So... I have been researching into the bizarre world of Mounted Combat, and there are two seemingly contradictory FAQs, and I would like to know which one is correct.
FAQ wrote:
Power Attack: If I am using a two-handed weapon with one hand (such as a lance while mounted), do still I get the +50% damage for using a two-handed weapon?
Yes.
—Pathfinder Design Team, 05/24/13
and
FAQ wrote:
Weapons, Two-Handed in One Hand: When a feat or other special ability says to treat a weapon that is normally wielded in two hands as a one handed weapon, does it get treated as one or two handed weapon for the purposes of how to apply the Strength modifier or the Power Attack feat?
If you're wielding it in one hand (even if it is normally a two-handed weapon), treat it as a one-handed weapon for the purpose of how much Strength to apply, the Power Attack damage bonus, and so on.
They are both right, but it requires some careful splitting of hairs and lawyer-like reading.
Specifically, when you are mounted, it never "says to treat a weapon that is normally wielded in two hands as a one handed weapon", it merely says to wield the two-handed weapon in one hand.
Without the word "treat", the second FAQ entry is not invoked.
There is no wrong FAQ here. The first FAQ refers to a weapon categorized as a two-handed weapon that is wielded in one hand under special circumstances; it even cites an example, the Lance weapon, and the Power Attack modifiers to use for it.
The Second FAQ refers to weapons that, while can be used in one hand, have special pre-requisites to be met, and when they are not met, are then considered to be usable as a Two-Handed Martial weapon. Prime examples are the Bastard Sword, Dwarven Urgrosh, and Katana.
The difference is the Lance is always considered a Two-Handed Weapon unless mounted, in which case it is usable in one hand (but is still considered a Two-Handed Weapon for all other purposes), whereas the Bastard Sword, Dwarven Urgrosh, and Katana have proficiency feats needed in order to use them one-handed. If the character does not have the feat, they cannot use it one-handed, and therefore it is then treated as a Two-Handed Weapon for weapon damage purposes (it is still considered one-handed for the purposes of calculating weapon hardness, HP/Inch Thickness, etc).
The lance is using a 2 handed weapon being wielded in 1 hand. The weapon remains viewed as a 2 handed weapon.
The other is a 2 handed weapon that is able to be treated as a 1 handed weapon. Therefore, it only gives the 1 handed bonuses for things like STR and Power Attack.
It's highly pedantic parsing of the language IMO, but that's pretty much the difference.
Getting the bonus 50% damage one handed seems like a mistake. Does anyone have a link to discussion leading up to that ruling? FAQing the OP for clarification.
The lance is ALWAYS a two-handed weapon. It can be wielded one-handed when the wielder is mounted but is not treated as a one-handed weapon when this is done. (this is not a feat or special ability, but a quality of the lance)
When a feat or other special ability tells you to treat a (normally) two-handed weapon as a one-handed weapon, then it gets treated as a one-handed weapon (including for STR mod and Power attack).
Getting the bonus 50% damage one handed seems like a mistake. Does anyone have a link to discussion leading up to that ruling? FAQing the OP for clarification.
It is not a mistake. The lance is two-handed weapon that is weilded in one hand. There have been various debates whether it got the one-handed or two handed bonus while mounted. Finally the devs made a decision.
What is boils down to is how something is treated. The term "treat as" appears throughout the rules, and it always trumps what something actually is. As an example, if a spell mind-affecting spells says to treat an undead creature as a humanoid, then that spell would affect them even though mind-affecting spells don't normally affect undead.
They are both right, but it requires some careful splitting of hairs and lawyer-like reading.
Specifically, when you are mounted, it never "says to treat a weapon that is normally wielded in two hands as a one handed weapon", it merely says to wield the two-handed weapon in one hand.
Without the word "treat", the second FAQ entry is not invoked.
No offense to you, but this is stupid. It may be right, but it's still stupid. No FAQ should require lawyer-like reading. Ever. The fundamental purpose of FAQs is to reduce confusion, not increase it.
I keep finding myself disappointed with the ability of the PF design team to write FAQs that stand on their own without forum commentary and increase rules clarity.
You don't need to watch word count at the expense of clarity. No trees are dieing for these FAQs and there are no wordcount constraints like you have for errata. They're just free standing hyperlinked text blocks. Please use as many words as it takes to cover the known edge cases. Especially when they can be covered by "but see <a href="http://yoururl#some-other-faq">this FAQ for lances</a>.
I think Lord Malkov is right - these do contradict.
You can't (or at least shouldn't) consider the mount or the lance rules here as these are just examples of where it would come up; it's not a case of specific trumps general.
The first FAQ says the two handed weapon bonus applies. (+50%, yes).
The second FAQ says that with a two handed weapon in one hand, the 50% bonus doesn't apply.
This would only make sense if the first FAQ actually does consider it to be the lance used on a mount only, but that's not what the question in the FAQ asks - and requires clarification if that's the case.
@ Atarlost: It's stupid in that it shouldn't require it, but lawyer-like reading is a life-long skill that people should learn and understand, since many things in life require such capabilities.
Buying cars, houses, making productions, etc. All requires the use of contracts and specific wording and meanings, which include and expand upon lawyer-like reading. It is stupid in that it is contradictory to its purpose (clarification); but it is not stupid in that splitting hairs is the key between doubt and certainty in the things we do in life, and lawyer-like reading helps with such issues.
Identifying subtle differences and attention to detail aren't inherently bad or distasteful. They're things that competent and literate people ought to be able to do to begin with. The Lance is a two-handed weapon and, while mounted, it specifically allows you to wield it with only one hand. Power Attack bonus damage is contingent on, among other things, wielding a two-handed weapon (which Lance still is and the ability doesn't change that). By extension, this also means that it gets 1.5x Str bonus, but you cannot make an off-hand attack because an attack with a two-handed weapon (even one wielded in one hand) subsumes your potential off-hand attacks. By contrast, abilities that allow you to wield a weapon "as a one-handed weapon" (ie. Quarterstaff Master, Phalanx Fighter) are distinctly different; you're changing the functional class of the weapons. In these cases, they no longer count as two-handed weapons so you get normal Str and power attack, they don't subsume off-hand attacks, and you can no longer use abilities contingent on using a 2-h weapon (ie. Shield of Swings, Pushing Assault, Overhand Chop).
It's not pedantic because "pedantic" refers to semantic differences that are trivial and not important or pertinent to the topic. It's a subtle difference, for sure, but subtle =/= pedantic. There's a subtle difference between "knowing your shit" and "knowing you're shit".
Additionally, the Katana, Bastard Sword, etc. are all one-handed exotic weapons. They are only counted functionally as two-handed weapons when wielded in two hands so that's not even a valid comparison. This is a specific exception to the general rule that a one-handed weapon wielded in two hands still doesn't satisfy prerequisites requiring you to use a two-handed weapon (and, additionally, they have a further exception that you cannot wield them one-handed without proficiency which effectively puts them into a unique hybrid class of 1-h/2-h properties).
I agree with the first reply that specific trumps general. When the FAQ answers with nothing more than a "Yes." or a "No." it typically means there's no clear rules justification for that interpretation, they just decided that specific example should work that way.
My opinion is that the design team made the wrong call about lances. It's inconsistent with the other FAQ, which takes a more balanced and intuitive stance on the subject.
One thing to keep in mind when stating that it's 'unbalanced' or 'wrong' to allow lances that greater benefit:
How often do you wind up with mounted combats?
The fact that requiring a mount to be effective, yet a lot of scenarios\adventures being based indoors, underground, in dungeons, etc., means that on those rare occasions where you do get to mount up, they need to really let you shine.
As a very loosely-related topic, I'd be interested to know how many people play the Cavalier class. Based on the (lack of) guides for the class I'd guess it's very few - and for the very reason that the base class is so mount-focused, and rather ineffectual in situations where they can't mount up.
Identifying subtle differences and attention to detail aren't inherently bad or distasteful. They're things that competent and literate people ought to be able to do to begin with.
Indeed. That's what makes it so galling when professional writers fail at it.
I find the language here to be too imprecise to derive any sort of meaningful difference. The rulebooks themselves certainly do not have that degree of precision.
The main problem is that people think RAW is entirely the explicit statements. SKR has gone on record to say that 1) English is a fluid language and the same exact words can hold different connotation with different people, and 2) There's a fight between using detailed enough language to convey the intent while using terse enough language to not make the rulebook have as many pages as the whole Wheel of Time series put together with Battlefield:Earth thrown in for good measure. So even taking just the explicit rules into account is trying enough; but there's also implications to consider. Language involves the interplay of both explicit and implicit conveyance of ideas. Explicit means that they are spelled out and rely more on denotation of the words while Implicit means they are a bit more abstract and rely on certain standard presumptions (such as dead characters take no actions). One implicit presumption that one must make in any reading is that the rule is written in such a way that it does something; that it serves some purpose. A rule that, in one reading serves no purpose and in another reading serves a purpose that seems counter-intuitive, odd, out-of-place, or objectionable in some other way, must be interpreted by default to be conveying the more odd meaning because the alternative is ridiculous. And, as I stated in the other thread on this same topic that was linked above, between the presumption that there is a contradiction between the FAQs and a reading that, while narrow and subtle, explains everything adequately, though some people don't like it; the logical stance is to take the explanation that works even though you may find it counter-intuitive. By contrast, there are other situations that cannot be reasoned out. The conflict between the FAQs on half-breed races is a perfect example. There was no explanation that reconciled the rules with the FAQs; the only option was that there was a contradiction and, as such, the offending FAQs were brought into line to remove that contradiction.
At the end of the day, the language is precise; it was all along. The FAQ clarifies the difference in meaning between "wielded as a one-handed weapon" and "wielded in one hand". It's similar to the difference between a one-handed weapon wielded in two hands and a two-handed weapon; the latter qualifies for Shield of Swings, Pushing Assault, Overhand Chop, and other abilities that call for a two-handed weapon while the former does not. A one-handed weapon wielded in two hands is still a one-handed weapon while a one-handed weapon wielded as a two-handed weapon (as with the Bastard Sword) is subtly but distinctly different. By the same token, a two-handed weapon wielded in one hand is still a two-handed weapon while a two-handed weapon wielded as a one-handed weapon is also subtly but distinctly different.
Both FAQs are correct and there is cross-support based on how "hand-and-a-half" weapons function. The likelihood of the FAQs being out-of-line with RAI is insignificant and, moreover, unimportant as it doesn't credibly or appreciably impact gameplay.
In short, if the Devs are striving for simple language and understanding then they are contradictory. If they are advocating hair splitting then they are not.
If a person new to the system were to read these two FAQs I believe they would come to the conclusion that they are contradictory. Boiled down, one FAQ says to use Power Attack when you use a two-handed weapon in one hand while the other states that when you use a two-handed weapon in one hand you don't.
Finally, the whole difference of "wielded as" vs "wielded in" is the reason so much of this is confusing. Who the heck but a rules lawyer is going to split that difference?
I hope the PDT cleans things up to simply state that weapons in one hand are treated as one handed weapons (except for physical characteristics like hardness and hitpoints) and that weapons in two hands are treated as two handed weapons (except for characteristics like hardness and hitpoints).
I hope the PDT cleans things up to simply state that weapons in one hand are treated as one handed weapons (except for physical characteristics like hardness and hitpoints) and that weapons in two hands are treated as two handed weapons (except for characteristics like hardness and hitpoints).
This. It'd clear up so many headaches in the name of simplicity. A lance already gets double damage on a mounted charge, at the "cost" of a reduced damage die compared to other martial reach weapons. No need to allow it to get two-handed damage in one hand as well. You still CAN two-hand it if you want to.
Finally, the whole difference of "wielded as" vs "wielded in" is the reason so much of this is confusing. Who the heck but a rules lawyer is going to split that difference?
What, exactly, is confusing about it? It's pretty straight-forward; "wielded as a one-handed weapon" specifically refers to a mechanically significant term while "wielded in one hand" is more general. Even if someone didn't readily appreciate the difference, the two FAQs clarify it readily and such a person can merely be referred to those FAQs. If they refuse to comprehend at that point, then they are ignoring the facts being presented to them; and it just so happens that ignore is the root word of ignorance. I can accept that a person who reads the rules casually and doesn't catch the distinction is innocent of that distinction; they are unaware. But once it's presented to them and they still stubbornly refuse to accept it, that treads out of the definition of innocent and into the scope of ignorant; to ignore information that you have been made aware of.
It's not confusing; people are merely incorrectly making it out to be confusing. It's no more confusing than the concept that Earth moves around Sol, despite Sol appearing to be in motion around Earth instead; and even that is a simplification as the two are actually in orbit around the mutual center of mass, but Sol is large enough that the mutual center of mass is within the volume that Sol encompasses.
Using a two handed weapon: one-handed is considered an oversized weapon granting a -4 penalty to attack. It can be done.
This isn't true. You can use an oversized one-hander in two hands at a penalty; you cannot use a sized two-hander in one hand, at penalty or otherwise.
This would create a situation where you could use a greataxe in one hand at -4 penalty, but not a dwarf axe in one hand at -4 proficiency penalty, because it has rules that forbid that. So you could somehow use a greataxe one handed but not a lighter axe. That'd be ridiculous.
I made the post because it is very easy to see the two as mutually exclusive. There aren't many cases where you can actually wield a two-handed weapon in one hand, and in the case of jotungrip the caveat that it only gets one-handed bonuses is baked into the ability.
Using any weapon in the offhand is already covered under power attack, so no worries there either (eg two weapon warrior archtype)
Thunder and fang would be out as would phalanx soldier.
Franlkly all of this seemed totally reasonable up until lance got its faq, which actually seems to buck against the implicit RAI regarding handedness. Now I can sort of see why, a lance without this ruling might end up getting wielded two-handed which doesn't really fit the picture of such a classic weapon. Still, it would be nice if they had simply called out lance as a special case and clarified everything inside one FAQ.
I find the language here to be too imprecise to derive any sort of meaningful difference. The rulebooks themselves certainly do not have that degree of precision.
I think that this explain that:
Sean K. Reynolds wrote:
We didn't have time to do a top-down detailed analysis of all the language in the game and come with standard was of how we want to say things in the Pathfinder RPG. Most of the language is inherited, and it's inherited from a game written by people who weren't the 3E authors, so there's going to be weirdness and ambiguity, and stuff that simply isn't as clear as the author thinks it is. And there's some stuff that's written because of choices made 13 years ago by people who no longer work on the game, and much has been added to or changed in the game since then, so we can't even get a uniform context for the rules.
In a game written by three people, revised by three more, updated by another, and expanded upon by at least twenty more, you're not going to have an easy, clear consensus on how everything is supposed to work together.
This is not a simple game. We can't explain every possibility, and we can't go through every paragraph of the book to clean it all up so it's exactly how we want it. And even if we did do that, it still wouldn't be 100% clear for everyone. It's literally impossible to reach 100% clarity in a book of game rules.
We didn't have time to do a top-down detailed analysis of all the language in the game and come with standard was of how we want to say things in the Pathfinder RPG. Most of the language is inherited, and it's inherited from a game written by people who weren't the 3E authors, so there's going to be weirdness and ambiguity, and stuff that simply isn't as clear as the author thinks it is. And there's some stuff that's written because of choices made 13 years ago by people who no longer work on the game, and much has been added to or changed in the game since then, so we can't even get a uniform context for the rules.
In a game written by three people, revised by three more, updated by another, and expanded upon by at least twenty more, you're not going to have an easy, clear consensus on how everything is supposed to work together.
This is not a simple game. We can't explain every possibility, and we can't go through every paragraph of the book to clean it all up so it's exactly how we want it. And even if we did do that, it still wouldn't be 100% clear for everyone. It's literally impossible to reach 100% clarity in a book of game rules.
Oh, I don't fault Paizo at all for it. That fact of the matter is that they've created a product that I've derived literally countless hours of enjoyment out of. I just think that attempts to discern some deeper meaning out of the precise arrangement of words and/or the use of an indefinite article are essentially fruitless due to the general level of language-precision in the rulebooks.
Kazaan, as you have so kindly pointed out in this thread and the one that I linked, you have to do some linguistic rules lawyering to clarify the difference between the two FAQs. As a result they are NOT clear to those people not capable (or inclined) of such linguistic rules lawyering.
If a Lance is meant to be an exception to this then it should be stated that it is an exception.
Try to read it from the perceptive of a non-rules lawyer. Better yet, present the two FAQs to a few people who have very little system mastery and ask them to make sense of it without someone like you to explain it to them. Im pretty sure they will wind up with the conclusion that they are contradictory.
There are specific abilities that allow you to treat two handed weapons as one handed weapons for the purpose of how you wield them. The second FAQ applies to them.
The lance does not treat it as a one handed weapon. It remains a two handed weapon that you simply can wield in one hand while mounted.
AKA the first ability changes the category of the weapon involved. The second one keeps it as a two handed weapon but allows you to wield it in one hand anyways.
Edit: To be more clear, its the category of the weapon in the first place that determines how much power attack gives (except in the specific case of one handed in two hands)
There are specific abilities that allow you to treat two handed weapons as one handed weapons for the purpose of how you wield them. The second FAQ applies to them.
The lance does not treat it as a one handed weapon. It remains a two handed weapon that you simply can wield in one hand while mounted.
AKA the first ability changes the category of the weapon involved. The second one keeps it as a two handed weapon but allows you to wield it in one hand anyways.
Edit: To be more clear, its the category of the weapon in the first place that determines how much power attack gives (except in the specific case of one handed in two hands)
You are essentially saying Paizo should forever abandon the non-lawyer demographic so that they can continue to write their rules badly and let the players and GMs split hairs.
You are essentially saying Paizo should forever abandon the non-lawyer demographic so that they can continue to write their rules badly and let the players and GMs split hairs.
Actually what i was trying to convey was that they are following the internal logic of their own system. They've written power attack so that weapon category determines the power attack bonus.
They've written specific abilities that are rule exceptions that allow you to change the category of a weapon. That changes how much damage power attack gives.
Wielding a lance in one hand does not ever state that it changes the category of the weapon. Aka power attack gives the same bonus.
Thomas Long 175, as I stated to Kazaan, it may make sense to you and it may even be technically correct but it may not make sense to those with less rules mastery and/or rules lawyering ability to separate such fine points of distinction.
Ask yourself the following question: "When is a two-handed weapon treated as a one-handed weapon for the purposes of feats and abilities?"
If the answer is anything but "when it is (legally) in one hand" then there is something wrong. If you have to have 2 or 3 answers and then FAQs to cover those answers and then FAQs to cover the FAQs that then the rules need to be cleaned up.
Now, we could continue to treat "wielded as" differently than "using in" but frankly, nothing in the rules really says that they are treated differently. It is the rules lawyer people (including myself) that provides a distinction between the two based on a small difference in "language".
As the Devs have stated, they find such language differences to be not the point and an artifact rather than the intent.
So we ask, is the intent of these two FAQs to be compatible? Should a Lance have an exception to the second FAQ? Should this be a common sense reading or a linguistic quagmire that only Rules Lawyers understand?
That is the purpose of this thread and until there is an answer I am sure people will keep noticing the apparent (if not actual) contradiction between these two FAQs.
Marked for FAQ. Treating a weapon as though it were wielded in two hands while wielding it in one is a potent enough benefit that it deserves to be called out explicitly, not opaquely implied through the omission of more specific text. And if there's going to be a major rules distinction implied by something so subtle, that distinction deserves to be addressed by the FAQ.
Those who believe that the rules make some subtle distinction here should note that RAW does NOT consider the bastard sword and dwarven waraxe to be normally two-handed weapons. They are in fact listed and described as one-handed exotic weapons that can be used in two hands as martial weapons:
Waraxe, Dwarven: A dwarven waraxe has a large, ornate head mounted to a thick handle, making it too large to use in one hand without special training; thus, it is an exotic weapon. A Medium character can use a dwarven waraxe two-handed as a martial weapon, or a Large creature can use it one-handed in the same way. A dwarf treats a dwarven waraxe as a martial weapon even when using it in one hand.
Sword, Bastard: A bastard sword is about 4 feet in length, making it 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.
(They also both appear as one-handed exotic weapons in the weapons tables). In contrast, the only two-handed weapon that uses the same language "wielded in one hand" in the latter FAQ entry is, in fact, the lance:
Marked for FAQ. Treating a weapon as though it were wielded in two hands while wielding it in one is a potent enough benefit that it deserves to be called out explicitly, not opaquely implied through the omission of more specific text. And if there's going to be a major rules distinction implied by something so subtle, that distinction deserves to be addressed by the FAQ.
Its not treating it as being wielded in two hands. Its treating it as a two handed weapon.
Wielding something in two hands versus one hand is not the same as it being a two handed weapon versus a one handed weapon. A longsword in two hands is still a one handed weapon. A greatsword in one hand is still a two handed weapon unless you are wielding it with an ability that calls out otherwise.
How you wield a weapon has absolutely not one ounce of impact on what type of weapon it is.
Case in point. A dagger could in fact be wielded in two hands. It would not get the bonuses for being a two handed weapon, nor would it gain 1.5 strength mod.
I'd have to agree that the rules could use revising, thought that's mostly because I'm a fan of keeping rules language as simple and clear as possible. Simple, clear rules make it easy for everyone at the table to understand. Complicated, fiddly rules like the current ones on this matter lead to rules arguments at the table that eat up gaming time.
Those who believe that the rules make some subtle distinction here should note that RAW does NOT consider the bastard sword and dwarven waraxe to be normally two-handed weapons. They are in fact listed and described as one-handed exotic weapons that can be used in two hands as martial weapons:
Waraxe, Dwarven: A dwarven waraxe has a large, ornate head mounted to a thick handle, making it too large to use in one hand without special training; thus, it is an exotic weapon. A Medium character can use a dwarven waraxe two-handed as a martial weapon, or a Large creature can use it one-handed in the same way. A dwarf treats a dwarven waraxe as a martial weapon even when using it in one hand.
Sword, Bastard: A bastard sword is about 4 feet in length, making it 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.
(They also both appear as one-handed exotic weapons in the weapons tables). In contrast, the only two-handed weapon that uses the same language "wielded in one hand" in the latter FAQ entry is, in fact, the lance:
Lance: A lance deals double damage when used from the back of a charging mount. While mounted, you can wield a lance with one hand.
Indeed, except power attack specifically calls out that one handed weapons used in two hands get the bonus damage anyways. Aka power attack itself notes the difference between weapon category and how you wield it. So you can get the bonus damage on those weapons because power attack explicitly states that one handed weapons in two hands can.
If the mounted-lance-one-hand thing just said "wielded in one hand, but still gets the 1.5x multiplier on strength bonuses", it would be pretty simple to figure out...
Marked for FAQ. Treating a weapon as though it were wielded in two hands while wielding it in one is a potent enough benefit that it deserves to be called out explicitly, not opaquely implied through the omission of more specific text. And if there's going to be a major rules distinction implied by something so subtle, that distinction deserves to be addressed by the FAQ.
Its not treating it as being wielded in two hands. Its treating it as a two handed weapon.
Wielding something in two hands versus one hand is not the same as it being a two handed weapon versus a one handed weapon. A longsword in two hands is still a one handed weapon. A greatsword in one hand is still a two handed weapon unless you are wielding it with an ability that calls out otherwise.
How you wield a weapon has absolutely not one ounce of impact on what type of weapon it is.
Case in point. A dagger could in fact be wielded in two hands. It would not get the bonuses for being a two handed weapon, nor would it gain 1.5 strength mod.
This is something that many people miss, but your language is misleading
How you wield a weapon does matter. A one-handed weapon wielded in two hands gets the same +50% power attack bonus as a two-handed weapon. Similarly, any weapon wielded in the off-hand only gets half power-attack regardless of its size.
The same is true for Strength bonus.
As you say, though, this does not apply to a light weapon, which gets no benefit from being wielded in two hands. (except for, I suppose, odd things like qualifying for furious focus)
I think, actually, that the main confusion here is that Strength bonus to damage is treated in many ways like Power Attack bonuses. They are multiplied or divided under the same circumstances.
And there seems to be a logical system in play that suggests that your off-hand grants 50% strength/power attack, while your mainhand grants 100%. No matter the configuration.
So, a one-handed weapon in two hands = 150%
A two-handed weapon in two hands = 150%
A light weapon in the mainhand and a light weapon in the off = 150%
And so on for most configurations (obvious exception being a light weapon wielded in two hands)
This is not an unreasonable system to set up, and justifies the ruling that a two handed weapon, wielded in one hand, only gets that 'hand's' bonus (100% for the mainhand, 50% for the offhand)
The close correlation has caused a few odd discussions though. I can remember a thread questioning whether or not Double Slice granted 100% power attack to an offhand. Does Dragon Ferocity mean that your fist (which now deals 100% strength damage plus 50% strength damage) is a primary natural attack that deals 150% strength damage for power attack.
Ultimately, these are cleared up and we can move on, but Lance is the thing that is actually the weird exception here. I don't mind it being an exception, since this makes it the go-to mounted melee weapon for chargers, but I think that the FAQ should have been worded in a way that expressed that this was a special case.
Instead it provides a general statement that can easily be interpreted to conflict with the second FAQ which came out two short months later.
Kazaan, as you have so kindly pointed out in this thread and the one that I linked, you have to do some linguistic rules lawyering to clarify the difference between the two FAQs. As a result they are NOT clear to those people not capable (or inclined) of such linguistic rules lawyering.
If a Lance is meant to be an exception to this then it should be stated that it is an exception.
Try to read it from the perceptive of a non-rules lawyer. Better yet, present the two FAQs to a few people who have very little system mastery and ask them to make sense of it without someone like you to explain it to them. Im pretty sure they will wind up with the conclusion that they are contradictory.
I also pointed out concepts that people also confuse; I gave the example of geocentrism vs heliocentrism. There are people who don't understand math, at basic, intermediate, and advanced levels. There are people who don't understand language and literature. It's not because these things are explained poorly or use contradictory language. It's because the people attempting to understand them are incapable, in one way or another, of grasping the concept. Here, again, we have that very situation. We have two FAQs that aren't even contradictory because they're talking about two distinctly different situations. Two FAQs, one of which is dealing with apples and the other is dealing with oranges, and certain people are complaining that they are contradictory. That's not a problem with the FAQs, that's a problem with certain readers. I tried to see it from the perspective of people who would be confused by such a matter, but I couldn't fit my head that far up my butt. Space is at a premium in these books and Paizo doesn't want them to be thousands upon thousands of pages long detailing every pedantic thing and exception when it can easily be implied; and it's the responsibility of the reader to read carefully and manage their preconceived notions. Two-handed Weapon wielded in two hands =/= One-handed weapon wielded in two hands. Two-handed Weapon wielded in two hands == One-handed weapon wielded as a two-handed weapon. Likewise, Two-handed Weapon wielded in one hand =/= Two-handed Weapon wielded as a One-Handed Weapon. One-Handed weapon wielded in one hand == Two-handed Weapon wielded as a one-handed weapon. It's just that simple and I refuse to justify the notion that it's inherently confusing in any manner. It's simple, straight-forward logic and no one should be excused from exorcising that. It's just a cop-out.
Really Kazaan? You can't see where anyone would be confused?
I wrote the OP, and I did so because I saw where there could be conflict, not out of my own confusion. My group was discussing lances, and someone was surprised when I said that they still get 2-handed bonuses. They went to the FAQ and saw the second one I listed, and read it as a blanket statement. Why? Because it is written as one.
Note that you could easily swap answers:
If I am using a two-handed weapon with one hand (such as a lance while mounted), do still I get the +50% damage for using a two-handed weapon?
If you're wielding it in one hand (even if it is normally a two-handed weapon), treat it as a one-handed weapon for the purpose of how much Strength to apply, the Power Attack damage bonus, and so on.
If you read carefully into the question you will see the separation between 'wielded in' and 'wielded as', but you won't find that in the answer. The answer plainly says if you wield a two-handed weapon in one hand it gets one-hander bonuses. Period. The answer makes ZERO mention of the specific language of "treated" as.
I do see how the FAQ can be confusing even though I understand it. Even after being explained some people will be confused because of how the rules are written, and the language in the FAQ. This is a two part problem.
1. Some people just are not that good at parsing the rules, or just can't do it at all.<----Realizing this helped me not get so worked up when I explain things here, and the person is seemingly asking for a legalese based version of my interpretation.
2. The rules/FAQ don't always match up as well as they could for various reasons.
Some people understand the intent, but are just arguing because they dont like how it is written. This will not go away or get better until PF 2.0.
I think, actually, that the main confusion here is that Strength bonus to damage is treated in many ways like Power Attack bonuses. They are multiplied or divided under the same circumstances.
And there seems to be a logical system in play that suggests that your off-hand grants 50% strength/power attack, while your mainhand grants 100%. No matter the configuration.
So, a one-handed weapon in two hands = 150%
A two-handed weapon in two hands = 150%
A light weapon in the mainhand and a light weapon in the off = 150%
And so on for most configurations (obvious exception being a light weapon wielded in two hands)
This is not an unreasonable system to set up, and justifies the ruling that a two handed weapon, wielded in one hand, only gets that 'hand's' bonus (100% for the mainhand, 50% for the offhand)
The close correlation has caused a few odd discussions though. I can remember a thread questioning whether or not Double Slice granted 100% power attack to an offhand. Does Dragon Ferocity mean that your fist (which now deals 100% strength damage plus 50% strength damage) is a primary natural attack that deals 150% strength damage for power attack.
Ultimately, these are cleared up and we can move on, but Lance is the thing that is actually the weird exception here. I don't mind it being an exception, since this makes it the go-to mounted melee weapon for chargers, but I think that the FAQ should have been worded in a way that expressed that this was a special case.
Instead it provides a general statement that can easily be interpreted to conflict with the second FAQ which came out two short months later.
Actually Strength bonus is treated inherently different from power attack. Strength bonus is based on how you wield the weapon, with the caveat that light weapons can never get 1.5 Strength.
So a one handed weapon in two hands will always get 1.5 strength, and a two handed weapon in one hand will always get 1.0 strength.
Power attack on the other hand uses category, with 2 caveats, both of which you pointed out. It goes out of its way to state in its language that a one handed weapon in two hands receives the bonus, meaning that the language two handed would not actually apply to this statement without that sentence. Otherwise it would be redundant. The other one is half bonus for offhand.
Really Kazaan? You can't see where anyone would be confused?
Oh, I can see some people being confused... I'm just not making excuses for them and I'm saying that it has already been clarified as much as it needs to be; if they can't understand it at this point, further clarification won't do any more good and would be counter-productive for aforementioned reasons of terseness. It's not an inherent factor of the rules nor the FAQs. The FAQs imply no changes to the rules; so, even without the FAQs, one could read the rules themselves and it is a valid conclusion to reach. Power Attack references three possibilities for increased bonus damage; Using a two-handed weapon, a one-handed weapon in two hands, or a natural attack that gets 1.5x Str to damage. It doesn't specify how many hands in which the two-handed weapon must be wielded. The rules also specify that, except for light weapons, any weapon wielded in two hands gets 1.5x Str to damage but, in another section, specifies that a two-handed weapon gets 1.5x Str to damage without mentioning number of hands actually used to wield it. So it falls under the same category; a two-handed weapon gets 1.5x Str to damage and +50% Power Attack bonus, full_stop. That is the general rule and the ability to wield the Lance in only one hand doesn't trump it. By contrast, certain abilities call out wielding a two-handed weapon "as a one-handed weapon". This was the only source of possible confusion, whether "as a one-handed weapon" used one-handed weapon as a mechanically significant term or was simply a matter of style on the part of the writer. The FAQ clarified that it was, indeed, used in a mechanically significant manner; as a one-handed weapon means you adjudicate it as you would a one-handed weapon, regardless of the fact that the weapon used is a two-handed weapon at its base. So in one case, they use the term "as a one-handed weapon" in a mechanically significant manner and in the other case, they use "in one hand" as a general phrase. Both the rules and the two FAQs are entirely consistent with each other if you allow yourself to understand them. But when people get hung up with the idea of political double-speak, you get problems; not problems with the rules or the FAQs but a problem with people having the answer put plainly in front of them and refusing to believe it.
Now do they come up with contradictory FAQs? Of course. I brought up the half-breed issue earlier, but let me elaborate for those unfamiliar with it.
Spoiler:
Half-breed races (Half-Orc and Half-Elf) count as both parent races for the purpose of "effects related to race". Racial Heritage is a feat from APG with Human as a racial prerequisite that allows you to count as Human plus one other Humanoid race for the purpose of "effects related to race". Both use the same phrase, "effects related to race". Now, with the Half-Breeds, people presumed it referred exclusively to magical effects such as being targeted by Bane weapons, elves being immune to ghoul paralysis, being targeted by spells that would affect a specific race, etc. But Racial Heritage went on with a non-exhaustive list of examples including qualifying for Race Traits and Feats based on your additional race. This brought to the table the concept that "effects related to race" wasn't so narrow as to simply mean spell effects or status effects but used a broader definition of the word "effect" to include "to the effect of" as in, "you count as both Human and <foo> to the effect of qualifying for rules elements related to those races." So, the question arose; what about other things not specifically listed under Racial Heritage such as the favored racial bonuses from APG and Racial Archetypes introduced in ARG. There were a number of FAQs given; 1) Racial Heritage does not qualify you for favored racial bonuses. 2) Racial Heritage does qualify you for racial archetypes. 3) Half-Breed does not qualify you for racial archetypes. You can immediately and readily see a blatant contradiction here. Both Half-Breeds and Racial Heritage use the same exact phrase, "Effects related to race" and Racial Heritage includes meeting prerequisites for Feats and Traits as being under the scope of the term "Effect". The FAQ says that Racial Archetypes are also under this scope for Racial Heritage, but another FAQ says it isn't the case for Half-Breeds. Here, we have a contradiction; the same exact term, Effects, means different things in mechanically identical contexts. Through the efforts of several (myself included) the FAQs were corrected and Effects was more generally explained to refer to any "rules elements concerning race" so both Half-Breeds and Racial Heritage give access to any and all rules elements which would normally limit access to only members of a particular race, including Racial Archetypes, favored class bonuses, items, spells, feats, traits, and "effects" in the more narrow sense of effects of a spell or item (ie. Bane, ghoul paralysis, etc). And yet, even now, after all that effort and the dev team specifying out "rules elements", there are still certain people who refuse to let it rest, still trying to pick out any and every little unmentioned detail; does it count for *this* or *that* because *this* and *that* aren't explicitly stated.
That's essentially what's happening in regards to these FAQs regarding "Lance + Power Attack" and "Wield a two-handed weapon as a one-handed weapon". The explanation has been given and even a moderately reasonable person can figure out the how and why even though it may not be spelled out in big neon signs in the FAQs. And some have even taken that explanation and made up the big neon signs anyway for the benefit of those who are still confused. But if one is so thick that even when explicitly told, "They refer to two different conditions that, while similar, are distinctly different", one not only doesn't understand, but belligerently argues that there is a blatant contradiction... well, honestly, I think one is playing the wrong game here. Pathfinder requires a certain threshold of abstract thought capacity and lateral thinking and if you are so lacking in those that this situation confuses you, you need to more judiciously pick your pastimes. If someone who really likes Checkers tries to play Chess and simply can't wrap their mind around the idea that not all the pieces behave the same and cries about it being a "rules contradiction" that they're all "pieces" but some "pieces" work differently from other "pieces"... I'd tell that person to stick to Checkers because Chess simply isn't their game.
Thomas Long 175, as I stated to Kazaan, it may make sense to you and it may even be technically correct but it may not make sense to those with less rules mastery and/or rules lawyering ability to separate such fine points of distinction.
It's not even an inability to rules lawyer. The Devs have stated that the rules are a hodgepodge of rules made at different times in different editions by different writers working for different companies.
Under such circumstances words not explicitly defined do not necessarily have entirely consistent meanings and even those words may have different meanings if one of the usage predates the definition as a keyword.
With that much distortion around you can't split hairs without magical bullshit hollywood photo enhancement software. You're splitting artifacts generated by resizing a grainy photograph and running sharpen algorithms repeatedly. If you wind up with the right answer it's pure chance.
(edit: Really, bullshit is still considered vulgarity? I don't buy it and refuse to self-censor on this one.)
