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? ;-)
I haven't ignored any part of the text. Actually, I'm not even making a character using this. I'm just pointing out that it's dumb to cite the fluff part of a feat, and use that as a reason to deny the use of an ability to someone.
If the feat said: Only when you wield these 2 weapons in this specific order this bonus happens. But it doesn't. It lets you wield the earthbreaker 1 handed.
Don't like it? house rule it. But do so knowing that it's a house-rule and nothing more. Not liking a people using a feat in the way it's fluff texts indicates is obviously your call, but I see it as being stupidly restrictive for no reason.
No, the bastard sword is a one-handed weapon that in certain circumstances can be used as a two-handed weapon.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.
This
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
It is lame. If you want to use two large earth breakers be a Titan mauler/ranger or something like that.
The Titan mauler can't even wield one large earth breaker*. So trying to do so yould be outright cheating.
Wielding two medium size earth breakers on the other Hand would be something he could do. But until higher Levels he'd get even higher penalties than the T&F user.*not in the RAW Version, that is. That the archetype's writer intended it to be possible doesn't Change RAW.
I love my Dual-Earthbreaker-Wielding Foehammer. That is all.
New Feat: Thunder and Fang
You have mastered the ancient Shoanti fighting style of Thunder and Fang, allowing you to fight with increased effectiveness when wielding an earth breaker and a klar. As you swing at foes with Thunder (your earth breaker), you slash at them with the Fang (your klar).
Prerequisites: Str 15, Two-Weapon Fighting, Weapon Focus (earth breaker), Weapon Focus (klar)
Benefit: As long as you are fighting with an earth breaker and a klar (and you make attacks with your klar as your offhand attack), you can fight with both weapons as if you were wielding a double weapon, and retain your shield bonus to your Armor Class granted by your klar. Treat your klar as a light weapon for the purposes of determining your total penalty to attack.
Special: A fighter may select Thunder and Fang as one of his fighter bonus feats.
This was the original wording. It addresses all the problems that folks have found with "abuse" of the feat as currently written. It was changed from this. Just saying.
I haven't ignored any part of the text.You have, and later in that message you confirmed you had intentionally ignored that part.
I don't agree it is a house rule to require both items to be used together.
Ahh, I see what you're doing there.
Let me ask you something. Do you seriously want to make the argument that the fluff text prior to the benefit section of the rules is part of the rule? You do realize that the argument you're making leads to a very bad place right?
For example:
Two Weapon Fighting
You can fight with a weapon wielded in each of your hands. You can make one extra attack each round with the secondary weapon.
Prerequisite: Dex 15.
Benefit: Your penalties on attack rolls for fighting with two weapons are reduced. The penalty for your primary hand lessens by 2 and the one for your off hand lessens by 6. See Two-Weapon Fighting.
If you equitably apply what you're saying then you cannot use twf to fight with your hands. The italicized part clearly states that when you wield a weapon in each of your hands. Wield is clearly defined as to hold/use. So unless you expect all twf to hold their first hand with their second, you can't twf. I mean, who cares what the benefit section says, clearly the fluff section is just as valid and must be followed as well.
I hope you can see how this line of reasoning is illogical.
Not allowing a person two use 2 earthbreakers as one-handed weapons is a houserule. The benefit clearly states that you can wield them one-handed.
Would it be unreasonable to houserule this? no, not at all. This would be an good example of a reasonable houserule based on the intent (as indicated in the fluff section) of the feat. But this is the rules forum, and the actual rule does in fact allow you to wield these weapons one-handed.
I hope you can see how this line of reasoning is illogical.Not at all, and I still don't think of this feat T&F requiring the E&K together as a house rule.
show me how it is anything but a houserule then.
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.
Again, if you go back to the fluff section, then you have a double standard.
show me how it is anything but a houserule then.Show me how dead people not being able to do things isn't also a house rule?
zombies, lich's, ghosts, and other undead would like a word with you, about what you think they can't do.
Why not just answer my question? It was a simple question to begin with.
Owner - D20 Hobbies
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Why not just answer my question? It was a simple question to begin with.
I already have answered it.
The Thunder and Fang feat is very clear how it works.
TWF is very clear how it works and there have been FAQ that confirm that even if you are not using offhand with say an unarmed strike or boot blade then you still "use" it mechanically.
The root problem (between you and I on this subject) is you have a permissive interpretation of the rules (the classic "it doesn't say I can't" view ) and I hold the more common (and recommended by the developers many times) non-permissive stance that use the rules to mostly say what you can do.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The bottom line for this, and similar RAW-based circumvention of common sense (such as the pre-update double Dex to damage for Pistolero Gunslingers):
- In a home game, work it out with your GM
- In PFS, consider yourself and everyone else at the table. No one wants to start a session with a rules argument. No one wants to interrupt the first combat for a lengthy rules debate concerning a fundamental aspect of a character's build. Seeing something like this, fair or not, will likely put a GM on the defensive, thinking 'here's a guy who's going to push every boundary.'
If you're going to use grey areas or controversial rules for your builds, make sure they're something you're willing or able to "turn off" when you encounter a GM that disagrees with your interpretation.
Why not just answer my question? It was a simple question to begin with.I already have answered it.
no, you haven't.
The Thunder and Fang feat is very clear how it works.
i agree
TWF is very clear how it works and there have been FAQ that confirm that even if you are not using offhand with say an unarmed strike or boot blade then you still "use" it mechanically.
so in other words, you don't use the fluff part of the text in determining what an ability does. You now have a double standard.
The root problem (between you and I on this subject) is you have a permissive interpretation of the rules (the classic "it doesn't say I can't" view ) and I hold the more common (and recommended by the developers many times) non-permissive stance that use the rules to mostly say what you can do.
Not at all.
The benefits section of the feat is very clear. It says that an earthbreaker can be used one-handed, period. In other words there is explicit permission to use an ability in this way, and nothing that contradicts it afterward.
I've asked you to show this, and you've failed. repeatedly. while making straw-man arguments about my position.
|
Owner - D20 Hobbies
|
If you're going to use grey areas or controversial rules for your builds, make sure they're something you're willing or able to "turn off" when you encounter a GM that disagrees with your interpretation.
I couldn't agree more, I salute you.
Not everyone wants to be that reasonable, tho. Some enjoy pushing the boundaries and the resulting rules debates.
I've retired characters that result in these types of debates (I once had a 10th level Overrun build that was an endless supply of different opinions on the rules.)
|
If you think that you cannot wield two Medium earth breakers and that you must use an earth breaker and a klar, then why does the first sentence not have the same clarification as the second?
First sentence: "You can use an earth breaker as though it were a one-handed weapon."
Second sentence: "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."
This is very clear evidence that the feat intended for T&F users to be able to use earth breakers as 1H weapons with no restriction. A simple writing of the feat need only say: "You are able to use earth breaker in one hand and a klar in your off hand and you gain the following benefits: you retain the shield bonus your klar grants to your Armor Class even when you use it to attack and you treat your klar as a light weapon for the purposes of determining your two-weapon fighting penalty."
However, they chose to write it their way, they changed it from other language that would imply that you MUST use a klar and earth breaker, and they have not issued any FAQs or errata to state otherwise. Dual-wielding earth breakers or using a large earth breaker two-handed is perfectly acceptable and can easily be derived from the first sentence.
However, they chose to write it their way, they changed it from other language that would imply that you MUST use a klar and earth breaker, and they have not issued any FAQs or errata to state otherwise.
This was the same language used to defend, among other things, Pistoleros adding Dex to damage from Gun Training and Pistol Training. Until there was an update correcting the omission of the latter replacing the former. That update took about two and a half years.
I love Paizo, but I would never assume that everything they publish reads exactly as intended, or that the lack of an immediate correction verifies intent. I would also not assume that James Jacobs, the Golarion guy who comes up with the setting-specific Feats like Dervish Dancer is wrong about the intent of this setting-specific Feat.
EDIT:
Further, the "Normal" text from T&F reads:
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.
It does not read:
An earth breaker is a two-handed weapon. (full stop)
If it did, I would agree with your assertion that the intent was to make the earth breaker one-handed regardless of whether the character is wielding a klar.
However, they chose to write it their way, they changed it from other language that would imply that you MUST use a klar and earth breaker, and they have not issued any FAQs or errata to state otherwise.This was the same language used to defend, among other things, Pistoleros adding Dex to damage from Gun Training and Pistol Training. Until there was an update correcting the omission of the latter replacing the former. That update took about two and a half years.
I love Paizo, but I would never assume that everything they publish reads exactly as intended, or that the lack of an immediate correction verifies intent. I would also not assume that James Jacobs, the Golarion guy who comes up with the setting-specific Feats like Dervish Dancer is wrong about the intent of this setting-specific Feat.
EDIT:
Further, the "Normal" text from T&F reads:
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.It does not read:
An earth breaker is a two-handed weapon. (full stop)If it did, I would agree with your assertion that the intent was to make the earth breaker one-handed regardless of whether the character is wielding a klar.
Redward, I agree that the intent was for it to be used with the Klar. This is not the intent forum though. This is the rules forum, and the rules as written are very clear.
//You can use an earth breaker as though it were a one-handed weapon.//
that's very clear.
//You can use an earth breaker as though it were a one-handed weapon.//that's very clear.
I'm not arguing that. I'm saying if you're going to use this in an organized play setting, don't be the guy that derails a game with arguments because you chose to willfully ignore the clear intent of a rule.
|
|
First, like I said, I don't try to analyze the developer's intent of a feat. I just take what they write at face value. If it says I can do something, then it says I can do something. That is what RAW means and that is what governs PFS play.
EDIT:
Further, the "Normal" text from T&F reads:
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.It does not read:
An earth breaker is a two-handed weapon. (full stop)If it did, I would agree with your assertion that the intent was to make the earth breaker one-handed regardless of whether the character is wielding a klar.
Second, The Normal: section doesn't even make sense. You can't wield an earth breaker with a klar with penalties without the feat.
Third, the clarification after the comma makes no difference. It is merely stating that you cannot wield the earth breaker in a specific example, as is the norm with every other 2H weapon. Grammatically, this does not mean that you must use an earth breaker/klar combo.
Fourth, even if the clarification made a difference, there is no implication that it applies to the first sentence beyond altering the 2H weapon status. The second sentence specifically deals with an earth breaker/klar combo, thus it is entirely reasonable that the clarification specificity is included to address that sentence.
First, like I said, I don't try to analyze the developer's intent of a feat.
I respectfully disagree.
This is very clear evidence that the feat intended for T&F users to be able to use earth breakers as 1H weapons with no restriction.
First, like I said, I don't try to analyze the developer's intent of a feat.I respectfully disagree.
This is very clear evidence that the feat intended for T&F users to be able to use earth breakers as 1H weapons with no restriction.
So would you allow a PFS player to play a titan mauler using a large greatsword? There was a very clear intent for the player to be able to use large weapons by the designer of the archetype.
I find that in the rules forum it's best to stick with the RAW interpretation of the rules. That way we have a basis of what the rules actually say. From there we're all free to make appropriate houserules as we see fit.
I'm not arguing that a person is in the wrong to houserule this feat to be only hammer/klar. I'm arguing that doing so is a houserule and not the actual rule itself. In my games, we use a heavy amount of houserules, but just because I think they're reasonable doesn't make them anything other then houserules.
In PFS, if you are stuck going by the RAW, then that should be the clear standard for everyone. That way people can have a set standard of rules to go by. As we can see on this thread, we all have views on intent.
Some of us think the intent allows one-handed earthbreakers
some think that the intent doesn't allow earthbreakers.
Because there's a variety in opinion we should use the actual rules for PFS,until such a time that they faq or errata this feat.
So would you allow a PFS player to play a titan mauler using a large greatsword? There was a very clear intent for the player to be able to use large weapons by the designer of the archetype.First, like I said, I don't try to analyze the developer's intent of a feat.I respectfully disagree.
This is very clear evidence that the feat intended for T&F users to be able to use earth breakers as 1H weapons with no restriction.
Let's clarify some things here before this goes any further:
I'm agreeing with you that, RAW, T&F seems to allow 1-handing an earthbreaker without a klar.I'm arguing with George that the intent is clearly to only be able to use the EB 1H with a klar. You and I seem to agree on that, and also that it is irrelevant to the RAW function of the Feat.
I am also arguing with George that while he says he does not try to divine the intent of the developers, he just said "there is very clear evidence the feat is intended...".
Finally, I am first and foremost arguing that while OP is a strict RAW environment, you are always better off assuming the most conservative reading of a rule. Unfortunately, 'conservative' usually means 'worst for you.' Being right doesn't do you much good if it takes 30 minutes of arguing with a GM to settle the issue, leaving one or both of you fuming and then trying to have a fun game together with the remaining time. It's also unfair to the rest of the party whose time you are taking.
Which is why I said if you're going to do this in an OP setting, have a backup plan that isn't to just rub the rules in the GM's face.
EDIT:
And for the record, my PFS Titan Mauler uses a Bastard Sword.
So would you allow a PFS player to play a titan mauler using a large greatsword? There was a very clear intent for the player to be able to use large weapons by the designer of the archetype.First, like I said, I don't try to analyze the developer's intent of a feat.I respectfully disagree.
This is very clear evidence that the feat intended for T&F users to be able to use earth breakers as 1H weapons with no restriction.Let's clarify some things here before this goes any further:
I'm agreeing with you that, RAW, T&F seems to allow 1-handing an earthbreaker without a klar.I'm arguing with George that the intent is clearly to only be able to use the EB 1H with a klar. You and I seem to agree on that, and also that it is irrelevant to the RAW function of the Feat.
I am also arguing with George that while he says he does not try to divine the intent of the developers, he just said "there is very clear evidence the feat is intended...".
Finally, I am first and foremost arguing that while OP is a strict RAW environment, you are always better off assuming the most conservative reading of a rule. Unfortunately, 'conservative' usually means 'worst for you.' Being right doesn't do you much good if it takes 30 minutes of arguing with a GM to settle the issue, leaving one or both of you fuming and then trying to have a fun game together with the remaining time. It's also unfair to the rest of the party whose time you are taking.
Which is why I said if you're going to do this in an OP setting, have a backup plan that isn't to just rub the rules in the GM's face.
EDIT:
And for the record, my PFS Titan Mauler uses a Bastard Sword.
Fair enough, I misunderstood your post (actually I kinda jumbled it together with James's post). Nothing to see here then move along :D
|
|
First, like I said, I don't try to analyze the developer's intent of a feat.I respectfully disagree.
This is very clear evidence that the feat intended for T&F users to be able to use earth breakers as 1H weapons with no restriction.
Very cherry-picky today, huh? One of the main arguments against the broader ruling is the developer's intent of the feat. The second quote is in response to that. It is showing how you can divine a developer's intent in the opposite direction.
When I am looking at RAW, I do not analyze the developer's intent, just the words and wording of the feat. This is because you cannot be required to somehow Johnny Smith the true intent behind the each and every feat you come across. You have to take the words at their face value. Additionally, PFS is a RAW setting. Unless there is errata or a FAQ on the matter, then intent is irrelevant.
How is that not apparent?
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Very cherry-picky today, huh? One of the main arguments against the broader ruling is the developer's intent of the feat. The second quote is in response to that. It is showing how you can divine a developer's intent in the opposite direction.
When I am looking at RAW, I do not analyze the developer's intent, just the words and wording of the feat. This is because you cannot be required to somehow Johnny Smith the true intent behind the each and every feat you come across. You have to take the words at their face value. Additionally, PFS is a RAW setting. Unless there is errata or a FAQ on the matter, then intent is irrelevant.
How is that not apparent?
That's all well and good. I think it's intellectually dishonest to look at Thunder & Fang in its entirety and see anything other than "this is designed to let someone use an earthbreaker and a klar together."
I also think there is a tendency for people to use whatever interpretation is most favorable to their desires and then work backwards from there. Kind of 'live by the RAW, unless the RAW isn't to my liking.'
Warslinger: "Well, I just assumed it applied to all sling-based weapons!"
Thunder & Fang: "Well RAW it says I can use two earthbreakers. I just assumed they didn't call it 'Twin Thunders' because that name was already taken."
etc.
I think that tendency applies to people on both sides of the screen. I also think that tendency applies more often to people who like to antagonize the person on the other side of the screen.
I agree that RAW, barring some wrinkle I've missed, you can dual-wield earthbreakers using T&F. I disagree that it is a good idea to do so in organized play, for the reasons I've now stated several times.
|
Owner - D20 Hobbies
|
In PFS, if you are stuck going by the RAW, then that should be the clear standard for everyone. That way people can have a set standard of rules to go by. As we can see on this thread, we all have views on intent.
This is also a different view on the RAW, since the flavor and the Normal: line both tell us the rules as written concern themselves with using with a Klar.
you are always better off assuming the most conservative reading of a rule. Unfortunately, 'conservative' usually means 'worst for you.'
This is so true.
interpretation is most favorable to their desires and then work backwards from there.
This is also very true.
I love my Dual-Earthbreaker-Wielding Foehammer. That is all.Interesting. It does not appear that the Earthbreaker is a part of the "Hammer" group that the Foehammer specializes in.
Actually, it is not listed as any weapon type, if you had to choose a weapon group for this item to come under, probably an overisght which would you choose?
BtW I love your response to "I don't care about your rules lawerying, I'm just having fun" with more rules lawering.
In PFS, if you are stuck going by the RAW, then that should be the clear standard for everyone. That way people can have a set standard of rules to go by. As we can see on this thread, we all have views on intent.This is also a different view on the RAW, since the flavor and the Normal: line both tell us the rules as written concern themselves with using with a Klar.
you're so close, but no, it doesn't. The sentence "You can use an earth breaker as though it were a one-handed weapon." is a self contained statement. No where is it clarified that this one handed condition is only applicable during the use of a Klar.
In fact, within the same rule, they do make use of a clause statement, but it's not for the earthbreaker, it's for the Klar.
"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."
So I'm sorry, but no the RAW of this is very clear. You can with this feat wield a earthbreaker with one hand. Just because the intent was to only have it apply when using earthbreaker/klar doesn't negate the RAW of the rule.
QED :P
edit:smiley added to help imply non-seriousness of the QED.
|
It wasn't "rules lawyering" (although I could see why you'd think that), it was more an observation.
I run into the same problem with my Fauchard-wielding Sohei.
"Well, the description says it's a polearm similar in style to a glaive, which is in the polearm weapon group, so what would you count it as?"
QED
Just so you know, there's no way to say that on the internet without it sounding like a pissing match.
Just so you know, there's no way to say that on the internet without it sounding like a pissing match.QED
would a smiley help? I guess my snarky/jokey attitude just doesn't translate to well on the interwebs :/
It wasn't "rules lawyering" (although I could see why you'd think that), it was more an observation.
I run into the same problem with my Fauchard-wielding Sohei.
"Well, the description says it's a polearm similar in style to a glaive, which is in the polearm weapon group, so what would you count it as?"
I'm honestly asking you, the Earthbreaker isn't listed in ANY weapons group. If it doesn't belong in the Hammers group than which one would you put it in?
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I'm honestly asking you, the Earthbreaker isn't listed in ANY weapons group. If it doesn't belong in the Hammers group than which one would you put it in?
Hammers:Aklys, battle aspergillum, club, , greatclub, heavy mace, light hammer, light mace, mere club, taiaha, tetsubo, wahaika, and warhammer
Emphasis mine.
|
Owner - D20 Hobbies
|
No where is it clarified that this one handed condition is only applicable during the use of a Klar.
You only get to that conclusion by removing lines of the feat (either the fluff or the Normal section.)
There isn't any way around that. Plus there are all sorts of different ways to read rules if you can selectively remove lines that don't agree with your view. This doesn't make your interpretation any more RAW.
|
|
Sweet! Can you do that magic with the Fauchard, too?
Not yet, unfortunately. Could start an FAQ I suppose, but still, it doesn't even take a DC5 Use Common Sense[UCS] check to discern that a Fauchard is a polearm. It says it is a polearm, and that it is like another polearm. And most skilled GMs have at least 1 rank and class skill in UCS.
|
Putting aside the name of the feat, the mention of both the Earth Breaker and the Klar, and the fact that the original feat had a differently phrased sentence that made the intent clear, if one wants to wield to friggen' huge hammers and swing them around in hopes to deal out some damage, I see no reason to deny them that pleasure if this feat allows them that luxury.
They, of course, would still only get 1.0 times the str mod damage for the primary and .5 for the off hand, Power attack would only give 2 extra damage per -1, and other tiered damage would not use the two-handed variety change.
Plus, since they both are not light weapons, the penalties would not be lessened like they would be with a one handed and light combo weapon set.
Oh, and without the Klar, there is no shield bonus...
No where is it clarified that this one handed condition is only applicable during the use of a Klar.You only get to that conclusion by removing lines of the feat (either the fluff or the Normal section.)
There isn't any way around that. Plus there are all sorts of different ways to read rules if you can selectively remove lines that don't agree with your view. This doesn't make your interpretation any more RAW.
James, you should really just stop. You're wrong, and I'll prove it.
Feat:
Thunder and FangFluff You have mastered the ancient Shoanti 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.
Let me again, break this down for you.
You can use an earth breaker as though it were a one-handed weapon.
We are given a specific permission to use the feat one-handed. Like you said early you need permission to do something. We were just given permission. so Check. Now let us look to see if there is some clause in the rest of the feat that counteracts this given permission, because you have said that there is.
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.
hmm, there does appear to be a clause for a specific kind of bonus here, but it has nothing to do with the earthbreaker being used one-handed. Instead it grants a clause that if you use an earthbreaker and klar you can keep the shield bonus.
So at this point, nothing at all has been ignored, and nothing prevents the one-handed earthbreaker after we were given specific permission to use it.
Treat your klar as a light weapon for the purposes of determining your two-weapon fighting penalty.
Weird, this also doesn't specify that you only get the one-handed bonus when using a klar. Instead it's about treating the klar as a light weapon. Again, no where does it stop the specific permission we were given to use the earthbreaker as a one-handed weapon.
So, were are now done with what the feat does, and you are objectively wrong. There is in fact nothing that I am assuming to reach my conclusion, and you are just wrong that: "You only get to that conclusion by removing lines of the feat (either the fluff or the Normal section.)" .
Now you're only option at this point is to point to the fluff text
You have mastered the ancient Shoanti Thunder and Fang fighting style, allowing you to fight with increased effectiveness when wielding an earth breaker and klar.
this in fact does imply that you can't wield the earthbreaker without the klar. Unfortunately it's only part of the fluff section. Like I already demonstrated you'd be setting a double standard if you claim that RAW states that you only get to use the earthbreaker with the klar because the fluff section says so. In fact you create way more problems then you solve this way.
|
Owner - D20 Hobbies
|
James, you should really just stop. You're wrong, and I'll prove it.
I guess you honestly believe I don't fully understand your position? So you need to explain it to me?
Trust me. I understand why you have your position. I just don't agree with you. I'm not swayed by your proof, because I'm paying attention to the Normal line and you are not.
James, you should really just stop. You're wrong, and I'll prove it.I guess you honestly believe I don't fully understand your position? So you need to explain it to me?
Trust me. I understand why you have your position. I just don't agree with you. I'm not swayed by your proof, because I'm paying attention to the Normal line and you are not.
please elaborate how the normal line changes anything?
I thought you didn't understand my position, because I assumed you were approaching this argument as a rational being. Consider me swayed that I was wrong on that point.
|
|
Trust me. I understand why you have your position. I just don't agree with you. I'm not swayed by your proof, because I'm paying attention to the Normal line and you are not.
The Normal line isn't even consistent within PF rules. I cannot fathom how you use that to justify a denial of a very simple and obvious sentence.
This was the original wording. It addresses all the problems that folks have found with "abuse" of the feat as currently written. It was changed from this. Just saying.New Feat: Thunder and Fang
You have mastered the ancient Shoanti fighting style of Thunder and Fang, allowing you to fight with increased effectiveness when wielding an earth breaker and a klar. As you swing at foes with Thunder (your earth breaker), you slash at them with the Fang (your klar).
Prerequisites: Str 15, Two-Weapon Fighting, Weapon Focus (earth breaker), Weapon Focus (klar)
Benefit: As long as you are fighting with an earth breaker and a klar (and you make attacks with your klar as your offhand attack), you can fight with both weapons as if you were wielding a double weapon, and retain your shield bonus to your Armor Class granted by your klar. Treat your klar as a light weapon for the purposes of determining your total penalty to attack.
Special: A fighter may select Thunder and Fang as one of his fighter bonus feats.
The original wording definitely does not allow for dual-wielded earthbreakers. That they changed the wording (what was wrong with the original?) seems to indicate that the feat is now intended to be less restrictive.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
this is the normal line from the d20pfsrd site;
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.
At least by RAW dual wielding earthbreakers is allowed. If anyone wants to houserule against it I suggest they read page 9 of the CRB under the title "the most important rule."