I doubt it ever will, the majority of these awkward pedantic readings of the rules hardly ever get FAQ treatment.
That is, frankly, a problem.
Look, if what you say is true and RAI is supposed to matter, can you have one of the designers please come out and officially say so? And also they really ought to put that in the next printing of the Core Rulebook. It's that big a deal. It's not a ridiculous request; Hero System basically does that very thing.
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.
I'm not going to address this here as we've hashed it out enough the PFS forums. I do agree rebuilds are appropriate when rules are altered, though.
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.
My apologies; I didn't intend to imply that you thought that. Just that we should all be trying to find a happy medium between those two extremes. From my perspective, the safest way to navigate that is to always assume the more conservative reading--if it sounds too good to be true, it probably is.
And please note that when I say "too good", I don't mean "too powerful." I have a Titan Mauler Barbarian/Infiltrator Ranger in PFS. I know she's sub-optimal for a Barbarian build, but I like the idea of someone who grew up fighting Giants and learned to use their tricks against them. I'd love it if she could actually wield colossal weapons, but the Titan Mauler Archetype was neutered in editing and she's stuck with a Bastard Sword. Alas.
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.
I am all for more FAQs. Unfortunately, I think the PDT team might be feeling a little burned after responses to some of the recent FAQs, such as the one for Bastard Sword, which triggered dozens of snarky, pedantic follow-up questions from people who didn't like the ruling.
|
Oh my god, I forgot an Aposterfy and a "e"...Your putting more into it that what is there.You're*
FixedYou 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 all one handed weapons have, under the designation entry, says "You can use a longsword as though it were a two-handed weapon."
So, what is the difference, exactly? One Handed to wielding as two vs. two handed wielded as one?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."
I am trying, I really am.
Using a weapon differently doesn't change the designation of the weapon itself, it only allows for particular abilities to use the weapon differently dispite how it was otherwise made .
It doesn't change the Earth Breaker in the same way it does not change the Long Sword.
Oh my god, I forgot an Aposterfy and a "e"...Your putting more into it that what is there.You're*FixedYou 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 all one handed weapons have, under the designation entry, says "You can use a longsword as though it were a two-handed weapon."So, what is the difference, exactly? One Handed to wielding as two vs. two handed wielded as one?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."I am trying, I really am.
Using a weapon differently doesn't change the designation of the weapon itself, it only allows for particular abilities to use the weapon differently dispite how it was otherwise made .
It doesn't change the Earth Breaker in the same way it does not change the Long Sword.
we get it ThaX, you don't understand our position.
|
Using a weapon differently doesn't change the designation of the weapon itself, it only allows for particular abilities to use the weapon differently dispite how it was otherwise made .
Do the rules actually say that somewhere?...I can't seem to find it.
Because the PRD seems to imply differently...
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.
Thus the designation is *altered* by how the wielder uses it.
|
|
Using a weapon differently doesn't change the designation of the weapon itself, it only allows for particular abilities to use the weapon differently dispite how it was otherwise made .
Do the rules actually say that somewhere?...I can't seem to find it.
Because the PRD seems to imply differently...
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.Thus the designation is *altered* by how the wielder uses it.
So, where in that passage, does the designation ever change because of something other than the difference in comparative sizes?
I don't see that.
|
|
Fixed
Correct. This is because all one handed weapons have, under the designation entry, says "You can use a longsword as though it were a two-handed weapon."Your fix is explicitly untrue and deceptive.
One-Handed: A one-handed weapon can be used in either the primary hand or the off hand. Add the wielder's Strength bonus to damage rolls for melee attacks with a one-handed weapon if it's used in the primary hand, or 1/2 his Strength bonus if it's used in the off hand. If a one-handed weapon is wielded with two hands during melee combat, add 1-1/2 times the character's Strength bonus to damage rolls.No where does it say that you wield a one-handed weapon "as though it were a two-handed weapon". It says when it is wielded with two hands, you add 1-1/2 times your Str bonus to damage rolls.
Fine, the wording is different.
The effect is the same.
You are using a weapon in a way that is differnet than it's design. It doesn't actually change the weapon, as some here would believe, but allows for the use of the EB when TWF. That is the purpose of one handing the weapon. You still can't use it when grappled, you still can't (By the rules) Dual wield two of them, you can't wield a bigger one two handed.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
If ThaX want to repeate the same thing over and over let him, I really couldn't care less. My opinion on this is going to stay the same from here:
RAI it isn't allowed.
RAW it is.
Using Thunder and Fang to wield two EarthBreakers, or one really Large Earthbreaker doesn't disrupt the games balance. Using Thunder an Fang this way allows players more options for character customization.
Now others might argue that this goes against the "spirit of the game"
My definition of what the "spirit of the game" is, is to have fun. If using a feat in a way that is unintended by the developers is enjoyable to the player, and doesn't disrupt the game for other players (i.e. overpowering your character over other PCs) then WTF is the problem?
WTF is your problem?
*Mic Drop*
|
|
ThaX, what you fail to realize is that the only thing that matters when determining what size of weapon you can use is the minimum effort required for a particular character to wield it. Yes, you can wield a longsword with two hands, but it is still a one-handed weapon that any character can wield one-handed if appropriately sized. The Thunder and Fang feat changes the minimum effort required to wield the earthbreaker.
So what rules are you going by to get to where this is brought up? It isn't in the book I have. There is, in the Size Rules for these weapons, no place where "Minimum" effort is ever explained.
You have the three designations (Light, One-Handed and Two Handed), you have what they are considered (step 2, step 1 and even) and they change the effort needed by the character according to how far the weapon's size differs from the particular character trying to wield it. Nothing about the character's skill, ability or manner is included in this.
Reading and interpreting the rules are one thing, adding your own in is something else.
|
|
Using a weapon differently doesn't change the designation of the weapon itself, it only allows for particular abilities to use the weapon differently dispite how it was otherwise made .
Do the rules actually say that somewhere?...I can't seem to find it.
Because the PRD seems to imply differently...
The measure of how much effort it takes to use a weapon (whether the weapon is [u]designated[/u] 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.Thus the designation is *altered* by how the wielder uses it.
So, where in that passage, does the designation ever change because of something other than the difference in comparative sizes?
I don't see that.
According to this paragraph, the effort is equal to the designation when the sizes of the creature and the wepaon are the same...but it can change...
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.
So, overall, thaX, what is the purpose of determining effort?
Why is it even in the rules if it cannot be altered?
|
|
Is altered by one step for each size category of difference between the wielder's size and the size of the creature for which the weapon was designed.
The designation is a measure of how much effort is needed to wield the weapon. The particular character is of a certain size, the weapon is another, so going from there, you compare the two and determine the new designation for size variance. Two handed weapon goes to unable to wield.
Yes, I know, it is a hard concept to grasp, but there are things that the character simply can not do.
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Why is anyone still arguing or acknowledging Thax? He clearly has no concept of the other side's argument, frequently misquotes the text (purposefully), and uses logical fallacies to try and prove his point. This thread is mostly you guys running in circles with Thax for no reason. Just ignore him.
Why is anyone still arguing or acknowledging Thax? He clearly has no concept of the other side's argument, frequently misquotes the text (purposefully), and uses logical fallacies to try and prove his point. This thread is mostly you guys running in circles with Thax for no reason. Just ignore him.
this
|
|
The designation is a measure of how much effort is needed to wield the weapon. The particular character is of a certain size, the weapon is another, so going from there, you compare the two and determine the new designation for size variance. Two handed weapon goes to unable to wield.
There ya go...it does change to the "new designation".
If it never changed, you could never, well, change it.Thus 2 handed would always require 2 hands, 1 handed would always be 1 handed.
But there are rules that change the designation, thus the effort changes - thus different sizes can be wielded in different ways...
see how that works?
|
|
The weapon never changes, it is what the character can do with the off sized weapon according to how it ends up after being adjusted. Two Handed is not able to be wielded by a smaller character. This feat does not change that.
Notice, please, that there was nothing about how the character wields it normally. There is the designation and size of weapon and the size of the character. That is it, unless otherwise superseded by an ability. (Redcap or the exception that Bastard Sword has) This feat does not provide that exception. At all. Never even mentioned.
Use the thing with the Klar, take the normal TWF pentalties (which end up -2/-2) and calculate damage 1.0 times for the EB and .5 for the klar.
That is what this feat now does.
In the original phrasing, players were using two handed damage and effects when doing this, thus the new wording of this updated feat.
I do see what you are saying. I am telling you, it doesn't work like that. The developers agree, see Titan Mauler.
|
|
Notice, please, that there was nothing about how the character wields it normally. There is the designation and size of weapon and the size of the character. That is it, unless otherwise superseded by an ability. (Redcap or the exception that Bastard Sword has) This feat does not provide that exception. At all. Never even mentioned.
Use the thing with the Klar, take the normal TWF pentalties (which end up -2/-2) and calculate damage 1.0 times for the EB and .5 for the klar.
That is what this feat now does.
In the original phrasing, players were using two handed damage and effects when doing this, thus the new wording of this updated feat.
I do see what you are saying. I am telling you, it doesn't work like that. The developers agree, see Titan Mauler.
Titan Mauler has nothing to do with the core rule for weapon size determination, effort and inappropriate sized weapons.
The feat specifically says; You can use an earth breaker as though it were a one-handed weapon. End of story. That there sounds exactly like ...ready
...wait...
change of designation. Even per your extracted quotes. Nowhere does it say that the size of the weapon designation never changes for a very specific sized weapon. It depends on the wielder.
The paragraph before states on how to determine the base weapon effort when they are the same size...only for initial determination. After you change the size and designation, you then check for effort.
And yes, if you have the feat to use a two handed weapon, one handed...you could certainly use it while grappled.
grappled creatures can take no action that requires two hands to perform.
again used with one hand is applicable.
If the intent is that the feat can only work effectively with a klar, as in the phalanx fighter (shield and two handed weapon), it needs to be specifically worded as that one is...it doesn't change the various other feats that allow two handed weapon use in one hand.
If ThaX want to repeate the same thing over and over let him, I really couldn't care less. My opinion on this is going to stay the same from here:
RAI it isn't allowed.
RAW it is.
Using Thunder and Fang to wield two EarthBreakers, or one really Large Earthbreaker doesn't disrupt the games balance. Using Thunder an Fang this way allows players more options for character customization.
Now others might argue that this goes against the "spirit of the game"
My definition of what the "spirit of the game" is, is to have fun. If using a feat in a way that is unintended by the developers is enjoyable to the player, and doesn't disrupt the game for other players (i.e. overpowering your character over other PCs) then WTF is the problem?
This nailed it. Nothing more to say.
EDIT: Well, the only other thing to say here is that to acknowledge this philosophy as sound, which I think it is, is to admit a very good reason for permissive rebuilds (in home games, if you like, but certainly in organized play) due to errata, since players playing under this spirit should not be punished. But, as redward says we've been over that ad nauseam in other threads, so I'll let it go here and depart the thread.
|
|
Notice, please, that there was nothing about how the character wields it normally. There is the designation and size of weapon and the size of the character. That is it, unless otherwise superseded by an ability. (Redcap or the exception that Bastard Sword has) This feat does not provide that exception. At all. Never even mentioned.
Use the thing with the Klar, take the normal TWF pentalties (which end up -2/-2) and calculate damage 1.0 times for the EB and .5 for the klar.
That is what this feat now does.
In the original phrasing, players were using two handed damage and effects when doing this, thus the new wording of this updated feat.
I do see what you are saying. I am telling you, it doesn't work like that. The developers agree, see Titan Mauler.
Titan Mauler has nothing to do with the core rule for weapon size determination, effort and inappropriate sized weapons.
The feat specifically says; You can use an earth breaker as though it were a one-handed weapon. End of story. That there sounds exactly like ...ready
...wait...
change of designation. Even per your extracted quotes. Nowhere does it say that the size of the weapon designation never changes for a very specific sized weapon. It depends on the wielder.
The paragraph before states on how to determine the base weapon effort when they are the same size...only for initial determination. After you change the size and designation, you then check for effort.
And yes, if you have the feat to use a two handed weapon, one handed...you could certainly use it while grappled.
grappled creatures can take no action that requires two hands to perform.
again used with one hand is applicable.If the intent is that the feat can only work effectively with a klar, as in the phalanx fighter (shield and two handed weapon), it needs to be specifically worded as that one is...it doesn't change the various other feats that allow two handed weapon use in one hand.
It was specifically worded that way before. It was being used to TWF and get Two Handed damage at the same time. This new wording nerfed that aspect. (deservedly)
The size rules does not look at the skill, ability or such at all. It would be changed by the ability itself, such as the Redcap ability.
I am saying, despite the want for it, that this feat does not provide that change. It allows you to One Hand the weapon to use TWF with it, though it specifies the Klar, one need not use because of a single period.
There isn't, as I have posted before, a sliding scale. The weapon itself doesn't change because of skill, ability or awesome sauce.
If errata would come out for the feat, I can imangine that the line "When used with a Klar," before that sentence everyone is wanting to mean what it doesn't.
The measure of effort designation never changes for the weapon. It is still a two handed weapon when the larger form is considered unwieldable by the smaller character.
I don't have to convince the GM. It's the gods damned rules. You are the only holdout on this inane interpretation of the rules. Doesn't that tell you something?If you have Thunder and Fang, then yes.Good luck trying to convince the GM. I would invest in a dagger.
Don't worry about it. I think we've reached the point of conclusion here. thaX doesn't understand our position. He seems to think we believe the hammer magically grows/shrinks. After as many explanations pointing out this is not what we think, he still has held to this.
ThaX is wrong on our interpretation, and he's shown no interest in trying to understand our point.
|
Why is anyone still arguing or acknowledging Thax? He clearly has no concept of the other side's argument, frequently misquotes the text (purposefully), and uses logical fallacies to try and prove his point. This thread is mostly you guys running in circles with Thax for no reason. Just ignore him.
It's really fun. But you're quite right. This glorious thread has run its course.
Aposterfy and a "e"...
Apostrophe*
If you have Thunder and Fang, then yes.Good luck trying to convince the GM. I would invest in a dagger.
If the GM is like you, values his own made up rules over the enjoyment of other players, I would not play.
Why is anyone still arguing or acknowledging Thax? He clearly has no concept of the other side's argument, frequently misquotes the text (purposefully), and uses logical fallacies to try and prove his point. This thread is mostly you guys running in circles with Thax for no reason. Just ignore him.
Yesss, though, easier said than done.
|
|
It isn't that the GM is against having fun, it the fact that the player is trying to subvert the rules. Trying to use a Two Handed weapon when the character is grappled is a big "Uh... no." in the GM playbook of simple rules. One can only use light or one handed weapons when grappled.
There are others that agree with me, including the guys that make and publish this fine game, but this thread was dead long ago and now is writhing in "But... But... it doesn't acutally prevent me from doing it!!" as others have moved on.
It is a Two Handed weapon. Nothing in this feat changes that. The character can use it in one hand. That is great, perhaps in a home game the dual wielding of the things can be allowed, as a house rule. It isn't technecally possible.
It doesn't make it possible to wield a larger version of the weapon. It is still Two Handed.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
It isn't that the GM is against having fun, it the fact that the player is trying to subvert the rules. Trying to use a Two Handed weapon when the character is grappled is a big "Uh... no." in the GM playbook of simple rules. One can only use light or one handed weapons when grappled.
There are others that agree with me, including the guys that make and publish this fine game, but this thread was dead long ago and now is writhing in "But... But... it doesn't acutally prevent me from doing it!!" as others have moved on.
It is a Two Handed weapon. Nothing in this feat changes that. The character can use it in one hand. That is great, perhaps in a home game the dual wielding of the things can be allowed, as a house rule. It isn't technecally possible.
It doesn't make it possible to wield a larger version of the weapon. It is still Two Handed.
thank you thaX, we are very aware of your position, and aware that you don't understand ours. I think we all accept this state of affairs we are in.
|
|
I do understand it. The idea itself is cool, a guy wielding a huge freakin' hammer. Perhaps we will have a class or Archtype in the future that can swing it like the Titan Mauler should have been able to do.
This feat, though, doesn't do it, nor was it ever meant to. The weapon stays in it's state, it is the character that needs to have some ability to supersede it. This doesn't do it, nor does the Grip from Titan Mauler.
The Redcap does have such an ability, so it isn't out of the realm of possibility, it just isn't one because of the T&F feat.
I don't get that the want for this will go on even after one of the main Paizo guys told one of the posters that it would not work as they had wanted. I believe that the rules are clear, that some of my circle would read the title of this thread and immediately say " Uh.... no."
Obviously, we are in serious disagreement. I have tried to put it in different ways, to go through and look at different aspects of this, but it comes to the same point. Ya can't do it, Neither Dual wielding the things nor weilding the oversized monster.
I say you're trying to put a sliding scale in place. What I mean is that there is the determination and how to determine what can be done with different size variations between character and weapon. When you change that determination without actually changing the size difference, you are introducing a new aspect that isn't written on the page. When you do that, there might as well not be a rule about the size difference there at all, as it will be all over the place when using weapons as one handed (Light) or two handed (One handed) or in this case, one handed (Two handed).
It doesn't work like that. I maintain that there is no sliding scale, the weapon doesn't change because of the character's ability.
I do understand it. The idea itself is cool, a guy wielding a huge freakin' hammer. Perhaps we will have a class or Archtype in the future that can swing it like the Titan Mauler should have been able to do.
no. That is actually not what the majority of us are saying and/or are even arguing over.
Obviously, we are in serious disagreement.
yes we are
Ya can't do it, Neither Dual wielding the things nor weilding the oversized monster.
if you mean via Rai, correct. If you mean via RAW, you can. But as you said we're in disagreement
say you're trying to put a sliding scale in place. What I mean is that there is the determination and how to determine what can be done with different size variations between character and weapon. When you change that determination without actually changing the size difference, you are introducing a new aspect that isn't written on the page. When you do that, there might as well not be a rule about the size difference there at all, as it will be all over the place when using weapons as one handed (Light) or two handed (One handed) or in this case, one handed (Two handed).
thank you for elaborating on how you don't really understand our position. We are aware of this fact.
In the end thaX it doesn't matter, we've beaten this dead horse for all its worth, and for whatever reason you don't understand our side. For awhile it hasn't even been my goal to convince you, but to at least get you to realize the other sides point of view. I've given up on this.
So I say let let this thread die. We disagree, there's no moving forward. We understand your point of view, and disagree with it, you don't understand our point of view and have straw-manned it.
Hopefully, we'll agree on other threads at another time, but today is not that day.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
It isn't that the GM is against having fun, it the fact that the player is trying to subvert the rules. Trying to use a Two Handed weapon when the character is grappled is a big "Uh... no." in the GM playbook of simple rules. One can only use light or one handed weapons when grappled.
Ooh, I hadn't realized you can use an earth breaker while grappling! That's pretty awesome. Since the earth breaker is a one-handed weapon for a Thunder and Fang wielder, it's available during a grapple.
Now that this seems to have (further) devolved into personal sniping, I recommend that everyone involved click FAQ on the OP and walk away. Nothing productive has been added to the discussion for quite some time now.
It isn't that the GM is against having fun, it the fact that the player is trying to subvert the rules. Trying to use a Two Handed weapon when the character is grappled is a big "Uh... no." in the GM playbook of simple rules. One can only use light or one handed weapons when grappled.Ooh, I hadn't realized you can use an earth breaker while grappling! That's pretty awesome. Since the earth breaker is a one-handed weapon for a Thunder and Fang wielder, it's available during a grapple.
I didn't think of the either, Good idea Thax
|
|
You would know about warping rules, thaX, since that is all you've done this entire thread.
Really?
Where, in this thread, have I said anything other than what is in the books?
Take a look at the feat, the weapon rules, and the entire entry about weapons, including the designations that relate the measure of effort, what you can do with each weapon of a certain designation, and how one can use (or unable to use) inappropiately sized weapons.
Nothing I have said counters anything that is written.
You would know about warping rules, thaX, since that is all you've done this entire thread.Really?
Where, in this thread, have I said anything other than what is in the books?
Take a look at the feat, the weapon rules, and the entire entry about weapons, including the designations that relate the measure of effort, what you can do with each weapon of a certain designation, and how one can use (or unable to use) inappropiately sized weapons.
Nothing I have said counters anything that is written.
yes, that is definitely what you think.
|
|
There is a difference between RAW verses looking at what can be done.
This is a scenario where one is looking at two distinct passages and assuming that a corilation is between them, allowing a particular aspect to be done where it normally would not be otherwise.
It is reading more into the passage than what is actually there. One is thinking that because there isn't an exact phrase saying "you can not do this while using this feat" means that the other rules being read changes slightly to allow the unallowable.
It doesn't work like that.
Edit... BigDaddyJug, did the paizo dude at the con tell you that?
|
|
Now that this seems to have (further) devolved into personal sniping, I recommend that everyone involved click FAQ on the OP and walk away. Nothing productive has been added to the discussion for quite some time now.
The problem is, there is likely not one to be forthcoming since it is already covered by the Titan Mauler.
Now that this seems to have (further) devolved into personal sniping, I recommend that everyone involved click FAQ on the OP and walk away. Nothing productive has been added to the discussion for quite some time now.The problem is, there is likely not one to be forthcoming since it is already covered by the Titan Mauler.
it isn't. Different ability with different wording, that isn't comparable. As has already been completely hashed out earlier.
|
|
There is a difference between RAWverseslooking at what can be done.
versus*
This is a scenario where one is looking at two distinct passages and assuming that acorilationis between them
correlation*
It is reading more into the passage than what is actually there. One is thinking that because there isn't an exact phrase saying "you can not do this while using this feat" means that the other rules being read changes slightly to allow the unallowable.
Complete falsehoods*