PFS - Thunder and Fang with 2 Earth Breakers

[Sub_Zero]

Nevan Oaks wrote:

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).

Let me see if I might clarify.

First, lets look at the scenario and see what it looks like if what we care about is how the weapon is treated by the player.

So we have bastard sword:
-Bastard sword: 1-handed
-Large Bastard sword: 2-handed

we have earthbreaker:
- Earthbreaker: 2-handed
- Large earthbreaker: unwieldable

Now lets add for a moment

Bastard sword being used without EWP:
- Bastard sword: 2-handed
- Large Bastard sword: unwieldable

Earthbreakers with T&F:
- earthbreaker: 1-handed
- Large earthgreaker: 2-handed

This is what the argument would look like if what we cared about is how a person treats the weapon. In this case the Earthbreaker can be wielded since it's treated as size still works.

Another possibility is that we only care about the weapons actual designation. If we follow this, what we care about is what the weapon is classified as.

So we have bastard sword:
-Bastard sword: 1-handed
-Large Bastard sword: 2-handed

we have earthbreaker:
- Earthbreaker: 2-handed
- Large earthbreaker: unwieldable

looks the same, now lets see what happens when feats apply.

Bastard sword being used without EWP:
- Bastard sword: 1-handed (but person treats it 2-handed)
- Large Bastard sword: 2-handed (????? if they can wield it w/o EWP then it's what we care that they consider it that matters, otherwise they should be able to wield it)

Earthbreakers with T&F:
- Earthbreaker: 2-handed
- Large earthbreaker: unwieldable (doesn't matter that the person can wield it as if it were a 1-handed weapon)

Now if I understand the counter arguments as presented thus far, they say that you can't wield the Large earthbreaker because although you treat it as 1-handed it's actual designation doesn't change it's still 2-handed.

Now the problem with this argument is that it breaks down when we compare it to the bastard sword. It has the reverse problem. If all we cared about is the actual weapon designation we should be able to use the large version without a feat.

w/o a feat bastard sword checklist:
- I'm I using it two-handed: Check
- Is it's size wieldable by me: Check

but we know we can't wield the bastard sword 2-handed without a feat. The reason is because we don't care what the bastard swords designation is, we care about what we treat it to be. In this case even though it's a 1-handed weapon w/o the feat you treat it 2-handed, which is then too big to wield in the large form.

Now, I'm genuinely curious if someone can point to where the flaw in what I'm saying is? Are you arguing that it must fit both the category size and what you treat it as? If so I think that works, I'm just not sure we have support to then justify either stance.

[blackbloodtroll]

Wait.

Are people actually saying that the Iconic Barbarian Amiri cannot wield her iconic Large Bastard Sword?

[Sub_Zero]

i don't think so.

[blackbloodtroll]

As far as name-calling(which is rude) with "munckin", I really don't see it in the numbers.

The idea of wielding a giant hammer is pretty cool though.

Also, if you have a hard time imagining it, just look at Amiri.

No normal human could wield a weapon that big.

Look at this!

[Diminuendo]

Nevan Oaks wrote:

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).

I quoted Improved Critical, Amari, the Iconic barbarian (a paizo made build), dice statstics (to measure fairness) and compaired the weight of the weapon to what a real world person could lift (and I would stipulate that most Paizo PC are stronger than a person IRL).

I did agree with what does support against my view, if there is a strong arguement for it. That isn't weakness, it's called being a reasonable adult.

The whole Improved Critical arguement only existed to show that a weapons stats can change with no physical change to the weapon. It existed to fight the "morphing eathbreaker" arguement.

[Diminuendo]

Nevan Oaks wrote:

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.

here is the FAQ you linked, parts bolded for focus;

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.

Under the RAW of this FAQ once you place a second hand on the BS it goes up to two-handed, and medium characters can't wield Large two handed weapons. My point is this can not be as an official build requires it. I think the rules guys probably were not thinking of Amari at the time of writing.

Nevan Oaks wrote:

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

I can quote a piece of RAW, it's called the first sentence of thunder and fang.

[Nevan Oaks]

Ok I see the Confusion and must admit I am at falt as well.

A bastard sword is a one handed weapon.
a large bastard sword is a large one handed weapon.
it is not a large two handed weapon sush as the earth breaker.

Using special feats, out of context, ie.. improved crit very special and specific to imply rules for other special and specific feats (thunder and fang) is HOUSE RULE and not RAW. It may be very logical but it is still not RAW.

[Diminuendo]

It says you can use an Earthbreaker as a one-handed weapon. no Conditions for using the weapon this way are placed. beifits apply when a klar is used, but never does the feat say I can't use the Earthbreaker one handed without it.

In my personal opinion I feel we are at this point;

By RAW, the EarthBreaker is a one handed weapon with Thunder and Fang.

By RAI, The EarthBreaker is only able to be used one handed with a Klar.

I am pulling this conclusion from only the books and the official FAQ, forum threads don't really hold authority.

Now, I think that in leu of new information we should stop arguing RAW vs RAI, and whether effective weapon handyness overrules the original weapon handyness. Everyone here probably wants to continuing believing what they currently are.

What I would suggest we do from here is sit down and figure out that if using two medium earthbreakers or one large earthbreaker would break the games balance if we allowed it. I feel that this is a better use of time then going in circles.

[redward]

Diminuendo wrote:

What I would suggest we do from here is sit down and figure out that if using two medium earthbreakers or one large earthbreaker would break the games balance if we allowed it. I feel that this is a better use of time then going in circles.

Large Earthbreaker:

Does Overhand Chop work with Vital Strike?

If so, you can do something like 18d6+45+2d6 (holy) on a single attack at level 12 with about half of your WBL accounted for. Full attack is 6d6+31+2d6 + 2 x (6d6+35+2d6). Assuming the last iterative misses, that's 12d6+66+4d6.
(lead blades or impact, enlarged, improved vital strike, devastating strike)

Two Earthbreakers:
I know next to nothing about TWF, but I threw together something with a Two-Weapon Fighter getting somewhere around 3 x (4d6+22+2d6) / 3 x (4d6+18+2d6). Even assuming the last two attacks miss, that's 16d6+80+8d6.
(also using lead blades or impact, enlarged, improved/greater TWF etc.)

I'm sure someone actually good at optimizing could squeeze a lot more out of those.

Changing those to a Warhammer drops the Vital Strike to 12d6 vs. 18d6, an average difference of 21 points of damage (not including other aspects like the increased to-hit for the Warhammer due to lack of penalties, extra Feats, etc.)

For TWF, it similarly drops to 3 x (3d6+22+2d6) / 3 x (3d6+18+2d6). Again, dropping the last two attacks you're looking at 16d6 vs 12d6, or a loss of 14 points on a Full Attack. If you assume all attacks land (and I wouldn't), it's a 21 point swing.

---

Not presenting this as an argument for or against, just some data to start with.

[Nevan Oaks]

OK

Your supposition is that the feat thunder and fang reduces the hands of effort to wield an earthbraker.

Two-handed weapon need two hands of force to wield, since this feat lets me wield the earthbreaker in in one hand we have loss of one hand of force.

You then follow that if I wield a large earthbreaker (three-hands of force) the feat reduces the force need to wield by one hand and thus can be wielded with two hands.

To support your stance you say look at the bastard sword it does the same thing, so let us look at the bastard sword.

One handed weapon, needs one had of force, EWP bastard sword (reduces hands of force by one) so one hand of force now becomes light. OH no wait the EWP lets us use a weapon that needs one hand of force with one hand so this does not support your theory.

BUT what about the large Bastard sword?

A large BS is a large one-handed weapon (not a large two-handed weapon), by RAW (see weapon size rules core rule book and PRD) needs two hands of force to wield. With EWP BS we can wield a large BS with two hands of force.
So, again the force needed is equal to the force used, and does not support your theory, but does not disprove it either.

So is there some other feat or ability that is similar (as we tried to do with the bastard sword)?

Yes there is.

As if have quoted before in this thread.

FAQ wrote:

Inappropriately Sized Firearms: Does this rule (page 136) allow a Medium or smaller creature to use larger firearms of any size?

The text of the rule is, "The size of a firearm never affects how many hands you need to use to shoot it." The intent of that rule was to prevent a Medium character from using a Small rifle as a one-handed pistol; it wasn’t intended to let a Medium character use a Large, Huge, Gargantuan, or Colossal two-handed firearm as a two-handed weapon. Just like with non-firearms, a creature cannot wield a weapon that’s far too big or small for it. Specifically in the case of firearms, a Medium character can’t use a two-handed firearm sized for a Large or larger creature, and a Small character can’t use a two-handed firearm sized for a Medium or larger creature.
—Sean K Reynolds, 02/21/12

To this I will now add "NEW" Information.

FAQ wrote:

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 again by RAW and by RAI these feats do not allow the use of large two-handed weapons.

[George Demonspawn]

redward wrote:

Large Earthbreaker:

If so, you can do something like 18d6+45+2d6 (holy) on a single attack at level 12 with about half of your WBL accounted for. Full attack is 6d6+31+2d6 + 2 x (6d6+35+2d6). Assuming the last iterative misses, that's 12d6+66+4d6.
(lead blades or impact, enlarged, improved vital strike, devastating strike)

1) You can't use Impact with Earth Breakers RAW. Impact, oddly, only applies to slashing or piercing weapons. Getting Lead Blades up as a Fighter (the only class I can think of where this feat is viable through level progression) is difficult to say the least, but possible with UMD (granted with a short duration 1 min maximum in PFS).

2) Instead of 2H Fighter archetype, you should use the Viking archetype. It meshes much better with the feat and you get Rage. You lose a bit of Strength damage from Overhand Chop, but you gain the ability to use Furious Finish and maximize all of the Imp. Vital Strike dice. Plus, you can still carry around a Medium Earth Breaker and Klar for when you need to go defensive and get huge bonuses to your shield.

3) Use a Furious Holy Large Earth Breaker +2 with Furious Finish (without Lead Blades due to reliability issues) and do 12d6+39+2d6, which becomes 118 average damage with a range of 113-123. Compared to the 2H Fighter's average damage of 94 with a range of 59-129. Granted, Furious Finish does exhaust you so it's more of a last hit mechanic. Plus, you get to be a Viking.

[Cascade]

Nevan Oaks wrote:

One handed weapon, needs one had of force, EWP bastard sword (reduces hands of force by one) so one hand of force now becomes light.

huh?

A normal person requires 2 hands to wield a bastard sword. Thus any character with training ALL martial weapons can use a bastard sword in 2 hands without penalty (exactly like all other martial 2 handed weapons).

If you have the feat (EWP Bastard Sword)...it is then a one handed weapon.

[Kazaan]

Nevan Oaks wrote:

As if have quoted before in this thread.

FAQ wrote:

Inappropriately Sized Firearms: Does this rule (page 136) allow a Medium or smaller creature to use larger firearms of any size?

The text of the rule is, "The size of a firearm never affects how many hands you need to use to shoot it." The intent of that rule was to prevent a Medium character from using a Small rifle as a one-handed pistol; it wasn’t intended to let a Medium character use a Large, Huge, Gargantuan, or Colossal two-handed firearm as a two-handed weapon. Just like with non-firearms, a creature cannot wield a weapon that’s far too big or small for it. Specifically in the case of firearms, a Medium character can’t use a two-handed firearm sized for a Large or larger creature, and a Small character can’t use a two-handed firearm sized for a Medium or larger creature.
—Sean K Reynolds, 02/21/12

FAQ wrote:

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

Oh, it's so hilarious when people take these things out of context. So lets address them one at a time... even though I already addressed them before, I'll do it for the benefit of anyone who wasn't paying attention.

The FAQ regarding firearms was in regards to the question of whether, since the statement on inappropriately sized firearms didn't include a statement on changing the handiness, that a tiny creature could wield a colossal rifle and only take cumulative attack penalties. The FAQ clarifies that you still stick to the concept of weapon sizes relative to your character and to say that a Medium character can't just wield a Small Rifle as if it were a pistol; it's still a two-handed firearm but that doesn't mean you can wield a Fine sized rifle. You're still limited by normal size constraints because you don't have an ability that changes the number of hands required to use the weapon. In other words, it's similar to the caveat with the Bow; even if you use one one size smaller, it still takes two hands to wield; that doesn't mean that you can use one several sizes larger and it still only requires two hands.

Regarding the Titan Mauler FAQ, that was talking about the Massive Weapons ability, not Jotungrip. Massive Weapons states that you reduce the penalty to attack rolls for wielding oversized weapon and the FAQ clarifies that this does not include the size step penalty so a Large Longsword or Huge Dagger still count as a two-handed weapons for you, but you reduce the -2/category difference penalty only. Jotungrip allows you to change the effort to wield, but it is explicitly limited to weapons properly sized for you so it will only work on Medium 2-h weapons for a Medium creature. Moreover, the FAQ on Bastard Swords explicitly states that since "A bastard sword wielded two-handed counts as a two-handed weapon, it qualifies for Jotungrip", thus you can wield the two-handed weapon in one hand via Jotungrip because when wielded in two hands, it's a two-handed weapon. Let me say that again: When a Bastard Sword wielded in two hands counts as a two-handed weapon, you can use Jotungrip to wield it in one hand because Jotungrip applies to two-handed weapons. You're no longer wielding it in two hands because of the class ability, but it still qualifies because it could be wielded as a two-handed weapon.

[Redneckdevil]

blackbloodtroll wrote:

Wait.

Are people actually saying that the Iconic Barbarian Amiri cannot wield her iconic Large Bastard Sword?

It was my impression only reason she could was because its a huge 1 handed weapon. Since she has the feat for it shes able to weild that 1 handed weapon with 2 hands. Granted im going on the basis that a bastard sword is really just a large 1 handed weapon.

now a large 2 handed weapon i would imagine would be even bigger than a large bastard sword...well maybe not large as inch wise but large in all around large size.

Bastard sword i always thought was a special case because its an exotic weapon that to my knowledge is the only "large" weapon readyly available to players. With out the feat people just weild it like imbguessing every other large 1 handed weapon with 2 hands. Bastard sowrd are special because they get a feat that allows players to use a large 1 handed weapon with 1 hand like a large creature woukd be able to.

[thaX]

The point of the Titan Mauler FAQ was that Two handed weapons still can not be wielded if oversized. If your character does not have the EWP Bastard Sword, then it counts as a two handed weapon for the character.

I am not sure what your arguing with your clarification Kazaan, but nothing in that last post actually favors any situation where one would two hand a oversized two handed weapon.

[thaX]

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:

Thank you for this post.

If others want to keep going on this, I shall pop in every once and a while and point them to that post.

basic summery... it is an EB with a Klar. (Thunder and Fang)

No double wielding EB's.

No wielding an oversized EB two handed.

I humbly bow before you, sir...

[Tarkeighas]

It never ceases to amaze me how some people will argue incessantly over the tiniest inconsistencies or perceived loopholes to eek out the Nth degree of advantage or the next 'look how paizo had screwed up and I'm so clever for picking it up' situation.

It's going to end up requiring pathfinder to produce giant walls of text in every description to cover every eventuality or the paizo staff are simply going to ignore rules questions because every time they make a ruling 50 people scramble to point out how 'wrong' they are because of this, that blah blah blah.

I often wonder if the paizo staff don't just shake their heads at the absurd extremes that some of these discussions get to. I expect real rules questions are going unanswered, hidden under the deluge of junk submitted by nit pickers and keyboard warriors.

Thunder and Fang was clearly intended to offer the use of an Earth breaker and a Klar together in an interesting and flavouful way. And nothing more or less than that.

Just because a description doesn't cover every eventuality or every loophole this is not an invitation to reinterpret the intent. Sadly I think that is lost on many.

No description will EVER be perfect. In my mind RAI should always trump RAW lawyering.

[Kazaan]

Therein lies the difference; it's not about the specific feat here. It's about the design principal of parity and consistency. I have no personal investment in Thunder and Fang; but I have a very personal interest in people compromising a system. You cannot have a functional system if rules elements are applied inconsistently. If Thunder and Fang doesn't match the RAI, the words must be changed. If they cannot or will not be changed, then they must work consistently with how those words and phrases have been defined, otherwise you get conflicts where a word or phrase means one thing in one situation but a different thing in another situation that is contextually the same.

We have a design principal here; that the effort to wield a weapon, whether it takes light, one-handed, or two-handed effort, is a function of how you actually wield a weapon of your size. The weapon will give you a base guideline; a Longsword is listed as a one-handed weapon, thus a Medium creature uses one-handed effort to wield a Medium Longsword. Size-based effort changes apply based on the actual effort used for a properly sized weapon. A Large Longsword, one step up from a Medium Longsword takes one step higher than the standard for a Medium Longsword; thus, a Large Longsword is considered a two-handed weapon for a Medium creature. Likewise, if a feat or special ability or special weapon quality would change your actual effort used, you take that into consideration as well. A Bastard Sword is a one-handed weapon with a special rule that, if you aren't proficient with it, you must use two-handed effort to wield it as a martial weapon. A Large Bastard Sword is one step up from that two-handed effort, despite a Bastard Sword being a one-handed weapon for a proficient user; thus a Medium creature without EWP: Bastard Sword cannot wield a Large Bastard Sword, even though a Medium creature could wield a Large Longsword. Both are medium weapons, but their effective handiness, given the creature's abilities, for a properly sized weapon is considered different. Same goes for the Earthbreaker, but in the other direction. Same exact principal; size changes work based on the actual effort required to wield the properly sized weapon, given all your feats and abilities. An Earthbreaker is normally a two-handed weapon but, with T&F, you only require one-handed effort to wield it. Size step-up works from that one-handed effort, boosting it up to two-handed. That is all. No ifs, ands, or buts about it. The two-handed designation of an Earthbreaker is merely a guideline for how it is normally wielded; if you have an ability that changes the default, you use the rules elements granted by your ability instead. Without this principal or parity, the entire system collapses and we have nothing but anarchy.

[Tarkeighas]

It's true about the anarchy issue. Someone just burst into my office with a shotgun and a torch demanding paizo fix the wording on thunder and fang before the government is overthrown....

I can only assume you were being ironic.

I read your post. I agree with much of it, and it would be nice if the description for thunder and fang neatly said "this only works when wielding an earth breaker in your main hand and a Klar in your off hand", or some other very specific wording.

In truth though I feel that this would not be enough for some people. I feel there would be a raft of "I know you said this but I disagree cause other rules or interpretations say..." posts. In a game system as complex as pathfinder there will ALWAYS be inconsistencies if you want to nit pick.

As I see it the trick is to settle on intent of a rule rather than poke holes because it isn't perfectly air tight.

[CrystalSpellblade]

Phalanx Soldier's Phalanx Fighting has the wording required for the intent to work for the Thunder and Fang feat. It's literally 4 words, "When wield a klar".

[Kazaan]

Tarkeighas wrote:

It's true about the anarchy issue. Someone just burst into my office with a shotgun and a torch demanding paizo fix the wording on thunder and fang before the government is overthrown...

You're good as long as they didn't say anything about start9.

[thaX]

Kazaan wrote:

Same goes for the Earthbreaker, but in the other direction. Same exact principal; size changes work based on the actual effort required to wield the properly sized weapon, given all your feats and abilities. An Earthbreaker is normally a two-handed weapon but, with T&F, you only require one-handed effort to wield it. Size step-up works from that one-handed effort, boosting it up to two-handed. That is all. No ifs, ands, or buts about it. The two-handed designation of an Earthbreaker is merely a guideline for how it is normally wielded; if you have an ability that changes the default, you use the rules elements granted by your ability instead. Without this principal or parity, the entire system collapses and we have nothing but anarchy.

You were doing alright until there.

The effort of wielding that you focus on is a part of the overall rule in the size weapons in the CRB. It relates it to the size of the weapon, but mentions no feats in relation nor any exceptions for what the character is able to do otherwise. The Bastard Sword (And some others) have properties that interact with the size rule, but the Earthbreaker isn't one of those weapons.

The character can wield the EB in one hand whilst also wielding a Klar. From the quotes above (From Redward) and what a lot of use has been posting on this thread, this would not allow even the double wielding of the EB's and certainly not allow an oversized EB to be wielded.

You say the rule is inconsistant from other things in the system. I don't see it.

[Bigdaddyjug]

They really need to add the ability to ignore users to these forums. I'm so tired of seeing the same tired arguments from Nevan and thaX.

[LazarX]

blackbloodtroll wrote:

Wait.

Are people actually saying that the Iconic Barbarian Amiri cannot wield her iconic Large Bastard Sword?

She wouldn't be able to if she did not already possess the exotic weapon proficiency (bastard sword) feat since first level.

[James Risner]

Bigdaddyjug wrote:

They really need to add the ability to ignore users to these forums. I'm so tired of seeing the same tired arguments from Nevan and thaX.

Careful, they might be thinking the same of your side. ;-)

[Bigdaddyjug]

Oh, I haven't taken a side. I'm just tired of every post of theirs saying the same thing. At least the other side has a wider variety of posters and arguments. I think this whole thing is a pretty stupid argument anyway. It's patently clear what the RAI is. Even if the RAW allowed you to dual-wield earthbreakers, it's not a clearly superior choice to other options. Why is this even a debate?

[James Risner]

Bigdaddyjug wrote:

Why is this even a debate?

Only because some people like their RAW like the ring of Sauron, there is only the "one true RAW".

[Kazaan]

Bigdaddyjug wrote:

Why is this even a debate?

Because if some people, maybe not so savvy with the rules, came along in earnest search of correct answers, and saw the butchery of logic being presented, they might be mislead to believe something incorrect. That's why I, Dimu, and others need to present a solid counter-point so that those who are still "on the fence" but reasonable enough to distinguish a reasonable argument from a clearly ridiculous one can make an informed decision. Sure, some will come in, have no capacity for logic and reason, and blithely conclude that the counter-point is "easy, therefore it must be right". There's no helping them. Some will come in and never needed help in the first place coming to a correct conclusion. They never needed help in the first place. It's for the benefit of that middle class, intelligent enough to know a logical position when presented next to a ridiculous one, but not quite intelligent enough to figure out the logical position from scratch, that I offer the benefit of my analysis. I could very well simply say, "there's no helping them" and duck out of the conversation, but then there's just a butt-load of false information and people that I know very well will be mislead by it; to abandon people to that would be utterly abhorrent to me, thus I stick with it. Not for the sake of thax, neven, and their crew, I know they're a lost cause. But they can serve as a negative catalyst towards enlightenment for the countless people sitting on the side and in the middle to come in and see the difference between logic and reason on one side and foolishness on the other, in which the choice for them is made clear. Those are the ones I stick around for.

[Bigdaddyjug]

How altruistic of you.

[Sub_Zero]

*in deep batman voice*

Kazaan, he's the hero paizo forums deserve, but not the hero they need right now... it's it's complicated, but pretty awesome when you think about it.

...... and link.

[redward]

Sub_Zero wrote:

*in deep batman voice*

Kazaan, he's the hero paizo forums deserve, but not the hero they need right now... it's it's complicated, but pretty awesome when you think about it.

...... and link.

It's certainly the most condescending and self-satisfied statement I've read here in quite some time, and that's including all of my self-satisfied and condescending posts.

[aboniks]

On the face of it, it seems like they would have called it "Thunder And Thunder" if it was intended to allow you to use two eathbreakers.

:)

[Sub_Zero]

aboniks wrote:

On the face of it, it seems like they would have called it "Thunder And Thunder" if it was intended to allow you to use two eathbreakers.

:)

again for the umpteenth time, a feats name is irrelevant to what it's rules are. Sword and pistol can be used with a mace and crossbow. Shouldn't it then have been called Mace & Crossbow?

To follow through, of course the intent is earthbreaker & Klar. That isn't in question. It's the RAW that is in question.

Now, from RAW you can 1-hand it no problem. I'm still technically on the fence for using the larger version, but Kazaan and other have done a better job arguing the point in my opinion.

[aboniks]

Please accept my apologies for provoking an attack of opportunity with my poorly timed but well intended comment.

I shall now take a five foot step out of your threat range.

[Sub_Zero]

aboniks wrote:

Please accept my apologies for provoking an attack of opportunity with my poorly timed but well intended comment.

I shall now take a five foot step out of your threat range.

lol, thank you I needed a good laugh.

I'm guessing you haven't read the whole 9 pages, or you'd see where the bitterness, tears and sheer aggression comes from.

Also as you could probably tell from my post, you couldn't have provoked an attack in the first place, since I'm using a total defense action. With that being the case feel free to walk right passed me you can't trigger AOO from me.

[aboniks]

I must admit that I didn't make it past the second page. The answer to the initial question did seem relatively obvious, at least to me.

As to the weapon size debate, I shall leave such things to those with more ranks in Split: (Hair).

[Kazaan]

It also seemed obvious that the Earth was the center of the solar system and the Sun went around us. The "obvious" solution isn't always the correct one.

[aboniks]

Kazaan wrote:

It also seemed obvious that the Earth was the center of the solar system and the Sun went around us. The "obvious" solution isn't always the correct one.

True enough. Fortunately the question at hand is somewhat less pressing than the one poor Galileo had to wrestle with, although it seems to have generated more than enough controversy to warrant the occasional excommunication.

Happily we have what our ancestors lacked to help us settle such debates, namely higher powers ready and willing to publicly pass judgement on these creations and instruct us all in their appropriate usage.

And when they fail us, we've always got the developers.

[James Risner]

Kazaan wrote:

That's why I, Dimu, and others need to present a solid counter-point so that those who are still "on the fence"

Pretty much

I've all but given up on the "let's agree to disagree", since so many people will keep making their point. If you don't continue to make your counter-point then the matter looks settled.

So since neither side can agree to say "here is why I think X" and leave it at that, you get threads with 1000 posts. Call it the cost.

Sub_Zero wrote:

Now, from RAW you can 1-hand it no problem.

While using a Klar in the offhand, yes.

[Sub_Zero]

James Risner wrote:

Sub_Zero wrote:

Now, from RAW you can 1-hand it no problem.

While using a Klar in the offhand, yes.

Only If you make up stuff that isn't there. Especially since you never end bothered to do more then assert that point.

[thaX]

Being consistant doesn't mean I have been saying the same thing over and over.

Overall, if I see someone dual wielding EB's with this feat, I would let it go as a GM, but the oversized EB is beyond the pail. I would point out that Dual Wielding these suckers may not be allowed at other tables, as it isn't the intent of the feat.

The effort thing is shoehorning one rule into another. Sure, if you cut and past to put both rules into one sentence, I can see where one would make that leap of faith, but the size rules work with the weapon's disignation and not on character effort itself. That the character gets to one hand a two handed weapon doesn't change the weapon itself, it's disignation doesn't actually change.

[Kazaan]

Once again... if the size rules work on the weapon's base, inherent designation and not on the character effort itself... why can a Medium Character not wield a Large One-Handed weapon when a special caveat says they treat it as requiring two-handed effort if not proficient?

Let me put it another way; a Sun Blade is a Bastard Sword the spoofs the light handiness of a Shortsword. It is the size of a Bastard Sword and has the impact of one when you hit with it, but to the hands of the wielder, it is like holding a shortsword; you can easily one-hand it, even as an off-hand weapon. This means that, via size step-up, if I had a Huge Sun Blade, even though its base weapon type is a one-handed Bastard Sword, I can still swing around this 12' Sword because two steps up from the effort required to wield a light weapon is the effort required for a 2-h weapon.

The only consistency you've shown here, Thax, is the consistent insistence on a double-standard where size step-up clearly applies to the effort the character actually uses to wield the weapon, but you insist that, in some cases, that is trumped by the idea that doesn't work if the effort required for the base weapon would disqualify you if you didn't have an effort-adjusting ability.

[thaX]

I have told you this.

The Bastard Sword is a Two Handed Weapon for those that do not have EWP (Bastard Sword). This is in the weapon's entry in the CRB.

It is a One Handed weapon in the chart.

The EB does not have this. This feat does not give it that. I am confused as to why the BS has any bearing on this issue, as it is an exception to a rule specifically.

The overall question that had been the focus on this has concentrated on the fact that the EB is treated as a One Handed weapon. This is to put the damage output in line to a one handed weapon, not a change to the weapon itself. The Damage Die doesn't go down a step (To a one handed weapon) and the actual disignation doesn't change as it is being one handed. Size differentials will always take the weapon disignation to bear, not the character's ability to use it differently.

The BS, being a cross between a Longsword and a Greatsword, requires a feat to use it proper. A martial character can finagle the thing with two hands, but one with EWP knows how to effect its proper use.

You are either confusing the two weapons, or taking into account the special properties of the BS as a part of the overall Size rules instead of the exception to them.

[Sub_Zero]

thaX wrote:

I have told you this.

The Bastard Sword is a Two Handed Weapon for those that do not have EWP (Bastard Sword). This is in the weapon's entry in the CRB.

It is a One Handed weapon in the chart.

The EB does not have this. This feat does not give it that. I am confused as to why the BS has any bearing on this issue, as it is an exception to a rule specifically.

The overall question that had been the focus on this has concentrated on the fact that the EB is treated as a One Handed weapon. This is to put the damage output in line to a one handed weapon, not a change to the weapon itself. The Damage Die doesn't go down a step (To a one handed weapon) and the actual disignation doesn't change as it is being one handed. Size differentials will always take the weapon disignation to bear, not the character's ability to use it differently.

The BS, being a cross between a Longsword and a Greatsword, requires a feat to use it proper. A martial character can finagle the thing with two hands, but one with EWP knows how to effect its proper use.

You are either confusing the two weapons, or taking into account the special properties of the BS as a part of the overall Size rules instead of the exception to them.

Just to be clear, are you saying that you can't wield a huge sunblade two-handed?

Also, maybe this will help clear up some confusion.

This

thaX wrote:

The Bastard Sword is a Two Handed Weapon for those that do not have EWP (Bastard Sword).

seems to contradict this

thaX wrote:

That the character gets to one hand a two handed weapon doesn't change the weapon itself, it's disignation doesn't actually change.

The reason is if you look at the rule

rule wrote:

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. A character can use a bastard sword two-handed as a martial weapon.

nothing about this statement changes the blades designation, just the way a character treats the weapon, which you've said doesn't matter.

Now, if you could clarify here we might be able to move forward, because thus far it seems like you're cherry picking with this particular point.

[thaX]

Use as vs. Treated as. The difference is that the character can still use the EB as a two handed weapon, while the BS give no choice, you have to use it as such unless you get the EWP feat.

[James Risner]

Sub_Zero wrote:

Only If you make up stuff that isn't there.

Interestingly, no. It is only if you ignore stuff that is there. Specifically in the Normal line and the rest of the feat.

If we did this kind of thing that you are doing, then Rust Monsters wouldn't be a scare at all. Their ability does damage to a weapon. When you damage a weapon you apply hardness. But the fluff makes it clear that even Adamantine weapons crumble just as easily as any other metal (which indicates hardness is ignored.)

[Sub_Zero]

James Risner wrote:

Sub_Zero wrote:

Only If you make up stuff that isn't there.

Interestingly, no. It is only if you ignore stuff that is there. Specifically in the Normal line and the rest of the feat.

Show where the normal line shows that you can't wield the earth breaker 1-handed alone. You've never done so. You've just stated this as if fact. I even went and deconstructed this for you. Again James, I wouldn't have a problem with your argument... if you actually provided evidence.

James Risner wrote:

If we did this kind of thing that you are doing, then Rust Monsters wouldn't be a scare at all. Their ability does damage to a weapon. When you damage a weapon you apply hardness. But the fluff makes it clear that even Adamantine weapons crumble just as easily as any other metal (which indicates hardness is ignored.)

This here is a more interesting argument. I don't know the rules of the rust monster explicitly (GM hasn't been that mean yet), but I'll have to take a look.

[Bigdaddyjug]

No James, the rust monster isn't the same thing. The rust monster ability is an example of specific trumping general, not a case of fluff vs crunch.

[Kazaan]

thaX wrote:

I have told you this.

The Bastard Sword is a Two Handed Weapon for those that do not have EWP (Bastard Sword). This is in the weapon's entry in the CRB.

It is a One Handed weapon in the chart.

And an Earth Breaker can be treated as a One-Handed weapon for characters with the T&F feat. Without any feat at all, a Dagger is treated as a Light weapon, a Longsword is treated as a one-handed weapon, and a Greatsword is treated as a two-handed weapon. This is because their respective designations tell you to treat them as those kinds of weapon. the Medium Bastard Sword, without EWP, is treated as a two-handed weapon, thus a Large Bastard Sword, without EWP, is treated as an unwieldable weapon. With EWP, the Bastard Sword can be treated as a one-handed weapon, thus a Large Bastard Sword, with EWP, is treated as a two-handed weapon.

Apply the same principal in reverse for Earthbreakers and the T&F feat.

[James Risner]

Sub_Zero wrote:

if you actually provided evidence.

I have you rejected it.

Bigdaddyjug wrote:

No James, the rust monster isn't the same thing. The rust monster ability is an example of specific trumping general, not a case of fluff vs crunch.

Rust Monster wrote:

Rust (Su) A rust monster's antennae are a primary touch attack that causes any metal object they touch to swiftly rust and corrode. The object touched takes half its maximum hp in damage and gains the broken condition

Nothing in that line says "ignore hardness." If half your hit points is less than hardness you would by RAW (using the "ignore fluff and other evidence" version of RAW) have most weapons unable to be rusted.

But this fluff counters that RAW version:

Quote:

like steel but devouring even mithral, adamantine, and enchanted metals with equal ease.

Any time you use pedantic readings of RAW you lead down a road to a bad place, where nothing makes sense.