.
Emphasis mine. This would seem to supercede this entry from 7/19/13:
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."
When you wield it one hand, it should be a one-handed weapon, in this case, one in which you lack proficiency.
To me it looks like the only way to avoid seeing a contradiction is if you read
A bastard sword is about 4 feet in length, making it too large to use in one hand without special training; thus, it is an exotic weapon.
... but stop before you get to the word "thus." I think either the second entry I quoted needs to be revised, or the bastard sword needs to have the semicolon changed to a period and the word "thus" removed.
Let's keep this friendly and to the point. Please FAQ if you agree there is a seeming contradiction. I would like a harmonization of these two entries; another round of tortured textual analysis is probably not helpful.
A comment from the staff on how the new FAQ item affects the other item would be appreciated. Gracias!
Hey, it's time for the monthly thread about bastards swords (etc.) being wielded in one hand without proficiency again!
The two FAQs are not in contradiction with each other. You cannot wield an appropriately-sized bastard sword in one hand without the feat. When you wield a bastard sword two-handed, treat it as a two-handed weapon. When you are wielding a bastard sword one-handed, treat it as a one-handed weapon.
I guess there may be a corner case of some feat or ability that depends on wielding a one-handed weapon with two hands that doesn't work with a two-handed weapon, but I can't think of one.
I'm assuming the most recent one reflects the current position. I'm just asking for a clarification. As I said, they can't both be true, and the new entry on 10/28/13 changes the assumptions of the previous discussion.
You cannot wield an appropriately-sized bastard sword in one hand without the feat.
Just for clarification, what is the precise piece of text from which you are drawing that conclusion? Before it was argued that you couldn't because the bastard sword was, in some respects, a two-handed weapon, but the new entry says that when used one-handed, it is a one-handed weapon. You can, in fact, wield a one-handed weapon in one hand.
Don't stop before the "thus." Then it makes sense. You cannot wield it one-handed without EWP, even if you take a -4 penalty. If you have EWP then treat it as the kind of weapon which corresponds to the number of hands you have on it.
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.
Have special training == wield Bastard Sword in one hand.
For class abilities, feats, and other rule elements that vary based on or specifically depend on wielding a one-handed weapon, a two-handed weapon, or a one-handed weapon with two hands, the bastard sword counts as however many hands you are using to wield it.
The bastard sword qualifies as an X handed weapon where X is equal to the number of hands you use to wield it (with the assumption the user has two hands maximum).
Two statements, not related aside from the weapon in question (bastard sword).
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The bottom line is that the FAQs mean this:
To wield a Bastard Sword in one hand at all, you have to have the EWP feat.
For purposes associated with properties of the actual weapon itself (crafting DCs, hit points, costs of materials, etc.), it is a one-handed exotic weapon.
For purposes associated with abilities and how they interact with weapons, the weapon is treated as being the type of weapon that equals the number of hands with which you are wielding it, or whatever would be most advantageous - whether that's one-handed or two-handed.
Note though that the weapons always retains it's actual classification as a one-handed exotic weapon. That never changes. It simply can count for other things depending on how you're wielding it.
The FAQs work together just fine.
Obligatory comment disavowing any intent or desire to reignite Bastard Sword debate.
That said, I do see where the OP is coming from.
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.)
This section seems to imply that a bastard sword is a two-handed weapon, but can be wielded as a one-handed weapon with EWP. It has been firmly established that the reverse is true: the bastard sword is a one-handed weapon, but can be wielded as a two handed weapon with MWP.
When one section of a rules entity implies something, and another section states it outright, the latter wins out. The "Exotic Weapons and Hands" FAQ doesn't supersede or invalidate the "Bastard Sword" FAQ, but it still runs the risk of confusing anyone linked directly to Exotic Weapons ruling who hasn't scanned the entire document.
Rewriting a sentence or two in the former entry would serve to prevent future confusion:
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 a one-handed exotic weapon that can be wielded in two hands if you are proficient with martial weapons. Without special training in exotic weapons, however, 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.)
I'm just looking for something that says the bastard sword is an exception to the rule that you can wield a one-handed weapon in one hand. I'm not asking it to be martial, just a one-handed weapon. The claim in the second entry that the bastard sword is an exception to the usual rules only applies when it is a two-handed weapon; new FAQ entry says that when it is wielded in one hand it is a ONE-handed weapon.
There is no way to make it (1) count as a two-handed weapon and (2) wield it in one hand.
Yes?
In the history of PF, I'm sure this scenario has happened at m most 5 times.
Sure. But it's all fun and games until the shield specialist paladin runs into a +1 brilliant energy bastard sword.
I'm just looking for something that says the bastard sword is an exception to the rule that you can wield a one-handed weapon in one hand. I'm not asking it to be martial, just a one-handed weapon. The claim in the second entry that the bastard sword is an exception to the usual rules only applies when it is a two-handed weapon; new FAQ entry says that when it is wielded in one hand it is a ONE-handed weapon.
I'm not entirely sure what you're asking. It's always a one-handed weapon. But the only way you can actually wield it in one hand is if you have the EWP or a class ability like Jotungrip.
The prior FAQ hasn't changed. Though there's some wonky wording in there, it's still a one-handed exotic weapon. But unlike other exotic weapons, you can't just take the nonproficiency penalty and wield it in one hand.
It is saying that when you wield it in one hand that it counts as a one handed weapon for the purpose of thingd like power attack and so one. The same goes for when you wield it two handed. However there is nothing saying you can wield it in one hand without the EWP feat/special training.
|
A medium size creature counts a large BS as a two-handed weapon.
According to the latest FAQ, when you wield a BS (of any size) in two hands it counts as a two-handed weapon.
When you wield a BS (of any size) in two hands you wield it as a martial weapon.
Therefore, a medium creature wields a large BS as if it were a two-handed martial weapon. No EWP needed.
Sure. But it's all fun and games until the shield specialist paladin runs into a +1 brilliant energy bastard sword.
Then he puts his shield away when he wants to wield it, and/or spends a feat or retrains a feat during his next level up or downtime opportunity. Solved!
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
A medium size creature counts a large BS as a two-handed weapon.
According to the latest FAQ, when you wield a BS (of any size) in two hands it counts as a two-handed weapon.
When you wield a BS (of any size) in two hands you wield it as a martial weapon.
Therefore, a medium creature wields a large BS as if it were a two-handed martial weapon. No EWP needed.
Source please?
I believe for you to wield a normally one handed large weapon in both hands, it should be wield-able in one hand first. Without EWP, you could never wield it one-handed. Thus you couldn't wield it two handed.
My reasoning is like this,
You can't wield a greatsword one handed, so you can't wield a large one with two hands. The opposite is what your essentially saying.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
A medium size creature counts a large BS as a two-handed weapon.
According to the latest FAQ, when you wield a BS (of any size) in two hands it counts as a two-handed weapon.
When you wield a BS (of any size) in two hands you wield it as a martial weapon.
Therefore, a medium creature wields a large BS as if it were a two-handed martial weapon. No EWP needed.
This is not accurate.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
A medium size creature counts a large BS as a two-handed weapon.
According to the latest FAQ, when you wield a BS (of any size) in two hands it counts as a two-handed weapon.
When you wield a BS (of any size) in two hands you wield it as a martial weapon.
Therefore, a medium creature wields a large BS as if it were a two-handed martial weapon. No EWP needed.
That is not correct Malachi. EWP is needed to wield a large BS. This came up in our debate before the devs made the offical ruling and I showed you more than one dev quote that showed the barbarian need EWP to use the large BS.
I thought bastard swords were pretty simple. What's the confusion? It's a two-handed weapon that you can wield in one hand if you have the feat. What am I missing?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I thought bastard swords were pretty simple. What's the confusion? It's a two-handed weapon that you can wield in one hand if you have the feat. What am I missing?
In a nutshell, Malachi claims that a bastard sword of any size, not just your own, is considered a martial weapon when wielded two-handed.
Others (including myself) are of the opinion that the "One Handed = Exotic / Two Handed = Martial" equation is valid for Bastard Swords designed for your own size, and is subject to the same scaling rules as the usual handedness of weapons.
Oh, and the Bastard Sword is not a 'two-handed weapon that you can wield in one hand with EWP'. For all design purposes regarding cost, hardness, and the like it is a one handed weapon.
Alright, I can see the hardness/hp confusion--but handedness? It's there in the text.
|
|
Source please?A medium size creature counts a large BS as a two-handed weapon.
According to the latest FAQ, when you wield a BS (of any size) in two hands it counts as a two-handed weapon.
When you wield a BS (of any size) in two hands you wield it as a martial weapon.
Therefore, a medium creature wields a large BS as if it were a two-handed martial weapon. No EWP needed.
The latest FAQ.
I believe for you to wield a normally one handed large weapon in both hands, it should be wield-able in one hand first.
There is no such rule. If there is, quote it. You made it up.
Without EWP, you could never wield it one-handed. Thus you couldn't wield it two handed.
The rules for using weapons of inappropriate size use the weapon's original category (light/1H/2H) as a base. There is absolutely no rule about using proficiency (or lack of such) as the base.
My reasoning is like this,
You can't wield a greatsword one handed, so you can't wield a large one with two hands. The opposite is what your essentially saying.
A greatsword is a 2H weapon, so a medium creature cannot use a large one.
However, as the latest FAQ confirms, the BS is a 1H weapon, and a medium creature can use a large one.
|
|
This is not accurate.A medium size creature counts a large BS as a two-handed weapon.
According to the latest FAQ, when you wield a BS (of any size) in two hands it counts as a two-handed weapon.
When you wield a BS (of any size) in two hands you wield it as a martial weapon.
Therefore, a medium creature wields a large BS as if it were a two-handed martial weapon. No EWP needed.
It is the inevitable consequence of the latest FAQ combined with the RAW for weapon category, weapon size and the ability of bastard swords to be wielded as martial weapons when used in two hands.
|
|
That is not correct Malachi. EWP is needed to wield a large BS. This came up in our debate before the devs made the offical ruling and I showed you more than one dev quote that showed the barbarian need EWP to use the large BS.A medium size creature counts a large BS as a two-handed weapon.
According to the latest FAQ, when you wield a BS (of any size) in two hands it counts as a two-handed weapon.
When you wield a BS (of any size) in two hands you wield it as a martial weapon.
Therefore, a medium creature wields a large BS as if it were a two-handed martial weapon. No EWP needed.
Yes, you did.
This was based on the previous FAQ which said that you can't use a large BS in two hands because you can't use a large 2H weapon, implying that a medium BS is a 2H weapon.
The latest FAQ makes clear that it is a 1H weapon, and also allows the wielder to treat it as a 2H weapon when using it in two hands.
Since a large BS is already a 2H weapon for a medium creature, treating it as a 2H weapon changes nothing: it's a 2H weapon for you!
And since bastard swords used in two hands are used as martial weapons, EWP is redundant.
|
|
In a nutshell, Malachi claims that a bastard sword of any size, not just your own, is considered a martial weapon when wielded two-handed.
Others (including myself) are of the opinion that the "One Handed = Exotic / Two Handed = Martial" equation is valid for Bastard Swords designed for your own size, and is subject to the same scaling rules as the usual handedness of weapons.
Interesting opinion, but not supported by rules.
Many weapons have rules in their descriptions, or have special qualities that are described in their own section:-
* shuriken may be drawn as a free action. There are no rules which alter this ability if the weapon is of inappropriate size.
* reach weapons have 10-foot reach. There are no rules which alter this ability if the weapon is of inappropriate size.
* bastard swords used two-handed are used as martial weapons. There are no rules which alter this ability if the weapon is of inappropriate size.
* double weapons cannot use the 'double' quality if used in only one hand. There are no rules which alter this ability if the weapon is of inappropriate size.
In short, there is no rule which states that special qualities scale with size.
Owner - D20 Hobbies
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Others (including myself) are of the opinion that the "One Handed = Exotic / Two Handed = Martial" equation is valid for Bastard Swords designed for your own size, and is subject to the same scaling rules as the usual handedness of weapons.Interesting opinion, but not supported by rules.
* shuriken may be drawn as a free action. There are no rules which alter this ability if the weapon is of inappropriate size.
* reach weapons have 10-foot reach. There are no rules which alter this ability if the weapon is of inappropriate size.
* bastard swords used two-handed are used as martial weapons. There are no rules which alter this ability if the weapon is of inappropriate size.
* double weapons cannot use the 'double' quality if used in only one hand. There are no rules which alter this ability if the weapon is of inappropriate size.
You are doing a very pedantic reading of the rules, and requiring a rule for everything to be spelled out.
The rules are not written that way.
It doesn't make any sense that a Large Shuriken should be as easily drawn as an appropriately sized weapon. At minimum it goes from requiring one hand to draw to requiring two hands. While true there isn't a rule spelling out that this takes longer, it should be more difficult.
A tiny reach weapon shouldn't have reach in a medium hands. Not having a rule against it doesn't mean it is allowed.
Bastard Sword is abundantly clear you need the EWP of you can't consider it one handed regardless of how many hands the rules requires you to use to wield that inappropriate sized version.
Double requires two hands, but the rules don't explicitly state as much. It is pretty clear the meaning of the words.
To make it simple, think of a normal bastard sword as a large one handed weapon already. To weild it with one hand u need the feat. When it goes 1 step further, count a large bastard sword as one size larger than large.
Think of it that way and it'll all make sense.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
From The Rules FAQ, and How to Use It:
Should I put "FAQ request" or “Designer response needed” in my post or thread?
No.
Doing so suggests that your post or thread is more “worthy” of staff attention than someone else’s thread which doesn’t include this text.
Also, because having more FAQ clicks doesn’t make a thread more likely to be answered, doing this to encourage more FAQ clicks doesn’t help you.
Finally, most people insisting they need a designer or developer to weigh in with an official answer are in a situation where they’re disagreeing with the GM or another player and one side refuses to budge unless they get an official response from Paizo, and Paizo doesn’t want to encourage that sort of heavy-handedness.
Thread renamed.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
That is not correct Malachi. EWP is needed to wield a large BS. This came up in our debate before the devs made the offical ruling and I showed you more than one dev quote that showed the barbarian need EWP to use the large BS.A medium size creature counts a large BS as a two-handed weapon.
According to the latest FAQ, when you wield a BS (of any size) in two hands it counts as a two-handed weapon.
When you wield a BS (of any size) in two hands you wield it as a martial weapon.
Therefore, a medium creature wields a large BS as if it were a two-handed martial weapon. No EWP needed.
Yes, you did.
This was based on the previous FAQ which said that you can't use a large BS in two hands because you can't use a large 2H weapon, implying that a medium BS is a 2H weapon.
The latest FAQ makes clear that it is a 1H weapon, and also allows the wielder to treat it as a 2H weapon when using it in two hands.
Since a large BS is already a 2H weapon for a medium creature, treating it as a 2H weapon changes nothing: it's a 2H weapon for you!
And since bastard swords used in two hands are used as martial weapons, EWP is redundant.
If you don't have EWP it is treated as a two-handed weapon, not a one handed weapom.<---I think we can agree here.
Therefore it if it already a two handed weapon, then a larger one would not be able to be wielded.
My question is this-->Are you arguing out of spite because you don't like the ruling or do you really think that if this was FAQ'd the devs would take your position?
You cannot wield an appropriately-sized bastard sword in one hand without the feat.Just for clarification, what is the precise piece of text from which you are drawing that conclusion? Before it was argued that you couldn't because the bastard sword was, in some respects, a two-handed weapon, but the new entry says that when used one-handed, it is a one-handed weapon. You can, in fact, wield a one-handed weapon in one hand.
Look at your post, and read the second quote block. That FAQ answers the question in completely unambiguous language.
"No," it says. In its own separate paragraph. At this point, continuing to argue the point is being argumentative purely for its own sake.
Houserule it if you want in your own game, but accept that you're wrong and that's not a bad thing to be. Just because you're wrong doesn't mean you've failed.
A medium size creature counts a large BS as a two-handed weapon.
According to the latest FAQ, when you wield a BS (of any size) in two hands it counts as a two-handed weapon.
When you wield a BS (of any size) in two hands you wield it as a martial weapon.
Therefore, a medium creature wields a large BS as if it were a two-handed martial weapon. No EWP needed.
A medium creature wields a large bastard sword as if it were a large two-handed weapon, i.e. Not at all, without a special ability allowing it to wield larger than normal weapons.
From The Rules FAQ, and How to Use It:
Should I put "FAQ request" or “Designer response needed” in my post or thread?
No.
Doing so suggests that your post or thread is more “worthy” of staff attention than someone else’s thread which doesn’t include this text.
Also, because having more FAQ clicks doesn’t make a thread more likely to be answered, doing this to encourage more FAQ clicks doesn’t help you.
Finally, most people insisting they need a designer or developer to weigh in with an official answer are in a situation where they’re disagreeing with the GM or another player and one side refuses to budge unless they get an official response from Paizo, and Paizo doesn’t want to encourage that sort of heavy-handedness.Thread renamed.
My bad.
I am just interested in a harmonization of the two rulings, preferably based on text of the rulebook.
I don't even know how to talk about Large bastard swords without first determining if the bastard sword is, really and truly, a one-handed exotic weapon.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
A medium creature wields a large bastard sword as if it were a large two-handed weapon, i.e. Not at all, without a special ability allowing it to wield larger than normal weapons.A large Bastard Sword is a large one-handed weapon; thus, it is treated as a two-handed weapon for a medium creature and you require EWP(Bastard Sword) to wield it as such. If you lack EWP for it, it is treated as a two-handed weapon which, after size step-up, is unwieldable. This is what the Barbarian iconic, Amiri, wields; a Large Bastard Sword and she uses EWP for it.
Right, that's the only way that works. Amiri is pretty cool the way she has an actual explanation for having a OMGHUGESWORD.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I'm pretty sure that, according to the current state of the FAQ, a Medium character can wield a Large bastard sword as a martial weapon.
1. It is a one-handed exotic weapon. A Large one-handed weapon can be wielded in two hands, at a -2 penalty.
2. A Medium bastard sword wielded in one hand is still a one-handed weapon; you can't wield it non-proficiently in one hand according to the current FAQ because of a clause in the weapon description taken to mean you simply can't (this is different from simply being non-proficient).
3. A Medium character wielding a Large bastard sword in two hands is not wielding it one hand, so it is legal for them to wield the bastard sword, which would allow them to wield it as a two-handed exotic weapon.
4. A bastard sword wielded in two hands is treated as a martial weapon.
If you are of the opinion that the bastard sword actually becomes a two-handed weapon when wielded in two hands, then even Amiri can't wield her weapon.
You cannot wield a medium bastard sword in one hand without EWP because it is too big. You cannot wield a large bastard sword in two hands without EWP because it is too big.
Any interpretation beyond that is looking for a loophole which doesn't exist. If you want to run it that way in your game then have fun. You should not reasonably expect anyone else to run it that way in their game.
I'm pretty sure that, according to the current state of the FAQ, a Medium character can wield a Large bastard sword as a martial weapon.
1. It is a one-handed exotic weapon. A Large one-handed weapon can be wielded in two hands, at a -2 penalty.
2. A Medium bastard sword wielded in one hand is still a one-handed weapon; you can't wield it non-proficiently in one hand according to the current FAQ because of a clause in the weapon description taken to mean you simply can't (this is different from simply being non-proficient).
3. A Medium character wielding a Large bastard sword in two hands is not wielding it one hand, so it is legal for them to wield the bastard sword, which would allow them to wield it as a two-handed exotic weapon.
4. A bastard sword wielded in two hands is treated as a martial weapon.If you are of the opinion that the bastard sword actually becomes a two-handed weapon when wielded in two hands, then even Amiri can't wield her weapon.
1. This is correct.
2. The FAQ is saying that you treat it as if it is actually a two-handed martial weapon if you do not have the EWP feat. If you do have the EWP feat you get to treat it as a one handed weapon because you have the special training(EWP feat)That means a large BS for someone with the EWP feat is a one handed large BS, but still a two-handed weapon for weapon for a medium sized creature because of the difference in size. If you do not have EWP that large BS is a two-handed martial weapon, and a large two-handed weapon can not be weilded by a medium sized creature.
My point is simply this. The BS is actually a one handed weapon, but to use it in that manner you need the feat. Otherwise it is restricted to two-handed weapon use. Ergo a large BS is a two-handed large weapon without the feat, so you can't use it at all as a medium sized creature until you get the feat.
That is what the FAQ is saying.
PS: Once again if this is giving you trouble read the katana entry. The meaning is the same, but its language is more clear.
Maybe the devs need to say EWP is required to treat the BS as a one-handed weapon in those words, or they could say the weapon is treated as two-handed martial weapon if you do not have EWP, so people stop getting confused or arguing just to be arguing.
You cannot wield a medium bastard sword in one hand without EWP because it is too big. You cannot wield a large bastard sword in two hands without EWP because it is too big.
Any interpretation beyond that is looking for a loophole which doesn't exist. If you want to run it that way in your game then have fun. You should not reasonably expect anyone else to run it that way in their game.
How is it that you can wield a Large bastard sword in two hands with EWP and it isn't too big? Obviously, I would not have any basis for suggesting that are looking for a loophole to make it legal, just as you have no basis for suggesting the same thing about what I have proposed. I'm just reading over the relevant rules, text, and FAQs, and that is what i see. There is no actual rule that says, "A bastard sword is too large to wield in two hands without EXP," and any rule that makes it impossible to wield because of its category applies the same to both proficient and non-proficient wielders.
The clearest reading I have, right now, is that the developers feel that snippet of text under bastard sword is stating a special case about wielding that sword one-handed, and that a bastard sword is only a two-handed weapon for the purpose of triggering certain effects. Although the description is not currently written to say that, in so many words, that is how official rulings are evolving. Non-proficient one-handed wielding may or may not change... but given the existence of Amiri and her sword, I don't how any future ruling is going to come along and claim the bastard sword is itself categorized as a two-handed weapon.
Nor do I see any way of resolving the MWP/EWP issue without making sweeping rulings about weapon proficiencies and differently sized weapons.
Maybe the devs need to say EWP is required to treat the BS as a one-handed weapon in those words, or they could say the weapon is treated as two-handed martial weapon if you do not have EWP, so people stop getting confused or arguing just to be arguing.
If a bastard sword is a two-handed weapon that can be wielded as a one-handed weapon if you have EWP, that would reverse the earlier hit points/sundering ruling.
My belief is that the whole thing would be simpler if the bastard sword were simply a longsword with a d10 damage die that you were not proficient in unless you burned a feat. I'm pretty sure that was true for a lot of people until recently. It wouldn't bother me if the bastard sword were given a little rider, like "when used two-handed counts as a two-handed weapon for using feats and effects, if that would be advantageous to the user." It's probably only fair to offer some kind of bennie for burning a feat on +1 damage.
EDIT: Also, reading the katana description, if that were the model weapon instead of the bastard sword, I think the deck would be stacked even more firmly in my favor. I'm not sure what you're reading that says otherwise.
Maybe the devs need to say EWP is required to treat the BS as a one-handed weapon in those words, or they could say the weapon is treated as two-handed martial weapon if you do not have EWP,If a bastard sword is a two-handed weapon that can be wielded as a one-handed weapon if you have EWP, that would reverse the earlier hit points/sundering ruling.
My belief is that the whole thing would be simpler if the bastard sword were simply a longsword with a d10 damage die that you were not proficient in unless you burned a feat. I'm pretty sure that was true for a lot of people until recently. It wouldn't bother me if the bastard sword were given a little rider, like "when used two-handed counts as a two-handed weapon for using feats and effects, if that would be advantageous to the user." It's probably only fair to offer some kind of bennie for burning a feat on +1 damage.
EDIT: Also, reading the katana description, if that were the model weapon instead of the bastard sword, I think the deck would be stacked even more firmly in my favor. I'm not sure what you're reading that says otherwise.
I never said it is a two handed weapon so hit points would not be affected. I said "treat as", and I am only referring to purposes of wielding it. Just to be clear I am saying it is a one handed weapon, but for the purpose of weilding it, that it counts as two handed without the EWP feat, and that the devs may need to say that directly.
I also realized that the katana feat should reflect that also.
slightly related-->A lot of the exotic weapons are not worth a feat IMO. Other than the Falcata, I dont think I could name more than 3 that are worth a feat.
It depends on what you consider to be 'worth' a feat. Sometimes people make feat choices based on flavor and character theme rather than pure optimization.
If the bastard sword were simply a one-handed weapon, these debates would be a lot simpler. I personally think that reading the bastard sword and katana texts as making it impossible to wield the weapons without proficiency, rather than just non-proficient, is the root of most of the debates. I don't think it's the most natural reading of the text, I don't see the benefit of that reading, and it doesn't make a lot of sense.
Most importantly, it results in the contortions of the rules, such that the bastard sword is emphatically a one-handed weapon, even when you expect it might not be, but definitely cannot be wielded one-handed (except with a feat) and also counts as two-handed (when it's convenient).
|
|
If you don't have EWP it is treated as a two-handed weapon, not a one handed weapom.<---I think we can agree here.
We do not agree here! There is nowhere in the rules that says that it is treated as a 2H weapon without EWP. What the rules, combined with FAQ, say is that it's a 1H weapon which can't be used in one hand without EWP.
When you apply the rules for using a weapon of inappropriate size, it changes from a 1H weapon which can't be used in one hand without EWP into a 2H weapon which can't be used in one hand without EWP, which becomes redundant since you can't use a 2H weapon in one hand even with EWP.
My question is this-->Are you arguing out of spite because you don't like the ruling or do you really think that if this was FAQ'd the devs would take your position?
The rules should be written in such a way that anyone reading them will come to a single correct answer. We shouldn't have to work out what the devs intend if what they intend is different from the rules they give us.
Right now, applying the rules gives us a large BS which can be used in two hands as a martial weapon, as surely as 2+2=4.
If the devs really intend the answer to be 5, they need to either change a rule so that the equation is 2+3, or add a new rule so that the equation is 2+2+1. Leaving it at 2+2 means that 5 is not a credible answer, even if that answer comes from the devs.
This is not one of those situations where there are two ways of reading a rule but only one way makes sense. Conceptually, the BS is awkward. There are two ways to make it usable: special training (EWP), or using a second hand to help control it.
The rules as they are now reflect that. When using a large BS, the second hand is already helping control it, so the EWP is redundant. This is perfectly sensible.
The other way is also sensible, conceptually. So how do we know which of the two is the correct interpretation? Easy. Apply the rules as they are written. In this case, they perfectly match the first case above.
|
|
You are doing a very pedantic reading of the rules, and requiring a rule for everything to be spelled out.
Gentlemen, this is the 'rules' thread. Not the 'opinion' thread, not the 'this is how I understand it' thread, not the 'this is how I do it' thread, the 'rules' thread!
Saying 'You are doing a very pedantic reading of the rules, and requiring a rule for everything to be spelled out' is not a valid criticism in the rules thread.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
You are doing a very pedantic reading of the rules, and requiring a rule for everything to be spelled out.Gentlemen, this is the 'rules' thread. Not the 'opinion' thread, not the 'this is how I understand it' thread, not the 'this is how I do it' thread, the 'rules' thread!
Saying 'You are doing a very pedantic reading of the rules, and requiring a rule for everything to be spelled out' is not a valid criticism in the rules thread.
Do you read the rules as someone explaining a game to you, or precise, step-by-step instructions?