Monster Manual IV needs errata before its publishing?

[Voadam]

Egres' point is valid. The arguments against MWP (Bastard sword) are based on the following points.

1. A bastard sword is an exotic weapon.

2. You cannot take MWP (Bastard sword) because it is not a martial weapon.

With the above points as an argument against MWP (BS), then a fighter, which is proficient with all martial weapons, would take the nonproficiency penalties when wielding a bastard sword two handed because it is still an exotic weapon. The argument against MWP (BS) because it is an exotic weapon also precludes the fighter from using it without penalty because fighters are proficient with all martial weapons, not exotic weapons.

Either all characters can use the bastard sword as a martial weapon, as stated in the sword's description, or none can. If a character can use it two handed as a martial weapon then all characters can take MWP (BS) to use it two handed without penalty. If characters cannot take MWP (BS) because it is an exotic weapon then it remains an exotic weapon for the fighter as well.

When there is a discrepency between a table and the text go with the text. There is a discrepency. The the table lists the bastard sword as a one handed exotic weapon. The bastard sword's text states that it is a one handed exotic weapon and a two handed martial weapon.

It is an exotic weapon and can be used as a martial weapon. So for the fighter using it two handed it is an exotic weapon that he can use as a martial weapon. He uses all martial weapons without the -4 non proficiency penalty.

Whether or not "A character can use a bastard sword two-handed as a martial weapon." means he can take a martial proficiency in it, this does not change the fact that it is an exotic weapon that can be used as a martial weapon in certain circumstances.

So it is not a two handed martial weapon, it is a one handed exotic weapon that is treated as a martial weapon when used two-handed.

 

[Voadam]

I've already listed two official sources that indicate that the bastard sword (two-handed) can be selected as a martial weapon proficiency feat.

You listed an NPC in the FRCS and Kelanen's deity favored weapon in LGJ.

Martial Weapon Proficiency [General]
Choose a type of martial weapon. You understand how to use that type of martial weapon in combat.

Benefit
You make attack rolls with the selected weapon normally.

Normal
When using a weapon with which you are not proficient, you take a -4 penalty on attack rolls.

Special
Barbarians, fighters, paladins, and rangers are proficient with all martial weapons. They need not select this feat.

You can gain Martial Weapon Proficiency multiple times. Each time you take the feat, it applies to a new type of weapon.

A cleric who chooses the War domain automatically gains the Martial Weapon Proficiency feat related to his deity’s favored weapon as a bonus feat, if the weapon is a martial one. He need not select it.

So Kelanen and deity listings do not prove things one way or the other as non martial ones can be favored weapons, they simply don't give benefits.

An NPC listing, (like the monster entry in the original post) are examples of rules implementation, not sources of rules themselves.

If there is a contradiction between a supplement NPC and the rules definitions in the PH/SRD then the PH/SRD trumps.

 

[Stone Dog]

So lets say a player wants to be a shugenja in an oriental style campaign. A katana is a master crafted bastard sword. The player wants to carry and wield a family katana and in character practices with it every day. His STR is merely 11 and so he can't take EWP, but he wants to wield it anyway without the -4 and asks to pick up MWP Katana so he can use the sword two handed.

EDIT (You are the GM) What comes next?

 

[calypso15]

So lets say a player wants to be a shugenja in an oriental style campaign. A katana is a master crafted bastard sword. The player wants to carry and wield a family katana and in character practices with it every day. His STR is merely 11 and so he can't take EWP, but he wants to wield it anyway without the -4 and asks to pick up MWP Katana so he can use the sword two handed.

What comes next?

He asks his DM if he'll allow MWP(Katana, 2H).

 

[Pielorinho]

I agree. As an observer, I must say this:

Moderator's Notes:
Rystil, actually, we'd prefer it if you not say things like that. When you turn away from someone in a room and describe them in demeaning terms to everyone else in the room, tempers can really flare. If you feel that discussion is no longer helpful, probably the best thing to do is to bow out, gracefully, from the discussion.

Please note that I have not read the rest of this thread (I no longer have the stamina for long rules discussions, it seems). If you believe that someone provoked you into making this post with a bad post of their own, please report it; if you have questions about this note, please shoot me an email or report this post with your questions attached.

Thanks!
Daniel

 

[Stone Dog]

He asks his DM if he'll allow MWP(Katana, 2H).

And do you? And how do you justify it if not?

"Okay, I can use this thing two handed as a martial weapon, but I can't learn how to use it as a martial weapon without being a fighter or something that say "this class is proficient with all simple and martial weapons" as a class ability?"

What do you say to that?

"Even though you aren't strong enough to learn how to use a bastard sword two handed without multiclassing, you may feel free to use another two handed weapon that is both bigger and heavier!"

 

[Rystil Arden]

Moderator's Notes:
Rystil, actually, we'd prefer it if you not say things like that. When you turn away from someone in a room and describe them in demeaning terms to everyone else in the room, tempers can really flare. If you feel that discussion is no longer helpful, probably the best thing to do is to bow out, gracefully, from the discussion.

Please note that I have not read the rest of this thread (I no longer have the stamina for long rules discussions, it seems). If you believe that someone provoked you into making this post with a bad post of their own, please report it; if you have questions about this note, please shoot me an email or report this post with your questions attached.

Thanks!
Daniel

No worries, PR. I wasn't actually even part of the discussion to begin with--that post was my first one in the thread, and it was more of a suggestion that perhaps everyone should agree to disagree and leave it at that.

 

[Dinkeldog]

Rystil, while I agree with the sentiment, if you think that there's a point where people should agree to disagree because things are getting heated, please report the thread. If not, then really, it might be best to just ignore the thread. There are any number of threads I don't participate in that I read and it looks like people are talking past each other, and I'm okay with that--so long as it's not getting uncomfortably warm. If people are enjoying themselves, it's their use of time, after all. (That's just an internet philosophy note, rather than a moderating instruction. )

My opinion is that the intent should have been that a MWP bastard sword should be allowed in those cases where an individual wanted bastard sword proficiency but didn't care if he got the exotic proficiency for one-handed use. In general, though, I tend toward a spirit of the law > letter of the law type attitude. i.e. State what the letter is, but how you would rule differently. It's still of benefit to the community, then. Others are free to disagree, of course, and we can still part friends (like Hyp and myself).

 

[Rystil Arden]

Rystil, while I agree with the sentiment, if you think that there's a point where people should agree to disagree because things are getting heated, please report the thread. If not, then really, it might be best to just ignore the thread. There are any number of threads I don't participate in that I read and it looks like people are talking past each other, and I'm okay with that--so long as it's not getting uncomfortably warm. If people are enjoying themselves, it's their use of time, after all. (That's just an internet philosophy note, rather than a moderating instruction. )

My opinion is that the intent should have been that a MWP bastard sword should be allowed in those cases where an individual wanted bastard sword proficiency but didn't care if he got the exotic proficiency for one-handed use. In general, though, I tend toward a spirit of the law > letter of the law type attitude. i.e. State what the letter is, but how you would rule differently. It's still of benefit to the community, then. Others are free to disagree, of course, and we can still part friends (like Hyp and myself).

No worries, Dinkel. In fact, I agree with you about the proficiency. The point of Hyp and the others, however, is that even agreeing as we both do on how it should be played, that is no reason to claim that WotC screwed up the monster entry. The fact is that Wizards screws up a lot in some monster books--MM3 is a big standout. but they didn't screw up here.

As for reporting--the report button says to report posts that are spam, advertising, harassment, fighting, or rude. Nobody has made a specific post that has done any of that yet here, on either side, which is good. Should I have reported anyway if it was going in circles? My tendency has been to try to chime in instead, but it's good to know if the other way is preferred. I tend to take things (like the message on the Report Post option) pretty literally.

 

[calypso15]

And do you? And how do you justify it if not?

Yes, I'd allow someone to take MWP(Bastard Sword, 2H) and bypass the 13 Str requirement. But that would be a house rule, so hardly relevent.

Calypso