It's nice to have a dev ruling, and now we know how to use a flambard.
As you say, specific trumps general. The specific rules for the flambard is that it is a two-handed weapon which can be used in one hand with the correct feat.
The specific rules for a bastard sword is that it is a one-handed weapon that can be used one-handed with a particular feat. Specific trumps general.
If the devs think that a bastard sword is a two-handed weapon that can only be used one-handed with the correct feat, then the RAW does not support that and needs to be errata'd. However, we can't say (in the rules forum) what the rule is based on some theoretical but unknown errata which may or may not happen, based on what we think the devs might or might not think about it.
If they errata it to be a two-handed weapon, then they will have changed the rule. They can do that! But it won't make the arguments I made about the rules as they were before the errata flawed. I can only use the RAW we have, not the RAW which doesn't exist yet (if it ever does).
I was not saying the bastard sword is a two-handed weapon. I only think it is meant to be treated like the katana which is also a one-handed weapon restricted to two handed use unless you have EWP. The Flambard is an actual two handed weapon that we are allowed to use in one hand with the proper feat.
PS:Well AFAIK it is listed as a two-handed weapon anyway.
So the real question becomes
Does a Flambard used in one hand by virtue if having EWP bastard sword still get str bonus and PA as a two handed weapon?
More than likely the RAI is that it would be treated as a one-handed weapon in that case. That is why I dislike the lance FAQ. They should have called out the lance specifically to avoid confusion or explained it in more detail. I have a feeling this debate will cause them to rethink the wording of that FAQ.
If the devs want a bastard sword to be an exception to the rules for weapon category, weapon size, weapon proficiency (losing MWP when using an oversize weapon) and/or how weapon descriptions interact with the rest of the rules by default, then they absolutely do need to change the written word.
This is not accurate. No matter how many times you say it, it does not get more accurate.
|
If the devs want a bastard sword to be an exception to the rules for weapon category, weapon size, weapon proficiency (losing MWP when using an oversize weapon) and/or how weapon descriptions interact with the rest of the rules by default, then they absolutely do need to change the written word.This is not accurate. No matter how many times you say it, it does not get more accurate.
Just denying it is not enough. It's the equivalent of sticking your fingers in your ears and shouting, 'LA, LA, LA, I CAN'T HEAR YOU!.
Your arguments rest on your assumption that the description of the bastard sword 'implies' ignoring or changing four existing game mechanics, all without actually saying that it changes any of them, with the exception of the specified alteration of the weapon proficiency rules that allow MWP to avoid a non-proficiency penalty when using an exotic weapon, but only when used in two hands.
Denying it is not enough. Present a case.
I think "The rules makers have said otherwise" is all the case he needs to make.
Now that does not mean it would not be nice for them to provide better wording, but if I make the rules, and my rules clarification falls in line with certain words not being fluff then those are the rules.
|
Malachi, you apparently missed the part where I said that you think the wording needs to be changed because you interpreted them differently (assuming the devs rule against you, of course). The words that are there can obviously be interpreted different ways, otherwise we wouldn't be having this debate. The devs will tell us in what way they should be interpreted.
Just because a ruling may not be what you think it should be does not mean the words need to be changed.
I'm just waiting to see the "this ruling causes a multitude of other issues" statement followed by a lack of being able to list more than 2
If the devs want a bastard sword to be an exception to the rules for weapon category, weapon size, weapon proficiency (losing MWP when using an oversize weapon) and/or how weapon descriptions interact with the rest of the rules by default, then they absolutely do need to change the written word.This is not accurate. No matter how many times you say it, it does not get more accurate.Just denying it is not enough. It's the equivalent of sticking your fingers in your ears and shouting, 'LA, LA, LA, I CAN'T HEAR YOU!.
Your arguments rest on your assumption that the description of the bastard sword 'implies' ignoring or changing four existing game mechanics, all without actually saying that it changes any of them, with the exception of the specified alteration of the weapon proficiency rules that allow MWP to avoid a non-proficiency penalty when using an exotic weapon, but only when used in two hands.
Denying it is not enough. Present a case.
Except I'm not just denying it. I never have been. And once again, I recognize that your interpretation is a perfectly valid interpretation of solely the singular set of words you're concerned about. Not the interpretation, but a interpretation. I've never denied that. However, you are the person claiming that not only is your interpretation the correct one, but it's the only possible one. That's a different matter entirely.
And I've presented the case, as we both have. You've not refuted it. Your position amounts to nothing more than, "But that's not how I interpret it!"
But here's the kicker, I recognize that my disputing of your interpretation doesn't amount to a whole lot more (though I do believe I've got more substantive support on my side). Regardless, at least I recognize the realities of this situation.
|
|
I'm just waiting to see the "this ruling causes a multitude of other issues" statement followed by a lack of being able to list more than 2
I can give you two straight away.
A medium creature could wield a large lance in two hands, as long as it was from horseback.
With EWP and MWP, if the ruling is that (despite actually the rules say the complete opposite) a bastard sword is really a two-handed weapon, then according to the lance FAQ it still counts as a two-handed weapon when it is used in one hand and benefits from Power Attack (definitely) and 1.5 x Str bonus to damage (possibly) as a two-handed weapon.
Here's more:-
* if the FAQ tells us (without an errata) that weapon descriptions assume a wielder of the 'correct' size, any special game mechanics in the description of any weapon would only be true when wielded by a creature of that size, and go away when wielded by a creature if inappropriate size. Bolas could not make a trip attack, curve blades would not get +2 versus sunder, daggers would not give a bonus to Sleight of Hand checks, javelins could not be used in melee, lances would not do double damage from the back of a charging mount, nor could they be used in one hand while mounted, you could use a bow one size smaller than you in one hand, nets could not entangle enemies, you could use a large rapier in two hands and get the usual 1.5 x Str bonus to damage, a sai would not give you a +2 bonus to sunder, shuriken could be used in melee just like a dart, and they would not count as ammunition for any purpose, you could not use ordinary stones with a sling or staff sling, you couldn't use a bastard sword two-handed as a martial weapon, no-one could use a dwarven waraxe as a martial weapon except for a dwarf and a whip could damage any target no matter their armour or natural armour bonus, it would have a strictly inflexible 15-foot reach and would threaten normally.
That's just from the CRB! And that's not even touching things like 'reach', which we may assume only works if wielded by a creature of the 'correct' size.
Quite a lot of baby to throw out with that particular bathwater, all so you have an excuse to ignore the fact that you may use a bastard sword two-handed as a martial weapon when using a large one.
And, yes, if the devs do make the mistake of changing the meaning of the words instead of bothering with an errata, there'll be lots more in the following days.
Here's another. If the inability to use a weapon in one hand (because you lack the EWP) makes it a two-handed weapon, then a medium creature must wield a small bastard sword (which, according to RAW, is treated as 'light') in two hands, and it would count as a two-handed weapon, gaining 1.5 x Str bonus to damage and better return with Power Attack; something a creature with EWP could not do. It would actually be better to not have EWP!
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Malachi using the actual rules show me one thing that will break. You and both know that your above list is worse scare tactics than political talk radio. You still can't seem to understand the word can't. All the FAQ has to say is that without EWP you cannot wield a bastard sword in one hand. It's called a rules exception.
Also when did we get off on this debate assuming wielded of the same size? It's hard to keep up on multiple threads.
Big chunk of rules text:
Light, One-Handed, and Two-Handed Melee Weapons: This designation is a measure of how much effort 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.
Light: A light weapon is used in one hand. It is easier to use in one's off hand than a one-handed weapon is, and can be used while grappling (see Combat). 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. Using two hands to wield a light weapon gives no advantage on damage; the Strength bonus applies as though the weapon were held in the wielder's primary hand only.
An unarmed strike is always considered a light weapon.
One-Handed: A one-handed weapon can be used in either the primary hand or the off hand. 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. If a one-handed weapon is wielded with two hands during melee combat, add 1-1/2 times the character's Strength bonus to damage rolls.
Two-Handed: Two hands are required to use a two-handed melee weapon effectively. Apply 1-1/2 times the character's Strength bonus to damage rolls for melee attacks with such a weapon.
Weapon Size: Every weapon has a size category. This designation indicates the size of the creature for which the weapon was designed.
A weapon's size category isn't the same as its size as an object. Instead, a weapon's size category is keyed to the size of the intended wielder. In general, a light weapon is an object two size categories smaller than the wielder, a one-handed weapon is an object one size category smaller than the wielder, and a two-handed weapon is an object of the same size category as the wielder.
Inappropriately Sized Weapons: A creature can't make optimum use of a weapon that isn't properly sized for it. 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 the creature isn't proficient with the weapon, a –4 nonproficiency penalty also applies.
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 weapon for a particular wielder) 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. For example, a Small creature would wield a Medium one-handed weapon as a two-handed weapon. 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.
Sword, Bastard: 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.
Bolding mine.
All of that says that a medium creature wielding a medium bastard sword as a two-handed weapon is not using a one-handed weapon in two hands. He is using a two-handed weapon. Two-handed is a weapon designation. A large bastard sword pushes that weapon designation to unusable.
|
|
Malachi using the actual rules show me one thing that will break. You and both know that your above list is worse scare tactics than political talk radio. You still can't seem to understand the word can't. All the FAQ has to say is that without EWP you cannot wield a bastard sword in one hand. It's called a rules exception.
I've already said, more than once, that this is the only part where they could issue a FAQ without an errata.
If the FAQ read something like, 'Without EWP(bastard sword) then you can't use it in one hand at all', then that wouldn't need an errata and would answer that question.
It would still mean that a medium creature can use a large bastard sword, and he only needs MWP since he is not using it in one hand, he's using it in two. The prohibition on using it in one hand does not apply, and he can use it in two hands as a martial weapon.
If the devs want to change that, then they need to errata some combination of the description of the bastard sword, the rules on one-handed weapons being used in two hands, the rules for weapon proficiency, the rules for using a weapon of inappropriate size and/or the assumption that weapon descriptions that include game mechanics apply no matter the size of the wielder unless specifically stated otherwise.
|
|
I can give you two straight away.A medium creature could wield a large lance in two hands, as long as it was from horseback.
With EWP and MWP, if the ruling is that (despite actually the rules say the complete opposite) a bastard sword is really a two-handed weapon, then according to the lance FAQ it still counts as a two-handed weapon when it is used in one hand and benefits from Power Attack (definitely) and 1.5 x Str bonus to damage (possibly) as a two-handed weapon.
Unless, as part of a possible FAQ response, they say that the EWP allows it to be used as a one-handed weapon.
Still, it's like you haven't even heard a word that I've said. "...despite actually the rules say the complete opposite..." is an arrogant position to be taking--you're sniping at the PDT. Yes, be emphatic in what you believe to be true, but don't discount the possibility of the opposite being the correct.
I acknowledge, as well as fretgod99 and a number of others, that what you say may be the correct interpretation. We don't agree with your interpretation because the weight of evidence suggests that your's is not likely correct, but we do acknowledge how you came to your conclusion.
Your retort "[I could be wrong, you could be right] but in order for that to be true, the wording would have to change" is your own opinion based purely upon your own interpretation of what the rules say. You could be interpreting it wrong, and the wording doesn't have to change at all.
In short, you're preemptively telling the PDT that they have made an incorrect ruling before they have even made a ruling. It really begs the question: how can they make an incorrect ruling when they are the ones making the rules?
* if the FAQ tells us (without an errata) that weapon descriptions assume a wielder of the 'correct' size, any special game mechanics in the description of any weapon would only be true when wielded by a creature of that size, and go away when wielded by a creature if inappropriate size. Bolas could not make a trip attack, curve blades would not get +2 versus sunder, daggers would not give a bonus to Sleight of Hand checks, javelins could not be used in melee, lances would not do double damage from the back of a charging mount, nor could they be used in one hand while mounted, you could use a bow one size smaller than you in one hand, nets could not entangle enemies, you could use a large rapier in two hands and get the usual 1.5 x Str bonus to damage, a sai would not give you a +2 bonus to sunder, shuriken could be used in melee just like a dart, and they would not count as ammunition for any purpose, you could not use ordinary stones with a sling or staff sling, you couldn't use a bastard sword two-handed as a martial weapon, no-one could use a dwarven waraxe as a martial weapon except for a dwarf and a whip could damage any target no matter their armour or natural armour bonus, it would have a strictly inflexible 15-foot reach and would threaten normally.
If you read the rules in vacuum, I suppose you might come to these conclusions.
More importantly, why is it so difficult for you to acknowledge the possibility that the bastard sword is an exception to the rules?
And, yes, if the devs do make the mistake of changing the meaning of the words instead of bothering with an errata, there'll be lots more in the following days.
That takes some pretty big cojones to tell the PDT that you're going to nerdrage about a ruling that hasn't even been made yet. At least the monk people and the scorching ray sneak attack people had the decency to wait until after the PDT issued their ruling.
Seriously, stop whining about how things are worded wrong. The other half of the debate came to their conclusion with the wording as it currently is. And if they end up being wrong, I can pretty much guarantee that they won't nerdrage over it.
Here's another. If the inability to use a weapon in one hand (because you lack the EWP) makes it a two-handed weapon, then a medium creature must wield a small bastard sword (which, according to RAW, is treated as 'light') in two hands, and it would count as a two-handed weapon, gaining 1.5 x Str bonus to damage and better return with Power Attack; something a creature with EWP could not do. It would actually be better to not have EWP!
This confuses me. How could something that would be two-handed be considered "light" if it is only one size smaller?
Chemak there is also this..
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 weapon for a particular wielder) 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. For example, a Small creature would wield a Medium one-handed weapon as a two-handed weapon.
No I am not trying to help Malachi, but the weapon's primary designation is what determines how hard it is to wield.
Now back to the bastard sword-->Sorry Malachi.
If the weapon is treated as two-handed for the purpose of handiness with EWP then the bastard sword(large version) is too big for a medium creature. The EWP allows it to be treated as one size smaller for the purpose of handiness. JJ(who is not the rules guy), and SKR(who is a rules guy) both support this.
Then there is that Jason(head rules guy) who said the EWP allows the weapon to be wielded without mention of any penalty.
I am sure you will argue that is all a coincidence, but I don't think all of them making similar statements is a coincidence.
edit:Chemak if I misunderstood you ignore what I said.. :)
|
|
@HangarFlying: If a bastard sword used without EWP were to count as a two-handed weapon, then a small one would count as one handed weapon, which then couldn't be used in one hand so it would become a two-handed weapon!
This is in contrast to the rules as they are now, where a small BS counts as a light weapon for a medium creature.
|
|
@HangarFlying: If a bastard sword used without EWP were to count as a two-handed weapon, then a small one would count as one handed weapon, which then couldn't be used in one hand so it would become a two-handed weapon!
This is in contrast to the rules as they are now, where a small BS counts as a light weapon for a medium creature.
You're over-thinking the situation.
Would a small greatsword have to be wielded two-handed just because the medium version has to be wielded two-handed?
@HangarFlying: If a bastard sword used without EWP were to count as a two-handed weapon, then a small one would count as one handed weapon, which then couldn't be used in one hand so it would become a two-handed weapon!
This is in contrast to the rules as they are now, where a small BS counts as a light weapon for a medium creature.
If it counted as two-handed for a small creature then it is one handed for a medium creature.
It wont be a large weapon for creature both sizes with the exact same proficiencies. Otherwise you can say since its now two handed for a medium creature it is one handed for a large creature and therefore it is now two handed for large creature, even though the weapon was made for a small creature. <--That makes no sense at all.
Everybody that argues a position believes they have a "substantive support" on their side.
I recognize that. That's why I said I believe I have more substantive support.
|
|
@HangarFlying: If a bastard sword used without EWP were to count as a two-handed weapon, then a small one would count as one handed weapon, which then couldn't be used in one hand so it would become a two-handed weapon!
This is in contrast to the rules as they are now, where a small BS counts as a light weapon for a medium creature.
If it counted as two-handed for a small creature then it is one handed for a medium creature.
It wont be a large weapon for creature both sizes with the exact same proficiencies. Otherwise you can say since its now two handed for a medium creature it is one handed for a large creature and therefore it is now two handed for large creature, even though the weapon was made for a small creature. <--That makes no sense at all.
Precisely.
It makes no sense at all for a restriction on using a weapon in one hand to mean that it is treated as a two-handed weapon, ignoring the rules on both weapon category and using an inappropriately-sized weapon.
@HangarFlying: If a bastard sword used without EWP were to count as a two-handed weapon, then a small one would count as one handed weapon, which then couldn't be used in one hand so it would become a two-handed weapon!
This is in contrast to the rules as they are now, where a small BS counts as a light weapon for a medium creature.
If it counted as two-handed for a small creature then it is one handed for a medium creature.
It wont be a large weapon for creature both sizes with the exact same proficiencies. Otherwise you can say since its now two handed for a medium creature it is one handed for a large creature and therefore it is now two handed for large creature, even though the weapon was made for a small creature. <--That makes no sense at all.
Precisely.
It makes no sense at all for a restriction on using a weapon in one hand to mean that it is treated as a two-handed weapon, ignoring the rules on both weapon category and using an inappropriately-sized weapon.
No, what wraith said wouldn't make sense. What you're trying to imply he said is perfectly sensible.
If you treat these types of weapons as two-handed for the purposes of determining who may wield them and how, it does not ignore the rules on weapon category and sizing. It follows them precisely. The only exception is that it's a one-handed weapon that is treated as two-handed for one purpose. Within those respective purposes, it follows the rules as one would expect.
I read the first few posts a while ago and am amazed that there are 16 pages of comments on the topic, which I haven't read.
A quick peek in the PRD reveals that the Bastard Sword and Dwarven Waraxe are one-handed weapons that require an exotic weapon proficiency to use proficiently. Reading the notes specific to the weapon reveals that they can be used proficiently in 2 hands without a special proficiency by a person proficient in martial weapons.
I utterly fail to see how there could possibly be 785 posts on this topic.
|
Everybody that argues a position believes they have a "substantive support" on their side.I recognize that. That's why I said I believe I have more substantive support.
[sarcasm]My humblest of apologies. I was unaware of the superior quality and quantity of substantive evidence that you possessed in relation to ours.[/sarcasm]
|
|
It makes no sense at all for a restriction on using a weapon in one hand to mean that it is treated as a two-handed weapon, ignoring the rules on both weapon category and using an inappropriately-sized weapon.No, what wraith said wouldn't make sense. What you're trying to imply he said is perfectly sensible.
If you treat these types of weapons as two-handed for the purposes of determining who may wield them and how, it does not ignore the rules on weapon category and sizing. It follows them precisely. The only exception is that it's a one-handed weapon that is treated as two-handed for one purpose.
The rules for weapon category and sizing are the rules of determining who may wield them and how!
No part of the description, even if the FAQ comes back 'can't wield one-handed at all without EWP', says that it is treated as a two-handed weapon for any purpose, nor would it need to for that FAQ to work. The current rules for using a one-handed weapon in two hands cope with this just fine!
The only justification you have of saying you must treat it as a two-handed weapon for who may wield them and how, is by understanding the 'implication' that if a weapon cannot be used one-handed then it must be treated as a two-handed weapon for those purposes.
If that is true, then that is true! Among the implications of this interpretation are that a medium creature can wield a tiny bastard sword, two sizes smaller:
medium->small->tiny
two-handed->one-handed->light
The medium creature then treats the tiny bastard sword as a light weapon, as per the rules on weapon size, which you say is still in full effect. Only, he still doesn't have the EWP! Which means he can't use it one-handed. And, according to the very same rule you just said is true, if it can't be used one-handed then it must be treated as a two-handed weapon for purposes of who can wield them and how!
Which results in a medium creature using a tiny bastard sword in two-hands as a two-handed weapon. And since the rules on weapon category are still going strong, a two-handed weapon benefits from a better return from Str bonus and Power Attack.
This chain of events follows inexorably from that very 'implication'. You've only just made it 'true'! You can't ignore it so soon!
|
|
I utterly fail to see how there could possibly be 785 posts on this topic.
See THIS thread for a more concise explanation.
What I fear most people do not realize is that the PF game officials for official game purposes (say society play) appear to have decided that you can't use it one-handed or larger version two-handed without EWP. Note, it is not required that these PF game officials employ logic, consistency, game balance understanding, ideas of fun other than their own, or reason to make these calls, merely their position in their place of employment.
Trying to argue from a point of logic on either side is a wasted effort, because it assumes that those making the decisions are using logic. Unfortunately there is no reason to assume this.
Why does the weapons work like how the PF game officials say they work, because they say they do. That is the only reason.
|
|
The rules for weapon category and sizing are the rules of determining who may wield them and how!
No part of the description, even if the FAQ comes back 'can't wield one-handed at all without EWP', says that it is treated as a two-handed weapon for any purpose, nor would it need to for that FAQ to work. The current rules for using a one-handed weapon in two hands cope with this just fine!
See, again, you're being definitive with what you think the wording means and telling us that we're reading it wrong. No, sorry, we just interpret it differently than you. We read it to mean that if you don't have the EWP, you use it as if it were a two-handed weapon. So don't tell us that the rules don't say that, because that is how we are interpreting the rules.
The only justification you have of saying you must treat it as a two-handed weapon for who may wield them and how, is by understanding the 'implication' that if a weapon cannot be used one-handed then it must be treated as a two-handed weapon for those purposes.
If that is true, then that is true! Among the implications of this interpretation are that a medium creature can wield a tiny bastard sword, two sizes smaller:
medium->small->tiny
two-handed->one-handed->lightThe medium creature then treats the tiny bastard sword as a light weapon, as per the rules on weapon size, which you say is still in full effect. Only, he still doesn't have the EWP! Which means he can't use it one-handed. And, according to the very same rule you just said is true, if it can't be used one-handed then it must be treated as a two-handed weapon for purposes of who can wield them and how!
Which results in a medium creature using a tiny bastard sword in two-hands as a two-handed weapon. And since the rules on weapon category are still going strong, a two-handed weapon benefits from a better return from Str bonus and Power Attack.
This chain of events follows inexorably from that very 'implication'. You've only just made it 'true'! You can't ignore it so soon!
I don't know if this is actually what you believe our argument's position to be or if you're just being a troll.
Seriously, answer me this one question: how does a medium creature handle a medium greatsword, small greatsword, and a tiny greatsword?
If a brand-spanking new player walked up to me and asked me to explain this whole bastard-sword-exotic-weapon-proficiency thing, I would tell them: if you have the EWP, you treat the bastard sword the same way you would treat a longsword; if you don't have the EWP, you treat the bastard sword the same way you would treat a greatsword.
If the new person asked you, you would tell them that you could use the bastard sword no matter what, but if you didn't have the EWP, you would have a -4 penalty.
Certainly, we need to wait for the PDT to tell us which interpretation is the correct one, but don't give me this crap about how if the PDT were to rule in my side's favor they could only make it work if the issued an errata and changed the words because I've held this opinion since I read about the bastard sword in 2002 in 3.0 and the words HAVEN'T CHANGED.
It should be plainly obvious by now that there are two possible interpretations from reading the words as they are currently written. We just need the PDT to tell us which interpretation is correct.
|
|
What I fear most people do not realize is that the PF game officials for official game purposes (say society play) appear to have decided that you can't use it one-handed or larger version two-handed without EWP. Note, it is not required that these PF game officials employ logic, consistency, game balance understanding, ideas of fun other than their own, or reason to make these calls, merely their position in their place of employment.
Trying to argue from a point of logic on either side is a wasted effort, because it assumes that those making the decisions are using logic. Unfortunately there is no reason to assume this.
Why does the weapons work like how the PF game officials say they work, because they say they do. That is the only reason.
I know you're being sarcastic, but I do find your post a little insulting. You're basically telling me that because I came to my own conclusions on how the bastard sword works 11 years ago, which is apparently been the "official" way it works in all iterations of the game, and because this conclusion is what is apparently used in PFS, that I didn't use logic, reason, or consistency in my own conclusion, and that my conclusion is specifically made to s%#+ on other people's idea of fun. I read the same words you did. I came to a different conclusion than you did. Why am I (and everyone else who holds my viewpoint, which includes Paizo, apparently) the a#*#~$#?
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
What's your point, Richard?11 years ago, in another system, your evidence lies hidden?
Welcome to Pathfinder.
The more you look to past editions of other systems for support, the more you seem out of touch with Pathfinder rules.
This is even more emphasized when many of those were conflicting rules, even in the same system.
When looking for support on a ruling in Baseball, you shouldn't quote Cricket rules, simply because one came before the other.
|
|
What's your point, Richard?11 years ago, in another system, your evidence lies hidden?
Welcome to Pathfinder.
The more you look to past editions of other systems for support, the more you seem out of touch with Pathfinder rules.
This is even more emphasized when many of those were conflicting rules, even in the same system.
When looking for support on a ruling in Baseball, you shouldn't quote Cricket rules, simply because one came before the other.
We obviously interpret the bastard sword differently. But to tell me I'm wrong based solely on the fact that the covers have different names, even though the words inside are the same, strikes me as a little close-minded.
|
|
We obviously interpret the bastard sword differently. But to tell me I'm wrong based solely on the fact that the covers have different names, even though the words inside are the same, strikes me as a little close-minded.What's your point, Richard?11 years ago, in another system, your evidence lies hidden?
Welcome to Pathfinder.
The more you look to past editions of other systems for support, the more you seem out of touch with Pathfinder rules.
This is even more emphasized when many of those were conflicting rules, even in the same system.
When looking for support on a ruling in Baseball, you shouldn't quote Cricket rules, simply because one came before the other.
Just saying too much reaching paints your stance in a poor light.
Quoting 1E and 2E, especially more than once, is reaching.
In my opinion.
|
|
We obviously interpret the bastard sword differently. But to tell me I'm wrong based solely on the fact that the covers have different names, even though the words inside are the same, strikes me as a little close-minded.What's your point, Richard?11 years ago, in another system, your evidence lies hidden?
Welcome to Pathfinder.
The more you look to past editions of other systems for support, the more you seem out of touch with Pathfinder rules.
This is even more emphasized when many of those were conflicting rules, even in the same system.
When looking for support on a ruling in Baseball, you shouldn't quote Cricket rules, simply because one came before the other.
Just saying too much reaching paints your stance in a poor light.
Quoting 1E and 2E, especially more than once, is reaching.
In my opinion.
Sure, if I was reaching. The information we do have from Paizo shows some consistency with 3.5 and 3.0, so how is that reaching?
Who has been quoting 1E and 2E?