PFS - Thunder and Fang with 2 Earth Breakers


Rules Questions

551 to 600 of 904 << first < prev | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | next > last >>

redward wrote:
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.

I don't think bbt was reffering to the interpretation of the rule, so much as the original designer, wanted to make it so a barbarian could in fact wield a large weapon.

the RAI was then re-written by the design team, to prevent this. So there we had 2 different RAI's (the writers vs devs).

Just in case it wasn't clear. :D

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Companion Subscriber

Indeed.

Titan Mauler is a perfect example of conflicting RAI.

Liberty's Edge

Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber

Kazaan... Really?

Quote:

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.

I know you think that the character's own use vs the size is the base to compare the sizes of the weapons to. I get that. It does not say that in the quote I provided from the PRD.

It says it compares what the weapon is vs. the size of the creature. However the creature can otherwise wield the weapon is not something the size rules considers, it isn't a sliding scale.

For example, the Redcap you have mentioned actually has an ability that mentions the size rule.

bestiary 2 wrote:


Heavy Weapons (Ex) A redcap can wield
weapons sized for Medium creatures
without penalty.

This is the reason it can wield a medium scythe.

The Earthbreaker or this feat has nothing that mentions the size of the weapons, it only says you can use the particular Two handed weapon in one hand. It is assumed that the reader of the feat will take into account that your using the Klar with it when doing so, but it isn't in lawyer legalize, so there is room for rules doctoring.

Liberty's Edge

Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber
redward wrote:


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.

This has been quoted and mentioned before. Somehow, it seems, the two situations is somehow different, hence the thread continued.

Liberty's Edge

Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber
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..."

I am so sorry, I was GMing a PFS game at my local gaming store and can't be by the computer 24/7.

"effort" is never mentioned in the feat. It is used as if it was a one handed weapon, but the focus on "effort" is a means to try and change the Size Rules somehow to overcome a limit it imposes.

Frankly, I tire of trying to explain over and over again a very simple concept. I wonder what some would do when confronted by the GM and told that the character could not do these things. Would the books come out, would there be charts and graphs, would a study be done? Would it come down to a vote?

The main reason I would allow the double wielding ingame is that I know a problem player when I see one. I would pass it off as an expensive trade off for not much gain. The oversized EB, though, would put the breaks on, more so when Lead Blades is used to up the damage step again.

"Effort" is a word used to explain how the size of the weapons interact with the size of the character. That is it. It doesn't care that the character can wield it in a different way, use it as a fishing rod, or play tittlywinks.

Liberty's Edge

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

Is that a good thing, being consistant?

Or is it a bad thing, saying it with little variance?

I try to say it differently, to be able to come at it from different perspectives so that the reader can look at it and see where I am coming from.

I want to say there are some that see my point.

The Exchange Owner - D20 Hobbies

Sub_Zero wrote:
kind of like when you make claims and don't back them up ... just a mirror.

I ignore your requests for backup. I'd done so. You ignore it. I don't need to any more. I can just keep rejecting your view.

blackbloodtroll wrote:
Titan Mauler is a perfect example of conflicting RAI.

Not really, as only one matters. The dev team.

Silver Crusade

1 person marked this as FAQ candidate.

So refuse to give a simple answer to a question that would help us clear up the whole problem. I wonder why that is.

I'll ask it again in case anybody else wants to answer.

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

Liberty's Edge

Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber

Perhaps you miss it, so I will post it again...

"Effort" is a word used within the size rules, particularly within the passage about inappropriately sized weapons, to explain how the size of the weapons interact with the size of the character. That is it. It doesn't care that the character can wield it in a different way, use it as a fishing rod, or play tittlywinks.

Silver Crusade

Then that is your problem and why you have been wrong throughout this thread. The minimum effort reaquired for a specific character to wield a specific weapon is the only thing that is important when determining what size of inappropriately sized weapons that character can use.

Your reluctance to answer the question is more than proof enough that you realize this and are refusing to answer because it would make your argument look like swiss cheese.

It's ok to br wrong, thaX. I've been wrong before and even admitted it on these boards.

Silver Crusade

Just to note, I started a new thread so we can can get a ruling on how to determine what sized weapons a character can use.


James Risner wrote:
Sub_Zero wrote:
kind of like when you make claims and don't back them up ... just a mirror.

I ignore your requests for backup. I'd done so. You ignore it. I don't need to any more. I can just keep rejecting your view.

James, read what you wrote aloud. I honestly have no idea what you're saying.

Liberty's Edge

Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber

The Size rules are not specific to each individual character. It is a baseline to use when looking at different sized weapons in relation to the character that would wield them.

It looks at the size of the weapon and the size of the character. If a character could adjust their own relationship to the size rules through an ability granted by a class feature or a feat, it would be specifically mentioned within that source. This isn't the case here.

It is mentioned for the Redcap monster, allowing that small creature to wield a medium Scythe.

The inappropriate sized weapons section looks at the size variance, then upticks/downgrades the weapon designation from there. It doesn't take an individual's own abilities into account.

The Bastard Sword, as people keep bringing up, is specifically treated differently because of the properties of the weapon. One needs specialized training to use it proper (as a one handed weapon) A Tengu character (with the Sword trained trait they automatically get) can wield one proper from the start.

One can not wield an oversized two handed weapon. This feat does not change that fact.

Silver Crusade

So much wrong information in one post it's unbelievable.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
thaX wrote:
It says it compares what the weapon is vs. the size of the creature. However the creature can otherwise wield the weapon is not something the size rules considers, it isn't a sliding scale.

It says it compares what the weapon size is vs the size of the creature to determine how many steps to change it. If you're Medium and you're trying to wield a Huge weapon, that involves a change of two steps. That does not dictate what starting level you take those two steps from. Just because it's a two-handed weapon doesn't mean you automatically take those two steps from two-handed regardless of an ability that says you don't need to treat it as a two-handed weapon. To wit, the Bastard Sword, again, changes by one step not from the base size of a one-handed weapon but from the effective size of two-handed if you lack EWP.

thaX wrote:

For example, the Redcap you have mentioned actually has an ability that mentions the size rule.

bestiary 2 wrote:


Heavy Weapons (Ex) A redcap can wield
weapons sized for Medium creatures
without penalty.

This is the reason it can wield a medium scythe.

The Earthbreaker or this feat has nothing that mentions the size of the weapons, it only says you can use the particular Two handed weapon in one hand. It is assumed that the reader of the feat will take into account that your using the Klar with it when doing so, but it isn't in lawyer legalize, so there is room for rules doctoring.

Again, according to you, a creature cannot wield a two-handed weapon that is one size too big, regardless of what abilities they have that adjust their wielding permissions, because the weapon is just inherently too big to consider. According to you, the Redcap would be able to wield a Medium Longsword as still a 1-h weapon, but a Medium Scythe or other 2-h base weapon is out of the question because a Medium 2-h weapon is unwieldable for a Small creature. That's your entire argument for disqualifying the Large Earthbreaker; regardless of what ability you have that changes the handedness of the weapon, it's still a Medium creature trying to wield a Large 2-h weapon which should be a no-go. I'm saying that that is not only a ridiculously inconsistent position to take, but also subject to a clear counter-example that quite adequately disproves it.

The Exchange Owner - D20 Hobbies

Bigdaddyjug wrote:
How much effort is required for a character with the Thunder and Fang feat to wield an appropriately sized earthbreaker?

Two hands or one hand if your other hand is using klar.

Sub_Zero wrote:
James, read what you wrote aloud. I honestly have no idea what you're saying.

I'm saying that our behavior in this thread is identical, and you don't seem to understand that. But I do.

Silver Crusade

James Risner wrote:
Bigdaddyjug wrote:
How much effort is required for a character with the Thunder and Fang feat to wield an appropriately sized earthbreaker?
Two hands or one hand if your other hand is using klar.

Where in the text of the Thunder and Fang feat does it say that?


James Risner wrote:
Sub_Zero wrote:
James, read what you wrote aloud. I honestly have no idea what you're saying.
I'm saying that our behavior in this thread is identical, and you don't seem to understand that. But I do.

not even close James. I've been more of a jerk then I should be, but our behavior has not been the same. I've provided detailed explanations for my positions, and you haven't. For the bits you did try to use, I went through a thorough deconstruction of your points, you never bothered to. If you had, you'd have a leg to stand on here.


I would like to point out that a Tiefling can wield a Large Earthbreaker two handed if they have the right Variant Ability, (No.16) they don't even have to waste a feat

If we are going to challenge fairness (which is what I think we should be arguing, since both sides do have good points) I think we should take this into account.

Liberty's Edge

Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber
Kazaan wrote:
thaX wrote:
It says it compares what the weapon is vs. the size of the creature. However the creature can otherwise wield the weapon is not something the size rules considers, it isn't a sliding scale.
It says it compares what the weapon size is vs the size of the creature to determine how many steps to change it. If you're Medium and you're trying to wield a Huge weapon, that involves a change of two steps. That does not dictate what starting level you take those two steps from.

Once again, you try and interject that there needs to be a starting point from which to begin. You are putting in a starting line when there isn't even a race.

Then you again bring up the Bastard Sword. The BS is specific on how a character uses it and what they need to be able to wield it. It has no bearing on the issue at hand except that it is a weapon that interacts with the Size rules. The Earthbreaker will not do the same thing as the Bastard Sword. One is not the other.

Then you completely miss the point. The Redcap ability Specifically mentions an exception to the size rules, overriding the normal restrictions that are in place. The Redcap can wield Medium weapons.

The Thunder and Fang feat doesn't do that as the Heavy Weapons ability the Redcap does. It didn't in the original phrasing, nor does it do it with the current version.

A Character can not wield an oversized Earthbreaker with this feat.

Liberty's Edge

Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber
Bigdaddyjug wrote:
James Risner wrote:
Bigdaddyjug wrote:
How much effort is required for a character with the Thunder and Fang feat to wield an appropriately sized earthbreaker?
Two hands or one hand if your other hand is using klar.

Where in the text of the Thunder and Fang feat does it say that?

This is the intent of the feat as spelled out in one of the quotes provided by Redward.


thaX wrote:
Bigdaddyjug wrote:
James Risner wrote:
Bigdaddyjug wrote:
How much effort is required for a character with the Thunder and Fang feat to wield an appropriately sized earthbreaker?
Two hands or one hand if your other hand is using klar.

Where in the text of the Thunder and Fang feat does it say that?

This is the intent of the feat as spelled out in one of the quotes provided by Redward.

So, again, Sword and Pistol can be used with Mace and Crossbow. The limitation is invalid. Regarding the other issue, I think it's abundantly clear that you aren't willing to take this discussion seriously. If you're just going to derail the thread with nonsense, you really should desist now. It's neither clever nor is it funny.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Kazaan wrote:
thaX wrote:
Bigdaddyjug wrote:
James Risner wrote:
Bigdaddyjug wrote:
How much effort is required for a character with the Thunder and Fang feat to wield an appropriately sized earthbreaker?
Two hands or one hand if your other hand is using klar.

Where in the text of the Thunder and Fang feat does it say that?

This is the intent of the feat as spelled out in one of the quotes provided by Redward.
So, again, Sword and Pistol can be used with Mace and Crossbow. The limitation is invalid. Regarding the other issue, I think it's abundantly clear that you aren't willing to take this discussion seriously. If you're just going to derail the thread with nonsense, you really should desist now. It's neither clever nor is it funny.

No.

Quote:

Sword and Pistol (Combat)

You effortlessly pair melee and ranged weaponry.

Prerequisite: Dex 13, Point-Blank Shot, Rapid Shot, Snap Shot, Two-Weapon Fighting, base attack bonus +6.

Benefit: When you use the Two-Weapon Fighting feat while wielding a melee weapon and a crossbow or firearm, your...

Melee and ranged (general) are stated in the description. Any melee weapon and a crossbow or firearm is explicitly stated in the benefit.

Quote:

Thunder and Fang (Combat)

You have mastered the ancient Thunder and Fang fighting style, allowing you to fight with increased effectiveness when wielding an earth breaker and klar.
...

Earth breaker and klar explicitly called out in the description and in the Feat itself.

For your argument to hold water, we'd be arguing that Thunder and Fang only works when wielding an actual Thunder and Fang because that's the name of the Feat. There is no internal inconsistency in either case. Just stylistic titles for the two Feats.


Nothing I've said thus far invalidates the statement. The feat allows you to fight with increased effectiveness when wielding an earth breaker and klar. Wielding the Earthbreaker one-handed increases your effectiveness. Treating the Klar as a light weapon for reduced TWF penalties also increases effectiveness. Retaining Shield bonus to AC when using the Klar as your off-hand weapon while wielding an Earthbreaker increases your effectiveness. All of these increase your effectiveness when wielding an Earth Breaker and Klar. But only one benefit states it only applies in that case. The other two do both; increase your effectiveness when wielding an Earth Breaker and Klar and alter the ways in which you may wield an Earth Breaker on its own or a Klar on its own.


You said the limitation of using an Earth Breaker and Klar is invalid. As evidence, you pointed to Sword and Pistol, implying that the limitation is invalid because the feat allows you to use weapons other than a sword or pistol.

This is a bad argument. Thunder & Fang is not named Earth Breaker & Klar. The description of Sword and Pistol specifies melee and ranged weapons, not swords and pistols only. The description of Thunder & Fang specifies the Earth Breaker and Klar. The name of a feat is not necessarily descriptive of its benefit. Examples of this abound.

As someone who's stated purpose here is to enlighten those who are "not quite intelligent enough to figure out the logical position from scratch", you should be presenting better arguments to help their little minds.

The Exchange Owner - D20 Hobbies

Bigdaddyjug wrote:
Where in the text of the Thunder and Fang feat does it say that?

I've got Deja Vu ... but you must ignore the italicized section and the Normal line to conclude you can use two Earthbreaker together.

Sub_Zero wrote:
I've provided detailed explanations for my positions

Which again, ignore the parts of the feat you don't like. I can do all kinds of cool things if I get to ignore things I don't like.

Diminuendo wrote:
I would like to point out that a Tiefling can wield a Large Earthbreaker two handed

No one is saying it can't be done or it is unfair or it is broken. We are just saying you can't do it with Thunder and Fang.

Kazaan wrote:
alter the ways in which you may wield an Earth Breaker on its own or a Klar on its own.

You need a separate line to say these benefits are independent, otherwise it is easy to think of them as linked benefits.

For example:

Quote:
Artificer’s Touch (Sp): You can cast mending at will, using your cleric level as the caster level to repair damaged objects. In addition, you can cause damage to objects and construct creatures by striking them with a melee touch attack

They used "In addition" to make it clear these benefits were independent benefits. Thunder and Fang doesn't use "In addition" or similar language.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
James Risner wrote:
Kazaan wrote:
alter the ways in which you may wield an Earth Breaker on its own or a Klar on its own.

You need a separate line to say these benefits are independent, otherwise it is easy to think of them as linked benefits.

For example:

Quote:
Artificer’s Touch (Sp): You can cast mending at will, using your cleric level as the caster level to repair damaged objects. In addition, you can cause damage to objects and construct creatures by striking them with a melee touch attack

They used "In addition" to make it clear these benefits were independent benefits. Thunder and Fang doesn't use "In addition" or similar language.

Well that just proves the point, now doesn't it? What's the very first line in the Benefits section? "You can wield an Earthbreaker one-handed." So all further benefits are extensions of that first principal of the feat. (primary) You can wield an Earthbreaker one-handed + [When making off-hand attacks with a Klar while doing (primary), you retain shield bonus to AC + treat the Klar as a light weapon for determining TWF penalties]. The only solid, absolute thing offered by the feat, which defines the feat, so to speak, is that it lets you wield an Earthbreaker as if it were a one-handed weapon instead of a two-handed weapon. The rest of that are extensions of that.

Liberty's Edge

Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber

I still don't get it. Why, if what you say is the case, would that lead to being able to wield an oversized Earthbreaker? When you try to do so, the character is no longer using it one handed.

Did you read the first part of the feat, before you read about how to wield the weapon?

"You have mastered the ancient Thunder and Fang fighting style, allowing you to fight with increased effectiveness when wielding an earth breaker and klar."

Is that somehow negated because a sentence allows for the wielding of a weapon one handed. Is the rest of the feat now non-existent?

I myself wouldn't want to take the penalties for TWF with two huge hammers. I would rather hit things than be a hammer monk, missing more than hitting. I would rather get the full 1.5 times the str mod in damage than hope for double hits with 1.0 and .5.

But, of course, that is just me.


thaX wrote:
I still don't get it. Why, if what you say is the case, would that lead to being able to wield an oversized Earthbreaker? When you try to do so, the character is no longer using it one handed.

Do you really not get it? I'm willing to explain it again for the umpteen billionth time if you really don't get it and earnestly want to know how and why it works. But so far, all evidence I've seen points to the idea that it's either totally impossible for you to wrap your mind around the explanation that has been repeated here ad nauseum or this is a deliberate attempt to derail the thread. So what's the story? If you're really having trouble understanding it at this point, it's a deficiency on your part; you've got to shift your paradigm to be able to understand it. Otherwise, your response is neither clever nor funny and if you're really intent on deriding the discussion going on here, it would be better for everyone if you just leave.

Liberty's Edge

Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber

I am unsure of which of whom is not digesting the information effectively. Your explanations go from a point that is flawed from the beginning. Anything that this feat allows does not actually supersede the Size rules in regards to an oversized weapon. An oversized weapon isn't even mentioned anywhere in the feat we talk of.

Your explanations is basically saying X = Y, when Y isn't even considered. So you can use a two handed weapon in one hand. You can use it as a part of a set, twf with it and the Klar. How does this go to "I can wield an oversized two handed weapon."

I can tell you. It doesn't.

The Exchange Owner - D20 Hobbies

Kazaan wrote:
Well that just proves the point, now doesn't it?

No, because it doesn't say "In Addition or similar."

So all the abilities are tied together. The second benefit is tied to the first. You get the first benefit only when using the second.


thaX wrote:

I am unsure of which of whom is not digesting the information effectively. Your explanations go from a point that is flawed from the beginning. Anything that this feat allows does not actually supersede the Size rules in regards to an oversized weapon. An oversized weapon isn't even mentioned anywhere in the feat we talk of.

Your explanations is basically saying X = Y, when Y isn't even considered. So you can use a two handed weapon in one hand. You can use it as a part of a set, twf with it and the Klar. How does this go to "I can wield an oversized two handed weapon."

I can tell you. It doesn't.

And over and over you have not provided any proof that effective weapon desingnation can not be treated as the designation.

The Bastard Sword is a One handed weapon. Without the Exotic Weapon proficientcy its effective weapon designation becomes Two Handed.

This means a large Batsard Sword can not be wielded by a medium character in two hands without the exotic weapon proficentcy, because the weapon is effectively a two handed weapon.

an Earthbreakers original designation is two handed. The fist line of the thunder and fang feat is; You can use an earth breaker as though it were a one-handed weapon.. there are no conditional modifiers of when you can or can not treat the weapon this way written in the feat. This feat changes the effective weapon designation in the same way the lack of an exotic weapon proficentcy changes the effective weapon designation of the Earthbreaker.

thaX wrote:
I still don't get it. Why, if what you say is the case, would that lead to being able to wield an oversized Earthbreaker? When you try to do so, the character is no longer using it one handed.

placing two hands on a weapon does not change a weapon from a one-handed weapon to a two handed weapon. if that were the case Amari could not wield her bastard sword.

Dark Archive

1 person marked this as a favorite.
James Risner wrote:
Kazaan wrote:
Well that just proves the point, now doesn't it?

No, because it doesn't say "In Addition or similar."

So all the abilities are tied together. The second benefit is tied to the first. You get the first benefit only when using the second.

That makes no sense. Stop making up weird rules.

Silver Crusade

James Risner wrote:
Kazaan wrote:
Well that just proves the point, now doesn't it?

No, because it doesn't say "In Addition or similar."

So all the abilities are tied together. The second benefit is tied to the first. You get the first benefit only when using the second.

There you go adding words to abilities just like you did with Weird Words.

Grand Lodge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Companion Subscriber

Some people just like to quote unwritten rules.

Just because they are not written, doesn't mean they are not RAW. ;)


1 person marked this as a favorite.
thaX wrote:

I am unsure of which of whom is not digesting the information effectively. Your explanations go from a point that is flawed from the beginning. Anything that this feat allows does not actually supersede the Size rules in regards to an oversized weapon. An oversized weapon isn't even mentioned anywhere in the feat we talk of.

Your explanations is basically saying X = Y, when Y isn't even considered. So you can use a two handed weapon in one hand. You can use it as a part of a set, twf with it and the Klar. How does this go to "I can wield an oversized two handed weapon."

I can tell you. It doesn't.

An oversized weapon doesn't need to be mentioned in the feat. Other feats like Jotungrip, Weapon Finesse, etc. explicitly state that they only affect weapons properly sized for you. So, as a Medium character, you only take Jotungrip into consideration for Medium 2-h weapons. Same goes for Weapon Finesse applying only to Medium light/finesseable weapons for a Medium creature. T&F has no such caveat. And when it says, "you may treat it as a one-handed weapon", that says nothing about relative measure of size. The size difference is only to determine how many steps by which you change the effective category. For a Medium character trying to wield a Large weapon, it's one step up. Trying to wield a Huge weapon, it's two steps up. Gargantuan would be three steps up. It is only for determining the number of steps; in no way does it determine where you start taking those steps from. Where you start stepping from is however much effort it takes (whether the weapon is wielded as a light, 1-h, or 2-h) for a properly sized weapon. It takes two hands to wield a Medium Earthbreaker because it's a two-handed weapon. It takes one hand to wield a Medium Earthbreaker with T&F because the feat says you can wield it one-handed. The single step-up due to size difference between a Medium creature and Large weapon is applied to those relative designations. If it would take one hand to wield it if properly sized for you, it takes two hands to wield it if one size too big and two or more sizes too big would be unwieldable.

And, once again, Bastard Swords apply the same exact principal but in reverse. By default a Bastard Sword is a one-handed weapon just like a Longsword. As a one-handed weapon, it takes one-handed effort to wield. However, as a special quality of the weapon, if you lack proficiency in it, you cannot wield it normally at all. Instead, you treat it as if it were a two-handed martial weapon. But it's not a two-handed martial weapon, that's a phantom designation spawned entirely by the rules at hand. So one step up (the difference between a Large weapon and a Medium character) from one-handed (the default for a BS) is two-handed. Now if we go by your logic, we'd just stop right there because it is a one-handed weapon and we're now wielding it as a two-handed weapon which satisfies the requirement that it must be wielded two-handed. But that's an absurd result, that it takes two hands worth of effort to wield the thing when properly sized for you, but that same effort can easily wield one twice as big as well. You seem to accept, here, that a character can't wield a Large Bastard Sword without having EWP since the size change applies to the phantom 2-h designation if you don't have EWP. And yet you can't seem to comprehend that that same size step applies to the phantom 1-h designation of an Earthbreaker wielded via T&F. It's like claiming that 2 + 3 = 5 but 5 - 3 =/= 2.

James Risner wrote:

No, because it doesn't say "In Addition or similar."

So all the abilities are tied together. The second benefit is tied to the first. You get the first benefit only when using the second.

How does the second benefit being tied to the first make the first only apply when using the second? It sounds like you're reading backwards there.

If (and only if) you wield an Earthbreaker one-handed and Klar as your off-hand weapon, then you retain your shield bonus to AC when attacking with the Klar. That's a conditional statement:
A) You wield an Earthbreaker one-handed
B) You wield a Klar as your off-hand weapon
C) You retain your shield bonus to AC
A∧B <=> C

If you negate B, then the left side (A∧B) becomes false regardless of what boolean value A has, thus the right side, C, is false because the left side works out to false. So negating B has absolutely zero consequence to the value of A. If they wanted to say you need to wield the Klar as your off-hand in conjunction with the EB in your main-hand, they would have put that in the first clause; You can wield an Earthbreaker as a one-handed weapon while wearing a Klar. You retain your shield bonus to AC when making off-hand attacks with your Klar. Treat the Klar as a light weapon in determining TWF penalties. That places the requirement right in the first line and, if written like that, you'd be absolutely correct. But that's not how it's written.

Dark Archive

1 person marked this as a favorite.
blackbloodtroll wrote:

Some people just like to quote unwritten rules.

Just because they are not written, doesn't mean they are not RAW. ;)

I see what you did there.

Scarab Sages

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Bigdaddyjug wrote:
...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.

For new people, after 10 pages...

The Exchange Owner - D20 Hobbies

Bigdaddyjug wrote:
There you go adding words to abilities just like you did with Weird Words.

I'm not adding words, those that disagree with me are.

In the Weird Words case, I was right. The developers agree with my interpretation and are planning to rewrite it to close an invalid interpretation they didn't realize existed. It may be possible this feat is also subject to an invalid interpretation they didn't realize existed. On that leads to people trying to dual wield Earthbreakers and other things that doesn't involve Earthbreaker/Klar combos.

Kazaan wrote:
But that's not how it's written.

If you take the feat in context, and you don't try to separate the individual sentences into separate benefits. Then all the sentences are interrelated. That means the first sentence is only applicable when you are using the things mentioned in the second sentence.

Sean K Reynolds wrote:
pres man wrote:
True, but game rules should not be written to take into account the "common sense" of DMs.
Why not? The game assumes the GM can read, can use logic to determine whether or not a character is flanking, how much cover a table provides, monster tactics, and so on. Assuming the GM has common sense allows us to have a 576-page rulebook instead of a 1,200-page rulebook.

Look I do get that there are some people that like every rule spelled out (This feat and Weird Words could have both used additional words to spell out what can and can not be done. But they don't have the words and they intentionally and deliberately leave out things they believe we can figure out.

It is why all these awkward RAW interpretations lead to so many strange situations. If you don't use common sense then you go down roads with awkward results. This feat allowing two Earthbreakers is an awkward result.

Cascade wrote:
Bigdaddyjug wrote:
...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.
For new people, after 10 pages...

... are the things in debate and unsettled to the satisfaction of both groups/sides of the debate.

Silver Crusade

You don't rewrite feats to close "invalid interpretations". If the interpretation is invalid, you put it in the FAQ and that's that. You rewrite a feat because it had an unintended interpretation. That implies that the feat was poorly worded, leading to multiple valid interpretations.

So thanks for admitting that I was reading Weird Words properly and that Sub_Zero, Kazaan, Diminuendo, and I are all reading Thunder and Fang properly.

Argument settled.

Note: I'm not arguing that the interpretation of either Weird Words or Thunder and Fang are the RAI, just that, as written, those interpretations are the RAW.


James Risner wrote:
Bigdaddyjug wrote:
There you go adding words to abilities just like you did with Weird Words.
I'm not adding words, those that disagree with me are.

where? where exactly is anyone adding words to this ability?

James Risner wrote:
If you take the feat in context, and you don't try to separate the individual sentences into separate benefits. Then all the sentences are interrelated. That means the first sentence is only applicable when you are using the things mentioned in the second sentence.
James Risner wrote:
It is why all these awkward RAW interpretations lead to so many strange situations. If you don't use common sense then you go down roads with awkward results. This feat allowing two Earthbreakers is an awkward result.

and were back to the fact that you seem to think that RAW=RAI. Just because the intent of the designers is contrary to what they wrote is not our problem. Of course we can house-rule these quirky scenarios where poor rules writing leads to situations like this. That doesn't meant that the RAW is the same as RAI though.

This debate would easily abide if you just admitted this fact since the average posters position on RAW is not what you're using the term as.

The Exchange Owner - D20 Hobbies

Bigdaddyjug wrote:

So thanks for admitting that I was reading Weird Words properly and that Sub_Zero, Kazaan, Diminuendo, and I are all reading Thunder and Fang properly.

Argument settled.

If you read any of my previous posts on the matter you would realize I'm perfectly fine with that.

What I don't like and what I respond in the other side is any interpretation that says "I'm right and your interpretations is wrong."

If your are willing to admit that there are two interpretations of this issue, my work here is done.

Silver Crusade

James Risner wrote:
Bigdaddyjug wrote:

So thanks for admitting that I was reading Weird Words properly and that Sub_Zero, Kazaan, Diminuendo, and I are all reading Thunder and Fang properly.

Argument settled.

If you read any of my previous posts on the matter you would realize I'm perfectly fine with that.

What I don't like and what I respond in the other side is any interpretation that says "I'm right and your interpretations is wrong."

If your are willing to admit that there are two interpretations of this issue, my work here is done.

Our interpretation is RAW, but I'm almost certain that your interpretation is RAI. If I sat at a PFS table you were GMing and you told me a T&F character couldn't dual-wield earthbreakers, Mike Brock would be getting an email from me. However, believing that the RAI is not dual-wielding earthbreakers, I would never make such character in the first place.

On the Weird Words argument, I believed my interpretation was RAW and RAI until SKR posted in that thread. Now that I know what the RAI is, I've rebuilt my PFS bard before it gets to level 2.

The Exchange Owner - D20 Hobbies

Bigdaddyjug wrote:

Mike Brock would be getting an email from me.

On the Weird Words argument, I believed my interpretation was RAW and RAI until SKR posted in that thread.

PFS isn't a "only awkward RAW here" campaign. Mike Brock has make this clear, for example the double DEX to damage from Gunslinger was asserted as RAW and his response is that it isn't a legal build now and if you don't retrain out of that non-RAW build now, you won't be able to do so when/if it gets changed. It got changed this Jan.

My RAW is the one subscribed to by the developers, by JJ, by Mike Brock, etc.

The RAW where if two interpretations exist then you take the conservative one until they make it clear you get the uber one (best example are the Sorcerer bloodline arcana applying to all classes.)

Silver Crusade

I never believed the double-Dex damage thing for gunslingers was RAW in the first place because that would be two bonuses from the same place stacking, which is definitely not kosher.

For Weird Words, it wasn't awkward to me that multiple words could hit a single target. When I made the bard, I was relatively new to Pathfinder, and hadn't even seen spells like scorching ray that indicated multiple rays could hit the same target. Even after seeing that language, I didn't think that the lack of it meant multiple words couldn't hit the same target. I was very sad when SKR posted that they were nerfing that ability.

For T&F, I hadn't given any thought to the feat until this thread started. However, it was pretty clear to me that the first line of the "Benefit" section of the feat is, "You can wield an earthbreaker as if it is a one-handed weapon." -FULL STOP- To me, the fact that the rest of the "Benefit" section is in separate sentences are in addition to the benefit of being able to wield an earthbreaker one-handed. After reading the original wording of the feat and some of the other arguments in this thread, I was convinced this was one of those situations with multiple valid interpretations, and while the RAW was clear, the RAI was also clear, and they weren't the same thing.

The Exchange Owner - D20 Hobbies

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Bigdaddyjug wrote:
I was convinced this was one of those situations with multiple valid interpretations

Welcome to the cool kids club Big Daddy Jug!

Silver Crusade

James Risner wrote:
Bigdaddyjug wrote:
I was convinced this was one of those situations with multiple valid interpretations
Welcome to the cool kids club Big Daddy Jug!

Hahaha...does that mean I get to sit at the cool kids table in the cafeteria? I sure hope so, because I'm tired of sitting with the nerds. Lenny smells bad.

The Exchange Owner - D20 Hobbies

Bigdaddyjug wrote:
I sure hope so, because I'm tired of sitting with the nerds. Lenny smells bad.

Yep! lol

Liberty's Edge

Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber
Kazaan wrote:
thaX wrote:

I am unsure of which of whom is not digesting the information effectively. Your explanations go from a point that is flawed from the beginning. Anything that this feat allows does not actually supersede the Size rules in regards to an oversized weapon. An oversized weapon isn't even mentioned anywhere in the feat we talk of.

Your explanations is basically saying X = Y, when Y isn't even considered. So you can use a two handed weapon in one hand. You can use it as a part of a set, twf with it and the Klar. How does this go to "I can wield an oversized two handed weapon."

I can tell you. It doesn't.

An oversized weapon doesn't need to be mentioned in the feat. Other feats like Jotungrip, Weapon Finesse, etc. explicitly state that they only affect weapons properly sized for you. So, as a Medium character, you only take Jotungrip into consideration for Medium 2-h weapons. Same goes for Weapon Finesse applying only to Medium light/finesseable weapons for a Medium creature. T&F has no such caveat. And when it says, "you may treat it as a one-handed weapon", that says nothing about relative measure of size.

So you go on from there even though the feat mentions nothing about the size of the weapon. Because a feat doesn't have a particular phrase that another put in that means to take advantage of a "loop hole" to the player's boon? Really?

You can use an Earthbreaker one handed. Cool, allows for the Klar in the other hand, or another light or one handed weapon. What it doesn't say is anything about using your new-found wielding technique to try and wield another weapon that is made for a creature a size over what your character is.

Please keep the Bastard Sword out of this. It is an exotic weapon with a caveat that martial proficiency can make use of two handed. It is not, nor will it ever be, an Earthbreaker.

Liberty's Edge

Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber
blackbloodtroll wrote:

Some people just like to quote unwritten rules.

Just because they are not written, doesn't mean they are not RAW. ;)

PRD wrote:

Light, One-Handed, and Two-Handed Melee Weapons: This designation is a measure of how much effort it takes to wield a weapon in combat. It indicates whether a melee weapon, when wielded by a character of the weapon's size category, is considered a light weapon, a one-handed weapon, or a two-handed weapon.

Light: A light weapon is used in one hand. It is easier to use in one's off hand than a one-handed weapon is, and can be used while grappling (see Combat). Add the wielder's Strength modifier to damage rolls for melee attacks with a light weapon if it's used in the primary hand, or half the wielder's Strength bonus if it's used in the off hand. Using two hands to wield a light weapon gives no advantage on damage; the Strength bonus applies as though the weapon were held in the wielder's primary hand only.

An unarmed strike is always considered a light weapon.

One-Handed: A one-handed weapon can be used in either the primary hand or the off hand. Add the wielder's Strength bonus to damage rolls for melee attacks with a one-handed weapon if it's used in the primary hand, or 1/2 his Strength bonus if it's used in the off hand. If a one-handed weapon is wielded with two hands during melee combat, add 1-1/2 times the character's Strength bonus to damage rolls.

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

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

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

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

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

This is the rule I am reading. Nothing in this feat changes anything in this section. You can't double wield Two Handed weapons, even if you can wield a singe weapon one handed. You can't wield an oversized Two Handed Weapon.

Some are seeing something that is not there.

551 to 600 of 904 << first < prev | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder First Edition / Rules Questions / PFS - Thunder and Fang with 2 Earth Breakers All Messageboards