Large-handed Tiefling and Jotungrip / Giant Weapon Wielder

[Artemis Moonstar]

Relevant Text:

Fiendish Heritage roll #16: You have over-sized limbs, allowing you to use Large weapons without penalty.

Jotungrip (EX): At 2nd level, a titan mauler may choose to wield a two-handed melee weapon in one hand with a –2 penalty on attack rolls while doing so. The weapon must be appropriately sized for her, and it is treated as one-handed when determining the effect of Power Attack, Strength bonus to damage, and the like.

This ability replaces uncanny dodge.

Does this mean one can actually wield a Large sized two-handed weapon in one hand? My gut says yes, foregoing the "RAW" of 'appropriately sized' due to the over-sized limbs, but looking for second opinions.

Now, for Giant Weapon Wielder!

Giant Weapon Wielder (EX):

At 1st level, a titan fighter can wield two-handed melee weapons intended for creatures one size category larger than himself, treating them as two-handed weapons. He takes an additional –2 penalty on attack rolls when using an over-sized two-handed weapon.

This ability replaces the fighter's 1st level bonus feat.

Would the over-sized limbs bump the size of 'over sized weapons' from 'large' to 'huge'?

[blackbloodtroll]

The Titan Fighter ability is the only one that allows you to wield a weapon that would otherwise be unwieldable.

Jotungrip only applies weapons sized for you.

Oversized Limbs doesn't change the number of hands required to wield inappropriately sized weapons. It just removes penalties. A large Longsword would still require two hands to wield.

[Kazaan]

blackbloodtroll wrote:

Oversized Limbs doesn't change the number of hands required to wield inappropriately sized weapons. It just removes penalties. A large Longsword would still require two hands to wield.

This part is incorrect. It doesn't specify attack penalty, it just says "penalties" and we have prescient set by the Redcap, which has, mechanically, the same ability, being a small fey wielding a mediums scythe. The handedness change is counted as a penalty so a Tiefling with Oversized Limbs can, indeed, wield a Large Longsword and not only suffer no penalty to attack, but also still treats it as a 1-h weapon.

However, once you go up to Huge weapons, you don't only get a -2 penalty and treat a Huge Longsword as 2-h; it jumps up 2 categories to unwieldable and you can still only wield a Huge Light weapon at -4 as a 2-h weapon.

The rest of what you said, regarding Titan Fighter as well as Jotungrip is spot on.

[blackbloodtroll]

There is no evidence that the Tiefling ability functions as the Redcap ability. They don't even have the same name.

In fact, the Redcap ability doesn't really work as written.

A changing of handedness is never noted.

We can forgive the Redcap, as a number of Monsters break rules with special abilities, but those are taken case by case.

In the end, you cannot create a change of handedness, if no change of handedness is noted.

Handedness is not a penalty.

[Kazaan]

They have, functionally, the same wording saving only for the fact that each is based on the size of the respective race (Tieflings are Medium sized, so it calls out Large and Redcaps are Small so it calls out Medium, but otherwise, they are identical). The change of handedness is noted as it is bundled into the "penalties" clause. Changing up from a 1-h weapon to a 2-h weapon is counted as a Penalty. Not a numeric penalty, mind you, but a penalty nonetheless. If Penalties were only the numeric penalties, then you can attack with both ends of a Double weapon at 1.5x Str because it is, after all, a 2-h weapon and when you wield it double for TWF, you take the penalties to TWF as if wielding a 1-h and light weapon. If "penalties" truly were just the numerical penalties, then it only affects the TWF penalty to attack, not how much Strength bonus you get to damage as that is not a "penalty" in the mechanical sense. "Monsters break the rules anyway" is never a valid excuse; if they really don't follow the rules, they must either be re-written or the rules must be re-written. The Redcap, a Small Fey, wields a Medium Scythe as a 2-h weapon. That definitively demonstrates that when it says "Penalties" in regards to wielding oversized weapons, handedness is an inherent part of "Penalties". Tiefling's Oversized Limbs, using the same exact verbiage, functions the same way.

[blackbloodtroll]

If penalties covered Handedness, then the Titan Mauler Barbarian, and Titan Fighter, would be able to wield larger, and larger weapons, and the handedness would be reduced.

This is not the case.

So, we have at least two examples, of where penalties does not cover handedness.

We have one odd monster, that might suggest otherwise, but is in dispute.

[Kazaan]

Incorrect. Titan Mauler's ability is written differently.

PRD wrote:

Massive Weapons (Ex): At 3rd level, a titan mauler becomes skilled in the use of massive weapons looted from her titanic foes. The attack roll penalty for using weapons too large for her size is reduced by 1, and this reduction increases by 1 for every three levels beyond 3rd (to a minimum of 0). This ability replaces trap sense.

It explicitly singles out the attack roll penalty, rather than listing "penalties' in general. Same applies to Titan Fighter.

[blackbloodtroll]

You are still working under the assumption that handedness falls under the category of "penalties".

I don't see evidence for that.

I don't see it anywhere else, and I don't see it within the listed abilities, as being an exception.

Think about it.

Putting handedness in the generalized category of penalties, has a huge amount of problems.

Even if you believed that the general category of penalties, does not cover handedness, but handedness did fall under penalties, as an exception of the general rule, there would need to be proof of the exception.

I see no proof.

[Xethik]

I can wield large weapons without penalty? Sweet! Let's power attack and ignore that penalty, combat expertise because, hey, why the hell not? You know, needing a hand at all is a penalty. Let's just wield infinite with our minds!

/sarcasm off
If you take a strict RAW approach to a small line like the oversized limbs thing, silly things happen. Now, thinking a large two-handed weapon should be usable in 2-hands still is RAI, that's fine. I disagree, but do that's fine. I have a gut feeling the Redcap is an overlooked error, but I can see where you are coming from.

[blackbloodtroll]

Xethik wrote:

I can wield large weapons without penalty? Sweet! Let's power attack and ignore that penalty, combat expertise because, hey, why the hell not? You know, needing a hand at all is a penalty. Let's just wield infinite with our minds!

/sarcasm off
If you take a strict RAW approach to a small line like the oversized limbs thing, silly things happen. Now, thinking a large two-handed weapon should be usable in 2-hands still is RAI, that's fine. I disagree, but do that's fine. I have a gut feeling the Redcap is an overlooked error, but I can see where you are coming from.

That's RAW out of context, and not "strict RAW".

I too, believe the Redcap is an error.

Much like the Potions of Shield, and Keen Longbows, that are available amongst assorted Paizo material.

[Xethik]

blackbloodtroll wrote:

Xethik wrote:

I can wield large weapons without penalty? Sweet! Let's power attack and ignore that penalty, combat expertise because, hey, why the hell not? You know, needing a hand at all is a penalty. Let's just wield infinite with our minds!

/sarcasm off
If you take a strict RAW approach to a small line like the oversized limbs thing, silly things happen. Now, thinking a large two-handed weapon should be usable in 2-hands still is RAI, that's fine. I disagree, but do that's fine. I have a gut feeling the Redcap is an overlooked error, but I can see where you are coming from.

That's RAW out of context, and not "strict RAW".

I too, believe the Redcap is an error.

Much like the Potions of Shield, and Keen Longbows, that are available amongst assorted Paizo material.

Perhaps strict RAW was not the best term, but yeah, out of context RAW perhaps. It reminded me of the Shield Master argument for things like Power Attack and TWF. Even though that one specified attack penalties, it is a somewhat similar case that may be worth looking at if you want to delve deeper into.

Unfortunately, this is a half-rule in a paperback splash that does not work in PFS. An FAQ or errata is essentially impossible, but getting an author statement could happen.

[blackbloodtroll]

I would rather have a ruling on the Redcap.

It is likely to be used more often, and would set up a precedent.

Let's look at an ability, that works in the opposite direction:

Bestiary wrote:

Undersized Weapons (Ex)

The creature uses manufactured weapons as if it were one size category Smaller than the creature’s actual size.

Format: undersized weapons; Location: Special Qualities.

Now, that covers penalties, and handedness.

If the Redcap ability were: "The Redcap uses manufactured weapons as if it were one size category Larger.", then it would work, as intended, without a doubt.

[Dread Knight]

Artemis Moonstar wrote:

** spoiler omitted **

Does this mean one can actually wield a Large sized two-handed weapon in one hand? My gut says yes, foregoing the "RAW" of 'appropriately sized' due to the over-sized limbs, but looking for second opinions.

Now, for Giant Weapon Wielder!

** spoiler omitted **

Would the over-sized limbs bump the size of 'over sized weapons' from 'large' to 'huge'?

If you are playing the 'standard' human Tiefling(which I'm pretty sure you are) then the answer is no since you are still a Medium creature and that means Medium sized weapons are the appropriately sized weapons for you(Jotungrip wording) and Large is one size category larger than you(Giant Weapon Wielder wording) of course with the Tiefling Over-Sized Limbs ability you're pretty much getting a better Giant Weapon Wielder ability since you won't be taking -2 to attack and from my understanding/interpretation of the Tiefling ability you could use a Huge One-Handed weapon or Gargantuan Light weapon.

Of course your GM could always rule differently so the best idea would be to sit down, talk with them, come up with an agreement on how these interact and how to accomplish the idea you have for a character.

[Kazaan]

blackbloodtroll wrote:

I would rather have a ruling on the Redcap.

It is likely to be used more often, and would set up a precedent.

Let's look at an ability, that works in the opposite direction:

Bestiary wrote:

Undersized Weapons (Ex)

The creature uses manufactured weapons as if it were one size category Smaller than the creature’s actual size.

Format: undersized weapons; Location: Special Qualities.

Now, that covers penalties, and handedness.

If the Redcap ability were: "The Redcap uses manufactured weapons as if it were one size category Larger.", then it would work, as intended, without a doubt.

Not quite. Undersized Weapons is more of a prohibition than a benefit. A Redcap can wield both Small and Medium weapons equally (same goes for an Oversized Limb Tiefling and Medium/Large weapons). But Undersized Weapons works out such that if you are a Large creature, you only count Medium weapons as being properly sized for you. That is, apparently, not the situation they wanted to establish which is why they didn't use that mechanical structure. But tell me, if "Penalties" is only talking about the -2 penalty per size category, then does that mean you also believe we should wield Double weapons with 1.5x Str to damage on both heads? After all, it only says you take TWF Penalties as if wielding a one-handed and light weapon. By your position, reducing the 1.5x Str from wielding a 2-h weapon down to 1x for the main-hand and 0.5x for the off-hand wouldn't be considered a Penalty. Obviously, since you believe that Penalties can't be things other than numeric minuses applied to a roll, you'd be fine if, in your game, I brought in a character with a Double Sword getting 1.5x Str on all my TWF attacks, right?

[blackbloodtroll]

I only said that "penalties" did not cover handedness.

I never said "penalties" was numeric minuses applied to a roll only.

Usually, it is though.

For example, a reduction of available actions, as the Nauseated condition creates, is also considered a "penalty", depending on context.

So, if handedness, in this context, is considered a penalty, then there must be some proof of such.

[Kazaan]

blackbloodtroll wrote:

I only said that "penalties" did not cover handedness.

I never said "penalties" was numeric minuses applied to a roll only.

Usually, it is though.

For example, a reduction of available actions, as the Nauseated condition creates, is also considered a "penalty", depending on context.

So, if handedness, in this context, is considered a penalty, then there must be some proof of such.

Just so long as that proof isn't a monster that couldn't wield its assigned weapon if handedness weren't considered a penalty. Gotcha.

[Doomed Hero]

The Redcap is a 3.5 holdover from a standard ability in that system called Powerful Frame.

As far as I know the Redcap is the only creature to still have an ability like that, and without the existence of Powerful Frame as a frame of reference, the rules for Redcaps become pretty badly worded.

Personally, I think Powerful Frame is a fantastic ability that more creatures should have.

[Kazaan]

That's no different than rolling the Ambidexterity and Two-Weapon Fighting feats into a single feat. Redcap's Heavy Weapons is simply based on a feat that used Monkey Grip as a prereq. It's obvious that the two were rolled into one, meaning that the function of Monkey Grip is now implied by the phrase "without penalty" in not only this ability, but any other ability worded the same. Whether or not it's a 3.5 holdover or not, it works the way it works and, just as with half-breeds, a single mechanical term can't mean two opposite things at the same time (effects related to race). "You can wield for (size) creatures without penalty" cannot logically mean anything other than disregarding both the change in handedness as well as the attack roll penalty. That means that this same phrase cannot mean something different in another part of the rules. That is inconsistent and, therefore, abominable and damnable.

[SheepishEidolon]

Doomed Hero wrote:

The Redcap is a 3.5 holdover from a standard ability in that system called Powerful Frame.

As far as I know the Redcap is the only creature to still have an ability like that, and without the existence of Powerful Frame as a frame of reference, the rules for Redcaps become pretty badly worded.

At least the wording in Bestiary 2 (second print) is clear:

Quote:

Melee Medium scythe +10 (2d4+10/×4), kick +4 (1d4+6)

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

Fun fact: The image on the redcap page shows only a Small scythe...

I mean, using Large two-handed weapons as a Medium creature has multiple problems:

a) Double-size hilt
b) Necessary space to swing it
c) Weight
d) Weight distribution over the weapon
e) Putting it on your back
f) Drawing it from your back

But with enough training (a, b, d), physical strength (c) and a magical backpack (e, f) it can be done. Hence the Titan Fighter is cheesy but still makes sense, somewhat.

It's more difficult to believe in case of the Tiefling who can just offer large limbs which help only with problem a. However, if you believe it works for him, it's difficult to deny Huge weapons to a Tiefling Titan Fighter. The Tiefling offers a physical trait and the class a training program - two very different advantages which therefore should stack.

However, the GM would have to allow Tiefling as race pic, Titan Fighter as class pick and looting / buying / smithing such a weapon. Personally, I'd allow the first two, but it would take some levels till the player earns the Huge weapon of his choice.

[My Self]

Consider getting effortless lace.

[KahnyaGnorc]

That's why I like Half-Giants for 2h melee builds.