Changing Weapon Designations

[B. A. Robards-Debardot]

This is based on another discussion, blackbloodedtroll thought I should move here.

Q1) Does the handedness designation of weapon (light, one-handed, or two-handed) change based on the wielder or is it inherent to the weapon.

The RAW suggesting YES:

PRD reads (emphasis mine) wrote:

Light, One-Handed, and Two-Handed Melee Weapons: 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.

PRD reads (emphasis mine) wrote:

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 wields a Medium one-handed weapon as a two-handed weapon (it still takes the –2 penalty for using an inappropriately sized 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.

In the above we find that the designation is based on the amount of effort it takes to wield for a particular user. A huge creature with hands, if it were so inclined, could take the inappropriately sized penalty (-4) and two-weapon fight / finesse two medium-sized polearms. For them, the weapons' designation has been changed.

Q2) If so, does a class ability/feat/trait (such as phalanx fighting, jotungrip, shield trained, etc) which changes the effort to wield an item, does it's effort designation change for the creature with that ability?

A FAQ suggesting YES:

Pathfinder RPG Core Rulebook Frequently Asked Questions writes: 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.

"And so on", is not super helpful, but its an inclusive statement not an exclusive statement. What effects are covered by it, seemingly all, as none are excluded.

Q3)If both of the above are true, then given the RAW of Effortless Lace, is it then applicable to what would normally be two-handed weapons, but which are for certain creatures (with abilities like those mentioned in Q2) considered one-handed weapons?

RAW Analysis of Effort Lace:

Effortless Lace (emphasis mine): wrote:

This elegant silk ribbon gleams like mithral and feels like polished steel. When wrapped around the grip of a one-handed piercing or slashing melee weapon for 24 hours, the ribbon’s magic permanently merges with the weapon, reducing the attack roll penalty incurred by a wielder who is smaller than the weapon’s intended wielder by 2 (to a minimum penalty of 0).

If the weapon is wielded by a creature whose size matches that of the weapon’s intended wielder, the weapon is treated as a light melee weapon when determining whether it can be used with Weapon Finesse, as well as with any feat, spell, or special weapon ability that can be used in conjunction with light weapons. Once an effortless lace’s abilities have been conveyed to a weapon, the ribbon must remain attached to the weapon or

...

We encounter some imprecise wording in Effortless Lace. In other clauses they mention "Intended Wielder", which clarifies some parts of the abilities but isn't applied to this restriction. (Note: The term "Intended Wielder" brings with it more problems, say I had a blacksmith create a huge rapier just for me, I'm still the intended wielder.)

You could then ask, in this case, does the one-handed weapon for the "wielder" or the "intended wielder" or somebody else all together? If it's the "intended wielder", this one-handed weapon is still a two-handed weapon for the "wielder" and thus isn't a one-handed weapon for the "wielder". If it's the "wielder", this one-handed weapon is a light weapon for the "intended wielder" and thus isn't a one-handed weapon for the "intended wielder".

In any case, by RAW the light/one-handed/two-handed designation is creature-specific, by it's very definition (see Q1). The handles, weight, etc. may or may not be appropriately sized (and there is a penalty for that), but they still have a changed designation.

And if they have a changed designation of one-handed, and deal piercing or slashing damage, they become items eligible for use with Effortless Lace

Synergy) If all the above are true, one could make a polearm finessable in certain cases. Currently they are already flurry eligible in certain cases (see Crusader's Flurry or Sohei).

Anyway I think it's probably pure cheese. I'm not even sure its optimal. But it looks like it may be RAW.

[dragonhunterq]

That is playing fast and loose with the rules, it's like cartoon physics, run off the cliff edge, don't look down and maybe gravity won't notice...

An ability that allows you to use a weapon in a different way doesn't change that weapon for every other purpose. It changes while it is being used for that purpose. So yes, you can wield a polearm in one hand with jotungrip/phalanx fighting etc. and whilst so wielded it is treated as a one handed weapon. That does not make it a one-handed weapon for any other purpose. So no you can't then wrap the effortless lace around it as it is still a 2 handed weapon.

[B. A. Robards-Debardot]

At what point did it break down for you, Dragonhunterq? Q1, Q2, or Q3?

[Durngrun Stonebreaker]

Does the lace apply its properties to the weapon or the wielder?

[kestral287]

Q1 has a logical jump that doesn't track. The only thing we are told about handedness as a general rule is how it varies between sizes. Applying that generality to specific exceptions to the general rule is the reverse of how these things usually go. What Q1 does is apply the fluff of handedness, in sections talking about one way to change that handedness, to the crunch of separate ways.

At the very least that makes it a debatable point. From there it depends on how you feel about descriptive and rules text, which is really not an issue people are going to agree upon.

Q2 has a logical jump in how inclusive the statement is. There is a massive gulf between "everything" and "everything that is similar to Strength and Power Attack". When I read that "and so on" I may think "okay, any effect based on damage that varies between one and two hands", I may think "any effect that varies between one and two hands while the weapon is being wielded", or I may think "any effect that might be applicable when handedness is changed".

All are inclusive statements. Only one has the result of you being able to apply Slashing Grace to a fauchard. Incidentally I prefer the second point, which has the net result of Slashing Grace being illegal to take for a fauchard, but if you can bypass that (via Martial Versatility) then it becomes legal to use it with the fauchard.

Q3, Effortless Lace just doesn't make sense from a logical perspective. Neither interpretation is without logical flaws.

If you buy into Q1 and Q2, you can wrap Effortless Lace around your weapon, but only if it happens to be held in your hand at the time. Put another way, an ordinary blacksmith cannot hold your fauchard and wrap an Effortless Lace around it, but you can. That stretches verisimilitude greatly.

However, if you reject Q1 and Q2, then a Large creature can wrap an Effortless Lace around your fauchard (though there's no point to him doing so), but you cannot. Never mind that it's the same piece of cloth. However, to me this stretches verisimilitude less because both the Large creature and you would have the end result of wielding the now-Laced Fauchard: it would function identically to a non-Laced one.

Hence, for me:

I reject Q1's logical leap for trying to use descriptive text as rules text and moreover trying to apply a general text to a specific exemption.

I reject Q2's logical leap for being overly inclusive in a way that I cannot rationalize.

I reject Q3 because the alternate interpretation, while flawed, has greater internal consistency.

It's a debatable point and too much of the debate is centric to how you feel about rules interpretations in general though.

[dragonhunterq]

It doesn't break down at any one step. It's a logical fallacy, a house of cards that is based on a fundamental misunderstanding of how the rules are constructed and how they interact. It tries to draw correlations that simply do not exist. Each step in isolation works, within the context of it's own specific point. It breaks when you try to misapply those steps to each other.

An ability says you can wield a 2 handed weapon with one hand and the FAQ says ' when used this way treat it like a one handed weapon'. What the FAQ doesn't say is'...treat it like a one handed weapon and you know what treat it that way for every other purposes too, not just when using that ability, because why not...'

A 2 handed weapon wielded one handed doesn't suddenly lose half it's hit points because it never stops being at it's most fundamental level a 2 handed weapon. You can't add effortless lace to a 2 handed weapon -even if you can use it as a light weapon or a onehanded weapon or even if you can use it as a bassoon - because it is still a 2 handed weapon.

[blackbloodtroll]

Your examples actually prove you wrong.

You don't change the weapon.

You change how you use the weapon.

No Impact Daggers. No Agile Morningstars. No Fauchards with an Effortless Lace.

[B. A. Robards-Debardot]

Thanks for the replies.

kestral287, I assumed that how effort related to handedness was in fact rules rather than description, as it's part of the basis of the "hands of effort"/"no two-weapon fighting with a two-handed weapon and armor spikes" ruling, which if I remember correctly blackbloodtroll is not a fan of.

Reading it as rules with the "Hands of Effort" in mind. I reach the following build possibilities. I don't consider them smart builds necessarily (especially #3). But does anyone have a rules based problem with them?

1) TWF Phalanx Soldier with light shield and polearm (-2 for TWF)
2) TWF Titan Mauler with two polearms (-2 for using THW as one handed, -4 for TWF with 2x 1-handed weapons)
3) TWF Medium character with 2x small polearms (-2 for inapprorpiate size, -4 for TWF with 2x 1-handed weapons)

[blackbloodtroll]

Don't forget the Slashing Grace/Martial Versatility combo.

I suggest a dip into Daring Champion.

Also, you are right. I am not a fan of unwritten rules.

[kinevon]

You missed an oddball but legal build:

4) Medium-sized single weapon fighter using small polearm in one hand (-2) with reach and medium one-handed or lighter weapon in the other hand without reach.
Gives the ability to attack and threaten at both 5' and 10', with only a -2 for the attacks at 10', as long as you only use your normal iteratives.