| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Back to the OP, though, why would you not want to take Exotic Weapon Proficiency?
Because they're not taking Martial Weapon Proficiency, either. They are a Grenadier Alchemist, which gains proficiency in one and only one martial weapon of their choice as part of class proficiencies.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
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.
Description: A sawtoothed sabre may be used as a Martial Weapon (in which case it functions as a longsword), but if you have the feat Exotic Weapon Proficiency (sawtoothed sabre), you treat the weapon as if it were a light weapon for the purpose of two-weapon fighting—the sabre remains classified as a one-handed melee weapon for all other purposes.
Just to show a text difference between the bastard sword and a weapon that is similar but not exactly the same in having differing levels of proficiency.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Yes, you can.
Very simply, if a fighter with proficiency in all martial weapons has proficiency in bastard swords, then it can be taken individually as a martial weapon via the feat.
As a martial weapon the bastard sword is a two-handed weapon, not a one-handed weapon.
Your mistake is in the premise. Without a feat, the fighter IS NOT proficient in bastard sword. The bastard sword simply has a property that allows the fighter to use it at par when wielding it two-handed despite this.
|
Your mistake is in the premise. Without a feat, the fighter IS NOT proficient in bastard sword. The bastard sword simply has a property that allows the fighter to use it at par when wielding it two-handed despite this.Yes, you can.
Very simply, if a fighter with proficiency in all martial weapons has proficiency in bastard swords, then it can be taken individually as a martial weapon via the feat.
As a martial weapon the bastard sword is a two-handed weapon, not a one-handed weapon.
There is no mistake here. If the bastard sword was intended to be only used as a martial weapon by those with proficiency in "all martial weapons" it would say this.
There is no mistake here. If the bastard sword was intended to be only used as a martial weapon by those with proficiency in "all martial weapons" it would say this.Your mistake is in the premise. Without a feat, the fighter IS NOT proficient in bastard sword. The bastard sword simply has a property that allows the fighter to use it at par when wielding it two-handed despite this.Yes, you can.
Very simply, if a fighter with proficiency in all martial weapons has proficiency in bastard swords, then it can be taken individually as a martial weapon via the feat.
As a martial weapon the bastard sword is a two-handed weapon, not a one-handed weapon.
It effectively does. At 3rd level, anyone who wants badly enough can take Exotic Weapon proficiency and be fully conversant with the blade.
|
|
It effectively does. At 3rd level, anyone who wants badly enough can take Exotic Weapon proficiency and be fully conversant with the blade.There is no mistake here. If the bastard sword was intended to be only used as a martial weapon by those with proficiency in "all martial weapons" it would say this.Your mistake is in the premise. Without a feat, the fighter IS NOT proficient in bastard sword. The bastard sword simply has a property that allows the fighter to use it at par when wielding it two-handed despite this.Yes, you can.
Very simply, if a fighter with proficiency in all martial weapons has proficiency in bastard swords, then it can be taken individually as a martial weapon via the feat.
As a martial weapon the bastard sword is a two-handed weapon, not a one-handed weapon.
I totally agree that the Exotic is, hands down, the better choice here. You can always choose to wield one-handed weapons with two hands, so only advantages with an Exotic weapon feat over the martial one.
That said, nothing in the Bastard Sword description even implies that it is intended exclusively for classes with access to "all martial weapons."
And this isn't only weapon like it, there are a good handful of weapons with the exact same wording, and no indication that they are intended only for classes with "all martial weapons." If this is an intended effect of that class feature, it really should be mentioned in the class feature itself, or on the weapons themselves. It's even a common enough description where adding it as a weapon property would save space.
I often suspect that the Martial weapon Proficiency feat is intended to function like the Simple Weapon Proficiency, in that it is supposed to apply to all simple weapons. Several class archetypes even swap it for a single feat, as if martial weapon proficiency (all) is equal to a single feat.
Also i should add that realistically if you can wield a greatsword in 2 hands you can wield a bastard sword the same way
Even if it is normally an Exotic weapon, it says to treat it as if it were a martial weapon if you lack EWP for it. It's no different than an Elf treating an Elven Curve Blade or Elven Branch Spear as martial due to racial weapon proficiency.
The comparison doesn't work.
Weapon Familiarity: Elves are proficient with longbows (including composite longbows), longswords, rapiers, and shortbows (including composite shortbows), and treat any weapon with the word “elven” in its name as a martial weapon.
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.
The elf racial (and similar racials on other races) say you treat the weapon as a martial one. Because it does not specify under what circumstances you can treat it as one, you can treat it as a martial weapon for all purposes, including prerequisites.
The bastard sword says you can use it as a martial weapon. This is a narrower subset of treat, since it only applies for purposes you can use the weapon in. Taking a feat for the weapon is not "using" the weapon, even if it leads to you more effectively using the weapon later.
|
|
Also i should add that realistically if you can wield a greatsword in 2 hands you can wield a bastard sword the same wayWell, that gets into notions of cross-training. Strictly speaking, if you get proficiency in one specific weapon, that doesn't translate to proficiency in a similar weapon unless the similar weapon explicitly states so (eg. Aldori Dueling Sword can be treated as martial longsword, Sunblade can be treated as either shortsword or bastard sword, etc). If you wanted to expand on that system, you'd need to create an outline of "base" weapons and "derivative" weapons that shows how crosstraining would work in all cases. For example:
Longsword (base)
- Aldori Dueling Sword
- Rhoka Sword
- Sawtooth SabreShortsword
- GladiusGreatsword
- Bastard Sword
- Great Terbutje
- Seven Branch SwordProficiency with a base weapon would grant partial proficiency with a derivative weapon and rules elements related to the base weapon could translate to the derivative weapon. In reverse, the derivative weapon would grant full proficiency with the base weapon.
For starters, I would love it if they did this, but I don't think they will.
But regarding the Bastard Sword, and the Dwarven Waraxe for that matter, it seems entirely reasonable to select the Bastard Sword as a 2-handed martial weapon.
As for the many arguers against this, I am curious, what is the danger here? I mean, aside from your take of the RAW being against it, are their applications of this that would make allowing this 2-handed martial weapon proficency to unbalance the game or particular class feature?
As mentioned, it's an inferior Greatsword in rules, so it seems like one of those things where even if it is against the rules, it's still something that no one really cares about because you aren't gaining anything.
I will note that if the goal is a one-handed weapon that deals 1d10 damage, you could just take an undersized greatsword without any issues. -2 to attack, but that's really not a huge issue most of the time. And you could still wield an undersized greatsword in two hands, or you could have a second greatsword of normal size for those instances. An oversized Longsword would also function in the same capacity.
Personally, I've never really thought the bastard sword was very impressive. Seems like it's more iconic, than viable as an exotic or martial weapon.
Also i should add that realistically if you can wield a greatsword in 2 hands you can wield a bastard sword the same wayWell, that gets into notions of cross-training. Strictly speaking, if you get proficiency in one specific weapon, that doesn't translate to proficiency in a similar weapon unless the similar weapon explicitly states so (eg. Aldori Dueling Sword can be treated as martial longsword, Sunblade can be treated as either shortsword or bastard sword, etc). If you wanted to expand on that system, you'd need to create an outline of "base" weapons and "derivative" weapons that shows how crosstraining would work in all cases. For example:
(snip)
Proficiency with a base weapon would grant partial proficiency with a derivative weapon and rules elements related to the base weapon could translate to the derivative weapon. In reverse, the derivative weapon would grant full proficiency with the base weapon.
For starters, I would love it if they did this, but I don't think they will.
But regarding the Bastard Sword, and the Dwarven Waraxe for that matter, it seems entirely reasonable to select the Bastard Sword as a 2-handed martial weapon.
As for the many arguers against this, I am curious, what is the danger here? I mean, aside from your take of the RAW being against it, are their applications of this that would make allowing this 2-handed martial weapon proficency to unbalance the game or particular class feature?
As mentioned, it's an inferior Greatsword in rules, so it seems like one of those things where even if it is against the rules, it's still something that no one really cares about because you aren't gaining anything.
I will note that if the goal is a one-handed weapon that deals 1d10 damage, you could just take an undersized greatsword without any issues. -2 to attack, but that's really not a huge issue most of the time. And you could still wield an undersized greatsword in two hands, or you could have a second greatsword of normal size for those instances. An oversized Longsword would also function in the same capacity.
Personally, I've never really thought the bastard sword was very impressive. Seems like it's more iconic, than viable as an exotic or martial weapon.
As a personal note, I'd probably let this go. It's the 'your choice is suboptimal so it shouldn't break the game' school of thought; it's also why I would let anyone try to one-hand a bastard sword, even fighters. ('So, you want +1 damage over a longsword in exchange for -4 to hit? Your funeral.') About the only real use for the weapon at all, I think, is the 'cool but inefficient' use to swing a Large one, for +2 damage at -2 to hit, compared with a greatsword.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Thread where I point out that all the rules provided thus far and the FAQs on them are very contradictory.
good job sir, it seems your logic and thread has solved the problem.
As for the many arguers against this, I am curious, what is the danger here? I mean, aside from your take of the RAW being against it, are their applications of this that would make allowing this 2-handed martial weapon proficency to unbalance the game or particular class feature?
It's possibly an odd eccentricity of mine. I tend to think of the rules in a very strict, very as written sense. And when it comes to answering questions here in the rules forum, I use this literal mindset.
However, as a GM, I lean far more towards being permissive, so I would allow a player to do this in a heartbeat.
I just don't think the rules say it.
Which is the real point... it's up to your GM not some digital text on a distant messageboard.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
As for the many arguers against this, I am curious, what is the danger here? I mean, aside from your take of the RAW being against it, are their applications of this that would make allowing this 2-handed martial weapon proficency to unbalance the game or particular class feature?On thinking about it for a day or so, I thought of one distinct possibility where one could "abuse" this. The Heirloom Weapon trait allows you to start play with a martial or simple weapon of your choice and grants one of three benefits; one of which being proficiency with that specific weapon (eg. you could pick Longsword and be proficient with that longsword, but not with any other longsword you might pick up). If you go with the "Bastard Sword can be counted as a martial weapon" in all cases, then you could take the Bastard Sword under Heirloom Weapon and be proficient with it two-handed only and then, later, pick up EWP to be proficient with any Bastard Sword one or two-handed (including the heirloom you start with). It could serve as a way to temporarily bootstrap your way into a free exotic weapon and postpone the need to be completely proficient with it. So you might start out swinging around your heirloom Bastard Sword just as a two-handed weapon for optimal damage output and wait until later to pick up a shield and EWP to transition to sword-and-board. But still, I have to say that that is simply a natural result of a normal reading of the rules; that if an Elf can treat an ECB as a martial weapon in such cases (eg. taking it as an heirloom weapon, crafting it as a martial rather than exotic, picking it as an option for "proficient with one martial weapon", etc.), then a character should be able to treat a Bastard Sword used as a 2-h weapon as a martial weapon for such cases as well for the sake of symmetrical design.
This is 'abuse'? I'd call it narrative flow. 'Elizabeth struggled to hold her father's sword properly, and had ever since she "inherited" it on his untimely death when she was 13. But after years of practice, she finally understood it. And not just that weapon, but all of its kind.' It's basically a delayed WASTE of the Heirloom Weapon trait!
|
|
As for the many arguers against this, I am curious, what is the danger here? I mean, aside from your take of the RAW being against it, are their applications of this that would make allowing this 2-handed martial weapon proficency to unbalance the game or particular class feature?On thinking about it for a day or so, I thought of one distinct possibility where one could "abuse" this. The Heirloom Weapon trait allows you to start play with a martial or simple weapon of your choice and grants one of three benefits; one of which being proficiency with that specific weapon (eg. you could pick Longsword and be proficient with that longsword, but not with any other longsword you might pick up). If you go with the "Bastard Sword can be counted as a martial weapon" in all cases, then you could take the Bastard Sword under Heirloom Weapon and be proficient with it two-handed only and then, later, pick up EWP to be proficient with any Bastard Sword one or two-handed (including the heirloom you start with). It could serve as a way to temporarily bootstrap your way into a free exotic weapon and postpone the need to be completely proficient with it. So you might start out swinging around your heirloom Bastard Sword just as a two-handed weapon for optimal damage output and wait until later to pick up a shield and EWP to transition to sword-and-board. But still, I have to say that that is simply a natural result of a normal reading of the rules; that if an Elf can treat an ECB as a martial weapon in such cases (eg. taking it as an heirloom weapon, crafting it as a martial rather than exotic, picking it as an option for "proficient with one martial weapon", etc.), then a character should be able to treat a Bastard Sword used as a 2-h weapon as a martial weapon for such cases as well for the sake of symmetrical design.
That heirloom weapon grants proficency with only that particular weapon, not other weapons of it's type.
So this trait is very simply balanced by the fact that the GM can sunder it whenever it becomes an issue.
And I love the fluffy angle of a character that starts out with their father's sword, and then, gradually, becomes an expert in that kind of sword. Very simple, yet excellent, role playing potential.
|
|
Nah, the only potential issue I'm seeing is if you are playing a pre-generated adventure, and the PC knows that this one crazy awesome bastard sword (and probably cursed) is somewhere in the module, so they take the proficency as a metagaming option so they can wield that sword. And really, this isn't an issue of bastard swords, but of specific weapon in a pregenerated adventure with metagaming PCs that have peeked ahead. Otherwise, the bastard sword is just a lesser weapon in most instances.