I had a question about the status of double weapons; do feats that require a two handed weapon (furious focus, shield of swings, etc) apply to a double weapon when fighting with both ends?
What I THOUGHT was that double ended weapons were two handed weapons that acted as a one handed primary and light off hand weapon for the purposes of calculating attack rolls and damage rolls. Their status as a two handed weapon would fulfill prerequisites for feats and/or abilities that benefited two handed weapons.
For example: Fighter with a quarter staff, two weapon fighting, and shield of swings gets to make additional attacks due to two weapon fighting, but all attacks are half damage due to his activation of shield of swings.
But what I have been TOLD is that when fighting with both ends of a double weapon, it is considered in all ways to be two separate weapons; not just for the purposes of attack and damage bonuses, but for feat prerequisites as well. In order to apply say, shield of swings, I would have to be fighting with only one end of it.
For example: Same fighter above must forgo his iterative attacks and wield only one end his quarterstaff in order to gain the benefit of shield of swings. Or if he attacks with both ends, he cannot use shield of swings.
Thoughts?
"Penalties", in this case, doesn't just include the numeric penalties to your attack bonus but also treating the two "ends" of the weapon as single-handed weapons. In order to benefit from Shield of Swings, you need to forego TWF and, instead, pick one end of the weapon and wield it two-handed. However, TWF rules only apply for the duration of your full-attack so, once it is concluded, you are still wielding a 2-h weapon and can make AoOs with it as a 2-h weapon (1.5x Str, increased Power Attack, etc).
PRD/UE wrote: You can choose to wield one end of a double weapon two-handed, but it cannot be used as a double weapon when wielded in this way—only one end of the weapon can be used in any given round. Would seem to imply that you choose whether a Double weapon is used as two weapons or as a 2 handed weapon on a round by round basis.
From my perspective it shouldn't matter if you're attacking with one end or both ends of a double weapon, for the purposes of feat prerequisites and abilities, a double weapon is still a two handed weapon.
I'm not suggesting that strength bonuses should be added to both ends of a double weapon, the rules specifically state that that is not the case.
What I am saying is that double ended weapons are still two handed weapons, even when using both ends. As such they satisfy requirements for feats such as shield of swings, furious focus, spear dancer, and pushing assault; even when using both ends.
I believe from the Rules perspective it does matter, at the most a double weapon can be counted as a 2 handed weapon when using one end two handed otherwise as it says it counts as if using 2 weapons. The specific rules (Double Weapons) supersede the general (place in the weapons table).
A double weapon is a two handed weapon, but if you are wielding it a one-handed weapon and a light weapon, you are no longer "wielding" a two handed weapon for feats that require a two handed weapon.
If you are using a double weapon as two weapons and have power attack, you use 1:2 and 1:1 damage modifiers, not 1:3. Likewise, you cannot use Furious Focus or Shield of Swings when using two-weapon fighting with a double weapon.
Double Weapons are cool on fluff, but useless in the crunch.
Metal Sonic wrote: Double Weapons are cool on fluff, but useless in the crunch. Not quite useless. They are useful in that you only need one weapon, so you can two-hand when you are unable to make a full attack and then twf when you can. You also can take one hand off the weapon to cast and then re-grip if you are playing a caster. It also allows you to double up on weapon x feats without needing to have two identical weapons.
Double weapons are pretty good mechanically. They just aren't worth an EWP feat.
The only part that I'm getting at is that it is a two handed weapon, no matter how you are using it. It is in the two handed weapon category. I understand the different means by which one can attack with it, but how you're attacking doesn't change the fact that it is still a two handed weapon for what are largely passive feats. Shield of swings only requires a two handed weapon, which a double weapon inherently is. Furious focus does differentiate between a one handed weapon in both hands vs a two handed weapon; demonstrating that when greater specificity is required, it is noted.
91NightFox wrote: From my perspective it shouldn't matter if you're attacking with one end or both ends of a double weapon, for the purposes of feat prerequisites and abilities, a double weapon is still a two handed weapon.
I'm not suggesting that strength bonuses should be added to both ends of a double weapon, the rules specifically state that that is not the case.
What I am saying is that double ended weapons are still two handed weapons, even when using both ends. As such they satisfy requirements for feats such as shield of swings, furious focus, spear dancer, and pushing assault; even when using both ends.
For things that apply to the object itself, yes, how you use it is inconsequential to what type of object it is. A 2-h weapon with the double property has the HP of a 2-h weapon and any object modification must be made with 2-h weapon status in mind. But how you use the weapon is relevant to abilities that are contingent on use. Just as an ability that lets you use a 2-h weapon as a 1-h weapon mean the weapon no longer qualifies as a 2-h weapon for things like Shield of Swings et al, using a double weapons as a pair of weapons for TWF gives it a virtual handedness quality that overrides its base type as a 2-h weapon. More to the point, Shield of Swings et al rely on the wide arc and momentum of the weapon. If you are wielding, say, a quarterstaff, as a double weapon for TWF, you wield it close to the middle and each end has a more shallow arc and less momentum for impact. By contrast, if you hold it by one end and swing it around, it has a deep arc and more momentum. This is why a 1-h weapon wielded in two hands (not "as a 2-h weapon") doesn't qualify for such abilities; you may be applying more leverage on the handle, but it doesn't improve the arc length and velocity increase is minor. In other words, wielding a Longsword in two hands, as opposed to one, increases inertia, but not momentum; while wielding a Quarterstaff by one end, as opposed to near the middle, does increase momentum and it's the momentum on which these feats are based.
Imbicatus wrote: Double weapons are pretty good mechanically. They just aren't worth an EWP feat. And, because they require a feat, they are useless. :p
Metal Sonic wrote: Imbicatus wrote: Double weapons are pretty good mechanically. They just aren't worth an EWP feat. And, because they require a feat, they are useless. :p Not always. The humble quarterstaff is a "simple" double weapon.
CBDunkerson wrote: Metal Sonic wrote: Imbicatus wrote: Double weapons are pretty good mechanically. They just aren't worth an EWP feat. And, because they require a feat, they are useless. :p Not always. The humble quarterstaff is a "simple" double weapon. The weighted spear is much better and doesn't require EWP either. Dwarves, Half-Orcs, and Gnomes get racial double weapons too, as can a human adopted by any of those races.
Additionally, the Monk's Spade is a Martial double weapon.
Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber
Kazaan wrote: [But how you use the weapon is relevant to abilities that are contingent on use. Just as an ability that lets you use a 2-h weapon as a 1-h weapon mean the weapon no longer qualifies as a 2-h weapon for things like Shield of Swings et al I'm not sure that follows. We already have the precedent that a lance wielded in one hand still counts as two handed for Power Attack.
This would seem to be a pretty similar case.
The lance is the exception. if you look at the other FAQs you see it's how your currently wielding it is what matters.
Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber
Chess Pwn wrote: The lance is the exception. if you look at the other FAQs you see it's how your currently wielding it is what matters. I... that's really confusing, and completely contradictory. The Lance FAQ used the wording "such as a lance", making it clearly an example, rather than an exception. But the other FAQ is also worded to apply to all weapons. The question itself makes enough sense, as it references feats/abilities that says to "treat a weapon ... as a one handed weapon", but answer sounds like it is intended more generally.
I think those FAQs could use some cleaning up and clarification.
Yes they could be, but as it stands now how you're wielding is more important than what you're wielding.
ZZTRaider wrote: Kazaan wrote: [But how you use the weapon is relevant to abilities that are contingent on use. Just as an ability that lets you use a 2-h weapon as a 1-h weapon mean the weapon no longer qualifies as a 2-h weapon for things like Shield of Swings et al I'm not sure that follows. We already have the precedent that a lance wielded in one hand still counts as two handed for Power Attack.
This would seem to be a pretty similar case. It's a matter of wording. The Lance is wielded "in one hand" while most other such abilities state that the weapon is wielded "one-handed" or "as a one-handed weapon". This is the same reason that the rules have to specify that both a two-handed weapon as well as a one-handed weapon wielded in two hands get 1.5x Str to damage; because wielding a one-handed weapon "in two hands" doesn't count as wielding a two-handed weapon and, thus, needs to be specified separately (same with Power Attack). So if you see the term "one-handed" or a very close equivalent in the rules element, you treat the weapon as if it were a one-handed weapon insofar as method of use. If you see "in one hand", then you treat it, in all other ways, as a two-handed weapon save for the number of actual hands are tied up in handling it.
Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber
Hm. At that level of pedantry, though, couldn't you argue that a double weapon should get 1.5x Strength to both ends?
They're two-handed weapons and you're still wielding them with two hands. The only mention of one handed or light weapons in the double weapon property is specifically stating that "you incur all the normal attack penalties associated with fighting with two weapons, just as if you were using a one-handed weapon and a light weapon". Only getting 1x Strength and Power Attack clearly isn't an "attack penalty associated with fighting with two weapons", so you should fall back to the normal 1.5x Strength for wielding a two-handed weapon with two hands, right?
I already addressed that earlier; "penalties" isn't talking just about the numeric penalty to your attack bonus but, also, to the fact that you don't get 1.5x damage because you're no longer counted as wielding a two-handed weapon but, rather, a one-handed and light weapon. Also, it isn't a matter of pedantry because pedantry is defined as "excessive concern with minor details and rules." This isn't just a "minor detail" any more than it's a "minor detail" that a dagger deals 1d4 damage while a shortsword deals 1d6. It's a part of the rules; minor, but it's there. It isn't "excessive" concern but, rather, the precise amount of concern it deserves; no more and no less.
Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber
Kazaan wrote: I already addressed that earlier; "penalties" isn't talking just about the numeric penalty to your attack bonus but, also, to the fact that you don't get 1.5x damage because you're no longer counted as wielding a two-handed weapon but, rather, a one-handed and light weapon. Also, it isn't a matter of pedantry because pedantry is defined as "excessive concern with minor details and rules." This isn't just a "minor detail" any more than it's a "minor detail" that a dagger deals 1d4 damage while a shortsword deals 1d6. It's a part of the rules; minor, but it's there. It isn't "excessive" concern but, rather, the precise amount of concern it deserves; no more and no less. The simplest reading of an "attack penalty", though, would be a penalty to attack rolls. This makes sense in context, as TWF causes attack roll penalties. Reduced damage would be a "damage penalty".
If you're trying to apply Occam's Razor, keep in mind that Occam's Razor requires both possibilities to be otherwise equally supported by the evidence and, also, doesn't state that the "simplest" answer is most likely correct, but rather that the answer that requires the fewest additional assumptions is most likely (not definitely) correct.
The "simple" answer isn't necessarily correct.
Now, back to the issue at hand; simple application of Modes Tollens can demonstrate my point. Deny the consequent, and you deny the antecedent. The antecedent, in this case, is, "TWF a double weapon grants two-handed strength to damage for both ends" and the consequent is, "an enemy TWFing with a double weapon has a total damage bonus that reflects 1.5x Str bonus". If we can provide a counter-example to the consequent (a stat block that shows a double weapon not getting 1.5x Str to damage), then it demonstrates that the antecedent of the condition is false.
Elven Recluse fights with a Quarterstaff as a double weapon. When TWFing, his attack routine is mwk quarterstaff +26/+26/+21/+16/+11 (1d6+11) (main-hand) and mwk quarterstaff +26/+21/+16 (1d6+9)(off-hand).
Total damage bonus (main-hand)
+3 Str (no 1.5x from 2-h)
+4 Weapon Training
+4 Weapon Spec and GWS
----
+11
Total damage bonus (off-hand)
+1 Str (half for off-hand, 1.5 rounded down)
+4 Weapon Training
+4 WS & GWS
----
+9
We can plainly see that two-handed Str bonus is not taken into consideration. We have demonstrated that the consequent of the condition is false, thus, can conclude that the condition itself is not valid. Therefore, we must reconcile that fact, that you are indeed wielding a 2-h weapon, with the fact that you are not receiving the expected damage bonus one would get for wielding a 2-h weapon with the conclusion that the "penalties" listed under the rules for TWF must mean both the penalty to your attack roll and counting your two-handed weapon virtually as if it were two separate, non-two-handed, weapons.
Recent threads in Rules Questions
|
