PFS - Thunder and Fang with 2 Earth Breakers

[Bigdaddyjug]

No, that wouldn't work because a phalanx fighter has to wield a shield to be able to use the polearm as a one-handed weapon and a magus requires that his offhand be free.

[Sub_Zero]

James Risner wrote:

Sub_Zero wrote:

even more so, shouldn't a character be able to wield a large bastard sword without the ewp feat since you have to wield it two-handed, and since wielding a large version would have you wielding it two-handed doesn't it bypass the bastard swords rules since you're not wielding it one-handed.

This is why you find it so hard to get a lot of people swayed to your view.

That isn't the expected RAW interpretation, it also isn't RAI, and it definitely isn't a reasonable interpretation. If you brought this up during a rules discussion in real life, I'd rule against you because I'd realize your logic is flawed in this and if flawed in this the other issue you are advocating is highly likely to be flawed.

you realize that isn't a position I hold right? or do you think that I do hold this position.

[Kazaan]

Cascade wrote:

Bigdaddyjug wrote:

Yes, how you are able to wield a weapon changes its designation for the purpose of effort. If you can wield a weapon as a one-handed weapon, for you it is a one-handed weapon for all purposes except the item's hit points. There is mechanical proof of this in the bastard sword.

I don't agree with this perspective "for all purposes".

If I am a phalanx fighter and can use a glaive one handed, does it qualify for a Bladebound Magus?
A black blade is always a one-handed slashing weapon, a rapier, or a sword cane.

For all purposes concerning wielding it. As far as physical qualities of the weapon (ie. HP, using special materials, whether it can be a Black Blade, etc), it has to be considered a one-handed weapon in its own right. But a Magus using T&F to wield an Earthbreaker one-handed now qualifies to use said Earthbreaker as his designated weapon during Spell Combat which requires that you wield a light or one-handed weapon. Normally, an Earthrbeaker wouldn't qualify; but it does if you have an ability that lets you wield it one-handed.

[thaX]

The Bastard Sword...

It is an exception to the rule. One can not even weild it without penalty without either two handing it as a martial trained fighter (or other class with Martial or the Martial feat) or getting the EWP to use it proper in one hand (Allowing for the oversized use at a -2 like Amiri).

That doesn't parallel with the Earthbreaker.

It specifies what one can do with the weapon under the weapon entry. It specifically fetters out the exception to the size rules and how one wields it according to what the character knows about the weapon. It is an Exotic weapon, with an exception for martial character to wield it.

We keep going back to that. Why?

[Kazaan]

Guess what... the general rule is that anyone can wield an exotic weapon and the EWP feat only means they don't take a -4 hit to attack for it. The BS just is exceptional in that you can't even wield it with -4 if you lack EWP. Treating it as a 2-h Martial weapon doesn't mean you can only wield it if you have general Martial proficiency. Anyone from a Wizard to a Fighter can wield a Bastard Sword as a 2-h Martial weapon; they just take a -4 penalty if they lack blanket martial proficiency.

But the main crux is that you seem to understand what "wield as a two-handed weapon" means in the context of a Bastard Sword. You seem to understand that wielding a large one that is treated as a two-handed weapon doesn't qualify in and of itself; you must have the capacity to treat it as the one-handed weapon it is rather than being obligated to treat it as the two-handed weapon it isn't and that the size step applies to what you actually have the capacity to wield it as. But you casually dismiss that information just because it runs in the opposite direction with the Earthbreaker. You claim it's different, but it isn't; 2 + 3 = 5 is the same mathematical expression as 5 - 2 = 3 but what you are doing amounts to claiming that it is fundamentally different and what applies to one doesn't apply to the other. It is ridiculous, disinformative, and possibly even disingenuous.

[thaX]

Again, The Bastard Sword isn't a parallel.

PRD wrote... 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.

Huh, how about that. You can use the BS as a two handed weapon.

Perhaps I should have a comma there, I did say can not wield without penalty.

I don't know how your relating this to an Earth Breaker, as it does not have any mention of having to wield it differently in the weapon's entry.

Going to the Longsword, one is already able to wield it with two hands. What is the difference between that and this situation with the Earthbreaker?

Oh, you already told me. Semantics.

I don't know, I have run out of ways to tell you this. You can't wield an oversized two handed weapon. This feat does not change that.

Weapon size vs. Character size. Anything over or under Light/One Handed/Two Handed is not wieldable. It isn't a sliding scale. The goalposts stays solidly in the ground, they do not move.

[Bigdaddyjug]

I need to stop posting in this thread or I'm going to say something that's going to get the thread moderated and locked.

In One hand =/= one-handed
In two hands =/= two handed
You can wield a one-handed weapon in two hands.
Thunder and Fang allows you to wield a two-handed weapon as a one-handed weapon, which by the transitive propert of handedness allows you to wield it in one hand. If you can wield a weapon as a one-handed weapon or wield it in one hand, you can dual-wield it. If you can wield a weapon as a one-handed weapon or wield it in one hand, you can wield a version of that weapon one size category larger in two hands.

[Kazaan]

thaX wrote:

I don't know, I have run out of ways to tell you this. You can't wield an oversized two handed weapon. This feat does not change that.

Once again... this is a false assertion. There is no rule anywhere that states you can't wield an oversized two-handed weapon. What the rule states is that if the change of effort required to wield the weapon would step up or down to anything beyond the scope of light, one-handed, or two-handed, you can't wield it. You are not stepping an Earthbreaker, wielded one-handed via T&F, from two-handed; you're stepping it from one-handed. If you have T&F, you can treat a Colossal Earthbreaker as a one-handed weapon; but a Medium creature can't wield a Colossal one-handed weapon so that doesn't do you much good. A Medium creature can, however, wield a Large one-handed weapon.

The Bastard Sword is, absolutely, a parallel situation just as much as the two lanes of a street are parallel even if one is north-bound and the other is south-bound. You understand that wielding a Large Bastard Sword two-handed because it's a Large one-handed weapon and must be wielded two-handed does not qualify for the requirement of the item to be wielded two-handed if you lack EWP.

Now, I've been more than nice up until this point, but I really must say that your actions here disrespect me, all the other members of this forum, and the designers who work hard to bring us a well made game system. You flagrantly disregard the very basic principals of logical parity in a system. As such, I've already made an official request to have you removed from this thread, but I'll make one last request, here, to have you put down the act voluntarily. I won't offer rebuttals anymore, but will simply indicate for the benefit of any new participants in the thread that your views are incorrect and have been demonstrated incorrect previously in the thread, so that they won't be mislead by disinformation.

[thaX]

Except that the designiners of the game actaully agree with me.

Lets look at it from a different perspective. Each character has a size, each weapon has a size.

When they are mis-matched, then the size rules for the weapons are used to determine how the character can use the inappropiately sized weapon he has.

So your and other's assertions are that either the weapon or the character changes size.

I don't see that.

[thaX]

Wait, I almost missed this...

Quote:

There is no rule anywhere that states you can't wield an oversized two-handed weapon.

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.

Nothing? At all? Are you saying that one can wield any weapon no matter the size? I don't read that at all.

[Cascade]

Bigdaddyjug wrote:

No, that wouldn't work because a phalanx fighter has to wield a shield to be able to use the polearm as a one-handed weapon and a magus requires that his offhand be free.

Not to side track the discussion, but only for Spell combat, not spellstrike.

My point was that a bladebound (Black blade) has to have a one handed slashing weapon, and I wouldn't think that a different sized two handed weapon would ever qualify, regardless of how one "could" wield it.

But to the main point, the rules say you can't wield a two handed weapon in one hand...except various feats and sized weapons allow that exception.

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 saying exactly - the measure of effort.
Notice is says for a particular wielder, not the original size the weapon was intended for.

Thus a person using a two handed weapon with one hand, due to a feat, size or some other measure is only using one hand. If the size of the weapon is further alterd one step up, it then increases the effort to require 2 hands or become two handed to the wielder. If it went up another step, it would be unusable by effort, although still a 2 handed weapon.

[James Risner]

Sub_Zero wrote:

you realize that isn't a position I hold right? or do you think that I do hold this position.

Whether or not you hold that position, my point is that there are sometimes awkward RAW interpretations that fall into this category.

Reading the RAW to mean something that isn't expected, isn't intended, and isn't the simplest interpretation.

[Sub_Zero]

James Risner wrote:

Sub_Zero wrote:

you realize that isn't a position I hold right? or do you think that I do hold this position.

Whether or not you hold that position, my point is that there are sometimes awkward RAW interpretations that fall into this category.

Reading the RAW to mean something that isn't expected, isn't intended, and isn't the simplest interpretation.

James, if you don't mind, could you tell me what you think my point with the bastard sword comparison is?

I'm truly interested, because I feel like what I've said isn't being interpreted in the way that I mean it. Maybe if you state what you think I'm thinking, I can clear up this miscommunication.

[Diminuendo]

thaX wrote:

Kazaan wrote:

An Earthbreaker, by default, is a two-handed weapon. It doesn't matter what size it is or what size you are, its default category is two-handed.

I understand your point, I do, but it seems that you do not understand mine.

It isn't a default at all, that is what it is. A Two Handed Weapon. Using it differently does not change that.

It. Doesn't. Change.

We understand exactly what you are saying (you have repeated it enough times) the thing you don't seem to understand is that you never said why "It. Doesn't. Change." you have to provide a reason why effective weapon handiness doesn't allow a weapon this way.

You stamp your feet and repeat what you are saying over and over. That is your arguement.

[thaX]

OK... a bunch of quotes from the FAQ...

FAQ wrote:

Bastard Sword: Is this a one-handed weapon or a two-handed weapon?

A bastard sword is a one-handed weapon (although for some rules it blurs the line between a one-handed and a two-handed weapon).
The physical properties of a bastard sword are that of a one-handed weapon. For example, its hardness, hit points, ability to be crafted out of special materials, category for using the Craft skill, effect of alchemical silver, and so on, are all that of a one-handed weapon.
For class abilities, feats, and other rule elements that vary based on or specifically depend on wielding a one-handed weapon, a two-handed weapon, or a one-handed weapon with two hands, the bastard sword counts as however many hands you are using to wield it.
For example, if you are wielding it one-handed (which normally requires the Exotic Weapon Proficiency feat), it is treated as a one-handed weapon; Power Attack only gets the one-handed bonus, you cannot use Pushing Assault or Shield of Swings (which require a two-handed weapon), and so on.
If you are wielding it with two hands (whether or not you have the Exotic Weapon Proficiency to wield it with one hand), it is treated as a two-handed weapon; Power Attack gets the increased damage bonus, you can use Pushing Assault or Shield of Swings (which require a two-handed weapon), and so on.
An unusual case of the handedness rule is an ability that allows you to treat a two-handed weapon as a one-handed weapon. For example, the titan mauler's jotungrip (which allows you to wield a two-handed weapon with one hand) allows you to wield a bastard sword in one hand even without the Exotic Weapon Proficiency, and (as the ability states) treats it as a one-handed weapon, therefore it is treated as a one-handed weapon for other effects.
—Pathfinder Design Team, 10/28/13

Exotic Weapons and Hands: If a weapon is wielded two-handed as a martial weapon and one-handed with an exotic weapon proficiency, can I wield it one-handed without the exotic proficiency at a –4 penalty?
No.
Note that normally you can't wield a two-handed weapon in one hand. A bastard sword is an exception to that rule that you can't wield a two-handed weapon in one hand, but you must have special training to use the bastard sword this way. Without that special training, wielding a bastard sword one-handed is as impossible as wielding a greatsword one-handed.
(The same goes for other weapons with this one-handed exotic exception, such as the dwarven waraxe.)
Edit 7/26/13: Correction of a typo in the second sentence that said "you can't wield a two-handed weapon in two hands."
—Pathfinder Design Team, 07/19/13

Barbarian--Titan Mauler: Does the Jotungrip class feature (page 30) allow the Titan Mauler to use oversized weapons?
No. Jotungrip allows the titan mauler to use two-handed melee weapons in one hand, but only if the weapon is appropriately sized for the character. The massive weapon class feature allows her to use oversized weapons with decreased penalty, but does not allow her to use two-handed weapons of that size in one hand.
Update Page 30, in the titan mauler archetype, in the Jotungrip class feature, in the first sentence, insert the word "melee" between "two-handed" and "weapon."
—Stephen Radney-MacFarland, 10/13/11

Barbarian--Titan Mauler: Can a Medium titan mauler wield a Large two-handed weapon, such as a Large greatsword?
No. The "Inappropriately Sized Weapons" rule (Core Rulebook 144) says (in summary) that a creature can't wield an inappropriately-sized weapon if the size difference would increase it one or more "steps" beyond "two-handed." None of the titan mauler's abilities say the character can break the "steps" part of the "Inappropriately Sized Weapons" rule, so the character still has to follow that rule.
—Pathfinder Design Team, 03/15/13

Inappropriately Sized Firearms: Does this rule (page 136) allow a Medium or smaller creature to use larger firearms of any size?
The text of the rule is, "The size of a firearm never affects how many hands you need to use to shoot it." The intent of that rule was to prevent a Medium character from using a Small rifle as a one-handed pistol; it wasn’t intended to let a Medium character use a Large, Huge, Gargantuan, or Colossal two-handed firearm as a two-handed weapon. Just like with non-firearms, a creature cannot wield a weapon that’s far too big or small for it. Specifically in the case of firearms, a Medium character can’t use a two-handed firearm sized for a Large or larger creature, and a Small character can’t use a two-handed firearm sized for a Medium or larger creature.
—Sean K Reynolds, 02/21/12

There is a pattern here, and it is that one can not wield an oversized weapon.

Are you seeing something that I am not?

[Diminuendo]

guys, I don't think anyone is going to give up ground on this. Some people choose their side and will ignore all reasonable arguments for the other.

can we just... vote?

I'm also going to say if you vote you agree to accept the outcome no matter what.

[thaX]

As we have had other posters that are not active in the conversation from earlier in the thread, right now a "vote" would be biased against me. To be sure, all but one of my above quotes has been offered before, and some have asked afterward what the term "No" means and continue to want for an oversized EB, discounting the FAQ entries as not relating to this particular example.

What do you think? Are they completely out of tune with the Thunder and Fang feat or do they have something to contribute to the discussion?

[Diminuendo]

Biased against YOU? we aren't voting on you, we would be voting on the use of the thunder and fang feat.

Actually you taking arguments for the thunder and fang feat personally explains a lot...

[thaX]

Uh... it is right there. Use an EB and a Klar as if your TWF, retaining the AC bonus for the Klar as you do so... Did you see the picture on the cover?

I am thinking the Dual Wielding of EB or the wielding of an oversized EB are house rules. I wouldn't house rule it that way, obviously, but saying it is "R.A.W." by standard is over the top.

[Diminuendo]

OH, and for the record:

thaX wrote:

Bastard Sword: Is this a one-handed weapon or a two-handed weapon?[/bigger]

so here is an instance of a weapons effective designation changing from one handed to two handed, which allows Pushing Assault and Shield of swings to be used. Why would a feat that changes a weapons effective designation from two handed to one handed be so crazy.

you can't argue the designation doesn't change if the Bastard Sword (a one-handed weapon) can use two-handed weapon only feats

thaX wrote:

Exotic Weapons and Hands: If a weapon is wielded two-handed as a martial weapon and one-handed with an exotic weapon

how is this relevant? this rule is for an lack of weapon proficiency penalty.

thaX wrote:

Barbarian--Titan Mauler: Does the Jotungrip class feature (page 30) allow the Titan Mauler to use oversized weapons?

this feat isn't Jotungrip.

thaX wrote:

Barbarian--Titan Mauler: Can a Medium titan mauler wield a Large two-handed weapon, such as a Large greatsword?

with Thunder and Fang an Earthbreaker isn't a two handed weapon, it is a one handed weapon.

thaX wrote:

Inappropriately Sized Firearms: Does this rule (page 136) allow a Medium or smaller creature to use larger firearms of any size?

This is for firearms, an Earthbreaker isn't a firearm.

Your right there is a pattern here, aside from the first FAQ, all of the stuff you have referenced isn't relevant.

[Diminuendo]

thaX wrote:

I am thinking the Dual Wielding of EB or the wielding of an oversized EB are house rules. I wouldn't house rule it that way, obviously, but saying it is "R.A.W." by standard is over the top.

I would definitely agree it isn't RAI, but I can't simply believe that you can't accept it as RAW, I will point you to the first sentence of the Thunder and Fang Feat:

Quote:

You can use an earth breaker as though it were a one-handed weapon[full stop, end of statement]

how can you say that using an Earthbreaker as a one handed weapon isn't RAW when the first sentence of the feat says "You can use an earth breaker as though it were a one-handed weapon." -?

[Chris Kenney]

Thax, what you're missing is that this is a fairly obvious case of the design team trying to simplify the feat and screwing up to make it now do a number of things that weren't intended.

However, PFS-level RAW (the standard of this sub-forum) doesn't care about that. The feat does EXACTLY what it says and nothing else. You're trying to argue that the RAW and the obvious RAI match, but some of your own quotes pretty much prove that isn't true. There is literally zero room for interpretation on this point, but you keep trying to twist logic around to 'make' it so.

Specific always trumps general, as well. So if you have a feat that says "You may treat X as a one-handed weapon" all that the feat says is that you have the option to use the rules for a one-handed weapon when you are wielding a weapon that happens to be named "X." It needs additional text to limit that to a specific size category.

[thaX]

Diminuendo wrote:

OH, and for the record:

thaX wrote:

Bastard Sword: Is this a one-handed weapon or a two-handed weapon?[/bigger]

so here is an instance of a weapons effective designation changing from one handed to two handed, which allows Pushing Assault and Shield of swings to be used. Why would a feat that changes a weapons effective designation from two handed to one handed be so crazy.

you can't argue the designation doesn't change if the Bastard Sword (a one-handed weapon) can use two-handed weapon only feats

thaX wrote:

Exotic Weapons and Hands: If a weapon is wielded two-handed as a martial weapon and one-handed with an exotic weapon

how is this relevant? this rule is for an lack of weapon proficiency penalty.

thaX wrote:

Barbarian--Titan Mauler: Does the Jotungrip class feature (page 30) allow the Titan Mauler to use oversized weapons?

this feat isn't Jotungrip.

thaX wrote:

Barbarian--Titan Mauler: Can a Medium titan mauler wield a Large two-handed weapon, such as a Large greatsword?

with Thunder and Fang an Earthbreaker isn't a two handed weapon, it is a one handed weapon.

thaX wrote:

Inappropriately Sized Firearms: Does this rule (page 136) allow a Medium or smaller creature to use larger firearms of any size?

This is for firearms, an Earthbreaker isn't a firearm.

Your right there is a pattern here, aside from the first FAQ, all of the stuff you have referenced isn't relevant.

Not. Relevant?

One at a time.

The argument about the Bastard Sword has been about how it parallel's the EB being used in One Hand. This quote actually points out that the BS and others like it are exceptions to the overall Size rules. This means it has no relevance to whether or not the EB can be used in one of the two ways proffered here.

The second one serves to point out that one can not use the BS one handed without getting the EWP feat. This is an Exception to the rule, meaning that it is One Handed for those Proficient while regular weapons are one handed no matter the proficiency.

The third actually mentions that two handed weapons can only be use one handed with the ability when of the appropriate size. This parallels with one handing the EB.

The fourth one specifically mentions the same Titan Mauler that can use Two Handed Weapons in one hand. The EB is a Two Handed Weapon.

The last is a clarification about firearms bringing them inline with regular weapons even though the wording of the particular questioned about has some strange wording.

I am not sure how...

Quote:

No. The "Inappropriately Sized Weapons" rule (Core Rulebook 144) says (in summary) that a creature can't wield an inappropriately-sized weapon if the size difference would increase it one or more "steps" beyond "two-handed."

... is not somehow relevant to the discussion.

[thaX]

Chris Kenney wrote:

Thax, what you're missing is that this is a fairly obvious case of the design team trying to simplify the feat and screwing up to make it now do a number of things that weren't intended.

However, PFS-level RAW (the standard of this sub-forum) doesn't care about that. The feat does EXACTLY what it says and nothing else. You're trying to argue that the RAW and the obvious RAI match, but some of your own quotes pretty much prove that isn't true. There is literally zero room for interpretation on this point, but you keep trying to twist logic around to 'make' it so.

Specific always trumps general, as well. So if you have a feat that says "You may treat X as a one-handed weapon" all that the feat says is that you have the option to use the rules for a one-handed weapon when you are wielding a weapon that happens to be named "X." It needs additional text to limit that to a specific size category.

It does not. It never mentions size, neither the character size nor the weapon size. It even goes as far as to assume the reader already knows that the EB is a Two Handed Weapon.

I don't get why this is so hard to grasp.

[Chris Kenney]

thaX wrote:

It never mentions size, neither the character size nor the weapon size.

Precisely. Therefore, these things are irrevlevant.

Quote:

It even goes as far as to assume the reader already knows that the EB is a Two Handed Weapon.

This is an appeal to designer intent, and therefore not relevant to the discussion and a distraction. We already believe the designer didn't intend the feat to work this way, but that's not the topic. The topic is how it works. There have been many cases over the past five years where the designers either didn't foresee how rules would interact, or simply made a formatting error. PFS-RAW says that you use how they wrote it until a specific FAQ (the lowest level of errata) says otherwise. You have posted many FAQs that speak to intent, but none specifically speak to either the feat or the Earthbreaker, so they too are not relevant.

The only thing that matters is the strict words on the page, and what they mean. Until you can explain why "You may treat X as Y" with no other qualifiers means anything other than that, you're wrong.

[Cascade]

I still don't understand the confusion.

Simply read the general rule:

Directly from the PRD:

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.

The second paragraph, first sentence.

In other words...you first determine the size of the base weapon compared to the individual...it is one hand wielded light, one or two handed to determine effort. This step is when sized equally (medium character to medium sized weapon). Thus if you have a feat to use a medium sized two handed weapon in one, it is wielded with one hand of effort (medium sized character wielding a medium sized two handed weapon).

If the weapon is a different size, compare that to what you intend to use. Thus for ANY weapon that is capable of be wielded by a medium sized creature with one hand...only requires one hand for a medium sized (any weapon). If the size varies up one step up, it becomes a two handed weapon. Thus a medium creature wielding a large sized two handed weapon that it could use one handed previously, now requires two hands.

This is the general rule. Providing exceptions for classes and other feats doesn't change how this is presented.

A large sized bastard sword also easily fits the model.

If you do not have the feat, the weapon is a medium sized two handed weapon for effort of a medium sized creature. If the size was increased to large, it is now a step above two handed and can't be used.

If the creature now has EWP bastard sword, a medium sized bastard sword requires one hand of effort to use by a medium creature. If the bastard sword is large, you increase the effort by one step and it now requires two hands.

Titan Mauler specifically says only for appropriately sized weapons so the inappropriate sized rules never apply.

[Diminuendo]

thaX wrote:

It does not. It never mentions size, neither the character size nor the weapon size. It even goes as far as to assume the reader already knows that the EB is a Two Handed Weapon.

I don't get why this is so hard to grasp.

it does actually mention that the Earthbreaker is a two-handed weapon in the normal line.

[thaX]

Yes, the measure of effort is denoted by whether the weapon is Light, One Handed, or Two Handed. It has nothing to do with being able to one hand a Two Handed weapon. It is that measure that is being changed because of the deparity between the weapon size and the size of the character.

A particular Wielder may be the Medium size, or of a Large size, or perhaps a Small size, while the weapon could be one of those or another size.

Look at that passage again. "Between the wielder's size and the size of the creature for which the weapon was designed." Nothing about changing the weapon according to skill.

The Earthbreaker is a Two Handed Weapon. Period. Full Stop. (As someone point out elsewhere)

Nothing changes that. This is what the size rule looks at.

"It doesn't say that I Can't do it, so it must mean that I can!"

It doesn't work like that, else we would need a core rulebook that is bigger than my apartment to fix loopholes to rules. I particularly don't want my game rule book to be in legalize.

[thaX]

Diminuendo wrote:

thaX wrote:

It does not. It never mentions size, neither the character size nor the weapon size. It even goes as far as to assume the reader already knows that the EB is a Two Handed Weapon.

I don't get why this is so hard to grasp.

it does actually mention that the Earthbreaker is a two-handed weapon in the normal line.

Thank you. It must be one saying that normally one would only be able to use two hands with the EB.

[James Risner]

Sub_Zero wrote:

James, if you don't mind, could you tell me what you think my point with the bastard sword comparison is?

I thought you were saying "here is another example of a strict reading of RAW ignoring hints in the ability can lead you into ridiculously territory.

Chris Kenney wrote:

PFS-level RAW (the standard of this sub-forum) doesn't care about that. The feat does EXACTLY what it says and nothing else.

PFS RAW cares a lot more about intent than you suggest.

thaX wrote:

The Earthbreaker is a Two Handed Weapon. Period. Full Stop.

Another way to think of this is that it is a Two Handed that can be used in one hand if you are also using a Klar in the offhand. But if you bump the size up (Large Earthbreaker) then it is a "three handed" weapon that can no longer be used in one hand with a klar. Since you can't normally use a three handed weapon, you can't use a Earthbreak in two hands this way.

[Diminuendo]

thaX wrote:

Diminuendo wrote:

thaX wrote:

It does not. It never mentions size, neither the character size nor the weapon size. It even goes as far as to assume the reader already knows that the EB is a Two Handed Weapon.

I don't get why this is so hard to grasp.

it does actually mention that the Earthbreaker is a two-handed weapon in the normal line.

Thank you. It must be one saying that normally one would only be able to use two hands with the EB.

actually it says under normal "An earth breaker is a two-handed weapon"

[Cascade]

thaX wrote:

Yes, the measure of effort is denoted by whether the weapon is Light, One Handed, or Two Handed. It has nothing to do with being able to one hand a Two Handed weapon. It is that measure that is being changed because of the deparity between the weapon size and the size of the character.

A particular Wielder may be the Medium size, or of a Large size, or perhaps a Small size, while the weapon could be one of those or another size.

Look at that passage again. "Between the wielder's size and the size of the creature for which the weapon was designed." Nothing about changing the weapon according to skill.

Exactly, but that is only for inappropriate sized weapons.

You must follow the order.

Step 1, you determine how the effort is used based upon the (in the usual case) a medium sized character wielding that specific medium sized weapon. (first sentence) In this example, a medium sized character would wield an EB in one hand, per the T&F feat. No changes in size yet, no inappropriate rules are used...at all. Medium character = medium sized weapon used in only one hand. It could be any weapon, you determine the effort first with equal sizes. The weapon type hasn't changed nor will it. All weapons automatically fall within the 3 categories. There is not a single medium sized weapon that is not in one of those categories for medium sized characters. Sizes must be equal for determining effort. If you have a large creature, it determines how it would use a large sized EB. No feat = two hands, some feat = one hand. Some magic of weapon or something else...then something else.

Step 2, you decide you want to change the size of the weapon. Only now does it fall under the inappropriate sized weapon rules. If it is large it is now one step up from your effort (step 1) and requires 2 hands. If it is small, it now counts as light (a step down). If it is Huge, it is unwield-able by the inappropriate weapon rules (last sentence). If it is tiny, it is unwield-able (again last sentence). Nothing else.

That's the print.
You follow the steps in that order.
You are choosing not to follow the order and determining handedness for size first, which is incorrect.

[thaX]

The Measure of Effort is already designated earlier in the size rules, this just repeats the phrase for consistancy. Being able to use the weapon differently does not change the measure of effort that the weapon was made for.

Basically, one is adding a step when saying that the weapon changes from Two Handed to One Handed. My and the Designer's contention is that the weapon itself does not change.

[Diminuendo]

thaX wrote:

The Measure of Effort is already designated earlier in the size rules, this just repeats the phrase for consistancy. Being able to use the weapon differently does not change the measure of effort that the weapon was made for.

Basically, one is adding a step when saying that the weapon changes from Two Handed to One Handed. My and the Designer's contention is that the weapon itself does not change.

Yeah, I'm going to throw out the whole "your not the boss of pathfinder" thing. It's actually pretty arrogant

And feats are used in different ways from how they were originally intended on their creation. That doesn't mean they are playing it wrong. Creative builds is not a bad thing

for example; ever use a Fighter with the Archer archetype to use Ki Throw at range?

[thaX]

No, arrogance is using a feat for a purpose that was never intended nor expected. "doesn't say I can't use it, so it must mean I can" is not a RAW account for a rule. This is one of those situations.

[Cascade]

thaX wrote:

Being able to use the weapon differently does not change the measure of effort that the weapon was made for.

Which is irrevelenat if the wielder can use it differently.

A feat can allow a two handed weapon to be used in one hand. That is a change in effort relative to the wielder. The weapon doesn't care how it is used. You keep insisting the weapon dictates how it's used (only for equal sizes) but the wielder dictates how the weapon is used after that initial step.

The rules for inappropriate sized weapons are spelled out. If you don't want to follow them...your choice.

thaX wrote:

The Measure of Effort is already designated earlier in the size rules, this just repeats the phrase for consistancy. Being able to use the weapon differently does not change the measure of effort that the weapon was made for.

Correct, when the wielder and the weapon ARE the same size. When you change one or the other, you use the inappropriate sized weapon rules. Stop adding the second into the first.

I already quoted the steps as listed. If you chose to ignore what is written in the rules, your choice.

/out

[The Morphling]

This is my favorite thread. One or two trolls (dear GODS I hope they're just trolls) repeatedly making the same claim "the rules say you can do it, but I dislike that, so the rules are wrong," and half the forum is taking the time to explain, over and over, the exact same post that says "the rules say you can do it, so you can do it."

It is like watching a train wreck. Covered in fire.

And also covered in large Earth Breakers.

*casts summon popcorn*

[Bigdaddyjug]

*uses ki point to activate Invisible Blade*
*makes stealth roll 1d20 + 37*
*14 + 37 = 51*
*steals Morphling's popcorn*

[Sub_Zero]

I want to walk away but.....

someone is wrong on the internets.

[thaX]

I have explained, tried to put it in so many ways, and posted some like responses/FAQ's that supports my position, but come what may it seems that there is a want for an oversized weapon come what may.

It has, point in fact, been agreed that it isn't the original intent of the feat to have double wielding Earth Breakers or a huge one.

The thing that seems to have some stuck on is the effort taken to wield particular weapons, trying to transfer being able to use a weapon in a certain way as somehow changing that weapon.

No matter how one stares at Goats, the goat isn't gonna drop dead because they stare at it. No matter how skilled one is and how one is able to wield a particular Two Handed Weapon, it is still a Two Handed Weapon. It steadfastly stay the same, despite how one wants it to change.

[Starbuck_II]

The Morphling wrote:

This is my favorite thread. One or two trolls (dear GODS I hope they're just trolls) repeatedly making the same claim "the rules say you can do it, but I dislike that, so the rules are wrong," and half the forum is taking the time to explain, over and over, the exact same post that says "the rules say you can do it, so you can do it."

It is like watching a train wreck. Covered in fire.

And also covered in large Earth Breakers.

*casts summon popcorn*

You forgot the bees, dear, bob, the bees! http://thebacklot.mtvnimages.com/uploads/2014/01/BEES1.gif

thaX wrote:

No matter how one stares at Goats, the goat isn't gonna drop dead because they stare at it. No matter how skilled one is and how one is able to wield a particular Two Handed Weapon, it is still a Two Handed Weapon. It steadfastly stay the same, despite how one wants it to change.

False, I watched The Man Who Stares at Goats. They did drop dead.

[Bigdaddyjug]

ThaX, the FAQ you posted doesn't say that oversized weapons are completely illegal. It says that those particular feats and/or class features do get around the mechanical rules that allow oversized weapons.

Thunder and Fang does not operate like any of those feats/class features. And its mechanics do allow you to get around the limitation on wielding a large two-handed weapon.

Was this intended? Almost certainly not.

Regardless, is it what the feat does? Undeniably yes.

[thaX]

Where, in the size rules, do you see... no, wait.

I will put it thusly...Which are you saying? That the weapon shrinks or the character that wields it grows?

Are you mistaking the size rules for the spell Enlarge Person?

[thaX]

Starbuck_II wrote:

False, I watched The Man Who Stares at Goats. They did drop dead.

That, my friend, is a work of fiction.

[Starbuck_II]

thaX wrote:

Starbuck_II wrote:

False, I watched The Man Who Stares at Goats. They did drop dead.

That, my friend, is a work of fiction.

Nope:

http://rense.com/general88/menwho.htm

[Bigdaddyjug]

thaX wrote:

Where, in the size rules, do you see... no, wait.

I will put it thusly...Which are you saying? That the weapon shrinks or the character that wields it grows?

Are you mistaking the size rules for the spell Enlarge Person?

Don't ask stupid questions if you want to continue an honest debate. You're being obtuse and it's becoming more and more apparent that you realize this and just don't want to admit you're wrong.

[thaX]

My point.

When you are changing the measure of effort for a weapon in this way, you are doing one of two things. Your either shrinking the weapon (Which would take the damage die down from 2d6 to 2d4) or growing the character.

Using the weapon in a different way does not relate to the size rules at all. I get that one would come to the conclusion that one would be able to double wield the EB with the new wording. (From the old version in an earlier product, for those that don't know) I don't see the leap to using a Two Handed weapon of any kind that is oversized one step for the character. The size rules for inappropriately sized weapon does not allow for it.

I ask, if you were to do this, would the weapon have Reach? (Med creature wielding a large two handed weapon) Would it still do 1.5 strength bonus even though most of the effort is to somehow wield the thing while still treating it as a one handed effort? Would it allow for other feats that depend on two handed weapons? One Handed? Could it still be used with a Klar as the feat describes?

Would it still be viable if you use Enlarge Person on yourself?

I asked earlier if one would no longer be able to use the Tiny version if you suddenly make it a one handed effort weapon. Is all one handed weapons now considered two handed for the oversized versions, thus unwieldable?

Using this feat in this way makes for sloppy rules lawyering and brings up other inconsistencies that are simply waved away as not the same as this particular little niche case.

The FAQ that I pointed out is a parallel to what the discussion is here, the designers have said it point blank in one instance... NO, you can't do it. The fact that the wording is somewhat different doesn't mean to bend the rules to the point of breaking them in half.

I admit that this has been a little more than frustrating, I know how the rules work, I have seen the clarifications in this thread, quoting from another thread talking about this very issue from a couple of the developers that had a hand in writing this revised feat. They say the same thing...

No Duel Wielding Earth Breakers. No, you can not use an oversized EB because of this feat.

Yet, we had, at some point, a question about what the term "No" actually meant and what was being said "No" to. It is like arguing with Bill Clinton about alleged relationships.

Is anything I have said even worth merit in your eyes, you being the three or four posters that desperately want to do this in PFS? I can tell you, a GM down the line will tell you "You can't do that." Are you gonna argue the point, talk about effort and say Two Handed actually means One Handed with this feat and go on and on. Or are you actually going to play the game?

[Diminuendo]

thaX wrote:

I will put it thusly...Which are you saying? That the weapon shrinks or the character that wields it grows?

No-one has ever suggested that. you are trying to pin a ridiculous assumption to the opposing argument to attempt to strengthen your own.

It is the equivalent to saying "we shouldn't allow gay marriage because after that people with want to marry their cow"

The weapon doesn't change size when using thunder and fang with a klar, why would wielding two make the size change? or a big 13kg one? does the Iconic Barbarians Bastard sword change size?

stop making this argument. no-one is suggesting that the weapon morphs in exactly the same way Weapon Training doesn't warp the weapon.

[Diminuendo]

thaX wrote:

I know how the rules work

No, you dont. You think you are the Boss of the rules in PFS. This is evident in your resistance to a vote. do you even know what the S stands for in "PFS"?

thaX wrote:

Is anything I have said even worth merit in your eyes

Not a cent. Redward and others have actually participated in a debate while you have stamped your feet like a child and ignored anything that goes against your argument.

[thaX]

It is others that suggest that the weapon changed, I just quantified it in terms that the rules would denote.

I do not want to get into the political mire about the oxymoron that you mentioned. (That means the two terms don't go together)

See, what is being said to me is that the weapon somehow changes to allow for other effects that supersede the size rules, allowing for the use of an Oversized EB. I am trying to explain, using the EB in that manner doesn't interact with the Size rules at all. The Measure of Effort that keeps propping up is the standard that is used to actually denote the categories of Light/One Handed/Two Handed. It is how the weapons are designed, to be used as such. Being able to circumvent that use, say using an EB as a One Handed Weapon, doesn't actually change the designation of that weapon, just how it is used. The Measure of Effort that the weapon is designed for doesn't suddenly change.

The Bastard Sword has specifics outlined for it within the weapon properties, it is an Exotic Weapon that needs to be Two Handed (and act as a Two Handed weapon) unless the character using it has EWP. It is... (Wait for it...) an exception to the size rules in that regard. It has no parallel to the Earth Breaker, as that weapon does not have those exceptions and is always a Two Handed Weapon.

So me asking, Shrink weapon or Grow character, is trying to put a better perspective on what my take is, how I am seeing your own interpretation and why it seems out of phase with the rules.

There is also the fact that using the weapon One Handed when it is made for the character, when you go to the larger version, your no longer able to do that, and you end up using the oversized Two Handed weapon as a Two Handed weapon. This still makes it unwieldable even if allowing for the "Handiness" that one imagines for the weapon.

So, with all that, barring in mind that you shouldn't be able to do so, if you use an Oversized Two Handed Weapon, would it have Reach?