PFS - Thunder and Fang with 2 Earth Breakers


Rules Questions

51 to 100 of 904 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

blackbloodtroll wrote:
It actually comes from a nickname I got back in the day, after the Fremont Troll, a long, long time ago, before the internet, and the term "troll" got it's new meaning.
blackbloodtroll wrote:
George Demonspawn wrote:
Wow, BBT. That statue is awesome.
What can I say? Seattle is awesome.

1. Yay another awesome Seattlite gamer :D

2. Obligatory I understood that reference meme.

The Exchange Owner - D20 Hobbies

Akinra wrote:
I would rule you get one and only one.

+1

I also would require the Klar in the offhand.


Akinra wrote:
I believe, and this is just how I would rule, the verbiage says you can use "an earthbreaker as a one handed weapon". It does not state that you "treat earth breakers as one hand weapons". Therfore I would rule you get one and only one.
FAQ wrote:

Weapons, Two-Handed in One Hand: When a feat or other special ability says to treat a weapon that is normally wielded in two hands as a one handed weapon, does it get treated as one or two handed weapon for the purposes of how to apply the Strength modifier or the Power Attack feat?

If you're wielding it in one hand (even if it is normally a two-handed weapon), treat it as a one-handed weapon for the purpose of how much Strength to apply, the Power Attack damage bonus, and so on.

—Pathfinder Design Team, 07/19/13

One-Handed Weapon is the key term. If the feat or ability says to treat or wield it "as a one-handed weapon", then it's treated as a one-handed weapon. By contrast, the Lance says it can be "wielded in one hand while mounted". It doesn't say to treat or wield it "as a one-handed weapon" so it isn't a one-handed weapon, it's a two-handed weapon wielded in one hand. Since T&F has no size limitation, you count the normally two-handed Earth Breaker as Large one-handed weapon which a Medium creature can wield as if it were a two-handed weapon. For that matter, you could wield two Small Earth Breakers as Light weapons, but that's not quite as impressive.

Liberty's Edge

Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber

*Scratching head*

So you think the way a Lance is Wielded and this feat are different?

Understand, it isn't the Feat that proposes the size limitation, it is the limitation imposed in the CRB. For the purpose of the feat, the Earth Breaker doesn't change it's size or stance. It is the character that is using it differently as allowed by the feat. He still will have trouble wielding a larger sized Two Handed weapon, this feat will not change that. Read the quote that you provide.


It seems to me that it might have been good to phrase the feat as "This feat allows you to wield an Earthbreaker and a Klar as a single double weapon, with the Earthbreaker used as the one-handed component and the Klar used as the light component. When doing so, you still receive the Klar's shield bonus to AC, even while attacking with it. If you use the Earthbreaker as a two-handed weapon, you cannot attack with the Klar and do not receive its shield bonus to AC." (also something about trying to get full strength bonus with the Klar not working, maybe?)

Regarding using two Earthbreakers or two Klars, the whole point of Thunder And Fang is to simultaneously wield the Thunder (the Earthbreaker) and the Fang (the Klar), which is not normally possible.

Grand Lodge

I don't think that anyone disputes that the original intention of the feat was to use an Earthbreaker and a Klar effectively.

That being said, the feat is not limited by what the designers intended, but what the feat ACTUALLY says.

You can wield a Large Earth Breaker. An Earth Breaker is a two-handed weapon that requires a feat to be used one-handed, just like the Bastard Sword. The iconic Barbarian uses a Large Bastard Sword. There should be no dispute over this RAW.

You can wield two Medium Earth Breakers. The feat states that the character can use them one-handed but does not require you to use a Klar to gain this bonus (as it does for the Shield bonus aspect of using a Klar).

You could always wield two Klars. This feat just now allows them to be classified as light weapons decreasing the penalty to hit. If you are using just Klars, then this feat is the equivalent of Weapon Focus (due to Weapon Focus(Earth Breaker) being a dead feat; 2 feats for +2 to hit with each Klar). Not that game-breaking.

Liberty's Edge

Pathfinder Companion Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber
George Demonspawn wrote:


You can wield a Large Earth Breaker. An Earth Breaker is a two-handed weapon that requires a feat to be used one-handed, just like the Bastard Sword. The iconic Barbarian uses a Large Bastard Sword. There should be no dispute over this RAW.

Wrong. A bastard sword is a 1 handed weapon that require a exotic weapon proficiency and that you can use with two hands as a martial weapon.

Look the weapon tables in the CRB.

One-Handed Melee Weapons
Sword, bastard
Waraxe, dwarven

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Companion Subscriber

Bastard Swords a full of exceptions that allow them morph, depending on how you hold them.

We are not even allowed to talk about them.

Check out this mess.

Grand Lodge

Wait. So, Bastard Sword is a one-handed weapon if you have Exotic Weapon Proficiency (a feat) and can only be used as a martial two-handed weapon otherwise?

Man, that is totally different from Earth Breaker being a one-handed weapon if you have Thunder and Fang (another feat) that can only be used as a martial two-handed weapon otherwise.

Also, Thunder and Fang came out significantly after the CRB, thus we would never know for certain if we could see it in the CRB weapon tables. ;)


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

It's based on the handiness being used to wield the weapon. A 2-h weapon one size too large doesn't become unwieldable just because it's a 2-h weapon one size too large; it becomes unwieldable because the size step up for a Medium creature wielding a Large 2-h weapon changes it to something other than light, one-handed, or two-handed. If this weren't the case, then you could wield a Large Bastard Sword without proficiency because it'd be a one-handed weapon sized up to a two-handed weapon and you'll be wielding it in two hands (which you must do if you lack EWP). Given that the "mechanical" handiness of 2-H for wielding a Bastard Sword without EWP also sizes up, it stands to reason that the "mechanical" handiness of 1-h for an Earthbreaker does the same.

By contrast, a Lance doesn't get treated as a one-handed weapon because you're just wielding it "in one hand". That means it's still a 2-h weapon which is why it still gets the higher Power Attack bonus. There is a difference.

Liberty's Edge

Pathfinder Companion Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber
George Demonspawn wrote:

Wait. So, Bastard Sword is a one-handed weapon if you have Exotic Weapon Proficiency (a feat) and can only be used as a martial two-handed weapon otherwise?

Man, that is totally different from Earth Breaker being a one-handed weapon if you have Thunder and Fang (another feat) that can only be used as a martial two-handed weapon otherwise.

Also, Thunder and Fang came out significantly after the CRB, thus we would never know for certain if we could see it in the CRB weapon tables. ;)

Yes, it is totally different from a 2 handed weapon that can be wielded in special circumstances as a 1 handed weapon.

A handgun is a 1 handed weapon that can be used 2 handed for added stability, a rifle is a 2 handed weapon that in special circumstances can be used 1 handed. That don't make a handgun a 2 handed weapon or a rifle a one handed weapon.

Sczarni

George Demonspawn wrote:


You could always wield two Klars. This feat just now allows them to be classified as light weapons decreasing the penalty to hit. If you are using just Klars, then this feat is the equivalent of Weapon Focus (due to Weapon Focus(Earth Breaker) being a dead feat; 2 feats for +2 to hit with each Klar). Not that game-breaking.

Very true... If you take Shield Master you can wield two Klars with no TWF penalties... You don't even need to take the TWF feat as Shield Master eliminates the penalties entirely (assuming you are a Ranger and can skip the prerequisites)...

On the flip side T&F let's you retain your shield bonus, so in a way that's like getting Improved Shield bash for free... Plus, we all know that a nerf of Shield Master is a matter of "when", not "if"; so going the T&F route for a PFS player intent on using 2 Klars may be the safer option long term.

Grand Lodge

Diego Rossi wrote:
Yes, it is totally different from a 2 handed weapon that can be wielded in special circumstances as a 1 handed weapon.

Which weapon? They are both default 2H weapons that require special circumstances to wield 1H.

Additionally, I fail to see the need for the hatred against using a Large Earth Breaker. You burn two of your feats (Weapon Focus(Klar) and TWF) to get 1.5 more average damage than a Large Bastard Sword which only requires a single feat (or sometimes a racial trait). If anything, it is a patently worse option for the flavor of using a giant hammer. Additionally, Impact cannot even be placed on an Earth Breaker, whereas it can be put on to a Bastard Sword. Couple this with the fact that only Fighters can really make Thunder and Fang work before level 7 (level 5, if human), thus no Lead Blades outside of a UMD wand with no class bonus and a 1 minute duration. I think Bastard Sword is still a better option. I think this just unintentionally allows for some greater flavor options at relatively little chance to exploit.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

As a dm I would not allow you to wield two of them. It is pure semantics with the other argument. The feat is called thunder and fang. Using to earth breakers which is which? You have I take the weapon focus klar, if you can wield two earth breakers what is the point?

The devs should not have to spend their time grammar scrubbing the text to keep folks from being ridiculous. Especially in pfs play. Home brew is another story.

/rant


1 person marked this as a favorite.
MiniGM wrote:

As a dm I would not allow you to wield two of them. It is pure semantics with the other argument. The feat is called thunder and fang. Using to earth breakers which is which? You have I take the weapon focus klar, if you can wield two earth breakers what is the point?

The devs should not have to spend their time grammar scrubbing the text to keep folks from being ridiculous. Especially in pfs play. Home brew is another story.

/rant

I disagree. Allowing someone to use 2 earthbreakers is hardly gamebreaking. Considering that they're one-handed weapons, you'll be taking a -4/-4 even with twf feat.

It's cool thematically, and makes an interesting character.

I honestly wish they left more material this open ended. That way your not boxed into stupid corners like being forced to use a scimitar to add your dex to damage with a feat.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
George Demonspawn wrote:
Diego Rossi wrote:
Yes, it is totally different from a 2 handed weapon that can be wielded in special circumstances as a 1 handed weapon.
Which weapon? They are both default 2H weapons that require special circumstances to wield 1H.

No, the bastard sword is a one-handed weapon that in certain circumstances can be used as a two-handed weapon.

Quote:
Additionally, I fail to see the need for the hatred against using a Large Earth Breaker. You burn two of your feats (Weapon Focus(Klar) and TWF) to get 1.5 more average damage than a Large Bastard Sword which only requires a single feat (or sometimes a racial trait). If anything, it is a patently worse option for the flavor of using a giant hammer. Additionally, Impact cannot even be placed on an Earth Breaker, whereas it can be put on to a Bastard Sword. Couple this with the fact that only Fighters can really make Thunder and Fang work before level 7 (level 5, if human), thus no Lead Blades outside of a UMD wand with no class bonus and a 1 minute duration. I think Bastard Sword is still a better option. I think this just unintentionally allows for some greater flavor options at relatively little chance to exploit.

Just because you're trying to twist the rules into something entirely counter to their intent in a mechanically suboptimal way doesn't change the fat that you're trying to twist the rules into something entirely counter to their intent. Also, I don't see any reason why you can't put Impact on an Earthbreaker.


Sub_Zero wrote:
MiniGM wrote:

As a dm I would not allow you to wield two of them. It is pure semantics with the other argument. The feat is called thunder and fang. Using to earth breakers which is which? You have I take the weapon focus klar, if you can wield two earth breakers what is the point?

The devs should not have to spend their time grammar scrubbing the text to keep folks from being ridiculous. Especially in pfs play. Home brew is another story.

/rant

I disagree. Allowing someone to use 2 earthbreakers is hardly gamebreaking. Considering that they're one-handed weapons, you'll be taking a -4/-4 even with twf feat.

It's cool thematically, and makes an interesting character.

I honestly wish they left more material this open ended. That way your not boxed into stupid corners like being forced to use a scimitar to add your dex to damage with a feat.

My point is that is it obviously against the purpose of the feat. This is solely so robe saying "oh look anot perfectly worded bit of text. RAW I can do something obviously that is not intended."

It is lame. If you want to use two large earth breakers be a Titan mauler/ranger or something like that.


Be an alchemist and take the vestigial arm for a large earthbreaker and klar.

The seeds have been planted


In any game I run, I'll use the version of the feat I rewrote above; it's less ambiguous and more precisely defines the intended use.

Liberty's Edge

Pathfinder Companion Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber
George Demonspawn wrote:
Diego Rossi wrote:
Yes, it is totally different from a 2 handed weapon that can be wielded in special circumstances as a 1 handed weapon.

Which weapon? They are both default 2H weapons that require special circumstances to wield 1H.

Additionally, I fail to see the need for the hatred against using a Large Earth Breaker. You burn two of your feats (Weapon Focus(Klar) and TWF) to get 1.5 more average damage than a Large Bastard Sword which only requires a single feat (or sometimes a racial trait). If anything, it is a patently worse option for the flavor of using a giant hammer. Additionally, Impact cannot even be placed on an Earth Breaker, whereas it can be put on to a Bastard Sword. Couple this with the fact that only Fighters can really make Thunder and Fang work before level 7 (level 5, if human), thus no Lead Blades outside of a UMD wand with no class bonus and a 1 minute duration. I think Bastard Sword is still a better option. I think this just unintentionally allows for some greater flavor options at relatively little chance to exploit.

Open the CRB, page 143, Table 6-4 Weapons, Under what heading is the Bastard sword? One-Handed Melee Weapons.

You can cheek the martial weapons, no Bastard sword under the Two-Handed Melee Weapons.

Now open The Inner Sea World Guide, page 291, Capons of the Inner Sea Table. Under which heading is the Earth breaker? Two-Handed Melee Weapons.
They don't work the same way.
One is a one handed weapon that require special training, the other is a two handed weapon.

Grand Lodge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
The Golux wrote:
Just because you're trying to twist the rules into something entirely counter to their intent in a mechanically suboptimal way doesn't change the fat that you're trying to twist the rules into something entirely counter to their intent. Also, I don't see any reason why you can't put Impact on an Earthbreaker.

1. I don't deign to know what the intent is. I just take the writing of the feat at face value. The feat says you treat Earth Breakers as 1H weapons. The rules for using Large versions of those weapons makes them 2H weapons. This is plain from the wording of the feat. There is no twisting. This is basic stuff.

2. Impact can only be applied to slashing and piercing weapons. It is what the superscripted 3 means next to the magical property on the table.

Diego Rossi wrote:
One is a one handed weapon that require special training, the other is a two handed weapon.

How is this any different? Do Thunder and Fang barbarians not perceive earth breakers as 1H weapons as they are growing up watching all their fellow tribesman wielding them? Where is the mechanical difference? They both can only be used as 2H weapons without a feat. They both can be used as 1H weapons with a feat. They are identical. The fact that this escapes you is mind-boggling.

Yes, they are on different tables, but does that somehow negate the extensive similarities? I would say no. If it looks like a duck and requires a feat like a duck, then it should be duck.


MiniGM wrote:
Sub_Zero wrote:
MiniGM wrote:

As a dm I would not allow you to wield two of them. It is pure semantics with the other argument. The feat is called thunder and fang. Using to earth breakers which is which? You have I take the weapon focus klar, if you can wield two earth breakers what is the point?

The devs should not have to spend their time grammar scrubbing the text to keep folks from being ridiculous. Especially in pfs play. Home brew is another story.

/rant

I disagree. Allowing someone to use 2 earthbreakers is hardly gamebreaking. Considering that they're one-handed weapons, you'll be taking a -4/-4 even with twf feat.

It's cool thematically, and makes an interesting character.

I honestly wish they left more material this open ended. That way your not boxed into stupid corners like being forced to use a scimitar to add your dex to damage with a feat.

My point is that is it obviously against the purpose of the feat. This is solely so robe saying "oh look anot perfectly worded bit of text. RAW I can do something obviously that is not intended."

It is lame. If you want to use two large earth breakers be a Titan mauler/ranger or something like that.

This is where we will have to disagree. I don't think it's lame to want to make a character concept that seems cool to you, and works thematically within the rules. I think this would have been better had they left it more open in the first place, and allowed people to fluff it as they see fit.

Otherwise you end up with what I consider to be a lame way to play, the way scimitars are the only way to use a feat to add dex to damage. Forget it if I want to use a rapier instead.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

sigh

it is not lame to want to play a cool concept, and in fact you can do so, just not with this feat. It is lame that you are obviously warping the intent of the feat. If you are going to tell me that Thunder and Fang is intended to be two Thunders and no fangs then I have a bridge I would like to sell you.

It is lame that the tiniest bit of common sense, which clearly shows this is not the intent, is being overruled because the author did not having the perfect word choice in the writing of the feat.

I would object even as a player at a PFS table to this being run, even if it wasn't overpowered. Just like I object when I played with a Synthesist (before they were banned), that had obviously built illegally, even though it made my survival chances higher.


And if you want to add Dex damage to your rapier get the agile enhancement. No one is stopping you from playing how you want, and it is still within the rules, it is just not how you want it to be. If you are at a PFS table then you can't just do whatever you want.

Sczarni

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Starfinder Charter Superscriber

The thing is, as I explained earlier, PFS judges do not have the luxury of ruling on a whim.

The feat says you may wield an Earth Breaker as a one-handed weapon, so that's what you have to go off of. Klar, or not.


So let me show you this beige I have for sale. It is called the golden gate. I'll let you have it for only $1000.

If you wind up I one of my games in the future, you are welcome to report me to the local VC or even mike Brock when I disallow that build.


MiniGM wrote:

sigh

it is not lame to want to play a cool concept, and in fact you can do so, just not with this feat. It is lame that you are obviously warping the intent of the feat. If you are going to tell me that Thunder and Fang is intended to be two Thunders and no fangs then I have a bridge I would like to sell you.

It is lame that the tiniest bit of common sense, which clearly shows this is not the intent, is being overruled because the author did not having the perfect word choice in the writing of the feat.

I would object even as a player at a PFS table to this being run, even if it wasn't overpowered. Just like I object when I played with a Synthesist (before they were banned), that had obviously built illegally, even though it made my survival chances higher.

And if you want to add Dex damage to your rapier get the agile enhancement. No one is stopping you from playing how you want, and it is still within the rules, it is just not how you want it to be. If you are at a PFS table then you can't just do whatever you want.

I never once said that I think the intent was two thunders no fang. I'm not making that argument. If you bothered to read what I wrote, I'm pointing out that via RAW it's legal to do so. I am also separately saying that I wish they left more feats open so that RAW wasn't even needed.

Now, sure I could play a titan mauler, but that has it's own big problems. Namely it suffers the reverse of this. The designers intent does not match RAW, and therefore you can't use larger weapons since they forgot to include the proper text to do so.

The difference between me and you is that were approaching this situation from two different perspectives. Your reading the fluff texts and saying that others are doing it BADWRONGFUN if you don't do it the way the text says. I'm merely pointing out that I don't care at all what the fluff says and can re-fluff it to suite my characters need. I'm arguing that this feat would be better if it was more inclusive rather then exclusive. If this feat read something like:
-----------------------------------------------------------
monkey grip

fluff text before the rule
Your training in weapons bigger then their intended use allows you to get more affect out of them. Shoanti warriors make use of this feat by dual wielding an earthbreaker and Klar.

actual rule text

You may treat a single selected weapon as 1 size category smaller for the purposes of penalties relating to size. For example an two-handed weapon can be wielded in one hand, or a light weapon wielded as a light weapon. No weapon can be reduced below that of a light weapon.

You can select this feat multiple times, each time it affects a different weapon
---------------------------------------------------------

This way everyone's happy, you can build a traditional Shoanti warrior, or be the cool guy that wields double earthbreakers with a heftyier penalty.

finally, So person A can add dex to damage through a special feat. Person B only gets it with magic. Not equitable in my opinion, and therefore I disagree with this rule.


Ok done banging my head on the wall.

I give up


MiniGM wrote:

Ok done banging my head on the wall.

I give up

edit: what i originally said was too mean.

on a side note, if you're going to decide to leave a conversation, best not to insult people on the way out. Much like farting and walking away, you leave everyone else with a bad taste in their mouth.


Ok. You win.


MiniGM wrote:
Ok. You win.

lol, thank you . Do I get internet points? if so how many do I need to win a cookie? (<--- not serious :), and intended to be taken as funny. The internet does a bad job of communicating my humor sometimes so I thought I'd state so directly. )

anyways good night mini, I'm sure we'll meet again someday. :D

Sczarni

Look, maybe the question we should be asking ourselves is not if we can wield two Earthbreakers via Thunder & Fang, but should we?


Krodjin wrote:

Look, maybe the question we should be asking ourselves is not if we can wield two Earthbreakers via Thunder & Fang, but should we?

wielding two weapons for a -4/-4 penalty, probably not. Seems like that falls into the useless category, unless you have a really good way to boost your to-hit.

Maybe a two-weapon fighter at higher levels with weapon training/weapon focus/greater weapon focus/ dueling gloves/ could pull it off for good effect, and it'd be cool, but I'd probably just use the earthbreaker klar until 11th level or so.

Sczarni

Starfinder Charter Superscriber
MiniGM wrote:
If you wind up I one of my games in the future, you are welcome to report me to the local VC or even mike Brock when I disallow that build.

Vigilanteism is detrimental to the PFS campaign and to the image of GMs everywhere, so I will encourage you to rethink your position.

How would you feel if you showed up to a table as a player with what you thought was a completely legal build only to have your GM arbitrarily disallow it?


1 person marked this as a favorite.
George Demonspawn wrote:
1. I don't deign to know what the intent is. I just take the writing of the feat at face value.

No offense but that requires a certain degree of intentional ignorance, considering the full text of the feat, and furthermore, the intent as described by the creative director, who I believe created the feat, which was posted earlier in this thread.

Quote:
2. Impact can only be applied to slashing and piercing weapons. It is what the superscripted 3 means next to the magical property on the table.

That... is really weird. I would have expected it to be bludgeoning only, if anything, but the table does say piercing or slashing only.

Quote:
How is this any different? Do Thunder and Fang barbarians not perceive earth breakers as 1H weapons as they are growing up watching all their fellow tribesman wielding them? Where is the mechanical difference? They both can only be used as 2H weapons without a feat. They both can be used as 1H weapons with a feat. They are identical. The fact that this escapes you is mind-boggling.
Given the description I mentioned earlier,
James Jacobs wrote:

The whole point of Thunder and Fang is to let you fight with that weapon and a klar as if the klar and the earth breaker were one single double weapon. You wield the earthbreaker normally, but when you attack, your klar blade sticks out perpendicular from the earthbreaker's shaft, forming a stubby "T" shape. You can swing the earthbreaker normally, and also stab with the blade of the klar that sticks out from the middle of the shaft as if it were a secondary weapon attached to the earthbreaker itself.

That you get to retain the klar's AC bonus when you attack is actually thus only half of how the feat lets you bend the rules.

Which states that the earthbreaker is wielded normally but with the klar on one of the hands holding it, they would not think that the earthbreaker is a one-handed weapon, but might consider the earthbreaker and the klar to be two parts of the same weapon. On the other hand, the bastard sword would probably almost universally be seen as a one-handed weapon, because almost everyone using one will probably be using it in one hand; someone who wants to use a sword that they have to use in two hands will probably use a greatsword.

EDIT: To clarify, I have nothing against dual-wielding earthbreakers; you CAN do that with two levels in Titan Mauler, as broken as the archetype is otherwise (which brokenness is truly unfortunate, since it's a really cool idea).

The Exchange Owner - D20 Hobbies

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Nefreet wrote:
what you thought was a completely legal build only to have your GM arbitrarily disallow it?

The problem is that with the rules we can often have situations where both sides believe they are correct. One completely legal and one completely illegal.

GM's in PFS are not allowed to house rule, but are required to run by the rules. The issue is that rules are interpreted.

Grand Lodge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Companion Subscriber

This is really roundabout way of doing what a Titan Mauler does.

The whole thing has no balance issue, and the outcry against it is unwarranted.

Who cares if it was not the original intent?

Some player gets to do something cool, and no game falls apart, and no one is hurt.

What impact does allowing, or disallowing it have?

Think about it.

Creative uses of feats and abilities shouldn't be something beaten down with a stick.

When balance isn't an issue, then what are fighting against?

Creativity?


blackbloodtroll wrote:

This is really roundabout way of doing what a Titan Mauler does.

The whole thing has no balance issue, and the outcry against it is unwarranted.

Who cares if it was not the original intent?

Some player gets to do something cool, and no game falls apart, and no one is hurt.

What impact does allowing, or disallowing it have?

Think about it.

Creative uses of feats and abilities shouldn't be something beaten down with a stick.

When balance isn't an issue, then what are fighting against?

Creativity?

The one actual problematic (not balance-wise but allowable-through-some-method-wise) is using a large earthbreaker in two hands, which the titan mauler should be able to do, but like I said, it's unfortunately broken. I'd also be totally in favor of a general monkey grip feat, by the way; I just think using something as specific of a style as Thunder and Fang for it is problematic to the flavor of the feat and setting.

The Exchange Owner - D20 Hobbies

blackbloodtroll wrote:
What impact does allowing, or disallowing it have?

The problem is that it clearly isn't how the rule is to be interpreted. It comes from parsing the words in a permissive way and choosing different end meanings.

Grand Lodge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Companion Subscriber
James Risner wrote:
blackbloodtroll wrote:
What impact does allowing, or disallowing it have?
The problem is that it clearly isn't how the rule is to be interpreted. It comes from parsing the words in a permissive way and choosing different end meanings.

So, the end result has no meaning?

Look, Titan Mauler Barbarian, and a Thunder and Fang Fighter, each wielding two Earthbreakers, but one is big cheaty face?

Hell, the Fighter in this example, the "cheaty face" has a dead feat.

Liberty's Edge

Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber

Ok.

Three things.

One. A medium character can not use a large two handed weapon, even if he can use a medium sized one "as a one handed weapon." It is, despite how the character can use it, a two handed weapon.

Two. We have a quote from the developer earlier in the thread about the intent of the feat, Earth Breaker with Klar. (Thunder and Fang) It was never meant to allow two giant sledge hammers to be wielded at the same time.

Three. If allowed anyway, your only getting 1.0 times strength and various other damage effects of a one handed weapon, the second only getting .5 times str.


thaX wrote:

Ok.

Three things.

One. A medium character can not use a large two handed weapon, even if he can use a medium sized one "as a one handed weapon." It is, despite how the character can use it, a two handed weapon.

That may well be the case.

thaX wrote:
Two. We have a quote from the developer earlier in the thread about the intent of the feat, Earth Breaker with Klar. (Thunder and Fang) It was never meant to allow two giant sledge hammers to be wielded at the same time.

So?

The developer of the Titan Mauler archtype stated it was his intention to let barbarians wield Large sized weapons, but we can't despite his intent. Intent gives us good cause to house-rule, but doesn't override the actual rules.

thaX wrote:
Three. If allowed anyway, your only getting 1.0 times strength and various other damage effects of a one handed weapon, the second only getting .5 times str.

Yep. I don't even think dual wielding earth breakers is a great way to use them, but it's sounds really freaking awesome. Add in the two-weapon fighter archetype and it might even be a viable build.

The Exchange Owner - D20 Hobbies

Sub_Zero wrote:
The developer of the Titan Mauler archtype stated it was his intention

There is a big difference between a 3rd party author and the Paizo employee responsible for much of the non-core rules content.

One you can ignore (the 3rd party) the other you shouldn't.


glad we cleared up which authors we should ignore and which ones we shouldn't...


I think the problem with the titan mauler was between creator and developer, but that's not really what this topic is about. And if someone wanted to houserule that Titan Mauler, you know, worked, more power to them, but technically this thread is about PFS, where there are no houserules and people are free to look for ways to exploit the rules as written... And unfortunately, since the crunch text of Thunder and Fang is written as independent parts, it may be technically exploitable in this manner.

The Exchange Owner - D20 Hobbies

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Sub_Zero wrote:
glad we cleared up which authors we should ignore and which ones we shouldn't...

So have we cleared up when we should intentionally ignore parts of the text to make the rules more liberal? ;-)


Wait, but what about the Huge Aklys? A two-handed weapon for medium characters (if you feel like taking a -4 to attack due to the size changes), does a base 3d6.

Then again, did I mention the -4 to attack? Pretty big hit, unless, I guess, you're a Titan Mauler.

Liberty's Edge

5 people marked this as FAQ candidate.
Pathfinder Companion Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber
The Golux wrote:
George Demonspawn wrote:


2. Impact can only be applied to slashing and piercing weapons. It is what the superscripted 3 means next to the magical property on the table.

That... is really weird. I would have expected it to be bludgeoning only, if anything, but the table does say piercing or slashing only.

There is a difference between the table and the ability text:

The ability say:

PRD wrote:

Impact

Price +2 bonus; Aura moderate transmutation; CL 9th; Weight —
This special ability can only be placed on melee weapons that are not light weapons. An impact weapon delivers a potent kinetic jolt when it strikes, dealing damage as if the weapon were one size category larger. In addition, any bull rush combat maneuver the wielder attempts while wielding the weapon gains a bonus equal to the weapon's enhancement bonus; this includes all bull rush attempts, not only those in which a weapon is used, such as Bull Rush Strike, Shield Slam, or Unseat.
Construction Requirements
Cost +2 bonus
Craft Magic Arms and Armor, bull's strength, lead blades (Advanced Player's Guide), righteous might or giant form I

The table has the notation "Impact3" and 3 is "3 Piercing or slashing weapons only (slashing only for vorpal)."

I think that there is a typo and the notation should be 4 "4 This special ability cannot be applied to light melee weapons.", especially as that table has that notation at the bottom and no weapon ability to which it apply.

A valid question for a FAQ (actually an errata, but it for now a FAQ should be sufficient).

Liberty's Edge

Pathfinder Companion Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber
thaX wrote:

Ok.

Three things.

One. A medium character can not use a large two handed weapon, even if he can use a medium sized one "as a one handed weapon." It is, despite how the character can use it, a two handed weapon.

This. The ability don't change the size of the item, it allow you to use the normal version in one hand.

If your read it as "it change the size" and "RAW should be applied without question", it don't say "a normal sized earth breaker", it say "a earth breaker". So go on and wield your gargantuan earth breaker in one hand. It is a Earth breaker and as such it can be wielded in one hand if you have the feat.

Liberty's Edge

Pathfinder Companion Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber
Sub_Zero wrote:


thaX wrote:
Two. We have a quote from the developer earlier in the thread about the intent of the feat, Earth Breaker with Klar. (Thunder and Fang) It was never meant to allow two giant sledge hammers to be wielded at the same time.

So?

The developer of the Titan Mauler archtype stated it was his intention to let barbarians wield Large sized weapons, but we can't despite his intent. Intent gives us good cause to house-rule, but doesn't override the actual rules.

And the text of the ability was changed by the game main developers before publication.

Maybe not allowing that was intended by the developers that published the ability? And that is why the words of the developers that are Paizo employee has more weight. The freelance prose something, the Paizo employees chose how it will appear in print and know (ohopefully) what is RAI from the point of view of Paizo.

51 to 100 of 904 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder First Edition / Rules Questions / PFS - Thunder and Fang with 2 Earth Breakers All Messageboards