|
Also want to advise anyone new to the thread that while Kazaan, bigdaddyjug, diminuendo and others will argue all day & night with thaX about whether or not someone with Thunder & Fang can wield and oversized Earthbreaker two handed, by RAW, none of them believe that the spirit of the rules (or intent of T&F) is to allow you to do this.
With that in mind you can decide who's being reasonable and who's being obtuse.
Yes, but I think the idea is that thax is right about RAI for the wrong reasons, which is what they still seem to be arguing about. I honestly stopped reading what they have been typing back and forth for the last 5-8 pages.
That's my takeaway, minus the long rambling from both sides.
|
The Bastard Sword has been FAQ'ed, quartered and served with a ham sandwich. The whole point about it is that it actually has mention it's own specifics within the entry in the book and how it is effected by the Size rules.
The difference between the feat and the ability is space. The ability has more space to be able explain the ability better/with more grace. The feat has limited space, thus the one sentence statement.
Nothing is broken, but with this disagreement, we are never going to be sated to each other's satisfaction.
|
There is not a single medium sized weapon that is not in one of those categories for medium sized characters. the Size of the weapon must be compared to the size of the character for determining if it is able to be wielded.
Um you do realize that feats, class abilities and effects can change the outcome of step 1 for determining effort?
THE MEASURE OF EFFORT DOES NOT HAVE ANYTHING TO DO WITH THE BASE WEAPON SIZE
I am glad you agree.
Thus the "effort" to wield a two handed weapon when a feat says you can wield it in one hand is equivilent to wielding a one handed weapon.
The intent for T&F may be that you need the Klar (and I agree you should). However, there are other feats that allow a medium sized creature to wield a medium sized two handed weapon in one hand....thus increasing the size and using the "inappropriate size rules" come into play to wield a large weapon two handed.
|
|
I believe that the dual wielding is bad enough with the -4/-4 and only 1.0 and the off hand .5 str bonus that it really isn't worth it. If a player comes to my PFS table, I would allow it, even though it is not techanochly feasable.
-- Casade --
The size of the weapon doesn't matter, the measure of effort is the designation of the weapon, the feat does not effect that at all, for the weapon, the wielder, or the size of either. Using it as a one handed weapon makes it so it does One Handed weapon damage as far as STR bonus and other tallies of that regard go.
|
|
-- Casade --
The size of the weapon doesn't matter (for same sized weapons compared to the wielder's size), the measure of effort is the designation of the weapon (again only if the same size) , the feat does not effect that at all (it has to or you couldn't wield a two handed weapon with one hand), for the weapon, the wielder, or the size of either. Using it as a one handed weapon makes it so it does One Handed weapon damage as far as STR bonus and other tallies of that regard go. these are post wielding effects and are irrelevant on how the weapon is initially wielded.
comments above.
Quotes exactly out of the rules:
...a weapon's size category is keyed to the size of the intended wielder...
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)...
It is measured againt a particular wielder for inappropraite weapons.
If it didn't, even with a feat that says "wield as one handed"...you couldn't actually use it with just one hand. I'm talking about use only. Not application of additional weapon feats like power attack. Just using it. Everything else is exceptions and case by case.
I realize thaX - you are holding on to the quote "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." but you are missing the "by this alteration" phrase that is affected by any feats, class or magic abilities.
Owner - D20 Hobbies
|
Thax's position has been thoroughly and completely debunked early in this thread
Not to everyone's satisfaction. I'm just waiting until Thax gets tired of arguing and when that happens I'll jump back into the discussion.
I was at a con all weekend with Mike Brock. I asked him about this question and he told me Kazaan and I are wrong.
This gets us to the fundamental problem. They write the rules expecting us to interpret them in a conservative way. This thread is all about this divide between developers and players. Some people relish the concept that there is some awkward RAW. They like to see "RAW is this silly thing, it problem isn't RAI but it is RAW."
|
|
-- Casade --
The size of the weapon doesn't matter (for same sized weapons compared to the wielder's size), the measure of effort is the designation of the weapon (again only if the same size) , the feat does not effect that at all (it has to or you couldn't wield a two handed weapon with one hand), for the weapon, the wielder, or the size of either. Using it as a one handed weapon makes it so it does One Handed weapon damage as far as STR bonus and other tallies of that regard go. these are post wielding effects and are irrelevant on how the weapon is initially wielded.
comments above.
Quotes exactly out of the rules:
...a weapon's size category is keyed to the size of the intended wielder...
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)...
It is measured againt a particular wielder for inappropraite weapons.
If it didn't, even with a feat that says "wield as one handed"...you couldn't actually use it with just one hand. I'm talking about use only. Not application of additional weapon feats like power attack. Just using it. Everything else is exceptions and case by case.
I realize thaX - you are holding on to the quote "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." but you are missing the "by this alteration" phrase that is affected by any feats, class or magic abilities.
You have the quote, right there, your just reading more into it than what it actually is. The measure of effort used is the designations of Light/One-Handed/Two-Handed. When there is a disparity between the size of the weapon compared to the size of the character, that is when, in my example above, the mini changes boxes. It doesn't move until then. There are exceptions to this rule, such as the oft mentioned Bastard Sword, the Redcap that has an ability to wield Medium weapons normally and I am sure there are other examples.
The Thunder and Fang feat is not one of those examples. It (as intended) allows one to use an Earth Breaker and a Klar together, TWF with those two items with one being used as if it is a One Handed weapon and the other treated as a Light weapon for the purpose of what extra damage is dealt (1.0/.5 str mod, +2 for each -1 for power attack, etc) and what pentalties is used for TWF. (-2/-2)
That this thread does not discuss this aspect of the feat for over 500 pages astounds me.
edit.. Oh, and you keep your AC shield bonus with the Klar as you do this with T&F.
|
Owner - D20 Hobbies
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
That's the wonderful thing about logic...
Yep except just because you say it is logical doesn't make it logical.
It is logical that people would just accept that the rules have logical separate interpretations and accept that fact.
You can't do that. So we will have an endless discussion, in a couple years if they don't answer this in FAQ we will be on post 7,636,364,633,543,434,465,657,453,434.
|
|
Part of the problem, other than basic reading skills, is that a lot of the rules we are talking about was cut and pasted from the open gaming license. There was some disparity that resulted, such as the difference between using a bow between Enlarge Person (Arrow shrinks to original size and normal damage) and Reduce Person (Arrow stays the same and does the damage for the current size of character)
I believe that is a part of the confusion that seems to be happening here, trying to read words between the actual words that are written on the page, remembering old rules and somewhat applying them to the revamped system.
I get that the thought is use should equal usability. That the weapon must be different for one guy than the other. That, though, isn't how the size rules actually work. The weapons don't change, they are made a certain way, with a very solid frame and a specified purpose.
I know that the Bastard Sword has confused some, I didn't really look into it until I saw Amiri and the Cloud sword she had. (FF VII if you didn't know) The thing had a FAQ because of the Icon!!
There is nothing contradicted here, the size rules are perfectly fine. Ya just have to remember, Size of weapon and size of character, compare the two. Whatever the character can do with a particular weapon, a weapon group, or even a toothpick matters not for the purpose of determining what one can wield when looking at Inappropriately Sized weapons. Two Handed normally, one can not wield the bigger one.
I have a question for all of you. Why would you want to wield an oversized two handed weapon?
If you could, would it gain the Reach ability? Would there be a minimum str required to wield it? Would that change for certain weapons?
Does anyone remember if 2nd edition had some rules about weapons that were from larger creatures and if PC's could wield them? Wonder how complicated that would have been?
Think about this, please? What would a GM that is a stickler for the rules say when a player sits down with an oversize Earth Breaker? Would you argue about it when he informs you that it doesn't work?
I have a question for all of you. Why would you want to wield an oversized two handed weapon?
You have asked this question several times, and I have answered several times, but I'll answer again.
Because it looks cool. Because it allows more room for creativity when building character concepts. Because it's fun.
I don't want to be the character doing 3d6 damage, I wanna be the character that hits his opponent with his giant hammer so hard his eyes explode.
If you wanna go all min/max on me thats fine, but that is not how I play Pathfinder. I play pathfinder for fun.
Now, I ask you a question:
A large Earthbreaker can be wielded by a Tiefling without even wasting a feat. It would be fair to say that it doesn't unbalance the the game to allow another character to do this after 4 feats.
If using Thunder and Fang this way doesn't break the games balance then what the hell is the problem?
|
|
I know that the Bastard Sword has confused some, I didn't really look into it until I saw Amiri and the Cloud sword she had. (FF VII if you didn't know) The thing had a FAQ because of the Icon!!
But the rules for BS fit as written fine...see my previous examples
exactly, that is under determining weapon size
There is nothing contradicted here, the size rules are perfectly fine. Ya just have to remember, Size of weapon and size of character, compare the two.
Whatever the character can do with a particular weapon, a weapon group, or even a toothpick matters not for the purpose of determining what one can wield when looking at Inappropriately Sized weapons. Two Handed normally, one can not wield the bigger one.
But you still keep ignoring the inappropriate size rules which fall "after" the above. It's like adding three numbers, you have to add two first.
I have a question for all of you. Why would you want to wield an oversized two handed weapon?
Generally it looks cooler to have these giant weapons on a mini or a picture. They aren't even power gaming. Taking an extra -2 for an average of 4 extra damage is like a weaker version of power attack. I don't see any reach beenfit.
Think about this, please? What would a GM that is a stickler for the rules say when a player sits down with...
I would show the exact same rules quote from the core rulebook and would expect him to come to the same conclusion...much like my local group and my home have and a lot of people on these forums have come to the same conclusions. If he didn't, I'd then decide to either play something different or move to another table if he pressed the issue.
|
|
I think it is pretty cool just one handing the regular sized one.
It isn't me forgetting a step, it is you adding one. It isn't mentioned in the anappropriate size rules at all, just the comparison between character and the weapon. When it fetters out a particular character, it is relating to the character's size, not his skill.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as FAQ candidate. |
An Earth Breaker is a Two Handed weapon that some, with the T&F feat, can use with one hand. If you wield an oversized weapon, you are no longer wielding it in one hand.
You therefore, even if allowance for the possibility for the wielder to effect the designation is considered, still can't wield the oversized two handed weapon.
I know, one handed should mean one handed, right? Get a long sword.
How is this thread still going on?
|
Owner - D20 Hobbies
|
How is this thread still going on?
Because the side supporting "using Large Earthbreakers and dual Earthbreakers" won't accept anything but "you guys are right"!
They are unwilling to accept that the thing isn't clearly written and there are other things to consider that might put their view out of favor.
And if you are wielding a Large Bastard Sword with two hands, you are wielding it in two hands which would satisfy the requirement that you wield it two-handed, amiright?
But you wouldn't be using T&F to do it.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
An Earth Breaker is a Two Handed weapon that some, with the T&F feat, can use with one hand. If you wield an oversized weapon, you are no longer wielding it in one hand.
perfect. By that exact logic you can wield a large bastard sword 2-handed without the feat.
Seriously, read what you just wrote. If what you are saying is accurate then 2-handing a large bastard sword requires no feat.
|
|
Are we back to that already?
Let us go basic, shall we? The bastard sword is a one handed weapon for those with the Exotic Weapon Feat in it's use, otherwise the character must use it as a two handed weapon. (whether they are non proficent or have the martial weapon proficentcy) This is an exception to the size and weapon designation rule.
Has nothing to do nor has any parallel with the Earth Breaker.
So I stopped reading at page 2, I would like an update.
While I am in the camp of you cannot wield two Earthbreakers at once. If someone came to the table with this type of character, what would be the biggest issue?
They are at -4/-4 to hit with both weapons and need 4 feats for it to work. Gaining an average of 2.5 damage per swing (7dmg from EB vs 4.5 dmg of longsword). Being that they are effectively taking -2 more to hit with both weapons for a net gain of 2.5 damage per swing, why does it even matter?
I guess I would have a difference view if someone can point out some exploit that allows for OMGSUPERAWESOMEDAMAGE.
Thoughts?
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
So I stopped reading at page 2, I would like an update.
While I am in the camp of you cannot wield two Earthbreakers at once. If someone came to the table with this type of character, what would be the biggest issue?
They are at -4/-4 to hit with both weapons and need 4 feats for it to work. Gaining an average of 2.5 damage per swing (7dmg from EB vs 4.5 dmg of longsword). Being that they are effectively taking -2 more to hit with both weapons for a net gain of 2.5 damage per swing, why does it even matter?
I guess I would have a difference view if someone can point out some exploit that allows for OMGSUPERAWESOMEDAMAGE.
Thoughts?
There's no exploit, and no real reason to do this for an optimization perspective (it is, however, completely awesome). However, the rules say you can (especially the dual-wield bit - there's no argument there), and we're having endless fun watching thaX pull his hair out screaming the contrary, over and over, despite being proven wrong every single time.
If you'd like a summary of the two sides:
Support (Most of the thread) says: Thunder and Fang allows you to treat an Earth Breaker as a one-handed weapon. One-handed weapons that are one size category "too big" can be wielded two-handed (with a -2 penalty). Therefore, a medium size character with Thunder and Fang can wield a Large Earth Breaker in two hands (with a -2 penalty).
Opposition (thaX and a rare few supporters) says: Thunder and Fang allows you to treat an Earth Breaker as a one-handed weapon. However, it's still a two-handed weapon (even though your feat says you treat it as though it isn't one), so the feat doesn't actually work (but only while using two hands - removing a second hand causes this sentence to suddenly start existing again). Edit (forgot my favorite argument): Also apparently even though this is exactly like a Bastard Sword, this is nothing like a Bastard Sword.
Why the feat only apparently means what it says part of the time has yet to be explained to us by the ever-helpful thaX.
This continues to be my favorite thread.
They are at -4/-4 to hit with both weapons and need 4 feats for it to work.
What if you wielded a Small Earth Breaker in your offhand? Then you'd only be at -2/-4 (two-weapon fighting penalty plus inappropriately sized penalty)? Hehe.
(it is, however, completely awesome)
I agree, it is awesome. And if someone wants to play a Anime based character that uses a Large weapon and would spend 4 Feats to use a Large Earthbreaker I would let him. That is a -2 to hit for a gain of 3.5 damage. Power Attack is better and is one feat.
|
In theory, you could use an Impact Large Earthbreaker with Imp. Vital Strike/Furious Finish while enlarged as a Viking Fighter to deal 18d6+Static modifiers (which equals 108+Static in one swing). Seems overpowered.
Then you remember, that the same Viking could use an Impact Large Bastard Sword to deal 12d8+Static (which equals 96+Static in one swing) for three or four less feats. Aka, 3-4 bonus damage per feat.
So yeah, even me trying to break a Large Earthbreaker only edges out the Bastard Sword by 12 damage, which could easily be gained by the three to four bonus feats.
|
|
Forgetting for the moment that the original question had nothing to do with an Oversized Earth Breaker, those that have been for the correct use of the rules instead of the oft used "but it doesn't say that I can't, so that must mean I can" crowd, I have said that as a GM, I would allow for the Dual Wielding of the EB's, as it can be looked at as a possibility with the new wording of the feat. That is, if one only looks at a part of the feat rather than the complete feat as a whole.
My overall stance, and correct summation, is that one can not use an Earth Breaker with another two handed weapon, such as a second Earth Breaker, to TWF with. I would allow it, with the correct penalties and irritave lesser damage bonuses, but it is side stepping the overall make up of TWF, being of One Handed weapon with a Light weapon, or two One Handed weapons (at -4/-4 with TWF feat)
The oversized Earth Breaker, as I GM, is right out. This is going way beyond what the feat encompasses, and a FAQ about a similar situation parallels the Thunder and Fang feat explicitely says "No" to the question of wielding an oversized Two Handed weapon if treated as one handed with an ability/trait or feat.
The rules about weapons, their designations and of inappropriate sizes says nothing, nor looks at any of the skills or abilities that the character has. It puts forth three, puts them on a scale of two less, one less and equal, then sorts it out from there according to the difference in sizes between the character and the weapon. Go beyond the designations and you are unable to wield the weapon. Nothing in this feat changes that.
There has been three main posters that have argued against this steadfast rule, and others have joined in at the last as I have been the only one posting for a bit, the other "supporters" of mine having given up on the main rules lawyers of the thread. It doesn't change the overall situation. I will add the sentence one last time to end this post.
A character can not wield an oversized Two Handed weapon. Not with this feat.
Impact can only be applied to slashing and piercing weapons. The Iconic barbarian could do this though.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The rules about weapons, their designations and of inappropriate sizes says nothing, nor looks at any of the skills or abilities that the character has. It puts forth three, puts them on a scale of two less, one less and equal, then sorts it out from there according to the difference in sizes between the character and the weapon. Go beyond the designations and you are unable to wield the weapon. Nothing in this feat changes that.
The feat doesn't change the rules, the feat changes what size the weapon is. With Thunder and Fang, Earth Breakers are one-handed weapons. The feat says this (and I doubt the feat is lying to us). When you treat a weapon as a one-handed weapon, you treat it as a one-handed weapon (which means you may use it in any way a creature can use a one-handed weapon). You seem to have some kind of fantasy where the feat doesn't actually alter how the weapon is wielded. If that's the case, you can't wield it in one hand (because the rules say you can't wield a two-handed weapon of your size in one-hand). Obviously, you can wield it in one hand, or you wouldn't be able to use the feat at all. Since you can wield it in one hand, it is therefore treated as a one-handed weapon and all rules that apply to one-handed weapons... all of them, not just the ones that you happen to like... apply to this weapon.
Now, since we have established that it is a one-handed weapon, ignore that the weapon used to be two-handed. It's not two-handed anymore. It doesn't matter at all that it once was two-handed, because right now, to a Thunder and Fang wielder, it is a one-handed weapon.
And you yourself have posted what happens when a medium size creature tries to wield a large one-handed weapon.
He uses it in two hands with a -2 penalty.
|
|
This is one insane thread. You all must understand, when dealing with PFS, you are best to use a more conservative approach and not be a word-bender, rule-stretcher if you don't want your character concept ruled illegal by a judge. The entire concept of this feat is Thunder (earth breaker) and Fang (Klar), not Thunder and Thunder or giant-a## thunders. If you want your character guaranteed legal in all PFS games, use an Earth Breaker and a Klar (both sized for your character) when using this feat. I have judged many a PFS game and I would not allow any of the insanity being argued as legal here. It is not in the spirit of the feat.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
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.
In other words... with the feat in question, the measure of the effort required to use an earthbreaker designates it as a one-handed weapon. A large earthbreaker is one size category larger than the wielder, so it is altered exactly one step to a two-handed weapon. The weapon's designation is "two-handed" now, so it's perfectly usable per RAW.
Why is this difficult? I realize it wasn't the intent of the feat, but it is, in fact, allowed by RAW.
This is one insane thread.
agreed
You all must understand, when dealing with PFS, you are best to use a more conservative approach and not be a word-bender, rule-stretcher if you don't want your character concept ruled illegal by a judge.
agreed
The entire concept of this feat is Thunder (earth breaker) and Fang (Klar), not Thunder and Thunder or giant-a## thunders.
agreed
If you want your character guaranteed legal in all PFS games, use an Earth Breaker and a Klar (both sized for your character) when using this feat. I have judged many a PFS game and I would not allow any of the insanity being argued as legal here. It is not in the spirit of the feat.
agreed
as has already been said, no one here is under any delusion of what the intent of the feat is. We're merely arguing what the feat allows you to do via RAW, since what it does via RAW allows for more then what the feat intended.
|
|
It is not in the spirit of the feat.
The spirit of the feat is completely irrelevant to a rules discussion. It would be nice, I agree, if there was a "Rules Philosophy" forum. Unfortunately, there isn't.
It's already been established that using the large earthbreaker isn't legal for PFS. At this point, they are just arguing the semantics of what the rules actually say.
Since it's RAW legal, it's PFS legal, so you're wrong unless there's a FAQ you know about that I haven't seen. Is there one? I'd appreciate a link, if it does exist.
|
|
According to the campaign coordinator, the FAQs that cover Jotungrip and some of the other "using oversized weapons" abilities covers Thunder and Fang as well. I believe his exact words were "you'll never be able to wield a large two-handed weapon as a medium creature. It's just not feasible."
Got a link?
|
|
It was a verbal exchange, which is why I said you don't have to take my word for it. I have another post upthread where I talked about it.According to the campaign coordinator, the FAQs that cover Jotungrip and some of the other "using oversized weapons" abilities covers Thunder and Fang as well. I believe his exact words were "you'll never be able to wield a large two-handed weapon as a medium creature. It's just not feasible."Got a link?
I don't recall either verbal exchanges nor your word for it appearing on the Additional Resources page, nor being included in the rules by which Pathfinder Society is governed.
Forum posts by developers, legal rulebooks, and FAQs are binding. Conversations about the game are not, especially if they're not printed anywhere.
Large Earth Breakers remain legal for PFS characters with Thunder and Fang.
|
|
Hmm... I should build a Large Earthbreaker PFS character up to level 7 with GM credit. Explain that I can do X amount of damage in a round with it, then, when GMs who hate innovation show up, I can switch to the Large Bastard Sword build, do more damage and have more utility due to the extra feats.
If it's not overpowered and the RAW reading allows it, then why would anyone care enough to stop it?
EDIT: I think I should spend a skill point on the aforementioned character in Profession(Rules Lawyer). Maybe my other skill point on Craft(New Fighting Styles).
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Hmm... I should build a Large Earthbreaker PFS character up to level 7 with GM credit. Explain that I can do X amount of damage in a round with it, then, when GMs who hate innovation show up, I can switch to the Large Bastard Sword build, do more damage and have more utility due to the extra feats.
If it's not overpowered and the RAW reading allows it, then why would anyone care enough to stop it?
I must admit, I've been surprised by the vehemence with which this has been argued.
From my angle, rules semantics are a hobby of mine - I find examining the numerous interactions enjoyable. However, I'm sure most people aren't like this - I'm unusual. I think some people just get emotional about it.
|
|
You can go on believing that for as long as you want to. Like I said, bring one of these characters to a table at GenCon. Of course, by then, there will probably be an FAQ issued since this thread is getting so much attention.
Also, as I stated, the statement was that the FAQs already issued on other abilities and feats that are supposed to allow you to wield oversized weapons would also apply to T&F. Has anybody checked those FAQs in the alst couple of days to see if they've had anything added to them?
Also, please note that I am not disputing that the feat does exactly what you say it does and is therefore RAW.
The forum ate my reply so I'll summarize:
A convention GM doesn't have the time that I have had to thoroughly examine the (admittedly confusing) rules, so I wouldn't be disrespectful to their time and bring an easily-misunderstood character to a con.
The GMs at my local lodge, though, do have the time to discuss rules, and the character wouldn't cause any problems there.
I'm interested you agree it's RAW - if it's RAW, it's legal. Whether all GMs know every single rule and will agree, of course, is always in question.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
also, no changes to the titan mauler specific FAQ. in fact, the wording of that FAQ implies that it's perfectly legal.
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.
T&F on the other hand, does.
|
|
Ok, that's simply trolling.
No, it is not. Do you have to hate yourself to post here? Are you required to be angry while arguing rules?
Just because you disagree with me doesn't mean I'm "trolling."
It's been stated that the EB is a 2 handed weapon, the feat doesn't change the original size, but it allows you to use it 1h, allowing 2wf, but not allowing a large version since you can't weild it.
It's been stated, yes.
But not by the rules.