PFS - Thunder and Fang with 2 Earth Breakers


Rules Questions

151 to 200 of 904 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

Martiln wrote:
Nefreet wrote:
Yikes. That's messy. At least the current version is cleaner.
I agree that the wording is messy, but the intent is very clear.

I disagree that it is messy, as I understood it just fine. I also never had any problem with magus class ability interactions, so maybe I just understand rules that get muddy a little better than a lot of gamers.

I do agree that the intent was clear. That it was changed, however, seems to say that the intent changed. If the intent did not change, but some devs agreed that the verbiage was a little unclear, they did a really bad job of ensuring that the feat retained the original purpose.

If you bother to change something because it does not accurately portray what you'd like it to, I imagine that you would inspect it pretty closely for holes.

That's just me, though.

Sczarni

Starfinder Charter Superscriber
Curse of the Crimson Throne version of Thunder and Fang wrote:

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.

I believe this is messier than the current wording, and is unusable as written.

1) "As long as you are fighting". What exactly does "fighting" mean? Do I retain my shield bonus if I go "Total Defense"? What about if I provoke an attack of opportunity from movement? What about after I'm done "fighting" on my round?

2) "and you make attacks with your klar as your offhand attack". Alright, so, charging is not an option. And if you are already holding the Klar in one hand, and the Earth Breaker in the other, but you aren't attacking with your Klar, how can you go about swinging this now two-handed weapon with the one hand that's holding it?

I am absolutely positive that if this is how the feat remained worded, it would either be completely broken and not functional, or would create even more arguments than it currently does.


Possibly. It was bad enough that it should have been cleaned up with a second printing, but I don't believe that the change that we got was a "cleaning-up," but rather, a re-definition.

My point was really just that the old version didn't allow for dual-wield earthbreakers, but the newer, presumably better version does. (Tacit approval, and all that jazz)

Sczarni

Starfinder Charter Superscriber

One of the plus sides, IMO, to PFS is that I get to meet and play with a wide variety of people that I would probably never encounter otherwise, and I get to understand Pathfinder from different angles when I see the different builds and creative interactions that they have come up with.

The downside is, of course, having a romantic vision of building a traditional Shoanti Barbarian using Thunder and Fang, and picking my jaw off the floor when I see a player dual-wielding Earth Breakers (and come to find out that it's totally legal).


Nef, I hear you. There seem to be all kinds of builds and abuses of rules that, with a few friends, I'd never find. In PFS, I see ALL OF THEM. I'm glad, on account of this, that I have a predisposition for reading messageboard posts so I can see it coming, or at least be inundated to the eventualities of ridiculous builds that seem to contradict how the rules were supposed to work.

C'est la vie, says oui. I really enjoy keeping track of what will or won't interact the way I expect, though; byzantine rule interactions really keep me interested.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Nefreet wrote:

One of the plus sides, IMO, to PFS is that I get to meet and play with a wide variety of people that I would probably never encounter otherwise, and I get to understand Pathfinder from different angles when I see the different builds and creative interactions that they have come up with.

The downside is, of course, having a romantic vision of building a traditional Shoanti Barbarian using Thunder and Fang, and picking my jaw off the floor when I see a player dual-wielding Earth Breakers (and come to find out that it's totally legal).

That just leads to character building. Imagine all the fun you can have with two characters, one taking the "traditional" view of how an Earthbreaker and Klar are "supposed" to be wielded, but the other taking a more liberal view and being innovative in using a pair of Earthbreakers (or one over-sized Earthbreaker). They compete over which fighting style is inherently better and their differences and rivalry spawn an epic friendship.

[Bromance Intensifies]

Liberty's Edge

Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber

Uh... you can't weild the oversized Earthbreaker. It is still a Two-Handed weapon even though the character can use it as a One-Handed. Being oversized would bump it to being unwieldy. It pushed it beyond the Two-Handed category.


Nefreet wrote:
Curse of the Crimson Throne version of Thunder and Fang wrote:

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.

I believe this is messier than the current wording, and is unusable as written.

1) "As long as you are fighting". What exactly does "fighting" mean? Do I retain my shield bonus if I go "Total Defense"? What about if I provoke an attack of opportunity from movement? What about after I'm done "fighting" on my round?

2) "and you make attacks with your klar as your offhand attack". Alright, so, charging is not an option. And if you are already holding the Klar in one hand, and the Earth Breaker in the other, but you aren't attacking with your Klar, how can you go about swinging this now two-handed weapon with the one hand that's holding it?

I am absolutely positive that if this is how the feat remained worded, it would either be completely broken and not functional, or would create even more arguments than it currently does.

Regarding 2, that's the most substantive difference between the previous version and the current one. In the previous version, the EB did not get treated as a one-handed weapon for any purpose. It let you treat a Klar and an EB as a double weapon, meaning you're still holding the EB in two hands. So, not attacking with the Klar in that instance is just like not attacking with both ends of a Quarterstaff.

Grand Lodge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
thaX wrote:
Uh... you can't weild the oversized Earthbreaker. It is still a Two-Handed weapon even though the character can use it as a One-Handed. Being oversized would bump it to being unwieldy. It pushed it beyond the Two-Handed category.

Your argument is new and exciting for this thread.

I can wield a small greatsword one-handed, but methinks you would still classify it as a two-handed weapon if we use that same logic from the earth breaker. Does this mean that I can't wield a medium greatsword in two hands because bumping it up makes it unwieldy? Hmm...

P.S. - Answer is of course not. That would make no sense. Just like this wouldn't make sense: "I can wield a [size] hammer in one hand and [size] sword in one hand, however I can only wield [size + 1] sword in two hands while I can't wield [size + 1] hammer in two hands."

Sczarni

Nefreet wrote:

One of the plus sides, IMO, to PFS is that I get to meet and play with a wide variety of people that I would probably never encounter otherwise, and I get to understand Pathfinder from different angles when I see the different builds and creative interactions that they have come up with.

The downside is, of course, having a romantic vision of building a traditional Shoanti Barbarian using Thunder and Fang, and picking my jaw off the floor when I see a player dual-wielding Earth Breakers (and come to find out that it's totally legal).

Couldn't agree more. Except about the part about "totally legal". I will always remain of the opinion that if you're going to ignore the spirit of the rule you might as well ignore the rule altogether. I'm saddened that RAW seems to be a refuge for power gamers, rules lawyers; and in some cases cheats.

Grand Lodge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Companion Subscriber

This idea, that choosing a mechanically inferior choice, is the act of power gamer, is incomprehensible.

The Exchange Owner - D20 Hobbies

George Demonspawn wrote:
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.

I believe the stating of an impossibility was the intended point of that line. IN this case the penalty is "you can't wield it that way" as opposed to "take - blah to hit."


I would personally hate to GM a table that has someone come up with 2 Earth Breakers, unless they are using the Titan Mauler archetype, because of the arguments that are going to ensue. As a player of a Thunder and Fang Build Two-Weapon Fighter, I play it as Rule as Intended. My fighter wields a Klar as well as the Earth Breaker.

Now, if someone comes up to my table trying to pull off a Fighter Two Weapon Fighter build that is using 2 Earth Breakers, I will do one thing. Ask them for their copy of the source material that they are using to do so. If they can't provide it, then the point is moot.

If they can provide it, until an official errata comes out, as much as I will dislike the idea, since we do have to go RAW instead of RA(P)I, I'd have to begrudgingly allow it.


Krodjin wrote:
Couldn't agree more. Except about the part about "totally legal". I will always remain of the opinion that if you're going to ignore the spirit of the rule you might as well ignore the rule altogether. I'm saddened that RAW seems to be a refuge for power gamers, rules lawyers; and in some cases cheats.

While that may be true of some of the posters, I do think there is something here worth clarifying.

Since this is the rules forum, I (and many others) operate under the procedure of looking at the legality of the rules outside of the intent/context. This does not mean that we would play characters this way, or that we think this is how the feat should be played. Instead, since this is the rules forum, we're judging whether the feat does via the RAW.

With that said I think there are times that once RAW is established we step in and create useful house-rules to make the game better for everyone. The fact that many argue what the RAW of a rule says, does not imply that this is the way they think the rule should be played. I don't see this feat as one of those times.

If I had a player who wanted to play a non-barbarian who used two giant hammers, I'd have no problem with him using this feat to accomplish that task. I say this because it doesn't break the game, and in my circle the fluff description part of the feat can always be changed to match the players intent.

James Risner wrote:
Sub_Zero wrote:
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.

It's probably futile, but lets take a look at the normal line, break it down and see if there's anything there that would prevent us from using the earthbreaker one-handed. That way I'm like you I'm "paying attention"

Quote:
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.

So the first sentence says that normally the earthbreaker is a two-handed weapon, and it prevents the us of a klar in one hand. It also states that you'd normally take a penalty for using the earth breaker one handed. This section is just messy. Of course the earthbreaker is a two-handed weapon normally, I doubt anyone argues that point, so I know your not referring to that. The part about being able to wield the earthbreaker one-handed with a penalty is just incorrect. You can't just choose to wield a two-handed weapon with one hand without some ability granting this. Luckily for us the feat grants such an ability.

The second sentence refers only to the Klar and is not relevant at all to wielding the earthbreaker one-handed.

So now I've parsed out the normal section, and again there is nothing suggesting that you can't use the earthbreaker one-handed without a klar.

My only guess is that you're reading the normal line and trying to make the argument that the statement "an earthbreaker is a two-handed weapon," overrides what the feat does. Just like your fluff argument, your going down a really bad path. If the section from the normal section overrides the benefit section, then you're going to have to nullify many common feats. I don't think you do this though, instead you'd just have this double standard.

If you have a differing interpretation please share, because at this point, you've made baseless claims without supporting evidence.


thaX wrote:
Uh... you can't weild the oversized Earthbreaker. It is still a Two-Handed weapon even though the character can use it as a One-Handed. Being oversized would bump it to being unwieldy. It pushed it beyond the Two-Handed category.

I've already gone over this several times. While the Earthbreaker is, by default, a 2-h weapon, if you have a feat that lets you treat it as if it were a one-handed weapon (which T&F, as written, does), then it's no longer a matter of trying to wield a 2-h weapon that's one size too big (which would be unwieldable) but a weapon that's mechanically treated as a 1-h weapon and, due to being one size too big, that "effective handiness category" of one-handed is bumped up to two-handed.

This is the same exact logic by which you have the Bastard Sword going the opposite direction which you have so often shot down arbitrarily without taking the appropriate time to actually read and comprehend. The Bastard Sword is a one-handed weapon but, because of special rules that apply to it, it is "effectively treated as a 2-h weapon" if you lack EWP for it. That "effective handiness category" is stepped up for a Bastard Sword larger than your size. If size difference handiness changes didn't apply to the "effective handiness category" but only to the "base handiness category", then a Bastard Sword, even though it has an "effective handiness category" of 2-h without EWP, would still only step up from a base of a 1-h weapon to a 2-h weapon for one step of size difference. Then, as a 2-h weapon, you can wield it in two hands to satisfy the "must wield two-handed if you don't have EWP" clause. But, since that's not the case, we can determine that size step-up and step-down applies to effective handiness category rather than base handiness category. For most cases, the two will be the same; but for special cases as we are discussing in this thread, the two can be different.

By the same token, if a Medium creature with T&F were to use a Small Earthbreaker in their off-hand, it'd count as a Light weapon and give them only -2/-4 penalties for two-weapon fighting (including the additional -2 for an off-size weapon) rather than -4/-4 for wielding two medium-sized Earthbreakers. Additionally, if you have a Medium Earthbreaker as your main-hand and a Small Earthbreaker as your off-hand, you still can apply the same Weapon Focus, Weapon Spec, etc. to both of them.


I long ago stated my opinion on this for PFS so I won't reengage Sub and his camps argument again, since we will never agree, however out of curiosity where is it written that the "fluff" text does not count?

The "fluff" says when wielding an earth breaker and a klar. meaning both must be wielded.

So is it written somewhere that when the two texts conflict that the non-italicized takes precedence? Maybe it is and if so I will fully withdraw from this.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
PRD wrote:

The following format is used for all feat descriptions.

Feat Name: The feat's name also indicates what subcategory, if any, the feat belongs to, and is followed by a basic description of what the feat does.

Prerequisite: A minimum ability score, another feat or feats, a minimum base attack bonus, a minimum number of ranks in one or more skills, or anything else required in order to take the feat. This entry is absent if a feat has no prerequisite. A feat may have more than one prerequisite.

Benefit: What the feat enables the character (“you” in the feat description) to do. If a character has the same feat more than once, its benefits do not stack unless indicated otherwise in the description.

Normal: What a character who does not have this feat is limited to or restricted from doing. If not having the feat causes no particular drawback, this entry is absent.
Special: Additional unusual facts about the feat.

The Benefit line is What the feat enables the character to do. If it's not in the Benefit line, it doesn't count and is only descriptive in nature. That's generally going to be a "common use" description, but may not be exhaustive as to what the feat does. For example, Punishing Kick descriptively refers to a Kick, but the actual Benefit line not only doesn't limit it to Kicks, it doesn't even limit it to Unarmed Strikes; you could deliver a Punishing Kick with a Greatsword.


But if we are playing the intent does not matter game that does not rule out the descriptor.

I would argue that the basic description of what the feat does cannot be ignored because RAW it does not say that the benefit trumps basic description.

Where does it say that it doesn't count? It doesn't so you cannot say it doesn't. You have to find somewhere that says that when the two conflict that one outweighs the other or the argument about RAW and the feat is not ironclad.


MiniGM wrote:

But if we are playing the intent does not matter game that does not rule out the descriptor.

I would argue that the basic description of what the feat does cannot be ignored because RAW it does not say that the benefit trumps basic description.

Where does it say that it doesn't count? It doesn't so you cannot say it doesn't. You have to find somewhere that says that when the two conflict that one outweighs the other or the argument about RAW and the feat is not ironclad.

if I may ask, using what your saying how might you rule this scenario?

------------------------------------------------
Sword and Pistol
You effortlessly pair melee and ranged weaponry.

Prerequisite: Dex 13, Point-Blank Shot, Rapid Shot, Snap Shot, Two-Weapon Fighting, base attack bonus +6.

Benefit: When you use the Two-Weapon Fighting feat while wielding a melee weapon and a crossbow or firearm, your attacks with the crossbow or firearm provoke no attacks of opportunity from foes that you threaten with your melee weapon.

Normal: Making a ranged attack provokes attacks of opportunity.
-------------------------------------------------

You have 3 people who want to use this feat and you're the GM.

1. The first person states that they'll be using it with a sling. If you read the fluff section it makes no mention of the type of ranged weapon. It just says that you effortlessly pair melee and ranged weaponry.

2. The second person thinks that it should only apply to his pistol wielding gunslinger. I mean sure it says crossbows in the benefits section, but the intent probably meant only guns by the original writer since the feats called Sword and pistol. Furthermore, he thinks it should only be used with a sword.

3. Person 3 just wants a light crossbow/dagger wielding guy and thinks that it's allowed, because that's what the benefit sections says.

Now obviously person 1 & 2 are being belligerent, but the point is that this feat's benefit only makes sense if you go by the benefits section. There are many more feats like this too, and that's because I'd be willing to bet that the Devs focus the rules section of their feat writing within the benefit section, and aren't mysteriously trying to sneak rules into other areas.

Now, I think Kazaan's point should be clear enough. his quote shows us where we go to find the actual RAW for the feat. If I'm hearing you correctly, your pretty much making an argument that nothing is RAW. I say that because you seem to be implying that because there's no part of the book that says "THE BENEFIT SECTION IS THE ONLY SECTION YOU SHOULD READ IN REGARDS TO WHAT IS RAW", that any interpretation is possible in determining what the RAW is. If any interpretation is valid then, it is pretty much synonymous with stating that there is no RAW.

Now of course I don't think you actually believe the argument your making. I feel like your point is to muddy the waters so that you can say that we're all equally right. That's fine, but I'd rather you make an actual argument for the RAW in this case. We can always pop over to the general discussion section to discuss the RAI, but I have a feeling there wouldn't be much disagreement over that.

Sczarni

Starfinder Charter Superscriber

Fluff vs. Crunch comes up a lot. I can't think of a quote to provide you. It's just known that there's "flavor text" (fluff) and "rules text" (crunch).

Good example would be a Race's entry in the CRB. Everything before the Racial Traits section is "fluff", everything after is "crunch".


I know what they mean. I was just saying that if we are ignoring intent and obly going w what is written then it matters what the official ruling is

Grand Lodge

PFS follows RAW, not RAI, MiniGM. If I showed up at a table with a crossbow-wielding Sword and Pistol feat user, would you ban my character because the fluff (name of the feat) says it has to be a pistol? Fluff is not the rule. Fluff is flavor. Fluff is stuff to immerse you in the world. Fluff does not dictate what a feat does or its limitations. Intent is irrelevant unless it has been codified by the Paizo team in errata or FAQs.


Show me where that is said demon. Show me where it says that the description of the feat is not as important as the benefit and I will say you are right but you can't.

This entire debate is because someone wants to do something obviously against the spirit of the feat. Fine the argument is based on what is says. Fine. Now show me where it is written(because what is written is your argument) that the description if the feat is not as important as the benefit.

It appears that you cannot do it which leads me to revert to common sense, in the absence if an official ruling.

The whole argument is ridiculous in my opinion, which is why I have taken it to the next level.

Webstore Gninja Minion

Removed some posts and their replies. Please be civil to each other.


Jeez we are getting uncivil? That is my cue to remove myself. I will continue to see what comes of the debate and if someone can post what I say you cannot but I will not post more.

You will agree or not, but I just cannot believe that we are arguing something like this. Dc 5 common sense. I mean where do we stop without using common sense? That really is, in my opinion the only thing we can use when there is a debate which is not going to be settled by the devs. I would bet 100 gold that if we all faq'd it it would come back no reply required.

Shadow Lodge

I haven't read the entire thread, but I figure I may as well throw in my 2cp. If a character wants to burn 4 feats, 1 of which he won't ever use, to fit his concept of using 2 massive hammers, then I'd allow him to. He only gets 1/2 the benefits of T&F, and doesn't benefit from Weapon Focus[Klar], and he takes a -4 penalty on attack rolls. I'd even advise he do this instead of going Titan Mauler and taking the -6 to attacks.


Ok, maybe lets look at this another way:

A Klar is a shield, meaning that you must use your hand to hold it, unlike a buckler, which straps to your arm. This means that while using Thunder and Fang traditionally you are only holding up the Earthbreaker with one hand.

So if I go up against a Disarm Monk, and he kicks my Klar out of my hand does the Earthbreaker magically get heavy?

The point is that I have learned how to hold a very heavy weapon with one hand, be it through some technique, grip or stance. What I have in my other hand is irrelevant, the fact is I have learned to use that Earthbreaker one handed.

Sczarni

Starfinder Charter Superscriber

MiniGM, you're avoiding the example people are trying to use to answer your question.

Q: Would you allow someone with the Sword and Pistol feat to use a crossbow?

The Exchange Owner - D20 Hobbies

3 people marked this as a favorite.
Sub_Zero wrote:
baseless claims without supporting evidence

Which is the same thing you have done. You claim that you are entitled to ignore the italicized section and the Normal line but you don't give any rule showing you are right in doing so.

George Demonspawn wrote:
PFS follows RAW, not RAI, MiniGM. Intent is irrelevant unless it has been codified by the Paizo team in errata or FAQs.

Not quite true for PFS. It follows RAW, but their definition of RAW is like mine. For example there was lots of RAW debate on the double Dex to damage builds due to errors in the printing. It was said that it wasn't a legal build in PFS and anyone using it would be considered a dead character (no rebuild) when it gets fixed. But there wasn't errata nor FAQ until the errata landed last month.

They follow RAW where if you have hints how it should work then you follow those.

Diminuendo wrote:
The point is that I have learned how to hold a very heavy weapon with one hand, be it through some technique, grip or stance. What I have in my other hand is irrelevant, the fact is I have learned to use that Earthbreaker one handed.

Or the point is you learned to hold an Earthbreaker in two hands while also gripping a Klar in the second hand?

Nefreet wrote:
Q: Would you allow someone with the Sword and Pistol feat to use a crossbow?

It is less avoiding and more of not being the same issue.

Yes someone can use the crossbow.


Abyssian wrote:
A History of Ashes wrote:

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 skipped a lot of comment just to give a guess about why the edited the original writing, since I feel people are just giving the same arguments again and again.

The problem with treating the combo as having a double-weapon, it this:

PRD wrote:

Double Weapons: Dire flails, gnome hooked hammers, and two-bladed swords are examples of double weapons. A character can fight with both ends of a double weapon as if fighting with two weapons, but she incurs all the normal attack penalties associated with two-weapon combat, just as though the character were wielding a one-handed weapon and a light weapon.

The character can also choose to use a double weapon two-handed, attacking with only one end of it. A creature wielding a double weapon in one hand can't use it as a double weapon—only one end of the weapon can be used in any given round.

You would have an earthbreaker you could used two-handed while using the klar. IMO, the dev don't want that. Sad they screwed up the new definition.

So, I think the intent isn't to let you use 2 earthbreakers. In home games with a cool GM, I think there is still no problem to make your 2 earthbreakers style. Still, I think it will probably be edited in PFS, prohibiting the combo.

Sidenote: IMO, Paizo is trying to avoid something like using a large two-handed weapon when you're medium. This is why the Titan Mauler and the bastard sword are written like that. When you would use some combo like that, they'll make you know, I'm sure by publishing something designed for it. This is absolutely not the case here.


Nefreet wrote:
Q: Would you allow someone with the Sword and Pistol feat to use a crossbow?

It is less avoiding and more of not being the same issue.

Yes someone can use the crossbow.

Sorry it is the same question:

Fluff (RAI)
earthbreaker and klar
sword and pistol

Benifit (RAW)
Use earthbreaker one handed
use crossbow or firearm

By minigm's logic in pfs you can't use crossbows because the intent has to be factored into the benifit. If his argument doesn't apply to all feats then it can't apply to only the feats he want's.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Good Morning MiniGM,

Despite the fact that I still think it's being purposefully stubborn to demand that to follow the RAW you need to have a rule stating to do just that, I went ahead and asked James his thoughts on the matter.

James Jacobs wrote:
Sub_Zero wrote:

Hello Mr. Jacobs,

I was wondering what your thoughts on what takes precedence when deciding the RAW of a feat. The benefit section that lays out what the feat does, or the description part that follows the name of the feat? If the two come into conflict, which one should we follow? I ask to settle a dispute where the two are in conflict.

The benefit section is what tells you how the feat works. The description/flavor text at the start of the feat is just that—flavor. If there's a conflict, that's something the rules team needs to know about, since there shouldn't be conflicts there at all since it's flavor text versus rules text.

So there's is my evidence that you asked that indicates that the benefit section lays out what the feat does, and the flavor is just flavor.

So, can we all agree at this point that the RAW allows the earthbreaker to be wielded one-handed while the RAI is obviously meant to only imply that it can be one-handed with a Klar?

Liberty's Edge

Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber
Kazaan wrote:
thaX wrote:
Uh... you can't weild the oversized Earthbreaker. It is still a Two-Handed weapon even though the character can use it as a One-Handed. Being oversized would bump it to being unwieldy. It pushed it beyond the Two-Handed category.

I've already gone over this several times. While the Earthbreaker is, by default, a 2-h weapon, if you have a feat that lets you treat it as if it were a one-handed weapon (which T&F, as written, does), then it's no longer a matter of trying to wield a 2-h weapon that's one size too big (which would be unwieldable) but a weapon that's mechanically treated as a 1-h weapon and, due to being one size too big, that "effective handiness category" of one-handed is bumped up to two-handed.

It is treated as a One Handed Weapon by the character, the weapon itself never changes.

It is still a large sized maul that is a two handed weapon. A medium creature can't wield it effectively, not because of anything to do with a feat, but because the weapon's weight and size make it seem like a big pole with a barrel on the end.

The Bastard Sword is made specifically to be use in a manner to be a versatile weapon (Something that the Edition that Shall Not Be Named did right for small vs. Medium creatures and weapons) and the rules have an exception for that weapon. That also has been mentioned in this very thread.

Wield two of these big ol' hammers all you want, but using an oversized "Large" one with a "Medium" character, not by Rules as they are Written.

Grand Lodge

thaX wrote:

It is treated as a One Handed Weapon by the character, the weapon itself never changes.

It is still a large sized maul that is a two handed weapon. A medium creature can't wield it effectively, not because of anything to do with a feat, but because the weapon's weight and size make it seem like a big pole with a barrel on the end.

The Bastard Sword is made specifically to be use in a manner to be a versatile weapon (Something that the Edition that Shall Not Be Named did right for small vs. Medium creatures and weapons) and the rules have an exception for that weapon. That also has been mentioned in this very thread.

Wield two of these big ol' hammers all you want, but using an oversized "Large" one with a "Medium" character, not by Rules as they are Written.

Weapons have no inherent "handedness". I can wield two small earth breakers all day. But how can I do this if earth breakers are inherently 2H? Because they aren't. If I can wield a small earth breaker in one hand, I can wield a medium earth breaker in two. If I can wield a medium earth breaker in one hand, then I can wield a large earth breaker in two.

Liberty's Edge

Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber
crb 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 the 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 fas 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 is still a two-handed weapon, even if the character treats it as something else when he used the weapon. He can't wield one a size category larger than himself. Wield two of them as the feat allows, sure, but not a larger one, two handed or otherwise.

edit... this is on page 144 if your wanting to look at it yourself.

Sczarni

blackbloodtroll wrote:

This idea, that choosing a mechanically inferior choice, is the act of power gamer, is incomprehensible.

This is a fair enough response, and it got me thinking. Is choosing to use 2 Earthbreakers mechanically inferior to using the intended Earthbreaker & Klar combo?

So I did the math. Turns out it's not actually inferior, at least not at this point in time with this particular build.

The universal assumptions are as follows:

Human, Fighter 5 (Vanilla)
I chose 5th level for two reasons; not having to worrying about an iterative attack simplifies the math, and most martial classes will have T&F up and running by 5th if they are Human (which traditional Shoanti's are).
Feats (7 total): Double Slice, Power Attack, Thunder & Fang, Two-Weapon Fighting, Weapon Focus (Earthbreak), Weapon Focus (Klar), Weapon Specialization (Earthbreaker).
STR: 18, DEX: 15
Weapon Training: Earthbreaker (Hammers?)
Gear:Using standard WBL guidelines the T&F fighter would likely have a +1 Earthbreaker and a +1 Klar. I gave the T&T fighter 2 x +1 Earthbreakers. This is affordable at this level but does deviate from the recommended allocation of 25% wealth to weapons, 25% to defense etc. with about 50% of wealth going to weapons.
In a real game the T&F fighter would probably have a +1 AC Klar that would also lend a +1 to attack (on account of being masterwork), but not to damage. However I wanted to keep the playing field as level as possible for the DPR, so two +1 weapons it is for each build.

The math:

I used the standard DPR formula that is used in the DPR Olympic threads. Or at least it was the standard, I haven’t been back there in a while to see if the math has been updated or changed. The formula is as follows;
h = Chance to hit, expressed as a percentage
d = Damage per hit. Average damage is assumed.
s = Precision damage per hit (or other damage that isn't multiplied on a crit). Average damage is again assumed.
t = Chance to roll a critical threat, expressed as a percentage.
c = Critical hit bonus damage. x2 = 1, x3 = 2, x4 = 3.

They can be expressed in any of the following formulas;
hd+tchd
hd(1+tc)
h(d+s)+tchd

Please note that the chance to hit (h) is determined using CR appropriate AC. A CR 5 monster has an average or expected armor class of 18. Note that Earthbreakers get an extra +1 to hit for Weapon Training. It makes sense for both Fighters to use their 1st weapon training for Earthbreakers, it just benefits one more than the other.
Damage uses the average for the dice (Earthbreaker is 7 dmg, Klar is 3.5), + STR mod (+4 for both weapons due to Double Slice), +1 Enhancement , +2 Specialization (Earthbreakers only) +1 Weapon Training (Earthbreakers only)
Avg for Earthbreakers: 15 (7+4+1+2+1)
Avg for Klar: 8.5 (3.5+4+1)

When using Power Attack I added +4 to the main hand weapon and +2 to the off-hand weapon (regardless of whether that weapon is an Earthbreaker or Klar).

The results:

The Thunder & Fang fighter, using the Earthbreaker & Klar does an average DPR of;
Without Power Attack: 16.35
With Power Attack: 17.27

The Thunder & Thunder fighter, using two Earthbreakers does an average DPR of;
Without Power Attack: 18.5
With Power Attack: 17.82

My Conclusions:

I was actually a bit surprised that the traditional Thunder & Fang fighter did less damage, albeit just barely. Having done DPR formulas previously I had noticed that +1 to attack rolls often resulted in more than +1 to damage. Thus I assumed that the additional -2/-2 (for a total of -4/-4) to attack suffered by the Thunder & Thunder fighter for using 2 x 1 handed weapons would cause their DPR to plummet. It didn’t.

I wasn’t surpised that Power Attack resulted in a damage loss for the Thunder & Thunder fighter. Eventually, the cumulative negatives to hit catch up to him or her. So the T&T build can probably skip taking Power Attack (better yet, take it as a bonus feat early and retrain it later. 2-handing a single Earthbreaker until you get Thunder & Fang up and running is probably a good idea). This nets you back one of your two wasted feat slots.

Speaking of 2-handing a single Earthbreaker, I will eventually do the math for a straight 2-handed fighter. I expect that the elimination of TWF penalties and additional static damage from 1.5x STR and 3:1 Power Attack will result in a lot of damage... Taking that line of thinking 1 step further, using Thunder & Fang to try and wield a Large Earthbreaker Two-handed (assuming it’s even possible, by RAW) will most likely do the highest DPR of any of the Thunder & Fang builds... That’s my assumption at least.

But that’s Math for another day... Or another person!

Grand Lodge

Krodjin, that seems pretty balanced actually. 2 average damage more per round for losing the Klar to AC and a dead feat. Additionally, the benefit of the Klar is increased in certain Fighter archetypes like Viking where your Klar's AC is buffed further and Weapon Specialization is lost. All in all, it seems as if it balanced across both eventualities.

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Companion Subscriber

@Krodjin:

How does this compare to Titan Mauler with two Earthbreakers?

Sczarni

@George: I hadn't even considered the Viking when I did this. Losing specialization would narrow the slight gap for sure. I had assumed that if I was taking this build further along the Fighter would have enough feats to take Weapon Specialization (Klar), thereby narrowing the gap eventually...

The sword & shield Ranger would also get a lot more mileage out of the Klar when he picks up Shield Master at 6th level. All-in-all if you are doing a Thunder & Fang Ranger build I think EB & Klar would be waaay better than EB & EB.

@BBT: I have no idea... I'll have to re-read Titan Mauler and see what changes I have to make. If it's simple substitutions it should be easy enough for me to figure out. I'll have a look at that tonight, or if both kids decide to nap today I may get to it sooner.

EDIT: Just thought I would add. After doing the math and seeing how close the mechanical aspect is, my aversion to using two Earthbreakers has softened. I still believe it goes against the spirit of the rule; but I'd be more inclined to allow it now that I know how even the builds appear to be.

I'm still not sure that the RAW would permit someone with T&F to use a large sized Earthbreaker in 2-hands. But I do agree that the way T&F is written, a strict reading of the benefit section allows two earthbreakers as 1-handed weapons.

Grand Lodge

From a pure flavor standpoint:
I honestly can't see why a tribe of Thunder and Fang wielders would never develop the ability to wield two earth breakers or larger sized earth breakers to take advantage of their clear superiority with the weapon. The ancestors did it that way, but some young upstart tries to use double thunder or large thunder and carve out his own niche. Seems interesting for a concept build.

Additionally, I am still unsure how a 2H hammer with a klar on one of the hands gripping it could be used effectively. Usually the hands of a warhammer are never close enough to the target to try and make a stabbing motion. Then again, the picture of the Thunder and Fang user in the book is not using two hands on his earth breaker, so maybe they scrapped it for flavor reasons.

After seeing the comparison by Krodjin, I definitely cannot fathom why anyone would object to double earth breakers.

Liberty's Edge

Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber

Krodjin, by RAW, one would not be able to use a large sized Earthbreaker as a medium character. This feat makes no difference on that front. See my post above where I quoted the CRB.

I kinda figured that the two different way to use this feat was about evenly matched. I would lament the loss of AC from the Klar when using the two huge friggen hammers.

Sczarni

@thaX: Seems pretty clear to me, but I believe it was up for debate earlier. Not sure if that's been resolved, but I follow your logic path on this one.

@BBT: I took a look at Titan Mauler. I'm a bit confused. It doesn't appear that the Titan Mauler requires Thunder & Fang to wield 2 x Earthbreakers (size appropriate ones). a Titan Mauler could use them with a total -6/-6 could they not?

It appears that T&F would reduce the penalties to -4/-4 but you're spending 2 feats and making your 2nd level class feature obsolete for an effective +2/+2 to attack... Seems a steep price, but I'll run the numbers in a bit.


thaX wrote:
Wield two of these big ol' hammers all you want, but using an oversized "Large" one with a "Medium" character, not by Rules as they are Written.

What part of "that's incorrect" is so hard to understand here? It's the size step-up that makes the weapon unwieldable. If the size steps up from "effectively one-handed" to "effectively two-handed", it never enters the "unwieldable" range. If a 2-h weapon one size larger than you is inherently unwieldable, no matter what ability you have, explain the Redcap, a Small Fey that wields a Medium Two-Handed Scythe. If, as you purport, a Small creature treats a Medium 2-h weapon as inherently unwieldable, no matter what ability they have that removes size-step penalties, then even the Redcap's Massive Weapons ability wouldn't allow it to wield a Medium Scythe. And yet, it does just that. Do you know why? Because a Medium Scythe isn't inherently Unwieldable for a Small creature; it's the size step-up going from 2-h to "unwieldable" that makes it so. Redcaps have an ability that removes that size step-up along with the attack roll penalty, thus the Scythe is still counted as a 2-h weapon for them. Likewise, a Medium creature doesn't count a Large Earthbreaker as "unwieldable" until the size step-up happens. But if an ability causes the Earthbreaker to be counted, effectively, as a 1-h weapon, the step-up is taking it from 1-h to 2-h, not 2-h to "unwieldable". It can't be explained any more clearly; your position has been logically refuted in its entirety... let it go.


PRD
Redcap:

Heavy Weapons (Ex) A redcap can wield weapons sized for Medium creatures without penalty.

The redcap has a special ability that allows for them to wield medium weapons. So there specific rule overrides the general rule.

The general rule is that a 2-handed weapon for a medium creature that increases one size step (making the weapon something other than two handed) can't be wielded. crb 144.

Wielding an weapon one or two handed does not make it a one or two handed weapon. the weopns are listed as light, one-handed, or two-handed by the wielders size medium.

a medium long sword is not considered two-handed when it is wielded with two hands, but it does become a two-handed weapon when we increase the size catogory one step.

a medium bastard sword is a one-handed weapon that can be used two handed, when we make if a large bastard sword (1 Step up in size) it becomes a two-handed weapon.

A medium earthbreaker is a two-handed weapon, the feat lets it be used in one hand. if we make it a large earthbreaker (again 1 step up) it becomes unwieldable

Sczarni

blackbloodtroll wrote:

@Krodjin:

How does this compare to Titan Mauler with two Earthbreakers?

Okay, I had a chance to do some math. Bear in mind I've never played a Titan Mauler so I am not 100% certain I'm interpreting their class features correctly. My questions to you above remain - so please forgive me if I have missed something.

The assumptions:

Okay, so I used the same spreadsheet I did for the fighter. I deleted the additional damage from Weapon Specialization and the additional +1 Hit/Damage from Weapon Training. I used the same WBL and weapon enhancements as the fighter (2 x +1 weapons). I used the same STR/DEX (18 & 15 respectively), but because of Rage I used an effective STR of 22 (+6 modifier).

Titan Mauler Class abilities & Feats:

Alright, I felt Big Game Hunter was a bit arbitrary. Because my comparison takes place at level 5 I did not use BGH in my math. Ignoring it will make it easier to compare to the Fighters in my other post, but if you want to include it will probably add between 0.9 - 1.1 DPR.

Jotungrip seems to me like it's being wasted in a Thunder & Fang build. What I did was compared two versions of Titan Mauler; one that uses Thunder & Fang, and one that doesn't. See feats below.

Massive Weapons wasn't included in my comparison. I presume that a traditional Thunder & Fang build that uses an Earthbreaker & Klar could use a Large Klar with a medium Earthbreaker which would up their off-hand damage slightly (1d6 < 1d8 = +1 average damage). However, using a medium Earthbreaker in their off-hand is still 2.5 more average damage over a large Klar.

Evade Reach did not factor in at all.

FEATS
This posed a bit of a problem. A 5th level Human Barbarian only has 4 feat slots. Decisions were made;

Thunder & Fang build
WF: Earthbreaker, WF: Klar, TWF, Thunder & Fang.

Jotungrip build
WF: Earthbreaker, Power Attack, TWF, Double Slice.

The results:

The Thunder & Fang build (but using 2 Earthbreakers) did the following;
DPR: 16.5
DPR w/Power Attack: 17.05*
DPR w/Double Slice: 18.48*
*Hypothetical; a Human Barbarian going T&F doesn't have enough feats to take either Double Slice or Power Attack by 5th level.

The Jotungrip Build (I call it that because he/she can wield 2 Earthbreakers on account of the class feature of the same name. Albeit at a -6/-6 instead of the more modest -4/-4 used by T&F);
DPR: 15.4
DPR w/Power Attack: 13.64

Conclusion:

Who would have guessed that Double Slice would add more DPR than Power Attack? I have to be honest, I didn't see that coming... I only did the calculation at the very end just out of curiosity. Needless to say if I made this T&F build I would take Double Slice before Power Attack.

Other than the 'Jotungrip' build w/Power Attack (which seems like a waste of a feat), all of these variations (Fighter or Barbarian) are pretty darn close in DPR (assuming I have interpreted the Titan Mauler correctly).

I still want to do the straight-up 2-handed warrior with an Earthbreaker as a baseline... But I think my next set of math will be a Ranger using Sword & Shield combat style building towards Thunder & Fang.

Liberty's Edge

Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber
Kazaan wrote:
thaX wrote:
Wield two of these big ol' hammers all you want, but using an oversized "Large" one with a "Medium" character, not by Rules as they are Written.
What part of "that's incorrect" is so hard to understand here?
This is what I am trying to get across. This feat does not change the weapon... lets see a statement involving the REDCAP example...
kazaan wrote:


Because a Medium Scythe isn't inherently Unwieldable for a Small creature; it's the size step-up going from 2-h to "unwieldable" that makes it so.

See, this is where you miss apply the rules. It isn't the creature or the ability that determines the size step-up. It is the size of the weapon vs. the size of the character.

Thank you to Nevan Oaks for the quick REDCAP explanation on why he can wield a medium Scythe. (or any other medium weapon, come right down to it)

The Earthbreaker is always gonna be a Two-Handed weapon. How the character/creature wields it will not change that.

151 to 200 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