Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.
 

[BUG 5.6 RC 3]Exotic Weapon

Expand Messages
  • cestrauch
    Hi, I ve seen this problem for a while now. I have a Cleric with the Exotic Weapon (Bastard Sword) feat. But PCGen is telling me I cannot use either the plain
    Message 1 of 12 , Feb 23, 2004
      Hi,

      I've seen this problem for a while now. I have a Cleric with the
      Exotic Weapon (Bastard Sword) feat. But PCGen is telling me I cannot
      use either the plain Bastard Sword, nor my Masterwork one nor the +2
      Bastard Sword he has (and was using with no problem until 5.5.9).

      Any help ?

      My 5.6RC3 is a different directory from 5.6RC2 or 5.5.9.

      Thanks in advance,

      CStrauch
    • merton_monk
      ... cannot ... +2 ... The Inventory tab refers to the Martial Proficiency version of the sword, which you don t have. The character sheet will correctly
      Message 2 of 12 , Feb 23, 2004
        --- In pcgen@yahoogroups.com, "cestrauch" <carlos.strauch@t...>
        wrote:
        > Hi,
        >
        > I've seen this problem for a while now. I have a Cleric with the
        > Exotic Weapon (Bastard Sword) feat. But PCGen is telling me I
        cannot
        > use either the plain Bastard Sword, nor my Masterwork one nor the
        +2
        > Bastard Sword he has (and was using with no problem until 5.5.9).
        >
        > Any help ?
        >
        > My 5.6RC3 is a different directory from 5.6RC2 or 5.5.9.

        The Inventory tab refers to the Martial Proficiency version of the
        sword, which you don't have. The character sheet will correctly
        display your to-hit bonus based upon the martial or exotic
        proficiency required for the number of hands with which you're
        wielding the sword. The Inventory tab could be re-wired to look for
        any flavor of proficiency involving the weapon, it's just never been
        done that way.

        -Bryan



        >
        > Thanks in advance,
        >
        > CStrauch
      • cestrauch
        ... Bryan, The Bastard Sword is an Exotic Weapon, thus needing the Exotic Weapon Proficiency to be wielded one-handed. For me to use it two-handed I don t need
        Message 3 of 12 , Feb 25, 2004
          --- In pcgen@yahoogroups.com, "merton_monk" <merton_monk@y...> wrote:
          > The Inventory tab refers to the Martial Proficiency version of the
          > sword, which you don't have. The character sheet will correctly
          > display your to-hit bonus based upon the martial or exotic
          > proficiency required for the number of hands with which you're
          > wielding the sword. The Inventory tab could be re-wired to look for
          > any flavor of proficiency involving the weapon, it's just never been
          > done that way.
          >
          > -Bryan

          Bryan,

          The Bastard Sword is an Exotic Weapon, thus needing the Exotic Weapon
          Proficiency to be wielded one-handed. For me to use it two-handed I
          don't need the Exotic Weapon Proficiency. I tried it today, putting
          the feat and the weapon on my character. The to-hit bonus had the -4
          penalty for untrained usage one-handed. If I had the martial weapon
          proficiency it'll be okay, but I'm using the feat. And it used to work.

          Thanks again,

          Carlos Strauch
        • Matt Haffner
          ... No, but you do need to take Martial Weapon Proficiency as a Cleric to use it two-handed without any penalties. Bryan was saying this is the test it s using
          Message 4 of 12 , Feb 25, 2004
            On Feb 25, 2004, at 8:00 PM, cestrauch wrote:

            > The Bastard Sword is an Exotic Weapon, thus needing the Exotic Weapon
            > Proficiency to be wielded one-handed. For me to use it two-handed I
            > don't need the Exotic Weapon Proficiency.

            No, but you do need to take Martial Weapon Proficiency as a Cleric to
            use it two-handed without any penalties. Bryan was saying this is the
            test it's using to determine what's red or not. It may not have any
            real bearing on your bonuses when the character sheet is calculated,
            since that looks at the whole picture, so to speak.

            > I tried it today, putting
            > the feat and the weapon on my character. The to-hit bonus had the -4
            > penalty for untrained usage one-handed. If I had the martial weapon
            > proficiency it'll be okay, but I'm using the feat. And it used to work.

            Agreed here. I'm seeing the same thing with RC3. A 2nd level cleric
            with only EWP (bastard sword) still has the -4 penalty no matter how
            the sword is equipped. Both the 1H and 2H line have the penalty. The
            proficiency is showing up in the list properly, however. There is still
            must be a lingering bug from work that was done on this before
            recently...

            mh - ZansForCans
            --
            Group Editing & Authoring Support
            flexible campaign management for the web
            info :: http://www.codefuries.com/geas.php
            demo :: http://www.codefuries.com/GEAS/public/wot.cgi
          • taluroniscandar
            If you have the EWP with Bastard Sword (Dwarven Waraxe,etc) you can wield one or two handed without minuses ... Does the penalty for not having a Martial
            Message 5 of 12 , Feb 26, 2004
              If you have the EWP with Bastard Sword (Dwarven Waraxe,etc) you can
              wield one or two handed without minuses

              > > The Inventory tab refers to the Martial Proficiency version of the
              > > sword, which you don't have. The character sheet will correctly
              > > display your to-hit bonus based upon the martial or exotic
              > > proficiency required for the number of hands with which you're
              > > wielding the sword. The Inventory tab could be re-wired to look for
              > > any flavor of proficiency involving the weapon, it's just never been
              > > done that way.
              > >

              In the 3.0 faq there is this:
              -------------
              Does the penalty for not having a Martial Weapon
              Proficiency feat stack with the penalty for not having an
              Exotic Weapon Proficiency feat? For example, what
              happens if a sorcerer uses a bastard sword in one hand and
              does not have either the Martial Weapon Proficiency or the
              Exotic Weapon Proficiency feat for a bastard sword? Is her
              penalty a straight –4 for not having the Exotic Weapon
              Proficiency, or does she suffer a –4 for not having the
              Martial Weapon Proficiency in addition to the –4 for not
              having the Exotic Weapon Proficiency because a bastard
              sword requires special training to use with one hand?

              No, you don't get two penalties for nonproficiency. You're
              either proficient with a weapon or you're not.
              If you're Medium-size, you have to be proficient with a
              bastard sword to use it in one hand; if you're not proficient, you
              don't have the option to use the sword one-handed at all.
              Assuming that the sorcerer in your example is Medium-size,
              she would have to use the sword in two hands and would suffer
              the –4 nonproficiency penalty when doing so
              -------------
              There is a 3.5 sage advice in a recent Dragon (Feb issue maybe?)on
              these weapons also but it apparently hasn't made it to the FAQ yet. It
              states that they are two-handed weapons which can be used one-handed
              under special circumstances (having the EWP).

              Seems to me that both of the mean that there should only be one Weapon
              Proficiency, Focus and Spec for each version
            • Jayme Cox
              ... Yes, this was also reported here: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/pcgen/message/73726 And has been in all the 5.6 RC builds since at least 2/16/04
              Message 6 of 12 , Feb 26, 2004
                > If you have the EWP with Bastard Sword (Dwarven Waraxe,etc) you can
                > wield one or two handed without minuses

                Yes, this was also reported here:

                http://groups.yahoo.com/group/pcgen/message/73726

                And has been in all the 5.6 RC builds since at least 2/16/04
              • taluroniscandar
                ... been ... This info has now been put into the DnD FAQ
                Message 7 of 12 , Mar 1, 2004
                  --- In pcgen@yahoogroups.com, "taluroniscandar" <mhgj@e...> wrote:
                  > If you have the EWP with Bastard Sword (Dwarven Waraxe,etc) you can
                  > wield one or two handed without minuses
                  >
                  > > > The Inventory tab refers to the Martial Proficiency version of the
                  > > > sword, which you don't have. The character sheet will correctly
                  > > > display your to-hit bonus based upon the martial or exotic
                  > > > proficiency required for the number of hands with which you're
                  > > > wielding the sword. The Inventory tab could be re-wired to look for
                  > > > any flavor of proficiency involving the weapon, it's just never
                  been
                  > > > done that way.
                  > > >
                  >
                  > In the 3.0 faq there is this:
                  > -------------
                  > Does the penalty for not having a Martial Weapon
                  > Proficiency feat stack with the penalty for not having an
                  > Exotic Weapon Proficiency feat? For example, what
                  > happens if a sorcerer uses a bastard sword in one hand and
                  > does not have either the Martial Weapon Proficiency or the
                  > Exotic Weapon Proficiency feat for a bastard sword? Is her
                  > penalty a straight –4 for not having the Exotic Weapon
                  > Proficiency, or does she suffer a –4 for not having the
                  > Martial Weapon Proficiency in addition to the –4 for not
                  > having the Exotic Weapon Proficiency because a bastard
                  > sword requires special training to use with one hand?
                  >
                  > No, you don't get two penalties for nonproficiency. You're
                  > either proficient with a weapon or you're not.
                  > If you're Medium-size, you have to be proficient with a
                  > bastard sword to use it in one hand; if you're not proficient, you
                  > don't have the option to use the sword one-handed at all.
                  > Assuming that the sorcerer in your example is Medium-size,
                  > she would have to use the sword in two hands and would suffer
                  > the –4 nonproficiency penalty when doing so
                  > -------------




                  > There is a 3.5 sage advice in a recent Dragon (Feb issue maybe?)on
                  > these weapons also but it apparently hasn't made it to the FAQ yet. It
                  > states that they are two-handed weapons which can be used one-handed
                  > under special circumstances (having the EWP).

                  This info has now been put into the DnD FAQ
                • Joshua Randall
                  ... DnD FAQ 2/29/2004 -- http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/er/20030221a I would like to point out that the Sage s interpretation of the weapon sizing
                  Message 8 of 12 , Mar 1, 2004
                    >> There is a 3.5 sage advice in a recent Dragon (Feb issue maybe?)
                    >> on these weapons also but it apparently hasn't made it to the
                    >> FAQ yet. It states that they are two-handed weapons which can
                    >> be used one-handed under special circumstances (having the EWP).
                    >
                    > This info has now been put into the DnD FAQ

                    DnD FAQ 2/29/2004 -->
                    http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/er/20030221a

                    I would like to point out that the Sage's interpretation of the
                    weapon sizing rules is highly controversial. See, for example, this
                    thread -->
                    http://www.enworld.org/forums/showthread.php?t=78892

                    FYI.
                  • Paul W. King
                    ... As far as I know though, the FAQs are not OGC. Therefore, we can t make the corrections. Paul W. King OGL SB, PL Chimp, Data Tamarin, TM Lemur, BoD
                    Message 9 of 12 , Mar 1, 2004
                      > This info has now been put into the DnD FAQ

                      As far as I know though, the FAQs are not OGC. Therefore, we can't
                      make the corrections.

                      Paul W. King
                      OGL SB, PL Chimp, Data Tamarin, TM Lemur, BoD
                    • taluroniscandar
                      ... Bryan stated he was looking for clarification. Just pointing it out.
                      Message 10 of 12 , Mar 1, 2004
                        --- In pcgen@yahoogroups.com, "Paul W. King" <paulking.rhochi@v...> wrote:
                        > > This info has now been put into the DnD FAQ
                        >
                        > As far as I know though, the FAQs are not OGC. Therefore, we can't
                        > make the corrections.

                        Bryan stated he was looking for clarification.

                        Just pointing it out.
                      • Eric Beaudoin
                        ... Well, the FAQ are clarification of rules that are OGC. The clarification apply but we can t cite the text. ... Éric Space Monkey Beaudoin (hiding in the
                        Message 11 of 12 , Mar 1, 2004
                          At 13:12 2004.03.01, Paul W. King wrote:
                          >> This info has now been put into the DnD FAQ
                          >
                          >As far as I know though, the FAQs are not OGC. Therefore, we can't
                          >make the corrections.

                          Well, the FAQ are clarification of rules that are OGC. The clarification apply but we can't cite the text.


                          -----------------------------------------------------------
                          Éric "Space Monkey" Beaudoin (hiding in the trench)
                          >> In space, no one can hear you sleep.
                          >> Camels to can climb trees (and sometime eat them).
                          <mailto:beaudoer@...>
                        • Matt Haffner
                          ... That s how I d treat them too. There are a few questions that are answered with new rules suggestions and for those you d need to go get permission, etc.
                          Message 12 of 12 , Mar 1, 2004
                            On Mar 1, 2004, at 5:47 PM, Eric Beaudoin wrote:

                            > Well, the FAQ are clarification of rules that are OGC. The
                            > clarification apply but we can't cite the text.

                            That's how I'd treat them too. There are a few questions that are
                            answered with new rules suggestions and for those you'd need to go get
                            permission, etc. But for understanding the rules themselves, the FAQ
                            should be able to be used and even cited--just not necessarily quoted.

                            mh - ZansForCans
                            --
                            Group Editing & Authoring Support
                            flexible campaign management for the web
                            info :: http://www.codefuries.com/geas.php
                            demo :: http://www.codefuries.com/GEAS/public/wot.cgi
                          Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.