PFS - Thunder and Fang with 2 Earth Breakers


Rules Questions

351 to 400 of 904 << first < prev | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | next > last >>
Sczarni

LazarX wrote:
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.

What's wrong? You're post doesn't really make much sense.

The Exchange Owner - D20 Hobbies

1 person marked this as a favorite.
blackbloodtroll wrote:
Jame Jacobs is not a rules guy. He continually goes out of his way to note as much

Out of his way might be a strong thing to say, since when people reject his opinions he does respond with "I'm not on the rules team".

But he is in charge of rules for all books printed by Paizo that are not part of the core rules.

So to say he isn't a "rules" guy isn't true.


blackbloodtroll wrote:

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

I dont know the structure of paizo, who is the systems lead?

Dark Archive

James Jacobs basically admitted that the feat, as written, lets you TWF with Earth Breakers. He says its not supposed to, but it does. *Shrug* Honestly, not a big deal either way.

Spend four feats, waste one. Instead you could get Two-Weapon Fighting, Weapon Focus(Bastard Sword), and EWP(Bastard Sword) and save yourself the dead feat for basically the same result. Hell, go Tengu Fighter and get EWP for free and save TWO feats over the T&F dual-wielder. Dual-wielding earth breakers seems cool, but hardly overpowered. Still not sure why people need to rain on someone's parade because "You aren't SUPPOSED to do that!" If it was OP, then maybe, but as it stands, meh. Hell, same goes for Large Earth Breaker vs. Large Bastard Sword. 2d8 and 3d6 are like 1 point of average damage different.


where does he say this? can you link to it please?

Dark Archive

It was just posted in the thread. (A link to it).

http://paizo.com/threads/rzs2l7ns&page=846?Ask-James-Jacobs-ALL-your-Qu estions-Here#42267


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.

actually, if you think about it the "no" in his response could be spicifcally to the question of whether the one handed proficentcy was intentional.

If he claims that the one handed proficentcy was a side effect then wouldn't that mean the side effect is still applied?

I guess I was reading it wrong.

if this is what he meant then dosn't this enforce that useing the feat this way is legal?

Scarab Sages

thaX wrote:

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

So, how do you treat a Flambard?

It is a two handed weapon that can be wielded in one hand but it's on the two handed weapon chart.

I think the Bastard sword being on the one handed chart was a mistake.

It should be on the two handed chart with the feat option to use as one handed.


Considering that the Flambard comes from Adventurer's Armory, and the Rules team has explicitly stated in a FAQ that the Bastard Sword is listed as a one-handed exotic weapon properly, the "error" is more likely in the Flambard.

The Bastard Sword has an exception to the rule. But the Earthbreaker also has an exception to the rule. The only difference is that the Bastard Sword's exception is built into the item while the Earthbreaker's exception requires a particular feat.

Edit:

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.

It's gets even better if you consider that one could be made out of Mithril which means it weighs only 14 lbs. That's about the weight of an typical, healthy, 3 month old Human infant. I doubt most people lack the physical capacity to bludgeon someone with a 3 month old infant... moral compunctions, maybe, but not physical issues. If you have moral compunctions, mount a bowling ball on a stick and use that instead.

Sovereign Court RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32, 2010 Top 8

Cascade wrote:
thaX wrote:

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

So, how do you treat a Flambard?

It is a two handed weapon that can be wielded in one hand but it's on the two handed weapon chart.

I think the Bastard sword being on the one handed chart was a mistake.

It should be on the two handed chart with the feat option to use as one handed.

No, its' an exotic 1 handed weapon, with a caveat.

Kind of how the aldori dueling sword is a finessable exotic weapon with the caveat that "You can use it as a long sword if you're proficient in that.'

Or the Saw Toothed Sabre is a light offhand weapon for someone who's proficient, but a long sword to everyone else.

The question seems to be, does Thunder and Fang change the Earthbreaker for that character. Kind of a backwards way of how EWP bastard sword allows you to use the sword to its full ability.

A similar thing would be the feat that allows the whip to threaten 10' away, or how you can AoO with a bow. I read Thunder and Fang as allowign an additional property with the Earthbreaker (use as one handed weapon).


Diminuendo wrote:

actually, if you think about it the "no" in his response could be spicifcally to the question of whether the one handed proficentcy was intentional.

If he claims that the one handed proficentcy was a side effect then wouldn't that mean the side effect is still applied?

I guess I was reading it wrong.

if this is what he meant then dosn't this enforce that useing the feat this way is legal?

Legal but specifically against intent. Which, again...why would you do that?

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Krodjin wrote:
LazarX wrote:
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.

What's wrong? You're post doesn't really make much sense.

The mistake is the posters belief that Amiri can use her Large Bastard Sword as a one handed weapon. She requires her exotic weapon proficiency to be able to use it AT ALL.

Scarab Sages

Matthew Morris wrote:


No, its' an exotic 1 handed weapon, with a caveat.

Kind of how the aldori dueling sword is a finessable exotic weapon with the caveat that "You can use it as a long sword if you're proficient in that.'

Or the Saw Toothed Sabre is a light offhand weapon for someone who's proficient, but a long sword to everyone else.

The question seems to be, does Thunder and Fang change the Earthbreaker for that character. Kind of a backwards way of how EWP bastard sword allows you to use the sword to its full ability.

A similar thing would be the feat that allows the whip to threaten 10' away, or how you can AoO with a bow. I read Thunder and Fang as allowign an additional property with the Earthbreaker (use as one handed weapon).

My point was more from the prospective; if anyone picks it up, is it in the correct weapon catagory?

In peasant hands, a bastard is a 2 handed weapon
In peasant hands, a saw tooth sabre is a one handed weapon
In peasant hands, a flambard is a two handed weapon.
In peasant hands, a dwarven chain flail is a two handed weapon

In all the above cases, a feat can be taken to allow these wepaons to be used as a weapon in a different "effectively size" catagory (light vs one vs two).
Thus the bastard sticks out as different because it's base is incorrect, well, or the other three are incorrect.

Liberty's Edge

Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber

OK...

When you are attemping to use a larger EB, you can no longer use it with one hand. (I am sure we are agreed on this point, one handed weapons need to be weilded with two hands when it is oversized) So you have a character that is Medium sized trying to wield a Two Handed Weapon with Two Hands.

So he can normally use a regular sized one as a one handed weapon, that is fine, but he can not do so with the bigger weapon, and that puts it beyond the designation of Two Handed, and the character can not effectively weild it.

The Earthbreaker has no exceptions, the character treats it differently when he uses it in a specific way, such as taking advantage of a feat that allows him to use the Two Handed weapon in One Hand. Weapon doesn't change, it isn't made for more experienced wielders to one hand like the Bastard Sword is, it doesn't morph.

Thank you, LazarX, for the point. She two hands it because the weapon itself is considered one handed as she is trained in Exotic ways to weild it. Without the training, she could not use it at all. The Earthbreaker has no such training available, and this feat does not give it.

Double wield the suckers, go wild, but you can't wield an oversized one at all.


thaX wrote:
The Earthbreaker has no exceptions, the character treats it differently when he uses it in a specific way.

This is not what Thunder and Fang says. You can't twist around this point no matter how you want to. It says you treat the weapon as one-handed. There are no caveats, no exceptions, no further requirements. When the text says "You treat X as a Y weapon," and doesn't give any qualifiers, it means that, for that character, it is always, in every way, a one-handed weapon.

The rules text you are looking for is "You may wield an Earthbreaker appropriately sized for you in one hand." THAT would cause the rules to fit your definition, but that's not what the feat says to do.


thaX wrote:

OK...

When you are attemping to use a larger EB, you can no longer use it with one hand. (I am sure we are agreed on this point, one handed weapons need to be weilded with two hands when it is oversized) So you have a character that is Medium sized trying to wield a Two Handed Weapon with Two Hands.

So he can normally use a regular sized one as a one handed weapon, that is fine, but he can not do so with the bigger weapon, and that puts it beyond the designation of Two Handed, and the character can not effectively weild it.

The Earthbreaker has no exceptions, the character treats it differently when he uses it in a specific way, such as taking advantage of a feat that allows him to use the Two Handed weapon in One Hand. Weapon doesn't change, it isn't made for more experienced wielders to one hand like the Bastard Sword is, it doesn't morph.

Thank you, LazarX, for the point. She two hands it because the weapon itself is considered one handed as she is trained in Exotic ways to weild it. Without the training, she could not use it at all. The Earthbreaker has no such training available, and this feat does not give it.

Double wield the suckers, go wild, but you can't wield an oversized one at all.

do you ever get tired of writing the same arguement over and over?

and please stop saying the Earthbreaker doesn't morph, no-one claims it does.

Sczarni

LazarX wrote:
Krodjin wrote:
LazarX wrote:
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.

What's wrong? You're post doesn't really make much sense.

The mistake is the posters belief that Amiri can use her Large Bastard Sword as a one handed weapon. She requires her exotic weapon proficiency to be able to use it AT ALL.

Why would you quote my post for a discussion about Amiri? I never mentioned her and wasn't even alluding to her. My point is that an appropriate size Bastard Sword is a one handed weapon.

Appropriate sized Earthbreakers and Lances are two handed weapons.

Sczarni

Diminuendo wrote:
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.

actually, if you think about it the "no" in his response could be spicifcally to the question of whether the one handed proficentcy was intentional.

If he claims that the one handed proficentcy was a side effect then wouldn't that mean the side effect is still applied?

I guess I was reading it wrong.

if this is what he meant then dosn't this enforce that useing the feat this way is legal?

Wow. Just wow.


So close, thaX... you've almost got it. Lets analyse your progress.

thaX wrote:

OK...

When you are attemping to use a larger EB, you can no longer use it with one hand. (I am sure we are agreed on this point, one handed weapons need to be weilded with two hands when it is oversized) So you have a character that is Medium sized trying to wield a Two Handed Weapon with Two Hands.
Excellent. You demonstrate here that, while the Earth Breaker is, by default, a two-handed weapon, T&F allows you to use it as a one-handed weapon; but sizing it up to Large bumps it back up from one-handed to two-handed. Hence, a Medium sized is trying, effectively, to use two-handed effort to wield a weapon that requires two-handed effort to wield.

So he can normally use a regular sized one as a one handed weapon,...
Correct, he can use it as a one-handed weapon
...that is fine, but he can not do so with the bigger weapon, and that puts it beyond the designation of Two Handed, and the character can not effectively weild it.
Here, you've lost it again. You easily grasped, in the previous paragraph, the idea of the "bumped down to one-handed but bumped back up to two-handed" idea. But, again, you're choking on the concept that, despite now effectively requiring two-handed effort to wield, the weapon somehow inherently maintains the "one step above two-handed effort" quality that it would otherwise have if you lacked the applicable feat.

The Earthbreaker has no exceptions, the character treats it differently when he uses it in a specific way, such as taking advantage of a feat that allows him to use the Two Handed weapon in One Hand. Weapon doesn't change, it isn't made for more experienced wielders to one hand like the Bastard Sword is, it doesn't morph.
You understand the general concept here of "effort required to wield applies to specific characters and doesn't change the physical properties of the weapon itself". An Earthbreaker doesn't magically become "lighter" any more than a Longsword gets "sharper" when you use Improved Critical for it. Moreover, even if you use a Large Longsword, the techniques to deliver more reliable crits with a normal sized Longsword in one hand still apply to an overly large one wielded two-handed.

Thank you, LazarX, for the point. She two hands it because the weapon itself is considered one handed as she is trained in Exotic ways to weild it. Without the training, she could not use it at all.
This is a major, MAJOR key point. You have this one absolutely correct. Despite the fact that, lacking the special training, a one-handed weapon one size too big for you takes only two-handed effort to wield, Amiri CANNOT use two-handed effort to wield a Large Bastard Sword if she lacked the EWP feat. This is because, despite being a one-handed weapon, it has a built-in exception that, if you lack EWP for it, you MUST use two-handed effort to wield it. This two-handed effort ACTUALLY used to wield it, lacking EWP, is what is bumped up when you step up the size.
The Earthbreaker has no such training available, and this feat does not give it. Here, however, you lost it yet again. You understood the major key points before; size step-up and step-down change the effort you actually need to wield, which can be modified from the default by having particular feats (or, in the case of "hand-and-a-half" weapons, lacking particular feats)

Double wield the suckers, go wild, but you can't wield an oversized one at all.
Thus, since you base the argument on incorrect premises, your conclusion is logically invalid.

The main crux of it all is that you still cling to that idea that whether a weapon is too big to be wielded for you is determined before taking your abilities into consideration. An Earthbreaker is a two-handed weapon and, if you didn't have any feat to change that, it'd be "unwieldable" as a Large Earthbreaker. It doesn't matter what feats or abilities you bring to the table at that point, it's inherently too big for you. And yet, at the same time, you have no problem with the Redcap wielding a weapon that would, otherwise, be too big for it to wield "if it didn't have that ability". The Massive Weapons ability removes the size step-up so it can wield a weapon that would, otherwise, be too big to wield at all. How is that significantly different from reducing the effort necessary to wield such a weapon, which would work just as well no matter what actual size of that weapon you picked, just as Improved Critical makes a Longsword more reliable at scoring crits, whether it's a Large Longsword that must be wielded two-handed, or a Small Longsword that must be used as a light weapon? A character with Thunder and Fang is not going to swing an Earthbreaker around one-handed with the same techniques he'd used to swing it around two-handed. With two hands, you can lift it straight up and bring it down on someone's head with little more than brute force. But with one hand, you need to rely on leverage, pay closer attention to the weapon's center of gravity, and use its momentum to keep it in motion. Instead of an overhead lift followed by a smash, you'd deadlift it and swing in a wide arc, using the momentum to "swing" it into the high position since you can't actually lift it high with only one hand. Those same principals don't "stop" working just because the weapon is bigger. With a Large Earthbreaker, you cannot lift it straight up to attack with it as you would with a Medium Earthbreaker wielded two-handed; it's just too heavy. But you can use those one-handed techniques of relying on momentum and center of gravity to deadlift it partway and get it started, just needing two hands to do even that, now, rather than only one hand as you could with a Medium version. Or envision it however you want. The point of the matter is that you're using whatever works, whatever technique, training, whatever, to wield the weapon with less effort than it would normally take. Those methods don't just apply to the specific size of weapon unless otherwise stated and it isn't otherwise stated in the case of the Earthbreaker. By contrast, Jotungrip is, exactly, using brute force to swing your Greatsword with the exact same motions and techniques you'd use if you were properly wielding it in two hands. That's why it comes with a -2 attack penalty; you're going through the same motions, but it takes more time and grunting and is less accurate as a result. That's also why it only applies to weapons of your size and not bigger ones. Try lifting a Large Greatsword weapon overhead to make a normal swing as if it were half that size, and the only thing you'll do is give yourself a hernia or ruptured spleen.


Diminuendo wrote:


actually, if you think about it the "no" in his response could be spicifcally to the question of whether the one handed proficentcy was intentional.

If he claims that the one handed proficentcy was a side effect then wouldn't that mean the side effect is still applied?

I guess I was reading it wrong.

if this is what he meant then dosn't this enforce that useing the feat this way is legal?

James Jacobs wrote:


You can't two weapon fight with 2 earthbreakers.

I'd say that's pretty clear.

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Chris Kenney wrote:
thaX wrote:
The Earthbreaker has no exceptions, the character treats it differently when he uses it in a specific way.
This is not what Thunder and Fang says. You can't twist around this point no matter how you want to. It says you treat the weapon as one-handed.

...When using a Klar in the other. That's why it's the Thunder AND Fang feat, not the Thunder feat and certainly not the Thunder and Thunder feat. It's pretty much the way that Lances can be treated a one handed ONLY when you are mounted on a horse.

Dark Archive

LazarX wrote:
...When using a Klar in the other. That's why it's the Thunder AND Fang feat, not the Thunder feat and certainly not the Thunder and Thunder feat. It's pretty much the way that Lances can be treated a one handed ONLY when you are mounted on a horse.

Except it says no such thing.

1)The only part of the feat that requires use of both a Klar and Earth Breaker is in respect to using the Klar. It flat out states that an Earth Breaker is a one-handed weapon if you have the feat, full stop.

2)Please, stop using the name of the feat as if it means something. There are so many feats with names that don't align with what the feat does.

The Exchange Owner - D20 Hobbies

Chris Kenney wrote:
The rules text you are looking for is "You may wield an Earthbreaker appropriately sized for you in one hand." THAT would cause the rules to fit your definition, but that's not what the feat says to do.

That doesn't match their design language. So when they write a feat like this to be used with a different weapon in the other hand they will use the same design language (this came from JJ's analysis.)

People take this language and choose to interpret to mean there are no restrictions when they exist, but are ignored.

Should they change their design language? Possibly. But what I find is 99% are good with most rules and if we went to the highly technical language that makes the people like us happy, the other 99% wouldn't be happy trying to parse it. They choose the looser language to please more players by having easier to read books.


Parity is paramount in writing rules in a system. And Pathfinder most certainly is a system. If they want it to work differently, they've got to develop different language that's appropriate for what they want to convey. It doesn't matter what they call it so long as it is consistent. Some of you may remember that this was an issue a while back with the various FAQs about counting as a different race. One FAQ said that Half-Elves and Half-Orcs didn't count as Humans and Elves for taking feats and another FAQ said that Racial Heritage did let you count as the extra race for feats, despite both using the exact same language referring to "effects related to race".

The rules team has established that, in the Pathfinder system, as a matter of consistency and parity in how it's written, "wielded as a one-handed weapon" means a change in the scale of effort required to wield said weapon and, in turn, affects all rules elements related to the wielding of said weapon. That applies to what multiple of your Strength multiplier and Power Attack bonus to add, what you step up or down from when wielding oversized or undersized weapons, whether it satisfies rules elements requiring you to use a weapon of a particular effort category, etc. The "and so on" part includes anything that would apply to wielding the weapon while leaving out inherent physical properties like how much HP and Hardness the item has and how to price it when made out of different materials and so on. If Thunder and Fang uses that standardized verbiage, then it means what it means everywhere else in the rules. If they want it to do something different, they must write it differently. Wielding it as a double weapon was fine. Wielding it one-handed "when using a Klar" would have been fine. Some new terminology for this particular kind of case would have been fine. But, just as with the Halfbreeds vs Racial Heritage issue, you can't define "Effects related to race" to include qualifying for racial prereqs on feats for one case, but exclude it in another case. It just doesn't jive.

From a balance perspective, I don't see an issue; it may be moderately stronger than some other options, but the feat tax is enough to make most other options mechanically superior.

From a realism perspective, I can easily visualize a person swinging around a 14 lb hammer in one hand by taking advantage of momentum and low swings that arc upwards and different techniques from standard "lift and smash". I can also easily visualize a person swinging around a 28 lb hammer in the same way (low, momentum-driven swings arcing upwards), just needing to actually use two hands to pull it off, while still being entirely unable to do a straight, standard "lift and smash" attack as if it were normal-sized.

Liberty's Edge

Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber
Kazaan wrote:
stuff

I have not lost it. I am trying to explain.

It isn't that the Earthbreaker can't be wielded in one hand when it is larger, it is the fact that the character is no longer treating it as a one handed weapon when trying to wield the larger weapon. It is a two handed weapon trying to be wielded as such. Doing so puts the designation beyond the scope for the character. (Two handed + Two handed = higher designation)

The Bastard Sword has a specific reason it is used by Amiri in this same way, it is inherent in the properties of the weapon. She could not do the same thing with the Earthbreaker, her training is with the Bastard Sword.

The two weapons act differently, they are not the same. This feat changes nothing in that regard.

Sovereign Court RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32, 2010 Top 8

@thaX

Benefit: You can use an earth breaker as though it were a one-handed weapon.

I (and only speaking for myself) read the language in the same fashion as the bastard sword/katana/any other weapon with a special ability as part of their description.

Kind of like reading the MWP class ability as "You may wield a bastard sword or katana as a two handed weapon, you may use an aldori dueling sword or saw toothed saber as a longsword."

So in this instance, you can wield a large earthbreaker with this feat as Amri can wield a large bastard sword. (i.e. oversized one handed weapon)

Barring clear clarification from development... expect table variation.

Liberty's Edge

Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber

The difference is that the character is treating the Earthbreaker as a one handed weapon while the Bastard sword is considered a one handed weapon for those with the EWP feat for that weapon.

That is, the weapon itself is considered one handed for the bastard sword while the earthbreaker is only treated as a one handed weapon while the character is using it in that way.

Sovereign Court RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32, 2010 Top 8

MWP: You can use the bastard sword/katana as though it were a marital two handed weapon.

T&F: You can use an earth breaker as though it were a one handed weapon.

Liberty's Edge

Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber
prd wrote:

Bastard Sword

Price 35 gp

Type exotic

A bastard sword is about 4 feet in length, making it too large to use in one hand without special training; thus, it is an exotic weapon. You can use a bastard sword two-handed as a martial weapon.

So a bastard sword is already a one handed weapon that needs the EWP to use as such.

The earthbreaker is a two handed weapon. It does not change size...

Something interesting I found...

Quote:


Barbarian--Titan Mauler: Does the Jotungrip class feature (page 30) allow the Titan Mauler to use oversized weapons?

No. Jotungrip allows the titan mauler to use two-handed melee weapons in one hand, but only if the weapon is appropriately sized for the character. The massive weapon class feature allows her to use oversized weapons with decreased penalty, but does not allow her to use two-handed weapons of that size in one hand.

Update Page 30, in the titan mauler archetype, in the Jotungrip class feature, in the first sentence, insert the word "melee" between "two-handed" and "weapon."

—Stephen Radney-MacFarland, 10/13/11

Barbarian--Titan Mauler: Can a Medium titan mauler wield a Large two-handed weapon, such as a Large greatsword?

No. The "Inappropriately Sized Weapons" rule (Core Rulebook 144) says (in summary) that a creature can't wield an inappropriately-sized weapon if the size difference would increase it one or more "steps" beyond "two-handed." None of the titan mauler's abilities say the character can break the "steps" part of the "Inappropriately Sized Weapons" rule, so the character still has to follow that rule.

—Pathfinder Design Team, 03/15/13

So, what in this feat is different?

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Companion Subscriber

Jotungrip has the "appropriately sized for the character" caveat.

Thunder and Fang does not.


thaX wrote:

The difference is that the character is treating the Earthbreaker as a one handed weapon while the Bastard sword is considered a one handed weapon for those with the EWP feat for that weapon.

That is, the weapon itself is considered one handed for the bastard sword while the earthbreaker is only treated as a one handed weapon while the character is using it in that way.

Earthbreaker: If you have T&F, you may treat an Earthbreaker as a one-handed weapon instead of a two-handed weapon.

Bastard Sword: If you lack EWP, you must treat a Bastard Sword as a two-handed martial weapon.

You keep claiming that "only treated as" applies to some things but not other things. You treat it as a one-handed weapon when it's for your size, but you don't treat it as a Large One-Handed weapon in that you can wield one as a two-handed weapon. I can pick up and wield a Large Longsword as a two-handed weapon. Why can't I wield a Large Earthbreaker when my ability says it's normally treated as a one-handed weapon?

Sczarni

I invite anyone who thinks that Thunder & Fang allows you to wield a LARGE earthbreaker two-handed to put the question to James Jacobs in the 'ask anything' thread.

You'll get your answer pretty quick. It won't be the answer you're looking for though.

Shadow Lodge

If you absolutely must fight with 2 two handed weapons take titan mauler ...TWF ...eat the additional -2 ..(total of -6/-6) and make it whatever two handed weapon you want

Edit posting from my phone sucks

Grand Lodge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Companion Subscriber

You know, way back, I would occasionally ask JJ about rules questions.

He would tell me how he would run it in his home game, and then makes sure to note, he was not one of the "rules guys", and doesn't want to be quoted as one.

So, I decided to respect that, and not quote him when discussing rules, other than to note how he would run it in his home game.

I would hope, that others, would give him the same respect.

Shadow Lodge

Wraith235 wrote:

If you absolutely must fight with 2 two handed weapons take titan mauler ...TWF ...eat the additional -2 ..(total of -6/-6) and make it whatever two handed weapon you want

Edit posting from my phone sucks

You even avoid having to spend 2 feats

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Companion Subscriber
Wraith235 wrote:
Wraith235 wrote:

If you absolutely must fight with 2 two handed weapons take titan mauler ...TWF ...eat the additional -2 ..(total of -6/-6) and make it whatever two handed weapon you want

Edit posting from my phone sucks

You even avoid having to spend 2 feats

I noted this, multiple times.

Liberty's Edge

Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber
Kazaan wrote:
thaX wrote:

The difference is that the character is treating the Earthbreaker as a one handed weapon while the Bastard sword is considered a one handed weapon for those with the EWP feat for that weapon.

That is, the weapon itself is considered one handed for the bastard sword while the earthbreaker is only treated as a one handed weapon while the character is using it in that way.

Earthbreaker: If you have T&F, you may treat an Earthbreaker as a one-handed weapon instead of a two-handed weapon.

Bastard Sword: If you lack EWP, you must treat a Bastard Sword as a two-handed martial weapon.

You keep claiming that "only treated as" applies to some things but not other things. You treat it as a one-handed weapon when it's for your size, but you don't treat it as a Large One-Handed weapon in that you can wield one as a two-handed weapon. I can pick up and wield a Large Longsword as a two-handed weapon. Why can't I wield a Large Earthbreaker when my ability says it's normally treated as a one-handed weapon?

Why do you keep comparing the BS to the EB? The two are not the same.

Put it another way, to summarize the intent. The feat allows you to use the EB in one hand. For all intents and purposes, all effects that depend on it being wielded with two hands are shunt down to one handed effects while it is being wielded with one hand.

If you are wielding it in two hands (as you need to for a larger version of the weapon), you are no longer treating it as a One Handed Weapon.

As I have said before. The weapon never changes, it is still a Two Handed weapon no matter how the character wields it. The size discrepancy is never effected by this feat.


ThaX, using a one handed weapon two handed is a basic rule. it doesn't specify anywhere in the rules that a one haned weapon becomes a two handed weapon when wielded in two hands.

For the love of god stop regurgitating the same arguement over and over with no proof to back you up. I'll even hep you make an arguement for your case:

You should look for examples where a weapons effective handyness designation does not overpower the original

Your very good at repeating that the weapon designation doesn't change if using two hands to wield the Earthbreaker, but you have yet to provide any proof that effective weapon designation does not count as the designation for hands required apart from "I can't imagine it."

You are the single reason why this conversation keeps going around in circles.

if you are not going to write anything new don't post. Everyone knows your opinion already. You do not need to repeat it.

Sczarni

@Diminuendo: Tell me about how you wield a large lance while mounted?


thaX wrote:
If you are wielding it in two hands (as you need to for a larger version of the weapon), you are no longer treating it as a One Handed Weapon.

And, by that logic, if you are wielding a Large Bastard Sword in two hands, you're also not treating it as a One-Handed Weapon. And the Bastard Sword FAQ says you can't treat it as a One-Handed Weapon if you don't have the EWP FAQ. Well, mission complete; by your explanation, you're not wielding it as a One-Handed Weapon. That means that, without proper training, while a Bastard Sword properly sized for you is so big and unwieldy that you are unable to wield it one-handed and must commit two hands to using it properly, those same two hands can sufficiently wield one twice the size with no added exertion. Say that with a straight face... I dare you.

Thunder and Fang is a feat that reduces the amount of effort and exertion it takes to wield an Earthbreaker by using superior technique. By default rules, an Earthbreaker, as a two-handed weapon, is heavy and unwieldy enough that, with only one hand, you can't exert sufficient effort to appreciably wield it. T&F makes it so that you can exert sufficient effort by changing the manner in which you swing it. It doesn't matter how big the weapon is now, those techniques will apply equally and the actual effort required will scale accordingly. So, while it only takes one hand worth of exertion to swing around a normal-sized Earthbreaker, using these techniques, it takes greater effort to swing around a Large one so you need to commit two hands to the task. And, even using these techniques, the effort required to swing around a Huge one is more than you can apply, even committing two hands to the task. What about that idea is so hard to wrap your mind around? Sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander.


Krodjin wrote:
@Diminuendo: Tell me about how you wield a large lance while mounted?

A lance is never treated as a one-handed weapon.


Once again, we can boil this entire debate down to:

1. We care what "You" (the player) treat the weapon as in regards to wielding the large weapon

vs

2. We care what the weapon's category is in regards to wielding the large weapon.

At this point i feel like group 1 has done a better job providing evidence for their position, and trying to dispel the other groups position.

Now to me I think the bastard sword is good evidence for 1. The reason I say this is that it is obvious that a bastard sword is a one-handed weapon. Sure you can wield it two-handed if you don't have the feat, but overall it's a one-handed weapon. If we really cared what the weapon category was then you should be capable of wielding a large bastard sword two-handed without the feat. The step up goes from one-handed to two handed, and we're allowed to treat the bastard sword as a two-handed weapon already. But that's not how the rules work. Instead you need the feat. why?

It seems to me the reason we need the feat is that we don't care about the weapons size category, what we care about is what we treat the weapon as.

That being the case, we look at the earth breaker. If we care about the weapons actual category, then it's obviously unwieldable (two-handed->unwieldable). On the other hand if we care about what we treat it as then it is wieldable two handed (one-handed->two-handed).

Still, I think there's room for argumentation to change my mind on this one.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Let us pause for a second and read what Wes Schneider, (the Editor-in-Chief for the book), Patrick Renie (who was a Development Lead for this book) and James Jacobs (the Creative Director) say about Thunder & Fang:

James Jacobs wrote:
Robert Jordan wrote:

Quick question about Thunder and Fang. The old Thunder and Fang basically allowed you to hit with the Earthbreaker two handed for strength and a half on damage, from the way the new feat is phrased it seems that is no longer the case. The way I imagined the Thunder and Fang style working was as you swung your hammer down two handed the blade on your klar sliced the enemy forcing them a step back so the hammer head collided with them.

The new phrasing seems to look like you wield the hammer one handed and basically punch them with the klar. I'm just curious if it's still intended that those who use this style can use the Earthbreaker two handed for all the benefits that entails and get that extra hit with the klar as well.

The way this style looks in-world is that the dude holds the earthbreaker normally in two hands. On one hand (the lower one on the earthbreaker's shaft) he wears a klar, so that the blade on the klar protrudes parallel to the length of his forearm and perpendicular to the Earthbreaker's shaft. In profile, this makes the earthbreaker look like a letter "T" with a spike sticking out of the middle.

When he attacks, the dude swings down the hammer normally, and on the backswing, pushes forward with the klar in a rocking motion to deliver the secondary stab/slash.

Patrick Renie wrote:
Robert Jordan wrote:

Quick question about Thunder and Fang. The old Thunder and Fang basically allowed you to hit with the Earthbreaker two handed for strength and a half on damage, from the way the new feat is phrased it seems that is no longer the case. The way I imagined the Thunder and Fang style working was as you swung your hammer down two handed the blade on your klar sliced the enemy forcing them a step back so the hammer head collided with them.

The new phrasing seems to look like you wield the hammer one handed and basically punch them with the klar. I'm just curious if it's still intended that those who use this style can use the Earthbreaker two handed for all the benefits that entails and get that extra hit with the klar as well.

The new Thunder and Fang feat basically allows you to wield an earth breaker in one hand (without accruing the penalties usually associated with doing so) and a klar in the other. In addition, you retain your shield bonus to AC from the klar, even when using it to attack.

As opposed to the old Thunder and Fang feat (from Pathfinder Adventure Path #10), the new feat does not allow you to use the earth breaker as a two-handed weapon while wielding a klar—you can either wield the earth breaker two-handed and forfeit the use of your klar, or wield the earth breaker in one hand and the klar in the other (adjusting damage and other variables accordingly for two-weapon fighting).

James Jacobs wrote:
Robert Jordan wrote:
Right the way James explains it is how I envisioned it using the Earthbreaker in two hands. I appreciate both James and Patrick chiming in and I get that it was changed to be a more traditional two weapon style of two "one" handed weapons. Out of curiosity why was it changed to the new version? I will personally still allow the use of the Earthbreaker two handed as James has described, but I am curious what drove the change in mechanics.
Patrick Renie wrote:
James Jacobs wrote:
Robert Jordan wrote:
Right the way James explains it is how I envisioned it using the Earthbreaker in two hands. I appreciate both James and Patrick chiming in and I get that it was changed to be a more traditional two weapon style of two "one" handed weapons. Out of curiosity why was it changed to the new version? I will personally still allow the use of the Earthbreaker two handed as James has described, but I am curious what drove the change in mechanics.
I wasn't involved in the revision, so I can't say.
I believe Wes designed the new rendition of the feat; he might be able to comment on this matter.
I wasn't involved in the revision, so I can't say.
F. Wesley Schneider wrote:
Robert Jordan wrote:
Right the way James explains it is how I envisioned it using the Earthbreaker in two hands. I appreciate both James and Patrick chiming in and I get that it was changed to be a more traditional two weapon style of two "one" handed weapons. Out of curiosity why was it changed to the new version? I will personally still allow the use of the Earthbreaker two handed as James has described, but I am curious what drove the change in mechanics.

Rules wise, the crunchiest parts of every Player Companion get run through our design department and they're constantly endeavoring to bring all of our offerings up to date with the most current standards of the Pathfinder rules. If I recall, this got tinkered with just to make it a bit more standard, not to change the flavor.

That said, I don't think the aesthetics of how you've been envisioning this fighting style needs to change one bit. The klar's still a big weapon that could use some stabilization in its swing, so a user with a klar guiding the hammer's big stroke but not holding its heft firmly has the flexibility to lash out a bit more with his shield-blade. It's always assumed with all of our combat rules that there's a fair deal of finesse the characters in-world are performing that comprise their personal or cultural fighting styles, so ultimately, the specifics of the rules shouldn't be viewed as too much of an impediment on how you think a character should look in the throes of battle. Doubly so if you've already got something awesome in your head.

And all of that said, if you as a GM are still keen on the previous version, by all means run with it!

And, once again for good measure:

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.

Hopefully, no one at this point will bother arguing RAI. That should be crystal clear: Earth Breaker in one hand, Klar in the other. The old version of the feat was run through the Rules team in an attempt to standardize it, and as a result, there now appears to be a loophole that can be exploited to wield two Earthbreakers or a Large Earth Breaker.

You can still continue to argue the RAW if you want (and I'm sure you will). But I will ask again, one last time (and not really expecting an answer):

In a home game, why does it matter? Work out with your GM what it does or just make your own Twin Thunders or Thunder XL Feat and have fun!

In PFS, why would you force this mess on a table? Just because you can?


redward wrote:

Let us pause for a second and read what Wes Schneider, (the Editor-in-Chief for the book), Patrick Renie (who was a Development Lead for this book) and James Jacobs (the Creative Director) say about Thunder & Fang:

James Jacobs wrote:
Robert Jordan wrote:

Quick question about Thunder and Fang. The old Thunder and Fang basically allowed you to hit with the Earthbreaker two handed for strength and a half on damage, from the way the new feat is phrased it seems that is no longer the case. The way I imagined the Thunder and Fang style working was as you swung your hammer down two handed the blade on your klar sliced the enemy forcing them a step back so the hammer head collided with them.

The new phrasing seems to look like you wield the hammer one handed and basically punch them with the klar. I'm just curious if it's still intended that those who use this style can use the Earthbreaker two handed for all the benefits that entails and get that extra hit with the klar as well.

The way this style looks in-world is that the dude holds the earthbreaker normally in two hands. On one hand (the lower one on the earthbreaker's shaft) he wears a klar, so that the blade on the klar protrudes parallel to the length of his forearm and perpendicular to the Earthbreaker's shaft. In profile, this makes the earthbreaker look like a letter "T" with a spike sticking out of the middle.

When he attacks, the dude swings down the hammer normally, and on the backswing, pushes forward with the klar in a rocking motion to deliver the secondary stab/slash.

Patrick Renie wrote:
Robert Jordan wrote:
Quick
...

Well said. I completely 100% agree that the RAI of this is that it's earth-breaker klar only. Heck, I doubt that I would ever try to bring this to a PFS game. I will say, I don't think anyone has been arguing that the RAI is that you can duel wield however. That would be a silly argument.


Diminuendo wrote:

ThaX, using a one handed weapon two handed is a basic rule. it doesn't specify anywhere in the rules that a one haned weapon becomes a two handed weapon when wielded in two hands.

For the love of god stop regurgitating the same arguement over and over with no proof to back you up. I'll even hep you make an arguement for your case:

You should look for examples where a weapons effective handyness designation does not overpower the original

Your very good at repeating that the weapon designation doesn't change if using two hands to wield the Earthbreaker, but you have yet to provide any proof that effective weapon designation does not count as the designation for hands required apart from "I can't imagine it."

You are the single reason why this conversation keeps going around in circles.

if you are not going to write anything new don't post. Everyone knows your opinion already. You do not need to repeat it.

There is a FAQ, that has been linked and quoted many times in this thread that supports this point very well.

FAQ wrote:

For class abilities, feats, and other rule elements that vary based on or specifically depend on wielding a one-handed weapon, a two-handed weapon, or a one-handed weapon with two hands, the bastard sword counts as however many hands you are using to wield it.

For example, if you are wielding it one-handed (which normally requires the Exotic Weapon Proficiency feat), it is treated as a one-handed weapon; Power Attack only gets the one-handed bonus, you cannot use Pushing Assault or Shield of Swings (which require a two-handed weapon), and so on.

If you are wielding it with two hands it is treated as a two-handed weapon; Power Attack gets the increased damage bonus, you can use Pushing Assault or Shield of Swings (which require a two-handed weapon), and so on.

—Pathfinder Design Team, 10/28/13 Back to Top

so EB can wield with two handed, with feat can wield with one hand.

large EB Lets call it 3 handed, with feat can wield in one less hand,So becomes two-handed, RAW two-handed weapons can't be weilded in one hand.
When we wield two hands As above with or with out the feat
Quote:
(whether or not you have the Exotic Weapon Proficiency to wield it with one hand).

the large EB is still unwieldable.

It is your side that keeps repeating the samething without backing it up.


We aren't trying to wield a large EB one-handed. You keep trying to increase the effort required to wield the weapon twice. Once before you wield, then again when you wield. That's not how it works.

A EB is a one-handed weapon for Thunder and Fang users if they choose it to be. A one-handed weapon, when used at a size larger than designed for the intended creature, changes weapon categories by a number equal to the difference between the creature trying to use it and the size of the creature the weapon was designed for. So, one-handed weapons become two-handed weapons if there is one size difference.

So a two-handed weapon, being wielded in two hands, breaks nothing.

Quote:
It is your side that keeps repeating the samething without backing it up.

You have dismissed everything we have brought up saying it doesn't affect this or that the cases are no way similar and have just disregarded everything piece of information we brought up.


Krodjin wrote:
@Diminuendo: Tell me about how you wield a large lance while mounted?

well you COULD, I don't imagine you could steer your mount every well though.

I personlly think you get to add 1.5x your strength because of the mounts momentum on a regular sized weapon.

I dont think this is even relevent.


Nevan Oaks wrote:
It is your side that keeps repeating the samething without backing it up.

Actually, I back up everything I claim with a reference to a simular case, I deconstructed one of my posts here to show how I construct an arguement for the case. I start every argument I make with a link or reference to a simular case.

I was singling out one member who would repeate a variation of the same arguement (effective weapon designation is not the weapons designation) without providing any examples to back up his statement. He just stated it as an absolute, and when others challenged he would repeat again. Or throw out void arguements like "I can't imagine it so it cant work."

Redwards last post beutifuly presented this case in the same way; he backed up everything he claimed, and I don't think anyone can argue that thunder and fang used this way is RAI after this point.

I actually enjoy debating topics, and I feel both sides are doing a good job of it. but the nature of deans that your arguements are challenged byebate m other arguements, thats how it works.

For example, you pointed to an FAQ;

FAQ wrote:

For class abilities, feats, and other rule elements that vary based on or specifically depend on wielding a one-handed weapon, a two-handed weapon, or a one-handed weapon with two hands, the bastard sword counts as however many hands you are using to wield it.

For example, if you are wielding it one-handed (which normally requires the Exotic Weapon Proficiency feat), it is treated as a one-handed weapon; Power Attack only gets the one-handed bonus, you cannot use Pushing Assault or Shield of Swings (which require a two-handed weapon), and so on.

If you are wielding it with two hands it is treated as a two-handed weapon; Power Attack gets the increased damage bonus, you can use Pushing Assault or Shield of Swings (which require a two-handed weapon), and so on.

—Pathfinder Design Team, 10/28/13 Back to Top

by the text as written here, the Large Bastard Sword the Iconic Barbarian wields can't be used. If the barbarian is wielding the Large BS two handed then it is a two handed large weapon, which can't be wielded by a medium character

I think what the design team meant to say is, that if you have the exotic weapon proficentcy, you can treat a bastard sword as both a one-handed and two-handed weapon, which ever you prefer.


diminuedo wrote:

by the text as written here, the Large Bastard Sword the Iconic Barbarian wields can't be used. If the barbarian is wielding the Large BS two handed then it is a two handed large weapon, which can't be wielded by a medium character

I think what the design team meant to say is, that if you have the exotic weapon proficentcy, you can treat a bastard sword as both a one-handed and two-handed weapon, which ever you prefer.

But they didn't so you can't (you can house rule of course), thats the difference between RAW and RAI.

except for on thing.

Bastard sword is a one-handed weapon.
large bastard sword is a two-handed weapon.
earthbreaker is a two-handed weapon.
how do we treat one and two handed weapons, thats right we can wield them one and/or two handed.

large earthbreaker is greater than two-handed.
how do we treat greater than two-handed weapons, they are unwieldable.

Untile you can quote some piece of RAW or FAQ that states other wise, that is RAW. (at least till they officialy change it).


Diminuendo wrote:
Nevan Oaks wrote:
It is your side that keeps repeating the samething without backing it up.
Actually, I back up everything I claim with a reference to a simular case, I deconstructed one of my posts here to show how I construct an arguement for the case. I start every argument I make with a link or reference to a simular case.

Wow that is a stretch in that whole post you quoted one RAW (improved critical), which is vaguely related (and doesn't support your claim)where as I am quoting directly realted RAW (that you pointed out does support my claim).

351 to 400 of 904 << first < prev | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder First Edition / Rules Questions / PFS - Thunder and Fang with 2 Earth Breakers All Messageboards