| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
fair enough. and as reasonable people who were not privy to this discussion and cannot reasonably be expected to take your word for it (not that you asked us to), you should understand that it is, in fact, legal in PFS until it is made generally known/publicly knowable that it is not (and even then they've broken the system because apparently we can't expect words/phrases in the rules to have the same meaning from place to place).
Owner - D20 Hobbies
|
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.
You are totally misunderstanding practically every statement about PFS being RAW.
PFS is RAW so you can't say Longswords deal 1d20 damage. But PFS cares far more about intent than you describe. There are more than toes and fingers can count of examples where awkward things happen is you do a permissive reading of the rules (Double Dex to Damage with guns, etc) and none of those have ever been PFS legal once clarified.
Large Earth Breakers remain legal for PFS characters with Thunder and Fang.
Expect table variance, because at my table and many more you won't have a legal character build.
how long it takes them to put up an FAQ about it is a completely different story.
I doubt it ever will, the majority of these awkward pedantic readings of the rules hardly ever get FAQ treatment.
|
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.
The weapon never changes. It does not have the damage go down as a lower designated weapon, it doesn't shrink, it steadfastly stays the same. The feat allows the character to treat the Earth Breaker as a One Handed weapon, that doesn't mean the weapon itself becomes one handed.
The Klar is considered a Light weapon as far as TWF is concerned and it still provides the AC bonus while using it in conjunction with the Earth Breaker when TWF with it.
Look at it again, then look at the whole section for the weapons, their separate designations, and how it relates to the character. Look at the inappropriate sized weapons, see how the measure of effort is repeated to represent the designations of the weapons (Light/One/Two) relating to what size the particular character wielding the weapon is.
Does it say that the skill or ability would alter the designations? I don't see it there. Anywhere.
The reason the wording was changed from the previous version was to have the EB do One Handed Damage. It does not change the Size rules, it does not have the scale put on a slide.
A character can not use a Two Handed weapon that is a size step over his own. This feat does nothing to supersede that.
Excuse me while I read the rest of the thread.
|
|
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.
because as the character is using the weapon in a particular way, the weapon itself never changes. It is and always will be a Two Handed Weapon. Notice this passage here...
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.
This means Size of weapon (Large) vs. size of particular character (Medium). Weapon itself is Two Handed. Use it in one hand all you want, it is still designated a Two Handed Weapon. This makes it so it is unweildable by the particular character who is the size of Medium. Whether or not he has this feat is not a concern for the size rules.
|
|
Again, the Redcap is mentioned as some sort of example that bellows the allowance of this mis-reading of the rules. The ability that the monster has specifically supersedes the size rules, allowing the little mad man to wield his larger scythe with no hindrance. There is nothing amiss here.
Thank you, Jug, for telling us about this conversation. I am sure it wasn't to your complete satisfaction as I doubt there was time to go into the reasons or rules steps in detail. I hope you had a good time while you was there.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
actually, if you look at the entire passage, you will see in the beginning of the first sentence that it is a measure of effort and in the first parenthetical that this designation is for a particular wielder. but feel free to just take part of the sentence out of context to support your argument i guess... it's not like i can stop you from being disingenuous.
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.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Look at the previous passage, where it actually tells you that each weapon is designated by one of three designations, representing a Measure of how much effort is needed to wield the weapon.
Were, in that passage you quoted, does it say that designation is changed by skilled?
Here:
(whether the weapon is designated as a light, one-handed, or two-handed weapon for a particular wielder)
You continue to cling to your fantasy that "You can use an earth breaker as though it were a one-handed weapon." is somehow different from "While used by you, an earth breaker is a one-handed weapon."
The weapon uses all of the rules that apply to one-handed weapons when wielded by a Thunder and Fang user. All of them, not just thaX's favorite rules. Not just the rules you believe make sense. Not just the rules that support your argument. Every rule printed is applied as though the weapon is one-handed, because the feat says that you use it as though it were one-handed.
And the rules about a medium size creature wielding a one-handed weapon built for a large creature are not in dispute.
Every single facet of your entire argument hinges on one single point - your insistence that the phrase "as though it were a one-handed weapon." doesn't mean "use the rules for one-handed weapons."
|
|
Your putting more into it that what is there.
You can use a Long Sword two handed, but that does not make the normally One Handed Long Sword into a Two Handed weapon. The same thing applies here, you can use the Earth Breaker as a One Handed weapon (because the feat allows you to do so), but that doesn't make the normally Two Handed EB into a One Handed weapon.
The weapon keeps it's own designation. It is the ability or feat that would reference the change of how to relate it to the Size rules, and this feat does not do that.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I'd also very much expect GM variation. I'm not at all sure that I'd allow this in PFS. Parsing the sentences as finely as you are is overdoing RAW in my opinion. This is one case where I'd say the intent is crystal clear.
Hm, theoretically, PFS GMs shouldn't be making judgments on intent like this, no? The RAW here is actually pretty clear unless I'm missing something. That is to say, yes, Thunder and Fang allows a character to use two earth breakers, and also to use a Large earthbreaker two handed.
Now, in a home game, sure, this becomes a question of how much RAW means to you. But in PFS, I'm pretty sure you have to let this dog hunt...
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Your putting more into it that what is there.
You're*
You can use a Long Sword two handed, but that does not make the normally One Handed Long Sword into a Two Handed weapon.
Correct. This is because you do not have a feat which says "You can use a longsword as though it were a two-handed weapon."
The same thing applies here, you can use the Earth Breaker as a One Handed weapon (because the feat allows you to do so), but that doesn't make the normally Two Handed EB into a One Handed weapon.
Except for the part where the feat says "You can use an earth breaker as though it were a one-handed weapon."
The weapon keeps it's own designation. It is the ability or feat that would reference the change of how to relate it to the Size rules, and this feat does not do that.
Except for the part where the feat says "You can use an earth breaker as though it were a one-handed weapon."
|
Owner - D20 Hobbies
|
| 1 person marked this as FAQ candidate. 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
PFS GMs shouldn't be making judgments on intent like this, no? The RAW here is actually pretty clear unless I'm missing something. That is to say, yes, Thunder and Fang allows a character to use two earth breakers, and also to use a Large earthbreaker two handed.
PFS GM's should follow RAW. When RAW is clear this isn't an issue. I believe the RAW is clear, I just don't agree with you that you can RAW use two earth breakers or a large one with two hands. In this case, when the PFS GM finds something that people disagree on what it means, then they are expected to follow intent. Again, this only comes up with the rule isn't clear. Like this case.
|
|
That is what I am trying to get accross, it is saying you use the weapon "as a One Handed" weapon. That means your using the weapon differently than it's original purpose, but the designation doesn't actually change.
The weapon is not changing, it isn't going down to a 1d12 damage weapon die, it isn't shrinking because of the extrodinary skill that the character has, and it certainly not becoming a different weapon that the character can use one handed. Have you compared the two versions of this feat? How can one think that something different would be allowed because the feat is worded differently?
You do one handed damage. That is, you do 1.0 str damage, +2 for each -1 to hit for Power attack, and other effects like that.
|
|
That is what I am trying to get accross, it is saying you use the weapon "as a One Handed" weapon. That means your using the weapon differently than it's original purpose, but the designation doesn't actually change.
Why do you think this? The game has well-defined rules which describe how a one-handed weapon is wielded, and how a two-handed weapon is wielded.
Thunder and Fang causes an Earth Breaker to be used as though it is a one-handed weapon, therefore applying the one-handed weapon rules to the weapon.
The one-handed weapon rules state that such a weapon can be wielded in two hands if its wielder is one size category smaller than the size category of the weapon.
The weapon is not changing, it isn't going down to a 1d12 damage weapon die, it isn't shrinking because of the extrodinary skill that the character has, and it certainly not becoming a different weapon that the character can use one handed.
I don't think any of these things happen, and I think you know that. Why bring them up, if not to attempt a strawman argument?
Have you compared the two versions of this feat? How can one think that something different would be allowed because the feat is worded differently?
The older version of the feat is irrelevant. This is similar to how 3.5 differs from Pathfinder - just because 3.5 exists, doesn't mean its rules have any bearing on how Pathfinder is played, even though Pathfinder's rules are heavily based on the 3.5 rules. There's been an update - now the old rules don't matter one bit.
You do one handed damage. That is, you do 1.0 str damage, +2 for each -1 to hit for Power attack, and other effects like that.
Right. Because it's a one-handed weapon. What is it that you're confused about? An earth breaker uses all of the one-handed weapon rules now that its wielder has Thunder and Fang. ALL of the one-handed weapon rules.
What justification do you have for your claim that only some of the one-handed rules apply?
I have a PFS character who has Focused Shot and Kirin Strike. I believe that RAW, these two abilities stack. There is some controversy on this, as there are those who believe the Int mod counts as the source of the bonus and therefore the two abilities do not stack.
When I play this character, I make a point of raising the issue with the GM before we start and ask for a quick ruling. I have no FAQs or developer commentary or I would present them.* Instead I just ask for a table decision on whether the Int Mod or the Feat counts as the source.
Right now, I'm batting about 50% on the Feats stacking.
I would hope that anyone bringing a character with a Large Earthbreaker or TWF Earthbreakers would do the same. I would also hope they would say something along the following:
If you're not willing to present it that way, I'd be interest in hearing why.
*Full disclosure: in typing this, I remembered that there was something relevant and dug up this post on the subject of stacking bonuses from Ability mods. I'll be presenting it to GMs from now on, as well as Kazaan's post which summarizes the problem that view presents with established Feats like Dragon Style and Dragon Ferocity.
*Full disclosure: in typing this, I remembered that there was something relevant and dug up this post on the subject of stacking bonuses from Ability mods. I'll be presenting it to GMs from now on, as well as Kazaan's post which summarizes the problem that view presents with established Feats like Dragon Style and Dragon Ferocity.Further down that thread, I clarified further in this post.
Added to my list, thanks!
|
|
The weapon is not changing, it isn't going down to a 1d12 damage weapon die, it isn't shrinking because of the extrodinary skill that the character has, and it certainly not becoming a different weapon that the character can use one handed.I don't think any of these things happen, and I think you know that. Why bring them up, if not to attempt a strawman argument?
Because that is what you are saying does happen. You are saying that the weapon becomes something that it is not.
|
|
Because that is what you are saying does happen. You are saying that the weapon becomes something that it is not.The weapon is not changing, it isn't going down to a 1d12 damage weapon die, it isn't shrinking because of the extrodinary skill that the character has, and it certainly not becoming a different weapon that the character can use one handed.I don't think any of these things happen, and I think you know that. Why bring them up, if not to attempt a strawman argument?
No, you don't get to put words in my mouth.
You mentioned damage dice changing. You mentioned the weapon shrinking. You mentioned the weapon turning into another weapon. All things I never said - things no one said and no one believes (and you know this).
The only reason to say these things is to make the argument refuting your position seem silly - essentially, putting up a "straw man" you can knock down.
Argue against what I've said, not what you'd like for me to have said.
|
Just repeating my page 1 comment.
You have mastered the ancient Thunder and Fang fighting style, allowing you to fight with increased effectiveness when wielding an earth breaker and klar.
Prerequisite: Str 15, Two-Weapon Fighting, Weapon Focus (earth breaker), Weapon Focus (klar)
Benefit: You can use an earth breaker as though it were a one-handed weapon. When using an earth breaker in one hand and a klar in your off hand, you retain the shield bonus your klar grants to your Armor Class even when you use it to attack. Treat your klar as a light weapon for the purposes of determining your two-weapon fighting penalty.
Normal: An earth breaker is a two-handed weapon, preventing the use of a klar in one hand without imposing penalties for using the earth breaker one-handed. A klar can be used either as a one-handed weapon or a shield; it does not grant a bonus to AC during rounds in which it is used as a weapon.
First, paragraph 1 specifies "when wielding an earthbreaker and Klar"
Sentence 1of "benefit" specifies "an earthbreaker". This is singular. It does not say "earthbreakers". By RAW, singular means one. So no dual wielding.
Third, for clarification, the "Normal" paragraph again bolsters the first paragraph.
So we are left with my reading of RAW saying no, and I wish you luck at other tables.
Because that is what you are saying does happen. You are saying that the weapon becomes something that it is not.The weapon is not changing, it isn't going down to a 1d12 damage weapon die, it isn't shrinking because of the extrodinary skill that the character has, and it certainly not becoming a different weapon that the character can use one handed.I don't think any of these things happen, and I think you know that. Why bring them up, if not to attempt a strawman argument?
Where is the rule that a one handed weapon can't do 2d6?
What reason would a Earthbreaker need to shrink to be wielded as a one handed weapon? 13KG is easily lifted with one hand.
How does the Bastard Sword work with Exotic Weapon Proficentcy? Does it "shrink?" If not, how does the character wield a weapon in one hand when they were only able to wield in two hands previously?
Thax, please answer these questions or stop using your arguements
Just repeating my page 1 comment.
You have mastered the ancient Thunder and Fang fighting style, allowing you to fight with increased effectiveness when wielding an earth breaker and klar.
Prerequisite: Str 15, Two-Weapon Fighting, Weapon Focus (earth breaker), Weapon Focus (klar)
Benefit: You can use an earth breaker as though it were a one-handed weapon. When using an earth breaker in one hand and a klar in your off hand, you retain the shield bonus your klar grants to your Armor Class even when you use it to attack. Treat your klar as a light weapon for the purposes of determining your two-weapon fighting penalty.
Normal: An earth breaker is a two-handed weapon, preventing the use of a klar in one hand without imposing penalties for using the earth breaker one-handed. A klar can be used either as a one-handed weapon or a shield; it does not grant a bonus to AC during rounds in which it is used as a weapon.
First, paragraph 1 specifies "when wielding an earthbreaker and Klar"
two earthbreakers is not an earthbreaker and a klar
a large earthbreaker is not an earthbreaker and a klar Sentence 1of "benefit" specifies "an earthbreaker". This is singular. It does not say "earthbreakers". By RAW, singular means one. So no dual wielding.
Third, for clarification, the "Normal" paragraph again bolsters the first paragraph.
So we are left with my reading of RAW saying no, and I wish you luck at other tables.
It only says "when wielding an earthbreaker and Klar" after it says "You can use an earth breaker as though it were a one-handed weapon[FULLSTOP]" the limitations are benifits for the klar, not a limiter for the Earthbreaker.
If they were, the sentence would read; "When wielding an earthbreaker and Klar, You can use an earth breaker as though it were a one-handed weapon."
PFS GM's should follow RAW. When RAW is clear this isn't an issue. I believe the RAW is clear, I just don't agree with you that you can RAW use two earth breakers or a large one with two hands. In this case, when the PFS GM finds something that people disagree on what it means, then they are expected to follow intent. Again, this only comes up with the rule isn't clear. Like this case.
Except that the rule being unclear is what we are in disagreement about... You could say that it's unclear how many d6s of damage a fireball does, but saying so doesn't make it actually unclear.
This is exactly the kind of stuff I've been talking about in my other threads recently. So now, what happens? Let's say I build my character around this schtick of using this big Large earthbreaker (never even thinking this is a controversial thing to do), and I play him for 7 or 8 levels and no one questions it. I spend half my gold on this tricked out magical Large weapon and, who knows, maybe even devote other feats to doing this, etc. Then I move to your city. I bring the character to you your PFS game and you're like "the rules are unclear so you can't use that."
See, this is when you and me are going to straight up get in a fight (no, I don't mean a physical fight). We totally disagree, not only about how this rule should be interpreted, but in fact about whether any "interpretation" is even necessary in this case. And we don't know each other, so who's going to back down? I know, I know. It's a social game and blah blah blah. But seriously. Neither of us has any real incentive to back down in this situation.
This is a perfect example of why they need to start getting on these FAQs with a vengeance, and/or make some kind of useful policy statement about what to do in these situations. If nothing else, as I've said before, they ought to just let Large earthbreaker guy rebuild. If the rule of thumb is, essentially, that you have to go to every table not really sure about how any rule with the slightest shadow of a possibility for misinterpretation is going to be handled, then two things are true.
1. Half the point of organized play has been lost since you are apparently subject to table variance about how you can build your characters, even when the RAW is clear.
2. A pretty significant chunk of the printed material is essentially worthless. Don't get me wrong. I understand the thinking behind the position Redward and others are taking here. But that position pretty well means that you basically shouldn't ever use, off the top of my head, Thunder and Fang, icy tomb hex, the rope dart, the tekko-kagi, the kusarigama, the seven branched sword, the inquisitor's bane power, improvised weapon rules... and all that is just stuff I've seen argued about in the last week!
This stuff is honestly getting ridiculous. I wish we could decide on some rough standard for what we feel is an acceptable overall power level for a character, then leave everybody alone about this nitpicky crap long as their character falls below that line. It's crazy that you're going to stop the guy from using the big earthbreaker, but then let the 7th level magus kensai sitting next to him go on doing 150 damage shocking grasp critical hits with his scimitar (or whatever- pick your own example of perfectly legal, perfectly ridiculous crap).
|
|
Because that is what you are saying does happen. You are saying that the weapon becomes something that it is not.The weapon is not changing, it isn't going down to a 1d12 damage weapon die, it isn't shrinking because of the extrodinary skill that the character has, and it certainly not becoming a different weapon that the character can use one handed.I don't think any of these things happen, and I think you know that. Why bring them up, if not to attempt a strawman argument?
Where is the rule that a one handed weapon can't do 2d6?
What reason would a Earthbreaker need to shrink to be wielded as a one handed weapon? 13KG is easily lifted with one hand.
How does the Bastard Sword work with Exotic Weapon Proficentcy? Does it "shrink?" If not, how does the character wield a weapon in one hand when they were only able to wield in two hands previously?
Thax, please answer these questions or stop using your arguements
There could be one handed weapons that do the same damage as an Earth Breaker, I don't have a list of every weapon stated out for the PF/3.5 books in front of me. My point, one that is slipping into the much of sillyness that has been proffered already, is that when someone is saying the weapon turns into a One Handed from being a Two Handed weapon, there are other considerations that one may not have thought of when doing this. A step down in damage is one of those things, as it "Shrunk" into something else.
I don't know why it needs to shrink to be uses as a one handed weapon, that is what I want you to tell me. Why do you think it needs to do so?
Let me explain. When you say that the designation of the weapon changes to the One Handed one, to allow for the wielding of an Oversized version of the weapon, you are saying that something happens to the weapon instead of just being able to wield the thing in a different way. I assume you mean that it shrinks.
The Bastard Sword works as it says it does under the entry for the weapon, an exception to the size rules that is stated and has been clarified through a FAQ. I will say again, the Earth Breaker has no such exceptions and this feat does not give it any of those exceptions.
Now, of course the reference to the damage downgrade and shrinking of the weapon is silly, it is a parallel to what you are saying happens when a character suddenly can change the weapon's designation by the allowance of one handing the thing with this feat. I also asked if one was allowed to wield an oversized EB if it would have reach, something that has thus far been ignored or forgotten.
Would an ability or class feature actually reference the oversized weapon as to having reach when allowed to be wielded somehow? I wonder if the Scythe would still not have it because of how unwieldy it is normally? (as it says for the reason the normal sized one does not have reach)
I have argued this point, saying this over and over, because it is a basic rule that is easy to use and is straight forward. Yet, you and others want to put a sliding scale on the Size Rules for inappropiately sized weapons where there shouldn't be one. Simply because "You can use an Earth Breaker as though it were a One Handed weapon."
Where, in that statement, does the actual designation of the weapon change? It doesn't change when a character uses a Long Sword with two hands, why should it when the opposite happens?
|
|
If they were, the sentence would read; "When wielding an earthbreaker and Klar, You can use an earth breaker as though it were a one-handed weapon."
He was actually referencing the first sentence.
"You have mastered the ancient Thunder and Fang fighting style, allowing you to fight with increased effectiveness when wielding an earth breaker and klar."
What follows should take this first synopes in mind when looking at how to use this feat.
This whole thread has been one statement that has been used in various wordings throughout the whole board...
"It doesn't actually say that I can't do it, so it must mean that I can."
Right now, I can say that this particular issue is cherry picking rules and ignoring the rest.
|
|
PFS GM's should follow RAW. When RAW is clear this isn't an issue. I believe the RAW is clear, I just don't agree with you that you can RAW use two earth breakers or a large one with two hands. In this case, when the PFS GM finds something that people disagree on what it means, then they are expected to follow intent. Again, this only comes up with the rule isn't clear. Like this case.Except that the rule being unclear is what we are in disagreement about... You could say that it's unclear how many d6s of damage a fireball does, but saying so doesn't make it actually unclear.
This is exactly the kind of stuff I've been talking about in my other threads recently. So now, what happens? Let's say I build my character around this schtick of using this big Large earthbreaker (never even thinking this is a controversial thing to do), and I play him for 7 or 8 levels and no one questions it. I spend half my gold on this tricked out magical Large weapon and, who knows, maybe even devote other feats to doing this, etc. Then I move to your city. I bring the character to you your PFS game and you're like "the rules are unclear so you can't use that."
See, this is when you and me are going to straight up get in a fight (no, I don't mean a physical fight). We totally disagree, not only about how this rule should be interpreted, but in fact about whether any "interpretation" is even necessary in this case. And we don't know each other, so who's going to back down? I know, I know. It's a social game and blah blah blah. But seriously. Neither of us has any real incentive to back down in this situation.
This is a perfect example of why they need to start getting on these FAQs with a vengeance, and/or make some kind of useful policy statement about what to do in these situations. If nothing else, as I've said before, they ought to just let Large earthbreaker guy rebuild. If the rule of thumb is, essentially, that you have to go to every table not really sure...
There is a FAQ that parallels this out already, though some posters has discounted it because the question right above references the weapon being the same size as the character. It is for the Titan Mauler.
I will let you look at it yourself, it is in the Advanced Players Book FAQ.
If they were, the sentence would read; "When wielding an earthbreaker and Klar, You can use an earth breaker as though it were a one-handed weapon."
"It doesn't actually say that I can't do it, so it must mean that I can."
Right now, I can say that this particular issue is cherry picking rules and ignoring the rest.
incorrect. If you can say that then you've demonstrated that you don't know what people are saying.
My point, one that is slipping into the much of sillyness that has been proffered already, is that when someone is saying the weapon turns into a One Handed from being a Two Handed weapon, there are other considerations that one may not have thought of when doing this. A step down in damage is one of those things, as it "Shrunk" into something else.
and again, you've just shown that you don't know what people are saying. If that's what you think, then you have a profound misunderstanding of this camps argument. Now, this has been explained repeatedly to you, so at this point, I'm going to have to assign the blame of this misunderstanding completely and totally on you.
I don't know why it needs to shrink to be uses as a one handed weapon, that is what I want you to tell me. Why do you think it needs to do so?
Sorry, others do not have to defend straw-men that you erect. No one is saying this, and this is making you look completely dishonest. I'm literally stunned that you think anyone should have to defend that point since you've made it up whole-cloth.
At first, I thought the Fox News/ Bill O'Reiley jokes were a bit unwarranted, but now I think they might go far enough.
If nothing else, as I've said before, they ought to just let Large earthbreaker guy rebuild.
I have to vehemently disagree with this. Anyone using Thunder and Fang to wield a Large Earthbreaker has to know they're breaking the spirit of the Feat, regardless of RAW. They should know full well that it is a prime candidate for getting hit with an errata and plan accordingly.
If the rule of thumb is, essentially, that you have to go to every table not really sure about how any rule with the slightest shadow of a possibility for misinterpretation is going to be handled, then two things are true.
I've lobbied heavily for certain misleading character choices to be fixed. One was the Titan Mauler archetype, which was clarified in a FAQ. The other is the Beast Rider, which has not been addressed. I do not want players to assume an archetype does what it implies and then find out they've been tricked by a badly written rule.
That is just not the case with Thunder & Fang. This is a case of players using it to do something it clearly isn't intended to do.
1. Half the point of organized play has been lost since you are apparently subject to table variance about how you can build your characters, even when the RAW is clear.
When RAW and RAI are in clear contradiction, your best bet is to aways assume the more conservative position (from the player's point of view). You're really best off not using that feat/ability/item whether you're hoping it gets fixed or hoping it doesn't.
2. A pretty significant chunk of the printed material is essentially worthless. Don't get me wrong. I understand the thinking behind the position Redward and others are taking here. But that position pretty well means that you basically shouldn't ever use, off the top of my head, Thunder and Fang, icy tomb hex, the rope dart, the tekko-kagi, the kusarigama, the seven branched sword, the inquisitor's bane power, improvised weapon rules... and all that is just stuff I've seen argued about in the last week!
That's the exact reason I don't use a kusarigama or a scorpion whip. I was working on a Monk of the Empty Hand before I abandoned it due to the clear controversies such a character might create. Organized Play is not the place to try out corner-case builds or use badly written feats/abilities/items unless you're willing to roll with the punches when or if Paizo clarifies them. Save those character choices for home games where you can come to an agreement on rules and move on.
This stuff is honestly getting ridiculous. I wish we could decide on some rough standard for what we feel is an acceptable overall power level for a character...
I'm not sure anyone is arguing that this is a power-level problem. I'm sure someone somewhere could find a way to do something ridiculous with two/L Earthbreaker(s), but everyone seems to be arguing the principle of the thing at this point.
The principle I'm arguing is that bringing a character that you know is likely to incite rules arguments is a very selfish thing to do, especially if your intent is to stand your ground and argue until the GM concedes while the other players twiddle their thumbs.
If nothing else, as I've said before, they ought to just let Large earthbreaker guy rebuild.I have to vehemently disagree with this. Anyone using Thunder and Fang to wield a Large Earthbreaker has to know they're breaking the spirit of the Feat, regardless of RAW. They should know full well that it is a prime candidate for getting hit with an errata and plan accordingly.
Up until very recently, many of us have labored under the impression that the "spirit of the feat" is irrelevant, and never more so than in PFS, where RAW rules. Many still believe this.
Listen, I have been on (roughly) your side of this argument in the past and gotten in big blowup fights about it from that end! I stood in the apartment of three very smart Columbia law school students that had invited me to their group, and made the argument you are making now. I can still remember clearly one of them very animatedly sort of snorting derisively and saying to me "I have no more idea what a given designer was thinking when he wrote a certain rule than I have what Chagall was thinking when he painted any of his pictures, and I have far less interest in knowing. What I have is the text and what it actually says." Then we started arguing about Roland Barthes. I got kicked out of the group for my troubles.
After several experiences like this, I gave up and thought "Ok, sure, that's how it is." And now I'm taking heat from the other side. Great. But listen, honestly, those guys are right, especially if we're talking about organized play. Their logic is right. I truly believe that if you're going to fight that, you first have to start accepting it and stop acting like these people are breaking the rules, or like this stuff is their fault. They aren't and it isn't. Now, is it their fault when they make a way overpowered character by doing this? I consider that actually a different argument. What the player is using the "unclear" rule for ought to be relevant.
I've lobbied heavily for certain misleading character choices to be fixed. One was the Titan Mauler archetype, which was clarified in a FAQ. The other is the Beast Rider, which has not been addressed. I do not want players to assume an archetype does what it implies and then find out they've been tricked by a badly written rule.
We're certainly on the same side about this, at least.
That is just not the case with Thunder & Fang. This is a case of players using it to do something it clearly isn't intended to do.
Who are you to make this call? That's not meant offensively/aggressively. It's a serious question. Who are you or who am I to say what it's intended to do? And also, again, does it even matter what it was intended to do? They wrote what they wrote and, amazingly, in this case the text is this way after a revision, which might certainly lead one to conclude that some thought had gone into making it actually do what it now does. This thread sideswiped me, for real. I don't have a character with a Large earthbreaker, but if that idea had struck me as interesting I would have made one with this rule without ever thinking twice that somebody would have a problem with it. To me the RAW seems very clear.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Organized Play is not the place to try out corner-case builds or use badly written feats/abilities/items unless you're willing to roll with the punches when or if Paizo clarifies them. Save those character choices for home games where you can come to an agreement on rules and move on.
This blows my mind, because I had exactly the opposite impression of organized play. I.e. it's a great place to play "corner case builds" in an environment where you have RAW on your side and know you won't be molested by "mother may I?" syndrome, which afflicts so many home game tables.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I'm not sure anyone is arguing that this is a power-level problem. I'm sure someone somewhere could find a way to do something ridiculous with two/L Earthbreaker(s), but everyone seems to be arguing the principle of the thing at this point.
The principle I'm arguing is that bringing a character that you know is likely to incite rules arguments is a very selfish thing to do, especially if your intent is to stand your ground and argue until the GM concedes while the other players twiddle their thumbs.
The principle I'm arguing is far simpler. It goes like this: "Don't make your character too powerful."
What's that? You wanted a guy with a Large earthbreaker for idiosyncratic reasons and were overjoyed when you saw this feat allowed you to make him? Awesome! Good for you, man! Wait a minute...is he overpowered? Are you using this to break the game? No? Then like I was saying, awesome! Good for you! Have fun with your cool big earthbreaker guy!
EDIT: Honestly, the stuff you're saying here is making me want to rebuild like half my characters. I just don't even want to play them anymore. I've been going out of my way not to make my characters too powerful, but I don't want somebody like you sitting at the table thinking "Wow, he's using a rope dart? What a selfish a&*#@$+." Because my intention was the exact opposite. I wanted people to think "Wow, he's using a rope dart? That's so cool, I never see anyone using that. And what a good way to limit a ranged build into something more reasonable, when he could have been using a composite longbow, which is better in every metric..." All this is bumming me out majorly.
There is a FAQ that parallels this out already, though some posters has discounted it because the question right above references the weapon being the same size as the character. It is for the Titan Mauler.
I will let you look at it yourself, it is in the Advanced Players Book FAQ.
You're sort of missing my overall point here. I'm actually not that interested in arguing whether or not Thunder and Fang can/should let you do X, Y or Z. Frankly, my dear, I don't give a damn. I am much more interested in the larger issues brought up by arguments like this.
Does RAI matter? Does it matter more or less in organized play? Have the devs clearly and unambiguously stated whether we're intended to act like it does or doesn't matter? In the absence of such a statement of intent, should we be punishing, or even have an aggressive or vindictive spirit (as I see so often here) towards people who use rules this way? And so on.
|
|
Yes, what is intended does matter.
See, from this other thread that is, thankfully, resolved (not to everyone's satisfaction) the overall want was to have a human (or Half-elf/Half Orc) to grow a tail to use a feat with. (Racail Heritage with the Kobold feat Tail Terror) It got to the point where a developer from paizo came in, saying NO, one does not grow a tail.
He went further into it, saying that the use of Racial Heritage should be used with some common sense. If the character doesn't have a tail, he can't really use a tail attack.
This is a different situation, obviously, but the advice should be the same. It should be common sense that a feat whose first sentence says "You have mastered the ancient Thunder and Fang fighting style, allowing you to fight with increased effectiveness when wielding an earth breaker and klar. " that the double wielding of an Earthbreaker or the use of an oversize one isn't within the scope of the feat.
That it isn't what was intended to do.
Who are you to make this call? That's not meant offensively/aggressively. It's a serious question. Who are you or who am I to say what it's intended to do? And also, again, does it even matter what it was intended to do? They wrote what they wrote and, amazingly, in this case the text is this way after a revision, which might certainly lead one to conclude that some thought had gone into making it actually do what it now does. This thread sideswiped me, for real. I don't have a character with a Large earthbreaker, but if that idea had struck me as interesting I would have made one with this rule without ever thinking twice that somebody would have a problem with it. To me the RAW seems very clear.
In many cases, I would agree with you. We can't assume intent just because we don't agree with what's written. By the same token, considering the number of FAQs, erratas and updates, I don't think it's intellectually honest to assume that what's written is presented 100% as intended.
However, when you have three people involved with the writing of the book unanimously clarifying intent, I think the answer is pretty clear. Should this Feat receive another revision, it will almost certainly close this loophole.
This blows my mind, because I had exactly the opposite impression of organized play. I.e. it's a great place to play "corner case builds" in an environment where you have RAW on your side and know you won't be molested by "mother may I?" syndrome, which afflicts so many home game tables.
This suggests to me that you're starting off on an antagonistic relationship with your GM. There shouldn't be sides and permission. One shouldn't be coming to the game looking for a fight. If your GM doesn't want to deal with Gunslingers or Slumber witches or Large Earthbreakers, why would you want to force it on him? That doesn't sound like a fun game to play.
In PFS, the GM has to suck it up and deal with character concepts he doesn't like, but he's not required to share your interpretation of an ambiguous rule and the other players shouldn't have to suffer through an extended debate in the middle of their session.
EDIT: Honestly, the stuff you're saying here is making me want to rebuild like half my characters. I just don't even want to play them anymore. I've been going out of my way not to make my characters too powerful, but I don't want somebody like you sitting at the table thinking "Wow, he's using a rope dart? What a selfish a#&!&+%."
I feel like you're missing the most important part of this sentence:
Organized Play is not the place to try out corner-case builds or use badly written feats/abilities/items unless you're willing to roll with the punches when or if Paizo clarifies them.
I'm all for you playing a guy with a rope dart. But only if you're willing to compromise with a GM who interprets the rules differently than you. And if you find that GM's view to be unacceptable and you can't convince him of your view (outside the session), then you just don't play that character with him anymore.
I'm not sure anyone is arguing that this is a power-level problem. I'm sure someone somewhere could find a way to do something ridiculous with two/L Earthbreaker(s), but everyone seems to be arguing the principle of the thing at this point.
The principle I'm arguing is that bringing a character that you know is likely to incite rules arguments is a very selfish thing to do, especially if your intent is to stand your ground and argue until the GM concedes while the other players twiddle their thumbs.
The principle I'm arguing is far simpler. It goes like this: "Don't make your character too powerful."
What's that? You wanted a guy with a Large earthbreaker for idiosyncratic reasons and were overjoyed when you saw this feat allowed you to make him? Awesome! Good for you, man! Wait a minute...is he overpowered? Are you using this to break the game? No? Then like I was saying, awesome! Good for you! Have fun with your cool big earthbreaker guy!
EDIT: Honestly, the stuff you're saying here is making me want to rebuild like half my characters. I just don't even want to play them anymore. I've been going out of my way not to make my characters too powerful, but I don't want somebody like you sitting at the table thinking "Wow, he's using a rope dart? What a selfish a++#&&+." Because my intention was the exact opposite. I wanted people to think "Wow, he's using a rope dart? That's so cool, I never see anyone using that. And what a good way to limit a ranged build into something more reasonable, when he could have been using a composite longbow, which is better in every metric..." All this is bumming me out majorly.
What is your rope dart dude's build? I've never seen someone use one in PF.
Yes, what is intended does matter.
See, from this other thread that is, thankfully, resolved (not to everyone's satisfaction) the overall want was to have a human (or Half-elf/Half Orc) to grow a tail to use a feat with. (Racail Heritage with the Kobold feat Tail Terror) It got to the point where a developer from paizo came in, saying NO, one does not grow a tail.
He went further into it, saying that the use of Racial Heritage should be used with some common sense. If the character doesn't have a tail, he can't really use a tail attack.
This is a different situation, obviously, but the advice should be the same...
No, this is a completely different situation, and the advice does not apply in the same way because of that.
It should be common sense that a feat whose first sentence says "You have mastered the ancient Thunder and Fang fighting style, allowing you to fight with increased effectiveness when wielding an earth breaker and klar. " that the double wielding of an Earthbreaker or the use of an oversize one isn't within the scope of the feat.That it isn't what was intended to do.
I hear you saying that it's "common sense" and that RAI matters. And I'm saying back to you that those are just declarations of preference with absolutely nothing backing them. Watch. I'll do the same thing:
It's just common sense that flavor text is flavor text and rules are rules. It's perverse and intellectually dishonest to go conflating the two in an attempt to twist the RAW into something that just personally appeals to you more.
See what I did there?
I feel like you're missing the most important part of this sentence:
Organized Play is not the place to try out corner-case builds or use badly written feats/abilities/items unless you're willing to roll with the punches when or if Paizo clarifies them.
I'm all for you playing a guy with a rope dart. But only if you're willing to compromise with a GM who interprets the rules differently than you. And if you find that GM's view to be unacceptable and you can't convince him of your view (outside the session), then you just don't play that character with him anymore.
Right, but see I'm not willing to compromise like that, because I never originally imagined that I had to. I wouldn't have made the builds in the first place if I thought that. You're basically saying "it's fine, as long as you're willing to accept that you won't get to play the character at like half the tables, and possibly never." That's not okay.
This is not to say I'm not willing to compromise, period. I am perfectly willing to make a new character. I just need to be allowed to do it. And I really don't see what the problem with that is. I wasn't min/maxing, using these rules in order to try to make some power monster. I wasn't trying to abuse or take advantage of the system. Those are the arguments I keep hearing for why people deserve to be punished (by not being able to rebuild when confronted with errata or table variance) for using weird or unclear rules, or using RAW rules in ways not intended by RAI. Well, I wasn't doing those things, so those arguments don't apply to me. I'm willing to bet they actually don't apply to a lot of people, all of whom wind up getting punished because of the behavior of some optimizers who are always trying to get a leg up and don't care about anything else. That's messed up.
EDIT: The crazy thing here is that basically you've convinced me. I'm just not going to make characters that use anything that is even remotely in question anymore. But now I have these characters sitting around that are already like that. I really don't understand why you wouldn't want to let me just rebuild and put it right.
In many cases, I would agree with you. We can't assume intent just because we don't agree with what's written. By the same token, considering the number of FAQs, erratas and updates, I don't think it's intellectually honest to assume that what's written is presented 100% as intended.
Now you're calling me a liar, which isn't cool. I've enjoyed arguing with you on here more than most because your comments are insightful and comprehensive, and because you generally don't do stuff like this.
I never said that what was written was presented as intended, and certainly not 100% as intended. I said we don't know what was intended, and that it can absolutely be argued that it doesn't matter.
However, when you have three people involved with the writing of the book unanimously clarifying intent, I think the answer is pretty clear.
Again, though, in theory this really doesn't matter. Why? Well, from a pragmatic point of view because we can still argue about it. You know what no one (in PFS, at least) can argue about? An official FAQ answer.
At least one of those three designers that posted their clarification could have spent their time a lot better by going to the FAQ page and typing it in there. What's that? It's more complicated than that? They can't just "go and type it in?" Oh, I see. Well, what that tells me is that Paizo has an overly bureaucratic mechanism in place for dealing with FAQs. They need a more fluid setup where somebody over there has more leeway to respond quickly to these things.
Somebody in another thread was complaining about this in regards to ice tomb. They were like, seriously, it's been two years. How has nobody gotten around to this? And then I see people like Jiggy (no offense, man; we just disagree on this) come on and say "Well, you know, nobody ever phrased the question very concisely." Right. Because that's our job now. Really? All we should need to do is go "yo, look at ice tomb. It's kind of messed up, see? Fix it, please." These guys are professional designers. They should take one look at the thing and see what's wrong. This would literally take thirty seconds. Watch:
Q: What is the range of the ice tomb hex?
A: 30 feet.
Ta da! I know, I know. There are other questions about that power. But this would go a long way, and it's so easy. Seriously, put someone on this for like a week. Their full time job for that week is to go through all the FAQs and just answer them. The answers don't even need to be that good! In many of these cases, the situation can't possibly get more muddled than the current text. So you may as well answer something! I recognize that some FAQs are thornier than others. But I bet there are a good 30 or 40 of them that someone over there could bang out in one day of work, if they just had access and permission to do it. I really think they could get in front of this stuff if they took it seriously.
Let's make it really easy:
How much damage does an EB?
-1d12 two handed
-1d12 1 handed with feat
What does this means?
It's the same weapon, same size, same category.
You can increase a Size from a 2-handed weapon and wield it? NO
Can you 2WF yes.
I can repeat this more times and you will cling to: hey it's allowed as a one handed.
Yes it's allowed as a one handed but still retains its 2 handed conditions.
If I may ask a question then.
Is what matters:
1. Handedness of weapon?
2. Effective handedness of weapon?
3. Both effective handedness of weapon and handedness of weapon?
From what where I stand, camp 1 is where I'm at. Camp 2 is where ThaX is and it has some issues (see bastard sword). Camp 3 is the position that I think might have merit, but no one is arguing for it.
What is your rope dart dude's build? I've never seen someone use one in PF.
I don't want to derail the thread too much, especially as the build is guaranteed to spark arguments on multiple fronts. Which is annoying because it's really not powerful and is, as I mentioned, demonstrably worse in pretty much every metric than what I could do with a roughly similar build using a composite longbow. Have I mentioned I think archers are really out of hand? Because they totally are. Anyway, back to regularly scheduled programming...
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Let's make it really easy:
How much damage does an EB?
-1d12 two handed
-1d12 1 handed with feat
What does this means?
It's the same weapon, same size, same category.
You can increase a Size from a 2-handed weapon and wield it? NO
Can you 2WF yes.
I can repeat this more times and you will cling to: hey it's allowed as a one handed.
Yes it's allowed as a one handed but still retains its 2 handed conditions.If I may ask a question then.
Is what matters:
1. Handedness of weapon?
2. Effective handedness of weapon?
3. Both effective handedness of weapon and handedness of weapon?From what where I stand, camp 1 is where I'm at. Camp 2 is where ThaX is and it has some issues (see bastard sword). Camp 3 is the position that I think might have merit, but no one is arguing for it.
Just for the lulz, I'm going to jump in here for a second. "You can use an earth breaker as though it were a one-handed weapon." Okay then. See that Large earthbreaker over there? Is it an earthbreaker? Yes? Good, then I can use it as a one handed weapon. A (in this case) Large one handed weapon. Large one handed weapons can be wielded two handed by medium creatures. I can therefore use it this way. Done and done.
Now, that said...it's irrelevant. The consensus that seems to be pretty well forming is that RAW don't matter if a significant number of people don't like it or are unclear about it. Whenever that is the case, DON'T USE THE THING IN QUESTION. Just don't use it. It may as well not exist. You can argue about it all you want, but it seems that at the end of the day what it comes down to is "using this may piss people off, and that makes you a dick." So just don't do it. There's no point discussing anymore.
EDIT: I'm cranky at this point and actually simplifying the RAW a bit. But still, I think the takeaway is just don't use it.
|
This is a style feat. The style is fight with an earthbreaker and klar gain certain benefits.
As a former lawyer I understand when people try to parse words and read things that were never intended. That was my job for many years.
However, as a gamer I think to do so is pure cheese.
Imagine a feat that allowed you to fight with a rapier and swordbreaker in return for some advantage. This would be a style feat meant to re-create a certain historical fighting style. Would you take the feat and then fight only with the rapier and then claim the advantage?
I wouldn't.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
@Sub_Zero
1.Change to 1 handed, affected by feat
2.Doesn't change, not affected by feat
3.Only Handedness, not effective handedness.
You misunderstand, that's probably my fault for being unclear. There are three different viewpoints on how this feat is handled.
#1. The only thing you care about is what your character treats the weapon as. By this I mean that if you treat a weapon 1-handed, you can wield a large version 2-handed.
#2. The only thing you care about is the weapons actual size designation. If you treat the weapon smaller, it doesn't matter since it's 2-handed designation forbids you to wield a large version.
#3. You care about both what you treat it as and the actual size designation is. In this view, you need to both treat a weapon as a particular size, and have it's designation fit the appropriate size.
which camp do you fall into?