| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The confusion here is phrasing and not putting two and two together. Coming up with five then telling me that four is not the answer is not going to further this conversation, for any posters that have this overwhelming desire to double wield Two Handed Weapons...
Hey here's something we both agree on. Though I feel it's you since whenever you reference the feat you use "wield a two handed weapon in one hand" which you've admitted is different from "wield as a one-handed weapon". And I've said before, YOU are the one that seems to be talking about stuff that is not going to further this conversation. Since you're not seeming to respond to any questions directly.
How are you coming to the conclusion that the weapon is suddenly a One Handed Weapon?
We're coming up with the conclusion that it is suddenly a one handed weapon because the feat says we can use it as a one-handed weapon.
Did you adjust the damage for it, making it do 1d8 damage instead when it changes like this? Did you adjust the weight of the weapon, making it lighter? Hardness and HP of the weapon?
NO THAX, THE SINCE THE ACTUAL WEAPON ISN'T CHANGING AT ALL. IT DOES 2D6, WEIGHS THE SAME, HAS THE SAME HARDNESS AND HP AND EVERYTHING ELSE THAT IS PART OF AN EARTHBREAKER. THE ONLY DIFFERENCE IS THAT I CAN WIELD IT AS EASILY AS I CAN WIELD A LONGSWORD. BEING WIELDED AS A ONE-HANDED WEAPON HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH THE SIZE, OR DAMAGE, OR ANYTHING ABOUT THE WEAPON.
When it is said that the Size rules are not being used, then where is the scale that put the weapon in a different category? If you are not using that scale, where else does the weapon designation change for the character? It isn't the feat that changes it, but if it is maintained that it is, where are the rules for that change outside of the size rules? (Inappropriately sized weapons) What is the penalty for wielding two Two Handed Swords and TWF with them? (another -4/-4?)
The weapon is designated as one-handed for you for wielding. THE FEAT IS THE THING THAT IS CHANGING THIS SINCE IT SAYS I CAN USE IT AS A ONE-HANDED WEAPON. The change is similar to the bastard sword. everything about it is calculated one way, regardless of if you can wield it in one hand or two, same with this, the earthbreaker is calculated the same OTHER THAN THE EFFORT TO WIELD IT. And there is no way to wield two THW and 2WF, thing is, for us when we use the earthbreaker we use it as a one-handed so we are only wielding two One-handed weapons.
I don't know how many times or ways it can be said that the actual weapon itself never changes. Nothing about it ever changes. Not a single, solitary thing. Literally the only single thing that changes is how the user gets to wield it - that's a change to the wielder, not the weapon.
Literally, the only thing that is different is that the user, when figuring out all the options they get on how to wield the weapon, now gets to pretend that their weapon could be listed on the table as a one-handed weapon as well. That is it.
The feat means "Pretend this weapon is listed as a one-handed weapon if doing so is beneficial to you. But don't actually change anything about the weapons." That is it, in a nutshell.
The feats never say that two of them can be wielded at the same time. Thunder and Fang, specifically, has the character wielding the weapon and a modified shield at the same time, and getting the shield bonus from the Klar as he is attacking with it.
The feat says you wield it as a one-handed weapon. The rules state you can wield two one handed weapons as the same time. Those are the rules that say you can wield two at a time. The feat says I can use the earthbreaker as a one-handed weapon. That if I make an attack with a klar when I have an earthbreaker in my other hand I keep the AC. And that I can treat the klar as a light weapon when I 2wf with it. That's what the feat does. Those three separate things are what the feat does.
My overall reaction when this was first mentioned to me was "wait, two of them... what, how?" I still have that reaction now, as I don't see how the feats would magically make the weapon into something it is not.
The oversized one is a mute point at this juncture, as there is already two Archtypes that allow for it for with less Feat tax and within the scope of what was or is intended. It is a better option than a questionable reading of the feat that may or may not allow for it.
This part seem to me that you have something you feel the feat is supposed to do or how the feat is supposed to work and are looking at that rather than looking at what the feat actually says you can do. Like the klar will always be counted as light if you 2wf with it. If you had two klars they'd both count as light weapons if you 2wf with them. Cause the feat says so. The feat never says it's only a light weapon when your other weapon is a klar.
But if you think double wielding them is feasible with these feats, would you also disallow the smaller version to be used Two Handed (being, for the character, a "light" weapon) or allow for a larger one to be wielded in Two Hands? This is going way beyond the scope of the feat and the purpose it is trying to effect.
Yes, many times have already answered this with yes, if they wanted to use the feat to wield a small one as a light weapon then yes, they couldn't use two hands on it for extra effects. But since they don't HAVE to always be using the feat they could wield a small one as normally, so a one-handed, which can use two hands on.
And Yes, since the earthbreaker is a one-handed weapon you can wield a large one-handed weapon in two hands as a two-handed weapon.
maybe by separating all the posts it can help thaX pick one to respond to to be more directed rather than him just saying a bunch of stuff, most of which seems to be misunderstanding our position and addressing stuff no one has said but him.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I've been trying to follow this discussion, but all I can say is I have one hell of a headache. :-/
I've been trying to follow this discussion, but all I can say is I have one hell of a headache. :-/
If you have any specific questions I can try to explain what is happening.
Not at this time, but thanks. Maybe later. :-)
|
I have not been saying this the whole time?Yes, they are separate things. It is a Two Handed weapon and never changes size to make it a One Handed weapon. Being Wielded in one hand is not the same as being a One Handed Weapon. It still does the damage (2d6) of a Two Handed weapon, that is the advantage of the feat, it still has all the particulars about being a Two Handed weapon, including weight and and size.THANK YOU THAX!!! You've finally admitted that being able to be wielded in one hand is different then the weapon being a one-handed weapon.
Now which does the feat do?
1) Let you wield an earthbreaker (a two-handed weapon) in one hand
or
2) Let you use the earthbreaker as a one-handed weapon
Both say the same thing, one is just adjunted to a shorter sentence, which is how the feat was written. It could be a bit clearer on things, but it was already a redone wording from the first source.
As you are wielding the weapon as a One-Handed Weapon, even though the weapon itself is still a Two handed Weapon, it is using all the relevant adjustments to particulars (mostly static damage after the weapon die damage) of a One Handed Weapon.
This is the same as a character two handing a One Handed Weapon and getting the particulars of a Two Handed weapon. What this feat does is no different than the rules already in place here. The weapon is still what it is.
...
being treated as a One Handed weapon is not the same as making the weapon itself a One Handed Weapon. (Which would involve Crafting (Weapon))
...
Using it as a One Handed Weapon means using this thing (Two Handed Weapon) in One Hand.
It does not use the "size chart" at all. I agree. Why are you insisting that it is a One Handed weapon when it is not.
Wait, I know, it isn't using the size chart except that it is a one handed weapon because feat. right? Does it say it turns it into a One Handed Weapon? No, it says it is used as a one handed weapon? Yes, and it is assumed it is still doing the die damage of the Two Handed Weapon, otherwise what would be the point? Turning the weapon into a One Handed Weapon would defeat the purpose of the feat.
...
The feat says you wield it as a one-handed weapon. The rules state you can wield two one handed weapons as the same time. Those are the rules that say you can wield two at a time. The feat says I can use the earthbreaker as a one-handed weapon. That if I make an attack with a klar when I have an earthbreaker in my other hand I keep the AC. And that I can treat the klar as a light weapon when I 2wf with it. That's what the feat does. Those three separate things are what the feat does.
You can wield an Earth Breaker as a One Handed Weapon. The Rules state as you have surmised, but the weapon is still not a One Handed Weapon, it only is used in that manner. I have been told, by Efreet, I believe, that the Klar has specifics in that feat that relies on it being used in conjunction with the EB and Two can not be used at the same time. If you do not use it together with the EB, then the AC bonus will not stay up if you attack with them. This is particular with that feat, not something left up to adjunction. You can do one thing here, wield an Earth Breaker with a Klar in the Thunder and Fang style of fighting.
I also believe that the light weapon consideration for the Klar is when TWF with the EB.
...
It says you can use a Two Handed weapon (specifically naming the weapon) in one hand. However it is phrased in each feat, the overall effect is doing one handed damage effects when wielding the Two Handed weapon in one hand.
What else does the feat say you can do? Anything about wielding two of them? Oversized?
It does not. I am amazed that any would thing one could.
Have you had players do this at your table? I have had one player that in PFS that I had the discussion with and told him he would not be doing the Double wielding or oversized weapon of the EB at my table. (Others have told him also, he is okay with that as it is, to his mind, an overreach of the rules, even as he insists that it still can be done)
Even as one would double wield the suckers, when you take two hands to wield the oversized one, it is two hands wielding an oversized Two Handed Weapon, so it becomes unwieldable to that character no matter if the GM allows the regular sized ones to be double Wielded.
|
|
I don't know how many times or ways it can be said that the actual weapon itself never changes. Nothing about it ever changes. Not a single, solitary thing. Literally the only single thing that changes is how the user gets to wield it - that's a change to the wielder, not the weapon.
Literally, the only thing that is different is that the user, when figuring out all the options they get on how to wield the weapon, now gets to pretend that their weapon could be listed on the table as a one-handed weapon as well. That is it.
The feat means "Pretend this weapon is listed as a one-handed weapon if doing so is beneficial to you. But don't actually change anything about the weapons." That is it, in a nutshell.
It changes nothing on the weapon charts, it only allows for the character to use it in a different manner. It is like adding a One Handed rule to the Two Handed Weapon just as the One Handed Weapon has a Two Handed rule.
I did quote the three sections of rules up above.
For the character with the feat, he can wield this one weapon differently than normally allowed. This adjusts a lot of things concerned with how the character is wielding it and the shortest way to explain this is to wield the weapon as a one handed weapon. It doesn't change the weapon's own designation, only how the character wields it.
It is, I admit, a simplification of what it does, but do you really want three pages of "the character can do this and as he is doing so, -great big list o things that change because of this-"
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
You know what pretend means, right? You don't actually move where the weapon is on the chart; you can just pretend that it appears elsewhere for the purpose of determining how you can weild it and that purpose alone.
You don't need three pages of text. "Weild as a one-handed weapon" covers literally everything. It lets you weild it in every conceivable way just as if it were a one-handed weapon, even though it is not actually one.
Can you do it with a one-handed weapon? If yes, then you can do it if you are allowed to weild a THW as if it were a OHW.
Both say the same thing, one is just adjunted to a shorter sentence, which is how the feat was written. It could be a bit clearer on things, but it was already a redone wording from the first source.Now which does the feat do?
1) Let you wield an earthbreaker (a two-handed weapon) in one hand
or
2) Let you use the earthbreaker as a one-handed weapon
I have not been saying this the whole time?Yes, they are separate things. It is a Two Handed weapon and never changes size to make it a One Handed weapon. Being Wielded in one hand is not the same as being a One Handed Weapon. It still does the damage (2d6) of a Two Handed weapon, that is the advantage of the feat, it still has all the particulars about being a Two Handed weapon, including weight and and size.THANK YOU THAX!!! You've finally admitted that being able to be wielded in one hand is different then the weapon being a one-handed weapon.
thaX, these two statements you made are opposing each other.
In the later you say, Yes, wielding a weapon in one hand is mechanically different from wielding a one-handed weapon. Then in the prior say that weilding a weapon in one hand is the same as wielding as a one-handed weapon. How can you be having this view?
As you are wielding the weapon as a One-Handed Weapon, even though the weapon itself is still a Two handed Weapon, it is using all the relevant adjustments to particulars (mostly static damage after the weapon die damage) of a One Handed Weapon.
This is the same as a character two handing a One Handed Weapon and getting the particulars of a Two Handed weapon. What this feat does is no different than the rules already in place here. The weapon is still what it is.
thaX. There are abilities that one work when wielding a two-handed weapon and not a one-handed with two hands. Would a large longsword work with this ability?
I also believe that the light weapon consideration for the Klar is when TWF with the EB.
HOW IN THE WORLD CAN YOU TAKE
"Treat your klar as a light weapon for the purposes of determining your two-weapon fighting penalty."To mean
"Treat your klar as a light weapon for the purposes of determining your two-weapon fighting penalty when also wielding an earthbreaker."?
Like how are you seeing rules that aren't actually there?
I have not been saying this the whole time?Yes, they are separate things. It is a Two Handed weapon and never changes size to make it a One Handed weapon. Being Wielded in one hand is not the same as being a One Handed Weapon. It still does the damage (2d6) of a Two Handed weapon, that is the advantage of the feat, it still has all the particulars about being a Two Handed weapon, including weight and and size.THANK YOU THAX!!! You've finally admitted that being able to be wielded in one hand is different then the weapon being a one-handed weapon.Now which does the feat do?
1) Let you wield an earthbreaker (a two-handed weapon) in one hand
or
2) Let you use the earthbreaker as a one-handed weapon
Both say the same thing, one is just adjunted to a shorter sentence, which is how the feat was written. It could be a bit clearer on things, but it was already a redone wording from the first source.
As you are wielding the weapon as a One-Handed Weapon, even though the weapon itself is still a Two handed Weapon, it is using all the relevant adjustments to particulars (mostly static damage after the weapon die damage) of a One Handed Weapon.
This is the same as a character two handing a One Handed Weapon and getting the particulars of a Two Handed weapon. What this feat does is no different than the rules already in place here. The weapon is still what it is.
...
being treated as a One Handed weapon is not the same as making the weapon itself a One Handed Weapon. (Which would involve Crafting (Weapon))
...Using it as a One Handed Weapon means using this thing (Two Handed Weapon) in One Hand.
It does not use the "size chart" at all. I agree. Why are you insisting that it is a One Handed weapon when it is not.
Wait, I know, it isn't using the size chart except that it is a one handed weapon because feat. right? Does it say it turns it into a One Handed Weapon? No, it says it is used as a one...
Too much wrong with all of this.
I'm so done again with trying to discuss with you thaX. You again are CLEARLY showing that you aren't actually interested in discussing this topic. You're repeatedly and grossly misrepresented our view. You seem to be making no effort to understand what we are actually saying, while we have consistently shown understanding of your view because we asked if we were correct in what you were saying and you never said we weren't. You show no intention of actually having a focused conversation about this topic as you keep bringing in random stuff, talking about previous iterations, and making up rules, and hardly ever directly answering any of our questions.
Personally I would love to have actual conversations on this and would love to understand fully WHY you think the rules work the way you say they work. But since it seems you're just going to continue exactly what you were doing before and not making any effort to have a conversation it's not worth my time to try.
I also believe that the light weapon consideration for the Klar is when TWF with the EB.HOW IN THE WORLD CAN YOU TAKE
"Treat your klar as a light weapon for the purposes of determining your two-weapon fighting penalty."
To mean
"Treat your klar as a light weapon for the purposes of determining your two-weapon fighting penalty when also wielding an earthbreaker."?
Like how are you seeing rules that aren't actually there?
I admit to not having followed this whole conversation, but I can see where thaX is coming from with this, even if I most assuredly disagree with his notion that if you have EWP (Bastard Sword) that you can no longer two-hand it.
What I believe he's doing, and honestly what I would do, is take all the sentences of the feat as a whole, instead of trying to separate them into distinct parts. By that I mean that the benefits of the feat only apply when wielding an earthbreaker and a klar, and that's honestly something the feat should outright state. I feel like there's a reason the feat is called "Thunder and Fang", not "Sword and Fang" or "Thunder and More Thunder". So while what I'm implying is definitely RAI, I feel like it's an accurate RAI.
Take that for what you will. I'm by no means a rules expert, just a gut feeling on this one.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I can understand the ruling for the Thunder and Fang, sure. Edit: I mean by RAI. RAW you can do it separately.
But Dorn Dergar master, absolutely not. it lets you wield dorn dergars as one handed weapons. You can absolutely wield two of them then.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
You have the skill to wield them as 1 handed weapons. You can wield two 1 handed weapons with 2WF. If you have the master feat you can wield two, albeit at a -4 penalty since you can't wield them as light weapons.
Your three feats, four If you're not a dwarf, get you +1 average damage (over wielding a different 1 handed weapon) and reach, for the penalty of -4 attack. Of course the dorm durgar master feat also has a prerequisite of two weapon fighting.
In a similar vein Titan mauler would let you wield two great swords, albeit at -6 attack for each, provided each is appropriately sized for you. These penalties are reasonably hefty in my mind.
I find it mind boggling that the average human, not to mention the average dwarf, could fight effectively with a ten-foot chain flail in each hand. Notwithstanding "Iron Man 2".
I agree with Phoenix slayer. The text says enough for me...
"You have mastered the ancient Thunder and Fang fighting style, allowing you to fight with increased effectiveness when wielding an earth breaker and klar."
Not earth breaker or klar.
Is it just me or has this thread been derailed to all hell?
Is it just me or has this thread been derailed to all hell?
Heh, yeah. I believe the original question was answered fairly well though, so there's that at least.
|
|
I will make a last post. I am going to use Notepad to break done the rules text for the three sections I quoted earlier, and put a hypothetical on what happens when a Feat gives the character this ability being discussed.
To be sure, I have tried every other way to explain my stance, with some going back to "but it doesn't say I can't" with the weapon changing or the chart becoming a sliding chart.
Wait for it, I will post this tomorrow...
|
|
Ok... lets break down the rules on Page 141 of the Core Rulebook in relation to this particular issue.
Issue: Wielding weapon normally designatated a Two Handed weapon in One Hand from a feat that allows character to do so.
Problem: The player wants to go beyond the scope of the feat and Wield the weapon in other ways (Double Wielding two of them, Wielding an Oversized Two Handed weapon)
Breakdown....
Light,One-Handed, and Two-Handed Melee Weapons.Bolded start of section, title is what will be the three designations of weapons for the game.
This designation is a measure of how much effert it takes to wield a weapon in combat. It indicates whether a melee weapon, when wielded by a character of the weapon's size category, is considered a light weapon, a one-handed weapon, or a two-handed weapon.This classifies the designations and explains what they represent. It also introduces the size category in reference, denoting that the designations are for the weapons made with a character size in mind, so when a character of the that size wields it, the weapon designation is considered to be one of these three designations.
Light: A light weapon is used in one hand.This is not saying a light weapon is a one-handed weapon, it is denoting that a light weapon is wielded in one hand.
It is easier to use in one's off hand than a one-handed weapon is, and can be used while grabbling (see Chapter 8).This mentions use in the off hand as well as being able to wield it when grappling. I assume this is when being grappled as well as being the one grabbling.
Add the wielder's Strength modifier to damage rolls for melee attacks with a light weapon if it's used in the primary hand, or half the wielder's Strength bonus if it's used in the off hand.This is telling the reader that what you add for the Strength modifier damage depends on whether it is the Primary Hand wielding it or the Off Hand.
Using two hands to wield a light weapon gives no advantage on damage; the Strength bouns applies as though the weapon were held in the wielder's primary hand only.This tells you that wielding a light weapon in two hands does not handle the weapon differently than wielding it otherwise. It doesn't expressly forbid wielding it in Two Hands, it just iterates that no advantage comes from doing so.
An unarmed strike is always considered a light weapon.I forget if this was added in after the first printing, but it is iterated elsewhere in the book. This tells you that punching someone is using light weapons. The issue with provoking AoO when doing so and the difference that Improved Unarmed Strike makes is not a part of this section of rules.
One-Handed: A one-handed weapon can be used in either the primary hand or the off hand.This denotes that the weapon is like the Light weapon above, being able to be used in either hand, primary or off.
Add the Wielder's Strength bonus to damage rolls for melee attacks with a one-handed weapon if it's used in the primary hand, or 1/2 his Strength bonus if it's used in the off hand.Besides the change from "Modifier" to "Bonus" for the Str damage, this is the same as the light weapon. Notice the lack of being easier to use in the off hand, which was in the light weapon catagory, and the fact that it doesn't actually say it is more difficult to use in the off hand either.
If a one-handed weapon is wielded with two hands during combat, add 1-1/2 times the character's Strength bonus to damage rolls.This denotes an advantage to wielding a One Handed weapon with both hands. Thus far, these two designations have laid out what Two Handing the weapon entails.
Two-Handed: Two hands are required to use a Two-Handed melee weapon effectively.This denotes that a Two-Handed weapon needs both hands to use.
Apply 1-1/2 times the character's Strength bonus to damage rolls for melee attacks with such a weapon.
This is repeating what the One-Handed weapon already iterated about Str bonus damage when Two Handing it. Notice that the Off Hand rules from the other two weapons is not repeated here, though also not seen is the fact that both primary and off hand need to be used. (This is the "unwritten rule" that was referenced in a few FAQ's) The rules for using a two-handed weapon in the off hand is simply not there. It is assumed it is a part of the wielding of the weapon, but it also does not expressly allow for the wielding of the weapon in the off hand either.
Weapon Size:A bold start denoting a new section of rules text. Please note that it was mentioned within the text of the previous section, but is now being ellabrated on here.
Every weapon has a size category.This is in addition to one of the three weapon designations above.
This designation indicates the size of the creature for which the weapon was designed.Medium sword for a medium character, small for small and so on.
A weapon's size category isn't the same as its size as an object.A medium sword is not the same as being a medium sized thing.
Instead, a weapon's size category is keyed to the size of the intended wielder.So what size the sword actualy is depends on the size of the wielder it was made for.
In general, a light weapon is an object two size categories smaller than the wielder,A medium Shortsword is a tiny object.
a one-handed weapon is an object one size category smaller than the wielder,A medium Longsword is a small object.
and a two-handed weapon is an object of the same size category as the wielder.
Medium Greatsword is a Medium object.
Inappropriately Sized Weapons:Start of a sub-section of the size rules. This section shows the relation of a weapon sized for a different sized creature than what the character size is.
A creature can't make optimum use of a weapon that isn't properly sized for it.This means that the size categories for the weapons actually mean something other than the size of the weapon.
A cumulative -2 penalty applies on attack rolls for each size category of difference between the size of its intended wielder and the size of its actual wielder.If not sized for the creature, he will be taking a penalty for wielding the weapon. It will be a worse penalty the further it goes away from the size it was actually meant for.
If the creature isn't proficeint with the weapon, a -4 nonproficiency penalty also appliesFurther penalties for using something your not trained for.
The measure of how much effort it takes to use a weapon (whether the weapon is designated as a light, one-handed, or two-handed for a particular wielder)This is referencing the section above and setting up to explain the correlation between the size of the weapon and the designation of effort needed to wield it.
is altered by one step for each size category of difference between the wielder's size and the size of the creature for which the weapon was designed.There is an example in the rules text in the next sentence. Notice that the weapon original designation does not actually change, it is how the character can use it himself, meaning that the altered designation is for that character because of the size difference.
For example, a Small creature would wield a Medium one-handed weapon as a two-handed weapon.So, even though the weapon itself is still considered One-Handed, the small creature needs to use it as a Two Handed weapon, and is considered as such for that character. Remember, please, that we are still just talking about the size differentual between weapon and creature.
If a weapon's designation would be changed to something other than light, one-handed, or two-handed by this alteration, the creature can't wield the weapon at all.
Meaning, of this one-handed weapon was tried to be wielded by a Tiny creature, that creature would not be able to wield the medium one-handed weapon.
The next section goes into Improvised weapons while the section above was about reach weapons, ranged weapon and ammo.
Now, the size difference between character and weapon is not used in this case, the weapon stays a Two-Handed weapon in any case.
Now, imagine, if you will, the feat adding this to the end of the Two Handed part of the first section. "(Feat character has) allows for the character to wield this (Particular two-handed weapon or Two Handed weapons in general) in one hand. Add the wielder's Strength bonus to damage rolls when wielding it in one hand."
Please notice that the Two Handed weapons have no particulars about the Off Hand, the only weapons allowed to be wielded by the Off Hand is those that are considered Light or One-Handed weapons. For the character, the weapon is still considered a Two Handed weapon, the size rules have no bearing on how the feat works. If a Large two handed weapon is used, the character is still unable to wield it no matter what the feat does for him.
These three sections is where it tells you what you can do with weapons designated as they are in given situations. The only use of the Size Scale is when the weapon actually is a different size than the character.
One clarification, the rules go on to page 144, skipping the pages that the weapon charts are on in between.
I find it mind boggling that the average human, not to mention the average dwarf, could fight effectively with a ten-foot chain flail in each hand. Notwithstanding "Iron Man 2".
You're playing a game with pixies, fire-breathing dragons, and elves who can stop time by muttering a few words and wiggling their fingers. But whatever works, I guess.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
And all of that is superceded by the specific rule in the feat/ability that tells you you can weild a THW as if it were a OHW.
Your version is "You can weild this THW as a OHW. But only sometimes and in some ways that we never describe or give you the specifics on. So not really like a OHW."
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Please notice that the Two Handed weapons have no particulars about the Off Hand, the only weapons allowed to be wielded by the Off Hand is those that are considered Light or One-Handed weapons. For the character, the weapon is still considered a Two Handed weapon, the size rules have no bearing on how the feat works.
This, specifically, is absolutely, unequivocally, 100% incorrect. Well, the implications you draw from it, anyway (because, mind-boggling enough, you state this correctly then ignore the point in your conclusions).
If a weapon is considered a one-handed weapon for the purposes of weilding, you absolutely can weild it in your off-hand. Why? Because as you noted, "the only weapons allowed to be wielded by the Off Hand is those that are considered Light or One-Handed weapons." And because of the abilities we're talking about here, the weapon is considered a OHW. Seriously, you just said you can off-hand weild a weapon as long as it is "considered" a OHW. That's exactly what is going on here. The weapon is now "considered" a OHW for the purposes of weilding it.
So seriously, how do you disagree with this? You literally just wrote out specifically why it is allowed.
thaX,
Since you did your big long post in an effort to communicate I'm responding to you. I really REALLY would like you to "reply" to this post and answer only this question in the post that you're "replying" to this one with. This is a very important question because it will help everyone know WHAT it is we disagree on.
Is there a difference between wielding a two-handed weapon in one hand and wielding a two handed weapon as a one-handed weapon?
Guys. This thread is gonna get locked. Go make a new one, this has gone on way too long and is way past the scope of the ops question.
|
|
Did you miss the correlation between the weapon size and designation? That the weapon doesn't actually change at all, it instead depends on the character's size compared to the weapon size. If the weapon is smaller, it is considered a One Handed weapon for the character, but the weapon itself is still a Two Handed Weapon, the altered state is how the character uses the inappropriate size of the weapon.
Now, the size difference between character and weapon is not used in this case, the weapon stays a Two-Handed weapon in any case.
It goes by this designation to determine how the character wields it, this feat doesn't supersede this, it ignores it completely. You treat this weapon as a One Handed Weapon. That doesn't mean the weapon itself changed or is different, it is the ability of the character that wields this Two Handed weapon with one hand.
So the fact that the weapon is still a Two Handed weapon, despite how it is wielded, has no bearing on if he can wield a second one? How did you come to that conclusion?
The point I am trying to make is that the weapon only uses the state of being wielded in a particular way, the actual designation of the weapon never changes. A light weapon is wielded in one hand, but is never considered a one handed weapon. A one handed weapon used with two hands is still a one handed weapon while getting the particulars of being wielded in Two Hands. This is the same situation. The weapon is still a two handed weapon being wielded in one hand.
The rules are right there. They are a bit out of date with all the newer things that batter around and do things never thought of when written, but they are there. You wield a Two Handed weapon in one hand. However the feat is phrased or the ability parsed, this is what the character is doing.
I am still agog about how someone actually made the leap from one handing this weapon to going through the expense of actually getting a second one to double wield these suckers.
So, what is your thought on the hypothetical?
Now, imagine, if you will, the feat adding this to the end of the Two Handed part of the first section. "(Feat character has) allows for the character to wield this (Particular two-handed weapon or Two Handed weapons in general) in one hand. Add the wielder's Strength bonus to damage rolls when wielding it in one hand."
It is the same caveat that the one handed weapon has for using it with Two Hands.
So the fact that the weapon is still a Two Handed weapon, despite how it is wielded, has no bearing on if he can wield a second one? How did you come to that conclusion?
The point I am trying to make is that the weapon only uses the state of being wielded in a particular way, the actual designation of the weapon never changes. A light weapon is wielded in one hand, but is never considered a one handed weapon. A one handed weapon used with two hands is still a one handed weapon while getting the particulars of being wielded in Two Hands. This is the same situation. The weapon is still a two handed weapon being wielded in one hand.
How did I come to the conclusion? Because the rules, literally, say "Wield as a one-handed weapon". That means "Any way you can wield a one-handed weapon, you can wield this weapon." I recognize that the weapon does not change from its status as a THW for every purpose but wielding it. Wielding a weapon in your off-hand is a function of wielding a weapon. Thus, you can wield this weapon in your off-hand as if it were a one-handed weapon, because we are explicitly told this in the rules.
So yes, this overrides the notion that a character cannot wield a THW in their off-hand, just like it overrides the notion that one cannot wield a THW in just their main hand.
So, what is your thought on the hypothetical?
Now, imagine, if you will, the feat adding this to the end of the Two Handed part of the first section. "(Feat character has) allows for the character to wield this (Particular two-handed weapon or Two Handed weapons in general) in one hand. Add the wielder's Strength bonus to damage rolls when wielding it in one hand."It is the same caveat that the one handed weapon has for using it with Two Hands.
I don't understand how this is relevant or changes anything. What would be different if this were included anywhere? The feat already tells us, specifically, how THW can be used by a character with the relevant ability: they can use the relevant weapon as if it were a one-handed weapon.
Rules reference standard cases, that's why there's no discussion of one-handing THW. Assumptions for rules-writing is base case: PC race, medium creature, appropriately-sized weapon. That the rules do not explicitly consider (at that point) other options is irrelevant. Thus, the only actually relevant rule is the one in the ability/feat that tells you to wield the weapon as if it were one-handed.
I honestly have no idea where else to go with this. This is one of those cases where the answer is legitimately plainly obvious on the page. There's no need to analyze disparate rules in disparate places; there's one relevant rule "Wield this as a one-handed weapon." That's it. That's all you need to know. That's all the rules need to say to communicate all the necessary information to accomplish the task.
I find it mind boggling that the average human, not to mention the average dwarf, could fight effectively with a ten-foot chain flail in each hand. Notwithstanding "Iron Man 2".You're playing a game with pixies, fire-breathing dragons, and elves who can stop time by muttering a few words and wiggling their fingers. But whatever works, I guess.
You're saying "anything goes". But if anything goes, why have rules at all?
This is my favorite quote on the subject (from a thread about lances and basically this same argument):
I used to be firmly on the side of "martial characters should be somewhat realistic"
I have sense realized that mindset is one of the biggest problems in the Pathfinder system.
A low level martial should be tied to Wyrm's brand of physics based realism. One lance is all you get.
A mid level martial should be able to use two if they want. Sure. It's a little silly, but the guy behind him is throwing lightning, so whatever.
A high level martial should be able to dual wield lances made for Giants while riding their horse on the ceiling. Physics took a backseat a long time ago.
EDIT: Wyrm was another poster in the thread
ROFL!
|
|
There's no need to analyze disparate rules in disparate places; there's one relevant rule "Wield this (Specific Two Handed weapon) as a one-handed weapon." That's it.
You almost had it there.
I believe we both know where we are in this discussion, it just seems that we can not agree on the particulars. Right now, saying the above quote (without the parentheses) is saying the oft referred to phrase "It doesn't say that I can't" in relation to doing more than wielding a single Two Handed weapon in One Hand. My response is that it does not say you can neither.
I look at the rules to see what I can do, not what I can't.
|
|
This is my favorite quote on the subject (from a thread about lances and basically this same argument):
EDIT: Wyrm was another poster in the threadI used to be firmly on the side of "martial characters should be somewhat realistic"
I have sense realized that mindset is one of the biggest problems in the Pathfinder system.
A low level martial should be tied to Wyrm's brand of physics based realism. One lance is all you get.
A mid level martial should be able to use two if they want. Sure. It's a little silly, but the guy behind him is throwing lightning, so whatever.
A high level martial should be able to dual wield lances made for Giants while riding their horse on the ceiling. Physics took a backseat a long time ago.
That's pretty funny. Thank you for that.
You're saying "anything goes". But if anything goes, why have rules at all?I find it mind boggling that the average human, not to mention the average dwarf, could fight effectively with a ten-foot chain flail in each hand. Notwithstanding "Iron Man 2".You're playing a game with pixies, fire-breathing dragons, and elves who can stop time by muttering a few words and wiggling their fingers. But whatever works, I guess.
That's ... actually not what I said. The rules specifically allow for what you're saying shouldn't be allowed because of realism. My point is you're picking and choosing when to use realism. After all, your post amounted to, "A creature which only exists in this fantasy game I am playing can do a thing that probably couldn't be done here in the real world." In short, "This imaginary creature isn't real enough."
My point is, if it's in the rules, it's ok even if it doesn't seem realistic. 90% of the game isn't realistic. Rates of fire, attacks, carry capacities, etc. all aren't realistic. So why draw the line here?
EDIT: Also, to be clear, it isn't the "average" dwarf doing this. It's a dwarf with a heavy feat investment towards this specific trick doing this. Like how the average human can't juggle five balls to save their lives, let alone while riding a unicycle. But there are people who specifically train to do exactly that.
There's no need to analyze disparate rules in disparate places; there's one relevant rule "Wield this (Specific Two Handed weapon) as a one-handed weapon." That's it.You almost had it there.
I believe we both know where we are in this discussion, it just seems that we can not agree on the particulars. Right now, saying the above quote (without the parentheses) is saying the oft referred to phrase "It doesn't say that I can't" in relation to doing more than wielding a single Two Handed weapon in One Hand. My response is that it does not say you can neither.
I look at the rules to see what I can do, not what I can't.
If you think I'm advocating "The rules don't say I can't, therefore I can", you haven't paid much attention to my posts in this or any other thread.
I'm saying the you can do this because the rules specifically say you can. It really is this simple: wielding a two-handed weapon like a one-handed weapon means you can use that two-handed weapon in any of the same capacities that you can use a one-handed weapon because that's literally what wielding it as a one-handed weapon means.
Your interpretation means "Wield as a one-handed weapon" doesn't actually mean you can wield it as a one-handed weapon. That is unquestionably contradictory to the explicit rules on the page.
|
|
We agree on something. You can use the weapon, wield it as a One Handed weapon.
Now, where again does it say anything about a second one?
I see a Klar in the second hand in one feat, used as a light weapon.
When the weapon is in the weapon rack, it is a Two Handed weapon. The character can pick up this Two Handed weapon and wield it on one hand. That is what this feat does. Just as the character can take that longsword next to it and wield it in two hands. Just as he can take that dagger and wield it in one hand.
What is the difference between those weapons? A feat?
And just like the character can wield that longsword in their off-hand, this hypothetical character with Chain Flail Master can wield a Dorn-Dergar in their off-hand. Because that's specifically what the feat allows: wielding that weapon (in any capacity, because we're not told it's limited as you suggest) as if it were a one-handed weapon.
What is the difference, for the purpose of wielding, between a weapin wielded as if it were a one-handed weapon and a one-handed weapon? Where are those differences listed?
I'm not addressing Thunder & Fang. Never have been. I'm addressing the general principle that wielding a THW as if it were a OHW means exactly that, for all aspects of wielding. Otherwise, it would tell us that it didn't actually mean "wielding" in all its capacities.
thaX,
I really REALLY would like you to "reply" to this post and answer only this question in the post that you're "replying" to this one with. This is a very important question because it will help everyone know WHAT it is we disagree on.Is there a difference between wielding a two-handed weapon in one hand and wielding a two-handed weapon as a one-handed weapon?
You're saying "anything goes". But if anything goes, why have rules at all?That's ... actually not what I said. The rules specifically allow for what you're saying shouldn't be allowed because of realism. …
My point is, if it's in the rules, it's ok even if it doesn't seem realistic. 90% of the game isn't realistic. Rates of fire, attacks, carry capacities, etc. all aren't realistic. So why draw the line here?
I didn't say it shouldn't be allowed, I said I find the idea mind-boggling. As for drawing the line, why draw it anywhere?
"If it's in the rules…", fine. But isn't that what this whole thread is about? Disagreement about what the rules actually are?
The unicycle thing is a fair point, I suppose.
In the end, I suppose it's totally up to the GM (or the folks running PFS, if it's a PFS setting).
Pathfinder Society Lead Developer
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Knowing that the Pathfinder Society Roleplaying Guild benefits from clear rules that rely little on table variation, the Pathfinder Society created the Campaign Clarifications document earlier this year. The document provides clarifications and corrections for character options published outside the hardcover RPG line (e.g. Player Companions, Campaign Setting, and the Adventure Paths) that are binding in the organized play campaign. Of course, those playing in any other format can choose to take or leave these clarifications; they are not official errata. You can read more in the blog published earlier this year.
That's a long introduction to my saying we provided a clarification on the Thunder and Fang feat last Friday. Consider taking a look to see if that affects this discussion.
Nice one. Well done.
Any help on pointing out where the updated version is?
|
Pathfinder Society Lead Developer
|
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
Any help on pointing out where the updated version is?
You'll find it in the Pathfinder Player Companion section under the "Varisia: Birthplace of Legends" entry.
Page 10—Change the Benefit text of the Thunder and Fang feat to the following. "You may wield an earth breaker and a klar at the same time. When you do so, you may treat the earth breaker as though it were a one-handed weapon. When using an earth breaker as if it were a one-handed weapon with a klar in your off hand, you retain the shield bonus your klar grants to your Armor Class even when you use it to attack. Treat your klar as a light weapon for the purposes of determining your two weapon-fighting penalty."
The key change is in the second sentence, which now begins with "When you do so," denoting the feat's effects only apply when wielding the earth breaker and kalr simultaneously.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Thax are you implying that a huge creature can not TWF with greatswords made for medium-sized creatures?
Such a weapon would be treated as a light weapon for a huge creature.
There's no need to analyze disparate rules in disparate places; there's one relevant rule "Wield this (Specific Two Handed weapon) as a one-handed weapon." That's it.You almost had it there.
I believe we both know where we are in this discussion, it just seems that we can not agree on the particulars. Right now, saying the above quote (without the parentheses) is saying the oft referred to phrase "It doesn't say that I can't" in relation to doing more than wielding a single Two Handed weapon in One Hand. My response is that it does not say you can neither.
I look at the rules to see what I can do, not what I can't.
If you are wielding it as a one handed weapon if follows that you can wield the weapon in one heand. You can wield a one handed weapon in your off-hand(the rules allow this), why is this not working? The feat doesn't even say you are limited to your main hand. What evidence do you have to limit the weapon to one hand or the other?
Where does it say that the "one hand" has to be the main hand? Where do the rules say that one hand can't hold any weapon the other hand can hold? There is no precedent for one hand being able to hold something the other hand can not.
Cite a rules source if you think one hand can hold a weapon the other hand can not.