On another thread someone brought up the issue of double weapons, the orc double axe, two-bladed sword, quarterstaff, for example. The issue seems to be this line from p144 of the Core Rules:
A double weapon can be wielded as a one-handed weapon, 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.
I have always interpreted this to mean that a double weapon has two 'modes' of use. One utilizes TWF to gain an extra attack, and other makes a single attack with the benefit of additional strength damage since it is being swung with both hands. Either use requires both hands, however.
Some have opined that, instead, the rules allow for a third 'mode': single handed use. This interpretation says that the quoted rule allows for a double weapon to be used in one hand only, with a single attack, but still usable with, for example, a shield in the other hand, just like a single weapon.
Is this correct? Can a double weapon be used, not just "as a one-handed weapon," but actually in one hand, and one hand only?
|
If I may interject my opinion here-
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.
That is the definition of a one-handed weapon from the core rulebook. If a double weapon can be used as a one-handed weapon, then that means that it can be used in the primary hand (and the primary hand alone) for normal strength bonus, off hand for 1/2, or you could use it as you have stated for 1.5 by using both hands to swing it. By the rules though, you can wield it in one hand.
I would disagree as double weapons are listed as two handed, and also by the rules must have two hands to use.
Seems like if it was meant to be used only in two hands that line should read "can be used as a single two-handed weapon... only one end can be used in a given round". I agree 'single two-handed weapon' is how it should work, but that's not what the RAW says, and unless it's Errata'd, the words themselves are kind of staring you in the face. My bet is for it be Errata'd. Trying to find some justification in the wording around that is bypassing the point: this is misleading writing (unless intended) and should be fixed, and Paizo is apparently at a juncture to be able to do that right now.
Funny thing, these little details... And I even payed attention to this section, when bringing up the topic of the 2-handed STR bonus applying to both ends of a double weapon - Which should probably be Errata'd as well, if a two-hand-wielded double weapon is NOT meant to apply that STR bonus when used as a double weapon (at least to main-hand), as James' opinion had it... Though my opinion is it seems pretty reasonable for having Exotic Proficiency and 2WF Feats, all potentially beneficial only on Full Attacks, besides being realistic).
The bastard sword is listed as one-handed, but is also considered a two-handed weapon (and only a two-handed weapon) under special circumstances. Double weapons list that they can be used as one-handed weapons under special circumstances. I don't really see what the confusion is.
That would be a two handed weapon that states it may be used one handed with a feat. You get no feat with other double weapons. So under the rules you may only use them two handed.
|
|
No, the bastard sword is listed as a one-handed weapon in the weapons chart, and it states that unless you have the proficiency feat you have to wield it as a two-handed weapon. Double weapons are listed as two-handed weapons but state that you can wield them as one-handed weapons (and, as you have read due to my quoting of it, one-handed weapons can be used in one hand).
it's a one hand weapon in the exotic weapons chart.that without the feat may be used two handed.Not the same thing
|
|
Not the same thing, but similar enough that I figured it would make you think.
Anyways, look at it this way- A quarterstaff is a two handed weapon and a double weapon. A double weapon can be used as a one-handed weapon, but you can only use one end of it. One-handed weapons can be used in one hand. This is the Rules As Written, not an interpretation, and I don't even really see how that would leave room for interpretation.
Double weapons may be used one end, two handed trumped the one handed thing. If ya wish to allow it cool, but I would not as it's a two handed weapon, ya can hold it in one hand if ya like however, just not attack with it without penalty .
|
|
So you take a penalty to attacks with one-handed weapons if you only use one hand? That's news to me. Specific exceptions always trump normal rules, I don't see how the normal rules would trump the exception in this case.
EDIT: Sorry about being snarky, but it's a bit late and I get cranky sometimes. From a balance perspective, I don't see anything wrong with how this works because a quarterstaff has the same damage on one end as a club, a two-bladed sword as a longsword, and an orc double axe as a battle axe, which are all one-handed weapons. You're not gaining anything from this, but it does allow a little more versatility if you have the right feats (ie. two-weapon fighting)
So you take a penalty to attacks with one-handed weapons if you only use one hand? That's news to me. Specific exceptions always trump normal rules, I don't see how the normal rules would trump the exception in this case.
EDIT: Sorry about being snarky, but it's a bit late and I get cranky sometimes. From a balance perspective, I don't see anything wrong with how this works because a quarterstaff has the same damage on one end as a club, a two-bladed sword as a longsword, and an orc double axe as a battle axe, which are all one-handed weapons. You're not gaining anything from this, but it does allow a little more versatility if you have the right feats (ie. two-weapon fighting)
It's fine, but it's not a one handed weapon. Is a two handed weapon. If ya wanna blow a feat on it I'll allow it but otherwise no. It's listed as a two handed weapon. If ya can't use a two handed sword one handed then no you can't use an orc double axe that way.
I do think the two handed be easier to use with one hand then an orc double axe however, which I find to be an absolutely stupid weapon
|
|
I guess we'll agree to disagree until either of our opinions are rendered moot by someone higher up or with more understanding of the rules.
I do agree that the orc double axe in one hand seems a little far-fetched. The Quarterstaff and Two-bladed Sword, yeah, but there's just a little too much weight on either end of the axe to make it seem feasible.
Eh I can see paizo ruling yes due to wizard staffs alone. They already came out and said it wasn't a weapon unless ya used it two hands more or less.
regardless of official ruling I am gonna keep it as is.
It would seem that according to James Jacobs confirmation in this thread that you can in fact wield a double weapon in one hand.
Further, after going over the two sections about double weapons repeatedly, I've come to the conclusion that they do not conflict. The section I quoted above does make reference to a creature wielding a double weapon in one hand.
It really seems like the wording could be cleaned up alot, though.
And exactly WHY ARE Double Weapons classed as Two Handed Weapons then?I can't see any reason why, since obviously you can use a 1-Handed Weapon with 2-Hands for the STR bonus if you want. I just don't see a coherent whole to explain why all the pieces of Double Weapons are presented as they are. Given that, barring specific word from Jason that James' take on it was his intent, I'm not sure if the intent WAS actually to maintain the 3.5 ruling (2-handed requirement), even if the implementation/ actual RAW cuts against that.
I also wanted to make clear that I wasn't just 'doubting' James' take on it "just because",
But if James' take is solely based on his reading of the same RAW we all have (as opposed to actual knowledge of Jason's intent), that it can't necessarily confirm that the RAW 100% accurately conveyed the intent.
Assuming Double Weapons ARE supposed to be able to be used 1-Handed, I think listing them as 1-Handed Weapons and specially detailing they must be wielded in 2 Hands to be used for 2WF would essentially enable the explanatory text to be massively streamlined - they would by default function like 1-Handed weapons (one end only), which can already be used 2-Handed if desired, and only the 2WF with both ends would need to be specified, i.e. requiring 2 Hands but not with benefits of (STR bonus) as if 2WF with 2 separate weapons. In other words, classified as what would need the LEAST exceptions.
I likewise don't personally "give a hoot" one way or the other on this, though it would 'make sense to me' for a 2-handed requirement - probably the main difference it will make is whether or not you can use a Double Weapon while Grappled (where only 1-Handed weapons are allowed). ...Well... I guess alot of Rogues would like using a Quarterstaff for 2WF Sneak Attack but switching to Enchanted Buckler as a Free Action while still having a weapon for AoOs.
|
|
If double weapons can't be wielded in one hand, the Lord of Blades will be very upset. :)
lolz, very good point. I'm sure he would be, TriOmega
|
I'm going to try to look at this with the eyes of a creator.
I want to make a single weapon that functions both as a 1handed weapon and as two weapons for two weapon fighting.
First, I'll give it two sides. Both will have to be enchanted separately to keep the gold cost even.
What about damage? I need to give them regular medium damage, or no one will use them. But then that makes them more powerful than just dual wielding two of the same weapon, since you don't take the penalty for using a 1-handed weapon instead of a light weapon.
Well, if I make them exotic weapons, the feat requirement is enough for a bump somewhere, and I'll use that to pay for the benefit of greater off-hand damage.
But... if using twf counts them as a 1-handed and a light for purposes of the twf feat... why couldn't you act as if you were twf, but only use one side. Kinda makes sense that if you can fight with one side as if it were a 1-hand weapon as part of a twf chain, you should be able to do the same without employing both sides of it.
But it's effectively two weapons, so it needs to be a two-handed weapon.
I know. I'll just make this little note here "A double weapon can be wielded as a one-handed weapon, but it cannot be used as a double weapon when wielded this way" there we go.
Makes sense to me!
On to magical item creation rules!
Dwarven urgroshes are double weapon, and it makes a lot of sense to use it in only one hand.