PFS - Thunder and Fang with 2 Earth Breakers


Rules Questions

301 to 350 of 904 << first < prev | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | next > last >>
Liberty's Edge

Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber
Diminuendo wrote:


Your right, the feat does say that the Earthbreaker only counts as one handed for the sake of Strength modifier and hands needed to wield...

OH WAIT!-

Thats a very nice house rule you have made there,

So you ignore everything I said because the feat doesn't spell it out for you?

back a few pages there is FAQ's quoted that actually goes into that. This is how the Bastard Sword got into the conversation. There is this phrase that is being gloomed onto. "...And so on..."

It was referring to various damage types and saying that they are used as the weapon is being wielded as. It was not saying "The weapon has shrunk down to being a one handed weapon."

The EB does not shrink. It doesn't change. It does not morph like the character is a Power Ranger.


thaX wrote:

There is a difference between wielding a weapon that is made for you, sized for your particular build, and one that is made for one bigger than yourself.

The weapon actual size never changes. That a character can use his expertise to swing it around like a Longsword doesn't mean he can take a larger version and two hand the sucker.

See, I have what some call an active imagination. When I see the larger version trying to be swung by a character, I see a little man hugging a telephone pole with a big cement block on top. He barley has enough umph to do a downward strike, and grunts to lift it back up.

While I won't weigh in on the actual discussion (both sides are making really good arguments so I'll stand back for now).

I did want to say that this line of argument seems like it could be a double edged sword.

For the exact reason you listed couldn't you say the exact same thing about the bastard sword? I mean just because you used special training to learn how to wield the bastard sword in one hand, how does that make you specially better trained to wield the larger version? Now obviously the RAW of it is that a bastard sword can be wielded using the larger version with the feat.

My only point here is, this particular point seems like it can hurt your argument as much as it helps it.

night all :)


thaX wrote:
The EB does not shrink. It doesn't change. It does not morph like the character is a Power Ranger.

you keep saying the Earthbreaker doesn't change size, has anyone argued it has?


I see a habbit of you arguing anything but the rules. Making arguements that are so unreasonable that someone else can't argue against them.

thaX wrote:
See, I have what some call an active imagination.

Translation: The rules work this way because I'm creative

thaX wrote:
So you ignore everything I said because the feat doesn't spell it out for you?

Translation: No the feat didn't say that but I said that, so it's the rules.

thaX wrote:
Well, we all know why a bigger weapon is wanted. It has nothing to do with character building.

Translation: Your trying to cheat, your argument is invalid.

Liberty's Edge

Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber
Quote:

you keep saying the Earthbreaker doesn't change size, has anyone argued it has?

Yes and no. The way that is perceived to allow a larger version of the weapon to be wielded means that it isn't the same as it was. What is really happening is that the character has figured a way to wield the weapon differently, perhaps using his forearms to brace the weapon into a one-handed stance, or swing it in a way to balance it for one hand.

Unlike the Bastard Sword, the Earthbreaker doesn't actually act any differently because of it's properties. The point of having the weapons be unwieldy after becoming beyond the designation of Two Handed is so that there are not ants with colossal weapons knocking out giants.

The character treats it as One Handed, if he chooses to do so, but the weapon is still Two Handed, the actual designation never changes. Just how it is used is.


thaX wrote:
Quote:

you keep saying the Earthbreaker doesn't change size, has anyone argued it has?

Yes and no. The way that is perceived to allow a larger version of the weapon to be wielded means that it isn't the same as it was. What is really happening is that the character has figured a way to wield the weapon differently, perhaps using his forearms to brace the weapon into a one-handed stance, or swing it in a way to balance it for one hand.

Unlike the Bastard Sword, the Earthbreaker doesn't actually act any differently because of it's properties. The point of having the weapons be unwieldy after becoming beyond the designation of Two Handed is so that there are not ants with colossal weapons knocking out giants.

The character treats it as One Handed, if he chooses to do so, but the weapon is still Two Handed, the actual designation never changes. Just how it is used is.

ok, that was relly well explained; but the opposing arguement is that the weapons designation does change when wielded by a character with the Thunder and Fang feat. Whilest the weapon itself has not changed, the way the warrior wields it has, which changes properties of the weapon in the same way the Improved Critical feat would

Liberty's Edge

Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber

I know. What I am saying, my point, is that trying to go from BFH to HAM is beyond the scope of the feat. Double wielding the suckers is somewhat of an interpretation of the written rule that works, in my mind, but being that ant wielding the rubber tree plant?

He has trouble just knocking it down.


thaX wrote:

I know. What I am saying, my point, is that trying to go from BFH to HAM is beyond the scope of the feat. Double wielding the suckers is somewhat of an interpretation of the written rule that works, in my mind, but being that ant wielding the rubber tree plant?

He has trouble just knocking it down.

Thus, your argument is based entirely on RAI and we go back to the "Does the Sword and Pistol feat apply if I'm wielding a Mace and a Crossbow?" argument. Thunder and Fang gives three separate and segregated benefits.

1) You can wield an Earthbreaker as a one-handed weapon.
2) You retain shield bonus to AC when you make off-hand attacks with a Klar while wielding an Earthbreaker one-handed in your main-hand.
3) You can treat Klar as light weapons for determining TWF penalties.

You can wield the Earthbreaker as a one-handed weapon regardless of whether you're using the Klar. You could be using a Heavy Shield; you could be using a Tower Shield. You could be a Magus using Spell combat. You could be a Two-Weapon Warrior wielding a Longsword in your main hand and an Earthbreaker in your off-hand, using Improved Balance to only take -2/-2 TWF penalties instead of -4/-4. You could wield a Small Earthbreaker as a light weapon if you so choose instead of as a one-handed weapon (though, that has far fewer advantages than going the other way).

Only the second part specifies outright that it only applies when using the Earthbreaker. You can't get that benefit if you wield, say, a Longsword and a Klar. You can't wield the Klar on its own and still get the "retain bonus to AC" effect. Strictly speaking, if you choose not to TWF to get additional attacks, or you TWF using some weapon other than the Earthbreaker as your main-hand (ie. Unarmed Strike, Boulder Helmet, etc), you also wouldn't retain your shield bonus.

Lastly, you can treat Klar as light weapons to determine TWF penalties, which is a third distinct entry. No matter what kind of weapons you wield, a Longsword + Klar, Unarmed Strike + Klar, or Earthbreaker + Klar, you only take -2/-2 penalties when the Klar is your off-hand weapon. Without this, the Klar is a one-handed weapon and, thus, you'd take -4/-4 if you attack with it from your off-hand.

Regarding how you imagine it, the Earthbreaker is a weapon about as big as a person. Here is a picture of a character with both Earthbreaker and Klar. Thunder and Fang would allow him to wield that hammer in one hand. No gimmicky or "corner case" or anything... straight up he can swing that thing around one-handed and the other hand is free to use that Klar however he chooses. Maybe it's through just shear force, maybe by how he holds it (closer to the head rather than in the middle), using momentum and gravity to power the swing (swing it more sideways and use centrifugal force), some combination of all these, who knows. But if you can visualize it in the "standard" method of wielding, there's no good reason you can't visualize it using two of them and also no good reason you can't visualize it having one that's bigger, but using the same basic principals (hold it closer to the head, swing it differently, raw physical training, whatever).

Sczarni

Kazaan wrote:
Without this, the Klar is a one-handed weapon and, thus, you'd take -4/-4 if you attack with it from your off-hand.

Just to muddy the waters even further, I don't know if this is correct by RAW.

Klar wrote:

Benefit: A traditional klar counts as a light wooden shield with armor spikes. A metal klar counts as a light steel shield with armor spikes.

Weapon Feature(s): special

Shield, Light; Wooden or Steel wrote:

Benefit:

Wooden or Steel: Wooden and steel shields offer the same basic protection, though they respond differently to some spells and effects.

Shield Bash Attacks: You can bash an opponent with a light shield. See “shield, light” on Table: Weapons for the damage dealt by a shield bash. Used this way, a light shield is a martial bludgeoning weapon. For the purpose of penalties on attack rolls, treat a light shield as a light weapon. If you use your shield as a weapon, you lose its Armor Class bonus until your next turn. An enhancement bonus on a shield does not improve the effectiveness of a shield bash made with it, but the shield can be made into a magic weapon in its own right.

This reiterates why trying to use the rules as written without applying the intent is fraught with folly. You dissect it enough; you lose sight of what the rule as a whole is trying to say.

I'm not directing that at you Kazaan, I'm referring to us (the forum community) as a whole.
The rest of your post has very good points - in fact the point you're making about the Klar being a one handed weapon is a good one (it clearly says what it says, and Ibelieve the Klar is intended to be treated as a one handed weapon), but that's not what the rest of the rules say. The Klar itself could use some tidying up... I mean, "a light shield with armor spikes? What up with that?

The Exchange Owner - D20 Hobbies

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Krodjin wrote:
use the rules as written without applying the intent is fraught with folly. You dissect it enough; you lose sight of what the rule as a whole is trying to say.

This is all too common, and there are more than a few frustrated developer posts referring to this issue.

They write the rules to be interpreted in one way. This holy grail quest of the "one true RAW" doesn't even lead to one RAW. Many rules sentences have multiple possible valid and defend-able interpretations that are RAW.

Liberty's Edge

Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber
Quote:
But if you can visualize it in the "standard" method of wielding, there's no good reason you can't visualize it using two of them and also no good reason you can't visualize it having one that's bigger, but using the same basic principals (hold it closer to the head, swing it differently, raw physical training, whatever).

I agree that the feat leaves room to double wield the Earthbreaker (at a -4/-4 with TWF) and that you would loss the AC bonus if you don't use the Klar with the EB.

But the bigger EB is still a Huge Ass Maul, a telephone pole with a cement foundation block. However the character can wield the normal sized EB, the HAM is just beyond his ability to wield. (It goes beyond the disignation of Two Handed)

Dark Archive

thaX wrote:
But the bigger EB is still a Huge Ass Maul, a telephone pole with a cement foundation block. However the character can wield the normal sized EB, the HAM is just beyond his ability to wield. (It goes beyond the disignation of Two Handed)

Except it doesn't go beyond the Two-Handed designation. If an Earth Breaker is One-Handed, then a Large Earth Breaker is Two-Handed. One step up. It doesn't magically jump two steps.

Liberty's Edge

Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber

It is only treated as a one handed weapon by the character for damage effects and how it is wielded. When it is larger, the character is now two handing a weapon that is alread a two handed weapon and a step up in size catigory. He can not do it.

It is only treated as a one handed weapon when the character wields it in that way. That is why the Bastard Sword was being looked at in relation to this, but it and a couple of other weapons are exceptions to this rule.

Looking at the picture of the book cover, just image if it was twice as big. Maybe in a fantastical cartoon where character fling about whole warships with the flick of a finger, but there are limits in the game that prevents such sillyness.


So as someone who is still unsure of whether the Large Earthbreaker is legal to use, I thought it might be helpful to summarize the arguments as I see them thus far.

Side 1:
- The earthbreaker counts as being one handed with the feat
- The step up in size cares about what you consider the weapon to be

Side 2:
- The earthbreaker is designated as being two-handed
- The step up in size doesn't care what you consider the weapon to be

This is the simplest breakdown that I see of the two sides thus far. (from my perspective anyway).


Krodjin wrote:
Kazaan wrote:
Without this, the Klar is a one-handed weapon and, thus, you'd take -4/-4 if you attack with it from your off-hand.

Just to muddy the waters even further, I don't know if this is correct by RAW.

Klar wrote:

Benefit: A traditional klar counts as a light wooden shield with armor spikes. A metal klar counts as a light steel shield with armor spikes.

Weapon Feature(s): special

Shield, Light; Wooden or Steel wrote:

Benefit:

Wooden or Steel: Wooden and steel shields offer the same basic protection, though they respond differently to some spells and effects.

Shield Bash Attacks: You can bash an opponent with a light shield. See “shield, light” on Table: Weapons for the damage dealt by a shield bash. Used this way, a light shield is a martial bludgeoning weapon. For the purpose of penalties on attack rolls, treat a light shield as a light weapon. If you use your shield as a weapon, you lose its Armor Class bonus until your next turn. An enhancement bonus on a shield does not improve the effectiveness of a shield bash made with it, but the shield can be made into a magic weapon in its own right.

This reiterates why trying to use the rules as written without applying the intent is fraught with folly. You dissect it enough; you lose sight of what the rule as a whole is trying to say.

I'm not directing that at you Kazaan, I'm referring to us (the forum community) as a whole.
The rest of your post has very good points - in fact the point you're making about the Klar being a one handed weapon is a good one (it clearly says what it says, and Ibelieve the Klar is intended to be treated as a one handed weapon), but that's not what the rest of the rules say. The Klar itself could use some tidying up... I mean, "a light shield with armor spikes? What up with that?

It counts as a light shield defensively, but it's listed as a one-handed weapon, not a light weapon. So it's a one-handed weapon to attack, but counts as only a light shield for bonus to AC. By contrast, the Heavy Shield is also a one-handed weapon, but gives +2 Shield bonus rather than just +1. In other words, they took the oversized shield spikes from a Heavy Shield and stuck them on a Light Shield instead. No contradiction.

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Companion Subscriber

You cannot add unwritten restrictions to the feat.

This "damage effects and how it is wielded only" caveat, is not written within the feat.

You cannot add what you like, then call it RAW.

You can only call it your opinion of the RAI.

Liberty's Edge

Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber

BBT? I assume you are responding to me?

Having a weapon that is one size higher than the character isn't a part of the feat at all. It is an assumtion that was jumped to as it was seen to be something that it is not.

The FAQ clarified that the weapon is treated as one handed as far as how the character is weilding it, listed a couple of examples of how damage is dealt (x1.0 str mod, only +2 with Power Attack) and ended with "... And so on." The sticky point is that these last three words does not mean the weapon suddenly changes it's own size catigory, but that it only "treated" as such to determine it's use with the character abilities (given by the feat)

A two handed weapon is still such even as the character is using it differently. It has to be wielded in such a way when it is a size catigory larger, so the One Handed consideration isn't there to give the advantage that is trying to be asserted here.

This is by RAW. I am not making it up. You can't wield a Two Handed weapon that is a size catigory larger then the character.

Sovereign Court RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32, 2010 Top 8

As I read it...

You can use the earthbreaker one handed with the feat. So you're using it one handed, none of the feats that augment two handed weapons apply. You need to be using it two handed for those feats to apply.

So yes, you *can* two weapon earthbreakers. You've spent how many feats to do that? Then have fun.

Now as to the "Use large earthbreaker in two hands.' Yes, yes you can. I don't beleive you can use the two handed feats though, since it's not a two handed weapon. It's an 'oversized one handed weapon'. I base this on how Iconic Amri doesn't have any two handed feats.

My two C-bills.

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Companion Subscriber

@thaX: You are referring to the Bastard Sword FAQ, which is totally unrelated, and uses it's totally own unique rules?

Is an Earthbreaker a Bastard Sword?

Also, you are adding another unwritten limit, in that it somehow only applies to Earthbreakers of your size. There is no caveat.

Just like Weapon Focus applies to weapons of any size, so does this feat.


@Matt: A Large Earthbreaker wielded via T&F is counted just as much a two-handed weapon as a Large Longsword. Feats and Abilities that require a two-handed weapon will work if it's a Large Longsword or a Huge Dagger because they "count as" 2-h weapons for that character. A Medium Earthbreaker wielded one-handed via T&F, however, doesn't "count as" a 2-h weapon anymore.

@thaX

thaX wrote:
This is by RAW. I am not making it up. You can't wield a Two Handed weapon that is a size catigory larger then the character.

False: By RAW, you can't wield a weapon if the size step-up would take the effort required to wield it to anything other than a light, one-handed, or two-handed designation. It's right there in the rules. The effort required to wield it. How much effort is required to wield an Earthbreaker? One-handed. How do you change the effort required to wield for a weapon one size bigger? Step it up one category. So one-handed goes to two-handed. The effort required to wield a Large Earthbreaker, if you have the T&F feat, is two-handed. Is that anything other than light, one-handed, or two-handed. Nope.

Edit:

blackbloodtroll wrote:
@thaX: You are referring to the Bastard Sword FAQ, which is totally unrelated, and uses it's totally own unique rules?

No, he's referring to the FAQ about when a feat lets you wield a 2-h weapon as a one-handed weapon, does it still count as a 2-h weapon for Strength to Damage, Power Attack, etc. He's sticking on the idea that the "and so forth" doesn't include certain arbitrary things, such as how to adjust size for over/undersized weapons.

Liberty's Edge

Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber

False? Really?

You have it, right there in your first sentence. Anything other than Light, One-handed, or Two Handed.

So we have a large EB that a Medium character wants to wield. If he tries to wield it one handed, he can't, because it is beyond the scope of the feat to effect (a large Two Handed to be use by a medium creature). So now he has to use it two handed, so now it "counts" as a two handed weapon, but this would take it beyond the Two Handed designation. The feat don't matter, the character simply can't wield an EB that is larger than he is.

Keeps going back to being "Treated as one handed" in the feat, but no where does it actually change the weapon itself.

Someone asked earlier in the thread that the damage upgrade was not that significate, why bother to point this out or why not let the player have this.

Think of using Power Attack with Vital Strike and the damage begins to go beyond the double wielding average.

Sovereign Court RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32, 2010 Top 8

Kazaan wrote:

@Matt: A Large Earthbreaker wielded via T&F is counted just as much a two-handed weapon as a Large Longsword. Feats and Abilities that require a two-handed weapon will work if it's a Large Longsword or a Huge Dagger because they "count as" 2-h weapons for that character. A Medium Earthbreaker wielded one-handed via T&F, however, doesn't "count as" a 2-h weapon anymore.

Curious, do you have a cite for the large longsword thing? Like I said, I was basing my beliefs on Amri as an example.


That's like saying that a creature with a light weapon, but no weapon finesse, means that weapon finesse doesn't work on light weapons. When you step up the size, you're hitting the "wielded as a <effort category> weapon" rules element. A Medium Longsword is wielded by a Medium creature "as a one-handed weapon" because it requires one-handed effort for a creature of its designated size to wield. This is why a Longsword, even wielded with two hands doesn't qualify (and, conversely, why a Lance wielded with one hand still qualifies) as a two-handed weapon. By contrast, if this Medium creature tries to use a Large Longsword, it's no longer a matter of wielding a one-handed weapon "in two hands". The effort category of the weapon for that particular creature to wield it has been changed because of the inappropriate size. Furthermore, most of the abilities requiring the use of a two-handed weapon trade offense for either defense or positioning. Shield of Swings trades half your damage for a shield bonus to AC. Others let you daze or stun the target instead of doing Power Attack bonus damage. Amiri is all about the damage; all day, every day.

And the same principal applies in reverse; wielding a small longsword means you wield it as if it were a light weapon. This means you can use a medium longsword in your main hand and a small longsword in your off-hand while TWFing to get -2/-4 net peanlty (-2/-2 for twf with a light offhand, but an extra -2 on that off-hand for being inappropriately small) and both would benefit from the same set of Weapon Focus feats.

Sczarni

Kazaan wrote:
Krodjin wrote:
Kazaan wrote:
Without this, the Klar is a one-handed weapon and, thus, you'd take -4/-4 if you attack with it from your off-hand.

Just to muddy the waters even further, I don't know if this is correct by RAW.

Klar wrote:

Benefit: A traditional klar counts as a light wooden shield with armor spikes. A metal klar counts as a light steel shield with armor spikes.

Weapon Feature(s): special

Shield, Light; Wooden or Steel wrote:

Benefit:

Wooden or Steel: Wooden and steel shields offer the same basic protection, though they respond differently to some spells and effects.

Shield Bash Attacks: You can bash an opponent with a light shield. See “shield, light” on Table: Weapons for the damage dealt by a shield bash. Used this way, a light shield is a martial bludgeoning weapon. For the purpose of penalties on attack rolls, treat a light shield as a light weapon. If you use your shield as a weapon, you lose its Armor Class bonus until your next turn. An enhancement bonus on a shield does not improve the effectiveness of a shield bash made with it, but the shield can be made into a magic weapon in its own right.

This reiterates why trying to use the rules as written without applying the intent is fraught with folly. You dissect it enough; you lose sight of what the rule as a whole is trying to say.

I'm not directing that at you Kazaan, I'm referring to us (the forum community) as a whole.
The rest of your post has very good points - in fact the point you're making about the Klar being a one handed weapon is a good one (it clearly says what it says, and Ibelieve the Klar is intended to be treated as a one handed weapon), but that's not what the rest of the rules say. The Klar itself could use some tidying up... I mean, "a light shield with armor spikes? What up with that?

It counts as a light shield defensively, but it's listed as a one-handed weapon, not a light weapon. So it's a one-handed weapon to attack, but counts as only a light shield for bonus to AC. By contrast, the Heavy Shield is also a one-handed weapon, but gives +2 Shield bonus rather than just +1. In other words, they took the oversized shield spikes from a Heavy Shield and stuck them on a Light Shield instead. No contradiction.

That just supports what I'm saying in regards to RAW without intent.

What you are saying is what I believe it is INTENDED to be, but that is not what it says. Nowhere in the description of the Klar does it break it down as clearly as you have - it just says it counts as a light shield with no distinction of offense/defense.

You're inferring something there - something that I believe is intended to be inferred. Which brings us back to this whole RAW thing.

If we parse the rules and read them without considering the intent it creates ambiguity that leads to false interpretations.

Is Thunder & Fang intended to work with an EB & Klar? Yes.
Is it intended to work with 2x EB's? Don't know. They changed the wording to a manner which appears to allow it, even if it wasn't intended.
Is it intended to let a Player wield a single oversized EB relative them? Not a chance.

But if you just 'read' the words on the page without also considering the intent or spirit of the rule it creates enough grey area to make this a legitimate debate.


thaX wrote:

False? Really?

You have it, right there in your first sentence. Anything other than Light, One-handed, or Two Handed.

So we have a large EB that a Medium character wants to wield. If he tries to wield it one handed, he can't, because it is beyond the scope of the feat to effect (a large Two Handed to be use by a medium creature). So now he has to use it two handed, so now it "counts" as a two handed weapon, but this would take it beyond the Two Handed designation. The feat don't matter, the character simply can't wield an EB that is larger than he is.

Keeps going back to being "Treated as one handed" in the feat, but no where does it actually change the weapon itself.

Someone asked earlier in the thread that the damage upgrade was not that significate, why bother to point this out or why not let the player have this.

Think of using Power Attack with Vital Strike and the damage begins to go beyond the double wielding average.

The weapon doesn't need to change. The amount of effort required to wield a weapon is relative to the character using the weapon. You only determine the amount of effort required to wield the weapon once, which happens before your character even wields it. A medium sized Earthbreaker is a one-handed weapon to a character with Thunder and Fang, so now a large Earthbreaker is a two-handed weapon, a small Earthbreaker is a light weapon. The feat does matter.


thaX wrote:

False? Really?

You have it, right there in your first sentence. Anything other than Light, One-handed, or Two Handed.

So we have a large EB that a Medium character wants to wield. If he tries to wield it one handed, he can't, because it is beyond the scope of the feat to effect (a large Two Handed to be use by a medium creature). So now he has to use it two handed, so now it "counts" as a two handed weapon, but this would take it beyond the Two Handed designation. The feat don't matter, the character simply can't wield an EB that is larger than he is.

Keeps going back to being "Treated as one handed" in the feat, but no where does it actually change the weapon itself.

Someone asked earlier in the thread that the damage upgrade was not that significate, why bother to point this out or why not let the player have this.

Think of using Power Attack with Vital Strike and the damage begins to go beyond the double wielding average.

OK thaX, stop claiming your OPINION as RAW, when you can quote or cite another case that is relevent, you claim RAW or RAI.

You keep seeming to think the fact that the weapon doesn't physcally change is a silver bullet for your case; it is not. Feats have always been able to change weapon properites when wielded. Improved Critical doesn't make your sword sharper, but it doubles your crit range. The change is in the wielder and how they use the weapon, which does change the weapons properties.

Now your claim that a medium character simply couldn't wield a Large Earthbreaker. now I looked up what the weight of a Large Earthbreaker, and it is 28lbs, or nearly 13kg. I don't know about you, but I can lift 13 kilos pretty easily. Now, I might not be able to swing it at full speed, but the penilties to hit more than account for that.

Now you argue that Power Attack and Vital Strike could be game breaking, but Amiri, the Iconic Barbarian uses Power Attack. She also uses Suprise Accuracy and Powerful Blow to effectively give her Vital Strike.

Now, I would like to point out that while Rageing, the maximum damage per turn she can do with her Large Bastard Sword (ignoring crits) is identicle to the maximum damage a Large Earthbreaker can.

And she is more likely to hit.

you cant call this combination overpowered without calling the Iconic Barbarian overpowered.

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Companion Subscriber

Does Amiri have dead feats?


blackbloodtroll wrote:
Does Amiri have dead feats?

No, i don't think she does

Liberty's Edge

Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber

The. Bastard. Sword. Has. An. Exception. To. The. Rule.

She also uses the oversized BS without penalty while raging.

She can't do the same thing with an Earthbreaker. The weapons also have different damage dies.

"Effort" is refering to how the size of the weapon coralates with the size of the character.

Yes, I have a very straightforward way of thinking on this, but that doesn't mean everything I say is without merit.

The oversized EB is simply not wieldable. Not normally, not with this feat.

Remember also, this was intended to be an EB with a Klar, nothing about oversized weapons.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
thaX wrote:


The oversized EB is simply not wieldable. Not normally, not with this feat.

Show me the official Paizo text saying Thunder and Fang can't be used this way, or finish you sentence with "in my opinion"


thaX wrote:

The. Bastard. Sword. Has. An. Exception. To. The. Rule.

She also uses the oversized BS without penalty while raging.

She can't do the same thing with an Earthbreaker. The weapons also have different damage dies.

"Effort" is refering to how the size of the weapon coralates with the size of the character.

Yes, I have a very straightforward way of thinking on this, but that doesn't mean everything I say is without merit.

The oversized EB is simply not wieldable. Not normally, not with this feat.

Remember also, this was intended to be an EB with a Klar, nothing about oversized weapons.

Amiri, at level 7, attacks like so while not raging +13/+8. 7 BAB, 5 from strength, +2 enhancement from her weapon, and +1 from weapon focus(bastard sword) and -2 from an inappropriate sized weapon. 7 + 5 + 2 + 1 - 2 = 13. While raging, it is +15/+10 which is exactly in line with the +4 strength bonus rage gives her. So no, she does not wield a oversized BS without penalty.

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.

That is effort. It is the designation of whether the weapon is light, one-handed or a two-handed weapon. How much effort is required is altered by one step for each size category difference and the size of the creature for which the weapon was designed. So alter one-handed to two-handed because there is one size category difference between a Medium Character and a Large Character.


CrystalSpellblade wrote:
It is the designation of whether the weapon is light, one-handed or a two-handed weapon. How much effort is required is altered by one step for each size category difference and the size of the creature for which the weapon was designed. So alter one-handed to two-handed because there is one size category difference between a Medium Character and a Large Character.

This. Effective weapon size catagory IS the weapon size catagory. Thunder and Fang specifically designates that Earthbreakers are now one handed.

The Exchange Owner - D20 Hobbies

Krodjin wrote:
But if you just 'read' the words on the page without also considering the intent or spirit of the rule it creates enough grey area to make this a legitimate debate.

There are some that love this. They love the concept of RAW being this awkward unplayable abstract thing that no GM would use.

RAW shouldn't be this way. It isn't the way anyone plays it (even in PFS with their "RAW" focus.) It isn't how Paizo wants us to play it (based on the frequency of threads that argue that this FAQ or that FAQ violates "RAW" in some way.) It doesn't violate RAW if you can interpret the rules to agree with the FAQ and the fact is that you can always interpret the RAW to agree. Always. Sure it might not be as powerful, it might not be as versatile, it might not be as "uber", but it is what the rules say without editorial review by the reader.

Diminuendo wrote:
Show me the official Paizo text saying Thunder and Fang can't be used this way, or finish you sentence with "in my opinion"

You both are using "in my opinion", since you can't show him something from Paizo saying it works like you say.

Liberty's Edge

Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber

You keep going back to the Bastard Sword, when it has the rule that allows Amiri to use the oversized weapon as a one handed weapon. It is in the weapon properties to do this, not in any feats or abilities she has, save the EWP in the Bastard Sword to enable her to use it in One Hand.

The Earthbreaker does not do this. At all. When it is a size up, the character can't use it one handed, so it is no longer treated as such. Effort doesn't mean effortless. It does not designate the EB as One Handed, the character uses it as a one handed weapon, even though it is not.

I don't know how many other ways to say this. I am desperately trying not to say the Wormwood adult motto that they tell their kids. "I'm right, your wrong..." I believe your reading into the feat more than what is there. Your taking one sentence and twisting it into a pretzel, using a FAQ that is about something else in parallel to this issue.

It seems we are going over the same issue again and again with the same points and no one seems to be listening to their own words.

Look at the weapon. Can you imagine someone just lifting one that is almost double the size, let alone trying to wield it. That is why the rule is there, not because the damage may get out of wack or that someone could power game with oversized weapons, but because, well, look at it. It is a big freakin' hammer. Why would one even think of using one bigger than the normal size.

Sczarni

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Can a Medium creature use a Large lance while mounted; if they use it two-handed?

If so why? If not, why not?

It seems that the Lance is a more appropriate comparison than the Bastard Sword as the Bastard sword is a one-handed weapon, albeit with special properties. The Lance & Earthbreaker are both two-handed weapons that can be wielded in one-hand under certain, specific conditions.


Part of the reason for frustration here seems to be coming from 2 opposite camps that are not directing addressing each others argument.

Camp 1: When determining the weapon that you can wield you see what category it counts as for you, and then modify it appropriately. In this camp, the earth breaker counts as being one-handed therefore a large one can be wielded 2-handed.

Camp 2: When determining the weapon that you can wield you see what category it is, modify appropriately, and then size it for you. In this camp the earth breaker goes from 2-handed to unwieldable therefore a large one can not be wielded with 2-handed.

From what I've seen both camps are trying to prove the other camp is wrong using their camps position (and please clarify if I'm missing a vital argument about your position, this is my readers digest version). Maybe to get ourselves unstuck we need to look at and see if there is a fundamental flaw in one of the camps base assumptions. Because, I don't see a conclusion being reached with the current track that this conversation is on.

The Exchange Owner - D20 Hobbies

Sub_Zero wrote:

Camp 1:

Camp 2:
see if there is a fundamental flaw in one of the camps base assumptions.

That assumes the other camp is willing to listen to the flaw and appreciate it. They may not even believe the flaw is a flaw.

I'm surprised you acknowledge there are two views. When I was trying to point out the alternate view on whether or not you can wield two EB's with this feat, you rejected there could even be an interpretation of that view. Welcome back to reasonable.


James Risner wrote:
Sub_Zero wrote:

Camp 1:

Camp 2:
see if there is a fundamental flaw in one of the camps base assumptions.

That assumes the other camp is willing to listen to the flaw and appreciate it. They may not even believe the flaw is a flaw.

I'm surprised you acknowledge there are two views. When I was trying to point out the alternate view on whether or not you can wield two EB's with this feat, you rejected there could even be an interpretation of that view. Welcome back to reasonable.

Thank you for that condecending tone.

The Exchange Owner - D20 Hobbies

Sub_Zero wrote:
Thank you for that condecending tone.

I apologize, it was never intended. I was congratulating you on showing both sides.

But frankly if my message was condescending, check out your posts again. Read them as if they are talking to you from a third party. You will find them just more so than this post.


Most of that came from me taking the time to write up a long post explains and extrapolating my position. I then took the time to try and reason from your presumed position. You never once took the curtesy to do the same. Had you done this maybe we could have even had an interesting conversation.

But this is neither here not there. We're both derailing the topic at this point.


Krodjin wrote:

Can a Medium creature use a Large lance while mounted; if they use it two-handed?

If so why? If not, why not?

It seems that the Lance is a more appropriate comparison than the Bastard Sword as the Bastard sword is a one-handed weapon, albeit with special properties. The Lance & Earthbreaker are both two-handed weapons that can be wielded in one-hand under certain, specific conditions.

No, because the lance uses subtly different, but still very pertinent, verbiage. The FAQ on Power Attack with the lance establishes that "wield in one hand" is one thing while the FAQ on Abilities that let you wield a two-handed weapon as a one-handed weapon are quite a different thing. The main point being that "in one hand" means the measure of effort doesn't change; it's still considered a two-handed weapon, but you're allowed to only spend one hand on that effort. In the case of the Lance, particularly, you could say that the Horse provides the leverage that qualifies as the "second hand" in wielding it because that's how Lances are designed; to be wielded easily from horseback. Since it's still considered a weapon that requires two-handed effort to wield, with one of those two hands being provided by the fact that you are mounted, it cannot scale up in size without becoming unwieldable and you cannot make off-hand attacks while wielding it since making an attack with a two-handed weapon takes "two hands worth of effort", even if you have additional non-hand-associated weapons available to make attacks. The only benefit that the Lance is supposed to give in regards to wielding it is that you have a free hand available to use a shield, guide your horse, etc. As a consequence of this, it qualifies for feats and abilities that require a two-handed weapon such as Overhand Chop, Pushing Assault, etc. And, as mentioned in the FAQ, it still qualifies as a two-handed weapon for things like Power Attack which give different "tiers" of benefit depending on whether you wield a two-handed or non-two-handed weapon. In short, wielding a Lance in one hand while mounted is almost an inverse case to wielding a one-handed weapon "in two hands"; it doesn't change the designated effort required to wield it, just how many hands you're using. The only difference is that the rules specifically call out that wielding a one-handed weapon in two hands gives you increased Str to damage and Power Attack bonus. But if some other, hypothetical feat came along that said, "If wielding a light or one-handed weapon, you get X bonus and if wielding a two-handed weapon, you get X * 1.5 bonus, without a caveat as in Power Attack that the 1.5x bonus applies to one-handed weapons wielded in two hands, then you'd only get that higher bonus for wielding a weapon that actually requires two-handed effort from you, based on your size, feats, abilities, etc.

The Earthbreaker, on the other hand, uses the "wield as a one-handed weapon" verbiage. The effort required to wield it via the Thunder and Fang feat is reduced from two-handed to one-handed. That's the effort "for that particular character". So you apply the effects in sequence; Thunder and Fang reduces the effort of the Earthbreaker by one step, and over-sized step-up for wielding a too-big Earthbreaker raises the effort by one step. Those cancel each other out, hence a Medium Character wields a Large Earthbreaker as a two-handed weapon.

If you were to give the Small Redcap Thunder and Fang and a Medium Earthbreaker, he'd wield it as a one-handed weapon, despite a Medium Earthbreaker being too big for him without that ability. Which is exactly my primary issue with thaX's position; it stems from the idea that, despite having an ability that alters the effort required to wield a weapon, if that weapon would be unwieldable without considering the ability, it's also unwieldable despite having the ability. If that were the case, then the Redcap's Massive Weapons ability could not work. Additionally, he keeps choking on the concept of parity in the system. It has been established by developer comments and precedent in stat blocks that Amiri requires her EWP to even be able to wield her Large Bastard Sword. Why and how could that be if, as thaX proclaims, it's just a one-handed weapon being boosted to a two-handed weapon? It's a one-handed weapon that would normally be boosted to a two-handed weapon, which would only satisfy the requirement, "Must be wielded two-handed as martial weapon if you lack EWP," if the size boost only applied to the base handiness category. "It's a one-handed exotic weapon and, if one size too big, it's considered a two-handed exotic weapon. It says that, if I don't have EWP, I need to wield it two-handed with MWP, but two-handed is the only way I can wield it at this size anyway, so I can get around the need for EWP by wielding it as a slightly less accurate Greatsword." That line of logic is only valid if the light/1-h/2-h category increase applied to the base category, but not to the adjusted category based on whether or not you have the EWP. Thus, we have the situation where the size increase to handiness cannot apply to the base category based on the precedent set by Redcap, and it must apply to the adjusted category based on the Bastard Sword. And this logic is broad in scope; it's ridiculous to claim that it can't apply to analogous situations. It's ridiculous to claim that 2 + 2 = 4 cannot be used to justify 4 - 2 = 2. Just because we're talking about a two-handed weapon, wielded as a one-handed weapon via feat, stepped back up to two-handed via improper size doesn't mean we can't apply the principals learned by a one-handed weapon, treated as a two-handed weapon via special weapon property, steps up to "unwieldable" via improper size. The basic principal is that size category changes apply to your effective effort category, not the base size category. No need to sit there and split hairs when the verbiage is consistently used and has been clarified by the people who made the game.

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Warrick Blackstone wrote:

"Thunder and Fang (Combat)

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."

I need to ask the messageboard about this, I have been discussion this line of usage from the feat with other GM's and my VC, and they all have different views on how this feat works.

Some believe I have to apply by the favor text of the feat and only use Earth Breaker with a Klar.
Others says i can use 2 Earth Breaker as it dosn't state that i can't use the Earth Breakers in both hands but with the -4/-4 attack roll.

If this has been answered before could some one post me a link because i couldn't find any answer to this question, and i apologise for my lack on that.

It is not "just" flavor text, it's the mechanic of the feat. The Thunder and Fang feat is a specific fighting style that incorporates an earthbreaker and a klar on a shield arm. You can't use it to TWF two earthbreakers.

Mr. Jacobs has already told you that you can't wield two earthbreakers with this feat. The feat ITSELF SPECFICALLY states that it's earth breaker and klar combo fighting style. You're not going to get someone to "override" the Creative Director of Paizo on this one.

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Krodjin wrote:

Can a Medium creature use a Large lance while mounted; if they use it two-handed?

If so why? If not, why not?

It seems that the Lance is a more appropriate comparison than the Bastard Sword as the Bastard sword is a one-handed weapon, albeit with special properties. The Lance & Earthbreaker are both two-handed weapons that can be wielded in one-hand under certain, specific conditions.

Wrong. her proficiency allows her to use her big sword TWO handed at the -2 size penalty, which she offsets by raging.


James Risner wrote:
Diminuendo wrote:
Show me the official Paizo text saying Thunder and Fang can't be used this way, or finish you sentence with "in my opinion"
You both are using "in my opinion", since you can't show him something from Paizo saying it works like you say.

Actually, I backup everything I say with simular examples and citing, let me show you;

Diminuendo wrote:

OK thaX, stop claiming your OPINION as RAW, when you can quote or cite another case that is relevent, you claim RAW or RAI.

You keep seeming to think the fact that the weapon doesn't physcally change is a silver bullet for your case; it is not. Feats have always been able to change weapon properites when wielded. Improved Critical doesn't make your sword sharper, but it doubles your crit range. The change is in the wielder and how they use the weapon, which does change the weapons properties.

Here I refrence an example of a feat changeging properties of a weapon without altering the weapon. This displays that weapon properties can be mallable by the wielders skill.

Diminuendo wrote:
Now your claim that a medium character simply couldn't wield a Large Earthbreaker. now I looked up what the weight of a Large Earthbreaker, and it is 28lbs, or nearly 13kg. I don't know about you, but I can lift 13 kilos pretty easily. Now, I might not be able to swing it at full speed, but the penilties to hit more than account for that.

here, after looking up the weight of the weapon, I argued that there is nothing "unwieldable" about 13KG. I would ask anyone who can't lift 13KG on this forum that doesn't have a health issue to please speak up.

Diminuendo wrote:

Now you argue that Power Attack and Vital Strike could be game breaking, but Amiri, the Iconic Barbarian uses Power Attack. She also uses Suprise Accuracy and Powerful Blow to effectively give her Vital Strike.

Now, I would like to point out that while Raging, the maximum damage per turn she can do with her Large Bastard Sword (ignoring crits) is identicle to the maximum damage a Large Earthbreaker can.

Shows a precedent for a character making an attack combination that ThaX deemed "unfair" whilest not it exactly, it shows that the combination is not only supported by Paizo, but they actively use the same stratagy.

I refrenced this to show that official Paizo material supports a character doing this amount damage in an attack.

Diminuendo wrote:
And she is more likely to hit.

shows an advantage to this build over thunder and fang with a large earthbreaker. This again is to defute unfareness.

Diminuendo wrote:
you cant call this combination overpowered without calling the Iconic Barbarian overpowered.

this line is to send home my point.

every arguement I make begins at the refrencing or citing of a rule.

On the other side of the table there have been the arguement; "I can't imagine it working because the hammer would be huge." Now I ask you, is this a reasonable arguement? Should we hold all of our collective imaginations back bacause one person can't look past real world physics in a fantasy game. I ask, what the hell does one players lack of imagination have to do with the rules? If I have a player who can't imagine what an Orc looks like should I remove them from my game?

I make arguements that cite rules that can be defeated if rules going against them exist and are cited.

ThaX on the other hand refutes that the Effective weapon size catagory isn't the real size catagory, over and over, with no evidence to support his claims.

it is like arguing with a child.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Diminuendo wrote:
it is like arguing with a child.

Sadly, no. That's an insult to children. I've successfully explained stuff harder than this to my 7 year old daughter. I wish this thread were like arguing with a child because then I could send thax to his room to think about his behavior. And he wouldn't get any ice cream after dinner, either.

Grand Lodge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Companion Subscriber

As I said, either it's:

1) A Two-handed weapon, wielded in one hand, and it gets a -1 to +3 damage from Power Attack, and a Two Handed Fighter can use it with Overhand Chop.

or

2) You treat all Earthbreakers as One-handed weapons, in which case, you treat a Large Earthbreaker as a Large One-handed weapon, and can be wielded by a medium creature in two hands.

So, which is it?


2, reguarding the evidence given


2 people marked this as a favorite.

In case it was missed:

James Jacobs wrote:
Krodjin wrote:

Hi James,

When the wording of the feat Thunder & Fang was changed from how it appeared in the CotCT player's guide, to how it appears now in Varisia: Birthplace of Legends, one of the results is that now you can seemingly TWF with two Earthbreakers, albeit at a -4/-4 penalty.

Thunder & Fang wrote:
You can use an earth breaker as though it were a one-handed weapon.

Was this intentional?

No. You can't two weapon fight with 2 earthbreakers. That was an unfortunate side effect of an attempt to standardize rules language.

So again, the Creative Director--the guy in charge of Golarion-specific stuff, which this is--has clarified intent. And this is in addition to the FAQ on the Titan Mauler, the archetype that's supposed to let you wield oversize weapons but specifically doesn't.

RAW, can you pull out that one sentence from T&F and dual-wield Earthbreakers or swing an oversized weapon? I don't know? Probably.

But at this point, you're looking at the rule and saying "I know what it's supposed to do, but technically it also lets me do this, so I'm going to do that until someone fixes it."

Great, you win at Pathfinder. You've successfully forced Paizo to divert resources to clarify something that every reasonable person already understands.

In a home game, why wouldn't you just cut out the middleman and make your own Feat for one-handing two-handed weapons? Or one for wielding Large weapons? Have it require Weapon Focus and a minimum Strength score and Combat Expertise and then houserule out your own Combat Expertise Feat tax because it's a houserule, so why the hell not?

In an OP setting, you're basically sitting down with a table full of people and saying "I know it's not supposed to work this way, but it does, and none of you can stop me." It doesn't matter whether it's overpowered or self-nerfing (although I'm quite sure some of you would find ways to further exploit it). That's not the point. The point is that reasonable people should be able to take a Paizo employee saying "oh, that's an editing error" at face value and leave well enough alone instead of constantly exploiting loopholes.


ok, I looked it up, on that note I will admit that if James Jacobs says you can't , you can't.

I would like to see it as an offical ruling on the faq though. And for further printings to have the text altered to explain this, I see it as a problem when the ruling never is confronted in print.

I would personally houserule you can, but it would be just that; a houserule.

I also feel that this restricts someones creativity for no reason, as the adverage damage would only be two points higher per turn. I think saying "you can't do this" to someone about a non-gamebreaking use of a feat limits the game, not improves it. But this is my opinion.

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Companion Subscriber

Jame Jacobs is not a rules guy. He continually goes out of his way to note as much.

301 to 350 of 904 << first < prev | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder First Edition / Rules Questions / PFS - Thunder and Fang with 2 Earth Breakers All Messageboards