| 3 people marked this as FAQ candidate. |
On another forum I'm in the middle of a discussion with a few people about the RAI and RAW of using a longsword as a two-handed weapon and whether the character while using the longsword in this fashion would qualify for feats that require someone to be using a two-handed weapon.
The RAW state that you can use a 1-handed weapon such as a longsword with two hands and receive the 1 1/2x strength bonus. I feel the common sense or RAI of this allows the PC to use a longsword (as long as the PC states they are using it AS a 2-handed weapon) as a 2-handed weapon. It isn't specifically written down anywhere that anyone can find that the RAW forbid this, but the rules lawyers are out in force with their own interpretations of this needing to be very specific.
I'm wondering what everyone else thinks here as this is where the question should be posed to the community and to the developers.
Design Manager
|
Generally, the rules apply to the way a weapon is being wielded. Power Attacking with a Longsword wielded in two hands would give you the normal benefits of fighting with a two-handed weapon, while a Dwarven waraxe wielded in one hand, despite being a two-handed weapon when used with the martial weapon proficiency, will only give you the normal benefits of a one-handed weapon.
Bonuses and penalties of one vs two handed weapons are based off the way the weapon is being wielded at the time.
I know there were some devs who chimed in on this ( I think JJ and SKR both agreed that feats and what-not applied to the way the weapon was being used) I'll try and hunt one of those down.
It really depends on the wording of the feats in question. Point to some?
@Ssalarn - That's exactly how I feel it should be interpreted, but some others are thinking it needs to be much more specific than that.
@bobson - Examples of feats that require two-handed weapon are:
From the PRD: "One-Handed: A one-handed weapon can be used in either the primary hand or the off hand. Add the wielder's Strength bonus to damage rolls for melee attacks with a one-handed weapon if it's used in the primary hand, or 1/2 his Strength bonus if it's used in the off hand. If a one-handed weapon is wielded with two hands during melee combat, add 1-1/2 times the character's Strength bonus to damage rolls."
If you're using a longsword with two hands, then it is considered a two-handed weapon at that time (so yes, extra oomph from Power Attack).
If you switch back to one-handed use, then it's considered a one-handed weapon.
RAW = RAI in this instance.
Just don't try it w/ a Light Weapon. :P
By the rules, any one handed weapon that is not light can be used as a two-handed weapon and gain any and all benefits from wielding it as such.
Here's a specific line from Power Attack:
You can choose to take a –1 penalty on all melee attack rolls and combat maneuver checks to gain a +2 bonus on all melee damage rolls. This bonus to damage is increased by half (+50%) if you are making an attack with a two-handed weapon, a one handed weapon using two hands, or a primary natural weapon that adds 1-1/2 times your Strength modifier on damage rolls. This bonus to damage is halved (–50%) if you are making an attack with an off-hand weapon or secondary natural weapon.
@Weren Wu Jen, yep that's what I quoted as well, but the guy I'm discussing it with says:
"Rules for wielding a 1 handed weapon in 2 hands does not mean that it is a 2 handed weapon for all purposes. Except that's not what it says. It says that you can wield a one handed weapon in two hands and has the strength and a half damage, it does not say that it becomes a 2 handed weapon. The fact that Power Attack specifies that the increased damage applies to 2-handed weapons and to 1-handed weapons wielded in both hands suggests strongly that a 1-handed weapon isn't a 2-handed weapon when wielded in both hands. If they intended it to be a 2 handed weapon wouldn't they say 'a one handed weapon wielded in 2 hands functions as a 2 handed weapon' rather than stating the damage adjustment again? Yes people can use a 1 handed weapon in 2 hands, find anywhere that I've denied that or that you get the 1.5 times str damage bonus. It doesn't mean that it becomes a 2 handed weapon."
What is the feat specifically that is in question here?
@Fleshgrinder - I agree with your assessment as well and I've also brought up that point, but as you can see in what I quoted from the discussion in my previous post a few seconds ago, the guy doesn't think it's even RAI to be able to do anything BUT Power Attack when using the longsword with two hands. He completely disagrees that it's able to be used in feats that require a two handed weapon.
Could you give me a specific feat so I can do some research?
@Fleshgrinder look above in my 2nd post. Shield of Swings and Pushing Assault are currently the ones on the table for discussion.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
@Fleshgrinder look above in my 2nd post. Shield of Swings and Pushing Assault are currently the ones on the table for discussion.
Okay, Pushing assault "When you hit a creature your size or smaller with a two-handed weapon attack modified by the Power Attack feat.
Okay, this one is easy, a "two handed weapon attack" does not mean "an attack with a Two-Handed weapon", it means any attack taken with 2 hands.
It is a weapon attack with two hands, not an attack with a two-handed weapon.
Shield of Swings does say, specifically, a "two handed weapon" so that one could be argued, but Pushing Assault is definitely fine with a 1-hander.
@Fleshgrinder - we are on the exact same page, that's how I read and explained those as well. Kind of funny that he still disagrees, but I guess not everyone can see what the RAI are especially if they aren't RAW to be very very specific. I still contend that Shield of Swings even though it says "two handed weapon" would qualify because at the time that someone is using the longsword with 2 hands it is a 2-handed weapon for that purpose or intention. I'd have the player make sure to announce it though just to be clear on their intention.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
@Fleshgrinder look above in my 2nd post. Shield of Swings and Pushing Assault are currently the ones on the table for discussion.Okay, Pushing assault "When you hit a creature your size or smaller with a two-handed weapon attack modified by the Power Attack feat.
Okay, this one is easy, a "two handed weapon attack" does not mean "an attack with a Two-Handed weapon", it means any attack taken with 2 hands.
It is a weapon attack with two hands, not an attack with a two-handed weapon.
Correction: the text is syntactically ambiguous. It could be that "two-handed" qualifies "weapon attack", in which case any weapon attack employing two hands would be valid (interestingly, this would also include two-handing a light weapon, even though most two-handed bonuses don't apply to such an act). It could also be that "two-handed weapon" qualifies "attack", in which case attacks with two-handed weapons are the only thing valid (in this case, the number of hands used wouldn't matter, so if you had an ability to use a two-handed weapon in one hand, it would still work).
The feat does not "definitely" include one-handed weapons. That is one of two equally-sound readings of the text. There is nothing within the text to suggest one over the other.
I could see the argument on shield of swings, just because weapon length is probably a big part of how it's supposed to work, so the two-handed restriction makes a little more sense.
But yeah, Pushing Assault is relying on the strength of the character, not the weapon he's using, so it should work with a one-hander.
@Grammar Nazi - Yeah it's kind of a grey area and I felt that it's open for interpretation by the GM who is running the game. I can also see both sides of it, but just feel more strongly that when a longsword is used as a two-handed weapon that it should qualify for both of the above mentioned feats.
I even brought up the part in the RAW where it says: "This designation is a measure of how much effort it takes to wield a weapon in combat. It indicates whether a melee weapon, when wielded by a character of the weapon's size category, is considered a light weapon, a one-handed weapon, or a two-handed weapon."
To me it's the effort part that makes this a bit more clear. It takes less effort to wield a 1-handed longsword with 2 hands and as a 2-handed weapon. You have more control over it because it is lighter weight and smaller in size. I went so far as to say the only reason people don't do this is because the larger 2-handed weapons do more dice damage and critical damage.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I'm going to disagree with most everyone here.
Wielding a one-handed weapon with two hands is not the same as wielding it as a two-handed weapon.
CRB: "For example, a Small creature would wield a Medium one-handed weapon as a two-handed weapon."
The gnome wielding a medium longsword is wielding it as a two-handed weapon. The elf doing the same thing is wielding it as a one-handed weapon, but using two hands.
The intent for Pushing Assault is for it to use a two-handed weapon, since it says in the fluff "A strike made with a two-handed weapon can push a similar sized opponent backward" and while "a two-handed weapon attack" could mean a weapon attack made with two hands OR an attack made with a two-handed weapon" I think the correct decision is the one that complies with the clearly stated intent.
The weapon type changing based on the user, rather than being set by the original weapon has precedent. JJ on the Lance, Jason Nelson on Phalanx Fighting, JJ on the Bastard sword
RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
JJ on the Lance,... JJ on the Bastard sword
Ouch. Next thing you know it'll be "JJ's head on the pike".
@Grick - I have to disagree because the intent is not clearly stated. It is very grey.
The links that you posted are informative, but not definitive on this specific subject and I am very inclined to think that they actually back what I am posting better.
The key words by JJ and Jason Nelson in your quoted posts are "used as," "wielded as," and "treated as." So if a person is wielding, using, or treating a longsword as a 2-handed weapon, for the purposes of the feats it should be ruled that the longsword while being used in this fashion is a two-handed weapon and this would be RAI. The only bad thing as I said before is that they get less damage dice doing this than if they used a bigger/heavier weapon to hit with.
Now obviously I'd defer to JJ or Jason Nelson if they deigned to come into the thread and talk about it with us about what they think. I'd actually love to hear their feedback on this specifically.
@Grick - I have to disagree because the intent is not clearly stated. It is very grey.
I was referring specifically to Pushing Assualt's fluff text which says "a two-handed weapon."
The key words by JJ and Jason Nelson in your quoted posts are "used as," "wielded as," and "treated as." So if a person is wielding, using, or treating a longsword as a 2-handed weapon, for the purposes of the feats it should be ruled that the longsword while being used in this fashion is a two-handed weapon and this would be RAI.
I agree.
The text for One-Handed Weapons says "If a one-handed weapon is wielded with two hands during melee combat..."
A weapon "wielded with two hands" is not the same thing as "wielded as a two-handed weapon."
The difference is a medium creature with a medium longsword is using it as a one-handed weapon, even when using both hands.
This is not the same case as that same creature using a large longsword, which would be used as a two-handed weapon.
Being "used as" or "wielded as" a two-handed weapon changes the effective category of the weapon.
There's nothing prohibiting you from using both hands on an appropriately sized dagger. You get no advantage on damage, but it's doable. Using the number of hands used to determine the encumbrance means someone using two hands on a dagger makes it a two-handed weapon, granting it better power attack damage, and any other perk outside of 1.5xStr.
-edit- If using both hands on a one-handed weapon made it a two-handed weapon, Power Attack wouldn't need to call it out separately. When it says "if you are making an attack with a two-handed weapon, a one handed weapon using two hands, or a primary natural weapon that adds 1-1/2 times your Strength modifier" it's listing three different states.
@Grick - I have to disagree because the intent is not clearly stated. It is very grey.I was referring specifically to Pushing Assualt's fluff text which says "a two-handed weapon."
The key words by JJ and Jason Nelson in your quoted posts are "used as," "wielded as," and "treated as." So if a person is wielding, using, or treating a longsword as a 2-handed weapon, for the purposes of the feats it should be ruled that the longsword while being used in this fashion is a two-handed weapon and this would be RAI.I agree.
The text for One-Handed Weapons says "If a one-handed weapon is wielded with two hands during melee combat..."
A weapon "wielded with two hands" is not the same thing as "wielded as a two-handed weapon."
The difference is a medium creature with a medium longsword is using it as a one-handed weapon, even when using both hands.
This is not the same case as that same creature using a large longsword, which would be used as a two-handed weapon.
Being "used as" or "wielded as" a two-handed weapon changes the effective category of the weapon.
There's nothing prohibiting you from using both hands on an appropriately sized dagger. You get no advantage on damage, but it's doable. Using the number of hands used to determine the encumbrance means someone using two hands on a dagger makes it a two-handed weapon, granting it better power attack damage, and any other perk outside of 1.5xStr.
-edit- If using both hands on a one-handed weapon made it a two-handed weapon, Power Attack wouldn't need to call it out separately. When it says "if you are making an attack with a two-handed weapon, a one handed weapon using two hands, or a primary natural weapon that adds 1-1/2 times your Strength modifier" it's listing three different states.
You say that "wielded with two hands" is not the same as "wielded as a two-handed weapon" but I still have to disagree on the point that you are actually wielding the weapon with two hands AS a two handed weapon. That's the reason that you can get the bonus to Power Attack, then be able to use Furious Focus and get the 1 1/2 x strength multiplier to additional damage.
You say that the difference is a creature using a one-handed weapon using two hands is still being used as a one-handed weapon. It just seems kind of silly to me. It's being wielded as a two handed weapon and that in turn means it's being used as a two handed weapon.
Seems like a circular argument to me though. I understand that there is nothing prohibiting someone from using a dagger with two hands, but we are talking about a simple longsword in this case and I don't want to bring in light weapons to the discussion because then we start going around in more circles as to what can be done with a light weapon.
I think that the Power Attack would still need to be called out separately so that people know that you CAN use a 1-handed weapon AS a 2-handed weapon for the purposes of this feat so that they can get the 50% MORE damage when using it in this way and then if they USE IT AS a one-handed weapon it doesn't qualify for the additional 50%.
Pushing Assault say " When you hit a creature your size or smaller with a two-handed weapon attack ". You can make a two-handed weapon attack by just weilding a one-handed weapon in two hands.
Shield of Swings says "Benefit: When you take a full-attack action while wielding a two-handed weapon,". This one actually requires a two-handed weapon by RAW not a one-handed weapon weilded in two hands.
Pushing Assault say " When you hit a creature your size or smaller with a two-handed weapon attack ". You can make a two-handed weapon attack by just wielding a one-handed weapon in two hands.
Totally agree with you here.
Shield of Swings says "Benefit: When you take a full-attack action while wielding a two-handed weapon,". This one actually requires a two-handed weapon by RAW not a one-handed weapon wielded in two hands
Don't agree as much because I feel that if you are using the longsword as a two handed weapon, for the purposes of this feat it is a two handed weapon as long as it is being clearly stated by the PC. This is the grey area that I've been talking about where it can go either way and I feel that RAI it should be the way I think of it, but RAW it could be interpreted to the express letter of the feat.
That's my take on it wraith.
Just because they specifically use the wording "When wielding a two-handed weapon" enough times in the rules that the change of working in Pushing Assault leads me to believe it is different.
Else they would have used the same language.
Unless I'm wrong and this more ambiguous language has been used more often than I've seen.
Furious Focus explicitly states that it works with a 1-handed weapon wielded in two hands. It's odd that there is different wording for Pushing Assault and Furious Focus. I'm not sure what to make of it. I would say that Pushing Assault is okay, but Shield of Swings is not. Which is okay, because SoS is a terrible feat.
|
RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
Just because X and Y produce the same effects in relation to two parts of the rules does NOT mean that X and Y are the same thing or that Y is effectively X.
If X and Y were treated the same, then they wouldn't be listed separately when they're producing the same effect. Only one would be listed and the other would apply by definition. Then, if you wanted them to behave differently, you'd have to make it explicit (i.e., "for this feat, X does not count as Y").
But that's not what we've got. We have the opposite: the two places where X and Y produce the same effect list them both explicitly, which shows that they're not supposed to be equated - otherwise, why bother listing both? Just like how when Weapon Focus says you can choose a weapon or you can choose Grapple, it proves Grapple isn't a weapon, because if it was, it wouldn't need to be spelled out as an option.
@Elrostar - Yep, I wouldn't ever take SoS either, but it's still one of the two-handed weapon feats that may come into play for some people when they try to use a one-handed weapon as a two-handed weapon. It is very odd to me that they use different language on all of these, I don't know if that is on purpose or if it's an oversight because then we get into these discussions on whether something is RAW or RAI and what means what.
Just because X and Y produce the same effects in relation to two parts of the rules does NOT mean that X and Y are the same thing or that Y is effectively X.
If X and Y were treated the same, then they wouldn't be listed separately when they're producing the same effect. Only one would be listed and the other would apply by definition. Then, if you wanted them to behave differently, you'd have to make it explicit (i.e., "for this feat, X does not count as Y").
But that's not what we've got. We have the opposite: the two places where X and Y produce the same effect list them both explicitly, which shows that they're not supposed to be equated - otherwise, why bother listing both? Just like how when Weapon Focus says you can choose a weapon or you can choose Grapple, it proves Grapple isn't a weapon, because if it was, it wouldn't need to be spelled out as an option.
This isn't math, this is wording and it comes down to the grammar of it and the actual intention of what the developers mean when they say what X and/or Y mean. That's why it's not an open and shut case to me, it's got two very different outcomes depending on the actual meaning of what they are getting at. I know some people feel the way I do and some feel the other way, but I only ask to see what and why someone feels it should be interpreted differently and until a developer weighs in I guess it will always be a grey area where it is actually open to being a RAI and open to the interpretation of the reader.
|
Don't agree as much because I feel that if you are using the longsword as a two handed weapon, for the purposes of this feat it is a two handed weapon as long as it is being clearly stated by the PC. This is the grey area that I've been talking about where it can go either way and I feel that RAI it should be the way I think of it, but RAW it could be interpreted to the express letter of the feat.
My take is by RAW wielding a long sword with two hands does not make it a two-handed weapon. A long sword is a Martial On-Handed Melee Weapon full stop, that is it's descriptor RAW. Nothing can change that even by using two hands on it. Let's say I have four arms, if I use all of them, would it be a 4H long sword? So I would personally rule that if the feat clearly states Two-Handed Weapon then only weapons with that specific descriptor would be usable. I agree about grey wording on the first case however, but for consistency I, again personally, would rule based on descriptor of the weapon rather than case by case.
This issue has popped up in our games also,
S.
Don't agree as much because I feel that if you are using the longsword as a two handed weapon, for the purposes of this feat it is a two handed weapon as long as it is being clearly stated by the PC. This is the grey area that I've been talking about where it can go either way and I feel that RAI it should be the way I think of it, but RAW it could be interpreted to the express letter of the feat.
My take is by RAW wielding a long sword with two hands does not make it a two-handed weapon. A long sword is a Martial On-Handed Melee Weapon full stop, that is it's descriptor RAW. Nothing can change that even by using two hands on it. Let's say I have four arms, if I use all of them, would it be a 4H long sword? So I would personally rule that if the feat clearly states Two-Handed Weapon then only weapons with that specific descriptor would be usable. I agree about grey wording on the first case however, but for consistency I, again personally, would rule based on descriptor of the weapon rather than case by case.
This issue has popped up in our games also,
S.
I'm going to play devil's advocate a bit more here. You talk about the descriptor, but to some that means that is the main purpose of the weapon and not the only purpose. It goes so far as to say that a one-handed weapon when being used with two hands gains the additional strength bonus. Now if the descriptor was the only thing that qualified a weapon on whether it could be used for a specific purpose I'd agree with you, but when the RAW state that you can use two hands with the one-handed weapon and gain an additional bonus, that changes the description of the weapon to become a two-handed weapon for that use to me.
I won't argue that it can be read either way, and that's my main problem with this particular lack of clarity in the rule-set. It may be ambiguous on purpose for the group playing to come to some kind of consensus and deal with it on their own terms or it may be an oversight on the language because there are so many books and so many different rules to try to keep track of - making keeping all the language all the same very hard to do for the authors.
|
Design Manager
|
Also, that one-handed longsword in a halflings hands is a two-handed weapon.
From the PRD:
"The measure of how much effort it takes to use a weapon (whether the weapon is designated as a light, one-handed, or two-handed weapon for a particular wielder) is altered by one step for each size category of difference between the wielder's size and the size of the creature for which the weapon was designed. For example, a Small creature would wield a Medium one-handed weapon as a two-handed weapon. If a weapon's designation would be changed to something other than light, one-handed, or two-handed by this alteration, the creature can't wield the weapon at all."
Would you rule that a halfling using a longsword sized for a human (treating it as a two-handed weapon) would not be able to use those feats in conjunction with what is, for him, a two-handed weapon? And if he can, then why can't a human wielding the same weapon with two hands?
Also, that one-handed longsword in a halflings hands is a two-handed weapon.
From the PRD:
"The measure of how much effort it takes to use a weapon (whether the weapon is designated as a light, one-handed, or two-handed weapon for a particular wielder) is altered by one step for each size category of difference between the wielder's size and the size of the creature for which the weapon was designed. For example, a Small creature would wield a Medium one-handed weapon as a two-handed weapon. If a weapon's designation would be changed to something other than light, one-handed, or two-handed by this alteration, the creature can't wield the weapon at all."Would you rule that a halfling using a longsword sized for a human (treating it as a two-handed weapon) would not be able to use those feats in conjunction with what is, for him, a two-handed weapon? And if he can, then why can't a human wielding the same weapon with two hands?
Wow, very good point. That actually makes a lot of sense to me and I feel it's very relevant to the discussion. If the Halfling can only use the human longsword as a two-handed weapon - in essence it's like a greatsword for a human. Great line of reasoning here.
Pushing Assault say " When you hit a creature your size or smaller with a two-handed weapon attack ". You can make a two-handed weapon attack by just wielding a one-handed weapon in two hands.Totally agree with you here.
Shield of Swings says "Benefit: When you take a full-attack action while wielding a two-handed weapon,". This one actually requires a two-handed weapon by RAW not a one-handed weapon wielded in two handsDon't agree as much because I feel that if you are using the longsword as a two handed weapon, for the purposes of this feat it is a two handed weapon as long as it is being clearly stated by the PC. This is the grey area that I've been talking about where it can go either way and I feel that RAI it should be the way I think of it, but RAW it could be interpreted to the express letter of the feat.
RAW a one-handed weapon is not a two-handed weapon*. It just gets the benefits of one at certain times.
*They are in different categories by the book. You can argue what the about RAI, but the RAW is what it is.
Also, that one-handed longsword in a halflings hands is a two-handed weapon.
From the PRD:
"The measure of how much effort it takes to use a weapon (whether the weapon is designated as a light, one-handed, or two-handed weapon for a particular wielder) is altered by one step for each size category of difference between the wielder's size and the size of the creature for which the weapon was designed. For example, a Small creature would wield a Medium one-handed weapon as a two-handed weapon. If a weapon's designation would be changed to something other than light, one-handed, or two-handed by this alteration, the creature can't wield the weapon at all."Would you rule that a halfling using a longsword sized for a human (treating it as a two-handed weapon) would not be able to use those feats in conjunction with what is, for him, a two-handed weapon? And if he can, then why can't a human wielding the same weapon with two hands?
The rules assume you are using an appropriately sized weapon. When you start to mix and match weapon sizes that should be taken into account. I am not sure what the RAI is for Shield of Swings, but by RAW a longsword is not a two-handed weapon for unless the weapon is not made for the creature's size.
@Wraithstrike - Just trying to get this clear so that I and others understand correctly.
1) Longsword is classified or categorized as one-handed medium weapon.
2) Longsword can be used with two hands, but doesn't change categories when doing so.
3) Longsword stays a one-handed weapon for all feats, even if used a a two-handed weapon.
4) Some feats are so ambiguously written that you can use the one-handed longsword as a two-handed weapon and still do them, but others when specifically stated as a two-handed weapon (the category) are not allowed per RAW.
Did I get that all correct?
That's pretty much it.@Wraithstrike - Just trying to get this clear so that I and others understand correctly.
1) Longsword is classified or categorized as one-handed medium weapon.
2) Longsword can be used with two hands, but doesn't change categories when doing so.
3) Longsword stays a one-handed weapon for all feats, even if used a a two-handed weapon.
4) Some feats are so ambiguously written that you can use the one-handed longsword as a two-handed weapon and still do them, but others when specifically stated as a two-handed weapon (the category) are not allowed per RAW.Did I get that all correct?
I think I can get on board with that train of thought.
@Wraithstrike - Just trying to get this clear so that I and others understand correctly.
1) Longsword is classified or categorized as one-handed medium weapon.
2) Longsword can be used with two hands, but doesn't change categories when doing so.
3) Longsword stays a one-handed weapon for all feats, even if used a a two-handed weapon.
4) Some feats are so ambiguously written that you can use the one-handed longsword as a two-handed weapon and still do them, but others when specifically stated as a two-handed weapon (the category) are not allowed per RAW.Did I get that all correct?
Correct. :)
What if we replace the longsword with a bastard sword? A bastard sword is a two handed martial weapon or a one handed exotic weapon, right? What happens then?
It's only a one-handed when you get the exotic weapon proficiency otherwise you need to use it as a one-handed with penalties or two-handed without penalties. To me it's a in-betweener (between a longsword and greatsword in size/weight) and that's why it takes a feat to use with one hand correctly.
A bastard sword is two-handed weapon for you if you only have martial weapon proficiency. It can be weilded in one hand and counts as such if you posses the right feat, much like the dwarven waraxe. It is one of the few weapons that crosses categories since the classification of whether something is one-handed or two-handed is dependent upon the effort it takes to wield it for the most part.
|
I think people are nitpicking and reading far too much into a slight difference of wording.
I'd think a more reasonable interpretation would be consistent with the statement:
If you wield a one-handed weapon with two hands, it's effectively a two-handed weapon. The only reason there's wording in the rules to say "it doesn't actually become a two-handed weapon" is because otherwise you know somebody is going to come along and say that because he got a giant to hold his two-handed sword while a weapon blanch is being applied he only has to pay the cost of treating a one-handed weapon.
So your longsword/bastard sword gain or lose 5 HP whenever you add or remove a hand from it?
Not sure what you mean by this and it doesn't sound relevant to the discussion. Lets keep it on point, thanks.
I think people are nitpicking and reading far too much into a slight difference of wording.I'd think a more reasonable interpretation would be consistent with the statement:
If you wield a one-handed weapon with two hands, it's effectively a two-handed weapon. The only reason there's wording in the rules to say "it doesn't actually become a two-handed weapon" is because otherwise you know somebody is going to come along and say that because he got a giant to hold his two-handed sword while a weapon blanch is being applied he only has to pay the cost of treating a one-handed weapon.
It is not effectively a two-handed weapon. Allowing X to be treated like Y in certain cases does not mean that X always equals Y.
PS:If the intent is not to restrict the SoW to two-handed weapons exclusively then they should change the wording. I would allow the longsword to work at my table, but if I was a PFS GM I would not allow it.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
So your longsword/bastard sword gain or lose 5 HP whenever you add or remove a hand from it?Not sure what you mean by this and it doesn't sound relevant to the discussion. Lets keep it on point, thanks.
Whether a weapon is one or two handed determines how many HP it has.
I think we should all agree that the weapon's classification when use by a creature that it was made for should be the default for interacting with other rules. As an example a longsword for human does not suddenly gain hp because a halfing just picked it up.
