Buckler and Bastard Sword... [Archive] - Wizards Community

Post/Author/DateTimePost
Chapolin

05-02-05, 07:27 AM		Please, I have two questions...

1) If I am using a buckler and a greatsword, do I lose my AC bonus from buckley if I attack???

2) If I have the Feat Exotic Weapon proficience (Bastard Sword), can I use that weapon Large (damage 2d8) with two hands???

Thanks
de Fontak

05-02-05, 07:38 AM		I would say
a) yes
b) no

a) you use a greatsword with two hands and I know for sure that the buckler does not work for a bow because of this reason.

b) I don't think that is the way the cookie crumbles
Vahenir

05-02-05, 07:39 AM		1) If I am using a buckler and a greatsword, do I lose my AC bonus from buckley if I attack???

According to the RAW, yes.

2) If I have the Feat Exotic Weapon proficience (Bastard Sword), can I use that weapon Large (damage 2d8) with two hands???

If you have Martial Weapon Proficiency: Bastard Sword, then you may take the Wield Oversized Weapon, or Monkey Grip, or whatever the hell that feat is, to wield a scaled-up Bastard Sword in two hands - suffering a penalty to attack rolls for using a weapon that is not sized for you.

EWP has nothing to do with that. If you have EWP, I imagine you would be wielding that same weapon one-handed instead of two-handed, but I'm not totally sure about that, as I have very little experience (okay, no experience) with players trying to wield weapons that don't make sense.
Thorak

05-02-05, 08:19 AM		Please, I have two questions...

1) If I am using a buckler and a greatsword, do I lose my AC bonus from buckley if I attack???
Yes.
2) If I have the Feat Exotic Weapon proficience (Bastard Sword), can I use that weapon Large (damage 2d8) with two hands???

Thanks
Almost certainly yes. In 3.0, when weapon sizes were entirely different, there was a weapon called the Fullblade, which was a 2d8 19-20/x2 sword, sized for an ogre, which could be wielded with an EWP by Medium creatures, with a -2 penalty.

And, in 3.5, a Large bastard sword like you're talking about is exactly those stats. So, IMHO, a Fullblade is a Large bastard sword. You could do it in 3.0, I see no reason why you can't in 3.5.

Remember, though, there's a -2 penalty because it's sized for a different size critter. It's not just free damage.
Vahenir

05-02-05, 08:43 AM		And it should be noted that, in most cases, Power Attack is actually -better- than wielding an oversized weapon.
howlingwolf

05-02-05, 09:18 AM		And it should be noted that, in most cases, Power Attack is actually -better- than wielding an oversized weapon.

But I LIKE having a inferiority complex damn you. ( No offence to original poster. )
tarkin

05-02-05, 10:38 AM		1) You need the feat Improved Buckler Defense to retain the Buckler's shield bonus.

2) No.
Vahenir

05-02-05, 11:05 AM		But I LIKE having a inferiority complex damn you. ( No offence to original poster. )


I think it's actually called over-compensation. :rimshot:
Thorak

05-02-05, 11:47 AM		Why is everyone saying "no" to #2?

The bastard sword is a one-handed Exotic weapon.

If its a Large bastard sword, that means it's wielding difficulty increases one step. To a two-handed Exotic weapon, and a -2 size penalty.


I don't see any basis whatsoever to say "no" on question #2. At least, not if you're playing by the rules in the PHB, if you're houseruling, that's another matter. The situation with the bastard sword is no different than if a Medium creature can wield a Large longsword two-handed, which they absolutely clearly can. The only difference is that the Bastard sword is exotic, but he's got the weapon proficiency, so what's the problem?
chocobochicken

05-02-05, 12:59 PM		Thorak's right. Here's the SRD text on weapon sizes:

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. 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.

So for a character with the EWP (bastard sword) feat, it is a one-handed weapon. A Large version of the weapon would require two hands and impose a -2 penalty, but yes, he could use it and deal 2d8 damage. It's great if you want to look cool, but the wasted feat and 10% loss in accuracy makes this less efficient than a greatsword.
chocobochicken

05-02-05, 01:38 PM		On second thought... I just accidentally stumbled upon this in the 3.5 FAQ:

The bastard sword, lance, and dwarven waraxe are all two-handed weapons that can be used in one hand under the correct circumstances (the bastard sword and dwarven waraxe are shown on Table 7–5 as one-handed exotic weapons, but they’re really two-handed weapons). Treat all three of these weapons as two-handed weapons when determining who can use them and how. For example, a Small character cannot use a lance or bastard sword made for a Medium creature, even when mounted (in the case of a lance) or when the Small character has the Exotic Weapon Proficiency (bastard sword) feat. (This reverses the advice the Sage gave about bastard swords and Small characters in earlier FAQs.)

Thorak, is this the Sage quote you were referencing in our previous discussions that always irked you so much?

Anyway, this FAQ evidence would indicate that officially a medium character cannot use a large bastard sword two-handed with the EWP feat. However, the wasted feat and the -2 on attack rolls make it a balanced option. (I now have my own spreadsheet which calculates average dmg/round between different equipment circumstances, and a greatsword + WF wins against a large bastard sword with attack roll penalties.) So there's no harm in houseruling to allow this as far as I'm concerned. Ask your DM.
Thorak

05-02-05, 02:05 PM		On second thought... I just accidentally stumbled upon this in the 3.5 FAQ:

Thorak, is this the Sage quote you were referencing in our previous discussions that always irked you so much?

Anyway, this FAQ evidence would indicate that officially a medium character cannot use a large bastard sword two-handed with the EWP feat. However, the wasted feat and the -2 on attack rolls make it a balanced option. (I now have my own spreadsheet which calculates average dmg/round between different equipment circumstances, and a greatsword + WF wins against a large bastard sword with attack roll penalties.) So there's no harm in houseruling to allow this as far as I'm concerned. Ask your DM.
There's a massive problem with the FAQ, here. Quite simply, the PHB is the primary source for weapons descriptions. The only thing that can contradict a primary source, and be correct, is the Errata.

And the FAQ is not Errata.

The line in question that's bothersome is this;
"the bastard sword and dwarven waraxe are shown on Table 7–5 as one-handed exotic weapons, but they’re really two-handed weapons."

Frankly, this irks me to no end. The FAQ itself states that the primary source shows them as one-handed exotic weapons. It does not have the authority to change this. If this were an official change, then it would be in the Errata. It's been months since that FAQ entry was put in, and it still isn't in the Errata.


And, to boot, there are important consequences to the FAQ's ruling. Specifically, weapon "handedness" is relative to wielder size. And, if a weapon is two-handed for a Medium creature, there is no special rule for the Str damage dealt if it's wielded one-handed, as the FAQ claims the bastard sword can be. There are for one-handed weapons wielded in two hands; they get fully treated. But not two-handed weapons wielded in one hand.

This means that a bastard sword gets 2x Str damage, and increased Power Attack damage, even if wielded one-handed. The FAQ says it's a two-handed weapon. So that's what it is. Regardless of how many hands you've got on it. Disagree? Find me the rules that state how a two-handed weapon is different when wielded in one hand.


Add to this that the Sage admits that it was ruled differently earlier, while providing no reason to change that ruling except an insistence, with no support, that the PHB is wrong on this, and yes, I consider that FAQ entry to be poorly thought out tripe. It tries to be Errata, which it's not, and declares a completely unnecessary rewrite of these rules, creating gamebreaking spinoffs, for no good reason that I can see.


There is absolutely no support for the FAQ's case in any primary source, or the Errata. Like any secondary source, it is thus wrong. The Errata is very clear that only official Errata can contradict primary sources, and the FAQ is not labelled as such. That's all we need to know.
Ged Coldplain

05-02-05, 02:16 PM		Now, if I am not wrong, a weapon with the stats of a large bastard sword or similar stats can easily be made as a balanced exotic two-handed weapon, the great sword deals 2d6 19-20X2, to make an exotic version of it you can give it a better crit range, or crit multiplier feks 2d6 18-20x2 or 2d6 19-20x3. Why should you not be able to grant a greatsword a few more average points of damage for the cost of a exotic weapon proficiency feat? Just make it a greatsword that deal 2d8 19-20x2. it’s a damage range of 2 – 16 vs 2 – 12, I would hardly say its unbalanced, if you believe that is unbalanced, drop the cirt range to x2. you now have a big sword that deal 2d8 X2, and its starting to get underpowered.
chocobochicken

05-02-05, 02:23 PM		And, to boot, there are important consequences to the FAQ's ruling. Specifically, weapon "handedness" is relative to wielder size. And, if a weapon is two-handed for a Medium creature, there is no special rule for the Str damage dealt if it's wielded one-handed, as the FAQ claims the bastard sword can be. There are for one-handed weapons wielded in two hands; they get fully treated. But not two-handed weapons wielded in one hand.

This means that a bastard sword gets 2x Str damage, and increased Power Attack damage, even if wielded one-handed. The FAQ says it's a two-handed weapon. So that's what it is. Regardless of how many hands you've got on it. Disagree? Find me the rules that state how a two-handed weapon is different when wielded in one hand.

Yup, this was the one that irked you. Anyway, I think you're reading too much into this particular ruling. The two important statements from the FAQ on this matter are:

When the combat rules speak of “two-handed” weapons, they’re referring to how the weapon is being used. A Medium character using a Medium longsword in two hands is using a “two-handed” weapon. The same character using a Medium lance in one hand while mounted is using a one-handed weapon. Light weapons are an exception. If you wield a light weapon in two hands you get no advantage on damage (see page 113 in the Player’s Handbook). Likewise, you always take a –4 penalty on your opposed roll when you’re wielding a light weapon in a disarm attempt (when someone tries to disarm you or you try to disarm someone) regardless of whether you wield it one- or two-handed.
. . .
The bastard sword, lance, and dwarven waraxe are all two-handed weapons that can be used in one hand under the correct circumstances (the bastard sword and dwarven waraxe are shown on Table 7–5 as one-handed exotic weapons, but they’re really two-handed weapons). Treat all three of these weapons as two-handed weapons when determining who can use them and how. For example, a Small character cannot use a lance or bastard sword made for a Medium creature, even when mounted (in the case of a lance) or when the Small character has the Exotic Weapon Proficiency (bastard sword) feat. (This reverses the advice the Sage gave about bastard swords and Small characters in earlier FAQs.)

The text in the latter quote is not permitting bastard swords to always be two-handed weapons. It merely says they are two-handed weapons when resolving issues between weapon and player size. For all other purposes, the former quote clearly states it is treated as a one-handed weapon, following normal conventions for STR bonus damage, Power Attack, disarm attempts, etc. So the only difference that the Sage's ruling makes here is that characters can't wield larger versions of bastard swords two-handed with the EWP feat alone. This would explain why the issue hasn't been deemed important enough to necessitate an errata update (which would probably only confuse people more anyway).
Thorak

05-02-05, 09:52 PM		Yup, this was the one that irked you. Anyway, I think you're reading too much into this particular ruling. The two important statements from the FAQ on this matter are:

The text in the latter quote is not permitting bastard swords to always be two-handed weapons. It merely says they are two-handed weapons when resolving issues between weapon and player size. For all other purposes, the former quote clearly states it is treated as a one-handed weapon, following normal conventions for STR bonus damage, Power Attack, disarm attempts, etc. So the only difference that the Sage's ruling makes here is that characters can't wield larger versions of bastard swords two-handed with the EWP feat alone. This would explain why the issue hasn't been deemed important enough to necessitate an errata update (which would probably only confuse people more anyway).

The problem is, again, that it's completely wrong and contradictory to the PHB.

Here's what weapon handedness refers to, from the PHB;
". . . a weapon's size category is keyed to the size of the intended wielder. In general, a light weapon (such as a dagger) is an object two size categories smaller than the wielder, a one-handed weapon (such as a longsword) 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." (page 113)

It has nothing to do with how the weapon is used. Whether a weapon is Light, one-handed, or two-handed is dependent on the size of the intended wielder, not how many hands happen to be on it.

This is why you can wield a Light weapon in two hands, and it's not a two-handed weapon. If it were, which the FAQ claims in this case, then it would benefit from Power Attack and increased Str damage. Exactly as the PHB explicitly says they do not.

Not to mention; weapon hit points are determined by the handedness category. Again, if the FAQ is right, the Bastard Sword suddenly loses 5 hit points when you take a hand off it. Would be kind of odd to have it Sundered partially, fight for another three days with it two-handed, then hold it one-handed and have it immediately fall apart. Not to mention being utterly ludicrous. But those are the implications of the FAQ's ruling, which is completely inconsistent in every way with the PHB, doesn't mesh with the rest of the rules, defies common sense, etc, etc.


Again; the PHB clearly states that a one-handed weapon is one size category smaller than the intended wielder, and a two-handed one is the same size category. Either the FAQ is contradicting this, and is wrong, or it is suggesting that the weapon magically changes size when you change your grip, which is idiotic.
chocobochicken

05-03-05, 03:37 PM		I think the problem is reminiscent of this comic (http://www.giantitp.com/cgi-bin/GiantITP/ootscript?SK=12). There are one-handed/two-handed weapon categories for the purpose of how a character is required to wield it, and there are one-handed/two-handed methods that a character might choose to apply if possible. So likely during the writing process of the PHB, they weren't exactly 100% effective in distinguishing the fine difference between "wielding a two-handed weapon" and "wielding a weapon in two hands" (and similarly for one-handed weapons and larger weapons that can be wielded one-handed, such as the lance).

So I don't think the FAQ is completely wrong against the rules of the PHB, but that the PHB rules were poorly worded. The FAQ is merely elaborating on the issue, clarifying when a rule is referring to a circumstance or a category. The FAQ doesn't completely fix this problem either, but it does shed some light on a few issues, like disarm rolls for holding a longsword in two hands.

This is why you can wield a Light weapon in two hands, and it's not a two-handed weapon. If it were, which the FAQ claims in this case, then it would benefit from Power Attack and increased Str damage. Exactly as the PHB explicitly says they do not.

The FAQ did not claim this. You're skipping the line that reads: "Light weapons are an exception. If you wield a light weapon in two hands you get no advantage on damage."
shift244

05-03-05, 09:26 PM		I think Thorak stated this sometime in the past, not sure, sorry.

A Bastard sword is a one-handed exotic weapon that has a special note on being able to be used as a two-handed martial weapon without proficiency penalty.I fully agree to this quote from the sources avaiable. In this case, screw RAW in favor of common sense.

Edit:
The matter of relation in this thread: is whether the character is weilding the weapon as an Exotic weapon (which is actually is) or using its special note to weild the weapon as a Martial weapon (which is a "special ability of sorts).
Thorak

05-03-05, 10:22 PM		I think the problem is reminiscent of this comic (http://www.giantitp.com/cgi-bin/GiantITP/ootscript?SK=12). There are one-handed/two-handed weapon categories for the purpose of how a character is required to wield it, and there are one-handed/two-handed methods that a character might choose to apply if possible. So likely during the writing process of the PHB, they weren't exactly 100% effective in distinguishing the fine difference between "wielding a two-handed weapon" and "wielding a weapon in two hands" (and similarly for one-handed weapons and larger weapons that can be wielded one-handed, such as the lance).
The difference is that "two-handed weapon", not to mention "one-handed weapon" and "light weapon", are clearly defined terms with specific meanings in D&D. The PHB lists them clearly on page 113.

And, to quote the first line of that section;
"This designation is a measure of how much effort it takes to wield a weapon in combat."
Whereas the FAQ says;
"When the combat rules speak of “two-handed” weapons, they’re referring to how the weapon is being used."


These are not compatible. If it's "how the weapon is being used", then a one-handed weapon wielded in two hands is a two-handed weapon. Is it? Nope. The rules have entirely separate rules for one-handed weapons wielded in two hands. And that's the term for it; "one-handed weapon wielded in two hands." Not two-handed weapon.

And, for the record, the Lance is an exception to these general rules, which require a two-handed weapon to be wielded in two hands. With the line; "While mounted, you can wield a lance with one hand." Doesn't mean it's a one-handed weapon, note. Just that you're wielding a two-handed weapon in one hand. Big difference.

I don't care if some errors slipped through; the terms are defined on page 113 of the PHB, and the FAQ writer apparently discards the whole page because he wants to houserule it for some inconcievable reason.
So I don't think the FAQ is completely wrong against the rules of the PHB, but that the PHB rules were poorly worded. The FAQ is merely elaborating on the issue, clarifying when a rule is referring to a circumstance or a category. The FAQ doesn't completely fix this problem either, but it does shed some light on a few issues, like disarm rolls for holding a longsword in two hands.
Those rules were already clear. A longsword wielded in two hands is a one-handed weapon wielded in two hands. Not a two-handed weapon.

The FAQ seems to claim otherwise, which buggers the whole thing.
The FAQ did not claim this. You're skipping the line that reads: "Light weapons are an exception. If you wield a light weapon in two hands you get no advantage on damage."
Fine. Longswords and disarms, then. They absolutely clearly are not two-handed weapons. They're one-handed weapons, regardless of how many hands you've got on it. "One-handed weapon wielded in two hands" is a clearly defined term; it's defined on page 113. Power Attack, at least, even uses it verbatim.


The PHB has clearly defined terms. "Two-handed weapon" and "wielded in two hands" are not synonymous. One is how a weapon is meant to be wielded and relative to the intended wielder's size, the other is how it actually is being wielded, either as an exception or in putting another hand on a smaller weapon.


Edit: To add to shift244's comment; look at the weapons table. Where's the Bastard Sword? Under One-handed Exotic Weapons. What's the special feature in it's description? "A character can use a bastard sword two-handed as a martial weapon." What are there rules for? "One-handed weapons wielded in two hands".

What the Bastard Sword is, is a one-handed exotic weapon, that can be wielded as a one-handed weapon wielded in two hands as if it were a martial weapon. That's what the PHB says. If the FAQ writer doesn't like it, he can get it changed in the Errata. Until then, the PHB is crystal freaking clear on it, and the FAQ is wrong. Because the FAQ does not, despite it's writer's apparent belief, have the authority to change the rules. The Errata makes that exceedingly clear, too.
chocobochicken

05-04-05, 12:30 AM		Let me get this straight: The rules from the PHB state:

1. "This designation is a measure of how much effort it takes to wield a weapon in combat."
2. "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."

And these rules are, as you put it, "crystal freaking clear." A bastard sword is a one-handed weapon by these rules, and the FAQ is just plain wrong. Correct?

Let's evaluate.

1. How much effort does it take to wield a bastard sword?

The PHB says: "A bastard sword is 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."

Since the text specifically says it is too large to use in one hand, we can determine that it is a two-handed weapon. Taking the EWP feat does change this required effort, but that special training is the exception, allowing you to bypass the normal restriction. Unlike other exotic weapons, you can't just use it by the exotic weapon size category without the EWP feat and take the -4 penalty. The text here says you can't even use it in one hand, period, without the feat. The text about using a bastard two-handed as a martial weapon (note: not "as if it were a martial weapon") isn't a special feature -- it's telling you how it is.

2. How does the size category of the weapon compare to the wielder?

Unfortunately, I don't know of a chart or table that lists the object size of a bastard sword specifically. So we have to compare to other sized objects, listed on page 166 of the PHB. A one-handed weapon for a medium character will have a Small size, and a two-handed weapon for a medium character will have a Medium size. So is a bastard sword closer in size to a chair or a barrel? My money's on the barrel.

Also, we can again reference the bastard sword's text: "A bastard sword is too large to use in one hand without special training." Since the bastard sword doesn't meet the size requirements for a one-handed weapon, we can assume it is bumped up to the next size category of Medium. Even the picture on page 120 looks closer to the greatsword than the longsword.

So it would seem the text, by the rules, indicates that a bastard sword is a two-handed weapon. The table, on the other hand, lists the bastard sword as a one-handed weapon in the exotic category. But as the Errata clearly states, text takes precedence over charts, and in this case the ruling favors the two-handed weapon.

In conclusion: your clarity needs some Windex. ;)
Thorak

05-04-05, 02:13 AM		Let me get this straight: The rules from the PHB state:

1. "This designation is a measure of how much effort it takes to wield a weapon in combat."
2. "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."

And these rules are, as you put it, "crystal freaking clear." A bastard sword is a one-handed weapon by these rules, and the FAQ is just plain wrong. Correct?
Right. The Bastard Sword is one-handed, and thus is one size category smaller than it's intended wielder, if you're looking at size as an object. What was unclear?
Let's evaluate.

1. How much effort does it take to wield a bastard sword?

The PHB says: "A bastard sword is 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."

Since the text specifically says it is too large to use in one hand, we can determine that it is a two-handed weapon. Taking the EWP feat does change this required effort, but that special training is the exception, allowing you to bypass the normal restriction. Unlike other exotic weapons, you can't just use it by the exotic weapon size category without the EWP feat and take the -4 penalty. The text here says you can't even use it in one hand, period, without the feat. The text about using a bastard two-handed as a martial weapon (note: not "as if it were a martial weapon") isn't a special feature -- it's telling you how it is.
You can't say it's a two-handed weapon at all. It's too large to use in one hand without special training. That special training being the exotic weapon proficiency. The same special training any exotic weapon needs to not take a -4 penalty for nonproficiency. The bastard sword gets it because it's unwieldy big, rather than odd, that's all.
2. How does the size category of the weapon compare to the wielder?

Unfortunately, I don't know of a chart or table that lists the object size of a bastard sword specifically. So we have to compare to other sized objects, listed on page 166 of the PHB. A one-handed weapon for a medium character will have a Small size, and a two-handed weapon for a medium character will have a Medium size. So is a bastard sword closer in size to a chair or a barrel? My money's on the barrel.
Have you ever seen a bastard sword? They're not much longer than more typical one-handed straight-bladed swords. 6 inches to a foot of blade more, that's it.
Also, we can again reference the bastard sword's text: "A bastard sword is too large to use in one hand without special training." Since the bastard sword doesn't meet the size requirements for a one-handed weapon, we can assume it is bumped up to the next size category of Medium. Even the picture on page 120 looks closer to the greatsword than the longsword.
Again, claiming it's not one-handed when it explicitly is. You're cutting of the "thus, it is an exotic weapon" part of that sentence. That sentence you keep citing is explaining why an otherwise normal sword is Exotic, not Martial. Not why it's two-handed or one-handed. It's not "too large to use in one hand." It's "too large to use in one hand without special training, thus it is an exotic weapon." You need both the "without" clause and the "thus" clause for the sentence to carry it's actual meaning; that the bastard sword is too big to be considered Martial as a one-hander. If you remove them, like you do, you change the meaning of the sentence.
So it would seem the text, by the rules, indicates that a bastard sword is a two-handed weapon. The table, on the other hand, lists the bastard sword as a one-handed weapon in the exotic category. But as the Errata clearly states, text takes precedence over charts, and in this case the ruling favors the two-handed weapon.

In conclusion: your clarity needs some Windex. ;)
Except that none of your points stand up. And you ignore the utterly fatal point that, if you've got the special training, the weapon's a one-handed Exotic weapon. It might carry the special restriction that it cannot be wielded one-handed unproficiently. I will admit that the first line could be taken that way. It does not suggest that the weapon is two-handed though. It suggests it's an exotic weapon with a special restriction. Note how it concludes; ". . . thus, it is an Exotic weapon."

That's right. That sentence's entire reason is to explain why the weapon is exotic. That's what happens when you cut out clauses that are grammatically necessary; you completely miss the point of the sentence. It's like quoting a guy who said "Serial killers are insane and need to be found out by great detectives with the help of many people" as saying "serial killers are ... great ... people." Selective quoting completely changes context, ruining the entire message of the sentence.
chocobochicken

05-04-05, 08:46 AM		You can't say it's a two-handed weapon at all. It's too large to use in one hand without special training. That special training being the exotic weapon proficiency. The same special training any exotic weapon needs to not take a -4 penalty for nonproficiency. The bastard sword gets it because it's unwieldy big, rather than odd, that's all.

And that matters how? The rule doesn't say "how much effort it takes to wield the weapon with special training." Any normal character can wield a longsword in one hand, even without Martial Weapon Proficiency. But you can't normally wield a bastard sword in one hand! You have to take EWP just to solve the problem. And if the possibility of "special training" was all it took to change a weapon category, this would mean the mere existence of feats like Monkey Grip (or whatever the 3.5 feat is) would transform all two-handed weapons into one-handed weapons.

Again, claiming it's not one-handed when it explicitly is. You're cutting of the "thus, it is an exotic weapon" part of that sentence. That sentence you keep citing is explaining why an otherwise normal sword is Exotic, not Martial. Not why it's two-handed or one-handed. It's not "too large to use in one hand." It's "too large to use in one hand without special training, thus it is an exotic weapon." You need both the "without" clause and the "thus" clause for the sentence to carry it's actual meaning; that the bastard sword is too big to be considered Martial as a one-hander. If you remove them, like you do, you change the meaning of the sentence.

It changes your meaning, not mine. The fact that it is an exotic weapon does not change the fact that it is obviously larger in size than a normal one-handed weapon. It does not change the fact that you can't normally wield it with one hand. You're trying to say that weapons are sized by the effort required to wield them under the conditions that the character is fully proficient in wielding them according to their presumed default simple/martial/exotic category, but that's just not in the rules.
Thorak

05-04-05, 11:56 AM		And that matters how? The rule doesn't say "how much effort it takes to wield the weapon with special training." Any normal character can wield a longsword in one hand, even without Martial Weapon Proficiency. But you can't normally wield a bastard sword in one hand! You have to take EWP just to solve the problem. And if the possibility of "special training" was all it took to change a weapon category, this would mean the mere existence of feats like Monkey Grip (or whatever the 3.5 feat is) would transform all two-handed weapons into one-handed weapons.
That's what we call an exception to the general rules. That you can't wield a bastard sword one-handed without the EWP is a feature of bastard swords. The same as their being treatable as a martial weapon if used two-handed. They don't apply to anything but bastard swords.

It's a one-handed weapon with the special exception that it requires the EWP to be wielded one-handed.
It changes your meaning, not mine. The fact that it is an exotic weapon does not change the fact that it is obviously larger in size than a normal one-handed weapon. It does not change the fact that you can't normally wield it with one hand. You're trying to say that weapons are sized by the effort required to wield them under the conditions that the character is fully proficient in wielding them according to their presumed default simple/martial/exotic category, but that's just not in the rules.
Are you honestly trying to claim that selectively quoting one part of a sentence while ignoring it's conclusion somehow supports your case?

"This designation is a measure of how much effort it takes to wield a weapon in combat."

How much effort does it take to wield a bastard sword? One hand. Sure, there are restrictions on unproficient people, but that's an exception. It's still a one-handed weapon.

Otherwise, it would A> be on the Martial table, and B> the special clause would be "A character can use a bastard sword one-handed as an Exotic weapon" instead of what it actually is.



I notice, too, that you're deftly avoiding all the bits I'm pointing out about how intepreting as the FAQ suggests creates massive issues in the rules. Like the fact that two-handed weapons, regardless of how many hands happen to be used on them, get 1.5x Str damage. One-handed weapons have special rules for being wielded two-handed, but two-handed weapons don't have special ones for being one-handed.

And, again, the FAQ is oddly claiming that weapon hitpoints change base on how you wield the weapon.

You only need one hand to wield a bastard sword. You also need to be proficient, but that's a special exception for bastard swords. Where's the issue?
SKB

05-04-05, 02:45 PM		You guys are burning a lot of brain cells on this...

Sword Type:
Medium Bastard Sword w/ Exotic Weapon Proficiency = Medium One-Handed Weapon
Medium Bastard Sword w/o Exotic Weapon Proficiency = Medium One-Handed Weapon

Sword Wielding:
Medium Bastard Sword w/ Exotic Weapon Proficiency = Wielded One-Handed (without penalty) or Two-Handed (without penalty)
Medium Bastard Sword w/o Exotic Weapon Proficiency = Wielded One-Handed (with -4 penalty) or Two-Handed (without penalty)

Sword Type+Wielding+Weapon Size:
Large Bastard Sword w/ Exotic Weapon Proficiency = Large Two-Handed Weapon (with -2 penalty)
Large Bastard Sword w/o Exotic Weapon Proficiency = Large Two-Handed Weapon (with -2 penalty & -4 penalty)

The answer to the original poster's #2 question: Yes, but with the penalties above.
chocobochicken

05-04-05, 03:37 PM		How much effort does it take to wield a bastard sword? One hand. Sure, there are restrictions on unproficient people, but that's an exception. It's still a one-handed weapon.

How much effort does it take to wield a greatsword? One hand. Sure, there are restrictions on characters smaller than Large size and without the Monkey Grip feat, but those are exceptions too. What difference is it if I take one particular feat instead of another? How much effort does it take to wield a lance while mounted? One hand, another exception. And how much effort does it take to wield the bastard sword without EWP? Two hands. Call it another exception if you'd like. But I don't understand how can only apply one exception, ignore another in the same context, and see the ruling as "crystal clear."

I notice, too, that you're deftly avoiding all the bits I'm pointing out about how intepreting as the FAQ suggests creates massive issues in the rules. Like the fact that two-handed weapons, regardless of how many hands happen to be used on them, get 1.5x Str damage. One-handed weapons have special rules for being wielded two-handed, but two-handed weapons don't have special ones for being one-handed.

I'm not deftly avoiding anything. I addressed this in my additional quote from the FAQ. You claim the FAQ is in direct violation of the rules, but I don't think the rules are as crystal clear as you say they are, and I certainly don't think every irregular possibility involving lances and bastard swords were accounted for in the original writing of the PHB.

Now we could continue to go on and on about whether the FAQ is or isn't accurate, but to what purpose? Neither one of us has the power to change it directly, and whether we like it or not, it is a commonly acknowledged source of answers that people perceive as official, and as such it carries tremendous weight. Rather than raise anarchy here on the forums, I'd rather do something more productive. I'm much more interested in finding a solid solution everyone can agree on rather than proving one side right.

So I'm thinking of trying a new angle this time instead of my usual custserv quick-response emails. I'm thinking about sending an errata submission (as instructed in the last paragraph of the errata file) regarding the +4 "two-handed" bonus on disarm/sunder checks for starters, just to see what kind of response I get. If it gets updated, then we start having rules corrected as they're supposed to be. If the response comes back negative, then we can reply back regarding the inaccuracies in the FAQ. If neither file gets updated after that, then let's raise anarchy. :D
DevilishIdiot

05-04-05, 03:58 PM		It's a one-handed weapon with the special exception that it requires the EWP to be wielded one-handed.
Or it's a two-handed weapon with the exception that if you burn a feat, you can wield it one-handed. After all, a normal person simply cannot wield it in one hand. If you're going to call it one-handed, that would imply that the majority of people could use it one-handed. But they can't...

And SKB you've got it wrong, you're saying you can a -4 penalty and use a bastard sword one-handed without first taking EWP. As if it hasn't been quoted enough on this thread:
"A bastard sword is too large to use in one hand without special training; thus, it is an exotic weapon."

The bastard sword is a two-handed weapon to anyone without EWP, and a one-handed weapon to anyone with EWP. Look at it this way: it's longer and heavier than a longsword, by enough that you can't wield it one-handed (so it's like a greatsword), but it's also shorter and lighter than a greatsword, so with some training you can wield it one-handed (unlike a greatsword - ignoring Monkey Grip etc.). The problem is that you two are trying to classify it as one or the other, but it's both under different circumstances. This is why it's an exception.
Kakerate

05-04-05, 04:20 PM		1) If I am using a buckler and a greatsword, do I lose my AC bonus from buckley if I attack???


You made me remember my question!!!
Um.. do you take a -1 to an attack roll because of the buckler if you use a one-handed weapon in two hands?

I know you take a -1 to attack rolls if a weapon is two handed(a greatsword) and one hand has a buckler, but taking the penalty from it(buckler) when your adding a hand to a one handed weapon(longsword) makes me think the
-1 attack roll penalty should be waived. You could just pass it off as the buckler getting in the way, but I think an extra hand on a weapon that can be used one-handed should benifit the attack roll, at least enought to forgo the -1 penalty from the buckler.

I wondered about it a few sessions back but didn't want to trouble my DM so I just wrote down that the buckler causes a -1 and put it in the back of my mind, after all its only a -1 to attack rolls.

What are you guys' thoughts on this?
Kakerate

05-04-05, 04:36 PM		2) If I have the Feat Exotic Weapon proficience (Bastard Sword), can I use that weapon Large (damage 2d8) with two hands???


I debated this one with Thorak before, and I found it was much easier to just ask your DM what they think is ok and go with that. If you are a DM, just read up all the PHB has to say about one-handed weapons, two-handed weapons, bastard swords and using oversized weapons and decide what option you like best.

Debate about it if you want, but your DM will tell you what they think when you bring the idea to their game and that will be the rule in the end. So convince them of your opinion if you want, or bring it up if you think its important. My DM accepetd the idea, and if he hadn't I would have just used a normal sized bastard sword. No big deal...no problem here! :)
Thorak

05-04-05, 07:14 PM		How much effort does it take to wield a greatsword? One hand. Sure, there are restrictions on characters smaller than Large size and without the Monkey Grip feat, but those are exceptions too. What difference is it if I take one particular feat instead of another? How much effort does it take to wield a lance while mounted? One hand, another exception. And how much effort does it take to wield the bastard sword without EWP? Two hands. Call it another exception if you'd like. But I don't understand how can only apply one exception, ignore another in the same context, and see the ruling as "crystal clear."
The difference is that the general rules say that a two-handed weapon needs two hands to be wielded effectively by a creature of the appropriate size. The Bastard Sword needs only one. Because it's a one-handed weapon. The table says so. Does the text ever call it a two-handed weapon? Not even once.
I'm not deftly avoiding anything. I addressed this in my additional quote from the FAQ. You claim the FAQ is in direct violation of the rules, but I don't think the rules are as crystal clear as you say they are, and I certainly don't think every irregular possibility involving lances and bastard swords were accounted for in the original writing of the PHB.
Give me one. Just one.
Now we could continue to go on and on about whether the FAQ is or isn't accurate, but to what purpose? Neither one of us has the power to change it directly, and whether we like it or not, it is a commonly acknowledged source of answers that people perceive as official, and as such it carries tremendous weight. Rather than raise anarchy here on the forums, I'd rather do something more productive. I'm much more interested in finding a solid solution everyone can agree on rather than proving one side right.
Right. My purpose is to raise holy hell until one of two things happen. Either they correct the FAQ to agree with the core rules, or Errata the core rules to agree with the FAQ. I don't think it's too much to ask.

If they Errataed it to agree with the FAQ, I'd shut my trap and argue in support of it.
So I'm thinking of trying a new angle this time instead of my usual custserv quick-response emails. I'm thinking about sending an errata submission (as instructed in the last paragraph of the errata file) regarding the +4 "two-handed" bonus on disarm/sunder checks for starters, just to see what kind of response I get. If it gets updated, then we start having rules corrected as they're supposed to be. If the response comes back negative, then we can reply back regarding the inaccuracies in the FAQ. If neither file gets updated after that, then let's raise anarchy. :D
You know, I've never sent a custserv question. I think this just might prompt me to. Not in a "could you give me an answer?" kind of way, but a "could you have the FAQ or Errata edited so that both the core rules and the FAQ are in complete, clear agreement, because on these points regarding this (insert full list) they're not, as described." kind of way.

Or it's a two-handed weapon with the exception that if you burn a feat, you can wield it one-handed. After all, a normal person simply cannot wield it in one hand. If you're going to call it one-handed, that would imply that the majority of people could use it one-handed. But they can't...
No, it implies, and I quote, that it "is a measure of how much effort it takes to wield a weapon in combat." A bastard sword takes the effort of one hand. It needs special training to be used in that way, but nothing implies it's a two-handed weapon. It implies it can't be wielded in one hand without special training.

Specific terms. "In one hand" does not mean "as a one-handed weapon". The latter has plenty of other stuff to it. Nor does "in two hands" mean it's a two-handed weapon. How you wield it, and the handedness category, are two entirely separate, though interrelated things.
The bastard sword is a two-handed weapon to anyone without EWP, and a one-handed weapon to anyone with EWP
So, when I take the EWP, it loses 5 hitpoints and shrinks in physical size? Interesting. Both are qualities directly tied to whether a weapon is one-handed or two-handed. You claim my taking a feat fundamentally, physically, changes the weapon. But only in my hands, of course.

Or, maybe, relative size categories like "one-handed" are entirely separate from how you actually wield the weapon, in one hand or two. Which they are. As page 113 makes clear, if you bother to read the whole thing.
chocobochicken

05-05-05, 04:03 PM		The difference is that the general rules say that a two-handed weapon needs two hands to be wielded effectively by a creature of the appropriate size. The Bastard Sword needs only one. Because it's a one-handed weapon. The table says so. Does the text ever call it a two-handed weapon? Not even once.

Okay, I don't quite understand how you intended this paragraph to answer my questions you were quoting. The bastard sword needs only one hand, just like a greatsword needs only one hand and a lance needs only one hand, all depending on the situation or feats available to the character. Yes, the table calls it a one-handed weapon. The text says it doesn't normally work that way, and that it's easier to use as a two-handed weapon than a one-handed one.

I think the ability to use the bastard sword in one hand is the special feature of the weapon, not the ability to use it two-handed as a martial one. Any appropriate sized character can use it two-handed, even without martial weapon proficiency. You can't wield the bastard sword in one hand at all until you've taken a feat to allow you to do so. Heck, you can't even wield it in one hand with the feat if your Strength score ever drops below 13, because the feat has an additional prerequisite specifically for bastard swords (a change in 3.5). That evidence leads me to believe a bastard sword is a two-handed weapon that allows a character to get away with wielding it one-handed using a special application of the EWP feat. I think we've just looked at the table entry for so many years of 3.x that we intuitively think of it as one-handed (and in many cases, it never really mattered before).

Give me one. Just one.
Does a lance receive 1.5*STR damage, 2*PA, and +4 on disarm/sunder checks when using it one-handed? Does a bastard sword? What are the hit points of a bastard sword? You can determine answers to these using the RAW, but they may not be the practical answers the designers intended. When they wrote the rules for combat, 95% of the available weapons conformed to strict pattern of light/one-handed/two-handed categories, and that's what the rules were written for. I don't think they stopped at each and every written sentence and said, "Now how would this work if I had a dagger? How would this work if I had a longsword? How would this work if I had a net?..."

Right. My purpose is to raise holy hell until one of two things happen. Either they correct the FAQ to agree with the core rules, or Errata the core rules to agree with the FAQ. I don't think it's too much to ask.

Agreed. I'm still contemplating the best way to go about this. I think asking about the sunder/disarm checks would grant a quicker and more definite reply, but it wouldn't solve the entire situation. They'd also need to errata the use of two-handed weapons as one-handed ones. Maybe asking to errata the two-handed weapon designation by appending, "If a feat or ability allows you to wield a two-handed weapon in one hand, treat it as a one-handed weapon for the purposes of combat." Those two items would address the majority of issues. The only other thing I can think of is the issue of weapon hit points (a simple clarification would do, and the bastard sword could use a FAQ response to acknowledge which category it belonged to).
Thorak

05-05-05, 10:16 PM		Okay, I don't quite understand how you intended this paragraph to answer my questions you were quoting. The bastard sword needs only one hand, just like a greatsword needs only one hand and a lance needs only one hand, all depending on the situation or feats available to the character. Yes, the table calls it a one-handed weapon. The text says it doesn't normally work that way, and that it's easier to use as a two-handed weapon than a one-handed one.
No, the text doesn't say that. It never says it's a two-handed weapon. It says it needs special training to be wielded in one hand. There is a big difference. You're still confusing "two-handed weapon" and "in two hands". They do not refer to the same thing.
I think the ability to use the bastard sword in one hand is the special feature of the weapon, not the ability to use it two-handed as a martial one. Any appropriate sized character can use it two-handed, even without martial weapon proficiency. You can't wield the bastard sword in one hand at all until you've taken a feat to allow you to do so. Heck, you can't even wield it in one hand with the feat if your Strength score ever drops below 13, because the feat has an additional prerequisite specifically for bastard swords (a change in 3.5). That evidence leads me to believe a bastard sword is a two-handed weapon that allows a character to get away with wielding it one-handed using a special application of the EWP feat. I think we've just looked at the table entry for so many years of 3.x that we intuitively think of it as one-handed (and in many cases, it never really mattered before).
Not being able to wield it one-handed doesn't make it a two-handed weapon. You're still confusing how you are currently wielding a weapon with the effort required to wield it. Sure, you can get away with wielding it two-handed if you're not strong enough or skilled enough to wield it properly, but claiming that this means it's two-handed is like claiming that a longsword is a two-handed weapon, because you're wielding it in two hands. When it's not. It's a one-handed weapon wielded in two hands.

There are three terms, and a sub-term, for handedness. "Light", "One-handed", "Two-handed", and the sub-term "One-handed weapon wielded in two hands". Right there on page 113. If you don't have the EWP, the Bastard Sword can only be wielded as a one-handed weapon wielded in two hands. There is no suggestion that wielding in two hands makes a weapon two-handed, despite your claims, and there's a great deal refuting that claim.
Does a lance receive 1.5*STR damage, 2*PA, and +4 on disarm/sunder checks when using it one-handed? Does a bastard sword? What are the hit points of a bastard sword?
Yes, No, and 5. Because those are all based on what class of weapon it is, rather than how many hands happen to be on it.
You can determine answers to these using the RAW, but they may not be the practical answers the designers intended. When they wrote the rules for combat, 95% of the available weapons conformed to strict pattern of light/one-handed/two-handed categories, and that's what the rules were written for. I don't think they stopped at each and every written sentence and said, "Now how would this work if I had a dagger? How would this work if I had a longsword? How would this work if I had a net?..."
That's what Errata is for, if they realize something doesn't work, they can update it.

What that? Nothing in the Errata despite years of comments? I guess it is working as intended.

I'm going to write custserv about it, just to get their take. I'll post a copy here when I do, and the response when I get it. I'm going to explain what the RAW says, what the FAQ says, and why they're inconsistent, and that by the Errata, this makes the FAQ wrong. I'm not looking for them to tell me which is "right", because they can't overrule the PHB either, but maybe a well-written note detailing exactly what the problem is without asking them to rule themselves and respond ASAP might get some action on this.
Thorak

05-05-05, 11:06 PM		Okay, I sent a message to custserv. Here's the text;
There's been an ongoing debate on the Wizards forum regarding weapon "handedness" categories, and specifically the discrepancy between the PHB and the FAQ. As I understand it, the FAQ does not have the authority to change primary source rules such as those in the PHB; the Errata makes it clear that "When you find a disagreement between two D&D® rules sources, unless an official errata file says otherwise, the primary source is correct." The FAQ is not listed as being an official Errata file, so if it disagrees with the PHB, the PHB is correct.

This then brings me to the issue; the FAQ contains an extensive response which clearly contradicts the PHB, even saying that it is doing so.

And yes, I realize how much I'm like the caricature of geeks who take things to nitpicky levels. So be it; I'm not posting this to you looking for a solution, since I already know how I would rule in my own games, but to bring the issue to your (Wizards') attention, so that either an Errata entry can support the FAQ, or the FAQ can be changed to agree with the PHB.

So here we go;

The passages in the PHB in question is page 113, the two headings "Light, One-Handed, and Two-Handed Melee Weapons" and "Weapon Sizes". Specifically, the two bits as follows;

"This designation is a measure of how much effort it takes to wield a weapon in combat. It indicates whether a weapon, wielded by a character of the weapon's size category, is a light, one-handed, or two-handed weapon."
and;
"Instead, a weapon's size category is keyed to the size of its intended wielder. In general, a light weapon is an object two sizes smaller than its wielder, a one-handed weapon is an object one size smaller than its wielder, and a two-handed weapon is an object of the same size category as the wielder."


The FAQ response in question is on page 18-19. The bit in question here is;

"As noted in the previous question, you can decide to wield a one-handed weapon in two hands and get the benefits of a two-handed weapon in combat. To do so, the weapon has to be designated a one-handed weapon for you. The giant in the previous example could not get two-handed weapon damage with the dwarf’s greataxe because that weapon is a light
weapon for the giant.
The bastard sword, lance, and dwarven waraxe are all twohanded weapons that can be used in one hand under the correct circumstances (the bastard sword and dwarven waraxe are shown on Table 7–5 as one-handed exotic weapons, but they’re really two-handed weapons). Treat all three of these weapons as two-handed weapons when determining who can use them
and how. For example, a Small character cannot use a lance or bastard sword made for a Medium creature, even when mounted (in the case of a lance) or when the Small character has the Exotic Weapon Proficiency (bastard sword) feat. (This reverses the advice the Sage gave about bastard swords and Small characters in earlier FAQs.)"


Here are the problems;

1> The very existence of the parenthetical comment in the FAQ; "the bastard sword and dwarven waraxe are shown on Table 7–5 as one-handed exotic weapons, but they’re really two-handed weapons". It acknowledges the PHB's ruling, and declares it to be in error. The FAQ doesn't have this authority.

2> "you can decide to wield a one-handed weapon in two hands and get the benefits of a two-handed weapon in combat."
This isn't true. The PHB specifically says;
"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."
There are also benefits in Power Attack;
"If you attack with a two-handed weapon, or a one-handed weapon wielded in two hands . . ."
Clearly, the PHB distinguishes between the two. So, when maneuvers like Disarm provide bonuses for a two-handed weapon, they would provide it for a Greatsword, but not a Longsword wielded in two hands. The FAQ disagrees, clearly, but contradicts the PHB and thus is in error.

3> "The bastard sword, lance, and dwarven waraxe are all twohanded weapons that can be used in one hand under the correct circumstances."
As implied in the first issue, this flagrantly contradicts the PHB, with regards to the dwarven waraxe and bastard sword. To make matters even clearer than only the table, both refer to the special feature of the weapon being that it can be wielded two-handed, in their text;
"A character can use a bastard sword two-handed as a martial weapon."
"A Medium character can use a dwarven waraxe two-handed as a martial weapon, . . ."
Again, a clear contradiction.

4> Continuing from the last point, the dwarven waraxe text continues, saying; ". . . or a Large creature can use it one-handed in the same way." The implication here is that, clearly, it would be a Light weapon normally for a Large creature with the Exotic Weapon Proficiency. And thus, the passage in the FAQ claiming that Small creatures can't use it two-handed with the EWP is contradictory, declaring that Small creatures are treated differently, with no support from the PHB for that claim.


There are further implications as well, such as weapon hit points when Sundered; if that's considered a benefit of weapon size, then the FAQ is asserting that a weapon's hit points changes based on how many hands happen to be on it. The above, however, are the very clear contradictions between the two.

Again, I'm not seeking a way to rule based on the information, I'm looking less for an answer than I am for action. One of the two sources has to be in error, because their rulings don't match up. According to the Errata, the PHB wins out. I suggest one of four courses of action; deleting the FAQ entry, rewriting it to mesh with the PHB, adding an Errata entry to match the FAQ's info, or making the FAQ an official Errata file.

My personal preference would be the second, rewriting the FAQ entry to better work with the PHB rules, since I do not see any issue with them as written, so change is in my opinion unnecessary. The decision, however, is of course yours. My main goal is helping the rules to be more consistent, as they currently are not in this one case.

The latest thread on this, where I'll be posting this message as well as any response you send to me, is here; http://boards1.wizards.com/showthread.php?t=423099
I would appreciate a response as to what, if anything, is likely to be done, but I realize that changing these official files is likely to take longer than a typical rules response.

I'll post any response I get
chocobochicken

05-06-05, 11:28 AM		Gosh, that's long. Well-written, though. In contrast, I'm trying an approach that's short and simple, one step at a time. Here's what I've just submitted:

From: removed
To: custserv@wizards.com
Subject: Errata: Players Handbook p113
Date: Fri, 06 May 2005 15:22:13 +0000

Greetings,

On page 113 of the Players Handbook, please consider appending the following to the description of the "Two-Handed" weapon designation:

"If a feat or ability allows you to wield a two-handed weapon in one hand, treat it as a one-handed weapon for the purposes of combat."

I've come across players who are under the impression that characters able to wield a two-handed weapon in one hand still receive 1.5 times their Strength bonus and 2 times the Power Attack damage. I don't think this was intended (please correct me if I'm wrong), but there's no clear ruling to contradict this.

Thank you for your time,

Name

Edit: I've resubmitted the message through the online form, with the addition of "please remember to update the contact information in the FAQ and Errata documents, as they point to an email address which no longer accepts messages." :rolleyes:
Thorak

05-06-05, 12:27 PM		Gosh, that's long.
Well, my intent was to describe the issue as completely as possible, and mention as many specific contradictions as I could think of, so that the problem was as clear as I could make it. Had to end up being long, but I hoped that by making it lengthy, it could forestall them misunderstanding or giving me a pat answer that flies in the face of something I didn't bother to mention.
Well-written, though.
Thanks. Woohoo, 4 years and an Honours degree, and I can write rules clarification requests real good!

Poor grammar entirely intentional. God arts degrees are generically useless.
Thanatos02

05-06-05, 05:52 PM		It seems like a lot of trouble.
I'd suggest just using a Longsword.


...... :D
Tony Vargas

05-06-05, 06:55 PM		God arts degrees are generically useless. Did you even consider law school?
Thorak

05-06-05, 09:36 PM		Did you even consider law school?
Correction; undergraduate arts degrees are useless unless used to further your education, by getting into graduate school of some sort or some other type of upper-level program.

My current intent, btw, is to take an Education program and become a highschool teacher. I enjoy teaching a great deal.

I considered law school, and have friends I'm graduating with who are going, but decided I couldn't handle prosecuting someone I thought was innocent, or defending someone I thought was guilty. And other kinds of law just seem boring, to me. Personal preference.


Anyway, I got a response from Custserv, and I wasn't entirely happy with it, but only because I didn't mention a couple items in my first post. Here's the response, and my response to the response.

Hey there [name]! Let me just address your concerns.

1. The entry for bastard sword is as a one-handed exotic weapon. But if you read the description on page 121, it states that a bastard sword can also count as a two-handed martial weapon. The wording isn't exactly like that, but that is what it means. The same is true for the dwarven waraxe. So the FAQ is only agreeing with the complete text for those two weapons.

2. You are correct. This reference is misleading and I will pass this on to the dev teams.

3. Again, if you don't have exotic weapon proficiency with the bastard sword and dwarven waraxe, then you can treat them as a two-handed martial weapons. But again, since this is apparently causing confusion, I will make sure to pass it on to the dev team as well.

4. The passage states that a creature without exotic weapon proficiently dwarven waraxe could wield it as a two-handed martial weapon. It goes on to say that in this circumstance, a large creature could wield the same weapon as a on-handed weapon. This is in accordance with the rules stating that it would count as one category smaller for a creature of one size category larger. So the large creature could wield it as a one-handed weapon, not a light weapon. You are correct that a large creature with exotic weapon proficiency bastard sword could wield a medium sized one as a light weapon. As for the small creature wielding a medium sized bastard sword with two hands with the exotic weapon proficiency, this stretches the rules a bit, but I agree that the FAQ may be in error. I will again, pass this along to the dev teams for them to look at.

So I will pass your feedback on to the dev team and if they decide to update the FAQ, you'll see it in the next update. Have fun and good gaming!


Trevor K.

And my response;
I understand your response, but it touches on exactly some of the points I believe are misleading. I'll explain;

"1. The entry for bastard sword is as a one-handed exotic weapon. But if you read the description on page 121, it states that a bastard sword can also count as a two-handed martial weapon. The wording isn't exactly like that, but that is what it means. The same is true for the dwarven waraxe. So the FAQ is only agreeing with the complete text for those two weapons."

Actually, what it says is "A character can use a bastard sword two-handed as a martial weapon." This doesn't mean it's a two-handed weapon; you can use any one-handed weapon two-handed. That's why Power Attack separately refers to two-handed weapons, and one-handed weapons held in two hands; they work the same for Strength damage and Power Attack damage, but that is apparently it.

If the intent is that a bastard sword, wielded in two hands, is a two-handed weapon, this then brings up the question of what its hitpoints as an item are. One-handed blades have 5, and two-handed have 10. Does this mean the bastard sword changes hit points based on how you wield it?

This is what I mean by confusing. If it's a one-handed weapon, but treated as a two-handed weapon when wielded in two hands for all combat purposes, then the PHB should say that (or, at least, the Errata, in this case). It currently doesn't; it says it's wielded two-handed, and you can wield a one-handed weapon two-handed normally.


"3. Again, if you don't have exotic weapon proficiency with the bastard sword and dwarven waraxe, then you can treat them as a two-handed martial weapons. But again, since this is apparently causing confusion, I will make sure to pass it on to the dev team as well."

Just to reiterate my issue; by the way the PHB is written, it could just as easily be treated as a one-handed weapon wielded in two hands, for which there are specific rules distinct from two-handed weapons, and without raising the issues with item hitpoints. One of the two needs to be fixed; either it should be clarified that it's a one-handed weapon at all times, or that it changes based on how it's wielded and how to treat it for item hitpoints in general, since it is one of the few weapons that don't easily fit the categories, with this ruling.


Again, I'm not trying to be a sourpuss, just trying to help get the rules shaken down into a stronger, less confusing form.

Thanks again for your help and attention

We'll see where this goes; it looks like it's getting passed on to the dev team, at least in some part, so we might actually see some response to this. And like I'm saying in my query to custserv; I'm less interested in being "right" than I am in having whatever the rules are be consistent and solid. If they decide bastard swords are really two-handed weapons and Errata it, I'll be content.
chocobochicken

05-07-05, 12:39 PM		Here's the response I received:

Subject
Errata: Players Handbook, p. 113 Greetings, On page 113 of the Players Handbo...

Discussion Thread
Response (Trevor K.) 05/06/2005 03:07 PM
You are correct and I will pass this on to the appropriate departments. Have fun and good gaming Jeremy!


Trevor K.

Customer Service Representative
Wizards of the Coast
1-800-324-6496 (US and Canada)
425-204-8069 (From all other countries)
Monday-Friday 7am-6pm PST / 10am-9pm EST

Seeing as the same rep addressed both our questions and promised to pass them on, I'm going to leave it at that and see whether or not this gets updated.
elecgraystone

05-26-05, 06:55 PM		I just read this thread and thought of something.
From custserv
" 4. The passage states that a creature without exotic weapon proficiently dwarven waraxe could wield it as a two-handed martial weapon. It goes on to say that in this circumstance, a large creature could wield the same weapon as a on-handed weapon.You are correct that a large creature with exotic weapon proficiency bastard sword could wield a medium sized one as a light weapon. This is in accordance with the rules stating that it would count as one category smaller for a creature of one size category larger. So the large creature could wield it as a one-handed weapon, not a light weapon. As for the small creature wielding a medium sized bastard sword with two hands with the exotic weapon proficiency, this stretches the rules a bit, but I agree that the FAQ may be in error. I will again, pass this along to the dev teams for them to look at."
Now I'm a medium creature with the exotic weapon (bastardsword).
I use a SMALL bastard sword. (D8 damage)
It's a LIGHT weapon. (as per custserv)
It's also a 2 handed weapon as per the FAQ.
So I can finesse 2 2-handed weapons!
Only a -4 (-2 size and -2 for 2-weapon fighting)
I LIKE this! ;)
Johannixx

05-26-05, 08:43 PM		I have very little experience (okay, no experience) with players trying to wield weapons that don't make sense.

And we have a winner, ladies and gentlemen.
Thorak

05-26-05, 09:52 PM		I use a SMALL bastard sword. (D8 damage)
It's a LIGHT weapon. (as per custserv)
It's also a 2 handed weapon as per the FAQ.
So I can finesse 2 2-handed weapons!
Only a -4 (-2 size and -2 for 2-weapon fighting)
I LIKE this! ;)
No, because those size rules are relative to your own size. It can't be two at once. In this case, the Bastard Sword is a Light weapon. That's it.

Even if the FAQ were right, it would be a one-handed weapon in that case.