Monster Manual IV needs errata before its publishing?

[saucercrab]

Where does it say you can take it as a martial weapon? It is only listed as a martial weapon in the equipment list.

I've already listed where it has been selected or can be selected as a martial weapon proficiency.

If the MM4 monster manual can be wrong, then can be othe source books that could give us an insight into that matter.

Has there been much time to release an errata for the MMIV?

 

[saucercrab]

As for the inapplicability of MWP (bastard sword), what will you do now for the poor cleric of a deity with whip as a favored weapon? He gets MWP (whip), so what does that do?

Is there an official deity that grants the War domain & has whip as his/her favored weapon?

 

[Abraxas]

A one-handed weapon can be wielded in one hand or two hands.

-Hyp.

Oh yeah - whistle whistle - thats what i get for posting from work at the end of a 14 hour day.

 

[Animal]

it seems that egre and those other guys are shamelessly trolling.

 

[Egres]

We didn't miss it. We pointed out that Bastard Sword is an exotic weapon, not a martial weapon. In case you missed it.

Calypso

I don't missed it.

Please, I'm not challenging anyone here.

Follow me.

We know that a fighter, a character proficient with all martial weapons, can wield a bastard sword two handed without penalties.

So, why couldn't a bard proficient with all martial weapons?

Only because he took all the proficiencies one by one?

I can't see the logic behind this statement.

 

[Egres]

Remember, as soon as a sourcebook containing another martial weapon is published, the fighter is proficient with it; the bard is not.

There is an inherent difference between "Taking lots of feats" and being proficient in all martial weapons.

I disagree.

You know that sourcebooks are optional.

Besides that:

1) In the core system, could the same bard wield a bastard sword two handed without penalties?

2) If you assume that there are more sourcebooks, I can assume that my bard took all the new MWPs.

So, the question is always the same: why are you arguing that there's a difference?

 

[Land Outcast]

1) In the core system, could the same bard wield a bastard sword two handed without penalties?

EWP (Bastard Sword): Gives proficiency with a one-handed exotic weapon

A one-handed weapon can be wielded in one hand or two hands.

 

[Egres]

EWP (Bastard Sword): Gives proficiency with a one-handed exotic weapon

Perhaps I wasn't clear enough.

The bard in my example doesn't have the EWP.

He has all the MWPs needed to be "proficient in all the martial weapons".

A fighter is proficient in all martial weapons, and can wield a bastard sword two handed without penalties.

Can my bard do the same?

 

[Plane Sailing]

it seems that egre and those other guys are shamelessly trolling.

I know that you've used a smiley, but basically saying that *anybody* is trolling isn't on. Either they are trolling (in which case you ignore them or report it to the mods) or they are not trolling (in which case you don't insult someone who just happens to have a different view to you).

I'm not so much jumping on you as taking the opportunity to clarify for anyone who happens to be reading.

Cheers

 

[Infiniti2000]

Is there an official deity that grants the War domain & has whip as his/her favored weapon?

I doubt it, but whether one exists or not is irrelevant. Consider it a hypothetical case. Since I don't play greyhawk or FR, there is not one for the bastard sword either.

The full quote on page 121 of the PHB is, "Bastard Swords are also known as hand-&-a-half swords. A bastard sword is to 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."

That doesn't say it can't be selected as a martial weapon proficiency. That indicates how it is an exotic weapon & a martial weapon.

It does not indicate that it is a martial weapon. It indicates how it can be used as a martial weapon. There's a difference.

In spite of the fact that I've listed two official sources to the contrary, one of which is a revised 3.5 Living Greyhawk document.

Completely irrelevant. Neither source is an official rules document for D&D outside their scope. Iow, if we're playing FR, you can't use LG material. If we're playing LG, you can't use FR material. If we're playing a homebrew (which I do), then neither source is useful. Nonspecific sourcebooks are valid, however, so if you see other examples let us know. The fact that some deity in FR or LG is wrongly implemented means nothing to me.

So, the question is always the same: why are you arguing that there's a difference?

Because there is a difference. The fact that you need to assume you have another feat available to acquire proficiency in all the new weapons is a SIGNIFICANT difference.

Hyp illustrated a fundamental difference between your assumptions and the rules and it is this difference that makes your assumption invalid. In trying to toss aside the difference, you're attempting to negate the very reason your interpretation on the bastard sword rules is wrong.