| Alric Rahl |
ok so im going to reopen some past arguments here. most of pathfinder's rules are restated or repurposed 3.5 rules, feats, abilities, etc, right? some of which they changed completely, such as turning feats into general rules. and so i found this thread:
http://rpg.stackexchange.com/questions/31620/what-trait-feat-class-etc-can- reduce-the-penalty-of-using-inappropriately-s
which talks about 2 feats 3.5 had for wielding larger sized weapons. the first of which, Monkey Grip, is now the standard for wielding oversized weapons in Pathfinder. however the second feat, which I have copied below, seems to give the same indication to players as the oversized limbs ability that tieflings have access to.
Wield Oversized Weapon:
You can treat any weapon as if it were one size category smaller than normal and one category "lighter" for the purpose of determining the amount of effort it takes to wield. For instance, a halfling with this feat could wield a Medium short sword as a Small light weapon, or a human could wield an ogre's Large greatclub as a Medium two-handed weapon. The weapon still deals its normal amount of damage.
As the above feat changes the size of the weapon this removes the to-hit penalty the creature would incur (halfling trying to wield a medium shortsword would take a -2 penalty on to-hit).
Now change the name of the above feat to "Over-sized limbs". And the ability reads as follows: "You can wield Large weapons without penalty".
in the above feat change the wording of "treat any weapon as one size smaller" to "a large size weapon" and this is essentially what over-sized limbs is getting at. the "penalty" meaning both the to-hit and the handedness.
So yes you can use a Large Greatsword as a medium creature without penalty (both on the to-hit and the handedness).
for another example take the Redcap which is a small creature with a medium scythe. if you apply the wording of the above 3.5 feat in regards to the human to the redcap, then the redcap treats the MEDIUM scythe as a SMALL two-handed weapon but with MEDIUM sized damage. thus allowing it to be wielded without penalty.
Now in regards to the wanting to wield a HUGE weapon if YOU were already LARGE size. I believe this is also valid using the oversized limbs ability. the way it reads "Large weapons" could be interpreted in 2 ways.
1. Large size category in regards to weapons
2. bigger than YOUR current size category weapons (ie. if you are large than it refers to HUGE size weapons)(I say this interpretation because the description is written assuming the base creatures size is medium, however this can change)
if we assume the former because the creature is medium sized then yes it certainly means large size weapon categories. but what if the creature is affected by a Righteous might spell which increases his size category by 1. what happens to his oversized limbs do they stay their normal size while the rest of his body grows, thus making his arms now look appropriate for his body type?
No, they grow with him as they were already overgrown to begin with because thats how he was born, they would become larger too.
Now because these kinds of effects can occur then interpretation #2 should be the one considered at all times.
Thus in conclusion:
A tiefling with oversized limbs could wield a Large Greatsword without penalty. However they could also wield a huge Bastard Sword in 2 hands taking a -2 to-hit. (can wield a large bastard sword 1-handed without penalty thus they take the first increment of penalty while wielding it as a huge 2 handed.)
Now as a person who values Logic and Common Sense above all else, I have drawn Logical conclusions from the evidence provided to me and have used my own common sense in determining the interpretation as well as surmised that since there has been little input by devs on this area, or at least that I have seen or read, that my above conclusions work based on RAW. Not to mention that RAW means "READ as Written" in which case everyone reads things differently, which I believe is why the creators of this game sometimes write things so vague is because although it is called a rule they want them to be more as guidelines to how you run your game, and you are supposed to READ into them how you want and it is your GMS final decision how he decides they should be interpreted (this is a fact I believe most people including the creators and writers sometimes forget) The fact that most of the people on this site complain about how the rules are "ACTUALLY" meant to work is ridiculous. This is a role playing game where I'm sure if you talked rationally to your GM about your logical way of interpreting the feat he may allow it to work both ways in separate instances.
At least thats how I would do it. Now you might say "but there could be thousands of ways the rule could work in thousands of different instances". while this may be true, most will be contradicting to each other, and if you keep a note of how the rule works in the given instance you can always refer back to it should the need arise and if it does seem like it conflicts with the other instance than it should not be allowed. Now this may create some arguments at the table but everyone has to realize that the GM has the final say. And if you get upset by his decision clearly you have never been the GM and have never known the frustration or the feeling of guilt at having to turn down a players interpretation. not to mention the frustration of your players thinking up ways to get around what you had prepared thus forcing you to think on the spot of something new.
The above is my interpretation of how this works by RAW. You are free to agree or disagree I don't care. GM's are welcome to use this logic in their own games to give their players a valid reason for choosing the selected interpretation.