PFS - Thunder and Fang with 2 Earth Breakers


Rules Questions

451 to 500 of 904 << first < prev | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | next > last >>
Liberty's Edge

Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber

Kazaan, you are a little confused.

The BS is a one handed weapon. It can only be used as such when a character gets the Exotic Weapon Proficentcy. It must be "used" as a two handed weapon if one has Martial Weapon Proficentcy. That example has no bearing on what one can or can not do with an Earthbreaker.

The Earthbreaker is treated as a One Handed Weapon as the character is wielding it as such. He is no longer treating it as a one handed weapon if trying to two hand an oversized version of it. It is still a two handed weapon and the character still can't wield the oversized Earthbreaker, one handed or two handed.

Notice that the feat says "you can..." instead of "you must..."

What about the quotes from the various pathfinder people in Redward's post? I believe the only thing we disagree on now is how intuitive the rules are vs. being vague when reading between the words.

You can't double wield the things, you can't wield an oversized one, as in the quotes and from the original intent of the feat.


James Risner wrote:
Sub_Zero wrote:
if you actually provided evidence.
I have you rejected it.

No, you have asserted it, there's a difference. I went through the normal line and nothing in it suggests that the one-handed doesn't work, or that it contradicts the benefit line. Please show where it does if you still think that the normal line shows otherwise.

Bigdaddyjug wrote:
No James, the rust monster isn't the same thing. The rust monster ability is an example of specific trumping general, not a case of fluff vs crunch.
Rust Monster wrote:
Rust (Su) A rust monster's antennae are a primary touch attack that causes any metal object they touch to swiftly rust and corrode. The object touched takes half its maximum hp in damage and gains the broken condition
James Risner wrote:
Nothing in that line says "ignore hardness." If half your hit points is less than hardness you would by RAW (using the "ignore fluff and other evidence" version of RAW) have most weapons unable to be rusted.

never said I ignored other evidence. You just threw that in right now to bolster your position, but it doesn't accurately reflect what I've said at all.

After having looked at the rule, it seems that even though it doesn't state that you ignore hardness, the fact that you gain the broken condition clearly indicates that you would in fact do so. Furthermore, it's a moot point since even if you did take hardness into account you'd gain the broken condition regardless on the first hit, and the destroyed on the second.

James Risner wrote:
But this fluff counters that RAW version:
Quote:
like steel but devouring even mithral, adamantine, and enchanted metals with equal ease.
James Risner wrote:

Any time you use pedantic readings of RAW you lead down a road to a bad place, where nothing makes sense.

This sounds more like a RAI argument disguised as a RAW argument more then anything else. Just because the RAW of a rule is contradictory to the intent or fluff doesn't make it RAW, it just makes it a poorly written rule. From there going forward you can house-rule said rule so that it works for you, and even take the intent into account.

Lets do a thought experiment quickly. I'll invent a feat that I'd like you to interpret, since it'll help convey my point.

Quote:

Falcon Punch

With a mighty punch you knock opponents the *explitive* out.

benefit
All attacks you make deal +1 awesome damage

normal
normally all your attacks do not deal awesome damage

Can someone use this feat with a dagger?


Original intent was to have it act as a double weapon. The original intent of the Titan Mauler was to have it eventually wielding gargantuan and colossal weapons. Both original intents were trumped by a combination of balance and consolidation of language/mechanics. It doesn't matter if it says "treat as" or "wield as" or "use as", the operative word is "one-handed" or "two-handed". Whether you "treat as", "wield as", "use as", whatever, if the following term is "one-handed", then the weapon, properly sized for you, is wielded as a one-handed weapon. This works even with no feat or ability to change it. A Longsword is listed as a one-handed weapon, thus a Medium creature wielding a Medium Longsword "wields it as a one-handed weapon" because that's what it's default type is. Size steps work from there, so with a Large Longsword, he "wields it as a two-handed weapon", a Small Longsword, he "wields it as a light weapon", and a Huge or bigger and Tiny or smaller Longsword, he "wields it as an unwieldable weapon".

Again, if it worked the way you claimed, Thax, then Amiri wouldn't need EWP for her Large Bastard Sword because it says she needs to "wield it as a two-handed weapon" and you most certainly wield a Large One-Handed weapon "as a two-handed weapon" so it automatically satisfies its own requirement. But we know it doesn't work that way.

Liberty's Edge

Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber

It sounds like the Titen Mauler is what you want.

I don't know how else to say it, as it seems you keep going back to the Bastard Sword and thinking there is some sort of parellel to the Earthbreaker. It says it clear as day, the character must use the thing two handed if they don't have EWP. This makes it so Amiri needs EWP just to wield the oversized one two handed anyway.

The Earthbreaker does not work in that way. It is always a two handed weapon. Treating it as something else is an effect as it relates to the feat, as the character wields it along with the Klar.

Lets look at how one can do this realisticly. The character uses the EB as he is wearing the Klar (Shield). He has trained to use the Klar to balance the EB as he swings it about, getting a shield bash after the initial swing or two. Instead of a second hand, it is the face and edge of the Klar that is providing a balance for the EB to not overcompensate after rebound.

Short of attaching a Klar onto the Earthbreaker, the phrasing of this particular feat allows for one to one hand the EB as a part of TWF with the Klar.

You can't do that with an oversized EB.

I don't know, I do try to vary my phrasing to try and get the point across, but a bit of understanding is needed from both perspectives to actually get any headway.

Silver Crusade

One side of this argument is providing examples to try and prove their side.

The other side is stamping their feet and screaming, "NO! NO! NO!"

I'll let you think about which side you're on.

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Sub_Zero wrote:


Now, from RAW you can 1-hand it no problem. I'm still technically on the fence for using the larger version, but Kazaan and other have done a better job arguing the point in my opinion.

1 handing the earthbreaker was not in contention. You can 1 hand a bastard sword if you're proficient, that doesn't mean you can freely wield two of them.

Silver Crusade

LazarX wrote:
Sub_Zero wrote:


Now, from RAW you can 1-hand it no problem. I'm still technically on the fence for using the larger version, but Kazaan and other have done a better job arguing the point in my opinion.
1 handing the earthbreaker was not in contention. You can 1 hand a bastard sword if you're proficient, that doesn't mean you can freely wield two of them.

Wait, what? You lost me here. If you are able to wield a weapon in one hand then you are automatically able to wield two of them.


In this situation Lazar a bastard sword aka a one-handed weapon is the same thing as a one-handed weapon aka a dagger only difference being the dagger is a light weapon. With TWF you most definitely would be able to freely wield two bastard swords but take the standard penalties.


thaX wrote:

It sounds like the Titen Mauler is what you want.

I don't know how else to say it, as it seems you keep going back to the Bastard Sword and thinking there is some sort of parellel to the Earthbreaker. It says it clear as day, the character must use the thing two handed if they don't have EWP. This makes it so Amiri needs EWP just to wield the oversized one two handed anyway.

The Earthbreaker does not work in that way. It is always a two handed weapon. Treating it as something else is an effect as it relates to the feat, as the character wields it along with the Klar.

First off, I'm using your very own logic here. It says that you must use the Bastard Sword two-handed if you don't have EWP. Well, that's quite convenient as two-handed is the only way a Medium character can wield a large one-handed weapon. So, by the reasoning you use, you don't need EWP to wield a Large Bastard Sword. So why does she have EWP and why can't a character wield a Large Bastard Sword without the feat? Because, despite not being a two-handed weapon, it's treated as one and you base size steps on what it's treated as, not what it would be by default. Likewise, a Medium Earthbreaker is wielded by a Medium creature as a one-handed weapon if they have the T&F feat. You base the steps not on the default size of the Earthbreaker but on the category it's used as for a properly sized one.

Lets run the Bastard Sword the other way and make it a Small Bastard Sword. Your assertion is that the rules say you must wield it two-handed if you lack EWP. What if it were one size small for you? Then, instead of being in a weird place between a one-handed and two-handed weapon, it'd be in a weird place between a light and one-handed weapon. Would you still say it must be wielded two-handed if you lack proficiency? You've got a weapon somewhere between the size of a Shortsword and a Longsword now and you'd claim that, because the rules say it must be wielded two-handed, you must use two hands to wield it? Of course not; that'd be ridiculous. Because, again, the size steps work on the amount of effort that you actually use, based on its size, your abilities, etc. Take it another step and get yourself a Tiny Bastard Sword. It's now in this funny hybrid spot between a light weapon and one too small to be wielded. In that case, proficiency is a non-issue as, even if you treated one normally sized for you as a proper one-handed weapon, two steps down is unwieldable. But one properly sized would still be big enough to qualify as a two-handed weapon if you used it as such. So, using it in one way, it's too small and light to work effectively but using it in a different way, it's big enough to be effective. The same exact thing goes for the Large Earthbreaker; using it one way, it's too big and heavy to use. But using it a different way, your technique is just enough to compensate for the extra size and weight to use it effectively.

Additionally, the feat still doesn't say anywhere that you must wield the Klar along with it to benefit from the one-handed aspect. And, even then, the "original" draft of the feat was that you can wield a two-handed weapon, but one of your hands was also wielding a Klar. Why is the idea of wielding two different weapons with the same hand OK for people, but the idea of wielding a weapon that you are perfectly well able to use one-handed when sized properly for you, two-handed when one size bigger, way out?


Not to muddy the waters further, but I'm curious. What happens if someone cuts off the hand wielding the Klar? Can you still one-hand the Earthbreaker?

(Speaking to RAW, that is. I know how I would common-sense it.)

Grand Lodge

Under RAW, he can wield the Earth Breaker.

Under the James Risner interpretation, of course not. The Earth Breaker suddenly becomes too heavy to wield one handed without the magic of the Klar.

Liberty's Edge

Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber

Lets put it another way. The Bastard sword is treated like a Greatsword unless the character has EWP with it. It means a medium character can one hand a small one.

Here, a past post that was a page or two ago...

Quote:

A normal person requires 2 hands to wield a bastard sword. Thus any character with training ALL martial weapons can use a bastard sword in 2 hands without penalty (exactly like all other martial 2 handed weapons).

If you have the feat (EWP Bastard Sword)...it is then a one handed weapon.

I have yet to see a response to this.

this is the wording...

Quote:
You can use an earth breaker as though it were a one-handed weapon. When using an earth breaker in one hand and a klar in your off hand, you retain the shield bonus your klar grants to your Armor Class even when you use it to attack. Treat your klar as a light weapon for the purposes of determining your two-weapon fighting penalty.

In my mind, I wouldn't mind a player having the double wielding EB's because of this feat. I know it for what it is, though, a lax and selective reading that allows for one handing of a weapon.

The Pathfinder Team (As quoted earlier in thread) has said as much, responding "No" to the direct question of double wielding EB's as a result of the word changes from one source to another.

The oversized (Large weapon for a Medium creature) weapon is not even a question at this point. You can't weild it.

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Companion Subscriber

Can Amiri wield a Large Flambard?

Adventurer's Armory wrote:


Flambard

Cost: 50 gp Weight: 6 lbs.
Damage: 1d8 (small), 1d10 (medium); Critical 19-20/x2; Range —; Type S; Special: Sunder
Description:
This two-handed sword has a wavy blade that is especially useful for cutting through wooden weapons. If you are proficient with this weapon, you gain a +4 bonus on any sunder attempts made against weapons with a wooden haft; otherwise you may use this sword as a bastard sword.

It's listed as a two-handed weapon.


thaX wrote:

Lets put it another way. The Bastard sword is treated like a Greatsword unless the character has EWP with it. It means a medium character can one hand a small one.

Here, a past post that was a page or two ago...

Quote:

A normal person requires 2 hands to wield a bastard sword. Thus any character with training ALL martial weapons can use a bastard sword in 2 hands without penalty (exactly like all other martial 2 handed weapons).

If you have the feat (EWP Bastard Sword)...it is then a one handed weapon.

I have yet to see a response to this.

You must have missed it. Here, I'll repeat it for you.

The Bastard Sword is always a one-handed weapon. It always has the stats of a one-handed weapon regarding its HP and hardness. But, as a special caveat of the weapon, if you lack EWP for it, you may only wield it as if it were a two-handed martial weapon. As if it were a two-handed weapon. It's still a one-handed weapon, but you must treat it as a two-handed weapon. Now, normally, a one-handed weapon like a Longsword is "treated as" a two-handed weapon if you wield one one size too big and is "treated as" a light weapon if you wield one one size too small. But what size you wield a wrong-size Bastard Sword is based on how you would be able to wield one properly sized for you. If you don't have EWP, you only have the option of wielding it two-handed, which steps up to unwieldable or steps down to one-handed and down again to light. But the base designation of the weapon never changes; it's still a Bastard Sword, thus its base is a one-handed weapon. It's only the "treated as" size that gets stepped up or down.

In the case of the Bastard Sword, the "standard" is to "treat as" a different size than the weapon's base size and the feat lets you "treat as" the size it actually is. Just as with a Longsword, it's a one-handed weapon, thus you "treat it as" a one-handed weapon. By default, any weapon is treated as the type of weapon it is. A Longsword is "treated as" a one-handed weapon, a dagger is "treated as" a light weapon. The designation of the weapon tells you how to "treat" it when wielding it. Size changes work on the effort required to wield it; the "treat as" effort required to wield it. If the "treat as" effort is different from the base designation by some special rule, be that a quality of the weapon itself or a feat/ability that you possess, then the base designation is inconsequential. If I had an ability that lets me reduce the effort needed to wield a weapon of any size by one step, then the Longsword can now be considered a Light weapon, the Large Longsword could be considered a One-Handed weapon, and the Huge Longsword would be considered a Two-Handed weapon, despite the fact that, without that ability, a Huge Longsword is normally unwieldable.

Liberty's Edge

Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber

So again, we are at an impasse.

You seem to think that what is down with the Bastard Sword is the same as all other weapons.

Nothing in this feat changes the size differential of the weapon. The BS is used as it is according to training, two handed for martial prof, one handed as the character gets better at it and takes EWP.

One can also two hand any one handed weapon normally, but the size of the weapon doesn't change when that is done either.

Reading more than what is there is in a particular phrase or rule is something 3.0/3.5 has been plagued with as more product comes out for it. The design team tried to standardized the phrasing of the feat and now we have a 500 post thread that goes no where.

"treated as" isn't the same as "can use" the weapon with two hands. Getting stuck on treating a weapon slightly differently to effect standardized damage output and making out to be a way to do something else entirely like double wielding two Big Fricken Hammers is typical thinking for a lot of those out there looking for loop holes within the game.

If you are in a Society game, don't expect to be able to wield a Larger EB because of this feat.

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
blackbloodtroll wrote:

Can Amiri wield a Large Flambard?

Adventurer's Armory wrote:


Flambard

Cost: 50 gp Weight: 6 lbs.
Damage: 1d8 (small), 1d10 (medium); Critical 19-20/x2; Range —; Type S; Special: Sunder
Description:
This two-handed sword has a wavy blade that is especially useful for cutting through wooden weapons. If you are proficient with this weapon, you gain a +4 bonus on any sunder attempts made against weapons with a wooden haft; otherwise you may use this sword as a bastard sword.

It's listed as a two-handed weapon.

No... if it's two handed for a large creature, there is no way a medium creature can wield it.

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Companion Subscriber

Really?

If she can wield it as a Bastard Sword, then couldn't she wield it as a Large Bastard Sword?


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I have sort of given up on this debate.

I suggested that we look into the games balance with this weapon and feat to see if it breaks the game when used this way. the reason being that if it breaks the games balance, then obviously we can't use it. But if it doesn't, then what harm is there in allowing it?

I honestly believe we all play Pathfinder for enjoyment, and that if a player wants to wield two Earthbreakers or one large Earthbreaker, and the game stays balanced, then what is the problem?

There are good points on both sides, and I doubt we are going to get anywhere repeating the same circle of arguments over and over.


Isn't the Bastard sword ONLY found on the one-handed exotic weapon table?

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Companion Subscriber
MotherGoose wrote:

Isn't the Bastard sword ONLY found on the one-handed exotic weapon table?

Yes.


And being proficient with it you can wield it as such.

This whole argument seems pretty black and white to me.

Its considered a one-handed weapon and if you are proficient with it you may us it as a one-handed weapon. A large one-handed weapon must be used in two hands.

So what is it exactly that is keeping you from using a large bastard sword in 2 hands?

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Companion Subscriber

Unwritten rules?

Silver Crusade

The stubbornness of half of this discussion.

Scarab Sages

1 person marked this as FAQ candidate. 1 person marked this as a favorite.
LazarX wrote:

No... if it's two handed for a large creature, there is no way a medium creature can wield it.

hmmm...

Assuming I had the feat ...

Dorn-Dergar Master(Combat)
You can use a dorn-dergar with only one hand.
Prerequisites: Two-Weapon Fighting, base attack bonus
+4, proficiency with the dwarven dorn-dergar.
Benefit: You can use a dorn-dergar as a one-handed
weapon. When using it one-handed, changing whether
it’s a normal or reach weapon is a full-round action. If
you have the Darting Viper feat, changing its reach is a
move action.
Normal: A dorn-dergar requires two hands to wield.

I assume I could use a Large sized Dorn Derger with the -2 in 2 hands?


MotherGoose wrote:

And being proficient with it you can wield it as such.

This whole argument seems pretty black and white to me.

Its considered a one-handed weapon and if you are proficient with it you may us it as a one-handed weapon. A large one-handed weapon must be used in two hands.

So what is it exactly that is keeping you from using a large bastard sword in 2 hands?

Bastard sword is a large 1 handed weapon whereas an earthbreaker is a 2 handed weapon. now we can agree the rules clearly state that u can weild a large 1 handed weapon wiyh 2 hands. That everyone is clear on. People debating about being able to weild a large 2 handed weapon becahse the feat states they can weild a 2 hander in 1 hand BUT the rules state that large 2 handers are to big for a medium size creature to use. Some are saying the large earthbreaker isnt changing sizes so that its unweildable whereas one side is saying necause u can 1 hand a reg earthbreaker u shoukd be able to 2 hand a large earthbreaker.


MotherGoose wrote:

And being proficient with it you can wield it as such.

This whole argument seems pretty black and white to me.

Its considered a one-handed weapon and if you are proficient with it you may us it as a one-handed weapon. A large one-handed weapon must be used in two hands.

So what is it exactly that is keeping you from using a large bastard sword in 2 hands?

Nothing, so long as you have the capacity to wield a Medium BS as a one-handed weapon via EWP. But if you don't have EWP, you treat the medium one-handed weapon as if it were a medium two-handed weapon; thus a large version of something that, when medium, would be treated as a two-handed weapon is considered unwieldable. This is why Amiri needs EWP to even be capable of wielding her Large Bastard Sword; it allows her to wield a large version of what's normally a one-handed weapon for her size rather than trying to wield a large version of what's exceptionally considered a two-handed weapon for her size. The difference is in the technique you use to wield it; knowing how to properly manipulate its center of gravity and not relying on straight up-and-down attacks as you would with a Greatsword but more side to side attacks that conserve momentum and don't require you to lift it as high.

The principal at work here is that the step-up and step-down that occur when you compare the effort to wield for an over or under-sized weapon is based on the effort you'd actually require to wield one properly sized for you. Without T&F, you wield a normal-sized Earthbreaker as a two-handed weapon, a small one as a one-handed weapon, and a large one is unwieldable. But with T&F reducing the effort it takes to wield a medium one, that translates into making the small one a light weapon if you so choose and the large one a two-hander. Just as with the Bastard Sword, you'd apply the principals of center of mass, conservation of momentum, and swings that don't involve difficult over-head lifts when reducing the effort to wield of any sized Earthbreaker; whether it's a normal sized one wielded in only one hand when it normally requires two, or a large sized one wielded in two hands when it would normally be unfeasible (you'd be trying to swing it overhead like you would with a normal-sized one without the feat... and failing miserably). Likewise, though a small one is normally treated as a one-handed weapon, with the feat you could treat it as a light weapon and, if using it in your off-hand, take only -2/-2 penalties for TWF. Again, you're not changing the weight of the weapon but reducing the effort it takes to swing it; swing smarter, not harder.


Can a medium creature dual wield two medium lances while mounted?

Grand Lodge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Companion Subscriber
MotherGoose wrote:

Can a medium creature dual wield two medium lances while mounted?

Sure. Written rules support this.


So it would seem you could also use a large lance while mounted with two hands.

I don't see any difference with the large EB other than in order to do so you need to waste a ton of feats.

I also don't see using a large EB as game breaking in any regards. Sure you can deal a quiet more points of damage while not full attacking but full attacking mathematically is almost a wash.


While the written rules don't explicitly rule out wielding two lances, the unwritten rules probably do. Remember that Lance is written just a little differently than all the other feats and abilities being considered here. It doesn't say you wield it "as a one-handed weapon" or any variant thereof. Lance says that you wield it "in one hand". But it's still a two-handed weapon, thus it bumps against the design principal that you require both your main-hand and potential off-hand to make an attack with it; just that the actual hands being used are your main-hand and "the fact that you are mounted" serves, abstractly, as your "off-hand". So, since the actual effort category of the weapon doesn't change as with weapons wielded as a different category, but rather it just exempts you from the rule as to how many hands are needed to wield a two-handed weapon while still keeping its designation as a two-handed weapon, I'd say that the Lance can neither be "sized up" to Large nor can you use an off-hand weapon along with your Lance. But the Lance, itself, will give you two-handed Str and Power Attack damage anyway so freeing up your hand is more to give you the ability to either avoid needing to guide your horse by the knees or to let you use a shield in conjunction.

Liberty's Edge

Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber

Again, you are relating what happens with the Bastard Sword to the Earthbreaker.

The size of the weapon doesn't change, just the way the wielder uses it does. If you try to two hand an oversized two handed weapon, the character finds he can not effectively wield such a weapon. That he can use a regular sized version of that weapon one handed does not negate the size variation disreprency, it is still to big for the character to wield, it still goes beyond the Two Handed disegnation.

One can not be a medium creature wielding a large EarthBreaker with this feat. The quotes mentioned above by Redward specifically says "NO, you can not wield an oversized weapon."

Can't be done.

Doesn't happen.

Wield it, you can not.

Beyond your abilities, it is.

Silver Crusade

Again, you are simply stating the same thing over and over and expecting people to be swayed by it. There is no reason why you wouldn't relate the earthbreaker + Thunder & Fang to the bastard sword and Exotic Weapon Proficiency. However, you have yet to give any reason why you wouldn't relate them. You just stamp your feet, cover your ears and yell No! No! No!


thaX wrote:


The size of the weapon doesn't change, just the way the wielder uses it does. If you try to two hand an oversized two handed weapon, the character finds he can not effectively wield such a weapon. That he can use a regular sized version of that weapon one handed does not negate the size variation disreprency, it is still to big for the character to wield, it still goes beyond the Two Handed disegnation.

If this were the case, Amiri would not need Exotic Weapon Proficiency Bastard Sword.


Is anyone talking about using this for organized play anymore, or has this discussion become entirely academic?


redward wrote:
Is anyone talking about using this for organized play anymore, or has this discussion become entirely academic?

The point has long since been made. This is just a sideshow to show to the plebeian masses the caricature of ridiculous and arbitrary rules analysis in stark contrast to a logically driven, systematic, consistent analysis of the rules.

The Exchange Owner - D20 Hobbies

1 person marked this as a favorite.
redward wrote:
Is anyone talking about using this for organized play anymore, or has this discussion become entirely academic?

It isn't the most efficient way to do more damage. So in OP they would just build the better way.

If someone comes to a table using this way, I've got no problem blocking their double Earthbreaker setup until they swap one for a Klar. I'll even be happy I'd following RAW (others don't agree but that doesn't matter.)


Kazaan wrote:
This is just a sideshow to show to the plebeian masses the caricature of ridiculous and arbitrary rules analysis in stark contrast to a logically driven, systematic, consistent analysis of the rules.

Charming.


After thinking about it I think I can make a decent argument in ThaX's side, or at least muddies the water enough for there not to be a conclusive decision. So I'll begin...

There are 2 issues when it comes to handling a weapon.

1. Its size category
2. what the wielder treats the weapon as

Now, the large bastard sword can't be wielded 2-handed without the exotic weapon proficiency, because of 2 (what the wielder treats it as). It fully fits 1 (the actual category). But since it violates 2, you can't wield a large bastard sword. Now as soon as you take the feat, you can wield it because now both criterion 1 and 2 have been met. It's actual size category and what the weapon is treated as have been fulfilled.

For this reason we can't wield a large earthbreaker. Even with T&F you can change 2., but you can't change 1. The first half (it's size category) is never modified so it's too large to use, but its 2 (what you treat it as) has been met.

For this reason the bastard sword example doesn't apply, because it helps solve problem 2, not 1.

Now, of course for this argument to be valid we have to assume that both what a person treats a weapon as, and the actual size category are distinct and don't interact to reach a valid conclusion.

Btw, this would explain why couldn't two-hand a large lance. It meets criterion 2, but not 1.

The reason I find this a more compelling argument is the current debate is assuming a false dichotomy. Either 1, or 2, when really it could be the case that we need to meet both requirements 1 and 2.

If that is the case, then the bastard sword example doesn't work since it only applies to the 2nd criterion not the first.

Kazaan, I'm curious how you might respond to this argument?

Silver Crusade

I would respond by saying that the ONLY thing that matters is what a character treats a weapon as. Weapons do not have a handedness until they are wielded by a character. At that point they gain a "minimum handedness" for that specific character, and any adjustments are made from that point.

The base is how a character wields a weapon, not what it's listed as on the table, and the bastard sword proves this. If it's table listing was the base, then anybody could wield a large bastard sword in two hands, because the table tells us the bastard sword is a one-handed weapon.


Bigdaddyjug wrote:

I would respond by saying that the ONLY thing that matters is what a character treats a weapon as. Weapons do not have a handedness until they are wielded by a character. At that point they gain a "minimum handedness" for that specific character, and any adjustments are made from that point.

The base is how a character wields a weapon, not what it's listed as on the table, and the bastard sword proves this. If it's table listing was the base, then anybody could wield a large bastard sword in two hands, because the table tells us the bastard sword is a one-handed weapon.

First, let me start by saying I agree.

However, can you show me where this would be true with evidence? The reason being, if not were falling into the same trap that ThaX has, making assertions w/o evidence. I've been trying to think of an example or some way of showing this, and I can't. That's why I've thrown the question here.

Is there anything to shows us it's only what the character counts the weapon as, and not both the listing and what you count it as?

If we can't I think we might reach a true impasse where this answer gives us the key to which interpretation is valid, but unfortunately I see now such answer in the near-future.

Silver Crusade

The bastard sword is the evidence. Having a specific feat (exotic weapon proficiency) allows you to change the "minimum handedness" needed to wield a bastard sword. Because of this, the iconic barbarian is able to wield a large bastard sword in two hands. Of course, to use this as proof, you need to assume that the iconics are 100% accurate legel by RAW. That may be a stretch for some, but it should be a base assumption IMO.

This is the proof of how a character wields it being the only thing that matters when you look at it in the inverse. A character without exotic weapon proficiency (bastard sword) cannot wield a large bastard sword in two hands. But wait, why not? The bastard sword is a one-handed weapon according to the equipment tables, isn't it? Well yes, yes it is. However, one of the developers has already stated that without exotic weapon proficiency (bastard sword), the iconic barbarian would not be able to wield her large bastard sword. But what does that feat change about the bastard sword? Why, it changes the minimum handedness needed to wield it.

So that shows that how a character wields a weapon is more important than what some arbitrary table lists the weapon as.

Liberty's Edge

Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber

You can always two hand a one handed weapon. The Bastard Sword only makes it so that a martial trained character needs specialized training to use it properly in one hand.

A Longsword doesn't turn into a two handed weapon when you wield it that way, why would an Earthbreaker go the other way around?

The reason it is treated as a One Handed Weapon is for damage output, not because of the weapon's actual size.


Bigdaddyjug wrote:

The bastard sword is the evidence. Having a specific feat (exotic weapon proficiency) allows you to change the "minimum handedness" needed to wield a bastard sword. Because of this, the iconic barbarian is able to wield a large bastard sword in two hands. Of course, to use this as proof, you need to assume that the iconics are 100% accurate legel by RAW. That may be a stretch for some, but it should be a base assumption IMO.

This is the proof of how a character wields it being the only thing that matters when you look at it in the inverse. A character without exotic weapon proficiency (bastard sword) cannot wield a large bastard sword in two hands. But wait, why not? The bastard sword is a one-handed weapon according to the equipment tables, isn't it? Well yes, yes it is. However, one of the developers has already stated that without exotic weapon proficiency (bastard sword), the iconic barbarian would not be able to wield her large bastard sword. But what does that feat change about the bastard sword? Why, it changes the minimum handedness needed to wield it.

So that shows that how a character wields a weapon is more important than what some arbitrary table lists the weapon as.

The Bastard sword isn't evidence though, if you need to meet both conditions. The bastard sword by luck of being in the one-handed weapon category already meets requirement 1, but it doesn't meet requirement 2 without a feat. Once you have the feat, it meets requirements 1 and 2.

Maybe I'm missing the point of what you're saying. If so could you re-clarify? Because I specifically addressed why under what I'm saying that the bastard sword doesn't help us in determining if you can wield a large earthbreaker. (specifically my argument states that you need to have the correct handedness, and that the weapon has to fit into the correct category).

Sczarni

First rule about Bastard Sword is don't talk about Bastard Sword.

Why is Blackbloodtroll the only person who observes this rule???

Silver Crusade

Correct thaX, because you're just using it two-handed, not as a two-handed weapon. Can you see that distinction, because it is a very important one. When mounted and wielding a lance you are wielding it one-handed, but not as a one-handed weapon. When you don't have EWP, you have to wield a bastard sword as a two-handed weapon. When you have T&F, you can wield an earthbreaker as a one-handed weapon. Two of those situations are the same and one is different.

Which two do you think are the same and why?

Liberty's Edge

Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber

I get what your saying, but it seems your not getting my point in return. I am saying that the distinction is basic semantics, that the intent of doing it this way had nothing to do with size differences in weapons but instead it was to bring in line the damage output to be as it would be when TWF.

You wield the sucker as a one handed weapon, you only get +2 damage for each -1 to hit for power attack, you get 1.0 x your strength mod damage, and so on.

When your wielding a longsword two handed, you get the associated benefits for doing so. The main reason one would want a bigger weapon is for bigger damage die. (and it looks friggin awesome)

If you want to wield a huge arse weapon, go with the build Amiri has with the BS, cause you can't wield a EB that is one size larger than the character. This feat does not change that.

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Companion Subscriber
Krodjin wrote:

First rule about Bastard Sword is don't talk about Bastard Sword.

Why is Blackbloodtroll the only person who observes this rule???

They haven't been banned yet.


banned? was there some great calamity prior to my arrival on these boards?


Thax, you still keep citing this fictitious rule that a character can't wield a two-handed weapon one size too big. No such rule exists. What the rule actually says is that if the effort required for that specific character to wield the weapon goes to anything other than light, one-handed, or two-handed, the weapon is unwieldable. The reason that you need EWP to wield a Large Bastard Sword is that the effort required to wield goes from two-handed up to "unwieldable". Without this principal, based solely on it being a one-handed weapon, you would not need EWP to wield a Large Bastard Sword. But since the size-step is based on the effort required to wield, it works off the two-handed designation. By the exact same principal, the effort required to wield an Earthbreaker, with the T&F feat, is that it's a one-handed weapon. One step up from a one-handed weapon is two-handed. It absolutely does not matter that one step up from two-handed is unwieldable because there is absolutely no rule that says that any character, unequivocally, cannot wield a two-handed weapon one or more sizes too big. That is a gross oversimplification that states the typical end result while entirely discounting special cases as with the Earthbreaker, the Bastard Sword, and other weapons.

You could do this exact same thing using a Large Quarterstaff and Quarterstaff Master. As a two-handed weapon when properly sized for you, a Quarterstaff one size too big normally couldn't be wielded because the effort required to wield a properly sized one matches it's default designation, two-handed, which is then stepped up to "unwieldable". However, if you have Quarterstaff Master, you can treat a properly sized one as if the effort required to wield were only one-handed, thus a Large one is only considered a two-handed weapon for you, one step up from one-handed. This is not a situation strictly unique to the Earthbreaker, just so you're fully aware. So long as the effort reduction granted by the feat, ability, special property of the weapon, etc. doesn't specify that it only applies to weapons properly sized for you, it applies to weapons regardless of relative size and scaled based on size steps relative to what it would be for a properly sized one. You could wield a Small quarterstaff as if it were a Light weapon as well.


that option of the quarterstaff picked my interest, Goku version...WANT IT!!!

451 to 500 of 904 << first < prev | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder First Edition / Rules Questions / PFS - Thunder and Fang with 2 Earth Breakers All Messageboards