PFS - Thunder and Fang with 2 Earth Breakers


Rules Questions

501 to 550 of 904 << first < prev | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | next > last >>
Sovereign Court

1 person marked this as a favorite.

I can't believe this topic has so many posts. This who debate is really stupid.

If a character takes "Thunder and Fang" then they are able to wield an Earthbreaker in 1 hand. If you can wield an Earthbreaker in 1 hand then you are automatically able to take a larger version which would REQUIRE you to use 2 hands. PERIOD! Whether you like it or not, it's legal.

I play PFS and my local GM's agree it's legal. Whether I, or they, like it or not it's not breaking any rules.

Pasting Thunder and Fang here since it seems most people don't own the book and don't know what they are talking about.

Thunder and Fang:

Benefit: 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.

Normal: An earth breaker is a two-handed weapon,
preventing the use of a klar in one hand without imposing
penalties for using the earth breaker one-handed.
A klar
can be used either as a one-handed weapon or a shield; it
does not grant a bonus to AC during rounds in which it
is used as a weapon.

The only reason they state the Klar in there is because with this feat you can still retain the AC bonus even when using it to attack. The beginning of the Benefit section states you can use an Earth Breaker as a 1handed weapon, stop. 1 Earthbreaker in 1 hand, you can dual wield and take the penalties or you can take a larger version with the -2 penalty but must use both hands to wield.

To me dual wielding earth breakers seems silly. I'd rather take a -2 penalty and have a 3d6 weapon then use Enlarge Person and squish things. But that's just me. Now quit posting on this stupid thread and respond to other threads that have questions or need advice.


I'm sad that all this talking about large two-handed weapons wielded by medium characters have to be adressed specifically by Paizo.

Why ? Because people want to use a bad wording on a feat for TWFing (and Paizo even said they will correct it) to make what Paizo even prevent us to do with the Titan Mauler.

But hey, we're just kids who don't understand and just yell No! No! No!

Sovereign Court

Well, until it gets errata'ed it's legal. I'm surprised no one mentioned this sooner. I've been playing pathfinder for about 6months and picked up on Thunder and Fang's Earthbreaker bonus on my 1st or 2nd read through of the Varisia book.

I find it pretty sloppy that Paizo feels the need to errata this. The way they worded it was pretty clear and simple. Not sure how this slipped past to get allowed in PFS unless they had a monkey evaluating what's legal for PFS or they were asleep.

Liberty's Edge

Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber

-> Kysune

I am fine with the dual wielding of the things, even as the Development team is not.

The main point I make is that the oversized Earthbreaker is still a step beyond Two Handed and thus the character can not wield it.

-> Kazaan

Quote:
thaX, you still keep citing this fictitious rule that a character can't wield a two-handed weapon one size too big.
prd wrote:

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

Fictitious?

The effort that it takes is offset by the feat when used, but it still is a two handed weapon. Nothing changed that. Go back a couple of pages and look at the quotes Redward had posted again, it is exactly what the Development team has also said.

I get that you don't like the how the rules sometimes seem ambiguous, but there seems to be a bit of "but the rules doesn't exactly say we can't do it, so it must mean we can, right?" philosiphy that gets to these type of discussions.


I'll make it clear:
IT DOESN'T MATTER!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Ok once made my point I think I can continue with my arguments:
A Large Earthbraker with impact and enlarge person does
6d6 6-36
Same BS:
4d8 4-32
Does it really matter? back to my first point, NO.
It's funny? OH YES!!!
It's legal...well...It looks like yes it's legal untill errata.
So...let the people just wear oversized Large BS/EB/Durgen Derga/Quarterstaff and enjoy their PC
Thanks for quarterstaff master that was awesome I'll work towards a Goku character xD Grow Quarstaff Grow!!!

Sovereign Court

Logically speaking, if an Earth Breaker requires only 1 hand then it is no longer a 2 handed weapon. Which is granted via Thunder and Fang. It's just illogical to think that you can't take a larger version of a 1 handed weapon and 2 hand that.

The Thunder and Fang gives new rules for those using an Earth Breaker. It's no longer a "2 handed weapon" for them, it's a 1 handed weapon and for all purposes counts as a 1handed weapon as long as it's in their size category.

Regardless of anything else, not being able to 2hand a large version of an Earth Breaker with the Thunder and Fang feat defies ALL logic.


So, has the Earth Breaker weapon master suddenly gotten a little bit better I wonder? Hmmm.
I wonder how good a Two Handed Fighter/Titan Mauler Barbarian with a large Earth Breaker would be? I'm thinking Hulk Smash pretty much EVERYTHING.


thaX wrote:

Fictitious?

The effort that it takes is offset by the feat when used, but it still is a two handed weapon. Nothing changed that. Go back a couple of pages and look at the quotes Redward had posted again, it is exactly what the Development team has also said.

Yes, Fictitious. It is still a two-handed weapon, but that doesn't matter in the slightest because you're not treating it as one for the purpose of wielding it. Even a Bastard Sword wielded in two hands doesn't become a two-handed weapon, but it is treated as a two-handed weapon for the purpose of wielding it. And the Bastard Sword (and, by logical extension, weapons with similar caveats) are exceptions to the standard rule that a one-handed weapon wielded in two hands only gets the benefit a higher Strength factor, but doesn't "count as" a two-handed weapon. The size-step change is based on the relative effort required to wield the weapon, based on how much effort it would take to wield a version properly sized for you, with any abilities that reduce that effort taken fully into consideration.

No where do the rules say that a Medium character cannot wield a Large version of what would be a 2-h weapon if properly sized for them, neither explicitly nor explicitly. What they say is that if the weapon, properly sized for you, must be wielded as at least a two-handed weapon, one size bigger makes it unwieldable. This is not the case with Earthbreaker + T&F, nor is it the case with a Quarterstaff + QM.

Liberty's Edge

Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber

So how are you treating your longsword when you use it Two Handed? Can you no longer wield an oversized one if you two handed a regular one in the past?

So, I will pull out the quote from earlier in the page...

Does the Quartermaster specifically mention oversized weapons? I am not familiar with the archtype.

Patrick Renie wrote:

Robert Jordan wrote:

Quick question about Thunder and Fang. The old Thunder and Fang basically allowed you to hit with the Earthbreaker two handed for strength and a half on damage, from the way the new feat is phrased it seems that is no longer the case. The way I imagined the Thunder and Fang style working was as you swung your hammer down two handed the blade on your klar sliced the enemy forcing them a step back so the hammer head collided with them.

The new phrasing seems to look like you wield the hammer one handed and basically punch them with the klar. I'm just curious if it's still intended that those who use this style can use the Earthbreaker two handed for all the benefits that entails and get that extra hit with the klar as well.

The new Thunder and Fang feat basically allows you to wield an earth breaker in one hand (without accruing the penalties usually associated with doing so) and a klar in the other. In addition, you retain your shield bonus to AC from the klar, even when using it to attack.

As opposed to the old Thunder and Fang feat (from Pathfinder Adventure Path #10), the new feat does not allow you to use the earth breaker as a two-handed weapon while wielding a klar—you can either wield the earth breaker two-handed and forfeit the use of your klar, or wield the earth breaker in one hand and the klar in the other (adjusting damage and other variables accordingly for two-weapon fighting).

And...

James Jacobs wrote:

Krodjin wrote:

Hi James,

When the wording of the feat Thunder & Fang was changed from how it appeared in the CotCT player's guide, to how it appears now in Varisia: Birthplace of Legends, one of the results is that now you can seemingly TWF with two Earthbreakers, albeit at a -4/-4 penalty.

Thunder & Fang wrote:

You can use an earth breaker as though it were a one-handed weapon.

Was this intentional?

No. You can't two weapon fight with 2 earthbreakers. That was an unfortunate side effect of an attempt to standardize rules language.

The character can not TWF with them, nor can they wield an oversized one. The Size rules do not get changed because of a certain way a character wields a weapon.

The Bastard Sword specifically says that one needs a martial proficiency to even use it, and it MUST be use two handed unless the character gets EWP with it. It is still listed as a One Handed Weapon. It has no bearing on the issue at hand.

Focusing on "effort" without looking at the whole sentence of the passage is a selective reading of the rule, much like a child sticking his fingers in his ears and going "la la la la... I can't hear you..."

Silver Crusade

This will be my last post because I'm getting tired of this. Hell, thaX, you just posted the rule that proves our side and you still don't see it, so here goes:

You are wrong. That is the end of the story. You have no logical argument why you are correct and no rules quotes to support your position.

And on that note I'm done with this thread.

Shadow Lodge

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Companion, Lost Omens, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

As many rules threads go, this boils down to two sides:

Side 1: The rules say X, so X.

Side 2: X doesn't make sense in the fluff, so X is false, even though the rules say X.

In a home game, Side 2 has a leg to stand on. In PFS, it doesn't.

End of story.


@ Kazaan/Bigdaddyjug, I'm sad you haven't attempted to answer the point I was making. I feel that my argument not only works better then ThaX's, but it leads to a more interesting discussion.

@ThaX, wait. so now are you saying that you can't twf with earthbreakers? Also, why not address the point being made by Bigdaddyjug and Kazaan. So far you've never addressed why you can't wield a large bastard sword w/o the feat, because under your current interpretation of the rules, you should be able to?

Liberty's Edge

Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber

-> BigDaddyJug

I am going by the rules as they are laid out. The first quote says "You use the EB one handed with the Klar or you use it two handed." Not sure where you think that supports double wielding or using a bigger weapon.

The second quote states it plain. "No. You can't two weapon fight with 2 earthbreakers." Does no mean yes? Is black now white?

-> Sub Zero

I would allow for the double wielding of the hammers at my table, the overall damage output combined with the penalties to hit and that the damage is gonna be 1.0 and 0.5 (Main and off hand) of the Str mods means it is not that much over just two handing one and waylaying into the enemy. By the quote and common sense, though, would not allow such a libral reading of the feat.

The wielding of an oversized EB is completely overboard.


thaX wrote:
The wielding of an oversized EB is completely overboard.

how so rules wise? If you need a feat to wield a large bastard sword, are you not admitting that what a person counts the weapon as is more important then its actual designation? Otherwise you should be able to wield the large bastard sword without a feat. If the size category is all that matters it should look like this.

1. Pick up large bastard sword
2. no feat for bastard sword
3. checks rules that says you can't wield it in one-hand
4. notices that you are wielding it in 2-hands therefore not in one-hand
5. profit

Of course this falls apart when you realize that it's what a person counts the weapon as that matters, not the actual designation.

Unless you are saying that it is BOTH the designation and what the person counts it as that matters (the point that I was making to Kazaan and others).

In other words, try to be more clear in your reason. Saying it's overboard reeks of personal opinion and not analysis of the rules text.

Liberty's Edge

Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber

The Bastard Sword.

prd wrote:


Bastard Sword

Price 35 gp

Type exotic

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. You can use a bastard sword two-handed as a martial weapon.

This means you can't wield it at all if you don't have the general Martial profecentcy. As a martial profecent character, you can use it two handed, but since you need to use it in such a way to even wield it at all, you can't use the oversized one because of the size difference. The EWP for the BS allows the character to use it proper, and to wield the oversized weapon (at a -2 pentalty, which Amiri negates when she rages)

It is a specific weapon that is a cross between one hand and two handed. Everytime I see Amiri, I think it is a Female Cloud from Final Fantasy 7.

Silver Crusade

thaX wrote:

The Bastard Sword.

prd wrote:


Bastard Sword

Price 35 gp

Type exotic

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. You can use a bastard sword two-handed as a martial weapon.

This means you can't wield it at all if you don't have the general Martial profecentcy. As a martial profecent character, you can use it two handed, but since you need to use it in such a way to even wield it at all, you can't use the oversized one because of the size difference. The EWP for the BS allows the character to use it proper, and to wield the oversized weapon (at a -2 pentalty, which Amiri negates when she rages)

It is a specific weapon that is a cross between one hand and two handed. Everytime I see Amiri, I think it is a Female Cloud from Final Fantasy 7.

Actually, you can wield it with a -4 non=proficiency penalty, but only as a two-handed weapon. It's been clairified in an FAQ that you cannot take a non-proficiency penalty and one-hand a bastard sword.

And as far as "by the rules as they are laid out", James Jacobs is not a rules guy!!!! How many times does this have to be said?


Now I'll make your brains explode:
BS is a 1 handed weapon
You make it large, now is a 2 hanced weapon
You don't need the feat to wield it since you are using it 2handed
So....BS large freefeat
in fact you do need the feat if you don't have it is considered a 2h-martial weapon =(

Earthbraker
2handed weapon
feat->1handed
you make it large
2handed again


Sub_Zero wrote:
@ Kazaan/Bigdaddyjug, I'm sad you haven't attempted to answer the point I was making. I feel that my argument not only works better then ThaX's, but it leads to a more interesting discussion.

I glossed over it because it looked like something that had been addressed already. You basically asked if "Falcon Punch" could be used with a dagger since, while the "name" and "flavor" of the feat suggest an unarmed strike, the benefit listed has no such limitation. That's exactly the same as Punishing Kick, a feat that actually exists. It lists a benefit and, while the name and flavor (both fluff aspects) suggest an unarmed strike, no such mechanical limitation exists regarding the feat. It's similar to the "Sword and Pistol" argument in that, just because the name of the feat suggests something doesn't place unspecified mechanical constraints on what the feat does. Now if there were an ambiguity in the mechanics, one that could be cleared up by reading into the description, that's one thing. But there's no ambiguity in mechanics here; T&F, among doing other separate things, lets you wield an Earthbreaker as if it were a one-handed weapon. That means that a Large one would be considered a two-handed weapon for you and a Small one would be considered a Light weapon. Same goes for the Quarterstaff in the hands of a Quarterstaff Master. And, while a Tiny Earthbreaker would be unwieldable if using that aspect of the feat, you can always just eschew that option and wield it as you normally would wield a Tiny Earthbreaker, also as a light weapon. It works the same in the other direction as lack of a feat obligates you to consider the Bastard Sword as if it were a two-handed weapon instead of the one-hander it actually is. So, lacking the feat, it's unwieldable as a Large BS and a one-handed weapon as a Small BS and a light weapon as a Tiny BS. With the feat, so you can consider it a one-hander (that also trumps general rules in that you actually do treat it as a two-hander when wielding it in two hands) which makes a Large BS a two-handed weapon and a Small BS a light weapon. It's all clear and mechanical so there's nothing that needs to be clarified.

Regarding JJ's comment, again, JJ is not a rules guy. He has said as much himself. Moreover, if you can't dual-wield Earthbreakers using T&F, that would, by logical extension, also disqualify other similar situations where you are able to reduce the effective handedness of a weapon (ie. Jotungrip, Quarterstaff Master, etc). But there's no indication that this is a thing. JJ basically pulled an exception out of the blue that isn't grounded in the rules because it violated his original view of how the feat would work, despite the fact that the way the feat works was explicitly changed. And this isn't the first time he's done this. He used to assert that Vital Strike works just fine outside of the standard Attack action; a position that was explicitly contradicted via FAQ. He has said himself and continually maintained that he answers these kinds of questions based on his personal philosophy and a "creative" interpretation of the rules (he handles the creative aspect of the Golaron world). They more represent how he'd run his own home games. Now I won't get into how I don't agree with that philosophy of GMing that puts personal interpretation ahead of rules "by accident", beyond saying that you need to know what the rules are, how and why they function, before you go about making very deliberate, reasonable, and pre-informed houserules. But that doesn't change the fact that it is, essentially, a houserule. No one's saying you can't do it, but we're debating the how and why so that people understand that they are making a houserule in this case if they decide that T&F wouldn't allow one to dual-wield or oversize-wield an Earthbreaker. You gotta know the rules in order to break them properly... otherwise you're not GMing, you're blundering and blustering.

Liberty's Edge

Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber

So the quote above is somehow different because another guy is hands off most of the time?

Ok, sure, you can wield any weapon with the -4 proficiency. With the Two Handed grip for the BS.

Still don't see a connection between the BS and the EB. They are different weapons, different feats that interact with them, and the BS has exceptions specifically.

As I said before, I don't begrudge a player that wields two EB's with this or other feats/abilities, not that big of a thing. The wielding of the oversized weapon just seems like trying to take advantage of a loophole for a step up in weapon damage. There are other ways to up damage without trying to haul around a telephone pole with a foundation block on the end.

Part of the problem is that any reading of a rule needs to take into account the intent of the feat/power/ability to clarify what should be "allowed" in game. This is meant to have the EB and the Klar work together and still have an AC bonus while TWF with them. Why would a change in format and wording between the two versions allow something the other did not?

Silver Crusade

The bastard sword has exceptions and specific feats that interact with it, just like the earthbreaker has exceptions and specific feats that interact with it.

Liberty's Edge

Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber
Kazaan wrote:
Sub_Zero wrote:
@ Kazaan/Bigdaddyjug, I'm sad you haven't attempted to answer the point I was making. I feel that my argument not only works better then ThaX's, but it leads to a more interesting discussion.
But there's no ambiguity in mechanics here; T&F, among doing other separate things, lets you wield an Earthbreaker as if it were a one-handed weapon.

You keep getting stuck right there.

"As if..."

Still isn't, you just wield it differently than what it actually "is." One can still wield it the other way also, just as one would have to if one could wield the oversized version. (which, of course, they can not)

When they changed the wording of the feat it was to take down the damage gotten from Two Handing the EB. Using it as if it were a one handed weapon does the lower damage scale for Str mod, Power attack and the like. That someone would ignore the Klar and say "Oh, to heck with that, I will just double wield the hammers" didn't somehow register with the writer at the time.

We have seen quotes that tell us this, the quote above tells us "Use it with the Klar one handed or use it two handed." But somehow, the Size Rules are different because now one can wield it "as if" it were something other than what it is.

Silver Crusade

thaX wrote:
Kazaan wrote:
Sub_Zero wrote:
@ Kazaan/Bigdaddyjug, I'm sad you haven't attempted to answer the point I was making. I feel that my argument not only works better then ThaX's, but it leads to a more interesting discussion.
But there's no ambiguity in mechanics here; T&F, among doing other separate things, lets you wield an Earthbreaker as if it were a one-handed weapon.

You keep getting stuck right there.

"As if..."

Still isn't, you just wield it differently than what it actually "is." One can still wield it the other way also, just as one would have to if one could wield the oversized version. (which, of course, they can not)

When they changed the wording of the feat it was to take down the damage gotten from Two Handing the EB. Using it as if it were a one handed weapon does the lower damage scale for Str mod, Power attack and the like. That someone would ignore the Klar and say "Oh, to heck with that, I will just double wield the hammers" didn't somehow register with the writer at the time.

We have seen quotes that tell us this, the quote above tells us "Use it with the Klar one handed or use it two handed." But somehow, the Size Rules are different because now one can wield it "as if" it were something other than what it is.

And you keep getting stuck right there. The "minimum handedness" with which you can wield a weapon is the only thing that matters in determining what size weapon you can wield. The [b]ONLY[/b} thing.


Kazaan wrote:
Sub_Zero wrote:
@ Kazaan/Bigdaddyjug, I'm sad you haven't attempted to answer the point I was making. I feel that my argument not only works better then ThaX's, but it leads to a more interesting discussion.
I glossed over it because it looked like something that had been addressed already. You basically asked if "Falcon Punch" could be used with a dagger since, while the "name" and "flavor" of the feat suggest an unarmed strike, the benefit listed has no such limitation. That's exactly the same as Punishing Kick, a feat that actually exists. It lists a benefit and, while the name and flavor (both fluff aspects) suggest an unarmed strike, no such mechanical limitation exists regarding the feat. It's similar to the "Sword and Pistol" argument in that, just because the name of the feat suggests something doesn't place unspecified mechanical constraints on what the feat does. Now if there were an ambiguity in the mechanics, one that could be cleared up by reading into the description, that's one thing. But there's no ambiguity in mechanics here; T&F, among doing other separate things, lets you wield an Earthbreaker as if it were a one-handed weapon. That means that a Large one would be considered a two-handed weapon for you and a Small one would be considered a Light weapon. Same goes for the Quarterstaff in the hands of a Quarterstaff Master. And, while a Tiny Earthbreaker would be unwieldable if using that aspect of the feat, you can always just eschew that option and wield it as you normally would wield a Tiny Earthbreaker, also as a light weapon. It works the same in the other direction as lack of a feat obligates you to consider the Bastard Sword as if it were a two-handed weapon instead of the one-hander it actually is. So, lacking the feat, it's unwieldable as a Large BS and a one-handed weapon as a Small BS and a light weapon as a Tiny BS. With the feat, so you can consider it a one-hander (that also trumps general rules in that you actually do treat...

ahh, you missed it then. I wasn't talking about the name. If you look back you should find it easy enough. Essentially I'm making the argument that you need 2 criterion to wield the large weapon.

1. That it's the appropriate size category
2. That the wielder treats its as the appropriate category.

I make the argument in full a bit back, and while I don't necessarily agree with it, it seems to be pretty sound. It also isn't a "because I said so" like some of the current arguments.

Definitely read the whole argument before replying though, since I don't do it justice in this post.


Sub_Zero wrote:

ahh, you missed it then. I wasn't talking about the name. If you look back you should find it easy enough. Essentially I'm making the argument that you need 2 criterion to wield the large weapon.

1. That it's the appropriate size category
2. That the wielder treats its as the appropriate category.

I make the argument in full a bit back, and while I don't necessarily agree with it, it seems to be pretty sound. It also isn't a "because I said so" like some of the current arguments.

Definitely read the whole argument before replying though, since I don't do it justice in this post.

Ah, that one. Already covered that when I talked about the Redcap. If you must meet both criteria, that it is not only a size you could wield anyway but also a size for which you functionally treat it as able to be wielded, that may cover the Bastard Sword, which covers only one of the two if you lack EWP but has both if you have EWP, but it doesn't cover the Redcap from the other end. The Redcap, a small fey, can wield a Medium Scythe. Scythes are two-handed weapons which small creatures can't normally wield; they're too big. But the Redcap can because it ignores the size step penalty. If it had to apply not only to the "adjusted" handiness" but also to the "non-adjusted" handiness, then the Redcap wouldn't be able to use its Medium Scythe because, regardless of having an ability that says it can wield Medium weapons without penalty, a Medium two-handed weapon is still too big for a small creature to wield.

The fundamental fact of the matter is that the rules do not state what Thax and others think it states. That is a paraphrase; a summary of the typical end result. What it actually says is that if the effort required to wield steps above or below an acceptable handling category, then the weapon is unwieldable. Now, in typical circumstances, the effort required to wield matches up with what the weapon is designated as by default. A Longsword requires one-handed effort to wield because it is a one-handed weapon. A Dagger requires light effort to wield because it is a light weapon. The two are in synch in these cases. When you adjust for wrong-size, you take the effort to wield as if it were properly sized and step it from there. If you can swing a weapon that normally requires two-handed effort using only one-handed effort, then you can swing that same weapon one size too big because you bring it down from one step above two-handed effort to two-handed effort. Two steps too big would still be out of consideration.

Liberty's Edge

Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber
Bigdaddyjug wrote:


And you keep getting stuck right there. The "minimum handedness" with which you can wield a weapon is the only thing that matters in determining what size weapon you can wield. The [b]ONLY[/b} thing.

And where does it say that? I can't find it anywhere.

Liberty's Edge

1 person marked this as FAQ candidate.
Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber

The Redcap has an ability that states outright. "This creature can wield Medium weapons without pentilty"

Nothing about "Handyness."


Kazaan wrote:
Sub_Zero wrote:

ahh, you missed it then. I wasn't talking about the name. If you look back you should find it easy enough. Essentially I'm making the argument that you need 2 criterion to wield the large weapon.

1. That it's the appropriate size category
2. That the wielder treats its as the appropriate category.

I make the argument in full a bit back, and while I don't necessarily agree with it, it seems to be pretty sound. It also isn't a "because I said so" like some of the current arguments.

Definitely read the whole argument before replying though, since I don't do it justice in this post.

Ah, that one. Already covered that when I talked about the Redcap. If you must meet both criteria, that it is not only a size you could wield anyway but also a size for which you functionally treat it as able to be wielded, that may cover the Bastard Sword, which covers only one of the two if you lack EWP but has both if you have EWP, but it doesn't cover the Redcap from the other end. The Redcap, a small fey, can wield a Medium Scythe. Scythes are two-handed weapons which small creatures can't normally wield; they're too big. But the Redcap can because it ignores the size step penalty. If it had to apply not only to the "adjusted" handiness" but also to the "non-adjusted" handiness, then the Redcap wouldn't be able to use its Medium Scythe because, regardless of having an ability that says it can wield Medium weapons without penalty, a Medium two-handed weapon is still too big for a small creature to wield.

The fundamental fact of the matter is that the rules do not state what Thax and others think it states. That is a paraphrase; a summary of the typical end result. What it actually says is that if the effort required to wield steps above or below an acceptable handling category, then the weapon is unwieldable. Now, in typical circumstances, the effort required to wield matches up with what the weapon is designated as by default. A Longsword...

AH, thank you. Consider that interpretation successfully defeated then. I'd say that this leaves us with a clear conclusion then. (despite how much against the RAI it is).

Thanks Kazaan!

Liberty's Edge

Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber

For those of you new to the thread, there is this feat call Thunder and Fang. In the original source of the feat, it spelled out that the character would wield an Earthbreaker (EB) and a Klar together. When it was reprinted in a newer book, the feat's wording was changed to reflect a more standardized approach to the mechanics, and so that one would not be using the EB with Two Hands as they were using the Klar at the same time.

The newer version of the feat does the same thing as the old, though the actual means to use the weapon resulted in the character using the Earthbreaker "as if it was a one handed weapon," going on to say that when the EB is used with the Klar, the Klar acts as a light weapon as far as TWF is concerned, and that the AC bonus is retained.

Now... the OP wanted to know if the new phrasing makes it so that one could drop the Klar altogether and just double wield the EB's. (That is, wield two of these very big hammers) I can see it, though it would be bending the intent of the feat and side stepping the rules a bit.

Now, going from there, a couple of posters (and the one on the fence) seem to thing that using the EB as a one handed weapon make it so that it is a one handed weapon, thus one could actually wield a larger one two handed when it normally couldn't be done beforehand.

I look at the size rules for the weapon, and see the entry for inappropriate sized weapons. EB is a two handed weapon, one that is a step up from the character's size is no longer within the scope of either Light, one handed, or two handed. A medium character, for example, can not wield a large Earthbreaker.

So the argument begins. Is it truly a two handed weapon? Is it just two handed for everyone but the character with this feat? Is it a mighty morphing power weapon?

Is the fact that the character can use a two handed weapon in one hand make it so that he can two hand a two handed larger weapon?

My stance, along with the developers of the game and the guy that wrote the reworded feat, is that it does not. A character can not wield a two handed weapon that is a size larger than the character, unless an ability specifically states that this is the case. This feat does not do that.

Though I would allow a player to double wield the EB's if it came down to it, quotes from the developers and the Paizo team has stated that this feat does not allow one to do so.

Now, one particular poster is on about the effort needed to use a weapon. He is reading a part of the size rules without taking the next sentence into context. I even quoted and bolded the relevant part. He is mistaken, the effort needed is referring to what the weapon is made to do. Thinking that using a weapon as a one handed weapon would change that weapon or it's overall designation for that character would make the size rules useless, as all weapons would either always be wieldable or never be able to be used at all.

Now, there has been this exception to the rule that has been mentioned. The Bastard Sword. (BS) It is a one handed exotic weapon that martial proficient character can use, but only two handed. (a regular character can used it as an improvised weapon at a -4, two handed) This makes it so that character can not wield the oversized BS. If a character get the Exotic Weapon Proficiency (Bastard Sword), then the weapon can be used proper as a one handed weapon, and the oversized one can be two handed. (just as a one handed weapon can be)

Seems that this is something that has kept this thread alive, as some see some non-exsistant parallel to the EB and this feat. The EB, however, isn't One Handed, nor does it have a special clause about Size that the BS has.

To summarize.

One can not (technically) wield two Earthbreakers with this feat. (Cool looking, but alas...)

One can not wield an oversized Earthbreaker with this feat.

Silver Crusade

2 people marked this as a favorite.

To summarize, thaX is wrong in all of his assumptions and you can most certainly dual-wield earthbreakers with the feat and you can wield a large earthbreaker as a two-handed weapon with the feat.

Liberty's Edge

Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber

Have you read anything that is on this thread, or just your own posts?

PRD wrote:

Weapon Size:
Every weapon has a size category. This designation indicates the size of the creature for which the weapon was designed. A weapon's size category isn't the same as its size as an object. In general, a light weapon is an object two size categories smaller than the wielder, a one-handed weapon is an object one size category smaller than the wielder, and a two-handed weapon is an object of the same size category as the wielder.

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

The measure of how much effort it takes to use a weapon (whether the weapon is designated as a light, one-handed, or two-handed weapon for a particular wielder) is altered by one step for each size category of difference between the wielder's size and the size of the creature for which the weapon was designed. For example, a Small creature wields a Medium one-handed weapon as a two-handed weapon (it still takes the –2 penalty for using an inappropriately sized weapon). If a weapon's designation would be changed to something other than light, one-handed, or two-handed by this alteration, the creature can't wield the weapon at all.

Nothing in the feat negates anything in the quoted text.

That you can use the two handed weapon in one hand, getting the appropriate damage modifiers along with it (1.0 times str mod, -1 to hit for +2 damage and the like), doesn't change that it is still a two handed weapon.

You can't wield one that is a size category above the character's own size.

Silver Crusade

The first line of the feat contradicts the needlessly bolded text, you just don't want to admit you are wrong. We can keep going abck and forth. I promise I'll keep coming in here to tell people the true and correct answer until the wrong side gives up or until an FAQ/errata is issued on it.

The important part of that quote that you are ignoring is "The measure of how much effort it takes". Feats and other things, like the redcap's ability, can change how much effort it takes to wield a weapon. Before you start altering it for being not of an appropriate size, you have to determine how much effort is required for YOU to wield it. Then, and only then, do you adjust it for inappropriate size.

Silver Crusade

Here's a question for you and it will have a two word answer and all I want in response is your answer. Consider it a thought exercise.

How much effort is required for a PC with the Thunder and Fang feat to wield an earthbreaker?


thaX wrote:

Have you read anything that is on this thread, or just your own posts?

PRD wrote:

Weapon Size:
Every weapon has a size category. This designation indicates the size of the creature for which the weapon was designed. A weapon's size category isn't the same as its size as an object. In general, a light weapon is an object two size categories smaller than the wielder, a one-handed weapon is an object one size category smaller than the wielder, and a two-handed weapon is an object of the same size category as the wielder.

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

The measure of how much effort it takes to use a weapon (whether the weapon is designated as a light, one-handed, or two-handed weapon for a particular wielder) is altered by one step for each size category of difference between the wielder's size and the size of the creature for which the weapon was designed. For example, a Small creature wields a Medium one-handed weapon as a two-handed weapon (it still takes the –2 penalty for using an inappropriately sized weapon). If a weapon's designation would be changed to something other than light, one-handed, or two-handed by this alteration, the creature can't wield the weapon at all.

Nothing in the feat negates anything in the quoted text.

That you can use the two handed weapon in one hand, getting the appropriate damage modifiers along with it (1.0 times str mod, -1 to hit for +2 damage and the like), doesn't change that it is still a two handed weapon.

You can't wield one that is a size category above the character's own size.

We're not using it in one-hand, if we were, we would still get the 1.5X Power Attack and Str, as per the Lance FAQ on the matter. Using a weapon in one hand and using it as a one-handed weapon are different matters all together.


WAIT... I just came to a realization. Thax is Bill O'Reilly. That... explains... EVERYTHING!

So, thaX, lets put down the clown, shall we?

PRD wrote:

Weapon Size:

Every weapon has a size category. This designation indicates the size of the creature for which the weapon was designed. A weapon's size category isn't the same as its size as an object. In general, a light weapon is an object two size categories smaller than the wielder, a one-handed weapon is an object one size category smaller than the wielder, and a two-handed weapon is an object of the same size category as the wielder.

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

The measure of how much effort it takes to use a weapon (whether the weapon is designated as a light, one-handed, or two-handed weapon for a particular wielder) is altered by one step for each size category of difference between the wielder's size and the size of the creature for which the weapon was designed. For example, a Small creature wields a Medium one-handed weapon as a two-handed weapon (it still takes the –2 penalty for using an inappropriately sized weapon). If a weapon's designation would be changed to something other than light, one-handed, or two-handed by this alteration, the creature can't wield the weapon at all.

So you bolded those passages with added emphasis in one place. Lets look at these statement:

1) "Every weapon has a size category. This designation indicates the size of the creature for which the weapon was designed."

So a Large Quarterstaff was designed for a Large creature, a Medium Quarterstaff was designed for a Medium creature, and a Small Quarterstaff was designed for a Small creature. Easy enough, right?

2) "The measure of how much effort it takes to use a weapon (whether the weapon is designated as a light, one-handed, or two-handed weapon for a particular wielder) is altered by one step for each size category of difference between the wielder's size and the size of the creature for which the weapon was designed."

The measure of effort it takes to use a weapon is altered by one step for each size category of difference between the wielder's size and the size of the creature for which the weapon was designed. What is the effort it takes for a Medium creature to wield a Medium Quarterstaff? Two-handed. What's the effort it takes for a Medium creature to wield a Medium Quarterstaff with the Quarterstaff Master feat? One-handed. That's the effort it takes to use the Quarterstaff both with and without a particular feat. How many size categories of difference are there between a Medium creature and a Large? One. So how many steps up does it require for a Large Quarterstaff? One up from what it took to use one properly sized for you.

3) "If a weapon's designation would be changed to something other than light, one-handed, or two-handed by this alteration, the creature can't wield the weapon at all."

If this would change it to anything other than light, one-handed, or two-handed, the creature in question cannot wield it. It's the change to unwieldable that makes it unwieldable, not what it is before that change.

Nothing in any of those rules say that, regardless of how much effort it actually takes you to use the weapon, you must determine whether it is fundamentally wieldable or not based on how it would change if no special considerations were in play. You are correct in saying that nothing in those rules are negated by the rules in that the feats in question go right along with the rules; they change the effort it would take to wield as mentioned in the second passage that you, yourself, bolded. The effort required to wield (whether the weapon is considered two-handed, one-handed, or light for a particular wielder) is altered by one step...

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Companion Subscriber

Ha!

Yes, thaX is Bill O'Reilly, and for this, Kazaan is Marylin Manson.

I loved that interview!

Sczarni

Bigdaddyjug wrote:


And as far as "by the rules as they are laid out", James Jacobs is not a rules guy!!!! How many times does this have to be said?

I've noticed that is only said by people who disagree with his interpretation of the rules... And it's because it buys those people more time until the Design Team gets around to issuing a FAQ - and trust me the Design Team is going to back JJ's interpretation in this instance.


thaX wrote:
Have you read anything that is on this thread, or just your own posts?

Hello pot, my name is kettle. You are black.

Grand Lodge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Companion Subscriber

James Jacobs notes how he would run things in his home games.

He still allows Spring Attack to work with Vital Strike.

So, whilst many respect his contributions, he is, and he notes, that he is not a rules guy.

So, please stop using him as a rules authority, then going on with this "the only people who say that are doody heads" crap whenever someone points out that is something he explicitly says he is not.

You want lore, and JJ is your guy. I ask him lore stuff all the time.

Rules?

Do JJ a favor, do what he asks, and stop wielding him as some kind of improvised rules authority.


For those new to this thread,; read ThaX's first post and don't bother with the rest. They all say the same thing.

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Companion Subscriber

Also, stop abusing JJ's kindness.

He brought cocaine into my home games, and PFS characters.

I love the guy.


blackbloodtroll wrote:
James Jacobs notes how he would run things in his home games.

Please note that the first several quotes I posted earlier are from the Product Discussion forum for Varisia, Birthplace of Legends, not the Ask JJ thread.

You can claim RAW if you want, I'm frankly sick of arguing it. But if you bring this to a PFS game and beat the GM over the head with "RAW! RAW!" while feigning ignorance of the clearly stated intent of the Feat or standing petulantly in defiance of it, you're kind of being a jerk.

Grand Lodge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Companion Subscriber

Still doing it.

On a high horse too.

Look at the Titan Mauler. RAI don't have the weight we all would like it to have.

Nobody is even arguing RAI.


blackbloodtroll wrote:

Still doing it.

On a high horse too.

Look at the Titan Mauler. RAI don't have the weight we all would like it to have.

Nobody is even arguing RAI.

what he said.

Silver Crusade

I see thaX never answered the very simple question I asked him. Of course, it's possible, that like me he got off of work and is still making his way home. However, I'd like, and am going, to believe that my simple question was an epiphany for him and that he's currently huddled naked in one corner of his living room, mumbling over and over "Bigdaddyjug and Kazaan were right..."


Bigdaddyjug wrote:
I see thaX never answered the very simple question I asked him. Of course, it's possible, that like me he got off of work and is still making his way home. However, I'd like, and am going, to believe that my simple question was an epiphany for him and that he's currently huddled naked in one corner of his living room, mumbling over and over "Bigdaddyjug and Kazaan were right..."

ThaX reserves the right to ignore your questions and points if they are not in his favor.

The Exchange Owner - D20 Hobbies

blackbloodtroll wrote:

Still doing it.

Look at the Titan Mauler. RAI don't have the weight we all would like it to have.

Well I'm sure there are a lot of people that will block your builds, assert you are reading RAW wrong, and ignore all your protestations.

As for the Titan comment, I'm not sure which is your point:

  • The Titan Mauler freelancer wanted to see colossal hammers in the hands of Medium PC's and those mean Paizo developers blocked it with the RAW (RAI is to ignore size of weapon.)
  • We all know what the rule says, but because the developers write the books in a simple way there are these times where there are awkward ways to twist the reading to come up with silly stuff and if found we get to claim there is only one way to read the rules (RAI is the right way and awkward is the "uber" way.)


James Risner wrote:
blackbloodtroll wrote:

Still doing it.

Look at the Titan Mauler. RAI don't have the weight we all would like it to have.
Well I'm sure there are a lot of people that will block your builds, assert you are reading RAW wrong, and ignore all your protestations.

kind of like when you make claims and don't back them up, and then follow that by ignoring rebuttals to the few points you did make. Then you follow that up with asinine assertions.

umm, pot, that's not a kettle you're talking too, that's just a mirror.

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Companion Subscriber

RAI changes, depending on who you ask, and when.

Did I mention nobody is arguing RAI.


blackbloodtroll wrote:

Still doing it.

On a high horse too.

Look at the Titan Mauler. RAI don't have the weight we all would like it to have.

Nobody is even arguing RAI.

The Titan Mauler was FAQ'd. There's no longer any room for interpretation there, if there ever was. Count me among the disappointed it turned out that way.

I'd love for my PFS Titan Mauler to swing a large two-handed weapon, but I'm not going to exploit what amounts to a typo to do it.

If you do bring this to a PFS game, I hope you'd have the respect for your GM and the other players to bring it up before the session starts and avoid a rules argument in-game. I'd also hope your adherence to RAW would extend to your retraining options should it be FAQ'd down the line.


blackbloodtroll wrote:

RAI changes, depending on who you ask, and when.

Did I mention nobody is arguing RAI.

I'm willing to argue RAI, someone should root for the underdog.

As intended, I think the feat meant to allow a large Earthbreaker or dual wielding 2 medium ones.

501 to 550 of 904 << first < prev | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder First Edition / Rules Questions / PFS - Thunder and Fang with 2 Earth Breakers All Messageboards